% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.


  • lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Oct 19, 2013 11:24 AM Flag

    The inarticulate loons will hate this. It's long but well worth the read and right on target.

    If the loons answer I expect "nefarious Bush and Cheney", "evil capitalism", "wicked big business' and my all time favorite "you, you big stupid you!"

    Read my conservative friends and try not to be depressed.

    This man nails it. Every
    American who cares about their
    future should read this article and plan accordingly . .

    Please take a moment to digest this provocative article
    by Rabbi
    Steven Pruzansky. He is the spiritual leader of
    Congregation Bnai Yeshurun
    in Teaneck, New Jersey. It is far and away
    the most succinct and thoughtful explanation of
    how our nation is
    changing. The article appeared in The Israel
    National News, and is
    directed to Jewish readership. 70% of American Jews
    vote as Democrats. The
    Rabbi has some interesting comments in that regard.

    We Are Not
    Coming Back

    The most charitable way of explaining the election
    results of 2012 is that
    Americans voted for the status quo - for the incumbent
    President and for a
    divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock,
    incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of
    responsibility. And
    fewer people voted.

    But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to
    eschew the
    facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will
    prevail among the
    chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of
    the effects of
    Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he
    lose because he ran
    a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the
    Republicans could have
    chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama
    benefited from a
    slight uptick in the economy due to the business

    Romney lost because he didn't get enough votes to

    That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious
    reasons. Romney lost
    because the conservative virtues - the traditional
    American virtues โ€“ of
    liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private
    initiative and
    aspirations to moral greatness - no longer inspire or
    animate a majority
    of the electorate.

    The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is
    impossible to
    compete against free stuff.

    Every businessman knows this; that is why the "loss
    leader" or
    the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama's
    America is one in
    which free stuff is given away: the adults among
    the 47,000,000 on food stamps
    clearly recognized for whom they
    should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions;
    those who -
    courtesy of Obama - receive two full years
    of unemployment benefits
    (which, of course, both disincentivizes looking
    for work and also
    motivates people to work off the books while
    collecting their windfall)
    surely know for whom to vote. The lure of free stuff
    is irresistible.

    The defining moment of the whole campaign was the
    revelation of the
    secretly-recorded video in which Romney
    acknowledged the difficulty of
    winning an election in which "47% of the
    start off against him because they pay no taxes and
    just receive money -
    "free stuff" - from the government".

    Almost half of the population has no skin in the
    game - they
    don't care about high taxes, promoting business, or
    creating jobs, nor do
    they care that the money for their free stuff is
    being borrowed from
    their children and from the Chinese. They just
    want the free stuff
    that comes their way at someone else's expense. In
    the end, that 47%
    leaves very little margin for error for any Republican,
    and does not
    bode well for the future.

    It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate
    winning against such
    overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In
    essence, the
    people vote for a Congress who will not raise
    their taxes, and for a
    President who will give them free stuff, never mind who
    has to pay for it.

    That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the
    inescapable conclusion that the
    electorate is ignorant and uninformed. Indeed, it
    does not pay
    to be an informed voter, because most other voters -
    clear majority โ€“ are unintelligent and easily
    swayed by emotion and
    raw populism. That is the indelicate way of saying that
    many people vote with their hearts and not their
    heads. That is why
    Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or
    even defend his
    first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt
    Romney as a
    rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a
    cliff, when he is not
    just snatching away their cancer medication, while
    starving the poor
    and cutting taxes for the rich.

    During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out
    to Adlai
    Stevenson: "Senator, you have the vote of every
    thinking person!" Stevenson
    called back: "That's not enough, madam, we
    a majority!"

    Truer words were never spoken.

    Obama could get away with saying that "Romney
    wants the rich to play
    by a different set of rules" - without ever
    defining what those
    different rules were; with saying that the
    "rich should pay
    their fair share" - without ever defining what a
    share" is; with saying that Romney wants the poor,
    elderly and sick
    to "fend for themselves" - without even
    acknowledging that
    all these government programs are going bankrupt, their
    insolvency only papered over by deficit spending.

    Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to
    blacks that a Romney
    victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim
    to women that their
    abortions and birth control would be taken away. He
    could appeal to
    Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and
    shipped to Mexico
    and unabashedly state that he will not enforce the
    immigration laws. He could espouse the furtherance of
    the incestuous
    relationship between governments and unions - in which
    politicians ply the
    unions with public money, in exchange for which
    the unions provide
    the politicians with votes, in exchange for which the
    politicians provide
    more money and the unions provide more votes,
    etc., even though the
    money is gone.

    Obama also knows that the electorate has changed
    - that whites will
    soon be a minority in America (they're already
    a minority in
    California) and that the new immigrants to the US
    are primarily from
    the Third World and do not share the traditional
    American values that
    attracted immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. It
    is a different
    world, and a different America. Obama is part of
    that different
    America, knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That
    is why he won.

    Obama also proved again that negative advertising
    works, invective sells,
    and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never
    engaged in such
    diatribes points to his essential goodness as a
    person; his
    "negative ads" were simple facts, never
    personal abuse - facts
    about high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss
    of American power and prestige abroad, a lack of
    leadership, etc. As
    a politician, though, Romney failed because he did not
    embrace the
    devil's bargain of making
    unsustainable promises.

    It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and
    Ryan - people of
    substance, depth and ideas - to compete with the
    shallow populism and
    platitudes of their opponents. Obama mastered the
    politics of envy โ€“ of
    class warfare - never reaching out to Americans as such
    but to individual
    groups, and cobbling together a winning majority
    from these minority
    groups. If an Obama could not be defeated - with his
    record and his vision
    of America, in which free stuff seduces voters - it is
    hard to envision
    any change in the future.

    The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to
    a European-socialist economy -
    those very economies that are collapsing today in
    Europe - is paved.

    For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch
    Democrats, the results
    demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah.
    Almost 70% voted for
    a president widely perceived by Israelis and most
    committed Jews as
    hostile to Israel. They voted to secure Obama's
    future at America 's
    expense and at Israel 's expense - in
    effect, preferring Obama to
    Netanyahu by a wide margin.

    A dangerous time is ahead. Under present circumstances,
    it is inconceivable that the US will take any
    aggressive action against Iran and
    will more likely thwart any
    Israeli initiative. The US will preach
    the importance of negotiations up until the
    production of the first
    Iranian nuclear weapon - and then state that the world
    must learn to live
    with this new reality.

    But this election should be a wake-up call to Jews.
    There is no permanent
    empire, nor is there an enduring haven for Jews
    anywhere in the exile. The
    American empire began to decline in 2007, and the
    deterioration has
    been exacerbated in the last five years. This election
    only hastens that

    Society is permeated with
    sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has
    lost its moorings and
    its moral foundations. The takers outnumber the
    givers, and that will only increase in years to come.

    The "Occupy" riots across this country in
    the last two years
    were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead - years
    of unrest sparked
    by the increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who
    want to seize
    the fruits and the bounty of the successful, and do
    not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution.

    If this election proves one thing, it is that
    the Old America
    is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not
    coming back.

    The problems we face today are there
    because the people who work for
    a living are outnumbered by those who vote for
    a living.

    Sentiment: Hold

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Revelations..............The end times are approaching my friend very quickly,soon the mark of the beast is next...


    • Wow that's a lot of typing. Now get to,work, and pay your taxes. I need more money to go spend at the casino next week. lol kidding

    • H.L. Mencken said it best, "Every complex problem has a simple solution...." Anyone care to finish the quote?

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • First off, it is not any longer than the "toast n'serve" propaganda and falsehood blue-elk routinely post.

      Secondly it is a compelling TRUTH about post "W" America. Unless America reverses course, can ya spell DOOM.. Will history repeat itself, for America, following the path of dead great powers?

      Finally, progs are working feverishly to send America to that historic scrap heap, sigh! How could a segment of "Americans" despise their heritage.

    • I can simplify this quite a bit. No need to read a long post. The majority of people who voted for Obama didn't just want free stuff. Many of them are out of work, poor and want opportunity. They heard Romney talking to his base and stupidly writing off 47% of the electorate because he knew, Romney, had nothing at all to offer them, that he, Romney, represents the status quo, that his history at Bain Capital was one of breaking up businesses and exporting jobs to China to take advantage of human slave labor and to drive down the cost of labor in the United States so that rich people here can have slave labor, too. At least Obama had enough common sense to lie to people about what his plans were.

    • Yes, I agree about the decline but not when it started and why. The morals of the Country changed noticeably during the Vietnam War. NAFTA was another nail in the coffin of the average worker that thought he could graduate high school and go out and get a good job. To think most people that can't find work enjoy being on the dole for peanuts is ridiculous. People out of work today have worked for most of their lives and find their jobs eliminated or are just entering the job market and find the plant their daddy worked in is in Mexico.

      What a rotten cynical shortsighted view of America this rabbi has. It's easy for those of us who have been fortunate to criticize those who haven't been or have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

      • 2 Replies to roblancelot
      • bump for rob


        "Yes, I agree about the decline but not when it started and why. The morals of the Country changed noticeably during the Vietnam War. NAFTA was another nail in the coffin of the average worker that thought he could graduate high school and go out and get a good job. To think most people that can't find work enjoy being on the dole for peanuts is ridiculous. People out of work today have worked for most of their lives and find their jobs eliminated or are just entering the job market and find the plant their daddy worked in is in Mexico.

        What a rotten cynical shortsighted view of America this rabbi has. It's easy for those of us who have been fortunate to criticize those who haven't been or have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time."

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • Since LBJ started the Great Society, we have spent 3 trillion dollars on it and welfare did not decline it increased. There is such a thing as welfare babies. The more babies you have the more welfare you collect.

        Once people get on the public tit, they stay on it. An example of this is, unemployment goes down when unemployment benefits gives out. Why work when you can stay home, do nothing and get paid?

        Once the takers out number the producers at some point the producers give up and join the takers.

        I'm not saying stop welfare. There are people who genuinely need it, just make it not so easy to get on welfare. If you are able bodied, you work.

        Sentiment: Hold

    • This says it all. Only wish W would not have been pinned down by war politics for 8 years. This relationship between voting and public funding is, in fact, a recipe for disaster. It is like the people are drowning together in a large ocean, all the while the "government" is there on a giant ship holding millions of life preservers that, after disbursed to those in the water,.. shrink over time. Many are trying to swim to the boat, others sink and drown, still others receive larger life preservers than their neighbors. They all need to swim, and they need to build their own little rafts, then yachts, then ocean liners. Then, they can take back the boat with revolving life preservers and give them to those who truly are not able to swim, not to those who simply do not want to swim.

    • Great find PC!

      What continues to baffle me about this kind of thinking is that while "free stuff" might put a floor under some people, it also creates a ceiling. Their lives will likely never be any more, any better then what the free stuff provides since it also requires dependency - a form of servitude. This is true because the free stuff mindset dampens desire, stifles creativity and is self fulfilling - you don't believe that you can be anymore since it's other people's fault for your lot.

      The true irony is that the "owners" of this caste don't live by those rules and enrich themselves by selling their pogrom. Look at the wealth of congress, of Sharpton and Jackson and plenty of others who's only platform is continuing to keep their constituents on the dole.