[A.G._Crockett]

So YOU know better than Ron Paul OR Alan Blinder?  

As a matter of fact, yes.  Years before.  

Congratulations, then.  Actually, I asked about "better", not earlier, but I see from your response that you are ahead of both accounts.

When you play golf, is it tough for you to keep your head still?  At the size that is must be, I'd think that would be difficult indeed.

[A.G._Crockett]

Shivas,
I do not consider ANY of the sources that you list above to be valid sources of news or information, or as spokespersons for liberalism.  Each is entertainment, and I give each very little credibility beyond their entertainment function.

And I never said that conservatives AS A GROUP lack thoughtfulness and a rational philosophy.  I said that "too many conservatives are like yourself".  I gave you David Stockman as an example of a thoughtful conservative; I have since given you Ron Paul as another.  You could also read some of Greg Mankiw's stuff if you want a rational conservative viewpoint on economic issues and policy.

As happens so often, you make my point for me.  Instead of refuting or discussing what I said, you point and say, "Oh, yeah? What about the left?"  And then you provide examples of media that I presume you think are EQUALLY offensive to Fox/Hannity/Limbaugh.  Thanks for the help; I agree with you on that score.

So when you say something that happens to match what Chris Matthews said a few days ago, even though you never even heard it before, lemme guess:  you're not just mindlessly regurgitating the left wing echo chamber in a zombie trance ....but when I do it, I am?  Is that it? 

Like what? 

I can honestly say that I have never watched as much as 15 consecutive minutes from even one segment of Hardball.  I've seen a few segments replayed somewhere else, but that's all.  Again, it is entertainment, not journalism, IMO.  Seeing Chris Matthews flame a guest doesn't appeal to me any more than if Sean Hannity does it.

BTW, I did read the book, but that is a far different item than the show.  They are similar only in title and author, NOT in purpose or viewpoint.

 

[Eric Olsen]

As someone who has lived in DC since 1993 and has been active in policy and politics since I was in high school in the late 70s, I must say that I find it impossible to read this thread and was in fact talking to a friend last night about how tortuous and painful the discourse here is.  I suppose it is emblematic of our nation's ability to talk in civil tones with each other about the challenges our nation, communities, and families are facing.  At a time when 49 million Americans don't have enough food every day to feed themselves and their children, don't we have more important questions to discuss than the future of private golf clubs?   

Please stop these diatribes and kill this thread.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Hey, I tried on a few occaisions to take this back to gca, with little traction!

[A.G._Crockett]

As someone who has lived in DC since 1993 and has been active in policy and politics since I was in high school in the late 70s, I must say that I find it impossible to read this thread and was in fact talking to a friend last night about how tortuous and painful the discourse here is.  I suppose it is emblematic of our nation's ability to talk in civil tones with each other about the challenges our nation, communities, and families are facing.  At a time when 49 million Americans don't have enough food every day to feed themselves and their children, don't we have more important questions to discuss than the future of private golf clubs?   

Please stop these diatribes and kill this thread.

Agreed, and thanks.  I'm done.

[RJ_Daley]

Dave, your are a turnabout artist.  Anyone that would read back through these threads could easily see that one aspect of a reasonably related GCA topic was being discussed, even if it had a couple of political aspects to get in one's POV on the matter, it still had GCA and golf theme.  Then, you came in and started spinning.  You are the one that brought in extraneous provocatively crafted statements, and talk about ad hominem attacks, you are the one who has now made stupid childish statements like, "be a man", "grow up" and other similar.  Nevermind that everything that was stated to you like, 'you are acting like Michele Bachmann' in your method and motive of spinning rt wing ideology here, WAS A REACTION TO YOUR PROVACATIVE AND OFF TOPIC STATEMENTS.  You are trying to co opt other posters by trying to tie in what is said to you, when only you are the object of push back.  You can't take any pushback or anyone calling your motives and methods out, so you turn everything around and in schoolyard fashion, make more provacative statements that you know most fools like me won't walk away from.  This thread has descended into another Merion like food fight with about half a dozen follks like us flinging garbage at eachother, while the other posters are here reading it, shaking their heads and saying my-my look at those fools.

For my part, I'll take responsibility for engaging you.  I'll admit that I have in the past engaged in some diatribes with the likes of Lou.  I have made a great effort to not, and stick to GCA, yet you just don't bring out the best in me.  So, keep calling me out  (grow up -be a man, etc.) we'll see how that all works out.  Frankly, it would be fair and just if Ran revoked both our priveleges here for this stupidity, and I would accept his judgement.  Maybe that is the answer, scorched earth.  You keep coming at me, I'l keep responding, and Ran can waste us both.  From my perspective, I'll sacrifice that to make sure you don'tcome in here and roughshod all your rt wing opportunistic junk in to practically any discussion you see fit to polute and highjack.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not even sure I care if its civil discussion, but intelligent discussion, but those two often go hand in hand.

For all the hand wringing left and right, I would bet that the differences between, say McCain and Obama's platforms probably amounted to the reallocation of less than 1% of the Federal Budget.  And yet the discussion was "They are going to end social security" or "gut the military" was all we heard in the National Debate.

As far as this topic goes, even Pat M posted as an all or nothing theory. In reality, will any new tax policy affect some members at some clubs?  Yeah, because I suspect that many "over joined" or at least overspent and will have to cut back somewhere, and it may be in club dues.  Will it kill all members and all clubs?  No, it will take the borderline ones and affect and possibly kill them.  The theory also presumes that those borderline clubs will not be able to adapt at all, and most will. Some won't.

[Dan Herrmann]

Eric Olson for President!

[Terry Lavin]

I'd rather listen to Melvin Hunter Morrow rail on about carts and club throwing than continue to see this b.s.  Take it to your source for news, the home of Beck and Hannity.

[Carl Rogers]

Please stop this thread.

[Bryan Izatt]

Just a couple of quotes from an article by Richard Gwyn of the Toronto Star about the state of American politics that resonated with me as I follow this thread.  First regarding the election:

"The policy content of the contest had to have been the most vacuous ever given the context of the times. Not one candidate mentioned the two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, that are bleeding away American lives and treasure. The Republicans called for — really, yelled for — less government and less spending yet proposed not a single spending cut other than, naturally, repeal of Obama’s health-care reforms."

And, then a non-American's view of U.S media, and somewhat relevant to this thread:

"A key reason why American politicians so seldom say anything intelligent is that no one would listen even if they wanted to. The media now filter out all noises except screams. What comes out from Fox News and all its imitators, and from most bloggers, is a cross between a bar-room brawl and the rantings of a TV evangelist."

And another thought that could apply equally to political discussion on GCA:

"Add together the negatives and the positives and the impression is left of a nation that has regressed to political adolescence: its heart is still pounding but its head has gone hollow, at best mushy."


And finally a quote by Gwyn from a British source that also resonates about the discussion around here.

"A couple of days ago, a columnist of the London-based Financial Times, Edward Luce, noted that on Dec. 1 the commission Obama has set up to recommend how the U.S. should deal with its horrendous national debt will make its report, while a few weeks later Gen. David Petraeus will report on the state of affairs in Afghanistan.

The state of the national debate on these critical topics bore as little relation to reality, Luce commented, “as astrology does to astronomy.""

So, let's call it a day; it is quite evident our political heads have gone mushy, if not hollow.  Hopefully our GCA heads will not follow.

[David_Tepper]

"How Obama Saved Capitalism and Lost the Midterms"

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/how-obama-saved-capitalism-and-lost-the-midterms/?src=me&ref=homepage

[Tim Bert]

Some thoughts:

1. When Ran is ready to kill this thread, he will kill it.  We've seen threads disappear before.  And no one will care much, including those involved in the debate.

2. In the meantime, a few stats to settle the nerves of those so horrified that this debate has been allowed to continue (despite the fact that those individuals protesting the existence of the thread have to be checking in from time to time in order to be aware of what's taking place here)...

   a)  This thread has the 18th most replies of any non-deleted thread on the entire site.
   b)  This thread has over 3,000 fewer views (more than 25%) than any of the others on that short list.
   c)  Given how active about 5 or 6 participants have been on this thread, you have to figure that they have accounted for close to 500
         views each in order to keep up with the debate.  My guess is that almost half the views have been generated by 10 or fewer people.
    d) My point?  Not that many people are actively watching this debate, and I'm pretty sure none are forming any policy opinions based upon it. 

4.  So, if you don't like it, don't watch.  You aren't missing anything.  People looking for political information aren't coming to GCA for their source of information, so if you don't refute Dave or RJs points, it doesn't make them right and it doesn't put your party of choice at risk of having fewer supporters.  No one changes their mind based on off-topic political chat boards discussions.

5.  Some observers like a little train wreck mixed in with their golf discussion board every now and then, which is why many of us keep skimming, but probably not reading, this topic and will do so until it gets deleted at which point in time we will forget it ever existed.

Carry on, Gentlemen.

[Jud_T]

Current Intrade odds of a Democrat winning the 2012 Presidential election: 59.5%

[Bill_McBride]

Please stop this thread.

Carl, is anyone making you read it?  If you don't like an OT thread, vote with your feet - don't read it!

I actually think there have been some very interesting exchanges between some interesting and intelligent guys.

As you may have noticed, Shivas follows the Churchillian maxim:  "Never, never, never, NEVER give up!"   

[JC Jones]

Please stop this thread.

Carl, is anyone making you read it?  If you don't like an OT thread, vote with your feet - don't read it!

I agree with this statement.  However, one must acknowledge the hypocrisy when threads like this are allowed to stand and others aren't.  Moreover, when threads like this and the posts/posters on them are dismissed with the above statement and other threads/posts/posters are lambasted for being OT.

Either we let it all stay or remove it all.  I would vote to let it all stay and let people decide what they want to read or not but the general consensus, at least not when dealing with threads with old time heavy hitters posting, has been that they should be removed and the posters should be criticized for being OT.

[Jeff Goldman]

Shivas,

This is an obvious point, but why is Obama a "socialist ideologue" when he ignores the advice of the economists who have actually been right about what has happened and would happen, in favor of more "moderate" policies advocated by conservatives?

On a more obvious point (that someone probably made already) why is Obama a "socialist ideologue" when he pushes a healthcare plan hardly different at all from that pushed by the Heritage Foundation a while ago, Mitt Romney, The Republicans in opposition to Clinton's planin 1993, and Bob Dole and Howard Baker.  Are these folks all "Socialist ideologues?" 

On this, you are resembling your characterization of Dick.

Jeff

[Mike Cirba]

For all of the insane rhetoric about Obama and Socialism, and Obama and bailouts, and Obama and gays, and Obama and Muslims and all of the rest of the nonsense that gets spouted incessantly from the right wing, it's hard to imagine that the real facts are that the man pulled this country from the abyss, from the very precipice of total economic collapse, which would have resulted in a depression even more crippling than was suffered in the 1930s.

Heaven forbid the so-called laissez-faire free-marketers weren't in power in January 2009, or I suspect this graph would be upside down.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^DJI+Interactive#symbol=^DJI;range=2y


The previous administration told us we could all have both guns and butter without any sacrifice at all...in fact, they told us we could all get a tax cut, and set in motion this play without pay cycle that has turned the surpluses of the 1990s into humongous deficits.   These supposed "free-marketers", the Karl Rove-contingent of the party, have been a blight on this country, but they are smart enough to tap into our fears and social prejudices and thus tend to make very effective politicians.

How quickly we forget their 8 year reign of irresponsible power-mongering.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/george-w-bush-biggest-spender-since-lbj/

[Jeff Goldman]

Shivas,

I have no idea; I've read maybe 1/20th of the posts on this thread, but your claim to be acting with reason while stating that "I knew Obama was a socialist ideologue", while Dick was simply calling names seemed something to have a little fun with.

Actually, my thought was that you didn't believe anything you were saying, but just having fun too, which is why i wanted to call you out on it.

My last of few thoughts on this thread is that everyone is making this into a question of morality and philosophy while Rome burns.  Regardless of who was at fault in this mess, getting out of it is a a technical matter.  I don't care about anything but getting the economy growing and unemployment back down, and if we have the guts, which Obama didn't, we know how to do that (see Mucci's post about the arsenal of democracy).

Jeff

[Jeff Goldman]

And Shoreacres?   

[David_Tepper]

"let me just tell you that I believe exactly what I was saying"

Shivas -

For you to use inflammatory words like "depostism" and "totalitariansim" to describe the government of this country elected under the laws and constitution of this country was as great a perversion of the English language I have read in quite some time.

Do you really expect anyone to take anything you say seriously after you use those words?

DT

[George Pazin]

For all of the insane rhetoric about Obama and Socialism, and Obama and bailouts, and Obama and gays, and Obama and Muslims and all of the rest of the nonsense that gets spouted incessantly from the right wing, it's hard to imagine that the real facts are that the man pulled this country from the abyss, from the very precipice of total economic collapse, which would have resulted in a depression even more crippling than was suffered in the 1930s.

Heaven forbid the so-called laissez-faire free-marketers weren't in power in January 2009, or I suspect this graph would be upside down.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^DJI+Interactive#symbol=^DJI;range=2y


The previous administration told us we could all have both guns and butter without any sacrifice at all...in fact, they told us we could all get a tax cut, and set in motion this play without pay cycle that has turned the surpluses of the 1990s into humongous deficits.   These supposed "free-marketers", the Karl Rove-contingent of the party, have been a blight on this country, but they are smart enough to tap into our fears and social prejudices and thus tend to make very effective politicians.

How quickly we forget their 8 year reign of irresponsible power-mongering.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/george-w-bush-biggest-spender-since-lbj/

All hail our fearless supreme leader!!!



AG, with all due respect, you couldn't be more wrong. The problem with our country is not misuse of the term totalitarian, but rather the willingness of everyone to look the other way when their guy is in charge. Six years of Republicans looking the other way while Bush spent frivolously is compounded by God knows how long the folks on here are willing to look the other way with Barry.

The relativists won - there is no longer any objective standard of right or wrong, there is only pointing at the other guy and screaming "Look at how he's screwing all of us!" Elections are now about hate, from either side, from both sides.

[Dan King]

I always thought Michele Bachmann was a joke perpetuated by the Minnesota 6th. But now it looks like Republicans might not be getting the joke. She will probably get some votes for the leadership position she wants.

Michele Bachmann sounding much like our friend Shivas about Obama's trip to Asia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfN2uzghXTo&

We need to reign in the spending, regardless if it is real spending or mythical spending. The mythical spending is an even bigger problem than real spending because it includes bigger numbers.

Cheers,
Dan King

Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.
 --Rep. Michele Bachmann, April, 2009

[Jeff Goldman]

See Dan, even you buy into this bs story from the right.     Exactly where is this cascade of spending that has exploded the deficit?  In fact, it doesn't exist.  The "stimulus" was maybe $600 billion max, which costs $12 billion a year.  BFD.  The bailouts are going to end up costing very little.

What has exploded the deficit in this current recession is........the recession.  Unemployment comp certainly costs something, but take a look at the fall in tax receipts since it hit, and THAT's the answer to how the deficit got so big.  Same thing happened in 1929-32, when we didn't have any safety net (which, by the way, gives the lie to any argument that unemployment compensation causes unemployment because folks on the dole have no incentive to find jobs. 

Everyone buys into something (including that socialist Obama) that "everyone knows" that is in reality total bs.  Nice.

[Dan King]

Jeff Goldman writes:
Exactly where is this cascade of spending that has exploded the deficit?

This is where you go wrong Jeff. The problem isn't real spending. The much bigger problem is mythical spending. As a country we really have to stop this mythical spending or China is going to own our mythical ass. Then who will be able to join some of our great mythical golf clubs which currently are in tons of mythical trouble?

Go ahead Jeff, bury your head in the Arizona sand, believing mythical problems aren't real problems.  Be careful; while your head is buried in the sand some illegal immigrant might just come along and lop it off.

Cheers,
Dan King

I don't trust books. They're all fact, no heart. And that's exactly what's pulling our country apart today. Because face it, folks, we are a divided nation. Not between Democrats or Republicans, or conservatives and liberals, or tops and bottoms. No, we are divided by those who think with their head, and those who know with their heart... The 'truthiness' is, anyone can read the news to you. I promise to feel the news...at you."
 --Stephen Colbert, on the premiere of The Colbert Report

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()