mav

Hey guys. I decided to go to the Dalton, GA gun show today, and I am glad I went. I ran across something I have never seen before. I found a mint Chris Reeve 4" Kathathu. There were just 100 of these knives made in 2000 - 2001. I must admit that I was definitely getting a build up of saliva as I was inspecting it. I have been wanting to get a double-edged Microtech A.D.O. for quite some time and right now they are running around $699. To find a CR double-edged one piece, which is what Microtech copied for their ADO, for almost a third of the Microtech price definitely made my day. The only downside was the dealer did not have the box and born-on certificate. Here is my new knife. Uploaded with ImageShack.us

You do realize that the Harry Potter book series has sold more copies than any other written series. I believe the fan base came about from the books since they were out well before the movies. However, I do agree that people should read more. The books are always better anyway.

Good speech. How long ago was that?

Question. I have seen on numerous occasions where an individual can purchase LEO t-shirts and other law enforcement gear. Now it is obvious what this guy intent was, but can an individual be arrested for impersonating an officer just by wearing law enforcement clothing?

I know I will probably get some grief on this topic since I got some last year. I know Daniel thought I was some sort of weirdo. Anyway, the final chapter to the Harry Potter series started today. Is anyone planning on seeing it or taking their kids to see it? I know a few people who went to the midnight showing, and they said it was really good. HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS - PART 2

Well.. I can only respond by saying that everyone perceives things differently. Anyway, it is over and done with. On to the next topic.

I think you did the right thing MacGyver. For what it is worth, thanks. While I didn't see any name calling or personal attacks in the thread, the antagonism and crass comments were clearly evident. It was the primary reason I stayed out of it.

I have been off my diet for for quite a while. Things have been hectic at work, so I haven't been able keep up with the constant eating and supplementation. The goods news is I have been able to maintain all of the weight I have put on. Right now, I am fluctuating between 191 and 194 lb. I will probably stay off my diet until September since I am planning a beach/golf vacation late in August. The one thing that I have been shocked about is my strength. I would have bet that my strength would have dropped after laying off of my creatine and high protein diet. The opposite has occured. I haven't lost any strength, in fact, my strength has continued to increase. I am lifting more weight one certain exercises than I have ever lifted in my lifetime. Last week, I was repping the 110 lb. dumbbells on flat bench press, and I was able to get some reps with the 80 lb. dumbbells on seated dumbbell press. The worst part about the 80 lb dumbbells on a seated military press is getting them up to your shoulders. While I have yet to achieve my goal, I am still happy with the results I have achieved.

Winna winna chicken dinna. Yes, my entire argument is really nothing more than semantics. We are both in agreement that marriage in the eyes of the government is a civil contract. Based upon some of the responses in this thread, we can see that marriage also has a religious or spiritual signifigance to some. So, what do we do? Do we crap all over the vast majority of the population that hold the traditonalist view of marriage by recognizing gay marriage? Do we tell homosexuals tough s**t, you can't have the same rights as everyone else? I don't think so. A mere changing of the word(s) should be sufficient for everyone. Alas, I know what I am arguing is not likely to occur. To be honest, I don't know if this issue will ever be solved to the point where people on both sides of the issue will be satisfied. I guess this is just a good example of the pitfalls of large governments.

The traditionalist viewpoint of marriage has always been a religious institution in this country. Although the ceremony and the sacrement of marriage was indeed religious in nature, there is no denying the societal benefits of such a union between a man and woman. It was and still is considered the best structural and stabilizing force within society, and especially in regards to fostering children. It was only until the states started meddling in the affairs of individuals that civil/legal benefits became attached. This is where the problem started. This problem only got worse once the federal government started going beyond their enumerated powers by enacting social programs and creating federal benefits. Ultimately, it ends up with the quagmire we have today. As I stated earlier, the government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether. There is no reason a couple should have to look to the government for validation of their marriage, but since there are benefits involved, I believe that all, regardless of sexual orientation, should commit to civil/legal unions. For example, if a heterosexual couple gets married, they are not issued a marriage license by the state (the "marriage" document can be issued by their church, synagogue, whatever). They will apply for a civil contract. If they do not enter into a civil contract, then there is no guarantee of transfer of benefits etc... The above example would also apply to homosexuals. Since I am a Christian and I hold the traditionalist perspective on marriage, which is still the dominant viewpoint, I do not agree with gay marriage. However, I think it is an infringement of a citizen's rights (gay or not) to not be allowed to enter into civil unions and/or contracts. The only way I know to solve the problem is to get government out of the marriage business. By removing government from marriage and issuance of civil unions for all who apply, traditionalists can still keep their viewpoint, and gay people will not be infringed upon. No one group will receive special rights and/or privileges over the other. All will be treated as equals.

I don't really think he is considering it, regardless of what he said. I think he was being polite in brushing them off.

Considering signing isn't the same thing as signing it. I don't think he will sign it, but we will see. I have been surprised before.

Andrew Wilkow has good name for these folks, Zero Liability Voters.

This should p*ss off most people. Unfortunately, most people are apathetic and this administration knows it.

Bingo. Even Obama knows this, and he stated as much back in 2009. What we have going on now is nothing more than Kabuki Theater. They are also posturing themselves for the 2012 elections.

Congratulations on your retirement. Good luck with your future endeavors.

Neat gun. Never seen one of those before.

As of right now, if I am not mistaken, the federal government does not recognize same sex marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act still stands. Several months ago, Holder and Obama stated their belief that part of DOMA was unconstitutional. However, I believe the DOJ said they would enforce DOMA, but not defend it. Whatever that means (I'm not a lawyer).

My pondering was certainly not to create an offense. I have often though about my own culpability in regards to this entire mess that is the federal government. I have voted for and supported a lot of the politicians over the years who have exacerbated the fiscal problems we now face. I voted for Bush twice, and I think he was rather sorry. I don't know how many times I voted for Wamp, and he voted to give us the TARP bailout. I have voted for Frist, Corker, and Alexander. They are all pretty much big government moderates. Granted, the choices I have made would have certainly been better than the alternative, but nonetheless, they still sucked. While there are still some good conservative constitutionalist Republicans, I am finally starting to see through the looking glass that both parties are essentially the same. Both parties are more consumed with a lust for power than they are of serving their electorate. I do believe, however, that one party will lead us down the path of ruination at a much slower pace than the other, but nevertheless, it is still the same path. It is rather unfortunate that it has taking me so long to come to this realization. In the hopes of remedying what I helped create, I will start by thinking for myself and choosing candidates during the primaries whose views more closely resemble mine. I am done with all of the strategizing and choosing the more "electable" of candidates. The general election, however, will be more of the same assuming my candidate of choice didn't win. I will continue to vote for the lesser of evils.

I would rather it be hot outside instead of freezing cold with snow.

I often wonder who is really to blame for this dire situation. The politicians or those who voted them in office and kept them in office. I think Plato said it best, "One of the penalities for refusing to participate in politics is you end up being governed by your inferiors."

As I said, the federal government should stay out of the marriage business altogether. One should be able have the same rights and/or benefits in a contract between two people (gay or not). I don't think the religious institution of marriage should have anything to do with it.

Ron Paul? I have not abandoned my support for Bachmann. Out of those currently in the race, I believe she better than a lot of them, especially Romney and Huntsman. I have no problem with a Christian conservative running for the office as long as they are also a constitutionalist. I won't say that I enthusiastically support gay marriage, but that issue should be left up to local and state governments. The federal government should stay out of the marriage business altogether. The same goes for porn. In regards to Sharia law, yes I agree that Sharia law conflicts with our constitution and should have no place within our society. As I stated earlier, Bachmann took an oath to uphold the constitution, and that should cover the Sharia law issue. So, signing the pledge based on that one issue alone would be unnecessary.

I think most of us will. I do, however, prefer Obama has to run against a candidate more in line with my views than just another moderate republican. If we are forced to choose between a moderate and Obama, the moderate will certainly be the better choice, but they will still suck. JMHO.