iain

O o . || CHECK IT OUT I DREW A BONG ||. |/ FUN FACT: I NEVER FINISHED HIGH SCHOOL || --

What, like where Elliot builds the thingamajig out of a speak'n'spell and table saw you're a sick man Schuldt, getting all misty-eyed over naked aliens and whatnot

I heard one of those guys rapped some of it with a slung 2x4 somehow.

Is that Dave Schuldt

The upper step (up high) in the right (standard) gully is usually the hardest, often because it is thin and difficult to protect. The left gully is usually considered the easier of the two. Both gullies tend to take on a slogging nature after snow starts filling them in, though the steps don't disappear. At least one of them has been skied.

When Christian missionaries knock at your door, lower portcullis.

white phosphorus, while entertaining, is also highly volatile

I would take italian women over mongolian nomads but maybe that's just me.

is that a giant white cat in the bottom right?

Dru surely you can service this pole.

yikes!

What to do if you are Attacked by a Sea Creature

and if an animal is poisonous it is almost guaranteed to be in australia

BLOODY PEASAN...er whoops wrong movie

Hmm, don't remember that in either of those gullies.

"I'm gonna make 'em an offer they can't refuse."

Here here. Go in with overwhelming force and an exit strategy or don't go in. Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz: there's blood on your hands.

$30k or $60k...it's like having to pay a buck for a Coke for that guy...

It seems reasonable to me, with the limited view of the facts one can get.

What did you think of him? I'm only going on what I saw reported, and it seemed there were some strong conflicts between Powell and Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz over what constitutes invading a country. Maybe he was not entirely opposed to entering Iraq, but he (and others in the military) certainly seemed opposed to the strategy (low cost, smaller operation, no clear exit funding/support) being used to carry it out. Frontline just had an interesting special on this that supports this. What should he have done if he disagreed? Resign? I think he did what he felt was right for the country, and that was to stand behind the president, even if he disagrees. Maybe it was not the right decision, but it wouldn't look good to have the top tier bickering over this. He seemed like a good man to me.

Frighteningly, Powell was the only voice of reason, the only voice with the military background to make competent decisions about entering Iraq, and the only one with the understaning of why we are in so much trouble there now. I wish he had not caved in and had to make all those ludicrous half-truths in front of the UN. You could tell even he knew it was BS but he did it serving his boss. Sad.

The very fact that they are legal means there will be more of them available, whether they are stolen from lawful gun-owner's residences or wherever. I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would be laughing their asses off seeing people clutching their 200 year old laws, interpreting them as yes you can have guns, any guns, and lots of them for recreation. That's simply not what the amendment was written for. I'd be interested to know if you think an M16A2 should be a legal weapon to own under standard gun law (not special dealer use). We are no longer on the wild frontier, where we might be able to overthrow our government with arms, where we rally everyone to bring out their guns to form a militia, and where we have to defend the homestead. This is the year 2004. Welcome. You seem to have a lot of emotion wrapped up in this issue, and I'm pretty sure it's pointless to use common sense when that happens, so I'm done here.

Well I'm sure you wouldn't mind, you love playing that game.

I didn't say it accomplished anything. That's why it needs to change. For instance, I don't see why you need anything with a 10 round or greater magazine for hunting. I don't see you or anyone else needing a Uzi for any reason but for mass killing. If you are dumb enough to buy a rifle with a pistol grip and bayonet mount for hunting, I don't care. Guns shouldn't be banned for how they look. The decision for banning a gun should be how effective it is as a people killer. A law restricting speeds in a school zone by definition creates outlaws of those who speed in a school zone. That's what the law is for, to punish those who are not responsible enough to say, "oh look, there are some kids, I'd better slow down to be safe." This is a fairly basic concept. I understand what you are saying about fast cars, but this isn't really a good metaphor. And a lack of personal responsibility is both our problems when someone decides to go on a killing spree in D.C. with a weapon that should be banned.