| Line 1,258: |
Line 1,258: |
| | :After Thomas Jefferson got elected, on March 4, 1805, he proposed amending the Constitution to allow the federal government to place any surplus revenue it collected in an annual fund to "be applied ''in time of peace'' to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each State." He repeated this proposal on December 2, 1806. Jefferson's proposals as President did not bear out his earlier stated philosophy of minimal government. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 07:48, 16 August 2015 (EDT) | | :After Thomas Jefferson got elected, on March 4, 1805, he proposed amending the Constitution to allow the federal government to place any surplus revenue it collected in an annual fund to "be applied ''in time of peace'' to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each State." He repeated this proposal on December 2, 1806. Jefferson's proposals as President did not bear out his earlier stated philosophy of minimal government. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 07:48, 16 August 2015 (EDT) |
| | ::I think you are misinterpreting this proposal. If no action was taken, any surplus would have been deposited into the Bank of the United States and made available for loans. Jefferson was still opposed to the bank at this time. [http://files.libertyfund.org/pll/quotes/38.html Here] is some context for the quote. It's all boasting about how he made the federal government smaller, less intrusive, and sounder financially. Of course, it's true that Jefferson was a man of many contradictions. After the federal government defaulted in November 1814 (a major event in American history that Obama claims never happened), Jefferson turned around on a lot of things. In fact, he basically adopted the Federalist agenda that he had spend so many years condemning. As President Madison (1809-1817) and other top [[Republicans (Jeffersonian) | Republicans]] were his followers, Jefferson ran the country for quite some time after he officially retired in 1809. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 14:23, 16 August 2015 (EDT) | | ::I think you are misinterpreting this proposal. If no action was taken, any surplus would have been deposited into the Bank of the United States and made available for loans. Jefferson was still opposed to the bank at this time. [http://files.libertyfund.org/pll/quotes/38.html Here] is some context for the quote. It's all boasting about how he made the federal government smaller, less intrusive, and sounder financially. Of course, it's true that Jefferson was a man of many contradictions. After the federal government defaulted in November 1814 (a major event in American history that Obama claims never happened), Jefferson turned around on a lot of things. In fact, he basically adopted the Federalist agenda that he had spend so many years condemning. As President Madison (1809-1817) and other top [[Republicans (Jeffersonian) | Republicans]] were his followers, Jefferson ran the country for quite some time after he officially retired in 1809. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 14:23, 16 August 2015 (EDT) |
| − | ::''[http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10/08/potentially-game-changing-oil-reserves-discovered-in-israel/ National Review]'' has an article on this subject. Pull quote: "Don’t find yourself in the position, ten years from now, of having to say, 'First they came for Andrew Jackson, and I did not speak out, because I didn’t like him.'" [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 23:55, 10 October 2015 (EDT) | + | ::''[https://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10/08/potentially-game-changing-oil-reserves-discovered-in-israel/ National Review]'' has an article on this subject. Pull quote: "Don’t find yourself in the position, ten years from now, of having to say, 'First they came for Andrew Jackson, and I did not speak out, because I didn’t like him.'" [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 23:55, 10 October 2015 (EDT) |
| | | | |
| | == Is this a satire site? == | | == Is this a satire site? == |
| Line 1,396: |
Line 1,396: |
| | == Oil under the Golan Heights? == | | == Oil under the Golan Heights? == |
| | | | |
| − | This could be huge.[http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/165503#.VhnPVI2hMQ0][http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10/08/potentially-game-changing-oil-reserves-discovered-in-israel/] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 23:00, 10 October 2015 (EDT) | + | This could be huge.[http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/165503#.VhnPVI2hMQ0][https://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10/08/potentially-game-changing-oil-reserves-discovered-in-israel/] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 23:00, 10 October 2015 (EDT) |
| | | | |
| | == The left is taking a political beating. If only atheists didn't so closely ally themselves with the left!!!! == | | == The left is taking a political beating. If only atheists didn't so closely ally themselves with the left!!!! == |
| Line 1,443: |
Line 1,443: |
| | == Benghazi == | | == Benghazi == |
| | | | |
| − | After all the investigation, the basic questions about Benghazi are still unanswered.[http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/10/22/benghazi-my-questions-for-hillary-clinton.html] Why was the ambassador at this notoriously insecure facility on the anniversary on 9/11, when an anniversary attack was widely expected? The attack went on for seven hours, and the White House was warned the attack was imminent a hour in advance. So much time to respond, but no military response. The attack used heavy weapons, so it was immediately obvious that it was planned by a terrorist group in advance. | + | After all the investigation, the basic questions about Benghazi are still unanswered.[https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/10/22/benghazi-my-questions-for-hillary-clinton.html] Why was the ambassador at this notoriously insecure facility on the anniversary on 9/11, when an anniversary attack was widely expected? The attack went on for seven hours, and the White House was warned the attack was imminent a hour in advance. So much time to respond, but no military response. The attack used heavy weapons, so it was immediately obvious that it was planned by a terrorist group in advance. |
| | | | |
| − | Who came up with the "spontaneous reaction to a video" story? ''Was it the same person or persons who decided to stick to that explanation and have UN ambassador Susan Rice repeat the same lie on national television and six times in the president’s speech at the United Nations–even, most chillingly of all, have Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeat it to Tyrone Woods’ parents over the coffin of their dead son at Andrews Air Force Base, saying she would “make sure the person who made the film is arrested.”''[http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/13/three-key-questions-on-benghazi-scandal.html] Judging from the "clock boy" story, Obama likes nothing better than a good Islamist hoax. Someone appearently concocted the video story well in advance. Was the administration so attached to this story that they sacrificed an ambassador so they could have the opportunity to use it? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:25, 24 October 2015 (EDT) | + | Who came up with the "spontaneous reaction to a video" story? ''Was it the same person or persons who decided to stick to that explanation and have UN ambassador Susan Rice repeat the same lie on national television and six times in the president’s speech at the United Nations–even, most chillingly of all, have Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeat it to Tyrone Woods’ parents over the coffin of their dead son at Andrews Air Force Base, saying she would “make sure the person who made the film is arrested.”''[https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/13/three-key-questions-on-benghazi-scandal.html] Judging from the "clock boy" story, Obama likes nothing better than a good Islamist hoax. Someone appearently concocted the video story well in advance. Was the administration so attached to this story that they sacrificed an ambassador so they could have the opportunity to use it? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:25, 24 October 2015 (EDT) |
| | :It seems that Hillary reversed herself at the recent hearing and testified that she never blamed the attack on the notorious "Innocence of Muslims" video.[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/hillary-clinton/11951682/Hillary-Clintons-big-Benghazi-lie.html] Good grief! How does this woman keep up with her own lies? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 20:13, 25 October 2015 (EDT) | | :It seems that Hillary reversed herself at the recent hearing and testified that she never blamed the attack on the notorious "Innocence of Muslims" video.[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/hillary-clinton/11951682/Hillary-Clintons-big-Benghazi-lie.html] Good grief! How does this woman keep up with her own lies? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 20:13, 25 October 2015 (EDT) |
| | ::Are you sure? Why would she deny blaming the attack on the video when she is recorded doing so at a public event? I read that not only did she blame the video, but that the origin of that story was traced back to Hillary Clinton. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 07:54, 26 October 2015 (EDT) | | ::Are you sure? Why would she deny blaming the attack on the video when she is recorded doing so at a public event? I read that not only did she blame the video, but that the origin of that story was traced back to Hillary Clinton. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 07:54, 26 October 2015 (EDT) |
| | :::“I said ''some'' have sought to justify the attack because of the video. I used those words deliberately, not to ascribe a motive to every attacker but as a warning to those across the region that there was no justification for further attacks." ([http://featuredyoutube.com/clinton-claims-she-didnt-blame-benghazi-attack-on-a-youtube-video/ video] and [http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/hillarys_worst_crime_was_against_the_filmmaker.html write up]) This is such a Clintonian answer, a gem of the genre. Some people said some things, and those things may or may not have been partially true. But as for Hillary, she was just commenting on the remarkable things these other people were saying and doing. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 16:59, 26 October 2015 (EDT) | | :::“I said ''some'' have sought to justify the attack because of the video. I used those words deliberately, not to ascribe a motive to every attacker but as a warning to those across the region that there was no justification for further attacks." ([http://featuredyoutube.com/clinton-claims-she-didnt-blame-benghazi-attack-on-a-youtube-video/ video] and [http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/hillarys_worst_crime_was_against_the_filmmaker.html write up]) This is such a Clintonian answer, a gem of the genre. Some people said some things, and those things may or may not have been partially true. But as for Hillary, she was just commenting on the remarkable things these other people were saying and doing. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 16:59, 26 October 2015 (EDT) |
| | ::::I read she was the only reason the video was publicized as associated with the attack in the first place, so it would follow if ''some'' justified the attack after the publicization, it would be of necessity caused by her. Nobody would "ascribe" that "motive" to ''any'' attacker if not for her actions. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 17:24, 26 October 2015 (EDT) | | ::::I read she was the only reason the video was publicized as associated with the attack in the first place, so it would follow if ''some'' justified the attack after the publicization, it would be of necessity caused by her. Nobody would "ascribe" that "motive" to ''any'' attacker if not for her actions. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 17:24, 26 October 2015 (EDT) |
| − | :::::According to her memoirs, she came up with the idea all by her little old self, using her womanly "common sense": “[The video] was unquestionably inciting the region and triggering protests all over, so it would have been strange not to consider, as days of protests unfolded, that it might have had the same effect here, too. That's just common sense."[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/11/fact-check-what-hillary-left-out-benghazi-chapter/] Why do we need the NSA when we have Hillary's common sense? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 19:11, 26 October 2015 (EDT) | + | :::::According to her memoirs, she came up with the idea all by her little old self, using her womanly "common sense": “[The video] was unquestionably inciting the region and triggering protests all over, so it would have been strange not to consider, as days of protests unfolded, that it might have had the same effect here, too. That's just common sense."[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/11/fact-check-what-hillary-left-out-benghazi-chapter/] Why do we need the NSA when we have Hillary's common sense? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 19:11, 26 October 2015 (EDT) |
| | :::::Lest anyone think that Benghazi lies are a victimless crime: Nakoula, the guy who uploaded the video, was indeed sent back to prison, just as Hillary promised.[http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/hillarys_worst_crime_was_against_the_filmmaker.html] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 20:08, 26 October 2015 (EDT) | | :::::Lest anyone think that Benghazi lies are a victimless crime: Nakoula, the guy who uploaded the video, was indeed sent back to prison, just as Hillary promised.[http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/hillarys_worst_crime_was_against_the_filmmaker.html] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 20:08, 26 October 2015 (EDT) |
| | | | |
| Line 1,553: |
Line 1,553: |
| | == A Trump-Cruz race? == | | == A Trump-Cruz race? == |
| | | | |
| − | The campaign buzz for the last couple of days has been that the Great Winnowing is finally in progress, and that the Republican field will soon be narrowed to Trump vs Cruz. This is of course inevitable and predictable, but also seems a little early given that no one has actually caste any votes yet. [https://soopermexican.com/2016/01/14/wsj-poll-shows-trump-losing-to-ted-cruz-as-candidates-drop-out/ This poll] shows Cruz beating Trump by 8 points in a two-man race. Of course, it is possible Trump will bring people to the polls who don't ordinarily vote. Faced with the choice of Cruz or Trump, the establishment is going with Trump.[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/19/gop-establishment-leaning-toward-trump-over-cruz.html] It seems that they consistently prefer the candidate who is less threatening to the Democrats. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:20, 19 January 2016 (EST) | + | The campaign buzz for the last couple of days has been that the Great Winnowing is finally in progress, and that the Republican field will soon be narrowed to Trump vs Cruz. This is of course inevitable and predictable, but also seems a little early given that no one has actually caste any votes yet. [https://soopermexican.com/2016/01/14/wsj-poll-shows-trump-losing-to-ted-cruz-as-candidates-drop-out/ This poll] shows Cruz beating Trump by 8 points in a two-man race. Of course, it is possible Trump will bring people to the polls who don't ordinarily vote. Faced with the choice of Cruz or Trump, the establishment is going with Trump.[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/19/gop-establishment-leaning-toward-trump-over-cruz.html] It seems that they consistently prefer the candidate who is less threatening to the Democrats. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:20, 19 January 2016 (EST) |
| | | | |
| | :Trump's immigration law enforcement and border security efforts would prevent other states from turning into California, so the Democrats shouldn't feel too copacetic about that. And Cruz may not even ''be'' in the race, which will encourage Rubio, Carson and Bush to neither drop out nor endorse Cruz. The spread between Cruz and Trump should depend a lot on endorsements, as Andy predicted, and Palin's endorsement of Trump today certainly didn't help Cruz. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 01:29, 20 January 2016 (EST) | | :Trump's immigration law enforcement and border security efforts would prevent other states from turning into California, so the Democrats shouldn't feel too copacetic about that. And Cruz may not even ''be'' in the race, which will encourage Rubio, Carson and Bush to neither drop out nor endorse Cruz. The spread between Cruz and Trump should depend a lot on endorsements, as Andy predicted, and Palin's endorsement of Trump today certainly didn't help Cruz. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 01:29, 20 January 2016 (EST) |
| Line 1,617: |
Line 1,617: |
| | == Hillary's feminism == | | == Hillary's feminism == |
| | | | |
| − | I was skeptical of Trump's strategy of treating Bill's affairs as "fair game." But it seems to be working.[http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/01/21/how-hillary-clinton-lost-her-feminist-base-and-her-credibility.html] It is biologically unnatural to expect a woman to show sisterhood to her romantic rivals. It certainly wasn't something we expected back in the 1990s. But modern feminism has apparently conditioned young women to think otherwise. In 2008, it always hurt Hillary when Bill showed up. But that wasn't because of feminism. It was because parents took one look at Bill and thought, "OMG! If Hillary is elected, Bill will be back in the White House. Then the kiddies will be asking us about all the disgusting things he was in the news for!" [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 08:29, 24 January 2016 (EST) | + | I was skeptical of Trump's strategy of treating Bill's affairs as "fair game." But it seems to be working.[https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/01/21/how-hillary-clinton-lost-her-feminist-base-and-her-credibility.html] It is biologically unnatural to expect a woman to show sisterhood to her romantic rivals. It certainly wasn't something we expected back in the 1990s. But modern feminism has apparently conditioned young women to think otherwise. In 2008, it always hurt Hillary when Bill showed up. But that wasn't because of feminism. It was because parents took one look at Bill and thought, "OMG! If Hillary is elected, Bill will be back in the White House. Then the kiddies will be asking us about all the disgusting things he was in the news for!" [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 08:29, 24 January 2016 (EST) |
| | | | |
| | == How the establishment can stage a comeback == | | == How the establishment can stage a comeback == |