Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LU -“Health – by their teachers?”
I guess there was a misunderstanding. I thought her response was along the line of Meno’s – “Also pharmacists. You can kill people”!
Absan -“Is it live and laugh -then die and cry?”
There is time for everything (Koheles)!
Life is what you put into it.
Some people have good times and some bad.
If your whole life is just having a good time – then the end will be just crying!
Sparkly -“lilmod ulelamaid – but at least you cant kill anyone b’h.”
I know plenty of cases were people have been killed!
Gogogo-“heart failure is linked to lack of excersise”
From physiology research:-“The massive multifactorial nature of dysfunction caused by sedentarism means that just as food and reproduction remain as requirements for long-term continued human existence, physical activity is also a requirement to maximize health span and lifespan. The only valid scientific therapeutic approach to completely counter sedentary dysfunction is primary prevention with physical activity itself.”
From the AHA:”The Committee on Exercise, Rehabilitation, and Prevention of the American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology concludes that exercise training in patients with HF seems to be safe and beneficial overall in improving exercise capacity, as measured by peak V?O2, peak workload, exercise duration, and parameters of submaximal exercise performance. In addition, QOL improves in parallel to the improvements in exercise capacity.”
Sparkly -“i flunked science so for me science is VERY HARD so it takes me MUCH more time to study”
You should go for tutoring. It might cost money, but it will be worth it – in the long run!
Ubiq-“you have been saying that the court changed the law and that they had no right to rule on it. You were wrong on both accounts (I say “were” becasue you now concede that you didint mean they have no right and that the court didnt actually change”
Who said that I was wrong? I said that they were morally wrong! When I said that they changed the law I was talking about my case!
“I’m not sure what you mean. “Undue hardship” Is obviously a vague term. IT is up to the courts to define. That their definition doesn’t fit yours might make the court more conservative than you but it doesn’t make it more anti-semitic.”
You don’t make any sense here! Your assumption that my opinion about the Antisemitism was because I didn’t like their definition of undue hardship is wrong! I wrote they’re Antisemitic because they didn’t follow their own definition in my court case!
SL – “Cancelling Bein Hazmanim!”
This year – YES!
For the last few weeks – All I’ve seen is deaths in Frum community!
Young people, old people.
We need more Zecusim – RIGHT NOW!
Ubiq -“and i have been patiently educating you that it is not antisemitism but their interpretation of the law which is their job to do”
You really can’t argue that it’s not Antisemitism because you don’t even know what the definition or the interpretation of the civil rights law is!!!
Sparkly -“Health – you DONT get paid to discuss something like that.”
Sure you do! They’re called tutors! Now you can do it in person or online like with email!
But I see from your post that you already know how to get the information for free!
Sparkly – “a and p? thats what i wanted to discuss…”
For money – I’ll discuss it. According to Mod 80 – Ubiq -feivel, you can post your contact info, but I can’t ask you to!
Abba-S -“This will probably cost $500 million and still not solve the problem because Lakewood keeps expanding. Also NJ is famous for government corruption.”
Where did you get 500 mil from? I believed you when you said 20 mil.
Before you post crazy numbers – you need some proof!
“As far as the federal courts being Antisemitic that is the same logic the Southerner thought when they fought integration and lost. It is 60 years later and they are still busing for integration. Satmer has won in Bloomingberg NY when they denied them the right to vote and blocked them from getting building permits.”
I have some experience with the federal courts. Over there in Satmar it was obvious discrimination. Over here – it’s very hard to prove disparate treatment!
“As far as no school busing your in a dream world parents will never accept it.”
Who cares? Did they ask me if I mind if my real estate taxes go up?
“As it is some of the “Failing districts” are complaining that the state is giving these funds to Lakewood and not to them.”
Which districts? The ones that get more money than e/o else or not?
“If they are giving equal amount per student then they have to give school vouchers otherwise the district is receiving funds for a service it didn’t provide.”
What are you talking about? What funds is the district supposed to provide & for what service?
Ubiq -“I wasnt asking you to, just curious if youd admit your mistake. Dont feel pressured. DO what feels right to you.”
From previous -“I made a mistake” etc.
Is this good enough?
“Isnt that part of the law?”
Of course it is!
“IS that what we have been discussing from the get go.”
We discussed a lot of things.
“As I asked before, do you think congress required an empolyer to suffer a loss on Shabbos? How much loss?”
What’s your definition of a loss?
I’m not going to argue with you until you learn about the law!
I’ll give you a hint – an appeal’s court decided what more than “de minimus” is!
Meno -“I think Health’s point was that guys aren’t waiting because they want to wait, they’re waiting because they haven’t found anyone in which they’re interested yet.”
Bingo! If they happened to meet s/o that piqued their interest, all of a sudden they would be asking her for a date.
“Health is talking about guys who have started dating but haven’t found anyone yet because they are too choosey.”
Wrong!
“Just FYI, it’s very possible that Health is talking about guys in general, not specifically the guys that you know.”
And wrong!
Ubiq -“There is no such rule that YWN cares about your privacy. They font want contact info given out, they dont want peoplke to try to pry/pressure people to divulge personal info. But there is no rule (that i can find) thta prevents you from giving up “your privacy” Again, you have every right to obviously. However when you said this was a rule on ywn that prevented you from revealing the court case, You are wrong.
Here are the rules again:
can you either point out the rule that prevents you from saying whcih court case you refer to. OR admit that you made up that it was against the rules?”
I made a mistake because I know that I’ve never seen anyone’s real name here so I assumed that was the rule! If it’s not – I believe you, but I’m not going to be the first. When I see others that do it, like the owner, I’ll join in. I might use a different SN.
“amazing! So we went from “what right do they have” meaning the most obvious legal right, to “moral right” to a rhetorical question about morality of their judgement.
Amazing stuff”
Actually I never meant what legal right!
When I wrote “what right?”, it was obviously a rhetorical question! Because just like in Germany, they made rules against Jews, so too here when the Congress specifically made a law to accommodate Shabbos observers – I think that was when they amended the Civil rights law in the 90’s, the courts went ahead and watered it down!
I’m not talking about their definition of “undue hardship”!
I’m sorry that you didn’t understand this in the beginning!!!
Meno -“If a venomous snake bites another venomous snake, will the second snake die?”
Are you in the middle of an exam, like Sparkly?
It depends on where it was bitten, how much venom was released, and probably some other things.
LU -“Health – the problem is that people use this story to “prove” that you only have ONE zivug and you can lose her.”
Who says? That one you can lose, but there are others, like Zivug Sheni and more!
LU -“Health, she had said that she was talking about the guys she knows who DONT want to get married at 18. That was her whole point!”
And my point was saying that the guys are being choosey!
Ubiq -“And dont want me to pry out persoanl info, which as I said earlier is why i am leaving it alone.
If you want to post the case, it is completely your prerogative, ywn has no rule against it.”
I know that I can. But I want an even playing field – I’d like your name & everybody’s name first before I post the case which contains my name!
“incidentally, care to admit you were wrong about the rule?”
Which rule?
“Ha. So you asked “what right” they had to judge. After I provided the source you said you meant what “moral right” do they have to judge. Now you concede they do in fact have both the legal and moral authority to judge.
Is that fair?”
Fine. But when I wrote – “what “(moral) right” do they have to judge”, it was a rhetorical question! But I think you knew that!
Sparkly -“Health – so your saying the guys are being choosey since they dont want to start dating until their like 22,23,24,25, etc….?”
Yes! But why are you saying 22,23, etc.? Some Frum men date & get married at 18yo?!?
LU -“The problem is that most people don’t know the second half of the story. He came back the next year, and the Steipler asked him why he’s not married yet. He said, “But you told me that I missed my zivug.” The Steipler said, “So what?”. He got married and had a happy marriage and lived happily ever after. (heard from the son of a Rav who knows the boy.”
Why is that a problem? The first story is with the Zivug Rishone, the second one is with Zivug Sheni!
Ubiq -“Though supreme court cases are public so if you were so concerned about your privacy, brining it up in the first place wasnt smart. Are you sure it was SCOTUS and not the secret supreme court, or perhaps it was nothing?”
Your post is full Letzonus (making fun)! It’s a good thing Elul is very soon, because you could Klapp Al Chait – Latznu!
Btw, I personally don’t care about my privacy, but YWN does!
If they changed the rules and e/o posted their real name, I would too!
“I was addresing your qestion about what gives them the”right” after you changed what you emant to “moral right” I figured I’d reply to that too. Setting up a legal system is a chiyuv, that they dont allways follow everything in the Torah, in no way changes the moral right of the existence of a supreme court.”
I wasn’t questioning their moral right of existence, but the morality of their judgments! They seem very immoral to me!
Abba-S -“You are saying that you can build hundreds of miles of sidewalks along all the streets of Lakewood by the start of school year for less than $20 million, the cost of school busing. What will happen is that your taxes will go up to pay for the sidewalks and because Lakewood continues to grow you will never have adequate sidewalks and will still be paying for school busing forever. I think you are in the dream world.”
Again it’s obvious that you have an agenda! There are plenty of streets that have sidewalks already. It wouldn’t cost 20 million. Even if it would, or more, it’s a one-time cost, not like bussing which is every year!
“The state will never agree to school vouchers but just like the south thought there would never be integration in the public schools but the Federal courts mandated it. So too if it can be proven that the state violated the Yeshiva students’ rights the courts can mandate school vouchers to correct past discrimination.”
Again you’re in a dream world! How in the world would they win in federal court? I just posted that the federal courts are Antisemitic in the other topic. Even if the state would all of a sudden be scared of the threat, all they’d do is even the playing field. That means no bussing for anyone and/or equal amounts of money per child for every school district!
Sparkly -“Health – so your saying im being choosey?”
Not you; the guys!
Comlink-X -“How is that unclear? (And then “they” remains the same.)”
Thanks!
Abba-S -“Health- You don’t want to pay for school busing because it increases your taxes but you think nothing of having your fellow taxpayers pay for miles of sidewalks and school crossing guards. Plus they will have to have an environmental impact study showing walking to school is safe. An easier solution is ban school busing through out the state or at least in Lakewood. It’s not going to happen.”
You’re in a dream world if you think my real estate taxes would be more or equal for those things as opposed to paying for bussing!
“Look at it this way if the state loses the lawsuit over this you maybe looking at paying for school vouchers for the over 30,000 yeshiva students at at least $10,000.00 each which will really raise your taxes”
This state would never pass school vouchers! You obviously don’t know anything about this state!
Ubiq -“I thought TWA is your case. (Trying to give you benefit of the doubt that you didnt make your case up)”
Actually I had a case that went to the US Supreme Court! I couldn’t and can’t tell you the name because cases are _____ vs. ______ and my privacy would be no more!
“So dinim is no longer a mitzvah for goyim?”
Of course they are! My point was that SCOTUS is interested in keeping the Torah just like their judgment on Gay marriage!!!
Ubiq -“Ok so vote for a liberal candidate who will place liberal justices to support your liberal interpretation. What does that have to do with anything.”
Wrong! Like I posted to Charlie – I don’t go by the Goyishe definition of liberal and conservative! Trump appears to be close to Torah rules, not like the libs!
“As for their “moral right” it comes from the Ribono shel Olam who was metzaveh benei noach in dinim which includes courts to interppret ambiguous wording in laws.”
Yeah right; especially now when the SCOTUS dealed with gay marriage!
How about thinking before posting?!?
“BTW, didnt you earlier say you didnt think they misinterpreted in this case”
Don’t you read the posts before posting yourself?!?
I was talking about my case.
“Also congrats on finally admitting that they were interpreting “undue burden” and not adding. Though I was really looking for a more direct, admission.”
If you would have asked that previously to mention it; I’d have!
IDK you were confused about that!
Meno -“Health, Who’s they? and them? and they? and they? and it?”
“You should be self-supporting by the time you have a self (including self, spouse, and children) to support, whatever age that may be.”
Who said? You? And you? And you? And you? And it?
Sparkly -“i think thats where the whole shidduch crisis thing sets in because guys making the girls wait”
They don’t make them wait. They are just being choosey! If they want something, they go for it!
Ubiq -“Please stop lying “When did they add it in? I think they changed it after my Court case!!”
In context “they” seems to refer to suprem court. If you meant congress fine. I’m sorry if I misinterpreted what you said”
It’s obvious that you don’t begin to understand my post, but the first thing you do is say I’m lying!
It’s also obvious that you don’t fully read all my post’s!
That comment was on EEOC.
“Again I’m not sure what you mean by moral right. you never clarified.
I’m also not sure how you intereprt the law. (since you didnt answer when asked) Earlier you said they didnt misinterpret in this case, is that still your position.”
Do I have to clarify to you an English teacher?!? You should know the difference between right and wrong! Their definition of “undue hardship” severely restricts Religious rights in employment!
Abba-S -“That is not the case, the state not only taxes you for schooling but also funds many failing school districts through out the state.”
Didn’t you read my post? I wrote – “Stop with giving money to failure school districts”
“Since you don’t want school busing. How many miles of sidewalks are you willing to SPONSOR? How much are school crossing guard going to cost?”
You yourself posted -“I and my kids never took school buses, we took mass transit to and from school.”
Stop with the enormous cost for school bussing and develop a Mass transit for Lakewood! At least the cities where they have poured millions of dollars into the school districts have also mass transit system’s. This would be beneficial to e/o not just the school parents!
“What about the grid lock you are going to be causing? Is it worth it?”
Now I believe you that you don’t live in Lakewood. The traffic during the school year, at certain times of day, competes with Manhattan during rush hour!
LU -“40. Anyone under 40 is not an older single, IMHO. There is no right age to get married, especially for girls who have no chiyuv to get married (although it’s a Mitzvah if they do), and therefore can get married when they feel like it.”
Wrong! I started a topic called “Who wants to be a Tzaddikes like Rus”, over there I posted women do have a Chiyuv to get married!
From the topic called “Who wants to be a Tzaddikes like Rus” – Joe posted -“So, yes, 22 is a bit early, and perhaps the more appropriate age is say 26-27 before a dose of reality needs to set it for the girls, but if we understand the age gap correctly, and if they don’t want to be left stranded to a life of being single, some of them will need to compromise both on the age issue and on the previously married issue. Both compromises will add more men to the pool for the girls who are stranded after the young guys are married.”
Ubiq -“You kept insisting they do. You are wrong.”
Never! All I said was there rulings are put into the law, ie. US Code!
“They determine what undyear hardship means. Not you.
You kept saying what gives them the right, they need you changed to “moral rught” (not sure what that means in this setting, you never clarified when asked)”
Stop changing what I wrote! What I’ve posted previously is that what gives them the right (ie. Moral right) to severely restrict the employment discrimination law?!?
“You’ve confusesdone yourself so much, you don’t know what youreally own opinio was.”
Wrong again!!!
“These where the 2 points we were most recently discussing;
a the supreme court does not ammend the law
b this law had already been ammended before the ruling”
“I’d be happy to point out where u incorrectly disputed the two above points”
Why don’t you first explain what you mean by a & b? Then we can discuss it. Maybe I’ll disagree or maybe not!
We seem to not be able to get each other’s points across!
Ubiq -“Granted after a supreme court rulin ie after they explain a law that carification is sometimes ammended to the original law. But that is doen by congress not the courts”
So you finally understand! Obviously there was a communication problem.
I never meant they write new laws. But somehow I think you knew that!
Yes, they say what the law means! In this case “undue hardship” means not more than “de minimums”!
What I thought you were arguing about was about that definition becomes part of the law or not, ie. US Code!!!
Ubiq -“Theyre not…”
So what color are they?
Joe – how many SN’s you got on this page?
“is instructed (“????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???. ????? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ?????.”).”
And also work at least 40 hrs. a week. Also take care of the kids and do all the housework!
Joe – Did I forget anything?
GAW -“Hypothetically (and it would once again help to know which case you mean) the law says “undue hardship”. That was defined as “de minimis”, but when a “burden on business operations” example came up, the EEOC realized “de minimis” was insufficient in defining “undue hardship”.”
Sorry; anything on the EEOC website is because that’s the law.
So the EEOC can’t define “undue hardship”! (Only the courts.)
Now they added in “or burden on business operations;”.”
When did they add it in?
I think they changed it after my Court case!!
Ubiq -“So you think Trump will appoint charedi Judges?”
No. But there are a lot of people who could qualify for my requirements, even if they’re not Jewish!
“Im sure youve seen the picture of R’ Moshe learning outdoors with tzitzis over shirt. (ITs easily googleable search “R’ Moshe) IF you look closely his shirt has stripes.
I’m curious what your thoughts are on the fact that hes wearigna striped shirt”
I’ve seen the picture. What color are the stripes? They’re probably white. There’s nothing wrong.
Abba-S -“Health- Why is it prohibited to take money from the state.
Are you saying that the majority of the state assembly and senate are Yidden, I don’t think so.”
Anybody can Schnorr. It’s not Osser. I was talking about that the state takes taxes for the bussing. Who said that it’s Mutter for them to increase my or other people’s taxes, because some Jews want bussing?!? It was the Frum Jews who complained to the State – “It’s not fair!”
I agree it wasn’t fair; but to divert the taxes for Jewish bussing it’s not fair to Goyim & Jews who don’t need bussing!
What they should have done is cut the real estate taxes for e/o.
Stop with giving money to failure school districts & stop with giving money for bussing, whether it’s for private schools or for public schools!
Ubiq-“Health
No the code isn’t lying.
The code isn’t touched by ScoTus.
It is ammended by Congress. I double checked with several lawyers, codes aren’t edited by the court. That simply isn’t how it works.”
If it’s true – so what?
“You haven’t provided a source that says otherwise.(nor have you replied to several of my questions)”
I really don’t understand you! Are you in some sort of denial?!?
I posted the US Code here in this topic, right above my response to Charlie! I even put it in question marks!
I proved that I was right!
Why do you keep denying this?!? Because you can’t admit that you’re wrong?!?
Abba-S – “Nobody can predict the future so even the OU or Aguda wouldn’t know. But maybe the posters in the YWN coffee room will have a better solutions.”
The fact that really is – in NJ even though they changed the law who said it’s Mutter? Yeah, it’s good for some Frum people, but not for others! NJ has the highest real estate taxes in the country.
If the government does it by themselves, so it has nothing to do with Yidden. But if Frum people pushed the government for services and they got it. Who said it’s Mutter to make me pay, in taxes, for your bussing?!?
GAW -“Once again, without knowing what your case was I have to assume that the courts were correct.”
Of course you would, because you sound like a lawyer.
I didn’t come to ask you if they Judged me correctly.
Actually I’m Not interested in your opinion!
“TWA vs. Hardison could have been decided against Hardison based on either standard. In addition, either standard would be considered “undue hardship”.”
Why do you come here with your double talk?
I asked you a question – I’ll repeat it.
Question – “They used to post (EEOC) after the SCOTUS decision just saying it means “not more than de minimis cost”. Now they added in “or burden on business operations;”.”
When did they add it in?
I think they changed it after my Court case!!
Ubiq -“I am asking for you to to provide a source that Supreme court’s decisions are written/amended into laws.”
I did that! Didn’t you read my post?!?
“You are lying again.”
Funny! Let me ask you something – who are you calling a liar – me or the US Code that I quoted above?!?
Ubiq -“And as for what you want. yOu want opposite things from your justices. for the first youd like liberal justices who interpret things broadly and maximize govt’s role in private enterprise.
and regarding sodomoy you want a time machine see Sam’s comment”
My comment was to Charlie, not to you! That’s correct – the way the system is now – they’d be opposite each other!
Change the system!
I want justices that the Torah has No problem with!!!
Sam2 -“Even if the courts would (and there is no reason to uphold such laws)”
The reason is because it’s against the Torah and the Goyish Bible!
“the local governments would just rescind them.”
We have to get rid of those politicians and put in conservative ones!
“The vast majority in this country now are no longer interested in making sodomy illegal. That ship has long since sailed.”
Actually most people in this country believe in the Bible.
But the sick liberals have pushed their way into the laws!
We gotta reverse that trend!
Charlie & Ubiq -“and also something for which science does not have a clear answer.”
“Of course not. It is a legal/religious question not a scientific one.”
Your Liberalism has affected your thought processes!
“That’s why I got up in the class and denounced the Supreme Court’s ruling on why you can have abortions!”
Because we learnt life begins with fertilization!
Charlie -“Regarding TWA vs. Hardison, it was the two most liberal justices — Brennan and Marshall — who dissented. If you want it reversed, you need to get liberal justices appointed which means voting Clinton”
You don’t begin to understand what I want!
You want liberal justices, not me!
I want justices that define “undue hardship”, the way most people define it! Eg. like the disabled law for employment!
I want justices that will outlaw abortion (unless the mother’s life is in danger)!
I want justices that will uphold laws that make sodomy illegal!
I want justices that will make same sex marriage illegal!
Ubiq-“I wasnt the one who had to be told what the function of the supreme court was…”
I was being facetious. I don’t like what they do & did to me and to others!
“I’ll try to teach you something, IDK if I can,”
“Please do. I love learning new things.”
I’ll do it one time. Enjoy!!!
“I got it from “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88-352) (Title VII), as amended,” widely available online.
“it’s from the or I should say based on the Court’s decisions, not because Congress wrote it into law!!!!!!”
“Do you have a source for that? I was not aware that The courts decisions were written into laws and am ready to admit my mistake (and boy would I be off) if what you say is indeed correct”
Here it is! I’m not going to have a back & forth with you because obviously you don’t know a thing about law:
“Reasonable accommodation without undue hardship as required by section 701(j) of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
(a) Purpose of this section. This section clarifies the obligation imposed by title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, (sections 701(j), 703 and 717) to accommodate the religious practices of employees and prospective employees. This section does not address other obligations under title VII not to discriminate on grounds of religion, nor other provisions of title VII. This section is not intended to limit any additional obligations to accommodate religious practices which may exist pursuant to constitutional, or other statutory provisions; neither is it intended to provide guidance for statutes which require accommodation on bases other than religion such as section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The legal principles which have been developed with respect to discrimination prohibited by title VII on the bases of race, color, sex, and national origin also apply to religious discrimination in all circumstances other than where an accommodation is required.
(b) Duty to accommodate.
(1) Section 701(j) makes it an unlawful employment practice under section 703(a)(1) for an employer to fail to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless the employer demonstrates that accommodation would result in undue hardship on the conduct of its business. 2
2 See Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 74″
Sparkly -“Health – probably not religious tho? so you need to make a kiddush Hashem”
That’s your mistake! Pointing out that the SCOTUS decision regarding abortion was based on PC and not science or religion is a Kiddush Hashem!!!
Ubiq -“Health
I have no trouble admitting when wrong”
Obviously you do, especially here!!
“this doesnt appear in the original, I’m not sure when it was addedd but it was added by Congress, not the Court.”
Obviously you know nothing about law and how it’s written! I studied medicine and I had to learn law because of my court cases.
I’ve a question for you – how do you come here pretending that you’re the know-it-all?
You obviously don’t know a thing about law!
That’s obvious from your statement of -“I’m not sure when it was addedd but it was added by Congress, not the Court.”
I’ll try to teach you something, IDK if I can, wherever you got that from, it’s from the or I should say based on the Court’s decisions, not because Congress wrote it into law!!!!!!