The New Democrat Online

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy

Friday, August 30, 2013

My Sexy Cowgirls: Three Sexy Latina Cowgirls in Great Western Shootout


Source: My Sexy Cowgirls-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press Plus

Whatever spanish that I know and I'm guessing it is somewhere around two-hundred words to the point I can somewhat casually converse in Spanish and joke around a little in it, but what Spanish I do know and I'm being completely honest here, I've learned accidentally. And what I mean about that is that I've picked up a lot of Spanish simply by watching TV. Similar to people who've immigrated to America and what English they know before they got here was picked up from American TV.

And I mention that because in the late 1990s and early 2000s I started getting into Spanish language TV in America. And I'll be honest again here, really just for one reason. I'm flipping around one night and I see some Latin American soap opera on I believe Univision and it had these beautiful sexy women on it. So I started watching more and more soap operas on Univision and then later Telemundo and I start picking up some Spanish. And then later on I start working with Central American and Caribbean Latino immigrants and picked up some more Spanish from them.

What we call in America Western cowboy and cowgirl culture, is what you see in this video. But it takes place in I believe South America, perhaps Bolivia. And the acting is not very good to be honest with you, but these scenes and movies are pretty popular in Latin America, but with much better acting, programs and movies. Or at least I hope so, but it is always interesting to see cowgirls, sexy cowgirls especially taking on bad cowboys, meaning bad guys and coming out on top.
My Sexy Cowgirls: Three Latin Cowgirls in Great Western Shootout


Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Korean 701: Sean Penn- Why Liberal Democracy is Important


Source: Korean 701- Sean Penn-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeState Plus

Liberal Democrat which is how I describe my personal politics and personal political philosophy. And what that means because liberalism and what it means to be a Liberal means different things to different people. To lets say today's so-called Progressives, liberalism is about government creating all sorts of programs to take care of people. I’m putting that loosely, but that is what it comes down to. 
Today's so-called Progressives want a lot of government programs especially from the Federal level there to take care of people. Which is what is known as so-called modern liberalism. Libertarians idea of liberalism is who they are which is libertarian. And when they talk about classical liberalism, they are talking about libertarianism. And have a society so free of government especially the markets. And from this the people and business in a Libertarian Utopia would be free without government interference.

A classical Libertarian lets say, only wants government to come in when innocent people are hurt. And to punish those who hurt innocent people. But that is not liberalism, but libertarianism. Liberals believe in both freedom and democracy, a liberal amount of both. Not government, which are too different things and the liberal idea about democracy is yes the right to vote and speak freely and assemble and all of those other great liberal values. But the right for free individuals to live freely in a liberal democracy, a free society.

That government should not be there to protect us from ourselves and to take care of us. But to protect our freedom and enforce our individual rights from those who would take them away. And to help people in need who do not have the freedom to take care of themselves, get the tools that they need so they can have freedom as well. Not take care of people, or try to create a risk-free society, but to protect our freedom and to see that everyone can live in freedom and not need government to take care of them.
Korean 701: Sean Penn- Why Liberal Democracy is Important

Sunday, August 25, 2013

Thomas Jefferson: Freedom vs Big Government

Source: Thomas Jefferson- 
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeState Plus

The United States Constitution is there to protect Americans from statists on the Far-Right and Far-Left. Who would otherwise ignore the Constitution because they believe government knows better than individuals themselves how Americans should live their own lives. The U.S. Constitution and our constitutional rights, are there to protect our freedom especially our privacy and our ability to make our own decisions in lives from a big government that believes that people are essentially stupid and need a big government to babysit them. Tell what to do and how to do it, that doesn’t trust people with their own lives.

As Jefferson put it the biggest dangers to freedom in America is a government and people in government who ignore the Constitution. Or perhaps just look at it as an advisory document, or playbook that politicians and other government officials can go to in order to decide what to do and what decisions to make. And that they can ignore it and when they disagree with it. But the thing is America is a constitutional federal republic and we’re not a social democracy where people can lose their rights because a simple majority views them as unnecessary and gets in their way of their big government vision.

A big difference between the American constitutional federal republic and liberal democracy from lets say an unitarian social democracy like Britain where so much power is centralized with the national government, is that Americans can’t lose their freedom and constitutional rights because the current government, or administration, Congress, view them as dangerous, or they become unpopular. Our constitutional rights and freedom are essentially guaranteed until we lose our freedom by hurting someone else’s freedom like an innocent person, or we take the life of an innocent person. But we can’t lose them because big government statists believe they interfere with their big government collectivist agenda.
Ron Paul: Jefferson vs. Hamilton- Freedom vs. Big Government



Angelo Shabazz X: Malcolm X- 'March on Washington Was Deceptive', 1963

Source: Angelo Shabazz-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeState Plus

In this speech, you can definitely see the difference in methods and strategy between Malcolm X and Dr. King. Dr. King understood that for African-Americans to get their freedom and equal rights under law, they would have to work with members of the majority population. Meaning Caucasian-Americans, to get those civil rights laws passed.

Whereas Malcolm X, at least early in the early 1960s, saw that as treasonous to work with what he would call the ‘White man’. That African-Americans should already have their freedom and equal rights. And that the United States Government should just give those things to the African-American community. Dr. King was smart enough as the brilliant leader that he was to know that those things weren’t going to just be given to his community. Especially by racist Southerners in Congress and at the local and state levels in Southern states. That they would have to fight and work to get them and go over the bigots heads and work with non-racists in the Caucasian-American community.

The March on Washington, was very successful, despite what Malcolm X said. Because in that speech, Dr. King lays out the whole vision of the civil rights movement. An America, where his children and all children aren’t judge by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Where all men and women are equal under law. And not treated better, or worst simply because of their color, or race.

That was not good enough for Malcolm X and his supporters and the broader Black Power movement and the New Left that emerged in the late 1960s. That was against the War in Vietnam, but the American capitalist economic system and the power structure in general. The broader Black Power movement and New-Left were revolutionaries. They didn’t believe in working with others to get what they want. But that they should just simply take what they want.

Malcolm X, was part of the Black Power movement. Not the socialist elements of that movement. Because he wasn’t a Socialist, but the revolutionary elements of that movement. That said, “African-Americans, should have their freedom now and we aren’t going to wait around, or try to get laws passed giving us what we should’ve already had in the first place.” And I’ve blogged this before, but

Dr. King and Malcolm X, represent not just two wings of the civil rights movement of the 1960s, but two era’s as well. Dr. King, represents the 1960s, when these laws were passed that he had a lot to do with the passage of those laws. Because he understood like a good politician does, that you have to work with others to get laws passed and get new policies. Malcolm X, represents the post-civil rights movement. The vision for how African-Americans not only have equal rights under law, but an economic vision for how the community can succeed in America. Built around education, economic development and personal responsibility in the community.
Angelo Shabazz: Malcolm X: 'March on Washington Was Deceptive', 1963



Soap Bx Prod: Video: Billy Wilder's Kiss Me Stupid


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on WordPress

I gotta admit, the first twenty minutes of this movie is very slow. Just as slow as the small Nevada town that it takes place in. That the natives in this movie seem to want to escape. Except for the first few minutes of Dean Martin when he’s performing in Las Vegas and he’s doing his musical comedy routine. But Dino comes back into the movie as someone whose just passing through town on the way to Los Angeles. And his car gets stuck there, or that is what the mechanic tells him. And one of the locals just happens to be there to put him up for the night. I guess that is what they call small town hospitality.

Dean Martin and Kim Novak, really are the whole movie. At least the good watchable parts of it. Felicia Farr, looks great in it as well and also looks great in it. But the Ray Walston character, the jealous husband, but that is because he is way out of his league and over his head. Married to a women played by Felicia Farr, who looks like a Las Vegas showgirl or performer, living in the middle of nowhere. Between Smallville and Tinyville. Who married way down to a guy whose a wannabe songwriter who makes his living giving music lessons from his home. To the five people in town who want to learn music. Whose always worried about losing his gorgeous wife, because he’s not good enough for her.

Kim Novak, is her usual hot sexy baby girl adorable self. Only this time she plays a women who seems to know what she wants and where she’s going. Who has a healthy amount of self-esteem. During her career, she tended to play women who lacked self-confidence and never sure if they were good enough. Not that much different from the real-life Kim Novak. The video on this post pretty much lays out the plot and what it’s about. I’m not sure I can add anything to it without sounding repetitive. But all the characters except for the Felicia Farr character, who might be the only real person in the movie, want Dean Martin for something. Which is to make it big and leave their small town life.


Thursday, August 22, 2013

UCTV: Harry Kreisler Interviewing David Kennedy- FDR and The New Deal

This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeState on WordPress: UCTV: Harry Kreisler Interviewing David Kennedy- FDR and The New Deal

As a Liberal myself I don’t like hearing Franklin Roosevelt being viewed as a Liberal. Especially when it comes to civil liberties, equal rights the United States Constitution and individual liberty broadly. Areas where President Roosevelt doesn’t score very well with me and other Americans. I mean President Roosevelt is a bigger inspiration for today’s Neoconservatives. Who take the view that national security is more important than individual liberty. And that national security concerns even trump the U.S. Constitution. As we’ve seen with the so-called War on Terror like with the Patriot Act.

The way his the FDR Administration dealt with German, Italian and Japanese-Americans during World War II, three important ethnic groups in America, groups who all immigrated or descended from those main countries that the United States were fighting against during World War II. Germany, Italy and Japan. These ethnic groups were being detained and held by the Roosevelt Administration and held in concentration camps. Similar to how German-Jews were being detained by the Nazi Germans in Germany. Because of their ethnicity and were seen as threats to the state because of their ethnic background. And seen loyal to someone other than their home country.

Now of course these Americans were certainly treated better than the European-Jews. But what they have in common is they were being held because of their ethnicity. No real Liberal would have a policy, or support a policy that detained people because of their ethnicity, or race. So on that score alone FDR scores really bad as a Liberal. Neoconservative, comes to mind when I look at Franklin Roosevelt when it comes to civil liberties and individual freedom. A Liberal, wouldn’t have done that and been much farther ahead of FDR when it came to civil and equal right for all Americans. Not treating non Anglo-Saxon Americans as intruders in their own country.

When you think of economic liberalism, it is about using government to empower people in need and other people. So they have the tools that they need to live well in life be successful. Not use government to take care of people and not expect anything from them on their own. And make them dependent on the state for their economic well-being. The New Deal was successful because it created a system that people could go to when they were in need and simply did not have the economic resources to take care of themselves.

That is where the safety net not welfare state starts. But not where it ends and in many cases like with Welfare Insurance, that is where the safety net ends with the New Deal. So in that sense FDR was more of a Democratic Socialist or Social Democrat. Someone who wanted to use government to take care of people like with a welfare state. And not using government to empower people to be able to take care of themselves.

And then you get to civil rights where President Roosevelt was either not interested in it, or didn’t believe all Americans deserved the same constitutional rights and be treated equally under law. Which again no real Liberal believes in and you get to two key areas where FDR doesn’t score very well as a Liberal. Civil liberties and equal rights. But where FDR does very well as a Democratic Socialist, or Social Democrats when it came to economic policy, has to do with the safety net and infrastructure investment. And other government work projects programs.

But where FDR does score very well as a Liberal is where it comes to infrastructure investment. Economic regulation not economic statism, or state-ownership which is different. And foreign policy where FDR was a clear Liberal Internationalist and a big reason why America won World War II and the Cold War and FDR does very well as a Liberal, but not in the other key areas of liberalism. Which are about individual freedom, economic freedom, civil liberties and equal rights.

I’m not sure Franklin Roosevelt ever knew his own political philosophy, or ever had one. He was someone at least as President that took issues as they came and did what he thought was best. But someone who developed an economic philosophy as he became President and became a real economic Progressive. Someone who wanted a big government in the economy to promote economic and job growth.

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

ESPN: Video: First Take: How Good Will The Redskins Be This Season?


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on WordPress

The Redskins are the strongest team in the NFC East on both sides of the ball. With the fewest questions only doing with health and the secondary. Can they keep their main players their stars both on offense and defense healthy or not. Because even though they have solid depth at quarterback with Kirk Cousins backing up Robert Griffin and up front on defense with LB Perry Riley and LB Rob Jackson to use as examples, the Redskins are going to need their stars to make a big run in the NFC Playoffs.

For this team to be more than an NFC East champion they are going to have to stay healthy and be healthy going into the NFC Playoffs. And the other question has to do with the secondary and bringing back CB DeAngelo Hall helps. But they drafted a couple safeties who’ll probably get major playing time as rookies. But with LB Brian Orakpo back and playing well and Ryan Kerrigan on the other side and DE Jarvis Jenkins, the Redskins pass rush is going to be a lot better, which will make the secondary better as well. Because they won’t have to cover as long.

So overall I’m looking for the Redskins again if they stay healthy, to win the NFC East with 10-11 wins maybe twelve. And at least get to the divisional round of the playoffs and we’ll see what they can do once they are there. Because they are the strongest team in an NFC East division that might only send one team to the playoffs. Because of all the question marks that the Philadelphia Eagles, New York Giants and Dallas Cowboys have, all of these things playing into the Redskins favor a division that the Redskins won 5-6 from last year.

The Redskins could’ve easily beaten the Giants twice had it not have been for a couple of key mistakes and blown coverages from the secondary. And this was a Redskins team that wasn’t as good last year as they are now. With all the injuries that they had to deal with. So in 2013 they’ll be even better and what they need to do is stay healthy and be discipline. There’s a tradition in Washington of overestimating the Redskins especially the local media and fans.

2006 perfect example of that where the Redskins were supposed to be Super Bowl contenders and instead were 4-12. But 2013 is a much different season because of the depth that they have and how young they are. With key veterans who are on in their prime providing the experience that good young teams have. Like CB DeAngelo Hall to use as an example, which is why in 2013 the Redskins are definitely contenders and not pretenders. Or a team rebuilding looking to be competitive again.


Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Classic MLB 11: Video: NBC Sports: MLB 1988-GOW-7/23-San Francisco Giants @ St. Louis Cardinals: Full Game

Classic MLB 11: Video: NBC Sports: MLB 1988-GOW-7/23-San Francisco Giants @ St. Louis Cardinals: Full Game

What a difference a year or a season makes for both the Giants and Cardinals. Who were both clearly the two best teams in the National League in 1987 and in the Cardinals case in 1988 were fighting to stay out of last place in the NL East in 1988. A division they played in until MLB realigned in 1994 and went to three divisions in both leagues. And in the Giants case, never making a real run at the NL West title at least by the All Star break and finishing eleven games behind their arch-rival Los Angeles Dodgers out of first place.

When teams when their division in MLB, especially over a 162 game schedule, unless they are very deep in talent with great chemistry and a great manager, they tend to have a lot going for them. And are able to avoid making critical mistakes during the season that costs them big games. And cost them games that might not seem big at the time, but come back to cost them in September when they’re fighting to make the playoffs or win their division. Both the Giants and Cardinals were able to avoid big mistakes and injuries in 1987. But 1988 they got hit by those things over and over and it really cost them.


Monday, August 12, 2013

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder: Mandatory Minimum Prison Sentences

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder-
This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeState on WordPress: U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder: Mandatory Minimum Prison Sentences

We simply send too many people to prison for offenses that do not deserve prison time. And we simply can’t afford to do that anymore, because we can’t afford the costs of taking care of people who otherwise can take care of themselves and do not represent real threats to society. And we need to reform our sentencing guidelines to fix this problem. Drug addicts, who are guilty of nothing other than being addicted to legal drugs, need to be in drug rehab at their expense. And other non-violent offenders who don’t represent a major threat should be in halfway houses. Again at their expense and save our prisons for people who need to be there.

Attorney General Eric Holder, is not saying we are too tough on violent crime and violent criminals. People who deserve tough sentences and need to be in prison for long sentences. He’s addressing how we handle non-violent offenses and offenders. Non-violent-criminals who don’t represent any real if any threat to society when it comes to either the economy or our physical security. He’s saying there are better as well as more cost-effective ways to dealing with non-violent offenders. Especially offenders who are simply in prison for illegal drug use, or possession.

People who view themselves as fiscal conservatives, should hate how the United States deals with non-violent offenders in America, especially as it relates to the so-called War on Drugs. Which is an overwhelming failure in America. And we waste so much money locking people up and having American taxpayers pick up the cost of living for people who otherwise could take care of themselves if they weren’t addicted to drugs. Who don’t represent any real threat to society either from an economic or security standpoint. And we have to do better in America for our taxpayers as well as the people who guilty of nothing other than being drug addicts.

Saturday, August 10, 2013

Phid: Mi Latina Prefeirda En Tight Jeans- Sexy Baby


Source: Phid-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press Plus

Mui sexy y benita bebe chica! Love this women, actually I never met her and only have seen her on YouTube. I know shocking, you're probably grasping for air right now. If you are morbidly obese, perhaps you need the Heimlich maneuver to stop your choking, if someone's arms are long enough to get around your body and perform it on you and one of your steaks flies out of your. I'll confess, I've only seen this women on YouTube, but over and over again. It would feel like stalking if I wasn't just watching her on YouTube.

I use to watch a lot of TV Espanol or Spanish TV, for all of you English speakers out there reading this, that's right both of you. And a lot of times some older movie, lets say 10-15 years old would come on and it would be an action. A sexy female police detective or perhaps a sexy female private detective or perhaps bounty hunter. Maybe a girlfriend of the guy who is supposed to be the hero of the movie and she would be dressed very similar like this. Great body, very cute and beautiful wearing tight denim jeans and sexy boots. The women in this video reminds of those movies.
Phid: Mi Latina Preferida En Tight Jeans


Friday, August 9, 2013

Banky GS: Cindy Crawford in Fair Game 1995

This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on WordPress: Banky GS: Cindy Crawford in Fair Game 1995

I’ll be one of the first to admit that Fair Game is not a great movie, not even a very good movie. It’s a very entertaining movie with a lot of funny lines and some funny scenes. (Especially the edited version of the movie from TNT) Take Cindy Crawford out of this movie and I sure as hell don’t have much reason to watch it. Actually I liked the Russian female terrorist. But probably not enough reason to watch a ninety-minute film by herself. Which is the Segway for what I really like about this movie.

Cindy Crawford, arguably the top supermodel of all-time and still one hell of a goddess today at 49 was my main motivation for seeing this movie twenty-years ago and why I still see it again from time to time today. She’s one of the top goddess’ of all-time. About 5’9, 130 pounds or so, with gorgeous red hair and gorgeous eyes and a hot baby-face. When she smiles back then and today you really get to see how adorable she is as well. She reminds me a lot of Raquel Welch and Eva Mendes reminds me of Cindy today as well as Raquel. Women who are hot, but almost bay girl adorable.

And that is what you see in this scene from Fair Game. A gorgeous sexy baby-faced adorable women whose on the run from terrorists. Who needs access to a computer and she sees a computer geek who could help her and uses her goddess sex appeal to get from him exactly what she wants. Perhaps giving this poor schmuck the ride of his life, but a ride he’ll never forget. Giving him nothing to complain about from her since he’ll probably never forget her. A movie that’s not exactly a very clever movie, but does a good job at taking advantage of the tools around it. Like using sexuality to get what the sexy character wants.

Thursday, August 8, 2013

Redskins Historian: Sonny Jurgensen- Gunslinger of The 1960s

Redskins Gunslinger-
This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on WordPress: Redskins Historian: Sonny Jurgensen: Gunslinger of The 1960s

Mike Richman had it almost perfect there. The 1960s Redskins looked more like an American Football League team than an NFL team, if you’re familiar with the AFL. Only that they were in the NFL and had to play by NFL rules. The AFL wanted to be a passing league with liberalized offenses were teams were not only encouraged to throw the ball, but throw it a lot and throw it deep. The Oakland Raiders of that era were not the only vertical spread offensive team in the AFL. The San Diego Chargers ran the same offense under Sil Gilman who was a huge inspiration for Al Davis.

And I mention this because again the Redskins as an NFL team obviously had to play by NFL rules. And back then and up until 1978 after Sonny Jurgensen had already been out of the NFL for three years the NFL rules back then favored the defenses. And big power-run ball control offenses. Where you ran the ball 3-5 plays or more, where you played field possession and hoped to get a big takeaway from your defense, a big return in the kicking game. Where you relied on your defense a lot to win the game. And hoped you had a big day running the ball and your QB hit some passes down the field and didn’t turn it over.

What made the Redskins special during the 1960s was not that they only had one winning season, which was under Vince Lombardi in 1969 at 7-5. (Who didn’t even lose in Washington) Or that they didn’t make the playoffs the entire decade. What made them special was that they went against the grain in the NFL. They had an 1960s AFL offense that was playing in a 1950s America NFL where it was almost considered immoral to throw the ball, or score quickly and take big chances on offense in order to score. And it wasn’t really by design either. They didn’t have a strong offensive line, they couldn’t run the ball worth a damn for the most part and their defense barely stopped anybody during this period.

But what the Redskins had was arguably the best quarterback in pro football during this era other than John Unitas in Sonny Jurgensen. A QB that could get rid of the ball quickly, who had a strong accurate arm and touch and who moved well in the pocket. As well as perhaps the two best receivers on the outside in the NFL during that decade in Charley Taylor and Bobby Mitchell who both had good size, hands and speed. And then you add Jerry Smith in the middle at TE who should also be in the Hall of Fame and you’re talking about an offense that could put up 25-30 points a game against anyone. Even if they’re giving up more than that in every game.