Greg_W

You're a woman, what do you expect? MidEast stabilization may not be any of our business, but since it is in the best interest of some of our prime allies (Israel & Turkey, to name two) we have a stake in it.

So you say. Sounds like you're "age-ist". Isn't that a hate crime?

Whatever. "Gross oversimplifications", as you call them, are what leads to may people's inaccurate ideas about what is, and is not, contained in the Constitution. If you are debating a specific portion of it, get the wording right. As a scientist, I would think you would understand the importance of accurately quoting sources.

Not to split hairs, minx, but the First Amendment actually reads "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This is far different than your "separation of theology and governing" assertion, which is rather misguided. It is misguided for the simple fact that ALL individuals, including those in government, use their morals and belief system when making decisions, casting votes, etc. "Hate Crimes",as you call them, do not exist. This is a bullshit attempt to legislate thought. I am vehemently opposed to "hate crime" legislation because it automatically elevates the importance of certain victims over others. Why should the murder of a black man be punished or prosecuted more aggresively than the murder of a white man? Why not just punish the crime of murder to the fullest extent of the law? This "hate crime" legislation doesn't go both ways, either. It only seems to apply to blacks, gays, etc. When a white woman is murdered by blacks or a teenage boy is kidnapped, repeatedly raped, and murdered by two homosexual men the "hate crimes" legislation isn't pursued. George Orwell's double-speak and thought police ideas are growing.

Saddam Hussein's heart in a jar of alcohol. Oh, and chocolate is good.

I'll bite: a) No b) No c) Yes d) No e) Yes, I support it already f) Yes g) Threat reduction and MidEast stabilization.

Not to the people who believe the Bible, Off White. They, very seriously, pattern their life after what the Bible teaches. That is their choice, just as you live by your choices. Why is it so acceptable to ridicule Christianity or the Bible? Yet, if I ridicule gays or Muslims or people who believe in abortion, I can be arrested for a "hate crime". Maybe you should just respect another individual's right to choose their own belief system. Oh, and Dwayner, Mattp's just a product of a left-wing, anti-religion propaganda machine.

Not true, the President has the authority to commit troops for up to 60 days before going before Congress. How is that dubious?

Perhaps if you could avoid the pointless personal attacks in virtually every post I would pay more attention to your bluster. Since you are not in the military community, I really don't care either way. That wasn't really meant as an insult, Iain. I should have said it another way; such as, you are incorrect in your assertion. No, I am not in the military community, but I know plenty of those who are and I study military history.

I think we are all in the same position, Matt. I can say I support a war based on the info I have, but I don't necessarily believe that I have been given all the data. I don't believe that the media has done its all to get us good credible information on the true situation. Plus, there is a good amount of political and strategic obfuscation going on as well.

If I had all the facts, I bet I would be LESS likely to support the current war. You can't say that for sure, since you don't know the nature of intelligence currently under consideration by the President, the JCS, Rumsfeld, and Congress. You really can't say what you would do because you don't have the overall picture.

They swear an oath to the Constitution, not the President, if I'm not mistaken. It shows you don't have a clue about the military community, Iain.

But you don't have all the facts, do you Matt?

I wholeheartedly agree.

Apparently not ... Thanks for proving that you have no clue about what I am alluding to.

Could someone stem the flow of these shifty posts?

Not to mention his shameless pedaling of the virtues of sport climbing. It's time for a shift in topics.

This tread is already wearing on me.

Don't start with me, choad-licker.

He, personally, may believe that, but that doesn't mean that that belief is a tenet of Christianity (which it isn't).

You're right, because that is one of the tenets of Christianity: to spread the Gospel. I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing (unless, taken to the extreme "believe my way or die" as in the Inquisitions).

I told my wife about March 20, Johnny Destiny's "BJ and a Steak Day" and she's down with that!!! Wahoo!!!

TG- Wanna share some beta on where you were? I pass through that area a few times a year and it makes a perfect rest spot to break up the drive.

Funny, this is how Pat Robertson lived his life, as well. Making light of another's disease in a mean-spirited way is just not nice.

Battered Sandwich was a fun climb on Saturday. That thing beat me up and I felt it until yesterday. My hands are finally starting to look normal. I need to keep working on my offwidth technique... What do you do when it's too big for fists, too small for elbows, wrong angle for arm bars, and awkward for your feet? Maybe I need to try my first handstacks, just can't figure out how I'll move up with both hands in the crack. When Ray and I did "Battered Sandwich" I recall we climbed inside that thing. Or are you talking about lower down before you get into the chimney proper? I think I liebacked that thing, but that makes it awkward to transition into the chimney. I guess I don't really remember, it was a couple years ago.