« Gephardt Goes MIA | Home | Fairy Tale High »
The Democrats’ Vision: Blinded by Their Hate of The Right
By Matt Margolis | July 27, 2003
The Democrats have no chance to win elections if they continue the route they’ve been going on since 2000. When the country accepted George W. Bush’s victory, the hard left-wingers of the party chose not to move forward, but to stay in the past. They’ve kept their vision in a standstill. They have not progressed into the present. The county continues to become disengaged from the party because they have no clear agenda anymore. Not to mention the fact the ideal they occasionally pretend to be concerned about are no longer mainstream.
Like it or not, if the Democrats spent less time attacking George W. Bush and more time being concerned with America, then they wouldn’t be in the position they are in today.
Terry McAuliffe, Idiot-In-Chief of the Democratic Party, said earlier this month:
“Our challenge is to make the DNC a more streamlined, leaner, more efficient institution that is maniacally focused on beating George Bush and taking back the White House, and everything we do here between now and Election Day has got to somehow meet that goal.”
This is their goal. Not health care, not Social Security, not abortion rights, gay rights, affirmative action, welfare, etc. etc. etc.
They are “maniacally focused on beating George W. Bush. That’s it. It’s about you. It’s not about America. It’s about them. It’s about power. It’s about control. It’s about them versus us. It’s about winning. They care more about that than about what’s good for America.
As I discussed in my blog entry “The Futility of Debating With Liberals” Gillespie similarly noted that Democrats “serve up raw emotion” rather than solutions. Gillespie pointed out ,”that emotion is anger.”
“Their overheated rhetoric toward the president, bandying about words like ‘lying,’ ‘madman’ and yes, ‘impeachment,’ is designed to distract from the central fact that their policies would not make us safer in the world, and President Bush’s do,” Gillespie said.
Gillespie has it right on. Democrats are throwing out clichés and catch phrases to try and stick them to the voters – distracting them from the ultimate truth that liberal policies don’t work, and America is shifting to the Right.
Predicting that prescription drugs for seniors would be a key issue for the 2004 election, Gillespie has set the tone for how this will be dealt with.
“When it comes to providing a prescription drug benefit for America’s seniors, the days of playing politics are over,” Gillespie said. “And Democrats chose to run on the problem rather than fix it one too many times.”
It sounds like he’s reading right from the Democrats’ Political Strategy Handbook.
While George W. Bush has been addressing the issues as President (and actually trying to do something about them) the Democrats have been addressing him. They advocate nothing and no one but themselves.
Topics: The Right Idea |
Related Posts:
July 27th, 2003 at 4:39 pm
Complete and utter Bullshit, Bush’s policies will make us safer? Like what his relentless coddling and covering up for Saudi Arabia?
July 27th, 2003 at 5:28 pm
Interesting that the slogans directed to stir “raw emotion” were a favorite tool of various dictators, namely Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, etc.
They also were extolling feelings over reason, blind action over rational thought, and force over intellectual persuasion. They realized that it is next to impossible to fight against blind emotional “stampede” by means of rational discourse.
Their “arguments” were not intended for a discussion but for rabble-rousing and pitching people against each other, paralyzing reason. A cheap shot, but a very effective one.
And it is becoming more and more clear that for “liberals”, politics and life in general is a zero-sum game. All they care about is “winning at all costs”– not, as they would have the naive souls believe, their dedication to the cause of “the people”.
Were they really concerned about ‘the people”, they would listen to these people and respect their individual choices, not try to “socially engineer them” like so much inanimate matter.
July 27th, 2003 at 5:30 pm
Yes, Bush has made this country safer by a long shot. I cringe at the thought of Al Gore handling the War on Terrorism.
As for Bush’s covering up of Saudi Arabia? You’re full of bullshit, pal. It’s not a very good cover up if little old you knows about it, huh?
BTW, you’re just proving the point that you lefties are more focused on hating Bush for imaginary reasons rather than focusing your energies on achieving goals.
Pathetic.
July 27th, 2003 at 5:38 pm
Democrats have no prayer. When it comes to the war on terrorism… the firs tthing they would do is apologize for putting the wolrd trade center in the way of the planes, and beg for forgivinessfor the “evils” of the US…. i mean, come on… the fucking pussies.
July 27th, 2003 at 5:38 pm
Any of the Dimocraps as Commander In Chief is pretty scary. I doubt our military will obey them anyway, since the Dims seem to think that the military is no more than a tool of social work.
July 27th, 2003 at 9:28 pm
Social work? Like Liberia? Oh wait, that’s Bush.
And James- what goals? If we wanted to attack the nation that was most responsible for 9-11 we would have attacked Saudi Arabia. And you want to talk about imaginary reasons? How ’bout Iraq, pal. Your blind allegiance to Bush and the Republicans has us scouring the desert for the most imaginary threat in recent memory– .
But that’s not the real reason we went right. It was to liberate the Iraqis.
P.T. Barnum was right.
July 27th, 2003 at 9:32 pm
A Dumbocrat talking about Blind Allegiance… ha! I almost shit myself.
July 27th, 2003 at 10:04 pm
The whole Saudi thing is interesting.
First off, according to the grand neo-con conspiracy thingy, the Saudis are in the cross-hairs (of the neocons)–for obvious reasons.
Second, unfortunately, despite what some (the LLL) may say, the neocons don’t control everything.
That aside, the big problem with the Saudis is that the monarchy is weak; and if the monarchy is toppled, then we’re even more screwed. Why? Because the really, really, really hard core Wahabbi Islamists would take control of the kingdom, and that would be a FUBAR situation. The Saudis fund a lot of the terrorists to keep the clerics and the extremists “calm” (a.k.a. off their case, so they have “breathing room”)
As such, we’re unfortunately stuck being “friends” with the Saudis (as much as I and others hate the thought of it).
True, part of it does have to do with Oil, but (cautious optomism) the Saudi share of the US oil market may d/c when Iraq’s oil production gets online (and if we could tap into ANWR).
I’ve noticed something else recently. The Saudis are whining and complaining that the ~28 pages are blacked-out (classified). They Saudis are complaining that this allows for speculation amongst Americans–which evolves into anti-Saudi attitudes (and the Kingdom doesn’t like that at all). So perhaps, and I stress perhaps, some political strategist is using this fact to their advantage–as it’s getting people into more of an anti-Saudi frenzy than if the report were to be released.
For more about the house of Saud and Wahabism, I highly reccomend Dore Gold’s “Hatred’s Kingdom” and also Bernard Lewis’ “Crisis of Islam”.
(or any book by Lewis for that matter)
Oh, and cole, as far as social work, what about Haiti? Somalia? Kosovo? (Think before you make an argument like that). And Afghanistan and the Taliban were very responsible for 9-11 too–but don’t over look that fact.
July 27th, 2003 at 10:04 pm
Saudi Arabia was the home for almost every terrorist involved 9/11 and the Saudies practically trained and equipped them. Bush is going as far as censoring the Report on 9/11 to protect them.
July 27th, 2003 at 10:21 pm
“Think before you make an argument like that”
Bush sent the troops to Somalia, jackass.
Incidentally, you are arguing that SA domestic political situation EXCUSES them for helping fund 9-11. Shameless. Moreover, your argument regarding destabilization applies to Iraq as well… and obviously that didn’t stop us. Try again.
July 27th, 2003 at 10:53 pm
Cole, do you want to continue to insult people here or do you want me to delete your posts all together?
July 27th, 2003 at 10:58 pm
Saudi Arabia was the home for almost every terrorist involved 9/11 and the Saudies practically trained and equipped them. Bush is going as far as censoring the Report on 9/11 to protect them.
UY, this might rock your world tonight, but I actually agree with you.
I wonder what all that is about.
July 27th, 2003 at 11:14 pm
Cole, you’re totally backwards in regards to the Saudi domestic situation.
I have nothing but contempt for Saudi Arabia. (and that’s putting it mildly. They’re in no way excused for funding terrorism. Duh…
Saudi Arabia, unlike Iraq, is an extremely theocratic state. In Iraq, Wahabbi Islamist clerics were not in the process of attempting to gain control of the Kingdom. The monarchy is barely holding on to things right now. Should the US comes in to knock off the princes–what will happen? We get the return of the Taliban (basically). It’s Realpolitik
Should you actually know anything about ME history and politics, you’d be aware of this, and you’d also realize that comparing Iraq and Saudi Arabia is like apples and oranges.
July 27th, 2003 at 11:38 pm
It all about oil, Bush is never more than two degrees of separation away from something having to do with oil pipelines or the oil buisness.
July 27th, 2003 at 11:41 pm
So, let’s drill in ANWR then?
July 27th, 2003 at 11:42 pm
I guess I dislike the Saudis more than Democrats (hah!)
July 28th, 2003 at 4:29 am
“Social work? Like Liberia? Oh wait, that’s Bush.”
Cole, actually it is candidate Dean who is staunchly in support of our troops going into Liberia. I think it was covered on CNN so you should have seen it. (I know it was covered on Fox, not that you would ever sink as low to watch something sooo right wing. (sarcastic comment re fox = right wing for the sarcasm impared.))
And yes Bush 41 put troops into Somilia, but that was a good thing in your worldview because we had no ligitmate national security issues there - it was a humanitarian issue only. (Nation building if you will. That is what you on the left like correct?) It was Clinton who cut and ran when we had a set back. (And yes much like Reagan cut and ran in Beruit.)
July 28th, 2003 at 8:43 am
If it is about the oil, it’s not about anyone in the administration profiting from it, it’s to protect the market. I would tend to agree with the sentiment of “FUCK THE SAUDIS!”, I’d rather pay $2.00/gal (currently I get it for $1.47) than those Arab fuckers sit pretty.
July 28th, 2003 at 2:55 pm
Java, while I agree, I’d much rather pay 1.47 a Gallon then paying 2 dollars and having to fight another war as the Saudis do what they do best, without being in large part shot down by their government. We don’t need a nation that big with that many anti-american swine with that many weapons having a government that hates us. At least the Princes are pretending to be allies.
July 28th, 2003 at 3:00 pm
ell that to the democrats…. that’s that is the dilemma…. i’m sure most people would rather pay $1.47 a gallon, and not fight antoher war…. but the democrats think we should let all that shit in the open, piss of the saudis and get into a another war that they can complain about. The saudis will get theirs, in due time.
July 28th, 2003 at 3:42 pm
Cole, Bush 41 sent US troops to guard the food aid in Somalia. It was Klintoon who started ordering our troops to arrest WARLORDS, but would not let them go out in sufficient numbers, or with the proper support. Considering how BJ did things, I guess I should be surprised that Lefties think the US sent too amny people after the Insane Hussein twins. After all, with enough men and equipment, the US might get the job done without any GI’s dying.
Oh and Mmm Bop, if the Left wants the US out of bed with the House of Saud, why can’t we build nuclear powerp plants, or drill for oil in ANWR, or off the coast of CA?
Whoops, forgot that Lefties only bitch, never offer solutions to the problem.
July 28th, 2003 at 6:28 pm
Java, I saw you at the video booths the other day, why did you not say hi?
July 28th, 2003 at 7:03 pm
Wrong Java…. stear clear of the decaf.
July 28th, 2003 at 7:09 pm
Cannon- please don’t assume that you know what my world view is. I am, in fact, against humanitarian missions and nation building.
I think we can all agree that SA was more responsible for 9-11 than Iraq. That begs the question of why they have gotten a free pass for so long. And one thing that no one seems to mention… If SA they is such a threat, teetering on the edge of fundamentalism, why don’t we institute a democracy there. Why is it assumed that we can acheive that goal in Iraq but not in SA??
July 28th, 2003 at 7:14 pm
Why is it assumed that we can acheive that goal in Iraq but not in SA
More because Iraq is a secular nation rather than a hard-line religious one. That’s the simplest explanation.
Throughout Saudi Arabia’s history, Wahabiism has played a huge role in the society, and the clerics have thus accrewed significant power and standing. They’d like to rule a country like the Taliban.
In Iraq, it was a secular country, and as such, there wasn’t as much influence from the clerics. Nor was Wahabiism present there.
That’s the simplest explanation.
July 28th, 2003 at 7:31 pm
commentI appreciate your response. Now I am wondering about when you said, “They’d like to rule a country like the Taliban.”
We got rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan and are currently trying to set up a democracy there. So, obviously Afghanistan is a more apt comparison. Should we have not attempted the mission there? Are we bound to fail because of their hardline fundamentalist familiarity?
July 28th, 2003 at 8:04 pm
Actually, Afganistan was a Monarchy up until fairly recently, not a theocracy, so comparison is differnt, yet again.
July 28th, 2003 at 9:17 pm
I should’ve clarified what I meant, since my analogy may not have been clear.
When I said:
“They’d like to rule a country like the Taliban.”
I should have been more specific.
The Saudi Clerics, and Al-queda (where do you thing Al-queda got its ideology from? The same place as the Tabliban: Wahabism). They want to run a theocratic state based on Sharia, just like the Taliban ran. They want a fundimentalist Islamic state.
The contrast with Afghanistan is that the Afghan monarchy was also more secular (by comparison), and Afghanistan also contained the various ethnic groups and tribes, so it wasn’t too homogenous.
Saudi on the other hand is just about all Arab muslim and doesn’t have such seperate groups.
July 28th, 2003 at 9:17 pm
back to the original topic which Matt posted on:
Moderate Democrats Warn Party on 2004 Prospects
July 28th, 2003 at 9:29 pm
Cole, Bush 41 sent US troops to guard the food aid in Somalia. It was Klintoon who started ordering our troops to arrest WARLORDS, but would not let them go out in sufficient numbers, or with the proper support.
Eric WTF are you talking about, you act like you are the only who ever read Black Hawk Down. They didnt have tanks and other bigger vehicles, even if they did they werent even sure if it would have made that much of a difference. There is a little saying ya know “Hindsight is always 20/20″.
Eric either way we are screwed, one of the best solutions is to conserve what we got.
July 29th, 2003 at 5:51 am
One problem with wacking Saudi Arabia is that Mecca is located there. The U.S. invades and the entire muslim world will go ape-shit about the christian-infidel yankees conquering the holy land.
July 29th, 2003 at 8:37 am
I’d throw a dozen grenades on Mecca…. The so-called “religion of peace” with dynamite on their chests deserve a kick in the ass for their crimes against humanity. They’re blowing up Israel piece by piece, let’s hit them where it hurts.. but make sure we hit it with a MOAB or something in the heart of Ramaddan… might as well wipe some out at the same, kill two birds with one stone.
July 29th, 2003 at 5:30 pm
Right Sutcliffe, because we read about all those M-1’s being destroyed by Iraqis with RPG’s and AK-47’s in the last war. Buy a clue you fucking buffoon. An RPG cannot take out a modern tank, and sinc ethose were the biggest guns the Somalis had, the M-1’s could have chewed them into dogmeat in short order. The popint was that Klintoon was more than willing to send out US boys with improper ROE, insufficient equipment, and no immediate backup. Result, US troops getting killed because Klintoon was sending them out to nation-build, instead of having them guard the food delivieries, which they had just enough equipment to do.
But what else do you expect from a man who makes Colonels and Majors in the US Airforce and Army carry his golf clubs? If he has no respect for the men, why should he have any concern for their lives?
July 29th, 2003 at 11:00 pm
The reason the DNC is focused on beating Bush is that nothing good can happen politically until he is out of office. Bush will defeat and stymie any attempt at maintaining civil liberties, pursuing Al Qaeda, finding some kind of sensible solution to Iraq, balancing the budget, educating our children, providing health care to our population, preparing for the retirement of the Baby Boomers, or any of the other Democratic priorities as long as he is in office. His deep, abiding commitment to the end of American freedoms and prosperity combined with his unique capacity to implement that commitment means that his defeat must be our first priority.
What’s more, we must defeat him by enough that he will be forced to hand over power, instead of contest the election interminably in the courts and on the streets.
That is the origin of the DNC’s focus. I agree with it.
July 30th, 2003 at 12:49 am
I had forgotten what a postcard from Kimmi-Land sounded like. So Dimmi, does Ms. Mosley-Braun have a snowball’s chance in the Sahara of winning the Presidency in your world?
July 30th, 2003 at 4:20 pm
Of course, the Democrats have never shown any real interest in addressing any of those issues Kimmitt laid out. Further, such mindless drivel is a clear example as to why the Democrats won’t win in 2004. It’s always “Bush this…” and “Bush that…” and they think that is enough to convince people to vote for them? Please.
July 30th, 2003 at 8:15 pm
I had forgotten what a postcard from Kimmi-Land sounded like.
Yeah, I seem to recall that you had only the most passing of acquaintances with reality. Not that such is unique among Conservatives; why the post just above mine claims that Bill Clinton’s Presidency did not include a balanced budget, that the ACLU does not fight for civil liberties, and that the Department of Education did not find its forebears in FDR’s New Deal and its modern form under President Carter. The best thing about reading what a Conservative writes is the immutable certainty that he or she is lying.
July 30th, 2003 at 8:46 pm
Really, if the ACLU fights for my civil liberties, they why do they not help defend the 2nd Amendment? Why do they not sue Muslim groups that seek to use Federal Land for religious purposes, i.e. building a MOSQUE.
As for the education issue, I see the troubles in the US public school system coming from money grubbing Unions, who fear that competence testing might result in the loss of incompetent, dues paying teachers from their ramks. As for BJ Klintoon, why should I give the man any credit for a balanced budget that he “balanced” by slashing defense budgets, freezing soldiers pay rates, and firing 300,000 soldiers. Not to mention sending US troops to 18 countries in 8 years, while paying them less, forcing their families onto welfare, and using US Airforce personnel and aircraft to reward political contributers and transport his family.
As for Styming attempts to deal with Al-Qaeda, who refused to let the US go after Bin LAden three times? BJ Klintoon. Who refused to take Bin Laden from the Sudanese twice? BJ Klintoon.
Who has a passing acquaintance with reality again, Dimwit?
July 30th, 2003 at 9:24 pm
Blinded by his hatred of the Right, Kimmitt obviously overlooks the fact that if the budget CLinton proposed had been passed, we would have run up huge deficits. in fact, it was the Republican congress which rejected many things in Clinton’s budget which ultimately resulted in a balanced budget.
Maybe there ought to be a High School for liberal students in New York. Teaching your basics, math, science, english, and their own curriculum of revisionist history.
August 5th, 2003 at 11:08 am
According to Cato, After all, in inflation-adjusted terms, Clinton had overseen a total spending increase of only 3.5 percent at the same point in his administration. More importantly, after his first three years in office, non-defense discretionary spending actually went down by 0.7 percent. This is contrasted by Bush’s three-year total spending increase of 15.6 percent and a 20.8 percent explosion in non-defense discretionary spending.
August 9th, 2003 at 10:46 pm
Sivula a tank would have a hell of a time getting through the damn streets of Mogadishu.
February 23rd, 2004 at 1:19 am
Interesting site, so I thought I might ask the question, what kind of Republican are you?
The original flavor : Small government, tight budget conservative.
The New Bush Texas flavor: Big spending, tax cut slashing, deficit spending, government expanding “conservative”.
My point is, (I’m a moderate in my views) the new Republican “stance” on issues is wrong. Not to mention the fact the ends of the “war on terror” did not justify the means.
The Republican Oath states that one should be fiscally tight with the budget. Bush has been fiscally irresponible.
Case and point: Cutting taxes during a time of war, for the first time, ever. Obviously you need money to fund a war, you can not fund a war with tax cuts. That is fiscal responsibility at its finest.
Case and point: Putting the budget in the biggest deficit, ever.
That should not surprise us though, as a Republican President has not balanced the budget in over 34 years. So much for fiscal responsibility and the Republican oath.
Bill Clinton was the last president to balance the budget. Think if his other programs had gone through Congress he would have put the nation in debt? Wrong. Only if you take in less than you spend do you put the nation in debt.
Case and point: Year 2000 Surplus $230 billion
Year 1999 Surplus $122.7 billion
That is for each seperate year.
These surplus would have paid for all of Clinton’s programs. But the fact is he would have raised taxes to fund them, but since his programs were shot down in the Republican Congress, so were his tax increases.
Another reason not to elect Bush is hit utter foolish decision making abilities.
Case and point: Bush allowed snow mobiles in Yellow Stone Park, after years of a government study said that snow mobiles produce almost 90 of the hydrocarbons emissions in the park, despite being outnumbered by cars 16-1.
Then of course we have the economy. George Bush has failed here too.
Case and point: For the first time during a modern war, America’s economy has become worse.
Case and point: Most anaylsts agree that the Dow Jones would be over 20,000 if a Democrat was President. The Dow Jones is still at 10,000.
Most people never thought the economy would go anywhere in 1992 also. It was at 2,400* then.
*(Could have been 3,400 I can check my sources if you wish.)
Then of course have the tax cuts. A terrible thing for the American working and middle class.
Case and point: Increase in the gift tax. The gift tax was set at $11,000, so if one gave away more than 11,000 dollars than they would be taxed. It is now set at 2 million dollars. Who gives away millions? Only the rich. Who makes up for the tax dollars in the treasury. The poor and middle class.
Case and point: 25% of the last Bush tax cut went to the top 1% of the population.
Case and point: Elmination of the Estate Tax. The Estate Tax taxed estates that were over 1 million dollars. Who has estates over 1 million? The rich. Who makes up the slack from those missing dollars in the treasury, the poor and middle class. Shameful.
So liberal policies don’t work? Its time to do some more reading.
Case and point: Logic doesn’t lie. Logic tells us that more people in the economy means more spenders, more spenders means, more things need to be made, more things need to be made means, more jobs, more jobs means, more spenders. And the cycle repeats. This is exactly what Bill Clinton did. It worked. Clinton expanded welfare to put make consumers, more consumers, more production, more production, more jobs, more jobs, more consumers. Simple.
Bush is doing the opposite. He is giving money to rich and hoping it trickles down. These kind of tax cuts failed in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2002. They have never been proven job creators. They are what put the nation in debt during the Reagan Administration.
This is a case where liberal policies are far better than conservative ones.
Need more evidence? Look at the Great Depression, compare President Hoover’s and President Roosevelt’s solutions to the Depression. Welfare worked, cutting taxing for the rich and corporations didn’t.
As someone who would like to see change in America, I hope you will support someone who can lead America to a brighter future, George W. Bush has proven his inability at leading America.
February 23rd, 2004 at 1:22 am
If you need sources for any information I would be happy to get them for you.
February 23rd, 2004 at 1:33 am
Forgot one thing:
Then of course Bush’s tax cuts don’t work.
Case and point: If you own a buisness, and Bush reduces welfare benefits, there is less consumers to buy your goods. Bad for the buisness, so you fire some workers. Now let us say that he cuts the buisnesses taxes.
What are you going to do with this new tax money?
You would not say “lets hire some new workers!” because there is no reason to increase production, there is not more consumers floating around. The new worker would be an expense. Rather you would invest and save the money. This is why unemployment is higher when welfare benefits are down.
Tax cuts are not job creators.
As I said I would be happy to clarify any sources.
February 23rd, 2004 at 11:06 am
Lastly I will comment on War and Bush’s Promises.
For everyone’s information, Republicans were against World War I, against World War 2, and it was Democrat’s who bravely lead our nation into every war this century, with the exception of the two
Iraqi campaigns. If Republican’s had their way in the 1930’s and 1940’s, Nazism could still be flourishing in Germany. And Democrat’s are soft on war?
Republican’s have forever been the cowards. Even now, George Bush has backed away from his promise to allow the people of Tawian freedom. He said that America would defend them from China, if they decided to finally split totally off from the People’s Republic. He backed away from this promise. He is not the champion of Democracy we see.
His failure to defend the people of Haiti is another case. An uprising in Haiti is now happening, in the Western Hemisphere, where the United States has a right to defend and protect according to the Monroe Doctrine. The Democracy in Haiti is being destroyed by the former dictator’s of the Haitian Army, many of whom are war criminals. If these uprising really wanted Democratic elections in Haiti, then why would it’s leader proclaim himself as the new President of Haiti, which he has already done?
But the United State’s, does nothing.
This isn’t the only time Bush has backed away from his promises. The promises to our childern, that no child would be left behind, has left every child behind. The underfunded program is hurting our schools.
The most recent case in America is Bush’s promise to the steel industry, he promised that he would levy a tariff against foreign steel so America’s steel industry could reorganize. Other nations quickly responded by saying they would levy a tariff on American products if Bush did not lift the tariff on their steel. Bush backed away from his promise to America’s steel workers, and lifted the steel tariff. His interest in foreign trade takes presidence over his interest to American workers. His government does not serve the people, as every government should.
August 26th, 2006 at 2:57 am
trish stratus nude
Z00lunation
August 26th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
bikinis models
Idinax33000i
August 27th, 2006 at 12:35 am
lesbian action
cr00topcheg
August 27th, 2006 at 1:24 am
blonde cheerleaders
Idinax33000i
August 27th, 2006 at 8:12 am
interracial gang bang
Idinax33000i