Democrats & Liberals Archives

The New Republican Slogan: Filibuster it!

I have said before that Republicans, when they are not selling “chickens,” have one big slogan: “tax cuts.” I need to amend that today. Republicans have a new slogan: “Filibuster it!”

Throughout the healthcare debate the Republicans filibustered everything. Whenever President Obama nominated someone for a political office, Republicans filibustered. Whenever he nominated anyone for a judgeship, Republicans filibustered. Republicans filibustered everything and anything Democrats wanted to do.

And they blamed Democrats for the resultant gridlock!

But today, Republicans outdid themselves. They filibustered before any public discussion has taken place. They filibustered an agreement to proceed and debate the Financial Regulation Bill. In other words, they don't even want to consider regulation of the financial industry. They want to have backroom discussions with Democrats - you know, the kind of discussions that dilute the regulations Democrats want to impose. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) says:

By voting against cloture, Republicans are voting to keep Wall Street negotiations behind closed doors, demanding changes to the bill without public scrutiny. Instead of closed-door deals, they should support open floor debate.

Democrats want strong regulation of Wall Street, especially the regulation of derivatives. Republicans want to go easy on Wall Street, but they don't want ordinary people to know what they are doing. So they want negotiations behind closed doors. If not, why can't they begin debate and offer their amendments to be voted on. If the final bill is not what they like they can still filibuster. What do they lose by proceeding to debate?

Obviously, Republicans are not negotiating in good faith. They "negotiated" for months on healthcare reform and they are trying the same "negotiating" tricks with financial regulation. And it will not work. The people are upset with Wall Street and they want Wall St. to be regulated so that it does not again cause a depression in the future.

It looks like Republicans think "Filibuster it!" is a winning slogan. Boy, are they in for a surprise.

Posted by Paul Siegel at April 26, 2010 7:40 PM
Comments
Comment #299591

The trouble with rewriting history and current events to suit one’s perception of integrity is that one’s decisions will be predicated on false premises and conclusions, leading to failure upon failure in one’s endeavors. This fundamental understanding of human psychology is lost upon the GOP leadership, and many of those in the Democratic Party as well.

Success absolutely requires an acceptance of bare naked realities, data, and well reasoned conclusions based on the rules of logic. Failure in any one of these 3 areas of sound decision making will result in failure in all but an occasional case of extraordinary good luck.

Common obstructions to acceptance of reality are, ego, avarice and greed, overzealous competitiveness, inferiority syndrome, lack of sound education, peer group pressures including ‘group think’, and the most prevalent of all, laziness, which finds it easier to alter the perception of reality as opposed to reality itself.

This latter is more prominent and pronounced within the GOP and its allies and supporters, than with the Democratic Party, its allies, and supporters. Which fundamentally, is the reason the GOP is the historical minority Party. Their darwinian ideology and pro-corporation and wealthy positions, stand in opposition to the reality of the expectations of the majority of the American people across time.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 26, 2010 10:18 PM
Comment #299593

I am confused, didn’t the Democrats have a fillibuster proof Congress? And didn’t Harry Reid change his vote today to ensure that there is another vote. Essentially telegraphing that they will keep bring this back to the floor again, and again, and again to make the REPS seem like they are with Wall Street? Even when the Reps have been frozen out of discussions? Albeit the REPS have not plan. This line of thinking seems silly when the DEMS lost their ability to avoid this.

Posted by: Edge at April 26, 2010 11:16 PM
Comment #299596


David, the key word in your lecture is reality.

Paul said: “Democrats want strong regulation of Wall Street, especially the regulation of derivatives.”

I’m wondering if that is the reality that the Republicans are filibustering? Because, I still get a lot of email and other literature from the Democratic Party and according to one I got today this is the reality that they are telling their constituents why they should vote for the Democrats…

4)FINANCIAL REGULATION
For dramatic regulatory reform that brings back Glass-Steagall, limits leverage and turns “to big to fail” into “to big to exist.” We must put Main Street ahead of Wall Street to protect taxpayers.

It seems to me that we are dealing with two separate realities because that isn’t exactly how I would describe what the Democrats are actually trying to do.

I will be looking to see how Sen. Brown’s (D,OH) amendment does.

Posted by: jlw at April 27, 2010 1:19 AM
Comment #299597

jlw, you are absolutely right about the Democrats attempting to define a reality that does not yet exist through persuasion. I personally don’t think they are that persuasive. But, shaping future reality through persuasion is a different issue from failure to grasp and accept current or past reality for what it is, was. Obviously, all competitors engage in this art of persuasion to shape expectations of future reality, because of the potency of self-fulfilling prophecy.

I think the evidence is overwhelming that Democrats are acutely aware of, and accept, the current reality that the majority of voters are NOT approving of the results of Democrat’s governance, so far.

As for the Wall St. reform, I have listened very closely to Geithner’s explanation of how their idea will prevent taxpayers from being on the hook, again. And, like you, I find his explanation less than convincing, so far, precisely because the pre-funding by banks of a 50 Billion contingency fund to let banks fail, would in fact, have been ENTIRELY insufficient to have allowed Goldman Sachs and CitiGroup fail in 2008 or 2009.

Like you also, I am waiting for the final resolutions and plans before passing judgment on the merits of the legislation. The direction is excellent. Some of the provisions so far, are wholly insufficient. I see NOTHING in the current legislative agenda to downsize and segregate the lines of business, as provided for by the Glass Steagall Act. And that is ENTIRELY unacceptable in my mind because it preserves these institutions already proven to have been too big to allow to fail.

I find your assessments to be reality based and objective. Excellent commentary.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 27, 2010 2:03 AM
Comment #299599

Paul,
Why techonicaly the Republicans did not Filibuster Wall Street Reform, they did miss the opportunity to sale the idea that Americans can rely on Wall Street to do the Right Thing.

For why David and I could probably spend days debating who should own the Majority of the Market in acordance to Americas’ Forefathers and Ancestors; given the fact that a few Banks owns over 60% of the Market I do hope the Republicans will find out why the 10% difference in real money can be used to ensure the longgavity of Americas’ Institutions for the next 50-100 years. Since I am sure that David and I could come to some sort of political argreement on the Individual American being allowed to invest in Bonds and Notes to ensure their family over time can become economically viable and financially independent.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 27, 2010 7:45 AM
Comment #299600

Edge-

Well, your folks came and took that away. And yes Harry Reid will hammer you on this, because the political advantage is unambiguously ours. We don’t have to make up BS in order to justify working on behalf of truly unpopular folks.

We don’t have to make it seem like Republicans are with Wall Street. The guys went to the Wall Street Execs begging for money, telling them that this would help them increase their numbers so they could help the exects.

As for the Republicans being frozen out of the discussion? I keep hearing about ongoing negotiations with them Hell, your people were among the folks who help vote these out of the committees.

Don’t pretend this is anything but cynical politics. Republicans are trying to have the cake of not looking like they’re working for Wall Street and eat it too by still doing their bidding in exchange for campaign financing.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 27, 2010 8:08 AM
Comment #299603

First, a little symantics. They didn’t filibuster it. The merely voted against bringing the issues to the floor.

That being said, wouldn’t you? Once the bill gets to the floor, the senate has means to get around a block of 41 votes (they did it with health care). So why not block it while there are fewer procedural loopholes, and force some of your amendments into the bill before it hits the floor.

Don’t get me wrong, I have no doubt the the republicans are enjoying their short lived ability to stall congressional democrats, this is most definately an examply of them flexing what little political power they currently have. Let them enjoy it, and hopefully some good comes out of it.

As for the bill specifically, the statement that “Democrats want strong regulation of Wall Street, especially the regulation of derivatives” is not only a blind assertion (lacking any support, justification, or rational thought), but an entirely incorrect. If you have followed the negotiations, stronger derivative regulation is one of the amendments Oympia Snowe (one of the Republican willing to flip her vote with the addition of minor amendments) is pushing for. The holdup, Chris Dodd doesn’t like the stronger regulation.

David

Isn’t it funny how a simple vote on whether a single issue brings out diatribes on differing realities, and broad generalizations about rewriting history… Seems a lot like you miss the real world of “bare naked truths” that sometimes you have to live with the realities that life deals you. In essence, if the only power republicans have is the power to postpone debate, use that to get anything and everything you can done for your cause.

By making the jump from specifics of the issue to broad generalizations about differing motives and perceptions, you truly come across like some over eager student in freshmen pysch 101— where you start to believe that with just a few weeks of education, you are ready to walk down the hall and analyze everyone’s issues. When and if you make it another semester, the first thing you will learn is that nothing is ever so black and white, and analyzation with such broad strokes is never a legitimate, or good idea-especially when you make base generalization like “[t]his latter [laziness] is more prominent and pronounced within the GOP and its allies and supporters, than with the Democratic Party, its allies, and supporters. Which fundamentally, is the reason the GOP is the historical minority Party.” Such a sweeping remark… so little understanding!

Stephen

I wouldn’t say you always do this, but today you fall victim to the same over eager lapses in judgement as most of the other people in the forum.

We don’t have to make it seem like Republicans are with Wall Street. The guys went to the Wall Street Execs begging for money, telling them that this would help them increase their numbers so they could help the exects.

Do you really believe that Republicans are the only one who went to Wall Street for campaign money. Just yesterday I read a post from you were you demanded that before such aggregious allegation were made against the president, those writing them need to “prove” that money was in exchange for a vote, or at least some control. The same goes for you. Unless you were in the room, and can somehow back up the statement that republicans were “telling them that this would help increase their numbers” don’t make guesses and present them as basis for your argument. That is, unless it’s fair game for me to hypothesize on what Obama said to Blankfein in their four meetings throughout the year?

Posted by: pessimest at April 27, 2010 9:35 AM
Comment #299608

I am envisaging a situtation wherein every time the Reps block the bill,rather ten caving in to the lobbiest,the Dems add tougher amendments, and there are several out there. It won’t be long before Wall Street is begging the Reps to cooperate. So far the bill,contrary to the usual process, has gotten stronger as negotiations have progressed.

Posted by: bills at April 27, 2010 11:13 AM
Comment #299614

pessimest-

As for the bill specifically, the statement that “Democrats want strong regulation of Wall Street, especially the regulation of derivatives” is not only a blind assertion (lacking any support, justification, or rational thought), but an entirely incorrect. If you have followed the negotiations, stronger derivative regulation is one of the amendments Oympia Snowe (one of the Republican willing to flip her vote with the addition of minor amendments) is pushing for. The holdup, Chris Dodd doesn’t like the stronger regulation.

Problem with that assertion being that because they haven’t started debate yet, nobody can offer up amendments, Republican or Democrat. That includes Olympia Snowe, who voted against her own ability to start offering amendments. If she and Ms. Collins had been gutsy enough, they could be offering amendments right now, and if they didn’t like the finished product, join in voting against the end of debate.

The inconsistencies of their behavior undermines the argument that they actually want real debate, much less the ability to formally change the bill.

They’re not even allowing the process to start. This is just one of many such senseless votes.

As for your direct response? My response is the same as it has been in many other posts: quid pro quo. There is a clear report out there saying that Republicans were willing to sell their votes for support on campaign finance.

No such report exists for Obama. He has acted, in fact, contrary to Goldman Sach’s interests, and reportedly been one of the key players in keeping the compromises to a minimum, meaning he favors a tougher law.

Yes, Democrats, including Obama, have accepted money from these people. The question is, are those people getting something in return. The whole question of the corruption that comes from campaign financed depends on those who contribute getting an unfair advantage in terms of access and action from these people that other citizens who pay much less or not at all don’t get.

If they’re just going ahead and doing as they please, then one can say, “they were not corrupted by the donations.”

Nobody can say that Republicans haven’t done exactly what the Wall Street wants.

I just want to ask, personally, when does it ever feel like too much? Do you ever have moments of doubt between that time when you hear about the latest embarrassment and when you hear the official talking point on why it’s not as bad as it looks?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 27, 2010 1:10 PM
Comment #299626

What type of compromise would democrats really be willing to make once the bill comes to the floor? Olympia Snowe’s amendments would face the same fate that all the republican amendments to the healthcare bill faced. That of either not being recognized by the chair, or immediate vote down. There is no leverage at that point. The only thing republicans gain from letting the bill reach the floor is the better press of not obstructing. The sacrifice—knowing full well that you have given up one of the only two tools currently at your disposal (preventing the debate, and a filibuster).

So, letting it to the floor accomplishes nothing. Then you throw in the naive assertion that

because they haven’t started debate yet, nobody can offer up amendments, Republican or Democrat. That includes Olympia Snowe, who voted against her own ability to start offering amendments.

Which is currently, and was recently proven false. During the healthcare debate were the deals with Nelson (“cornhusker kickback”)and Landrieu (“louisana purchase”) crafted during amendments during floor debate? No, they were drafted into the revised initial bill. I’m not complaining about the compromises, that is the facts of life, and going to be there whether it is republican or democratically controlled. All I’m saying, is that Olympia Snowe will face less opposition from the democratic party by making her amendments prior to the bill being on the floor.

Also the second part of your assertion that

if they didn’t like the finished product, join in voting against the end of debate.
Which we would be accurate, assuming she truly wanted to simply defeat the bill. The republicans haven’t shown any commitment to defeating the bill, only amending it. So yes, they could let the debate begin and take their chances on the floor of the house. Or they could work as a unit and rather than getting one amendment-to satisfy one republican senetor, they can act cohesively and possibly get much more in return.

As for your link, it doesn’t say nearly what you are trying to make it out to be. The article shows two organizations who already agree on the issue, meeting to combine assets to fight parts of the bill. How is it selling their votes to recruit business leaders and their money, to protect free market capitalism, when this is one of the defining tenents of conservativism. That is truly like saying that a doctor is in the pharmaceutical companies pocket for no other reason than he had prescribed their product on occasion. When two groups belief system already coincide, that is not selling a vote.

As for when it too much…quite a bit. Over ten years ago I switched my party affiliation to independant (more libertarian than anything) do to the social mores adopted and prescribed by the republican party. But that being said, on the financial side of things I usually wandering when it will be enough.

By your question, you assume that this-the republicans blockinig regulation-would be an embarrassment. To me, it is the least they could do. If they had power, I would be writing my congressman asking him to begin work to remove government constraints and interference already at work in the system. It basically goes down to that I disagree with the basic premise driving this “reform.” I don’t blame business. I don’t blame wall street. They did what businesses do-try to make money. I blame government for pushing banks to change their lending practices so lower income families could afford homes. I blame government for creating fannie and freddie mae and getting involved in the first place. I then blame (and this may shock you) Bush and other weak willed individuals to jumping in to save them. I know that you believe this hands off approach would have led to a full fledged depression, but I would disagree, and we will never know how it would have progressed.

Posted by: pessimest at April 27, 2010 3:21 PM
Comment #299627

pessimest, your comment’s assumptions are lazy, devoid of any research or verification. Thank you for the knee jerk, grossly uninformed response, however. Google is a wonderful thing. You should try it before making assumptions which anyone else using Google can use to prove your comment’s assumptions lazy, and wrong.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 27, 2010 3:21 PM
Comment #299651
Olympia Snowe’s amendments would face the same fate that all the republican amendments to the healthcare bill faced.

We included over 200. Thanks for playing. Pick up your consolation prize on the way out.

There is no leverage at that point. The only thing republicans gain from letting the bill reach the floor is the better press of not obstructing.

The main reason Republicans have no leverage is that they cannot indulge their natural inclinations without inflicting political damage on themselves. Nobody want the Republican party to be seen as taking Wall Street’s side. Nothing would put the final nail in the coffin of Republican 1994 repeat hopes faster.

Democrats can push this because there is very little actual controversy about financial reform.

And what would be wrong, politically speaking, with the Republicans getting with the program? All this Teapartisan horsecrap, this constant obstructionism has been about Republicans trying to maintain the Status Quo of political power, trying to keep the Republican Agenda as it is, without having to concede anything to anybody.

What would be wrong with them finally realizing that if they want to be majority again, they have to appeal to the center and the rest of the country as well as their every more concentrated base?

Which is currently, and was recently proven false. During the healthcare debate were the deals with Nelson (“cornhusker kickback”)and Landrieu (“louisana purchase”) crafted during amendments during floor debate?

Neither of which would have probably been necessary, if the full sixty senators of that time were not required to pass the bill. The Cornhusker Kickback was universally reviled, on both sides of the aisle. Nelson ended up having to agree to a fix that shared Nebraska’s benefit with everybody else.

The so-called “Louisiana Purchase” was actually a correction for a problematic mismatch in Medicare and Medicaid funding caused by the Demographic shifts following Katrina. But little details like that do not concern those who use rhetoric for effect rather than education.

So yes, they could let the debate begin and take their chances on the floor of the house. Or they could work as a unit and rather than getting one amendment-to satisfy one republican senetor, they can act cohesively and possibly get much more in return.

Much more of what, exactly? That’s the operative question!

They seem to be trying to shoot down the separation of Derivatives trading from depository banking, of companies that finance loans and things like that, from companies that trade in the riskier side of the market.

By the way though, this taking chances on the flor of the house? It’s called Democracy. If Republicans don’t think they can get something passed, maybe they should reconsidere the content of their amendments, as we Democrats often had to do in our days as the minority.

As for your link, it doesn’t say nearly what you are trying to make it out to be. The article shows two organizations who already agree on the issue, meeting to combine assets to fight parts of the bill. How is it selling their votes to recruit business leaders and their money, to protect free market capitalism, when this is one of the defining tenents of conservativism. That is truly like saying that a doctor is in the pharmaceutical companies pocket for no other reason than he had prescribed their product on occasion. When two groups belief system already coincide, that is not selling a vote.

Do you know what Hedge funds are? Do you know what they sell, and deal with for the most part?

Derivatives. Which is precisely what will get regulated, and what should be regulated in this round of reform.

Their particulary brand of free-market capitalism has, of late, been at odds with the stustainability of free-market capitalism as we know it. If a tenet of conservativism is the protection of the free-market economy, then failing to legislate and regulation when proper is not conservatism, but libertarianism, and a foolish brand of it at that. God gave us the ability to feel pain so we wouldn’t stick our hands in the fire, not so we could test, over and over, to see whether making the same mistake again and again would lead to the same outcome.

I blame government for pushing banks to change their lending practices so lower income families could afford homes. I blame government for creating fannie and freddie mae and getting involved in the first place. I then blame (and this may shock you) Bush and other weak willed individuals to jumping in to save them. I know that you believe this hands off approach would have led to a full fledged depression, but I would disagree, and we will never know how it would have progressed.

1) The problem came from the way Wall Street distorted the market, fueling an excessive boom in housing values and a predatory market in lending.

Without their involvement, the lenders would not have had any place to put their bad loans, and would have suffered the result of so many customers being guaranteed to default much sooner. Wall Street encouraged the additional underwriting of mortgages so they could not only speculate on them, but speculate on their speculation.

Had people simply looked at the mortgages in terms of people’s ability to pay the terms back, many of these mortgages would have been rejected outright. This would even be true at a second or third remove. If the people rating the risk for these mortgage securities had been honest about the risk with people, they would have classified many of these mortgages in a much higher-risk market, again reducing the market for them.

The whole point of what we are trying to legislate against here was to prevent such a perversion and a distortion of the market from ever happening again. Had the right rules been in their place, the housing market situation would have resolved itself, or better yet, never become so severe.

2) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could never buy the riskier loans. They were prohibited from doing that. They only got sank as the credit market for mortgages, which they purchased to sell in the secondary market itself sank.

If you want my explanation as for why the whole Fannie and Freddie thing is bull, here it is. Read in depth, or don’t blame me if I have to come back and remind you and others of what I’m talking about.

But before all this, for decades, Fannie and Freddie served the purpose of making home ownership easier, by freeing up more capital in banks by selling the mortgages on the secondary market.

What I explained in my linked entry was that Fannie and Freddie lost much of the market to their much more-well, adventurous colleagues. The risks were being taken more and more in places where none of your cited or implied regulations applied.

In short, you’re just buying into your former party’s line, a line they came up with to divert blame from themselves, despite the fact they lead the charge to deregulate these folks, and enabled the derivatives market that put us in this pickle.

As for what the consequence of letting all the major banks fail? That was effectively what happened. The panic alone was problematic, and facing that panic was part of the reason your party turned around and voted for the bailout.

But you know what? We already tested what would happen if we just let a major firm just collapse, all in the name of crowd-pleasing. That was Lehman Brothers, and that was the start of this God-forsaken crash. We tried things your way, tried things according to conservative principles, and it not only did not work, it was a ****ing catastrophe.

We can always second guess what would have happened if we continued making such mistakes for political reasons, but I think what we saw from the mistakes we made first should lead any rational person to avoid repeating those mistakes.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 27, 2010 5:24 PM
Comment #299699

Stephen

Of the 159 included republican amendments actually adopted into the plan, 132 were “technical” (meaning wording changes with no change to intent). Additionally, only 2 of these 159 were significant enough to demand a roll call vote. here

The main reason the republican party has no leverage is that they lost, and lost significantly, in 2008. Plain and simple. It doesn’t matter where the issue stands, it doesn’t matter where public opinion stands. They simply don’t have the power right now.

As for my major reason for responding. The problem with the Republican “getting with the program” is fairly straight forward. Most of the country elected democrats. Their job is to push forward on their principles and ideas. Those us on the other side elected republicans. No offense, but since they can’t push forward on the republican agenda, they least they can do is to use their little power to oppose the democratic push. It truly is like a tug-of-war. Both sides pulling the country in opposite directions. I, and my state, elected officials to pull right. Since they are outnumbered, I don’t expect them to make much headway. That doesn’t mean give up and go along. It simply means dig your heals in and hinder the other sides advancement as long as possible…(hopefully help is on the way after the midterms). In the case of financial reform, this simply means that since we all know reform is coming, try to make sure this reform is a concise to the problems at hand as possible. Target the reforms to wall street, and limit as much as possible, its effects on the rest of the economy.

As for the “sweetheart deals,” I had already said that they don’t bother me. I know I used language that depicts them negatively, but that was more for expediancy than anything. I haven’t heard of any other condensed name for the Lousiana Medicaid Corrective Measure. My way was much simpler. It was merely an example that things can be accomplished without the bill on the floor.

Democracy, according to every dictionary I could find, doesn’t not mean taking chances on the floor of the house. It simply means government “by the people.” And, in my opinion, by obstructing the democratic agenda, my congressmen are doing fairly well.

I can’t tell you for sure what republican’s are pushing for in the negotiations, but I haven’t read anywhere that they

seem to be trying to shoot down the separation of Derivatives trading from depository banking, of companies that finance loans and things like that, from companies that trade in the riskier side of the market.
In fact, most of what I have seen refers to the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. Here’s one example. It seems that to both of us, regulating the derivatives is needed. I could be proven wrong about the republican agenda, and republicans could be currently trying to water down all aspects of the bill. But, as for now, that is not the tune they are singing.

As far as the causation of the financial crisis. I know that Fannie and Freddie were not financial leg that gave way and caused the collapse. They were merely the spark which set that leg on fire. They weren’t responsible for the most aggressive types of packaging and selling derivatives. But they it was their existance that sent private companies looking for ways to compete. Prior to their existance, these financial giants had no reason to look for other means of acquiring market share. Only after Fannie and Freddie used government regulation and money to carve out their segment of the market, did other private companies stretch themselves thin trying to compete.

Lastly, simply put, panic subsides. And businesses get rebuilt. The debt, regulations, precedents created in exchange for the mild sense of recovery we acquired, will be around to huant the american people for much, much longer.

Posted by: pessimest at April 28, 2010 11:15 AM
Comment #299700

Sorry, but I placed the wrong link into the current republican issues with the wall street reform bill.

here is the correct link

Posted by: pessimest at April 28, 2010 11:21 AM
Comment #348999

ZY-One of the favorite nike shoes among the women that nike running shoes fashion, style, comfort and cheap nike shoes is the Winter Hi 3. These shoes are styled as the cheap nike shoes boots which have nylon uppers, nike mens shoes lacing. These shoes will complement the jeans nike basketball shoes are available in six colors for the women nike shoes sale select from according to girls nike shoes preferences. The Nike Winter nike shoes for men come with faux fur collars and pom-poms and are nike running shoes to glam up every day http://www.nikeshoes-outlet.biz/ .

Posted by: cheap nike shoes at July 20, 2012 10:37 PM
Comment #378530

http://www.burbagssale2013.com/ Burberry Outlet
http://www.airmaxshoesfactory.com/ Air Max Shoes
http://www.coachblackfriday2014.com/ Coach Black Friday
http://www.coach-storeoutletonline.com/ Coach Black Friday
http://www.coachcoachoutlet.com/ Coach Cyber Monday
http://www.coachxfactory.com/ Coach Factory
http://www.coach-factoryoutletonline.net/ Coach Outlet Factory
http://www.coach-outletonlineusa.com/ Coach Outlet USA
http://www.coach-pursesfactory.com/ Coach Purses Factory
http://www.coachpurseusa.com/ Coach Purses USA
http://www.coach-storeoutlet.com/ Coach Store Outlet
http://www.coach-pursesonline.com/ Coach Purses On Sale
http://www.monsterbeatsbydres.com/ Monster Beats Outlet
http://www.louis-vuittonblackfriday.com/ Louis Vuitton Outlet
http://www.lv-guccishoesfactory.com/ Louis Vuitton Factory
http://www.marcjacobsonsale.com/ Marc Jacobs On Sale
http://www.mcmworldwides.com/ MCM Outlet
http://www.mcmoutlet-jp.com/ MCM 店铺
http://www.oakleysunglassesfactory.com/ cheap oakley sunglasses
http://www.michaelkorsmas.com/ Michael Kors Outlet
http://www.michaelkors.so/ Michael Kors Outlet
http://www.michaelkorsfactory-store.com/ Michael Kors Factory
http://www.michaelkorsoutletr.com/ Michael Kors Outlet
http://www.michael-korsfactoryonline.com/ Michael Kors Factory Online
http://www.newcoachfactoryoutlet.com/ Coach Factory Outlet
http://www.north-faceoutletonlines.net/ North Face Outlet Online
http://www.polo-outletstore.com/ Polo Outlet Store
http://www.ralph-laurenhome.com/ Ralph Lauren UK
http://www.saclongchamppairs.com/ Sac Longchamp Pairs
http://www.tcoachoutletonline.com/ Coach Outlet Online
http://www.the-coachfactoryoutlet.com/ Coach Factory Oultet
http://www.barbour-jacketsoutlet.com/ Barbour Jackets Outlet Online
http://www.canada-gooser.com/ Canada Goose Outlet
http://www.guccishoesuk2014.net/ Gucci Outlet Online
http://www.michaelkorsstates.com/ Michael Kors Outlet
http://www.moncler-clearance.com/ Moncler Clearance
http://www.moncler-jacketsoutletonline.com/ Moncler Jackets Outlet Online
http://www.northsclearance.com/ North Clearace Outlet
http://www.polo-ralphlaurensoutlet.com/ Polo Ralph Lauren Outlet Online
http://www.woolrich-clearance.com/ Woolrich Clearance
http://www.cvshopfactory.com/ shop.coachfactory.com
http://www.mksfactoryoutlet.com/ Michael Kors Factory Outlet
http://www.zxcoachoutlet.com/ Coach Outlet Online USA
http://www.thebeatsbydre.com/ Beats by Dre
http://www.newoutletonlinemall.com/ Coach Purses Outlet Online
http://www.clickmichaelkors.com/ Michael Kors USA

Posted by: polo outlet at May 20, 2014 4:31 AM
Post a comment