Learn Liberty: Aeon Skoble- ‘Individualism vs. Collectivism’

Posted on October 28, 2010 by Erik Schneider

3b4ac6e6-6e98-42c7-99cd-945eece747d0

Source:Learn Liberty– Aeon Skoble, on individualism and collectivism.

Source:FRS FreeState

“Libertarianism Explained: Individualism vs. Collectivism presented by Learn Liberty.Learn More:Learn More:Learn Liberty. Prof. Aeon Skoble claims that if we really care about the wellbeing of communities, we should keep in mind the unique and autonomous individuals that make it up. Each individual is deserving of respect and dignity, and should be free to pursue their own ends as long as they don’t infringe upon the freedom of others. Although the concept of community is important, it does not warrant overlooking the individuals that comprise it.”

From Learn Liberty

There are many types of of governments in the world, governments where freedom is vast economically and socially and people have the right to elect their own leaders with open and free multi-party elections and can freely speak out against their leaders. This is called a liberal democracy, America for example.

Governments where freedom is tightly controlled and limited and government has a huge say in how people live, where you can even risk going to prison without a fair trial for speaking out would be an authoritarian government, with Iran a good example.

Then there are governments where social freedom is vast, as in a liberal democracy with open and free multi-party elections where people can speak out against their leaders and government but where economic freedom might be limited and where the people are subjected to high taxes and the economy is tightly regulated. Sweden would be a good example.

With liberalism and individualism, people have the right to live their own lives as they see fit for the most part as long as they are not hurting anyone else and where people can be as successful as their skills and production will allow, which is determined by a private market, and are not subjected to high taxes and controlled by excessive regulations. That is a liberal democracy, with America being the perfect example. In a liberal democracy, people have the liberty to live their own lives without worrying about government intrusion.

With a socialist collectivist society, the government tightly controls economic freedom and taxes it highly, so when people “make too much money” compared with the rest of society, that money is taken away from them and given to people who do not have enough and lack the ability to make a lot more money and be more successful. Even if their skills and production call for it, government will take it away. This is called a social democracy, where you are no stronger than your weakest link.

What makes America great and the greatest country in the world and why we’re still the envy of the world and people still emigrate here is our freedom and form of government, where if you get a good education and skills, you can live your own life as you see fit and be as successful in life as your skills and production will allow, which is determined by a private market.

America has been a liberal democracy for 234 years now and overall it’s worked very well. We are the best country in the world and when we move away from that foundation, we slip back.

Posted in Classical Liberalism, FRS FreeState | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Madi Heels: Sexy Blonde- Platform Boots and Jeans

Posted on October 28, 2010 by Erik Schneider
Attachment-1-1846

Source: Madi Heels– Sexy blonde in leather n denim and jeans in boots

Source:The Daily Press

“Platform boots and jeans.” Originally from Madi Heels. The video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube.

Here’s another tall, gorgeous, and well-built blonde with tight curves wearing a leather jacket, skin-tight denim jeans, and black leather platform boots, the jackpot for sexy outfits as far as I’m concerned.

Even a blind gay man would notice a woman like her walking down the street in that outfit. ( No offense to blind gay men, there’s nothing wrong with that if that is who you are). It combines the two sexiest fabrics in fashion right now, leather and denim, with platform boots.

It’s a burger and fries or Montana to Rice, ( to use an NFL sports analogy for you NFL football fans especially San Francisco 49er fans ) the ultimate combination it can’t be beat except, perhaps, by replacing the platform boots with flat boots, which I prefer on women.

This woman looks very sexy without looking like a hooker ( for the most part ). She looks like she might even have a brain and uses it to make her living, might not need her sexy physical appearance. to pay the bills.

That’s the sexiest combination to me, beauty and intelligence, as good as burger and fries or Montana to Rice, the ultimate of combinations.

Posted in Style, The Daily Press | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

New Fashion 13: Down by The Riverside: Leather N Denim & Jeans In Boots

Posted on October 22, 2010 by Erik Schneider



New Fashion 13_ Down by the Riverside- Leather and Denim in Boots (1)

Source:New Fashion 13– Leather N Denim and jeans in boots: the cheeseburgers and fries or fish and chips of women’s fashion.

Source:The Daily Press

“Down by the riverside in stiletto boots and a black leather jacket.” Originally from New Fashion 13, but the video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube.

When I think of sexy women, I think of them in tight jeans with leather boots. Whether they wear their boots with skinny jeans, the common look for five years now, or jeans over boot’s, its a very sexy combination. It combines two sexy looks, denim and leather, the two sexiest looks in fashion right now.

The body type is an important component of the denim and boots look. I’m not a fan of the valley girl look, a tall, rail thin, blond who doesn’t eat full meals and is afraid of meat. I’m also not a fan of obese women who look like they only eat meat and sweets and wouldn’t know exercise if they fell over it. I’m attracted to healthy, well built, women who eat full meals and keep themselves in shape. I’m 6’5 and over 200 lbs. I prefer women who are between 5’6 & 6’+ and well built.

About a year and a half ago, I saw a YouTube video of a beautiful, tall, brunette with a sweet face walking by a riverside wearing a black leather jacket, tight, dark, washed, skinny, denim jeans and black, leather, stiletto boots. I commented, at the time and still believe today, that her look was the perfect combination, like a cheeseburger and fries. The woman, apparently British, replied to me that she prefers fish and chips (ha ha) but she took my point. Whichever analogy you prefer, it works.

I prefer seeing women wearing calf high boots in tight jeans. It looks sexy but the women look intelligent and productive, independent of their sex appeal. Thigh high boots strike me as hooker boots. Women wearing them look like they need their sex appeal to make a living.

Posted in Style, The Daily Press | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CNN: Vice President Joe Biden- ‘Not Your Father’s GOP’

Posted on October 20, 2010 by Erik Schneider

CNN_ Joe Biden 'Not your father's GOP'

Source:CNN– Vice President Joe Biden: campaigning for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in Reno, Nevada.

Source:FRS FreeState

“Vice President Joe Biden stumps for Sen. Harry Reid in Reno, NV.”

From CNN

Vice President Biden has a habit of telling the truth and what he really believes to a fault and in that sense he beats back almost every stereotype of a typical politician. This habit often gets him into trouble, but today was an example of where the Vice President, whom I supported for Vice President of the United States in 2008, was dead on and telling it the way it helps him, the Democratic Party,and his administration, where he serves as the 2nd Ranking Officer.

Vice President Biden was dead right: “this is not our fathers’ Republican Party,” and in my case my father’s GOP would be the Republican Party of Dwight Eisenhower, Everett Dirkson, Barry Goldwater, Gerry Ford, and Ron Reagan, Bill Buckley, etc., the party of Classical Conservatism, the party that wants Government out of our wallets and bedrooms and off our backs. Today’s Republican Party, the party run by the Tea Party or under its inspiration, is the Christian Right of the 1990s with an economic libertarian theme.

All the evidence you need to believe that is to look at some of their candidates, for example, Christine O’Donnell in Delaware or Sharron Angle in Nevada. They’ve put up candidates who have been shown to be ignorant of the U.S. Constitution when they come out for amending it. Similar to the Christian Right of the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s, the Republican Party has moved away from the Culture War because they’ve either realized they were fighting a lost war or are regrouping.

At least at their leadership level, they’ve realized that Americans, at least outside the Bible Belt, are Liberal to Libertarian on social issues and that they’re not comfortable fighting on this field even though you still see some Culture Warriors pop up from time to time on issues such as homosexuality, gay marriage, Islam, immigration, and lately with Sen Jim Demint calling for making adultery illegal. But for the most part Republicans, at least in the Tea Party, have pulled back from the Culture War battles and focused on fiscal policy.

I’ll give the Tea Party credit for putting deficit and debt reduction back on the national agenda where it should be, but I fault them for not coming up with credible solutions to fixing our financial problems. As much as the Tea Party/Christian Right rails against Big Government, they believe in what they are railing against. No, they don’t believe in the social democratic form of Big Government that’s commonplace in Europe, but they believe in a far-right authoritarian conservative form of Big Government that’s commonplace in Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and China, with limited social freedom.

As I’ve said before as a Liberal, if the Tea Party were really a libertarian movement as the mainstream media has described them, and not just an economic libertarian movement, I would have respect for them, because we share things in common, such as actually believing in a true form of limited government. But they’re now the Christian Right of the 90’s with an economic libertarian message, so I can’t respect them. But I give them credit for putting national debt and deficit reduction back on the national agenda, where it should be.

Posted in FRS FreeState | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CSPAN: Sarah Palin- ‘Speech at the Southern GOP Conference’

Posted on October 18, 2010 by Erik Schneider

CSPAN_ Sarah Palin- 'Speech at the Southern GOP Conference' (1)

Source:CSPAN– Tea Party Princess Sarah Palin, speaking to the Southern GOP Conference.

Source:FRS FreeState 

“Speech of Sarah Palin from C-SPAN coverage of the Southern Republican Leadership Conference 4/9/10). Heres the link to the entire days session from the C-SPAN Video Library:CSPAN.”

From CSPAN

“Southern Republican Leadership Conference, General Session
The general session of the 2010 Southern Republican Leadership Conference featured Tony Perkins, Sarah Palin, Chris Wilson, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, and other party leaders.

Sarah Palin talked about Obama administration policies on health care, the environment, and the economy. In her remarks she referred to his foreign policy as the “Obama doctrine, which is coddling enemies and alienating allies.” Governor Rick Perry talked about conservative and Republican Party principles.”

CSPAN_ Sarah Palin- 'Speech at the Southern GOP Conference'

Source:CSPAN– Tea Party Princess Sarah Palin, speaking to the Southern GOP Conference.

From CSPAN

I hope the Tea Party leader who only speaks in quips and one liners (Sarah Palin) is the Republican nominee for president in 2012. If I weren’t a patriotic American, I would work and volunteer my butt off to make that happen. As a Democrat I see that Sarah Palin, who I admit is an attractive and charming political figure (easy on the eyes as well), has political talent, is likable, and definitely can inspire people.

But put her in a situation where she has to think for herself and doesn’t have prepared material, as in an interview or a debate, and she’s a disaster for the Republican Party. The Tea Party has served the Republican Party well as far as reenergizing the Republican base, which has been asleep thanks to George W. Bush because of the borrowing and spending of his administration. But these are short-term gains and the Tea Party hurts Republicans in the long term as they move farther right with Independents, who tend to be fiscally conservative but liberal or moderate on social issues.

So as a Democrat, I hope the Tea Party and Republicans stay on the course that they are on. But as an American, I hope the Republican Party gets back to Goldwater/Reagan conservative libertarianism, meaning government out of our wallets and bedrooms and off our backs. It’s good for them and the country that they’ve returned to their fiscal conservatism, but for them to be a major party down the road, they need to get back to their social libertarianism or moderation.

And hopefully the Christian-Right will splinter off and form its own third party along with the Tea Party, which is even farther to the right of traditional Republicans on fiscal policy. As I see it, the Tea Party has served a useful role in reminding Americans of the need for fiscal responsibility in America. But to me they are just the Christian Right of the 1990s with an economic theme, because they’ve realized that their fundamentalist or theocratic conservatism scares independent voters and they’ve lost almost all the battles in the Culture War.

Posted in FRS FreeState | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

AP: Raw Video- ‘President Obama- Urges Democrats Not to Get Discouraged’

Posted on October 16, 2010 by Erik Schneider

AP_ Raw Video- 'President Obama- Urges Democrats Not to Get Discouraged'

Source:Associated Press– President Barack Obama, campaigning for House Democrats in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in October.

Source:FRS FreeState 

“President Barack Obama is imploring Democrats to show him the energy and motivation that helped carry him to power in 2008. He told a spirited Philadelphia rally that his agenda is at stake in next month’s elections. (Oct. 10)”

From the Associated Press 

If Democrats fail to get their voters out in the mid-term elections, then there’s no doubt they’ll lose their majority in the House and be in danger of losing their majority in the Senate as well.

Democrats are either tied or down among Independents with Republicans so their best shot at retaining control in both chambers in Congress is to energize their sleepy base, especially the Social Democrats, and convince them that Republican control of either the House or Senate would be a disaster for the leftist democratic movement and would almost erase everything that Democrats have fought to accomplish the last 4 years.

Democrats are certain to lose seats in both the House and Senate in the mid-terms and they already know that the question is how many, but can Democrats hold Republican gains in the House to 30 or less where they would still have a 10-seat majority? Or will Democrats lose more than 30 in the House and come close to losing their House majority? Or will Republicans pick up more than 40 seats in the House and have a clear majority like the Democrats?

So the only victory Democrats can hope for in November is holding on to their majorities in both the House and Senate, which is why getting out their vote is critical for them to remain in control of Congress.

Posted in FRS FreeState | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Learn Liberty: Dr. Nigel Ashford- ‘What is Classical Liberalism?’

Posted on March 3, 2010 by Erik Schneider



Learn Liberty_ Dr_ Nigel Ashford- 'What is Classical Liberalism_'

Source:Learn Liberty– Dr. Nigel Ashford.

Source:FRS FreeState 

“What is classical liberalism? Its a set of ideas that places the freedom of the individual as its central feature. Classical liberalists disagree about many things, but they agree on ten 10 core principles. Learn more:Learn Liberty.”

From Learn Liberty

That line from John F. Kennedy, “not ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”, is a perfect example of what liberalism is about and what Liberals actually believe. JFK was late to the party on civil rights, even though he was invited several times. But he got there and laid out what the vision of civil rights is. And in 1964 Congress and President Lyndon Johnson passed JFK’s civil rights bill into Law and we’ve lived under equal rights under law ever since.

The last 30-40 Years there have been so many ways to describe what Liberals are. Liberals have been accused of being Doves on foreign policy, soft on defense, soft on crime, soft on welfare, pro-big government, pro-empowering government, meaning the Federal Government, fiscally irresponsible. Basically Liberals have been accused by the Right and Conservative Republicans as being Wimps. )And I could use stronger language) What I want to do here is correct the record and actually explain as a Liberal what a Liberal is, what liberalism is and what being a Liberal Democrat is all about.

The basic thing when it comes to being a Liberal, or a Conservative, is what do you believe the role of government is. And mainly that means what the role of the Federal Government is. Thats the main thing that Liberals and Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans argue about and to me as a Liberal Democrat and a political junky, this debate never gets old, because it’s never settled. We’ve argued this for 100 years longer, than the Indians & Pakistani’s have argued over Kashmir.

As a Liberal, the role of government is really only one thing and there are several things that government to do to carry out that responsibility. But it gets to protecting and expanding individual freedom for responsible people. To serve, represent, defend, protect, be fiscally responsible, treat people equally under law no matter their race, ethnicity, gender, nationally, religion, or sexual orientation. Letting people live their lives as they see fit as long as they’re not hurting innocent people. There’s a libertarian streak in being a Liberal and empower people in need to help themselves get back on their feet, but not subsidize them forever. It’s strange for me to speak for Conservatives. Thats kinda like a Redskin fan speaking for a Cowboys fan. But as a political junky who follows these things, Conservatives are similar when it comes to government and yet clearly different.

I think Conservatives would probably say the role of government is to serve, represent, defend, protect, be fiscally responsible, keep taxes down and cut taxes. The Classical Conservative led by former Republican Senator Bob Taft from Ohio probably believed that government should stay out of the market and let the market take care of society’s ills. The Modern Conservative today led by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and to a certain extent Senator John McCain, would probably say the government should incentivize the market and business’s to empower people in need to help them self. So there’s a debate today among Conservatives on how to help people in need. Liberals believe in empowering people to handle their Problems and to get back on their feet. Conservatives believe in empowering the market to help people in need get back on their feet. So there’s a difference between Liberals and Modern Conservatives.

Now to the bogus charges (to be charitable) about Liberals. “Liberals are not soft on Defense”, what’s the point of having a liberal democracy where people are in charge of their own lives when you’re not willing to have a strong enough defense and foreign policy to protect it.? Liberals, are not on soft on crime. Again what good is a liberal democracy if you’re not willing to protect the streets and keep people in prison long enough to pay their debt to society so people can live their lives safely. Liberals are not soft on welfare. Again we’re for putting welfare recipients to work and giving them job training so they can get a job that can support themselves and their families. Not living off the backs of hard-working taxpayers who work for a living. Again Liberals aren’t pro-big government.

Liberals not for creating government programs to make the government bigger, but using government and the Market to empower people in a fiscally responsible way. Liberals, believe in fiscal responsibility. The Clinton Years are the perfect example of that. President Clinton inherited a 290B$ budget deficit in 1993 when he was sworn in and left office in 2001 with a 61B$ budget surplus. Those are the facts, but that’s a different debate. So I hope this piece helps clear this up as far as what a Liberal actually is for anyone who’s interested in politics.

Posted in FRS FreeState | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Freedoms Lighthouse: ‘Senator Evan Bayh Won’t Seek Reelection in 2010 Midterm’

Posted on February 15, 2010 by Erik Schneider

The Bayh Family

Source:CNN-U.S.Senator Evan Bayh (Democrat, Indiana) and his family.

Source:FRS FreeState 

“Here is complete video of Indiana Democrat Sen. Evan Bayh today announcing his decision to not seek re-election this Fall.

Bayh spoke in Indianapolis, surrounded by his family, and said he is an “Executive” at heart, and is frustrated with the tone in Congress, and the inability to get things done for the people.

Speculation has already started on whether of not Bayh might decide to oppose President Obama in 2012 for the Democrat Nomination. But Bayh said today his decision should not be taken to reflect negatively on President Obama or his colleauges in Congress. He called his decision a deeply “personal” one.”

From Freedoms Lighthouse

Senator Evan Bayh in case you haven’t heard has decided to not seek reelection to the U.S. Senate in 2010 and decided to announce that the day before the filing deadline. To not run for reelection for that senate seat. Siting that Congress has become to partisan for him.

I agree with Senator Bayh that Congress especially in the Senate where it has become almost impossible for the Senate to do its business, like a simple thing like voting for Labor Department nominees, is too partisan. But the way he has gone about it is my problem. Indiana is a swing state that leans Republican and had Senator Bayh decided to run again, he probably would have won. And that would have been one less Senate seat that the Democratic Leadership would have have to worry about. My problem with Senator Bayh is his timing. It’s customary to give your party leadership about 6-12 months notice when you decide to not seek reelection. So the party and its campaign committee in this case the DSCC Run by Chuck Schumer, can find credible candidates to fill the seat.

That didn’t happen this time. Senator Bayh gave Senate Leader Reid & DSCC Chairman Schumer one days notice, that’s all. Meaning Indiana Democrats won’t have enough time to find a credible candidate to fill the seat. And has basically handed the Indiana Senate election over to the Republicans who already have at least two credible candidates who could fill the seat. Former Indiana Senator Dan Coates, who Evan Bayh replaced in the Senate in 1999 and former Indiana Representative named Hostletter. Whose part of the Conservative Tea Party movement and has a lot of credibility in the Republican Party.

So in effect Senator Bayh has screwed Senate Democrats by waiting so long to make his announcement and handing the Republicans a gift. And one question I have for him is why. I agree with Evan Bayh that Congress Especially in the Senate has become to partisan. For example apparently now you need 60 votes to accomplish anything anymore. Like something as simple as agreeing to debate a bill on the floor now needs 60 Votes. To bring amendments to the floor and debate them now needs 60 votes. To vote for non-controversial executive nominees now needs 60 votes. Like the Administrator for the GSA, the Government Services Administration, needed 60 votes just to bring that Nomination to the floor. And then that person passed easily with a bipartisan Vote.

Senator Tom Harkin, from Iowa Chairman of the Labor & Health Committee, a solid Progressive Democrat who I have a lot of Respect for, made the point last week that the Senate Republican Leadership blocks non-controversial executive nominees, like the GSA nominee, or a Labor Department nominee at first. And no Republican Senator will defend on the floor why they’re doing that. And then the second vote for the nomination comes up the nominee passes overwhelmingly. Like 85-10, like a non-controversial nominee should pass. And his point was, “what was the point of delaying votes on nominees that you know that you’re going to vote for later.”

Basically the Senate Republican Leadership led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell isn’t even cooperating enough with Leader Reid to let the Senate do its business get its work done. A couple more examples. Senate Republicans blocked a Military Appropriations bill to fund the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. So they would have the Resources to do their Jobs and Senate Republicans blocked a vote on extending Unemployment Insurance to the 10% of Americans that are unemployed right Now. They blocked it at first, didn’t defend their position and then they let it come up the second time and voted for it and the bill passed overwhelmingly.

Same thing with the Defense Appropriations bill. And I’m sure Republicans can come up with examples of Senate Democrats being to partisan. Like when the Senate passed its health care bill in December and instead of Senate Leader Reid and House Speaker Pelosi agreeing to calling a conference to merge both health care bills, where both Republicans and Democrats in both chambers would be there and out in the open for Americans to see, you know open government, they decided to hold meetings behind closed doors among themselves. And the White House without Congressional Republicans and frankly without the American people to see. Which turned out not only to be a political mistake, but a policy mistake.

So my other question for Senator Evan Bayh a man who’s been in the Senate for 11 years now what would be his suggestions for fixing the partisanship problem in Congress? And what is his version of bipartisanship? Is his version of bipartisanship to make a deal to make a deal? Is bipartisanship to him to split the difference? Is his version of bipartisanship for one Party to put their principles and policy’s Aside and just take the other party’s Ideas? Thats not my version of bipartisanship, that’s not the Congressional Democratic Party’s Leadership in both chambers version of bipartisanship and it’s certainly not the White House’s version of bipartisanship.

My Version of bipartisanship is to take the best ideas from both sides on an issue and to combine them into a bill in a way that makes the bill work and worth passing for the country. And you do this when neither party has the power to pass a bill the way they want to. Like the Senate Democrats being divided on health care reform, for example. Americans aren’t Looking for bipartisanship government. They’re looking for good government and if it takes bipartisanship to get it, than so be it. It’s very simple. Washington can work, but it needs responsible leadership in both party’s to make it work, or you have gridlock.

Posted in FRS FreeState | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment