Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
lol CTLAWYER. You say you won’t vote for any of the Republicans or Bernie, then you get offended when Joseph suggests you’ll vote Hillary. Are we to assume that you’re the one and only Martin O’Malley fan in the world? If not, then Joseph doesn’t need a “crystal ball” to deduce that you’re voting Hillary. It’s just process of elimination.
He asked choice for President, not who you’re voting for in the primary, thus electability isn’t part of the equation. My answer is Trump.
“Excellence, do you buy kosher food in a market that sells treif?”
Actually, I live near an area where there’s a store that claims to be a 100% kosher-only supermarket, but they sell foods that are only kosher by the heterodoxy’s reckoning like gelatin, non-hechshered cheese (i.e. totally treif food). Then there’s a regular supermarket that just happens to have a kosher section. Most of the more religious folks in the area actually prefer the regular supermarket over the falsely labelled kosher market. Point is, the example you gave is more comparable to getting seforim at like a Barnes and Noble or a university library. The OP’s example is analogous to the misleading “kosher” market, which many would consider to be worse.
While I suspect that the polls Charlie cited probably included anyone who self-identifies as Orthodox (which obviously includes many who really aren’t), he didn’t specifically say anything about the OO, so I don’t see how that can be used as a rebuttal. He’s right. Yeah. I said it. Charlie is right. There are still many Orthodox Jews who vote left. I can’t begin to understand it, but it is what it is.
Ubiquitin: “If say, Rubio is forced on them what do you think will happen, they will vote for Hillary? “
I would. Many many conservatives wouldn’t vote in such a situation. I would either vote Hillary, or a third party candidate if there were one in such a case.
How can a person argue that a candidate who gets the nomination by popular choice would fare worse in an election than some RNC crony forced on us? Of course voters care about the primary process. It’s an infinitely more democratic part our government than the general election.
Mw13: You lost me at “from Politico.”
Froggie: “cause you can’t bump a news article”
Touche.
“There is certainly a disgreement if Christianity is Assur or not, according to some its assur for jews, but not for goyim (regards to the trinity)”
Bite your tongue! According to ALL, it’s assur for Jews. The only debate is whether or not it’s avoda zara. We all like to say that there’s nothing wrong with what goyishe Christians are doing in order to promote healthy relations. However, when it comes down to it, is conversion to Christianity preferable over death for a Jew? For Islam, it definitely is because Islam isn’t idolatry. For Buddhism, it’s definitely not because Buddhism is idolatry.
Health: I know that neither of those two will get the nomination. I agree with you for the most part, but there are anomalies. We should vote for policies not for parties. For a totally impossible, hypothetical example to my point, say the general election came down to John Kasich vs. Jim Webb. The conservative candidate would be the Democrat, and the liberal candidate would be the Republican. But, as you will probably point out, there’s a reason such situations never occur.
ubiquitin: You’re proving my point. The RNC has assured many times over that they won’t let the delegates keep the people’s favorite from being the nominee. As much as I hate them, I believe them in this case. And if you want to talk about not winning the general, nothing could be worse going into the general election than a candidate forced on Republican voters by delegates.
I’m not asking anyone to like Trump. But, the way to win is not to close your eyes and pretend your enemy doesn’t exist. He is posed to take New Hampshire and South Carolina, and he’s the national favorite. Yes, he might lose Iowa. Don’t act like Iowa predicts who the nominee will be. History has not shown that to be the case. History also has not shown that polls are necessarily accurate for Iowa given their caucus system.
What was the point of pasting an article from YWN’s main page to YWN’s forums?
For those saying “he’s just an entertainer,” what will you say if he takes Iowa and New Hampshire? At what point do you start considering him a legitimate candidate?
One thing the liberals here and I have in common is that we’re actually taking him seriously. If you like him, you should be happy from the polls. If you don’t like him, you should be afraid. You can’t just keep turning the blind eye and spouting that he’s just a joke candidate. It’s time to start taking it seriously, whether you like it or not.
“I’ll tell you one thing – if there is a DemonKratic pres. & there is a war, the Western World is finished!”
I don’t agree that it’s that simple. Fiorina and Christie both want to shoot down Russian planes. I actually think the West would have a worse chance of survival with them than with any of the Democrats. And, if you’ve read enough of my posts here you know I’m not the type to advocate for liberalism.
Any halachic rulings made about hating the rashaim were never meant to be exploited as a heter for speaking unabashed lashon hara about anyone with whom you disagree.
You people really want to cross the Rubicon and say that all who criticize Israel in any way are “first class rashaim?” And something tells me that those of you on the left would have much less trouble with goyishe journalists bashing on Israel to the point of lying than you do with fellow Jews criticizing it with rabbinic sources. If so, do you think that’s fair?
I would like to motion to change the Coffee Room rules so that any thread that’s not originally about Zionism, but descends to an argument about Zionism be closed. All in favor say oy! (Yes I realize that this would include any thread over size 50).
I’m surprised this thread is still open. Notice another perfect example is the College thread that was just closed. While threads full of lashon hara and personal attacks are allowed to thrive, sometimes completely peaceful debates are closed inexplicably. YWN mods act in mysterious ways, but we still must abide by their commandments…
Charlie: “I am a scientist and science teacher and I absolutely have an agenda: To have my students understand how to understand science.”
Kol hakavod. I wish all science teachers had that as their only objective. Why so alarmist? I wasn’t attacking science teachers. I didn’t say ALL science teachers have alternative agendas. If you’re implying that there are no professors with other agendas then I’m sorry, but you’re turning the blind eye. Obviously you wouldn’t see it at YU, but at secular universities, ALL observant Jews that I know agree that professors in the sciences are most likely to give a hard time when it comes to making up work for the holidays.
I would hope that everyone here believes that microorganisms evolve or else we would only have to get the flu shot once in our lives. Earlier posters were clearly not talking about those aspects of evolution. In theory, I don’t have a problem with the bio classes either, but in practice you can’t assume science teachers never have an agenda.
It’s assur to learn about the practices of idolaters. Past that, I think you can listen to and be tested on subjects that are contrary to the Torah. Nobody said you have to believe them.
“After ranting about liberals thinking that the majority of Americans are “too stupid” to govern, it’s truly ironic that you turn around and make what is essentially the very same argument.”
How? By standing by a frontrunner’s national security plan? Jimmy Carter restricted Iranian immigration, FDR did much worse to the Japanese. It has been shown many times on this thread that Trump’s plan is by no means radical when put into historical perspective. If you chose to turn the blind eye to that, it’s not my problem. You’re perfectly allowed to disagree with his ideas; Trump’s supporters aren’t the ones doing the censoring here. If American voters want to bend over and let Islam win, that’s our right. If what you’re saying is true and most Americans want more Muslims in the country (let me remind everyone that pollsters just found that two thirds of Palestinians support the terrorists, so don’t even think about trying the “most are good people” defense), then let them vote accordingly and those of us who disagree will vote accordingly.
“Yes. All science is mutar. So says Rambam.”
Because the Rambam knew about evolution? And the Rabbis saying studying evolution is assur don’t know the Rambam?
Regardless of whether you’re comfortable studying it or not, I can assure you that the conditional probability of getting an anti-religion professor is significantly higher in a field like evolutionary biology than in accounting or stats. So, it also comes down to what you want to put your kids through.
Syag: “I took biology in a city college and they never mentioned evolution.”
When did you take biology? 1940? I’m sorry, but I don’t think you’ll easily find a university level bio class that doesn’t ever mention evolution.
That being said, I can assure you all that it is possible to pursue majors which don’t pose problems. Like our good friend, Charlie, I’m a statistician. You can tell which areas of study are worse when it comes time to ask professors for the holidays off. From my experience, the math/stat world has no problems, while the bio/chemistry world is openly hostile towards religion.
If someone is providing for you to study Torah without having to indulge in the secular world, kol hakavod. However, how can you be sure that your kids will have that opportunity? If you don’t have a way of making enough money to subsidize your kids’ Torah study, you’re essentially just putting off the bittul Torah by a generation. Proper, Jewish education isn’t cheap. I can’t see how a blue collar worker like a mechanic could possibly afford it for multiple kids.
I clicked on the link to comment on this, but Joseph beat me to it. It’s an oxymoron.
Of course after days of non-stop liberal media articles claiming that agreeing with Trump equates to racism, the polls will be a bit skewed. You think if an anonymous poll had asked Americans about limiting Muslim immigration days after the Boston marathon bombing or after 9/11 the numbers would be under 50% in support? It’s common sense!
After the Paris attacks, liberals didn’t even wait for the rigor-mortus to set in before they were singing the praises of Islam; it’s disgusting. Want to define caring more about the real victims than the attackers as racism? Fine, sign me up because that makes any decent human being a “racist.”
“The terrorists that have attacked this country have been in this country legally, and for anybody with the means and will it fairly easy to get into this country legally (particularly from the EU, which many radicalized Muslims reside in).”
Congratulations, mw, you just accidentally gave a great argument for why Trump’s recent proposal is necessary.
It is kind of funny how literally 100% of YWN threads end up being about Zionism if they last long enough. But, I admit, I did notice that there is a clear divide between the Zionists and the non-Zionists as to whether or not to support Trump. The Zionists must want the US to follow Israel’s model of putting Muslims on a pedestal and giving them greater liberties than those of our own people.
“If you don’t like my comparison to Hitler…”
How ludicrous! Hitler killed millions! Franco’s regime saved tons of Jews from the Nazis. Revisionist historians want to put all of these men in the same boat so that it will fit their “dangers of conservatism” narrative. As Joseph pointed out, what Trump is proposing has been done in the US before. In fact, far worse has been done in the US. Trump isn’t trying to come to power by military coup. He is representing what he thinks is the majority opinion of the country, and putting national security before an imagined responsibility to help Muslims probably is the majority opinion in this country.
“If Trump is saying what is in the hearts and minds of most Americans, most Americans are idiots.” This is liberalism in a nutshell. The assumption that most of the country is too stupid to govern themselves. Who’s the undemocratic one now? There’s nothing “fascist” about representing a majority of a democratic country. The only fascists on this thread are the ones saying their opinions outweigh the majority of the country.
Also, the US isn’t defined by a plaque on a French-made statue. We’re defined by our past actions, and what Trump is proposing is totally consistent with them.
First he came for the illegals, and I didn’t speak out be cause I don’t condone criminals.
Then he came for the terrorists, and I didn’t speak out because I’m not a liberal terrorist sympathizer.
Now my country is much safer.
By: Neville ChaimBerlin.
Immigration to the US is a PRIVILEGE not a right. We have the right to open and close our borders to whoever, whenever we see fit. Thinking that our background checks are not good enough to sift out the radical Muslims (which clearly they aren’t. I mean come on) is not the same as hating Muslims and being evil. America has done such things many many times in the past. This idea that this “isn’t who we are” is entirely a fabrication of the liberal media and it’s apparently convinced many of the posters on this thread.
Avi: “A government has no right to discriminate accept under very limited circumstances [sic]” Clearly Trump thinks (and he’s right) that we’re living in those circumstances. Would you say that if we got bombed by Syria that when we retaliate we would also have to bomb Europe to be fair and not discriminate? Please stop pretending that Muslims are a poor, undeserving, innocent group in this situation.
I guess I was blocked after that post. That’s the only logical explanation 😉
A bunch of Republican establishment members jumping on any excuse to criticize Trump? What’s new?
Leftist media jumping on any excuse to criticize Trump? Again, what’s new?
He is the only one in either party that is willing to put our national security before political correctness. This terrifies the left because they know it’s the opinion of the silent majority. Sure, a lot of leftists and establishment Republicans alike will criticize it, and probably criticize my very comment on this thread… Meanwhile, many people will read and say nothing, even though they agree with it. Invisible evidence of our lack of free speech. There’s a reason they call it the “silent” majority.
Those pesky OO rabbits are always interrupting court cases with their fluffy ears and carrots.
Why bring Charlie Hall into this? We all know about his affiliations. At times it does seem like he posts comments that he knows will bother those of us who denounce the OO (i.e. all of us), but I don’t think invoking his name was relevant to this thread.
The OO hasn’t been around long enough for its members to plead ignorance. One could argue that were the Reform movement not to exist, all the Reform Jews would just be chilonim anyway. Arguably, the Open Orthodoxy is worse than the Reform movement since it takes otherwise frum yidden and takes them off the derech, while all the Reform movement did was give another name by which chilonim refer to themselves.
Sam: “Whoever we disagree with”
Pretty much, unfortunately.
Wolf: “Why should my feelings count?” They do. In the same way that a Jew living in Communist Russia who is kept from the fact that he’s a Jew is not culpable like you or me. One who is raised into the Conservative or Reform movements might have a similar status, so why shouldn’t it apply to those raised in the OO? (I’m aware the “raised in the OO” group does not yet exist) Should we bash the people who don’t know better? Absolutely not! Should we bash the people who are misleading others and making sure they don’t know better? Yes, so to speak, they’re putting a stumbling block before the blind. If you and Joseph met at the right wording, I believe you would find that you and he are not so much in disagreement within this thread.
ROB: “no one has accused them of this.” Daas thinks I did. I tried to clarify what I actually meant but it got me nowhere. My point was the same as that of you and Sam. Joseph and others on that extreme were likely horribly offended by the comment I made. The point was to give them a taste of how horribly offensive half of their posts are to everyone who isn’t in their camp.
DY: “I didn’t express an opinion about the wisdom of dismantling the State” Then why is that the only side you’re defending? My post would have been offensive to those on the Zionist side too.
Joseph: “I expect more from a member of squeak’s alumni.” I’m sorry, I honestly have no idea what that means. Remember, I’ve only been posting in the CR for a month. ” that same data could have been gotten from any number of reliable sites.” Then why didn’t you?
Syag: Thank you for actually understanding. If at least one person gets my argument, then I don’t regret it.
“you shouldn’t have said otherwise” I didn’t ever explicitly say any CR poster wanted it, nor do they. I said I would be criticized for not wanting it. Do you refute that? Do you suggest that if I started a thread that said “the Zionist state is better than having millions of Jews dead at the hands of Arabs,” that I wouldn’t be criticized by anyone?
“you should not be making that equation.” I’m not. There are people on one extreme that would probably consider ME to be an anti-Zionist. I’m not saying anti-Zionists are anti-Semites, I’m saying anti-Semites are anti-Semites. And I fully disagree that there’s any legitimacy to using anti-Semitic sources just because a broken clock is right twice a day. Whether or not I agree with the point is irrelevant if the sources are objectionable.
Popa: Lol, yeah I knew somebody would call me out on that. I’ll crawl back into my hole now.
Daas: Of course nobody in the CR actually wants that. However, in other threads which are inexplicably still open, you can see posters quoting or at least paraphrasing information from sources who DO want that. I mentioned which thread to look at earlier. If the posters in that thread stand by and continue to defend their anti-Semitic sources of information, then I stand by what I said. My point was that if you rebuke the extremists in the CR, you will be rebuked yourself. I admit I was wrong to name names in my original post. The defense that names had already been named was not a legitimate defense. Don’t get too worked up over what I said, please. I have no desire to bring anyone here to anger.
P.S. Thank you for giving me the acronym “NCB.” I feel like a fully integrated CR poster now.
“1. Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel argued for three years (Eruvin 13b).”
Yes. Presumably much more cordially than CR posters do.
“2. I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! – Barry Goldwater”
I’m sure arguments like this have always been used to defend history’s greatest monsters. Not so popular in a moderate, democratic world like America. How did it work out for old Barry?
DaasYochid: Firstly, thanks for helping my point. Secondly, what about it was disgusting? The fact that I offended extremists? Sorry, but I don’t care. I would not have used specific CR poster names had they not already been mentioned in this thread, if that’s what you’re citing. I don’t have anything against Avi or Joseph; I think Joseph has done more to keep the CR interesting than almost anyone. However, if you think I’ve misrepresented the extreme nature of people’s opinions, please take a gander at the “Hakaras hatov” thread.
Syag: I fully agree. It’s not that I object to their right to have certain opinions per se; I object to the rhetoric.
Midwesterner: I was thinking the exact same thing.
It’s officially the most overdone topic on YWN. The real question is why moderates like myself get involved. The curse of the moderate is that everyone on both extreme hates you. Avi probably hates me for being opposed to changing the religion around Zionism (prayer for the state, Zionist pronunciation, new/fake holidays), and Joseph probably hates me for not wishing millions of Jews had died at the hands of Arabs, but were instead saved by the state.
Solution: We all stop talking about it and go back to the classic troll-filled Coffee Room that we all know and love.
P.S. I’ll be waiting to be harshly rebuked by half of the Coffee Room for my middle paragraph (which will only further prove my point). Cheers.
Yes.
Thank you haKohen for that informative contribution to this thread. Out of curiosity (on the topic of the OP), do Oberlanders wash before Kiddush? Make a bracha if they wrap tefillin on Chol HaMoed?
I’m not sure why 555 is trying to be so argumentative. Nobody is making accusations, nobody said anything bad about the “69 Shul,” and as for the question “Why would you want to know? How would it affect you either way?”
Because we’re curious about other’s minhagim. What’s wrong with that?
Wikipedia says that people often mistake Oberlanders for Yekkes because of their similar customs. I’m not saying whether or not that statement has any weight, but it does at least show that the OP of this thread isn’t the first person to draw the comparison.
Nachum: There were Jews following the Rema before the Oberlanders existed, wouldn’t they be Yekkes? I don’t see how you could assert that Oberlander minhag predates Yekkishe minhag unless we’re just defining it differently.
To the OP’s question: I’m pretty sure Oberlanders say Sim Shalom at mincha but Shalom Rav at maariv, while Yekkes say Shalom Rav at both. Oberlanders and Yekkes come from around the same geographical region, right?
Minhag Ashkenaz goes farther back than the Chasam Sofer in many areas, but in others he is relied upon.
Joseph, I’ve also read (possibly elsewhere in the Coffee Room) that Oberlanders have become very similar to their Chasidishe neighbors. I assume the OP was inquiring about similarities between Minhag Ashkenaz and the pre-Chasidishe-influenced Oberland Minhag.
Avi, well said. But, there’s a difference between privately thanking Hashem for what you have and interrupting the actual davening and altering the traditional Nusach over it. Also, clearly you and I disagree of whether or not we should be thankful for it. Are you thankful that the self proclaimed Jewish state gives Muslims greater freedom of speech than Jews?
He did quote a Brisker Rabbi in a previous thread. I suppose I should stop fueling the fire of this thread becoming a duplicate of that one. I think you’re right DaasYochid. “Were not meant literally” is the most likely reason.
To be clear, I was never defending saying a prayer for the state. I was doing the opposite. On the idolatry issue, I don’t believe Zionism is idolatry. If you do consider it to be so, how would saying a Zionist prayer not be an act of idolatry?
Thinking something is pikuach nefesh doesn’t make it OK. The state likely thought they were somehow saving lives by bulldozing Jewish homes and destroying communities. So, holding all other things equal, to say that believing Israel has a right to exist is worse than venerating anti-Semitic tyrants is unreasonable in my opinion.