Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
About Digital Art / Hobbyist Media Terrorist49/Male/Canada Recent Activity
Deviant for 12 Years
Needs Core Membership
Statistics 333 Deviations 2,394 Comments 82,519 Pageviews
×

Newest Deviations

Je Suis Charlie :iconpatches67:Patches67 6 2
Mature content
Kim Jong Un Assassination :iconpatches67:Patches67 17 11
Catboy And Mister Winter :iconpatches67:Patches67 1 2 Han Shot First :iconpatches67:Patches67 14 4 Poop on a Loop :iconpatches67:Patches67 19 8 Maid Hero :iconpatches67:Patches67 7 0 The Nom Nom Nom Monster :iconpatches67:Patches67 17 0 Save The World :iconpatches67:Patches67 573 75 Catboy Emoticon :iconpatches67:Patches67 5 1 Cat Maid Meme Story 01 :iconpatches67:Patches67 4 1 The Cat Maid Meme CatboyQunhua :iconpatches67:Patches67 3 3 The Cat Maid Meme :iconpatches67:Patches67 146 86
Literature
The Greatest of Superheroes
The spirit of strife is shackled and bound
And cowers before an operatic sound
A battle cry heard above injustice’s way
A hero is coming, and evil must pay
This unshakable paragon of virtue and fair play
This symbol of hope, when hope’s gone astray
Mountains may shatter before might of his fists
Yet he stays his hand to fight for justice
With the power to raise empires and cause nations to fall
He uses his might to protect the smallest of all
Imbued with the strength of gods most fervent
Yet he remains humble as the noblest servant
When evil has risen to claim all that is cherished
And darkness extinguishes light that has perished
When out of sky like a small bird of prey
Hark, “Here I come to say the day.”
Mighty Mouse, oh Mighty Mouse, you’ve come for us all
To save us, protect us, with your great caterwaul
Like a trumpet of heaven he announces his arrival
In great verse the tiny titan defeats his arch rival
Oh Mighty Mouse, dear Mighty Mouse who makes a
:iconPatches67:Patches67
:iconpatches67:Patches67 3 3
Power Girl Brings Back The Boob Window :iconpatches67:Patches67 5 3
Literature
Ode to Doctor Who
If it’s rude to go poo with an ood on the loo
And you’ve come unglued
Don’t know what to do?
Get on the horn and call Doctor Who
With TARDIS in check, he’ll come hitherto
A Time Lord, our savior, to the rescue
To dazzle us all with his brainy kung fu
Mad gadgets galore, and a big sonic screw
To the bottom of the problem, the quick witted gumshoe
No stone left unturned, and your cupboards askew
When he finally deduces there’s an ood on the loo
He’ll say;
“Please ask him to stand.”
Then bid you adieu.
:iconPatches67:Patches67
:iconpatches67:Patches67 1 0
Mature content
School Shooting 02 :iconpatches67:Patches67 3 3

Critiques

by Joyfool

There's excellent colour contrast with the blues against the orange ribbon belt and birds in the foreground. The clouds have a lovely e...

Watchers

Activity


How much of your gallery would be banned?  Because I don't think I would have anything left. 
  • Listening to: AC/DC Highway to Hell
  • Reading: Awakening by Doug Green
  • Watching: Dragonball Z abridged
  • Playing: Pokemon Yellow
  • Eating: Danish
  • Drinking: French press coffee

When I was a kid there was a group of people who tried to morally micromanage our lives.  They didn't like our clothes.  They didn't like our music.  They didn't like our hair.  They didn't like the TV shows we watched.  They didn't like our comedians telling dirty jokes.  They didn't like us partying, getting drunk, getting high, or having sex.  They were pretty much a crazed bunch of control freaks obsessed with telling us what to do in every facet of our lives, right down to how to dress, how to vote, how to pray, who to fuck and how to fuck them.  They were exclusively religious conservatives, who all around, simply did not care for the cultural revolution of the 1960's-70's and what followed. 

When we were having a liberal revolution during that era, liberal meant fighting for the right to do things.  There was a sexual revolution during a time when not just homosexuality was criminal, it was possible for heterosexuals to commit sex crimes between consenting adults.  In my lifetime, adultery, in certain circumstances, was actually illegal in Canada.  We sought to kick the government out of the bedrooms of Canada, and this benefitted not just us, but also homosexuals as they gained the right to simply be.  (Before they could actually be arrested for engaging in homosexual acts, even in the privacy of their own homes.) 

One thing that is very common whenever you pass laws like this is they are often ahead of the curb in cultural acceptance.  Homosexuality was decriminalized when most people were still offended by it.  Desegregation happened when most people were still against it.  Interracial marriage was decriminalized when most people were still offended by it.  Just recently as America legalized gay marriage it happened when both the president and all presidential candidates from both parties stated clearly, in the past, they believed marriage was a strictly a union between a man and a woman.

 

And when these new laws or legislation were passed, how offensive any of it was to anyone was always regarded as completely irrelevant, because the government does not regulate offensiveness.

 

Lots of places where people think the government regulates offensiveness is actually not regulated by the government at all, it's industry self regulation.  The movie rating system is industry self regulation.  Magazines that identify themselves as adult is industry self regulation.  Internet websites that identify themselves as adult is industry self regulation.  The Comics Code Authority is industry self regulation.  The warnings on both music albums and video games are all industry self regulation. 

So whenever we pass laws fighting for equality or fairness, one factor that does not enter into the equation is how offensive it is to people.  When the Unites States government decided to desegregate schools, how offensive that was to certain southern states was tough titties, they're just going to have to learn how to be tolerant.  Same thing happened when they desegregated the US armed forces.  Desegregation was shoved down the army's throat, with extreme protest, whether they liked it or not and they were just going to have to adjust.  Ultimately they did. 

However, if offensiveness was a legal factor in determining whether or not to make these laws, it's extremely likely they never would have been passed, and people never would have learned how to tolerate desegregation, or homosexuality, or women being allowed to vote, or abolishing slavery, or pretty much anything past the original forming of a nation and its constitution.  If the government regulates offensiveness, people can never have the opportunity to learn how to grow tolerant and many crucial civil rights issues can never advance because how offensive they are to people is a legal concern. 

 

We call regressive liberals so because they wish to tell people, crucially, what they can't do, not what they can do.  They are people who identify with liberal causes but instead of crusading for freedom, they crusade to police.  And most of the things that upset regressive liberals are the very same things that religious conservatives crusaded against, they just do it with differently explained motivations.  Before, things like naked titties, rock and roll, and dirty humor was immoral and an affront against God.  Now those very same things are triggering, or cultural appropriation, or micro-aggressions, or one of several constantly expanding  terminologies of obsessive moral micromanaging. 

Regressive liberals have had no luck in only saying these things are offensive, so to push their policing agenda further they wish to criminalize offensiveness.  This is incredibly short sighted and will ultimately ruin liberal causes. In a woefully naive manner they believed they managed to cross the bridge in both legal and cultural acceptance, and then want to burn that bridge behind them to fuck over everybody they don't like.   If offensiveness becomes a factor in determining whether or not something should be legal, many liberal causes will wind up getting thrown under a bus. 

Also these laws could be used to for abuse and pushing political agendas.  If conservatives find themselves with laws regulating offensiveness when they inevitably gain power again they can recriminalize gay marriage, re-stigmatize homosexuality, and they can roll back civil rights by decades.   They can do it because how offensive something is, is now a legal matter. 

We don't have to wait for conservatives to regain majority political control for this to happen.  We're screwing over liberal causes right now by seeking to criminalize offensiveness.  Let me give you a few examples of how damaging it is to criminalize offensiveness. 

 

First example I came up with without even taking freedom of speech into account.  One of the very worst and most self-damaging crusades the United States has ever engaged in is the war on drugs.  A war, most people don't even realize is being fought for mostly moral reasons.  Before Nixon declared war on drugs he commissioned his own people to find the harmful effects of marijuana. They came back with their own discoveries that it simply wasn't that bad.  At least not nearly enough to justify declaring a multi-billion dollar war. Nixon went fuck it, he hated marijuana, he hated the people who smoked it, and he wanted them all in prison.  He had a moral objection to marijuana, he found it offensive.

Now America carries a legacy of two million people in prison and trillions of dollars pissed down the drain fighting a never ending war that simply can never be won.  If you want to bring an end to this war, making offensiveness illegal is going to be another hurdle you're going to have to overcome to bring an end to a wasteful, senseless, moral war fought against marijuana.  A war that was declared years before most Americans alive today were born, most of whom have no idea what started it all. 

 

A clear example of how damaging it is to liberal causes to criminalize offensiveness is the criminalizing of what some people call Islamophobia.  Legislation that allegedly is supposed to target the worst of the worst, and almost exclusively winds up going after soft targets.

Try to imagine what would happen if we actually passed a law permanently silencing people who were raped and horribly abused by Catholic priests, because anything they had to say could be construed as "Catholic-phobia".  Because that's exactly what we are doing right now to Islamic apostates.  They're being banned from speaking at universities.  Their online blogs and Youtube videos are being banned and taken offline for hate speech.  And BTW, the only thing these people want are the exact same freedoms non-Muslims enjoy.  Their women want the freedom to go outside without having to wear facial and body coverings, or ask a man's permission and have to be escorted everywhere. 

Seeking to leave an oppressive religious institution to live the way you want to is a liberal cause.  A cause we exercised decades ago, and now those people are being forsaken.  Because we now have a double standard that abandoning Christianity and criticizing it in the extreme is okay (it's more than okay, it's downright awesome sometimes) but with Islam it's not.  Regressive liberals have become so pre-occupied with fighting for women to have the right to wear a burka they have completely ignored or forgotten the plight of people who want to right to go without it.

 

And we better get used to that, because once we criminalize offensiveness, we're all going to be told what to wear and asking for permission about where to go.  Or least some of you will, I intend to be a criminal.  A culturally appropriating, triggering, micro-aggression-ing, cis-gendered, anti-theistic criminal. 

 

  • Listening to: AC/DC highway to Hell
  • Reading: Awakening by Doug Green
  • Watching: Enterprise reruns
  • Playing: GTAV on PC
  • Eating: Croissant
  • Drinking: French press coffee

I read Time Mazine's story in 'How Trolls Are Ruining The Internet" and here's my rebuttal to this namby pamby whingebag bullshit. Trolls aren't ruining anything, people just have pretty shit things to say, and so what? When the hell has that not been true in the whole of human history?

I find it IMPOSSIBLE to feel sorry for anyone who feels threatened by anything on the internet. And I'm always going to react negatively to any push for dealing with the problem through legislation. You want the GOVERNMENT to regulate how people express themselves? Fuck that shit, how the hell can that end in any way but bad? Litigation and law enforcement is one of the worst problem solvers in modern society. And anyone who is actually being horribly damaged by what's being said on the internet, instead of crusading to sanitize the world to make it fit for emotionally crippled crybabies that can't handle a world that says mean things, why not just get the fuck off the internet? Whole generations got by without it, why can't you?

I can't stand living in a world where people refuse to have coping skills. Where every fucking time they make some inane comment on the internet the whole God damn world has to stand and applaud or they're going to hurl themselves from a tree with a noose around their neck because the world is mean. THE WORLD HAS ALWAYS BEEN MEAN. Do you think if the internet were invented twenty or fifty years earlier people would have been more polite? Fifty years ago most people would be demanding legislation to keep blacks and homosexuals off the internet because mothers can't handle the reality that their child might be talking to a 'nigger' or a 'faggot'.

The problem is most people are shit at debate. Most people are shit at presenting opinions. Most people are shit at disagreeing with one another. Most people are shit at handling people who disagree with them. But you know what? That's okay. Several decades ago most people were pretty shit towards black people and homosexuals, but we gradually got better. We got better because of tolerance. Tolerance is a coping skill. We grew tolerant because the government stayed the hell away from trying to regulate the exposure people had to what offended them. We desegregated institutions, we kicked the government out of the bedrooms, and almost no one doesn't believe it was for the better. It was all due to our ability to grow tolerant.

What people are now, is not that different than what is happening in isolated parts of the world that are suddenly on the internet and causing outrage. Like middle eastern Islamic extremists freaking the fuck out over cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. They can't handle living in a world that does whatever the fuck it wants, including being deliberately disrespectful to their god. And right here in the west we have people who can't handle living in a world that repeatedly craps on their head, no differently than a cartoonist crapping on Muhammad.

If we crusade to actually pass laws to scrub the world of all bullies and ills we will lose that ability to become tolerant. No one could ever grow tolerant of anything. People will be triggered by a fucking Emiley Dickerson poem until they shit themselves and they fall into a catatonic state of permanent emotional trauma. Without the ability to tolerate, everything is triggering.  If you're going to be exposed to the entire world, you have to develop the coping skills it takes to deal with the entire world. A world that has absolutely no obligation whatsoever to cater your personal sensibilities.  So fuck you and your feelings, I have an opinion, I've got shit to day.  I will roll a drunken steam roller over your feelings if that's what I have to do to say what I want to say.   

  • Listening to: AC/DC highway to Hell
  • Reading: Awakening by Doug Green
  • Watching: Enterprise reruns
  • Playing: GTAV on PC
  • Eating: Croissant
  • Drinking: French press coffee
A bunch of amateur bloggers who obviously skipped the ethics course in journalism (if any of them ever took a journalist course) goes down in flames this week after they lost the Hulk Hogan lawsuit. Tom Scocca wrote a sorry-ass little whingebag article lamenting freedom of press, which is inevitable whenever any tabloid rag goes down in flames from a liability suit. "OH WOAH IS US! BILLIONAIRES HAVE SUBVERTED THE CONSTITUTION!" This is one problem you can't blame on the disproportionate favouring of the wealthy in the legal system.

The problem is a sex tape is not a story. Outing a closeted gay billionaire is not a story. Gawker ran on the very worst kind of gossip that only in the most sorry pessimistic sense would be regarded as journalism. This is what happens when a bunch of amateur bloggers consider themselves journalists and have absolutely no education of what liability laws are, which would have been covered if a single one of them ever took a course on journalistic ethics.

What happened to Gawker will inevitably happen again to other online trash tabloids, and I shall not weep for their passing. Liability laws exist for a reason, and it's a fuckin shame that only people with great wealth can make it work for them in the most part. If someone like Gawker focused entirely on picking on people with no wealth or resources, they could probably slander people indefinitely until a billionaire like Peter Thiel comes along to pay for the victim's legal fees. That's the bloody shame as far as I'm concerned.
  • Listening to: Myself practice guitar
  • Reading: The Cursed Child
  • Watching: Enterprise reruns
  • Playing: GTAV on PC
  • Eating: birthday cake
  • Drinking: chocolate milk
When I say the worst, I mean people are going to die in this Olympics with a body count higher than the Munich Olympics terrorist attack.  And that body count can come from several critical key areas.  

 

Infrastructure. 

 

The Vancouver Olympics was an extremely well planned and executed Olympics.  Yet someone still died because of a critical flaw in the luge.  Imagine several Olympic stadiums and venues built exclusively by incompetence, corruption, and shortcuts.  Somewhere a piece of the Olympics is either going to collapse onto somebody's head, and/or it's going to fall out from under their feet as hundreds of thousands of people are going to be testing giant flimsy rattletraps to their limits. 

 

Poor access to water and bathroom facilities is going to poison thousands of visitors.  And those affected will only have access to inadequate medical facilities that are understaffed, underfunded, and susceptible to the same incompetence and corruption that permeate all of Brazil's emergency services.

 

Disease. 

 

This can be linked directly to infrastructure because inadequate emergency services and poor facilities will definitely exacerbate this problem.  There is the Zika virus, but there is also a potential for an outbreak of other pandemics such as influenza with viruses like H1N1.  There is also a remote possibility of cholera and malaria.   

 

Crime and corruption. 

 

Kidnapping and robbing people is a mainstay of Brazilian society, and it's not just street thugs committing the crime.  Corrupt police and security services such as military police also engage in kidnapping and robbing foreign visitors.  A few athletes have already fled from Brazil running from this very thing.  When the thing that is supposed to be protecting you is the one robbing and kidnapping you, you're entering an intolerable situation.  Also the protection services that are not corrupt are both understaffed and underfunded.  Police, firefighters and emergency medical staff have all gone on strike before the Olympics started as some have not been paid in months. 

 

I sincerely hope that whoever sends athletes to Brazil each send their own protection services to guard the teams, staff, and their belongings, because you absolutely cannot count on Brazil protecting anyone or anything.  And whatever those protection services may consist of, they better be a lot more pro-active than some security guard who simply reports a problem because it's just as likely as not it will be the Brazilian police doing the robbing and kidnapping.  Nations better be sending their own doctors and medical care.  Also if your building happens to catch fire you better have your own escape plan plotted out because there's a good chance no one is coming to your rescue. 

 

Possible terrorist attack

 

If I was looking for a real soft target filled with a shitload of people, I could not imagine a softer target than an Olympic venue guarded by an inept, understaffed police force that is also corrupt and easily bribed. 

 

Political Instability

 

This is a nation on the verge of both economic and political collapse and is facing a possible civil war.  Someone may decide the best time to start a civil war will be when thousands of people are visiting from nations all over the world and all eyes are on Brazil.  Especially if your goal is to undermine the ruling government.  A lot of innocent people will be caught up in the crossfire, which can be exploited as a bargaining chip by various unscrupulous people.   In other words, we are shipping thousands of possible (if not probable) political hostages to Rio. 

 

Whoever is sending athletes and personnel to Brazil better have an emergency withdrawal plan.  Airports would be overloaded in a matter of hours if thousands of people suddenly had to leave due to an outbreak of pandemic or extreme civil unrest.  I don't think it would be overreacting or out of place if nations sent naval forces to Rio on standby ready to emergency evacuate thousands of people. 

  • Listening to: AC/DC Highway to Hell
  • Reading: Awakening by Doug Green
  • Watching: Dragonball Z abridged
  • Playing: Pokemon Yellow
  • Eating: Danish
  • Drinking: French press coffee

When I was a kid there was a group of people who tried to morally micromanage our lives.  They didn't like our clothes.  They didn't like our music.  They didn't like our hair.  They didn't like the TV shows we watched.  They didn't like our comedians telling dirty jokes.  They didn't like us partying, getting drunk, getting high, or having sex.  They were pretty much a crazed bunch of control freaks obsessed with telling us what to do in every facet of our lives, right down to how to dress, how to vote, how to pray, who to fuck and how to fuck them.  They were exclusively religious conservatives, who all around, simply did not care for the cultural revolution of the 1960's-70's and what followed. 

When we were having a liberal revolution during that era, liberal meant fighting for the right to do things.  There was a sexual revolution during a time when not just homosexuality was criminal, it was possible for heterosexuals to commit sex crimes between consenting adults.  In my lifetime, adultery, in certain circumstances, was actually illegal in Canada.  We sought to kick the government out of the bedrooms of Canada, and this benefitted not just us, but also homosexuals as they gained the right to simply be.  (Before they could actually be arrested for engaging in homosexual acts, even in the privacy of their own homes.) 

One thing that is very common whenever you pass laws like this is they are often ahead of the curb in cultural acceptance.  Homosexuality was decriminalized when most people were still offended by it.  Desegregation happened when most people were still against it.  Interracial marriage was decriminalized when most people were still offended by it.  Just recently as America legalized gay marriage it happened when both the president and all presidential candidates from both parties stated clearly, in the past, they believed marriage was a strictly a union between a man and a woman.

 

And when these new laws or legislation were passed, how offensive any of it was to anyone was always regarded as completely irrelevant, because the government does not regulate offensiveness.

 

Lots of places where people think the government regulates offensiveness is actually not regulated by the government at all, it's industry self regulation.  The movie rating system is industry self regulation.  Magazines that identify themselves as adult is industry self regulation.  Internet websites that identify themselves as adult is industry self regulation.  The Comics Code Authority is industry self regulation.  The warnings on both music albums and video games are all industry self regulation. 

So whenever we pass laws fighting for equality or fairness, one factor that does not enter into the equation is how offensive it is to people.  When the Unites States government decided to desegregate schools, how offensive that was to certain southern states was tough titties, they're just going to have to learn how to be tolerant.  Same thing happened when they desegregated the US armed forces.  Desegregation was shoved down the army's throat, with extreme protest, whether they liked it or not and they were just going to have to adjust.  Ultimately they did. 

However, if offensiveness was a legal factor in determining whether or not to make these laws, it's extremely likely they never would have been passed, and people never would have learned how to tolerate desegregation, or homosexuality, or women being allowed to vote, or abolishing slavery, or pretty much anything past the original forming of a nation and its constitution.  If the government regulates offensiveness, people can never have the opportunity to learn how to grow tolerant and many crucial civil rights issues can never advance because how offensive they are to people is a legal concern. 

 

We call regressive liberals so because they wish to tell people, crucially, what they can't do, not what they can do.  They are people who identify with liberal causes but instead of crusading for freedom, they crusade to police.  And most of the things that upset regressive liberals are the very same things that religious conservatives crusaded against, they just do it with differently explained motivations.  Before, things like naked titties, rock and roll, and dirty humor was immoral and an affront against God.  Now those very same things are triggering, or cultural appropriation, or micro-aggressions, or one of several constantly expanding  terminologies of obsessive moral micromanaging. 

Regressive liberals have had no luck in only saying these things are offensive, so to push their policing agenda further they wish to criminalize offensiveness.  This is incredibly short sighted and will ultimately ruin liberal causes. In a woefully naive manner they believed they managed to cross the bridge in both legal and cultural acceptance, and then want to burn that bridge behind them to fuck over everybody they don't like.   If offensiveness becomes a factor in determining whether or not something should be legal, many liberal causes will wind up getting thrown under a bus. 

Also these laws could be used to for abuse and pushing political agendas.  If conservatives find themselves with laws regulating offensiveness when they inevitably gain power again they can recriminalize gay marriage, re-stigmatize homosexuality, and they can roll back civil rights by decades.   They can do it because how offensive something is, is now a legal matter. 

We don't have to wait for conservatives to regain majority political control for this to happen.  We're screwing over liberal causes right now by seeking to criminalize offensiveness.  Let me give you a few examples of how damaging it is to criminalize offensiveness. 

 

First example I came up with without even taking freedom of speech into account.  One of the very worst and most self-damaging crusades the United States has ever engaged in is the war on drugs.  A war, most people don't even realize is being fought for mostly moral reasons.  Before Nixon declared war on drugs he commissioned his own people to find the harmful effects of marijuana. They came back with their own discoveries that it simply wasn't that bad.  At least not nearly enough to justify declaring a multi-billion dollar war. Nixon went fuck it, he hated marijuana, he hated the people who smoked it, and he wanted them all in prison.  He had a moral objection to marijuana, he found it offensive.

Now America carries a legacy of two million people in prison and trillions of dollars pissed down the drain fighting a never ending war that simply can never be won.  If you want to bring an end to this war, making offensiveness illegal is going to be another hurdle you're going to have to overcome to bring an end to a wasteful, senseless, moral war fought against marijuana.  A war that was declared years before most Americans alive today were born, most of whom have no idea what started it all. 

 

A clear example of how damaging it is to liberal causes to criminalize offensiveness is the criminalizing of what some people call Islamophobia.  Legislation that allegedly is supposed to target the worst of the worst, and almost exclusively winds up going after soft targets.

Try to imagine what would happen if we actually passed a law permanently silencing people who were raped and horribly abused by Catholic priests, because anything they had to say could be construed as "Catholic-phobia".  Because that's exactly what we are doing right now to Islamic apostates.  They're being banned from speaking at universities.  Their online blogs and Youtube videos are being banned and taken offline for hate speech.  And BTW, the only thing these people want are the exact same freedoms non-Muslims enjoy.  Their women want the freedom to go outside without having to wear facial and body coverings, or ask a man's permission and have to be escorted everywhere. 

Seeking to leave an oppressive religious institution to live the way you want to is a liberal cause.  A cause we exercised decades ago, and now those people are being forsaken.  Because we now have a double standard that abandoning Christianity and criticizing it in the extreme is okay (it's more than okay, it's downright awesome sometimes) but with Islam it's not.  Regressive liberals have become so pre-occupied with fighting for women to have the right to wear a burka they have completely ignored or forgotten the plight of people who want to right to go without it.

 

And we better get used to that, because once we criminalize offensiveness, we're all going to be told what to wear and asking for permission about where to go.  Or least some of you will, I intend to be a criminal.  A culturally appropriating, triggering, micro-aggression-ing, cis-gendered, anti-theistic criminal. 

 

deviantID

Patches67
Media Terrorist
Artist | Hobbyist | Digital Art
Canada
Current Residence: Kingston
Operating System: Vista
MP3 player of choice: Creative
Favourite cartoon character: Tinkerbell
Personal Quote: Stand for something or stand aside to make room for someone who does
Interests

Friends

Comments


Add a Comment:
 
:icona1993:
a1993 Featured By Owner Jul 25, 2016
Happy Birthday!
Reply
:iconzerozero204:
Zerozero204 Featured By Owner Jul 25, 2016
Happy Birthday, Patches! I hope your day is filled with laughter. Hurling smoke bombs while laughing still counts.
Reply
:iconzerozero204:
Zerozero204 Featured By Owner Jul 25, 2015
Happy birthday, Patches!
Reply
:icon1886:
1886 Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2015   Artist
2010 
Reply
:iconeternaldream15:
Eternaldream15 Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Thanks for the llama~
Reply
:iconguski:
Guski Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Thanks for the llama.
Reply
:iconrappel82:
Rappel82 Featured By Owner Sep 22, 2014   Artist
:iconcail::iconabe::icondez:
Reply
:iconzerozero204:
Zerozero204 Featured By Owner Jul 24, 2014
Happy Birthday, Patches! May Pippi not be allowed to deliver your cake by incoming flying drone.
Reply
:iconpatches67:
Patches67 Featured By Owner Jul 25, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thank you!  I'm going out to party, eat Italian food, and get drunk.
Reply
:iconheytomemeimhome:
Heytomemeimhome Featured By Owner Jun 11, 2014
You  are totally awesome....
Reply
Add a Comment: