CSPAN: William F. Buckley vs George McGovern (1997)

Source:Hertha Oveido- Firing Line publisher and columnist William F. Buckley.

Source:FreeState MD 

"William Frank Buckley, Jr. ( 24, 1925 --  27, 2008) was a conservative American author and commentator. More Buckley: 

welcome like and subscribe to my channel for more vidéo !

Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm became the first African American woman to run for President when she sought the Democratic nomination in 1972. WNYC .

Episode FLS106, Recorded on  13, 1989 Guests: Jack Kemp, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Newt Gingrich, George S. (George Stanley) McGovern, Gary Hart, Pat Schroeder, John Kenneth Galbraith." 

From Hertha Oveido

The title of the debate is essentially William F. Buckley vs George McGovern: Liberalism vs Conservatism. The problem with that is that even though William F. Buckley was obviously a Conservative in the political sense, a Classical Conservative, Constitutional Conservative, perhaps even a Conservative Libertarian, George McGovern was never a Liberal, at least in the classical sense. 

Senator McGovern called himself a Liberal, he met the mainstream media and Hollywood pop culture stereotypes of what it means to be a Liberal, except for being religious, a military veteran, and even an American patriot who not only loved his country, but who thought for. Everywhere outside of the United States and in the rest of developed world and perhaps even everywhere in the developing world, George McGovern would be called a Socialist, or a Social Democrat, or a Democratic Socialist. 

In the rest of the developed world, except for perhaps Canada, Liberals are considered Center-Right, not Center-Left, because they're seen as people who believe in liberal democracy (not social democracy) and individual rights, (not collective rights) as well as limited government. (Not expansionist government) 

Everywhere outside of the United States, except for perhaps Canada, William F. Buckley would be the Liberal in this debate and George McGovern would be the Socialist, or Social Democrat. 

The Nation: Katrina Vanden Heuvel- ‘An Oregon Trail to End Student Debt’

Source:The Nation- a little early to be celebrating Halloween, especially if you think that holiday is racist.

Source:FreeState MD 

“The new public education financing model is not only a progressive victory for the state, but also a common-sense national model on an issue where Congress has been derelict.” 

From The Nation

Under the Oregon college affordability plan (at least according to Katrina Vanden Heuvel) students in Oregon do not pay for any of their college education while in college. But pay three percent of their working income for the next twenty years after they graduate from college.

So lets say someone averages seventy-thousand dollars more for the less for the first twenty years, after leaving college, which is not unrealistic, in other words one million four thousand dollars over a twenty year period, that comes out to them paying forty-two thousand dollars.

The average cost of a college education right now is over hundred-thousand dollars. So that would leave colleges with a sixty-thousand dollar hole per college graduate. They simply can’t afford that. What we need to do instead is find a way to pay for that entire college education in an affordable way that makes higher education universal for all Americans.

What I’m in favor of is creating Universal College Savings Accounts or UCSA. Something I’ve already proposed on this blog. Which is for each kid that is born their parents would be able to set up an account for each student tax-free. That would be matched by their employer and perhaps even the Federal Government, or we could allow the states to set up their own systems and parents would have eighteen years to come up with the hundred-thousand dollars they would need to send each kid to college. Low-income parents, would get their contributions tax-free, but also would get that money back in a tax credit.

We should also be expanding the Federal Government college academies like with the Armed Forces. And have an academy that covers Justice, Homeland Security, Foreign Affairs (to use as examples) that graduates of these academies would have to serve in these services after graduating like with the military.

The fact is and I know Social Democrats hate hearing this, but there’s no such thing as a free education anywhere in the world. And not even in the most socialist of countries. We have to pay for our education one way or the other and have to do it in a way that is fiscally responsible in a way that those bills get paid, but also so everyone has access to higher education. Like we have access to K-12.

NFL Films: NFL 1968-Super Bowl 3-Baltimore Colts vs. New York Jets: Highlights

Source:NFL Films- Broadway Joe Namath, saying goodbye to Miami, after leading the New York Jets to victory in Super Bowl 3.

Source:The Daily Journal

"Two future Hall of Fame quarterbacks faced off on the grandest stage of all as the Baltimore Colts and Johnny Unitas took on the New York Jets and "Broadway" Joe Namath, who guaranteed victory for his team."

From NFL Films

With all due respect to the 1968 New York Jets, Super Bowl 3 is a much different game had Colts QB John Unitas who was still the best QB in pro football at this point, been healthy and at full strength against the Jets and not dealing with a sore throwing arm. Because the Colts with Earl Morral who was a solid, but journeyman NFL QB, drove the ball up and down the field against the Jets defense in the first half. But the Colts had to settle for a short field goal attempt that they missed. And Morall missed Colts WR Jimmy Orr in the end zone and under the ball that was picked off by a Jets DB. A healthy Unitas hits Orr in the end zone.

The Colts should’ve had 10-14 points if not more in the first and you are looking a much different game going into the second half. With the Colts having a 10 or 14-7 lead knowing they can move the ball up and down the field against the Jets. And knowing their great defense can shut down the Jets.

Juan Traverus: 1979 Jordache- Denim Jeans Commercial

Source:Juan Traverus's photo from his video.

Source:The Daily Journal

“Classic Jordache Jeans commercial from 1979!!!” 

From Juan Traverus

When designer denim jeans broke out for women in 1978 or 79, Jordache Jeans were everywhere, Similar with Gloria Vanderbilt's. They were all over TV, especially in sitcoms and all over around town. Sexy women loved wearing them on the town and even dressing them up with their blouses, blazers, and boots. The woman in this photo is obviously more casual, but very sexy and stylish.

Source:Jordache Jeans woman.

I just want to say thank God I was born in 1975 and I’m old enough to remember the tight dark wash denim designer jeans revolution of the late 1970s, that went up to 1984 or 85 or so. Before 1977 or 78 jeans on women tend to be baggy and real thin and loose in the legs and in many cases the pant would hit the ground. If you are familiar with the early 1970s and even the mid 1970s, or the hippie era, you know what I’m talking about.

In 1977 and 78 that changed and women’s jeans denim leather became tight and reveling. Showing your legs and butt as a sexy women became popular. And you started seeing a lot of women in their tight dark wash designer denim jeans on TV a lot and in the movies and out in public and you saw sexy female celebrities showing off their hot bodies in them. The jeans in boots look started in the late 1970s, not 2005-06.

The designer denim jeans for women sort of went out of style by 1986 or so and unfortunately were replaced with acid wash and unfortunately I’m old enough to remember that as well. But smart enough to never where them. And then in the late 1990s the dark wash designer denims came back into style and have been with us ever since and have just gotten tighter with skinny denim trend.

Russia Today: Barack Obama- A Socialist in Disguise?

Source:Russia Today- President Vladimir Putin's Russia Today, talking about whether President Barack Obama is actually a Socialist. Newsflash: Barry and Vlad are not friends.

Source:FreeState MD

“Obama: Socialist in disguise?”

From Russia Today

“RT (formerly Russia Today or Rossiya Segodnya (Russian: Россия Сегодня))[9] is a Russian state-controlled[1] international television network funded by the Russian government.[16][17] It operates pay television or free-to-air channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in Russian, English, Spanish, French, German and Arabic.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an autonomous non-profit organization founded by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti in April 2005.[8][18] During the economic crisis in December 2008, the Russian government, headed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, included ANO “TV-Novosti” on its list of core organizations of strategic importance to Russia.[19][20][21] RT operates as a multilingual service with channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (2010–2022),[22][23] RT UK (2014–2022) and other regional channels also produce local content. RT is the parent company of the Ruptly video agency,[5] which owns the Redfish video channel and the Maffick digital media company.[6][7]

RT has regularly been described as a major propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy.[2] Academics, fact-checkers, and news reporters (including some current and former RT reporters) have identified RT as a purveyor of disinformation[58] and conspiracy theories.[65] UK media regulator Ofcom has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality, including multiple instances in which RT broadcast “materially misleading” content.[72] 

In 2012, RT’s editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Russian Ministry of Defence.[73] Referring to the Russo-Georgian War, she stated that it was “waging an information war, and with the entire Western world”.[17][74] In September 2017, RT America was ordered to register as a foreign agent with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.[75]

RT was banned in Ukraine in 2014 after Russia’s annexation of Crimea;[76] Latvia and Lithuania implemented similar bans in 2020.[77][78] Germany banned RT DE in February 2022.[79] After the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Poland and then the entire European Union announced they were formally banning RT as well, while independent service providers in over 10 countries suspended broadcasts of RT.[80][81] Social media websites followed by blocking external links to RT’s website and restricting access to RT’s content.[82][83] Microsoft removed RT from their app store and de-ranked their search results on Bing,[84][85] while Apple removed the RT app from all countries except for Russia.”

From Wikipedia

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 patrol 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.

Mitch: Chicago 1968- The Democratic Convention

Source:Mitch- The 1968 Democratic National Convention.

Source:FreeState MD

“1968 Democratic Convention special.”

From Mitch

1968 is when the Democratic Party changed and no longer became a Northeastern progressive party with a Southern coalition, made up of people who basically make up the Religious-Right and Neo-Confederate wing of the Republican Party today. By 1968, the Democratic Party was moving away from the South and becoming the party of the Northeast, Midwest and West Coast, as well as the Mid Atlantic.

With the emergence of what I call the Green Party wing of the Democratic Party, that is represented by the so-called Progressive Caucus in Congress that you see today in the Green Party, but also in Occupy Wall Street, the Democratic Party now had a major, left-wing in it. And this is how the Democratic Party lost the White House in 1968 because Classical Liberals on their Right and Progressives on the Center-Left in the party were now divided between the New-Left in the party made up of Socialists-Anarchists, as well as Communists. The group called Students For a Democratic Society then was what Occupy Wall Street is of today.

The Democratic Party lost in 1968 because they were divided by their two wings on the Left: The FDR/LBJ Progressive coalition, with this new coalition that’s called the New-Left, people who are against war (at all costs) but are in favor of using violence to get their message across. Who are against American capitalism and corporate America, but in favor of the New Deal and Great Society, but would expand into what’s known in Europe as the welfare state. What the Green Party today calls the Green New Deal.

The Green Deal would be a whole host of new Federal Government social programs to finish off of what the New Deal and Great Society didn’t accomplish.

The New-Left then made up of Students For a Democratic Society and Occupy Wall Street today, are not Pacifists in the sense that they are against violence and would never use violence. They just don’t want violence coming from their government, but are more than willing to use it against government or people in society. That represent what they do not like about America, like private corporations.

1968 is basically when the Democratic Party basically became three political parties: New Democrat Liberals, the center-right, (where I am) the FDR Progressives or what’s left of them, and Occupy Wall Street today or the Green Party. That sees the Democratic Party and the Republican Party as the same party, but with different names.

And even as split as the Democratic Party was back then, they still came within a state or two of winning the 1968 presidential election. But they would’ve done much better without the split happening all in one party.

U.S. Representative Jim McDermott: Affordable Care Act

Source:U.S. Representative Jim McDermott- talking about the House Republicans 37th attempt in 3 years, to repeal the Affordable Care Act. (Also known as ObamaCare)

"Rep. McDermott on Republicans' 37th Vote to Repeal the Affordable Care Act" 

From Representative Jim McDermott

You would generally have a better chance of seeing bird fly a real plane or win the Indianapolis 500 in a race car, then to see me agree with Representative Jim McDermott (Democrat, Washington State on anything. Perhaps a January heat wave in Wisconsin or a blizzard in South Florida, happens more often than I agree with Representative Jim McDermott on anything. 

Not that I don't like Jim McDermott, because I actually do, because at the very least you always know what the man is thinking. Which makes him as special as the Cleveland Indians winning the World Series. That just doesn't happen very often in Congress (House or Senate) so when it does, you meed to give the member credit for it. 

My broader and more serious point here is (and yes, I have one) is that Jim McDermott is not just right here, but he's damn right. House Republicans made the whole 112th Congress about reducing the deficit and repealing the Affordable Care Act. They won on deficit reduction and I give them credit for that. But even the U.S. Supreme Court believes the ACA the law of the land. 

House Republicans didn't gain seats in 2012, they lost 8. The Republican Party didn't win back The White House in 2012, they lost it again. Not only that, but Senate Democrats not only held the Senate, but picked up 2 seats. So what's the point on voting to once again repeal the ACA, when you know the legislation will never even get out of Congress, let alone get to The White House?