Fairweather

This is for you, Minxie: WGOohBytKTU

I give up. Just split the tube on my third pair. They slip when reasonably tightened--they split when tightened enough. Also; the titanium (or the acrylic over it) oxidizes to the point that the poles won't slide shut. I'll suck up the extra 4 ounces and buy a pair of Black Diamonds this time.

Mango Salsa Monthly Salsa

Small D or large C. ...with pink nipples.

Depends on what direction they're pointed.

Hey Tvash, what part of Alas... Hang on a second... What's that? Uh huh...alright...OK. Your wife says hello. Wants to know if you're going to do any dangerous river crossings soon... Huh? Yes...ok...I'll ask him... Um, she wants to know if you're going to wear that sweet smelling "bear repellent" she bought for you. She says it's in a plastic bear-shaped squeeze bottle with a yellow cap. Ummm....ahhhh...gggggguuuuhhh... I couldn't really understand what she said that time. Have a nice trip. All is well.

I am not really qualified to judge (just look at my new avatar image!) I was hoping we could use this thread as a sort of nomination process and then conduct a poll. Billcoe Minx

I rate you slightly left of center...but migrating toward the right. Someday I will welcome you to the dark side.

...on cc.com? The only one I'm aware of is Billcoe. I think that's a compliment Bill, but I'm not really sure.

America will be better by 1/300,000,000th on that day.

http://cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/806129#Post806129

Mine: Teddy would make you think GW was a saint. I just finished Theodore Rex by Edmund Morris, and I think I have a pretty good idea how TR would handle Iraq. You wouldn't like it.

would you pay if domesticated gays and lesbians picked the place for a picnic? yeah, but not as much, and only if they brought a quiver full of children Please take me back to my sex education classes in Jr. high. How can two lesbians, or two gay men produce one child let alone a quiver full? I guess I would be interested to learn how that can happen. A shit-seed emerges from ruptured follicles in the cecum and is fertilized by rainbow trout in the transverse colon. The zygote then implants against the wall of the descending colon. Everyone knows this.

Get back to learnin', Kevvie.

Lest anybody forget exactly where you stand:

700,000/300,000,000 = 0.0023333 Wow! That's slightly more than two-tenths of one percent of the American population! Let's let this pathetic minority steer the ship for a while, eh?

Telecom companies were (rightfully) worried about civil lawsuits from America-hater groups. Don't shoot the messenger/good legislation.

Let me see if I have this right... Bush admits to wiretapping AlQueda suspect's overseas phone calls. Libtards call those wiretaps illegal. Kevbone is now free to claim that "Bush has admitted to illegal wiretaps!" Kev, I've rarely wasted time with you and now I remember why. There are sophisticated/educated libs, and there are mentally lacking libs like you who, unfortunately, make up the bulk of the Democrat voting base. There doesn't seem to be much in between.

Based on what has been publicly disclosed; yes. He admitted to ILLEGAL wiretapping and you still dispute. Conservatism is a mental disorder. Really? Show me.

Based on what has been publicly disclosed; yes.

Huey - here is the reply from Bug. (I wish you two would speak directly to one another.) "My darling Hubert, it should be easy for you to deduce simply by looking at my flaccid avatar that the days of tickling your tonsils have long passed. Even the little blue pill I take now hasn't allowed me the daily self-gratification I once so enjoyed while PM'ing you on this very website. While I hope to regain my fully erect four and one-quarter inches with therapy, I'll now just have to settle for giving anonymous hand jobs in local Seattle restrooms and looking at pictures of livestock. Toodles, Bug"

cracks in the walls that surround the island workers paradise... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7449776.stm

I'm not sure which question you are talking about. You stated that you think the government would be qualified to censor the media, but failed to state how that would work--or how it's constitutional. I think that's a discussion ender right there. You haven't answered my questions about border screening and how it would be carried out in a manner liberals would find palatable and effective. You haven't been paying attention. The Supreme Court ruled that free speech is not unconstrained under the Constitution. You should be, if you're not, aware of the quote regarding yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Likewise there have been numerous cases on the public's need to know vs state secrets. And porno - what?Like you've never heard of the Larry Flint case or the Ohio museum case? For someone always wrapping themselves in the flag you seem to be woefully ignorant of how this all works or even of recent case history. Try Goggles on the Internets. You aren't comprehending the issue and are now trying to mix political speech and press freedom debates with local standards. For someone who marches with communists (World Can't Wait ) you sure seem concerned about censorship. (Wait...now it all makes sense!) Wrapping myself in the flag? Fuck off little man. I support your right to burn it.

You are asking me to design the enforcement program in order to suggest an issue that should be addressed? Can you design an effective or fair or justifiable war on drugs? I think not. Do you or do you not believe that censorship for decency or for "state secrets" is justifiable and constitutional? (And does outing a secret agent count?) What do you think of the "equal time" rule, that goes back to maybe the 1920's? History of The Fairness Doctrine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine "In 1984, the Supreme Court decided that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine did not apply to expanding communications technologies, and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364)[6]. The Court's majority decision by William J. Brennan, Jr. noted concerns that the Fairness Doctrine was "chilling speech," and added that the Supreme Court would be "forced" to revisit the constitutionality of the doctrine if it did have "the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing speech."