olyclimber

lol Lindows. remember lindows? the delorean of OSs.

as a town, i like Portland, but there are too many moderates there. i need extremes. tax and spend libtards or jack booted go it your own conservatives. seattle has a nice mix of libtards who shoot themselves in the foot over public transportation and strip clubs, and east side conservatives driving their lexus to bellevue square. if i could choose i would live in a cabin in the middle of a 1000 acres with a bunch of guns and ammo.

i'd probably spoon with tvash, if I could bag some summits this fucking shitty spring/june JESUS

and will, thanks to the fucking stand on their hands MODERATES

already saw it you fucking moderate.

moderates are pussies who can't make up their minds. its either black or white, so choose and get over yourself fucknuts.

more than this particular incident, i'm wondering why the "war on terror" has not shown up in pakistan to begin with. given their relationship with the arise of the taliban and the existing elements in pakistan....coupled with the rumor that bin laden is hidden in the border region makes it seem (from the arm chair) that more of the incidents SHOULD be happening in looking for osama. but then i'm not even sure where that is on the priority list these days.

my thought is you should go for it

About what I would expect from you. However, now that you brought them up, what is wrong with 'honor' and 'sacrifice'? You Lefties preach individual sacrifice for the good of the collective. How is a soldier's willingness to sacrifice any different? Further, how is 'honor' now a bad word? The problem with "honor" and "sacrifice" they're basically lofty-sounding abstractions designed for the parents of dead children and inscriptions on tombstones, to give the living some meaning for senseless waste. They have no meaning whatsoever in and of themselves: the same language is used by kamikazis, Prussians, Commies, Doughboys, Mongols, or Marines. The Nazi SS talked loads of this stuff, but through history's lens were they honorable and virtuous? Submission and sacrifice to the State is the essence of fascism but it's always dressed in the very same terms you unquestioningly swallow. Any "leftie" worth his salt would never accept your premise about "preaching individual sacrifice for the good of the collective". The ones I like tend to be a bit more historically literate and less prone to razzle-dazzle marketing campaigns dressed up as patriotism. Finally, "honor" is a bad word when it's used as first to charm impressionable boys and then as ideological cover to mask national chauvinism and belligerence. Denying the existence of honor is a long tradition of those lacking that trait. Honor is real and I have seen it personally. If less people would forget what honor was, this world might not be so bad. Things like Pride, Duty, Self Sacrifice and Honor should not be bad words. They are ideals that we MUST instill in our children; not try to erase. Perhaps the reason you are a nhilist is that you have nothing greater than yourself to believe in than a washed up philosophy that killed more people than the plague. My point is not that these things don't exist, it's that the relationships between the abstract ideas and what they're realistically in service to need to be examined. I think people can be honorable, exhibit virtuous qualities, etc. but that killing people in the service to and for the benefit of the State (much less invading and occupying Iraq) doesn't meet the criteria. Would you say this to a D-Day vet or a beach storming pacific theatre vet?? I think not... No, I'd have to yell it in their antique ear phone holes because they're so damn old! I say this not to disparage the hearing impaired, but to illustrate the fact that the last legitimate military action the US was engaged in was 60+ years ago! Everybody knows this and that's why the pundits and politicians have to fall all over each other evoking Hitler's ghost and Pearl Harbor and Nazis and everything else every time they want to start (or stay in) a goddamned war. Fricking infantile political culture in this country! Gahd. So, you opposed the actions in Bosnia, then? Did Germany attack us? I can't remember. How skinny can we make it? what?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365821,00.html

I always wondered what was wrong with me. Thanks!

dechristo is a member of lynard skynard. they're making the bigs bucks at the casino.

EhPrzjyUiZE

so are they the reason why we don't have bin laden by now? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7449060.stm

without the tongue people think i'm cheating them

oVjn4B_agag

who has the chutzpah to be winnar?????

dechristo?

what color is it?

yeah...the one where you sit on your knees with your mouth open?

yes, but we have to pay for the speculation that they might have to pay.

well, given the Abramoff debacle, i don't think it is partisan to have a negative view of the lobbys impact on the process. freedom of speech and petition is one thing, but when you make it a money game, well, we have seen the result. people are bought, and the process as designed is derailed.

well that sums up the process a little too broadly. what you mean is they buy hookers and blow for politicians in order to buy a seat at the table. NO, I don't. Don't put words in my mouth. That is what YOU believe happens. Lobbyists are an extension of our 1st Amendment-guaranteed rights to petition our government for redress of grievances. sorry guy, that was a failed attempt at humor. so you're saying that lobbyists and their money are what the founding fathers had in mind with the 1st amendment? like i said, i haven't researched it at all, so i'm open to hear some facts here about it.

your use of the word "liberals" has an unusually broad stroke. like calling someone on a "conservative"...are they fiscally conservative? or socially? or mentally? instead of "liberals" i suggest the words "evil doers" for comedic effect.

my definition includes, but isn't limited to, valor in battle sometimes honor may be not going to war, which is sometimes the more appropriate choice. honor and nationalism have definitely been "misused" in the past (nazis is a case i think would all agree on), but then that would depend on your point of view. perhaps you could only view it as "misused" in that the problem was at the top (hitler and his party), and that the concepts of honor and nationalism are impossible to misuse. it seems to me if you drape it in a flag, honor takes on the subjective baggage you associate with that nation. is it possible to view valor outside of the baggage? i'm sure some people can appreciate the code and valor of a kamikaze pilot, but i'm sure those on the carriers that were their target had a different point of view. i don't think honor is a bad thing, it is certainly a noble aspiration, but it is also useful to see the same trait in the enemy and recognize that it is not something we have a patent on (other than the honor the represented by the American flag)