KaskadskyjKozak

he's not "my" man, pidgeonholer. So I take it you'll be abstaining from voting this fall? Hmmm? for president, maybe. Obamalama is a shoe-in for WA's electoral votes anyway.

What is a "contard"? here you go

he's not "my" man, pidgeonholer.

It's par for the course. The Dems are no different.

Here we go. I assume you're talking about the old guy and not Obama, who was in what, 2nd grade when that was going on? This is more of the right-wingers vacant attempts to conduct the usual character assination. Damn. When we have so many serious issues to put on the table and debate it's pathetic that this kinda crap comes up every election cycle. And no, I'm not confident in the ability of Americans to filter this stuff and critically analyze the issues. Look who was voted in for two terms. Gotta laugh at how you simultaneously mockingly refer to McCain as the "old guy" and then whine like a little girl about "character assassination" w/r/t your candidate. Typical libturd hypocrisy. ummm, i think he was talking about the mr ayers, not mccain..... would this qualify as a typical right-wing knee-jerk? Now that you've joined in with Jimbo it's a full on libturd circle-jerk.

Here we go. I assume you're talking about the old guy and not Obama, who was in what, 2nd grade when that was going on? This is more of the right-wingers vacant attempts to conduct the usual character assination. Damn. When we have so many serious issues to put on the table and debate it's pathetic that this kinda crap comes up every election cycle. And no, I'm not confident in the ability of Americans to filter this stuff and critically analyze the issues. Look who was voted in for two terms. Gotta laugh at how you simultaneously mockingly refer to McCain as the "old guy" and then whine like a little girl about "character assassination" w/r/t your candidate. Typical libturd hypocrisy.

That's actually another McCain home. Seems Cindy is a bit of a cyber-clepto...

Sweet! Get on it then, dOOd!

You wouldn't tell them to at least get fit first? I just looked at the AAI web site, and they have a comment to that effect. A lot of beginners have never carried more than a day pack, yet alone 40-45lbs up 4000+ elevation gain in a day.

Hello Jason, What would YOUR recommendations be for someone new who is trying to get into climbing before signing up for a course run by a professional climbing guide? I'm talking about one of those multi-day intro courses which is gonna run over $1000. Is it totally fine to come in as a complete novice, or better for folks to get some experience first (nail down clothing systems, get reasonably fit, get on some steep terrain, hit a climbing gym, do some snowshoeing, etc). I'd kind of recommend the latter for folks - just curious what you would advise.

Good points. One other thing to consider is that a decent portion of the folks who take these classes are just trying out the sport. They take the class, do a few climbs (one season), and then, well, they're done. It was an experience they wanted to try and that's it.

"Cred" for whom? An anklebiting jackass such as yourself? Who cares. I'll bet Selkirk is a decent climber and a nice guy to boot. I don't think I'd hold the same opinion of you. As for *spray* and your lame criticism - well you're doing it right now bud, irrespective of what forum you are posting under. Actually, I'd say it's always the jackasses who come out of the woodworks to flame the Mounties, usually on one of these threads where someone who wants to get into the sport is asking for advice. The other typical opportunity is after an accident. There's more than one way to learn - we've beat that horse to death. One way is through a club and "rigid" instruction. People like you don't seem to be content with that reality, and have to blast it incessantly. That shows quite a bit of arrogance and immaturity.

It seems to me that if I owned those bits of choice real estate, I'd remember them - even if I were 72.

With our bungling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and declaring ourselves unaccountable under International law, I think it is fair to say we've scared the crap out of our allies, too. I don't think I'd call the wars "bungled". However, complaince with International law was one of the things which really pissed me off early on. Very poorly done, marginally legal if that. Poor communications with our friends, many of whom were shocked near speechless at our brash near unilateral go it alone actions which no doubt has led to the Russians beginning to start hardening up again. That we later got a few allies to climb on board very slightly doesn't change the early prosecution errors and crazyness. However, to those who are saying that we cannot win a guerrilla war, I ask you to look no further than the US slam dunk on El Salvador. It can be done and was done not too far back. Winning or losing that one meant little to us, but winning this one or losing this one has HUGE implications on many levels worldwide. Wishing you all well bill cueing talk of death squads in 3..2..1...

stick your pidgeon-holing up your corn-hole, dickwad!

WTF?

linky

Hey KrispyKream, I'm curious. What has made you come to this conclusion. From my perspective AlQaeda is more active than ever, witness Pakistan, Algeria, Afganistan (all seeing the largest attacks is the last 5 years or so) just in the last weeks? From where I sit, it really seems to be that these guys are emboldend? I understand that you really believe we have them on the run, but. . . .why? Where is your evidence? I'd love to see it? I know if I thought that I'd be much more optimisitc about our future? I believe it's a mixed bag - rather than the one-sided doom and gloom that all you Bush-hating liberal extremists spew. The funny thing is you take all challenges to your extremist world-view as the opposite polarity. To say that we've "emboldened" our enemies is ridiculous and simplistic. We've had some successes, but we've also antagonized them, as well as stirred up Iran and Russia among others. The latter is not because they think we are weak and unwilling to act, but the exact opposite. I'm not saying that is good or bad, but offering that observation, which you will of course reject as you muddle along in your myopic, addled world-view. So continue your MoveOn.org and DNC platitudes. I've got better things to do than argue with "jigglers" and "blurpies".

Did you get that from our intelligence community that Scott seems to worship? That is the dumbest thing you've posted for quite a while. KMA, libtard.

read the news. And sorry, but I can't take anyone seriously with the name "blurpy".

Sorry, but your simplistic analysis is not playing out.

And you are saying a 20:1 kill ratio is losing?

Russia is pissed off because of NATO expansion. They are not emboldened by us - they are acting out of fear. Hezbollah, the PLO, and other palestinian terroristts have been doing the same shit since long before Bush came into office.

And we can pick off Al Qaeda. No need to go to them, they come to us. You are arguing FOR an occupation of Iraq. Al Qaeda can and does recruit new members, however, they have been decimated in their fight against us in Iraq. Most of their leaders are dead, and now violence is down. Hmm...

well, duh, it was vandalized and stripped of all it's valuable parts. who the hell wants to move into that kind of neighborhood?