The point is that it required an executive order to pardon them...it didn't "just happen" when the law changed. Of course, you know that, you're just being difficult.
Reggie Bush Is Getting His Heisman Back
- Thread starter king_kong_
- Start date
You literally said all crimes. Now it’s less than 2 ounces. You changed the goal posts as usua I would love to meet you . You can’t be this arrogant in real life.
Don't forget the Florida St bullshit fumble that wasn't called
In all fairness. If replay was back then . A TD would have been called on the previous play.
is there a more executive body governing the Heisman Trophy than the committee?
did they not just issue an executive order?
I literally did?
here's the quote:
it appears I literally (like, literally literally) did not say "all crimes"
on the "difficult" scale from 1 to king_kong_, where does reading fall for you?
It's been used for drugs. I haven't seen it used for other crimes. I've never heard of it for traffic tickets. Speed limits get raised on roads all the times but no one gets their ticket erased.
You got the trophy, we found out you cheated, took the trophy away because you wouldn't have been eligible, then because now the rules changed you get the trophy back...
Weird times.
or the 94 Orange Bowl, we have instant replay now so lets go back and protest the sole TD that should have been ruled a fumble prior to crossing the goal line or illegal block called against Nebraska fullback Lance Gray on a punt return.
How about the late hit on the sideline on FSU last drive ? and then Warrick Dunn retaliated by hitting Miles..
Earlier you said the following, which is 100% incorrect, and you were called out on it:
Then you come back and say this about the Heisman trophy, again admitting there was additional action needed besides rules changing:
No crap...nobody is arguing that there wasn't an executive order. You were arguing it wasn't necessary, which is wrong. If it wasn't necessary, why did they do it?
You are not dumb, so I know you know what you are doing. Thanks for wasting 15 minutes of my day just because you want to be difficult.
The proof you gave to support yourself actually proved you were wrong. In your example, an Executive Order was required to pardon an individual previously convinced of the crime (not just the changing of the law, itself):
Then you come back and say this about the Heisman trophy, again admitting there was additional action needed besides rules changing:
No crap...nobody is arguing that there wasn't an executive order. You were arguing it wasn't necessary, which is wrong. If it wasn't necessary, why did they do it?
You are not dumb, so I know you know what you are doing. Thanks for wasting 15 minutes of my day just because you want to be difficult.
Or maybe because it's a celebrity (Bush) he's getting special treatment.
So what you're saying is that it's OK for kids to break the rules or the law but not adults. BTW, when this stuff was going down, Bush was over 17, which makes him an adult by US military and voting standards, so the punish the adults and not the kids stick doesn't fly.
Last edited:
The issue is applying prior actions to today's rules. How are these things not the same?
Your first sentence would make more sense if there was a non-celebrity player who also lost their Heisman for roughly the same reason and wasn't able to get it back.
He didn't break any law that I know of so breaking rules is different than breaking any law.
You're right, being a 20 year old is totally the same as being a 50 year old.
By the way, there's a max age limit (ages 36-41, depending on which branch) when wanting to join the military so using the "errr, military" reasoning isn't a very good one.
That's not how comparisons work. Not everything in every situation should be looked at the same. Context or what the issue is about is important.
Using absolutes is a lazy way to debate.
You make a statement like "That's not how comparisons work". That's just a bullshit statement with no meaning other then to try to defend your point. You have no more knowledge about how comparisons work than anyone else, so to say what you said is crap.
One of the biggest problems we have in society today is that we don't even try to be fair and consistent, we just give things to people we like and try to hurt people we don't like. That's why people run around aimless as the guideposts are now few and far between. All of your points about "context" and not looking at every situation the same are just bullshit spin.
Also, thanks Captain Obvious! Before you posted ^^^ none of us knew anything about context or that not every situation is the same! Lack of intellect is demonstrated clearly when someone assumes that they have a knowledge of something, particularly something elementary, that no one else knows about when in reality they're near the last person to the party.
Reggie Bush was an adult when he committed the violations. He knew about everything that was going on and supported it. He didn't reject the largess sent him and his family's way. He knew beyond a doubt that he was cheating, but he felt that he was above all of that. If anyone deserved to have his award taken away, Bush is the poster child for that. It's not even debatable. The fact that he got his award back is simply a matter of DEI, BLM, and any other recent acronym you can think of. It also had to do with his celebrity. If Geno Torretta, Pat Sullivan, or Eric Crouch had done what Bush and his family had done, their trophy would be gone forever. There wouldn't be any of this "oh, he was just a kid being manipulated by adults" crap.
Disgusting
Jesus,
1. There's no "non-celebrity" player who did what Bush and his family/handlers did.
2. This has nothing to do with laws, just NCAA rules that USC and everyone USC agreed to play under.
3. Never said that a 20 year old is the same as being a 50 year old. I said that a person over 17 is considered an adult and is then responsible for the wages of their actions. Can you read?
4. This is the best one. The age limits for the military are based on being a legal adult on the low side and physical ability on the high side for many of the jobs. There are a lot of Generals, Admirals, and other senior officers who are well over 41. My father retired as a Major in the Air Force in 1975 at 40 after 20 years, but had the option to stay in for 10 more years as an intelligence officer. They don't generally let older people join the military because there isn't enough time to get them to a level where they can contribute in a non-physical way. However, in times of war, many older people have been technically added to the military, including the researchers around Oppenheimer (he was supposed to be commissioned into the Army at 40, but failed the physical because of low weight and COPD). Colin Powell was the chairman of the JCOS at 56.
That's not how comparisons work: Well you're the one trying to compare the Reggie Bush situation to instant replays when it comes to changing outcomes years later. It's safe to say I know more than you.
Society: Who are we hurting that we don't like? Specifically when it comes to college football.
Context: I had to spell it out because you weren't using it and continue to not ignore it.
Adult: Being an adult at age 20 is way different than being an adult at age 50. Then your use of the military to try & prove your point was comical.
Disgusting: See here's the problem. You're making up scenarios (i.e., Crouch losing his Heisman & not getting it back) to try and prove your point. That doesnt work. Use scenarios that has have actually happened.
But even if we did use your Crouch example. Why wouldn't people continue to use the, "Oh, he was just a kid being manipulated by adults" reasoning for Crouch if they also used it for Bush?
1) Right. So what you said previously makes zero sense.
2) We'll just have to disagree on this one. It was a rule that didn't affect how Bush played. Nor was he involved in any illegal activity. Give him the trophy back for being the best college football player that year.
3) Can you? You're acting like an "adult is an adult" regardless of age. You should be proud of Bush though. He took responsibility for his actions & gave his trophy back without fighting back. Others wanted to forgive him & give him his trophy back. That's their call.
4) Again, context, which you keep ignoring. Those family members of yours joined the military before that elder age cutoff. Therefore they can remain in the military. But if you're 43 and wanted to freshly join the military, you can't. Which makes your "you can fight in the military as an adult" reasoning silly.
Jesus again!!!
1) So it's not allowed to allege that Bush got what he got because he's a celebrity because I can't point out a non-celebrity player who lost his Heisman Trophy (which is impossible because Bush is the only one who lost his)? Are you seriously saying that people who are celebrities or DEI wonks don't get things that they shouldn't get? What I said makes total sense and everyone outside of the DEI world knows that.
2) You make you're point in #1 above and then with a straight face say that the rule breaking doesn't matter because it didn't affect how he played at USC? Can you even understand for a moment that the rules were in place to prevent the shit show we have now threatening to destroy college sports? You don't think that this gave USC a competitive advantage over schools not buying players? I can't help if you're an agent of the chaos we have now, but the fact that you are explains why you have no respect for the rules and think you can break any rule you want with no price to pay.
3) How do you know how I'm "acting"? Whether you're more mature at 50 than 20 is irrelevant in this situation, unless you can prove that overall, 20 year olds can't comprehend the concept of rules. For this situation, there's nothing Bush would change had he been 35 compared to 20, and his 40ish aged family certainly didn't seem to be against it. He's over 40 now, and still thinks that he did NOTHING wrong. For the love of God, your position is tantamount to saying that a 20 year old bank robber isn't as responsible for the crime as a 45 year old bank robber. Amazing.
4) Wrong again, there's been an elder age cut off for joining the military forever, and it changes with the geopolitical situation. Before WWII it was 45. Now it's lower because you need less people per capita in the military. I'm not sure what you're arguing here except that a 20 year old can't follow rules, except for ones in the military who have to follow a plethora of rules or get thrown in the stockade. 20 year olds clearly can understand the rules, including Reggie Bush. It's becoming a pretty shitty world as more people think that any rule or law they don't like isn't valad and they don't have to follow it.
Another note: "So what you said makes zero sense". - This is a child's line, kind of like "I messed up royally". It's an absolute meant for some kind of emphasis, but it just makes you appear immature. What I said may make zero sense - to you, but you're not the only person in the room and I'm pretty confident that it makes sense to most reasonable and fair people.
1) DEI has nothing to do with this Bush / Heisman situation. Just because the DEI folks get what they don't deserve, it means nothing in this situation.
YOU'RE the one claiming his celebrity status. It has nothing to do with that either.
2) Haha. Talking in absolutes is comical to watch.
3) Hahahaha again. Not only speaks in absolutes, but ridiculous hyperbole.
4) "there's been an elder age cut off for joining the military" - Yeah I know because thats essentially what I said already. Which makes your, "you can join the military at 17" in terms of a measuring stick as an adult, a fallacy.
No, it still makes zero sense.
I mean, I get it, you're trying to form an opinion. It's just not a very good one.
17? What the hell? I never mentioned joining the military at 17. Officially off the rails!
Sorry, but arguing criminal expungdement and comparing it to NCAA rules violations and punishment is a ridiculous comparison.
I am fine with RB getting his trophy back, simply because it is not an award issued by the NCAA. Certainly, by today's standards, Reggie Bush's violations seen ridiculously minor for the punishment. BUT.....
Expungdement of a criminal record for 2 oz of weed? Fine. I'm good with that. Those people did not get a competitive advantage. USC and SMU did.
Also, to say, "Yeah, but MSU and Pedo St were worse crimes....and they should have had harsher punishments, so let's let everything else slide", is stupid, too.
I agree, however. The NCAA has no teeth. A bunch of pussies. The Pedos should have gotten the death penalty.
I am fine with RB getting his trophy back, simply because it is not an award issued by the NCAA. Certainly, by today's standards, Reggie Bush's violations seen ridiculously minor for the punishment. BUT.....
Expungdement of a criminal record for 2 oz of weed? Fine. I'm good with that. Those people did not get a competitive advantage. USC and SMU did.
Also, to say, "Yeah, but MSU and Pedo St were worse crimes....and they should have had harsher punishments, so let's let everything else slide", is stupid, too.
I agree, however. The NCAA has no teeth. A bunch of pussies. The Pedos should have gotten the death penalty.
