Jack Nicklaus Endorses Romney, Mitt calls Jack “Greatest athlete of the 20th century.”

[newtogolf]

Not shocked, disappointed.  Given the challenges this country faces, I'd hoped for a more intelligent discussion about the content of the debate and not who had a better tie on.   I don't want to see the country run by the extreme right, I'd prefer socially moderate to liberal and financially conservative.

Bush 1 turned CA democrat along with many others.  Arnold did well as a republican, but I think that was more about who he married and his acting career than what his political ideology was.

Originally Posted by x129

I am surprised you are shocked. This has happens every election. Remember people talking about how they would rather hand our with Bush instead of Gore or Clinton instead of Dole? CA used to vote reliably republican up until the 90s and has routinely elected republican governors.  But you can't run as an extreme rightest and expect to do well.

[GaijinGolfer]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Not shocked, disappointed.  Given the challenges this country faces, I'd hoped for a more intelligent discussion about the content of the debate and not who had a better tie on.   I don't want to see the country run by the extreme right, I'd prefer socially moderate to liberal and financially conservative.

Bush 1 turned CA democrat along with many others.  Arnold did well as a republican, but I think that was more about who he married and his acting career than what his political ideology was.

Being a moderate doesnt work anymore.  Everything has been so sensationalized that you cant be a moderate and get enough attention.  I too would like to see things return to more common sense but when you have people watching Fox News or MSNBC and taking it as real news, its not gonna happen.

Until we learn that we are all Americans and we need to ALL work together, this country is never going to move forward.  People can say what they want about Clinton but at least when he was in office Democrats and Republicans compromised and worked together.  IMO, we have forgotten about that and its turned into a, "you're either with me or you're my enemy" attitude.

[newtogolf]

I agree.  i didn't vote for Clinton the first time but did the second.  He might have lacked some personal integrity (Lewinsky) but he managed to get things done when he was in office that helped the country.  GW and Obama have been the largest fails since Carter, and unfortunately I don't think Romney will do much better if he doesn't figure out how to work with the other side.

Originally Posted by GaijinGolfer

Being a moderate doesnt work anymore.  Everything has been so sensationalized that you cant be a moderate and get enough attention.  I too would like to see things return to more common sense but when you have people watching Fox News or MSNBC and taking it as real news, its not gonna happen.

Until we learn that we are all Americans and we need to ALL work together, this country is never going to move forward.  People can say what they want about Clinton but at least when he was in office Democrats and Republicans compromised and worked together.  IMO, we have forgotten about that and its turned into a, "you're either with me or you're my enemy" attitude.

[iacas]

Which candidate supports smaller government and less spending on pointless aid programs?

[soon_tourpro]

USA heading towards civilwar.

[Monty_Ryder]

Hahaha, oh boy Mr. Desmond, maybe if you scream the word "lie" some more you can convince others that everything YOU say isn't a lie. Your supposed "fact check" contradicts itself mightily.

The question is leading and programmed to get a "false" answer... And yet the answer is even STILL misleading itself.

Some real FACTS:

1. The word "phone" refers to the hardware by which phone calls are made. Not discounted phone service, or even phone service itself.

2. This program DID NOT PAY FOR PHONES until 2008.

3. In 2008 the program cost $772 million.

4. The program was expanded to cover CELL PHONES in 2008. (What?!)

5. By 2011, the program costs doubled to $1.6 billion.

6. 911 Emergency services can be called WITHOUT an active phone account. No 70 free minutes required. This program is NOT about enabling access to emergency services.

7. Want to sign up for one of these PHONES? You can get one here: http://obamaphone.net

8. The funding for this program is achieved through a fee levied on private entities by the federal government. Money extracted by the the force of federal government. (Not a tax?)

9. This program is paid for by everyone who actually pays for their own cell phone service. It is against the law to pass any of these charges on to the recipients of the Lifeline program

10. According to FCC records, over 12% of users of the FREE PHONE program should have actually been deemed ineligible.

11. There are over 200,000 fraudulent duplicate lines (Cheaters, thieves. Want to guess the punishment? Cancellation of duplicate lines... That's it...)

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

The "Obama Phone" story is a lie. To attempt to tie the program to the President as an example that he is making the country dependent on welfare, as the right wing viral email attempted - is a lie.

Q: Has the Obama administration started a program to use "taxpayer money" to give free cell phones to welfare recipients?

A: No. Low-income households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for more than a decade. But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by taxes, and the president has nothing to do with it.

"Applicants have to apply and prove that they are either receiving certain types of government benefits, such as Medicaid, or have household incomes at or below 135 percent of the poverty line."

Ohhhh, now I see why the idea that the phones are for people on 'welfare' is a 'lie' .... Oh wait...

"...Nor is it paid for with "tax payer money," as the e-mail claims..."

Really?

"...the USF is sustained by contributions from telecommunications companies..."

(BAHAHAHA, 'contributions' MANDATED by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT... that are not a tax? Right.)

"...the companies often charge customers to fund their contributions..."

(Often? Try always. Companies do not have money to 'contribute' outside of that which they exact from customers. Of course, beneficiaries of the free phone program do NOT pay this 'contribution.')

"The SafeLink program has actually been offering cell phones to low-income households in some states since 2008....:

(Since 2008? I have no idea why anyone would call PHONES, which were NEVER GIVEN OUT BY A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM until 2008, "ObamaPhones" ... Hard to call the term "ObamaPhone" a lie when you can get one off ObamaPhone.net ....

[Subaroo]

For all this argument over this Obamaphone thing, what is the problem with subsidizing cell phones for families in need of assistance?

[Chilli Dipper]

Originally Posted by Subaroo

For all this argument over this Obamaphone thing, what is the problem with subsidizing cell phones for families in need of assistance?

There is no problem with it. We've been subsidizing land-line phones for low-income households for decades.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by Monty_Ryder

Hahaha, oh boy Mr. Desmond, maybe if you scream the word "lie" some more you can convince others that everything YOU say isn't a lie. Your supposed "fact check" contradicts itself mightily.

The question is leading and programmed to get a "false" answer... And yet the answer is even STILL misleading itself.

Some real FACTS:

1. The word "phone" refers to the hardware by which phone calls are made. Not discounted phone service, or even phone service itself.

2. This program DID NOT PAY FOR PHONES until 2008.

3. In 2008 the program cost $772 million.

4. The program was expanded to cover CELL PHONES in 2008. (What?!)

5. By 2011, the program costs doubled to $1.6 billion.

6. 911 Emergency services can be called WITHOUT an active phone account. No 70 free minutes required. This program is NOT about enabling access to emergency services.

7. Want to sign up for one of these PHONES? You can get one here: http://obamaphone.net

8. The funding for this program is achieved through a fee levied on private entities by the federal government. Money extracted by the the force of federal government. (Not a tax?)

9. This program is paid for by everyone who actually pays for their own cell phone service. It is against the law to pass any of these charges on to the recipients of the Lifeline program

10. According to FCC records, over 12% of users of the FREE PHONE program should have actually been deemed ineligible.

11. There are over 200,000 fraudulent duplicate lines (Cheaters, thieves. Want to guess the punishment? Cancellation of duplicate lines... That's it...)

2008 - George Bush was serving as President.

Thanks, buddy.

[Mr. Desmond]

With Mitt taking Obama to the woodshed for the first debate, I wonder if Jack will call Mitt's performance the greatest in politics?

Call me after the second de-bate. Until then, Obama fans, ya' better hope things will change. Or things will change.

[Golfingdad]

Slightly off topic but ... does anybody care at all about the vice presidential debate?  I imagine everybody that does watch is just hoping for Ryan to say something crazy, or for Biden to commit one of his "gaffes."  (Kind of like how people watch auto racing for the crashes)

[David in FL]

Which candidate supports smaller government and less spending on pointless aid programs?

Interestingly, no one answered this very simple, direct question, so I will. Mr Romney.

[David in FL]

Slightly off topic but ... does anybody care at all about the vice presidential debate?  I imagine everybody that does watch is just hoping for Ryan to say something crazy, or for Biden to commit one of his "gaffes."  (Kind of like how people watch auto racing for the crashes)

Can't wait. This is gonna be fun..... I'm guessing there're a BUNCH of Dems right now trying to come up with a reasonable excuse to keep Joe off stage! ;-)

[jamo]

Which candidate supports smaller government and less spending on pointless aid programs?

Gary Johnson. Plus, he's the only candidate who has been to the peak of Mt. Everest. ;-)

[Lihu]

Interestingly, no one answered this very simple, direct question, so I will. Mr Romney.

At least he will reduce some of the spending, but I doubt he can reduce our government. There are so many people dependent upon our system: from people really unable to work; military contractors building things to protect us; high technology scientific research projects to improve our lives in the future; and many other reasonable endeavors. There are just so many "reasonable" things to spend money on, no president can reduce it without a major impact. If a household is living on a budget and the choice is to have either your son OR daughter go to college and they have equal skills, who would you choose? The only way for us to get out of this slump is for ALL of us to start working for a stronger country, regardless of who gets elected. We should strive to help either candidate to be successful. When we have a stronger economy, we will have money for all these things. Just my moderate point of view.

[Lihu]

USA heading towards civilwar.

You only hear the 10% of the extremes. Most of us are moderate. We just don't have any moderate candidates.

[David in FL]

Gary Johnson. Plus, he's the only candidate who has been to the peak of Mt. Everest. ;-)

We'll have to watch and see how he does in the debates! ;-)

[David in FL]

[VIDEO][/VIDEO][quote name="Lihu" url="/t/62367/jack-nicklaus-endorses-romney-mitt-calls-jack-greatest-athlete-of-the-20th-century/306#post_776243"] You only hear the 10% of the extremes. Most of us are moderate. We just don't have any moderate candidates.[/quote] Define moderate.