Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

LOL ok hoss. I’ll take the Affordable Care Act, Stimulus of 2009, repeal of DADT, Lily Ledbetter Act, Dodd-Frank and you can have that weak *** tax bill that Paul Ryan got through.

---

Oh.....she did something in 2010.
What does she do now?
Vote ‘No’ on everything, and fight Trump, and look like a stupid idiot. I’m sorry your incumbent establishment darling is fading on the horizon, but deal with it. These young bucks don’t give two ****s about Pelosi and her pull is diminishing.

What about Paul Ryan!
I never liked him, I’ve criticized him before on here, and he doesn’t belong in the discussion because he isn’t feuding with AOC. But whatabout Paul Ryan is what you bring into the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crovash

The US club sport system can be insidious, given that most of them are built on a pay-as-you-go basis, which does two potentially negative things: (1) it can deter families who do not have the requisite resources, and (2) it generates an investment mentality — i.e. your observation that many do it to gain exposure for potential scholarships.

Frankly, the Premier League model in England makes the most sense for budding athletes. Kid thinks he’s got potential? He tries out for the Under 14 team affiliated with the pro team.

---

We are way off topic now, so I leave it here. The money for club kids with talent will be available, I traveled the country on peoples money who wanted to say they had something to do with my success. My parents weren’t well off. But yes, it would certainly deter some kids from having the opportunity. And yes, no sports in schools would be a pretty foreign concept to much of the country. I think you could sell the change though. I also think that the costs would decrease for lesser leagues(clubs).

My daughter studied in Germany at gymnasium for a year in high school. She said that more kids were involved in sports and other clubs than are here, and that there was much more variety in what they could choose to do. She was in a horseback riding and ski club for example. She paid about $150 US to join both clubs and had no surprise fees(which her mother and I expected). Granted, we aren’t Germany. They don’t have the poverty we do, but I think affordable activities would be available for all kids. Germany also had lot of intramural things that the school supported at no cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES445

I guess you aren't aware of the money that is made off a successful college football or basketball program, that more than make up for the money spent on these kids sholarships

Often these successfull sport programs enable sports sholarships in the non-glamourous sports like tennis, or swimming.

---

Oh I'm well ware of it. I'd just like to see some of this money be channelled back to other students.

How much does the Alabama coach make? Or Ohio State Or Notre Dame? A littlew over the top in my opinion/

Lots of college athletes never grauate. That makes me wonder what the goal of the school is…educate students or be playing football on January 1. nAs far as the non-glamorous sports … so what. I wouldn't give out any scholarships in any sport that doesn't earn it's keep. Other than football and basketball that's pretty much every other sport. I'd rather see a C student with a reasonable tuition rate that a free ride for a swimmer.

Also, unless the school is really successful, they don't make all that much from sports. The top 15 or so bowl game teams may make money but the secondary bowls do not. They don't draw to the Motor City Bowl or the Humanitarian Bowl etc. Those teams may actually lose, but you can't turn down a bowl game or you're doomed.

Way too much money involved in college sports.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkeye15

catch phrases tend to attract followers, and turn others off. They aren't productive. "Free" anything, will catch a lot of eyes, yet go nowhere in conversations.

While I am sure you have another shot to take (it's all you really offer), if you haven't gotten my attempted point by now, you won't.

---

You refuse to debate the idea, and instead focus on the word “free”. This idea is immensely popular, as are other progressive ideas, and you can word it however you want, it won’t change anything. I don’t know what to tell you, dude, you are talking in circles and simply have no argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

Oh I'm well ware of it. I'd just like to see some of this money be channelled back to other students.

How much does the Alabama coach make? Or Ohio State Or Notre Dame? A littlew over the top in my opinion/

Lots of college athletes never grauate. That makes me wonder what the goal of the school is…educate students or be playing football on January 1. nAs far as the non-glamorous sports … so what. I wouldn't give out any scholarships in any sport that doesn't earn it's keep. Other than football and basketball that's pretty much every other sport. I'd rather see a C student with a reasonable tuition rate that a free ride for a swimmer.

Also, unless the school is really successful, they don't make all that much from sports. The top 15 or so bowl game teams may make money but the secondary bowls do not. They don't draw to the Motor City Bowl or the Humanitarian Bowl etc. Those teams may actually lose, but you can't turn down a bowl game or you're doomed.

Way too much money involved in college sports.

---

You are crazy. The things you rail against. Don't give out scholarships to any sport that doesn't earn it's keep but then, later in the same post, you say that there is too much money (being too successful) in other sport.

I have trouble with penmanship and you have a problem with consistent logic. From one old dog to another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES445

You are crazy. The things you rail against. Don't give out scholarships to any sport that doesn't earn it's keep but then, later in the same post, you say that there is too much money (being too successful) in other sport.

I have trouble with penmanship and you have a problem with consistent logic. From one old dog to another.

---

Not at all. You have trouble with reading.

If basketball and football make money even after expense (e.g scholarships, travel, uniforms etc.) then they show a profit which is beneficial to the college.

Income from the sport minus the cost of the sport = more money for the school.

More money for the school = an easing of the schools cost to operate = lower tuition.

Are you with me so far?

If income from the swim team does not cover the cost of the swim team (e.g. again scholarships and travel) then they show a loss for having the swim team.

Less money for the school because of the loss of funds from operating a swim team = an increase in the schools cost to operate = higher tuition.

I don't really care if any of these kids get to play football or swim around. I do care of their sport cost me money in higher tuition. The top school basketball and football programs don't seem to cost any money.

And doesn't it bother you at all that the NFL and NBA don't put a dime into this and get all the benefits? Baseball pays to developew their players. The NBA and NFL get a free ride.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

Not at all. You have trouble with reading.

If basketball and football make money even after expense (e.g scholarships, travel, uniforms etc.) then they show a profit which is beneficial to the college.

Income from the sport minus the cost of the sport = more money for the school.

More money for the school = an easing of the schools cost to operate = lower tuition.

Are you with me so far?

.

---

Like following the shifting sands of the Sahara. So now too much money in some sports is a good thing. You need to quit acting like you laid out a logical argument when you keep shifting your position.

No, it doesn't bother me (or anyone in the free world) that the professional sports draft college player. You just posted how the colleges gain a much-needed income from their sports program and, I will add, their football and basketball players get a much-needed education in how to play their sport. So who loses? Of course, the system isn't perfect, nothing man-made is, but it isn't as bad as you are poorly trying to communicate. I might push for the kids getting a small salary on the level of student work, but I wouldn't change a thing

As from getting money from the Pro league, many times you hear about pro players (just recently LeBron) give back to their community as well as their former school. Ex bull player, Noah, work with community in distress here in Chicago as well as this new bull, Parker, who support his old high school

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

Not at all. You have trouble with reading.

If basketball and football make money even after expense (e.g scholarships, travel, uniforms etc.) then they show a profit which is beneficial to the college.

Income from the sport minus the cost of the sport = more money for the school.

More money for the school = an easing of the schools cost to operate = lower tuition.

Are you with me so far?

If income from the swim team does not cover the cost of the swim team (e.g. again scholarships and travel) then they show a loss for having the swim team.

Less money for the school because of the loss of funds from operating a swim team = an increase in the schools cost to operate = higher tuition.

I don't really care if any of these kids get to play football or swim around. I do care of their sport cost me money in higher tuition. The top school basketball and football programs don't seem to cost any money.

And doesn't it bother you at all that the NFL and NBA don't put a dime into this and get all the benefits? Baseball pays to developew their players. The NBA and NFL get a free ride.

---

The small sports earn enough money to pay for themselves at the big schools through sponsorships. That’s why we had to do asic shoots. Adidas when I transferred. When you get to smaller schools you are right though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benny01

The small sports earn enough money to pay for themselves at the big schools through sponsorships. That’s why we had to do asic shoots. Adidas when I transferred. When you get to smaller schools you are right though.

---

Don't smaller school cut sports programs instead of raising tuition? And if that was truly a problem, no one forced these kids to pay the higher tuition. Let the market decide, as we see higher attendance rate for the more successful schools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benny01

The small sports earn enough money to pay for themselves at the big schools through sponsorships. That’s why we had to do asic shoots. Adidas when I transferred. When you get to smaller schools you are right though.

---

A business associate is a fundraiser for USF. They're a big school (student wise) with a growing football program. A few years back they got on a run and broke into the top ten then finished in the 16 -17 range and over thew next few years they got invited to a few bowl games. They prayed for local bowls … St Pete, Orlando - where travel was minimal otherwise he said they would lose money.

According to what I was told, it is very difficult to turn down a bowl invite. A lot goes on behind the scenes and some of the unusual bowl pairings are orchestrated to save money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES445

Don't smaller school cut sports programs instead of raising tuition?

---

I would hope so.

No college doesn't raise tuition, lol. You think Jeff Bezos is bad go look at what colleges are doing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

I would hope so.

---

They do. Being small have its own problems, but I wouldn't indict the whole system because of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter_White

No you didn't. I explicitly debunked your claim.

---

you tried to make some weak argument that didn't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter_White

your quote says "a new face for the Democratic Party", which is a lot different than saying "a new face of the Democratic Party".

---

a new face of, a new face for.. it's the same damn thing.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ives-democrats

Quote:

---

The bright new face of the left

---

https://pagesix.com/2018/07/01/ex-co...ocasio-cortez/

Quote:

---

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is being hailed as the new face of the Democratic Party

---

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...cortez/564974/

Quote:

---

Ocasio-Cortez has a compelling personal story, and a bold vision (Medicare for all, free higher education, a federal jobs guarantee) that makes the Nancy Pelosi–Chuck Schumer establishment look bland. And her telegenicity landed her in Stephen Colbert’s guest chair. Most of the mainstream media, which ignored—or missed entirely—her digital-age spadework, seems now to be overcompensating, to the point of virtually anointing her as the new face of the party.

---

you can keep arguing because you know that I'm right. the point remains the same, there are many people calling her the new face of the party/the new face for the party. these are the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter_White

LMAO you are really pathetic.

---

calling a moderator pathetic, good job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES445

Don't smaller school cut sports programs instead of raising tuition?

---

Sometimes. The programs don’t cost nearly as much as the big schools either. When I transferred to a small private school we only ran a deficit of about $2500, less than a dollar per student. The drama department ran a bigger deficit on their productions, and I wouldn’t advocate cutting that. Buddy coaches baseball at the local CC, makes 4K a season and they’ve won 2 national championships in the last 10 yrs. So, yeah the costs at that level are overblown.