Elections

moreluck

golden ticket member
So, you won't be taking the TMZ bus tour on your next trip to NYC ??

He's a lawyer, you know ????

TMZ is for Hollywood news only.....all the brainless stars....like Bieber, Miley, etal. Theirs is a Thirty Mile Zone, so they cover it well. The kids pitching the stories are mostly quick and comical and thy make the show fun to watch.
It's not Sixty Minutes.....but it doesn't pretend to be.
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
2wptdhg.gif
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
"I cannot accept, your canon that we are to judge pope and king unlike other men, with a favorable presumption that they do no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way against holders of power...Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." ~ Lord Acton
 

texan

Well-Known Member
California... Senate Passes Bill On Non-Citizen Poll Workers

SACRAMENTO (AP) — The state Senate on Monday approved legislation that would allow immigrants who are not
U.S. citizens to assist voters casting a ballot
.

Ok that is different and why I ask myself.

Yes I read all of the below, but I am a little baffled.

Why not use "Legal US Bilingual Citizens.

I sure someone will explain it to me.

Senate Passes Bill On Non-Citizen Poll Workers CBS Los Angeles
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
Why not just have everything in English ?
If you want to live in this country.....speak English.
If you want to vote in this country.....speak the language!
If you need help.....that's what family is for.

That way we won't get directions in Farsi from Ikea to put together the new credenza. Where's the Cherokee directions or the Chippewa directions??? You can't cowtow to everybody........but they can ALL learn the language.

Think of the $$$$ that can be saved by not having multiple printings in hundreds of languages. Speak whatever you want to speak at home.....no one cares.
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
Rabbi Steven Pruzansky is the
spiritual leader of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun in Teaneck, New Jersey


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"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,
partisanship, 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 cycle.

Romney lost because he didn't get
enough votes to win.

That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious
reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues - the traditional American
virtues – 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 people" 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 - the clear majority – are unintelligent and easily
swayed by emotion and raw populism. That is the indelicate way of saying that
too 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 need 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 "fair 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 current 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 current 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 – 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 decline.
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.
 
Top