|
Post by anodyne on Jan 21, 2006 18:28:17 GMT -5
errr..... they didn't have a majority. That's the point. End of story. It is of value. Hitler was given a vote of no confidence. Do you even know how the Reichstag works? You're attempting to dance around what you initially said and you're tripping over your own feet. Fact: he didn't take power through the Reichstag. Fact: it was given to him by a senile Hindenburg Fact: that's not democracy.... even for Germany. Fact: the majority of Germany didn't have a hard on for Hitler which shows in the polls. He had a significant number of followers but not enough to state what you always do that the Germans were swooning like 16 year old girls for him at the time. Fact: The Nazi party had poor showings in the Reichstag before the DNVP made an alliance with Hitler. You were even nice enough to provide teh evidence further down the post. Thanks, Duke. err... I'm not speaking of Von Papen. I'm speaking of 1929. Get your head in check and stop ignoring the lack of popularity for Hitler before his alliance with DNVP. The age old question. ummm....... I never said the German people voted Hitler into power. What I said was that the majority were not gung ho for Hitler but a significant portion had been and people who don't speak out against crimes committed by people supposedly representing their nation are just as guilty as those who actively support the criminal. The only joke here is you. You're knowingly misinterpreting what I have said in the past. That's why you didn't provide any quotes of mine where I contradict myself. You're bullshiting again and you know it. Provide the quotes, Duke. Go ahead. It's a challenge. Don't come up short like you always do. Hate to break it to you but if we took a poll in Dodona you'd find yourself as one of the least respect members. Everyone you have gone up against has beaten you in a debate except maybe OdinofOdessa. I'm not sure... when you two debate I don't give it my attention. And I always respond to your BS. There is not one "point" you have made that I haven't responded to... and when you're correct I have stated you were... but that doesn't happen often. I would never slap my mother but when she's wrong I tell her so. Are you done with your hissyfit now? You make no distinctions. You even accuse people who disagree with you of being Jewish. (as you did with me) Apparently you think that gives you points in a debate.... what was it that you said? ah, yes... it's no point debating with me because I'm a Jew and therefore.... what was the rest? Should I find the thread? or would like to finish the comment? Ah, now I'm the one who believes labeling a group based on what a some within that group do. My god, sir... have you no dignity? Charlie should chime in on this one. 12 seats in 1928 and 107 in 1930.. .well... ummmmm..... DNVP, anyone? Was 230 the majority? errrrr.... no. Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot as you never fail to do. Obviously you are hurt. No one else seems to care. Dude, I provide facts and keep strict objective standards for myself. I have no agenda. That's why when challenged you were not able to state what would be my agenda.. oh, wait... I hate Germans! That's my agenda! One of your lamer arguments. Sarcasm is lost on the dim.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Jan 21, 2006 19:32:24 GMT -5
By the way, you left out that in Nov. of 1932 the Nazi's had 196 seats.. eight months earlier it had been 230. Which says quite a bit... don't you think? Interesting that you left that out. Reason why Hitler was pouting.
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Jan 22, 2006 4:14:49 GMT -5
errr..... they didn't have a majority. That's the point. End of story. It is of value. Hitler was given a vote of no confidence. Do you even know how the Reichstag works? You're attempting to dance around what you initially said and you're tripping over your own feet. Fact: he didn't take power through the Reichstag. Fact: it was given to him by a senile Hindenburg Fact: that's not democracy.... even for Germany. Fact: the majority of Germany didn't have a hard on for Hitler which shows in the polls. He had a significant number of followers but not enough to state what you always do that the Germans were swooning like 16 year old girls for him at the time. Fact: The Nazi party had poor showings in the Reichstag before the DNVP made an alliance with Hitler. You were even nice enough to provide teh evidence further down the post. Thanks, Duke. err... I'm not speaking of Von Papen. I'm speaking of 1929. Get your head in check and stop ignoring the lack of popularity for Hitler before his alliance with DNVP. The age old question. ummm....... I never said the German people voted Hitler into power. What I said was that the majority were not gung ho for Hitler but a significant portion had been and people who don't speak out against crimes committed by people supposedly representing their nation are just as guilty as those who actively support the criminal. The only joke here is you. You're knowingly misinterpreting what I have said in the past. That's why you didn't provide any quotes of mine where I contradict myself. You're bullshiting again and you know it. Provide the quotes, Duke. Go ahead. It's a challenge. Don't come up short like you always do. Hate to break it to you but if we took a poll in Dodona you'd find yourself as one of the least respect members. Everyone you have gone up against has beaten you in a debate except maybe OdinofOdessa. I'm not sure... when you two debate I don't give it my attention. And I always respond to your BS. There is not one "point" you have made that I haven't responded to... and when you're correct I have stated you were... but that doesn't happen often. I would never slap my mother but when she's wrong I tell her so. Are you done with your hissyfit now? You make no distinctions. You even accuse people who disagree with you of being Jewish. (as you did with me) Apparently you think that gives you points in a debate.... what was it that you said? ah, yes... it's no point debating with me because I'm a Jew and therefore.... what was the rest? Should I find the thread? or would like to finish the comment? Ah, now I'm the one who believes labeling a group based on what a some within that group do. My god, sir... have you no dignity? Charlie should chime in on this one. 12 seats in 1928 and 107 in 1930.. .well... ummmmm..... DNVP, anyone? Was 230 the majority? errrrr.... no. Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot as you never fail to do. Obviously you are hurt. No one else seems to care. Dude, I provide facts and keep strict objective standards for myself. I have no agenda. That's why when challenged you were not able to state what would be my agenda.. oh, wait... I hate Germans! That's my agenda! One of your lamer arguments. Sarcasm is lost on the dim. Yes they did, as set up by Hindenburg. Wiemar was a parliamentary government and needed a majority, which Hitler had after Hindenburg himself installed the coalition, with, rightly, Hitler as chancellor, given he was by far the most viable politician at the time, with nearly a majority of his own without other coalition parties. This was the way the Reichstags worked, it needed coalitions, it wasn't America, with a two party system that decisively decides minority-majority, no matter how much you claim that it was. It was parliamentary proportional representation, where a majority was unheard of. This is the same as Germany today, where the political parties will merge just to take power, not necessarily because their ideology is shared, like the recent German red-green coalition. Hitler however had no desire to compromise his own party by making ambiguous coalitions. After Hindenburg set up the majority govt and appointed Hitler chancellor, he immediately rescinded the coalition and proposed a new election, which the president had called. And there it was. He was appointed chancellor completely legitimately. If anything he was discriminated against when Papen was appointed chancellor and given the opportunity to try to create a communist-social democrat coalition, which failed to be realized. Even though Hitler garnered far more public support than Papen. Which was a decision questioned by many, foreign diplomats in Germany included, who labeled it suspicious. More importantly the people themselves didn't like him, his new found position, or his cabinet. The only supporters were the broken off minority Conservatives of the peoples party. Other then from them, he was disdained in the German parliament. Papen was as power hungry as anyone, dissolving the Prussian social democrats, and coinsidingly giving the Nazis new found respect, so as to get them to support his own rule, because after all the Nazis were popular, Papen wasn't. So as Papen floundered, he realized he would have to cede to the status of vice chancellor, and he did exactly that, with hugenberg also agreeing to merge with the national socialists, as a nationalist coalition, with Hitler as chancellor. And it was Papen that persuaded Hindenburg to agree to instate this coalition, as he had before refused to because of obvious conflict between he; the aging reactionary and Hitle;r the young up and comer. Also, Before now I had been unaware that Papen was Hindenburg's son. The things you learn... Why dont you give it a rest, for real this time. Or are you even capable of it? I Don't care if people don't like me because of my opinions. If by you saying that I am the one that is not respected and easilly "beaten", and people believe it, then so be it. I could care less, in fact I'd rather have it that way, knowing full well the the creature that you are, and the creature that would have to exist to see eye to eye with you on anything.
|
|
|
Post by Ilmatar on Jan 22, 2006 6:09:21 GMT -5
Ilmatar, Wasn't Finland part of the Russian Empire at the time of the Russian Revolution? Yes, Finland was a part of the Russian Empire from 1809 to 1917. However, as an Autonomic Grandduchy Finland enjoyed many liberties. For instance, Finland had its' own legislation and parliament. Generally speaking many Russian revolutionaries operated in Finland because of the civic rights were generally speaking more respected here than in Russia, and Helsinki is only some 250 miles from St Petersburg. Not really. Lenin gave Finland freedom, because he was confident on Finnish communists and socialists being able to carry out a separate revolution and make Finland a communist country without intervention of the Russian troops. In fact a very bloody civil war was fought in Finland 1918. However, the White (democratic) site wan, and Communist party was actually illegal in Finland until 1944. Only statues of Lenin in Finland were erected in the 1960's. Generally speaking Finns were friendly with Soviets only because it was convenient to us economically. They, on the other hand, needed a neutral, capitalistic country near for various reasons.
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Jan 22, 2006 8:46:01 GMT -5
Ilmatar, Wasn't Finland part of the Russian Empire at the time of the Russian Revolution? Yes, Finland was a part of the Russian Empire from 1809 to 1917. However, as an Autonomic Grandduchy Finland enjoyed many liberties. For instance, Finland had its' own legislation and parliament. Generally speaking many Russian revolutionaries operated in Finland because of the civic rights were generally speaking more respected here than in Russia, and Helsinki is only some 250 miles from St Petersburg. Not really. Lenin gave Finland freedom, because he was confident on Finnish communists and socialists being able to carry out a separate revolution and make Finland a communist country without intervention of the Russian troops. In fact a very bloody civil war was fought in Finland 1918. However, the White (democratic) site wan, and Communist party was actually illegal in Finland until 1944. Only statues of Lenin in Finland were erected in the 1960's. Generally speaking Finns were friendly with Soviets only because it was convenient to us economically. They, on the other hand, needed a neutral, capitalistic country near for various reasons. The Idea than Lenin was somehow a "nice guy" is a Joke. The only reason I see him being portrayed as such is becuase he died premature. Though, the common conception is that Stalin was some type of a unique genocidal mad man, when in truth he just continued what had already been put in motion. No doubt soviet history would've been just as, if not more brutal than it was, had Lenin lived longer.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Jan 22, 2006 11:55:36 GMT -5
.
errrrr..... once again... no majority.. once again... Hindenburg manipulated by Von Papan and Hindenburg's son... once again.... he lost seats when he tried to make his move in the Reichstag. So instead of excepting his defeat and making attempt the right way he made threats.
Oh, and what did he do to the Reichstag soon after? You think about it a bit more.
Yay! You know how it works! But yet you make excuses for Hitler's inability to play by the rules. You know rules are there for a reason. The Reichstag losts its power to a dictator like Hitler because rules weren't followed (even though the Reichstag had a hand in its own demise with the Enabling Act).
Yes, there it was... the Communists were not allowed to take their seats and Hitler was able to strong arm the others into giving him legislative power. The last freely elected Reichstag. Hurray for tyranny!
Ah, no.. because he didn't have a majority in the Reichstag. You see... you can't get around that at all. It was given to him, which goes aginst your earlier claim that he had a majority of the population swooning for him which is not represented in the Reichstag (only around 35% of the population considered themselves members of the Nazi power). Now you're trying to play a different angle.
Von Papan wasn't legitimnate either. A communist- social democract coalition? errr..... no. I think not. But you're free to post evidence that it was so.
That's what happens when you don't have a majority, or are able to form a coalition, in the Reichstag.
Yes, Von Papan was power hungry and believed he could control Hitler. That's whey he and Hindenburg's son made the move to make Hitler Chancellor. The Nazi's were popular with a significant portion of the population (around 35% or so) but not enough to take control of the Reichstag.
Yes but even with Hugenberg there was no majority.
Von Papen wasn't Hindenburg's son. I wonder where you got your information. Probably the same place you get the rest of your information last night.
errr.... why should I? You've been pushing false information for a while. Even you realize that since you decided to do some research last night. I know you did because not all the information you presented this time is incorrect. Also, you were online around midnight. I know because I was online too and saw your name. Yet, you posted hours later. You even mentioned how you learned something new with regards to Von Papen (which is actually false). So I gave you an incentive to learn. The sign of an excellent teacher!
LOL the so called "creature" that would have to exist is one who respects humanity, individual rights, avoids conspiracy theories from hacks, only uses sources from respected scholars. In other words... someone who is not easily led.
You're a sniveling snot. Didn't I challenge you to prove that I contradicted myself? and what do you do? You say NOTHING. No EVIDENCE. That's the game you play. I always provide evidence for any accusation I make. You fail to provide evidence every time.
You're a joke and that's why no one takes you seriously.
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Jan 22, 2006 17:47:39 GMT -5
Trotsky argued against the accusations of "Social Fascism". In the Bulletin of the Opposition of March 1932 he declared: "Worker-Communists, you are hundreds of thousands, millions; you cannot leave for anyplace; there are not enough passports for you. Should fascism come to power, it will ride over your skulls and spines like a terrific tank. Your salvation lies in merciless struggle. And only a fighting unity with the Social Democratic workers can bring victory. Make haste, worker-Communists, you have very little time left!" www.marxist.com/History/trotsky_fascism_germany.html"In the first place, none of the four so-called proposals was, according to the available evidence, made directly to the executives of the social democracy and the trade unions. Second, Dutt records that on July 20, 1932 the social democrats stated that they were ready to accept a non-aggression pact with the communist party as a pre-condition for a united front. The CP rejected this. Why was it wrong to accept a non-aggression pact in 1932 and good “Bolshevik policy” in 1933-34?" www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/carter/1935/01/palmedutt.htmwww.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/spector/1938/11/popfront.htmPithily given, Q: Was Hitler democratically elected as Chancellor of Germany in 1933?
A: Yes. Of course he was.
However, because the office of Chancellor was not filled by popular election, it might be more accurate to say that Hitler was constitutionally chosen to be the Chancellor of Germany, a democratic nation. The point is, there was nothing about Hitler's appointment as Chancellor (30 Jan. 1933) which violated the Constitution of Germany. President Hindenburg legally selected the leader of the largest party in Parliament to head up a coalition government. It has happened hundreds of times throughout history without being considered undemocratic [The current Prime minister of Canada]
Only in light of later events does it become obvious that this was the beginning of the end of democratic rule in Germany. If Hitler had suddenly died in office before the Reichtag Fire (27 Feb. 1933) gave him the excuse to crush the opposition, history would record the uninterrupted flow of democracy in Germany in 1933. Granted, the window of opportunity for Hitler to leave a legacy as a proper democrat was only open for a single month, but that could have been enough.
The myth that Hitler slipped into power by way of an illegal backroom deal which bypassed the constitution is more comforting than considering that maybe laws and democratic constitutions are not foolproof safeguards against the emergence of tyrants. If a constitutionally valid plurality want tyranny, they'll get it.
users.erols.com/mwhite28/map-faq6.htm Coalitions are only "illegitimate" if the Chancellor that is being appointed is Hitler, I guess. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4438212.stmLikewise, when another politician, like Papen, orchestrates a coalition and lobbys it's creation, it's only when Hitler is the appointee is it considered a "coup". Only in your mind, creature. Why don't you go do something that suits you more, like shaking ones fist at the clouds. You'll earn more respect that way.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jan 22, 2006 20:58:44 GMT -5
What Duke says all up their is correct.
<<democratic constitutions are not foolproof safeguards against the emergence of tyrants. If a constitutionally valid plurality want tyranny, they'll get it.>>
Today though,Democracy is all fixed and a fruad,its more Socialist orientated ,and the blackballing of opposition and freedom of speech is near non-existant.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Jan 22, 2006 23:57:32 GMT -5
errr... point of this? You do realize that Stalin had control influence over the German Communists and not Trotsky, correct? Wait.. you don't... obviously. We do know now that Stalin was pushing for the Communist to have better relationship with the Social Democrats but how this implies a communist take over, which i think you're implying since you don't bother to give your opinion for an obvious reason, is beyond me. errr... point...? The author is taking a negative view of Dutt's claims. What's the point exactly? You should tell me. I'm a bit tired so maybe you can help me out. This is from the website. About the the man who runs it: "Q: Who are you, and why should we trust the accuracy of your information? The Short A: No one in particular, and never trust any information without double checking. The Long A: My academic credentials are pretty slim -- a couple of years of college and that's about it. I'm not a university professor or anything like that, and I currently earn my living as a librarian." Dude, you know I'm going to check the guys background? You should know that by now. I want respected scholars. Not some dude who has a hobby. Although, he is right when he says that the president ( a point I give to you) had a right to appoint and dismiss the Chancellor but this is not democratic as the man claims but autocratic. Democracy comes in different forms and there never has been a true democracy but how anyone can call that democratic is strange considering it steps on the wishes of the majority as represented by members of their party at the Reichstag. It was well known what Hitler thought of democracy. It's foolsih to be surprised by what he did. He was very open about his distaste. [/blockquote][/quote] It's not a myth at all. It's well known that Hitler swore to cause trouble if he didn't get his way and had Von Papen and Hindenburg's son make the move, which they decided would be a good idea considering that they thought Hitler could be controlled this way. The fact that papa Hidenburg had to be convinced says more than enough. Check the number of seats her coalition has in the Reichstag. It gives her a majority, I believe. I don't believe I said a coalition is illegitimate. What I am saying is that Hitler, even with his coalition with the DNVP, still didn't have a majority of seats. Remember? that was the point you were trying to make? you claiming that Hitler was democratically elected Chancellor. errr.. i said Von Papen's Chancellorship was illegitimate. Not constitutionaly illegite, and this is a point I give to you, but if you have some understanding of the basics of democracy then yes... it's illegitimate. err..... you're quite comical. Claiming I believe that coalitions are illegitimate when I have never stated that and here you are with your unoriginal insult. I'd respond with an insult of my own but.. well.... there is no need for me to do so since you made a fool of yourself (oh, wait.. I just insulted you). Clouds don't bullshit. In fact, they provide a needed function. I'm well respected where ever I go and with whomever I deal with (perhaps because I'm such a snappy dresser). Not sure you can say the same. By the way, you still think Von Papen was Hindenburg's son? How about evidence for that accusation you made? Still looking or have you given up? What Duke says all up their is correct. <<democratic constitutions are not foolproof safeguards against the emergence of tyrants. If a constitutionally valid plurality want tyranny, they'll get it.>> Today though,Democracy is all fixed and a fruad,its more Socialist orientated ,and the blackballing of opposition and freedom of speech is near non-existant. Well, Duke didn't say it. Some Dude with a website with no credentials did. Actually, Duke didn't say much in his post. Such an unoriginal thinker using quotes from a librarian! I wouldn't say freedom of speech is near non- existant. I don't see the US government closing down stormfront.org just yet. There is beginning of a curve on freedom of speech but the US isn't at Germany's or Canada's level yet.... although it's getting there fast. With regards to socialism... that's sort of what most people want throughout the world, to be honest, because it appears more appealing and humane when in fact it is not. Of course, those same people change their tune if they become the host and not the parasite. It's not so appealing when you're the one being drained. I don't know what you mean by black balling the opposition. At least with regards to US politics. It's seems like the same old stuff. It's not much different than when the anti- federalists and the federalists used to go at it. I agree that both parties are socialistic. Democrats are socialists with a big S and Republcians are socialists with a little s. But this is old news. It's not surprising that the progressives were a split from the Republican party. Both believe in a strong central government. Although, Coolidge was okay. With regards to democracy not being a fool proof against tyrannts. Well, yes. It isn't fool proof. Alexis de Tocqueville would have agreed. He stated that within the US government there wasn't enough safe guards against tyranny. He was proven right considering Lincoln was one of the tyrannts the western hemisphere has ever seen. Walked all over the constitution while at the same time stating he was upholding it. Not surpirsingly he earned more money as a lawyer in Illnois than the governor of that state did. That being said... the constitution has some centralist tendencies, which is Hamilton's handy work. But the Bill of Rights is nice to have.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jan 23, 2006 0:07:43 GMT -5
well you know what I meant... However the majority of that information is correct Anodyn,even if you question the source in the links. Plenty of documentation available.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Jan 23, 2006 0:23:23 GMT -5
The original question was whether Hitler was democratically elected by the people and he was not. The members of the Reichstag represent the people. If one third support Hitler, as shown through the seats he held, then we can't say that Hitler gained power democratically. Even with the DNVP he didn't have a majority of the population on his side.
Being handed power by an aging general is not what comes to mind when thinking of any form of democracy.
I bowed my head to Duke's point that the transfer of power was legitimate after looking over the constitution but his original argument was that he was democratcially elected by the people and that was not so. He knows this and that's why he shifted his argument to the constitution. His belief that the Germans were all swooning for Hitler goes back to "Stalin's willing executioners" thread. He even posted a photo of some Germans saluting Hitler as if that's proof. That's like taking a photo of the Republican convention and saying Americans mostly support Bush. And of course, he tried the same thing in this thread. Posting a photo of some of the members of the Reichstag rather than the number of seats they had and that of the DNVP.
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Jan 23, 2006 0:45:33 GMT -5
He's too pompous. He would rather keep up the double talk in hopes, at the very least, to dupe himself.
When someones sole puropse is to slander and patronize, the truth is beside the point. It's obvious that even when confronted with, makes little difference.
He'll pick out a completely inconsequential part of one of my posts, which is almost always addressed to a specific person, and than post his "schooling", of course laden with little personal attacks. Yet even when his wrongness is self-evident, is of no importance. After all his primary motive was just to spit his own resent at me, which is a trait not usually associated with people that would have any intention whatsoever to concede anything whatsoever. Which is why I hate these exchanges, it's like black hole, where every subsequent post bring one closer to the event horizon of total unadulterated insanity.
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Jan 23, 2006 0:47:54 GMT -5
The original question was whether Hitler was democratically elected by the people and he was not. The members of the Reichstag represent the people. If one third support Hitler, as shown through the seats he held, then we can't say that Hitler gained power democratically. Even with the DNVP he didn't have a majority of the population on his side. Being handed power by an aging general is not what comes to mind when thinking of any form of democracy. I bowed my head to Duke's point that the transfer of power was legitimate after looking over the constitution but his original argument was that he was democratcially elected by the people and that was not so. He knows this and that's why he shifted his argument to the constitution. His belief that the Germans were all swooning for Hitler goes back to "Stalin's willing executioners" thread. He even posted a photo of some Germans saluting Hitler as if that's proof. That's like taking a photo of the Republican convention and saying Americans mostly support Bush. And of course, he tried the same thing in this thread. Posting a photo of some of the members of the Reichstag rather than the number of seats they had and that of the DNVP. Bah! Damage control, huh? No more coup?
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Jan 23, 2006 0:51:52 GMT -5
It was a coup. err.... remember.. Hindenburg was not all there? manipulated by Von Papen and his son, while egged on by Hitler. You have the worst memory of anyone on this forum. It appeared legitimate because Hindenburg was the president. Technically it was legit.
Anyone looking for damage control should be you.. but then again... you just think you can go on and no one will remember what you said in the past. For every error I make, you make 30.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Jan 23, 2006 1:12:48 GMT -5
err... no double talking come from me. You're just a bit on the slow side and don't pick up on things.
My sole purpose is truth. Your misinformation and misinterpretations offend me.
Your posts are in a public forum and I address EVERY part of your post. I don't pick and choose parts of yoru posts since I feel the need to address everything. Notice my posts to others and you'll see the same thing. I try not to leave any point the other person has made out.
Also, you say that your posts are always directed at a specific person.. what you're implying is that I just jump in during a conversation just to attack you. That's not the case. Actually, most threads have people posting who haven't had a post directed at them. They come in to give their 2 cents and sometimes get wrapped up in the thread and other times don't.
I know your feelings are hurt after I called your post of the news article idiotic but that's what it was.... and I proved it to be so.
Stop pretending you're civil because you're not, which is shown in other posts directed towards people of groups you dislike. I noticed you're trying to keep yoruself in check now. Playing the role of the innocent for the obviosu reason that you don't want to get banned since one out of every thread in the suggestion section is about getting rid of you.
err.... didn't I say that the transfer of power was constitutionally legit? which was your point?
My god... do they teach English in Canada anymore or just French? In the past I've stated when you were correct. The evidence is in this thread! Noy just my last one.
Dude, I don't make accusations I don't back up, which you do.. I don't use a librarian with a hobby as evidence, in fact.. there are many things you do that are underhanded and foolish in yoru posts... keep bitching and complaining... it's all you do right.
|
|