Men can have abortions before they orgasm in California. The rest of the world used socks..
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Donald Trump
- Thread starter kaz7
- Start date
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Little known fact - 617 Squadron aborted the raid in mid North Sea on the way back from the raid after breaching the Sorpe and Mohne dams and damaging the Sorpe - Trumpian Truth
Elbow beards
Well-Known Member
Think you've got your maths a bit wrong, an eagle's 2 under par so would be a hole in 2. Odds of an eagle on par 4 are, according to different websites, anywhere between 50 to 1 or 1000 to 1.In effect, these are two holes-in-one.
The odds of making two in one round are 67 million to one. The odds of doing so consecutively, albeit with wedge, must be much, much higher. Speaking of a wedge, the average PGA Tour player hits his wedge 142 (carry distance). So what are the chances a 70+ year-old man can?
Utter horseshit. Laura and Trump are either lying or wrong.
Anyway he's still a lying ****.
SkyBlueFlux
Well-Known Member
Think you've got your maths a bit wrong, an eagle's 2 under par so would be a hole in 2. Odds of an eagle on par 4 are, according to different websites, anywhere between 50 to 1 or 1000 to 1.
Anyway he's still a lying ****.
I think @FogBlueInSanFran is alluding to the fact the post says he used a pitching wedge, which suggests he holed from the fairway (similar to a hole in one). Most Par 4 eagles are scored by the player going for the green in one and then putting, hence the odds you've quoted being quite a lot lower.
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
No sir — in effect holing out from the fairway is a hole in one. Had he made two consecutive eagles on short par 5s, say — that’s different.Think you've got your maths a bit wrong, an eagle's 2 under par so would be a hole in 2. Odds of an eagle on par 4 are, according to different websites, anywhere between 50 to 1 or 1000 to 1.
Anyway he's still a lying ****.
Also — the 50-1 odds on an eagle on a par four?? No way. I’ve played golf for 50 years and am a 4 index — I’ve holed out from the fairway with a full shot on a par 4 a grand total of three times.
Uncle Wally One Ball
Well-Known Member
You must be the most accomplished and most well connected poster all at the same time Ive ever read here. Surely youve worked on Wall St once with Phil Mickelson and he taught you how to do it, and once went to college with Obamas defence secretary whose lawyer took lessons off Butch Harmon who lived near to you and you all ended up in a 3 ball somewhereNo sir — in effect holing out from the fairway is a hole in one. Had he made two consecutive eagles on short par 5s, say — that’s different.
Also — the 50-1 odds on an eagle on a par four?? No way. I’ve played golf for 50 years and am a 4 index — I’ve holed out from the fairway with a full shot on a par 4 a grand total of three times.
r.soleofsalford
Well-Known Member
Herein lies the problem. Just regular, seemingly average and 'normal' folk utterly brainwashed by what they see and hear in the MSM and social media.
We are truly fucked as a species if this continues.
Cunts like this shouldn’t be allowed to breath never mind vote.
SkyBlueFlux
Well-Known Member
You must be the most accomplished and most well connected poster all at the same time Ive ever read here. Surely youve worked on Wall St once with Phil Mickelson and he taught you how to do it, and once went to college with Obamas defence secretary whose lawyer took lessons off Butch Harmon who lived near to you and you all ended up in a 3 ball somewhere
Pfft that's nothing. Once I was next to Alastair Campbell in the security queue at London City Airport. He smelled like sandalwood and regret.
I can't say I'm well versed in Dutch or Belgian politics. But my sense is that because we are from different corners of the philosophical spectrum, it's quite likely i'd disagree with your characterization in general.I'm always going to perceive it as there is a reasonable fashion to talk about the immigration issue and a polemic one. I find the immigration debate to be a legitimate one when one can argue that a country is "too full", but if its going to be about stigmatizing immigrants by for example painting them as criminals or maliciously intended then it feels more about creating a black sheep to blame it on.
I think the Dutch can attest to a degree. Population density in the Netherlands is pretty high to the point that a lot of Dutch people even live in Belgium nowadays, housing prices are very high and you dont get much for your money relatively speaking. There was once a rather moderate enough politician called Pim Fortuyn who wanted to address that issue in not such a polemic way with his slogan "Netherlands is full" and he very very sadly got assassinated. Whatever that idiot Volkert Van der Graaf thought he would achieve the result is that you get somewhat more extreme alternatives like Geert Wilders.
Our own radical right party is more of that polemic and "pro capitalist nature" (Vlaams belang) They are anti immigration with 2 speeds, certain groups like Jews are welcome because they are ready to add to party funds to create polemics against the Muslims and there is a lot of xenophobic stuff you can say against Muslims and get away with. The aim of the polemic fashion in which Immigration debate is handled is to make people afraid and foster hate between groups.
Thats the issue with Trumps fashion in which he handles it too imho. It's not just about managing poppulation density and such, its not like "we just need to make sure less people come". It's about things like "Migrant (or "Bigrant") crime", about how theiy are going to "steal your black jobs", how they are "not sending their good people, but dumping their criminals and mental patients". Thats already fostering a form of hate trough attributing malicious intentions that could lead to violence.
I dont get that its a matter of really creating reasonable policy's and all that for Trump. The immigration debate is simply a weapon for him, a means to get to power more easily by playing on populism and fear. In fact i think that the vast majority of parties that are anti immigration are of that ilk, it's not about actual policy but about attaining power trough "easy propaganda", and those same party's will prove to be of the "radical capitalist" kind but even that is just a means of being able to be more corrupt and gaining more money out of ones political carreer as the big lobby and party fund money comes from industry. Which is to say in many cases they are simply opportunist, they dont nessecarily believe all the BS they are spewing its just a calculated move to gain power and wealth.
This is especially so in Belgium. The "Vlaams Belang" kinda doesnt even want to rule the country, as long as they are a big opposition party they are rewarded royaly for it with hughe party fund contributions comming from the Belgian state. The level of corruption is absolutly staggering. In many cases these are just greedy men who will put on whatever face to get more power and wealth.
Its probably one of the stronger arguments against trump when putting all polemics asside, Trump is not a unifier or a concensus maker so the more radical his program is the less likely it might be that it will ever become a thing.
However the recent SCOTUS decission regarding presidential immunity is "effing scary" and might allow Trump to force certain things down "despite of democracy".
As for Trump, his program is not going to be radical. It wasn't in his 1st 4 years, nor will it be now. If he wins and does not control both houses it's even less so likely.
As for the SCOTUS decision, there is nothing radical about it. I don't know whether it's because lors of the main stream media went haywire on their reporting, but I don't see anything radical about it.
What about it did you find scary?
Shouldn't be allowed to breathe for having a wrong opinion.Cunts like this shouldn’t be allowed to breath never mind vote.
You do realize you too have some wrong opinions, right? Should we also apply the same rule to you?