JoshK

I do admire this guy. Yes, the war is bullshit. Yes, our president is a worthless pile of dogshit. The fact remains that this guy wanted to join the army rangers. Why? Who knows, maybe to serve with his brother, maybe to serve his country, or maybe just because he thought it would be a really awesome way to spend his life. Does it matter? No, I dont think so. I think it's pretty neat that he did what he wanted to do rather than make millions like he could have. I'm sure a lot of folks thought he was crazy for turning down that sort of money, but I feel exactly the opposite. The crazy man is the one who pushes aside his desires to conform to the materialistic society in which we iive and do nothing more than seek money and goods. Call him a patriot, or a hero, or whatever you want, but above all he followed his path and not the path society told him to take. to Pat Tillman.

For those unfamiliar with the actual wording of the 2nd amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The NRA, and their propoganda machine like to concentrate on this phrase of the 2nd amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" This is the line we typical see regurgitated by Greg et al. Not coincidentally, they don't often mention the line that comes before that, giving context to the amendment as a whole: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" Could someone please explain to me how a populous armed against **eachother** is "well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"?? That's right, it's not. We have the advantage of a large and powerful army that provides for the security of the state. The 2nd amendment has been outdated since shortly after the war of 1812. This isn't switzerland, we aren't a militia state, and the NRA and gun suporters have twisted the intent of the 2nd amendment for far too long. Now; others in this epic thread have argued that the constitution, in no way, should be taken for anything more than it's absolute wording, and never interpreted against a modern context to uphold the intent of our forefathers. I present the fact that inumerable cases can be presented where the orignal literal law is not followed, but the intent is preserved and the spirit of the law upheld. One such case is amendment 6 in the bill of rights: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." Can anyone find the phrase in this amendment that is not unilaterally followed today? "...by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..." Cases can be moved to other districts in today's judicial system. Federal trials can be moved from one state to another. Why? Because the issue of media exposure that exists in the 20th and 21st century did not exist in 1791. The needs to preserve the guarantee of a fair and consistent trial by jury have changed between 1791 and 2004. The needs required to defend the state have also changed between 1791 and 2004 and it's time the law reflected this.

The current situation in the middle east is the perfectly explainable result of draggig a culture out of the dark ages and into the modern world overnight. What took Europe nearly a thousand years was done in less than a hundred in the middle east.

I've been kind of torn on this one. On one hand I believe in freedom of information, and the reason this fucked up administration wants to hide this is the same reason it wants to hide all the other bad news about this war. On the other hand, I definitely see that families could be hurt by this sort of thing.

"I'd have several JHPs bouncing around in your chest cavity before you could get that fucker loaded." Congragulations, you are a big man. Do you standing looking at the mirror repeating john wayne lines to entertain yourself? Greg, I just want to know what happened earlier in your life that made you so bitter towards everything?

Used my basic bivy sack and my down coat over my midsection. Since I generally carry some sort of insulated jacket, might as well it to sleep too

WM mountaineering highlite. 16oz and 35degrees. I used it on my 4 day inspiration-forbidden tour the other two, including a 7600 bivy and an 8300 foot bivy. With clothes I was comfy warm. Downside is they are pricey once you start going with the ultralight fabrics and super-loft down. If you are doing more summer than winter stuff, I'd go with a superlight back then get some nice synth big bag on sale for winter stuff.

Do you realize how much a car puts off in terms of pollution compared to a snow-mo? It is on the order of hundreds, if not thousands of times. Not to mention the giant ass rig (always a truck...which doesn't have to meet air quality standards as low as cars) you have to haul it up there. Just worth pointing out... I dont think anybody was arguing to eliminate snow-mos, just keep them out of the alpine. The impact a climber (or even lots of them) put on the alpine environment is tiny compared to snow-mos.

Sorry, I was out of town for a few days. They were 2 years ago (I think?) regular TourLite bindings, not the tri-step or comfort.

Great links Fairweather. It's kind of hard to look at that stuff and not be sad The White Chuck glacier is one I have noticed personally. Just as Matt mentioned, the entire bottom basin looks like the moon; totally barren. I made the mistake of trying to walk directly up to the glacier a few years ago. I got stuck in thigh deep mud, volcanic and obviously, as you said, covered by ice not too long before. Pretty gross. It was a rather sad looking area.

Ann Coulter is *not* attractive. I find her repulsive. The rest of them tho. Alright, this was a lovely conversation, but I'm to climb some shit!

There is no argument to the statement about activist judges. I generally believe their open to be more valuable than yours, and I guess you wont change my mind about that. I'm not sure what "point" will prove if they are activists or not in somebody's view.

NO Thanks !! I'll take my constitution dead thankyou. This whole living constitution, re-interpretation for modern times stuff is rationalization for activists that can't get the country to agree with them in a democratic way, so instead they get activitist judges to re-interpret the constitution instead. If you want change - pass a law, if you want fundamental change - pass a constitutional ammendment. qed. So the supreme court is almost always comprised of "activist judges"?? Whatever, that is so stupid it doesn't even warrant discussion. In fact, the very thing you ask for is impossible. There are places in the consitution that, like it or not, can be interpreted in many different ways. You obviously have a different interpretation of the curch and state clause than do others, Thomas Jefferson included. But like brie said, what does good ol TJ know? The other obvious one is the 2nd amendment. Any sane person realizes it was not intented to arm the populace against each other with fully automatic weapons and rocket launchers. Wait, am I thinking of somebody else, or are you a lawyer? Based on your arguments it seems like I am remembering wrong. There are a lot of two and three letter names on here starting with a "J"

Anti religious bigotry is the last form of acceptable discrimination left in a PC world ... sigh. That is not bigotry at all. I don't want a religous SOCIETY, meaning a government and society based on religion. I don't give a fuck what people do on their own time and for their own beliefs. It's analogous to me saying I dont want a "white" or "black" society.

Most of them have a fixed binding, only for riding down. REI in seattle has like 5 pairs of K2 shorties for sale right now for like $89, which is really cheap if you want the things. I've ridden them once, up at Stevens pass, and they were pretty damn fun. You can hop all sorts of shit. I was drunk while doing it so maybe that enhanced the experience tho...

Thankfully the trend is slowly leaning towards a less religous society. Europe is well ahead of us. After witnessing the "wonders" of religion they are now referred to by many Anthropologist as a "Post-christian society" Their church attendance numbers are staggeringly low and a fraaction of what they are in the U.S. Obviously this has taken the greater part of 2 centuries, many wars, and plenty of bloodshed to manifest itself. Do we think there is any way to push the Islamic world along this path in some accelerated manor, knowing what we do now? Or do we have to deal with heavily religious and agressive socities in that corner of the world for hundreds of years to come?

HAHA.yeah, that one is great. The ultimate tho is the technique of raising the body way above the chassis to give the high ground clearance appearance while doing nothing but raising your center of gravity higher than the already lousy Tahoe. I think I am going to buy a unimog and paint a giant banner on either side saying "HUMMERS ARE FOR PUSSIES" or something like that

What the failed to mention is I bet their "rolling slowdown" probably works 1 out of 5 times. The other 4 times they probably create a pile up.

I haven't read the spray folder much lately, but had to jump in on this one too!

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096191/ Haha...this one should entertain us for a while. Ironically the picture is of an H2 offroading. I'll give the H1 props where it is due, it's one hellavu vehicle off road. The H2 (also known as the Chevy Tahoe with stupid ass looking body) is mediocre off-road. Anyway, some quotes... "After 9/11, Hummers became a cocky symbol of American greatness. Driving the biggest, baddest, least-fuel-efficient car on the planet was tantamount to giving the finger to environmentalists..." "You could be an active home-front warrior by buying an expensive Hummer—imitating our troops in Iraq and stimulating the economy at the same time. (Hummers also come in handy in case you need to mount a motorized assault on the Stop-n-Shop.)" "In January 2004, just 1,927 Hummers were sold—off nearly 50 percent from December 2003, and down by one third from January 2003. The future doesn't look very bright, either. Business Week reported there are 68 days worth of Hummers in inventory, and that GM has throttled back its 2004 sales forecast from 40,000 to 30,000." "The sales drop reflects simple common sense. The Hummer is a mediocre car, with the quality ratings to show for it." Have at it!

Ha! Close to it, but I think there have been a few threads even more epic on very similar topics.

Oh, man are you pent up. For Pete's sake, dude; this has descended into the obsurd. I've grown tired of beating each other over the head with our given opinions. Believe what you will, and do so passionately; I applaud you. I believe what I believe and seek to live my life in a consistent, intentional manner. I'm at peace with the fact that we disagree. Greg_W You don't seem to be at peace with much after your totally insulting "bitches" comment. With sentiment like that how is anybody supposed to take your position seriously. As minx said, you just come off as bitter. Towards what I have no idea. Quite to the contrary, I am not pent up at all; I'm enjoying the sunshine and packing for a wonderful 4 out of the next 5 days in the mountains.

For a guy who was challanging RumR for insulting comebacks, that was particularly intelligent. So what is your strategy again...argue points that you think you can argue on, then get beat and reply with something stupid. Seems to be working!

Which is total fucking bullshit, man. Because it is the men who get fucked into paying that bitch for the next 18 years. Good god you are ignorant! Yup, it's all the "bitches" fault that they end up pregnant, or raped, or whatever else. And us, as males, the only taxpayers in this country have to pay for those bitches. Funny, I know plenty of very successful women who raised children on their own or had abortions in the past. What relates the two, I have no idea, but you seem to think so. Maybe if we spent more money on education, including on birth control issues, you'd have less "bitches" to pay for, eh Greg? No, actually, that isn't good, cause the repubs can't see government money going to support birth-control education since that is anti-religion. Fucking hypocrities.