the_spaniard

Interesting theories, but the fat lady hasn't quite sung yet. I don't believe the democrats will take the house. There likely will not be any spanking. So what exactly will change? Likely nothing. More gridlock, and more after that if the republicans ignore (again) women and minorities by staying as far right as possible, because Hillary will likely win if she runs. Then what? More gridlock. And then a hell of a lot more spending we don't need. Regardless of their libertarian origins, the TP is now seen as ultra-conservative. Until they change that, they likely don't have a chance. There is nothing radical about fiscal responsibility (unless you are an extremist democrat), but all of the other things that come along with hard-right conservatism are a bitter pill for many to swallow. You can't have a reform party largely composed of the extremists of one side of the political spectrum. Immigration reform also looms after the can is sufficiently kicked. And like it or not, there will likely be some road to amnesty, given we simply don't have the resources to track down and deport some 12 million illegals.

Well we are talking about Romney vs Obama. How much time was wasted on the "birther" nonsense? How many fruitless votes to repeal Obamacare? How many filibusters? All during the worst economic climate since the great depression. Nope, no obstructionism there. Glad they could focus on what was really important. And yes, democrats can share a lot of that blame too. As much your opinion as your favorite color. Trying to present it as fact does not make it so.

Whenever I drive down to VA to see my father in the summer, my vehicle gets caked with dead bugs. There isn't a lot you can do about it. I too, use a brush with warm water. If you go for a bra, only leave it on for that trip. Bras are pretty darn hideous.

Nowadays I don't have much time to read fiction, but the premise of this sounds interesting...and a little terrifying.

Again, I was not thrilled to vote for Obama, but the republicans had done nothing but obstruct. With the economy in shambles from an economic crisis they contributed to their goal was making the president a one-term president, country be damned. Their primary was an absolute circus. Whatever credibility Romney had his party gladly squandered. Republicans really need to not do that again. It probably didn't do Romney any favors. While Romney may have had business chops, that is all he had. I am well aware that we need to reel in spending, and the current crop of democrats aren't going to do that. In some ways, Obama is way over his head, but republicans have to become much more moderate for them to get my vote. Their own autopsy of their last presidential election loss stated they need to be more moderate to appeal to women and minorities. Since then they have moved more to the right and have done nothing to appeal to women and minorities, and it will likely cost them the next presidential election, particularly if the Dems run Hillary. The democrats need to get spending under control and the republicans need to realize there aren't enough hard right old white guys voting to win a presidential election. American demographics have changed. Once again, where is the moderate republican candidate that is a fiscal conservative but moderate on social issues and the environment? Because that guy would probably have no problem being elected president.

I always tend to lump Rand and Hubbard together...mostly because they are two prime examples of best-selling authors that are terrible writers (for different reasons) between them. Hubbard just has bad ideas, Rand just really, really, really needs an editor. I don't agree with her ideas, but I don't fault her for them. Her presentation is just horrible. With the lack of back story and character development in Atlus Shrugged, it could have been a short story. I have got to read Bare-Faced Messiah. Hubbard was always a legend in his own mind. And yes, his Sci-Fi was terrible. "I'm in your garden...auditing your Tomatoes!"

The only thing in common is someone leaving. The country isn't imploding due to socialism. The country is in a state of gridlock because our system of government is based on compromise and we have extremist children painting anyone that compromises as not liberal/conservative enough and calling people Hitler/racist for disagreeing with them. I'm not part of a group heading out while the US destroys itself and then coming back to pick at it's bones like some selfish vulture. I'm just talking about a nice extended vacation. I'm not quite as selfish as those corporate "heroes". Exactly why I voted for Obama last time. Not that I thought he was a great choice, but because I felt the competition was just that poor.

Not really applicable within my context. Nothing of what I wrote has anything to do with capitalism or socialism. Furthermore her text is sooooo overrated. Elitist capitalist propaganda, and quite poorly written at that. People should read a leaflet on objectivism and save themselves the excruciating boredom. I have often wondered if Ayn Rand and L. Ron Hubbard collaborated on a book if it would signify the end of days. Then again, Hubbards work was more interesting and had better character development.

What amazes me is that historically, congressional approval numbers mean absolutely nothing. I read somewhere that House re-election rates have been around 90% since the mid-90's, regardless of the numbers. I'm sure it is the same in the Senate. Americans are their own worst enemy. Their apathy at the polls (particularly democrats and independents) prevents any real turnover in congress....and yet the large majority agree that these people need to go. I tell people that if you look at the state of things...real facts and statistics (and not partisan rhetoric) and then turn on C-Span and listen to how smug and content these scumbags are (knowing they aren't going anywhere), you will become very angry. If that isn't incentive to get out and vote this country is really screwed. I may have an opportunity to do some work in Sri Lanka later this year, and my buddy out there says it is paradise. He has been out there since last year with his family and he loves it. Maybe I need an extended-stay vacation while this country sorts itself out.

A much larger percentage of people (95% from the most recent CBS poll) in this country see congress as a problem. I tend to agree with them.

Oh I agree. Once can't trumpet that he got Bin Laden (with at least some intel predating his administration) without also accepting that this is ultimately the official responsibility of the current CINC (which was a problem that also predated his administration). He has taken responsibility, literally saying that "ultimately the responsibility lies with me". He dropped the ball, Bush dropped the ball. Both of them should have sorted this out. What I don't agree with is a bunch of hypocrites from both sides suddenly shining a spotlight on anyone when they are in fact, just as much to blame. The "holier than thou" nonsense has got to stop. Particularly when there is just mountains of evidence available that the loudest voices calling out the president were also responsible for short-changing vets. Exhibit A. While you often hear me complain about our collective eighth-grade education level in this country, our representatives seem to think many American people are far more stupid then they actually are....which probably explains their approval rating. Anyone that sits in a congress with a 5% approval rating should have ZERO chance of re-election. Sadly that won't be the case, so maybe the politicians are right.

MORE than enough blame to go around on this one, but yeah Obama is CINC.

Almost fell out of my chair on that one.

As someone that usually spends at least 30 hours a week outdoors for work, and then as much time outdoors as possible for leisure I can appreciate the topic. I prefer Kelty packs as well, based on fit, utility and resilience. I use a Kelty pack at work full time. Sometimes I'll integrate a Camelback, most of times at work it is unnecessary. I have three Kelty packs, increasing in carrying capacity. Yuppies will stroll into the field laden in North Face, but I have found North Face stuff to lack a lot of the utility pockets, tie-down points and other features that Kelty has in spades. I usually pack bulk MREs as well. If I am going out for a week or more I may pick up a fancy trail food package in a self-heating bag, but to be honest that is a rarity. GORP is a staple for snacking, along with some jerky. I can't get into the hippie trail-mix thing in the bush. Helll, I'll even bring along some vienna sausages. For water, I'm old school. If I don't pack it I boil it, but I always throw in some greens to give it some taste. I always carry purification tablets in case of emergency. As far as clothing, I wear Columbia head to toe. Not because it's a brand, but because their stuff is pretty tough in the field, and they have some pretty good tech for breathability. The Omni-shade line is awesome. They also have a ton of great packable clothes and convertible pants. I pick it up for cheap online from Amazon. The best boots I have run into for recreational hiking are Merrells. At work I wear Red Wings. I have a pair of RW hikers and another beefy pair of RW steel-toed boots that are great. Depending on how dense the bush, I'll wear a lightweight Columbia ball cap, and on excavation days I'll sport a wide-brimmed Australian kaduku hat. We don't generally tuck our pants in our boots, as ticks are just part of the job. On a good day in NC in dense bush, with bug spray, tucked in longsleeve shirt and a hat we still pick off around 10-20 ticks per day. They will get in somewhere, even with generous application of Deepwoods Off and Deet. Then again, I am usually working under canopy and never on a trail/open area. Like spiders and all other kinds of critters, they just fall on you from the trees. Gloves are good, I always have at least one pair on me, but in my line of work you go through them quickly. When I hike in the snow in the winter, I have soft-shell liners I wear under my main gloves. I wish I could bring my pistola with me at work, but I often work on secure areas like military bases and such. If I had stayed in NC, I would have gotten a CCW permit for my weekend hikes. Not for critters mind you, but you never know when you are going to stumble onto a meth lab in the middle of nowhere (did that out in Riverside CA in 99') or some idiot with something to prove. I have hiked and camped from from California to Maryland, and aside from very nervous night poops alone in mountain-lion territory have never worried about the wildlife. People on the other hand, are morons. I am one of those idiot solo hikers BH mentions, unless I have a young lady in tow. Generally I don't particularly care for people unless they have been dead for a few thousand years, so I have been hiking and camping solo since I was 19. BUT I do always check in with rangers (sometimes they even let you use one of their radios) if I am going into a state/federal park. I also use a 3rd-gen SPOT though I certainly don't put a lot of confidence in it. Safety-wise, a custom made first aid kit always comes along as well as a mix of fire starters, paracord, knives and other gear. If I can't take my gun, I can sure as hell take everything else. I'm not one of those ultra-light guys. If I am at work I am hauling gear (Nikon laser transit for surveying, including tripod and monkey pole with prism) and other stuff. I usually run about 50-65lbs for recreational long-distance hiking, but then again I tend to hike FAR away from people. It's no uncommon for me to 4WD out to a remote location and hike out from there. I take my pup out with me every chance I can.

Not exactly a sidebar when the jury can read it. A PM is a sidebar Compared to some of the other forums I frequent, people here get away with bloody murder. That isn't a shot at Nick or anyone else, different forums just have different styles of moderation. My beef (as previously stated) is we have too many threads that are: - Inflammatory for the explicit purpose of being inflammatory (trolling). - Inflammatory for the purpose of drawing out a minority, and subsequently gang-banging said minority (trolling+validation) Political posts here are pointless. Why? Too many ideologues. You can't have an intelligent discussion with people that will never see past blind political rhetoric. I've seen discussions here where people from each side have blatantly and effectively proven the other side wrong by providing cold, hard facts, yet neither yield an inch, or more often than not just refuse delivery by ignoring said facts....which at time are irrefutable. You cant have an intelligent political discussion with someone that dismisses all liberals as X, all conservatives as y, or anyone that blanket labels and entire group. You can have a discussion that devolves to third-grade name-calling though. Do we really need so many inflammatory political threads, most of which are trolling by design? Where is the harm in throwing all inflammatory political discussion into a single thread? Make a political thread and make it a sticky. Make a global warming thread and make it a sticky. Immediately close any non-political thread that becomes politicized. Absolutely, positively, no personal attacks. If you can't discuss issues like an adult, you don't get to sit at the grown-ups table. And for the record folks even if the mods did this it still wouldn't be considered "tough" moderation. .

Before: After: My grandfather from Appalachia had a stroke that left him in the same condition. While I find these heartbreakingly crude they are also pretty damned funny.

My point was the NRA is fighting for the gun rights of convicted felons. Some of these felons after getting their gun rights back have gone on to commit more crimes sometimes using firearms. I'm not saying the NRA wants this, but those are the facts. There are no guarantees, but lobbying does work. If it didn't, the NRA (and a ton of other companies) would not be spending millions doing it. If you have a pro-gun politician that changes his mind about his level of gun support, financially backing his competitor (who has a history of strong gun support) may change his mind.

If you have 71 times the money of your opponent in lobbying, how is that NOT suppression of one side? Tell you what, lets see a president get elected when his opponent outspends him with that ratio. Until pro-gun control groups have the financial clout to threaten representatives that do not support their views (the way the NRA threatens republican representatives that don't get a good "grade"), they have no hope of opposing the corporate-funded NRA. If that was actually the case, which polls suggested it was not...at least on a national level.

I don't have a problem with the NRA supporting it's members, that was never mentioned as a point in my arguments here. I have a problem when they put corporate profits ahead of what the majority of the public (the people) want. I have a problem when because of their support from gun manufacturers they can outspend an opposing voice at a ratio of 71:1. If the people are that opposing voice (and they may very well be according to polls) they don't have a chance against that. I understand that non-NRA members may be for their policies. But they don't actively fund the suppression of other views (unless they buy guns from the manufacturers that support the NRA).

I'll cede to your point on NRA funding if that includes the NRA, NRA-ILA, and the NRA Foundation (All part of the NRA)? Still, so less than 50% of their funding comes from membership dues. And there is the NRA-manufactured assault on your freedoms. Sandy Hook is a prime example. After a mass shooting, "the government is coming to take away your guns." No one is trying to disarm American people. It's a fiction manufactured by the NRA to promote gun sales...and they use mass shootings to boost those sales. NRA really cashed in on suckers with the "Obama is coming to get your guns" line of ridiculous rhetoric. Laughed all the way to the bank. Thats why the number of gun owners has not increased significantly, but the number of guns each one owns has. I'm not trying to discredit the NRA, you don't have to. Like the tobacco industry, listen to their own rhetoric and just follow the money. People act as if the NRA didn't exist we wouldn't have 2nd Amendment rights. Despite that polls show, time and time again that the majority of gun owners want common-sense regulation that the NRA ardently opposes. The last attempt to limit high-capacity magazines was thwarted by an influx of lobbying money and support by the NRA. Who is NRA's largest contributor? MidwayUSA, the manufacturer of high-capacity magazines. Is that really that hard to see that conflict of interest for a group supposedly dedicated to preserving your constitutional rights? If I thought the NRA was really about protecting my gun freedoms I wouldn't have an issue. If they weren't receiving large amounts of cash from manufacturers I wouldn't have an issue. That creates a serious conflict of interest for a group supposedly only concerned with my rights. What you have not shown is that most Americans or even most gun owners support the NRA when polls and their membership say otherwise. Despite growth last year, they still have not hit 10%. Their number of 8% was questionable then. When you aren't 10% of the population how can you say the majority of Americans support it? Pretty big assumption there. Tell me, if I don't want to support the NRA but I still want to buy a firearm manufactured by the most well-known manufacturers how do I go about doing that in this country? That's right, you cant. That is the problem. If you don't like the NRA or their policies and you buy a handgun from a major manufacturer then you are supporting them anyway. Nice "automatic" support there. It isn't an evil conspiracy, but it is a rigged game.

While I feel that you sending the NRA a check vindicates David Hannum, you certainly have the right to spend your money as you see fit. As for your posts throughout this discussion (including the ones above) I think your own words provide a far more interesting characterization than I ever could. Signed, Урок заканчивается здесь.

That alone would be a disaster.

I always had a soft spot for the first-gens of both the RT and GTS. Primitive, unreliable and uncomfortable those cars were still uncompromisingly bad-ass back in the day. Aside from the current Challenger the first-gen Vipers were the only post-1970 Dodge I could ever see myself in.