Trivia

Six trivia questions to see how much history you really know.  Be honest; it's kind of fun and revealing. If you don't know the answer make your best guess.

 

Answer all of the questions (no cheating) before looking at the answers (DON'T Think about what may be THE OBVIOUS! ). 

 

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." 

 

A. Karl Marx                    B. Adolph Hitler                  C. Joseph Stalin
D. Barack Obama            E. None of the above

 

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few.. And to replace
it with shared responsibility, for shared prosperity."

 

A. Lenin                             B. Mussolini                          C. Idi Amin
D. Barack Obama            E. None of the above

 

 

3) "(We).... Can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

 

A. Nikita  Khrushchev        B.  Joseph Goebbels            C. Boris Yeltsin
D. Barack Obama            E. None of the above

 

 

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... In order
to create this common ground."

 

A. Mao Tse Tung             B. Hugo Chavez                    C. Kim Jong II
D. Barack Obama            E. None of the above

 

 

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

 

A.  Karl Marx                   B. Lenin                                  C. Molotov
D. Barack Obama            E. None of the above

 

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy
that they are being watched."

 

 

A. Pinochet                      B. Milosevic                             C. Saddam Hussein
D. Barack Obama            E. None of the above

 

 

No peeking! 

 

Scroll down for answers...
 

 

  
(1)  E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004

 

(2)  E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007

 

(3)  E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

 

(4)  E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

 

(5)  E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

 

(6)  E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

  

Editorial from PB special political commentator J. Edward Eastbridge

The answer to your question ‘how do liberals look in the mirror’ is quite simple, they live on the opposite side of the looking glass than us.

Allow me to explain by telling the Tale of Two Candidates:
• A billionaire real estate developer.
• A limousine leftist.

The billionaire developer is clothed in a dress shirt, jacket and suit pants in the Louisiana jungle heat and is completely at home at the back end of a box truck unloading five boxes of play-doh for kids who just lost everything.

The limousine leftist hasn’t driven herself to the grocery store, bought her own food, and carried it in to the house since the 80’s. She wouldn’t know the back of a box truck from the back of her hand. She wouldn’t know what to do with a box of play-doh if it jumped out of the truck and into her arms. She couldn’t stand up with a bag of groceries in an air conditioned building.

To these people, the limousine leftist is just like them, a real woman of the people. She loves. She cares. The real estate developer is a douchebag, money grubbing asshole.

The billionaire real estate developer was against the war in Iraq before it was cool, and never waivered.

The limousine leftist thinks she is brilliant. She voted for the war in Iraq. She changed her mind. She says that she, the brilliant woman, was played for a fool by the dumbest man to ever be President. She claims this as a qualification to be President.

These people, who hate war, love the limousine leftist. They never question her devotion to ending all violence and blood-shed. Her victimhood at the hands of the evil warmonger who deceived her into voting for war enhances their love for her. They drool on and save a seat for her at their drum circle. They actually weep and shudder thinking that billionaire developer, the man who was against war from the beginning, will burn down the world.

In 2000, the billionaire developer was giving interviews to The Advocate, a publication for the gay community. He spoke of his devotion to gay rights. Now, he wants to prevent the immigration of people from alien cultures that celebrate the murder of gays.

In 2004, the limousine leftists gave one of the most passionate and rationally secular speeches ever given on the floor of the United States Senate rejecting gay marriage. Now, she supports the idea of importing thousands of immigrants from cultures that celebrate the murder of gays.

To these people, the limousine leftist is a champion of gay rights, and the billionaire developer is a homophobic example of all that is wrong with hetero-normative culture.

The billionaire developer has hired and empowered thousands of women, giving them the opportunity to put cheddar on their tables, Coach bags on their shoulders, tile roofs on their homes, and nice cars in their garages.
The limousine leftist has accomplished little in her life independent of her primary role as the Mrs. Bill Clinton. She hitched her fortunes to a man she saw as a rising star. She accepted, stood-by, supported and enabled her husband’s abusive, manipulative, lying, cheating, debauchery. She assassinated the character and destroyed the lives of her husband’s female victims. She’s nothing more than a grotesque version of an old school desperate housewife.
These people think the limousine leftist is a champion and role model for women worldwide. The billionaire developer’s use of locker room humor makes him sexist scum to these people.

The billionaire developer has engaged in hundreds of successful business ventures and a few failed ones. Several people with whom he has done business have sought to resolve disputes with him in civil court. He has lived his life in the public eye with no alibi for any of his faults or blemishes for over 30 years.

The limousine leftist has a list of political enemies dead by suspicious circumstances, murder or suicide long enough that no one with the most rudimentary background in actuarial statistics can dismiss it as mere coincidence. To mention this in conversation exposes one to ridicule and in some circles the suspicion of insanity.

To these people, the billionaire developer represents a caricature of villainous evil that looks tame compared to the most hard-core, hell-fire and brimstone, buckle of the bible-belt, preacher’s version of Satan. The limousine leftists extols virtue. Her election promises a future of justice, righteousness, sunshine, and lollipops. Oh, if only the billionaire’s frightening minions don’t get in her way!

How do they look in the mirror? On their side of the looking glass they look beautiful to themselves.

Fashion statement

LGBT bathroom problems

On this post you need to read then click the link, then read some more and click the link and so on.


So I saw this video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dBpR36VFQM

I can see his point, but as a practical matter I don't know if most people in a lot of instances would know.  For instance if one of these guys came into the bathroom with you in a restaurant, would you even think, "Hey, what's this chick doing in here?"  No, you're going, "Awesome tats." or maybe "Horrible tats."

http://www.oddee.com/item_98038.aspx

And if most of these chicks came into the ladies restroom at the restaurant, your wife would probably not even notice.

http://www.nairaland.com/2136035/12-celebrities-didnt-know-transgendered

And if you saw this guy, you'd be going, "Daaammmnnnn!"  If he came into the men's room it would be rather disruptive I would think.

http://madamenoire.com/159054/miss-universe-pageant-now-Pallowing-transgender-contestants-to-compete/

I think this law is trying to combat the growing victimology movement.  Some trans person who did a bad job doesn't want to be told they really don't look at all like a man or a woman as the case may be.  Whereupon the whining starts.  Suck it up and put on your big girl (or boy) panties.  If someone notices you've done a bad job.  Get back to work.

Personally I would prefer to be alone in the restroom.  I really don't want anyone there when I'm taking the Browns to the Super Bowl.

Tags

What's wrong with Democrats?

"The Secret War and Other Conflicts" (Published 2014 by GENERAL PETE PIOTROWSKI ISBN 978-1-4931-6187-4 (Hardcover))

Following is a quote of much interest, from pages 246/247:

"Nearly twenty years later, former Secretary of State Dean Rusk being interviewed by Peter Arnett on a CBC documentary called "The Ten Thousand Day War".

Mr Arnett asked, "It has been rumored that the United States provided the North Vietnamese government the names of the targets that would be bombed the following day. Is there any truth to that allegation?"

To everyone's astonishment and absolute disgust, the former Secretary responded, "Yes. We didn't want to harm the North Vietnamese people, so we passed the targets to the Swiss embassy in Washington with instructions to pass them to the NVN government through their embassy in Hanoi." As we watched in horror, Secretary Rusk went on to say, "All we wanted to do is demonstrate to the North Vietnamese leadership that we could strike targets at will, but we didn't want to kill innocent people. By giving the North Vietnamese advanced warning of the targets to be attacked, we thought they would tell the workers to stay home."

No wonder all the targets were so heavily defended day after day! The NVN obviously moved as many guns as they could overnight to better defend each target they knew was going to be attacked. Clearly, many brave American Air Force and Navy fliers died or spent years in NVN prison camps as a direct result of being intentionally betrayed by Secretary Rusk and Secretary McNamara, and perhaps, President Johnson himself.

I cannot think of a more duplicitous and treacherous act of American government officials. Dean Rusk served as Secretary of State from January 21, 1961, through to January 20, 1969, under President John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. Perhaps Senator John McCain, POW for five years and presidential candidate in 2008, was one of the many victims of this utter stupidity and flawed policy flowing from President Lyndon B. Johnson.

    Mr. Peter Arnett opined that this would be a treasonous act by anyone else." A very sad revelation.

Syrian Conflict Explained

President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning.

But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good).

So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.

By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is a good thing) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria. President Putin (bad, as he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?

But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).

Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.

Now the British (obviously good, except Corbyn who is probably bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).

So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them good. America (still good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that mad ayatollah in Iran (also good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as good (doh!).

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (might have a point) and hence we will be seen as bad.

So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (good / bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

I hope that this clears it all up for you.