mav

If Romney's was to win and was absolutely abhorent for the next four years, I believe we would hear the same reasoning we have heard this entire election cycle except next time it will be that we can't primary Romney because we will need him to beat Hillary.

I have been so busy that I don't get to comment as much as I used to. My $0.02, vote for who you like. If Johnson, Paul, or whoever is your man, then vote for them. It is by no means whatsoever a vote for Obama, but it is one less vote that he will have to overcome Still, if Obama wins reelection, the only people responsible for it will be those who actually voted for him.

Yep, you are carrying the exact knife above the Starbenza. It is a great knife. I have several Sebenzas so I don't carry the Startac all that much.

The title is self-explanatory. Let's see some knives (you are actually carrying). If you don't mind, give a brief reason why you are carrying a particular knife. I have switched recently on what I am carrying everyday. I got tired of carrying a very heavy knife, so I decided to carry one of my Sebenzas. To me, a Sebenza is one of, if not the finest production knife available. It is by no means tacticool, but it is an extremely well to endure hard use. It is also very elegant, so it wouldn't look out of place it while you are in a suit. This is what I am carrying now, a Wilson Combat large Starbenza (the one on the bottom).

Thanks for posting the Cyro. I mentioned these a few months back for those who are looking at a Hinderer-style knife, but don't want to shell out Hinderer or ZT 0560/0561 money. I am surprised it is so small. It looks almost about the size of an 3" XM-18. Still, if it is anything like the 0561's, it should be really good. How do you like your ZT0560? I think ZT did a fantastic job. From all the 0560/0561's I have seen, the flipper is much better than Hinderer's. To be quite honest, I think the flipper on Hinderer's XM series is really hit or miss. They are either really good or really bad. A guy I know has three XM blades, and the flipper on all of them are quite crappy. I would be ticked if they were mine. It is rather unfortunate considering how expensive they are. My XM-24 opens fast, so I got pretty lucky. For those interested in a size comparison of the ZT 0561, I did a thread a while back when I got my 0561. http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/47535-zt-0561-hinderer-warning-pic-heavy/

Sheesh, that sounds exactly like playing with one of our salesmen. I hated playing with him at times because his method of scorekeeping was so dang confusing. I never knew if I was losing or winning money. I haven't played much the last couple of years. I only got in my first round of the year about a month ago. I did manage to shoot an 87, which I thought was pretty good since my last game was last August 2011. I have never been really that good. When playing regularly, I would be in the low to mid 80's (white tees). I have only broken 80 four times.

I guess that doesn't include Sarah Palin. I can't name one individual that can fire up the base more than Palin, and the Romney camp doesn't even invite her to Tampa. Seriously, wtf? Between throwing Condi's name out there as a possible VP choice and now snubbing Palin, Romney isn't looking too impressive to me. Romney better get his s**t together. If he keeps jabbing at conservatives he will lose the election. Fear of an Obama second term will only take him so far.

That is a really pathetic outlook. Either someone votes the way you and others vote or they are supporting Obama. I get so tired of hearing this crap. This country wasn't founded and wars to protect individual liberties were not fought so citizens could have a choice between either the Republican or Democrat candidate. I believe, even though I don't always act on it, is that an individual should vote their conscience and who they like best. Those (myself included) that engage in some half-baked political strategy should not criticize those who choose not to participate. I wish a lot of people would listen to what they say or read what they write. Individuals who desire a positive change in this country's direction are being criticized for it because they are going to vote according to their desire. Ron Paul is out, and he is not coming back this election. However, Johnson is still running and is ever bit as conservative/libertarian as Paul. Those that vote for Johnson are not electing or supporting Obama; they are doing the exact opposite. The only people who are supporting and electing Obama are the ones who will be voting for him. It is only those people who deserve an abundant amount of criticism. I am trying hard not to become a cynic, but this election cycle has made it very difficult. I often wonder if Carlin had it right when he said our only real choice in this country is paper or plastic. Warning! Bad language, not safe for work. [media=] [/media]

Yep, it is not very wise to "ascribing(e) traits of a group to one individual." How do you feel about Harry Reid? He is a mormon, and I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

I hope Romney is not that stupid to pick Condi as his running mate. Even though I can't stand McCain, he was smart enough to pick someone a lot more conservative than himself. 1. she is not a conservative (she is more to the left than Colin Powell) 2. her foreign policy views suck 3. she more than likely voted for Obama (that is reason enough not to support her) 4. etc... If Romney picks her, I will be voting for Johnson and have absolutely no regrets.

Well... there is no logic in supporting a nonviable candidate. However, Johnson is a viable candidate. His name will be on the ballot in all 50 states. Will he win? Not a chance in hell, but he still is a viable candidate. Therefore, nobody is wasting their time or being illogical by supporting him. Everything breaks down to principles, and I will admit that ArmyVeteran and sigmtnman (and a few others) are more principled than me. I am more pragmatic even though I know my pragmatism has been partially responsible for the downfall of the country. Will Romney be better than Obama? Certainly, but he will still suck and he won't bring about the sweeping change that is desparately needed to turn the country back around. Nevertheless, I will still be voting for him this November. When I honestly think about the position I have taken, the only word I can ascribe to myself is chump. I have bought into the two party paradigm, and I always find a reason as to why I won't break out of it. I am part of the problem.

Since nobody has mentioned this, I will just through my $0.02 in. While exercise is an important component for any weight loss program, the key (and the hardest) component is diet. If you exercise a lot, but you eat like crap and take in too many calories, you won't see the weight loss you desire. If the sole reason you are thinking about buying a bike is to lose weight, I don't think I would spend the money on a bike. Save your money. Running, good weight training, and proper diet are more than sufficient to lose weight. However, if you are wanting to get into biking, I would first decide what type of riding you want to do and how much you want to spend. Once you have that established, I would go to your local bike shop and ride a bunch of different bikes to see what you like. Sometimes your bike shop will have demo bikes, and that is a great way to save some money. I saved almost $1200 on my last bike. I won't say anythng about being fitted since everyone else has said how important it is. I know you asked about a road bike, but I would also consider a mountain bike since we are talking weight loss and general fitness. Ever since I got my mountain bike several months ago, my road bike doesn't see much use. No, it is not for sale . To me, trail riding is so much more fun than riding on the road. I have so much fun riding the trails at Enterprise South that I don't realize that I am getting a good workout while riding. If you do get a road bike, I would recommend buying a good set of rollers. They are hard to use at first, but they will improve your balance and bike handling skills.

I have been in a 60's mood as of late. Just a sampling, Animals - House of the Rising Sun http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=P0-czS8PTBU Jimi Hendrix - All Along the Watchtower http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4AuxJH2Mj30

Check out Mike Church.

I just read another article commenting on the use on "reconciliation" as a tactic that could be used to repeal Obamacare. From my understanding, and as I stated earlier, budgetary bills only require a simple majority to pass. However, what I did not know was the use of reconciliation limits the debate to 20 hours and limits the number of ammendments. Also, reconciliation does not allow a filibuster. Sheesh, the Senate rules are hard to decipher.

It looks like Tiger is coming back. Win #3 for the year, and he is #1 on the Fed-Ex Cup. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/golf-devil-ball-golf/tiger-woods-nails-down-third-win-2012-relentless-224613219--golf.html;_ylt=AiRIZgiffUv67W25f7tDR5E5nYcB He is still a p.o.s. personally, but he can sure play some golf. Take that everyone who said he would never win again.

I could be wrong, but I think you and Randy are talking two different things. I know Randy fairly well. He is approaching this entirely from a self defense standpoint, and knowing what he carries and seeing how he carries it, I think it would be much faster. In the interest of full disclosure, I have taken several classes from Randy. I would not want to get in a knife fight with him. Before I got my knife out of my pocket he would have already cut me several times. If my non-dominant hand wasn't functioning, I would be dead. However, I also prefer to carry a folder. I know Randy is going to cringe, but I take the gamble that I will not have to pull my knife out for defensive purposes. That is why I carry a gun. Just to show that I did pay attention in some of the classes. I do carry my Professional Soldier from time to time. I have the sheath attached to a piece of Tek-Lok and it is positioned on my belt that I could get to it rapidly (with either hand) if I needed to.

Not just now, always has been. Don't get me started on hate crimes, that is another set of laws that do not need to exist.

Your analogy doesn't work. Blaring music at 2 am does affect you, or at least your kids. Go beyond the pissed off part, which I understand totally, and ask yourself does someone lying about their service or which medals they received affect you. It doesn't, so I don't really see the need to get worked up over it. The last thing any of us should want is people acting on emotion pleading to the government to create more laws that really aren't necessary. We have enough laws as it is. If I am not mistaken I believe there are private individuals/organizations that expose people who make fraudulent claims regarding military service. I am totally fine with that and think that is the best way it should be handled. More free speech in action.

While I don't diminish the importance of regaining the Senate, you guys are way more optimistic than me. There are too many weak-kneed senators still in office that are much too accommodating. The only way I can envision keeping the reigns on Obama is by removing him from this Nov. Lest we forget,

As I stated earlier, I believe the SCOTUS made the right call on this. Free speech isn't just speech that everyone agrees with. There are times when the speech is going to be offensive to certain segments of the population. Lying about being in the military or their service record for whatever reason is free speech. There is no right to be from from offensive language in the constitution. Seriously though, who does it hurt, outside of hurting one's feelings? Nobody. There are greater tragedies and much more important things to worry about than someone boasting fake exploits. For example, the percentage of taxpayers versus non-taxpayers is vastly more important than the Stolen Valor Act, and it is something that actually affects everyone. I have an enormous problem that almost 50% of Americans do not pay federal income taxes, and some of those who do not pay are lying and cheating on their taxes. Almost 50% are having their lives subsidized off the backs of others. While I do not diminish the offense some p.o.s. bragging about exploits that have only occured in the fantasy of his mind, I would say that if people are looking to be pi$$ed about something, get pi$$ed about something that really matters and that actually affects you.

Honestly, if Obama wins a second term it is pretty much over. Our debt at the end of an Obama second term will well be past the point, if it is not already, of recovery. At current rates, our debt will exceed $22 trillion at the end of his second term. The federal government will have spent more money during those last eight years (2008 - 2016) than the aggregate amount since the founding of this country. We will probably enter into a couple more large scale military skirmishes during his second term which we can't pay for. Obama will probably nominate a few more justices to the SCOTUS, which is very important because they will declare all of those executive orders that he issues in his second term as constitutional. Most clear thinking individuals believe that Obama's first term has been a disaster. With nothing holding him back during his second term (i.e. an election), his second term will make his first look like chicken s**t. The only way out of it that I could think of would be the states exercise their authority through nullification, or possibly call for a constitutional convention. However, there is inherent danger in calling for a new convention because what you might end up with could be worse than what we have.

Now that you mention it, Reagan talked about socialized medicine all the way back to 1961 on a LP titled "Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine."

I heard this argument yesterday from some in the right wing intelligentsia as to put a positive spin on the outcome. Sorry, but I ain't buying it. There was absolutely nothing good about this ruling. The precedent Roberts has now established is cringe-worthy. Does anyone honestly think that the average Joe is going to discern all the political arguments and legaleze of "tax" versus "penalty?" Obama and his team will come out and spin their victory by claiming that while Roberts was right on the constitutionality of ACA, he was wrong on the language; it is not a tax. The media will also provide cover for Obama the entire time by totally ignoring Robert's "tax" argument, and focus solely on the constitutionality of the law. There is an additional element to consider. ACA has not been fully implemented yet. Parts of it are still some ethereal concept. A lot of people will not realize how bad and how expensive it is going to be since they have not yet had to endure the full force of the ACA.

Believe it or not, I actually agree with you. Sheesh, there must be something wrong with me