Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Is Coleman's Goal a Do-Over?

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, ...

2009-10-09T08:32:02.778-04:00

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,

豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看捷克論壇微風論壇 ...

2009-03-28T05:08:00.000-04:00

豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看捷克論壇微風論壇大眾論壇 plus論壇 080視訊聊天室情色視訊交友90739 美女交友-成人聊天室色情小說做愛成人圖片區豆豆色情聊天室 080豆豆聊天室小辣妹影音交友網台中情人聊天室桃園星願聊天室高雄網友聊天室新中台灣聊天室中部網友聊天室嘉義之光聊天室基隆海岸聊天室中壢網友聊天室南台灣聊天室南部聊坊聊天室台南不夜城聊天室南部網友聊天室屏東網友聊天室台南網友聊天室屏東聊坊聊天室雲林網友聊天室大學生BBS聊天室網路學院聊天室屏東夜語聊天室孤男寡女聊天室一網情深聊天室心靈饗宴聊天室流星花園聊天室食色男女色情聊天室真愛宣言交友聊天室情人皇朝聊天室上班族成人聊天室上班族f1影音視訊聊天室哈雷視訊聊天室 080影音視訊聊天室 38不夜城聊天室援交聊天室080 080哈啦聊天室台北已婚聊天室已婚廣場聊天室夢幻家族聊天室摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室 520情色聊天室 QQ成人交友聊天室免費視訊網愛聊天室愛情公寓免費聊天室拉子性愛聊天室柔情網友聊天室哈啦影音交友網哈啦影音視訊聊天室櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集 123上班族聊天室尋夢園上班族聊天室成人聊天室上班族 080上班族聊天室 6k聊天室粉紅豆豆聊天室 080豆豆聊天網新豆豆聊天室 080聊天室免費音樂試聽流行音樂試聽免費aa片試看免費a長片線上看色情貼影片免費a長片本土成人貼圖站大台灣情色網台灣男人幫論壇 A圖網嘟嘟成人電影網火辣春夢貼圖網情色貼圖俱樂部台灣成人電影絲襪美腿樂園 18美女貼圖區柔情聊天網 707網愛聊天室聯盟台北69色情貼圖區 38女孩情色網台灣映像館波波成人情色網站美女成人貼圖區無碼貼圖力量色妹妹性愛貼圖區日本女優貼圖網日本美少女貼圖區亞洲風暴情色貼圖網哈啦聊天室美少女自拍貼圖辣妹成人情色網台北女孩情色網辣手貼圖情色網 AV無碼女優影片男女情色寫真貼圖 a片天使俱樂部萍水相逢遊戲區平水相逢遊戲區免費視訊交友90739 免費視訊聊天辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網 080視訊聊天室日本美女肛交美女工廠貼圖區百分百貼圖區亞洲成人電影情色網台灣本土自拍貼圖網麻辣貼圖情色網好色客成人圖片貼圖區 711成人AV貼圖區台灣美女貼圖區筱萱成人論壇咪咪情色貼圖區 momokoko同學會視訊 kk272視訊情色文學小站成人情色貼圖區嘟嘟成人網嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區免費色情a片下載台灣情色論壇成人影片分享免費視訊聊天區微風成人論壇 kiss文學區 taiwankiss文學區

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,...

2009-02-08T03:44:00.000-05:00

"By not countering ANY of my points with your argu...

2009-01-21T19:56:00.000-05:00

"By not countering ANY of my points with your arguments, I take it you have no rebuttal"

Now that's just sad.

Winning Pal,
Bugboy

(the Lott link sealed the deal).

oh, and here is the hatchet job of journalism (lo...

2009-01-21T19:33:00.000-05:00

oh, and
here is the hatchet job of journalism (look at the first paragraph) from allegedly liberal-leaning Star Tribune (that endorsed Coleman, as we all know) reporting the Senate Dems moving to seat our Senator Al Franken.
~ Latte

News is breaking about Harry Reid growing a pair a...

2009-01-21T19:23:00.000-05:00

News is breaking about Harry Reid growing a pair and convening Senate Dems to provisionally seat Franken. Just heard it on NPR.

Also, watched the streaming video of the Franken motion to dismiss to Coleman suit. Going in, I didn't think Franken had much of a chance on that one, but his attorney did present several compelling arguments in parallel. If any single one of them captures the panel's triple heart, whoosh goes Coleman. No word on when the ruling is expected.

@green libertarian,
I am a sick puppy. I enjoy the crunchy sound of a crushed exoskeleton. And who knows, some day an ugly insect could turn into a beautiful, although an ephemeral butterfly.

@Bugboy,
Let me put it in the kindergarten terms you'll understand:
By not countering ANY of my points with your arguments, I take it you have no rebuttal. I therefore, in my infinite kindness and generosity accept your total and unequivocal surrender.
And for the record, I am NOT fat. I am big-boned.
Carry on,
~ Latte

Hey Green Librarian....vile? troll? Why so bitte...

2009-01-21T09:57:00.000-05:00

Hey Green Librarian....vile? troll? Why so bitter? All I'm doing is stating a case. Why all the bitter ad hominems? I'm arguing the merits of an issue.

Ever since I came here I've noticed that just for taking and arguing a contrary position people have been attacking ME! Psychologically, it means I hit a nerve b/c these people know their positions are tenuous at best and instead of pursuing the truth they just want "their guy" to win.

Look at Fatte's over-reactions. My lord.

New Pal?
Bugboy

Latte, my friend, I've never understood the compul...

2009-01-21T02:49:00.000-05:00

Latte, my friend, I've never understood the compulsion to feed such nasty trolls. Seriously, consider the concept of conservation of energy, at the very least.

This idiot ain't worth your considered opinion.

There ARE some very limited points to Coleman's argument. This vile TROLL is not arguing such.

Peace be with you.

Hey Fatte...you never proved the case that Lott wa...

2009-01-21T00:04:00.000-05:00

Hey Fatte...you never proved the case that Lott was discredited because YOU CAN'T. I therefore had a valid cite that discredited YOU LOL.

Cite Pal,
Bugboy

errata:an "opinion" lipstick (that was mine)and......

2009-01-20T23:21:00.000-05:00

errata:
an "opinion" lipstick (that was mine)
and

...discredited (blah blah blah) windbag.

It is the windbag that got chewed up in the post somehow. I claim no credit for the aforementioned bad o'wind.

Lame, Bugboy, lame.You take a single quote of mine...

2009-01-20T23:16:00.000-05:00

Lame, Bugboy, lame.
You take a single quote of mine out of a page and a half of proving your wrong. Point by point. You put a "opinion" lipstick on the Faux News pig I called an editorial, as if THAT somehow makes it more palatable. You fail to address any of my points, you fail to give any links, save for the Faux News OPINION by a discredited (read the link to the 538 discussion detailing all the FACTS your "research scientist" got wrong.)

I call you out on your hypocrisy; you choose to ignore that. I call you on your difficulty with statistics; you ignore that. I call you on your issues with internal combustion engines and the advent of a wheel; you have nothing to say.

I will say it again, and will continue to do so: give me a valid citation PROVING fraud. With facts. Not nebulously asserting it. Not implying it. Stating facts, not waving hands. Because us, research scientists, that's what we believe in. The saying goes "in God we trust; all the rest bring data".

Quit flailing your crippled extremities, Bug and cite FACTUAL EVIDENCE.

BFF, fer sure. As soon as you start answering my questions. Like, is your "pal" short for palin? Oh, and don't forget to bring data with you next post.
Carry on, master debater. LMAO.
~ Latte.

"you cite Faux News editorial"Lott is NOT discredi...

2009-01-20T22:41:00.000-05:00

"you cite Faux News editorial"

Lott is NOT discredited. His only crime? Same as mine--proving you WRONG.

Plus it was not an editorial. It was an "opinion" piece by a research scientist.

You still have not be unable3 to refute EVEN ONE of my points, Fatte. I love seeing you squirm when presented with the facts and then you respond with NOTHING but a cognitive argument LOL.

Mocha Pals?
Bugboy

I went Googling for an explicit statement of MN ab...

2009-01-20T22:35:00.000-05:00

I went Googling for an explicit statement of MN absentee law, and turned up, inter alia, the following quote from a very right-wing web site, PowerLine:

"Until yesterday, the Coleman campaign sought the inclusion only of other absentee ballots it claimed had been improperly excluded by local officials. Prior to the election contest, the Coleman campaign had no problem with the requirements imposed by Minnesota's absentee ballot statute. Now the requirements of Minnesota law are unfair! They are an impediment to equal protection.

Knaak's statement is frankly ludicrous. It is nevertheless consistent with the Three Stooges quality of the work of the Coleman campaign following the canvas that has brought Senator Coleman to his current pass."

That's Powerline writing! Why is Coleman pursuing this?

Franken's lawyers state that NOBODY seems to know ...

2009-01-20T22:24:00.000-05:00

Franken's lawyers state that NOBODY seems to know what Coleman's lawyers really want. First Coleman only wants to look at 600+ cherry picked ballots. Then he want to look at 11,000 or 12,000 and states there are at least 6,000 that should be counted.
But when he lists the criteria for rejecting absentee ballots, he omits the requirement for a signature that matches the voter registration and the requirement that the address match the registration. Some of the 600+ that were looked at a third time by the local officials were rejected a third time because they lacked any signature. BUT they were from ANOKA county that went for Coleman.
His lawyers must have finally realized they are in a hopeless situation - He loses on the "lost ballots" and "duplicate ballots" and probably on Franken adding 64 more absentee votes. So he MUST find more votes and the only pile left are the rejected absentee ballots. Unfortunately for him, he will probably lose on the idea of taking a third look at the rejected ballots and absentee ballots favor Franken so he cannot make up votes anyway. The only real question is how long can Coleman drag this out.
The only thing Bugboy gets right is that Coleman loses.

There are certainly more than 4 reasons under MN l...

2009-01-20T22:08:00.000-05:00

There are certainly more than 4 reasons under MN law to reject and absentee envelope, once you consider the law states that voters must follow the absentee instructions.

For example, the need to have a witness signature is never mention is the supposed four valid reasons for rejecting an AE, yet we know hundreds of AEs were rejected due to witness signature issues.

Coleman's own team rejected the AE of an election judge in Duluth who said she voted FOR Coleman, on the basis that the witness date and voter date written on the envelope did not match.

Meanwhile, other jurisdictions, completely ignored the issue of the date matching.

Actually, the more I read Knaak's statement the mo...

2009-01-20T20:52:00.000-05:00

Actually, the more I read Knaak's statement the more it sounds like he wants properly rejected absentees to be counted. I took for granted when I saw the clause "and conform to the laws of this state" that he was referring to the 4 criteria for rejecting absentees, but he qualifies that clause with "as to voting requirements, voter eligibility and voter intent".

I think you are right on Latte.

Can you imagine the howls of protest that Franken would have faced from the Coleman people if he had suggested this same thing back in November?

blogger ate my comment! darn it.@ mediapost:Discla...

2009-01-20T19:52:00.000-05:00

blogger ate my comment! darn it.

@ mediapost:
Disclaimer: I do not claim to understand the inner workings of Knaak's mind or his wants and desires, save to advance his client at any cost, and failing that, to prolong the agony of the MN voters.

Having said that, one item that is conspicuous by its absence is the signature requirement. Of the Knaak-picked 654 rejected absentees, there seemed to be a number of rejections due to either invalid witnessing, wrong/mismatched signature and absent signature altogether.

It appears that Knaak and Co finally decided to cast a wider sweep for votes as their new strategy, and their hope now hangs on obfuscating the issue with handwriting experts/analysis/testimony. That will help them drag this puppy out, and failing analysis of signatures, claim equal protection violation and take this to the Feds.

All imho, of course.
~ Latte

wv: debil. I kid you not. These wingut debils keep posting from lunatic fringe, citing Faux News editorials as legit source.

Can anyone understand what Knaak wants with regard...

2009-01-20T19:27:00.000-05:00

Can anyone understand what Knaak wants with regards to the 12,000 absentees? The first paragraph seems to indicate that he wants the 12,000 looked at one more time, the 2nd paragraph seems to indicate that he wants to include some proplerly rejected ballots. Maybe it's just a misstatement. 2 paragraphs below:

"Obviously, not every one of the 12,000 rejected absentee ballots was wrongfully rejected. However, those that were - those that were rejected through no fault of the voter - and conform to the laws of this state as to voting requirements, voter eligibility and voter intent - we believe those ballots must be opened."

"In other words: If the absentee voter was alive on Election Day, was either a registered voter or included a registration card with his or her ballot, and did not otherwise vote, then his or her absentee ballot should be counted -- if the voter's intent can be determined from the ballot. And I'll say that again: If the absentee voter was alive on Election Day, was either a registered voter or included a registration card with his or her ballot, and did not otherwise vote, then his or her absentee ballot should be counted -- if the voter's intent can be determined from the ballot."

Ya know, Bug, one thing you gotta learn, is that y...

2009-01-20T19:08:00.000-05:00

Ya know, Bug, one thing you gotta learn, is that your self-imposed insect role is to be an irritant, not irritable. It's a subtle difference, but one you will learn in time to become truly worthy of your chosen moniker.
But this is a sideline. On to the main course:

me: "you ought to learn to express your thoughts better"
Bug: "I can't be held responsible for your inability to comprehend what you read."

Your lack of eloquence, and the downright inability to express your thoughts adequately is what concerns me. Worry not about my inability to comprehend you. I was still able to cut through the tangled vines of your twisted thought. My concern is about others, an altruist that I am. This is not about me. This is about you. If you want to spew lies, at least learn to do it in a manner where the lies are readable. Just free advice. Pro bono. And nobody held you responsible for anything, save for the lies you utter.

Bug: "Or for your rather conspicuous irritation at being proven wrong."

Conspicuous by its absence? You are once again confusing your being irritable with your desire to be an irritant. You have failed to be an irritant, but you have succeeded in fading into the backdrop of the rest of the lies and the lying liars who tell them. There is no longer anything original about you and your inability to face the facts. But we digress. Where were we? Oh yeah: (btw, see how I take care to delineate the text? That's 'cause I CARE about my reader. I urge you to start caring about your reader
as well, and to show that care by parsing the text appropriately. Another aside, but you will forgive an old man, right, pal?)

me: "you fault me for not wondering why the media had not reported on something that does not exist?"

Bug: "Since the issue has been brought up by the Coleman campaign, it is most certainly a valid
issue for investigation. Unless, of course, you feel the need to hide something."

Over the course of the recount, Coleman campaign has brought up a great deal of things from which they have since completely divorced themselves. To wit, they have backed away (in no apparent chronological order):
a)their calls to concede,
b) their calls to start healing,
c) their statement that Coleman would concede, given a similar gap,
d)not to revisit the wrongly rejected absentee ballots,
e)to revisit only some of the wrongly rejected absentee ballots,
f) calling challenges to the missing original/duplicate frivolous and so on.

So, to take up a banner d'jour brandished about by FORMER Sen. Coleman would risk
going against him. Not to mention the fact, that faulting me for not taking Coleman at his word is even more disingenuous than if I asked you to take Franken campaign at its word. See that? No?

Lemme illustrate: Franken campaign called on the judge panel to dismiss the Coleman suit. You ought to be calling for that too, unless you...how does that go? Oh yeah "Since the issue has been brought up by the Franken campaign, it is most certainly a valid issue for investigation. Unless, of course, you feel the need to hide something." Why are you, Bug, not calling for Coleman to drop his contest challenge? What, sir, are you hiding, oh pal of mine?

Bug: "In a similar fashion you attack the messenger (Lott) for providing the analysis that pretty much cleans your clock on this one. Ain't that perfect. You beg for a cite to an analysis, as if your request was in good faith, then claim bias on the source. And your proof if the bias? An EDITORIAL on the 538 website which ADMITS to being biased! Well, looks like I had YOU all figured out from the start on this one LOL! You can pretend you aren't running from the truth on this issue all you want,
but your intellectual dishonesty is now exposed."

I take back that “silliest” comment from yesterday. This is far sillier. No, on the second thought, I do not take it back. You are just getting sillier and sillier, you silly goose, and it is getting hard to keep track of the relative silliness of your statements from one day to the next. To wit, let us re-examine the frilly sequins of events:

1) I urge you to cite your sources
2) you cite Faux News editorial
3) by summarily discredited John Lott, Jr. no less
4) and when I respond with a similar editorial that STATES FACTS about said Lott's sloppy work, you
5) cry foul because I cited something you ought to find at least similar to your source. And
6) all the meanwhile, you see no hypocricy of your stance.

Remarkable! Even more remarkable, because you are doing this not on Faux News ediotorial pages, but in Nate's very home.

7) To sum up: Nate is a golden standard of policical analysis, whereas John Lott, Jr. is a proven political hack.

You feel no issue citing one editorial by an author proven to be no friend of facts, while pointing a finger at others for citing what is in your opinion another. Hey, I understand there might be openings for a mouthpiece (or some other orifice of choice) in the GOP machine now that Snow is dead, MCcLellan is singing and Perino no wanna work no more.

Your very quoting of a Faux News editorial is so pathetic that it really warranted to response from me. You might as well cite Sarah Palin or Dan Quayle, however he spells his name. Faux News is not a valid source. Faux News Editorial is something that cannot meet even the highbrow Faux standard. Ya know, Rachel Maddow says...Ya know, Keith Olbermann stated... - you see? And MSNBC is FAR more credible of a news source than the fair and balanced disinformation machine of the GOP.

Bug: " Along with the Franken camp and the DNC. You have LOST this debate.

Bug, this was no debate. This was a group squashing of a bug despite my pleadings to spare the poor troll. I predicted your moves after your initial post. How can you even call that a debate? You have much to learn, grasshopper.

"You must be embarrassed in front of your fellow 538 readers, considering all of the little
numbered arguments you put up which could not even stand the scrutiny of Bugboy."

You continue to have these delusions of grandeur, and I am not sure why. It was you who chose the name "bug" for yourself, not any of us here. I am not sure what the scrutiny of a Bugboy is other than a loose screw here and there. And most importantly, returning to your delusions: if you think there is more than 3-4 people still reading this dead thread,you are a bigger egotist than I am, and are thus unworthy of a self-deprecating moniker of bug.

Bug: "Your Clock Cleaning Pal,\
Bugboy

(from Georgia, no less)"

I wouldn't care even if you were from the glorious Republic of Kazakhstan.
Btw, you have yet to cite a credible source that shows there was fraud or any statistical shenanigans. Calling shenanigans a la South Park does not count. Sorry. Pal.

Hey, is your "pal" short for "palin"?
Your BFF,
~ Latte
And oh, yeah, carry on.

PS: btw, what is your affliction with the auto phobia? The GOP bunk was not that the ballots were in the car, (I am repeating this for the third time because apparently, it takes that long to penetrate a closed mind), the GOP beef was that the ballots spent many a night in a trunk of a car belonging to a Franken backer unattended The issue was never the car, and as the source I cited stated: molecular beam transport has not yet been invented. And even when *GASP* Coleman won in 2002, the absentee ballots had been transported by automobiles. Is it the invention of the wheel that bothers you or the Global Warming due to the internal combustion engine inside the aforementioned vehicle?

Curious minds wanna know!

Prof. Paulsen is well-known around MN law circles ...

2009-01-20T15:51:00.000-05:00

Prof. Paulsen is well-known around MN law circles as a very conservative Professor; his comments are clearly written from that bias.

As a Minnesotan, I sincerely doubt that a revote will be granted. A revote is a very drastic remedy that no one wants, particularly no one in Minnesota. Frankly, Norm Coleman would be foolish to realistically press for one, since he'd certainly lose resoundingly. Minnesotans would not look kindly on any candidate requesting (let alone receiving) a revote.

I believe that the vast majority of Minnesotans believe our voting system is fair and non-partisan. Minnesota consistently has the highest voting rates in the country, and we take clean voting very seriously. The recount process has appeared unbiased and orderly. There have been no significant criticisms in the state. In fact, Minnesotans have been pretty calm about the whole thing - because we feel that it is all going appropriately. Small irregularities in the process are to be expected, since nothing human is perfect. Overall, the problems that have cropped up have been handled in a timely and fair manner.

I think that barring some wacky judicial decision that invalidates a bunch of votes or something, Minnesotans will be satisfied with whatever result is certified at the end of the process.

GreenLibertarian is apparently an idiot troll too,...

2009-01-20T15:06:00.000-05:00

GreenLibertarian is apparently an idiot troll too, since there have been several cites provided that the ballots WERE IN FACT in a car.

Pals?

Bugboy

Bug's an idiot troll, everybody quit poking at it,...

2009-01-20T13:37:00.000-05:00

Bug's an idiot troll, everybody quit poking at it, it's stinking up the joint.

I remind you:

On November 12, 2008, Author Editor Eric Ferguson says:

Thank you David. However David, and you other commenters who think this will bring this particular misunderstanding to an end, no it won't. I cannot believe that all these Republican lawyers, and Tim Pawlenty himself, are as ignorant of election procedures as they pretend. Most commenters on news sites just can't be bothered to check out facts or they assume anything that contradicts Fox is a lie, but Pawlenty and Coleman know full well their charges are nonsense. They won't stop. I just ask that the press avoid making a falsely balanced pretense that both sides are trying to screw things up. Sometimes the truth isn't halfway between.

You watch: conservatives will never drop the ballots in the car story, no matter how false they know it to be.

It is also my hope (it won't happen, but one can still hope :), that the court brings up Trimble's and Coleman's past stances on reviewing the wrongly rejected absentees and asks them for the reason for their frequent changes of mind on the issue.

~ Latte

The Court won't bring it up, but Franken's team will, at just the appropriate opportunity.

"Our long national nightmare is now over!!"No, I'm...

2009-01-20T13:27:00.000-05:00

"Our long national nightmare is now over!!"

No, I'm still here. And still cleaning clocks.

Tick Tock Pal,
Bugboy

Our long national nightmare is now over!!

2009-01-20T13:00:00.000-05:00

Our long national nightmare is now over!!

"you ought to learn to express your thoughts bette...

2009-01-20T10:27:00.000-05:00

"you ought to learn to express your thoughts better"

I can't be held responsible for your inability to comprehend what you read. Or for your rather conspicuous irritation at being proven wrong.

"you fault me for not wondering why the media had not reported on something that does not exist?"

Since the issue has been brought up by the Coleman campaign, it is most certainly a valid issue for investigation. Unless, of course, you feel the need to hide something. In a similar fashion you attack the messenger (Lott) for providing the analysis that pretty much cleans your clock on this one.

Ain't that perfect. You beg for a cite to an analysis, as if your request was in good faith, then claim bias on the source. And your proof if the bias? An EDITORIAL on the 538 website which ADMITS to being biased!

Well, looks like I had YOU all figured out from the start on this one LOL!

You can pretend you aren't running from the truth on this issue all you want, but your intellectual dishonesty is now exposed. Along with the Franken camp and the DNC.

You have LOST this debate. You must be embarrassed in front of your fellow 538 readers, considering all of the little numbered arguments you put up which could not even stand the scrutiny of Bugboy.

Your Clock Cleaning Pal,\
Bugboy

(from Georgia, no less)

Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Is Coleman's Goal a Do-Over?

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, ...

豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看 捷克論壇 微風論壇 ...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,...

"By not countering ANY of my points with your argu...

oh, and here is the hatchet job of journalism (lo...

News is breaking about Harry Reid growing a pair a...

Hey Green Librarian....vile? troll? Why so bitte...

Latte, my friend, I've never understood the compul...

Hey Fatte...you never proved the case that Lott wa...

errata:an "opinion" lipstick (that was mine)and......

Lame, Bugboy, lame.You take a single quote of mine...

"you cite Faux News editorial"Lott is NOT discredi...

I went Googling for an explicit statement of MN ab...

Franken's lawyers state that NOBODY seems to know ...

There are certainly more than 4 reasons under MN l...

Actually, the more I read Knaak's statement the mo...

blogger ate my comment! darn it.@ mediapost:Discla...

Can anyone understand what Knaak wants with regard...

Ya know, Bug, one thing you gotta learn, is that y...

Prof. Paulsen is well-known around MN law circles ...

GreenLibertarian is apparently an idiot troll too,...

Bug's an idiot troll, everybody quit poking at it,...

"Our long national nightmare is now over!!"No, I'm...

Our long national nightmare is now over!!

"you ought to learn to express your thoughts bette...

豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看捷克論壇微風論壇 ...