Author Topic: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos  (Read 5020 times)

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #25 on: January 19, 2012, 08:21:51 PM »


Yesterday was a huge day in Egypt, as that country’s President/dictator for the past 30 years ceded power in the face of massive peaceful protests by his people.  While much work remains to be done to ensure that real democracy takes hold in Egypt, we should celebrate the amazing victory by and for the Egyptian people.  It was truly a day for progressives and other supporters of democracy and peaceful protest to savor.

Mubarak’s departure is also, however, a victory for the Obama Administration’s patient and reasoned approach to promoting democracy in Egypt and other countries.  This approach started with President Obama’s stellar June 2009 speech in Cairo that signaled that the peoples of Egypt and other countries would have to choose democracy, but we would be there to support them if they made moves to achieve it peacefully.  And it has continued over the past 18 days of protests, as President Obama has taken a measured approach of private diplomacy with Mubarak, Egypt’s military, and other Egyptian leaders, combined with slowly increasing public pressure that focused on supporting the will of the Egyptian people.  As yesterday’s developments show, President Obama’s approach is working.

Throughout the protests, many on the left and from the Bush Administration have harshly criticized President Obama for not being more publicly vocal about the need for Mubarak to leave and in support of the protesters.  Apparently these folks wanted President Obama to try to lead the protest movement, demand democracy and regime change immediately, and/or engage in the type of loud public saber rattling that marred our foreign policy under the Bush Administration.  Such an approach (which, notably, did not lead to the peaceful toppling of any leaders in the Middle East under Bush) would have been misguided for a number of reasons.

* First, the publicly vocal approach that the critics wanted President Obama to take would have made the protesters look like tools of the U.S., which would undermine their credibility at home.

* Second, such an approach would have limited President Obama’s ability to work privately to make the protests successful by making sure that Mubarak or the Egyptian military did not overreact and have the situation devolve into chaos.  It is remarkable that a thirty year dictator did not violently crush the protests and stepped down with hardly a shot fired, and the Obama Administration’s private diplomacy is likely a large reason why such violence did not occur.

* Third, the critics’ approach ignores the fact that democracy has to come from the people of Egypt, not outside pressure from the U.S.  That is not to say that we had no role in how things turn out in Egypt, but the thought that we could essentially dictate the results in Egypt reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how politics and foreign policy works, as both leaders and citizens of countries do not react well to outsiders publicly meddling in their affairs.


Peacefully toppling a dictatorial regime is a difficult thing to achieve.  It requires more than just protests from a country’s citizens and demands of “regime change” from other world leaders.  Instead, it requires patient and reasoned diplomacy focused on moving the dictator out of power and supporting the will of the people that a protesting.  This is the approach that the Obama Administration has taken so far and now, as a result, we are in a position to help the people of Egypt establish a path to a peaceful transition to democracy.

As progressives, it is important that we help spread the word of the success of the Obama Administration’s approach to Egypt for at least two reasons.  First, it helps counteract the misconception that the Administration is not being successful.  Second, and more importantly, it helps build support for the more reasoned approach of this Administration and helps push back on the supporters of the loud saber rattling that led our foreign policy so far astray under the Bush Administration.

So, we urge you to write a letter to your local newspaper editor celebrating the events in Egypt, and highlighting the importance of the Obama Administration’s approach to enabling those events to occur.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #26 on: January 19, 2012, 08:23:18 PM »
Senator Barack Obama has fulfilled the promise of his earlier climate plan with a detailed and comprehensive "New Energy for America" plan.

This is easily the best energy plan ever put forward by a nominee of either party. By comparison, the plan of John "Nothing but Nukes" McCain is a joke, with nothing on energy efficiency and a pointless $300 million battery prize and long-standing opposition to renewable energy. In contrast, Obama's plan has real depth and breath:


* Increase Fuel Economy Standards: Obama will increase fuel economy standards 4 percent per each year while protecting the financial future of domestic automakers....

* Invest in Developing Advanced Vehicles and Put 1 Million Plugin Electric Vehicles on the Road by 2015: As a U.S. senator, Barack Obama has led efforts to jumpstart federal investment in advanced vehicles, including combined plug‐in hybrid/flexible fuel vehicles, which can get over 150 miles per gallon of gas... [more details below]

* Partner with Domestic Automakers: Obama will also provide $4 billion retooling tax credits and
      loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers, so that the new fuel‐efficient
      cars can be built in the U.S. by American workers rather than overseas.

* Mandate All New Vehicles are Flexible Fuel Vehicles

* Develop the Next Generation of Sustainable Biofuels and Infrastructure

* Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: ... The standard requires fuels suppliers in 2010 to begin to reduce the carbon of their fuel by 5 percent within 5 years and 10 percent within 10 years.


This is the only way to jumpstart an end to our addiction to oil in a climate friendly way. Indeed, an accelerated transition to plug-in hybrids and electric cars -- a core climate solution-- must be the cornerstone of any serious effort to dramatically reduce oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. That is the crucial litmus test for any presidential candidate's energy independence or clean transportation policy.

As for the test of a candidate's grasp of electricity policy, energy efficiency is obviously The only cheap power left and a limitless resource and THE core climate solution. Obama understands energy efficiency in a way few other major politicians do, as his plan makes clear:



* Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source--Energy Efficiency: Barack Obama will set an aggressive energy efficiency goal--to reduce electricity demand 15 percent from DOE's projected levels by 2020. Implementing this program will save consumers a total of $130 billion, reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 5 billion tons through 2030, and create jobs. A portion of this goal would be met by setting annual demand reduction targets that utilities would need to meet.

* Set National Building Efficiency Goals: Obama will establish a goal of making all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030. He'll also establish a national goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade to help us meet the 2030 goal.

* Overhaul Federal Efficiency Standards: The current Department of Energy has missed 34 deadlines for setting updated appliance efficiency standards....

* Reduce Federal Energy Consumption: ... He will make the federal government a leader in the green building market, achieving a 40 percent increase in efficiency in all new federal buildings within five years and ensuring that all new federal buildings are zero‐emissions by 2025. He will invest in cost‐effective retrofits to achieve a 25 percent increase in efficiency of existing federal buildings within 5 years.

* Invest in a Smart Grid: ... Obama will pursue a major investment in our national utility grid using smart metering, distributed storage and other advanced technologies to accommodate 21st century energy requirements: greatly improved electric grid reliability and security, a tremendous increase in renewable generation and greater customer choice and energy affordability.

* Weatherize One Million Homes Annually....

* Build More Livable and Sustainable Communities....

* Flip Incentives to Energy Utilities: An Obama administration will "flip" incentives to utility companies by: requiring states to conduct proceedings to implement incentive changes; and offering them targeted technical assistance. These measures will benefit utilities for improving energy efficiency, rather than just from supporting higher energy consumption. This "regulatory equity" starts with the decoupling of profits from increased energy usage, which will incentivize utilities to partner with consumers and the federal and state governments to reduce monthly energy bills for families and businesses. The federal government under an Obama administration will play an important and positive role in flipping the profit model for the utility sector so that shareholder profit is based on reliability and performance as opposed to total production.


Finally, a presidential nominee that really gets it (see "Energy efficiency, Part 4: How does California do it so consistently and cost-effectively?").

The proposal has lots of other details on short-term solutions and promoting the supply of domestic energy. But let me focus on his low-carbon electricity supply plan:


* Require 10 Percent of Electricity to Come from Renewable Sources by 2012 [and 25 percent by 2025]. Barack Obama will establish a 10 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 10 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2012. Many states are already well on their way to achieving statewide goals and it's time for the federal government to provide leadership for the entire country to support these new industries. This national requirement will spur significant private sector investment in renewable sources of energy and create thousands of new American jobs, especially in rural areas. And Obama will also extend the federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) for 5 years to encourage the production of renewable energy.

* Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology....

* Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy: ... It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation.... As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti‐terrorism priority. In terms of waste storage, Obama does not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site. He will lead federal efforts to look for safe, long‐term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, Obama will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry‐cask storage technology available.


He also repeats his climate pledge and his jobs pledge:


* Implement an economy‐wide cap‐and‐trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

* Invest In A Clean Energy Economy and Help Create 5 Million New Green Jobs. Obama will strategically invest $150 billion over 10 years...


Finally, back to the details of the plug-in hybrid proposal:

As president, Obama will continue this leadership by investing in advanced vehicle technology with a specific focus on R&D in advanced battery technology. The increased federal funding will leverage private sector funds and support our domestic automakers to bring plug‐in hybrids and other advanced vehicles to American consumers. Obama will also provide a $7,000 tax credit for the purchase of advanced technology vehicles as well as conversion tax credits. And to help create a market and show government leadership in purchasing highly efficient cars, an Obama administration will commit to:


* Within one year of becoming President, the entire White House fleet will be converted to plug‐ins as security permits; and

* Half of all cars purchased by the federal government will be plug‐in hybrids or all‐electric by 2012.



This is an aggressive, achievable, and most important of all, a necessary energy plan. Kudos to Senator Obama and his energy team. Maybe he is The One.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #27 on: January 19, 2012, 08:25:26 PM »
Wall Street at 5-month high

By Chuck Mikolajczak

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Stocks climbed to a five-month high on Tuesday, led by materials stocks after an upbeat forecast by aluminum company Alcoa and strong gains in bank shares.

Alcoa Inc (NYSE:AA - News) posted revenue that topped expectations late Monday and gave a bullish outlook for the aluminum industry. The stock gave up early gains to end at $9.44, up 1 cent. However, data showing strong Chinese imports of copper helped buoy the rest of the sector.

A gauge of materials companies' shares (:.GSPM) was among the leaders of S&P 500 sectors, with a gain of 1.8 percent.

The U.S. equity market continued its recent divergence from the woes of the euro zone. Recent economic reports and optimism about the U.S. earnings season have pushed stocks higher in the start of the new year, with the benchmark S&P 500 rising in five of six sessions.

"Investors are still focusing on Europe but not putting as much weight on Europe as they were in November," said Jonathan Corpina, head of NYSE floor operations for Meridian Equity Partners in New York.

That focus could change quickly. Key bond auctions later this week from Italy and Spain, two countries at the center of the euro zone crisis, could hurt sentiment if they go poorly.

"Historically, earnings season has helped the market shift higher - so let's hang our hats on this for now, but let's not forget about what is going on in Europe," Corpina said.

Industrial and materials stocks, closely tied to economic performance, were the day's biggest gainers. Caterpillar Inc (NYSE:CAT - News) shares were up 3 percent at $99.96, leading the Dow index higher.

U.S. bank stocks continued a rebound that has lifted the KBW banks index (Philadelphia:^BKX - News) nearly 9 percent so far this year. The KBW rose 1.9 percent on Tuesday.

JPMorgan Chase (NYSE:JPM - News) rose 2.1 percent to $36.05.

Easing some concerns about Europe, Fitch said it does not expect to cut France's AAA credit rating this year, but countries under review such as Italy or Spain could be downgraded by one or two notches.

The Dow Jones industrial average (DJI:^DJI - News) gained 69.78 points, or 0.56 percent, to 12,462.47. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index (SNP:^GSPC - News) rose 11.38 points, or 0.89 percent, to 1,292.08. The Nasdaq Composite Index (Nasdaq:^IXIC - News) climbed 25.94 points, or 0.97 percent, to 2,702.50.

The Dow and S&P 500 hit their highest intraday levels in five months. The S&P 500 close above 1,285.09 is the highest since the end of July and marked a breach of technical resistance, which could spur further gains.

Copper prices rose 3.1 percent, the best performance since late November, after China reported copper imports rose to a record high last month.

The CBOE Volatility Index VIX (Chicago Options:^VIX - News), Wall Street's so-called fear gauge, fell 2.9 percent to 20.46, making another test of the psychologically key 20 level, according to WhatsTrading.com options strategist Frederic Ruffy.

The VIX is down 11.6 percent so far in 2012 and falling to levels last seen in late July as the S&P 500 has seen average daily price moves of fewer than 8 points so far this year, he said.

Volume was solid, with about 7.02 billion shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange, NYSE Amex and Nasdaq, above the daily average of 6.7 billion.

Advancing stocks outnumbered declining ones on the NYSE by 2,305 to 687, while on the Nasdaq, advancers beat decliners 1,833 to 699.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #28 on: January 19, 2012, 08:26:35 PM »
Santorum:1. The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. 2. Senator Rick Santorum.


Rick Santorum, Get Ready for Your Close-Up
By David A. Graham

The Pennsylvanian crested late enough that he didn't get the full frontrunner media treatment before Iowa. Now it's coming, and it won't be fun.


Whatever else you can say for Rick Santorum, he's got great timing. Since his bubble inflated so late, there was no time for the press and opposition researchers to give him the full treatment that greets top-tier contenders. Even in the era of diminished media importance, that scrutiny can be destructive -- just ask Herman Cain. It's yet another stone in the pathway for Santorum, who dramatically trails Romney in New Hampshire polls, as well as in national fundraising and name-recognition.

After a day to let the Iowa hangover fade, the onslaught has started. You won't find anyone betting on the squeaky-clean Santorum getting embroiled in a Cain-style sex scandal, but with a 16-year record in Congress, there's plenty of material in the public record and lots of embarrassing quotes to dredge up (plus the infamous "Google problem").

Over at National Journal, John Aloysius Farrell details the former senator's aggressive and often divisive style on the Hill, which sometimes alienated colleagues.ABC has a report up detailing allegations brought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington back in 2006, the year he lost his Senate seat by an 18-point margin. CREW suggests that Santorum helped steer an $8 million earmark to a charity staffed by former staffers that included major campaign donors on its board. CREW also raised questions about how he paid for a house:

   Perhaps the most jarring detail from his tenure in office is the unorthodox $500,000 mortgage that Santorum and his wife secured on the home in rural Virginia they had purchased for $643,361. According to a series of reports in the Philadelphia Daily News, the mortgage came from Philadelphia Trust Company, a fledgling private bank catering to "affluent investors and institutions" whose officers had contributed $24,000 to Santorum's political action committees and re-election campaign.

    In advertising, the lender said it only offered its preferred rates to well-heeled borrowers who also used their investment services. But Santorum's public disclosure forms showed he did not have the required minimum $250,000 in liquid assets and was not an investor with Philadelphia Trust. His ability to secure the five-year loan led Sloan to file a complaint under a Senate ethics rule that specifically prohibits members from accepting a loan on terms not available to members of the general public. At the time, a Santorum spokeswoman told the Daily News that the mortgage terms were set at "market rates," but did not provide further comment.


It's not just ethical questions, though. From the left, The New Republic rounds up Santorum's most embarrassing quotes, including the famous occasion on which he likened same-sex marriage to bestiality.From the right, RedState's Erick Erickson points out that not only that Santorum's spoken up for earmarks -- bad news for conservatives -- but that in doing so he's unwisely picking a fight with Sen. Jim DeMint, a very popular figure among Republicans in the state where anti-Romney forces will likely get their last shot at stopping the Iowa caucuses victor. (Erickson's ongoing criticism of Santorum also show how difficult-to-organize and unlikely a coordinated anybody-but-Romney effort among conservatives will be.)

That's all just 24 hours' worth of digging, and it doesn't even touch Santorum's platform. Right now, many voters know him mostly as a conservative who isn't Mitt Romney. How will voters respond to both his current policy proposals and the things he's supported in the past? Even in the heavily pro-life Republican party, do voters want a nominee who believes contraception is immoral? And like Newt Gingrich, Santorum doesn't have the cash to respond to every negative attack. He'd better brace himself.


20inch calves

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4617
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #29 on: January 19, 2012, 08:28:27 PM »
IF Melvin loses, this is how it well happen. If someone  can handle his initial attack, then he usually gives up his back for the choke.

yeah he has been the victim of the choke on more than one occassion lol
irongearco.com

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #30 on: January 19, 2012, 08:30:01 PM »
For a man with absolutely ZERO chance to be president, this crazy 90 year old man from Texas may just gift-wrap the nomination for Willard "Mitts" Romney.  :P



Paul Poised to Win Iowa; GOP Establishment on Edge
Written by Michael Tennant  
Tuesday, 20 December 2011 09:11

With the Iowa caucuses just two weeks away, Ron Paul has taken the lead in two caucus forecasts — a development that has the GOP establishment on edge.

A December 18 Public Policy Polling survey found that the Texas Congressman was the choice of 23 percent of likely Republican caucus voters. Mitt Romney came in second at 20 percent, with Newt Gingrich in third at 14 percent and Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum tied at 10 percent. “Someone else/Not sure” was next at 7 percent, followed by Jon Huntsman at 4 percent and Gary Johnson at 2 percent.

Gingrich was the biggest loser in the poll, having plunged from 27 percent support three weeks ago to 14 percent now. In addition, he possesses the highest “unfavorable” rating of any candidate in the race (47 percent). Paul, meanwhile, led the pack on the positive side with 54 percent of voters viewing him favorably.

On matters of principle, Paul, not surprisingly, is the champion in voters’ minds. Seventy-three percent said he has strong principles, while only 50 percent thought the same of Romney and 36 percent of Gingrich. (The question was not asked about the other candidates.)

The New York Times is also forecasting a Paul win in the Hawkeye State, but with even more certainty than PPP. As of this writing the Gray Lady believes Paul has a 52 percent chance of winning the Iowa caucuses. His closest competitor, Romney, stands just a 28 percent chance of being the victor; Gingrich is given a mere 8 percent likelihood of success.

Feeling fairly confident that Paul will take Iowa, the Times’ Nate Silver argues:

It may now be as important to watch his New Hampshire polls as those in Iowa. Our New Hampshire forecasts now give Mr. Paul about a 17 percent chance of winning the state, but those odds would improve with a win in Iowa. Although Mr. Romney might prefer that Mr. Paul win Iowa … all bets would be off if Mr. Paul won New Hampshire too.

What happens if Paul does indeed win the caucuses? “The Republican presidential primary … will get downright ugly,” predicts the Washington Examiner’s Timothy P. Carney. His reasoning? “The principled, antiwar, Constitution-obeying, Fed-hating, libertarian Republican congressman from Texas stands firmly outside the bounds of permissible dissent as drawn by either the Republican establishment or the mainstream media.”

Three things are likely to occur following a Paul victory in Iowa, Carney says.

First, he forecasts, "Much of the media will ignore him (expect headlines like 'Romney Beats out Gingrich for Second Place in Iowa')."
There is precedent for this. Paul was virtually ignored when he practically tied Bachmann for first place in the Ames Straw Poll in August, and his many subsequent straw poll victories have gone equally unreported. Even Carney’s joke headline isn’t much of a stretch: When a September poll showed Romney in first place in New Hampshire, distantly followed by Paul, Huntsman, and Perry, in that order, Yahoo! News actually posted a story about it with the banner “Romney leads in New Hampshire, Huntsman third, Perry in fourth.”
 
Second, according to Carney, “Some in the Republican establishment and the conservative media will panic.” This is, in fact, already happening. Rush Limbaugh has taken to lampooning Paul for his noninterventionist foreign policy, a sure sign that the Republican Party fears people might actually listen to Paul.

Sean Hannity, another reliable bellwether of GOP establishment opinion, “felt the need on [December 14] to bring Bill Bennett on his show for a segment of unsaturated Paul-bashing,” Salon’s Steve Kornacki reported. “Bennett articulated an increasingly common concern among GOP elites, saying that Paul’s candidacy “isn’t going anywhere — except if he wins Iowa.”

“And what happens if he does?” asks Kornacki.

If you have a mischievous streak, it’s a fun possibility to consider, because the short answer is that guys like Bennett and Hannity will freak out — and their freak-out could last for a while. An Iowa victory would make Paul the center of the political media world, flood his campaign treasury with even more small-dollar donations, and boost his prospects in subsequent states. He might be able to parlay it into an impressive showing in libertarian-friendly New Hampshire, weather losses in South Carolina and Florida (where the numbers just aren’t very promising), then surge again in February, when his caucus state strategy kicks in. If the rest of the field remains unsettled then — with, say, Romney winning New Hampshire and Newt Gingrich taking South Carolina and Florida — Paul could find himself at or near the top of the delegate race, pushing the Hannity/Bennett panic level through the roof.

The third probable result of a Paul caucus win, Carney suggests, is that “others [in the GOP establishment and conservative media] will calmly move to crush him, with the full cooperation of the liberal mainstream media.”

Indeed, Fox News’ Chris Wallace has already set the stage for just such an eventuality, saying that if Paul wins in Iowa, “it will discredit the Iowa caucuses because … most of the Republican establishment thinks he’s not going to end up as the nominee, so therefore Iowa won’t count.”

Wallace’s remark, however, is a mere pinprick compared to the onslaught Carney envisions. He predicts nothing less than full-scale character assassination: “[Paul’s] conservative critics and the mainstream media will imply that he is a racist, a kook, and a conspiracy theorist” — just as they smeared Pat Buchanan as a racist and anti-Semite following his victory in the 1996 New Hampshire primary.

This, too, is already under way. Last week the neoconservative media, including Limbaugh, Hannity, and National Review, had a grand old party repeating the canard that Paul believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories when, in reality, he simply believes that the whole story, particularly those portions that demonstrate government incompetence, has yet to be told.

As to charges of racism, recall that on the day of the 2008 New Hampshire primary, the New Republic published a hit piece claiming that Paul had authored several articles with potentially offensive, but mostly just politically incorrect, content that appeared in a newsletter bearing his name. The article, Justin Raimondo observed at the time, was “intellectually dishonest, inauthentic in its outrage, and unintentionally humorous at times.” Those who know Paul, including CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and the president of the Austin, Texas, chapter of the NAACP, did not believe that he had written the articles in question. Nevertheless, Paul was forced to respond to the attack, admitting that the articles had indeed appeared in his newsletter but repeatedly stating that he had neither authored nor approved them. Expect this story to be dredged up again if Paul begins to look like a real threat to a Romney or Gingrich nomination.

Paul is looking more and more like a serious contender for the GOP nomination, and the outcome of the Iowa caucuses may provide the first hard evidence of that. For constitutionalists, a Paul victory in Iowa will offer a glimmer of hope that America’s slide into socialism and empire can be reversed. “But for the enforcers of Republican orthodoxy,” avers Carney, it “will be an act of impudence that must be punished.”

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #31 on: January 19, 2012, 08:31:48 PM »
Willard's fading fast...c'mon Newt!  ;D

Mitt Romney's Losing $10,000 Bet at Iowa Debate
By Garance Franke-Ruta

Romney's wager to Perry serves as a reminder of the vast gulf in wealth between citizens and elected officials




Texas Gov. Rick Perry finally turned the tables on Mitt Romney Saturday night in an exchange at the debate in Des Moines that saw the former Massachusetts governor fumble in just the way Perry had previously, after being goaded into a making a fool-hardy remark.

Perry, addressing himself once again to a critique of Romney's health-care policy in Massachusetts, said: "You know, I'm just saying you were for individual mandates my friend."

"You know what, you've raised that before, Rick. And you're still wrong," Romney retorted.

"It was true then. It's true now," Perry replied, laughing.

"10,000 bucks? 10,000 dollar bet?" Romney shot out his hand looking for Perry to take the bait.

Perry laughed again. "I'm not in the bettin' business, but I'll show you the book."

"I've got the book," snipped Romney.

It may have been intended as a figure of speech, but for a candidate who was in his youth photographed with money falling out of his suit, who is known for coming from a plush background and having made an even vaster fortune, and who was not able to name a single instance of material want, ever, when probed on the subject at the debate, it didn't seem so metaphorical. "I didn't grow up poor. And if somebody is looking for someone who's grown up with that background, I'm -- I'm not the person," Romney said at the debate.

But who has $10,000 to bet with -- these days, or any other?

TPM reported the Newt Gingrich's spokesperson R.C. Hammond twisted the knife after the debate, asking in the spin room in Des Moines, "My only question is, did he have the cash in his pocket?"

Democrats who have been prepping for a general election contest against Romney could not contain their glee. After the hashtag #What10Kbuys began trending worldwide within the hour after the debate ended, the Democratic National Committee alerted people to that and started using the tag (the only place it was still trending by next morning, however, was Washington, D.C.). And while the debate was ongoing the Democratic National Committee sent out a release, "Here's What the Average American Family Can Buy with $10,000."

    In tonight's Iowa Debate Mitt Romney casually offered a $10,000 bet, after calling a $1,500 tax break for the middle class a band-aid. Mitt Romney may not know what $10,000 means to middle class families, but here's what the average American family can buy with $10,000:

    $10,000 Is More Than Four Months Pay For Most Americans (Median Income Was $26,197 in 2010) [Census.gov, accessed 12/10/11]

    $10,000 Is More Than The Average Public In-State Four-Year College Tuition ($8,244) [CollegeBoard, accessed 12/10/11]

    $10,000 Is Almost Three Times What The Average Family Spends On Groceries In A Year ($3624) [BLS.gov, accessed 12/10/11]

    $10,000 Would Cover More Than A Year's Worth Of Mortgage Payments For The Typical American Home Purchased Today ($8,376) [National Association of Realtors, 10/6/11]


The campaign of Jon Huntsman -- who was barred from the debate stage for low polling numbers -- quickly snapped up the 10KBet.com url, though which it will doubtless goad Romney at some time in the future.

The real problem for Romney though is that his foul-up came just as he's begun to lose control of the front-runner narrative he'd established. But perhaps that's the point -- it's possible Romney is simply better in debates as the presumed likely front-runner than as the seemingly permanent understudy to a rotating cast of pugnacious GOP personalities who need to fail before people can settle on him. And that now that he has proved unable to solidify his position, and voting is set to begin in just weeks, the shifting sands on which he finds himself have unsettled him.

Still, a $10,000 bet in Iowa, where the per capita income in 2010 was $38,084?

That he would have said such a thing shows that Romney's lack of on the ground campaigning in the state has really hurt him, if only because it's allowed him to forget the audience he was speaking before.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #32 on: January 19, 2012, 08:32:27 PM »
The Grinch That Stole Christmas revisited.  ;D

[ Invalid YouTube link ]


johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #33 on: January 19, 2012, 08:33:33 PM »
Why a Newt Gingrich Candidacy Would Doom the Tea Party
By Conor Friedersdorf
The movement can't support him without compromising itself. And opposing him if he's the GOP nominee? They likely don't have it in them.



Gallup finds that 82 percent of Tea Party affiliated voters deem Newt Gingrich an acceptable Republican presidential nominee in 2012. They don't seem to realize that if he wins the nod their movement is doomed, regardless of how the general election goes. The Tea Party cannot support Gingrich without betraying its core principles. But the movement also cannot disclaim him once he is the Republican nominee.

Tea Partiers with a better instinct for self-preservation would see that none of the Mitt Romney alternatives still running would be as corrosive to their cause as the former Speaker of the House. 

Why?

The Tea Party wasn't just a reaction to President Obama or the financial industry bailouts. As Jonah Goldberg puts it, "a major motivating passion of the tea-party movement was a long-delayed backlash against George W. Bush and his big-government conservatism." Support for the War on Terrorism and the invasion of Iraq caused many conservatives to stay loyal to Bush. But that didn't mean they liked No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, the attempt at a guest worker program, TARP, or the Harriet Miers nomination. Especially after the defeat of John McCain, many on the right insisted they'd never again support Bush-Rove conservatism.

And Gingrich supported almost all the most controversial Bush-Rove policies!

He favored No Child Left Behind, an unprecedented federal intervention in education. He supported Medicare Part D, a brand new, budget-busting drug entitlement. He supported "comprehensive immigration reform," perhaps the most divisive-among-conservatives policy initiative of the aughts. He urged the passage of TARP. And he even spoke favorably about the infamous Harriet Miers nomination, a George W. Bush misstep that caused many of his most loyal supporters to rebel.

Tea Partiers pledged that if they had their way the GOP would never again have as its champion a federal government enlarging, entitlement expanding, amnesty urging, Bush-style Republican.

To do so just four years on would be a significant failure.

Another Tea Party talking point is its suspicion of Washington, D.C., insiders. For all Sarah Palin's flaws, the Tea Partiers who rallied around her could at least justifiably claim that she had authentic roots far from Washington and a record in Alaska of taking on corrupt political insiders who sought to enrich themselves at public expense. Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain -- all these flawed Tea Party favorites have at least some claim to outsider status.

But Gingrich? He is the epitome of the Inside the Beltway insider, and not only because of his long stint in Congress. After retiring, he profited lavishly off connections he made on the taxpayer dime, earning hundreds of thousands of dollars influence-pedaling. Most famously, he got $1.6 million from Freddie Mac, the very entity that many conservatives regard as most culpable for the financial crisis. And then he had the temerity to insist that he was paid as "a historian," an explanation so transparently farcical that it can justifiably be seen as an insult to the intelligence of GOP primary voters.

As if supporting such a man weren't incoherent enough already, a movement that valorizes Joe the Plumber, family values and hockey moms is now rallying behind a long-winded former academic turned career politician with an affinity for private planes, chauffeurs, and buying Tiffany and Co. jewelry for his third wife. It's as if Kanye West wrote a politician into his last album.


Runaway, Tea Partiers! Why don't you just runaway?

Ron Paul supporting Tea Partiers would be the first to bail from a coalition that reshaped itself around Gingrich. In Reason magazine, Jacob Sullum runs through some of Gingrich's appalling positions on civil liberties: that the War on Terrorism somehow makes null certain rights to free speech and due process; that the government should stop the construction of a mosque until the day when Saudi Arabia permits churches and synagogues to be built; the proposal to escalate the War on Drugs by executing drug smugglers; support for warrantless wiretaps; and extreme hostility toward the co-equal judicial branch. It's true that only a small subset of Tea Party voters actually care about civil liberties with any kind of consistency, but Gingrich will alienate them.

And the rest of the movement? Confronted with Gingrich's heresies, which are sure to spill from his novelty-addled mind regularly, they'd have to decide on their next move: leave or live with it.

Some affiliated voters won't support in good conscience a guy who favored all the things they railed against after it happened under Bush. Others will be disgusted by the revolving door cronyism, and still others will be upset that the Republicans nominated a twice-divorced adulterer (with a record of supporting an individual mandate in health care). There is a small chance that a narrow Gingrich win at the end of a long, drawn out primary, wherein his Tea Party support suffers, could result in a third party run that divides the right side of the political spectrum.

Much more likely is that Republicans, including most Tea Partiers, rally around the GOP nominee, even if it is Gingrich. That might do even more damage to the Tea Party, as it would be the ultimate act of compromising principle and ideological purity for the sake of beating the Democrats.

It would seem worthwhile in the immediate aftermath of a Gingrich win. And then President Gingrich would take office, and proceed to behave like... well, a decades-long Washington insider who supported No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, the attempt at a guest worker program, TARP, and the Harriet Miers nomination. Every conservative betrayal would be a reminder that the Tea Party helped elect just the sort of man they'd so righteously vowed to eschew.

The label wouldn't stand for anything anymore.

And a Gingrich loss to Obama? In a world where the Tea Party was seen as responsible for his rise, it would be discrediting, as losses always are for the faction that urges a divisive candidate. Along with the blame game, there'd be four more years of Obama, which Tea Partiers regard as the ultimate failure. No wonder that a Gingrich win is Nancy Pelosi's dark, twisted fantasy.

Surely the Tea Party can come up with a better plan?

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #34 on: January 19, 2012, 08:34:16 PM »
I wholeheartedly endorse this man to be the nominee of the repube party. Go Newt, go! You're in first place now...you've got Willard squirming!

Newt Gingrich expands on his support for child labor
The Republican presidential front-runner says 'really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and nobody around them who works' to earn money — 'unless it's illegal.'

By Paul West, Washington Bureau
December 1, 2011

Reporting from Johnston, Iowa

Doubling down on a plan that stirred controversy about his views on child labor, leading Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich said Thursday that poor kids have no habit of earning money "unless it's illegal" and should be put to work in their schools.

At a party fundraising dinner in the Des Moines suburbs, the former House speaker launched into a defense of his proposal to teach the nation's poorest children the connection between "showing up" and earning money — by putting them to work in their schools in the country's poorest neighborhoods.

"I believe the kids could mop the floor and clean up the bathroom and get paid for it, and it would be OK," he said to applause.

Gingrich said, mockingly, that those on the left would oppose his idea because it might prompt the children to earn more money and eventually escape poverty, "and then who would rich liberals worry about?"

Earlier in the day, Gingrich offered more explosive rhetoric on the subject. During a meeting with Nationwide Insurance employees in Des Moines, he was asked to clarify his views on child labor laws, which he recently described as "truly stupid."

"Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and nobody around them who works," Gingrich replied. "So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of 'I do this and you give me cash,' unless it's illegal."

He said he favored putting children to work in paid jobs at the schools they attend "as early as is reasonable and practical."


Gingrich initially drew criticism for the idea after an appearance at Harvard last month, when he promised "extraordinarily radical proposals" to change America's "culture of poverty," such as allowing children as young as 9 to replace adult janitors at schools.

As he campaigned in Iowa on Thursday, Gingrich also outlined what he described as a rethinking of his candidacy, "sobered," he said, by the realization that he was emerging as a favorite to win his party's nomination.

"The longer I have thought about the very real possibility that I might have to serve, the more I realize that we have to clean up the Congress" as well as the executive branch, Gingrich said at the party dinner.

He said he had come to the realization that he would need to run "an American campaign," not merely a Republican one. And in an apparent reference to the need to diversify the GOP beyond its overwhelmingly white base, he said his campaign would be "open to people of every background."

"You and I know that is going to make some of our friends very uncomfortable," Gingrich said. But "if we truly want to rebuild America, we have to be prepared to make some of our friends very uncomfortable." The remark drew only a smattering of applause from the Polk County Republican crowd of 450, described by one dinner speaker as a mix of social moderates and conservatives.

The former speaker delivered a tongue-in-cheek warning to those who, he said, might be thinking about volunteering for his campaign, stating: "I have a passionate dedication to the work ethic."

Speaking to reporters after his dinner speech, Gingrich said he found his swift rise in the polls "disorienting," adding: "This is such a rapid change that we are having to rethink our own internal operations right now and where we are."

He said that as recently as two weeks ago, he would have not given such a sweeping speech about the future.

"Given where we are, I think this is the right stage setting to start saying to people, 'This is what a Gingrich presidency would look like. This is how really different it would be,'" he said.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #35 on: January 19, 2012, 08:35:04 PM »
December 3, 2011
Out of Africa and Into Iowa
By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

NEWT GINGRICH’S mind is in love with itself.

It has persuaded itself that it is brilliant when it is merely promiscuous. This is not a serious mind. Gingrich is not, to put it mildly, a systematic thinker.

His mind is a jumble, an amateurish mess lacking impulse control. He plays air guitar with ideas, producing air ideas. He ejaculates concepts, notions and theories that are as inconsistent as his behavior.

He didn’t get whiplash being a serial adulterer while impeaching another serial adulterer, a lobbyist for Freddie Mac while attacking Freddie Mac, a self-professed fiscal conservative with a whopping Tiffany’s credit line, and an anti-Communist Army brat who supported the Vietnam War but dodged it.

“Part of the question I had to ask myself,” he said in a 1985 Wall Street Journal piece about war wimps, “was what difference I would have made.”

Newt swims easily in a sea of duality and byzantine ideas that don’t add up. As The Washington Post reported on Friday, an America under President Gingrich would have two Social Security systems — “one old, one new, running side by side” — two tax systems and two versions of Medicare.

Consider his confusion of views on colonialism. In the 1971 Ph.D. dissertation he wrote at Tulane University, titled “Belgian Education Policy in the Congo 1945-1960,” he is anti-anticolonialism.

“If the Congolese are to confront the future with realism they will need a solid understanding of their own past and an awareness of the good as well as the bad aspects of colonialism,” he argued. “It would be just as misleading to speak in generalities of ‘white exploitation’ as it once was to talk about ‘native backwardness.’ ”

He warned against political pressures encouraging “Black xenophobia.” What’s xenophobic about Africans wanting their oppressors to go away? It’s like saying abused wives who want their husbands to leave are anti-men.

He sees colonialism as a complicated thing with good and bad effects rather than a terrible thing with collateral benefits.

Laura Seay, an assistant professor at Morehouse College in Atlanta and an expert on Africa, blogged that Gingrich’s thesis was “kind of a glorified white man’s burden take on colonial policy that was almost certainly out of vogue in the early 1970s. Gingrich wrote this as the Black Consciousness and Black Power movements were approaching their pinnacles. It was most decidedly not the time to be arguing that white European masters did a swell job ruling black Africans through a system that ensured that most Congolese would never get a real education.”

When it comes to America’s British overlords, Gingrich is not so sympathetic. The bludgeon of American exceptionalism that he uses on President Obama was forged at Valley Forge.

In the introduction to his novel about George Washington and the Revolutionary War, “To Try Men’s Souls,” written with William R. Forstchen, Gingrich writes: “The British elites believed this was a conflict about money and about minor irritations. They simply could not believe the colonists were serious about their rights as free men and women.”

Gingrich, a radical precursor to the modern Tea Party when he staged what conservatives considered the second American Revolution in the House in the ’90s, wrote with delight of London’s shock when Samuel Adams started the original Tea Party.

But while an anticolonial disposition is good if you’re Adams, Washington and Jefferson, it’s bad if you’re Barack Obama’s Kenyan father living under British rule two centuries later.

Gingrich made one of his classic outrageous overreaches last year when he praised a Dinesh D’Souza article in Forbes, saying you could only understand how “fundamentally out of touch” and “outside our comprehension” President Obama is “if you understand Kenyan, anticolonial behavior.”

D’Souza’s absurd ad hominem theory tying Obama to his father goes like this: “This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation’s agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son.”

This was a typical Newt mental six-car pileup. The man who espouses Christian values being un-Christian in visiting the alleged sins of the father upon the son; the man who reveres the anticolonialism of the founding fathers ranting against the anticolonialism of the father of America’s first African-American president. How do you rail against the Evil Empire and urge overthrowing Saddam and not celebrate liberation in Africa?

Newt is like the Great White Hunter out on campaign safari, trying to bag a Mitt, an animal with ever-changing stripes. Certainly, the 68-year-old’s haughty suggestions on child labor last week in Iowa smacked of harsh paternalism and exploitation.

He expanded on Dickensian remarks he’d made recently at Harvard, where he said “it is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in child laws which are truly stupid,” adding that 9-year-olds could work as school janitors.

“Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works,” he asserted in an ignorant barrage of stereotypes in Des Moines. “So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday.”

Has he not heard of the working poor? The problem isn’t that these kids aren’t working; it’s that they don’t have time with their parents, who often toil day and night, at more than one job, and earn next to nothing.

Newt’s the kind of person whom child labor laws were created to curb. He sounds like a benign despot with a colonial subtext: Until I bring you the benefits of civilization, we will regard you as savages.

He’s Belgium. The poor are Congo.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #36 on: January 19, 2012, 08:35:56 PM »
General Election: Romney vs. Obama
Poll   Date   Sample   Obama (D)   Romney (R)   Spread
RCP Average   11/8 - 11/22   --   45.9   44.4   Obama +1.5
Rasmussen Reports   11/21 - 11/22   1000 LV   44   38   Obama +6
Quinnipiac   11/14 - 11/20   2552 RV   45   44   Obama +1
FOX News   11/13 - 11/15   914 RV   42   44   Romney +2
CNN/Opinion Research   11/11 - 11/13   925 RV   47   51   Romney +4
Pew Research   11/9 - 11/14   1576 RV   49   47   Obama +2
PPP (D)   11/10 - 11/13   800 RV   46   43   Obama +3
McClatchy/Marist   11/8 - 11/10   872 RV   48   44   Obama +4

General Election: Gingrich vs. Obama
Poll   Date   Sample   Obama (D)   Gingrich (R)   Spread
RCP Average   11/8 - 11/20   --   49.1   42.3   Obama +6.8
Rasmussen Reports   11/19 - 11/20   1000 LV   46   40   Obama +6
Quinnipiac   11/14 - 11/20   2552 RV   49   40   Obama +9
FOX News   11/13 - 11/15   914 RV   46   41   Obama +5
CNN/Opinion Research   11/11 - 11/13   925 RV   53   45   Obama +8
Pew Research   11/9 - 11/14   1576 RV   54   42   Obama +12
PPP (D)   11/10 - 11/13   800 RV   49   43   Obama +6
McClatchy/Marist   11/8 - 11/10   872 RV   47   45   Obama +2

General Election: Cain vs. Obama
Poll   Date   Sample   Obama (D)   Cain (R)   Spread
RCP Average   11/8 - 11/27   --   49.6   39.4   Obama +10.2
Rasmussen Reports   11/27 - 11/27   1000 LV   46   36   Obama +10
Quinnipiac   11/14 - 11/20   2552 RV   50   37   Obama +13
FOX News   11/13 - 11/15   914 RV   47   38   Obama +9
CNN/Opinion Research   11/11 - 11/13   925 RV   53   43   Obama +10
Pew Research   11/9 - 11/14   1576 RV   54   42   Obama +12
PPP (D)   11/10 - 11/13   800 RV   48   41   Obama +7
McClatchy/Marist   11/8 - 11/10   872 RV   49   39   Obama +10

General Election: Perry vs. Obama

Poll   Date   Sample   Obama (D)   Perry (R)   Spread
RCP Average   11/5 - 11/14   --   49.8   40.2   Obama +9.6
CNN/Opinion Research   11/11 - 11/13   925 RV   52   45   Obama +7
PPP (D)   11/10 - 11/13   800 RV   49   39   Obama +10
Pew Research   11/9 - 11/14   1576 RV   53   42   Obama +11
McClatchy/Marist   11/8 - 11/10   872 RV   51   40   Obama +11
Rasmussen Reports   11/5 - 11/6   1000 LV   44   35   Obama +9

General Election: Paul vs. Obama
Poll   Date   Sample   Obama (D)   Paul (R)   Spread
RCP Average   10/28 - 11/13   --   46.7   39.0   Obama +7.7
PPP (D)   11/10 - 11/13   800 RV   47   41   Obama +6
McClatchy/Marist   11/8 - 11/10   872 RV   49   41   Obama +8
Rasmussen Reports   10/28 - 10/29   1000 LV   44   35   Obama +9

General Election: Bachmann vs. Obama
Poll   Date   Sample   Obama (D)   Bachmann (R)   Spread
RCP Average   11/8 - 11/16   --   49.7   35.7   Obama +14.0
Rasmussen Reports   11/15 - 11/16   1000 LV   45   33   Obama +12
PPP (D)   11/10 - 11/13   800 RV   50   39   Obama +11
McClatchy/Marist   11/8 - 11/10   872 RV   54   35   Obama +19

General Election: Huntsman vs. Obama

Poll   Date   Sample   Obama (D)   Huntsman (R)   Spread
RCP Average   8/29 - 10/21   --   45.7   37.0   Obama +8.7
Rasmussen Reports   10/20 - 10/21   1000 LV   39   32   Obama +7
Reuters/Ipsos   9/8 - 9/12   932 RV   51   37   Obama +14
ABC News/Wash Post   8/29 - 9/1   RV   47   42   Obama +5

General Election: Santorum vs. Obama
Poll   Date   Sample   Obama (D)   Santorum (R)   Spread
Rasmussen Reports   10/2 - 10/3   1000 LV   45   34   Obama +11
Rasmussen Reports   7/10 - 7/11   1000 LV   45   31   Obama +14

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #37 on: January 19, 2012, 08:36:50 PM »
Newt Gingrich wants to fire union janitors and hire kids to clean schools instead. Seriously. He wants to assign 9-year-old kids to do hard manual labor cleaning up after their more fortunate classmates. It's vicious, backwards and wrong.

Really, Newt? Let him know what you think of his 'idea.':
http://www.afscme.org/reallynewt

The US outlawed child labor because it denied children the chance at a real education and allowed employers to exploit children — and because children were often injured or killed on the job. That's why labor unions fought to pass laws outlawing child labor and protecting all workers.


johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #38 on: January 19, 2012, 08:37:26 PM »
Newt in His Own Words: 33 Years of Bomb-Throwing
Gingrich is announcing he's running for president. Too bad he can't run from comments like these.

By Tim Murphy and David Corn | Wed Apr. 6, 2011
Your guide to Gingrich's greatest rhetorical hits.

Editor's Note (5/10/11): Well, it kind of seems official. On Monday, a spokesman for Newt Gingrich announced that on Wednesday Gingrich would announce on Twitter and Facebook that he is running for president. (How suspenseful!) And in the days since commentators have been dissecting the former House speaker's past: his messy personal life (two divorces, three marriages), his erratic policy pronouncements, his combative politicking. But given that Gingrich has thirty-plus years of extreme conduct, many of his past excesses end up being truncated and compacted into characterizations. ("Known for his often controversial remarks...") The full Newt is often given short shrift. But a month ago, Tim Murphy and David Corn set out to chronicle Gingrich's 33 years of rhetorical extremism. They ended up with a long list. A very long list.

Newt Gingrich, a preseason 2012 Republican contender, likes to present himself as an ideas man. He is a former college professor and the architect of the ideology-driven 1994 Republican Revolution. But for all his references to Camus and Clausewitz, there's another side to the former House speaker—a verbal bomb-thrower who's never met a political crisis he couldn't analogize to the annexation of the Sudetenland.

Gingrich was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1978. He learned quickly that a back-bencher in the minority party could distinguish himself and gain attention in Washington by employing extreme rhetoric. Ever in attack-mode, Gingrich swiftly moved up the ranks within the House GOP caucus. Democrats accused him of practicing "skinhead politics," and a 1989 Washington Post profile declared him "notorious [3]" and "defiant." But his political thuggery worked, and he led the GOPers in their historic retaking of the House and became speaker. He did not last long in the post. After a rocky stint—marked by a government shutdown, his party's sex-and-lies impeachment crusade against President Bill Clinton, and several ethics controversies involving Gingrich—the GOP lost seats in the 1998 election, and Gingrich resigned as speaker and left the House. (During this time, he was having an extramarital affair with a congressional aide who would eventually become his third [4], and present, wife.)

In his post-House years, Gingrich, at times, toned down the rhetoric. He worked with Hillary Clinton on health care IT issues [5]. He sat on a couch [6] with Nancy Pelosi to highlight their joint support for climate change action. After the 2008 election, he called for policymaking that would unite [7] Democrats, Republicans, and independents. He blasted [8] a candidate for GOP chairman who circulated a parody song called "Barack the Magic Negro." Still, he wasn't able to escape the siren call of overheated oratory. He repeatedly bashed the "secular left [9]" for attempting to destroy the country, and as he has moved closer to declaring a presidential bid, he increasingly has returned to the hooligan ways of his past.

So here's a rather incomplete guide to Gingrich's greatest (or worst) hits of the past 33 years. As he might say, it's the most accurate, predictive model for his future behavior.


1978 In an address to College Republicans before he was elected to the House, Gingrich says [10]: "I think one of the great problems we have in the Republican party is that we don't encourage you to be nasty. We encourage you to be neat, obedient, and loyal and faithful and all those Boy Scout words." He added, "Richard Nixon…Gerald Ford…They have done a terrible job, a pathetic job. In my lifetime, in my lifetime—I was born in 1943—we have not had a competent national Republican leader. Not ever."

1980 On the House floor, Gingrich states, "The reality is that this country is in greater danger than at any time since 1939."

1980 Gingrich says [11]: "We need a military four times the size of our present defense system." (See 1984.)

1983 A major milestone: Gingrich cites former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain on the House floor: "If in fact we are to follow the Chamberlain liberal Democratic line of withdrawal from the planet," he explains [12], "we would truly have tyranny everywhere, and we in America could experience the joys of Soviet-style brutality and murdering of women and children."

1983 He compares Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill to Chamberlain: "He may not know any better. He may not understand freedom versus slavery...in the tradition of [former British Prime Ministers] Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain, whose only weakness was they left their nation with war with Nazi Germany."

1984 "I am not a super hawk."

1984 Gingrich takes advantage of the arrival of C-Span to deliver scathing condemnations of his colleagues. He accuses Democrats of appeasement and distributing "communist propaganda [13]," and threatens to press charges against them for writing a letter to Nicaraguan dictator Daniel Ortega. House Speaker Tip O'Neill calls it "the lowest thing that I've ever seen in my 32 years in Congress."

1984 Gingrich touts a study being compiled by conservative House Republicans, noting it "will argue that it is time to stop challenging or seeming to challenge the patriotism of Democrats and liberals. Enough historical evidence exists."

1984 "It used to be called socialism. It is now just sort of liberal Democratic platform pledges."

1985 Gingrich calls [14] Reagan's upcoming meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev ''the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Chamberlain in 1938 at Munich.''

1985 Gingrich compares a disputed House election [15] in Indiana to the Holocaust. "We have talked a lot in recent weeks about the Holocaust, about the incredible period in which Nazi Germany killed millions of people and, in particular, came close to wiping out European Jewry. Someone said to me two days ago, talking frankly about the McIntyre affair [in which Democrats refused to seat the winner of a House race until they'd conducted a recount] and the efforts by the Democratic leadership not to allow the people of Indiana to have their representative but, instead, to impose upon them somebody else, something in which he quotes [German poet Martin] Niemoller, and I have never quite until tonight been able to link it together—Niemoller, the great German theologian, said at one point [16]: 'When the Nazis came for the Jews, I did nothing…and when the Nazis came for me, there was no one left.'"

1985 Upset with Democrats' foreign policy stance, Gingrich observes, "Adolph Hitler must somewhere be burning in hell, wishing he had lived two generations later, so he could manipulate Americans instead of Englishmen."

1985 He's got the world in the palm of his hand: "I have an enormous personal ambition [17]. I want to shift the entire planet…I just had breakfast with [administration officials Richard] Darman and [David] Stockman [18] because I'm unavoidable. I represent real power."

1987 Gingrich takes to the House floor to decry…pretty much everything about the Democratic-run House: "After the first five months of this Congress, I must report to my fellow citizens that this 100th Congress may be the most irresponsible, destructive, corrupt, and unrepresentative Congress of the modern era... In future weeks, I will make a series of speeches outlining the threats of corruption, of communism, and of the left-wing machine which runs the House."

1988 Gingrich discusses his midlife crisis: "I spent a fair length of time trying to come to grips with who I was and the habits I had, and what they did to people that I truly loved [19]. I really spent a period of time where, I suspect, I cried three or four times a week. I read Men Who Hate Women and the Women Who Love Them and I found frightening pieces that related to...my own life."

1989 He explains to the Washington Post why he fights with his second wife, Marianne: "It's not even that it matters to me. It's just the habit of dominance [20], the habit of being the center of my staff and the center of the news media." Newt gives the marriage a "53–47" shot of surviving.

1989 After taking down Speaker Jim Wright (D-Texas) by filing a string of ethics charges, Gingrich basks in his role as giant-killer. "If you're not in the Washington Post every day," he says [21], "you might as well not exist."

1989 Gingrich lays out [22] his electoral roadmap: "The left-wing Democrats will represent the party of total hedonism, total exhibitionism, total bizarreness, total weirdness, and the total right to cripple innocent people in the name of letting hooligans loose."

1989 "These people are sick," he says [23] of congressional Democrats. "They are so consumed by their own power, by a Mussolini-like ego, that their willingness to run over normal human beings and to destroy honest institutions is unending." He also warns that unless the Democrats are stopped, "we may literally see our freedom decay and decline."

1990 Gingrich's political action committee, GOPAC, sends out a memo titled [24] "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control" to several thousand Republican candidates running for state and local offices. It includes a list of words they should use to describe Democrats:

    decay, failure (fail) collapse(ing) deeper, crisis, urgent(cy), destructive, destroy, sick, pathetic, lie, liberal, they/them, unionized bureaucracy, "compassion" is not enough, betray, consequences, limit(s), shallow, traitors, sensationalists, endanger, coercion, hypocricy, radical, threaten, devour, waste, corruption, incompetent, permissive attitude, destructive, impose, self-serving, greed, ideological, insecure, anti-(issue): flag, family, child, jobs; pessimistic, excuses, intolerant, stagnation, welfare, corrupt, selfish, insensitive, status quo, mandate(s) taxes, spend (ing) shame, disgrace, punish (poor...) bizarre, cynicism, cheat, steal, abuse of power, machine, bosses, obsolete, criminal rights, red tape, patronage.

1990 Speaking privately to a group of supporters, Gingrich says he's changing his public role from "explainer of political tactics to explainer of cultural change."

1992 While campaigning for President George H. W. Bush in Georgia, Gingrich uses Woody Allen [25] as a symbol for what Democrats want to do to America: "Woody Allen had non-incest with his non-daughter because they were a non-family." He adds, "It fits the Democratic Party platform perfectly." Bush distances himself from the remarks.

1994 A South Carolina woman, Susan Smith, murders her two sons. Gingrich draws the only logical conclusion [26]: "I think that the mother killing the two children in South Carolina vividly reminds every American how sick the society is getting and how much we need to change things. The only way you get change is to vote Republican."

1994 He sums up [27] his political philosophy: "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz. I see evil all around me every day."

1995 Following the House GOP's triumphant 1994 election victory, Gingrich sends all the Republican freshman House members copies of the GOPAC memo suggesting they refer to their opponents as "traitors [24]."

1995 Gingrich releases a novel he co-authored, 1945, in which the Waffen-SS invades eastern Tennessee. But most critics fixate on the opening scene [28], in which a high-ranking Washington politico, unsatisfied with his marriage, engages in an affair that ultimately brings about his own political demise:

    Playfully, to drive home the potential loss, she bit his shoulder, then kissed it better.

    "Aw, hell, I don't want to...I wish I could just divorce Mrs. Little Goodie Two-Shoes!"

    "I like this arrangement," she laughed softly. "Mistress to the chief of staff of the President of the United States. Nice title, don't you think? Such a book I could write." ...Suddenly the pouting sex kitten gave way to Diana the Huntress. She rolled onto him and somehow was sitting athwart his chest, her knees pinning his shoulders. "Tell me, or I will make you do terrible things," she hissed.

Gingrich calls the book "PG-13 [29]."

1995 Marianne tells Vanity Fair she will "undermine everything [30]" if Gingrich runs for president in 1996. Gignrich tells reporters [31] his wife was "just making the point hypothetically."

1995 Gingrich examines the United States' handling of the conflict in Bosnia and falls back on a familiar refrain [32]: "The UN acts totally impotently and undermines the morale of every law-abiding democracy on the planet. This is the worst performance by the democracies since the 1930s."

1996 Gingrich applies the same analogy to President Clinton's policies in the Middle East, in a speech [33] to the Center for Security Policy: "The democracies are in a greater danger than they have been at any time since [British Prime Minister] Stanley Baldwin lied to the English people about the Luftwaffe and Hitler's Germany."

1998 Gingrich steps down as Speaker, amid ethics complaints and rumors of an extramarital affair. He frames his decision in pragmatic terms [34]: "I'm willing to lead, but I'm not willing to preside over people who are cannibals."

1998 Gingrich divorces Marianne. A later Esquire profile [35] offers a glimpse of the last days, from Marianne's point of view:

    Gingrich just kept saying she was a Jaguar and all he wanted was a Chevrolet. "'I can't handle a Jaguar right now.' He said that many times. 'All I want is a Chevrolet.'"

2004 Gingrich tells Fox News [36] that liberal financier George Soros' opposition to George W. Bush might be due to his ties to drug cartels: "[He] wants to spend $75 million defeating [President] George W. Bush because Soros wants to legalize heroin."

2005 Gingrich's latest greatest threat to America is the American Civil Liberties Union. "It's almost as though they were into destruction for its own sake and weakening and undermining America for its own sake." He also labels the group [37] "a consistently destructive organization that is opposed to and undermines the values of most Americans, and takes positions that are consistently weakening the security of the United States."

2006 Asked whether he agrees with then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's comments that opposition to the Bush administration's Iraq policy is tantamount to appeasing Hitler, Gingrich responds, "Yes [38]."

2006 Gingrich casts the Bush administration's War on Terror in the kind of sweeping terms [39] he normally reserves for, well, everything else: "We're in the early stages of what I would describe as the third World War."

2007 Gingrich makes the case for war in Iran and Syria by using his favorite analogy [40]: "It makes no sense to have a Holocaust Museum in Washington and yet have no honest assessment of the threat of a 21st century Holocaust."

2007 "We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto [41]." Two years later, Gingrich unveils a new Spanish-language website, The Americano [42].

2008 Following the presidential election, Gingrich calls for a new era of "tri-partisan [7]" cooperation in Washington.

2008 Gingrich tells Bill O'Reilly that "there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us." The gay and secular fascist movement, Gingrich charges [43], is "prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it."

2009 On Democratic opposition to the continuing war in Afghanistan, Gingrich breaks out a familiar line [44]: "The last few weeks have been worse than Chamberlain. This is Baldwin in 1935, just willfully blind because he didn't want to tell the British people the truth because it would offend them."

2009 Gingrich compares [45] the Obama administration to the Chinese Cultural Revolution. "I just have this interesting idea of asking [then White House communications director] Anita Dunn if this is her idea of a cultural revolution and if she really wishes that she could get Sean Hannity and the other Fox commentators to go to a farm and work the way Mao sent the intellectuals out."

2010 Gingrich warns [46] that Obama's agenda "would mean the end of America as it has been for the last 400 years."

2010 Gingrich argues [47] that Muslims don't have a right to build a mosque in Lower Manhattan: "They're trying to make a case about supremacy…Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington."

2010 Sign of the times: Gingrich swaps gay secular fascism for "secular-socialist machine [48]"—which he says "represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did."

2010 A year after writing a book about noted anti-colonialist George Washington, Gingrich suggests that the current president holds a radical, anti-British worldview of his own. "What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?" Gingrich asks [49]. "That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior."

2010 Gingrich sounds the alarm [50] about a new threat facing America: "We should have a federal law that says Sharia law cannot be recognized by any court in the United States."

2011 Gingrich tells [51] the Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody that he was driven to his cheat on his previous two wives because of his one true love: America. "There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate."

2011 Secular-socialists give way to atheist-Islamists [52]: "I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time [his grandchildren are] my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American." His spokesman later clarified that Gingrich meant either Islamists or atheists would take over America, not both.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #39 on: January 19, 2012, 08:38:08 PM »
Will child labor laws be repealed if Republican Newt Gingrich defeats President Obama's reelection bid in 2012? The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur explains.


johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #40 on: January 19, 2012, 08:38:59 PM »
The Herman Cain Meltdown
By Molly Ball
The hits keep on coming for the businessman and onetime GOP front-runner, who seems determined to go down in flames




The Herman Cain implosion is under way.

Once the Republican front-runner, Cain now seems to be self-destructing before our very eyes. Beset on all sides and sinking in the polls, he's not content to go out with a whimper. Instead, his campaign has become a spectacular series of blunders.

The latest: While trying to fend off criticism of his recent foreign policy gaffes on Thursday, Cain mounted a spirited defense of ignorance and even illiteracy.

"Who knows every detail of every country on the planet? Nobody!" Cain told reporters following him on the campaign trail in New Hampshire. And: "We need a leader, not a reader!"

That line's unfortunate echo of the buffoonish president from The Simpsons Movie seemed telling. All along, Cain has been a sort of cartoon version of a presidential candidate, entertaining, silly, and preposterously exaggerated.

Meanwhile Thursday, Cain abruptly canceled a planned interview with New Hampshire's most important conservative editorial page, the Manchester Union Leader. It appeared to be a belated, and narrowly targeted, attempt to prevent the candidate from facing further questioning and doing further self-damage. But it only served to invite criticism from another quarter, and it certainly didn't prevent Cain from making more inadvisable remarks (see above).

The implosion's beginning can be traced to another newspaper editorial-board interview, with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, on Monday. That's when Cain got tripped up by a simple, open-ended question on Libya -- you know, the site of the last major U.S. military intervention. His helpless fumbling gave Rick Perry's "oops" some serious competition in the brain-freeze sweepstakes.

Then, on Wednesday, Cain made a pilgrimage to Miami's Little Havana, without apparently bothering to do any homework on Cuba: He professed ignorance of the U.S.'s "wet-foot, dry-foot" policy, called a query about Obama's Cuba policy a "gotcha question" and inquired with apparent seriousness, "How do you say 'delicious' in Cuban?"

At this point, stories about Cain aren't even mentioning the sexual harassment accusations he spent weeks trying to fend off. That's ancient history. Heck, compared to all these random countries people keep asking him about, Cain might like to be talking about the allegations again -- at least that's something he has some practice answering questions about.

Though the harassment scandal isn't the source of his present difficulties, it seems likely that it's at the root of Cain's unraveling. The revelations about accusations of sexual harassment against Cain from four different women clearly set him off-balance and planted a seed of doubt in voters' minds.

His erstwhile supporters might have wanted to tiptoe discreetly off his sinking ship. But Cain, it seems, would rather chase them off with sirens blaring.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #41 on: January 19, 2012, 08:40:09 PM »
Remember John Lewis' Warning About Violent Talk?
By: Joel Dreyfuss
Posted: January 11, 2011

During the 2008 presidential campaign, the civil rights veteran warned against overheated rhetoric. It's no wonder, given black Americans' experience as targets of political violence. But the shooting in Tucson, Arizona, reminds us that it's advice all Americans should heed.

We were warned by Rep. John Lewis two years ago. He took John McCain and Sarah Palin to task during the 2008 presidential campaign for "sowing the seeds of hatred and division." Lewis knew well the consequences of political violence; he was badly beaten during civil rights protests in the South a half century ago.

Throughout last year, alerts continued, delivered by black politicians and pundits who expressed alarm about weapons at Tea Party rallies and brutal, sometimes racist rhetoric that cast President Barack Obama as a Nazi, a communist, a Middle East terrorist or, worse, an illegal alien who had somehow fooled the American people into putting him in the White House. But like a lot of the wisdom that comes out of the mouths of black folks, these warnings didn't get much play in the mainstream media.

When Lewis and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) reported that they had been called names and spat upon last summer by a crowd protesting health care reform, their credibility and even their motives for walking through a hostile crowd were questioned by the right. One conservative talk-show host offered a reward for a video proving that the two men had been mistreated -- essentially calling them liars.

When the NAACP's Benjamin Justice urged the Tea Party to purge its ranks of racists, he was greeted with derision or accused of playing the race card -- until a Tea Party leader's outburst proved him right.

For the moment, at least, the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and the accompanying massacre have focused mainstream attention on the verbal -- and occasionally violent -- excesses of the American political system. Within minutes of the alleged rampage by 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner, the punditocracy began an inflamed debate on whether the brutal political dialogue of the last two years had played a role in instigating or nurturing an atmosphere that led to the shootings.

The sheriff of Arizona's Pima County, Clarence Dubnik, had no doubts: It's clear, "when you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government," he said. "The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous."

Up to now, politicians, news commentators, talk-radio hosts and others who engage in political dialogue have tended to shrug off, tolerate and even sometimes instigate violent political language. News stories in the last few days have cataloged the excessive verbiage that has been a constant thread in political discussions in the last two years.

There were the brutal anti-Obama signs at Tea Party functions. There were those who came to political rallies armed. There were the bull's-eyes on Sarah Palin's maps and her provocative "Don't Retreat. Reload!" language. There was senatorial candidate Sharron Angle hinting that citizens should resort to their Second Amendment privileges (the right to bear arms) if they didn't like the outcome of elections or Supreme Court decisions.

Liberals have rushed to make the link between the violence and heated political dialogue of the last two years. "We need to put the guns down," said MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann. "Just as importantly, we need to put the gun metaphors away, and permanently." But within hours, the conservative blogs were already questioning the connection. Right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin posted this on her site: "Twitter and the left-wing blogs -- and now a Fox-bashing Democrat congressman -- have gone completely insane trying to politicize the shootings. Best to tune that all out."

 

Conservative Mark Thiessen, writing for the Washington Post, opined: "What is really outrageous is how quickly so many jumped at the opportunity to politicize this tragic shooting -- blaming the Tea Party and conservative political rhetoric without a shred of evidence to back those claims." Even the editorial page of the Washington Post, owned by The Root's parent company, put a distance between cause and effect: "But metaphors don't kill people -- guns kill people." The paper called for tighter gun-control laws.

Loughner may well turn out to be a deeply disturbed young man with no coherent political philosophy. But how assuredly can we separate his convoluted thinking from an environment of brutal language, threats, poisonous letters and warlike metaphors -- yes, metaphors? Even if Loughner's alleged deadly act was not an explosive response to the fuse of excessive language, are we now assured that there are no other individuals out there convinced they must do something to stop that communist/socialist/Nazi/foreigner president and his minions from ruining our country? I doubt that the head of the U.S. Secret Service will let out a sigh of relief if Loughner's apparent lack of political acumen or purpose is confirmed.

It's not surprising that African-American leaders have been alarmed for some time about this level of nasty rhetoric. Black Americans were long the targets of horrific political violence in the name of democracy. We have a long list of leaders and allies, from Medgar Evers to Viola Liuzzo, from Martin Luther King Jr. to Robert Kennedy, who paid with their lives for their beliefs -- and all in a climate of extremist language that gave legitimacy to acts cast as a means of saving America from the evil of integration or black empowerment. And that's why, even 40 years later, we are sensitive to the dangers of excessive language.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #42 on: January 19, 2012, 08:41:17 PM »
November 10, 2011
Legends of the Fail
By PAUL KRUGMAN

This is the way the euro ends — not with a bang but with bunga bunga. Not long ago, European leaders were insisting that Greece could and should stay on the euro while paying its debts in full. Now, with Italy falling off a cliff, it’s hard to see how the euro can survive at all.

But what’s the meaning of the eurodebacle? As always happens when disaster strikes, there’s a rush by ideologues to claim that the disaster vindicates their views. So it’s time to start debunking.

First things first: The attempt to create a common European currency was one of those ideas that cut across the usual ideological lines. It was cheered on by American right-wingers, who saw it as the next best thing to a revived gold standard, and by Britain’s left, which saw it as a big step toward a social-democratic Europe. But it was opposed by British conservatives, who also saw it as a step toward a social-democratic Europe. And it was questioned by American liberals, who worried — rightly, I’d say (but then I would, wouldn’t I?) — about what would happen if countries couldn’t use monetary and fiscal policy to fight recessions.

So now that the euro project is on the rocks, what lessons should we draw?

I’ve been hearing two claims, both false: that Europe’s woes reflect the failure of welfare states in general, and that Europe’s crisis makes the case for immediate fiscal austerity in the United States.

The assertion that Europe’s crisis proves that the welfare state doesn’t work comes from many Republicans. For example, Mitt Romney has accused President Obama of taking his inspiration from European “socialist democrats” and asserted that “Europe isn’t working in Europe.” The idea, presumably, is that the crisis countries are in trouble because they’re groaning under the burden of high government spending. But the facts say otherwise.

It’s true that all European countries have more generous social benefits — including universal health care — and higher government spending than America does. But the nations now in crisis don’t have bigger welfare states than the nations doing well — if anything, the correlation runs the other way. Sweden, with its famously high benefits, is a star performer, one of the few countries whose G.D.P. is now higher than it was before the crisis. Meanwhile, before the crisis, “social expenditure” — spending on welfare-state programs — was lower, as a percentage of national income, in all of the nations now in trouble than in Germany, let alone Sweden.

Oh, and Canada, which has universal health care and much more generous aid to the poor than the United States, has weathered the crisis better than we have.

The euro crisis, then, says nothing about the sustainability of the welfare state. But does it make the case for belt-tightening in a depressed economy?

You hear that claim all the time. America, we’re told, had better slash spending right away or we’ll end up like Greece or Italy. Again, however, the facts tell a different story.

First, if you look around the world you see that the big determining factor for interest rates isn’t the level of government debt but whether a government borrows in its own currency.
Japan is much more deeply in debt than Italy, but the interest rate on long-term Japanese bonds is only about 1 percent to Italy’s 7 percent. Britain’s fiscal prospects look worse than Spain’s, but Britain can borrow at just a bit over 2 percent, while Spain is paying almost 6 percent.

What has happened, it turns out, is that by going on the euro, Spain and Italy in effect reduced themselves to the status of third-world countries that have to borrow in someone else’s currency, with all the loss of flexibility that implies. In particular, since euro-area countries can’t print money even in an emergency, they’re subject to funding disruptions in a way that nations that kept their own currencies aren’t — and the result is what you see right now. America, which borrows in dollars, doesn’t have that problem.

The other thing you need to know is that in the face of the current crisis, austerity has been a failure everywhere it has been tried: no country with significant debts has managed to slash its way back into the good graces of the financial markets. For example, Ireland is the good boy of Europe, having responded to its debt problems with savage austerity that has driven its unemployment rate to 14 percent. Yet the interest rate on Irish bonds is still above 8 percent — worse than Italy.

The moral of the story, then, is to beware of ideologues who are trying to hijack the European crisis on behalf of their agendas. If we listen to those ideologues, all we’ll end up doing is making our own problems — which are different from Europe’s, but arguably just as severe — even worse.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #43 on: January 19, 2012, 08:42:04 PM »

The Kings Of Comedy Tour continues tonight. This time the comedians are performing in Spartanburg, SC. ;D

What to Watch For in Tonight's Republican Debate in South Carolina
By Molly Ball
The Republican presidential candidates meet Saturday evening for a foreign policy-focused debate hosted by CBS and National Journal



1. Perry, Perry, and...uh...what was that third one? Oh, right, Perry. Rick Perry's mammoth mix-up in Wednesday night's debate in Michigan raises the stakes for the Texas governor in tonight's face-off. Will he choose the risk-averse path of staying quiet and on the sidelines as much as possible? Or will he step up to try to correct the impression that he doesn't have it together? Just kidding! Perry doesn't really have a choice at all. If he could simply flip a switch and suddenly become a commanding debater, he surely would have done that by now. It seems abundantly clear that turning in a strong performance is not an option available to him. Ironically, he was on course to turn in his strongest performance yet on Wednesday when he face-planted. Barring a brain transplant, he'd probably better play it safe from here on out.

2. Real divisions on foreign policy. This debate is the first of two on the schedule that aim to shine a light on the candidates' foreign policy views, and it could indeed be illuminating. While the two economically focused debates served to illustrate the broad economic consensus among the candidates, there's a notable lack of consensus on foreign policy in the GOP field -- and the Republican Party as a whole -- these days. The candidates show varying degrees of military interventionism: Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul want to get the U.S. out of Afghanistan quickly; Michele Bachmann was a forceful opponent of U.S. intervention in Libya, a prospect Newt Gingrich was in favor of before he was against it. Then there's the issue of China, which Mitt Romney has made a central plank of his economic plan, while Huntsman, the former Chinese ambassador, has accused him of wanting to start a trade war.

3. Do they know what they're talking about?  As a whole, the field is notably short on international expertise, with the exception of ex-diplomat Huntsman. That's led to some memorable blunders, such as an extremely garbled answer from Perry to a question on Pakistan, Bachmann seeming not to know what continent Libya is on and Herman Cain apparently not realizing China has nuclear weapons. It's especially unfortunate for Perry that the debate where he'll be called upon to prove he can remember a three-item list is on a topic he's so poorly versed in. But foreign-policy blunders have afflicted nearly all of the candidates.

4. How do you solve a problem like Newt? The supposedly impending Newt Gingrich surge has been hyped by his campaign for so long that it's unnerving to have to acknowledge that it actually does seem to happening, according to recent polls, whose respondents either have genuinely embraced the next-in-line Romney alternative, like a serial monogamist forgetting the last three breakups -- or else they are drunk with power and just toying with us. In any case, now that the Gingrich surge is officially a thing, expect a renewed focus on the former speaker. One hopes the moderators have taken a tip from the feisty Maria Bartiromo and won't take Gingrich's tiresome, predictable media-tweaking shtick lying down.

5. Oh, right, Herman Cain. After weeks of intense focus on the former Godfather's Pizza CEO, he was oddly not central to Wednesday's debate, especially after Perry grabbed the big headline for all the wrong reasons. There are, however, signs that supporters are starting to quietly peel away from the onetime front-runner. How his rivals approach him should be telling -- if they basically ignore him, it's probably because they sense the air is going out of the Cain balloon.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #44 on: January 19, 2012, 08:42:59 PM »
November 9, 2011
Back to Common Sense at the Polls

It might have been “too much too soon,” a chastened Gov. John Kasich of Ohio admitted on Tuesday night, after his state’s voters overwhelmingly rejected his attempt to break public employee unions. He certainly was right about “too much,” an analysis that also applies to other examples of Republican overreach around the country that were kicked into the gutter: an anti-abortion amendment in Mississippi, a voting restriction in Maine, the radical anti-immigrant agenda of a politician in Arizona.

These policies, and similar ones in other states, were passed in an arrogant frenzy by a Tea Party-tide of Republicans elected in 2010. Many of them decided that they had a mandate to dismantle some of the basic protections and restrictions of government. They went too far, and weary voters had to drag them back toward the center.

As a result, Tuesday brought an overdue return of common sense to government policy in many states. Many voters are tired of legislation driven more by ideology than practicality, of measures that impoverish the middle class or deprive people of basic rights in order to prove some discredited economic theory or cultural belief.

That was most evident in Ohio, where voters overwhelmingly repealed a law pushed through last spring by Republicans to shred collective-bargaining rights for public employees. It prohibited bargaining on health benefits for state and local workers, including teachers, police officers and firefighters, and made it much harder to collect union dues or negotiate on staffing.

Many states are bleeding because of high salaries and lavish benefits, but, as New York and Connecticut have shown, it is possible to reduce them without breaking unions. The roughshod course chosen by Ohio, as well as Wisconsin and Indiana, made the real agenda all too clear: breaking the political power of public unions. Blue-collar voters in Ohio, many of whom got to the middle class through collective bargaining, understood the game.

Many of those same voters also supported a powerless amendment repudiating health care reform. With the matter up to the courts, there was little campaigning on the issue to explain its benefits to the uninsured.

In Arizona, voters recoiling from anti-immigrant stridency recalled the State Senate’s president, Russell Pearce, who was the main sponsor and public face of Arizona’s immigration law, which imposed sweeping police-state powers to harass and expel people without papers. The law, largely blocked in federal court, has done huge damage to the state’s economy and reputation, and voters in Mr. Pearce’s district clearly had had enough.

Maine voters saw right through the partisanship behind Republican attempts to eliminate same-day voter registration and reinstated it. In state after state, Republicans have tried to make it harder to vote, knowing that restrictions tend to hit lower-income and minority voters — traditional supporters of Democrats. Unfortunately, Mississippi voters were not as enlightened, approving a new requirement for identification cards at the polls.

But, even the voters in that state, one of the country’s most conservative, decisively rejected an amendment to ban abortion by declaring a fertilized egg as a person.
The measure also would have effectively banned some forms of contraception and even in-vitro fertilization, and 58 percent of voters said that was going too far.

It is not clear that Tuesday’s votes add up to a national trend that will have an effect on 2012 or even the deadlock in Congress. But they do offer a ray of hope to any candidate who runs on pragmatic solutions, not magical realism, to create jobs and reduce the pressures of inequality on the middle class and the poor.

OneMoreRep

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14068
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #45 on: January 19, 2012, 08:43:50 PM »


Yesterday was a huge day in Egypt, as that country’s President/dictator for the past 30 years ceded power in the face of massive peaceful protests by his people.  While much work remains to be done to ensure that real democracy takes hold in Egypt, we should celebrate the amazing victory by and for the Egyptian people.  It was truly a day for progressives and other supporters of democracy and peaceful protest to savor.

Mubarak’s departure is also, however, a victory for the Obama Administration’s patient and reasoned approach to promoting democracy in Egypt and other countries.  This approach started with President Obama’s stellar June 2009 speech in Cairo that signaled that the peoples of Egypt and other countries would have to choose democracy, but we would be there to support them if they made moves to achieve it peacefully.  And it has continued over the past 18 days of protests, as President Obama has taken a measured approach of private diplomacy with Mubarak, Egypt’s military, and other Egyptian leaders, combined with slowly increasing public pressure that focused on supporting the will of the Egyptian people.  As yesterday’s developments show, President Obama’s approach is working.

Throughout the protests, many on the left and from the Bush Administration have harshly criticized President Obama for not being more publicly vocal about the need for Mubarak to leave and in support of the protesters.  Apparently these folks wanted President Obama to try to lead the protest movement, demand democracy and regime change immediately, and/or engage in the type of loud public saber rattling that marred our foreign policy under the Bush Administration.  Such an approach (which, notably, did not lead to the peaceful toppling of any leaders in the Middle East under Bush) would have been misguided for a number of reasons.

* First, the publicly vocal approach that the critics wanted President Obama to take would have made the protesters look like tools of the U.S., which would undermine their credibility at home.

* Second, such an approach would have limited President Obama’s ability to work privately to make the protests successful by making sure that Mubarak or the Egyptian military did not overreact and have the situation devolve into chaos.  It is remarkable that a thirty year dictator did not violently crush the protests and stepped down with hardly a shot fired, and the Obama Administration’s private diplomacy is likely a large reason why such violence did not occur.

* Third, the critics’ approach ignores the fact that democracy has to come from the people of Egypt, not outside pressure from the U.S.  That is not to say that we had no role in how things turn out in Egypt, but the thought that we could essentially dictate the results in Egypt reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how politics and foreign policy works, as both leaders and citizens of countries do not react well to outsiders publicly meddling in their affairs.


Peacefully toppling a dictatorial regime is a difficult thing to achieve.  It requires more than just protests from a country’s citizens and demands of “regime change” from other world leaders.  Instead, it requires patient and reasoned diplomacy focused on moving the dictator out of power and supporting the will of the people that a protesting.  This is the approach that the Obama Administration has taken so far and now, as a result, we are in a position to help the people of Egypt establish a path to a peaceful transition to democracy.

As progressives, it is important that we help spread the word of the success of the Obama Administration’s approach to Egypt for at least two reasons.  First, it helps counteract the misconception that the Administration is not being successful.  Second, and more importantly, it helps build support for the more reasoned approach of this Administration and helps push back on the supporters of the loud saber rattling that led our foreign policy so far astray under the Bush Administration.

So, we urge you to write a letter to your local newspaper editor celebrating the events in Egypt, and highlighting the importance of the Obama Administration’s approach to enabling those events to occur.

That's very interesting..  I found this line (Bolded below) very peculiar.



Yesterday was a huge day in Egypt, as that country’s President/dictator for the past 30 years ceded power in the face of massive peaceful protests by his people.  While much work remains to be done to ensure that real democracy takes hold in Egypt, we should celebrate the amazing victory by and for the Egyptian people.  It was truly a day for progressives and other supporters of democracy and peaceful protest to savor.

Mubarak’s departure is also, however, a victory for the Obama Administration’s patient and reasoned approach to promoting democracy in Egypt and other countries.  This approach started with President Obama’s stellar June 2009 speech in Cairo that signaled that the peoples of Egypt and other countries would have to choose democracy, but we would be there to support them if they made moves to achieve it peacefully.  And it has continued over the past 18 days of protests, as President Obama has taken a measured approach of private diplomacy with Mubarak, Egypt’s military, and other Egyptian leaders, combined with slowly increasing public pressure that focused on supporting the will of the Egyptian people.  As yesterday’s developments show, President Obama’s approach is working.

Throughout the protests, many on the left and from the Bush Administration have harshly criticized President Obama for not being more publicly vocal about the need for Mubarak to leave and in support of the protesters.  Apparently these folks wanted President Obama to try to lead the protest movement, demand democracy and regime change immediately, and/or engage in the type of loud public saber rattling that marred our foreign policy under the Bush Administration.  Such an approach (which, notably, did not lead to the peaceful toppling of any leaders in the Middle East under Bush) would have been misguided for a number of reasons.

* First, the publicly vocal approach that the critics wanted President Obama to take would have made the protesters look like tools of the U.S., which would undermine their credibility at home.

* Second, such an approach would have limited President Obama’s ability to work privately to make the protests successful by making sure that Mubarak or the Egyptian military did not overreact and have the situation devolve into chaos.  It is remarkable that a thirty year dictator did not violently crush the protests and stepped down with hardly a shot fired, and the Obama Administration’s private diplomacy is likely a large reason why such violence did not occur.

* Third, the critics’ approach ignores the fact that democracy has to come from the people of Egypt, not outside pressure from the U.S.  That is not to say that we had no role in how things turn out in Egypt, but the thought that we could essentially dictate the results in Egypt reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how politics and foreign policy works, as both leaders and citizens of countries do not react well to outsiders publicly meddling in their affairs.


Peacefully toppling a dictatorial regime is a difficult thing to achieve.  It requires more than just protests from a country’s citizens and demands of “regime change” from other world leaders.  Instead, it requires patient and reasoned diplomacy focused on moving the dictator out of power and supporting the will of the people that a protesting.  This is the approach that the Obama Administration has taken so far and now, as a result, we are in a position to help the people of Egypt establish a path to a peaceful transition to democracy.

As progressives, it is important that we help spread the word of the success of the Obama Administration’s approach to Egypt for at least two reasons.  First, it helps counteract the misconception that the Administration is not being successful.  Second, and more importantly, it helps build support for the more reasoned approach of this Administration and helps push back on the supporters of the loud saber rattling that led our foreign policy so far astray under the Bush Administration.

So, we urge you to write a letter to your local newspaper editor celebrating the events in Egypt, and highlighting the importance of the Obama Administration’s approach to enabling those events to occur.

"1"

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #46 on: January 19, 2012, 08:44:00 PM »
This field of repube candidates is truly embarrassing. And to think some clown on the politics board said that I should get used to saying "president Perry" when he entered the race.  ::)  ;D

Ford. Quayle. Stockdale. Now, Poor Rick Perry
By James Fallows
In the long annals of presidential-campaign debating, there had until this evening been three famous-disaster moments:

1) 1976, Gerald Ford and Poland. This one wasn't quite fair. Ford was trying to make a reasonable point -- that the Polish people would never consider themselves a vanquished population. But what he actually said was, "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and under a Ford Administration there never will be."  And since the background imagery of those days was an (also unfair) mainly SNL-based theme that Ford was not really that bright ... well, it made trouble for him. And the Jimmy Carter campaign, for which I was working at the time, did all we could to rub it in.




2) 1988, Dan Quayle and Jack Kennedy. He walked right into this one -- and Lloyd Bentsen was there, crocodile-like, just waiting for him.

[ Invalid YouTube link ]


3) 1992, James Stockdale, "who am I?" Sigh. (For the young: he was Ross Perot's running mate, and was in a debate against the other VP candidates, Quayle and Al Gore.)




4) 2011. Now, sadly, there is a fourth. I think anyone watching had to feel bad for Perry. I do.

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

More from Garance Franke-Ruta. Poor Perry.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #47 on: January 19, 2012, 08:45:01 PM »
Libya's post-Gaddafi world is showing a lurch towards radical Islam, with strict Sharia law and Al-Qaeda flags in evidence there. It's barely a week since NATO moved out after the campaign to swap a dictator for democracy, yet the Alliance and the U.S. don't seem too concerned about the shape it's taking.


johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #48 on: January 19, 2012, 08:45:47 PM »
Jobs Bill Defeated: The Republican Calculated Campaign To Sabotage President Obama


johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #49 on: January 19, 2012, 08:46:30 PM »
November 6, 2011
The Next Fight Over Jobs

The way the job market is going, it will never be robust enough to bring down the unemployment rate, now at 9 percent, or 13.9 million people. Monthly job growth has slowed to an average of just 90,000 new jobs a month over the past six months, a pace at which growth in the working-age population will always exceed the number of new jobs being created.

High unemployment and low job growth, which have plagued the economy all through the current “recovery,” hurt both consumer spending and economic growth. But don’t count on government to do the obvious and urgent thing — intervene to create jobs.

Tragically, the more entrenched the jobs shortage becomes, the more paralyzed Congress becomes,with Republicans committed to doing nothing in the hopes that the faltering economy will cost President Obama his job in 2012.
Last week, for instance, Senate Republicans filibustered a $60 billion proposal by Mr. Obama to create jobs by repairing and upgrading the nation’s deteriorating infrastructure. They were outraged that the bill would have been paid for by a 0.7 percent surtax on people making more than $1 million.

Things may be about to get worse.

Federal unemployment benefits, which generally kick in after 26 weeks of state-provided benefits, are scheduled to expire at the end of the year. That would be a disaster for many of the estimated 3.5 million Americans who get by on extended benefits — an average of $295 a week. It would also be a blow to the economy, because it would reduce consumer spending by about $50 billion in 2012 — which would mean slower economic growth and 275,000 lost jobs. Unfortunately, given Republicans’ demonstrated willingness to ignore human needs and economic logic, it is more likely than not that jobless benefits will be a major battle in the months ahead.

There are no plausible arguments against an extension — in fact, Congress has never let federal benefits expire when the unemployment rate was higher than 7.2 percent. But there are many specious arguments, chief among them that providing benefits reduces the incentive to get a new job. The evidence says otherwise.

A recent paper by Jesse Rothstein, an economist at the National Bureau of Economic Research, shows that benefit extensions in early 2011 raised the jobless rate by about 0.1 to 0.5 percentage points, but most of that was due to benefit recipients staying in the labor force and actively looking for work during the time they are collecting benefits, rather than, say, dropping out in despair.

Unemployment benefits are the first line of defense against ruin from job loss that is beyond an individual’s control. In a time of historically elevated long-term unemployment, they are an important way to keep workers connected to the job-search market. They are also crucial to ensuring that the weak economy doesn’t weaken further.

They clearly need to be extended, though we have no illusion that it will happen without a fight.