ivan

always weird to see a place you've been a thousand times in person on tv... ...looking forward to a turkey-trot along the hallowed tuff-ways this coming thursday afore getting good n' gut-stuffed n' whiskey-drunk

enjoy - it oughta be nuking - would go but tomorrow's my only option - no partner though, should you be able to switch your day around...

anyone want to climb tomorrow? oughta be cold and breezy, but dry n' sunny.

free goat, free cat

jesus, the yellow peril IS real!

probably the only practical goddamn solution...

i hate illinios nazis!

acronyms don't help w/ the whole brevity thing... sport-climbing monkeys interested in fucking freely

i attempted a cunning anagram but soon lost hope faced by 4 fucking consonants and a single vulgar vowel

b/c "smith" is one of the most boring, common names in the english language? perhaps smut rocks can supplant the offending smiff?

kenny's a Verified Mutant, so if that's yer particuliar poison, ya oughta be rightly pleased good luck getting a dry spell to take advantage of 'fore the falcon closure sets in - it was like the whole cliff was hosed down w/ horse-semen yesterday - french freeing on 5.4

11/17 - #55 - the corner w/ nastia in full-on slippery conditions - damp, dead air, only the occasional catspaw on the placid columbia - the face alive w/ water, thick like buck-snot - french freeing to even start onto the slab

a damn shame that tweakers, unlike bears, don't hibernate

rules for pcp: - not before church - not when grandma's over - never with laotians

all not-obnoxious, all the time [video:youtube]

why is pie not pi, for clearly she is round?

mustaches are aid

hmmm...did your last post morph fw? seems like i just wrote a response to something i saw hours ago, as i'd thought to add that i don't think i've ever got hung up on credentials on this here website - i went to an extremely haughty university indeed, but learned quickly there were fucking wastoids w/o a wit of sense everywhere - have i anywhere on this board suggested a lack of academic credentials invalidates an argument? sheeeeit, my day-to-day is rife w/ arguing w/ the absolutely uninformed...

seems remarkable a man w/ a taste for history would need the details, but okay from part of wikipedia's page on lincoln's first inaugural address: Lincoln opened his speech by first indicating that he would not touch on "those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement." The remainder of the speech would address the concerns of Southerners, who were apprehensive that "by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered." Lincoln emphatically denied this assertion, and invited his listeners to consider his past speeches on the subject of slavery, together with the platform adopted by the Republican Party, which explicitly guaranteed the right of each individual state to decide for itself on the subject of slavery, together with the right of each state to be free from coercion of any kind from other states, or the Federal government. He went on to address several other points of particular interest at the time: 1.Slavery: Lincoln stated emphatically that he had "...no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." 5.Protection of slavery: Lincoln explicitly stated that he had no objection to the proposed Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which had already been approved by both houses of the United States Congress. This amendment would have formally protected slavery in those states in which it already existed, and assured to each state the right to establish or repudiate it. Lincoln indicated that he thought that this right was already protected in the original Constitution, and thus that the Corwin Amendment merely reiterated what it already contained. 6.Slavery in the Territories: Lincoln asserted that nothing in the Constitution expressly said what either could or could not be done regarding slavery in the territories. He indicated his willingness to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, so long as free blacks could be protected from being kidnapped and illegally sold into slavery through its misuse. Sorry Ivan (and Off), but you're trying to pull off a neat little trick. Your claim was that the Republican Party told the southern states they could keep their slaves. They certainly did no such thing. The Republican Party Platform of 1860 spells it out in plain language in position statement #8 and elsewhere: 8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no "person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States. Also: Supplementary Resolution. Resolved, That we deeply sympathize with those men who have been driven, some from their native States and others from the States of their adoption, and are now exiled from their homes on account of their opinions; and we hold the Democratic Party responsible for this gross violation of that clause of the Constitution which declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States. You're right about political deception, I suppose. When a candidate--be it Obama or Lincoln--goes off script, it creates confusion and angst. Certainly the south saw right through Lincoln's lies. Still, you seem hung up on credentials, so I acknowledge and congratulate you on your board certification. And to answer Off White's standard Drudge/FoxNews nonsense, as well as your little barb, I not too long ago completed my M.A. at the University of Washington in a closely-related field, so this stuff is pretty fresh. meh, seems mighty, mighty fine hairs yer trying to split - parties platforms are of course largely irrelevant when you look at the actual words of the candidates they immediately put forth as their champions (exemplified in lincoln's inaugural, which you wisely don't contest, and which is incredibly obviously a blow-job for pro-slavery types) - this platform of 1860 you offer, though more anti-slavery than lincoln for sure, is hardly promising to end slavery everywhere, and lincoln is extremely careful in promising southerners they can keep their (human) property if you look back to page 1 though, you'll see my original point is still valid - the republican party was indeed from the outset based on a big old bent promise: "we don't like slavery, but we'll continue to tolerate it in principle" - not at all dissimilar from modern democrats saying "we want private healthcare, but we're gonna try to create a new system that gets rid of it"

seems remarkable a man w/ a taste for history would need the details, but okay from part of wikipedia's page on lincoln's first inaugural address: Lincoln opened his speech by first indicating that he would not touch on "those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement." The remainder of the speech would address the concerns of Southerners, who were apprehensive that "by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered." Lincoln emphatically denied this assertion, and invited his listeners to consider his past speeches on the subject of slavery, together with the platform adopted by the Republican Party, which explicitly guaranteed the right of each individual state to decide for itself on the subject of slavery, together with the right of each state to be free from coercion of any kind from other states, or the Federal government. He went on to address several other points of particular interest at the time: 1.Slavery: Lincoln stated emphatically that he had "...no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." 5.Protection of slavery: Lincoln explicitly stated that he had no objection to the proposed Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which had already been approved by both houses of the United States Congress. This amendment would have formally protected slavery in those states in which it already existed, and assured to each state the right to establish or repudiate it. Lincoln indicated that he thought that this right was already protected in the original Constitution, and thus that the Corwin Amendment merely reiterated what it already contained. 6.Slavery in the Territories: Lincoln asserted that nothing in the Constitution expressly said what either could or could not be done regarding slavery in the territories. He indicated his willingness to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, so long as free blacks could be protected from being kidnapped and illegally sold into slavery through its misuse.

Dude, that's about as revisionist as the Zinn bullshit you're teaching your pupils. You can't be serious. compare and contrast the '93 and '09 democratic healthcare reform initiatives - i'll take a venn diagram if you don't feel like writing the essay

do you have to be fresh out the hizzy to note the irony of a conservative appealing to the libturd masses to Respect Da Wisdom of billy clinton? ironic too i suppose that obama internalized the lessons of clinton's debacle at creating universal healthcare and thus gave the conservatives damn near everything they wanted in a "reformed" healthcare system that they then turned around and spurned...

you weren't even close enough for handgrenades or nuclear bombs to count

don't have to worry about the brakes going out?

mosquitoes marmots mother-fuckers