Fairweather

Bellevue's not a city?

higher fertility rates directly correlate with lower education Speaking of shit holes, Vancouver BC sure ain't the city it used to be. Seriously. What happened?

higher fertility rates directly correlate with lower education I think the growth of the planet's human population during the 20th century coupled with radical advances in education during the same period debunk your premise. It is possible that educated elites are somehow averse to sexual reproduction for any of the reasons I stated above, but your anecdote still fails the test.

Trust me, darling, you don't hate Bellevue as much as the rest of this state hates Seattle.

Seattle: 49,000 children - 170,000 Dogs and Cats. Narcissism? Low metro-male sperm counts? ED? High testosterone females? Plain old self loathing? Hmmm; could be any number of things.

Having to look across the lake at the shit hole known as Seattle.

Um, I believe Abbas was elected too. No matter; Fatah is no less murderous than Hamas albeit supposedly "secular". Maybe this mini-civil war will distract these barbarians long enough to let Israelis send their kids to school without fear they'll be blown to bits by bus-bombers or a homemade rocket. But somehow I'm sure Palestenians, no matter which political party of death they belong to, will still find time to kill Jews.

Looks like a new sport in Gaza - sponsored by the religion of peace: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/10/israel.palestinians.ap/

Speaking of coils and stupidity:

Really nice trip, guys. One of you is really good with that camera too! Really captured your trip well. Thanks for sharing your adventure. Did you happen to look down Clear Creek route from the summit? Was there still a fair amount of snow left on it? Thinking about taking a trip down with my son next week.

Presenting theory or anecdote as fact does not make it fact. Kinda' like anthropogenic global warming.

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.