Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Daniels spoke six days after Barack Obama told Howard University’s class of 2016: “Yes, you’ve worked hard, but you’ve also been lucky. That’s a pet peeve of mine: people who have been successful and don’t realize they’ve been lucky. That God may have blessed them; it wasn’t nothing you did.”
...
Daniels was not responding to Obama, but he could have been when he told his graduates, “I hope you will tune out anyone who, from this day on, tries to tell you that your achievements are not your own.” He conceded the obvious: “I’m not saying that luck never plays a part; of course it can.” But unless it is tragically bad luck, “it almost never decides a life’s outcome.” Although you cannot eliminate luck from life’s equation, “you can tilt the odds in your favor” with common-sense behavior — making healthy choices, getting and staying married, and, especially, working hard.
...
Daniels’s words to the Class of 2016 clarify why the 2016 presidential campaign offers an echo, not a choice. The presumptive Democratic nominee is a progressive committed to government ambitious enough to iron the wrinkles of luck out of life, and to distribute equity to life’s victims, meaning to everyone. The presumptive Republican nominee is a world-class whiner (a victim of debate moderators who are meanies, and most recently of a “rigged” judicial system) who is telling Americans that they are comprehensively victimized (by wily Chinese exporters, manufacturers making Oreo cookies abroad, freeloading allies, etc.). Purdue has the president the nation needs.

kalm wrote:Aside from the statements Hillary is a progressive and everyone should get and stay married is there anything else of substance?

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:Aside from the statements Hillary is a progressive and everyone should get and stay married is there anything else of substance?

Why don't you just Google him, you lazy First Amendment basher?

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Why don't you just Google him, you lazy First Amendment basher?

I will. He reminds me of Kasich who I suggested the conks embrace last summer...but nobody listened.

I seem to remember a bit of controversy regarding Daniels awhile back so I'll have to jog my memory.

Oh...and you do realize that private campaign finance can also stifle 1st amendment rights, no?

Get back to me when you can connect the dots between what the constitution says and the founder's intent regarding speech. Please educate me!

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
I will. He reminds me of Kasich who I suggested the conks embrace last summer...but nobody listened.

I seem to remember a bit of controversy regarding Daniels awhile back so I'll have to jog my memory.

Oh...and you do realize that private campaign finance can also stifle 1st amendment rights, no?

Get back to me when you can connect the dots between what the constitution says and the founder's intent regarding speech. Please educate me!

He's more conservative than Kasich, and the controversy had to do with his wife coming back to him after she'd left him for another man. And you tell me how private campaign finance can stifle First Amendment rights. Bernie's supporters are expressing their idiotic views with every $27 they pony up. And with thousands of such donations, the speech impact is magnified.Where's the stifling, Archie Bunker?

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: He's more conservative than Kasich, and the controversy had to do with his wife coming back to him after she'd left him for another man. And you tell me how private campaign finance can stifle First Amendment rights. Bernie's supporters are expressing their idiotic views with every $27 they pony up. And with thousands of such donations, the speech impact is magnified.Where's the stifling, Archie Bunker?

Let's start with the story of a 3rd party candidate polling 10x better than in 2012. How often are his surrogates interviewed? How does his media exposure compare to the established party candidates?

And let's talk about Bernie and the scheduling of Democratic Primaries and debates...

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Why don't you just Google him, you lazy First Amendment basher?

I will. He reminds me of Kasich who I suggested the conks embrace last summer...but nobody listened.

I seem to remember a bit of controversy regarding Daniels awhile back so I'll have to jog my memory.

Oh...and you do realize that private campaign finance can also stifle 1st amendment rights, no?

Get back to me when you can connect the dots between what the constitution says and the founder's intent regarding speech. Please educate me!

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
Let's start with the story of a 3rd party candidate polling 10x better than in 2012. How often are his surrogates interviewed? How does his media exposure compare to the established party candidates?

And let's talk about Bernie and the scheduling of Democratic Primaries and debates...

What point are you trying to make? Surely nothing of constitutional import. Third parties are generally freaks, with only small minority support, and for justifiable reasons. The real news is elsewhere. The press coverage goes where the news is. Gary Johnson is on CNN tonight. Aren't you watching, Mr. Avatar of Free Speech?

UNI88 wrote:

kalm wrote:
I will. He reminds me of Kasich who I suggested the conks embrace last summer...but nobody listened.

I seem to remember a bit of controversy regarding Daniels awhile back so I'll have to jog my memory.

Oh...and you do realize that private campaign finance can also stifle 1st amendment rights, no?

Get back to me when you can connect the dots between what the constitution says and the founder's intent regarding speech. Please educate me!

Kasich is Daniels Light and I do believe that I stated that Kasich was the most qualified candidate long before your suggestion. Daniels is a both a leader and manager/administrator and would have been the best candidate to run for POTUS in a long time.

I like George Will and agree with a lot of what he writes but I disagree with him about Hilary being a progressive. She's a machine politician/chameleon who will change her story/colors when it serves her agenda. Being a true progressive (not a neo-Trotskyite like Sanders) isn't a bad thing.

Pwns wrote:I remember his name being thrown around back in 2008. One concern the GOP leaders had with him was his height. Our electorate is truly past redemption if that matters.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: What point are you trying to make? Surely nothing of constitutional import. Third parties are generally freaks, with only small minority support, and for justifiable reasons. The real news is elsewhere. The press coverage goes where the news is. Gary Johnson is on CNN tonight. Aren't you watching, Mr. Avatar of Free Speech?

I already told you...that money can stifle speech.

Are you telling me the media isn't biased? That there's not Washington bubble? Why are you afraid of other ideas?

Who runs the presidential debates? Who sets the 15% polling threshold to get in the debates Are they at all funded by private donors?

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
I already told you...that money can stifle speech.

Are you telling me the media isn't biased? That there's not Washington bubble? Why are you afraid of other ideas?

Who runs the presidential debates? Who sets the 15% polling threshold to get in the debates Are they at all funded by private donors?

Oh, the horror! Those awful media trusts that sell ads to corporations! Break 'em up! Enemies of free speech that keep the Weird Whackjob Party off the air!

Klam, you go further off the rails every time you post on this topic. And read First National Bank of Boston v, Bellotti for some citations on the long judicial history of First Anendment rights for corporations. It's not the speaker, it's the speech that counts.

AZGrizFan wrote:Obama is an idiot. Plain and simple. Let's not let facts get lost in round 87 of this pissing contest.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Oh, the horror! Those awful media trusts that sell ads to corporations! Break 'em up! Enemies of free speech that keep the Weird Whackjob Party off the air!

Klam, you go further off the rails every time you post on this topic. And read First National Bank of Boston v, Bellotti for some citations on the long judicial history of First Anendment rights for corporations. It's not the speaker, it's the speech that counts.

And Buckley v Valeo or Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific RR...

I think we've covered this before and there are great legal minds that totally agree with me too. Not to mention what the founders wrote or didn't write on the topic.

Apply your common sense to the statements that money is speech and corporations are people.

Your points are simply political beliefs wrapped in legal obfuscations...





Still love ya though!

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Obama is an idiot. Plain and simple. Let's not let facts get lost in round 87 of this pissing contest.

I'm still trying to figure out what was the better troll...

"You didn't build that"

or

"Clinging to their guns religion"

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out what was the better troll...

"You didn't build that"

or

"Clinging to their guns religion"

or whether or not we've sunk to a bad place when so many people think it is cool for the leader of the free world to "troll" a significant part of his constituency?

he's the mist polarizing president in the entire history of this country after Johnson


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dbackjon wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
or whether or not we've sunk to a bad place when so many people think it is cool for the leader of the free world to "troll" a significant part of his constituency?

he's the mist polarizing president in the entire history of this country after Johnson


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He's polarizing because of Racism to begin with, and because the GOP made it their goal to demonize him and anyone else that doesn't fit their narrow world-view.

Look what the right did to Clinton. It is led by Hate Radio, that offers no solutions but to call people names and to proclaim they are un-American.


The GOP is responsible for this polarization. Obama TRIED to work with Congress. The GOP blocked him at every turn. One need only look at Judicial Appointments to see the truth in this.

You have a party that has been captured by extremists from the Tea-Party side that are unwilling to compromise one bit.

The GOP tried to use God, Hatred of Gays and Immigrants, and hatred of Government as the base for winning elections. It is now biting them on the ass and producing candidates that directly appeal to racists.

The GOP deserves to be assigned to the dustbin of history. Hopefully a new, sane party can emerge from the ashes.

dbackjon wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
or whether or not we've sunk to a bad place when so many people think it is cool for the leader of the free world to "troll" a significant part of his constituency?

he's the mist polarizing president in the entire history of this country after Johnson


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He's polarizing because of Racism to begin with, and because the GOP made it their goal to demonize him and anyone else that doesn't fit their narrow world-view.

Look what the right did to Clinton. It is led by Hate Radio, that offers no solutions but to call people names and to proclaim they are un-American.


The GOP is responsible for this polarization. Obama TRIED to work with Congress. The GOP blocked him at every turn. One need only look at Judicial Appointments to see the truth in this.

You have a party that has been captured by extremists from the Tea-Party side that are unwilling to compromise one bit.

The GOP tried to use God, Hatred of Gays and Immigrants, and hatred of Government as the base for winning elections. It is now biting them on the ass and producing candidates that directly appeal to racists.

The GOP deserves to be assigned to the dustbin of history. Hopefully a new, sane party can emerge from the ashes.

dbackjon wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
or whether or not we've sunk to a bad place when so many people think it is cool for the leader of the free world to "troll" a significant part of his constituency?

he's the mist polarizing president in the entire history of this country after Johnson


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He's polarizing because of Racism to begin with, and because the GOP made it their goal to demonize him and anyone else that doesn't fit their narrow world-view.

Look what the right did to Clinton. It is led by Hate Radio, that offers no solutions but to call people names and to proclaim they are un-American.


The GOP is responsible for this polarization. Obama TRIED to work with Congress. The GOP blocked him at every turn. One need only look at Judicial Appointments to see the truth in this.

You have a party that has been captured by extremists from the Tea-Party side that are unwilling to compromise one bit.

The GOP tried to use God, Hatred of Gays and Immigrants, and hatred of Government as the base for winning elections. It is now biting them on the ass and producing candidates that directly appeal to racists.

The GOP deserves to be assigned to the dustbin of history. Hopefully a new, sane party can emerge from the ashes.

CID1990 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

He's polarizing because of Racism to begin with, and because the GOP made it their goal to demonize him and anyone else that doesn't fit their narrow world-view.

Look what the right did to Clinton. It is led by Hate Radio, that offers no solutions but to call people names and to proclaim they are un-American.


The GOP is responsible for this polarization. Obama TRIED to work with Congress. The GOP blocked him at every turn. One need only look at Judicial Appointments to see the truth in this.

You have a party that has been captured by extremists from the Tea-Party side that are unwilling to compromise one bit.

The GOP tried to use God, Hatred of Gays and Immigrants, and hatred of Government as the base for winning elections. It is now biting them on the ass and producing candidates that directly appeal to racists.

The GOP deserves to be assigned to the dustbin of history. Hopefully a new, sane party can emerge from the ashes.

blah blah blah racism blah blah

go be emotional somewhere else, nancy

this country is more divided than it was in 1865 and it doesnt get that way just because one side are meanies

it takes two- and when you want people to work with you its probably not a good idea to taunt them at every opportunity