j_b

I don't know about Elbrus but Vernon Tejas rode the North Face of Aconcagua almost 20 years ago.

Here you go: more: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47202

WTF? I'm not sure why I waste time on a total nutcase like you. Do you need my "citations" in MLA, APA, Chicago Style? Footnotes? Parenthetic? I'm sure the mods here will vouch for the authenticity of the pathetic Palin-hate quotes that others posted here and I reproduced for your humility. All of them are, in fact, copied from this very site. In order to deflect my exposing your hypocrisy, you claimed that I made sexist comments toward Palin, which is a lie. Your reproducing what other posters may have said isn't relevant to what I said. Hopefully we can agree on that much (can never be sure as your history here has shown). As a matter of fact, you don't need to waste anymore time with this since you can run away with your tail between your legs as you have grown accustomed to.

Why would my calling you a liar indicate that I am about to blow a gasket? Pointing out to fact-challenged conservatives they are liars is a fact of life that I learned to live with a long time ago. In the meantime, you still haven't provided the direct citation that is needed to substantiate your drivel, but you won't give one since it doesn't exist. Liar.

The "world", including climbing is unfortunately scary, and I made sure that my kids knwow it too. People who aren't scared of climbing while they are learning probably shouldn't be climbing or at least be on a very short leash until they gain the experience to assess danger.

Copied and pasted from this very site. You are all part of my project--and performing nicely. Liar.

Um, that's not what you said, ya know, originally. Moron. Without a citation nobody should believe your drivel

ok, ok boxer, feinstein, whoever. I guess it makes a difference because Boxer is substantially better than Feinstein.

Earned versus undeserved. Bullshit. Like most neanderthals, you hate women with power.

Attila is getting desperate

I thought some of the stuff used against Palin was sexist, but you still haven't explained how it would excuse your doing the same to Feinstein.

Heres comes Attila and his brilliant insight ...

Isn't FW the dude that was calling anyone that bashed Palin a sexist just a few month ago? You can't make this up.

You can't blame FW, he has probably been calling anyone to the left of Attila the Hun a commie since he was 10 anytime he couldn't support his point of view, which as you know, is most of the time. Now that all the wingnuts are leaving no stone unturned to uncover the great socialist conspiracy, he feels vindicated once again, he has renewed purpose in his life, and he can partake to the democratic debate to better squash it. "The reds are coming .... the reds are coming ..."

for once we agree on something. "so, we have the flat earthers to balance out the reality based community"

Huh? 60+ years of network liberal bias? when? didn't they support every single war of agression? (when they didn't make up lies to sell their warmongering). There were a few more liberal reporters in the past, and reporting existed (none of that "balance" BS conservatives like to drool about) but when the chips were down on issues that really matters (foreign policy, economy, ..) they always knew which side they were on.

Classic. Always trust Faux News to distract their public with drivel about the irrelevant while the house burns. While we are on the topic of the corporate media continuing its hachet job on democracy, the Washington Post just cleaned house and moved further to the right if it is possible. They fired their only critic of Obama from the left: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/18/froomkin/index.html just a sample of the Washington Post articles today: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/19/washington_post/index.html What would we do without the "librul" media?

Warning agents of progress at work: Amazonian indians beat back pillagers http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/world/americas/19peru.html?em

It speaks volumes about your conscience that you initially felt compelled to reply as well as come back to explain where you came from. Allow me just to counter some of your arguments. It'd be a mistake to believe that the situation in Afghanistan is mostly the result of mismanagement. Afghanistan is by most measures still a feudal society and it'd take decades of occupation and anti-guerilla warfare before a semi-stable nation state evolved out of it, especially since they have been in a state of almost continual warfare for decades now and much of the population is extremely vulnerable to predators. Taking the war across the border in Paksitan to imprecedented level is nowhere close to a political solution to the conflict. As a general rule, there are no military solutions to these types of conflicts unless one is willing to shed a lot of blood and spend a lot of time doing it. As for Iraq, I'd personally have no issue with leaving as soon as possible, it'd probably be better for iraqis anyway; but, increasing the number of mercenaries on the ground is a stark departure from a policy of withdrawal. If you polled people around the world they'd have no trouble identifying oil as being the reason of our presence there. Finally, you'll note in the Scahill interview by Moyers that military brass is evalutating the length of our stay in Iraq, in terms of decades.

Might as well get to specifics here and cite both the details of the policies that you have in mind, the manner in which they hand over unchecked power to the state, and how that renders them consistent with the free-trade, free-speech, anti-prohibition, etc arguments that I've made here. It'd probably be faster if you reminded us of the Bush policies with which you have actually expressed disgreement. Come on, did you say anything about the patriot act and its 'sneak and peek', its demanding from librarian they turn over records, ..? what about 'free speech zones'? what about banning suspected critics from taxpayer funded political events? etc ..

Might as well get to specifics here and cite both the details of the policies that you have in mind, the manner in which they hand over unchecked power to the state, and how that renders them consistent with the free-trade, free-speech, anti-prohibition, etc arguments that I've made here. It'd probably be faster if you reminded us of the Bush policies with which you have actually expressed disgreement.

So what has Dr. Hamid said about western leaders paling around with dictators of countries that have the equivalent of sharia law (saudi arabia, yemen, etc..)? Not too long ago you yourself flaunted Dubai as some kind of paradise (remember?). What happens to women who are said to have sex outside marriage in Dubai? What happens to homosexuals in Dubai?

What a pile of tripe and lies. Progressives have denounced military agression, and the attending racism and xenophobia (in order to gain support for military adventurism) masquerading under the pretense of fighting against barbarism, as well as denounced the backwardness of fundamntalists everywhere. Progressives already denounced the same things when Brzezinski, Carter and Reagan supported islamic fundamentalists because they fought the soviets in Afghanistan and elsewhere. These same extremists who came from all around the islamic world to fight in Afghanistan eventually returned to their countries and often formed the core groups that engaged in terrorism (like the algerian example cited in the article). The bit about feminists ignoring the oppression of women in islamic societies is particularly grotesque and gives an idea of the author's own prejudices.

Billcoe upon reading facts disagreable to his world view: [img:left]http://www.extensor.co.uk/articles/listening/fingers_in_ears.jpg[/img]

Isn't it odd that JayB supporting Bush and being silent on most of his liberticide policies don't strike him as 'handing over unchecked power to the state'?