ClimbingPanther

A restaurant isn't exactly the perfect example of a public place. You don't have a right to enter any business. They have the right to ask you to leave. I'd say a public place is more like a park or a city street or a beach, you know, a place we all kinda own. I think if smoking is banned anywhere, it should be banned in a truly public place where kids have the right to play without getting lung cancer, long before it's banned in a private business where we don't have a "right" to be, just a privilege granted by the owner. But somehow we got it backwards. Good job, butt-head referendum writers. Oh, by the way I don't smoke and I think it's disgusting and incredibly stupid, but that's not why we make laws, now is it?

Yeah, I know, but are you telling me those other people have no choice but to stand by and inhale secondhand smoke? Not hardly. The power of the consumer should be the measure a business uses to determine their policy on smoking. If nobody wants to be around it, they will ban it to stay in business. And if the impact of every activity on insurance premiums were a good measure of what the government should tell us we can & can't do, then a lot of dangerous activities like climbing ought to be regulated & legislated to minimize its impact, and recoup by taxation the cost to our society. Maybe we should just have a study to determine the most benign form of exercise and legislate that everyone must participate at the perfect level to reduce our premiums and make sure everyone's making the right choices in their life. The smoking issue is certainly worth at least some argument and thought to figure out what's the approach most consistent with freedom, and a blanket referendum to ban it indoors was not the best choice.

I want to see a candidate who runs on principle, not issues. I want to see a philosophy of government that fits with the Constitution that is the foundation of this country. Can I get an "AMEN?" The petty issue-wrangling that we see over and over in debates & advertisements is just an example of pandering to our collective desire to get our way, rather than to preserve the principle of freedom & rights.

So, by majority rule, it's OK to take away the rights of everyone, including those who voted against it? This is "democracy" run amok, with people voting how they feel on an issue instead of voting by the principles of freedom the country is based on. I didn't include seatbelt because there's a safety issue for other motorists, but if you fall off a bike, you're either going to get hurt or die and the helmet has no bearing on anyone's destiny but your own and you should be able to self-determine. And for kids' seatbelts, it's the gov't protecting kids from their parents' stupidity until they have the legal freedom to self-determine. any guess to what percentage of emergency services motorcycles make up? [edit: oh, and if you want to talk per capita, then please give me some per capita stats on climbers & their SAR usage, b/c I'd bet it's at least somewhat higher than other user groups] anyway, what's acceptable to the public is not the gold standard for the philosophy of law & government, but it is being used as such all too often. that was my main point, regardless of the strengths & weaknesses of a given issue.

you make every one of your post-30K posts count, don't you.

bone, when two conflicting "rights" cross, such as an adult's right to life, and another adult's right to pursue what makes him happy which happens to be murdering the first adult, the government must choose which "right" to protect. you could argue that the government ought to protect the second person's right to be happy and let him kill the first person, or you could argue that the first person's right to life trumps the second one's happiness. please articulate how an adult's life is more important than an adult's happiness, yet an unborn child's life is not. and stop talking about Iraq, that is a diversion from your apparent inability to discuss the issue at hand.

when laws are passed to "protect us from ourselves" or remove the right to do something that has no effect on another's rights, then the government has taken advantage of the power we bestow it. like the idea of restricting climbing on Hood. and motorcycle helmets. and homosexuality. and religion. and stores' stocking choices. and a business' smoking policy. and so forth.

kev, the whole "forcing your opinion" thing is a crock and everyone knows it. there are certain things we give the government the responsibility to do, such as protect our ...ahem... right to ...ahem... life. that's why the government, like, forces stuff on us like, don't murder people, and stuff. the role of government is to protect these rights from people who want to take them away. from the moment you depart from complete and total anarchy, somebody's "opinion" is being "forced" on another, but it's for the good of the values of freedom this country was founded on.

you want specific? 0 the specific gravity of what's between your ears. oh snap!1

20 miles in maine at midnight?! some people are just cooler than me. um... no pun intended

enough suggestions here already for the feet, but it would be incomplete to focus only on your feet, as their warmth is not just dependent on their insulation. do keep in mind that blood flow to the extremities is heavily influenced by your entire body temperature. if your arms/legs/hands/head/etc. are not adequately insulated as well, your body will restrict blood flow to all extremities, usually resulting in cold feet first. i'd suggest ensuring your entire body is insulated before going nuts on your feet. when you're body temp starts to edge above normal, your vessels will open to get rid of heat in your extremities. you may have to endure a little sweat in your legs, gloves, hat, etc. to achieve this, but it will warm your feet. body heat is influenced by available fuel, so be sure you've been eating enough that day. for a morning ride, this may cause problems. blood flow to extremities is also influenced by blood viscosity, so being fully hydrated is very important.

since you've been there...

It wasn't for calling someone a name, and it wasn't about politics, you were just being an asshole about a missing hiker and that shit irritated me. If it makes you feel better Seahawks you were a subject of discussion between moderators. None of us had a problem with giving you a time out. seriously, you're such a whiner Seahawks. if it was up to the general populace, you'd have been perma-banned after your first 5 posts.

I'M UR SPELL-CHECKER, CHECKIN UR WORDZ!!!

uh-oh, you may have inadvertently called upon RedNose to make an appearance

If "being a human spell-checker" is what you call "publicly schooling," then you are indeed doing a terrific job. You should revisit the use of the apostrophe in a contraction, by the way. "It's" pretty simple.

Antimatter is another name for Chuck Norris, because he can annihilate you with a roundhouse kick to the head.

Matter can approach, but never reach the speed of light, unless it has been roundhouse kicked by Chuck Norris.

Of course he climbs, but Chuck Norris is always waiting at the top to roundhouse kick him in the face.

you're dumb

That's right, Dirt. Nobody wants you in this town. Nobody wants you around, period! Look at him, fellas. You crying, boy? Maybe we'll go back down to McDonald's... ...and get you a whamburger and French cries! How about a Whineken! You little sissy boy! Def Leppard sucks!

i see nobody has had the guts to refute this yet. all you whiners who said Bush stole it from Gore in 2000 should be a little less hypocritical and admit that Kerry stole it from Kucinich in 2004. liberal

yeah, my best friend & his wife just conceived about a month into their marriage, using the pill. opps! fertile foo

George H.W. Bush is to Dennis Kucinich as Ross Perot is to John Kerry

a super fun version of Joplin's "The Entertainer"