News-Record.com

Wow, that column again reminded me just how biased the News & Record is when it comes to Republicans. You only endorse Republican's with high bipartisan approval and who have no opposition (Coble), or Republican's from Greensboro in statewide races (Troxler), or Republican's who won't actually have any power (Robinson, in this case and Jim Snyder in 2002). I'll bet your ed board meeting is something like this. "Well, let's see what token Republican's we can endorse to avoid the bias thing. Hmm, Coble's a good choice since he ain't gonna lose anyway. Can't really go against Troxler because he's a local boy. Too bad he isn't a Democrat, though. Oh yeah, there's the Lt. Governors race. Everyone knows the Lt. Gov. doesn't really do much. Jim Snyder's a nice enough fellow for a Republican. Let's endorse him. So that's 3 Republicans out of 20 races. That should be enough to keep those right wingers off our case about being biased."

Well, um, actually, I wasn't here then, Sam. Actually, none of the current editorial board was.

As for our other endorsement practices, we honestly try to endorse who we believe is the best candidate for the job.

As for whether we intentionally choose GOP candidates we perceive as lost causes, in the 2004 county commissioners race, we endorsed Trudy Wade and Roger Cotten, thinking both would win solidly. Of course, we were wrong.

So the N&R, ten years ago, supported "shaking up complacent educational bureaucracy"? Kind of makes you wonder what happened.

Allen you used the term "we" ("Here is what WE wrote"). Not much has changed regardless of the makeup of your board- except Doug Clark. I think he may actually moderate some of "your" positions on candidates.

Don't you think there is something wrong with the 1996 endorsement of Robinson containing the line "Since the state superintendent's position has been stripped of almost all but ceremonial duties, it offers Robinson no means to accomplish all that he'd like if elected." It's like saying you are willing to endorse him because he has no power to do what he says he's going to do.

But c'mon, Allen, why is it that you guys always think Democrats are the best candiate? Or at least in 90 percent of the races?

So, how would you have viewed an endorsement of you by us?

Oh, and by "we" I meant the editorial "we" as in the News & Record.
But I won't attempt any defense or explanation of the endorsement. I'd only be guessing. I didn't write it nor was I part of any discussions regarding it.

When have we endorsed 90 percent Democrats? Since you cite a specific number, please show me where you got it.

Given my party affiliation and my heavy criticism of your paper, I find the possibility of any endorsement unlikely. I certainly did not count on it, and of course, the N&R did not issue endorsements in my race.

So I think that Linda Shaw would be out, because you guys don't like her, and I would be out because your paper doesn't like my views. So that leaves Wendelken and Garrett. My guess would be that you go with Wendelken, because Garrett is too young. After all, in 2002 at the age of 32, your paper editorialized that I did not have "enough experience" for the State House (or something to that effect) and Garrett is only 21. So the prudent choice would have been for you to endorse Wendelken. (Michael, if you read this, I am not saying this is my position, just what I think the N&R's position would be).

So then comes the real question, assuming Wendelken had won or even going with Linda, who do you endorse in the general election? Ray Riffe or the Republican?

Here are the only reasons that the N&R will or would endorse the Republican 1) The district is too heavily Republican for a Democrat to win, so you might as well endorse the winner. 2) Linda Shaw is good for newspaper sales because she'll get in a fight with someone eventually. 3) There is no other good reason for the N&R to endorse a Republican.

Of course, you have to weigh those against not endorsing the Republican which are 1) that's just the natural order of things. Republican's should never be endorsed except as stated above. 2) Ray Riffe will "bring a new perspective and is not tainted by long standing feuds with other commissioners" which is essentially the platform that Wendelken and I ran on. 3) Skip Alston and the Democrats really want Linda Shaw gone and you don't want to upset the Party by endorsing such a polarizing Republican regardless of the odds.

Allen, one more thing- I actually did those numbers before (in 1994, I think). That year, the N&R endorsed only 3 Republicans out of 20 races. If I am not mistaken, the N&R has not endorsed a Republican for president since Ronald Reagan in 1980- it may actually go back as far as Nixon in 1968. Yet, since that time Republicans have won the White House in 4 out of 6 elections and 6 out of the last 8.

Also, Pricey Harrison moves back here after 20 years on the coast for the sole purpose of running for office, and you immediately endorse her over Republican Bowie. No experience, just a "D" beside her name. A fine example of how the N&R defaults to Democrats when it comes to endorsements. You cannot honestly say with a straight face that your paper does not have a Democrat bias when it comes to endorsements. Since you have access to all the archives, why don't you post them for the past 20 years of general elections? The numbers don't lie. The N&R is incredibly (in the truest sense of the word) one sided in your endorsements over the years. Not even close.

Actually, I can make this real easy for you. Just answer the following questions:

1) When is the last time the N&R endorsed a Republican for President?
2) When is the last time the N&R endorsed a Republican for Senate?
3) When is the last time the N&R endorsed a Republican for Governor?
4) When is the last time the N&R endorsed a Republican for Attorney General?
5) When is the last time the N&R endorsed a Republican for Congress other than Howard Coble?
6) When is the last time the N&R endorsed Howard Coble when he had a viable Democratic opponent?
7) How many Republican's has the N&R endorsed for the state house since 1988?
8) How many Republican's has the N&R endorsed for the state senate since 1988?
9) How many Republican's has the N&R endorsed for any Council of State office since 1988?
10) How many Republican's has the N&R endorsed for sheriff since 1988?

Thanks Sam you took the question right out of my mouth. I do have the ringing endorsement of tax hike mike, in part Mike Easley will keep the tax burden low on all working families. What happen NR??????

And I'm not trying to bash you guys, Allen. But it's obvious that the N&R's editorial department, like most newspapers, leans left and overwhelmingly favors Democratic candidates.

There's nothing wrong or sinister with that. You have every right to your opinion. But let's not pretend that this endorsement process is neutral - clearly, Republicans have a much tougher time earning endorsements than their Democratic counterparts.

You're right; our record probably would bear that out. But those endorsements are based more on issues and qualifications than parties. I would imagine the Rhino endorses more Republicans, too, probably for the same reasons.
They tend to take different stances on key issues from us.
As for local races, the endorsements tend to be much more of a mixed bag because the issues are a lot less ideological.

Sam, the historical questions you're asking would take more time than I have right now.
But I have spoken with our news library. They have agreed to give you access to our archives so you can get the answers for yourself.
I'll happily post them for you.
One question: How do you define "viable Democrat"?

Allen, the Rhino is very open about their ideology. That is the key difference- they don't pretend to be objective.

A "viable" candidate of any party is one who has raised a sufficient amount of money and demonstrated a sufficient amount of support to wage a credible campaign.

Wendell Sawyer, as much as I like him, is not a "viable" candidate for D.A. because he is not raising money and is not campaigning. That is a good example for you.

Libertarians are also not viable in this county.

So a person who runs for Congress with less than $100,000 (which is NOTHING really in a congressional race) and/or who does not actively campaign other than paying a filing fee and putting out a few signs is not viable.

You probably have to go back to Robin Britt (endorsed by the N&R) to find a viable opponent to Coble. So there you have it.

Also, Allen stated about endorsements "those endorsements are based more on issues and qualifications than parties." So the N&R would have you believe that Republicans are wrong on the issues and lack the qualifications nearly 90% of the time. Seems way off base, doesn't it? A statistical improbability or anamoly in a nation with a Republican president and Congress. It seems to me to actually be an admission that the N&R does not consider the GOP to be right on the issues, and that the main qualification for an endorsement is a "D" next to your name.

Sam, we are open about our ideology, too.
The News & Record's news department strives to be objective. To provide facts, not opinion.
The editorial pages, by their nature, are opinionated -- they have a point of view based on a set of established values and principles.
we don't pretend to be objective either.
Onr of the fundamental ways we differ from the Rhino (and there are many) is that their whole publication is an opinion organ.
Ours isn't.
Only the two pages I supervise are.
That's why the news department and editorial departments are separate.
That's also why John Robnson and I both report to the publisher.
As for Republicans and Democrats, there are some distinct differences in the parties' platforms.
We don't agree 100 percent with either, but I would expect that the Democrats' policies on such issues as abortion, the environment and safety nets for the poor traditionally have been more in alignment with our own.
But the differences are much less distinct now.
In the last presidential election, John McCain probably reflected oue views more consistently that John Kerry. But alas, he wasn't available.

So, are you going to take me up on the invitation to come down and research our endorsments?

Allen, do you think it is healthy for your opinion pages to be dominated by people who have the same views on abortion, the environment and the safety net for the poor you mentioned for such a long period of time?

Does your publisher only hire opinionist (as opposed to columnists) who are in on your endorsement practices that are liberals? In the past 20 some years, don't you think it's odd that your in house opinion staff have been overwhelmingly liberal? Can you explain why you think that is?

If your publisher is comfortable with having such a lopsided dominance by one ideology, isn't it safe to assume he may be equally comfortable hiring people in the news department who are like minded and have an agenda? You are all nice guys, but really, I would bet the farm that at least 3/4 of your news staff are Democrats- of course we'll never know because John would never allow that embarrassing info to become public. He will just say that party affiliation has nothing to do with our reporting, while at the same time try to convince us that the race or sex of an individual does have an impact on how they report. Go figure that one out- an immutable characteristic such as skin color or sex will influence your writing (and in fact is desired by the N&R to promote diversity), but your ACTUAL BELIEF SYSTEM will not...

You and JR can deny there is bias in your news department all you want, but it is very obvious to a lot of people that the news division shares the same left-wing agenda as your opinion pages. I am usually not as harsh on you guys because you are correct in that you are supposed to have an opinion. The news division has no such excuse, and they are every bit as political as the Rhino, except they try to hide it behind a facade of objectivity which is the worst kind of propaganda.

With regard to the research, I'll take you up on that. Give me a week or so to sort out my schedule, and if I can get it done during the day, I will. It would seem to me that your archives could easily be searched by computer and the answers could be found in an hour or less.

I think I discussed this before, Allen, but here's a novel idea: Why not have your editorial staff reflects the beliefs of our community?
Novel idea, huh?
In the last Presidential election our county was split 50/50 Dems and Repubs.
So is your editorial department only catering to half of our community, the half that agrees with you?
I think that's pretty condescending, don't you?

"Why not have your editorial staff reflects the beliefs of our community? ... In the last Presidential election our county was split 50/50 Dems and Repubs."

Guilford county actually has about 50% more registered Democrats than registered Republicans (146,126 Dems compared to 99,685 Repubs).

Source:
http://gcms0004.co.guilford.nc.us/departments/elections/temporary.php
(Registration statistics link at the bottom)

This might also be *part* of the answer to Samuel's question ("In the past 20 some years, don't you think it's odd that your in house opinion staff have been overwhelmingly liberal? Can you explain why you think that is?")

Yes, but I thought it was "The Eleven County News And Record"- not just Guilford. Further, as you are aware, voter registration does not mirror actual voting. Many more registered Democrats in this state vote Republican than do Republicans who vote Democrat.

Potato Stew, the votes cast in our county probably more accurately reflect the beliefs than the registration stats.

"Yes, but I thought it was "The Eleven County News And Record"- not just Guilford."

Is it? I don't know. But jaycee's comment that I was responding to addressed the county ("In the last Presidential election our county was split 50/50 Dems and Repubs"), so that's what I addressed as well.

"Further, as you are aware, voter registration does not mirror actual voting. Many more registered Democrats in this state vote Republican than do Republicans who vote Democrat."

Well, you are free to present actual statistics that support that view. I'm willing to believe our area is more evenly split if that's where the evidence points.

"Potato Stew, the votes cast in our county probably more accurately reflect the beliefs than the registration stats"

Possibly. You also have to account for voter turnout though. If for some reason a higher percentage of registered Republicans turn out to vote than the percentage of registered Democrats, then "votes cast" can be misleading, as the fact that someone didn't turn out to vote doesn't necessarily change their beliefs. It just means they didn't go vote for some reason.

Again, I'm willing to believe that it's more evenly split, but you'd have to show that the other measurements you suggest really are a more accurate indicator than actual party registration.

My statement "Many more registered Democrats in this state vote Republican than do Republicans who vote Democrat" is actually something I learned from a reputable pollster while I was a fellow at the North Carolina Institute of Political Leadership.

It is also apparent by the fact that North Carolina still has a Democrat majority in registration. 47% Democrat vs. 34% Republican according to the Board of Elections. Independents account for 19% of the vote. That means Republicans would have to get an additional 13% from the independents just to be even with the Democrats assuming no Democrats voted Republican, and no Republicans voted Democrat. Not a likely scenario.

Yet North Carolina has voted Republican for every president since Jimmy Carter, and has had two Republican senators for the majority of the past 24 years.

You can elect Democrats without Republican votes, but you can't elect Republican's without a significant number of Democrat votes. The statistics bear that out.

In fact, because of so many conservative Democrats voting Republican, it is said (and borne out by statistics) that Democrats for statewide offices have to raise three times as much money as Republican's to stay competitive - which they have done.

Some other stats:

ALAMANCE DEM 36570 REP 29102
ROCKINGHAM DEM 27636 REP 17688
RANDOLPH DEM 21504 REP 41849
DAVIDSON DEM 32339 REP 45310
GUILFORD DEM 146242 REP 99831

Total DEM 264291 (53%) REP 233780 (43%)
Independents not counted (for the record, Guilford County has 55906 independents- by Allen's logic, most of them must agree with the Democrats and rarely vote Republican. Otherwise, the N&R's claim to mirror the community in their endorsements would be incorrect).

I cite these counties because they are the major counties where the N&R distributes papers.

Sam, you seem to undercut your own argument.
The voters seem to be thinking independently, beyond party affiliation, wouldn't you say? ... Otherwise the Democratic majority probably would change registration to become Republicans, wouldn't they? Furthermore, most Council of State races tend to go to the Democrats; the Legislature is majority Democrat, for better or for worse, and despite the Republican presidential success in North Carolina, the state tends to elect Democratic governors.
Having said all that, the News & Record strives to be nonpartisan editorially, but as I wrote earlier, we do have our basic principles and we stand by them, as you obviously do yours.
After all, we have to stand for SOMETHING. If you try to be all things to all people all the time (as some politicians lamely have attempted) you wind up standing for nothing.
We do, however, strive for a mix of opinions on our op-ed pages, with a variety of points of view represented. (Even your own views are getting plenty of attention on this blog.)
If you'd like to apply the standard you hold us to, to others, shouldn't the The Washington Times and The Wall Street Journal give equal time to liberals and moderates in their house editorials?
And, closer to home, shouldn't the Rhino Times add more views from liberal and moderate Democrats?
After all, the county commissioners are majority Democratic and Guilford County (which is the Rhino's and the News & Record's primary circulation area) went to John Kerry, remember?

No, my point is not being undercut. I said that Republican's need Democrat votes to win, but not the other way around. That explains the Council of State elections being largely Democrat when you look at the numbers. It actually undercuts your point to a large degree because it also shows that the independent thinking people are voting (or endorsing if you will) Republican in many more races than your newspaper is issuing Republican endorsements. So perhaps they are independent thinkers and your staff is not.

The reason so many Democrats vote Republican is that there is a large group of age 50+ Democrats ("because my daddy was a Democrat") who vote Republican in many elections because they disagree with the Democrats (especially at the Federal level) on a number of issues. They see no reason to switch parties.

Re other papers: you are getting off topic here. I am not commenting on the number of left/right columnists, rather we are talking specifically about the incredibly lopsided one party endorsements of your paper in political races year after year. The Rhino admits its bias, you don't. That is a huge difference. Why should they run liberals when they are open about being on the right? You guys claim not to be on either side, but almost always endorse Democrats and take a liberal stance on issues, all they while claiming to be objective and fair.

You may also recall that Democrats have not been the majority on the County Commissioners every term for the past 15 years, and the Board has been fairly equally divided until recently. Not so with your endorsements.

You said "we have to stand for SOMETHING. If you try to be all things to all people all the time (as some politicians lamely have attempted) you wind up standing for nothing." You don't seem to make much effort at being anything to conservatives, and you almost always stand for the Democratic party. Why won't you guys release the party affiliations of your staff? If they are supposed to be expressing their opinions, then knowing their politics shouldn't cause them any harm. And if the news division has nothing to hide, they could do the same thing. I know that John Hammer is a Republican, but what about John Robinson? Hmmm?

I will only speak for myself. I am unaffiliated, and have been for more than 20 years.

Allen, you and I disagree on a lot, but I prefer to view our remarks as a discussion. The real beef I have with your paper is in the News Dept. I know your editorial staff are majority liberals, even if they aren't registered Democrats. At least you have the courage to list your affiliation. I doubt JR or anyone on his staff would.

I won't presume to speak for John Robinson on that issue, but I'm not sure how relevant party affiliation is in the hiring of news reporters and editors.

xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies

xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies

freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies

amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur

xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos xoomer.xxxvideos moviesvideos

denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies

denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies denhit-videosmovies