• Air Max Shoes
  • kobe bryant shoes
  • KD 7
  • Lebron Shoes 12
  • Nike Zoom Hyperrev
  • Nike KD Shoes
  • Cheap Nike Free
  • Nike Free
  • Lebron 12 Shoes
  • Cheap Air Max
  • Cheap Lebron Jerseys
  • Kobe Bryant Jerseys
  • Kevin Durant Jersey
  • Ugg Sale
  • Jordan Shoes
  • Cheap Moncler Coats
  • Jeremy Scott Wings
  • Jeremy Scott Shoes
  • Lebron James Shoes
  • Adidas Porsche Design
  • Kobe Shoes
  • Cheap Kevin Durant Shoes
  • Kevin Durant Shoes
  • Lebron 11
  • Porsche Design Adidas
  • Cheap KD Shoes
  • Lerbon James Sneakers
  • Cheap KD Shoes
  • Herve Leger Dress
  • Lebron Shoes
  • Porsche Design Shoes
  • Lebron Shoes
  • Lebron James Shoes
  • Nike Shoes
  • Cheap Coach Bags
  • louis vuitton purses
  • cheap nba jerseys
  • Lebron James Shoes
  • Cheap Kobe Shoes
  • Kobe Shoes
  • KD Shoes
  • louis vuitton
  • KD Shoes
  • Sacramento Kings Jerseys
  • Washington Wizards Jerseys
  • Air Jordan Shoes
  • kd 6
  • kd 7
  • kobe 9
  • ralph lauren blue


    Posted by Quad Jacks March 14, 2012

    By Marco Valerio, Feb. 3, 2012

    Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney says he is against online gaming. This position is not only wrong for online poker, but wrong for Mitt Romney and the United States.

    Mitt Romney has stated his position on online gambling, after promising back in October that he would do so before the Nevada caucus this Saturday.

    It’s not what we wanted to hear. Romney spoke to Calvert Collins of CBS News in Las Vegas on Thursday. The video interview does not show him answering the question about online gaming, but Ms. Collins writes that:

    Romney also said he doesn’t support legalizing online gaming. He says he’s against it because of the social costs and people’s addictive gambling habits.

    Romney also addressed online gaming on the local political talk show Face to Face, hosted by Jon Ralston. We do have video of his answer here, and I am transcribing it underneath:

    Ralston: Are you a supporter of legalizing online gaming?

    Romney: No. I’m not.

    Ralston: Why not?

    Romney: Gaming has a social effect on a lot of people. I don’t want to increase access to gaming, and I feel that we have plenty of access to gaming right now through the various casinos and establishments that exist, and in some states there are lotteries that are used to fund their schools and budgets and so forth, and I don’t think online gaming would encourage or improve that setting.

    Hold it.

    In the first answer Romney gave to CBS, he expresses concerns over the “social costs” of online gaming and the vulnerabilities of problem gamblers. In the second answer to Ralston, none of this figures. Instead, he worries about the fiscal impact online gaming would have on the current casino industry, states’ revenue tax on gaming, etc. He doesn’t even want to “increase access” to gaming, an industry which he sounds more like he tolerates rather than supports.

    First of all, if you’re now thinking, “Duh! He’s Mormon! Of course he’s against gambling!” you’ve got the wrong idea. Mitt Romney’s platform is not automatically governed by his religious beliefs, and thank God it isn’t. He has not cited religious morality as the basis for his opposition, the way somebody like Rick Santorum would, and the reason he gave to Jon Ralston is especially agnostic. What’s more, as I will soon make clear, Mitt Romney was not always “against gambling,” yet he’s been a Mormon all his life.

    In the following paragraphs, I intend to articulate my personal surprise and disapproval with respect to Mitt Romney’s position. I will present five reasons why opposing online gaming is not only the wrong and detrimental position for Mitt Romney to take, but how it fundamentally differs from many of the positions he has taken on gaming and government both in the past and in the present.


    Mitt Romney served as governor of Massachusetts from 2003 until 2007. Casino gaming was not yet legal in the state during his tenure, and wouldn’t be until the recent approval of a casino bill by current governor Deval Patrick in November of 2011.

    In the absence of homegrown casinos, Massachusetts residents who wanted to gamble went to do so in the casinos of neighboring states, Connecticut and Rhode Island primarily, thereby losing taking their money out of Massachusetts and into these other states. Mitt Romney was aware of this outward flow, and he didn’t like it.

    In February of 2003, newly elected Governor Romney presented his spending plan for the 2004 fiscal year, part of which proposed a rather funny – yet not so funny – way of dealing with this spew of chips to neighboring states.

    Romney’s budget also calls for $75 million in so-called “blocking payments” from gaming facilities in neighboring states to keep expanded gambling out of Massachusetts. If unable to secure the appropriate payment, Romney said the Commonwealth will pursue the introduction of video lottery terminals, similar to those in Rhode Island, at existing gaming sites.
    “During the difficult financial times we face in Massachusetts, we need to think of innovative ways how we can balance our state budget without raising taxes,” Romney said. “If gaming operators in other states aren’t willing to reward Massachusetts for staying out of their business, we will create new competition for them right here in the Bay State.”
    (Bolding mine.)

    In other words, Governor Romney still wanted to profit from gambling, by essentially taxing the profits of casinos in other states, without actually allowing or legalizing gambling in his own state. And if these other casinos didn’t comply in “rewarding” Massachusetts, Romney would stick it to them by giving Massachusetts gambling operators the green light.

    Eh, what?

    Mitt Romney would have been fine with allowing “gaming competition” in the state of Massachusetts a few years ago had the other states refused to play ball. If the risks of addiction and other “social costs” were already weighing on his conscience back then, he did not care to mention them. The stark contrast between the two attitudes then and now is additionally evident in another notable way. What could possibly be a more “innovative” way of generating new revenue for the states and the country today than allowing for the good ol’ capitalistic construction of an unprecedented online gaming market in the United States of America, a market which, by the way, could effectively bring in additional revenue from other countries as well if granted the proper latitude to do so? A new tax on this commerce would be introduced, but you would not need to raise any of the other ones.


    The endorsement is being eyed curiously, even skeptically, by numerous political commentators, namely because Romney and Trump continue to disagree on a number of key issues.

    One of the very notable differences between Trump and Romney – indeed, even Trump and Sheldon Adelson, Newt Gingrich’s own billionaire in the corner – is that the Don definitely wants there to be online gaming. Trump Entertainment Resorts, a gaming entertainment company in which Donald Trump owns no negligible stock, is already a leading casino force in New Jersey and Nevada. In October of last year, Trump revealed he also wanted to get into online gaming in the United States, passionately rooting for it to be given a wink by Uncle Sam.

    For all of their disagreements, why would Mitt Romney so staunchly declare a position so unequivocally inconvenient for Uncle Pennybags barely one hour after slapping each other’s backs?

    It should be noted that we don’t yet know how large an amount of money, if any, Donald Trump has donated to Mitt’s campaign or will donate. Not that Mitt is hurting for money – he’s already loaded from personal fortune. Finally, how sincere is Trump’s endorsement of Mitt Romney in the first place? These are all questions worth keeping into the proper context. But Romney’s opposition to online gaming and Donald Trump’s support of it merit attention nonetheless, IMO.


    If you’re following Mitt Romney’s campaign, you’ve noticed that on every other sentence, he suggests The Penguin would be a better president than Barack Obama. Almost no opportunity is missed to denigrate the current President and his four-year term so far.

    The Department of Justice’s prosecution of online poker operators is often credited as the work of “the Obama administration” in numerous mainstream media, and this is accurate, because despite the ample autonomy of the DOJ, the president’s office has great say in establishing the department’s priorities.

    How does this favor Romney? Because few other subcultures contain as many single-issue voters as the online poker community in America, both before and especially after Black Friday. If you support online poker, you’re a good guy and you’ll have their support – the rest of your platform is seldom of much importance. In addition, today’s level of resentment and distrust directed at the federal government by so many disenfrachised (or just pissed off) online poker players would make Joseph McCarthy useful again. “Fuck the DOJ” remains a prevalent mantra even nine months after Black Friday.

    Mitt Romney doesn’t have to be a cynic to view this group of people as fans waiting to happen. Sure, the online poker community is probably not as large or as powerful as other communities worth courting, and in a general election what really matter are individual states anyway, but why refuse such an easy opportunity to generate buzz with remarkably little effort, among an already highly mobilized and politically sensitive crowd, which is desperately looking for a poker friend?

    It becomes tricky here for Romney. As anti-government as he believes a Republican should appear, he could hardly get away with questioning the American criminal justice system, let alone excuse or diminish the alleged criminality of illicit online gambling operators, often a consequence of shortsighted DOJ hatred. But what he could be doing is addressing the online poker public – which would be very flattered by the attention – and blaming Obama (whee!) not so much for shutting down companies which may very well have been criminal (bank fraud allegations hard to dispute), but for not taking more seriously into account the consequences that these shutdowns would have on American bankrolls, and for not working fast or hard enough to give American citizens their money back. These are issues which even a moderate DOJ apologist like myself could be tempted into holding against the department, or whichever administration commands it, and they would resonate very well with the community.

    By taking this approach, Mitt Romney would accomplish three things: 1) He would not come across as soft on crime, or even necessarily pro-gambling, and still earn the favor of a good number of American citizens – many of whom are already registering Republican to go vote for the other guy, 2) He would win additional support from a number of people who may not have considered him otherwise, and 3) He gets to slam Obama! The whole thing could literally take less than ten minutes – say, via a brief interview with QuadJacks – and then American poker’s new best friend could carry on with the rest of his campaign and even forget what he told the online community just a few minutes earlier. But the community would remember.


    During a debate in Iowa on Saturday, December 10, 2011, Mitt Romney and Texas governor Rick Perry, who had not yet dropped out of the race at the time, began bickering about health care. Perry criticized Romney for promoting the same health care model for the entire nation that he had promoted for the state of Massachusetts while he was governor, and claimed Romney wrote as much in his book No Apology. Romney contested that he had ever made this recommendation, in his book or anywhere else. Rick Perry insisted, and at one point, Mitt Romney put his money where his mouth was. Extending his hand to Perry, Romney issued the following infamous prop bet:

    Romney: Rick, I’ll tell you what. Ten thousand bucks? $10,000 bet?

    Perry: I’m not in the betting business…

    Romney: Oh, okay.

    Much of the backlash Romney had to endure afterwards focused on the largesse of the bet, and how throwing those kinds of figures around, even theoretically, cast the governor as out-of-touch with many Americans who barely make that much in one year. But the fact that Mitt Romney, a conservative Mormon whose church explicitly forbids all forms of gambling (“including lotteries sponsored by governments,” which Romney told Ralston he doesn’t want to mess with), was essentially degenning for ten thousand frickin’ dollars on a national stage did not elude additional observation.

    Mitt Romney may very well have meant that wager figuratively, although his senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom did not make much of an effort to trivialize the bet that way. “In making that wager, Mitt Romney knew that Rick Perry wouldn’t accept it,” Fehrnstrom said after the debate. “By backing down, Rick Perry looked weak.” Actually, it was Mitt Romney who looked sneaky by taking such a cheap shot, if that was in fact the goal.

    But suppose Rick Perry had actually accepted the bet. Assuming he was confident that what he was saying was the truth, it would have behooved him an extremely better deal to clasp Romney’s hand, shake it vigorously, look him straight in the eye, and say, “Yes, Governor Romney. Ten thousand dollars it is! But since I am opposed to gambling, especially such extraordinary amounts, I will donate the money I win from you to a local charity. And in the unlikely event I am wrong and I have to be the one that pays you, I beg that you will do the same, for the spirit of this wager.”

    Cue standing ovation. And at that point, the bet is on. Neither candidate could back away from it without lending a massive blow to their reputations, because even Americans who don’t care much for gambling respect the fact that you don’t welch on a bet. If Romney wins, he has to collect, charity or no charity. If he loses, he has to pay out. Suddenly, the governor finds himself in the uncomfortable situation of having effectively gambled a massive amount of money.

    We cannot dwell on this one instance as any serious evidence that Mitt Romney is a gambling hypocrite, and my “Rick Perry accepts” scenario is wholly based on hypothesis anyway. The point is that the gambling spirit is not inherently harmful, especially in the American culture which Mitt Romney is so unapologetically proud of. If the would-be president of our country can safely bet ten thousand dollars on a pure whim, maybe the average American worker should be allowed to bet one hundred dollars in a 1/2 game.


    Jobs jobs jobs, money money money. Mitt Romney is certainly not the only candidate, Republican or Democrat, who campaigns heavily on the promise of these things, but he has made it into a special characteristic of his because he proudly presents himself as the candidate with the most experience in running businesses, creating jobs, and generating revenue.

    It could be argued, that if he believes, like many people do, that online gaming may damage the business of live casinos, then he fears that new online gaming jobs would come at the expense of other ones. There are number of reasons to believe this wouldn’t be the case, but at any rate, it is a subject worth studying. That’s what strikes me the most negatively about Mitt Romney’s opposition to online gaming as he expressed it to Jon Ralston and others: the obtuseness with which Romney would not even consider the triumph that online gaming could really be.

    His hasty dismissal of the concept is even more inappropriate when he voices it in a state like Nevada, where if the Nevada Gambling Control Board gets its way, and it will, Nevada residents would be the ones to benefit greatly from new revenue and new job opportunities.

    In reviewing all of the above considerations, I would have much preferred to hear Mitt Romney give a response like the following: “You know, I’ve been studying the issue of online gaming ever since I was asked about it right here in Nevada a few months ago. Now I personally am not a gambler, and I feel very strongly about the kind of damage which gambling can create. At the same time, I see how important this could be to the state of Nevada and for its people. Nevada, and any other state, should have the freedom to analyze the impact which gambling, be it live or online, will have on the state’s economy, the state’s welfare, and the state’s culture. My main concern with online gambling is that it’s a very new thing for us to be experimenting with right now, and we have to be extremely responsible with how we flirt with it, because for every good thing an online gambling industry can do, I can think of as many things that can turn out to be a negative. I trust the legislatures to do what they think is right for their state, but if I were president and I felt a need to intervene to stop problem gambling or any other damage caused to the American people by widespread, irresponsible gambling, then I would definitely utilize my authority to correct that damage.” This attitude regarding states’ rights would be exactly like the one voiced by Romney himself when, speaking to Rick Perry about health care immediately after betting him 10k, he said: “In my view, each state should be able to fashion their own program for the specific needs of their distinct citizens… The states [are] the laboratories of democracy, and we can learn from one another… The right course for America — and I’ve said this during the debates last time around; I’ll say it now and time again — is to let individual states — this is a remarkable nation. This idea of federalism is so extraordinary. Let states craft their own solutions.” By saying this, Mitt Romney is expressing the same beliefs of any contemporary advocate of intrastate online gaming.

    Now the question is… Can we get him to realize it?


    I don’t know why Mitt Romney chose to take the stance he took on online gaming, but I want to figure it out. I know that his declared opposition to it may be a disappointment to many of us, but the worst thing we can do, if we really care, is sulk, scoff, or threaten to move to Canada.

    If the current federal efforts to legalize online poker ever get anywhere, the president’s position will be extremely important, because only he would have the power to veto a bill. Supposing the final race comes down to Romney versus Obama (about whose online gaming stance I intend to write at a later date), which at the time of this writing seems likely, then our best hope is to engage one of the two. Preferably both. One of them, like it or not, will become the new president of the United States of America.

    There are things we can do as a community. I know that our friend Rich Muny from the Poker Players Alliance is already coordinating a social media effort to tweet and write to Mitt Romney’s campaign. These efforts have shown to be effective in the past in attracting the recipient’s attention. (Click here to view the PPA’s current Action Plan.)

    As noted earlier, Mitt Romney changed his mind about gaming before. It can happen again. But much of the responsibility, once again, falls on us.

    QuadJacks – Friday, February 3, 2012

    There is 1 Comment

    1. T.A. Miller
      - May 7, 2012
        -   Reply

      Joe Barton is also opposed to online gambling, and he is the sponsor of the House bill the PPA so strongly supports because it excludes poker. Senate Whip Jon Kyl has made curtailing online gambling his hallmark, yet he is helping write the Senate bill which would allow for online poker with Harry Reid.

      Being against the idea of putting a full blown casino in the palm of every hand with a cell phone doesn’t automatically make one an enemy of regulated online poker, in fact, a president with strong feelings about the subject is more motivated to engage in efforts for compromise legislation than someone with no opinion on the subject.

      If conservatives want legislation to block the current efforts by states to put casino games and scratch-off tickets on the internet, they are going to have to give something to the Senate Majority Leader in return, and what he is asking for is online poker, so poker players could very well be better off with this hypocritical Mormon in office.

    Write Your Comment

    QuadJacks Tracker - Join Now

    Social Followers

    • Lulu

      that, allow me reveal to you exclaty what did deli …

    • great agency

      It's hard to find knowledgeable people about this …

    • w chojnowie

      Thanks for the marvelous posting! I truly enjoyed …

    • pixel Gun 3D hack Tool

      I like the helpful information you provide in your …

    • Mocha

      In response to "Coffee's" article, I see I'm first …

    Recent QuadJacks Tweets

    rolex, rolex submariner, rolex daytona, rolex datejust, rolex watches prices, rolex oyster perpetual, rolex submariner price, rolex presidential, rolex yachtmaster, replica watches rolex air king, gold rolex, presidential rolex, vintage rolex, replica watches, fake watches, replica rolex replica watch, replica watches uk, expensive watches, cheap watches, watches replica, gold watches, women watches, watches for women, watches for men, best watches, ladies watches

    fake rolex watches replica rolex watches for sale

    Duvetica Jassen Dames Duvetica Jassen Heren Peuterey Heren Jassen Peuterey Vrouwen Jassen Ralph Lauren Heren Ralph Lauren Heren Jassen Ralph Lauren Hoeden Ralph Lauren Jassen Vrouwen Ralph Lauren Kinder Ralph Lauren Vrouwen Ralph Lauren Vrouwen Jassen Woolrich Parka Heren Woolrich Parka Vrouwen Tiffany Malaysia Bangle Tiffany Malaysia Bracelets Tiffany Malaysia Cuff Link Tiffany Malaysia Earrings Tiffany Malaysia Key Rings Tiffany Malaysia Necklaces Tiffany Malaysia Pendants Tiffany Malaysia Rings Tiffany Malaysia Sets Buty Nike Air Max 90 Buty New Balance 574 Buty Converse Buty Nike Roshe Run Buty Salomon Nike AIr Max 90 Scarpe http://piazzagroupsrl.it/ Buty Nike Roshe Run Buty Nike Air Max 2015 boty nike dmsk nike boty boty nike pnsk Converse Dmsk Boty Converse Low Dmsk Converse Pnsk Boty Converse Low Pnsk Converse Loafers Dmsk Converse Sandals Dmsk Converse Loafers Pnsk Converse Mid Pnsk Converse Flip flops Dmsk Converse High Tops Boty Dmsk Converse High Tops Boty Pnsk ADIDAS DMSK BOTY ADIDAS NEO DMSK ray ban bryle slune?n bryle ray ban CZ gucci bryle Oakley bryle nike slovenija nike ?evlji slovenija nike air max slovenija Ralph Lauren Sverige Outlet Ralph Lauren Sverige Ralph Lauren Sverige Onlin ralph lauren pike stockholm outlet Canada Goose Barn/Bebis Canada Goose Dam Canada Goose Camp Hooded Canada Goose Chilliwack Bomber Canada Goose Constable Parka Canada Goose Expedition Parka Canada Goose Freestyle V?st Canada Goose Hybridge Hoody Jackor Canada Goose Hybridge Jackor Canada Goose Hybridge Lite Jackor Canada Goose Kensington Parka Canada Goose Livigno Parka Canada Goose Lodge Down Hoody Jackor Canada Goose Montebello Parka Canada Goose Mystique Parka Canada Goose Palliser Parka Canada Goose Snow Mantra Parka Canada Goose Solaris Parka Canada Goose Thompson Jackor Canada Goose Tremblant Jackor Canada Goose Trillium Parka Canada Goose Victoria Parka Canada Goose Whistler Parka Canada Goose Herr Canada Goose Banff Parka Canada Goose Chateau Parka Canada Goose Chilliwack Bomber Canada Goose Citadel Parka Canada Goose Constable Parka Canada Goose Expedition Parka Canada Goose Freestyle V?st Canada Goose Heli-Arctic Parka Canada Goose Hybridge Hoody Jackor Canada Goose Hybridge Jackor Canada Goose Hybridge Lite Jackor Canada Goose Langford Parka Canada Goose Lodge Down Hoody Jackor Canada Goose Mountaineer Jackor Canada Goose Ontario Parka Canada Goose Snow Mantra Parka Canada Goose Tremblant Jackor Canada Goose Yorkville Bomber 2015 Piumini Moncler Donna 2015 Piumini Moncler Uomo 2015 Piumini Moncler Bambini 2015 Piumini Moncler Infante Moncler Donna 2014 Moncler Uomo 2014 Moncler Accessori 2014 Nuovo Moncler Donna Nuovo Moncler Uomo Nuovo Moncler Bambini Nuovoc Moncler Bambini Uomo Piumini Moncler Uomo Moncler Giacche Uomo Moncler Gilet Donna Piumini Moncler Donne Moncler Giacche Moncler Gilet Donna Moncler Piumini Bambino Piumini Moncler Bambini Giubbotti Peuterey Donna Giubbotti Peuterey Nuovo Arrivo Giubbotti Peuterey Uomo 2015 Piumini Moncler Bambini 2015 Piumini Moncler Donna 2015 Piumini Moncler Infante 2015 Piumini Moncler Uomo Armani Jassen Heren Armani Heren T-shirts Boss Heren T-shirts Fitflop Schoenen Gucci Jassen Heren Hugo Boss Jassen Moncler Jassen Heren North Face Jassen North Face Jassen Dames Peuterey Jassen Philipp Plein Heren T-shirts Ralph Lauren Dames Ralph Lauren Heren Ralph Lauren Heren Trainingspakken Ralph Lauren Jassen YSL Heren T-shirts http://www.epicbabez.com/ http://www.topfsunglasses.com/ http://www.sevices-plaisirs.com/ http://www.viralfroxx.com/ http://www.turismonibbiano.it/ http://dantoniodaniele.it/ http://www.casazatlo.it/ http://www.maroc-reservation.eu/ http://www.lublin.be/ http://www.blue-almonds.eu/ http://www.mikebucks.com/ http://clairescoville.com/ http://clearancejewelryaustralia.com/ Ralph Lauren Womens Hoodie Ralph Lauren Mens London 2012 Ralph Lauren Mens City Polo Ralph Lauren Mens Big Pony Polo Ralph Lauren Womens Swimwear Ralph Lauren Mens Flag Polo Ralph Lauren Mens Pants Ralph Lauren Mens U.S. Polo Ralph Lauren Mens Jackets Ralph Lauren Womens Jackets Ralph Lauren Womens Polo Shirts Ralph Lauren Womens Dresses Ralph Lauren Mens Hoodie Ralph Lauren Womens Big Pony Polo Ralph Lauren Womens Vests Ralph Lauren Mens Sport Shorts Ralph Lauren Womens Flag Polo Ralph Lauren Mens Stripe Polo Ralph Lauren Womens U.S. Polo Ralph Lauren Mens Long Sleeved Ralph Lauren Womens Bikini Ralph Lauren Mens Tees Ralph Lauren Mens Polo Shirts Ralph Lauren Mens Match Polo Ralph Lauren Womens Match Polo Ralph Lauren Mens Pony Polo Ralph Lauren Womens Classic Fit Polo Ralph Lauren Womens Pony Polo Ralph Lauren Mens Rugby Ralph Lauren Womens City Polo Ralph Lauren Womens Long Sleeved Ralph Lauren Womens Tee Ralph Lauren Mens US Open Tennis Ralph Lauren Womens Stripe Polos Ralph Lauren Mens Sweaters Ralph Lauren Mens Tracksuits jack wills outlet Nike Air Max 2014 M??czyzna Nike Air Max 2015 M??czyzna Nike Air Max 87 M??czyzna Nike Air Max 90 M??czyzna Nike Air Zoom M??czyzna Nike Flyknit Lunar 2 M??czyzna Nike Free 3.0 Flyknit M??czyzna Nike Free 4.0 Flyknit M??czyzna Nike Free 5.0 +2 M??czyzna Nike Free 5.0 Flyknit M??czyzna Nike Free 5.0 V2 Flyknit M??czyzna Nike Free Run 5.0 v3 M??czyzna Nike Lunarglide 6 M??czyzna Nike Zoom Fit Agility M??czyzna Nike Air Max 2014 Damskie Nike Air Max 2015 Damskie Nike Air Max 87 Damskie Nike Air Max 90 Damskie Nike Flyknit Lunar 2 Damskie Nike Free 3.0 Flyknit Damskie Nike Free 4.0 Flyknit Damskie Nike Free 5.0 +2 Damskie Nike Free 5.0 Flyknit Damskie Nike Free 5.0 V2 Flyknit Damskie Nike Free Run 5.0 v3 Damskie Nike Lunarglide 6 Damskie Nike Zoom Fit Agility Damskie Nike Roshe Run Kids Nike Roshe Run M??czyzna Nike Roshe Run Damskie Nike 3.0 v3 M??czyzna Nike Huarache NM M??czyzna Nike Loafer M??czyzna Nike Wmns Roshe One Slip M??czyzna Nike Air Max Zero M??czyzna Nike 3.0 v3 Damskie Nike Huarache NM Damskie Nike Loafer Damskie Nike Wmns Roshe One Slip Damskie Nike Air Max Zero Damskie Nike Air Rejuven8 Mule 3 Nike SB Stefan Janoski Max M??czyzna Damskie Nike Air Max 2016 M??czyzna Nike Air Max 2016 Damskie

    tag heuer replica replica tissot ralph lauren outlet