mav

I hit my goal of 215 in late October. That was completely rough and expensive getting there. I was spending almost $300 a month on supplements. The nice thing about being at that weight was I was stronger than I have ever been in my entire life. The downside was I had become too bulky for my taste and my flexibility started to suffer. Over the last month and a half, I wanted to see where my weight would go by getting off of all supplements and eating normally. My body could not hold the weight as I am sure a lot of it was water due to the creatine I was taking. I lost a decent amount of weight, and my body finally stabilized around 197, which is fine for me. The nice thing was I retained a good amount of my strength during the weight loss. I am not as strong as I was at my heaviest, but I am stronger than when I was originally in the high 190s. I think I am going to stay around the 195 - 200 weight range. That seems to be a good weight for me at my height.

I honestly do not believe Paul will run third party. Rand Paul said the other day that it would not be a good thing to run third party and pretty much admitted that it would reelect Obama. However, Paul is not going to say he won't run third party. Why should he? He becomes more influential within the GOP by keeping the threat alive, which is a very good thing. His domestic agenda is second to none. The better he does in the primaries, the more influenece he gains. I don't blame him for not saying that he will absolutely not run on a third party platform. I will say that it is more than likely that if Paul doesn't win the nomination he will not endorse the nominee. Being a man of prinicples over party, I don't think I could really fault him on that either. If Romney gets the nod, a lot of people will vote for him, but they won't endorse him. The same can be said for Santorum and Gingrich. I think what a lot of people should be upset about is when Gingrich said it would be a tough decision if the general ended up being Paul vs. Obama. Seriously, WTF? I understand how a lot of people don't like some of Paul's views, but that is a no-brainer. Any of the candidates including Romney, whom I do not trust at all, would be better than Obama.

Well, I guess I will be the limp d***ed beta-male on this thread. Earlier in my life I would have lost my temper in such a situation and would have done exactly what I felt like doing, which was more than likely beat the crap, or at least try to, someone who insulted me. Now, I have got to the point to where I will question my initial reaction as to determine whether it is the best action. Considering I now carry a gun, I really question it. I will not escalate a situation that can be easily diffused. While I would love nothing more than to knock the s*** out of Ventura, in this situation I would have asked him to leave. If he wouldn't leave, I would have got some people to help me make him leave. I would then call the police and later on post a You-tube video of him being a total jackass. While punching him would have made me feel good, showing the world what a jerk he is would have, in the long run, made me feel better.

I would like to hear the other side of the story as well. I absolutely can't stand Ventura. He is nothing more than a loud mouth jerk. However, I would like to know when it became okay to assault someone because they say something you find highly offensive.

Oh come on now. You don't think McCain's endorsement is going to help? (edit) - McCain did so well last time. Why he is the epitome of moderation. In regards to steeling ourselves for another 4 years of Obama, I don't think it will really matter. If he gets another term, the country will be so far beyond repair after his second term that we will literally be on the brink of self destruction. We all know how bad he has been during his first term, but just imagine how bad it will be during his second. He won't have to worry about being reelected, so I am sure anything will go at that point.

I don't know how you can listen to Alex Jones for 2 minutes. I don't listen to him at all. As far as the caucus went, Paul got beat fair and square. Romney has always been the front runner and Paul has always had his 10% plus group of supporters. Most of the other votes were anti-Romney votes. Bachmann was the first to get them. She fizzled as soon as Perry officially announced, and he lost them because he came across as having the IQ of a plant in some of the debates. Next in line was Cain with his gimmicky 9-9-9 plan. When it came out he was a horn dog, he lost all the votes and had to drop out. Gingrich was next in line for the votes, and he collapsed due to the attacks from all of the other candidates. After Gingrich, there was no one else left except for Santorum. So a lot of the anti-Romney votes went to him. Paul and Perry got some while Newt still held onto some, but the majority went to Santorum. The question now is whether Santorum can stay in the top tier when he starts being put under a microscope. I expect to hear the talk show mafia start complaining that Santorum is being unfairly scrutinized by the media because he is the only conservative, which is total bs since every candidate who has been at the top has had to take it.

Hmmm, Chevy Volt.

I have to disagree with you on this one AR. While I do have respect for the man, I have said for months that Santorum is not a limited government conservative. I have listened very carefully to his answers in the debates, and have examined his record. The only difference between Santorum and Romney is Santorum is more socially conservative and more hawkish. Both are big believers in a strong central government even though Santorum may claim otherwise. If Santorum was a little more moderate on his social views, I would consider him to be the establishment candidate as well. If Santorum by some chance manages to win the nomination, which I don't think he will, there is only one way he could defeat Obama. Democrats will have to stay at home in protest in order for Santorum to win. Santorum is so far to the right socially that it is totally anathema to moderates, independents, and disgruntled democrats. They will not vote for him. While I hate to say it, I believe Romney stands a better chance of beating Obama than Santorum, and that assumes his mormonism doesn't affect people's decision. As so many people like to say about Paul, I don't think Santorum can win the general. (edit) To be fair to Santorum, I don't think he would have instituted Obama/Romneycare. However, he did vote for the prescription drug plan, which has been extremely costly.

Now that the first caucus is over, has anyone changed their positions? Do you have any comments on the results? I will admit that I becoming increasingly pessimisstic on the GOP's chances of replacing Obama. In regards to the Santorum finish, I take a little a different position than what I hear from others. Throughout most of this race, Santorum has pretty much been at the bottom of the polls. The big advantage here is that Santorum didn't get anywhere near the same level of scrutiny as did the other candidates. He did not have to endure any attack ads. Why would you waste your money atacking a candidate that appeared to be going nowhere with very little money? The last couple of weeks of very strong but justified attacks, Gingrich started to fall from the top spot and Paul started being attacked from the right side of the aisle for being a racist and anti-semetic. It is only then when voters started searching for another non-Romney candidate. Fortunately for Santorum, he was the only one left. It will be interesting to see how well he holds up once the heat is turned up. Will he be able to endure it or will he be another flash in the pan candidate who shot to the top only to be knocked back down a month later? Personally, I think it is the later. Even though the primaries have just started, I am starting to feel that Romney is going to be the nominee. Can he beat Obama? I really don't know. Bachmann is out, Huntsman will probably be out after New Hampshire, Perry will be out after South Carolina, Gingrich may leave after Florida, and I don't know what Santorum will do. Unless he finishes strong in SC, I don't see how Santorum can continue with very little money. By the time Super Tuesday comes around we may only have Romney and Paul still in the race.

Earlier in the morning you trip over your feet and fall down the stairs. A few hours later while at the gym, you hit your elbow so hard on a piece of equipment that it brings tears to your eyes. Not three minutes after hitting your elbow you are not paying attention while racking some weights and drop a 25 lb plate on your small toe. For some reason or another I am determined to hurt myself today. I am beginning to think I should have stayed in bed.

I certainly know it isn't Obama. His face is on the food stamp.

There must be something wrong with me, but I tend to agree with Dave as well. However, not for the same reasoning. I believe there has to be some kind of diminished mental capacity. My guess would be he was on drugs.

Lexington man charged with making a fake $1 million bill and trying to spend it | JournalNow.com Apparently a man went into Walmart to purchase a few items and tried to pay the cashier using a $1,000,000 bill on a total of $476. He is now facing two felony counts. For arguments sake let's assume the guy is the most gullible person on the planet and he didn't realize the bill was fake. Does he actually expect to receive $999,534 in change? I have run across some really dumb people in my life, but this absolutely tops them all. Hopefully he has a felony on his record or will at least be convicted of one, because if you are that dumb, no have absolutely no business voting.

Partially correct. Here is the exact wording of part of Section 1022 Section 1021 Yes, this does apply to foreign Al Qaeda terrorists. However, this is also applicable to non-US citizens or illegal residents who are deemed terrorists and are captured on US soil. They do not have to be solely related to Al Qaeda nor do they have to be on foreign soil. As I stated earlier, my problem with this bill is legalizing indefinite detention. Well... you can go back and read what I posted.

No, I worked out a deal with a guy on BF for a new Starbenza (Wilson Combat) and Startac (Wilson Combat). I didn't really want another Startac, but I got it for a very good price so it was hard for me to refuse. In regards to the one-piece, I have about 15. I am still a long way from having the entire collection.

I certainly have not read the bill and I seriously doubt anyone else has read the entire 500 plus page bill. However, I have read the two sections 1021 and 1022 that raises questions for a lot of people. I really don't know what to make of his comment. It can be intrepreted several ways. Look, I hate this conspiracy s*** probably as much as you do. My biggest problem with this law is that it legalizes indefinite detention. Future laws can broaden already existing legal powers that are used under the "war on terrorism." Definitions of of terrorism can change. There is the possibility that future laws could nullify the restrictions of this law regarding US citizens. We shouldn't forget that there were senators (McCain, Levin, etc...) that did not want any restrictions on indefinite detention. So while Alex Jones takes it 10 steps too far as usual, this bill does broaden or add new powers that are very serious and should not be taken lightly or dismissed because of the ravings of a conspiracy theorist.

I find that statement highly offensive. Our politicians are our best and brightest. For example, here is a clip of Congressman Hank Johnson fretting over the possibility that Guam may tip over if it becomes too populated.

I couldn't agree with you more, and am guilty of not doing that myself.

I really do not like you MacGyver. You jinxed me. I made it a whopping 18 hours before I broke my resolution and bought two new CR knives. Don't talk to me anymore.

You know what find amazing is how many people will bitch about laws like these, but yet will vote for the very same politicians (even in the primaries) who support such legislation. Does anyone honestly think Romney, Gingrich, Perry, Santorum , etc... would actually veto a bill like this?

I can't really give you a good answer on that one. My best guess would be the collectability and quality of his knives. Zero Tolerance are great knives. I own nine of them. However, if you were to compare a ZT0551 to my XM-24, you would see and feel the difference. Is it worth 3 - 5 times the cost? That is all up to the individual. I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of non-knife geek people the answer is a definite no. (edit) I want to add one thing. I would tell most people who want to buy a Hinderer or a Hinderer-designed knife to buy a ZT0551 or the new ZT0561 over a XM-18 or XM-24. The ZTs are a heck of a lot cheaper, although still expensive, and they are absolutely fantastic knives. In my case, I wanted a Hinderer XM-24, and found a decent price on one so I bought it.

I have suspected as much, and this article confirms my suspicion.

I had to read your post twice. I know I am a chump, but I was really feeling like one when I read the price. I feel better after rereading it.

I would love to go to this, but I won't be able to make it to this shoot. I will catch you guys on the next one. Hopefully, you guys have better than luck than the Chattanooga meet and shoot.