Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
As usual people who misrepresent the truth in favor of their own agendas spend way too much time posting nonsense.
1. Dr. Malone did not invent the mRNA Vaccine. He may have been involved 30 or 40 years ago with some early research into mRNA and posited it could be made into a vaccine, but he did not solve the key steps necessary to make it into a vaccine. This is simply factual information that is undisputed. That his wife says he invented the vaccine does not make it true.
2. I saw some earlier comments you made about abiogenesis and DNA coming from RNA. Regardless of religious philosophy about evolution, if we assume this is true, so what? Are you suggesting a process that took place under a very unique set of circumstances over whatever number of years now determines how the body works? Do fish get out of the water in your world on a regular basis and start walking? Do Apes start talking? You are literally drawing connections and spreading FUD based on the most obtuse points.
3. As to concern about an mRNA vaccine… Does not COVID inject mRNA into the body and similarly affect every cell that is responsive to that mRNA? While there should be concerns and checks to validate the safety of these vaccines, logically the vaccine here cannot be worse than getting COVID. It actually should be better because rather than a virus spreading through the body, you just have some mRNA that quickly falls apart and become ineffective. If you concern is about some odd contention about mRNA modifying DNA, well would seem that you have the same concern to a larger extent with COVID.
4. I am frankly astounded how quick you and others are to discard the opinions of the people who are actually experts in this field and instead you go seek out the few doctors who speak against this. As to Rabbonim saying not to vaccinate, seems whomever would say that is going against normative Halacha as has been expressed by numerous Rabbonim in the past. Perhaps it is a lack of Yeras Shmayim and perhaps apirkorsus on the part of those saying not to vaccinate. It is actually kind of interesting that people who never would stray one iota from a psak of R’ Elyashiv or R’ Kanievesky suddenly are so cavalier when it comes to this vaccine. Where is the Yeras Shmayim? Beyond this, the Motzei Shem Ra on the numerous Doctors, including many Jewish ones, that you are committing when you say they can’t be trusted might be hard for you to answer one day.
5. For those who heard stories or this or that, understand that you have to be very careful how and where you get info from. Stories where people have negative experiences after the vaccine get all the attention and you don’t see the info in context. This is why you need to do proper studies so you can understand the data. Also, an individual experience with a specific medical thing or other where your doctor got it wrong, is far away from a vaccine with numerous doctors and researchers studying it and vouching for its safety. Even your Messiah, Donald Trump, said take the vaccine. I wonder which is it. If he is great and he is saying take the vaccine then the vaccine cannot be so bad, because if it was bad, then Donald Trump by pushing the vaccine is a pretty evil guy (hey, he even claims responsibility for the vaccine… hmmm… who would have thought it was Trump trying to control you and not the Democrats or Big Pharma).
Frankly, doubt any of this will change anyone’s mind so probably a waste of time posting. I am sure Philosopher and some others will have a bunch of nonsensical points to respond with. Not really interested in the debate though, so apologize in advance if I don’t respond. Probably will not look at this thread again as it is simply embarrassing the nonsense being spouted here.
Some comments are just asking for a response. Don’t want to call it hypocrisy, but sure seems that way…
“so here’s the thing, I don’t like arguing on the internet or in real life. I was just giving my personal view of the situation, saying that it has come from gleaning facts I can evaluate myself without collecting random opinions. And that it left me wondering why anyone who is running an honest show wants to refuse an audit. Or wants to wipe their cell phones. Or wants to resist fact finding on things they swear are “kosher” but won’t allow anyone to evaluate. It is suspect. If they are so clean then prove it. And I believe that the resistance makes me personally more suspicious than the facts may have done.”
First of all, doubt your ability to determine what facts are. A few minutes perusing your old comments… #1812827 you claim that it is an undisputed fact that Clinton, Obama, and Biden broke laws to interfere with Trump’s campaign (first one). Yet, we all know, the Justice Department under Trump and his henchman Billy Barr, the Republican Congress never found such a finding. So you have an undisputed “fact” that Trump’s own Justice Department and the Republicans never found. Guess you must be privy to some facts that the rest of us are not.
Well, why would I bring up this undisputed fact of yours, because clearly it shows that despite something not being an undisputed fact you concluded it was an undisputed fact. When we talk about audits and exonerating yourself, you suggest that Democrats should support audits conducted by partisan Republicans run by companies that are headed by avid pro-Trumpers and you think that will somehow show the truth. Fascinating the duplicity here. You, yourself, have formed flawed conclusions and have called them undisputed facts despite lacking facts, so when you suggest that a partisan audit would come to an objective result, frankly I assume much like you, they will come to a preconceived conclusion regardless of the facts or lack of them.
Frankly, the opposition to the audits is because the audits are a sham and being conducted unethically and improperly. They can’t form objective opinions because they are 100% the product of extreme bias.
Actually, while I believe flawed in that case, this was your argument in comment #1808280 when you criticized the first impeachment of Trump as being all part of a cabal that had pre-conceived notions. In your own words, “When you lack yashrus, nothing you say is worth listening to.” I guess suddenly now lacking yashrus when you are a conspiracy minded person who supports Trump, somehow makes you worth listening to. My how your deep-seated beliefs and opinions have sure seemed to have changed.
Naturally your inclination will be to respond by calling me a stalker. The thing is some of the other folks here are extremely shallow and clearly off the wall. Debating with them is pointless as everyone can see who and what they are. You though, you try so hard to come across as objective and as someone who sees the bigger picture and has considered an event from many angles, but ultimately I find you twist things to suit your agenda. That is why I choose to sometimes respond to your comments and not others.
Btw, if you do not like arguing, not sure why you would post in this pathetic and ridiculous thread.
If you did not have the virus, then no-brainer take the vaccine.
If you have antibodies but did not have symptoms of the virus take the vaccine because you might have had a false positive.
If you had symptoms and a positive COVID test and have antibodies, then probably a good idea to get the vaccine still, however not sure if necessary. Basically, I think, it is much more known how effective the vaccine is at preventing infection or reinfection than having had COVID.
The risks from the vaccine are so minimal that it should not really be a concern. Put it this way, it seems, the odds of getting COVID again and getting it bad are much higher than the risks associated with getting a vaccine.
Israel has a modern army yet Hamas still attacks.
Not saying not to have guns, but don’t assume it will solve the problems.
Well said jackk.
For all I have listened here about “cancel culture” seems anyone who disagrees with Trump’s alternative view of reality is being cancelled as quick as possible by Republicans.
AAQ – I don’t know if we can define basic principles to the extent you would like that we can all agree on. The constitution is in a sense the basic principles of how our government operates and there is a major divide on how it should be construed or whether it should be changed in various ways.
I am not going to debate all the principles you laid out for the sake of brevity, but suffice it to say I see numerous issues with those four ideas that I would never want to see them set down as basic principles.
How about just the last one, such as solving problems of higher priority first… If you think about it this principle is how we tend to all think in the first place, but in practical terms it does nothing to solve what is a more important issue. If I think climate change is one of the most critical issues, then perhaps I would suggest we prioritize that over commies. The principle does not itself answer what is higher priority and as a result is of little practical value.
How about the third one… when government gets involved we try not to destroy free enterprise. I think everyone pretty much agrees with this and does not want to hurt business. That said, if I view climate change as a serious concern and you don’t, it will impact how we view environmental regulations relating to that that impact business. The principle again does not tell us how we value the underlying issues that drive policy.
I am not sure this requires debate as I don’t think you are actually arguing for generic principles (at least with these two points… I think extends to the other points as well). Rather you seem to be arguing for certain ideas that you think are important over what others think (e.g. that dealing/competition with China is more critical then Climate Change. Or preservation concerns should essentially be taken off the table), which is unlikely there will ever be agreement on.
Asag – flat tax on what?
Flat tax on wealth? So people like Jeff Bezos would have to sell X percent of their stock every year, thereby driving down the value of assets? Is there an exemption for the first X amount of wealth you have? Also, what are the standards for valuation? Do partnership interests get discounts? Apparently Donald Trump for various tax needs used one set of valuations and for borrowing needs used others.
Do you mean a flat tax on income? How is income defined? Can you deduct depreciation? If the value of property increases then why allow a deduction for depreciation? What about charity? Should that be deducted? How about income earned overseas? Also what about corporate income and dividends? Should both corporate income and dividends be taxed? What about contributions to tax deferred accounts? Also is any income exempted from tax? Do we allow deductions for State and Local Taxes, what about sales taxes on purchases? Do we allow people to deduct lavish business meals or stadium tickets? I mean when you get down to it, I can call a tax a flat tax and make it as regressive or progressive as I like via all sorts of shenanigans.
This reiterates my point that people reduce complex topics down to very simplistic black and white things. A flat tax in theory might sound fair to some or might sound easy, but in reality once you get past the words flat tax, it gets complicated.
As an aside, as to fairness… Is it fair for the Fed to have kept interest rates so low, which has helped propel real estate and various other assets to higher values benefitting the wealthy? Not looking for an answer as that question is rhetorical (many would argue the Fed’s actions have been necessary… but if the standard is necessary then why focus on idealistic concepts of fairness when it comes to tax), but rather just trying to show the question of fairness can be looked at in many different ways and I think anyone suggesting there is a clear answer as to what is fair, is being a bit daft.
AlyKar – Thanks for the kind words… Honestly, not sure why I post here sometimes. I guess I hope to generate some thoughtful debate, but most would rather just reduce complex issues to very black and white positions and not think beyond that.
It is an irrelevant question, because paying down the full debt would probably create an economic collapse. This is a very complex issue. I think the best approach would be to limit the expansion of the debt so that Nominal GDP can grow relative to it, which may help avoid the disruptive nature of paying back substantial debt or having the debt spiral out of control, but in order to limit the growth of the debt, without destroying demand in this country, I think you need much of the money to come from those who are net savers (i.e. the wealthy). You would also want some inflation to boost nominal GDP but you need interest rates low, which creates other issues, so really a very complex issue.
Bottom line, I see the end goal as ensuring the smooth continuation of this country and avoiding the risks to property and life that come with a major economic collapse. If it means taxing the rich some more, then so be it. The idealistic arguments about entitlement to wealth are irrelevant if the result of that is massive disruption to society that risks your very lives.
“The real lesson to be taken from Trumps loss is where this country is heading. We are watching the degradation of morality, honesty and what American society stood for.”
I read this and had to laugh. How lost you must be to equate those qualities with Trump.
bk613 – I would love for you to show me the economic studies that show that the stock market correlates with tax rates. The info is out there easy enough for anyone who wants to make the effort to find it. Seriously, it is not hard. You know what it shows, stocks don’t really care what the tax rate is. I could explain the math of why this is, but probably above the education level here.
Regarding taxing the rich, nevermind my prior comment for a moment, the fundamental economic issue we have in this country is the level of debt is perhaps way too high. That means that we did not direct tax enough before and it needs to be caught up. The total household wealth in the US is about 100 trillion, of which about 70% is owned by the top 10%. The simple reality of this disparity is that if you take away from the 30% of wealth in this country owned by the other 90%, you will taking away money that many desperately need (i.e. you would be kicking them out of their houses). On the other hand asking the wealthy to return some of that wealth to reduce the debt, would still have them plenty wealthy.
Or I guess, you can dump this debt on the backs of the working poor and tax them higher from the little they make in the future to pay back this debt.
I know the wealthy do everything for everyone and we should not tax them a dime, but the reality is that wealthy have been able to accumulate an increasing amount of wealth and the rest have been relatively getting poorer. They just don’t have the money to pay the needed taxes to reduce the debt. I guess we can ask the working poor to live simpler, because apparently if they have an iPhone they must be on the same level as a multi-millionaire who has multiple homes and takes fabulous vacations and lives a lavish lifestyle in general.
Whatever, this forum is never interested in discussing ideas, rather it is mainly faux conservatives who want to rant about how the democrats are ruining everything. I am just the messenger pointing out that if action is not taken to reduce the government debt, which I believe, if done via tax, necessarily must come from the pockets of the wealthy, eventually you risk finding yourself in a collapsed society (it is math and the equation each year has been getting worse… you don’t have to like it but it is not difficult to pull up numbers on debt to nominal GDP by year, or perhaps more relevant, debt to tax collections per year. The numbers are what they are and imagining this can go on forever without explaining how, is frankly insane). Let me know how much out grandparents wealth in Europe was worth when the Nazis came to town.
You know what, since all your republiCONs are such stand up people who believe in unity, how about next time there is a Republican in office, they compromise where they don’t need to, because you believe in unity. And if you don’t believe in such unity, then frankly, don’t lecture anyone about what Biden should or should not be doing for this unity which you despise. I remember the prior four years and the derision with which many of you talked to those of us who disagreed with Trump and the scorched earth tactics in opposing Democrats you cheered on. You don’t get to define what unity is now. Your side instigated an attack on the Capitol and resulted in more deaths then Benghazi, don’t forget that. And yet, despite the despicable actions so many republiCONs engaged in, Joe Biden at least makes an effort to reach out and treat them with respect. I also did not forget McConnell’s scorched earth tactics during Obama’s admin where he tried to do all he could to prevent Obama from accomplishing anything. Biden, has signed far less EO’s then Trump, he did not go and try to upend the whole government to suit his ego and show the other side.
Whatever, continue your pathetic discussion about Biden and unity. The side most divisive in recent history has been the Republican side, not the Democrat side. Maybe it is the result of long-term demographic trends not favoring Republicans which drives them to keep power by whatever means necessary, even if it means an insurrection.
tvp – there are always so many fake claims… one gets debunked a new one pops up, this is why you can’t argue with conspiracy theorists. There is simply no end to what they come up with to explain anything they want.
No worries… Real estate has gone up making many of those rich, rich, due to government policies over the last 20 years (you think real estate prices went up due to people being smart? It went up due to the Fed pushing down the yield curves and pumping liquidity into banks… in other words many of the wealthy people you know, got wealthy off Uncle Sam, not their hard work or ingenuity). Those people that benefitted extraordinarily so from policies that resulted in inflation of such assets now need to pay some of that back in so the Federal balance sheet can be balanced before we have a collapse and loss of confidence in the US dollars.
I mean the alternative can be a modern version of the financial collapse in Germany in the years between WWI and WWII… Do you really want to go there? Is some idealistic nonsense about how tis is Marxism or having the rich pay for the poor a reason to ignore the issues and let our economy head towards an unprecedented disaster (fyi, Gov’t debt is at its highest level ever. The Fed is meanwhile keeping yields down, but if inflation goes up, there are limits on what the Fed can do and you start running a risk where monetary policies don’t work).
What does changing some policies have to do with not wanting unity? Are you seriously suggesting that Joe Biden should not do what he was elected to do? At least he does not spend all day tweeting divisive comments… maybe something like treating your opponents with respect is what unity is. Allowing your opponents to have their way, is just dereliction of duty, not unity. Seriously, could you imagine a Rebbe calling for Achdus and then some kid getting up and demanding that he will get along with everyone if he is given $10,000? You would tell that kid to sit down and you are not getting what you want. Would that mean you are now not wanting unity? Seriously, the dialogue and language of the RepubliCONS has regressed to an embarrassing imbecilic level.
The allegations make no sense (as this was not a secret at the time such a conversation would have been had, unless you have info that this conversation took place far before it was public knowledge) and seems at most Zarif is repeating what the Israel Finance Minister Israel Katz said and either confusing it with Kerry or that comment had come up in a conversation with Kerry. To suggest that Kerry somehow leaked classified info would actually require something more then this. Not sure what needs defending here.
In any case, if you are saying Kerry should be removed over a pathetically weak allegation then clearly you are of the opinion that Trump should have been impeached and convicted over his giving over info to the Russians about Israel in a major breach.
Frankly, this is a witch hunt and the Republicans should be ashamed for their despicable attempts to promote lies and smear people. Not unsurprising as this is what they always do.
tvp – sorry for your confusion. This topic was started not with a discussion of policies but rather a list of broad insults.
The first one, “They release criminals into the street.” (Well the first one is the title of the conversation thread)
Is this a democratic policy? Is this a republican policy? It is just lazy and insulting. Now you want a list of policies that Democrats support that Republicans oppose that I think align with Torah values, frankly I see no need or reason to provide you with such a list.
In any case the topic is the Democrats are not right on any issues. It is a ridiculous statement that is not worthy of substantive debate.
Health – so when Beis Din rules not following strict halacha because the outcome would not be just, what do you suggest that says about halacha (the Gemaara and Shulchan Aruch both admonish not to apply strict din in Beis Din, rather to use Pesharah). Or perhaps, your idea of the intercession of halacha and ethics is formed in ignorance.
MadeAliyah – I did not suggest that. Rather I am suggesting the topic of this conversation thread is ridiculous and the very premise made is so obscure as to make the whole thing meaningless. Reality is very complex and not nearly as black and white as some make it out to be. A substantive debate of these issues can be had without the ridiculous hyperbole.
Further, I would suggest identifying as a conservative or liberal or democrat or republican in strong terms is what is against the Torah. Meaning, as a Jew your ethics should be formed based on what the Torah teaches you, not your political ideology. What I find increasingly is many Jews form their positions based on Republican thought and then try to interpret the Torah to support that position. Myself, I don’t need the positions of the Democrats or the Republicans to align with the Torah as I don’t see it my obligation to ensure non-Jews live according to the Torah (that is their obligation to follow Noahide law, not mine to impose it on them). I just see my role in politics to be Darchei Shalom, meaning that I will vote and push for policies that I think will help ensure our continued freedom and peace.
Health – regarding money and dina dmaclchus, all I can say is, wow…
Somehow strict halacha in your view takes precedence over ethics. I guess ignoring the admonitions of the prophets (the Jewish ones) is pro the Torah. Even Beis Din when ruling on cases where strict halacha will result in injustice can rule otherwise.
Maybe we need to debate exactly what the Torah is and what it wants from us, because based on your statement supporting such injustice as being in-line with the Torah, I really don’t think you have any clue what the Torah wants from you or anyone. Maybe start with the famous statement of Hillel as that should help clue you in.
It is funny how inconsistent and incoherent the responses to my comment are.
Someone posted a statement from R’ Miller in 1980 where R’ Miller suggested that electing Democrats to the Presidency would result in an increase in murder. I posted statistics showing that the opposite happened. R’ Miller is not here to respond or expound on this further so I prefer to leave him out of this, but the statistics on murder are what they are. The person did not post a statement regarding the mayor so I did not feel a need to go there and to examine it at that level. That said, I did note, that across the US, during the Clinton years murder declined substantially. So based on that there seems to be a correlation between a liberal in office and less murders, not the opposite as was suggested.
Oh, btw, funny thing about Giuliani for those who want to go there… during his time as mayor he was very supportive of gay causes. He lived with a gay couple for a period of time as well as he marched proudly in their parade. Oh, what else… He supports (or at least supported back then) abortion rights. Based on comments here, support for abortion and gay rights are apparently the two fundamental tenets of liberalism and apparently they lead to more murder and the end of the world, yet again we find, that Giuliani, a liberal (apparently), saw the murder rate go down during his mayoral term.
Well hope you like the contradictions you have created and how twisted your reasoning really is.
It would be nice if at least I can excuse your ignorance of these matters because you are obviously spending the effort to spend your day learning Torah, but somehow I doubt that. Instead you sound like intellects molded by the likes of Hannity, Tucker, and Trump.
tvp – maybe next time offer actual substantive arguments that you wish to debate rather then hurling broad insults and demanding that I or someone else refute them. Nothing sly about it. Just have no interest in getting into a substantive argument with people who just want to find reason to offer insult in turn.
And yet most of the justices that voted to allow abortion in Roe V Wade were nominated by Eisenhower and Nixon, both Republicans.
And as to actual number of abortions performed in the US, since 1980 it has been in decline with probably the biggest decline during Clinton years and then the Obama years.
Once again, it is under Democrats that things like murder and abortion decline, things as you note like R’ Moshe wrote are straight out murder.
david rosenbaum – what a long essay you published there. R’ Miller is not around to explain or expound on what he said, but since you quoted him I guess you can help explain this…
“They’re living married lives, and they are controlling themselves; otherwise there’d be mayhem, there’d be murder on all sides.”
So here are some statistics regarding murders in NYC from the FBI…
Ronald Reagan was President from 1981-1989 in that time, murders in NYC went from 2,228 in 1980 to 2,246 in 1989.
George HW Bush was president from 1989-1993 which during that time murders reached their high of 2,605 in 1990 and in 1993 was at 2,420.
Bill Clinton was president from 1993-2001 which saw in 2001 the murders decline to 960.
George W Bush was president from 2001-2009 which saw murders decline to 781.
Obama was 2009-2017, which saw murders reach their all time low of 550.
Interesting don’t you think, that under Regan and Bush Sr, murders did not decline. Even under Bush Jr. murders only declined 18%. On the other hand under Clinton they declined 60% and under Obama they declined 29%.
Like I said before, this debate is an embarrassment. If anything, the above would illustrate that liberal policies, at least at the national level, apparently result in less murder and mayhem an outcome that seems more aligned with the Torah then the relatively high level of murders that take place under Republicans.
If you prefer to get more specific with the data, the only President under which there was a substantial decline in the murder rate across the country was Bill Clinton. For the rest overall it remained pretty flat.
tvp – I am sorry, I must have missed the policies listed that Democrats have that don’t align with the Torah. I just saw some nonsensical statements, not policies.
I see no reason to make the effort to offer an exhaustive essay on Democrat values, policies, or whatever it is you seek, when nonsense has only been offered in return. I am actually pretty certain, I can write a 30 page paper on the topic and you would find one minor point to criticize and based on that you would call me a hypocrite and say you proved your point.
So, no. I will not take your bait. Suffice it to say, Democrats are much more right on the issues then Republicans.
coffee addict – what exactly am I providing a counter-argument to? There was no coherent argument presented to support the title of the comment thread. I guess, if you need a counter-argument, “they” (whomever they are… as if Democrats are of a single mind) overall align with the values of the Torah better then the other side. I think that should meet the intellectual standards of this comment thread.
Do you have a better argument then that?
Well I guess the Republican party supported Trump, a billionaire, who stiffed many a worker under the guise of bankruptcy laws, directly keneged Halacha. Actually, very severe halacha the GOP and many of you apparently celebrated him violating.
So lets quit with the who is against the Torah.
These nonsensical debates here are an embarrassment.
Did not seem like “slight” exaggeration if you want to term it that way, rather it seemed like “major, over the top” exaggeration to me.
But I guess, you and lakewhut, get free pass to term things as you like including defining what is an issue. This is not debate, this is simply a bunch of immature grade schoolers yelling and somehow imagining that makes their take on things seem intelligent.
The problem with hyperbole is you sound ridiculous. I can just point to S.3370 introduced in the 110th congress and sponsored by Joe Biden which passed the Senate with unanimous consent. I guess either liberals are wrong about everything, which means republicans must have been wrong to, or liberals are not wrong about everything.
As to your specific points, more hyperbole. You take things that are in many cases complex and paint them in the most limited black and white terms as if that somehow makes your point more valid. I guess if running for political office you would win the debate, but in terms of intelligent thought out policy, such an approach is perhaps suitable for a backwards tribe of cavemen who never developed much ability for coherent thought.
No idea what this new thread is about, but seems the person starting it is implying that whatever it is Republican’s support is all Torah true stuff. Guess, you don’t need Yeshiva to learn the Torah, you can just go to the GOP convention and get everything you need there.
“These are the eight levels of controls to transform a nation through socialism into communism.”
Wow! Where did you get this list from? Can you provide real-world examples of societies that adopted communism showing that these eight levels of control were how it was done.
Truly fascinating stuff. I would be much more curious why someone would post this nonsense in the first place (e.g. I would guess someone susceptible to propaganda of this sort would get worked up over something like this and feel a need to share it with everyone) than wasting time actually analyzing this pointless list.
Based on the comments in the Coffee Room, not only are there aliens, but they live among us.
Case closed.
Wow, tvp, some doubletalk there.
No less than Bill Barr said they lacked any sufficient evidence to make such claims. Lindsey Graham, an ardent supporter of Trump, said the claims of election fraud were nuts and nothing he can say will make you change your mind. But yeah, I guess ignoring them and numerous other staunch conservatives, including many judges (some nominated by Trump… “our judges”) who found these claims ludicrous and focusing on liberals who also found them ridiculous somehow makes your point more compelling.
Like Graham eloquently said, there is no convincing you. Maybe a sizeable penalty on Powell for her lies that helped lead to violence and death, is the best we can hope for here as there is apparently no redemption from the depth of lies you have dug yourself into.
It is shameful and disturbing that people who claim to search for truth would go on supporting these lies yet still. Fortunately, most yidden I know, even the many that loved Trump, recognize that these claims of fraud are ridiculous.
dusk – You can have affidavits from today till tomorrow, does not mean you can rely on them. Her affidavits were tossed out of court, which I suspect means they were worthless.
In any case, kind of surprising how anyone can be supportive of Powell here. She clearly lied outright about her ridiculous claims and should be held accountable for that. Or is lying, and mind you, people believing these outrageous lies engaged in an insurrection and people died (more people then died as a result of Benghazi), something you are fine with? These were not harmless lies, they were lies that led to violence and death.
Alas, what am I to expect from people who support lies in the name of politics regardless the consequences, so long as it comes from their side. The hypocrisy here is heartbreaking. I sure hope those supporting these vile lies are not, say, teachers of our precious children.
So Powell said no reasonable person would believe her lies.
Guess who believed here lies… Donald Trump.
So Sidney Powell said Donald Trump is not a reasonable person.
If you disagree with that then Sidney Powell just committed perjury and would an attorney of her stature commit perjury? Therefore she must mean seriously that Trump is not reasonable.
So we had a few issues and BH we were able to compromise!
1. When I first got married, I used to cut my nails kind of triangular. My wife was adamant she liked them to be straight. After some expensive therapy we agreed to compromise where I cut them with a slight arch (halfway between triangular and straight). On a positive note, I stopped scratching myself when blowing my nose!
2. I always liked eating outside for a few days in the late fall. My wife always found it too cold. Again after much therapy, we agreed to build a hut for that week and we all eat together there. Apparently, this shalom bayis issue and solution must be pretty prevalent as I see my neighbors do the same.
Anyways, thanks for asking about personal details of people’s life. I hope this is all very helpful to you!
tvp – Not getting into any debate on climate change or matters that some may be concerned that touch on kefirah. The science is, what the science is. As to Gedolim, for one that spends as much effort as you posting stuff here, I question what your adherence to whichever gedolim you prefer is. Seems more like a term you are throwing around to support your argument then anything you internalize.
AAQ – green nuclear energy sounds great, but last time I did some research on the topic, I recall coming away that there are many practical challenges with it. The rosy picture that adherents of it present is a bit too optimistic. For the short-term, windmills and solar is probably the best we can do.
I don’t know what the whole debate here is about, but it is very clear you should vote Democrat. As the Republican party refuses to deal with climate change they are allowing the world hashem gave us to be destroyed. Debating capitalistic versus socialist policies (never met anyone coherent that supported any absolute here) or other issues, is really silly if all we are worried about is the next few years. The next generation will have to deal with the worst crisis in history and it will inevitably bring much pain and suffering, unless we take steps now to mitigate it.
So yeah, debate what you want, but if you simply whitewash climate change, you are ignorant. How can I debate you, when you have trouble recognizing reality? I can get into details of Climate Change if you wanted to debate it, but the mod would probably prefer not and would likely block my comments as the science of it touches on some very touchy matters.
So, here, you have one single overriding reason why you should vote Democrat. I don’t think there is anything to debate as you will simply deny climate change, which makes this critical issue in your eyes a non-issue.
But when your political views cross over into your personal relationships and make you a toxic individual to work with then you are being fired for being unpleasant, not because you made Trump your Avoda Zara.
“According to our rav open orthodox are the malshinim that you have in mind in shmonei esrei.”
Your Rav seems very informed about Open Orthodoxy. Interesting. I doubt my Rav know anything more about Open Orthodoxy then something about female rabbis. Probably why I prefer my Rav. I guess there are some that prefer their Rabbi putting down others so they can feel holier than thou.
tvp – so trying to destroy the life of anyone who does not follow your version of Trumpian politics is not cancel culture but causing random citizens who rant about fake election fraud claims, engage in insurrection, and are all around unpleasant people to be around to lose their jobs (probably because they are not fit to be around non-Trumpists due to the instability) is cancel culture?
Just making sure we have it straight.
I take it you are a supporter of Open Orthodoxy. Sorry for my lack of knowledge about them offending you.
ujm – After reading comments in the CR for a while, I have come to a conclusion that whatever you say the opposite is almost certainly correct. So based on your comments, I have to assume YCT and OO are in-fact not apikorsum and you cannot mock them.
Smerel, who is screaming? You seem to be very worked up over this. Maybe the criticism hits too close to home for you.
So MadeAliyah & PaperBrigade
When you say talking about a vile, violent insurrectionist at the capital is talking about Trump, are you suggesting Trump is responsible for their behavior? Thanks for acknowledging this. Btw, Trump is responsible for more deaths then Benghazi. By the Republicans own standards, this is definitely grounds for extensive investigations.
I know very little about Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, but just the hatefulness espoused here makes me want to donate to them as they must be doing something right to have you so upset.
When I saw the statue of Trump it reminded me very well of the egel. I am sure back then many fine yidden wished that those opposed to the egel also would be silent.
Well said Reb E.
For the person whose screen name has something to do with wisdom and silence maybe they should take that to heart. I just find it so hypocritical (guess if people complain about something must be right… in her own words).
Given 7 Senators voted to convict Trump and there were additional Senators (e.g. McConnell) that voted not to convict on a technicality but still said that Trump was responsible, it is pretty clear this impeachment was on pretty solid grounds. Had it not been for the fear of losing in primaries, it is almost certain Trump would have been convicted. In other words, the GOP is a bunch of cowards with no principles here.
Extrapolating anything about this impeachment to Harris is simply ridiculous. Lindsey Graham is a joke. I hope and expect more and more American’s (just not the ones who will likely respond to this with some post adoring Trump and trying to blame more deaths then by Benghazi on the Democrats, when it was Trump’s incitement that led to it) will view the Republicans for the spineless cowards they are, who would allow Democracy to be undermined, and they will in turn vote out of office these Republican traitors.
Look folks, I think you are feeding into Health’s unHealthy obsession with seeing stuff online and then thinking it must be true.
Maybe watch less videos.