Fairweather

That makes a difference? Your original contention was that Clinton's actions were "cheeky". I was simply addressing that - not making any comparisons of body counts.

Guess they like it down here better, eh?

Like this: Or this: He didn't seem to care much about Africans either: Real funny, cheeky guy, he: As a pretext for invasion/bombardment, he lied about "10,000" ethnic Albanians killed in Kosovo by Serbs, but ignored over 800,000 killed in Rwanda.

Bush is a mediocre president. He is surrounded by some opportunists who have abused his misguided personal loyalty. Nonetheless, he is responsible for their behavior. As modern presidents go, I would rate him as worse than Reagan, Bush Sr, JFK, Ford, - but better than Johnson, Carter, Nixon, Clinton. You asked.

If I recall, Matt, on several occasions you have professed a fetish for wearing women's undergarments. It is absolutely true, yes. A quick search of "women" and "MattP" reveals almost a dozen hits going back 5 years. Now, I didn't really have time to read each one, but I'm quite certain about this. There's no denying it. I would like to take this opportunity to apologize if I am wrong.

Classic MattP. Now you're trying to change the premise of the argument. Claiming that your opponent's arguments are wrong is what Spray is all about! But that's a far cry from calling someone treasonous or claiming their speech rights should be suppressed by government. When are you going to adopt some above-board tactics here, eh? Slimy.

Matt, you're a real piece of work. Treason. First, you claim as fact I have used this descriptive toward you and others on this board, then you backtrack and say that maybe I haven't since you can't recall an instance and are too lazy to back up your accusation. I too typed in "Fairweather" /"treason" and came up with those hits you mention. Nowhere...NOWHERE, asshole, do I accuse you or anybody on this board of treason. There are references to Ann Coulter's book entitled "Treason", bits about the Frontline Story you'll recall, and suggestions that Clinton's illegal sale of missile technology to China may have qualified for this tag. http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/search You, sir, are a liar. Have I called you a tool, angry old man, dupe, misguided, idiot, hypocrite? Absolutely. Especially the hypocrite. Get over it. As for using your full name whilst hiding behind my own username, do you recall a friend of yours who also shared the name "Matt" and was just a bit more than hysterical back when I used my full name on this board? I thought so. And is there really anybody here who doesn't know your full name? Hell, you link to it in your profile, so please spare me the crocodile tears. http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showprofile/User/417 http://www.seanet.com/~mattp/climbing Grow a pair - and stick to the facts.

I originally stepped in to lend support to Scott, but it looks like he done run off on me. Damn that private!

Probably true for Cheney/Rumsfeld. Blair too? That's a felony? Let's arrest every ex president in US history. Again; not a felony. What statute? Shall we arrest congress too? Not. I believe overseas communication is exempted. I may be wrong, but I thought all this secret warrant business was cleared up by a Supreme Court ruling last year? Regardless, there is no constitutional right to privacy....even if there ought to be. Abu Graib? OK. It's being handled. But you likely refer to more nefarious examples, and the jury's still out. Do you really think that these practices were tabled during virtually every other conflict in our nation's history? You served in Vietnam as part of an army under Johnson and Nixon that practiced these very same things. Does that make these two "war criminals"? Does that make you complicit? Certainly not. You're just plain wrong.

Please back this up, Matt. I can think of only three instances where I argued a post should be censored: Dr Flash Amazing, Viendra7, and Trashtarketena - all of whom, seperately, have issued not-so-veiled threats and/or advocated "putting a bullet into the head" of the president. Wouldn't you say their comments were just a bit outside the bounds of civil political discussion? Beyond that, I challenge you to back up your claim.

Posturing?

I want to ask you to reconsider this, Matt. I expect it from the likes of a radical partisan like Crux, but do you really think it is wise to go down this road? If so, how far? Shall we force all documentaries on The History Channel to pass a government "accuracy" review? How far back shall we go? Are the alleged but unsubstantiated affairs of Kennedy, FDR, Taft, and others fair game? How about Nixon - who's gonna separate truth from lie about that administration? Shall we jail Micheal Moore for his 9/11 conspiracy nonsense if it ever makes it to public airwaves? You, of all people, should realize how dangerous this idea is. The only democratic way to counter inaccurate history is with truth - not by banning it.

Did you feel the same way about "The Reagans" documentary that CBS aired a couple years earlier? I recall right-wingers being pissed off about it, but I don't remember hearing anyone call for censorship or imprisonment. As written by whom? You? Those with whom you agree? History isn't often written by the unbiased. A quick review of the thread reveals you did not. You were siding against Scott with one who did and I made an inaccurate connection.

You sound like a real tough guy.

So because Chavez says it, you believe it? Do you really believe that RCTV was calling for Chavez' overthrow "on a daily basis"? I believe they called for his overthrow during the 2002 coup after his thugs killed 18 street protesters in cold blood. But you called for similar government action here for a benign ABC docudrama. If anything, you are even more contemptible than the good comrade. I think you are confused about freedom, Mr Crux.

On at least two occasions you have called for pulling broadcast licenses of networks who aired programs that cast your ideology in a poor light. On one occasion, you called for the imprisonment of ABC network execs. Recent events in Venezuela reveal you and Chavez would get along well.

i wrote a real long reply, then decided it'd be simpler to delete it in favor of something you'd more easily understand: you're a dumbass! questioning the goverment is a right, by your own admission, he died to defend I don't see where Scott is questioning anyone's right to speak out against their government. He is simply stating an opinion held by many - that this mother dishonors her dead soldier-son's beliefs. It's quite a jump for you and Matt to imply that Scott would invalidate anyone's free speech rights. The only people you hear that kind of nonsense from are hard-core lefties like Crux and others here on this site who often call for censorship in radio and television media. that still doesn't make sense - are you saying then that the mother of every soldier has to keep their opinions to themselves when they differ w/ their brave boys? you use this word "dishonor" it seems in place of "disagree." No, I think 'dishonor' fits best. Her son, by all accounts, felt honor in wearing the uniform and serving in Iraq. His mother not only feels the cause in which he participated was dishonorable, but has turned her back on the country he fought for by her own words and deeds - not the least which was lending her fleeting "stature" to a thug like Chavez. Just my opinion. The lady's son is gone, her husband has left her, she was savaged by the right, used by the left and then dumped. I truly feel for her.

At this point many people around the world are threatening the U.S., but none have done the U.S. and everything the Constitution used to stand for more harm than the administration of George W. Bush. The leaders of this administration have collectively done what no other terrorist or enemy of this nation has ever accomplished and by their words and deeds are undeniably treasonous felons to a person. Nixon was a god compared to W... I guess you must think that if you repeat this enough it will be true? But you're always light on specifics. The Patriot Act? Which sections? The real ones please - not the ones you read about on some leftist website. Are you familiar with Woodrow Wilson's Sedition Act of 1918? Do you really think today's supposed "limits" even compare? Illegal War? How about the concocted Spanish-American War and subsequent occupation of The Philippines? War of 1812? Nicaragua? Invasions (repeated) of Mexico? Again, Joe, your history is very shallow. There's a rock down by The Columbia River that's missing its idiot....

i wrote a real long reply, then decided it'd be simpler to delete it in favor of something you'd more easily understand: you're a dumbass! questioning the goverment is a right, by your own admission, he died to defend I don't see where Scott is questioning anyone's right to speak out against their government. He is simply stating an opinion held by many - that this mother dishonors her dead soldier-son's beliefs. It's quite a jump for you and Matt to imply that Scott would invalidate anyone's free speech rights. The only people you hear that kind of nonsense from are hard-core lefties like Crux and others here on this site who often call for censorship in radio and television media.

Post deleted by Fairweather

I've been reluctantly paying $65 for a NP/USFS combo pass every year now under the apparently misguided assumption that the funds generated were going to maintain trails and access to those trails. So where IS the money going? Down a rathole - jobs program for wannabe land enforcers. Screw this.

And never in the history of our nation has this been so succinctly illustrated as under the administration of George W. Bush at the helm of all three branches of government under Republican control. Your lack of historical perspective is stunning. Pick up a book sometime.

Actually, my little brother and I did that traverse a couple years back Magnificent area. I was curious about current conditions to the upper lake because I had read that there was a lot of windfall from the big storm last winter and I was curious about the snow line on that side. I really want to climb Bretherton after the snow melts down this summer, if for no other reason than to visit Milk Lake - which I've heard is a beautiful place. Maybe we can hook up for a trip? BTW; we still need to go see if Anderson Glacier still has a pulse one of these days.

Were you on Lena or Bretherton? If so, how was the hike to Upper Lena?

Trip: Mount Stone - Route 1 Date: 5/26/2007 Trip Report: Met Off White in Hoodsport this past Saturday at the ungodly hour of 4:30am and drove up the Hamma Hamma to the Putvin Trailhead. A cloudy, cool morning hike up, and up, and up through the forest, but no rain or wind. The snow line greeted us abruptly just beyond the top of the trail "headwall" - half an hour below Lake of the Angels. Melting fast! We were interested in seeing the lake and took a side trip there for a quick snack. The snow was very soft and the lake/basin were 100% covered beneath this last winter's dump. Skiing would be fantastic for anyone willing to haul up their gear. We plodded upward and had the good fortune of remaining between cloud layers most of the day, and the added bonus of having the entire area to ourselves! Classic Olympic fare as the fog and mists blew across the tops of Stone and the surrounding crags, allowing only periodic glimpses. Some mixed scrambling led us to the hidden basin below the main peak. An easy but improbable-looking scramble led to the top and surprisingly warm relaxation. What a great day to climb with a great companion. Note: We hiked out the last mile+ on the old Boulder Creek Road. The road is overgrowing fast but would still be about 95% passable on a mountain bike - minus a couple of major washouts.