The Film Historian: Susan Hayward Biography

Source: The Film Historian- Hollywood Goddess Susan Hayward.

Source:The Daily Times

Susan Hayward was so adorable, a beautiful baby-face sweetheart and a hell of an actress. She was as great of an actress as she was to look at. So pretty and adorable at the same time and could always crack a joke and make people laugh. I believe very similar to Ava Gardner in that way, but not as beautiful. But both were very beautiful, adorable even in an immature way at times when they didn’t get their way and funny as well. I believe had she lived longer Susan would have ended up doing soap opera and perhaps even prime-time soaps like Dynasty or Dallas, which is what Joan Collins and Elizabeth Taylor did on Dynasty in the 1980s. Because she was so adapt at bringing drama and being very dramatic and mixing in wise cracks and making people laugh at the same time. She was the constant entertainer when she was working or not working.

Just saw two Susan Hayward movies this last week. Two of her best movies in Where Love Has Gone from 1964 with Mike Connors and Betty Davis. And I Want To Live, where she plays convicted murderer Barbara Graham who was convicted of murdering one of her partners in crime (I know that sounds lame) in the 1950s and gets sentenced to death in California. She plays a woman who is on death row and she ends up having almost everyone in the movie hoping she gets her sentenced commuted to life without parole, because no one wants to see her die, because she knows how to treat people and is so sweet and adorable and real and knows she’s lived a bad life and is a career criminal. But ends up having a lot of people fighting for her life and getting her off of death row.

Where Love Has Gone, is basically a two-hour soap opera. Lots of sarcasm which is perfect for a movie where the stars are Susan Hayward, Mike Connors and Bette Davis. This movie (I at least believe) is based off of the Lana Turner-Johnny Stompanato relationship in the 1950s. Where Lana’s daughter Cheryl ends up killing Johnny who was an Italian mobster, because she believes Johnny is trying to kill her mother Lana. In Where Love Has Gone Susan’s daughter in the movie (played by Joey Heatherton) kills her mother’s boyfriend, because she believes her mother is spending too much time with him and her mom is not spending enough time with her. It’s a classic Susan Hayward movie, because it’s heavy on the drama and even soap opera and yet a movie with a lot of quick humor in it.

Susan Hayward I believe was a great dramatic-comedic actress. And not necessarily someone who could do both drama and comedy, because of course she could. But that she was adept at combining both genres in one movie. Very similar to Alfred Hitchcock, but as an actress and not as a director. She just had a great personality and was very real with her work and characters and always had the audience believing that she was exactly who she was playing. And not some actress pretending to be someone else. And had she not have died from radiation poisoning in the 1970s I believe she would be talked about today as the great dramatic-comedy actress that she was. And getting the attention for being as beautiful and adorable as she really was.
Source:The Film Historian

The New York Times: All The King's Men- Broderick Crawford Playing Huey Long

Source: The New York Times- Broderick Crawford, as the Louisiana Kingfish Huey Long.

Source:The Daily Times

"A. O. Scott reviews Robert Rossen's 1949 oscar-winner for best picture."

From The New York Times

I think the best way to describe Huey Long (aka Louisiana Kingfish) would be compared him with the recently deceased President of Venezuela Hugo Chavez. Even though Huey was a lot more democratic than Hugo and believed in a greater deal of freedom. But they were both basically dictators who were corrupt who meant well and wanted to do good things. But weren’t really cutout to be chief executives and people with strong Socialist-Communist leanings.

Both Huey and Hugo spoke about share the wealth and Social Justice, but wanted as much power as possible even centralized all the power with them to do these good works for the people. Huey Long was clearly a Democrat as far as party and politically and believed in democracy except when it went against him. And Hugo Chavez was a Socialist, but certainly not a Democratic Socialist.

Hugo was not a full-blooded Communist like Fidel Castro, but probably more like Neo-Communist. Someone who allowed for political opposition and a certain level of economic and personal freedom, but someone with strong dictatorial leanings as well. Huey was probably more democratic than Hugo, but politically they were similar.

The Prodigy: Muhammad Ali vs Jerry Quarry (1970)

Source:The Prodigy- Muhammad Ali vs Jerry Quarry, from 1970.

Source:The Daily Times 

“Muhammad Ali vs Jerry Quarry 1 was fight for The Ring World Heavyweight title.Held on October 26.1970. at Atlanta, Georgia.” 

From The Prodigy

As I mentioned yesterday, Muhammad was simply too big, strong, tall and quick for Jerry Quarry. Muhammad was 6’2 or 6’3, 215 pounds or so of solid muscle, speed and intelligence. Speed in his hands and feet and you combine that with his strength, his ability to both take a good punch and deliver several great punches in a few seconds, plus his accuracy, he was simply too much for Jerry Quarry. Who was 5’10 or 5’11, under 200 pounds. For Quarry to make this a good fight, he simply had to get inside of Muhammad and pound on him.

The problem being that the only short heavyweight boxer to have any success at that, was Joe Frazier who was bigger and stronger than Quarry and could take more punishment and still move in on you and pound your body. Quarry left both of the Ali fights a bloody mess, because he took so much punishment in both fights before he was able to deliver any punishment. The two Quarry fights were a tune up to fight for Ali to fight Joe Frazier for the first time in 1971 and the second time in 1973.

Sweet Fights: Muhammad Ali vs. Jerry Quarry 2 (1972)

Source: Sweet Fights-Muhammad Ali vs Jerry Quarry.

Source:The Daily Times

Jerry Quarry simply didn’t have the defense to fight a big strong fighter like Muhammad. And ended up taking too much punishment in these two fights. Muhammad was simply too big, strong and fast for a brawler like Jerry Quarry, who needed his opponent to be in front of him and not have the great footwork and quickness to beat him. Jerry Quarry was the ultimate fighter’s chance boxer. Meaning he had a fighter’s chance to win fights. That if he delivered enough punishment, especially against a stationary boxer, he could win the fight and beat his opponent before his opponent beat him. The problem that he had against Ali, was Ali was not a stationary fighter. But someone with great quickness and footwork. Who could punch hard and hurt you.
Source:Sweet Fights

PZI: PZI Jeans Commercial- Curvy Jeans

Source: PZI-

Source:The Daily Times

Tight jeans for curvy women. Just hearing those words in that sentence makes me feel like I've already died and gone to heaven. Or perhaps have moved to paradise and wasn't aware of that until I actually got there. Like a surprise vacation where you are blindfolded and your wife of girlfriend takes you somewhere and you're blindfolded the whole time while you are there. Might sound like an unbelievable story to anyone in touch with reality. But if you watch enough TV, something like that might seem believable to you. Forget about tight jeans denim or leather for rail-thin women, or obese women. How about instead how about we talk about tight jeans for healthy women and that includes big bone women who aren't fat, but have big bones and curves and are strong. Women who physically take care of themselves and eat right and know they are healthy and want to show off that success with the right denim jeans. To show the world how sexy they are at least on the outside.
Source:PZI Jeans

Taylor F: President Dwight Eisenhower- Address on Little Rock Integration Plan

Source:Taylor F- President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican, Texas) 34th President of the United States (1953-61)

Source:The Daily Times

Dwight Eisenhower, America’s first civil rights president. Not Lyndon Johnson who was our third, after Jack Kennedy who got involved in it strongly late in his presidency. But President Eisenhower was our first because he took on segregation from the executive level before the 1960s and when the civil rights movement became strong.

By taking on civil rights at the federal and executive level, President Eisenhower immediately gave credibility to the movement. Especially by being in favor of it and against school desegregation, by essentially saying that “African-Americans have the same right to a quality education as Caucasian-Americans. And that government can’t force African-American kids to go to poor schools. When Caucasians are going to good public schools”.

Market Ex: President Dwight Eisenhower- On The American Safety Net

Source:Market Ex- Dwight D. Eisenhower quote.

Source:The Daily Times 

“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”

From Market Ex

Dwight Eisenhower certainly wasn’t a Tea Party Republican economically or anything else. Whatever a Tea Party Republican is supposed to be, because there are many types.

But Ike was not a classical conservative economic libertarian Tea Party Republican. Not a Rand Paul Conservative Libertarian, which is what I’m getting at. But more like a Newt Gingrich Republican at least when it came to economic policy or what they use to call in Canada a Progressive Conservative.

Progressive Conservatives believe in the basic safety net for people who needed it, including the New Deal. But someone who also believed in freedom when it came to economics as well as personal freedom.

A Progressive Republican (not an Oxymoron) is someone who didn’t want a big welfare state for America. Someone who believed that Americans should have the freedom to be able to do as much for themselves as possible.

Progressive Republicans believe the safety net are for those people who needed it. Ike certainly wasn’t a Social Democrat or Democratic Socialist (which are very common in Europe) but someone who believed in using conservative principles to accomplish progressive goals. That you needed both freedom and a safety net for the country to be as strong as possible economically.

C-SPAN: President Dwight Eisenhower's Farewell Address & Warning For America

Source: C-SPAN-

Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Times Plus

So what’s so impressive about this speech is that it was given by the most distinguished and successful person to ever serve in the United States Military. And who was proud of his service and who loved the United States Military. Dwight Eisenhower was not some far-lefty who emerged in the 1960s or 70s who believes that authority and force are never the answer.

Ike didn’t believe that America is an evil country part of some evil-empire, that has nothing but capitalist greedy pigs. Or something holding the rest of the world down, the opposite was true. Because Dwight Eisenhower was a real American hero and American patriot. Who loved his country, but saw the American Military growing faster than he believed it needed to.

And that the growth of our military industrial complex was a threat if it went unchecked. And gave civilians who never served in the military some feeling that our military could do anything and that “we have all the resources both economic and in weapons to police the world or something.” What President Eisenhower believed was that a strong military is a military that’s limited to only do what we should be doing and that there’s an actual limit to what it can do to secure our nation and be a force for peace in the world.
C-SPAN: President Dwight Eisenhower's Farewell Address

ABC Sports: Muhammad Ali-Howard Cosell Interview

Source:ABC Sports-

Source: The Daily Times

Muhammad Ali and Howard Cosell were a comedy act talking about serious things, well as serious as pro-boxing can be. Who without each other working together, their careers wouldn’t have been as good and they wouldn’t have been as successful. Because of the chemistry that they had, as well as their intelligence, they both had great sense of humors.

But Muhammad and Howard had similar sense of humors. And not only knew each other very well, but themselves as well and didn’t try to be anyone else. What really made these interviews classics, were because they were truly unscripted and how real they were. Two good intelligent friends with real quick wits who had great chemistry together.
Source:ABC Sports

ABC Sports: Wide World of Sports- Muhammad Ali-Howard Cossel Interview

Source:ABC Sports anchor Howard Cosell interviewing The Greatest of All-Time, Muhammad Ali.

Source:The Daily Times

Before ESPN and other twenty-four hour sports networks, there was ABC’s Wide World of Sports. That was a combination of SportsCenter, 60 Minutes and sports coverage all in one show. But it was all about sports and not news that provided sports news, news magazine stories and actual sports coverage. Like boxing and olympic action, international sporting events and pro soccer and other sporing events.

It even had a talk show aspect to it that was anchored by Howard Cosell. And Cosell and Muhammad Ali made this show and made it work along with Jim MacKay in the 1970s. And made this show the place to go to on weekends from ABC Sports if you wanted the latest sports news and sports coverage. And was network sports at its best and sports TV hasn’t gotten better since.
Source:ABC Sports

ESPN: Muhammad Ali- The Greatest of All-Time

Source: ESPN-

Source:The Daily Times

How to explain Muhammad Ali, the challenge of this blog and the challenge of the day for me. Imagine a big tall man 6’2-6’3, probably more like 6’2 whose built like a statue and looks more like an NFL linebacker or running back than a boxer because he’s also 215-220 pounds depending on the fight. And who was all muscle and well-built like a statue. Muhammad was certainly not invincible as we all know now with the state of his health.

And we also know he was declining both physically and mentally when he was still fighting as early as 1975 with the third fight against Joe Frazier. Taking a serious toll on him, which should’ve been the fight that forced Muhammad into retirement. But Muhammad was so much stronger both physically and mentally than most of the fighters he fought.

That he could take so much more than most if not any other boxer who ever fought. Which allowed him to be able to deliver all the punishment that he did to his opponents. Muhammad Ali fought with a shield that you had to break in order to beat him. If Larry Bird is the genius when it comes to basketball players, then Muhammad Ali is the genius when it comes to boxers. Because he was a boxer that could see fights developing before they developed.

Muhammad knew his opponents as well as himself better than they knew themselves or him. So he was always at least a couple of steps ahead of his opponents and even his own corner. He won most of his fights before the fights happened because of all the preparation he put himself through. And being able to sike out his opponents and get them to hate him and wanting to knock Ali out instead of trying win the fight. And Ali would use that against him and simply do his job, “I can hit you and prevent you from hitting me”.

Muhammad, “even if you land shots, I’m strong enough to take them and hit you back harder. Because I’m built like a tank and with the amount of punishment that I can deliver to you I’ll beat you simply by wearing you down”. This happened against Ron Lyle where both fighters delivered many great shots, but where Ali could simply take and deliver more than Ron Lyle had to offer.

Another way to look at Muhammad Ali is not to look at him as a knockout artist. Someone who could knock you out in one or two punches like a George Forman or Mike Tyson. But look at Muhammad as a power-puncher who knocked people out unless they were strong enough to go the distance with 5-10 punches in a row or a hundred punches.

Muhammad got his knockouts by simply punishing his opponents and wearing them down. And what makes Muhammad Ali the greatest heavyweight of all time is his physical strength and stamina, as well as preparation. But also because of his intelligence that he knew his opponents a lot of times better than they knew themselves. And used that against them.
Source:ESPN

Gary Johnson: Alex Witt Interviews Gary Johnson in 2012

Source:The Daily Times

I don’t believe Gary Johnson is running for President, especially with the Libertarian Party because he believes he’ll be elected President of the United States in 2012. Or even have a good shot of being elected President. The LP simply doesn’t have the ballot access needed to win enough votes for their presidential candidate to be elected President. But that hopefully Gary Johnson is running for President especially for the LP, because he wants to get more attention and publicity for the Libertarian Party.  

And the broader Libertarian movement and put them on the map. And to tell voters especially Independent and Libertarian voters, that there are other choices out there, than just the Democratic and Republican parties. And that they don’t have to settle for Democrats or Republicans. Or left to vote for a third-party candidate that has no shot of winning. And feel left to wonder if you threw your vote away. But to encourage Independents and Libertarians that are anti-big government and believe in individual liberty, to "check out the Libertarian Party and make their political home there.

The Libertarian Party is the largest third-party in American politics. But thats not saying much, considering they still lack the political access to be a major threat to Democrats and Republicans. But if you look at the libertarian movement in the Republican Party with Ron Paul and the liberal movement in the Democratic Party, that are against things like the War on Drugs, Patriot Act, indefinite detention, Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, invading Iran, support legalizing marijuana, gambling, same-sex marriage and other things, there's a real movement for Libertarians.  

There’s enough voters out there for the LP, especially as young people tend to get more liberal and libertarian and tolerant as we move along as a society, that not this year and probably not by 2014, but within 10-20 years if the LP brings in these voters and recruits them to run for public office and recruits credible political candidates people that are actually qualified for the public offices that they are running for, something that the LP hasn’t always done, that the LP could become the official third party in America.

Gary Johnson’s Presidential Campaign is not about winning in 2012. But promoting the LP and broader Libertarian movement in American politics. And if they can get Ron Paul to drop the GOP and join the LP, they would have another credible candidate to join the cause. And build the LP to the point that it could take on Democrats and Republicans and actually win.

Muhammad Ali: ‘Why I Refused To Go To Vietnam’

Source:Iconic- The Greatest of All-Time: Muhammad Ali.

Source:The Daily Times

“Muhammad Ali on his decision to not joining the US army.”

From Iconic 

“My conscious won’t let me go shoot my brother, or some darker people, or some poor hungry people in the mud for big powerful America. And shoot them for what? They never called me nigger, they never lynched me, they didn’t put no dogs on me, they didn’t rob me of my nationality, rape and kill my mother and father… Shoot them for what? …How can I shoot them poor people, Just take me to jail.” 

Source:Kaotic Kalm- The Greatest of All Time: Muhammad Ali.

From Kaotik Kalm 

One thing that I respect about Muhammad Ali is that no one pushed him around, for the most part. Except for Don King perhaps with all the money he screwed Muhammad out of as his promoter in the 1970s. And Muhammad perhaps the most famous athlete in the world not just in the United States in the 1960s, who was at the heart of the American civil rights movement because of his race.

Because of Muhammad’s intelligence and the attention that he could bring to himself and because of how honest he was and wasn’t nice to the American establishment no matter the race, who knew how to get exactly what he wanted. And always said exactly what was on his mind so when he said he was against the Vietnam War in the mid 1960s. Like most people in his generation and was not going to fight against a country that never harmed him. Or denied him his freedom and constitutional rights because of his race and his complexion to fight against a country that never hurt him.

Muhammad wasn’t going to fight for a country that was trying to hold him down and when he said: “I’m not going to fight for a country that’s been trying to hold me down, because of my race to fight against a country that never called me Nigger”. and so-forth and he was being honest and serious. Muhammad was the Malcolm X of professional sports as far as someone who knew American history and the state of the African-American community.

Muhammad knew what African-Americans were going through and wasn’t going to take trash (to put it mildly) from anyone and be pushed around. Just like Malcolm X even if it meant his life. Malcolm was assassinated something that Muhammad has avoided. Muhammad was going to live his own life and try to help people that he felt he could and make a positive difference where he could and because of his intelligence. And his personality that he wasn’t going to sacrifice his own freedom and his own constitutional right to stand up for what he believed even if it meant getting his boxing career back, to fight for a cause that he believed was unjust.

What you see in this interview is Muhammad Ali being himself. And the interviewer bringing up for example all the money that not taking part in being drafted into the U.S. Army to fight in the Vietnam War and so-forth and losing his World Heavyweight Boxing Championship and his boxing license and the millions of dollars that came with that and Muhammad saying that: “Yeah, I could have that”. But I’m not going to take it at the cost of my freedom. Muhammad Ali wasn’t going to be bought.

The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson: Ann-Margret & Johnny- Talking About the Middle Ages

SourceThe Tonight Show- Hollywood Goddess Ann-Margret, on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, at some point in the past.  I hope I'm not being too specific and giving too much away here. LOL

Source:The Daily Times

"ANN-MARGRET ON "THE TONIGHT SHOW" 80S #1"

From The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson

Ann Margret saying that she doesn’t live in the past or the future. Well that would be physically impossible to do anyway, unless you have a time machine. But I take her point that lives in the present and takes it day by day.

She also said she doesn’t know what middle age is. I could understand that with the face and body that she still had this point and perhaps today. When you’re that adorable and then add gorgeous to that. how you supposed to know what middle age is. Because you’re always baby-face and gorgeous. Ann Margret is one of the top goddess’s that this world has ever produced.

And I’m just glad she left her native Sweden for America as a little girl, or perhaps the rest of the world never knows that. Or at least not to the degree that we know today.

A hot baby-face woman with a great body, who can act sing and dance and make you laugh. Just so sweet looking like she couldn’t scare a fly even if you wanted to and looking like she would never want to.

PBS NewsHour: Robert MacNeil & Jim Lehrer- Introducing the Watergate Hearings

Source:PBS NewsHour- Senator Sam Ervin: Democrat, North Carolina: Chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee (93rd Congress)

Source:The Daily Times

“How high did the scandals reach and was President Nixon himself involved?”

That was what Robert MacNeil, then co-anchoring with Jim Lehrer, dubbed “the ultimate question” as public broadcasting began its gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Watergate hearings on May 17, 1973.

MacNeil said the hearings were intended “to bear the truth about the wide range of illegal, unethical or improper activities established … surrounding the re-election President Nixon last year.”

Lehrer also detailed the scandal. Though little action had taken place as the hearings began, the committee’s “basic job remains the same,” he said.”

From the PBS NewsHour

If you are familiar with C-SPAN today, (or the Cable Special Public Affairs Network) well, the PBS coverage of the 1973 U.S. Senate Watergate hearings, is basically the early days of C-SPAN. Gavel to gavel coverage of a major invent in Congress which this was. And what they did like what C-SPAN does, is just show what happened and let the people decide for themselves what it meant and so-forth.

Which is exactly what PBS was doing without breaking in to have an analyst explain what the people were watching. But would have the people be able to make those decisions for themselves. Which was basically the early days of what I call PBS News: the news operation over at PBS that produces shows like the NewsHour, Frontline, Washington Week, and so-forth.

PBS News allowed Americans to be able to see for themselves what Watergate was and what it meant for themselves. With a lot of the key actors in the whole Watergate affair and is a great example of what journalism should be, rather than talk down to the audience with so-called experts allow for them to see for themselves what is happening.

C-SPAN: The Contenders- Ross Perot Preview

Source:CSPAN- Political historian Carl Cannon.

Source:The Daily Times

“C-SPAN continues its series “The Contenders” LIVE on Friday, December 9 at 8:00 p.m. ET with Ross Perot. In this clip, Presidential Historian Richard Norton Smith, Goucher College History Professor Jean Baker and Washington Editor of Real Clear Politics Carl Cannon discuss Perot. More information on the series can be found here:CSPAN."

From CSPAN

Ross Perot not that he ever had a real shot at being elected President of the United States, but his style of politics and what he believed in and the people he represents and spoke for and represents how Independent Center-Right political candidates can get elected in America.

And I put Ross Perot on the Center-Right in American politics because he is a true fiscal Conservative who believes in fiscal responsibility, not running up debt and deficits.

Ross Perot believes in limited government and that everything that government does has to be limited to what we need it too. Not do not what we want it to do and that all government including entitlement programs have to be efficient and affordable. But someone who was tolerant to moderate on social issues. Who didn’t push those issues and didn’t believe the Federal Government should be involved in them in most cases and would probably leave the states to deal with them.

He was sort of an Eisenhower or Ford Republican whose philosophy was based around accountability. And limiting government to doing the things that we need it to do and do those things well. Who represents roughly forty percent of the country and how people of this mindset could do well in the future especially if they put together one party that represents this whole movement.

AJ Fowler: Huey Long- Share the Wealth

Source:The Daily Times

The progressive or even socialist side of Huey Long coming out that basically no one is entitled to a certain amount of money in society. Other than to meet their basic needs even if they create all of that money for themselves. Not sure if Huey was supporting let’s say an excise-tax on wealthy individuals to give to the people who do not have enough money or not.

With this excise tax going to government and then government decides how much money individuals need which is part of the socialist philosophy of there shouldn’t be any rich, middle or poor people and that it’s the job of the central government to prevent that from happening. That the central government should collect the nation’s resources and then give them back based on what they believe people need to live well.

And the central government does this by basically collecting most of the resources in society and then giving that money back to people based on what it believes that people need to live well. I’ll look it up in the future to see if that’s what Senator Huey Long believed in. But from this video he did seem to believe that it was it was unfair for a few people to be so rich while others are struggling. And that government should play a bigger role to see that no one is poor and perhaps no one is rich.
Source:AJ Fowle

C-SPAN: Political Humorist Molly Ivins- Talking About Ross Perot (1992)

Source:C-SPAN- Political humorist Molly Ivins.

Source:The Daily Times

Ross Perot is classical version of take the good with the bad. As Molly Ivins I believe was explaining that there is a lot to like about the man. And had I actually been old enough to vote in 1992 instead of sixteen years old, I probably would’ve at least considered voting for him. But his weakness’ in a lot of way outweighed his strengths. Because he’s got a Texas sized ego in a New Hampshire size body who thinks a hell of a lot of himself.

And whenever he’s doing something, he tends to give people the idea that what he’s doing is about him. Even as much as he couldn’t stop reminding people in 1992 that he was running for president for the good of the country and I’m sure part of that was true, but he tended to give people the idea that he was the only one who could save the country.

I believe a good way to describe the Ross Perot was that he was a great visionary, but not someone you want quarterbacking your team or a government kinda like a good head coach who didn’t have enough skills to play quarterback very well or play other positions. But someone you might want on the sidelines calling the plays.
Source:C-SPAN

Daniel JB Mitchell: Huey Long Seen as Threat to FDR in 1930s

Source:The Daily Times

Franklin Roosevelt and Huey Long were very similar Progressive Democrats in that they were both economic Progressives who believed in things like infrastructure investment funded by the public and making American capitalism work for more people. But there were several differences in the two and they mostly resulted around character.

Franklin had a lot of it and wasn’t a corrupt man or a corrupt politician looking to become some dictator over the United States. Huey was exactly that, but a dictator over Louisiana first as Governor where he basically ran the whole state under his leadership and when he left the Louisiana governors mansion to serve in Congress as a Senator, he was still running Louisiana.

But now Huey Long as a U.S. Senator had more national power and since these two men were similar ideologically at least on economic-policy, President Roosevelt saw Senator Long as a threat to his leadership and power and someone who needed to be put down. But Huey Long would’ve gone down anyway because of his lifestyle and how he carried himself in office.
Source:Daniel JB Mitchell

Lovely Lesean: Sexy Women Have Curves

Source:Daily Times

There a lot of things to me that can make women sexy. But it mostly gets to how they carry themselves. How they act and if they are just being themselves, whoever they are. Thats more impressive to me, even if they are as dull as a glass of milk, than a women trying to be someone else, even a women who’s very impressive.

Intelligent women who know who they are and are intelligent. And actually like themselves, which might be the most important part of all. But then are also attractive, pretty or better, beautiful would be even better. Gorgeous which to me anyway is a step above beautiful and then hot which beats them all. And of course very cute, but in a sexy way, so she’s definitely a grown up. But looks younger than she is and is sexy and not cute like a little girl.

And throw in a real body, not an obese women who can’t see her feet and doesn’t know what its like to have a full stomach. And doesn’t even know how to exercise, let alone exercises. Or a rail thin women who doesn’t eat full meals and if anything drinks too much water. Who doesn’t work out to keep herself in shape and essentially starves herself. Women like that aren’t sexy to me either. Real women have curves and real women are sexy. Because they love and take care of themselves.

A beautiful if not gorgeous sexy cute well built women, who eats full balance meals, works out stays in shape and then knows how to showcase her body, not to be a slut or look like a whore, but knows she’s sexy and likes guys and of course they’ll like her, if they aren’t blind and like women, then you're talking about a very sexy women, a beautiful, cute, well-built, intelligent, confident women. Who’s real and not trying to be anyone else. Because she loves her own skin.
Source:Lovely Lesean