Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

There are people who will believe whatever Cheney says. He's not talking to those who would question what he says, but to those who believe him whatever he says. As long as he continues to come up with this stuff there will be people who believe him.

Well..... Let's see what the verdict about Reagan was after his terms were over.
I don't think there's any question now that he was already suffering from the effects of dementia, even in his first term. Draw your own conclusions about Cheney, but I think that evil people can be banal AND dumb. Rove and Cheney rule by fear and intimidation, not smarts.

I think Brad is underestimating the willingness of the U.S. press to swallow Bushco lies. Will the next Bush/Cheney lie receive any more scrutiny from the press because of this one? No. If you own most of the press and intimidatre the press you can lie as much as you want. The standard of honesty and truth-telling we expect from the press is not the American standard you grow up with. The press now behaves as if we lives in Putin's Russia, or Pinochet's Chile, and that is what we are becoming.

You realize, Brad, that those three adjectives are not mutually exclusive, right?

What J said and what cALdEM said. You have to be exposed to these Republican cliques to believe the insulated mindset. If they read something in the paper that contradicts what Nice Mr. Cheney told them at their priviliged rubber-chicken affair they will simply conclude that the press was lying.

Some are too cynical to care. I get Republican fund-raiser mailings. They are absolutely naked appeals to support the people in power to keep their power. There is no policy information at all in some of them. They are aimed at people who will give money so their side will win and the other will lose. That's who Cheney is talking to.

The guy is only 63 this month so it is a bit early for Alzheimers. He does hunt a lot and maybe he gets too many prions from the squirrel brain gravy or the wasted deer.

What I want to know is what John Ashcroft thinks of Cheney's gay daughter. They must have some fun dinner conversation. The other question is, "Does Cheney read his wife's novels?"

Cheney's had heart surgery, right?

He probably has what doctors call "pump head" in private - a decrease in cognitive ability due to the use of the heart-lung machine.

Cheney's had 4 or 5 heart attacks, and a similar number of bypasses. This is why I suspect that he's not quite as sharp as Dan Quayle these days.

"I reject the possibility that Cheney is following some complicated manipulative Machiavellian strategy. The falsehoods are too blatant and too transparent."

Republicanism is a faith-based ideology. Forty percent of those who voted for Bush were fundamentalist Christians after all. If Republicans started carefully analyzing evidence to back up their belief systems they wouldn't be Republicans any more. Cheney knows that as long as he sticks to his guns and loudly proclaims the existence of Iraqi WMDs and terrorist contacts a large number of potential voters will continue to think that the matter is still open to reasonable differences of opinion. Those of us who are familiar with the evidence are still a minority in the country. Cheney knows that he can play on the credulity and natural prejudices of his audience to keep them from investigating the matter further.

What is the downside for Cheney to keep insisting that these stories are true? He's the most powerful Vice-President of the United States in the history of this country. He can easily cut off news organizations access to any number of key players in the administration, causing them to treat him with kid gloves. And to be honest, what the hell does he care how he appears to an esteemed Cal economics professor and this merely steamed commentor?

The upside is that the base stays energized. The Rushes, Medved, Hewitt, Imuses, etc. in radio, the Krauthammer, Novaks, Thomases, etc. in print, the cable channels all report that the Vice-President said it and "liberals disagree [of course]". I'm sure that the Young Republicans in Sproul Plaza stay energized by this kind of bolstering.

In Cheney's world there is no negative consequence to insisting that up is down and black is white. The consequences for our society, as with so much of this administration's detritus, is for other people to worry about, and clean up if possible.

Not complicated Machiavellian, just simple "big-lie". He's talking to the core constituency plus people who skin the headlines but have no real political views.

I do have reason to believe that the Cheney/Rove administration is losing some of the rational conservatives and moderate hawks. There's just too much blatant dissonance.

you're looking for a complicated explanation to a simple application of the Neitzchean maxim: anything strongly asserted is likely to be believed. And in the current politics, only results matter.

"J" is on the right track, but has made a sign error.

Mr. Cheney isn't telling lies. He's telling stories. There's a difference.

He's telling his people exactly the stories that they want to hear. But it's not about him: it's about the stories. If he suddenly got squeamish about telling the stories, some one else would have to step into his place to tell them. The stories wouldn't change.

Or he's just a congenital liar who wouldn't know the truth if it hit him upside his head with a 2x4.

RC

Cheney the Fact Bully.
I have no perception of this guy as a medical case. He seems to behave the way he does because he's used to being the center of attention of a cheer-leader squad. There is no fact-finding mission, as it were, but a fact-issuing session. ( He has the Facts and Here they are.)
There is no entertaining a proposition. There is no learning something new. ( Cheney Knows and we are about to Learn) And the attitude is that the issues are so mundane, so beneath his invaluable attention, so ...bush league.
Maybe that's it: he confuses the press with Dubya.

Clinton thought he had the stuff in '98. Most intelligence agencies agreed, but they did not think an invasion necessary. The investigaion of the '93 WTC bombing turned up strong evidence of Iraqi involvement. Ramsi Yousef entered on a Kuwaiti citizen's passport(file was in Iraqi control when it invaded Kuwait) and left on an Iraqi passport. A co-conspirator was given sanctuary in Iraq. Khalid Sheik Muhammed captured in Pakistan after 9/11 as a top Al Qaeda leader is Ramsi Yousef's uncle. Anybody see any connections?

I suppose I should call you people names now so I can carry on the Ad Hominem attacks which seem to be the way of it here. The point is we don't see the intelligence but I don't think its beyond the realm of possibilities that Cheney is correct.

If "Cheney is correct", then he's holding onto to the release of the evidence for some dramatic point in the Presidential campaign, which would prove him an opportunist of astounding dimension?

Brian manages to totally miss the point of recent history.

Clinton believed that there was evidence of WMD development. This intelligence was faulty, because he had withdrawn inspectors and there was no direct means of verification.

So, Clinton bombed the sites he thought were involved. At the same time, a number of people who are now members of the Administration were urging invasion. Clinton declined.

There's no way Clinton would have gone to war, especially against the wishes of the entire world, and especially while inspectors were in place.

And there is still no-- zero-- evidence of official Iraqi involvement in ANY attack on the United States.

I was hoping to get here in time to make this a prediction, and not merely an observation:

Cheney syas these things knowingly, cynically, fully aware that saying them will result in blindly ideological fools echoing them, rationalizing them, chanting them. As long as Cheney says these things publicly, millions of Americans will continue to believe them, and to doubt anyone who actually speaks the truth. It's an incredibly powerful method to keep yourself in power, by making all others either complicit in your lies or viewed as suspect for questioning them.

There's nothing "ad hominem" about calling a liar someone who tells lies. When Cheney cites two trailers that were built to make hydrogen for weather/artillery balloon as "conclusive" evidence of WMD programs, he is lying. The USArmy says the trailers were not for WMD. The UN says they were not for WMD. People who know how to make hydrogen for balloons say they were not for WMD. And David Kay, who still insisted in July and September that WMD were just around the corner, says they were not for WMD. So what can we call Cheney but a liar? Regardless of what we call him, it is, in fact, beyond the realm of possibility that he is correct on this matter.

And given these facts, why should we give ANY credence to his tendentious claims about an al-Qaeda/Saddam connection? He's a proven liar, and in the same breath with the proven lie, he's making other claims, politically convenient to himself, for which there is no evidence but circumstantial.

As for Brian's strained and credulous string of insinuations, what evidence has he presented for Iraqi involvement in '93 that is more meaningful than the fact that most of the 9-11 conspirators plotted together in Germany. And Germany was against invading Iraq. So Germany and Iraq together plotted 9-11! "I don't think its beyond the realm of possibilities that [this] is correct."

Brian wrote, "The investigaion of the '93 WTC bombing turned up strong evidence of Iraqi involvement. Ramsi Yousef entered on a Kuwaiti citizen's passport(file was in Iraqi control when it invaded Kuwait) and left on an Iraqi passport. A co-conspirator was given sanctuary in Iraq. Khalid Sheik Muhammed captured in Pakistan after 9/11 as a top Al Qaeda leader is Ramsi Yousef's uncle. Anybody see any connections?"

You'll have to do better than that.

My first Google hit refers to a *false* Iraqi passport. Suppose some terrorist enters country X with a false US passport. Does that mean the US is involved with the terrorist?

Here's a link that attacks one attempt to connect RY to Iraq:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33705

"I suppose I should call you people names now so I can carry on the Ad Hominem attacks which seem to be the way of it here."
Dare you to find a single ad hominem fallacy in what I just wrote.

Brad,

Given Cheney's history of heart problems, shouldn't you also add "ill" to your litany on Cheney?

Ill?

Perhaps mentally, yes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40116-2004Jan22.html

Ill? My guess would be that his meds occasionally get out of balance. Normally, Cheney gives the impression of being forceful and aggressive to the point of belligerence, but very, very intelligent. This stuff is just surreal.

The "Saddam - Osama connection" is one of the Administration's most useful memes. They never actually claim it's true but they speak so as to lead people to think that they do. The Fox News crowd, of course, swallows it hook, line and sinker.

Then Cheney comes along and spouts this nonsense. The previous time (the infamous "Meet the Press" interview) actually had both Bush and Rumsfeld come out and say that there was no connection.

I suspect that there's nobody in the Administration who can tell him to go back to his "undisclosed location" and stay there until he gets his meds rebalanced.

I agree with J.... Geobbels said the way to convince civilians was just keep repeating the same lie over and over again. What was it? "You can convince anyone that a square is a circle by just rounding the corners a little at a time."
It must be working, and that makes Cheney truly Machiavellian: 62% of Americans think Saddam came up with WMDs all on his own, (instead of complicated US agricultural grants-for-weapons swindles ala Contra-Ollie during Reagan), and they also believe that Saddam was the mastermind behind the 911 attack, (and forgot about Osama).
But why, oh why? TREASURE! DoD itself caught Halliburton's fraud, but all Halliburton did was fire two fall-guys, and promise to pay the money back. Magic! Incredibly, DoD gave them ANOTHER contract! Is this a great country, or what!? Just keep repeating that to yourself, until you believe it. Cheney's Way is the Corporate Way. Lie like a MF'r. http://www.oligopolywatch.com/

This is the Big Lie. It does not have to be believed in full. But if it is repeated often enough, it becomes a sort of subconscious, "well I hear that" echo, that helps inform the emotions, if not the intellect.

JRoth- please pick up your junior high English book and read the definition of "ad hominem". You did indeed commit an ad hominem argument in saying "why should we give ANY credence to his tendentious claims about an al-Qaeda/Saddam connection? He's a proven liar". That is as ad hominem as it gets.

Mr. Fromm- I read the article and it just gave opposing views. It is no refutation. I found no ad hominem in your note but if you read all notes I think you'll find the thread. All the catagoricals are laughable. There's little real argument among the many posts. If Iraq did provide any support I think they would have covered their tracks well. Any evidence will be quite piecemeal. To deny catagorically Sadaam's involvement is foolish especially for people with no access to the intelligence.

Please, Mr. "I believe whatever my leaders tell me to", don't condescend to me about definitions. I know damn well what an ad hominem is, and I know when I want to use one.

In gauging the likely veracity of someone's statements, it is useful to know that person's history of veracity. If someone tells lies, then he is a liar, and as such, not one to be trusted. Similarly, if I want to gauge the likely usefulness of someone's medical advice, it would be helpful to know whether that person is a "doctor." Saying that someone is a doctor, and therefore a reliable diagnostician, is not ad hominem in any rhetorical sense, yet I've just made an argument based on who the person is - at the man, if you will - not on what he said.

Richard Cheney, as I demonstrated (and you haven't even considered attempting to refute) tells lies. He is a liar. I'm not saying that he is untrustworthy because he sneers, or because he's a Wyoman (?), or because he's the living embodiment of crony capitalism and cynical manipulation of government for personal gain. All those are ad hominem claims that have no bearing on the likelihood of any given statement of his being true. But the established fact that he is a liar has enormous bearing, and unless you can refute David Kay, the UN, etc., his being a liar remains as a fact, and a relevant one.

Brian wrote, "To deny catagorically Sadaam's involvement is foolish especially for people with no access to the intelligence."

*That's* foolish. The only people with "access" to the intelligence are the Bush administration people, and they've lied about it consistently: aluminum tubes, chemical weapons, etc.

Hello:

well, hold on here, Cheney's daughter's a lesbian (huh) Is she married? This is an issue because the Administration must be consistent on this, does this mean Cheney will have to disown his daughter by November 2004?
Also, I'm impressed this article by Prf. Delong was written and posted. Does not he know that the VP cannot be talked about, and especially not questioned.
Even the press did not mind when he disappeared from public view for about 43 consecutive days about 10 days before we invaded Iraq in the spring '03. He just disappreaded to that undisclosed location. Meanwhile the Prez is waving from white house lawn from copter pad, and the VP is nowhere to be found, finally surfacing in a Camp David "fuzzy" video-phone still...

Is there any more proof on who is running the show, and who is stuffed paper lion acting gruff for cameras?

Yet, now his secret energy task force that is shaping our destiny and has hatched a bill that is full of special interest, tax breaks for oil company's, law suits to be shielded to MTBE producers (MTBE was a Bush Sr. brainchild from Texas- clean air act ammendment late 1980's)...

Yet, who is on this secret energy committee (Sam Lay, Enron?)- and it is now headed to supreme court so they can decide if the PG audience of America can have its virgin ears hear who is on the "Energy Task Force". Question is why is this such a secret that the Supreme Court has to be the last peg used to stop US citizens from comprehending how our elected officials are framing our future.
Then I read some rumor that Judge Scalia is on the energy task force, and that he may be asked to recuse himself from the bench that decides all issues pertaining to Cheney?
Only Democrats have started the ball rolling to have Scalia's true relationship with Cheney exposed and have Scalia recused (recused is too nice a word-maybe tar and feathered via 17th century is more appropriate)

So, this is what we have become. They have no shame because they know what is right or us, as of now- we have no rights.
The purpose of the supreme court is no longer to save American rights, but is now a tool to abridge American rights. Once was a final leap to save justice, now it is a wall of special interest.

JRoth- Now it is " likely veracity" of his statements. You seem to be softening your position. If you dismiss someone's argument based soley on the person rather than THE argument then you commit the fallacy. Also, you can dish out the condescension as in "blindly ideological fools", but you can't take it. I suppose you'll send me a really saucy reply. I only wish I could hear the Dean like howl at the end. By the way, I picture you as a very mature person not lacking in humility with the physique of the Hulk tapping away at your keyboard.

Mr. Fromm- I didn't say you couldn't form an opinion. I'm simply pointing out it should be tempered with a recognition of the limited knowledge it's based upon. I think you overstate your position when you alledge the administration has lied consistently. If you are correct would you say the UN is a totally delegitimized body for imposing such strict sanctions on a harmless regime? I don't think the war was waged simply on WMD concerns. These guys are playing chess not checkers. I think its silly to fight over aluminum tubes and flatbeds in a game of gotcha politics. Bush is trying to remake the region. Now there's something to debate and of much more concern.

Brian wrote, "Mr. Fromm- I didn't say you couldn't form an opinion. I'm simply pointing out it should be tempered with a recognition of the limited knowledge it's based upon."

What intelligence do *you* have access to?

The burden of proof is on those who claim there's a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, because of prior considerations---namely, that Saddam's and Al Qaeda's ideologies are diametrically opposed.

"I think you overstate your position when you alledge the administration has lied consistently." LOL! They're up to their eyeballs in lies. Ackerman and Judis, in a piece in _The New Republic_ (2003-06-30) demonstrated that Bush et al. distorted the intelligence picture to serve their own ends. If Clinton can be impeached for lying about a b******, Bush should certainly be impeached for *this*.

"I don't think the war was waged simply on WMD concerns." That's not the point. For all we know, Bush waged the war to avenge Hussein's assassination attempt on his dad. The point, rather, is that the WMD threat was used to justify the war to the American people.

"I think its silly to fight over aluminum tubes and flatbeds in a game of gotcha politics."

Gotcha politics? Bush lied about a causus belli and now 500+ Americans are dead, we are or soon will be $100 billion deeper in debt, etc etc.

"These guys are playing chess not checkers."

LOL! Bush has surrounded himself with a bunch of babbling idiots. Here's a link about Richard Perle as an example:
http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003061.html

"Bush is trying to remake the region. Now there's something to debate and of much more concern."

Well, yes...and demonstrating to the public that the administration's pronouncements on this and most other subjects are total balogne is an important way to start addressing that concern.

Brian wrote, "JRoth- Now it is ' likely veracity' of his statements. You seem to be softening your position. If you dismiss someone's argument based soley on the person rather than THE argument then you commit the fallacy."

That's nonsense. Cheney's statements, as discussed in this thread, are not *arguments* so much as claims based on secret information (e.g., "Saddam has reconstituted nuclear weapons"). Argument _ad hominem_ is, of course, inappropriate when addressing an opponent's *arguments*, but it's entirely appropriate when addressing an opponent's unexaminable claims of fact.

Mr. Fromm- Now, you must do better than that. If Dick Cheney was doing the inspections himself with no assistance then resorting to weak character attacks may be necessary, but he is passing on info. A fallacy is a fallacy. I nor you have proof of anything and that is the point. I will not say I'm positive we should or should not have invaded Iraq. I can try to form an informed opinion and I will use it in the next election. We have a representative form of gov't. War is not made by democratic vote. The only people who have to be sure are President Bush and all the Dems and Republicans that authorized use of force. He got the votes didn't he. UN made resolutions didn't they. Clinton made war by attacking Iraq in '98 based on WMD concerns. You seem to act as if Bush/Cheney are the only ones in on the conspiracy. Blair is on board. Spain and Italy were in.

"Bush has surrounded himself with a bunch of babbling idiots." Nice. You guys cannot help yourselves can you. Republicans are stupid and Democrats are smart. Why is it the most informed voters vote Republican and the uninformed voters vote Dem(See 2002 National Election Study www.umich.edu/~nes/). Those type of statements do not add credibility to your argument quite the contrary.

Finally, your claim "Saddam's and Al Qaeda's ideologies are diametrically opposed" is simply absurd. Al Qaeda members had been welcomed in Iraq. What is Sadaam's ideology by the way? Hitler and Stalin made a pact didn't they. The US and USSR made treaties didn't they. Don't tell me two megalomaniacs couldn't convince themselves they could game the other. These are not principled men after all. I could envision Bin Laden trying to create ties with Sadaam simply to get us to attack Iraq. You see how things might be more complicated than just aluminum tubes and flatbed trucks.

Brian wrote, "Now, you must do better than that. If Dick Cheney was doing the inspections himself with no assistance then resorting to weak character attacks may be necessary, but he is passing on info. A fallacy is a fallacy. I nor you have proof of anything and that is the point."

All of Cheney's claims have turned out to be utter frauds. Furthermore, *he* was the one making claims about the existence of WMD, and the burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim.

"The only people who have to be sure are President Bush and all the Dems and Republicans that authorized use of force. He got the votes didn't he."

He got the votes by lying about Saddam's WMD capability.

"You seem to act as if Bush/Cheney are the only ones in on the conspiracy. Blair is on board. Spain and Italy were in."

Yeah, but were the British, Spanish, and Italian *people* on board? And how's Tony Blair doing now, by the way?

"Why is it the most informed voters vote Republican and the uninformed voters vote Dem..."

My point wasn't about *Republicans in general*, it's about the morons in charge in the White House. About your irrelevant claim: Provide a more specific citation. And even were it true, tell me if you've factored out the effect that Republicans are, on average, wealthier and hence better able to become educated.

"Finally, your claim 'Saddam's and Al Qaeda's ideologies are diametrically opposed' is simply absurd. Al Qaeda members had been welcomed in Iraq. What is Sadaam's ideology by the way?"

Saddam was a secularist, bin Laden et al. are religious fanatics opposed to secularism. I could just as well argue that Bush and bin Laden are in cahoots, because they don't share the same ideology.

"You see how things might be more complicated than just aluminum tubes and flatbed trucks."

*I* wasn't the lier who made noises about e.g. aluminum tubes; the administration people were.

Hello

free hilton paris sex video HERE!!! the best SEX VIDEO MOVIES! Girls get fucked!

beastiality and animal sex stories here. sweet dogs sex,horses sex,pigs fucking,snakes sex, dogs oral job, horses blowjob.

the best tranny site on the net. young transexuals here!

free incest stories, incest sex, mom and son, father and daughter

young lolitas, teens, teens sex, teens sex video

anime porn, cartoon sex, pokemon sex

asian beauties, sweet asian girls get fucked. chinease sex. enjoy them

the best young gays sex. great cocks of the huge gays. gay sex video, gax pics, gay porno adult movies

the best galleries with the best young girls on the net.. sex, sex, sex, sex!

INDIAN SEX WORLD! SWEET INDIAN GIRLS HERE!

young lesbians. lesbian sex. lesbian video, lesbian sex

sweet hot young girls

A solved puzzle is just a picture.

The important thing isn't doing, but knowing how you do it.

Love can damage more than you can heal with drinking.

Its rather interesting for me..

http://asthma-information.healz.com/
http://asthma-symptoms.healz.com/
http://asthma.healz.com/

lesbian sex
http://www.lesbian-sex.name
lesbian sex

laina sex
http://www.latina-sex.name
latina sex

online dating service
http://www.online-dating-service.name
online dating service

anime porn
http://www.anime-porn.name
anime porn

live webcams
http://www.live-webcams.name
live webcams

rape stories
http://www.rape-stories.name
free rape stories

gay sex
http://www.gay-sex.name
gay sex videos

asian sex
http://www.asian-sex.us
asian sex

hand job movies
http://www.hand-job.us
hand job, hand job videos

handjob movies
http://www.handjob-movies.us
handjob movies, handjob videos

hi. i'm 20 .. from Brazil... how r u?

http://www.latina-sex.name
latina porn

WOW! I like this guestbook... that's cool

http://www.online-dating-service.com
online dating service

free anal sex movies
free anal sex movies
free anal sex movies
free anal sex movies

gay sex video
gay sex video

free gay sex video
gay sex video

free gay sex video
gay sex video

gay sex
gay sex movies
gay sex
gay sex movies

asian sex
asian sex movies
asian sex
asian sex movies

animal sex
animal sex movies
animal sex
animal sex movies

free anime cartoon porn
free hentai cartoon porn
free hentai cartoon porn
free anime cartoon porn

free lesbian porn sex movies
free lesbian porn sex movies

free lesbian porn sex movies
free lesbian porn sex movies

public nudity
public nudity

public nudity
free public nudity

indian sex movies stories
indian porn movies stories
indian sex movies stories
indian sex movies stories

free rape stories videos
free rape stories videos
free rape stories videos
free rape stories videos

sexy naked girls porn
sexy naked girls porn
sexy naked girls porn
sexy naked girls porn
---

dog sex
http://dog--sex.com

animal sex
http://animal--sex.info

shaved pussy, bushless pussy
http://shaved-pussy.biz

foot sex, feet sex, legs sex
http://foot-sex.biz

animal sex, horse sex, god sex, rabbit sex, fish sex
http://horse-sex.ws

hand job, woman mastrubation, woman looks at man mastrubation
http://www.hand-job.us

Incest stories, incest sex, free incest stories mom son incest, father daughter incest
http://www.incest-stories.biz

HUN YELOW PAGE, THE HUN, THEHUN.COM, THEHUN.NET, THE HUN TGP, THE HUN YELLOW HUN YELOW PAGE, THE HUN, THEHUN.COM, THEHUN.NET, THE HUN TGP, THE HUN YELLOW
http://www.the-hun-yellow-page-tgp.com

free hilton paris sex video MATURE, MATURE SEX, MATURE MOMS, MATURE LADIES, GRANNY MATURE
http://www.mature-sex-moms-porn.com

free hilton paris sex video HERE!!! the best SEX VIDEO MOVIES! Girls get fucked!
http://www.free-hilton-paris-sex-video.com

beastiality and animal sex stories here. sweet dogs sex,horses sex,pigs fucking,snakes sex, dogs oral job, horses blowjob.
http://www.beastiality-animal-sex-stories.com

the best tranny site on the net. young transexuals here!
http://www.trannysexmovie.com

free incest stories, incest sex, mom and son, father and daughter
http://www.free-incest-stories-site.com

young lolitas, teens, teens sex, teens sex video
http://www.teen-sex-porn-models.com

anime porn, cartoon sex, pokemon sex
http://www.anime-porn-sex-xxx.com

asian beauties, sweet asian girls get fucked. chinease sex. enjoy them
http://www.asian-girls-porn-sex.com

the best young gays sex. great cocks of the huge gays. gay sex video, gax pics, gay porno adult movies
http://www.free-gay-video-clip.com

the best galleries with the best young girls on the net.. sex, sex, sex, sex!
http://www.gals4all.com

INDIAN SEX WORLD! SWEET INDIAN GIRLS HERE!
http://www.indian-sex-porno-movies-stories.com

young lesbians. lesbian sex. lesbian video, lesbian sex
http://www.lesbian-sex-porn-pics-stories.com

sweet hot young girls
http://www.sweethotgirls.com