I must have missed something ???? When was there EVER a Rationale for Nader’s campaign, or Kerry’s?

I thought they were both permanently running on Sulfurous Oxide.

Posted by: leaddog2 at May 19, 2004 04:25 PM

If the primaries proved anything, its that you only need one candidtate when all you campaign about is not being Bush.

Posted by: Brian at May 19, 2004 06:49 PM

I heard that Kerry gave him the look….and when that didn’t work, he threatened old Ralph with a Vietnam atrocity whooping! Ralph ‘the spoiler’ thought it was hilarious, and came out of the meeting with milk coming out of his nose from laughter.
Ralph tried to get Kerry to promise that he would continue the program for a 50 cent gas tax, and his new program to remove all national monuments and plant trees on the grounds.
Kerry lied to the reporters, however, since the meeting was NOT cordial as stated. Both men kept sticking their tongues out at each other, the old liberal sign of ‘frick you’!! ha ha

Posted by: dickD at May 19, 2004 07:06 PM

I gotta laugh at this one. a fox story suggests collaboration, and kerry’s ultra left design.

What an idiot kerry is. He’s gone so far left 3/4 of the senate have now stepped away. even hillary is saying Bush bad, but don’t vote for kerry.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

You dumb loony lefties should have stuck with the mental retard Dean. At least he was consistantly bonkers, and didn’t flip flop.

Posted by: Fat Guy at May 19, 2004 07:42 PM

Doesn’t Kerry’s statement imply that Nader’s candidacy has enough rationale that it needs to be reduced (by Kerry)?

Posted by: Jeff at May 19, 2004 11:51 PM

“Reduce the rationale”?

How?

IF you are supportive of the war and think victory in Iraq is essential to America, than Bush is your Guy.

IF you oppose the war and think we need to get the hell out of Iraq, Your candidate is NOT Kerry.

Its Nader. Bush and Nader are the only two candidates with a coherent policy lined out for Iraq. Bush wants victory, Nader wants retreat. Kerry wants to involve theUN to provide legitimacy and bring in Euro trash to buttress up our forces and share the burden and acheive consensus………BLAH BLAH.

The UN wants no part of Iraq, the Germans will collectively drink cyanide before sending troops, and the Frogs won’t go unless they get their oil concessions back (for them, it was about the oil).
Kerry has a foolproof way to make a quagmire.

So if you are on the Left and claim to care about the troops, weeping daily over their sacrifices, then your candidate SHOULD be (if you are intellectually honest) Nader.

Note to Kerry voters: Stop hypocritically saying you care about the troops - Your candidate’s lack of principles will kill more of them. Stop saying you oppose the war- your candidate will continue it.

If you are on the Left and the war in Iraq is the big issue, than Nader is your man. If you are so blindly consumed by hatred you have abandoned common sense and reasonable thought, by all means, stick with Kerry!

Posted by: Gerry Owen at May 20, 2004 01:16 AM

Average Monthly Job Growth broken down by President.

Posted by: x at May 20, 2004 01:07 PM

Yawn!

X… I have access to a hundred databases (at least). If I want to learn about the truth of the ‘Bush Economy’ then all I need is to log on. The fact is I know the truth of the Bush Economy, I have already logged on throughout the years…

President Bush’s economy is just as good if not better than the great 90’s economy. Oh and upon request I can toss over some information off those databases.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at May 20, 2004 02:15 PM

Hey X, if things are so bad, why has Michigans jobless rate dropped again from 6.9% to 6.1%?

FYI, even though Michigan is one of the worst states in the union employment wise, we still beat out France and Germany that hover around 18%

Posted by: Brian at May 20, 2004 02:31 PM

This concerns me greatly. We need Nader to take as many votes as possible away from Kerry. Bush is floundering at best. His deficit is cracking our conservative base and even with Nader in, Bush is tied with Kerry in Florida. As both a Republican and a realist, I find these signs very disturbuing. Enough sticking our heads in the stand…we have to stop this outrageous spending!

Posted by: Lincoln at May 20, 2004 03:58 PM

now why, as a republican, would you be concerned that kerry coopts nader’s platform? as a republican, you should know that nader’s views are not appealing to the masses.

you continue to post drivel, lincoln. you want me to believe that you want bush to win by some method of default even though you can’t stand behind the man’s principles? does your republican reality come with any sincerity?

just for you lincoln, i stuck a pro-nader comment on john kerry’s blog.

Posted by: wafflestomper at May 20, 2004 06:15 PM

“as a republican, you should know that nader’s views are not appealing to the masses.”

Define masses, Wafflestomper. Recent polls show 40% of democrats want the US out of Iraq and out now. Kerry is commited to our continued involvement- except he has no real plan or clue how that involvement will take shape.

Nader is saying what all the Deaniacs and the plurality of the Democratic party believes and wants.

If the War is the biggest issue for you, and you think victory and staying the course is the best option- than Bush is the man. If you want our troops home quickly mission complete or not, than Nader is the way to go.

If you get a woody hearing about GI’s and Marines coming home in bodybags, than by all means vote Kerry- because that is all he has to offer in Iraq. A recipe for quagmire.

Posted by: Gerry Owen at May 21, 2004 12:47 AM

No disrepect intended, but Bush created the mess and the quagmire. I voted for him against Gore. As a Republican, I believed my vote was for sound budgets and a shift away from nation building. I guess I was mistaken. The new torture photos has lost us the war and it seems to me that Bush’s intentions were rather suspect. He created this mess and why? WMD? I guess not. I am affraid that Bush wanted this war beacuse Saddam “tried to kill my dad.” It hard to admit but Bush seems to have dragged our country into a family fued.

Posted by: Lincoln at May 21, 2004 10:58 AM

i’m still looking for a poll that indicates what part of the population prefers government regulation of international trade, gov’t regulation of domestic media, drug legalization, socialized medicine, abandonment of capitalism in preference of a socialistic classless society that rids the us of both the impoverished and wealthy, reform the criminal system to simultaneously reduce jail terms and sentences for committers of violent crimes and increase incarceration of white-collar crime offenders…and of course, opposes the war in iraq, … and gives the vote to 16-year olds. my first-cut definition of ‘the masses’ is going to be the entire population of the u.s. less this subset of people. so i take 2.8 million voters in 2000… plus assume that every 16 and 17-year old in the nation were to vote for nader since he would be their guy… that’s another 6.8 million… subtracted from about 270 million… divided by 270 million…

my definition of the masses in my previous post is going to have to be approximately 96.5% of the u.s.

the ‘masses’ will be voting and identifying with either the democratic or republican party. one of the candidates says we will cut taxes and fund critical social programs. the other says he’ll do the same, but better.

guess its too bad that the plurality of the democratic party picked a candidate that represents the republican party instead of what they wanted.

that 40% of democrats are going to have to start polling/voting different before i change my definition.

Posted by: wafflestomper at May 21, 2004 12:13 PM

lincoln, being the flag bearer for the republican party that you are, i think you are going to have to accept some responsibility for the iraq war. i mean, you and your republican buddies voted for the man even though you knew saddam tried to kill his dad. knowing that he had this family grudge, you should have known even on september 10, 2001, that the iraq invasion was coming. how can you claim ignorance (besides the obvious)?

i think your fixation on that quote is cute, so i am going to present a scenario (hypothetical) for you. bush takes office. a year after bush takes office, bush’s dad visits kuwait and comes home. two months after the visit, bush lobs 23 tomahawk missiles into baghdad, annihilating the iraqi intelligence service. 20 hit the target, 3 land in residential areas that kill innocent civilians to which the bush white house says whatever, acceptable collateral damage. bush claims that saddam “tried to kill his dad”� although evidence linking saddam or any of his senior advisors to the alleged assassination was never found. bush, the cowboy that he is, does this without consulting congress or appealing to the u.n. risking major retaliation and re-escalation of the gulf war and its cease fire. my question: comparing this scenario to bush’s actual actions regarding iraq, which one demonstrates a greater grudge/family vendetta? (i think now i’m supposed to say “page 3” or pitch a product such as garlique)

Posted by: wafflestomper at May 21, 2004 12:18 PM

Nice hypothetical situation … but even when you are not bound by the starkness of reality…you argument fails. Even in this fantasy world, Bush’s current actions are far more indicitive of a family grudge. Call me old fashioned but I find what people say to be of important. Unless your little dreamland is also not bound by time and space, Bush would not have utter the now famous “After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad” yet. The event that raised my doubts would not have happened yet, leaving me less suspect. He said it…is he a man of his words? That is where my doubt lies…amoungst the rubble of his pledge to avoid nation building and his promise of wise spending. I have a few questions for you my fellow Republican:

Does one need to be an Evangelical Christian to be considered a “real” Republican? Did our founding fathers intend for there to be a separation between church and state?

Posted by: Lincoln at May 21, 2004 01:08 PM

///Does one need to be an Evangelical Christian to be considered a “real” Republican?///

No Lincoln, one only has to be a Republican, to be considered a “real” Republican, if you get my meaning.

We too, think what people say is important.

Posted by: johnnymozart at May 21, 2004 03:12 PM

i’ve come to expect intellectual dishonesty from you lincoln, so it matters little to me if you fail to truthfully answer questions.

Bush’s current actions are far more indicitive of a family grudge.

well, i should say so, i mean if you took all that time to write that sentence, it must certainly be true. really, when you explain it like that…

help me to understand your thoughts on this. is it the way bush said what he did? is that what has your knickers in a twist? would it have changed things if he had said that there was compelling evidence that there was a plot to assassinate former president bush? maybe you didn’t like him referring to h.w. as dad? (it may seem like i am making light of this, but i do want you to answer).

if bush says saddam tried to kill his dad, and then bombs iraq, is that appreciably different than bombing iraq, and then saying he tried to kill my dad. could he say the same things this sunday on meet the press, and have you not consider it a family grudge?

the rest of the story is coming, i promise.

and my answers to your questions: no (unless you have a loaded meaning in your use of the word “real”), and yes. thanks for providing me the opportunity to share that.

i wrote this in a hurry. so if you could add the phrase ‘to you, as the quintessential/classical/prototypal (your choice) republican’ in front of every question mark, i’d be much obliged.

Posted by: wafflestomper at May 21, 2004 03:15 PM

Please..Bush is going to do the same thing very soon. Once people start realizing that he needs to go and his polls suffer.

Posted by: StephenGreenberg at May 21, 2004 06:55 PM

lets put it this way, if you get kerry for president, you deserve what will happen. I know from my point of view their will be around 50 people looking for work.

And about Iraq. it’s clear democrats lefties still don’t know what is going on or what the war is about.

Neither do their party leaders. If they can’t figure that out, how the hell are threy going to run the country? Which will be getting terror bombed every other day with WMD that didn’t exist. Might as well move business the China, thats were the growth will be. It would be foolish to stay in kerry’s high tax America.

Posted by: Fat Guy at May 22, 2004 10:10 AM

Read some Chomsky guys….. He speaks the truth and can back up anything he says. Republicans and Democrats could take a couple of plays out of his book. Both parties keep this country in an intellectual coma, fear and ambivilance are the propagandist tools for both sides. The thing that gets me is that this country is so etnocentric. Most base their onpions on distorted facts and disinformation provided by our 4….corporate owned media companies.

Posted by: Rick at May 23, 2004 12:39 AM

Chomsky? He’s a LINGUIST. He has no degrees in political sciences - but he’s certainly been latched onto by the folks who inhabit DU and Indymedia as someone who is far more knowledgeable about the world situation than people who have studied it and make a living actually affecting it.

Why? Because he tells them what they want to hear. That it’s all America’s fault. That there’s no responsibility accruing to the leaders of all those wonderful little dictatorships in the ME. That the Palestinians are honored victims who bear no responsibility for the bad leadership they’ve had to endure ever since that asshole Arafat got into the job. That the US is EEEEVIL for ending a dictatorship in Iraq that would feed dissidents into wood chippers and kill children in front of their parents. That the USSR was a GREAT place to live (if you ignored certain little things like no freedom of speech and no possibility of disagreeing with the party line without a one-way ticket to the gulag) and that NK is a wonderful place too, which is only protecting it’s peoples from the evils of capitalism and obesity by spending all the nation’s cash on military goods - and leaving themselves wide open to famine with any fluctuation of agricultural conditions.

Chomsky turns a blind eye to any errors by other leaders. You want to take him as the last word on international commentary? Fine, but be aware of two things.

1. Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t make them wrong. Verify what you believe with as many other sources as you can find. Keep an open mind - but not so open that things fall out.

2. Just because you agree with someone - doesn’t make them right. Trust - but verify, to coin a phrase.

The international situation is too complex to be easily boiled down to sound-bites. It’s also too complex to be trusted to ANY one theorist for an explanation or a solution - and it’s best to compare theory and actuality from time to time to make sure that the theory’s explaining actuality. And don’t be selective about the actuality, either - look at ALL the facts and factors, not just the ones which back up the theory.

Which is something that a lot of people refuse to do. If theory doesn’t match reality - they ignore facts ‘till things fit the template they’re using.

But hell, theory is SO much more real than the actuality, isn’t it? Theory is great - because you can ignore the blood, the destruction, and the tears involved in implementing it. Socialism is great in theory - but it’s messy in preactice. Communism was great in theory - but very messy and bloody when tried.

But when people look only at theory - they lose sight of reality.

In theory - we could have bottled up Saddam for the next decade or two. The cost in Iraqi lives wouldn’t have been much, maybe 100, 150K per year. And then Uday or Qusay would have inherited the leadership - then what? Would we have kept the lid on Iraq?

Theory’s great. But you ignore reality at your own peril.

J.

Posted by: JLawson at May 23, 2004 10:22 AM

I believe Kerry.

Kerry’s candidacy has reduced tany rationale for his own candidacy, I don’t see why he couldn’t do the same thing for Nader.

Posted by: CDash at May 23, 2004 03:53 PM

I believe Kerry.

Kerry’s candidacy has reduced any rationale for his own candidacy, I don’t see why he couldn’t do the same thing for Nader.

Posted by: CDash at May 23, 2004 03:53 PM

I believe Kerry.

Kerry’s candidacy has reduced any rationale for his own candidacy, I don’t see why he couldn’t do the same thing for Nader.

Posted by: CDash at May 23, 2004 03:54 PM

Right, and Republican, Authoritarian we dont care what the world thinks and we dont need to let everyone understand our actions, Ignorant to world views, think we still live in imperial era. Blind to world relations, yet expects everyone to unconditionally understand our motives and views.

I dont care if its Nader or Kerry, fact is, Bush has made the world hate America more than any other president in history. He needs to leave. He is bad for this country and so bad for the world community. How does one take a tragedy that brought America supporters and allies and turn in into distrust and disdane? Only Bush.

Posted by: StephenGreenberg at May 24, 2004 06:28 AM

we could have bottled up Saddam for the next decade or two. The cost in Iraqi lives wouldn’t have been much, maybe 100, 150K per year”

where do you get these numbers? Prove this, dont make up stats to fit your opinion.

Posted by: StephenGreenberg at May 24, 2004 06:31 AM

StephenGreenberg:

Ain’t making up the facts, man - pull up google and start looking. Take a look at Humanrightswatch, Amnesty International, and other sites dealing with the atrocities over in Iraq. (Heaven forbid you do that, it might blow your mind when you look at the death count in Iraq from Saddam’s regime per year.) Of course, seeing you can’t even put in a valid e-mail address, I doubt you’ll do anything like that.

And the only way to make the world community ‘love’ us would be to drop our pants and bend over for more of that good hard 9/11 lovin’. But they STILL wouldn’t respect us the next morning, if we dared to object to it.

J.

Posted by: JLawson at May 24, 2004 11:10 AM

Responding to some of this takes a bit of patience.

Mr Greenburgs concern that we’re not concerned about how the world views us is classic leftist drivel.

To the left we’re just a bunch of yokels that know nothing of the nuance of modern life. Another bright light on another thread in this here fine website allowed as how we don’t even realize that we’ve pissed the entire world off.

that’s how ignorant we are, according to the left.

It all comes back to the same thing: do you have the courage to do what’s right in the face of enormous oppostion? Bush Si!!!! Kerry NON!!!! It’s really that simple.

Frankly I don’t want Kofi et al deciding US foreign policy. There’s a dynamic to this here US of A. We didn’t get to be the big dog by listening to the likes of Joschka Fisher and Domnique de Villepin. No siree bob, I sure don’t.

So speaking as an un nuanced observer of what ever it is I see, I see this: few people that post here are gonna buy the leftist agenda, even us yokels have morals.

Posted by: skip at May 24, 2004 04:45 PM

Remember when we thought we could stop waging war? Remember when we had hope for this country as to not having to be able to use force like this? Remember when we advocated peace? Good times.
Wait, thats all classic leftisism. Sorry, war all the way!

Posted by: Forner at May 24, 2004 07:36 PM

Forner - I’d love it if peace broke out, and suddenly everyone everywhere put down their guns.

But you know as well as I that isn’t going to happen. It almost happened after the USSR fell - but then Saddam got a hard-on for Kuwait and we know how THAT turned out.

All you need is someone with a lust for power and a way to persuade others - and you’ve got wholesale death and destruction around the world. Take a look at Bosnia. Take a look at the Sudan. Take a look at Rwanda, just to name a few.

Peace? It’s a great idea. When everyone agrees on it, without reservations and hesitations, let me know, okay?

J.

Posted by: JLawson at May 24, 2004 10:24 PM

So youre saying that even though as the model nation for the world, we should only practice peace if the whole world does as well? you dont believe that the US should set any example what so ever huh? Just be as bad as some of the worst nations in the world. Right, way to be a patriot.

Posted by: Forner at May 24, 2004 11:43 PM

No, Forner - that’s not what I said and I think you know that.

What I’m saying is a unilateral disarmnament isn’t going to be respected and will not work because unless you get EVERYONE to disarm at the same time - and STAY disarmed (which I think you’ll agree is pretty darn unlikely).

And all it takes is one cleric like Sadr, one despot like Saddam, one local warlord who sees the chance to expand his feifdom - and it all starts again.

Like I said - I’d like to see peace too. I don’t see it happening, though.

Posted by: JLawson at May 25, 2004 07:56 AM

When everyone agrees on it, without reservations and hesitations, let me know, okay”

that wasnt the previous discussion, were not talking about Rwanda, former ussr (why even mention that?) and the handful of other countries you spoke of. Were talking about the USA, so why are you talking about these other thoroughly screwed up, war-torn nations to justify war involving America? as long as the rest of the world is in stryfe, we might as well join in. This shouldnt be the country’s line of thinking.

Posted by: Forner at May 25, 2004 10:31 AM

You just don’t get it, do you? You really don’t seem to get that unilateral disarmnament doesn’t protect you. You’re showing good will - while others look at you and see a target.

Let’s look at another example. Take gun control laws in England. Thanks to the Dunblain massacre, ALL gun owners in England had to turn in their firearms. It was required BY LAW.

And the law-abiding turned them in. And gun-related crime ROSE. Why? Because predators prefer an un-armed victim.

So - as I’ve said - for the US to disarm - and then expect the rest of the world to follow - and that somehow this will all result in peace… you’re dreaming. It won’t work. It’ll just be an invitation for disaster.

J.

Posted by: JLawson at May 25, 2004 11:18 AM

It isnt about disarming, its about startng unnecessary wars that jeopardize this country’s image and securtiy.
“You really don’t seem to get that unilateral disarmnament doesn’t protect you”- yeah, thats what Bush said, that we need to get rid of his weapons of mass destruction. Which so far He doeent have. I get it J, but your going completeyl off the subject onto gun control, when Im taking about starting wars. Why cant you stay on point? Oh, right, thats cuz you dont have a point to stay on.

Posted by: Forner at May 25, 2004 10:27 PM

No WMD? CNN differs. Consider this was an unmarked shell - and Saddam had stockpiles of stuff all over Iraq. It’s early to say what he’s got and what he hasn’t - but finding one shell implies the existance of a lot more.

Sarin confirmed in shell

The war started long ago, we just didn’t realize we were really in it until 9/11 hit. We thought it could just be taken care of by ‘police action’. We were wrong.

As far as taking out Iraq and Afghanistan goes - take a look at what happened in WW2. In order to stop Germany, we ended up destroying the civilian support structure for their military. With the decentralized threat of Al Quaeda and Militant Islam, destroying the support structure involved going after the states that provide support. Libya’s already caved considerably, without a shot being fired in their direction. Afghanistan isn’t providing any more support for Al Quaeda. And Iraq - well, they’re not answering the AQ Fund Drive e-mails any more.

We didn’t start the war. It remains to be seen whether we will finish it - but after 9/11 we were expecting more attacks on American soil. We haven’t seen them. That makes me think we’re doing the right things.

Even if you don’t agree - I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree here.

J.

Posted by: JLawson at May 26, 2004 08:43 AM

You are very welcome to visit my website.

Ernest Garcia o

Posted by: Ernest Garcia at July 1, 2004 08:23 AM

Very good subject.
logo-mobile-repondeur
logo-repondeur-mobile
logo-sonneries-sonnerie
logos-mobile-repondeurs
logos-repondeurs-mobile
logos-sonneries-sonnerie
mobile-repondeur-logo
mobile-repondeurs-logos
netimobile
repondeur-logo-mobile
repondeurs-logos-mobile
sonnerie-logo-sonneries
sonnerie-logos-sonneries
sonnerie-sonneries-logo
sonnerie-sonneries-logos
sonneries-sonnerie-logo
sonneries-sonnerie-logos
planete-mobile
ringtone-logos
ringtone-mobiles
01-ringtone
ringtone-free
logo-phones
logo-free
01-logo
logo-tones
ringtones-phone
ringtones-mobiles
ringtones-pictures
ringtones-screensavers
logos-phones
logos-tone
logos-downloads
logos-free
polyphonic-tone
screensaver-mobile
01-melodia
top-melodia
e-melodias
logo-melodias
logo-moviles
01-ringetone
top-ringetone
ringetone-mobil
logoer-mobil
top-logoer
01-ringsignaler
top-ringsignaler
ringsignaler-mobil
logotyper-mobil
01-logotyper
01-suonerie
i-suonerie
suonerie-mobile
01-loghi
top-loghi
01-soittoaanet
top-soittoaanet
soittoaanet-logot
01-logot
i-logot
01-beltonen
top-beltonen
beltonen-logo
logo-mobiel
logo-beltonen
01-toque
top-toque
toque-movel
icone-movel
icone-toque
1-klingeltone
hit-klingeltone
klingeltone-logo
logo-klingeltone
logo-spiele
sonnerie gratuite
sonnerie alcatel
sonnerie mobile
sonnerie motorola
sonnerie a composer
sonnerie ericsson
sonnerie nokia 3310
nokia sonnerie
sonnerie pour alcatel
sonnerie portable nokia
sonnerie pour motorola
composition de sonneries
sonnerie panasonic
sonnerie pour samsung
telechargement de sonneries
sonnerie sagem myx5
sonnerie pour telephone portable
partition de sonneries
sonnerie a telecharger
gratuit sonneries
samsung sonneries
sonnerie hi fi
code sonnerie
sonnerie sony ericsson
sonnerie motorola v500
compositeur sonnerie nokia
sonnerie nec n21i
sonnerie telephone mobile
sonnerie gratuite motorola
sonnerie telecharger
sonnerie pour telephone portable
sonnerie polyphonique samsung
nokia 3310 sonneries
sonnerie telephone gratuite
sonnerie logo portable
telechargement sonnerie portable
sonnerie logo gratuit
logo et sonnerie gratuit
sonnerie nokia composer
sonnerie t68i
sonnerie samsung a300
sonnerie portable composer
composer des sonneries
sonnerie repondeur
logo et sonnerie gratuite
logo et sonnerie portable
sonnerie portable composer
sonnerie a telecharger
logo et sonnerie pour portable
telecharger sonnerie gratuite
sonnerie motorola c333
sonnerie portable gratuite
sonnerie polyphonique pour samsung a800
logo sonnerie gratuite
sonnerie toshiba ts21i
compose sonnerie
telechargement gratuit sonnerie polyphonique
sonnerie nokia 7650
composition sonnerie portable
telechargement sonnerie gratuite
sonnerie polyphonique gratuit
sonnerie composee
sonnerie samsung a800
sonnerie gratuite nokia
sonnerie motorola c330
sonnerie et logo de portable
sonnerie lg 7020
telechargement sonnerie polyphonique
sonnerie samsung s300
sonnerie nokia 3510i
sonnerie panasonic gd87
logos sonneries
sonneries samsung
sonneries mobiles
sonneries gratuite
sonneries nokia 3310
logo sonneries
sonneries telephone
sonneries polyphonique
sonneries 3310
sonneries pour motorola
sonneries pour samsung
sonneries portables gratuites
composer sonneries
sonneries de telephone
sonneries panasonic
partitions sonneries
compositeur sonneries
sonneries alcatel 511
sonneries telephones
sonneries logo
sonneries pour siemens
les sonneries
sonneries pour ericsson
sonneries de nokia
sonneries portable nokia
sonneries polyphoniques gratuites
sonneries sagem myx 5
sonneries sagem myx5
logos et sonneries gratuites
sonneries t68i
sonneries ericson
partitions de sonneries
sagem sonneries
portable sonneries
sonneries myx5
partition de sonneries
sonneries nokia 3330
sonneries gratuites pour motorola
motorola sonneries
sonneries lg
sonneries portable gratuites
sonneries gratuites portables
sonneries gratuites pour nokia 3310
sonneries de telephones
compositions de sonneries
sonneries logos gratuits
sonneries telephones
sonneries arabes
sonneries samsung a300
sonneries et logos gratuits
sonneries sms
sonneries par sms
sonneries siemens c45
notes de sonneries
sonneries de portable gratuites
sonneries polyphoniques nokia
sonneries de nokia 3310
logos et sonneries pour nokia
sonneries telephone portable
sonneries gsm gratuites
sonneries de motorola
sonneries gratuites portable
sonneries a composer
sonneries rock
sonneries poliphoniques
sonneries portables nokia
sonneries motorola c330
sonneries siemens c55
sonneries gratuit nokia 3100
sonnerie-de-portable
sonnerie-gratuites
sonnerie-de-telephone
sonnerie-alcatel-511
sonnerie-ericson
sonnerie-a-taper
sonnerie-de-nokia
sonnerie-portable-sagem
sonnerie-pour-siemens
sonnerie-portable-samsung
gratuit-sonnerie
sonnerie-de-portables
motorola-sonnerie
sonnerie-motorola-t191
sonnerie-myx5
sonnerie-a300
sonnerie-partition
sonnerie-fisio
sonnerie-pour-panasonic
sonnerie-myx-5
sonnerie-portable-ericsson
sonnerie-gratuite-motorola
sonnerie-gratuite-sagem
sonnerie-fr
sonnerie-de-portable-nokia
sonnerie-nokia-8210
sonnerie-my-x5
sonnerie-nokia-compositeur
sonnerie-v50
sonnerie-telecharger
composer-sonnerie-motorola
sonnerie-portable-gratuites
sonnerie-portable-sony
wap-sonnerie
logo-sonnerie-com
sonnerie-gratuite-pour-sagem
sonnerie-nokia-5210
sonnerie-par-sms
sonnerie-compositeur-nokia
sonnerie-t191
sonnerie-siemens-c35
sonnerie-alcatel-501
note-de-sonnerie
sonnerie-pour-portables
sonnerie-nokia3310
sonnerie-8310
sonnerie-pour-sagem-myx5
sonnerie-pour-sagem-my-x5
sonnerie-pour-telephone-portable
sonnerie-gratuite-nokia-3310
sonnerie-portable-panasonic
panasonic-sonnerie
sonnerie-gratuite-pour-nokia-3310
sonnerie-motorola-v66
logo-et-sonnerie-de-portable
sonnerie-fisio-825
sonnerie-gratuits
sonnerie-de-nokia-3310
sonnerie-gsm-gratuite
sonnerie-telechargement
sonnerie-gd67
sonnerie-gd87
www-sonnerie-fr
sonnerie-pour-sony-ericsson
sonnerie-et-logo-portable
sagem-myx-5-sonnerie
sonnerie-gratuites-nokia
sonnerie-siemens-s35
sonnerie-ericsson-t28s
sonnerie-gsm-gratuit
sonnerie-sur-alcatel
www-logo-sonnerie-com
telecharger-sonnerie-gratuite
sonnerie-toshiba
code-de-sonnerie
compose-sonnerie
sonnerie-alcatel-302
telechargement-gratuit-de-sonnerie
www-sonnerie-com
sonnerie-motorola-v51
sonnerie-gratuite-pour-samsung
sonnerie-a400
nokia-3410-sonnerie
sonnerie-a-composer-nokia
telecharger-sonnerie-sagem
composer-sonnerie-samsung
sonnerie-alcatel-ot-511
sonnerie-zelda
nokia-sonnerie-gratuite
sonnerie-philips-xenium
sonnerie-gratuite-siemens
logo-sonnerie-mobile
sonnerie-et-logo-pour-nokia
sonnerie-logos-gratuit
sonnerie-portable-telecharger
sonnerie-personnalisee
sonnerie-pour-nokia-3210
telechargement-de-sonnerie-gratuite
philips-sonnerie
composition-de-sonnerie-nokia
sonnerie-ericsson-t20e
sonnerie-pour-nokia-8310
sonnerie-pour-spv
sonnerie-telephones
sonnerie-sagem-myx-3
sonnerie-star-wars
sonnerie-alcatel-a-composer
sonnerie-mtv
matrix-sonneries
samsung-sonneries
composer-sonneries-alcatel
sonneries-telecharger
composition-sonneries-nokia
sonneries-my-x5
sonneries-telephones-portables
compositeur-sonneries-nokia
sonneries-portable-samsung
sonneries-a-composer-nokia
sonneries-matrix
telecharger-sonneries-portable
telechargement-gratuit-de-sonneries
sonneries-portable-siemens
sonneries-pour-telephone-portable
sonneries-alcatel-512
logos-et-sonneries-de-portable
sonneries-polyphoniques-pour-sagem
logos-et-sonneries-pour-portable
sonneries-nokia-compositeur
logos-sonneries-portables
compositions-sonneries
sonneries-et-logos-pour-portable
sonneries-a-composer-nokia
sonneries-logos-portable
sagem-myx5-sonneries
sonneries-portables-sagem
sonneries-telechargeables
sonneries-imode
sonneries-a-composer-pour-alcatel
a300-sonneries
sonneries-siemens-c35
sonneries-v50
telecharger-des-sonneries-gratuitement
sonneries-de-portable-alcatel
sonneries-de-portable-a-composer
sonneries-a800
sonneries-gratuites-3310
sonneries-nokia-5210
sonneries-composables
sonneries-logos-portables
sonneries-portables-siemens
sonneries-pour-ericson
telecharger-sonneries-portables
logos-et-sonneries-nokia
sonneries-t200
sonneries-pour-motorola-v50
sonneries-de-telephones-portables
sonneries-ericsson-t28s
sonneries-et-logos-de-portable
sonneries-pour-samsung-t100
logos-et-sonneries-pour-alcatel
telecharger-gratuitement-des-sonneries
telecharger-sonneries-portables
sagem-my-x5-sonneries
sms-sonneries
sonneries-portables-ericsson
composer-ses-sonneries
partitions-sonneries-portable
sonneries-v66
sonneries-et-logos-portable
partition-sonneries-portable
sonneries-de-portable-gratuit
sonneries-et-logos-pour-sagem
sonneries-fisio-825
sonneries-partition
sonneries-pour-nokia-3210
sonneries-et-logos-nokia
sonneries-telephone-mobile
sonneries-polyphoniques-motorola
sonneries-portable-composer
sonneries-samsung-r210
sonneries-siemens-s35
sonneries-a-telecharger-gratuitement
sonneries-gratuites-pour-siemens
sonneries-portables-gratuits
sonneries-portable-3310
sonneries-polyphoniques-gratuit
sonneries-portable-nokia-3310
sonneries-pour-portables-gratuites
sonneries-a-composer-alcatel
sonneries-a-telecharger
sonneries-composer-alcatel
sonneries-gratuites-mobiles
sonneries-portable-a-composer
sonneries-ericsson-t65
logos-sonneries-com
sonneries-z5
composer-des-sonneries-de-portable
sonneries-nokia-3310-gratuites
sonneries-a-composer-pour-nokia-3310
sonneries-logos-sagem
sonneries-pour-telephones-portables
composition-de-sonneries-de-portable
sonneries-de-telephones-portables
sonneries-gratuites-alcatel-511
telecharger-des-sonneries-de-portable
composer-sonneries-samsung
sonneries-ployphoniques
telecharger-des-sonneries-gratuites
sonneries-logo-gratuit
sonneries-sagem-myx-3
sonneries-mobiles-alcatel
sonneries-3310-gratuites
telecharger-sonneries-nokia
sonneries-de-portables-a-composer
dvd pascher
jeuxvideo pascher
mobile pascher
pda pascher
pc pascher
livre pascher
cdmusique pascher

Posted by: xcoboy at July 28, 2004 03:57 PM