Rusty2228

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.

Go for the green...they are closing it soon so you need to have as much fun as you can. The worst part about Waverly is the 17th where sometimes you need a driver to get to the par 3.

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: http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/fac...ome&wealth.htm; 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.

Here is a story counter to the general opinion: 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.

Please find me the evidence to back the claim that he is embarrassed to be American? Intelligent people don't spout rhetoric. Intelligent people base their assumptions on facts that are readily available. So please find me this readily available information, because obviously you are intelligent and would have this.

Let's see, where to begin... 1. G. Gordon Liddy, domestic terrorist, with a much more direct tie to the McCain campaign than Ayres. 2. Wright's church is one of the largest in Chicago and there is zero proof that Obama was there for any of the controversial remarks, and Palin was seen on video being protected from witchcraft. 3. Palin as an acting governor supported an Alaska secession group that her husband was a member of. The answer is that he probably does get some added deference because he is black...but Palin gets it because she is a woman...and McCain gets it because he served the country honorably. Also certain people will be harder on Obama because he is black...harder on Palin because she is a woman, etc...but if you think that being black is positive than I am shocked at the cynical world I live in and want to live in the utopia that you reside. But lets focus on the issues, Obama's economic policy has been chosen better by the independent councils. McCain's health care policy is atrocious, and that is the real problem that no one has mentioned this. Bottom line is I agree with Obama, and think McCain is a shell of himself who sold his soul for a chance at the presidency.

You have my words twisted. I am all for working hard and succeeding, and the opposite is true, if you don't work you don't deserve to succeed and do deserve to be poor. I am not for giving money away, I am for giving opportunity to people. My problem is this people who are hard working are getting the proverbial project X right now. Joe Smith can't afford to fill his gas tank despite how hard he works. Yet Warren Buffet is busy buying up quality stocks at a bargain basement deal. So when things turn around, and they will, Joe can survive again while Warren is buying a continent. People who do work hard do need to be rewarded and that isn't happening when the money is extremely top heavy. It allows people like Dubya to have a baseball team, to have an oil company, to run for governor/president despite not really working hard, or working smart...heck even being smart. The point is if people have access to opportunities the cream will rise to the top.

Lemme guess I am a socialist at best, maybe even a communist? That's the problem with "isms" they exist on paper and in vaccuums. They all work without the imposition of the outside world. I am just bothered because a lot of people in the middle don't really get it. The rich people who are clamoring for a free market system right now are the ones with a strong enough cash position so they can buy stocks now, buy property now, when everything is falling apart. The old "buy land, when there is blood on the streets." So the rich are getting richer where as the people who need the help are scraping by. It isn't fair, and more importantly it isn't right. It would be one thing if people had a relative equal starting point but that isn't the case. Contrary to poplular belief I am for capitalism. I just think the "social darwinism" aspect is a joke especially when the deck is stacked against the majority of the people.

Take this with a grain of salt, since I am a die hard bleeding heart liberal... But this race would be over if it weren't for race. The endgame should have been when McCain's senior advisor said "We can't win on the issues, so we have to make it about something else." (don't have the exact quote in front of me) I never understand people who care so much about taxes. They have to be paid. I would rather have 64% of something than 100% of nothing, and PS my wife and I fall in the 5% that would see more taxes. Trickle down economics don't work, you must be crazy if you think that people who are extremely wealthy got that way by being generous with their money. Wealth does need to be redistributed, in a much better way than we just did it with the bailout which is redistributing a lot of my and your money to wealthy companies.

I actually got hit in the head the other day. It is a real tight course and I had just played a shot from the abutting fairway (to be fair the shot was only 15 yds from my fairway) I am then walking up my own fairway and I hear "FORE." My reaction is to cover my head(s?). As I am doing this I see the ball in my peripheral vision so I sneak a peak to see that it is coming right at me. At that point I am in between what to do. It hits the ground about 10 feet in front of me and bounces and hits me right above the ear. It didn't hurt and I wasn't mad, the responsible party did all they could do. So I guess I cover my head when I hear fore.

So as a relatively high handicapper it is no surprise that I lack consistency. I know the way to be more consistent is to practice, which I am doing. However, I am not seeing really any breakthroughs on large scales. I don't have a consistent a consistent miss so it makes aiming and difficult. I am just as likely to shank a PW as I am to hit my driver out of bounds, so its not a typical "leave the driver in the bag" answer...actually as of late I have been hitting my driver the most consistent...since I am not consistent with contact my distances with irons is off. I can hit a 6 iron any where from 180yds to 2ft. I am inconsistent on the same hole. I will hit a beautiful drive and shank the next. I am inconsistent in the round. I played last week I couldn't hit the ball solidly to save my life for the first seven holes...I then went par,par, birdie, par, bogey, birdie, bogey, par...triple, double, bogey. My two birdies were a par five I was on in two and a two putt, and a second shot with a 9 iron that was absolutely perfect and exactly the way I saw it in my head. I have read Rotella and have a pretty consistent routine, but am not getting consistent results, and was wondering if there if people had experienced the same thing and there was an epiphany at some point. Thanks.

I am going to echo the major sentiment of the responses and say that you shouldn't have flopped it unless it was a tournament. I will say it because you admitted you hit a poor shot into the green, and if having to take an extra putt because of a bad shot is the penalty so be it. Regardless of whether or not you pulled off the shot (what was the end result of the hole?) If you thinned the approach shot which left you in this predicament, who is to say you wouldn't chunk the flop shot?

I just got a Rife 2 bar hybrid and it is the best. Nothing rolls the ball better. Played an early round a couple of weeks ago. My buddy and I had putts from the same side of the hole. You could see where his ball "hopped" (he has a two ball) in the dew lines. With my putt it was a solid line the whole way. It was just like the infomercial.

Who defines "real"? So if I am on the 11th hole, and I make a hole in one. But before I finish up 14 the sky opens up and there is lightning that prevents me from finishing my round, I don't get a hole in one? What if I am only playing nine holes? League golf is often only nine holes and I am pretty sure they count hole outs made there. As far as witnesses, meh. I don't need a witness to hit a hole in one. I know I could lie about it, but the first person I am lying to is myself. so I respectfully disagree with your need of witnesses. If people don't believe you hit a hole in one, then you need to evaluate the people you tell or the things you have told people in the past. What if I paid two greens fees, and was legitimately playing two balls a hole? What if I follow the letter and spirit of the rules of golf to a tee on both balls? The point is, this wasn't a tournament round and not a competitive round, but that isn't a requirement to having a hole in one. I think I lean to the side of having it count more as a hole in one. However, because I could make adjustments to prior shots I don't think it would count the same. Also if I hit the first ball in the hole would it matter?