• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Missouri Lawmaker Wants To Revoke Scholarships If Athletes Protest

How can this lawmaker want to violate the right to peaceably assembly and their right to freedom of speech? That they receive scholarships has not bearing on their constitutional right to peaceably assemble and voice their opinion.

Nobody is taking away their right to peaceably assemble.

But if you recieve a free ride to education in exchange for playing football, and then you refuse to play football... you don't deserve your free ride..... its as simple as that.
 
Just another example the rightwing support for Nanny State Big Govt and opposition to the free market

can you explain how this post makes any sense? Or were you just being extremely pathetic in your attempt to throw some partisan whining in here?
 
Yeah, you'd want to sit in your box seat and get your money's worth, right?

Exactly. If I am providing money that goes to you so you can get a free education while I also receieve a quality football match and I have said money to spend to ensure this happens then this is what I expect to happen.

If I spend money at a McDonalds to get a McRib, I expect to get a ****ing McRib.
 
why? It's not going to change my position. If it is the University's money or the University controls the money the state has every right to say how the money is going to be used. If it doesn't then the state doesn't have that right. You want to operate from the position that it's likely the University doesn't control the money, fine, I'm still going to operate that in all likelihood the University does control the scholarship money. I think we're on the same page here you just seem to refuse the option that the state can under any circumstance control of the donated scholarship money.

I'm operating from the position that until I see evidence of how it works, we don't know how it works.

You may think this is unreasonable, but I'm not going to believe something simply because someone on the internet says it so. A number of posters seem certain that the money is controlled by the uni even though none of them seem able to provide any evidence that it is true.
 
can you explain how this post makes any sense? Or were you just being extremely pathetic in your attempt to throw some partisan whining in here?

It's clear that you think it's appropriate for the govt to tell private individuals that they cannot provide scholarships unless they follow the govts diktats
 
It's clear that you think it's appropriate for the govt to tell private individuals that they cannot provide scholarships unless they follow the govts diktats

Is that so?
What about what I have tells you this?

Also, what does what I have said about how I feel have to do with right wing anything?
 
Is that so?
What about what I have tells you this?

Aside from you saying you think it's fine to have the govt tell private individuals that they cannot provide scholarships unless they follow the govts diktats you have said nothing about how you feel about the govt telling private individuals that they cannot provide scholarships unless they follow the govts diktats
 
Aside from you saying you think it's fine to have the govt tell private individuals that they cannot provide scholarships unless they follow the govts diktats you have said nothing about how you feel about the govt telling private individuals that they cannot provide scholarships unless they follow the govts diktats

OMG Its "Dictates" not "diktats".....

And please, quote me where I have said I think it is fine to have the government tell private individuals that they cannot provide scholarships unless they follow the government's dictates.
 
This is clearly against the students 1st amendment rights. Unconstitutional and illegal action by the University.

:lol: Unconstitutional? What?

What rights are they being denied?

Aside from that error they signed a contract to play for the school. They are violating that contract. Their funds should be withheld.

Basic contract law.
 
OMG Its "Dictates" not "diktats".....

And please, quote me where I have said I think it is fine to have the government tell private individuals that they cannot provide scholarships unless they follow the government's dictates.

Basic Typo... The K is by the C... oh, wait.
 
How can this lawmaker want to violate the right to peaceably assembly and their right to freedom of speech? That they receive scholarships has not bearing on their constitutional right to peaceably assemble and voice their opinion.

They can peaceably assemble all they want to... sheesh. :roll:

Once practice is on or the game though (Their Job!) they have to play. If I decide to not honor my contract and just walk out of work and not do my job I can get fired. I can't say, "hey, I wanted to peacably assemble instead and ou are now violating my rights!!"
 
Read more @: Missouri Lawmaker Wants To Revoke Scholarships If Athletes Protest

Refusing to play for any other reason other than health? :shock: Also as pointed out in the article and the article linked, the money used for athletic scholarships at Mizzou is not state money, its privately donated money, so why is the state legislature getting involved in this at all if it does not affect state resources? [/FONT][/COLOR]

Just another religious quacknut that weaseled into the pockets of religious right and landed a seat in government - who had no aspirations to be part of the political process but just wanted to exercise the power of the seat to tell people how to run their lives....according his personal beliefs.
 
I don't know if scholarships require* that the student perform practices, games, etc., with no exceptions for social justice causes, but if they don't now they just might from here on out.

*-Barring legitimate injury, or something like that.
 
I don't know if scholarships require* that the student perform practices, games, etc., with no exceptions for social justice causes, but if they don't now they just might from here on out.

*-Barring legitimate injury, or something like that.

Social Justice... bah!.... what a load of crap
 
Exactly. If I am providing money that goes to you so you can get a free education while I also receieve a quality football match and I have said money to spend to ensure this happens then this is what I expect to happen.

If I spend money at a McDonalds to get a McRib, I expect to get a ****ing McRib.

Well, at least you are honest in your crassness.

Football match. Tennis has matches. World soccer has matches. In the US, we have football games.
 
Well, at least you are honest in your crassness.

Football match. Tennis has matches. World soccer has matches. In the US, we have football games.

People don't donate money for athletic scholarships for the hell of it...... they do so in order for their team (usually their alma matter) to be capable of acquiring talent so that the team can be successful.

If I were donating scholarship money directly for an athlete (as opposed to a school athletic scholarship trust as mentioned), you better believe I would have a freaking contract related to said scholarship that involved them freaking playing for the team and not skipping out to participate in bull**** cry baby protests.

I really don't see what the problem is... its no different than people crying out that they deserve to be paid while on strike or protesting rather than doing the work asked of them for the salary agreed to.
 
People don't donate money for athletic scholarships for the hell of it...... they do so in order for their team (usually their alma matter) to be capable of acquiring talent so that the team can be successful.

If I were donating scholarship money directly for an athlete (as opposed to a school athletic scholarship trust as mentioned), you better believe I would have a freaking contract related to said scholarship that involved them freaking playing for the team and not skipping out to participate in bull**** cry baby protests.

I really don't see what the problem is... its no different than people crying out that they deserve to be paid while on strike or protesting rather than doing the work asked of them for the salary agreed to.
I'm with you on this one. There's a time and a place for everything, and one's commitments mean something, too. I get, and fully support, the concept of civil disobedience, and this was a form of civil disobedience. With civil disobedience there are consequences, so if it means that much to the person they should be more than willing to suffer the consequences for their conviction. If they don't think the consequences are acceptable, then the issue really wasn't that important to them.
 
It's clear that you think it's appropriate for the govt to tell private individuals that they cannot provide scholarships unless they follow the govts diktats

I don't see the government telling private individuals that they cannot provide scholarships. And it doesn't matter whether the University controls the scholarships or not. (they don't btw: on their website they provide help in how to get a scholarship and that includes a link to several organizations that give out scholarships, but not once did I find where they actually give out scholarships personally). What does matter is that the University can accept or decline the acceptance of a scholarship. Does the University have the power to refuse acceptance of scholarships? If they have that power then do they also not have the power to revoke the acceptance of scholarships?
 
I don't see the government telling private individuals that they cannot provide scholarships.

That's not what I said

And it doesn't matter whether the University controls the scholarships or not. (they don't btw: on their website they provide help in how to get a scholarship and that includes a link to several organizations that give out scholarships, but not once did I find where they actually give out scholarships personally). What does matter is that the University can accept or decline the acceptance of a scholarship. Does the University have the power to refuse acceptance of scholarships? If they have that power then do they also not have the power to revoke the acceptance of scholarships?

Scholarships are money. If a uni accepts an applicant as a student, then it can't refuse their tuition money unless it comes from an illegal source.

And unless they control the scholarship, they don't have the power to revoke a scholarship.
 
That's not what I said

Yes, actually, it is.

It's clear that you think it's appropriate for the govt to tell private individuals that they cannot provide scholarships unless they follow the govts diktats

Cain never once brought up what you said here which means you're asserting this, no one else. If you meant something else now would prolly be the time to correct it.

Scholarships are money. If a uni accepts an applicant as a student, then it can't refuse their tuition money unless it comes from an illegal source.

And unless they control the scholarship, they don't have the power to revoke a scholarship.

What law bars them from not being able to refuse a scholarship?
 
Yes, actually, it is.

No, when you quoted me earlier, you left out the last 6 words

Cain never once brought up what you said here which means you're asserting this, no one else. If you meant something else now would prolly be the time to correct it.

The entire thread is about the state legislature making it illegal to give a football scholarship unless they follow govt rules.


What law bars them from not being able to refuse a scholarship?

The uni doesn't get a scholarship. They get money. Money is "legal tender"
 
The uni doesn't get a scholarship. They get money. Money is "legal tender"

Nothing there saying that they have to accept the money or continue to accept the money and if someone violates the universities "ToS" then they have a right to refuse service.
 
As soon as I heard that a lawmaker was proposing legislation to deny someone of their first Amendment rights and to create more unnecessary big government initiatives I knew a conservative Republican would be involved.


People have a right to free speech, they don't have a right to scholarships. When an athlete "signs" with a college, he/she agrees to play unless he/she is physically unable to play. Not playing for any reason other than health is a breach of contract, meaning the contract no longer is valid. Hence, the scholarship is no longer valid.
 
Back
Top Bottom