Real Time With Bill Maher: 'New Rule, How The Left Was Lost'

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- telling the Far-Left in America to grow up.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Bill slams this ridiculous new era of mind-numbing partisanship, where simply speaking truth to your own party can make you an instant hero to the other side." 

From Real Time With Bill Maher

Because of America's crazy and outdated two-party system, you have two, large, political parties in America, that have two crazy factions in it. Which means you have a Democratic Party that believes in both liberal democracy, quality of opportunity, equal rights, and equal justice, as well as personal freedom is dangerous, capitalism is racist, free speech is bigoted, minorities and women should be treated better than the majority population and Caucasian men. Because the Democratic Party has a Center-Right and Center-Left, that believes in liberal values that I mentioned before and a Far-Left that believes in the crazy values that I just mentioned. 

So America has a Democratic Party that looks and acts like the adults in the room, but only because they are the adults in the room. Who tend to run the Democratic Party and don't need a gerrymandered district to get elected to anything, who can not just get elected statewide in swing states, but who can get elected statewide in Democratic states. (Where Far-left Democrats can't, like in California) And a Far-Left that really should be in the Green Party (when they're not occupying mental institutions) who can't get elected anywhere, to anything, that doesn't just have an overwhelmingly Democratic population, but left-wing Democratic population. 

I'm not saying America should have a parliamentary political system, because that would make me a crazy leftist as well. But the two-party system is why America has a Democratic Party that has two political factions that simply don't agree on much, because the Far-Left has nowhere else to go, because they represent such a small percentage of the country. And the Green Party is simply to small for them to get elected to anything, that's worth anything in America.

NFL Network: Eric Dickerson: A Football Life

Source:NFL Network- Eric Dickerson with the Anaheim Rams (as I called them) at Anaheim Stadium.

"A Football Life Eric Dickerson. Subscribe to the channel!

I don't own the rights to this  content." 

From Vanilla Vick

This might sound strange considering that Eric Dickerson, is not just in the NFL Hall of Fame, or that he rushed for 12,000 yards, and is literally one of the greatest runners (not running backs) in NFL history, but he underachieved and could've been so much better. 

Outside of John Riggins with the Redskins, the team that I grew up loving, Eric Dickerson was my favorite running back ever growing up in the 1980s. So I don't think I'm bias at all when I'm talking about Dickerson. And other than Jim Brown, I don't think the NFL has ever had a better runner in the backfield, than Eric Dickerson. He was a better runner than Marcus Allen and Walter Payton. Not as big and strong as John Riggins, but faster. 

I think (and this is where the underachieving part of his career comes in) had Eric Dickerson stayed in Anaheim with the Rams, instead of going to to the Indianapolis Colts, a franchise that had no history of being competitive, let alone winning, I think Dickerson owns every single major rushing record in the NFL right now. He would've shattered both Jim Brown's and Walter Payton's records and still have time and ability to do so much more. But his main goal was to be a millionaire running back and be paid like Pro Bowl QB, instead of being a champion and the best player at his position.

Imagine Eric Dickerson staying in Anaheim with head coach John Robinson who was essentially running his Southern California power offense, where the offense was built around the tailback and the Rams add QB Jim Everett and WR Flipper Anderson, they already had WR Henry Elliard and TE David Hill, one of the best offensive lines in the NFL, and one of the better defenses in the NFL. I

Imagine the 1989 Rams with Eric Dickerson as their tailback, instead of Greg Bell, who was a good running back, but not even on the same planet as Dickerson, at least as a runner. But we never got to see any of that, because Erick Dickerson was about making as much money as he could, even if it meant playing for losers like the Indianapolis Colts and Atlanta Falcons. And about being the best football player he could be becoming a Super Bowl champion.

7/18/2022 - Ryan Woods: "I understand what your saying to a certain degree. I'm glad you acknowledged he isn't the second greatest RB ever though. Great thought & point." 

Erik Schneider: "Thanks. I'm saying he's not the 2nd best all round RB ever, simply because he's not."

From Facebook

Ryan Woods: "he's the smoothest runner ever in my opinion & many other's. Dickerson's biggest knock his running didn't directly lead to a lot of team success like the other All-Time great rb's. Have him #7 on my All-Time rb list." 

Erik Schneider: "Or, he was more interested in making money, than winning football games." 

From Facebook

7/19/2022 - Britt Prentice: "Jim Brown was bigger than linebackers and even linemen. Average weight and height for a lineman was 6'2" 235lbs in the 50s-60s. Jim was 6'2" 232lbs. Different game. Jim would not be a man among boys today." 

Erik Schneider: "Actually, 235 for a RB back then, would not be 235 today. So you could at least argue that JB would be even bigger and stronger today, than he was back then. If you go by the theory that NFL players get bigger and stronger, as the league gets older."

Chris Paez: "I get your point. Dickerson wasn't the best receiver or blocker but his running was so much better I think most people would still take Dickerson over just about anyone. AND HE IS on the 1980's All Decade Team." 

Erik Schneider: " If you are simply talking about running the ball out of the backfield. But based on that, Roger Craig was the same size as ED, but not as tall and was about just as fast as ED, and had a lot more skills."

Chris Paez: "I just looked at the All Decade team. It was Dickerson and Payton at RB. Unless there's more than one version ?. And yeah Roger Craig was great but I bet more people would take Dickerson over Roger Craig." 

Erik Schneider: "Are we taking polls now? I thought we were talking about the best all around RB, versus the best runners at RB."

Chris Paez: "I'm not arguing with you. I already said Dickerson wasn't the best receiver or blocker. My point is that I'll take Dickerson over any back from the 1980s." 

Erik Schneider: "OK, got your point."

Britt Prentice: "Eric was 6'3" 220, Derrick Henry 6'3" 247, Faulk 5'10" 212, LT 5'10" 216, Emmitt 5'9 216. Gurley 6'1" 230, Chubb 5'11 225. Henry is very rare being so big. The backs today are not huge." 

Erik Schneider: "None of those players played 60 years ago. Bo Jackson was considered a man among boys in the 1980s. Similar size to Jim Brown."

Britt Prentice: "thank you for making my point. Bo 6'1" 230lbs." 

Erik Schneider: "Not only that, but the guys you mentioned who play today, are about the same size as the RB's of the 1980s. So Jim Brown would be a man among boys today as a tailback as well at 6'2 230 pounds, or so, with the great speed."

Britt Prentice: "no he would not. The average LB is 6'3" 240. Average lineman 6'4" 315. Brown would not be a man among boys stomping on Aaron Donald. He would be great, not dominant against far smaller opposition as he was." 

Erik Schneider: "Again I could take you back to Bo Jackson from the 1980s and the size he played at and the defenders he went up against or just use the fact that JB would be even bigger and stronger today, with all the access to modern medicine, weight training, personal trainers, that he didn't have in the 1960s. I don't see much point in arguing this."

David Thompson: "people forget how good Dorsett was. I could take or leave Craig. He found the perfect scheme for him offensively. Huge Walter Payton fan though. He’s on my Mt Rushmore along with Brown and Sanders. For that 4th spot on the Mt. I can argue for ED, Emmitt, prime Terrell Davis or Tony Dorsett. Maybe Curtis Martin, who is overlooked but was consistent and durable as they come." 

Erik Schneider: "We agree on Dorsett and Payton. It's Roger Craig whose overlooked. Should've been in the Hall of Fame a long time ago."

David Thompson: "He’s got a good argument for the HOF, and I love those 49ers teams, even as a Rams fan, but I wouldn’t put him in the conversation of beat backs ever. At the same time, he only had 3 1,000 yard rushing seasons over an 11 year career, and only one of those was dynamic. His 85 season was amazing, but he never really got close to anything like that again. It’s arguable his best ability was as a receiving back. But if Ricky Watters isn’t in, I don’t know how Craig gets in." 

Erik Schneider: "If Roger Craig is not one of the best RB's ever, then how does he have a "good argument" for the HOF?"

David Thompson: "for his era, he was considered one of the best backs. He won multiple Super Bowls. His 1000 yd rushing and receiving season was great. And despite his lack of stellar running stats, he still caught over 500 passes for his career which was almost unheard of. He’s not in the top 20 RBs of all time. But there are other RBs in with similar or even a lesser pedigree. That being said, I’m not gonna lost sleep if he doesn’t make it. That might be the most damning thing about him, you look at his career and it’s something that doesn’t overwhelm you as an omission that he’s not in the HOF." 

Erik Schneider: "for his era, he was considered one of the best backs. He won multiple Super Bowls. His 1000 yd rushing and receiving season was great." I could rest my case for Roger Craig with what you said about him. Two standards that HOF voters look at when deciding if someone should be in the HOF: were they one of the best players at their position during their era. Your answer for that is obvious yes. The other standard is would they be a great player in every era. The answer to that is obvious yes as well. Craig has a numbers game working against him since he played on a team with a lot of other HOF players. But just because a team was deep, shouldn't disqualify you for the HOF. He'll get in eventually and hopefully while he's still alive, unlike Ken Stabler."

From Facebook

7/22/2022 - Joseph F Cristarella: "It is harder to have a longer season, but you cannot compare the yardage, playing 17 games gives you a distinct advantage over those in 12 game seasons to gain more yardage, keeping in mind the defense back then may have been smaller than today but there was so much more they could do, a running back today does not have to routinely be clothes lined, helmet to helmet hits with far inferior helmets, etc. So things kind of work out in the end." 

Erik Schneider: "You sound like someone who knows his NFL history and not automatically assuming the great players today, are definitely better than the players before them. The only thing that I would add is the rules that Jim Brown played under, clearly favored defenses over offenses. Which is why the average NFL team ran the ball a lot more back then, than they do today. So Jim Brown had to work with smaller holes, fewer games and he still ran for 13,000 yards in 9 seasons, playing 116 games, over 100 TD's."

From Erik Schneider

Never More: Manson (1973) Documentary

Source:Never More- 1973 Manson Family documentary.

"'Manson' is the definitive documentary on the former cult leader and his followers, released at a time when the notorious murders were still fresh.

"Whatever is necessary to do, you do it," Fromme says. "When somebody needs to be killed, there’s no wrong. You do it, and then you move on. And you pick up a child and you move him to the desert. You pick up as many children as you can and you kill whoever gets in your way. This is us."

The film was shot by Hendrickson and Merrick between 1969 and 1972—after Charles Manson and a handful of Family members had been arrested for the murders but before the story had been cemented as a cultural touchstone in the 1974 book Helter Skelter—with the Family footage filmed primarily at the Western film-set-turned-Manson compound Spahn Ranch and in Death Valley. The whole thing was scored by Brooks Poston and Paul Watkins, two former Manson Family members.

Directed by - Robert Hendrickson & Laurence Merrick

Music by - Brooks Poston & Paul Watkins

Release date- 1973" 

From Never More 

"Documentary on Charles Manson and his family. Has a number of insightful interviews with many family members most notably Squeaky and Sandy (Blue and Red). There is also a history of Manson from his birth to the family formation to the Tate/La Bianca murders. Plenty of footage of the family playing at Spahn Ranch." 

Source:IMDB- with a look at this Manson Family documentary.

From IMDB

"1972 Manson Family documentary"

Source:Autism Awareness Bureau- from a 1972 Manson family documentary.

Source:Autism Awareness Bureau

When I think of the Manson Crime Family, (as I call them) because thats basically what they were) I think of a huge waste of human potential across the board of people who are now serving life in prison, because they threw their lives away by intentionally taking the lives of innocent people. But thats not the whole story because they not only have wasted their lives all of these people in their late teens and early twenties, but they wasted the lives of their victims and threw their lives away as well.

The Manson Family stuck their victims families and friends, as well as their own families and friends with a life sentence in prison. That now all of these people who've done nothing wrong as it relates to this story of a life sentence in the victims families case of never being able to see their relatives again and losing them at a young age. But have also stuck their own families and friends with a life sentence of never being able to see them living in freedom again. Because of course they are now in prison for the rest of their lives where they deserve to be.

I call the Manson Family a crime family because they may of started off as a cult. Where young somewhat lost people could come together and get away from the real world where they may of felt out of place and not doing well there. But they became a crime family by late 1968 early 1969 by ripping people off, even taking hostages and beating the hell out of people who they thought they had money that was owed to them and so-forth and were even dealing illegal narcotics.

And of course all of these things all boiled up and eventually leading to the horrible murders. Murders you might only see from racist hate groups or vicious serial murderers which some of the Manson Crime Family members ended up being, like Charles Tex Watson (to use as an example) with all of the blood and stab wounds they left by their victims and the surrounding areas where the murders were done.

So the Manson Family became not much more than an evil crime family creating a lot of damage for the Los Angeles area. And of course for their victims and created just a tone of human waste that over forty years later the victims of these crimes, as far as the family members of the victims and offenders because the offenders families are also victims as a result of the Manson Crime Family murders as well.

Joey Teefizz: MISL 1980- 2/10/2980- Philadelphia Fever @ Buffalo Stallions: Highlights

Source:Joey Teefizz- welcome to the Buffalo Memorial Auditorium.

"Old School Indoor Action! Phillly and Buff-let's rock!

Last 4 minutes of game are MIA-two goals we miss...6-2 Final" 

From Joey Teefizz

The first or second season on the Major Indoor Soccer League.

Washington Redskins: NFL 1964- Season Highlights

Source:Washington Redskins- QB Sonny Jurgensen. We can thank the Philadelphia Eagles, actually we should send them annual Christmas gifts, for giving away Sonny to us.

"Watch this NFL Year in Review from 1964 when quarterback Sonny Jurgensen comes to the Washington Redskins and wide receiver Charley Taylor is League Rookie of the Year." 

From the Washington Redskins

There are many reasons why the Redskins-Philadelphia Eagles has at least been a great NFL rivalry historically and I believe one of the most underrated rivalries in the NFL. 

Washington and Philadelphia are only 130 miles apart, which means the fans of both teams can go to the city to watch their team play. Both clubs are in the NFC East. Both clubs have been historically tough, physical, hardworking, blue-collar teams, at least during the Super Bowl era. Both teams have been good at the same time, for an extended period of time, like in the late 1980s and early 90s. 

I'm not saying the Redskins-Eagles rivalry started in 1964, when the Eagles traded Sonny Jurgensen to the Redskins for journeyman QB Norm Snead, the rivalry was already there. But if you look at the career that Sonny had and the career that Snead had and you look at what both teams did after this trade, with Eagles going into a drought where they would have 11 straight non winning seasons from 1967-77, 1 winning season from 1964-77. This trade was a steal for the Redskins and something the Eagles would spend the next 15 years trying to recover from, going through one QB after another after Sonny.

The Redskins didn't start winning right away under Sonny Jurgensen. They wouldn't have their first winning season with Sonny until 1969 under Vince Lombardi. But for the rest of the 1960s with Sonny at QB, and then add WR's Charley Taylor ,(perhaps the best WR ever) Bobby Mitchell, perhaps the first hybrid RB/WR, whose also in the Hall of Fame, and then Jerry Smith who should also be in the Hall of Fame, and the Redskins had one of the best offenses in the NFL during the 1960s decade. And would become consistent winners and a consistent playoff team in the 1970s with Sonny and would even win the NFC in 1972, with Sonny as their QB.  

6/07/2022 - Douglas John Musielak: "They will always be the Redskins to me." 

Erik Schneider: "Damn, straight!" 

From NFL Classic 

6/08/2022 - Benjamin Rice: "When RFK was new. Great old People's Drug sign. Was a great drugstore until it got gobbled up by CVS." 

Erik Schneider: "There was one in downtown Bethesda on the same street where I went to high school. It also had a Roy Rogers and Hot Shoppes, and a local bookstore. Great shopping center." 

Benjamin Rice: "nice. We used to go to the one at Arlington Rd and Bradley Blvd when I was growing up." 

Erik Schneider: "Small world." 

From NFL Classic

The Cold Turkey: Sean Penn- On Hugo Chavez & Fidel Castro: Hollywood Leftist Support For Socialist Dictators

Source:The Cold Turkey- Hollywood actor/activist Sean Penn, on President's Hugo  Chavez and Fidel Castro.

Source:FRS FreeState

“Sean Penn talks about Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.” Originally from The Cold Turkey.

For the life of me I don't understand why today's so-called Progressives ( radical hippie, Socialists, Communists in actuality ) love affair or admiration with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Progressives are supposed to be people that are about progressive through government action like democracy and yet they defend people, who are anti-democratic. Who've attempted to centralize power with their presidencies, in President Castro's case, have been successful in doing that. President Chavez's case still trying to do that in the Bolivar Republic of Venezuela, still has that official name.

Source: The Nation Magazine- Hollywood actor/activist Sean Penn and President Hugo Chavez ( Socialist Republic of Venezuela )

But if President Chavez is successful, they'll basically be another Communist Republic in Latin America. He's already been successful in nationalizing the energy industry, as well as at least certain parts of the media. But Venezuelan Democrats still have media outlets they can go to but in President Castro's case, it's official he's had a Communist State in Cuba for over fifty years. This guy is not a democrat and never has been, he's not even a Democratic Socialist, he's a Statist, who wants his people to be subjects of the State. And Hugo Chavez is one of Fidel Castro's biggest admirers.

Source: The Atlantic- Prudent Fidel Castro ( Communist Republic of Cuba ) and President Hugo Chavez ( Socialist Republic of Venezuela )

So why would Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists, people like Sean Penn who I generally have a lot of respect for, respect him more as an actor ( but that's a different story ) be standing up for people who are anti-democratic? First it's Castro, now it's Chavez, who is next President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation? Who's not a Communist but certainly a Statist, who's really Russia's version of a Nationalist.

I can understand why Democratic Socialists would speak highly of European Socialists or Canadian Socialists, but all those people are Democratic Socialists. Those are the people that regressive so-called Progressives like Sean Penn and others should be speaking highly of. Not Communists in Cuba, Venezuela or anywhere else, people who hold their own people down, because they don't want them to be powerful on their own. Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez aren't people to be admired, unless you are a Communist.

Not Progressives seem to have this notion that Americans, especially the Federal Government, have no right to criticize people in other countries. Because we aren't perfect, that we can't speak out against voter fraud in Venezuela or anywhere else. Because we have voter fraud in our own country. If that was the rule, then no one would ever be able to criticize anyone else. Because no one is perfect and this would be a very quiet world.

Constitution Daily: 'Looking Back: George Carlin & The U.S. Supreme Court'

Source:Constitution Center- The great comedian and political satirist George Carlin.

Source: The Daily Review

"On July 3, 1978, the Supreme Court issued its historic verdict in the George Carlin “seven dirty words” case, a decision that still holds sway over the use of indecent and obscene language on television, and in a new era of mass communications."

From Constitutional Daily

Source:Foundation Interviews- Comedian George Carlin, talking about his seven dirty words.

"George Carlin on his reaction to the Supreme Court case about his Seven dirty words."

From Foundation Interviews

The blog writes a lot about political correctness and fascism, because we write a lot about comedy and write comedy ourselves and without free speech which is what political correctness and fascism tries to restrict (obviously, duh, you don't say!) there would't be any comedy and even political satire. Which is why I'm always amused if not confused when so-called left-wing comedians and other entertainers make calls for political correctness because they think some material is offensive.

Because without free speech there wouldn't be any comedy. I mean, if political correctness ran this country instead of the First Amendment, comedians wouldn't be able to crack jokes about anybody. Especially the people who deserve to be made fun of. Like our politicians, just to use as an example. Entertainers attacking free speech is very ironic. Because speech is what fuels comedy, as well as self-awareness and what's going on around you in life. Even comedians have stood up for political correctness against free speech, like Michael Moore and others. Even John Oliver, Stephanie Miller, John Fugelsang, would be other examples.

A comedian attacking free speech, is like a race car driver saying oil and gas are bad for the environment and therefor should be outlawed. Oil and gas literally fuel that race car driver's career. Without it, he might be flipping burgers or selling lemonade. Or a pro football player saying football is too violent and therefor tackling should be outlawed. Who would go watch professional flag football? As the great comedian Mel Brooks has said political correctness is destroying comedy because comedians are worried about offending oversensitive tight asses, who think they're the only perfect human beings on the face of the Earth who don't deserve to be made fun of. Brooks has said political correctness is destroying comedy. The second part is my line.

George Carlin is not the first victim of political correctness when it comes to comedy. You could argue at least that Lenny Bruce back in the 1950s and 60s has that uthonorable title. But George and Lenny, are from the same generation. Lenny would literally go on stage using cuss words as part of his act and I'm not talking about hell or damn, but he would talk about sex and talk about how people would have sex with each other and put it bluntly. And then would literally be arrested on stage for using foul language. George has  a similar but different story.

George would go on stage and literally use words like shit, fuck, mother fucker, mother fucking fucking, and others and these were part of the so-called seven dirty words that comedians weren't supposed to use in Phyllis Schlafly's 1950s America, where you weren't even allowed to say God, Jesus, and hell, at least not on TV.

Liberal democracy which has a practically guaranteed right for free speech in America under are First Amendment. The only exceptions having to do with falsely libeling, inciting violence, or harassment, like leaving obscene message on someone's voice mail, to use as an example. This is not the place for oversensitive tight asses who look at the mirror and only see perfection. Or have a glass jaw for an ego and can't take the smallest bit of criticism without breaking out in tears and flooding their homes from all of their perspiration. I don't know, maybe Canada is a country for people like that.

If you don't like offensive material, then don't watch it or listen to it! Only watch PBS and C-SPAN if you can't handle criticism about yourself and groups you believe have constitutional protection not to be criticized that no one else has. With liberal democracy comes a lot of individual freedom, but with that comes responsibility and the fact that you're not the only one who lives here and you have the same freedom and responsibility that everyone else has. And might from time to time hear and see things that you disapprove of. But so will everyone else.