Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Pigs and bridges
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Since it seems to have taken on a life of its own, let me be clear that I don't think that Barack Obama called Sarah Palin a "pig" with his remark about lipstick and pigs.

What is clear, however, is the crowd he was addressing did. That's not his fault or anything he has control over.

His problem, of course, was he chose to use a metaphor that at any other time wouldn't have even raised an eyebrow. He used it after the Republican VP candidate had used "lipstick" as a punchline in a joke about herself (and others like her).

As he correctly notes, such things are like "catnip to the media". And they obligingly made his point - two days worth of pigs and lipstick. No real foul on Obama's part - just poor politics.

As for the "bridge to nowhere", I think Deroy Murdock does a very good job of putting that both in context and to rest.
While running for chief executive, Palin backed the bridge, although with little evident enthusiasm. “The money that’s been appropriated for the project,” she told Ketchikan voters in September 2006, “it should remain available for a link, an access process as we continue to evaluate the scope and just how best to just get this done.”

Palin could have fought for the bridge as governor, as did her spendthrift GOP predecessor, Frank Murkowski (whom she jettisoned in a primary). Murkowski recommended dedicating $195 million in the state budget for the bridge. Instead, Palin gave it $0.

“Palin’s budget doesn’t include money for mega projects that she supported as a candidate, such as the controversial Gravina Island bridge in Ketchikan,” Kyle Hopkins wrote in the December 16, 2006 Anchorage Daily News. “Palin said she will hash out where the bridge fits on the state’s list of priorities with the help of the Legislature and public. ‘We have a limited pot of money, of course, and we need to make wise, sensible choices,’ she said.”

In a February 2007 report on infrastructure priorities, Palin’s transition team opposed the Bridge, plus a road in Juneau. “Statewide, these two projects are seen as a severe drain on resources that would otherwise be assigned to heavily used commercial and passenger routes,” the study concluded.

Alaska’s Senate approved $1.6 billion in capital items on May 11, 2007. True to Palin’s wishes, the spending plan provided no money for the Bridge to Nowhere.

On September 21, 2007, Palin finally stated, “‘Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer.”

Palin’s early, tepid support for the bridge, followed by her open hostility to it as governor did not please the state’s GOP political establishment.

As Amy Goldstein and Michael D. Shear observed in the August 30 Washington Post, Palin “has angered two of Alaska’s leading Republicans — Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young — by refusing to support their decades-long practice of securing federal money for the state, including Young’s effort to obtain $233 million for a structure dubbed the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ by critics because it would have connected a small town with an island populated with 50 people. In her short time in state office, she has repeatedly thwarted Stevens’s and Young’s interests and, at times, challenged their candidates — including their children.”

While it may be unfair to say that Sarah Palin always treated the Bridge as Milton Friedman might have, she quickly grasped the project’s folly and ultimately put it out of the nation’s misery. In a country where politicians endlessly make demands until weary taxpayers capitulate, Palin scrapped the bridge soon after she was empowered to do so.
Another explanation here.

And then, of course, is the matter of the Alaska State Democratic Party giving Palin credit for stopping it on their website.

(HT: McP)
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Here is DeMint talking about the bridge as well in WSJ
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Genuinely curious: Do you think it’s appropriate for McCain and his supporters to make a big deal out of the "lipstick" remark?

I’m angry that they made a commercial out of it. A freaking commercial? Really?

It’s crap, dressed as politics, and sold to a waiting mass of idiots. It makes me sad. Does it bother you?
 
Written By: Stebe
URL: http://
I don’t think that Barack Obama called Sarah Palin a "pig"
Agreed
What is clear, however, is the crowd he was addressing did. That’s not his fault or anything he has control over.
No, but what was obvious to us as soon as the crowd reacted, and I’m going to bet it was obvious to him at that point as well. I do not agree that he had no control over this, though. He could have very quickly stopped and made his intent clear.

Ultimately though, as you point out, that metaphor should have been taken off the table by any serious/seasoned politician trying to avoid spin after Palins convention speech.
 
Written By: Boogs
URL: http://
Stebe-

Eh. It’s a load of course, but I’m all for shoving a steaming dose of identity politics down the left’s throat.

Payback, teachable moments and all that
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Thanks, shark. You’re honest. I disagree entirely (better to rise above it, be honorable, etc) but at least you’re honest.
 
Written By: Stebe
URL: http://
Genuinely curious: Do you think it’s appropriate for McCain and his supporters to make a big deal out of the "lipstick" remark?
Yes. Politicians need to be wary of terms they use in an ever shifting environment, it’s a basic fundamental of diplomacy. He didn’t mean it in the way it was taken, but it was taken that way by the people. A lot of international diplomacy happens by interpretation of words and actions. The blowback that Obama is getting now is nothing compared to making a similar mistake on the global stage as President.
 
Written By: Boogs
URL: http://
Genuinely curious: Do you think it’s appropriate for McCain and his supporters to make a big deal out of the "lipstick" remark?
Yeah, but I bet Hilary supporters are thinking payback to Obama who played this card with her
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
I think the ’lipstick on a pig’ was a deliberate double entendre. His past speached have been laced with them. I have no reason to believe he’s not using one here.

He meant the expression in both ways. A commentary on McCain’s policies and an insulting play on words meant to comment on Palin, herself. She is, according to the left, suppose to be a disaster of a pick remember? So its a slam at her merits as a VP and additionally on her person as well. So actually its a triple entendre, really.

His pacing and reaction to the crowd’s laugh gave me the impression he new immediately how the crowd took it and wasn’t surprised by that either.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
... I don’t think that Barack Obama called Sarah Palin a "pig" with his remark about lipstick and pigs.

I agree, but let’s call a spade a spade: Obama fouled up and now his campaign is really spooked. The media - which has hardly been niggardly in its fawning coverage of The Annointed One - is also in full damage control mode, jiggering their coverage to not only excuse his "joke" but also chucking a few spears of their own at McCain and his "outrage". Though McCain is entitled to be angry with the media after their lynching of Sarah Palin and her clan in the past several days, he really shouldn’t say much of anything about the "lipstick" gaffe: he should let The Annointed One twist in the wind. We all know what Obama said; his poorly-chosen words do serious damage to his rep as a brilliant orator. Further, Sarah Palin is hardly a fuzzy-wuzzie little bunny: she doesn’t need McCain to take up for her. She knew what sort of jungle she was getting into. My only concern is that the media, once they stop screeching at McCain, will put this story in the same black hole where they’ve buried Ayers, Wright, and the other things that embarrass their boy.

:
:

Now, can you imagine the outrage from the Obama camp and his loopy followers if McCain or Palin said ANYTHING like what I just wrote? And do you think the excuse "these are common phrases and we weren’t making racist remarks" would be accepted for even one second?

I think that, for conservatives, it isn’t the media’s bias that is so maddening, but rather the blatant double standard.
 
Written By: docjim505
URL: http://
Is this really an ad though, or just a bit of viral You Tube campaign froth.

To me an ad is something that is seen on TV, who’s air time has been paid for.

No doubt, some media venues will choose to cover this issue, giving it free air time in the process.

Like I’ve said, for someone who’s supposed to be such a great orator, he’s lousy when speaking off-the-cuff (or more accurately off-the-teleprompter.) He certainly uses a lot of uh, umm, pauses in his speaking style. That’s not good for a public speaker, let alone the President of the US.

Get ready for a gaffe a minute during the debates.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Now, can you imagine the outrage from the Obama camp and his loopy followers if McCain or Palin said ANYTHING like what I just wrote?
There would be outrage and disappointment from the McCain camp as well, because we would be saying that they should have known better then to make that sort of mistake.

Unfortunately, that sort of standard doesn’t seem to apply to the left.
 
Written By: Boogs
URL: http://
I think you’re right on point that there is a double-standard. But isn’t it also a double-standard when Republicans then come back and make an ad out of this thing?

docjim, my best guess suggests that many on the left would express outrage over what you’ve written and —- my best guess suggests —- the conservatives would complain about this "pretend" outrage. So why use it as a tool back?

It’s this constant back and forth, this sacrificing of basic decency for the quick score, that is so tiring.
 
Written By: Stebe
URL: http://
I agree with jpm100, actually. Let’s look at this thing straightforwardly.

First of all, right before the "lipstick on a pig" comment, he apparently plucked a whole paragraph from a political cartoon published on September 5, and didn’t attribute it to the original author.

Then he makes the "lipstick on a pig" comment, about which I will grant that it is possible he wasn’t referring to Palin. But since she so recently made her "lipstick" joke a national buzzline, he should have known in the moment he said it (either the moment it entered his head, or the moment the crowd started laughing and whooping) or he’s not half as smart as we’ve been led to believe.

And after that, he immediately tacks on a line about an "old fish". If he wasn’t intending those two comments, strung together, to be a reference to Palin and McCain, he could have fooled the crowd that was listening to him: they made the connections right away.

If McCain had made some offhand comment like, "Barack Obama is criticizing me for being more partisan than I want people to think I am. Well, that’s kinda like the pot calling the kettle black," that would have sunk him immediately. Never mind that it’s a common phrase. The standard in politics (and governance) is that you don’t make comments that can very easily be taken the wrong way.

If he intended it as a reference to Palin, he’s stupid and he’s being punished for it right now. If he didn’t intend it a reference to Palin, he’s still stupid and he’s still being punished for it right now.
 
Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net
I don’t even understand that. He was calling her a pig? Really?
 
Written By: Stebe
URL: http://
I found this explains a lot
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
The issue is Obama.

Smart *ss remarks such as this do not make him look presidential. McCain and Palin have endured a week of smears from Barack, his bloggers and his media allies all aimed at Sarah Palin. Women are particularly sensitive to criticism about their appearance. For a politician who has just seen a 20% drop in popularity in a critical demographic, white women, this pig joke about a white woman was stunningly stupid.

About the bridge to no where. Any politician who voted to use $400M of taxpayer money to build a bridge to an island with 50 people living on it should be sent to jail. That’s $8M per resident. Distorting Palin’s position on the bridge is just another smear.

Obama doesn’t look like a president. He looks like a liar.
 
Written By: arch
URL: http://
Heh, I just had a thought, Is Obama having his macaca moment???

Or is it racist to say that???
Obama doesn’t look like a president. He looks like a liar.
No, he looks like what he is, the FRESHMAN Senator from Illinois. And we should all call him that.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Stebe,

Politics is a contact sport, and if you don’t think it cuts both ways, google the non-word "macaca." Sad, yes, to those of us who think policy is more important than the surface trivia, but unsurprising and not particularly indecent, and not even particularly out of bounds. Going after Obama’s family would be indecent, as the Left’s attacks on Palin’s family and McCain’s divorce are indecent. In politics, it’s fair game if you mis-speak, and it’s fair game if you accidentally say what you meant. It’s also fair game if you say something ambiguous enough to be taken badly. So, yeah, the lipstick on a pig ad was to be expected, and is far, far below the level of meaningful policy debate, as was essentially the entire section of Obama’s speech that got him into trouble and prompted the ad and all of this discussion.

All that said, I’d prefer substantive policy discussion, and there are still blogs where that happens, but the vast majority on the left, a majority on the right and about half of the centrist political comment blogs have gone right along with discussion of the triviata. And more people watch CNN or Fox than watch C-Span, for that matter.

 
Written By: Jeff Medcalf
URL: http://www.caerdroia.org/blog
Obama smearked when he made the comment. I think he understood the implication. The audience sure did.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I looked at Neo’s link, and found this near the bottom:
Demorats offer change.
Republicans offer more of the same.
Heh. Anyone else remember the "RATS" controversy from a few years ago?

Anyway, it’s interesting, that page is, because it is at one and the same time explicitly using the text to say that the pig is Bush policies and the lipstick is McCain’s selection of outsider Palin, yet it is also implicitly using "lipstick" to mean "a woman", and visually depicting Palin as a pig with lipstick.

I’m swinging from honest malapropism over to the deliberate double entendre do deniably smear Palin by calling her names.

 
Written By: Jeff Medcalf
URL: http://www.caerdroia.org/blog
more people watch CNN or Fox than watch C-Span, for that matter.
Have you ever listened to the callers on Washington Journal? I’m convinced that mostly idiots watch C-Span.
Any politician who voted to use $400M of taxpayer money to build a bridge to an island with 50 people living on it should be sent to jail.
In fairness to the "Bridge to Nowhere, it wasn’t being built for the benefit of 50 people on a remote island. It was being built to allow the people of Ketchikan easier access to their airport which just happened to be on the neighboring island with 50 people. If you take the time to look at the map you’ll see that there really wasn’t much choice in where to locate the airport. Ketchikan is itself on a larger island with no road connecting it to the mainland. The only way to bring in supplies is by air or water. So when Palin says she’ll think of other ways for Ketchikans to connect to their airport one wonders what she means...dig a tunnel?

Now in fairness to Gov. Palin, she was probably right in canceling this project. The airport and the town of Ketchikan are only about a quarter mile apart so it’s not that much of a hassle to ferry supplies back and forth. The citizens of Ketchikan chose to live in this very scenic but remote place and I’m sure they’ll opt to stay there even though the bridge project was cancelled.

As for Obama and Pigs/Lipstick. It’s fascinating to watch this slow train wreck which is the Obama campaign. This may not be his Howard Dean "shout" moment but I have the feeling one of those is just around the corner.
 
Written By: Bob
URL: http://
This may not be his Howard Dean "shout" moment but I have the feeling one of those is just around the corner.
Yep, he just needs to keep riffing on McCain/Palin, and he’s bound to say something else that will endear him to fly over country. The only part of this over/under that I would bet on is whether it will be in front of the national media or someone with a cell phone cam.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
First of all, right before the "lipstick on a pig" comment, he apparently plucked a whole paragraph from a political cartoon published on September 5, and didn’t attribute it to the original author.
Calling him out for plaigarizing a cartoon would make a better ad than the "lipstick" ad. Who is going to shape his policy, Jim Davis? Maybe, he’ll appoint Hagar the Horrible as Defense Secretary. I’ll give him credit for at least picking out a political cartoon to attempt to copy word for word. He almost got it right!
 
Written By: Is
URL: http://
Any politician who voted to use $400M of taxpayer money to build a bridge to an island with 50 people living on it should be sent to jail.
So where should Obama and Biden be sent? Gitmo? :)
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
"Genuinely curious: Do you think it’s appropriate for McCain and his supporters to make a big deal out of the "lipstick" remark?"

It is idiotic, and shows that stupidity is alive and well on both sides. Just when this campaign seemed to be starting to get interesting, with Palin’s nomination, moronicity seems to be breaking out all over, and I may have to go back to sleep. Much more of this and I may have to join Alec Baldwin in France.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
It is idiotic, and shows that stupidity is alive and well on both sides.
So you do not agree that a politician, especially running for leader of the free world, needs to know better then to make mistakes such as these? What if Obama’s adversary was Putin and not McCain? Do you think that the reality of Politics would change and suddenly Putin would be above using Obama’s obvious fumble as a PR gain for Russia?
 
Written By: Boogs
URL: http://
I don’t think there was anything particularly wrong with what he said. And I don’t a single comment made at a political rally can accurately predict how the candidate will face off against Putin or other world leader. If it could, I think everyone would be in a lot of trouble since there are lousy sound-bites out there from all politicians.

Someone has to say enough is enough. It’s about time that one side (any side will do) starts to behave like adults and not scream bloody murder when their opponent says something that borders on beginning to appear like it might be questionable.
 
Written By: Stebe
URL: http://
If it could, I think everyone would be in a lot of trouble since there are lousy sound-bites out there from all politicians.
It’s not about scouring for embarrassing soundbites from a politicians past and trying to fit them into a current issue, it’s about the ability to maneuver around political landmines. Why couldn’t he just use the wrapped fish analogy and leave it at that? In an experienced politicians mind, any thought of using the lipstick analogy would have immediately been rejected due to consideration of recent events. If he can’t steer around this obvious landmine, then I personally feel that is a valid concern about his judgment.

And that is me still not believing that made the comment directly in regards to Palin.

Yes, it’s just a political rally, but those rallies are his platform right now, and what he does all day long. As president the platform scales up, mightily.
 
Written By: Boogs
URL: http://
"So you do not agree that a politician, especially running for leader of the free world, needs to know better then to make mistakes such as these?"

I do not see it as a mistake. As I stated elsewhere, lipstick on a pig was a perfectly acceptable figure of speech before Palin, and it should continue to be so.


"What if Obama’s adversary was Putin "

I think Putin is a big boy and won’t start WWIII over some words even if they were an intentional insult, which this was clearly not. I don’t particularly worry over more bad PR from the once-and-future Russian empire.

Bagatelle, trifle, frippery. If he says something about Tibet not being under the influence of China, let me know.

Perhaps it is time to realize that Obama is not the of articulate that he is claimed to be by some. He is just another political hack. He is good at prepared speaking, but in impromptu and ad lib comments he is glib at best, and subject to the same stupid mistakes as McCain or anybody else. He is no better than many other public figures. In fact, I would say that Al Sharpton is more articulate, but Obama sounds whiter, which some with the ’soft bigotry of low expectations’ see as articulate.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I do not see it as a mistake. As I stated elsewhere, lipstick on a pig was a perfectly acceptable figure of speech before Palin, and it should continue to be so.
Unfortunately, things aren’t so black and white. Perfectly acceptable figures of speech are influenced by time and events. It was a political mistake for him to use that analogy right now, just as it would be a political mistake for McCain to use "Let’s call a spade a spade" currently.

I think Putin is a big boy and won’t start WWIII over some words
I agree completely.
 
Written By: Boogs
URL: http://
I do not see it as a mistake. As I stated elsewhere, lipstick on a pig was a perfectly acceptable figure of speech before Palin, and it should continue to be so.
I just need to add, that I really, truly do agree with you that this is how it should be, freedom to express yourself without fear of having your words filtered for every nuance.
 
Written By: Boogs
URL: http://
"do agree with you that this is how it should be"

Well, somebody has to make it happen, and I am quite content to take some Stuff doing my bit to stop the madness. (Gosh, I feel so saintly).
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I have two words for anyone who doesn’t see this as a big deal:

"International Incident."

Let someone make a "mis-statement" like this, on the international level, and you will find such parsing of words as to make national politics seem tame.

This campaign is a job interview with the American people. The Messiah is not impressing me thus far.
 
Written By: The Gonzman
URL: http://
"I have two words for anyone who doesn’t see this as a big deal:

"International Incident." "

I have some words, too;

"Focus of evil in the modern world"
"Axis of evil"

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
memory checkstring hesitating dejerate teutomaniac acromioscapular uncorruptive unyoking vszhgu vcijpfhl
http://ltsyneoby.com
jmdned ctbnuz
http://bkskykljaze.com
suxnyk aaqwuii
http://wyoifomk.com
ukcjm brrcqoy
http://hpcomkej.com
 
Written By: Allen Duffy
URL: http://ucncrcy.com
memory checkstring hesitating dejerate teutomaniac acromioscapular uncorruptive unyoking omyhqaf iyzhjafg
http://cibtoezbk.com
uaeiet yknmev
http://aanmyjvdi.com
mvhkhw eujia
http://afnkcywrh.com
vfkvhhu kjgx
http://nkcjanxxgmpv.com
 
Written By: Jack Young
URL: http://oxzqpmyi.com
memory checkstring hesitating dejerate teutomaniac acromioscapular uncorruptive unyoking vpxiuo unmmps
http://vsxltgpotfh.com
msjldqr cggl
http://yalincy.com
qyeep elvcvjc
http://cihxlbwnk.com
iefdpr pvucaon
http://frsnpjlx.com
 
Written By: Will Morgan
URL: http://ejsyvpryyi.com
With our economy going into a slump, why is it that political figures are destroying valid financial options? Payday loans are an essential part of the U.S. financial system, providing loans to those who have bad or no credit that need the money fast. Yet, for one reason or another, legislators are targeting this financial system. Some states, such as Georgia and North Carolina, have even banned the industry all together! The politics behind it is simple; banks are lobbying the legislators to try and destroy their oncoming competition, and the legislators are falling for it. Even taking out the fact that banks are trying to take away your financial choices and freedoms so they can have a monopoly on loans, the corruption of our politics is simply wrong. Our opinions must be heard, and our freedom of choice, financial or not, should not be dampened on the soul fact on one person’s financial gain.

Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/

 
Written By: Payday Loan Advocate
URL: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/
Barack Obama and other high profile politicians are attempting to limit the right to use on-demand, short-term financial assistance. A number of cities and towns are also attempting bans on the industry, with several more attempting to follow suit. American citizens from all across the nation are fighting the legislation hoping to have their voices heard to prevent the abolishment of the Payday Loans industry. Regardless of the hundreds of thousands of potential jobs lost, these politicians are encouraging the elimination of this matter generally for personal political gain.
 
Written By: Payday Loan Advocate
URL: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/
Many politicians are no friend to the payday loans industry. In order to raise voter support they choose to ignore what is best for the citizens. Some states including, Georgia, North Carolina, and Oregon have completely driven out the payday loan companies. Politicians still choose to disregard the benefits of the industry even though statistics in these states show a spike in bankruptcy filings, bounced checks and foreclosures. Even though these negative statistics have come to light, several governors are still trying to follow suit. If the efforts to wipe the industry completely off the map prove successful, some possible repercussions might consist of increased unemployment rates, more debt, more foreclosures and an even more inapt economy.

Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/

 
Written By: Payday Loan Advocate
URL: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/
David Kernell, the 20-year-old son of Democratic Representative Mike Kernell of Tennessee, got popped. According to CNN (“Democratic lawmaker’s son indicted in Palin hacking”), he reset the password and gained access to GOP VP candidate Palin’s personal E-mail account. It is alleged that he read the contents, took a screenshot of her E-mail directory and obtained other personal information. The information that may have been compromised includes E-mail addresses and pictures of family members, one or more cell phone numbers of family members, family birthdates and more from Palin’s address book. Interestingly, after turning himself in, David Kernell pleaded not guilty. He pleaded not guilty despite the fact that he (allegedly) took the information he hacked from Palin’s personal account and posted it to a public Web site. Not only that, but he posted the new password he’d created, which would enable others to easily access Palin’s E-mail themselves and view any of the contents. As a result, Kernell Junior may be subject to the heat of a five-year prison term, $250,000 fine and three years of supervised release. That’s enough to turn anybody into a fluffy white piece of popcorn. At the maximum of $1,500 per loan, that bail would require about 167 individual payday loans to free that fluffy little popped grain treat from being overcooked by cellmates.

Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/
 
Written By: Payday Loan Advocate
URL: http://http://personal moneystore.com/moneyblog/

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider