« I for one kept getting it confused with the sarcastic stuffed alien on TV | Main | Great moments in connecting with Middle America »

November 08, 2004

Unified field theory

OK, I think I have it.

Red state voters voted on two key issues: terrorism, and gay marriage. Which is funny, since there have been no terrorist attacks in any red states, and there have been no gay marriages in any red states. Red state voters therefore seem mostly concerned with preventing terrorist attacks and gay marriages in blue states.

On the other hand, blue state voters seem to be voting on a lot of issues that primarily affect red state voters. Namely:

  • The war -- it's the children of red state voters who are dying in Iraq, not blue state voters, for the most part.

  • Taxes -- it's red state voters who are most negatively affected by tax cuts on the rich -- blue state voters tend to personally benefit from the Bush tax cuts. (I know I've personally pocketed a lot of dough from the Bush tax cuts -- and as of last Tuesday, I don't feel bad about it anymore. In fact, I think I'll go buy a new car.)

  • Health care -- it's red state voters who are most likely to not have health insurance, not blue state voters.

  • Abortion -- if states are allowed to outlaw abortion, it's red states that will do it. If the federal government outlaws abortion, it's red state voters who won't be able to afford to travel to Canada or Europe to get it done.

  • Education -- blue state voters tend to have much better public schools and are more likely to send their kids to private schools anyway. Also I don't see any huge push to teach creationism in blue states.

  • Fiscal responsibility and the survival of Social Security and Medicare -- it's red state voters who will suffer the most when Social Security and Medicare go belly up -- it was never going to affect me, or most other blue state voters.

On top of all that, a common refrain heard these days is that Democrats are viewed as patronizing and condescending towards red state voters -- that Democrats keep insisting that they know what's best for red state voters, and that red state voters resent that.

So be it. From here on out, blue state voters should simply stop caring about what happens to red state voters. Send your kids to fight and die in Iraq, carry a larger part of the tax burden, go without health insurance, get raped by Uncle Jimmy Bob and be required to carry the baby to term, give up on educating your kids to live in the modern world, and get all of your social services from your church. Further, stop sucking on the federal teat by taking more in federal tax dollars and subsidies than you pay in. You'll get exactly what you deserve, and we in the blue states will be just fine.

p.s. Evidently someone had the same idea.

November 8, 2004 at 11:31 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83456da8d69e200d83456dc2169e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Unified field theory:

» Red vs Blue from Mama Write's Sideblog
Are red state voters overly concerned with preventing terrorist attacks and gay marriages in blue states? And are blue state voters focusing on a lot of issues that primarily affect red state voters? More good stuff at this post.... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 9, 2004 9:37:56 AM

» subtractive properties from highindustrial.slipstream
Heh.... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 9, 2004 10:59:17 AM

» Fuck the South - Part 2: Unified field theory from Shaghaghi.net
Nutbar: Unified field theory OK, I think I have it. Red state voters voted on two key issues: terrorism, and gay marriage. Which is funny, since there have been no terrorist attacks in any red states, and there have been... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 9, 2004 3:24:38 PM

» http://www.alttext.com/archives/04/11/041110.html from Alt Text
fuckthesouth.com - and a related idea (but less crass?) suggesting we "blue-staters" simply stop caring so much about tose "poor,... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 9, 2004 10:42:14 PM

» VOTE ON THIS from DiVERSiONZ
It's time to play select your favorite reaction to the 2004 General Election. You may post your answer in the [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 10, 2004 9:51:33 AM

» Blow Pops from 100 monkeys typing.
[Read More]

Tracked on Nov 10, 2004 12:51:44 PM

Comments

This election is what it took to make you realize that Federalism is the way to go? Well, ok. Took long enough. Tell you what, you do it your way, and we'll do it ours, and we'll see who gets the best results. If we're wrong, we'll admit it once we've proved it to ourselves.

By the way, our kids fight in Iraq because we don't believe in slavery anymore - and we fight to make them free. We also aren't afraid to take the fight to the enemy, rather than wait for the next 9/11 to remind us why we should be doing something about it. For whatever it's worth, the second most common state-of-origin for our Soldiers (after Tennessee) is California.

Incestuous whackos are born & bred in every state - it's not a geographic thing. If the Southern and Western States see more of it, it's just the low population density make it easier to get away with. At least we aren't afraid to fry the son's of bitches when we catch 'em.

I haven't given up on education for my kids - I've given up on the archaic, unionized teaching establishment being able to provide that education. Let's put a fire under their ass to actually compete for my kid's 'business,' just like the rest of us do.

Before you condemn all abortion laws, check out "Liberal" France's take on the matter. It's moral and humane. Rather than frame it as an argument about "women's rights" and "libertinism", it's properly described as a life-crisis which must be treated with compassion and concern. It's not black-and-white. Some of us just value a child's life more important than the mother's perfect-liberty for seven months. This is a political debate worthy of discussion, and the discussion should NOT be shut down by 5 busy-bodies in Foggy Bottom.

As for the tax dollars, it's been fun while it lasted. If you insisted on telling us how to live our lives, at least we got something for it, eh? So long, and thanks for all the fish.

Sincerely,

Trapped in Blue-land (but not for long)

PS - The guy at "Fuck the South" seems to have forgotten that almost half of the folks at the Constitutional convention were Southerners, and so were 7 of the first 10 President to boot, including Washington, Jefferson, and Madison.

Posted by: Trapped in Blue-land | Nov 9, 2004 9:04:06 AM

"We also aren't afraid to take the fight to the enemy, rather than wait for the next 9/11 to remind us why we should be doing something about it."

Nice to see the Koolaid still works post-election. WMDs? What WMDs? Osama Bin who? Facts speak louder than jingoistic chest-thumping, and the fact of the matter is that Iraq ain't where the "enemy" is (or WAS, until Bushco decided to finish daddy's war). The 9/11 commission said so, the CIA said so, go on, pick an agency...they all said the same thing. You guys can frame this mess any way you want with your phoney flag-wavin' and yellow ribbon SUV magnets, but I can't see how it's so goddamn brave and proactive(and for that matter, Red State moralists, MORAL) to invade a country on false pretenses.

Posted by: Let the Reds go | Nov 9, 2004 10:06:36 AM

"get raped by Uncle Jimmy Bob and be required to carry the baby to term"

That's the thing. You can't get through a well thought out plan without retreating back to sweeping generalizations. You sound like a cliched redneck bigot.

Remember 9/11 when liberals everywhere were asking "why do they hate us so?".

But when it comes to the south, no trying to understand, just fuck them.

Which is fine. Say helly to president jeb in 08.

Posted by: dan | Nov 9, 2004 10:24:11 AM

"Facts speak louder than jingoistic chest-thumping, and the fact of the matter is that Iraq ain't where the "enemy" is"

And the biggest fact of all is that we've had no terror attacks since 9/11. That's a hard one to argue with, you can sping it, but it's fact.

Posted by: dan | Nov 9, 2004 10:26:56 AM

SPIN it.

Posted by: dan33 | Nov 9, 2004 10:27:22 AM

Pardon me for not posting my email address, but the above response is specifically what I'm trying to avoid having to deal with too often. I will respond here though. Once.

LtRg,

You know (or should know) that Saddam had WMDs in the past, used them on both his own people and others, retained his programs for their creation, was actively subverting the UN sanctions in place that were meant to stop him, and would have been able to receate biological and chemical capabilities within months of the sanction's fall. The Duelfar Report makes this very clear, if you give it a fair reading. Was Bush mistaken about Saddam's actual possession of WMD's? Yes, he was - just like the British, French and even Saddam's own Generals. Yes, Saddam told his own troops he had WMDs, and we knew he was hiding things from the inspectors. When a mass-murdering psychopath says he's got WMD's (which he's proven a willingness to use), you don't sit on your hands.

Was "the enemy" in Iraq before the invasion? That depends on how you think "the enemy" is. If you mean Bin Laden, and ONLY Bin Laden, then no, obiously not. OBL, and Al Qaeda itself, are merely symptoms of a more dangerous disease. The political and social tyranny of Middle Eastern rulers creates an existential misery and despair within the ME people. Can you imagine what it must be like to see the freedoms that Westerners enjoy on TV, knowing that you will never, ever be able to do the same? Can you imagine what it would be like to know that the only way you could provide for your family is to strap a bomb to your waist so your children could collect the "reward" money from Syria? It would drive you mad.

Don't believe me? Will you believe this guy:
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/11.04/05-terror.html

I mean, hey, I've only got a Masters in development economics, and a JD in comparative law, but this guy teaches at Harvard. He must be smart or something.

You can't kill all of the terrorists because anyone in the world could be a terrorist under the right circumstances. You, me, anyone. What you have to do is eradicate the circumstances that cause people to become terrorists. That means bringing freedom and liberty to the Middle East.

Destroying the Taliban and the Baath Party in Iraq was in our country's best interst, BUT ONLY BECAUSE we are on a humanitarian mission. If we had an exit strategy which abandoned the Iraqi people to the Iranians and Syrians, they would never forgive us (and we would deserve their hate).

In 20 years Iraq will have a history of regular elections, will be a WTO Member Nation, will export oil and grains, import whatever they need, bitch (or brag) about their soccer teams, and in all other ways be a normal nation - and never export a terrorist again. That's when we'll have won.

The successful muslims immigrants in America, Britain, India and elsewhere have proven that you can still be a good Muslim and a citizen of the modern world. The Muslim nations of Turkey, Malaysia, and Indonesia have shown that the case for a successful, muslims nation isn't a hopeless one.

Your pessimism, small-midedness, and impatience is a detriment to our effort. Grow up. Take the long view. Help a nation out. And quit it with your snide whining. It makes adults look like spoiled children.

Posted by: Trapped in Blue-land | Nov 9, 2004 10:57:23 AM

"And the biggest fact of all is that we've had no terror attacks since 9/11. That's a hard one to argue with"

Yeah, I can't argue with that. It's definitely true.

On the other hand, your implied argument that there's been no attacks since 9/11 having something to do with Georgie-boy's actions in Iraq? THAT, I'm calling bullshit on.

You Reds better do some prayin' that there's not one more terror attack in the next four years.

Yeah, we're REAL safe now.

Posted by: Bob Saget | Nov 9, 2004 11:02:26 AM

Bob-

I feel safer in NYC than I would in Fallujah or Tora Bora. Frankly, I feel safer than I would if I were an Iranian Mulluh too.

The only terrorist attacks in the last several years (besides Madrid, unfortunately) have been in ME countries. Why? That's the only place where Al Qaeda has operational security. They're busted here in the USA and Europe.

You know, given Europe's and the American Left's obsession with humanitarian assistance, you'd think they'd be more on board with helping the Iraqis recover from the disaster that was 30 years of Saddam. Just sayin'. It's a perfect opportunity to actually help some people who really need it. Why is it Bush (through the US Army) that's building schools and homes for Iraqis, and not Carter and his Habitat for Humanity. You'd' think if he really cared about brown people he'd be all over that.

Oh, right, the invasion was illegal without UN sanction (like Yugoslavia), so helping innocent people recover from it would be against their principles. That makes sense.

Posted by: Trapped in Blue-land | Nov 9, 2004 11:10:14 AM

> I feel safer in NYC than I would in Fallujah or Tora Bora.

There we go -- the new standard!
Go W!

Posted by: Nutbar | Nov 9, 2004 12:22:31 PM

> There we go -- the new standard!
> Go W!

Great. I write a lengthy piece and you remark on the one off-the-cuff remark that's probably least important.

Do you actually have a response to anything I said, or would it endanger your world-view to even consider that anything W has done might have been correct? Would it actually cause your phyisical pain to think that maybe freeing people from bone-crushing misery and despair might be the right course?

Now I know how the winners in the Special Olympics must feel.

Fuck you. You're right. We're better off without your whiny asses. Push for every god damned "States Rights" bill you can think of and I'll ask my Congressman and Senator to vote for it. You can't even address a rational argument, which leads me to believe you'd be absolutely a dead weight in any policy discussion that actually was interested in results, rather than your prissy liberal posturing.

Better yet, save us the trouble of passing all those laws and just move to fucking Belgium. The EU's Commission on Human Rights can protect you then, just like it did Theo Van Gogh. Feh.

Posted by: Trapped in Blue-land | Nov 9, 2004 1:27:10 PM

"helping innocent people recover"
"freeing people from bone-crushing misery and despair"

What? THAT'S what the invasion was about? Huh, that's not what the Bush administration said during the run-up to this clusterfuck. "WE KNOW WHERE THE WMDs ARE!" Or maybe not. "SADDAM AND AL-QUAEDA ARE/WERE WORKING TOGETHER!!" Nice try.

It's cool that you guys can always trot out the humanitarian rationale when people call you on the complete and utter failure of your justification(s) for war. To hear Bush talk these days, we're saving those poor bastards from themselves. Why didn't we invade North Korea while we were at it seeing as how Kim Jong Il is a ruthless and corrupt dictator(who's done a hell of a lot of starving and murdering his own people) and WHO ACTUALLY HAS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?? Shit, for that matter, why not invade and subdue Somalia? I hear there's terrorists there too, not to mention some icky humanitarian bad stuff.

It's one thing to "help" innocent people. It's something else entirely to use that as a crutch to prop up half-baked weapons claims and shoddy, criminally bad intelligence. Take the White Man's Burden bullshit somewhere else, Trapped. Your lies are showing.

Posted by: Bob Saget | Nov 9, 2004 1:51:00 PM

I posted a similar sentiment (albeit with a different ending) on my blog at http://www.republicronies.com/?bp=115

Posted by: Shaun | Nov 9, 2004 4:26:35 PM

Mr. Trapped in Blue Land,

You are right. Who are these ignorant left-wingers?

Bush is out there building schools in Iraq. Bush is making Iraq a better place for its people. Bush is ensuring fair democratic elections in January.

You don't go far enough. It's because of these left-wing, humanitarian nutjobs that we have 360 tons of weapons missing Iraq.

If Bush wasn't so busy with these humanitarian efforts, our troops would have had time to guard them. Or at least the time to look for them at some point in the past 2 years. But they were probably real busy with other things.

But, hey, I am sure that whoever took those are going to use them for ME terrorism. There is no way the U.S. is a target or anything...

Posted by: Turtle | Nov 9, 2004 5:08:04 PM

I've been thinking quite a bit about this red state v. blue state debate. The ending of state welfare, the ending of compassion for those who live in red states by those who live in blue states, since the red states obviously feel no compassion for our moral values.

Reading your list (the war, taxes, health care, etc) I was reminded of how I used to think of the democratic party. The Dems were the guardians of these ideas promising healthcare for those who needed it, lower taxes on the middle and lower classes, and end to war (although Dems were in power for all the wars previous to Gulf War I) or at least the draft.

The message was clear. Vote Dem, your kids will learn more at better schools (with after school sports, clubs, etc), you'll pay less taxes, we'll provide healthcare and social security, and what you do on your own time in the privacy of your own home is your business. But somewhere along the line this message became infected by noise.

Our job is to filter out that noise and re-establish a line of contact. First, we need to know who is generating that noise. I suspect a good place to start looking is with people like "trapped in blue-land". But Trapped does make one good point. The red state/blue state dichotomy is false. It's more an urban vs rural thing.

Posted by: John | Nov 9, 2004 7:10:54 PM

Fantastic. This is just what we need - more polarization, more black / white, red / blue categorization. "red state voters," "blue state voters," etc.

Does it satisfy your world view to force a monochromatic paint scheme on what is otherwise a politically diverse national environment? Members of my own family, my circle of friends: they voted differently. Should I quickly cast them into red / blue people?

Posted by: JB | Nov 10, 2004 6:41:52 AM

My family left my country of birth because the people there decided they couldn't live together anymore. They were so different that they had to kill each other. My parents were thrown from their homes by bombs and bullets. Luckily we were saved by the United States, the country I call home. We were saved by a country that prized peace. A country that had matured to the point where it's citizen valued it's diversity and prized the voice of everyone.

I am not endorsing the reds nor am I endorsing the blues. I voted for Bush in 2000 because I'm from a traditional family and I hold very strong conservative values. However, Bush did not get my vote and please hear my reason why. Ever since the beginning of the administration, before 9/11, the policies of the Neoconservatives have been very divisive to the country. Sure there's always been gang violence and racial tension but those things simply do not scale to the forces that had built up with this election.

Why was this? The attacks of 9/11 should have united our people, not only us but the sane people of the world against anyone that would blindly level violence on another people. Why was this, because Bush and his administration are very polarized. The greatness of this country was built on the shoulders of leaders that were able moderate between the different tribes that make up this nation and harmonize. It wasn't perfect at first but the people of the U.S. got better over time. People still disagreed but the government and the spirit of nationality were the glue.

The Bush administration ostentatiously favors one demographic, one population of people. Bush is unwielding and will not listen to any arguments that may oppose his own. What this leads to is strong resentment from all excluded groups because there is no compromise, no reason leveled, end of discussion. The excluded groups no longer has any reason to feel their government represents them anymore. In other regimes this behavior has been labeled fascism, totalitarianism, oppressionism and dictatorship. How is this uniting the country? How can Bush being who he is, ever hope to unite the country? He will not until he learns to compromise but he cannot because that trait is exactly what he was re-elected for.

The bigger picture here is that the excluded groups are not limited to this country. Being of foreign descent I am faulted to more sensitivity to international views. I can only speak for Asia but the anti-american sentiment there is growing stronger and stronger day by day. I can not fathom what it's like in the Middle East. Even the majority of Iraqis are shooting at us and we're trying to "save" them. I understand how some people in this country can argue for self reliance and that we don't need global economy. My counter point to this is that, people feel strongly about Bush and his policies. If this continues, the retailation may be more than simply boycotting U.S. products.

Posted by: Tommy C | Nov 10, 2004 10:20:23 AM

>The war -- it's the children of red state voters
>who are dying in Iraq, not blue state voters,
>for the most part.

>Health care -- it's red state voters who are
>most likely to not have health insurance, not
>blue state voters.

How about some statistics for each of these assertions? They are plausible, but not self-evident. Large blue cities turn out a lot of army volunteers, and health care definitely isn't universal.

Posted by: Matt | Nov 10, 2004 12:24:43 PM

>Great. I write a lengthy piece and you remark on
>the one off-the-cuff remark that's probably
>least important.

You wrote about 10 sentences, and think you wrote a treatise. Furthermore, most was off the cuff --
I'll address the rest of it:

>The only terrorist attacks in the last several >years (besides Madrid, unfortunately) have been >in ME countries.

What about Bali? What about the school in Russia, or the theater? How about the filmmaker killed in the Netherlands recently? Do you consider what's happening in Darfur outside the realm of terrorism?

>Why? That's the only place where Al Qaeda has
>operational security. They're busted here in the
>USA and Europe.

I would like to believe this, but there's no evidence. How about Israel? There are terror attacks there (less since the wall) but I wouldn't say a-Q has operational security there or that they have fought a weak war against terror. The fact that we caught 75% of the al-Qaeda terrorists on our list doesn't mean the list was complete, or that more didn't step in.
So, if Russia, Europe, SE Asia and Africa are the "only" places terrorists have operational security, we're not doing too well. Would you say that what happens in those countries isn't our problem? It's only a matter of time until it is.

"You know, given Europe's and the American Left's obsession with humanitarian assistance, you'd think they'd be more on board with helping the Iraqis recover from the disaster that was 30 years of Saddam. "

This is a non-sequitur. People really concerned with humanitarian assistance would point out that US reconstruction aid has been allocated, but not spent. It's probably too soon to rebuild anyhow, given the chaos that pervades much of Iraq... we are levelling a lot of Fallujah right now for instance.

"Why is it Bush (through the US Army) that's building schools and homes for Iraqis, and not Carter and his Habitat for Humanity. You'd' think if he really cared about brown people he'd be all over that."

What a crock. You are so party-line that for no reason other than to try to smear a Democrat you pick one who does some volunteer work and ask, why doesn't he do this in Iraq instead? Why don't you go to your local hospital and ask the ER doc why he doesn't go to Iraq. People bleed and people are homeless in both places.

"Oh, right, the invasion was illegal without UN sanction (like Yugoslavia), so helping innocent people recover from it would be against their principles. That makes sense."

If it makes no sense, it's because you just concocted it entirely in your own mind.

Earlier you wrote: "The political and social tyranny of Middle Eastern rulers creates an existential misery and despair within the ME people. " Or at least it was someone who signed the same name. This sentence makes sense to me. Why not develop logical arguments like that instead of this later post?

"Push for every god damned "States Rights" bill you can think of and I'll ask my Congressman and Senator to vote for it. "

It's worth remembering that people defending segregation in the 60s used "states rights" as their last bastion of defense.

And now for the cheap shot:

"Now I know how the winners in the Special Olympics must feel."

I have no doubt about that!


Posted by: Matt | Nov 10, 2004 2:51:59 PM

http://www.thenorthsucks.com/

It's not as colorful as f*ckthesouth.com but at least it's got the facts.

Posted by: can you say... gullible | Dec 9, 2004 10:11:26 AM

I Love you girls

Buy

Posted by: LeOgAhEr | Jun 2, 2007 7:57:23 AM

[url=http://vipc.achara.cn][IMG]http://mov.accurian.cn/mature/12.jpg[/IMG][/url] [url=http://vipc.achara.cn][IMG]http://mov.accurian.cn/mature/20.jpg[/IMG][/url] [url=http://vipc.achara.cn][IMG]http://mov.accurian.cn/mature/18.jpg[/IMG][/url] Free Video: [URL=http://vipc.achara.cn]bi sexualitytwinkspornstarsex toysoral sexupskirtfingeringbabes sexlesbianhard corepublic nudity [/URL] whimsical photos of mature women nec and pda in premature infant big tit mature porn center for mature consumer studies and george moschis mature women getting fucked free pics amature women mature webcams blonde fucking short hairstyles for mature women mature petite sex mature amature tv mature piercing women tgp mature lingeries clips movies well matured fruit big breasts mature mature slutfest mature adult dating i love mature mature trip amature swimming association mature heavy women sex vidoes mature swingers in alpine new york aunt judys mature 30 young and mature lesbian mature ladies soft porn mature big tits free movies if your 16 years old and is pregnant can you live with the father in the state of kentucky what kind of antihistamine can be taken while pregnant when is right time to try to get pregnant the sun pregnant myleen klass pregnant vaginas nutrition edution positive pregnant mothers hiv positive 28 weeks pregnant what the baby looks like what are the effects of smoking on pregnant women pregnant what will i have a boy girl pregnant hermit crabs early pregnant signs funny pregnant what should a pregnant woman do with a fetus with poor kidney function type ii diabetes and pregnant pregnant breasts photos 40 weeks pregnant water broke getting punched in the stomach while im pregnant can you get pregnant after childbirth will i ever get pregnant pregnant fucking teens pregnant uterus vaginal discharge when pregnant is it easy to get pregnant after having a d

Posted by: Sertingolins | Dec 25, 2007 10:57:02 AM

Hello, terribly cloth spot with ticklish info's [url=http://en.netlog.com/iceskatingapparal/blog]ice skating apparel[/url]
reduction Skatewear offers ice skates, assume skating dresses, skate blades, assume [url=http://iceskatingapparal.net78.net/map.html]ice skating apparel[/url], barrel skates and more. We give some of the best

Posted by: LaLiEpireaple | Jun 8, 2008 1:11:55 PM

DREAM CHRONICLES 2.... aiuto sono arrivata alla stanza dove c'?? l'eletricit???vi prego ditemi qual' ?? la ultima puntata di patito feo della prima stagione ve ne sarei molto grata se me lo spiegasse !!!!!a poi un' altra cosa ma nn riesco a trovare le prime puntatedella seconda serie e nemmeno quelle della prima dalla 62 in poi !!!!!!!!!!!!! helpppppppp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! vi prego 10 punti mi raccomando rispondetemi!!!!!!!!!!!

[url=http://www.neochat.info/]Chat[/url]

Posted by: bywhelvelvimi | Jul 7, 2008 9:01:43 PM

perch?? il pc non avvia il sistema operativo?ciao raga io ho dei problemini vn The Sims 2 x pc...mi aiuterete vero??!
allora io vorrei 1 sito dove trovare The Sims 2 Pets ma in foturo vorrei anke delle altre espansioni..io ho emule ma l'unici ke ho trovato non vanno sul mio pc (non so se ?? xk ho windows vista) e poi ci mette 8 giorni a scaricare...x caso voi conoscete qualke sito???
poi volevo kiedere io ho 1 the sims 2 pets sul pc (ke non va ) volevo rimuoverlo ma mi dice ke i salvataggi verranno eliminati.Volevo sapere se ti elimina solo i salvataggi ke ho fatto cn The Sims 2 pets ho anke gli altri salvataggi??! A voi ?? mai capitato??Io nn voglio ke si elimino tutti i salvataggi...uff
Ultima cosa: volevo sapere se c'era differenza x i gioki ke scarico xk io ho windows vista e non vorrei ke sia come quello ke ho installato ke dopo nn va!!
grazie a tutti quelli ke mi aiuteranno!! una bacione
p.s:nn sono gradite risposte come boh,non lo so,compratelo,...
ma sono aperta a tutti i suggerimenti

____________________________________________________________________________
[url=http://chattare-gratis.blogspot.com/]chat[/url]

Posted by: ThedgeFer | Jul 15, 2008 1:01:52 PM

at worst [url=http://www.oneview.de/url/details.jsf?urlId=53432589]viagra[/url] Euphemistic pre-owned to invalidate abscess down [url=http://www.oneview.de/url/details.jsf?urlId=53432589]viagra[/url] Euphemistic pre
-owned

Posted by: alotthomo | Sep 20, 2008 2:15:03 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.