eternalX

UGH

what's everybody going to be doing during the day? i know what's available, but whas is evryony actually going to do?

"yeaaa... we're going to need you to go ahead and come in on saturday." "Occupational Hypnotherapist? ... Besides, I think this guy might be good. He got Ann to loose weight. Peter, she's anorexic. Yea, I know. The guy's really good"

i was a little confused by your last couple lines... did you like them or not?

If we can't be immature online, where the hell are we suppose to go?!

We aren't anywhere close to runnig out of oil. It'll be around for a hundred years. That stuff they told you in school was a crock. Having said that, I really think we need to get ourselves off the stuff because it ties us to the middle east. The best way to do that is to stop subsidizing the vehicle market and charging use fees for gasoline. Only when people actually see how much a car really costs will they start to make better decisions related to them. --and that makes post one hundred.... i'm a real wanker now daddy!

yea. it's a company in Port Angeles.

between 3 and 6, right now. i'd guess 5. for that it costs 225 a person. Like i was saying earlier, we have done a few by ourselves, but we've never done glacier travel and thought we'd rather be safe then sorry. Plus, we'd like to get some instruction on when to use certain things. we've brought crampons on two winter climbs and never used them, but probably should've put them on at some point (especially near crescent? lake at whitney...can't remember the name, but the one above upper boy scout). would just like to have somebody who knows their stuff so we're not always looking at each other going "uhh what do you think?" afterwards, yea, we'd feel more comfortable going alone.

Ya the guys there are cool. we took a private 4 hour lesson two winters ago, just because we were new to winter climibnig and wanted to know how to best rope up and set anchors, etc. the guy was really cool. since then we've done two trips. one up on hurricane ridge and one to try and summit whitney in december. On the winter trip we didn't get nearly as close to the summit as we had hoped. So we thought we'd do a guided trip to see what it is we are doing wrong. when we should switch to stnowshoes and crampons...if we're bringing too much crap. unfortunately we don't have people with more experience to go with, so were just going to buy some experience. --tim

Anybody ever gone through Olympic Mountaineering's Guided summit of olympus? A few of us are thinking about doing it this summer. -tim

oh right..there wasn't the least bit of honesty in your post.

Well the funny part is that the US keeps trying to get the UN to deal with Korea but China doesn't want any part of it. They want direct talks from Washington with Pyongyang. Either way though, somebody has to deal with them. I'm not sure who it'll be...but i imagine it'll be the US again.

One discussion at a time d00d. It's obvious that your anti-bush atitude is preventing you from following the logical argument for war on iraq. That's really sad. I think Bush speaks like an idiot and he looks funny too. Also, I think Tom Ridge's plans and the Patriot Act are nasty devices that need to be thrown out. I'm a member of the ACLU and actually use the service to email and fax my congressional reps. HOWEVER - That does not prevent me from drawing my own conclusions about other topics. Use your head and stop following your socialist leaders.

i just want to be clear about a couple things: 1. how many people have to die before the US should feel the need to get involved? I don't say the UN because as history shows, it doesn't matter how many people die, the UN will never take a stand...see Rwanda and Kosovo. 2. What makes war legal? From slate dated feb 14 Nowhere does that resolution say war is an option only after inspections have been utterly exhausted. Rather, it states a) that Iraq is already in "material breach" of several U.N. resolutions going back to the 1991 cease-fire; b) that the Security Council is giving Iraq one more chance to comply with its obligations; and c) that if it commits another breach—by failing to disarm completely, by making false statements or omissions in its stockpile declarations, or by failing to provide inspectors with "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted" access to everything and everybody they want to see—then there will be "serious consequences." Nobody today, except the Iraqi ambassador, tried to claim that Iraq has fulfilled its obligations. Nobody tried to argue that "serious consequences" means something other than military action. Nobody disputed that, just three months ago, the council's 15 members passed Resolution 1441 unanimously—not casually or unwittingly so, but after seven weeks of negotiations, in which Secretary of State Colin Powell altered the language to meet French reservations. ... And I'm so tired of people saynig that just because you don't think their position is logical, that they must be the prey of the popular media. Give me abreak. I never said we were going there to liberate Iraq. I said it was one motivation. I was reading Colin Powell's book the other day and one of his phrases to live by is "Don't ever place your ego so close to your position that when your position goes, your ego goes with it." You might want to think about that a bit. The anti-war argument has failed because it was flawed in the first place. The position is now gone and it's time for you to think about how you came to that position and how you might be a little wiser next time.

I can't remember if it was Alice In Chains / Van Halen or Pantera / Skid Row

yea....but what will be the first concert in Baghdad? I think it'll be Scorpions. heheh

It's fucking party time in baghdad. What are you anti-war people thinking now that the civilians in baghdad are celebrating the US involvement? Baghdadis poured into the streets in celebration, waving at U.S. troops and tearing down posters and busts of Hussein. In a scene reminiscent of the fall of the Berlin Wall, Iraqis attacked a giant statue of Hussein with sledgehammers. With the help of U.S. Marines who ran a cable from their tank to the 20-foot tall statue, they pulled it down, literally yanking the image of the fallen leader out of his boots.

The Pentagon just said that they've heard new official reports about the missles found...only seen thnigs in the news. As far as the drums of chemicals, they said they had both positive and negative results from the tests for chemical weapons and that further testing would be done in the US to verify In other words, as of yet, there is no confirmed find of chemical weapons.

How the do you know it's not all about oil? Do you have some inside track that the rest of us don't? Let me guess, you're his daughter's "pharmacist" right? The two of you stay up late till the wee small hours popping prescription drugs talking about the war and how it's oh so not about oil but rather the vanquishing of evil, right? Am I against liberation? Let me think long and hard about that one. If the U.S. were to invade Canada and "liberate" those poor desperate souls from the oppressive Canadian socialist government, I think I'd be against that. If you were to refer to let's say the allied forces liberating France from German occupation in WWII, then I'd support that. That in my mind constitutes liberation. Uni-lateral invasion of soverign nations however fucked up their governing structure is perceived to be does not connote "liberation" for me. Would pulling out troops completely fuck the people of Iraq? Hmm, talk about self-fulfilling prophecies. Yes, pulling them out now would undoubtedly fuck them up. However, don't you think putting them there in the first place kind of fucked the people of Iraq first of all? That's akin to England saying that if they left N. Ireland, the protestants would be fucked. Of course they would! But if the English hadn't have gone there in the first place, there wouldn't be all the strife there is today. Let's not kid ourselves. The U.S. & Britain created the situation there is today. To suggest that we're in there liberating folks like some fucking band of merry freedom fighters pitting the forces of good against evil is bullshit. There are plots, sub-plots, agendas hidden and not, and hush-hush business deals all consumated by the king-makers picking a puppet to put in place to give a nod and a wink and a swish of a pen auctioning off the wealth of a nation with their culture, and dignity not far behind. Spray on numb nuts. ah yes....respond with name calling . woohoo! that really makes your point. That's as funny as the violent anti-war marches. That really shows how violence never solved anything. And yes...I have thought a lot about it and read quite a bit of news on the subject and while I'm not 100% certain of what weighs highest on the administration's mind, i do believe it is a combination of these primary factors: 1. Eliminate Iraq as a threat to the U.S. by either direct or indirect (selling/sponsoring nuclear/chemical/etc weapons to terrorists) means. 2. Liberate the people of Iraq from a repressive dictator that has gassed his own people, threatened Isreal, and continues to make war in the region 3. Send a message to other countries in the region that if you allow state-sponsored terrorism and engage in nuclear/chemical weapon production and research the U.S. will not hestitate to destroy your government as well (same motivation as Afghanistan). 4. Lend the UN and US some credibility in its decision making. In other words, not allow countries to think they UN's threats are at all idle. Secondary motives might possibly be 1. Oil - they have a lot of it and even though GB is actually an exporter of oil, we don't want the regime to have access to that sort of money I really don't think that if England left Northern Ireland the Irish would start killing every protestant left in the country. and No, I don't believe we are some bunch of merry freedom fighters, but we do have that track history. We've been involved in how manf skirmishes/wars now and how much more land do we occupy then at the turn of the century? none

CNN and BBC and everyone else is still maintaining that possible chemical weapons have been *possibly* found. I love the anti-war people...they could have 100 reports of something and as soon as they see one that differs they raise they hands and go "HA! See everyone was wrong! THis war is all about oil!" Apparently all reports that support the war cause are the result of the giant media illuminati and all reports against are "the only true reports". Two questions: 1. Even if the war was about oil (which it really isn't), won't the liberation of iraq happen as well? Are you against the liberation? 2. Wouldn't pulling out the troops now completely fuck the people of iraq? My response to all those "bring the troops back home" signs.

If you like the pathfinder, then check out the Rodeo. More power and torque...better reliability

one other thing. when i went looking for SUVs i thought the 4Runners were WAY overpriced. And if you check, they don't have a good history. Bad motor problems in the early 90s. --tim

Probably too small for you, but i have a '98 Honda Passport (which is really an Isuzu Rodeo) that I like a lot. Mostly because it's not too big, has good power (215 hp i think), and very open. When I look to the side or the back, i can see all the way around me, as opposed to a lot of the SUVs out there. and that whole anti-SUV argument is just another way for people to feel good about themselves. yea tag my SUV when i take the bus to work everyday. somehow you're more american driving your sedan everyday? give me a fucking break.

i've seen them go for 60 bucks on ebay

my favorite: EAT FUCK or the slightly added: EAT FUCK KILL