PDA

View Full Version : Pretty Damn Impressive



llotter
01-19-2012, 10:58 AM
So, I heard today that Bill Gates has contributed $28 billion to charity so far. That is pretty impressive alright.

LWW
01-19-2012, 04:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, I heard today that Bill Gates has contributed $28 billion to charity so far. That is pretty impressive alright. </div></div>

http://www.funny2k.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/Pictures/this-is-an-outrage.jpg

<span style='font-family: Comic Sans MS'><span style='font-size: 26pt'>!!!!WHAT!!!!

HOW DARE THIS PIGDOG MEMBER OF THE EEEVILLL RICH THINK THAT HE CAN FIND PEOPLE WHO COULD USE THIS WEALTH BETTER THAN DEAR LEADER'S OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT AND OMNIPRESENT REGIME!!!!</span></span>

Soflasnapper
01-19-2012, 06:14 PM
You look pretty crazed in that picture, LOL!

What is interesting is that Gates is being so philanthropic partially out of self interest for his family.

That is, he has determined to give away approx. 98% of his fortune, on the theory that having that much money will ruin the lives of his children.

Not sure why their remaining near-billion dollar inheritance won't ALSO do that, but then, he's the genius man.

Qtec
01-19-2012, 06:25 PM
He has a guilty conscience.

Q

LWW
01-20-2012, 04:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He has a guilty conscience.

Q </div></div>

About what?

Making millionaires out of thousands of people?

Creating jobs for millions?

Exactly what is he feeling guilty over?

Sev
01-20-2012, 08:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You look pretty crazed in that picture, LOL!

What is interesting is that Gates is being so philanthropic partially out of self interest for his family.

That is, he has determined to give away approx. 98% of his fortune, on the theory that having that much money will ruin the lives of his children.

Not sure why their remaining near-billion dollar inheritance won't ALSO do that, but then, he's the genius man. </div></div>

I was going to post that no matter how much Gates gives away it would not be enough.
Thanks for proving the point for me.

Its pretty sad to view how completely unappreciative the left is when an individual freely gives up his wealth for altruistic reasons.
That he is concerned about the welfare of his family could also be viewed as a form of altruism as well.

nAz
01-20-2012, 12:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He has a guilty conscience.

Q </div></div>

Naa i don't think that's it, i believe that he is one of the few 1/2% that know that they cant take all that wealth with them when they die, and as a result he builds up a lot of good will around the world.

I always liked Gates but when he started his charities and convinced a few other 1/2% to give a way a majority of their wealth before they die, man i gained a whole lot more respect for him.
Anyways this is old news but still good news.

Soflasnapper
01-20-2012, 12:27 PM
You seem to have gotten the wrong impression. I am in no way complaining, or failing to appreciate what this man is doing.

I merely made a couple of points. One is that, yes, as impressive as this giving total is, the plan is to donate over $65 billion to $80 billion, whatever 98% of his net worth adds up to.

So this giving total is under half what he'll soon have given away. An important fact-- he's not just giving away half his fortune, but essentially ALL OF IT (with only a 2% holdback for the family, who will have to struggle to get by on only $1.2 to $1.6 billion).

Which, when you think about it, is the equivalent of a 98%+ estate tax rate, in terms of the net proceeds to his heirs, and one he's voluntarily imposed upon himself.

Next I mention what Gates has said as to his motivation, that besides being charitably minded, that he had his family in mind, and didn't want to ruin their lives by giving them more than $1 to $2 billion dollars.

Which is all amazing stuff, and quite different from what we're told about people with big money. He's keeping it away from his children so it won't ruin their lives, according to him? Wow.

LWW
01-20-2012, 02:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Which, when you think about it, is the equivalent of a 98%+ estate tax rate ...</div></div>

It is nothing remotely close to that.

What it is, is an individual willingly doing something "FOR THE COMMON GOOD" without the state extorting it under threat of violence.

That someone would do such a thing has always been difficult for many statists to comprehend.

Soflasnapper
01-20-2012, 02:44 PM
Tap, tap!

And I hereby support all the zillionaires who want to give scores of billions of dollars to various charities.

But you once again fail to understand the basics of charitable giving. It has a lot to do with the alternative, which is the estate tax. Ample studies show that absent the state taking a chunk in estate tax, charitable giving would be drastically reduced.

And it is MORE than a 98% tax rate equivalent, as the balance of $1.2 billion to $1.6 billion would be subject to (now) a 35% tax, less the $5 million gift exemption. As of the end of the year, that increases to 55% under the law as it stands, with only a $1 million exemption.

Gates' father has spoken out in favor of keeping the estate tax, and likely Gates himself shares the same view.

LWW
01-21-2012, 03:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tap, tap!

And I hereby support all the zillionaires who want to give scores of billions of dollars to various charities.

But you once again fail to understand the basics of charitable giving. It has a lot to do with the alternative, which is the estate tax. Ample studies show that absent the state taking a chunk in estate tax, charitable giving would be drastically reduced.</div></div>

Yet, somehow, you failed to cite a single one.

I wonder why?

LWW
01-21-2012, 03:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But you once again fail to understand the basics of charitable giving.</div></div>

That is the most clueless thing I have ever seen from you.

Soflasnapper
01-21-2012, 12:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tap, tap!

And I hereby support all the zillionaires who want to give scores of billions of dollars to various charities.

But you once again fail to understand the basics of charitable giving. It has a lot to do with the alternative, which is the estate tax. Ample studies show that absent the state taking a chunk in estate tax, charitable giving would be drastically reduced.</div></div>

Yet, somehow, you failed to cite a single one.

I wonder why? </div></div>

Uh, because it is Econ 101??? Should be obvious to anyone???

Wait, what am I saying? Clearly you need a reference or two, so here you go:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Economists who have studied the estate tax issue have come to widely varying conclusions. A 2000 study by David Joulfaian, an expert at the U.S. Treasury Dept., concluded that a repeal of the estate tax would cause a 12 percent drop in charitable bequests, while a 2003 study by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center projected a 22 percent to 37 percent decline. [See that study here.] (http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/310810_taxpolicy_6.pdf) Making such predictions is difficult, and it's complicated by such other factors as the direction of financial markets and the economy's condition. "Overall, estimating the effects of estate taxation is a very humbling experience," Joulfaian wrote in a June 2009 review of the evidence.

The estate tax was repealed entirely in 2010, though it was scheduled to return in 2011 at a rate of 55 percent and an exemption of $1 million. The new law sets the rate at 35 percent, the lowest since 1931, and raises the exemption to $5 million. Because the law also makes it easier for spouses to share exemptions, a married couple would effectively be able to pass on $10 million to heirs tax free. With an exemption of that size, wealthy people have less incentive to donate money to charity to reduce the taxable portion of their estates.</div></div>

From BusinessWeek, this last December (http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/dec2010/pi20101223_554594.htm)

Then there's this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Repealing the estate tax would substantially reduce U.S. charitable giving, according to research by the Congressional Budget Office and various economists. As CBOs study explains, the estate tax creates powerful incentives for affluent individuals to donate to charity. Since donations made both during life and at death reduce the size of an estate and thus the amount subject to the estate tax, the tax encourages both bequests at death and charitable contributions made during life. Not surprisingly, both CBOs study and other analyses have found that repeal of the estate tax would have a large negative impact on charities.

CBO estimated that, had the estate tax not existed in 2000, charitable donations would have been $13 billion to $25 billion lower that year. CBO found that repealing the estate tax would have reduced charitable bequests by 16 to 28 percent and charitable giving during life by 6 to 11 percent.[1]

The amount by which CBO found that charitable donations would have fallen in 2000 exceeds the total amount of corporate charitable donations in the United States in that year (which equaled $11 billion) and approaches the total amount that foundations contributed to charitable causes ($25 billion).

A study by Brookings Institution economists Jon Bakija and William Gale found effects of similar magnitude, as have analyses by various other researchers.[2]
</div></div>

Here (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=465)

Stretch
01-21-2012, 03:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tap, tap!

And I hereby support all the zillionaires who want to give scores of billions of dollars to various charities.

But you once again fail to understand the basics of charitable giving. It has a lot to do with the alternative, which is the estate tax. Ample studies show that absent the state taking a chunk in estate tax, charitable giving would be drastically reduced.</div></div>

Yet, somehow, you failed to cite a single one.

I wonder why? </div></div>

Uh, because it is Econ 101??? Should be obvious to anyone???

Wait, what am I saying? Clearly you need a reference or two, so here you go:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Economists who have studied the estate tax issue have come to widely varying conclusions. A 2000 study by David Joulfaian, an expert at the U.S. Treasury Dept., concluded that a repeal of the estate tax would cause a 12 percent drop in charitable bequests, while a 2003 study by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center projected a 22 percent to 37 percent decline. [See that study here.] (http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/310810_taxpolicy_6.pdf) Making such predictions is difficult, and it's complicated by such other factors as the direction of financial markets and the economy's condition. "Overall, estimating the effects of estate taxation is a very humbling experience," Joulfaian wrote in a June 2009 review of the evidence.

The estate tax was repealed entirely in 2010, though it was scheduled to return in 2011 at a rate of 55 percent and an exemption of $1 million. The new law sets the rate at 35 percent, the lowest since 1931, and raises the exemption to $5 million. Because the law also makes it easier for spouses to share exemptions, a married couple would effectively be able to pass on $10 million to heirs tax free. With an exemption of that size, wealthy people have less incentive to donate money to charity to reduce the taxable portion of their estates.</div></div>

From BusinessWeek, this last December (http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/dec2010/pi20101223_554594.htm)

Then there's this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Repealing the estate tax would substantially reduce U.S. charitable giving, according to research by the Congressional Budget Office and various economists. As CBOs study explains, the estate tax creates powerful incentives for affluent individuals to donate to charity. Since donations made both during life and at death reduce the size of an estate and thus the amount subject to the estate tax, the tax encourages both bequests at death and charitable contributions made during life. Not surprisingly, both CBOs study and other analyses have found that repeal of the estate tax would have a large negative impact on charities.

CBO estimated that, had the estate tax not existed in 2000, charitable donations would have been $13 billion to $25 billion lower that year. CBO found that repealing the estate tax would have reduced charitable bequests by 16 to 28 percent and charitable giving during life by 6 to 11 percent.[1]

The amount by which CBO found that charitable donations would have fallen in 2000 exceeds the total amount of corporate charitable donations in the United States in that year (which equaled $11 billion) and approaches the total amount that foundations contributed to charitable causes ($25 billion).

A study by Brookings Institution economists Jon Bakija and William Gale found effects of similar magnitude, as have analyses by various other researchers.[2]
</div></div>

Here (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=465) </div></div>

Stand back! LWW's head is about to explode. St.

Soflasnapper
01-22-2012, 03:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, I heard today that Bill Gates has contributed $28 billion to charity so far. That is pretty impressive alright. </div></div>

Here's an allegation that ties him into eugenics and not just population control, but worldwide population reduction of some 600 million to 1 billion people, as in dead.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation when it began in 1913 (same year as the "Federal" Reserve) was one Frederick T. Gates. It is not known whether he is related to the later Bill Gates, a monopolist as was old John D. Rockefeller.[This is mentioned because the Rockefeller Foundation was interested in eugenics on racial lines.]

Consequent to his Czardom over the Microsoft Operating System monopoly, Bill Gates branched out into "philanthropy." He established the Bill & Melinda Gates (tax exempt) Foundation. Speaking at an invitation-only conference, Bill Gates complained about population. But, urged Gates, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"[I]f we really do a great job on new vaccines" we can lower the population by "perhaps 10 or 15 percent." </span>[4]

Got that? Bill Gates hopes "new vaccines" will lower the population!

And so it is that the "primary focus of his multi-billion dollar Gates Foundation is vaccinations, especially in Africa and other undeveloped countries." Besides dumping vaccines onto the Third World, such as overabundant "swine flu" vaccines, an "Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa" (AGRA) hopes to distribute patented GMO seeds. Reportedly, GMO corn plants produce anti-sperm antibodies. The AGRA board, dominated by people from both the Gates' and Rockefeller foundations, thereby seems to be promoting "a concealed contraceptive embedded in corn meant for human consumption." [4]

Elsewhere, in Nicaragua, Mexico, and the Philippines, massive vaccinations against tetanus introduced hCG to the populace, combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier. This helped render women incapable of maintaining a pregnancy. [4]

This is all a new version of Nazi-Darwinist forced sterilizations: GMO corn plants producing anti-sperm antibodies and hCG combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier hindering pregnancies.

Another Darwinist branch-off from forced sterilizations is the promotion of gay and lesbian lifestyles. After all, gays and lesbians do not breed. And so we find, as of yesterday, June 17, 2011, that the United Nations now backs "gay rights" (alternate sterilization). [5] </div></div>

Are these allegations sound? Not sure, but the quote from Gates himself was cited by F. William Engdahl, whom I consider a credible source.

[4] "Bill Gates, Vaccines & the Depopulation Plot", by F. William Engdahl. New Dawn magazine (pdf version), May-June 2010

cushioncrawler
01-22-2012, 03:47 PM
Depopulation iz the No1 thing needed in the world -- how iz a problem -- China is leading.
mac.

llotter
01-22-2012, 06:59 PM
As life expectancy increases, birthrates decrease and wealth increases. Based on these assumptions, vaccinations would logically affect expected population in the negative.

cushioncrawler
01-22-2012, 07:14 PM
Praps third world mums wont havtahav az many kids if they kan be confident of a hi survival rate i quess. It iz sort of counterintuitiv i guess.
mac.

eg8r
01-23-2012, 10:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its pretty sad to view how completely unappreciative the left is when an individual freely gives up his wealth for altruistic reasons.
</div></div>The left is pissed off that they are having trouble getting their greedy hands on the money.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
01-23-2012, 12:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Depopulation iz the No1 thing needed in the world -- how iz a problem -- China is leading.
mac. </div></div>

I actually agree with that. However, I think such efforts should be transparent, and not be a trick of medicinal efforts that hide what they're doing. The claim is that we (well, our Big Pharma/Powers that Be) are tricking the populations into infertility on the basis of a vaccination campaign for other problems, where the vaccinations contain ingredients (hCG-- human chorionic gonadatropin) that prevent pregnancy.

I think that is unethical as hell, if true.

Soflasnapper
01-23-2012, 12:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As life expectancy increases, birthrates decrease and wealth increases. Based on these assumptions, vaccinations would logically affect expected population in the negative. </div></div>

I agree, but it's still a question of WHAT "10 to 15 percent reduction" is being discussed.

If it's that much off a future gain in population (but the population still rises) that would be one thing.

If it's instead, that many fewer people than exist now, that's quite different, and would be a call for more deaths than occurred in the 20th century from all the world wars and the scores of millions dead from internal purging of the Soviet Union and China, combined.

The elites have described their view that a sustainable human population for the world is about 10% of what exists today, and therefore even a lower proportion of what the world will attain on its current population growth curve.

cushioncrawler
01-23-2012, 03:10 PM
The modern death rate iz definitely higher than in the oldendays.

In the oldendays at least 27 peeple left the earth without dieing -- or make that 26, koz one died but then undied before leeving. Hencely deathrate = 99.9999999%.

In the modern day we all die -- rate = 100.0000000%.

In the last days the death rate might be say 87.6543210% -- what with nondead ascending side by side with the allready dead.
mac.

Soflasnapper
01-23-2012, 04:50 PM
At least 27?

I'll bite. There's Enoch and Elijah, of course. Jesus, as you mentioned, wasn't taken bodily to heaven while in his earthly body prior to death, but in a transfigured glorifed body, after resurrection.

Who else? Mohammed? Those are unreliable reports, as the religion is too new to be believed. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Talking Andromeda, Cassiopa, and the like?

cushioncrawler
01-23-2012, 06:47 PM
The figure 27 iz flagged in my mind from an article that i read a long time ago.
There are probly all sorts of oldendays saints and prophets and generals and kings that suppozedly ascended alive -- bearing in mind the hundreds of cultures throo history.
But i might hav the figure (27) wrong.
mac.

cushioncrawler
01-23-2012, 07:06 PM
Beliefs about Ascended Masters
Originally presented by H. P. Blavatsky in the 1870s, the idea of the Masters of the Ancient Wisdom or "Mahatmas" was adopted by people who at some point had had a connection with the Theosophical movement, such as Alice Bailey, Helena Roerich, and Manly P. Hall. Later on many other organizations, especially in the United States, developed the concept of Ascended Masters, which departs from the theosophical one in several aspects.

It is believed that Ascended Masters are individuals who were formerly embodied on the Earth and learned the lessons of life during their incarnations. They gained mastery over the limitations of the matter planes, balanced at least 51% of negative karma, and fulfilled their Dharma (Divine Plan). An Ascended Master, in such an understanding, has become God-like and a source of unconditional "Divine Love" to all life, and through the Ascension has united with his or her own "God Self," the "I AM Presence."

It is further claimed by various groups and teachers that the Ascended Masters serve as the teachers of mankind from the realms of Spirit, and that all people will eventually attain their Ascension and move forward in spiritual evolution beyond this planet. According to these teachings, they remain attentive to the spiritual needs of humanity, and act to inspire and motivate its spiritual growth. In many traditions and organizations, they are considered part of the Spiritual Hierarchy of Earth, and members of the Great Brotherhood of Light, also known as the Great White Lodge, Great White Brotherhood, or Universal White Brotherhood (per Peter Deunov).[12]

According to Alice Bailey and Benjamin Creme there are sixty Masters of the Ancient Wisdom, defined as beings who have reached the Fifth Level of Initiation or above, with Djwhal Khul in a pivotal role as the master who telepathically dictated the many esoteric teachings in Baileys' books. Elizabeth Clare Prophet revealed, by taking "dictations" from them, the names of many dozens of additional Ascended Masters that were previously unknown.

The concept of recognizing the spiritual self, one's own psychological and karma battles and how to overcome them, and eventual Ascension of all humanity is covered in James Redfield's Celestine Prophecy and its sequels, The Tenth Insight: Holding the Vision and The Secret of Shambhala: In Search of the Eleventh Insight. These books, while controversial, are recent popularizations of the concept of Ascension.

cushioncrawler
01-23-2012, 07:08 PM
Belief in the Brotherhood and the Masters is an essential part of the beliefs of various organizations that have continued and expanded the concepts released in the original Saint Germain instruction in the 1930s through The "I AM" Activity.[16][17][18][19][20] Examples of those believed by the ones proposing these teachings to be Ascended Masters would be the Master Jesus, Confucius, Gautama Buddha, Mary the Mother of Jesus, St. Paul of Tarsus (aka Hilarion), Melchizedek, Archangel Michael, Metatron, Pope John Paul II, Kwan Yin, Saint Germain and Kuthumi, as well as dozens of others.[21]

cushioncrawler
01-23-2012, 07:23 PM
The Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion distinguish between "The Ascension", in which Christ rose to heaven by his own power, and "The Assumption" in which Mary, mother of Jesus, was raised to heaven by God's power.[8] (Enoch and Elijah are said to have been "assumed" [experienced assumption] into heaven.) However, in the Anglican Communion, the matter of Mary's assumption is considered pious, and is an optional feast day.

On November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII, acting ex cathedra, issued Munificentissimus Deus, an authoritative statement of official doctrine of Roman Catholicism. In Section 44 the pope stated:[9]

By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
The doctrine is based on Sacred Tradition that Mary, mother of Jesus, was bodily assumed into heaven. For centuries before that, the assumption was celebrated in art. The proclamation leaves open whether or not Mary died before assumption into heaven.[10

cushioncrawler
01-23-2012, 07:25 PM
Main article: Hellenistic religion
Hercules it was believed, following the completion of his twelve labors, was raised into Elysium and made a god by Zeus.[citation needed]
Apollonius of Tyana was said to have been assumed into Elysium by Philostratus.[12]

cushioncrawler
01-23-2012, 07:28 PM
According to the post-biblical Jewish Midrash, eight people went to heaven (also referred to as the Garden of Eden and Paradise) alive:[16]

Elijah (Kings II Chapter 2, Verse 11)
Serach, the daughter of Asher - one of the sons of Jacob (Midrash Yalkut Shimoni (Yechezkel 367))
Enoch (Genesis 5:22-24)[17]
Eliezer, the servant of Abraham
Hiram, king of Tyre
Ebed Melech, the Ethiopian
Jaabez, the son of Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nagid
Bithiah, the daughter of Pharaoh[18]

cushioncrawler
01-23-2012, 07:28 PM
Islamic teaching states that Muhammad ascended into heaven alive at the site of the Dome of the Rock. However, this ascent was temporary and he came back to Earth. It is ascribed to the exact descriptions presented in both the Quran and the Hadith.

cushioncrawler
01-23-2012, 07:29 PM
It is believed in Zoroastrianism that the Peshotanu was taken up into Heaven alive[citation needed] and will someday return as the Zoroastrian messiah.

cushioncrawler
01-23-2012, 07:29 PM
The Apotheosis of Washington, a fresco in the dome of the United States Capitol Building, depicts the ascension to heaven of George Washington.

Qtec
01-23-2012, 07:53 PM
I like this.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Come, come, whoever you are.
Wanderer, worshipper, lover of leaving it doesn't matter,
Ours is not a caravan of despair.
Come, even if you have broken your vow a hundred times,
Come, come again, come. </span></div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rumi
This poetry. I never know what I'm going to say.
I don't plan it.
When I'm outside the saying of it, I get very quiet and rarely speak at all.

Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi or مولانا جلال الدين محمد بلخى Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Balkhi (30 September 1207 17 December 1273) was Persian philosopher, theologian, poet, teacher, and founder of the Mevlevi (or Mawlawi) order of Sufism; also known as Mevlana (Our Guide), Jalaluddin Rumi, or simply Rumi </div></div>


Q