Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Whoa! Hugo!? Was that you?
Posted by: mcq on Wednesday, September 20, 2006

I love a good rant as well as the next guy but it seems the UN is becoming less "collegial" as time goes by. Unsatisfied by being roundly ignored in Bush's wide-ranging speech of yesterday, Latin America's clown prince, Hugo Chavez, took his pot-shot show against the US and George Bush to the podium of the UN.
Yesterday, the devil came here. Right here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of.
Heh ... yeah, right. The ultimate in "Blame it on Bush."

In reality I'd guess that Hugo had huevos rancheros for breakfast, they didn't agree with him and backed up on him right there on stage.

It's an old highschool trick. Cut one and then blame it on someone else. And that's about as serious as I can take anything that tin-pot posuer has to say about anything.

The rest? Standard third-world screed aimed at blaming all their woes on the US to distract the folks at home in the bannana republic from the real problems. You know, like creeping totalitarianism and all.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
The sad thing is that without knowing who gave that speech, you could reasonably and credibly guess that any number of Democrats may have said it.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Chavez hates Bush, but what he did is far more likely to help Bush and his allies than hurt them. Does Chavez know that? Or does he misunderstand the American psyche that much? Or does he just love preening so much that he doesn’t care what side effects it has?

As I’ve said many times before, I’m no huge fan of Bush. But for someone his opponents seem to think is dim, he sure does outmanuveur them a lot. So who’s really looking dim here? I don’t think it’s Bush.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Or does he misunderstand the American psyche that much?
Billy, Billy, Billy... have you learned nothing over the last 6 years???? It is ’misunderestimated’

:)

What a freakin’ nut job Chavez is.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
The smell was Persian Crude, a high sulfur petroleum with lots of impurities.

chsw10605
 
Written By: chsw10605
URL: http://
Or does he just love preening so much that he doesn’t care what side effects it has?
well, he is a socialist...
 
Written By: err
URL: http://
I have $100.00 riding on that the same people who laugh when the President speaks of "evil-doers" ("What an idiot! The world isn’t black and white like that!" etc.) will heartily nod when Chavez says "el Diablo."

I have vacillated between positions often concerning the "War on Terror." Yet on one side I have the President’s speech at the U.N. and on the other, this guy’s.

I figure watching for who agrees with Chavez and Ahmadinejad is a good way to determine with whom to disagree. It shows their premises are flawed.

I am a relative young’un, so maybe some of the more wizened folk here can help me out. Is this what going through the Cold War was like? Seeing socialists that suspend liberty in order to "smash capitalism," leaving piles of bodies in their wake, while the leftist types at home were apologists and cheerleaders? If so, how could you/do you stand it?
 
Written By: Alfred
URL: http://
To answer your first question yes. It’s a virtual rerun.

As for your second, most can’t stand it. The good news is we now have a way to speak out about it.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
Yeah, it is more-or-less a rerun. The biggest difference is that the Democrats then didn’t run the Scoop Jacksons out of their party.

But the willing suspension of disbelief was the same, the rhetoric was much the same (check the commercials run by the Democrats against Goldwater in 1964 for typical examples), and there’s one other similarity. The left never, ever admits it is/was wrong about anything. Even to this day, the old socialists cannot find it in their heart to get that worked up about the Cold War ("After all, we won didn’t we?"), and they still give mass murderers such as Stalin and Mao every possible benefit of the doubt. They still wear their Che t-shirts and talk about literacy in Cuba.

We could turn the Middle East into paradise compared to what it was in the 1990s, and the left would still never admit that their ideological opponents might actually have known what they were talking about.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Standard third-world screed aimed at blaming all their woes on the US
Yup. That’s why Ahmadinejad is so excited about making the Security Council more like the General Assembly. Yessirree. That should fix it right up.
 
Written By: Dave Schuler
URL: http://www.theglitteringeye.com
BTW, Iran has convinced 118 countries that it’s on the side of the angels.
 
Written By: Dave Schuler
URL: http://www.theglitteringeye.com
I would like to post my comment (like in a free country) but America cannot afford this freedom now (due to the war build up). Not only did George Bush lead us into war (the president who fired the first shot to boost his ego, while the american people and not George pay with there lives) But he screwed with the voting to get the job.
 
Written By: Rick
URL: http://
I would like to post my comment (like in a free country) but America cannot afford this freedom now (due to the war build up). Not only did George Bush lead us into war (the president who fired the first shot to boost his ego, while the american people and not George pay with there lives) But he screwed with the voting to get the job.
What the??? Thanks for playing. Good bye.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
"the UN is a broken organization"

"But I want my seat on the security council! And the United States is preventing that!"

Yeah Hugo, you savy old diplomat you...
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
In light of Rick’s comment, let me amend something I said earlier. There is one big difference between today’s lefties and the ones we had to deal with in the Cold War. The left today includes a much bigger slice of wacko conspiracy theorists. And the rest of the left doesn’t seem to mind.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Rick - yeah, this web site is run out of a basement in Cuba.
Say whatever you like because it’s a free country ’here’.

I’m sure as a former American you’ve suffered lots and lots during the tyranical reign of the current administration, what with the illegal immigrant concentration camps, and the re-education centers for leftists and wayward liberals run by FEMA.

How did you manage to escape by the way? The resistance might be able to use your method to save others.

Send us your info, we’ll send a man around to visit.
The code word will be "J*ackass", I’m sure you’re familiar with the term.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I would like to post my comment (like in a free country) but America cannot afford this freedom now (due to the war build up).
Heh, yup, no irony here. Move along folks, nothing to see here, move along.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
Are you guys rationing pixels under federal mandate or something? Can you maybe move the server offshore?

Ahhhh, the damn gubmint would just start taxing keystrokes. Curses.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
"And it smells of sulfur still today,"

Now Bush is responsible for air pollution, if not an attempt at biological warfare using persistent chemical agents.

****************************

"I would like to post my comment (like in a free country) but America cannot afford this freedom now"

Do let us know when you are able to post your comment. I can’t wait to see it.

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
No one here gets the joke, because no one here has ever been anywhere else.
 
Written By: Fraser
URL: http://
But for someone his opponents seem to think is dim, he sure does outmanuveur them a lot
You’re right. And Osama Bin Laden agrees with you. So too does Sadr, by the way.
In reality I’d guess that Hugo had huevos rancheros for breakfast, they didn’t agree with him and backed up on him right there on stage.

It’s an old highschool trick. Cut one and then blame it on someone else. And that’s about as serious as I can take anything that tin-pot posuer has to say about anything.
Oh McQ, you once again miss the point. And you do so in such a juvenile manner, it’s almost cute and delightful.

As you well know, Hugo called Shrub the "devil." Now, if you actually read The Bible, you would know it associates the devil and hell with fire and brimstone, especially Revelations 19-21. And if you know anything (which seems in doubt), you would know brimstone is an old word for sulfur.

From the Straight Dope:
Brimstone is an ancient term for sulphur. The alchemists considered sulphur the essence of combustion, because of its inflammability—er, flammability—er, because it easily bursts into flame. When ignited (a blue flame), it gives off sulphur dioxide (a colorless gas), which forms sulfurous acid when exposed to air (and water). That would make it pretty special in ancient times. Sulphur is "abundantly distributed in nature," according to my Britannica. The name brimstone probably arises because sulphur was found on the brims of volcanoes.

The origin of the term "fire and brimstone" is, of course, Biblical. In Genesis 19:24, God rains fire and brimstone down upon the cities of Sodom and Gemorrah, utterly destroying them. The rain of fire and brimstone was seen as a tool of divine punishment of sin, echoed in other verses such as Psalms 11:6, Ezekiel 38:22, and Luke 17:29. Other citations mention as punishment that the land is covered with fire and brimstone, such as Isaiah 34:9 and Deuteronomy 29:22.

Fire and brimstone become associated with hell in the New Testament book of Revelation. Revelation 14:10 continues the "judgment" theme, not much different from the imagery of Ezekiel. Revelation 20:10 speaks of the devil being thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, "tormented day and night forever." Thus, the imagery moves from judgment to Last Judgment, when the forces of evil are destroyed, symbolized by the lake of fire and sulphur. (I wonder if sulfuric acid helped formed the notion of a lake that burns?) In Revelation 21:8, the devil is joined in that fiery lake by "the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolators, and all liars," all those who have sided with evil, whether by willing alliance or by fear.

So that’s how fire and brimstone became associated with hell. The imagery became pretty pervasive; Milton, for example, mentions "a fiery deluge, fed/With ever-burning sulphur unconsumed" in Paradise Lost. (As an aside, note that the fantasy image of Hell being run by devils is not biblical, but relatively modern, from the last thousand years or so. In the New Testament, the devil is thrown into hell, not given charge of it.)
Now, as a lefty, I am "unable to grasp the pervasive influence religion plays in the lives of Christians here in the US." But as a righty, you are simply unable to grasp, period, especially when it comes to matters of religion.

And not to go on, but your cultural ignorance is showing too. Not only do sulfur and brimstone mean the same thing, they translate into the same word in Spanish, azufre. I suspect Chavez was speaking Spanish.

So go ahead, make the fart jokes, Beavis, I mean McQ, you seem to be good at them. Leave the Biblical allusions to Chavez. Because, after all, the left knows nothing about religion.


 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
MK,

You sound so bitter, as if McQ had criticized your hero.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Wait, someone actually didn’t get the sulphur reference? I thought the comments about it were purposefully treating it as something other than a connection to the entire "fire and brimstone" thing, in an attempt to elicit a laugh and subvert Chavez’s blustery prose. That was just my take though, I guess it is possible to come to the conclusion, based on the comments, that some truly did not recognize the sulphur-devil connection.
 
Written By: Alfred
URL: http://
Chavez is not alone. The cold fact is that millions upon millions agree..
The first I heard of him (Chavaz was this week, I stood up and clapped as soon as I saw the news. I don’t care who he is or where he’s from, but I’d love to shake his hand and by him a drink. Legend!

Now all we need the the rest of you cowards to stand up and send the devil back to where he came.
 
Written By: natas taerg
URL: http://
You sound so bitter, as if McQ had criticized your hero.
Actually, McQ’s obsessiveness with Chavez makes me think that he is to Chavez what Seinfeld was to Newman.

McQ has a cartoonish view of the world. To him, all Muslims fall into two categories, fundamentalist and extremist. They all hate America, and they are all idiots. And all are suicide bombers. And Sunni and Shia are the same. Arab bad, Christian good, Democrats evil.

He extends this simplistic view of the world to anyone who would pick a fight with Bush. To McQ, and Billy, Billy especially, anyone who opposes Bush is an idiot because such a person does not realize what a genius Bush is. (See also Powerline.) That is why I think McQ is obsessed with Chavez. After all, Chavez and Bush have some kind of personal beef, therefore Chavez and McQ have some kind of personal beef. When you are in a cult, criticism of the cult leader is an object of personal obsession. Therefore, every effort must be made to boost the image of the cult leader over the critic.

Seriously. Here is what Billy said about Bush, the cult leader:
But for someone his opponents seem to think is dim, he sure does outmanuveur them a lot
Billy loves Bush. Worships him. And yet, at other times, he pulls a Peter; denies he is a supporter.

Poor conflicted guy.

This is why I continue to maintain that McQ and Billy are charter members of the Bush Cult. It is an article of faith to them that Bush’s apparent idiocy is in fact a clever diversion. To McQ and Billy, Bush is in fact a genius who will have the last laugh.

They believe this. Really.

What makes the matter worse, Bush is the best thing that ever happened to the enemies of the United Ststes. Blustery, but ineffective. Offensive, but stupid.

One last question McQ and Billy:

Who benefits more from the emnity between Chavez and Bush? Chavez or Bush?

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Is mkultra really this stupid or is it all just a show?

I’m new here so forgive me if I say mkultra is so full of $hite it’s coming out of her mouth.
 
Written By: matterson
URL: http://
Chavez benefits far more than Bush. It brings him support from all corners and gives him a great excuse for any failures (it was Bush’s fault.)

I suspect McQ doesn’t like Chavez because he is a neo-socialist that is driving Venezuela into the ground (though oil prices are concealing some of that.)

Actually, Chavez could be smart in stirring up the pot like this since it rattles oil markets to some degree and keeps his regime afloat.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Leave the Biblical allusions to Chavez. Because, after all, the left knows nothing about religion
Wow, MK. You’ve struck a new low in the ability to not grasp the obvious. We all got the fire and brimstone reference from Chavez. McQ was making a joke by turning the reference into Chavez actually farting. You just put a turd into the punch bowl.


Let me now make a sentence that uses BOTH a personal pronoun and an impersonal pronoun:


I’m not suprised that MK thought McQ didn’t understand Chavez. It’s clear that MK is like a child in the Family Circus cartoon who imagines the literal meaning of what the adults are saying.


P.S. For those of you not following a previous thread, MK was trying to explain that Bush’s use of pronouns meant he was disallowing dissent rather than just speaking properly like the rest of us.
P.P.S. I always hated the Family Circus.

 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
No one here gets the joke, because no one here has ever been anywhere else.
Ah, so you know everyone here and all about their travels do you?

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
Oh McQ, you once again miss the point. And you do so in such a juvenile manner, it’s almost cute and delightful.
Has anyone else noticed that MK’s arguments have devolved into mostly ad hominem? Not that there was much to them before, but now, if they aren’t pointed at me specifically, or some commenter, they aren’t made.

I assmume getting ’gang raped at QandO’ as a commenter at LGF characterized what happened to MK hereabouts on a regular basis (said to MK, btw) has had its effect and all that’s left is personal attacks.

*sigh*

A pity (ok, not really).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
Actually, McQ’s obsessiveness with Chavez makes me think that he is to Chavez what Seinfeld was to Newman.

McQ has a cartoonish view of the world.
See what I mean?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
Is mkultra really this stupid or is it all just a show?
No,like Coke, "it’s the real thing".
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
McQ’s obsessiveness with Chavez
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. [/Inigo Montoya]
McQ has a cartoonish view of the world. To him...Democrats evil.
Um, how do you explain this? Maybe the only cartoon is MK?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Who benefits more from the emnity between Chavez and Bush? Chavez or Bush?
Now, that’s the best question you’ve asked in a long, long time.

And it could be that Chavez has just decided that his purposes are best served by tweaking Bush, even if that helps the Bush administration get more domestic support.

The hidden assumption is that Bush is not going to do anything of consequence to interfere with Chavez’s aims. And, given Bush’s general attitude to South America, Chavez is probably right about that.

Perhaps tweaking Bush buys Chavez so much credibility with his "non-aligned" buddies that it’s worth any minor chances of motivating the Bush administration to do anything about him. Hard to tell the difference between that and "preening" though.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Perhaps tweaking Bush buys Chavez so much credibility with his "non-aligned" buddies that it’s worth any minor chances of motivating the Bush administration to do anything about him.
Read his whole speech (at the link, it doesn’t take much time). It is obvious that this is a strategy without risk but enormous payback for him personally. And, as I mentioned (and as is evident in the speech) it provides a wonderful and vivid distraction from the real problems at home.

Why wouldn’t he employ a no cost strategy which benefits him? To me the answer is Chavez benefits tremendously from the manufactured emnity. For Bush there is no gain even acknowledging Chavez. He’s more like a pesky fly than anything else in geopolitical terms. Annoying, but not worth the effort to swat.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
I think we know where MK was yesterday:
[Chavez] later spoke to hundreds of New Yorkers who filled a college hall Wednesday night, saying he hopes Americans choose an "intelligent president" in the future.
[...]
He drew a standing ovation when he said Bush committed genocide during the war in Iraq.

"The president of the United States should go before an international tribunal," Chavez said as applause filled the hall at The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art. He compared the Bush administration’s actions to those of the Nazis.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
“The United States empire is on its way down and it will be finished in the near future, inshallah," Chavez told reporters...
While we’re at it, for those of us who have "never been anywhere else"
can someone explain to me the point at which "inshallah" - became a common Spanish word that a Venezualen dictat...um....President might use in conversation?

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
The first I heard of him (Chavaz was this week, I stood up and clapped as soon as I saw the news. I don’t care who he is or where he’s from, but I’d love to shake his hand and by him a drink. Legend!
A perfect example of the moral bankruptcy of today’s "liberals." We’ll support any dictator, as long as he bashes Bush!
 
Written By: Jordan
URL: http://
Richard Holbrooke called Ahmadinejad a "pipsqueak" prior to his speech and said that had he been in charge, he would have seen to it that he and Bush not have spoken the same day in order that the two presidents don’t appear to have a debate as this would make them appear as equals.

In this way, this is supposed to demonstrate that Bush is Emperor and Ahmadinejad is nothing more than a provincial governor who should be fired by the emperor at once; the old "there’s no equality between my president and theirs" game that is the childish excuse for not talking to many countries. It also confirms charges of imperialism made by those subject to pressures from the empire.

Then there’s Andy Card who called Chavez a "gnat".

It appears that American officials are confirming all the criticisms that both Chavez and Ahmadinejad have made before the General Assembly.
 
Written By: R
URL: http://
It appears that American officials are confirming all the criticisms that both Chavez and Ahmadinejad have made before the General Assembly.
Er...except in reality, Holbrooke’s not in charge and his wish didn’t occur. So no "emperor" fired any "provincial governors" and no charges of imperialism were confirmed. In fact, since the exact opposite happened (Bush and Ahmadinejad spoke on the same day, and Chavez was allowed to speak in various NY venues), shouldn’t that confirm non-imperialism by your logic?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Holbrooke’s current official US government position is...um....errrrr....uh..., investment banker?
Card’s current official US government position is....um...errr.....uh.....???

Hugo (descubridor de olor) Chavez is a um, what? President?
And
Mahmoud (Wipe Israel off the map) Ahmadinejad is a um, what? President?
Um, yeah.

It would be nice if either one of the guys you cited from the ’empire’ here were currently ’officials’ of the US government.
And despite our empire Ahmadinejad managed to speak on the same day as Bush after all! Wow!
Thanks for playing!

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
dammit JWG...I get beat every time!
If they’re going to give YOU the talking points to post, they should at least warn my handler!
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
d***** JWG
In Indiana we’ve had our standardized tests this week, so I haven’t had anything to grade. I’ve spent some of my extra time hanging around here looking (no pun intended) for ideas to correct (usually my students give me enough opportunity to get it out of my system). Sorry! I’ll be harrassing the kids again next week.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Well, I should be reassurred someone else is seeing the same nonsense I am.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Billy loves Bush. Worships him. And yet, at other times, he pulls a Peter; denies he is a supporter.

Poor conflicted guy.

This is why I continue to maintain that McQ and Billy are charter members of the Bush Cult. It is an article of faith to them that Bush’s apparent idiocy is in fact a clever diversion. To McQ and Billy, Bush is in fact a genius who will have the last laugh.

They believe this. Really.
It really doesn’t matter how many times this is pointed out as utter hogwash, does it? You’ll just keep on trotting out the same tired falsehoods. Because actually looking the truth in the eye would too painful for you to imagine.

I blasted Bush here over Harriet Meirs. Now let me tell you some more.

Signing McCain Feingold was one of the most despicable acts committed by any president in my lifetime. Bush took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and then knowingly violated it because he believed that the law was unconstitutional and signed it anyway.

Adding a trillion or so dollars to our welfare state mess with his Medicare Rx was stupid beyond belief. Trying to out-liberal Democrats is nutty on so many levels I don’t know where to begin. But he did it anyway.

Bush’s immigration position is a triumph of hope over common sense. It’s so bad even his own party won’t sign on.

And I could keep going. But it doesn’t matter. If I support Bush’s decision to go into Iraq, then I’m a bootlicking, Bush-worshipping automaton to leftists such as MK, because their perception of the world begins and ends with Bush and Iraq. They can’t get past it, can’t "move on", to coin a phrase.

I point out that Bush outmanuveurs opponents, and all of sudden I think he’s a genius? Nope. All it means is that most of his opponents are incompetent politicians. Bush doesn’t have to be a genius - he just has to be better than folks like John "I voted for it before I voted against it" Kerry. And that’s not too hard.

So keep on demonstrating your foam-at-the-mouth Bush hatred, mk, by outright lying about anybody who so much as suggests that maybe Bush has done a single thing right in his entire life. (Sometimes I give you the benefit of the doubt about lying, because I know you leftists consider truth a malleable concept. But in this case, since your falsehoods have been repeatedly exposed and you keep bring them back, you know you’re lying.)

But it’s OK. Keep it up. It demonstrates to the world exactly who and what you are. As I’ve said previously, I hope you never leave this forum, because you are exhibit A to undecided moderates about just how deranged leftists are over Bush and Iraq and how dishonest they can be when their cherished fictions get crushed.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
But in this case, since your falsehoods have been repeatedly exposed and you keep bring them back, you know you’re lying.
Exactly. I can’t conceive of the notion that MK is anything but a liar. It’s inconceivable that MK would do anything but lie.

Whoops! Did I use that pesky personal pronoun followed by an impersonal pronoun again? How can that be possible?

 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Whoops! Did I use that pesky personal pronoun followed by an impersonal pronoun again? How can that be possible?
Because "U THA MAN" - I mean, if you are a man... if not, then... U THA WO - MAN!!!

Love how you’ve put that in play the last few days... keep it up :)
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
All man, baby! Unfortunately, a short, bald, and slightly pudgy man. Luckily, I have a hot wife and three very cute little girls. I’m not so sure I’ll be feeling lucky about having three cute girls in about 10 years, but I’ll live for today.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
On a somewhat related matter, I was reading this article about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and a meeting some various folks had with him. One guy said:
He responds in an oblique way: never directly to the question. He changes the subject. He goes on and on and raises issues.
Gosh, that reminds me of somebody. I’m sure I’ve seen those tactics before, somewhere around this very web site, I think. But I just can’t put my finger on who it is...
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Oops, forgot the article link. Sorry.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider