KaskadskyjKozak

January 20th... 2009

McClellan was a general, not the Secretary of War. Presidents have fired their generals many times; not so with the Secretary of War (Defense since 1947). Semantics You could make a strong case the Secretary of Defense today occupies a similar position as General-in-Chief of the Union then. As you point out, the position wasn't even created until 1947. It's much more than semantics. There was a certain famous general who profoundly disagreed with his president's policy and was fired for it. Was he happy about that? Didn't he speak before congress? Or did he just "fade away" quietly? Rumsfeld has shaken up the way the army is run - old school generals, of course, are disatisfied with that. People dislike change.

Like throwing money at every social problem with new federal government programs? Insanity indeed!

McClellan was a general, not the Secretary of War. Presidents have fired their generals many times; not so with the Secretary of War (Defense since 1947).

You don't need a guide. Just find someone who's been up there before and go with them. You just need to know how to dress properly (layered, no cotton), keep hydrated and have map and compass skills. That's about 10 pages of Freedom of the Hills.

Mt. Adams is no less serious than Camp Muir. If you're worried about the hazards (white out, etc), I'd recommend places like Granite Mountain, Dickerman, Mailbox Peak, 3-Fingers etc - beginning in May or June. But you can get hurt (or killed) on these peaks too.

Try looking here

Yes, in 1986 That is incredible. You really have a friend? is this spray? jizzy, stfu!

Yeah, baby, in there at #1!!

you don't need to ask questions like that. just ask for official documents from *everyone* and have a mechanism in place in the federal government where credentials are checked. SSNs are unique per citizen - a simple thing to maintain in a database (and check against) -- Stephen

meth dealer?

Employers have to take payroll deductions and send them to the federal gov't using these SSNs. The federal gov't knows what SSNs are valid or not (i.e. officially issued to a living person) Every job I have ever worked has required me to provide a SSN on day 1. It would easy to enforce a "validation" mechanism for this number if it is not already done.

so, getting back on topic here: 1) illegal aliens are just that. no need to invent euphemisms 2) employers who hire illegals are also outside the law. we pay lip service to enforcing these particular laws - just as we do regarding illegal aliens I would like to see the following occur: 1) enforce all employment regulations a) illegal aliens must have a worker visa, b) illegal aliens must pay taxes on the same progressive tax system as the rest of us c) the same laws on wages and benefits and workers rights apply to illegal aliens as to everyone else d) the same social benefits are awarded to taxpaying illegals as the rest of us e) we enforce all this at the EMPLOYER level. forget building walls, and deporting people and all that crap. Just enforce registering workers with permits and (alas) fund a bureaucracy with inspectors/agents to audit industries that have a large number of illegals and punish companies that violate the law. We all know the prominent industries: agriculture, construction, etc. All right, certain jobs (nannies) would be hard to track down individual employers to enforce the rules, but certainly we could require that if you take a tax break for day care, or whatever, that you provide documentation (a SSN or worker visa number) for the person doing the work for you. I'd be interested if this changes anything on the balance sheet though (tax income versus expenditure on services, cost of certains goods and services). At least it would be honest.

Oh, well, then we should certainly ignore the possibility that this despicable practice may have had any negative impact on social conditions in our country. ignore it? no way. but take a broader view of history, and ask yourself some tough questions about humanity in general. American slavery is by no means a singularity in the course of history. and there is slavery today (e.g. Sudan) - does that bother you, or touch upon your conscience? how does that impact the "social conditions" of the world today?

There you go with your rightwing hyperbole again KK. Life would have been just fine for the Africans coming from the congo region, er, at least until King Leopold came along.... hyperbole? look in the mirror. fact is people have been enslaving, subjugating and murdering eachother for centuries. not just whites against blacks in one short span of history. sorry for bringing up facts that disturb your myopic world-view

Many Africans enslaved and sold other Africans. The Europeans didn't invent or import the practice to Africa, and it's an oversimplification to assume that life would have been a paradise in Africa w/o the Europeans' involvement. BTW, American Indians had slaves too. Things are a little more complicated than we are presented with by the one-sided historians (with an agenda).

is this another way find your way out of Squid's beasitary?

"jopa" means ass in Russian. how apropos...

clashing colors, preferably involving paisley, tie-dyed, or plaid

Just wait, Jay, your time will come.

You have to get a permit to camp in Boston Basin as it is. Usage is limited already. Ditto for Colchuck lake.

Not *all* Africans were brought here as slaves.