TripleDigitRide

[quote name='sL1k' timestamp='1352866940' post='845290']Krispy kreme is laced with cocaine. I get the shakes any time I see that the hot and ready sign isn't on.[/quote] Try working in a building that's connected to the Krispy Kreme building that makes the donuts for the gas stations, grocery stores, etc. The aroma is brutal.

[quote name='Dolomite_supafly' timestamp='1352866886' post='845289']Someone, anyone, explain to me how removing ourselves from the United States of America will make us better. I know this is symbolic but realistically if we were allowed to secede what would we gain? Dolomite[/quote] Unless you're interested in living like it's the 1800's again, nothing.

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1352863643' post='845233'] Interesting theory here I just heard spouted on Fox by a Rep: Admin knows about Petraeus and the affair good long while ago. Petraeus makes the "nobody in CIA refused aid to the Benghazi consulate" after we know somebody did. Then why would Petraeus then go to the Hill and parrot the "it was the video" spiel AFTER that? Well, it would make sense if BHO pulls the dirt chit from his pocket and essentially blackmails Petraeus with it. Then, after talking to counsel, Petraeus decides to come clean, so that no more blackmail is possible, and resigns. And is then able to wrangle a deal for immunity for any possible criminal charges to testify to Congress. In which case we may indeed hear what he knew and when he knew it. Or more importantly, who [i]else[/i] knew what and when [i]they[/i] knew it. I hope he has bodyguards. This is starting to get very John Le Carre-ish. - OS[/quote] He's an admitted adulterer, which diminishes his credibility. Unless he has more than his word as proof, it's going to be deny, deny, deny.

[quote name='mcurrier' timestamp='1352842911' post='845020'] Sex is not even the real issue or point. The media said about Bill Clinton, the highest military commander (in-chief!), that what a man does with his penis is his business as long as it's consensual. I thought all of that was a settled issue?!?![/quote] What's the real issue? All I'm hearing about is his resignation because of an affair with this woman.

If this country wasn't so uptight about sex, this affair would be a non-issue. It's a shame this man's career is going to end because of some side tail. Lighten up, America!

[quote name='TMF' timestamp='1352755818' post='844441']I wish I could remember; I wasn't home for Christmas last year, so it's been a while. Probably about 3 hours, if you bring the roast to room temp before cooking it (which is also important). I checked periodically to be sure. The advantage of cooking at such a low temperature is that you don't need to worry about losing heat by checking every so often. The oven should return to 200 degrees quickly. I would baste every 20-30 minutes, so I would use that as an opportunity to check the internal temperature after it was in there for a while. Of course, the size of the roast will determine cooktime, so time is not an exact science, but temperature is.[/quote] Either way, now I really want some prime rib.

[quote name='TMF' timestamp='1352749071' post='844381']Not entering the contest, just sharing my Christmas prime rib recipe. I've done this a couple of times and it has turned out great. Ingredients: 6 lb standing rib roast/prime rib Kitchen twine/string 1 x vidalia onion 8 x halved mushrooms Tbsp minced garlic 1/4 cup Olive oil 2 teaspoons Kosher salt 1/2 teaspoon Black pepper Half a bottle of dark beer, give or take. Instructions: Cut roast away from the ribs. There should be a healthy layer of fat at the top of the roast. If it is thicker than 1 inch trim it down a bit. Otherwise leave it be. Take an ice pick or similar tool and poke about a dozen holes a few inches into your roast. Don't worry, it won't cause the juices to leak bad since we're gonna sear it. Combine your garlic, salt and pepper with the olive oil, mix it well, then give your roast a good rub down. Try to shove some of that garlic down into the holes you made, along with those coarse granules of salt. Use the twine to tie your roast back to the ribs the way it was cut off. Chop your onion into half dollar-like sections, about 1/4 inch thick and line the bottom of your cooking dish (something with a little depth, like glass cookware or one of those disposable tins). You can place the roast on top of them onions. Add those shrooms to the pan too. Add beer, but don't make it deeper than the width of your onion slices. Heat oven to 500 degrees and throw the roast in there for about 20 minutes. You're trying to sear the outer layer of that roast and bleed some of that fat into the pan. After twenty minutes lower the temperature to 200 degrees, and be sure to use a baster to keep it wet. As it cooks the fat will run off and cook with the beer, onions and mushrooms making a delicious stew to baste your roast with as it cooks. Don't cook to time; cook to temperature. Cooking at this low temperature will cause it to cook very evenly throughout, so what you will end up with should be about 1/4 inch of brown meat on the outside, and evenly pink all the way through. Take the roast out once the internal temp reaches 110-115 (depending on how rare you consider medium rare) degrees. Cover will tin foil and let sit for 30 minutes or so. This will turn out with very tender and juicy meat on the spectrum of medium rare. I've done it this way a couple of times and am doing it again for Christmas this year.[/quote] Give or take, how does it need to cook before reaching 110-115 degrees?

In the spirit of Christmas and my appreciation for TGO and its members, I will be giving away three six month Premium (Benefactor) Memberships. The three lucky winners will be randomly chosen on Saturday, December 1, 2012. The rules are as follows: 1) You must have a minimum of 30 legitimate posts at time of drawing. 2) You must not currently be a Premium (Benefactor) Member at time of drawing. 3) You must respond to this thread with a recipe for at least one of your favorite holiday dishes. Please include any cooking times and temperatures. If you would like to add a recipe to this thread, but do not wish to enter the giveaway, please feel free to do so. Please comment in your post that you do not wish to enter for the giveaway. Good luck to all!

Thank You! [IMG]http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/11/12/nuju4yje.jpg[/IMG]

[quote name='monkeylizard' timestamp='1352687109' post='844087']If you don't want to list your ph#, you can get a cheap TracFone burner phone at Wal-Mart for <$10 and post that one up.[/quote] Although I've never had a single issue involving my phone number with Craigslist, I do know someone who does that.

I've seen some cool jewelry made out of ammo, but this isn't one of them.

[quote name='DaddyO' timestamp='1352658377' post='843826']They didn't believe it could happen in UK, Australia, or Canada either.[/quote] Comparing us to the above mentioned countries is hardly a valid argument, in my opinion. The US probably has more guns and gun owners than all of those countries combined.

I buy and sell quite a bit on Craigslist, and I've come up with a pretty decent method of weeding out a vast majority of the trash. First of all, I always put the following in my ad: IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN THE ITEM I HAVE FOR SALE, PLEASE CALL ME AT THE PHONE NUMBER BELOW. I WILL NOT RESPOND TO EMAILS. Then I put my phone number in the following format: one two three-four five six-seven eight nine ten. Not using actual numbers will prevent those using computer programs in order to solicit you with all kinds of garbage. Since making these changes to my Craigslist ads, I don't have nearly the trouble as I did in the past. If I have any trouble at all, it's those who don't show up to look at the item. Even that's a lot more rare. I also let them know that it's first come, first served. I'm not holding the item for days until they get around to checking it out. If they really want it, they will find a way.

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1352671511' post='843913'] For months I've had Paulbots and Johnsonbots and whateverbots tell me they were going to vote for someone other than Romney because Romney wasn't this or wasn't that and that they weren't going to abandon their principles...now it seems as if some folks here want conservatives and people of faith to abandon THEIR principles just so the Republicans can win an election. Somebody please explain to me why I'm supposed to abandon what I believe in and were I to do so, what kind of man would I be???[/quote] I'm not sure anyone is expecting you to abandon your beliefs, but don't be surprised if you keep getting the same results. If you're not in the minority already, you soon may be. At that point, you'll be so outnumbered that you and your beliefs will mean little to the big picture. We all have opinions and beliefs. I'm able to disagree and respect all at the same time.

[quote name='sigbrown1297' timestamp='1352644748' post='843692'] Ya, but what percent of population are politicians. I just think that he didn't appeal to the minority and younger group like Obama did. The voting population has changed and more hispanic and younger generations are voting. I wonder what would have happened if Romney was black. [url="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/scocca/2012/11/mitt_romney_white_voters_the_gop_candidate_s_race_based_monochromatic_campaign.html"]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/scocca/2012/11/mitt_romney_white_voters_the_gop_candidate_s_race_based_monochromatic_campaign.html[/url][/quote] He would have lost. His political stance on many issues is what caused him to lose. The old, white hardcore bible thumpers have seen their better days. Like it or not, society in general is becoming more liberal on many issues.

[quote name='Dolomite_supafly' timestamp='1352644435' post='843687'] I bet everyone in the US said the same thing in 1994 right before the AWB then. And that AWB took away gun rights. Or what about California where the laws are strict and they are likely going to be the example they use because it is Feinstein who is pushing for the nationwide ban. Not long after the DC shooting there was a bill introduced that sought to outlaw "sniper rifles". That law stated that any make of gun capable of shooting a group under 3" at 100 yards would be outlawed as it was considered a sniper rifle. Also, there have been quite a few bills introduced seeking to tax ammunition to a point that no one could afford it. In parts of Illinois, where Obama hails from, there is a .05 per bullet tax. All it takes is one time for a bill to pass and it is done. How often do we hear of a bill or law being repealed? Never. All they need to do is fight for a bill or law to be passed once yet we have to fight every single time. Eventually they will sneak one by and that will be the end just like th 1986 ban on the sale of new MG's to civillians. By all accounts it did not pass the voice vote but Charlie Rangel, yes the same one investigated for ethics violations, declared it passed because he was the speaker of the house at the time. I am not wearing tinfoil to think the Democrats are going to use any tool or excuse they can to outlaw our guns. Be it through UN resolution, passing laws, regulations or executive order I can see him trying something big before he leaves office that will affect gun ownership. To think anything different is a bit naive. Gun owners are under attack, or at a minimum not being supported, by all those who voted for Obama. And that is very close to being the majority of the nation now. I do not believe we will loose our guns because of a UN resolution we, as a nation, sign but signing it will be the impetus for our governemnt to pass laws to fall in line with what is in the UN resolution. The "blue helmets" are not going to come here to take our guns. Dolomite[/quote] I'm not doubting the very real possibility that we see another AWB and/or ban of high-capacity magazines, but all this talk as if someone is going to come and take all of our guns away is ludacris. Even if we do see an AWB, I doubt it will have anything to do with the UN. Clinton didn't need the assistance of the UN, and neither will Obama. The last AWB didn't force American citizens to hand over their guns, and I highly doubt a possible future AWB will be any different.

In related news, tin foil is flying off the shelves.

If they are gator fans, they are probably doing the gator stomp.

[quote name='sigbrown1297' timestamp='1352607373' post='843572']because he is too white[/quote] Yeah, because a vast majority of politicians aren't white.

Crappy hours, too. Must be his hobby.

[quote name='HvyMtl' timestamp='1352567795' post='843125']Ok, I am going to do a bigger analysis of this, later. Several things, Mitt even stated these issues. Lets start with "voting blocks." This term is used to describe certain voters with similar aspects, such as race, creed, sex, income, or age. Several of these blocks, the Young vote, the African American vote, the Hispanic vote, and Women voters are the crucial ones which voted for Obama, and against Romney. The GOP's stance on several points harmed the party with these voting blocks. Young vote: Gay marriage, stance on marijauna, Religious Right. War mongering. In the eyes of the younger generation, they see sexual issues very differently than those 35+. In my experience, coming "out of the closet," or even professing the want to get a sex change, would have led to major conflicts, and rage, when I was young. Not so with them. They actively support those who come out with these sexual issues. They act as if it is no big deal. The blocking of marriage rights for gays, and their right to fight for this nation, harmed the GOP here. Marijauna and other "recreational" drugs have a different view in this generation, than with the older ones. We had been told these things are extremely bad, and dangerous, and, particularly the case with marijuana, recreational drugs were "gateway" drugs to worse things. Yet, the younger generation has grown up with these recreational drugs done by their parents, and friends. They do not see the point on being hard against these drugs, and favor making them legal. This is something the present GOP opposes. Religous Right: Most young are not as "up tight" or stress over religous differences. They are more tolerant (and in many cases, IMHO, for the betterment of Christianity) than the older generations, and they do not see the need to push for things like prayer in schools. They see the Religious Right as a negative. And the GOP? Yes, they cater to the Religious Right. War mongering: Correct perception or not, GOP candidates are seen as war hawks by the younger population. The younger population sees little benefit coming from wars, as they have seen the ample coverage of the Iraq and Afghan conflicts. They look at these conflicts as absurd at best, but basically huge waste of lives. And they remember, it was a GOP President pushing for these wars. The African American vote (IMHO, a misnomer, should be American of African desent, as the culture is not African.) This vote, in the hugest form of irony, has been lost by the GOP, the party of Abe Lincoln. How did this happen? The Dems figured out, during the 1960's, the freedom movement would benefit them in the future. The GOP did not respond to the movement as well. And now, in the eyes of this community, the GOP are for the Whites only. A good piece of work by the Dems to go from the anti-rights party to the defender of the African Americans. True, this is not the biggest of the voting blocks, but 12-14% helps in tight elections. Hispanic vote: Hispanics, by most aspects, Deeply religious, supportive of the sanctity of marriage, etc., smacks of a voting block primed for the GOP. But, the GOP has stumbled by always looking like the Anti- Hispanic immigration party. This, plus the viewpoint the GOP, thru the blocking of the Dream Act, and supporting the aspects of "papers please" laws, alienated the Hispanic vote. Again, the GOP reinforced the viewpoint they are the "Whites Only" party. Mitt pointed this out on several occasions, claiming if the GOP loses the Hispanic voting block, they have lost the future elections. Considering the size of, and the speed of which this size is growing, the Hispanic voting block will be crucial in future elections. Women voters: This block is still growing in impact as more women see elections impacting their health, well being, and their family's health and well being. For a politcal party claiming to be for less government intervention, it is surprising how much more governing the GOP wants over women's vaginas. Here, the pandering to the Religous Right has pushed women voters towards the Dems. In addition, the lack of support for the Lilly Ledbetter Act, and equal pay for equal work, damaged the GOP further. This reinforced the view the GOP is for not only Whites, but only White males. Attempting to remove the Planned Parenthood funding also damaged the GOP here. 98%+ of the Planned Parenthood funds have ZERO to do with abortions. Of the less than 2% dealing with the topic, the majority, 75%+, goes to counciling, which typically [i]prevents[/i] the abortion. The 98% goes towards women's health, such as cancer screenings, medical treatments, and other health programs to the benefit of women. And ZERO of the federal funding goes to anything abortion related. In the eyes of many female voters, this action, plus additional laws cutting health care for women, is dangerous. Going after Planned Parenthood is a bad politcal move for the GOP. Arguably, going after Big Bird, and NPT, fits here, as it is a family issue, and parents rely on these educational services for their children, an anti-family stance which may have hurt the GOP with women. If you look at the perceptions of the GOP, from the views of these voter blocks, it is no wonder Mitt lost. Add the fact Mitt alienated the likes of Ron Paul supporters (who are a block of active voters, too) in his own party, and yes, Mitt lost.[/quote] Anyone who believes anything other than what this man said has their head buried in the sand. Times are changing, like it or not. Only if they'd change enough to give 3rd part candidates a fighting chance. Or better yet, do away with party affiliation altogether.

[quote name='C.lunn' timestamp='1352491635' post='842614'] That's not bc of obamacare. That store hasn't had a profitable year in awhile. [/quote] Exactly. Best Buy closed their Hickory Harlem location a while back. And the mall? That's what happens when you close the projects in downtown Nashville, then force all the ghetto trash into the suburbs.

Thanks for the heads-up. At least you got your money back.

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1352499493' post='842721'] Nice idea but I don't believe "ownership" of a firearm a prerequisite to being in "possession" of one nor being charged with being in possession of one. [/quote] I doubt there's a jury out there that would be willing to convict in such a situation. I'm not a gamblin' man, but that's a chance I'd take all day.

"No, officer, I don't own any guns. The intruder came at me, I wrestled the gun from said intruder, and only used it to protect my life."