Curiosity

Jackk what a shill comment to make. Republicans don’t “keep people in debt” – people keep themselves in debt. What the Republicans won’t do is force you to pay off my debt.

@huju, the answer is self evident. if Trump is a movement and not an individual, then the political persecution, disproportionate punishment, and jailing of the people who are at the grass roots of this movement has already begun. Just look at the non-violent trespassers from the January 6th protest still languishing in prison with no charges many months later, while the hundreds of violent BLM looters and arsonists are walking around freely. It should be undesirable for even you to have Trump, the man, personally sit in prison, because the only consequence of such an event will be additional, significant edging towards a civil war, which the Left will surely lose.

People who want to ban guns have faith in the government to not abuse their authority and to protect them from bad actors (who will inevitably possess smuggled guns despite any law written on a piece of paper). People who don’t want to ban guns think the first group of people are ignorant of the rich world history of corruption amongst the ruling class (see unconstitutional blue state covid lockdowns for recent example) and failure of police to save the day (“when seconds count, police are minutes away.” Also, see lazy Uvalde police response.) Freedom has a price that some are too cowardly to pay.

People are dumb.

Voting for Democrats on the federal level is highly antithetical to Torah values.

He brought to light the biggest pandemic in history – millions of undiagnosed cases of the severe mental and spiritual degenerative disease known as Leftism.

As one who has personally observed a few leftists in their natural habitat, I’ve documented two distinct types.

The first, a naturally insulated genotype, whether by circumstance or by result of intentional intellectual self-segregation, exhibiting an infantile insecurity in their own belief system, which manifests as an abrasive and oft hostile xenophobic tendency towards other-minded individuals, is typically atheistic out of pure ignorance of all theism. They do not bother themselves with socially acceptable norms for “morality”, as they have no regard for social acceptance outside of their insular social puddle of amorality.

The second, typically a former centrist, right leaning, or apolitical breed, too distract by their own virtue signaling to focus on morality and reality, do everything in their power to fit in with their newly found leftist circles, lest they be perceived as a centrist/right leaning thinker and be cannibalized by their new peers. Driven by a bitter resentment towards anything associated with their former philosophical belief system, they self-ostracized from their prior social circles either fully or partially (the reason for their partial withdrawal typically being due to a subconscious nagging guilt, or to not lose their financial dependence on said prior social circle). Despite having no logical connection to the cause of the trauma inflicted within the prior circle, any philosophical agreement is a painful association, in a PTSD sort of manifestation, and must be dissociated from fully. This breed is concerned with morals, but is willing to live with the cognitive dissonance to support their self-ostracization, viewing it as a justifiable means to an end. Traditional definitions of right and wrong and morality at large are not viewed with the widely accepted centrality-to-life, but as an auxiliary factor that must be sacrificed for the subject’s own mental health, as they are simply doing what they can to survive their own past emotional trauma.

It is standard for both of these categories to lash out at anyone seeking to define them as unoriginal or fitting into a mold, despite them being unoriginal, and fitting into a mold better than a bunt pan pound cake, sans frosting. It is also expected for them to refuse all logical arguments regarding theism and to lash out emotionally when confronted with logic. Somehow they self define as spiritual but not religious, and not believing in any known God, despite not typically spending any serious amount of time studying Theology with any serious level of breadth and depth. They take their lattes with soy, and pumps of various chemically processed foreign flavoring agents.

Don’t confuse systemic and systematic. It is blatantly clear that there are no systematically racist policies against black. If anything, policies lean against whites (racial quotas, affirmative action, etc.). Systemic racism in policing is debatable, but all the statistics show no evidence of this. Anecdotes are for making a sale, not for drafting a policy.

It should be abundantly clear that only feelings matter. If that weren’t true, looting of innocent people wouldn’t be condoned, there would be no senseless calls to abolish police departments, #BLM would focus on black-on-black violence which accounts for the vast majority of violence-related deaths in the black community, and people would stop pretending that a drug addicted violent criminal is some sort of saint to be idolized.

The Jewish school administrators and staff have to understand that it’s not just their institutions that are suffering – many of the parents and benefactors who used to pay them tuition and donations have also lost their jobs or huge percentages of their finances. It’s sad that this has happened, but private schools are not entitled to money for services not granted just like the parents are not entitled to salaries from the employers that furloughed them. Why shouldn’t teachers and administrators file for unemployment just like everyone else? They should offer refunds to families who request them, as those families also have to put food on the table.

There is no such thing an anti-vax child. Only anti-vax parents.

If your unwashed finger touches a boiling hot soup before you eat it, is it kosher? If a human tongue touches your boiling hot soup before you eat it, is it kosher?

The Catholic pope is viewed as a liberal.

Many liberal ideals (toeiva “marriage”, abortion, etc…) run against halacha. If you believe these ideals are valid and good despite being against halacha then you are kofer against the Torah, against Chazal, and against the omniscience of God to be the arbiter of what is truly valid and good. Being a kofer is against halacha – thus being a liberal, as defined colloquially, is against halacha.

DY. The idea is that schools give out vouchers to school employees for things like food, clothing, gas, etc that are paid for with whatever tuition money is gathered. Then the school employee takes that voucher to do their shopping at the jewish owned venue. The Jewish owned vendor then gives heavy discounts to these school employees when they pay with a voucher.

So, for example, a voucher “worth” $2.00 costs the school $1.50. The teacher takes the $2.00 voucher to Pomegranate and buys a $2 loaf of bread that costs Pomegranate $1.00. So: Pomegranate makes a $0.50 profit (from the $1.50 actual value of the voucher minus their $1.00 cost), but makes it up in volume from all the school employees who now have to shop there. The teachers are paid in cash-value instead of cash for things they will otherwise spend cash on anyway. And the schools can lower tuition costs because they can save on employee overhead. It’s a win-win-win. Except the minor inconvenience of teachers having to get paid in vouchers instead of cash. But if you make it in the form of a flexible spending card, instead of paper vouchers it would be more secure and less inconvenient. You could also make it only part of their payment instead of all of it, because having cash is important for things like mortgages which cant be paid by card. You could also let teachers control how much they get paid in vouchers and create an incentive by inflating the fictional worth of the voucher to $2.10 instead of $2. Even though it’s actually only worth $1.50 in real money, but that would be dependent on negotiation between the vendors and the schools…

Ubiq, come back and talk to us about your virtue-signaling, righteous high-horse, brain-dead liberal mishugas once masked thugs kick your door in at 3AM with your wife and
young kids at home. Until then, you’re entitled to wear whatever rose-colored glasses you want, but just realize that to those of us who understand the need for gun ownership, the opinion you preach from that omniscient throne of yours is complacent, brainless, and outright dangerous. Please leave my right for self perseveration alone. Thank you.

Ubiq., please show me where I said guns should not be well regulated? This is your assertion which you slyly attribute to me – not my opinion…. Dishonest debate tactic #1.

Calling an argument a “talking point” without directly addressing its content is dishonest debate tactic #2.

Linking someone’s original opinions to a famous figure who may not be viewed as a fair, unbiased person by others (Hannity) is dishonest tactic #3. I do not listen to his show.

Regardless of how much you think you know about me or my position, you clearly know very little, since you have to rely on manipulative tactics and baseless assertions to get your viewpoint across. This is why debating with you is highly unpleasant.

Ubiq – You totally missed the point of the explosives conversation. Your 1st question is irrelevant to my conversation with M.

Also, M was talking about legalizing already illegal recreational drugs, not about pharmaceuticals. You missed the point there, too. Before you pluck half a sentence of what I wrote out of context and start attacking me for “dodging,” please try to follow the logic of the conversation.

Let me try to connect the dots for you:
Step #1) It is already illegal to be in possession of a firearm during a crime, to smuggle guns across the border, to carry guns in certain locations, and for felons to purchase guns. Making ownership of guns illegal for everyone doesn’t take guns out of the hands of people who already illegally own and traffic them, but it will prevent law-abiding citizens from owning them and using them for legal uses such as self-defense, hunting, sport, and security.

Step #2) Many potentially harmful drugs are currently illegal to own for anyone other than medical entities. Making them legal means anyone can now buy cocaine and meth at his/her local Wal-Mart. Yes, those who deal drugs illegally will do so despite the current law, but the law-abiding part of society who isn’t currently interested or addicted to drugs would be severely harmed by having free access to legal temptations which can destroy lives. There is no benefit to society since there is no productive use for these things OUTSIDE of the medical realm, in which it is already legal. Therefore, this is a poor comparison to guns.

M – to answer your question, I personally believe there are auxiliary psychosocial issues in American culture not directly related to firearms which contribute towards a culture that tends towards violence. This includes things like substance abuse, fatherlessness, and the glorification of gratuitous violence. I think if you study the trends of these factors you will find a correlation with violence. If you curb these trends you will also curb all forms of violence, including violence involving guns.

I don’t think an obligatory psychological evaluation for firearm purchases will prevent gun violence. This is because in order to prevent an individual psychologist from violating the rights of others, the test will have to be standardized and not subjective. Once it’s standardized, people can just learn to answer the questions correctly. Also, psychologists aren’t mind readers.

One thing you might find interesting is that license-to-carry holders in Texas are extremely less likely to commit a violent crime than those who are not licensed, and psychological evaluations are not a prerequisite for licensure here.

Luna.. You do realize that “larger guns” and “smaller guns” legally available to the public both shoot at the exact same rate right? No offense to you, but it’s hilarious how people with admittedly zero knowledge of firearms think they can and should provide an opinion on which firearms should and shouldn’t be legal.

Not only will they wash all your dishes, they’ll also be dropping off all the food at your house on Friday afternoon. You don’t even need to prepare!

Ubiquitin,
Your response is nonsensical.
“But that isnt what the op replied , he doubled down.”

No. Actually the OP wrote:

“Democrats might *claim* that they support Israel’s right to exist, but…”

“The democrat *rhetoric* is not that. That is not the real position …”

“If they wanted affordable housing, they wouldn’t punish us with high property taxes…”

Everything the that the OP wrote indicated that he/she was specifically addressing the anti-Torah values of the Dem’s verbal rhetoric, political action, and de facto policy, not their written platform. Your argument that they *claim* to support our causes in their written platform, even though they clearly and persistently act against our interests actually counts against them because not only do they actively vote for policies antithetical to the Torah, but they also publicly lie about.

Hannity is a shill. Please don’t assert that I can’t form my own opinion.