chelle

So what's your point Peter? That the voting districts are determined including illegal aliens and legal non-citizens and this is skewing results? I find that hard to believe.

That's so nice of you to go to the soup kitchen.

You thought climbing crimpers or finger cracks caused the best forearm pump? Nope. Mix up some cookie dough by hand. Whew. Had to take a couple breaks to shake out.

I don't get it...you playing for both teams now?

Why won't the animated .gif images I find on the internet save as gifs? They keep defaulting to .bmp and then don't work.

i second that one! traffic isn't the only reason i'm late for morning meetings Yeah. That's a good one when you've got your buddy hanging around.

Procrastination? Mine are surfing the web and pacing around my apartment looking for stuff to organize. Although the later is hard now that I live in a studio.

Sounds kinda dumb. What is the "magic trick"? I guess he failed to get himself outside the box, or to conjure up some grub.

I sometimes wonder the same thing...then look around and see how busy everyone seems running around getting"stuff" done. Not realizing that they just missed out on seeing a beautiful cloud form and dissipate, or on really listening to what their loved ones are saying, or seeing an old woman smile. Shame they don't realize that everyday needs to be lived and shared, not just used as a prep for when you have time. Unfortunately that day never comes.

Trask - you get up way too early in the morning on a Sunday. You heading to early Mass or something?

Gee Fairweather. You can only resort to personal attacks and disrespect by misspelling my name? Well...I did listen to the show. If you can pause long enough to read my original post above I said I listened to the Rush Limbaugh show, not to him personally. And maybe I didn't get the name of the show host correct. If so I'll admit it. You are so paranoid that you accuse me of lying? Come on. Lame! At the time I wasn't trying to memorize all of the show for a future debate with you. But that is a nice conspiracy theory. Whatever...I've emailed the producers to see who was guest hosting for him on Tuesday since their web site is so poorly designed and I can't seem to find the information. Until then

So I wonder if this will make it harder to bivy on federal land. And whether this applies to all the ranchers that pay a $1.50 an acre to graze their cattle.

Either that or they determined through their council meeting that you were not a true threat and just left feeling sorry for you.

Rush Limbaugh has been off the air since last Friday. (In rehab, ya know.) Could you explain how you were able to hear him on Tuesday? I've never heard anyone refer to Tim Russert as a conservative. Or a liberal, for that matter. Basically, he is the quintessential moderator. Rush may be in a cushy rehab center, but the show must go on. I would imagine that the producers and Rush chose someone to stand in that had views consistent with the show and the listeners. I guess Tim was "moderating" the show then and was sticking to the conservative line... And the WTO...if you're refering to the Seattle incidents from a few years ago, I find that hard to call recent given all the events in the past year.

Fairweather - some of us with left leanings do listen to what the other side has to say. I heard the Rush Limbaugh show on Tuesday on my way to the airport (90 minutes of it at least). I have to say that some of Tim Russert's comments about the budget deficit make sense. No one is looking (or at least talking) about the spending side of the country's balance sheet. However, I personally feel that a lot of republicans in office are blindly putting their heads in the sand on the Iraq and CIA issues for the sake of "the party". As for your thoughts about the left being reactionary...I don't really see it. Some of the democrats in congress are asking questions about the WMD issue and wanting to know what the president knew when. They are also trying to get to the bottom of the outing of a CIA agent. These are important questions to have answers to. If you disagree, I am baffled at how you can think that potential lying (March 03 letter from congressman still not responded to by whitehouse) and intimidation of potential witnesses (there's enough links on this is another thread) by the president and his administration are not important. I would also like to see more inquiries into the contracts being awarded to Haliburton and others with ties to the Pres and VP. Please help me understand what you are talking about with regards to reactionary militia.

Maybe you should treat your partners better...

From the NY Times last Saturday. Although PP may have issue with the title, it sounds to me like they're reporting what went on at the speech and gave the guy plenty of ink...Only the last 3 paragrahs are for the response from the "other" side. (posted full article 'cause you need a login to access) - - - - - -- - October 11, 2003 Cheney Lashes Out at Critics of Policy on Iraq By ERIC SCHMITT WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 — Vice President Dick Cheney lashed out on Friday at critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, ridiculing their arguments against the war as naïve and dangerous in a speech that was a culmination of a campaign by the White House to regain support for the postwar effort. Mr. Cheney's remarks came at the end of a contentious week that included President Bush's announcement of a reorganization intended to give the White House more control over the Iraq occupation; a public spat between Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, over control of the mission; and growing violence on the ground in Iraq. The vice president's appearance before an invited audience of 200 people at the conservative Heritage Foundation here capped a weeklong White House public-relations offensive aimed at rebutting a new wave of criticism of the war and the postwar effort. In his 25-minute speech, Mr. Cheney defended the administration's handling of Iraq policy and its larger vision in combating global terrorism. His searing statements came across as direct attacks on critics in Congress and among the Democratic presidential candidates. "Some claim we should not have acted because the threat from Saddam Hussein was not imminent," Mr. Cheney said. "Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?" He continued, in his deep monotone: "Had we followed the counsel of inaction, the Iraqi regime would still be a menace to its neighbors and a destabilizing force in the Middle East. Today, because we acted, Iraq stands to be a force for good in the Middle East." In remarks on Friday at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum in Simi Valley, Calif., Mr. Rumsfeld joined in the administration chorus, rapping the media for dwelling on bad news out of Baghdad. "The part of the picture that's negative is being emphasized, and the part of the picture that's positive is not," Mr. Rumsfeld said. Mr. Cheney rarely speaks in public, except at fund-raisers, and when he does, it is usually a sign that the White House has decided that it needs to deliver a message with exceptional impact. His speech on Friday was a sharper version of a revamped stump speech he gave at fund-raisers in Iowa and Pennsylvania last week. He took no questions on Friday. The vice president picked up where Mr. Bush left off a day earlier, when the president told listeners in Portsmouth, N.H., "The challenges we face today cannot be met with timid actions or bitter words." Ms. Rice also gave a speech on Iraq this week. Like a similar speech by Mr. Cheney on July 24, his comments on Friday sought to cast the Iraq war as part of the broader campaign against terror, a linkage that administration officials say puts its actions in a better political light for them. He repeated his assertion that Mr. Hussein actively supported Al Qaeda operations in Iraq, an assessment that some intelligence analysts say is overstated at best. "He cultivated ties to terror, hosting the Abu Nidal organization," Mr. Cheney said. "He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda, providing training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional bombs. Saddam built, possessed and used weapons of mass destruction." He dismissed critics who say the failure so far of American inspectors to find those unconventional weapons in Iraq undercut the administration's main reason for going to war. He said a team of 1,200 specialists headed by Dr. David Kay, the chief weapons inspector in Iraq, had yet "to examine more than a hundred large conventional weapons arsenals, some of which cover areas larger than 50 square miles." He added, "Finding comparatively small volumes of extremely deadly materials hidden in these vast stockpiles will be time-consuming and difficult." Mr. Cheney cited examples from Dr. Kay's preliminary findings, including a prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of biological weapons agents, as proof that Mr. Hussein had repeatedly violated United Nations resolutions and posed a menace to America and its allies in the Middle East. The vice president dared critics to refute the assessment that Iraq without Mr. Hussein was better off than before. "There would still be active terror camps in Iraq," he said, "the regime would still be allowing terrorist leaders into the country, and this ally of terrorists would still have a hidden biological weapons program, capable of producing deadly agents on short notice." Ignoring Mr. Hussein's appetite for illicit weapons would have only courted disaster, he insisted. "Weakness and drift and vacillation in the face of danger invite attacks," he said. "Strength and resolve and decisive action defeat attacks before they can arrive on our soil." Mr. Cheney said it was dangerous to rely too heavily on reaching international consensus before acting against terrorists, saying that approach "amounts to a policy of doing exactly nothing." He added: "The United States is committed to multilateral action wherever possible, yet this commitment does not require us to stop everything and neglect our own defense merely on the say-so of a single foreign government. Ultimately, America must be in charge of her own national security." Just as notable on Friday was what Mr. Cheney did not say. There was no mention of the 94 Americans killed in Iraq since Mr. Bush declared the end of major combat on May 1. Nor did he discuss the uphill efforts to persuade allies to contribute troops and funds for the occupation, or the growing tensions with the Iraqi Governing Council over security. Democrats said on Friday that Mr. Cheney had used disingenuous arguments and false choices out of growing desperation to prop up his speech. "What they realize is the situation in Iraq is very, very perilous, their justification for war has not materialized, and that people are concerned," said Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. "As we keep sustaining casualties, there'll be questions in the public's mind whether we are in the control of the situation there."

The snow will soon fly Making the mountains all white Get ready to ski (edited to conform to ChucK's rules.)

Is this an ad for Tex or for you MrE?

Thanks for the link Erik. This must have been one of those uplifting news articles that Bush accused the US media of "filtering out" last Sunday in his interviews with non-network news programs about needing to talk directly to the American public about the good deeds the troops and out government are doing in Iraq.

I've bivied 3 times going through OR on the way to CA. All of them were fine and only one cost a lil cash. 1) rest stop just north of Eugene. Slept in back of truck and snoozed fine, although I don't sleep in reststops without a bivy partner. 2) poached a bivy at an RV campground in Myrtle Creek cause the gas station was closed. Got in late and left early. 3) Conned the woman at the Super8 in a little town N of Eugene to give us a great deal ($29) for a room. Asked if she had a poor student rate, she gave us the military deal. Raining outside and not driving a vehicle we could bivy in... Fejas' deal sounds pretty darned good. Maybe I'll do that next time.

The forest on the approach to 3 o'clock rock in Darrington after a hard rain. Cleanest smell I've ever experienced.

shouldn't Oct. 31 be "what costume would you like your partner to wear tonight " day? Naw, since it's a pagan holiday anyways the original thread schedule works. I suppose since it is one of my favorite holidays - marking the day I came into this world - we could have 2 threads that day.

Good reason, but there's not a lot of spray in the Fitness forum and you might get some good advice from Courtenay. I'm not sure she reads this forum. Just a thought.

RuMR - why aren't you posting all your training q's in the fitness forum?