11,535 Forum Posts by "Gunter45"
At 7/12/08 04:11 AM, VictorNiss wrote: So whats YOUR say?
Apperiantly in the 50's we where on the verge of Nuclear Holocaust.
Now in '07 and '08 EVEN MORE countrys have nukes and it seems like we're
a million miles away from a Nuke war.
WHAT THE FUCK?
are people smarter? is there something larger going on?
or is this the Press making Stories for Viewers?
Simply having more weapons doesn't mean people are more poised to use them. There was a great deal of political tension between countries with nuclear arms in the 50s. Nowadays, things are more or less cordial around the world so, of course, there's less pressure to keep your trigger finger at the ready.
At 7/13/08 08:07 PM, SolInvictus wrote: pandas are actually suffering a fair bit from the effects of deforestation.
And it's making them too sad to fuck?
If it was really that cut and dry, they really should get a *gasp* fucking warrant.
We all know how the system is supposed to be carried out. That's not the problem. If the government didn't need to be kept in check at all times then there wouldn't be need for ANYTHING in the Bill of Rights, not just that silly 4th Amendment nonsense.
The reason we have the bill of rights is to make sure that the citizens of the United States are not considered potential criminals. There's a reason why we don't have to let the government into our homes, into our cars, into our calls, into our conversations, etc. It's because we own the government. The government is here to serve the citizenry, not to suspect every single one of us. Cutting out the process of getting a court order to monitor the citizenry is completely against the whole point of requiring warrants in the first place.
The oversight in the government is handled by the exact same people doing the wiretapping. Not a different bureau, not a different branch, the same goddamn department. Yeah, there's a whole lot of accountability.
And all this bullshit about the Government needing every advantage possible to find the terrorists is ridiculous. Yes, 9/11 sucked. It sucked hard, I watched it happening while I was in my History class. It was absolutely unreal. It was also the first instance of international terrorism in our nation's history. Not only that, but it is a matter of public knowledge that we had piles of evidence that could have warned us.
The problem isn't a lack of information. We have one of the most extensive intelligence networks in the world. The problem is one of analysis. Our intelligence blunders aren't the result of not knowing what we're doing, it's having the wrong information. Even if wiretapping our citizens without a warrant wasn't a complete disregard for the Constitution, how is inundating the CIA with even MORE information they can't process going to help anything?
At 7/11/08 08:23 PM, Memorize wrote: Couldn't we make that case as well even if they obtained a warrant from an actual Judge rather than writing it for themselves?
It's illegal to tap a phone before you get a warrant. What's more, a good lawyer could probably even get the case thrown out on a mistrial for that.
Not when they can do that.
It was sarcasm. I was just expressing the ridiculousness of making the person in charge of wiretapping and the person overseeing the legality of it the same person.
At 7/11/08 06:35 PM, Memorize wrote: I don't have a problem with shielding the phone companies. The problem I have is with the government having the ability to write itself warrants.
You don't have a problem with the government having the right to declare something legal AFTER it's already been committed and the damages rendered? Isn't it even worse that the only reason why these companies are getting immunity from deliberately mistreating their customers is because the government told them to?
It's not okay to jump the gun on something before it's been made legal. The government being able to do things before it makes them legal and get away with it, in my mind, sets a dangerous precedent.
Government: "Hey..."
Some guy: "You'll need a warrant."
*Takes out pen and paper, hands it to the guy"
Government: "Here you go"
Oh, but there's oversight! The Attorney General is going to be monitoring the guy in charge of wiretapping closely. Which makes sense, because the guy in charge of that is the Attorney General. Nice to see that the government is finally cutting down on some of the bureaucracy and red tape, huh?
Protecting companies from doing something illegal?
The only reason the government is letting this slide is because they, themselves, told the phone companies to do it. So it's no big deal if companies do something illegal, so long as the government tells them to, right?
I'm surprised people didn't jump on this sooner.
Here's a link to the Senate version and the House version.
One of the big issues that made it was the provision that retroactively legalized the phone companies illegally giving their records to the NSA.
Frankly, this just strikes me as a serious "fuck you" to the American people. All of the lawsuits that are currently in progressed must now be dropped. Not only does this strain the 4th Amendment, to say the least, it's an affront to the US court system. I'm glad there are lawyers who were working on those cases who are going to fight it.
As for how this relates to the presidential race, McCain, who would be expected to vote on something like this abstained because he was campaigning. It is accepted knowledge that he would have voted yes on it, however.
Obama voted yes on it, despite vocalizing his opinions against it earlier, even saying that he would filibuster it, if he had to. I cannot understand what is so drastically different about this version of the bill now that wouldn't merit a "no" vote or even a refusal to vote on it. He basically voted on the same thing that was proposed, still including the retroactive immunity to telecom providors, which he had promised to filibuster.
What gets me is that Hillary Clinton voted no on this. Hillary fucking Clinton votes no on expanding the power of the executive and Obama votes yes. That's a frightening notion.
At 7/11/08 04:17 PM, CIX wrote:At 7/11/08 03:11 PM, BrokeBalla wrote: Communism does too work. China is not that bad off.With China ranked as having the most massive human rights violations, I fear what you want from a government. The only reason China is prospering is because Milton Friedman showed them to have less regulations and a more capitalist society.
And let's not forget their economic plans back when they were much more Communist, which killed more people than anything else on the planet.
At 7/11/08 03:05 PM, Memorize wrote: "You've repeatedly gotten one. We've even, for the sake of argument taken your speculation as a fact and told you what would still happen."
That already is an admission of what many scientists will do (not all).
Are you saying they won't test for intelligent life?
Are you saying that it wouldn't be priority on their minds?
Haha, I mean, especially when they're still looking for earth's twin?
Sure, they'd test for any way that those buildings got there. However, it still wouldn't make them hypocrites for not immediately assuming that the universe was made by something. Having a hypothesis you can test and ignoring a hypothesis you can't does not make a person a hypocrite.
At 7/11/08 02:43 PM, Memorize wrote: You hold them in high regard, yet disprove of what they would do.
Therefore, they aren't "my" scientists.
We hold who in regard? We're talking about the scientific community, not some random scientists here and there. If you really expect everyone to say that they're talking about the "established scientific community with the rare exception of those who do not adhere to scientific principles" then you're going to be severely disappointed. It doesn't make the claim less valid, it makes you nitpicky.
I like America, that statement does not mean that I personally endorse every American. It would be stupid for someone to assume so.
At 7/11/08 12:41 PM, Memorize wrote: How is it irrelevent, when it's the entire discussion? It's the reason for this discussion.
All I wanted was a simple answer. That was it. Based on what would happen. I'm not complicating anything.
You've repeatedly gotten one. We've even, for the sake of argument taken your speculation as a fact and told you what would still happen.
Your question added nothing to the discussion and you're STILL bitching about it.
At 7/11/08 01:50 PM, Memorize wrote:At 7/11/08 01:15 PM, poxpower wrote:*sigh*Yup
Your question doesn't have anything to do with the origin of the universe or life or evolution,
Going to shut up about it now? Nobody cares. It's irrelevant to the discussion: the discussion being the origin of the universe, not your comment.
I pose a simple question. And instead of simply saying "Yes, and that's wrong" (which, you've already stated, that it would be wrong for them to do so), you then decide to on long rants on why it's so horrible why I bring it up. Why I pose that question.
It's wrong that every scientist would have the same reaction. You can't possibly make the claim that they're all going to make the same jump in logic simultaneously. Your whole claim was based on absolutes.
Why? Because there is no evidence for life on other planets, other than our own existance, which 'can' be explained by either a "God" reason or a "No God" reason.
That is why they are hypocrites.
And yet, if there is life, we can find conclusive evidence of it. That is the KEY difference. Even if we have already found evidence of God, how would we know? We have no idea what God is.
We know what life is, we know what we're looking for. Make that case for God and we'll set you up with a research grant.
Heh, I simply state what they will do. Not if what they will do is logical or rational.
And then you simply made the assumption that claiming wondering who built a building should mean that we have to assume something created the universe.
There is no hypocrisy in wondering who built something if we have prior knowledge that would lead us to a logical jump to apply to a current situation and then not knowing whether or not something built the universe, which is a construct, the workings of which we can't even begin to comprehend.
You made a claim based on your stupid question and you're, even now, pretending that your question was a non sequitur. You didn't just "simply state it." It was an example you used to try and prove a point.
He used the same drawing for several different animals.
Don't play it off.
Thought you were referring to the fetus drawings. That's where the evolutionary controversy is. How am I supposed to know what you're talking about from an off-hand comment about some unnamed textbook. I shouldn't have assumed, but please be more clear next time.
And even still, his premise is wrong. That the further back you go in the development lifecycle, you'll the evolutional trend. But the simple fact is, even the cells from which we spring forth from are vastly different from one another.
Even back in my freshman year of high school the book presented the material and then said it's not what scientists believe anymore. The book also detailed Lemarckianism and then said that, too, was an outdated premise.
It also begs this question: If we know what these cells and fetus look like, accurately, then why are we still using his drawings?
Could be a historical reference to show what we used to believe, as I mentioned about my experience in high school, sometimes books will do that. Of course, again, I'm really not sure what you're talking about. I have no clue if they're using them to accurately depict things or if they're just showing his drawings to show what prior scientists have thought.
My HighSchool textbook said "May not be accurate". My teacher even went out of her way to say that although these are old and not "accurate", they still provide an important teaching... which as I said, is false.
All depends on how it's presented. Like I said, if it's to show how science has developed, sure, it's important to know what steps science has taken on the road to where we are today.
At 7/11/08 12:18 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: You're talking about invading countries.
Aren't you?
For one, not really. It's not an invasion, they're manipulating the political climate around them. They aren't sending an invasion force.
The topic isn't even really just about the general principle. The topic as I laid it out was where Russia's actions are going and what it means for the future of the region and the world.
My point is that if you want to start talking about what other countries are doing, then please make an actual segway into it and include it into the discussion.
Another issue is how obscenely expensive it is to fight the hydra that is drug use. As you've said, for every bust they make, there are billions upon billions of dollars that are still making it to the streets and for every drug dealer they put in jail, the people who run the show just recruit 3 more.
It's not just an impossible battle, it's one that's bleeding our budget and tying up our law enforcement from actually fighting something meaningful.
At 7/11/08 11:57 AM, kahncccp wrote: Communism is inevitable, we are working on it now. The whole world will be one day. There has never been a communist country,btw.
There's never been a capitalist country, either, what's your point?
At 7/11/08 11:01 AM, Memorize wrote: You still haven't answered my question. How would the scientists initially react?
Everyone has answered that this is irrelevant, even if what you said was true. How scientists initially react doesn't mean they don't actually research things. We have even granted you that and still, your initial argument still doesn't stand up to scrutiny. What does it matter if someone doesn't answer that question? It has nothing to do with the argument.
How would scientists react if they found a cheese sandwich on the moon?
How would scientists react if it turned out that horses were actually pairs of midgets in costumes?
How would scientists react if someone's shit did, in fact, smell like roses?
Nobody cares, it has nothing to do with the topic.
I know they'll test it and find out. Which I said is fine. All i'm talking about is how the world and scientific community will move at the start, and what they would test for first and hope to find.
No, your point was that if scientists would say "Who created a building?" then they should also say "Who created the universe?" and that would mean they're hypocrites.
This, of course is a ridiculous assumption and you've been lambasted for it thoroughly and are now waffling from that position in order to avoid having to say you were wrong.
Heh, it's kind of like the Earnest Heckle drawings that were proven to be false, but are still in my Biology books. Sure, you'll go out of your way to oppose any and all legislation that would require the scrutiny (along with the strengths) of evolution to be taught, but you won't say a peep about what is already known to be 100% incorrect (Heckle's drawings).
You do realize that not everything he drew was false. In fact, they weren't really proven to be false, as he told the publisher that some of his work was speculative.
So, there's an important distinction here, are the pictures in your book some of the few that had speculative filler or are they just drawings by Haekel, so you assume they're false? You'll have to forgive my needing to ask, I haven't had that problem with any of my textbooks.
It's actually been estimated that, without the rampant speculation in oil, gas prices would only be $2 a gallon here in the US. It's artificially being driven up by people who want to make a quick buck.
At 7/11/08 11:01 AM, CrazyCutlery wrote:At 7/11/08 10:47 AM, Dropkicked wrote: If you've just found Old Greg, you must have been living in a cave for the past year or two.Exactly, and repeated what a show did doesn't make you funny anyway.
And besides, have you ever drunk Bailey's from a shoe?
At 7/11/08 04:22 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Yeah america is doing a great job not expanding and invading countries.
There's no end to why that's an irrelevant post. Don't spout off one sentence about something nobody's talking about. You want to draw parallels, go right ahead, just make a case for them and bring some relevant discussion to the table.
At 7/10/08 07:54 PM, Mr-Pope wrote: What change in laws would these be, specifically?
It's mainly in reference to the discussion of incorporating Sharia law, not what has happened yet.
At 7/10/08 07:14 PM, lapis wrote: It would be more than that, Canada has as much of a claim to the wide central region of the North Pole as Russia does and the US government could play the card of defending Canadian sovereignty if the Russians would seize more territory than what the US government finds reasonable. I think the common American would be reasonably receptive to the idea of drawing a line if the Russians really went as far as to get into a territorial dispute with a close US ally, even if the interest for that territory would be primarily fueled by natural resources.
That's just it, though. According to Russia's borders, they don't have a legit claim to any of it. Therefore getting any claim to the area would be more than they deserve. What they're saying is that the continental shelf reaches far enough to give them the Arctic... based on a study they're conducting themselves... and their proof are some rocks they're presenting to the international community. For fuck's sake, they put a flag on the bottom of the fucking ocean. Seriously, the nads on these guys.
Meh. Should the West really care about Abkhazia and South-Ossetia that much? Like I said initially, I don't really think it's that unfair for these people to have self-determination considering that the people of Kosovo were granted the same thing. I say, let the Russians have this minor piece of the cake and let's not react strongly until the Russians publicly set their eyes on something that's both valuable and something that they have no decent claim to.
We care enough about it to send the Secretary of State. That's a huge deal. If this wasn't something of note, you would hear about talks with ambassadors. We sent our chief ambassador over. It's not about Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Their conflicts are simply tools that are getting Russia what they want and we know it. We also know that this isn't an isolated incident. We're telling them to back off because this is the way they've been operating and will continue to operate. It's a token gesture because we know it's the best we can do but it's the only way to let Russia know we're onto it.
Carbon credits, good God. There's no way to get rid of the CO2 in the atmosphere, currently. You can't exactly get a big vacuum and suck it all out provided you have the money for it.
That's more along the lines of killing someone and then paying them restitution.
At 7/10/08 06:23 PM, animehater wrote: Any way we can permanantly get back that sense of National pride and unity we lost so long ago?
This is just a bump in the road, as far as I'm concerned. We were the preeminent body of power even into the 90s. It really depends on what the next administration does. There's extensive cleanup work to be done, but it's certainly salvageable.
P.S I Still hate you though.
I have no idea who you are.
At 7/10/08 06:36 PM, lapis wrote: I have to disagree to some extent. If I'm not mistaken there are a lot of natural resources to be found in the Arctic region and since Canada, which is a close ally to the US, also has a decent claim to a portion of the Arctic I don't think the US will allow the Russians to seize more than what the US consider to be rightfully Russian.
You're missing my meaning. I chose the word "willpower" carefully. I was debating whether or not to harp on the issue some more and make the point that the US would easily trounce Russia militarily. I don't like to get into what-if military scenarios, they tend to devolve into asinine discussions resembling superhero match-ups. In this case, however, it's clear that the United States would be able to dominate Russia and, if Russia was stupid enough to be clumsy about it, giving the United State clear provocation, then it wouldn't even be a match up.
I'm merely talking about a question of wills. In an even scenario, the United States would be in a conflict over resources. How do you think that would go over?
I think the US are reacting in a relatively temperate manner (words only) to the Abkhazia/South-Ossetia issue because there's not enough at stake to warrant a further deterioration of bilateral relations and because they feel that it's sort of Russia back yard.
Right. I mentioned that from the outset. Russia's playing it smart. They know that they can make the claim that any conflicts happening along their border are their business and any US intervention would be an affront to Russian sovereignty. The US is doing the only thing they can and it's not enough.
But when push really comes to shove I think the Pentagon and the White House will not let the Russians get more than what they deserve based on their geopolitical position. I'm not sure about the opinion of the common American but I'm not sure if their opinion will have that much of a direct effect on the decision-making process in Washington.
We've yet to see a conflict that has a magnitude that allows us determine who's really more determined than the other, Russia or the US. But I don't think that the US will budge easy if we will. Even a 'weak' President would face strong pressure from the Pentagon.
You're right, of course, however the assumption is that the Russians would be so heavy-handed about it isn't in keeping with how they've been handling the situation at present. Putin knows exactly what cards are on the table and he's playing his hand perfectly. He's setting himself up as much as possible without anyone being able to do a damned thing about it. I can't see Putin biting off more than he can chew.
If I knew how he planned on going about backing his claims, then I'd probably be better suited for a job at the Pentagon or the CIA instead of association management. However, I am guessing that he's going to milk it politically in order to give himself a clear advantage before making any bold moves. That's what he's doing now and I can't see that changing at any point. Putin's probably the shrewdest world leader on the planet right now.
At 7/10/08 05:40 PM, lapis wrote: Claiming ownership of the Arctic is one thing, but I don't think they'd let a conflict over it escalate. Like I don't think they'll let any conflict escalate. Russia will keep asserting iteslf when it comes to conflicts near their borders but I don't think they'll do anything that will have far-reaching consequences, like, in an extreme case, a military encounter between the Russian and the US military that lasts for more than a day or so and which has the approval of the Russian leadership.
Putin is wildly popular in Russia. If a conflict were to arise between the US and Russia, Russia would easily outlast the US in willpower. Not even a question.
Of course, my point is that their resolve and traditional national pride give them a serious edge in today's political climate. Simply having the forwardness to demand without trying to dance around the issue is an increasingly rare quality in the Western world. I don't think they would start a war over the Arctic, but, once they've reasserted themselves, you can guarantee they'd put troops on the ground, at least.
I think the world is still pretty bent on maintaining the status quo, the strongest kid on the playground, which is currently the US, might attack a small nation that has no allies like Iraq but I don't expect any major shifts in geopolitical power between the major blocks (like the NATO, Russia and China) in the near future. The current conflict in Abkhazia and South-Ossetia is fairly minor in nature and I don't think Russia will ever threaten the sovereignty of Georgia as a whole (which I'd consider to be major) when things remain the way they are now. I think geopolitical issues like this one will be outshadowed by issues like energy-dependence (I am concerned about Russia in this case though, since they're sitting on large reserves of natural gas) and technological innovation in the future.
It's a process. Hell, I don't expect Russia to annex anything for years to come. This is a chess match and they're playing Russian style, they're simply positioning themselves and doing a damned good job of it. Right now they're asserting themselves as the. They're making the claims and talking tough. What that does is set them up to follow through with those claims when they're good and ready.
I really don't mean to make it sound sinister and evil, which it isn't. This is brilliant political maneuvering by someone who clearly has ambitions and the intelligence to carry through with them.
The key difference between the US and Russia is that Putin really has carte blanche. The Russian people see him as the reincarnation of Russian nationalism. To them, he can basically do no wrong as long as he keeps bringing Russia back up to superpower status. The American people simply distrust their government. Any military action we will take for the foreseeable future will be held to the closest scrutiny and it puts us at a disadvantage. It's impossible to bluff when everyone knows your hands are tied behind your back. What's more, our current system is up in the air. This upcoming election will be incredibly decisive and, even then, we're going to be in a very transitional period. Putin has set himself up to be Head of State as long as he wants.
Torture is only condoned when Jack Bauer is concerned. I think that was written into the Constitution somewhere.
Of course torture happens. It's not relegated to the military either. It is a well known fact that, unless carefully monitored, police will torture suspects to force them into signing a confession. If people in uniform will torture someone just to get another arrest on their record, what will they do in the name of protecting national security?
The fact of the matter is that, while the government does not condone torture, a lack of oversight is just as good as a green light. The only difference is that by not paying attention, the government can put the blame on the individual.
It doesn't matter where you are, it can become a torture facility when the cameras go off. That's human nature.
The government already requires nutrition labels on food. The government is not our babysitter.
That's already a good enough reason not to. However, I'm just getting started. People already know that certain foods are bad for them. Being told that they're bad isn't going to change shit. The issue isn't an informational one, we are inundated with information about what's bad for us. However, people still shovel shit down their gullets because we're too apathetic to care and too lazy to assume responsibility.
The very notion that the government needs to be responsible in telling us what's good for us is not just childish, but it sets a dangerous precedent.
I don't care what the situation is.
If you change your laws to make special provisions for a group of people simply to appease them, you're treading on fragile ground.
At 7/10/08 04:28 PM, lapis wrote: To be honest, I think Putin would have won their presidential elections even if his opponents were granted more time to broadcast their views.
Putin didn't run for President. His puppet Medvedev did. Not to criticize Medvedev, it's just the fact of the matter. It's a point of fact that Medvedev is simply a mouthpiece for Putin to remain acting Head of State even in the Prime Ministry.
Anyway, if we're not discussing the comparison of the Abkhazian and South-Ossetian claims to a state to the Kosovar one I have this to say: The Russians, or at least Putin (but I think he has a lot of Russians behind him), are unhappy with the way Russia was marginalised after the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. They want Russia to be a big player on the international stage again, they want it to have the prestige they think it deserves and I think they feel that this prestige is being hurt when the NATO flirts with nations that used to belong to the Soviet Nation and its allies. When nations that have a cultural and historical tie to Russia like Serbia get robbed of provinces (Kosovo) they feel attacked, and when countries like the Ukraine and Georgia are openly fraternising with the NATO they feel like they're being driven into a corner.
These are my thoughts on the rationale behind it and why the Russian people are so behind Putin exactly. The situations with Georgia and the Ukraine simply show the climate of the region. Every single one of the ex-Soviet states is in such bad shape that they have to attach themselves to a stronger body politick in order to pull themselves up. That's why Russia is going to succeed at it's aim of scooping these states up. It's the exact same reason the countries joined the Soviet bloc in the first place.
I personally think that a lot of the strong words that Russia has uttered lately (like the protests against the minor missile shield against Iran) and the actions to accompany them stem from a sort of frustration with the fact that they're being seen as a lesser power in international politics. Kosovo's independence was an assault in their eyes and they're trying to regain some prestige by 'assaulting' back in Abkhazia and South-Ossetia, nations that have about the same moral claim to a state as Kosovo and which are breakaway provinces of a country that has been cozying up with the NATO. I think the Russians will keep up with undertaking actions like this until they feel they're seen as geopolitical equals to the US, so I think we might see some more of these Russian initiatives in the near future.
Again, I am absolutely with you on this point.
Unless the global community allows one of these issues to really escalate I don't think they'll do anything too crazy though, barking dogs never bite.
That's never been the Russian mentality. Russians, traditionally, are not ones for bluster without action. They also know that in order to regain their status, they also need to get the gang back together. Of course they won't do anything "crazy," per se, but it's not crazy to claim ownership of the Arctic, that's just having wrought iron balls. In an increasingly softening geopolitical climate, Russia seems to have maintained its resolve through thick and thin and, really, how is that a surprise? They're Russians, after all.
The reason the situation worries me, as an American, is because the world is ripe to be led by a powerful, decisive nation, and that's America less and less. Of course, the traditional American needs competition to succeed, so who knows, this could be just the shot in the arm we need to lose our fucking complacency.
At 7/10/08 03:41 PM, lapis wrote: This thread isn't going the right way. The whole issue has intensified ever since the US and its allies supported Kosovo's independence. Let's all argue why Kosovo (a breakaway province of Serbia, a nation that has friendly relations with Russia and its allies) deserves to have its own independent state while Abkhazia and South-Ossetia (two breakaway provinces of Georgia, a nation that has friendly relations with the US and its allies) do not.
You won't get an argument out of me there.
Because really, this is what matters to the Russians. They feel that the NATO is seizing territory that has historically been theirs and if there are reasons (that don't apply to Kosovo) to deny Abkhazia and South-Ossetia independence that surpass geopolitics (might is right) then it's those reasons that we should be talking about.
Seriously.
The reason I bring Russia into it is because this isn't an isolated incident. Any single one of their moves could be interpreted as expressing their sovereignty or dealing with unrest along their borders, but, in combination, along with the absolute sham that was their Presidential election, the expansionist claims, and their resurgence of Soviet-era military readiness drills point towards something grander.
Feel free to talk about the unrest in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, of course, it's totally relevant. I just wanted, personally, to discuss how I feel this fits into what has become Russia's modus operandi of late and where I think it's going.
At 7/10/08 03:27 PM, Midna2008 wrote: O_o
That guy sure is lonely...if you know what I mean...
Aren't you supposed to say "if you know what I mean" when you're making an innuendo? You pretty much out and said it, didn't you. Not much room for interpretation.
