The American Spectator : Up in Smoke

Up in Smoke

By W. James Antle, III on 5.22.09 @ 6:08AM

To be a smoker in America today is to be constantly kicked to the curb -- literally. A man with nicotine-stained hands cannot walk into an office building, a shopping center, and increasingly even the local watering hole without being reminded he is not welcome. To that list of indignities, smokers can add another: they can't count on Republicans to keep their taxes low.

Exhibit A is Mississippi, where the cigarette tax -- the third lowest in the nation -- hasn't gone up since 1985. Today it will rise a whopping 50 cents a pack, thanks to a bill signed into law by Republican Gov. Haley Barbour. When a former tobacco lobbyist in the Deep South who has twice vetoed cigarette tax increases is now open to them, smokers aren't safe anywhere.

Barbour isn't an insignificant figure in the GOP. The former Republican National Committee chairman is an active participant in House Minority Whip Eric Cantor's national council for rebuilding the party's brand, is slated to run the Republican Governors Association in 2010, and is talked about as a presidential candidate in 2012. Reports that Barbour will visit Iowa in late June have fueled the White House speculation.

Political scientist Marty Weisman of Mississippi State University is already comparing Barbour to the anti-tax activists' least favorite Republican presidential candidate from the last go-around: Mike Huckabee. "Huckabee lacks favor with a lot of Republicans because, though he's 100 percent Republican, he raised taxes several times in Arkansas," Weisman told the Associated Press. "I believe the eyes of the nation are on Barbour."

And what was one of Huckabee's favorite taxes to raise? You guessed it: the levy on cigarettes. Nonetheless, Barbour has plenty of company among leading Republicans. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist -- a 2012 possibility and declared candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010 -- has said he will sign a bill raising the cigarette tax by $1 a pack. The measure will also nearly triple the existing tax on the wholesale price of other tobacco products.

The $1 billion tax hike on cigarette, pipe smoke, and chewing tobacco comes at a time when Crist's anti-tax credentials might come in handy against a more conservative primary opponent. "He is a fiscal conservative who is a libertarian on many social issues," a Crist ally told the Orlando Sun Sentinel. "He's never going to win over the far-right-wing social activists, but he's with 95 percent of the Republican Party, and being against tax increases is the most fundamental thing."

Oops. To be fair, Crist has plenty of Republican cover. There were members of his party in the legislature who took a more proactive role in pushing for the tax increase. Ultimately, it was passed by two Republican-controlled chambers, with one unanimous state senate vote for a bill containing the tax hikes.

Not every Republican mentioned as a potential 2012 presidential contender wants to slam extra taxes on a pack of smokes. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is holding firm in his opposition, though so far the relevant committees in the state legislature have managed to block it without any veto being required. South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford has opposed cigarette tax increases that were intended to expand Medicaid, though he is willing to raise the tax by 30 cents a pack to help pay for an optional flat tax that would cut participants' income tax rates by nearly 50 percent.

Sanford communications director Joel Sawyer explained the distinction to TAS. "If a cigarette tax increase does what it is supposed to do, the resulting reduction in smoking will lead to decreased revenues," says Sawyer. "So you are proposing to pay for permanent spending increases with temporary revenues." But he argues that partly offsetting an income tax cut with a higher cigarette tax is revenue-neutral and shifts the tax burden away from income to consumption.

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, told TAS that is consistent with the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. "We would prefer an income tax cut without any offsetting excise tax increase on anybody," Norquist says. "But tax reform -- moving from one tax to another -- does not violate the pledge." Raising the cigarette tax without any compensatory tax cuts in order to finance increased government spending, however, does.

Mississippi's cigarette tax hike will go toward defraying the cost of car tags, even though Barbour had initially recommended against using the revenues for any specific purpose. Americans for Tax Reform has been opposed to Florida's increase because, as Norquist puts it, "they are raising the cigarette tax because they don't want to cut spending."

What about the public-health argument in favor of reducing smoking? "That's great," says Norquist. "Then cut other taxes. Otherwise, you just want the revenue for spending." Norquist agrees with Sanford's team that using higher cigarette taxes to pay for permanent spending increases will lead to additional increases in the tax burden as revenues decline with smoking. "Raising the cigarette tax today means raising the income tax or some other tax at some point tomorrow," he concludes.

Cigarette smoking is unhealthy and unpopular, so smokers are an easy target for politicians who find taxes and spending as addictive as nicotine. But as Republicans try to regain their fiscal senses and provide a compelling alternative to President Obama's big-government agenda, where they stand on the most popular of tax increases may help determine who is serious about limited government -- and who's just blowing smoke.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Republican Party, Smoking

Bram| 5.22.09 @ 7:41AM

Taxes offend me. Taxes take money out of the economy to be wasted by asshole politicans.

Knight Arrant| 11.16.09 @ 2:49AM

It is a little from history of this problem:

A third strong deterrent is price. The state Health Department estimates that for each 10 percent increase in cigarette prices, youth consumption falls by 13 percent. In Minnesota, the average price of a pack of cigarettes has jumped more than 50 percent since 1999, to $3.48 a pack, according to industry-supported studies by Orzechowski and Walker, an economic consulting firm in Arlington, Va.

And, in budget-balancing negotiations, Senate Democrats have proposed a 60-cent-a-pack increase in the cigarette tax. (2002)

Doorginner| 5.22.09 @ 8:04AM

Speaking of whacky extremism, David, what's this stuff?

http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1/introwk.html

And how 'bout that crazy letter Sunnyside Church of Christ?

http://www.sunnysidechurchofchrist.com/email/Dave Mathews so-called missionary trip to Yellowstone.htm

David, who's billy? Did he/she forsake you also? Like God? Like the folks at The Oil Drum?

Pingback| 5.22.09 @ 8:41AM

| Bearing Drift :: Virginia Politics and Podcasts links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

and Economics Local Hampton Roads Northern Virginia Richmond Media and Pop Culture Blogs Off-Beat and Catch-All podcasts By JR Hoeft Published May 22nd, 2009 May 22 - Up in smoke Filed Under aside Tagged: Previous: Previous Post Next: Comments Feel free to leave a comment... and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar! Name (required) Email Address…

blackelkspeaks| 5.22.09 @ 8:52AM

A politician's attitude toward raising cigarette taxes is a litmus test towards his attitude about the idea of fundamental individual human liberty. The arguments used to justify this are leftist at the root, and are used, like a slippery slope, to justify all manner of opression. If freedom means anything at all, it means being free from the machinations of the busybody element in our society who want to co-opt our individual liberty to suit their preferred schemes in every area of our lives; you know, the busybodies like this asshole David Mathews.

Blithely raising cigarette taxes is just the beginning. From there, it is a short path to the evil we see unfolding every day, like trillions in government debt and industry nationalizations. In the end, we find ourselves living with outright fascism. And a world full of assholes like David Mathews.

2Anglico| 5.22.09 @ 9:12AM

If mathews had to pay a $100 tax everytime he got a deposit at his favorite bathouse.... nah, bad example, he'd get a pass on his taxes just like his pals in the obambi administration.

Eric Dondero| 5.22.09 @ 9:41AM

The guy from the Orlando paper should've said, "Crist was a fiscal fiscal conservative, who leaned libertarian on many social issues."

Problem for Crist is that libertarian Republicans who were previously supporting him, precisely because he was not a social conservative, are now turning on him, over his signing of the Seat Belt law as a primary offense bill.

If there's one single issue, that really distinguishes one's libertarian cred it's the seat belt law.

Crist became a Nanny-stater two weeks ago, when he signed that legislation. And he lost whatever libertarian support he had.

I and many other libertarian Repubicans have bolted to Rubio.

Peter McGrath| 5.22.09 @ 10:53AM

Good news: Charlie Christ is DEAD in the water as a viable candidate for the U.S. Senate in Florida. He has wasted his adult life as a political hack and vain weather vane. A political peacock and opportunist of the most reprehensible stripe, his brand won't sell in a Republican primary which is absolutley BOILING MAD at RINO-douche bags.
Definition:
RINO-douchebag=nannystate pussy, see - Charlie Christ

ben| 5.22.09 @ 12:47PM

I'm a smoker and it seems to me that the politicians raise taxes on smokers because we are a small minority (20%) of the population and it's easiest to raise taxes when the majority won't have to pay them. Of coarse they sell it as a means to promote a healthy lifestyle, incentivising us to quit, which is a load of BS. They budget and appropriate funds for the amount of money they think they wil raise from it based on the number of packs sold. If people quit as the politicians say is their purpose then they wouldn't ever get that money and wouldn't have it to spend. But by including the expected revenue in the budget, they are proving that they really want that money and have no intention of trying to get people to quit.
In Washington State they passed a cigarette tax under the guise of using the money to pay for the high medical bills smokers cost the state. Then once the people voted it in (including some smokers I know who thought it would provide them the incentive to quit but who are still smoking years later) the State allocated less than 5% of the revenue towards health care and the other 95% went into the general fund.
The next time you see a smoker standing outside in the rain because no businesss is allowed to cater to them, you should thank them for the goods and services the State provides for you at their expense.

Joe| 5.22.09 @ 12:50PM

This sounds like poor me. Well I had to suffer for years with you smokers in resturants, bars and other buildings (including the work place). Now if you are looking for simpathy you have come the wrong place. I think it should be outlawed. However, I do think the taxes are con jobs and a way for the politicians to steel more money from the tax payers. And it is wrong.

L. Ross| 5.22.09 @ 1:46PM

Ben:
I don't smoke, but I am friends with a lot of smokers. I like smokers. They are usually lots of fun, know great bars and great places to eat, like to drink and cuss, just generally good company.

On the other hand, people like Joe, who feel it is their duty to tell you how to live your life and make decisions for you are not the kind of people I enjoy hanging out with.

On the subject of health, yes, we all know that smoking isn't healthy. But, people make irrational decisions continuously regarding their health. Not wearing seatbelts or helmets, enjoying bacon cheesburgers grilled over charcoal or a top shelf margarita. None of these decisions are quite rational, but they can give people some joy in their lives. And by the way, no one gets out of this game alive. If you could prove that smoking is going to take half your life away, that would be one thing, but smoking usually shortens the lowest quality time of life for people anyway.

I dislike taxes in any form, and I dislike taking someone's freedom away.

Nick| 5.22.09 @ 2:33PM

L. Ross,

Weren't you the one pointing out the "silver lining" in gov mandated CAFE regulations a couple days ago?

jim rice| 5.22.09 @ 3:15PM

The tax is certainly annoying... but I don't mind paying it. I'm killing myself as quickly as I can, so I might as well give the government a few pennis per cancer stick, I guess.

I hate paying money for anything, of course... but this isn't something I'll be up-in-arms about.

The smoking ban in restaurants, however, is complete nonsense. If I open a restaurant, it should be my own damn decision whether or not I allow smoking. As a smoker, I typically enjoy restaurants and bars that don't allow smoking. But I absolutely hate the idea that an owner is being forced to make that decision. If you don't like smoke, then don't go to that restaurant. No one's forcing you. I don't think it should be a law in workplaces either. It, in most cases, makes good business sense, but it should be up to the business (or property) owner.

Oh, and marijuana should be legal

Crusader| 5.22.09 @ 4:04PM

Cost was one of the reasons I gave up smoking. Health was the biggest, but man, $5+ a pack was getting ridiculous. Maybe the smokers can take solace in that extra $13 a paycheck they're getting from the usurper in chief.

Marc Jeric| 5.22.09 @ 4:43PM

Smoker who dies from lung cancer at 55, after a 3-month sickness, is vastly cheaper for society than a 90-year old who dies after 20 years of Alzheimer.

Michael L. Hauschild| 5.22.09 @ 4:47PM

Just curious, how much would a joint of the new tax base "government wheeze" cost?

Michael L. Hauschild| 5.22.09 @ 4:49PM

"Ain't gonna smoke no government wheeze." But as a dedicated libertarian I will walk around with what looks like one stuck behind my ear.

Everly Waverly| 5.22.09 @ 5:15PM

Tell me, who can support the continued sale of tobacco, something that as sure as a bullet to the head is killing people and destroying quality of life. Tax the stuff, tax it out of existence. Explain to me the wasted, altruistic need to keep an industry alive that sells such an addictive and deadly product. Spend some time around smokers, work with'em, all the lost productive time on smoke breaks, the smell of their habit that does nothing but destroy their health, the stupidity of it. I'm gonna take some heat for my militant opinion, but make no mistake, I'm conservative and why should that mean you have to support a flipp'n, disgusting habit that serves no purpose than to line the pockets of the purveyors and investors in a senseless habit!!!!! Allowing citizen to smoke is not freedom, it's greed! No one is gonna loose their freedom, but your life is definitely on the line, think about it, smoking serves no purpose.....

Everly Waverly| 5.22.09 @ 5:16PM

Everly Waverly| 5.22.09 @ 5:18PM

Everly Waverly| 5.22.09 @ 5:20PM

Everly Waverly| 5.22.09 @ 5:24PM

Everly Waverly| 5.22.09 @ 5:32PM

Nick| 5.22.09 @ 5:52PM

Everly Waverly,

First, do you keep passing out every few minutes, and your head hits the "submit" button?

It is not "conservative" to think you "know" what is better for everyone else. I "make no mistake" in stating that you are a bleeding heart liberal.

You could apply many of the same things you wrote about tobacco to candy, would you also ban Hershey bars?

Michael L. Hauschild| 5.22.09 @ 6:03PM

It is going to be interesting to watch the choking off of this addiction by taxation first hand since I have close relatives that smoke. They have actually entered the stage of rolling their own. They exhale - complain, inhale - destroy their health, exhale - complain.

Roy| 5.22.09 @ 6:56PM

I would like to see a system where people could make it illegal to sell them cigarettes. IE, I put my name on a list, which I can take myself off any time, but it takes a week. Anybody who wants to sell me cigarettes has to check the list and refuse if I am on it(easily done with modern technology).

This would allow people who want to smoke to go on smoking, but remove the ability to prey on people's weak self control. And, I think this should apply to a whole range of other products which are sold mostly to people who want them, but don't want to want them.

Everly Waverly| 5.22.09 @ 6:57PM

WOW, am I sorry. I kept trying to post with no immediate results and felt if it was somehow being accepted I would be regretful, I am. The reason there aren't more redundant posts is I got tired of trying, embarrassing.

DaveinPhoenix| 5.22.09 @ 8:36PM

How do we think all levels of government have gotten so enormous over the past century ? One small step at a time, that's how. One less freedom - because the government is concerned for our health. So we start wearing seatbelts. Then the war on smokers. One less freedom because the government cares so much about us. Then the war on soda drinkers. One less freedom. They care. The war on fatty foods. One less freedom. Not sure if they really care anymore, but ok. Tax alcohol ! Yep, that's bad for people. Kills too many of us. Now I know they don't care, they just want more tax money to spend and a certain amount of control over those evil drinkers. And then the government wanted us to drive slower - to save lives ! Up go the speed cameras...one less freedom for us all. At what point do politicians have enough taxpayer money to spend ? In 1929, government consumed 12% of our economy and the private sector 88%. In 2008, that number had changed a bit: government now consumes 45% of our ecomomy and the private sector (which employs people and is much more efficient) has shrunk to 55% of our economy. For those who blame NAFTA for the loss of jobs in America, look no further than the incredible rise of the size of government which has crowded out, taxed, regulated and harrassed small business to near death.

So, Everly: your disgust with us evil smokers is as understandable as can be. So if the terrible health effects from smoking are so damaging to Americans, where's the outrage over the killing of 2 million babies a year ? With every birth control device known to mankind available, abortion is just just government sponsored killing of babies because of irresponsible lazy behavior. It's terribly unhealthy for the babies involved.....but it's ok, smokers are an easier target.....

Michael L. Hauschild| 5.23.09 @ 7:32AM

Everly Waverly,
Almost everyone here has done the "multiple post" dance. You will also find when disagreeing with some that rudeness abounds. Some here post the same thing, day after day, time after time, even if the wording is somewhat varied, their message is not of debate is is simply a close-minded squawk. Welcome to the jungle.

Charlene| 5.23.09 @ 7:38AM

Jim Rice is correct. Freedom also means that a business owner should have the right to determine if they wish to allow smoking in their establishment or not; NOT THE GOVERNMENT. If you don't like smoking, don't go to a smoking establishment; simple as that. Furthermore, think of the blow to the economy if smoking ceased to exist. The tabacco companies, out of business. Their employees, out of a job. Then who would pay for children's health care? All you non-smokers, that's who. If the massive revenue generated from smoking no longer existed, the Gov't would damm sure get that money some other way. If you don't smoke, you're not being taxed, correct???? Like it or not, (at least for now) people have the freedom to participate in activities that might not be the best for them and that you may not agree with. Smokers targeted first, now I hear overweight people are next. "They say" overweight folks are contributing to excessive health care costs and even GLOBAL WARMING (which is a hoax). How long before they target you and something that YOU enjoy????? The door has been opened. Jim Rice: there you go again talking about dying. It hurts my heart; please don't.

Everly Waverly| 5.23.09 @ 11:09AM

I'm gonna try this again---

Only a person addicted to smoking could justify it. Ever wonder why when a smoker is asked, "why don't you quit", immediate anger, "it's legal", "you can't tell me what to do". Pretty standard stuff and the price of that addiction continues to go up. Do the smokers seem to have a clue, maybe a life lived without the "real" evil weed, not a chance, "you can't tell me what to do". I don't want to tell anyone what to do, shouldn't have to. Although claiming someone is taking away your smoking rights, and here's the brain twister, freedom, who's freedom? People who smoke intrude on my freedom and it's a tired argument I know, but an existential one, I don't want to endure the associated 2nd-hand results of someone who is addicted to the point of total irrationality.
In an earlier post I mentioned how much time is wasted on the ubiquitous smoke breaks at most work places, ever turn around and wonder where so-n-so is? Oh, must be on a smoke break again, ten-a-day. Now there's self inflicted non-productivity, but you get to experience your co-workers experiment in freedom. Have you ever picked-up the slack for smoke-break Slim? Maybe that same employee, which is usually the case, has a meth habit or some other expression of freedom, now we're talking full-tilt denial of any semblance of rational thought, but in the ball park with tobacco, a foul addiction.
You smokers out there, take Waverly's challenge, try quitting, go ahead, you can save some $$$, and I bet you'd feel better, don't get too angry, think about it....Yeah, to equate tobacco with a Hershey bar or soda, now there's a stretch. Although I wouldn't put it past our all-knowing leftist politicians to continue down that road, it's they who need to be removed like a bad habit...

Charlene| 5.23.09 @ 12:04PM

Actually, when considering the workplace, most places allot 60 minutes of UNPAID time for lunch/breaks. At the very least, 30 minutes. At least they do at my workplace. I am costing no one anything by taking a smoke break on my UNPAID time. Yes, it is addicting. That's the problem. Not everyone can quit cold turkey. Not everyone can quit at all. Many have tried. Addiction is like that, hard to kick. Chantix actually costs more per month than cigs because it is not covered by most insurance. If the Gov't really cared about smoker's health, they would make available, at little or no cost, measures that actually work. But they don't. Smokers provide too much revenue for the Gov't. However, it's my money, I work hard for it and I will spend it how I please. BYW, it is usually I that wonder where MY co-workers (who DON'T smoke) are. To suggest that a person who smokes is a slug is most unfair. In addition, to suggest that a smoker might also be a meth head is just insane. You don't know that. I'd wonder where you are forced to 'endure" second hand smoke since bars, resturants, workplaces, etc don't allow indoor smoking. I don't smoke inside of my own home. No one I know is forced to endure my second hand smoke.

Gazinya| 5.23.09 @ 12:06PM

Do you know why you are upset at the person who is in front of you in the express lane who has a basket full of groceries? It is because they are IN FRONT OF YOU. If they were behind you, you would just click your tongue and move on. Do you know why it seems right to tax smokers? You don't smoke.

What else do you not do that deserves taxing? I don't drink alcohol so I am free of thinking about taxing a pint of booze $40. I am free of DUI laws also but I am at risk from those who do drink. The alcohol that is being SOLD at public events and in public facilities puts me at risk of being injured by the use of alcohol. Yes there are laws that say that a drunk may not act like a drunk but where is the legal protection that the person who 'likes to throw back a couple' after work or during some public event isn't going to over do it. Why not take the same attitude toward alcohol that people are so freely able to do with tabacco. You can get drunk on the golf course but you may not smoke. Huh.

I do not wish for there to be anymore tax on alcohol nor do I wish there to be anymore tax on tabacco. I do not buy lottery tickets but isn't there some proven liabilities to society that is a direct result from gambling? We could slow down this addiction by charging a tax of $10 for a scracher ticket and $40 for a 'pick six'. But then if you like to drink and gamble this would be an outrage. Maybe it is nothing more than the smoker is in front of you and not behind you.

How about condoms.

Smorgasbord| 5.23.09 @ 12:45PM

The easiest way to solve the tax or not tax cigarettes problem, and get smokers to quit, is to put the cigarettes under the control of the Food And Drug Administration where it should have been in the first place. There wouldn't be any more taxes on them because they would be banned because of all of the harmful chemicals there are in them. Problem solved.

The lower tax revenue would be a problem, but eventually it should balance out by lowering Medicare bills from smoking induced illnesses.

Charlene| 5.23.09 @ 12:50PM

Gazinya,

Excellent analogy. Remember that poem written by a clergy in Nazi Germany? Talking about how "they" came for others (with so called vices), and he did not care, because it did not effect him. When they did come for him, there was no one left to fight for him.

Everly Waverly| 5.23.09 @ 1:30PM

Again I will enter--

A positive addiction is one that becomes a compulsion, oh, say running for instance, an addiction to endorphins, a nice addiction. There's a lot of examples of positive additions that can become harmful though, that inflict physical injuries due to overuse, I know.
Also there's the negative ones that just require inhalation, a lot like simply breathing. Let me ask YOU this, would YOU intentionally breath-in the smoke of burning refuse, burning tires, an oil fire, the burning field that seems to spontaneously combust whenever a north wind blows or maybe due to an errant essential addiction tossed aside that YOU just can't kick. People don't willingly breath-in smoke from fires, because it will kill YOU and I believe the same thing applies to smoking a cigarette, it will kill YOU.
Ya know, I wish I had a nickel for every death-bed, come-to-Jesus moment that smokers have before they die, wishing they hadn't smoked all those years, I could buy a lap pool.

Charlene| 5.23.09 @ 1:31PM

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

Everly Waverly| 5.23.09 @ 1:44PM

Whew!!!
Someone tell me how in the flipp'n hell can Nazi Germany in any way be an analogy to the self infliction of a carcinogen. YOU'RE of out-your-mind, stop it!!!

2 Guns AZ| 5.23.09 @ 4:28PM

Everly, its NONE of your business if I smoke or don't. The idea of taxing a vice to pay for Gov spending is a loser as described in the article. The taxes will go down with a decrease in consumption, however the Gov spending will still be there waiting for revenue.

And again, ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS if I want to smoke or not. BTW I quit smoking 25 years ago because of the cost (think of all the tax revenue the gov lost on me).

js ragmann| 5.23.09 @ 4:52PM

If taxing cigarattes to raise revenue for children's health programs is such a great idea, let's use that logic in other areas. For example, lets tax condoms to fund aids treatment, let's tax tampons and bras to fund breast cancer research, let's tax toothpast and brushes to fund national dental care (it's coming folks), or maybe tax vegetable products to fund mental health treatment for vegans, animal rights activists, and liberals. It's only right money be used by the individuals who have the health issues; besides, I'd like a return to the "60's where we saw fewer bras.

joe schmudlap| 5.23.09 @ 4:56PM

At one time in the US you could light up in a restaurant that allowed smoking, almost anywhere in the U.S. No more. Yet, in third world countries, you can smoke in restaurants, businesses, almost anywhere. Funny how there is more individual freedom in Guatemala than in the US.

Everly Waverly| 5.23.09 @ 4:58PM

Tell ya what, you are entitled to your opinion. It's okay, not going to deny it, never did. Yeah, it's none of my business, just like my opinion is none of your business, but I'm entitled to express it and will, because SMOKING is stupid, beyond all recognition, stupid without a defense, there is none. Above poster was , as it seems smart enough to quit , but still stupid, dumb as a sack of hammers for defending the CHOICE to smoke, again, STUPID!!!!!!

Michael L. Hauschild| 5.23.09 @ 4:59PM

js ragmann,
Nice thought about the mammary, but the only women who would go along with that would be 60's era hippy grandmas and biker molls. Eww!

Griff| 5.23.09 @ 6:58PM

Everly,
Hitler and many in his top circle were vehemently opposed to smoking, in addition to being very opposed to large store chains (think Wal-Mart) . As national socialists, Nazis were also very fond of the idea of national health care and automobile manufacturing control (think Volkswagon). If these concepts all sound familiar, you now know why many of us on the Right refer to lefties as "left-wing fascists" and "health Nazis".

Nick| 5.23.09 @ 7:55PM

You are certainly proving the point that people have the right to be stupid. Why do you want to deny others the same right you are displaying in your posts?

Your problem is you have bought into the lie that smoking causes cancer. There is absolutely no proof of that. So your statement, "...the same thing applies to smoking a cigarette, it will kill YOU.", is wrong. This is why you are so terrrified of second hand smoke. Instead of cowering like a frightened mouse, educate yourself.

Some people smoke for 50-60 years, some into their 80's & 90's. And when they die, dolts like you say, "See, they died because they smoked." Smoking is bad for some people's health, just like over-eating.

And how is it a stretch to compare cigarettes to candy, but not a huge stretch to compare smokers to meth-heads?

Guy| 5.24.09 @ 12:38AM

I suppose smoking might be stupid, though it ranks rather low in the pantheon of stupid things I've done. I'm thinking of the purchase of an AMC Hornet and that girl in Charleston for starters. Both threatened my life in a far more immediate way than smoking ever has.

As for productivity; what's your excuse? Productivity varies so widely that the returning smoker might well ask why so little got done in his absence.

Smoking gives me pleasure. I'm suspicious that many non-smokers have nothing in their life that yields the same obvious pleasure some of us derive from smoking. It seems to me that most children have to be taught that my pipe smoke is offensive to their sensibilities. It does get confusing sitting around the campfire.

There is no more reliable evidence for the purported harm of second-hand smoke than there is for man made global warming.

If I'm to die young from my smoking, I trust that someone will credit me with doing my part to return Medicare and Social Security to solvency.

And when did living long become the equivalent of living well anyway? I hope to pass from this mortal coil with intact cognitive powers sufficient to know that I have nothing still to fear of the hereafter.

I find myself living in a land increasingly dominated by control-freaks, blessed with little sense of humour, but convinced of some sort of inherent right to be offended. My eulogy will probably make mention more of the dangers of cornering an F-150 on bald tires than blissfully inhaling carcinogens while doing so. And Michelle Pfeiffer says that the only interesting people at parties are the smokers. Now there's a reason to go on living, and smoking. You'll have to ride in the back of the truck, Waverly.

Oldefarte| 5.24.09 @ 11:02AM

Smoking taxes aside, Haley Barbour would be an incredible presidential candidate in 2012. He's conservative, experienced [former head of the RNC, DC lobbyist, now govenor, etc], intelligent; and his lawyerly-combatative style would be a perfect opponent to Obama in 2012. My dream-team ticket for the RP would be Barbour and Newt G., in whichever order you wish to place them!!!!!!

Smoking Gun| 5.24.09 @ 12:13PM

"THE OVERTHROW OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC",
Part 16
by Sherman H. Skolnick 9/10/02

COUP and COUNTER-COUP?

If the American monopoly press told the truth, which they cannot do, what might the headlines be? Such as

SOME TOP MILITARY OPPOSE WHITE HOUSE
FOREIGN PRESS CONFIRM BUSH SKULL & BONES SEX STORY
U.S. ARISTOCRACY TO STAGE MORE TERRORIST EVENTS?
9-11 PRIOR KNOWLEDGE CONFIRMED

In exclusive stories since 1995, we have told of a group of highly patriotic Admirals and Generals, in military jargon called flag officers, who opposed Commander-in-Chief Clinton. Under the Uniform Military Code, they felt authorized to arrest their Commander-in-Chief.

If Clinton arrested them for mutiny, they would, if not assassinated, defend themselves with their documented charges of treason by him. For example, that Clinton reportedly gave U.S. industrial, financial, and military secrets to the head of the Red Chinese Secret Police, Wang Jun, who met Clinton from time to time in the White House.

The U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 3, provides

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." (Emphasis added.)

As we have shown in our website series, "Red Chinese Secret Police in the United States", they are sworn enemies of the U.S. and have committed unpublicized murder and mayhem on U.S. soil and dominate the markets in Chicago while laundering the illicit proceeds of harvesting human organs from political dissidents for U.S. shipment and dope shipments through Chicago.

Of the original group of 24 such flag officers, ten have been assassinated, including some in a sabotaged military aircraft, near Alexander City, Alabama, April 17, 1995 (two days before the Clinton White House prior knowledge multiple bombings of a Federal Office building in Oklahoma City). And likewise murdered have been the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jeremy Boorda, highest naval officer in uniform, and Gen. David McCloud, head of the Alaska Military District. Also snuffed out was former Director of Central Intelligence, William Colby, assisting this group in their planned arrest of Commander-in-Chief Clinton.

The group, subsequently enlarged, vows to arrest Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush. If Bush has them arrested for mutiny, they intend, if not assassinated, to defend themselves with their several documented charges of his treason. Included are

[1] Bush's acts of treachery against the American people, in secret deals he made with the Red Chinese, giving them U.S. financial, industrial, and military secrets.

[2] George W. Bush and Daddy Bush profitting from secret business deals with the bin Laden Family, in the U.S. and overseas, with them not on the outs with Osama, he and his CIA-trained out-of-uniform army being at war against the United States and being a sworn enemy of the United States; within the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 3.

[3] Bush Family, including George W., Jeb, Neil, and Daddy Bush, profitting from treasonous secret business deals with some in the Saudi Royal Family, who are sworn enemies of the United States and financing secretly Osama bin Laden; within the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 3.

[4] Acts by Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush, as supervised by his father, with prior knowledge of 9-11 incidents. [5] Acts by Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush, as supervised by Daddy Bush, ordering and authorizing a military stand-down on the morning of September 11, 2001, aiding and abetting the murder of some three thousands persons, most of them U.S. citizens, within the United States of America.

[ 6] George W. Bush, as Commander-in-Chief, as supervised by Daddy Bush formerly head of the secret political police the CIA, authorizing and ordering the American CIA, in combination with other Americans and others, to allow, permit, and condone, and procure to be done, and acquiesce in the same, of the escape from being captured and brought to the U.S. for criminal trial, of Osama bin Laden, both prior to Black Tuesday and thereafter. Including but not limited to the time in the summer of 2001, when Osama was in the custody and control of an American CIA hospital in the Persian Gulf, and also in December, 2001, when the American CIA in combination with the CIA-created and subsidized Pakistan Secret Political Police permitted Osama to escape to refuge in a zone between Afghanistan and Pakistan and for a while into a moslem province of Red China.

The escape of Osama bin Laden was thus permitted and condoned, for among other purposes, as in documented charges by the top U.S. Military flag officers, to preclude the testimony of Osama in an American tribunal of he and his family's secret private business relations profitting the Bush Family.

Some top U.S. military flag officers are aware of the correctness and validity of our exclusive stories of George W. Bush and his male sex-mate since University and Skull & Bones initiation and up to date. These flag officers are gravely concerned with the national security ramifications of this relationship which is not a private and personal matter. The situation has caused the murder of a magazine photo editor as well as causing George W. Bush to be subject to blackmail and compromise of Bush resulting in his conveyance to sworn enemies of the United States, and giving them aid and comfort, of U.S. financial, industrial, and military secrets.

These flag officers are not the only ones that have confirmed that Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush, as supervised by his father, was in a position to have prior knowledge of 9-11, resulting in the murder of some three thousand persons on U.S. soil, most of them U.S. citizens. At the behest of Daddy Bush and his son George, no prior warning was given to the American people.

Two major foreign news organizations, on their own, using their own investigative journalists, have verified to their satisfaction, the validity and correctness of our stories about the Skull & Bones initiation pictures, about the national security breaches caused by George W.'s relationship with his male sex-mate, and related details. The news groups, for the moment, have not yet publicized this situation. The White House has offered the respective governments where the news organizations are located, certain financial and other geopolitical benefits to have such governments invoke Official Secrets Acts type laws to deter going on the air or publishing the details as of now. Including but not limited to Canadian Broadcasting Company and British Broadcasting Company, London.

The French CIA, on occasion jointly with The Mossad, Israeli intelligence, are using their verification of the above for geopolitical and other purposes. For example, the French for some time have been interested in deterring the U.S. Justice Department in seeking to criminally prosecute fourteen French nationals reportedly involved in the theft, on U.S. soil, of U.S. industrial and financial secrets. The French hold the same cards as to the attack by missiles that brought down TWA Flight 800 taking off from New York for Paris. Among the 60 French nationals who perished, 8 were members of a super-elite group within the French CIA. Their team leader, however, refused to get onboard Flight 800 and thus survived. Israel, on the other hand, uses this data to blackmail funds out of the Bush White House. Surviving as a small nation perceived as being surrounded by religious enemies, Israel, in a real world, does what other nations do; they use blackmail to finance their survival and existence.

These major news outlets are aware that to preclude the use of Skull & Bones and other revealing pictures of George W. Bush, the photo editor was murdered, of American Media, Inc. Since that happening in October, 2001, the American Secret Political Police, including the FBI, closed indefinitely the supermarket tabloids' building in Boca Raton, Florida, the American Gestapo thus denying access to a database which reportedly has the pictures and authentication supporting the same.

To counter the possibility of a flag officers' coup against the Bush White House, a faction in the Aristocracy that supports and installed George W. Bush as a usurper of the Presidency, has certain plans to divert attention from the items mentioned herein. Their options include to allow, permit, condone, procure to be done, and acquiesce in, the bombing of U.S. Embassies and other overseas U.S. facilities, to be falsely blamed onto so-called "Arabs".

Another violent option is the setting off of already wired-with-explosives oil wells and oil pumping machinery, to cause a U.S. oil crisis, to divert attention from George W. Bush's national security violations and treasonous acts and doings as documented by the dissident flag officers. Vying to be again a major oil pumper, the Moscow government hopes to take advantage of such situation. As a former official of their Secret Political Police, Putin has an understanding with former Secret Political Police head Daddy Bush and his son George W., the occupant and resident of the Oval Office.

So, which will it be? Coup? Or, Counter-Coup?

More coming.... Stay tuned.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dave Lincoln| 5.24.09 @ 1:49PM

Thank you "Smoking Gun" for that valuable tid-bit. Unfortunately, you are commenting on spectator.org, not moonbat-central/idiots_corner.html, so check your address bar please (do you want to send an error report to Microsoft?)
***************************************

Anyhoo, in response to Miss Waverly: Do you really not know that you are a communist at heart? That is what your posts scream out. Indeed, you do want to tell everyone what to do, contrary to what you stated.

I don't smoke. I do think it's addictive, and I know, like anyone sensible, that it is a major cause of cancer and heart disease also. I think the 2nd-hand smoke issue is just like the global warming/I-mean-cooling/I-mean-staying-the-same issue, in that it is just a way of putting forth a "save the children" argument to back up one's real reasons, meaning communist control of other's lives.

Stay out of it Emily. Stupid people like yourself do have a right to your opinion, but not force others to comply via the arms of the law. Why don't you go outside every 2 hours during your work-day and take a non-smoke break? Nobody can complain about it - tell your boss it's a fresh air break, and you want the same time off as the smokers. Quit bringing up stupid arguments, when, what it come down to, is you want all smokers to BE STOPPED, because you DON'T LIKE IT.

Maybe I don't like big vehicles blocking my lane on the road and obstructing my side view at the red lights. You know cars kill 50,000 or so Americans a year, right? I don't have to drive. I won't, but I also don't want anyone else to either, because it's just STUPID! I mean, 50,000 poor bastards that aren't getting up the next morning. At least with lung cancer, you don't bleed so much, and you can be on morphine, right? Driving is bad, mmmkay
(Do you see how stupid that last part sounds? I am exercising my right to be stupid now. So, I hope we can shake hands, from one Commie to another.)

Dave Lincoln| 5.24.09 @ 1:51PM

"Funny how there is more individual freedom in Guatemala than in the US. " China too, Mr. Schmudlap, China too. So freakin' sad.

Dave Lincoln| 5.24.09 @ 1:59PM

"I would like to see a system where people could make it illegal to sell them cigarettes. IE, I put my name on a list, which I can take myself off any time, but it takes a week. Anybody who wants to sell me cigarettes has to check the list and refuse if I am on it(...."

Roy, that has got to be one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard. Ever thought about just NOT GOING INTO THE STORE! Are you a 3 year-old? If so, you are one hell of a good speller, and I guess the little one are indeed very early adopters of computer tech.

Dude, if you are addicted to cigarettes, it is a tough job to quit. I know this from friends. But, you want the government to start an entire computer database on smokers, mandate that every 7-Eleven, etc. connect up, and every Joe Mohommed at the counter know how to use it, under penalty of law? Think just for a minute (well, it may take 15 minutes altogether) on how STUPID that is! Let me know when you're done.

There is a word for people like you:

Weak

Well, more than one word, actually, sorry.

Undisciplined
Moronic
Pussy

Breathin' easy| 5.24.09 @ 8:43PM

You smokers sure are suckers. I really appreciate you. Paying $5 a pack for something that's eventually going to kill you but first make your life miserable as you huff and puff while walking up 3 steps. So overcome by your weakness that you'll stand outside in below zero weather just to take another drag. Absolutely reeking while us non-smokers make fun of your stench behind your back. Ever wonder why you aren't getting promoted at work? So light 'em up! Keep the taxman away from me and decrease the burden on social security and medicare.

Grand Old Elephant| 5.24.09 @ 9:35PM

Recently both chambers of the Mississippi legislature passed a bill curtailing the circumstances under which the government of Mississippi could use eminent domain to seize private property. Governor Barbour VETOED this bill. His reason was so that he could seize private property to give it to a foreign corporation in order to build a facility in Mississippi.

This is NOT a true republican.

air jordan shoes| 5.25.09 @ 1:31AM

Your article very interesting, I have introduced a lot of friends look at this article, the content of the articles there will be a lot of attractive people to appreciate, I have to thank you such an article.

RanJo| 5.25.09 @ 8:45AM

Everly,

The world sure does look small and foolish as you gaze down upon it from your perch high atop Mt. Self-Righteousness, doesn't it? Judging by your pronouncements the air up there is rare indeed. Thin, too.

"Smoking is stupid." Now there's a selling point for the Surgeon General. Perhaps we can have that added to the warning label on every pack of cigarettes manufactured from this point on.

What really amuses me about your "argument", though, is that while you find it offensive that a smoker would make the point that smoking is legal (as it most certainly is), you would have us bow to the wisdom contained in the phrase "Smoking is stupid".

You should climb down from your chair occasionally and give your mind a rest.

Northern Rebel| 5.25.09 @ 9:54AM

I would like to add to Waverly's negative addiction list:
Entering politics, in order to confiscate income made by law abiding citizens, and using the money to hold power over said citizens, and influence their behavior.

aware| 5.25.09 @ 10:17AM

"My dream-team ticket for the RP would be Barbour and Newt G....."
Yeah,more neocon idiocy, that'll fix it! Neocons will never give you smaller government and professional political hacks will never give you constitutional representation. Like clouds over the desert, they promise much but deliver little.
And busy-body taxes won't go away cause there is always something wrong with your fellow man that can be exploited for power and the money to buy it.

Lord I can handle my enemies but please save me from those with "good intentions"!

Duke| 5.25.09 @ 2:25PM

In general, I dislike all taxes. If I have to have a tax, it would be a regressive tax. If I could choose which regressive tax I would or could tolerate it would be on tabacco. People weak and dumb enough to smoke need to be taxed a little extra.

Richard Baker| 5.25.09 @ 2:32PM

Duke:
Your idea to tax smokers, just because, is the kind of soft tyranny that will encourage the tyrants to divide and conquer until we have to root them out as did the Founding Fathers. Are Liberty and Freedom so meaningless to you that you could suggest such an idea? Have you become tired of Freedom?

Freudor| 5.25.09 @ 3:52PM

The Huckster & Barbour (more like Babar the elephant) are no more conservative than jimmy carter. They and their ilk have sped the Republicrat party on it's way to a disgraceful death. They are social conservatives only and know nothing of what the word "conservative" even means.

Political whores and pander pimps both. Huckabee was not above race baiting his fellow republicans in the silly (not to mention squirrelly...) campaign he ran to be America's White Guilt Preacher in Chief.

Both need to go away for there to be any hope for an opposition party whith any real character or ideals beyond lining their own pockets.

RanJo| 5.25.09 @ 6:07PM

Duke,

I salute you, sir. With both middle fingers.

Scott A Joseph, MD| 5.25.09 @ 8:45PM

I was a VP of my University's YAF chapter. My problem with Ronald Reagan was that he was too much of a wimp.

However, as someone whose parents suffocated him in their cars as a young child with their cigarette smoke in winter, I have no sympathy for smokers. It's nice not to breathe your noxious fumes in restaurants, just as you prefer that I not urinate on your food. Taxation is a means by which the government can destroy that which is taxed. Tax away on this one. In fact, I would get rid of the income tax and property taxes and support a tax only on sin products to pay for government in this country : pornography, alcohol, casinos, chocolates, sodas, lottery tickets, and tobacco. Encourage good behavior.

Dave Lincoln| 5.25.09 @ 9:45PM

Well, you may have been a good guy in the 60's, Mr. Joseph, but if Ronald Reagan came back from the grave, it would be specifically to punch you in the belly, hard.

It sounds like you forgot what taxes are for and what freedom is. It is not about ENCOURAGING GOOD BEHAVIOR, OK?

I think he'd flat out beat the crap out of you, in fact. Good thing you're a doctor. How about "Heal thself, Commie physician!" That's the last thing you'd hear before you go down for the count.

I raise a toast to the useful idiot, MD Joseph. I will eat a Hershey bar, raise a glass of Jack and Coke, smoke my first cigarette (tobacco that is) go to the casino and bet on a greyhound, and then proceed to pee on your tofu. Prost, to Evelyn and the Commie doctor, "Have a good life together in your Socialist Paradise. May your favorite hobby not be taxed to oblivion."

Brother John| 5.26.09 @ 1:49AM

Scott A Joseph, MD:

A Tax is NOT a means by which the government may destroy that which is taxed; at least, that is not the proper function of a tax. A tax is properly used to fund the legitimate functions of government.

And to permit or prohibit smoking in a private establishment is rightly the place of the owner, not any governmental nanny-type. If you don't like smoke, don't go in there. Simple as that. If enough patrons cease their patronage, the owner will have little choice but to prohibit it.

Strange, how an activity that affects no one but the one engaging in that activity (and don't give me any whining bullshit about second hand smoke, it's a nanny state myth like global warming) arouses such furious energy from those who do not indulge. If you don't want to, don't. Easy.

RanJ0| 5.26.09 @ 7:54AM

Scott A Joseph, MD,

If you are unsure as to the difference between breathing second-hand smoke and eating food that has been urinated on, then I'm glad you're not my doctor.

Guy| 5.27.09 @ 11:04PM

Dr. Joseph,
You did not discuss anything that might be considered encouraging good behavior, you merely outlined a plan for discouraging bad behavior.

I am somewhat skeptical of your conservatism as well, given your apparent willingness to use the tax code in pursuit of the perfection of man, a dangerous and wholly unconservative idea. I would respectfully suggest a review of first principles.

tom| 5.28.09 @ 12:55PM

The greatest argument the anti-smokers have is typically, "Oh, smokers cost $$$B a year in health care costs...." and such. What is unsaid is that the Government (i.e. you and me) are the ones bearing this cost. The conservative response should then be, "Well, get the Government out of the health care business!!!!". That way, who cares? That's what conservatives should be focusing their efforts on.

Dave Lincoln| 5.28.09 @ 6:17PM

Excellent post, Tom. That is the reply people should have when, for whatever reason (say motorcycle helmet laws) people bring up health care costs as a reason to make law. However, as others have pointed out, smokers, by dying earlier, have lower costs to a socialist society, not to mention the taxes they pay in already.

Sooo, let's see, we should be encouraging smoking by, say, handing out cigars in the delivery room. Oh, wait.... No, to the baby, I mean. OK, let me think here ... Cities should build air-conditioned/heated smoking kiosks outside every building where new and current smokers can surf the web, buy some of the new clove cigarettes, get a lap dance, and receive 1/2 off tequila shots. It's the least we can do. Think of the children, please!

Guy, how come I can't write a very polite retort like you do to that idiot doctor above? I may never make senior pundit at this rate ;-)

Wholesale Lingerie| 9.5.09 @ 9:42PM

sexy lingerie lingerie

supra shoes| 11.11.09 @ 3:26AM

Cool website, like what I have read. Will definitely be back to read again.

Supra Shoes| 11.18.09 @ 1:34AM

Supra Shoes
Supra Skytop Shoes

The American Spectator

Comments

Bram| 5.22.09 @ 7:41AM

Knight Arrant| 11.16.09 @ 2:49AM

Doorginner| 5.22.09 @ 8:04AM

Pingback| 5.22.09 @ 8:41AM

blackelkspeaks| 5.22.09 @ 8:52AM

2Anglico| 5.22.09 @ 9:12AM

Eric Dondero| 5.22.09 @ 9:41AM

Peter McGrath| 5.22.09 @ 10:53AM

ben| 5.22.09 @ 12:47PM

Joe| 5.22.09 @ 12:50PM

L. Ross| 5.22.09 @ 1:46PM

Nick| 5.22.09 @ 2:33PM

jim rice| 5.22.09 @ 3:15PM

Crusader| 5.22.09 @ 4:04PM

Marc Jeric| 5.22.09 @ 4:43PM

Michael L. Hauschild| 5.22.09 @ 4:47PM

Michael L. Hauschild| 5.22.09 @ 4:49PM

Everly Waverly| 5.22.09 @ 5:15PM

Everly Waverly| 5.22.09 @ 5:16PM

Everly Waverly| 5.22.09 @ 5:18PM

Everly Waverly| 5.22.09 @ 5:20PM

Everly Waverly| 5.22.09 @ 5:24PM

Everly Waverly| 5.22.09 @ 5:32PM

Nick| 5.22.09 @ 5:52PM

Michael L. Hauschild| 5.22.09 @ 6:03PM

Roy| 5.22.09 @ 6:56PM

Everly Waverly| 5.22.09 @ 6:57PM

DaveinPhoenix| 5.22.09 @ 8:36PM

Michael L. Hauschild| 5.23.09 @ 7:32AM

Charlene| 5.23.09 @ 7:38AM

Everly Waverly| 5.23.09 @ 11:09AM

Charlene| 5.23.09 @ 12:04PM

Gazinya| 5.23.09 @ 12:06PM

Smorgasbord| 5.23.09 @ 12:45PM

Charlene| 5.23.09 @ 12:50PM

Everly Waverly| 5.23.09 @ 1:30PM

Charlene| 5.23.09 @ 1:31PM

Everly Waverly| 5.23.09 @ 1:44PM

2 Guns AZ| 5.23.09 @ 4:28PM

js ragmann| 5.23.09 @ 4:52PM

joe schmudlap| 5.23.09 @ 4:56PM

Everly Waverly| 5.23.09 @ 4:58PM

Michael L. Hauschild| 5.23.09 @ 4:59PM

Griff| 5.23.09 @ 6:58PM

Nick| 5.23.09 @ 7:55PM

Guy| 5.24.09 @ 12:38AM

Oldefarte| 5.24.09 @ 11:02AM

Smoking Gun| 5.24.09 @ 12:13PM

Dave Lincoln| 5.24.09 @ 1:49PM

Dave Lincoln| 5.24.09 @ 1:51PM

Dave Lincoln| 5.24.09 @ 1:59PM

Breathin' easy| 5.24.09 @ 8:43PM

Grand Old Elephant| 5.24.09 @ 9:35PM

air jordan shoes| 5.25.09 @ 1:31AM

RanJo| 5.25.09 @ 8:45AM

Northern Rebel| 5.25.09 @ 9:54AM

aware| 5.25.09 @ 10:17AM

Duke| 5.25.09 @ 2:25PM

Richard Baker| 5.25.09 @ 2:32PM

Freudor| 5.25.09 @ 3:52PM

RanJo| 5.25.09 @ 6:07PM

Scott A Joseph, MD| 5.25.09 @ 8:45PM

Dave Lincoln| 5.25.09 @ 9:45PM

Brother John| 5.26.09 @ 1:49AM

RanJ0| 5.26.09 @ 7:54AM

Guy| 5.27.09 @ 11:04PM

tom| 5.28.09 @ 12:55PM

Dave Lincoln| 5.28.09 @ 6:17PM

Wholesale Lingerie| 9.5.09 @ 9:42PM

supra shoes| 11.11.09 @ 3:26AM

Supra Shoes| 11.18.09 @ 1:34AM

Leave a Comment

Related Articles

Philip Klein

Paul Chesser

Philip Klein

Philip Klein

Robert Stacy McCain