Jump to content


Established Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by imsys0042

  1. 52 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

    Remember you must put your response outside the quote box or it will show up blank when someone quotes you.


    Actually the Simpsons quote I was referring to was the Halloween special where the aliens Kang and Kodos ran for office, replacing Bob Dole and Bill Clinton.   The quote was:

    Oh, no! Aliens, bio-duplication, nude conspiracies! Oh my God! Lyndon LaRouche was right!

    And this page has a lot of goodies from it:


  2. 39 minutes ago, David in FL said:

    The fact of the matter remains.  In the general election, a vote for anyone other than either of the 2 main candidates has the same impact as not voting at all.  

    That's true for the outcome of the election, however there is a wider implication.  By pulling enough votes away from the 2 main candidates it can set the stage for other political parties to emerge and greater influence the 2 party system.   The US has never effectively had to deal with coalition governing, however as the parties are moving to their more extreme endpoints (policy wise), it leaves a lot of people in the middle outside of many policy points.

    Consider the Tea Party.  They identify as Republicans, however they zero in on a subset of issues within the party platform. If they decided to switch to "I" for independent tomorrow, that affects the balance of power in the House.   Or just as Independents in the Senate will caucus with the Democrats, but are not labeled as such and could not affiliate with neither party.

    It would be extremely difficult, but if over 2-4 general election cycles a small, but if significant number of a third party candidates won seats in Congress you would have a position where one of the 2 parties would have to compromise with them to govern.

    What makes the Presidency attractive to promote these parties is that it is the highest visibility contest to get supporters.  

  3. 21 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

    Same here, and some of the questions I just quickly chose something and it's a topic that I don't really have an opinion on.

    Eating lunch at my desk so I retook the quiz and answered almost entirely with the elaborated stances, as well as weighting my answers and got ...

    96% Hillary Clinton

    96% Jill Stein

    23% Gary Johnson

    19% Donald Trump

    It's a tie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Crap, I don't know what I'm gonna do now. :hmm:

    Shame Lyndon Larouche isn't running....

  4. 94% Hillary Clinton
    80% Jill Stein
    36% Gary Johnson
    29 %Donald Trump

    Little surprising to me that I ended up at 94%, however I weighted nothing so they all had the weight.   I found myself doing quite a number of the Other Stances which seem to clarify things more.

    However it all has to be taken with a grain of salt, there are some things that the public does not know that affects these decisions.  Also some of these the stance I want to take are next to impossible to implement.   I would prefer an international response on a couple of the Foreign Policy questions, but in fact that would probably never happen in reality.   Sometimes bad choices are the only choices you have.

  5. I'm not sure it's worth anyone except Google to purchase it.   Google Plus was a great social network for the 23 people who signed up for it, so Google could use some help there.   Twitter does have a horrible trolling problem and too many people jump on band wagons to harass people.

    Now it is a unique service and can be used very effectively.  I don't use it that much, but it's possible to do some really good things with it.   But to me it's the least of the social networks.  

  6. My wife and I have made up our minds who we are voting for.  However we've been following what is an extremely unconventional election.   Hilary Clinton should be as she usually is and no major surprises from her, I'd expect.   However which Trump will show up?  Will it be the brash Trump who steamrolled the primaries, or the "more presidential" version of Trump?   It should be interesting to watch....

  7. 2 minutes ago, Valleygolfer said:

    Yes if you enjoy weak coffee, it's okay.

    Why bother with a kuerig if you are just going to do all the steps required to make normal pots of coffee.

    Ha! Ha!  I'd say we both like something not too strong, but not weak either.   When I am not home in the morning it's easier to put in a K-Cup instead of brewing a small pot.  I've only done it a couple of times, but isn't it just popping it in and then making sure a cup is underneath?

  8. 5 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

    They will both lie to convince us to vote for them, blame past Presidents and Congress for their inability to effect change and really won't care what you or I think once the election is over.  

    This is a pretty accurate statement, sadly.   On both sides what the candidates promise will never make it through Congress, or has to be so back pedaled to pass.   There are plenty of politicians who outright lie, and many who make promises they know they cannot keep and do it to win votes.  As voters we need to consider what reality is, not whether someone tells us something we want to hear.


  9. There is a course on the Ohio/PA border that for years would be a once per year trip and it would humble all of us.   It's hard to place exactly why, it's not overly difficult.  Little tight in some places, but it messed with anyone who went that I know.

    My home course, soon to be my ex-home course, is like that.   It's 145 slope and it has illegal drop areas and hazards for pace of play and to make it play easier.   Very few people actually like it.   Our handicaps travel very well from it.

  10. 3 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

    His argument is that Trump should pay because he has a lot of money and says the same holds true for Warren Buffet, but if it were a regular muni golf course, they are off the hook. My argument is that DT would have to shown to be negligent first, not just because he is wealthy. If that were the case, then don't we all owe something to those with less.

    Perhaps he would have opened the checkbook if it was an average Joe or Jane that made the HIO, but because it was another rich guy who could have possibly been a jerk about it, DT said no way. Who knows. 

    Yes, we actually don't know.   And the reason the story came up is because he is running for President.   But my argument is actually that it would be in character for the image that he likes to project to say "Hey, that wasn't right and off course I threw my money around to fix it".  

    Much like any of us give to charity you have to consider the situation and whether it's the right thing to do, etc.   No one can walk around throwing money at people because they happen to be poorer or worse off.

    Note:  I don't think legally Trump has/had to pay.   I just think given the situation he should have ponied up.  Or ponied up part of it and said "I think that's fair".

  11. 2 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

    I don't understand this logic. Should you have to pay up to every homeless panhandler because you are better off than they are? Why are the rules different for someone who has money vs. someone who doesn't? 

    It's a perception thing.   He lives large so part of his overall image would be to swoop in and pay the guy.   I wouldn't consider it a general rule.  But if I was running a tournament and I was in a position to correct a bad situation I would try.  Donald Trump tells a lot of stories how he helped people with money or rewarded them over and above.   There is a famous story he's "confirmed" about how he paid off the mortgage on a guy's house who helped him with a flat tire on his limo.   So I think it's in character.

    On the flip side there are famous people who are reputed to be cheap and the expectation would be that they wouldn't do such a thing.

  12. I'm sure based on the prize there are different requirements from the insurance company.   There were two hole-in-one prizes at a recent tourney at my place and one was unattended and the other had someone who worked for the course.   They weren't high value prizes.  Where I caddied as a kid there was always 1-2 women who watched the hole that had a car during an outing.  I don't know who they worked for.

    A car is much less than $1M.   A huge prize might require an onsite insurance person.  Otherwise the organizer and the insurance company can agree who is trustworthy to monitor.  Insurance companies might even have resources in many regions that they can sub-contract to and pay them to watch.

    My home course awards a vacation package to anyone who makes a hole-in-one.  However there must be two witnesses, the theory that you'd have to have three people holding up the lie.  I made both of my hole-in-ones there playing by myself, although my partner dropped out after 9 due to NFL week 1.   

  13. My original take is that he should have paid and several responses after that hasn't changed my mind.   Not because it's anything political, but because this is Donald Trump who has made a name for himself living large and using his wealth to do lavish things.   Someone like that should pay up if there is this kind of mistake and take the publicity for doing so.

    Same thing if this was an event hosted by Warren Buffet.   Now considering how the insurance arrangements are done, a sponsor or golf course that cannot afford if the insurance bails obviously cannot pay out and it sucks, but someone goofed.

  14. For a man worth 10 BILLION DOLLARS, it should be a no-brainer to pay up.   If the article is accurate then it's a complete sham to have the stipulation that it's 150 yards and then have the hole set up less than that.  

    Something similar happened a couple of years ago in a local tourney and I was playing with the sponsor.   They set the Hole-in-One hole up at a certain distance and he wanted it further back because there were different tiers for the hole-in-one insurance based on distance.   He wanted it back so he got charged less.

    My guess is that Trump's tourney didn't have hole-in-one insurance then?  hole-in-one insurance is a small fee compared to the prize that the insurance company will pay out.

  15. 4 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

    They'd still have the FedEx Cup; it would just end before the NFL season.

    Personally I'm not overly excited by it.   The old Top 30 Tour Championship was more compelling.   But that might just be me.   Ending before football season is a good idea, it gives the event more chance to shine.

  16. I like it too.   The PGA Championship can be lackluster despite the deep field and the club pros being there (I really like that personally).   It doesn't have the identity of the other majors and is anti-climatic.  Especially in Ryder Cup years when it becomes the stage for the captain's picks.

    The Players has more of an identity, IMO and moving it to the middle of the Masters and the US Open is kind of ok for me.  The main thing for me to move it back to March is that it gets more of a spotlight and then a month later it's Augusta.  

    The only thing with the above is that after the British Open you don't have much unless it's a Ryder Cup year that might compel people to tune in.

  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...