FrankJL

Even if he does get the death penalty, he's still more likely to die of old age then of actually being executed at some point.

if you can bear to watch it... speaking of Al Qaeda I love British humor..

If you have a gas stove... Put your cutting board beside the stove and turn on the two closest burners on while you cut your onions. The heat and flame will draw up the mist, burn it up, and send it up the stove's exhaust system. This worked great at my parents house, but my apartment now has one of those glass/ceramic top electric stove things. Doesn't help with onions, but is super easy to clean it. This is an old wise tale. It comes from this code being followed in the majority(not all though) of the equestrian states that are at the current Gettysburg memorial, however it doesn't apply to most statues, especially those in monuments around the D.C area. Though this rumor does persist because the statue can only be in one of three positions, as a result most are only coincidence. Interestingly enough, the great statue of George Washington (in Fayette park in D.C) shows it with one hoof up, and Washington died in 1799 from a lung infection, supposedly. I say supposedly because their is much debate about the causes of his death.

Traveler... Excellent point...Tesla was responsible for developing the base of so many technologies we take for granted everyday, and he seems to get no credit at all for his great works. My dad brought me back some serbian money from kosovo, when he was over there in 96, it had teslas picture on it. Thought that was kinda neat. .... What exactly is the point of this eat meat or not discussion?

I may be a new member, but I don't remember that lesson in the missionary discussions...

Sure I can do that...give me a few days. I'll make something.

If you have one MRE (meaning one complete pouch, not just the main meal) it is designed to be 3k cal if you eat everything in the pack. That is so at a bare minimum you only need one per day. 3 per day is ok if your in a very active mode (i.e combat), but under normal circumstances one a day will support you quite well. Another health related note too.... They are very high in sodium, on purpose, to replace the salt you lose through sweat when working, especially in the desert, which is where us military types tend to get deployed to the most.

Luke... You've made it clear your nothing but a conspiracy nut, as such you don't deserve any sort of response, your ignorance and blindness to the world around you has clearly clouded any logical thought from you. but then again, you probably regard me as part of some conspiracy as well...after all I'm in the Army, work with communication's stuff, and hold a pretty high level security clearance.

$2.50 for one MRE main entree meal?? How much are they charging for a whole MRE? geez...I could have made millions while i was in the army, I could get cases of them for free if I wanted...geez.. do these places also sell the long brown plastic spoons that come with whole MRE pouches?, regular plastic spoons won't reach to the bottom of the long pouch the main meal comes in. Of course the easiest way to eat them is to use a knife and cut it longwise, not where the notches are on the top of the pack.

Why do you want to be wrong? I know what I'm talking about, when it come to politics. History is my major, and poly sci and econ are my minors. I read, study, and work with this stuff everyday. The polls cited above are from opinion dynamics and AP/Ipso, both respected polling firms that work for fox news and cnn, respectively, and like I said I could have provided more info but that data is from paid registration sites, that I use for school work. Then I showed your a brief comparison between the results of the senate races, and the ballot measures in your own states you list as where you live. I'm not exactly sure how you can call this information wrong, the links are in the post. Unless you are saying there was some kind of voter fraud, those are the actual returns for those elections. If you have some solid proof to back up what your saying show me, link it here. I would honestly like to see it. You show even more of your misunderstanding, by comparing Obama to Stalin. Their ideals are nothing alike , but you just seem to parrot the cliches of so many right wing talking heads. One Stalinism's primary goals was the establishment of a larger more modernized military. I don't see where Obama is supporting any massive up tick in our military. Also of all the attempts at soviet communism at the time, Stalin's vision, was by far the most economically open, compared the the economic polices of Lenin, and Marx, Stalin's New Economic Plan didn't even have a socialist goal. People seem to have such a misunderstanding of communism and socialism (they are not the same thing). You can identify aspects of both movements, in both modern conservative and liberal political philosophies, comparing modern American political movements, to the development of political systems in Europe and Asia during the early 1900's isn't real applicable. Marx and Lenin both despised homosexuality. Marx and Engels (a communist philosopher that co-wrote Marx's "Communist Manifesto") saw any form of sexuality outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage as a kind of degeneracy fostered by capitalism, which could be cured by communism. According to Engels, "natural moral principles" would flourish in the socialist future, when (heterosexual) "monogamy, instead of declining, finally becomes a reality — for the man as well," Quotes from Engels's book "The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State", which is a very interesting read, if you want to know the real ideals and beliefs of Communism, as Marx saw it. Comparing Hillary Clinton to Hitler is such an ignorant statement, it doesn't deserve a response.

fornications = fortifications...I must have hit the wrong word on the spellchecker Secondly, to whoever cited Wikipedia as a reliable source needs a reality check. Try turning a paper in college with Wikipedia as a source and see what grade you get. Wikipedia is not reliable for anything. The whole pipeline deal, never really did exist, or was in serious planning to develop. Its another one of the twisting of the truth, that ended up being popularized by Micheal Moore's movie Fahrenheit 911. Yes, most of the 9/11 hijacker where Saudis (15 of the 19 to be specific, 2 where from the United Arab Emirates, one from Jordan, and one from Egypt) Mohamad Atta the supposed main planner of the event was the one Egyptian. Though to attack Saudi Arabia (or the UAE, Egypt, or Jordan for that matter) wouldn't make sense. Lest we forget that Zacharias Mousai was to replace Ziad Jarrah, as the pilot of United 93 (the one that crashed into a farm in PA). Richard Reid (a British Citizen)was also to be on United 93 with Mousai, so that plane would have 5 hijackers. Remember, one of the main reasons theorized that the passengers took over the plane was United 93 only had 4 hijackers, the other three planes had 5 hijackers each. err...there is more I wanted to write but my neighboor is here, and needs help with something...

great - done

Would you say that he is better speaker then Hillary? seeing as your a dr I'm assuming your older, I apologize if I'm stereotyping, but it seems Obama's appeal is really with younger people. I can tell you that here at Penn State, the liberal kids (which is about 90%) here are almost orgasmic (for lack of a better term) over Obama.

I don't want the list for my stake, I want it for my personal use. I'm just recently returning to being active in the church, and I have been recently going through my own music collection, trying to see what I should keep and what I should get rid of. What I've basically been doing is just playing through my whole play lists on my comp and just deleting, things I don't think are appropriate. This could take a while though, to go through my nearly 85gb of mp3s. Though the list would give me some ideas.. I'm really stuck on a few things... 1. Does one instance of a profanity make a song bad? 2. Does the intensity (for lack of a better term) make it bad? 3. Does any sort of indirect drug reference make a song bad, even if its not explicitly implied. aka...Deep Purple - Smoke on the water .....good / bad? and some other things that are kinda hard to explain, so I'll leave it at that

On the downsizing and contractors issue. Before Clinton's downsizing, the Army had 10 heavy engineer battalions, and all 10 of those battalions did vertical (building, buildings, and structures), and horizontal(made roads, earthmoving, building/repairing airstrips). After Clinton's downsizing only 6 battalions where left. Of those 6 left, 3 are vertical only, 2 are horizontal only, and only one is both horizontal and vertical. Keep in mind though this is only heavy engineers (construction type), not light engineers, which are considered combat arms, they blow up bridges, sweep for land mines, and setup fornications. If we still had all 10 of our engineer battalions we wouldn't need to depend so much on contractors. The only reason I know this is because that one horizontal and vertical unit that is still left, is the 92nd engineers in Ft. Stewart GA, the unit I was with while I was on active duty.

You know, they say you're supposed to store food you normally eat...right? So I'm thinking for my 3 month supply: 23 12-pack cases of sprite (3 per day) 23 12-pack cases of the little dasani bottles (3 per day) 8 24-pack cases of ramen noodles (2 per day) 90 cans of cheap wal-mart brand chicken and noodle soup (1 per day) That would be about what I eat.... (2 more year of college left, and I'm never eating ramen again)

outshined is that list in a word doc you could send me? I would like to see what you all came up with.

How do you mean that? Most people's opinion of Obama goes up after seeing him speak, its supposed to be one of his stronger points.

"if it was terrorists that were responsible" What on earth is that supposed to mean?? Please tell me your not one of those Alex Jones kook followers?

I doubt it, the general election is 18 months away. None of the Reps made any mention of it in their debates. Obama made some references to it in the days following the event, as did Hillary, but neither one had made that big of a deal about it.

That can be your opinion, but the facts and extensive polling data just don't hold that opinion up as factual. Citing the 2000 election, isn't logical , we were attacked on September 11th 2001, and the ground war in Iraq began at 11:30 AM (local time) March 20th 2003 I know I was there Of course Iraq or domestic security wouldn't have be major issues then, they were not even on the radar at that point in time. I could cite you a lot more polling data, but Rasmussen and Zogby poll internals are for members only, so I can't link them, or copy them due to copyright issues. Poll 1 Fox News / Opinion Dynamics 13. What one issue will be the most important in deciding your vote for Congress this fall? (DO NOT READ – ACCEPT ONLY ONE RESPONSE) (Iraq) 23% (Homeland/National Security/Terrorism – not Iraq) 11 (Economy/Jobs/Unemployment) 11 (Health care/Prescription drugs) 6 (Immigration/Border Security) 6 (Education/Schools) 3 (Family values/Morals) 2 (Ethics/Corruption in government) 2 (Social Security/Medicare) 2 (Domestic issues/Take care of U.S.) 2 (Taxes) 2 (Gas prices/Energy) 2 (Abortion) 1 (Balanced budget/Deficit) 1 (Environment/Energy) 1 (Gay marriage) 1 (Foreign affairs generally/Middle East - not Iraq) - (Stem cell research) - (Other) 5 (Don't know/Refused) 18 5. How important will each of the following issues be to your vote for President next year -- will it be -- extremely important, very important, moderately important, or not that important? (RANDOMIZE ORDER) Extremely Very Moderately Not that No Important Important I mportant Important Opinion The situation in Iraq 51% 37% 9% 2% * Terrorism 45% 35% 14% 6% * Education 44% 37% 16% 3% * Health care 43% 35% 18% 4% * Gas prices 43% 31% 16% 10% 1% Corruption and ethical standards in government 41% 36% 17% 7% * The situation in Iran 38% 39% 17% 5% 1% Social Security and Medicare 38% 37% 20% 4% * The economy 33% 46% 16% 4% * Illegal immigration 31% 32% 26% 10% 1% Taxes 30% 40% 23% 6% 1% The federal budget deficit 30% 34% 26% 9% 2% Global warming 27% 26% 27% 19% 1% Abortion 27% 24% 24% 24% 1% Gun policy 26% 26% 29% 17% 2% Stem cell research 20% 28% 28% 21% 3% Policies toward gays and lesbians 13% 15% 30% 41% 1% There was another glaring example of this in my state (PA), in our last senate race. Bob Casey (the democrat), was a strong pro-life candidate, in this state where even most republicans are moderately pro-choice, Casey won the election 64-46. Not because of his pro-life views, but because of his strong opposition the the war in Iraq. Voters in this state didn't care about casey's abortion views, the only cared about getting Santorum out of office, and getting someone opposed to Bush in office. In regards to the ballot initiatives regarding same sex marriage in the 2006 election. Same sex marriage, stem cell research, and abortion bans passed in many states, where the senate candidate supported the very same amendment failed, so obviously they cared about the issue when it was a single issue on a ballot referendum, but it wasn't the overriding thing they where looking for in a candidate. Take your states for instance...TN and VA Tenesse same sex marriage ban passes: 81% to 21 yet.. Corker® defeats Ford jr.(D) 51% to 49% (senate race) Pretty lopsided numbers huh?... Internals of the exit poll for the refrendum showed that 66% of Ford's voters voted for the measure, yet they voted for Ford, who was a supporter of domestic partnerships, so his views on abortion did not effect the ammount of votes he recived in the general election. Virginia same sex marriage ban passes 57% to 43% and Webb(D) defeats Allen® 50% to 49% These numbers are closer but still don't match. The internals of the exit poll in this state don't break the referendum choices by vote for senator, so I can't give you that data. Though Webb's defeat was most likely due to his "makaka" comment at one of his rallies. I would still like to know why you support Gingrich...

Gays, Guns, and Abortion...you sound like the stereotypical southern conservative voter..heh.. Fact is in this election cycle those are not important issues, outside of your particular geographic area. Most people are far more concerned with foreign policy (particularity Iraq) and national defense right now. You mention Gingrich though. another that hasn't announced but would have strong conservative support. my prob with newt is his ethics, GOPAC, his affair, the government shutdown in 95 only made Clinton look good in his 96 election. He has far too much baggage to be considered a real contender....moveon.org would have a field day with making attack ads against him. He also made a fool of himself last month in his global warming debate with Kerry. He sounded more like a liberal green party activist then a true conservative. He became the speaker of the house in great fashion, did the party a great service by winning back the house in 1994, but he really failed the party, and the country by not following on with his promises he made in his "contract with America". He became a Ken Star clone, instead of doing the business of the house, and moving legislation forward, he was too busy vainly trying to impeach Clinton. --well I shouldn't say vainly, he did get Clinton impeached, but never did win senate support to actually get him removed from office.

How does being the governor of a state deal with world politics, foreign finance, or military superiority? What does this have to do with anything? 5 out of our last 6 presidents ascended to the office, from serving as the governor of a state, Bush 41 being the exception. The main reason people cite for this is that a governor is an executive level position, unlike that of a member of congress. A governor, has experience dealing with the style of leadership, and working with a legislature (on a state lvl) to accomplish goals for that state. The same thing can be said for a mayor. He is the executive at the city level. As mayor of NYC, he was responsible for more people then governors of many states, simply in terms of population NYC is lager then the combined populations of many smaller states combined. He can't just use 9/11, as a platform, but his handling of the city it self. He significantly lowered crime in the city, redeveloped Time Square from a garbage filled, drug dealing area, to an area with family shopping malls, and brought in major business to the area, bringing in many new higher paying jobs. Being the CinC isn't exactly something someone can prepare for, short of prior high level military experience. Even when given the opportunity to have a prior military leader in the white house (speaking of former General Richard Clark here) he was vastly turned down by voters. Kerry tried to use his limited military experience to his advantage, and it became a liability to him, mainly from the swift boat vets campaign ads. Look at who we have elected though: Clinton (draft doger), Bush 43 (joined TX air guard to avoid service in Vietnam) In reality the vast majority of people don't look at a candidate's military leadership, because until recently it wasn't really that big of a deal, and even now its not something most people consider. If you want someone that will bring some kind of real world experience the the CinC role of the president, then I'm not sure who will please you, on either the Democratic or Republic side of the current presidential candidates.

Sorry for the late answer just looking through some of the posts on here. As of right now, Romney is among the 3 top tier Republican candidates. He is the lowest of the three, but still in there none the less. Fred Thompson could be number 4, but has yet to formally enter the race. His early polling numbers look good, and of the 4 he would be the only true conservative in the group. His weak point seems to be his flip flop on his abortion views, while he was gov of mass he was pro-choice, and his explanation of he was in such a liberal dominated state is why he held that belief seems rather lame. It makes him appear that instead of standing on principle, he was just saying and acting in a way that would get him elected. He also claims that cloning is what changed his views on abortion, but thats a whole separate issue. I know a lot of liberals are attacking him on the basis of his religion, saying things like we don't need another "fundamentalist Christian" running the country. I love to point out the irony of this because of the democratic leader of the senate is. fyi....Its Harry Reid of NV, who is also LDS. His good points... Campaign financing, Romney has raised a lot of money early on, despite his lack of name recognition. He has received the most money (per capita, not gross) from Utah...go figure. He did look very good in both debates, and he gave a great answer to the moronic "what do you dislike most about America" question. The other two main guys... McCain...IMO doesn't have a chance, I think he committed political suicide today, with his strong support of the amnesty immigration bill that the senate passed today. His strong points seem to be Iraq, and his appeal to moderates. This is a primary, you don't win by appealing to moderates, you win by appealing to the conservative base of the party, and that conservative base despises McCain. His role in the McCain-Fiengold Campaign Finance reform act, will not be forgotten by conservatives either. This act in part created a lot of the liberal 527, 401-3C groups that skirt modern campaign spending laws, and its restriction on ads 30 days before an election seemed to be a clear violation of the the 1st amendment. A lot of McCain's support comes from the fact they think he is the only one that could beat Clinton in the general election. The same could be said for Guiliani though. I don't really think that is the case, I think any one of the top 3 republicans could beat her. I'm not even sure she will win the dem primary, Obama is making huge strides, and has a very very loyal and hardworking grassroots base. Guiliani...Looks right now to be the clear front runner. He is getting hit hard for his pro-choice views but is sticking with it. Unlike Romney who is seen to be flip flopping on the issue, at least Guiliani is taking a firm view, even if its something most republicans will not agree with. He's a great speaker, and great at raising money. He's got the views on most other fiscal issues that conservatives like. His strong leadership style is something that a lot of people can admire, esp relating to his handling of NYC after 9/11. Besides abortion though, he has a pretty liberal view on gun rights and gay marriage, though I don't think this is hurting him too much. Though in the end his moderate to liberal republican views may greatly help him in the general election. He's the kind of republican that could be very popular in new england states, where republicans tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. If Guiliani can win one or a small handful of new england swing states (such as my home state of PA), the general election would be over. The south is still going to be a reliable republican pickup, esp if Hillary is running. Her approval numbers in southern states are in the low to mid teens, and they will vote for Guiliani just because he has an "R" after his name. I think I'll stop here, this is enough to digest....I could write on and on about politics.

what about SPAM?!?! I love SPAM... lol.. joking aside.. The three month kit is something that I have been working on, taking it in stages. I have the apartment 72 hour kit, and the car emergency / 72hour kit. I'm not so sure about doing the year's supply stage. I really don't think I have space in my little apartment for all of that. I'm also not really a fan of canned food in 72hr kits, mainly because of weight, that you could use for more water.