StevenSeagal

I repeat my question. Do you know anything about it? no Matt, all he knows is it's some hocus pocus treatment that's been used for hundreds of years by little commie China-men, therefore, no need to learn more about it much less try it fir himself. His insurance company gives him a little pill and a big bill and is better; at least, the symptoms go away, temporaririly of course...

LOL...Lieberman, representing the state of Connecticut which I seem to recall is known as America's insurance industry capital. No connection there, I'm sure!

In any case the worse off the country is the better the prospects for getting a real American back in the white house. Let's hope things keep tanking!

Great, thanks! Please keep up to the minute tabs on this and let us know when it hits zero later today. Is the teabag revolution scheduled for tonight, or tomorrow? I'll bring the gasoline if you bring the pitchforks!

I've had gorgeous summit days in January on Rainier, and desperate ones in the middle of summer. It can easily be no big deal if you wait for a good weather/snow conditions window and approach the mountain with respect. That said...Craigslist? Have fun flinging poo with a bunch of schizo's, rednecks and poofdahs who have no clue about which they speak. People who don't climb are too fucking gonzo to understand summer ascents let alone winter ascents.

At least you had time to tell me to fuck off...that's cool. The 'music' you listen to wouldn't happen to be the Metallica clips that Savage plays on his show, would it? Nah. Well according to that crowd, if you don't agree with them 100% then you're at Statist, there's no 'middle ground'. I guess you're a Statist, too then. Why are you trying to destroy this country, KK?

Don't bother. Mark Levin is KK's new talking point source. Savage wasn't whiny and angry enough.

OMG I've been silenced!!!

I've always advocated that the development of cleaner technologies and more efficient energy sources is instrumental in meeting the needs of the growing population of the planet commensurate with a limited supply of current resources, not to mention the security and political issues that are attached as well as the need to retain an economic environment that not only competes globally, but leads the way. All of the above irregardless of the global warming issue. If we address the above, and climatologists are right, we will have done all we could. If the science was wrong, then we did what was important anyway. Unfortunately, "where this is going" likely will be the rest of the world, led by Europe and paradoxically, China, leading the way instead of us. 100 years from now the US be an also ran on the world stage. If you want to question the science, fine, but when this "skepticism" is also being used to stifle ANY sort of meaningful action or discussion to move us forward and to keep the entrenched energy industry lobbyists fat and happy is unconscionable and will be something future generations will pay for.

Ok, that gets a , we can agree on something at last. Besides the fact that you really need a new job. All we are is dust in the wind. Dust in the wind. Everything is dust in the wind.

Why? Did your mom get a better offer?

Wow Blockhead, sounds like I hit a nerve there. Up to now you've been pretty rational. The job you're so proud of must have been tough today; I'm sure I'd be grouchy once in awhile if I had to suck cock in the park for wine. How's that for loaded vocabulary? Your post proves my point...it's all politics. Cool. We're back to spray.

No. The point was that religious beliefs or non beliefs are one thing, while political activism on behalf of one's spiritual views is another matter and one for which no single group can be blamed. I wasn't trying to bring politics into this, I was speaking purely of religious matters; clearly the two are inseparable for you. Was this paragraph copied from a conservative talk radio host's best selling manifesto? purported demonization- what exactly was ambiguous in what you wrote? "Medicine"...I see then, you were just using histrionics and gross exaggeration to make your point, is that it? I admit that it perhaps seems odd to separate one sort of murder from another in spite of the fact that we have long done this (1st degree, 2nd, etc.) Then again, I believe that a strict interpretation of the bible calls for homos to be put to death, so I can see why fundamentalist Christians would find a law making it a special circumstances crime to assault or kill people for being gay a form of persecution. I never said I felt persecuted by the law or the system, and I'd like to keep it that way. The social culture in this country however is not so accomodating to open discussion on matters of faith without politics and demonization being quickly brought out as we have seen here. It's a strange contradictory paradigm of "you can believe what you want here but just remember this is a Christian nation". And it is, but I firmly believe all the good "Christian values" that we all can agree upon can be retained no matter what kind of nation this is or might become.

Well, FW, despite knowing where your own heart and values lie, how about having one's views on spirituality directly equated to Nazism, Communism, Genocide, and a broad and uninformed assessment that one "lacks deep feeling" and spirituality by someone who simply doesn't see things the way you see them? I thought his post deserved a response. Most people think the world would be a better place if only everyone thought like them, and the major faiths of the world in most cases specifically direct their followers to make this happen either by social/political action, or violence. Some atheists have done this also, but somehow they are singled out above all others. An unorganized and politically powerless group of socially ostracized people whose crime is an observation that religion is not rational are to be feared above the vast political power of the Christian and Catholic churches or the brutal Islamic Sharia-law seeking totalitarians? Anyone of any faith or lack thereof with an ounce of sense knows that conversion, embrace, or abandonment of faith is entirely an internal and personal matter and one that cannot ever be forced upon another whether by a state, faction, or coercion. I think it would be much harder to come to this view with the yoke of a faith that instructs me otherwise. The recognition of this matter of individual choice on spiritual matters is one of the great things about the idea behind the formation of the United States.

Hi Stonehead: Based on communist doctrine and history you seem to be making the case that atheism is inseparable from, and inclusive of, an insidious political agenda as well as being merely a (lack of a) belief system. In other words, what I'm hearing is: all communists are atheists, therefore the opposite is inherently true also. Are you saying that atheism is a political movement? I long considered myself "agnostic", but the longer I've lived and the more I've read, I've come to realize that I'm much more likely an atheist based on my real experiences and observations. Not that this arbitrary label means I have a new imperative or direction, of course. Part of the reason I was reluctant to admit this is the social stigma that is attached to having no belief, no faith, but I've come to recognize the moral cowardice of such a position. I don’t know any atheists, and there are many more out there than you think, who have an interest in abolishing freedom of religion. Myself included. But “freedom of religion” apparently in your view doesn’t extend to those who choose not to participate in religion at all, sort of like the spacey proclamation I’ve heard before: “it doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you believe in something…” It would seem from your post as well as my observations almost everywhere that the very expression of atheist views (after all, there is no doctrine guiding and shaping our thoughts on the matter) constitutes by itself an assault on religion, because questioning someone’s faith is considered taboo, we cannot even have the discussion of faith and why we think it is needed. It is considered patently offensive. I don’t have any inherent urge to bash religion but if my view is “the organized religions of our world are utterly false and unnecessary, and all that is good in religion can be found elsewhere”, that’s not considered welcome. Isn’t the “fleeting moment” all there really is? Clinging to experiences and feelings is to invite illusion into one’s life, allowing thought to make permanent that which is unavoidably impermanent. You speak of this as if it is inherently virtuous. I see it as a potential cause of conflict. And this very statement contains some breathtakingly broad assumptions that don't stand up to fact unless you claim to know all atheists. Would it really? There is undeniable heritage in our culture connected to our religious past, but, if one recognizes the virtuosity that religion promotes (do not kill, steal, etc.) as things that can be embraced as moral certainties without the attendant embrace and assertion of things that simply cannot be proven, what then is the imperative of practicing religion? If people choose to continue doing so, fine by me, but I don’t want to be legislated by a particular ideology any more than the religious would want to be legislated according to my lack of ideology. So, freedom of religion is a pretty tricky thing. In fact, so is freedom of speech, perhaps, if we are all so easily offended. Is this a veiled suggestion that atheists are ‘not human’? Pretty condescending and patronizing, not to mention divisive. Listing famous communist atrocities is not going to bolster your case, either, see above. Demonizing, condescending, fear mongering, all in one paragraph. Funny, from agnostics to Christians and especially Muslims, believers of other faiths are largely detested, but there is a special hatred reserved for those who have no faith. “Don’t even trust the one’s who seem ‘well intentioned’- they’re the ones with the most evil plans for genocide and world domination.” All good. But is there any possibility that this freedom of religion, the freedom to think, the freedom to question things, has contributed significantly to the general decline in faith in western culture? Is it possible man’s ultimate instinct, his/her intuition is moving us away from faith and more towards things that are directly observable and experienced? Is there any connection and relation to the fact that the Islamic faith is exploding around the world and that that religion and most of it’s cultures from which it emanates are among the most repressed and least free in the world? Why are we surprised that today’s Islamic culture, even that of so called “moderates”, bears a strong resemblance to 14th century Christianity? What do you propose, then, to combat this scourge? Perhaps you could start by denying atheists the right to vote, the right to assembly, and the right to express their views publicly or privately. After all freedom of religion means just that- but you must choose one!

funny, I'm sure, to a kid who's too young to have a list of friends who didn't survive such incidents.

well, that should pretty much put the south out of business!

on the left: "a better friend to the children" on the right: "glory to the great Stalin!" Oh look, and there's you, "right in zee middle!"

Wait, so despite the subject of the article (a marked rise in domestic terrorism on the part of the American Right), you use this as an opportunity to admonish those who are opposed to the incitement of violence not to use violence. Wake and bake is clearly not doing you much good. So what's your solution?? Are we supposed to pick up our guns and sink to the Neanderthal level? I kinda prefer the approach. If you and FW start a civil war I'll disappear into India or South America or someplace where dialogue is still valued.

I advocate no violence whatsoever, nor gov't censorship. On the other hand, I advocate that these propaganda ministers who have virtually complete control over one of our two viable political parties be held accountable for their distorted vitriol- by anyone and everyone speaking their minds. The truth hurts, and as long as those of us with a conscience have the wherewithall to call them out, I am confident that in time this sad chapter in our nations history will pass and a reasoned representation of both liberal and conservative values can exert positive influence on our society. Then again, since news has been morphed into entertainment and now is offered by a choice of channels designed to serve it according to one's political preferences and what one wishes to hear, I guess I doubt it!

Only kidding. That was satire. Get it?

Actually, tune in to Savage any time. Guaranteed at some point in the first hour you'll hear him refer to someone or some group as "vermin" (a term Nazis preferred for Juden, uncoincidentally), and/or "scum", "filth", or "degenerates". I'm getting the impression that your definition of hate speech requires specific use of epithets, lacking that, anything goes apparently? How about "I WANT NUCLEAR BOMBS DROPPED ON EVERY MIDDLE EAST CAPITAL CITY!!!". ? (in a screaming tone). I'm not making that one up- Savage said that explicitly on more than one occasion. Is that just political commentary? How about Rush's repeated proud playing of "Barack the Magic Negro"? Oh right, that was just satire, unlike the racist liberal satire on here! Well, as Beck says to his millions of listeners each day- "do whatever you have to do to stop Obama- just don't pick up a gun- I mean god forbid it should need to come to that!" Now that's entertainment!

Yeah, no shit JB, can't you produce some links to Fox News so Fairweather can at least decipher the language?