Friday, December 28, 2012
The game of the week and I expect the Redskins to win it because of how consistent the Redskins have. Been the last six weeks and the holes that the Cowboys have on defense.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
CBS Sports: MCBL 1983: Final Four Semifinal: Raleigh Wolfpack vs Georgia Bulldogs: Postgame Interviews
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Saturday, December 22, 2012
The Redskins have the inside track because they control their own destiny and their last two games are very winnable and matchup well. With both the Philadelphia Eagles that they play tomorrow and the Dallas Cowboys next week.
Friday, December 21, 2012
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Monday, December 17, 2012
Saturday, December 15, 2012
A great matchup of incredible raw power with Hercules vs one of the most skillful pro wrestlers of all. Time who was also a great athlete and very strong himself in Curt Hennig.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
I speak maybe 200 hundred words of Spanish and enough to somewhat casually converse and be able to pick up words when I'm reading Spanish and to a certain extent when I'm listening to it. So most of Shakira's 1999 MTV Unplugged performance I missed as far as comprehension. So I know in this song Octavio Dia is that it is about a man named Octavio and it's his day or something like that. But understanding every word in a song even it if is written and performed in your first language and enjoying hearing the song and it performed and listen to the performer, are two different things. I know from this song that Shakira has a great voice and great sound. She's not just a bilingual speaker, but a bilingual singer as well. She's from Columbia, but her family is from Lebanon and she's of Arab descent. And yet she speaks Spanish as her first language, but also speaks English because she does a lot of business in America and perhaps speaks Arabic as well. She's a multi-talented multi-lingual performer and deserves a lot of respect for all of her talents.
Monday, December 10, 2012
|Source: Leathered Life-|
I've never heard of the band Edenbridge and I'm not a metal fan. But the leader singer looks like a rocker click. A classic rocker chick as far as appearance and how she performs. Great red velvet top, great leather belt with a great buckle and great black leather jeans. She looks a bit different from Joan Jett, Meredith Brooks, Melissa Etheridge and other rockers chicks with the velvet top. But the black leather jeans are classic in rock culture whether you're talking about classic rock, (my preference) hard rock, heavy metal, etc. You just see rockers chicks dress different depending on the genre. Seems like all great rocker chicks have at least one pair of leather jeans with the boots to go with them. And rocker chicks like Joan Jett have made those pants a staple in their performances. You don't have to like this band and their music to acknowledge that their vocalist is a beautiful sexy woman who is great to check out especially on stage and a pleasure to watch perform and to listen to.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
|Source: NBC-Deidre Hall & James Scott, on Days of Our Lives-|
As entertaining as this scene was and most of that being Deidre Hall as Dr. Marlena Evans, it's not believable and I don't mean that in a bad way. I mean think about that, Dr. Marlena Evans as a killer, the last thing doctors do is murder people. I mean that would break their hypocritical oath, wouldn't it, or Hippocratic oath, I know it is one or the other. And besides she is a baby-face killer, I mean she's too sweet to kill anyone. Women that adorable don't murder anyone, except in Hollywood, wait this is Days of Our Lives, so maybe this isn't so unbelievable. But that sort of goes to my point of why this scene is so good. Dr. Marlena Evans played by Deidre Hall, this gorgeous baby-face women, who looks 10-15 years younger than she actually is, who is better looking than Sammy who plays one of her daughters on this show. She's perfect to play a killer, because no one would believe her as a killer. There's nothing scary about her, which is why she could do it and fool everyone, because no one would expect her as the killer. Because she looks too sweet to hurt an ant.
Sid Vicious was an incredible dominant force that never quite lived up to his full potential as a pro wrestler
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Sunday, November 11, 2012
|Source: Rick Whitlow-|
I never got the point of the Coyote Ugly shots and why that is popular there and why they do that. But I do like watching sexy women lying on the bar. Sexy well-built healthy looking women and checking out their tight legs in tight jeans on the bar. And watching sexy women crawl on the bar. There’s nothing really there to try to understand. It is real obvious to see why that is sexy. Assuming you’re not blind or gay, or a combination of both. Which is really what I was focusing on here in this video and perhaps wishing I was the guy there pouring the whisky or scotch or whatever drink they used to pour into that women’s bellybutton. Because she is obviously a very attractive sexy women who looks great in tight jeans as most if not all sexy women do.
|Source: Rick Whitlow|
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
|Source: Mike Chycinski-Miranda Lambert-|
Kerosene is one of Miranda Lambert's best songs. She comes off as a bad ass country girl who has been wronged and dammed and this is her chance to get back and let that out. She's a country girl as far as culture, lifestyle and upbringing, but country girl doesn't go far enough to describe who Miranda Lambert is as a woman. I prefer to view her was a country rocker as far as her style of music. Perhaps Texas rocker would be a better label for her. Someone who combines the sounds of country with classic rock and sort of sings rock and roll, but with a Texas accent. Which gives her a very unique, diverse style that can bring in people who aren't country music fans (including yours truly) in to her and willing to give her a listen. And say, "here's a country singer who comes off as rock and roll and has a good voice, good band and her music sounds rock and roll. " Such as myself and be willing to listen to her music. And besides she's great to look at with the beautiful baby face, the great body and country girl style.
Monday, November 5, 2012
|Source: Miranda Lambert-|
Miranda Lambert is one of my favorite country girls because of her attitude and style. She's a no nonsense (to put it nicely) woman who always keeps it real and never afraid to let everyone know what she's thinking and how she's feeling. And of course her presence both physical and otherwise is impossible to ignore. She's a sexier Jessica Simpson as far as body with the great curves and perhaps just as adorable and even immature. They both have a tendency to come off as somewhat childish (to put it lightly) and their high pitch voice and baby faces, just adds to that. She's a beautiful baby-faced adorable country girl from Texas, who represents that lifestyle as well as it can be done. A skin-tight jeans and cowgirl boots girl, who loves tank tops and tight t-shirts as well. Sort of like the Daisy Duke (played by the great Catherine Bach) of the Millennial Generation. And even has a style of music that I can follow combining classic rock with her country and at the very least giving her a country rock, if not full rock sound.
Friday, November 2, 2012
|Source: Liberty Pen-|
Political correctness, at its best (not exactly a high point) is a feeling in the country that bigotry should be wrong and looked down upon. Not outlawed, but considered unacceptable to the majority of the country. That I and I believe a consensus of Americans believe in. Political correctness, at its worse, (which is as high as Mount Everest) is this feeling that we should not only say things that may offend people that so-called Progressives (Communists, really) support. But that we shouldn't be allowed to say that and there should be legal or civil sanctions that should come down upon people who offend people that so-called Progressives support.
"But, if you say offensive things about people that so-called Progressives oppose, like right-wingers, well thats just free speech. And what's the problem, because all they are saying is the truth." So its not just political correctness that can be a problem, but a double standard that can come with political correctness that can also be a problem as well.
To put it bluntly, Freedom of Speech protects the assholes as much as the enlightened. Especially when the enlightened says things about people that so-called Progressives (and I'm being nice with the word Progressives) believe deserve special protection and are part of some vulnerable class of people that government should give special treatment to. There's nothing bigoted about the truth and I would argue nothing offensive either.
The Christian-Right and Muslim-Right have one big nasty thing in common. They tend to see women and homosexuals as second-class citizens. In the women's case, people who are only on Earth to serve their men and raise their kids. In the homosexual case, people who should be in mental institutions, if not jails and in the Islamist case, people who don't even deserve to live. You can still be put to death in some parts of the Middle East simply for being gay.
So when a Liberal or Conservative or Libertarian, says that the Christian-Right and Islamists view women and gays as second-class citizens, who are they offending and where is the bigotry? If you just say that about Christian-Conservatives, you'll be viewed as a hero with the New-Left in America. And as someone with the guts to speak the truth. But if you say the same thing about Islamists, even though all you're doing is speaking the truth, you'll be viewed as a bigot.
The politically correct thing should always be the truth. And if someone is wrong, or ignorant, or even hateful, they'll be held accountable by everyone else. They won't be forced to shut up and government wont' take their platform away from them. But public opinion will sanction them and the asshole will lose supporters and perhaps their job. But they won't be thrown in jail simply for speaking their mind. That is not how a liberal free society works.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
I don't see Randianism as a cult, but the inspirational leader for American libertarianism. Even though Ayn Rand wasn't an official Libertarian. Just like John F. Kennedy is the inspirational leader for Liberals such as myself and Ronald Reagan is the inspirational leader of Conservatives. And Franklin Roosevelt in an inspirational Leader for Progressives. Now, some of the followers of Ayn Rand at times do seem like cult followers with some of their conspiracy theories that government is out to get them and that type of thing. But the movement by itself I don't see as some type of cult.
Ayn Rand objectivism, is that the individual should always be that. "That the individual is always first. And when people start concerning themselves with the affairs and worries of others, than somehow collectivism would sink in." Again, Ayn Rand, is not a Libertarian. Even Libertarians believe in private charity. And some Conservative Libertarians, even though they wouldn't have created the New Deal, or Great Society, aren't looking to eliminate it. For practical reasons mostly, but would like to see it run a lot better with private options for people who receive social services.
So when you talk about Ayn Rand and objectivism, you shouldn't try to link it with libertarianism, or conservatism. Even though so-called Progressives and Socialists will aways do that. Because libertarianism and objectivism are two different things. Libertarians, believe in a minimal government, at least classical Libertarians. And that the safety net and charity should only be run by the private sector and with no government involvement. Objectivists, aren't even fans of private charity. And that individuals should always be left to solve their own problems.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Ayn Rand on Russian communism on the Phil Donahue Show from 1979, saying that Russian Communists believed that people weren’t people. But collections of the state, subjected to whatever the state wanted them to do. The difference between authoritarianism and liberal democracy. With authoritarianism depending on what type of authoritarianism we are talking about, it’s all about the state. A big centralized government, where all power is centralized in one political party generally.
And the people are there not to live their lives, but to serve the state. And once they get out of line, decide to live their own lives, or speak out against the state, they do that at their own risk. And risk severe harm to not only them, but their families as well. Just one of many difference between living in an authoritarian state which is what Soviet Russia was, or living in a liberal democracy like the United States. In a liberal democracy and free society, people tend to control their own lives. And then have to deal with the consequences of their decisions for good and bad.
In a communist state, to use as an example, individuals don’t exist. It is all about the state and the state is the society. Meaning the big central government decides what everyone needs and what everyone can do and use and just about everything else. Everyone in the country, is there to serve the state and especially the Communist Party and communism. Not there to make the best out of life that they can for themselves and their families. If freedom scares you and you don’t think you would be able to manage your own life, trying doing time in jail, or prison. Or living in a communist society, because freedom won’t be something that you would ever have to deal with.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
|Source: Sky News-|
Dogs, are similar to humans in this sense, that they have to get to know you and trust that you aren't there to hurt them. Before they will open up to you and trust you and once you accomplish that and you know how to approach them, they'll love you. I have a hard time buying (and not because money is tight) that Cesar Milan abuses dogs or any other pets. Of course he could be an Oscar caliber actor on his show and that his show is nothing but an act. And that while he pretends to be this great animal psychologist on TV, in his free time he beats dogs and cats with a whip for the hell of it, or to take out on his anger at whatever is pissing off at the time. I just don't see that.
He reminds me of the great adolescent phycologist who works with lets say troubled urban high school students who grow up in rough neighborhoods. Where their father is not around and if their mother works at all she works two low-income jobs just to support her kids and doesn't have the time to look after them during the day. But this great teacher or psychologist who is probably a former Marine, or something comes in. And teaches these kids how to behave and get with the program. And how important school is to their future and all of that. Its hard to imagine someone like that as a bullshit artist. Who talks a great game in public, but in private is just as bad as the assholes that he has turned around made productive people out of.
Cesar Milan, at least to me, seems like that guy you want to have around. When your dog doesn't know how to behave, or has no interest in behaving and you've tried everything else that you can think of. And you're just desperate, so you go on national TV and bring your home problems to the public. (Talk about desperation) So you bring in the Dog Whisperer to teach your dog how to behave and become a responsible member of the family. How to respond to their parents and other family members. Respond to commands, how to behave on walks, even how to go to the bathroom and anything else. I have a hard time believing that someone like that who clearly loves dogs and has such great skill at training them, would in private be abusive to them and perhaps even criminal.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Carl Barter: The 100 Greatest Film Insults of All Time- Sometimes You Should Just Get it Off Your Chest
|Source: Carl Barter- RIP Paul Gleason-|
What I get out of this video, is that we shouldn’t beat around the bush. If we are really pissed at someone or see them as complete losers and don’t give a damn about what they think, we should simply just tell them,“don’t beat around the bush, tell them what you really think”. I’m perfectly cool with that, the only thing is I tend to go out-of-my-way not to be around people I see as complete assholes or morons. Call me crazy, but I don’t like hanging out with assholes or morons. I know more than I care to admit to and I tend to want to be at least a zip code away from them so I don’t have to admit that I actually know that person. Like if I’m ever under oath having to testify about their latest boneheaded screwup.
Now, if I just happen to be around an asshole who thinks they are as big and great as Godzilla, even though a baby could step on them and they get in my face and we have a little argument, by all means I’ll more than defend myself especially verbally, if simply laughing at them and trying to move on doesn’t work. There are times that assholes need to know what they are, if anything to give them incentive not get into someone else’s face in the future and bring a squirt gun to a machine gun fight. And I’m talking about real machine guns with real bullets, not a water machine gun.
Insults obviously have their place in life and without them some people would have no idea about big of a loser or asshole they are. Because they would never get it anyway and need that light to go off in their head and to get the point that they have serious flaws that need to be addressed. My issue is how you go about insulting someone. Do you bring yourself down to the level of the asshole that you’re putting down, or do you actually put some thought into how you critique that person.
Do you tell the asshole,”holy shit you’re a fucking moron!” Or do you put some thought like, “I would call you a fucking moron, but that would be an insult to fucking morons”. And there was a similar line like that in this video. Also swearing, if you have to swear to put someone down, you’re probably not much better off than the person you’re putting down. I realize how popular cussing and swearing is today and I get that and use it myself, but mostly when I’m pissed or shocked about something. Something like, “holy shit! The Washington Redskins actually won a game”. If you are familiar with 2012 Redskins, or the Redskins in recent years, you know winning is like a holiday for them. It doesn’t happen that often and sometimes they even go months without winning.
I like put downs or insults that come with thought. I mean if you were to call me an asshole, mother fucker, go down the line, the most you’ll get from me is a smirk, because I’m probably laughing about the brain cramp you just had coming up with that. If you’re going to call someone stupid, give them an example of how stupid they are. “When God was passing out the brains, it was your day off, so you didn’t get one. Or he passed on you, because he didn’t think you were worth the effort or would try to sell your own brain”. You want to put me down or impress me with an insult, then impress and put some real thought into what you are trying to say.
Friday, October 19, 2012
|Source: News Beat-|
I guess going casual for Mitt Romney is not wearing a tuxedo, or a tuxedo that he personally owns. Perhaps Mitt takes his tie off before going to sleep and just sleeps in his slacks and sport coat. Mitt during the Republican primaries in the winter and spring this year of course had this reputation as being too stiff and too formal. So he sort of overcompensated and started wearing what young cool people call mamas jean. Which are somewhat baggy denim jeans that you might see your grandmother wearing around the house. Men, good-looking like in Mitt's case or not so good-looking, look horrible in baggy jeans.
Baggy jeans or mamas jeans, would be like country music singer wearing bandanna and a LA Raiders cap at a country music festival. It just doesn't seem right. If you're going to wear jeans especially denim jeans, they should fit you and you should fill them out. But Mitt doesn't have to worry about fitting in at an event like the Al Smith Dinner where all the men there probably own their tuxedos and perhaps even go to bed in them. Mitt is right at home where he belongs at an event like this. But at a sports bar in Cleveland or some place, he would probably look like the astronaut who landed on Mars by accident and had no idea where he was.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Reason: Anthony Fisher- Jessica Blake & Erik Jenson on The Exonerated: True Stories of The Innocent Sprung From Death Row
|Source: Reason Magazine-|
Anyone whose pro-death penalty and I’m one of them, should be in favor of a long appeals process. To make sure that we get the right people, so to speak and not rush to put to death the wrong people. Not an appeals process that extends the process indefinitely, but that allows inmates and lawyers to bring new appeals, as long as they can bring new evidence that suggests that they may be innocent. So we are always executing the right people and not putting to death the wrong people.
That is the only way to make sure that the death penalty can be applied fairly. Putting the wrong person to death even by accident, whether you’re talking about manslaughter, or giving the wrong person the death penalty, is not a mistake that you can take back. I would be fine with a short appeals process without the death penalty. Because if the convicted murderers lawyers truly believe their client is innocent, they can still work on the case. And if they find evidence that proves their client is innocent, they can always present that evidence and open that case back up.
Every pro-death penalty person, especially if they consider themselves to be pro-life and pro-death penalty at the same time, should be in favor of a death penalty case like this. Because it makes their case for the death penalty better. That there isn’t a rush to put someone to death. Because they know if the person is guilty they’ll never leave prison anyway. And it gives opponents of the death penalty less evidence and a smaller case to use against the death penalty. And they would have a harder time saying that innocent people have been put to death because of the death penalty.
Friday, October 12, 2012
|Source: Deidre Hall-|
Deidre Hall, at least to me is the ultimate American Sweetheart. She’s gorgeous yes, but she is so freakin cute, baby-face adorable really and still is, now in her mid sixties. She doesn’t look much older now more than five years ago when I started watching the reruns of the soap operas as night. Because I had to work during the day. Everything she does, even the way she sits down and moves around or even talks on the phone and of course the way she speaks, makes me want to go, aw! Because she so sweet and has been one of the top soap actress’s, for what thirty years now. And has been on one of the top three soap operas ever since. Days of Our Lives, to go along with General Hospital, which is the best one of the bunch. And The Young and The Restless as well. And she’s just as sweet and funny in real life apparently, as she is on Days.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
|Source: Cher Vevo- Cher-|
The only Cher song that I like and perhaps because of the candor in it. A song about regret and I think it was about her relationship with Sunny Bono, a great classic rock song. This performance was part of VH1's Divas series that they did annually in the late 1990s and early 2000s. No idea if they still do that, but Cher whatever you think of her certainly qualifies as a diva. Great voice, great personality, great body, certainly very entertaining. And she's lived a hell of a life and with comes with that comes a lot of regret. Things you wish you shouldn't have said and done and perhaps got caught up in the moment and took out your anger on someone. "If I Could Turn Back Time", again great song, but it is sort of like saying, "if only I owned a helicopter, I would be able to avoid rush hour traffic everyday." People aren't tested by what they would have changed if they could go back. You learn from mistakes and then move on. We are tested by how react and carry ourselves in the moment. The better we do in real-time, the fewer mistakes that we'll make as we move on.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Atlas Shrugged, is essentially a fantasy about what can happen when the private sector and a capitalist economy is regulated. Its not about what can happen when a developed, or highly developing country with a strongly growing an educated middle class, where poverty is shrinking, is taken over by Marxist revolutionaries. That decides to outlaw political parties, private property, starts detaining people who oppose them and nationalizes industries. We already know that story because we've seen it before. Lebanon comes to mind and perhaps you could make a case for Cuba as well. That would be a good book and movie and it would sell well if their done right. Atlas Shrugged, written by Ayn Rand in 1957, there hasn't been an example of a regulated private enterprise economy that has collapsed just because it is regulated, since that book was written.
Atlas Shrugged, which I'm sure is very clever and well-done and written by Ayn Rand, that shouldn't be a surprise. But as a movie it sounds like bad sci-fi movie from the Sci-Fi Channel. Every developed country in the world operates under some form of rule of law. That government is not there to tell people who to live their own lives and control our movement's, or anything like that. There isn't a single developed country in the world that is a Marxist state, or some type of authoritarian state from the Far-Right. But all developed countries do regulate how people interact with each other and regulate the economy. Not to run business's, but to protect customer's and workers. And economies can be over regulated and when that happens they struggle. But they all have some type of regulatory state that is there to protect workers and consumers from predators. And Ayn Rand lived in a great developed country like that for a very long time. That being America.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Monday, October 1, 2012
Sunday, September 30, 2012
|Source: Liberty Pen-|
I don't agree with the late great writer Christopher Hitchens all the time. I'm a Liberal, he's more of a Progressive/Socialist. A bit left to me on economic policy, to put it mildly, but we do tend to agree on some of these key social issues, like civil liberties, War on Drugs and yes free speech. But Freedom of Speech is exactly that, the freedom to speak, to go along with our property rights, are the most important freedoms and constitutional rights that we have in America. The freedom to speak is exactly that, the right to speak whether its popular or not.
That since we are a liberal democracy, we've decided long ago, that we are good enough and intelligent enough as a nation, that we can have good intelligent tolerant thinkers. But that we can also have haters and ignorant people as well, because we are a good and intelligent enough as a people to figure out what's hate and what's not and what should be taken seriously and what shouldn't be. That we don't need big government to make these decisions for us. What we should and be able to listen to and what we shouldn't listen to. This is something that Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians figured out a long time ago, but that today's so-called Progressives and Christian-Conservatives, have never grasped. Who believe government needs to be strong enough to be able to protect its people, even at times from themselves.
The Islamic film, that was perceived very negatively a few weeks ago by Muslims and so-called Progressives, but of course Neoconservatives view the film as free speech, because they like and agree with the film, but thats a different story, is a perfect example of what free speech is designed to protect. The right for people to be able to speak their mind, even as small as their minds and intelligence level may be. As long as they are not labeling people, threatening people, or inciting violence. What this movie essentially does, is layout what the creators of this movie feel. "Islam is bad and so-forth, that Muhammad was a bad person and so-forth." But it wasn't calling for Muslims to be killed and beat up and so-forth, it was a negative if not bigoted view of Islam, but not calling for violence on Muslims. And thats the difference between free speech and threatening speech. Something we don't put up with as a nation.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
|Source: Phil Donahue Show- Ayn Rand-|
This is a classic interview, because you had two very intelligent people with lots of followers, who both had a message to deliver. But came from very different sides of the political spectrum. Ayn Rand, being a Libertarian/Objectivist and Phil Donahue being a Progressive/Socialist even. Two people with very different beliefs on what the role of government is. Especially the role of the Federal Government. Ayn, whose see government's role as basically doing nothing more, than to basically protecting our freedom and constitutional rights. And Phil Donahue, believing that government should be doing a lot for its people. That there's only so much we can expect that the private enterprise can do for the people.
The Phil Donahue belief I guess, is when people have a lot of economic freedom, we see too much income inequality, that we should tolerate in a democracy. And that we need a strong Federal Government to provide the human services, that we shouldn't trust private enterprise to do for the people. And if that means having high taxes to pay for these human services, so be it. If that means we get good public services from all of these taxes. So this was a discussion between two people, who have very different views in what the role of government is and what it should be doing for its people. But two people who are very intelligent and can make their case very well in how they look at the world ideologically.
The best thing that I could probably compare this interview with today, it would be like Ralph Nader interviewing Ron Paul, or vice-versa. Two men that are actually pretty similar when it comes to social freedom and civil liberties. But are very different in what they see the role for the Federal Government as it relates to the economy. Ron Paul basically believing that people should be able to keep and spend as much money as they make and be able to spend it as they see it, as long as they aren't spending that money hurting people. Ordering hits and that sort of thing. And Ralph Nader, believing that a country is a community and to be a member of this community, we should all have to pay a price for it. To make this community as strong as it can be. Similar to Rand-Donahue.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Sunday, September 23, 2012
If the Peoples Temple that Rev. Jim Jones put together back in the 1970s, was a Socialist Cult, which I believe it was. From the left or far left depending on your perspective, then the Westboro Baptist Church is a Nazi Cult coming from the far right and I'm not saying they are a racist organization. Exactly, even though I'm not ruling out they are but they are Nazis in the sense that they hate people who for they are. The Nazis targeted Jews, Slavs and other peoples, the Westboros as I call them, put together by the so called Rev. Fred Phelps has targeted Homosexuals. They see them as sinners and immoral, just because of their sexuality, not by how the treat people or how they live their lives but who they are physically attracted to and how they live. Their personal lives, this is not racist obviously but clearly homophobic and bigoted and people who do have the right of Free Speech in the United States but not in Canada, Europe or Australia. But people who don't believe in this hateful philosophy, also have a Constitutional Right to speak out against these haters and show exactly who they are, which are modern Nazis.
The turning point in this game, was the defensive adjustments that the Seminoles made at halftime. And them bringing more pressure on Clemson in the 2nd Half, that set up great field position for the Seminoles the rest of the way.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
|Iron Mike vs Buster Douglas|
Beating former world champions, but not just beating them, but destroying them. Like Frank Bruno, Mike Spinks, Larry Holmes, Tony Tucker, James Smith and others. All guys who were world champions before and in Larry Holmes case one of the top 2-3 heavyweights and world champions of all- time. He's right there with Muhammad Ali and you could argue either way, but with Buster Douglas, you had a very talented fighter. Tall, big, strong, accurate, with excellent boxing skills, but wasn't very disciplined. He was the perfect fighter to beat someone like Mike Tyson, because of his awesome size. And the ability to use it, he was able to keep Tyson off of him, by hitting him hard enough to keep him off and go to work on him.
Going into this fight, of course James Douglas beating Mike Tyson is not only one of the biggest upsets of the 1990s, but of all-time. But looking back at it now, James Douglas was simply good enough to beat Tyson. He had the skills and size to do it, as well as the training. Most of Iron Mike's opponents went at Tyson by trying to tie him up, to prevent Mike from throwing Mike's bombs at you. But what Buster did was a different strategy. He figured out the best way to keep Iron Mike off of you was by hitting him hard with a big jab, going on offense forcing Mike to take punishment as well, which set up Buster's other punches.
I think the Oakland Raiders defense would improve, if their offense could just move the ball and score some points. This would give the Raiders defense a chance to regroup and recover and put less pressure on the defense but I don't see the Raiders offense improving this Sunday against the Pittsburgh Steelers. With the Steelers wining this fairly easily.
Friday, September 21, 2012
The Devils-Reds Rivalry of English Premier Soccer, is sorta like the Yankees-Red Sox Rivalry in Major League Baseball
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
But the fewer people you have working, or not making enough money to support themselves, the smaller the economy will be and the less revenue that you'll have for people who aren't physically and mentally able to at least work full-time and able to support themselves. Which is why you need the largest workforce possible with the largest middle class possible. So you have the fewest people possible who are either unemployed, or undereducated and not able to get themselves a good job that will allow for them to be self-sufficient. And then you'll have more money to help people who truly need it.
Private enterprise and capitalism are great things and I'm big fans of them. But they can only be as successful as their workforce will allow for them to be and be as good as their workforce. You need a good infrastructure system, good education, good workers and a good and efficient regulatory state, for your economy to be as strong as possible. To have the largest middle class possible. As many people as possible who are doing very well and even able to put money away and enjoy the luxuries in life. And for the people who fall through the cracks of system, an insurance system to help them out. But have that population be as small as possible.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Again as long as we are not hurting anyone else with what we are doing. It doesn’t say that we have the right to hurt people, just the right to make our own decisions and then holds us accountable for our own decisions that we make as a country. Rather than government trying to live our lives for us. It’s the ultimate message of pro-choice, but it just doesn’t relate to abortion, but how we live our own personal lives. What we can do with our own money, rather than government trying to make these decisions for us. The message of personal freedom and responsibility. That the people aren’t prisoners and not the job of government to direct our lives for us.
Monday, September 3, 2012
Reason: Nanny of The Month For August, 2012 Secretary of HHS Kathleen Sebelius: Now The Real Nanny of The Month
What they are doing here is passing out funds from the Federal Government to encourage wellness campaigns. Not outlawing junk food, or junk drinks, but encouraging healthy dieting and exercise. Which is in our national interest, because it would bring down the health care costs for the country. Its not saying, "you have to eat and drink healthy and you have to exercise and if you don't, we'll lock you up in jail." Where you'll get less exercise and eat worse food, which is what we do in the War on Drugs, the definition of making problems worse. By finding a problem, not only not fixing it, but making it worse.
The lady who got fined for handing out free water during one of the hottest summers we've ever had, which we are still having in most of the country, is a much better example of a nanny than the preventive health care campaign. And I would bet the fine that lady is going to have to pay is as much as we would be paying in sales taxes had she bought that water in a store and thats what this fine is about. This big government here thinking they were cheated in losing sales tax revenue. Because the people who got the bottle water got it for free and didn't pay sales taxes on it.
|Source: NBC-Joan Jett & David Letterman-|
Joan Jett to me is the rocker chick of rocker chicks. The Queen of Rock & Roll at least when it comes to rocker chicks. You could argue that other female rockers have better music like Sheryl Crow, Tina Turner certainly and perhaps a few others. But I don't believe anyone represents the hard-core bad ass rocker chick better than Joan Jett. She has the attitude, the style, the music, she always looks great. She's the Jim Morrison of female rockers when it comes to wearing leather everywhere especially with the leather jeans and jackets and not justing wearing those jackets and pants all the time, but like The Lizard Jim Morrison looking great in that outfit all the time. Joan is a pure rocker and Jim Morrison mixed in western wear with his cowboy boots and concho belts with his leather jeans and jackets. But as far as wearing this look no male rocker has ever looked better in a leather suit than Jim Morrison and at least as far as a woman who wears leather all the time both the jeans and jackets, no one carries that look better than Joan Jett. You could argue that Melissa Etheridge, Meredith Brooks and perhaps a few other rocker chicks look better in leather jeans than Joan Jett. But as far as the whole hard-core bad ass rocker chick style no one does it better than Joan Jett.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Evander, ended up fighting too long and losing to guys and getting beat up by guys, that 5-10 years earlier he would've beaten fairly easily. And hopefully he hasn't paid a long term price for that when it comes to his health, we'll see later. But one problem I had with Evander, is that he seemed to have it a little too easy, he hadn't gotten much of a big challenge in the Heavyweight Division to this point. George Foreman gave him a pretty good fight in 1991 but Evander won most of those rounds and I wanted to see someone who not only gave Evander a big test but could actually beat him and thats where Riddick Bowe came in.
Evander Holyfield wins the World Heavyweight Championship in 1990 by beating an overweight and overconfident James Douglas. Who probably thought way too much of himself after whipping and knocking out Mike Tyson for the Heavyweight Championship in January, 1990 in Japan. And before Evander fought Riddick Bowe, he defended his title successfully twice against two boxers who were once. Great but at this point of their careers were in the early forties, in George Forman and Larry Holmes. The super fight in the Heavyweight Division of the 1990s, was suppose to be Evander vs Mike Tyson.
But of course with Iron Mike's rape case, that wasn't going to happen. Again this is where Riddick Bowe comes in, after coming off the 1988 Olympics where he didn't do as well as perhaps he should've, he was looking for a big challenge. And a chance to prove himself and why not fight for the World Heavyweight Championship and win it to accomplish it. The Bowe-Holyfield Trilogy was great because you have two great heavyweights at the prime of their careers. Probably the best two heavyweights of the 1990s, who both had a lot of respect for each other, who both knew that they had to be their best to beat the best, who was their opponent. Thats how they both saw these fights and why these fights worked out the way they did, two great fighters both bringing their A Games to these fights.
|Source: Murmurings of a Boxing Madman-|
George Foreman, knocking out one of the strongest fighters whose ever fought in Ron Lyle. What separates Big George and Big Lyle, I think has to do with the professional training that Forman had that he started as an amateur and of course the 1968 Summer Olympics. Ron Lyle, on the other hand learned how to box as a prison inmate in prison and learned how to fight there so he could make a legitimate living once he got out of prison. And my point here is not to put Lyle down who was one of the hardest hitting and best power-punchers in boxing in the 1970s. But to show that Foreman wasn't just a slugger who would win his fights by landing the last big shot. But he was a boxer who knew how to box. How to take a punch and how to avoid punches. And he also had great training from Archie Moore and others. You could probably flip a coin as far as who was the stronger fighter and puncher in this fight. But Foreman was clearly the better boxer. George Forman, two-time World Heavyweight Champion. One of the best heavyweights of all-time. Can't say the same about Ron Lyle.
Friday, August 31, 2012
|Source: Libertarianism.Org-Ron Paul-|
You convince people they are more qualified to make their decisions than government. When you have an educated society and not just an educated class, but a society where most of the country is educated and has the tools to manage their own affairs then you won’t need a big government, or any government trying to manage the people’s affairs for them. Because the people will know how to do these things for themselves. Both from a personal and economic perspective. The biggest threat to big government and statism and what big government supporters should worry about the most is not individual freedom. Individual freedom and limited government are the alternatives to big government. The biggest threat to big government and statism is an educated society.
When people have the tools which is education to manage their own affairs, then they’ll know what to do and what not to do with their own lives. They’ll know not to attack innocent people, because they’ll know that is wrong. They’ll know where to work, because they’ll know what they’re qualified to do and what the pay and benefits comes from the jobs they are qualified for. They’ll know where to live and what is the best place for them, because they’ll know what they can afford and what would be the best community for them. They’ll know where to get their health insurance, what to eat and drink and how much they can handle of those things. How to plan their own retirements, where to send their kids to school. Whether they should smoke, or drink, including marijuana. And who they should sleep and live with and when if ever they should marry their romance partner.
Statists, especially nanny statists both on the Far-Left and Far-Right generally view people as stupid. And not able to manage their own affairs and see freedom as the freedom to make mistakes. Which is why they believe in statism whether its Marxism, or some type of religious theocracy. Which again is why education is the biggest threat to big government. And why statists can’t afford an educated society, because then they won’t have the support for their big government philosophy. So you educate the society and make quality education universal for everyone including low-income children and you’ll have a society that believe in liberty, because they’ll know how to manage their own affairs for themselves.