Author Topic: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos  (Read 5089 times)

Benny B

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 12405
  • Ron = 'Princess L' & many other gimmicks - FACT!
UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« on: January 19, 2012, 06:54:50 PM »
The main event pits two lightweights trying to fight their ways back into title contention, as Melvin Guillard squares off with Jim Miller.


!

hardgainerj

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6693
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2012, 06:55:33 PM »
UFC has peaked

Borracho

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8215
  • Waking up is possible if ur tired of the dream....
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2012, 06:57:19 PM »
racist fights reported
1

Benny B

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 12405
  • Ron = 'Princess L' & many other gimmicks - FACT!
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2012, 07:20:00 PM »
UFC has peaked

With the mainstream tv FOX contract starting this year and the UFC going to Brazil (TUF will be Wanderlei v. Belfort) and other new places around the world, Dana & The Fertitta Bros. think that the company is just beginning its ascent.
!

hardgainerj

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6693
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2012, 07:33:57 PM »
With the mainstream tv FOX contract starting this year and the UFC going to Brazil (TUF will be Wanderlei v. Belfort) and other new places around the world, Dana & The Fertitta Bros. think that the company is just beginning its ascent.
mainstream? its a fringe sport that contract doesnt guarantee success, yes UFC is probably the most popular combat sport in Brazil for the moment but aside from the appeal isnt that international not even in Japan where mma and k1 have taken a backseat to boxing

20inch calves

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4632
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2012, 07:45:33 PM »
thanks for reminding me. i forgot about this. i hope miller chokes him out
irongearco.com

jude2

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11041
  • Getbig!
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2012, 08:01:55 PM »
thanks for reminding me. i forgot about this. i hope miller chokes him out
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.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2012, 08:03:02 PM »
Don't worry Paultards, he'll run again in 2016 when he's 80. Then he'll pass the baton to his son, and you all can vote for the Paul family franchise for the rest of your lives.






johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2012, 08:04:24 PM »
GM regains title of top-selling carmaker

January 20, 2012 - 7:53AM

General Motors has regained the title of world's top-selling carmaker selling just over nine million cars and trucks across the globe.

The company says it sold 9.03 million vehicles worldwide last year up 7.6 per cent from 2010. That's more than one million better than Toyota which took the title from GM in 2008.


GM also beat Germany's fast-growing Volkswagen which last week reported record global sales of 8.16 million in 2011 up 14 per cent from the year before.

Toyota said it sold 7.9 million vehicles worldwide last year. GM had held the global sales crown for more than seven decades before losing it to Toyota as GM's sales tanked while it headed toward financial ruin.

In 2009 GM filed for bankruptcy protection needing a US government bailout to survive. Now GM is profitable again and its vehicles are selling well across the globe.

On Thursday the company reported net income of $US7.1 billion ($6.83 billion) for the first three quarters of last year and it is expected to add to that number when it reports fourth-quarter and full-year results in February.

Toyota is aiming for a comeback this year and has predicted that it will sell 8.48 million vehicles in 2012. Its sales were hurt last year because the March earthquake in Japan slowed its factories and dealers ran short of cars to sell.

Industry analysts predict a tight race this year between GM, Volkswagen, Toyota and the joint venture between Nissan and Renault. Some analysts have said that VW is the world's biggest carmaker because GM's figures include vehicles made by its Wuling joint venture in China.

Many don't count Wuling because GM doesn't have controlling interest in the company but GM includes it in global sales figures. Excluding Wuling, GM would have been topped by Volkswagen.

Being the world's top-selling carmaker doesn't mean much for the bottom line. But GM retaking the title is an example of how far the company has come since its 2009 bankruptcy.

GM CEO Dan Akerson said last week the company isn't that concerned about posting large sales numbers and is focused more on making money so it can reinvest in products and generate returns for shareholders.

But he says strong sales can bring strong finances.


''You're not going to achieve the financial goals we want to achieve and have declining market share or declining numbers of units sold,'' he said. '' So it's one indicator among many.''

GM said its sales were up in all four of its regions: North America Europe South America and International Operations which includes Asia.

The Chevrolet brand led the way selling a record 4.76 million vehicles across the world. GM sold 640 000 more cars and trucks last year than it did in 2010 when it sold 8.39 million.


johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #9 on: January 19, 2012, 08:05:07 PM »
This is the man who claimed in the last debate, in defense of his anti-semetic and racist newsletters, that "Martin Luther King, Jr. was one of my heroes." Yet, when it was his turn to vote on the King holiday, HE VOTED AGAINST IT. The bill that Dr. King risked his life and received constant death threats to see pass into law, The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Ron Paul was not in favor of, and STILL says he would have voted against...IN 2012.
We don't even need to go into the vile, disgusting comments he made about Dr. King in his news rag.
  ::) 
But I digress...


Paul fights Washington spending, flies first class
Associated PressBy BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE and STEPHEN BRAUN | Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has been spending large amounts on airfare as a congressman, flying first class on dozens of taxpayer-funded flights to his home state. The practice conflicts with the image that Paul portrays as the only presidential candidate serious about cutting federal spending.

Paul flew first class on at least 31 round-trip flights and 12 one-way flights since May 2009 when he was traveling between Washington and his district in Texas, according to a review by The Associated Press of his congressional office expenses. Four other round-trip tickets and two other one-way tickets purchased during the period were eligible for upgrades to first-class after they were bought, but those upgrades would not be documented in the expense records.

Paul, whose distrust of big government is the centerpiece of his presidential campaign, trusts the more expensive government rate for Continental Airlines when buying his tickets. Paul chose not to buy the cheaper economy tickets at a fraction of the price because they aren't refundable or as flexible for scheduling, his congressional staff said.

"We always get him full refundable tickets since the congressional schedule sometimes changes quickly," said Jeff Deist, Paul's chief of staff. Paul might have to pay out of his own pocket for canceled flights in some cases if he didn't buy refundable tickets, Deist said.

But records show that most of the flights for Paul were purchased well in advance and few schedule changes were necessary. Nearly two-thirds of the 49 tickets were purchased at least two weeks in advance, and 42 percent were bought at least three weeks in advance, the AP's review found.


Paul charged taxpayers nearly $52,000 on the more expensive tickets, or $27,621 more than the average Continental airfare for the flights between Washington and Houston, according to the AP's review of his congressional expenses and average airfares compiled by the Department of Transportation.

The more expensive tickets have other benefits as well, including allowing Paul to upgrade to first class when his staff reserves a flight because his frequent government travel gives him membership in an elite class of Continental customers who earn travel perks. Upgrades to first-class with cheaper fares are possible, at times limited to available seats days before the flight. But those upgrades are not guaranteed and some require ticket changes at the airport, according to the airline's frequent flyer rules.

The AP reviewed congressional travel before the Iowa caucuses for the two members of Congress running at the time — Paul and Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota. Bachmann later ended her presidential campaign.

House records show Bachmann, like most other congressional members, also paid the more expensive government rate for airfare. But her staff would not provide access to more detailed expense records that show when and what type of tickets were purchased.

Paul's congressional staff provided access to all expense records requested.

Congressional members don't have to pay the government rate for travel, but most do, including many like Paul and Bachmann who advocate cuts in federal spending.

"You could almost always beat the government rate," said Steve Ellis, vice president of the Washington-based Taxpayers for Common Sense, a federal budget watchdog group.
"They need to be walking the walk, and one of the ways they can do that is to be fiscally responsible for how they spend their member office money."

Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign manager, didn't respond to a written request to explain how Paul's use of more expensive airfare, which allows him to fly first class, corresponds with his commitment to cut federal spending. Instead, he sent a statement that started, "No one is more committed to cutting spending than Dr. Paul."

But Paul's congressional travel conflicts with claims in campaign appearances that he's the most frugal and serious deficit hawk in the race.

"The talk you hear in Washington is pure talk, because there is nobody suggesting, the other candidates are not talking about real cuts," Paul said in a speech to supporters last week after his second-place finish in New Hampshire.

He has proposed cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget during his first year as president, and has confronted other candidates in public forums as "big government conservatives."

"You're a big spender, that's all there is to it," Paul told former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania during a GOP debate in New Hampshire.

Paul boasts on his website about declining other congressional perks, such as a pension and all-expense-paid travel "junkets" that other lawmakers take. And he says he regularly returns money from his congressional account to the treasury.

But when it comes to his congressional travel, Paul has opted not to search for cheaper airfares that could mean returning more of his office account to the treasury, which uses any money returned by House or Senate members to help reduce the federal deficit.

Paul paid $51,972 for his government-rate flights between Washington and Houston between May 2009 and March 2011, or more than twice the $24,351 average airfare on Continental for travel between Washington and Houston. The average airfare figure represents the price for all tickets purchased for Continental flights between Washington and Houston, including economy and first-class travel, according to the Transportation Department's Domestic Airline Fares Consumer Report, which collects airfare information for the nation's busiest travel routes.

Paul's staff regularly booked him in first class on flights when tickets were purchased, according to expense records. His office paid between $1,217 and $1,311 for each round-trip flight, compared to the average airfare for that trip ranging from $528 to $760, according to the airline fares consumer report.

The period reviewed by the AP was the most recent period for which complete congressional expense records were available.

Benny B

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 12405
  • Ron = 'Princess L' & many other gimmicks - FACT!
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2012, 08:06:53 PM »
mainstream? its a fringe sport that contract doesnt guarantee success, yes UFC is probably the most popular combat sport in Brazil for the moment but aside from the appeal isnt that international not even in Japan where mma and k1 have taken a backseat to boxing
Try reading my statement again a little more closely.
FOX is a mainstream television network, giving the UFC a much larger audience for their fights. Nothing "guarantees success", but with boxing flailing with only one viable fight that people really want to see at this time and no really big new stars on the horizon, my personal opinion is that the UFC will have combat sports on lock down in the U.S. for quite some time to come.

Its not about the UFC dominating Brazil, or all other international markets. That wasn't my point. It's just about making inroads and creating an enlarged revenue stream for Zuffa. No different than Walmart going to China, or any number of other American multinationals expanding to different markets overseas. They don't instantly become the #1 brand the moment they expand, but they are damn sure making money.
!

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #11 on: January 19, 2012, 08:07:17 PM »
Why Wall Street Is Grudglingly Supporting Obama
Super-rich bankers and investors are nursing a bitter grudge over Obama’s populist rhetoric. But the president has hurt their feelings more than their pocketbooks, and there are still big reasons to stay on his side, writes Avi Zenilman.
by Avi Zenilman  | January 14, 2012


Wall Street Democrats aren't especially happy with the words coming out of Barack Obama's mouth, but most of them are biting their tongue—and still writing him checks.

On Friday morning, less than a week before the president visits New York to raise money at both the four-star restaurant Daniel—the last time he dropped by was in July—and Harlem's Apollo Theater, his reelection campaign echoed Newt Gingrich's recent populist attacks on Mitt Romney for his record as an investor and executive at Bain Capital. In a public memo, deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter called Romney a "corporate raider" who exploited the middle class before adding that President Obama would "level the playing field" and "restore fairness for consumers."
Obama Chicago

Paul Beaty / AP

The language, coming as public concern about income inequality has reached record highs, strikes an already raw nerve. While the campaign has been raking in cash at a faster pace than his record-setting 2008 campaign—it announced last week that it raised $42 million in the fourth quarter of 2011—the enthusiasm has not spread to the bankers and investors who Democrats have relied on in recent decades to partially counter the historic alliance between the Republican Party and big business. "There's this deep-seated feeling that he really doesn't understand how business operates," said a financial executive who has remained a strong Obama supporter. "This talk about fairness sounds whiny—they need to talk about collective responsibility. 'Fairness' calls for rectifying injustice and businesspeople don't think of their calling as unjust."

The root of the discomfort predates Obama's recent push for higher taxes on the wealthy, and often seems more than just a policy disagreement. After all, many on the left point out, Obama didn't break up the big banks that were propped up by the government because they were too big fail. The Dodd-Frank financial reform bill of 2010, which placed limits on certain kinds of trading and created the Consumer Finance Protection Board, may have kicked up simmering anger, but the complaints—at conferences or in investor letters or in interviews—are often tinged with a sense of personal betrayal. (They also nearly always cite a December 2009 interview in which the president called out "fat cat" bankers.)

    While Obama’s populist rhetoric might underwhelm Wall Street, the threat of a Republican Party gripped by the cultural conservatism of the Tea Party still looms.


The most recent public example came in November, when private equity billionaire Leon Cooperman, who like many finance executives expressed support of the idea of higher taxes and a social safety net, wrote a scathing open letter to the president. “I can justifiably hold you accountable for your and your minions' role in setting the tenor of the rancorous debate now roiling us,” the private-equity billionaire wrote. “To frame the debate as one of rich-and-entitled versus poor-and-dispossessed is to both miss the point and further inflame an already incendiary environment.”

It's a striking departure from the last presidential cycle, when employees of Goldman Sachs donated more to the Obama campaign than any other company. In the spring and summer of 2007, Obama raised $7.7 million from the financial industry, while Romney brought in $5.1 million. Four years and one great recession later, they've basically switched places, with Romney raking in nearly $8 million and Obama—who has watched former supporters like Chicago hedge-fund billionaire Ken Griffin go back to support only Republicans—has seen his haul fall to $4.2 million. (Fourth-quarter-industry data is not yet available.)

Both donors and operatives, speaking to The Daily Beast on condition of anonymity because their universe is full of hushed personal rivalries and petty grudges, said that, for now, much of the money from the financial sector was rolling in out of a sense of obligation. “They're whining because Obama hurt their feelings,” said House Financial Services chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who guided the financial reform bill through Wall Street and is grudgingly respected by Wall Street. “He’s not really interfered with their income.”

While Obama’s populist rhetoric—and his oft-noted inability to schmooze as well as Bill Clinton—might underwhelm Wall Street, the threat of a Republican Party gripped by the cultural conservatism of the Tea Party and the religious right still looms. In New York, where the financial community provided much of the support for Gov. Andrew Cuomo's successful push to legalize gay marriage, and other urban financial centers, the unanimous opposition by Republican candidates to abortion rights, opening up immigration, and gay marriage doesn't go over well. In a defense of Bain’s record published in Friday's Politico, Stephen Rattner, a former investment banker who was perhaps the most powerful Democratic fundraiser in Manhattan until he joined the Obama administration to oversee the rescue of the auto industry, made sure to go out of his way to mock Romney’s “come-lately embrace of hard-right conservatism.”

There’s no indication that the president will have trouble funding his reelection campaign, but to some degree it might be more important than ever for politicians to get the mega-rich excited. In Iowa and South Carolina, billionaires have taken advantage of recent changes in campaign finance laws and kept the primary campaigns of Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman alive by plowing millions of dollars into super PACs, organizations that aren’t bound by normal contribution limits and run as many attack ads as they can afford. Which means that the 70-plus fundraisers Obama attended last year could go a long way if he successfully assuaged the feelings of a few cranky men and women. “I've seen a 180-degree turn from where we were, even a year ago, in terms of support for the President,” said a source close to a wide range of major Democratic donors.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #12 on: January 19, 2012, 08:08:19 PM »
January 14, 2012
What They Don’t Want to Talk About

Ever since Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry started criticizing Mitt Romney’s actions at Bain Capital — and talking about the thousands of people laid off as a result of Bain’s investments — party leaders have essentially told them to shut up. That response is a pretty good indication of how deeply party elders fear the issue of economic inequality in the campaign to come.

“What the hell are you doing, Newt?” Rudolph Giuliani asked Thursday on Fox News. “This is what Saul Alinsky taught Barack Obama, and what you’re saying is part of the reason we’re in so much trouble right now.”

Mr. Giuliani has one thing right: Republicans are indeed in growing trouble as more voters begin to realize how much the party’s policies — dismantling regulations, slashing taxes for the rich, weakening unions — have contributed to inequality and the yawning distance between the middle class and the top end.

The more President Obama talks about narrowing that gap, the more his popularity ratings have risen while those of Congress plummet. Two-thirds of Americans now say there is a strong conflict between the rich and the poor, according to a Pew survey released last week, making it the greatest source of tension in American society.

That makes Mr. Romney and his party vulnerable, as he clearly knows. He said on Wednesday that issues of wealth distribution should be discussed only “in quiet rooms.” And he accused the president of using an “envy-oriented, attack-oriented” approach, “entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God.”

Mr. Romney’s image of a country where workers have nothing but admiration for benevolent, job-creating capitalists (and no one is so impolite as to mention jobs destroyed) bears very little relationship to reality. But his suggestion that it is un-American to talk about rising populist resentment is self-serving and hypocritical. Republicans, in particular, have eagerly stoked such resentments against minorities and the poor.

That was the essence of the “Southern strategy” that Republicans, beginning with Richard Nixon, used to urge white voters to defect from a Democratic Party that supported civil rights. It continued for decades with attacks on busing, affirmative action, immigration and welfare, and was sounded most recently by Mr. Gingrich, with his attacks on Mr. Obama as “the food stamp president.”

Fanning resentment of the poor — and deflecting attention from the relentless Republican defense of the rich — is also central to the party’s current political strategy. That’s why so many Republican candidates and lawmakers keep talking so angrily about poor people not paying federal income taxes. That’s how the Tea Party got started in 2009, when Mr. Obama proposed lowering interest rates for homeowners who were behind on their mortgages and conservative activists saw an opportunity to pit the affluent against their struggling neighbors. And that’s why Mr. Romney constantly accuses the president of trying to create “an entitlement society,” which is simply a variant on Ronald Reagan’s welfare-queen anecdotes.

And yet if Democrats dare to point out that the income gains of the top 1 percent have dwarfed everyone else’s in the last few decades, they are accused of whipping up class envy. Alan Krueger, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, noted in a speech on Thursday that the median income in the United States had actually declined since 1999, shrinking the middle class while the income of the top 1 percent soared. Such inequality is corrosive. And pointing it out has nothing to do with envy and everything to do with pressing for policies to help America’s struggling middle class.

Anyone who criticizes Mr. Romney’s business practices now faces the absurd charge of putting free-market capitalism on trial. No one is trying to end capitalism, but President Obama is calling for more effective regulation to protect consumers. While Republicans attack a supposed “entitlement culture,” Mr. Obama is calling for strengthening a desperately needed safety net. And he is calling for raising taxes on the wealthy, particularly for those on Wall Street and in private equity, to protect that safety net and reduce the deficit.

Mr. Romney has based his campaign on his business experience. Americans need to know how that experience was gained, and what values — if any — it represents. Class reality has nothing to do with class warfare.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #13 on: January 19, 2012, 08:09:34 PM »
By Ruben Navarrette Jr., CNN Contributor

This is ironic given that I've spent the last 20 years criticizing politicians who twist the facts, propose simple solutions and pick on those who don't have a voice.

And Romney has spent the last several months doing precisely that, just like he did during his failed 2008 presidential bid.He has used illegal immigration as a weapon against Republican opponents who propose reasonable solutions and in the process portrayed illegal immigrants, most of whom come from Mexico, as takers who come to the United States for free public benefits and ought not be rewarded with "amnesty."

We can expect Romney to continue that theme over the next week as he campaigns in South Carolina, where Republican primary voters will cast ballots on January 21 and where illegal immigration is a bigger issue than in Iowa or New Hampshire.

Lawmakers in the Palmetto State recently passed a tough Arizona-style immigration law that requires local and state police to determine the immigration status of anyone they suspect to be an illegal immigrant (read: Latinos).

It's an approach that is wildly unpopular with Latinos and which has the blessing of most of the Republicans running for president, including Mitt Romney.

And that's one reason why Romney, even if he is the GOP nominee for president, doesn't have much of a chance with Latino voters. Political experts say that a Republican would have to earn at least 30% of the Latino vote to win the White House. Given how he behaved in the primaries, Romney will be lucky to get 20%.

In fact, a recent poll of Latino voters by the Pew Hispanic Center put the figure at 23%. While it found a high level of anger with President Barack Obama among Latinos over his aggressive deportation policies, the poll also found that -- in a Obama-Romney matchup -- the Democrat would easily beat the Republican, 68% to 23%. That's saying something given that, according to the survey, Obama's job approval rating with Latinos is just 49%. The takeaway: You want to make Obama more popular with Latinos? Easy. Pit him against Romney.


Listen to Lionel Sosa, a San Antonio-based advertising executive and Republican strategist who has advised George W. Bush and John McCain. A few months ago, Sosa told The New York Times that Romney had blown his chance with Latinos.

"(Romney) can make as many trips to Florida and New Mexico and Colorado and other swing states that have a large Latino population," said Sosa, "but he can write off the Latino vote."

It was Romney who recently promised to veto the Dream Act if he's elected president and if Congress passes the bill. The legislation, which would allow undocumented students to stay in the country legally if they complete a college degree or join the military, is extremely popular with Latinos.[

It was Romney who first attacked Texas Gov. Rick Perry for signing a law that allows illegal immigrants who live in Texas to pay in-state tuition at public colleges and universities. And it was Romney who later attacked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for declaring that the GOP shouldn't support splitting up families and proposing a pathway for the undocumented to work legally in the United States.

It was Romney who, in the debates, came across as naive by suggesting that the illegal immigration problem could be solved by simply putting more "boots on the ground" and as dishonest by not acknowledging the contributions that illegal immigrants make to the local, state and national economies.

And it was Romney whose campaign put up, in New Hampshire, an offensive television ad that attacked Perry by linking him to Mexico and former Mexican President Vicente Fox, because Fox happened to agree with the Texas governor on letting illegal immigrants pay in-state tuition.

So the candidate who winds up vilifying Mexico is the same one whose father was born in Mexico? Who can make sense of this?

Listen up, Primo Mitt. You've made your bed. You're persona non grata with Latino voters, and it's your own fault. You can't win without them, but they can help make sure you lose.

We don't care where your family's from. What matters is where your heart is.

hardgainerj

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6693
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #14 on: January 19, 2012, 08:09:46 PM »
but with boxing flailing with only one viable fight that people really want to see at this time
whats that de la hoya/trinidad ::)
the UFC will have combat sports on lock down in the U.S. for quite some time to come.
the PPV buys say otherwise, not to mention Brocks 'graceful' retirement

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #15 on: January 19, 2012, 08:11:15 PM »
Unemployment rate falls as economy adds 200K jobs
Employers add 200,000 jobs, unemployment rate falls to 8.5 percent, lowest in nearly 3 years.
Associated PressBy Christopher s. Rugaber, AP Economics Writer
   


WASHINGTON (AP) -- A burst of hiring in December pushed the unemployment rate to its lowest level in nearly three years, giving the economy a boost at the end of 2011.

The Labor Department said Friday that employers added a net 200,000 jobs last month and the unemployment rate fell to 8.5 percent, the lowest since February 2009. The rate has dropped for four straight months.

The hiring gains cap a six-month stretch in which the economy generated 100,000 jobs or more in each month. That hasn't happened since April 2006.


The steady drop is a positive sign for President Barack Obama, who is bound to face voters with the highest unemployment rate of any sitting president since World War II. Unemployment was 7.8 percent when Obama took office in January 2009.

Still, the level may matter less to his re-election chances if the rate continues to fall.History suggests that presidents' re-election prospects hinge less on the unemployment rate itself than on the rate's direction during the year or two before Election Day.

For all of 2011, the economy added 1.6 million jobs, better than the 940,000 added in 2010. The unemployment rate averaged 8.9 percent last year, down from 9.6 percent the previous year.

Economists forecast that the job gains will top 2.1 million this year.


The December report painted a picture of a broadly improving job market. Average hourly pay rose, providing consumers with more income to spend. The average work week lengthened, a sign that business is picking up and companies may soon need more workers. And hiring was strong across almost all major industries.

Manufacturing added 23,000 jobs. Transportation and warehousing added 50,000 jobs. Retailers added 28,000 jobs. Even the beleaguered construction industry added 17,000 workers.

A more robust hiring market coincides with other positive data that show the economy ended the year with some momentum.

Weekly applications for unemployment benefits have fallen to levels last seen more than three years ago. Holiday sales were solid. And November and December were the strongest months of 2011 for U.S. auto sales.

Many businesses say they are ready to step up hiring in early 2012 after seeing stronger consumer confidence and greater demand for their products.


johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #16 on: January 19, 2012, 08:12:26 PM »
Crackpots Do Not Make Good Messengers
By Kevin Drum | Mon Jan. 2, 2012


So then: Ron Paul. Should we lefties be happy he's in the presidential race, giving non-interventionism a voice, even if he has other beliefs we find less agreeable? Should we be happy that his non-mainstream positions are finally getting a public hearing? This is a depressingly common view. For example:



Can we talk? Ron Paul is not a charming oddball with a few peculiar notions. He's not merely "out of the mainstream." Ron Paul is a full bore crank. In fact he's practically the dictionary definition of a crank: a person who has a single obsessive, all-encompassing idea for how the world should work and is utterly blinded to the value of any competing ideas or competing interests.

This obsessive idea has, at various times in his career, led him to: denounce the Civil Rights Act because it infringed the free-market right of a monolithic white establishment to immiserate blacks; dabble in gold buggery and advocate the elimination of the Federal Reserve, apparently because the global economy worked so well back in the era before central banks; suggest that the border fence is being built to keep Americans from leaving the country; claim that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional and should be dismantled; mount repeated warnings that hyperinflation is right around the corner; insist that global warming is a gigantic hoax; hint that maybe the CIA helped to coordinate the 9/11 attacks; oppose government-sponsored flu shots; and allege that the UN wants to confiscate our guns.

This isn't the biography of a person with one or two unusual hobbyhorses. It's not something you can pretend doesn't matter. This is Grade A crankery, and all by itself it's reason enough to want nothing to do with Ron Paul. But of course, that's not all. As we've all known for the past four years, you can layer on top of this Paul's now infamous newsletters, in which he condoned a political strategy consciously designed to appeal to the worst strains of American homophobia, racial paranoia, militia hucksterism, and new-world-order fear-mongering. And on top of that, you can layer on the fact that Paul is plainly lying about these newsletters and his role in them.

Now, balanced against that you have the fact that Paul opposes the War on Drugs and supports a non-interventionist foreign policy. But guess what? Even there, he's a crank. Even if you're a hard-core non-interventionist yourself, you probably think World War II was a war worth fighting. But not Ron Paul. He thinks we should have just minded our own damn business. And even if you're a hardcore opponent of our current drug policy — if you think not just that marijuana should be legalized, not just that hard drugs should be decriminalized, but that all illicit drugs should be fully legalized — I'll bet you still think that maybe we should retain some regulations on a few of the worst drugs. They're pretty dangerous, after all, and no matter how much you hate the War on Drugs you might have a few qualms about a global marketing behemoth like RJ Reynolds having free rein to advertise and sell anything it wants, anywhere it wants, in any way it wants. But not Ron Paul. As near as I can tell, he just wants everything legalized, full stop.

Bottom line: Ron Paul is not merely a "flawed messenger" for these views. He's an absolutely toxic, far-right, crackpot messenger for these views. This is, granted, not Mussolini-made-the-trains-run-on-time levels of toxic, but still: if you truly support civil liberties at home and non-interventionism abroad, you should run, not walk, as fast as you can to keep your distance from Ron Paul. He's not the first or only person opposed to pre-emptive wars, after all, and his occasional denouncements of interventionism are hardly making this a hot topic of conversation among the masses. In fact, to the extent that his foreign policy views aren't simply being ignored, I'd guess that the only thing he's accomplishing is to make non-interventionism even more of a fringe view in American politics than it already is. Crackpots don't make good messengers.

Now, if you literally think that Ron Paul's views on drugs and national security are so important that they outweigh all of this — multiple decades of unmitigated crackpottery, cynical fear-mongering, and attitudes toward social welfare so retrograde they make Rick Perry look progressive — and if you've somehow convinced yourself that non-interventionism has no other significant voices except Ron Paul — well, if that's the case, then maybe you should be happy to count Paul as an ally. But the truth is that you don't need to. Ron Paul is not a major candidate for president. He's never even been a significant presence as a congressman. In a couple of months he'll disappear back into the obscurity he so richly deserves. So why get in bed with him? All you'll do is wake up in March with a mountain of fleas. Find other allies. Make your arguments without bothering to mention him. And remember: Ron Paul has never once done any of his causes any good. There's a good reason for that.


johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #17 on: January 19, 2012, 08:14:32 PM »
The LIES continue as a South Carolina audience kicks Paul's ass last night.  ::)


Ron Paul Denies Saying He Wouldn’t Have Ordered Bin Laden Raid in Pakistan — But Here’s the Video

Last night’s GOP debate in South Carolina may be one that causes Ron Paul some problems in the “honesty” department.

Mr. Paul‘s truthfulness is being questioned after he told Fox News’ Brett Baier that he never said that he would not have given the order to go into Pakistan and kill Osama bin Laden:

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

There‘s just one small problem with Paul’s denial, he did say it, several times.

Back in May of 2011, and featured here on The Blaze, Ron Paul said three times in a two minute discussion of the topic, that as President of the United States, he would not have ordered bin Laden killed in the manner that President Obama did.

Simon Conway was quite clear in his questions, first asking;

    So President Ron Paul would therefore not have ordered the kill of bin Laden, which could have only have taken place by entering another sovereign nation?

And Dr. Paul was equally clear in his response:

    I don’t think it was necessary. No.

Less than a minute later, Conway attempted to further clarify by again asking the congressman”

    So President Ron Paul would not have ordered the kill of bin Laden, to take place, as it took place in Pakistan?

Ron Paul’s response was consistent with his two previous answers.

    Not the way it took place, no. I mean he was unarmed, you know… and all these other arguments.

Watch the two minute excerpt as Simon Conway of WHO Radio in Iowa repeatedly asks the Texas Congressman whether he would have given the order to kill Osama bin Laden.

Ron Paul explains that if he were elected President, he would not have ordered Osama bin Laden killed.

That clip from WHO Newsradio 1040 appeared on The Blaze on May 11th.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #18 on: January 19, 2012, 08:15:13 PM »




johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #19 on: January 19, 2012, 08:16:18 PM »
America's mainstream media is being accused of playing with fire for playing-up the prospect of war, between Iran and the West. It's a sensitive time with the military stand-off in the Strait of Hormuz, and looming sanctions over Iran's nuclear program. But, as Gayane Chichakyan reports, viewers in the States are repeatedly hearing how war is virtually inescapable.

hardgainerj

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6693
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #20 on: January 19, 2012, 08:16:28 PM »
informative hijack, johnnynoname

Dr.J

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4271
  • Getbig!
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #21 on: January 19, 2012, 08:18:14 PM »
how did hid shorts wheigh 1/2 a pound? :-\ :-\
Mr. AZ 2003

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #22 on: January 19, 2012, 08:19:31 PM »
Welcome to the West Wing Week, your guide to everything that's happening at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. This week, the President visited the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, welcomed this year's NBA Champs, the Dallas Mavericks, addressed the EPA, announced a new Chief of Staff, and introduced the White House's Insourcing Initiative. That's January 6th to January 12th or, "Insourcing: Bringing Jobs Back to America."



johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: UFC on FX 1: Main Event Weigh-in Videos
« Reply #23 on: January 19, 2012, 08:20:19 PM »
hahaha...oh, brother
This 2012 version is a complete FRAUD

Footage from the Romney/Kennedy Debate, October 1994
[ 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 #24 on: January 19, 2012, 08:21:03 PM »
I am around Wall Street guys like this every day. I don't think most Americans are going to relate to this, sorry.
Good luck, Willard!  :-\

Mitt Romney on Wall Street and inequality
[ Invalid YouTube link ]