Forum posts made by elitfromnorth

The fuck is wrong with you doctors? Are you all retarded? There two things you have to remember: 1) The dosage of my meds(which I have told you about several times) and 2) That it can't be changed. Who picked out those meds for me in the first place? Do you know? It was my neurologist, who although he is a cocky bastard and sometimes an arrogant prick he still got several years of specialisation. He's got years of experience in the field, he has done fucking research in the field while you spend all day giving out cold medicine and checking out hemroids. So get it into your fucking head that I'm NOT gonna let YOU gamble with my health and overturn the decision from a SPECIALIST! FUCK OFF YOU MENTAL OLD BAT!

I'm curious as to how big the setback his little slip up of every Obama voter is on welfare comment is gonna make him suffer. Surely the swing voters know a couple of hard working democrats who pay their taxes and are good citizens. Won't they be somewhat apalled that a man who is supposed to represent the entire country call half the people he wants to lead for free loaders? It certainly helps with the Democrats campaign on picturing Romney as a multi billionare who have no knowledge about how the common man fares.

Of course the conservatives will love him for this comment, but he's not the kind of people he need to convince. He pretty much have them in the bag already, simply because he's either a republican or because they hate the non-american muslim.

What's kinda funny is that he didn't withdraw the statement as an exaggeration, but more tried to say that he should have called all democrats for slackers in a more delicate way. I wonder if this man isn't capable of not offending half the people in the country when he's campaigning and talking without someone telling him what to say, how would he do when talking to world leaders who didn't come from a stinking rich background. I feel sorry for the interpreters...

http://www.layoutlocator.com/graphics/dldimg/ae369a62a28af1a1130889e60ba9cfaf_860ea5e59b77a99e4cc60bd3b2c43302.jpg

To me this looks like fishing for publicity and as you mentioned, getting some money back to country with it.



Fishing for publicity when they're at a private house hidden far away into the mountains and the photographer has to stand 1 KM, 1 KILOMETER away to get a clear shot to the pool area because there are plenty of trees in the way? I highly doubt you can call that fishing for publicity. Bring your camera and try to take a picture of a person 1000 meters away and see how good a shot you get and you'll see this wasn't just an opportune moment. This was waiting and bringing the gear like a photo assassin.

And the magazine who published it is known for it's rather law bending methods of getting the stories that they want.



How does royal family helps country where president and prime minister are unsuccessful?
And stats that you are mentioning, they don't seem realistic to me. Who was doing those statistic? Royal experts?



A monarch is a politically independent. Although the monarch is technically the head of state, people won't protest the King/Queen for being a warmongerer or being shit at financial policies, thus giving a poltical-free face to the country. When a royalty arrives the country they put relationships between the two countries on the agenda, and only that. If a PM or president arrives it's usually different and international cases as well, usually some that overshadows the debates between the two countries on how to improve trade and so forth. Like I said, a royal visit is a setting that's better for backroom discussions and agreements.

Economists. When Queen Elizabeth is visiting the country it's the Queen of England, not just Queen Elizabeth II, thus giving not only publicising herself but also the country.

Why is it sad?

They wanted fame, they wanted money that comes with fame, so.. I have no sympathy for their whining how they have no privacy. They have chosen their lifestyle, they are more than well paid for it, so they need to suck it up with consequences of the lifestyle they have chosen. The same goes for 'poor royalty' living off their taxpaying people's money. If you want to be a princess, living off someones money, than sweetie, suck it up and act like princess. If it's inappropriately to be topless, than she shouldn't be topless where people can see her.

Statistics show that Royal families tend to grant the country more income than they actually spend through their representation and how their sort of shallow visits gives a great opportunity for some backroom dealing between nations. Not to mention all the commercial a country get from a state visit. Very few countries have Royal families, thus being visited by a king, queen or any other member of the royal family will help front the country in a way that a president or prime minister couldn't. So to say that they're leeching off the tax payers is a truth with very much needed modification.

And as far as the two royal princes and their families are concerened; even if they distanced themselves from the royal family and William denounced his right to be an heir the paparazzis would still follow them. He was born into a life of celebrety, he didn't choose it. And we all have a right to privacy. She wasn't there as a representative of the country, thus she has her right to privacy, especially since the photographer stood 1 km away to take the snapshot...

You know those random holes in trees that owls and squiggles often end up moving into? Maybe they aren't so random after all...

I'm now a bit concerned about what said wildlife might be doing in such places...

Do we have to do the whole flower and bee thingy?

Women would be in the soft wood category while men would go in the hard wood category

Pick one of the following superpowers. Feel free to add why you want it.

1. You can fly.... but only when you're naked.

2. You can become invisible... but only when your eyes are closed

3. You've got superstrength.... but only while sitting

4. You've can shoot lasers from your eyes... but only while shaking your head...

"We need to talk"

Whatever else you can come up with, hearing someone say that is waaaaaaaaay scarier. Especially if it's your other half or parent/kid. Makes me feel like I'm about to be trialed for manslaughter...

Because people are idiots. Want proof? Justin Bieber and people saying "Like" three times in a sentence.

The more important point is that some people absolutely won't do that. They don't and won't buy into the belief that it is moral to require them to sacrifice themselves to a 'greater good'. They are no more selfish than others, they are just selfish in different ways. A classless society could mean that everyone is equally poor and unready to face challenges that require the expenditure of surplus, because nobody is rewarded for producing surplus. Those who have the ability to produce surplus will inevitably insist on control of how that surplus is allocated. They won't buy into the belief that it is common wealth. they consider that belief to be immoral and they would rather not produce than be a slave to non-producers.

Well, it's partly true. I still believe that there are those that would put all of their efforts into something simply because they are governed by kindness rather than the greed for money. After all, you still have plenty of volunteers doing different things because they want to help other people. And most noticeably of all; Nicola Tesla that wanted to create power that wasn't just wireless but also free for everyone to enjoy. Shame he got shut down by such a greedy cunt that Edison was. So to say that the world would not move forward without the interest of profit being there is still wrong, but sadly, profit is the biggest motivator.

And also, just because a room has a certain theme doesn't mean that's always the subject being discussed. I'm not into BDSM at all , but I find myself hanging out in those rooms because the people/conversations are great. So don't be intimidated by room themes, either. Just dive in and talk. That's really all you can do.

I saw what you did with those LEGO men. You are so into the dark side of BDSM

Like others have said, it is like a party. You won't get many conversations going by just sitting in the room and not talking to anyone. Just start talking to people and they'll more than likely answer you. Don't be shy, because unless you already know someone no one will adress you(unless you're a woman. Then all the guys will jump on you like a fresh piece of meat...)

I would probably have to say my Dealing with Death series. There's a lot of me in them and they're actually stories I'm happy with(unlike many of the others I've written) so I think I'd put those there.

But if you just want a single one then CopyCouple is the one. Classy and.... well, go read it. I don't want to give anything away.

Be noted that this is just one ruling in the US. Unless Samsung appeals then it will only be valid in the US. And Apple also lost the exact same lawsuit in Japan I believe, because Samsung proved that Apple had nicked the design from someone else first.

"Good artists borrow. Great artists steal"
-Steve Jobs

I have what I guess is a rather important question

In every community you'll have unserious people joining. I'm guessing that with the BDSM community there is a chance that people that aren't true will join, and I'm then thinking in particular dom/mes that are attracted to the lifestyle not from the bond formed between boss and sub or the sex play, but their desire to control. They have no desire to create a safe environment for their sub, all they want is to satisfy their own cravings.

Are these people easily spotted? What is done once the serious members spot that there is one amongst you that only wants the control and needs it like a junkie needs heroin? And how do you help the sub that has been the victim for an unserious relationship?

What are the signs of an inexperienced or bad dom/me?

Maybe I should have specified it even more in relation to these last cases. If I go out and make more Mohammed drawings with a Norwegian flag on them, post them online under an anonymous name and never mention to anyone that it was me who did it, then I won't be criminally persecuted because I did nothing wrong and if I'm good enough the radicals won't find me so I'll be safe.

But in light of recent events, I know that there will be reactions, violent reactions and most likely the reactions will hit Norwegian embassies/installments in the Middle East, people who had nothing to do with it. Shouldn't I then feel reluctance in posting them, from a moral point of view. What is the most important; my liberty or my moral?

Most of us in the Western world have the luxury of freedom of speech(with reasonable limits). We can say, write and make pictures that says and expresses pretty much whatever we want without running the risk of criminal prosecution.

But, as we have seen, our usage of this freedom can have consequences. The Mohammed drawings made the middle east go bonkers, Theo van Gogh got shot after a movie he made and now a Muslim critic movie(which from what I've heard is one of the worst movies ever produced) resulted in a consulate being stormed and 4 people being killed.

I'm not out for a discussion on whether or not Islam is a peaceful religion, that they're over sensitive or anything like that. We've had that discussion before and we'll probably have it again later on, but I say we leave that for another thread.

My question is; do we abuse this right without thinking about the consequences? Do we just say whatever we want, make movies and drawings and don't think about what reactions it may cause and who it may offend?

Again, please no "Religious people are too snesitive" crap. I'm tired of that discussion.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_cOgSXAek3iQ/TFMdv-JS6hI/AAAAAAAAAcc/eW7cKeV6Lrc/s1600/unseen18.jpg

http://jpg.artige.no/store/38/38779.jpg

/end of thread...

To me being romantic is not "just" loving whoever you're with. I'm not saying that loving someone is a small thing, I just lacked better wording.

It's a continous thing that you throughout the duration of the relationship. It can be just a simple text every now and then saying "I love you and looking forward to coming home and kiss you again", maybe leave a note in her handbag where it says "I love you=)" and then date it with the P.S. "You really should clear out your handbag" or it can be to surprise him and her with a homecooked meal or breakfast in bed.

Romance doesn't have to be big. It can just be words said or written to your partner, BUT in my book one thing is essential for it to be romance; it has to be clear that it comes from that heart and you do it out of love, not that you're just buying a pair of shoes to redeem yourself.

Nothing in the amount of control one desires or needs is unhealthy if it applies to one specific individual.



Just to clarify; are you really saying that as long as the sub wants it, no matter how much control the dom/me has over the sub it will under no circumstance be considered unhealthy?

http://www.lushstories.com/forum/yaf_postst24213_Body-modification.aspx

Just saying...

Can't speak for everyone else, but in my case, it was my sub who asked for this rule. Since she doesn't like upsetting or annoying people she can find it hard at times to say no to people, so being able to say that she isn't allowed to private chat with people helps take the pressure of her, since it's not up to her in a way.

I have also seen on other sites, not so much here, mentions of some subs being manipulated by people into going into private chats with them. From people using reasons like how 'they'll help the sub better serve their Dom/me' or telling the sub that it is what is expected of them and they shouldn't say no (which I found particularly disgusting to read). Being given the rule that they can't private chat stops this from happening (assuming they follow the rule of course), and like above it means the sub no longer is responsible for that decision, so they shouldn't be able to be guilted of forced into going into these private chats.

I think I can say however that the majority of Dom/mes (the ones I know anyway) who give this rule are ok with the sub private chatting or whispering with friends, so long as they know that the person isn't going to try make the sub to cyber with them.

If the sub asks for the rule then I see it.

But as I saw in the other thread, some gave the rule because they didn't want their sub to cyber with others. Is that really necessary? I feel there's no need to state a rule that extreme to maintain a person's fidelity. As I understand it(correct me if I'm wrong) a sub is to have complete devotion to the dom/me. THen fidelity shoudn't be a problem(at least in my view) if the dom/me asks for it. If the sub gets easily persuaded and manipulated to cyber with random people then fair enough.

BUT I've seen several subs who have no problem at all saying no that still have this rule put on them. In those cases it seems more like the dom/me is moving from just having a light dominance on the sub to trying to have complete control on an unhealthy level. Either that or you don't trust your sub at all.

Again, this is just what it seems like from an outside point of view.

I'm curious about one thing. I've seen several subs that have it in their profile or telling people that they are not allowed by their Master/Mistress to private chat or whisper to anyone but them. So my question is simply; why? There are several subs who have formed strong friendships with others. Even though this is a sex site, private chats doesn't have to be sexual. What if they feel the need to discuss certain things with others that the Master/Mistress for some reason can't understand because they're not in a situation to understand it. It can be gender questions or life etc. Or just having a banter with your good mates.

This is not meant as a criticism or anything, I'm just curious, because for a person who is outside the lifestyle it seems like the Master/Mistress come off as either a massive controlfreak or they don't trust their sub, and I thought that in such a relationship(like any other) trust was a vital key in such a relationship.

tl;dr(Too long; didn't read):

Masters/Mistresses. Why no private? you come off as this

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/26461245.jpg

Last I heard, the gas and oil royalties are largely invested in stocks of international companies based in other nations. In other words, in the success of other societies, rather than being used to pay for the government's largess.



Partly true. A percentage is being invested into the budget every year, while the rest is invested in stocks and other companies. Now tell me how far companies around the world would get without investors willing to put their money in for the business to grow. Add to the fact that many of these businesses are in third world countries are strictly supervised by an ethics council that will advise the government to stop investing in the company if they don't follow the terms given (no child labour, worker safety etc.), then tell me how making third world economies grow is a bad thing, from a neutral point of view that is.


It still amounts to shaking down the upper class and transferring your cost of government to the consumers of the products of the oil and gas companies. So, while your government is building a big portfolio of foreign stocks, it is also raising the world price of energy.



Norway is not a member of OPEC who controls the oilmarket. They control how much oil is to be put on the market which again controls the price. Not to mention that we don't shut down the cranes unless there's fire etc and we're pumping up as much oil and gas as is humanly possible from the sea. Don't try putting the blame on a country that isn't a member of the "elite". Look to your own government instead.



The US absorbed many many economic refugees from Europe after 1850 and it was the loss of many of the productive people who were seeking economic freedom that caused the stagnation that led to the cycle of wars.

Sure. Ignore the fact the tension growing between France and early Germany in the 1870's. Ignore the fact that Germay was growing so strong that British leaders were pissing their pants. Ignore Austria-Hungary's desire to engulf all of Balkan into their empire, not to mention the Tsar of Russia who considered himself "Guardian of Slavs" and came to Serbia's defence once Austria-Hungary attacked. The family ties that were between the different royal houses in Europe and so forth. If economy was the cause, it sure as hell wasn't socialism, simply because in practice there weren't any left wing movements of note until the Russian Revolution.

And why do you think NSDAP was easy to sell? You have a nation that has been given the blame for the entire war(Germans are a proud people, and that one stung like a bitch) as well as a shitloads of factories being dragged out of the country. A massive debt to France, UK and the US as damagerepayment as well as the necessity of loans to try and build it up. Add the global depression(assume that's caused by socialism too, huh?) and suddenly you have a country with an inflation that's so big that you need a wheelbarrow of notes to buy a bread. All you need then is a charismatic leader that can find someone to put the blame on and promise better times, a Germany back to it's former glory, and voila, either it's socialism, capitalism or whatever, he's still gonna get elected.

To give you a point of how the different membership countries related to Brussels:
The EU parliment decides a new rule or directive to be put in to action. Some of these are good, others not so good. If a country(say the UK) is 100% against it they'll either tell the parliment to fuck off in a very diplomatic way or they'll stall it and delay it as well as they can. And we're not talking months, we're talking years, which in practice means they only pick and choose the laws they want. If it's laws that are unpopular with the people they'll just blame Brussels. This isn't a one time thing that happens every now and then, it happens a lot. A whole lot.

And Norway is not a member of the EU. We recognise that it's not in our favour to be part of the EU, especially not in these economic times. We're very socialist in mind, with free health care, free education even on university level, welfare etc. etc.

But, that be said, I think what kind of political system is the best all depends on the size of the country along with what sort of natural resources are available. With Norway, we have 5 million inhabitants and we have a shitload of gas and oil. With all the income from gas and oil it's easy to bring the level of the entire country up on a very high standard of living. A lot of the income is from taxation, not of the middle class, but the upper class and especially the companies drilling up the oil, so instead of milking the middle class we're milking the upper class and the big companies, because even if we put on another percentage on their taxes they will still make enough money for it to be highly profitable to drill up oil and gas, especially when the oil prices keep rising.

I can't speak for other countries, and it is sadly all trial and error with what political system works. Maybe Venezuela would benefit very well from a more socialist model, considering you have a lot of natural resources. What you certainly can't do is give private companies full control of the oil and free hands to work it without any taxation at all, like the ideal capitalism dictates. Then the money will go straight into international co orperations and not to the people. DOn't believe me? Look at Africa...

And 1ball; if you're referring the two World Wars then you should have a look at history and think again before you blame it on socialism. I honestly can't see where you got that from, so please enlighten me.

a perfect example of .....





Pancakes or waffles, anyone??

Cry me a river then build a bridge and get over it. In the meantime I'll go to the fridge to see if I have some cheese to have along with the whine your serving us....

What you say is true, to a point, they are supposed to work for us, but as Valarie Garrett said in Nov '08, "we are ready to rule." That's the way the Proggies feel, they are rulers not public servants. Yes we are on the path of socialism , both parties want that, but the Proggies have extended the safety net to new highs of "taking care" of more and more, bailing out the UAW, spending billions and billions for what? Employment has risen, less people are in the work force now than during Carter's years. We have gone backward for 4 years, and don't tell me it's all W's fault, Barry came into office, gas was $1.84, 15 million fewer people were on food stamps and we owed $6T less. We need to support Mitt and get Barry out of the White House.

Yes, you are indeed on the road to socialism.... if the road is route 66, socialism is in LA and you just got in your 1973 VW Beetle that has a max speed of 50 mph and it has a dodgy engine. That is how far from socialism you lot are. The parties in our parliment that distance themselves from anything the socialist parties stand for are closer to socialism than the democratic party will ever be, not to mention the republican party. So don't think that you're on the path to socialism, because that's right wingers scaremongering you.

What you're describing isn't socialism. It's straight on corrupt dictatorship. It really doesn't matter what sort of ideology they say they stick it, it's always the same result; the population gets fucked over while there's a small percentage that gets filthy rich and they do what they can to get more money in their Swiss bankaccounts while the going is still good.

From what I've seen of reports Chavez has pretty much exterminated everything called democracy, thus you immediately stop being a socialist. Socialism is all about giving the power to the government who in turn will use it to improve the standard of living for the people, either it's by government controlling a lot or a bit less, but the key is that single individuals and/or private companies should not be able to dictate the agenda on what's needed. The people is to dictate and voice their opinion to the elected officials. The power is in the people, not the money, and the people will get it's just rewards from this.

That's sort of what socialism is IN THEORY! This is what teachers of political ideology and so forth will tell you when they lecture about socialism. Not the way Chavez runs your country. That is dictatorship. He just calls it socialism because that sounds a whole lot better than dictatorship.

Now whether socialism is ideal or not, is difficult to say. On one side pretty much every political ideology sounds pretty damn good, but the problem is that theory always differ from practice, and especially when it comes to politics.

Two quotes:
"Work work"
-Peons in Warcraft III

"Why do I always get the dirtjobs?"
-Dozers in Generals