It is currently August 19th, 2018, 8:23 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 70 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Iowa caucuses
PostPosted: January 3rd, 2012, 10:55 pm 
Offline
GolfBizTalk Admin

Joined: October 12th, 2009, 9:48 am
Posts: 6072
indacup wrote:
Rick,
I am entering meeting. ...so you have about two hours to retract, revise and/or think your promulgations before I return and we get into it.

I can already tell you know that effective immediately, our sponsorship is over.

IfI am as stupid as you claim, then I guess you no longer need the support of those you feel are inferior to your high standards.

We WILL talk later.

RORY


You're free to sponsor whoever you want. If that's how you react to somebody who disagrees with you and threaten to take your ball and run home when somebody presents a contrary opinion to your own that merely reinforces my views. As I am not running for office and don't need to kiss any ass I will not be retracting or revising anything. Those are my opinions and they are not for sale.

Thanks for being here, I hold no ill will towards you personally and I wish you and your business good luck. You are free to remain and post any rebuttals you may have and offer any of your own opinions even if they differ from mine regardless of your sponsorship status. If you wish to talk privately feel free to PM me and we can arrange a phone conversation.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iowa caucuses
PostPosted: January 3rd, 2012, 11:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: March 20th, 2011, 9:03 am
Posts: 106
Wait a minute -- with politics, you can't take anything personally or seriously. I agree that less than 100k Iowans had too much influence in prior years, but it is waning, imho. Iowa settles nothing - Rick Santorum? Seriously? Another nut ball ... a sincere nut ball ... but another extremist.

Rick B has a point.... and maybe it's valid, or maybe it says something about the current crop of GOP candidates ... they suck. And the one guy who's not a nut, Huntsman, is at the bottom of the caucus, and that's even when he had to take a right turn and abandon some of his reasonable views to go from 0.5% to what, 0.6? Little good it did him. Romney? I don't think that guy has US Citizenship. He acts like a droid. His movement and words are so robotic - check for anti-freeze in those veins.

Indacup - lighten up - it's politics.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iowa caucuses
PostPosted: January 4th, 2012, 7:34 am 
Offline

Joined: October 17th, 2009, 9:28 am
Posts: 617
Desmond wrote:

Indacup - lighten up - it's politics.


+1


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iowa caucuses
PostPosted: January 4th, 2012, 7:49 am 
Offline

Joined: October 29th, 2009, 5:35 am
Posts: 780
Location: Iowa
Please see my responses to your insipid statements:

RickB wrote:
My only interest in Iowa is constantly wondering why we let some of the dumbest people on earth act as national barometers.


Really fuctard? Stupid? did you know Iowa finished 3rd across the country in SAT scores? Of course you didn't because your too busy sucking off those guys you admire and beating off to your own photo....Yet you have the audacity to condemn an entire state?

Quote:
So? WTH cares about gay marriage and women lawyers?
I see so over a dozen facts were presented and you can only address two? I guess since you're the one who's mentally weak addressing all the facts would have been too enormous of a project for you?

Quote:
Hell, even the people of Iowa don't give a damn about them, they are completely disregarded when it comes to voting for a candidate in Iowa.
How do you know that? Where did you getr these facts? Who here did you talk to? Please share with all of us how you arrived to these facts or is it another case of your arrogant promulgation based on speculation from your feeble mind?

Quote:
Do you deny that the people of Iowa are completely 100% for sale and are bought by whichever candidate sucks up most to them on ethanol subsidies, the most failed program in the long and dismal history of porkbarrel politics?
I absolutely disagree with you...while some may, many do not...believe it or not sparky, many here disagree with the ethanol push because it is less profitable for the farmers...but you wouldn't know that because it is easier to throw our shit around than it is to actually think before you speak.

Quote:
What a candidates says about foreign policy, human rights, national defense, jobs, legal reform or ANY OTHER ISSUE is meaningless in the Iowa caucuses, if he tells the truth about what a waste the ethanol boondoggle is he's torpedoed. Period.


Where did you arrive to these conclusions? Can you produce a clip where ANY candidate addressed the Ethanol program? Can you? Show me FACTS to support this or ANY of the spineless drivel you have spewed out of your mouth. You cannot because it's only mindless speculation on your part.

I can tell you that the major concerns for everyone I know of here is the economy and national defense...pretty much like the rest of the country right?...even though illegal immigration and unemployment don't affect us (because we have our shit together), they are major concerns as well.

But again you have no clue and just wanted a podium to proove how much of an ignorant and insensitive ass you are.And to that end, you succeeded.

Now as far as us being a sponsor?

Screw that...it would be impossible for me to sponsor a site where the mod condemns an entire state...it would be the same if you did this about any other state, country, race or gender....to support your comments would mean I am in agreement with this forum's policies and beliefs in condemnation of innocent people.

So either retract your asinine and insensitive comments or else you can get your free stuff from someone else...I will not support believes in ridiculing of over 3 million people.

I know you won't do it...someone as arrogant as you don't have the balls to admit his mistakes. It would take integrity to admit you spoke without thinking, and you simply don't have the integrity to do so.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iowa caucuses
PostPosted: January 4th, 2012, 7:54 am 
Offline

Joined: October 29th, 2009, 5:35 am
Posts: 780
Location: Iowa
Desmond wrote:
Wait a minute -- with politics, you can't take anything personally or seriously. I agree that less than 100k Iowans had too much influence in prior years, but it is waning, imho. Iowa settles nothing - Rick Santorum? Seriously? Another nut ball ... a sincere nut ball ... but another extremist.

Rick B has a point.... and maybe it's valid, or maybe it says something about the current crop of GOP candidates ... they suck. And the one guy who's not a nut, Huntsman, is at the bottom of the caucus, and that's even when he had to take a right turn and abandon some of his reasonable views to go from 0.5% to what, 0.6? Little good it did him. Romney? I don't think that guy has US Citizenship. He acts like a droid. His movement and words are so robotic - check for anti-freeze in those veins.

Indacup - lighten up - it's politics.


So why is the list of candidates IOWAS fault? We didn't pick them! It's what we were given to choose from! Personally, as a republican, I don't care for ANY of the candidates...but that's not my fault who I have to choose from.

Why do you think that going into the polls over 1/3 of Iowan republicans were undecided? most likely, like me, we weren't thrilled with any of them.

To blame the candidates selection on Iowa is simply moronic.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iowa caucuses
PostPosted: January 4th, 2012, 8:43 am 
Offline

Joined: October 26th, 2009, 7:53 am
Posts: 1417
Location: Charleston, SC
It's sad that this is what politics does to grown men. This is exactly why you don't about religion and politics with friends or family, nothing good ever comes of it.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iowa caucuses
PostPosted: January 4th, 2012, 9:20 am 
Offline

Joined: October 16th, 2009, 9:51 am
Posts: 2565
Location: Northern Indiana
I think everyone is entitled to an opinion. Nobody needs to agree with it. Too many times in my life I have seen people make statements covering a broad group of people. I have done it and I'll probably still do it on occasion. Sometimes the facts out way the insensitivity. For example when I say golfers are suckers, the fact that someone like Jack Ham can produce that shit box driver and people buy enough of them to make him money that is statistically relevant. Enough golfer bought that shit that it is fairly safe to say too many golfers are suckers. It doesn't mean all golfers are but it does indicate as a group a fair percentage can be persuaded by pure bullshit. Are Iowans stupid? I have no idea but it would seem to me that people in general can be fairly stupid no matter where you go. Intelligence is equally spread out and certainly not isolated to any particular region. If I had to pick one group of citizens that is notoriously stupid I would have to go with Nancy Pelosi's Congressional district. She's a turd bag and any group of people happy to have her as their representative must be collectively dumber than most. Hoosier's as a whole aren't the brightest bunch but anyone who claims their regional demographic is somehow smarter than the next has some sort of issue. Let's play nice and admit we're all pretty damned stupid when it comes to somethings and quite brilliant when it comes to others and further recognize that those things will never be the same things in any given area.

Peace and love...
An average Hoosier... oh and local legend!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iowa caucuses
PostPosted: January 4th, 2012, 10:26 am 
Offline
GolfBizTalk Admin

Joined: October 12th, 2009, 9:48 am
Posts: 6072
indacup wrote:

I know you won't do it...someone as arrogant as you don't have the balls to admit his mistakes. It would take integrity to admit you spoke without thinking, and you simply don't have the integrity to do so.


I never speak without thinking and I don't react well to empty threats. If you want to talk about integrity I'd love to discuss that issue. Like the integrity of a person who embraces the free speech concept right until the point where he himself disagrees with the speakers and then issues threats to make the free speech go away. I am utterly flabbergasted that your definition of "integrity" is someone to abandon their own beliefs and side with YOUR opinions at your demand. My definition of the word is exactly the opposite of that.

The "politics" of Iowa are well known and hardly a surprise to any informed and educated individual. And if it surprises you that many other people see the one-issue stance of Iowa as a travesty and the caucuses there as a joke because of Iowans refusal to be interested in anything other than the money bags the candidates leave on the nightstand following the morning-after walk of shame they take on their way out of town perhaps you're not all that well informed. Or perhaps I just struck a nerve. No matter, you're as free to your own opinion as I am to mine. Except mine are shared by pretty much every person who isn't an Iowan or a political candidate.

http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-go ... john-craig

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/ ... 4ad6aa1183

There is a long list of presidential candidates who have been opposed to ethanol subsidies. Hell, Hillary Clinton voted against them 17 times while in congress and magically turned in favor of them right before the caucuses. But go ahead and prove me wrong. In the long history of the ethanol idiocy a whole shitload of presidential hopefuls have rolled through Iowa. I challenge you to find one, ONE, the was anti-ethanol subsidies and won the Iowa caucuses. ONE.

And by the way, this is getting moved to the politics folder, that's why we have it.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iowa caucuses
PostPosted: January 4th, 2012, 11:10 am 
Offline

Joined: March 20th, 2011, 9:03 am
Posts: 106
indacup wrote:
Desmond wrote:
Wait a minute -- with politics, you can't take anything personally or seriously. I agree that less than 100k Iowans had too much influence in prior years, but it is waning, imho. Iowa settles nothing - Rick Santorum? Seriously? Another nut ball ... a sincere nut ball ... but another extremist.

Rick B has a point.... and maybe it's valid, or maybe it says something about the current crop of GOP candidates ... they suck. And the one guy who's not a nut, Huntsman, is at the bottom of the caucus, and that's even when he had to take a right turn and abandon some of his reasonable views to go from 0.5% to what, 0.6? Little good it did him. Romney? I don't think that guy has US Citizenship. He acts like a droid. His movement and words are so robotic - check for anti-freeze in those veins.

Indacup - lighten up - it's politics.


So why is the list of candidates IOWAS fault? We didn't pick them! It's what we were given to choose from! Personally, as a republican, I don't care for ANY of the candidates...but that's not my fault who I have to choose from.

Why do you think that going into the polls over 1/3 of Iowan republicans were undecided? most likely, like me, we weren't thrilled with any of them.

To blame the candidates selection on Iowa is simply moronic.


Oh, I don't blame Iowans for holding this caucus. This is the only time they really get national attention - once every four years. It helps their economy for about a year. I don't blame them for the candidates. But if they insist on holding their caucus/primary first -- they've got to take the heat that goes with holding any newsworthy event. I can only imagine what people would say if Texas held the first primary -- ugh.

I guess the point is -- don't take what people say on a discussion board about people you know or with whom you identify -- personally. It's politics - don't mix it with business.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iowa caucuses
PostPosted: January 4th, 2012, 12:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: April 18th, 2010, 10:13 am
Posts: 1010
Location: Blaine, Missouri
Well, thank goodness this finally got moved to the correct forum. 40 lashes for doc, :yahoo: I'd have plenty more to say, especially to stand-up comedian Desmond, but, I actually have a life for the next week, but, I shall return at my first convenience. Lastly, NO state in this country can hold itself up as an icon of voting integrity. Some worse than others, but, that's just splittin' hairs.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iowa caucuses
PostPosted: January 4th, 2012, 2:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: October 27th, 2009, 12:58 pm
Posts: 3664
Hopefully cooler heads prevail 'cause this is just silly, guys. :mrgreen: Everyone count to 1,000, shake hands, and lets continue on! I HATE partisan politics as this is all it's good for-
dividing the American people over people who aren't worth arguing over.

How silly is it that the "winner" was someone who just has to prove to be the most polarizing? This is what the two party fiasco has become. The politicians are the enemy, and the corporations which have sidetracked the political process, not our fellow golf forum frequenters. :clap:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iowa caucuses
PostPosted: January 4th, 2012, 4:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: March 20th, 2011, 9:03 am
Posts: 106
melviss666 wrote:
W 40 lashes for doc, :yahoo: I'd have plenty more to say, especially to stand-up comedian Desmond, but, I actually have a life for the next week


Whatever pleases you, Grasshopper...


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iowa caucuses
PostPosted: January 4th, 2012, 5:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: December 9th, 2009, 11:08 pm
Posts: 1704
mr_divots wrote:

How silly is it that the "winner" was someone who just has to prove to be the most polarizing? This is what the two party fiasco has become. The politicians are the enemy, and the corporations which have sidetracked the political process, not our fellow golf forum frequenters. :clap:


At the risk of starting another fight, I don't think the politicians are to blame. The voters let them get away with this crap because nobody can be bothered to educate themselves on the real issues or the real stances of the candidates. They can get away with flip-flopping at will on any issue and they can get away with sucking up to voters by pretending to care about those voters favorite causes and they never get called on it. They can debate where they speak only in sound bites and don't really answer anything and they never get called on it. They can be in bed with special interest groups on both sides of the same issue and they never get called on it. It's not their fault that the American voters are 98% apathetic. We let them do it and we train them to do it by making it impossible for anyone that doesn't do it to succeed in politics.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iowa caucuses
PostPosted: January 4th, 2012, 6:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: March 20th, 2011, 9:03 am
Posts: 106
Shankapotamus wrote:
mr_divots wrote:

How silly is it that the "winner" was someone who just has to prove to be the most polarizing? This is what the two party fiasco has become. The politicians are the enemy, and the corporations which have sidetracked the political process, not our fellow golf forum frequenters. :clap:


At the risk of starting another fight, I don't think the politicians are to blame. The voters let them get away with this crap because nobody can be bothered to educate themselves on the real issues or the real stances of the candidates. They can get away with flip-flopping at will on any issue and they can get away with sucking up to voters by pretending to care about those voters favorite causes and they never get called on it. They can debate where they speak only in sound bites and don't really answer anything and they never get called on it. They can be in bed with special interest groups on both sides of the same issue and they never get called on it. It's not their fault that the American voters are 98% apathetic. We let them do it and we train them to do it by making it impossible for anyone that doesn't do it to succeed in politics.


Ah, but the voters are not apathetic or they would not show up at the polls to vote.

But they are easily manipulated by shallow arguments, which when revealed, shows the manipulator to be deceptive in various degrees or a fraud. Manipulated because many are pulled by their emotions instead of their mind. Let's face it - most voters don't know how to see through a bad argument, so their emotions drag them down and lead them to making poor decisions.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iowa caucuses
PostPosted: January 4th, 2012, 6:10 pm 
Offline
GolfBizTalk Admin

Joined: October 12th, 2009, 9:48 am
Posts: 6072
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. ~ Winston Churchill


There never has been and never will be a more accurate quote about politics.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 70 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group

phpBB SEO