Paid for by the Jewish Council for Education and Research, WTFU is a product of Schlep Labs.
WTFU, Schlep Labs and The Great Schlep are all projects of JCER.

http://jcer.info/about_us

"The Jewish Council for Education & Research (JCER), a federal Super PAC, was created to develop and disseminate information to voters in the United States around issues of concern to the Jewish community. In 2012, JCER is supporting President Barack Obama’s re-election effort with a series of high-profile initiatives in the spirit of the The Great Schlep. JCER will confront the scare tactics used to peel away Jewish voters from the Obama campaign and reenergize those in his base whose enthusiasm may have diminished from four years ago. Recognizing that the Jewish community is not one-size-fits-all, JCER is creating cross-platform initiatives to develop the community’s narrative about Obama and to shore up support for his campaign in key swing states. "

TEAM

Mik Moore - Before starting his own firm in 2011, Mik was the Chief Strategy Officer at Jewish Funds for Justice. Links to his projects, published writing and television appearances, and firm portfolio can be found at www.mikmoore.com.

Ari Wallach - Ari Wallach is the founder of Synthesis Corp., a consulting firm based in New York City that provides strategic counsel converging at the intersection of memes, technology and innovation. Ari is also currently a member of the boards of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), 5ivepoints, blankonblank.org and the Coalition for the Environment and Jewish Life (COEJL)

Mira Oreck - a dedicated and dynamic professional who has been working for over a decade recruiting and mobilizing individuals behind a cause or campaign. Born and raised in Vancouver, BC, Mira lives in Brooklyn, NY where she recently earned her Master’s Degree in Urban Policy Analysis and Management at The New School

Emma Goldberg - a high school student passionate about communications and new media. Born and raised in New York, she attends the Abraham Joshua Heschel School. She pursues her interest in digital strategies through her role as Social Media Coordinator for STAND, a national student anti-genocide coalition.

and someone who knew sarah silverman and sam jackson!

As opposed to President Barack Obama: Charismabot 2000 v2.0.

Take any one statement of Bill O'Reilly here (for example, "You can't be on top as long as the Fox News Channel has been on top, 'annnsell'-(slurred, cocktails @ 2pm) and sell a product that's inferior or dishonest, it's impossible in this country.")

What the fuck does that actually mean? Nothing. Anyone that has an I.Q. of 90 should see his blathering for absolute shit.
NOw...

Compare that statement to any statement taken out of context during a speech by either party's candidate to the presidency and you will hear he same rhetorical bullshit regarding fuck-all and who cares. FOR EXAMPLE:

"Are we going to make it easier for you to afford your degree and pay off your student loan debt? (Applause.) Are we going to build more good schools and hire more good teachers, so that our kids are prepared to attend colleges like Iowa State, and prepared for the 21st century workforce? (Applause.)"....to robots at Iowa State University,Barack Obama - August 28, 2012.

Meaningless phrases strewn together cliche', with positive verbal gestures and cued pauses inducing applause as to be rendered ephemeral as soon as they are uttered.
Now kids-Go back to your dorm rooms, remember to vote on Nov. 2nd for the Not-Mormon, and play some more Mario Cart for quarters.

All news channels in the UK and the U.S. are total, and complete, sheit....great for infotainment and a sort of barometer of our progress towards idiocracy.

This vid isn't working for me.
The ad and the vid start at the same time. The ad is over the vid and the sound of each plays at the same time.

So I have to wait for the entire ad to end then when it disappears, I can hear the video but I only see a big black empty space.

Edit: found it on the CBS site: http://www.cbs.com/shows/late_show/video/2280813911/david-letterman-president-barack-obama

>> ^quantumushroom:

Take it away, Rush:
"A lot of people have been saying this kind of thing. It's been one of the raging debates about where we are as a country, and have we lost the country. That's what this is all about. So went back, I went back to the news archives. And look what I have here my formerly nicotine-stained fingers. This is USA Today, April 26th, 2011. Headline: "Americans Depend More on Federal Aid Than Ever." It's not Romney saying it. Ha-ha. It's USA Today, shazam. It's the Drive-By Media saying it.
"Americans depended more on government assistance in 2010 than at any other time in the nation's history." Exactly right. It's why Obama has to be stopped. It's not what this country is, as Obama said his convention, "It's not who we are." This is not who we are. Forty-seven percent of this country's population is helplessly dependent on the government because of policies created by Barack Obama and the Democrat Party year after year after year. Why are they dependent? Nobody's saying that all 47% of 'em are slackers. Nobody's saying that all 47% of 'em are losers. A lot of them are victims of Obamaism, of the Democrat Party. They're victims of liberalism. They're victims of an economy that does not grow. They're victims of an economy that shrinks. They are victims of an economy where there are fewer jobs and where there's less income to be earned. They are victims of failed Democrat Party policy after policy after policy."


Look I'm not fan of either party, in fact I hate politics in general... but this one-sided rhetoric doesn't help anyone... The headline reads that in 2010 Americans depended more on government assistance than ever", then it gets subtlety tweaked into "47% of the country is helplessly dependent on the government" Really?? 47% helplessly dependent??! Nice little shift there... And Obamaism? wtf does that even mean? So they really believe that before Obama took office everything was great then one year later it had all turned to shit?

Again, I don't care for Obama or any politician's for that matter, but do you not see how this kind of divisive rhetoric will only drive people further apart then they already are? What's the endgame, a civil war between the 'right' and the 'left'? I just don't get what people like Rush actually want other than the total annihilation of the left. Isn't democracy supposed to be about working together (even with opposing views) for the good of the people? Or am I wrong about that?

Take it away, Rush:

"A lot of people have been saying this kind of thing. It's been one of the raging debates about where we are as a country, and have we lost the country. That's what this is all about. So went back, I went back to the news archives. And look what I have here my formerly nicotine-stained fingers. This is USA Today, April 26th, 2011. Headline: "Americans Depend More on Federal Aid Than Ever." It's not Romney saying it. Ha-ha. It's USA Today, shazam. It's the Drive-By Media saying it.

"Americans depended more on government assistance in 2010 than at any other time in the nation's history." Exactly right. It's why Obama has to be stopped. It's not what this country is, as Obama said his convention, "It's not who we are." This is not who we are. Forty-seven percent of this country's population is helplessly dependent on the government because of policies created by Barack Obama and the Democrat Party year after year after year. Why are they dependent? Nobody's saying that all 47% of 'em are slackers. Nobody's saying that all 47% of 'em are losers. A lot of them are victims of Obamaism, of the Democrat Party. They're victims of liberalism. They're victims of an economy that does not grow. They're victims of an economy that shrinks. They are victims of an economy where there are fewer jobs and where there's less income to be earned. They are victims of failed Democrat Party policy after policy after policy."

I'm sure a similar laundry list of accomplishments far and wide could be made about any president. America will be feeling the positive effects of the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act and proposal for a new refuge for wild mustangs for years to come.

Mind you, this the best Obama can do with 90% of the media unjournalists taking his side, never vetting him, never asking hard questions or questioning policy...

Where it counts, this President doesn't cut it. And why is there still no budget? It can't be because of the Republican minority in Congress.

Hey, I could be wrong, and the mob will decide in November that government dependency and not working are now more rewarding than the opposite.


As for why the current problems persist:

"The endless proliferation of anti-business interventions by government, and the sight of more of the same coming over the horizon from Barack Obama's appointees in the federal bureaucracies, creates the one thing that has long stifled economic activity in countries around the world -- uncertainty about what the rules of the game are, and the unpredictability of how specifically those rules will continue to change in a hostile political environment." --T. Sowell









>> ^KnivesOut:

Yeah, what has Obama done anyway aside from put up with all this ridiculous nonsense?>> ^quantumushroom:
Don't y'all wish you could simply point to Obama's successful record instead of resorting to this?
Higher taxes and demonizing the rich (who pay the lion's share of income taxes while the bottom 50% pay nothing) haven't worked.
Massive government spending hasn't worked.
Weak, indecisive leadership in dealing with our enemies (and allies!) hasn't worked.
The only reason there aren't riots over Obamacare is the new taxes are on a delayed fuse.
Obes doesn't deserve a second term, and didn't deserve a first term (neither did McLame, but the lesser of two evils...)

>> ^Chaucer:

President Barack Obama lauded the landing in a statement, calling it "an unprecedented feat of technology that will stand as a point of national pride far into the future." Obama went on to say, "If you've got a rover, you didnt build that..."


Actually, after he congratulated tax payers, he went on to say this rover was made possible by Well's Fargo, Citibank, and Pizza Hut.

President Barack Obama lauded the landing in a statement, calling it "an unprecedented feat of technology that will stand as a point of national pride far into the future." Obama went on to say, "If you've got a rover, you didnt build that..."

>> ^shinyblurry:

The parameters of marriage was determined by God at the beginning of His creation. We have turned away from God in these United States, and so we have turned away from the biblical standard, however, not as much as gay marriage proponents have stated. Even with the media saturation and the constant infiltration of gay special interest groups into the national discourse, we have these realities:
1. A gay marriage amendment has never passed at the ballot box. It has failed everywhere it has been tried, with the voters rejecting it 32 times since 1998.
2. Constitutional bans on gay marriage have been successful 100 percent of time at the ballot box, passing in 31 states, typically with wide margins. This includes liberal strongholds like California and Hawaii. 38 states ban it to some degree.
The people don't appear to want gay marriage, and they are strongly in favor of the biblical definition of marriage. If you don't want to accept the reality that God has defined marriage, then accept the reality that most people are not that hot for this, and they don't want to take the country in this direction.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If polygamy were legal, would it be a civil rights issue if he refused to bake one for a polygamous wedding? How about a cake for someone wanted to marry their dog, or their car? He believes marriage is between a man and a woman and refuses to make a cake for any other kind of wedding. This has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, it has to do with his moral opposition to the corruption of the institution of marriage.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Don't try that shit, it's discrimination, you know exactly why he was refusing to make a gay wedding cake that type of lying isn't going to help your argument. 2nd it's not a double-standard to hand someone their ass when they say something stupid. You do something counter to the way a society has been going you get shouted down in the public square. We're moving towards legalizing gay marriage and giving equal rights to all americans, you go counter to that you're gonna get yelled at.
Sorry but you're wrong, it isn't discrimination. They were still able to do business there if they wanted another kind of cake, and I'm sure they're still welcome to do so. The man doesn't want to make a gay wedding cake because he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, and that gay marriage is immoral.
Also filth posted on message boards? Is this your first day on the internet? I'm pretty sure Justin Beiber hasn't done anything to anyone on the internet and still he's talked about worse than Hitler. You're in hyperbole country mother fucker, deal with it.
Now you want to continue discriminating against people and not doing your job to make cakes or hand out birth control pills than yeah your life is gonna be made harder. Too bad because you're lives are already way too easy as it is. Complaining about christian discrimination, bitch there's children dying in Africa, shut the fuck up.
So discrimination against Christians is okay, because people talk trash all the time and children are dying in Africa? In other words, you just wave your hand and make excuses..proving that you don't really think discrimination is wrong, so long as its against people you disagree with. It's clear you want equal rights for everyone except Christians.
>> ^Yogi

So blacks weren't being discriminated against on the buses and water fountains, because, hey, they could still ride...just not in the front of the bus and hey, they could get a drink...just not at this particular water fountain.
Sounds like the sequel to separate but equal.


You know what is the main flaw in the argument of Christians who claim that they have the sole right to define what the institution of marriage represents and who is permitted to access it?
Simply this:
Christians don't own, didn't invent, and have no right to control marriage. They don't hold the patent on it. Not the idea of marriage, not the word of marriage, nothing. The concept of marriage belongs to the human race and predates Christianity by millenia and continents. Therefore, they have no special rights or privilege to impose their definition of it upon the rest of the nation.
But don't take my word for it. You have google at your finger tips.



As much as I want to applaud you for shifting to a "fact" based argument with elements of reasoning as opposed to your pure belief based system of thought, I'm greatly confused as to where your statistics are coming from. I'm also a little irked that you forced me to do all the googling by the way. There are mountains of evidence that on every front, from the popular vote to constitutional challenges, that gay marriage is gaining support, not losing it.

Here, let me google it for you.

Just a few rulings on the constitutional level:

November 2003: the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that barring gays and lesbians from marrying violates the state constitution. The Massachusetts Chief Justice concluded that to “deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage” to gay couples was unconstitutional because it denied “the dignity and equality of all individuals” and made them “second-class citizens.” Strong opposition followed the ruling.

August 4, 2010: Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8, the 2008 referendum that banned same-sex marriage in California, violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. "Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment," Vaughn wrote in his opinion. "Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents."

February 7, 2012: the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled 2–1 that Proposition 8, the 2008 referendum that banned same-sex marriage in state, is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In the ruling, the court said, the law "operates with no apparent purpose but to impose on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority's private disapproval of them and their relationships."

On the popular opinion front:

A June 6 CNN/ORC International poll showed that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage being legalized at 54%, while 42% are opposed.

A May 22 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 54% of Americans would support a law in their state making same-sex marriage legal, with 40% opposed.

A May 17-20 ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 53% believe same-sex marriage should be legal, with only 39% opposed, a low-water mark for opposition in any national poll so far.

A May 10 USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken one day after Barack Obama became the first sitting President to express support for same-sex marriage,[14] showed 51% of Americans agreed with the President's endorsement. A May 8 Gallup Poll showed plurality support for same-sex marriage nationwide, with 50% in favor and 48% opposed.

An April Pew Research Center poll showed support for same-sex marriage at 47%, while opposition fell to an all-time low of 43%.

A March 7-10 ABC News/Washington Post poll found 52% of adults thought it should be legal for same-sex couples to get married, while 42% disagreed and 5% were unsure.[18] A March survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found 52% of Americans supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 44% opposed.

A February 29 - March 3 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 49% of adults supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 40% opposed.

One last note on a slightly different topic: religious groups funding anti-gay legislation, most notoriously, the Prop. 8 campaign in California. If Christians are going to use their funds as a group, not individuals, why are they being given tax-free exemptions? Why should people, such as myself, who don't share their beliefs, subsidize their political ambitions?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

I don't want the government to curtail the ability of the religious to practice their faith but I don't think the first amendment was intended to give religions the overwhelming competitive advantage of tax-free money at the ballot box.

This could be solved two ways: no more organizational level contributions to political campaigns, i.e. the close to 200k the Mormon Church donated to support Prop. 8, OR remove tax-exempt status from religions.

By the way, it might seem impossible to conceive of a time when tax-exempt status for religion wasn't taken for granted but it's been a controversial issue from the inception of America. For example, even President Grant and Madison were against tax-exemption for religions.

>> ^lantern53:

If a person has no job, they cannot afford to go to a casino, which employs hundreds. Since Sheldon thinks that Romney will create more jobs then Obama and more people will be able to go to the casino, and since Sheldon has actual business experience, unlike Barack Obama, I think it will follow that Sheldon is more likely to know what he is doing.
Go Sheldon! Go Jobs!


so you are saying most businessmen and ceo's are more interested in creating jobs than making profits/bonuses? what color is the sky in your world? and shareholders too are more interested in jobs created than return on investment, right? and a consumer economy can exist without a growing middle class, with a decent amount of disposable income?

i really like, "the more people the casino employs, the more people can go to the casino" point... really a proponent of debt slavery aren't you? lol

i'm sure you also believe in sustainable unlimited growth markets, and that the USA is #1 too

>> ^lantern53:

I don't believe the USAF can teach a 'retarded' person to fly an F-102.
However, Jeremiah Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, Barack Obama Sr. and Bill Ayres can apparently teach a person to despise the United States of America.


Don't want to say what your parents taught you...

I don't believe the USAF can teach a 'retarded' person to fly an F-102.

However, Jeremiah Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, Barack Obama Sr. and Bill Ayres can apparently teach a person to despise the United States of America.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^A10anis:
I despair at the lack of serious contenders for the highest political position in the world. The fact that he is a mormon, should, given their tenets, automatically exclude Romney (unless we want to go back to the bronze-age, when religion dictated every facet of life).

There's a pretty serious contender on the ticket, actually.
Ever heard of this guy named Barack Obama?

You know, friends of mine, quite rightly, castigate me for bothering to post. I'm starting to agree that it is pointless. Yes, you moron, I am well aware of Obama. However, he is not a contender, he is the incumbent.

>> ^A10anis:

I despair at the lack of serious contenders for the highest political position in the world. The fact that he is a mormon, should, given their tenets, automatically exclude Romney (unless we want to go back to the bronze-age, when religion dictated every facet of life).


There's a pretty serious contender on the ticket, actually.

Ever heard of this guy named Barack Obama?