Obama's new BFF: Chavez

[theHawk]

Despicable.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00524/Chavez_1__524861a.jpg



PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad and Tobago (CNN) -- President Obama said Friday he is seeking "a new beginning" in U.S. relations with Cuba.


President Obama and Venezuela President Hugo Chavez greet each other Friday at the Summit of the Americas.

1 of 3 Before addressing the representatives of 34 countries at the Summit of the Americas, Obama and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez saw each other and shook hands.

"Every one of our nations has a right to follow its own path," Obama told the assembly. "But we all have a responsibility to see that the people of the Americas have the ability to pursue their own dreams in democratic societies.

"Toward that end, the United States seeks a new beginning with Cuba."

Obama arrived in Trinidad and Tobago on Friday evening for the Summit of the Americas, a key meeting of hemispheric powers. Although it was not represented at the talks, the subject of Cuba dominated the president's speech.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/17/obama.latinamerica/index.html

[theHawk]

What a sack of shit. Obama feels more at home hob nobbin' with Cuban communists and socialists than in a townhall meeting here in America.


"I greeted Bush with this hand eight years ago; I want to be your friend," Chavez told Obama, according to a Venezuelan presidential press office statement.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN1736198420090417

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

obama is all smiles he just met his socialist Hero Hugo Chavez

[Insein]

WTF is that hand shake? Thats what you do to your homies not a foreign leader. I was willing to see how Obama did but my god what have the people elected?

[Yurt]

obama looked at him like: i own you

handshake...pfffffft, at least he did not bow to him

[Jeff]

WTF is that hand shake? Thats what you do to your homies not a foreign leader. I was willing to see how Obama did but my god what have the people elected?

I was just like you , I didn't vote for him but he won, so I figured got to give him a chance, he is all my worst fears put into one, he is a embarrassment to America

[theHawk]

What a fucking disgrace. The US President willingly getting humiliated by an openly American-hating asswipe. This is getting to be worse than bowing to a muslim king.


Chavez Gifts Obama with Book that Assails US for Exploiting Latin America
April 18, 2009 9:21 AM

At President Obama's meeting with the heads of South American countries this morning, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez stood, walked over to him, and presented him with a copy of "Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent" by Uruguayan author Eduardo Galeano.

Mr. Obama politely posed for a photograph with Mr. Chavez, shook his hand, and accepted the gift.

The book, first published in Spanish in 1971, offers a critique of the consequences of 500 years of European and U.S. colonization of Latin America.

"The division of labor among nations is that some specialize in winning and others in losing," the book begins. "Our part of the world, known today as Latin America, was precocious: it has specialized in losing ever since those remote times when Renaissance Europeans ventured across the ocean and buried their teeth in the throats of the Indian civilizations. Centuries passed, and Latin America perfected its role."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/chavez-gifts-ob.html

[Agnapostate]

The fact that Chavez had a significant amount of disdain for the previous administration hardly earns him the label of "american hating asswipe" here in the real world.

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

I wonder if the ASSCLOWN obama greeted him with WAZ SUP MY NIGGER

[Insein]

The fact that Chavez had a significant amount of disdain for the previous administration hardly earns him the label of "american hating asswipe" here in the real world.

So Chavez is ok in your book because he hated Bush? Pathetic. It's not even sad at this point the level of stupidity many liberals have. The man you hate due to different ideas is more dangerous then a sworn enemy of the country? Said Sworn enemy of the country hates someone you hate so he is an ok guy? Unfathomable.

[theHawk]

The fact that Chavez had a significant amount of disdain for the previous administration hardly earns him the label of "american hating asswipe" here in the real world.

Wrong jackass, the very anti-america and anti-west book he gave Obama was published long before either Bush took office. Chavez has also insulted Obama before this meeting of theirs.

Chavez's hatred of the US has nothing to do with Bush. Bush is just the facade that left wing loons use to attack America. If its not Bush, its Reagan. If its not either of them its the "right wing nuts" or the Christians, or greedy Capitalists, or the gun toting.....you get my point.

[Psychoblues]

Didn't gwb kiss the brother in law of Osama Bin Laden squarely on the lips?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?! I am positive that he did and also positive no one here bitched about that at the time?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!



Psychoblues

[theHawk]

Obama fails to defend America yet again.

Its becoming more and more obvious this empty suit can't even think for himself. He needs to be told what to say by his staff and teleprompter.


PORT-OF-SPAIN, Trinidad and Tobago -- President Obama endured a 50-minute diatribe from socialist Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega that lashed out at a century of what he called terroristic U.S. aggression in Central America and included a rambling denunciation of the U.S.-imposed isolation of Cuba's Communist government.

Obama sat mostly unmoved during the speech but at times jotted notes. The speech was part of the opening ceremonies at the fifth Summit of the Americas here.

Later, at a photo opportunity with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Obama held his tongue when asked what he thought about Ortega's speech.

"It was 50 minutes long. That's what I thought."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ignored two questions about Ortega's speech, instead offering lengthy praise of a cultural performance of dance and song opening the summit.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/18/obama-endures-ortega-diatribe/

[theHawk]

Didn't gwb kiss the brother in law of Osama Bin Laden squarely on the lips?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?! I am positive that he did and also positive no one here bitched about that at the time?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!


Why is any criticism of Obama met with more insults about Bush? I don't give a fuck what Bush did, he isn't President anymore.

Can you try for once to debate without invoking relativism into every arguement?

[Psychoblues]

Once again, huk, you spout and spew with nothing to show as your expected alternative?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!!




Obama fails to defend America yet again.

Its becoming more and more obvious this empty suit can't even think for himself. He needs to be told what to say by his staff and teleprompter.





Now, should President Barack Hussein Obama have jumped up in the middle of that speech and started firing from his sidearm or should he have just expected his overwhelming military presense to go mano a mano with everybody else's military presense at the time?!??!?!?!?!??!

As usual,,,,,,,,you're such a fuckin' dork, huk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Psychoblues

[theHawk]

Once again, huk, you spout and spew with nothing to show as your expected alternative?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!!





Now, should President Barack Hussein Obama have jumped up in the middle of that speech and started firing from his sidearm or should he have just expected his overwhelming military presense to go mano a mano with everybody else's military presense at the time?!??!?!?!?!??!

As usual,,,,,,,,you're such a fuckin' dork, huk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I'm saying when he was asked what he thought about the speach, he could had actually informed us what he was thinking. Oh wait, he did - he didn't think anything. He just sat there doodling while someone berated his country. I suppose I am way out of line to think a US President would have the knowledge and courage to stand up and defend his own country when someone insults it.

My mistake though, I haven't yet assimulated to the "change". We're all supposed to join every other country in blaming America for all their woes.

[Psychoblues]

I'm not certain I follow your logic, huk. Was he supposed to start a fist fight or don't you think the more reserved approach was better?!?!?!?!???!?!?! Seriously, cowgirl, you're being a bit bitchy, aren't you?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!



:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[theHawk]

I'm not certain I follow your logic, huk. Was he supposed to start a fist fight or don't you think the more reserved approach was better?!?!?!?!???!?!?! Seriously, cowgirl, you're being a bit bitchy, aren't you?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!


Figures you can't understand what I am saying. You know there is middle ground before "starting a fist fight" and being a silent little coward. But I'll go ahead and spell it out for you - he could had at least denounced the comments.

[Psychoblues]

Responsible diplomacy takes time, bitch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Figures you can't understand what I am saying. You know there is middle ground before "starting a fist fight" and being a silent little coward. But I'll go ahead and spell it out for you - he could had at least denounced the comments.

Dig it?!?!?!?!?!??!?!



:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[theHawk]

Responsible diplomacy takes time, bitch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Apparently for Obama that is true, which was my original point. He has to confer with his staff before coming up with an opinion of his "own".

Glad to see we agree on something.

[Psychoblues]

What makes you think he had to "confer" with staff, bitch?!?!?!?!?!??!??!?!?



Apparently for Obama that is true, which was my original point. He has to confer with his staff before coming up with an opinion of his "own".

Glad to see we agree on something.



Psychoblues

[Agnapostate]

So Chavez is ok in your book because he hated Bush? Pathetic. It's not even sad at this point the level of stupidity many liberals have. The man you hate due to different ideas is more dangerous then a sworn enemy of the country? Said Sworn enemy of the country hates someone you hate so he is an ok guy? Unfathomable.

I don't know what this blathering is based on. Chavez is tolerable not because he disliked Bush; I was merely pointing out that that was not a sufficient condition for ascribing the "enemy" status to him. No, Chavez is tolerable because of the economic growth and related social benefits brought about by Bolivarian socialism.


Wrong jackass, the very anti-america and anti-west book he gave Obama was published long before either Bush took office. Chavez has also insulted Obama before this meeting of theirs.

Seemed to be an anti-imperialist book more than anything else, and thus opposed to the nature of certain governments, such as the anti-democratic Eisenhower regime or the state terrorist Kennedy regime, etc.


Chavez's hatred of the US has nothing to do with Bush. Bush is just the facade that left wing loons use to attack America. If its not Bush, its Reagan. If its not either of them its the "right wing nuts" or the Christians, or greedy Capitalists, or the gun toting.....you get my point.

Reagan's military Keynesianism certainly contradicted his stated free market ideals, though I don't see that mentioned much. I would never attack capitalism on the grounds of its "greed"; it's inefficiency is reason enough to attack it.

[Psychoblues]

Interesting!!!!!!!!!!



I don't know what this blathering is based on. Chavez is tolerable not because he disliked Bush; I was merely pointing out that that was not a sufficient condition for ascribing the "enemy" status to him. No, Chavez is tolerable because of the economic growth and related social benefits brought about by Bolivarian socialism.



Seemed to be an anti-imperialist book more than anything else, and thus opposed to the nature of certain governments, such as the anti-democratic Eisenhower regime or the state terrorist Kennedy regime, etc.



Reagan's military Keynesianism certainly contradicted his stated free market ideals, though I don't see that mentioned much. I would never attack capitalism on the grounds of its "greed"; it's inefficiency is reason enough to attack it.

Please carry on!!!!!!!!!!


Psychoblues

[theHawk]

Reagan's military Keynesianism certainly contradicted his stated free market ideals, though I don't see that mentioned much. I would never attack capitalism on the grounds of its "greed"; it's inefficiency is reason enough to attack it.

Thanks for proving my point.

[Agnapostate]

Thanks for proving my point.

I never attacked capitalists or capitalism based on "greed." In my opinion, that's not especially relevant to its inefficiency.

[Insein]

I never attacked capitalists or capitalism based on "greed." In my opinion, that's not especially relevant to its inefficiency.

How then is capitalism inefficient when compared to socialism?

[Agnapostate]

How then is capitalism inefficient when compared to socialism?

Capitalism's reliance on the private ownership of the means of production does not facilitate forms of economic and firm ownership that maximize efficiency, due to negative externalities (or similarly malevolent elements), generated in a capitalist economy that make it difficult for worker-owned enterprises, for instance, to function. Socialism's collective ownership of the means of production facilitates a means for a re-organization of property rights to occur, thus providing for widespread establishment of worker-owned and managed enterprises and labor cooperatives, which have beneficial effects on efficiency.

Moreover, it's my contention that markets do not maximize allocative efficiency, but that's not an objection to capitalism alone, and I typically reserve that contention for debates amongst socialists.

[theHawk]

I never attacked capitalists or capitalism based on "greed." In my opinion, that's not especially relevant to its inefficiency.

And I suppose socialism and communism are for more efficient than capitalism?

[Kathianne]

Capitalism's reliance on the private ownership of the means of production does not facilitate forms of economic and firm ownership that maximize efficiency, due to negative externalities (or similarly malevolent elements), generated in a capitalist economy that make it difficult for worker-owned enterprises, for instance, to function. Socialism's collective ownership of the means of production facilitates a means for a re-organization of property rights to occur, thus providing for widespread establishment of worker-owned and managed enterprises and labor cooperatives, which have beneficial effects on efficiency.

Moreover, it's my contention that markets do not maximize allocative efficiency, but that's not an objection to capitalism alone, and I typically reserve that contention for debates amongst socialists.

What 'negative externalities'? How do the external forces impact private ownership and worker-owned enterprises differently? Now if you said public and non-public companies, might that be different? Perhaps you are implying that with socialism it would take away the incentives to private ownership? What are the 'widespread establishment of worker-owned and managed enterprises and labor cooperatives' that you are referring to? As for 'allocative efficiency' who determines? The state?

[Agnapostate]

And I suppose socialism and communism are for more efficient than capitalism?

There are certainly varieties of socialism that would likely be more efficient than capitalism, some of which have undergone the test of regional implementation and have improved both productivity and libertarian social organization. For instance, the anarchist collectives of the Spanish Revolution improved productivity by 20% in the region of Aragon. As for communism specifically, its implementation was primarily in agrarian areas during the Spanish Revolution (anarcho-communism), so I can't say whether communism would be viable in an industrialized society, though I'm inclined to believe so if organized on a decentralized level.


What 'negative externalities'? How do the external forces impact private ownership and worker-owned enterprises differently?

There are several critical reasons involved in this. The first and perhaps most important is that the financial class obviously does not have an interest in financing institutions that would bring about far more equity in profit whilst simultaneously surpassing the efficiency of the conventional capitalist firm. Meanwhile, their private control of the means of production permits them to consolidate both wealth and effectively authoritarian power, thus preventing workers from obtaining the resources and capital to finance the creation of independent worker-owned enterprises and labor cooperatives. Jaroslav Vanek states the point exceedingly well in an interview.


If you go to a bank and ask for a loan to start a co-op, they will throw you out. Co-ops in the West are a bit like sea water fish in a freshwater pond. The capitalist world in the last 200 years has evolved its own institutions, instruments, political frameworks etc. There is no guarantee that another species could function if it had to depend on the same institutions. In capitalism, the power is embedded in the shares of common stock, a voting share. This has no meaning in economic democracy. Economic democracy needs its own institutions for one simple reason. Workers are not rich. Let's face it, most working people in the world today are either poor or unemployed. They do not have the necessary capital to finance democratic enterprises.

Moreover, the existence of more established capitalist firms, along with their access to an exceedingly greater amount of capital and resources, plays a role in preventing the development of worker-owned enterprises, regardless of the ability of the latter to utilize their own resources more efficiently (and effectively), than the capitalist firm. The role of inequivalent access to productive resources and financial capital prevents the worker-owned enterprises from engaging in fair competition with capitalist firms. For instance, this letter of John Stuart Mill makes the point well:


Sir, I beg to enclose a subscription of [10 pounds] to aid, as far as such a sum can do it, in the struggle which the Co-operative Plate-Lock Makers of Wolverhampton are maintaining against unfair competition on the part of the masters in the trade. Against fair competition I have no desire to shield them. Co-operative production carried on by persons whose hearts are in the cause, and who are capable of the energy and self-denial always necessary in its early stages, ought to be able to hold its ground against private establishments and persons who have not those qualities had better not attempt it.

But to carry on business at a loss in order to ruin competitors is not fair competition. In such a contest, if prolonged, the competitors who have the smallest means, though they may have every other element of success, must necessarily be crushed through no fault of their own. Having the strongest sympathy with your vigorous attempt to make head against what in such a case may justly be called the tyranny of capital, I beg you to send me a dozen copies of your printed appeal, to assist me in making the case known to such persons as it may interest in your favour.

This simply scores to illustrate Vanek's point that "[t]he capitalist economy is not a true market economy because in western capitalism, as in Soviet state capitalism, there is a tendency towards monopoly. Economic democracy tends toward a competitive market." The consolidation of the private ownership of the means of production by the financial class prevents fair market competition and maximization of efficiency.


Now if you said public and non-public companies, might that be different?

Perhaps you are implying that with socialism it would take away the incentives to private ownership?

I don't quite understand what you're asking, but the widespread implementation of socialism does not necessarily imply the complete abolition of capitalism, and it's possible that a quasi-capitalist sector of some form could continue to exist. "A little capitalism" is a meaningful concept; "a little socialism," in my opinion, is not, even in its decentralized form. Regardless, I don't believe that capitalism could exist on any widespread level in a socialist economy due to the abolition of wage labor and creation of a democratic alternative.


What are the 'widespread establishment of worker-owned and managed enterprises and labor cooperatives' that you are referring to?

Socialism necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production. In order to bypass the economic calculation problem, it therefore must necessarily be dependent on the aforementioned "widespread establishment of worker-owned and managed enterprises and labor cooperatives" (for the former, think of American ESOPs, particularly more democratic ones; for the latter, think of the Israeli kibbutzim, particularly the more socialistic ones).

The failure of attempts to establish "state socialism" was clearly indicated in the Soviet bloc (which eventually abandoned any pretense of socialism altogether and dismantled the USSR), and China (which professes to still practice communism, but abandoned a similar state capitalist regime during and after the rule of Deng Xiaopang and now practices an authoritarian form of market socialism), in my opinion. Hence, socialism must be based around market competition dependent on small worker-owned enterprises or a decentralized participatory economic framework in which economic planning is conducted locally, or some similarly decentralized and broadly libertarian scheme.


As for 'allocative efficiency' who determines? The state?

No. In my opinion, the Hayekian critique of state socialism (which effectively turns into state capitalism), advanced in the socialist economic calculation debate was sound. We are thus left with several alternatives, mainly market socialism or libertarian socialism. Both rely on decentralized worker-owned and managed enterprises (and labor cooperatives), to bypass the distributed and tacit knowledge problems identified in a Hayekian critique. I personally prefer the latter due to my conclusions that markets are not effective facilitators of allocative efficiency, and due to my opposition to the existence of the state, my preferred scheme is necessarily anarchist in nature.

[Insein]

Capitalism's reliance on the private ownership of the means of production does not facilitate forms of economic and firm ownership that maximize efficiency, due to negative externalities (or similarly malevolent elements), generated in a capitalist economy that make it difficult for worker-owned enterprises, for instance, to function. Socialism's collective ownership of the means of production facilitates a means for a re-organization of property rights to occur, thus providing for widespread establishment of worker-owned and managed enterprises and labor cooperatives, which have beneficial effects on efficiency.

Moreover, it's my contention that markets do not maximize allocative efficiency, but that's not an objection to capitalism alone, and I typically reserve that contention for debates amongst socialists.

The pure form of Capitalism is indeed a flawed system. Many competitors keep outdoing the other in a cut throat fashion until only one controls the resources and puts all the others out of business in order to corner the market. Result is a monopoly owned by a private company.

Socialism relies on big producers to keep producing in order to make up for those that don't produce enough. Big producers are usually run by the government because the government has the best means to supply for the demand of the people. In a socialist market, the demand is constant but the supply isn't always. Companies will fall off as their inability to meet supply grows. Gradually you will only be left with one main producer. Monopoly controlled by the government.

Government is far more inefficient then a privately run company simply for liability though. If a government bankrupts a business, they print more money, raise inflation and try another way to do it. If a private business goes bankrupt, they are SOL. Business' need to be efficient in order to survive. They don't have the enormous power of a government behind them to save themselves from stupid decisions. While we need regulation to avoid the carnivorous form of pure capitalism, we need as little as we can in order to avoid the situation we face now where government spends money they can never possibly earn in a hundred years on business' that should have failed long ago.

[Psychoblues]

Could you share with us in a more explicable terminology, insein?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!



The pure form of Capitalism is indeed a flawed system. Many competitors keep outdoing the other in a cut throat fashion until only one controls the resources and puts all the others out of business in order to corner the market. Result is a monopoly owned by a private company.

Socialism relies on big producers to keep producing in order to make up for those that don't produce enough. Big producers are usually run by the government because the government has the best means to supply for the demand of the people. In a socialist market, the demand is constant but the supply isn't always. Companies will fall off as their inability to meet supply grows. Gradually you will only be left with one main producer. Monopoly controlled by the government.

Government is far more inefficient then a privately run company simply for liability though. If a government bankrupts a business, they print more money, raise inflation and try another way to do it. If a private business goes bankrupt, they are SOL. Business' need to be efficient in order to survive. They don't have the enormous power of a government behind them to save themselves from stupid decisions. While we need regulation to avoid the carnivorous form of pure capitalism, we need as little as we can in order to avoid the situation we face now where government spends money they can never possibly earn in a hundred years on business' that should have failed long ago.

In the meantime, how about one of these?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

[Insein]

Could you share with us in a more explicable terminology, insein?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!




In the meantime, how about one of these?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Capitalism = good with little government

Socialism = bad because of government

Simple enough?

[Psychoblues]

I don't like generalizations, insein. They never explain anything.



Capitalism = good with little government

Socialism = bad because of government

Simple enough?

Simple enough?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!

How do you explain all the fear, loathing, inexplicable terror and defense presently being demonstrated by the reichwingers at this time?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!

[Agnapostate]

The pure form of Capitalism is indeed a flawed system. Many competitors keep outdoing the other in a cut throat fashion until only one controls the resources and puts all the others out of business in order to corner the market. Result is a monopoly owned by a private company.

There is no "pure" form of capitalism that exists. The "pure" form of capitalism is conceived as the "free market," which enjoys no record of existence throughout history and no record of near-existence in an industrialized society.


Socialism relies on big producers to keep producing in order to make up for those that don't produce enough. Big producers are usually run by the government because the government has the best means to supply for the demand of the people. In a socialist market, the demand is constant but the supply isn't always. Companies will fall off as their inability to meet supply grows. Gradually you will only be left with one main producer. Monopoly controlled by the government.

This seem to has no conceivable relation to socialist political economy, and frankly, seems reliant on the basic economic myth that socialism is based on "robbing the productive rich to feed the apathetic and sluggardly poor." Moreover, I've already noted that I personally advocate anarchism, which is, as Kropotkin termed it, "the no-government system of socialism." Reference to excessive governmental authority is thus entirely meaningless to my arguments; not only do I acknowledge the authoritarian nature of the state, I go further and acknowledge the authoritarian nature of actually existing capitalism.


Government is far more inefficient then a privately run company simply for liability though. If a government bankrupts a business, they print more money, raise inflation and try another way to do it. If a private business goes bankrupt, they are SOL. Business' need to be efficient in order to survive. They don't have the enormous power of a government behind them to save themselves from stupid decisions. While we need regulation to avoid the carnivorous form of pure capitalism, we need as little as we can in order to avoid the situation we face now where government spends money they can never possibly earn in a hundred years on business' that should have failed long ago.

This seems to have absolutely no relevance to the remarks that I've made, to be entirely frank with you. I've already stated my objections to governmental ownership and management of the means of production.


Capitalism = good with little government

An inaccurate response. The government functions as a necessary stabilizing agent in a capitalist economy. For instance, I've previously mentioned the infant industry argument. Strategic trade policy in the way of governmental protection of infant industries facilitates long-term development of those industries, thus permitting them to remain competitive and thereby maximizing dynamic comparative advantage. This is curiously similar to the aforementioned nature of monopoly in preventing legitimate market competition, and the role of government in alleviating that injustice.


Socialism = bad because of government

Simple enough?

Not especially, considering the role of non-governmental socialism.

[Psychoblues]

CARRY ON, AGGIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wish you all the luck that I can muster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In the meantime,,,,,,,,,,can I offer you just a beer?!?!?!?!?!?!?!????!?

Can we dispense with all the fear, loathing and self righteousness from the scribes and otherwise nonbelievers?!?!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Agnapostate]

:beer: :salute:

[Psychoblues]

Sweet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



:beer: :salute:

Congratulations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Need another one of these?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Agnapostate]

Heh. Wouldn't mind a +1 after "dead states rule" and his inane nonsense sabotaged my rep. :D

[Psychoblues]

aggie,,,,,,that shithead has a bunch of power. This is the only board on the internet that will tolerate his bullshit. Sorry you got bit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Heh. Wouldn't mind a +1 after "dead states rule" and his inane nonsense sabotaged my rep. :D

He has a butt buddie, too. Between them they can wreck some reputation and demonstrate daily their intention to do so. Sad,,,,,ain't it?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?