Jump to content

SLU8592

Members
  • Posts

    82
  • Joined

  • Last visited

SLU8592's Achievements

Recruit

Recruit (1/7)

  1. I couldn't agree more. I still don't get this "street agent" thing. Does having an "intermediary" create an agency relationship? I do still hold UNLV somewhat culpable in this. UNLV had communications with an "intermediary," despite the fact that Tommie is still obligated under of LOI. Now, had UNLV said we'd love to talk to Tommie, but he is currently under a LOI, so we will wait until that LOI is no longer valid-- well this would be the high road. Instead, this fine institution of higher education chose to deal with an individual who had no express or apparent authority to make any dealings for Tommie. Instead of the high road, UNLV chose to enter the realm of scum. UNLV's perception will be enhanced when it's actions of higher standards match its statements. As for this Lewis guy, I wouldn't let this numbskull anywhere near my kid. If he's a coach, my kid wouldn't play on his team.
  2. Is there any action that can be taken against this Lewis person(although, I guess given his father's history I suppose not)? I just find it remarkable that the NCAA can blindly allow the kind of contact that is seemingly going on at these organized events without imposing some type of rules. While I'm not usually for adding any kind of beauracracy, kids like this have to somehow be guarded against being put into this kind of situation. These kids are basically away from home and are apparently tempted by these slimy street agents who pimp these kids for their own gain. The saddest part is that it seems most people know this is actually going on and while we acknowledge this is an ugly part of AAU or whatever, nothing seems to be done to fix this. I don't see this type of thing happening as much in college football. Can something be done?
  3. I believe that is because his head is half empty.
  4. I don't quite understand how this "street agent" stuff works, but it sure seems to present at the least a questionable situation for the recruit. Is this "contact" allowed by the NCAA? How does a kid from East St. Louis end up on a Chicago AAU team OR Detroit AAU team, etc. Who foots the bills for a kid to live and/or train in Chicago or Detroit or place? I'm all for a kid who is able to better his or her place in the grand fish pond of life, but this whole arrangement seems to give way too much opportunity for undue influence by "shady" characters. I certainly hope Tommie at least considers the counsel given by Jalensdad and his parents, and that he recognizes who it is that has HIS best interests in mind. Wow, what a potential, or perhaps actual cesspool for inappropriate contacts. It's hard to blame kids for making mistakes, when they are thrown into such an environment.
  5. Who exactly is Lewis? My apologies if this is asked and answered already. Does he have some coaching relationship with the young man or is he a "hanger on" type that attempts to garner financial advantage from someone else's talent? My only hope is that Tommie makes an informed decision in whatever he decides-- and also that he waits to actually make a decision until he's carefully considered his options. To this end, he should certainly heed the advice of his parents, as well as somone such as Jalensdad, who appears to have Tommie's overall well-being in consideration. It is discouraging to see such social leeches poised to attach to a talented young person in order to "elevate" their own standing. Again, I don't know who Lewis is, but he is making himself and Tommie look a bit foolish. Coach Soderberg deserves better than this. I'm still looking forward to a bright Billiken future.
  6. As to your comment that Kerry is a centrist- this is the first time I've seen anyone refer to Kerry as a centrist or moderate. In fact, some commentators are questioning whether the Democratic party is going from the more moderate policies of Clinton/Gore (conservative fiscal/liberal moral) back to a more left wing base. After all, Kerry voted with Ted Kennedy on key votes 94% of the time. Hardly indicative of a moderate. Of course, I am not advocating the complete elimination of the public sector funding. We can't simply assume more money will solve all of our problems. Education is one good example. Is it possible that some of our problems in education are due to lack of parental involvement in the education of their children? Do parents properly nurture and support their children and the teachers at the school. If we want our children to learn and grow, we have to take some ownership of their education. Again, I'm not for cutting education spending at all-- I'm merely suggesting that there may be more deep seeded issues than just money.
  7. Absolutely my position as well. I see abortion as nothing more than infanticide. Abortion is completely about selfishness, which appears to be a trait upon which our society is more completely based. The "mother" doesn't want to be burdened with a child. Where is the difference between a baby in the mother's womb and a three year old? I guess it's what we can't really see-- somehow not really seeing a baby makes killing it okay. How hypocritical is it that Hollywood every year shows "It's a Wonderful Life" as a supposed Classic? Hollywood doesn't mind hypocrisy, certainly not at the expense of dollars. As to the death penalty- I, personally, don't agree with the death penalty. I can see a different argument, though, for the the death penalty as opposed to abortion. Hopefully most voters will recognize that these are key issues to the shape of our society in the future. We all focus on the economy, defense, education, etc., but the right to life (inalienable right to life?) and how we view and respect life shapes our social attitudes. Can we overcome selfishness, greed? We have to take things one step at a time. While I don't claim to be the most moral person in the world, I am consciously trying to improve.
  8. It appears that many people are short sighted and memory challenged. IMHO Bush acted prudently. The only question really is whether something could have been done, after we took control of Iraq, to better facilitate the restoration of an independent Iraqi government. While eveyone seems to be an armchair quarterback and suggest Bush and the administration screwed up the post war installation, no one has given precisely what plan they would have followed that would have been much better than what has been done. So, Bush has aggressively addressed terrorism, his administration's policies are now poised to thrust the economy into some of its greatest growth in the last two decades (see above cite)... why is it that the media says "everyone" hates Bush? The thrust again is Bush's moral conservativism. Hollywood hates Bush because his policies are focused on traditional family values (less sex and violence on TV because parents can't or won't monitor their own children). The media hates Bush because his policies espouse traditional family values. The media is shaping public opinion to serve its own purpose. The media is pushing individual rights seemingly at the expense of any overall social right. Our individual rights are necessarily limited in many circumstances to achieve social goals. As far as I'm concerned, this election is about one issue- morality. Are we better off as a society following conservative moral values or liberal moral values? I obviously chose traditional family values.
  9. Beautiful retort. First criticizing someone for labels and then similarly throwing labels about on your own. Ah, hypocrisy, I'm glad to see it's in full bloom. Things are sure horrible-- check this out: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/...ar+in+2+decades If Daschle and his followers will appoint conferees so the new tax legislation gets passed (repatriation provision), there will be an influx of cash in the US to be spent on US investment. Do you think that will further bolster the economy? You don't think Daschle would intentionally "kink the hose" of the economy until after the election do you? As one prominent economic professor has noted with regard to tax increases-- a tax increase takes money from its most efficient use (i.e., the private sector) and puts the money into a medium of inefficient use (i.e., the public sector). You think the problem with education is a lack of funds? Didn't the City of St. Louis just recently offer the top job in the schools to the ex-NYC school chief at a salary in excess of $225K per year? Apparently, the funds are available. Look, though, at who controls the purse strings-- that's right-- the school board. I'm all for spending money on education, but certain criteria must be met. Oh, and of course, the Republicans always seem to spend money on defense-- the fools. Anyone see a correlation with defense spending cuts under Mr. Clinton and our woeful state of readiness in intelligence and response? Apparently, it's just "right wing wackos" who want to help their buddies in the defense industry. I believe before you insinuate someone is assinine in their opinions, you should look in the mirror.
  10. I don't think you'll get much argument that Bush isn't the greatest orator we've seen. At the same time, you'll note how the press and media types have a field day with conservatives who slip up in speaking or spelling for that matter (Quayle). I find it somewhat hard to believe that the Republicans are the only ones who sometimes find shoe leather in their mouths.
  11. The US economy is more akin to an ocean liner than a speed boat. It takes time for whatever is implemented to come to light. This is precisely what we saw with Reagan, as you've noted. We will also see this with the current president. Actually, I am surprised at how well the domestic economy has held up given the attitudes that have been rampant since the Sept. 11 attacks. We have calls from people to retrench and be isolationists, and others who constantly cry that we are hated by everyone. Nevertheless, our economy continues to grow and consumer confidence is also growing. US companies will get another boon if Daschle will appoint conferees to the joint committee of taxation so that the Homeland Investment Act ("HIA") can be put into place. The HIA allows companies a one time repatriation of offshore cash that is otherwise considered permanently invested offshore (permantly offshore due to US tax rules detrimental to US companies-- thank you JFK and Democratic Congress). In any event, Daschle is dragging his feet so that the benefit from the repatriation won't be attributed to Bush (at least before the election). What will companies do with all of this cash? Both the House and Senate bills stipulate some type of US investment. What is it that Kerry is going to do for us?
  12. I, too, applaud your response. Hollywood and its progeny of moral liberals are working feverishly to replace Bush with someone who is willing to waive a magic wand and move reality one step closer to the warped fiction in which these people live. Imaginative gender- no problem. Is Barbara Streisand really concerned about the poor? I don't see her using her wealth to house and feed the needy. By the way, USA Today article on economic corporate growth http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2004-06-28-signs_x.htm
  13. Excellent synopsis of the economics. I certainly hope that AJ and others can successfully recover from whatever brain cramp they encounter from digesting your post. As a fiscal AND moral conservative, I have to say that I am somewhat saddened by those who hold to the liberal cloak from the moral side rather than the fiscal side. I can understand a policy of big government to support expanded social programs for the needy (however I don't necessarily agree that this is the right way to take care of the needy and I don't like bigger government). I can in no way fathom a tenable argument for moral liberalism, particularly when the proponent of such actually understands the religious and social arguments against such. I've never considered myself a bible thumping right winger, but the sands of social attitude have almost shifted to make several of us one time moderates now almost radicals. Hollywood and the general media have dragged mainstream society into their own delusion of reality and normal behavior. Why would anyone want to emulate the disfunctional lifestyles pushed on mainstream media? I just don't get it.
  14. Your post is a breath of fresh air. The general population is more short sighted than I would have thought possible, particularly after the terrorist activity that took place here. Bush had a no win situation. If he failed to take out Hussein and something would have come from the Soviet intelligence, he would be even more criticized than he is now. Why is it that Bush's morally conservative policies are those for which he is most criticized (particularly here on a discussion board where many subscribe to the Roman Catholic tenants)? I understand why he is hated by Hollywood, but why by Roman Catholics?
  15. As far as I'm concerned, gas prices are low on the list of worries right now. I would agree that the Republicans have done a poor job of communicating and marketing their position. Bush is clearly not an orator and perhaps that's why we get less dialogue than say a Clinton. I'll say at the outset that I find myself less likely to label myself a Democrat or Republican. Each of these parties has subsets, with which I wouldn't want to be identified. For those of us who are Roman Catholics, we are really almost called upon to vote for a conservative candidate merely because of the party's relative position on the issue of life. This is a CORE philosophy difference and one that is of the utmost importance in shaping our society now and in the future. If you are not a Roman Catholic, you can certainly vote your own conscience. My greatest fear with regard to Kerry is his economic plan. Aside from the disparity in foreign wages, jobs have fled overseas from the US in principle part because of faulty US tax rules that were put into place under a Democratic Congress in the late 50's early 60's. The U.S.' tax rules put US companies on a bit of an unequal footing with foreign companies (in territorial regimes) and encourage companies to leave a lot of profit outside the US. This leads to US companies using funds outside the US to further investments outside the US. Kerry's tax plan could encourage US companies to move HQ's outside the US. You think there is a lot of patriotism in corporate America? Look at Tyco, Hellen of Troy, Stanley Tools who have already moved outside the US nd many others who are shifting operations outside the US (Ernst & Young and PwC-- "shared" centers in India). Bill Clinton was at least a fiscal conservative (morally as liberal as possible). Kerry bends with the wind, but seems to be fiscally and morally liberal-- a bad combination as far as I'm concerned.
×
×
  • Create New...