Monday, November 19, 2012

Leathered Life: Chrissie- In Leather Jeans

Source:Leathered Life- model Chrissie.

Source:The Daily Press

“Leathered Life Chrissie in Leather Pants” 

“Chrissie… great leather girl.” 

Source:Leathered Life- model Chrissie

From Leathered Life

"Leathered Life Oldies: Chrissie in tight leather pants." Originally from Leathered Life. The photo was from a Leathered Life video, which has since been blocked or deleted on YouTube.

Source:Leathered Life- Chrissie, for Leathered Life. 
Great outfit, but the girl is a little too petite for me. Imagine a women 5'6-5'7 or taller or maybe only 5'4, which would make her average height, but with great legs. Strong thighs, tight round butt and everything else, wearing this outfit. Because that is what leather jeans which are basically skinny jeans, but made from leather instead of denim, are made of.

Skinny denim jeans, are common with beautiful sexy women especially if they're tall. Because it's a great way for women to show off their legs and show off their butt. "Check me out in my tight jeans, because I have a great body." Which I believe is what sexy women are saying when they wear those pants. Especially with boots and a tucked in blouse or short top.

They can also bring too much attention for women when they're in a more formal setting, but that's a different discussion. Leather jeans are also a great way for sexy women to show off their bodies. To bring positive attention to them, as well as negative.The woman in this video, great outfit, but a little small at least for me.

November Revolution Men: Professor Noam Chomsky: 'Neoliberalism vs Democracy'

Source:November Revolution Men- Professor Noam Chomsky talking about what he and other leftists call neoliberalism.
"Chomsky and other intellectuals on neo-liberalism and corporativism."

The Frenchman who spoke in this video who was talking about liberalism, said (and I'm paraphrasing) that the Adam Smith's and other Liberals from his era, would be rolling in their graves about what's and who is supposed to pass as liberalism and Liberals today. So let's talk about what's supposed to pass as liberalism and the people who are supposed to be as Liberals today and then I'll get into who Liberals really are and liberalism actually is. 

To put it simply, everyone and everything on the left, from the center-left, to left-wing, to far-left, even the far-left in Europe and the rest of the developed world outside of America, is supposed to pass as liberalism and people who support those political factions, are supposed to be the Liberals today. At least according to the so-called mainstream media in America, as well as American pop culture, not to the mention the closeted Socialists in America who still call themselves Liberals, because being outed as a leftist, scares the hell out of them. 

It's not just the so-called Progressives (whether they're actually progressive or not) who get called Liberals today or self-describe that way(even if they're actually not that progressive) but Democratic Socialists and Communists as well, people who either want social democracy in America or think communism is the way to go and that it's not just capitalism that needs to be replaced, but democracy and even individual rights, checks and balances, etc.  

To put it more simply and lightly, if you are an antiestablishment, hipster, revolutionary, who sort of talks like you just woke up and found out that it's no longer 1971 and it's now 2012, but you still have the same politics, lifestyle, culture, language, etc, and you are still trying to take down the man (meaning the establishment) and replace it with some type of socialist system, the mainstream media would call you a Liberal today. Even if you don't and that you weren't even called a Liberal 40 years ago, but a leftist instead.  

The fact is this is what liberalism really is: 

"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse various views depending on their understanding of these principles. However, they generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion.[11] Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.[12][13]

Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, gaining popularity among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy, rule of law and equality under the law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other trade barriers, instead promoting free trade and marketization.[14] Philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition based on the social contract, arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property, and governments must not violate these rights.[15] While the British liberal tradition has emphasized expanding democracy, French liberalism has emphasized rejecting authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building." 

From Wikipedia 

The reason why we have terms like Classical Liberal and Modern Liberal, I think a lot of that has to do with the Cold War. Before communism became a force in the Western World, it if anything was considered cool (or swell) to be a Socialist and perhaps even Communist, especially during the Great Depression in the 1930s, because Socialists and Communists then were seen as people who would look after working people and defend their rights to exist and have a quality life. 

The Cold War changed Americans views of socialism and communism, to the point thanks to U.S. Government and private right-wing propaganda, Socialists and Communists were then during the Cold War, seen as Un-American and people who wanted to take down the American form of government and way of life and replace it with some type of socialist state and system.  

Socialists have always been around in America, it's just that Cold War sort of forced them to go underground politically and call themselves Liberals or Progressives, but still have their socialist philosophy, ideas, and antiestablishment, hipster language. They went underground politically in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, etc, a certain extent today of leftists (who are called Socialists in the real world) who are terrified of people finding out they are Socialists. You would think socialism is some disease for them that they don't want touching them. Even though they're proud to publicly express their socialist beliefs, values, and rhetoric.

But for me, political philosophies and values don't change, people do. Liberalism is about individuals and defending their individual rights. Not always looking to expand the government, so the government can do the most possible for the people and people would have to do the least for themselves. 

To go back to my original point about liberalism, the first Liberals would be rolling in their graves if they could see how so-called Modern Liberals have tried to hijack their great philosophy and tried to turn it in the opposite of what it's always been, which is about the individual, not the state.

Andy Greenshaw: 'Why We Should Let The Bush Tax Cuts Expire'

Source:Andy Greenshaw- Since when does the Left (especially the Far-Left) care about the budget deficit and national debt.

"I couldn’t agree more with Fareed Zakaria’s latest article in the Washington Post about the Bush Tax Cuts.

Republicans and Democrats both agree that the massive U.S. budget deficit looms as one of the most dangerous threats to our nation’s economy.  And Congress has the opportunity to immediately eliminate a fourth of that deficit by doing nothing.

The Bush Tax Cuts are set to expire this year, which will inevitably cut about $300 billion from the U.S. budget deficit.  These massive tax cuts – passed in 2001 and 2003 – lowered taxes for the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans." 

"It’s been clear for a while that President Obama has all the leverage in the tax debate. Now it’s clear the Republicans know it.

On Friday, Obama met with congressional leaders for the first time since his reelection. The subject of discussion was how to handle the tax hikes and automatic spending cuts set to take effect on January 1. House Speaker John Boehner came with a proposal: Instead of racing to craft an alternative package before the new year, Boehner suggested, why not just pass a bill preserving the status quo for six more months, giving everybody a chance to work out a deal? But nobody expects Obama to go for it, unless Republicans agree to a deal on taxes that's largely to Obama’s liking. A senior Democratic aide on Capitol Hill thinks he sees a game of Texas hold 'em underway, with Obama winning... 

This idea of letting all of the Bush tax cuts expire even on the middle class at least in the short-term, would be a disaster. 

Pre-2001 people in the bottom tax rate making up to I believe 75K$ a year, paid 15% in income taxes, after the Bush tax cuts and there were some actual good provisions in it, lower middle class and middle class workers were paying 10% in Federal income taxes, they've seen a 50% tax cut over ten years, so if you were a plumber or construction worker making 50K$ a year back in 2000, you paid, 7,500K$ a year in income taxes. After 2001 someone with the same income was now paying 5,000K$ a year in income taxes. They saw a 2,500K$ reduction in income taxes and with how badly the economy has done the last. 

Ten years with a lot of people in that income bracket out-of-work or working less then they would prefer or could even afford. That extra 2,500K$ a year could be the difference in someone making their car payments or mortgage payments, putting money away for their kids. College education and not being able to do that because the Federal Government is taking an extra 2,500K$ a year in taxes.

So raising or increasing taxes on people who can't afford it right now, is bad for the economy and deficit reduction. Because without a strong economy, with strong economic and job growth, we'll never get the debt and deficit under control. Because we'll never generate the revenue needed as a country to accomplish that. 

House Republicans will never go along with the 250K$ cutoff point to where we increase taxes in this Congress or in the next Congress, even if the Democratic Senate were to pass that. And going over to the fiscal cliff to try to prove me and others wrong on this, is not the way to find out, we need to avoid that. 

We need to come up with a balanced approach that will work that both Democrats and Republicans can agree to that that won't hurt anyone who can't afford to be hit right now and with how Speaker Boehner is talking right now, we can do this.

At some point whether it's in this Congress or not, Speaker Boehner will go along with something like a millionaires tax. As long as its used to pay down the debt and deficit and comes with serious budget cuts as well and thats what we need, new revenue and budget cuts that we can do, without hurting people who can't afford it and more importantly hurting the economy. 

We can get the debt and deficit under control by making entitlements stronger, as well as the broader safety net stronger and more affordable and reforming them in a way where we can actually put these people to work and get them off of public assistance all together. And have these people paying taxes because they can afford it and we can do more with the defense budget and get past a cold war strategy and more ready for the 21st Century, but middle class tax hikes doesn't get us there.

As the President says we need a balanced approach that works and doesn't hurt anyone who can't afford it and actually solves the problems in front of us and something like a millionaires tax and entitlement reform and more savings in defense. Will get us there and then of course something to spark new economic growth will get the job done but you. Don't increases taxes on people that you want to spend money, if you are trying to spark new economic growth.

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy