Phantom of the Opera, Max Bet multiple progressives BIG WIN
slot machine bonus win on the newish Phantom of the Opera. this is a max bet bonus and the progressive pick bonus Visit me on Facebook, for updates, early release of videos, and other information,...
By: Desirae Krogman The Best Slot Hits
Continue reading here:
Phantom of the Opera, Max Bet multiple progressives BIG WIN - Video
A governorship aspirant of the All Progressives Congress in Cross River State, Mr. Odey Ochicha, has said his party is no longer dormant in the state.
Ochicha, who spoke to journalists on Friday at the party secretariat in Calabar when he went to obtain the expression of intent form to contest for the governorship race in the 2015 election, said the APC had become a vibrant opposition party in the state after the merger.
Ochicha said, Nigeria and by extension Cross River will continue to witness infrastructure decay as long as power is left in the hands of one party. Power left in the hand of one party is recipe for decay and retrogression.
The emergence of APC is a good omen for the state and Nigeria in general. One of the beauties of democracy is to have a vibrant opposition to checkmate the excesses of the ruling party. Without that, there can be no growth in the society.
Democracy is about alternatives. If you leave power in one hand for too long its a recipe for decay and retrogression.
Ochicha, who disclosed that educational development would be his top priority if eventually elected as the next governor of Cross River State, said he was propelled into the race because of his passion for service.
If we assume the leadership of this state, we will address education like Obafemi Awolowo did in the Western region, the Bekwarra-born political scientist added.
View original post here:
APC no longer dormant in C River
Joe Garofol, San Francisco Chronicle
When the Bay Guardian abruptly stopped publishing on Tuesday, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano likened the closure to a death in the family that the citys progressives would need time to mourn.
But the 48-year-old newspaper had been on life support since founders and spouses Bruce Brugmann and Jean Dibble sold it to the San Francisco Media Co. in 2012. Like at just about every other print outlet around the country, revenue had fallen and staff had been laid off.
Rich DeLeon, a retired professor of political science at San Francisco State University and a historian of the citys left, said the progressive movement has lost its ideological super ego. He said the Guardians demise is sad. But it is kind of like your great-grandfather dying at 95. It led a good life and it was extremely influential at some point.
David Latterman, a University of San Francisco political analyst, said the papers closure was inevitable, not only because of its failing business model, but also because of the continuing loss of its highly partisan readership.
It had an impact 10 years ago, but at best its support could affect 10 percent of the vote, he said. More recently, its probably about 3 percent.
The sale of the paper also robbed it of its image as the plucky underdog, with the new corporate ownership identity eclipsing Brugmanns founding promise to print the news and raise hell, said political consultant Eric Jaye.
Still, its loss has been keenly felt, especially among progressives who have lost their mouthpiece.
The biggest impact is that there wont be that 800-pound gorilla for the community to rally around, said Alex Clemens, a political consultant and founder of the Usual Suspects blog, an online aggregation of the citys political news from sources large and small.
But with any kind of information vacuum, it will open up opportunities for others to step into that leadership void, Clemens said, noting that there are dozens, if not hundreds of bloggers and online commentators in the city, and every neighborhood has some kind of news outlet.
Lambert here: Its a shame to see Krugman kick the left (Susie Madrak has the definitive post on this). But then, when youve won the Nobel Prize for Obotics, that comes with the territory.
By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Originally published at New Economic Perspectives
Paul Krugmans admirers would never list modesty as one of his characteristics. He has written a column In Defense of Obama that begins by explaining that his criticisms of President Obama were correct, but that unidentified others criticisms of Obama constitute trash talk.
Specifically, Obama came perilously close to doing terrible thingsto the U.S. safety net in pursuit of a budget Grand Bargain. Obama sought to produce a self-inflicted disaster by desperately trying to reach a Grand Bargain with Republicans that would have inflicted austerity on our Nation in 2012, slash[ed] Social Security and [raised] the Medicare [eligibility] age. As even Krugman admits, we were saved from this catastrophe only by Republican greed, the GOPs unwillingness to make even token concessions to achieve the Grand Bargain. What Krugman omits in the tale is that it was also a revolt by Democratic progressives against the Grand Bargain that saved Obama and the Nation.
Krugman does not, in this column, explain the consequences and implications of the disaster that Obama tried so hard to inflict on us. First, it would help the reader to inform them that achieving the Grand Bargain became Obamas top domestic priority.
It would have aided the reader for Krugman to explain that as part of the Grand Bargain Obama was also trying to inflict austerity on the U.S. in response to the Great Recession. Had Obama succeeded he would have thrown the Nation back into a second Great Recession for the reasons that Krugman has often explained. This would have doomed his reelection chances and caused catastrophic losses to the Democratic Party in other 2012 elections.
Readers doubtless would have found it useful to know that that Obama ran for office on the promise of protecting Social Security and Medicare from the cuts he sought to inflict. They also would find it useful to know that once Obama legitimized attacking the safety net programs it would make them fair game for unilateral Republican attacks on the safety net when they took control of the White House.
Krugman blames Obamas effort to enter into the Grand Betrayal as occurring because Obama was nave. He presents no support for that claim. Contemporaneous press accounts based on leaks from the White House revealed that Obama was motivated by a desire for fame. The Grand Bargain was to be his legacy and the fact that the Grand Bargain betrayed his supporters was the factor that demonstrated that he was a statesman. Democratic Presidents establish that they are serious by publicly betraying and deriding their progressive base.
Krugman defines Obamas critics as illegitimate. Krugman labels Obamas critics as engaging in Obama-bashing. Krugman goes on to label progressive critics of Obama as Obama-bash[ers] by mischaracterizing the criticisms and then dismissing straw man arguments that he crafts as not requiring refutation because the criticisms are obviously not serious.
Theres a different story on the left, where you now find a significant number of critics decrying Obama as, to quote Cornel West, someone who posed as a progressive and turned out to be counterfeit. Theyre outraged that Wall Street hasnt been punished, that income inequality remains so high, that neoliberal economic policies are still in place. All of this seems to rest on the belief that if only Obama had put his eloquence behind a radical economic agenda, he could somehow have gotten that agenda past all the political barriers that have constrained even his much more modest efforts. Its hard to take such claims seriously.
Go here to see the original:
Bill Black: Krugman Bashes Progressives for Criticizing Obama on Grounds that He Criticizes Obama
Present Progressives
Regular ar, er, and ir participles.
By: Page Pelphrey