KaskadskyjKozak

So, hiking up to the 3 Fingers Lookout is the same as blowing the top off the mountain? And using the Camp Muir shelter the same as hauling lumber and cement up to 10K, and adding permanent, man-made structures there? And driving Highway 20 to WA pass is the same as dynamiting the road to get there? I didn't think so.

Apparently some can't comprehend the difference between drilling new bolts and simply climbing routes with bolts already in place.

I have to assume drinking was a precursor to this post...

Good for you!! It's a reasonable tune and I like it. Scroll on by, know it all! you suck. grow up.

Based on the responses to your query so far, sounds like a "no".

He's too busy guarding a stump:

tax increases on the wealthy and doing away with unnecessary tax cuts for corporations on the ballot in 2011 is the "Grecian Formula"? I don't see the connection. FAP FAP FAP

which part of my argument exactly are you having trouble with or is it that the mere invocation of hand waving should be enough to dismiss all the facts put forward and that you still have to address? The problem of your hand waving is this part: fap fap fap

Budget arithmetic involves spending AND revenue. Nothing less. Pushing the notion that one can address a structural fiscal crisis designed to bankrupt the state by the 'starve the beast' proponents solely by cutting spending is severely misguided, at the very least. What the hell is wrong with you?

I'm not sure what exactly this means? j_b loves sausage

Yea.

If that happens, then the public has learned "a lesson" which will result in either ceasing to support tax cuts and tax cutting initiatives, be willing to vote tax increases back - or both. If you are incorrect, then gov't will just be smaller. Your "type" is always trying to decide what is best for everyone and not let them decide for themselves.

The voter doesn't want higher taxes, therefore cuts are needed. Pretty simple. You are always free to donate your excess cash to the state coffers. They'll take it.

"Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented, saying that workers have to complain to a government agency or court." That's idiotic.

How did it taste?

LOL! Yeah, scarrrrrrrrry!

fuck, 2012 is gonna be great isn't it? Can't wait to fucking vote.

Unfortunately no jobs there massaging dudes for a living, so you are SOL.

Cool, maybe Newt can be his running mate!

Maybe we can hire Haliburton to build high-speed rail in Libya?

It's good to know there's a bright side to US foreign policy...

at least according to him...

Well Reagan did kill Gadhaffi's daughter.

I never said it's the *same*, but if this happened under Bush all the libtards here would be completely irate, and you know it. But hey, rationalize away!

you seem to miss your own point - the spray-lectorate does indeed appear uneasy and unhappy - as unhappy as w/ iraq 8 years ago? no, but of course the circumnstances ARE different, Yeah, the circumstances are "different" - a D is in the Whitehouse, so the volumes of shrill "outrage" is well, pretty much absent here. Pretty much my point. You really can't see any other major differences? Please, you're not fooling me. Many of the reasons given to oppose Bush's wars are true in this case as well. Or did you folks just not mean it? "We don't belong there" "No exit plan" "We're hypocrites... no moral standing to decide how other countries should be run" "Innocents will die" "We'll lose American lives for nothing" "It's all about oil... we need to get off of the foreign oil teat" "We can't afford this war and our money is better spent at home"