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 and not trying to impose our views onto each other either through law, or as individuals harassing others that we disagree with.
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.
“Katerina Savenkova in “Quarters” commercial for Levi’s Curve ID Demi Curve Bootcut Jeans
Directed by Chris Allen Williams
Produced by SPANG TV
Talent by Wilhelmina Modelogic.”
This photo is also from a Levi’s Curve ID denim jeans commercial. If you love tight jeans, especially tight denim jeans and you love seeing women with curves in those jeans, or love wearing them and you have curves, Levi’s Curve ID jeans are great jeans for you.
Source: Levi’s
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 woman 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.
“In honor of Free Game Friday the NFL presents Joe Montana’s upset of the Houston Oilers!
8:45 Al Del Greco 49-yard Field Goal
25:30 Gary Brown 2-yard TD Run
54:50 Warren Moon Strip Sacked, Chiefs recover
1:16:52 Montana 7-yard TD Pass
1:47:38 Al Del Greco 43-yard Field Goal
1:52:02 Montana 11-yard TD Pass
1:55:23 Derrick Thomas Strip Sacks Warren Moon
1:57:39 Montana 18-yard TD Pass
2:06:56 Warren Moon 7-yard TD Pass
2:15:31 Marcus Allen 21-yard TD Run
2:20:35 Chiefs Seal Win with 4th Down Stop”
The 1993 Houston Oilers cruised into the playoffs on the back of an 11 game winning streak to claim home field advantage, making them impeccable favorites over the Chiefs. However, Houston quickly found they had a problem: the Chiefs passing attack led by Joe Montana, who threw 3 touchdown passes in the second half to vanquish the Oilers.
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.
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.
Football Stadium Digest covers major stories and events in the planning, construction and operations of NCAA and professional NFL football stadiums across the United States and Canada.
Source:
Source:
Derik Schneider
Ederik Schneider
Erik Schneider
FredSchneiderUS
kireschneider
The Daily Review
Rik Schneider
TheActionBlogUSA
The New Democrat
The New Democrat 
You must be logged in to post a comment.