Update To Previous Post....
Apparently, there is some sort of virus going around that affects ostensibly Conservative media outlets. Over at The Corner, it seems they've overstepped their literary charter a bit, forgotten their ideological roots, and perhaps taken leave of their senses in the process. From Jonah Goldberg:
"Lastly, the death penalty. Again, this guy is guilty. There are many witnesses, including this poor woman who was shot in the fact, the pistol-whipped AJC reporter, the dozen or so people in the courtroom who were held at bay etc. Nichols apparently went considerably out of his way -- postponing his escape -- to shoot down a judge. Opponents of the death penalty who make their arguments on procedural grounds -- as opposed to strictly moral or ideological grounds -- need to explain why this man should not be executed. Fine, fine, there may be others on death row somewhere who shouldn't be. Or, there may not be. But none of that is relevant to whether this guy should get what he deserves."
Everyone ready to go out to Stone Mountain and find a tall tree?
Proclaiming a suspect's guilt the day he is arrested is the absolute antithesis of Conservative ideology, and is a basic part of the judicial systems of some of the "evil" nations in which the United States is currently trying to effect change.
"Lastly, the death penalty. Again, this guy is guilty. There are many witnesses, including this poor woman who was shot in the fact, the pistol-whipped AJC reporter, the dozen or so people in the courtroom who were held at bay etc. Nichols apparently went considerably out of his way -- postponing his escape -- to shoot down a judge. Opponents of the death penalty who make their arguments on procedural grounds -- as opposed to strictly moral or ideological grounds -- need to explain why this man should not be executed. Fine, fine, there may be others on death row somewhere who shouldn't be. Or, there may not be. But none of that is relevant to whether this guy should get what he deserves."
Everyone ready to go out to Stone Mountain and find a tall tree?
Proclaiming a suspect's guilt the day he is arrested is the absolute antithesis of Conservative ideology, and is a basic part of the judicial systems of some of the "evil" nations in which the United States is currently trying to effect change.
posted by The Cunning Realist at Saturday, March 12, 2005
61 Comments:
You call yourself a conservative. Yet most of what you say is neither conservative nor liberal. It is more like what is right. While I call myself a liberal, I agree with most of what you say. Thanks for the reality check.
DGOQ
Bravo. I've felt the same way as I've seen my conservative party hijacked. Keep calling them out!
Great set of posts. Very interesting stuff here.
Isn't it just incredible what's happened to our media in a few short years?
Dangerous times.
Great post. Megadittos!
Proclaiming a suspect's guilt the day he is arrested is the absolute antithesis of Conservative ideology, and is a basic part of the judicial systems of some of the "evil" nations in which the United States is currently trying to effect change.
I'm puzzled...are you suggesting that there's some doubt that Nichols is guilty of the murder of the Judge and the others that he shot in front of an entire courtroom of witnesses?
"realist"? Give me a break. If you are sufficiently willfully blind to argue against a conclusion of guilt in this particular instance, then you don't deserve the title "realist" and you're hardly someone I'd trust as the arbiter of what constitutes conservative ideology.
So, writers should pretend this guy isn't guilty of murder even though everyone knows that he is? (The roomful of credible witnesses kind of clears the matter up, doncha think?) Using your logic, we should stop impugning Bin Laden since he hasn't been convicted in a court of law.
Topic of the Day: Cunning Realist is neither cunning, nor a realist. Discuss.
It is always fun reading an obviously gifted writer.
I've had the National Review bookmarked for years. Now your blog is as well. Keep up the good writing.
Love the blog!
I guess you can't call it an "instalanche" when it doesn't come from Instapundit. Perhaps this is a Corner Crush?
Anyway.
>Proclaiming a suspect's guilt the
>day he is arrested is the
> absolute antithesis of
> Conservative ideology...
...du-huh? You probably could have found a better case than this particular one to rant about. And I don't see how it's a singularly Conservative virtue to allow a suspect's guilt or innocence to be proven in a court of law.
Jonah vs. TCR: The heavyweight champ vs. a hammer-throwing up-and-comer who looks like he can go the distance.
This should be a good literary 15-rounder.
Goldberg didn't call for a lynching; he called for application of "the death penalty", IOW an execution imposed AFTER the justice system
did its work.
In any event the "innocent until proven guilty" rubric applies only to the court system. Individuals are free to hold and state their commonsense opinions as to the guilt or innocence of a person accused of a crime, especially when their opinions are supported by publicly available and overwhelming evidence of guilt.
"Conservative ideology" has NOTHING to do with it. (Unless, of course, you want to argue that "liberal ideology" diverges from conservativism on this point --do you?)
Lets suppose you are walking down the street, and some dude comes up and robs you, then pistol whips you for the fun of it. If you later ID him in a lineup, would you then go around saying he's the "alleged" perp? That he is "innocent until proven guilty"?
Would you demand that this "innocent" be released w/o bail, knowing in your liberal heart that the accused would never, never, never seek to harm or kill you, as the only witness?
Get real, "realist".
Whoever cited Osama bin Laden as falsifying your specious claims nailed you to the wall.
O.K., if you are a conservative, then who are these people who are running our country (into the ground)? So far, I don't see any similarities. You actually seem to believe in things like rule of law and the validity of the Social Security program. I have felt for a long time that the bush/cheney/rove gang has hijacked the real conservative party ( like their monopoly of "moral values". That drives me nuts). Nice to read what a fair-minded conservative has to say.
Until you receive a fair trail and are convicted by a jury of your peers, you are nothing more than The Accused. The possible certainty of the outcome in this process is beside the point. Adherence to due process and ethical behavior is neither conservative nor liberal...
I was gonna say a few things, but John Link said 'em for me. Dumb analysis. "Innocent before proven guilty" is for judges and juries. Not for normal people on the sidelines.
I suppose the witnesses to the crime of, like, murder, have to assume Nichols is innocent? The cops who caught him? The prosecuting attorney who will try him?
Goldberg's point in his post wasn't that we should string him up like a lynch mob. (Nice reference to Stone Mountain, too. You angling for some racist angle with that one?) His point, which I reflected on when I read it, was what to do once the justice system has taken its course. With your seemingly obvious will to apply little or no generosity to what Mr. Goldberg said, you're only looking weak on the ol' argument and analysis.
Guilty as charged! Let's string him up! :)
I disagree as well. I'm pretty sure that "Guilty as charged! Let's string him up!" is the basis of conservative ideology. Historically speaking, that is.
And seriously, this thing about a roomful of credible witnesses? The KKK was run by town sherifs, lawyers, judges, and doctors. Lynchings were packed with "credible witnesses" who would have vowed that the black feller was guilty. The rule of law needs to apply in every case, the steps that protect the accused need to apply in every case, and the procedural rules need to apply in every case, or the entire judicial system is just a completely meaningless load of shit. Excuse my language.
The fact that this guy is clearly guilty doesn't change the fact that the death penalty is hugely unreliable, and therefor should not be used in ANY case. There are no exceptions in the judicial system, and to advocate making an exception for someone who's "clearly" guilty, is to advocate the revival of the lynch mob.
But again, that is the basis of conservative judicial philosophy.
First of all, people, please repeat after me. The correct phrase is "PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty", not just "innocent until proven guilty."
A person's innocence or guilt is established the moment the crime itself is committed (or not). It is completely independent upon the findings of an investigation, a grand jury hearing, or a trial.
Our justice system, however, is established on the principle that one is presumed innocent until guilt is proven in court. That guilt may already be there as stated above. But proof of that guilt must be demonstrated at trial.
So let's get back to reality, shall we? Nichols is STONE COLD GUILTY. Anyone who would even suggest we can't say that is being silly. But despite the fact that his guilt is that obvious and straightforward to the casual observer, we can take pride in knowing that our justice system must presume otherwise---for about the, oh, 60 minutes it is going to take to present the testimony required to officially remove all doubt.
You're absolutely right MCG. He's clearly guilty. The thing is, Jonah completely undermines any legitimacy of his argument by saying "there may be others on death row somewhere who shouldn't be." The fact that there are innocent folks on death row invalidates the punishment totally, and that means an exception can't be made in ANY CASE EVER. We can say, "we normally we don't use the death penalty cause we might kill an innocent guy, but Nichols is clearly guilty." But seriously, how far is that from saying "We normally give a fair trial to criminals, but Nichols is clearly guilty." You might argue that the death penalty is a fine law that never kills innocent people, and is therefor appropriate for use on Nichols after he's convicted. That would just show that like most of the people here, you're way smarter than Jonah Goldberg.
TCR is obviously a really good writer and very interesting to read. Would not be surprised if he's writing for a major publication soon :) Maybe he does already and this is just some on-the-side fun for him?
Many people have made good points in the comments here. Vastly superior to any point the original blog may have made, or was trying to make.
FreeRadical makes solid points for instance, though I don't know I agree with him/her. There is a difference between convicting based on a case brought together via forensic science, and with a case involving 15 people watching the act.
"Goldberg didn't call for a lynching; he called for application of the death penalty', IOW an execution imposed AFTER the justice system."
In other words, "We have to give him a fari trila before we hang him."
Close cases exist. Just because this is not one of them, we are not justified in abandoning the process which was created to deal with close cases.
Where do we draw the line between summary justice and careful investigation? It seems to be conservatives who most complain about the "slippery slope".
So, we should develope a legal definition for someone who's clearly guilty, as opposed to someone who's just guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and only kill those clearly guilty fellows? I don't know... I mean, legally, someone should either be guilty or not guilty, and if we've decided that the death penalty isn't a reliable means of killing guilty people, because we're worried they're not guilty, then we should really never use it. It's an interesting idea to have a system where punishments are based on your class of guilt, or how obviously guilty you are, but it's not our system, and I certainly think that Goldberg didn't have that in mind when he called for his little lynching. Again, he's calling for a lynching not because he wants the death penalty, but because he asks that we liberals who are against the death penalty make an exception for this guy.
FreeRadical wrote: "The fact that there are innocent folks on death row invalidates the punishment totally, and that means an exception can't be made in ANY CASE EVER."
Let me formulate a parallel statement: The fact that there are innocent folks serving life sentences without parole (or ten-year sentences or 90-day sentences) invalidates the punishment totally, and that means an exception can't be made in ANY CASE EVER.
Do you think my statement makes sense? If not, why does your statement make sense?
Please don't just tell me that the death sentence is different. Yes, it's different, but I don't see how that would validate the logic of your statement but invalidate the logic of mine.
First of all, it is different because you cannot pardon someone who is dead, whereas you can most certainly let them out of prison.
Second of all, Goldberg is arguing that people who oppose the death penalty, because of the possibility of it killing innocent people, or for other reasons, should make an exception for Nichols, and have him killed. That's because Goldberg doesn't really understand
A) Why people are against the death penalty,
B) That you really can't make exceptions in the legal system and
C) That it doesn't make a bit of difference whether someone is clearly guilty, or just guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Goldberg says that opponents of the death penalty have to give him a reason why Nichols in particular should not be executed. Perhaps we also have to give him a reason why Nichols should not be publicly crucified, or stoned to death.
The near certainty that there are innocent men on death row is not a definitive argument against the death penalty; the established fact that innocent men have been imprisoned for decades is not a definitive argument against long sentences, after all. I cannot explain to Goldberg why Nichols should not be executed, any more than I can explain why he should not publicly suffer some even crueller punishment, except to say, "We don't do that."
The death penalty is simply to costly(in money and ethics).It is used as revenge, if someone can explain how anyone who is religious can support the death penalty and not conflict with you r beliefs.(Thou shall not kill) I dont remember reading the exceptions in the fine print.
rob: The Ten Commandments don't actually say "Thou shalt not kill". It says "thou shalt not murder." You may choose to believe that all killing is murder, if you wish, but one of the wonderful things about language is how two words can have almost but not exactly the same meaning.
"Proclaiming a suspect's guilt the day he is arrested is the absolute antithesis of Conservative ideology......"
So does this mean only a liberal would proclaim such a thing, since such an idea is antithetical to conservatism? Or could there be the possibility that there is nothing political involved in such a declaration, and that the only tenuous connection to conservatism this idea has is that the person who said it happens to be a conservative? What happens if a liberal takes the same position?
a few points here:
As mcg points out above, the legal system in this country is grounded in a jury's and judge's abilities to know whether someone is guilty or not. The participants in the legal system are all human beings, and so with finite knowledge (rather than divine omniscience). We mere mortals can only rely on evidence to make a determination of fact -- whether someone committed a crime or not. But a just assessment of evidence depends on our approaching it with as little bias as possible. The jurors to any case must all agree not to prejudge the outcome of the case. (Hence, attorneys ask jurors questions about their background knowledge of the case). The reporting TCR describes here contributes to a tainting of the jury. Anyone watching and absorbing media coverage comes to the courtroom with a bias against the defendant.
There are other possible outcomes than simply guilty or innocent. For instance, guilty by reason of insanity. It would not surprise me if this guy was trucked off to a mental institution.
Both liberals and conservatives have a tendency to claim broad ideas that are basically agreed upon as their own. Many liberals argue that the founding fathers would have supported this or that, and that the constitution is a liberal document. I suppose it's an effective rhetorical device, although I don't think that you can really match the conservatism and liberalism of today to anything in the past.
freeradical wrote: "First of all, it is different because you cannot pardon someone who is dead, whereas you can most certainly let them out of prison."
Strictly speaking, it is possible to pardon someone who is dead (not that it will do much good for the person who is pardoned). What I think you meant to say was, "You cannot revoke the sentence of someone who is dead, whereas you can most certainly let them out of prison." So, you seem to be arguing against capital punishment because it's irreversible, whereas prison sentences are not.
But that's not entirely true. Suppose an innocent person completes a life sentence without parole, dying in prison. Just as you cannot give life to an executed man, you cannot give the lost years to the man who was falsely imprisoned. In other words, this prison sentence, once completed, is not reversible.
Let's return to your original words, "The fact that there are innocent folks on death row invalidates the punishment totally." You framed your invalidation of the death sentence solely in terms of innocence. Now that you've brought up irreversibility, I take it your argument is something along the lines, "The fact that there are innocent folks on death row, and completion of the sentence is irreversible, invalidates the punishment totally."
Now let me offer a parallel formulation: "The fact that there are innocent folks sentenced to life in prison without parole, and completion of the sentence is irreversible, invalidates the punishment totally." If one accepts your argument against the death penalty, must one not also accept my argument against life in prison without parole? If my argument is not acceptable, then why not?
What I'm trying to point out is that your argument, as presented, is insufficent. I know full well that it's almost certainly not your whole argument against the death penalty. I'm just saying that your stated argument is not at all convincing.
freeradical also wrote: "Second of all, Goldberg is arguing ..."
I don't see that Goldberg's words are particularly germane to my original question, so I won't comment.
jim in austin said...
"Adherence to due process and ethical behavior is neither conservative nor liberal..."
But that was in the olden days.......
If I may briefly reply to Rob:
"The death penalty is simply to costly(in money and ethics).It is used as revenge, if someone can explain how anyone who is religious can support the death penalty and not conflict with you r beliefs.(Thou shall not kill) I dont remember reading the exceptions in the fine print."
An anonymous individual was right to point out the distinction between "kill" and "murder," but there's more. Exodus 20:13 indeed prohibits killing/murder. But Exodus 21:12 instructs the ancient Jewish nation on how to punish someone who breaks that commandment.
"Whoever strikes a person mortally SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH."
The Old Testament both prohibits the individual from committing murder AND instructs the state to execute those who violate the prohibition. There are nevertheless Christians who believe that we should not execute anyone, and we are free to disagree. But to appeal to "thou shalt not kill," as if the Bible says nothing else on the matter...
It's a glib argument and an insult to those who actually study the Bible.
Bubba, the Bible also states that the value of pi is 3, a proposition I'm assuming you're not going to support . . .
"Opponents of the death penalty who make their arguments on procedural grounds -- as opposed to strictly moral or ideological grounds -- need to explain why this man should not be executed. Fine, fine, there may be others on death row somewhere who shouldn't be. Or, there may not be. But none of that is relevant to whether this guy should get what he deserve."
Goldberg is saying that those who oppose the death penalty on proceedural grounds should make an exception. It's true that the possible innocence of people on death row is not a reason by itself to end the death penalty, but that's not the point. The point is that Goldberg wants us to use a policy that we know is proceedurally flawed, because in this case he's really sure the guy is guilty.
Like John Wendt said:
"Close cases exist. Just because this is not one of them, we are not justified in abandoning the process which was created to deal with close cases."
Roger Mexico, the Bible does not "state" that pi is a whole number 3. What it states, in I Kings 7:23, is that Solomon made a reservoir with a diameter of 10 cubits and a circumference of 30 cubits. I believe the Bible's writers were guided by the spirit of God, but they were human nevertheless and it's okay for humans to estimate. And since the Bible contains books of history, poetry, prophecy, but not mathematics and astronomy, it's also okay for the estimates to lack some of the precision that ancient astronomers were capable of exhibiting.
Let's make the rather silly assumption that the reservoir's diameter was precisely 10 cubits. 30 cubits is an estimate of its circumference, but so is 31. So is 31.4. So is 3.1415926. Since pi is irrational, every measurement of a real-world object's circumference is ultimately an estimate.
(And, I might add, an actual diameter of 9.68 cubits -- which rounds to 10 -- results in an actual circumference of 30.4, which rounds to 30.)
Free Radical, it seems to me that JerryP is right: by your logic, many penalties besides execution are "procedurally flawed." There's no way to guarantee that a 20-year sentence or a life sentence is never imposed on an innocent man, and there's no way to give that time back to the man once the sentence has been served.
(I would argue that literally every sentence has the risk of being both wrong and irreversible to some degree. Once a one-day sentence is served, you cannot give that day back to a man. Even the most innocuous penalty -- a fine -- can be refunded, even refunded with interest, but there's no way to completely restore the individual's lost opportunity to spend that money as he chose while the state was holding it.)
And I'm not sure how Wendt's quote is relevant since it doesn't seem to me that Goldberg was advocating abandoning the process of trying, convicting, and executing the man.
Bubba---you're on the right track re: 1 Kings 7:23, but there's even more. In 1 Kings 7:26, it says that the pool was "a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom." So the measurements of the radius and circumference could very well have been taken differently; e.g., the radius could have been measured to the outside of the rim, and the circumference on the inside of the rim.
The point being that to attempt to ridicule the Bible by suggesting that it claims that Pi = 3 is pretty darn weak. There are in fact far more compelling challenges, apparent contradictions (emphasis on the word "apparent"), and paradoxes within its pages.
"This guy" should get what he deserves, namely a fair trial which is his right as the citizen of a country that, at least on paper, cares about law. That is the "operational" issue at stake.
The rest is just paleolithic emotional venting. If Goldberg doesn't like genuine American justice, I'm sure he can find a happy home in North Korea.
Well said, mcg. In order to prevent this from becoming a discussion about the Bible's authority and message, I think it will suffice to say this: theologians and scholars have studied the book for millennia, and there has not been a consensus that the Bible either prohibits capital punishment or contains claims that undermine its trustworthiness.
It may well be the case that it prohibits capital punishment, and it may well be the case that it is untrustworthy. (I personally believe otherwise.) But a discussion along either line requires a in-depth knowledge of the book that is far beyond this discussion's scope. No one's going to be very persuasive by simply invoking "thou shalt not kill" or parroting the skeptic's canard about pi.
But anyway...
tristero, I think one could argue that a thug who committed such heinous acts deserves very little; he should get a fair trial because we are a principled nation, not because anything he has done to merit it. That said, I have no idea where Goldberg has advocated that he shouldn't get a fair trial. I believe all he has said was this: those who oppose capital punishment solely because it could result in the death of innocent man have no good reason to oppose it in this particular case.
Where did he suggest that the guy shouldn't get a fair trial? If you can't point to a specific passage -- that is, if you're jumping to conclusions that cannot be inferred -- just what are you doing accusing others of emotional venting?
Procedurally one is innocent of a crime until proven guilty, but when you escape custody and shoot down a few people in front of a lot of witnesses, there's always a risk people are going to jump to conclusions about your guilt.
Right on, Cunning. To suggest that this man is guilty, before there has been a trial, is the equivalent of lynching him atop Stone Mountain before a burning cross. You got that spot on, and it shows the clear racial animus that motivates conservatives.
There's no way of knowing whether it was him in the courtroom looking for the judge (despite the video - we know about cross-racial identification difficulties) or to know that it was him who shot down the ICE agent in cold blood as the agent was doing some home improvement work.
Goldberg is off his rocker - only somebody completely crazy, worthy of the asylum, could say this guy is guilty. Thanks for calling out the insane racist lunatics who could suggest this guy is guilty, until after there has been a trial. Let he who is without guilt throw the first stone.
Al, you can't possibly be serious.
The death penalty really has no significance. Its pretty much the eye for an eye ideal. Look at the Israelis and Palestinians, it has brought them no peace. Anyone who believe that they are at peace by watching someone else die are only feeling the effect of calm after subjecting their soul to its final destination. God will not allow forgivness to this and its an eternity of damnation. But the world is full of injustice so this will still go on until the end of the world, and when that arrives many, both condemned and those who say they are innocent will cry tears of blood as they are to die for eternity. I rather be a victim then be them. Killing someone just touches off our primal instincts which we as CIVILIZED WESTERN CULTURE go around and stop. Iraq! its funny that Mr. Hussein is standing trial for killing people in reaction to an assination attempt, its no different then the war itself a reaction to September 11, 2001. So after the mayhem and smoke clears, should the architects of the war be held in court facing what they so freely dish out? Are they no better then person they put to death? Or can they justify their claim? By terms they set as legal?
Your Blog. I enjoyed reading it. You may be interested in living better poor credit home loan http://thehomemortgageguide.com STOP renting now, Find out how! poor credit home loan
What in the world is the world...Some people believe that to create is great but build is like changing the past forever... If you want to create a beautiful home Visit Temecula building and you can see what a little change can create..
NOW, check this out for FREE...
There is a new, fully automated traffic-generation system that can send 1000's of targeted prospects to your website, for FREE! It only takes 5 minutes to set up to set your FREE account!
To find out more visit: multi level methods site. It successfully exposes FREE information covering Traffic and multi level methods related stuff.
Shop, compare and save on your next home mortgage, refinance, auto loan, payday loan advance and even personal credit lines. Regardless of your prior credit, you can qualify for a better loan at a better rate by shopping and comparing our extensive site of lenders. Fill out a no obligation, simple one page application and get a FREE rate quote. We specialize in great low rates for those with poor or bad credit, even no credit at all. Good credit customers can expect the lowest rates available.
Don't delay, come to www.nwcleasing.com and apply today and get an instant decision and lock in your lowest possible rate.
Congradulations on a well written, interesting and superb blog! Have you heard about the shocking news?
1000's of real people are earning quiet fortunes from home using the most ingenious automated system ever invented.
Are you curious to find out what this is all about?
Why not? You have nothing to lose.
You can sign up for this system absolutely free of charge and check it all out for yourself.
To start off, we have a video presentation for you to watch. Just turn up the speakers if you can, and click on the link below.
Have fun and open your mind.
It is all right here: low cost network marketing It successfully covers low cost network marketing related stuff.
Come and check it out now, Scott :-)
If a "hot" real estate area cools off, who's going to argue that it does not have larger implications? Boca Raton, Florida, may have some valuable lessons for the real estate industry as a whole. Read more ....
Hey, you have a great blog here! You really are very talented and deserve an honest compliment, congradulations! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!
I have a top home-based business site/blog. It successfully covers top home-based business related stuff.
Come and check it out if you get time, Scott.
Hello my dear internet friends! I have some very exiting news. A lot of you know me pretty well now and have helped me a lot. I sincerely appreciate you and I want to do the same for you. Please take a moment to check out this excellent opportunity. I am so very proud to be a part of this business, I just don't have the space I need here to fully express my gratitude and I know you will feel the same way I do. You can even try it out at no charge. Take some time to explore and learn what could be one of the most significant aspects in your life. You will not be wasting your time and I will be honored for you to be my guest. You will love this... Please give me a chance to prove it to you. Click here: inovative It elegantly covers inovative related ideas and FREE information. Sincerely, Scott.
http://hottest-news.info/index.php
enjoyed your blog, we are introducing our New Updated Dvd Bible Site **www.BibleMediaDvd.Com** and thought you might enjoy all the new features of the King James Version, New Living Translation Version on Dvd and also have a free offering of a Children's Bible Story CD for the lowest prices now of $29.95. Stop by and check out the Free Demo. Thank you for your time and Have a Great Day.
The Housing Bubble has popped in Florida. What does it mean for buying and selling real estate? Either prices plummet and buyers rush in, or sellers take their homes off the market, or it's going to take a lot longer to sell a home. read more ....
Has the Housing Bubble popped? Boca Raton says "Yes!" A typical subdivision -- the Boca Country Club -- characterizes the area, and the problem. read more ....
idaho real estate
Real Estate Investment - Create Fortune In Real Estate
Learn how to create a fortune and quit your job forever Building Portfolio That Allow You To Maintain Financial Independence. You can make money investing in real estate and you can learn to do it without all the high rolling bucks and hype.
Real Estate Investment for Beginners is written by Sal Vannutini, a veteran real estate investor. In one compact little book, he has written some powerful pearls of wisdom that pack a punch the likes of which doesn't even begin to get covered in all that other mess of tapes and paperwork.
Sal is going to give it to you straight! He's going to share his insider secrets with you - more than 80 of them! Real Estate Investment idaho real estate
Pop goes the Housing Bubble? A Florida subdivision -- the Boca Country Club -- characterizes the area, the problem, and the answer. read more ....
When I go blogging, it often ends up a fruitless journey. I often think I'd do better if I just stuck with my own real estate sites ... and then I come across a blog like yours, and it make the trip worthwhile. Thanks. Visit my site if you have a chance.
Blogged your blog and enjoyed the experience. Nice break from my own real estate work. Thanks. Visit my site if you have a chance.
According to recent news, the erectile dysfunction afflicted elderly people in Brazil were administered with free viagra and as a consequence they were miraculously cured of impotency. Doesn’t this news appear utterly surprising to you? But the man who is well aware of all the information on cheap viagra would never be surprised on hearing the news that the distribution of free viagra among the elderly Brazilian people suffering from sexual dysfunction has cured them of the deadly malady. But if you are not so fortunate to get hold of free Viagra, then you can buy viagra from an authentic source and cure your erectile dysfunction. The need of the hour is to browse through Viagra online, procure Viagra and treat your erectile dysfunction. But before you buy viagra online, it is necessary to consult the physician on your erectile dysfunction and take his necessary recommendations to treat the disease.
sex videos bouncy boobs tiny tits big cocks huge cocks monster cock huge cock big dicks nude babes big booty mature sex mature women hot lesbians black ass black porn asses sexy ass hand jobs pussies close up of a pussy pussy licking naked teens reality porn young tits tit fuck tit fucking nice tits anal teen ass fucking cum shot hot teen girls big cock massive cocks big dick naked chicks amateur sex teen lesbians have sex interracial sex teen ass hot ass big butts white pussy hot pussy ass teen tranny fetish sex movies perfect boobs titty fuck big natural tits tight ass ass fuck tiny pussy milf older blonde lesbians lesbian licking naked lesbians college sex virgin pussy open pussy nice pussy pink pussy big pussy nude teen foot fetish
Post a Comment
<< Home