Political memes, Posters, Funny Pics, Etc.

[GannonFan]

Used to be. Golf has been falling out of favor with the professional crowd for the past 20 years. It's a far cry from how it was in the '90's and early '00's.

Much of that is related to three things.

1) The coincidental explosion in new golf course construction and residential construction/planned unit developments. Developers, engineers, builders, realtors, finance people were getting shit done on, off, and nearby the course.

2) Competing recreational opportunities for retirees
to less socially oriented activities. Mountain biking, kayaking, winter sports.

3). The number of courses nationwide increased by 700% in the 90’s while the number of golfers remained flat for the next decade or so. The last time I looked at numbers, there were around 200 courses closing every year since the Great Recession.

Couple all of that with costs to operate a course, costs to play and the branding of the sport as old and tired…and Al Cervik’s wisdom about golf courses and cemeteries has come to fruition.

All true. A definite boom and bust scenario. I remember my own situation, I was in a company in the 90's that did a lot of business with folks from Japan and they came over to the US quite a lot. Their main focus right after business, and sometimes before, was to play golf and then have expensive dinners with lots of alcohol (they really like expensive scotch). The downturn in the Japanese economy and being stuck in deflation for a couple of decades certainly tempered that source of golfing fervor.

[BDKJMU]

Lol..

[Baldy]

[HI54UNI]

Isn't his 15 minutes up yet?

And he should probably spend some time reading Mark Twain as well.

[kalm]

What part do you disagree with?

[GannonFan]

What part do you disagree with?

I think it's far more nuanced and far more complicated than a short tweet that tries to portray it as simple and clear. But then again, Hogg is a political actor with a particular end goal in mind, so anything that gets in the way of that goal tend to be ignored/marginalized. Same can be said for people in favor of unlimited gun ownership rights, it's just what partisans do.

[Pwns]

[kalm]

What part do you disagree with?

I think it's far more nuanced and far more complicated than a short tweet that tries to portray it as simple and clear. But then again, Hogg is a political actor with a particular end goal in mind, so anything that gets in the way of that goal tend to be ignored/marginalized. Same can be said for people in favor of unlimited gun ownership rights, it's just what partisans do.

I don’t think he’s looking to solve the issue in a tweet. But there’s at least part truth to what he said from a historical perspective.

[kalm]

Marge is going for two divorces within a year.

[GannonFan]

I think it's far more nuanced and far more complicated than a short tweet that tries to portray it as simple and clear. But then again, Hogg is a political actor with a particular end goal in mind, so anything that gets in the way of that goal tend to be ignored/marginalized. Same can be said for people in favor of unlimited gun ownership rights, it's just what partisans do.

I don’t think he’s looking to solve the issue in a tweet. But there’s at least part truth to what he said from a historical perspective.

There's a lot of part truths from historical perspectives. If this was a simple and clean issue you wouldn't have so much scholarly attention to it. Because it is complicated, because it is contradictory, and because there's no clear cut answer, at least an answer that would satisfy the "no guns at all crowd" nor satisfy the "no limits whatsoever on guns" crowd, then it will continue to be litigated for well past our lifetimes. As for the tweet, he's saying that individuals shouldn't own guns. That seems to be pointing towards his solution to gun violence, no?

[GannonFan]

Marge is going for two divorces within a year.

Our ability to elevate people like Greene to so much more publicity than they ever could deserve is amazing to me. Why are we fixated on fanning the flames of the fringe elements of either party, and then pretending that they represent more than the fringe? I recognize that each political party wants to show the other party as extreme and unacceptable, and of course they'll want to zero in on the most detestable people in each party. But it seems to be magnified so much more than it warrants, even for political opportunism.

[kalm]

Marge is going for two divorces within a year.

Our ability to elevate people like Greene to so much more publicity than they ever could deserve is amazing to me. Why are we fixated on fanning the flames of the fringe elements of either party, and then pretending that they represent more than the fringe? I recognize that each political party wants to show the other party as extreme and unacceptable, and of course they'll want to zero in on the most detestable people in each party. But it seems to be magnified so much more than it warrants, even for political opportunism.

So you’re blaming former Republicans for elevating Green?

[kalm]

I don’t think he’s looking to solve the issue in a tweet. But there’s at least part truth to what he said from a historical perspective.

There's a lot of part truths from historical perspectives. If this was a simple and clean issue you wouldn't have so much scholarly attention to it. Because it is complicated, because it is contradictory, and because there's no clear cut answer, at least an answer that would satisfy the "no guns at all crowd" nor satisfy the "no limits whatsoever on guns" crowd, then it will continue to be litigated for well past our lifetimes. As for the tweet, he's saying that individuals shouldn't own guns. That seems to be pointing towards his solution to gun violence, no?

Like you, I’m very neutral on gun rights. But there is a case for what he and some historians suggest. For starters, at the time of the founding, militias were damn near mandatory.

[GannonFan]

There's a lot of part truths from historical perspectives. If this was a simple and clean issue you wouldn't have so much scholarly attention to it. Because it is complicated, because it is contradictory, and because there's no clear cut answer, at least an answer that would satisfy the "no guns at all crowd" nor satisfy the "no limits whatsoever on guns" crowd, then it will continue to be litigated for well past our lifetimes. As for the tweet, he's saying that individuals shouldn't own guns. That seems to be pointing towards his solution to gun violence, no?

Like you, I’m very neutral on gun rights. But there is a case for what he and some historians suggest. For starters, at the time of the founding, militias were damn near mandatory.

There's good cases for both sides of the argument so again, doesn't really get us definitively to one side or the other. Sure, militias could've been mandatory, or close to it, but many had no requirements to them other than show up (with your gun) when we get attacked or invaded.

[GannonFan]

Our ability to elevate people like Greene to so much more publicity than they ever could deserve is amazing to me. Why are we fixated on fanning the flames of the fringe elements of either party, and then pretending that they represent more than the fringe? I recognize that each political party wants to show the other party as extreme and unacceptable, and of course they'll want to zero in on the most detestable people in each party. But it seems to be magnified so much more than it warrants, even for political opportunism.

So you’re blaming former Republicans for elevating Green?

I blame anyone who elevates people like Greene. Democrats, Republicans, and anyone formerly of either. We will always have nut-jobs, especially in the HoR where we intentionally set up that particular part of the government to be the rowdiest within the government. But that doesn't mean we need to be that laser focused on them either. The Greene's, the AOC's, that Soros guy for the GOP right now - some are just flat out loons we shouldn't be wasting effort on. But we love controversy in politics - it's what sells.

[kalm]

So you’re blaming former Republicans for elevating Green?

I blame anyone who elevates people like Greene. Democrats, Republicans, and anyone formerly of either. We will always have nut-jobs, especially in the HoR where we intentionally set up that particular part of the government to be the rowdiest within the government. But that doesn't mean we need to be that laser focused on them either. The Greene's, the AOC's, that Soros guy for the GOP right now - some are just flat out loons we shouldn't be wasting effort on. But we love controversy in politics - it's what sells.

It also moves the needle on who gets elected, their power in congress, agendas, etc.

I agree though that it’s certainly a question of feeding the trolls.

[GannonFan]

I blame anyone who elevates people like Greene. Democrats, Republicans, and anyone formerly of either. We will always have nut-jobs, especially in the HoR where we intentionally set up that particular part of the government to be the rowdiest within the government. But that doesn't mean we need to be that laser focused on them either. The Greene's, the AOC's, that Soros guy for the GOP right now - some are just flat out loons we shouldn't be wasting effort on. But we love controversy in politics - it's what sells.

It also moves the needle on who gets elected, their power in congress, agendas, etc.

I agree though that it’s certainly a question of feeding the trolls.

It moves the needle a little bit, but let's be honest, the balance of power is not being tipped on people's perceptions of the likes of Greene or Omar. They're noise and not much else. The House of Representatives is getting less and less competitive anyway. 90 competitive seats or so a decade ago, down to 30 this time around. And these whackos generally are in one district, and likely in states where their party is relatively dominant anyway. Elections are local, so people are generally picking their person in their election, not worrying about how their vote will or won't impact the committee assignments of people who don't even represent them.

[kalm]

It also moves the needle on who gets elected, their power in congress, agendas, etc.

I agree though that it’s certainly a question of feeding the trolls.

It moves the needle a little bit, but let's be honest, the balance of power is not being tipped on people's perceptions of the likes of Greene or Omar. They're noise and not much else. The House of Representatives is getting less and less competitive anyway. 90 competitive seats or so a decade ago, down to 30 this time around. And these whackos generally are in one district, and likely in states where their party is relatively dominant anyway. Elections are local, so people are generally picking their person in their election, not worrying about how their vote will or won't impact the committee assignments of people who don't even represent them.

I was looking at it more from a legislative action/leadership standpoint. I’m still waiting/hoping for moderate Republicans to take back control.

[GannonFan]

It moves the needle a little bit, but let's be honest, the balance of power is not being tipped on people's perceptions of the likes of Greene or Omar. They're noise and not much else. The House of Representatives is getting less and less competitive anyway. 90 competitive seats or so a decade ago, down to 30 this time around. And these whackos generally are in one district, and likely in states where their party is relatively dominant anyway. Elections are local, so people are generally picking their person in their election, not worrying about how their vote will or won't impact the committee assignments of people who don't even represent them.

I was looking at it more from a legislative action/leadership standpoint. I’m still waiting/hoping for moderate Republicans to take back control.

Is she driving anything from a legislative action/leadership standpoint? She's not on any committee that's really significant in terms of power or policy. Her strong suit seems to be getting people to tweet about her, and then hopefully cascade those tweets down to message boards or other web sites. No one likes to tweet about moderate politicians so I'll doubt we'll see many of those tweets make their way here like hers or those about her do.

[UNI88]

It moves the needle a little bit, but let's be honest, the balance of power is not being tipped on people's perceptions of the likes of Greene or Omar. They're noise and not much else. The House of Representatives is getting less and less competitive anyway. 90 competitive seats or so a decade ago, down to 30 this time around. And these whackos generally are in one district, and likely in states where their party is relatively dominant anyway. Elections are local, so people are generally picking their person in their election, not worrying about how their vote will or won't impact the committee assignments of people who don't even represent them.

I was looking at it more from a legislative action/leadership standpoint. I’m still waiting/hoping for moderate Republicans to take back control.

Fortunately, we have Manchin and Sinema (for now) on the moderate Democrat front.

At least two issues here.

One, gerrymandering minimizes the number of competitive districts so that a party can retain control but it also creates safe districts where extremists hold more sway and elect whacko, extremist candidates like MTG and AOChe.

Two, I know Ganny doesn't like it but open primaries appear to help resolve this. In a solid red or blue district the opposition party candidate has almost no chance while a more moderate candidate from the primary party might. Open primaries might not be the answer but they are better than the whackos controlling the primaries and thus the representative in solid red or blue districts.

[kalm]

I was looking at it more from a legislative action/leadership standpoint. I’m still waiting/hoping for moderate Republicans to take back control.

Is she driving anything from a legislative action/leadership standpoint? She's not on any committee that's really significant in terms of power or policy. Her strong suit seems to be getting people to tweet about her, and then hopefully cascade those tweets down to message boards or other web sites. No one likes to tweet about moderate politicians so I'll doubt we'll see many of those tweets make their way here like hers or those about her do.

Isn’t the legislature’s job to pass laws and lead? Rather than drive than drive the angertainment industry? Didn’t McCarthy have to make concessions to her and the MAGA caucus in order to win the speakership?

[UNI88]

Is she driving anything from a legislative action/leadership standpoint? She's not on any committee that's really significant in terms of power or policy. Her strong suit seems to be getting people to tweet about her, and then hopefully cascade those tweets down to message boards or other web sites. No one likes to tweet about moderate politicians so I'll doubt we'll see many of those tweets make their way here like hers or those about her do.

Isn’t the legislature’s job to pass laws and lead? Rather than drive than drive the angertainment industry? Didn’t McCarthy have to make concessions to her and the MAGA caucus in order to win the speakership?

Are you jelly that MTG, Boebert, et all have used their positions to wrangle concessions while AOChe, Omar, et all haven't been able to?

What came first? The angertainment industry or the wokehodist movement?

[Baldy]

What part do you disagree with?

The whole thing.

The 2A clearly states, "the right of the people to bear arms..."
"People" are individuals and the clear fact that the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights are there to protect individual freedoms and to limit government overreach. It's not that hard to understand.

[kalm]

Isn’t the legislature’s job to pass laws and lead? Rather than drive than drive the angertainment industry? Didn’t McCarthy have to make concessions to her and the MAGA caucus in order to win the speakership?

Are you jelly that MTG, Boebert, et all have used their positions to wrangle concessions while AOChe, Omar, et all haven't been able to?

What came first? The angertainment industry or the wokehodist movement?

Arguing for secession and supporting an insurrection are soooo much the same as leftwing extremists guilting us old white guys about pronoun preferences and history of racism.

If I wasn’t post partisan and had a side like yours I might try making the same arguments.



unsportsmanlike like conduct for false equivalency, number 88.

This is 88’s first unsportsmanlike penalty of the game. Any additional unsportsmanlike like penalty will result in disqualification.

[UNI88]

Are you jelly that MTG, Boebert, et all have used their positions to wrangle concessions while AOChe, Omar, et all haven't been able to?

What came first? The angertainment industry or the wokehodist movement?

Arguing for secession and supporting an insurrection are soooo much the same as leftwing extremists guilting us old white guys about pronoun preferences and history of racism.

If I wasn’t post partisan and had a side like yours I might try making the same arguments.



unsportsmanlike like conduct for false equivalency, number 88.

This is 88’s first unsportsmanlike penalty of the game. Any additional unsportsmanlike like penalty will result in disqualification.

You are hardly unbiased and therefore any flags you throw or penalties you call are invalid. Stop impersonating a referee.

AOChe, Omar, et all did support an insurrection - the BLM/AnTiFa riots of 2020. They were just as much of an insurrection against our government as January 6. AOChe, Omar, et all don't want secession because they feel the righteous calling to educate people they feel superior to. They also know they will struggle to feed the urban elite and downtrodden without the farms and ranches of the red states.

Deny it all you want but you and your wokehodists and the angertainers are two sides of the same coin.