mav

I hated that I couldn't have been there. I have only met one person on this forum. I would like to meet some additional people on the forum. I will catch y'all on the next one.

There is a great price on a BNIB ZT0550 on ebay. $179.00 and free shipping. That is about $20 cheaper than normal. ZERO TOLERANCE 0550 KNIFE (CPM-S35VN, TI/G-10) - NIB, RICK HINDERER DESIGN | eBay It won't last long at that price.

I only knew about it because I Googled it. There is still a manufacturer in IL. http://www.aerolights.com/index.html DaveTN should appreciate this information. I was surprised to find one.

These are made in the US. American Made Incandescent Bulbs: Light Bulbs Etc, Inc.

I did not like the trigger on my Mark III Hunter, but that was remedied very quickly and inexpensively. Other than the trigger, I think they are absolutely fantastic and they are amazingly accurate.

Geeze, you have to stay on top of the Knife Exchange in order to get some good deals. I picked that Starbenza and Startac 18 minutes after it was posted. I saw something else today that sold within 3 minutes of its posting.

Our positions have always been in agreement. Except, you once said I was debating semantics, which was probably true since my grammar skills are very poor. (edit) - I don't think my reading comprehension is good either. I mistook your response in #29 by quoting my earlier post that you were in disagreement. I went back and reread what I originally wrote and saw that you were not. Damn. There are times I hate text, and I need to learn how to use the spell checker.

You are absolutely correct, pain killer addiction is a huge problem and the current procedures do not work as well as they should. It is my contention that no procedure implemented will work as well as it should. As long as there is a desire for the drug, people are going to find a way to get it. The question now becomes do you want to government to outlaw certain prescription pain killers for everybody because of the actions of a minority of individuals? The answer has to be no. If it was yes, then I could make the argument against alcohol. There are thousands who die every year due to alcohol and alcohol-related accidents. That is a big problem and the current procedures aren't working as well as they should. Ultimately, this is a slippery slope argument. When I run into these type of scenarios, I am always going to side on personal freedom and responsibility instead of allowing the government to create additional laws to further regulate our lives.

You and I have had this debate before. A federal law implementing civil unions for all who are currently married and to those who would seek a civil contract would be much easier to accomplish than establishing a federal law that requires all states to recognize same-sex marriage. The later would be next to impossible. Under my suggestion, which I elaborate on in the following paragraph, everybody wins. Those that want to keep marriage defined in the traditional sense can continue to do so. States that do not want to recoginze same-sex marriage can continue to do so. Homosexuals wishing to enter into a civil union, contract, domestic partnership, or whatever you want to call it to receive the same benefits as married couples are now free to do so. I am suggesting that "marriage" licenses/contracts should be issued by the church, which is where it should stay since "marriage," as you rightly point out, is religious/spiritual in its significance. In order for the state or federal government to recognize that bond between two people, they will also be required to enter into a civil contract, and it is only the civil contract that will be recognized by the government. Same sex couples wishing to receive the benefits of married couples can forego "marriage" and enter into a civil contract. Since the state now only recognizes the civil contract, it doesn't really matter if they are "married" or not. Just to reiterate, trying to force the majority of country who believe in the traditional definition of marriage to accept same-sex marriages is futile; it is never going to happen. Thus, people will continue to be discriminated against and denied rights that others enjoy.

I don't agree with Schumer. AR is spot on, Schumer is an ass. Frankly, I get tired of the government regulating anything and everything and use the nation's best interest as their reason. I can't even go to the drug store and purchase cold medicine without having to show ID and having my name put into a database. Why don't we try for a change letting the people decide what is in their best interest?

I just got through watching the movie. I thought it was much better than Outbreak.

Just to play along, my response would be I am not going to tell you what I would do. Anyway, I don't own any guns so I am not all the important.

Okay, let me see if I can tone down the rhetoric some. I will try to be as coherent as I can be in regards to why I made that comment. First off, there are two extremist camps that have developed during this campaign cycle. The Ronulans, Paulbots, or whatever you want to call them, and the other are the anti-Paulians. As I was telling a fellow TGOer the other day, one camp is just as bad as the other. The Ronulans refuse to accept anything negative about Paul, i.e. he is infallible. The anti-Paulians refuse to accept anything positive about Paul. Both are bad. I am a conservative and I always have been. Believe it or not, I did not support Paul in 2008 priimarily because of his foreign policy views. Between 2008 and the present I started to change, I started to become an independent thinker. I question almost everything I hear and read, and I will try to reasearch what is being said to check its veracity. Paul's foreign policy views have been absolutely trashed within the right-wing blogosphere and the conservative news media. What I have found is that some of the things said about Paul in the venues I participate in or listen to (right-wing blogs and right-wing talk radio) are true, some are a half true, and some are just false. I have come to realize that there are those who will say anything in defense of Paul, and there are those who will say anything to attack Paul regardless of the validity. I am trying my best to be intellectually honest, and when I read things that are a distortion of truth and/or facts, I may from time to time chime in and give my thoughts on the matter. The video in the original post is an excellent example. Michael Scheuer is a well respected expert on both sides of the aisle on middle eastern affairs, primarily extremist/militant Islam. Not everybody agrees with his analysis, but he is well respected nonetheless. He was in the CIA for 22 years and served as the chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station. What he is saying in this video, and to be honest, what he has said for years is the exact opposite of what the Levins, Hannities, and Limbaughs are saying. The later three are by no means experts. In all honesty, they are nothing more than entertainers (Rush has even said such). Now, to those that already have their mind made up on Paul, which is totally fine, Scheuer's comments aren't going to have any affect. In regards to those who are more independent minded, Scheuer's statements (not mine) are damaging to the narrative that some individuals within the media and elsewhere are trying to create about Paul. Since Scheuer's statements are damaging to the narrative, there are some people that will try to minimize his credentials by suggesting that he is a nobody, which is intellectually dishonest. When I see that happen, I may speak up in defense. Like I said earlier, nobody has to agree with his analysis, but due to his experience and line of work, I will give his analysis more credence over the talk show mafia when making a decision on who I choose to vote for in the primary. For the record, I am a nobody. I'm just a chemist who is conservative and happens to support Paul.

Yes, that is correct. Paul did support DOMA. However, Paul would like to take it a step further. Paul has stated on numerous occasions that we need to get the government out of the marriage business. Santorum believes just the opposite. He states that the government should be promoting traditional marriage. I used to believe the same thing Santorum believes. I still believe that marriage is only between a man and woman. However, I cannot deny someone else's right to partake in the financial and civil benefits that come from marriage. The only solution I can come up with that is fair for everyone is the implementation of civil unions for everyone. Traditional marriage will still be available for those like myself who believe in it. However, we will be required to enter into a civil union or contract in order to receive any state or federal benefits. States or local communities that do not want to recognize same-sex marriage are still free to do so, but they cannot deny two individuals wishing to enter into a civil union.

Why would your claim that Paul is nuts and that you will not vote for him hurt a lot of people who like everything about Paul? Are you some sort of expert that has national recognition like Michael Scheuer? I have no idea who you are, but I would guess probably not. So, your commitment to not vote for Paul might hurt someone, but a lot of people? Sorry, but no.

I wasn't aware of those quotes ETP. Good post.

Thanks for the review. I have been debating on whether or not to watch it. I will try to watch it tomorrow.

Here is a statement I made several months ago in a thread when I was correcting someone on their crass comments against Ron Paul supporters. I still feel that same way. If anyone has read any of my posts, it is no secret that I am a Paul supporter. However, I am not a Ronulan. I feel that Paul is the best candidate running, but I am not going to into all of that. I have done it numerous times, and I am tired of repeating myself. One area where I part company with a lot of people is on the issue of third parties. I am for multiple parties, but as I stated the other day in order to break apart the dichotomy, independent parties need to start at the local and state level and succeed in winning elections. The greater their success at this level will eventually mean the greater probability of success on the federal level. While anyone has the right to run third party at the highest level, a top down approach has a very low probability of succeeding. One other area where I part company with a lot of people is criticizing those who do vote third party. I will by no means ever tell anyone that they have no regard for their country or do not have their country's best interest in mind if they decide to vote third party. My view has always been that if there is a candidate you like, regardless of party affiliation, then vote for them. I will however, from time to time, step in on someone who is trying to portray their candidate as something they are not, but I won't tell them not to vote for them even if it is a third or the opposite party. In regards to Paul, he has my vote in the primary. Unlike some, I believe he has the greatest chance of success in beating Obama plus I share a lot of his views. Paul is not going to run third party. He did not do it in 2008, and he is not going to do it in 2012. Paul knows his chances in getting the nomination are moderately low, but he is about promoting ideas and educating people on those ideas, which is something we desparately need. Here is a quote from Paul in 2008. For arguments sake, lets say he does run third party. First off, it won't be on the Libertarian ticket. Johnson already has that spot. Will I vote for him in a third party? No. While I do believe Paul is the best candidate to go against Obama for the GOP, I do not see him winning under a third party platform. I do think he has enough support though to split the vote thereby allowing Obama to squeek out a victory. Regardless of how I feel about this, I still will not criticize those who would vote for him under such a scenario. If by some miracle he won under third party, I would be kissing the butts of those voted for him and thanking them for sticking to their prinicples. To those who refuse to vote if Paul or your candidate of choice doesn't get the GOP nomination, I do have a problem with that. To me voting is one of our most precious rights. It is a right that was paid for by blood, and to not exercise that right because your particular candidate didn't win the nomination is rather insulting even though it is within your rights not to vote.

If it comes down to it, let's hope so.

On first play-through I tried to do everything before I went into the main questline. I think this has been the longest and best rpg I have ever played. Now, I am waiting for Mass Effect 3 to come out in March. Hopefully it will be as long and as good as Skyrim.

Well... you will only have to endure it another 10 months. Seriously though, why care? If you don't like the Ron Paul threads certain individuals post don't click on them. I really like this forum. I think it is great that TGODavid has given us a political section, knife section, and a general section. I seriously doubt I would participate all that much if it was just handguns, long guns, training, and firearm related stories. That gets boring after a while. I can only read so many reviews on the same gun that has been reviewed ten previous times or endure another what's your favorite 1911, etc...

Oh, I don't think it will be a stalemate. Even if the GOP controls both houses, the ball will still be in Obama's court. He will just use executive orders, recess appointments, etc... unless the house initiates impeachment and the senate take it up, which I think is highly unlikely. Even if this scenario happens, I think it will be worse than the first Obama term. What will Obama have to lose during his second term? He doesn't have to worry about reelction, so he will pull out all the stops. "When congress won't act, I feel I have an obligation and duty to go around congress" (paraphrasing)

Sorry about that. I did try to answer to your question though. You have to give me credit for that.

I really don't know. Assuming Paul was out of the race, I would probably be backing Perry. I really like (edit - some) Santorum's social views personally, but as Erickson closes his argument, I would prefer to vote for Santorum over Romney primarily because Santorum would be better on the gun issue and would be more apt to defund some stuff that I absolutely hate. Planned Parenthood, for example. I would vote for him if he got the nomination, but I would absolutely hate it. I would hate because I know that the fiscal issues, which are my primary concern, would not be addressed to a level that would start putting this country in the right direction. Yes, he would be a million times better than what we have, but it would still be very bad. In the end I don't think it will really matter because if Santorum gets the nomination, and I will vote for him, I don't think there is any way whatsoever that he can beat Obama. Geeze, how in the hell did we end up with such a sorry ass bunch of candidates? I think this election will be regarded as the most important election I will have participated in during my lifetime. What do we have running against Obama? We have a candidate that is fantastic on fiscal issues, but his foreign policy views, although somewhat correct, are out of the new conservative mainstream. Therefore, some view him as unelectable, which I think is false. But, that is another argument for another time. The rest of the candidates have more mainstream foreign policy viewpoints, but they absolutely stink on fiscal issues. I hate to say that considering I may end up voting for one of them, but it is true. Their fiscal policies, while better than Obama's, suck. Ultimately it comes down to just two choices in the primaries, good fiscal policies or more mainstream foreign policies. I stated long ago that if we cannot get our fiscal house in order then eventualy our foreign policies really aren't going to mean jacks***. Geeze, I am so depressed. (edit) I had to edit my post by inserting the word "some" when stating that I liked Santorum's social views. The edit was brought about due to some quotes I just read that I found rather disturbing.

I haven't bought an old slip joint knife in years, so I am absolutely no help to you.