StevenSeagal

I just threw a brick through a Starbucks window. You can thank me later for changing the world.

So how many people live your house? I'm planning to burn down my home to erase this blight from the landscape, but then I'm going to need a place to live. Do you have an extra room?

I can't believe you just asked Dru to go climbing with you.

Near Crash Be sure to click the video link on the left!

Get in touch with Layton.

yeah right. this'll lead to a new explosion of growth NATIONWIDE. I didn't say an increase in growth; it just isn't going to slow down the sprawl. Do you really think that it will or something, like developers are just going to pack it up and go home now? And am I wrong that O'Reilly, Limbaugh are going to use this as an example of "what these environmentalist-types are really like!"?

One Stop Shopping for al Qaida! WTF? Ah don't wanna have'ta sheer mah shoppin' playce wit'a buncha damn A-rabs! Sheesh. Where will their base shop now?

More Subtle? Do you think ads showing the models giving bj's while wearing the latest fashions in intimate wear from Victoria's Secret would be too sexy?

You're not getting it- they won't be "going away", they will be back and thensome, only we now have four houses worth of resources flushed away in the process and some pollution to show for it. And as for the future disappearance of more favorite secret spots and woods and what not...as I stated above, this will be used as even more fuel by anti-environmentalist, pro-growth, pro-industry groups, lobbyists, and talk radio propagandists as to why talk of conservation, planning, preservation should not be taken seriously. I sympathize with the sentiment that the eastside has been overrun by development and poor planning and what once was is sadly gone now, but you're kidding yourself if you think there is anything helpful on any level by this act.

Save the Environment? What a bunch of fucking douchebags these people are. More fodder for talk radio pundits to lump in anyone with earnest concern for environmental policies with these whackos to kill any intelligent debate. Not to mention that four homes are gone, and the colossal destruction of resources (like WOOD from TREES) that just went up in smoke...oh yes, and all that black SMOKE that just got belched into our air. What's next, "I know, let's go sink an Exxon oil tanker in the Gulf of Alaska, that'll teach them to pollute the environment!" Fucking hypocrites. They think they're Above the Law. Well...they're not! :anger:

or who proudly proclaims the positive benefits of using LSD on a recreational basis. What about on a professional basis?

I can't find the "Libturds" forum we were promised.

The company was so generous to let you work there, the least you can do is return the favor and give them a day of your time, can't you?

Yes, it is. Indeed, it's really a lack of leadership to not take a controversial stand and ask the people to participate in things that require direct action and possibly some sacrifice for the greater good. Moreover, it's become popular to do the opposite of what your opponent advocates just to spite them.

Truth is a pathless land. man, if you are quoting krishnamurti, don't get me started.... ***"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society"*** "perhaps one should follow the sensical conventions of society, when they keep one from impregnating a married woman, over and over again, leading to abortions etc etc." “Hitler and Mussolini were only the primary spokesmen for the attitude of domination and craving for power that are in the heart of almost everyone. Until the source is cleared, there will always be confusion and hate, wars and class antagonisms.”

Agree Lifestyle is an interesting topic. You know as well as I do that for every person in this country who actually is taking tangible actions to change their lifestyle in a way that they earnestly feel will "make a difference" (even if the difference it actually makes is negligible, nil, or too subjective to quantify), there are far more people who bristle at the very suggestion that a change in their lifestyle is or may be necessary, citing "freedom" and a virulant opposition to "social engineering". In fact, many of the latter will go so far as to ridicule and deride others simply for their own personal actions of conservation, regardless of whether it attempts to intrude on the choices of others. Rush Limbaugh (sure you can dismiss him if you like, but he has 15 million people who listen breathlessly to him every day) recently urged people that they can conserve if they want to make themselves feel better but that "it won't make an iota of difference, none at all", and that the most important action we can take is to find and consume as many resources as possible both in our country and in other countries, because that "makes the economy grow". Ultimately, the truth is that most people are so self-centered and unconcerned about the collective part of society that they won't actually change anything about their lifestyle until they are forced to do so. And that isn't really a change effective on behalf of others, it's just a shift made again for self-centered rationale. This society is wealthy enough that even $4 a gallon gas by itself doesn't do it- a guy who can afford a $75K Hummer in the first place doesn't care that it costs $110 to fill up. But when the cost of everything else skyrockets, and wages stay flat, over time you may see people begin to change habits.

Truth is a pathless land. man, if you are quoting krishnamurti, don't get me started.... ***"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society"***

DON'T YOU GO CHANGIN'!!!

say it isn't so! NEVER HAPPENED! OLD NEWS. MOVE ALONG.

WTF is up with this, when a singer passes 55 years old, do they ship them off to some foofy spa to get botox injections and a lawnmower mulletard to help "reinvent" their career? ergo:

Someone above already mentioned that the 2nd amendment in large is for the right to keep and bear arms for organizing a militia to overthrow the government (which of course could never happen). Nonetheless, if it's just an issue of this sacred right to carry a firearm anywhere you please, then you can't pick solely on parks; again you have to talk about schools, airplanes, airports, public buildings...where else? All these prohibitions have come about through a consideration of mitigating circumstances, and many of them are fully justified (like airplanes, for example). The parks issue I think largely has to do with preventing the poaching of wildlife.

Well cool, then- we're on the right track here at home!