1 Good post. You might find our treatment of the agenda of questions interesting. We basically agree that overall the questions were skewed to the right. The YouTube debate questions for Dems were skewed leftward, so no biggee there. It was good for Malkin to do some digging on who asked the questions, but I agree that the questions themselves, on the whole, were decent. Link

2 It will be fun at the conventions, when the Rep candidates laugh at the Dem candidates for being terrified of FOX News debates, after having taken questions from these Dem campaign shills directly.

3 I guess I'm not a Republican so I won't skew your statistics but I had more or less the same reaction upon hearing the tricks CNN was pulling. I shrugged: great, more questions that the candidates didn't care to hear.

Too bad that won't happen to the Democrats.

I honestly don't think that CNN was deliberately seeding the questions with Democratic Party operative videos, I think they saw questions they wanted to have the GOP candidates answer, and they just happened to coincide with what the Democratic party offered up. More of a coincidence rather than collusion.

And roy has a great point: this is something that the GOP really should be pushing, mocking the Democrats for their fear of Fox news after that debate at CNN. This is going to be yet another one of their missed opportunities. I swear you have to put the gun in their hands, hold it to their shoulder, point it, and pull the trigger sometimes.

4 "Never assume evil when stupidity will do…" hmmm.... nope, I'm sticking with evil... "even when evil is far more sexy and useful for provoking outrage." It's not that... it's just more likely.

5 I agree with a lot of what you say, Gabe, but I'm going with the opinion that the Repubs got abused by CNN. Although all Americans can view the debates and form an opinion on the candidates and would like to see all sorts of questions asked, it's the Republican voters who have to actually select one of them to be the party's candidate. I want actual Republican voters asking questions if you're going to be asking the masses to quiz the candidates.

6

You remember how I ridiculed the fellow the other day for thinking that instant media will lead to the end of unscripted and raw interactions between candidates and voters? This debate just made my point.

Wrong. The candidates were unscripted. The "voters", notsomuch.

 

 

 

(this comment came after about a dozen refreshes of the shitty New Comments Thingy. Now let's see if it posts...)

7
Since the plants have absolutely no intention of even considering voting for a republican, and there had to be plenty of appropriate and probing questions from republicans, yeah, I'm offended. And it doesn't surprise me Malor would make a condescending post about those who resent the attempts by the msm and democratic party to manipulate the debates.

8 Malor is hoping that CNN will take another look at his resume!

Look, do you think the average American realizes how much their "Trusted Source of News" filters everything through their liberal, Democratic biases? The fact that Malor is not outraged does not make the facts of this debacle any less outrageous.

These facts, demonstrate clearly, that the deck is stacked against Republicans and that our fellow citizens should carefully scrutinize any political "news" they receive from the legacy media.

9 When you let your opponents control the narrative, you will lose.  The debate is so republican voters can chose who they want, not who CNN wants, or what questions CNN wants to see asked.

Every shill potentially denied republican voters a question they may have been interested in.

10 Gabe, interesting post. However, given the LARGE number of submitted questions, what are the odds that SEVERAL with Dem connections got to ask their questions?

I have no problems with hard questions. I have a problem with Dem candidates getting soft balls tossed at them ala Wolf Blitzer.

Perhaps we'll see a change when we're down to one candidate for each party. Judging by the current track record, I'm not holding my breath.

11

Guns, religion, and the Confederate Battle Flag are important topics both for Republican and Democratic voters.

Yes, religion is a part of the Republican debate but not whether or not candidates believe every word of a very specific version of The Bible is true.  Maybe I missed the part where the King James Version of The Bible has been a hot campaign topic.

And as far as the battle flag, when before last night did this come up? Do you really think that is an important topic? Really?

The abortion penalty question is a left wing strawman, appropriately trotted out by a left winger. Which candidate has suggested criminal penalties for women? When has any mainstream anti-abortion activist advocated for that?

 Was the Ron Paul question on conspiracies really the proper subject of debate?  Maybe in an interview with him but it’s not a wider issue (given that the guy is polling around the margin of error, nothing specific about Paul qualifies as a broad issue).

 The question about why blacks don’t vote for Republicans wasn’t a question as much as an attack. Can you imagine asking Hillary or Obama why white southern men have deserted the Democratic Party in the last generation?

How about the WWJD question?  I guess capital punishment is a legitimate question (though really how many times does that issue come up at the federal level) but the candidates weren’t asked what they would do. They were asked what would Jesus do.  Who cares, he isn’t on the ballot.

Yes some of the questions were fine but I think Ace and the other bloggers are right to be outraged about the treatment Republicans get compared to Democrats.

At first I thought Republicans should boycott the CNN/LA Times debate in January but then they'd be whiny bitches like the Democrats are about Fox. I think they should go and make the media the issue whenever possible.

There was hardly any talk on Iraq, none on Iran and very little on the economy.

On the upside, Rudy is lucky nobody is talking about his lousy answers on immigration and guns.  Mitt is lucky nobody is talking about his flip flops, his inability to answer the Bible question without equivocating , the flag bullshit or McCain handing him his ass on water boarding (in fairness I don't see how anyone can handle McCain on that subject without looking like an ass).  Hunter's answer on gays in the military was just insulting on many levels but I think he'd be happy if people would talk about him at all.

Fred's got the answers but the delivery is awful and as much as we may wish that doesn't matter, it does.

The debate sucked but then this year all the non Fox debates have sucked.

And oh yeah, if Huckabee is the nominee, we are so fucked.

12

Admittedly, some of the questions were decent questions, but this sort of MSM crap still needs to be exposed, so I have no problem with Michelle Malkin et al. taking note of all the plants and otherwise poorly vetted questioners.  If CNN is going to be lazy enough (or worse) to present Richardson supporters as Paulbots, an Obama supporter as a Log Cabin Republican, and an Edwards supporter as an independent republican, then they need to be called out on it.  It's deception and nothing more, whether it's by the network or the questioners themselves, and if they have legitimate questions, they shouldn't have to hide behind that deception.

Secondly, neither Obama supporters, Richardson supporters, Hillary supporters, nor Edwards supporters are going to choose the Republican nominee.  Republican are.  Thus, in helping actual Republicans make that decision, it's about time we actually have a debate moderated by real conservatives for real conservatives instead of what we keep having, which is a bunch of liberals asking questions of our candidates and framing them in a 'gotcha'.  Those may be useful in the sense of showing how a candidate performs under liberal media questioning standards, but it doesn't always do a lot to illuminate their policy positions.

Besides, I'm sure if real conservatives were asking the questions of the candidates, they would be much tougher and more substantive by a long shot.  Then we could have a debate that was truly useful in helping us determine where the Republican candidates stand.

That being said, I am glad the debate exposed CNN the way it has. 

13 Well, the right blogosphere is talking about it because the MSM isn't.  The righties in the blogosphere picking up a ball that the MSM has dropped isn't new, surprising, or problematic.  CNN really blew it in their process of vetting the questioners, and this deserves to be pointed out.

Can you imagine the shrieking \ self-waterboarding \ moving-to-France-threatening that'd be taking place had Fox News created a debate loaded up with direct Republican shills.

Do I think that CNN's horrible handling of this debate was malicious?  I really don't.  It's just a symptom of rebreathing the same recycled air in their liberal thought bubble \ echo chamber.  They view conservatives and those possessing conservative views as cartoon characters, and the lack of perspective seeps into everything that they do.

It's obviously a fine thing to accept that and move past it (which I applaud you for doing), but I think you're flirting with denial here.  CNN shouldn't get a free pass for their crappy performance.  Christopher Taylor nails it -- the R's hold up well through a debate like this and the Donks won't even show up on Fox News?  Ha!  Those weenies should be mocked at every opportunity..

I don't agree with much of what you wrote (aside from your assessment of how the candidates did) but a good read anyhow.

14

 It is not that I mind some questions from Democrats, even Democrat activists. One would think, though, that they might have let maybe half or even a third of the questions to come from Republicans who will vote in the Republican Primaries.

 I already know that Democrat activists will fight our candidates. I am trying to find out which of these guys I support and I am not interested in gays in the military, if the military wants to incluce gays, fine, if they don't want to include gays, also fine, I haven't been a nineteen year old PFC and than Lance Corporal in over forty years, I don't know, nor particularlly care how 19 year olds think. I have my own issues and they are not covered well by a bunch of Donks.

15

I am getting physically angry now. ---- Ace

Whatever you do, Malor, do not, repeat, DO NOT tie a polkadotted bandana rucksack to a stick or hop on a boxcar anytime soon. You're on thin ice after this post.

16 Meh, I watch the debates, I don't need the web to tell me what I saw. I do find the intertubes useful for finding out the bullshit that is going on behind the scenes just as it did with this debate.

Besides, I don't agree that some creepy goofball holding a Bible and demanding to know what the candidates thought it meant was useful. I don't think the singular issue that has defined this debate, don't ask don't tell, is a pressing issue for the Republican base. And I really, really, really don't care what candidates think Jesus would do about capital punishment.

I would much rather see an actual debate, not 60 second sound bites, on a couple issues, Iraq, Iran, Islamic terror, illegal immigration, fiscal issues. I thought when I first heard about this debate in September it would be a joke and it was.

17 In the end, the questioners credentials are of no consequence.  CNN had thousands of videos submitted.  They could have chosen anything at all.  The don't ask don't tell general?  How is that even germane to a Republican debate?  Or even a Dem debate?  They just wanted to get some good old fashioned Republican homophobia on tape for the general election.  What would Jesus do?  As a good Old Testament Jew he would say "stone 'em".  What else?  Oh yeah, the Cheney/power question.  That was just insulting.  Why on earth would CNN include that blatantly prejudicial question?  Answer:  because they are whores.  And the steelworkers union plant, how sweet with her babies, who need to have American toys because of Chinese lead.  Hey kids, you're more in danger of brain damage from mom than a Tommy the Tank Engine.
Perfidy.  You can look it up.

18 Sorry, but no matter how well you lube it, I ain't taking no MSM buttf**k and pretending it's a good thing.

19

I'm of two minds on this whole debate thing.  One one hand, I think that since it's a Republican primary, it would be logical to let mostly Republican voters ask the questions.  On the other hand, one of the things a successful Republican candidate will have to do is provide compelling answers to the sorts of questions Democrats will ask them, and if nothing else, this debate gave us a good measure of their ability to do that.  Also, if you think the questions in this debate were hand-picked by liberals, who do you think's going to pick the questions for debates in the general election?  The ghost of Ronald Reagan?

On another note, I think all of the candidates except Ron Paul looked surprisingly good, especially Romney.  They all stumbled occasionally, but they look a lot better if you try to read their mangled answers charitably as opposed to looking for the worst possible meaning.  Heck, even Ron Paul didn't sound as outright crazy as his deranged supporters would lead one to expect, though he did remind me of a pastor whose church I won't be visitng again. 

 

20

Some problems with your logic here.  You REALLY think the questions were all fine?

Let's start with one we can probably agree on.  You granted that the gay general was over the top, but then you claim the questions otherwise were fine.  Do you really think his question was fine?  Why are Republicans getting the outrage over the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy when it was the Clintons who put it into effect?  Do you know how many liberals out there have been deliberately misled to think it was Reagan and Republicans that put it into effect?  That entire bit was directly intended to reinforce that misconception.  If any debate should be getting hammered with that question, it's the Democrat debate, and Hillary in particular.

What about the guy who claimed to be all out for Ron Paul, and begged him to run third party, actually being all for Bill Richardson, and his entire intent is to split the Republican vote?  Will Republicans be given a chance to pose as Democrats and try to create a third party split on the Democrat side, all but ensuring victory for Republicans?

What about the guy who claimed to be a Log Cabin Republican actually being an Obama supporter?  If Log Cabin Republicans are actually a factor in this race, couldn't they come up with a real one?  Why did an Obama fan have to play one for the TV?  Doesn't this indicate that Log Cabin Republicans really are a non-issue?  I'm not saying that gay republicans shouldn't be considered, but frankly I've seen the LCR's as a sham outfit anyway, meant exactly for partisan skullduggery exactly like this.  I've yet to meet a gay conservative that actually supports the LCRs.  It's nothing but a front group for gay liberals to manipulate the Republican platform.

And the "do you really believe thiiiiiis" bible questions and the nutty gun guys being selected for the gun questions was insane.  They were both outright insulting.  They couldn't pick guys to ask about gun control that weren't fondling them and calling their guns "babies"?  WTF.  How about we have -actual- patchouli smelling unwashed 1960's throwbacks in tie dyes asking the gun control questions at the Democrat debate?  How about only illiterate blacks with 3 foot afros asking questions about race at the Democrat debate?  How about picking a socialite mother who insists on a right to abortion so she doesn't have to shop for the big mayonnaise jars at Costco to ask pro-choice questions from now on?

No, the questions sucked, and the questioners were liberal parodies of conservatives, not actual conservatives. 

Worst of all, though, is that the upshot of your argument is this:  All Democrats ask Democrat questions at Democrat debate.  All Democrats ask Republican questions at Republican debates.  What's wrong with that?  That's perfectly equitable. 

How about we have just one debate, just one, where the base principles and assumptions and caricatures and parodies don't ALL come from the left side of the spectrum?

Qwinn

21

Gabe, when you graduate from highschool law school perhaps you will have less time to make annoying and uninformed posts about political and social matters you do not comprehend. Stick to posts on the law in which you demonstrate some knowledge.

The MSM are pimps. They are absolute scum. Goebbels would be proud of these progressive toads, who along with their progressive enablers have continually debased public discourse since the mid '60s.

What MCPO Airdale and PA said.

22 So your argument is that the press is completely Democratic, so all questioners may as well be Democratic too? Might as well have something to entertain Gabe, and to hell with anyone who wants to talk about boring stuff like the war. The voters all have their minds made up on that issue, right? Sure, 70% of them think it's a conspiracy hatched by the oil companies, but no point in letting a candidate for President of the United States talk them out of it. The point is not that Republicans have an advantage on national security, the point is national security is important, and we would benefit from learning where the candidates differ in their thinking and why.Not when we can have a good laugh at a Dick Cheney caricature instead. And why assume bad faith on CNN's part? No reason to think badly of the media, besides Scott Beauchamp, Stephen Glass, Jason Blair, Dan Rather (and all those who rushed to his defense against the 'internet jihad'), the Reuters photographers, Evan Thomas saying the media's good for 10 to 15 points for the Dem in 2004, Eason Jordan covering for Saddam before he started accusing Americans of deliberate assassinations, Peter Arnett buying the 'baby milk factory' story in 1991.... Simple disinterest and stupidity can explain your post. The media has a history of this kind of behavior. 

Is the Confederate Flag a big issue for Republicans? I don't think so - but then I'm not in Los Angeles, so I'll defer to your expertise there. To the extent it's an issue, it's a divisive one. Were there any gay rights questions at the Dem debate at Howard University? That's a big issue, but it's one that would split the Dem base, so it will never be asked. Will they ask Dems about global warming in front of the UAW? It's beyond stupid to say that the Dems knew they would be facing questions from all comers - why won't they go on Fox? They go in Dem-friendly environments and get Dem-friendly questions from pro-Dem questioners (and, in some cases, from pro Dem questioners).

You want a real debate between the candidates? Then let the candidates debate each other. If questions from Anderson Cooper are unsatisfactory, why the hell would questions picked by Anderson Cooper be better?

23

Good point, commandero, on the Cheney question.  Yeah, that was another outrageous question.  How about a question that -doesn't- presume that Cheney is the Evil Master of the Universe?  How about a question from someone that LIKES Cheney and hopes to see more of the same?

Galor, if you saw nothing wrong with the questions, I'd step back for a moment and consider if maybe that's because you share the liberal prejudices and assumptions inherent in the questions.  Not saying that has to be the reason.  But, you know, worth thinking about.

Qwinn

24

No, the questions sucked, and the questioners were liberal parodies of conservatives, not actual conservatives.

Bingo, Qwinn.

25

Is the Confederate Flag a big issue for Republicans? I don't think so - but then I'm not in Los Angeles, so I'll defer to your expertise there.

HAHAHAHA! Excellent.

26 Chris Taylor said it was "more of a coincidence than collusion."

If the Judge and Jury are family members of the Plaintiff, does whether it's collusion or coincidence have any bearing on whether you're going to get a free trial as Defendant?

It doesn't matter one whit whether the fact that the press corps is 90% Democrat is collusion or coincidence, the end product is the Dems get to control the narrative. Imagine how wrong your ideas have to be to have that power and still only get a plurality of the vote.

It is and remains my contention that if the press corps was genuinely unbiased, the Democrat party would collapse almost completely.

CNN was not unaware of the plants, the questioners were selected to make Republicans look bad, and it's not something we should just "get over."

Whether CNN did or didn't call the DNC and consult with them over the questioners or just chose those that would benefit the Dems has fuck all to do with the situation.

When something keeps being broken in one particular way that benefits one particular group, the word "coincidence" shouldn't even enter the conversation.

27 Gabe too smart by half at least.  The word putz comes to mind.

28 Gabe you pansey! What part of "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats" don't you understand??????

29 One more assumption: That somebody who professes support for, say,  Bill Richardson, a Democrat, can not be thinking about supporting any of the Republican candidates, and vice versa. Most of the country is not as partisan as the blogosphere, and there may be significant crossovers among voters. Also, what if the questioner was from a state like Michigan, where most of the Dem candidates are not even competing (and Clinton is assured a primary victory) and wants to cover all bases by picking the best Republican to vote for in their own open, competitive primary? In either case, that person might want to ask a question or two, and may have decided to submit a video. Ruling out questions like these on the basis of insufficient partisan purity is the wrong way to go.

30 You logic is practically McCainsian!

31

I agree with Jackstraw at #16, I think.  There should be a lot more debates, possibly each debate focused on a single issue for two hours or maybe even longer.  That way, all the candidates would get a chance to express their opinions on the matter, and voters would get a chance to watch only the debates on issues they really cared about, rather than having to sit through a bunch of random crap before they get to the part they care about.

I don't know if that would be a paying proposition for CNN or FoxNews or anyone, but I think it would be worth trying.

32 Wow, way to completely miss the point Gabriel.

33

try to outdo each other on the outrage-o-meter while they work themselves and their readers into a scorn-lathered orgiastic spasm of victimhood

You know, I think it shows some balls to insult Ace, who lets you post on his blog.  I think it shows disdain for Ace to insult his readers.  We're his bread and butter, his meal ticket.  If you keep insulting us, you're going to drive some folks off.  And that's going to end up hurting his pocket book.

We're not Kossacks, who demand ideological purity.  Just sayin', you might want to dial back your own outrage-o-meter.

Big S:

One more assumption: That somebody who professes support for, say,  Bill Richardson, a Democrat, can not be thinking about supporting any of the Republican candidates, and vice versa.

If that person has "professed support for Bill Richardson," then by definition he cannot be thinking about supporting any Republican candidates.  He only gets one vote, and if he's committed it to Richardson, it's not going to a Republican.  Unless he lives in Chicago, where he can vote as many times as he wants.

34

Malor, STFU about this.  And about International Law, which you don't really understand.

And when the fuck did this become the Ace and Gabe show anyway?

35 Way to trash Ace on his own site, Malor.  Real classy.  I offer my rebuttal to the rest of your crapfest here.

36 It’s silly to pretend that we thought the questioners would all be Republicans.

It's silly to pretend CNN didn't say beforehand this would be a "a debate of their party."

37 and the Confederate Battle Flag are important topics

Your posts are a continued embarrassment for this site.

38

Like I commented at your blog, sinistar:

His boring esoterica about maritime law was simply skippable. But he went out of his way to shit all over Ace's core audience this time.

Malor has officially worn out his welcome with this post.

39 Comish (#33),

The elections are between a month and a few moths away, depending on where you live. What if you like government to spend money on social programs, and are a big-time gun fanatic, but don't really get fired up too much about foreign policy? Two candidates that might fit your bill would be Richardson (D), and Huckabee (R). If your state's primary is in March, it's likely that one, if not both of those candidates will be gone by then. You'll want to keep tabs on both of them, as well as their respective parties' nominating processes. You may even want to ask one of them a question, if given the chance. Don't assume everybody has their mind made up or will only vote for candidates from a single party.

40 Gabe,

I'm not a Republican, and not really that conservative, but even I understand that CNN's actions were completely undefensible. Nowhere in your long-winded analysis to you grasp the basic point under contention: questions in primary debates should be asked by people who are actually capable of voting in said primary.

Is that really so difficult to understand?

41 Jason,

Ever heard of an Open Primary, or even absentee voters? Or even (heaven forbid!) voters who switch their affiliations? There's no way to determine from a YouTube video who is eligible to vote in which states' primary elections.

42 "Another assumption made by the Corner emailer is that the questions should have been about issues where Republicans enjoy a natural advantage, like national security. As I wrote last night, that’s silly. It’s like asking the Democrats if they’re in favor of affirmative action. The answers will be, “well, duh.” It’s both uninteresting and uninformative."

This, in a nutshell, is the problem with the questions the MSM are interested in asking.

I would have full body orgasm if the MSM actually called the Democrats out on their support for government sponsored racism. They'd be stuck on national television forced to chose between alienating their racialist base or alienating the majority of voters, who don't like race based preferences one bit. This guarantees that MSM will never, ever, ask that question.

Shorter Malor: Expecting the MSM to ask a question that reflects well on Republicans is just as silly as expecting them to ask a question that reflects badly on Democrats.

In terms of expectations, I suppose that's true. But it doesn't make it right or defensible.

43 Admittedly, some of the questions were decent questions, but this sort of MSM crap still needs to be exposed, so I have no problem with Michelle Malkin et al. taking note of all the plants and otherwise poorly vetted questioners.

Sure, that's how I'd call it too. Cheap and lame, but only insofar as they do it only to Republicans. These guys are adults going for the toughest job on earth (other than a mom) and they should face tough questions, from whoever. I have no doubt good questions were ignored by CNN, but someone else like Fox has a golden chance to pick those questions up and use them in a future debate - but without the cheesy You Tube gimmick.

44

Don't assume everybody has their mind made up or will only vote for candidates from a single party.

I'm not.  I've never -- I repeat, never -- voted straight party ticket.  I've voted for Dems in every election I've ever voted in .  I think voting for the person is the only way that makes sense. 

Look, the bigger problem here is that, once again, the Dems have been allowed to frame the issues of debate.  When CNN was deciding what issues were important, they decided that the questions posed by Dems were the better questions.  And the reason they thought the Dem issues sounded more important is because they're Democrats.

That's the crux of the entire complaint against the liberal media.  The media agrees with Dems and shares their policy preferences.  Even when they try to play it straight down the middle, they can't because they have an inherent bias in favor of their own ideology.  Stories about soldier-heroes and religion just don't seem as interesting and important as stories about Peace moms and Republican corruption.  We've all got a natural, self-affirming bias.  And this debate once again confirmed that the liberal media has it, too.

The reason this incident is so revealing is that this is a Republican primary.  I supposed it's possible that a few liberals will try to cross over and vote in a Republican primary, but the primaries won't be decided by fence sitters or cross-overs.  99%+ of the primary voters will be dyed-in-the-wool conservatives.  So skewing the primary debate so heavily toward liberals is a travesty.

45 Comish (#44)

I think you're being over-optimistic about the numbers of conservatives vs. moderates vs. liberals who will vote in the (R) primaries. New Hampshire is an obvious case, but Michigan is crazy this year too, since it's not only early, but open and uncontested by the Democrats, which will drive independents, and maybe even some liberals, to vote in the Republican primary instead. It's conceivable that, faced with a 80% Hillary! majority, anti-war voters will consider the other Dems a lost cause, and vote en masse for RONPAUL! *spit* to try to get two pro-defeat candidates for the general election. In a 5- or 6-way primary, that can make a HUGE difference.  While I'm not endorsing their point of view, I will defend such voters' rights to assess the candidates in both parties by asking them questions when they get the chance. As for the MSM bias angle, please point to the questions that were obviously and unquestionably asked in a parodying manner. I've seen quite a few Republicans on message boards around the 'net embracing similar views, such that none of the questions surprised me in the least during the debate. As far as I can tell, this whole thing started with the gay General, and became more about the identities of the questioners than the actual questions. Most of the questions actually touched on current or recent controversial issues, and I think were therefore completely fair game.

46 Of course a flaming liberal who wants the U.S. run by international law would think the planted questions by far left wing fanatical nutjobs would be proper. As everyone said back then you'd get a lot more positive feedback at Kos or democraticunderground

47

Who is this doucheBag that gets to comment here.

get lost fag

48 When CNN was deciding what issues were important, they decided that the questions posed by Dems were the better questions. And the reason they thought the Dem issues sounded more important is because they're Democrats.

Sure, that's how it went as I see it. They picked through to get the questions they wanted and they tended to be ones that democrat party operatives seeded You Tube with. Big shock.

Yes, it was underhanded, yes it was dishonorable, but you don't expect honor from knaves.

49 QBERT!

Quit Bitching, Everybody. Really. Thanks!

50 I wish I could respond to all of you, but that's not possible. I'll try to cover as much as I can.

Look, do you think the average American realizes how much their "Trusted Source of News" filters everything through their liberal, Democratic biases? The fact that Malor is not outraged does not make the facts of this debacle any less outrageous.

Yes, I think the fact that Republicans have been yelling about biased media for years ensures that the "average American" realizes that there are biases in legacy media. I get the feeling I have a much better opinion of the average American than you. Also, I don't do "outraged" all that often.

They view conservatives and those possessing conservative views as cartoon characters, and the lack of perspective seeps into everything that they do.

No, the questions sucked, and the questioners were liberal parodies of conservatives, not actual conservatives. 

This is exactly the first assumption I was talking about in the post. Who thought these folks were all Republicans? Are we back to denigrating "average Americans" again?

So your argument is that the press is completely Democratic, so all questioners may as well be Democratic too?

I didn't say that at all.

Is the Confederate Flag a big issue for Republicans? I don't think so - but then I'm not in Los Angeles, so I'll defer to your expertise there.

I'm from Oklahoma and Texas, and yes, the Confederate Battle Flag is an issue that divides Democrats and Republicans. (Also, it's quite progressive of you that I need to shake my Southern bonafides at you before you take me seriously.) Does no one remember the drama over it in Georgia in 2000? Does no one care that school districts all across the country have banned it from student vehicles, clothing, and bags? Yes, it's an important issue in some places.

Was it an appropriate question? I think the fact that Romney just killed his chances in the South reveals just how appropriate it is. And I think that a lot of the anger at CNN over it is simply frustration that Romney shot himself in the foot on a "gotcha" question.

How about a question that -doesn't- presume that Cheney is the Evil Master of the Universe?  How about a question from someone that LIKES Cheney and hopes to see more of the same?

The Vice President has enjoyed an unusually great amount of power and authority than has traditionally been the case for his office. It is a reasonable question to wonder if that trend will continue in the future. We're back to hurt feelings because the Left calls him Darth Cheney?

And finally:

You know, I think it shows some balls to insult Ace, who lets you post on his blog.  I think it shows disdain for Ace to insult his readers.  We're his bread and butter, his meal ticket.  If you keep insulting us, you're going to drive some folks off.  And that's going to end up hurting his pocket book.

I don't believe I did insult Ace or the readers. I didn't call them names. I just disagreed with them. Forcefully. I understand that you disagree with my characterization of the escalating outrage as a "scorn-lathered orgiastic spasm of victimhood", and I'm glad you told me why.

I post at Ace's discretion. If I do end up hurting his pocket book, you can be sure I will remove myself before he ever has to ask. He is, after all, my pretend Internet best friend, too.

51 Whether Gabe insulted any of you or not I don't know, but I don't think he insulted me just for disagreeing.  I don't think a spot of disagreement is a bad thing.

52 I liked the CAIR planted question best.  I hope we see more of those in the next CNN debate.    

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/29/surprise-muslim-youtube-questioner-was-former-cair-intern/

Because, as Gabe will tell you, CAIR'S questions are much more important, and thoughtful than yours will ever be. 

53 Gabriel and Ace,

It's nice to that the contributors feel free to disagree. This is one of my favorite blogs, and I'd hate to see it go all Polipundit on us. Keep up the good work!

54

Because, as Gabe will tell you, CAIR'S questions are much more important, and thoughtful than yours will ever be.

Of course he will, you silly, silly, silly, silly, silly 13 year old girl:

I get the feeling I have a much better opinion of the average American than you.

55 "Ever heard of an Open Primary, or even absentee voters?"

Given that they are activists on behalf of Democratic canidates, the only reason any of them would vote in a Republican primary would be to screw with the results. This is not only a good argument against open primaries, but also a good argument for you being a dumbass.

56 This is exactly the first assumption I was talking about in the post. Who thought these folks were all Republicans? Are we back to denigrating "average Americans" again? 

There were 9 plants from far left wing fanatical groups. Do you understand that? I suppose you think that those to the left of moveon are "average Americans." How pathetic! If you had any intellectual honesty you would cease to post here for you're not all that bright.

57

Now that CAIR has planted a question maybe we can allow some other unidicted coconspirators to plant some questions at the next CNN debate.  http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016754.php

Becuase nothing says "safeguarding democracy" like questions from unindicted coconspirators in cases involving the funding  fo Hamas.  Right Gabe?

58 Explain it in very small words Gabe.  I'm a stupid red neck from a red State, and don't have as high an opinion of the Average Americans (you know people who fund Hamas) as you do. 

59

Gabriel, great post.   Particular kudos for drawing attention to Fred Thompson's great handling of the questions about criminal penalites for abortion.  

And, don't make Ace physically angry.  You wouldn't like him when he's physically angry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peWVsljR5e8

 

60

More than that, as commentators like Michelle Malkin, our own Moron-in-Chief, and even Glenn Reynolds, try to outdo each other on the outrage-o-meter while they work themselves and their readers into a scorn-lathered orgiastic spasm of victimhood, we are largely missing the real stories that came out of last night’s debate. Today, the legacy media did better than us at reporting on the content of the candidates’ answers and the debate’s impact on viewers. With a very few notable exceptions (thank you, Slublog), we’re wasting our energy on a silly process story.

 

Well, I skimmed the post and missed this rather important part.  My mistake.  Have to say I disagree with this.  (My silly joke about the Hulk takes on a new and rather embarrassing meaning now. 

I do think outrage is justified.  Content is very importnat, as you say, however, the consistent lack of disclosure IMO reveals in itself how important CNN itself knows such disclosure is.  Otherwise they wouldn't bother trying to hide it, or spin it now.   

61 Uh, that was supposed to be a closed paragraph not a wink.   SHeesh!

62 Gabe (you hydrocephalic imbecile)-

The only way her outrage works is if we make a wild assumption: the questioners were supposed to be conservative or Republican.

I'm quite sure the next Dem debate (on Fox!) will feature questions from "openly avowed" supporters of Rudy, Mutt, Fred, Huck and Ron Paul...

Then, they'll also absolutely take a "video question" from Grover Norquist- and when the Dems all "blow smoke" he will conveniently be sitting in the audience so they can just hand him the mike and allow him to give a 5 minute nationally televised lecture...

63 Whether Gabe insulted any of you or not I don't know, but I don't think he insulted me just for disagreeing.  I don't think a spot of disagreement is a bad thing.

Disagreement is one thing Ace, but he's basically calling you a hyperventilating tool.  That goes beyond disagreement, particularly when he's standing on your soapbox.

64

Ace- If you aren't losing Gabriel you're losing us.

What's he got on you???

Vim Toot

65 So far the people disagreeing with Gabe are being a lot more insulting and hyperventilating than he is. I disagree with several of his points but can't we do this like adults?

66

Christopher Taylor-

Molar's been insulting this site since his first appearance.

Readers don't come to AOSHQ for Molar's Tucker Carlson (only with less facial hair) impression.

We adults think this kid Molar needs his own blog, not Ace's.

Vim Toot

 

67 I disagree with several of his points but can't we do this like adults?

Malor is completely contorting himself to claim that the controversial questions had anything to do with the Republican platform or interests of Republican voters. Gays in the military and the Confederate flag don't even rank in the top 25 of important issues for conservatives. These are liberal issues.

68 > "Ever heard of an Open Primary, ..."

Yeah, I've heard of such things. I've heard of communism too! I'm not a fan of either.

69

Who thought these folks were all Republicans?

you just don't get it do you dummy?  we don't expect them all to be Republicans, and we also don't expect 30% of the supposedly "undecided voters" to be special interest operatives or dem shills

CNN staged this, you should be ashamed for spinning this mockery of democratic principles.

 

70 This isn't a "silly process story," Gabriel.

It's fraud. It's a group of self-declared journalists beating at the corpse of journalistic principles with pick-axes.

It's one party teaming up with an oiled and pliant press corps to SHUT OUT THE VOICES of the rest of us, and plant what THEY want in our place.

It isn't nuanced, it isn't funny.

And if it continues the way it has, especially as it has accelerated since the Dems lost contact with reality in 2000, it is going to break the country.

It's not fucking funny. Take your passive-aggressive, oppositional defiant mind-games and bury them deep under the flower-bed, or when it all spins out from underneath your feet, it will be your own damned fault, and the rest of us are going to damned well remember it, and see to it that you remember it too.

71

Gays in the military and the Confederate flag don't even rank in the top 25 of important issues for conservatives. These are liberal issues.

I agree.  Gabriel, I am a proud Southerner and I take exception with the line of questions too.  Those are wedge issues used by the donks to be divisive. 

Why were there so few (or no) questions about the economy (i.e., trade deficit, dollar strength, mortgage 'crisis'), healthcare, energy dependency, Katrina, etc...? Aren't these the important issues that many of the undecideds want to know about when listening to candidates on both sides?

Seriouslay, Malor, how many voters do you know that are waiting anxiously for a candidate to answer a question about the Confederate flag before they decide for whom to vote?

72 Hmmmm.

@ Malor

This is your best argument?

73

Gabe:  "The only way her outrage works is if we make a wild assumption: the questioners were supposed to be conservative or Republican."

Need evidence that Gabe here is carrying around a suitcase full of helium? Hugh Hewitt at Townhall.com offers this:

"here is a CNN story, "Funny, poignant questions pour in for GOP debate" dated just this past Monday (11/26), in which CNN Vice President, David Bohrman made it quite clear that the specific intention of the hosts of Wednesday night's debate was for Republican questioners to ask the Republican candidates questions.

Here is exactly what Bohrman said on topic in the story, just a few days ago:

"This debate is to let Republican voters pick from among their eight candidates," said David Bohrman, Washington bureau chief and senior vice president for CNN.  [emphasis fulldroolcup's]"We are trying to focus mostly on questions where there are differences among these candidates."

Bohrman also told "The Caucus (ht: ProteinWisdom)," the blogger for the New York Times that they would weed out any "gotcha" questions."

Game over.

Final score?

Us :     infinity

Gabe:  dick

 

 

74

Heh.

fuldroolcup, check out my top post on the front page.

I will update with your quote.

75 While I think there is certainly some value in having differing opinions expressed on Ace's blog, I think this specific post went a bit too far.  Everything I would have to say has been said earlier, and probably better, by others above.  Let me just finish by re-iterating the antithesis to this debate.  What would Olberdouche's skull do if Fredheads infiltrated the questions at the Dem's next debate, hosted on FoxNews and moderated by none other than Bill O, and lobbed a bunch of gotchas at the Dems?  What if it was discovered that not only did Bill O know about this, but that he had actually assisted in it by handpicking many of these questions.  Full scale global thermonuclear war.  Armageddon on the MSM nightly news.  The. End. Of. The. World.  Maybe Gabe should take a short vacation until (if) things cool down...

76

Gabe, I appreciate the response.  Ace has already covered what I thought were some shots at him, and he's acted in a (shockingly) mature manner.  I mean, the guy typically acts with less dignity than a monkey with a handful of poop, but he's being pretty adult about this.  I'd say kudos to him, but I think the word "kudos" is kind of gay.  And I'm a ladies' man.  Totally.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but (for example) describing us as being in an "orgiastic frenzy of victimhood" and saying that our complaints are nothing more than whining like 13 year old girls could be -- and has been -- seen as insulting.  I'm sure there are more measured ways you could construct your strawman.  It seems at least a little bit hypocritical that you would accuse us of reacting in an frenzied manner, but also doing it in a manner that makes that blood vessel in your forehead bulge.  If we're whining like 13 year old girls about a process story, then aren't you whining like a 13 year old girl about our complaints?

And then there's this:

With a very few notable exceptions (thank you, Slublog), we’re wasting our energy on a silly process story.

Please note that this precedes 10,000 words on that silly process story.  If you want to discuss the substance of the debate, please do so.  Saying, "Nobody's talking about Fred's answer" doesn't actually count as discussion.  Tell us what the answer was, and why it was great.

Anyway, I think you write well, and although I frequently don't agree with your positions, I appreciate your posts.

77 The Comish, I like the fact that you came back to read my reply. I agree with you that Ace sometimes acts with little dignity, but he's always been a very chill fellow. I keep in contact with him by email with rather greater frequency than the morons suspect, so I wasn't too concerned about him.

Actually, I was a little surprised at the amount of hateration in the responses, especially the few commenters who said here and in other posts today I have been insulting them for months. My response to that is to say, "Uh, okay. Sorry." Unfortunately, I cannot substantively respond to that.

As far as the immediate insults ("frenzy of victimhood" "13 year old girls"), yeah, those were designed to be attention-getters. Actually, I was hoping that a little shaming would lead to more measured responses to the CNN debate. I misunderestimated the level of outrage even as I derided it.

And finally, with respect to the time spent on a "silly process story," I did say we
 were wasting time on it, and that includes the time I've spent on it.

78 Malor is completely contorting himself to claim that the controversial questions had anything to do with the Republican platform or interests of Republican voters. Gays in the military and the Confederate flag don't even rank in the top 25 of important issues for conservatives. These are liberal issues.

OK fine, but can't it be framed that way instead of "he's a doodoo head and I'm quitting" ? This argument just is an expression of everything wrong with the internet and comment boards. It can be so much better, on both sides, right?

79 Unfortunately, I cannot substantively respond to that.

What is that, some sort of motto?

80

tsk, tsk.

I see daylight everyday, my friend.  (with my own eyes)

81

I agree with you that Ace sometimes acts with little dignity, but he's always been a very chill fellow.

For the record, I was kidding. 

I keep in contact with him by email with rather greater frequency than the morons suspect, so I wasn't too concerned about him.

I keep in contact with Ace through notes using letters I've cut out from his restraining orders.  Pretty much the same thing.

Actually, I was a little surprised at the amount of hateration in the responses, ....

Welcome to the internet. 

As far as the immediate insults ("frenzy of victimhood" "13 year old girls"), yeah, those were designed to be attention-getters. Actually, I was hoping that a little shaming would lead to more measured responses to the CNN debate.

My personal opinion is that if you're going for shame, it's best to approach it from the other side.  Instead of saying, "Look at the baby banging her spoon on her highchair," you can say, "We're conservatives [i.e., we're in this together] and unlike the screeching hive mind on the left, we can deal with opposing viewpoints.  In fact, we eat opposing viewpoints for lunch.  I've seen you guys handle Oliver Willis, and when you were finished, the only thing left of Tubby McJiggleson was the lingering scent of Filet o'Fish.  So why should this bother us?"

See?  Shame is a product of pride.  So instead of approaching it with an insult, you approach it by building your audience up.  That way, they feel better about themselves, which makes it more likely that they'll actually feel some measure of shame, as opposed to anger.

And finally, with respect to the time spent on a "silly process story," I did say we were wasting time on it, and that includes the time I've spent on it.

I understand.  My point was, instead of complaining about it, why not do something about it?  You've got the conch; if you want us to talk about it, talk about it.

82

Gabe, I've read your post now, and I've read through the comments.  So lemme just point out some things to you and Big S.

The Gen., who is a sitting member of Hillary Clinton's LGBT Steering Committee, AND a co-chair for VoteVets.org got more time than Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo.   If you're not outraged about that, you're either intellectually bankrupt or you are simply ignorant of what the primary/general election system is all about.

The guy asking Paul about an independent run is not just a Richardson supporter, but he's a campaign volunteer, knocking on doors and raising money for Richardson.  There's no chance in hell he's gonna switch his vote.   His question was INTENTIONALLY DIVISIVE and designed to do harm to the Republicans.    That question itself have ABSOLUTELY no place whatsoever in a Primary debate.  The Primary debates are functions that are supposed to allow Republicans to get info on their candidates so that they can make an informed decision about them.   The Republican Primary Debate is not a forum to encourage a schism within the party to encourage an Independent run.

The kid who asked the Bible question is basically mentally defective.   Most people think his question was a slam on Christianity, when in fact, this kid is a deranged super-thumper of the first order.  His question had no place in a serious debate just like "When did you stop beating your wife" is not an acceptable question.  While we're at this point, I suggest you go back and look at some of the questions, from the 40% of questioners that are now known Democrats EVERY one of their questions amounted to a "When did you stop beating your wife" question.

The Edwards supporter, the one that was so concerned about criminal penalties if she has an abortion, she's a lesbian!   What are the odds that her question was a deeply felt concern of hers rather than advancing an agenda at odds with the Republican platform.   What are the odds of her getting artifically inseminated then having and abortion for fun, Gabe?   Riddle me the justifcation for that.   Also why don't you comment on her celebratory video she posted about her deception after the debate, a celebration that could have been avoided had CNN decided to look at her other videos.   OH, wait, Gabe, what do you think the chances are that the producers did NOT, look at her other videos where she gushes about Andersen Cooper and slams "rethuglicans" and rails on the POTUS and VP?   I'll tell you what the chance is that they DIDN'T look at her other videos, it's ZERO!  

I could go on, but I suspect you've painted yourself into this corner now and you're going to ride it out and no number of examples of how BLATENTLY unfair CNN was in their prosecution of the debate will cause you to admit the  within your post. 

The questions were largely infintile and stereotypical of what liberals think the Republican party is all about.   I'll also say it clearly for you.

IF you think that these were the questions that the Republican Party members wanted to have answers to, and if you think that these Democrats were doing us a favor by asking us these "oh so good" questions, and if you think that this masquerade which was advanced by CNN was acceptable, then I sir, believe you to be somewhat of a plant yourself.

Yes, I understand you've got your bona fides and your a contributor here with a record of service to HQ, but seriously man, you are WAY off the mark.

This was supposed to be a Republican PRIMARY Debate, not a general free for all debate.   This was supposed to be a tool for us to see our candidates in sharp relief on causes of concern to our base and moderates.   We didn't need a guy on there who's normal "gig" is portraying the "Blind Black Republican" and doing skits that would bring in the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton looking for blood from any African-American Republican who even tried to do something similarly racist, but since he's a democrat, they leave him alone because he's bashing us.    

Finally, a paid staffer from Dick Durbin's office who is posing as an "undecided Republican" has no fucking business asking questions in a Republican PRIMARY Debate.  PERIOD!

You're either intellectually bankrupt with this post, or your utterly clueless.

--Jason

83

Jason takes game into "sudden death" overtime.

Score:

Us:      Infinity plus one

Gabe:  Dick

Heh.

 

 

 

84 The FLV to WMV site helps you find software to convert FLV to WMV. It has Free FLV to WMV converter, FLV to WMV converter video files, FLV to AVI MPEG WMV 3GP MP4 iPod converter, FLV Video Converter, Video to FLV Converter, and also guide you how to convert FLV to WMV. You can convert WMV to FLV , convert FLV to WMV MPG MPEG, convert YouTube FLV in WMV too. We has flv converter to convert FLV to any Video formats, you can use it to convert FLV to 3GP, FLV to AVI, FLV to MPEG, FLV to WMV, FLV to MP4, FLV to MPG, FLV to MOV, FLV to Xvid, FLV to Divx, FLV to MP3, FLV to RM, FLV to VCD, FLV to DVD, FLV to PSP, FLV to iPod, FLV to Zune, FLV to WMA, FLV to WAV, AVI to FLV, ASF to FLV, SWF to FLV, Vob to FLV. For iPod users, we specially write the guide to you "How to convert FLV to iPod". It tells you how to convert AVI to iPod, convert DVD to iPod, convert AVI to iPod, convert WMV to iPod, convert MPEG to iPod. With supply WinXmedia AVI MPEG iPod converter, AVI to iPod softwares free download, and iPod to PC transfer, iPod to Mac transfer.

85 ★莫道不消魂，帘卷西风，人比黄花瘦★
塑料托盘 =>厦门塑料托盘，塑料托盘制造商，宁波塑料托盘，天津塑料托盘，北京塑料托盘。
仓储笼 =>仓储笼报价，苏州仓储笼，仓储笼诺恒，无锡仓储笼，广州仓储笼。
仓储货架 =>仓储货架厂，北京仓储货架，苏州仓储货架，无锡仓储货架，广州仓储货架。
货架厂 =>佛山货架厂，天津货架厂，成都货架厂，常熟货架厂，服装货架厂。
超市货架 =>超市货架尺寸，超市货架效果图，杭州超市货架，超市货架摆放，广州超市货架。
专业从事组合式仓储货架、建材超市及仓储式超市货架设计、制造、安装、调试的企业， 是国内最大的货架制造商之一。公司已承接近千座仓储货架(http://merryrack.cn.ec21.com)工程的设计、制造和安装。 ★鼠标好比爱情箭，上网一点胡乱窜★
货架公司 =>无锡货架公司，杭州货架公司，苏州货架公司，超市货架公司，广州货架公司。
广州货架 =>广州货架厂，广州货架批发市场，广州货架公司，广州货架市场，广州货架制作。。
北京货架 =>北京货架批发市场，北京货架厂家，北京货架制作，北京货架价格，北京货架销售。
仓库货架 =>仓库货架厂，北京仓库货架，无锡仓库货架，深圳仓库货架，广州仓库货架。
南京货架 =>南京货架厂，南京货架网，南京货架公司，南京货架制造厂，南京货架价格。
塑料托盘. 南京麦瑞（塑料托盘）有限公司是国内专业从事（塑料托盘http://blog.hsw.cn/261491/viewspace-328795.html）集研发、生产、 销售、安装于一体的大规模企业之一。汇集国内（ 塑料托盘）制造业众多技术精英，所 ...

86 ¥»¥Ã¥¯¥¹¥»¥Õ¥ì¥¢¥À¥ë¥È¥¨¥íSEXÉ÷¯¥ª¥Ê¥Ë¡¼½Ð²ñ¤¤¥¨¥í¥»¥Ã¥¯¥¹¥»¥Õ¥ì¥¨¥Ã¥Á½Ð²ñ¤¤½Ð²ñ¤¤¥»¥Ã¥¯¥¹ÁÇ¿Í¥¨¥Ã¥ÁµðÆý½Ï½÷½Ï½÷SEX½Ï½÷

87 comment1,

88 How are you. Hollywood is a place where they place you under contract instead of under observation.
I am from Romania and now study English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "Search of businesses for sale and business broker offices on businessbroker.Th by huh most recent next comments."

Thanks for the help , Alethea.

89 货架 货架 托盘 托盘 google排名

90 links of london
london links jewellery
links jewellers
london links
links necklaces
links bracelet
links charms
links rings
links earrings

91 UGG Boots Sale
ugg shoes
ugg classic
cheap ugg
UGG UK
bape shoes
bape shoes sale
cheap bape shoes
UGG UK
UGG boots sale
UGG Classic
discount UGG
UGG Bailey Button
UGG Amelie Suede
UGG Bailey Button
UGG Classic Cardy
cheap UGG Cardy
UGG Classic Crochet
UGG Classic Mini
UGG Classic Short
UGG Classic Tall
UGG Coquette Casual
UGG Gypsy Sandal
UGG Halendi Sandal
UGG Hammond Slipper
UGG Infant's Erin Baby
UGG KnightsBridge
UGG Layback Slipper
UGG Lo Pro Button
UGG Matala Sandal
UGG Napoule Sandal
UGG New Arrival 5389
UGG New Short Boots

92 discounthair straighteners
ghd hair
chi hair straightener
ghd straighteners
chi straighteners
chi hair
chi hair iron
hair straighteners ghd
ghd hair straighteners
free shipping!

93 Buy discountnba shoes
cheap basketball shoes
mens basketball shoes
kobe shoes
kobe bryant shoes
lebron james shoes
free shipping!

94 Buy discountugg shoes
ugg boots
boots ugg
mbt shoes
nike running shoes
cheap nike shoes
nike footwear
cheap nike footwear
nike air max shoes
free shipping!

95 Buy Discount ugg shoes
ugg boots
boot ugg
mbt shoes
nike running shoes
cheap nike shoes
nike footwear
cheap nike footwear
nike air max shoes
FREE SHIPPING!

96 discount Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
Nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefree shipping

97 discountugg boots sale
ugg shoes
tall ugg boots
ugg classic boots
nike shox
air jordan shoes
nike air max
nike air force one
bailey button ugg
rainier ugg boots
ugg classic cardy
ugg crochet boots
ugg mini
ugg classic short
classic tall ugg
ugg coquette
ugg baby boots
ugg knightsbridge
ugg lo pro
new ugg boots
ugg short boots
ugg nightfall boots
ugg skimmer
ugg sundance boots
ultra short ugg
ugg ultra tall
discount ugg slippers
ugg sandals
ugg halendi
ugg slippers
ugg layback
ugg matala sandal
ugg napoule sandal
ugg persephone
tasmina ugg
air force 1 shoes
jordan air shoes
nike shox shoes
air max nike
free shipping!

98 Cheap UGG Cardy
UGG Shoes Sale
UGG Australia
Discount UGG boots
UGG Bailey Button
cheap ugg boots

99 buy Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg bootsfrom usa

100

Rolex     Rolex Watches    Omega     Omega Watches

 

Rolex Yatchmaster | Rolex Turn O Graph | Rolex Submariner |

101 wholesale nike shoes
wholesale shoes
wholesale nike running shoes
wholesale nike basketball shoes
wholesale shoes
wholesale jordan shoes
wholesale dunk shoes
wholesale adidas shoes
SEO
Ugg boots
UK Ugg boots
美国主机<

102 buy discount ugg shoes
cheap ugg shoes
cheap ugg
ugg rainier
buy ugg
ugg usa
discount ugg boots
ugg 5825
ugg shoes sale
ugg sundance
ugg shoes
cheap ugg boots
ugg 5815
ugg sale
ugg uk
ugg knightsbridge
womens ugg boots
ugg boots
ugg australia
ugg 5819free shipping

103 Replica Breitling Watches | soccer jersey supplier | Fake Cheap Rolex | replica soccer jersey | replica soccer jersey | Swiss Rolex Watches | Chanel Watch Replica | Japan Rolex Replica | Replica Jaeger LeCoultre Watches | Fake Parmigiani | Porsche Design Watch Replica | Bvlgari Fake | Ebel Watches | Franck Muller Fake Watches | Cartier Replica Watch

104 Replica Omega | Fake Cheap Rolex | Replica Omega | Replica Breitling Watches | soccer jersey wholesale | Replica Hermes Watch | Fake Porsche Watches | Fake A.lange Sohne | Fake Bmw Watch | Cartier Watch Replica | Replica Corum Watch | Chanel Wristwatch | Zenith Watches | Audemars Piguet Watch | Fake Gucci