Central Perk

miercuri, 18 iunie 2014

Three Lead Generation Card Tips from the @TwitterSmallBiz Playbook

Posted: 17 Jun 2014 05:15 PM PDT

Last August, we launched the Lead Generation Card to all advertisers on Twitter. Since then, we've been impressed with the many small and medium businesses who have integrated the Lead Generation card into their marketing strategy, and seen powerful results.

We thought it would be valuable to share a page from our own playbook and offer a behind-the-scenes look at how the @TwitterSmallBiz team has been using Lead Generation Cards to accomplish our goals. Below, we'll discuss what a Lead Generation Card is, and the three keys to success that we've uncovered through our experience using the product.

What is a Lead Generation Card?

A Lead Generation Card is simply a link that allows you to gather new customer email addresses directly within a Tweet. When you tweet out this link, it pre-populates a user's full name, @username and email address (previously entered in their Twitter account settings) into the expanded area of your Tweet, replacing the need for a traditional, more cumbersome form.

In addition to a person's contact information, the expanded Tweet includes other elements as well:

Short description: A statement that provides context and explains the value people will get from sharing their information with you.
Image: A visual cue that represents your business and generates interest in your offer.
Call to action: The action you want people to take, along with the benefits of doing so.

Here is what a Lead Generation Card looks like when included in a Tweet:

For step by step instructions on how to set up a Lead Generation Card, you can visit our dedicated support page.

Our three keys to success with Lead Generation Cards

Our @TwitterSmallBiz team did a lot of testing and learning before we landed on our current strategy for Lead Generation Cards. Here are three tips for your own Lead Generation Card campaigns:

1. Streamline your campaigns

Twitter Ads enables you to set up multiple campaigns within your account and provides a view into performance at both the aggregate and individual campaign level.

If you plan to include Lead Generation Cards in your Promoted Tweets, we recommend setting up a separate campaign that includes all of your Tweets aimed at Lead Generation. This allows you to adjust your bid independently from Promoted Tweets that have other goals, such as generating engagement, driving website traffic, etc.

Within each campaign, you can also view performance at the individual Tweet level, which allows you to understand which Tweets are the biggest contributors towards your goals. When you include multiple Promoted Tweets with Lead Generation Cards in the same campaign, you can more easily compare performance across various combinations of Tweet copy and Lead Generation Card creatives.

Once you determine which Lead Generation Cards and types of Tweet copy are driving the best results, you can allocate more of your budget towards those combinations and away from the ones that aren't performing as well.

2. Less isn't always more

The goal behind testing and learning is to then optimize your campaigns to be as effective as possible. The more you test, the more quickly you can learn which features and combinations are most effective at helping you reach your goals. The sooner you start the testing process, the better.

When you first start using Lead Generation Cards, try anywhere from five to seven different Cards across 20-30 variations of Tweet copy. A few days into your campaign, your Twitter Ads analytics will provide you with a clear view into which combinations are performing better than others so you can focus your efforts moving forward.

Here's an example of how we used a similar testing framework for a recent campaign to collect email addresses around a new content offer:

Lead Generation Cards:

Copy for Promoted Tweets:

Option #1:

Lead Generation Cards make it easier than ever to generate leads on Twitter – find out how they can help your biz in this guide:

Option #2:

Did you know you can capture a lead in a Tweet? Download our free guide to find out how:

Option #3:

Have you seen a Lead Generation Card before? Now you have. We'll teach you how to use them for your business in our new guide:

Option #4:

Would 1700 leads in a week look good to your boss? Download our guide to find out how @rockcreek accomplished this w/ Lead Generation Cards

3. Follow up

When someone submits their email address through a Lead Generation Card, that person is expressing interest in your business. This creates an opportunity for you to follow up when potential customers are more likely to be receptive to your message. If you don't follow up with people after they submit an email address, they may not remain as interested or be as receptive to hearing from you.

For this reason, it's important to develop a plan for how you will follow up with new leads after they submit their email address. That follow-up plan will often vary depending on the offer used for your Lead Generation Card.

For example, if your offer included a new piece of content, you may want to include the email addresses you collect in an existing newsletter or email campaign list that shares similar types of content. Alternatively, if you offered event registration through your Lead Generation Card, you might want to add those email addresses to an event mailing list so that you can send additional event information or materials that were presented at the event. No matter what type of follow-up plan you choose, it should create opportunities for you to continue communicating with new leads and, ultimately, convert them into paying customers.

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

PozzitifonShow: "Оккупай-гриферяй #48 [Поэт]" and more videos

Mihai, check out the latest videos from your channel subscriptions for Jun 18, 2014.

Play all

Оккупай-гриферяй #48 [Поэт]

3 days ago • 60,417 views

PozzitifonShow

+ 5 more

Karthus Champion Spotlight

4 days ago • 767,714 views

League of Legends

+ 1 more

Community

12 videos

League of Legends

Play

Watch Dogs PC Gameplay Walkthrough Part 35 - The Default Condition

11 hours ago • 128 views

gamer4ever

+ 6 more

Sportsmanship Week: Surprise Football Match

4 days ago • 87,820 views

Just For Laughs Gags

+ 2 more

We think you'd like...

A Psychopath Describes His Behaviour

by elizabeth orr

71,329 views

Jim Carrey - Stand Up Comedy

by IWJAF

4,463,067 views

Solved :Time For Justice

by MrEmpereon2

227,827 views

Watch Live: The First-Ever White House Maker Faire

Featured

Watch Live: The First-Ever White House Maker Faire

America has always been a nation of tinkerers, inventors, and entrepreneurs. But in recent years, a growing number of Americans have gained access to technologies such as 3D printers, laser cutters, easy-to-use design software, and desktop machine tools. These tools are enabling more Americans to design and build almost anything.

To celebrate this new generation of students and entrepreneurs, the President is hosting the first-ever White House Maker Faire this morning -- and you can watch the event live or follow along at #NationOfMakers. The event will feature Makers, innovators, and entrepreneurs of all ages who are using cutting-edge tools to bring their ideas to life.

Tune in now to watch the first-ever White House Maker Faire live.

Seth's Blog : In search of meaningful

In search of meaningful

From the individual who needs to get her idea in front of the right people, to the New York Times, which faces a ticking clock to figure out the digital landscape, all of us are in the media business. There's a gold rush for attention going on, and, given how much the media likes to cover the media, we hear about winners and losers, those doing it right and wrong, and most of all, the template for what we ought to be doing if we want to succeed.

I fear that right now, many are laboring under Buzzfeed Envy.

Since 1989, when I first started doing online media, people have been transfixed by scale, by numbers, by rankings. "How many eyeballs, how big is the audience, what's the passalong, how many likes, friends, followers, how many hits?"

You cannot win this game and I want to persuade you (and Dean Baquet at the Times) to stop trying.

1. Are you generic? Over the last few years, the Times has lost Lisa Belkin, Nate Silver, David Pogue and other big name writers, not to mention the opportunity to do more with Michael Lewis and the Freakonomics guys. Here's the thing: when you read what these singular voices create, you know where it came from, and you have an opinion about it.

Buzzfeed doesn't focus on who is speaking, they focus on writing something clickable and shareable and urgent in the moment. Those that want to own a valuable 'brand' like the fact that it belongs to them, unlike the demanding star writer, who might leave at any time. The value all goes to the system, not to the individual contributor.

(Buzzfeed is well on its way to becoming a dominant media company. But the Times isn't Buzzfeed, and neither are you.)

The problem with generic is that it's easy go as well as easy come. The Onion just launched their own sharable silliness and to those that spread it, it doesn't matter at all if the person writing it works for one brand in the genre or the other one. Staying ahead and gaining scale gets more difficult, not less for those in this segment.

Kasey Casem is remembered precisely because he refused to become generic. When he left his show and started a new one, so many people followed him that he was able to buy back the original show and run both of them at the same time. We were connected to him, not the idea of a radio show.

2. Is it for the reader or the search engine? Here's an excerpt from how editors are deciding things at the Times now: "There was praise for headlines that had contained the right words ... to maximize online search results."

The most important thing any individual or corporate media entity needs to learn is this: One subscriber is worth 1,000 surfers. Newspapers learned this a century ago. The Philadelphia Inquirer created one of the richest families in America on the basis of a focus on subscriptions. And Time magazine has turned into a nearly valueless relic because they forgot to focus on subscribers and pandered to the newsstand and to the listicle instead.

[A subscriber, by my definition, doesn't have to pay with money. Sometimes, it's sufficient to pay with attention.]

3. Would I miss it if it were gone? And here's the key question, the one that gets to the heart of meaningful. When we deliver meaningful content, it means we show up, invited, with words and images that matter. It means that we are trusted enough to be permitted to speak the first few words, and talented enough to keep the attention we've worked so hard to earn. Most of all, meaningful can't possibly work for everyone with a smart phone, for everyone in every potential audience, because there are so many ways to be seen as meaningful, so many different tribes of people thirsting for different kinds of connection.

Here's the key flaw in the bigger-is-better reasoning: It's entirely possible to become an important voice merely because everyone is listening. (Walter Cronkite, or the front page of Yahoo in 1999). When everyone is listening, anyone who wants to be part of everyone also has to listen. That's certainly why the most viral viral videos get so many views--the second half of their views are people who don't watch viral videos, but need to get clued in.

There are still some advertisers who want the biggest mass they can find, who will pay extra to reach more people who care less, but those advertisers are going to find someone bigger than you to advertise with.

It's no longer possible to become important to everyone, not in a reliable, scalable way, not in a way that connects us to people who will read ads or take action, not to people who aren't already clicking away to the next thing by the time they get to the second or third sentence.

But it is possible to become important to a very-small everyone, to a connected tribe that cares about this voice or that story or this particular point of view. It's still possible to become meaningful, meaningful if you don't get short-term greedy about any particular moment of mass, betting on the long run instead. And we need institutions that can reach many of these tribes, that can bind together focused audiences and useful content creators.

Newspapers used to work because they were local, delivered and urgent, with few competitors.

Today, all four components have changed dramatically. Craigslist and others have stolen a lot of the revenue that came from local, anyone with email can be delivered, and the news cycle has bypassed the daily rhythm of the newspaper. And few competitors has become infinity competitors.

The future of newspapers (and for anyone making content) is to act more like a magazine, like Fast Company and Wired and The New Yorker of fifteen years ago. The center, the urgent center, of a smaller everyone.

My advice to the Times starts with this: Every reporter (and probably every editor) ought to have a blog (or be part of a focused group blog), and post every single day. That's perhaps 600 blogs, every single day, each charged with finding a group of people who care enough about that voice and that topic to hear about it daily. If a reporter can't write cogently and passionately enough about his topic to gain a following, he probably needs to work somewhere else. And if the paper can organize to hire and train and reward people who can do work like this, if they can figure out how to get out of the 48-page paper mindset, if it can create stars and pockets of true connection, it's inconceivable to me that they won't be able to turn a profit.

Of course, one straightforward act isn't going to change the future of the Times, but it represents a symptom, a visible sign that the focus is changing from making an above-average (or even excellent) newspaper for the masses into creating circles of expertise, organizing tribes, building subscriptions based on attention and publishing outside of the finite world of paper... (And I firmly believe that this applies even more to individuals and smaller organizations than it does to legacy newspapers).

The future of media can't possibly only lie in random mass viral entertainments, generated with the aid of computers and aimed at the lowest-clicking denominator. For most organizations, that can't lead to useful ads, it doesn't lead to subscriptions, and most of all, it doesn't lead to impact. Entertaining the people who click on 50 things a day will get you numbers, but it won't make a difference.

If it's not worth subscribing to a particular voice or feature or idea, if it's not worth looking forward to and not worth trusting, I'm not sure it's worth writing, not if your goal is to become meaningful.

The three questions to ask, then, at every editorial meeting:

Who is this for?

Will we be able to reach them?

Is it meaningful?

And here's the rhetorical question I'd ask the publisher of every media company, from the sole practitioner to the Times: If you had the loyal attention of the powerful, connected, concerned and intelligent people in any given (valuable) tribe or sector, and you regularly showed up with anticipated, personal and relevant content for those people, could you make it into a business?

[More on this (and Clay, too)]

• Email to a friend •

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Wages vs. Real Wages Over Time: How the Fed Destroyed the Middle Class in Pictures
Popular Universities: Name of the Game is "I Like it Like That"; More Facebook Fraud
Democrat Quotes on Iraq; Ron Paul Asks "Haven’t We Already Done Enough Damage in Iraq?"

Wages vs. Real Wages Over Time: How the Fed Destroyed the Middle Class in Pictures

Posted: 18 Jun 2014 12:02 AM PDT

Wages have seemingly been on a tear since 1965 having risen from $2.5 per hour in February of 1964 to $20.5 per hour in May of 2014. A couple charts will show what I mean.

Average Hourly Earnings of Production and NonSupervisory Private Employees

click on any chart for sharper image

Average Hourly Earnings of All Private Employees

Data for all private employees only goes back to March of 2006.

Real Earnings

On Monday, a BLS Real Earnings report showed:

Real average hourly earnings for all private employees fell 0.2 percent from April to May. This result stems from a 0.2 percent increase in the average hourly earnings being more than offset by a 0.4 percent increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).
For all private employees, real average hourly earnings fell 0.1 percent, seasonally adjusted, from May 2013 to May 2014.
Real average hourly earnings for production and nonsupervisory private employees fell 0.1 percent from April to May, seasonally adjusted. This result stems from a 0.1 percent increase in average hourly earnings being more than offset by a 0.3 percent increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W).
Real average hourly earnings for production and nonsupervisory private employees rose 0.3 percent, seasonally adjusted, from May 2013 to May 2014.

"Real" means adjusted for price inflation. The BLS uses CPI-U as the deflator for all private employees, and CPI-W as the deflator for production and nonsupervisory private employees.

Wages vs. Prices

Neither the BLS nor Fred (the St. Louis Fed data repository) shows real wages over time, at least directly. But the data is there. It's just a matter of putting the charts together with the data they provide.

Following BLS methodology, let's compare year-over year growth in CPI-W with year-over-year growth in average hourly earnings for production and nonsupervisory private employees.

Also following BLS methodology here is a chart of year-over-year earnings growth of all private employees compared to year-over-year growth in CPI-U.

Real Wages Over Time

The two preceding charts may seem confusing. But if we subtract growth in CPI from growth in wages, we can determine "real" wage growth, a measure of how far wages have risen vs. prices.

Real Wages All Private Employees

Real Wages Production and Nonsupervisory Private Employees

Damning Charts

The preceding chart looks pretty damning, but things are far worse. The CPI does not include sales tax hikes, the prices of homes, property taxes, or fees of all types.

For those with kids in school, the CPI will seem like a complete joke.

All things considered, the average person would be far better off with wages at $2.5 per hour and constant prices and taxes than they are today.

A Political Look

Doug Short at Advisor Perspectives produced the following chart following our discussion of Tuesday's BLS data release.

click on chart for sharper image

Congratulations!

Congratulations to Republicans and Democrats alike. On a chained-dollar adjusted basis (but not counting sales taxes, property taxes, fees, home prices, etc.), real average hourly earnings are back to a level seen in 1968.

Counting taxes and fees, the average worker makes far less now.

Demise of the Middle Class

The Fed wants 2% inflation. It achieved that (and then some) especially if we add in the price of houses and various taxes.

Who benefited?

The answer is Wall Street, corporate CEOs, banks, public unions, and the already wealthy.

The demise of the middle class is a direct result of fractional reserve lending, inflation tactics of central banks, war-mongering and other unfunded Congressional legislation, all exacerbated when Nixon closed the gold window, allowing unlimited printing and Congressional deficit spending.

Some suggest robots and corporations are to blame for the demise of the middle class. The notion is absurd.

Instead of pointing the finger at the real problem, the Fed blames robots and Democrats blame corporations and Republicans. Meanwhile, Republicans and Democrats alike fund wars and other activities via the printing press that the US cannot possibly afford.

For further discussion of the demise of the middle class and the role president Nixon and Congress played, please see Time Lapse Image of Growing US Political Polarization; Root Cause of the Shrinking Middle Class

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Posted: 17 Jun 2014 07:37 PM PDT

Don't put too much faith in Facebook rankings of universities (or Facebook "like" rankings of anything else either).

I discussed Facebook Fraud on February 11, 2014 asking "How Much of Facebook's Ad Revenue is Legitimate?".

So who really cares about the "Inside Facebook" report Where are the most popular universities on Facebook?

It turns out Harvard, Yale, Oxford, and Cambridge (but not Princeton) are buying Facebook likes according to Lenny Teytelman, a very infrequent blogger whose recent post filtered my way.

Here are some snips from Teytelman's post Facebook's Most Popular University.

I found it amusing that a Malaysian university took pride in "beating Cambridge" in terms of the number of "likes" and touted it in press and on social media, with ambitious plans to double their total FB likes.

However, the real story here is not Limkokwing University but the schools like Harvard, Yale, Oxford, and Cambridge. I found it peculiar how erratic and unpredictable the top 15 list was. Why weren't Princeton and Berkeley in that list? This inspired me to look up the sources of the "likes" for the different top colleges. Turns out that similarly to life science companies and pharmaceuticals, many colleges are paying Facebook to acquire fake likes.

Very easy to tell which ones fell victim to this by looking at the number and source of the "likes"; they all match the location of the school for the universities with fewer than 300,000 "likes". But the schools that made it to the "most popular" list have "likes" from Dhaka, Bangladesh (Cambridge, Oxford, UofPeople, Harvard) and Addis Abeba, Ethiopia (Yale).

The most stunning example here is Harvard with 3.3 million "likes". Probably about three million of these are fakes. If their cost per "like" was similar to ours ($50-$100 per thousand), it appears that Harvard paid to Facebook between $150,000-$300,000 for fake likes.

It is pretty clear by now that the problem with the purchase of fake likes, directly from Facebook, is pervasive. I just don't know the scale of this. If startups, corporations, and universities are paying for this, how much exactly is Facebook earning from the fakes? And could this revenue be the reason why Facebook consistently denies the existence of this problem and makes it impossible to delete the fake likes once you purchase them?

University Likes

Teytelman notes that 3,300,000 Harvard likes came from Dhaka, Bangladesh; 1,500,000 likes for Yale came from Dhaka, Bangladesh; 877,000 likes for Yale came from Addis Abeba, Ethopia.

I Like It Like That

In honor of Facebook "Like Fraud" I offer the following musical tribute.

Link if video does not play: Dave Clark Five - I Like It Like That.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Democrat Quotes on Iraq; Ron Paul Asks "Haven’t We Already Done Enough Damage in Iraq?"

Posted: 17 Jun 2014 11:53 AM PDT

One reader recently emailed a list of statements made by various war-mongering democrats regarding Sadaam Hussein, Iraq and WOMDs.

The list includes statements made by President Bill Clinton; Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State; Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser; Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry; Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA); Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL); Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI); Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA); Al Gore; Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV); Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), and numerous others.

Snopes Verified

That's a pretty substantial list. And Snopes verifies the quotes in Words of Mass Destruction.

Please check out who said what when.

Also note the context. While Snopes verified the quotes, it also puts the quotes in context. For example, Senator Hillary Clinton stated in a 2002 speech ...

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Hillary did indeed make that statement.

What Clinton detractors fail to point out is that in the same speech, she also stated ...

"If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

"So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Hillary had that correct in spades did she not?

So while all the quotes were accurate, some were extremely misleading.

Push for War

I am not out to absolve Hillary Clinton of all blame. When the final vote came, she stupidly voted for war as did many Democrats. Her vote and later defense of that vote cost her the nomination.

That aside, who is the guilty party here? Bush, who twisted arms with blatant lies and nonsense, or the Democrat and Republican fools who fell for those lies?

"Haven't We Done Enough?"

What follows is via permission from the Ron Paul Institute. For ease in reading I will dispense with usual blockquote indentations.

Start Ron Paul

Haven't We Already Done Enough Damage in Iraq?

In 2006, I invited the late General Bill Odom to address my Thursday Congressional luncheon group. Gen. Odom, a former NSA director, called the Iraq war "the greatest strategic disaster in American history," and told the surprised audience that he could not understand why Congress had not impeached the president for pushing this disaster on the United States. History continues to prove the General's assessment absolutely correct.

In September, 2002, arguing against a US attack on Iraq, I said the following on the House Floor:

No credible evidence has been produced that Iraq has or is close to having nuclear weapons. No evidence exists to show that Iraq harbors al Qaeda terrorists. Quite to the contrary, experts on this region recognize Hussein as an enemy of the al Qaeda and a foe to Islamic fundamentalism.

Unfortunately, Congress did not listen.

As we know, last week the second largest city in Iraq, Mosul, fell to the al-Qaeda allied Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Last week an al-Qaeda that had not been in Iraq before our 2003 invasion threatened to move on the capitol, Baghdad, after it easily over-ran tens of thousands of Iraqi military troops.

The same foreign policy "experts" who lied us into the Iraq war are now telling us we must re-invade Iraq to deal with the disaster caused by their invasion! They cannot admit they were wrong about the invasion being a "cakewalk" that would pay for itself, so they want to blame last week's events on the 2011 US withdrawal from Iraq. But the trouble started with the 2003 invasion itself, not the 2011 troop withdrawal. Anyone who understands cause and effect should understand this.

The Obama administration has said no option except for ground troops is off the table to help the Iraqi government in this crisis. We should not forget, however, that the administration does not consider Special Forces or the CIA to be "boots on the ground." So we may well see Americans fighting in Iraq again.

It is also likely that the administration will begin shipping more weapons and other military equipment to the Iraqi army, in the hopes that they might be able to address the ISIS invasion themselves. After years of US training, costing as much as $20 billion, it is unlikely the Iraqi army is up to the task. Judging from the performance of the Iraqi military as the ISIS attacked, much of that money was wasted or stolen.

A big US government weapons transfer to Iraq will no doubt be favored by the US military-industrial complex, which stands to profit further from the Iraq meltdown. This move will also be favored by those in Washington who realize how politically unpopular a third US invasion of Iraq would be at home, but who want to "do something" in the face of the crisis. Shipping weapons may be an action short of war, but it usually leads to war. And as we have already seen in Iraq and Syria, very often these weapons fall into the hands of the al-Qaeda we are supposed to be fighting!

Because of the government's foolish policy of foreign interventionism, the US is faced with two equally stupid choices: either pour in resources to prop up an Iraqi government that is a close ally with Iran, or throw our support in with al-Qaida in Iraq (as we have done in Syria). I say we must follow a third choice: ally with the American people and spend not one more dollar or one more life attempting to re-make the Middle East. Haven't we have already done enough damage?

Copyright © 2014 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

End Ron Paul

We do not know what would have happened had Al Gore won. But we do know what Bush did!

My position has been consistent. I am proud to have been on the right side of this issue from the beginning, never once wavering or believing the lies of the Bush administration.

Those who suggest I am "too hard on Bush" are mistaken. I would be equally hard on any president, Republican or Democrat, who did what Bush and Cheney did.

Paul notes": General Bill Odom called the Iraq war "the greatest strategic disaster in American history," telling a "surprised audience that he could not understand why Congress had not impeached the president for pushing this disaster on the United States."

Iraq was indeed an enormous strategic disaster, and a criminal action as well.

Congress should have impeached Bush and Cheney. Both are war criminals in my estimation. But a Republican Congress would never impeach a sitting Republican President for war crimes, but they would impeach a Democrat president over the meaning of "sexual relations".

Moreover, even Democrats would have been reluctant to impeach Bush because they stupidly authorized the war as well.

Thus, no one should be surprised how blame for this mess was swept under the rug, by both parties. No one in either party wants to accept blame or responsibility.

But what to do now?

Ron Paul was right in 2002 and he is right now. Those begging for more intervention just ought to step back and ask "Haven't We Done Enough Damage Already?"

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

miercuri, 18 iunie 2014

Three Lead Generation Card Tips from the @TwitterSmallBiz Playbook

Three Lead Generation Card Tips from the @TwitterSmallBiz Playbook

What is a Lead Generation Card?