WIKILEAKS FOUNDER JULIAN ASSANGE FREED ON BAIL

[Ulysses G.]

Most posters have just read your post with the quote, so it should not be confusing.

Edited December 18, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[LaoPo]

Most posters have just read your post with the quote, so it should not be confusing.

Is IS confusing and it is also misleading to quote a small part from an article I posted and just higlight the quote with my name on top and leave the SOURCE of the article out.

It suggests that I wrote the quote and that's incorrect BECAUSE in the quote on TOP it says:

LaoPo, on 2010-12-18 14:19, said:

" <snip> YOUR quote ..........."

That's not done and impolite; why is it so difficult for you to leave the source/link into your quote ?

LaoPo

Edited December 18, 2010 by LaoPo

[koheesti]

So who was the American Congressman who called for Assange's assassination?

[hammered]

In the past the US courts have allowed the NY Times for example to publish leaked information. In fact leaked papers are published by media very regularly across the States although not as many or as contentious in most cases. However, the principle is the same. The receiving stolen goods arguement has never been used before and if it is will start a precedent that will endanger every medias ability to work. I also dont think anybody is accusing or even believes Assange actually burgled anywhere himself. His organization like any other media organzation received leaked documents and then had to decide what to do with them. Wikileaks in deciding to publish wasnt even setting a precedent. That had been done many times before

There is also the arguement that Assange is doing Americans a service by exposing government excesses.

Wikileaks published nothing. The documents were released by Wikileaks to other news agencies who published the data. Wikileaks received it from the source, which implicates them in the stealing of the documents. They are the "fence".

It will be very interesting to hear what PFC Manning has to say about the released documents.

Assuming it was Manning that downloaded the documents, he will go down for the crime and face hard time in Leavenworth. Unless, of course, he strikes a plea deal and turns states evidence to testify against all others that might have been involved in the plot.

Interesting days, months and years ahead.

Actually wikileaks do publish. Take a look at their site. They also allow co-publishing.

According to todays Post US military sources say Manning was offered money to work for them as a source on wikileaks but turned it down saying he didnt want to do cloak and dagger. The problem the US government has though is the emotionally disturbed stuff makes Manning a potentially useless witness. The other porblem is that worldwide media are now lining up to call for no prosecusiton of wikileaks (defending their own) although I guess Fox news or somone will still be demanding death sentences, but few regard them as a news source;)

[chuckd]

Wikileaks published nothing.

Actually wikileaks do publish. Take a look at their site. They also allow co-publishing.

According to todays Post US military sources say Manning was offered money to work for them as a source on wikileaks but turned it down saying he didnt want to do cloak and dagger. The problem the US government has though is the emotionally disturbed stuff makes Manning a potentially useless witness. The other porblem is that worldwide media are now lining up to call for no prosecusiton of wikileaks (defending their own) although I guess Fox news or somone will still be demanding death sentences, but few regard them as a news source;)

You are correct, of course. I was thinking more in terms of newspaper type publishing.

My apologies to the forum for the mistake.

Why would the Justice Department listen to what world wide media wants them to do? If a Federal Grand Jury issues an indictment against Assange, Manning or others, the DOJ should pursue a conviction with full vigor.

Whether this Attorney General will do so is another matter.

[JUDAS]

Wikileaks published nothing.

Actually wikileaks do publish. Take a look at their site. They also allow co-publishing.

According to todays Post US military sources say Manning was offered money to work for them as a source on wikileaks but turned it down saying he didnt want to do cloak and dagger. The problem the US government has though is the emotionally disturbed stuff makes Manning a potentially useless witness. The other porblem is that worldwide media are now lining up to call for no prosecusiton of wikileaks (defending their own) although I guess Fox news or somone will still be demanding death sentences, but few regard them as a news source;)

You are correct, of course. I was thinking more in terms of newspaper type publishing.

My apologies to the forum for the mistake.

Why would the Justice Department listen to what world wide media wants them to do? If a Federal Grand Jury issues an indictment against Assange, Manning or others, the DOJ should pursue a conviction with full vigor.

Whether this Attorney General will do so is another matter.

I addressed this point in a previous post chuckd. Let's assume there is a clear cut case with which Assange can be charged. A possible concern for the USAG is how that prosection will be viewed on the national/international stage. If the press/media rally around Assange in this specific case they may well affect public opinion leading to a negative view of the US Govt. A negative opinion nationally can certainly damage the sitting Govt in the eyes of the electorate. Internationally, some countries may be somewhat more reluctant to assist the US Govt in it's foreign policy implementation.

All in all, a tough one for the US authorities. Assange being viewed as a "political prisoner" etc by the media does no favours to those in power. In the UK the Director of Public Prosecutions can refuse to take a clear cut case to court on the grounds that it's not in the public inteest. I assume the USAG has the same powers?

[hammered]

Wikileaks published nothing.

Actually wikileaks do publish. Take a look at their site. They also allow co-publishing.

According to todays Post US military sources say Manning was offered money to work for them as a source on wikileaks but turned it down saying he didnt want to do cloak and dagger. The problem the US government has though is the emotionally disturbed stuff makes Manning a potentially useless witness. The other porblem is that worldwide media are now lining up to call for no prosecusiton of wikileaks (defending their own) although I guess Fox news or somone will still be demanding death sentences, but few regard them as a news source;)

You are correct, of course. I was thinking more in terms of newspaper type publishing.

My apologies to the forum for the mistake.

Why would the Justice Department listen to what world wide media wants them to do? If a Federal Grand Jury issues an indictment against Assange, Manning or others, the DOJ should pursue a conviction with full vigor.

Whether this Attorney General will do so is another matter.

It is a question of how the US government and their coproations wants to be perceived, do business and listened to around the world. It gets harder to preach freedom if you are seen as having attacked freedom when you didnt like it and that is an arguement that is playing with a lot of people. Also it gets harder to have a go at China or someone when they shut internet things down. Corporations seen as "American" are also sensitive to turning off customers etc. It is about perceptions. I would guess that one reason to date no quick charges have been filed is that there could be regret if the PR game goes against the US, and they wont want a EU court date where the defence is freedom of the media for similar reasons.

Of course any country can find a law to prosecute a whistleblower or leaker but the question is which ones want to. Im sure China wouldnt wory about opinion but the US with its constitution and traditions may leave the government there with a lot harder choice and finding many allies dont want to see it done. Im sure however if Assange goes down for a sex crime the US government will be happy.

[chuckd]

It is a question of how the US government and their coproations wants to be perceived, do business and listened to around the world. It gets harder to preach freedom if you are seen as having attacked freedom when you didnt like it and that is an arguement that is playing with a lot of people. Also it gets harder to have a go at China or someone when they shut internet things down. Corporations seen as "American" are also sensitive to turning off customers etc. It is about perceptions. I would guess that one reason to date no quick charges have been filed is that there could be regret if the PR game goes against the US, and they wont want a EU court date where the defence is freedom of the media for similar reasons.

Of course any country can find a law to prosecute a whistleblower or leaker but the question is which ones want to. Im sure China wouldnt wory about opinion but the US with its constitution and traditions may leave the government there with a lot harder choice and finding many allies dont want to see it done. Im sure however if Assange goes down for a sex crime the US government will be happy.

I feel this administration isn't worried so much about what the world thinks as how best to milk another four years out of the electorate. This administration'a approval rating is down in the low 40's and falling. Obama has been screwing up by the numbers and his ineptitude is becoming more and more apparent daily.

If it is to the political benefit of Obama to bring charges against Assange, it will be done. However, if he feels the case will be considered unpopular by the electorate the Wikileaks case will quietly go away and things will return to normal. The current Attorney General, Erik Holder, is nothing if not a yes man to Obama. If Obama doesn't want charges, they will very likely not happen.

Now to the question as to why charges have not been already brought against Assange. Federal Grand Juries are slow and cumbersome. They take their time before bringing an indictment, only watching the clock to be sure the Statute of Limitations do not run out before charges are brought. In cases involving espionage, the statute of limitations runs out with the death of the individual involved, i.e. there is no statute of limitations on espionage.

The federal government and federal grand juries have a lifetime to bring possible charges against Assange. It seems he has a lot of time to look over his shoulder and contemplate his actions. The next president could even bring charges against Assange.

However, if Assange treats many more media sources as he has treated CNN and ABC, he might not get a lot of sympathy.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/julian-assange-calls-abc-news-reporter-tabloid-schmuck-12425603

Edited December 19, 2010 by chuckd

[Thaddeus]

However, if Assange treats many more media sources as he has treated CNN and ABC, he might not get a lot of sympathy.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/julian-assange-calls-abc-news-reporter-tabloid-schmuck-12425603

I'm pretty much a fence sitter on this whole wikileaks thing, but in this vid he probably did the right thing.

[chuckd]

My point being, Assange made no friends at CNN or ABC when he walked out of the interview in a childish huff.

[koheesti]

So where is Assange now? He was held by the Brits because Sweden wanted to talk to him, right? Why out on bail if he isn't accused of a crime in the UK? Shouldn't they send him to Sweden and let them grant him bail or not?

[chuckd]

if Assange wasn't fighting so hard to keep from facing the Swedish authorities, he would be in Sweden.

Following is an article from the Daily Mail. Assange groupies should not read the article.

_______________________________________________________

The wildly promiscuous lifestyle of WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange: Look away now Jemima as our report reveals the sordid truth

By DAVID ROSE

Last updated at 3:58 PM on 19th December 2010

Accusers went to police after he refused AIDS test

Days before, he stole THIRD girl from boyfriend's bed

Ex-colleague accuses him of acting like a dictator

Top Guardian journalist now refuses to deal with him

The two women who say they were sexually assaulted by the WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange would never have complained to police if he had agreed to take an HIV test, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

WikiLeaks’s Swedish co-ordinator, who worked closely with Mr Assange for months, said in an exclusive interview that he repeatedly begged his boss to have the test, both to head off the possible police investigation and for Mr Assange’s own peace of mind, given his promiscuous sex life.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339859/Wikileaks-Julian-Assanges-promiscuous-lifestyle-revealed-Jemima-Khan-look-away-now.html#ixzz18ck8WRo0

[flying]

The two women who say they were sexually assaulted by the WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange would never have complained to police if he had agreed to take an HIV test,

What???

These accusers grow more bizarre daily

AFAIK supposedly during consensual sex a condom broke or never existed...If the accusers are worried now about a possible HIV infection they could take the test themselves ..although most know HIV tests are meaningless unless time has passed as it can take up to 6 months to test ++...

Yet this ....story? is claiming if Assange had taken the test they BOTH would never have even complained ? sheesh can it be any more lame?

The word assaulted should be removed from these loony stories as it is only an assault on intelligence/common sense

Edited December 20, 2010 by flying

[geriatrickid]

The two women who say they were sexually assaulted by the WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange would never have complained to police if he had agreed to take an HIV test,

What???

These accusers grow more bizarre daily

AFAIK supposedly during consensual sex a condom broke...If the accuser is worried now about a possible HIV infection she could take the test herself..although everyone knows HIV tests are meaningless unless time has passed as it can take up to 6 months to test ++...yet this ....story? is claiming if Assange had taken the test she would never have even complained ? sheesh !

The word assaulted should be removed from these loony stories

No, it is not bizarre. Why should the women worry during the wait? Had Mr. Assange been a responsible adult, a man, he would have taken his test. Instead he refused. He was given every opportunity to do so. Now, either Mr. Assange is infected and is in denial or he is an extremely insensitive selfish slut of a man. If he had any respect for the women, he would have taken the test. Instead, he has subjected the women to emotional trauma. Had the rapid HIV test been taken when requested, the women would have

known within the HART window of opportunity.

I believe there is a double standard here. it's ok for a guy to screw as many women as he can and it's considered ok. Now, if Mr. Assange had been sodomizing men, folks would be up in arms saying he was an evil gay man etc. It's idiots like Assange that help spread STIs in this world. As more and more of the details of the case come out, it's going to be an eye opener for some people to see what an egotistical prick this guy is.

[flying]

No, it is not bizarre. Why should the women worry during the wait? Had Mr. Assange been a responsible adult, a man, he would have taken his test. Instead he refused. He was given every opportunity to do so.

I see so now folks after consensual sex can be forced to be tested too? This a new law or one just for him?

Have the ladies been tested? If she/they had any morals at all she would not have even had sex without a condom.

Please dont insult intelligence with cries of innocence after the fact.

If either were truly concerned they could take the anti virals immediately...obviously they were not concerned till.....later

I wont bother with the rest of your post detailing the fantasy of sodomy

Bit of a sensationalist aren't you?

Edited December 20, 2010 by flying

[Credo]

Sweden's views on this issue is apparently different from most posters.  I would guess that the women are already on Anti-viral medication, but that isn't a sure fire way of preventing infection.  

[chuckd]

Sweden has some very female oriented sex crimes statutes. If Assange was half as smart as people claim him to be, he would have realized Sweden is NOT the place to be promiscuous.

I wonder if he thought he was a rock star? I have heard narcissism does that to you.

[Wallaby]

The two women who say they were sexually assaulted by the WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange would never have complained to police if he had agreed to take an HIV test,

What???

These accusers grow more bizarre daily

AFAIK supposedly during consensual sex a condom broke...If the accuser is worried now about a possible HIV infection she could take the test herself..although everyone knows HIV tests are meaningless unless time has passed as it can take up to 6 months to test ++...yet this ....story? is claiming if Assange had taken the test she would never have even complained ? sheesh !

The word assaulted should be removed from these loony stories

No, it is not bizarre. Why should the women worry during the wait? Had Mr. Assange been a responsible adult, a man, he would have taken his test. Instead he refused. He was given every opportunity to do so. Now, either Mr. Assange is infected and is in denial or he is an extremely insensitive selfish slut of a man. If he had any respect for the women, he would have taken the test. Instead, he has subjected the women to emotional trauma. Had the rapid HIV test been taken when requested, the women would have

known within the HART window of opportunity.

I believe there is a double standard here. it's ok for a guy to screw as many women as he can and it's considered ok. Now, if Mr. Assange had been sodomizing men, folks would be up in arms saying he was an evil gay man etc. It's idiots like Assange that help spread STIs in this world. As more and more of the details of the case come out, it's going to be an eye opener for some people to see what an egotistical prick this guy is.

And perhaps if the women had been responsible adults instead of being selfish sluts that had respect for men then he wouldn't be in this predicament. Instead they have subjected this man to emotional trauma of being accused of 'rape' after continuing to have a grand old time with him after the event but then screaming blue murder after comparing notes on his performance.

As more and more of the details of the case come out, it's going to be an eye opener for some people to see what an egotistical prick this guy is.

So you know him do you? Some sort of authority on what he is like? And just what does his personality have to do with it anyway. It is comments like the one you made the reason why courts don't usually allow previous criminal history to be used during trials. I vividly remember one jury member in a case stating 'if the police arrested him me must be guilty'. Ahh the intelligence of some people.

Perhaps as more and more details of the case come out he may be seen to be just a normal guy who likes a bit of sex every now and again and doesn't study statute law to ensure sex without a condom can lead to an international arrest warrant for questioning. Perhaps not, but who really cares what he is like, what does it have to do with anything.

Seems the world may be coming to a place where you have to have written consent in triplicate before you have a good night with a lady.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Wallaby

[Wallaby]

Some seem to be very loose with the term 'terrorist' these days. I suppose we'll all soon be labelled terrorists in one way or the other in good time.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/20/3097917.htm?section=world

[mark45y]

The two women who say they were sexually assaulted by the WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange would never have complained to police if he had agreed to take an HIV test,

What???

These accusers grow more bizarre daily

AFAIK supposedly during consensual sex a condom broke...If the accuser is worried now about a possible HIV infection she could take the test herself..although everyone knows HIV tests are meaningless unless time has passed as it can take up to 6 months to test ++...yet this ....story? is claiming if Assange had taken the test she would never have even complained ? sheesh !

The word assaulted should be removed from these loony stories

No, it is not bizarre. Why should the women worry during the wait? Had Mr. Assange been a responsible adult, a man, he would have taken his test. Instead he refused. He was given every opportunity to do so. Now, either Mr. Assange is infected and is in denial or he is an extremely insensitive selfish slut of a man. If he had any respect for the women, he would have taken the test. Instead, he has subjected the women to emotional trauma. Had the rapid HIV test been taken when requested, the women would have

known within the HART window of opportunity.

I believe there is a double standard here. it's ok for a guy to screw as many women as he can and it's considered ok. Now, if Mr. Assange had been sodomizing men, folks would be up in arms saying he was an evil gay man etc. It's idiots like Assange that help spread STIs in this world. As more and more of the details of the case come out, it's going to be an eye opener for some people to see what an egotistical prick this guy is.

And perhaps if the women had been responsible adults instead of being selfish sluts that had respect for men then he wouldn't be in this predicament. Instead they have subjected this man to emotional trauma of being accused of 'rape' after continuing to have a grand old time with him after the event but then screaming blue murder after comparing notes on his performance.

As more and more of the details of the case come out, it's going to be an eye opener for some people to see what an egotistical prick this guy is.

So you know him do you? Some sort of authority on what he is like? And just what does his personality have to do with it anyway. It is comments like the one you made the reason why courts don't usually allow previous criminal history to be used during trials. I vividly remember one jury member in a case stating 'if the police arrested him me must be guilty'. Ahh the intelligence of some people.

Perhaps as more and more details of the case come out he may be seen to be just a normal guy who likes a bit of sex every now and again and doesn't study statute law to ensure sex without a condom can lead to an international arrest warrant for questioning. Perhaps not, but who really cares what he is like, what does it have to do with anything.

Seems the world may be coming to a place where you have to have written consent in triplicate before you have a good night with a lady.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339859/Wikileaks-Julian-Assanges-promiscuous-lifestyle-revealed-Jemima-Khan-look-away-now.html#ixzz18ck8WRo0

According to her statement, he pinned her to the bed and held her arms, while forcing open her legs. In response to her pleas, he put on a condom. But after some time, the statement alleges, she felt him ‘do something’ with his hands. It was only after he ejaculated that she realised that the condom had been torn – she claims, deliberately, by Mr Assange.

The second complainant, Ms W, had consensual intercourse with him using a condom on the night of August 17. But the following morning, she alleges, she woke to find him on top of her, having unprotected sex – something she had never done before.

[chuckd]

And perhaps if the women had been responsible adults instead of being selfish sluts that had respect for men then he wouldn't be in this predicament. Instead they have subjected this man to emotional trauma of being accused of 'rape' after continuing to have a grand old time with him after the event but then screaming blue murder after comparing notes on his performance.

Or to put it another way...

And perhaps if the man had been a responsible adult instead of being a selfish slut that had no respect for women then they wouldn't be in this predicament. Instead he has subjected these women to emotional trauma of being raped after continuing to have a grand old time with them after the event but then screaming blue murder after they compared notes and talked to a prosecutor.

[philw]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339859/Wikileaks-Julian-Assanges-promiscuous-lifestyle-revealed-Jemima-Khan-look-away-now.html#ixzz18ck8WRo0

According to her statement, he pinned her to the bed and held her arms, while forcing open her legs. In response to her pleas, he put on a condom. But after some time, the statement alleges, she felt him ‘do something’ with his hands. It was only after he ejaculated that she realised that the condom had been torn – she claims, deliberately, by Mr Assange.

The second complainant, Ms W, had consensual intercourse with him using a condom on the night of August 17. But the following morning, she alleges, she woke to find him on top of her, having unprotected sex – something she had never done before.

So what...........and how credible is this ?

[philw]

And perhaps if the women had been responsible adults instead of being selfish sluts that had respect for men then he wouldn't be in this predicament. Instead they have subjected this man to emotional trauma of being accused of 'rape' after continuing to have a grand old time with him after the event but then screaming blue murder after comparing notes on his performance.

Or to put it another way...

And perhaps if the man had been a responsible adult instead of being a selfish slut that had no respect for women then they wouldn't be in this predicament. Instead he has subjected these women to emotional trauma of being raped after continuing to have a grand old time with them after the event but then screaming blue murder after they compared notes and talked to a prosecutor.

Your emotive language gives away your prejudice.

Total nonsense.

[chuckd]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339859/Wikileaks-Julian-Assanges-promiscuous-lifestyle-revealed-Jemima-Khan-look-away-now.html#ixzz18ck8WRo0

According to her statement, he pinned her to the bed and held her arms, while forcing open her legs. In response to her pleas, he put on a condom. But after some time, the statement alleges, she felt him ‘do something’ with his hands. It was only after he ejaculated that she realised that the condom had been torn – she claims, deliberately, by Mr Assange.

The second complainant, Ms W, had consensual intercourse with him using a condom on the night of August 17. But the following morning, she alleges, she woke to find him on top of her, having unprotected sex – something she had never done before.

So what...........and how credible is this ?

It's every bit as credible as his denials.

The key is who will the Swedish authorities and potential jury believe.

[chuckd]

And perhaps if the women had been responsible adults instead of being selfish sluts that had respect for men then he wouldn't be in this predicament. Instead they have subjected this man to emotional trauma of being accused of 'rape' after continuing to have a grand old time with him after the event but then screaming blue murder after comparing notes on his performance.

Or to put it another way...

And perhaps if the man had been a responsible adult instead of being a selfish slut that had no respect for women then they wouldn't be in this predicament. Instead he has subjected these women to emotional trauma of being raped after continuing to have a grand old time with them after the event but then screaming blue murder after they compared notes and talked to a prosecutor.

Your emotive language gives away your prejudice.

Total nonsense.

I presume you are addressing both of us.

[Wallaby]

I think you'll find there are 3 of us.

My emotive language was in direct response to the emotive language by geriatrickid. Your comment is strikingly similar to his statement which I quoted.

But no problem, just shows the original emotive statement for what it is.

I think all has been said in this thread that can be said, I doubt people are going to change views any time soon. Now just seems to be a 'wait and see'.

[Ulysses G.]

I think all has been said in this thread that can be said, I doubt people are going to change views any time soon.

I agree, but this applies to most of the political threads after the first two members on opposite sides have posted. Maybe the mods should let geriatrickid and funfunfun each represent their side to cut all the repeated rhetoric. They seem to be the two most articulate spokespersons for each respective side.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[geriatrickid]

What a nice double standard some of you boys have going on here. The collective view is that It's the women's fault, they seduced him, they were evil whores etc.. This view shares a lot with the legal treatment women in some countries such as Iran. Sorry, but Mr. Assange carried out his activity in Sweden, not Iran or Afghanistan where women are objects. The women may have demonstrated poor judgement but No means No. That's what the law says and that's what the jurisprudence is. The core issue is that of taking responsibility for one's behaviour. Mr. Assange wanted to copulate with women without a condom. He merits the same response I give when men engage in "bareback" sex with guys they pick up in a club. It's wrong. Why wouldn't he get a rapid HIV test? It would have taken all of 30 seconds to do a saliva or blood spot check? Even if one wishes to ignore the allegations of sexual assault, how can one justify the insensitive and selfish refusal to have taken the HIV test? Surely, if Mr. Assange had any respect for women he would have done so. He has yet to give an explanation as to why he refused.

This is a watershed moment for many public health advocates and womens groups. They are going to have to sh*t or get off the pot at some point. Not one womens group has spoken up. Not one HIV prevention group has spoken up. There are serious implications to this case, that could set a public precedent and put their respective advocacy activities in peril. If they do not weigh in soon, they will face losing their respective positions they have staked out over the years. This is the issue to watch in the coming months. If the courts agree that Mr. Assange didn't need to have the HIV test and didn't need to address the women's concerns, then that will set back the women's and public health advocacy groups agenda. Some people may not appreciate the consequences of this case as it relates to women's issues and public health, but it's heavy duty sh*t and is going to shake up public policy.

[LaoPo]

if Assange wasn't fighting so hard to keep from facing the Swedish authorities, he would be in Sweden.

Following is an article from the Daily Mail. Assange groupies should not read the article.

_______________________________________________________

The wildly promiscuous lifestyle of WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange: Look away now Jemima as our report reveals the sordid truth

..the Daily Mail is a rather "juicy" tabloid kind of newspaper, as the headlines already suggest; not a content one would find in the Guardian.

Next.

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

Sweden has some very female oriented sex crimes statutes. If Assange was half as smart as people claim him to be, he would have realized Sweden is NOT the place to be promiscuous.

I wonder if he thought he was a rock star? I have heard narcissism does that to you.

...is that why Sweden has about the highest divorce rate in the world ? Never been to Sweden, have you?

LaoPo