Gadget

This content is not yet available over encrypted connections.

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat
Source: U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy in 1960

Friday, March 30, 2012

Daily Worldwide News: Keith Olbermann Fired by CurrentTV

This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press: Daily Worldwide News: Keith Olbermann Fired by CurrentTV

To be honest you I wasn’t shocked to hear that Keith Olbermann was fired by MSNBC a year ago. Even though they want to have a progressive prime time lineup. Giving voice to American Progressives and looking at the news from a progressive slant. They want to be for Progressives what FNC is for the right-wing. The rest of the NBC News operation I believe is fairly objective. And their reporting is solid. NBC Nightly News and NBC Meet the Press are excellent examples of this. But MSNBC Talk is clearly slanted towards Progressives. And Keith Olbermann is so far to the left, at least with his political commentary and anti-corporate if not private enterprise and so unafraid of offending anyone. Including the people he works for. CurrentTV owned by Al Gore, that he’ll say whatever he wants as long as he believes in it strong enough.

As much as Current my not want to be part of the corporate media and be part of the private sector version of PBS or something, they are part of corporate media. They are a business and have to turn a profit to be successful. CurrentTV has proven to not be the right format for Keith Olbermann. I’m not sure there is one, other than maybe HBO, Showtime or maybe PBS. Where he could say whatever he wants to, swear as often as he likes. This is a format that’s served Bill Maher very well and if Keith can avoid offending one of these networks, maybe HBO, or Showtime, would be a place for him.

Keith, may fit in well there or going on talk radio. Starting his own website or news organization that reflects the views of Progressives, or Democratic Socialists. Because being the lead anchor on a cable network, which is what Current is and saying things that can offend corporate media, just doesn’t work, it doesn’t fit. Keith Olbermann needs to be on a format where he can be Keith and do his thing. And not have to worry about who he’s offending. Similar to Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly, but for Progressives. And there may not be a big enough outlet out there that’s also willing to put up with Keith. That can make that happen for him.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Richard Nixon Library: Video: 1969 Inauguration of Richard Nixon


This post was originally posted at FreeStatePlus on WordPress

When Richard Nixon became President of the United States in 1969, divided government returned to the Federal Government. After the Democratic Party held the White House and Congress for the last eight years. With Dick Nixon being elected President in 1968 and with Congressional Democrats retaining both the House and Senate, divided government returned to Washington for the first time since 1961. And when Nixon became President, he had an ambitious agenda. Especially on foreign policy, like ending the Vietnam War and opening negotiations with Russia and China. Take on high crime, Welfare reform, health care reform and energy policy as well.

The country was still very divided in 1969 and they were looking for something different. And they certainly got that in Dick Nixon and in President Nixon’s first two years. The country was still very divided, especially over Vietnam. But with President Nixon reaching out to both Russia and China and ending the Vietnam War by 1972, President Nixon had a big opportunity to bring the country together. And solve a lot of the problems the country was facing.

Like with crime, Welfare, health care and energy policy. And moved on all of those issues with limited success. Which is another reason why the Watergate scandal was such a shame. Because without it, President Nixon would’ve had four years to accomplish some of his other goals. During President Nixon’s first four years, he was a Foreign Policy President. And in his 2nd four years, he still would’ve been. But without the Watergate Scandal, he would’ve had four years to deal with some of the other issues. That the country was facing that he was interested in solving.


Tuesday, March 27, 2012

The Nation: Opinion: David Cole: Why President Obama’s Healthcare Law is Constitutional

The Nation: Opinion: David Cole: Why President Obama’s Healthcare Law is Constitutional

Fareed Zakaria, who’s a foreign affairs analyst for CNN, but who also host a Sunday talk show, Global Public Square, that does cover a lot of issues that relate to foreign affairs, but who’s show covers other issues and who’s someone I respect a lot, hosted a documentary last Sunday night. A week ago from yesterday about healthcare reform. Healthcare in America and healthcare around the World. Looking at what we do and what other countries do as well in healthcare. Was asked by Wolf Blitzer a couple of weeks ago, right before his documentary aired on CNN, whether he believes the Affordable Care Act is constitutional or not. Which Mr. Zakaria replied, “I don’t know that’s above my pay grade”. But that its essential to Healthcare Reform whether its constitutional or not. For us to be able to bring down our healthcare costs. Which is my position and I’ll explain why.

For us to bring down our healthcare costs, we have to be able to cover everybody. With either health insurance, a health savings account or people pay out-of-pocket. Or a package of all three of these things. As long we are all covering our share of our healthcare costs. And don’t past our healthcare costs on to others. Who pay for their healthcare. That’s one way we’ll be able to bring down healthcare premiums. And stop people from going to the emergency room every time they need healthcare, no matter what it’s for. We have to end uncompensated healthcare in America. To bring down our healthcare costs, or we are not going to be able to do that. And our costs will continue to rise.

I believe the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and again I’m not a lawyer. But I believe its constitutional for two reasons. Again whether you support the ACA or not and I would’ve voted for it, you gotta admit it’s a badly flawed law and badly written. Had they labeled the individual mandate a tax, instead of a penalty, Which it acts as a tax based on how its written, it’s just not called a tax, then the constitutionality of it would not be a question. Also had they put in a prevision in it, that would allow the Supreme Court to overturn it, but cherry pick it, meaning throw out what they believe is unconstitutional, but leave in the rest, then whether the individual mandate is constitutional or not, most of the rest of the law would be ruled constitutional.

Most of the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. Why, because the Federal Government clearly has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. And clearly has the constitutional authority to assists its citizens that need help. Like paying for their healthcare. And the Federal Government clearly has constitutional authority to tax its citizens. The main reasons why the ACA is at risk of being thrown out by the Supreme Court, it’s because it’s a badly written bill. Even the parts of it that are clearly constitutional.


Monday, March 26, 2012

Los Angeles Times: Opinion: Robin Acarian: Campaign Gaffes: Is Foot-In-Mouth Disease Always Fatal to Campaigns?

Los Angeles Times: Opinion: Robin Acarian: Is Foot-In-Mouths Disease Always Fatal to Political Campaigns?

This post was originally posted at FRS Real Life Journal on WordPress

Hopefully for Republican Party's sake, they'll decide on their presidential nominee before the cows come home, but they are a little hard to predict right now. They seem about as divided as the Democratic Party in 1972 trying to figure out which Progressive they were going to nominate. Between three Senators, Ed Muskie, George McGovern and Hubert Humphrey. 

They settled on Senator McGovern, even though telling the differences between these three men politically, was trying to tell the difference in color between a couple of red tomatoes. But unless the Obama Campaign is successful in communicating the political gaffes of lets, just for the hell of it Mitt Romney as their  GOP nominee, I flipped a coin that, it would be Mitt Romney, American voters will have forgotten about them, long before the general elections.
Good news that even though generally political gaffes made in presidential primaries aren’t remembered for the general election, whoever the GOP Nominee is. They will still be as addicted to making political gaffes. As Jim Morrison was addicted to alcohol or Rosie O’Donnell is addicted to food. Mitt Romney in the general election, will most likely say something like, "I’m not that rich, I only drive three Cadillacs, I don’t even own a Rolls Royce. I only own three homes, I’m friends with people who own ten. Really I’m not that rich, attack my friends instead". 
I can give you their numbers, they are some of my major contributors. Or Rick Santorum if Mitt Romney were to end his presidential campaign right before he’s nominated. And Rick becomes their presidential nominee. Well first of all if that happens, Republicans will hand in their Republican affiliation. But if that were to happen, he may say something like. "Women. Shouldn’t be allowed to work", the GOP Candidates right now are addicted to political gaffes. There’s more than enough to go around.
America I’m not sure is the only country in the World with a short attention span. But we have the shortest. Are attention span is a midget, so when some politician says something that five minutes later, they want to kick themselves in the balls for saying, or wish they hadn’t drank that extra scotch before giving that speech, take Rick Perry to use as an example, they managed to say something else thats ignorant right after that. That gets played up as well. 

Our politicians and political candidates are only as good as the people who elect them for the most part. From time to time we get leaders that stood out and look like God, at least in comparison to average Americans. Americans say dumb things all the time. But the difference is most of us aren't politicians and our, well bullshit isn't on the national news or web right after we say it unlike our politicians. Which is why they get to look like the assholes, because they represent the assholes who voted for them. 

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Real Time: Video: Real Time With Bill Maher; Ethan Nadelman & Ann Coulter on The War on Drugs


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Post on WordPress

If you believe that government's job is to protect its people even from themselves and you believe in big government, (whether you're even aware of it or not) that people by in large are stupid and irresponsible and they need to be protected from themselves from making bad decisions, well for one I feel sorry for you. Because you're probably one of those people that aren’t too bright and need Uncle Sam (no ones favorite uncle) and you need your Uncle Sammy wiping your ass and escorting you across the street to protect you. 
But if you believe in individual liberty and responsibility, that free adults should have the individual liberty and freedom of choice to make their own decisions in life, as long as they are not hurting anyone else with what they are doing, Then you're probably not a fan of big government. And believe Uncle Sam needs a diet, get on Weight Watchers, perhaps go to a fat farm, if Sam can find one that will take and has the room for him. Because you believe in individual liberty and responsibility, that we are responsible for our own decisions.
If you don’t like alcohol, tobacco and marijuana, pornography, congratulations. Your heart and the rest of your body will thank you for it. Because you’ll probably not consume those products in your life. Or least not much of any of them but that doesn’t give you right to tell others that they can’t use those products either, because you don’t like them. The dangers of marijuana, alcohol and tobacco are about the same. Tobacco is probably the worst of the three, but it's legal. 
Here’s some advice and stay away from those products and mind your own damn business. Also stay away from those people who use those products. Because you’ll probably just bring those people down. Send perky people who enjoy life into depression, leaving doctors wondering what the hell happen. We have property rights in America, meaning we own our material items, but we also own ourselves. We are responsible for our own decisions good and bad in life.
I don’t agree with Bill Maher on much, he’s a Progressive and I’m a Liberal and yes we are different. He does believe in big government when it comes to the economy and I don’t. But on these social issues like marijuana, Bill Maher and people like Ethan Nadelman who’s done a lot of work in America about educating people on marijuana, know what they are talking about and should be listen to. And people who believe in Big Brother and Big Sister, the nephew and niece of Uncle Sam, need to get lives and perhaps try some of the products they despise. It may loosen them up.


Saturday, March 24, 2012

Los Angeles Times: Editorial: Life Without Parole is Too Harsh For Young Killers

Los Angeles Times: Editorial: Life Without Parole is Too Harsh For Young Killers

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStateNow on WordPress

When we are talking about juvenile offenders, especially violent juvenile offenders, juveniles who’ve murdered, committed manslaughter. assault and battery, leaving their victims with indefinite damage, raped people and other horrible crimes, a couple of questions have to be answered. Can we afford to give up on these minors and just lock them up and watch them become better criminals in prison? What’s the proper punishment for them, that they deserve and isn’t too harsh? I believe in the notion do the crime, you do the time.

To let juvenile offenders off the hook, just because they are juveniles, is irresponsible and sends the wrong message. Whether its intentional or unintentional. That, “if you do the crime and are a juvenile, we’ll let you get away with it.” But I also I believe in fair sentencing and I’ll explain what I mean by that. Any juvenile who commits murder and then is convicted of it, has to be given a strong sentence and I don’t care how old they are when they commit murder. Or any other violent crime. And no I’m not talking about the death penalty, at least for Convicted Murderers under 21.

But we also can’t afford to give up on these juveniles either. We simply can’t afford that as a society, financially, or anything else. If you’re 15-16 when sentenced to prison, assuming you live a normal life as far as years, if you’re sentenced to a life sentence and survive it into your senior years, or longer, you could be looking at 50-60 years in prison at taxpayers expense. Also we don’t need any other career criminals in prison. We should be moving to get these inmates past this point in their lives, proper sentences.

The proper sentence for convicted murderers who were juvenile offenders, is 25-Life. Meaning they would only be eligible for parole, if they meet some basic standards in prison during those 25 years. They take responsibility for their crime, or crimes, they apologize for it. They finish and further their education in prison. High school diploma, or GED, a college, or vocational degree. They hold a good job in prison and have a good record there. They seek and complete the proper counseling while in prison. They have a good record while in prison. And they would have to complete all of these things. Just to be eligible for parole after 25 years. They wouldn’t automatically get a parole hearing after the 25 years.

Again life without parole for juvenile offenders, even violent offenders, is too much. And we can’t afford it, but at the same time they have to be properly sentenced so they are properly punished for their crimes. So with 25-Life and then be eligible for parole after certain conditions are met, would be the proper balance we would need with juvenile violent offenders.


Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Salon: Opinion: Alex Pareene: Rick Santorum, "Liberal Penn State Punished Me For Being Conservative": The Anti-Conservative Big Government Republican

Salon: Opinion: Alex Pareene: Rick Santorum, "Liberal Penn State Punished Me For Being Conservative"

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress

If Rick Santorum is a Conservative, then Ron Paul is a Socialist and Ron Reagan was a Communist. Oh by the way I’m Santa Clause, right now its 100 degrees in Boston. And its snowing in Houston and before you take any of that seriously, keep in mind right now its March. And you want to know why Rick Santorum is not a Conservative, I’ll tell you anyway.

Conservatism in a political sense, forget about religion right now, but in a political sense conservatism is about conserving individual liberty. Not subtracting individual liberty or conserving a way of life from the 1950s and never modernizing. And its about limited government, especially the Federal Government, spending no more than you take in and always try to spend less than that. And devolving power back to the states and to the people. And a foreign policy that’s very limited and based around only protecting national security interests.

Not about “I and people who ally with me, no best how free adult Americans should live their lives. And if you don’t take our friendly advice on how you should live your own life, even though we have no idea who you are, we’ll get our friendly advice passed through law. And then if you don’t comply on how we believe you should live your individual lives, we’ll arrest you for your own good for living an immoral life. Even if your lifestyle is not hurting anyone else with how you are living”.

On all counts of what conservatism actually is from a political sense, fiscally and socially especially Rick Santorum doesn’t qualify as a Conservative. Not on social issues, fiscal policy or foreign policy. He has a record as a borrow and spender, porker, empowering the Federal Government. In his sixteen years in Congress, on social issues, he has a record of wanting to outlaw things that are currently legal. Limiting our social liberty and has even added to that in his presidential campaign, coming out in favor of a constitutional amendment to empower the Federal Government to define marriage.

Nothing Conservative about that and what happened to States Rights? The distinguished Senator is also in favor of outlawing pornography, gambling and birth control. On Foreign Policy voting for preventive war, hard to see either Barry Goldwater or Ron Reagan voting for the 2nd War in Iraq. So in a political sense Rick Santorum doesn’t qualify as a Conservative and never has. He meets the qualifications of a religious or neoconservative. But those are different from conservatism and on the Far-Right, where Senator Santorum is in American politics.

Rick Santorum or perhaps Ricky or Slick Rick, at least when it comes to trying to convince people who know better of his conservative credentials or the serious lack of them, is a big government Republican. A right-wing statist, the ultimate big brother or big government, or better yet Uncle Sam, no real Conservative’s favorite uncle, knows best how free people should live their own lives. I mean if he’s a Conservative the Queen of England eats Burger King whoppers for breakfast, lunch and dinner everyday. And when Burger King is unavailable, she gets her meals from McDonald’s. And it never rains in Seattle and a lot of nonsense that is simply not believable.




Monday, March 19, 2012

Washington Times: Editorial: "The Left's War on Rednecks": What the Far-Right and Far-Left Have in Common

Washington Times: Editorial: The Left's War on Rednecks

This post was originally posted at FreeStateExtra on WordPress

As different as the Far-Left and Far-Right might look in America, they actually do have one thing in common. They are full of bigots and live in small worlds. About the size of a bathroom at as gas station in the middle of nowhere. Love to see them meet at this gas station for a party. They would soon figure out how much they have in common and might even start loving each other. 

The men-hating women on the Far-Left, falling in love with the sexist pigs on the Far-Right. Socialist gay men on the Far-Left, falling in love with homophobic women on the Far-Right. Anne Coulter would be a great examples. Just one consequence of living on a fringe. Where people who don’t seem like them, are ignorant and bad people. Who aren’t really American and shouldn’t be taken seriously. 

Some so-called Progressives have this idea, that unless you're for a big Northeastern city or California, and hang out at coffee shops and think men should bow down to women and let them run everything, you're ignorant and backwards and probably a bigot who hates non-Christians and non-Caucasians. And if you're from small town America, anyone from San Francisco or Los Angeles, Seattle, or big cities in the Northeast, you are Un-American and probably hate Caucasians. Perhaps especially if you think gay people should be treated like, well people. And if you're not a Protestant, you're a Jesus Christ hating Atheist. 

So-called Progressives believe people who are not like them hate ethnic and racial minorities and probably women and homosexuals as well. If you're from the South or rural America or small town America, in many cases you look down at people who are from big cities, especially in the North or California. But probably even in Atlanta, Georgia as well. And you see these people as Un-American Socialists who’s goal in life is to redistribute wealth from rich Caucasians.

And you believe these Socialists want to eliminate Christianity in America to transform it into an Socialist-Atheist state. Or the crazy Far-Right believes Barack Obama wants to transform America into a Socialist-Muslim state. And eliminate private enterprise and give all of the money to minorities .And they love racial humor, except when its directed towards Caucasians.
Those are the fringes in America who don’t let facts get in the way of their political ideology. Who needs facts when people are dumb enough to believe you regardless? And you don’t trust news sources that actually report what is going on, especially when it contradicts you. And they only trust reports from that backs up their political arguments. The AlterNet and both of their readers on the Far-Left and The American Thinker  and their few readers on the Far-Right. I read both of these publications and its hard to find publications that are more slanted or with more bias reporting then them. 
This is what America looks like, right now where the kids are calling the shots. Instead of sitting at the kiddy tables eating their kiddy meals. Meaning the fringes and have a lot of power over their political parties. And the adults in the rooms, the Liberals for the Democrats and the Conservatives for the Republicans, sit at the kiddy tables instead and let their kids run wild and don’t stand up to Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh. When they say crazy things, they end up making their parties look bad. "Wow this is how Democrats and Republicans now think".
I’m a Liberal Democrat who just doesn’t say Dr. Martin Luther King is a hero of mind, but I take his dream seriously, where we could live in a World where we are not judged by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character. And that includes everyone, not just minorities, but caucasians as well. Unlike today's so-called Progressives and when racial jokes are made about Caucasians, I take them to be as bad as when they are made about African, Latin, Asian or Middle Easter Americans. 

There are people both on the Far-Left and Far-Right who like to speak highly of Martin King, but in a lot of cases just to make their ideological argument. And what they really mean is that, "MLK's dream was really just about protecting us, not everybody. Racist jokes as racist pure and simple whoever they are targeted at. Whether they come from the Far Right, Far Left or anyone else. 


Wednesday, March 14, 2012

The Atlantic: The Wire: Dino Grandoni: Jon Stewart Explains Comedy to FOX News: Like Trying to Explain Calculus to Fish

The Atlantic: The Wire: Dino Grandoni: Jon Stewart Explains Comedy to FOX News

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress

The only reason for me at least to watch FNC or Fox News Channel and for that matter to be “fair and balanced”, MSNBC prime time on weeknights, is to find out what’s not going on in the World. To get some comic relief and perhaps some ideas for my political satire. Because FNC is basically the RNC, laying out the positions and the spin of the Republican base. And MSNBC prime time Monday-Friday, is basically the mouthpiece for so-called Progressive not Liberal Democrats. 

The Democrats and so-called progressive third-parties, that don’t like President Obama and the Democratic Leadership. Because they aren’t “progressive enough” and aren’t socialist like themselves. Which is what they thought they were getting during the 2008 general elections. If you're going to listen to FNC seriously, not to make fun of it, but to actually find out what’s going on in the world, do yourself a big favor, check at least two other credible news sources. Like a good reporter and you better know what that is before you take FNC seriously. 
Because whether you're listening to Megyn Kelly, Sean Hannity, David Asman and others, Bill O’Reilly to a certain extent, but he isn’t as bad as the others, He does take on both sides, you're basically hearing what they want to tell you. What makes their political views look best and you're hearing a lot of political gossip. That's designed to hurt Democrats and that's what you get from Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz on MSNBC at the expense of Republicans. I swear I get more facts from The Onion something I read everyday than from FNC or Maddow and Schultz. 
Because The Onion is seriously about news satire and doesn't hide from that and they take stories that are true and make them as funny as possible by adding humor to them. When FNC says “Fair and Balanced”, you should take that as a joke that you would hear from The Onion. Because they are only “Fair and Balanced” to their own side.

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

James Miller Center: Video: FDR Fireside Chat 6: On Government and Capitalism

James Miller Center: Video: FDR Fireside Chat 6: On Government and Capitalism

President Franklin Roosevelt, did not become President of the United States, to destroy American capitalism. As some Conservatives and Libertarians have suggested. But he became President to save it, by changing it. Before 1933, when FDR became President, we were essentially a Libertarian Society. Where we were all on our own and if we needed help, we were basically at the mercy of our families, friends and private charity. Had we had a functioning safety net pre-1933, the Great Depression, which essentially lasted for ten years, wouldn’t of been as bad. Because all of those unemployed workers would’ve had some public assistance. They could count on, I’m not saying this as a fan of the New Deal, because I’m not.

A safety net, should be designed to empower people to get themselves off of public assistance. Not just pay people while they are on public assistance. But if we had a safety net back then and we had an FDIC with the Stock Market Crash and we were regulating Wall Street and Corporate America properly, not trying to run it, we could’ve saved ourselves a lot of pain from the Great Depression. So FDR basically ended up trying to create a safety net while people needed it the most. And creating these programs on the fly. FDR, wasn’t trying to turn America into Russia, with a state economy. But more like Europe, with healthy private and public sectors.

FDR didn’t set out to destroy American capitalism, but to save it. By putting in regulations so irresponsible people in business, wouldn’t be able to destroy the economy again. And lead to another Great Depression. And so people who fall through the cracks, can get help and not end up homeless and on the street.

Monday, March 12, 2012

Sommer 57: Video: The Candidate; Social Warfare Speech: What the Ideal American Political Candidate Looks Like


This post was originally posted at FRS Citizen Journal on WordPress

The movie The Candidate from 1972 where Robert Redford plays a young idealistic Progressive Senate candidate, who gets the Democratic nomination for this California Senate seat, running up against a three-term incumbent Republican Senator, the Washington insider of Washington insiders, to me represents what Progressive grassroots politics looks like.
The main character in the movie played by Bob Redford, plays someone from the Progressive movement. Not someone who graduates from law school and then gets a job on Capital Hill, or the Justice Department. But someone who’s from and worked in the Progressive movement. And has success in that, organizing workers so they can collectively bargain. 
Bill McCay played by Redford, essentially gets recruited as well as his name, by the Peter Boyle character. Another big shot Washington insider in the Democratic Party. Who runs political campaigns for a living, to run for the U.S. Senate. Because the Washington insider played by Peter Boyle believes he represents what voters at least in California are looking for. And because of who McCay's father is, might be the guy who can beat the Republican in the election. 
For Progressives who are interested in politics, The Candidate represents how to run for Public Office. By not starting off as a Washington insider, but working in the private sector at the grassroots level. And know exactly what that is like and then running for public office. By picking up some quality experience in your own movement and using that once you get in public office. 
Bill McCay in a lot of ways represents what American voters, well lets say they say they look for in politicians. Someone who speaks straight, is honest, tells the truth at least almost all the time. Tells people what they believe and what they want to do with a sound, clear consistent message. Who doesn't believe they are better than, lets say average people because they are running for office and have had a very good education. 
Bill McCay is not Joe Average who is just happy fixing cars or building houses and retiring and collecting a small pension and Social Security. With enough money to support his family. But he is someone who can communicate with those people because he has worked with them and helped them do better in life. Not someone who talks up to people, or talks down to people. But speaks in a straightforward lets say working class way that everyone can understand. But does it intelligently. 
Bill McCay a Progressive Democrat coming from the Left, but not someone with a new government program and tax to solve everyone's problems for them. But what he does is talk to people to see what they are thinking and to figure out how they are doing. And tells them what he believes should and can be done about those issues so those people can help themselves. And if you look at Bill McCay for Senate in 1972 and Bill Clinton for President in 1992, they aren't that different in how they approach, politics and communication.


Sunday, March 11, 2012

Baltimore Sun: Sports: Peter Schmuck: Lets We Forget, Orioles Have Two Important Question Marks on Offense

Baltimore Sun: Sports: Peter Schmuck: Lets We Forget, Orioles Have Two Important Question Marks on Offense

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress

I wish the Orioles only had two questions going into the 2012 season. And then maybe I would feel somewhat optimistic about them. But I see a team that not only doesn’t have a leadoff hitter going into the season, or a cleanup hitter, but doesn’t know if 1B, 2B or, 3B or LF will come through this season either. None of the players at those positions, except for maybe 3B Mark Reynolds are proven Major Leaguers. And that’s just the batting lineup, as far as the players in the field. Who’s going to be the full-time DH, or they even going to have on. The Orioles don’t have a true ace starter or a consistent closer.

C Matt Wieters, SS JJ Hardy RF Nick Markakis, probably the Orioles best all around player. CF Adam Jones are all proven Major Leaguers and could make the All Star team. Its not that the Orioles lack talent, because they have a lot of good young talent. But after their proven players, you go to guys like LF Nolan Reimold and 1B Chris Davis, players that the Orioles are going to depend a lot on, at least at the start of the season. Who have yet to proven they are solid everyday Major Leaguers. They have a lot of young talent on their pitching staff, but again none of them are proven yet.

2012 I’m afraid is going to look like every season since 2007. Where the Orioles look decent on paper with a lot of young talent. Show signs of promise for the future, but where they are buried in dead last place. Because they don’t have enough proven talent to be consistent winners.



Saturday, March 10, 2012

Mises Media: Video: Gerard Casey: Libertarian Anarchy: Against The State

Mises Media: Video: Gerard Casey: Libertarian Anarchy: Against The State

Just to start off and I doubt I’m the first person to notice this and at risk of sounding awful and mean, doesn’t Gerard Casey, especially with that mustache, resemble Adolph Hitler?

I have a lot of respect for classical libertarianism, even as a Liberal. Even though I tend to disagree with it on foreign policy. Where Libertarians tend to be isolationists. Because libertarianism at its core is the real thing. And what it actually is about both economic and personal freedom. That Americans, have the right to live their own lives as long as they aren’t infringing on others freedom to live their own lives. And that it’s not anti-state, but anti-big state and anti-big government all together. So when Ron Paul says he’s against big government, you better believe him! And when Rick Santorum says he is against big government, you ask him, “so its okay with you if I watch an adult movie, or go to a club with dancers and so-forth?” Because he thinks those things should be outlawed, because he sees them as immoral. But Libertarians are the real thing when it comes to being against big government, because they actually are. And don’t just say they are against big government, because they believe it works for them politically.

It’s not Libertarianism in its real form that I’m against as a Liberal. Because real Libertarians are against big government. But they aren’t against government all together. And the key point being that people should be free to live their own lives. As long as they aren’t infringing on others to live there’s. So if two guys want to marry each other, Libertarians wouldn’t have a problem with that. Or if someone wants to go to an adult nightclub with strippers and so-forth, even male strippers, the Libertarian wouldn’t have a problem with that. But if someone breaks into someone else’s home without a good reason, or batters that person, or rapes that person, or does other things to infringe on innocent people’s freedom to live their lives, they believe that government has a role to protect us not from ourselves, but from people who would hurt us. See Libertarians, aren’t anti-government, but they are anti-big government. And believe that the government that we have today is too big and has too much responsibility when it comes to economic and personal issues.

People who I call Anarcho-Libertarians, who are Anarchists to be real about it. So I call them Anarcho-Libertarians, because even though they call themselves Libertarians, they aren’t just anti-big government, but they are anti-government period. And do not seem to have a role for government to do anything. And now even seem to believe that government arresting and prosecuting criminals who’ve hurt people, violates these criminals freedoms and constitutional rights. Freedom to do what, hurt innocent people? We do have the freedom to do that in this country. Americans tend to want big government out of our wallets, bedrooms, boardrooms and classrooms, out of our personal lives. But they do want government to disappear and not be there to do the things that we need it to do. And tend to believe in things like environmental protection and public education. But generally speaking, libertarianism in its real sense and not the anarcho version, has a real future in American politics.

The Gary Johnson‘s of the world have a real future in American politics. Because they are anti-big government. And even though they would like to see the Federal Government much smaller than it is today and would have to sell that to voters as far as how much smaller and why, they could succeed. Because they do believe there is a proper role of government and not looking to dismantle it. Just dismantle big government. But as far as Anarcho-Libertarians are concern, they are essentially Anarchists and are anti-government period. And perhaps would be better off moving to a country that doesn’t have any real government. Like Somalia and see how that works out for them.


Thursday, March 8, 2012

The Humble Libertarian: Opinion: Wes Messamore: Second Amendment Revolution: Maryland Handgun Ruling a Huge Victory For Gun Rights Advocates!

The Humble Libertarian: Opinion: Wes Messamore: Second Amendment Revolution: Maryland Handgun Ruling a Huge Victory For Gun Rights Advocates!

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStateNow on WordPress

Just to be clear I’m pro-2nd Amendment and I believe that all adults in the United States that are of sound mind and aren’t criminals and are capable of managing guns, then they should be able to do that if they choose to and can afford it. But as long as we know that they are capable of managing the gun or guns they want to purchase and if they are qualified to manage these guns, then they should have the right to do so. As a Liberal I believe in live and let live, that is we have to live together as a society whether we like it or not, we should just let people live their own lives. And as long as we aren’t hurting innocent people with what they are doing. And we aren’t stuck paying for the consequences of their decisions. Then we should let people live their own lives.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

The Film Archives: C-SPAN" Video: John Kerry: How do You Ask The Last Man to Die For a Mistake

Vietnam War Veteran
The Film Archives: C-SPAN" Video: John Kerry: How do You Ask The Last Man to Die For a Mistake

Its been said that presidents who have military or foreign policy experience, are less likely to commit American troops to combat in foreign nations, than presidents without that previous experience. Because they know exactly what they are putting those troops through and what they have to go through. And the sacrifices they and their families will make as a result and perhaps even the ultimate sacrifice they may make. I’ll give you a perfect example of that. When Dwight Eisenhower became President in 1953, one of the first things he looked to was to get American troops out of the Korean War. Because he saw it as a civil war.

Ronald Reagan a World War II veteran, never committed American troops into combat. We never went to war in his eight years as President. Jimmy Carter, another World War II veteran, never committed American troops to combat in his four years either. President George H.W. Bush did commit troops to the Gulf War in 1991. But for a very limited mission. Get Iraq out of Kuwait, not to invade and occupy Iraq. A big country of twenty-five million people, a mistake that his son wasn’t able to avoid twelve years later.

President George W. Bush, who never had combat experience, or foreign policy experience. Other than signing up for the reserves to avoid Vietnam service, commits American troops to two wars within seventeen months as President. In Afghanistan and Iraq. Two wars we are now trying to get out of ten years later. We’ll never know what type of president John Kerry would’ve made on foreign policy, or anything else. And I believe that’s unfortunate, because we are talking about a Vietnam veteran from the Baby Boom Generation. Who volunteered to serve his country in Vietnam, unlike George W. Bush who did everything he can to avoid service there.

But when you here Senator Kerry talk about foreign policy as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and as a senior Senator, you know that he doesn’t take these things lightly. And committing American troops to any war is a huge deal and shouldn’t be taken lightly. And when he here presidential candidates who have no decisions to make as candidates as far as what we should be doing as a country when it comes to foreign policy and they talk about a potential war with Iran, kinda lightly like committing troops to an operation, “like this is really not that big of a deal”, as you saw Senator Kerry on his Senate floor speech about an editorial that Mitt Romney wrote in the Washington Post today, you know the difference between someone who knows what they’re talking about, because they’ve been there and someone who doesn’t, because they haven’t.

Where Senator Kerry criticizes Governor Romney’s editorial criticizing President Obama’s policy on Iran, I know as someone that’s never served my country in the military or foreign service, that talking about committing American troops to any type of foreign wars is a huge deal. And shouldn’t be taken lightly and what people say on the campaign trail and what they can do once they get to office are two different things. And that its easy to talk tough on the campaign trail. But once you’re actually in office, it’s a much different story.