KaskadskyjKozak

he needs to visit this site

Shasta is a fun, easy walkup (several routes, actually). It's great in June especially since you can get better weather down there.

sounds like you need to go climbing :-)

Howjda guess? sobo never gets any. It's a fucking way of life. How do like that irony? A "fucking" way of life not getting laid. Yeah, what a great fucking life. ahh, marriage

poor sobo

stfu, boner

yep, and that includes a communist nomenklatura ruling class, prole

as I said above...

Nope. I sure do not watch fox news. Why? that's the typical snide remark from a simpleton liberal who has nothing of substance to say

Moses climbed Mt. Sinai. It's just a walkup but that's cool. How about you?

I suppose that's an improvement over Marc Rich.

Seahawks, what's your favorite climb?

Dude, you're trying to have a discussion with Seahawks.

a simple answer for a simpleton

Wrong, please don't spread your lies. In the article When were the gospels written and by whom?, I demonstrated that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written before 70 A.D. Basically, the book of Acts was written by Luke. But Luke fails to mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 79. A.D., nor does he mention the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65). Since Acts is a historical document dealing with the church, we would naturally expect such important events to be recorded if Acts was written after the fact. Since Acts 1:1-2 mentions that it is the second writing of Luke, the gospel of Luke was written even earlier. Also, Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple in the gospels: "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). Undoubtedly, if Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written after the destruction of the Temple, they would have included the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy in them. Since they don't, it is very strong indication that they were written before 70 A.D. Do you climb?

Seahawks: cool. what's on your tick list?

it might actually make sense, to help pick up more of the latino vote

I like Richardson. I hope that's who he goes with... if he gets the nomination.

What about Gore as VP? or Sam Nunn? Do you think Gore would be VP again? For potentially 8 years?

Yes, but he would only be able to finish out that term.

I looked up stats on abortions a while ago, but don't remember what they "counted" as an abortion. My recollection was that for US women the average was less than 1 abortion in a lifetime. That may have included RU486 or the morning after pill, but there's no way it could have included IUDs.

Hmmm... dunno.

I can not see Hillary playing second fiddle to Obama under any circumstances. Also, I think she will fight to the death for her nomination and burn her bridges so to speak. I have no idea who that would leave, but I sure hope it's not Edwards.

it's common in other parts of the world, but, yeah, in the US, you are right.

poor kevbone