Amet Reloads: Bill Maher & George Carlin on Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher in 2001

George Carlin & Nobody
George Carlin & Nobody

Source: Amet Reloads: Bill Maher & George Carlin on Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher in 2001

Not clear the date of this show, but it sounds like the early days of the George W. Bush Administration in 2001, when our long national nightmare was just beginning, to paraphrase former President Gerald Ford. You would think after being appointed President of the United States and losing the popular vote and arguably Florida as well that would have given the election to Al Gore and not being very popular when assuming office in January, 2001 and having a divided Senate and a House with bare Republican majority, that President Bush just might try to govern as a uniter. And not try to force his right-wing agenda that the country didn’t support on the country.

But you gotta give President Bush credit for one thing and that’s where his credit runs out. He told the country what he believed and what he would do and then he did exactly that. He really is one of the most honest president’s we’ve ever had. Which is sort of like being the tallest man in Japan. So what! But its true. That whole cliché that elections matter. That is so true with G.W. Bush. The country knew what they were getting when they voted for him, other than that little trillion-dollar debacle called the Iraq War. And they voted for him anyway. I don’t blame President Bush for being who he was. I blame the Democratic Party who both times had a candidate better than Bush, but barely lost to him twice. For not running good campaigns and taking Bush seriously.

It is one thing to be a bad president and good luck finding a worst one than G.W. Bush where you look at the State of The Union when he took office and where it was when he left. But that person still has to get the job first and beat the opposition. I blame Al Gore, for not winning his home state Tennessee and not winning Florida in a walk with the senior vote and coming off as rude with superficial voters in the debates. For not taking advantage of the most popular politician in the country who just happened to be his boss in President Clinton and using him to take apart the Bush Campaign. I blame John Kerry, for again not taking President Bush seriously enough as a politician. And not taking the swift boat debacle seriously and wasting a whole summer not moving past that. But more importantly, I blame fifty-million or so American voters. Who didn’t have the decency to be awake, sober and on their medication when they went into the voting booths in 2000. And voting for the wrong person.

Advertisements

Meg Rifter: George Carlin- Maybe it’s Not The Politicians Who Suck?

Non-Voter
Non-Voter

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I partially agree with George Carlin on this. Our politicians actually do suck in way too many cases. I think that is obvious when you have a Congress that can’t get its basic responsibilities taken care of. Like gee I don’t know, funding the government that they are part of. Or paying the bills that has been run up on the debt, which is what a debt ceiling extension actually is. Not an agreement to borrow more money, just to pay the interest on the current debt. And you could add other examples of how members of Congress in both parties treat each other. Like the majority not allowing the minority opportunities to offer amendments and other examples like that. But just in case people who aren’t insomniacs actually read this, I don’t want to put everyone else to sleep with what is called in Washington Congressional speak. Language that only the House and Senate uses.

I completely disagree with George Carlin on his notion that non-voters have every right to complain. Sure, according to the First Amendment they do, which is all that they need. But for people to be taken seriously, they have to sound credible. And if you’re not doing everything you can to improve government and the least you can do is to bother voting, you can’t credibly complain about politicians who are on office now, because you were too busy complaining, or sitting on your ass at home, or at a coffee-house, perhaps watching celebrity TV all day, getting drunk, masturbating, whatever it might be and not voting. Had Democrats bothered to turn out in 2010 and 2014 anywhere near the numbers they did in 2008 and 2012, what Tea Party revolution? Republicans rely on low voter turnout to get elected and reelected. There are still more Democrats than Republicans in America. What Republican gerrymandering if Democrats held onto all of those legislatures and governorships in 2010?

I realize I’m coming at this from a Democratic vantage point, but here’s a newsflash. I’m a Democrat and I’m not saying this to put Republicans down, but Democratic voters don’t have much to complain about when they don’t vote for Democrats. Especially when their reasoning is that they don’t like Center-Left establishment Democrats and that the candidate, or incumbent is not in love with government and doesn’t have a new tax or government program to take care of everyone’s problems for them. Or is not as Far-Left as the Green, or Democratic Socialist candidate. Democrats, won back Congress in huge numbers in 2006, because Republicans didn’t bother voting. This works both ways. If you don’t do the very least that you can do to improve government and get the best possible people to represent you, which is bothering to vote and the person you most not rather see wins that office, whose fault is that? All the opposition did was show up and win and beat a party that didn’t bother to vote.

If you don’t like the current field of candidates, run yourself, or encourage someone who you think would be a good candidate to run and then work for that person. Assuming that you caught them when they were drunk, or high, or had a gun pointed at their head (that wasn’t filled with water) and agreed to run for that office. But a big reason why we have politicians who suck is because we have voters who suck themselves and maybe we should require all voters to pass a sobriety test, or eye examination before voting. But other reasons why we have politicians who suck is because we have voters in name only. People who are registered to vote, but who don’t bother voting at all. And as a result we get politicians, because of a low voter turnout who would’ve lost badly had we just had a decent voter turnout for that election. Who represent a small faction of the country and wouldn’t have won any other way.

HBO: George Carlin- Euphemisms & Political Correctness

 

Attachment-1-296
Source: HBO- George Carlin

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I probably agree with everything that George Carlin said in this video. Other than the word liberal. Replace liberal with illiberal and Liberals with Illiberal’s and we agree on everything here. Without Liberals, George Carlin isn’t able to make this video, because Liberals gave us our First Amendment Freedom of Speech rights. It is illiberal fascists on the Far-Left, who have the balls to call themselves Liberals, even though they have more in common with Karl Marx and Fidel Castro, than they do with Jack Kennedy, Tom Jefferson and even Wendell Willkie. Who actually were Liberals, because they believed in liberal values and not illiberal values. Illiberal fascists are the people who run the U.S. Political Correctness Department on the Left in America. While Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians and even some Progressives, disobey all of their laws.

It’s not that labels and the truth that are the problem in America. Without them how would know what is real and what is make-believe. How would we know how to refer to each other. I guess we would have to wait for the PCD, or Political Correctness Department to tell us that. Perhaps Ben Affleck will play the Chief of that department in his next movie. Maybe Michael Moore will be his deputy after he’s done with his next film about how so-called White people want create a new American Civil War and kick out all the non-Europeans in the country. And even Europeans who aren’t of British descent and Protestant. Without the truth and accurate ways to referring to each other, we might as well all go blind and death. Because none of us will know what the hell is going on. The truth is never the problem, it is what leads to the truth that can be. People can only improve once they know what is wrong.

If a Muslim believes that women should be his servant and that the man is always in charge and that women shouldn’t be allowed to work and the whole deal, similar to how many Christian-Conservatives feel today and not just one Muslim, but that is mainstream thought in that culture and a non-Muslim and lets say a non-Muslim of European heritage points that out, how is the person who is accurately critiquing Muslims who believe these things a bigot? All this person is doing is pointing out some negative truths about some Muslims. If someone is fat and crazy, are you supposed to pretend they got a body of Hercules and are the sanest person around? And perhaps the worst thing about illiberal political correctness is how phony it is. (I’m being really kind) Because it is disguised as tolerance, even though it is the opposite towards people who disagree with them.

Once you hide the truth for fear it might offend people, you become a fascist. And once a society does that, they just threw the First Amendment in the garbage. And as a result the society will regress and become a regressive society and not even a progressive society that political correctness fans claim they want. Because the society will stop progressing, because people won’t know the truth about themselves and how to improve. “Joey, isn’t a bad student compared with the rest of the class, or is dumb. He just learns slower. And because of that we shouldn’t get him any help, or hold him back, because we don’t want to hurt his feelings.” And that is just one example of political correctness where students are promoted even if they don’t make the grades, because for fear of hurting their self-esteem. And is something that a progressive society and free society can’t afford if they want to continue to make progress.
HBO: George Carline- Euphemisms & Political Correctness

Movie Clips Classic Trailer Vault: 4 For Texas 1963- Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin Go West to Strike it Rich

Anita Ekberg, Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Ursula Andress
Anita Ekberg, Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Ursula Andress

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

To be completely honest with you, I only saw 4 For Texas and really only like it because Anita Ekberg Ursula Andress are in it and both look great in it. Anita Ekberg, Marilyn Monroe without the childish immature baggage of Marilyn and yet physically almost as adorable and might even be sexier. Because similar body and yet she comes off as a grown up. The same thing with Diana Dors, who is probably comparison with Anita than Marilyn. Not as familiar with Ursula, other than as Cat Woman from Batman, but she’s also a gorgeous sexy baby in this movie. Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin, are both funny in this movie, but what else is new, especially when they’re together. And they both have goddess’s for girlfriends. Frank, has Elya Carlson (played by Anita Ekberg) and Dean, has Maxine Richter. (Played by Ursula Andress) Good luck finding a movie where either Frank and Dean weren’t in where they weren’t working with a goddess.

As far as the movie, Frank and Dean, both play bank robbers in Texas. Both going after the same hundred-thousand-dollars that is being transported by stagecoach in the 1870s in Galveston, Texas. Both have dreams of opening up their own casinos and going straight. (So to speak) The problem is they both want the same hundred-grand and don’t want to share it. Another problem that they have is that there’s this outlaw named Matson, (no first name given) who is after the same money. So Zach (played by Frank) and Joe (played by Dean) decide to become partners temporarily to knock off the Matson Gang. Again this is not a great movie, but because of the four stars in it and then add Charles Bronson and Victor Buono, the Three Stooges make a cameo and you’re talking about a very entertaining and even funny movie. But without Anita Ekberg and Ursula Andress, I’m probably not watching much of it.
Movie Clips Trailer Vault: Four For Texas 1963 Trailer

Paramount Pictures: Where Love Has Gone 1964: What Happens to a Family When They Lose Their Love

Mike Connors, Joey Heatherton, Susan Hayward
Mike Connors, Joey Heatherton, Susan Hayward

Source: Paramount Pictures: Where Love Has Gone 1964: What Happens to a Family When They Lose Their Love

I haven’t thought about this, until I just read it, but if you’re familiar with the great Lana Turner, (as an actress and goddess) and you’re familiar with Where Love Has Gone from 1964, the story about Valerie Hayden’s daughter Danielle Miller (played by Joey Heatherton) who ends up killing her mother’s boyfriend, is very similar to Lana’s daughter Cheryl Krane, who ends up killing her mother’s boyfriend Johnny Stompanato. The Stompanato killing, happened in real-life and both killings happened when the killer’s mother is involved in a dispute with their boyfriend. I’m not an expert on Lana Turner, most of what I’ve learned about her has been in the last two years. But she lived a crazy life as if she was always drunk or something and didn’t know what the hell she was doing. Valerie Hayden, (played by the great Susan Hayward) lives a similar life as Lana in this movie.

As far as this movie. Great movie! It is very dramatic, if not traumatic when you’re talking about a family that is led by a very overprotective mother, (played by Bette Davis) who is always making moves regarding her daughter’s life and makes those moves on her behalf and rarely if ever consults her daughter about what she’s doing for her. And as a result her daughter even though she’s this gorgeous, baby-faced adorable, sexy, intelligent, talented women, ends up being somewhat immature and irresponsible. Because her mother has a lot of control over her own life. She meets World War II U.S. Army hero Luke Miller played by Mike Connors and falls in love with and perhaps hoping she can find some independence from her mother. They get married, but now Mrs. Hayden, (played by Bette Davis) wants to control her daughter and her new son-in law. And has him blacklisted so he has no other choice, but to work for her company.

Again, this is a very dramatic if not traumatic movie and yet its pretty funny as well. And maybe that just because of Susan Hayward, who had this Liz Taylor quality of being able to combine drama, with comedy and humor. Who plays a very adorable and immature irresponsible women, who goes too far, because now she’s married to man who has just gotten out of the U.S. Army and fought in World War II. Whose use to giving orders, not taking them. Who doesn’t have any patience for the games and soap opera tactics of her wife and mother in law. This was never a relationship that was designed to work out. The Miller’s, get divorced, Luke is out of the picture and has no input with how his daughter is raised and Valerie (played by Susan Hayward) finds a new man before she dumps her husband and that is how her boyfriend gets killed. Because she has a fight with him with her daughter stepping in to end the fight and kills her mother’s boyfriend.

I think Where Love Has Gone, is also a very entertaining and funny movie, especially if you’re familiar with life of Lana Turner, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. Gorgeous, adorable, talented and yet immature and irresponsible women. Whose always involved with the wrong man while having young daughter to take care of. In Lana’s case, Italian gangster Johnny Stompanato. Valerie, gets involved with a man after Luke Miller, who isn’t a good man and he ends up being killed by her daughter. Luke Miller, by most accounts is a good man, but he only gets back in his daughter’s life after she’s charged with her murder of her mother’s boyfriend. This movie looks like a great soap opera. With a lot of great drama, writing, acting and humor, which all great soap operas have and I’m a big fan of it.

The Real Strategy: Opinion- Christopher Kemmett- Real Retards Vote: Why you Don’t Want to Stop Them- The Case For Educated Voters

Uncle Sam

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

When I saw this post on The Real Strategy a blog I’ll admit I’m not that familiar with, it got me thinking about the title of a book from the great political humorist P.J. O’Rourke. Where he says, “don’t vote. It just encourages the bastards.” Which came out in 2009-10. What O’Rourke is implying there if not just flat-out saying is that when you vote for politicians, or their opponents, you’re endorsing them and what they do. When the fact is the problem is what American politicians do for us and in too many cases do for us. By making our lives more difficult by doing too much, or not what they’re constitutionally required to by law, which is to pass the budget that funds the government.

As a Democrat, I’m a big fan of democracy short of empowering the majority to rule over the minority. Big reason why I’m a Liberal Democrat and not a Social Democrat, which is more common in Europe. But the main problem with American politics is not our politicians and I mean our crooked and bought hyper-partisan politicians. The main problem with American politics are the voters who vote for those politicians. People say especially with the Left where I’m proud to be (Center-Left that is) that if we just have higher turnout we would get better politicians and people more representative of who they’re supposed to represent. The problem with that is again if you have more people voting, you’re going to have at least with the current state of the American voter, you’ll have more dumb people voting for people who they don’t know. Getting sucked in by an oil-slick politician or candidate. Who has no intention of doing what they campaigned on.

You can pass all the great campaign reform laws that you want, but if you still have the same dumb voters who are either too dumb to vote for the people who’ll best represent them and vote for the worst alternative possible instead, or don’t bother to research candidates and politicians they’re considering voting for and just go off of soundbites, or the person whose most up to date with pop culture references, or technology, or campaign commercials, or they think one candidate is not as bad as the other person, so for that very and only reason the lesser evil deserves their vote over the really evil person, we’re always going to have an American public complaining about how bad our political system and government is. Even though they are responsible for creating that very government and system themselves.

We don’t need more voters. We need better voters. We need people who actually take voting seriously and take it as seriously as they would when their buying a home, a car, deciding where to send their kid to college and everything else they value, their i-pad, or i-pod, what so-called reality TV show to watch, etc. And with a more educated public when it comes to voting, you’ll see better politicians and better government and with that you’ll not just to see more voters, but more educated voters. With politicians having fewer dopes they can rely on who’ll buy beach out in Cincinnati if you tell them that you have one there for sale simply because you told them that. And since they failed geography and social studies in high school, aren’t even aware that Cincinnati is nowhere near and ocean. And probably couldn’t even find it on a map if they were standing there.
RT America: American Voters Disaffected With Political Establishment

ESPN: An Audience With Muhammad Ali- From 1974

The Greatest Performer of All-Time?
The Greatest Performer of All-Time?

Source: ESPN: An Audience With Muhammad Ali- From 1974

Muhammad Ali, perhaps at his most popular and highest peak professionally in 1974. Now seemed more as a mainstream figure and perhaps less as a rebel, or some Black Power figure or something. He’s not the most recognizable and most popular athlete in the world forty-years ago and today just because African-Americans, Native-Africans and Muslims regardless of race, or ethnicity love him. He became more of a mainstream figure in the mid 1970s as more Americans especially got to know him, but he moderated as well and said less derogatory things about Caucasians and the establishment. And more people got to see how intelligent and the great comedic wit and acting ability that he had as well.

Muhammad, was certainly a member of the TV Generation and was perfect for it and came up during the perfect time for him. That is why he’s so famous, because he came up when network TV was so crucial and dominant and had the perfect personality for it. Someone who was very bright and knew exactly what he was talking about, but also someone who was very funny and entertaining and people simply loved him and still do for it. This is in late 1974 and he Muhammad fought Joe Frazier for the third and final time about a year later. And you hear Ali talking about Frazier, because that is the fight people wanted to see again. And Smokin Joe wanted another shot at Ali and regain the World Heavyweight Championship. And Ali probably wanted to beat Joe Frazier again.

Muhammad Ali as a politician? I hate to do this as a great of an athlete and in many ways as a man he was, I could see him as the Donald Trump of the 1970s or 80s had he not come down from Parkinson’s. As he said himself as a non-politician he was free to say whatever he feels and believes and even the truth. You can’t do that as a politician and expect to be reelected. You have to be more careful and target what you say and how you say it. One of the reasons why Donald Trump has never been elected to anything is because he’s unelectable. He’s done the best Mitt Romney impersonation you’ll ever see by being multiple choice on so many key issues. Muhammad was always better off being free and out of elected office and being exactly who he was. Not feeling the need to have to please people.

Rick Wharton: HBO Sports: Thrilla In Manila Documentary: The Heavyweight Battle of The Century

Ali-Frazier III
Ali-Frazier III

Source: Rick Wharton: HBO Sports: Thrilla In Manila Documentary: The Heavyweight Battle of The Century

I’m not a boxing expert and don’t pretend to be one and I haven’t followed boxing very closely for almost twenty-years now since the heavyweight division went into the toilet as if it was flushed down. But The Thrilla in Manila at least to me is at the very least the best heavyweight division fight of all-time. It represents the best and the worst of boxing. Two big strong men literally beating the hell out of each other. In a way it was like an Old West shootout where the last man standing won. But even Old West shootouts generally had winners. This fight was more like a divorce. Where there wasn’t real winner. Just a survivor who was slightly better off than the man he beat. This fight was only stopped, because Joe Frazier was literally blind at the end of it. Thats how much this fight took out of both men.

The Thrilla in Manila was the last fight in the greatest trilogy again at least in the heavyweight division. Which is the only division in boxing that I follow at all. Smokin Joe won the first fight in 1971 and Muhammad won the second fight in 73 and beat the man who beat Joe for the heavyweight championship in 1974, which of course was George Forman. So yes the third fight was again for the Heavyweight Championship of the World for the second time and Joe wanted it back. But as they said in this film The Thrilla in Manila was about the World Heavyweight Championship of each other. The right to say that they were better than the other. That they were the best heavyweight of their generation and of the 1970s. You could still argue about Larry Holmes, but they both would’ve had a good case had they won this fight.

The Thrilla in Manila looks like to me what it would have been like had Germany fought Japan at the end of World War II. Imagine had they destroyed each other during that war instead of getting their assess handed to them by America and the Western Allies and literally destroyed each other, but didn’t know how to give up. And kept going on until neither one had one fighter and one weapon left. That is what this fight was like. Two big strong men beating the hell out of each other until one literally couldn’t take it anymore and was literally knocked out, or gave up. That is why I say this fight represents boxing at its best and worst. Two guys in the primes giving everything they had against the other, but beating each other up so much that they caused real physical damage to the other.

Jim Reid: The Man Inside 1958: Anita Ekberg and Jack Palance

Jack Palance & Anita Ekberg
Jack Palance & Anita Ekberg

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

Patrick (No Last Name) played by Sam Carter is a jewel thief who pulls off a big heist in (somewhere in Europe) Europe. Milo March (played by Jack Palance is a private detective hired to track down Patrick and the jewels that he stole. Trudi Hall (Swedish Goddess Anita Ekberg Miss Sweden) is also after the jewels that Patrick stole. Milo and Trudi run into each other and find out they’re both after the same score, but have different motivations and reasons for tracking it down. They also discover that people are after them, because they’re after that jewelry score and decide to work together on this case. This is a fairly simple and I believe not a very well executed movie. But with a good plot and writing and besides it has Anita Ekberg and Jack Palance in it.

I saw a couple of Anita Ekberg movies this weekend. The Man Inside and 4 Four Texas that also had Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin in it. I know that a lot of people will probably disagree with me on this. But Anita is not the Swedish Marilyn Monroe and Diana Dors is not the English Marilyn Monroe. They were both better than Marilyn. Anita and Diana both grew up while remaining their hot baby-faced adorable goddess features with their great voices throughout their lives. Unlike like Marilyn who had a childish, or at least adolescent personality and maturity level to go with her baby-face up until the day she died in 1962 only at the age of 36. Anita, same generation as Marilyn lived to 83 and only died last year and look incredible her whole life and had a great career as an entertainer.
Jim Reid: Anita Ekberg- The Man Inside 1958

Marmar: The Late Show With David Letterman: Dyan Cannon in 1991

Hollywood Goddess
Hollywood Goddess

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

Is it just me or did Dyan Cannon seem like she was on laughing gas, or something during this interview? Perhaps she just had a root canal and just came from the dentist or something. Maybe she went to a bad comedy show and took laughing gas there to be nice. So she would laugh at any bad joke that she heard. But that is what you get from Dyan. The adorable baby-face and personality that comes with where she’s always laughing and perhaps has even laughed at funerals before or something. (Now that’s cold) But she laughed at practically everything Dave said there. But this is why she’s great on shows like this, because talking to her is just like talking to a great comedian.

I was a fifteen year old high school freshman who was probably asleep when this interview was shown in 1991. I couldn’t tell you anything about the movie they were talking about even if I wanted to. Which I don’t because I simply don’t know what movie they’re talking about. But the idea that Dyan would have to sell which I’m sure was her beautiful Los Angeles home to make her own movie that only had a three-million-dollar budget, seems surprising to me. She was a Hollywood starlet for twenty-years at this point. Maybe she was going through another divorce where she owed her twenty-year old tennis assistant/beach bum ex-husband a lot of money in alimony, or something. But you would think a great successful Hollywood entertainer could easily finance a project like that.