C-SPAN: The 1960s & 1970s Protest Movement Against Richard Nixon: David Dellinger & Tom Hayden

Source:The Daily Journal

The Left, which is a diverse movement of Liberals such as myself who are center-left and more Progressive to Socialist Leftists in America, have been around a long time. And the Progressives emerged in the Progressive Era in the early 20th Century with their economic agenda that eventually became the New Deal in the 1930s. President Truman’s proposed Fair Deal that was to build on the New Deal, that never became law in the 1940s and then of course the Great Society of the 1960s.

Economic Progressives have been vocal and vibrant for really a hundred years now. But Social Liberals really didn’t emerge until the 1960s. They started coming alive in the 1950s when the civil rights movement came of age. But is really the 1960s when the Baby Boom Generation came of age that Social Liberals made their feelings known across the country on issues like civil rights. But we had a real anti-war movement then and a women’s movement, environmental movement as well as the homosexual movement. So homosexuals would be treated equally under law.

There are plenty of things that I like about the 1960s as a Liberal. The Hippie movement to me was really about individual freedom. Young Americans tired of being conformed to having to live one type of life. That Americans in previous generations lived and didn’t fit into the American life that their parents and grandparents. And so-forth lived under and decided to rebel and tell the establishment, “that we are not looking to overthrow you. And we are not dangerous, but we simply want the freedom to live our own lives.”

Thats what the mainstream Hippie movement was. And I like the civil rights movement of course and what came from that. But there was this fringe in the Hippie movement that was almost anarchist if not anarchist. That was not only anti-war and anti-Vietnam was and I would’ve been against the Vietnam War was if I was alive and an adult back then. But the problem I have with the anti-war movement was that it wasn’t just anti-war, but anti military all together. And treating soldiers, sailors, Marines, sailors like they were evil murderers or something which they weren’t, they were all American Patriots instead.

The Left at its best and the mainstream faction of it the Liberals represent the best of what Leftists and leftism have to offer America. This idea of Liberal Democracy, individual freedom and self-determination. A system where all Americans would benefit from and where we would all as a country have the freedom to chart our own course in life. And make out of it what we put into it. But like the Right, we also have a fringe from Socialists when it comes to economic policy and people who are called non-interventionists. Who only use violence to confront people they don’t like when they are doing something they don’t like. Like war to use as an example that give all Leftists a bad name.

Roger Dolittle: Video: Revolution Volume I: The Late 60s

Source:The Daily Press

Radicalism is certainly not new in American history. This country was certainly not founded by Moderates. But radical Liberals and Libertarians who wanted to be free from the United Kingdom and set up a Democratic Republic. Where the people would be free to live their own lives and not be subjects of the state or monarchy. So it was Liberal-Libertarians versus the British Monarchy in the late 1700’s that probably would’ve never given the British in the American colonies their freedom. And these new Americans were tired of living under the dictatorship of the British Monarchy and fought back and we had the American Revolution.

So back then radicals were part of the radical left. This crazy idea back then of individual freedom, was so foreign to really anywhere else in the world. And that’s how the American Republic was founded. So we’ve had radicals on the Left back in the 1700’s as well as the 1850s and 60s. Liberals pushing for freedom in the 19th Century they were pushing for freedom for all Americans. And fought to free the African slaves, which is one reason how the Civil War came about. Where Liberals wanted the African slaves free. Right-wingers wanted the Africans in the South to remain as slaves and property and the Federal Government trying to keep the union together.

Radical leftism went from a form of liberalism or libertarianism in the 1700 and 1800s to a form of socialism in the 1900s. And creating a safety net or even welfare state which started with the Progressive era in the early 1900s. And graduated to the New Deal in the 1930s and Great Society in the 1960s, to the anti-war movement of the 1960s. And then Liberals came back in the 1950s and 60s with the civil rights movement for racial minorities as well as homosexuals. And of course the environmental and women’s movement of the 1960s and 70s.

The establishment is sort of like the center the people with the power and anyone in this country whether they are Center-Left or Right. And the fringes of the wings are seen as radical because they are pushing for change and reform. And when the establishment is unwilling to change and even listen to the concerns and demands of the radicals, things can get very violent as we saw in the 1960s. But radicalism and violence in this country is certainly not new, but something that we’ve been able to tolerate.

We have a country the size of the United States both physically and in population, we are simply a huge country and power that has all the freedom that we have, both socially and economically. Including the constitutional right to self-defense and determination. So violence is always a possibility when people are unhappy and frustrated with the establishment to the point that they feel the establishment needs to be taken down.

ABC Evening News: March 1972: Campaign News

Source:The Daily Journal

One way to sum up the 1972 Democratic presidential primaries, is to say it went to the guy who was damaged the least. And not to the best candidate, because there was really never any real danger to President Nixon losing reelection. But about how big of victory he would get and what he would do with it. The Democratic race for president between Senator’s George McGovern, Ed Muskie, Hubert Humphrey and others, was great TV and very interesting. And a very good look inside of the Democratic Party was between its establishment Center-Left, that Senator Muskie and Senator Humphrey represented and the more social democratic New-Left that Senator McGovern represented in 1972.

The story about the Black Panthers a New-Left social democratic if not communist group interested in the state of the African-American community, was interesting. They were in and outside of the Democratic Party back then and much further left of the NAACP which is more of a progressive Center-Left civil rights organization who are definitely tied to the Democratic Party as their supporters are. The word militant is perfect for the Black Panthers, because that is what they were. And at the very least were linked and associated with known terrorists and criminals. And were accused of being part of terrorists acts in the 1970s. They were looking for a much more radical direction for the African-American community than the NAACP.

Apparently big business’s and other special interests on the Democratic Party and Republican Party was also a big issue in 1972. Of course it was which is why I still don’t know why Congress has never passed a full-disclosure law on all federal candidates and incumbents. Actually I do, because neither Democrats, or Republicans want to disclose who contributes to their campaigns. Because a lot of those contributors are controversial and Democrats and Republicans don’t want to officially be associated with groups like that. But that along with ending gerrymandering completely is the only way you weed out corruption in American politics. Because of how liberal our First Amendment is.

Tri-Star Pictures: The Freshman (1990) Matthew Broderick & Penelope Ann Miller

Source:Leather Girls- Matthews Broderick and Penelope Ann Miller.

Source:The Daily Times 

"The Freshman (1990) - leather scene HD 720p. Penelope Ann Miller in leather skirt and jacket."

From Leather Girls

I’m not going to say The Freshman is a bad movie, because I don’t think it is. I guess I could lie about that, but I’m not, but it is certainly a very overrated preppy kind of snobby movie. With a lot of cheesy writing, especially considering this movie is at least partially about a Italian-American gangster played by Marlin Brando, or former gangster.

And movies like this don’t tend to sound so Connecticut or upper Manhattan. They don’t tend to sound so preppy and snobby and upper class, Anglo-Saxon, but this movie does at least to me. But this is one scene that I liked and it had mostly to do with Penelope Ann Miller. Who is a very funny actress and looks great in this leather suit I guess with the jacket and skirt. 

David Spada: Video: Slingin Sonny Jurgenson: The Redskins Gunslinger

Source:The Daily Press

To look at some of the shortcomings of former NFL QB Sonny Jurgenson, before I get into why he’s one of the top 10 QB’s of all time, maybe top five, those shortcomings are more about the teams that he played for. He played for very good teams in Philadelphia in the early 1960s and they started sliding by the mid 60s. The Eagles were annual losers by the late 60s and early 70s and Sonny gets traded to the Redskins in 1964. Who hadn’t had a winning season even since 1955, which would go on for another five seasons in Washington.

I’m not making excuses for Sonny, because he did play a long time without leading a team to a championship. Eighteen seasons from 1957-74 but for the most part, he played for a lot of mediocre teams. Where a good year was 7-7 or 7-5, 8-6. These are records that generally doesn’t get teams to the playoffs. So even as Sonny was playing for mediocre teams, he was a great QB on those teams, the best player on these teams. Doing every he can for teams that weren’t very good, had good players, great even, but not very good all around teams. Teams that struggled to win every week.

The way I describe Sonny Jurgenson, was a championship caliber QB who played on a lot of mediocre and even bad teams. I still believe that had Sonny played in Super Bowl 7 against the undefeated Miami Dolphins the Redskins would’ve given the Dolphins only loss that year. Because the Redskins did have a great team on both sides of the ball and I believe a better all around team than the Dolphins. That at least had more talent.

But of course Sonny was hurt with a busted ankle, so that didn’t happen, but the Redskins didn’t win championships in the 1960s and 70s because of Sonny Jurgenson. They weren’t very good in the mid and late 1960s because of the players they had around Sonny. No running game, a weak offensive line and a defense that probably gave up more points than Sonny and those great receivers put up every week. To where they were one of the highest scoring teams in the NFL every year, despite not having much of a running game.

I believe Dan Marino is the best QB of all time as far as just throwing the football. And had he had the running game and defense that Joe Montana had in San Francisco with the 49ers, Marino leads the Dolphins to four Super Bowl championships or more in the 1980s and 90s. We’ll never know that of course, but that’s how great Dan the man was. But no one handled the ball better than Sonny, as far as play action and knowing exactly when to throw the ball. And what to put on the ball, than Sonny.

I don’t believe a QB ever had better eye-hand coördination than Sonny. The ability to pick spots on the field as far when to throw the ball, how much to on the ball and where to throw the football. He was sort of like the Larry Bird of the NFL when it came to ball handling. And had great eye-hand coördination which is why he was such a great QB. Even though he never led a team to winning a championship.

Dolph Lundgren & Kristian Alfonso: Joshua Tree (1993)

Source:The Daily Press

I gotta admit, Joshua Tree or Army of One and this movie for some reasons has two titles depending on how you see it, or what network it is on, but this movie is not a very good movie. Sure it has a decent car chase and there are some pretty good action scenes and perhaps I'm just not much of a Dolph Lundgren who is mostly famous for Rocky 4, (sorry, I'm horrible with Roman numerals) fan. But this movie is worth watching for other reasons. George Segal is his usual smartass funny self. And Cristian Alfonso plays a great sexy tough cop, looking for her big case.

Dolph Lundgren plays an escape convict who of course is innocent of why he was put in prison. But he's hardly innocent of much else and gets a break and manages to escape from prison when their bus breaks down. He is a career criminal and learns that his best friend and partner has been murdered by the crooked cop, sergeant or lieutenant that put him away played by George Segal. So while he's out of prison he's on the run and kidnaps a rookie or somewhat inexperienced police officer played by Cristian Alfonso who it out of uniform and steals her pickup with her in it.

They are on the run together because he doesn't want to go back to prison and has her as her hostage. He won't hurt her though if she doesn't give him any reason to. She later takes his side even after attempting to escape from him and gets ditched by him in the desert when he believes he doesn't need her anymore. But she now believes that he's innocent of why he was put in prison and that the crooked cop and his crew are the bad guys here and does what she can to help him as a cop.

Not a good movie except for a few parts, but Cristian Alfonso simply looked great in it. The hot sexy baby version of Cristian that I wish she brought out more on Days of Our Lives is the Cristian we see in this movie. And she looks great and adorable kicking ass in her classic Levis denim jeans and boots and plays a hot sexy cop that I can't imagine any man his right mind would want to ditch. And she and Dolph save the day sort of and the bad guy and gal put away some bad cops.

CSI Miami: Rest in Pieces: Raquel Welch Stars on CSI

Source:CBS-

Source:The Daily Press

Raquel Welch would've been in her early 70s at this point and I guarantee you she was the best looking women on the show, at least that night. And CSI Miami has Eva Larue, who is also gorgeous and baby-face and well-built. And Emily Proctor, very attractive with a nice body, whose as cute as a little girl and at times at least sounds like one. But what makes Raquel a goddess for all-time, is that she doesn't seem to age, at least in public. She's always been hot and has always been baby-face adorable. Its just that the years she's lived have gone up every year.

I haven't actually seen this show, so I couldn't tell you how Raquel did on it. But I can tell you how she looked and the star power she still has on it, or CBS doesn't promote the show the way it did. An actress at this point when this episode came out in her early 70s, who still commands that much attention and who is still a goddess physically, looking better than beautiful women young enough to be her daughter and perhaps even her grand daughter, was probably unheard of twenty-years ago. But Raquel makes it seem so natural.
CBS: CSI Miami- Rest in Pieces: Raquel Welch Guest Stars

ABC News: Good Morning America: Robin Roberts Interviews Raquel Welch, Then and Now

Source:The Daily Press

Raquel made one interesting point that stood out with me in this interview. And perhaps she made others, but one thing definitely which is really true and perhaps especially in her case, is that men have a tendency with women to not so much listen to what they are saying, but how they say it and watch them say what they are saying. I simply love watching Raquel talk, because she’s still hot and always has been, but then you look at that big baby-face, with those beautiful round eyes and big cheeks and dimples and sweetie pie voice. She just makes guys want to go, awe!

Mariah Carey, speaking of hot baby-faces, has the same effect on me, but they are both interesting as well, so it is not as if I’m not hearing what they say. Raquel is gorgeous baby-face adorable women who still has a great voice and probably still sings very well, but she also has a great personality and is very funny and intelligent. And that is what she also wants the world to see, that even though she’s still a sex symbol and a Hollywood Goddess, that those things aren’t just physical with her, that there is more about her that people should pay attention to

CNN: NewsRoom: A Look at Rikers Island Jail

Source:FreeState Now

Rikers Island prison or jail is probably the size of a lot of prisons in big states. And part of that has to do with the fact that New York City is a city of 7.5-8M people, a size of a big state in America. Not a place any good and free person would want to go to, meaning Rikers Island, which is why we should never put ourself in a position that would land us in a jail/prison like that. 

But what Rikers is in the business to do, is to house defendants. Who are awaiting trial as well as inmates who are doing short sentences. Rikers does a very good job of. The inmates who behave themselves and have good records, are able to work and go to school as well as work on their own cases. And they can go to religious services if they choose to, as well as other rehabilitation services. 

Self-improvement services including drug treatment, which is a big reason why we have so many people in prison in this country. This is not just a jail where people are simply warehoused. But a place where they can make good use of the time that they do there, which should be purpose of jails and prisons.

Incredible Spank: Video: NWA 1981: World Heavyweight Championship Match: Terry Funk vs. Ric Flair

Source:The Daily Post

One of the things that I always respected about The Nature Boy Ric Flair the pro wrestler is that he always took on the best. At least the best that was available to take on at the time. One of his famous lines was that "to be the man, you have to beat the man". And then you would say something like "and pal you aint it". But the first part was dead on and that is how he approached pro wrestling whether he was a contender the the World Champion. The only thing he was interested in was being the best in the pro wrestling business.

Terry Funk is the perfect example of Ric Flair's style as a pro wrestler as far as who he took on. Because when Funk was wrestling full-time in America and his head was right, he was one of the best to the point he was NWA World Heavyweight Champion at one point. He might of even beaten Ric Flair for his title. And they had a great rivalry in the 1980s. Funk was essentially a great street fighter who was big and strong and took incredible risks physically as a pro wrestler that his body paid a heavy price for and still pays that price, but he was also a great pro wrestler.

Bernie Sanders: "Ronald Reagan Was Right": Bernie Sanders on Social Security

Source:The FreeState

Senator Sanders and President Reagan perhaps agreeing on something for the only time in their lives. That Social Security is not the cause of our debt and deficits. Well, not really, because within 20-25 years if nothing is done to reform the program we're going to see more people collecting from Social Security than collecting from it. Not sure what generation that Senator Sanders considers himself being a member of being born in late 1941, but having to deal with all of the cultural issues that every other Baby Boomer from the 1960s dealt with as young adults, but the Baby Boomers and perhaps Bernie considers himself to be a member of, are going to eat away at the Social Security program. Even Senator Sanders has suggested reforms to it. Like lifting the cap on the amount of income that could be taxed to fund Social Security. It is not just fiscal Conservatives who see issues with Social Security that should be addressed. Center-Left Democrats, such as myself and others who are in Congress, as well as even Democratic Socialists like Bernie Sanders, who believe changes to the program need to be made. To make the program as strong as it needs to be.

Days of Our Lives: Death by Doughnuts

Source:Real Life Journal

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.

John Stossel: Gary Johnson's Future in Politics

Source:FreeState Now

As a political outsider when it comes to the libertarian movement, I would like to see Gary Johnson Left-Libertarians/Social Liberals, take over the Republican Party or bring those people go over to the Libertarian Party. Along with having universal polling so all the third-party candidates get polled and universal ballot access. And at least get the third-party candidates in their own national TV debates. Even if they don't go up against the Democrats and Republicans directly. Which would not only save our two-party system, but expand it and keep up from going to a one-party system. With the Democratic Party having all the power. Because the Christian-Right and Neoconservatives, destroyed the Republican Party.

Maybe we would see the Gary Johnson. Liberal or Left-Libertarians merge with the Ron Paul classical Libertarians and either takeover today's GOP and run the Neoconservatives out of the party. Or at least out of leadership and run that party, even merge with what's ever left of the classical conservative movement. The Goldwater/Reagan coalition in the Republican party and make the GOP a real Conservative Republican party. Which is what they aren't right now. There are millions of Americans who love both economic and personal freedom, but who aren't anti-government. They just don't want government running their lives for them and just do the basics. Including a safety net for people who truly need it, as well as law enforcement, national security and foreign policy. But these voters don't have two major parties right now who speak for them.

The other option for Gary Johnson and Ron Paul, would be to combine their factions and both go over to the Libertarian party to build that party up for the long-term that would allow that party to be a strong enough third-party. And win some elections, some seats in some state legislatures, a governorship here or there, local council seats. And even win a few seats in Congress, and some House seats here, perhaps some Senate seats over here. But that would have to be a long-term strategy. Short-term they would be better off taking over and occupying the GOP. If Gary Johnson was simply polled like President Obama and Governor Romney were during this election, he might have been at 15-20 percent. Because again he speaks for millions of Americans who aren't looking to eliminate government. But get it back to doing only what we need it to do.

Understanding Power: Video: Noam Chomsky on Liberalism, Freedom & Democracy

Source:FRS FreeState

I have a lot of respect for professor Noam Chomsky's honesty and being able to communicate exactly where he is politically and being able to articulate what he thinks about other political ideologies. Noam Chomsky is an admitted Libertarian Socialist and very honest about that. Which means he's like a Social Democrat or Democratic Socialist on economic and foreign policy. 

But Noam Chomksy is a Liberal-Libertarian on social issues. So we probably agree on most social issues. Myself being a Liberal Democrat, but my issue with professor Chomsky has to do with the fact that he sort of has this "you are either with me or you are selfish and believe in selfishness and inequality. And that poor people should be kept down and so forth". He's somewhat exclusive with his politics, you either agree with him and share his politics completely, or you're a bad person or something. Its not that you disagree with him, but that you are a bad person all together. Which I don't have much respect for.

As far as libertarian socialism vs. liberalism, classical Liberalism even, I believe he's right for the most part. That people who are Liberals today, are not Social Democrats or even Progressives. But people who share my politics or are similar are actual Liberals instead, where people who are called modern Liberals, are essentially Socialists or Social Democrats. 

Today's so-called Progressives, Social Democrats who believe that the state, especially the Federal Government has a big role to play in taking care of the people. And insuring economic equality and that they are somewhat liberal on social issues, depending on what type of Progressive that they are.

The New Republic: Chuck Thompson: On Texas Secession

Source:FRS FreeState

Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas even seceding from the United States. Who the hell needs them from my point of view. They need us so they can fund their own roads and for all that welfare insurance they get from taxpayers in wealthy states. So their people don’t starve and so their kids can go to school and so-fourth. And do we really need a Alabama and a Mississippi in the union, couldn’t we get by with just one of them, or how about they combine and become one state. And we would have on less ignorant state in the union. And do we really need to Carolinas and two Virginia’s? I’m not looking for Virginia to leave the union, but do we need a Virginia and a West Virginia.

West Virginia, is not seceding. Even they know like the rest of the country that they need America more than America needs them. But South Carolina might be a different story and the idea of an African-American, not only being elected, but reelected President of the United States, is appalling to a certain percentage of South Carolinians. And they may leave the country, some of the nuts in that state. My whole point about this is that the people in these states that are considering leaving the United States, good riddance. As far as I’m concern and maybe they can move somewhere and start some new Confederate Republic like they tried in the 1860s. And even if these states were to secede, which will never happen because even these states have enough intelligent people in them to know better.

People who were perhaps educated outside of these states, to understand that they need America more than we need them. That as much as they may bash the U.S. Government and public assistance, a lot of their people still need that. Just to get by. Which makes this whole discussion a little ridiculous, because this will never happen. Texas, won’t leave the United States. They have the most uninsured people in the country per-capita. They need us again for the public assistance that they collect. America, needs Texas to become energy independent. And get off of foreign oil. Which would be a boom for both our economy and foreign policy. But if these third-world American states in the Southeast want to take a hike, I’ll help them pack. And see how well they can do on their own.

The Daily Beast: John Avlon, Meghan McCain & Mike Moynahan: Real Housewives of the CIA

SourceThe Daily Journal

Sounds like a real reality TV show in the works, perhaps Megan McCain will produce it. You heard that here first. As far as David Petraeus and his sex scandal, I guess this is the clincher that American politics and government is never boring and why we have a political junky industry. And for Progressives I guess who believe that America should be more like France, well we are when it comes to our public officials and how they live their personal lives. Political junky, is no longer just a hobby for unemployed politicians who can't seem to win another public office and keep losing. And spend all of their free time, which is really all of their time, especially if they have a Congressional pension, watching C-SPAN, CNN, MSNBC and FNC. But a way for writers and pundits to make their living. To tell Americans how much they don't know about American politics and government.

As far as Benghazi, if it wasn't for that story, what would House Republicans do? At least some of them like Speaker John Boehner, are smart enough to know they can't repeal ObamaCare in this Congress with a Democratic Senate and Democratic President, that the law is named after. Most of them probably never have any attention of leaving Congress, at least the House of Representatives. So they don't want to work with Senate Democrats to pass anything constructive that President Obama might actually sign. And risk being primaried and having to go home and work for a living. Like washing cars, or hosting radio talk shows, teaching gym in high school, or whatever they were doing in 2009 before they decided to run for the House. So all they have left in their one page playbook that a five-year could read is a bogus (to be too nice) Benghazi investigation.

Ayesha Omer: Riding a Motorcycle

Source:Ayesha Omer- getting on a motorcycle.

Source:The Daily Times

"Ayesha Omer riding a motorcycle."

Source:KZK News- Pakistani actress Ayesha Omer.

From KZK News 

“Pakistani Tv Actor Ayesha Omar showing sexy butt in blue jeans please like share comments and susbcribe for more videos.

Pakistani Tv Actor Ayesha Omar showing sexy butt in blue jeans please like share comments and susbcribe for more videos. Pakistani Tv Actor Ayesha Omar .

Pakistani Tv Actor Ayesha Omar showing sexy butt in blue jeans please like share comments and susbcribe for more videos. Pakistani Tv Actor Ayesha Omar .” 

Source:Anderson Sons- Pakistani actress Ayesha Omer.

From Anderson Sons 

This photo is from someone or some group that calls itself Pakistani First. But the video is not currently available online right now. 

I’ll be honest and say that I have no idea who the hell Ayesha Omer is. If someone told me that they were shooting their girlfriend in Miami, Florida and she is a local school teacher in Cleveland or some place, I would believe him. I mean why wouldn’t I, because again I have no idea who Ayesha Omer is.

When I saw this video I looked her up on Google to get a better idea who she is. And all I really saw was several photos of her and that she is from Pakistan and is a Pakistani actress. But from just seeing her in this video wants me to see more of her. Because she looks like someone who would make a very sexy beautiful biker chick and perhaps could do a lot more. So hopefully I’ll get to see more of her in the future. 

Rick Whitlow: Courtney's Body Shot

Source:Real Life Journal

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.

Manos: Video: Laura in Miss Sixty Leather Jeans in Boots

Source:The Daily Press 

Laura is my second favorite model at Leathered Life or Leather Babes. Not sure if they are two different sites, or one site that has changed its name. But whatever the case Laura only trails Lena for me at least as far as being their best and sexiest model. They both have height and not little cuties or petite women with out curves even if they are tall. They both have curves and tight curves. Two sexy women who look great in tight jeans, as well sexy women do. And they look great in leather jeans and Miss Sixty leather jeans. Laura has beautiful legs and a big beautiful butt, as you see in this video. And she knows how to showcase her features, as you see in her leather jeans in boots. And is a great model for them and I would just like to see more of her in leather jeans in boots.

NFL Films: NFL 1978-Philadelphia Eagles @ New York Giants: Miracle at The Meadowlands

Source:The Daily Press 

One of the interesting things about this game is that both the Eagles and Giants were still in the NFC Playoff race at this point. I believe this was week 11 maybe 12 in the NFL and I don’t think the Giants won another game in 1978 finishing 6-10. The Eagles made the NFC Playoffs in 1978 for the first time since 1960, but they were a 9-7 wildcard team that won some games that they shouldn’t of, like this one being an obvious example of that. And perhaps lost some games they shouldn’t of. And without this victory, the Eagles miss the playoffs again in 1978.

The obvious facts here are the Giants shouldn’t have ran the ball at all. They already had a kneel down play with QB Joe Pisarcik falling down on the ball on first down and then for some reason they ran the ball for an eleven yard gain on second down. But Pisarcik falls down on the ball two more times and the ball game is over, because the Eagles didn’t have any timeouts left. This is a game that makes or breaks a team’s season, especially if they are a borderline playoff team or even a borderline winning team. Like the Eagles and Giants were in 1978.

ABC Evening News- Senator Ted Kennedy's Potential Run For President in 1972

Source:The Daily Journal

Senator Ted Kennedy was still way too controversial to run for president in 1972. He wasn’t ready to run for president and was happy in the Senate being a Senator and being one of the largest voices in Congress, at least in the Democratic Party. Gaining seniority and influence in what happens in the Senate and Congress as a whole. Where he had a lot of friends in both the Senate and House. I sort of see him as his generation’s Paul Ryan. As someone who could have done more things outside of Congress, but was happy in Congress. Paul Ryan, now Speaker of the House. Ted Kennedy, long time Chairman and Ranking Member of the Labor Committee. Plus he had personal issues he was still dealing with in his family, including his wife.

There was never much reason for Ted Kennedy to really ever run for president. He never actually wanted the job, again because of how successful and happy he was in Congress being such a powerful Senator who had so much to do with so much important legislation that came out of Congress. His 1979-80 presidential run showed that being president was not something he wanted. When he couldn’t even answered the point-blank question from NBC News’s Roger Mudd, ‘why do you want to be president?’ He wouldn’t have won in 72 even if he did run and win the nomination, because of how divided the Democratic Party was between their mainstream Progressives and their New-Left that George McGovern represented. Ted Kennedy, made the right decision not running in 72 and he shouldn’t have run in 1979-80 either.

Gata Bella: Video: Sophia Loren, The Goddess

Source:The Daily Post 

When I think of goddess’s Sophia Loren is in the top one-percent of all-time and if not number one all-time, you can certainly see number one from where she is. And yes a big part of what makes Sophia a goddess is physical with the hot baby-face, the tall curvy athletic voice, the incredible feminine native-Italian voice. The way she moves, the way she sings, the way she talks. The way she presented herself and the fact that she knew she had all of these incredible physical attributes. So she has all of this going on for her, with women who see her and are always jealous of her.

But in Sophia’s case, we’re talking about someone who is a great singer and a great actress. Who also just happens to be one of if not the best looking women of all-time. So we are not talking about a bimbo, someone who is great to look at and perhaps jump in the sack with. But with the guy wanting to get away from her as soon as possible before his wife or girlfriend or finds out. But also because mentally the bimbo does nothing for him mentally, other than someone to make fun of. Sophia is a goddess, physically, professionally and mentally.

McFadden: Raquel Welch On Her Life, Career and Philanthropy

Source:The Daily Press

Raquel Welch, really is a true goddess. A women now in her early seventies is still this hot, cute and sexy. Who is also a hell of an actress and entertainer in general, who is not just about her hot sexy looks. But had made a great career with her looks, but ability to act and entertain as well. She’s someone who was born with goddess looks and features, which probably got her in the door in Hollywood and got her a lot of work early on.

But I sort of her look at her like I look at a great talented athlete who gets noticed real quickly, but then takes full-advantage of that and make a great career for them self. Raquel, is a very good actress whose used her physical talents, lets say to get herself parts and work, because directors want to work with her and use her. Because they know she’ll sell their movies and projects. But then does a great job in the roles that she gets. Because guys simply want to see her, but then they also can see that she can act, sing and make people laugh as well.

Raquel Welch, has truly made a great life and career for herself as a Hollywood goddess. Showing women of all sorts of backgrounds that if they work hard and take care of themselves and are responsible, they to can make a great career and life for themselves. Perhaps not age as gracefully as Raquel, but age well and not have to look like a senior citizen even if they already are one in years. The old cliche, “age is only a number”, could have been written for Raquel.

She’s not someone who was discovered in her twenties, but then burned out in her thirties, or dead in her thirties. She’s someone if anything is doing better now in her seventies than she did in her thirties. In some ways perhaps even sexier with great curves now. A women at her age whose still a sexy baby, a hot baby-faced adorable women, in her seventies. Who can probably make women young enough to be her granddaughter jealous. Only a goddess, or some made up Hollywood figure could still have that at this point in their life. But Raquel is the real thing who fully taken advantage of all of her abilities.

Liberty Pen: PC Is Never Having To Say You're Sorry

Source:Real Life Journal

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 Progressives 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 Progressives support. "But if you say offensive things about people that 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 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.

Reason: Nanny of The Month: LA to Pet Stores: You Can't Sell Animals Unless They're Rescued

Source:Real Life Journal

You would think with double digit unemployment, that Los Angeles would be looking to increase business and unemployment. Rather than restricting how pet stores make money. I believe this is an example of why California and perhaps Los Angeles as well, being the largest city and metropolitan are in the state, is behind the national average when it comes to job creation and business creation. Because they say no to new business's. because they don't exactly like what they do, or how they run business's. Its so-called pet farms that should be shut down. Places that abuses animals and potential pets and are essentially animal concentration camps. But telling pet stores that they can't sell animals, animals that would otherwise end up at the pound, or going to some concentration camp, or being put to sleep, is not the way to go. When you have regulations like this you might as well put a sign up in your city that say, "close for business! We don't want you business and jobs here. We rather be on welfare instead!"

The Objective Standard: Craig Biddle: Is Objectivism a Cult?

Source:FreeState Now

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.

Reason: Nick Gillespie- The Libertarian Case for Gary Johnson

Source:FreeState Now

Here's a perfect example of why Libertarians should vote for the candidate they want, instead of what they would see as the lesser of two evils. Because if enough Libertarians vote for Gary Johnson for president, whether they are part of the Libertarian Party, Republican, Democrat or Independent, Libertarians if Gary Johnson were to get that magic 5% number, something that the Green Party's Jill Stein is going for with the Green Party, then the LP will have the resources to be able to compete in 2016, maybe double their 5%.

And then the LP could be a  serious factor in determining who wins the 2016 presidential election. Something they aren't right now for the most part. Maybe Governor Johnson pulls votes away from President Obama in places like Nevada, New Mexico and perhaps Florida. We'll wait and see, because he's someone who appeals more to Liberals than Conservatives. I'm a example of that as a Liberal, because Governor Johnson to me sounds more Liberal in the classic sense, than he does Conservative and perhaps even Libertarian. Gary sounds like a Left-Libertarian or Social-Liberal to me. Than a Ron Paul hard-core Libertarian.

If Gary Johnson were to break through in 2012 and get that 5%, the LP will have the resources to build their party for the future. And become a real factor in American politics and perhaps become the official third-party in America. Big enough to compete with Democrats and Republicans in the future. But that doesn't happen as long as Libertarians vote for what they see as the lesser of two evils or don't bother voting at all. Libertarians should turn out and vote for exactly who represents them, even if that candidate has no shot at winning. To be able to build their own party that can actually win.

CBS News: CBS News Bulletin: JFK Assassination Coverage 11/22/1963

Source:The Daily Press

You hate to have something like a presidential assassination, or any assassination really have to be the test of the quality of your news coverage or not. But unfortunately greatness only tends to come in times of tragedy and when you're tested. Times of war and being under attacked, when riots are going on, a death in the family, someone being out of work like your father, or another close relative and you don't know what the future is going to look like and you fear for it. But unfortunately that is how humans tend to operate. When we're not tested we tend to be somewhat lax and go back to our everyday normal activities.

And I think our network coverage from CBS News, perhaps especially as they were our biggest news operation back then and NBC News and even the much smaller ABC News, they were all really tested without precedent in how you cover a tragedy like this. No precedent in how you cover a presidential, or any other assassination in the electronic age of broadcast news and network news. All they had is the training and resources that they had to work with at the time. Which was make sure their people are on the story and getting the information needed and make sure the network executives are giving you the network air time to cover the story.

The JFK assassination is not the only reason why Walter Cronkite is America's newsman and why we haven't seen a network news anchor as good since. But it is certainly a reason, because you really got to see how professional and great he was and had to be and couldn't afford any mistakes. You also got to see his human side especially when he announced the death of President John F. Kennedy. And you got to see how hard of an announcement it was for him to make. Cronkite, personally knew Jack Kennedy and personally liked him. So it must have been announcing the death of one of your friends on live on national TV. With millions of people watching you and he did it as well as it could've been done.

NBC News: Lyndon Johnson's Last Day as President in 1969

Source:The Daily Journal

I'm guessing Lyndon Johnson was ready to leave the presidency and had enough. 1966, was  a really rough year for President Johnson and the Johnson Presidency. House Democrats, lose over forty seats in the House and three in the Senate. Because of the Vietnam War and how unpopular it was. Plus with the Republican Party and House Republicans, finally figuring out how to campaign and win in the South. Richard Nixon of course was a huge help there and he campaigned for a lot of House Republicans and House Republican candidates and did that in the South. Which helped him with his 1968 presidential campaign with all of these new Freshman Republican Representatives, who now owed him favors.

1967, the war gets even worst for the Johnson Administration in Vietnam. And now he's having a lot of problems with his own party in Congress. Starting with Senate Democrats holding Vietnam War hearings that started in 1965, but continued through the next Congress in 1967. Several Senate Democrats are now weighing presidential bids against their party leader in President Johnson. Like Robert Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern. The anti-war movement and the New-Left emerges in the late 1960s. And they're against President Johnson and calling him a war criminal, and war monger and a few things that you can't say on network TV, even today.

1968, was the topper with LBJ now being the most unpopular elected politician in America. And now there's talk if he can even win the Democratic nomination for president, let alone with the presidency against Richard Nixon, Nelson Rockefeller, or George Romney, in the Republican Party. By March 1968, President Johnson decides that he's had enough and doesn't want to run for reelection and announces that to the country. But 1968 is just getting started with two great political leaders, Senator Robert Kennedy, and Dr. Martin King, both being assassinated. There racial riots in Chicago, Detroit and Los Angeles. The Democratic Party, is now divided between their mainstream Progressives, which LBJ represents and their Far-Left. LBJ, was really smart not to run for reelection in 1968.

Phil Donahue Show: Ayn Rand- The Altruism of the Soviet Union (1979)

Source:FreeState Now

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.

JFK Assassination Fed Myth

Source:FreeState Now

President Kennedy, who is my number one political hero as a Liberal Democrat, was assassinated, because he was an anti-Communist. Who was opposed to Fidel Castro and the Communist Republic of Cuba. Thats why he was assassinated at least as it relates to Lee Oswald. And if there were other people involved, like the Italian Mafia, they were opposed to him because Attorney General Bobby Kennedy's opposition and War on Organized Crime. JFK, was seen as a threat and an enemy, to the both the Far-Left, meaning Communists, in and outside of America. And the Far-Right, for his support of civil rights, equality, helping people in need and I'm sure other reasons. And of course the Italian Mafia in America. Because President Kennedy, failed to remove Fidel Castro and his Communist Regime, who eliminated their casinos from Cuba.

These warped ideas, from both the Far-Left and the Libertarian-Right, that Jack Kennedy, was assassinated by the CIA, or perhaps the National Security Council, or Vice President Lyndon Johnson, are exactly that. Which is warped, with no real foundation behind any of those theories. Jack Kennedy, was President of the United States and was assassinated during the middle of the day during a parade in downtown Dallas, Texas. The only way you assassinate a man as powerful and well-protected as the President of the United States, is through private means. Someone who knows where the President is going to be and where he is. Who has a reason to do it and knows exactly what they probably be giving up. Lee Oswald and perhaps people who helped him, had that access and the tools and ability to carry out the assassination.

John Fugelsang: Mitt Romney vs. The GOP

Source:The Daily Journal

A President Mitt Romney and I doubt this would ever happen, but if it did it would be better for comedians. Because he's a gaffe and flip-flopping machine, that would provide comedians and bloggers mountains of material to make fun of him. Every comedian in America should endorse Mitt Romney for president for their own careers. Because they would make all the material they had against George W. Bush look as original as the New York Yankees winning the World Series, or Lebron James playing in the NBA Finals and losing. Because when it comes to taking political positions for Mitt, it depends on which group he's talking to and which Mitt is speaking to that group. Businessman Mitt, religious fundamentalist Mitt, Neoconservative Mitt, or whoever Mitt is when he's not running for whatever political office he's interested in at the time.

The fact that someone like Mitt Romney who flips backs and forth more often than tennis balls at a tennis match, could win the Republican nomination for president, is like a quarterback winning the starting position for an expansion team.

"Since no one else seriously tried out and you haven't done any time in any mental institutions and don't see same-sex marriage as a threat national security, we'll give the job to you. And good luck to you as we're more interested in 2016 anyway. When we might have at least on candidate who can actually win." Mitt Romney won the GOP presidential nomination, because he seemed like the only person who was sane to the GOP establishment and would embarrass them the least and not cost them the House of Representatives. Which they can't afford to lose in 2012.

So yeah, a President Mitt Romney (I'm shitting bricks just saying that) would have been great for comedy and blogging interesting. Especially bloggers who right comedy and I'm one of them. But bad for the American people, because for them to have any idea what their President thinks about any issue, they would have to listen and read every single he says. Because his positions could change the next time he opens his mouth about anything depending on who he's talking to. And what the polls in the Republican Party are saying.

President Romney Senior Adviser- Aw Mr. President, your current position on that issue is not popular.

President Romney- Okay, I'll change it.

Senior Adviser- But you just took that position yesterday.

Romney-  So what! I'm speaking to Americans. Their memories aren't that long anyway."

That is what a President Romney would be like. Who knows what the President, because he doesn't even know. Great for comedy, but bad for the country.

Sky News: Cesar Millan, Dog Whisperer, Rejects Cruelty Claims

Source:Real Life Journal

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.

Henry Hanrahan Edits: The 100 Greatest Movie Insults of All Time

Source:Real Life Journal 

What I get out of this video, is that we shouldn’t be 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.

Paul J. Watson: Real Time With Bill Maher- 'Ben Affleck Defends TSA 'Dick Grabbing'

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- Alt-Right loudmouth Ann Coulter.

Source:The Daily Times

"During a recent appearance on Bill Maher's Real Time, actor Ben Affleck defended the TSA's policy of grabbing people's genitals. Affleck probably isn't too fussed about what the TSA do because he is driven straight to the runway to board his private jet - he doesn't even have to go through TSA security!" 

From Paul J. Watson 

Ben Affleck, taking another stand for Big Government! I could just imagine him running for office as a wannabe politician and imagine what his campaign message would be.

He would say something to the affect: “If you think you have too much freedom and privacy in your life and have too many decisions to make, vote for Ben Affleck. Because I would support policies to take all of that freedom and privacy away from you. Vote for Ben Affleck and you won’t even have to worry about your private parts being private. Because I would appoint Dick Grabbing to run TSA for us. And he would take care of that for you. And he and his Dick Grabbers will be there to make sure your private parts are never too private at the airport.”

Now imagine that for a campaign theme: Americans For Big Government and the Nanny State Alliance and Americans For Outlawing Freedom and Privacy, would endorse Mr. Affleck faster than snow melts in Los Angeles in July. 

Slate: Romney Boys Can't Contain Their Obama Debate Anger

Source:The Daily Press

Not the most loving and respectful men of the presidency. The Romney Boys, they seem more like thugs working for their father. They seem to want to do what their father other than in the first presidential debate what their father couldn’t do. Which is to beat up President Obama, or at least beat him somewhere. I mean Mitt, clearly wins the first debate and is still clearly trailing the President in the Electoral College, despite now being neck in neck with the President in the popular vote. Mitt, doesn’t look like a winner right now, but someone whose trying to find any place where he can win. So he’s not the Mike Dukakis of the GOP. Someone who badly loses a presidential election that he should have won.

It’s hard to hear negative facts about your father especially in a political campaign. Especially when those facts are about one’s lack of experience, knowledge, judgement, honesty and even credibility. The Romney Sons, might know who Dad is, but the problem is their Dad won’t let the rest of the country know. Because he keeps turning into someone else depending on what office he’s running for, what year he’s running and the people he feels he needs to have supporting him. He’s Moderate Mitt in Massachusetts, he’s Religious Conservative Mitt in 2007 when he’s going for the Christian-Right in Iowa and South Carolina. And now he’s the businessman with results, even though as Governor of Massachusetts, he had a weak jobs record. And laid off a lot of people as a businessman.

Who is Mitt Romney and what do you believe in? Would be my question to him if I ever interviewed him. But I would be carrying a whole notepad of paper, or perhaps my laptop waiting for ten different answers to the same questions. As he’s telling us every different position he has on the same issue. And doing that for each issue. Americans are funny this way in that we like our presidential candidates to tell us who they are and what they believe with some consistency before we decide who we’re going to vote for, not after. I guess we’re just stubborn that way and don’t have much faith in coin flipping when it comes to choosing our political leaders. But we’re into finger flipping when it comes to political leaders that we don’t like. As Mitt knows all too well right now.

Slate Magazine: Mitt Romney- 'Binders Full of Women Meme to Take Over The World'

Source:The Daily Press

Is Mitt Romney capable of getting through an appearance, debate or otherwise, without making a gaffe. Or maybe these so-called gaffes aren’t gaffes and he actually believes in this, lets say garbage and it just slipped out. Does Mitt even at this point where he’s clearly trailing in big Republican states like Florida, Virginia and Ohio, where he needs to win at least two of those states in order to win the presidency even want to be president? Or is he writing a new book, perhaps political manual on how not to run for president if you want to win. The title of the book actually being, “Mitt Romney’s How Not to Run For President.” Maybe he’s hoping he can get Congress even with a Democratic Senate in it, to repeal the 19th Amendment that guarantees all American women the right to vote. And with that he wouldn’t have to bother campaigning for female voters.

I imagine when it comes to life in general and in business, Mitt Romney is a tall handsome, young-looking for a Baby Boomer, intelligent, good man. But when it comes to politics, he must have slept in when God was handing out political brains. I haven’t seen a national politician this week when it comes to appealing to average voters since George H.W. Bush in 1992. When he didn’t know the price of milk and his own Vice President miss spells potato. And this is probably because President Bush hadn’t been to a grocery store and bought his own groceries in over twenty-years at that point. If I’m a women, (and no I’m not looking for a sex change) am I supposed to feel good about Mitt Romney’s “binders full of women”? Or should I take that as a guy who probably watches too much Cinemax late at night, because he can’t sleep, because from all the coffee he drinks on the campaign trail?

As a presidential candidate, Mitt Romney is a gunslinger who always has his gun pointed at his feet and forgets turn the safety off. I don’t know how the man walks around anymore having shot off so many of his own toes. He barely beats a man who wants to take America back to 1955 in a national time machine where women weren’t supposed to work and perhaps even vote. Where gays were locked in prison cells and mental institutions, as well as closets. That being Rick Santorum of course and is now running against a President who struggles to hit fifty-percent when it comes to his own popularity. With high unemployment and weak economic growth. And Mitt finds himself trailing in several big Republican states that he has to win. I mean is Mitt Romney really all the Republican Party has to offer for president? And is this the best they have?

Reason: Anthony Fisher: Jessica Blake & Erik Jenson on The Exonerated: True Stories of The Innocent Sprung From Death Row

Source:Real Life Journal

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.