Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
By refusing to move the embassy to West Jerusalem (as defined by the 1949-1967 armistice lines), the US (and the world) are saying that anything beyond the 1947 partition plan, if that much, is NOT recognized as Israeli territory – giving the Arabs hopes that they can get a return to the 1947 boundaries, or the pre-1947 boundaries (Palestine in the whole of Eretz Yisrael, Israel as a figment of zionist dreams).
It is unlikely that any terrorist would decide to launch an attack that they would not have launched otherwise. It isn’t as if Islamic terrorists have been sitting around doing nothing the last 70 years.
Except for the unpleasant real estate dispute in Eretz Yisrael, we have a lot in common the Muslims.
If you are an American citizen, he’s about to be your president, like it or not. If you a citizen of some other country, not your problem.
zahavasdad: The introduction of radio, printing, and movies was probably more corrupting than the internet. And there is no reason to convert to escape persecution since the Christians are themselves persecuted, and now it is only required to give up doing mitsvos (at least in public) to avoid discrimination.
blubluh: and we all now how much of a success Shlomo’s kid was (sort of wrecked the family business)
Every generation complains that their kids are worse. It has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, gender, religion or political affiliation. It does seem to be related to age. Every teenager knows this is without justification.
Fifty years ago I clearly knew that the parents were wrong to criticize the younger generation, but now I realize my parents were right, and that of course the next generation is even worse. It started with Adam and Havah (oy, did they have problems with their kids!), and as it has gone on now for over three generations it is a minhag.
Jurors only decide on facts of the case, as instructed by the judge. They don’t get to decide what is mutar and assur, only what happened. This fact totally undermines the halachic argument against jury service that MIGHT exist otherwise.
There are some Christian sects who hold that one is prohibited from judging another person, and they are exempted. It would probably be avodah zarah to seek an exemption on these grounds.
He made it clear that support for a Jewish state in Eretz Yisrael is not compatible with being a Democrat.
1. Inability to work with people beyond his own partisan group
2. Trying to usurp legislative powers
3. Trying to do much and not accomplishing anything lasting
4. When there is an African American, whose ancestors were slaves, elected, that person will be remembered as the first “black” president, and Obama (whose parents were an “old stock” WASP and an African foreign student) will be a footnote.
All those created in Ha-Shem’s image are intelligent. To hold otherwise would be to question’s Ha-Shem’s intelligence. If you want to talk to someone who lacks intelligence, try an ape (I was going to mention some prominent pundits rather than a simian, but that would be apikurses).
1. Tearing down people’s houses is usually a bad idea. The Israelis picked it up from the Brits. Note that at the time Britain was an empire, and today it is not. The tearing down of houses is one of the sorts of things that undermined the empire.
2. If you hold by zionism (which hareidim do not), then one must consider the laws of the medinah to be valid since to hold otherwise is to deny the legitimacy of the zionist state. By rejecting the laws of the medinah, the protestors are in effect saying that zionist is illegitimate.
3. There is plenty of land in Eretz Yisrael which is recognized by the Zionist government and the western powers as open to Israeli settlement. There is no need to take land that most of the world considers to be owned by Palestinians.
No, it is a politicized government agency whose leaders are doing their political masters’ bidding. Along with the rest of the country, most civilian government agencies have become highly politicized in recent years. Assume they’ll be interested in different things on Jan. 21.
1. If you don’t like goyim, try Olam ha-ba – not goy free but less of a problem. The world is full of goyim. Live with it.
2. You can schedule your own classes. No one assigns you to a specific class is college.
3. Unless the assignment was given Friday afternoon due on Motsei Shabbos (very weird, professor don’t work then either), you can always do your assignment early.
4. The rest is covered by the “reasonable accomodation” rules from various state and federal civil rights act. However you do have to ask – in advance and as early as possible.
We should look at Pearl Harbor as an example of Haschagas Pratis.
Many in Japan thought that attacking the US was a bad idea. They could have attacked the Soviet Union, or limited their attack to the British territory (Malaya, Singapore and Australia) while leaving the US alone. It’s not clear the US would have entered World War II had Japan not launched the attack. Most of Europe had been under German control for over 18 months, and the Germans were no longer a serious threat to conquer Britain. One can easily come up with a scenario under which the US stays neutral, and the war ends in 1942 with Germany controlling Europe. Had the US not entered the war, the Nazis would still control all of Europe, perhaps including Russia (with Japan attacking from one side, the US neutral, and Britain agreeing to an armistice – leaving Germany and Japan free to conquer the Soviet Union).
If you do not interpret the 2nd amendment based on original intent, you end up with a right of state’s to have a state militia (i.e. the National Guard), and a right of citizens to enlist. You need the original context to have a private right to ownership of personal weapons.
He seems to be a lot like Nelson Rockefeller but with a sense of humor based on “Archie Bunker”. He is showing himself to be a brilliant politician in getting the rest of the Republican party (including the “Country club elite”, the Tea Party, the Neo-cons and the Religious Right) which opposed him in the primaries and haven’t nominated a big government Republican since the 1970s, to support him. Many of the centrist Democrats will come to like him, as they did Nelson Rockefeller. The extreme left Democrats will whine but will increasingly be perceived as the jerks they are.
The right to bear arms always referred to arms that you carried yourself. In the past it never referred to anything such as artillery. If you had the right to bear arms, it meant you had the right to go around wearing armour and carrying a sword or other hand weapon. If you didn’t have the right to bear arms (the case with Jews), you didn’t. No one was talking about anything larger. If no one in the 18th century (or earlier) thought the right to bear arms referred to weapons one couldn’t carry, then even an originalist would hold they weren’t covered.
Since the 2nd amendment refers to the state militia, it arguably would allow New York for example (that means Albany, not Gracie Mansion) to possess tanks, warships, etc. In modern times, the states aren’t interested and the “state” National Guard is equipped by the Federal treasury.
Originally it was about all weapons, including swords and archery equipment. For example, Jews were prohibited from carrying any sort of arms (the accounts of the pogrom at York suggest we ignored the law, though the law meant we couldn’t train publicly in their use). Their are some medieval books, in Hebrew, on “fencing” which at the time referred to unarmed combat (similar to what is now called martial arts or krav maga). Originally only people of a certain class had the right to bear arms (meaning weapons you carried, catapults or ballisticas were never considered arms), and no in the US argues that the right to bear arms refers to anything larger than hand held personal weapons – though arguably the 2nd amendment also protects the right of the states to have a fully equipped militia, which all the states have decided is too expensive.
By the 18th century, however, firearms had become the standard weapons. Swords were mainly for “show”, and pikes were only of use in helping to direct the soldiers (the guns fired slowly, so it was important in battles to arrange formations so someone was always firing so the other guys couldn’t run up and stab you while you were reloading). Arguably by the late 18th century swords were still covered, but by the mid-19th century swords became totally obsolete (some armies still use them, but it usually resulted in the sword-carrying soldiers getting shot).
It is Olam ha-Zeh that is unsafe. Eretz Yisrael and America are both within Olam ha-Zeh, which is the problem.
The electors are free under the constitution to vote for anyone they choose. They could elect Romney or Kerry. Indeed, they could probably elect you if you are over 35 and a natural born citizen of the USA.
Electors are usually well established political leaders in their home states, and are highly unlikely to betray their party.
The more frum Yidden, the more variety of times and styles of davening. Over the last 70 years, the number of frum Jews has been steadily increasingly due to both natural increase and baalei tseuvah. Minyanim do not grow as much as split, the better to accommodate everyone’s preferences. Say Baruch ha-Shem and be happy about it.
1. It’s been translated.
2. It reads in many ways like a late medieval/early modern version of the “Medrash says” type books, which are very popular (and which I suspect were based on, or at least heavily influenced, by it).
3. While written for women, it was popular with anyone who couldn’t read Hebrew. While we likely to think that all our ancestors were all Talmid Hachams, in reality there were many people who barely knew enough Hebrew to daven.
4. It should be considered one of the greatest classics of Yiddish literature, but the professors who decide what is a greatest classic tend to be anti-Torah.
It makes sense. Most of the politically correct crowd considers us to be deplorable.
Given the trend in Obama’s foreign policy, it wouldn’t be good for Israel or Jews elesewhere. The free health care is good, but the strings attached might be a problem at some point. Economically there are really no “frum issues” distinct from the overall issues. Morally the Democrats are in a swamp.
At this point, it is probably best to ignore the Democrats “Big Lie” technique (if you something loud enough and long enough, it will come to be believed even if totally false) in accusing Trump of anti-Semitism. The American people saw through the Democrat’s “Big lie” program and the Democrat’s “demonization”, and answered it very forcefully, they elected Trump, gave the Republicans control of the Congress, and gave the incoming administration a mandate for radical change.
The consensus is that she would be “Madam President”. While originally “Mrs.” and Madam” which is French, meant the same thing, is American English the use of the French form is consider more respectful to a person of high status.
There is no consensus at what the male spouse would be called. Some have suggested “First Gentleman” (reflecting that “gentleman” like “madam” is traditionally a title for someone higher than average.
No one had a photograph on a tombstone until less than 200 years ago. Goyim often had carved images on tombs but that’s very expensive (i.e. something for royalty) – Jews don’t hold by graven images.
A photograph on a tombstone will fade fairly quickly, and most people won’t tombstones to be fairly permanent. To make it permanent you need to convert it to an engraving which is very expensive and halachially questionable.
Fortunately, the left wing tends to be anti-gun, and in general rejects hard physical work. The election was won largely on a class basis (the Marxists must be delighted). The proletariat revolted and elected someone they can relate to, and the burgeoise can whine and maybe riot, but they are in no position to object. The “wine and cheese” limosine elite might decide to learn something about the rest of society, since in the long run the beer and hot dog eating guys with pickup trucks will outvote them.
The liklihood is that Trump will be able to replace not only Scalia but also Ginsburg and Kennedy and perhaps Breyer as well. This would mean that by 2024 (if Trump gets re-elected, and the Senate stays Republican) the court will tend to be 7-2 for conservatives and originalists. Since the court in recent years has moved away from deciding cases based on precedent, it will be open season for revisiting many of the socially controversial cases.
So far Trump has been reprising his character from “The Apprentice”, with a bit of “Archie Bunker” thrown in for effect – but I suspect he’ll be hiring some writers for “West Wing” now that he is changing roles.
Actually the biggest threat to “destroy” the country is the switch from “free trade” to a high tariff policy, which in fact both major parties have no switched to, as well as many “populist” movements in Europe. In the 1990s both parties favored free trade, and at present only “old fashioned” Republicans and Libertarians do.
Kollel families are likely to qualify for Medicaid. The typical Obamacare policy requires a large upfront cash payment and doesn’t help unless you have a major illness. This means that one is forced to by insurance that one doesn’t use, and probably doesn’t need (remember that many people will become eligible for Medicaid if they become sick enough to lose their incomes).
He will probably expel any illegal aliens with a criminal background. He might start a trade war (though that requires the Congress) – public opinion in many countries is increasingly skeptical of free trade. He will encourage extreme vetting of anyone with ties to Islamic State. He is more likely to try to buy the world rather than withdraw from it (comes naturally to him). He’ll let Israel do whatever it wants, and will only fight overseas if it is in America’s direct interests and supported by allies. — He will appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court and roll back much of the last 40 years of liberal “creep”, and he’ll repeal much of the environmental legislation and especially administrative regulations, and radically change most anything Obama did the last eight years.
1. Obama or Trump will pardon Hillary (or perhaps merely ask the Justice Department to exercise its lawful discretion and leave her alone – there is no legal duty to prosecute under American law).
2. Trump is an actor. He’ll probably stop reprising his role in “The apprentice” and take up basing his character on “West Wing.”
3. Trump will probably work closely with the conservatives who were not overly thrilled with him, whereas the Democrats will increasingly be the part of Sanders and Warren. Remember that Trump is really more of a conservative Democrat (something that no longer exists) but he’ll want to keep the social conservative, the neo-cons, the Tea Party and even the “Country Club” Republicans in line.
The Clintons have been accused (often correctly) of many things, but never of witchcraft. The crime of witchcraft (still a crime in American states where unlike New York, they never repealed “common law crimes” but merely ignore them) is one that she has never been accused of and it is unlikely she would even have the skills to commit.
In the United States, we hire the leaders. We select them. They are our servants. To pray for the welfare of the president and the congress would be analagous to praying for the welfare of your cleaning lady or your driver or your lawn service. It would be similar to Donald Trump praying for the welfare of his employees. This is probably why many American shuls feel uncomfortable with a “prayer for the government”. It is downright “unAmerican.”
In a constitutional monarchy there is no problem. The prayer for the monarch is a prayer for the country. The monarch serve to represent the country.
In a republic, it is a bit trickier. The legal role played by the monarch (theoretically) in a place such as Britain, in America is played by the entire citizenry of the country (which includes us as well as we are citizens). The executive and legislature are mere servants to the people (analagous, using British legal theory, to the role of the parliament and ministers who in Britain are servants of the crown).
Many synagogues have a prayer for the government patterned after one used in Europe, and I suspect written by immigrants who hadn’t yet figured out that in American it is the people who rule the country, and the politicians are just employees hired to serve the people.
Baruch ha-Shem that we live in a country where all the major political parties include frum Jews, and where the survival of the Jewish community is not an issue. There are many countries where there are anti-Jewish parties running. In Eretz Yisrael, there are major parties who are so opposed to frumkeit that their win might trigger mass population movement or at least civil disorder. Not so in American. We have frum Democrats and frum Republicans.
P.S. It would be nice if said parties also nominated good candidates for president, but to expect that much would be greedy. The gemara says we shouldn’t daven for impossible things. We should be happy that at least no one wants to massacre us.
Parve “milk” (typically made from soy or almonds) tends to have less calories then even “Skim milk”.
In English, “Schwartze” is definitely a perjorative. In English, the language of assimilated Jews, “black” is bad. Indeed, the reason words such as “Negro” (which is a latin root) or “colored” were used to refer to African Americans was that “black” was perjorative since it meant “evil.”
In Yiddish, or “yeshivish” it isn’t clear. Yiddish has far fewer words than English, and there are no ways to say “Black” other than “Schvartz”. Any of the Americans eupemisms sound alien and foreign sounding (and some secular Yiddish texts tried to introduce the word “Negro” into Yiddish, without success). Persumably if you are refering to whites as “Veissers” there shouldn’t be problem using “black” in that context.
A perjorative is rude and vulgar. Bnei Torah do not use such language. As they are directed against those created in the image of Ha-Shem, I fail to see why being “Jewish” has anything to do with it.
Accepting government money sooner or later ends up meaning you have to do what the government wants. It is a mistake to support the government in return for money – since sooner or later they will things like family restrictions (the better to reduce carbon emissions) or changes in halacha to accommodate gay rights and feminism (e.g. cutting off tax breaks for “homophobic” institutions, etc.). For a small and politically impotent minority, Libertarianism is the safest derekh.
When was Trump anything else? When was Clinton anything else? They appear to be what they have always been.
if you want honesty, principles, and somewhat not acting like a bully – vote for Johnson.
If diversity is a code work for excluding religious minorities, as it is becoming in “P.C” circles (cf. the recent comments by the head of the Federal Civil Rights Commission), diversity is bad for frum Jews. If American society will increasingly reflect the “P.C.” views, Libertarianism is good since it limits the ability of those in control to persecute us.
Johnson-Weld are good Republicans running as Libertarians, and they are on the ballot in all states.
A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. However, if Johnson pulls ahead of Trump, the dynamics change. Remember Johnson and Weld are former Republican governors with libertarian views on social issues, and conservative views on economics.
Any Republican chosen by the Republican National Committee would lose the support of the “deplorables” (previously referred to as “Reagan Democrats”, i.e. working class whites). None of the Republicans acceptable to the Country Club Republicans would be tolerable to the Trump supporters. To unite all Republican factions would require a socially conservative tea partier who wants to build walls and persecute non-Anglo-Saxons, and there ain’t such a critter.
If a Republican wants someone with traditional small government, pro-capitalism principles, they should support Gary Johnson. However Johnson’s strategy was to carry a few states and hope for a close enough election that it has to be decided by the House of Representatives (first time in almost 200 years) and to win as everyone’s second choice – but a Trump “blow out” prevents that.
Actually Trump and Clinton (or Johnson) would both be quite impeachable since if elected they would not have any “mandate” since they would have won with a shockingly low percentage of the popular vote, and with most of their supporters having preferred someone else to be president. This might encourage them to act more mentchlicht if elected, but probably not.