Newt Gingrich has ten times as many Twitter followers as Mitt Romney, but it is being alleged that most of them are dummy accounts or are actually paid for.
In bizarro Gingrich-world, the popular revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt are a dangerous illusion, the Obama administration should have clung to dictator Hosni Mubarak, the Muslim Brotherhood is currently a violent organization, US ally Pakistan is the biggest threat to the United States in the long run, Iran is in the short run (because of its [sic] nuclear weapons), and Belgian colonialism in the Congo was nice.
In contrast, I [@jricole] have only a tenth the number of twitter followers as Mitt Romney 
.
But not only are mine real and genuine volunteers, they are all above average as to intelligence and looks.
See, Juan, that’s how you get more followers: a subtle plea couched in an observation.
Count me in as a new follower. (Oh, and thanks for the unmarked bills. Shhhhhh.)
I’m one of many proud followers of the blog!
At 1,325,981, Gingrich appears to have not ten times but 100 times the number of followers you have. We’re still smarter and better looking though…
clearly not that smart. juan you’re the man.
I love your closing line!!!
Better definitely in intelligence; I don’t know about looks, but clearly better in the category of integrity!
You discuss events that have historical significance, and your twitter followers are interested in that. You are not competing with the Newt and he not with you.
The Newt is competing with Sarah “I read everything halfway” Palin, who is competing with Lindsey “Train Wreck” Lohan and Brittany “Old and Tiresome Train Wreck” Spears. Their followers are interested in events of non-historical nature, unless you mean how many moans so and so had before faking an orgasm to be of historical context. Notice how I managed to avoid using the word ‘hysterical.’ That would have been too easy. Oh, what the hell, Newt and Sarah and Lindsay are of hysterical significance. So there, I succumbed.
While I think Gingrich is a fool and hate his politics, I think you unfairly drew improper conclusions from what he really said. Gingrich never suggested the US “cling to Mubarak.” In fact, the hyperlink states that Gingrich believed the US should have remained relatively quiet behind closed doors, WHILE PRESSURING MUBARAK TO LEAVE behind closed doors. Indeed, Gingrich stated that “supporting the protesters is the right thing to do.” Again, I’m no fan of Gingrich, or any other Republican candidate, but I thought this was an unfair portrayal of his remarks. IMO, the links you provide do more to dispute your statement about Gingrich’s remarks, than they do to support it.
Wow! Belgian rule in Congo was really great, Mr. Gingrich. Your hero King Leopold killed 10 to 15 million black Congolese.
I suppose one of your other heroes must be Hitler, too. But Ops! He did not kill blacks.
Belgium took over the Congo because Leopold II’s personal rule was so appalling. It isn’t totally unreasonable to argue that the period of Belgian rule, bad as it was was, about the best regime Congo has had since at least the 1880s. Considering that it followed Leopold II’s personal rule and was followed by a Civil War, Mobutu and another Civil War. Even Belgium’s fairly poor paternalistic colonial rule compares favourably to two exceptionally nasty tyrants and two civil wars.
1885-1908 Personal rule by Leopold II
1908-1960 Annexed by Belgium, rule by Belgian Parliament
1960-65 Civil War
1965-96 Mobutu dictatorship
1996- Civil war and regional warlordism.
Bad Belgian governsnce bears some responsibility for what came after
Brett:
1885-1908 Personal rule by Leopold II
Nothing justifies killing, 10 to 15 million innocent black people. Christian King Leopold II turned Congo in the killing fields just as the other Christian Nazi dictator Hitler did. Hitler might have thought that he will also get away like the Butcher of Belgium King Leopold II.
1908-1960 Annexed by Belgium, rule by Belgian Parliament
Belgians plundered & looted the natural resources of the country as all other colonial powers. What Belgians did for the poor Congolese? Nothing, absolutely nothings just as Portuguese in Mozambique. They left the country dirt poor after plundering it for 475 years.
1960-65 Civil War
1965-96 Mobutu dictatorship
Here you are omitting who killed Patrice Lumumba, a democratically elected president of Congo, and who brought Mobutu in power just as Pinochet of Chile. Who kept Mobutu in power just as Marcos of The Philippines?
Mubarak was also our darling for more than 30 years. Thanks to the Youth of Egypt, he is on trial. “W” will never be tried as Dr. Cole is pointing out in today’s blog.
1996- Civil war and regional warlordism.
Many countries had civil wars for different reasons. USA had its own civil war.
The rather narrow point I was making was that it is arguable that the period of Belgian direct rule was significantly less ghastly than either the subsequent or earlier era. I explicitly stated that Belgian rule was bad just that the rest was even worse. In no way was I defending Leopold II, his rule was absolutely appalling, practically anything would be an improvement on that. Belgian colonial rule was pretty bad, it was a better than German rule but was substantially worse than British or French rule.
The worst mistake the Belgians made was that due to an attitude of paternalist racism had they treated the Congolese like children and assumed them incapable of advanced learning. Therefore they rarely promoted the locals they did employ to positions of responsibility and filled senior positions almost entirely with Belgians. The officials were generally competent, they went home on the rather abrupt granting of independence, at which point hardly any of the rapidly promoted Congolese had the education or experience needed to run the administration when the colonial officials left. The resultant collapse of the bureaucracy was a major cause of the ensuing chaos.
To nitpick a little. Patrice Lumumba was (briefly) Prime Minister not President, Joseph Kasa-Vubu was the President. In any event the civil war broke out pretty much immediately on independence.
“above average as to intelligence and looks”
Shoot here I was just about to join Twitter and follow but knowing I would drag both I dices down—?
“its [sic]”?
It seems to me the quote displayed a proper use of the possessive pronoun “its”.