P2P-Zone - Islam & The Muhammad Cartoons...

P2P-Zone (http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/index.php)

- Political Asylum (http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/forumdisplay.php?f=34)

- - Islam & The Muhammad Cartoons... (http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/showthread.php?t=22398)

Islam & The Muhammad Cartoons...

There has been a lot of protest by Muslims, to say the least on the publication of the editorial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper; other European newspapers have also published the cartoons. It is sacrileges to draw Muhammad and Muslims worldwide have condemned the cartoons. Many Muslims, not all but many have no problem criticizing other religions they dislike, yet they are outraged when criticism is directed at them. Muslims like all people are hypocritical. Muslims have a right to be angry but they are directing their anger at the wrong people. The cartoons depicted Muhammad as a terrorist. I have not seen the cartoons but reports say one such cartoon shows Muhammad wearing a turban shaped as a bomb. For this Muslims are marching in the streets and Syrians have set fire to the Norwegian and Danish embassies in Damascus. They are mad that newspapers would show Muhammad as a terrorist but they don't get mad at those that have linked him to terrorism...

Muslims need to take a deep breath and ask themselves how it got to this, to Muhammad being depicted as a terrorist. It wasn't an imaginative cartoonist that created the idea nor the newspaper that printed it. It was all the fundamentalist Muslims that use terror in the name of Allah that created the image of Muhammad as a terrorist...

When Osama bin Laden sent terrorists to bomb innocent civilians in the World Trade Center he did so in the name of Allah. When Ayman al-Zawahiri talks of more terror against the West he does so in the name of Allah. When Abu Musab al-Zarqawi uses terrorists in Iraq he does so in the name of Allah. When Hamas sends terrorists to bomb innocent civilians in Israeli restaurants and stores, they do so in the name of Allah. Muslims are taking out their anger at the wrong people, it is not the Danish that have tainted Muhammad, it is bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, Hamas, Al Qaeda and any other individual or group that kills innocent civilians in the name of Allah. It is blasphemous to kill in the name of Allah but I do not see Muslims marching in the streets against killing...

So Muslims can rant, rave and march against the Danish cartoon if they wish but as long as Muslims sit by and watch Islamic extremists kill in the name of Allah, they will have become a caricature of that Danish cartoon of Muhammad wearing a turban shaped as a bomb. That is what happens when people kill in the name of Allah, others will see them, Muhammad and all of Islam as terrorists. If Muslims don't like being looked at as terrorists and they shouldn't like it, they should take some of their rage and use it against those that put them in that light, not a Danish cartoonist or newspaper but bin Laden, al-Zawahir, al-Zarqawi and all the other Muslims that use terror tactics in the name of Islam. Here is a radical thought, condemn terrorism instead of cartoons...

I can picture another cartoon with with monkeyhammad screaming outrage walking through body parts to pick up a paper with his caricature on it. Unfortunately I can't draw worth a damn.

And it's not blasphemy to kill in the name of asshallah. In fact it's required in many circumstances.

if you can't handle free speech, you're not ready for democracy. as if we needed another example...

seems as though they were purposely provoked to show us why we need to have anoter war

this is a case of the media making the news and then selling it

For those who are interested about the cartoons, here's a link to 12 of them.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/698

Just scroll down after the article.

What are your toughts about those, care to share?

thanks for the link miss_s.

i was wondering what the fuss about. now i know. it's about nothing, as usual.

- js.

My first reaction to what is going on is I think Islam is a religion dedicated to violence and the conquest of the infidels. Maybe the USA should pull out of Iraq, defend the borders more closely at home and let Iraq fall into a civil war. Once enough of the country is destroyed, go back and try again. Maybe there is no reasoning with Muslims; they are just violent people with stupid beliefs.

But reason then takes over, you can’t allow a few rotten apples destroy the whole bunch. This does show how uneducated the people are in the middle east, and how hypocritical they are tho. Saudi newspapers print offensive cartoons against Jews regularly also they don’t understand the separation between Government and the Press. People in Denmark are some of the most peaceful people in the world so burning down their embassies just shows how out of touch with the world these people are. Like the Danes I just don’t get it. It is a cartoon for fuck sakes, it is not worth killing or dieing over. Grow the fuck up you simpletons. Opps – but the Muslims in the USA and Canada who are more educated did do it right, yes they protested – nothing wrong with that – but they did not act with violence, anyway I am ranting – I don’t get it is the bottom line –

A few bad apples? Have you seen the pictures on t.v.? I see streets filled with bad apples. This is no longer about a few bad apples it is about baskets filled with bad apples.

The governments of the countries invovled know PERFECTLY WELL what freedom of speech and freedom of press is and means. They also know PERFECTLY WELL that those cartoons do not portrait the opinion of the political factions within denmark or norway. And i would like to top it off that these islamic governments know PERFECTLY WELL that it is an internal matter for Denmark and Norway ....... PERIOD.

I wonder how many of those protesters in libanon have actually seen the cartoons? I bet you ten to one that 95% of them never even saw them simply because cartoons/pictures like that are banned within their own borders.

Am I the only one who wonders that in most of those countries protests aren’t even allowed? Now that it is about some prophet and now that it suits their needs, yup here we go. Not only are those protests staged, the koran and the religion it stands for gets raped to justify violence once more.

It amazes me to no end that there is/was no single protest when over 3000 people got killed by airplanes flown into high rise buildings. There were/are no protests when some one got beheaded. There are no protests when soldiers are blown to smithereens in the name of allah.

No protests because the palastinians elected a terrorist group for their leadership? Yeah lets talk about a few bad apples eh.
Hamas:”hey we hate your guts but give us your money.”

Oh and the arab european league came up with this needless to say that Anne Frank is an idol for israelis/jews and dutchies alike. None of these are parties involved with this whole thing as of yet. Does this mean we can set some embassies a blaze?

Not all muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are muslims.

Could it be that we're overreacting to these Muslims overreactions? If you ask me, the global news machine is over-reporting this story to attract a larger audience.

From BBC News:

Quote:

Cartoon anger is a misrepresentation

Western embassies in Middle Eastern cities have been torched. Angry crowds have marched in the streets of London carrying placards calling for beheadings and massacres.

Yet despite how it looks on television news, the response to the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad has mostly been non-violent so far.

There were no demonstrations at all in a sizeable number of Muslim countries. In Iran, Egypt, Pakistan and Iraq, the demonstrations passed off quietly.

There has been serious trouble in Gaza, Damascus and Beirut, but in each case, local tensions clearly boiled up and found their expression in this particular issue.

In Syria, such violence is so rare that some people have wondered whether the attacks on the Danish and Norwegian embassies might not have been provoked by government agents, in order to discredit the beleaguered Islamists there.

In Lebanon, the continuing tension between supporters of the Syrians and supporters of the Americans played a part in the violence in Beirut.

When a breakaway group started to attack a Christian church at Ashrafiya, a group of Muslim clerics did everything they could to stop them.

How did a series of not particularly well-drawn or funny cartoons, published on 30 September in a Danish newspaper, produce such anger in Europe and the Middle East four months later?

More...

Being outraged at their outrage will accomplish nothing. Lumping every Muslim into the same group is worse than drawing an insulting cartoon. I would suggest everyone put a little more thought into this issue before making unsupported statements like these:

Quote:

Originally Posted by theknife

if you can't handle free speech, you're not ready for democracy. as if we needed another example...

Quote:

Originally Posted by floydian slip

seems as though they were purposely provoked to show us why we need to have anoter war

Quote:

Originally Posted by legion

Not all muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are muslims.

:no:

Read the Wikipedia article on the subject, it's probably more balanced and informative than anything you'll get from the sound bite media.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazer

Could it be that we're overreacting to these Muslims overreactions? If you ask me, the global news machine is over-reporting this story to attract a larger audience.

indeed

now this...

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117....html?from=rss

Quote:

Iran to publish Holocaust cartoons

He said the plan was to turn the tables on the assertion that newspapers can print offensive material in the name of freedom of expression.

"The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons," he said.

i'll bet no riots break out ;)

What does it say about the Middle East that so many can be whipped into a frenzy over some bad cartoons five months after their release? What does it say that government officials support them? What does it say that European leaders would rather talk about restricting press freedom than laughing in the face of islamic immaturity. And what does it say that idiots like CNN run articles with statements like this: "CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons out of respect for Islam."

I think it says several things we need to come to grips with.

Quote:

First, I think this whole saga says that most government officials, media organizations, etc. are cowards. CNN is willing to criticism those it knows will not fire bomb them, but cowers in the shadows at the thoughts of arabs being mad at them. Much like it collaborated with Saddam Hussein so that it would not get thrown out of Iraq, CNN now collaborates with the imams to give them air time without daring to be critical or daring to challenge them. I'm reminded of Hollywood's release of The Sum of All Fears, which despite coming out after September 11, 2001, the producers could not bear to have the bad guys be Arabs, as they were in the book. Instead evil European white men were used.
European leaders, particularly the love children of Stalin that run the European Union, are falling all over themselves apologizing for the irresponsible media and promising to clamp down press freedom. These leaders would rather teach all of Europe to bow toward Mecca than stand up for Western Civilization. They demand tolerance of Islam and demand no reciprocity in that tolerance.

The only real leader who has shown spine has been Denmark's Queen who has said that the Danes will not be bullied by the immature cries of the many muslims who move to Denmark for its welfare system and plot its destruction at the same time.

Second, I think it says that we are dealing with Borg. Resistance is futile in the minds of the imams. The West will either be killed off or assimilated. Those in charge, or at least those who are treated most prominently in the media and by governments world wide, are bent on destroying Israel and taking over Europe. The Islamic youth overrunning Europe have no desire to assimilate and become secular. They have no desire to tolerate or respect the values of Europe. At best, they intend to wait out the old population of Europe and take over. At worst, they intend to take over by force -- already they have been probing the boundaries of safe conduct from rioting in Paris to murdering Theo van Gogh. We will not be successful in negotiating with the Borg. We must either show them we mean to fight and can win, or we should all figure out the direction of Mecca.

Third, the naivety of western leaders is becoming more and more apparent. Our own President keeps saying that Islam is a religion of peace. Perhaps, but the practice of Islam by so many in the Middle East is by no means peaceful. European leaders think they can cast stones at Jews to appease the Middle East. The naivety must stop, but I fear it will not before it is too late.

While the practitioners of diplomacy are willing to cede ground to practitioners of radical Islam, the general populace is less and less inclined to do so. More and more we are seeing the people of Europe and America react with more hostility toward Islam. More and more the people of the West are willing to offend -- childish though it may be, the Western citizen is itching to start poking the eyes of muslims.

If muslim leaders do not step up to the plate and calm the masses of muslim men rioting in the streets and burning embassies, we will see a greater threat grow in Europe. We will see leaders coming to power on xenophobic anti-muslim platforms. The Eurocrats will not be able to stop their rise and then the European Muslim will share the fate of the European Jew. It will not be pretty. It will not be right. But it will happen. Pushing toward the precipice those who choose not to go over it can only go so far before the pushed push back.

I knew it!! It was those damn Jews.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinner

What does it say that government officials support them?

I think it says several things we need to come to grips with.

what does that say about a plan to bring democracy to thier countries?

I think what this boils down to is the protestors have failed to realize that there is no state-controlled media in democratized countries, however this is a lesson that many in the Muslim world are learning quickly. I read somewhere last week that, while there were verbal protests by religious leaders in Iraq, there have been no group demonstrations in the streets, certainly no riots of any kind. Unforunatly I can't find a link to that story. But what it says to me is that people who have been exposed to true freedom of speech and freedom of the press understand the ramifications thereof. There have been no reports of civil unrest in Turkey as a result of these cartoons. Why do you think that is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazer

since the US military in Iraq buys the news stories it likes and shuts down the papers it doesn't like, what would make you think the Iraqis are all that familiar with "true freedom of the press"? more likely they are just trying to make it thru the day, no?

an alternate and well-informed take on the issue, from Juan Cole:

Quote:

I want to underline that few places in the Muslim world have seen violence over the caricatures, so far mainly Damascus and Beirut (which are unexpected in this regard.) Protests in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and elsewhere have been nonviolent. This is not to play down the seriousness of what happened in Damascus and Beirut over the weekend--acts which can only inspire horror and condemnation--only to set it in context. There are 1.5 billion Muslims. A lot of Muslim countries saw no protests at all. In some places, as in Pakistan, they were anemic. The caricature protests are resonating with local politics and anti-imperialism in ways distinctive to each Muslim country. The protests therefore are probably not mostly purely about religion.

Professor Cole goes on to point out that anyone who thinks this kind of violence is endemic to Islam need only look at Ireland, which has a history of rioting over religious issues, even as recently as five months ago.

http://www.total411.info/2006/02/car...-rose-and.html

Cartoon editor Fleming Rose and the tentacles of PNAC

Quote:

It turns out the editor who originally publshed the "offensive" Muslim cartoons is a disciple of Daniel Pipes and the "clash of civilizations" theory put out by Project for a New American Century. PNAC is the outfit that called for a "Pearl Harbor event' in order to initiate a global war

its also odd that these toons were published last september and its just now being played by the media. why now? guess the peeps in syria had to wait for the shipment of danish flags and burning permits. hehe

Muslims Outraged Over Blasphemous Garfield Cartoon

MUNCIE, DENMARK- Cartoons have the power to make us laugh. Some cartoons can even make us think. Then there those which transcend the printed page itself and enter the realm of fatwas, flaming effigies, and death threats. For years, fans have enjoyed the zany antics of the lovable xenophobic cat known as Garfield. The popular cartoon character is rooted in a love of napping, a passion for lasagna and, as readers of Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten learned earlier this month, an abiding hatred of Islam.

In response, conscientious Muslims all over the world are vigorously protesting the newspaper for carrying the cartoons they say defame their religion and blaspheme against Allah. In the interests of easing tensions, the besieged newspaper tried to apologize for the strips, but due to some confusion over which ones were most offensive, editors republished them on Tuesday under the 100 point headline "ARE THESE THE CARTOONS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?"

Unfortunately, this gesture of goodwill did not satisfy the outraged Muslim community. In fact, they seem even madder than ever.

In their angry letters to the media, Islamic groups claim the cartoons portray the prophet Muhammad as a terrorist, but cartoonist Bjorn Davis says nothing could be more ridiculous. In his estimation, the offended parties are reading too much into the simple four-panel strip. The cat dressed in a turban & false beard is merely doing a comical impression of Muhammad, he explained, and is not intended to be a representation of the revered prophet himself. Those who follow the strip regularly picked up on that subtle but important distinction right away.

"It seems to me that these folks are way too easily offended," said Davis. "All we did was have a cat depict their faith's founding prophet sodomizing a goat while instructing his followers on the finer points of pipebomb construction. Where's the harm in that?"

He went on to challenge the angry Muslims to prove that Muhammad did not blow things up and commit unnatural acts with domesticated livestock during his lifetime. That's probably a safe bet since, having died more than a millennium ago, records of Muhammad's personal habits are somewhat hard to come by.

Throughout the twelve part series, Garfield, aka the "voice of Allah," plays whimsical japes on his pals such as stoning Jon to death for refusing to grow a beard and placing C-4 in Odie's food bowl. But more than just a fun romp through the foundations of another culture's faith, Davis says the Muhammad cartoons were intended to convey a vital lesson about diversity and the global village.

"Oh, Garfield," sighs Jon as the electrodes are attached to his genitals in one strip, "when will you learn the value of religious tolerance?"

Meanwhile, anger over the cartoons [and subsequent reprinting of said cartoons] has reached a fever pitch. Just yesterday an unidentified man became so upset over the unfair stereotypes in the strip that he attempted to blow up the newspaper's offices. In a note attached to the improvised explosive device, he explained the reasoning behind his desperate act: "This will teach you people to to automatically assume that Muslims are terrorists- oh, wait."

During a press conference on Wednesday, Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa offered another side to the Islamic community. He told reporters that Muslims can, indeed, take a joke. The problem in this instance is that, like virtually all comics in print today, the Garfield Muhammad series just wasn't funny.

"I'm partial to PBF myself," said Moussa. "Did you see the one with the hammer and the board with the screw in it? After someone explained it to me, I laughed a good long while."

He explained that incidents like this perpetuate the inaccurate perception in the Western world that Muslims have no sense of humor. Sadly, the stereotype is now more difficult to eradicate with this new dis from Northern Europe, long known as the comedy capital of the Western world for having inspired Hamlet and the screwball comedies of Ingmar Bergman.

"In fact, I think I speak for all Muslims when I promise not to blow anything up as long you promise not to make us watch that horrible Albert Brooks movie again. I'm not even kidding. It's that bad."

http://www.ridiculopathy.com/news_detail.php?id=1506

It's really a non-issue.

All Muslims hate infidels. Period.

See, there you go making an other unsupportable claim. You used to make more sense, pisser. What happened to you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazer

See, there you go making an other unsupportable claim. You used to make more sense, pisser. What happened to you?

He had a chat with albed and was converted.

wtf ..now media is playing up american soldiers beating up iraqi's
is this a diversion or more provication ?

On a boat in the middle of a raging sea,
She would make a scene for it all to be
Ignored.
And wouldn’t you be bored?
Strange brew -- kill what’s inside of you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazer

Read the Wikipedia article on the subject, it's probably more balanced and informative than anything you'll get from the sound bite media.

Cheers Mazer, hadn't even thought of looking on Wiki for something so recent.

Interesting background to the affair.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tambourine-man

Cheers Mazer, hadn't even thought of looking on Wiki for something so recent.

Interesting background to the affair.

You're welcome. I find that Wikipedia is kinda like an inverse blog: instead of getting one person's take on every recent event, you get every person's take on one recent event.

Muslim newspaper ran cartoons 4 months ago

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=48746

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazer

See, there you go making an other unsupportable claim. You used to make more sense, pisser. What happened to you?

OK, your right....what I meant to say was... all Muslims deep down inside themselves hate infidels. Isn't that what the Kuran teaches????

Correct me if I am wrong.

You're wrong.

The koran doesn't and can't teach what's "deep down inside" people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by albed

You're wrong.

The koran doesn't and can't teach what's "deep down inside" people.

OK, I'll accept that, but I still believe (with no malice) that they wish for our destruction, secretly, deep down inside, because we are infidels.

There's nothing secret about it - the koran says to make war on infidels until they convert. It's only because of their weakness and poverty that they've been relatively peaceful for a few centuries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by albed

There's nothing secret about it - the koran says to make war on infidels until they convert. It's only because of their weakness and poverty that they've been relatively peaceful for a few centuries.

which should make you wonder why the administration is so anxious to turn over strategic US assets to an Islamic country:

Quote:

White House defends port operations sale

FEB. 16 2:43 P.M. ET The Bush administration on Thursday rebuffed criticism about potential security risks of a $6.8 billion sale that gives a company in the United Arab Emirates control over significant operations at six major American ports.

the company in question is state-owned by the United Arab Emirates - one would think that giving control of the ports of New York, New Jersey, Miami, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and New Orleans to an Islamic government with direct ties to 9/11 would not be such a good idea. just another day in Bushville, huh?
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/finan...e_down&chan=db

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/...ion/edport.php

It couldn't be any more dangerous than giving Iraqis control of their own oil wells. But don't believe a word albed says, being rich and powerful in the near future will not make them declare war on the rest of us infidels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazer

It couldn't be any more dangerous than giving Iraqis control of their own oil wells.

huh?

Quote:

being rich and powerful in the near future will not make them declare war on the rest of us infidels.

no, it just lets them sponsor and support those who declare war on the rest of us infidels.

Of course not. If they declared war on the U.S. they'd stop getting it's money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazer

But don't believe a word albed says,

Well at least put forth your own theory explaining their recent peacefullness then. I've read thick books on Byzantium, the Arab Conquests and the Ottoman Empire so I think my words are more credible than the amusing concoctions you've produced over the years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by albed

Of course not. If they declared war on the U.S. they'd stop getting it's money.

Well at least put forth your own theory explaining their recent peacefullness then. I've read thick books on Byzantium, the Arab Conquests and the Ottoman Empire so I think my words are more credible than the amusing concoctions you've produced over the years.

Of course, you reading about history will make you one repeating moronic parrot, no? Amuse yourself to death while you are at it!

Get yourself educated about the fed reserve and then we might have a good talk, if I feel like it.

oh yeah, I forgot you will evade the question you will claim i'm a bong smoking monkey and beer guzzling bitch. Anything new as insults before we have a grown up conversation?

But hey, I'll get a good nice sleep knowing the fed reserve actually own you ass, not mine ;)

BTW, ever since the big crash, US money is worth shit beside gold and silver asset, no wonder former Iraq and now Iran leaders want to switch to euro dollar for oil, they know your money is a damned sham and worth squat

In you had an ounce of intelligence, you would google that shit up but then again, guess all propaganda CNN or Faux News shit got to your brain :CE:

edit : about the incessant comment of bong smoking monkey or too drunk to grasp reality, reckon as the old adage says, takes one to know one eh?

I was wondering when our
darling miss silver would put an apperance in.
You put things so well. :KSY:

Quote:

Originally Posted by miss_silver

You are trying to be funny--- right? I will go tit for tat with you any day of the week on the financial services industry – just because you read some nuts web page and believe it does not make you educated, it makes you naive. Alan Greenspan is a genius when it came to managing the United States Monetary Policy, he will be missed. Goto an economics class if you want to learn why interest rates must rise and fall over time to balance the economy.

Deal with these FACTS,

First, how do you know who owns it?- A Federal Reserve Bank is not a publicly traded corporation and is therefore not required by the Securities and Exchange Commission to publish a list of its major shareholders. – but legal rules for acquisition of such stock according to The Federal Reserve Act requires national banks and participating state banks to purchase shares of their regional Federal Reserve Bank upon joining the System, there by becoming "member banks". Since the eight banks which conspirators like to name all operate within the New York Federal Reserve district, and are all nationally chartered banks, they are required to be shareholders of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. So what does this mean? Well, The SEC requires the name of any individual or organization that owns more than 5 percent of the outstanding shares of a publicly traded firm be made public. If foreigners own any shares of the eight banks, then their portions are not greater than 5 percent at this time. With no significant holdings of the major New York area banks, it does not seem likely that foreign conspirators could direct their actions.

Perhaps foreigners own shares of the New York Federal Reserve Bank directly. The law stipulates a small portion of Federal Reserve stock may be available for sale to the public. No person or organization, however, may own more than $25,000 of such public stock and none of it carries voting rights. However, under the terms of the Federal Reserve Act, public stock was only to be sold in the event the sale of stock to member banks did not raise the minimum of $4 million of initial capital for each Federal Reserve Bank when they were organized in 1913. Each Bank was able to raise the necessary amount through member stock sales, and no public stock was ever sold to the non-bank public. In other words, no Federal Reserve stock has ever been sold to foreigners; it has only been sold to banks, which are members of the Federal Reserve System
.
I need to ask – which conspiracy theorist do you believe? Gary Kah or Eustace Mullins – They both go different directions.

I will get a link with more info for you to dispute, but one more little note. The owners of the Federal Reserve do not make Monetary Policy, the Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee control the monetary policy of the USA. The Board is a seven member panel appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. Federal Reserve Bank cannot change its discount rate or required reserve ratio, issue additional currency, or purchase government bonds without the explicit approval of either the Board or the FOMC. The powers over U.S. monetary policy rest firmly with the publicly appointed Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee, not with the New York Federal Reserve Bank or a group of international conspirators.

I must ask, What crash are you talking about and you do know the America dollar is stronger then the Canadian dollar right? So what does that say about the Canadian Economy? I think our Economy is doing very well personally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by miss_silver

i'm a bong smoking monkey and beer guzzling bitch.

OH MAN! Now that she taken she comes forward with this ... where have you been all my life????? ;)

Why oh why did floydian send a woman like that back to Canada?

A real puzzle.

A complete mystery.

Who could possibly know?

Is my well trained circus poodle talking to someone in particular or just struck by yet another rather excessive vanity attack once more?

Quote:

Originally Posted by legion

Is my well trained circus poodle talking to someone in particular or just struck by yet another rather excessive vanity attack once more?

Think the second choice fits in this case ;) Where have I been all your life, right here :)

Some ppl doesn't seem to grasp that when visiting someone, they also have a life that includes taking care of their cat, having to respect the lease one sign till it expires when renting an appartment, day to day shit to do and most of all, a roundtrip ticket. What does round trip ticket means in your world? In mine it means that I left my city to come back. But hey, you'd have to do that to know the meaning of roundtrip wouldn't you? D'Oh :KevC:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinner

Ok, you made your point.

This guy explains it much better than I could... It's a long read but very direct to the heart of the matter.

Quote:

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
Before the U.S. House of Representatives

February 15, 2006

The End of Dollar Hegemony

A hundred years ago it was called “dollar diplomacy.” After World War II, and especially after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, that policy evolved into “dollar hegemony.” But after all these many years of great success, our dollar dominance is coming to an end.

It has been said, rightly, that he who holds the gold makes the rules. In earlier times it was readily accepted that fair and honest trade required an exchange for something of real value.

First it was simply barter of goods. Then it was discovered that gold held a universal attraction, and was a convenient substitute for more cumbersome barter transactions. Not only did gold facilitate exchange of goods and services, it served as a store of value for those who wanted to save for a rainy day.

Though money developed naturally in the marketplace, as governments grew in power they assumed monopoly control over money. Sometimes governments succeeded in guaranteeing the quality and purity of gold, but in time governments learned to outspend their revenues. New or higher taxes always incurred the disapproval of the people, so it wasn’t long before Kings and Caesars learned how to inflate their currencies by reducing the amount of gold in each coin-- always hoping their subjects wouldn’t discover the fraud. But the people always did, and they strenuously objected.

This helped pressure leaders to seek more gold by conquering other nations. The people became accustomed to living beyond their means, and enjoyed the circuses and bread. Financing extravagances by conquering foreign lands seemed a logical alternative to working harder and producing more. Besides, conquering nations not only brought home gold, they brought home slaves as well. Taxing the people in conquered territories also provided an incentive to build empires. This system of government worked well for a while, but the moral decline of the people led to an unwillingness to produce for themselves. There was a limit to the number of countries that could be sacked for their wealth, and this always brought empires to an end. When gold no longer could be obtained, their military might crumbled. In those days those who held the gold truly wrote the rules and lived well.

That general rule has held fast throughout the ages. When gold was used, and the rules protected honest commerce, productive nations thrived. Whenever wealthy nations-- those with powerful armies and gold-- strived only for empire and easy fortunes to support welfare at home, those nations failed.

Today the principles are the same, but the process is quite different. Gold no longer is the currency of the realm; paper is. The truth now is: “He who prints the money makes the rules”-- at least for the time being. Although gold is not used, the goals are the same: compel foreign countries to produce and subsidize the country with military superiority and control over the monetary printing presses.

Since printing paper money is nothing short of counterfeiting, the issuer of the international currency must always be the country with the military might to guarantee control over the system. This magnificent scheme seems the perfect system for obtaining perpetual wealth for the country that issues the de facto world currency. The one problem, however, is that such a system destroys the character of the counterfeiting nation’s people-- just as was the case when gold was the currency and it was obtained by conquering other nations. And this destroys the incentive to save and produce, while encouraging debt and runaway welfare.

The pressure at home to inflate the currency comes from the corporate welfare recipients, as well as those who demand handouts as compensation for their needs and perceived injuries by others. In both cases personal responsibility for one’s actions is rejected.

When paper money is rejected, or when gold runs out, wealth and political stability are lost. The country then must go from living beyond its means to living beneath its means, until the economic and political systems adjust to the new rules-- rules no longer written by those who ran the now defunct printing press.

“Dollar Diplomacy,” a policy instituted by William Howard Taft and his Secretary of State Philander C. Knox, was designed to enhance U.S. commercial investments in Latin America and the Far East. McKinley concocted a war against Spain in 1898, and (Teddy) Roosevelt’s corollary to the Monroe Doctrine preceded Taft’s aggressive approach to using the U.S. dollar and diplomatic influence to secure U.S. investments abroad. This earned the popular title of “Dollar Diplomacy.” The significance of Roosevelt’s change was that our intervention now could be justified by the mere “appearance” that a country of interest to us was politically or fiscally vulnerable to European control. Not only did we claim a right, but even an official U.S. government “obligation” to protect our commercial interests from Europeans.

This new policy came on the heels of the “gunboat” diplomacy of the late 19th century, and it meant we could buy influence before resorting to the threat of force. By the time the “dollar diplomacy” of William Howard Taft was clearly articulated, the seeds of American empire were planted. And they were destined to grow in the fertile political soil of a country that lost its love and respect for the republic bequeathed to us by the authors of the Constitution. And indeed they did. It wasn’t too long before dollar “diplomacy” became dollar “hegemony” in the second half of the 20th century.

This transition only could have occurred with a dramatic change in monetary policy and the nature of the dollar itself.

Congress created the Federal Reserve System in 1913. Between then and 1971 the principle of sound money was systematically undermined. Between 1913 and 1971, the Federal Reserve found it much easier to expand the money supply at will for financing war or manipulating the economy with little resistance from Congress-- while benefiting the special interests that influence government.

Dollar dominance got a huge boost after World War II. We were spared the destruction that so many other nations suffered, and our coffers were filled with the world’s gold. But the world chose not to return to the discipline of the gold standard, and the politicians applauded. Printing money to pay the bills was a lot more popular than taxing or restraining unnecessary spending. In spite of the short-term benefits, imbalances were institutionalized for decades to come.

The 1944 Bretton Woods agreement solidified the dollar as the preeminent world reserve currency, replacing the British pound. Due to our political and military muscle, and because we had a huge amount of physical gold, the world readily accepted our dollar (defined as 1/35th of an ounce of gold) as the world’s reserve currency. The dollar was said to be “as good as gold,” and convertible to all foreign central banks at that rate. For American citizens, however, it remained illegal to own. This was a gold-exchange standard that from inception was doomed to fail.

The U.S. did exactly what many predicted she would do. She printed more dollars for which there was no gold backing. But the world was content to accept those dollars for more than 25 years with little question-- until the French and others in the late 1960s demanded we fulfill our promise to pay one ounce of gold for each $35 they delivered to the U.S. Treasury. This resulted in a huge gold drain that brought an end to a very poorly devised pseudo-gold standard.

It all ended on August 15, 1971, when Nixon closed the gold window and refused to pay out any of our remaining 280 million ounces of gold. In essence, we declared our insolvency and everyone recognized some other monetary system had to be devised in order to bring stability to the markets.

Amazingly, a new system was devised which allowed the U.S. to operate the printing presses for the world reserve currency with no restraints placed on it-- not even a pretense of gold convertibility, none whatsoever! Though the new policy was even more deeply flawed, it nevertheless opened the door for dollar hegemony to spread.

Realizing the world was embarking on something new and mind boggling, elite money managers, with especially strong support from U.S. authorities, struck an agreement with OPEC to price oil in U.S. dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions. This gave the dollar a special place among world currencies and in essence “backed” the dollar with oil. In return, the U.S. promised to protect the various oil-rich kingdoms in the Persian Gulf against threat of invasion or domestic coup. This arrangement helped ignite the radical Islamic movement among those who resented our influence in the region. The arrangement gave the dollar artificial strength, with tremendous financial benefits for the United States. It allowed us to export our monetary inflation by buying oil and other goods at a great discount as dollar influence flourished.

This post-Bretton Woods system was much more fragile than the system that existed between 1945 and 1971. Though the dollar/oil arrangement was helpful, it was not nearly as stable as the pseudo gold standard under Bretton Woods. It certainly was less stable than the gold standard of the late 19th century.

During the 1970s the dollar nearly collapsed, as oil prices surged and gold skyrocketed to $800 an ounce. By 1979 interest rates of 21% were required to rescue the system. The pressure on the dollar in the 1970s, in spite of the benefits accrued to it, reflected reckless budget deficits and monetary inflation during the 1960s. The markets were not fooled by LBJ’s claim that we could afford both “guns and butter.”

Once again the dollar was rescued, and this ushered in the age of true dollar hegemony lasting from the early 1980s to the present. With tremendous cooperation coming from the central banks and international commercial banks, the dollar was accepted as if it were gold.

Fed Chair Alan Greenspan, on several occasions before the House Banking Committee, answered my challenges to him about his previously held favorable views on gold by claiming that he and other central bankers had gotten paper money-- i.e. the dollar system-- to respond as if it were gold. Each time I strongly disagreed, and pointed out that if they had achieved such a feat they would have defied centuries of economic history regarding the need for money to be something of real value. He smugly and confidently concurred with this.

In recent years central banks and various financial institutions, all with vested interests in maintaining a workable fiat dollar standard, were not secretive about selling and loaning large amounts of gold to the market even while decreasing gold prices raised serious questions about the wisdom of such a policy. They never admitted to gold price fixing, but the evidence is abundant that they believed if the gold price fell it would convey a sense of confidence to the market, confidence that they indeed had achieved amazing success in turning paper into gold.

Increasing gold prices historically are viewed as an indicator of distrust in paper currency. This recent effort was not a whole lot different than the U.S. Treasury selling gold at $35 an ounce in the 1960s, in an attempt to convince the world the dollar was sound and as good as gold. Even during the Depression, one of Roosevelt’s first acts was to remove free market gold pricing as an indication of a flawed monetary system by making it illegal for American citizens to own gold. Economic law eventually limited that effort, as it did in the early 1970s when our Treasury and the IMF tried to fix the price of gold by dumping tons into the market to dampen the enthusiasm of those seeking a safe haven for a falling dollar after gold ownership was re-legalized.

Once again the effort between 1980 and 2000 to fool the market as to the true value of the dollar proved unsuccessful. In the past 5 years the dollar has been devalued in terms of gold by more than 50%. You just can’t fool all the people all the time, even with the power of the mighty printing press and money creating system of the Federal Reserve.

Even with all the shortcomings of the fiat monetary system, dollar influence thrived. The results seemed beneficial, but gross distortions built into the system remained. And true to form, Washington politicians are only too anxious to solve the problems cropping up with window dressing, while failing to understand and deal with the underlying flawed policy. Protectionism, fixing exchange rates, punitive tariffs, politically motivated sanctions, corporate subsidies, international trade management, price controls, interest rate and wage controls, super-nationalist sentiments, threats of force, and even war are resorted to—all to solve the problems artificially created by deeply flawed monetary and economic systems.

In the short run, the issuer of a fiat reserve currency can accrue great economic benefits. In the long run, it poses a threat to the country issuing the world currency. In this case that’s the United States. As long as foreign countries take our dollars in return for real goods, we come out ahead. This is a benefit many in Congress fail to recognize, as they bash China for maintaining a positive trade balance with us. But this leads to a loss of manufacturing jobs to overseas markets, as we become more dependent on others and less self-sufficient. Foreign countries accumulate our dollars due to their high savings rates, and graciously loan them back to us at low interest rates to finance our excessive consumption.

It sounds like a great deal for everyone, except the time will come when our dollars-- due to their depreciation-- will be received less enthusiastically or even be rejected by foreign countries. That could create a whole new ballgame and force us to pay a price for living beyond our means and our production. The shift in sentiment regarding the dollar has already started, but the worst is yet to come.

The agreement with OPEC in the 1970s to price oil in dollars has provided tremendous artificial strength to the dollar as the preeminent reserve currency. This has created a universal demand for the dollar, and soaks up the huge number of new dollars generated each year. Last year alone M3 increased over $700 billion.

The artificial demand for our dollar, along with our military might, places us in the unique position to “rule” the world without productive work or savings, and without limits on consumer spending or deficits. The problem is, it can’t last.

Price inflation is raising its ugly head, and the NASDAQ bubble-- generated by easy money-- has burst. The housing bubble likewise created is deflating. Gold prices have doubled, and federal spending is out of sight with zero political will to rein it in. The trade deficit last year was over $728 billion. A $2 trillion war is raging, and plans are being laid to expand the war into Iran and possibly Syria. The only restraining force will be the world’s rejection of the dollar. It’s bound to come and create conditions worse than 1979-1980, which required 21% interest rates to correct. But everything possible will be done to protect the dollar in the meantime. We have a shared interest with those who hold our dollars to keep the whole charade going.

Greenspan, in his first speech after leaving the Fed, said that gold prices were up because of concern about terrorism, and not because of monetary concerns or because he created too many dollars during his tenure. Gold has to be discredited and the dollar propped up. Even when the dollar comes under serious attack by market forces, the central banks and the IMF surely will do everything conceivable to soak up the dollars in hope of restoring stability. Eventually they will fail.

Most importantly, the dollar/oil relationship has to be maintained to keep the dollar as a preeminent currency. Any attack on this relationship will be forcefully challenged—as it already has been.

In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein-- though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us. This deep concern for Saddam Hussein surprised and shocked O’Neill.

It now is common knowledge that the immediate reaction of the administration after 9/11 revolved around how they could connect Saddam Hussein to the attacks, to justify an invasion and overthrow of his government. Even with no evidence of any connection to 9/11, or evidence of weapons of mass destruction, public and congressional support was generated through distortions and flat out misrepresentation of the facts to justify overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

There was no public talk of removing Saddam Hussein because of his attack on the integrity of the dollar as a reserve currency by selling oil in Euros. Many believe this was the real reason for our obsession with Iraq. I doubt it was the only reason, but it may well have played a significant role in our motivation to wage war. Within a very short period after the military victory, all Iraqi oil sales were carried out in dollars. The Euro was abandoned.

In 2001, Venezuela’s ambassador to Russia spoke of Venezuela switching to the Euro for all their oil sales. Within a year there was a coup attempt against Chavez, reportedly with assistance from our CIA.

After these attempts to nudge the Euro toward replacing the dollar as the world’s reserve currency were met with resistance, the sharp fall of the dollar against the Euro was reversed. These events may well have played a significant role in maintaining dollar dominance.

It’s become clear the U.S. administration was sympathetic to those who plotted the overthrow of Chavez, and was embarrassed by its failure. The fact that Chavez was democratically elected had little influence on which side we supported.

Now, a new attempt is being made against the petrodollar system. Iran, another member of the “axis of evil,” has announced her plans to initiate an oil bourse in March of this year. Guess what, the oil sales will be priced Euros, not dollars.

Most Americans forget how our policies have systematically and needlessly antagonized the Iranians over the years. In 1953 the CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected president, Mohammed Mossadeqh, and install the authoritarian Shah, who was friendly to the U.S. The Iranians were still fuming over this when the hostages were seized in 1979. Our alliance with Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran in the early 1980s did not help matters, and obviously did not do much for our relationship with Saddam Hussein. The administration announcement in 2001 that Iran was part of the axis of evil didn’t do much to improve the diplomatic relationship between our two countries. Recent threats over nuclear power, while ignoring the fact that they are surrounded by countries with nuclear weapons, doesn’t seem to register with those who continue to provoke Iran. With what most Muslims perceive as our war against Islam, and this recent history, there’s little wonder why Iran might choose to harm America by undermining the dollar. Iran, like Iraq, has zero capability to attack us. But that didn’t stop us from turning Saddam Hussein into a modern day Hitler ready to take over the world. Now Iran, especially since she’s made plans for pricing oil in Euros, has been on the receiving end of a propaganda war not unlike that waged against Iraq before our invasion.

It’s not likely that maintaining dollar supremacy was the only motivating factor for the war against Iraq, nor for agitating against Iran. Though the real reasons for going to war are complex, we now know the reasons given before the war started, like the presence of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein’s connection to 9/11, were false. The dollar’s importance is obvious, but this does not diminish the influence of the distinct plans laid out years ago by the neo-conservatives to remake the Middle East. Israel’s influence, as well as that of the Christian Zionists, likewise played a role in prosecuting this war. Protecting “our” oil supplies has influenced our Middle East policy for decades.

But the truth is that paying the bills for this aggressive intervention is impossible the old fashioned way, with more taxes, more savings, and more production by the American people. Much of the expense of the Persian Gulf War in 1991 was shouldered by many of our willing allies. That’s not so today. Now, more than ever, the dollar hegemony-- it’s dominance as the world reserve currency-- is required to finance our huge war expenditures. This $2 trillion never-ending war must be paid for, one way or another. Dollar hegemony provides the vehicle to do just that.

For the most part the true victims aren’t aware of how they pay the bills. The license to create money out of thin air allows the bills to be paid through price inflation. American citizens, as well as average citizens of Japan, China, and other countries suffer from price inflation, which represents the “tax” that pays the bills for our military adventures. That is until the fraud is discovered, and the foreign producers decide not to take dollars nor hold them very long in payment for their goods. Everything possible is done to prevent the fraud of the monetary system from being exposed to the masses who suffer from it. If oil markets replace dollars with Euros, it would in time curtail our ability to continue to print, without restraint, the world’s reserve currency.

It is an unbelievable benefit to us to import valuable goods and export depreciating dollars. The exporting countries have become addicted to our purchases for their economic growth. This dependency makes them allies in continuing the fraud, and their participation keeps the dollar’s value artificially high. If this system were workable long term, American citizens would never have to work again. We too could enjoy “bread and circuses” just as the Romans did, but their gold finally ran out and the inability of Rome to continue to plunder conquered nations brought an end to her empire.

The same thing will happen to us if we don’t change our ways. Though we don’t occupy foreign countries to directly plunder, we nevertheless have spread our troops across 130 nations of the world. Our intense effort to spread our power in the oil-rich Middle East is not a coincidence. But unlike the old days, we don’t declare direct ownership of the natural resources-- we just insist that we can buy what we want and pay for it with our paper money. Any country that challenges our authority does so at great risk.

Once again Congress has bought into the war propaganda against Iran, just as it did against Iraq. Arguments are now made for attacking Iran economically, and militarily if necessary. These arguments are all based on the same false reasons given for the ill-fated and costly occupation of Iraq.

Our whole economic system depends on continuing the current monetary arrangement, which means recycling the dollar is crucial. Currently, we borrow over $700 billion every year from our gracious benefactors, who work hard and take our paper for their goods. Then we borrow all the money we need to secure the empire (DOD budget $450 billion) plus more. The military might we enjoy becomes the “backing” of our currency. There are no other countries that can challenge our military superiority, and therefore they have little choice but to accept the dollars we declare are today’s “gold.” This is why countries that challenge the system-- like Iraq, Iran and Venezuela-- become targets of our plans for regime change.

Ironically, dollar superiority depends on our strong military, and our strong military depends on the dollar. As long as foreign recipients take our dollars for real goods and are willing to finance our extravagant consumption and militarism, the status quo will continue regardless of how huge our foreign debt and current account deficit become.

But real threats come from our political adversaries who are incapable of confronting us militarily, yet are not bashful about confronting us economically. That’s why we see the new challenge from Iran being taken so seriously. The urgent arguments about Iran posing a military threat to the security of the United States are no more plausible than the false charges levied against Iraq. Yet there is no effort to resist this march to confrontation by those who grandstand for political reasons against the Iraq war.

It seems that the people and Congress are easily persuaded by the jingoism of the preemptive war promoters. It’s only after the cost in human life and dollars are tallied up that the people object to unwise militarism.

The strange thing is that the failure in Iraq is now apparent to a large majority of American people, yet they and Congress are acquiescing to the call for a needless and dangerous confrontation with Iran.

But then again, our failure to find Osama bin Laden and destroy his network did not dissuade us from taking on the Iraqis in a war totally unrelated to 9/11.

Concern for pricing oil only in dollars helps explain our willingness to drop everything and teach Saddam Hussein a lesson for his defiance in demanding Euros for oil.

And once again there’s this urgent call for sanctions and threats of force against Iran at the precise time Iran is opening a new oil exchange with all transactions in Euros.

Using force to compel people to accept money without real value can only work in the short run. It ultimately leads to economic dislocation, both domestic and international, and always ends with a price to be paid.

The economic law that honest exchange demands only things of real value as currency cannot be repealed. The chaos that one day will ensue from our 35-year experiment with worldwide fiat money will require a return to money of real value. We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or Euros. The sooner the better.

From : http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/co...6/cr021506.htm

There is also a link to his verbal speach if the reading becomes too tedious

http://www.house.gov/paul/

http://recap.fednet.net/archive/Buil...on=G&sExpire=0

Now this is recent concerns expressed to the house of the representatives in clear, understandable words. I'm sure he didn't need any conspiracy theorists to connect the dots on this one, it's actually quite easy to do when one pass over the bullshit of the media and look for the root cause instead of gobbling up what is broadcasted or printed by the media or listening blindly to Mr. Greenspan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by miss_silver

This guy explains it much better than I could... It's a long read but very direct to the heart of the matter.

You obviously don't understand that something "direct to the heart of the matter" would by definition be short.

Why don't you just type out what you mean instead of copying and pasting what other people say? I'm sure a person who actually understands an issue could easily explain it themselves in their own words instead of needing quotes and links from others.

Maybe you are right and he doesn't need conspiracy theorists to connect the dots, but maybe he has an agenda for why he says what he does. Maybe he wants to change US policy to his beliefs and not what is best for America. Please explain to me what he is saying in the article, so I can respond to you.

read the fucking thing..

Quote:

It has been said, rightly, that he who holds the gold makes the rules. In earlier times it was readily accepted that fair and honest trade required an exchange for something of real value.

Today the principles are the same, but the process is quite different. Gold no longer is the currency of the realm; paper is. The truth now is: “He who prints the money makes the rules”-- at least for the time being. Although gold is not used, the goals are the same: compel foreign countries to produce and subsidize the country with military superiority and control over the monetary printing presses.

you dont understand that ?
even uneducated people in 3rd world countries understand this is the case...

ffs..if your that dumb just read the last bit

Quote:

It seems that the people and Congress are easily persuaded by the jingoism of the preemptive war promoters. It’s only after the cost in human life and dollars are tallied up that the people object to unwise militarism.

The strange thing is that the failure in Iraq is now apparent to a large majority of American people, yet they and Congress are acquiescing to the call for a needless and dangerous confrontation with Iran.

But then again, our failure to find Osama bin Laden and destroy his network did not dissuade us from taking on the Iraqis in a war totally unrelated to 9/11.

Concern for pricing oil only in dollars helps explain our willingness to drop everything and teach Saddam Hussein a lesson for his defiance in demanding Euros for oil.

And once again there’s this urgent call for sanctions and threats of force against Iran at the precise time Iran is opening a new oil exchange with all transactions in Euros.

Using force to compel people to accept money without real value can only work in the short run. It ultimately leads to economic dislocation, both domestic and international, and always ends with a price to be paid.

The economic law that honest exchange demands only things of real value as currency cannot be repealed. The chaos that one day will ensue from our 35-year experiment with worldwide fiat money will require a return to money of real value. We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or Euros. The sooner the better.

if i could smash you two conservative dimwits heads together
you still wouldnt have one brain between you..
:TS:

Multi you are the most pathetic loser on the internet, I usually don’t waste my time on you because of it, I understand his bullshit, I bet you and miss-silver do not, I can copy and paste from that article and scream JUST FUCKING READ IT – DAAAA!! Too --yeee fing haw, Like how smart I am....

Do you serve any purpose at all multi, accept making posts which just make people more stupid, you ever think of suicide because you really should, you don’t sound like a happy person and really life will not get any easier for you, at is a good option for you. Think aboutit. Please.

I didn't know you were in a third world country multi.

Tell us your own opinion in your own words if your really understand the issue.

I think Sinner and I are both smart enough not to waste our time discussing matters with people with no understanding at all and who can only post quotes and links to what other people say.

Rude alert! Rude alert! An electrical fire has knocked out my voice-recognition unicycle! Many Wurlitzers are missing from my database! Abandon shop! This is not a daffodil! Repeat, this is not a daffodil!

One Good(k)night does not a sweet prince make

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinner

I think wishing death on [most] anyone should be a violation of the TOS here.

LOL

Quote:

you don’t sound like a happy person

oh my goodness !
dont i ?

i am happy...
things could always be better but i dont have any problems with life

at least i dont sound like a shithead..

'life will not get any easier for you'

lol..classic

Have you any idea how irritating you are?
There are things you could teach to tropical skin diseases.

Quote:

Originally Posted by albed

Oh my

:BL:

Quote:

Originally Posted by miss_silver

Oh my

:BL:

Tweedlequote and Tweedlelink. Lol.

Quote:

Originally Posted by albed

Tweedlequote and Tweedlelink. Lol.

Now that's quite funny.

Albed making jokes.
What is the world coming too
I thinks he must have empty bags,it's the only answer.