Anglophenia: Siobhan Thompson: 'How to Insult Like The British'

Source:Anglophenia - Siobhan Thompson: teaching Americans how to be British assholes? The last time I checked, Americans were already experts on being assholes. LOL 

Source:The Daily Review

"If you ever get into an argument with a British person, you'll wish you'd have watched this video. Siobhan Thompson gives you the tools to sling insults like a Brit.

Here are a few other insults via the Anglophenia blog:BBC America." 

From Anglophenia

I couldn't swear like a Brit to save my life or someone else's, being an American and everything. Being of German background and just outside of Washington in Maryland I have a hard time making my voice sound that snobby and Anglo-Saxon formal.

I tend to sound more like I'm from Pittsburgh, or Philadelphia, than Connecticut, or London. If I was told I wouldn't have to die if I could swear just once like a Brit, I would probably ask what's the least painful way you can kill me. But I know how to make fun of the Brits, especially the snobby English who look down at people who drive BMW's as being poor. Since we have so many English-Americans in America especially on the East Coast and in New England.

What can I say about Britain? I hate the food, the weather, the socialism, collectivism in general, their top-down big unitarian London knows best for everyone else in the United Kingdom kind of government.

But similar to Ireland, their women sound good and their people are very funny. Watching Prime Ministers Questions is probably as funny as watching Saturday Night Live. Of course SNL has been going downhill since the mid-1990s or so, but PMQ has been going uphill. If American politicians could insult like British politicians, maybe our politicians would be as popular as personal injury attorney's and door to door life insurance salesman. Because the Brits do it in a way where even the person on the other side has to laugh at them self.

Britain, similar to Florida except without the great weather, food, hot Latin women, is a great place to see and visit, but not somewhere I would want to live. But a place where you could have a great time as a foreign visitor and get around. (If you can remember the steering wheel is on the right side of vehicle, or I guess machine in Britain) And have a great time laughing even at yourself as an English person tells you how much you suck and makes you laugh in the process.

But Britain is one of those countries where I think I might try to learn how to swim three-thousand miles back to Washington if I couldn't catch a flight, or boat, perhaps a car that swims, after a few days. Because of the rain and preppy snobby attitude. 

Learn Liberty: Professor Howard Baetjer- 'Freedom of Speech: What is Your Opinion?'

Source:Learn Liberty- talking about free speech on college campuses.

Source:The Daily Review 

"Does free speech offend you? Do you believe that freedom of Speech gives you the freedom to speak your opinion? Learn more:Learn Liberty." 

From Learn Liberty

I believe college campus's perhaps especially in the Northeast, is the perfect place to ask people what they think about free speech. And perhaps requiring all college students to pass a course on free speech and the U.S. Constitution in order to graduate might also be a good idea. Because with what seems to be their lack of familiarity with both right now with 2-5 Millennial's now believing that free speech shouldn't protect people's rights to offend minorities and perhaps people in general.

We saw that in this video with one female student, but with another one saying he's against gun rights, but supports a person's freedom to offend. Which I thought was pretty interesting, because generally when someone is that far in one direction on one issue, they won't support freedom when it comes to another individual rights issue like speech. 

The only way you learn anything from anybody is for all of us to have that constitutional right to express ourselves. You learn what others think and what they know and don't know and they learn from you. You also learn things about yourself. Like where you do well and where you need to improve.

The only thing you get from fascism whether its Marxism on the Far-Left, or religious extremism on the Far-Right is what the central state approves of whether they're right or wrong. They'll only tell you what you what they want you to hear. 

Liberal democracy, liberal societies, liberal states, free societies, are not meant to be nice, or mean. They're meant to be free and meant to be real. You have the freedom over your own life and even what you say and what you think. But so does everyone else and we all have the right to tell others what we think about what they say. 

Adam Kokesh: Is Taxation Theft?

Source:Adam Kokesh-

Source:The New Democrat

People who believe taxation if theft, I would have to imagine at least don't believe in notion of government and society, at least the idea of a country. If you believe in having a government and a country then those things have to be funded. And who best to fund them than the people who receive those services. If taxation is theft, than so are dues that you pay at a club, or a union that you're a member of. Because those organizations take your money as well and you don't get to decide generally how much you're going to pay them. They do that for you.

Someone could say that people choose whether or not to join clubs, so they're choosing to pay those dues, because they've made a choice to join that club. But we also choose what country we live in. Or at least what country we want to live in and then the country decides for itself who should and shouldn't live there. If you think taxation is not theft, try finding a free developed country that doesn't have taxation. You might have the same luck finding a club that doesn't have dues. Someone has to pay the bills and again who more qualified than the people who receive the services of the club and government.

In the video several people correctly answered the question what is theft. Taking what doesn't belong to you without your permission. If taxation is then so is club dues. When you choose to live in a country or be a member of a club you're also choosing to follow the rules of the club and the country. Paying your bills are one of those rules. You don't like the rules of the club or country, well in free societies you can work to change the rules. Demand lower taxes and dues. Vote out people who you believe tax you too much. Vote in people you believe will cut or eliminate your taxes. But as long as you're a member of the club or country you play by the rules, or deal with the consequences.

American Thinker: Mark Musser- 'From Marxism/Communism to Post-Modern Leftist Fascism'

Source:The Daily Review- Karl Marx and another guy, LOL!

Source:The Daily Review 

"The USSR died an ugly death in the 1990s. Yet, such an ugly political collapse proved to be very opportunistic for many communist leaders throughout the Soviet Union who hated the Marxist ideology that actually placed some restrictions on their behavior. Many of them privatized state companies to themselves and thus became the biggest mafia the world has ever seen. Putin, as a former KGB spymaster, is now in relative control of this mafia in spite of all the clans competing with one another from the Ukrainian Crimea to the Russian Far East."

From the American Thinker 

"Images in this video sourced are royalty free, creative commons, public domain from Wiki images & Pixabay." 

Source:Fact Myth- how much time do you have?

From Computing Forever

Equating liberalism with communism and Marxism, is like equating Christian-Conservatism with libertarianism. Why, because Marxism and liberalism, are very different. Marxism, Fa-Left, liberalism at best Center-Left, (really only in America) Center-Right in most of the rest of the developed world. Libertarianism and Christian-Conservatism, very different, but both on the Right.

Better comparisons here would be to compare liberalism and libertarianism, because they are both about liberty and the individual. But go about in different ways. Liberals, want to use a limited government to help create a society where everyone can thrive. Through things like education and infrastructure. Libertarians, practically see any government as a form of big government.

Marxism and Christian-Conservatism, are both different. For one, Marxists don't believe in any religion and religion would either be illegal, or under strict controls in a Marxist State. But they're both fascist in the sense that they both believe in their views and values so much that they believe any opposition would just be dangerous for society and shouldn't be tolerated. To go against a Marxist or Christian Theocratic State, should be subjected to death. Not that different if at all from Saudi Arabia and Iran.

So if you're on the Right and lets with the Tea Party, or way over on the Right and believe America should all get into a national time machine and go back to 1915 or something and Modern America looks more alien to you than Latinos, or women not only voting, but working, if you're going to equate Marxists with Liberals, look out for yourself being compared with Theocrats and even Islamists. Who believe individualism is dangerous and freedom to assemble, protest, form oppositions, are immoral and everything else. That people being free to be themselves and live their own lives is as immoral as raping a kid or something. In a fascist's mind.

Marxists, are fascists who are so full of themselves who kiss the mirror every time they're in the bathroom. Who think anyone who disagrees with them should be shot or something. Liberals, believe in free speech. After all we created it, along with the U.S. Constitution. And we believe in liberty and individualism, which are the opposites of Marxists. Who believe they know best how everyone should live and think and that it is the job of government to take care of everyone for everyone. But Marxist superstate and a theocratic superstate, are very similar in the sense that they see individualism as dangerous. Which is why they both believe in big government so much.

The Washington Post: George Will: On American Campuses, Freedom From Speech

SourceThe Washington Post at Yale.

Source:The Daily Review

I believe getting on people for what Halloween costumes college students is the last straw at least for me when it comes to the whole free speech debate on campus and off campus as well. As far as how stupid this whole debate is. We now have a generation of Americans who don't know how to relax and take a joke. Not sure they can even deliver a joke as well. We have a generation of tight assess. I wasn't a fan of the Millennial Generation ten years ago. I saw them as superficial, technology, social media and celebrity news obsessed assholes. Who were experts on everything that is meaningless and unimportant, but had a hard time coming up with the name of their own U.S. Representative, or Senator, let alone whose the mayor of their hometown. And perhaps would struggle to name all fifty-states. Spotting them their own state wouldn't be enough help for them.

I still see as Millennial's as superficial tight asses. But it gets worst, because now they have some view that it is now their mission in life to deny all minorities from having to hear, read, or deal with anything that may offend them. Apparently being not so bright they haven't figured out that they still live in America and if they don't like free speech, perhaps going to college in Cuba, (if the Cubans would take them) would be a better place for them to go to school. Perhaps they would actually learn something down there. Or maybe they would just miss being able to make their own decisions and holding protests on campus without first getting approval not from the President of the school, but from the President of the Communist Republic. America is not safe zone for opposition and critical speech that may offend people who can't take a joke, or handle the truth.

College, is a place for learning, developing and experiencing. So you have some idea what life is like when you're in the real world and not everything is given to you and you have to work and earn everything that you get. Where not everyone is going to be nice to you and always tell you how great you are. That place is called America and in America, Americans have the right to be themselves and express themselves. Let people know what they think of them and be positive about people. As well as let people know when they come up short. In a liberal democracy we have the right to express ourselves about anything we want to. But with what comes with that is being accountable for what we say based on what other think about our views. But also what others about us as people and they might not always be nice. America is not a great place for oversensitive tight asses who can't take a joke, or criticism. And hopefully the Millennial Generation is still young enough to learn that.

Reason Magazine: Zach Weissmueller & Jim Epstein: Comedy, Outrage and College: What We Saw at The Can We Take a Joke?

Source:Reason Magazine- Gilbert Gottfried?

Source:The Daily Review

One of the comedians up there, I think it was the female comedian there said and I'm paraphrasing that people have to realize what humor and a jokes are. Unless you're a Socialist, or something humor and entertainment is exactly that. You're not trying to change the world simply with entertainment, but comment on in a humorous way what you see in the world. And a smart comedian will use their humor to also inform people about what is going on, because they follow the news. And in a lot of cases talking to people who know everything about Hollywood and whose sleeping with who and what shoes someone wore when they went out to lunch, but perhaps not even sure what the capital of the state is let alone the United States. So someone like that could actually learn a lot from a smart comedian, if they bother to listen can stay off their smartphone for more than five-minutes at a time.

With free speech, bloggers and comedians might as well sell life insurance door to door. Perhaps park cars, or get some other jobs that is not nearly as much fun as parking cars and selling insurance door to door. We shouldn't have to worry that if we say this and make fun of that, then this oversensitive group or that one, will be offended. Because their blood pressure is already as high as a skyscraper, because they don't smoke pot and simply don't know how to relax. We also shouldn't have to worry about if we make fun of this or that politician or that movement, that somehow we let whatever movement that has been just offended down, setting back fifty-years or whatever. That if we make jokes about labor unions, then people will have a harder time organizing. Or if we make fun of corporations, that will damage Wall Street, or whatever.

We have a very liberal First Amendment and constitutional right to free speech in America. Without it, again comedians and bloggers might as well go work for the state, or something and retire with their pensions after twenty-years or whatever. And because little things like free speech, Right to Privacy and property rights. And because of these great liberal individual rights Americans have a lot of individual freedom in America. Even the freedom to say and do things that others may not approve of. But the people who disagree with us can privately and publicly express their disagreement with us, as well as do and say things we don't approve of. That is called liberal democracy and freedom and with what comes with those great things is also responsibility. So yeah, we have the right even to be assholes, but people have the right to tell us how big of an asshole we really are. Or even think we're assholes when the only thing we're guilty of speaking the truth.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur Interviewing Larry King-Talking About Half-Libertarianism

Source:The Daily Review

What is a half-libertarian? Someone who is very liberal and I mean in the real non-communistic sense on social issues and believes in a lot of personal freedom short of hurting innocent people, but is very conservative on economic policy and national security? Low taxes, decentralized government, low regulations, strong defense, etc? Or go the other way and someone who is lets say a Progressive and perhaps even Socialist on economic policy and is what would be called a Religious or Neoconservative on social issues and is not a fan of personal freedom at least in an individualist sense.

I've argued this before, but it depends on what you mean by Conservative and Liberal. Because they aren't the only factions on the political spectrum. There Conservatives who believe in a good deal of personal freedom and are still very conservative on economic policy and national security. Barry Goldwater, back in the day, Rand Paul and many others today. And then there are Liberals who believe in a good deal of economic freedom and are very liberal on social issues. Jack Kennedy, back in the day, Dick Durbin, John Kerry and many others today. The non-stereotypical Liberal, doesn't want to tax most of your money away from you and tell you what you can say, what you can eat and what you can drink. And the non-stereotypical Conservative, doesn't want America to police the world and police Americans personal behavior and babysit us at home. But will keep your taxes and regulations down while they borrow from China, Russia and Saudi Arabia, to finance their big government.

A so-called half-libertarian, would be a Liberal or a Conservative, at least in the classical sense and I would argue at least in the real sense. That both sides believe in both economic and personal freedom. But we don't believe believe business's should be able to pollute the air at taxpayers expense. Or believe that all narcotics should be legal even for children, or that child pornography, should be legal, or even child prostitution should be legal. Liberals and Conservatives, both put limits on both economic and personal freedom even though both sides agree with a good deal of both. But again both sides believe in rule of law. Not to babysit adult Americans and make sure everyone washes their hands after they take a dump, or make sure they eat vegetables. But to regulate how we interact with each other. Which some people at least call themselves Libertarians view as big government.

Liberty Pen: President Clinton's 1993 Task Force on The Economy: Milton Friedman- Deficits & Government Spending

Source:Liberty Pen-Professor Milton Friedman.

Source:The New Democrat

Unless you're a very wealthy American, good luck finding someone who doesn't have at least some debt. Car payments are debt, mortgage's are debt, student loans are debt, business loans are debt, etc. It is not so much a question of whether a government, organization, or individual, carries debt, but how big of a debt do they carry relative to their income. Deficits, are one way you pick up debt. Simply by spending more money than you take in and for each year in a row you do that, the higher your debt is going to be. And depending on your ability and record of paying your debts, as well as the general health of the economy will determine how much interest you'll have to pay on you debts.

In the early 1990s, America had a recession of 1990-91, plus a high deficit and debt to GDP ratio. Meaning our budget deficit and national debt was high compared with our national economy. And as a result with weak economic growth and high unemployment to go on top of all of those issues, we had a pretty weak economy until 1994. President's George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, as well as two Democratic Congress's, addressed the debt and deficit in the early 1990s. Both in 1990 and 1993 and those two deficit reduction acts that had bod new revenue and budget cuts, as well as two major trade deals and the technology boom of the early and mid 1990s that we're really still in twenty-five years later, led to the 1990s economic boom. Where by 2000 we were actually talking about paying off the national debt. How times have changed.

In a perfect world where I've yet to visit or have seen, I would never want to run a deficit and debt unless the overall economy is weak. Generally speaking one of the last things you want to do is owe money to countries that don't have your best interest at heart and have those costs passed on to your taxpayers. But if you're economy is growing steady and your job growth is running steady and your deficit and debt ratios are relatively low, which means your interests rates will also be low and you'll have a strong currency as a result, you can run a small to moderate deficit. Just as long as you're managing your government spending properly and you keep deficit under control. And at the very least don't allow for it to grow faster than your economy.
Liberty Pen: President Clinton's 1993 Task Force on Deficits and Government Spending

John Cerkez: John Stossel- Censorship in the Name of Islam

Source: John Cerkez-

Source:The Daily Review

Just to the correct the record about something that Mark Steyn said. Islam is not the only religion in the world where their members have killed people in the name of their religion. The Ku Klux Klan and other Far-Right Anglo-Saxon Protestant terrorist groups in America, are responsible for a lot of murders as well. And just like with Christians, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are non-violent, even if they have Far-Right views about how women should be treated and everything else.

Again, as far critical speech of minorities in America religious, or otherwise and perhaps obese people will be added to this group of the specially protected in America with the Far-Left, as well as gays. Perhaps stupid people will be next, which could by itself destroy the comedy industry. Leaving thousands of comedians with no one to make fun of. Do we have a First Amendment and Freedom of Speech, or not? According to the U.S. Constitution we do and even if some government passes a law that bans critical speech, or even hate speech of minorities in their community, it won't stand up because of this little thing called the U.S. Constitution. Americans, don't have a right to be nice or mean or truthful or the right to lie. We have a guaranteed right to Free Speech, which covers all of those things.

Racial, ethic an religious discrimination, are all wrong and even illegal in most cases. But we all have the right to think and say whatever we want to about anyone else. If you don't believe in that, than I suggest liberal democracy is not the right form of government for you. And perhaps you move to Planet Paradise where its so peaceful that not even football and boxing are allowed. Where everyone loves each other and to paraphrase the great sitcom Cheers, where everyone knows your name and everything else. Liberal democracy, is about freedom for the individual. And sometimes what comes with freedom is people doing and saying things that oversensitive tight asses don't approve of. Doesn't mean the oversensitive tight ass has to agree with the language and activity that others are engage in, but government can't stop people simply because they don't like what they see and hear.
Source:John Cerkez

Reason: Matt Welch: 'Is Free Speech Under Attack in America?'

Source:Reason Magazine- yes, free speech is under attack in America.

Source:The Daily Review 

"At some point it is inherently ridiculous when you can't laugh at Neil Patrick Harris making jokes on the Academy Awards," says Matt Welch, Reason Editor in Chief. At Reason Weekend 2015, the annual donor event for the nonprofit that publishes this website, Welch discussed how today's society, full of trigger warnings and a sensitivity to opposing ideas, has lead to a watered down approach to the First Amendment. 

"It's not fun when you're walking around policing jokes all day long, it's not an attractive pose to people," continues Welch." 

From Reason Magazine

If there is one place in the world where you want people to be free to think for themselves and learn new things and hear new ideas and be able to learn and develop their own views on the issues, it would be college and I would add high school to that. 

For democracy, especially liberal democracy to mean anything people have to be free to speak and think for themselves. Instead of creating some collectivist board of so-called experts who are only experts in name only and perhaps in actuality only being experts on the nonsense that they believe in. Telling the peasants the people they rule over what speech is appropriate and what isn't. Rewarding people for speech that they agree with and punishing even through governmental force when people say things that offends the so-called experts.

We don't have a liberal democracy without Freedom of Speech. And Free Speech is exactly that. Not the right to be nice, or be mean , or be correct, or lie, but the right to speak freely. To express yourself and even say things that someone might view as offensive. Even if they have such a big foot stuck up their ass tight ass that they can't even handle criticism that is correct. 

Imagine if you were doctor, who wasn't allowed to give your patients bad news. So you end up telling your obese patients that they don't need to exercise and cut down on their 5-6 meals a day and not have to eat stuff other than fast food, because not all obese people suffer heart attacks and develop diabetes and all of the other diseases that are related to obesity. That doctor would end up being useless, because they wouldn't be able to treat any of their unhealthy patients, because they would never be allowed to give bad news. For fear of hurting their patients self-esteem.

That is what political correctness is. It is not only a form of fascism, leftist fascism when it comes from the Left and a form of Marxism. But it is an attempt to hide people from negative truths for fear of hurting and oversensitive person's self-esteem:

"We can't call Joe fat, because that might not only offend Joe, but fat people in general. And fat is used to put down fat people. And even though I'm Joe's doctor and I've seen men like him die from heart attacks and from diabetes, because they didn't even know what exercise was and didn't eat properly, I'm not going to tell Joe that he's overweight and too fat. Because I'm more interested in his self-esteem than his physical health."

That is what practicing medicine would become like if doctors weren't allowed to tell their patients the truth. And that is just one example of the dangers of political correctness in America. Free Speech, is not the right to not be offended, but to express yourself and hear what others have to say as well.

Sargon of Akkad: 'Neo-Progressive Activists'

Source:Sargon of Akkad- Hippie Neo-Communist?

Source:The Daily Review

"Neo-Progressivism is spread by a rather homogeneous group of activists, colloquially known as social justice warriors." 

From Sargon of Akkad 

I disagree with this guy (who will go nameless only, because he doesn't seem to have a name) even though his basic point is solid. But Neo-Progressive, I believe in an insult to actual Progressives. 

True progressivism is about progress and moving forward. Not making someone else's life worst, so someone else can live better. And when you try to shut someone else up so someone else is not offended, you might be improving the life of someone. Which is debatable, especially when they don't have to hear negative facts about them and don't have that opportunity and self-improve. But you're definitely regressing, because you now just infringed on someone else's Freedom of Speech rights. 

There's certainly nothing liberal about political correctness and I would argue progressive as well. Because it is a form of fascism which is regressive and hurts people simply for expressing themselves.

I prefer the term New Marxists to describe the New-Left in America. Karl Marx, is not older than dirt, he's actually older than the modern American Republic, but Marxism as an ideology is fairly new in America, as far as having a base that supports it. 

If you think Donald Trump is a big narcissist, well you're right, because he certainly is. But he's almost minor league compared with a Marxist who believes in their ideology so much that anyone who disagrees with them on anything must not only be wrong, but probably immoral as well and don't have a right to be heard. 

Fascism on the Left, is Marxism. If you think Marxist is insulting on the Left, don't try to shut people up for simply disagreeing with you, or contradicting you. When someone says something negative about anyone and it's true, they're not hating. They're simply pointing out negative truths about whoever they're talking about.

We now have a millennial generation of college students who are not only drowning in debt. but not getting much out of the education they can't afford, but who believe that people who say negative things about any minority group in the country even if they're correct, are bigots. But at least they have the latest smartphone and i-pad. So everything is awesome in their world. 

The lack of education for Millennial's is actually a real problem in America because we have a generation of this country who believe Freedom of Speech should either not exist, or doesn't exist. Because they either failed social studies in high school and got promoted to the next grade anyway, because their teacher didn't want to hurt their self-esteem. Or they were too busy texting the student who was sitting right next to them to learn about social studies and the U.S. Constitution and everything that is actually important. And this will be real problem if they ever come to power in America.

Learn Liberty: Professor Antony Davies- 'Who Favors More Freedom, Liberals or Conservatives?'

Source:Learn Liberty- Antony Davies talking about Liberals and Conservatives.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Prof. Antony Davies analyzes the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives.  He then proposes an alternative method of viewing political issues, which looks at policies and their respective impact on individual freedom.  Prof. Antony Davies concludes that the conventional liberal/conservative dichotomy encourages us to ignore first principles, and hence, overlook contradictory views." 

From Learn Liberty

With this piece I'm going to look at the real and classic definitions of liberalism and conservatism and not how they're both been stereotyped and even rewritten by the mainstream media. And people who self-describe themselves as Liberals and Conservatives, but who are actually much further to the left and right.

From Wikipedia-

"Liberalism, a political philosophy founded on the ideas of liberty and equality.

Liberty, having to do with things like personal choice and self-government. People govern themselves and allowed to make their own choices. Equality, the idea that everyone should be able to live in freedom and have the liberty over their own lives. Not that everyone should have the exact same amount of money and personal property. Liberalism, is not a collectivist ideology like socialism. Liberals believe that people are entitled to liberty. The word liberal comes from liberty. Sounds nothing like socialist, or collectivist, or socialize."

The Wikipedia definition of liberty-

"Free-will and determinism. Again having to do with individual freedom and self-governance and self-ownership, which I covered last week and the week before on this blog. Nothing in here about big centralized government, where a big state would collect most of the economic resources in the country so everyone is economically equal and taken care of. Liberalism, is not about the liberty for people not to take personal responsibility over their own lives and be taken care of by big government. The opposite is true, because liberalism is not socialism."

The Wikipedia definition of conservatism-

"A political philosophy based on conserving social institutions. Preserving tradition and a traditional way of doing things and a way of living. In other words conserving what already is and how things have always been done. Conservatism, is about moving slowly, but gradually. To take it one day at a time, so to speak and not be quick to react and to reform."

Now when it comes to conservatism, are you talking about conservatism in a cultural sense, a religious sense, or a political sense? You could even talk about conservatism in an athletic sense. Since this is about Liberal vs Conservative, I'm interested in conservatism in a political sense. 

When I hear the term Conservative Republican in America, I think of someone who is interested in conserving the republic. Our federal republic and federalist form of government. Conserving the U.S. Constitution, not trying to rewrite it or change it, certainly not dramatically, because they already approve of it. The whole notion of constitution amendments is anti-conservative, because constitutional amendment are reformist, which tend to go against conservative and even drastic attempts to get one's policy objectives through government.

Now based on the actual definitions of liberalism and conservatism, I would have to say that Liberals believe in more freedom. More personal choice and autonomy, because we're less interested in tradition and the status-quo and tend not to take the view that we shouldn't be able to do certain things individually, because they haven't been done before. 

The whole U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, are the most liberal documents ever written, because they are based on individual rights and liberty, self-governance and self-ownership. That people should be able to make their own personal choices and then live with consequences of those choices.

CUNY-TV: Day at Night- James Day Interviewing Hugh Hefner (1974)

Source:CUNY-TV- Playboy Hugh Hefner in 1974.

Source:The Daily Review

"Topics in Hugh Hefner's discussion of the American way of life include the influence of the Puritan work ethics on himself, his humble middle-class upbringing, the influence of money and sex on the American public, as well as Mr. Hefner's true definition of happiness." 

From CUNY-TV

Hugh Hefner, has made a business empire designed to make men happy and give them pleasure and perhaps women as well. But wanted to create an outlet and show millions of American men what we are already thinking and fantasizing about. Which is beautiful sexy women and being with them and feeling them and making them happy and having women that want us as men just as much. 

I think the thing that I respect most about Hef as a Liberal myself, is his individuality and personal honesty. This is who he is and puts it out there and lets the market decide who good his product is. He doesn't live off of tends and fads and public opinion, but instead goes off what he feels sells his products based on that and lets the market decide how good his material is.

Hugh Hefner, has made a great career for himself swimming against the tide with big tidal waves coming right at his face. And instead created his own empire that was about what he wanted it to be about which was sex and how American men felt and looked at it. And brought out into the open an issue that is very private for most Americans, which is sex. And how men felt about women and vice-versa and what we like about each other. 

Sexuality is an issue that is completely natural for most people (at least in private) and brought it out into the open for people to talk about and read about. And that his magazine has never been just about photos of sexy women, but dealing with the issues about how men and women feel about each other and using sex appeal to talk about these issues.

At risk of sound partisan here, (why not) Hugh Hefner represents everything that the Traditional Values Coalition and Christian-Right hate about America. Which is liberalism in its purist and realist form, which is individualism. And not swimming with the tide and simply following fads, but instead living your own life and making your own decisions and taking personal responsibility about your own decisions. And has made himself a great career and a very wealthy man. 

Hugh Hefner has lived his own life with the freedom to do so. Without having to worry about big government telling he can't do that and punishing him for it, or taxing him so much that he's no longer encouraged to be successful in America. And that is something else as a Liberal that I love about the man.

Liberty Pen: John Stossel- Big Government Like A Jealous Boyfriend

Source: Liberty Pen-

Source:The Daily Review

Here are perfect examples of the dangers of big government. Not government in general, just government that attempts to do too much. Which is try to manage people's lives for themselves and try to protect people from themselves. Like a jealous boyfriend who hasn't gotten the memo, or letter, or phone call, or email, or text message, or v-log that Sally, or whoever, "is so not into you" anymore. Joe, or whoever might have been, "like totally awesome", or whatever before. But now Joe reminds Sally of her Uncle Sam, who at times tries to take the place of her father, or even herself. As far as what responsibilities that she has for her own life.

Big Government and Uncle Sam, sometimes twins sees people as stupid. Well, at least Americans as stupid and I'll admit there are too many Americans who at times look like they've escaped institutions for the mentally handicapped and couldn't name their own mayor, or governor to save their lives, even if they were spotted the last name and perhaps even first name. But people by enlarge are pretty bright and don't need Big Government watching them to make sure that they don't eat too many potato chips, or watch an adult movie, buy a home, talk to people they might approve of, use too much water in the shower, or whatever the case. This is not a Marxist state, government doesn't need to protect the people from themselves. But the people from predators who would hurt them.

I'm not a Libertarian and I have a real role for government and not just as it relates to criminals, terrorists and aggressive authoritarian regimes, that would like to attack us. I believe government does have a role to play to help people who are down get themselves back up so they to can live in freedom. But that is called limited government and limiting government to doing what we need it to do and where it can play a constructive role. Where it doesn't grow so big that it can no longer be audited. Like the Defense Department today and the Education Department several years ago. Government should serve as a public referee and insurance system. Not as a national babysitter trying to prevent people from making mistakes with their own lives and trying to help us by sending us to the worst place possible for humans. (Which is called jail) Simply because we're involved in personally dangerous activities.
Source:Liberty Pen

Stephen Reginald: Screening of Hitchcock's "The Man Who Knew Too Much" November 10, 2015

Source:Classic Movie Man-

Source:The Daily Review

Alfred Hitchcock, is probably my favorite director. He is certainly my favorite suspense/thriller director and action/comedy director, dramatic/comedy director and even suspense/comedy director. He combined comedy with all of the different genres that his movies covered. And if I had to put a list of my top ten Hitchcock movies, I don't believe The Man Who Knew Too Much would be on it. It would be behind North by Northwest, To Catch a Thief, Rear Window, Strangers on a Train, Charade, several of his short films from The Alfred Hitchcock Hour like Run For Doom, with the great Diana Dors. But that is the thing about Hitchcock, he made so many great movies that even if one of them isn't in your Hitchcock top ten that doesn't mean that movie isn't also a great movie. It just means it isn't as good as the others that are on the list.

When you're talking about great leads which are the lead actor and lead actress in a movie, I think you would have a hard time finding a better combination than Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day and then add that Alfred Hitchcock as their director. Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day, are perfect for Hitch, because they are both great actors, entertainers, both very funny and very versatile. And of course in Doris Day's case she is a hot baby-faced adorable sexy blonde, but who was also a hell of an actress that Hitch loved. So they were both perfect for Hitchcock and this movie. Doris Day, in real-life is seventeen years younger than Jimmy Stewart. She still looks great today and was thirty when she did this movie. Jimmy Stewart was in his late forties at this point, but they were still great together.

The Man Who Knew Too Much, is about a vacationing American family in Morocco. Dr. Ben McKenna (played by Jimmy Stewart) and his wife Jo McKenna, (played by Doris Day) who is a singer. Their son Hank, (played by Christopher Olsen) is kidnapped by terrorists in Morocco. They meet a Frenchman in Morocco Louis Bernard, (played by Daniel Gelin) and have dinner with him. Bernard, is actually an intelligence agent for the French Republic. He is killed by these terrorists after having dinner with the McKenna's. And the terrorists tell Dr. McKenna over the phone that if he and his wife don't talk to the police, they won't kill their son Hank. And that is how this movie gets going with Dr. McKenna trying to get his son back, while at the same time preventing his wife from knowing what is really going on. She thinks their son has just been kidnapped by local thugs.

This is not a great movie, at least from my perspective. I don't think it is very believable that terrorists would target the son of an American doctor simply because the kid's parents talked to a French intelligence agent. That tells me they had no idea who this American couple was. It would be one thing if they kidnapped the kid, because their parents are a wealthy American couple and they want ransom. But there doesn't seem to be any financial motivation at all in this movie. But it is a very entertaining movie. Doris Day, is her usable hot sexy adorable self, especially as she finds out that her son has just been kidnapped. Jimmy Stewart, is his usual charming Mr. Joe Average self, who does a great job of playing an average guy in a very complicated situation. And this is a very entertaining movie.

CUNY-TV: Day at Night: James Day Interviewing Ayn Rand, Author, Atlas Shrugged

Source:CUNY-

Source:The New Democrat

Ayn Rand, is the modern inspiration and philosopher of the libertarian movement in America. Whether it is Ron Paul, or a whole bunch of libertarian writers and bloggers like Walter Williams, Reason Magazine, the title Reason, should be a pretty good clue there, they all talk like and believe in the same things as Ayn Rand. "Taxation is theft, people shouldn't be forced to give their money through government to others", etc. This all comes from Ayn Rand's objectivism and what she believed and to a certain extent with the Tea Party she still inspires the Republican Party today. You don't have to put words in Ayn Rand's mouth whether you are a fan of hers, or not. She does that for you and has already so many of her thoughts on paper and in video.

So this and that we tend to agree on social issues and economic issues when it comes to choice, is what I respect about Ayn. Her consistency, she didn't take a position when she thought it was popular and then gradually moved into another direction when it became unpopular. And that extent she would have made a great public servant, but a bad politician, because she had a habit of telling people exactly what she thought and knew. Instead of what people wanted to hear. The complete opposite of Donald Trump, who takes his political positions based on which way the wind is blowing at Wrigley Field. Is the wind blowing in or out. (Sorry for the baseball analogy) If anything Ayn's political philosophy became well-known at the height of the collectivist Progressive Era from the 1940s through the 1960s. So based on the fact she had principles gives people a lot to respect about her.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie Interviewing Greg Gutfeld: The Joy of Hate, Illiberal Speech Police

Source:Reason Magazine talking to humorist Greg Gutfeld.

Source:The Daily Review

I agree with practically everything that Greg Gutfeld said here about the police speech. That perhaps Salon Magazine should be the chief of. But I would just replace the word liberal with illiberal when it comes to police speech. Free speech, liberal. Fascism, illiberal, whether it comes from the Far-Left, or Far-Right. People when talking about the Left and the Right, should be specific about who they're talking about, because not everyone on the Left is a Liberal and not everyone on the Right is a Conservative. If you don't believe in free speech, you're not a Liberal, but illiberal. If you don't believe in private enterprise, you're not a Conservative. Anti-Conservative I guess.

People who think that Christians and Caucasians in general, should be targets and if anything made fun of any chance there is, but that anyone who is not Caucasian, especially if they're also not Christian and don't come from a blue-collar, rural, Southern background, should be under special protection from the Federal Salon Police Speech, are Fascists. And worst they are partisan Fascists. They think they can get away with saying anything that they want and put down the Right for partisan political gains. While at the same time labeling the Right as bigots when they make fun of, or criticize minorities. Racial, religious, ethnic, gays and so-forth.

Anyone who seems somewhat off and perhaps under medication and even off their medication, whether its Ann coulter on the Far-Right, or Islamists, also on the Far-Right, at least in a religious sense, or Melissa Harris-Perry on the Far-Left, who believes kids don't belong to their parents, but the state, are going to get made fun of. But generally not because of the race, ethnicity, or religion, but because they're stupid and crazy. When we are no longer allowed to make fun of stupid crazy people, that is the day we'll see humor essentially outlawed in America and go out of business. And become a country of straight-faced (no offense gays) tight asses. Who look like they haven't had a laugh, or a drink, perhaps a joint in ten years. And America will become a very depressed country as a result. With lines all over the country of people waiting to be able to jump off the bridge.

Bloomberg View: Nick Hanauer & Eric Liu: 'Libertarians Are The New Communists'

Source:Reason Magazine-

Source:The New Democrat

Nick Hanauer and Eric Liu, argued in Bloomberg View, that "Libertarians, are the new Communists, because both Libertarians and Communists, argue for policies that are doomed to fail." I agree that both lets say anarcho-libertarianism, which is essentially a form of anarchism and communism are doom for failure. Communists, argue for a superstate over the individual. Anarcho-Libertarians, (The New Anarchists) argue for the individual over everything else. They consider arresting suspects of kidnapping, (to use as an example) well as kidnapping. That somehow the police don't have a right to arrest people. And that if someone is kidnapped, is up for them to free themselves, or people to voluntarily help them out. Mainstream Libertarians, believe in law enforcement and even national security, to protect the innocent from predators.

Both communism, or as I prefer Marxism, (jury still out on the definition of communism) and anarcho-libertarianism, are doomed to fail. One would bring total unitarian state domination over all individuals. Because they view individual freedom as dangerous to the state and as purely as the freedom to make mistakes. But lets go over to the other side and anarcho-libertariansm. If you want to know what an anarcho-libertarian state looks like, look at Somalia. Look at Afghanistan certainly ten years ago and still to a certain extent today. Look at Iraq ten years ago. This is what countries look like when they can't, or choose not to govern themselves. But they fail for different reasons and are completely different from one another. One, puts all of its faith in the supremacy of the state over the individual. The other has essentially no real role for a state at all, which leads to chaos.

As an actual Liberal, whether you want to call me a Classical Liberal, or a Real Liberal, I prefer just Liberal, or Liberal Democrat, I have a lot in common with Libertarians and libertarianism. I talk with them on a regular basis and we tend to agree on probably all of the social issues and perhaps 9-10 of the economic issues. It is really just the role of government, especially the Federal Government and America's place in the world, where we tend to disagree. Actual Libertarians, both Conservative Libertarians and Left Libertarians, Social Liberals even, aren't looking to eliminate the state and even all taxation. They simply want to send a lot of this power back to the states and private sector in the areas of social insurance, to use as an example and I agree with them on that. To call Libertarians, "The New Communists", is an insult to Libertarians and even Communists. Because both factions are nothing alike and have nothing in common.
Source:Reason Magazine

Anarchist Collective: The Case For Self-Ownership and Property Rights

SourceAnarchist Collective-

Source:The New Democrat

The case for property rights and as I argued last week, property rights extends to one's self which is self-ownership and the case for property rights is the case against Marxism. Who owns you? The state, who assumes responsibility for everyone's welfare, or the individual them self? That is what this debate is about. If you believe in property rights, you're not a Marxist. Other than maybe a moderate Marxist, (if there is such a thing) who believes the state should own all business in the economy, but that individuals should own their personal property. Homes, cars, clothes, food, the responsibility for raising their kids, etc.  You can't have a free society without property rights and that even includes self-ownership. Because the state would then assume full responsibility for everyone's welfare. And be the monopoly over the whole country.

And as a Liberal, of course I believe in property rights, including self-ownership, because I believe in liberty. Self-determination, the right for one to chart their own course in life and be able to make the best out of it as they can while still meeting their responsibilities to pay for the services that they receive, both private and public. And really only Marxists on the furthest Left that you can find, don't believe in property rights. People as Far-Far as Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, believes in both property rights and perhaps even self-ownership. From his positions on self-defense, reproductive rights, sexuality, marijuana to use as examples. But believes in a big centralized government to carry out the basic human services that we all need to live well in life. Education, health care, health insurance, childcare, would be examples of that.

And if you go over to the Far-Right, you'll find Neoconservatives, who believe in security and morality over liberty. And don't even believe in the Right to Privacy and have suggested that it doesn't even exist. And want a superstate when it comes to national security and social issues to see to it that no one is behaving immoral and is threatening the security of the country. So under a philosophy like this, people could own their homes and business's, but no Right to Privacy. So government could literally break in to one's home without even having a warrant if they believe someone is behaving immoral. Not just to break in to save someone who is being raped, or being assaulted, or about to be killed. But stop stop people from watching an adult film. Perhaps a non-married couple from having sex, to use as examples.

Its the Far-Left that tends to get accused of being against property rights and self-ownership. But the fact is most Socialists now in the world even and just look at Europe, believe in property rights. Its just really the Marxists on the Far-Left who are against really any form of individuality and self-expression, because they see it as a potential threat to the state. And if you go over to the Far-Right, like the Islamic Republic of Iran, or the Islamic Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, they'l by law will tell women what they can wear in public and force them to be sub-servant to their men. But by in large on the Right at least in the West, property rights and even self-ownership, are very popular and common. At least with the Center-Right. People in the West at least both Right and Left, all believe in at least a certain degree of individual freedom. Because we understand the benefits of self-ownership and property rights.

Heidi Fleiss: Hollywood Madam (1995)

Source:IMDB- Hollywood Madam Heidi Fleiss.

Source:The Daily Review  

"A documentary crew from the BBC arrives in L.A. intent on interviewing Heidi Fleiss, a year after her arrest for running a brothel but before her trial. Several months elapse before the interview, so the crew searches for anyone who'll talk about the young woman. Two people have a lot to say to the camera: a retired madam named Alex for whom Fleiss once worked and Fleiss's one-time boyfriend, Ivan Nagy, who introduced her to Alex. Alex and Nagy don't like each other, so the crew shuttles between them with "she said" and "he said." When they finally interview Fleiss, they spend their time reciting what Alex and Nagy have had to say and asking her reaction." 

From IMDB 

"The so-called "Madam to the stars," Heidi Fleiss talks to Crime Watch Daily about her past, her infamous black book and what she's doing now." 

Source:True Crime Daily- Hollywood Madam Heidi Fleiss.

From True Crime Daily

Source:The Daily Review- Hollywood Madam Heidi Fleiss.

Did Heidi Fleiss break the law? Well prostitution is illegal in Los Angeles, California and the United States and that is the business she had. So of course she was guilty of breaking the law and Los Angeles and the Feds were simply doing their job when they had her arrested and later convicted of running a prostitution ring. 

But what was Heidi Fleiss guilty of? Prostitution, which is the selling of consensual sex between a prostitute and a client. The prostitute is paid for having consensual sex with their client. Generally the prostitute is a woman and the clients tend to be men. And where Heidi comes in is that she's guilty of running a business that involves the selling of consensual sex. Not running a hitman operation, or selling immigrants, money laundry, or any other business where innocent people are hurt simply for doing their jobs.

So Heidi ends up doing about two years in prison in the late 1990s for running a business where a consensual service for payment is involved. She wasn't in prison for murder, rape, assault, bribery, child pornography, child prostitution, where innocent people are hurt by predators and intentionally so. She did time in a Federal prison for selling a service that two people consensually agreed to. And ends up taking resources from the criminal justice system, law enforcement, prostitution and prison, at taxpayers expense. Money that could have been used to put away, gee I don't know, about dangerous criminals. 

I'm not an expert on Heidi Fleiss, but I believe a big reason for why California and the Federal Government, went so hard at her, is because she was so good at it. And perhaps looking to make an example of her.

Heidi, wasn't called the Hollywood Madam for nothing. She was not only based in Los Angeles, but had a lot of L.A. clients in the Hollywood industry. Including Charlie Sheen, who in 1997-98, wasn't exactly at the height of his career dealing with alcohol and other drug addictions and when he was working doing movies that flopped. 

That is how you become a millionaire as a madam by working in Hollywood and getting confidential agreements with their clients. Because no one wants to go to jail, especially for consensual sex. 

Is Heidi an angel, I don't think she even looks like one, let alone is one and has personal issues with how she deals with people. But we're not talking about a criminal who hurt innocent people for either money, or because she enjoys hurting people. And this not someone who should have been in prison for what she was involved in.

A&E Biography: Lynda Carter

Source:A&E Biography- Wonder Woman Lynda Carter. 

Source:The Daily Review

I don't think there's a better women and actress who could have played Wonder Woman. That show is literally about a goddess who comes to America from Paradise Island and plays superhero. At first you might thinks she's way too damn cute to kick ass. But I think that made her even more perfect for that role, because it gave her a great cover. With bad guys lets say, who don't believe she can handle them even though she saved the day (so to speak) all the time. Here's a women who is a former Miss America. That is how physically attractive she is as a tall strong athletic women, who is also hot and really adorable. Even in her nerdy glasses as U.S. Army Lieutenant Diana Prince, who is an intelligence officer. You could still tell she was a goddess who perhaps just needed to wear eye contacts.

Wonder Woman, was an entertaining watchable show. But so was Dukes of Hazzard, but the difference being the The Dukes was a great show even without Catherine Bach. But Catherine just made that show even better. Lynda Carter, just didn't make Wonder Woman, but she made that show as well. She brought that character to real-life and brought her to millions of Americans homes. People watched Wonder Woman to watch Wonder Woman, who was Lynda Carter. And it had other good people on it like Lyle Waggoner, but women watched that show, because they wanted to see a strong gorgeous women who kicked ass. And perhaps the same thing with guys, but they were simply interested in her. I see Wonder Woman as a show where a great looking women who is also entertaining can bring people into it. Even if it doesn't have much to offer outside of the lead.

And I think Lynda Carter knew all of this and perhaps got tired and bored with Wonder Woman and was ready to move on and not disappointed when CBS cut Wonder Woman in 1979. Because that show really was her, without much else other than her. With weak plots and cheesy writing that let Americans who were born in the 1960s and 1970s what it was like to live in the 1940s and 50s as far as how Americans talked to each other. With the original show taking place during World War II like the cartoon. But Wonder Woman made Lynda a star and gave her other opportunities and chances to meet other people and expand her career. So in this sense Wonder Woman even though it was a mediocre show, it gave her other opportunities and chances to do good credible things. Where she wasn't purely seen as a goddess.

Lifetime: Intimate Portrait Lynda Carter