The mother of all offhand comments!

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 22, 2012

Todd Akin becomes a big star: Todd Akin made a very dumb comment last week. In some quarters, it has produced some very dumb commentary, a topic we expect to explore next week.

(Your lizard brain is already angry about all the moral equivalence!)

In one way, Akin seemed to be saying something very dumb which he actually believed. In another way, he seems to have made the latest unfortunate offhand remark.

To the extent that Akin made an injudicious remark, it has surely turned out to be the mother of all such offhand comments! This morning, Rep. Akin dominates the front page of the New York Times.

He’s the focus of two front-page news reports. They share the page’s upper right-hand corner.

Inside the paper, Akin rates a third report. (It’s teased out on the front page.) The formerly unknown back-bencher rules pages A16 and A17, a double-page spread.

Three huge news reports eat those pages. All three reports concern the new mouth of the near-south.

We’ll comment on John Eligon’s report, which appears on A16 but is teased on the Times front page.

“Mr. Akin is no stranger to incendiary comments,” Jonathan Weisman writes, on the Times front page. At this point, Weisman directs us to page A16—to Eligon’s report.

Is Akin “no stranger to incendiary comments?” Incredibly, this is all Eligon has on that partiuclar topic. This short and rather pathetic passage rated that front-page tease:
ELIGON (8/22/12): Outspoken and blunt—too blunt, some might say—Mr. Akin, 65, is no stranger to incendiary comments. He has criticized federal spending on things like school lunches and student loans and has been quick to equate government spending to socialism.

“ ‘God called me to run’—that’s the way he thinks,” said Jeff Smith, a former Democratic state senator in Missouri, said of Mr. Akin, a six-term congressman who represents parts of eastern Missouri. “I think he thinks it’s his destiny, and so you’re going to have to get somebody pretty high up there—or, in his mind, pretty close to God—to push him out.”
Is Akin “no stranger to incendiary comments?” We don’t know, but that highlighted passage is all Eligon has—and you’ll note that he presents exactly zero quotations by Akin! According to Eligon, Akin has “criticized federal spending on things like school lunches and student loans,” in some unspecified way. He has also “been quick to equate government spending to socialism,” though again no quotations are given.

Is there a Republican in the land who hasn’t made that equation? This is all Eligon had—and yet it's excitedly cited today out on the Times’ front page!

(For the record, the Times lists five other journalists who "contributed" to Eligon's report. Including Rebecca Berg!)

With the rise of talk radio and the web, we’ve all gained the ability to see how crazy and dumb we Americans are—to see how many ludicrous things we’re prepared to believe.

It used to be hard to learn how crazy we are. Now it’s a click, or a talk show, away.

Or a glance at the New York Times?

Akin made a deeply ridiculous comment last week. But then, to a somewhat lesser extent, so does Journalist Weisman, on the Times front page.

Out on the Times front page, the excitable Weisman piles on today. Just a guess:

This reaction from our sillier journos will help make Akin a star. Are you sure this will lead to Akin's defeat?

We don't think that's clear.

Quick note: Your lizard brain may be angry by now. Have you noticed that your lizard tends to react that way?

66 comments:

  1. My mind boggles at the stupidity of what Akin said. Where in the world did he get the idea that rape couldn't cause pregnancy? And, his "correction" -- that he was talking only about a certain type of rape -- made it ever worse.

    Not only was Akin ignorant of biology, he was equally ignorant of politics. Feminists have significant political power. Anyone in politics ought to know that mentioning rape in this way would lead to an explosion of media coverge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You faintly allude to the problem as it relates to the GOP - Akin let it slip out for the media to exploit. In fact, other than the biological absurdity of Akin's statement, the "no-exceptions" ban on abortion is a plank of the GOP for 2012.

      Also, blaming feminists for any media explosion resulting from Akin's statment of his beliefs "boggles" my mind when one honestly considers the extent of the political power held by the opponents of abortion relative to that held by its proponents.

      Delete
    2. I assume you would say that the other side are "abortion proponents" was an unfortunate offhand remark -- bit of misspeak.

      I know many, many people who believe it is the woman, not the government, who should have the right to decide whether to have a baby or not. Some of them have the intelligence to be able to separate the moral from the legal protection: to believe personally that most abortions are immoral, but that because we are a religiously plural country, the government should not be using the threat of criminal prosecution to enforce one religious viewpoint over others.

      But I know absolutely nobody who is an "abortion proponent." I guess you're not ready for primetime.

      Delete
    3. If these people think that abortion is "immoral'" because it extinguishes a human life, then deigning THAT as a matter of religious or personal sensibility makes no sense at all.

      These people need to be challenged according to the seriousness of such a presupposition.

      Delete
    4. His theory comes from the old marriage manual theory that better sex leads to more pregnancies-- female satisfaction being the key.

      I knew right away what Akin was getting at, even though it's not true. You used to hear this talk all the time, that bad sex can lead to some kind of acidic 'secretions' which can interfere with conception.

      But rather than understand what Akin was getting at, the media would rather make fun of him all the way. Which is not hard to do-- and I'm getting tired of it.

      Delete
    5. Bull. There is no "old marriage manual" that says any such thing. And if there were, you would hope that a candidate for the U.S. Senate would not be stupid enough to believe it, let alone repeat it in a televised interview.

      Delete
    6. Well, even if Akin was alluding to that, it's a ridiculously archaic idea for him to harbor in this day and age.

      I don't think a defense of naïveté, or no malice intended, is much help to him either.

      I think the voters have seen enough rending of garments now to have gotten the point. Can we move on to the next outrage now?

      Delete
    7. "Bull. There is no "old marriage manual" that says any such thing. And if there were, you would hope that a candidate for the U.S. Senate would not be stupid enough to believe it, let alone repeat it in a televised interview."


      Those old marriage manuals were ALWAYS saying that. Keep the woman calm, relaxed, and happy during sex, and fulfillment will enhance conception.

      That was the whole POINT to most of those pamphlets. Sexual satisfaction was good, and the biochemistry of 'good' sex was most important.

      That's where these ideas come from. I'm just trying to explain, not defend.

      Gee, remember the days of trying to understand people, especially before you condemned them? I guess they're gone for good.

      One thing I've seen too-- Akin never hated anyone with these remarks. But the hate that's spewing to him from the Left is a sight to see-- and a potential blowback problem if it continues.


      Delete
  2. "in one way, Akin seemed to be saying something very dumb which he actually believed. In another way way, he seems to have made the latest unfortunate offhand remark."

    Then the extent of this blog is devoted to the latter and completely disregards the former. Makes it easier to support the "piling on" meme, I suppose. No discussion or analysis of the implications of Akin's belief in the statement and whether any piling on may be justified in this instance.

    Yet another example of the broken record that is now the Daily Howler. Unfortunate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have a point, but you might want to consider that this blog focuses on criticism of the media, rather than criticism of statements by politicians.

      Delete
    2. I will ignore your condescension.

      This blog focuses on a specific mode of criticism of the media to the exclusion of other modes of criticism. In this instance, Somerby himself raises two possible instances concerning Akin's statment and then excludes one in his analysis rather than exploring both. In doing so, he does a disservice to his blog's ostensible purpose and function.

      I suppose my use of the term "implications" was too vague for you.

      Delete
    3. Wow, you're pretty thin-skinned. I didn't intend any condescension, and I'm sorry that you read my comment that way.

      Delete
    4. Apology accepted.
      Sometimes we are unwittingly condescending.

      By the way, Somerby's catch-phrase includes "the american discourse".

      Delete
    5. Piling on may be justified in this instance. But what Somerby is saying is that the media only piles on when it comes to the "unfortunate offhand remark" or some trivial moment (Al Gore's sighs, Ed Muskie's alleged "crying") and not when a politician makes an outrageous statement about policy.

      Akin's remark is beyond the pale but, as Somerby argues, so should the idea that tax cuts increase revenue or that social security will go bankrupt. Wouldn't it be nice if they devoted the same amount of attention to debunking Romney's claim that Obama stole over $700 from Medicare?

      Delete
    6. Yes, it would be nice, but there is only so far you can go in attacking legitimate criticism of something because it does not criticize something else.

      Delete
    7. Although you may disagree, I think my comment reflects a reasonable reading of Somerby's post.

      The source of my original comment is Somerby's own framework for the post. The plain fact is that Somerby raised two "events" regarding Akin's statement. One event is that Akin misspoke and the other is that Akin voiced his belief.

      Somerby only addressed media reaction as it related to the event that Akin misspoke and not the event that he voiced his belief, which is not only far from trivial, but in respect to abortion, is as substantive as tax cuts = revenue increase with respect to economic policy, or in respect to the environment, that man is not implicated in climate change.

      An obvious interpretation of Akin's statement as his belief is that when women are raped and they conceive, that they really consented. Otherwise, their bodies would have prevented the conception. That is a serious concern when it comes to electing our governmental representation.

      By choosing, as you apparently do, to accept that Akin simply misspoke and to ignore a more substantive implication to what Akin said, Somerby effectively trivializes the statement so he can continue on with his "here they go again" mantra.

      There would be no comment from me if Somerby actually critiqued the media through the prism of the 2nd event he listed, whether I agreed with him or not.

      Delete
    8. Why would you read IEEE piece as Somerby suggesting that Akin solely misspoke, when he goes on to say how evident it is that from politicians, to our journalists, to pundits, to everyday joes, Americans believe dumb and ridiculous stuff?

      That hardly connotes an acceptance of the fact that Akin simply misspoke, but rather a point on the irony of this remark generating TWO NYT front page stories AND a lengthy article in section A of the paper.

      You might believe that this remark deserved to engender that much prime real estate in our national paper of renown, but that IS arguable and Somerby seems to think that it's not just over-kill, but assertion laden over-kill that may serve to transform Akin into a victim in the public mind.

      Again, arguable points. You might not agree with them, but don't suggest that they weren't made because you're so goddamn partisan and dense that you make Pavlov's dog seem like a paragon of reasoning over autonomic impulse.

      Delete
    9. Cecelia, here's the $64,000 question that the guy who does your thinking for your missed, so naturally it didn't occur to you either.

      If Somerby took five minutes to look up Todd Akin, he'd know that the guy didn't "misspeak" or make an "offhand" comment. This is what the guy truly believes, deep down in every fiber of his being.

      But still, for the sake of discussion, let's use Somerby's could have misspoke, which he addresses at lenght, or could have spoken what he truly believes, which he ignored.

      Either way, the $64,000 question: Do you want to have a stupid, ignorant, loose-lipped crackpot like that in the U.S. Senate?

      Which renders "misspoke" or "truly belief" utterly irrelevant

      Delete
    10. Anon 1014 AM, knee-jerk fried brain syndrome from some errant off-script bit of language, has rendered you incapable of focusing upon anything other than your perceived bugaboo.

      Breath deeply and go somewhere quiet for a few days. Then try again to process information.

      Delete
  3. Bob,
    I am a "liberal", but due to the lies of Maddow, the sexual pathologies of Dowd, the fatuousness of Collins, the lack of guts by Dionne, the Hollywood connections and dishonesty of O'Donnell, the careerist ambitions of young progressives, the lousy political reporting by the NYTimes and the railroading of Zimmerman, I will (from now on) ignore the "off-hand" comments of Akin and all other republicans.
    God bless you brother. The republicans can slime and denigrate Obama 'till the cows come home. That will not bother me. Why? See above.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Anonymous IdiotAugust 22, 2012 at 4:19 PM

    tl;dr

    The stupidity of at least a good part of the Aiken-related commentary provided by the NYT is not the problem.

    The Howler's mentioning the stupidity is the problem.


    And I call the Howler a broken record! Yes, I know, I promised many times that I would leave, but I just can't do it.

    By the way did you read today's post on Medicare coverage? I didn't, because A) Maddow wasn't mentioned and B) I couldn't find a way to hammer it into a comment suitable to my pretenses about Somerby.

    What?

    OK, yeah I did read it. But I don't understand why you think it makes *me* look stupid!


    Coming, mom!!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. In the 2000 election Mike Huckabee gave a TV interview in which he stated
    that once abortion is made illegal, the woman in question might not face
    charges of murder one and that other laws might be put in place for her
    and her conspirators. I give Huckabee a lot of credit for this, for a moment
    the actual issues were kinda/sorta on the table concerning The Republican
    Parties efforts to criminalize abortion, generally ignored as they are by
    all concerned. In this Akin flap the Dems are exploiting an extreme aspect
    in the Right, this may or may not be good politics but, while not technically
    incorrect, it does little to confront the actual divisiveness, which all parties
    by now cling to like a security blanket.

    Today Bob Somersby is, we cannot fail to note, supremely intellectually
    dishonest. There is nothing offhand about his remark, Somerby offers no
    evidence that there was, nor would it be possible for him to do so. Those
    who have seen the Daily Howler go to "lizard" mode are more likely to
    be sadden than angered by his chicanery. It does seem a rotten trick on
    his Harvard Profs (and those of his age who could get into Harvard) to sink
    to talk radio ethics when he can't make a case.

    Beyond that, the other day Bob was grandstanding about liberals who
    venting there secret misogyny by "sexualizing(?)" poor Sarah Palin. Run
    THAT up against the Bob's disrespect for woman in the case of this
    "offhand" comment. For a decent left response to Akin today, Joan
    Walsh in Salon does fairly well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “no stranger to incendiary comments” = "has criticized federal spending on things like school lunches and student loans and has been quick to equate government spending to socialism"

      Quotes not necessary.

      Yeah, that's the kind of thing I wish no one would point out. Boo, Somerby.

      Delete
    2. The exact quotes should have been included and it certainly would have made for a much better article.

      But, if Somerby (and his bobbleheads) think Akin is being Al Gored, here's Akin in his own words:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH-XzBYpf2E

      Delete
    3. No dude, it's just as CeceliaMc said above.

      Her comment is so EXACTLY right and captures so EXACTLY what is wrong with our resident Somerby hater that it deserves to be quoted at length:

      "You might believe that this remark deserved to engender that much prime real estate in our national paper of renown, but that IS arguable and Somerby seems to think that it's not just over-kill, but assertion laden over-kill that may serve to transform Akin into a victim in the public mind."

      "Again, arguable points. You might not agree with them, but don't suggest that they weren't made because you're so goddamn partisan and dense that you make Pavlov's dog seem like a paragon of reasoning over autonomic impulse."

      Delete
    4. No, dude, you, Cecelia and the guy who does your thinking for you can only make it "arguable" that Akin made a boo-boo if you ignore or are ignorant of Akin's entire career on this issue, as well as that of Paul Ryan.

      It would be the same as saying it's "arguable" that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning. Sure it is. If you ignore and discount all evidence to the contrary. In fact, it would be quite easy to argue when you shut your mind down.

      This nonsense that a woman has biological defenses against impregnation by "legitimate" -- i.e., real -- rape has been a extreme right-wing political talking point for a couple of decades now, and it has now become mainstream Republican.

      Akin's only problem? He brought it out into the open.

      Delete
    5. Greg hit the nail: "There is nothing offhand about his remark, Somerby offers no evidence that there was, nor would it be possible for him to do so."

      Once again, Somerby is guilty of that which he denounces in others.

      Delete
    6. Joan Walsh?

      Her piety and sanctimoniousness on sex matters is always hard to take. It's always the old joke of, "man bad, woman GOOD!" with her.

      Plus, I'm getting tired of the hate. Akin was dumb, but not hateful. These MSNBC types just spit hate and derision.

      Delete
    7. " you, Cecelia and the guy who does your thinking for you can only make it "arguable" that Akin made a boo-boo"

      Reading comprehension fail, as usual for you.

      Cecelia didn't say it's arguable Akin made a boo-boo.

      She said it's arguable whether "this remark deserved to engender that much prime real estate" and whether "assertion laden over-kill that may serve to transform Akin into a victim in the public mind."

      Since you're an idiot, you think the discussion is on the MERITS of what Akin said, or whether it WAS a boo-boo.

      We expected that idiocy from you.

      And you deliver, as always.

      Delete
    8. "Reading comprehension fail, as usual for you.
      Cecelia didn't say it's arguable Akin made a boo-boo.
      She said it's arguable whether "this remark deserved to engender that much prime real estate" and whether "assertion laden over-kill that may serve to transform Akin into a victim in the public mind."

      If you had bothered reading some of the comments here or clicking on the links provided and but you excellent reading comprehension skills to work you would know that it wasn't assertion laden overkill.

      Delete
    9. That it was or wasn't overkill wasn't my point. THAT is arguable. Debate away...

      My point was, that despite accusations otherwise, Somerby DID address the notion that Akin did not misspeak, but believes what he said. I then gave the context in which Somerby addressed that.

      You jokers have patellar reflexes that could kick through Mylar.





      Delete
  6. Somerby: "Is there a Republican in the land who hasn’t made that [spending = socialism] equation?"

    Which is very much the point, Bob. Akin is not some loon out on the very extreme fringes of the Republican Party. He is very much in the center of what the party is today on every issue, including and especially, abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I presume Akin's theory is related to a woman's ability to withhold at will what General Jack D. Ripper called "precious bodily fluids".

    And American voters elected this man six times? Six fucking times!

    That being the case, they'll probably do it again. The Republican party is an obscene joke.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bob thinks that media over-attention to Akin may lead to his election. The conservative PowerLine blog thinks that Democratic overattention to Akin, and to therelated issues of of rape and abortion, could lead to Romney's election:

    We can only pray that...the Democrats devote all three days in Charlotte to discussions of abortion rights, rape and contraception. If there is one thing we can say with certainty this year, it is that the overwhelming majority of voters don’t want to hear about the social issues. They want to know how we are going to climb out of the four-year economic funk that has been the Obama administration. If undecided viewers tune into the Democratic convention and hear all about abortion, and tune into the Republican convention and hear all about the economy, Romney will win in a landslide.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/are-the-democrats-delusional-on-abortion.php

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well somebody's delusional, and that's for sure. If "undecided" voters tune into the Republican convention they'll hear some of the biggest lies they're ever going to hear, that's for sure too.

      Delete
    2. "the four-year economic funk that has been the Obama administration."

      Right. The "economic funk" began exactly on Jan. 20, 2009, and not one day before.

      Sorry again, but Obama took office that day with the entire globe still on the brink of economic collapse. His "stimulus" bill actually prevented that.

      And what was Bush's response? To hand out blank checks to his "too big to fail" financial buddies with no strings attached, and which were then used to pay bonuses and corporate "retreats" at five-star resorts.

      Delete
    3. And what was Bush's response?...

      Dems mostly say that Bush was a terrible President, maybe the worst ever. So, comparing Obama to Bush is like saying:

      Re-elect Obama! He wasn't the worst President we ever had!

      Delete
    4. Well, I might say that comparing Obama to Bush is like comparing Abraham Lincoln to James Buchanan. Others might say it is like comparing FDR to Herbert Hoover. Still others might say it is like comparing Bill Clinton to George H.W. Bush.

      And it really takes a wingnut to even think that's like saying "He wasn't the worst President we ever had!"

      Obama's record, despite an obstructionist Congress for half his first term, has been quite remarkable -- in defense, national security, and even the economy which he pulled from the brink of collapse -- all done without a single Republican vote in Congress.

      Oh, by the way, it isn't "Dems" who think Dubya was a terrible president. It shouldn't take many brain cells firing to remember the shape the country was in when he took over and the shape he left it in. But then again, I guess that disqualifies you.

      Delete
  9. I love the lizard brain reference, because that's what has been going on here with the media. After several days of this I've begun yelling at the TV saying "That's not what he said !!!"

    Sure, Akin made a dumb remark, but what's been worse is this lip-smacking on the part of the Maddows and O'Donnells.

    Contrary to what Obama said the other day, I think it is important to 'parse' what Akin said, rather than burlesque it to death. Not only are there different degrees of sex crimes under the law-- some of which constitute rape, btw-- but Akin had an interesting point about the conception angle. It's probably not true, but obviously came out of the old female-satisfaction-leads-to-increased-conception-rate theory that we used to hear in the 60s and 70s. I.e., that better sex lead to more pregnancies. Old marriage manuals used to be full of this kind of talk.

    But rather than try to get at what Akin said and then critique it, the Maddow crowd misrepresents him as somehow claiming that women "can always!" block conception. When that's not what he was saying at all.

    In other words, these people are often as unreliable as Akin. If what guys like Akin say is bad enough, why must liberal critics lie about them all the time?

    ReplyDelete
  10. ". . . the Maddow crowd misrepresents him as somehow claiming that women "can always!" block conception."

    Sorry, Charlie, but that is not what "the Maddow crowd" -- whoever that strawman might be -- has said at all, and that is quite hilarious coming from a guy who claims Akin is being misquoted/misrepresented.

    Every single discussion of Akin's remarks that I have seen have included a tape of Akin's actual remarks. And even Republicans are pretty much unanimous that it was jawdroppingly stupid and insensitive enough that Akin should have dropped out of the Senate race, and they called on him to do so. Publicly. And immediately.

    Or is Romney, Ryan, Blunt, Danforth, Bond, et al, part of this "Maddow crowd" who is deliberately misrepresenting what poor, Todd Akin "misspoke" on a televised interview?

    As for "different degrees of sex crimes," wrong again. There are not different degrees of rape under the law. Rape is rape. Period. You can look it up.

    As for the notion that a woman who is raped being able to biologically shut down to prevent pregnancy, that notion has been around for decades and was first promulgated by Dr. John Wilke, founder of the National Right to Life movement, who argued that a "rape exception" to abortion was unnecessary, and that there are lots of women who falsely claim rape to get an abortion.

    It lead to the stupid bill co-sponsored by both Ryan and Akin that the federal exception to the Hyde Amendment should only include "forcible" -- i.e., "legitimate" -- rape.

    Once again, that idea has been very much in the mainstream of the Republican position on abortion -- until Akin exposed it for all its stupidity and insensitivity.








    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maddow said point-blank the other night that Akin thinks that women can somehow block conception whenever they want to.

      That's what she said.

      But HE never said that. That's how burlesqued this issue has become for the left. The MSNBC crowd always ends up going way too far. This is how-- on the 3rd day out -- these people are now trying to frame the issue. And it's bogus -- unnecessary too, because Akin said enough dumb things to go after.

      And now today, Digby starts telling us about how all these Republicans hate women and hate sex and are afraid of both, and that their women are "repressed" to boot.

      Like, how the hell does she know this? It ain't MY experience in life. And worse, why the need to caricature them?

      It's the limbic brain-- liberal style!

      Delete
    2. Interesting. I just read an article on The Atlantic site that said far from being repressed, conservative women were less reticent to exploit their feminine wiles in order to advance their careers.

      Those hussies!...

      Delete
    3. Gee, Cecelia, if you read it, it must be true!

      Delete
    4. I'll take that as a declaration of faith in me, rather than a misplaced faith in the written word in general.

      Delete
    5. Sorry to call you out for lying, 11:37, but this is exactly what Akin said: “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down”

      Oh, and by the way, Maddow never said this:

      "Maddow said point-blank the other night that Akin thinks that women can somehow block conception whenever they want to."

      Never once did she even imply that Akin said "whenever they want to."

      You know what's truly sad about American discourse these days? There are a lot of people who can't discuss the facts, so they make up their own, and can't discuss the truth, so they lie.

      Delete
    6. Where's the point blank Maddow quote?

      Delete
  11. To fill in some background on Todd Akin, I'd suggest readers find Kevin Horrigan's column in the Wednesday St. Louis Post-Dispatch ("The World Discovers the Weirdness of Todd Akin. Darn it."). The Times would help (and entertain) its readers by reprinting Mr. Horrigan's column.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here it is:

      http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/kevin-horrigan/horrigan-the-world-discovers-the-weirdness-of-todd-akin-darn/article_f9135e2d-a7cc-508a-a544-cf8d5f3bf203.html

      Delete
    2. Here is the truly scary part, Keith. Though Somerby has just discovered Todd Akin, Congress has several more just like him.

      One is actually running for the vice presidency.


      Delete
  12. The rest of the country might take a lesson Arizona Democrats learned decades ago.
    When truly stupid Republicans make truly stupid remarks, shut up and let the Republicans eat their own.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look where that got them.

      Delete
    2. The Democrats didn't "get" there, they were put there by the Tea Party and their $millions, as any informed person knows.

      "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt"

      Delete
  13. Many people have found affiliate marketing to be quite profitable. By learning successful marketing methods, affiliate promotion can become something you you will profit from as well.
    http://www.ntmedicarelocal.com |

    http://www.vickiemilazzohealthcarefocus.com |

    http://www.eldercarematterscanada.com |

    http://www.caregivingreviews.com |

    http://www.bestcaregivingsolution.com |


    ReplyDelete
  14. nike shoes, Cheap Jordans,Cheap Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Max,Cheap Free Run Shoes,nike shoes,nike outlet,nike factory,nike store,nike factory outlet,nike outlet store,cheap nike shoes,nike sneakers, toms outlet, toms outlet,tom shoes,toms shoes outlet,tom shoes,toms wedges,cheap toms,toms.com, air jordan, air jordan,jordan shoes,cheap jordans,air jordans,jordan retro,air jordan shoes,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan retro, cheap jordans, cheap jordans,cheap jordan shoes,cheap jordan,cheap jordans for sale,jordans for cheap,jordan shoes,jordans,air jordan,jordan retro,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,air jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes,air jordan retro, jordan retro, jordan retro,jordan shoes,air jordan,air jordans,retro jordans,air jordan retro,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,cheap jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes, air max 90, air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 95,air max 2014,air max 2013,air max 1,nike air max,air max,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, air max 95, air max 95,nike air max 95,air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 2013,nike air max,air max,air max 2014,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, nike free 5.0, nike free 5.0, nike free trainer 5.0,nike free run 5.0,free running 2,nike free run,nike free,free running,nike running shoes,nike free trainer,free runs,free run 5.0, omega watches, omega watches,omega watch,replica watches,rolex watches,replica omega watches,rolex,watches for men,watches for women,rolex watches for sale,rolex replica,rolex watch,cartier watches,rolex submariner,fake rolex,rolex replica watches,replica rolex, ralph lauren outlet

    ReplyDelete
  15. ralph lauren outlet,ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren outlet,polo ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren,ralph lauren,polo ralph,polo shirts,ralphlauren.com,polo outlet,ralph lauren polo, oakley sunglass, oakley sunglasses,cheap oakley,cheap oakley sunglasses,oakley sunglasses cheap,oakley outlet,oakley sunglasses outlet,oakley vault,oakleys,oakley.com,sunglasses outlet,cheap sunglasses,oakley prescription glasses,fake oakleys,oakley glasses,oakley store,fake oakley,oakley sale,cheap oakleys,discount oakley sunglasses, ray ban sunglasses, Ray Ban Sunglasses,Ray Ban Outlet,Ray Ban Sale,Cheap Ray Bans,Cheap Ray Ban Sunglasses,ray ban sunglasses outlet,ray ban,rayban,ray bans,ray-ban,raybans,ray ban wayfarer,ray-ban sunglasses,raybans.com,rayban sunglasses,cheap ray ban, burberry, burberry,burberry outlet,burberry outlet online,burberry factory outlet,burberry sale,burberry handbags, chanel bags, chanel bags,chanel handbags,chanel sunglasses,chanel outlet,chanel purses,chanel handbags official site, coach outlet store, coach outlet,coach outlet store,coach outlet store online,coach outlet stores,coach factory outlet,coach factory,coach factory online,coach factory outlet online,coach outlet online, chaussures louboutin, louboutin,louboutin pas cher,christian louboutin,louboutin chaussures,louboutin soldes,chaussure louboutin,chaussures louboutin,chaussure louboutin pas cher,louboutin france, sac michael kors, michael kors,sac michael kors,michael kors sac,michael kors pas cher,sac michael kors pas cher,michael kors france, north face outlet, north face outlet,the north face,north face,the north face outlet,north face jackets,north face jackets clearance,northface, yoga pants, yoga pants,lululemon,lululemon outlet,lululemon athletica,lululemon addict,lulu lemon,lulu.com,lululemon.com, beats by dre

    ReplyDelete
  16. nike shoes, Cheap Jordans,Cheap Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Max,Cheap Free Run Shoes,nike shoes,nike outlet,nike factory,nike store,nike factory outlet,nike outlet store,cheap nike shoes,nike sneakers, toms outlet, toms outlet,tom shoes,toms shoes outlet,tom shoes,toms wedges,cheap toms,toms.com, air jordan, air jordan,jordan shoes,cheap jordans,air jordans,jordan retro,air jordan shoes,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan retro, cheap jordans, cheap jordans,cheap jordan shoes,cheap jordan,cheap jordans for sale,jordans for cheap,jordan shoes,jordans,air jordan,jordan retro,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,air jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes,air jordan retro, jordan retro, jordan retro,jordan shoes,air jordan,air jordans,retro jordans,air jordan retro,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,cheap jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes, air max 90, air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 95,air max 2014,air max 2013,air max 1,nike air max,air max,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, air max 95, air max 95,nike air max 95,air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 2013,nike air max,air max,air max 2014,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, nike free 5.0, nike free 5.0, nike free trainer 5.0,nike free run 5.0,free running 2,nike free run,nike free,free running,nike running shoes,nike free trainer,free runs,free run 5.0, omega watches, omega watches,omega watch,replica watches,rolex watches,replica omega watches,rolex,watches for men,watches for women,rolex watches for sale,rolex replica,rolex watch,cartier watches,rolex submariner,fake rolex,rolex replica watches,replica rolex, ralph lauren outlet, ralph lauren outlet,ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren outlet,polo ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren,ralph lauren,polo ralph,polo shirts,ralphlauren.com,polo outlet,ralph lauren polo, oakley sunglass, thomas sabo

    ReplyDelete
  17. oakley sunglasses,cheap oakley,cheap oakley sunglasses,oakley sunglasses cheap,oakley outlet,oakley sunglasses outlet,oakley vault,oakleys,oakley.com,sunglasses outlet,cheap sunglasses,oakley prescription glasses,fake oakleys,oakley glasses,oakley store,fake oakley,oakley sale,cheap oakleys,discount oakley sunglasses, ray ban sunglasses, Ray Ban Sunglasses,Ray Ban Outlet,Ray Ban Sale,Cheap Ray Bans,Cheap Ray Ban Sunglasses,ray ban sunglasses outlet,ray ban,rayban,ray bans,ray-ban,raybans,ray ban wayfarer,ray-ban sunglasses,raybans.com,rayban sunglasses,cheap ray ban, burberry, burberry,burberry outlet,burberry outlet online,burberry factory outlet,burberry sale,burberry handbags, chanel bags, chanel bags,chanel handbags,chanel sunglasses,chanel outlet,chanel purses,chanel handbags official site, coach outlet store, coach outlet,coach outlet store,coach outlet store online,coach outlet stores,coach factory outlet,coach factory,coach factory online,coach factory outlet online,coach outlet online, chaussures louboutin, louboutin,louboutin pas cher,christian louboutin,louboutin chaussures,louboutin soldes,chaussure louboutin,chaussures louboutin,chaussure louboutin pas cher,louboutin france, sac michael kors, michael kors,sac michael kors,michael kors sac,michael kors pas cher,sac michael kors pas cher,michael kors france, north face outlet, north face outlet,the north face,north face,the north face outlet,north face jackets,north face jackets clearance,northface, yoga pants, yoga pants,lululemon,lululemon outlet,lululemon athletica,lululemon addict,lulu lemon,lulu.com,lululemon.com, beats by dre, beats by dre,beats headphones,beats audio,beats by dr dre,beats by dre headphones,dr dre,dre beats,beats by dr,dr dre beats,dre headphones,beats by dr. dre,cheap beats, ferragamo, ferragamo,salvatore ferragamo,ferragamo shoes,ferragamo outlet,salvatore ferragamo outlet,ferragamo belts,ferragamo belt,ferragamo outlet, nike blazer, nike blazer,blazer nike,nike blazer pas cher,Chaussures Nike Blazer,Nike Blazer Femme, nike air force, swarovski crystal, swarovski

    ReplyDelete