Sons Of Liberty
-
Content Count
1,102 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Sons Of Liberty
-
-
can someone tell me where some good private fishing spots in this area.
private though so i can take someone without a license.
-
Can you tell me how? Like how much sugar to fruit, etc?
wellllll... i dont really know... i just go by what i feel is right.
i use a huge pot to boil everything in though.
you dont want too much sugar because the wine will turn out extremely sweet and disgusting.
you dont want to little sugar or your yeasties wont eat and make alcohol and will die off.
to much alcohol can kill your yeast also. i heard somewhere that adding a teaspoon of baking soda helps keep them alive so i do this with every batch.
whatever bucket you put them in.. run a tube from the lid to another glass of water that way air can escape but not get back in... once you dont see anymore bubbles you know your yeasties are dead and the wine is ready for bottling.
its really hard to give a recipe or explain it. its easier if you have someone show you how.
-
just curious. what do you make? and how do you make yours?
i make homemade wine...
boil up my fruit of choice with some water and sugar let it cool off for about 6 hours.
pour everything into 5 gallon buckets with an airlock rig. add a whole packet of active dry yeast and let it sit for about 4 months... bottle.
mmm mmmm delicious.
-
To a lake in Paulding
your like me and my gold prospecting and gem hounding.
"where did you find that nugget!?!?!"
"somewhere between here and dahlonega"
-
nice fish.
i went trout fishing this morning and caught a few.. but you know how raccoon creek is... small trout.
-
Is that one of those events that starts, "Hey, ya'll watch this" or one that starts, "Well, we were drinking tequilla..." ?
It's actually a daily chore. Friends dont like to watch. It's to violent.
But sometimes im drunk. Sometimes she tag teams with the dog and they gang up on me.
Sometimes I wonder what the hell is even going on.
-
Skunk wrestling? Seriously????
yes maam. they are feisty little demons.
sharp teeth and huge claws...
its like fighting a miniature wombat who can make you smell like pile of rotting tomatoes.
-
-
i recommend aikido...
i dont have the number to the place in paulding, maybe someone else does.
it is a non aggressive pure disablement art form.
it is very beautiful.
in fact no other martial art or fighting style can counter aikido, it is the ultimate defense.
it all has to do with catching your opponent off their center of gravity and taking that to your advantage.
-
This is extracts/highlights from a very long transcript.
In case you didn't know, both Russia and China have very good CD programs, the US has none. Also, under a misguided program called MAD, we put out silo's in the bread belt - you know targeting our food supply! Do you think eithor of the other countries did that? Also, 8 0 % of China's population is rural, and in the past they have relocated large portions of their urban population to the country...
Now both Russia and China are part of a international organization like NATO, as is Iran and Russia at least has stated that an attack against Iran will be considered an attack on Russia.... So what do you think our country is dead set on doing? Might want to order some KI...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/librar...70129-kyl01.htm
Chinas ASAT Test and American National Security
Remarks by Senator Kyl at The Heritage Foundation
January 29, 2006
Thank you very much.
Well, as was noted, on January 11th the Chinese destroyed one of their aging weather satellites with a missile-launched interceptor. Thats the first problem. The second problem and the one that Ill focus on today is what we should do about it.
Ill start by describing how critical satellites are to the United States, and how adversaries can threaten our access to them. Ill explain why arms control, the preferred response of many to these threats, is ineffective, unenforceable and undesirable. And Ill propose that we commit ourselves to real space security and develop the means to assure our freedom of action in space.
First, security in space is a vital national interest. The loss of access to space would threaten the very stability of our nation. Consider:
Satellites enable our ATMs and our financial markets, they help first responders and form the backbone of our next-generation air traffic control system; they allow us to gather intelligence on foreign developments, and to influence them through satellite radio and TV transmissions.
More importantly, satellites underpin our military superiority. Our troops rely on satellites for reconnaissance, communications, navigation, and other functions. Almost every new military platform in development today is more satellite-dependent than the system it is replacing. None of our military operations; conventional, strategic or missile defense can function without space components.
Second, unfortunately, the threat to our space security is real and growing.
The threat can take many forms. A report by the U.S. Space Commission staff identifies at least 11 distinct categories of anti-satellite attack: from ground segment attack or sabotage, to kinetic kill to nuclear ASATs, particle beam weapons, and electronic attack.1
The space threat posed by China is multifaceted. The “painting” in September of a U.S. satellite by a ground-based laser shows that the Chinese program includes a broad range of capabilities, from kinetic kill to directed energy.2
The January 11 test also shows Chinas ability to hit targets in Low-Earth Orbit (LEO), where most American reconnaissance assets are deployed. But reports suggest that the Chinese also seek the ability to attack satellites in Medium- and High-Earth Orbit, such as GPS, and that was noted as well in my introduction.3
Other nations also may have ASAT capabilities.
We recall that the Soviet Union had an advanced ASAT program during the Cold War, which presumably still exists in some form.
News reports suggest that Iran may soon launch a satellite, meaning that a crude ASAT capability could be within their reach shortly.
Any nation with missile launched nuclear weapons, including Pakistan, India, and potentially North Korea, could destroy satellites by setting off a High Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP).
[...]
Just to cite one, my colleague, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, who said: "American satellites are the soft underbelly of our national security, and it is urgent that President Bush move to guarantee their protection by initiating an international agreement to ban the development, testing, and deployment of space weapons and anti-satellite systems."6
Advocates of such arms control put far too much stock in Chinas public statements that it has nothing but peaceful intentions and wants to avoid an arms race in space.
A review of Chinese military doctrine and numerous writings makes it clear: China does not believe that space can, or should, be free of military capabilities. China believes that it must develop space weapons for its own security, specifically in preparation for a possible conflict with the U.S. over Taiwan.
China is also concerned that its nuclear deterrent is at risk of being degraded by improving U.S. missile defense capabilities.
By having the ability to destroy the satellites that tie our ballistic missile defense system together, China hopes to seriously degrade its effectiveness as a deterrent.
[...]
Speaking back in 2002, Former Undersecretary of the Air Force, Peter Teets asked: “What will we do five years from now when American lives are put at risk because an adversary uses space-borne imagery collectors, commercial or homegrown, to identify and target American forces? What will we do ten years from now when American lives are put at risk because an adversary chooses to leverage the global positioning system or perhaps the Galileo constellation to attack American forces with precision?"9
[...]
We didn't even mention the practical problem that was caused by this test. One reason that countries don't do this kind of thing is because of the danger that it exposes all of us to by the debris that's created in space -- something like 40,000 particles, all of which have the capability of destroying -- and the majority of the satellites are in the range relative range of this space debris that's been created by this test.
[...]
QUESTION : Hi Senator, Edward Router Sunshine Press (spelling of name?). Given the asymmetrical nature of offense versus defense in space, are you concerned about the costs that would be involved in a space arms race to both defend our satellites and to develop offensive capabilities against a Chinese economy that's booming?
SEN. KYL : That's a very interesting question, because your mind immediately goes back to the Reykjavik Summit and the Reagan decision to move forward with then-called SDI and the subsequent Soviet belief that it would be very difficult to beat us in that particular arms race.
And I think that the same thing is true here. Clearly, the United States has such an edge on this technology and such a robust capability financially to engage in this kind of effort that countries like China , for example, would rather not have to engage in the arms race in the sense that we leave the field to them. If they could somehow figure out a way to bind us through some kind of a treaty, for example, I think that would be their dream.
Knowing that they might have to actually compete with us in such a race, I think, would pose serious problems for them.
And I don't mean just the Chinese here. I mean anybody else, as well. Because your question assumed the asymmetric nature of this. And there is an asymmetric quality to it which might favor, just hypothetically speaking, a country like Iran , for example, only having to use a medium-range missile and certainly with some kind of a crude nuclear warhead, an electromagnetic pulse, might do the job. Otherwise, the Chinese technology of the kinetic impact would be required.
But I would suggest that: A) even though there is an asymmetric aspect to this -- namely that it might be easier to take out the satellite than it is to defend against it; and that
that's not as easy as it seems in terms of our capability for both passive and active measures and things that we could do if we really got serious about it. And, secondly, that in any event, even if there is an asymmetry to the problem, given the challenge that we have, the importance of maintaining our ability to defend our assets, we have no choice but to ensure that we have the technology to do that.
When I commented on what Senator Biden had said, it related to what we have done and are doing. But it does not -- I don't mean to suggest by that that we don't have the capability of providing this kind of defense if we choose to do so.
-
This is extracts/highlights from a very long transcript.
In case you didn't know, both Russia and China have very good CD programs, the US has none. Also, under a misguided program called MAD, we put out silo's in the bread belt - you know targeting our food supply! Do you think eithor of the other countries did that? Also, 80% of China's population is rural, and in the past they have relocated large portions of their urban population to the country...
Now both Russia and China are part of a international organization like NATO, as is Iran and Russia at least has stated that an attack against Iran will be considered an attack on Russia.... So what do you think our country is dead set on doing? Might want to order some KI...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/librar...70129-kyl01.htm
China’s ASAT Test and American National Security
Remarks by Senator Kyl at The Heritage Foundation
January 29, 2006
Thank you very much.
Well, as was noted, on January 11th the Chinese destroyed one of their aging weather satellites with a missile-launched interceptor. That’s the first problem. The second problem and the one that I’ll focus on today is what we should do about it.
I’ll start by describing how critical satellites are to the United States, and how adversaries can threaten our access to them. I’ll explain why arms control, the preferred response of many to these threats, is ineffective, unenforceable and undesirable. And I’ll propose that we commit ourselves to real space security and develop the means to assure our freedom of action in space.
First, security in space is a vital national interest. The loss of access to space would threaten the very stability of our nation. Consider:
Satellites enable our ATMs and our financial markets, they help first responders and form the backbone of our next-generation air traffic control system; they allow us to gather intelligence on foreign developments, and to influence them through satellite radio and TV transmissions.
More importantly, satellites underpin our military superiority. Our troops rely on satellites for reconnaissance, communications, navigation, and other functions. Almost every new military platform in development today is more satellite-dependent than the system it is replacing. None of our military operations; conventional, strategic or missile defense can function without space components.
Second, unfortunately, the threat to our space security is real and growing.
The threat can take many forms. A report by the U.S. Space Commission staff identifies at least 11 distinct categories of anti-satellite attack: from ground segment attack or sabotage, to kinetic kill to nuclear ASATs, particle beam weapons, and electronic attack.1
The space threat posed by China is multifaceted. The “painting” in September of a U.S. satellite by a ground-based laser shows that the Chinese program includes a broad range of capabilities, from ‘kinetic kill’ to directed energy.2
The January 11 test also shows China’s ability to hit targets in Low-Earth Orbit (LEO), where most American reconnaissance assets are deployed. But reports suggest that the Chinese also seek the ability to attack satellites in Medium- and High-Earth Orbit, such as GPS, and that was noted as well in my introduction.3
Other nations also may have ASAT capabilities.
We recall that the Soviet Union had an advanced ASAT program during the Cold War, which presumably still exists in some form.
News reports suggest that Iran may soon launch a satellite, meaning that a crude ASAT capability could be within their reach shortly.
Any nation with missile launched nuclear weapons, including Pakistan, India, and potentially North Korea, could destroy satellites by setting off a High Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP).
[...]
Just to cite one, my colleague, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, who said: "American satellites are the soft underbelly of our national security, and it is urgent that President Bush move to guarantee their protection by initiating an international agreement to ban the development, testing, and deployment of space weapons and anti-satellite systems."6
Advocates of such arms control put far too much stock in China’s public statements that it has nothing but peaceful intentions and wants to avoid an arms race in space.
A review of Chinese military doctrine and numerous writings makes it clear: China does not believe that space can, or should, be free of military capabilities. China believes that it must develop space weapons for its own security, specifically in preparation for a possible conflict with the U.S. over Taiwan.
China is also concerned that its nuclear deterrent is at risk of being degraded by improving U.S. missile defense capabilities.
By having the ability to destroy the satellites that tie our ballistic missile defense system together, China hopes to seriously degrade its effectiveness as a deterrent.
[...]
Speaking back in 2002, Former Undersecretary of the Air Force, Peter Teets asked: “What will we do five years from now when American lives are put at risk because an adversary uses space-borne imagery collectors, commercial or homegrown, to identify and target American forces? What will we do ten years from now when American lives are put at risk because an adversary chooses to leverage the global positioning system or perhaps the Galileo constellation to attack American forces with precision?"9
[...]
We didn't even mention the practical problem that was caused by this test. One reason that countries don't do this kind of thing is because of the danger that it exposes all of us to by the debris that's created in space -- something like 40,000 particles, all of which have the capability of destroying -- and the majority of the satellites are in the range relative range of this space debris that's been created by this test.
[...]
QUESTION : Hi Senator, Edward Router Sunshine Press (spelling of name?). Given the asymmetrical nature of offense versus defense in space, are you concerned about the costs that would be involved in a space arms race to both defend our satellites and to develop offensive capabilities against a Chinese economy that's booming?
SEN. KYL : That's a very interesting question, because your mind immediately goes back to the Reykjavik Summit and the Reagan decision to move forward with then-called SDI and the subsequent Soviet belief that it would be very difficult to beat us in that particular arms race.
And I think that the same thing is true here. Clearly, the United States has such an edge on this technology and such a robust capability financially to engage in this kind of effort that countries like China , for example, would rather not have to engage in the arms race in the sense that we leave the field to them. If they could somehow figure out a way to bind us through some kind of a treaty, for example, I think that would be their dream.
Knowing that they might have to actually compete with us in such a race, I think, would pose serious problems for them.
And I don't mean just the Chinese here. I mean anybody else, as well. Because your question assumed the asymmetric nature of this. And there is an asymmetric quality to it which might favor, just hypothetically speaking, a country like Iran , for example, only having to use a medium-range missile and certainly with some kind of a crude nuclear warhead, an electromagnetic pulse, might do the job. Otherwise, the Chinese technology of the kinetic impact would be required.
But I would suggest that: A) even though there is an asymmetric aspect to this -- namely that it might be easier to take out the satellite than it is to defend against it; and that
that's not as easy as it seems in terms of our capability for both passive and active measures and things that we could do if we really got serious about it. And, secondly, that in any event, even if there is an asymmetry to the problem, given the challenge that we have, the importance of maintaining our ability to defend our assets, we have no choice but to ensure that we have the technology to do that.
When I commented on what Senator Biden had said, it related to what we have done and are doing. But it does not -- I don't mean to suggest by that that we don't have the capability of providing this kind of defense if we choose to do so.
-
are the rumors really true?
please tell me i didn't miss the godfather himself?
if i missed my one chance to meet the guy who influenced me to pick up this old banjo ill have to kill myself... the man is like 90 something and ill never get a chance to meet him again.
just lay it on me straight...
was Earl Scruggs there?
-
well iv always wanted to be a game warden.
sometimes populations get way too out of control.
thats why we are allowed to hunt in the first place.
numbers are set by the conservation ranger and then sell them as stamps.
regardless of what your hunting for (sport, food, pleasure, trophies) sometimes killing is necessary so species wont start raping the environment of its resources.
thats how i feel about it, its all population control in DNR's eyes
kinda sounds like what we were talking about the other night doesnt it brandon?
-
I'll certainly pass on that one.
-
that sucks bro.
maybe you can get high instead.
-
the only way to know is if we use paper ballots, hand deliver them to a glass box. then count the votes in full view of the public's eyes.
live free or diebold.
-
i call them cow ants... they arnt really ants though... they are a species of wasp.
do NOT get bit by one... they hurt worse than any sting you have ever had.
-
I don't blame you one bit about those initials. LOL! I always wondered how that interesting name was developed.
you dont want to know...
but i will tell you it was never a "thing" it was something that happened to a wild cat involving a plastic spaceship.
-
For those that were asking, this is straight from the sss.gov website -
Registration is the law. A man who fails to register may, if prosecuted and convicted, face a fine of up to $250,000 and/or a prison term of up to five years.
Even if not tried, a man who fails to register with Selective Service before turning age 26 may find that some doors are permanently closed.
Here's the link - http://www.sss.gov/FSbenefits.htm
Without registering, you can't get a government job, you can't get federal job training, and you can't get financial aid. That includes student loans. You're supposed to register when you turn 18...you don't face any actual penalties until your 26th birthday....but you can't do any of the above until you actually register.
very good to know... kinda scary though.
-
so if we don't fight those who come on our land and kill our people then who will?? the french?? come on seriously freedom is not free by any means!! I know I have be to my battle buddies funeral so before you talk as if you know something why don't you think about all those who did fight so you can speak English instead of German or Korean they are the ones who fight for freedom not you.
first of all if we are fighting the people who attacked us then why arnt we fighting Saudi Arabia?
why haven't we taken out osama?
criminal gangsterism is not an act of war or justification for invasion.
even after all this, how can you deny our meddling in the middle east since 1953 when we put the shaw into power who terrorized the people of iran... which caused blowback for us many times... that is what this is about no?
explain to me any other reason why they hate us?
-
A lot of men and women have died so that you have your "birthright." Check your history. Freedom was not free, nor are we guaranteed to keep it without fighting for it.
ok whatever you say...
your fighting the wrong enemy though...
-
Constitution and states rights are 2 different things, Do some reading yourself.
ok... read the federalist papers... it will answer the question you didnt even ask..
nothing can override the constitution of the united states... the word "liberty" is very vague in the constitution... now how do you understand what liberty even means then? read the book that was placed there to clear up the confusion.
government is supposed to have a very limited roll in our lives, government is there to protect your rights... not trample them... it doesn't take a genius to figure out that doing something against your will that isn't hurting anyone is a contradiction of liberty.
Honey, I was here long before you and have years of knowledge and experience you have yet to gain. Are you saying your grandfather was a draft dodger too? I'm not going anywhere by the way. My place here has been earned. You may be going somewhere though. Maybe it will do you good to go out and see the world about which you seem to know so much.ok no one that was born here has to "earn" their place here... it is a birthright... which our founders spoke so highly of.
liberty is a birthright... government doesnt give you that freedom... according to the founders god does.
your getting too tied up into current affairs in politics and not looking into history.
sorry this isnt supposed to be here. im done with this thread so it doesnt get moved and i dont peeve more people off just for talking about freedom, which i love more than anything.
-
Even better, you can sacrifice your life at 18 but are denied certain rights until 21.
i guess thats the way the government sees it...
oh i can fight for their wars but i cant buy myself a drink...
give me a effin break...
seashell i didnt know about this because its a bunch of bullcrap and i would go to jail before i fought in a war if i didnt agree with it... just like my grandfather. its what freedom is all about... deal with it or leave.
What rights are you referencing? Drinking? Where is drinking in the constitution?you have a lot to learn about personal liberty... which the constitution grants...
read the federalist papers and read "common sense" by thomas paine...
all written by your freedomfathers.
-
well if you are not registered I believe you can not vote may be wrong but I know they asked my brother that when he registered to vote.
i may have registered and just dont remember...
egh. who knows. sounds like a bunch of BS anyways.
2 cents:
how in a free society can a draft even exist?
complete contradiction of liberty.
...yet again.
I need 3 chickens and a quart of Guinness
in Internet Cafe
Posted
ITS GOING TO BE A CELEBRATION!