rob

You DO support them paying only 1.1% in profits because you vote for republicans who consider closing corporate loopholes to be "raising taxes." And when anybody points out that this company is a tax scofflaw, you just accuse them of being "jealous." So, from my perspective, you absolutely DO support them paying such a low amount. Otherwise, you wouldn't have attacked me, you would have said something like, "damn, that's messed up!" -- instead, you said something like, "good for them!" Also, taxing 1.1% (instead of the actual rate) on 11.3 billion IS "flushing money down the toilet." LOL!

meanwhile Carnival Cruises pays 1.1% tax on a cumulative 11.3 BILLION in profits. Sure....we're bankrupt because of the BATHROOMS. Right. Wink wink.

I don't hate them, I just don't think they should be allowed to marry, or be mentioned in teh public schools. No special rights for those kinds of people. That kind of comment is way too smart for spray, OW.

I agree.....too bad we have not had one of those in a while. Yeah, that's what happens when less than 50% of voters actually bother showing up and voting. What a bunch of little bitches.

It is. Man, I was really happy when those skiers stopped us for a safety meeting.

Given the amount of money they have to give to their leaders every time the leaders proclaim a new apocalypse, that's not surprising. The sheep get fleeced so the pigs can wear wool suits. http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/01/26/b-c-polygamist-tells-court-hes-paid-church-for-15-separate-apocalypses/ And he didn't even get to clear his body thetans???!!!! What a gyp.

Well, I don't know how LDS spends its tithed collections, but assume at least a good portion of it goes towards some "good" whether direct and physical or intangible and emotional/spiritual. Exactly. Like keeping gays from marrying.

Yes, I did the BCC at Everett, although I never did enough post-course club climbs because I hated the club. Of course I did the MOFA and nav classes, too. I also spent a bit volunteering with a local Mountain Rescue chapter, became field-certified and did several rigging exercises and missions with them. I also took a self-rescue class with a local guide service. I stand by my assertion that a motivated individual with a good mind could do the equivalent of the "theory" aspect of the BCC by himself, and supplement field experience with people he meets here. Fuck you too, shithead. I doubt your fat ass could even prussic up the line.

I would not recommend the Mountaineers. They will make you wear your helmet and gaiters while eating lunch in the parking lot. There are other local climbing clubs of which I know little, but I would try them first, personally. They may be turn out being the same, but that's the risk you run. Or, just make friends here. If you do take a course like the mounties, I would recommend getting out and doing non-club climbs AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. If you're smart, you can figure this stuff out by yourself. By smart, I mean that you're rigging lines in the trees at home and practicing ascending a line, and practicing setting up z-pulleys in your living room while memorizing knots in the dark with gloves on. The mounties can't teach you anything you can't learn yourself if you have a half-way decent mind, and local advice here on cc.com can supplement your home-study nicely by giving you actual answers to WHY, rather than the "that's just how we do it" that most mountie volunteers will give you. Learn and practice self-arrest, memorize your knots, know how to rig a z-pulley and climb a line and I bet come spring there are lots of people who would be willing to take you out. In the meantime, do a lot of non-technical snow climbs/hikes to get stronger and practice travelling on snow slopes. Good luck!

Sure, but are you gonna try to convince me that we'd better off without any taxation? Cuz I grew up in a libertarian household; i doubt your particular brand of crazy is anything I haven't heard before. But, you have to buy the beer, since you're challenging.

Are you an agnostic about the tooth fairy, too? I mean, you can't prove a negative!!!!

We're going the wrong direction with gay marriage. We should be abolishing straight marriage instead. EVERYBODY WINS!

Did that yesterday! How un-American. :[] Well, I just recently found out America is actually a fascist police state run by an Islamic Nazi dictator-commie -- so what do you expect? I'm gonna go out and invest in gold today, because they wouldn't let me subscribe to the Ron Paul newsletter without proof of my holdings.

Did that yesterday!

Jesus fucking Christ, bill. Just post a link and a small snippet, holy shit.

lol, you're super passionate about this, aren't you?

I didn't say he has no power. I just said he doesn't have the power to do a lot of the things he wants -- like abolish the fed, or force an audit. And sure, he can veto new crazy laws, but he can't repeal NDAA. He can also veto lots of GOOD laws, which he probably will (such as increased market or environmental regulations.) His power to pass NEW legislation is limited also, especially if he continues to alienate moderates with radical libertarian views on regulation. I like most of his foreign policy, too. I guess I'm a bit of an isolationist. But he's not worth it, for all of his other bad ideas. Not exactly right, kevin. Congress has the right to declare war or not, and the War Powers Resolution requires the president to get congressional authority to deploy troops, and the constitution splits war powers between the President and Congress. For example, congress also decides how much is spent funding a war. You're right, though, he could bring them back. Although, I suspect Congress could override him? I'm not sure what would happen if Congress declared war and he refused. Interesting hypothetical question. I guess he could veto the declaration of war, but they could override it. Then what?

You've hit the nail on the head -- the only power he'll actually have as President is to reduce or eliminate enforcement of regulations. He won't actually have any power to do any of the "good" things, such as repeal the Patriot Act or the NDAA. So, a Paul administration would basically be all of the bad, and none of the good. Congress will gridlock as usual anytime anything effective tries to happen, and I suppose he'll be able to veto some things, but I don't want his veto at the expense of environmental, pharmaceutical and market enforcement. Not to mention many of the things he will veto will probably be things I don't want veto'd -- such as health care reform, social services, increased environmental regulations, etc.

I could never vote for a candidate who promises to abolish environmental, pharmaceutical and market regulations. It's really too bad he has to ruin his pro civil-liberty platform (which I support) with such outrageous and radical anti-regulation libertarian ideology. It makes him completely unacceptable to moderate voters like myself.

How can you say you are bristled at the loss of civil liberties then turn around and vote for Obama who just signed away all your right when he signed the NDAA law? Obama is just more of the same. It's true, I am not a fan of Obama. But because all of the choices available to me are so bad, I am forced to pick the most practical and expedient route. You have to remember, I think Ron Paul is part of the establishment, too -- I don't like him like you do. In fact, I think he's one of the worst choices in the entire field. So what options are left to me? None. They are all bad, kevin. ALL OF THEM. There is no good choice. I'd have voted for Huntsman (maybe) but he won't win the nomination. So, it's gonna be Obama or Romney (probably) whether I like it or not and it would be grossly irresponsible for me to not do everything within my power to prevent another GOP president because, as bad as Obama is, they are much worse. Unfortunately, that's just the sorry state of the American political scene. In the meantime, I will continue to support organizations working to build positive change while using my vote in the most efficient way possible.

Actually, I'm quite "bristled" at the loss of civil liberties and the militarization of the police, so clearly you're not really getting me. Does that mean I have to admit America is a "fascist state" or whatever?

Lol, I see Bill doesn't know what "fascism" means

And that's assuming he could do all those things. You know, like all the things Barry promised to do. The FTC and the EPA are in the executive branch. True, he couldn't change the regulations, but he could get rid of the enforcers. I guess congress could bypass him and set up their own? I'm not a constitutional expert.