"skinfolk ain't my kinfolk"?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: NeoV
I believe the point, CAD, is that Thomas was the only one of the Supreme Court judges...you know, that 8-1 part?

By the way, I'm pretty sure someone making a comment about ALL black people in this country being ignorant voters and asking for handouts is worse than someone saying C.Thomas has done nothing for black people

And, I believe the point, Neo, is that he is a Supreme Court Justice and his opinion is valid and can go against the Majority. His race should not play a part in his decisions and for you or others to insinuate that he hasn't done anything for Black people(as if that is his job :roll: ) based on that dissenting opinion - is laughably asinine.

By the way, I'm pretty sure if you'd have actually read Dari's post instead of ASSuming like Supertool did, you'd see that Dari did not say "ALL" blacks, but continue on with your feigned outrage...

CsG
 

Kerouactivist

Diamond Member
Jul 12, 2001
4,665
0
76
I pretty much agree with what Reid said about Thomas..."I think that his opinions are poorly written. I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice."

I also agree with what he said about Scalia....."I cannot dispute the fact, as I have said, that this is one smart guy," Reid said of Scalia. "And I disagree with many of the results that he arrives at, but his reasons for arriving at those results are very hard to dispute."

If you actually read the opinions...most of you would probably admit both of the above....



 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
10 Questions For Tavis Smiley

WHAT'S MORE DIVERSE THESE DAYS ? NPR OR PRESIDENT BUSH'S CABINET?

Bush's Cabinet. It is ironic that a Republican President has an Administration that is more inclusive and more diverse than a so-called liberal-media-elite network.

BUT DO BUSH'S MINORITY SELECTIONS REFLECT THE VALUES OF THE COMMUNITIES FROM WHICH THEY COME?

There is a distinction between symbolism and substance ? Zora Neale Hurston once said, "All my skinfolk ain't my kinfolk." But whether one likes or loathes the people Bush has chosen to be part of his Administration, he is reaching out.


Isn't Tavis an outspoken leftist? Why yes, yes he is. Hmm... Did he drink some tainted cool-aid at Thanksgiving?

CsG

Are you seriously suggesting there should be some sort of affirmitive action for minorities in government?!? :Q
 

43st

Diamond Member
Nov 7, 2001
3,197
0
0
There's a big difference between appointing a minority cabinet member and upholding minority rights. I'd rather have a white man that would fight for minority rights than a black man that would do nothing.
 

PatboyX

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2001
7,024
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
10 Questions For Tavis Smiley

WHAT'S MORE DIVERSE THESE DAYS ? NPR OR PRESIDENT BUSH'S CABINET?

Bush's Cabinet. It is ironic that a Republican President has an Administration that is more inclusive and more diverse than a so-called liberal-media-elite network.

BUT DO BUSH'S MINORITY SELECTIONS REFLECT THE VALUES OF THE COMMUNITIES FROM WHICH THEY COME?

There is a distinction between symbolism and substance ? Zora Neale Hurston once said, "All my skinfolk ain't my kinfolk." But whether one likes or loathes the people Bush has chosen to be part of his Administration, he is reaching out.


Isn't Tavis an outspoken leftist? Why yes, yes he is. Hmm... Did he drink some tainted cool-aid at Thanksgiving?

CsG
at least i finally have proof that NPR isnt hardcore leftist.
although, im sad he is leaving.
thanks!

 

RZaakir

Member
Sep 19, 2003
116
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
10 Questions For Tavis Smiley

WHAT'S MORE DIVERSE THESE DAYS ? NPR OR PRESIDENT BUSH'S CABINET?

Bush's Cabinet. It is ironic that a Republican President has an Administration that is more inclusive and more diverse than a so-called liberal-media-elite network.

BUT DO BUSH'S MINORITY SELECTIONS REFLECT THE VALUES OF THE COMMUNITIES FROM WHICH THEY COME?

There is a distinction between symbolism and substance ? Zora Neale Hurston once said, "All my skinfolk ain't my kinfolk." But whether one likes or loathes the people Bush has chosen to be part of his Administration, he is reaching out.


Isn't Tavis an outspoken leftist? Why yes, yes he is. Hmm... Did he drink some tainted cool-aid at Thanksgiving?

CsG

Not really. As was said earlier, most black people are right wing, but the Republican party has done exactly dick to appeal to them. Tavis is a Democrat, but I wouldn't call him a leftist - just like most black people.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Bush's appointments are made on a narrow (and narrowing) ideological criteria. The cynical abuse of diversity in selecting appointees is only further proof of the Bush administration's moral bankruptcy.

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Bush's appointments are made on a narrow (and narrowing) ideological criteria. The cynical abuse of diversity in selecting appointees is only further proof of the Bush administration's moral bankruptcy.

But yet if the admin was lilly white with the best qualified non-Dem person, there would still be screams about minority representation.

The cabinet is there to support the President and his policies, not cater to the whims of the opposition.
How he decides to fill the positions is his choice, not kerry's or anyone elses.
The opposition has their chance during confirmation, after that they can sit back and lick their wounds.

 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: BBond
Bush's appointments are made on a narrow (and narrowing) ideological criteria. The cynical abuse of diversity in selecting appointees is only further proof of the Bush administration's moral bankruptcy.

But yet if the admin was lilly white with the best qualified non-Dem person, there would still be screams about minority representation.

The cabinet is there to support the President and his policies, not cater to the whims of the opposition.
How he decides to fill the positions is his choice, not kerry's or anyone elses.
The opposition has their chance during confirmation, after that they can sit back and lick their wounds.

His cabinet is an echo chamber. I don't believe a cabinet should be a rubber stamp. Bush has made several huge mistakes because he failed to include people with divergent opinions among his cabinet appointments. And he failed to listen to even the most minor criticism or differing opinion.

Governing in an echo chamber is not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. Checks and balances. Not myopia.

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: BBond
Bush's appointments are made on a narrow (and narrowing) ideological criteria. The cynical abuse of diversity in selecting appointees is only further proof of the Bush administration's moral bankruptcy.

But yet if the admin was lilly white with the best qualified non-Dem person, there would still be screams about minority representation.

The cabinet is there to support the President and his policies, not cater to the whims of the opposition.
How he decides to fill the positions is his choice, not kerry's or anyone elses.
The opposition has their chance during confirmation, after that they can sit back and lick their wounds.

His cabinet is an echo chamber. I don't believe a cabinet should be a rubber stamp. Bush has made several huge mistakes because he failed to include people with divergent opinions among his cabinet appointments. And he failed to listen to even the most minor criticism or differing opinion.

Governing in an echo chamber is not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. Checks and balances. Not myopia.

Check and balances were what was intended Congress to do with respect to the Executive branch.

The people have decided that they want Congress to not act forcefully against the President.
Why the Dems were removed from power is unknown, the fct is that the make-up of Congress has shifted from when the Dems controlled it. Possibly a failure to represent the will of the people?

Where did original framers of the constitution lay out the ground rules for the make-up of the cabinet other than defining the positions and responsibility of those positions.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
In my opinion, being surrounded only by people who agree with you is a dangerous atmosphere for any executive to make decisions in. You may be right about the 51% of Americans who chose this leader, but that is a two edged sword. When the chips start to fall there will be no one to blame but the ruling party since, as you point out, the Dems were removed from power. It's all on Bush and the Republican congress now.

God help us all.

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: BBond
In my opinion, being surrounded only by people who agree with you is a dangerous atmosphere for any executive to make decisions in. You may be right about the 51% of Americans who chose this leader, but that is a two edged sword. When the chips start to fall there will be no one to blame but the ruling party since, as you point out, the Dems were removed from power. It's all on Bush and the Republican congress now.

God help us all.


Agree, the Repubs and America will have to live with the results of their decisions.

The best that can be done now, is to not attempt to undermine the system due to political spite.

Constructive progress is needed, not destructive.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Does this surprise you?

Democratic Leader Bashes Black Justice.

For the life of me I cant understand how the minorities can still believe the democrats and liberals are really for them.

You have had nothign but attacks on two black high level ranking officials in our govt since the end of the election by the liberal media and now democratic leaders.

But 4 years from now when Hillary runs you will see her in Baptist churches the last two weeks of the election.

How is that racist?
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: BBond
In my opinion, being surrounded only by people who agree with you is a dangerous atmosphere for any executive to make decisions in. You may be right about the 51% of Americans who chose this leader, but that is a two edged sword. When the chips start to fall there will be no one to blame but the ruling party since, as you point out, the Dems were removed from power. It's all on Bush and the Republican congress now.

God help us all.


Agree, the Repubs and America will have to live with the results of their decisions.

The best that can be done now, is to not attempt to undermine the system due to political spite.

Constructive progress is needed, not destructive.

Oh, we shouldn't "undermine" the political system due to political spite after eight years of Republicans undermining the political system due to spite?

Should have thought about that during the Clinton administration.

 

Cobalt

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2000
4,642
1
81
You know this country is in trouble when we are still bickering about racial diversity in anything, including politics. I don't care if they are all white, black, or whatever damn color, I just care they do their job RIGHT. I could care less about racial diversity activists, are they gonna throw a green person in there who can't fvcking read just to say they are more racially diverse? This country needs to grow up, and fast.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: BBond
Bush's appointments are made on a narrow (and narrowing) ideological criteria. The cynical abuse of diversity in selecting appointees is only further proof of the Bush administration's moral bankruptcy.

But yet if the admin was lilly white with the best qualified non-Dem person, there would still be screams about minority representation.

The cabinet is there to support the President and his policies, not cater to the whims of the opposition.
How he decides to fill the positions is his choice, not kerry's or anyone elses.
The opposition has their chance during confirmation, after that they can sit back and lick their wounds.

His cabinet is an echo chamber. I don't believe a cabinet should be a rubber stamp. Bush has made several huge mistakes because he failed to include people with divergent opinions among his cabinet appointments. And he failed to listen to even the most minor criticism or differing opinion.

Governing in an echo chamber is not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. Checks and balances. Not myopia.

Check and balances were what was intended Congress to do with respect to the Executive branch.

The people have decided that they want Congress to not act forcefully against the President.
Why the Dems were removed from power is unknown, the fct is that the make-up of Congress has shifted from when the Dems controlled it. Possibly a failure to represent the will of the people?

Where did original framers of the constitution lay out the ground rules for the make-up of the cabinet other than defining the positions and responsibility of those positions.

Maybe, but only a fool doesn't listen to other opinions. Now we don't know what goes on behind closed doors with Bush and his cabinet...but if all they are is a bunch of yes men, that is a mistake.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
By the way, I was reading this and I thought of that Chris Rock quote, "Skin color alone does not make you black." Really, the differences between people are due to culture and points of view, not skin color. Rich black people from the 'burbs are quite different from poor black people in the inner city. And you can break it down even more for any particular race.

What we should really be doing is being inclusive to different points of view, not something that is only skin deep. When that is how things really are, THEN I'll be happy.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
its not about helping a "race" or a skin color or an ethnicity, its about diversity of thought and mind, and justice. A black fascist is still a fascist.

Originally posted by: Rainsford
By the way, I was reading this and I thought of that Chris Rock quote, "Skin color alone does not make you black." Really, the differences between people are due to culture and points of view, not skin color. Rich black people from the 'burbs are quite different from poor black people in the inner city. And you can break it down even more for any particular race.

What we should really be doing is being inclusive to different points of view, not something that is only skin deep. When that is how things really are, THEN I'll be happy.

:thumbsup:
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: ForThePeople
Originally posted by: Dari

His father was Jewish, that's enough for me (but not enough for him to be authentically Jewish). My point in reference to his Jewishness was to make the previous reference moot.

No, his father was not Jewish. Neither of his maternal grandparents were Jewish, and his paternal grandmother was definitely not Jewish. No one is listed as the father on the birth certificate and there were rumors that the lady was impregnated by rape at the hands of the son of her employer (she was a domestic servant); there are rumors but it is equally likely that she was impregnated through her known promiscuity.

If it was true then Hitler would be 1/4 Jewish from his Father's side; and he was not raised a practicing Jew. He would not be considered a Jew, and he dispacted top members of the SA to conclusively determine who his unknown paternal grandfather was (and more to the point if he was Jewish).

While the outcome of that investigation was never made public many people who were in on the rumors believe that Hitler had determined he was not, in fact, Jewish. By all accounts the matter no longer bothered him after the time that he supposedly learned the results of the SA search.

I hope to God your ignorance isn't some sign about the sorry state of our educational system and the dumbing down that allows you to spout ignorance with absolute confidence.

More to the point at hand - Bush is not, and never was nor will ever be, a "blue blood." How you come to this hysterical conclusion I have no clue but it is a step down the world of belief-as-truth that took us 1,000 years to escape from.

Why is it so hard for you Bush apologist to get your facts straight?
Whether he's 1/2, 1/4, or 1/100, the man still has Jewish blood running through him. Add to that his paranoia against Jews and you can see that he was truly demented, but still a great orator. And determining Hitler's true beliefs from those laden by his propaganda machine is damn-near impossible to distinguish. By the way, what conclusion do you really think the SA was going to return to Hitler? Do you honestly believe that they would've come to a conclusion remote to calling him Jewish?

On another note, cultural representation of a group is different from an ethnic representation, with the former being native and the latter being universal. A person may not be considered "Jewish" in a Jewish culture according to traditions, but an anthropologist may considered him/her Jewish based on ancestry. It's idiological for anyone mix one with the other.

As for minorities in Bush's cabinet, the man chooses whomever he pleases. Balance in the overall government comes from the other branches (as was put so eloquently by Eaglekeeper). And, yes, most African-Americans have this fixation on some type of reparations because of slavery. That, and the myriad excuses for their continuing poverty, although some are very legit. Fact is, responsibility and accountability are the basis for getting out of the dirt, not hand-outs.
 

Smaug

Senior member
Jul 16, 2002
276
0
0
What Paul O'Neill and Ron Suskind claimed in their book, and it's something I agree with wholeheartedly, is that this is an administration that has a political not a policy agenda. That's the real problem, the people driving decisions, are not good policymakers, they are good politicians. Things like triggers on tax cuts, that almost every republican economist(except for the loonies that still believe voodoo economics works, rather then deficit reduction economics which has very good effects) believes in. A cabinet should have dissenting opinions, it should work together and formulate good public policy, not ferment poorly designed political plans.
 

ForThePeople

Member
Jul 30, 2004
199
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Whether he's 1/2, 1/4, or 1/100, the man still has Jewish blood running through him. Add to that his paranoia against Jews and you can see that he was truly demented, but still a great orator. And determining Hitler's true beliefs from those laden by his propaganda machine is damn-near impossible to distinguish. By the way, what conclusion do you really think the SA was going to return to Hitler? Do you honestly believe that they would've come to a conclusion remote to calling him Jewish?

On another note, cultural representation of a group is different from an ethnic representation, with the former being native and the latter being universal. A person may not be considered "Jewish" in a Jewish culture according to traditions, but an anthropologist may considered him/her Jewish based on ancestry. It's idiological for anyone mix one with the other.

As for minorities in Bush's cabinet, the man chooses whomever he pleases. Balance in the overall government comes from the other branches (as was put so eloquently by Eaglekeeper). And, yes, most African-Americans have this fixation on some type of reparations because of slavery. That, and the myriad excuses for their continuing poverty, although some are very legit. Fact is, responsibility and accountability are the basis for getting out of the dirt, not hand-outs.
[/quote]

No, you were factually wrong. And as I pointed out it all of the learned historians who have examined the issue - and those who served in the 3rd Reich - do not, in fact, believe that Hitler was Jewish. They do not think that the unknown grandfather was the alleged son of the Jewish employer and Hitler satisfied himself that he was not Jewish following his private investigation into the matter by the SA.

So no, he was not Jewish. Not a quarter, not a hundredth, etc.

Which makes your earlier statement a*sinine. My problem is that people - such as yourself - walk around and make things up without any consideration of whether they are truthful or factual or not. Then, with the blaring confidence of the idiot, you pass them off as real facts when they are little more than baseless conjecture or your beliefs about what the reality should be rather than what it really is.

Want an example? Look at when you said "And determining Hitler's true beliefs from those laden by his propaganda machine is damn-near impossible to distinguish." How do you know that? What leads you to believe that? Why such confidence in a statement like that?

"By the way, what conclusion do you really think the SA was going to return to Hitler? Do you honestly believe that they would've come to a conclusion remote to calling him Jewish?"

The honest one. This inquiry was in the early 30's and prior to Hitler imposing himself as a dictator - it was when he was gaining power but also weakened, having been thrown in prison for the failed putsch and having watched his party crumble. It wasn't just the SA but his top advisor and personal friend who he dispatched and he was not yet a man you feared to displease. Hitler knew that the rumor would dog him and wanted to know whether it was true or not regardless of what he would always claim - that he was a pure Aryan.

If you are really interested in Hitler you need only read Speer's memoirs and anything by Trevor-Roper. But don't advance mere ignorant conjecture as confirmed fact.

My point behind all of this is that we need to remain faithful to the truth regardless of how upsetting it may be. I am terribly afraid that America has gone down the bad road of enjoying sweet lies rather than harsh truths and the way that people rewrite history or invent baseless facts just scares the sh*t out of me.

The truth is that George W Bush is a fortunate son of a powerful family who grew up in great wealth. He went to Yale, he went to Harvard, he was incredibly "lucky" to have a spot in the Air National Guard, etc. Bush is not a rancher, not a farmer, and not a common man who understands the plights of the farmers. He is an economic opportunist who will reward wealth with more wealth.

Those are the facts. I know it displeases a lot of people but it is all true. And the way that he could make so many people believe such outrageous lies scares the h*ll out of me.

 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: ForThePeople
Originally posted by: Dari
Whether he's 1/2, 1/4, or 1/100, the man still has Jewish blood running through him. Add to that his paranoia against Jews and you can see that he was truly demented, but still a great orator. And determining Hitler's true beliefs from those laden by his propaganda machine is damn-near impossible to distinguish. By the way, what conclusion do you really think the SA was going to return to Hitler? Do you honestly believe that they would've come to a conclusion remote to calling him Jewish?

On another note, cultural representation of a group is different from an ethnic representation, with the former being native and the latter being universal. A person may not be considered "Jewish" in a Jewish culture according to traditions, but an anthropologist may considered him/her Jewish based on ancestry. It's idiological for anyone mix one with the other.

As for minorities in Bush's cabinet, the man chooses whomever he pleases. Balance in the overall government comes from the other branches (as was put so eloquently by Eaglekeeper). And, yes, most African-Americans have this fixation on some type of reparations because of slavery. That, and the myriad excuses for their continuing poverty, although some are very legit. Fact is, responsibility and accountability are the basis for getting out of the dirt, not hand-outs.

No, you were factually wrong. And as I pointed out it all of the learned historians who have examined the issue - and those who served in the 3rd Reich - do not, in fact, believe that Hitler was Jewish. They do not think that the unknown grandfather was the alleged son of the Jewish employer and Hitler satisfied himself that he was not Jewish following his private investigation into the matter by the SA.

So no, he was not Jewish. Not a quarter, not a hundredth, etc.

Which makes your earlier statement a*sinine. My problem is that people - such as yourself - walk around and make things up without any consideration of whether they are truthful or factual or not. Then, with the blaring confidence of the idiot, you pass them off as real facts when they are little more than baseless conjecture or your beliefs about what the reality should be rather than what it really is.

Want an example? Look at when you said "And determining Hitler's true beliefs from those laden by his propaganda machine is damn-near impossible to distinguish." How do you know that? What leads you to believe that? Why such confidence in a statement like that?

"By the way, what conclusion do you really think the SA was going to return to Hitler? Do you honestly believe that they would've come to a conclusion remote to calling him Jewish?"

The honest one. This inquiry was in the early 30's and prior to Hitler imposing himself as a dictator - it was when he was gaining power but also weakened, having been thrown in prison for the failed putsch and having watched his party crumble. It wasn't just the SA but his top advisor and personal friend who he dispatched and he was not yet a man you feared to displease. Hitler knew that the rumor would dog him and wanted to know whether it was true or not regardless of what he would always claim - that he was a pure Aryan.

If you are really interested in Hitler you need only read Speer's memoirs and anything by Trevor-Roper. But don't advance mere ignorant conjecture as confirmed fact.

My point behind all of this is that we need to remain faithful to the truth regardless of how upsetting it may be. I am terribly afraid that America has gone down the bad road of enjoying sweet lies rather than harsh truths and the way that people rewrite history or invent baseless facts just scares the sh*t out of me.

The truth is that George W Bush is a fortunate son of a powerful family who grew up in great wealth. He went to Yale, he went to Harvard, he was incredibly "lucky" to have a spot in the Air National Guard, etc. Bush is not a rancher, not a farmer, and not a common man who understands the plights of the farmers. He is an economic opportunist who will reward wealth with more wealth.

Those are the facts. I know it displeases a lot of people but it is all true. And the way that he could make so many people believe such outrageous lies scares the h*ll out of me.

[/quote]


Well, I haven't read Speer's memoirs and I don't have that much interest in doing so either. I also did not learned about hitler's bloodline in school, but in a documentary on the History Channel. I'm repeating what they said. Nevertheless, unless someone digs up that monster or grab some DNA from his penis (kept in excellent form by the Soviet Union), neither you nor I will have a definitive answer as to his ethnicity. You can't give me an absolute answer and the documentary I watched said there was strong evidence purporting him to be Jewish.

Whatever, the bottomline is that you and I agree on Bush.
 

Cobalt

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2000
4,642
1
81
Originally posted by: Dari

Well, I haven't read Speer's memoirs and I don't have that much interest in doing so either. I also did not learned about hitler's bloodline in school, but in a documentary on the History Channel. I'm repeating what they said. Nevertheless, unless someone digs up that monster or grab some DNA from his penis (kept in excellent form by the Soviet Union)

Isn't that Rasputin?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: cobalt
Originally posted by: Dari

Well, I haven't read Speer's memoirs and I don't have that much interest in doing so either. I also did not learned about hitler's bloodline in school, but in a documentary on the History Channel. I'm repeating what they said. Nevertheless, unless someone digs up that monster or grab some DNA from his penis (kept in excellent form by the Soviet Union)

Isn't that Rasputin?

Nah, I think this soldier had a penis of Hitler and the Soviet Army took it from him or something. They preserved it for 50 years.

.Not sure if it's true, BTW.



Rasputin's penis was also preserved.
 

Cobalt

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2000
4,642
1
81
"He said that the mummified penis was just two and-a-half inches long." No wonder Hitler was so pissed off!
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |