February 27, 2009

THE PARTY'S OVER!

As you may have noticed, I haven't been writing much about politics lately. After 8 years of railing at the Bush administration and railing for whoever the democratic presidential candidates were, I really needed some time off to say HALLELUJAH WE WON!, bask in the glory of success and get all inspired by the audacity of hope and such. Take heart that a victory for one minority is/should be a victory for my minority too.



Besides, the economic meltdown has dominated Obama's entire presidency so far. Honey, I can't balance a check book, much less comprehend international credit crunches. So I've been content to sit back and hope that O is doing the right thing to salvage our economy. There are rumblings now that he may NOT have a sound plan for the economy and I am loathe to reward the banks with my hard-earned money because they failed to rip me off in a way that was profitable for them. And I do recall the moment during the democratic primaries when feisty old Gravel bellowed "Follow the campaign dollars!" in reference to which side Hillary and Obama's bread is buttered on--the side of people or that of corporations. And I also remember McCain claiming during a debate that Obama had received the largest campaign contribution on record from failed mortgage giant Fannie Mae--but statements like this are misleading since it's conceivable that Fannie Mae donated more $ to each campaign in each successive presidential election. Still, you don't get to be on top in this or probably any other nation unless you make some dirty deals with some dirty dogs.

Obama's speech was phenomenal--he criticized us and made us cheer for our own shortcomings! Is Penny Arcade writing his speeches now? Good thing Dick Cheney no longer sits behind the president on these occasions--his rotted old heart would have blown if he'd had to stand up and applaud that many times. The president did fail to address one issue very close to my heart--I was waiting with bated breath to hear him say "Suck it, bitch! Yeah, Lady Bunny! Get on your fucking knees and deep throat my great big stimulus package!" Oh well, a girl can dream. (And so can an old fat man in a wig!) Michelle actually looked so glowing and radiant at the speech that I don't think I'm going to have any luck snagging a Monica Lewinsky with her fine husband. And what about that little girl they trotted out? Ty'sheoma? Her name alone calls for a complete overhaul of the education system in her native South Carolina--what dunce would think Ty'sheoma is a pretty name? Reading it, I'd think it was the name of a disease if it weren't for the absurd, meaningless apostrophe a la Mo'nique! But I do give Ty Ty major kudos for working a frosted lavender satin dress with matching nails! If she'd thrown on a liquid lavender eyeliner above her lash, she would have made fashion history.



But I digress. Obama delivering an inspiring and eloquent speech ain't news to me. However, Rachel Maddow delivered a terribly disappointing bit of news on MSNBC right before his universally-praised address. Obama is breaking his campaign promise to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months. He'll begin the withdrawals 3 months later and maintain a "residual force" of tens of thousands of troops for peacekeeping. As Miss Maddow pointed out, this is a slap in the face to those of us who voted for Obama because we are against the war in Iraq. In fact, Obama's plan now mimics Bush's withdrawal plan! That's the second time in one week that I've heard a similarity drawn between the two presidents--Obama has liberals screaming that he's continuing Bush's abuse of executive privilege and state secrets contrary to his own campaign promises of transparency in the White House should he come to inhabit it. Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald has written an article entitled "Obama fails his first test on civil liberties and accountability -- resoundingly and disgracefully"--read it on SALON.COM. Whether you read the article or not, secrets and transparency obvously can't coexist. Unless you mean Secret's new invisible deodorant available in Powder Fresh and (!) Vanilla Chai. Christ! I realize that part of globalization is the increase in once foreign sights, tastes and smells like the all-powerful pomegranate which is now in every juice drink and cocktail worldwide, but does has anyone ever REALLY stepped out of the shower craving any flavor of chai under their arms? Is ths just me being old-fashioned (using hyphens) or is this a demented, ineffective marketing scheme? Or an effective marketing scheme for a demented consumer?



But the war in Iraq is my focus issue. And as Rachel Maddow pointed out, one can call them residual troops or peacekeeping troops or whatever you like--THEY ARE STILL US CITIZENS IN A COUNTRY WHICH WE'VE DECIMATED BEARING ARMS WHICH CAN KILL MORE IRAQIS! And as I prepare to file my taxes, I am sick to death of my tax dollars being used to murder citizens of a country which never attacked me. 80% of the country wants out of this war. GET THE FUCK OUT! Unless you wanna steal their oil like Bush did. Obama mentioned in his speech that he wanted to rethink the strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Honey, what is to rethink? Just think! We should have never been there, we were tricked into going there, and you yourself denounced the war from it's onset, SO LEAVE ALREADY! Even from a standpoint of thriftiness in a time of recession, think of the money we could contribute to the stimulus package, social security, or hell, to preserving the wetlands home of blasted salt marsh harvest mice in Nancy Pelosi's district that $30,000,000 is slated for--if we hadn't blown gazillions in an unnecessary, possibly illegal war that's made the whole world despise us. While you are rethinking this, please ask yourself, what is our goddam mission in Iraq in the first place? Keeping troops there will be expensive. And even though I've deftly mastered the delicate strategy of maneuvering the withdrawal of many a soldier's deflating cock out of my bunghole without having the cum-filled condom leak or slip off, I can't say that I know how to responsibly withdraw from a long-term military occupation of an unstable nation. But where there's a will, there's a way. During the democratic primaries, both Hillary and Obama predicted that we couldn't leave Iraq before 2013. Hogwash! Dennis Kucinich said GET OUT NOW with international (Ie--not just US) peacekeeping troops and that's why he got my vote. What can you possibly win by prolonging a horrid, pointless and expensive situation which was wrong in the first place, I ask you?

Afghanistan is a more complex situation. Some are predicting that this quagmire could be our next Vietnam. Watch this compelling trailer and see what you think. Surely, anyone who stood and applauded when Obama praised the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform don't want to see those folks wasting their lives in a poorly thought-out mess. Or rather, another poorly-thought out mess like Iraq.



SIGN THE PETITON AND WATCH THE ENTIRE VIDEO HERE: RETHINKAFGHANISTAN.COM

Again and again, the Bush administration tested us on whether or not we were paying attention. Since we clearly weren't, they screwed us again and again. Obama got elected on an I WANT YOU TO GET INVOLVED IN GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE platform. So even though we may not be too interested in sorting out the disaster which Bush started in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is our civic duty to find out the facts and act accordingly. Get in touch with the man. That's what he claimed he wanted before he got into office.

This is really the first we've heard of the war since the recession's eclipsed all other issues since Obama took office. But while we're paying attention, does Obama have this financial issue down? Not according to the recipient of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economics, Joseph Stiglitz, who thinks Obama has mixed up rescuing the banks with rescuing the bankers. He's interviewed by Amy Goodman of DemocracyNow.org and unlike many of today's female newscasters Amy is not featuring a nose job, dyed hair and show biz maquillage, so her plain, insightful bimbo-free coverage is so refreshing. It ain't about her appearance--it's about the issues. Remember that kinda news? Before she gets into the Stiglitz interview, she briefly covers two topic near and dear to my heart--and lungs. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco want to legalize marijuana for recreational use, claiming that it would generate $1 billion for his cash-strapped state. I just love it when morals fall apart in a recession--this shit could be fun, y'all! Amy then reported that Andrew Cuomo applauded a recent decision to lower the amount of "fine particlutes" in the air since the current level of the pesky particulates are responsible for 100's of premature deaths in NYC alone.

FROM THE NY TIMES BY CORNELIA DEAN, 2/24:

E.P.A. Is Told to Reconsider Its Standards on Pollutants

Bush administration standards for pollutants like soot are “contrary to law and unsupported by adequately reasoned decisionmaking,” a federal appeals court said Tuesday.

The court ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its standards for the pollutants, fine particulates, which are linked to premature death from lung cancer and heart disease and to other health problems including asthma.

When the agency embraced the standards in 2006, its own scientific staff rejected them as too lax. In Tuesday’s ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the agency “did not adequately explain” why the standards were adequate.

The decision is “a victory for the breathing public,” said Paul Cort, a lawyer with Earthjustice, who argued the case for environmental groups.

A VICTORY FOR THE BREATHING PUBLIC! I think that would include all of you! Yay! I like to breathe!

WHOLE ARTICLE: NYTIMES

JOSEPH STIGLITZ



I'm just trying trying to hype the other fine work of Amy Goodman before she launched into her detailed analysis, with Nobel prize-winning economist, of Obama's bank bail-out. Unfamiliar with banking terms, watching this video took all of my powers of concentration--as you might have guessed from this crazily-written rant!--but to save you a little time, the Joseph Stiglitz segment begins at 15:47 into her broadcast. I found it incredibly illuminating, and I'm more inclined to trust an in-depth news report which is not punctuated by commercials for banking and investment giants so that there's no conflict of interests for a change. The other thing I loved about Amy's reportage is that every time Stiglitz had me scratching my head, she popped in with a "What does that mean? question which led the brainiac money man to break it down in a Bail-Out For Dummies kinda way.

WATCH THE INTERVIEW FROM 15:47

DemocracyNow.org also provides a transcript. Here are some of Stiglitz's most interesting remarks:

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: The critical question that many Americans are obviously concerned about is the question of what do we do with the banks. And on that, he again was very clear that he recognized the anger that Americans have about the way the banks have taken our taxpayer money and misspent it, but he didn’t give a clear view of what he was going to do.

AMY GOODMAN: President Obama on Tuesday night. Joe Stiglitz, is he holding the banks accountable?

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, so far, it hasn’t happened. I think the more fundamental issues are the following. He says what we need is to get lending restarted. If he had taken the $700 billion that we gave, levered it ten-to-one, created some new institution guaranteed—provide partial guarantees going for, that would have generated $7 trillion of new lending. So, if he hadn’t looked at the past, tried to bail out the banks, bail out the shareholders, bail out the other—the bankers’ retirement fund, we would have easily been able to generate the lending that he says we need.

So the question isn’t just whether we hold them accountable; the question is: what do we get in return for the money that we’re giving them? At the end of his speech, he spent a lot of time talking about the deficit. And yet, if we don’t do things right—and we haven’t been doing them right—the deficit will be much larger. You know, whether you spend money well in the stimulus bill or whether you’re spending money well in the bank recapitalization, it’s important in everything that we do that we get the bang for the buck. And the fact is, the bank recovery bill, the way we’ve been spending the money on the bank recovery, has not been giving bang for the buck. We haven’t gotten anything out.

What we got in terms of preferred shares, relative to what we gave them, a congressional oversight panel calculated, was only sixty-seven cents on the dollar. And the preferred shares that we got have diminished in value since then. So we got cheated, to put it bluntly. What we don’t know is that—whether we will continue to get cheated. And that’s really at the core of much of what we’re talking about. Are we going to continue to get cheated?

(BUNNY NOTE: DO YOU LIKE GETTING CHEATED? I DON'T--SO TAKE YOUR ADD MEDS AND LET'S SORT THROUGH THIS TOGETHER. IT'S NOT TOO MUCH LONGER.)

Now, why that’s so important is, one way of thinking about this—end of the speech, he starts talking about a need of reforms in Social Security, put it—you know, there’s a deficit in Social Security. Well, a few years ago, when President Bush came to the American people and said there was a hole in Social Security, the size of the hole was $560 billion approximately. That meant that if we spent that amount of money, we would have guaranteed the—put on sound financial basis our Social Security system. We wouldn’t have to talk about all these issues. We would have provided security for retirement for hundreds of millions of Americans over the next seventy-five years. That’s less money than we spent in the bailouts of the banks, for which we have not been able to see any outcome. So it’s that kind of tradeoff that seems to me that we ought to begin to talk about.

AMY GOODMAN OF DEMOCRACYNOW.ORG



AMY GOODMAN: So, you say Obama, too, has confused saving the banks with saving the bankers.

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Exactly.

AMY GOODMAN: Why is Obama saving these bankers?

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, we could all guess about the politics. We know one of the problems about American politics is the role of campaign contributions, and that’s plagued every one of our major problems. Under the Bush administration, we couldn’t deal with a large number problems, like the oil industry, like the pharmaceutical, the healthcare, because of the influence of campaign contributions. Now, my view is, one of the problems is that whether it’s because of that or not, it lends an aura of suspicion. The fact that there was so much campaign contributions from the financial sector at least raises the concern.

Now, there is one other legitimate concern, that Wall Street has done a very good job of fear mongering. They say, “If you don’t save us, the whole system will go down.” But, you know, when these banks that I talked about before, when they go down, there’s not even a ripple. The fact is, you change ownership. It happens on airlines all the time. An airline goes bankrupt, a new ownership, financial reorganization—not a big deal. What they’ve succeeded in doing is instilling a sense of fear, so that it’s a kind of paralysis that hangs over what we’re doing. And you could understand a politician. He’s been told if you do one thing, the whole system—the sky is falling, it’s going to fall. That induces political leaders to try to do the smallest incremental step, and that’s what got Japan in trouble.

Well, the question is, are they willing to take the bold measures that are necessary? Everybody keeps saying we need to take bold measures, inaction is not a possibility. That’s not the issue on the table. Action will be taken. The question is, which action? Is the action pouring more money into the banks without any effect on lending, increasing the deficit, which the President talked about, or the actions which could be taken, starting on new banks, looking forward rather than looking to the past, significant financial restructuring?

Are we going to bail out the shareholders, bail out the bankers, rather than focusing on saving the systemically important parts of these institutions? There are some important parts of these institutions that we’ll have to save. The question is, are you going to go do it like with a bludgeon, throw money at it, or are you going to try to do it more surgically and save the parts that need to be saved? And one of the things that went wrong is when we went—let Lehman Brothers go. It caused this enormous trauma. And that’s increased the fear about—but that’s an example of doing things wrong. We didn’t ask the question. There was a systemically important part of Lehman Brothers.

AMY GOODMAN: Which was?

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Which were the commercial paper that was part of the money market funds that were—people were using like banks, like part of our basic payment mechanism. We could have saved that part and let the gambling part of Lehman Brothers, which is not part of the payment mechanism, go down. And because we took this blunt approach, we failed. And what the financial markets are doing are saying, “You have to save everything, if you’re going to save anything.” And that’s just wrong.

AMY GOODMAN: Joe Stiglitz, you co-wrote The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict. Talk about the effect of war on the economic crisis. And now we’re not only talking about Iraq. But your thoughts on increasing the number of troops, intensifying the war in Afghanistan?

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, first, let me say, one of—the President did have two things that I really welcome. And several of the suggestions that we made in our book, he has adopted. For instance, in the past, under the Bush administration, the war was totally funded by—or almost totally funded by emergency appropriations. It was as if every year was a surprise. And he said he’s going to put that on the books so that we can evaluate it, make sure their money is going in the best possible way.

A second thing in our book that was, you know, really—was really, I found, very moving was the way we treat our veterans is terrible. And he said, you know, they fought for us; we have to fully fund the Veterans Administration. So those were really important moves in the right direction.
But on the other side, the move into Afghanistan is going to be very expensive. Things are not going very well. Our European—those who—NATO partners are getting disillusioned with the war. I talked to a lot of the people in Europe, and they really feel this is a quagmire, we’re going into another quagmire. And one of the things that we do talk about in our book is that if you keep a residual force in Iraq, it’s going to be very expensive. That’s the experience that Britain has had. They’ve kept a relatively few troops, and the result of that is the savings that they had hoped weren’t materialized. So that goes back to the part that he talked about at the end of his speech: the deficit. If you’re going to be spending all this money in Afghanistan and in Iraq, that deficit is just going to be that much greater.

AMY GOODMAN: So you think Obama is wrong on Afghanistan?

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think so.

READ THE ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT AND/OR WATCH THE VIDEO INTERVIEW HERE: DEMOCRACYNOW.ORG

People, I don't know the answers, especially the answers to complex financial issues on a grand scale. Maybe Joseph Stiglitz is wrong and he's just some left-wing kook spouting gibberish while trying to hawk his book. If you think that's the case, please send me email with info to the contrary. But I know that the president I voted into office needs to stick to his campaign promises or he's going to hear from me. It's funny, because when Rachel made the announcement about the troops staying in Iraq longer, I yearned for Randi Rhodes to be back on the air so that she could jump on this the next day and confirm my fears that Obama's action was fundamentally wrong and a betrayal. But I'm actually glad that Randi is between jobs because her absence made me think for myself. As Rachel pointed out, the announcement was made in a deliberately dizzying moment in which it and every other detail would get lost in the after-glow of Obama's first speech to the joint session of Congress--and Bobby Jindal's pitiful rebuttal. The Obama camp wanted to bury their broken campaign promise on troop withdrawal and they chose the right moment to do so. It was deliberately deceptive and I think we need to take off our party hats and put on our thinking caps. Many of the people in this country didn't even start to evaluate/distrust/slam Bush until Katrina, after he'd already stolen two elections. We can't let this happen with Obama.

14 Comments:

Anonymous DN said...

It's refreshing to see a newscaster who actually concentrates on news, not on style. We'll let Bunny take care of style.

7:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fabulous post, you never cease to amaze and entertain me.
Love you,
Your Secret Admirer

11:04 PM  
Blogger Brian said...

Rebuttal to the above, I want substance AND style and this political post gives us both. You never STOP giving it to us Bunny, do you? We see eye-to-eye on politics my guru.

9:21 AM  
Blogger moto said...

不動産
合宿 免許
網頁設計
ショッピング枠 現金化
クレジットカード 現金化
キャッシング
治験
フロント 仕事
幼児教室
名刺

1:59 AM  
Blogger 北春机电 said...

货架上海货架苏州货架天津货架青岛货架重庆货架仓储货架深圳货架货架公司货架设备南京货架货架厂货架厂家广东货架上海货架公司上海货架厂货架制作货架设计广州货架服装货架北京货架悬臂式货架悬臂货架通廊式货架贯通货架贯通式货架驶入式货架重型仓储货架移动式货架生产货架货架制造货架配件货架加工销售货架浙江货架杭州货架展示货架货架价格深圳货架厂移动货架中型货架重力式货架中量型货架横梁式货架轻型货架轻量型货架广州货架厂托盘货架重型货架重量型货架角钢货架万能角钢货架不锈钢货架精品货架库房货架仓库货架阁楼式货架阁楼货架图书货架音像货架百变货架流利条东莞货架商场货架设备货架货架采购求购货架物流货架线棒货架线棒仓储设备苏州仓储设备仓储设备公司仓储设备有限公司北京仓储设备南京仓储设备物流设备北京物流设备南京物流设备苏州物流设备中国物流设备物流设备公司物流设备有限公司上海物流设备仓储物流设备超市设备超市货架收银台托盘木托盘塑料托盘纸托盘出口托盘上海托盘托盘厂熏蒸托盘深圳托盘叉车托盘广东托盘免熏蒸托盘

10:47 PM  
Blogger 北春仓储设备 said...

沈阳仓储笼义乌货架内燃平衡重式叉车电动平衡重式叉车电动叉车内燃叉车叉车电动堆垛车电动堆高车半电动堆高车半电动堆垛车手动堆垛车手动堆高车堆垛车堆高车油桶搬运车圆桶搬运车高起升搬运车不锈钢搬运车电子秤搬运车电动搬运车半电动搬运车手动液压托盘搬运车液压托盘搬运车液压搬运车搬运车平台车文件柜周转箱零件盒零件柜工具柜工具车工作桌工作台料箱挂板架物料整理架浴室置物架不锈钢置物架置物架登高车铁板手推车静音手推车手推车浙江仓储笼江苏仓储笼东莞仓储笼大连仓储笼天津仓储笼湖州仓储笼义乌仓储笼温州仓储笼宁波仓储笼徐州仓储笼连云港仓储笼扬州仓储笼泰州仓储笼无锡仓储笼昆山仓储笼苏州仓储笼长春仓储笼济南仓储笼福州仓储笼厦门仓储笼深圳仓储笼青岛仓储笼合肥仓储笼长沙仓储笼武汉仓储笼重庆仓储笼成都仓储笼广州仓储笼北京仓储笼南京仓储笼上海仓储笼储物笼折叠式仓储笼仓库笼仓储笼浙江托盘江苏托盘安徽托盘东莞托盘大连托盘天津托盘湖州托盘义乌托盘温州托盘宁波托盘连云港托盘徐州托盘扬州托盘泰州托盘无锡托盘昆山托盘苏州托盘长春托盘沈阳托盘济南托盘福州托盘厦门托盘深圳托盘青岛托盘合肥托盘长沙托盘武汉托盘重庆托盘成都托盘广州托盘北京托盘上海托盘南京托盘镀锌托盘波纹板托盘柱式托盘木塑托盘纸托盘木制托盘木托盘塑料托盘铁托盘钢制托盘钢托盘托盘安徽货架江苏货架东莞货架大连货架天津货架湖州货架温州货架宁波货架连云港货架徐州货架扬州货架泰州货架无锡货架昆山货架苏州货架长春货架沈阳货架济南货架福州货架厦门货架深圳货架青岛货架合肥货架长沙货架武汉货架重庆货架成都货架广州货架北京货架上海货架南京货架悬臂式货架抽屉式货架模具货架贯通式货架通廊式货架钢平台阁楼式货架精品货架服装货架货位式货架横梁式货架重型货架中型货架角钢货架轻型货架搁板式货架货架公司货架厂库房货架仓库货架仓储货架货架

7:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now do you worried about that in the game do not had enough 2moons dil to play the game, now you can not worried, my friend told me a website, in here you can buy a lot 2moons gold and only spend a little money, do not hesitate, it was really, in here we had much 2moon dil, we can sure that you will get the cheap 2moons gold, quick to come here to buy 2moons dil.

Now do you worried about that in the game do not had enough 9Dragons gold to play the game, now you can not worried, my friend told me a website, in here you can buy a lot 9 Dragons gold and only spend a little money, do not hesitate, it was really, in here we had much 9Dragons money, we can sure that you will get the cheap 9Dragons gold, quick to come here to buy 9 Dragons gold.

11:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now do you worried about that in the game do not had enough aion kina to play the game, now you can not worried, my friend told me a website, in here you can buy a lot aion online kina and only spend a little money, do not hesitate, it was really, in here we had much aion gold, we can sure that you will get the cheap aion kina, quick to come here to buy aion kina.

Now do you worried about that in the game do not had enough aion kina to play the game, now you can not worried, my friend told me a website, in here you can buy a lot aion online kina and only spend a little money, do not hesitate, it was really, in here we had much aion gold, we can sure that you will get the cheap aion kina, quick to come here to buy aion kina.

2:52 AM  
Anonymous Aion china gold said...

I like play online game, I also buy Aion gold and Aion gold, the Aion china gold is very cheap, and use the Aion China kina can buy many things, I like Aion chinese gold, thanks, it is very good.

10:02 PM  
Blogger huyuni said...

quelle chaussures pumapaire de chaussures pour hommes choisir?!? La réponse est toute simple:chaussures nike une paire de baskets en partie vernies. du 17ème au 5ème rang, qui lui offre une place dans un top 5 largement tn requindominé par les sites de vente de produits high-tech. Le site de réservation d'hôtels Bookings.com gagne pour sa part 47 places et atteint le 8ème rang.

11:05 PM  
Blogger huyuni said...

Charlestoncheap columbia jackets. turned a pair of double plays to do the trick. spyder jacketsThe had at least one runner on in every inning but the first and outhit the RiverDogs by a 12-6 margin Lawal should be a focal point of the Yellow cheap polo shirts along with highly touted newcomer, 6-9 Derrick Favors, rated as the No. 1 power forward on the ESPNU 100. The Yellow Jackets

11:05 PM  
Blogger huyuni said...

Cheap Brand Jeans ShopMen Jeans - True Religion Jeans, burberry polo shirtsGUCCI Jeans, Levi's Jeans, D&G Jeans, RED MONKEY Jeans, Cheap JeansArmani Jeans, Diesel Jeans, Ed hardy Jeans, Evisu Jeans, Women JeansJack&Jones Jeans...Lacoste Polo Shirts, , Burberry Polo Shirts.wholesale Lacoste polo shirts and cheap polo shirtswith great price. clothingol.com offers lot of 10 lacoste polo shirts and lot of 20 cheap polo shirts. clothingol.com offers classic fit polo shirts. polo clothing

11:05 PM  
Blogger huyuni said...

nike shoes & Puma Shoes Online- tn nike,puma shoes,puma cat, baskets cheap nike shox, air max.cheap nike shox r4 torch, cheap nike air, nike running shoes air max, puma speed and more. Paypal payment.nike running shoes Enjoy your shopping experience on Nike & Puma Shoes Online Store.

11:06 PM  
Blogger huyuni said...

Thank you so much!!cheap polo shirts men'ssweate,Burberry Polo Shirts lacoste sweater, ralph lauren Columbia Jackets,ski clothing. Free Shipping, PayPal Payment. Enjoy your shopping experience on mensclothingus.com.You can find the father who desire fashionable, intellectual mens clothing simultaneouslyGod bless you!I really agree with your opinions.Also,there are some new fashion things here,gillette razor blades.gillette mach3 razor bladesfor men.As for ladies,gillette venus razor blades must the best gift for you in summer,gillette fusion blades are all the best choice for you.Fantastic!God bless you!Meanwhile,you can visit my ,we have the highest quality but the lowest price fashion products wholesale from China.Here are the most popular China Wholesale products for all of you.You can visit .Also the is a great choice for you.

11:06 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Blog Home