Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

I have to agree...

Any Rockefelller conservatives left in the GOP ?

It's my party!

Rockefeller Republicans? Hell, I'm beginning to wonder if there is any room for Reaganauts in the GOP.

Well it IS my party, and I'll cry if I want to...

Okay. I believe in free-trade, small distant and fiscally responsible government that stays out of my bedroom; frankly it's a mess and I really need to do laundry.

What _is_ my party then?

What went wrong with the temperate, rational and realist wing of the Republican Party while the wingnuts were taking over the party?

The words "Stockholm Syndrome" come to mind.

They wanted the power so much, they were ready to sell their souls to the devil.

But it is more than this. The fanatic strain in Republicanism goes back to the Wilson era -- J. Edgar Hoover was a Republican creation, so were the UnAmerican Congressional Committees in the late 30s through the 50s. Something happened to Lincoln's party between 1880 and 1920. I think it was the fear that the Socialists would take what they thought they owned and deserved. Go back to the age of Eugene Debs. Then think of the members of Bund who arrived from Poland and places east after the turn of the century and brought us an intellectually defensible socialism. There was a visceral anti-socialist strain to Republicanism from the late 90s. It got more visceral under FDR. My thesis advisor told me that the intensity of hatred toward that man by the Republicans dwarfed what we have seen of their hatred for Clinton. He said there was no comparison.

It's a complicated history and deserves the work of a great historian. We all know the later parts; the sell-out to southern racism and evangelical Christianity. But the roots go deep.

What is sad about all this is that the core of the Republican party actually stood for something useful and decent in American life, and a lot of ordinary decent people still believe in it. But their party has been stolen from them. It is as if the Communists had stolen the Democratic party.

I have to agree with Knut: someone stole it.

this is my theory, trotted out for what it's worth: the Repbulican party has been replaced by the Dreamery.

It occurred to me reading the conservative flap about Kerry's medals (in my opinion, he earned them, so he could do want he wanted with them) was this: Kerry didn't show respect for his medals, unlike Bush, who always would have shown much respect.

Non-dreamers say: But Bush never earned any medals.

But in the dream-world of the new Republicans, that doesn't matter. What matters is the dream. Bush strides out in a flight suit, with the "Mission Accomplished" banner spontaneously raised behind him by his loyal troops: A dream. In the dreamworld Bush has his medals, Saddam has his weapons, Guatanamo Bay has its terrorists (as does Abu Ghraib, for that matter), Spain its cowards, etc. It simply does not matter to these people that it is not real, any more than it matters how the Federal deficit will be paid. This is why they complain that Kerry hasn't promised democracy in Iraq, unlike Bush, who has and who is therefore more commendable. It doesn't matter that Iraq will never be a democracy any more than it matters that Bush never earned any medals. Kerry hasn't lived up to the dream. People who think American society will always be afflicted with gays, women who have casual sex and need abortions, nonbelievers in general .... they are all just people who have not lived up to the dream.

As are we ...

A Republican colleague of mine answered unwillingly this question for me not too long ago: "perception is reality". If you believe this strongly enough, it will surely become your reality... but un/fortunately not the reality. I don't think I have ever witnessed collective delusion on this scale, not during my short lifetime at least...

It's okay. We still have 1/2 of our two mainstream parties composed primarily (or at least sufficiently) of sane people.

Perhaps that means that, like a one-legged person, we can't walk smoothly on two parties, and must use the crutches of (for any other country) unwarranted t-bond holder confidence in our bonds and military supremacy to hobble along, but at least we can still move.

Now, if we get down to zero sane parties... then I don't know what kind of electrical wheelchair will save us.

I'm rather looking forward to this rapture stuff. As one of the "Left Behind's" my vote in Texas might actually count this year.

Dear Steve Rogers,

I agree with you. In my house, Reagan was always regarded fondly. Besides being much smarter than his opponents gave him credit for (though he did play dumb well about the Iran-Contra gig) and running a much better foreign policy shop - for all the rhetoric withdrawing from Lebanon was the right choice (after all it hardly led to an increase in anti-American terrorism and Hizbullah was not a problem for us until they did Khobar towers) - he knew what the limits of policy ideology were.

For instance, he called the Soviet Empire the "Evil Empire" but he pragmatically cut a workable deal - famously "trust but verify". Of course I do not impute all these things to the "genius" of Ronald Reagan alone, he afterall was a former actor though he did have a well developed political and policy philosophy. No his strength lay in being able to draw many intelligent, competent, and extremely loyal people to his banner and get them to lay down their careers for him.

This is in stark contrast to GWB who couldn't pick a winner if his life depended on it, and consistently alienates the most competent of his crew. Clarke, Whitman, ONeill, Du Iulo, and Powell weren't just the moderates on his team, they were consistently the best players on his team.

There are a lot of "Reagan Republicans" or old hands from Bush I who are appalled, frankly appalled, at the mess that's been created. But Republicans never hang their dirty linen out. If this is going to get taken care of, it's going to have to be in house and quietly.

I among others have had my fun at the expense of Negroponte for his denials of involvement with deathsquads - despite my endorsement of them as an effective technique as long as one is smart enough not to let it get traced back to one - but even Negroponte was incensed according to reports of the idiocy of Feith. It's said that Feith's resignation was a precondition to Negroponte taking the job. Wolfiwitz is apparently also getting forced out by the politicon faction spearheaded by Rove, who thinks he's a liability.

Of course Wolfowitz is still dreaming of a come-back of course. This time as DCI / CIA director. Gag me with a spoon. We might as well just f***ing give Alqueda a nuke and tickets and backstage passes to the Superbowl and get it over with, if that man becomes the head of the CIA. I think Tenet is over his head frankly, and he's got to go, but at least he tries - he really does. Wolfowitz would be out golfing or giving lectures when the Bomb went off on live television.

At this point the most radical elements have the grip on the agenda, and the political side is running the policy shop - it doesn't really believe in what it panders about but it is also willing to pander to anyone who it thinks it can get points with.

It's not just Republicans who are insane.

It's all that lead in the drinking water in Georgetown, and all that lead in the crystal they drink their champagne from. That, and
the first stages of mad cow disease, which is
so rampant in the US herds that the USDA has
threatened to imprison cattlemen who test for
it on their own. No bad news here. Move along.

The American bird in 1765 was the golden eagle clutching a rattlesnake: "Don't Tread On Me." The American bird in 1865 was two fighting cocks bleeding each other to death: "No More Jim Crow." The American bird in 1965 was a hooded vulture tearing at a napalm victim in its talons: "Semper Fidelis." And today, halfway to 2065, the American bird has become the ostrich, with its head stuck firmly in the sand, and a military-industrial grade phallus firmly up its ass: "Pink Triangle."

Americans look pretty in pink.

there's also a large degree of misdirection going on.

the primary republican agenda is simply looting the treasury, part of which requires turning this country into a libertarian rugged-individualist user-fee pay-for-play society.

They've succeeded admirably in these 3 short years, and have stacked up plenty more tax cuts for the wealthy due to kick in over this decade.

Get yours while the gettin' is good...

Republican party began as an alliance of convenience between two sets of extreme radicals--the abolitionists and know-nothings. While we look back upon the abolitionists as a positive force in history, they were, in many ways, extreme religious fundamentalists of the day (quite literally, since so many were driven by New England Puritanism), comparable, perhaps, to the Pro-life movement nowadays. Of course, Know-Nothings opposed slavery because they believed that slavery defiled the WASP race. In a bizarre way, what goes around comes around.....

Both parties are heavily influenced by people who are, if not insane, certainly in the grip of views that provoke the label "insane" from those who don't share them. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are holding positions or exhibiting political behaviors that are wholly rationally defensible on the issues that matter.

The only choice for the past few years has been which particular form of insanity is somewhat less likely to be ruinous. Four years ago I was violently angry about being forced to make that choice. Now I've long since decided that it's unavoidable -- until one party or another collapses.

Erich puts it splendidly.

As for the Republicans, the leadership has been either captured by or is beholden to the right wing. The party is missing a large contingent of moderates who used to vote Republican and now identifythemselves as Independents or even centrist Democrats. Blame Bill Clinton for this, who brilliantly drew them away during the 1990s. It's dangerous, of course, for a major party to be restructured this way and then actually win the White House.

The Republican Party was a big tent party until Teddy Roosevelt split the Bull Moosers off.

Interestingly enough, the first movement of blacks to the Democrats occurred under TR too.

Following an incident in which racists in Brownsville, TX staged a shooting event where spent military shell casings were spread around after the town was shot up to frame the black troops stationed there, in which Roosevelt's response was to expel all the black troops in the unit, duBois (IIRC) endorsed William Jennings Bryant.

It was the first time that a black leader had ever endorsed a Democrat.

Amb. Wilson gives a clear explanation of why the Republican Party is supported by half (plus or minus epsilon) of the American people.

The worst mistake we might make is to imagine that the Republican Party represents less than half the country. The worst mistake they could make would be to imagine that they represent more.

In any case it is time and past to stop looking at the fronts and figureheads and start focusing on the constituents.

"Joe Wilson Thinks the Republican Party Has Gone Insane"

As do all you other Lefties. It's simply because things look very different from our point of view than they look from your point of view.

The above assertion is another example of the Left's inability to tell the hamburger from the picture of a hamburger.

If our actions don't match your theories and models, perhaps its time for you to upgrade your theories and models.

Adrian TSPAWTB

Just ONCE, Adrian, for a change of pace, can you attack the message rather than the messenger?

"Just ONCE, Adrian, for a change of pace, can you attack the message rather than the messenger?

Posted by Dem"

Dem, my friend, I am a bit confused. Would you kindly point out which part of the above post attacks the messenger.

Adrian

People may be interested in an article up today at Salon.com, which traces the eclipse of the moderate, reformist wing of the Republican party all the way back to the 1912 election, in which the conservative Taft split with the more reformist Teddy Roosevelt.

Adrian said: "If our actions don't match your theories and models, perhaps its time for you to upgrade your theories and models."

Let's be honest. It is not only "liberals" who are alarmed at the direction that Bush & company, the leaders of the Republican Party, are taking this country. And to the extent that the Republican Party ever embodied conservative ideals, the current administration has clearly ventured far away from the basic spirit of conservatism. Either Bush & company have strayed from conservatism, or the Republican Party was never conservative to begin with.

Political movements have underlying social movements. The social movement that underpins the current Republican party is the rise of Christian fundamentalism. We went from the McCarthyite 60s where nothing could be challenged to the free wheeling 60s where everything was challenged, especially leadership including the leadership of the church. The US has experienced the explosion of Pentacostal/fundamentalist/independent churches that is now the base of the GOP.

The rise of religious fundamentalism was a reaction to the liberalization of church doctrine and the increasing power of secularism in the US. Religious fundamentalism provided a brake on the 60s culture that tolerated more sexual freedom and excesses such as substance abuse. Fundamentalists as a group are less well educated than their secular counterparts, rely on mythology and first principles and have a dualistic world view. They are insular. They view the outside world as hostile and in need of reform. Their own religious groups are a safe haven that are in danger from the secular forces of the larger society. Preservation of their way of life requires constant vigilence against secular forces that could overwhelm them. Because of their dualism, they do not compromise with the outside world, but create their own subculture. Their allegiance is to their own community and not the greater world. They prefer to pool their own resources for their own religious communities. They devote time and effort to building church schools, youth groups etc. for their own group but prefer to leave the larger world to its own devices. Because they are often disconnected from state sponsored programs and the clients of these programs, the fundamentalists underestimate the impact of these programs and have little support for them. The state programs conflict with their world view of smaller, self organized communities that address the needs of the individuals in that community. Thus they are against taxation and social programs that would take their money and distribute it more broadly. They have a strict fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible that they impose on their own community (anti-abortion, anti-sex, anti-drug) and have no problem imposing those beliefs on the greater society. In their view, reforming greater society in ways that remove temptations for their own members is desirable.

This is what Bush is and why his “us against them” political stance resonates with the fundamentalist community. For those intellectuals that don’t attend church and are not a part of this movement, it is easy to ignore. Secular academics can pretend that they don’t exist because they are insular. However, they represent a sizeable fraction of the US population and a majority in the red states. They are not insane. They inhabit a world within a world where different rules apply. The problems arise when they intrude on the wider political process and try to impose a set of rules that is adaptive for their own gated communities but not entirely functional in a secular world with greater diversity of views and needs. Because they are insular and disconnected from the problems of the broader society, they fail to understand why policies that are so desirable for their communities can have negative consequences for the rest of society that is not organized in the same way and lacks the resources that they have available within their own groups. In terms of foreign policy, they view the US as an extension of their own small communities. In their view the US should deal with the world in the same way their own communities deal with the greater US society. This is not insanity. It is adaptive for their own communities. It is not adaptive for the rest of the world or the rest of US society from which these groups are largely disconnected.

I think one of the problems our country has is that we have only two major political parties. If you are disaffected with the main party you identify with (assuming you do), what are your alternatives? I often vote for other parties or independents as a sort of protest vote, but no one pays attention to the tiny percentages received by anyone who's not a Democrat or Republican, so it makes a pretty weak protest.

My mom is a lifelong Republican, but is feeling unhappy with Bush (not because of the war or the taxcuts/deficits, but because of his environmental record). But will she vote Kerry in the fall? She'd just as soon cut off her own right hand as vote for a Democrat. If there were some other real choice out there, I'm sure she'd consider it (by "real choice" I mean someone who has a chance of winning).

The two parties may fight each other viciously, but between the two of them, they have a stranglehold on power (since this is an econmonics blog, I should call it an oligopoly). This has seemed like a problem to me for years, not just in the current political climate.

Very good, bakho.

And of course, as with any other group, the more insular, the more likely they are to be misinformed and fear outsiders, resulting in event more strident responses to any perceived threats. So one need only say "massachusetts liberal" 3 times fast, or mention abortion or gay marriage or school prayer and those votes are already decided, making the issues wilson mentioned like fiscal responsibility, limited government, free trade and moderate foreign policy irrelevant.

The social movement that underpins the current Republican party is the rise of Christian fundamentalism.

In a word, no. They are a vocal and active minority of GOP voters, but are by no means the majority. They find the GOP amenable to their interests because the GOP is the party of smaller, less intrusive government. The source for that affinity stretches back to the actual Puritans, who came here to escape religious persecution and founded a Republic in which anyone, of any denomination (not just their's) could worship freely and in peace.

As a non-fundamentalist non-Christian member of the Republican party, I think I've met more of them and know them better than any Democrat. They don't want to get into your bedroom so much as they want for their children not to be forced to watch what goes on in everyone else's bedrooms. And I am quite sure that your average, workaday fundamentalist Christian has rather a lot more direct, personal experience with the problems of the broad spectrum of society - whether it be being poor, homeless, distressed or alcoholic or what-have-you - than any limousine liberal who reads about the homeless in the New Yorker but refuses to make eye contact with the pandhandler at the bottom of the freeway offramp lest he get guilted into giving the guy a buck.

Now, Bush is by no means the best exemplar of GOP principles - which is why I find the constant suggestions that he's some sort of arch-conservative so laughable - but considering the alternative (a party that seems to believe as a bedrock principle that centralized, top-down, command-and-control gov't is the first and only answer to almost every problem), it's small wonder the evangelicals prefer the GOP. It's an even smaller wonder that free-marketeers will accept even as inconstant a conservative as Bush when the alternative is a left-liberal like Kerry (had you all nominated Lieberman, we'd all be having a very different conversation, and Bush would be in a lot more trouble - he, unlike Kerry, could have attracted a measurable amount of crossover votes, quite possibly including mine).

Adrian had it right. The only way the left will ever truly consider the right "sane" will be when we cease to be on the right and embrace liberalism (I'd remind you that, for many of your fellows, even a dalliance with the rightward part of the spectrum of thought is heresy; hence the constant derision from the Left toward perfectly ordinary centrist Democrats like Lieberman - a DLCer of the first order - that they're really closet Republicans).

So, no, if Wilson looks at us through his bizarro world prism and concludes we're insane, we must be on the right track.

I thought the major problem was that we had only ONE major political party, with two franchises. The actual platform of the party is to pass power to sons, wives and cronies of current incumbants ... giving us Son-of-Senator Gore vs Son-of-President Bush in the 2000 election;& Mrs Dole, Mrs Carnahan, Mrs Clinton, Nancy (Landon) Kassebaum, etc

The single party wants its officials exempted from the laws it passes for the rest of us.

The single party likes to decide matters in secret.

The single party wants tobacco and marijuana treated the same ... Either by criminalizing tobacco up or decriminalizing marijuana down but the point of their efforts is the same.

The single party wants total political control of information media ... either AM radio or UHF televsion; but the effort is the same.

The single party wants voters distracted by trivial issues such as flag burning, medal throwing, 3 decade-old national guard dental records, the statistical twitch of subsets of subsets of stock market, employment or foreign trade indexs, and the antics of persons named "Jackson".

It's fortunate the real business of government is done by mayors instead of congressmen ...

"Adrian had it right...

Posted by Dodd"

God bless you, Dodd. I've been so lonly here.

Adrian

From NY Daily News, Lloyd Grove's column:

Varsity mendacity?: With all the controversy about John Kerry's Vietnam medals and ribbons, who'd have thought that loyal George W. Bush aide Karen Hughes would be the one to catch the President fibbing about a supposed varsity letter? In her new book, "Ten Minutes From Normal," Hughes recounts a conversation with Bush after Russian President Vladimir Putin grilled him on his Yale days.

"President Putin knew you had played rugby, but he didn't have the context. I mean, you just played for one semester in college, right?" Hughes said.

Bush corrected: "I played for a year, and it was the varsity."

Yesterday, a Yale spokeswoman confirmed that there's no such thing as varsity rugby at Yale - not when Bush was an undergrad in the 1960s and not today.

Oh, puh-lease! He played for the first team - which is what the word varsity means.

Dodd, please don't deny what the GOP is and has become. Mr. Bush professes to be a born again fundamentalist Christian. Why would you deny this? The influence of the Christian right on the Republican Party is not questioned by most people. Why do you deny it?

Please recognize that you have shown yourself to be a limosine conservative by your confusion of the poor with the homeless substance abuser. Yes, most homeless substance abuser are poor, but most of the poor in America are not substance abusers. Most of the poor work and most of them vote Democratic or don't vote. You don't see them because they cannot afford a house in your gated community. Maybe they come to clean your house or mow your lawn? They work for you and you pay them so little they are poor. The GOP refuses to raise the minimum wage. Free marketers don't like minimum wage. They would prefer to pay the help $2/h.

As a non-Christian, you obviously don't travel in the religious circles so you are clueless about the networking that occurs among the leadership of the fundamentalist right and the GOP. You only talk about the GOP you see from your limited personal experience. This is not the full picture. You are projecting your image of what you would like the GOP to be, not what it is. I guess if you are going to be Republican, it helps to be clueless.

I think we're having difficulty talking because we don't know what a fundamentalist Christian is. Are all conservative evangelicals fundamentalists? Does it require believing that every word in the Bible is true, literally? Is that ALL it requires?

I'd say it's certainly not true that fundamentalists in the very isolated, home-schooling, insular communitarian sense are the majority in red states. I'm from a sorta red state myself (Missouri), and they're a minority. Most people just CAN'T homeschool their kids, for instance.

I'm in Illinois, now: University of Chicago. I had a suite-mate last year who is a fundamentalist Christian, I suppose. He was (still is, last time I checked) big into the Asian American Students for Christ. Anyway, he tried to get me interested in converting, but I never really thought that he thought that it was him-and-his-buddies against the world. Maybe he DOES believe that and just hides it, knowing it won't do him any good. He's a Republican, but it seemed more like his family party than a dedicated ideology, at least to me (I had ANOTHER suitemate -- a Miami Cuban -- who was a real dedicated GOP partisan, but he was another story). Anyway, there didn't seem to be much fire and brimstone involved at his events (I went to a few): it was all "Don't you just feel BASKED in Jesus's LOVE?!!" and the like. They believed -- as far as I could tell -- that the gift of eternal life was waiting for me on the table, and all I had to do was accept it. They may not have thought I was a horrible sinner in need of reform for NOT accepting it but they thought it was bloody silly to just leave to not accept a free gift on infinite value.

Of course, by definition, even if they weren't hostile to me, as a non-believer, they were hostile to my non-belief. They all did have a sort of insular attitude, but then, in college, everyone has people they associate with commonly and people they don't -- and the majority in a medium-sized institution like this one will inevitably be in the latter.

Actually, Dodd got it wrong. The Puritans came to America because they weren't allowed to impose their religious views on England. The "freedom" the Puritans wanted was the freedom to smash any other church and require everyone to take part in daily Puritan services. Once in America they established a notoriously dictatorial theocratic state, inspiring Roger Williams to flee to and establish Rhode Island as a haven for dissenters. The Puritans "inspired" religious freedom in the U.S. by providing an example of how bad things could be if you didn't keep the government out of religion, and vice versa.

Normally at this point Dodd will invoke some variation of "That was then, this is now" as a defense. If so, Dodd, why did you bring it up?

Dodd has highlited an illustration of how Republican rewrite history to enhance their thesis-de-jour.

Another thing Dodd got wrong was suggesting that poor fundamentalists have more (experience? affinity?) with the poor than "limousine liberals". As a caregiver, I had to deal with a fundamentalist employed by the state as a "case manager". As a "case manager" for the client this person was totally incompetent, as a "case manager" for the state she was inspired. She lied to us, she lied about us, she created fraudulent documents, illegally tried to harass us, and was promoted in recognition of her success in preventing my client from getting the help she was legally entitled to.

This is the ugly truth about fundamentalism- they think lying is o-k when employed in an attack on the poor or disabled. "By their acts ye shall know them."

Oh Dodd, there was no varsity rugby team at Yale in the 60s. There was a club team, and the club ran several levels of teams A, B, C etc.

I know, cause I played them

I have bad news for harv: the Rapture has already taken place. The real Christians are gone now.

You can bicker about the details but Dodd's basic
point is correct. A lot of you guys tend to
discuss the specimens "Republican" or
"Fundementalist Christian" as exotic animals in
a zoo rather than actual people, a lot of whom
are very intelligent, caring etc. Or worse, you
sound like some anthropologist from 1905
describing the barbaric norms of "the savages".

I think there's a good bit of truth in what
Joe Wilson writes (I really wish that McCain
would've been nominated in 2000), but a significant part of it is just a strawman attack.
One could write a similar story - and in fact
some folks on the right write it quite often - about how the Democratic party has been taken
over by the far left, or by the politically correct left or whatever etc.

Dodd --

You need to study some actual history of American Puritanism. They practiced things like ear cropping for blasphemy, wouldn't pay debts to non-Puritans, etc.

Adrian,

Are you a evangelic or fundamentalist Christian? I don't ask to bash, I agree that there is a fundamental difference between how the current "Repblican Party" views the world and how the "Democratic Party" does, and it appears to me that the Republican Party's world view is biblically based.

The majority of Republican voters aren't fundamentalist by any (plausible) definition. But the politically organized fundamentalists -- those with a vision of America as a Christian nation under assault by rabid secularists -- are very important to the Republican party. (Obviously not all fundamentalists share that vision -- and some people hold essentially that vision who are not fundamentalists.)

The party works very hard on language that sounds good to a variety of audiences. (The Democratic party of course does the same thing, with different audiences in mind.) Protecting the sanctity of marriage against judicial activists is supposed to sound like moderate common sense for people who want that, and like a brave stand against Satan for people who want that. Bush's stem cell speech was supposed to sound thoughtful and balanced for people who want that, and resolutely pro-life for people who want that. It has worked pretty well.

Wilson left out the third and extremely important group of people who still think the GOP is their party: the wealthy who are benefitting (or think they soon will benefit) from the huge tax breaks Bush has been handing out to them wholesale, and paying for through a swollen deficit whose harmful effects will be spread evenly across the nation as a whole. THEY'RE the ones who have given him $200 million in campaign money, and thus a serious chance of winning despite the consistent stupidity and irresponsibility of his policies.

"Adrian: Are you a evangelic or fundamentalist Christian?"

Don't overlook the possibility that he's a LGFer. His views correspond exactly.

Get WWW.IDEBTCONSOLIDATION.ORG the debt relief you are searching for here!

WWW.E-CREDIT-CARD-DEBT.COM

Get WWW.IDEBTCONSOLIDATION.ORG the debt relief you are searching for here!

Get www.all-debt-consolidation.org help with your credit problems here!

Online Casino Directory

Now you can Play Poker online any time!

Buy Viagra online! its easy click here today.

Dum inter homines sumus, colamus humanitatem - As long as we are among humans, let us be humane. (Seneca)

Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas - Happy is he who has been able to learn the causes of things. (Vergil)

Dira necessitas - The dire necessity. (Horace)

Noli me vocate. Ego te vocabo - Don't call me. I'll call you

you can play blackjack here! http://www.blackjack.greatnow.com

online casino

If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following online poker guide. This guide is designed to give you a basic overview of the game concept and rules. After reading this guide you should be in a god position to play poker. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers.

Feliz ano novo - Happy new year

2809 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com

698 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?

http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com

3782 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?

http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com

Interesting site some good reading keep up the blog!

2502 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com

7876 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com

6644 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com

3496 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com