jmo

"Originally Posted By: kevbone Originally Posted By: tvashtarkatena It's a good thing we gave the feds all those intrusive powers during the Bush years. Now there's a new law in town, with a different agenda. We did not give the feds anything....they took our civil liberties ......and it wont stop there.....more to come." Some among us gave them away by voting for totalitarians rather than for those who respect liberty. If you mean Barack Obama, you are absolutely right. We will lose some, if not many Civil liberties in the next four years. If by that you meant George Bush and that Patriot Act. I was never in favor of the act, and thought that whatever security it might provide was not worth the loss of civil liberties. Unfortunately it was passed by the Senate by 98-1, so it cannot be entirely blamed on Bush and the republicans. Please go here www.whitehouse.gov and try to find the repeal of the Patriot act on his Agenda. I could not find it. Since Obama's agenda is so wide in scope and very anti Bush, I think if he wanted it repealed he would say so. if you mean something else, please clarify.

"That Obama's team vetted and rejected these candidates for their behavior seems to support, rather than refute, an image of competence and integrity." Then why is Geithner running the IRS after failing to pay his own taxes? A few days ago, he made a speech that he is going after tax cheats and havens, but his boss looked the other way on him. Daschle bowed out on his own. Kirk has not been voted on by the Senate, but after vetting revealed he owed 10k in back taxes the administration had no comment, and the Democratic chairman of the Sen. finance committee want to speed his confirmation.

Actually the econmic stimulus bill was approved the Senate on the 13th. (Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00001:@@@X, the only source for legislation) After promising dire consequences for the country if that bill was not approved as soon as possible, he then went on back to chicago for a short vacation with his wife. He didn't wait long enough to fulfill his campaign promise, but did wait long enough to raise questions about the fear mongering he used to get it passed. So far unmentioned by anyone, is repeated attempts by the Obama administration to appoint criminals to high office. Geithner, Daschle, Kirk to name just a few. He claims to be the champion of the poor, yet lets the rich not pay their taxes and not even pay penalties when it is exposed. Obama has not condemned the actions of any of his criminal appointees. SCIP was not approved by both houses of Congress until Feb 4th. Signed by the President THAT SAME DAY. Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00002:@@@X Lily Ledbetter: Passed by Congress in it's final form Jan 27. Signed by the President Jan 29. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SN00181:@@@X Your Source is wrong. My source at Fox was correct, and I have included links to the website of Congress to prove it.

I agree that Op Ed pieces are opinion. I do not agree that Fox News is nothing more than a blog. The piece I that posted from Fox News was an Op Ed pieces, but everything there can be easily verified from other sources. Of the 6 lies I posted, only two were defended. While the recent controversy on "assault weapons" was sparked by the AG, the whitehouse.gov website lists renewal on the infringement of the people's rights as part of the Presidents agenda. As far as big government goes, Obama says he doesn't believe in big government, but is pushing for the biggest spending increase in history. Here's some more info from MS NBC "The cost of the stimulus bill and the increased bailout support would push the deficit for this year to $1.75 trillion, nearly four times last year's record $455 billion and a percentage of the economy — just over 12 percent — not seen since World War II. The deficit would remain near $1 trillion over the next two years before dropping to $581 billion in 2012 and $533 billion in 2013, the year that Obama has pledged to cut the deficit he inherited in half. The $1.75 trillion deficit projected for this year would represent 12.3 percent of the gross domestic product, double the previous post-war record of 6 percent in 1983, when Ronald Reagan was president, and the highest level since the deficit totaled 21.5 percent of GDP in 1945, at the end of World War II." It's hard to not be for big government and still push for those kind of numbers. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29392964/page/2/

I was in a hurry, so this is the best I could find a few minutes without using Fox, since no one will believe it. From the Wall St. Journal: "he president blamed the nation's economic travails on the administration that preceded him and on a nation that lost its bearings. His budget plan projects a federal deficit of $1.75 trillion for 2009, or 12.3% of the gross domestic product, a level not seen since 1942 as the U.S. plunged into World War II." Since the Bush administration and Congress got us in more debt, the logical solution would be to spend less, so we can pay down the debt. Sure, blame Bush and look the other way while Obama's spending makes Bush look like a cheapskate. Bush's overspending is not a free passs to do the same. Sooner or later, Obama will have to take responsibility for what happens, instead of the usual Democratic party line that it's all the republicans fault. Even CNN is starting to wonder. "As the stock market continues to drop, President Obama is running out of people to blame, according to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. Before the president took office, in early January, the stock market was over 9,000 its highest level since last fall. But in the last two months, it has dropped 25% to its lowest level since 1997. The Journal suggests that Mr. Obama’s policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would be a normal economic recovery. “From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence,” said the editorial. The editorial takes issue with the way much of the administration’s stimulus spending went to social programs rather than public works, how the Treasury has been managing the bank bailout plan, and how tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than giving incentives to work or invest." It's from the Wall St Journal, but CNN posted it.

I don't remember anyone saying Bush is innocent. I don't think he is. But I also don't think he is solely responsible for everything the democrats pin him for. One thing in Bush's favor is that most of his economics policies were not a radical departure towards socialism. If it all gets worse, I still won't think Obama is solely responsible. He couldn't do a thing without his democratic Congress. We cannot blame any one person for the economy, they all had help in some way.

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/03/03/kerpen_obama_budget/ All this just in one month. I'll make it six by saying that on the campaign trail he said he respected the 2nd Amendment of the Bil of Rights of the people and wouldn't take anyone's guns away. A week ago he proposed another "assault weapons" ban. Bash Fox News all you want, but all six of these lies are widely known facts.

this post is almost as silly and unintelligible as anything gw said while in office. peter, you might have a future as a republican puppet if you also happen to be the scion of a wealthy, well-connected family. Why all the hate and personal attacks? Why must one be wealthy to be a republican? All politicians are wealthy and well connected.

Billcoe, your post is very long but I completely agree with the premise. For the past years it seems that the Democratic party has turned into a party of hate. Conservatives are not guiltless, but everything coming from the left seems to be nothing but personal attacks.

Remember, there are three branches to the U.S. Government, not just one. The causes for what we have now before us has as much to do with Congress as it does the Office of the President. So often people forget that. It's easier to blame an "administration" that is, in theory, led by one person (who is then the go-to goat), than to blame a large group of individuals with different agendas for their own constituencies and who too often toe the party line. I blame equally the Bush Administration and Congress (both Republicans and Democrats) for this mess we're in now. Only 2 branches control the purse, executive and legislative. For most of the past 8 years those were controlled by the Republican party with George W Bush as defacto head. Spin all you want. You are wrong. Congress controls the purse. The president only has veto power over the purse. It's worth repeating that the economy didn't tank until recently, and the democrats have controlled congress since 06. I'm so sick of hearing all the democrats blame Bush for everything or resort to name calling and insults. Three years from now, they will all still be saying it's not their fault, they inherited a mess instead of taking responsibility. Obama is worst of all, and most people that know about the economy see through it. Need proof? The stock market has lost 50% since he was elected. We went from recession under Bush to Depression under Obama. Our economy has seen far worse and survived. Some one blasted the GOP as the do nothing party. I don't want the government to do anything. The more they intervene the worse it gets. What if the government intervention made it worse? What incentive is there to succeed with Obama's taxes on the wealthy, and on corporations? What incentive to do the right thing with all these bailouts? So many people get fixated on one sentence Rush limbaugh says, and don't listen to the whole message. I'll paraphrase. I hope Obama fails. For no other reason than because I believe his policies are the wrong ones for this country. There are many here who would say the same about Bush without a second thought. If Obama changed his policies to one of fiscal responsibility, I would support him wholeheartedly. More than wanting Obama to fail, I want this country to succeed, but the two cannot coexist.

It was a great game. nail biter to the end.

yes, we can thank Former President Bush for the fact that we are winning the war in Iraq, and have been for a year and a half. "The reality is people are going to get seriously hurt, and some are not going to make it." Without medevac helicopters injured soldiers and civilians might not make it. Without those medevac helicopters, another company would have to go instead and might have to spend more time in Iraq than they should.

Were the super bowls refs biased?

"Shall not be infringed"

I can understand that some people are reluctant to have a bunch of gun toting folks at a school, mall or anywhere. But look where gun free zones have gotten us. We need the gun toting folks to keep the criminals in line. Laws don't matter to criminals. People who would kill someone will think nothing of taking a gun where they are not supposed to, or illegally aquiring one. They'll do what they want if they think they can get away with it or don't care. That's why the people that take the time to get a concealed carry permit and do the right thing are very unlikely to commit crimes. For example, Florida, which has issued more carry permits than any state has issued 1.36 million permits, but revoked only 165 (0.01%) due to gun crimes by permit-holders.

I am saddened by the senseless loss of life in this and the many other massacres that have plagued our society recently. I truly hope that the title of this post was a joke. Can anyone imagine going through their cutlery drawer and writing the make and model of each their butter knives on a government form? murraysovereign predicted it, but it is true, that if everyone had knives or guns there would be fewer stabbings and shootings. Criminals don't prey on the armed, but the weak, those who cannot resist. Maybe if a teacher or student at VT had been permitted to carry a concealed weapon, fewer people would have died. denalidave, why should students not be armed if they meet all of the states requirements to own carry a handgun? Would Cho have killed 32 people if students and staff had been able to fight back? Allowing law-abiding people to arm themselves offers more than piece of mind for those individuals -- it pays off for everybody through lower crime rates. Statistics from the FBI’s Uniformed Crime Report of 2007 show that states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rate and a 22% lower overall violent crime rate than do states without such laws. That is why more and more states have passed right-to-carry laws over the past decade.

Would some rust preventing spray paint work?

I agree with the orginal post. I disagree with some of his decisions but respect that he always picked a stance and held his ground. Hard to find politicians these days that can have an opinion without taking a public opinion poll first, or change stances with the seasons.

I might be interested. I cannot do this weekend, but may be interested in next, if the weather is good.

Thanks for the replies. I'll look into the sandstone between Ventura and Ojai, can you give more info. Still looking at the stuff on Stoney point Malibu creek looks good, maybe I'll go there. Anyone have any info on Joshua tree or the San Bernardino N.F.?

I'm going to be spending a week in the Los Angeles area, and want to do some climbing while I'm down there. Can anyone reccomend some good local top rope routes for beginners?

I'm interested. I've got the DC route, Baker and Adams, and all the technical gear. Great shape and pretty easy going. Johnobrien88@hotmail.com

I was at SPIRE this afternoon. It's fun, but I'm looking for something taller.

I'm new to outdoor rock climbing and would like an easy route that I can set up a top rope on, do some rappelling and just have fun on the rocks. I've heard exit 38 is good, but don't know much about it.

I'm be interested. I've got about the same experience level as the both of you.