Third Party & Independents Archives

My Version Of Conservatism

I’ve asked many on the left to describe what their version of America would be if they were to be granted all of the policy changes they wished.

What would a liberal U.S. look like? What would living in a liberal U.S. be like?

That’s basically what I’ve been asking the left for some time. I haven’t got an answer I could recognize as a description of a liberal America. So be it. Perhaps, if I were to go out on a limb, risk my name and credibility, open my views up to the masses, and describe my version of Conservatism, I could reasonably ask the same from the left. I could then expect an answer to my, many times asked, question.

So, here it is!

My Version of Conservatism.

My father worked for one company his entire life. Other than a few local teenage positions, and a few part-time positions while maintaining a home and raising his family, he worked for the same company his entire career.

His company's union went on strike once. His actions and the actions of the union members he worked with cemented my opinion of unions and their value. My father made a decision based on the value of the battle he was asked to fight. He didn't see the value of what he was promised when he compared it to the potential harm it could and eventually did do. While reaping huge paychecks from overtime available during the strike my father was subjected to a vicious and sometimes dangerous behavior from his co-workers. Having aquired a substancial amount of wealth during the episode and also still being employed when the benefits the strikers received evaporated led me to believe a union is simply another layer of government known by another name, a union. It taxed, it promised, it forced, and it failed.

I have never worked for a union.

My father also expected me to put to good use the baubles he purchased with the income he generated. I was very familiar with the lawnmowers, rakes, shovels, dishes, vacume cleaners, and a miriad of other, so called, conveniences. Winters were snow filled and walks needed cleared. Spring and summer was a time for mowing the lawn, fall had it's rakes and leaves. Every night I was scheduled, along with my siblings, to do the dishes and clean the bath, and sweep the floors. And in my spare time my Mother and my Father both would introduce me to their friends who's mother needed windows washed and gutters cleaned and lawns mowed. I hated it. I still hate washing dishes, but I have my own toys for yard work now, because my Father taught me the value of hard work and the value of having a job and the freedom of supporting myself and the value of not giving that hard earned money away to someone who does very little to deserve it.

When my son was born I was married to his Mother. The doctor was perturbed at his nurse when he realized he slept throughout her entire labor. My wife and I both looked each other in the eye during contractions. I led her to pant while she went through them. There was no screaming or hysterics or drugs associated with my wife's labor. That was why the doctor slept through it. He was aroused by his nurse as my wife was being wheeled into the delivery room. But, when my son was born, when that drawer opened up and he layed there, when that doctor lifted him up and told me I had a son, all I said was, "LOOK AT THAT CHEST!". It was as thick as it was wide!

I paid cash for the pre-natal care, the doctor's services, and the delivery room. I was given a payment schedule with no interest from the hospital. It came to a total of $600. Yes, six-hundred dollars to have a child born into this world!

Those were the days, I guess. Why are we told they are gone? Why is it impossible to return to opportunities like that?

Do you remember when it was against the law to trespass on someone else's property? Do you remember when a land owner could run you off of his property with force? That was before lawyers and judges decided there must be "NO TRESPASSING" signs bordering the property before "NO TRESPASSING" laws needed to be obeyed. Now, people can violate another's property with immunity. Now, a land owner is expected to call an overworked cop, who is expected to show up like Captain Kirk in a Transporter, to catch the trespasser. Now, the land owners are subject to the same criminal justice system the trespassers are immune to if they confront them.

Why should something like that be normal operating procedure? Why is that expected? Why can't situations like that be rejected?

My version of Conservatism would include respect for other people's property and privacy. My version of Conservatism would expect judges and lawyers to do the same. A man and his castle, so to speak. A simple shortcut, harmless at first, can cause harm if used enough. Public access is readily available. There is no need to trespass. Simple respect for others is vital to a Conservative lifestyle.

My Version of Conservatism includes a strong work ethic. It includes a resolve to make your own decisions based on your own interests. It includes having control over all of what you've earned without having to pay tribute to people making and enforcing the rules.

My Version of Conservatism includes my ability to pay for the natural, normal functions the human race expects of itself without the extranious add ons like lawyers and judges and disgruntled citizens looking for a freebee.

This is a start. This is an attempt to explain one part of My Version of Conservatism. It's not inclusive. It doesn't cover everything, but it's a start. I throw it and myself on the mercy of the WatchBlog Community.

Posted by Weary_Willie at July 13, 2014 1:51 AM
Comments
Comment #380798

Liberalism is the right to do whatever the hell wants to do with one’s life so long as one doesn’t infringe on another’s liberty.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 13, 2014 3:25 AM
Comment #380799

I believe you should be able to do pretty much whatever you want as long as you don’t infringe on anyone’s liberty. But also as long as you don’t expect me to pay for it.

Posted by: Ron at July 13, 2014 7:01 AM
Comment #380801

Warren, just for clarification, what do you include in “another’s liberty?”

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 13, 2014 3:32 PM
Comment #380809

Warren and Ron, already we have reached common ground. I too believe that everyone’s liberty needs to be protected. It takes a personal effort to understand liberty from another person’s point of view. Conservatives also believe that anyone can do as they wish as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others.

Ron is correct to say that a person’s liberty shouldn’t depend on another person paying for it. If something gained for one must be taken from another that is not liberty. Rights are not tangible things given to one and taken from another. Rights are basic, fundamental laws that pertain to everyone regardless of any condition.

Our republic and constitution were created using a limited government to defend the rights of every citizen. It is a republic for a reason. Progressives since Wilson have misinterpreted the constitution in an effort to create a democracy. Under a republic individual liberties can be protected. Under a democracy individual liberties take a back seat to the majority’s wants. That said, My Version of Conservatism cannot support a democracy.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 13, 2014 6:46 PM
Comment #380814

Ron & WW,

I take it that neither of you support a defendant’s right to counsel to represent him/her in court? Those public defendants cost other people’s money.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 13, 2014 11:43 PM
Comment #380815

You would be mistaken, Warren Porter.

and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

That’s from the 6th amendment. It’s a right define in our Constitution.

A defendent’s right to a fair trial should have the same stature as the people’s right to prosecute crimes. On the flip side, Warren Porter, should we say prosecutors and police officers should not be paid by tax dollars? No, of course not!

he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,

This quote is from the constitution as well. The President has the obligation to insure all laws are enforced. He uses people’s taxes to do that.

My Version of Conservativism would not support the elimination of funds used to keep citizens and their rights safe from infringment. The same goes for protecting innocent people from being punished for crimes they did not commit.


Posted by: Weary Willie at July 14, 2014 12:43 AM
Comment #380819

WW, I am not surprised that I was mistaken. However, it appears that you do not support Ron’s sentiment about not wanting to spend money to support people’s liberty to do what they wish with their lives.

Ron is correct to say that a person’s liberty shouldn’t depend on another person paying for it. If something gained for one must be taken from another that is not liberty. Rights are not tangible things given to one and taken from another. Rights are basic, fundamental laws that pertain to everyone regardless of any condition.

However, it seems that you clearly do support spending money to protect defendants’ right to a free trial so it appears that liberty can depend on another person paying for it. Something can be gained for one that was taken from another and we still call it liberty.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 14, 2014 10:39 AM
Comment #380820

My Vision of Conservatism would entail all people paying taxes, even the person charged with a crime and in need of a public defender. A consumption tax instead of an income tax would do that.

Having all people pay taxes to support the constitutional legal system would not be taking from one and giving to another. It would be all people paying the taxes to support the system.


My Version of Conservatism would treat all people equally when taxed based on consumption. That is why My Version of Conservatism is against a progressive income tax and an income tax in general.

You were not suprised because you knew you were mistaken when you made the assumption.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 14, 2014 10:56 AM
Comment #380823

I agree…universal taxation is a laudable goal. It also happens to be one that is nearly already achieved. 57% of Americans already pay income taxes and an additional 29% of households pay payroll taxes even though they don’t pay income taxes. That means 86% of households pay federal taxes. Of the remaining 14%, 10% are elderly and unable to contribute. So this means that only 4% or so of American households aren’t contributing, and this group is mostly Americans who are impoverished and/or disabled. If you think we should be trying hard to ensure that the 4% are taxed, then that is your prerogative. My Source

A consumption tax instead of an income tax would do that.
A consumption tax would reach more people than our current income tax system. However, people with higher incomes tend to consume more government services, so a government run purely on a consumption tax would still be redistributive, but only in the other direction (from poor to rich). This regressivity is highlighted by the fact that poor people need to consume a larger portion of their income.

Regardless, the idea of funding social services from a consumption tax is not a new one. It just happens not to be a very American idea. Instead, it is an idea popular in European social democracy where VATs are ubiquitous.

You were not suprised because you knew you were mistaken when you made the assumption.
It’s not really an assumption if I knew I was mistaken. However, you were also mistaken when you claimed to agree with Ron’s “But also as long as you don’t expect me to pay for it” sentiment. By misrepresenting your beliefs, it was easy for me to expose the divide between your beliefs and Ron’s beliefs. Posted by: Warren Porter at July 14, 2014 1:03 PM
Comment #380827

Ron will have to speak to what “it” he was refering to.

It was you who brought up the legal system and public defenders. Defense being part of the legal system it only stands to reason it should be included in the expendatures of the process.

I would also extend the consumption tax to government services. There is no reason these services should be free to people with higher incomes. These services have a cost and using these services, as with any other service, the cost of that service should be bore by the people utilizing it. Since poor people won’t be using these services they also won’t be paying for them.

My Version of Conservatism doesn’t expect poor people to pay a tax for services they don’t receive.

As far as the poor person being subjected to the legal system, it is now a standard operating procedure to charge a court cost to a person using the court system. If the poor person is found guilty of the crime he was charged with he should bear the cost of that procedure and retribution should be part of the punishment. If the court finds the person innocent the prosecutor, having been elected by the people, should bear the consequences.


Posted by: Weary Willie at July 14, 2014 1:30 PM
Comment #380828
I would also extend the consumption tax to government services. There is no reason these services should be free to people with higher incomes.

The problem with this is that even though many of these government services benefit the wealthy disproportionately, the benefits are externalized. So there’s no way to tax them because there aren’t any explicit market transactions.

The next best thing is to tax people’s income, which serves as a rough estimate of people’s consumption.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 14, 2014 2:42 PM
Comment #380830

Then you have no accountability. What you are describing is a system that is inherently wasteful.

If a service is provided, a cost is associated with it, and a fee is placed on it. If a service is rendered to a consumer a price is paid for that service by the consumer of that service. Who benefits from that service is extranious to the service itself.

For example; if an air conditioner installer renders his services to a condominium owner and installs an air conditioner in the condominium, the service is provided and the fee is paid. The benefit of that service is enjoyed by the rentors of the condominium. The renters do not continue to pay a fee to the air conditioner installer because the installer is no longer providing the service.

The same can be said for government when it provides a service.

My Version of Conservatism would account for every dollar used to support every service rendered.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 14, 2014 3:10 PM
Comment #380834
For example; if an air conditioner installer renders his services to a condominium owner and installs an air conditioner in the condominium, the service is provided and the fee is paid. The benefit of that service is enjoyed by the rentors of the condominium. The renters do not continue to pay a fee to the air conditioner installer because the installer is no longer providing the service.

In this example, the cost of the installation is passed onto the tenants in the form of higher rents. This doesn’t work for externalized benefits.

For example, a government run military protects a wealthy person’s assets from being pillaged by an invading army. This is a service with external benefits because it is impossible to parse what share of military expenditures benefits this person and what share benefits his neighbor.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 14, 2014 6:33 PM
Comment #380839

Excellent points, WW.

Posted by: roy ellis at July 14, 2014 9:17 PM
Comment #380840

Once this service is passed to the tenent it is no longer a service provided by the installer. There are no externalized benefits the government can claim after a service is provided. All benefits received by the purchase of the service belongs to the consumer, not the government.

Defense:

The constitution provides for the common defense of the united states, not for the security of a wealthy person’s assets. In fact, a standing army is not called for either.

When Texas was an independent country, and it’s independence was threatened by Mexico, was it the United States government that fought by it’s side? No, it wasn’t. It was people who thought Texan Independence was something worth risking their life, limb, and property for. They went to Texas on their own accord, fought for Texas, and no doubt reaped the benefits for doing so, or died trying.

Texas won it’s independence, not because it relied on the federal government, but because it took it upon itself to win it’s own independence. So should a wealthy person who ventures outside the borders of these united states.

Again, the constitution mandates the federal government must provide security for the borders of the united states. It’s only obligation is to the borders, not to the assets abroad owned by the wealthy.

My Version of Conservatism does not include a standing army.


Posted by: Weary Willie at July 14, 2014 9:47 PM
Comment #380843

Weary Willie,

I was referring to assets that are located domestically.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 15, 2014 10:29 AM
Comment #380845
Once this service is passed to the tenant it is no longer a service provided by the installer. There are no externalized benefits the government can claim after a service is provided. All benefits received by the purchase of the service belongs to the consumer, not the government.
This example (which you have constructed) is not an example of an externalized benefit. Externalities occur in economics when property rights are hard to define. In this case, the property rights are very easily defined: After the installation, it is very clear that the homeowner owns the AC system and has complete ownership of the AC system’s benefits. The homeowner can subsequently resell or rent the residence to a tenant for a mutually negotiated price, which by default includes the price of the AC system. There are no externalities here. Posted by: Warren Porter at July 15, 2014 10:43 AM
Comment #380846

What externalities are you refering to?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 15, 2014 11:01 AM
Comment #380847

Perhaps it would be better to back up for a moment in order to ensure we are understanding what we are writing:

Earlier, you agreed that government ought to have a role ensuring that everyone has a right to a fair trial. Both of us support the expenditure of taxpayer dollars to provide counsel to everyone charged with a crime. However, neither of us support the expenditure of taxpayer dollars to provide a pony to everyone who wants one. Why is that? Why do we discriminate between these two services?

I already have my answer. The existence of a fairly executed Justice system benefits not only those immediately affected (defendants, victims, etc). but society as a whole. Because our government reliably provides justice, I can feel comfortable in my daily life. When I sign a contract, I am confident it will be enforced. When I may fear for my safety, I am confident that anyone who wrongs me will have to face the consequences. In other words, there are benefits to having a properly run judicial system that are external to those who directly participate in it. In other words, those benefits are externalized, because people do not pay for the service in proportion to the utility they gain from it.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 15, 2014 12:18 PM
Comment #380848

Everybody benefits from a functional justice system. We can agree it is a valuable function and our country cannot survive without it.

Our discussion comes back to what Ron called “it”.

But also as long as you don’t expect me to pay for it.

The right to travel is guaranteed in the constitution. A pony can be used to travel from one place to another. Does that mean everyone has the right to a pony? No, it doesn’t, because one person would have to give up the pony before another person could gain one.

The right to own property is guaranteed in the constitution. That does not mean a person is given a home at the expense of those who supply the material and labor to build it.

No one is guaranteed a service at another’s expense.

There are no costs associated with granting the right to travel. There are no costs associated with granting the right to own property.

There are costs associated with actually exercising those rights. Protection given by a police force and fire department is usually paid for by property taxes. Property owners benefit most from that protection. It has a quantifiable cost and it is paid for in a way described by the laws made by the community it serves. No one has a right to their own policeman and firetruck because there is a cost associated with them that must be paid by someone.

No one has a right to a road when exercising their right to travel. Those costs are paid when a person chooses to purchase and drive an automobile.

Those costs are best and most efficiently paid for when they are utilized. A consumption tax is the most effective way to acquire the funds needed. Property taxes guarantee a police and fire department is available when needed. Gasoline and excise taxes are used to lay and maintain roads.

So, when we are referring to “it”, we are referring to costs associated with the choice to exercise that right because a right, in and of itself, bears no cost by existing.

The 16th and 17th amendments bears the greatest responsibility for people assuming a want is a right. My Version of Conservatism would repeal the 16th amendment and reinstate the funding mechanisms originally defined in the constitution. My Version of Conservatism would also repeal the 17th amendment to return to the states the ability to check and balance the people’s wants with it’s ability to pay for them.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 15, 2014 2:50 PM
Comment #380849
Everybody benefits from a functional justice system. We can agree it is a valuable function and our country cannot survive without it.

In other words, the benefits are externalized.

Does that mean everyone has the right to a pony? No, it doesn’t, because one person would have to give up the pony before another person could gain one.

Why doesn’t the same logic work for public defenders? Legal counsel is a scarce resource that commands a high price in the free market. Giving people free lawyers costs taxpayer money and/or a lawyer’s income/salary.

No one is guaranteed a service at another’s expense.
Except you already agreed that everyone is guaranteed legal services. Even if those services come at another’s expense, we still agreed they ought to be rendered.
There are no costs associated with granting the right to travel. There are no costs associated with granting the right to own property.
However, there are costs associated with a functional legal system. Yet we agree everyone has a right to free legal counsel, but they do not have a right to a free pony. Posted by: Warren Porter at July 15, 2014 3:21 PM
Comment #380850

Perhaps the key word in that example is “fair”. It wouldn’t be fair to pile on the enormous ability of the government to provide prosecution without also providing the ability of the accused to a defense. Since the cost of a prosecution is bore by the taxpayer, it would be fair to also have the taxpayer bear the cost of a public defender when the defendant cannot do so.

It was just 1963 when the public defender was first considered a “right”. It is, in fact, a want defined by the court as a right. Just as the cost of prosecution is bore by the taxpayer the court has determined so should be the defense.

When you look at it from the perspective of my last comment. People have a right to a fair trial, not a high priced, educated lawyer. We choose to have a permanent prosecutor on hand, just as we choose to have a permanent police force on hand. We choose to have a full-time judge on hand just as we have a fire department on 24 hour stand-by. We could choose to provide a mechanism to guarantee a fair trial without costs. It would simply have to be done as it was before crime was considered a normal function of society and laws were passed as a matter of satisfying the politicians need to do something.

My Version of Conservatism would not include a micro-managed society by the federal government.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 15, 2014 4:00 PM
Comment #380851
Perhaps the key word in that example is “fair”. It wouldn’t be fair to pile on the enormous ability of the government to provide prosecution without also providing the ability of the accused to a defense. Since the cost of a prosecution is bore by the taxpayer, it would be fair to also have the taxpayer bear the cost of a public defender when the defendant cannot do so.

It certainly would be unfair to have publically funded prosecution without publically funded defense. However, this clearly violates Ron’s statement “But also as long as you don’t expect me to pay for it”. It turns out there are circumstances where I do have the right to do pretty much whatever I want…even if I expect you (or Ron) to pay for it. It seems the only way we can adhere to Ron’s declaration as well as protect the unalienable right to a fair trial would be to do away with publicly funded prosecution entirely, but I’m pretty sure that is not the route you wish to take.

It was just 1963 when the public defender was first considered a “right”. It is, in fact, a want defined by the court as a right. Just as the cost of prosecution is bore by the taxpayer the court has determined so should be the defense.

The right to counsel is a right. Period. It is not “a want defined by the court as a right”. If it were, then it wouldn’t be a right. Sometimes, a government abuses its authority in order to prevent a right from being exercised, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a right. For instance, the existence of the Alien and Sedition Acts never abrogated the fact that everyone has an unalienable right to free speech.

We could choose to provide a mechanism to guarantee a fair trial without costs. It would simply have to be done as it was before crime was considered a normal function of society and laws were passed as a matter of satisfying the politicians need to do something.

Are you endorsing the idea that society could function without our current legal/justice system whereby politicians criminalize behavior by passing laws and the police/courts enforce those laws by prosecuting people suspected of violating them?

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 15, 2014 5:40 PM
Comment #380860

Our current legal/justice system would work just fine if it wasn’t overburdened with superfluous laws, what I call knee-jerk legislation. It is getting to the point where all human activity must be regulated by the government before it can be practiced.

So called hate crimes are unnecessary because the crime committed is already defined. Why the perpetrator committed the crime is superfluous and shouldn’t be taking the time of the court, or adding to the cost of educating lawyers. The same goes for laws legislating bullying behavior. The action is already illegal, it’s called battery. Teasing and taunting used to be part of growing up. It’s part of what’s called growing a skin. Now we wonder why people get “offended” so easily. It’s because we have knee-jerk legislation and a judicial system that lets people believe they can prosecute people for offending them.

The right to council is a right as far as it says the court cannot deny the defendant representation. It doesn’t mean the court must pay for the defense. If that was the case we would elect a prosecutor and a public defender and a defender would be mandated for every case regardless of the defendant’s ability to pay. No, the cost of the public defender paid by taxpayers is a want, not a right.


Posted by: Weary Willie at July 15, 2014 11:59 PM
Comment #380863
The right to council is a right as far as it says the court cannot deny the defendant representation. It doesn’t mean the court must pay for the defense. If that was the case we would elect a prosecutor and a public defender and a defender would be mandated for every case regardless of the defendant’s ability to pay. No, the cost of the public defender paid by taxpayers is a want, not a right.

Can you please stop shifting your position back & forth? First you said that you support the expenditure of taxpayer money to fund public defense lawyers because you believed that having legal counsel is a right, but now you are claiming that this is a want, not a right. So tell me, do you support the interpretation of the sixth amendment established by the Supreme Court in Gideon v. Wainright or not? I’m pretty sure that you do support the right to a publically funded defense, but that you feel obliged to dance around this issue because it means you don’t have to answer my other question (the one regarding ponies).

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 16, 2014 1:54 PM
Comment #380866
A defendant’s right to a fair trial should have the same stature as the people’s right to prosecute crimes.

That’s what I said.

The government has it’s prosecutor and people unable to afford an attorney have a public defender. That does not make access to a public defender a right. If it was, then everyone, regardless of economic status, would have access to a public defender. You cannot grant a right to only some of the people. You can’t say it’s a right to give council to poor people and not to affluent people. So, granting the services of a public defender to only poor people is a want, not a right.

The people choose to pay for a public defender just as they choose to pay for a prosecutor, a fireman, or a policeman.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 16, 2014 6:12 PM
Comment #380867

Weary Willie,

If it was, then everyone, regardless of economic status, would have access to a public defender.

Everyone has access to public defenders regardless of economic status. It just happens to be that people who can afford their own lawyers almost always prefer to hire their own counsel than rely on the state.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 16, 2014 6:40 PM
Comment #380868

That is not the case. If there are means to pay for a lawyer the court will deny a public defender.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 16, 2014 7:12 PM
Comment #380875
….because my Father taught me the value of hard work and the value of having a job and the freedom of supporting myself and the value of not giving that hard earned money away to someone who does very little to deserve it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-rise-of-the-non-working-rich_b_5589684.html

Conservatism never lets reality get in the way of myths does it Weary?

Posted by: j2t2 at July 16, 2014 10:50 PM
Comment #380878

What are you saying, j2t2? What myths are you refering to?

What did the government do to earn the money you think it should take from those people who made it? Do you think it’s the government’s money?

Did you notice the line about:

Nearly three-quarters of those over age 69, and 61 percent of boomers (between the ages of 50 and 68), were the first in their generation to accumulate significant wealth.

Who did they inherit their money from, j2t2? Nobody. They made it themselves. Why do they fit into the class you want to punish?

My father worked all his life to accumulate enough money to distribute to his children when he passes. Enough to make a difference in our lives. Why do you think you should punish him for that? What makes you think the government deserves it more than his children?

The article you link to is simply class warfare. There is nothing in that article’s subject matter other than envy and a desire to punish wealth. The author of that article covets that money simply because it is concentrated in the hands of the fewest people.

The myth is thinking it’s the government’s money.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 16, 2014 11:59 PM
Comment #380892
What did the government do to earn the money you think it should take from those people who made it?

Well for starters the federal government provides for the general welfare of the country. That isn’t free. While we all have axes to grind on different programs or departments the fact is they are there by law. Our obligation as citizens is to provide the money to adequately fund the government as it performs it’s obligations under the law.

Do you think it’s the government’s money?
Once the taxes are paid yes I do. As a taxpayer I have a say in the process through an elected representative in both houses of Congress. That is what a republic is Weary. You want to micro manage these funds collected by the government yet don’t want the government to micro manage the country. Sounds very authoritarian to me Weary.
My father worked all his life to accumulate enough money to distribute to his children when he passes. Enough to make a difference in our lives. Why do you think you should punish him for that?

First of all Weary are you suggesting you are a silver spoon kid ;) Secondly your father worked to support his family as most fathers did, not to accumulate funds for you after he passes. Third he has passes he is not punished (a conservative myth) nor are you, The estate tax is a tax on the money you receive as income from you father’s estate.


What makes you think the government deserves it more than his children?

For different reasons, building a non working aristocracy is bad for the country Weary, Secondly isn’t the definition of inheritance a nanny state thing? You want to live off your fathers labor not your own?

Posted by: j2t2 at July 17, 2014 7:06 PM
Comment #380895

Ya know Weary, you make a case for this libertarian conservatism you adhere to( a weak laughable case at best IMHO)but lets talk a bit about what conservatism has done to the country the past few years. I think it is important because you guy stick together whether you are Christian conservatives, libertarian conservatives, talk radio conservatives or JBS/teabagger conservatives.

Conservatives preached far and wide the need to save the country from the spending by our government after the conservative caused great recession of 2008. They demanded austerity, which has failed us. When do you guys accept responsibility for this fraud on the American public?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/16/austerity-cost-633-billion_n_5592026.html

Conservatives have glorified the “job creators” for many years yet the growth of jobs has been steady but less than stellar due to conservative policy. When conservatives were in the white house they created many government jobs yet when they were ousted they withheld the money to continue these jobs prolonging the great recession. How do you justify your conservatism with the facts and reality of the poor job of governing conservatives have done.

Isn’t there a point in time when you can accept you have been led down the wrong road by the myths misinformation, half truths and outright lies of conservative leaders?

Posted by: j at July 17, 2014 9:58 PM
Comment #380896

Then why aren’t you in favor of taking money from everyone evenly? We’re also talking about the federal government. It has no business mandating many of those different programs and departments.

What you fail to realize is that it hasn’t been paid in taxes. The hit piece you linked to favors creating taxes to take this money for no other reason than these people have more of it than others. I don’t want to micromanage funds. Many of them aren’t supposted to even exist on the federal level. It certainly isn’t the business of the federal government to micromanage the entire economy of every person in this country. It’s physically impossible for the government to do so. It’s a monument to arrogance for our elected officials to think they successfully micromanage the economy of every individual in this country.

How bold of you to assume to know what my father did and does. In fact, he told me his intentions just today over coffee. He made his decisions based on what he was to pass on to his children. Specific decisions based on that very idea, the welfare of his children. How can you be so smug to tell me what my father does and doesn’t do?

Who are you to say what I can and can’t do with my inheritance? I thought this was a free country! What’s so free about having my property extorted from me because someone else doesn’t think I deserve it? That is pure greed and envy.

Why don’t you just reinstitute the Stamp Act, Your Highness?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 17, 2014 10:00 PM
Comment #380897

j, It’s been a very long time since I’ve seen conservatism practiced in Washington, D.C. I don’t think you would recognize true conservatism if you saw it. Many are simply afraid of it. Many have no idea how to practice it.

It is very unfair to blame our current position on conservatism because conservatism doesn’t exist in Washington D.C.

Everyone is under the impression this country is a capitalist country. It hasn’t been a capitalist country for a very long time. It’s a socialist country. Many of the policies in Washington D.C. are socialist in nature designed to keep those in power right where they are, in power.

The whole point of this post is to give you my version of Conservatism in hopes someone on the left would give me their version of liberalism. No one has done that yet. I will ask you, j. What is your vision of liberalism? What would the United States look like if all of your liberal policies were granted?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 17, 2014 10:20 PM
Comment #380906

That is your definition of conservatism, there are many definitions and nuances to any definition of a political ideology. You keep wanting someone to tell you definitively what liberalism is but if they were to try it would be their definition of liberalism and I dare say there would be many others. If you are truly looking to understand liberalism you would do better to try to do that through your own resources rather than demanding someone explain to you what their version is.

The United States of America is not liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, independent, racist, bigoted, accepting, tolerant, christian, muslim, buddhist, taoist, atheist or secular. It is all of that and much, much more. E pluribus unum, out of many one.

I consider it an honor and privilege to pay taxes. If there are those among us that do not pay taxes I pity them whether they are capable or not of doing so is not my concern. I have always considered myself fortunate to be able to pay taxes and will continue to do so. I am glad I can feel that way and feel sorry for anyone who cannot.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 18, 2014 2:38 PM
Comment #380909
Then why aren’t you in favor of taking money from everyone evenly?

Because the progressive tax system as we seen in the glory days of the middle class in this country worked better than the conservative plan we have today Weary. You do realize that the tax burden imposed upon us the past decade by the continuing tax cuts called for by conservatives has left the system upside down Weary. Capital gains taxed at 15% while labor is taxed at a higher rate has caused the tax system to be skewed in favor of the rich.

We’re also talking about the federal government. It has no business mandating many of those different programs and departments.

That is matter of opinion Weary. The fact is over time our elected representatives have passed laws that created different departments and programs based upon the needs of the country. We became a “shining star” due in part to some of these programs. Since the Reagan era the star has faded a bit a we have been fooled by conservative movement leaders IMHO.

The hit piece you linked to favors creating taxes to take this money for no other reason than these people have more of it than others.

I assume you are talking about Reich’s fact based blog post Weary. It is far from a hit piece. He even explains why he is suggesting the reinstatement of the estate tax and creating the wealth tax. Your response is wrong, just more conservative myth being spewed. Try reading the whole post and you will discover that he is comparing the boomer generation and the millennial generation and how things have changed in the short time since the estate law were repealed.

Who are you to say what I can and can’t do with my inheritance? I thought this was a free country! What’s so free about having my property extorted from me because someone else doesn’t think I deserve it? That is pure greed and envy.

Weary, I don’t begrudge you your inheritance at all, not a bit of envy in me. Except that I work for my income and then I pay taxes on the income I earn. You seem to want this additional income, your inheritance, free. Something for nothing. Remember just like you would pay income taxes on any other income, anything you inherit is income to you. You didn’t work for it another person did. And I know how conservatives feel about sharing what they worked for with other who don’t work for it. I don’t know why you would think this is any different.


Posted by: j2t2 at July 18, 2014 3:43 PM
Comment #380913
It’s been a very long time since I’ve seen conservatism practiced in Washington, D.C. I don’t think you would recognize true conservatism if you saw it.

Weary it seems you have built up some sort of delusion about conservatism. You seem to have forgotten the conservative revolution led by Reagan and the current Tea Party conservatives that have held the government hostage these past 4 year or so. You seem to forget the return to unrestrained capitalism and the resulting economic crash of 2008. You seem to forget the strong military and lowering of taxes during the first part of this century by the conservatives in Congress. I recognize true conservatism all right Weary, including the recent SCOTUS decisions forcing the religious beliefs of the “owner” onto the “worker”. The money is free speech decision, and the idolization of the most corrupt administration in recent history by conservatives.

Many are simply afraid of it. Many have no idea how to practice it.

Rightfully so, IMHO Weary, as conservatism only serves the rich and powerful and the expense of the country and the st of us. I don’t believe it is a profession that one would practice but instead an ideology that misleads followers using the force of propaganda filled myths misinformation half truths and outright lies. Perhaps that is why you don’t recognize “true conservatism” Weary, it ain’t what you think it is.

Everyone is under the impression this country is a capitalist country. It hasn’t been a capitalist country for a very long time. It’s a socialist country.

Exactly what conservative leaders want you to believe Weary. Except it just isn’t reality. The damage continues and conservative followers blame “socialist” and whatever else Beck, Jones Limbaugh and the TRC’s tell them. It was conservatives that went to war an cut taxes at the same time Weary. “Socialist” such as FDR raised taxes to fight the Nazis in WWII. Kept them high until the war debt was paid down as well. It was conservatives with their starve the bast ideology that has left us burdened with debt Weary.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 18, 2014 6:13 PM
Comment #380914

beast not bast. Sorry

Posted by: j2t2 at July 18, 2014 6:14 PM
Comment #380917

I don’t know what country you live in, j2t2, because this country still has a progressive tax system. And how can a tax burden come from a tax cut? Tax cuts are less of a burden, not more of a burden. You should say, “Do you know how much of a burden our out of control spending has caused?” That’s what you should be saying.

How much is enough, j2t2?

Throughout your entire comment you’ve blamed conservatives. Where are these conservatives, j2t2? How long have they been in power to wreak such havok on our country? Point to them by name.

Speak4all, I can only assume you don’t have a clue what a liberal America would look like. It appears you are just along for a ride, where ever that takes you. Either that, or you’re smart enough to not spell it out for fear of being laughed out of town.


Posted by: Weary Willie at July 18, 2014 6:57 PM
Comment #380922

RE: Comment #380868
My mistake. You are right. Still, I believe the right to counsel is a right that should be extended to everyone, regardless of their financial status.

someone on the left would give me their version of liberalism. No one has done that yet.

I already did (see Comment #380798).

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 18, 2014 9:04 PM
Comment #380923
Warren, just for clarification, what do you include in “another’s liberty?”

Royal Flush, I missed this comment the first time around, but it is a very good question that strikes at the heart of the matter. I don’t think it is possible to summarize one’s liberty in a few sentences. The Founders couldn’t even do that when they wrote the Bill of Rights, which is why we have the 9th Amendment to the Constitution. However, I can provide you with a few examples:

* I cannot paint the walls of the room I rent without my landlord’s permission because doing so would violate his property rights.

* Industry cannot release environmental pollutants that imperil my health because doing so would violate my right to life.

* I cannot bring firearms into a Court of Law because doing so would violate people’s right to a fair trial.

* An employer may not restrict an employee’s ability to spend his/her compensation as he/she chooses because doing so would violate the employee’s property rights.

There are many more…

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 18, 2014 9:23 PM
Comment #380948
I don’t know what country you live in, j2t2, because this country still has a progressive tax system.

Yes but what I said was “Because the progressive tax system as we seen in the glory days of the middle class in this country worked better than the conservative plan we have today Weary.”
http://whathappenedtothemiddleclass.com/economy_glorydaysend.htm


And how can a tax burden come from a tax cut?

WHat do you men how, didn’t you just live through the last decade Weary. The decade when the conservative led 107th/108th congress demanded war, the conservative president led us to war and then they cut taxes and charged the war and about everything else on credit cards. The burden is the debt from bad fiscal management as I have described. So that is how a tax cut can become a burden.

Throughout your entire comment you’ve blamed conservatives.

But you haven’t disputed any of the factual information, Weary, I have noticed.

Where are these conservatives, j2t2? How long have they been in power to wreak such havok on our country? Point to them by name.

GWB,Cheney,Hasert, Lott, Thurmond, DeLay Blunt, Armey and so on were all elected representatives that went to war and cut taxes burdening us with debt.


Tax cuts are less of a burden, not more of a burden. You should say, “Do you know how much of a burden our out of control spending has caused?” That’s what you should be saying.

Not with the bad fiscal mismanagement the conservatives displayed.The fats are there Weary, the money for whatever programs you don’t like was budgeted an money was borrowed whilst at war and whilst cutting taxes during decent economic times. Foolishness like the prescription drug plan for medicare passed into law without being funded yet taxes were cut and we were borrowing money. Simple as that Weary. Yopu can complain about out of control spending but the fact is this same group grew government, including the payroll while doing the other things I just mentioned. Conservatives the lot. Babbling about controlling spending is just that, babble. Good economic sense dictates tax cuts at the right time, during war isn’t he right time IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 18, 2014 10:12 PM
Comment #380977

Where do you stand on New York’s Big Gulp Ban? What about the Chicago and Washington D.C. gun control laws? These do not infringe on anyone else’s rights.

I do not believe government has a right to infringe on anyone’s ability to purchase sugar laden drinks. I also firmly believe government cannot infringe on anyone’s right to possess a firearm, insane and criminals aside.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 18, 2014 11:42 PM
Comment #380982
I do not believe government has a right to infringe on anyone’s ability to purchase sugar laden drinks
NYC never prohibited anyone from purchasing any sweetened beverages.
I also firmly believe government cannot infringe on anyone’s right to possess a firearm, insane and criminals aside.
So you support allowing people to bring firearms into Court? Posted by: Warren Porter at July 19, 2014 10:26 AM
Comment #380983

NYC banned the size of a sugary drink. What business does government have prohibiting the size of products sold?

I support the right to possess a firearm. Whether they could bring it into a courtroom is up to the judge just like it would be with the owner of a restaurant or the owner of a home.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 19, 2014 10:40 AM
Comment #380986

How do you explain this, Warren Porter?

Drought: CA Couple Faces Fines for not Watering Lawn Enough

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 19, 2014 11:26 AM
Comment #380990
NYC banned the size of a sugary drink. What business does government have prohibiting the size of products sold?

It is illiberal for government to prohibit adults from purchasing inappropriately large sugary beverages.

I support the right to possess a firearm. Whether they could bring it into a courtroom is up to the judge just like it would be with the owner of a restaurant or the owner of a home.

Court rooms are not the property of a judge, but rather they are public property. Therefore the analogy to a restaurant or home is baseless.

Drought: CA Couple Faces Fines for not Watering Lawn Enough
The aquifer that supplies water is not anyone’s personal property and its use is managed by the state of California. When there is a drought, the state can justify restricting access to the aquifer. The city of Glendora has no business mandating that people water their lawns… doing so is completely illiberal. Posted by: Warren Porter at July 19, 2014 12:48 PM
Comment #380997

Warren Porter, just for kicks and giggles I think you should go into your local judge’s courtroom and point to the crowd and tell the judge that his courtroom belongs to those people.

It wouldn’t be a really long period of time before you found yourself on the other side of the door of that courtroom. Any judge worth his salt owns his courtroom. If you were to commit to your statement you would have to admit it is illiberal to ban weapons in a courtroom.

I’m glad we agree on the liberal perspective toward limiting someone’s product. If it’s a safe product and stupid people can play with it then the government shouldn’t have anything to say about what size it is or how much it costs (barring the tax burden society places on unwanted influences), or what it looks like.

It’s also illiberal to be harrassing someone about how their property looks to other people. Their neighbors could harrass them, and feel free doing it, but the government has no business punishing someone because it, collectively, doesn’t like the way their property looks. Heck, does that government know if that property is now a prime habitat for one of those endangered species running around in that state?

Now, I want to stress something and make it very clear. Those things are, not only, illiberal, they are also not My Version of Conservatism! They are not conservative actions. A conservative would not try to limit the size of a product, the market should. A conservative would not fine a person for the appearance of their property. But a neighbor could embarrass or offend him any and all times if he so desired.

We agree on some things, why can’t we admit it?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 20, 2014 12:23 AM
Comment #381001
just for kicks and giggles I think you should go into your local judge’s courtroom and point to the crowd and tell the judge that his courtroom belongs to those people.

It wouldn’t be a really long period of time before you found yourself on the other side of the door of that courtroom. Any judge worth his salt owns his courtroom. If you were to commit to your statement you would have to admit it is illiberal to ban weapons in a courtroom.

I’d like to see a judge try to sell his courtroom to another person (they can’t). Although we generally give judges broad latitude to control their own courtroom, courthouses remain public property (which is why judges are denied basic elements of property rights such as the right to buy and sell). As public property, they remain beholden to the public’s laws.

Those things are, not only, illiberal, they are also not My Version of Conservatism! They are not conservative actions. A conservative would not try to limit the size of a product, the market should.
To me, conservativism is all about placing limits on individual’s right to live their lives as they wish. If those aren’t your beliefs, then you might be a liberal (albeit not a progressive). Posted by: Warren Porter at July 20, 2014 10:55 AM
Comment #381011
A conservative would not try to limit the size of a product,…

But they would try to limit many other things, here is two.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/19/andy-harris-marijuana_n_5600536.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-conservative-case-limit-voting

Posted by: j2t2 at July 20, 2014 8:42 PM
Comment #381111

michael kors fulton handbag
louis vuitton briefcase
michael kors shades
louis vuitton men shoes
handbag coach outlet
coach outlet coach
online coach outlet
authentic michael kors outlet online
cheap oakley m frame sunglasses
louis vuitton satchel
louis vuitton louis
coach bags outlet store online
michael kors handbag outlet online
oakley coupons
red bottom shoes designer
coach purses sale
cheap real coach purses
oakley coupon code
coach legacy
louis vuitton handbags online
oakley for women
louis vuitton outlet online store
coach outlet watches
michael michael kors outlet store
louis vuitton totes
oakley fat cat
kors watch
knockoff coach handbags
michael kors coupons
louis vuitton bags on sale
christian louboutin flats
men red bottoms shoes
coach outlet canada online
coach baby bags
discount oakley sunglasses online
discounted louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin ankle boots
new michael kors bags
oakley e wire
oakley gascan white
louis vuitton never full bag
michael kors watches for men
oakley monster dog sunglasses
michael kors navy handbag
cheap oakley sunglasses store
oakley holbrook sunglasses
red bottom heels shoes
michael kors outlet reviews
oakley store near me
coach official outlet
michael kors jet set
heels with the red bottoms
price of red bottom shoes
cheap loui vuitton bags
louis vuitton handbags on sale
replica michael kors
oakley outlet store locator
oakley outlet online shop
michael kors watches for women
oakley factory outlet
oakley snow pants
michael kors shoes women
oakley promo codes
michael kors outlet handbags sale
coach outlet purses
original louis vuitton
red bottom shoes wiki
michael kors watches outlet online
christian louboutin black pumps
coach online factory store
michael kors bags outlet online
shoes with the red bottoms
michael kors logo handbags
coach purse coupons
michael kors outlet cheap purses
michael kors black
green coach purse
oakley sunglasses store locator
coach handbag outlet store online
red bottoms christian louboutin shoes
where can you buy louis vuitton
red bottom shoes.com
coach shoes outlet store online
christian louboutin banana
where to buy michael kors
cheap red bottom shoes online
louis vuitton outlet store online authentic
women michael kors watch
replica red bottoms
louis vuitton artsy
cheap michael kors purses
oakley dispatch
coach purse
where can i find red bottom shoes
michael michael kors handbags outlet
michael kors hand bags
red bottom shoes christian louboutin sale
michael kors home
official michael kors outlet online
coach outlet factory online
red christian louboutins
michael kors return policy
red bottom flats for women
used coach purses
louis vuitton handbags knockoffs
coach purses cheap
michael kors factory store online
micheal kors purse
coach outlet online sale
popular michael kors handbags
coach sale
cheap coach wallets
louis vuitton outlet dallas
louis vuitton wholesale
louis vuitton online
michael kors sale outlet
michael kors leather jackets
michael kors chronograph
oakley women
louis vuitton bags purses
christian louboutin mens sale
michael kors outlet coupons
louboutin san francisco
coach handbags on sale
louis vuitton purse sale
michael kors watches
oakley fuel cell sunglasses
buy louis vuitton bags
coach outlet online factory
christian louboutin red bottoms for men
oakley sunglasses outlet
michael kors pumps
coach.com outlet online
michael kors women
oakley sunglasses outlet online store
louis vuitton logo
michael kors winter boots
coach store
oakley sunglass coupons
where can i find louis vuitton outlet stores
buy louis vuitton handbags
bolsa michael kors
michael kors portland
red bottoms cheap
coach outlet tannersville pa
oakley sunglasses knockoffs
official michael kors factory outlet online
oakley prescription lenses
loui vuitton purses on sale
oakley livestrong
loui vuitton purse
coach baby bag
christian louboutin bibi
louis vuitton online outlet
louis vuitton baby bag
michael kors shoes for men
michael kors watch silver
coach coupons
michael kors handbags cheap online
michael kors clutch
coach outlet store online shoes
youth oakley sunglasses
louis vuitton sneakers for men
red bottoms shoes for women
louis vuitton backpacks
handbags by louis vuitton
coach outlet new york
red bottom shoes for women on sale
coach poppy wristlet
michael kors watches men
where to buy red bottoms heels
louboutin wedding shoes
coach c
coach factory outlet online 70 off
cheap michael kors shoes
red bottom heels tumblr
authentic louis vuitton outlet store
pre owned authentic louis vuitton
coach outlet freeport maine
oakley sunglasses stores
loui vuitton store
white christian louboutin
official michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet store online shopping
oakley elevate
coach outlet handbags online
michael kors handbags sale outlet
oakley wiretap
affordable michael kors purses
where to buy authentic louis vuitton online
high heels with red bottom
authentic louis vuitton handbags outlet
michael kors cheap outlet
coach bags outlet sale
coach clearance handbags
michael kors store locations
louis vuitton sneakers for men
coach wallets on sale
michael kors jelly sandals
oakley aviator sunglasses
what are the shoes with the red bottoms
coach factory online outlet
oakley radar path sunglasses
michael kors berkley clutch
discount louis vuitton purses
online coach factory outlet
michael kors silver watch
coach clutch purse
michael kors men watch
coach factory outlet sawgrass
louis vuitton wristlet
christian louboutin red bottoms price
oakley wholesale
the coach outlet store online
the coach outlet store online
cheap louis vuitton purses
christian louboutin loafers
oakley sunglasses cheap
buy christian louboutin online
pink oakley sunglasses
coach factory outlet online shopping
coach factory store online
coach outlet wrentham
michael kors shoes outlet online
shoe with red bottom
michael kors pants
louis vuitton factory outlet
coach sale online
oakley oil rig sunglasses
cheap red bottom pumps
oakley apparel
shoe with red bottoms
coach bags outlet sale
coach outlet online factory sale
michael kors brasil
coach factory outlets
red bottoms on sale
all louis vuitton bags
louis vuitton bags on sale cheap
michael kors clothing outlet
oakley outlet website
sale christian louboutin shoes
michael kors retail stores
red bottoms cheap shoes
louis vuitton damier
louis vuitton swimwear
kors michael kors
coach online factory
clearance coach handbags
coach messenger bag
michael kors watches discount
purse coach
best price on michael kors handbags
louis vuitton sunglasses for men
michael kors factory outlet locations
coach shoes outlet store online
oakley vault store
louboutin wedges
coach bags on sale at outlet
purple oakley sunglasses
michael kors return policy
michael kors outlet handbags sale
price of red bottom heels
outlet michael kors online
michael kors purses outlet
women watches michael kors
oakley tumbler
black red bottom heels
cheap oakley eyewear
oakley sports sunglasses
coach tote outlet
oakley cheap
louis vuitton tote bag
michael kors online outlet
louis vuitton purses cheap
louis vuitton totally
black louis vuitton
louis vuitton for sale
michael kors outlet handbags online
life coach nyc
coach outlets locations
louis vuitton backpack
oakley sunglasses whisker
louis vuitton key pouch
bolsa michael kors
oakley sunglass outlet store
usa coach brand bags
coach oulet
clearance coach
nearest coach outlet
loui vuitton outlet store online
coach swingpack
louis vuitton speedy 35
coach handbags outlet store online
oakley for women
red bottom black heels
louis vuitton neverfull pm
coach outlet shop
cheap red bottoms for sale
louis vuitton purses discount
coach handbags outlet stores
louis vuitton mahina
louis vuitton jewelry
coach clutch purse
red bottom shoes price
louis vuitton leather
coach factory outlet sawgrass
michael kors heels
coach outlet tulare ca
official michael kors online
oakley inmate
coach outlet williamsburg
oakley sunglasses where to buy
michael kors shoes on sale
michael kors outlet coupon
michael kors rose gold
oakley sunglasses outlet online store
discount oakley
coach factory online outlet
frogskin oakley
louboutin prices
cheap oakley sunglasses
handbags coach
michael kors collection
oakley juliet
oakley flak jacket polarized
louis vuitton handbags purses
oakley dealer
coachhandbags
oakley sunglasses for men
my red bottom shoes
red coach purse
loui vuitton outlet store online
michael kors accessories
michael kors watches for cheap
real louis vuitton bags on sale
oakley splice
louis vuitton luggage set
oakley sunglasses holbrook
new michael kors handbags
coach outlet clearance online
michael kors hamilton handbag
red bottoms heels for women
maudissima christian louboutin
christian louboutin simple pump 85
michael kors coupon
oakley outlet coupons
michael kors retail stores
michael kors purses
michael kors outlet handbags sale
loui vuitton purses for cheap
what brand are red bottom shoes
michael kors for sale
michael kors outlet sale online
red bottoms for women price
red bottoms men shoes
oakley s
us michael kors
coach outlet store online clearance
where to buy louis vuitton purses
red bottoms heels for cheap
louis vuitton monogram
michael kors mk5038
coach outlet factory store online
oakley backpack
louis vuitton mens belt
oakley shoes
coach purses clearance
oakley jupiter sunglasses
small coach purse
cheap red bottoms shoes
official coach outlet store online
oakley styles
shop louis vuitton handbags
black pumps with red bottoms
michael kors dresses
loui vuitton store
coach baby bag
louis vuitton cheap outlet
louis vuitton outlet online

Posted by: haokeai at July 21, 2014 2:51 AM
Post a comment