Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

Full story: Newsday

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.
Comments
37,941 - 37,960 of 68,368 Comments Last updated 12 hrs ago

“"Beau-Se'ant”

Since: Jan 09

Manchester

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41669
Oct 8, 2012
 
A powerful video by a young Jewish woman that every American should see....

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Voluntarist

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41670
Oct 8, 2012
 
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama better represents me and the size of my wallet.
Also, why go back to the policies that sent us into the '08 recession?
Wouldn't make much sense to me.
So Goldman Sachs candidate a represents your wallet better than Goldman Sachs candidate b, please explain.
Both candidates will increase the size and cost of inept government, but you think that 1 candidate will rob the more wealthy slaves versus the other will rob the less wealthy slaves?
I suppose you are trying to minimize the theft, once again just voting for the evil that you are more in line with.
former res

Broomall, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41671
Oct 8, 2012
 
Cult of Reason wrote:
<quoted text>
It leaves one to wonder if he did get elected, where on the political spectrum he would settle in - far right or moderate right?
He debated even more left than that.

"Of course we need regulation!"

The guy is totally shameless.
former res

Broomall, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41672
Oct 8, 2012
 
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
So Goldman Sachs candidate a represents your wallet better than Goldman Sachs candidate b, please explain.
Both candidates will increase the size and cost of inept government, but you think that 1 candidate will rob the more wealthy slaves versus the other will rob the less wealthy slaves?
I suppose you are trying to minimize the theft, once again just voting for the evil that you are more in line with.
Exactly. I'm a "less wealthy slave."

Obama has cut my taxes.

The other guy will likely take away my home mortgage deduction, despite what he says.

To paraphrase a GOP congressman from a State of the Union:

"He lies!"

Tune in Thursday night to hear his Romeny mate lie. Even Fox News said Ryan's conventions speech was full of lies.
former res

Broomall, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41673
Oct 8, 2012
 
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-...
Voluntarist

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41674
Oct 8, 2012
 
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. I'm a "less wealthy slave."
Obama has cut my taxes.
The other guy will likely take away my home mortgage deduction, despite what he says.
To paraphrase a GOP congressman from a State of the Union:
"He lies!"
Tune in Thursday night to hear his Romeny mate lie. Even Fox News said Ryan's conventions speech was full of lies.
Nothing new there, don't all politicians lie and go back on "promises "?
One thing is clear, the country is in financial turmoil and government can't seem to fix anything.
Obama and the inept house and Senate has done nothing.
Frijoles

New Haven, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41675
Oct 8, 2012
 
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing new there, don't all politicians lie and go back on "promises "?

One thing is clear, the country is in financial turmoil and government can't seem to fix anything.

Obama and the inept house and Senate has done nothing.
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.
Frijoles

New Haven, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

New Haven, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

New Haven, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

New Haven, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Smyrna, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Smyrna, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Smyrna, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Smyrna, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Smyrna, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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-...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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 Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Monterey News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Monterey
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••