- This topic has 137 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
charliehall, mccain doesnt need to have papers telling us what his stand onm israel is, he has a RECORD. he is extremely pro-israel. obama is not. he has every arabist in america advising him on the middle east, including george clooney!
Mariner, please educate yourself. Obama has a perfect voting record on Israel himself to this point. It’s a shorter record, but indeed a record.
I’m every bit as afraid of Jewish-ist advisors as I am of arab-ist advisors.
Give me, I think illini is Obama’s in-house Jew.
(Will illini take this seriously…?)
Joseph: only semi-seriously. But only because you’re a special case.
Give me a break: I don’t hate Obama. I’m also not convinced that I should vote for him. There is a whole lot of shtus going on in this election cycle, much of it having very little relevance as to who will be the best president/vice president combination. I don’t know if I really think that McCain’s experience would make him any better of a President, and I don’t know if Obama would be able to make any of the significant changes he wants to. Neither will change the country’s stance on Israel, because it would be far too politically costly. The Democratic party enjoys a TON of support from Jews (because more Jews are non-frum than frum, and tend to vote Democrat), and would not risk that base. I think Biden is an infinitely better VP choice than Palin, who has not proved herself (at least to me) as anything but a ploy to create a “battle of the minorities,” and who has ALREADY shown that her ethics are questionable.
In short, no I don’t hate Obama. I also have no idea if I’m going to vote for him. At this point, I’ll vote for anyone that removes the asinine requirement of removing my shoes every time I travel via airplane.
joseph, here we finally agree 🙂
illini07, obama has zero record on israel. none, nada. he voted present a few times. the only things pro israel he voted for, he was not taking a gamble at all. it was votes that went through by super majorities. he has never voted for moving the embassy.
charlihall: you are right that he is opposed to marriage, but he is for civil unions. he is also for them to adopt, and he wants the dont ask dont tell policy rescinded. he is rated by the hrc, which is the organization for same sex issues, and they rated him a 89 out of 100.
Mariner:
You must not have thought that one out fully:
1) “Obama has zero record on Israel. None, nada.”
2) “The only things pro israel he voted for…”
For #2 to be correct, #1 would necessarily have to be false.
And I have no idea what the answer is, but has there even been a vote on moving the embassy since he was elected? On top of it, I do not agree with the underlying premise that not voting for moving the embassy is necessarily “anti-Israel.” Even if he votes AGAINST it, I have more respect for that then every single bozo who has SAID they would move it to Israel and then never even make a serious effort for it.
So what if the HRC gave him a score of 89? As far as don’t ask don’t tell goes, would you rather not have enough soldiers and have the ones currently out there being killed for lack of support and backup? Civil unions have no effect on your religious institutions, so while I understand the disagreement over them, I don’t think it’s something to FEAR. It’s a matter for the states in any case really.
illini, Since when have you become such a big States-Rights fan? States with civil union laws often require religious organizations to offer benefits to the sodomites “partner.” So it does affect us.
Give me a break, you stated on a previous thread that you support abortion and sodomy marriage.
illini07, no your inference is incorrect. ionorder to see where someone stands can only be seen when votes mean something. voting that israel should get weopons america must give them under treaty is not anything great. usually there are stipulations, arms going to egypt saudia arabia, etc. he voted for bills like this. nothing aabout the separation of jerusalem, the right for israel to defend itself. he is a coward at best, and now after the report today of what he did in iraq, possibly an arrestable under the logan act. if bush had any cahoones, he would have the secret service arrest obama, and be done with this whole thing.
as for whther the vote came up, of course not, it was voted into law years ago, but he has stated that jerusalem will have to be divided ( of course one day after saying it shouldnt.)
as or what do i care if they get health insurance, and the like. easy, they ( the same sex community) have a much higher percentage of venereal diseases. using statistics, insurance companies will increase their purchase price, causing medical benefits to decrease, as employers wont be able to meet these costs. also, if they get the same rights, then what is to say that in 20 years from now we should give rights to a person and their pet, after all, who are we to say what is normal. remember 40 years ago, being gay was a mental disorder, just like zoophilia is today. in the political world it is called a slippery slope.
Joseph: I have always been a state’s right-ist. I believe strongly in a federal system, where states have wide latitude to adopt social policies. If it fails, one state is harmed and only one state. If it succeeds, others are free to follow suit. It’s what Brandeis called the “laboratory system” of federalism in his dissent in the New State Ice Co. case.
And I’m not aware of any civil unions act that requires any religious institution to recognize such a partnership. That would strike me as patently unconstitutional. If I’m incorrect, I’d greatly appreciate a reference so I can check it out for myself!
Mariner:
In the definitional sense, my inference was absolutely correct. You can’t go and re-define the meaning of the word “record” to fit your argument. You can’t complain he didn’t vote for something when there has not been a vote. As I said, and as most political commentators have recognized, neither candidate will sway from the status quo on support for Israel. It would be FAR too politically costly – it would cost the Republicans their growing frum base, and the Democrats their support from all of the non-frum Jews who still consider Israel an important part of their identity.
As to your final paragraph, then you probably shouldn’t care if blacks have health insurance either, as they have higher HIV infection rates. Furthermore, perhaps Jews should not get health insurance due to their numerous predominantly Jewish diseases. Additionally, your “slippery slope” argument is fallacious at best: a main point of civil marriage is to clearly define and establish legal responsibilities, which animals cannot have. Animals do not have legal standing in this way, and furthermore cannot consent. It is absolutely preposterous to claim that bestiality is the inevitable result of civil unions. It’s the same thing as saying, “well, we gave women the right to vote, so clearly we must give it to toddlers as well.” Hogwash.
Since you were so kind to point out the previous DSM classifications, also remember, that in the not-too-distant past, it was also illegal for blacks and whites to intermarry, and women were considered property.
illini –
This is applicable to private enterprises and religious institutions. So your contention that “Civil unions have no effect on your religious institutions” is incorrect.
New Jersey too:
“Ccompanies that buy private health insurance plans for their employees are compelled to offer them to same-sex couples under the state’s civil union laws.”
(Washington Post, 6/30/07)
So a Yid with a private company in NJ (or a Jewish organization) would be required to recognize (and pay) for the sodomites “partners” insurance.
Joseph:
Thanks for the heads-up, I’ll definitely check it out. My initial thought however, is that the implications of insurance coverage as pertains to a Jewish-owned business is not equivalent to requiring a religion or religious institution to recognize the unions.
Under these laws, a religious institution is as much required to offer their employees these benefits as any private enterprise. (This has been a major point of lobbying contention with organizations such as Agudah and the Diocese.)
Health providers are prohibited by health insurance law from raising rates on policyholders based upon illness.
Feel free to put up an ad bashing John McCain.
We would be more than happy to run it for as long as you want. We have many different advertising options available. For more info: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/advertise_request.php
On the Internet at http://www.theyeshivaworld.com
Give Me a Break: these are paid ads. why is this so hard to understand. as you can see, the editors are willing to have democratic ads, but noone in the party wants to put any up. just because the rjc jas decided to advertise all over jewish medias, here, the jewish press, and others, doesnt make it unfair, it makes it capitalism. deal with it!
The AP has a story about the ad the RJC is running on YWN:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-Obama-Jewish-Voters.html
GMAB, Its a long story. Why not click on the link I provided above? Easiest way…
Give Me a Break: Joseph posted a link to the article, read it.
You do have a vivid imagination…
GMAB, I saw the ad you mentioned & clicked on it. It’s for EFRAT (I think it may also be called EFRAT-CRIB, but I’m not sure), a tzedaka in E”Y that provides funds, supplies, & other support for Israeli women who are considering abortion for economic reasons, so that they can continue their pregnancies if they choose to do so.
Personally I think this is a great tzedaka. I donated to this tzedaka when I was expecting–I felt the z’chus of helping another Jewish woman have a healthy child would help me have a safe pregnancy & delivery.
I agree that YWN should also show pictures of presidential contendors, even if they are women. But calling this to their attention may just get the photo removed from the ad.
GMAB, I think because EFRAT’s mission is to give women financial & other support so that if they are considering an abortion for financial/ logistical reasons they can choose to give birth instead.
Give Me a Break: it is not a pro-choice agenda, it is a non-judgmental agenda, as that is the best and most fruitful way to convince women who are unfortunately going to commit an abortion. there is an old saying, you get more bees with honey….
GMAB, but that _is_ a pro-choice agenda. If a woman is considering an abortion because she can’t afford the costs of pregnancy/ recovery/ caring for an infant, then by providing the necessary funds EFRAT is giving her the resources she needs to make the choice she may truly prefer. How is that not about choice?
Give Me a Break: “Pro-choice generally means the right to abort, not the right to give birth, which is inherent. “
so call it what it is, pro abortion, not pro choice. you should know who alot of your bedfellows are. most “pro-choice” groups, like planned parenthood, were started witht he sole reason to abort the black race out of america. this is fact, as there are recordings of the founders stating exactly that. it is similar to social welfare programs pushed by dixiecrats, who were members, or sympathizers with the kkk.
many pro-choicers believe what sarah palin did, having trig even after finding out he was downs, was wrong and evil. that it was an unhappy existence for the child, and a burden on the community at large. what is to stop going to the next step and saying all burdens, like the crippled and infirm, the mentally ill/retarded, alzheimers patients, etc should be euthanized. dont say that that is ridiculous, because motions like this have been granted all over europe, and was even tried right up north in Canada earlier this year on a frum jew!
just remeber, oy lerosho oy lescheino. look to see who stands with you, and you can tell if your position is good or evil.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.