canyondweller

Sweet pic of Slesse in the background. Do you even shave yet? <...damn I'm getting old...>

Fun with a capital 'BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB'

In my reading of the "brandishing" clause, I thought it very clearly laid out what was considered 'brandishing with the intent to intimidate.' I'll have to re-read it.

Excuse me sir? I don't want that shrew in da White Hizzie, dawg.

I say 1st round stoppage due to strikes, by the scrappy Asian!

Michelle Obama is a hate-filled bitch.

Never hurts to get an expert opinion and diagnosis.

Will you clean my gun, minxy?

You going to require marksmanship classes for CCW permit holder too No.

Nah, they only come in 8-ounce.

this is a tar baby in gasoline I wish YOU were a tar baby in gasoline. It is not as epidemic as the media and gunhaters make it out to be. I am buying you tickets to Folklife, for next year, just in case, though.

It's not an ordinance, it is an Executive Order, from the Mayor. It will mean nothing, and have no teeth. Right, I don't really understand how they can make the trespassing charge stick in a PUBLIC park. Most likely, what they will do is get you for resisting arrest, when you fail to comply with their illegal requests. They'll push it as far as they can, until someone sues.

Hugh - Errors happen in a system run by humans. That doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater, or that the given system is bad.

1. Quoted from the CNN article (which mimics the rule change): "The proposed change would have the parks adopt the gun laws of the state in which they are located. This means a person would be able to take a loaded, concealed weapon into a national park if he or she holds a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon in a given state and as long as they would be allowed to carry a concealed weapon in that state's parks."

To be fair, the change only extends to individuals holding a CCW permit in their given state. Why do you care, anyway? If you don't carry, then don't. Although, with Washington being an "open carry" state, I wonder if that is affected. The whole additional poaching thing is BS; poachers bent on breaking the law aren't going to comply with the law anyway. Not to mention that these guys don't poach with handguns. Additionally, the "increased violence" complaint is a canard.

Yeah, that cracks me up when they think that the rest of the U.S. is just like these wingnuts. Actually, their numbers are declining, most likely. Studies show that Liberals and Greeners are not breading in sustainable numbers. I'm doing my part for the Conservative Base.

500,000 of those don't know what 'impeach' means, 150,000 don't understand the impeachment process, and the other 50,000 votes can be traced by IP address to the Obama for President campaign headquarters, Washington, D.C., or the residence of William Jefferson Clinton, New York, New York.

Wow, you're a pompous dickwad. Obviously it DOES happen, to climbers of all abilities and experiences. And man bites dog, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. From what I hear, RumR is probably the greatest, hardest, most prolific climber you know. Heed his words.

About what I would expect from you. However, now that you brought them up, what is wrong with 'honor' and 'sacrifice'? You Lefties preach individual sacrifice for the good of the collective. How is a soldier's willingness to sacrifice any different? Further, how is 'honor' now a bad word? The problem with "honor" and "sacrifice" they're basically lofty-sounding abstractions designed for the parents of dead children and inscriptions on tombstones, to give the living some meaning for senseless waste. They have no meaning whatsoever in and of themselves: the same language is used by kamikazis, Prussians, Commies, Doughboys, Mongols, or Marines. The Nazi SS talked loads of this stuff, but through history's lens were they honorable and virtuous? Submission and sacrifice to the State is the essence of fascism but it's always dressed in the very same terms you unquestioningly swallow. Any "leftie" worth his salt would never accept your premise about "preaching individual sacrifice for the good of the collective". The ones I like tend to be a bit more historically literate and less prone to razzle-dazzle marketing campaigns dressed up as patriotism. Finally, "honor" is a bad word when it's used as first to charm impressionable boys and then as ideological cover to mask national chauvinism and belligerence. Denying the existence of honor is a long tradition of those lacking that trait. Honor is real and I have seen it personally. If less people would forget what honor was, this world might not be so bad. Things like Pride, Duty, Self Sacrifice and Honor should not be bad words. They are ideals that we MUST instill in our children; not try to erase. Perhaps the reason you are a nhilist is that you have nothing greater than yourself to believe in than a washed up philosophy that killed more people than the plague. My point is not that these things don't exist, it's that the relationships between the abstract ideas and what they're realistically in service to need to be examined. I think people can be honorable, exhibit virtuous qualities, etc. but that killing people in the service to and for the benefit of the State (much less invading and occupying Iraq) doesn't meet the criteria. Would you say this to a D-Day vet or a beach storming pacific theatre vet?? I think not... No, I'd have to yell it in their antique ear phone holes because they're so damn old! I say this not to disparage the hearing impaired, but to illustrate the fact that the last legitimate military action the US was engaged in was 60+ years ago! Everybody knows this and that's why the pundits and politicians have to fall all over each other evoking Hitler's ghost and Pearl Harbor and Nazis and everything else every time they want to start (or stay in) a goddamned war. Fricking infantile political culture in this country! Gahd. So, you opposed the actions in Bosnia, then? Did Germany attack us? I can't remember. How skinny can we make it? what? What 'what'?

About what I would expect from you. However, now that you brought them up, what is wrong with 'honor' and 'sacrifice'? You Lefties preach individual sacrifice for the good of the collective. How is a soldier's willingness to sacrifice any different? Further, how is 'honor' now a bad word? The problem with "honor" and "sacrifice" they're basically lofty-sounding abstractions designed for the parents of dead children and inscriptions on tombstones, to give the living some meaning for senseless waste. They have no meaning whatsoever in and of themselves: the same language is used by kamikazis, Prussians, Commies, Doughboys, Mongols, or Marines. The Nazi SS talked loads of this stuff, but through history's lens were they honorable and virtuous? Submission and sacrifice to the State is the essence of fascism but it's always dressed in the very same terms you unquestioningly swallow. Any "leftie" worth his salt would never accept your premise about "preaching individual sacrifice for the good of the collective". The ones I like tend to be a bit more historically literate and less prone to razzle-dazzle marketing campaigns dressed up as patriotism. Finally, "honor" is a bad word when it's used as first to charm impressionable boys and then as ideological cover to mask national chauvinism and belligerence. Denying the existence of honor is a long tradition of those lacking that trait. Honor is real and I have seen it personally. If less people would forget what honor was, this world might not be so bad. Things like Pride, Duty, Self Sacrifice and Honor should not be bad words. They are ideals that we MUST instill in our children; not try to erase. Perhaps the reason you are a nhilist is that you have nothing greater than yourself to believe in than a washed up philosophy that killed more people than the plague. My point is not that these things don't exist, it's that the relationships between the abstract ideas and what they're realistically in service to need to be examined. I think people can be honorable, exhibit virtuous qualities, etc. but that killing people in the service to and for the benefit of the State (much less invading and occupying Iraq) doesn't meet the criteria. Would you say this to a D-Day vet or a beach storming pacific theatre vet?? I think not... No, I'd have to yell it in their antique ear phone holes because they're so damn old! I say this not to disparage the hearing impaired, but to illustrate the fact that the last legitimate military action the US was engaged in was 60+ years ago! Everybody knows this and that's why the pundits and politicians have to fall all over each other evoking Hitler's ghost and Pearl Harbor and Nazis and everything else every time they want to start (or stay in) a goddamned war. Fricking infantile political culture in this country! Gahd. So, you opposed the actions in Bosnia, then? Did Germany attack us? I can't remember. How skinny can we make it?

We can watch, but we don't have to stop them do we?

I'M SIRYAT, AND MY BALLS ARE HUGE!!! Bwahahahahahahahaa

20'er onto a #3 Camalot on the 2nd pitch of Princely Ambitions in Index.

well that sums up the process a little too broadly. what you mean is they buy hookers and blow for politicians in order to buy a seat at the table. NO, I don't. Don't put words in my mouth. That is what YOU believe happens. Lobbyists are an extension of our 1st Amendment-guaranteed rights to petition our government for redress of grievances. sorry guy, that was a failed attempt at humor. so you're saying that lobbyists and their money are what the founding fathers had in mind with the 1st amendment? like i said, i haven't researched it at all, so i'm open to hear some facts here about it. I am saying that it is one way to exercise that right.

Well said, and I intend to.