Obama to Honor Auburn Football

Now, why is this still in the football forum?

Schmoe wrote:
Now, why is this still in the football forum?

We're waiting for Taekwon and jmv to jump in... THEN it will be moved and/or locked... ;) :lol:

Mingjai wrote:

BlueIsBetter wrote:
Romney is a step up from most anyone out there, but Michelle Bachman > Romney.

?

I guess if you like your politicians to be one-note and really about as bright as a pitch black, then sure. She is an empty tea bag.

I'm not a big fan of Michelle Bachman myself, but that's probably because I live within a few miles of her district and have to listen her all the time. Bachman's not even the best candidate in her own state--I'd much prefer Tim Pawlenty, who always came across as charismatic, bright, and polished in his weekly radio call-in show.

Pawlenty, Santorum and Bachman are all great candidates. I would like to know the evidence of her being an "empty tea bag". She is the one who has uncovered most of the "crap" that was written into the health care bill. She is the one who brought the 5 billion that was hidden throughout the bill that funded obamacare to prevent the Republicans from defunding it.

You want a really great future candidate look up Alan West. I don't know if he is ready now but he would be a great Sec of Def, VP, or some other position of note and influence. He was the only guy on the panel with the kahones to say it like it is. And that is why he is now a senator. Now I want to see how he votes on a lot of "other" issues. I have a feeling that I will be pleased with most of those votes.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHtvLjxWtlQ

I think the reason you like Chris Christie is that he does what he says he'll do. And in this case he said he would govern the state of NJ rather than leave for a national candidacy for personal gain. he won't run for the same reason we love him.



I also love the fact that the man wants some governing experience before a highly supported nomination from the GOP. Obama might be a tricky president to try and beat this year, but Christie in 2016 is probably a done deal.

I started this only intending to write a few sentences, but like Bilbo Baggins, once I got started, the trail just swept me along. Sorry for the length, but maybe a few of you will glean a pearl or two from my hobby of following politics. As I've said before, read on if you dare!



I'm still supporting Romney. I don't buy into all the recent concerns over whether he is conservative enough, or the recent fits over his health care reform history. That health care stuff, which I will here-after refer to as "Romney Care" was all known, AND APPROVED OF by conservatives (including the Heritage Foundation) during the time it was being formulated and debated in Massachusetts. It strikes me as disengenuous now, for certain people who call themselves conservatives to be so upset about Massachusetts' health care when it was not that big an issue with them at the time, and during 2008.



I take Romney at his word, that he is a committed conservative, and I trust him. He has been a model of honor and integrity throughout his entire private and public life. He has never lied to us, and he has never "flip-flopped" on anything. He has simply evolved to new positions and beliefs as we all do. We allowed this conversion for Ronald Reagan-- wait, I remember that many voiced doubts on Reagan's new conservatism during his gubernatorial campaign. At any rate, we conservatives worship Ronald Reagan now, and I see Romney as the new Reagan. I'm not seeing quite the John Wayne swagger as in Reagan, but I see a strong, honest, principled, and courageous defender of our traditional America, none the less.



Just a bit more on Massachusetts health care: In Romney's original form it was completely different from Obama Care, but Obama keeps calling it similar to "Romney Care," simply to try to separate Romney from conservative support. Nobody ever said Obama was a dummy; just that he was, and is, evil. What Romney did was to mold and influence a Massachusetts revolution that he could not stop. He did not want an individual mandate, and he especially did not want a corporate mandate (he vetoed the latter, and was over-ridden). He compromized on the individual mandate because he knew he could not stop it. He originally wanted to simply require the uninsured to be financially responsible for the care that federal law mandated must be rendered to anyone that presented to emergency rooms, instead of having hospitals "eat" so much of the uninsured care that they rendered. That threat of financial responsibility was Romney's only intended threat toward those that chose to go without insurance in spite of being in an income bracket that would be established as bringing that expectation. Additionally, "Romney Care" could never be "Obama Care," because it did not raise taxes, being completely paid for with previously available funds, including federal money granted to the state for the subsidy of hospital care for non-payers. It also did not include any "public option" insurance that would be subsidized by taxpayer money in order to deliberately undermine the private insurance industry. "Romney Care" allowed for open and honest competition among insurance products that represented free enterprise only. "Romney Care," unlike "Obama Care" was not a thinly disguized monument to Marxism. Unlike Obama, Romney did not seek to destroy the private insurance market, and did not seek to exploit health care as a monstrous vehicle for wealth redistribution. Obama has said, from his own mouth, that previous Republican proposals for making health insurance more broadly available, did "not go far enough" to accomplish real and meaningful "wealth redistribution." (paraphrasing the last sentence, except for the parts in quotations) Finally, much has been said, dishonestly, about how "Romney Care" has "bankrupted Massachusetts." I must add that all of those cost over-runs are the fruit of the Massachusetts liberal legislature, who over-rode Mitt's vetoes no less than eight times to add pork and extra spending to the bill. Those items are not Romney's responsiblity; indeed, many budget busting items were added after he was no longer there in the governor's seat. The blaming of Romney for these things has been completely dishonest and agenda driven. For further testimony of this, you can google "Gingrich defends Romney on Mass health care," and "John Sununu defends Romney on Mass health care."



Liberal Dems and religious bigots among Republicans have joined forces to misrepresent what Romney has previously done and stood for, including health care. They do this as unexpected allies in that they have a common interest in stopping Mitt. The liberals fear him the most as the anti-Obama,in spite of their lies that they really fear Palin, Huck, Trump, Newt, or others.

The so called "Religious Right" joins in, simply to try to prevent Mormons from being perceived as "mainstream." A hint to the latter: Sorry, but the LDS's already have escaped your pigeon-hole, and are indeed, mainstream.



Regarding other Republican candidates: I respect Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, T-Paw (except that T-Paw seems to pander to GW/CC, correct me if I am wrong), Bachman, and even Palin. I liked Tom Tancredo (who eventually endorsed Romney), and I liked the views of Duncan Hunter (although I suspect that he would not endorse Romney), during the previous cycle. I now especially like Alan West, like some of the rest of you, although he is still a bit obscure. I think that the only ones as smart as Mitt would be Gringrich and maybe West, but West again is obscure, and I do not think Newt is electable anymore since the Dems and MSM have invested many millions in demonizing him and he may have some skeletons with previous marriages, etc. There are a few others, like Eric Cantor, Bobby Jindal, Christie, John Thune, who are not running, but seem to be good, America loving conservatives. Among all of the above, I think that Palin and Bachman, although good people, would make the most gaffes during a campaign, and that the remainder, with the exception of Christie, West, and Newt, are not as charismatic and capable as Mitt Romney in debate. I don't know if you all remember Mitt's debate performances in 2008, but he was masterful, and clearly dominated. I don't care for the remaining three prominent potential candidates who do not deserve much print: They are Paul, Huck and Trump. I despise the latter two, while RP is not strong enough in real, non-corrupted polling to worry me. Huck only has pull in the southeast and Iowa, and will run out of money unless the slobbering love affair between him and Howard Rump really takes off. I don't want to dwell on these two, but I will say that Charles Krauthammer hit it on the head when he said of Trump: He (Howard Trump) stands for nothing, is seeking nothing but attention, and is "the Al Sharpton of the Republican Party, provocateur and clown."



Mitt Romney remains our best hope (I would not say differently if he were Methodist, Mormon, Jewish, or Catholic). Mitt has the best staying-power in a campaign, both in terms of fund-raising prowess, sheer political skill and charisma, and already-earned name recognition. In terms of funds, he has the owners of both the Miami Dolphins and the New York Jets on his team (volunteers who meet with his exploratory committee), as well as other prominent and powerful business personalities. He has been raising impressive amounts with his Free and Strong America PAC that have not been included in recent misleading comparisons to Ron Paul's and Bachman's fundraising totals, but have been donated to the campaigns to elect local and national conservatives all across the country. Recent MSM claims of Paul and Bachman out-raising Mitt for this first quarter are both bogus and dishonest attempts to rob Mitt's movement of its momentum. While his PAC funds do not apply and are not counted, neither has he been able to raise funds for his own campaign in the first quarter. He was only able to do that once he formed his presidential campaign exploratory committee, which was not done until after the first week in this month of April, 2011. Meanwhile, RP's and Bachman's U.S. House of Representatives campaigns have been in full operation all along and their funds raised for that can, and have been counted toward possible runs for POTUS. In spite of the MSM's attempts to bury Romney by misrepresenting his positions, strengths, and by trumping up Trump and Huckles, he has recently polled ahead of Obama in Michigan, NH, and polls within margin of error against the OBastard in several other states where no one else in the GOP field does. Although he trails the Huckster in SC, Mitt has recently polled in SC as the only GOP hopeful to contend with Obummer there head to head. Mitt has buried Huck in Florida by 20% recently, and destroys all GOP contenders in NH. Romney also has to his credit that he (granted in late 2010) bested T-Paw, Palin, Christie, and Huntsman in polls, each in their own respective states. Mitt has also recently won a California GOP straw poll state-wide. Romney is strong in the GOP primary so far in Iowa (Huck barely edges him there), NH, Florida, Texas (Palin has been slightly ahead of him there, but not Huck), Nevada, Michigan, California, New York, and New Jersey, and of course, Utah, Idaho, AZ, WY, Montana and Colorado. Romney is also polling well for the general election in most of those states with the exception of CA, NY, and possibly NJ.



I don't know what to say more, except an apology for the length of this thing, and to plead for tolerance since this thread was already moved from the football forum before I got involved.



The Dems fear him the most....

He's earned the most political friends at grass-roots levels....

He is the most talented contender on our side....

He has the strongest executive resume on our side....

He can raise the most money....

He polls the best for our side....

Obama fears him the most...



MITT IS da MAN

Nicely stated, BOID, now back on topic:



I have no real issue with the president continuing the tradition of bringing the BCS champ to be honored. It would create quite the stir if he didn't, but I don't know that it would be absolutely fair to single out these cheaters as opposed to all of the other ones who have come before them, and I don't think that Obama has the kind of moral moxie to even attempt something like this that would damage his image.

Schmoe wrote:
Nicely stated, BOID, now back on topic:



I have no real issue with the president continuing the tradition of bringing the BCS champ to be honored. It would create quite the stir if he didn't, but I don't know that it would be absolutely fair to single out these cheaters as opposed to all of the other ones who have come before them, and I don't think that Obama has the kind of moral moxie to even attempt something like this that would damage his image.

It's a sad reflection on our country if the president is afraid of his image being damaged if he does NOT honor a team that has achieved success through dishonesty.



Unfortunately, we've become a society that believes sending morally correct messages is unacceptable. I believe that this problem, like the root cause of most other problems in society, is one that starts with the erosion of the family as the root functional unit in society.

OBastard, Huckles... LMAO!!!



I like very much. It is difficult to find the truth because in the Liberal mind (read liberal media) it is whatever supports the narrative.



Romney-West, now that would be a heck of a ticket!

Schmoe wrote:
Nicely stated, BOID, now back on topic:



I have no real issue with the president continuing the tradition of bringing the BCS champ to be honored. It would create quite the stir if he didn't, but I don't know that it would be absolutely fair to single out these cheaters as opposed to all of the other ones who have come before them, and I don't think that Obama has the kind of moral moxie to even attempt something like this that would damage his image.

Even though he has gone on record saying he doesn't like the BCS and thinks there needs to be a playoff. If I remember correctly he even stated he would work on that while in office, how big would that be if he used this as his first step in that direction,but not even a peep yet.

OK, not sure why this is still in the football forum but I'll tell you why I don't like Mitt Romney other than saying he is just like the rest of the bunch. You tried to draw comparisons to Reagan but I think Mitt and the rest of the Republicans fall far short in any comparisons for one simple reason. They won't be able to ask independents and democrats to reevaluate their beliefs the way Reagan did. Reagan argued, on fundamental grounds, and won the debate. I don't see any of the candidates able to pull that off (including Paul, though he is the only person you may have heard of who has tried to win voters based on fundamentals rather than flashy ads). I think the last best hope is Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico and someone who actually believes in freedom (aka agency). He also believes in the veto, which is definitely something that needs to be addressed during the debates.



I think to be taken seriously (and win the debate) Republican candidates will have to address military spending and make concessions. I also think they could make great inroads with people disillusioned with Obama by addressing personal liberties. I don't think any of them will do it and I don't think any of the Republicans will win. Do any of you really believe that had any of the major Republican candidates won in 2008 things would be different today? If you do you're great at self deception.



Here is my 2-part litmus test for Republican presidential candidates.



1) Would you have vetoed Medicare part D if a Republican congress had presented you with the bill? If they answer no they need to be thrown out on their butts.



2) How much will you decrease military spending? Anything less than 20% and they should be shown the door. A follow up needs to be how will you decrease the US military footprint to accomplish this?