Friday, December 16, 2005

9th District Candidates, listen up, I have a question:

Given that the President of the United States may well have committed a verifiable IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE by ordering covert DOMESTIC spying on American citizens, would you, if elected, be willing to introduce (or at least, vote for) Articles of Impeachment against George Walker Bush?

By the way, Rep. George Miller (D-CA) is now calling for a special prosecutor to look into this matter. Here' s an excerpt:

"I am deeply troubled that the President of the United States may have secretly ordered his intelligence agents to spy on Americans without obtaining court orders," said Miller, Chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee. "Congress had already broadened the powers of the Administration to fight terrorism through the gathering of intelligence, but now it is alleged that the President went even further and secretly ordered the NSA to conduct domestic spying in a manner that may be both unconstitutional and illegal.

So, 9th District hopefuls, what do you think? Let's hear from you, even though we haven't hit the filing deadline yet.


Richmond said...

Given that Henry Hyde all but admitted that the Clinton impeachment was a payback for Watergate and that, if the current President is, by some miracle, impeached, that would make two consecutive administrations derailed by their own stupidity and opposition political gamesmanship, I am very disinclined to pursue Articles, even if we regain control of Congress. The Constitution is not to be messed with and simply since the Republicans did it does not mean we have to return the favor. Impeachment is designed as a last resort mechanism to prevent, in our terms, dictatorship. Unless the current administration somehow decides to subvert the 22nd Amendment under the guide of "fighting terrorism," (not likely at all given the current climate), I suggest we take the Dale Bumpers approach: he's only got three years left and then he's gone forever. Instead of focusing on getting rid of Bush, why not concentrate on winning in 2008?

LeftWingCracker said...

WRONG ANSWER, even if you're NOT running for Congress (at least in TN!)

There's a difference between a blowjob and covertly spying on AMERICAN citizens. Bu$h truly believes that he is above the law.

When a puppy pisses on your floor, you don't just ignore it and wait for it to grow up. You rub its nose in it, smack on the ass and tell it NO and keep doing that until it learns.

This is beyond payback, this is about restoring American confidence in its government, which the Republican Party has been trying to destroy for over 50 years now.

mike said...

Sigh.... It wasn't about a blowjob. It was about denying a citizen their right to a fair trail by lying in a court of law. For which he was disbarred. By a judge he appointed to the bench.

You guys keep on searching for that Holy Grail. Look where your latest move got you: following Murtha's cut'n'run right into the most successful election in Iraq of the three this year. Now Pelosi says the party won't take a position on the war! It's a "matter of conscience." Sheesh.

LeftWingCracker said...

Ah, Mike, keep beating that dead horse, it's still dead. It may well have been disbarrable, but it sure as hell wasn't impeachable.

Regarding those Iraqi elections, bully for them, it was a good turnout. The one thing that has unified Iraqis is their desire for the US to get the hell out as quickly as possible so that they can have their civil war and/or partition the country as they choose.

Of course, bastard that Saddam was, he was OUR bastard (we put him in, remember, Mike?) and he kept the Islamic radicals under control.

Oh well, so much for controlling radical Islam now....

mike said...

Did you hear Bush's Saturday address? It was a special, live, video address. How's that for running scared?

Not only that, but he *admitted* he signed the order. Live! Right there. I'm sure certain quarters of the Left just peed their pants when that happened. It's gonna make his impeachment soooo much easier.


It's his "I did not have sex with that woman" moment. Or his "We begin bombing in five minutes" moment, take your pick.

autoegocrat said...

You're absolutely right, Mike. Clinton's imeachment wasn't about a blowjob. It was about Bill Clinton's penis. The Republicans wanted to see it, and Bill wouldn't let them. Ken Starr couldn't get pictures for them, so they had to impeach.

That makes about as much sense as what you're saying, Mike.

The Iraqis are about to successfully elect our asses right out of their country. Cut and run? Those are Osama bin Laden's words. Bin Laden was never so powerful before the GOP started recycling his speeches.

It's funny to me that the non-impeachabality of Bush has become a right-wing bragging point. It's just another way of saying, "But Clinton...!"

mike said...

See, sutoegocrat? You are the one obsessing now over Bill's wing-wang. ;-)

Anyway, as the story has developed over the weekend, it turns out not to be so much after all. Lots and lots of people in different government agencies knew about this... as well as several major Democrats on the Foreign Intelligence committees in the House and Senate!

They knew, but didn't say anything. Hmmm... sounds like conspiracy charges to me! Someone sic Ronnie Earle on 'em!

Messing with you guys is like shooting piranhas in a barrel. Easy doings, AND you get the added bonus of watching y'all get enraged by the blood and then turn on each other. Whee! ;-)

thurbis said...

thurbis here, skycaptain...! now i am not running for anything in the 9th congressional district, but before any who do start demanding impeachment, i feel compelled to thow out one word: ECHELON.

Television Broadcast February 27, 2000 (during the Clinton administration)

as noted in the story aired on 60 minutes in 2000: "If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency and four English-speaking allies: Canada, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand. The mission is to eavesdrop on enemies of the state: foreign countries, terrorist groups and drug cartels. But in the process, Echelon's computers capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world."

from a bbc story from 2000:

Echelon: Big brother without a cause?
"The Echelon spy system, whose existence has only recently been acknowledged by US officials, is capable of hoovering up millions of phone calls, faxes and emails a minute. . .a report published by the European Parliament in February alleges that Echelon twice helped US companies gain a commercial advantage over European firms. . .The system's superpowerful voice recognition capability enables it to filter billions of international communications for whatever key words or word patterns are programmed in. . . ."There's no safeguards, no remedies, " he said. "There's nowhere you can go to say that they've been snooping on your international communications. It is a totally lawless world.". . .The journalist, who has spent much of his life investigating Echelon, has offered two alleged instances of US snooping in the 1990s, which he says followed the newly-elected Clinton administration's policy of "aggressive advocacy" for US firms bidding for foreign contracts. . . "

as has been noted: "During the 1990's under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon. . in fact, the NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s - all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks."

now one may wonder why FISA court was not good enough to address the issue of warrents for wire taps...byron york in the national review made the following observation:

Why Bush Approved the Wiretaps
Not long ago, both parties agreed the FISA court was a problem.

"Lawmakers of both parties recognized the problem in the months after the September 11 terrorist attacks. They pointed to the case of Coleen Rowley, the FBI agent who ran up against a number roadblocks in her effort to secure a FISA warrant in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the al Qaeda operative who had taken flight training in preparation for the hijackings. Investigators wanted to study the contents of Moussaoui's laptop computer, but the FBI bureaucracy involved in applying for a FISA warrant was stifling, and there were real questions about whether investigators could meet the FISA court's probable-cause standard for granting a warrant. FBI agents became so frustrated that they considered flying Moussaoui to France, where his computer could be examined. But then the attacks came, and it was too late"

now ted kennedy may be of the opinion that "“This is Big Brother run amok” but this is sort of silly considering the fact that, as noted in Human Events, he's advocated "proposed socialized medicine, expanded welfare state taxation and income redistribution, business regulation, hate crimes legislation, race-based hiring in government, and the most extreme gun control measures in our nation’s history. But maybe he just read “1984” recently."

anywho, thats my contribution to the notion of impeachment (now leftwingcracker knows this, but - so as not to mislead anyone here - i did vote for the, there...that's my truth in advertising segment), have a nice day and - as the hobbits would say - may the hair on your feet never fall the vulcans would say, "live long and prosper"! and, as beavis and butthead would say, "uh, thank you drive through"!

LeftWingCracker said...

"proposed socialized medicine, expanded welfare state taxation and income redistribution, business regulation, hate crimes legislation".

That, I don't have a problem with. However, if the Clinton Administration was involved with ECHELON, we should investigate them.

However, he's not President any more and he can't be blamed for the ridiculous notion that he is above the law, which is what this is about.

Brother thurbis, he wants uncontrollable power, and, unless you put hallucinogens in the lovely pretzels I've been eating (they were delicious, thank you), these are not mad ramblings.

He and Cheney have been trying to reverse the controls on executive branch power that go back to the Nixon years. NO EXECUTIVE should have that much power, period, terrorists or no terrorists.

As a libertarian, you know this as well as I!

again, thanks for the pretzels!

LeftWingCracker said...

to follow up, this is at Huffington Post today:

President Richard Nixon, in 1971, made the same argument as President George W. Bush makes today to justify domestic spying without the need for judicial approval. Both Presidents claim that their Constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief include the right to override any law, statute or other provisions of the constitution in order to preserve and protect the constitution of the United States.

That very argument was litigated all the way to the United States Supreme Court after the Nixon administration lost in the federal district court and the court of appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In its filed brief the Justice Department claimed there were 1,562 bombing incidents in the United States from January 1, 1971 to July 1, 1971, including the bombing of the Capitol building, and that the "seriousness and magnitude, (of these) threats and acts of sabotage against the government exist in sufficient number to justify [these] powers." Robert Mardian, who was later to become a Watergate defendant, argued before the Court on behalf of the government that there was, in effect, an ongoing war within the United States that justified invoking the president's powers as Commander-in-Chief, a power which overrode the privacy rights of American citizens as provided for in the Fourth Amendment to the constitution of the United States.

A unanimous Supreme Court (the vote was 8-0, with Justice Rehnquist recusing himself because he was in the Justice Department legal counsel's office when the domestic spying program was formulated), with Justice Powell writing the opinion, in United States v. U.S. District Court, unambiguously rejected any such notion, articulating a clear-cut admonition to those who would diminish the import of the Fourth Amendment by suggesting that domestic spying at the whim of the president would be permitted under any circumstances.

However, in a single aside, the court noted that previous presidents had engaged in domestic surveillance without securing warrants as part of ongoing efforts to secure foreign intelligence (mainly involving counter-espionage efforts directed against German and Italian embassies and counsulated by the Roosevelt Administration) and that the Court expresses no opinion on such efforts. That opening led to the enactment of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978, a bill sponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts with the blessing of the American Civil Liberties Union. FISA established for the first time in our history a "court" that existed outside the framework of the Fourth Amendment, a secret court that most Americans don't even know exists. It has a single function: to authorize by way of issuing warrants at the request of federal agents, surveillance within the United States on a minimal showing that the target is acting on behalf of a foreign power and that the foreign intelligence to be gathered is necessary for national security. The courtroom itself is in a vault-like chamber, a windowless room on the top floor of the Department of Justice, guarded by military security. There are seven rotating judges. The Court meets in secret, with no published opinions or public records. Nearly all of those spied upon never knew they were under surveillance.

No one, except the FISA judge involved and the Department of Justice knows what is done. No one, except the government and FISA judge knows who the warrants are aimed at. There is no review by anyone, neither the regular federal Appellate Courts nor the Congress, of its decisions. Over 15,000 search warrants, permitting eavesdropping, surveillance and break-ins, have been sought by the government and granted. Although the FISA court is required to determine if there are enough facts to justify a warrant, only eight times has it ever denied a warrant sought by the government. The FISA statute specifically gives the FISA Court the exclusive right to issue domestic spying warrants and that power has been generously exercised. There are more warrants issued by the FISA Court than by the over 1,000 district judges who sit throughout the United States in the Federal system.

Since 1978 every administration has had the FISA court available, but, as far as is known, none have rejected its use when foreign intelligence gathering was necessary. The passage of the Patriot Act in 2001 even made it more accessible and expanded its powers. However, this apparently was not sufficient for the Bush Administration.

What is really happening is that the Bush Administration is seeking this moment to reverse the Nixon case and gather unto itself an unrestricted and unreviewable right to engage in domestic spying. The Supreme Court that decided United States v. U.S. District Court included Justices Douglas, Brennan, Marshall, Stewart and Powell. The Court that hears the Bush challenge will have Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy, all of whom have shown in their previous cases great deference to the expansion of Presidential powers.

Nothing that has gone on before in this post 9-11 period, including the Patriot Act, will so drastically alter the rights of Americans to be free of governmental intrusion than a reversal of that landmark decision prohibiting government surveillance without a warrant.

Co-written with Leonard Weinglass. Weinglass was one of the attorneys involved in the Nixon case, U.S. v. U.S. District Court. Martin Garbus is a First Amendment lawyer.

thurbis said...

actually, i'm not much of a libertarian since i often disagree with my libertarian buddy The Cool Cat. . .although I do understand his concerns on most of the things we disagree on, which is often the balance we must strike during a time of war between national security and civil liberties. we don't want to go back to the days when presidents like fdr would simply throw a bunch of american citizens into camps!

as for the Clinton administration and echelon, this is pretty well established as a fact...its just that no one seemed to really care to pursue the revelation...i could see it if it were for national security, but for economic espionage? i must scratch my noggin' and go, "hhhhmmmmmm..."

from the bbc article we learn the following: "The journalist, who has spent much of his life investigating Echelon, has offered two alleged instances of US snooping in the 1990s, which he says followed the newly-elected Clinton administration's policy of "aggressive advocacy" for US firms bidding for foreign contracts. . . .The first came from a Baltimore Sun report which said the European consortium Airbus lost a $6bn contract with Saudi Arabia after NSA found Airbus officials were offering kickbacks to a Saudi official."

and, as james woolsey noted (in a french newspaper of all places): "We have a triple and limited objective. . . .To look out for companies which are breaking US or UN sanctions; to trace 'dual' technologies, i.e., for civil and military use, and to track corruption in international business."

so they can argue that it was implemented with "good intentions"; many would argue that the road to hell is paved with just such good intentions. lyle lovett would argue, "she wasn't good but she had gooood intentions". hahahaha...

so i guess we both have what we consider to be good reasons to be suspicious of the powers that be. . .from either party...and more than a few pols show that absolute power does corrupt absolutely...duke cunningham comes to mind...he may have been a war hero, but then so was benedict arnold; at least cunningham had the decency to resign in disgrace.

anywho, i don't wanna monopolize your board! i just wanted to weigh in with my 2 cents...

p.s. I'm glad you liked the pretzels...!

Richmond said...

Certainly, the Bush people are trying everything (short?) of repealing the 22nd Amendment to consolidate their power. That, it seems to me, is a non-sequitur (sp?) as it pertains to the word "impeachment." Whether a 2007 Democratic Congress might pursue such a course for principled reasons or, as Dale Bumpers indicated about Bill Clinton, just let the last two years go, it would seem as their motive rested on political payback for the Clinton effort. Impeachment then, given that two consecutive Presidents would at least have impeachment investigations for perceived political reasons, would become just another tool for political advantage rather than a last resort against tyranny. In other words, its overuse would undercut the ability to pursue apart from purely partisan politics the very abuses of power that the Bush administration desires for itself. We as a country then would be more susceptible to the worst possible fear of our Founders.

LeftWingCracker said...

We cannot afford to "be above the fray" here. George Walker Bush clearly perceives either himself or the Presidency to be above the law, just as Nixon did.

This is TRULY an impeachable offense, and to suggest otherwise is to suggest that you do not believe that this rises above partisan politics.

Domestic spying by our government is ILLEGAL. PERIOD. If we turn our back on this we are opening the door for an American Gestapo, and you are pooh-poohing this as "partisan politics'?

We CANNOT concern ourselves with how this is portrayed in the media; other than Keith Olbermann, they're too busy fighting for the chance to suck Bush's cock.

This is war. The REAL one, for the soul of the Constitution.

Richmond said...

FDR arguably violated the Constitution prior to Pearl Harbor in order that we might later be prepared to enter the war. He was not impeached. Lincoln violated the Constitution by going to war without a formal declaration, imposing a naval "blockade" (rather than, as JFK did with Cuba, a "quarantine"), suspending Habeus Corpus and throwing political opponents in jail without charge. He was not impeached. Bill Clinton lies under oath about sex and gets impeached for what Henry Hyde indicates was essentially payback for Watergate. Of course, I believe that if Nixon had not resigned, he should have been impeached, convicted and removed from office. That, however, is not how the House Republicans saw matters in 1998 and went after Clinton because they could.
Of course Bush is violating the law by spying on Americans without judicial authorization. Of course, he should be strongly and loudly denounced for yet another example of his power mad lust for a "permanent Republican majority," which to me is at the root of everything he does.
If the Republicans play with the Constitution, however, we simply cannot do so even if it sorely tempts us. That is, if we are interested in preserving, protecting and defending it. To destroy something in order to save it? I thought we already went through that.

LeftWingCracker said...

they're not PLAYING with the Constitution, they're DEFECATING on it and DARING us to stop them!

if the Democratic Party regains the House and fails to impeach him for his treason, then I will leave it. They will not be worthy of my support.

LeftWingCracker said...

Yo, thurbis, check this out, the Echelon this is not accurate:

The Echelon Myth
Prominent right-wing bloggers – including Michelle Malkin, the Corner, Wizbang and Free Republic — are pushing the argument that President Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program isn’t news because the Clinton administration did the same thing.

The right-wing outlet NewsMax sums up the basic argument:

During the 1990’s under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon…all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.

That’s flatly false. The Clinton administration program, code-named Echelon, complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained. CIA director George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00:

I’m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security Agency…

There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department.

Meanwhile, the position of the Bush administration is that they can bypass the FISA court and every other court, even when they are monitoring the communications of U.S. persons. It is the difference between following the law and breaking it.

Filed under: Intelligence
Posted by Judd at 12:13 pm

Permalink |

Brad Watkins said...

Hmm...aside from all of this debate. I am wondering where these Congressional hopefuls stand on this issue. Has anyone heard anything on that?

thurbis said...

As Alice would comment after falling thru the looking glass, this gets curiousier and couriousier…

This debate was initially sparked by the following article co-written by James Risen in the New York Times titled,

Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts

Now we find that Mr. Risen has written on this once before, during the Clinton administration.

On December 5, 1999 an article by Mr. Risen appeared in the Times titled, The Nation: Don't Read This; If You Do, They May Have to Kill You BYLINE: By JAMES RISEN in which he wrote:

“As James Bamford, the author of the classic study of the agency, "The Puzzle Palace" (Houghton Mifflin, 1982), recently noted in The Washington Post, the Echelon system relies on satellites and ground stations to intercept and then sort global communications, searching for specific names, words or phrases. The N.S.A.'s computers can then sort out intercepted communications that include names of drug dealers or political leaders or references to espionage or terrorist actions. The agency is prohibited from intercepting strictly domestic communications unless it gets a special court order.”

The key part of that paragraph is the line, “The agency is prohibited from intercepting strictly domestic communications unless it gets a special court order”, specifically the part noting that only “strictly domestic communications” would require a court order. . .this is the exact same justification cited by the Bush administration.

I would agree with Ann Coulter’s observation that, “After 9/11, any president who was not spying on people calling phone numbers associated with terrorists should be impeached for being an inept commander-in-chief.”

Then we have the following article that was published in the Chicago Tribune by John Schmidt. . .who is John Schmidt?

in a nutshell, "John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States."

In the article titled President had legal authority to OK taps
By John Schmidt / Published December 21, 2005,

Mr. Schmidt writes: "In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."

put it in another context: Imagine the loyal opposition trying to impeach Abraham Lincoln for intercepting telegraph communications from the confederacy leadership during the Civil War.

And, strange as strange can be, the new york times seems to have arranged the publishing of Mr. Risens recent article so as to hit the public at just about the exact same time that james risen, is about to release a book titled -

"STATE OF WAR: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration" wby james risen will be published by Free Press in a few weeks.

talk about serendipity!

Did the New York Times hold back on reporting this for a year because of national security concerns, or in order to time the release of this info with a book written by one of its reporters?

I would have to scracth me noggin' and go, "hhhhhmmmmmmmm"

Anonymous said...

豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看 捷克論壇 微風論壇 大眾論壇 plus論壇 080視訊聊天室 情色視訊交友90739 美女交友-成人聊天室 色情小說 做愛成人圖片區 豆豆色情聊天室 080豆豆聊天室 小辣妹影音交友網 台中情人聊天室 桃園星願聊天室 高雄網友聊天室 新中台灣聊天室 中部網友聊天室 嘉義之光聊天室 基隆海岸聊天室 中壢網友聊天室 南台灣聊天室 南部聊坊聊天室 台南不夜城聊天室 南部網友聊天室 屏東網友聊天室 台南網友聊天室 屏東聊坊聊天室 雲林網友聊天室 大學生BBS聊天室 網路學院聊天室 屏東夜語聊天室 孤男寡女聊天室 一網情深聊天室 心靈饗宴聊天室 流星花園聊天室 食色男女色情聊天室 真愛宣言交友聊天室 情人皇朝聊天室 上班族成人聊天室 上班族f1影音視訊聊天室 哈雷視訊聊天室 080影音視訊聊天室 38不夜城聊天室 援交聊天室080 080哈啦聊天室 台北已婚聊天室 已婚廣場聊天室 夢幻家族聊天室 摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室 520情色聊天室 QQ成人交友聊天室 免費視訊網愛聊天室 愛情公寓免費聊天室 拉子性愛聊天室 柔情網友聊天室 哈啦影音交友網 哈啦影音視訊聊天室 櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集 123上班族聊天室 尋夢園上班族聊天室 成人聊天室上班族 080上班族聊天室 6k聊天室 粉紅豆豆聊天室 080豆豆聊天網 新豆豆聊天室 080聊天室 免費音樂試聽 流行音樂試聽 免費aa片試看A片 免費a長片線上看 色情貼影片 免費a長片 本土成人貼圖站 大台灣情色網 台灣男人幫論壇 A圖網 嘟嘟成人電影網 火辣春夢貼圖網 情色貼圖俱樂部 台灣成人電影 絲襪美腿樂園 18美女貼圖區 柔情聊天網 707網愛聊天室聯盟 台北69色情貼圖區 38女孩情色網 台灣映像館 波波成人情色網站 美女成人貼圖區 無碼貼圖力量 色妹妹性愛貼圖區 日本女優貼圖網 日本美少女貼圖區 亞洲風暴情色貼圖網 哈啦聊天室 美少女自拍貼圖 辣妹成人情色網 台北女孩情色網 辣手貼圖情色網 AV無碼女優影片 男女情色寫真貼圖 a片天使俱樂部 萍水相逢遊戲區 平水相逢遊戲區 免費視訊交友90739 免費視訊聊天 辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網 080視訊聊天室 日本美女肛交 美女工廠貼圖區 百分百貼圖區 亞洲成人電影情色網 台灣本土自拍貼圖網 麻辣貼圖情色網 好色客成人圖片貼圖區 711成人AV貼圖區 台灣美女貼圖區 筱萱成人論壇 咪咪情色貼圖區 momokoko同學會視訊 kk272視訊 情色文學小站 成人情色貼圖區 嘟嘟成人網 嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區 免費色情a片下載 台灣情色論壇 成人影片分享 免費視訊聊天區 微風 成人 論壇 kiss文學區 taiwankiss文學區

Anonymous said...

借錢 票貼 借錢 借貸 借貸 借錢 當舖 借貸 當舖 當舖 票貼 借款 借貸 借錢 票貼 二胎 週轉 融資 借錢 借款 當舖 二胎 票貼 借貸 借錢 借貸 票貼 當舖黃頁 借錢黃頁 貼現黃頁 借錢黃頁 借貸黃頁 借貸黃頁 當舖黃頁 貼現黃頁 票貼黃頁 二胎黃頁 融資黃頁 借錢 借貸 票貼 借貸 借錢優質黃頁 借貸優質黃頁 票貼黃頁 借錢 當舖 票貼 借錢 借貸 借款 貼現 貼現 當舖聯盟網 當舖聯盟網 當舖聯盟網 借錢 借貸 當舖 票貼 借貸 借錢 當舖聯盟網 當舖聯盟網

Anonymous said...

看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,美髮儀器,美髮,儀器,髮型,EMBA,MBA,學位,EMBA,專業認證,認證課程,博士學位,DBA,PHD,在職進修,碩士學位,推廣教育,DBA,進修課程,碩士學位,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,課程介紹,學分班,文憑,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,日式料理, 台北居酒屋,日本料理,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,台北結婚,場地,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,造型系列,學位,SEO,婚宴,捷運,學區,美髮,儀器,髮型,看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,房子,捷運,學區,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,學位,碩士學位,進修,在職進修, 課程,教育,學位,證照,mba,文憑,學分班,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,場地,結婚,場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,場地,居酒屋,燒烤,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,小套房,小套房,進修,在職進修,留學,證照,MBA,EMBA,留學,MBA,EMBA,留學,進修,在職進修,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,PMP,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,PMP,證照,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,EMBA,MBA,PMP,在職進修,專案管理,出國留學,EMBA,MBA,PMP,在職進修,專案管理,出國留學,EMBA,MBA,PMP,在職進修,專案管理,出國留學,婚宴,婚宴,婚宴,婚宴,漢高資訊,漢高資訊,比利時,比利時聯合商學院,宜蘭民宿,台東民宿,澎湖民宿,墾丁民宿,花蓮民宿,SEO,找工作,汽車旅館,阿里山,日月潭,阿里山民宿,東森購物,momo購物台,pc home購物,購物,手機,手機王,數位像機,衛星導行,GPS,小筆電,機油漢高資訊,漢高資訊,在職進修,漢高資訊,在職進修,住宿,住宿,整形,造型,室內設計,室內設計,漢高資訊,在職進修,漢高資訊,在職進修,住宿,美容,室內設計,在職進修,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,住宿,住宿,整形,整形,室內設計,室內設計,比利時聯合商學院,在職進修,比利時聯合商學院,在職進修,漢高資訊,找工作,找工作,找工作,找工作,找工作,蔡依林,林志玲

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...