Saying Nay

Isn't the point of harping on the racial angle of the ad that, though democrats can't compete for the hardcore racist vote, they can compete for the "Has no patience for racists yet is otherwise mildly conservative" vote?

Matthew Y:

You are right on the mark with that analysis of the Corker ads. Those ads just serve to remind the Republican base that they don't like or trust blacks. Complaining about the ads only reminds them even more, and makes it sound like Ford wants "special treatment" in the rough world of politics.

He just has to change the subject with something aggressive.

WillieStyle:

There are no such voters. It's naive and self-defeating to think that such delicate sensitivities would ever animate anyone to vote, much less a "conservative".

I think the ad with the blonde bimbo coming on to Ford is obviously over the top, and should be condemned, etc.

The radio ad with the supposed jungle drums...no way. If there is in fact a racial subtext to that one, it is way too subtle to be complaintworthy.

On the larger point, I don't see why Democrats can't do both things: complain about over-the-top race baiting, and responding with tough anti-Corker ads.

I think we should run some ads attacking the white man.

On the larger point, I don't see why Democrats can't do both things: complain about over-the-top race baiting, and responding with tough anti-Corker ads.

Because it dilutes the message. Agree with MY: Dems need to stop bitching and start hitting.

Maybe some animations of Corker trying to dunk, dance, etc.

whinning about race baiting raises black turnout.
When you whine about lies in an ad, it doesn't increase anyones turn out.

Apples Meet Oranges.

Generalizing wildly, there are two campaigns in the Ford/Corker race: there's the actual Tennessee election campaign, and then there's the campaign for the hearts and minds of the Washington media elite. The Tennessee campaign is obviously much more important, but the Washington campaign is important too, because it sets the tone for media coverage that will influence the Tennessee race. Accordingly, while it might be a bad idea for Ford to raise the issue of Corker's racist ads in the Tennessee race directly, there's no reason it can't be raised in the Washington campaign if it makes the media more hostile to Corker. I for one would prefer to have Tim Russert asking Corker whether his ads are racist rather than asking about Corker's bold new plans for America's future, yada yada yada.

"I've been a semi-naysayer about the Democrats' electoral chances this year, but Eric Alterman's been saying it loud and clear. He offers some a couple of points of further skepticism."

Alterman is even more clueless on electoral politics than you are. Find your electoral skepticism elsewhere.

And I don't know exactly what semi-naysaying involves, but getting to 218 seats in the House truly is a done deal. The Republican high command will be partying in the streets if they hold our gains to 20 seats. And I don't think they'll be partying in the streets.

The electorate is not fond of losing wars.

We're going to have a good November this year. That doesn't mean our electoral problems are a thing of the past. We had a good 1974 in the midst of a long GOP upswing, and this year could be no different. This year is going to be marked by conservatives voting Democratic, not conservatives becoming liberals. Our ability to keep at least some of them voting Democratic will be crucial to our post-'06 prospects.

What pisses me off beyond belief about this stuff is how it shows the utter incompetence of the Democratic political machine.

They knew this stuff was coming. They knew the swift boat thing was coming. They knew the Willie Horton thing was coming. And we know damn well that even more vile and sophisticated stuff of a similar vein will be coming in 2008. Count on it. Everyone knows it.

Yet what happens every time the Republicans pull out one of these little gems? We end up with a giant handwringing party in the media which is eactly what the Republicans wanted in the first place.

Presumably there are some smart people working in the Democratic establishment. For God's sake, can't we come up with a better response?

Personally I think total ridicule is the right response. But everyone has to get the memo. Remember how in 2004 all the murmor was about "Angry Dems" and "Bush Haters?" The Republicans know how to hit a theme and stick with it. In 2000 it was Gore's exaggerations and woodenness, neither of which were remotely true.

If every Dem politician and consultant was out there responding to the Ford thing with ridicule and disdain with comments along the lines of

"Wow, they're really a lot more desperate than we thought"

"How stupid do they really think Americans are these days?"

"Wow, What can you say. The Republicans have really driven into the ditch this time around."

"THAT's all they could come up with? Good Lord, no wonder they've mismanaged the country so badly."

"I'm embarrased for them if that's what passes for the Republican message these days. I mean seriously, how can you not be a little bit embarrased to be a Republican?"

And so on...

Ridicule and scorn is the best disinfectant. yet all we see is this damn hand wringing which just shows lack of confidence in the candidate and message and the voter too for that matter.

"the trend line they're monitoring is bad for Democrats."

The trend line since 10/12 is positive in their Tier 1, neutral in Tier 2, and negative only in Tier 3.

> Presumably there are some smart
> people working in the Democratic
> establishment.

I didn't like most of the people in the (WJ) Clinton crowd, but I will accept the conventional wisdom that many of them were politically smart and capable. But since 1996 I have seen no evidence of these smart Establishment Dems of whom you speak.

Cranky

The Democratic Party has to, whenever remotely possible, instruct the corporate world that there will be a heavy and punitive price for giving money overwhelmingly to Republicans.
Republicans will always be able to outbid Democrats. The punishment and retribution must not be viewed as blackmail or begging for bribes, but as actually accepting that the corporate business world is the perpetual enemy of the Democratic Party. The effort should not be to get a fair share of the shakedown and bribery campaign contributions, but an effort to ensure that corporations have much less money available to rig elections. The very structure of corporate America must be changed, if not eliminated.

All Boards of Directors should be mandated by law to comprise 1/3 members representing labor, and 1/3 representing customer/clients/environmental/minority groups.

Let's nationalize some industries: Just grab Walmart, run it as a national enterprise like the Post Office, and grant no compensation. Call it a war emergency. Who else:FNC/Murdoch. Nationalize their assets.

Implementing Bob's strategy is one surefire way to lose an election.

Alterman wanted MY to put him on his blogroll, but I guess it ain't gonna happen.

I have a lot of skepticism about polls-- the response rate to polling has been tending towards zero for quite some time. And there's really no reason to assume that the people who like to answer polls divide on election day the same way as the rest of us.

So, I think the real situation is that nobody really knows.

"mildly racially tinged."

Wow, you downplay it to the point of redudancy. Mild racism is like a mild clusterbomb: it doesn't exist.

That said, you may be right about the right strategy for responding. Of course, Dems on the national level like to use incidents like this to paint the GOP as racist--which they should do. The GOP can't run campaigns like this and compete for the votes of blacks. That is, we can't let them.

Another argument for pointing out the racist subtext in the campaign ad is that, otherwise, the ad's negative connotations about Ford might settle into an individual's limbic system. The person will have a negative opinion of Ford without even being aware that it was due to the ad exploiting their latent racism.

Believe it or not, sometimes our conscience mind can overide our emotional programming.

You're also turning off a group of people who are pissed off by false accusations of racism. The issue the blonde girl is referencing is Ford's attendance at a Playboy sponsored party. Now I frankly don't see why this should be an issue, besides the very minor point of his weasely non-answer that he hadn't been at a Playboy "Mansion" party. But if it is a morals issue that voters care about, it's an issue whether the troubled candidate is white or black. And if you're going to allude to a trip to a Playboy party, you use a...bubbly blonde woman.

This ad would have been just as useful and done just the same way to attack a white candidate who had done what Ford did. (Again, not much.) The fact that a few morons might get their backs up at the idea of a black man messing around with white women has no relevance to whether that was the intent of the ad. I think it clear the intent was to bring up the real issue - his "lack of morals" at attending a Playboy party and his lack of ethics in not just being truthful up front.

Trying to invent a racial motive, when any racial overtones are wholly incidental, pisses people in the middle off. Are black candidates to be immunized from "legitimate" attacks just because they could have a racial angle?

"I think it clear the intent was to bring up the real issue - his "lack of morals" at attending a Playboy party and his lack of ethics in not just being truthful up front."

Glad you're willing to impute the best intentions to Republicans facing the loss of the Senate. Those of us in the reality-based world have our doubts.

Dylan just made the exact point I wanted to. There's nothing racial in the ad at all! Using that add to attack a white candidate who had played up his morals would have the exact same effect. It seems a reach to cry "racism" just because the target of a race-neutral ad is black.

Matt, what do you know that the betting markets on tradesports don't?

I think Dylan is on to something here but I'd go a step further. I grew up in southeast Tennessee (Corker is former mayor of my hometown) and the ad is a "twofer" designed to appeal to social conservatives such as my parents. They'll respond first to the clear notion that Ford's morals are more tainted than he has portrayed in his churchy ads; and, more subliminally, as white Southerners of a certain age, they'll recoil from the implication that Ford has his pick of white women (just as the RNC intended).

Actually, this ad could be a "threefer" -- it allows the Corker campaign to suggest to white Tennesseans that look, the furor this ad has caused means that Washington Democrats and New York media elites all look down on you as racist rednecks any way, so you might as well vote for the white man who makes you feel more comfortable (never mind that he was incompetent as a mayor). I'd be willing to bet that this ad will nail down my parents' votes, as well as the votes of most of their Baptist neighbors, and can only be offset by strong black turn-out in the western part of the state combined with moderate voters concentrated in Nashville.

Yes, to merge Jim W and Kent, a reply something like (do your own wordsmithing)

"Wow, they're really a lot more desperate than we thought to resort to this pathetic racist ploy"

"How stupid or racist do they really think Americans are these days?"

"Wow, What can you say. The Republicans have really driven into the ditch this time around. People moved past this stuff 30 years ago."

"THAT's all they could come up with? You have to wonder if they are talking to the public or themselves. Good Lord, no wonder they've mismanaged the country so badly."

Only in a weird Matt world is pointing out Corker thinks his voters are a bunch of rascist redencks means the Democrats think they are a bunch of rascist rednecks.

Its also amazing how unless they are dressed in sheets some people wille excuse outright rascist appeals.

I have to say it through gritted teeth, but I'm with petey on this. A Dem House is a done deal; the only real question is whether the GOP will lose the Senate as well. Years of scandal and a botched war are hard to paper over. Anybody else notice how the old standards -- gay-bashing and ever more tax cuts -- aren't getting much traction these days?

Another thing: While I've been as dismayed as any leftie by years of Democratic gutlessness and tactical ineptitude, I'd hate to be a Republican true believer over these last few weeks. The heirs to the "genius" of Atwater and Rove sure do seem to be doing a lot of desperate, really amateurish thrashing lately. For instance, Limbaugh's swipe at Michael J. Fox is a gift to any Dem savvy enough to play it right.

"Matt, what do you know that the betting markets on tradesports don't?"

It all depends on how you define "semi-naysayer".

By all historical measures, we should be set to pick up 45+ seats this year. In those lights, I'm a semi-naysayer too. I think the GOP's funding, targeting/GOTV, and redistricting advantages will hold us under 35 seats.

And tangentially, why am I the only person in the entire fucking lefty blogosphere who is saying that the DNC should be at least trying to match the RNC's targeting/GOTV operation so we won't be at a disadvantage in at least one of those areas in future cycles?

Poor Tennessee. So stupid they need reminding that Harold Ford is black.

The GOP said it very loud and clear
They went and shouted in its ear.

(apologies to Lewis Carroll)

Hmmm, Eric Alterman is upset that the drug companies are giving $8.9 million dollars to campaigns, 31% to Democrats. That means a net of 3.3 million to Republicans. Spread out over how many campaigns? Seventy? That's how many are competitive. So that's less than fifty grand a campaign. Sounds like the drug companies are doing the minimum in light of a probable Democratic House.

> And tangentially, why am I the only person
> in the entire fucking lefty blogosphere who
> is saying that the DNC should be at least
> trying to match the RNC's targeting/GOTV
> operation so we won't be at a disadvantage
> in at least one of those areas in future cycles?

Many, many people have said so both in the blogsphere and out, as you well know.

As you also well know, the Democrats do not have a Mellon/Scaife family willing to spend $1-3 billion to make it happen. And any time a fatcat starts to open his wallet to the Dems the traditional media starts screaming "Conspiracy! Soros buying the Democratic Party for evil lefty librul purposes! Dr. Evil a Democrat!". They never bother to monitor who is donating how much to the _Republicans_, but any donation to the Dems over $100? Forget it.

Cranky

"Many, many people have said so both in the blogsphere and out, as you well know."

No I don't know that. I've seriously never seen anyone else in the lefty blogosphere suggesting it.

"As you also well know, the Democrats do not have a Mellon/Scaife family willing to spend $1-3 billion to make it happen."

It would take less than 5% of that to set up a serious operation. And the money is certainly there - we set up and fund an ad hoc targeting/GOTV operation every two years.

The trick is to centralize the operation inside the DNC so it can be a permanent operation with the same stability and universality advantages the RNC gets from having a permanent operation.

"Implementing Bob's strategy is one surefire way to lose an election."

Well, it wasn't about this election but about the governance should we attain a majority. And was written with toungue in cheek, many here know my economic positions.

But since MY started the post with the campaign finance disparity, I do think it is worthwhile to address it. It is also a controversy within the Party, brought to the forefront with the Bankruptcy Bill. The DLC/Clinton strategy of not scaring business has not worked, and will never work, and after 12 years of Republican congressional control, should be abandoned. Republicans will always have the carrots, Democrats have to wave the stick.

I've lived in Tennessee near Nashville the past eight years. A rural, not-well-off, white, 60-something guy I ran into yesterday said the ad in question "makes Tennessee look the way it did 50 years ago and it forgets we've changed."

I noted that the Bristol newspaper, over in the mountainous eastern part of the state (a part of the state not noted for supporting Democrats) has formally endorsed the Ford campaign.

Folks I talk to here in the Nashville area, who aren't all Democrats, feel a bit of embarrassment about this ad. They realize Corker is playing the race card, and they think it's backfiring.

This is not to say the ad isn't effective among some Tennesseans, or that it's going to cost Corker a lot of votes.

Frankly, this Tennessean agrees with Dylan. Republicans' intent with this ad was to undercut Ford's campaign-long effort to trim the advantage Republicans have among church-goers and rural voters, which will be critical to winning Tennessee. The racial angle is a bonus for the GOP, but most Tennesseans are sort of aware that Harold Ford is black; he's not exactly an unknown in Tennessee, and I doubt there's that much to be gained by playing the race card [I know, it only takes a couple of points, but playing the race card could also take a couple of points off Corker's vote; this is a more complicated state than a lot of y'all realize].

But the ad's primary purpose really wasn't racial, but to go after Ford's carefully cultivated churchgoing good-boy image. And, I might add, the response of the Ford campaign hasn't been to play up the racial issue; they're going after the basic silliness of the charge--that a young, single guy who drops by a Super Bowl party with lots of attractive women is thereby somehow morally deficient. That won't convince a hard-core religious righter, but those people were lost to begin with; and I suspect it may actually endear Ford to many.

As for the "jungle drums" ad--I think y'all are reading way too much into that. If you want to play up Ford as a Black Menace, do you attack the candidate for his privileged upbringing? His Ivy-League education? In Tennessee, this ad sounds very familiar; Corker is a Real Tennessean who's lived here all his life, went to UT like he was supposed to, and built a business from the ground up, while Ford's a son of privilege who's Not Really One Of Us. The hot button here isn't race; it's phony populism. How well that will work in a state that now has a Harvard-educated governor and a Princeton-educated senior senator isn't that clear, but it's a tack as hackneyed around here as Lamar Alexander's plaid shirts and Fred Thompson's pickup truck--not to mention Estes Kefauver's coonskin cap.

Love David's comments, especially his invocation of Tennessee politicians past and present. I'm wondering, too, if Al Gore plays a role here; the GOP, well aware that Tennesseeans turned on Gore for his blue-chip education and dynastic pedigree, are trying to paint Ford as a younger, brasher, African-American version of Gore, one with a similar background (both graduates of St. Albans in D.C.) and both espousing a kind of populism that Republicans love to tar as "phony" to susceptible voters. Something to mull over . . .

What an intriguing race. But I'm still happy I left the Volunteer state for New York City almost twenty years ago.

I think Corker and the RNCC are going for all of it -- the Al Gore-related angle plus the racist angle, plus anything else that would help Corker with people who might vote his way. I'm not from Tennessee and I have no idea how people feel about anything there -- but neither does Matt, I'd guess. Also, I think Harold Ford has already aired a commercial responding to the Corker ad that pretty much does what Matt says he thinks the Dems should do.

So, uh, sometimes a jungle drum is just a jungle drum?
W. T. F.

Regarding TN:

- Both the TV and radio ads obviously have intentional racist components. If you can 't see this, you're not very politically aware.

- Crying foul about this may or may not help the Ford campaign, but it's important for Democrats nationally to do so. Signs of overt racism damage the GOP's brand.

For once, I think Bay Buchanan had a good point: Tennessee appears to like its Senators dull. Or at very least, people perceived as dull get elected in state-wide races. You'd have to be a true believer to deny that there's a racial basis to the whole 'Fancy Ford' meme, but it's also wrapped up in the idea that he's too flamboyant for the state as a whole.

What I don't understand is how the obvious fact that the Corker ads play on non-racist themes (he's a partier, he's corrupt, he went to Hahvahd) is evidence that the ads are not racist.

One of the basic rules of the internet is that there's always a white person who'll come around to deny the existence of racism, and usually start concern-trolling over the breakdown in our national dialogue over race.

Matt, what do you know that the betting markets on tradesports don't?

Also, while I don't really see Matt's logic above, I don't see what tradesports gives us. The evidence of these markets shows that they basically follow the conventional wisdom on every election. I've never seen any evidence that they do more than reflect what influential people are saying. Markets don't create truth.

"I don't see what tradesports gives us."

Efficient distillation of all available data on an election.

They're of only limited predictive value because all available data on an election is only of limited predictive value. But they're a handy way of seeing what the polling is telling the poll readers.

- Both the TV and radio ads obviously have intentional racist components. If you can 't see this, you're not very politically aware.

Color me not very politically aware. I haven't heard the radio ad, but please tell me what the "intentional racist component" in the tv ad is. If you didn't know Ford was black, this ad certainly wouldn't have told you so, nor are any of the myriad cheap criticisms ("terrorists need their privacy", "I'd love to pay taxes when I'm dead", "i have too many guns", "playboy party") race-related. If the "playboy" woman in the ad was black, we would be discussion how that was code to remind viewers that Ford was black! Is it now automatically racist to criticize a black candidate's morals (admittedly in a cheap, underhanded way)? Especially when said candidate has played up his devout morality throughout the campaign?

Let's think back to the 2000 campaign, when throughout--directly or indirectly--the Bush campaign suggested Gore was dishonest, while Gore suggested Bush wasn't that bright. If either candidate was black, would it have been racist to make those insinuations? Or are black candidates somehow specially protected in any case where some racists out there may take the message to reinforce their racism?

I share Mr. Yglesias's skepticism about the Democrats' prospects for recapturing either the house or senate, but I remain optimistic about the Ford race.

Ok, I offer option 2: It is a racist ad, but it's designed to reduce black female voter turnout. As far as I can tell that's the demographic that is most pissed off, by far, about black men being romantically involved with white women.

No, I don't think anyone's clever enough to try this.

"Color me not very politically aware."

Fair enough.

Another point that Josh Marshall makes a lot is that Democrats are prone to defeatism to the point of self-fulfilling prophecy. Every little thing is a sign that the inevitable GOP rebound is coming. Corker ran a race-baiting ad! ABC is airing a right-wing hit job! Gas prices are falling! Bush made a bunch of speeches around September 11! North Korea tested a nuclear device! How can we possibly win an election when all this is going on?

Please, fellow Democrats. Don't be dispirited so easily. Believe. Contribute. Volunteer. The issues and the ideas are on our side. We can win this.

Steve: I agree in terms of attitude, it's better for Dems if people believe Dems will win. So yeah, Dems are kicking arse everywhere! I think this point is important in reference to Kos who won't shut up about his "act like we are ten points behind."

But I think people who are analytically setting forth the reasons should feel free to and shouldn't quiet their honest opinion for fear of depressing turnout.

I think one aspect of this is the contrarian-pleasing-the-DC-elite type. It's much more embarassing to over-estimate the Democrats than under-estimate them, and lots of pundits don't want to be on that list.

Anyway, yeah total agreement with MY on the ad. It wasn't racist and whining about it in a predictable way makes Ford look bad (even if it isn't Ford whining about it). But most people really don't think that strategicall. Republican black candidates and their bloggers are happy to yell racism at any oppportunity *cough*oreos*cough*

I just came back from Knoxville today feeling mildly discouraged, just from a series of bumper-sticker observations. The conference I was attending had a lot of county-commissioner types, and they're looking pretty Corker-happy (I couldn't actually engage them wrt politics, but tried to listen in when I could). Both candidates were invited to address the group-- although neither attended-- and I think Corker's program bio was better geared toward this demographic, even though both were just badly written IMO. (As an aside, Dems are very bad about just sending their stock information out for this sort of thing instead of taking the time to make a few minor edits to target the audience- if they pandered less on tv and more in print I think they'd do better.)

And for plenty of Tennesseans, the real subtext is that Ford is a tomcat just like all of his corrupt-politician relatives, and that both tendencies have rubbed off on him.

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
forum
forum
mirc
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet

Good comment.Thanks admin.

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

perde

temizlik

stor perde

ip perde

jaluzi perde

dikey perde

ofis temizliği

ilaçlama

açılış organizasyon

perdeci

perde modelleri

organizasyon

http://www.ekmekmusafcarpsin.com/

Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırc turk
mircada
mircturkiye
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc
sohbet
forum
chat
online sinema
catlak
türk forum
turk forum
kafkas
kafkasya
ders
siyaset
izmir
karşiyaka
karsiyaka
forum
karsıyaka
sohbet

harbiarkadas.com
harbiarkadas.net
harbiarkadas.org
itirafet.org
ebedava.net
elektronikmarket.net
ameribress.com
clitoriacream.net
superspenisbuyutucu.com
megabress.com
rednightperformans.com
performansartirici.com
penisplus.tv
penispluspenisbuyutucu.com
penispluspenisbuyutucu.net
cinselmerkez.com
aseks.net
erotikcamasirlar.com
vajinatr.com
bakirevajina.com
cinselkozmetik.com
kozmetikmedikel.com
eturknet.com
tecavuz.net
yutuvideo.com
ponotubesex.com
laraperuk.com
sackanagimerkezi.com
peruksa.com
perukmarket.com
aseks.com
aloveshop.com
erotikgiyim.com
geciktiricispreyler.com
geciktiricihap.com
geciktiriciler.com
azdirici.com
bayanuyarici.com
fntazialemi.com
fantaziservisi.om
cinselmazemeler.com
cinselfantaziurunleri.com
erotikdakikalar.com
erotikmarketiniz.com
seksmarketiniz.com
sekshatlari.com
erotikdergiler.com
erotikderginiz.com
penisbuyutucuviprx.com
penisbuyutucuvigrx.com
penisbuyutuculer.com
vigrxpenisbuyutucu.com
sismebebekler.com
sismebebekshop.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
elektronikmarket.net
ebedava.net
kontortr.com
elaydin23.com
turkcellkontorcu.com
aveakontoral.com
vodafonekontoral.com
toptankontorcu.com
cinselkozmetik.com
bayanpartnerler.com
erkekpartnerler.com
kizarkadaslar.com
yonjaarkadas.com
siberalem-siberalem.com
sexpartnerler.com
sekspartnerler.com
erotikpartnerler.com
gencyuz.com
erkekarkadaslar.com
bayanarkadaslar.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
baskahaber.com
medikalkozmetik.net
kozmetikmedikal.com
zayiflamavediyet.net
zayiflamahapii.com
zayiflamabandii.com
kilovertr.com
zayiflamatr.net
diyettr.com
toksinbandi.net
botoxtr.com
botokstr.com
selulittedavii.com
selulitgiderici.net
selulitkremii.com
catlaktedavisii.com
catlakgiderici.net
catlakkremii.com

penis büyütücü