Third Party & Independents Archives

Crazy Game of Government Poker...

The days and the drama leading up to the budget deadline are kind of like last year. And the year before that?? How many times have they threatened government shutdown? It’s another dose of Déjà Vu. They’re gambling with a lot of money and with the functionality of our country, and Obama is just sitting back and refusing to even come to the table to negotiate.

Ultimately, it's just truly disheartening to see this happen. The worst part is the bruised hearts of proud Americans, me being one of them. When you traveled to many places and continents in the world, you find yourself with a happy heart when you arrive back at customs in the homeland.

In all of those travels, I've also always defended and been a proud American. Then when the hits just keep coming, our government has just become such a disappointment recently. The threat of a government shutdown is just incredibly disheartening, and won't be doing any favors for Republicans.

Come Election 2016, it would seem like we're in for an overhaul in D.C. But the blame will fall on the GOP for a shutdown and that will make it difficult for the next election.

Posted by MichaelMears at September 27, 2013 7:53 PM
Comments
Comment #371795

A negotiation is two sides reaching a mutually agreeable outcome. It usually involves give and take on both sides. It is not uncommon in a hostile negotiation for one side to make an extreme demand, yet be willing to settle for something less.

Let’s be clear.

This is not a negotiation. This is a case of one side taking a hostage and making a demand- stop/delay the Affordable Care Act, or the government gets it.

“It’s exactly what we wanted, and we got it.”
Michele Bachmann on the shutdown

American voters recognize this. The Republicans will take a shellacking if they go through with a shutdown. And there is only one possible resolution, a clean resolution, which already will clearly receive enough Republican and Democratic votes to pass the House.

The government is not a disappointment. The Obama administration is doing just fine, thank you, and so are the Democrats in the Senate and the House. The problem is with a small faction of extremists and radicals in the Senate and the House.

They have engaged in an unhinged effort to scare Americans about the PPACA.

What is absolutely awesome is that enrollments for the exchanges begin tomorrow. Newspapers and televisions will cover changes- no denial for pre-existing conditions, no cap on coverage, no danger of losing coverage for serious illness, a long list of free preventative care, and more. Navigators will help individuals find their way to the right insurance for them. Employers will brief employees on the new benefits.

The GOP cannot stop this. The extremists and radicals have overplayed their hand and they have severely- SEVERELY- miscalculated, probably because they live in a bubble, an echo chamber of lies, and now they believe their own lies. But here comes reality!

While a shutdown is unfortunate, the outcome looks promising for Democrats and for the country.

Posted by: phx8 at September 30, 2013 11:34 AM
Comment #371799

Obama is simply refusing to encourage the GOP’s attempts to force their policy on everybody else through political extortion. It was obnoxious enough when Republicans had both houses of Congress, it’s even worse now that they just have the house. The majority of Americans despise their tactics, and it just seems to undermine peoples general faith in our government. That might work, perversely enough, for the GOP, and that is what concerns me.

I think it’s high time to stop rewarding Republicans for their self-fulfilling prophecy of dysfunctional government made dysfunctional through their efforts.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 30, 2013 6:26 PM
Comment #371802


Cruz Obama is simply refusing to encourage the Democratic’s GOP’s attempts to force their policy on everybody else through political extortion. It was obnoxious enough when Democratics Republicans had both houses of Congress, it’s even worse now that they just have the senate house. The majority of Americans despise their tactics, and it just seems to undermine peoples general faith in our government. That might work, perversely enough, for the Democratics GOP, and that is what concerns me.

I think it’s high time to stop rewarding Democratics Republicans for their self-fulfilling prophecy of dysfunctional government made dysfunctional through their efforts.

Projection? Yes.

Remember the Louisiana Purchase? How about Ben Nelson’s Nebraska bribe?

Obamacare wouldn’t have passed to begin with if it wasn’t for the bribery and special favors Democratics got for their vote. Remember Democratics have no morals. Their vote is for sale if it will get them special treatment.

The New Louisiana Purchase: ‘Obamacare’s’ $4.3 Billion Boondoggle


Nebraska Democrat Senator Bought and Paid For … Will Support Obamacare


Posted by: Weary Willie at September 30, 2013 7:49 PM
Comment #371805

Republicans hate Obamacare. Why? Its the same program that conservative think tanks proposed in the early 2000s. Do you want me to provide Congressional testimony by the Heritage Foundation proposing a “soft mandate” in the tax code to support that assertion? Its the same program that a conservative Republican governor proposed and implemented in MA. The state of MA is doing very well and hasn’t imploded due to Romneycare.

So, what’s the game? What’s the big concern?

I don’t think that any conservative can actually answer that question. All they can say is that it is terrible. No reasons. Just scare the hell out of everybody. Make believe that everybody’s health care will change and be jeopardized. Well, it won’t. It didn’t in MA and it won’t throughout the US. All it means is that more people who don’t have employer group insurance will be able to get insurance now.

As far as I am concerned, it is a lot of effort to make the current system viable for a few more years.

We already subsidize employer group insurance and many of the benefits in this law, e.g., pre-existing conditions, were already law for group employer insurance. This is just an effort to get those without access to group employer insurance on a more level playing field with employer subsidized insurance, i.e., self employed, small business employees, etc., who rely upon the individual insurance market.

If people understood the issues without the deliberate distortions of Republicans from the very start, death panels, etc., we might actually get some place. Obama said today that he would be willing to negotiate changes to Obamacare to address problems with small businesses, etc. but not in a context of hostage taking.

What the Tea Party Republicans are doing is intellectually dishonest. It is like a two year old child throwing a temper tantrum over not getting its way. There is no reasoning possible.

Posted by: Rich at September 30, 2013 10:20 PM
Comment #371819

Weary Willie
Actually, we could have told those two to go **** themselves, if the Republicans hadn’t been blocking things. We could have gone for the Public Option, imposed stronger limits on healthcare costs, etc.

But we had to get all sixty Democrats together, more than a majority. So, we made deals. We compromised. And we got that on a vote we didn’t need to threaten the economic or fiscal integrity of the country to achieve.

We had both house, Willy. We didn’t need to threaten a shutdown because we weren’t that weak.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 1, 2013 12:18 AM
Comment #371837
Rich wrote regarding Obamacare: What’s the big concern? I don’t think that any conservative can actually answer that question.
I am not a conservative.

However, here are some PROs and CONs, and the CONs (in my opinion) far surpass the PROs:

    CONS:
  • (01) $70 Billion in annual fraud in Medicare will be puny compared to cost of fraud in Obamacare; there is typically massive waste and fraud in huge, government-run programs;
  • (02) ObamaCare was written partially with the help of the health insurance and drug industry lobbyists.
  • (03) Obamacare has a Review Panel to monitor benfits given to Seniors and what should and should not be allowed regarding health care treatments.
  • (04) ObamaCare puts in place new rules that prohibit plans with annual limits. No constraints on cost sounds good in theory, but probably not in reality.
  • (05) Obamacare puts 15 unelected bureaucrats in charge of meeting a budget target in Medicare with its newly created Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).
  • (06) Obamacare delivers a strong blow to Medicare Advantage (MA), which allows seniors to receive Medicare benefits from a private health plan of their choosing.
  • (07) ObamaCare expands Medicaid (medical care for the poor) to everyone (under the Medicare age of 65) who has income less than 133% the federal poverty level.
  • (08) ObamaCare will shorten the amount of time Doctors have with each patient, and lengthen the amount of time patients will have to wait.
  • (09) ObamaCare means a two-tier Health Care System (more bureaucracy and waste).
  • (10) Obamacare attempts to address the challenge of covering people with pre-existing conditions with heavy-handed mandates; especially the requirement that all Americans enroll in government-approved insurance plans (the so-called “individual mandate”).
  • (11) Obamacare is deeply unpopular with many people because it is based on a bureaucratic, government-centered vision of American health care, and many people see how much waste and fraud already exist in many other government-run systems;
  • (12) Obamacare will require us to pay insurers for “preventive care” as defined by government.
  • (13) Obamacare failure may currently be evident as health care costs rise nationwide.
  • (14) Obamacare, and its vast catalog of new rules and regulations makes it difficult for firms to make any reasonable estimate about costs.
  • (15) ObamaCare is just the latest in a very long series of Unconstitutional Federal over reaches never intended by our Founding Fathers. The ObamaCare plan is based on drastically increasing the degree of government control over medical practice and medical financing decisions that should instead be made by patients, doctors, and insurers in a free market. By depriving individuals of this freedom, the plan destroys any possible redeeming qualities. Just as an example — suppose it were scientifically proven that eating carrots was good for you. It is an intrusion of the federal government into the practice of medicine. Forcing States to accept federally-mandated health insurance possibly violates States’ rights.
  • (16) Obamacare will speed the U.S. along the road to fiscal insolvency.
  • (17) Obamacare also means that for up to 20 million Americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have, the insurance that they like and they want to keep.
  • (18) Obamacare is a job killer, because some companies will lay off workers or convert full-time workers to part-time workers.
  • (19) ObamaCare does not apply equally to everyone.
  • (20) Obamacare has not created a net healthcare benefit, but rather simply reshuffled the burden.
  • (21) Obamacare does not allow you to move to another state to avoid being told that you must purchase something, you are locked in at the federal level no matter where you live.
  • (23) IF you do not have health insurance, the IRS will fine you: 2014 = the larger of $95 per person per year or 1% of your Income 2015 = the larger of $325 per person per year or 2% of your Income 2016 = the larger of $695 per person per year or 2.5% of your Income ($1,225 for an income of $49,000). 2017 = Tax Penalty will increase by the rate of inflation going forward, or 2.5% of your Income.
  • (25) ObamaCare requires a provision for coverage for the cost of abortions.
  • (26) Healthy, younger, and rich people will pay more. Unhealthy people will pay less. 2.40% excise tax on policies costing more than $10,200/person $27,500/family per year in 2018 (impacts most Group Plans). Should the federal government have the power to decide this?
    PROS: The following sound good, but will expensive, gamed, and fraught with fraud and bureaucracy:
  • (01) Price Ratio of Older to Younger is 5:1, will be 3:1 (older will pay less, younger will pay more).
  • (02) Children under the Age of 19 are Guaranteed Insurable (started in 2011).
  • (03) Adults will be Guaranteed Insurable (starting in 2014).
  • (04) No Pre-Existing Conditions.
  • (05) No Lifetime Limit on Health Insurance Coverage.
  • (06) Free Preventative & Wellness office visits on All plans (Started in 2011).
  • (07) Extension of Children on Parents Plans (increased from Age 24 to Age 26).
  • (08) As in other nations where this sort of healthcare system was created, it will also have many of the same problems.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure and FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 1, 2013 11:37 AM
Comment #371839

Here’s a novel idea?

  • (1) How about a non-profit government-run health insurance system for any U.S. citizen who wants to participate (also prohibiting exclusions for pre-existing conditions, but with realistic limits and co-pays to discourage frivolous abuses);
  • (2) A “hospital-emergency-room” income sales tax, and/or income tax, and/or property tax (so that everyone pays something, including U.S. citizens and illegal aliens that do not have health insurance and/or cannot pay for the services and treatments received). Hospital emergency rooms should only stabilize patients with real emergencies; not provide long-term treatments.
  • (3) Welfare health-coverage can provide for all other U.S. citizens that qualifies as “truly needy”.

Aside from the “hospital-emergency-room” income sales tax, and/or income tax, and/or property tax, no one is forced to pay for a health insurance policy, but everyone pays in some form or another for the hospital emergency rooms that are often overrun by illegal aliens and U.S. citizens who have no health insurance.

Then, if the federal government is still unable to run such a non-profit insurance system more efficiently than non-government health insurance companies, then it will prove once again that the federal government is a VERY poor choice for running anything without massive waste and fraud.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure and FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 1, 2013 12:31 PM
Comment #371843

Rich

Again?

Liberal Republicans passing liberal policy in a liberal state is NOT a good representation of what people on the right in the rest of the country want.
The ‘soft mandate’ was an idea. It was never voted on and embraced by the right on a national level.

“So, what’s the game? What’s the big concern? I don’t think that any conservative can actually answer that question.”

It has been answered, over and over.
The loss of free choice, larger government intrusion in personal lives and the higher taxes it will require. Those are definetes.
Higher premiums, lesser quality healthcare, lesser quality insurance plans, are just a few of the worrys.

The only intellectual dishonesty going on is coming from the left, who are so eager to get this government program so ingrained into society that it can never be removed.

Posted by: kctim at October 1, 2013 3:06 PM
Comment #371847

d.a.n.,

Good suggestions but,

1. “How about a non-profit government-run health insurance system…” The “public option” was soundly rejected early in the health reform debates despite the fact that it had overwhelming public support. Why? Well, who wouldn’t want a huge non-profit insurance agency competing against them?

2. “Hospital emergency rooms should only stabilize patients with real emergencies; not provide long-term treatments.” That is already the law. As for special taxes to fund emergency rooms, alright but major public hospitals are already supported by local property taxes.

3. “Welfare health-coverage can provide for all other U.S. citizens that qualifies as “truly needy”.” We already have such a system, i.e., Medicaid. The problem isn’t the really poor but those that cannot access the primary form of health insurance, employer group insurance.

The sensible financing solution is to look to our prosperous neighbors to the north. The Canadian system is a simple and elegant financing system. The federal government collects national health care taxes; re-distributes those funds pro-rata to each province which supplements them with provincial taxes and fees; the provinces then fund hospitals on an annual budgetary basis (no fees for service), issue Medicare cards to their citizens and pay private practitioners on a set fee basis.

The only real differences between the US Medicare system and the Canadian Medicare for all system is that the federal government doesn’t run the actual system, the provinces run their individual systems under very general federal guidelines and hospitals are not run on a fee for service basis.

The US Medicare system is not only an efficient system but enjoys enormous public support, including Tea Party types. Why we can’t tweak it to something like the Canadian system is a mystery to me. Well, perhaps not when you consider the political power of those who are profiting from the current American system. See answer to your suggestion for a “public option.”



Posted by: Rich at October 1, 2013 5:32 PM
Comment #371852
Rich wrote (RE: Welfare health-coverage): We already have such a system, i.e., Medicaid. The problem isn’t the really poor but those that cannot access the primary form of health insurance, employer group insurance
That is what item # (1) was for (i.e. a non-profit health insurance system).
Rich wrote (RE: Welfare health-coverage):Well, who wouldn’t want a huge non-profit insurance agency competing against them?
Greedy, for-profit insurance companies that refused to offer insurance for some people.

But I get it.
Congress is FOR-SALE and in-the-pocket of the big fat insurance companies who donate generously to the politicians.
Voters are culpable too.

Rich wrote (RE: Welfare health-coverage): The US Medicare system is not only an efficient system …
With $70 billion per year in Medicare fraud alone (not to mention waste? That’s “efficient” ? Then I’d hate to see and inefficient Medicare system.
Rich wrote (RE: Welfare health-coverage): The US Medicare system is not only an efficient system but enjoys enormous public support, including Tea Party types.
Sure. A lot of people think they’re going to get more stuff and free stuff.

The voters are easily bribed with their own tax dollars.

The biggest problem with asking then federal government to do anything is that there is always too much fraud, waste, and bloat.

Borrowing is required every year (for decades) for Medicare.
Social Security used to be at least pay-as-you-go, but it now requires borrowing too.
There have been $Trillion+ deficits for years.

Why should anyone (barring wishful thinking) think that Obamacare will be any better?
If $70 Billion per year in Medicare fraud is considered “efficient”, how much fraud in Obamacare will be considered “efficient”?

There are somethings the government is best suited to do, and there are things that the federal government is too inefficient, bloated, corrupt, and incompentent to do.
In my opinion, like massive $70 billion of fraud per year in Medicare, it will be vastly dwarfed by the fraud and waste in Obamacare.

You obviously have a whole LOT more faith in the federal government than I do.
But you are not alone.
Despite the vast evidence of the federal government’s propensity to screw up almost anything it tries to manage, I am part of a very small minority that believes the overwhelming evidence makes the federal government a bad choise for managing most things.

Well, we will see.
Get ready for fraud and waste in the trillions by year 2020.
Of course, all of this will require a lot of new money created out of thin air.
So a $Trillion U$D by year 2020 may not be enough to buy a cup of coffee?

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure and FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 1, 2013 6:18 PM
Comment #371857

d.a.n.,

I think that the federal government can do some things very well. Tax collection, distribution of SS benefit payments, Medicare payments, etc., are done relatively efficiently. There are many other national issues that the federal government performs very well, e.g., national defense, parks, regulation of interstate commerce, national highway system, etc.

It is my opinion, however, that the federal government gets in trouble when it attempts to micro manage delivery of services at the local level.

That is why I have always been impressed by the design of the Canadian Medicare financing system. It is not only universal but simple in design and execution. The federal government sets minimum standards, collects and distributes national health care taxes but doesn’t attempt to operate the system at the delivery level. There is flexibility at the provincial level to accommodate local and regional differences. You don’t get a Canadian Medicare card, you get a provincial card. It is portable but there are differences in coverage between provinces.

The strange thing about this health care debate is that the majority of health care in the US is already financed by the government in one form or another. Employer subsidized insurance (ESI) is the largest tax expenditure by far of the federal government. The idea of some that they are fighting to keep a private system is nonsense.

It has always seemed to me that the only real issue in this debate is what is the simplest, most elegant and flexible publicly controlled, regulated or managed financing system for the US. If we can’t get beyond that issue, then we are not going to get to the issue of cost control.



Posted by: Rich at October 1, 2013 7:18 PM
Comment #371961

Why are we debating health care pros and cons? The fact is health care won with democratic elections every step of the way and now the tea party can’t accept democracy. Very scary concept.

Posted by: Schwamp at October 3, 2013 1:07 PM
Comment #371962

Schwamp, would you feel the same way if conservatives forced through an anti-abortion law if they were in power? Would you expect liberals/progressives to just “accept democracy” and agree to a law outlawing abortion?
I bet not.

The scary thing is that so many think it would be somehow ‘different.’

Posted by: kctim at October 3, 2013 1:37 PM
Comment #371972

kctim,
are you kidding? I’m pretty sure the libs would try to win elections to undo any laws they couldn’t live with. Help me out with the constitutional references on your way.

By

Posted by: Schwamp at October 3, 2013 3:38 PM
Comment #371974

Schwamp

So you are saying that liberals/progressives would agree to pass a law that they and the majority of Americans rabidly oppose, and then try to win elections to repeal that law? LOL!!!
You are kidding yourself my friend, I have nothing to do with it.

Posted by: kctim at October 3, 2013 3:53 PM
Comment #371994
Rich wrote:I think that the federal government can do some things very well. Tax collection, distribution of SS benefit payments, Medicare payments, etc., are done relatively efficiently. There are many other national issues that the federal government performs very well, e.g., national defense, parks, regulation of interstate commerce, national highway system, etc.
I do not think the federal government does anything well, but there are somethings that ONLY the government can and should do (provided that government is not already too corrupt), which would be national defense, law enforcement, upholding and protecting the constitution, protecting national parks, welfare for the truly needy.

Almost everything else is very badly done by the federal government.
We do not need all of thesebloat, waste, duplication, fraud, corruption, incompetence, dead-weight, etc..

Rich wrote:It is my opinion, however, that the federal government gets in trouble when it attempts to micro manage delivery of services at the local level.
Like healthcare?
Rich wrote:That is why I have always been impressed by the design of the Canadian Medicare financing system. It is not only universal but simple in design and execution. The federal government sets minimum standards, collects and distributes national health care taxes but doesn’t attempt to operate the system at the delivery level. There is flexibility at the provincial level to accommodate local and regional differences. You don’t get a Canadian Medicare card, you get a provincial card. It is portable but there are differences in coverage between provinces.
That is debatable.

There are definitely long waiting lists in Canada.
I’ve read about people waiting many months for some surgeries.
As a result, a lot of Canadians buy U.S. Health Insurance policies.

The bottom line is that everything costs, and it is not possible for everyone to live at the expense of everyone else.
We can’t all ride in the wagon … someone has to push the wagon.

The real solution is non-profit insurance in which anyone can participate, but that would make too much sense, and DC is where good, common-sense ideas go to die.

Rich wrote:The strange thing about this health care debate is that the majority of health care in the US is already financed by the government in one form or another. Employer subsidized insurance (ESI) is the largest tax expenditure by far of the federal government. The idea of some that they are fighting to keep a private system is nonsense.
“financed by the government” ?!?

And where does the government get that money?

Rich wrote:It has always seemed to me that the only real issue in this debate is what is the simplest, most elegant and flexible publicly controlled, regulated or managed financing system for the US. If we can’t get beyond that issue, then we are not going to get to the issue of cost control.
And that ain’t what they’re doing.

The real solution is non-profit insurance in which anyone can participate, but (again) that would make too much sense, and DC is where good, common-sense ideas go to die.

But, if the government failed to run the non-profit insurance efficiently, and for-profit insurance companies were able to provide better health insurance than the governemnt non-profit insurance, then it would prove again that the federal government cannot do much of anything without screwing it up.

I do not see how $70 Billion per year in Medicare fraud (not even including the waste) is considered “efficient” or even “relatively efficient”.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure and FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 3, 2013 10:54 PM
Comment #372037
Schwamp, would you feel the same way if conservatives forced through an anti-abortion law if they were in power? Would you expect liberals/progressives to just “accept democracy” and agree to a law outlawing abortion?

Kctim, Roe V Wade was found to be unconstitutional yet the ACA was found to be constitutional. In addition after 40+ attempts to repeal the law, losing the last presidential election after running on repealing the ACA law it is time for conservatives to stop swilling the kool aid and present compelling reasons the law should be repealed or defunded. They simply haven’t done so. They have lied an spread fear but have not been truthful nor have the presented ANYTHING BETTER. Those who support conservatives should be up in the gfacs of movement leaders demanding better.

The scary thing is that so many think it would be somehow ‘different.’

The scarier thing is using this type of fallacy to justify the actions of the teabaggers on Congress.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 5, 2013 12:44 AM
Comment #372123

J2, you know darn well that the far left would go absolutely nuts if the choice to have an abortion was taken away, and that they would do EVERYTHING in their power to prevent such a law from being enacted. You would expect them to represent their constituents, I would expect them to and everybody who agreed with us would. They would not be doing their job if they did not.

And I wasn’t using this angle to “justify” the actions of the House, I am using it to point out the problem with almost ALL liberal policy: the hypocrisy of those who support it.

You know J2, you guys all like to say how people who don’t love the ACA are clueless about it, NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU ARE TOLD DIFFERENTLY, so how about you explaining where I am wrong?

Posted by: kctim at October 7, 2013 5:07 PM
Comment #372283

Well, one thing is for sure. Republicans won’t be trying to use government shutdown and debt ceiling as political leverage for the next 3 years under Obama. That is a great thing; and result of Obama sticking to his pledge not to negotiate with hostage taking political terrorists.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 11, 2013 2:33 AM
Comment #373539

If you want to get more about Camera Accessories: Camera Bags, DSLR Accessories, Camera Tripod, Waterproof Housing and so on the latest developments you can subscribe our website - HKneo.com

Posted by: camera tripod at October 31, 2013 7:11 AM
Comment #375359

http://coachofficialsite.blog.com/ coach outlet
http://www.coachoutletstoreonlinebo.com/ coach outlet
http://www.outletsonlinemall.com/ coach outlet
http://www.louisvuittonoutletbo.com/ louis vuitton outlet
http://www.louisvuittonpursesbag.net/ louis vuitton purses
http://www.truereligionjeansoutletbo.com/ true religion outlet
http://www.truereligionoutletfactory.com/ true religion outlet
http://www.burberryoutletstoresbo.com/ burberry outlet
http://www.burberryoutletonlineb.com/ burberry outlet
http://www.toryburchoutlet-shoes.com/ tory burch outlet
http://www.michaelkorsoutlethandbag.com/ michael kors outlet
http://www.oakleyvault-sunglasses.com/ oakley sunglassesgfdgd
http://www.christianlouboutinstore2013.com/ louboutin outlet
http://www.terrybuilt.com/ christian louboutin outlet
http://www.scarpehoganoutlet.net/ scarpe hogan
http://www.ralphlauren-pascher-france.com/ ralph lauren
http://www.saclongchampsoldespascher.com/ longchamp
http://www.beatsbydrdre-headphones.com/ beats by dre
http://www.hoganshoesoutletsale.co.uk/ hogan
http://www.montblancpensoutlet.co.uk/ mont blanc
http://www.louisvuittonborse-sitoufficiale.com/ louis vuitton borse
http://goo.gl/NR5jpG canada goose
http://doudounemoncler.ueuo.com/ canada goose
http://goo.gl/pC0qFm moncler
http://canadagooseoutlets.freetzi.com/ moncler
http://goo.gl/Eo2lTR Canada Goose
http://canadagooseoutlets.freetzi.com/ Canada Goose
http://www.canadagoose.cc/ Canada Goose Outlet
http://www.canadagooseoutlet-jackets.com/ Canada Goose Outlet
http://www.moncler-jacka.com/ moncler
http://www.scripturegroup.net/new.asp moncler outlet online
http://www.phonepc.fr/Global.asp air max pas cher
http://www.rints.com/aspnet_clients/index.asp?ID=42 Christian Louboutin outlet
http://www.kubind.com/sinquirys.asp Ugg outlet

Posted by: coach outlet at December 27, 2013 8:24 PM
Post a comment