Johnny Circus: 'Lisa Marie Presley- S.O.B. Live'

Source:Johnny Circus- Rocker Chick Lisa M. Presley in concert. Any guesses to who her father is?

"Lisa Marie Presley - La fille du King chante a merveille S.O.B en live." 

From Johnny Circus

She's not as good as her father, but most people aren't, but she can sing. Elvis Presley wasn't called the king, because Memphis has a monarchy. I don't see him as the King of Rock & Roll and could probably name ten or more rock artists are better, both solo singers and bands. But he had a great voice and some good songs and was a hell of an entertainer. 

Elvis's music is also different  from his daughter Lisa Marie Presley. Elvis was a blues rock performer and at times played only rhythm and blues. He was sort of the Eric Clapton of his generation. but a generation up from Clapton. 

Elvis's daughter Lisa Marie is more of a hard rocker, or even metal, perhaps a Goth performer (according to her outfits) and has a much harder edge to her music. She also has a great voice, but not being headbanger myself and fan of both classic rock R&B, for that alone I would give the edge to her father Elvis Presley when it comes to music. But to each his own and we are free to differ on that. But she's good in concert and looks great and for that alone is worth checking out. 

You can also see this post at The Action Blog, on Blogger.

Sit News: Rick Jensen- If Big Government Ordered Your Lunch

Source:Sit News- Uncle Sammy, in need of a diet.

“(SitNews) – How much should the government fine people whose children are deemed by (some) well-meaning bureaucrats as “obese?”

$500? $800?

Senators in our friendly associated state, Puerto Rico, have been debating that very issue this week.

Seriously.

If you believe government certainly should be measuring your children for a “fat tax” in school because there are some unfit parents, you may want to inform your Democratic Congress Critters.”

 

From Sit News  

This photo of Antony Davies is from a video that he did about big government and the nanny state as it related to food in America and what people ate. And he was talking about what life would be like if big government was in charge of all our food. But that video is not currently available online right now.

Source:Economic Freedom- Professor Antony Davies.

This idea that a group of people centralized in one big city (even a city that I love) can direct the lives of a country of 320M people, that’s a continental nation that’s between two large oceans, is crazy.

People who I call Statists or political nannies, (whether they are female or male) have this idea that a certain lifestyle that they live, must be able to work for everyone, no matter how large the country, or how diverse it is. Because this lifestyle works for them and if you don’t conform with it, there’s something wrong with you. You are ignorant in some way, sort of how the establishment treated Hippies in the 1960s and 70s. But this type of thing is still going on today, from the Left and Right.

To be blunt about it, the Far-Left and Far Right, people who have this idea of what it means to be an American. From the right because this is how it use to be. And from the Left this is how its done in other countries, it seems to work there, so this is how we should be living as a country.

Thats not the role of government to direct how its people live. But what they can do with agencies like FDA is inform Americans on the dangers and benefits of doing this, or that. Put out all the credible info available, but not try to force people to live that way. Because they know that they can’t. The War on Drugs, or organized gambling, are excellent examples of this. And then to make suggestions on what activities are healthy and what aren’t and what are the benefits and minus’ of doing such activities. Suggesting that people eat balance diets and exercise everyday, knowing that they can’t force people to do those things.

And this is what alcohol, tobacco and I would add marijuana can do to you, instead of trying to outlaw those things and trying to protect people from themselves. The United States is simply too large and vast of a country for an elite group in Washington, or anywhere else to try to control a country that is this large. But what it can do, is inform people on what activities are healthy and unhealthy in life and make suggestions. About certain things in what Americans should do with their lives based on credible research not ideology. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

ABA History: The History of the ABA

Source:The ABA History

The old American Basketball Association is not that different then the old American Football League. The National Basketball Association had around 16-18 clubs, in a country at the time of around 200M people. The National Football League in 1959 had twelve clubs in a country of around 150M people. One of the reasons why the AFL was able to establish itself because there were more cities that wanted pro football clubs than the NFL was willing to respond to. Similar situation as the ABA they knew there were cities ready for major league basketball clubs, that weren't in the NBA. Like Richmond, Lexington, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Houston, San Antonio, Denver, San Diego and others.

And the ABA had the management and financing and believed with the NBA which wasn't a very popular league yet still trailing the NFL and MLB in the late 1960s and early 1970s.  That they believed they could attract the management, coaches and players to play in their league by paying their players more and giving them more playing time up front. Because in the NBA some draft picks they were told that they would have a chance to make the team. But the ABA were telling potential draft picks that they would make the team and play. And thats how they lured so many players to the ABA. Players like Julius Erving arguably the best all around player in pro basketball in the 1970s, George Gervin who's in the Hall of Fame, Artis Gilmore, Rick Barry who are also in the Hall of Fame. And many others including head coaches like Larry Brown who's also in the Hall of Fame.

The ABA was also very exciting kinda the way the NBA used to be twenty years ago or so. With a lot of run and gun basketball, fast break teams trapping defenses, the three point shot, the red, white and blue basketball. But one thing that the ABA wasn't able to do was TV. If you weren't going to the games, you probably didn't get to see an ABA game unless you lived in a market with an ABA club and they had local television. Unlike the AFL in the 1960s that had a national broadcast contract with ABC. The ABA wasn't able to get that pro football was more popular than pro basketball at the time.

Football is still more popular that basketball today and had the ABA landed a national broadcast contract like the AFL and even the USFL twenty plus years later, a lot more people would've gotten to see how good of a league the ABA was. Because especially in the early and mid 70s, the ABA playoff teams and champions were just as good as the NBA playoff teams and champions. Teams like the New York Nets, Richmond Squires and Indianapolis Pacer because they had players like Julius Erving, Artis Gilmore, George Gervin and many others. 

What the ABA proved was that they were major league basketball and that they were an NBA caliber league if not better. And that they deserved to merge with with the NBA in the late 70s. Teams like the Nets, Pacers, Rockets, Nuggets, Jazz, are all in the NBA right now and for the most part all making money and prospering.

Classic Canada Sports: NHL Expansion Documentary

Source:Classic Canada Sports- A look at the Oakland Seals, from the old WHA.

"An ESPN Classic Canada documentary of NHL Expansion from 1967-1999."

From Classic Canada Sports

The National Hockey League up until the late 1960s were a six team league, just six franchises in the whole league representing two huge countries physically Canada and America. Spanning from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans, until they expanded in the late 1960s in major markets like Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, St. Louis, Denver, Los Angeles, Washington in the mid 1970s. The National Hockey League spent its first fifty- years or so trying to prove to North America, especially America that they were even a major sports league, they've passed that test since, but they had a hard time expanding anywhere.

The NHL was reluctant to expand which is good reasons for the World Hockey Association. Not sure why they called it that because they were only in two countries, but it's good for major league hockey in North America that they came into business in the early 1970s. Because they proved in just seven seasons that major league hockey could work in both Canada and America and went into markets like Hartford, Cleveland, Quebec, Winnipeg, Denver, Edmonton and others. Giving pro hockey players more of a choice in where they could play in what league and for what team. 

The WHA proved that major league hockey could work in North America that the NHL was trapping it's player in having to play for one team even after their contract expired. And that the NHL wasn't doing a very good job in attracting as many fans as they could. The WHA was able to do as well as they did in that brief seven-year window that they had because they were able to attract talent that should've been in the NHL. But that the NHL let slide away from them because again they were trying to keep them with one club not letting see for themselves what else was out there. 

But also players that should've been in the NHL, but there just wasn't enough room for them because again up until the late 1960s again the NHL only had six clubs. Which meant great players like forwards Bobby Hull, Gordie Howe, Wayne Gretsky who I guess the NHL thought was too small. But all Wayne Gretsky did was show the world that he might be the best hockey player who ever played. But you could also make a case for Gordie Howe as far as who's the greatest all around hockey player of all-time, but thats a different debate. 

And without the WHA maybe the NHL doesn't have thirty clubs today, because maybe they wouldn't of taken chances on markets like Nashville, Tampa, Miami, Raleigh, Denver, San Jose etc. And maybe they are still a small league just trying to survive like the Major Indoor Soccer League or something. The WHA was a success because a lot of their clubs were able to become part of the NHL. Like the Winnipeg Jets, Edmonton Oilers and others. And proved that major league hockey can succeed in North America. And without the WHA, the NHL is probably not as successful as it is today.

Real Time With Bill Maher: Talks About Ron Paul

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- talking about U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas)

"This discussion was from episode 224. I apologize for the odd jitters in the video inbetween." 

From Real Time With Bill Maher

There was a time when Bill Maher considered himself a Libertarian, at least in the sense that he didn't want big government in his personal and economic affairs. But not what's called an Anarcho-Libertarian today who is someone who essentially believes that there's essentially no place for government at all. 

There are Anarcho-Libertarians that believe that law enforcement arresting suspects for possible crimes is a form a kidnap. Bill Maher never believed that and I don't think Representative Paul ever believed that. 

But Bill Maher has always believed that government shouldn't try to tell people how they should live and should stay out of our business as long as what we're doing is our business and we're not hurting innocent people. Which is what I've always believed as a Liberal and what Classical Liberals believe, that government should regulate who people interact with each other , but not prohibit consensual behavior amongst adults.

This was Bill Maher up until 2009 or so. I believed except for private firearms that Maher has always believed that government should stay out of the private affairs of individuals.  But where's he changed has to do with economic policy where he's become a Democratic Socialist. And has just as much in common with Socialist U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont on economic policy, as he has in common with Representative Paul on social issues. 

Maher has moved big government from our bedroom and personal lives and has stuck it into our wallets and bank accounts. He's said that government should be running schools, health care, health insurance, pensions and not have the private sector involved here. 

Senator Sanders is a strong supporter of personal freedom even in the area of firearms and being a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Bill Maher would outlaw private ownership of firearms. But the rest of Maher's socially liberal stances are intact. Including free speech and being one of the strongest opponents of political correctness.

Terms like Socialist-Liberal and Libertarian-Socialist, sort of get thrown out there especially on social media. And are terms I've used myself, but what do they actually mean? I define Socialist-Liberal as someone who is socialist on economic policy and a big believer in the welfare state and that private enterprise needs to be heavily taxed and regulated and private income needs to be heavily taxed, but that private property and ownership should exist. But who is very liberal in the classical and real sense on social issues and a big believer in personal freedom. 

A Socialist-Liberal is a collectivist on economic policy, but an individualist on personal issues and doesn't want big government interfering and prohibiting the private behavior of consenting adults. But back in 2007 Bill Maher was with Ron Paul on a lot of issues and wanted him to be the next President of the United States. I believe it was really the Great Recession and the Tea Party, that moved Maher way to the left on economic policy. While maintaining his very liberal views on social issues.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

History Channel: 'Cults- Dangerous Devotion: Decoding The Past'

Source:Movies Found Online- From a History Channel documentary about cults.

"Cults - Dangerous Devotion (Decoding the Past)"

From The History Channel

I believe it's the common wisdom that for people to be member of cult groups, that there's clearly something wrong with them. They have some mental disease, that no one else has picked up on or thought it was a big enough problem that it needed to be addressed. That all cultists (lets call them) are ex-convicts or have spent time in mental institutions, thats clearly not the case. All you have to do to know that, is to look at the Manson Family from the late 1960s.

Most if not all the members of the Manson Family, were all educated, headed for college if they wanted it. And all came from middle to upper middle class families, all with loving parents. Except for their leader Charlie Manson, who had a at least borderline nightmarish childhood, never knowing his father. A mother who didn't want him and wasn't prepared to raise him, who got passed around from house to house, who I believe never even attended high school, at least on the outside. Jonestown is another example of that where either their leader in Jonestown was well educated and very intelligent.

But Jim Jones was also borderline evil and became a very dangerous man responsible for the murders of hundreds of people. Jonestown again was made up of young middle class people who were somewhat lost in life and not sure where they were going. Who hated the injustices they saw in life and were looking for an escape. They were essentially a collection of Socialists who were looking for an opportunity to build a Socialist Utopia. This was the vision of Jonestown that was to be set up in the jungles of Guyana. A communitarian lifestyle where the cultists would live off of each other and live off the land.

It's not so much the mentally ill that are targets of these cult groups, but people who have talents, intelligence, abilities, but are not sure where they are going in life. These are the people that get picked up by these groups, because these cult leaders see potential in these people, that they want to exploit and take advantage of in all sorts of ways. The Manson Family and Jonestown are perfect examples of this.

People who tend to fall in these cult groups, tend to be looked down from people on the outside, who don't understand cult groups as stupid or crazy. "Look at those nuts or morons they deserved what they got". That sort of thing when people who fall into these groups could be the next door neighbor in a middle class or wealthy community. These groups tend to be made up of people who are somewhat lost in life and looking for a break from reality. 

Slave Obey's: Blind Faith- Expose on the Potter's House Family of Churches

Source:Slave Obey's

The Religious-Right in America are people who are theocratic Christians and would like to see an official religion in the United States, who would completely rewrite the United States Constitution and make it look like a fundamentalist religious document. This is why I call this political faction in America thats on the far-right a religious-cult. 

Thats exactly what the Religious-Right is, a lot of these people are either very ignorant or brainwashed or a combination of both. And view people that the country as a whole tends to tolerate and not look down on as immoral people. Such as homosexuals, adulterers, gamblers, people who watch adult entertainment to use as examples. All things that the Religious-Right would like to outlaw in America. 

Other Americans might not approve of these activities. But tend to look at it as "the individuals business and we do not need big government interfering with how individuals live their own lives". And so-fourth, but with the Religious-Right its another ball game. They just don't look down at these activities, but see them as immoral and Un-American and needs to be outlawed all together. This is why I call the Religious-Right in America a religious cult. 

Buddy TV: Anna Torv- 'Talks About Fringe Season Five'

Source:Buddy TV- Actress Anna Torv, talking about Season Five of Fringe.

"Anna Torv (Olivia Dunham) talks about her character in 'Fringe' season 5:Buddy TV

For more 'Fringe' recaps, news, photos and interviews visit us on:Buddy TV."

From Buddy TV

I've never seen the show Fringe, except for a few minutes of its reruns that was once on a channel that is now called SCI, that use to be called Discovery Science. But I would like to see a few shows of it in the future, if for no other reason that to see Anna Torv in it. Because I gotta be honest, reading the synopsis of it online, was not an attention grabber for me. You would have to be either an X Files junky or a sci-fi junky in general, which I'm not to be into fringe.

Fringe is about this made up division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, that is run by the Department of Homeland Security. Well anyone in America familiar with the FBI and DHS, knows that the FBI is not part of DHS. So that is one problem for Fringe, but it gets worst for me. Because the Fringe unit so to speak on the show's job is to investigate the abnormal. Crimes that can't be explained, supernatural events. Which is just not my cup of tea.

I like cop shows and law enforcement show in general, especially if they involve detectives or other investigators, that are believable and based on realty. That is just who I am as both a Liberal and as a person that I'm into things that are believable and credible and go where the evidence takes me. And that is just not Fringe, but what Fringe looks like is another one of those trendy supernatural detective shows, part of that genre that the Sci-Fi Network and FOX made popular in the late 1990s and the last ten years. 

You can also see this post at The Action Blog, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Action Blog, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

Kerry Lynne: Miranda Lambert- Baggage Claim

Source:Kerry Lynne-Miranda Lambert's Baggage Claim.

“Miranda’s new single from her album “Four The Record” that comes out 11.1.11 (: the end is the best part so watch all the way through .. or you could just fast forward.”

Source:Kerry Lynne- Miranda Lambert in concert.

From Kerry Lynne

Miranda Lambert I believe is from rural Texas and looking at her background and her personality she’s about as country as a country girl can be. And I mean that in a good way, she’s real and she knows who she is and where she comes from. And isn’t ashamed of that and never afraid to be who she is. And I have a lot of respect for people like that. And I try to be the same way and hopefully I’ve succeeded. I know who I am and where I’m from and proud of it. And not or ever afraid to express it either because it’s real.

This is who Miranda is that she’s basically telling the world to  deal with it the best you can and accept it or not. But she’s not changing who she is because she knows who she is. And that’s the only person she knows how to be. Miranda Lambert is a real person not a phony wannabe something else that she’s not and she not changing who she is.

I’m a what a call a blues rock fan, which is essentially classic rock mixed in with rhythm and blues. I’m a big fan of Eric Clapton and consider him the king of this style of music. I’m also a big fan of Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band for similar reasons.

I also like Tina Turner and Dave Matthews as well as Sheryl Crow. As well as Jim Morrison, Jimmy Hendrix who I consider to be the best guitarist of all time. And Janis Joplin, Carlos Santana and Aaron Neville to a certain extent. Aerosmith is my favorite band and who I consider to be the best classic rock band in the world if not all-time. And they have a blues sound to their music to a certain extent, but they’re mostly a classic rock band with a great sound. And the best in the business as far as I’m concern. So when I hear someone playing this style of music and they sound like they have a good idea what they’re doing, especially if you wouldn’t of guessed that they play this music, I take notice which brings me to Miranda Lambert.

Miranda Lambert is a country singer, or at least has that’s in her background. But she has a hell of a voice for classic rock or even blues rock. And she mixes classic rock into her music and sometimes sings pure classic rock songs.

Miranda even has a version of Joan Jett’s rock classic, I love Rock and Roll. And if anything I think she sounds better singing it because I think she has a better singing voice than Joan Jett. Who I also have a lot of respect for who’s also a excellent classic rock artist. And who’s still going very strong now in her early 50’s.

Miranda Lambert has a song called Gunpowder and Led, which is what I would call a country rock, mixture of the two. For anyone who thinks they could never like a country singer or any other form of country music, listen to a few of them from time to time you might be positively surprised. Because a lot of them are not pure country singers and combine other sounds into their music.

Miranda Lambert is an example of a country singer who has successfully made a transition from country to classic rock without forgetting who she is and where she came from.  

You can also see this post at The Action Blog, on Blogger.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on Blogger.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

Real Time With Bill Maher: 'Penn Jillette Explains His Libertarian Philosophy'

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- Comedian Penn Jillette, on Real Time With Bill Maher in 2011.

"From Real Time With Bill Maher, October 14, 2011."

From Real Time With Bill Maher

If you listen to the Republican Party in recent years, like the Tea Party movement, you might think they are the individual freedom, limited government, anti-government political party. "Let free people live their own lives and be free, we shouldn't spend more than we take in. And should only spend more than we need to". Unless you focus on social issues like marijuana, abortion, gay marriage, practice a non-Christian religion or no religion at all, sleep with or pay a prostitute, sell yourself for sex, gamble your own money have an adulterous affair, because you aint getting enough at home, check out pornography etc.

And if you have a pretty good understanding of American politics you might think, actually they sound more like an authoritarian big government party to me. What happened to the limited government individual freedom of choice party. If you listen to the Democratic Party at least the activists in the party except for the Progressive Caucus and their allies you might think they are the individual freedom, limited government party. "Let free people live freely and live their own lives". If you hear their positions on gay marriage, immigration reform, civil rights, anti-war, drug reform, decriminalization of Marijuana.

All issues I tend to agree with the Left and Right on as a Liberal Democrat. Until you get to the Progressive Caucus and their positions on economic policy with all the tax cuts they want to repeal and new taxes they want to pass to double the size of the Federal Government. Take away our freedom of choice in health insurance if not health care all together, as well as all of the high taxes they would impose.

If the Progressive Caucus/Progressive Party bringing their version of what progressivism is building a Great Society through government and high taxes people "don't worry about living your own lives and making it on your own. We'll do that for you by taking your money away and giving you back what we feel you deserve" ever got into power and you may say to yourself, again if you follow American politics. "Wait a minute these Progressives aren't big believers in individual freedom, limited government, freedom of choice either".

At least not on economic policy, I don't like big government socialism either. And if you're a Liberal such as myself or a Libertarian, you take the positions that you get to keep most of the money you earn. Smoke a joint, be in love and marry someone of the same sex. Defend yourself, watch a porno flick, pay someone to have sex, sell yourself for sex. Without your big Uncle Sammy getting on you about it and grounding you and locking you in a room until you learn your lesson.


If you're a believer in individual freedom and freedom of choice, great we have a big club, but we are always looking for new members. Membership is free and you won't have to pay taxes on it, as long as the Progressive Caucus is not in power and you won't have Uncle Sammy breathing down your neck because he thinks you might be a terrorist because you support Individual Freedom, as long as long as Neoconservatives aren't in power either.

Uncle Sammy has already been banned from our club anyway, we just have one rule though and you have to pass a test first. You have to know what limited government and individual freedom are before you can join the club. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

Reason: Nick Gillespie- 'The 2000s, Worst Decade Ever'

Source:Reason Magazine- Gore V Bush.

"Hands down, the '00s were the worst political decade at least since the 1990s.

Reason.tv celebrates the (lack of) personalities, the scandals, and the screw-ups that made us all want to forget the first 10 years of the 21st century.

Approximately 2.10 minutes. No politicians were hurt in the making of this video.

Produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie."

From Reason Magazine

I'm going to try to get through this blog without sounding like a partisan hack which will be difficult. Because if you're on the Right and ideologically disagree with me, you're probably going to disagree with this blog. Call it a hunch, but think about these facts for a minute, I know thinking for a whole minute thats like 60 seconds how do you get through that sober, but think about these things for OK 60 seconds and then take a deep breath.

When we close out the 1990s (and yes you're correct if your thinking 20th Century) America was at peace, we had a booming economy of something like 5% economic growth and a 4.5% unemployment rate, record low poverty level in the United States of around 13%, we just balanced three straight Federal budgets. The first balanced budget since 1969 and we haven't balanced one since. Our Federal Government only spent around 18-19% of GDP, instead of 25% like today. (A number I would like to get back to in a future blog)

The stock market hit 10K for the first time in American history I believe in 1998 and as powerful as Monica Lewinski was, she wasn't able to stop any of that success. We got through a Gulf War, the Balkan Wars, the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 by an Anglo-Saxon Christian man, not by a Middle Eastern terrorist that was stereotyped. The 1995 Federal Government shutdown, deficit reduction, two East African embassy bombings and America remained the Land of the Free, unless you were gay or smoked or sold pot.

Now lets move ahead to a completely new century and decade which sounds like forever right, actually move ahead from December 31, 1999 to January 01, 2000. You can literally get their in a second where we have a presidential candidate whose famous thanks only to his father in George W. Bush and the other presidential candidate who on paper looks like has the qualifications to be President of the United States. But can't beat the guy who had to cheat off the person who could barely speak english to graduate high school. (Paper doesn't win elections candidates and incumbents do)

Better known as Bush V. Gore or Gore V. Bush you get the idea and we were treated to new phrases like hanging chads, dimple chads, over-votes, under-votes, not knowing who the next President was going to be a month after the election. A 50-50 Senate in 2001 basically favoring Senate Democrats, a divided Congress with a Democratic Senate and a Republican House from 2001-03. Two unpaid for tax cuts, two Middle Eastern wars where we've borrowed all the money to pay for them now 2T$ and counting, a 500B$ Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit again all borrowed money.

Kerry-Bush in 2004 where again a schmuck for a President who locks himself out of his own Oval Office who declares Mission Accomplished and Victory in Iraq, just one problem there. President Bush was 8 1/2 years early, ah damn I forgot about 9/11, the Republican Party losing Congress in 2006. Thanks to the Afghan and Iraqi Wars all this happening in ten years and there's more. I disagree that the 2000s are the worst decade of all time or either in my lifetime, I believe the 1970s was worst even though I was only alive for four years of it. And actually only remember 1978-79 parts of it because I started nursery school then.

But the 2000s if I wasn't a political, current affairs and history junky I wouldn't want to relive or go through another decade like that because we've paid a heavy price for it and have had some of our individual liberty taken away from us. With things like the Patriot Act and is a decade that we'll be paying for at least another decade if not two decades with all of the money we've run up on the national debt card.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- President Obama Rips Governor Romney in Final Debate

Source:The Young Turks- Mitt vs. Barry in 2012, oh those were the days.

Source:The Young Turks

Trying to tell the difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare is like trying to tell the difference between a couple of lemons. You have to feel each of them, look closely, get into the details. But on paper they are essentially the same plans. Expanding private health insurance through tax credits, patient protections and requiring that all Americans pay for their share of their health care.

But other than health care reform, telling the difference between Mitt Romney, depending on which Mitt he decides to be based on what day it is, how the wind is blowing, how the weather is, which clone he decides to be that day, it can be very difficult without x-ray vision. They are very different on Iraq and Afghanistan and Iraq. Mitt believes we should stay there, Barack believes we should get the hell out.

Mitt and Barack are different on deficit reduction. Mitt apparently believes that we can cut the debt and deficit, raising taxes on the poor and focusing on around 15% of the Federal budget. Or 555B$, he doesn't want to eliminate all of that by the way. Thats the non-defense and entitlement parts of the Federal budget. President Obama believes everything should be on the table, except raising taxes on the poor.

They are different on growing the economy. Mitt believes in more tax cuts and subsidies for corporate America and rich people. I don't have a problem with the tax cuts, if it comes with eliminating tax loopholes. Which Mitt views as tax hikes. Apparently Mitt believes that if you eliminated all taxes on the wealthy and corporate America. And then eliminate all of the tax loopholes as well, Mitt would call that tax hikes, because you would be giving them less money. ( Talk about fuzzy math ) I believe thats what would come under George W. Bush's definition of fuzzy math.

The President believes the way to grow the economy is to rebuild the country, its public infrastructure, infrastructure investment. Developing a national energy policy that would expand and create new energy industries in America. Putting millions of Americans back to work, as well as incentivizing people to spend money in the country. Including tax cuts for the middle class that need tax relief. Here a few areas where Mitt and Barack unfortunately are similar and why I'm disappointed with President Obama as a Liberal Democrat and it relates to social issues and civil liberties.

Mitt and Barack both support the Patriot Act, indefinite detention and the War on Drugs. You expect Republicans today to take these Big Government positions. If Mitt Romney was truly a Liberal as critics in the GOP call him and if he's a Liberal, the majority of people living in the Bible Belt are Muslims. If this was the case, then Mitt Romney would be against these things. If Barack Obama was a real Liberal and not a Moderate Liberal he would be against these things as well. And this is where the President has been disappointing and why Liberal Democrats are taking a look at Gary Johnson the Libertarian Party nominee for president.

There's plenty of differences between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama that Ray Charles could see. I just wish there were a hell of a lot more. So to call them twins or clones, is inaccurate. Mitt Romney already has a clone but his name is Mitt Romney as well. And thats the only twin or clone that he needs.

FORA-TV: PJ O'Rourke: 'Conservatives & Fiscal Responsibility'

Source:FORA-TV- Political satirist P.J. O'Rourke, at the National Press Club in Washington, talking about the lack of fiscal responsibility in the Republican Party.

"Political satirist P.J. O'Rourke criticizes the fiscal irresponsibility of recent conservative legislators. He says the poorest and least advantaged always suffer the most from any of the "three ways to pay for the electorates' fiscal irresponsibility.

Deliberately offensive, determinedly provocative and extremely funny, PJ O'Rourke is the conservative journalist and satirist that makes even lefties laugh.

In Australia recently as a guest of the Centre for Independent Studies, he used this talk at the National Press club to deliver a scattergun critique of conservatism.

During the Q&A session he answers questions about gun control, the GFC and his personal drug use. - Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Patrick Jake O'Rourke is an American political satirist, journalist, and writer. Born in Toledo, Ohio, he was educated at Miami University (Ohio) and Johns Hopkins University."

From FORA-TV

What is fiscal responsibility, well to me that means spending what you have and can afford and nothing else. You don't have to be a Conservative to believe in that, just have common sense. Just like you don't have to be an American to like apple pie, but if you are an American you probably have more access to apple pie than let's say if you're a Chinese living in, I don't know let's say China. ( Just to use as an example)

But you would think Conservatives would believe in fiscal responsibility, because how often they preach about responsibility. But of course New Gingrich has preached about family values in the past, haven't heard one of his sermons lately, no idea why. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact he had an affair with one of his staffers when he was Speaker of the House.

Well, the right-wing will say that President Bill Clinton had an affair with a White House intern. But Bill Clinton doesn't preach about family values, kinda the way Fidel Castro doesn't preach about the need for democracy in Russia. His consistency would be severely lacking there for obvious reasons. Which gets me to the point about the current Republican Party, the Party of Reagan. Low taxes, economic liberty, individual responsibility, they use to be the party of fiscal responsibility. Until they woke up and realized they had a Republican President and Congress back in 2003.

In 2003 when the Republican Party had just won back the Senate, to go along with the House that they already had and President George W. Bush, decided who needs fiscal responsibility, Congress has the authority to borrow at will. "If it's legal, then it must be the right thing to do". Kinda like someone using the logic: "everyone else is doing it, (fill in the blank) it must be all right". Well if all these people (not everyone literally, I hope) stuck knives up their noses until they were massively bleeding, would you do that to. Sometimes you have to use your own judgement and not play follow the leader like a six-year old.

By the way, the Republican Party woke up again in 2009 and noticed that there was a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress with a 10T$ federal debt and a 1T$ deficit and decided: "oh boy (or something to that affect) now we'll be the party of fiscal responsibility and blame Democrats for the problems we created! Thats our ticket back to power!' Or at least some power and it worked. The GOP won back the House of Representatives in 2010. In case you've been in a coma for a few years, or vacationing in a cave in Afghanistan, if you were doing those things, I hope you have some pictures or brought back some kabob. Or even survived the experience, I heard there's a war going on over there or something.

I'm not saying the Democratic Party is innocent here, even though I'm a Democrat we have what's called the Progressive Caucus made up of a bunch of 21st Century Socialists and want to move America to Sweden. Well, actually design our Federal Government around the Swedish Government and double the size of our Federal Government. And if you think you pay too much in taxes right now, move to Sweden because your taxes would be lower there if the so-called Progressive Caucus/Party ever came to power in America.

What was great about America back in the day lets says 1980s and 90s, is you had a real Conservative Republican Party in the classical sense and a real Liberal Democratic Party again in the classical sense. And of course you had your whack jobs, that would escape from the mental institution or get released by a drunk doctor and run and get elected to Congress. But those people weren't in charge, the adults in both parties were. Today the whack jobs in both parties have enough power, that if you don't do exactly what they want, you may get fired.

Democrats and Republicans today who are not to sound crazy, may face a primary challenge which is why almost nothing gets done anymore because the adults in both parties don't have enough power to do what they want to do. And are afraid to work with the other side and if you're a believer in limited government like myself thats not always a bad thing. The least the Federal Government does, the more power the people have. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

USFL History: USFL Comes Back

I have already written a blog about why the United Sates Football League failed in the mid 1980s and how it could've succeeded. So I'm not going to focus too much on that but the reasons why the USFL could've succeeded and still be in business today are the same reasons how a USFL could make it today, because there are enough non NFL markets in America, to support a USFL franchise. And enough good NFL caliber players, to make the USFL work today, who maybe aren't ready for the NFL yet or have been overlooked and just need that one shot to make it.

The NFL is somewhat short on quarterbacks offensive lineman, defensive lineman and there are plenty of NFL players, that simply aren't ready to be stars in the NFL today. And need time to develop and when they are sent out to play now, they simply don't look ready to play yet, but if they are playing in the USFL and given a chance to develop and play and not have to worry about playing against the best football players in the World, then the pressure is off to a certain extent instead of trying to live up to some huge contract that they signed and would be better off starting in the USFL.

Put those players in the USFL, they would be surrounded by good young players, who just need time to develop or that shot to be a good NFL or USFL player. The USFL could serve as either a developmental league for the NFL or they could end up, however they develop their players and are able to attract players to their league perhaps one day end up being part of the NFL or perhaps merging with the Canadian Football League, the USFL and maybe we could end up with some type Continental Bowl in the future.

But in the short-term, the USFL needs to be about developing NFL players, that aren't ready to be in the NFL yet or players that are so far down on the depth chart, that they aren't getting a chance to develop. And they need do this by being a spring league at least in the beginning, basically starting training camp and Preseason after the Super Bowl and playing in major non NFL markets. Again a big reason why the USFL failed, was because they were in big NFL markets, like Washington, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Detroit, Chicago etc.

The USFL can't do that again and need to go to places like, Orlando, Birmingham, Memphis, perhaps Columbus, Ohio, San Antonio, Portland, Salt Lake, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, perhaps San Jose or Sacramento. Major big cities like this that want pro football but don't have an NFL Franchise yet that would especially support a USFL franchise in the spring. And you take the players from the NFL or were overlooked by the NFL, that are simply not ready to play full-time in the NFL yet, thats how the USFl could succeed.

Gloria Estefan Vevo: Gloria Estefan & The Miami Sound Machine 1-2-3

Source:Gloria Estefan Vevo- Gloria Estefan and The Miami Sound Machine.

"Music video by Gloria Estefan performing 1-2-3. (C) 1987 Sony BMG Music Entertainment"

From Gloria Estefan

This song is a good song in the sense that it has a good beat and rhythm to it. Very uptempo and a good enough band for it. But I believe the main reason why Gloria Estefan broke up with The Miami Sound Machine is because she was too big for them. She was a soon to be a superstar and her band was basically a local band that didn’t do much more with their careers after she left them.

I believe the only memorable moments from the 1-2-3 video is Gloria Estefan herself. She just looked and sounded incredible. She really is a beautiful, adorable, sexy woman when she looks good. And checking her out in that black leather jacket, the blue Levi’s, the black leather chaps, the black leather boots. She looked like this gorgeous sexy biker chick at a rock concert. And this video moves so fast with Gloria moving all over the place having a great time and moving with her band.

Gloria reminds me a lot of Alannah Myles in her Black Velvet video from 1989 where she’s wearing the black leather biker jacket with black leather chaps over black denims , with the black leather boots. And both Gloria and Alannah have great voices as well and just makes for a very entertaining music video.

The other memorable thing about this video is that it was shot at the Miami Arena in 1987 or 88 before Miami had either an NBA or NHL franchise. Just wish she did more videos like this and did them as a solo artist in the 1990s and now she’s not only be seen as a great singer, but very beautiful and sexy singer who has great talent, but also looks great. Similar to how Alicia Keys and Janet Jackson, Mariah Carey, Shakira and many other great female musical artists are seen today.

But there will always be 1-2-3 and this concert is also available on YouTube and you can buy it on DVD as well and be able watch her sing and move around all you want. 

You can also see this post at The Action Blog, on WordPress.

WWE: King Kong Bundy vs Jake Roberts- January, 1987

Source:WWE- King Kong Bundy. I would say the nickname goes with him like burgers go with fries.

"Live from the Philadelphia Spectrum 10th January 1987" 

From Wrestling With Paul

On paper, this looks like a total matchup. Jake Roberts, maybe 260 and in great shape with a lot of that weight being muscle on his 6'5-6'6 frame, but King Kong Bundy at 475, maybe bigger than that and he does look like a big fat man, obese even, but a lot of that weight was actually bulk and muscle. Similar to Andre The Giant, but King King was a foot shorter. So this looks like a mismatch. But to sound corny: pro wrestling matches aren't won on paper. They're won in backrooms by the producers of these shows. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

ABC Sports: NASL 1977- Dallas Tornado @ New York Cosmos: Full Game

Source:ABC Sports- the NASL on ABC in 1977.

"24/4/1977 New York Cosmos VS Dallas Tornado - full game" 

From MVP MItsui

You might recognize the Vern Lundquist's voice who called this game for ABC Sports. He's the voice of college football, at least for CBS Sports and is the voice of Southeastern Conference, at least for football and one of the best college football announcers ever. 

Vern Lundquist was also an excellent NFL announcer for CBS Sports in the 1980s and 1990s. But before the 1980s, Lundquist was the voice of the Dallas Cowboys on radio in the NFL and the Dallas Tornado in the NASL on TV. And is someone I grew up listening to in the 1980s and is one of my favorite sports announcers. 

WWE Smackdown: King of The Ring 2002- Hulk Hogan vs Triple H: World Heavyweight Championship

Source:WWE- Smackdown showing the World Heavyweight Championship match between Hulk Hogan and HHH, at Backlash.

"Triple H Vs Hulk Hogan 720p HD Full Match" 

From WWE Shield 

A great World Championship match, I just wish Hulk Hogan was 10-15 years younger in it. 

According to WWE announcer Jim Ross who is at least arguably the voice of pro wrestling, similar to how Keith Jackson has that honor college football and and Pat Summerall has that honor for NFL football, HHH at this point in his career, didn't view himself as a power wrestler. Even though he's 6'4, 270 pounds or so, bigger than Sting and about the same size Lex Lugar, two of the best power wrestlers ever. 

Perhaps HHH wants to viewed as a great pure wrestler and the big strong heavyweights the guys who are 260 or bigger and mostly if not all muscle don't tend to be great pure wrestlers and they generally don't need to be, because they're so big and strong. 

But when you are as big and strong as HHH, especially back in the early 2000s when he was always 270 or bigger, with almost no body fat, on a 6'4 frame and you have the devastating power moves that he had like the pedigree and the reverse spine-buster, of course you are a power wrestler. And HHH is one of the best ever. 

WWE: Night of Champions- World Heavyweight Championship: Kane vs. Undertaker (2010)

Source:WWE- is there anyone who delivers the leg drop better than The Undertaker, including Hulk Hogan?

“A sibling rivalry is renewed as Kane defends the World Heavyweight Championship against The Undertaker at WWE Night of Champions 2010: Courtesy of WWE Network.”

From WWE 

I know I’m bias here because The Undertaker is my favorite pro wrestler of all-time, at least when it comes to the super heavyweights. (300 pounds or more) Ric Flair might be my favorite all-time wrestler, but Undertaker is right there. But his so-called brother Kane is very close as far as athletic and wrestling ability, might be even stronger with a 20 pound or so weight advantage. But if Undertaker is not the best of WWE at the time, he’s always in the top 3. So I could give him a slight advantage over Kane.

Source:WWE- The Brothers of Destruction of the WWE.

When you are talking about Kane vs. Undertaker, you are talking about two of the best super heavyweights of all-time. Not just because they’re so big strong (even though that really helps) but also because both of them are so athletic, quick, fast even. You might think they were a couple of power forwards who both run the floor very well, who are both big and strong, going at it in the NBA. Like maybe Shawn Kemp vs Karl Malone. (For you old school NBA fans)

So anytime you see men this big and strong, who are all muscle, and so quick and athletic as well, going at it, you know it’s going to be a war, with a lot of physical punishment (even if it’s staged) and it’s just a mater of which one has the better conditioning and can avoid getting nailed by the other’s big moves, especially late in the match that will decide it. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Washington Senators: 1957 & 1959- A Little History of The Washington Nationals

Source:Chris Creamer's Sports Logos- The Senators: Washington's original MLB franchise. 

"Posts about the Washington Senators, a pair of of Major League Baseball teams. The original played in the American League from 1901-1960 before Calvin Griffith moved them and they become the Minnesota Twins. The second Senators franchise played from 1961-1971, until Bob Short moved them to the Dallas-Ft. Worth metroplex where they became the Texas Rangers."  

From William Yurasko

"Opening Days in 1957 & 1959 at Griffith Stadium.  Washington Senators vs. Baltimore Orioles" 

Source:Kay Jay- looks like Vice President Richard M. Nixon (Republican, California) at a Senators game in Washington.

From Kay Jay

I'm not sure that a lot of let's say younger Washington Nationals fans are aware of this, but there's actually history of Major League Baseball in Washington with the Washington Senators. That goes back to the early 1900s, or even further back then that that lasted up until the original Senators left for Minneapolis in the early 1960s. To when Washington was rewarded another MLB franchise in the early 1960s. 

Let's call the new Senators, Senators Two, that were basically counted on to finish last every year until they left for Dallas after the 1971 season. So before the Montreal Expose relocated to Washington after the 2004 season, MLB already had a long history in Washington and the Senators even won a World Series in 1924 and at least one other American League championship as well.

The Senators did play in the American League as well in the same league as the Orioles. Where the Washington-Baltimore regional rivalry could've started in the 1950s or 1960s. Instead just in the last few years as both franchises have struggled to become contenders and finally reached that status in 2012. With the state of both the Nationals and Orioles franchises and the fact they play in separate leagues. But play each in two series a year every year and into the indefinite future. With both clubs young and very talented and poised to be contenders for a very long time. 

The Orioles-Nationals, rivalry is not only going to be real, but a rivalry between two very good teams. Making baseball in the Washington-Baltimore region very good for a long time. And something fans of both franchises will look forward to every year.

The Senators, were like the Pittsburgh Steelers before the early 1970s when the Steelers finally became really good under Chuck Noll. The Senators, even though they actually had plenty of very good and great players, similar to the Steelers in the 1950s and 60s, were expected to and generally obliged to finish in last place in the American League. 

And again similar to the Steelers, the Senators from time to time would come up with a good team and have a winning season and perhaps even contend in the American League. But the Senators were always underfunded, because their ownership under Calvin Griffith and Later Bob Short, were always very cheap and had a hard time drawing fans to their games. But Washington, like most other big sports markets, tend to need good teams to watch in order to turn out for their teams.

The Senators, weren't losers because Washington was bad baseball city and market. They were losers, because they put a lot of bad teams on the field on an annual basis. Or wouldn't have the right manager, or coaching staff, or a combination of all of those factors. 

The Senators, wouldn't have left Washington either in 1960, or in 1971, had they simply been managed well and gave their fans reasons for coming to their games. 

Washington, was not the same city and market in 1971 that it is today. It's much larger today, but as the Redskins have shown when their teams commit to winning, their fans commit to them and turn out for the games. 

The Nationals of today, have a great ballpark and very good team, because their management is committed to winning and their fans are committed to them. The Senators, could have had that as well and still be here today. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Review, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.