Monday, December 22, 2008

At least now it's factually correct to say Mike Duffy is part of the Conservative caucus

Meet your 2008 Senators!

Also in the broken promises department, Harper has appointed Thomas Cromwell to the Supreme Court, despite a promise to hold public consultations first. I'll give Harper a pass on this one, since this appointment probably had to be made before January for the court to function properly - and Cromwell's frequent appearances on the Tudors is as good as a public consultation.

UPDATE: Upon closer inspection, two other things stand out from these appointments.

1. 4 out of the 18 are women. This is completely unacceptable, when you consider that one of the reasons for appointing, rather than electing, people to any position is that it allows for a more balanced representation.

2. Remember how Harper spent the past month talking about how the separatists weren't legitimate, blah, blah, blah? Well, one of the picks - Michel Rivard - spent the 1995 Referendum sitting as a PQ MNA campaigning for the oui side. Huh.



  • Mike Duffy? Of all people.....

    Harper did sound unhappy to make these appointments, which does quell some of my own unhappiness. Maybe one day the Senate will be legitimately democratic.

    Merry Christmas, have a great holiday.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:58 p.m.  

  • What kind of secret, stone-cutters esque paper did all these people have to sign to accept these cushy posts? That they'd resign and run if their provinces agreed to hold elections (only Wallin's noted that)? That they will rubber stamp any and all CON bills? That they will storm the GG's residence in the event of a Coalition gov't?
    How about that they will be automatic 'Harper delegates' should and if there is a challenge to his leadership inside the party?
    Hopefully, real journalists will do that digging.

    By Blogger burlivespipe, at 2:13 p.m.  

  • weee PQ MNAs

    By Blogger Anthony, at 2:30 p.m.  

  • What do you mean, Mike Duffy of all people? Name one who's worked harder to earn a Harper appointment.

    By Blogger The Mound of Sound, at 2:36 p.m.  

  • Quote from the Globe and Mail:

    "Both Mr. Duffy and Ms. Wallin have agreed to join the Conservative caucus and have pledged to oppose the proposed coalition of opposition parties threatening to unseat the government next month."

    Does this mean Mr. Duffy will have a cabinet position?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:41 p.m.  

  • There are some qualifed people in the appointments. As for any criticism of the process, Harper should quote the old Rough Trade song: "You gave me these weapons, I have every right to use them".

    By Blogger nuna d. above, at 2:48 p.m.  

  • Well, Harper can put Duffy in cabinet but only those ELECTED can vote, so it doesn't matter what Duffy says - Harper needs to be gone, like yesterday.

    I love is how Harper said that the "coalition made him do it - LOL

    And that bull crap of looking sad, that's just a game. He doesn't give a rat's ass. Harper is nothing a partisan bully who is cut from the same cloth as Mike Harris.

    Harper just giving Duffy payback for Citytv releasing that tape of Dion messing up in the last week of the election. The Duff did his bit for the party.

    You know, I have to say that EMay should never have opened her mouth about a senate appt. It was absolutely stupid and gave some creed to Harper's play today. And more stupid was when Dion was asked about that, he played coy instead of saying the right and only answer - we are focused on economic stimulation and that line of questioning is not important to matters most to Canadians.

    I just had to say this - for people who appear so bright, politically they are sometimes so dim-witted.

    By Blogger susansmith, at 2:59 p.m.  

  • My problem is not with Mike Duffy being appointed to the Senate. I really don't care who gets appointed because the Senate doesn't represent me. I have mentioned in other blog comments that if Harper appointed the Big JC, I wouldn't consider Him as representing me.

    I would like to see a meaningful elected Senate (not the Harper kind). If that is not possible, abolish it.

    I did listen to Ms. Carstairs on the news today. She would like to see Senators appointed by the provinces. I'm not sure if she meant the legislatures or premiers. Anyway, I don't care for appointed politicians who will act as prefects in Parliament.

    Blogger word verification: snabings

    By Blogger Skinny Dipper, at 3:03 p.m.  

  • Hi Jan,

    I believe it was CTV, not Citytv.

    Blogger word verification: subtrons

    By Blogger Skinny Dipper, at 3:04 p.m.  

  • I have mentioned in other blog comments that if Harper appointed the Big JC

    It would be unprecedented to appoint a former Prime Minister...

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 3:22 p.m.  

  • Unbelievable gall by Harper to accuse Stephane Dion of trying to "destroy Canada" by working with the Bloc in Parliament like Harper did, but then to turn around and appoint a referendum-supporting, Parliamentary assistant to Parizeau cabinet minister and separatist to the Senate of Canada.

    And even bigger gall to lack the courage to tell Canadians in his own backgrounder. Notice how carefully Harper avoids mentioning his party affiliation in his own Backgrounder.

    But here is the real Senator Michel Rivard, former MLA and cabinet minister for the Parti Quebecois:

    "Élu député du Parti québécois dans Limoilou en 1994. Délégué régional de la région de Québec du 26 septembre 1994 au 29 janvier 1996, et adjoint parlementaire du ministre responsable de la région de Québec du 29 janvier 1996 au 28 octobre 1998. Défait en 1998."

    By Blogger Ted Betts, at 3:32 p.m.  

  • You got me on that one, Calgary Grit.

    There was mention of the newly appointed Senators agreeing to support Harper's Senate reform. Legally, it wouldn't make a difference if the Senators opposed a constitutional amendment to reform or abolish the Senate. The Senate can only veto a House of Commons bill on constitutional matters subject to a House of Commons override. I can't remember if the Senate in the past vetoed Mulroney's Meech or Charlottetown Accord. I believe the House of Commons overrode the Senate veto.

    Blogger word verification: rehelest (A realist from hell)

    By Blogger Skinny Dipper, at 3:32 p.m.  

  • They must be absolutely livid over at CBC, saying "Hey, if you're appointing over-the-hill, full-of-themselves assholes to the Senate how come we're still stuck with Rex Murphy.

    By Blogger Reality Bites, at 3:34 p.m.  

  • Mike hasn't lived in PEI for like thirty years, but whatever.

    By Blogger IslandLiberal, at 3:45 p.m.  

  • For the past few days the Tory talking point on Harper's Senate appointments appears to have been that Harper only "desired" to reform the senate, not that he promised to.
    So it's not a broken promise, it's just an unfulfilled desire. Kind of sad and wistful, really.
    I'm going to have to remember this little semantic dodge for future use:
    "Honey, I never promised to take out the garbage, I only said I DESIRED to take out the garbage."

    By Blogger Unknown, at 3:55 p.m.  

  • I'll take Duffy over Art Eggleton any day. All of you Libs. should reacquaint yourself with him and his senate appointment before complaining about these picks.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:12 p.m.  

  • Look at this recent Canadian Press article quoting Harper's Senate reform envoy Bert Brown:

    Brown said Harper was particularly worried that the coalition might appoint separatist senators - a scenario denied by all three opposition parties.

    "I think Harper got a little bit spooked and decided that he didn't want to see separatists in the Senate," said Brown

    and look at what he did today! He appointed former PQ member Michel Rivard who worked in the YES camp during the 1995 referendum! He appointed a separatist to the senate! Pure madness...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:18 p.m.  

  • It's funny to hear Liberals complaining about Michel Rivard.

    I didn't hear very many of them complaining when Paul Martin made Jean LaPierre his top guy in Quebec.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:05 p.m.  

  • Funny as in... ha ha ha, look, our leader is just as much a schmimey, petty partisan, power at all costs, cancel opposition days, anti-democratic hypocrit as we accused the last PM?

    That kind of funny Michael?

    Or funny because you never thought anyone could be even less of a leader and more of a flop than Martin?

    By Blogger Ted Betts, at 5:09 p.m.  

  • No Ted, funny as in how much faux outrage Liberals can muster up when a government uses its powers in the exact same manner as all previous Liberal PMs did.

    The real outrage being felt by Liberals is that they are no longer the government and arent likely to be one for quite some time.

    Canadians see through this Liberal crap and the more you and your friends continue with this type of communications strategy the longer you will languish in opposition.

    You are now cloistered in Toronto and Montreal with smatterings in the maritimes and a few soon to be defeated members in the west. Try canvassing the whole country and finding some people who can represent the regions where you are under represented and then try speaking as a national party.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:16 p.m.  

  • What do you mean, Mike Duffy of all people? Name one who's worked harder to earn a Harper appointment.

    Patrick Brazeau.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:22 p.m.  

  • No Ted, funny as in how much faux outrage Liberals can muster up when a government uses its powers in the exact same manner as all previous Liberal PMs did.

    Could someone please remind me of the last time a Liberal PM appointed 18 Senators in one day, right in the middle of the holiday season so as to bury the story as best as possible?

    I also get a kick out of seeing Conservative apologists use the "Liberals did the same" excuse when they've spent the better part of the last decade claiming that they occupy some sort of moral/political high ground. You can't have it both ways, people - if Liberals are a bunch of slimy, dishonest crooks, saying that you're doing the same as they did isn't much of a defence.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:50 p.m.  

  • How is the number of appointments important?

    I fail to see outside of blind partisanship how using the levers of power all at once rather than spread out matters at all.

    Harper tried to do things differently but Liberal senators and a pliant govt in Ont and a petulant one in Que made that impossible. Failure to adapt to change is another factor as to why the Liberals remain in opposition. You keep fighting the 1990's elections. Child care, Kelowna, etc...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:18 p.m.  

  • I fail to see outside of blind partisanship how using the levers of power all at once rather than spread out matters at all.

    So you admit the equivalence of Harper's actions with those of Liberal PM's before him. Therefore, you would agree that Harper is no better than a Liberal PM, right?

    Harper tried to do things differently but Liberal senators and a pliant govt in Ont and a petulant one in Que made that impossible.

    Always amusing to see Conservatives blaming somebody else for their problems. Cons are forever demanding that others take responsibility for their actions, but apparently it's do as I say, etc.

    It's like arguing with a junior high debater with you. Which may not be far off given the amount of crap lately out of the Little Shop of Tories.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:24 p.m.  

  • Um, no simpleton, its a matter of using power to maximum effect.

    If any PM tries to change things the vested interests of eastern canada dig in and resist change. What part of that cant you understand?

    We have a western PM, who for the first time in a generation isnt a Quebec millionaire with long standing ties to the status quo using power to shift the political centre. The hue and cry from the established elites has been deafening.

    Your intransigence and refusal to use reason and logic rather than Liberal talking points restricts debate and cheapens any attempt at reasonable dialogue with such as you (hey look ad hominems just like you)but hopefully sometime in the future you can put blind partisanship behind you and understand that a new order is reshaping the country and that for the time being you just have to sit and watch.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:41 p.m.  

  • Yay! Duffy got appointed that is great news... now he won't be bloviating on TV anymore!

    I think we can all agree no conservative party hack has done more hackery then Mike Duffy.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:53 p.m.  

  • ...a new order is reshaping the country...

    ROTFLMAO. Ohmigod. Are you serious?

    Are you at all familiar with the historical use of the phrase "new order" in the political context?

    Google Neuordnung and then come back and clarify whether a New Order is in fact what we're up against. If we are, I'm going to be right there with the "vested interests of eastern canada" and the "establishment elites", because I'd rather stand with them than someone who borrows phraseology from Adolf Hitler.

    You ignorant twat.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:56 p.m.  

  • um outside of hucksterism and sloganism is there something you wish to add?

    Typical Liberal cunt, using words for only one meaning....

    Grow up...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:11 a.m.  

  • do you have any other words, phrases or sayings that are currently out of fashion within your circles?

    You limit debate by outlawing or declaring out of bounds uses of language that defeat you. That is another typical tactic of the new Liberal or progressive sphere.

    Your inability to debate is totally lost on you. Stick to Liberal talk shops.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:15 a.m.  

  • 1. Has Duffy lived in PEI in the past 20 years?
    2. Has Wallin lived in Sask in the past 20 years?
    If no for either, how can you say they are in touch with that province, but Iggy is out of touch with Canada.

    Also, how much of a threat would it be for a Dion or Iggy coalition to appoint separatists to the senate, since it still has a majority of Liberal senators who aint separatists? Gee, why do I bother arguing against such a ridiculous lie.

    Finally, Harper came in to clean up government, and promised to be more open, accountable, ethical. He has proven he is no more so. Liberals and others will argue he has less of each, but clearly he is not more honest, ethical, accountable or open. Look at all the promises he has broken from appointing senators, to creating 25000 childcare spaces/year, to income trusts, to creating a less partisan QP, to elections Canada spending, etc. He appoints his cronies just like the libs did. He breaks promises just like the libs. So, dont tell me ever he will be more accountable or honest or promise keeping. Crap.

    By Blogger kenlister1, at 1:07 a.m.  

  • Yes, the Liberals have been such strong supporters of Senate Reform, you must be taking this very hard.

    Whazzat? The LPC Policy is for exactly what did happen, to happen? I'm shocked! Shocked! I tell you.

    BTW: KTR, when Duffy and Wallin stand for election to their Senate appointments, then the people of those provinces can pass judgments on whether or not they still consider these folk as native sons and daughters. Will you, therefore, be supporting Senate reform?

    By Blogger Paul, at 1:28 a.m.  

  • Your inability to debate is totally lost on you. Stick to Liberal talk shops.

    Hahaha. Look at you sulk. No wonder you identify so closely with Stephen Harper. Like him, you never got laid in high school, got beaten up on occasion and hated the fact that people you considered intellectual inferiors were going further and faster in life than you were. Secretly you hope that this New Order will come to pass, because then you will have YOUR REVENGE on the jocks and the mean girls and the preppies.

    Christ, you Conservatives are pathetic, wallowing in your persecution complex and messiah fantasies. Get a grip.

    By the way, I'm not interested in debate, at least with you, because I don't have anything to learn from you. I do, however, enjoy taking a break from counting my entitlements to wind you up and watch you spurt indignant nonsense. So keep it coming, sport. I'm having a great time.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:44 a.m.  

  • do you have any other words, phrases or sayings that are currently out of fashion within your circles?

    Missed this gem. I suggest finding better friends, champ, if Nazi slogans are in fashion in your circles.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:45 a.m.  

  • Man, I thought I was good. But I've seen my better, and I bow.

    Whoever is doing these dueling anonymous posts -- I'm impressed. I'm starting to like reading you as much as I like reading the blogs you comment on.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:32 a.m.  

  • Yes, the Liberals have been such strong supporters of Senate Reform, you must be taking this very hard.


    (Except for those (seemingly few) Liberals who do support Senate reform)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:33 a.m.  

  • Mike Duffy of all people? Name one who's worked harder to earn a Harper appointment.

    Haha - zing2.0

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:34 a.m.  

  • 4 out of the 18 are women. This is completely unacceptable

    Ohh good point.

    I can't see the Liberals doing much better (except, probably, Dion) but it still needs to be said, and I'm glad you pointed it out. It went over my head.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:39 a.m.  

  • There once was a blogger from Calgary
    Whose head was like a political library
    He blogged as a Grit
    And gave partisans fits
    For being impartial and judging quite fairly.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:51 a.m.  

  • Only Liberals could be big enough hipocrites to criticise someone else for making senate appointments

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:29 a.m.  

  • Harper has been quite good at sliding a long series of broken promises past the electorate on a case-by-case basis. I sense, however, that his backtracking (most recently on the Senate) combined with his regular reversals on the economy and his panicked response to the coalition (shutting down the House) is beginning to have a cumulative effect on the base perception of his government. That is, I think the "gut response" of the electorate to Harper's government is beginning to be a view that Harper really does not have a firm grip on the helm.

    I don't think it is irreversible for Harper but the first few months of 2009 is likely to be crucial to him and his government. The fact that the economy is unlikely to show signs of improvement in such a short term will make Harper's task that much more difficult.

    It will be fascinating to watch.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:56 a.m.  

  • With the exception of Murphy it looks like Harper appointed every single pro-Conservative journalist!

    I have no problem with appointing only 4 women out of the 18. The best candidates should get chosen, and that won't always add up to half (for either side). I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm just saying that, in principle, I have no problem with only 4 women (or 4 men) out of 18.

    And yeah, choosing a separatist is bad. The reason it's not hypocritical to say that is because the Liberals never made a big deal about how they don't make deals with separatists.

    And that's also why it's hypocritical of Harper to make these partisan appointments to begin with, and it wasn't for the Liberals. The Liberals never made a big deal about not being partisan, and about not appointing the Senate. The Conservatives did. We're judging the Conservatives by their own morals, and they FAIL time and time again.

    By Blogger Robert Vollman, at 11:58 a.m.  

  • CTV described the new Senate appointees as conservative 'bagmen'.

    So, there we are! The conservatives can be proud once again of PMSH.

    By Blogger JimTan, at 12:18 p.m.  

  • Just a quick note in the midst of some fascinating discussion...There are 5, not 4 women on the list.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:45 p.m.  

  • So, I guess the archfiend did all the appointments at once, in the dead of night, to get it over with. Give em the whole bottle of medicine in one shot, so we only get to bitch for a week or so. Since it would take a constitutional amendment to have any new Senators by any other means it was inevitable. I only wish that Preston Manning was on the list sigh. Then we would really have some thunder'n lightning. Really though, if Harpers not careful the CTV might get stripped of card carrying conservative 'news' reporters. (Yeah Right, like in a century or two). Peter Kent, off to Parliament, Duffy, what's er name. They still have Fife to carry the flag though.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:19 p.m.  

  • Paul:
    When is Duffy and PEI having an election for senate? I suspect the same date as Quebec and Ontario have their senate elections...never.
    Frankly, I don't care about senate reform. I am honestly not bothered about anyone going to the senate (but Duffy makes me lose respect for the entire journalism profession I used to belong to).
    But the time has come for Conservatives to realize Harper has broken his promise on senate reform. He has made other patronage appointments. Just like Martin did. And JC, and Mulroney, and Turner and Trudeau and Clark and all of them. He is not more honest than any Lib leader. He has not increased accountability as he promised. He has not followed through on more promises than did any other leader.
    If people are going to vote for that clown/dicatator again, they need to vote for his policy or against his hypocracy.
    I dont condemn Harper for breaking promises and appointing senators and all. I condemn him for pretending and lying that he doesnt break promises, and for giving false hope senate reform activists, environmental activists, fiscal conservatives, and anyone intersted in accountabilty and honesty.

    By Blogger kenlister1, at 12:22 a.m.  

  • You people are funny. Keep fighting for your entitlements.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:11 a.m.  

  • Senate appointments matter to only three classes of people in Canada: pundits, partisans/bloggers, and a large swath of Westerners.

    Westerners care about the Senate because they know we’re never going to have the kind of political clout that Ontario and Quebec have due to Central Canada’s larger share of the population, so the triple-e Senate has long been seen as a method of balancing the perceived power imbalance.

    Pundits care about the Senate because it’s something they can dissect, discuss and ultimately, ponitificate about what’s right or wrong with the institution as opposed to, you know, running for office and putting their amazing ideas into workable legislation to solve all of Canada’s ills.

    Partisans and bloggers care about the Senate because, depending on which side of the partisan fence you’re standing, you can either cheer the eighteen appointments or say that Harper broke yet another promise. That he’s a liar. That he’s got a hidden agenda. That he’s got “666″ tattooed on the back of his head somewhere. Insert partisan snipe here…

    Being that I’m non-partisan, I tend to look at the Senate less as a function of our parliamentary democracy and more of an extention of the Prime Minister’s Office. Am I bothered that Mike Duffy was appointed? You bet! I love Mike Duffy and CTV is going to have a helluva time replacing him. I disagree with some opinion columns that are questioning the nature of the relationship between the media and politicians including some that are questioning whether Mike Duffy was a truly unbiased journalist in all his years covering Ottawa. Here’s what I know: I’ve read blogs that accuse Mike Duffy, CTV, hell, the Ottawa Press Gallery for that matter as being pro-Liberal, anti-Liberal, pro-Tory, anti-tory, for years and years. Those complaints generally come about when your party (be it, Liberal, Tory or Dipper) is getting some shitty press coverage more often than not because of some dipshit policy or worse, a scandal your party got itself into and now has the audacity to complain about being exposed for the scandal your party frikin’ created!

    It is with some measure of amusement that I am reading Liberal bloggers and commentators trying to slam Harper for “abandoning his base” or for “breaking yet another promise”.

    Give me a frikin’ break! Look, voters who are actually paying attention to this are sophisticated enough to know that all political leaders break promises: it’s what they frikin’ do for shit sake! It doesn’t matter whether that leader is a Tory or a Liberal - they all break a promise, usually for political expediency, neccessity or more often than not, for political advantage. With this in mind, kindly shut up about it because nobody is going to punish Harper, and nobody gives a rat’s ass! His base will be there come the next election: why? Because his base ain’t made up of Liberals and Dippers!

    I will say this much: it is beyond hypocritical for Liberals (and their supporters) to slam Harper for making the appointments all the while refusing to address the reason he waited three years to appoint Senators. For clarification: you don’t support Senate reform and now you’re pointing your finger at Harper and saying… what? That he’s an asshole because he’s acting just like YOU guys when your party is in power: the Prime Minister of Canada is appointing Senators! Stop the presses because, holy shit, it’s business as usual in Ottawa!

    Cripes, what a country, eh?

    To quote sage Kinsella:

    "Journalists are entitled to have views; they are entitled to receive appointments, too. Anyone who suggests otherwise is just being partisan, or conspiracy theorist, or both.

    Again, to my Liberal friends: get over your CTV fixation. It doesn't help your leader, your party, or yourselves"

    By Blogger Sean Cummings, at 7:20 a.m.  

  • As a Liberal I have never quite understood the affection that many of my fellow party members display for the Senate.

    The Liberal Party of Canada should always stand for change and moving forward, not the status quo. Leave it to the NDP and Conservatives to defend that.

    The Liberal Party of Canada is at its best when it embraces the idea of representing the radical centre. The Senate is not reformable. We do not not need another layer of elected decision-makers creating gridlock in Ottawa.

    For the love of god can't we just adopt the abolition of the Senate as a platform plank for our party? And since any changes to the Senate would require the unanimous consent of Parliament and all 10 provinces, we should commit as a party to refuse to appoint any new Senators until the goal of abolition is accomplished.

    And if another party stuffs the Senate full of its own supporters? So what? If the unelected Senate ever stood in the way of a duly elected Liberal government passing the legislation it wished, the consequences for the other party (the Conservatives) would be politically catastrophic.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:56 p.m.  

  • We already have Harper's pledge to increase seats in the HoC by more more than thirty seats - why would we need another 105 'elected' politicians in the Senate?

    Harper is continually trying to find new ways to throw taxpayers' money out of the window. Consultative elections for the nomination of senators is the most grotesque of them all.

    It will be interesting to see these Senators evolve - will they sit around and do nothing to prove that Senators sit around and do nothing - or will they work hard in committees to prove that the Senate if useful?

    By Blogger Loraine Lamontagne, at 9:27 a.m.  

  • By Blogger 5689, at 9:44 p.m.  

  • Very good topic, similar texts are I do not know if they are as good as your work out. For this web site, you will see our account, remember to go through this info.


    By Anonymous oncasinosite, at 4:36 a.m.  

  • This is very interesting content! I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your points and have come to the conclusion that you are right about many of them. I read this article. I think You put a lot of effort to create this article.


    By Anonymous totosafeguide, at 4:38 a.m.  

  • Interestingly you write, I will address you'll find exciting and interesting things on similar topics. On this page, you'll see my profile, please read this information.


    By Anonymous betmantoto, at 4:41 a.m.  

  • Seriously, this idea left a deep impression on me. I'd love to hear about your site. Please visit my site once and leave a comment. Thank you. 바카라사이트

    By Anonymous 바카라사이트, at 2:46 a.m.  

  • You made some good points there. I did a Google search about the topic and found most people will believe your blog. 메리트카지노

    By Anonymous 메리트카지노, at 3:59 a.m.  

  • Why couldn't I have the same or similar opinions as you? T^T I hope you also visit my blog and give us a good opinion.온라인슬롯

    By Anonymous 온라인슬롯, at 3:24 a.m.  

  • Your article has answered the question I was wondering about! I would like to write a thesis on this subject, but I would like you to give your opinion once :D카지노슬롯

    By Anonymous 카지노슬롯, at 5:35 a.m.  

  • I figure this article can be enhanced a tad. There are a couple of things that are dangerous here, and if you somehow managed to change these things, this article could wind up a standout amongst your best ones. I have a few thoughts with respect to how you can change these things. 메이저놀이터

    By Anonymous 메이저놀이터, at 4:55 a.m.  

  • Your post is really nice and very interesting.

    By Anonymous casinositeone.JDS, at 9:10 a.m.  

  • Wish to see much more like this.

    By Anonymous casinositeguidecom.JDS, at 9:11 a.m.  

  • Thanks for sharing your information.

    By Anonymous safetotositepro.JDS, at 9:11 a.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home