Carly Fiorina

Carly Fiorina Is Not the Anti-Hillary

Fiorina may thrill fans of "private enterprise," but beware.


As an advocate of a stateless society, I don't want anyone to be president. Nevertheless, someone will be chosen to live in the White House next year. Will it be a woman?

Hillary Clinton and Carly Fiorina hope so. But these two women are essentially indistinguishable from each other and from their male rivals. Style must not overshadow substance. Really, what's the point?

Clinton is a well-known champion of the all-state. To her the U.S. government is the source of order both domestic and foreign. Her fondness for social engineering is indisputable. Domestically, she likes corporatism, which comes down to bureaucrats and big business—with input from big official labor unions—running "the economy." [That's in quotation marks because an economy is just people: we're the economy the ruling elite wants to regulate.] Little is to be left to the spontaneous process that arises from peaceful social cooperation and mutual aid in the marketplace and the wider society. In foreign affairs, Clinton has a preference for military intervention. She certainly demonstrated this as secretary of state under Barack Obama. She is an enthusiast for the conceit known as "American exceptionalism."

If you need further evidence, peruse her husband's foreign-policy record, which she embraces with gusto. It was Bill Clinton who bombed and killed thousands of people in the former Yugoslavia and who devastated the Iraqis with bombs and economic sanctions. His policies in the Middle East—which included unswerving support for Israel's brutality against the Palestinians—helped set the stage for al-Qaeda's actions on 9/11, just as his domestic policies, particularly housing policy, helped to bring on the Great Recession. He also built on his predecessors' anti-Iran policy. Let's remind candidate Clinton of this whenever she invokes her husband's presidency.

How about Fiorina? If you're looking for the anti-Hillary, you'll have to look elsewhere.

Fiorina will play up the fact that she comes out of the world of (big) business. She ran Hewlett-Packard (unsuccessfully by many accounts) and held executive positions in other large companies. This may thrill fans of "private enterprise," but beware. Corporate America is no place to find advocates of freed markets, as opposed to capitalism or corporatism. When have you heard the CEO of a major company call for laissez faire—that is, the radical separation of the people and state? [Like most of her Republican rivals she opposes the Export-Import Bank. But without a more comprehensive critique of government-granted privilege, I suspect this is more a fashionable token gesture against Democratic cronyism.]

"I understand how the economy actually works. I understand the world, who's in it, how the world works," Fiorina said on ABC's Good Morning America. We've heard this rhetoric before, and it's always followed by an expansion of power. Let's not be fooled by her criticism of the "political class" and her appeal for leaders drawn from the ranks of plain citizens. From the beginning the republic has been driven largely from behind the scenes by non-politicians (mostly business and financial magnates) who had friends in high places. It helps explain (though not entirely) why key economic matters like trade—both continental and global—have always been within the government's domain and why the United States has spent so much time at war.

Fiorina sees a world full of enemies—Russia and Iran head the list—and shows no understanding that the U.S. government has gratuitously created enemies for the American people. [She's been on the CIA External Advisory Board.] At this late date she still does not know—or more likely, mind—that free markets don't coexist with an interventionist foreign policy, and she thinks the world is in turmoil because the U.S. government is not interventionist enough under Obama: "American leadership matters in the world. American strength matters in the world."

Fiorina favors "border security," indicating her belief that people must have government permission to relocate. She calls for less regulation, but unless government privileges are also eliminated, reducing regulation can bolster corporatism. Some advocate of small government!

If we must have a president, by all means, let it be a woman—but let it be a woman who understands the destructiveness of the state. Carly Fiorina is not the one.

NEXT: U.K. Election: Whoever Wins, Freedom Loses

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Carly Fiorina is just like Adam… oh, forget it.

    1. +1

    2. Adam West?

    3. Adam Ant?

    4. Black Adam?

  2. Obviously, Fiorina is not an enthusiastic cheerleader for the mullahocracy. If she were, that would be just the tonic to wash away all her sins in Sheldon’s eyes.

  3. I don’t hate Richman as much as many people here seem to, but I wonder why he wrote this. I haven’t heard any big groundswell of libertarians plumping for Fiorina; did I miss it? I always took it that she’d be a fairly typical Republican which means right-wing statism rather than left-wing statism. In other words, statism either way.

    1. She is in the headlines. I can see why someone would want to write a piece about her. The problem is Richman is such a nut and so incapable of making an honest argument, he ended up writing a crap article as usual. The worst thing about it is how lazy the writing is. Fiorina has a long public record and makes very clear statements about which policies she supports. Richman is apparently too lazy to go and find out what she actually thinks and has said. A real analysis of what she is saying and a look at her history to see if she actually believes it would have been interesting. Instead, Richman just tells us what everyone knows, that she is the former CEO of HP, and then dismisses her because “when do CEO’s ever believe in free markets”, like that is some kind of a informative or convincing argument. And of course the entire thing is just a lead in to get to Richman’s real point, which is of course that the US is evil and Iran and Russia are wonderful. Why does Reason pay for this crap?

      1. Richman is apparently too lazy to go and find out what she actually thinks and has said.

        What is there for Richman to investigate? He knows Fiorina has never ululated itbach al-Yahud! at the top of her lungs while firing her AK-47 into the air. Thus, he has all the information he needs about her.

        1. People have been talking about and debating Fiorina on this board for months. And every debate about Fiorina has been more informative and fact filled than this article. Richman is so bad that people shooting from the hip on a comment board do a better job than what he can do with all of his thought and effort.

          1. Well, Richman is not interested in informing or facts, nor has he ever been. He is a polemicist who earns his daily bread by composing hatchet jobs against those whom his ideological paymasters consider threatening. And as you point out, he is incompetent at even that.

            1. He is that for sure. That is the funny part. If you really look at Fiorina, she is not what she seems to be. She wasn’t a particularly good CEO and despite getting fired still walked off with a golden parachute. She seems to be a self promoter who has figured out how to say what the GOP base wants to hear. She might believe what she is saying but given her track record and penchant for self promotion, there is certainly no way to tell for sure.

              I like her and think we could do worse as President. Even I however can see how easy it would be to write an effective polemic questioning her sincerity and qualifications for President. And Richman hates her and is apparently either too laze or too stupid to do it as well.

              1. She wasn’t a particularly good CEO…

                I don’t think that’s accurate, though I’ll admit quickly I haven’t looked into this a great deal and when I did it was years ago….. But…

                IIRC, it it is my understanding that she was open to the board about the direction she was going and that based upon where HP was at the time, that the stock price would continue to stagnate or possibly decline for a few years before rebounding. As HP had a ton of issues due to executive incentives prioritizing the short term (a problem with all companies due to incentives being tied to stick price).

                Then after moving forward with her plan the board, still too focused on the short term, including listening too much to pundits claiming her every decision was wrong, lost faith and fired her.

                Her plan still mostly continued (and a fair amount was done such as acquiring Compaq (seen then as extremely risky and controversial)) and is credited with setting up much of HPs successes years after she was fired.

                Not that this should necessarily have any impact on whether she’d make a good political candidate and it certainly does not hold any implications on whether she’s libertarian, but I do think her reputation has strengthened in the years following her “failure” at HP.

            2. No, Sheldon has been interested in informing. Read some of his stuff from 30+ yrs. ago. I don’t know what happened to that Sheldon Richman. I think he’s still in there somewhere.

              1. At this point, he belongs in a landfill, like the rest of the progs.

        2. http://theedgeofwhere.blogspot…..-what.html

          ‘Itbah Al-Yahud’ or ‘Khaybar ya Yahod’ ? what was actually said?

          1. What Carly actually-really said: “Heute Amerikkka, Morgen der Ganz-Welt! Welt-macht oder ruinen!!! Grenz-sicherheit Heil!””

      2. Exactly; while he was complaining that she’s not a libertarian–something that, to my knowledge, she has never claimed–he missed the actual story.

      3. John, you need to chill, man. Like 50% of the comments on this thread are yours. That’s too much. Just like you can have only so many cats before you are called a crazy cat lady, you can only post so many comments on a single thread before you come across as nutty.

        1. I would have to care in order for your comment to mean anything to me.

        2. John is too busy talking to himself to acknowledge your comment, Ed. Except for that acknowledgement, but that was just informing you that he is not acknowledging it.

          1. Please tell us what the appropriate level and number of replies are to any given story. That way in the future, we’ll know exactly the number needed to stay within the good graces of those who know better than others the exact number and nature of blog post comments required to be certified “appropriate”.

    2. I just said she was hot.

      1. Rand Paul is an opthamologist. You may wish to get an appointment post haste.

        1. More specifically, I said she was hot for a 60 year old.

          1. Yeahhhhhhh

        2. The only previous president to attend medical school was William Henry Harrison… and he withdrew. If Dr. Paul were to be elected President, he would be the first medical doctor elected President.

      2. I wanna have a fivesome… Hillary-Bob, Billary-Bob, Margaret Thatcher, Carly, and me… Let’s git it ON!!!!

  4. When have you heard the CEO of a major company call for laissez faire?that is, the radical separation of the people and state?

    Maybe Fionina is the exception? How about you write about what she actually has to say rather than engaging in ad homonym?

    Fiorina sees a world full of enemies?Russia and Iran head the list?and shows no understanding that the U.S. government has gratuitously created enemies for the American people.

    If the US is so horrible and has created all of these enemies, isn’t she right to see a world full of enemies? If the world really loves us and anyone who thinks otherwise is some war monger racist, then how is it that the US is so evil and has created all of these enemies? And if the US has created all of these enemies, how is pretending it hasn’t a good idea?

    1. Honestly, if you are looking around for a hostile regime that we really didn’t provoke, and if anything have been doing a little pandering to, it would be Russia.

      Iran is more complicated, but for fuck’s sake the current regime has been at was (a grubby little deniable war, to be sure) with the US since it came into power. When you kick off your regime by attacking an American embassy and holding hostages, I’m not seeing the US as the bad guy.

      1. Richman can never acknowledge that any country other than the US might be at fault for something or have anything other than the purest of goals. I shouldn’t complain about Richman so much. He does more to discredit the anti intervention and isolationist point of view than any writer I know. If he were a trolling act designed to convince people that anti-interventionists were anti intervention because they were actively supporting our enemies, he wouldn’t write any differently than he does.

        1. Richman is not an anti-interventionist. In his wet dreams, UN Bluehelmets led by NATO forces would right now be marching through Tel Aviv and loading Israelis into boats awaiting in the harbor. In the name of social justice, you see. Indeed, Richman has had nothing to say about US support of the Philippine goverment’s brutal suppression of the Moro Insurgency. Or NATO member Turkey’s involvment in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Or atrocities India has committed, including systematic war rape, during the 47 year going Naxalite insurgency. Or America’s implicit support of Indonesia’s actions during the Papua conflict. Or Putin’s involvement in China’s Xinjiang insurgency. Or America’s involvment, via the United Stations, in intractable, violent conflicts in South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Or the use of private military companies by American oil corporations to violently suppress insurgencies in the Niger Delta that would threaten their access to the oil fields. Or America’s direct involvement in the Boko Haram insurgency in Nigera, the AQIM insurgency in North Africa, and the Allied Democratic Forces insurgency in Uganda, all of which requires support for dictatorial governments. What of France’s actions in the current Central African Republic conflict? Or the Bhutanese suppression of their Nepali-Hindu ethnic population? Or the Rohingya of Burma?

          1. Even though he claims the mantle of moral righteousness that comes from a deep concern over state-sponsored violence and conflict, Richman has seen it fit to address none of these incidents; instead being curiously fixated on a particular conflict in a particular country involving a particular ethnic group.

            And one wonders why…

          2. That is a fair point. I hadn’t really thought about that. It is hard to tell what the fuck he is. I am not sure he knows. His views seem to be driven by an irrational hatred of both the US and Israel more than anything else. I would love to ask him sometime, has the US or Israel ever done anything good in the world? And also ask him, since the US and Israel are so bad, wouldn’t it be better for the world to just invade and occupy them both like they did Nazi Germany?

            1. Countdown until Botard the Hotard reminds us that Richman is Jewish begins in 3, 2, 1…

              1. Richman is Jewish

                As are Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, so what would be his point? Jews, religious or otherwise, are immune from monomania?

                1. He would say his point is that Richman couldn’t possibly be anti-Israel because of his Jewishness. Even tho he has no problem pointing out black conservatives/libertarians that he thinks are self-hating.

            2. We’re talking about someone who couldn’t see the irony behind penning an polemic essay entitled “Nationalism is a Poison,” while having his personal website festooned with multiple images of the flag of an irredentist militant insurgency.

          3. Richman’s wet dream is for the U.S. To go in and put down the current Israeli government in favor of an Iranian occupation.

      2. The history of the pissing match between Washington and Iran extends a bit before your analysis.

  5. If we must have a president, by all means, let it be a woman?but let it be a woman who understands the destructiveness of the state.

    Can someone translate this for me?

    1. Hillary 2016?

      1. Oh, she definitely understands the destructiveness of the state…

      2. Hillary may not become the first female president, but she is the first female Sith Lord (Lady?) that I’m aware of.

        1. Not if you played KOTOR a certain way.

          1. My chatacter was female, totally Dark Side, and then began her Thousand Year Reich with Bastila at her side. It was great.

            1. So if you have two Sith chicks and they fight for master and apprentice, do they just kind of, scissor or something?

    2. What Idle hands said. That is my only guess. I have no idea what the hell “understanding the destructiveness of the state” is supposed to mean. What makes it worse is that Richman is not an anarchist or even close to being one. Where the hell doe she get off claiming other people don’t understand the destructiveness of the state? I don’t see where he has any particular aversion to the state.

      1. I have no idea what the hell “understanding the destructiveness of the state” is supposed to mean.

        Have you never paid taxes, watched a war movie, gone through a TSA checkpoint, dealt with the DMV? You really don’t know?

        1. I think John is making the point that Sheldon didn’t present any evidence that Carly either does or does not understand “the destructiveness of the state”.

          This whole article is one big non-sequitur.

        2. It is not that I don’t realize that states can be destructive. OF course it can. The problem is that it is unclear just what kind of destructiveness Richman is talking about here. What the fuck is that supposed to say about Fiorina? Whatever she is, she is not a totalitarian. So she clearly sees some limits to the state and some things the state does that are bad. The question is what are those things. And Richman never bothers to explain that.

      2. I have no idea what the hell “understanding the destructiveness of the state” is supposed to mean.

        Perhaps it means that, by being involved in business, she understand how government involvement in the economy destroys wealth as well as the ability to create it.

      3. Where did you ever get the idea that Richman is not an anarchist?

    3. Can someone translate this for me?

      “Both of these women are huge statists.”

      Perhaps a few specifics showing this is actually what Fiorina thinks would be helpful, but it’s a Richman article.

    4. Its just gibberish. “By all means let it be a woman” sure sounds like the vagina uber alles of the Hillary campaign. Props, I guess, for asking for a woman who isn’t a Total Statist, but if that’s what your after, why demand that the President have a vagina as their primary qualification?

      1. From the beginning the republic has been driven largely from behind the scenes by non-politicians (mostly business and financial magnates) who had friends in high places. It helps explain (though not entirely) why key economic matters like trade?both continental and global?have always been within the government’s domain and why the United States has spent so much time at war.

        Come on, Richman, you’re among friends here. You can say “lizard people”.

        1. And the US managed to become the richest nation in the history of the world and free enough to attract more peaceful and voluntary immigrants than any country in history. If the US has been evil its entire history, given the results it has achieved, maybe being evil isn’t so bad.

        2. No YouTube link saying Illuminati Confirmed? HM, I am disappoint.

    5. “…by all mean, let it be a woman…”

      So, Vote Vagina? But one with nasty, big, pointy teeth?

      1. “I warned ya!”

        1. Brother Maynard…..consult “The Book of Armaments”…..

  6. A new talking point for whoever is that Fiorina is too dumb to be prez cause her or her staff did not think to buy her domain name. This is her response-

    1. Her response to that on Jimmy Fallon was brilliant. Whatever Fiorina is, she is not stupid. If the left thinks they can tag her as being stupid the way the did Palin, they are kidding themselves.

      1. Re: John,

        If the left thinks they can tag her as being stupid the way the did Palin, they are kidding themselves.

        You would be missing the point, John. The little Marxians think in binary terms. They will believe Carly Fiorina is a stupid, dumb and ignorant bitch by virtue of her politics, just like they believe anybody who is not a little Marxian has to be an ignorant, anti-science, anti-intellectual hick.

        1. Sure they will believe it. The problem is no one else will. And convincing everyone else is the entire point.

          1. There’s a lot of little Marxians out there, John. The Amerikan Pulbic Skool Seistem has done the job it was meant to do, very effectively, which was to fill America with envious and entitled ninnies.

            1. As progressives have no souls, can we have them declared subhuman? Then the assholes can’t vote and we can herd them to Venezuela or some other shithole where they can enjoy the comeradrie, with all the other FellowTravellers.

    2. I like her in spite of myself. She’s kind of a broad, isn’t she? I mean, like a toned-down Mae West.

      Still won’t vote for her, though, because unlike the soccer moms of the world, I base my votes on policy, not “would like to have a shopping-lunch date with her” (which I would).

      1. That is exactly how I feel Kristen. I understand the points the tech people make on her about how she fucked up the culture at HP and was a pretty lousy CEO. Like you, however, I can’t help but like her and agree with her every time I hear her speak. And her policies are actually pretty good. Good enough to vote for I think. My concern is that she doesn’t really mean it and is just playing to the base by telling them what they want to hear.

        Hell, I would vote for her. She is not my first choice but she would be a hell of an improvement over what we have and she is a hell of a lot better than Hillary or Jeb. At this point having something besides “abjectly horrible to the point of you questioning their sanity or wondering if they are not a foreign mole sent here to destroy the Republic” would be a huge improvement. You have to take what you can get sometimes when things are really bad. And things are most certainly really bad right now.

        1. Nothing you will ever say will ever convince me to vote for a Republican or a Democrat.

          1. So when Hillary wins and makes Obama’s lawlessness look tame by comparison, you can be happy since you were unwilling to do anything to stop her. If you won’t take half a loaf, you should at least be happy with nothing because that is what you choose to take.

      2. Note sure quite what to think about Fiorina. Though I agree she is a sultry bitch.

    3. That website sure looks to me like it was put up awhile back, when she was CEOing. It would be interesting to know.

      Why on earth would CEOs be expected to go around buying up domain names that include their name? If they did, wouldn’t they be slagged as paranoid megalomaniacs?

      1. The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. ? 1125(d), is an American law enacted in 1999 that established a cause of action for registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name confusingly similar to, or dilutive of, a trademark or personal name.

        1. Now who looks stupid?

      2. ‘CEOing’? Is that like antiquing?

        1. Its like working, only it pays better.

    4. She totally pwned Katie Couric too.

  7. If we must have a president, by all means, let it be a woman?but let it be a woman who understands the destructiveness of the state. Carly Fiorina is not the one.

    The tragedy here is that a woman who understands the destructive nature of the state cannot win the president’s seat.

  8. “I understand how the economy actually works. I understand the world, who’s in it, how the world works,” Fiorina said

    Please provide the details of your understanding, in a spirit of transparency.

  9. I think Richman writes these articles just to troll us, and then he sits at home and faps to the responses.

    1. I wonder sometimes. What is amazing about him is not so much his positions as his ability to fuck up even easily made arguments. It is not difficult to make a case for Fiorina being an insincere self promoter who is not qualified to be President. Yet, Richman manages to fuck up doing it so badly that it almost makes Fiorina seem more appealing for no other reason that the arguments he marshals against her are so obviously dishonest and stupid.

    2. He isn’t the only one.

  10. My mom makes $70 every hour on the computer . She has been fired from work for 9 months but last month her pay was $18079 just working on the computer for a few hours.
    See here. ?? ?????????

    1. 285 hours in a month is a shit load of hours. But what I really want to know is why did she get fired? Because these days, it takes a loyt of work to fire someone unless they were caught in the office molesing toddlers.

      Your mom sounds like a monster.

      1. I’m surprised it’s not her ex-roomate’s cousin’s second stepgrandmother.

        1. My mom’s cousin’s friend has a next door neighbor that could kick the sister-in-law of adolphowisner’s niece’s stepmother’s ass.

      2. Push posh. His mom is clearly hard at work, being fisted by baboons on webcam to earn that kind of money.

  11. Hillary Clinton is a lying sack of shit, who should have gone to prison along with all the partners in the real estate deal she put together.

    Her scheme bilked the American taxpayers out of money that was meant to reimburse the widows and orphans who lost their money in a failed S&L, not knowing that they weren’t protected by FDIC.

    Hillary Clinton came to prominence because she married the guy that ultimately became the President of the United States. Her only professional experience involved, again, putting together a partnership that landed all the partners in jail–with the exception of herself and the President.

    Her only experience since then came from her experience as Secretary of State, a position at which she proved herself to be woefully incompetent, both in her duties and in her accepting donations from foreign governments while she was Secretary of State.

    She is in no way comparable to Carly Fiornia, who worked her way to prominence up through the ranks of AT&T and Lucent Technologies into being the CEO of Hewlett Packard. While controversial as CEO, the fact is that she was hired just before the Tech Bubble burst–when expectations of HP’s shareholders were unreasonably high–and what she tried to do with Compaq was exactly what she should have done if they were going to stay in the selling PCs business and achieve scale.

    1. H-P should have been rolling out wearable servers or some shit like that.

      1. Fully encrypted servers?

    2. One is evil, one is incompetent.

      I think I’ll take my vote elsewhere, thanks.

      1. I don’t know that Carly Fiorina is evil or incompetent.

        I’m concerned that Fiorina’s foreign policy is basically that of John McCain’s.

        And I know that Hillary Clinton is both evil and incompetent.

  12. Isn’t she at like 1% in the polls? Like below Santorum level? I don’t think we have to worry about this particular statist.

    1. She’s probably playing for a vice-presidential role.

      If she got that, and they won, that might push her odds of being President someday up to somewhere near one in three.

      1. Is that the ratio of VPs later elected to Presidential office? I don’t know that it’s that high, but I could be wrong.

        1. If you’re the presumptive nominee of your party as Vice President, then your chances of winning the Presidency aren’t any better than 50/50 this far out.

          If your chances of winning the nomination are 50/50, then your chances of winning the Presidency (this far out) are one in four.

          If your chances of winning the nomination are better than 50/50 if you’re the Vice President and, hence, the presumptive nominee, then your chances of becoming President are better than one in four and less than 50/50.

          One in three is in that range.

          Just note that she’s doing the probability analysis going out four and eight years.

  13. Sorry, Sheldon, you’ve keyboarded another clunker. What is the substance of your critique of Ms. Fiorina? 1st, that she’s a big businessman, which makes her automatically an enemy of the people. 2nd, that she doesn’t have a comprehensive critique of gov’t-granted privilege?in other words, she’s not a CATO scholar or some such. 3rd, she sees enemies. 4th, she calls for border security, which nearly everyone else does too. 5th, she doesn’t couch an anti-regulatory stance in the language using the privileged word “privilege”.

    Your real but unstated complaint is that she might make liberty more popular, thus making radical libertarians’ opinions less necessary & therefore less valuable.

    1. Nah, his real but unstated complaint is that she isn’t campaigning for an independent Palestinian state that stretches from the Lebanon and Syria to Egypt.

      1. “As an advocate of a stateless society”

        As long as the Palestinians remain stateless, shouldn’t we be applauding their condition?

    2. The real question: why the HELL does Nick keep publishing this turd’s work? Seriously. Shelley is a bigger turd than Turd Ferguson.

      1. The ill influence of Murray Rothbard casts a long shadow.

  14. Israel’s brutality against the Palestinians?

    Matched only by the brutality of the Palestinians against other Palestinians.

    1. I’d be interested to know how many Palestinians have been killed by Israel, and how many have been killed by Hamas or Fatah. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are more Pali-on-Pali killings.

  15. Oh, PS – would fuck.


    1. I’d pass. I mean, she’s probs better than Hills but…

  16. This article is long on generalizations and very short on specifics. I’ll wait until I hear more from Carly before judging her fit or unfit for the Presidency.

  17. ‘Corporate America is no place to find advocates of freed markets, as opposed to capitalism or corporatism’.

    That’s an odd comment to make. If you watch her interview with Katie Couric on Yahoo she says the ACA should be repealed and replaced with a true free market where companies have to compete for your business. Maybe you should listen to what she’s actually saying instead of the mantra of ‘corporations bad’ playing in your head.

  18. “Israel’s brutality against the Palestinians”? When did Reason start publishing anti-semtic nutjobs?

  19. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ??????

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.