CBS Sports: NFL 1979-Week 16-Washington Redskins @ Dallas Cowboys: Full Game

Source:Bujer's Sports Classics- The Redskins and Cowboys from 1979.

Source:The New Democrat

"Quality isn't very good, but one of the all-time classics.

Captain comeback, Roger Staubach's last regular season game when he rallies them past the Redskins."

Source:CBS Sports- The Redskins and Cowboys from 1979.

From Bujer's Sports Classics

If you look at the 1979 Redskins, not a deeply talented team with great players at every position. Their leading receiver Danny Buggs, caught 46 passes the whole season. They were primarily a power run, ball control football team on offense, led by the great fullback/tailback John Riggins. With a short passing game where they threw a lot to their running backs.

The Redskins team on defense, that was solid against the pass and somewhat weak against the run, that caused many turnovers. They along with the Tampa Buccaneers were the surprised teams in the NFC in 79. Two teams expected to not do much of anything going into the season and they both won 10 games.

The Dallas Cowboys in 79, were defending NFC champions as well as NFC East champions. And we're looking to get back to the Super Bowl and perhaps were the favorites going in. They were once again very good on both sides of the ball.

QB Roger Staubach, at 37 and in his last season, was perhaps still the best quarterback in the NFL at this point. And he still had the great Tony Dorsett and Robert Newhouse at running back. And Tony Hill and Drew Pearson and Bill Joe Dupree as his receivers. And they still had the Doomsday Defense. With Randy White, Ed Jones, Harvey Martin and Larry Cole upfront. They were still a very good football team.

But one of the things that made the Redskins-Cowboys rivalry great in the 1970s and 80s and I believe the best rivalry in the NFL at this point, was that both teams didn’t need to be great on paper and deep in talent for the games to be great. Both teams didn’t even have to be good for these games to be great.

The 3-13 Cowboys, beat the defending Super Bowl champion Redskins in 1988. And that is just one example. And this is an example of that, where the Redskins had a good record in 1979, but didn’t have great personal. But had enough good players and a few great ones and great coaching to make this team play better than their talent perhaps says they would. Which is why the Redskins played so well against the Cowboys in 79.

The Onion: Hillary Clinton To Nation: 'Do Not Fuck This Up For Me'

Source:The Onion- Hillary R. Clinton (Democrat, New York) 2016 presidential candidate.

Source:The New Democrat

Hillary Clinton would be smart to watch her fucking language while on the campaign trail while she’s running for president. I mean god dammit, she’ll probably already win the HBO and Showtime, as well as Cinemax and IFC audience anyway. So who does she think she’s going to win over with her fucking cussing. Her last name is Clinton, she’s a Democrat, a female, she’s not a Republican and oh by the way, her last name is not Bush. I mean, she probably already has the like totally awesome OMG crowd in her back pocket anyway.

But she did vote for President Bush’s wars and national security policies. So that could cost her votes with the “just always give peace a chance, violence is never the answer, unless it comes from the people”, vote. But how does she expect to win the Christian Right and Birther vote cussing her cute little ass off? She needs to be smart about these things.

Hillary Clinton is the ultimate opportunist Democratic politician. Not that different from Flip Flopper, I mean Mitt Romney. Which means if it is popular and it won’t cost her votes with people she needs in order to be successful, she’s also in favor of it.

But for an opportunist politician to win someone who is in business to be popular with everybody without losing anybody, you gotta be smart. You can’t say things that will piss off one crowd even if it pleases another. What you do is tell one crowd one thing, but keep that secret, while you tell the opposite crowd something else, so you don’t lose them. You don’t put together videos especially your campaign announcement cussing your ass off risking losing potential voters. What you do is launch multiple campaign announcements to different crowds. And give each crowd the message that they want to here. As if it is your sole message to voters. That is how a smart opportunist politician is successful.
Source:ATaxin

The Onion: 'Candidate Profile- Hillary Clinton'

Source:The Onion- 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, Secretary Hillary R. Clinton.

Source:The New Democrat

"Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is expected to officially announce her candidacy for the 2016 presidential election on Sunday, putting an end to months of speculation about her plans. Here are some key things to know about the first Democrat to declare her candidacy:"

From The Onion

"Innocent civilians across the impact zone are picking up the pieces after Secretary of State Clinton's tedious visits to their farms, cultural centers"

From The Onion

Source:The Onion- Is Pakistan terrified of Hillary R. Clinton? 

Here are I guess what would be the worst and perhaps the bluntest and downright most honest campaign themes for Hillary Clinton for president.

“1. Vote for me, because I’m a woman! And it’s about time we had a female president.

2. Vote for me, because I can win because of my name, you like my husband. Oh by the way, remember the 1990s? Well, my last name is Clinton too."

3. For the Far-Left in the Democratic Party.

“Vote for me, because even though I’m an Anglo-Saxon Caucasian and most of our president’s have been either Caucasian or Anglo-Saxon and most cases both actually, Caucasian women are good, unless they’re Republicans. And we aren’t as bad as Caucasian men.”

4. For the radical Feminists in the Democratic Party.

“Vote for me, because I’m a woman and I want to be President of the United States. Oh be the way, I’m a female Democrat and I can get elected. Because of my last name and who my husband is. And we were President in the 1990s, I mean Bill was President in the 1990s. And things were so good back then under our watch. I mean his watch.”

Now, of course none of these themes will be Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign theme. I mean she would have to suffer a stroke and become brain-dead or something for any of this to come true. Along with just about everyone who works for her, or informally advises her.

But what is Hillary’s reason for running for president other than potentially becoming the first female President of the United States and giving that to the Democratic Party? What does she want to do as President when you have a paper-thin resume as she does and since George W. Bush, both he and now President Barack Obama have had that, it makes it too tough to figure out what type of President the candidate would be. Especially when she hasn’t offered much in policy positions and vision to let people know what she wants to do as President of the United States.

The Onion: Report: 'New NFL Stadium in Los Angeles Could Create Thousands of Local Law Enforcement Jobs'

Source:The Onion- When the NFL is back in Los Angeles, the ,locals might prefer a new prison instead.

Source:The New Democrat

" CARSON, CA—Following the approval of plans for a proposed $1.7 billion NFL stadium just south of the city, a new report released Wednesday by the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation revealed that the new venue is poised to generate thousands of jobs for local law enforcement officers. “Given its location near downtown and the potential to house over 80,000 fans, the stadium would create over 10,000 full-time employment opportunities for the Los Angeles Police Department,” said report author Ken Strootman, who added that, given the potential of two NFL teams moving to the city, the stadium would also inject millions of dollars in annual revenue for companies selling riot gear, pepper spray, tear gas, collapsible steel batons, and tasers. “Once construction is completed, there would be an immediate demand for several new and significantly larger police stations, not to mention a sweeping expansion in the number of holding cells either inside the stadium itself or located in the surrounding area. Just purely from an economic standpoint, this would provide a massive boost to the city.” Strootman went on to say that the stadium would support a sharp and lasting increase in labor for local Los Angeles SWAT teams."

From The Onion 

Source:Unsportsmanlike Conduct: 'NFL Coming To Los Angeles'- Who Dat: wait, that's what they say in New Orleans.

"The Chargers, Raiders, and Rams are all in talks to move to Los Angeles. The Chargers and Raiders would share a stadium in Carson while the Rams would be headed to Inglewood.

Which NFL team is the best fit for Los Angeles and will that team be the first to move?"

This is probably the best and most accurate report I’ve seen so far about the NFL coming back to Los Angeles via the Oakland Raiders or San Diego Chargers, St. Louis Rams. Or some other club that doesn’t play in one of the big NFL glam markets, lets say. Meaning they are not in Washington, New York, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, to use as examples. Even though this report comes from The Onion. But keep in mind, The Onion’s reporting is just as accurate as Fox News. For all of you right-wingers who think The Onion makes things up.

Putting the NFL back in Los Angeles, even though it is the second biggest city in America and the second largest market in America and the biggest county in America, is about one thing and one thing only. The color green, meaning money of course. Commissioner Money Bags otherwise known as Roger Goodell sees a market of fifteen-million people and a city of four-million people. That currently doesn’t have an NFL franchise and hasn’t had one for twenty-years now. And sees all the potential for network TV money if there’s a franchise in Los Angeles. Thinking if LA has a team all the people there, or a lot of them will watch the team or teams there, plus the other football game there on Sundays.

What Commissioner Money Bags doesn’t understand is, is that Los Angeles is not exactly crying or even asking for another NFL franchise. Especially someone else’s that isn’t doing very well right now. Like the Raiders or Rams, two clubs that use to be in Los Angeles and Anaheim before they moved to Oakland and St. Louis twenty-years ago. Los Angeles, already has the NBA Lakers, MLB Dodgers, NHL Kings, that won the Stanley Cup a couple of years ago. They have both USC and UCLA football that is very popular there. So why would Los Angeles want to build a new seventy-eighty-thousand seat football stadium with hopes of drawing 40-50 thousand people a game and seeing the people shut out from watching their team on TV. Which is what happened to both the Raiders and Rams the whole time they were in the LA area.

If Commissioner Money Bags and the NFL was truly interested in making the NFL succeed in Los Angeles, they would think and act small and build on the progress that they make.

Start with preseason games in LA, neutral site regular season games between other teams like with the regular season kickoff or something.

Play the Super Bowl there again before LA gets another team.

Put a USFL spring team there and see how that club does there in the spring and summer.

And the last two things that are just as important as everything else. Put an expansion franchise in Los Angeles after everything else goes well. Instead of taking someone else’s team. So the people there can grow up with the new team and call it their own.

And only put one NFL franchise in Los Angeles. Because LA has never been a two-team NFL market and probably will never be one.

Los Angeles is Los Angeles and not New York. The cultures and people there are very different. LA is not as sports-crazed as New York or even Philadelphia and Chicago. And has a hell of a lot other things to do and keep them occupied outside of sports. Similar to San Francisco and Las Vegas. So for sports to work there, you have to think outside of how big and wealthy the market is. You have to plan and market sports very well there for them to succeed.

CBS Sports: NFL 1983-Super Bowl 18-Los Angeles Raiders vs. Washington Redskins: Full Game

Source:The New Democrat

On paper at least and the personal of both teams, Super Bowl 18 is definitely one of the best games you could ever have for a Super Bowl. Maybe only Super Bowl 13 with the Dallas Cowboys and Pittsburgh Steelers was a better matchup on paper and in talent and in coaching. Tom Flores, who was the Los Angeles Raiders head coach, really should be in the Hall of Fame. He had a great record in the 1980s and only Bill Walsh and Joe Gibbs won more and they’re both in the Hall of Fame. This game should’ve been a 31-24, 28-24, 35-31 24-21, 21-17 type of game with the game going down to the last possession of the game.

But the Raiders looked as prepared and executed as well as any team has ever played in the Super Bowl. On offense, defense and special teams. They had the Redskins down cold and made all the big plays in the game. When the Redskins would try something interesting or different to catch the Raiders off guard like the infamous screen pass late in the first half with the Raiders up 14-3, the Raiders pick off the pass for a touchdown. And and take a 21-3 lead into the first half, instead of it being a close game. And the Redskins looked like they had the momentum back in the second half and march down the field for a touchdown, to make it 21-9, the Raiders block the extra point.

The Raiders not only blocked the Redskins extra point attempt in the second half, but they march down the field for their own touchdown to take their biggest lead of the game at 28-9 midway through the third quarter. Tom Flores could go into the Hall of Fame from his Super Bowl 18 coaching job alone. The Redskins just looked sluggish and unprepared. They went into this game with one game plan and either didn’t figure out early enough that wasn’t going to work, or didn’t know how to adjust. Which was strange considering Joe Gibbs is the master of adjustments and retooling.

ABC Sports: NFL 1983- Week 7 MNF-Washington Redskins @ Green Bay Packers: Full Game

Source:Newton Minnowowski- The Redskins, taking on the Green Bay Packers, on ABC's Monday Night Football, in 1983.

Source:The New Democrat

"1983 Oct 17 Washington @ Green Bay"

From Newton Minnowowski

Source:NFL Films- The Redskins vs the Green Bay Packers, on ABC's Monday Night Football, in 1983.

The Green Bay Packers were the definition of mediocrity in the 1980s. And it wasn’t that they were always average or middle of the road. But they would have great streaks and look like they’re returning as a contender and championship team that they were when they dominated the 1960s. And they would follow that up with really bad streaks and lose to bad teams and look like 5-11 or 4-12 team.

The Packers had two winning seasons in the 1980s. 1982 and 89 and 4 8-8 seasons, which is the definition of a mediocre team. They would play their best games against good teams, like the Redskins especially in prime time and at Lambeau Field. And then they would lose to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers or Detroit Lions. Or some other team that was pretty bad back then.

The Redskins, defending Super Bowl champions in 1983, 5-1 at this point with a five winning streak after losing to the Dallas Cowboys week 1. Looking to get back to the Super Bowl and repeat and had the team to do it. And of course only the San Francisco 49ers won more games and Super Bowls than the Redskins in the 1980s.

So this was a matchup of one of the premier teams of the NFL in the Redskins who were great in 1983 and had a great decade in the 1980s. Against a Packers team that couldn’t figure out if they were pretty good and back as a contender and champion in the NFC Central. Or were they 4-12, 5-11 team, sharing last place with the Lions and Buccaneers. And they generally settled for mediocrity instead.

Bob Parker: ABC News 45-85- Communism on The March

Source: Bob Parker- Longtime CBS News anchor Edward R. Murrow.

Source:The New Democrat

"45/85 Part 3 an ABC News television documentary. It aired on September 18, 1985. The three-hour program combined archive film and television footage with new interviews to document post-World War II history, focusing especially on the Cold War. Hosted by Ted Koppel and Peter Jennings. Birth of Israel, baby boom, German Blockade, Red scare, Hess vs. Chambers."

From Bob Parker

Without the creation of NATO the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that is responsible for the security of North America and Europe and Europe primarily, Germany would’ve been occupied by either the United States or Soviet Union. And perhaps still occupied by America or Russia today unless some other agreement or arrangement was put in place to protect Germany from some new authoritarian regime coming him to replace the Nazis.

But NATO was created, but instead of having a United Federal Germany, Germany was split up with a Federal Republic in the West and a Communist Republic in the East. Until they reunified in 1989 and now there’s one Federal Republic of Germany. That is the economic and perhaps now even the diplomatic power of Europe. With the fourth largest economy in the world and the only large European state with a strong vibrant economy today. All of the other big Euro states are dealing with high debts, deficits, recessions, high unemployment and growing poverty.

What NATO did along with the European Union and the Marshall Plan was give Europe a chance to breathe and catch its breath and rebuild themselves. Without having to worry about some new civil war breaking out or some new authoritarian regime emerging in Western Europe and give the Europe the ability to develop. And not just rebuild themselves from World War II, but develop themselves and develop their economies and diplomatic relations, people and rebuild their militaries.

And what happened as a result was a free social democratic Europe in the West that was thriving. And a totalitarian, authoritarian, suffocating, Russia in the East. Where people would literally escape from their own countries.

Bob Parker: ABC News 45-85- Start of The Cold War

Source: Bob Parker- ABC News anchor Ted Koppel.

Source:The New Democrat

What British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was talking about when he called for the need for a North Atlantic Alliance that would fight against the spread of communism in Europe, became NATO in 1949. The North Atlantic Alliance between North America and Europe. Where they would combine some of their forces to prevent a Russian invasion of Western Europe from the east. But that was just part of protecting Europe from an Russian invasion. The first part was the so-called Marshall Plan, named after U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall. Which was a large economic aid package for Western Europe to rebuild those states.

Post World War II America and Europe we get the Cold War, United Nations, NATO and Europe does something very clever with creating the European Union. That would try to promote the economic well-being of Democratic Europe, as well as foreign policy interests. The EU gets looked down upon now, but for the most part has served Democratic Europe very well in promoting economic development and trade inside of Europe and exporting European products outside of Europe. And keeping Europe strong during most of the Cold War so Russia would be crazy to try to invade them.

America and Russia were basically still allies, or at the very least partners up to the creation of NATO in the late 1940s. American President Harry Truman said that Russian President Joe Stalin was someone he could do business with. Sort of sounds like a foolish statement now, but they worked very well together in seeing that Nazism was defeated in Europe and especially in Germany. But thanks to NATO, the European Union and America emerging as the liberal democratic superpower that it was then and still is today, we haven’t had another World War since.
Source:Bob Parker

The Onion: 'Indiana Governor Insists Religious Freedom Law Has Nothing to do With Thing it Explicitly Intended to do'

Source:The Onion- ABC News anchor George Stephanopolous interviewing Governor Mike Pence (Republican,Indiana)

Source:The New Democrat

If I’m a governor of a state like Indiana, is passing laws to cut back on tourism and economic revenue really something that I would be interested in doing? Forget about me, because you could use anyone as an example for this. I mean what does Indiana have outside of Indianapolis, the Indianapolis 500 and a good NFL team and a good NBA team. Unless you love college basketball and auto racing why would you go to Indiana? To see how long to takes to get mugged, beaten, raped or murdered in Gary. Maybe go to a Notre Dame football game. But you’re a fan of Notre Dame like part of the alumni, you hate Notre Dame! And Notre Dame only plays six home games every year.

I don’t say these things to put Indiana down. But they do have a lot Christian fundamentalists who are stuck in the 1800s and actually still believe it is the 1800s. Because they don’t believe in calendars or anything. And that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, let alone work. And that gays are terrorists and not just people who are attracted to their gender instead of the opposite sex. And that pre-marital sex should be not just be a crime, but punishable by death. Except for these small factors, I’m sure Indiana is a great place to live. Unless you’re gay, or practice a non-Christian religion, perhaps come from another country, or even state.

You would think any state house worth its salt would have an office or at least someone in charge of gauging the economic impact of laws that the legislature passes and the Governor signs. That seems like commonsense anyway and Indiana does have very good schools there. Like Notre Dame and Indiana. So you would think there would be somewhere there to tell Governor Mike Pence, “look Governor, if you sign this law, we may see boycotts of our fair state. And as a result lose some serious tax revenue. Because business’s and other states who don’t look down at homosexuality, marriage or otherwise won’t want to be associated with a state that they see as discriminatory.”

And maybe Governor Pence had that person like a state economist and perhaps economics professors at one of their fine schools tell him those things. And Governor Pence said, “you know what, homosexuality is a sin! That must be wiped out! As Michelle Bachmann said it is a threat to our national security and that includes Indiana. We don’t want dem folk here and we are going to wipe them out. Which is more important than whether business’s and other states want to do business in our state.” No, I’m not saying that Governor Pence actually said that. Well used those words exactly, but he does represent a lot of people who feel that way. And comes from that wing of the Republican Party.