Fairweather

Funniest reply you've ever posted. Shit; I had Diet Coke coming out my nostrils when I read that.

Strange. I can't get it to work via a search, refreshed link, my work computer, home computer, friend's machine, Mozilla, Explorer, etc. If you are actually able to access it, great. What's your secret?

It's been down all year. Anyone know why? You'd think the Adams/St Helens fees they've imposed would - at the very least - help maintain a website with semi-current info. www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/

Try to stay on topic, foraker. Your Bush-hatred need not be woven into every thread. It is well documented.

I disagree with what I think you are suggesting for two reasons. (1) those gun people are full of dookie and they have blood on their hands, a lack of self-esteem, and I hate them - those little complainers (waah waah waah, the liberals want to take away our rights...) and (2) this an important issue that bears discussion even if it becomes a circular one. Meanwhile in Olympia, WA: The Dems have a mega-majority in the state house, a solid majority in the senate, the governorship, five US congressmen and two liberal US senators to help promote the concept.... what are they waiting for!?!? Just ban guns in Washington State! ...Well, there's that pesky constitution again...and the fact that gun control is p-o-l-i-t-i-c-a-l s-u-i-c-i-d-e...even in this otherwise liberal state. I guess holding on to power is more important than imposing the will of Seattle/King County elites, eh? Smart move. Those on my side of this would love to see the Washington State Dems lead the way....to a new Republican majority here.

...usually by accepting arms from an outside party with an agenda of its own, and adopting the most brutal tactics imaginable.

You think I don't agree with that? Explain it to Ivan, not me. I say, But if you think that small arms will protect you from the tentacles of a tyrannical government, you're not thinking clearly. The masses will have surrendered their weapons the first few steps down the path to serfdom. Nonetheless, it is comforting to believe that a future tyrant might have to pay at today's prices.

Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security. --Benjamin Franklin very well, but what of locke, hobbes, rousseau and every other philosopher of government who confess that humans, born in an anarchic world with total freedom, must sacrifice some of those freedoms to a government or else suffer becuase of the excess of others exercising theirs? i don't concieve of gun-ownership (at least modern guns - like i said earlier, i think restricitng everybody to 18th century style weapons is fine) as an inalienable right - self defense certainly is, but that doesn't give me the right to an uzi, a flamethrower, an mx-missile, or even a semi-automatic pistol. As I've said before, Ivan; you don't seem interested in applying the same standard of antiquity to our first amendment vis a vis "the press" - as it now encompasses television, radio, the internet. I would also point out that euro-enlightenmentees Locke, Rosseau, and Hobbes (English, Swiss, English) weren't among the 55 delegates that met in Philladelphia during the summer of 1787. Benjamin Franklin was. Unfortunately, your willingness to sacrifice your constitutional freedoms would also have you force those sacrifices on me - and that's not acceptable. Big Ben had no part in crafting the right you so cherish (guns) - as you no doubt know, the bill of rights wasn't created in philly. and to say locke or montesquie or the others weren't present at the drafting of the american goverment is pretty goddamn daft - clearly they weren't there physically, but the ideas they articulated resound throughout the constitution and declaration (jefferson's "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" a near total plagariasm from locke, the seperation of powers from the frenchie, etc) "essential" in "essential liberties" is a most ambigious adjective - what's essential to me is not going to be the same for you - you clearly care about guns, where i'd be happier seeing them a whole hell of a lot harder to come by - i think the right to get fawked up 4 ways to sunday is pretty damn essential, but you don't and that's not acceptable to me either. i guess you at least sorta have it in writing in the 2nd amendment, but you know as well as i that it can be read to mean merely that the people in the form of their state militias have the right to bear arms. we have no absolutely unrestricted freedoms - we must accept limitations to them all - again, the question is the balance - to what degree will we part with specific rights? i think folks oughta be able to have guns, but nothing more than single shot, slow to reload ones - you can hunt and defend yourself just fine w/ those, but yes, they will be inadequate if you choose to iniate hostilities against a larger force (say a french class at 9 AM). its a compromise - you can still plug bambi or the uppity-negro crawling through the bedroom window for your daughter. now watch me compromise - legalize pot and you can keep the freak'n blow illegal. or legalize it but only sell it in packages w/ a big american flag on it and a picture of jesus crying If European enlightenment had been progressing faster than a snails pace, the American Revolution (revolt) would never have transpired. But this is a digression, as is whether Ben Franklin was a promoter or supporter of the final version second amendment. My posting of his quote was to illustrate the mood of the times - re personal freedoms - and the folly of your position. Feel free to quote any free-thinker you wish, but preferably one directly involved in the politics of the time - and a patriot. As for your proposition - neither of us have the power to 'make deals' in this argument, but I probably would accept your terms if it were in my power to do so. No matter; I believe the gun control debate is "more settled" now than at any time in the last 100 years. I don't believe we'll see any dramatic changes to the status quo in the next 30 years.

Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security. --Benjamin Franklin very well, but what of locke, hobbes, rousseau and every other philosopher of government who confess that humans, born in an anarchic world with total freedom, must sacrifice some of those freedoms to a government or else suffer becuase of the excess of others exercising theirs? i don't concieve of gun-ownership (at least modern guns - like i said earlier, i think restricitng everybody to 18th century style weapons is fine) as an inalienable right - self defense certainly is, but that doesn't give me the right to an uzi, a flamethrower, an mx-missile, or even a semi-automatic pistol. As I've said before, Ivan; you don't seem interested in applying the same standard of antiquity to our first amendment vis a vis "the press" - as it now encompasses television, radio, the internet. I would also point out that euro-enlightenmentees Locke, Rosseau, and Hobbes (English, Swiss, English) weren't among the 55 delegates that met in Philladelphia during the summer of 1787. Benjamin Franklin was. Unfortunately, your willingness to sacrifice your constitutional freedoms would also have you force those sacrifices on me - and that's not acceptable.

Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security. --Benjamin Franklin

...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.