Rik Schneider Online

Liberal Democracy

Liberal Democracy
The Free State

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Michael Savage: FNC's Geraldo Rivera- Ann Coulter-Meme Roth Debate on Nannying Turns Into Battle Over Gay Bathhouses


Source: Michael Savage- 
Source: This piece was originally posted at FreeState Plus Wordpress Blog

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”.
Michael Savage: FNC's Geraldo Rivera- Ann Coulter Debate on Nannying Turns Into Battle Over Gay Bathhouses



CBS News: Video: 60 Minutes: Ronald Reagan's Opinion on Libertarianism


This post was originally posted at FreeStatePlus on WordPress

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.

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Richard Waldrup: Video: NBC Sports: NFL 1993-AFC Divisional-Kansas City Chiefs @ Houston Oilers: First Half

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Post on WordPress

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.

Sunday, May 19, 2013

HBO: Video: Real Time With Bill Maher: New Rules, Greed is Good


This post was originally posted at FreeStateExtra on WordPress 

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. 

Friday, May 17, 2013

Tiger Ray: Video: ABC Sports: FBS 1978-Gator Bowl-Columbus Buckeyes vs. Clemson Tigers: Full Game


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Post on WordPress

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.


Phil Donahue Show: Milton Friedman on Greed

Source: This post was originally posted at FreeStatePlus WordPress Blog

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.

The Classic Wrestling's Channel: NWA 1986-World Heavyweight Championship- Barry Windham vs. Ric Flair /14/1986


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Post Plus

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.


Thursday, May 16, 2013

WWE: NWA 1989-Halloween Havoc-Ric Flair & Sting vs. Terry Funk & Mr. Muta: I Quit Cage Match


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Post Plus

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 wrestler. 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.



Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Hoover Institution: Video: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson: The Sixties With Christopher Hitchens & William F. Buckley, From 1998


This post was originally posted at FreeStatePlus on WordPress

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 damned! The government actually lies to their people". And I could go on, but I don't think I can do it. 



Tuesday, May 14, 2013

WCPO-TV: Video: Sam Wyche Remembers Super XXIII: Why the 1980s Cincinnati Bengals Came Up Short


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Post on WordPress

There are a lot of things that I respect about Sam Wyche and a lot of things that I like about him. But there some faults and weakness’ in his career that I do not respect and have been looking for an opportunity to blog and write about Sam Wyche. And what I call the Wyche Bengals and not just the 1988 Bengals and basically his entire tenure in Cincinnati. Because there is a brilliant side of Sam Wyche, a guy with a brilliant both football and real world mind as far as some very intelligent when it came to football. 

Sam Whyce a man who understood both offensive and defensive football about as well as any head coach from his era. And yet I consider Sam Wyche to be a rich or poor man’s Norv Turner. A higher football IQ than Norv, but someone who produced similar results as a head football coach. And someone who seems to have a very good football team at least on paper each year, yet struggles just to make the playoffs every year for the most part. The 1988 Cincinnati Bengals perfectly sums up the Sam Wyche tenure in Cincinnati. 
Because here’s a franchise in the Bengals that arguably had the most talent in the AFC Central in the mid and late 1980s. And perhaps as late as 1990 and 91 when Sam was still the head coach in Cincinnati. And yet The Bengals do not even make the AFC Playoffs until year five of Sam’s tenure in Cincinnati in 1988. Let alone win a divisional title, yet he had the best team in the AFC Central in 1984 and 85 for sure. Perhaps not in 86, the 86 Cleveland Browns were very good and another example of a team that was a underachiever. 
But the 86 Bengals that went 10-6 had a better team than the Denver Broncos that won the AFC that year. And would’ve at least been a wildcard team that year. And 1987 a strike season, but a team that went 4-11, but had great opportunities to win at least 4-5 more games and make the AFC Playoffs and they didn’t do that. The 1988 Bengals a team that went 12-4 and by most accounts had a great season. Yet they had opportunities to win Super Bowl 23 in the fourth-quarter and put this game away against the. San Francisco 49ers. 
And the Bengals didn’t do that, like dropping an interception in the end zone and settling for field goals despite having the best offense in the NFL that year. The Bengals in Super Bowl 23 looked like the Bengals of 1987 a team that simply didn’t finish. And why they are part of a show that’s called The Missing Rings instead of on a show that’s about one of the best NFL teams of all-time and one of the best ever. A lot of NFL head coaches don't succeed because they don't have enough talent. Sam Wyche didn't succeed, because he didn't do enough with the talent that he had. 

Saturday, May 11, 2013

Vader Bomb: Ric Flair and the Koloff's- The Ric Flair-Nikita Koloff Rivalry


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Post Plus

Just when I was starting to get into pro wrestling as a kid in mid-1980s as a nine and ten year old, I first discovered the World Wrestling Federation and what was called at the time that later became known as World Championship Wrestling, the National Wrestling Alliance, I started seeing Ric Flair who at the time was NWA World Heavyweight Champion. How you can be World Heavyweight Champion of a national wrestling organization, is still a mystery to me, but that is the title that Nature Boy Ric Flair had at the time.

The Nature Boy had several great rivals in NWA/WCW in the 1980s and 1990s pre-NWO takeover of the late 1990s, which is another subject and downfall of WCW, which is the subject of another blog. But one of those great rivals was Nikita Koloff a Lithuanian-Russian citizen who emigrated from Russia to the America and I believe is now an American citizen. And The Russian Nightmare was perfect for the Nature Boy. Even if you can past the part the Ric Flair is supposed to be Mr. All-American and Nikita was a Soviet bear at the end of the Cold War in WCW.

But that is just a part of what made this a great rivalry for a few years in the mid and late 1980s. Ric Flair 6'1 240-245 pounds, a pure classical wrestler who could also fight when he needed to. And pound for pound perhaps the best pure wrestler in the history of pro wrestling. Nikita Koloff, 6'5 280-285 pounds, maybe five-percent body fat, built very similar to Lex Lugar, but who was a much better wrestler, at least when it came to actually wrestling. One of the great pure wrestlers and power wrestlers in the history of pro wrestling.

So NWA/WCW has a perfect rivalry and matchup here. Because it wasn't just two huge giants trying to beat the hell out of each other. Flair is certainly not a giant physically, but certainly big and strong enough to defend himself and Koloff was big powerful man, but not a giant either like The Undertaker or Kane or someone that huge. These were two great wrestlers from completely different backgrounds. One American, the other Russian competing in America at the end of the Cold War. And it was great classic wrestling.



Friday, May 10, 2013

Everything Sports: Video: ESPN's SportsCentury Charles Barkley, Larger Than Life


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Post on WordPress 

It’s hard to describe Charles Barkley in a few sentences or even in a blog. But I’m a blogger who blogs about sports sometimes and I’m very familiar with Charles Barkley and grew up watching his career. So I’m going to give it a shot, but Sir Charles was an entertainer and commentator who also happened to be a great basketball player. Someone who had a lot of talent and basketball was one of those things, but not his whole talent and the entire person. Perhaps the best way to describe Charles Barkley would be to call him the Muhammad Ali of pro basketball. 

Charles or Chuck was someone who was great at his full-time job meaning basketball, but could’ve done a lot of other things and did those things. And is still doing those things like commentating not just on basketball, but culture and politics as well. That rumor of him wanting to be Governor of Alabama 10-15 years ago which was his home state, was real and something that he could’ve done and perhaps he would’ve made a good Governor and candidate. If he put in all of the work, but Charles was and is larger than basketball and always will be.
In Charles Barkley’s rookie season in the NBA with the Philadelphia 76ers in 1984-85, his nickname was the round mound of rebound because his rookie season he was 6’4 285 pounds or so and looked more like an offensive lineman or defensive lineman, but with the athletic ability of a great basketball player. But the word rebound was also part of that nickname because even in his rookie season playing power-forward at 6’4 maybe 6’5 at most, Barkley was already one of the best at his position.

Barkley was already one of the best if not the best rebounders in the NBA especially as an offensive rebounder. but he was also a great defensive rebounder and this is a guy who played with the great center Moses Malone in Philadelphia who might be the best rebounder of all-time. And now you have these two great big man and rebounders of all-time on your team. Without doubt height for height Charles Barkley is the greatest rebounder of all-time. A guy who is 6’4 and every game going up against power forwards who were 6’9-6’10 some taller than that, when 6’8 was considered short for a power forward. And Charles was the best rebounder of the entire group.
Charles Barkley the basketball player was a great rebounder the best height for height rebounder of all-time. But here’s a power forward who was also a great ball handler and passer, who could shoot the ball, lead the fast break. Had great work-ethic, a great clutch player who really had the whole package as a basketball player. And then you are talking about the great post game as a power forward on a 6’4 body, but with the physical strength of a defensive lineman in football. With the athletic ability of a great NBA guard. Which are just some of the reasons why Charles Barkley is one of the greatest basketball players of all- time. And perhaps the greatest player who has ever played power forward.

Sports Batman: Video: SportsCentury Wilt Chamberlain, a Giant Among Men


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Post on WordPress

When I think of giants in NBA basketball, I always think of one guy first which is Wilt Chamberlain. Because he’s not the heaviest or the tallest, but the biggest ,the strongest man who has ever played basketball. Shaquille O’Neal has nothing on Wilt when it comes to strength and as a giant. Because Wilt was 7’1 270 pounds or so all muscle, Shaq the same hight and probably weighing 320 pounds. But without the brute strength of Wilt because Shaq was not all muscle, didn’t play with the same energy for an entire game that Wilt did. 

Shaq wasn’t the rebounder or the defender that Wilt was and wasn’t as dominant or have the all around offensive game even in the post that Wilt did. Shaq is the dominant center of the last decade and late 1990s, but not even the best center of his generation. That goes to Hakeem and I would take Patrick Ewing in his prime over Shaq as well. So to say that Shaq who was a great player and a great center was the Wilt Chamberlain or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar of his generation is unfair to Wilt and Kareem. Who were both better, but also unfair to Shaq for him to try to live up to that.
As impressive as Wilt’s stats are the rebounds, points, assists as well and if block shots were a stat back then, he would’ve had a lot of those as well, Wilt was that he also won two NBA Championships, one with the Philadelphia 76ers in 1967 one of the best teams of all-time, but also with the 1972 Los Angeles Lakers another team that’s one of the best of all-time, but here’s a player that played for two of the best NBA teams of all time and won two championships with them. 
Wilt probably would’ve won more and perhaps didn’t do enough to make that happen and perhaps more interested in his own point totals. The famous saying being that Wilt scored more points against Bill Russell every time they played for the championship. But Russell would always win the championships except in 1967, is not just a joke, but is real because Russell was a better team player, but he also played for better teams.
You could make a case for either Wilt or Kareem as being the best center of all-time. And you also make a very good case for either of them being the best player of all-time as well. I lean towards Kareem as someone who was the best center in the best era that the NBA has ever seen for centers. And big man in general and Kareem was a better team player as well. But no one ever dominated the game from an individual standpoint as Wilt. Which makes him the most dominant player in NBA history. And a giant amongst men in the NBA.

Monday, May 6, 2013

Mitzir E: Video: The Ultimate Mitt Romney Flip-Flop Collection


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Post on WordPress

I thought after Mitt Romney lost this last presidential election that we would be done hearing from him at least as a major national politician. His problem is that he’s been actively involved in American politics for twenty years now and the Mitt Romney we saw back in 1994 looks like a Democrat today. Or perhaps a Northeastern Republican at best and the Mitt Romney since 2007 is whoever he needs to be. To be acceptable in the current Republican Party and to speak up for Mitt just for a second. 

The Mitt Romney that first got involved in the Republican Party twenty-years ago, was a much more conservative party in the traditional sense. Before the religious-right and Neoconservatives took over to the point they are running that party. And is now a party that’s a mixture of religious conservatism and economic libertarianism. And that’s just not the Mitt Romney twenty-years ago. The Mitt Romney back then was at best a Barry Goldwater Republican of government out of our wallets and bedrooms. And not someone who was interested in pushing the social issues. 
And today's Republican Party would like to see federal agents tuck us in bed to make sure we aren’t doing anything that they would see as immoral. But it’s Mitt Romney who decided to get involved in national Republican politics when he could’ve stayed in Massachusetts. And done very well there, but instead he’s involved in a party that’s moved far away from where he use to be politically. 
And Mitt simply doesn’t fit in very well in the Republican Party anymore, so the Mitt that we see today is the Mitt that he believes that he needs to be at the time to advance his political career. So when he’s in swing-states he’s Moderate Mitt, when he’s speaking to the Tea Party or the religious-Right, he’s Religious-Conservative get government out of our wallets and into our bedrooms Mitt. 
Or he’s Neoconservative Mitt that judges our military based on how much we spend on it and coming out in favor of mass deportations of illegal immigrants. When he’s in the Northeast he’s Mr. Northeastern Republican. Big government out of our wallets and bedrooms Mitt who doesn’t push the social issues. And then the next day when's he in South Carolina, he is we need big government in our bedrooms to make sure no one is doing anything immoral in the privacy of their own homes. Like watching an adult movie. 
When Mitt Romney was running for President, I simply called him Flip Flopper. Multiple-choice Mitt would work as well, pro-choice until it gets’ Mitt into political trouble. The truth is we do not know Mitt Romney because he might not know who he is either because he never found one. The Mitt that won’t get him into trouble so he brings out all of these new characters to show that he’s not really as bad as he use to be as he’s offending a new group of voters. 

Moog Rogue: Video: Mr. Conservative: Barry Goldwater's Opposition to The 1964 Civil Rights Act


This post was originally posted at FreeStatePlus on WordPress

I have a lot of respect for Barry Goldwater, he’s probably my favorite Conservative. But as Julian Bond says in this video, Senator Goldwater was just plain wrong about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. And what I would add to that is that because here’s a man a sitting United States Senator probably the most effective and intelligent Conservative spokesmen in Congress who was constantly speaking out in favor of individual freedom. Saying that states rights trumps individual freedom and the constitutional rights of individuals.

And that states have the right to deny their residents the same constitutional rights as other residents of their state. Even by race that somehow states rights trumps individual rights which is of course unconstitutional. These civil rights laws weren’t about telling states how they can govern themselves, but that they have a duty just like the Federal Government to comply with the United States Constitution. And have to enforce their own laws equally. For all of their citizens.

What the 1964 Civil Rights Act is about, is that all Americans regardless of race or ethnicity should be treated equally when it comes to their race and ethnicity. Not be treated better or worst and when it comes to public accommodations including business’s open to the public, that the public is everybody. That business’s can’t deny people access to their business because they don’t like race or complexion. Americans don’t have to like each other and think well and be nice to each other. But that is different from denying people access simply because you don’t like their race or ethnicity.



Saturday, May 4, 2013

Glammed For Beauty: Video: Five Ways To Dress Your White Shirt and Jeans In Boots


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Post on WordPress

You’ll never ever hear me complaining about see too many sexy women, including the baby-faced cutie in this video, wearing jeans in boots. And that is generally denim jeans in boots, but I’ve seen women wear leather jeans in boots as well. But that look unfortunately isn’t nearly as common as denim jeans in boots. Skinny denims in boots, is probably the most popular casual look, at least with American sexy women right now.

You’ll never hear me say, “you know what, instead of seeing all of these sexy women in their jeans in boots when they are out in about, how about we see more women wearing long dresses. So they don’t show their legs, butts. Especially if they’re well-built with curves and even tall. And instead of seeing these women wearing tight t-shirts and leather jackets with their jeans in boots, so we can see their chess’, they wear long thick sweaters and coats, along with their long dress’, so we can’t check them out at all.”

You’ll never hear me say that, because I love sexy women and especially love sexy women who know they’re sexy and enjoy knowing the rest of the world sees that as well. That is all you see in this video. A beautiful baby-faced sexy women, who is proud of that and proud to show those aspects of her. And who does that in a stylish and even professional way. Where she could wear this work when she’s doing her shopping, hanging out with her friends, going out with her boyfriend or husband. And in certain cases depending on where she works, could wear this look to work as well. And its great to see.


Conel Rad: Video: The Choice 1964: Barry Goldwater Campaign Film


This post was originally posted at FreeStatePlus on WordPress

There’s a book that was written in 2005 or 2006 essentially called the The Choice, a Glorious Defeat For Conservatives. I’m paraphrasing, but that’s pretty close where the author argues that Barry Goldwater’s 1964 Presidential election landslide loss inspired so many young people. Especially Conservatives to join the American Conservative movement and get involved in American Conservative politics. And even work for Conservative Republicans, or become Conservative Republicans themselves.

And I agree with this because without 1964, Congressional Republicans do not pickup something like forty-five seats in the House in 1966. Still about thirty short of a majority, but put them in contention for 1968 to win back the majority in the House. And I believe they picked up 4-5 seats in the Senate, but they were in the low-thirties as far as Senators after 1964. Barry Goldwater won ten states in 1964, but I believe seven of them were in the South. Which was right-wing Democratic country. And what Senator Goldwater did in 1964 was expand the playing field for the Republican Party by bringing in new Conservatives to the Republican Party.

Without 1964 Richard Nixon doesn’t get elected President of the United States in 1968. Because again Barry Goldwater expanded the playing field in 1964 and brought in more right-wingers to them Republican Party and out West. But in the South and brought in Libertarians from the West and Religious-Conservatives from the South. That use to back right-wing Democrats who were against things like civil rights. Barry Goldwater and Dick Nixon brought in right-wingers to the Republican Party as well especially from the South.

Because pre 1964, the Republican Party was mostly a Midwest and Northeastern party, but Goldwater and Nixon changed that for the GOP. And all of these Southern right-wingers to the GOP kept moving along in the 1970s as well. To the point that President Nixon is reelected in a landslide in 1972. More Southern and Western Republicans are elected Governor and to Congress both House and Senate in 1978. And of course go up until 1980 when Ronald Reagan is elected President and Senate Republicans win back the Senate for the first time since 1952.

I do not believe that Barry Goldwater ran for President in 1964 expecting to win. Even though I’m sure he would’ve taken the job had he won it. But he ran against Progressive big government basically from the New Deal to the Great Society. And to show Americans that there was another way to govern America and another competing vision of where to take America. And made conservatism mainstream in America.


Thursday, May 2, 2013

The Weekly Standard: Opinion- Abby Wisse Schachter- The New Paternalism: Big Government Gone Wild

Source: The Weekly Standard- NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FreeState Plus WordPress Blog

Does liberal democracy come with risks which is different from being dangerous and does individual freedom come with risks as well and does society as a whole not just government have an interest to see that everyone is living as healthy as a life as possible not just physically? The answers to these questions are of course yes, but the real question is who should make the decisions. The individual who knows himself or herself better than anyone and one way or the other will have to deal with the consequences of their decisions for good or bad?

Or government trying to make our decisions for us? The answer to this whole question is the difference between liberal democracy which comes with a lot of individual freedom and responsibility and paternalism or some type of big paternalistic authoritarian state, where risks and rewards are very limited, because the central government controls most of the power in the country. How you answers these questions pretty much defines your own politics. And if you are a Liberal like me, you simply believe in liberal democracy, but that it should come with individual responsibility as well.

And that means the individual has the freedom to make their own decisions with their own lives. Not the freedom to hurt innocent people obviously, but the freedom to manage their own lives. But then has to deal with the consequences of their own decisions for good or bad. The rewards from making good decisions and the consequences of making bad decisions. So they are incentivize to make good decisions in the future and to make fewer bad decisions in the future as. Well which benefits society as a whole and not government trying to make criminals out of people for making bad decisions with their own lives.

If you are someone who believes individual freedom is somehow dangerous and perhaps risky, then you essentially believe and perhaps you would put it on more colorful terms, but that freedom incentivizes people to make bad decisions. That freedom is too risky and that people are stupid anyway and with more personal choice, come more bad decision-making. And what we need is a government especially a central government big enough to only prevent people from making bad decisions, but punish the idiots who are dumb enough to break the law and take individual responsibility over their own lives.

The difference between the individualist and the collectivist or even statist, is that the individualist believes in a free society or free state. The collectivist, or statist believes in the nanny state and depending on how far the collectivist distrusts individualism, they may believe in a police state as well. The difference between Thomas Jefferson the father of liberal democracy and liberalism and Michael Bloomberg, not the father of the nanny state, but certainly their current president and head of state.

The whole War on Drugs fiasco is a perfect example of that. If you are to the left of me and let’s say one of the Progressives of today, or what is called a modern Progressive (Social Democrat in reality), then you think personal freedom is dangerous. Because if gives people the freedom to make bad decisions that society as a whole has to deal with. My answer to people being able to make bad decisions is to eliminate the middleman or middle women. And put the responsibility of the individual to manage their own lives and allow them to collect the rewards of their good decisions.

And leave the people to deal with the consequences of their bad decisions again so they are incentivize to make good decisions in the future. And fewer bad decisions in the future as well, and not forcing taxpayers to bail them out when they make bad decisions. Or making criminals out of people who make bad decisions with their own lives. Which is why liberal democracy is a great system as long as it comes with individual responsibility so people do not have to bail out others when they make bad decisions.
Too News Funnies: Michael Bloomberg Nanny State- Has The Mayor Gone Too Far?




Wednesday, May 1, 2013

The Weekly Standard: Editorial: Abby Wisse Schachter: The New Paternalism: How Big Government is not our Friend

The New Paternalism

Does Liberal-Democracy come with risks which is different from being dangerous and the same thing with individual-freedom. Does it come with risks as well, does society as a whole and not just government have an interest. In seeing that the country is as healthy not just physically as possible if not a responsibility. The answers to these questions is of course we should and do but then the real question who should decide. Should government being trying to make these decisions for us as far as what we can do with our own lives or. Should the individual who knows himself or herself better then anyone make these decisions for themselves and. Then  have to deal with the consequences of their decisions on their own. For good and bad be able to enjoy the rewards of their good decisions so they are incentivize to make those same. Decisions in the future but also have to deal with the consequences of their bad decisions of their own as well. The difference between Liberal-Democracy or even Liberalism and Statism and Paternalism. Who get's to decide, who has the power over the individual's life. The individual or the state.

How you answer these questions pretty much defines your own politics and are you someone whose a Liberal such as myself. And believes in Liberal-Democracy or you are someone whose a little further right of me and a Conservative who believes in similar things. Or are further left of me that believes that personal-freedom can be dangerous because it empowers people to make bad decisions. That society as a whole has to deal with one way or the other. I always side with the individual because it's their life. And they have to deal with their good and bad decisions one way or the other. But what I do is eliminate the middlemen or middle women and say hey pal or lady it's your life make the best of it that you can. So you have as many good times and rewards as possible that come with living a good life. Because when you make bad decisions you are going to be dealing with those on your own unless you can get. Individuals who voluntarily help you out.

We all make good decisions and we all make bad decisions and we all get rewarded for our good decisions. And pay the price for our bad decisions and if government and today's Progressives who tend to look at government like it's their God or something. Were really interested in insuring that people lived a quality life as possible for them. They would get out our way and let us do that and incentivize good living and force us to deal with the consequences of our own bad decisions.

Washington Examiner: Opinion: Cal Thomas: Back to the 50s: Traditional America vs. Modern America

Washington Examiner: Opinion: Cal Thomas: Back to the 50s

This post was originally posted at FreeStatePlus on WordPress

There is a movement in America that’s religiously based at least to a certain degree that believes that America has been going down hill at least culturally since the 1960s. When more Americans like African-Americans were given the same freedom as Caucasian-Americans under law. Where women had the same freedom as men and where more Americans who came of age in this decade no longer felt the need to live their lives like their parents and grandparents. And felt free to live their own lives and not worry about being called Un- American or immoral.

I call people who believe America has gone downhill since the 1960s and that the Baby Boom Generation has essentially ruined America, or at least their version of America, the Traditional Values Coalition. But perhaps they should be called the 1950s Generation. The Silent Generation Club perhaps of people who grew up in the 1950s and came of age in the 1950s. But in Cal Thomas’s case not to give away his age or anything, but he was born in late 1942, so yeah he did grow up in the 1950s, but he came of age in late 1960 or 63, depending on how you define coming of age, 18 or 21. And went to college in the 1960s, whether he’s a Baby Boomer or not. He has experiences of people from that generation. But for some relates better to people who were born in the 1930s.

The Traditional Values Coalition or Silent Generation Club, are people who point back to the 1950s and before that as their utopia. Dad worked and was the man and head of the household, even though mom didn’t work and did at least the majority of the parenting of their kids. African-Americans were no longer slaves, but their role in life was to serve wealthy Anglo-Saxon-Americans. Both in the Northeast and in the South. Gays weren’t in the closet, they were trapped in the closet and locked in so tightly that a tank couldn’t knock the door down. And were expected to be quiet and not make any noise in life. Not that dissimilar to African-Americans role in America.

And what the 1960s the Baby Boom Generation did was to ruin the utopia for people trapped in the 1950s who do not seem capable of modernizing and adapting to the times. As the great Bob Dylan said, “Times Were A Changin” and the Traditional Values folks simply didn’t get that. And have decided that the 1950s is their great moment and time and they are not moving past that moment and live in a time machine or time warp. The 1960s blew down that door for them and blew down doors that were blocking opportunity for millions of Americans who didn’t happen to be Anglo-Saxon or male

There are economic collectivists who tend to be Progressive or Socialist. But there also what I call cultural collectivists on the right. Neoconservatives who believe there is one way for people to live and one way for Americans to be American. And when we leave this status quo to live our own lives, that we are damaging society and free to make mistakes with our own lives that others have to pay for and so-forth. Liberals and perhaps Libertarians like the 1960s because individual-freedom became available to more Americans.

The 1960s created a New America where more Americans including women of all ethnicities and races, African-Americans gays were free to live their own lives and not feel the need to live the way their parents and grandparents did. Where the common TV show no longer feature a man coming home from work and saying, “honey I’m home”, with his lovely wife saying, “hi honey how was your day”, the man saying, “it was a bear and I’m bushed. What’s for dinner?” Because now moving up to modern America, honey might be still at work when her husband gets home. And working with other women and perhaps people of different races and ethnicities.

Neoconservatives as we see today in the Tea Party to use as an example, dislike the 1960s for those exact same reasons and see things like divorce, pre-martial sex, pornography, adultery, homosexuality, perhaps heavy metal music to use Rick Santorum’s case and hip hop as threats to society that must be eliminated. They want to lock up Americans for their own good and end what they see as their immoral behavior. Why because, they live in a time machine stuck on 1955 and don’t see the America the rest of the country sees.

The Traditional Values Coalition like to point to the 1950s as a decade when we were less individualistic and more collectivist as a country culturally, as a time that we should move back to in this new national time machine that would of course have to be funded by American taxpayers. And if anything we have too much personal freedom today that must be cut back for the good of the nation.

Everything wasn’t bad about the 1950s and the 1960s was certainly not a perfect decade. But with the 1960s came more individual freedom for people to live their own lives. And you combine that with individual responsibility as well and we would really have a liberal democracy. That could work for everyone with everyone able to make their own decisions. And then have to deal with the consequences of their own decisions.