Messianic Jews say they are persecute...

Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

There are 72039 comments on the Newsday story from Jun 21, 2008, titled Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel. In it, Newsday reports that:

Safety pins and screws are still lodged in 15-year-old Ami Ortiz's body three months after he opened a booby-trapped gift basket sent to his family.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

Frijoles

South Glastonbury, CT

#41676 Oct 8, 2012
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember 4 years ago when Romney said "I've been a hunter all my life" and it turned out he'd been hunting exactly twice (once as kid and once recently)? The guy will literally say ANYTHING to get elected. He's as phony and without conviction or a core as the day is long.(As Teddy Kennedy said of him, when it comes to abortion Romney is not pro-choice or pro-life, he's "mulitple choice.")
His base will join him in selling out if it means reclaiming the White House.
If the tables turn too much in the key swing states, Obama could be in trouble.
And along the lines of turnout - Chuck Todd also makes a good and worrying point.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/07/chuc...
At the end of the day, pur country is 50% dem and 50% repub. Before the debate it looked briefly that it was trending more like 60/40, but now I think we are back to what has been for the last 4 elections or more (50/50)- so nothing has really changed. If that is the case, it WILL be about voter turnout. I am not as pessimistic as the Huffington piece - however what really matters I suppose is turnout in the swing states.
Frijoles

South Glastonbury, CT

#41677 Oct 8, 2012
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
.
So voting half a moron in that will sent them to die (starve them, leave them on the streets etc.) is the better option?
I just don't get it.
Yep - that position makes no sense. Which is why the real motivation behind many in the opposition is not about economic issues, but really about racism, and somewhat about religion (anti-islam as pathetic as that sounds).

The libertarian party has some interesting ideas. 100% impractical but still interesting. I doubt most of the Tea Party really understand the libertarian point of view - if they did, they would have to give up ther welfare and social security and the rest of their pork.
Frijoles

South Glastonbury, CT

#41678 Oct 8, 2012
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
Was racism behind the uproar of Bill Clinton lying under oath?
People are angry with Obama's lying and covering up, refusing to release information. If you have nothing to hide why are you acting as if there is something to hide?
He is a public figure and his behavior fueled the fire.
yep. milions and millions of angry people. not

You live in a bubble. The rest of the world could care less.

And why hasnt anyone (other than the state govt of Hawaii) demanded the birth certificates of a single Republican presidential contender this time around? Noone, nada, zippo
Frijoles

South Glastonbury, CT

#41679 Oct 8, 2012
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
People will vote their wallets, their wallets are empty under Obama, mittens (if he is smart) will hammer that home and win.
Not that it matters, Goldman Sachs owns both horses.
What planet are you on? The economy is improving. Even I can see it, regardless of the stats.

If you listened to the rest of the 47% video, Mitt admitted that the presidency has little effect on the economy, yet he wants to "nail" Obama with it. Oops - can you say 7.8%?
former res

Broomall, PA

#41680 Oct 8, 2012
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
At the end of the day, pur country is 50% dem and 50% repub. Before the debate it looked briefly that it was trending more like 60/40, but now I think we are back to what has been for the last 4 elections or more (50/50)- so nothing has really changed. If that is the case, it WILL be about voter turnout. I am not as pessimistic as the Huffington piece - however what really matters I suppose is turnout in the swing states.
Are you saying more people voting equals better chance for Obama win?

Splain please.
Voluntarist

United States

#41681 Oct 8, 2012
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Yep they do. But I prefer the guy with the consistent track record. I knwo what i am getting.
2. But I dont believe the country is in turmoil. Employment is slowly slowly coming back. Yes, we need to address the debt, but as Obama has stated, we dotn have to adress it all at once.
3. Obama was the president in power when we retreated from the brink of the worst crisis since the depression. Thats good enuf work for me.
1) Stockholm syndrome

2) If you really look at those sectors that are growing, it amounts to practically zero recovery.
3) You were and still are in a depression.
Voluntarist

United States

#41682 Oct 8, 2012
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep - that position makes no sense. Which is why the real motivation behind many in the opposition is not about economic issues, but really about racism, and somewhat about religion (anti-islam as pathetic as that sounds).
The libertarian party has some interesting ideas. 100% impractical but still interesting. I doubt most of the Tea Party really understand the libertarian point of view - if they did, they would have to give up ther welfare and social security and the rest of their pork.
I don't participate in welfare or social security.
Voluntarist

United States

#41683 Oct 8, 2012
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
What planet are you on? The economy is improving. Even I can see it, regardless of the stats.
If you listened to the rest of the 47% video, Mitt admitted that the presidency has little effect on the economy, yet he wants to "nail" Obama with it. Oops - can you say 7.8%?
You are delusional.
SeasideSoon

Hoschton, GA

#41684 Oct 8, 2012
MAAT wrote:
I understood that Romney said something entirely stupid (borrowing money from china to provide us healthcare) and instead of shaking his head (the stupidity of it all and who the hell orchestrated this freakshow anyway) and giving the guy the floor, obama was supposed to have decked him.
What Romney said is that it is stupid to keep borrowing money from China to keep getting stuff we can't afford to pay for, and because we can't afford to pay back China.
SeasideSoon

Hoschton, GA

#41685 Oct 8, 2012
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember 4 years ago when Romney said "I've been a hunter all my life" and it turned out he'd been hunting exactly twice (once as kid and once recently)? The guy will literally say ANYTHING to get elected. He's as phony and without conviction or a core as the day is long.(As Teddy Kennedy said of him, when it comes to abortion Romney is not pro-choice or pro-life, he's "mulitple choice.")
His base will join him in selling out if it means reclaiming the White House.
If the tables turn too much in the key swing states, Obama could be in trouble.
And along the lines of turnout - Chuck Todd also makes a good and worrying point.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/07/chuc...
It's going to come down to two swing states, Florida and Ohio. The election will be decided between the old folks and the folks who cling to their guns and bibles.
SeasideSoon

Hoschton, GA

#41686 Oct 8, 2012
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
I would say tat when someone is eligible to be in the senate, his bonafides and american birthright has lond been established.
So it is a non- issue and to bring it up just shows this nascent racism. Nothing gained for black people in America, if anything it laid it bare.
Come to think of it, he is more American than most with his mulongeon origin. But talk about killing of native Americans and stripping them of their rights than that groups treatment is the abject example.
But this islamic angle or the idiotic marx and hitler comparisons are all disguised (barely though) racism.
They would be laughable if Americans weren't so uneducated and misinformed.(As in not reading an actual law text but following some interest-groups blabla)
A reminder to me that the third world is also present in America.
I didn't bring it up.
SeasideSoon

Hoschton, GA

#41687 Oct 8, 2012
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Some reboups used language that we kew from the Vietnam era: scorched eart.
As in the would rather burn America to the ground than stand for a black president any longer.
Therefore it is inherently irrational to fight the implementation of ideas, just because of the colour of skin and political colour of the president.
Not sure what EPA and OSHA has to do with racism..?
SeasideSoon

Hoschton, GA

#41688 Oct 8, 2012
MAAT wrote:
Apropos did not Bush promiss everone his own home, making that into some law, and again leaving democrats to pick up the pieces?
No, it wasn't Bush. It was a brainfart that developed in the Democrat congress, as I pointed out earlier.
"In 1995, the Clinton Administration changed the law governing GSEs’ mission — the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)— to encourage more lending in poor neighborhoods. Previously, the CRA directed government to monitor banks’ lending practices to make sure they did not violate fair lending rules in poor neighborhoods. With the 1995 change, the government published each bank’s lending activity and started giving bank ratings based primarily upon the amount of lending it performed in poor neighborhoods. These changes empowered community organizations, such as ACORN, to pressure banks to increase lending activities in poorer neighborhoods — which involved reducing mortgage loan standards — or face backlash from those organizations’ private and political associates. For instance, if Chase made 100 mortgages in a poor Chicago district, and Countrywide 150, the government would likely give Chase a lower CRA rating, and community organizers could pressure politicians to make it more difficult for Chase to get licensed to do full ranges of business in new areas of the country. Low CRA ratings could also disadvantage Chase with regard to government lending programs and make it more difficult for Chase to participate in mergers and acquisitions"

"There really isn’t any question of which approach is factually correct: right on the front page of the Times edition of December 21 is a chart that shows the growth of home ownership in the United States since 1990.In 1993 it was 63 percent; by the end of the Clinton administration it was 68 percent. The growth in the Bush administration was about 1 percent. The Times itself reported in 1999 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were under pressure from the Clinton administration to increase lending to minorities and low-income home buyers--a policy that necessarily entailed higher risks. Can there really be a question, other than in the fevered imagination of the Times, where the push to reduce lending standards and boost home ownership came from?"
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/06/the-...
SeasideSoon

Hoschton, GA

#41689 Oct 8, 2012
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Your premise is so stupid that my only recourse is to label it so.
Sorry.
I still love you :)
Well, when it all shakes out, that's all that really matters. Now if we could only spread that outlook across parties and religions, huh?

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#41690 Oct 8, 2012
SeasideSoon wrote:
<quoted text>What Romney said is that it is stupid to keep borrowing money from China to keep getting stuff we can't afford to pay for, and because we can't afford to pay back China.
I disagree since whenever they get a firmer position they invariably (rebups that is) talk about abolishing healthcare and stae-schooling and almost any and all funding for research and development of viable sustainable energy sources.
As in there real face/agenda showing.

Apropos that list of suggestions of reform that are now halfway implemented...was that not just tokenism, as in the usual rethoric to get elected by repubs?
SeasideSoon

Hoschton, GA

#41691 Oct 8, 2012
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Its funny how the birthers never asked any of the OTHER candidates for president to produce their birth certificates.
Nor did anyone really raise the issue in previous elections pre-Obama.
Gee, I wonder what is different about THIS president?
duh
No. Eisenhower was required to provide a birth certificate, as in the link I provided. He was pretty damned white.

I don't care where he was born - he will be history in 4 weeks or 4 years.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#41692 Oct 8, 2012
The idea was not bad, but none could have reckoned with 'new financial products'.
They did not exist then.
Nor a housing bubble.

Nor with 2001 9/11 and the following 17% drop in world-trade. nor with the outrageously expensive war following.
SeasideSoon

Hoschton, GA

#41693 Oct 8, 2012
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
You are absolutely correct.
So tell me why the Republicans are doing everything in their power TODAY to do away without just about all of those?
And why someone should vote for a party that TODAY wants to do away with all of that?
And while we are at it, please tell me what happened to all the moderate Republicans? You know, the ones that used to initiate and/or support the legislation such as the ones you just cited.
And finally, how are these laws, that you proudly cited, supposed to be enacted without a class of professional regulators?
I think they're still out there. If you dig a little deeper into some of the issues the EPA has gotten into, far outside their mandate IMO, it seems those professional regulators need a board of regulators to oversee them.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#41694 Oct 8, 2012
former res wrote:
According to Fox News columnist Sally Kohn, vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan's speech at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday "was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech."
"On this measure, while it was Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold," Kohn wrote.
In a surprising move, Fox News joined CNN, The Huffington Post, the Washington Post's Wonkblog, and ThinkProgress in publishing a fact-check of the Republican vice presidential nominee's speech, finding that the speech was full of lies and misleading assertions.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/fox-...
http://www.freakingnews.com/We-Love-Big-Bird-...

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#41695 Oct 8, 2012
SeasideSoon wrote:
<quoted text>No. Eisenhower was required to provide a birth certificate, as in the link I provided. He was pretty damned white.
I don't care where he was born - he will be history in 4 weeks or 4 years.
There is not a democratic country in the world, where none has to show his/her birth-certificate when applying for any public function, particularly in government.
So it is not that strange, but asking for it based on 'complicity with reli-terrorists' is way out of line.

Apropos Israel. Yes jerusalem is the capital but what Obama pointed out was that various groups (let's include the soddin pantzer-pope) all claim a piece.
So it might be historically and de jure (and Obama's profound wish), but factually the dispute is ongoing. So no role for America as long as hizb and hamas a.s.o. are in charge.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Monterey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
where can I find heroin in monterey? (Oct '14) Tue mrgoodbytes666 65
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) Tue Fiball 1,544
News Dual language immersion program offered for kin... (Jan '10) Sep 16 Leong 31
News Weird State Laws that Affect Your Small Business Sep 4 Anita Bryant s Jihad 5
Chevy 2011 HD pick up 2500 Sep 3 Adice 2
Place to park my RV long term Aug 30 Chaoscoord 1
News Coastal Commission votes against Santa Cruza s ... Aug '16 Reeking clam 9

Monterey Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Monterey Mortgages