Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Welcome to the Neno's Place!

Neno's Place Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality


Neno

I can be reached by phone or text 8am-7pm cst 972-768-9772 or, once joining the board I can be reached by a (PM) Private Message.

Join the forum, it's quick and easy

Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Welcome to the Neno's Place!

Neno's Place Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality


Neno

I can be reached by phone or text 8am-7pm cst 972-768-9772 or, once joining the board I can be reached by a (PM) Private Message.

Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Many Topics Including The Oldest Dinar Community. Copyright © 2006-2020


+5
Rocky
kelnchp
slj9999
gmc
Bama Diva
9 posters

    We Are Not Coming Back

    Bama Diva
    Bama Diva
    Moderator
    Moderator


    Posts : 1728
    Join date : 2012-12-21
    Location : Gulf Coast

       We Are Not Coming Back Empty We Are Not Coming Back

    Post by Bama Diva Tue 22 Oct 2013, 3:30 pm

    (I received this today and thought it worthy to pass on.) 
     

     
     
     +READ AND DIGEST CAREFULLY.  THE TRUTH SOMETIMES IS PAINFUL TO FACE.
     

     
     
     
     +READ AND DIGEST CAREFULLY.  THE TRUTH SOMETIMES IS PAINFUL TO FACE.
     
    We Are Not Coming Back
     
    Please take a moment to digest this provocative article by a Jewish 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."
     
    The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.
     
      
    Please take a moment to digest this provocative article by a Jewish 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."
     
    The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.
     

      
    gmc
    gmc
    Understood Investor
    Understood Investor


    Posts : 106
    Join date : 2012-12-19

       We Are Not Coming Back Empty Re: We Are Not Coming Back

    Post by gmc Tue 22 Oct 2013, 3:52 pm

    thanks for posting Bama
    slj9999
    slj9999
    Understood Investor
    Understood Investor


    Posts : 137
    Join date : 2012-12-19
    Location : California

       We Are Not Coming Back Empty Re: We Are Not Coming Back

    Post by slj9999 Tue 22 Oct 2013, 4:25 pm

    WOW!  Thanks Bama.
    kelnchp
    kelnchp
    Cain't Let Go Investor
    Cain't Let Go Investor


    Posts : 268
    Join date : 2012-12-31
    Age : 52
    Location : Wisconsin

       We Are Not Coming Back Empty Re: We Are Not Coming Back

    Post by kelnchp Tue 22 Oct 2013, 5:29 pm

    Sorry I do not think any candidate is good our whole system is corrupt.  Do I think we should have socialism "NO". Do I think we should have a re-distribution of wealth absolutely.  My husband was on unemployment for 1 year actively looking every week, every day....WHY?? NO JOBS and he is a welder. To say that people voted for O because people get unemployment for 2 years in just ludicrous.  People on food stamps some do take advantage and some do not because they do not make a living wage.  Before you get all over my case "No I have never been on government assistance in the 42 years I have been alive." I have collected unemployment  20 years ago and my husband did just recently and was lucky enough to get another job just recently. But this is what I believe is wrong with this country please look at the video.

    Rocky
    Rocky
    Admin Assist
    Admin Assist


    Posts : 267043
    Join date : 2012-12-21

       We Are Not Coming Back Empty Re: We Are Not Coming Back

    Post by Rocky Tue 22 Oct 2013, 5:46 pm

    our economy would be back with Romney, the Dems want to take what you have and give to the 47million that are recieving some sort of help from the goverment, what the country can do for you. If you need help you did the right thing. I'm glad your husband found a job, he has a skill.
    fonz1951
    fonz1951
    Interacting Investor
    Interacting Investor


    Posts : 2666
    Join date : 2012-12-19

       We Are Not Coming Back Empty Re: We Are Not Coming Back

    Post by fonz1951 Tue 22 Oct 2013, 5:57 pm

    kelnchp; i know firsthand what you are saying. i know a guy that works in a convenience store about a mile from where i live, he works there 40 hours a week, he also works at one of those thrift/elcheapo stores 32 hours a week.he is married with 3 kids, and his wife works also. his car payment is 450.00 per month, his rent is 650.00 per month, light bill, water bill, groceries, car insurance, the list goes on. he gets government assistance, and he really needs it. i have no problem whatsoever with this.but then there are the bloodsuckers that ruin it.we seem to have plenty of money to give away to foreign countries,that hate us. so where is the problem with helping our own people? at least the legitimate ones.
    Bama Diva
    Bama Diva
    Moderator
    Moderator


    Posts : 1728
    Join date : 2012-12-21
    Location : Gulf Coast

       We Are Not Coming Back Empty Re: We Are Not Coming Back

    Post by Bama Diva Tue 22 Oct 2013, 6:01 pm

    rocky wrote:our economy would be back with Romney, the Dems want to take what you have and give to the 47million that are recieving some sort of help from the goverment, what the country can do for you. If you need help you did the right thing. I'm glad your husband found a job, he has a skill.
    Agree totally Rocky.  Romney may not have been the "perfect" candidate, not sure if there is one, but this country would be light years ahead of where it is now if he had won. There would have been millions more working right now and no need for long time unemployment which, by the way, is funded by employers. 

    I will never believe in redistribution of wealth, what you have worked for is yours, what I have worked for is mine, and it has never crossed my mind that someone wealthy should share what they have with me. If someone has chosen a different skill set than mine to acquire higher pay, and they make more money, good for them. 

    BTW, if there is a mod or admin around, please remove one copy of my post, I have no idea why it double posted. Surely it is a software problem, couldn't have possibly be the poster. ~grin~
    kelnchp
    kelnchp
    Cain't Let Go Investor
    Cain't Let Go Investor


    Posts : 268
    Join date : 2012-12-31
    Age : 52
    Location : Wisconsin

       We Are Not Coming Back Empty Re: We Are Not Coming Back

    Post by kelnchp Tue 22 Oct 2013, 7:01 pm

    Bama Diva wrote:Agree totally Rocky.  Romney may not have been the "perfect" candidate, not sure if there is one, but this country would be light years ahead of where it is now if he had won. There would have been millions more working right now and no need for long time unemployment which, by the way, is funded by employers. 

    I will never believe in redistribution of wealth, what you have worked for is yours, what I have worked for is mine, and it has never crossed my mind that someone wealthy should share what they have with me. If someone has chosen a different skill set than mine to acquire higher pay, and they make more money, good for them. 

    BTW, if there is a mod or admin around, please remove one copy of my post, I have no idea why it double posted. Surely it is a software problem, couldn't have possibly be the poster. ~grin~
    When I say redistribution of wealth I do not mean give your money away to someone...but I do mean pay people a living wage so people can live....Maybe even a raise that meets the cost of living....People who get minimum wage can't even live off of that wage....why should people have to have two jobs to try and make ends meet....is there time not as important to their families?
    kelnchp
    kelnchp
    Cain't Let Go Investor
    Cain't Let Go Investor


    Posts : 268
    Join date : 2012-12-31
    Age : 52
    Location : Wisconsin

       We Are Not Coming Back Empty Re: We Are Not Coming Back

    Post by kelnchp Tue 22 Oct 2013, 7:03 pm

    rocky wrote:our economy would be back with Romney, the Dems want to take what you have and give to the 47million that are recieving some sort of help from the goverment, what the country can do for you. If you need help you did the right thing. I'm glad your husband found a job, he has a skill.
    Thank you Rocky!!!
    Neno
    Neno
    Admin
    Admin


    Posts : 10948
    Join date : 2012-12-17
    Age : 60
    Location : Lone Star State

       We Are Not Coming Back Empty Re: We Are Not Coming Back

    Post by Neno Tue 22 Oct 2013, 7:08 pm

    Well, I have learned from another that you want be able to announce your citizenship cause it want matter as John Kerry has signed something at the UN that puts us all under the UN (New World Order) no matter where we are at. If I can find the time to look for this I will but please fill free to do so as it was in the last couple weeks.

    Sponsored content


       We Are Not Coming Back Empty Re: We Are Not Coming Back

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu 28 Mar 2024, 6:49 am