Day Cruise

1) does canada have an identity crisis?

sure we are, but doesn't anyone feel a bit nervous about a hugely binging, over-confident, war-mongering, over-spending buddy buddy to the south of us. we have a big interest in america, because their actions are cause for our concern. As the bigger player in world politics, if america does one thing, we are affected very much so

2) do canadians really care about canada?

not really, this has to do with the idea of a greater good rather than a nationalistic good, in this way we are more European. it's not necessarily a bad thing, nor is it necessarily a good thing...it's called playing your cards right

3) why is it that the bigger player in world politics always belittles the smaller player?

this is because they have no respect for the sovreignty of the weaker constituents. the selfish drive for more power, prestige, money (oil), imperialism claim the heart of americans. Is this a bad thing? well not really, because it has brought good to the world (look at how dictators came out of power...Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam). However, lately the grounds have been shady at best, and the only real reason that keeps them going, is the shame of saying you were maybe a bit wrong.

4) Do Canadians hate Americans?

Ironically they do, but as this article states, we are too dependent on America for our sustenance. So in retrospect, we don't hate you guys, rather we're just weary of your all powerful might that you sometimes don't use for the best of purposes

It's funny how Candians don't see how the rest of the world is going and maybe start to think that "their way" isn't always the right way. You are right, there is no shame in admitting you are wrong- it's about time Canada took the first step and thanked America for being so "war-mongering". We see the result of this attitude in the millions of Arabs who are seeing change in their futures and their lifestyles being removed from tyranny. But of course, we wouldn't want to impose our style of government on them right? You know, because dirty arabs can't handle democracy. Right.. I liked your question- why is it that the smaller player in politics always gets belittled by the bigger player? How bout looking at it the other way around? I think you know the answer to that one- smaller players like to belittle the other ones because they are unbelievably jealous. Let's face it, the only reason you aren't all American by now is because of that Queen's face on your coins. And the problem with Canada is- you've always had an identity crisis. It's not something that started recently. Anyways, why would our "war-mongering" affect your identity? Another result of that "foolish nationalism". Meanwhile Cowboy Bush actually liberates the world while Canadians and Europeans- heck, might as well call them all Europeans- sit around and talk about how best to accomadate radical islam in their schools. Have fun rescuing that hellhole when the time comes. America will keep moving- stronger than ever before.

Good article Dicku,
We might as well move Canada overseas to the european continent. Maybe join them with France. That might give us more oppertunites and more land.

is it me, or are you guys becoming so caught up in patriotism, that you don't see the sovreignty of smaller nations. Why does it seem to me, that whenever someone says America does something wrong, the extreme patriotism blinds you to see from another perspective. Don't just see the world through rosy colored "American" glasses. See the world in someone else's shoes.

And finally, don't criticize a country cause they're smaller than you, just because they differ on beliefs. It's like the big bully telling a little kid, don't disagree with me. And then when they still do, you criticize them because they're shorter than you.

It's not so much that they disagree. Canada can disagree all it wants- but the reasoning behind it is what bothers Americans. There is this attitude in Europe- that is so insanely anti-American that it refuses to see outside of the Europe worldview. It's funny that you should talk about patriotism when the European Union is just about bent on destroying the individual sovreignty of countries in Europe. I criticize my country when it does wrong. But forgive me if taking advice from Europe is last on my list. Believe us, we do see the world in someone else's shoes. We don't see the world through Michael Moore's films. That's why millions of Iraqis admit that life is better without Saddam. And that's why the U.S.A is the first to step out and say that there was genocide going on in Darfur- whereas Europe still sits around.

"I criticize my country when it does wrong. But forgive me if taking advice from Europe is last on my list."

Amen to that.

dear decruz,

thank you for your example of how the pot called the kettle black.

apparently, you claim "there is this attitude in Europe- that is so insanely anti-American that it refuses to see outside of the Europe worldview." and yet this doesn't stop you from spreading your anti-european dribble while refusing to see outside of the american worldview (after all, you claim that all canadian desperately want to be americans; and that the only reason europe hates us is because of "jealousy." way to see out side the american point of view, dude!).

your ignorant babbling about subjects you are clueless about are entertaining. after all, most europeans can't comprehend the european union, but you are so well-read on the subject you are able to make the judgment that it is out to destroy european sovereignty. i'd like to hear your theory on this, it sounds absolutely fascinating.

we should give decruz props for his originality. why, i don't think i've heard anything critical of europe since i turned the tv off five seconds ago. so thank you. everything from your semantics concerning the term "genocide" to not seeing the world through michael moore's films is as refreshing as a breath of fresh air at a garbage dump. can't wait until you become a journalist and then you can continue writing about things i've heard and read about ten million times before. you have keen eye.

love,
max

can i also say:

i think what you believe to be europe and canada's reasons for disliking the united states (you mentioned "jealousy") is a perfect example of your close-minded worldview. it seems that you are so indoctrinated that you are incapable of thinking of a serious fault that the world would dislike us for, except for the ultimate compliment: our fault is that we are sooooo amazingly perfect that everyone is just jealous of everything about us.

perhaps this narcissism says something about you and the issue itself.

awesome!! ... i like this guy!! ... he said the words they way i shud hav said them ... if i only i was tis gud at using words ... nyways decruz ... wat he said ... is wat i meant too :D!!

Bobby- you've picked a great guy to be friends with- you should hear his theories on Israel and just about anything he pulled out of his butt. Actually- you're right you would probably agree with Max. Let's go step by step through Max's stupidity, eh? First of all Max, I would love to hear the original opinions that you have on anything- you know, the onces that weren't forcefed to you by your buddies on online message board. The same ones, that you claim I don't have. What I do on this blog is look at opinions- even my own once in a while- see my post on homosexual marriage. There is enough anti-American European crap out there on the internet, they really don't need any of my help looking at anti-American perspectives. You ask me why I believe the European Union is out destroy individual soverignty of nations, step out of the box and read Leiz Speigel, watch BBC, and read some Le Monde once in a while. The opinionators in there are much better equipped than you or I to talk about the European Union. But from what I've read , that's exactly what's happening. And really, Max, originality? At least I'm not churning out garbage from George Orwell every five seconds to prove my point. At first- when I read your comment, I was thinking- oh lord! An educated person attacking me- I have to prepare myself! Then I saw who had signed it- it was only Max. The same person who disintegrated into calling me just about every name in the book and using four letter words to debate me accuses me of originality. This is classic Max. Thanks for coming back pal, I missed ya. While you call my arguments unoriginal, you have yet to actually say why they are wrong. Bobby- go ahead and agree with this guy. You know- because his comment really mentions nothing at all. I have been anti-American when I need to be anti-American, not when Europe and Mass Media try to convince me to be Anti-American, maybe you would like to give me some reasons why the rest of the world hates America, Max?

I look outside of the American world-view just about every day. I believe you do this by informing yourself, you read foreign newspapers, look at foreign websites. And you get information. And I still see a lot of what Europe is attacking to be absolute B.S. The worst thing that pisses me off is the attitude that Europe is the moral authority in just about any situation- funny stuff that is. Oh man, so much more to write- but I'll save it for when we talk in person next time. Thanks for visiting, btw, Max.

actually, some suggestions for originality:

-visit this website: http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html
then subscribe to secrecy news. its a wonderful site which produces weekly e-mails discussing really interesting stories that get absolutely no attention. you can actually go through all their old issues and look through if you don't believe me. its a great supporter of the freedom of information act.
-when you choose to discuss politics, as you sometimes do, i'd wish you would at times focus your discussion on less overstated issues. trust me, your opinions on gay rights, middle eastern affairs, and bush's big speeches can be found on every other blog on this continent. perhaps mix it up with parts of the world which never get any mention. recently there has been a pretty interesting course of events ocurring between venezuela and the united states. what i'd love to find, and since you wish to someday become a journalist it would be fantastic for you to try (just a suggestion), is indepth analysis of one news story that doesn't get much play. it's funny because when i was practicing for my SATs i did a whole bunch of practice SATs, and some have really interesting reading material. one concerned the media. the person who wrote it discussed how the media's problem is it gives its audience of a false feeling of knowledge by throwing at it thousands of bits of information without making any sort of connection. i find this to be true. the news seems to be a pretty superficial business and not in the way you probably think. its superficial in the sense that it refuses to indetify (or it does not incorporate) a story's history and therefore makes the story irrelevent. they will throw a fact such as the current lebanese movement against syrian occupation, name a single reason for its existance (for example, they'll simply say syria has been occupying the country for many decades) and leave the rest for the own viewer to figure out. no indepth study of why syria invaded or what has the relationship between the people of lebanon and the people of syria been for the past century and so on and so forth. they give you this rough data to top a pyramid that has no base. not only that, but after they've given you that rough data, they repeat it to you three thousand times until your brain is numb. and so perhaps, if you truly were asking how you could be original on this blog, you could take a single story and truly study it. take the venezuelan story. tell me the history of venezuela, establish a political mood for the country by telling me its history in great detail. then turn to chavez in particular and go even more indepth on him. and by indepth i'm not talking about giving me a few rough figures without any connection. and then study the history of us and venezuelan relations. us and latin american relations. then relay the current facts and how they connect to previous ones. chavez claimed a few weeks ago that he is the target of an assassination plot by the united states. i believe it was in 2002, venezuela went through a short lived coup. make that connection and then give me a full recound of the event. you see, people don't do that because its hard work. but that's the only way you'll get a good sense of the story. you have this idea that if you read enough foreign newspapers you'll know how other countries think. you'll get nowhere unless you know the history and the culture. and that you seem to be clueless about.
-if the venezuelan story doesn't interest you then you can pick out of a shit load of stories nobody ever, ever, ever talks about. maybe you feel a deeper connection to india. talk more about india. make it a running story so that we get into it as well.

you can tell me you read all the newspapers in the world, that still doesn't stop you from holding the typical american worldview. think of how ridiculous i would sound if i told you that the only reason you hated europe was because you were jealous. your immidiate reaction would be, "jealous of what?", and then you might make some anti-european joke, something the likes of "jealous of their women with hair under their armpits?". stupid shit like that (by the way, if this is not your reaction to the assertion that you are simply jealous of europe, please correct me). so, this is an understandable reaction for an american person to have. and i would imagine this would also be an understandable reaction for a european person to have after you have informed them that the reason for their loathing of the current united states administration is that they are jealous. think of things in this manner. here, i'll make a step-to-step program of how you can think this way:
1. take all the insults you throw at europe or canada.
2. picture your reaction to those exact same insults being used against the united states.
3. judge your reaction.
4. apply that same reaction to the opponent.
its called empathy. i don't think you have mastered the art. not to say that i have either. of course, this would entail accepting the fact that the united states is not superior to other countries. i'm not sure whether or not you believe it is or not. but i know lots of people who do, so...

what else? oh, why does europe hate america? well, first i'd start by stating that the majority of people simply dislike the current administration; much the same way they disliked the reagan administration. is this turning to hatred of the american people themselves? among the ignorant, perhaps. this second question has no merrit, because it deals with morons who cannot differentiate between a government and its people (much like how o'reilly moronically reasoned that he has a right to hate all french people because france is a democratic government and the people elected the government). i don't want to deal with this level of stupidity at this point.
so we'll go to the first question: why do europeans hate the bush administration? well, from the beginning i'd say they disliked him right off the bat because they viewed him as ignorant. but this was before they knew anything about him. this was around the time he first got elected. this reaction of course has merit depending on who you are talking to. but since most europeans didn't now him very well, we'll say it had no true merit. it was really afterwards, with bush's habit of paying little to no attention to europe (his visits to europe were rare to non-existant). but anyways, lets skip all the bullshit and simple get onto iraq. this is probably the most important part. this is where the rift is most evident. and then the question is put forth: why were most europeans against the war in iraq? you briefly hinted at your astounding theory on why europeans were against the war: "because dirty arabs can't handle democracy." i find this a ridiculous argument that in my opinion has little following in europe. if i were to guess at the biggest reason why europeans were against the war in iraq, it would be that they did not view iraq as a threat. and this was back when the main reason for the invasion was the threat iraq posed (now it has drifted to "freedom loving"; which i remember being much lower on the list than wmd and al-qaeda ties). you can argue all you want about whether or not you believe iraq was a threat from the information we had, the europeans (and most of the world for that matter) were not buying. the only people really buying it were the united states (for strange reasons) and israel (for understandable reasons).

but there is resentment in the european world towards the us. and it is understandable for you, decruz, to find it childish. much of the interplay between the european union and the united states has been really childish. and so, you asked me where you were wrong and maybe you aren't wrong at all. maybe there is an attitude in europea that is so insanely anti-american that it refuses to see other arguments. but my point in my original post, which you chose to ignore, was that what you are doing is simply playing a game of "the pot calling the kettle black." all this anti-americanism is probably true about europe, but the same exact thing is occuring in the united states with anti-europeism. and you are a perfect example of it. this was my only point in the original post: what you are doing is commonly called "the pot calling the kettle black." you of course ignored it in order to go on a long tirrade examining everything that ever came out of my mouth throughout high school in order to, i guess, ruin my good name (sarcasm on the "good name"). most of those personal attacks have nothing to do with the issue at hand, so i'll ignore them (but the orwell thing. give me a break dude, i had just bought his book of essays and was reading through it. of course i'm going to mention it at that time. i usually do make connections to what i'm currently reading, because i'm not in the habit of memorizing books. today i'd probably reference something by gabriel garcia marquez. calm down dude. plus, most people who quote orwell usually quote 1984 and Animal Farm. i really liked his essays and his book on spain [he fought in the spanish civil war] because it made me question my views on pacifism. orwell was also a amazingly harsh critic of pacifists and the left wing british press at the time. he actually was more critical of pro-communist left wing news agencies that were applauding the rise of the soviet union, that of the right wing ones, which he didn't bother to even get into.).

anyways, i'm tired. i'm going to bed.

I appreciate your suggestions on what I should try, but funny enough, Venezuela just hasn't interested me. But now that you say so, I might actually look at what's happening there. I only have bits and pieces. The thing about the news industry is- If any tv news were to do a long indepth report on anything- people would stop watching. It's a sad fact about the American culture- one I am readily willing to admit- that we don't do enough foreign news. (Seee? There we go!) I see the point you made "pot calling the kettle black" Maybe I should clarify some of my views further. I'll just say that, looking back at the history of the relationship between the United States and Europe- it's almost always been this way. There have been a few books out lately that talk about it. My "dirty arabs can't handle democracy" quotation stems from the situation after the war had been accomplished. And I admit this is a personal opinion of mine. The attitude that I think anti-war Europeans and American liberals have is "their culture is different, they prefer something other than democracy." Which is what I have an issue with, I sincerely believe that democracy is the best form of government in the world (I'm sure you have a million arguments against that) and people have a desire to get there. Thus, we see recent events in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iraq, and Palestine that even make Jon Stewart go "What if Bush was right??" I'm sure, Max, that I have talked to you about the Iraq Oil-for-Food scandal- how a lot of the European companies opposed to the war benefited by skimming millions and helping Saddam starve his own people. There are many websites on that issue also. Do I believe that America is superior to other countries? It's hard to answer the question in that context- I believe America is the greatest country in the world- but I believe Israel is superior to us in many ways. I just find their Mossad really flippin cool. In all seriousness, after reading their history through the Holocaust, and all of their wars- I really believe that they are a heroic nation. I have another example of how America may not be superior. For example, I have a deep affection for India and many traditional aspects that the culture has, such as respect for your elders and a deep sense of connection to your community. I don't believe America does a good job of that- that's because of our individualist nature. So, yes, America is the greatest country in the world- but you will hear me (off my blog) talk about what I dislike America for. I'm sorry I'm skippin around here a bit, But from where I'm typing on the screen, I can't see all of your message so I'm scrolling back and forth. "Jealousy"- I never said that's the only reason Europe hates America (I think it is one of the main ones, albeit it's not out in the open) Europe and America naturally hate eachother because of how different we have become. Think about it, our cultures are different, our society- even our way of government in some forms. Yes, it is true that we may all be democracies. But in reality, there are many differences. Max, while I know you don't think America is the best country in the world- where do you think it ranks?
Finally, I saw your first comment as another one of your comments where you just blasted me for not being original. But really man? Go read instapundit or India Uncut for original comments- you'll only find recycled B.S here. I only have time for recycled B.S.
To sort of wrap up our discussion on Iraq- I believe the Europeans had other reasons than "not enough evidence" to go against a war with Iraq. I think that's another thing you gotta step out of. This reasoning that Europe is morally superior- and thus opposed a war. That is all, thanks for commenting. If you wanna make this a better debate- email me. Or comment here. Whatever.
Peace

i'll answer your sole question first, then maybe say other stuff, who knows.

where do i think the united states ranks? to me, this is a really silly question. i don't view the world in the same terms as you do. i've only lived in two countries for considerable periods of time, and have only visited four others. i don't rank countries, and if i were to rank them it would be a pretty biased rank, based mostly on feelings rather than rational thought. i don't see how anybody can rank countries. its a mentality that i cannot comprehend. but its widespread. how can you say one country is better than another? its like comparing two human beings, you immidiately base your opinions on experiences you have had with each human being, regardless of whether or not that is who they normally are. i also think of it as a dangerous mentality. i believe, whether consciously or unconsciously, to find your country superior immidiately makes all other countries infirior.

now i want to deal with one of your most disturbing assesments:
"The attitude that I think anti-war Europeans and American liberals have is 'their culture is different, they prefer something other than democracy.'"
speaking as an anti-war european (in many ways) and an american liberal (in other ways) i'd say this is the further thing from my mind, and the mind of any other liberal i've spoken to. perhaps i've met one or two complete idiots who felt this way, but it is hardly the prevailing sentiment. can i tell you why i was against the iraq war? even back when everyone was under the impression saddam had wmd, even back then, i didn't believe he was a threat. why didn't i view him as a threat? because i didn't see any reason for him to attack the united states. why would he want to attack the united states? this question wasn't even posed in the united states because it was considered so stupid. i mean, of course saddam wants to attack us, he is saddam! the basic argument, even among liberals, was whether he had the capacity to attack us or not. i think that even if he had the capacity of wmd, he wouldn't have attacked us. what would have been the purpose, or goal, of saddam attacking us? you see, unlike many americans i don't suffer from the "comic book villain" mentality. this is the thought process that makes all america's enemy's into single-dimensional figures who exist in this world simply to be the united states' archnemesis. everything else in their life, everything that they do, is simply a build up to that attack. it may sound silly, but its quite a popular ideology. just think: nobody ever questions whether or not saddam would risk his luxurious lifestyle to simply attack the united states. why would he risk it? so, he attacks the united states, and then what? it just doesn't sound reasonable. the only reasonable argument, and you may correct me if i'm wrong, is that he wanted to attack us to avenge for all the things the us has done to him. which sounds just like a comic book villain. i don't buy it.
but decruz, if you really feel that this is one of the main reasons why most europeans and most liberals were against the war, you need to get out a little more. you just give me this impression that you think anybody who disagrees with you is automatically an idiot with a completely illogical mind. for example, you think the main reason europeans dislike america is jealousy. this i find illogical. give your oponents some credit. i can see why you would support an iraq war. i understand that you found him to be a threat and i understand that now you believe in spreading democracy around the world. you see? i'm not saying: you only supported the war because you wanted to kill arabs. that's illogical. and i wont pretend that to be the reason. so please give your oponents some credit and don't brush them off as irrational savages.

finally, i know you think that every liberal thinks jon stewart is god and he speaks for all of us. but, once again, give us some credit. i disagree with most liberals that i've met. and jon stewart is just another one of those i disagree with. currently there seems to be a opportunistic mentality that democracy is spreading based on politically worthless occassions that were merely symbolic. they hold little water except for them to be symbollic, and for people to use that symbolism to get the wrong idea. that's simply my opinion.

oh, and i forgot, you also mentioned another cliched argument: oil-for-food program. i've heard this before: every european government that opposed the war did so because they got sooo much economic benefit from that program that they didn't want it to end. to simply go along with this argument, i'd say: fine, what if all the governments that opposed the war were against it because of the oil-for-food program, that still doesn't explain why the people (who were oblivious to the mischief) were against the war in an even more formidable way than any government. and this occured all over the world. the majority of the people in the world were opposed to the war. were the european people against the war because they got a piece of the oil-for-food program? i doubt it.

anyway, that's all i have to say. give your opponent some credit. you don't do this at all, in my opinion.

ps: i'd also like to make a comment on what you did in the earlier post, where you brought up anything that i've ever said or done in my entire history. it seems to me a pretty sickening trend that the focus of arguments becomes less of "what is the idea?" and more of "who is saying it?". i'll give you an example, when i mentioned to mike robertson a long time ago that i really admired noam chomsky. you know what he did? he didn't go out and read one of chomsky's books and then try to give a strong argument against chomsky's views. instead he went to a trashy website and got all the information he could that would trash noam chomsky as a person. he even told me that chomsky had hit someone during a discussion. this becomes less "what is the idea that is being expressed" and more of "who is expressing this idea." in my opinion the latter ("who is expressing this idea") should not matter at all. only in circumstances when the speaker is trying to make his ideas known through his personal history are you allowed to trash you name. if all one wishes to do is express ideas, i really don't see why it should really matter whether its a saint or a serial rapist who is saying it. but this is not a popular way of thinking, what i'm saying. you see it on every pundit show. the moment they dislike someone they go out and try to find every bit of trash to ruin his name, rather than argue the ideas that are put forth. it also goes on it politics. and after that post it seems that you are not above it.

I do think you can rank countries. For example, I think India is a lot better than Sudan, I'm sure you might disagree. But I suppose this is just my opinion. Now about the "dirty arabs" and democracy. I was not talking about the war itself. I'm talking about after the fact. The war has already happend and now lets move on. I'm talking about the attitude that I heard coming from a lot of liberals that Iraqis- or Arabs in general did not want democracy. As a matter of fact, I heard this from some conservatives also. This is what I was talking about. I hated that attitude. I do find it sickening. Max, you know that I don't find you illogical or wrong- I just find your reasoning to be illogical and your opinion to be wrong. That's all. Just you as a person? You're allright. About the European people being against the war, I'm sure that there were people who genuinely knew about the complexities of the situation and still disagreed with the war. But I bring up another point here- do you believe that the people of Europe are incapable of being driven by a media that is biased? I read a lot of things online that pick apart foreign newspapers and their factchecking procedures. And time and time again, I have seen absolute biased news in some of the most major newspapers in France, Germany, and even Russia. Well duh on Russia. We saw the Hutton Report expose some of the wrongdoings of the BBC about a year ago. I see your point about not attacking you as a person. I agree, I partly did that because Bobby got on my nerves with his comment. But secondly, I do think that we need to look at a person's past opinions on an issue and see if they are really credible and worth listening to. By the way, I do think you are credible. I don't know about the whole "worth listening to part" Egg on my face for attacking you rather than your argument though. Although attacking the creativity of my post was a little uncalled for. Either way, get on AIM and we'll go out to eat somewhere and get Bryan along with yah. I lost his number.

LOL ... "Bobby got on my nerves with his comment" ... you know how I love getting on your nerves :D ...

Anyways, I took a BIG break from my hectic work to actually sit down & read every line in the comments mentioned above. Fine! you say he has used the four-letter word before. True I would hate a person who curses like that. But that aside i respect a person who comprehends the given-facts well. And this guy is totally simple & straight-forward in his explanation to you. I still do not understand why you label him like this ... "reasoning to be illogical and your opinion to be wrong".

Dude!! Do you think the Arab countries are actually having a jolly-of-a-time right now with US army & navy everywhere. When I meet you in person, I will give you more details of how Bahrain is affected by being the US Naval Mid-East Base of Operations. I'm from there and so I know the news straight from the people who live there. A little harmless island like Bahrain now has tensed-up ties with Iran, Saudi & even India (believe it or not!!) because of ripple-effects of your Navy presence in the country. Don't reply back about this now ... I didn't mean to start another debate. I'll talk to you about it later sometime.

Anyways ... as the guy said ... RESPECT YOUR OPPONENTS ... else your as good as any other "dog barking up the wrong tree"!!

Cool guestbook, interesting information... Keep it UP
» »

Keep up the good work upskirt Pet ionizer Proactiv reha legal forms and petition Flashlight alarm for fire xxx pissing panties data recovery softwares fire alarm mp3 ways to tie a shirt Valtrex breastfeeding nursing Car rentals tempe arizona he was going to pee buy tenuate anime pee valtrex online with your health care pla

Enjoyed a lot! Homeowner insurance exotic pets Can kids disable parental controls Blackjack vine

I was amazed. Oral sex simply wasnt something they did, but she made noobjection so he delivered another, then another, then began licking throughher sloppy slit.
sex post stories
rape sexual assault stories
top nifty stories
true sex torture stories
adult stories free
I was amazed. Oral sex simply wasnt something they did, but she made noobjection so he delivered another, then another, then began licking throughher sloppy slit.