Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

[Cult of Reason]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
I find you reactions kind of curious, honestly.
I never found his approach that unique. On rare equation he can deliver masterful speeches (such as his speech on racism). More often than not I find him too intellectual, and his day to day spech patterns grate on me (so did both Bushes).
But I will vote for him. Happily and eagerly.
Why? because his views and values mroe accurately reflect my values and views than the other guy.
Which is why most people who vote for him will vote for him.
You impute wayyyyyy too much charisma into the guy. I have a relative who early on used to carry on sarcastically about the "annoited one". At the time I really did not understand why sho would care or notice. She turned into a Tea Party person once the movement gained a name. I think its only the conservative tea party types that pursue this avenue of worship. The rest of us like him for his views and values.

Good post.

At the end of the day, Obama is a politician just like the rest of them. And, at the end of the day, it all boils down to which candidate's/party's ideals you align with more. Speeches and rah-rah pep rallies have never swayed me. I guess some people are more emotional and easily swayed than others.

[Cult of Reason]

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 leaves one to wonder if he did get elected, where on the political spectrum he would settle in - far right or moderate right?

[Voluntarist]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
You may not think that way, but it has been clear since the first day of Obamas presidency that there were a lot of people were pissed off at the idea of a black man as president. What do you think all the birtherism /closet muslim thing is all about?Where else does that irrational hatred come from? I was never a fan of Bush, but you didnt see me exuding that degree of emotion against him.
Regarding the less fortunate, Romney didnt win you any favors in arguing that repubs care. And neither did any of the zanies during the primaries.

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.

[Voluntarist]

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

The issue was raised about McCain's eligibility, was that based on racism?

[Voluntarist]

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?

The Glass-steagall act was dismantled during Clintons era.
As usual the presidency because of the 2 party system and the gang mentality keeping a libertarian out of the debates has left a choice once again of the less of 2 evils.
One thing is for sure, any vote cast will be one for evil, and evil will once again prevail.

[Voluntarist]

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...

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.

[former res]

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.

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.

[The Last Templar]

A powerful video by a young Jewish woman that every American should see....

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

[Voluntarist]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.