Inter-conference play in the CFL with the Edmonton Eskimos from the North or Canadian Conference, against the San Antonio Texans from the South, or American Conference. Which was really the goal of the CFL when they started their American experiment in the early 1990s. Was to create a continental or can-am league. Between America and Canada with a Canadian conference and an American conference. And have the winners of both conferences play in a continental or North American Championship game. This game between the Eskimos and Texans was a potential preview for the 1995 Grey Cup between Canada and America. Because they were two of the best teams in the CFL that year. The Eskimos were 13-5 and the Texans were 12-6. Both teams making the playoffs and looking to win the CFL Grey Cup. So this was a very good matchup.
Here’s a battle between one of the most storied and successful North American, not just CFL, but North American major league pro football franchises in the Edmonton Eskimos and one CFL American expansion franchises in the Memphis Mad Dogs. Who in their two CFL seasons were decent, but struggled to get over 500. A defensive oriented teamed coached by Pepper Rogers, who had some success in college football and the old USFL. But averaged less than twenty points a game in 1995. Which is a hard thing to do. Considering that they play on a longer wider field. The defenses tend to be somewhat undersized. They only play three downs, so you really need to pass the ball more anyway in the CFL to avoid second and long and having to pass to avoid punting on third down. Multiple players able to move in motion on offense pre-snap. Yet I guess the Mad Dogs didn’t have the firepower to take advantage of all of those CFL offensive advantages.
Love dem cowgirls en dem Wrangler jeans! Don't yall? Seriously I do, I just don't normally talk like a country boy, since I'm not a country boy and perhaps have a voice that would make me sound like a Yankee to anyone who is from rural America. But I do love cowgirls, especially how they present themselves and what they do. They are very sexy competent women who know how to have a good time and work hard and are very productive so they can have that good time and live a good life.
Cowgirls love their jeans and boots and Wrangler might be their favorite jeans. Wrangler might be to cowgirls what Levis are to urban women and they look great in Wranglers. And they look great because they are cowgirls. They are healthy sexy women because they take care of themselves, because they have to take care of themselves and stay in shape because of the work that they do and how they live. And guys country and urban love them for it.
This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStatePlus on WordPress It is good to see, at least from my perspective commercials like this in India. A country that at least comes off in the West, America, Canada and Europe as pretty culturally conservative. Perhaps making the Religious-Right in America look like Libertarians and Liberals. Where women there are supposed to dress in traditional Indian wear and not show off their legs and curves and everything else that is common for women to do in the West. India is a growing country in so many ways and one of them has to do with culture.
I guess what I was hoping to see from this commercial though was Indian women in it wearing the Levis Curve ID jeans. Or at least South Asian women regardless of their ethnic background. What instead it looked like American women on non-South Asian descent in these Levis. And that the commercial was to be shown in India. Where obviously a lot of people speak English there and speak it very well since English is an official language there. Another great thing about India is they speak English and they understand America and the West very well.
I know we are supposed to have a citizen Congress with citizen Representatives and Senators who are supposed to represent the people. And as the great political satirist George Carlin once said, our politicians come from us and represent us. They come from our communities, go to our schools and so-forth. Live in our communities, so we can’t really complain about the politicians that we have. Especially the House district that Representative Michelle Bachmann represents.
I mean here’s a community that first elected Michelle to the U.S. House and then reelected her three times. And had a better choice in at least two of those elections 2010 and 2012. I’m not familiar with her first two opponents, so the people who Michelle Bachmann is supposed to represent can’t really complain about. Who represents them unless they didn’t vote for her and they would’ve perhaps moved to another House district in Minnesota. Where mental patients and escaped mental patients would be ineligible to run or serve in Congress, but they didn’t do that. But if George Carlin is right and our politicians are us, then America has a lot of problems.
The good news is that Michelle Bachmann is leaving the House of Representatives and Congress. And they’ll have one less lets say oddball among them, an eccentric member. And the House Intelligence Committee should actually receive more intelligence in the next Congress with Representative Bachmann no longer among them. Unless Michelle is replaced by someone less qualified, which would be a real scary thought. And we’ll have at least one less person claiming that same-sex marriage is a threat to national security. And actually believing in what they are saying in Representative Bachmann’s case.
Michelle who says big government is a threat to our freedom, but then proposes a constitutional amendment that would outlaw pornography. And give Uncle Sam the ability to control what Americans can do in their homes and personal lives. So there will be one less contradictory member of Congress and one less hypocrite. These are all good things and I’m not complaining. But as a blogger who sometimes writes satire, this is bad news and its bad news for comedians because a lot of our material comes from statements that Michelle Bachmann makes. So hopefully she’ll find a way to stay in the public eye. Perhaps as a verbal punching bag.
Michelle Bachmann’s long journey of her long hard-fought presidential campaign of 2011, all four months of it ended. Her presidential campaign was run so badly that she ran for President in 2011 even though the presidential election was in 2012. She ran for President during the wrong year and then ended her campaign in December, 2011 after losing her birth state the Iowa Caucus in 2011. She considered running for U.S. Senate in 2012.
At least Michelle would’ve run for Senate in a year where there was a Senate election. Against Senator Amy Klobuchar, which would’ve been Democrats best shot of knocking Michelle out of Congress completely. Because she would’ve lost to Senator Klobuchar. But instead Michelle had decided to do her constituents and state a favor and not run for reelection. And give Minnesota time to recover for her time in office.
If I had to take one defense of all-time as far as dominating an entire season including the postseason and Super Bowl, I would take the 85 Chicago Bears with their 46 defense. That Bears team doesn’t win the Super Bowl without Mike Ditka. A big reason why Buddy Ryan didn’t win a Super Bowl or even a playoff game in Philadelphia or Phoenix, because he wasn’t as good of a head coach as Iron Mike. Buddy could get his teams to the playoffs and even win a division, but he was a defensive oriented head coach, who didn’t have much respect for offenses, even his own. Mike Ditka was a complete head coach, who was offensive minded, but understood both sides of the ball very well. And knew he also had a to have a good defense to win championships.
But I believe Buddy Ryan’s Eagles were better on defense of a longer stretch. From 1988-91 and 91 was the Eagles first season without Buddy, the Eagles might of had the best defenses ever. Buddy might of of had more talent on defense in Philadelphia, than in Chicago. And he certainly had better teams on offense, even though he never had that one running back he could count on to lead their running game. One of the reasons why he wasn’t successful in turning the Eagles into a Super Bowl contender was that he ever really even had a good running game. A good passing game with good receivers like Fred Barnett, Calvin Williams, Keith Jackson, Keith Byers out of the backfield. When Randall Cunningham was on, he was about as good as any QB in the game.
Imagine how good those Eagle teams of the late 1980s and early 1990s would have been had Mike Ditka been their head coach and not Buddy Ryan. Ditka would’ve given the Eagles a running game and known how to work with Randall. And then you have either Jeff Fisher or even Buddy running the defense. They Eagles probably would’ve probably already have their first Super Bowl championship already. (sorry Eagle fans) Buddy I believe had better defenses in Philadelphia if you look at their secondary and then you have Reggie White on one side on the d-line, and Jerome Brown in the middle, who were both almost unblockable. And then Clyde Simmons on the other side of Reggie. And the Eagles had more talent on offense, but Buddy wasn’t a good enough head coach as far as both sides of the ball to take the Eagles to the promise land.
One of the advantages of living in a liberal democracy is that you get to decide for yourself whether you should or should not practice religion. And what you think of religion and secularism yourself. Rather than government making those decisions for yourself. For example I’m an Agnostic not because I do not like religion, but there are a lot of religions I do not like that are way too culturally conservative for me as a Liberal and way too collectivist culturally for me to ever be a part of.
As well as not believing or disbelieving in God simply not knowing and basing things in life on the facts on the ground that are in front of me. The major reason for being an Agnostic or we wouldn’t be around. But another advantage of living in a liberal democracy is that we can’t force our religious views on other people, nor can government for example. I can’t try to force other people to be Agnostics because it's right for me. So it would work for you as well. "You are stupid to believe in religion or be an Atheist. And I’m going to make you aware of that every chance I get".
This is just something that Atheists and religious fundamentalists do not seem to understand. That their religious beliefs or lack of them are so strong and their view of life and the world are so strong and believe that they are always right that it's simply unhealthy to look at the world in another way. So when an Atheist sees a religious symbol that of course they disagree with, they somehow see that as some infringement on their right not to believe in religion. Or when a religious fundamentalist sees someone living their life in a certain way that goes against their religious beliefs, they somehow believe that is some sort of religious discrimination against them.
Or a religious fundamentalist sees some law passed that goes against their religious beliefs, they somehow see that as an attack on their religious beliefs. That somehow their constitutional right to practice or not practice religion gives them the power to impose their religious beliefs on others. When the fact is in a liberal democracy with our Constitution, individuals get to make these decisions for themselves. I support Freedom of Religion because I support the First Amendment, which covers religion and the right to assemble. The right to free assembly that we makes these decisions for ourselves, instead of others dragging us into them.
The second part of that is just as important as the first part that we can believe whatever we want to when it comes to religion. But we do not have the right to force our views onto others, people who disagree with us can simply say "you know we are going to have to agree to disagree here". And walk away rather than trying to impose our views onto each other either through law, or as individuals harassing others that we disagree with.
I like commercials like this because it shows American women doing normal everyday activities like doing their laundry, but shows them looking sexy and not trying to look sexy necessarily, but just that they are sexy and part of that is because they are doing these normal basic perhaps boring everyday activities in their basic simple, but nothing boring about them, Levis denim jeans. This women is wearing a tank top and blue Levis, going to the laundry mat in her Levis and looking sexy doing a simple chore like laundry.
There's a reason why we see women in commercials like this and a reason why see women like this in action movies that perhaps only five people have ever seen and somewhere out West or in rural America and the movie at some point becomes somewhat popular that it at least has a cult following. Because they are sexy and play their parts real well to the point that they become memorable. A lot of times the women are wearing tight jeans in that movie and generally with boots and generally those denim jeans are Levis.
I agree Barack Obama may be the worst Socialist ever for the simple reason he’s not a Socialist. And the same thing could be said about George W. Bush being the worst Conservative ever because he wasn’t very conservative if you look at his record when it came to fiscal policy especially spending and civil liberties. To be a Socialist you, you must be a Socialist. I know that sounds crazy, but to be tall, you actually have to be tall. A man can’t just say one day, “now dammit (or something stronger) I’m tired of being 5’7 and short. So today I declare myself as 6’1 and tall”. Why, because that man will still be 5’7. Calling yourself something doesn’t make you that. A police officer can’t just make themselves a sergeant and call themselves that. They have to be promoted to sergeant first.
Calling yourself something or calling someone else something, doesn’t make them what you’re calling them or yourself that, if you or they aren’t actually that. If I’ve lost you on that, I’m not surprised, I’m feeling dizzy from just writing that. To be a Socialist, you must have a socialist record and socialist policies and ideas. Which is just not there in Barack Obama’s case. Unless you want to play guilt by association, in other words Joe McCarthy. Meaning people Barry has been associated with in the past, Bill Ayers comes to mind, the guy hosting this show, Al Sharpton now here’s someone you could make a serious case about being a Socialist.
But the charges against President Obama are just Tea Party propaganda trying to make a man they hate, seen as Un-American as not one of them and must be defeated and stopped at all costs. So they use one of the most unpopular words in the American-English dictionary which is socialist and socialism and so-forth, trying to make Barack Obama seem as worst then he is to scare people. Thats the modern GOP divide and conquer when you don’t have a popular message of your own.
I’m glad the women on the show that Geraldo called a Liberal admitted that she’s not and goes issue by issue instead. Because there’s nothing liberal about the nanny state, because it’s all about big government and the establishment knowing better how individuals should live their own lives than the individuals themselves. But she did make a good point on the show that if you want to discourage healthy behavior and discourage unhealthy behavior. You do that by having people pay for their own bad decisions instead and not let them past those costs onto society and you do that by taxing unhealthy products lets say at high rates.
And not taxing at all things that are good for people. Instead of taking the nanny-state approach and saying these things are bad for you whether they are junk food or soft drinks or tobacco or alcohol and making this paternalistic argument, "not do these things or else, the or else we’ll send you to a place that’s even worse for you, than what you are currently doing which is jail". And if the person is a serial junk food eater or soft drink drinker, you know a real menace to society, "we’ll send those people to prison for their own good". What’s good for people about jail or prison.
There should be a new rule for anyone who defends the nanny state whether they are on the Right or Left. And that rule is that they must admit that they meaning government knows better how individuals should live their own lives. People who they’ve never met in life, better than individuals themselves. I know right, it would take a big set of balls, bigger than Anne Coulter's even just to feel that way in private and another set of big balls to admit that’s how you feel in public. But that’s exactly what the nanny state is.
Whether it comes progressive paternalists on the Left who want to ban junk food, soft drinks, tobacco, alcohol and hate speech. Who have this idea of freedom that people should be free to not have to think for themselves or make decisions with their own lives. Or neoconservative paternalists on the Right who want to ban pornography, homosexuality, gambling, violent adult movies, certain music that came on the scene post 1950s. To protect what they would call our moral character for us again as if government knows better for the people themselves how the people should live their own lives.
The difference between liberal democracy which is what I’m in favor of and the nanny state, has to do with freedom. The freedom for individuals to make their own decisions with their own lives. And then are held accountable for their own decisions that we understand as a society that no one is perfect and we are all going to make bad decisions at some point. But as long as we aren’t hurting innocent people with our own decisions, we don’t arrest people for being dumb with their own lives.
But then you get to the nanny state from the Left or Right, you are talking about people whose lives are so boring because they’ve either never taken a chance in life or have taken very few chances with their lives and have such little to do with their own lives and as a result have their feet so far up their asses, that’s right both feet, that they feel the need to mind other people’s business and try to control other people for their own good. There is an effective way for government to promote healthy behavior and discourage unhealthy behavior.
That doesn’t hurt individual freedom and doesn’t create a nanny state and it's very simple. You promote healthy behavior by subsidizing it and you discourage unhealthy behavior by taxing it and taxing it to the point that makes people at least think, "is this a good way for me to spend my money or not. Or are there better ways for me to spend the money that I’ve earned and made in life".
Ronald Reagan described his own politics as libertarian as late as 1975. When I believe this interview was done with 60 Minutes. And if you look at his career from 1975 to 81 when he wasn’t a politician in office and spent that time running for and then getting elected President in 1980, that’s where he was politically. Not just on economic policy, but social policy and did not believe it was the job of government to interfere with how Americans should live their own lives.
And even though President Reagan escalated the War on Drugs in the 1980s, he didn’t really have much to and want to give the Religious-Right. Or what I call the Neo-Right in America. Much if anything officially and even though he talked to those groups he was never really with them. And was more about using them to help him politically so they would vote for him. And keep the Far-Right off is back when he ran for reelection in 1984. Something that his Vice President George H.W. Bush wasn’t able to do when he ran for reelection for President in 1992.
I agree with most of what Reagan said in this short clip. Except for when it came it liberalism, where he is dead wrong about liberalism being another word for fascism. Which is a different subject, but what Reagan got right was that libertarianism is conservatism. At least in the sense that government shouldn’t be involved in people’s personal or economic lives. As far as trying to direct people in how they should live their own lives. That the real difference between conservatism and libertarianism has to do with foreign affairs and national security. Not when it comes to government’s involvement in culture and people live their own lives.
At first glance, those Calgary Stampeders uniforms, look like the Atlanta Falcons uniforms of the 1970s and 80s. And Georgia Bulldog uniforms of any period with the red helmets, red jerseys, and gray pants.
38-4, sorry if I give away the score to anyone who is actually interested in this game who hasn’t seen it yet, but the announcer was talking about how good the Stampeder defense was in 78, especially their front four. And comparing it to the Edmonton Eskimos front line as well. Which was a big part of all the CFL championship success that the Eskimos had in the late 1970s and early 1980s. And when you give up four points in a CFL playoff game, you either have a great defense, or you’re playing a team with a poor offense.
The Blue Bombers scored 371 points in 1978, in sixteen games. So they could obviously move the football and score. Only the Eskimos beat the Stampeders in the CFL Playoffs in 78, in the Western Final. So they have a very good team in 78.
I wouldn’t mind having a super majority requirement to confirm executive appointments in the U.S. Senate, if the leaderships in both parties were responsible and not blocking appointments because they are being made by a president from the other party. Or the people are that are being appointed are not the people who a group of senators would’ve appointed for that position. Because the Senate doesn’t decide who gets appointed just who gets confirmed. The Senate doesn't get to decide when the President can appoint and who they can appoint. That is the sole job of the Chief Executive of the United States.
Senators are supposed to judge nominees qualifications and character for the jobs that they are being appointed to. Not if the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Streets likes them, or are they are far enough to the Right to Left for them. Ideally I would eliminate the filibuster all together and get rid of the rule that allows for senators to talk their, well mouths off, but make assholes out of themselves and start reading from a phonebook simply in order to hold the floor. But replace with a motion to table that could only be made by the Leader or Minority Leader.
But they could only table final votes on the final legislation. Once debate is concluded and all amendments have been voted on, including the minority substitute offered by the Minority Leader, if one if offered. Then the Leader or Minority Leader could table the final bill and then the leader who didn’t table the bill could appeal to the rest of the Senate to overturn the motion to table which would take sixty votes to pass.
But this sounds like common sense where neither party would have a clear partisan advantage as a result, whether they are in the majority or minority. And we know the Senate isn't run by commonsense, but assholes who couldn't see the big picture even if it was a movie and only look at short-term political interests. Which is why something like this would probably never happened. Because it would mean doing what is in the long-term interest of the Senate.
The problem even with my reform is that you have a Republican minority led in the Senate that feels their job is to do the work of a faction in the Republican Party that wants to beat President Obama and the Democratic Senate at all costs and not allow for them to have any success at all. Just wait it out until they can find a way to impeach and convict the President in Congress or wait until the next presidential election. And not allow for the President and the Democratic Senate to do anything basically including appointing his members of his administration so they can do their jobs and run the administration.
Which was the strategy of the Senate Republican Leadership in the last Congress. And the Congress before that led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Remember what is Mitch McConnell remembered for saying in the 111th Congress his first speech on the Senate floor in that Congress that his number one priority is to defeat President Obama. And they’ve moved away from that a little in this Congress as the President has become more popular. So maybe the idea would be to eliminate the filibuster all together and replace it with a motion to table.
Senate Democrats aren't completely innocent here. With Senate Leader Harry Reid not allowing for amendments on key pieces of legislation that passes out of committee and even tends to have bipartisan support in committee. Because he doesn't want his vulnerable members up for reelection in this Congress to have to take tough votes that could hurt them in the election. But if people don't want to vote on controversial items and are simply just interested in getting reelected, than they shouldn't be serving in Congress at all.
What we need instead is for a Congress both the House and Senate to actually serve the country and address key issues of the country that the Federal Government needs to respond to. Where politics isn't eliminated and it shouldn't be, but where it doesn't dominate either. Where there's a clear relationship between the majority and minority in both chambers. The majority sets the agenda and decides what issues will be debated and voted on. And then has a responsibility to write legislation to address those issues.
But where the minority in both chambers as the loyal opposition, gets to weigh in and offer ideas and policies to address those same issues, including their own bills that are relevant to the issue that the majority is addressing. Which would probably mean the majority offering a lot of legislation that the minority doesn't like and probably having the votes to pass it. Especially in the House, but where the minority would have the opportunity to amend what the majority is trying to do and even replace that bill with their own bill.
Need the same thing in the Senate, but still keep the super-majority requirement on controversial legislation where it is clear only the majority party supports it. And if neither side has the votes to pass exactly what they want, leaders come together and work out a final compromise that could pass with a bipartisan majority. This is what would happen if commonsense was running Congress, especially in the Senate. But again this institution is run by assholes, people with egos the size of continents where all members have equal say in what can get voted on and where they can kill legislation by themselves.
Commonsense simply doesn't govern the U.S. Senate, it hasn't really since the late 1990s or so. We've been in this divisive national malaise where both parties are only looking to capitalize and take full-advantage of it to meet their short-term interests. Otherwise fixing Congress and how it operates, especially the Senate which is supposed to be the upper chamber of Congress where cooler heads are supposed to prevail, would be fairly easy to fix. And things could get back to normal where both chambers legislate, where both parties offer and vote on their ideas on issues. And come together when they don't have the votes on their own.
I just looked this up, before someone accuses me of being an expert on the Canadian Football League: The Montreal Alouettes were 8-7 in 1978 and made it all the way to the Grey Cup where they lost to the 10-4 Edmonton Eskimos, a team, that was barely over 500, makes to all the way to the CFL Championship. Similar to the 1979 Los Angeles Rams, that were 9-7 in the NFL,
Perhaps the 78 Alouettes were in a similar situation as the 79 Rams, a club with a mediocre record, but with a lot better personal then their 8-7 record would indicate..
The Toronto Argonauts however, had an awful 4-11 record in 78. So this wasn’t a matchup of great teams.
The two best teams in the NFL in 1993 were the Dallas Cowboys and the Houston Oilers. And yet only the Cowboys made it to the NFL Final Four, which is the four conference finals teams, the NFC Final and AFC Final. The Oilers didn’t even get to the AFC Final and as a result we didn’t get to see the Texas Bowl as part of the Super Bowl in 1993 between the Cowboys and Oilers. Because as good as the Oilers were on both sides of the ball in 1993 and perhaps even better than the Cowboys at least in the regular season, if you want to be a great team you have to get it done in the playoffs. To be a great team you have to do more than get a first round bye and have the best record in your conference. You have to win in the playoffs and at the very least you have to get to your conference final. Great NFL teams don’t lose in the divisional round of the playoffs. They play for Super Bowls and win Super Bowls and the Oilers under Jack Pardee and Buddy Ryan and even Kevin Gilbride were out coached by Marty Shottenheimer and his Chiefs coaching staff.
1968 is when the Democratic Party changed and no longer became a Northeastern progressive party with a Southern coalition. Made up of people who basically make up the Religious-Right and Neoconservative wing of the Republican Party today. With Liberal Democrats spread out all over the country. By 1968 the Democratic Party was moving away from the South and becoming the party of the Northeast, Midwest and West Coast, as well as the Mid Atlantic.
With the emergence of what I call the Green Party wing of the Democratic Party, that is represented by the Progressive Caucus in Congress. That you see today in the Green Party, but also in Occupy Wall Street. And this is how the Democratic Party lost the White House in 1968 because Liberals and Progressives on the Center-Left in the party were now divided between the New-Left in the party made up of Socialists Anarchists as well as Communists. The group called Students For a Democratic Society then was what Occupy Wall Street is of today. “That some things are so awful about America that sometimes it takes violence and people getting arrested to show Americans how bad this country is.”
The Democratic Party lost in 1968 because they were divided by their two mainstream wings on the Left. The FDR/LBJ Progressive coalition and the JFK Liberal coalition, with this new coalition that’s called the New-Left. People who are against war, but are in favor of using violence to get their message across. Who are against American capitalism and corporate America, but in favor of the New Deal and Great Society. But would expand into what’s known in Europe as the welfare state. What the Green Party today calls the Green New Deal.
The Green Deal would be a whole host of new Federal Government social programs to finish off of what the New Deal and Great Society didn’t accomplish. The New-Left then made up of Students For a Democratic Society and Occupy Wall Street today, are not Pacifists in the sense that they are against violence and would never use violence. They just don’t want violence coming from their government, but are more than willing to use it against government or people in society. That represent what they do not like about America, like private corporations.
1968 is basically when the Democratic Party basically became three political parties. New Democrat Liberals where I am, the FDR Progressives or what’s left of them and Occupy Wall Street today or the Green Party. That sees the Democratic Party and the Republican Party as the same party, but with different names. And even as split as the Democratic Party was back then, they still came within a state or two of winning the 1968 presidential election. But they would’ve done much better without the split happening all in one party. Mitch: Chicago 1968- The Democratic National Convention
I love Levis commercials for women. I think they are the best looking denim jeans on women and there's no secret why Levis Strauss is so big and popular and I believe a big part of that is their women's jeans are so classic and simple. Classic tight blue denim that highlights women's curves, legs and butts without needing any special decorations or anything else to get people to want to look at the jeans. They are simply great looking jeans because of the material of denim that they use both their blue and black denims.
And I really Levis Curve ID, which is what this commercial is about. Tight denim Levis for sexy healthy women. Not stick-figures or obese women, but sexy healthy women who take care of their bodies and like to reward themselves for looking great and taking care of their of themselves and want to highlight their curves. Which is what you see in this commercial. Healthy sexy women who look great and because of that they look great in their Levis Curve ID jeans and makes this a good commercial.
If you judge quarterbacks by their size or their physical abilities or their numbers, Joe Montana doesn’t stack up very well except for his numbers. But if you judge quarterbacks by how well they play in big games and how they do when the game is on the line and how they play the game, then you are going to have an impossible time finding a list of quarterbacks who you could even compare with Joe Montana as far as great quarterbacks. The list would be like two quarterbacks at least as far as I’m concern. John Unitas and John Elway and perhaps Otto Graham as well and that’s about it.
Some QB’s have a nice run 5-6 years where they do well and then you can say they are one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL, Rich Gannon comes to mind with the Oakland Raiders. And then there are quarterbacks who may have a short run of greatness, but accomplish so much in that period that it lands them in the Hall of Fame. Terry Bradshaw comes to mind with the Pittsburgh Steelers. But it’s hard to find many if anyone who were as great as Joe Montana for as long as Montana in the history of the NFL.
When I think of Joe Montana I think of the QB who played for the best team and the best head coach of his era. The San Francisco 49ers playing for the best offense and playing with a great defense where he for the most part didn’t have to win games on his own. Joe Cool was a possession passer who would beat you with play after play, pass after pass. And when the defense got tired of that and came after Joe, he could go deep on the defense with wide receivers like Jerry Rice or John Taylor.
And earlier Joe had Freddie Solomon and Dwight Clark. So if you want to play press coverage against Joe and the 49ers, now you are at risk of giving up the deep pass against the 49ers. Because their West Coast offense always had the deep threat in guys who would look for the big play. Especially against press coverage which is what made this offense so great because it forced defenses to defend the whole field. Short, middle and deep and Joe was the best at running this offense.
What separates Joe Cool from anyone as far as quarterbacks again except for John Unitas and John Elway, you could make a very good case for any of these three quarterbacks as the best all-time, is they all played a long time, but they were all great quarterbacks for a long time and how well they played in the big games for as long as they did. A lot of quarterbacks hang around and stay in the league for a long time. But it’s the special quarterbacks that are not just in the league forever as it may seem, but they are great QB’s for so long. Winning so many games and championships and that’s the type of QB Joe Cool was.
Two of the best franchises in the history of the Major Indoor Soccer League and pro arena soccer in general regardless of which league you want to talk about. And there have been several pro arena soccer leagues in America, which I believe has been one of the reasons why the sport hasn’t caught on and become a major pro sport by now. The Sockers are sort of like the Los Angeles Lakers of the MISL. And the Steamers are like the Boston Celtics or Philadelphia 76ers, franchises with long histories of winning and playing for league championships. And they’ve both been so successful winning so many championships each, because they play this sport the way it should be played. Both on offense and defense. Moving the ball on offense and constantly attacking, while at the same time playing with discipline so they aren’t hurt defensively. And with solid goaltending as well.
I love this show and love this interview and if I wasn’t three years old when in 1979, I would’ve watched this show myself. Because here are two guys who agree on practically nothing. Coming from both ends of the political spectrum. With Liberal/Libertarian Milton Friedman on the Right and Progressive/Socialist Phil Donahue on the Left. But knowledgable enough about the others side and these issues to have a good discussion or debate with each other. To do it intelligently and respectfully without yelling at each other.
You have the ultimate of individualists in Liberal/Libertarian Milton Friedman. And about the ultimate as collectivists come in Progressive Phil Donahue. So you have a debate between someone who believes in a free society not an Anarchist. But in the sense that everyone should have the right to live their own lives. As long as they aren’t infringing on others to live their own lives. Against a Collectivist who believes that we are all part of the same society and have a responsibility meaning government to look after the welfare of others. And even at times protect people from themselves.
I’m with Professor Friedman on most if not all the social issues. Legalizing narcotics across the board, would be where I would differ. We agree on marijuana, but I would decriminalize the other narcotics and treat users and addicts as patients and not addicts, at their expense. And I’m with the Professor on most issues when it comes to economic freedom and policy. Except I believe you need government help and empower people who are down get themselves up and off public assistance all together. And to protect customers and innocent people in general from predators who would hurt them. And profit from their bad behavior.
I agree with the title of Bill Maher’s editorial that greed is good. But I also believe that Pepsi is good, but I wouldn’t drink it all the time, because bad consequences would come from that. Like never being able to go to bed or diabetes to use as examples. I believe TV is good, doesn’t mean I would watch it all the time, or I would never getting anything else done that I need to do. Like I don’t know, well going to bed to use as an example. The blitz is a good defense to use in football. Doesn’t mean I would blitz all the time because you are kinda of giving away how you play defense.
And even if the offensive coordinator or head coach of the other team are idiots when it comes to coaching, even an idiot coach would figure out what you are doing on defense and would adjust. And play max protection and know they have single coverage on the outside and look for big plays, or like slants to beat the blitz. I love chocolate chip ice cream, it doesn’t mean I would eat it all the time because similar with Pepsi that would come with bad consequences.
There are plenty of things that are good, but as the saying goes there can be too much of a good thing. Even as it relates to love like loving a person who constantly hurts you and is not good for you. You can have too much of anything and greed is a perfect example of that. And when these things go unchecked like greed, then that hurts you in other ways like companies becoming too big. And not having enough competition and being able to charge their customers as much as they want. Because their customers now have nowhere else to go so it’s not greed that is bad.
As I've explained before we are all greedy and we are all motivated by at least a certain amount of. We don't have an unlimited amount of unselfish Saints. Greed it’s when greed goes unchecked is when it becomes a problem. Which is why we want people to be as successful as possible and to obtain as much as they want for themselves. As long as they aren’t screwing over innocent people and abusing the process to obtain their success. It’s not that greed is bad is when greed like the other things that I mentioned and when they go unchecked.
When greed takes the place of other things that are needed for people to live well is when it becomes a problem. Which is why you have a private enterprise economy, but with an effective regulatory system in place to prevent and punish the abuses. Like companies reaching a level where they now do not have and major competition, or where workers get screwed over so management can be paid more. Which is why greed like anything shouldn’t go unchecked.
I love women, especially curvy sexy women that are even willing to do videos like this and show what a women with curves looks like in Levis denim jeans. The jeans she is wearing I believe are for curvy sexy women. Not stick-figures or women who live at all you can eat meat lovers buffets. But healthy sexy curvy women who take care of themselves including staying in shape. And it's not just the body, but the jeans that a women like this curvy sexy women in general wear. This women I believe picked out the perfect jeans for her body and sexy women tend to do it.
I believe Levis and perhaps Levis Curve ID in particular are not only the perfect, but the best jeans for sexy curvy women. And to me sexy women are curvy women. What she described as straight-figured women to me are women that perhaps do not have curves at all. At least in the lower body and slim and perhaps tall as well. Valley girls tend to look like this and put down curvy women as automatically being fat. Even if the curvy women's curves are tight and strong, like the women in the video. Curvy women are simply that, women with curves and sexy curvy women are also healthy.
I’m not sure Michael Moore could give Milton Friedman a good debate at any point in his life. Let alone in his mid twenties like he was in 1978. But this debate between a Classical Libertarian or Liberal, as Milton preferred to be viewed like Milton Friedman and an Occupy Wall Streeter let’s say in Michael Moore, who also happens to be part of the one percent because he went to school got himself a good education, got himself a good job, has been very successful now has his own production company and also happens to come from a blue-collar family from Flint, Michigan, is very interesting.
Mike Moore is obviously not a Roosevelt or a Rockefeller or a Kennedy. He’s a man whose earned every dime he’s made in life. Which is a big part of American capitalism. And yet he seems to feel the need to bash an economic system that’s made him so successful. Versus an economic professor a Classical Libertarian, whether you agree with him or not, at least you always knew where he was on the issues. And he always made a good case for what he believed in.
It’s one thing to come from a blue-collar family where your father makes cars for a living or is a construction worker with a very good job with pay, benefits and so forth with a good future in that company if he stays on course. Or be that person yourself and perhaps follow your father’s footsteps and suddenly see that job and future disappear. For Mexico and China where they can pay workers slave wages and treat them like the dirt they walk on. And then say, “this is what you get from American capitalism. Companies going where they can pay their employees the least.”
Even though that same economic system empowered you to be successful before you lost your job. But it’s another thing to bash a system that’s worked so well for you. Where you’ve taken advantage of every opportunity in front to you. Or at least most of them and now say, “even though this works for me and I now will have enough money where I’ll never have to worry about money again. Because I also have this job that I’m very good at that will allow me to make a lot more money.” And say even though it works for you, we should end it and not allow others to benefit from it.
Just the fact that Milton Friedman would give these lectures and take questions from people, who perhaps didn’t listen to a thing he said and based their questions on what they’ve read from him before is a good thing. Because it gave these students an opportunity to hear another viewpoint. Instead of being stuck in their own ideological world. Where there’s never anyone contradicting them. Which is what political speech is about. The opportunity to make your own case, hear the other side and see where you stand afterwords.
This was Woody Hayes last football game as head coach of the Columbus Buckeyes, as I call them. This game is famous for I guess a couple of reasons. The positive one being that the Clemson Tigers showed they were ready for prime time so to speak and could beat a perennial national title contender that the Buckeyes always were for the most part under Woody Hayes and won a few national titles under Woody. But the reason this was Woody’s last game for the Buckeyes is because he was caught punching a player on the sidelines. Obviously a no no and it cost Woody his job and he only has himself to blame for that. Because he was arguably the top college football head coach of the 1970s, but perhaps his entire career at Columbus. It was just one of those moments where Woody was out of control, took that out on someone and was caught on national TV.
Before I write a blog about greed and arguing what it’s good or not. We should first know what greed is. Which is the "inordinate want to obtain wants for oneself". In other words the want to obtain things just for ourselves. For us to have for ourselves which covers everyone in every country in the world including the most Socialist countries in the world from. Social-Democracies like Sweden to the state-owned communist republics like North Korea all run on a certain level of greed.
I write this blog for myself and for others to see and so I can obtain things for myself. Not do it just for the hell of it or just to give information and opinions to people who read it. The fact is we are all greedy and are all motivated by greed at least to a certain level. For us to function in life, we all want our own home, our own cars, our own clothes, own food. We all want to go on vacation for ourselves and whoever we may vacation with. Rather than stay home so we can go to work for the betterment of whatever company we happen to work for.
We work to give ourselves the ability to obtain things for ourselves. Greed or be greedy is things we are able to do as we become more successful in life. So the question is not whether people are greedy or not. And even religious leaders and Saints run on some level of greed. Including people who serve in the military or armed forces, teachers, doctors. You name the profession and it has at least a certain level of greed in it. And this is important because we tend to use the word greed like it’s an insult. Or call someone greedy like we would call them a bastard or jerk or something. When the fact is we are all greedy.
So the question is not whether we have greed or we are greedy. But what happens when greed goes uncheck and we have too much greed in society. Because that’s when greed becomes a problem. Somebody who runs a company whose company provides better products than their competition and is rewarded for that financially and everything else, that’s a good form of greed, beating the competition. Greed is a problem when companies literally try to destroy the competition so they no longer have competition. Like lobbying for laws that benefit them over their competitors. Or pay their employees slave-wages so the executives can profit more. It’s when greed goes uncheck that it becomes a problem.
Which is what I believe Milton Friedman was trying to explain in this video. That greed is used to put the other guy down, but we as individuals are never greedy. It's just those people who do better than everyone else that are greedy. When the fact we are all greedy as individuals. It’s just a matter of how greedy that we are. And when it goes uncheck it’s, then when greed is bad and not good. Which is why we have regulations over the economy including taxes. So we all pay for the services that we consume.
Barry Windham is one of the best all around pro wrestlers of all-time. With great size, strength, athletic ability and intelligence. 6'6 275 pounds at least in his prime, 15-20 twenty pounds lighter than that when he was young. But someone who could beat you up with all sorts of moves, but who could also wrestle. Could body slam you, suplex you, but could also hit you with great dropkicks and flying close lines. Just a nightmare to have to wrestle unless you were also a big strong wrestler who could wrestle. Because he had so many ways who could hurt you.
Classic matchup of a the pure wrestler in Ric Flair, vs. the young big strong stud. Who was a great power and finesse wrestler, Windham could wrestle you either way. Take on a Sting, Lex Lugar, Nikita Koloff, the Road Warriors, Dusty Rhoades, but could also and beat someone like Ric Flair or Ricky Steamboat. And if you want to call pro wrestlers the total package, for me that would be Lex Lugar as he called himself, but Barry Windham was certainly that as well. But even more athletic than Lex Lugar.
I don’t want to sound cold here, but if you look at the Vikings four Super Bowl appearances, they were the second best team in every game, so why they would be on a missing rings list from. NFL Films is surprising to me and in really at least two of those games they were clearly the second best team in the Super Bowl. Because only Super Bowl 8 against the Miami Dolphins and Super Bowl 9 against the Pittsburgh Steelers, before the Steelers became a great team on offense, the Vikings were clear underdogs in these games.
The Vikings remind me of the Buffalo Bills of the early 1990s. As teams that got beat badly in Super Bowls by teams that were clearly better than them. The Vikings were overmatched upfront on defense and offense by the Kansas City Chiefs in Super Bowl 4. And by the Oakland Raiders in Super Bowl 11, which meant the Chiefs and Raiders could run against them real well. And take away the Vikings run game and throw the ball when they wanted to do and force the Vikings to throw the ball when they had to.
The Vikings of the late 1960s and 1970s were very good teams on both sides of the ball. But that’s not enough when you play teams that are clearly better than you in the Super Bowl. They lost to two of the best teams of all-time in the 1969 Chiefs and the 1976 Raiders in the Super Bowl. Which is how both games turned into blowouts because the Vikings simply weren’t big and good enough up front to take on those big powerful offensive and defensive lines that the Chiefs and Raiders had.
The Vikings getting beat badly up front messed up their offense in these games where they had to throw practically every down. Against those big strong quick defensive lines. Against the 69 Chiefs, 73 Dolphins, 74 Steelers and 76 Raiders. The missing rings should be about teams that would’ve won the Super Bowl that year, but came up short and the 98 Vikings would be on that list. Perhaps the 86 Cleveland Browns, the 68 Baltimore Colts or the 1990 San Francisco 49ers. Not for teams that lost the Super Bowl to a better team.
The 69 Vikings are one of the most dominant teams of all-time as far as how they won games and simply dominated their opponents. A team that finished 14-2. But the 68 Colts who lost Super Bowl three were a better team both on offense and defense and a team that should be on this list. A team that won Super 5 against the Dallas Cowboys. What the Vikings were of this era were very good teams especially on defense that didn’t have enough to win the Super Bowl.
I don't know if you can find four better pro wrestlers for a cage I Quit match than Ric Flair, Sting, Terry Funk and Mr. Muta. The amount of pain and even torture these four men were able to put themselves through because of their conditioning, physical strength and just character and courage was simply unmatched by almost anyone else who has ever been a pro wrester. Two other guys I would thrown into this group would be Hulk Hogan and The Undertaker for the same reasons as these four men.
Ric Flair was seen as a classical if not classy pure wrestler who made most of his living just wrestling in the ring and not getting into street fights like this and most of that is true. But he beat the great Harley Race for the NWA World Heavyweight Championship, a match where he may of lost on points, but beat Race in it. He was in a lot of cage matches, including with The Horseman against The Road Warriors and The Koloffs and did very well in those matches. Sting could wrestle or fight anyone anywhere. It didn't matter to him and Terry Funk was a street fighter who could wrestle. Similar to Mr. Muta.
The 1960s is a generation that I would’ve liked to experienced as an adult, but I come from one generation up, so that’s not possible. But it was really a revolutionary decade both politically and culturally with all sorts of change in America. With the civil rights movement, the Great Society, the Vietnam War, the Culture Revolution and what I and others call the New-Left in America. Which is furthest left at least as far as numbers and members than America had ever seen at least in the 20th Century. The 1960s was a decade of revolution and experimentation. Where people who grew up with parents that saw the world as black and white and right and wrong. With any other type of viewpoint being seen as crazy or, Un-American. You were on this side or that side and if neither side was good enough for you, you were an outsider. It was a decade where Boomers pushed it to the limits as much as possible. They finally felt free to live their own lives and not have to live under the umbrella of how their parents lives. And be able to live life the way they wanted to. And one of the interesting things about the 1960s was it was completely different from the 1950s which was somewhat stagnant and where Americans were supposed to be a certain way and live their lives a certain way. Just like their parents and grandparents and that was completely overturn by the 1960s where people were now allowed to be free and live freely and not be looked down by society for the most part. And the Baby Boom generation made that happen. It is kind of hard to sum up a decade that had John F. Kennedy as President in 1961 and then assassinated almost three-years later when most people thought it was impossible that an American President could be assassinated, or an American would even attempt to assassinate a President. That also had the civil rights movement, LBJ's Great Society, the Vietnam War, the anti-war movement, the cultural revolution, the environmental movement, gay rights. And Americans finally coming out of their cultural coma and realizing or going "I'll be dammed! The government actually lies to their people". And I could go on, but I don't think I can do it.