Tonight on The Independents: Ferguson, ISIS, Rand Paul's Declaration of War, Black Friday, Our Latest Enemy of Freedom, and #LetTheTurkeyCool


Did you catch some of the Ferguson talk on last night's Independents? Here's a sampling:

On tonight's show (Fox Business Network, 9 p.m. ET, 6 p.m. PT, repeats three hours later) we'll pick up the story with a Party Panel of "Progressive Messaging Expert and all around good guy" Richard Fowler, who was on the ground in Ferguson the last few days, and Fox News correspondent Dagen McDowell. The discussion will cover, among other aspects, the exquisitely awful arguments that have arisen this week about rioting, looting, and so forth. Later in the show, the duo will discuss Democratic disaffection with Obamacare, and the eternal search for the best Thanksgiving survival tips.

Speaking of the holidays, Fox Business anchor Melissa Francis will break down the import and minimum-wage politics of Black Friday. Also, Kennedy will be making her final Quixotic push to "Let the Turkey Cool" before putting up the damned Christmas decorations….Speaking of which, please "enjoy" the following video, which is obviously TOO HOT FOR TELEVISION, and was allegedly produced by Anthony L. Fisher:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has raised some libertarian eyebrows with his draft declaration of war against ISIS; we'll discuss the pros and cons. Speaking of ISIS, what's up with that? The Interpreter's Michael Weiss will update. And the co-hosts will declare their new Enemy of Freedom.

Follow The Independents on Facebook at facebook.com/IndependentsFBN, follow on Twitter @ independentsFBN, hashtag us at #TheIndependents, and click on this page for more video of past segments.

NEXT: Police Shooting of Pre-Teen in Cleveland Caught on Surveillance Video That Contradicts Cops Claims

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Christmas? I'm putting up my Easter decorations.

  2. I keep all my holiday decorations up year round. Saves time.

    1. I love this time of year. My wife quits nagging me to take down the xmas decorations.

    2. If you live far enough off the road, no one notices so long as you unplug the lights.

  3. The Kmele verses of "Let the Turkey Cool" were more shockingly potent and profound than Bob Dylan's surprise contribution to 'We Are the World'

    His sensitive, gravelly, heart-melting overtones remind us of Richie Havens in his prime

    1. Someone's been reading old Doherty articles.

      While I was listening to a bunch of Havens videos on Youtube this morning, I discovered he did the vocals for Groove Armada's "Hands of Times," one of my favorite songs from the past few years. Probably should have known that already, but pretty cool nonetheless.

  4. Wow, how did Kennedy get Matt and Kmele to do that...interesting song?

    She must have taken naked photos of them at the sheepfold.

  5. Hey, Mrs. Montgomery, the Advent season has already begun according to the Orthodox calendar:


  6. Speaking of which, please "enjoy" the following video, which is obviously TOO HOT FOR TELEVISION, and was allegedly produced by Anthony L. Fisher...

    Fisher is going to spend his entire Red Eye appearance disavowing any connection to that video.

  7. Bill Nye will be in the studio later on to leave coal in everyone's stockings.

    1. Nah, it will be some mythical battery that never runs out of juice.

      1. Pu-239?

    2. North Korean kids would love that.

  8. Okay, I declare this thread dead. It shall be buried at sea with full honors.

  9. Isn't there supposed to be a day of recovery between episodes?

  10. Okay, I figure this applies most to the lushes who comment here.

    God I hope this guy is right!

    The Truth We Won't Admit: Drinking Is Healthy

    In fact, the evidence that abstinence from alcohol is a cause of heart disease and early death is irrefutable?yet this is almost unmentionable in the United States. Even as health bodies like the CDC and Dietary Guidelines for Americans (prepared by Health and Human Services) now recognize the decisive benefits from moderate drinking, each such announcement is met by an onslaught of opposition and criticism, and is always at risk of being reversed.

    Noting that even drinking at non-pathological levels above recommended moderate limits gives you a better chance of a longer life than abstaining draws louder protests still. Yet that's exactly what the evidence tells us.

    Driven by the cultural residue of Temperance, most Americans still view drinking as unhealthy; many call alcohol toxic. Yet, despite drinking far less than many European nations, Americans have significantly worse health outcomes than heavier-drinking countries...

    1. This chick had it all figured out:

      Calment ascribed her longevity and relatively youthful appearance for her age to a diet rich in olive oil[4] (which she also rubbed onto her skin), as well as a diet of port wine, and ate nearly one kilogram (2.2 lb) of chocolate every week.

      She also smoked for nearly a century. The kilogram of chocolate a week is what really impresses me.

    2. Remember when Dr. Johnny Fever's reflexes improved each time he took a drink thus defying and angering the state trooper trying to prove alcohol slows your reaction time?

      Evidently I do.

    3. Of course you had to add non-pathological:(

  11. Where's my CANCON?!

  12. How effen useless is CNN Money? I came across this '5 Stunning Facts about McDonald's' clip. Never mind that there's nothing 'stunning' about it to the extent we already know these facts. However, notice the little game they play with the CEO's pay of $9.5 (even though one of their 'stunning' facts discloses McDonald's revenues of $28 billion. 9 million into 28 billion is?) and then providing a figure for how long it would take for a worker to reach $9.5. Like who cares and how is that even relevant?


    1. When your life revolves around envy, its the most important.

    2. I can see someone being concerned about inequality other than because of envy. You could think it's a bad way to run a business (Toyota is a bigger company and it's CEO makes only 1.7 million). You could think inequality leads to instability. You could think that since money is tied to important things in life, including necessities, that there are problems with inequality. To the extent money is power there's that too.

      1. And none of those problems can be effectively solved through government coercion, purposeful market distortions, and threats of violence, which is the preferred leftist solution to, well, everything.

        1. I absolutely agree, if anything such coercion nearly always makes things worse (and is immoral in itself, imo).

        2. A baseball player named Stanton who most of you (and me until this week) never heard of just signed a contract for $325 million over 13 years, or $25 million a year. Why do we never hear how many hours the peanut vendor for that same baseball team would have to work until he makes $25 million?

          I'll tell you why. The average prog recognizes that talented movie stars and athletes are extremely talented and doesn't begrudge them the big bucks. But at the same time they don't believe the average CEO is any smarter than a burger flipper, he just got lucky or met someone or went to the right school. And since the top people at top corporations are just average joes in accidental positions, they don't deserve much more than the average worker's salary in their minds, and its an outrage when they do.

          1. Yes. This is what they believe and it's absurd.

            1. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains.


          2. It is common for leftists to foolishly discount the value of management. Didn't Lenin think they were totally superflous and then found how valuable they were the hard way? Having said that, there are lots of institutional ways that CEO pay might not reflect their actual value.

              1. Yes, I'm not arguing it's something on the same level as governmental misdealings, just that it's not necessarily cut and dry market workings that create management compensation.

            1. there are lots of institutional ways that CEO actor and athlete pay might not reflect their actual value.

              1. Yes. I'm not sure most 'lefties' are not outraged by player and entertainer salaries, so I'm not sure what you're getting from that.

              2. It is also true that there are lots of institutional ways that someone getting minimum wage might not reflect their actual lack of value.

      2. Money is not power.

        Government is power.

        Inequality doesn't lead to instability. Believing it does is irrelevant.

        1. Envy leads to instability. Inequality is just the excuse people use so that they don't have to admit that their real problem is their own vices.

          1. And inequality doesn't help envy out?

            1. No. There will always be reason to be jealous. Stop concern trolling.

              1. People will always be jealous, but I bet that still wouldn't stop you from telling your friend not to act in certain ways with other women while his girlfriend is around, even if you think she shouldn't become jealous over those actions.

            2. Meh, inequality is written into our dna. We're primates, not sand fleas.

            3. The fear that inequality leads to instability reveals the left's stasis fetish.

              It's also backwards (as is most leftist thinking). In the modern world, instability creates inequality. Great wealth is captured by people who create revolutionary new products or organizational structures. Which dissipates over time and is finally replaced by a new wave of innovators.

        2. If power is the likelihood of getting other people to do what you want then of course money is power.

          As for inequality not leading to instability, that's to deny that envy (or a sense of 'injustice') does exist, is fairly common among people and that it might spur people to act in ways bad for social order.

          1. Power is having the ability to apply force.

            You tell me one thing someone with money can legally force me to do?

            Only government can force me to do anything. Everything else is voluntary.

            1. Since TNSTAAFL people need money to live and so you will have to do some things in your life for it. You might not be forced to do any particular thing in this process, but you're forced into the process to some degree.

              Of course, if you're just going to define power to mean what you want it to mean, then of course you win the argument about what power is. But the word generally means more than just 'what a person is forced to do by threat of violence.'

              1. Fine.

                But within the context of inequity, one person having wealth does not negatively impact the person who does not.

                1. Do you think if I were granted two votes in elections and you were restricted to one that that would have any negative impact on you?

                    1. I think you'd object to it because, even if I don't use my votes to harm you, it unfairly grants me more power than you. Now, if money is power...

                    2. But, wealthy people don't get two votes, Bo.

                    3. I thought you conceded that money could in a sense be power?

                    4. No, I admitted that power wasn't necessarily force, but could be influence.

                    5. You don't think money can have influences? I'm analogizing why someone would be upset about someone having more power (influence) than another by pointing to another example of someone getting more power than another (here, something stronger than influence, true, but of course analogies are not exactly the same in their specifics).

                  1. Given the fact that you'd probably argue yourself into voting against yourself, no.

                    1. Fancy law-talking guys with their persnickety fancy law talk!

      3. I can see people being idiots

        Because specious arguments can be appealing.

        The relative size of a company, for instance, says nothing about its relative performance for investors, and consequently the board's decisions on how to reward/remunerate leadership.

        You could also think idiotic things like "inequality leads to instability"; even though nations like Somalia and Haiti have far greater "equality" of the general population compared to the United States.

        You could also note that "money is tied to important things in life, including necessities", all the while glossing over the fact that the 'poorest' members of our very-unequal society maintain living standards far above that of billions of people worldwide; and that we're the only nation on earth whose 'poorest' tend to suffer from Obesity.

        Indeed = stupidity and ignorance is probably far more significant than "envy"

        1. ""inequality leads to instability"; even though nations like Somalia and Haiti have far greater "equality" of the general population compared to the United States."

          Of course it's not going to be the only thing leading to instability, poverty can as well.

          "all the while glossing over the fact that the 'poorest' members of our very-unequal society maintain living standards far above that of billions of people worldwide"

          You think people should focus on actual poverty and not inequality. That's nice, but it doesn't address my point much, since it's not limited to necessities, right?

          1. I can also see people being dishonest.

            Dishonesty AND stupidity are probably more significant than envy.

            1. People who disagree with you are dishonest and stupid, we get it Gilmore.

              1. No, mostly just you

    3. Because the skills involved in running one of the biggest corporations on Earth are no different than the skills needed to flip burgers, therefore it's wrong for him to make lots more money.

      Supply and demand, the fuck is that?

      1. The choosing of CEO's might not be all supply and demand. For one thing, there's the problem of Boards and management knowing each other and putting each other in power for reasons that aren't always connected to performance.

        1. Just keep telling yourself that Bo, that the dice are all loaded against you. That way when you fail in life you'll have a pre-arranged excuse.

          1. You're drawing a much broader conclusion from what I said than I did.

            1. He's just trying to soften the landing for you, dear.

  13. So when does Welch's holiday themed album come out and how many Kmele cameos will there be?

  14. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) seems to believe that jobs created by Keystone XL pipeline are less important to the economy than other jobs because they will be located in "a limited and red part of the country."

    "Give me a break!" Schumer said.

    Schumer's speech on Tuesday included other head-scratchers besides downplaying people finding work in red states.

    Schumer also said despite the midterm results that deep down, the "public knows in its gut" that bigger government is the "only way" for the middle class to prosper. Revealing a strategy for Democrats in 2016, Schumer said "they must embrace" big government to win.


    1. Schumer's trying to spin his failure as one of the Party's leadership

      1. "Schumer also said despite the midterm results that deep down, the "public knows in its gut" that bigger government is the "only way"

        How is this not, or at least a call to, socialism?

        1. How is this not, or at least a call to, socialism?

          It is. But don't expect them to ever call it that.

        2. You act like to him that's a bug or something.

    2. He's actually doubling down.

      This is scary because this is the kind of thing that could get Elizabeth Warren traction. I've heard that a large chunk of the Democratic party is not on board with a turn to the left however. Thank God.

  15. You could think inequality leads to instability. You could think that since money is tied to important things in life, including necessities, that there are problems with inequality. To the extent money is power there's that too.

    You could think your girlfriend won't get pregnant if she gets out of bed after sex and hops on one foot one hundred times, too.

    1. I could see that.

    2. I'd argue that the really wishful thinking is not recognizing how inequality makes at least a significant amount of people upset, and sometimes upset enough to do some pretty bad things.

      1. 'Rape Culture' makes a significant number of people upset.

        'GMOs' make a significant number of people upset.

        That some people have different metaphysical assumptions make a significant number of people upset.

        That people get upset about things is no indication of whether that thing is actually 'real'

        See above my point above about 'Stupidity, Ignorance, and Dishonesty'

        1. Dammit Gilmore, take people's immediate emotional response to things more seriously!

        2. You're not getting my point.

          The women in Salem were not really casting supernatural spells, you know? But that fact didn't stop them from swinging from nooses.

          1. In this example are you the one saying that they're not really witches but we should humour the people saying so with trials because it's something important to them?

            1. I'm not saying to humor them, but that it's silly not to recognize it as a force that can negatively impact us, so that someone could be a libertarian who doesn't think inequality is itself a problem, but, knowing human and social nature, might think too much inequality is a problem because other people will think it is and be spurred to some unpleasant actions.

              1. If that's the case, inequality still isn't the problem, those 'unpleasant actions' are. You're basically arguing that you should to be held hostage ideologically by some nebulous threat.

                1. If the inequality over and over leads to the unpleasant actions then it might be something to be concerned about itself, and that's my only point (I was answering the idea that the only concern over inequality must be envy).

                2. And honestly I'd never expected you to go for populist arguments Bo. Lots of people disagree with open borders immigration, and historically, irrational claims about immigrants has resulted in terrible things. Shouldn't you be considering the unpleasant actions that could occur due to support of open borders, rather than being purely ideologically driven on that issue?

                  1. Again, I'm not saying the populist argument is right, or that we should even pander to it, just that the fact that people will often think X in the face of Y and that thinking X often leads to bad result Z can mean you can rightly be concerned about Y (but only because it seems to trigger X and then Z).

                    1. Except that 'being rightly concerned about Y' because people feel that way is absolutely pandering to that position. It's deliberately taking a statement you believe is incorrect and giving in virtue merely because someone demands it important.

                    2. It's not pandering at all, it's a realization of reality. Imagine a politician saying 'there is nothing inherently wrong with inequality, but sadly too much inequality does naturally spark in many people's breast a feeling of outrage that often leads to some pretty awful things, so we should probably at the least try to keep that from happening.' Perhaps all he will want to do is soften the perception it's happening among certain people, for example.

                    3. And once again, that is absolutely pandering to their perceptions. It is deliberately validating their viewpoint by suggesting that it is damaging to a society, albeit for different reasons. That would not result in any change to the perceptions of the 'stupid people', it would entrench their position by giving them further justification for their position.

              2. No, in that case people being stupid or dishonest is the problem, not the inequality.

                1. Slaps forehead

            2. Pandering to ignorance is superior to actually dispelling it, according to Bo

              1. You can see Gilmore bravely lecturing the hangman about how believing in witchraft and punishing it is a stupid thing. Because he would never pander. He's like Rorschach in that way (and others I imagine).

                1. No i just think everything you've said about a basic macroeconomic detail like relative 'inequality' ...

                  - something which says nothing about *absolute conditions*, like say 'purchasing power', or living standards -

                  ... is complete horseshit, and I enjoy watching you sink deeper into the muck as you try to analogize your way out of increasingly stupid positions.

                  1. YOU think people should really care about absolute conditions, not relative ones. Good for you Gilmore. But lot's of people who aren't you care about relative ones. Whether I agree with them or not I'm not going to stick my head under the ground, or shout to them 'but you care about the wrong thing!' when I get caught in their riots.

                    1. good for you

      2. I'd argue that the really wishful thinking is not recognizing how inequality makes at least a significant amount of people upset, and sometimes upset enough to do some pretty bad things.

        The cause is not inequity then. The cause is irrationality.

        1. What's really irrational is not to understand that people are often irrational about things.

          1. So what? A lot of people being stupid doesn't make them right.

            1. I didn't say they were right. I said we'd be fools to act like people are not going to be stupid in this way quite often.

              1. So what? Stupid people are stupid. As ever, you've been argued into the banal.

                1. Stupid people are, like the poor, always going to be with us, and to the extent we ignore that we are being stupid. So I repeat, it seems to me that someone could be concerned about inequality not out of envy, in fact they don't see a problem with inequality in that way at all, but they might still think it's a 'bad thing' because they think many people will think it is a bad thing and do some really hurtful things because of it.

                  1. Shorter Bo:
                    'We need to pay protection money to keep from getting robbed!'

                    Buzz off.

                    1. I of course said exactly the opposite above in reply to Irish, but go ahead and be silly.

                    2. Bo Cara Esq.|11.26.14 @ 9:13PM|#
                      "I of course said exactly the opposite above in reply to Irish"

                      And then:
                      "but they might still think it's a 'bad thing' because they think many people will think it is a bad thing and do some really hurtful things because of it."

                      So we shouldn't pay protection money but we should, what?
                      Go ahead; the weasel-dance is amusing...

                  2. So wait, stupid people and the poor will always be around? I don't think you're seeing the actual conclusion of your argument: that is, that those 'hurtful things' are inevitable if these people always exist and there will always be perceived inequality. No amount of recognizing their beliefs as somewhat valid, or even half-halfheartedly supporting their policy preferences will work. Since there will always been a perception of inequality and stupid people to see it in an irrational way, there is no way to prevent the 'really hurtful things' from occurring.

                    If that's the case, then people who think it's a 'bad thing' for the reasons you list is just as irrational, because they're fighting some inevitable shift of history.

      3. I'd argue that the really wishful thinking is not recognizing how inequality makes at least a significant amount of people upset, and sometimes upset enough to do some pretty bad things.

        It's not the inequality per se, it's the harranging of agitators that leads to anti-social behavior. As noted upthread, the inequality in compensation for the employees of sport franchises' is much greater than exists elsewhere.

        Hasn't led to rioting or whatever, though.

  16. not recognizing how inequality makes at least a significant amount of people upset, and sometimes upset enough to do some pretty bad things.

    You're an Appeasement of the Mob sort of libertarian, then; is that an offshoot of Precautionary Principle libertarianism?

    1. Recognizing the potential of a mob and appeasing it are two different things.

    2. He doesn't want to appear intragnizent.


    1. Not nice to talk about Tony and Palin and the rest of the progs that way.

      1. When is the Canuckistani Thanksgiving?

        1. October.

  18. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f0mVn0HH6U#t=29


  19. Prediction: I got shit to do.

  20. Peaceful Protest: They were doing it wrong.

  21. My hotel doesn't have fox. Can somebody live blog?

      1. Typing with one hand?

    1. Kennedy interrupts someone

      Over and over.

    2. Now she's sliding across the table towards Dagan.

    3. What's that THING coming our from under the desk?!
      Oh, NO! It's arrrrrrrrrrrrghwwwwwww..........

    4. Kennedy and Dagan are locked in a sapphic embrace.

  22. hotter than the inside of my mama's turkey

    Euphemism received.

  23. Kmele and the other guy were about ready to throw down!

  24. The Independents Attire Review, 26 November 2014


    - Kennedy: The Stepford Wives was about Robot Women, right? (*i never saw it/read it/or the remake) This shade of blue has a blood-draining effect that makes her blemishless-pale skin seem Androidish. The light-pink lipstick doesn't help. We remain weak on the blue shades outside of her navy stuff.

    - Matt: Last Thursday's striped shirt makes a repeat appearance; we like it, especially with a solid-color tie. Anything patterned would be headache inducing. This slight variation from Matt's standard point-collar white/blue shirts is far more enlivening than you'd initially expect. We'd like to see more like this, as well as some more collar variation (as we usually beg)

    - Kmele: Joy of joys; our favorite tweed jacket is paired with one of his seasonal-shade ties. Its so dope it *hurts*. That he wears this kind of getup with such ease and comfort makes it all the more impressive. He could probably even get away with wearing a hat. Effortless Victory.


    1. Wait a sec, is Matt on tonight?

  25. Wow. No Fist and this thread falls apart.

    GILMORE, where is our attire critique?

    1. Refresh... How does it work?

      1. Sometimes, not very well at all.

      2. Well, you right click on the page and then left click on "reload" and new shit magically appears on the screen.

  26. Holy shit! Kelly Clarkson blew up nicely.

  27. On Rand and war...

    Take it away from executive fiat. A big fuck you to the emperor.

  28. Actually, I thought the declaration was a whole lot more restrictive than the AUMFs. Had a fucking end date.

  29. Why can't Rand have it both ways? BO has said one thing and been George Bush.

  30. Kennedy, you expect too much from the Stoopid Party.

    1. They seem to be Michelle's anyway.

      Poor girls.

      1. "If you want my political machine to help your eventual Senate candidacies, you *will* stand next to me and give me moral support while I pardon the turkey!"

    2. I can't believe how big they are. Has that asshole really been in office that long?

  31. Kmele comments on the current business environment

  32. Let's see, Turkeys and Illegal Immigrants? Why not?

    US Citizens? Meh.

  33. I presume Kennedy knows that the Advent season has already begun according to the Orthodox calendar:


  34. My guess... EPA.

  35. Did a school educational film about precision screws start showing?

    Who is the audience for this show that a commercial like that would show (for about 3 minutes, too)

    1. I know all about precision screws.

  36. Prediction = EPA wins enemy of freedom.

    The press conference they had recently was nauseating in how blithely the director claimed "we HELP businesses; we've never hurt anyone's business"... or something to that effect.

  37. Kmele! Off the top rope. Again!

    1. "Kmele 'Superfly' Foster"

  38. You can see Matt trying to prevent himself from breaking down and crying @ the word 'Bodies'

  39. This fella is a fucking worm.

  40. No hindsight. From the ONSET Americans didn't want it.

    But they didn't have good enough insurance to begin with.

  41. There you go.

    Single payer.

    Limbaugh was right. It's what they wanted all along.

    1. But Rufus, our healthcare is great! What could possibly go wrong?

      1. IT'S THE BEST.

        Okay, maybe not, but at least we're not like those uncaring Americans!

        /nationalist derp.

        1. ...Said as someone desperately crosses the border for medical tourism.

  42. I know when to shut up

    Kennedy, watch and learn.

  43. Okay Playa. Dagan is talking about her sexual fantasies.


  44. THat is perfect, Kennedy actually stopped for a second.

  45. This year, the Welch's will be quoting Cosby while naked.

  46. I'd give her time and a half.

    1. And leave it on the dresser

  47. A CEO of the Bank of Montreal in past once worked in the mail room and worked his way up.

  48. Cato is counterintuitive enough that it's probably the answer.

    1. Well, I guess I'm technically right.

  49. Playa, now Kennedy is saying she loves another chick.


    1. He killed himself when Julius Caesar triumphed.

  50. Not DAHBS!

  51. Snow is the 'enemy of their freedom'?

    Left coasters. Back to Cali with you!!

    yeah i don't think so


  52. Have a good Turkey Day (for those of you so inclined)!

  53. Damn, I should have joked about Obama's turkey pardon: "If you like your turkey you can keep your turkey."

    1. If you like your turkey you can keep eat your turkey.

      1. "Remember when I said I would cook and eat you last?

        "I lied."

        1. "Mr. President, can we visit the farm where all the pardoned turkeys live?"

          "No, they're too busy, but I think I can say that there's a little of those turkeys in all of us."

          1. "Are the pardoned turkeys fed well?"

            "Of course! They're stuffed!"

            1. "OK, turkeys, time to wash up, please proceed to the room marked 'baths.' Ignore the gravy smell."

              1. Wow, that got dark quickly.

              2. I lol'ed:)

  54. No guacamole contest? Eff that.

  55. I can say, without hesitation, that this is the best and most memorable example of Matt "I supported John Kerry" Welch's singing voice and skills as a guitarist. That song had at least five chords with maybe even a bar chord thrown in there.

    He is redeemed by his excellent backup singers in the last few seconds of the video.

  56. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My neighbour's sister has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    try this site ? ? ? ? ? http://www.jobsfish.com

  57. Isn't Rand Paul charmingly retrograde with his quixotic efforts to actually declare war on people we want to bomb and shoot at?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.