Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Aaq
Here is a quote
I can’t post links but as it’s a direct quote, copy paste, if you’ll just search it you will get the originaFully vaccinated people with Delta variant breakthrough infections can spread the virus to others. However, vaccinated people appear to spread the virus for a shorter time: For prior variants, lower amounts of viral genetic material were found in samples taken from fully vaccinated people who had breakthrough infections than from unvaccinated people with COVID-19. For people infected with the Delta variant, similar amounts of viral genetic material have been found among both unvaccinated and fully vaccinated people. However, like prior variants, the amount of viral genetic material may go down faster in fully vaccinated people when compared to unvaccinated people. This means fully vaccinated people will likely spread the virus for less time than unvaccinated people.
Aaq
Don’t know where you are coming from
I’m coming from a segment of an Israeli news show. Not exactly conspiracy theorists. Rather vaccine pushers.
They said the opposite of everything you are saying.
Statistically vaccinated people are getting it just as much as unvaccinated, the cdc says vaccinated covid patients have exactly the same viral load meaning they can spread it exactly as much as unvaccinated. They were talking about the 65 and over population in Israel. I doubt these are people gallivanting all over the world
The vaccine is a hoaxAaq
Your first response, I have no idea what you said there.Your second response, in Israel in the last few weeks In the over 65 year old demographic, 90% of positive corona cases are in fully vaccinated individuals.
It’s pure conjecture to say that without the vaccine more people would have been sick. I think it’s way more likely, and my own anecdotal experience bears this out, most people are not yet getting covid a second time. Most of the remaining population who have not yet gotten covid, are now vaccinated. A huge percent of the population has already had covid.
Add this all up and you get
Less overall cases of covid but a huge amount of current cases being fully vaccinated.
Exactly what the statistics coming out of Israel are showing.
The vaccine dose not stop spread.Doesn’t bother me how long it lasts
Bothers me that it’s mandated.
It has now been conclusively proven that people who are fully vaccinated can get covid.
The cdc has stated that viral loads are basically the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients.
It prevents serious illness (or it doesn’t but if it doesn’t it’s totally worthless so let’s assume it does)So someone please explain to me logically
Why does anyone care if I choose not to take the shot?
I can get sick and infect others just as much if I am fully vaccinated as if I am totally unvaccinated.From a public health angle the vaccine is completely worthless.
As long as this question remains unanswered AND vaccine mandates remain, the only logical conclusion I can come up with is that there is something else going on here, that has more to do with government power, than health.
That’s where I believe most of the pushback against the vaccine is coming from.Health
Can you name any other vaccine that requires a booster less than a year after being fully vaccinated?Aaq
Which information exactly did the op state hat you are wondering where he got it from
I think he mad a simple observation.
Nothing about the vaccine mandates adds up.
Mandating a vaccine to protect you and stop the pandemic.
But it doesn’t prevent you from getting covid ??
OK! But take it to stop the spread.
But you can still spread it?
Buddy if you don’t shut up and take it you can’t go to work or play
Your kids need to take it too.
But it might be dangerous for them, and kids are basically safe from covid anyway ??
Yeah but they can infect grandma. You. Want your kids to be a granny killer??
No, but even if they take it they can still catch it and spread it, so all I’m doing is injecting them with something that can main them for life!
Shut up and shoot them or your kids can’t go to school!Tell me
Without emotion and name calling
Which facts that I presented are wrong
And if not
How does the above scenario make any sense.
Leave out the q anon garbage
Just logic pleaseWow I never thought it would come to this
I agree with health and syag.
I can’t even find a way to argue even as I try!Dy,
I personally Know many people injured from the shot.
I know many people who were helped by monoclonal. I personally do not know anyone who was injured from themAm I admitting the shots work?
I have no clue actually. What I said was they started by saying the shots will prevent illness transmission serious illness and death.
We now know ”vaccinated ” people get sick fairly often
Their viral load is just as high so they also spread the virus
The only thing left is severity and death.
Possibly it works for that. I don’t
I’m not trying to convince anyone not to take the shot
I’m against forcing those who don’t want it, to force them to take itThere is no point for you to have gotten shot, other than control. State control.
There are many Therapeutics available.
Monoclonal antibodies for one, work wonders.
And to all those who repeat Endlessly and mindlessly,
”what right do you have to endanger others ”
The CDC just published its findings that the viral load of vaccinated infected is exactly the same as the viral load of unvaccinated.
An Israeli study just showed that the percent of currently newly ill coronavirus patients over 65 is 90%fully vaccinated and 96% me that age demographic is vaccinated.
Meaning the virus does almost nothing against catching, and since the viral load is the same as unvaccinated, it also does nothing too prevent the spread.
The only thing it may do is lower the severity of the disease, which for the under 60 year old demographic is not a very deadly disease in the first place.
It’s lunacy to demand everyone take this stuff even if it were to be water.
Control control control.
Ever heard of Alta fixler ?
We are all her, now.Yeah. Don’t forget to get your booster.
Twice in the morning and once before bed
You’ll get so sick from the repeated shots you won’t even notice as the covid passes through you.Amazing
Is there nobody attacking hikind who actually has a shred of intelligence?
All he said is the following.Saperstien is claiming that rabbi reisman endorses him (saperstien)
It’s not true. I personally asked rabbi reisman and rabbi reisman told me that not only does he not endorse saperstien ,but he asked him to stop claiming that he does.If you don’t believe me (hikind) ,call rabbi reisman yourself and ask him.
Here is his number…. (his number is not secret hundreds of people have it. Just most people would be too lazy or busy to get it so he posted it)I challenge any and all of the people here, agitated about what hikind did, to respond in a clear logical unemotional post,
What or where is the bizayon haTorah, bizayon of rabbonim, or lashon hara?Ubiq
Unfortunately seems we are barely arguing anymore
I never said it’s a magic get out of jail free card. I said it’s my opinion that they had the legal right to do what they did based on my chosen understanding of the second amendment. My OPINION.
Why didn’t anyone use it as a defense?
1) don’t know if anyone who was rioting has any clue this exists
2) I fully agree that ultimately a court will be deciding.
I think it has a zero percent chance of winning in court ( perhaps even less as it might tick off the judge / jury and make the penalty worse)
So yeah it wouldn’t be sound legal advice to tell someone to use this as a defense
Doesn’t change my opinion that it is true though
I think politically if a court agreed to such a thing it would unleash who knows what.So I think In summary
We are arguing whether this is the correct interpretation of the second amendment.
But if it is
We both agree using it here would be an application of the law, not the law itself.
We both agree it would end up in court
We both agree the defendant would lose.
So what are we arguing about?I like spicy cholent
1) There is no such law
Fine. We can disagree as to the intent of the second amendment.
I didn’t make it up, and I said all along there may be others who don’t agree but I choose to go with this one.
2) Even if there were The court applies the law.
BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!
that’s what I have been trying to get you to understand all along.You list all sorts of variables for the knife case to try to obfuscate the issue (see not just me!). It really isnt complicated the law is (not a verbatim quote ) “No killing unless in self defense”
Who gets to decide what is self defense ? the court. easy.
Really. So when the guy is coming at his victim with knife upraised
The victim tells him, ”hang tight, let me just make a quick call to my local court to see if I can kill you in self defense right now. BTW can you tell me the exact specifications of your knife because they will need to know. Also how much do you weigh?
OMG! It’s after the close of business 2pm Wednesday erev Thanksgiving. The court is closed till Monday morning.
Mr murderer, can you please come back around 12 next Monday?
I should know by then if I’m allowed to kill you in self defense.That’s how you see this played out?
Glad I don’t live in your country.
I see it that the law says self defense is permitted. I see the situation in in currently and I make a quick decision based on how I think the law applies to my specific scenario.
I don’t worry about the fact that I will not know how to answer in every other scenario. It really makes no difference.Same here.
The law (according to my chosen constitutional scholar) allows overthrow of tyrannical government.
I, decide that the government stealing the vote fits the bill. Bingo I can act on it. (legal disclaimer. not I personally .I think it’s a foolish course of action because it’s going to land you in jail or worse)
Do I know if a different situation that you are curious about, also fits the bill of this law?
Dunno. Come over shabbos after the cholent. If I can keep my eyes open we can schmooze about it. Whats the difference??Ubiq,
The aha I got you was not supposed to mean I got you rather it was what you would tell me when I say I don’t know the answer however you say that you know the answer so I asked you what about a 6.2 in knife 6.3 6.4 6.87 1259 6.351 are there laws for those how about a serrated knife how about a serrated knife missing two teeth missing three teeth how about a dull knife what if it’s sharp enough to cut a cucumber but not sharp enough to cut a tomato what if it can cut a hamburger but not a bread what if the attacker weighs 290 lb what if the attacker weighs 93 lb what if the victim is fat so the knife can’t get through what if the victim is thin so you will say that the court will decide because I don’t believe that there are laws for every one of these and thousands more variables that can be made in a single instance of one person attacking another with a knife if you need the court to decide then that is not a law that is an application of a law which is what I am saying the law gives basic parameters then the law needs to be applied. Here to the law states that the citizenry has the right to overthrow a tyrannical government the application is the question I said it certainly applies in a case where it is having its vote stolen you countered what about the BLM movement I said I don’t know for sure how to apply the law in that case you are responding the court can decide of course the court can decide but it hasn’t decided yet so therefore that is not yet a law that is an application of a law and until it becomes law my opinion is just as valid as the opinion of the jurists who will make it law if it becomes a court casePerhaps the reason you cannot come up with any cases where the courts allowed arms Uprising against the government is because until now we never had a tyrannical government in the United States of America so the lack of case to show me only proves that this law never needed to be applied it does not in any way prove that I am wrong in what I am saying perhaps I am wrong but your rejoinder does not in any way even address it again because the law was never needed to be applied due to the lack of tyrannical United States government today we have a tyrannical United States government we have a government which has no problem shutting down the rights of private citizens in many many many fashions when somebody in Brooklyn New York rose up against the government shutdowns of all public Recreation that possibly in my opinion correctly was allowed and would have been allowed with armed Insurrection as well due to the fact that the government was engaging in massive governmental overreach which is in my opinion I am going with the opinion of that scholarly article the point of the Second Amendment you don’t agree that that’s the point of the Second Amendment that’s fine then we have a fundamental disagreement in the point of the Second Amendment and I am not a constitutional scholar so I will leave it at that
they elive (rightly or wrongly) that the Govt is tyrannical (in their treatment on blacks) as such they have a RIGHT to rise up in armed , violent rebellion, even killing cops if necessary.
Cute what you did there
But it’s two separate points
We will take them individually and clear them bothCan they rise up in armed rebellion
Yes, provided two conditions
They are going against the entity (and people) that wronged them (such as the capital rioters attacking the people they believed were behind the plot to steal the vote) and not against random strangers
They are actively being wronged, such as the capital rioters having their rightfully elected president taken away to be replaced by someone whom they will be subjected to who was not lawfully elected as opposed to rioting because once upon a time there were people in the same geographical area who oppressed people who happen to share the same skin pigmentation.
I mean Biden is an assaulter. And an adulterer too.
So does that mean that automatically the new senator from Delaware is also??
As to the police.
If they are part of the terrible issue, then yes. But if they are there to protect other citizens property or they are being attacked simply because their uniform looks like the uniform of someone else who did tyranny, well no. They have no right.If someone is coming at me with a machete I think it’s clear I can kill them
If they are coming at me with a plastic knife I can’t.
So what about a six inch steak knife?
I don’t know.
A-ha! Got you! If you can’t answer that, obviously your not clear on the issue! So how can you say you can kill the guy attacking you with a machete??WHO gets to decide?
As the famous line goes
When you see it you know it.
Your evading my point.
I’m not the one who made the law. It’s on the books. I think the government usurping the people’s vote is about as tyrannical as you can get. So I think it’s a slam dunk that that makes the cut.
Is blm also correct?
I don’t know, when Biden gathers his votes for Kamilas next term, you can ask the foundersUbiq
You want me to answer, I’ll try though I have a lot going on plus your last post wasn’t so clear to me.My understanding.
(important to differentiate, my statement about the intent of the second amendment is not me speaking. It is me applying supposedly scholarly decisions, to a specific instance.)
Tyranny is not anything you don’t like.
If the government were to abolish voting. Nancy Pelosi will decide our next president. I assume (totally conjecture) most people would agree with me that that fits the definition of tyranny.
IF you agree, then , stealing the election is exactly the same.
However the government in 1619 being racist and murderous to blacks does not in any way translate into making the current government tyrannical.
So to blm in 2020/2021 because up r to 50 years ago the Government t was tyrannical is lunacy.
Perhaps if you want to go protest in the cemeteries, that would be appropriate. But of course they don’t want to do that Because that would upset the Biden voters.More maybe later if I have time
Fair enough, sorry for putting you on the spot. 8ts an argument I’ve heard before which while fine in theory, falls apart quickly in practice. I was hoping you’d flesh it out a bit more.
Your not putting me on the spot, I have no need to know the answer because it’s not germane to my point
It’s a distraction meant to obfuscate lack of a cogent direct rational rejoinder.
I choose not to engage. See my previous post where I explained in detail.The idea that any individual person has constitutional right to rise up against the govt if he thinks they are tyrannical is a position that stretches the imagination to the point thst most would acknowledge it can’t be true.
Total conjecture. I disagree. Most haven’t thought about it, is my opinion.Remember that compound in Texas? Waco?”
Yes I do, there have been plenty of armed uprisings in US history. I never heard anyone say that is their right. Interesting .
Possibly I have the wrong ”compound ”
I just remember there was an armed standoff between a group in a compound, heavily armed, and the government. I believe one of their claims was this.
But it’s irrelevant. Even if nobody claimed it, my contention is either correct or incorrect by the facts. It’s irrelevant to the veracity of it, whether someone tried to use that claim.Though, to clarify, although I would lose it doesn’t make me wrong (obviously).
And not just Waco, I suppose all the violent BLM protesters are right too,
No. They were trashing private citizens property. I’m not aware of any right to destroy someone else private property.
You can rise against the government.they elive (rightly or wrongly) that the Govt is tyrannical (in their treatment on blacks) as such they have a RIGHT to rise up in armed , violent rebellion, even killing cops if necessary. Is this correct?
I don’t know. Maybe yes maybe no. I pointed out that this is the way at least some constitutional scholars understand the intent of the second amendment .
I personally think that makes sense. So I choose to accept their understanding.
The fact that off the cuff I can’t give you clear guidelines to a specific scenario, doesn’t change anything.
Do you agree that that is the intent of the second amendment?
If yes, so you give the parameters.
If no, argue that point, that what I said is factually incorrect and there is no such right.
But throwing in a specific instance and me not knowing the answer doesn’t do anything.
(to clarify, had I made up that statement about the right to oppose the government, you can throw situations at me and if I can’t clarify, you can then rejoinder, so how can you possibly try to create such an ambiguous law, and perhaps you can even say, hey buddy according to your law, the following would be OK, you OK with that? And perhaps that would be enough to convince me to rescind it. But here, the law is on the books since this countries inception. I’m claiming it applies to situation a (capital riot) your rejoinder of ”so would you say it also applies to b (blm) ” is completely irrelevant)Ubiq
Here goes. Don’t know why I’m doing it, it’s not healthy but I can’t resistHow does this constitutional right to overthrow the Government work?
I f I decide My taxes are too high and are tyrannical do I have a right to defend myself and property by shooting any IRS agents who try to take it?
Yes. You probably do. Remember that compound in Texas? Waco?
Your probably going to lose if it’s just you though, as the government won’t take too kindly, so it’s sort of self selecting. You will only succeed if enough others agree with you. Sort of like this ”treasonous attempt to overthrow the US government,” by having a few hundred people ransack the capital building was doomed to fail from the startthanks
Also your post is peppered with a few inaccuracies
” THAT is what created the frustration and anger to boil over into this riot, not some single speech by trump.”
No not a single speech.
Got me!!!
So change it to
Not those speeches by trump. Your missing the forest for the tree. My point was and is, it was the medias treatment of trump which fertilized the soil and irrigated it, and anything else necessary, to allow trumps speeches to have this result. (according to those who say it’s his fault)IT was months of saying the same, in fact he said it before the election took place, he said it before the 2016 election took place as well, sadly many of his supporters follow him no matter what. He said it so it must be true .
No. Those on the left who demonize every move trump made over the last 4-5 years claim his followers move in lockstep, believing in every glorious utterance he makes.
Were you to so much as actually listen to what he says and think about it, you would realize, that,
A)his followers don’t ”always ”believe every thing he says
And
B) they do believe much of what he says because shockingly enough, most of what he says is true and common sense and reasonable.! Like the kid who said the emperor had no clothes. Everyone of high intelligence like Reb Eliezer ”knew” the kid was crazy. But guess what? He wasn’t!! He was just saying the plain unvarnished truth! So too Mr trump.so yes many of them believed there was fraud,
There was.
but no not from a single speech.BTW THIS is what what Trump did was so terrible. Yes, many of them think they were doing the right thing, the President said there was fraud, as many of them claimed. Your argument works to defend them, not Trump. Trump knows there was no significant fraud
”conjecture/reflection alert!!!!
No. Actually I think, like most rational people Do, trump believes the election was stolen.
He (He would have hired real lawyers and presented his evidence if it were real .)
Probably he couldn’t. Most lawyers are
Educated in liberal colleges and hate trump, and
Those who don’t are afraid of cancel culture and even their own and families personal safety.
Plus their chance of success was slim to none being as it is taking on the entire media who said from the get go that his claims are
Incendiary
False
Misleading
Unsubstantiated
Etc….
So you know you are taking on a huge challenge, the entire political establishment is spineless and almost nobody will stand with you.
Why would any lawyer want such a thankless task. That’s why he couldn’t get anyone elseI think I may agree with you on the rioters. What do we want for them, they are not very inteeligent
Cute that this word is misspelled. (just cute, we all make clumsy typos)
But I don’t believe that must be the case. Perhaps they are intelligent and actually believe the election was stolen. or sophisticated, if they are told there was fraud they believe it. The guy who told these bozos over and over that there country is being stolen, and they have to fight ot keep it should be held accountable, not them.
I ask you, if it was possible to steal the election from trump, do you for a moment believe the left would not do it?
Did they really have rolls showing hiding Biden ahead by ten points all over?? I don’t believe that. I believe the media is totally in the tank for the dems , I think their polls were completely made up, I mean they conducted them but didn’t even study their data. Just made up the numbers. So if they had a chance or Nancy had one, to steal the election,I think it’s for sure they would. So for me the question is only could they.
When you see what took place, you realize, they very well could have. Ergo, they did!“, because statistical based on all signs before the election it was going to be a trump landslide.”
Not sure what you mean, Most polls showed biden winning.
See above. Most polls were wildly off. Till right before then suddenly they got very tight.
The pundits who had accurately predicted past elections (including 2016) predicted biden winning
Only if you searched on Google. If you used duckduckgo suddenly there were plenty who thought it was going to be from close to a trump landslide. Including some who actually made it through the Google wall.
. what signs are you referring to? See aboveAnd please please please don;t use any signs ignoring Covid “oh before covid Economy was great …..” Sadly Covid happened, and can’t just be disregarded (if only!)
AgreedRE
Thanks for the gratuitous dig, really showcases the middos necessary to call yourself Reb.
But I digress.
Be still my fluttering heart!!!!
EVEN mich McConnell agrees that there was no votes fraud.
Wow! And mr voter fraud expert McConnell did exactly how much investigating to come to his conclusion??
When exactly did he do this extensive investigation?
Or do you mean to say
McConnell says I don’t want to think about the possibility of votes fraud and it’s massive ramifications so I’ll just say there was none and fools like Reb Eliezer will take my word as gold.You know there is a public speaker named rabbi Orlofsky,
He has a piece on atheism
A guy tells him he is an atheist. So he asks him if he read any philosophy works, when the guy tells him no, he responds,
So your not an atheist. Your an idiot. You sat in back of the bus one day and said, is there a God?, yes, no, no, yes,? I’ll go with no.
McConnell said there was no fraud.
Almost 180MILLION VOTES were officially cast and your telling me there was NO fraud????
Really???
Oh so you don’t mean NO fraud, you mean not enough fraud to sway the election.
Oh so then you are already agreeing there was fraud. So How exactly do you know how much fraud took place without investigating.
Don’t tell me statistically it wouldn’t be enough, because statistical based on all signs before the election it was going to be a trump landslide.
So basically your just taking McConnells word for it which he made based on absolutely nothing.
Your call
I’m not so gullible.
AND EVEN IF YOU WERE TO BE CORRECT!!
it’s irrelevant.
The point is the rioters believed it. So they were in their constitutionally allowed rights to do what they did.
You want to prove them wrong?
Maybe your side should have done l little bit of that before it boiled over, instead of shutting down trump and not allowing him his day in court to actually judge what evidence he claimed to have.
It’s possible to find evidence of fraud in a min, if your lucky or it’s widespread enough. To conclusively claim there was non requires exhaustive investigation.
The liberal left was claiming almost instantaneously, that there was no evidence of fraud.
That’s a claim that is false automatically due to its timing.
How about you actually think for yourself instead of just swallowing what some politician or news reporter tells youTwo points, made at large, or to whom they may apply
1) the environment that led to the capital riot, is the frustration caused by four years of media lying straight about anything they could dream up to denigrate trump and all he has done and also many things he hasn’t, culminating in their complete and total shutdown of any objective investigation into a clearly suspicious election win by jrband koh. THAT is what created the frustration and anger to boil over into this riot, not some single speech by trump.
2) why does everyone seem to agree so easily that the rioters (and by extension trump, according to those who say he is responsible for their actions) were doing anything wrong?
Hasn’t anyone here ever Heard of the second amendment???
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.
In other words, one of the reasons citizenry is allowed to bear arms, is to prevent the federal government from descending into tyranny.
I can think of no more tyranical situation, than the government stealing the people’s choice of president through vote fixing.
According to those who believe the vote was stolen, the people actually have a constitutional right to attack the federal government!
It is the height of absurdity to think they can only execute the right to attack the federal government for its Terrany with the permission of the federal government.
So trump was actually impeached, for supposedly upholding the law.
Sort Of shows you which side of the law the moronic dems are oni hear
I hear, probably she is disgusted by seeing the grotesque costumes and activities they preform while singing.
(lest one get the wrong idea from my comments, I neither watched or listened to the game or the half time shows, but news of what goes on, gets around.)Random,
Anil is a woman. It’s probably OK for her to her female singers
The lyrics???No, the law is on hold for a month (meaning they are not giving fines) and it’s being challenged in court
So many stores are still giving out plastic bagsOr if they will go for ”just one more” round of elections 🤣