Fairweather

Well said! His sincerely great contributions aside - his politics and conspiracy rhetoric are truly pathetic and sad. BTW; who's that old Canadian lady on TV that's always showing off the latest and greatest rectal vibrator? Doesn't that violate Gov't Canada's decency laws? Yuk! And the Canadian radio that seeps across the border has aboot as much flavour and variety as ice-milk. Great stuff...if you're trying to fall asleep!

Seem's you're mistaken, Oly. Looks right to me: ...with the specifics of said-limitation defined by you and your chosen political party, of course. ... Maybe being an administrator gives you license to constantly grab the condescension accusation from your small quiver - but it doesn't enable you to change the demonstrably correct into the incorrect, or render you innocent of the same.

I believe he is referring to a certain DNC Kool-Aid guzzler named Crux - who just recently proposed putting network executives in prison for an ABC docu-drama written and produced under the protections of the first amendment. Post #601332 - written by Crux: Now, regarding your news that Senate democrats are talking about pulling Disney's FCC license, that is definitely predictable: I have argued it is a violation of federal law for public sector resources to be allocated for the purpose of dissemination of propaganda for political purposes. The public airwaves thusly abused by Disney/ABC present not only grounds for revocation of the broadcasting license but for criminal prosecution under the provisions of the respective statutes. Any modicum of respect I had for the guy evaporated with this paragraph. True colors revealed - and I don't think Crux is alone in his interpretation of what 'free speech' really means. Scary shit if the Dem's take charge. Really.

I haven't heard Clinton so angry since the last time he.....lied. ...but I'll admit; the question was politically loaded. And it's always nice to see someone show some spine.

2100? You're presumptively assuming he'll have passed-on by then!

At first I was encouraged by their comments, but then I remembered......it's almost November, and the Dem's have to appear "tough".

To save $1000 in Club Denali NPS membership dues I would do just that.

Huh?? It already costs $425 to fly into Kahiltna Base! Subtract this from your $650 figure and you're left with + $225. That is only $25 more than the current park fee! Your $650 figure is an average, I realize, but a fly in to Sanford or Drum will be less. Your attempt to omit the Denali fly-in cost is noted. If you want to charge an outrageous fee to climb in DNP, then assign it to foreigners who don't pay taxes to support the park. It's fair play in Nepal, China, and Pakistan - why not here? http://www.flyk2.com/52.cfm

McKinley climb planned for 2008....but if the fee goes this high I'll just head to South America or stick to one of the low-income parks like Wrangell-St Elias or Glacier Bay. I'm not going to pay $500 (much less $1000!) to climb a mountain that was around for millions of years before the creation of the NPS. The current fee seems like a reasonable rate insomuch as it covers the costs of the "program". I would rather see the program just go away if it means paying country club membership rates.

I can think of only one serving legislator who's donned the cowardly sheets of the KKK - and he's a Democrat. Often called the conscience of the Democratic Party! (imagine that).....

Wow! You must work very hard. With all that travel I'm surprised you've found time to 'work' at all. Maybe others - taxpayers, mom&dad, coworkers, grandma's inheritance, whatever - are in some way supporting your pointless hobby? And I won't even mention how many thousands of gallons of Jet-A have been pumped into the atmosphere of this planet during your recent wanderings. Maybe I should search out some of your thoughts on global warming to see if there's any hypocricy afoot.

Actually, I wasn't making comment on the validity of the program, just stating the fact that it's a political loser for Dem's trying to regain the House via some kind of fear campaign. BTW, I was just as upset as liberals when Clinton's white house staff was illegally sorting through the FBI files of political opponents on the floor of the oval office.

I'm impressed. Mommy and Daddy must have a really big checkbook!

Isn't this the part where you go off-topic by posting some mediocre pics of a trip you didn't actually take?

Ahhh, yes. More love from the left. Thanks for yet another illustration, Cj.

Obviously you're a sad casualty of the very hate-filled ignorance you so freely label others with. I don't think the Dalai Lama would like you. Seriously.

I've said it before: For president. As for Hillary, I would not vote for a woman with a hyphenated last name. What can I say?

Given the Republican's lack of fiscal restraint, even I could be talked into supporting Dem's for House races just to restore some balance. But, unfortunately for the D's, their agenda is transparent - two years of non-stop hearings and investigations. I think mainstream America sees the Dem's as too focused on things the average Joe/Jane aren't really concerned about - or wholly support...like wiretapping of overseas calls and monitoring of secret banking transactions.

Good TR, Pope. I've always wondered about this peak. It looks like an old cinder cone covered by forest - although I know it's non-volcanic. This is the kind of stuff good memories are made of. Dad comes home tired, happy, and alive.

I don't think most "self-proclaimed liberal secularists" would have any problem addressing the Dalai Lama as "His Holiness", nor the Pope, nor the Archbishop of Canterbury. Being a "liberal secularist" doesn't mean you renounce all forms of religious or spiritual belief - it just means you try to treat them all with equal respect..... I think you are mistaken. The utter contempt for religion shown here is primarily focused on Christianity and, to a lesser degree, Judaism. As a secular conservative, I believe this is because some here feel they live under threat from these groups or sub-sects therein. Maybe they're right, but I still think the whole 'holiness' thing wreaks of political correctness - and you can't be serious when you say that all religions are treated with equal respect here. For the record, I wouldn't refer to The Dalai Lama, The Pope, or Buddah himself as 'His Holiness'. They are/were, after all, just men.

Yeh, I agree that the guy seems to have good intentions, but I am slightly amused when I hear self-proclaimed liberal secularists refer to the man as 'His Holiness'. Huh? I will say that virtually any form of government that a one-day independent Tibet established would be better than the oppression it currently endures. http://www.friendsoftibet.org/global/whytibet/

Wonderful reply. Is that you talking - or the alcohol again?

So you wouldn't mind a rebirth of Tibetan theocracy were the communist tyrants presently occupying it rightfully ousted?

An unfortunate decision made by elitists.