shotbanner.jpeg

December 21, 2005

It's About Time

Andrea Mitchell on the Today show this morning:

Americans are worried about too much government intrusion into their civil liberties.
The story, naturally, was about the Wiretap "scandal", and it was pretty much wrong...

...but it was the remark itself that caught my attention.

Really? Suddenly, Americans are worried about their civil liberties?

Where were they in 1994, when Bill Clinton signed a Crime Bill that enabled massive wiretapping, imposed pointless-yet-draconian gun restrictions, instituted property forfeiture laws and limited citizens' right to sue the government?

Were the people concerned in 2000, when Bill Clinton's Counterterrorism Act added further wiretap powers and executive power to attack peaceful fundraising for groups with any remote terror connection (hello, Irish!)?

Or was it that the media didn't feel those concerns until now?

Remember in the 1990's, when Democrats thought libertarians, small or large "L", were like flat-earthers?

Welcome to the party, American Left and Media (pardon the redundancy); it's about time.

Posted by Mitch at December 21, 2005 07:24 AM | TrackBack
Comments

You know our media types -- "The president isn't concerned about the same things I am! He's in a bubble!"

Posted by: Terry at December 21, 2005 07:49 AM

For the record, I was dubious about both. Clinton was good in many respect, but his defense of civil liberties was weak-to-nonexistent. (See Also: Communications Decency Act).

I'm not newly concerned about civil liberies; I'm still concerned about civil liberties. And if Clinton chipped away at them, Bush has taken a big sledgehammer to them. But the libertarians on the right have made their choice, and they've decided that partisanship outweights principle. Too bad for them.

Posted by: Jeff Fecke at December 21, 2005 09:27 AM

Jeff, pardon me, but libertarians on the right have decided that defending the country is a priority right now and have accepted that during a war some rights of non-citizens may be revoked. Personally, if the Gov't is spying on non-citizens making foreign calls, more power to them. If the Gov't is spying on groups known to be sympathic to groups desiring to attack us, more power to them. All that does not lessen my commitment to rights for citizens, nor smaller and less intrusive gov't. What bothers me is that neither party is showing any commitment to limiting gov't: expanding gov't is the reason d'etre of the Dems, and the GOP is gunning for power and not principle.

Posted by: nerdbert at December 21, 2005 10:07 AM

Well nerdbert,

How about US citizens making domestic calls? According to a press release by the administration this morning they not only listened in on foreign calls, but "inadvertently" eavesdropped on a number of domestic calls as well. Or how about US citizens meeting in churches and homes to organize peaceful protests? The military admitted recently to monitoring meetings of war protesters across the country, including a group of those dangerous radicals the Quakers. This is wrong. Bill Cilinton is not the president. I agree with Frecke, Clinton was less than stellar on a number of issues. His decisions ( or rather his inaction)in Rhwanda were loathsome. HE is not currently at the helm. GW is.

Posted by: phipho at December 21, 2005 10:59 AM

I don't understand why the Quakers are automatically assumed to be the epitome of peace advocates. Some of the Quaker off-shoots, and indeed some within the mainstream Quaker movement, are batshit scary in their beliefs. Some of the fundamentalist Quaker communities in Utah and Arizona, and even extending into Canada, can rival in creepiness anything the Wahhabist fundamentalists dabble in. A little monitoring of their activities, in other words, may not be such a bad thing.

Posted by: Ryan at December 21, 2005 12:07 PM

Nerdbert reasoned: "If the Gov't is spying on groups known to be sympathic to groups desiring to attack us, more power to them. All that does not lessen my commitment to rights for citizens, nor smaller and less intrusive gov't."

Uh, well actually it does, Nerd.

Posted by: angryclown at December 21, 2005 12:57 PM

Uh, right, angryclown. Expanding the domain of our enemies and increasing their ability to attack us in further support of citizen rights and smaller government is the optimal solution.

You're angry, and you're a clown, right?

Posted by: Eracus at December 21, 2005 01:18 PM

Mitch said: "Welcome to the party, American Left and Media (pardon the redundancy); it's about time."

Hmmmm, I don't see you on the guest list, Mitch. Oh wait, you must be here for the Administration Apologists party. Down the hall.

Posted by: angryclown at December 21, 2005 01:43 PM

It's about time????!

Yeah, right. The only liberty you defend is a misrepresented view of the 2nd ammendment.

Fact: You blamed Clinton for inaction on terrorism, yet the wire-tapping provisions you NOW decry, were included in the Patriot act, belatedly accepting the recommendation of Clinton, a recommendation turned away by the 2000 Republicans. So let's get this straight, you want to BLAME Clinton for proposing this wire-tap, while giving your guy a free ride on MUCH more draconian actions, all the while saying he did nothing, and then accept it and claim it's proper and right and should have been done all along.

Good God, talk about talking out of both sides of your face.

Regardless, why don't you actually COME to the party. You have yet to denounce the imperial Presidency, the unchecked powers.

You have FALSELY claimed there is no legal question, there is no risk of legal impropriety, no risk of illegality, despite the fact that most legal scholars (nearly all), say otherwise, and you are ready and willing to let him do whatever he chooses because "we're at war."

The republican party of the last 100 years has been the most irresponsible, ready to trade away liberties, and forceful advocate of a strong executive branch of any party in our nation's history. There are SOOOO many instances of them trammelling liberties there is no place adequate to start. From the ridiculous need to place "under God" in the pledge of allegiance (not something I particularly mind, it was just small-minded foolishness), to turning a blind eye when Reagan's goons (not Reagan) attempted to tell the Congress that the executive branch had to power to ignore the legal check the legislative has on it by defunding it (Bolin ammendment) to Watergate - you all have freely engaged in one act after another destroying individual liberty.

This is just another Mitch turn-about, can't just brush off the complaint, adopt your oppositions position and complain they aren't (or haven't been) as sincere and committed as you've been. Notwithstanding that the Repos haven't defended liberty since Scopes outside of NRA money fueled defense of guns, tell ya' what Mitch, get off our side, you suck at it, you don't mean it, and you're lying if you try to say you did.

You opposed wire-taps at first, then championed them when it became politically convenient, and now, want unrestrained taps, something Clinton never desired, but what's most important, at NO TIME AND IN NO WAY did Clinton EVER assert that he has essentially unchecked powers to conduct the "war on terror." No, that's strictly the Repo arena, reminiscent of Nixon's claims that he can engage in bombing anyone he chooses.

PB

Posted by: pb at December 21, 2005 01:53 PM

Well phipho, how about it? Do you know how hard it is to filter out international calls out of the mass that are made? Do you have any idea of the structure of the phone system between here and Canada, for example? I do. I was in that business for a while. There's no way to completely filter out getting some domestic calls when you're monitoring foreign communications due to loops that run between the countries. Not too long ago MCI got hit with huge fines for running communications through loops like that to get around tax liabilities. You physically can't do it, so I'm not surprised that they got some, nor am I worried. VoIP is even worse from a technical standpoint.

How about those US citizens? You have groups of US citizens who are sending representatives to meet with terrorists in Iraq (note the 4 abducted not long ago). Are you saying that even though they profess nonviolence they and their associates shouldn't be monitored? That's a pretty naive view! If you associate with associates of terrorists you should expect to be monitored -- heck they do that in organized crime investigations all the time!

Posted by: nerdbert at December 21, 2005 01:56 PM

"According to a press release by the administration this morning they not only listened in on foreign calls, but "inadvertently" eavesdropped on a number of domestic calls as well."

The word "inadvertently" is usually interpreted to mean that a mistake was made; whatever caused the "inadvertent" mistake has no doubt been corrected.

Is it your contention that no program or system should ever be implemented that isn't guaranteed to NEVER "inadvertently" make mistakes?

Got it. No wonder the Left so rarely proposes solutions to problems....

Posted by: Pious Agnostic at December 21, 2005 01:58 PM

"No wonder the Left so rarely proposes solutions to problems...."

See also: Anything ever written by PB.

Posted by: Ryan at December 21, 2005 02:07 PM

Oh, PB. Poor, simple, jerk-kneed PB. You've slipped the surly bonds of "mistaken", and swerved with all four wheels into the world of the outright lie.

"The only liberty you defend is a misrepresented view of the 2nd ammendment."

Absolutely, documentably untrue. Don't EVEN try to tell me what I *really* believe, Peeb; you're not qualified.

"Fact: You blamed Clinton for inaction on terrorism, yet the wire-tapping provisions you NOW decry, were included in the Patriot act, belatedly accepting the recommendation of Clinton"

Absolute non-sequitur. Clinton arrogated to himself the *tools* to combat crime, terror, domestic dissent - but didn't make it a policy and/or didn't have the will to implement it. So yes, I CAN blame him for muffing the Bin Laden catch *and* for curtailling civil liberties. He deserves both brickbats.

"a recommendation turned away by the 2000 Republicans."

Because while there wasn't a war going on, we DID have a President with a track record of very dubious behavior in re civil liberties.

" So let's get this straight,"

It'd be a switch, wouldn't it?

" you want to BLAME Clinton for proposing this wire-tap, while giving your guy a free ride on MUCH more draconian actions,"

Wow. You really DON'T have it straight.

I blame Clinton for many things; letting Bin Laden go, giving AQ a victory in Somalia, letting opinion polls drive the response to attack after attack, and failing to breach the Church-era wall between FBI and CIA, and of course for his many *real* transgressions against domestic civil liberties.

"Good God, talk about talking out of both sides of your face."

Well, to be fair to me, one side of my face is jammed full of words you've tried to jam into my throat.

"You have yet to denounce the imperial Presidency, the unchecked powers."

Because we don't have one.

"You have FALSELY claimed there is no legal question,"

No, I've said the legal questions have been answered for the most part.

" there is no risk of legal impropriety, no risk of illegality, despite the fact that most legal scholars (nearly all), say otherwise

You didn't read the Hewitt piece I linked yesterday, did you?

Your statement is, I'll be charitable, wrong.

"The republican party of the last 100 years has been the most irresponsible, ready to trade away liberties, and forceful advocate of a strong executive branch of any party in our nation's history."

Peeb, you're just ranting now. Even IF half of what you on the lunatic fringe of the left is true (it's not, but whatever), Bush hasn'd done 1/20th of what FDR did to civil and other liberties, during the Depression and WWII. Your statement can only come from comical anti-Bush mania and/or a complete ignorance of history. I vote "both".


"There are SOOOO many instances of them trammelling liberties there is no place adequate to start."

Huh-whah?

Your comments have run longer than my POSTS over this last few months, Peeb. You've burned up more bandwidth than my actual content! Why have you suddenly stanched the gushing?

Go ahead! You've burned up gigabytes of my bandwidth! Why stop now?

I've asked you twice, in as many words, to list the civil liberties we've *lost* under this Administration, esp. under the Patriot Act. I specifically ask you again; list them.

Now.

"This is just another Mitch turn-about, can't just brush off the complaint, adopt your oppositions position and complain they aren't (or haven't been) as sincere and committed as you've been."

Buncombe. I have been a libertarian - small and big L - my whole life.

"Notwithstanding that the Repos haven't defended liberty since Scopes outside of NRA money fueled defense of guns, tell ya' what Mitch, get off our side, you suck at it, you don't mean it, and you're lying if you try to say you did."

PB, you are ranting, raving, wrong, and a laugh a minute in the bargain. I am, demonstrably, more concerned with real civil liberties than you. Always have been. Always will be. To suggest otherwise may make you feel good (or whatever it is you get out of these constant outbursts), but it doesn't pass the giggle test.

Next time, stomp your feet when you write it. It'll come across more impressive.

Posted by: mitch at December 21, 2005 02:14 PM

Peevish Antagonist intoned: "The word "inadvertently" is usually interpreted to mean that a mistake was made; whatever caused the "inadvertent" mistake has no doubt been corrected."

No doubt, Pie Ass, no doubt.

Posted by: angryclown at December 21, 2005 02:19 PM

Game, Set, Match....to Mitch. Geez, Mitch....I'd hate to be a dog in your house when you're having a bad day....WOW!

Posted by: Dave at December 21, 2005 02:28 PM

You're right Nerdbert; selective wiretapping is incredibly difficult to do. Your initial post indicated that you had no qualms about the program because it only involved parties who needed a good looking after. My point was that, intentional or not, innocent citizens were caught up in the sweep. What you now seem to be saying is the administration can't carry out the program without violating the rights of ordinary citizens. I agree. They need to stop. As for your position on the monitoring of protest groups the government tried that in the sixties. It was a hideous idea then as it is now. This is the United States. I should be able to disagree with the government without having my phone tapped or meetings I attend monitored. I am not saying that all of the groups that were monitored are harmless. Domestic terrorism remains a real threat. Our past failures to be diligent should not serve as an excuse for the abrogation of our fundamental civil rights. The first and Fourth Amendment still apply in this country. The government should have to provide more than opposition to the war as a pretext for spying on you.

PA,

I realize there will be errors in any system. Particularly one as massive as this one. My difficulty with this particular tact on the part of the administration is that it was so secret there was no one there to monitor those errors, inadvertent or otherwise. My solution is to use the legal channels that are already in place. Something the former Secretary of State Colin Powell supports.

Posted by: phipho at December 21, 2005 02:31 PM

PB: "Yeah, right. The only liberty you defend is a misrepresented view of the 2nd ammendment."

PB, have you ever read the Federalist Papers? The writings of the Founders? Obviously not, if you take Mitch's view of the 2nd ammendment as faulty. If you're one of those "Living Constitution" folks you can argue that our "interpretation" of the 2nd should change, but Mitch's view is closer to that of those who wrote it.

"You have yet to denounce the imperial Presidency, the unchecked powers."

Depending on how it was implemented, the courts have held that the president has pretty broad powers when it comes to international events. They've always had that power. Shall we remove it? As to what actually happened, you are again leaping to conclusions. I'll wait until the evidence comes out rather than jumping into the fever swamp with you.

"The republican party of the last 100 years has been the most irresponsible, ready to trade away liberties, and forceful advocate of a strong executive branch of any party in our nation's history."

Have you never heard of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798? Your statements are too sweeping by far. By the way, they were aimed at Jefferson's Republicans in a raw, blatantly political move.

AC: "Uh, well actually it does, Nerd."

No, it doesn't. Being investigated isn't having your civil liberties abridged provided that conditions are met such as reasonableness of the search. You don't get much better cause for monitoring and investigating than associating with known terrorists. You, as a lawyer, should know that as much the same standard is used in organized crime investigations.

Personally, I'd prefer it if the results for such investigations were less permanently in files if the investigation didn't pan out. It was pretty rare for the civil libertarians to get a law where successful approvals for gun permits go into the dumpster, but you will note that the Clinton administration refused to follow the law and kept those around.

Posted by: nerdbert at December 21, 2005 02:36 PM

Wow! angryclown has called me names! I guess I'll have to rethink everything now in light of his insight.

Posted by: Pious Agnostic at December 21, 2005 02:49 PM

You know, it just dawned on me that I was thinking of "Mormons," not "Quakers" in my earlier comment. Please ignore it, as I'm sure most of you already have.

Man, I really woke up on the stupid side of the bed today.

Posted by: Ryan at December 21, 2005 03:06 PM

Ryan,

You know, I was wondering if you knew something about the Quakers the rest of us didn't. Thanks for clearing that up.

And, thanks for admitting a mistake.

Now that you have admitted the mistake, expect angryclown to make a snide comment and suggest that you be banned.

Posted by: Pious Agnostic at December 21, 2005 03:11 PM

"As for your position on the monitoring of protest groups the government tried that in the sixties."

As with many on the left, you're stuck there. The problem wasn't that monitoring happened then. The problem was that it was used for political purposes by the director of the FBI later. Again, the problem was the actors, not necessarily the actions. If JEH hadn't been so politically powerful with nobody willing to stand up to him it wouldn't have been a problem.

"This is the United States. I should be able to disagree with the government without having my phone tapped or meetings I attend monitored."

Certainly, as long as you're legal. If, however, you have dealings with a group that supports illegal activities you should be investigated or monitored. That goes for PETA and their ELF affilitions just as much as it does for certain mosques and their associations with groups tied to Fatah. And if you're a Quaker group sending folks to meet terrorists in Iraq? Well, I'd expect you to have bugs coming out your *ss. None of that violates your 1st or 4th ammendment liberties.

"The government should have to provide more than opposition to the war as a pretext for spying on you."

How do you know that that was the only pretext? You're jumping to conclusions. FBI agents tend to be overworked (e.g. they all got pulled off gang work to do counter-terrorism here in the Twin Cities a few years back and now the gang problem is such that they're having to do double duty and doing each less than they'd like), so they rarely go out on fishing expeditions without some cause. And their administration is so PC it's pitiful. Justifying an investigation that might have political overtones isn't easy.

Posted by: nerdbert at December 21, 2005 03:28 PM

"...it doesn't pass the giggle test..."

I have a test? Crap, I didn't even study!

Posted by: Steve G. at December 21, 2005 03:33 PM

Oh you great defenders of freedom (or in reality, you great destroyers of freedom)...

Examples of your great freedom stance..

Jose Padilla was today prevented from being turned over to the criminal court because the Government's actions give "the appearance of attempting to avoid consideration by the Supreme Court"..

The President decided to call him a dirty bomber, then later he was going to use natural gas, then in the criminal case, it was for cooperating with Al Qaeda.

It detained him for three years w/o charge, then sought to avoid rebuke by the SCOTUS by removing him to criminal court, and today, a conservative court said "not so fast" you cannot simply avoid the appeal process, and thereby instruction on your conduct, by vacating your stance. The issue does not end there.

Oh you great lovers of freedom, perhaps you need to look for the stink, it's your feet of lead, and your ear of tin.

You believe anything is acceptable, as long as its not your sacred cow.

Also today, a FISA judge (you know, the kind that would actually have an informed opinion, as opposed to John Hindraker) resigned in protest over the conduct of the President, essentially (according to aides) because he felt the conduct of the Administration obviates FISA, and could be used, improperly, to bring to FISA requests for warrants based upon information illegally obtained.

You stand for freedom, your freedom to mislead, your right to own guns, and not much else.

PB

Posted by: pb at December 21, 2005 03:43 PM

"if JEH hadn't been so politically powerful with no one willing to stand up to him it wouldn't have been a problem"

Hmmmm who does that characterization remind me of ...hmmm darn ... thinking thinking thinking, trying to pull out of that sixties mode. Darn I know there is a recent politician who has been described as living in a bubble and incredibly hostile to criticism from subordinates. Darn, who could it be,ooooooh its on the tip of my tongue. Oh well I'm sure you'll be able to put your finger on it. While you're at it nerdbert could you let me know exactly when it was that the Quakers were meeting with Al Queda in Iraq? I want to notify the local authorities to be on the look out for these nefarious gangsters and will tell them to be on the lookout for insects crawling out of their nether regions. Thanks for the tip. Also be on the lookout for Raging Grannies. According to recently released DOD documents they also had their meetings monitored. I bet they are sending incendiary oatmeal cookies to our troops. Or worse yet knitting bullet proof afghans for Al Qaeda! Be ever vigilant nerdbert, there are subversives everywhere !

Posted by: phipho at December 21, 2005 03:48 PM

The story..from AP

The decision, written by Judge Michael Luttig, questioned why the administration used one set of facts before the court for 3 1/2 years to justify holding Padilla without charges but used another set to convince a grand jury in Florida to indict him last month.
Luttig said the administration has risked its "credibility before the courts" by appearing to use the indictment of Padilla to thwart an appeal of the appeals court's decision that gave the president wide berth in holding enemy combatants.

>>This court is widely held to be conservative.

Hmmm.. risked its credibility before the courts.

Yep, honesty, fair dealing, defense of individual liberties.. you all are ready to allow monitoring of peace groups, Quakers, internal (domestic) communication, but it is you who are welcoming the left to the party... hardly.

More like you are outside the party protesting it, and saying you attended.

PB

Posted by: pb at December 21, 2005 04:01 PM

"...a FISA judge (you know, the kind that would actually have an informed opinion..."

Those of you who aren't pb (I already know he won't), Google the judge's name and see whether his withdrawal is shocking, or more of a piece with his previous media-worthy actions.

Posted by: Steve G. at December 21, 2005 04:05 PM

Mitch SAYS he's more concerned about liberties and proves it by .. saying he's more concerned.. yep.

I've talked with Mitch offline, to say he has concern for civil liberties is to say he has concern for Osama Bin Laden.

When confronted about Abu Graihb, his attitude, no big deal

When confronted about imprisoning people without charge, his attitude, no big deal.

Whatever Mitch, you haven't expressed a single opinion on an important issue which defended defendents against the excess of the state (outside I suppose smoking bans but that's hardly a monumental issue).

Once again, Mitch uses win by fiat, win by "because I say so".

Mitch, if you are SOOO concerned about civil liberties, and "more than me" as you say, prove it, suggest a subject (other than firearms which I really have little concern about but don't support restrictions), and we'll have a go.

Otherwise, if you can't put up, you need to keep quiet, because you have NO PROOF of your claim other than your claim. Pretty much SOP for you, but hardly worth reading.

By the way, yes I've read the Federalist Papers, you know, those that say there IS a separation between church and state, define the 2nd ammendment as representing the right to have a well ordered militia, the one denying that this is a government is a religious construct... you know, those.

So, to use your pathetic tactics ... BZZZT wrong answer.

As for FDR, he very wrongfully attempted to stack the obstructionist, republican court which was blocking recovery efforts during the Depression, but see, here is the difference, I admit FDR was dead wrong, you can't even get close to that with Bush. You've repeatedly made wholly wrong and false claims about Bush' conduct, he clearly is in a power grab here using an authorization for Afghanistan to conduct intrusions into citizen's rights, but yep, I'm the one who doesn't defend it.

The fact is Mitch, pretty much all you can do is insult. You are a slightly better version of Eracus. You don't have actual facts of MY views, merely the conduct of a President who died 20 years before I was born. You wrongly assume I supported his actions which I didn't. Whereas I rightly understand you fully support Bush, because in part you haven't the spine to stand up - or rather are such a lapdog you won't - and also based on your commentary.

Sure you defend liberty.. yep.. the ones you selectively find appropriate..whereas actual liberterians, of which you know FULL WELL the left is a charter member - not Libertarians, who are mostly just anti-taxists - but you misleadingly say the left are not libertarians. You lie so frequently it becomes meaningless to refute your comments. Just as this proves, you switch sides as soon as it suits you.

I actually support many of the positions of "Liberterians". The key area I DON'T is in their objection to income tax (based upon southern state suspension of voting rights due to their seccession). I believe the country had the right to impose this penalty, they don't. Consequently, I believe the income tax is Constitutional. So your characterization that I consider all Libertarians as whackos is once again, an assumption, and fully wrong.

Mitch, try really hard to actually engage in discussion.. oh wait, that's right, you've heard it all, like for example your advocation of allowing indefinite detention of U.S. Citizens, vs. mine saying it's a slippery slope toward simply allowing a Goverment to "dissappear" anyone it doesn't care for. You have ZERO ground to claim you stand for liberty to a greater degree, it's hollow, but what's more, you have such an insufficient understanding of me, it's a baseless assumption. I didn't say YOU personally only stood for the 2nd ammendment, I said YOU (Repos -esp neo-cons) only stand for the 2nd ammendment, and compared to the left, you are FAR outside looking in on civil liberties, reinforced by your actions since 9/11. You seek to impose Governments on foriegn citizens at the end of a gun barrel.

Bluntly, Mitch, you offer no evidence, make only assumptions, and thus, make an fool of yourself.

It's a shame, but I know you can't help yourself, you have no better comments than ..."I'm better because, because, well, just because I am.. wow, such logic." I'm awestruck.

PB

Posted by: pb at December 21, 2005 04:20 PM

ok.. irony .. make an fool of yourself (/chuckles at the fool in his own seat).

make A fool.. and joins Mitch in the boat.

btw, calling me simple Mitch, considering you normally have a difficult time keeping up, is equally ironic... all we need is Eracus to join us and we can be three men in a tub.

PB

Posted by: pb at December 21, 2005 04:25 PM

I Googled and found mostly stories about rulings he's made, Steve G. Any indication that he plays to the press?

Posted by: angryclown at December 21, 2005 04:32 PM

PB wrote: "There are SOOOO many instances of them trammelling liberties there is no place adequate to start. From the ridiculous need to place "under God" in the pledge of allegiance (not something I particularly mind, it was just small-minded foolishness) . . ."
So is having to say "under God" in the pledge of allegiance small minded foolishness or an instance of trammeled liberty?
English isn't isn't your first language, is it, PB? I don't mean that remark to be insulting, I am just trying to figure out how someone who knows how to work a computer can have such a poor ability to communcate whatever it is he that he is thinking.
I'm guessing in real life you are a French-Canadian mail sorter. Or a professional well-dowser. Have you ever been a guest on Art Bell's radio program?

Posted by: Terry at December 21, 2005 05:26 PM

pb, you came back! Oh thank God!!!
Hey AngryClown, are you going to have to walk to the bank to cash your SSDI check now? Bummer.

Posted by: Kermit at December 21, 2005 06:07 PM

PB, you are a real piece of work. It's obvious that YOU are jealous of the traffic that Mitch gets on this website. What's the matter big boy, no body reads your website? Not to mention, way to hug Mitches first amendment right to free speach. You go girl!!!! But, there you go again, Mitch totally bitch slaps you but do you stay down? NO! Blah, Blah, Blah!!!! Most of your arguement has already been covered by Mitch and the rest but you CHOOSE to ignore reality! so, there is one thing you said that no one to this point has rebutted.

"The Republicans (capital R just like it's capital D for Democrats because it's a proper noun) in the last 100 years have.......What?????" You have to be kidding.
You must not know a simple word which is also a class in public school, history! It means the study of things that have all ready happened. ALL of the history books that I've read have said that it is the Democrats that have controlled the Congress, the Senate, the Presidency, the State Governorships, the State Houses, the State Senates, local governments, need I go on?, for the last one hundred years!!! Oh, woooo...Republicans have been out of power so long but yet, acording to you we're sooooo powerful and "evil" that we've done so such damage to this country, that I have one question to ask. Why haven't WE Republicans put you in a goulag? BTW Your anger is astounding. It even surpasses my anger when I was a Dem! Congratulations!!! I hope you're proud of yourself!
Publius 2001

Posted by: Publius 2001 at December 21, 2005 08:42 PM

From CBS and AP

"Since the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, the government has focused on preventing and disrupting attacks rather than building court cases against suspected terrorists. But experts cautioned that future legal prosecutions could be tainted if evidence was uncovered about a terror plot using a wiretap determined to be improper.

"Imagine if there is evidence critical to a criminal prosecution and the defendant challenges the evidence because it is constitutionally suspect," said Beryl Howell, former general counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. "It could jeopardize any criminal case."

You see, using constitutionally invalid measures means you GET NOTHING when it comes time to prosecute, but I guess, if you intend to put people in jail indefinetely without charging them, then that doesn't matter.

As was written two days ago, this stupid act, considering FISA is notoriously easy, jeapordizes any legitimate legal course. Unless you intend to stop them by simply shooting them, Padilla and Hamdi clearly are showing you don't get to hold them indefinetely, and any evidence gained by this method, and any evidence stemming from it, all are likely to be excluded. So beyond being a gross Constitutional violation (IMHO), it's profoundly stupid.

Sure am glad we have the Prez protectin' our secyerty. It's too bad he doesn't recall an oath to protect the Constitution as well.

PB

Publius, jealousy is a word, it's the WRONG word, but..Whatever.. believe whatever you like. There are 300 Million people in this nation, and about 25% agree with Mitch, meaning 75% don't, about 40% agree with that Bush is seriously off-course, and the right is pretty scary.

If it helps you all to defend your attack upon the Constitution by attacking others, well, I think that's about as good a commentary as I can make, your position is so indefensible, you won't do it (and no, I don't consider saying it's ok to monitor Quakers a defense, it's an unjustified opinion). If you want a rebuttal to that, here it is, the question is not whether you could monitor Quakers, it's whether you should do so without a warrant. Claiming that not being fettered by the requirements of a warrant prevented attacks is unprovable unless they reveal facts they shouldn't and so you don't have such facts to prove it. Also, claiming that attacks would have otherwise occured is unprovable. What you have to be able to show is that requiring a warrant prevents gathering important information, THAT is the only way you can justify it, because THAT is the actual logical question. This is why it's difficult to discuss things with righties, they so often don't actually work in logic, it's all overblown emotionally charged scare tactics full of nonsense. Cheney "it's no accident we haven't been attacked in four years." Wow, really? It was THIS program huh, not the reduction in walls between intel and the FBI, not the 200 Billion on Iraq, etc.. or maybe this was part of it, yet of course, no such claim can legitimately be made because of course, they could have done ALL of these wire-taps through FISA, so this isn't even about intel, it's about power, and it's misuse, stupid, foolish misuse. Unecessary extremist misuse. Legal impeding misuse, credibility damaging, internationally damning, terrorist reinfocing misuse. These kinds of actions have broad ranging consequences, and the problem is not the revelation of the truth, it's the acts. We are, once again, back to the issue that your actions don't match your words, Mr. President (and Neo-Cons). You talk about liberty, while tearing them down.

PB

Posted by: pb at December 21, 2005 09:50 PM

PB wrote --
You seek to impose Governments on foriegn citizens at the end of a gun barrel.

... as opposed to domestic governments imposed by chemical weapons and sheer terror? In one sentence you sum up why we must never agree on anything.

PB wrote, to Mitch:
You have ZERO ground to claim you stand for liberty to a greater degree...

Anyone who wrote the above sentence about the US imposing governments at gunpoint must never, ever question someone else's commitment to liberty -- primarily because they clearly have no understanding of the concept (PB discussing liberty = Another Inigo Montoya "I do not think that words means what you think it means" moment we see so often in his comments)

Posted by: chriss at December 21, 2005 09:53 PM

BTW, Publius, you need to read some new history books.

Dems have been in power, sure, and you need to consider that for 100 years following the Civil War, Southern Democrat=conservative, and sometimes, though less often, North Eastern Republican=moderate.

Regardless, it is not even refuted by the likes of Mitch that CONSERVATIVES have been in power since 1981 (Reagan's innaguration). He passed all of his budgets with the majority of Democrats voting against and the majority of Repos voting for, he never vetoed one spending bill, he got nearly every bill he wanted. Conservatives have held congress for substantially more time over the past 25 years than have moderates or liberals. Let's go back further, and btw, I didn't make any claims about Congress, so you misrepresented my words, but no matter, Repos held the Presidency and Congress from roughly 1880-1910 and again from 1920-1928, and then the Presidency from 1952-1960, 1968-1976 (the Presidency at least). During a portion of the 50's at least they also could rely upon conservative southern democrats to aid them, but it is not incorrect to say the Democrats held power from about 1960 through 1980 in Congress.

The point though was that Repos stood against various civil liberties, including the 1965 voting rights act, including the Warren Court, Brown vs. the Board of Education, various and numerous actions against workers (go look up Matewan sometime bud). The reality is, since the time of William McKinley (and really before), the Repos have been pro-business and and anti-labor, including anti individual liberties to affect their lot in the workplace as well as anti individual liberty to fight against unjust punishment. The repos opposed Miranda, still do... It's no small coincidence that the Repos fight things like disclosure of CEO compensation, it's also no small wonder that the President Pro-Tem of the Senate today held up a military spending bill to ensure his pork project passed (although his attempt failed). The examples of Repos failing to safegaurd, in fact ignoring, civil liberties, is so repleat, I can't even begin to cover them all, from advocating ID - Christian Creation Theory, to Terry Schaivo, the Repos have been at the forefront of only concerning themselves with their pet projects so often (not all Repos - but most and certainly the leadership) that it strains credulity to hear someone like Mitch, who has so often advocating for stripping rights of accused persons, say that THEY were at the party already. The party of Lincoln died with Lincoln, which is truly sad, he was the finest of men, and the finest of Presidents. It has adopted a pro-management, pro-wealthy, pro-military/police approach for so long it has forgotten what it means to stand up for basic human rights.

You really need some new history books, really, but I'll be the piece of work.. Never have been anything but a work in progress anyway.

PB

Posted by: pb at December 21, 2005 10:03 PM

ack (1920-1932), God.. Hoover :(. Harding, Coolidge, Hoover...bleh.

PB

Posted by: pb at December 21, 2005 10:06 PM

"Hmmmm who does that characterization remind me of ...hmmm darn"

Oh yes, phipho, he's so powerful that no one dares to challenge him. Why, I know that Sheehan and Dean are now unable to associate with anyone in power because his evil glare has turned them into political untouchables.

I take back saying you were stuck in the sixties since you obviously are totally clueless of the history of the power politics that Hoover played. There's a reason he survived so many administrations: nobody dared to challenge him because he dealt dirt on everybody and had no qualms about using it when he felt threatened. There's a reason the FBI directorship is term limited to 10 years now you twit.

Hiding behind a pascifistic philosophy doesn't mean that you won't get investigated if it's alledged that you're cooperating with the enemy. That means Quakers, Christian Peacemakers, or anybody else who deals with the enemy is fair game for monitoring. Why? You might realize that refusing to investigate a group because of past beliefs would make that group a target of infiltration in the future. (And what about Raging Grannies? Nice group in theory, but trespassing on government property will usually get you on a watch list at the very least, even if it doesn't get you in court.)

Posted by: nerdbert at December 21, 2005 10:09 PM

Damn!

Mitch pwned by pb again. I'm almost embarrased for you Mitch.

Posted by: Doug at December 21, 2005 10:31 PM

Ye Gawds! PB is bloviating on history! Let's have a reality check, shall we?

PB: "Consequently, I believe the income tax is Constitutional."

Gee, and here I was believing that it was constitutional because of the sixteenth amendment. I learn something new every day! (sarcasm off)

The amendment, for those who dozed off in civics, is short enough to quote in full:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

It doesn't get a whole lot plainer than that. The history of the income tax is a mess from the Civil War on through FDR, but the amendment is pretty clear in meaning and assertion of power.

PB: "...Repos stood against various civil liberties, including the 1965 voting rights act,..."

Care to stand by that one? 80% of Republicans voted for the Voting Rights bill (136 aye, 35 nay in the House; 46 aye, 21 nay in the Senate), while only 64% of Democrats voted for it (153 aye, 91 nay in the House; 46 aye, 21 nay in the Senate). You have to stop getting your history from the popular fiction that is today's news.

As to Republican civil liberty stopping with Lincoln, I'm going to burn just a bit more bandwith and mention a few more bits of history you've passed over. 13th amendment (frees slaves): 100% GOP, 23% Dem. 14th amendment (full civil rights to freed slaves): 100% GOP, 0% Dem. Jim Crow laws? Attacked by the GOP until 1876, when the Dems took over the House and not a single piece of civil rights law passed until 1957.

The real history of the donkey in civil rights isn't pretty PB, at least when it comes to those whose skin is darker.

Posted by: nerdbert at December 21, 2005 10:42 PM

"Mitch pwned by pb again. I'm almost embarrased for you Mitch."

And I'm concerned for you, Doug. You're obviously smoking crank.

Posted by: Allison at December 21, 2005 10:46 PM

Yes nerdbert,

It all makes sense to me now, its the evil peaceniks we need to be fighting ! Sapping our vital essence and draining our will to fight for freedom ( oops i forgot you said freedom was an illusion, remind me agin what we're fighting for?) I bet that cunning B@#$#*& Ghandi was just biding his time waiting till we were all asleep at the switch. Then when we least expect it BAM ! World domination. I knew there was something funny about that shaved head and the propensity to wear robes. How do we know he's really dead. I bet this is all a clever plot. Has anyone checked to see if he's still dead lately. They claim he was cremated but how do we really know that for sure. I say we sift through the Ghanges river for DNA remenants. Finding none we must assume we have been duped. Nerdbert you take first watch. If you see anything in a saffron robe around our perimiter take them out. Also watch out for octegenarians carrying "peace literature" you can bet your bottom dollar they're coming with orders straight from Ho Chi Minh, and they ain't bringin baby booties brother. Thank God for free thinking Americans like you and President Bush. Standing guard, ever vigilant, protecting us against the evils of independent thought. I salute you nerdbert.

Posted by: phipho at December 21, 2005 11:02 PM

PB, how exactly is Terry Schiavo a civil liberties issue? How is teaching intelligent design a civil liberties issue?
(And I'm someone who 1) wrote a letter to the headmaster at my daughter's Catholic school blasting him for stating in the school newsletter that the brothers Bush should have circumvented the law to keep Terry alive -- I reminded him that we are a nation of laws and W and Jeb took an oath before God to uphold those laws, and 2) thinks intelligent design is bunk. I'm agnostic for Christ sake*.) But how are these civil liberties issues??? One is a tragic story of differing views of what's best for a terminal woman, and one is a effort using the democratic process to have their beliefs represented in the schools they help fund.

* Yes, an agnostic who sent his daughter to Catholic school. Long story.

Posted by: chriss at December 21, 2005 11:16 PM

PB, do you just make things up as you go???

Democrats held Congress every year from 1955 through 1995. http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Congressional_History/partyDiv.html
Democrats held the Senate during that same time frame, except a 6 year period in the 80's.
http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/congress.htm

The 1965 Voting Rights Act was spear headed by Senator Everett Dirksen (R-Illinois, aka Land of Lincoln). A year earlier Robert Byrd (KKK - West Virginia)fillibustered for 14 hours against the Civil Rights Act. Nerdbert beat me to the vote counts... because you can find them on Google in about 3 seconds if you care to look.

Please don't tell anyone else to read a history book.
Or a grammar text.

The party of Franklin, Truman and Kennedy died with Franklin, Truman and Kennedy.

Posted by: chriss at December 21, 2005 11:24 PM

And PB, please stop writing "PB" at the bottom of your comments.
A) By the time we reach the bottom we know that already due to the cramp in our scrolling fingers, and
B) It says so auto-magically below your comment

;)

Posted by: chriss at December 21, 2005 11:29 PM

Parotting the talking points again, eh Mitch? Let's see, it's all Clinton's fault.

Posted by: Eva Young at December 21, 2005 11:44 PM

Thanks, phipho. I appreciate it. But where did I say freedom was an illusion? You're still free to associate, free to speak and free to think even if you aren't exercising that last one. You seem to have a disconnect between the idea of reasonable search and being charged with a crime. They're not the same.

Let me put it this way so you might understand it: someone stands on your front yard, insults you, and won't leave when you tell them to until you call the cops to come and haul them away. Do you watch them more closely after that? Maybe you don't, but most folks do, and that's likely why the Grannies got monitored, especially as they're an *international organization* and the government's power in monitoring foreign communications and organizations is incredible. Don't like the government having that power? Get your fellow citizens to change the laws. That's not likely, but you're welcome to try. (Actually, I'd support reigning in that government power, but that's not where we are today and it'd probably take a constitutional amendment given the history of court rulings on the executive and international issues.)

As to Ghandi, gimme that strainer, dude! How much history do you know? Ghandi had close supporters splinter off from his movement over his suspension of his non-cooperation campaign around 1904 who went on to start violent revolution with bombings, assassination attempts, riots and whatnot. Indian independence was not achieved without significant bloodshed contrary to what you believe if you get your history from pop culture and movies. Would you oppose monitoring Ghandi if his followers were running off and doing that kind of thing today?

Thank you for playing. Next time try a better strawman; I never said those things you attributed to me. But I had to go and torch the one you tried to build -- that was just too fun! Seriously dude, try not to characterize what I say too much: your last one was just a Kos-sack rant. I said that if you associate with the bad guys, or with the associates of the bad guys you have to accept that you just went from that "unreasonable" search column to the "reasonable" column no matter what you publicly profess.

Posted by: nerdbert at December 22, 2005 12:14 AM

"Parotting [sic] the talking points again, eh Mitch?"

Eva - do you know a different line? Or do you have a macro that types "Parotting [sic] talking points" with the click of a single key?

I bet you do. Right next to the button that copies and pastes entire threads of comments.

Posted by: mitch at December 22, 2005 12:28 AM

Chris,

Dirksen was a necessary ally in the fight for civil rights legislation but it would be a stretch to say he spearheaded the movement. Hubert Humphrey shepherded the legislation through the Senate and it was LBJ's bill through and through. Dirksen's support was admirable, but he needed a huge push from Humphrey and had initially been a vocal opponent of the bill. The current red domination throughout the south is a result of Democratic support for civil rights. nerdberts vote counts are in error. The actual count on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was 77-19. 49 Democrats voted for the bill and 17 against. 30 Republicans voted for the act and 2 against. In the House it was 333-85 with 112 Republicans and 221 Democrats voting for and 36 members voting against 3 Republicans and 33 Democrats. A conference committee report on the slightly different versions passed 79-18 in the Senate and 328-74 in the House. Geography, not party affiliation was the determining factor. Almost all of the members who voted against the bill were from southern states. Passage of the civil rights Act and voting rights act would be nearly impossible today. The passage of this legislation cost the Dems the south for the foreseeable future. The Republicans know what a dangerous thing it can be politically to stand up for civil rights and they have neither the inclination nor the courage to do so.

Posted by: phipho at December 22, 2005 12:31 AM

Mitch-
I work at an astronomical observatory on an island the middle of the Pacific Ocean. What's your excuse for being up so late?

Posted by: Terry at December 22, 2005 01:27 AM

Nerdbert,

Actually there really shouldn't be any need for a change in laws. The last time I checked there was still a First amendment to the constitution. The SCOTUS has been fairly rigorous on both their support of our Freedom of Speech and the implied freedom of association. Nothing either the Quakers or the Raging Grannies did or said was illegal. Monitoring their activities is silly, sad and stupid. For a peek at these boisterous octegenarians visit their website. As you will see they are a clear and present danger.

http://www.raginggrannies.com/

As for your analysis of the Indian independence movement it is more on point but, like the rest of your post incomplete, shallow, and inaccurate. In 1904 Gandhi was in South Africa serving in the Indian Ambulance Corps during the Boer War. He didn't return to India until 1915 after his initial campaigns of non-violence or Satyagraha as Gahndi called them. There was violence associated with the early movement to overthrow of the British regime. Gandhi ended one of his first campaigns of non-violence in 1921 when the protests turned violent. The other major failure of Gandhi’s campaign of non-violence was the Quit India movement in 1942. This was one of the last struggles against the remaining vestiges of British rule. It turned violent as well, though in fairness to Gandhi this was after most of the leaders of the movement including himself were arrested by the British. They would not release him until 1944. Strangely during that time they would blame him for the violence of his followers, though they had restricted his communication with the outside world, as you seem to do in your post, though I state this as only my inference and not a direct quote from you. To answer your question as to whether I would favor monitoring Gandhi today I would answer, no, that too would be silly, sad, and stupid.


Posted by: phipho at December 22, 2005 01:34 AM

All of your "Well, Clintons did it too" rhetoric aside Mitch, Bush need only go to the court with in 72 hours after a wiretapping action and there would be zero discussion.

And for the record, many of us were indeed concerned about the Clinton activities you mentioned. We weren't particularly thrilled with his decisions and actions with Somolia and Kosovo either and the whole WTO thing is still a sensitive subject for some of us.

Notice though that were able to question and criticise our President without resorting to the "Clinton is a war criminal / rapist / murderer" crap that still oozes from many Republican's pie holes to this day. Oh... let's not forget the "wag the dog" charges... remember.... back when Hussein wasn't really a threat.

The thing that I find humorous is that Republicans set the precedent for ugly politics aimed at Clinton and now when the situation is reversed and the Bush administration is the target, Republicans are outraged... OUTRAGED I tell you!

Bush could have worked within the FISA laws and he didn't. He broke the law and that is an impeachable offense. You don't have to like it or agree with it but you can be damn certain that if it were Clinton, you would have the torches lit and the pitchforks out of the toolshed already.

You know as well as I do that Bush won't be impeached for this anyway - not because it isn't warranted - It's only because articles originate in the House and Republicans are in control and it's not like he got a blowjob from an intern for Gods sake.

Posted by: Doug at December 22, 2005 10:19 AM

Peeb,

First of all, I don't *insult* anyone. Well, very rarely, and even more rarely as the initiator. This thread, and your participation on this blog, have been no exception.

Next:

"Whatever Mitch, you haven't expressed a single opinion on an important issue which defended defendents against the excess of the state"

Buncombe. Baked monkey doodle. Look back over the history of this blog. In the last MONTH I've pushed back on capital punishment, property forfeiture laws, speech rationing (aka "campaign finance reform", especially the criminalization of speech inherent in many such laws), unlawful takings (the smoking bans), the draconian excesses of the Family Court system in re child support and visitation, and that's just what I can remember as I type, and type fast. Were I to go back through nearly four years of this blog (or better yet, were you to) we'd find a rigorous record of small-"l" libertarianism.

Of course, that'd require you to part with a prejudice or two, which might cause an injury.

""(outside I suppose smoking bans but that's hardly a monumental issue)."

Tell it to the bar owners whose life savings are being destroyed.

"Once again, Mitch uses win by fiat, win by "because I say so".

No, I don't. I mean, it'd be nice, and within the context of my blog it's truly good to be king (!), but I win by weight of evidence, which I've referred you to over and over again now.

By the way, speaking of fiat, Peeb - I've asked you three times now to name a single civil liberty we've "lost" under the Patriot Act. Did you ever get around to that?

"Mitch, if you are SOOO concerned about civil liberties, and "more than me" as you say, prove it, suggest a subject (other than firearms which I really have little concern about but don't support restrictions), and we'll have a go."

Where shall we start?

* Clinton's property forfeiture laws.
* Clinton's roaming wiretaps i/p/o "drug dealers"
* The breadth of RICO laws
* The excessive application of the Commerce Clause
* The flat tax, national sales tax, or other means of rendering the tax system less intrusive to civil liberties
* Clinton's grant of excessive power to BATF
* Clinton's creation of scads of federal armed forces
* Landowners' rights vs. environmental law in the West
* School choice/alternate approaches to public education/abolition of compulsory education

That's a quick and by no means exhaustive list. Take your pick.

But only after you've answered my question re civil liberties and the Patriot Act, if you please.

Posted by: mitch at December 22, 2005 11:23 AM

Peeb et al,

In re the "consensus" of legal opinion about the wiretapping, Paul Mirengoff - an actual lawyer - has some info (while noting that the questions involved are highly complex...)

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012625.php

...as in, "more complex than the buffoonishly-simple talking points that the mainstream media and fever-swamp-leftyblogosphere care to recognize".

Posted by: Meeyotch at December 22, 2005 12:18 PM

Yeah, but one of the sources the guy cites is Mark Levin. That man is a serious whacko.

Posted by: phipho at December 22, 2005 02:50 PM

Doug wrote:
Notice though that were able to question and criticise our President without resorting to the "Clinton is a war criminal / rapist / murderer" crap that still oozes from many Republican's pie holes to this day.

... as opposed to the warm fuzzy utterings oozing from Demo pie holes re: Bush. I can't remember any Clinton/Hitler comparisons.

As for whether of not Bush's action represent an impeachable offense: Please, Please, Please try to impeach him.

And Phipho, who wrote:
Passage of the civil rights Act and voting rights act would be nearly impossible today.

In the sense that given the increased number of congressional seats from geographical locations that once opposed civil rights laws, technically you might be correct -- I doubt it very much, but I haven't done the math.
If you mean that today's Rep. lead congress wouldn't pass that legislation, you're insane. Certifiable.

Posted by: chriss at December 22, 2005 04:22 PM

Yes, the current Republican congress has certainly been staunch defenders of minority voting rights across the country and civil rights in general. Certainly their support of voter suppression campaigns such as the one in past elections in Florida (you know , the one where they attempted to use inaccurate lists of state felons to purge eligible Africn Americans from the voter rolls) would be strong evidence of this. Also their gerrymandering of the Texas congressional districts where they pushed minority voters into a few select districts thus diluting their overall stegth across the state would be a shining example of their benevolence. Certainly Tom Delay's brave fight to push the current map through the justice department over the objections of DOJ lawyers who said it violated ( you guessed it) the voting rights act would be ample evidence for anyone of the purity of their motives.

Posted by: phipho at December 22, 2005 04:48 PM

chriss, apparently, you have a reading comprehension problem. I never excused Democrats for what they say about Bush. As for Hitler comparisions... I guess calling Clinton a war criminal, murderer and rapist is fine as long as we don't compare him to Hitler...

Next, you said, "As for whether of not Bush's action represent an impeachable offense: Please, Please, Please try to impeach him."

if you had bother to actually read what I wrote, I said, "You know as well as I do that Bush won't be impeached for this anyway - not because it isn't warranted - It's only because articles originate in the House and Republicans are in control."

Republicans don't have the moral courage to do what's right when it comes to Bush.

Posted by: Doug at December 22, 2005 04:51 PM

Be careful what you wish for, Phipho. If Florida allows felons to vote Jeb Bush will have no choice but to push for the death penalty in more cases. Anything to suppress the black vote, y'know.

Posted by: Terry at December 22, 2005 07:35 PM

Absolutely Terry,

you know what Jeb always says," If we can't recruit em we might as well shoot em."

Posted by: phipho at December 22, 2005 08:48 PM

http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/streamin_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/totally_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/teens_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/toy.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sex.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sex4_3.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sex15_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sex16_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sex17_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/uniform.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sex24_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sex14_3.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sex25_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sex16.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sex16_3.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sex17_3.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sex17.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sex23_3.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sex36.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sex24.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sex24_3.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sex16_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sex25.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sex41.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sex42.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sex43.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sex44.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sex45.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sex46.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sex47.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sex24_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sex25_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sex35_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/spy_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/underwea_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sexgirls.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/tommy_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/xxx2_3.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/xxx2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/xxx3_3.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/shiranui.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/xxx4.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/xxx11_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sexgirl.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/youn.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/youn1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/strapons.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/youn3.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/women8_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/women4_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/women5_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/women8_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/xxx3_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/women4_3.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/women7_3.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/women8.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/women8_3.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/uncensor_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/tastyhot.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/xxx12.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/xxx14.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/xxx3_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/shiranui_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/son1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/vulva.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/tastyho1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/son_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/son_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/uncensor.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/son1_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/son2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/son1_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/son2_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/son3.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/stars.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/video12.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sexy4_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sexi.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/saree_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sexy4_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sexy5.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sexy6.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/wives_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/teen2_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sexgirl_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/teen3_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/teen4_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/teen5_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/index.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/websites.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/schoolgi_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/spy_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/shilpa.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/teen2_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/teen3_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/slaves.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/teen4_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/teen5_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/womans.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/tastylol.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/teen16.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/toon_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/teen2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/teen3.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/teen4.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/whit_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/viedo_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/videoes_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/your.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/shit_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sexy.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/video10_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/thumb1_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/thumb2_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/wives_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/thumb3_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/thumb4_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/tove.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/whit1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/russian_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/year_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/spice_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sarah_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/thumnail_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sexy4.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/virgins.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/thumb2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/thumb3.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/spy.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/vouyer_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/thumb4.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/thumb5.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/uniforms_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/toys_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sable.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/senior.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/tamil.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/wet_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sister_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/slave.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/scat_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/shiting.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/simsons.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/tai1_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/websites_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/tai2_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/underwea.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/russian_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sexie.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/thumnail_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/index3.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/white_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/thumnai1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/index1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/tits2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/stars_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/very_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/white1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/screens1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/white.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sucking_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sample4.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sample5.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sample7.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/tommy.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sarah.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sexxy.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sucking1_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sucking2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sexo.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/totaly.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/tokyo.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/virgin.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sailer.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/viedo_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/index5.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/suking.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/whit.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/tits1_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/short.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/underwar_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sister.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sample3_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/xxxx_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/super.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sample4_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/vhs_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/uncencor_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/shit.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/toon.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/strip.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/tamil_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/tamil1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/saver.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sexi_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/stream_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/seventee.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/index2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/super_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/wallpap1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/spice.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/youngest.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/videos_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/uncencor.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/shool.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/singapor_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/tit1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/index4.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sixteen.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/videos3.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/slave_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/tommy_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/slut_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/videos4.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/viedos.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/uniform_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/videos_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/singapor.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/tomb.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/tommy1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/yung.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/teenie_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/teenie.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/videos1_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/toys.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sexi_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/videos2_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/videos3_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sum.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/thumb1_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/thumb2_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/thumb3_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/thumb4_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/thumb5_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/tour.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/wives.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/weomen.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/vid_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/vid1_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/street.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/vid6_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/vid7_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/vid8_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/vid10_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/tai2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/shitting.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/vid_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/summerva_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/vid1_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/vid6_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/vid8_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/vid10.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/summerv1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/virgins_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/strip_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/totaly_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sucking1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/tifa_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/sexxx_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/scat.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/vhs.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/schoolgi_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/schoolgi.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/vid.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/thumnail.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/toon_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/teens_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/shool_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/vid7.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/vid8.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/stories2_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/tgp_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/tit1_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/scool.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/spears.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/videos.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/xxxx_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/xxxx.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/spears_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/videos1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/wet.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/xxxx1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/tai1_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/tai2_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/torture_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/speculum_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/youg_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/thai_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/streamin_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/white_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/shitting_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/woman.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/totaly_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/year.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/woman1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/younger_1.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/streamin.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/tamil_2.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/schoolg3.html
http://www.gayhomes.net/bossprym/stream_1.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/fuck_dildofucke.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/lolita_fuck_ira.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/fuck_clip_movis.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/frest_fuck_frie.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/big_fucing_tits.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/fubuki_mov_fubu.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/anna_fubuki_asi.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/asia_carrera_fr.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/fucking_french_.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/celebrity_nudes.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/funny_video_cli.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/shaved_pussies_.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/blue_girl_freed.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/free_sex_movie_.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/aadult_cartoons_1.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/aadult_free_pic.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/adele_stephens_.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/actres_free_act.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/accidental_upsk.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/abuse_blackteen.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absulutly_free__1.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absulutly_free_.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutly_free__16.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/adult_free_japa.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutly_free__15.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/adult_free_amet.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutly_free__14.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/adult_erotica_f.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutly_free__13.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/abused_woman_sl.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutley_tota.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutley_free_3.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/adult_cams_free.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absoulutly_free.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutley_free_2.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/adlut_video_fre.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absoluty_free_h.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutley_free_1.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutly_freep.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutly_free__12.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutly_free__11.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutly_free__10.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutly_free__9.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutly_free__8.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutly_free__7.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutly_free__5.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutly_free__4.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutely_free_14.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutly_free__3.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutly_free__2.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutly_free__1.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutely_free_13.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutly_free_.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutely_free_12.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutley_free.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutely_free_11.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutely_free_10.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutely_free_9.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutely_free_8.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutely_free_7.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutely_free_6.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutely_free_5.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutely_free_4.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutely_free_3.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolu_free_sex.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutely_free_2.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutely_free_1.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolutely_free.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absolute_free_p.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absoloutely_fre.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/abosolutely_fre.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/abbeys_free_por.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/absoltely_free_.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/aadult_cartoons.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/daily_hot_franc.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/pussy_franch_yo.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/pics_fourteen_y.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/fucking_fourtee.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/free_asian_sexy.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/analsex_free_pr.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/moviesex_freesa.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/mpeg_sex_films_.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/megaspider_indi.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/free_adult_fat_.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/free_big_hudge_.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/big_black_fat_w.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/daughter_father.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/final_fantasy_f.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/uncensered_nude.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/illagal_family_.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/gallary_picture.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/europe_europe_a.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/horny_mature_la.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/lollita_escorts.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/fat_schoolgirl_.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/images_errotic_.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/free_pics_errot.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/female_erotica_.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/sexy_eroctic_st.html
http://dekasy.blogs.friendster.com/sd/2006/03/fat_ass_ebony_n.html

Posted by: miske at April 8, 2006 04:27 PM

history was too risky Anyway experiments in time travel were banned play65 [url=http://www.bkgm.org]play65[/url] Stabilization coefficient 43 16 rads coefficient 44 37 rads 46 backgammon [url=http://www.bkgm.org]backgammon[/url] through it George looked around the crowded lunch room searching for online backgammon [url=http://www.bkgm.org]online backgammon[/url] power converter was still set up resting on some old blueprints He .

Posted by: play65 at May 2, 2006 05:01 AM

gamble online wife http://www.casinophiles.com gamble online Eileen Chinese food again [URL=http://www.casinophiles.com] gamble online[/URL] test site totally furnished with refrigerators TVs furniture.

Posted by: gamble online at October 22, 2006 11:52 AM

online casinos across the floor vanishing under the cot http://www.casinophiles.com online casinos so the government took every opportunity to study the effects of [URL=http://www.casinophiles.com] online casinos[/URL] Unfortunately the way things are going you may get your wish You may .

Posted by: online casinos at October 23, 2006 08:30 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?
hi