chucK

Klenke, We already know that you're much more interested in goat-f&*king. If you've got something so much more interesting to say than us, why don't you contribute?

\ Scott, I think a lot of people are just plain pissed that this was the second or third justification used for the war; that is, Bush just flip-flopped around and lied and lied to get his way. Unfortunately, now, in hindsight, we see that the whole endeavour is much messier than those dufus's believed and thousands of young Americans have paid with their lives or body parts. It is still unclear what the true reasons for launching this disastrous exercise were. Please don't tell me you think that George Bush felt he needed to sacrifice American lives and lots of money to help out the Iraqi people. We both know that that is merely the only justification left that has not been debunked. I guess your point is, is that we are all hypocrites because we supported bombing one country in the name of human decency, but did not support invasion of another under the same pretenses. What about you? You seem to be supporting the invasion of Iraq, but not the bombing in the Balkans. Does that make you a hypocrite? Or did you not support the invasion of Iraq?

Source? I found it on AndrewSullivan.com, but not attributed to Kerry. Who is plagiarizing whom? Or is this "quote" just BS?

Good story here (salon.com, gotta watch an ad first, then it's all free) about a guy volunteering for the Dems in PA. describing watching the debate: "The group consensus is that [bush] is a man who should be the president of the local Elks Club. He would be great: Personable, simple and well able to handle the demands of the job, organizing dinners, roasts and the occasional charity drive. Our glee is tempered by the sobering fact that this mean-spirited, incompetent figure, shriveling like the great and powerful Oz, is in fact the most powerful man in the world, and that the debate will have consequences that will affect the entire world."

SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

spilled milk ARE YOU SAYING WE WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITH SADDAM IN POWER!!!!

In my view, he was transparently attempting to drive a wedge between Bush and homophobe voters. What I don't like is the fact that he brought Cheney's daughter into the mix. I guess you could consider it all fine and proper since I'm sure the homophobe voters find this a very important issue. But even though he's turning the Repub's slimy tactics back on them, it's still slimy. Gotta do what you gotta do though. I think it was excellent strategy, and though completely disingenuous, Edwards pulled it off brilliantly. But it's still nothing I would be proud of, using the other guy's family members against him.

Perhaps not moronic this time, but quite naive. Is this one a "troll" too?

The MODERATOR only tangentially identified her, speaking to Cheney of "[his] family's experience ". Cheney then tiptoed around it with generalities. Edwards specifically highlighted "GAY DAUGHTER". Check out the transcripts

gosh this sure is a fascinating "story"!

Don't forget that you can often make many of the moves easier and safer by using your (bomber) pro as holds. You probably know downclimbing is harder than upclimbing. Bring a rap rope.

Don't get cheap cams. Get the ones you like. 2-3 double slings is heavy and unnecessary. If you need to lengthen a sling on a placement, clip two slings together. If you need to loop a big boulder or something, use your cordelette. If you want to bring rap webbing, buy 20 feet of that lightweight stuff and stick it in your pack (and bring a lightweight knife).

With respect to the gay marriage thing, the Dems are playing hardball there. Obviously, Edwards was basically saying: HEY AMERICA LISTEN UP! CHENEY HAS A GAY DAUGHTER!!!!!!! If it were in a bar, Cheney probably should have punched out Edwards for bringing his daughter into their dispute, or did whatever was possible for a guy with a heart condition; however, in the debates he couldn't act all Bob Dolian crazy, so he just had to suck it up and move on to the next topic. Slimy as fuck, but you gotta believe this will help the dems in homophobeland. BTW this is #6 in SC's list of how the candidates are the same #6. Both candidates have stated that they do not support gay marriage.

At first I thought, who cares about what you think about the VP choices. The important thing is that they get out the message. Both seemed to do a good job of hammering home their parties' respective stances: Edwards: Bush screwed up in Iraq. We're going to clink our ruby slippers together and get other nations interested in getting their young people killed in our fucking stupid war. Cheney: Kerry is a girly man. But...then I thought about it and with the country so bitterly divided, with people road raging others because of their bumper stickers, it wouldn't surprise me if either of the prez's had an attempt or two on their lives (domestic terrorism! ). Plus, Cheney's co-president already. So anyway, what a choice! A guy who definitely knows his way around Washington and politics, but is evil incarnate, versus a guy who, though he is 51, looks like he's about 10 years old, and has minimimal experience. Oh crap! Still, if you take "we got new ideas, here they are" versus "four more years of the same" at face value, it's a pretty easy decision. With respect to factcheck.com versus factcheck.org(the org one is the non-partisan link). factcheck.org seems to be down right now!!! Some evil Rovian plot? You can check out factcheck.org by looking it up on google and looking at the cached version. You'll find that it states Cheney does not profit from Haliburton, but it doesn't discuss all Edwards's other allegations such as Haliburton getting a sweet deal for a company currently under investigation. You'll also see that the majority of articles are articles debunking deceptive Republican attack ads. You gotta wonder if maybe Cheney got that URL wrong on purpose.

Shouldn't it be "easier for your heir to replace the broken cord"?

Slings: Lighter. Will not get those annoying prickly frayed wires. Can clip rope directly to sling with less worries. Wires make the hexes easier to place and to clean.

Other than the obvious aid-climbing answer I've found a daisy useful when rapping multiple pitches and when climbing with three people where you end up switching ropes a lot. In both of these cases anchoring with the rope is not in the cards. Yes, you can anchor with a sling, but it's not as convenient (length is not adjustable) and unless you're carrying a sling especially for anchoring yourself (in which case you might as well be carrying a daisy) sometimes you end up at an anchor without a sling. Also, if climbing with just one rope, the daisy makes a convenient second tie-off. If I'm climbing with two people, with two ropes, and there's not going to be 10+ raps to get off the thing, or in some alpine situation where every bit of weight is important, I won't bring my daisy. Otherwise, it can come in handy.

REally Iain! I thought you were more attentive than that! push

Makes no sense at all. Either it's a completely made-up newsstory, or the story the man told is bogus, covering something up. Gives new meaning to that age-old excuse, "the dog ate it".

My knees have been asking me to invest in some hiking poles this summer. The dog-deterrent value may give me the excuse I need to finally buy some of those dorky things.

Hey! This thread isn't about mean ol' conservatives, it's about liberal thugs. Greg "sock full o' batteries" W is feeling oppressed and depressed by the fact that we have become a nation of thugs. I think you could be polite enough to at least stick to his topic. If you want to yammer on about how fucked up the republicans are, you can start your own thread. I'm sure you would get many takers.

ride the rollercoaster

I'll bet Clinton, Carter, LBJ and Roosevelt did that stuff too! But seriously Greg, if you think you can stomp out road-rage and violence by putting a sticker on your truck, then sounds good to me. Go for it. I'm happy you have chosen a non-violent means to fight those thuggish liberals.

That's f'n hilarious. Greg_W reads a probably made-up story probably originally from a righty blog (or Fox News) about one crazy guy assaulting someone allegedly over a Bush/Cheney sticker, and decides that liberals need to be taught a lesson so goddamnit he's putting a sticker on his truck!

Since everyone is getting so lovey-dovey here, let's ask some tougher questions. 1. What if a party (who seems faster) pulls up behind, asks nicely to pass, and the route you're on is notorious for rockfall (Dragontail, Infinite Bliss, Chair Peak, etc.)? 2. What if a party does come up behind you, but just doesn't seem to be that much faster than you? (example: many easy pitches then a hard pitch that slows you down temporarily which lets other party catch up). If they ask nicely to pass, do you let them?