Fairweather

...and all first amendment press freedoms shall be limited to 18th century technology as well. All constitutional protection afforded to the internet, television, and radio is hereby rescinded. Great idea, teacher.

Who elected JosephH Chief Moralizer? Too bad your indignation does not extend to ze jews, asshole.

You gotta know how that sounds..... Pssst. Let me tell you a secret, Joseph. I even have a couple of friends that are b-l-a-c-k. Both this post and your previous one equating a problem with rabid Zionists with a prejudice or problem with Jews would appear to demonstrate your biases, not mine. That you can't seem to distinquish between Jews as a people, Judaism as a religion, and the politics of Zionism is pretty typical for those who do have a problem with Jews and all things Jewish. Again, lot's of people keep their bigotry well under wraps these days - your b-l-a-c-k 'friends' aside, is that what we're talking here? Um, I think you should understand exactly what "Zionism" is before you condemn it, attempt detach it from Judaism, or perpetuate a gross misclassification: Zionism is an international political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel.[1] Formally organized in the late 19th century, the movement was successful in establishing the State of Israel in 1948, as the world's first and only modern Jewish State. It continues primarily as support for the state and government of Israel and its continuing status as a homeland for the Jewish people.[2] Described as a "diaspora nationalism",[3] its proponents, including contemporary figures such as Robert Rockaway and historical luminaries such as Albert Einstein, regard it as a national liberation movement whose aim is the self-determination of the Jewish people. Your attempt to attach Wolfoitz to yet another perceived jewish-linked conspiracy - something that seems to be popular with the left of late - is the real issue here. The fact that you displayed somewhat paranoid racism of your own, even while condemning this Imus idiot, is also telling.

I've never met Joseph, so I don't know if he even has a daughter. I would hope, like my daughter, she is free to marry whomever she truly loves.

You gotta know how that sounds..... Pssst. Let me tell you a secret, Joseph. I even have a couple of friends that are b-l-a-c-k.

Of course. Those pesky Jews and their neocon tools. You're just as bad as Imus....or this guy: Joseph revealed - again.

Good form should also include the occasional use of a dictionary, eh? cite Pronunciation[sahyt] –verb (used with object), cit·ed, cit·ing. 1. to quote (a passage, book, author, etc.), esp. as an authority: He cited the Constitution in his defense. 2. to mention in support, proof, or confirmation; refer to as an example: He cited many instances of abuse of power. 3. to summon officially or authoritatively to appear in court. 4. to call to mind; recall: citing my gratitude to him. 5. Military. to mention (a soldier, unit, etc.) in orders, as for gallantry. 6. to commend, as for outstanding service, hard work, or devotion to duty. 7. to summon or call; rouse to action. [Origin: 1400–50; late ME < LL citāre to summon before a church court; in L, to hurry, set in motion, summon before a court, freq. of ciére to move, set in motion] —Related forms cit·a·ble, cite·a·ble, adjective citer, noun Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Bill Coe, I have never posted under any username but "Fairweather". Got it? I have defended the concept of homosexual marriage on this board and have never used religion to uphold my mostly-conservative beliefs. I find it amusing that free thinkers like yourself so easily pigeonhole all conservatives into the religious zealot box while boasting your own open-mindedness. Exactly how does that work, Bill? As an aside, I would like to point out that the manner in which you savaged that newbie-girl who was seeking info for her thesis puts you solidly into the "asshole" column. Yes, Bill, you are an asshole. I would also like to suggest that Foraker take a remedial spelling course. The world expects more from a poser who claims to have a PhD. Now, back to exile island.....

New lows are being hit almost daily. In addition to an old self-promoting curmudgeon moderator with reading comprehension issues, there is an overriding drug theme here that I no longer wish to be associated with; it includes K-12 teachers and moderators. If that were not enough, there are jackals who have nothing better to do than speculate endlessly... endlessly on the fate, fortitude, and intellect of 3 good men lost on Mount Hood. Shameful. And then there are regular death threats/wishes expressed against The President of The United States that go unmoderated and unchallenged. It's almost laughable that those on another website are regularly referred to by those here as haters, nazis, reichwingers, etc, etc, etc, when the level of unbridled anger, hysteria, and hate that exists on this very site is so profound. And there is the hypocrisy. Amazing levels of it. Endless posters lambasting soccer moms who drive SUV's, even while they park their own Toyota 4-Runner at the trailhead or fly around the globe in a 747-300 chasing a pointless persuit - because obviously a climber's need for personal fulfillment and cultural enrichment is so much more legitimate than a mother's family transport. A 99%-to-100% lilly-white (based on pics in the gallery) user list lamenting the injustice they help propogate around the world. Amazing. And the materialism!! Oh my! All the latest cams, biners, boots, water filters, tents, ropes, gadgets and gizmos....but pursuing a dream with all the latest and greatest $$$$ gear hardly qualifies as materialism, right? And let's talk about education; there's plenty of edu-snobbery about here, wouldn't you agree? Many of the metro-males on cc.com regularly put their knowledge obscurus and higher degrees on display in leiu of genitalia. And it's not really important to them that the taxes borne by a humble garbage man or a single working mother helped subsidize their education - so long as they can confidently lecture the same about the evils of capitalism and America's complicity in virtually every world-ill recorded since 1776. Of course, many of these same posters were lucky enough to attend a private university. Let's not even discuss the privilege they likely enjoyed on the way to the admissions office! We have land-speculating yacht owners lamenting the plight of the poor in Venezuela, and a plethora of attorneys who, likely, have never missed a meal or a mortgage payment crying about rising health care costs. We have many posters - including a few teachers - who probably spend as much work-time surfing this place as they do performing the duties they are paid to do. And then there are the posters who claim to love freedom and justice - even as they gleefully sing the praises of prosecutions without evidence (La Cross players and Carl Rove come to mind) and call for the imprisonment of network executives. The list goes on. I suppose I haven't been banned up to this point because my direct and unrefined challenges to some of the orthodoxy here lends both legitimacy to otherwise homogenous debates - and entertainment. JayB, Peter Puget, and KK will now have to suffice.

All questions, but no answers. I think even the most biased observer can see your lack of good faith re our conversation. I answered your points line-for-line. You're a real piece of work old man. Fuck off.

Now, Matt, before you start up again with your 1000 questions, I have a few of my own: What's your plan for Iraq? How would you get Kim Jong Ill to give up his nuke capability? And please don't tell me it's Bush's fault he has one to begin with. How do you explain Iran's race toward the bomb? The program has been underway since long before our involvement on its borders. And long before Bush. What are your solutions?

Have you seen the budget for homeland security? Have you seen the USCG speeders out in Elliot from the window of your Seattle ivory tower? You answer some of this question yourself below re international bank monitoring - and many other programs that The LA Times and those on your side of politics seem bent on exposing to our enemies. This is ex-Clinton propaganda you've bitten hard on. And, of course, only a Clinton ex-pat can confirm or deny this. It seems to fit your bitterness such that you've likely swallowed more than reality. The fact remains that any "plan" Clinton had in place for 8 YEARS was never enacted. Talk about passing the buck! Because the man if fucking unbalanced: He fulfilled his promise to punish Al Queda and The Taliban. Wow. There's a good reason to do nothing, eh? I believe so. Again, notwithstanding the best efforts of The LA Times. There's always room for improvement, I suppose. Hindsight - as I've said before - not Iraq. But as for the rest....You tell me.

I don't teach other people's children. But I do believe that teachers should be subject to drug testing (just like much of the private sector already is) since their job carries such a special responsibility. And if Ivan thinks his avatar protects his identity from his students, then his very naivete should also disqualify him from the job. Ivan's habit has already gotten him into trouble at least once. I'm surprised he hasn't put down the pipe by now and become a responsible teacher/adult. That's a bit of the kettle calling the pot, ain't it? Your profanity on this site pretty much falls into the same category of 'poor example for children', plus you've posted at least once about having a hangover, thus displaying your drug abuse for all to see. Adult behavior? What does smoking grass or drinking beer have to do with being an adult? The illegality hasn't much to do with it, either. Ever drive home with one too many under your belt? Get off your high horse and accept that you're more demon than angel...just like the rest of us. Profanity: Not Illegal. Alcohol: Not Illegal. Hangovers: I don't recall posting my rare ills here, but it's possible. DUI: Absolutely never. Political expression: Constitutionally protected. Occupation: Not entrusted with the lives and education of other people's kids. Maybe if Ivan were a parent, he would understand. But this one's not even negotiable - if I became aware through my children, or their friends, that the running joke on campus was a certain teacher's illegal drug use, I would make sure that teacher was investigated and removed, if proven. And it would not be difficult. End of story.

I don't teach other people's children. But I do believe that teachers should be subject to drug testing (just like much of the private sector already is) since their job carries such a special responsibility. And if Ivan thinks his avatar protects his identity from his students, then his very naivete should also disqualify him from the job. Ivan's habit has already gotten him into trouble at least once. I'm surprised he hasn't put down the pipe by now and become a responsible teacher/adult.

i believe all the authors of our fair nation's constitution were criminals, in that they had engaged in activities deemed illegal by the law of their time is there something in my nature that makes you fear that i would allow my private life to interfere w/ my public one? do i strike you as so foolish that from my bully pulpit i would encourage drug use or prattle on about my own habits? Yes. Are your students somehow blocked from viewing your exploits on this very website?

seriously? what grade, and where? i thought this had changed. sophmores in affluent, honky-white suburbia - it was more like 60% when i was teaching seniors last year like most human beings they're "not really into politics" reality is insignificant when you got a nice ipod and a benz As a parent, I wonder if it is appropriate for an admitted illegal drug user to be teaching children at all. Sorry.

Matt, I'm not sure what to say. I've answered your questions in as detailed and concise a manner as is practical on a site like this, and I'm not sure how you can claim otherwise - especially given your own lackluster ability to explain your personal belief system. I'm left to conclude that you are either playing a game, are mentally lacking, or are still living in the box that TESC built around your mind all those years ago.

This is exactly what the Bush administration is doing! Six-party talks - NKorea. EU/UN negotiations - Iran. I'm not sure why you and Matt are so hysterical over this. Military action always looms the implied threat of failed diplomacy. doesn't matter the issue, or the nations involved.

OK Matt. I'll ignore Crux who once stated his love for liberty in the form of an expressed desire for arrest warrants issued to ABC News execs who aired a documentary he did not like. I don't recall a right-winger ever suggesting the same here. Crux is a reactionary leftist kook whom the Democratic Party will buck in short order. Crux, do you honestly believe the majority of nations prefer Islamism over us? When the rubber hits the road, you're gonna be left wondering why you ever believed that. And mainstream Dems that run for the '08 presidency are gonna leave you steaming mad with their moderate tone. You are soon to find yourself marginalized - again. BTW, Crux, have you read Charlie Schumer's new book? I hear he spells it out for those of you on the Dem kook fringe. You're to be ignored. I'm not sure how many different ways I can spell it out for you, Matt. Bush fucked up Iraq, and that has had adverse effects on our credibility - no doubt. But I believe his handling of Afghanistan, North Korea, and Iran has been spot-on. Keep in mind that the North Koreans built the vast majority of their nuke program during the Clinton administration, who tried to make nice . Now I haven't seem GWB attacking NK, have you? He has taken the very path those who lean toward your side of the fence prefer - dialogue. (With a bit of banking embargo mixed in.) The six-party talks are the epitomy of diplomacy! Do you honestly believe Kim Jong Ill will give up his nukes just because we talk one-on-one and make concesions??? Bill Richardson and Madame Albright tried that...didn't work. As for Iran, yes, I think they will have to have their progress toward the bomb stopped with air strikes - be it Israel, or us. The UN and EU efforts are getting nowhere, and while I hope they make progress toward their stated desires of a non-nuke Iran, we both know that probably isn't going to happen. As for Syria, I haven't heard anyone here making overt threats to attack inside that nation. (Israel v Hezbollah/Syria is a different issue, for the most part.) I think it is our right to kill any Syrian that infiltrates the Iraq border with the intent to kill American soldiers - at least as long as we're there - don't you? Answer before you ask. Seems to me that this is how it should work now.

Well done. Now we have a dialogue. I continue to support GWB over Dem alternatives because I don't like the alternatives. Especially their domestic agenda. And I honestly do wish Bush would dump Cheney. Would a Gore presidency have resulted in a different election outcome in Iran? Who knows. Maybe. But the fact remains that no matter who wins an election in Iran, The Ayatollas remain the masters. And they don't have to worry about campaign posters, do they?

I used the big font so you wouldn't claim you hadn't noticed my questions. If you still feel that way, that is cool and all -- everybody is entitled to their opinions, right? Show some self confidence and tell us what you believe. OK, Matthew. Since you have such a hard time separating the two, I'll spell it out for you: Afghanistan: Given that The Taliban lent safe haven to the Al Queda killers who murdered almost 3000 of our fellow countrymen on 9/11/01, we were entirely justified in our actions there. The multi-national presence in Afghanistan remains completely justifiable now as well. I believe George Bush took/has taken the appropriate measure of response, and while it is regrettable that we did not capture Bin Laden, the country of Afghanistan no longer hosts him and offers him a safe, state-sanctioned home in which to train. Iraq: Obviously, GW & Co fucked this one up. I believe I've stated before my disgust with the VP and Rumsfeld, and with the intelligence manipulation that led to the invasion. All Monday morning QB-ing now. I remain convinced that our invasion can be justified on other grounds - such as the constant attacks on our aircraft patrolling the old 'no fly zone', Saddam's attempted assasination of Bush Sr in Kuwait, or the murder of 600 Kuwaiti POW's after Iraq capitulated the first time around. While demonstrating that a despot could be removed militarily in 21 days, GW's "let's stay and fix Iraq" strategy, while noble, has been one major fuck up. In hindsight, we should not have invaded Iraq. Our efforts in Afghanistan/Pakistan have suffered, but I'm not sure a stronger push there would produce positive results in any case. I hope we're mostly out of there by the end of this year. Matt, maybe you actually admire Ahmadinajad and hope for some outcome that tames what you obvioulsly view as American dominance of world resources and events. Why don't you just come out and say it? I have no problem with someone playing devil's advocate, but you seem sincere in your rhetoric. Careful what you wish for. Now, please don't dissect what I've written above and demand even more detailed explanation in that arrogant and condescending way you seem to have mastered. I've spelled it out for you in as clear a manner as possible - which is more than you've ever found the humility to do for me. I would ask you to consider this: Why is it that every single debate on this board leads you back to the same old Bush hatred response? Every single one! Bush lied! We were deceived! Oil! Halliburton! Rush Limbaugh! I very sincerely believe you are consumed. I don't see this in Off White - or even Prole or Sexual Chocolate. Can you answer this for me? For yourself?

Not biting, Mr Matt. Until you have the decency to actually read a link I've posted before you claim it as your own and re-post it, I don't really feel obligated to respond to your bizzare interpretation of something I may or may not have stated nearly four years ago. BTW; you seem a little tense with the big font and all. Anger problems?

Your ADD is showing, Matt. That's the same link I posted last night to kick off this latest round. Focus, Matt. Focus.

If your neighbor down the street has sworn to kill both you and the Goldsteins next door - just as soon as he can get his hands on a gun - should you wait until he actually aquires that weapon, kills your friends, and starts firing bullets into your home before you take action? If your neighbor threatens you (note to self: Iran has not threatened the US...if Israel wants to attack them, let them suffer the consequences) and you attack and kill him, you appropriately get convicted for murder. What if we just snuck into his house and took away his gun before he had a chance to load it?