GolfHos

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-a-hole-in-one-sh_b_259281.html

The appeal of this douchebag is completely lost on me.  [sm_jack]

Anyway, golfhos libtards.  Your favorite POTUS/CiC and your favorite Olympic sport are under attack!!!  From a libtard!!!

Let me know if you need help with the placards. 

Do wingtards not understand the concept of facetiousness?

Facetious my ass.  Maher's brand of humor/satire/commentary is ALWAYS grounded in his belief system.  Book it.

I'm about 50/50 on Maher. As an unabashed libtard, I agree with him sometimes, but not all the time. I'd probably not go so far as to label him one of us. (Gooba gabba.) One thing I will never deny is that he's an egotistical *bunghole*, who values his own opinion way too much. Even when I agree with him.

Oh, I see. It's comments like these are what bother you the most about Maher:

I'll take a wild guess about a few others on your douchebag list:
Richard Dawkins
Christopher Hitchens
Sam Harris

The only reason the wingnuts try to portray the overtly obnoxious but fairly independent thinking Maher as some kind of Libtard is because he was one of the few visible guys in the media who wasn't willing to buy the argument that George W Bush was some kind of 'Conservative', given the deficit spending, nation building foreign policy, and extreme insertion of religion into the Gubment as a whole (See Terry Schiavo, et' al ad nauseum') during and just after the 2004 election.

Maher an ass, but he's no Libtard ass. That's pretty much reserved for Olbermann and Ed Schultz.

Also, I think it's okay for U.B. to bluntly express his opinion once in a while. Even when it differs from what appears to be the majority here. If Aske gets off with little to no push back, even when he grossly overstates reality, which he does a fair amount of, I see no need for U.B. to be called to task every time he goes against the grain. (This applies to Hobbit too.)

The mob rules mentality here is tiresome. Even if I generally happen to fall in the same general camp with the mob.

 [sm_thumbsup2]

You see do you?  You know what comments bother me about Maher?  Very presumptuous but very wrong.  Many people are down on the beliefs of others and yet remain easy to get on with.  They don't feel the need to call you a retard/whatever.  Others, not so much.

Spacey's characterization of Maher's ego goes some way to stating what I don't like about the guy.  To take it a bit further I just think he's your basic *bunghole*.  His humor consists mainly of mean-spirited slams against others.  He doesn't know how to disagree without insult.  I could even forgive him a touch if he  just found a way to be funny every now and then.

I don't really have a douchebag list.  Seems so formal.  Something like that should remain flexible.

As a libtard atheist type, I read Sam Harris's A Letter to a Christian Nation and I watched Maher's Religulous and walked away from both with the exact same feeling: I agree with the sentiment, but the approach sucks. As a person who gets accused on a pretty regular basis of being an *bunghole*, I still recognize that being an *bunghole* isn't the best way to get people on your side. All you do is make those who agree with you agree with you more, and those who don't continue to believe you're an *bunghole*.

If all you want to do is reinforce people of their opinion that you're an *bunghole*, it's a great technique. If you actually want to be persuasive... not so much. Again, coming from a person who gets accused on a pretty regular basis of being an *bunghole*.

Le 'FAWG, I'll give you independent thinking but not libertarian.  Given Maher's support of some seriously egregious Gubment Got Your Back policies I don't think he can hang his hat on that label.  For whatever reason people tend to pigeonhole him there.

Recognize this:

  in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this

?

How does one define arcane concepts like 'Promote The General Welfare'?

Anyway, back on topic...

The hard-core environmentalists have basically declared war on golf (courses.)  Maybe Gleek and Dys know a bit about the Sharp Park story.  Here's a story written by golf course architecture champion Geoff Shackleford - Sharply Divided (http://www.golfdigest.com/golfworld/columnists/2009/07/golf_sharp_park_shackelford_0720) - giving "our" side of the deal.  ("Our" meant to refer to golfers not wingtards.)  Admittedly the golf industry has come very late to the table as regards water management and chemicals concern.  It's not a binary equation though.  Golf and environment can, and often do, coexist in a beautiful synergy.  Golf courses are green space after all.  Seems to me there's plenty of common ground if the parties are reasonable.

While Maher frames his commentary as some sort of a stand-up routine I have little doubt he takes a strong position on golf courses.  I'm willing to accept him at his word on this.

However one wants?  Which is pretty much the trouble with the domain space, yes?

We're not talking 'Domain Space' here. We're talking 'Egregious' principles that this country was founded on and and the basic law of the land.

Anyway, Maher's an ass and I could give 2 *feces*s what he thinks about golf courses.

On a lighter note I defer to Al Czervik...

http://www.carlspackler.com/sounds/049.mp3

 ;)

I think the premise of this "approach" is that no approach is going to convince a believer to become a non-believer. However, the assumption is that there are a lot of closet non-believers out there who, for one reason or another, are afraid to accept their non-belief let alone openly express their non-belief. A combination of reason and ridicule of fundamentalism is an approach to convince the closet atheists that they're not the ones that should be considered bat *feces* crazy.

Not so sure I agree with this. Doubt can be an excellent weapon against faith.  It has a corrosive effect.  The atheists are merely trying to create doubt. 

Maher is not a card carrying libtard.  He's also not exactly a libertarian.  He's a strange breed, purposely so, for entertainment purposes--so he can be provocative against both ends of the spectrum.  Yet he is no centrist.  He's just vapid and I guess he appeals the the vapidocracy. 

But he says what he says to make noise, because what he most needs to be is not the proverbial tree falling in empty woods.  Controversy sells-ask Beck and Limbaugh and Hannity and the Big O and so forth.

Personally, I can't take his HBO program in increments much longer than 60 seconds.

You misunderstand me.  I don't believe the principles upon which the country was founded (again, whatever the hell that means) are egregious.  I believe Maher's positions on some things are egregious and in instances decidedly not of the libertarian bent.  For me, labeling him politically doesn't make much sense (I say this after I call him a libtard, douchebag and *bunghole*, LOL.)

It's cool you don't give 2 *feces*s but I'll probably leave the topic open anyway.  When prominent environmentalists rail against golf I think we golfers might want to take note.  Trust me, in 20 years we might be looking back at a bunch of courses we're play today and scratching our heads.  "WTF happened to Bupkiss National G.C. over in Cornhole County?  They tore it down and put up a Walmart/NIH facility/take your pick."

I'd like to change my original answer to:

oPcSDyaoQn0

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v725/mfawg/obama_bodysurfs.jpg)

I think I understand you now.

Well, that and Maher is from goddamn New York.

I liked this place better when it wasn't a golf forum.