Welcome to the brand new TST! Click the title of this announcement to read more about what's new and different here at The Sand Trap! We're using some new software to power this forum, and while this means some change, it's for the better. However, there will be a few bumps, and one of those may be that you may have a little trouble logging in to your account. So try this: Log in with your existing username and password.If that fails, reset your password here: http://thesandtrap.com/lostpassword/ .If that fails, PM either @mvmac or @iacas and we'll help you out.After that, check out this thread to share any bugs you find along with your likes/dislikes, and check out this thread to see what awesome new features you can use on this site. Finally, once you're on the site, do a few things if you don't mind: Check your account settings. This is where you can clean up your signature.Edit your profile (to possibly include your GAME Golf account). Do this by clicking "Edit Profile" on your name in the top right corner of the site.Add or replace the cover photo on your profile. They're now Facebook-like dimensions. Change your avatar if it looks distorted, too.
Golf Digest published results a couple of years on drinking on the course, they had three groups of High, Mid, and low cap golfers. One group drank a lot, one group drank none, and one group drank a couple. I searched for the results but could not find so I will summarize...
For the high and mid cap golfers the group that scored the best was the 'couple' of drinks. the reason being that it lowered inhibitions decreasing negative thoughts without hindering coordination or 'impairing' judgement. For the low cappers the no drink group did the best, obviously because they are at a different starting point.
For me personally I see no difference between none and a few. However, and this was an anomaly, my best round was drinking 'a lot.' (i.e. more than 12) It was my buddy's bachelor party and I reasoned that if I hit a good shot, I could have more time to flag down the cart girl.
I usually leave it in, because my shots come out a little "hot" sometimes.
I had an interesting thing happen to me Sunday when it was really windy. I was chipping from just off and I hit it way too hard, the ball was right at the flag stick and the wind was blowing the flag straight out. The ball hit the actual flag and dropped to three feet. If it wasn't there or wasn't windy, I might still be looking for the ball.
I am actually disappointed in Obama. Today he is sitting down with a leader of a country that invaded another country without provocation without preconditions... He is headed to the white house to meet with Bush.
The fundamentals of your whole argument here is flawed. The republicans aligned themselves with the religious zealots. The republican party really starting with Ronald Reagan introduced God into politcs. So you can't split the two up. Right Wing = Republican = Religious. It is the whole basis for picking Sarah Palin.
Now, there are two factions of the republican party the social conservatives and the fiscal conservatives, but your party nominated and the country elected the former not the latter. And judging by your previous posts you agree with a lot of what he did so you are. But they are both part of the Republican Party. I would also argue that the social conservatives are the larger portion of the GOP. Most of the conservatives that I know are leaving the republicans and becoming libertarians.
Wow, take the blinders off. Abortion, no one affiliated with the Republican party ever protests abortions. Gay Marriage, that is totally ignored by the right wing. Stem Cell research, same thing.
It's one thing to believe in the republican party but to sit here and be so two faced, discredits every valid point you may have raised.
There are quotes for all occasions but here is one to rebut yours: The only thing you get by changing nothing, is the guarantee that nothing will change.
And that is more pertinent in today's times, in my opinion.
one of the things that has impressed me most about Obama is his willingness to admit he doesn't know something and to solicit opinions of people who do. That was my biggest gripe with the Bush administration was that he could not/would not admit he made mistakes, which is ludicrous.
So I think he will surround himself with capable people who can and will contribute.
It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: "The only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing." - Socrates.
Okay if you are going to talk about opinions that aren't informed, don't you think you should be informed yourself?
Kenya is different because Obama's father is from Kenya. The village they showed in Kenya is where his paternal grandmother still lives.
Why isn't change and not liking Bush a valid reason to vote against a gentleman who for the most part agreed with Bush? It is pretty simple to say that if you don't like where we are right now, or where we were for the last eight years you would vote for someone other than McCain.
I agree in a major part with your sentiment. But...
Yes control should be in the hands of a coulple hundred people in DC, and anothe couple hundred in your state capitol as well. It is called representational government. The difference being that the couple of hundred people are elected to represent the interests of their constituents and thus also be in the best interest of the country (Theoretically)
Yes incentive does drive a capitalistic economy. But if incentive is wealth, and there is less incentive out there, then you are telling me precisely why I should vote for Obama.
I disagree with the more vs. less government. The distribution of wealth has grown smaller during the time when regulations were at their lowest point.
If there is no snow on the ground when I go to bed, and I wake up to a foot of snow. I don't have to have seen it snowing to know that it did.
There isn't going to be an example of full fledged capitalism, because everyone realizes that there needs to be some sort of structure...the debate occurs over how much structure.
But for illustrative purposes lets look at the W. Bush years, specifically 2004, as an example where there were lax rules, and lets look at what happens when you have a less regulation:
Now if we can extrapolate this data to a logical conclusion, pretty soon all of the money ends up in fewer and fewer hands. Think of it as a large scale poker tournament, eventually all the money goes to one person. And if the majority of people start the tournament with a smaller amount of chips than the top 1%.
I really think a lot of conservatives will be happy if Obama wins, that way they can continue their delusions that it isn't their fault they have failed, it is the Dems. who have given all of their money to the poor.
I am very close to a conservative who believes this in some form. He rails against the capital gains tax and said this: "if they got rid of the capital gains tax, I would be making so much money because I would buy more investment property." He has installed this tax issue as what is keeping him back. But he hasn't properly analyzed the situation. If this was true,right now he is choosing no money vs. some money. The reality is that he doesn't have the seed money, and probably never will.
And thus is the genius of the republican campaign machine, they have the majority of conservative voters railing against tax increases on fictional money, because everyone is eventually going to be independently wealthy in their minds. But when you look at the numbers only 10% of the people have money to be considered wealthy. And that 10% of the people are continuously getting more money.
40 years ago CEO-worker pay was roughly 35/1, now it is 435/1 (numbers are approximate). Since money can't be created without inflation, that is a serious "redistribution of wealth" to the upper class.
So people should continue to spout rhetoric that doesn't and will not effect them because conservatives will continue to cut their nose off to spite their face.
I'd like to see the report, I believe it is true, but not for the reason you are claiming here.
Here is how I think it plays out, and it is only opinion since I haven't done the research yet:
Crime is higher in cities which typically have less gun owners. But the crime is a fact of a greater concentration of people not lack of guns. (I would also be interested if you did the same survey with handguns vs. crime; rather than all guns...I would bet the overall impression of the report would change).
I am not for banning guns, in fact I think that people should be able to have whatever they want. I am for stricter laws governing how they are obtained. I think the laws should be strict to the point of a nuisance.
I own two guns both rifles an old 1914 .35 pump action and .22. But I haven't fired a gun in 10 years.
I had a friend who was extremely hungover, as in puking between holes. He normally shoots around 90 when he plays. This day he shot a 79, his best round ever. He swears it was because all he wanted to do was hit the ball and get back in the cart and hit it as few times as possible.
I had none prior to this year and had three this year. All Par 5s, a chip in from under a tree was my first. On the fringe in two and made the putt. And then a driver, five iron to 3 feet. That one was sweet because it was with the group of guys that I play with consistently and won me the years largest $, a whole ten dollars.