• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Perspective of a Rabbi

Soapweed

Well-known member
Whoever this guy is, he has more common sense than all the members of Congress put together. . .


Perspective of a Rabbi

Please take a moment to digest this provocative article by a Rabbi
from Teaneck, N.J. 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.
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.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It makes me chuckle when I see article after article of all the Republican cult followers still trying to figure out why Romney lost... :roll:
When in fact its pretty simple to figure out the main reason....Folks still remember what a poor President that GW was-his leading the country into an extremely costly ill advised invasion of a sovereign nation by giving the public/Congress false info- and that along with his lack of economic leadership/oversight brought on the Bush Bust ...

Simply- The voters of America would vote for almost anyone to keep from going back to that direction of thinking/leadership....
 

Traveler

Well-known member
It's disturbing. The role of government was never supposed to be what it has become. The overwhelming entitlement mentality put on the US, not just at home, but abroad can't be sustained. But what can you do when so many voters are going to demand that they be able to suck on the government teat until it's completely dry? And what would the founders have thought if they would have known that the government would be doing baleouts and trying to pick winners and losers, much less taking over a huge percentage of the economy and blatantly mislead and outright lie about the costs? Shameful.
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
It makes me chuckle when I see article after article of all the Republican cult followers still trying to figure out why Romney lost... :roll:
When in fact its pretty simple to figure out the main reason....Folks still remember what a poor President that GW was-his leading the country into an extremely costly ill advised invasion of a sovereign nation by giving the public/Congress false info- and that along with his lack of economic leadership/oversight brought on the Bush Bust ...

Simply- The voters of America would vote for almost anyone to keep from going back to that direction of thinking/leadership....

Forget the "Republican cult" crap, OR step up to the plate and admit you are a full-fledged member of the "O-Cult" that falls on their knees to worship Obama. As usual, you missed the main point of the very well written perspective.

Here it is, once again. Please pay attention. :roll:

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

- AND -

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.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
It makes me chuckle when I see article after article of all the Republican cult followers still trying to figure out why Romney lost... :roll:
When in fact its pretty simple to figure out the main reason....Folks still remember what a poor President that GW was-his leading the country into an extremely costly ill advised invasion of a sovereign nation by giving the public/Congress false info- and that along with his lack of economic leadership/oversight brought on the Bush Bust ...

Simply- The voters of America would vote for almost anyone to keep from going back to that direction of thinking/leadership....

And you still make us all chuckle the way you talk out of your ass over and over again. What false info? Your assertion now, and in the past, has been that Bush lied to the American people. If he did, please provide the evidence or just STFU about it.

BTW, I found this photo of you on your modified soap box shouting to your adoring followers.
explainthisimage-com-4626231_zpsb2dea4b3.jpg
 

hopalong

Well-known member
yup that is oldtimers get on the bandstand and spout crap picture alright!!!!If he would ever really read anythoing he would see that he is full of crap,,,but he just starts spouting for the mere reason to hear himself spout!!!!
Strange that anyone who dare speak out againsts the democraps is a cult follower,,,yet he wont admith to being a obmama cult follower,,,just a full fledged HYPOCRITE oldtimer,, liar,drunk,egotistical, old worn out set of horns ....
EH oldtimer, care to prove me wrong???

Why is it everyone is WRONG except you oldtimer???Are we all missing something from your cut and paste negitiveness?????? NOt only in this forum,,,,but at least 3 others including one L.E. forum that laugh at you and your VAST experence as a hick sheriff in a 6000 population county and still could not get re elected...
Fess up oldtimer, the amber liquid has really messed up your thinking process,,,,EH
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
thanks Soap.

Sounds like the Rabbi may have been a fan of Tocqueville


Over one hundred and fifty years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville offered a penetrating diagnosis on the American character -- virtues and warts notwithstanding. The same voice having remarked that "Nothing is more wonderful than the art of being free, but nothing is harder to learn how to use than freedom," also observed that "Americans are so enamored of equality, they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom." In disdaining the aristocratic hierarchy of the soul that seeks ordered liberty, the author of Democracy in America offers us a sobering prophesy as to what ultimately occurs to peoples who desire equality over liberty:
Society will develop a new kind of servitude which covers the surface of society with a network of complicated rules, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate. It does not tyrannize but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/the_leveling_spirit_of_equality.html#ixzz2P9ZMoEZf


When the taste for physical gratifications among them has grown more rapidly than their education . . . the time will come when men are carried away and lose all self-restraint . . . . It is not necessary to do violence to such a people in order to strip them of the rights they enjoy; they themselves willingly loosen their hold. . . . they neglect their chief business which is to remain their own masters.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Here, I'll give ya a hint:

And I ask the three of you, how can we, as symbolically the children of the future president, expect the two of you, the three of you to meet our needs, the needs in housing and in crime and you name it….”

Didn't our resident numbnut recently say something about the gubmint providing food and shelter for its citizens?
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Worth the read. Shows how far the country has gone down the tubes in the last 15 years or so.

Almost twenty years ago, ponytailed Denton Walthall stood in the first ever town hall-style presidential debate and askedaquestion that shall forever live in infamy:


The focus of my work as a domestic mediator is meeting the needs of the children that I work with [...] And I ask the three of you, how can we, as symbolically the children of the future president, expect the two of you, the three of you to meet our needs [...] Could we cross our hearts; it sounds silly here, but could we make a commitment? You know, we're not under oath at this point, but could you make a commitment to the citizens of the United States to meet our needs, and we have many, and not yours.

Governor Bill Clinton was delighted with the question. Ross Perot was...well, Ross Perot. But President George H.W. Bush appeared bewildered. Meet needs? Children of the president?

When Bush 41 was barely out of childhood himself, he enlisted as a Navy aviator and was shot down over the Pacific Ocean in World War II. During his one term as president, America won the Cold War, kicked Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, and navigated the savings and loan crisis. The thought of treating Americans as children must have sounded like psychobabble gibberish to Ronald Reagan's vice president.

Bill Clinton, however, won the election and took on the role of Presidential Parent with gusto. Unfortunately, Mr. Walthall's opinion aside, Americans in 1993 weren't quite ready to reenter childhood. When Mrs. Clinton attempted to impose nationalized health care, the crown jewel of daddy government, the electorate reacted by giving Republicans control of both Houses of Congress for the first time in forty years.

Losing the Congress may have stymied Bill Clinton's legislative agenda, but it did wonders for his relationship with the American "children." With Newt Gingrich and the Republicans taking on the tough jobs of balancing the budget and welfare reform, President Clinton was free to be the indulgent, fun parent. This happens in many families. One parent has a jolly time playing and laughing with the kids after supper while the other parent sounds like a killjoy, insisting that the school assignments get done and the teeth get brushed.

In 2000, George W. Bush, unlike his father, embraced the role of Presidential Parent. Instead of the "Party On!" parenting style of Bill Clinton, Bush 43 offered Compassionate Conservatism, a sort of melding of Let's Go Get Ice Cream and Wash behind Your Ears. America got a tangled mess of No Child Left Behind and Medicare prescription drug coverage, among other big-government interventions. All these initiatives had two things in common: they were horribly expensive, and they continued to treat Americans as children.

In 2008, the voting children of America elected Barack Obama, and immediately the Presidential Parent and his wife seized the opportunity. With figurative finger-wagging, Americans have been lectured about what we eat, how much we exercise, how fat our kids are, how warm we keep our houses, what cars we drive, and what kind of energy we use. In one health care town hall, our Presidential Parent actually admonished a woman on the wisdom of allowing her elderly mother to have a pacemaker inserted.

How our Presidential Parent loves to scold us! His rhetoric has become so ridiculous that two weeks ago he arrogantly told Congress, a co-equal branch of government, to finish their homework and eattheirpeas.

Yes, President Obama succeeds in using all the modern parenting jargon. But when it comes to being a successful president, he fails miserably. Let me count the ways:

A successful parent doesn't poll the kids. Every time I hear a reporter start a question with "but the American people want...," I could scream. Successful parents and presidents sometimes have to make important decisions that the kids might not be thrilled about. I actually knew a family that did not relocate for a much better opportunity because the kids didn't want to move away from their friends. When you choose to become a parent or a president, your job is to sometimes make unpopular choices. Quit taking surveys and make a decision.

A successful parent is honest with the family. A good parent doesn't hesitate to let the kids know that the family simply can't afford a new car or a Hawaiian vacation, in spite of all the whining that may ensue. A failed parent (or president) doesn't want the kids to be mad at him, so he borrows the money. In a family, this borrowing can lead to bankruptcy. In a nation, it eventually leads to financial catastrophe.

It takes great strength of character to ignore whining from your kids or your political base. As a parent, I can tell you it's very tempting to give in, just to make the whining stop. That's precisely why kids and voters whine. Right now Speaker Boehner is being bombarded by whining from the president, the Democrats, and the media. If he gives in, the whining will stop, at least temporarily. But America will be teetering ever closer to the edge of the fiscal cliff. And the president, the Democrats, and the media will have learned only one thing: whining works.

A successful parent does not play one kid against the other. The children of good parents know they are loved, unconditionally and equally. A failed parent says, "Why can't you be more like your sister?" and "Your brother never disappoints me like you do." A failed president doesn't consider all Americans equal. Instead he talks about fat-cat bankers, rails against greedy Wall Street hedge fund managers, and refers to Republicans as enemies.

Successful parents raise their kids to become independent adults. It's a bit of a paradox, but good parents realize they've succeeded when their children no longer need them. Failed presidents, however, mark success by how many more Americans have become dependent upon government. A perfect illustration is hearing the president brag about the provision in ObamaCare mandating that insurance companies keep adult children on their parents' policies until they're 26 years old.

This is what we've come to, twenty years after Denton Walthall's question. The country of rugged individualists who defeated the Soviet Union and became the world's lone superpower is ecstatic over the opportunity to remain children on parents' health insurance until age 26.

But I see a spark of hope for America -- a new declaration of independence. It's called the Tea Party. In 2009, millions of conservatives awakened. In 2010, they seemed to rise up with one voice and shout, We are not your children! Hopefully, in 2012, the era of Presidential Parenting will be over.

Unfortunately she was wrong and according to our resident political analyst it was because voters rejected George Bush. :roll: :roll:
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Wonder if Old Dumbass got his Messiah Phone yet? The TV is full of commercials telling the sheeple how to go about getting one. Having a Messiah phone is now a RIGHT, according to the ad.

At least Gangstalicious and Thugnificent can have 1,000 free texts every month to set up drug deals, drive-bys, and finding out where they hoes be at.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
loomixguy said:
Wonder if Old Dumbass got his Messiah Phone yet? The TV is full of commercials telling the sheeple how to go about getting one. Having a Messiah phone is now a RIGHT, according to the ad.

At least Gangstalicious and Thugnificent can have 1,000 free texts every month to set up drug deals, drive-bys, and finding out where they hoes be at.

so they have started a gardening business? Good to see the young entrepeneurs start up their own small businesses. :wink:
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
loomixguy said:
Wonder if Old Dumbass got his Messiah Phone yet? The TV is full of commercials telling the sheeple how to go about getting one. Having a Messiah phone is now a RIGHT, according to the ad.

At least Gangstalicious and Thugnificent can have 1,000 free texts every month to set up drug deals, drive-bys, and finding out where they hoes be at.

so they have started a gardening business? Good to see the young entrepeneurs start up their own small businesses. :wink:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I think their business is more along the lines of "personal service."
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
It makes me chuckle when I see article after article of all the Republican cult followers still trying to figure out why Romney lost... :roll:
When in fact its pretty simple to figure out the main reason....Folks still remember what a poor President that GW was-his leading the country into an extremely costly ill advised invasion of a sovereign nation by giving the public/Congress false info- and that along with his lack of economic leadership/oversight brought on the Bush Bust ...

Simply- The voters of America would vote for almost anyone to keep from going back to that direction of thinking/leadership....

If they were able to remember Bush's poor record from 4, 8, 12 years ago, why were they unable to remember Obama's atrocious record the previous month?
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
It makes me chuckle when I see article after article of all the Republican cult followers still trying to figure out why Romney lost... :roll:
When in fact its pretty simple to figure out the main reason....Folks still remember what a poor President that GW was-his leading the country into an extremely costly ill advised invasion of a sovereign nation by giving the public/Congress false info- and that along with his lack of economic leadership/oversight brought on the Bush Bust ...

Simply- The voters of America would vote for almost anyone to keep from going back to that direction of thinking/leadership....

If they were able to remember Bush's poor record from 4, 8, 12 years ago, why were they unable to remember Obama's atrocious record the previous month?

Exactly the point, isn't it? No, like OT, it's all about what's in it for them. Nothing more.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
It makes me chuckle when I see article after article of all the Republican cult followers still trying to figure out why Romney lost... :roll:
When in fact its pretty simple to figure out the main reason....Folks still remember what a poor President that GW was-his leading the country into an extremely costly ill advised invasion of a sovereign nation by giving the public/Congress false info- and that along with his lack of economic leadership/oversight brought on the Bush Bust ...

Simply- The voters of America would vote for almost anyone to keep from going back to that direction of thinking/leadership....

If they were able to remember Bush's poor record from 4, 8, 12 years ago, why were they unable to remember Obama's atrocious record the previous month?

They're called "Low Information" voters. They could be ranchers in Montana, thugs in Detroit, dope dealers in Houston, or teachers in California. But make no mistake, they're misguided fools...........
 

Steve

Well-known member
smalltime said:
What do you have to say about those 70%jews Texasbred? :lol:

They vote democrat for the same reason most other over-educated liberals do? guilt.. worried they didn't do enough to help the poor, the downtrodden, the misguided and any other socially disadvantaged group.. that is some how oppressed by the evil government.. (which comically ironic in that they are voting for more of the same evil government )

And why do most Jews vote Democrat? Simple: Because U.S. Jews are overwhelmingly urban, educated and very, very liberal. In 2008, for instance, 45% of surveyed American Jewish voters described themselves as “liberal,” versus about 12% who described themselves as “conservative” — a difference of 33%. And that difference has actually grown (from 22%) since 1976.

Moreover, women vote more than men — and American Jewish women are an especially liberal voting bloc

As a correspondent reminds me, Jews were at the forefront of America’s union, feminist and civil-rights movements. Their history has conditioned them to believe in collective action in the fight for social justice

and if you bring up abortion the answer is usually about what a poor life the child would have anyways.. and besides Roe V wade makes it legal.. so their vote can't legalize it anyways..
 
Top