SoCalAg wrote:As a history teacher I will tell you guys that you need to go read up on Presidents Harding, Grant, and Buchanan.SuperHornet wrote:
Buchanan was such a poor leader (and probably gay). Grant, well, people just took advantage of him. He was weak, as he was in real life. He was good at war but not much else.
++
I said "seaboard" Pipe down...this is between me and elitist coasties.ASUG8 wrote:Here are the flat courses I grew up playing on the EC:
5 miles from my parents:
.5 miles from my parents:
We don't want to go through the mental gymnastics that is mountain golf.kalm wrote: I said "seaboard" Pipe down...this is between me and elitist coasties.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... llion.htmlCAA Flagship wrote:We don't want to go through the mental gymnastics that is mountain golf.kalm wrote: I said "seaboard" Pipe down...this is between me and elitist coasties.
"Well, I am 190 yards out, and it is all downhill at least 50 feet in elevation, the wind is left to right, I am at 5000 feet in elevation, my lips are chapped, I need to tak a ****, seems like a 6-iron."
If that was the tee box above "19th Hole", THAT would be tough. As shown, I think you can go with putter off the tee and probably be fine. I'd hold on to your drinks, though, as you ride down in the cart.DSUrocks07 wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... llion.htmlCAA Flagship wrote: We don't want to go through the mental gymnastics that is mountain golf.
"Well, I am 190 yards out, and it is all downhill at least 50 feet in elevation, the wind is left to right, I am at 5000 feet in elevation, my lips are chapped, I need to tak a ****, seems like a 6-iron."
Good luck
I've seen a video of tour pros playing it and it plays to 280+ yards. They were hitting drivers and fairway metals.green&gold75 wrote:If that was the tee box above "19th Hole", THAT would be tough. As shown, I think you can go with putter off the tee and probably be fine. I'd hold on to your drinks, though, as you ride down in the cart.
Haven't fact checked the numbers but an interesting perspective.President Barack Obama’s opponents have unwittingly come up with a brilliant plan to avoid the “fiscal cliff.” They want to secede from the union.
If Obama were serious about being a good steward of the nation’s finances, he’d let them.
...
Red states receive, on average, far more from the federal government in expenditures than they pay in taxes. The balance is the opposite in blue states. The secession petitions, therefore, give the opportunity to create what would be, in a fiscal sense, a far more perfect union.
Among those states with large numbers of petitioners asking out: Louisiana (more than 28,000 signatures at midday Tuesday), which gets about $1.45 in federal largesse for every $1 it pays in taxes; Alabama (more than 20,000 signatures), which takes $1.71 for every $1 it puts in; South Carolina (26,000), which takes $1.38 for its dollar; and Missouri (22,000), which takes $1.29 for its dollar.
There's one problem. The minute a Southern state secedes, the gravy train grinds to a halt, all the welfare queens move north to Illinois leaving nothing but makers. Better build a fence!UNI88 wrote:THE CONFEDERACY OF TAKERS
by Dana Milbanks
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/nov ... of-takers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Haven't fact checked the numbers but an interesting perspective.President Barack Obama’s opponents have unwittingly come up with a brilliant plan to avoid the “fiscal cliff.” They want to secede from the union.
If Obama were serious about being a good steward of the nation’s finances, he’d let them.
...
Red states receive, on average, far more from the federal government in expenditures than they pay in taxes. The balance is the opposite in blue states. The secession petitions, therefore, give the opportunity to create what would be, in a fiscal sense, a far more perfect union.
Among those states with large numbers of petitioners asking out: Louisiana (more than 28,000 signatures at midday Tuesday), which gets about $1.45 in federal largesse for every $1 it pays in taxes; Alabama (more than 20,000 signatures), which takes $1.71 for every $1 it puts in; South Carolina (26,000), which takes $1.38 for its dollar; and Missouri (22,000), which takes $1.29 for its dollar.
Illinois won't let them in. Mexicans are better workers.CID1990 wrote:There's one problem. The minute a Southern state secedes, the gravy train grinds to a halt, all the welfare queens move north to Illinois leaving nothing but makers. Better build a fence!UNI88 wrote:THE CONFEDERACY OF TAKERS
by Dana Milbanks
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/nov ... of-takers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Haven't fact checked the numbers but an interesting perspective.
That seems like a lot of club.89Hen wrote:I've seen a video of tour pros playing it and it plays to 280+ yards. They were hitting drivers and fairway metals.green&gold75 wrote:If that was the tee box above "19th Hole", THAT would be tough. As shown, I think you can go with putter off the tee and probably be fine. I'd hold on to your drinks, though, as you ride down in the cart.
No it didn't. It proved that if one entity that has a bigger population, a real navy, and an industrial base gets into a war with another entity that has a smaller population, no real navy, and very little in terms of industrial base it's likely that the first entity will win. It showed that the North could beat the South in a war. It said nothing at all about the idea that the Constitution does or does not prohibit States from leaving the union. It just illustrated the "might makes right" principle.First, the original Civil War proved that secession is not possible under our constitution.
I would say the same thing if the Republicans had won this time. I'm pretty sure I did say it at some point on that other board when Bush won his second term. In my opinion we have gotten to the point where the differences in beliefs about the proper role of the national government and the direction of the nation have diverged enough to merit amicably going our separate ways. And I do not want people in States like California and New York impacting decisions about the future of the country I live in.It's pretty stupid and it's pretty childish. Every year half the country is disappointed in the election result. Get over it. Taking your ball and going home is a loser mentality.
I didn't say I think it will happen. I do not. I'm just saying that if it did, if it became a serious possibility and the question was at hand, I would fully support it. The most logical thing to me, though, would be to separate the contiguous mass of what are usually "red" States generally in the South from the rest of the country rather than do it State by State.I mean I get what you're trying to say, but it isn't going to happen without a full out rebellion.
I am talking about a amicable separation where jurisdictions agree to go their separate ways. There is no reason why there couldn't be alliances. And it would be in the interest of other jurisdictions to be in an alliance with Louisiana. In addition to Louisiana's natural resources wealth, the ports that allow entry to and exit from the Mississippi River are in Louisiana.You would be fine until some other country had a dispute with you, and now you have to fight back all by yourself - whether it be economically, militarily or otherwise. It's the reason that the states united in the first place.
No matter how you slice it, you are worse off if you separate than you are if don't. Stop being naive, having a black man in the White House is not the end of the world. Quit overreacting just because an election didn't go your way.JohnStOnge wrote:I am talking about a amicable separation where jurisdictions agree to go their separate ways. There is no reason why there couldn't be alliances. And it would be in the interest of other jurisdictions to be in an alliance with Louisiana. In addition to Louisiana's natural resources wealth, the ports that allow entry to and exit from the Mississippi River are in Louisiana.You would be fine until some other country had a dispute with you, and now you have to fight back all by yourself - whether it be economically, militarily or otherwise. It's the reason that the states united in the first place.
I have no problem with having allies. Like I don't mind us being allies with Western European nations. But I would not like for people in Western European nations to have input into the nature of the government I'm governed by. And I don't like for people in California and New York to have such input because, as populations, their beliefs about the nature of government are different than that of the population of people in this area. Being different countries wouldn't mean we couldn't cooperate economically and militarily.
The south would be even more of a backwater than it already is within a year of separation, and the states that seceded would be begging to be let back in.BlueHen86 wrote:No matter how you slice it, you are worse off if you separate than you are if don't. Stop being naive, having a black man in the White House is not the end of the world. Quit overreacting just because an election didn't go your way.JohnStOnge wrote:
I am talking about a amicable separation where jurisdictions agree to go their separate ways. There is no reason why there couldn't be alliances. And it would be in the interest of other jurisdictions to be in an alliance with Louisiana. In addition to Louisiana's natural resources wealth, the ports that allow entry to and exit from the Mississippi River are in Louisiana.
I have no problem with having allies. Like I don't mind us being allies with Western European nations. But I would not like for people in Western European nations to have input into the nature of the government I'm governed by. And I don't like for people in California and New York to have such input because, as populations, their beliefs about the nature of government are different than that of the population of people in this area. Being different countries wouldn't mean we couldn't cooperate economically and militarily.
Grizalltheway wrote:The south would be even more of a backwater than it already is within a year of separation, and the states that seceded would be begging to be let back in.BlueHen86 wrote:
No matter how you slice it, you are worse off if you separate than you are if don't. Stop being naive, having a black man in the White House is not the end of the world. Quit overreacting just because an election didn't go your way.
You make the mistake of thinking I have this outlook now only because of the last election. I have had this outlook for the long time. I had it when Republicans won the White House. I had it when Democrats won the White House.No matter how you slice it, you are worse off if you separate than you are if don't. Stop being naive, having a black man in the White House is not the end of the world. Quit overreacting just because an election didn't go your way.
Is there any reason why you would not want the South to leave? Let those in the South worry about what things would be like for them. Why would you care if the Southern States left the union and formed their own nation so that they could live according to their own beliefs with respect to the role of central government, etc.?The south would be even more of a backwater than it already is within a year of separation, and the states that seceded would be begging to be let back in.
Then your outlook has been wrong for a long time, but I think we already knew that.JohnStOnge wrote:You make the mistake of thinking I have this outlook now only because of the last election. I have had this outlook for the long time. I had it when Republicans won the White House. I had it when Democrats won the White House.No matter how you slice it, you are worse off if you separate than you are if don't. Stop being naive, having a black man in the White House is not the end of the world. Quit overreacting just because an election didn't go your way.
The country is deeply divided philosophically. It's not unreasonable to say it should divide in a practical sense. It's like divorce. Irreconcilable differences.
Like I said: I know it's not going to happen. But I do not think it's a bad idea for the long term and I would support it.
JohnStOnge wrote:Is there any reason why you would not want the South to leave? Let those in the South worry about what things would be like for them. Why would you care if the Southern States left the union and formed their own nation so that they could live according to their own beliefs with respect to the role of central government, etc.?The south would be even more of a backwater than it already is within a year of separation, and the states that seceded would be begging to be let back in.
Someone from Montana calling the south "backwater"?Grizalltheway wrote:The south would be even more of a backwater than it already is within a year of separation, and the states that seceded would be begging to be let back in.BlueHen86 wrote:
No matter how you slice it, you are worse off if you separate than you are if don't. Stop being naive, having a black man in the White House is not the end of the world. Quit overreacting just because an election didn't go your way.
Since those regions wouldn't be subject to federal mandates (especially unfunded mandates) any longer, probably not. Since an overwhelming majority of the energy produced in the US comes from those red states, I think they would do OK.houndawg wrote:JohnStOnge wrote:
Is there any reason why you would not want the South to leave? Let those in the South worry about what things would be like for them. Why would you care if the Southern States left the union and formed their own nation so that they could live according to their own beliefs with respect to the role of central government, etc.?
They'd become another foreign-aid burden on the American taxpayer. Of course, they are already.....
