mav

My FNH Five Seven. It was my first and only gun at the time.

I took the test again and changed some of my answers to the strongly disagree or strongly disagree. I ended up being further to the right economically and about the same socially. (edit) I knew there was something strange about the test in how they do some of the scoring. The above chart would be indicative of my belief. I have never really been one to use phrases like strongly agree or disagree. I either agree or I don't.

You would have to click on the link in the original post or this one. They do a half decent job of explaining the results at the end of the test. The Political Compass - Test

Prayers sent.

That is a very important point, and it was one I was making to one of our salesmen today who was a Santorum supporter. I will admit that Paul is a longshot to win the GOP nomination. I won't say he can't win because very few things in life are certain. I hope he continues racking up delegates. As I was watching the results of the NH primary come in, I caught both Romney's and Paul's speech to supporters. One thing I picked up during both speeches was the style and delivery of both candidates towards their supporters. In Mitt's presentation, they brought out two telepromters and Mitt ended up delivering a fine speech to his supporters. I sort of chuckled at the begining because it made me think of Obama and his frequent use of the teleprompter. One of the things I really liked about the Paul speech was he came on stage and winged it. I have never been one to convery a whole lot of emotion, but I will admit that I got little excited while listening to his speech. I was in awe of how Paul is so unlike the typical politician because he truly believes what he is saying and he has such passion for it. Whether people agree with him or not, that is a very admirable quality.

You seem to have accepted the fact that it will be Mitt vs. Obama in the general. I am not going to debate that prediction, but what I am curious about is who you are planning to vote for in the primary since, as you have said in the past, primaries are for voting principles (paraphrasing). If you don't really like Romney, do you plan on voting for him in the primary? Throw a name out there.

I took this test last night. I was surprised I wasn't further right on the economic side. I guess I didn't answer strongly agree or strongly disagree enough.

Hey JG55, can you break up the third segment of the article? It is a little difficult to read.

I just took a similar test Lester. Here is how I did. Political Compass Printable Graph I am right-leaning libertarian, which is true.

cold steel recon 1 tanto | eBay

As most of you know, if you have seen any of the knife threads I have posted, I collect Chris Reeve one-piece knives. These knives have been discontinued for quite a while. They are very expensive and are in very high demand. That means there are plenty of fakes on the market, including expensive fakes. On another forum that I participate in, there was a fake alert. I thought I would post the link here as well. Here is the website. Wholesale - Chris Reeve one piece knife ,skinning knife ,Black ,A2 High Carbon Steel amp; | DHgate.com The picture in the link is an authentic CR Ubejane Skinner. It looks just like mine. However, this is not the knife you get. I ran across these fakes several months ago on ebay. They look similiar to the original, especially the blade profile. However, they are very black in color, have a gold CR logo, and the grip is totally different. Also, please note that no Chris Reeve knife is made in China. I just wanted to post this so people would be aware of fakes on the market and wouldn't end up spending a couple of hundred dollars on a piece of crap thinking they are getting the real thing. Thank you.

What major quest did you like most? I thought the Dark Brotherhood questline was good. The second playthough I decided to eliminate the Dark Brotherhood. That was really a downer. I thought there would be more to it.

Gonna post a pic with the blue scale? My daily carries (have two of them) are my XM-24 ( I love that knife) and one of my Startacs.

Congratulations. I believe Eric is a suitable name.

The problem I have with how the original topic has degraded is it is rife with intellectual dishonesty. There are some who are advocating for gay marriage under the banner of liberty and rights. Careful examination of what has been stated clearly shows that is not the case; it is merely a masquerade for anti-religiosity. Discrimination (racial, sexual, religious, etc...) by an individual, like it or not, is one of the freedoms we have in this country assuming that the discrimination doesn't infringe on another individual's rights. Discrimination by the state (meaning government as a whole) is wrong period, and that is what we have in this case. The solution to this problem is being deterred by two different activist groups. One on side we have a group of activists that want to use government to enforce their particular religious beliefs on other people, which ends up denying a group of individuals certain civil rights/benefits enjoyed by others. On the other side we have a group of activists that want to use government to force people to accept their chosen lifestyle, thereby denying certain individuals the right to freely exercise certain tenets within their religion/faith. Both are wrong, and trying to reason with either group is nothing more than an exercise in futility. Ultimately, the state should have never been involved in citizen's private affairs, which in this case it is marriage. Since the state is already involved, the point is moot. As we have seen in this thread, there can be no reasoning with the aforementioned groups. Therefore, it is left to more reasoned individuals to come up with an equitable solution, which I am certain both groups will hate. As I have stated numerous times, the only solution to this problem that is fair for all individuals is the incorporation of civil unions for all. The state will no longer recognize marriage, but only the civil union. Those that are currently married will be grandfathered in under a civil union. Gay couples desiring the same benefits as heterosexual couples now have the liberty to partake in such benefits. Churches and individuals that do not accept gay marriage because of religious, moral, sociological, etc... beliefs or are still free to do so. To those on the right who do not like it, that is tough. The state should not have gotten involved in the first place, and it is wrong for the state to discriminate in matters of sexual orientation. To those on the left who do not like it, that is too damn bad. You are now free to enjoy the same rights as everybody else. And to be honest and since you are denied nothing that really matters, why would you really care whether someone recoginzes your union as marriage or not? If you continue to try to get people to accept your lifestyle, you are going to end up being a miserable person. Enjoy your life (you only have one of them), enjoy your liberty, and pursue your happiness. My last point, which is an important one that nobody has addressed, concerns us single folks. Why should married couples gay or straight receive special treatment or recognition by the state? Is that not unfairly discriminating? Am I not being denied rights/benefits enjoyed by others?

Too late. It is gone. I hope someone here got it. That was a really good price.

Nothing taken personal on my end. I've been called much worse. I think issues like these are perfect examples why the government needs to stay out of people's personal lives.

Yep, I just read that. Good for her. My apologies to you Ms. Nordegren for thinking you were nuts. It seems like the media could do a better job and get the entire story before posting.

That is totally false. Marriage has always been considered a contract between two adults (age has varied over the years) of the opposite sex. Geeze, you are showing that you are as intolerant as those you claim are intolerant. What I originally proposed is totally fair for everyone involved, and it essentially gets government out of the "marriage" business, but I guess that just isn't good enough is it? You have to force me and the majority of the country to accept your viewpoint. Sorry, but that will never happen. Just to clarify, I may be a hypocrite, but I am not a homophobe. Personally, I don't care what a person's sexual orientation is. If a person chooses to be gay, great. I wish them all the best like I would any other individual. However, I am also a traditionalist, and hold to the traditional definition of marriage. I don't know how this topic got diverted to a religious discussion, I thought we were talking about individual civil rights. You guys can continue your religious discussion. I want no part of it.

Ebay is full of them (US made), and they are inexpensive. Just run a search for USA Kabar on ebay.

I don't know that anyone has commented on their feelings towards divorce on this thread. As far as being labeled a hypocrite, I pronounce myself guilty. I try to live by a standard that I can't possibly achieve and fail miserably. In regards to marriage, it has always being recognized as a union between a man and woman. Ever since the government got involved in people's private business things have been screwed up. It should have never happened. So my not wanting to recognize gay marriage makes me a hypocrite, fine. I still am not going to change my belief. However, I do realize that there is an infringement on individual rights for gay people wishing to receive the same benefits that heterosexual people enjoy. To rectify the problem, I believe there should be civil unions for all. I can still be a hypocrite, as you suggest I am, for not wanting to recognize gay marriage, but my hypocrisy does not infringe on anyone else's right.

That is not what I am saying. I am saying civil unions for everybody, straight and gay. Straight couples can still get "married," however, they will also be required to enter into a civil contract for recognition by the government. This way people like myself who recognize "marriage" as a union between a man and woman are still free to do so without compromising their values, and gay people will now share the same rights and privileges as straight couples.

What is wrong with that? Paul is very well respected for sticking to his convictions. Here is another quote for you. That was said by John McCain in 1988 to Kent Synder who worked on the Paul campaign.

How do you go from same-sex marriage to beastiality? That is an enormous stretch. Look, I know Santorum is concerned about the family, and he believes the family is a stabilizing force within society. I happen to agree with him. However, where Santorum gets it wrong is his suggestions of using the federal government to get more involved. What Santorum fails to realize is that it has been an overly intrusive federal government that has caused the weakening of the family. What once was handled by churches, local communities, neighborhoods, etc... now has federal involvement. It was programs like the Great Society and other nanny-state legislation that started fracturing the family and communities. Increased federal involvement is the exact opposite of what is needed.

I do not accept homosexuality as normal behavior, nor do I accept homosexual marriage. However, I am not going to infringe upon someone else's rights (edit) to partake of the same civil benefits as heterosexual couples.