ivan

wouldn't canada still be damn competitive though?

a serious question, having not (that'll admit anyway) worn undies like that - wouldn't that shit be like super annoying? looks like i'd constantly be fishing around in my crack trying to do some major extraction...

i hate all posters equally, but each in their own unique way

Stuck? I love hanging out with my son. and clearly dave hates his

were galadriel and arwen whores? if so, what does this indicate about the socio-political values of the late third age of middle earth from a marxist perspective? to what extent are the opinions of raging queers pertinent in the overall dichotomy? oh that's easy. that was a question on one of my history finals in college. yes, they were whores. it was important to have a viable skill in order to provide for yourself. if you're going to do something you might as well be good at it. it says that the socio-political values haven't changed much at all. you can still sell sex for money in damn near every culture. and regardless of the particular dogma, politicians are generally whores that will sell themselves to the highest bidder. the currency for the transaction isn't always cash. the opinions of raging queers is just as pertinent as serene queers to the overall dichotomy. nice n' concise. so how come it took 8 pages to get to it then?

were galadriel and arwen whores? if so, what does this indicate about the socio-political values of the late third age of middle earth from a marxist perspective? to what extent are the opinions of raging queers pertinent in the overall dichotomy?

i assumed you weren't pro-slavery. my pt is, why argue over the #? it's the idea that's important, at least in terms of evaluating john brown (and yeah, i know the "hacked" is still in use, it's in my high school text too). the fact is, millions of africans endured a nightmare of slavery very much like the jewish holocaust, and for much longer. therefore, slavery was a system to be justly destroyed. further, in the USA, it was not a system that could be peacefully destroyed. finally, any person who undertook its destruction (like brown) can not justly be described as a terrorist w/o distorting the meaning of the word such that its unuseful in conversation. it's the old "insurgent" vs "freedom fighter" debate.

wow - n side looks beautiful - anyone gotten on one the gullies?

guess that means you don't have to use your priest anymore mike? he ALWAYS came looking after 24 hours

uh, am i missing your point? is your dithering over a # of africans actually killed being done b/c you actually thought slavery was okay? are you one of my sunny southern friends from the old days, raised on gone w/ the wind and the uncle remus stories who actually think the "peculiar institution" WASN'T a monstrous wrong?

You mean like when he and his sons hacked to death 5 fellow human beings in Pottawatomie, Kansas? Yes; I would say that made him a terrorist--which is why he was hung. funny - just read a book called "lies my teacher told me" that contains a chapter that examines the evolution of history textbooks treatment of brown - it notes that the very verb you used "hacked to death" was universally adopted by all high school textbooks in the '20s as textbook companies bowed to southern pressures and began transforming the protrayal of brown common in the 19th century as a martyr and "freedom fighter" to a crazed, murderous lunatic who "hacked to death" the apparent good guys, who wished the terrorism of slavery to be further propagated throughout the union brown's attack was a tit-for-tat response to a much worse raid and act of butchery on the part of pro-slavery forces just days earlier - you might recall kansas was having its own mini-civil war then and its wrong to consider brown's killings outside of the larger pattern of chaos and murder that embroiled the entire territory. history acutally appears to indicate that the majority of the bloodshed in the conflict was on the side of the pro-slavery types, not brown and the other anti-slavery men, though the harsh depiction still is heaped on brown. how was brown not a martyr and freedom fighter? he was strongly opposed to a far more clearly evil thing than urban sprawl or deforestation. he was a hero of the civil war, and union men marching into battle all knew and sung "john brown's body." do you disagree with his view of slavery? do you really think his plan at harpers ferry to incite a regional slave insurrection was wrong, given the political reality that slavery could not be abolished using the political process, but only through killing and bloodshed? if you do agree that he though was right, and he was doing it correctly, are you saying then that "terrorists" can be GOOD guys, and if so, where does that leave the word?

our glorious 2nd amendment certainly will keep the evil-doers at bay

these chix would all be much hotter if they were leading, no? the tr just adds to their vacuousness...

is this really a playground argument over the word "fair?" since when were taxes ever really fair? thugs w/ clubs have been extorting money from the masses since time immemorial - it's just the way the show works. the idea of leashing the thugs ever so slightly w/ the collar of elections was a good one, though it didn't take into account the success political parties that favored the affluent would have in convincing poor folks to vote against their interests in exchange for a promise that boys wouldn't be allowed to kiss each other. the bottomline is the bills need to get paid, and if that means the rich guys have to settle for only having a single private jet, i can't find in my heart to feel so bad. maybe if 50% of our budget wasn't going to the department of war we could have lower income taxes and no estate tax, eh?

would someone page layton so we can see some proper hate-spray here?

this is why i married a person who understands how to fix computers - are they designed to completly melt-down every year or so or what?

looks like canada's running out of time before our glorious Manifest Destiny's gonna have to reassert itself again

naw, it's all great, even for an 1/8th of a ton sized guerilla like meself - espeically the 10 in a row "flexy" pitons on "flight time!"

uh, doesn't that sound exactly like "mao zedong thought" it you just strike out the "american" and replace it with "chinese?"

now THAT sounds like terrorism!

was the african national congress a terrorist organization? were the sons of liberty terrorists? was gandhi a terrorist, as he had millions of followers who could (and did, though of course he opposed it) use physical violence at any time, and who certainly could terrify the livlihood of tens of thousands of english citizens with his boycotts? were abolotionists terrorsts? was john brown? the word "terrorist" has to mean something big - like "treason" it must be very narrowily defined or risk being abused by government to legitimize monstrous oppression - clearly the folks who did this latest arson need to have their balls nailed to the wall for it, but to call them terrorists paves the way for the government further trampling our civil liberties in the pursuit of the ultra-mega-evil-doers. these guys are criminals, not terrorists, unless you wanna start calling dope-slingers terrorists too, and why not?

whatever the morality of this is, and i certainly don't agree w/ it, though i have a fair-sized anarchist streak in me, this can't be called terrorism without distortign and watering-down the meaning of the word. terrorists intentionally try to kill people - whatever numbnuts did this were not intentionally trying to kill anyone.

my nightmare is seeing shit like that on acid

which would make wensday the 5th, eh?

...pants...now!