ivan

a shocking lack of the fine fuck-word fir sure

i assume you're climibing on beacon's n side? the s side is closed, in case you were unaware.

maybe he did when soloing ( ) the route on his birf-day?

High-end sport routes at Ozone? Where are these routes? i suppose i meant the 5.11 and above routes - or was your comment more of quality?

the one time i passed through kansas city, a toothless trucker offered to suck my cock at a rest-stop - i haven't really expected much in the way of good-sense out of that fair city since

after school today - and thank you daylight savings time!

an 88$ fine seems fine to me - certainly a world of difference between that and 3 years in an iraqi jail! as to my class, the supreme court has generously afforded me the right to limit some freedoms if i deem them to be disruptive of the learning environment tinker vs des moines school district (1969) confirmed this, while protecting students right to symbolic speech (like wearing a black armband) so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others or the learning process - so yeah, i'd be fine w/ limiting pie/panty throwers in my room, but permitting it at the mall or on the street outside your house (and i've awarded extra credit for tagging you now, boy-o, so watch out! )

and when you're done, i've found all the high-end sport routes at ozone work great as C0 aid-climbs!

no, i didn't know exactly what you'd say or i wouldn'tve asked what if he had thrown his dirty underwear at him? or foam slippers? i'll grant you a shoe could cause enough harm to qualify as an assault, and if there had been actual physical harm he should have been prosecuted, but the in end it was a non-injurious event, for which the time he's already spent in jail (and there was some initial report that his arm had been broken as well?) would be more than enough. i do think throwing shit at unpopular leaders in new york city would be totally fine, assuming the intent is not to harm but merely make a statement - it's symbolic speech, which the supreme court has upheld as part of the 1st amendment - the message would clear to arafat or mugabe, either don't be a prick or choose a parade route that keeps you a good distance from everybody! what happened to the guy who put a pie in bill gates face?

i'd imagine it'd just take a pardon from the iraqi pres, and anyone could ask for that? but again, anyone know what the penalty woulda been here in the us? i'd imagine the secret service woulda pummeled his ass good, but would there actually be charges as it was essentially a form of symbolic speech (since he missed ) and was not reasonably likely to have caused the target any harm anyhow? am i wrong in thinking this guy woulda limped away w/ a few bruises but nothing else?

no care to elaborate? the guy's a national hero in iraq, and what would be the sentence for an american who'd done that here?

wouldn't it be a good step if obama asked the iraqi pres to pardon this guy?

"i like my sugar w/ coffee and cream" and to complete the b-boys breakfast bits: "i don't mean to brag - i don't mean to boast - but i'm inter-continental when i eat french toast"

cc.com erotic performance = poor

odd, then, that they seem so ineffective on you, socrates

They probably don't have as many assholes like you talking about murdering people like it is some kind of joke. whaaa? dude, the germans invented dark humor!

dude, do you want habeus corpus? it's kinda like a golden-rule baby-jesus thing - if you want basic human rights, you have to afford them to everybody else too, and you don't get to pick and choose because then the whole fucking thing falls apart. people should be able to challenge their detention if they actually did some fucked up shit, they should be tried if they're guilty, they should be punished it they're not guilty, they should be free what on earth is so hard to understand about that? do we really have to refight the english civil war? resign the magna carta? re-create hammurabi's code? exactly how far back in time do you want to go?

if we didn't want to afford due process and other basic rights to non-usa citizens then we shouldn't have joined the u.n. or signed the convention on human rights serenity, certainly you've read military history? you know, something other than world war 2 stuff where we were the golden knights, the conquering heroes? history shows, time after time after time, that military power, unchecked by silly, dumb-ass, know-nothing, liberal-wanker civilians results in totalitarian states - what exactly are you fighting for? do you want to preserve the ideals of the american liberal democracy or not? if you just want to be in a neo-fascist state, can you please emmigrat to russia, eh?

a more sensible cut n' paste job, complete w/ the source, another dead hero, douglas adams: "This planet has - or rather had - a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movement of small green pieces of paper, which was odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy. "

tyler durden has some soap to sell you kev

as far as releasing bad guys and having them show back up on the battlefield - hey, look at your history - its a time-honored tradition! - for example, the north and south exchanged prisoners during the civil war (and when the practice was stopped, the "american auschwitz" of andersonville resulted) - prisoner exchanges were common in the napoleonic wars too - now, the germans and soviets just murdered each others prisoner, but then how well do we remember them? your choices w/ POWs/enemy combatants/guys in pj's/whatever are a) kill them after they surrender (okay, solves the problem, but costs you your national soul in the process) b) hold them for the duration of the war (problematic given the politics/expense, especially when you declare a war that by definition can have no ending - "war on terror") or c) at some point release/exchange them. is there a 4th option?

if we'd defined them as soldiers, then no, we could have used the geneva convention, which would have banned the torture we used on them, and doesn't require trials i guess i'm a traitor but i have sympathies for our enemies, or at least i try to honestly understand them - they have some legitimate arguments, not the least of which is that we (and you seem to personify this quite well) think of ourselves as the new rome, as an imperial master which has the god-given right to impose it's will on the world and in the process trample all over anyone in our way - look at yourself - clearly you think of yourself as strong and brave - if you were born and raised in afghanistan/iraq/saudi arabia/iran/pakistan, which side would you be on right now? would you not see us as arrogant or hypocritical?

um, carl, wtf? wasn't the point obvious? there's been another giant school shooting, this time in germany? i seem to recall there was a school shooting in krautland of international repute just a few years ago too, so not exactly a strong piece of evidence of the effectiveness of gun control in preventing fucked-up shit. we still got the krauts beat though w/ recent stories of shootings at offices, churches n' homes.