Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
AAQ – by incorrectly, repeatedly referring to this as being about “someone you disagree with” you make it very clear that you don’t really get it. When someone, for example, makes declarations that are against torah, considers forbidden things permissible, cuts corners where not allowed it isnt a matter of disagreeing. When someone does something wrong, they are doing something wrong. You can’t pull a “different strokes for different folks” in judaism unless halacha is being followed. And you like that people are steeped in academia so you want them to be right, without researching it with those capable of making that determination. No, I don’t think avirah is that person, but you are just as blind as he calling certain rabbis honorable when they have proven themselves otherwise just because you do agree with them.
TS – nice try making it seem like a general problem. The lubavitcher rebbe is a very specific situation. And saying that “he doesn’t even know him” is outrages since most of you don’t either.
Gadol is not an abstract name, if your madreiga is that hard to assess without a farher even tho you wrote sfarim then that says a lotYou say that but the reality is you and jackk talk about nothing else and spend more time on him than any of us who supported him. Do you not realize that or do you prefer to pretend its not the case
Better than a bunch of people pretending they have folliwers
Huju – isn’t that who we have now?
Common- why do you feel a need to insert an ignorant, obviously not applicable anti Semitic line into an other beautiful post?
And I get sick seeing people copy paste black and white shulchan aruch while lacking torah required mentchlichkite and saychel.
It’s not motzei shem rah on rav moshe. And even tho I rarely agree with avirahs presentation of his points rabbi tender issues don’t come from disagreeing with him. You seem to have this point of gravitating towards rabbis who step over the line and then crying foul on everyone. You can’t just blanketly hail people for their love of academia. Rarely do you speak highly of any accepting gedolim or rabbit. Except, of course that there is a rabbi of a kollel down the block who you’ve mentioned actually knows your name.
er – I don’t remember calling for investigations. I only jumped in to correct you about what had happened since you presented it as something different. I personally am more frustrated by sham courts and hearings than by none. And if you meant me when you said you were tricked, I did get information and watch some of the depositions (a lot has not been made public) but I learned my lesson about discussing anything TDS people don’t want to hear. I explained it pretty thoroughly tho pointlessly.
Not real sure where we found common ground. I was with you big time in your first post and possibly your second but when you started reporting on the hearing as if you are being presented with well rounded evidence and information (which even anti trump reporters agree is not so), and as if evidence has been verified in a court of law instead of a one sided report, and you aren’t willing to process what actually happened with the blm destruction, and now you imply someone is going to be looking into any of those things??? You lost me waaay long ago.I
er- not right. You claim not to know much but then make lots of statements anyway. Simultaneously pooh poohing the riots and saying 1/6 is being pooh poohed.
I have already clarified several mistakes, to the best of my own knowledge but in your new post you claim they were posting bail for the peaceful protesters, they weren’t.
You call it thuggery, as if a bunch of random hooligans showed up to a party. There was live footage of a big rental truck showing up with printed signs and banners, and piles of bricks left available on some street corners. Who funded those? Who rented and drove the truck? How did people know where to meet to get it? Many of the ‘thugs’ traveled from lots of different cities and states. Who arranged and paid for that? It’s not as “nothing” as you keep portraying it to be. If you really don’t know any of this, why keep bringing it in? Why compare them at all? Is it just to shout down the people who want answers? If not then what is the purpose?Er- you are aware, I assume, that when you said (twice) that it wasn’t mostly federal property you seem to be forgetting or trying to slide by that that isn’t none. Damage to federal property, even when its not most, is still a federal offense. And in your downgrade you are overlooking the fact that some were set fire while people were in there, in one instance they actually blockaded fire fighters (or police, not sure which) inside the federal building and set it fire to kill them. And they, by the way, are federal employees, am I right?
“many gov officials failed to take action against rioting, but no one planned or supported it.” Um, this is not true. I’m pretty positive gov officials supported it. I heard them. And they encouraged it. I heard them. And they offered money for bail. So what exactly is your reason for letting this all get swept aside?
So you tell a lie, I tell you its an easily disproven lie, and your response is that Trump lies better. So I don’t get it, you’re saying thats the role model you are aspiring to be? And my hero happens to be my father who was incredibly honest. I don’t aspire to be Trump like you seem to.
Unless you are the same poster, you may want to contact bigbucher for a playmate, you seem to have a bit in common.
Aseh – A) nobody is saying it isnt a big deal. Its horrible. And it has nothing to do with how many people died.
B) no, it wouldn’t have been a lot worse. We weren’t ‘just lucky. For all the cries of armed insurrection, there have not been reports of arms. The blm rioters were armed. And deliberately so.
I’m still scratching my head tho, are you really thinking that there are people who think that stuff?Why would it be racist? They either are or they aren’t
“Because I think if BLM stormed the capitol in January 2017 to prevent Trump’s inauguration, you would agree that it was worse than other riots.”
Not at all. And if you would think about it it should be very obvious how incorrect that is. The most insulting part of that is completely not understanding how damaging the riots were, including the backing from government people and the lack of ability to stop it. To the point that some cities are still suffering from the precedent they set. To brush that all aside as a “well you just don’t like blm” is not rational.
“second, blm burned down mostly their own neighborhoods.”
Well thats a lie. And not even a good one.Nice try but…nah. obsessing over Koller people stealing per your interpretation and questioning their theivery over and over isnt demonstrating honor of torah, just racist ideology.
Boy you just can’t let this go. You must really love money or just be soo hung up on these thriving kollelites. Try sticking your nose in someone else’s faux life for a bit. If nothing else than to break the addiction
“The two are connected, since the Jan. 6 rioters saw the BLM rioters “get away with it” and thought they had a license to riot ”
I disagree. I don’t think seeing all those criminals destroy property, civilization and neighborhoods without consequence (and with kamala support)made them think it was okay to riot. I think it was what made them realize that we are in big trouble, that the government is not protecting us and that we are in danger with no recourse. The proverbial last straw. A true demonstration that your world is no longer safe.
The magazines are reflecting the reality.
No. No no no. Not my reality. Not our reality. If this reflects your reality than to say I feel sorry for you is an understatement. To say I cannot understand how you can live among a community where this is a reality is more like it.
No. And Gd forbid it should ever become close.er said Apparently Pelosi initially pushed for a formal bipartisan investigation, which the republicans rejected. I don’t know the details, but that’s their explanation why they did this has a committee hearing.
don’t you find that troubling? Or at least odd? The lack of bipartisanship is a HUGE issue in this hearing – resulting in the lack of cross examining, verification of facts, presentation of some things that seemed to have gotten overlooked etc. So you are given an “explanation” but somehow are still missing the details. right.
“By the way, Sayag, I heard that Trump never did request national guard, that he claimed this after-the-fact. I would like to see what evidence there is (or would have been) to show he did.”
that’s interesting. And if he did (I’ll leave that up in the air) are you thinking that they would bring that evidence forward? I have no problem with you taking their word for everything they say but I do take issue with you thinking that this is actually a fair display of how things went down. Nobody holds a one sided hearing objectively. It’s beyond naive to think that.
I have done quite a bit of digging and I still have not found the complete transcripts, documents or depositions. Nor can I find anyone other than Amil claiming that there are complete copies out there. If anyone has google suggestions please share them. I was able to get nonpartisan information from academics, real life individuals and other non media sources that are trustworthy and my take away is this:
If I say that some of the evidence is less then credible, I get called a narrow minded trump loving tucker carlson junkie. If I say that I found that there are several key issues that are being ignored, I am told I watch too much fox news and have fixed opinions. And if I ask, in return, for some sources that verify some of the not quite sensical testimony, I am informed ““you know how you can you know there was no fraud? Because they said so” (to quote smerel). So really it’s agree with the majority party or be called a fool. Not much of an opportunity for dialogue.
getting very confused as to what I didn’t say, what I didn’t know and when I didn’t know it.
Oh gosh! Agreed! I was scratching my head over that one until you explained it for me.
GH – that was very funny actually. You chose as a satarical situation something that your peers actually do. I got a kick out of that. (now I owe you, I guess)
“Syag, have you helped them apply for SNAP, so that they can get food?”
If it is relevant, yes
I don’t think it’s expensive standards, I think it’s “what she is accustomed to”. And that is not so hard to determine. I know that that is the rule with providing tzedaka to someone who was wealthy and lost their money.
“Do you know any American Jews who lack food?”
Yes
Absurd upteitch. Please don’t try that philosophy when parenting. Social decay. Cute.
“One doing a bad job, but the job nonetheless”
Oh please tell me you aren’t using these words to describe Biden. Please. I don’t care how much you hate Trump but you can’t call the shambles we are living in in a “bad job”. I can’t even go to my car at night without worrying about danger, my grandson is almost out of formula, again, I can’t afford gas but was offered a job miles and miles from my house, there are mass shootings several times a week and the useless congress feels their most important issue is a one sided hearing with no cross examination of a former president cuz they are afraid the public may vote him in. Which by the way is interfering with elections. And yes, I’m simplifying but your statement is beyondAJ – typically, if you bring too much rational evidence they don’t like they either start calling you nasty names, or they disappear and try opening a new thread.
Mk- right, that’s why we call him a troll. Did you notice nobody else said it?
Well, since nobody here ever said or insinuated such a thing I guess your whole premise is wrong.
Bummer.Maybe you should be spending less time in front of your tv
GH – thank you! So nice to get an answer. Not to disappoint but I had heard the objectives of the hearings, I was looking for the testimonies and evidence.
” It’s true that you resist looking up the very sources you need for information.”
totally false. I have said a hundred times that I always go there first. I said I don’t listen to talking heads or news reports because I prefer facts. Listening to hearings/trials start to finish without the arm chair spins.
” Again, there are transcripts and primary documents available online.”
I hope so. If they are I will find them.
“Smerel, so you’re fixed in your views: ”
er – I just want to interject here cuz this is a big thing that happens a lot. I totally hear you. That comment makes a lot of sense and there is SOOO much of people being fixed in their trump/anti trump views. But there are also times when it is actually a legit comment or complaint (or observation). What he said was true, not just fixed views, as evidenced by other issues that have played out with her over the months/year.
Honestly, if Yaakov’s questions aren’t answered, especially if they don’t even get asked, it will be very telling in regard to the depth and direction of this hearing. And I appreciate all you wrote about trump and getting to the bottom of his actions. I hadn’t even given that a thought in regard to wanting this unraveled. I want the rest of the story. Specifically the timeline, the lack of planned security, the refusal to set up security, the missing hours between the request for security and it showing up, the false report about officer siknik lasting so long, the videos of security staff opening doors and ushering people in. There are so many questions and I am under the impression by the subpoenas and witness list that these – which really are at the heart and core of the chaos – are not being addressed. If that is true, than isn’t that itself a curious question?
Wow. I’m sorry that your nature filled wholesome life out in the country hasn’t adequately left you enough at peace not to need to be hurtful to those less informed than you.
My apologies for getting in your way.That should read ‘unchecked’ opinions.
“Syag: it is not a court of law, not that type of hearing”
That’s too bad. I would much rather have access to the texts, transcripts and testimonies of the witnesses than someone’s interpretations of them. If they decide to make it available i will read them myself. Time will tell.Not video editing, sheesh.
When there is a hearing, there are people from both sides (whatever those sides may be) who listen to the evidence presented, ask questions about it, cross examine and clarify, and establish credibility. If I stood before a group and said (for example) “This doctor supports my work. I will now show you some of the letter he sent me and a clip of him giving his approbation” you would expect someone to ask further questions about it minimally, or perhaps for the rest of the letter or interview. If not, then I have presented an edited version of the evidence. And if there is no other side, who is to ask any questions to verify credibility? Im not trying to be anti democrat or argumentative, these are valid questions. Both sides were present at Watergate. It was mentioned to me by a lawyer friend that not having “the other side” is completely unprecedented. I don’t know if that is so. So reaching out was not something requiring snappy responses, it was a question. And it seems not one person who supports this process is able to explain how it is being carried out appropriately.
Im more tired of this nastiness than I am of hearing about Trump. and that’s pretty tired.Jackk- do you even read the post you are responding to? I called her out on her overly emotional response and how anyone making a mistake gets accused of following right wing news sources INSTEAD OF just correcting them.
Sheesh.wow GH, is he your brother in law or something? I don’t get how you guys can’t respond to a stupid comment without hurling trash (the “where do you get your news” line is a favorite, because obviously the only REAL news sources are whichever ones you are watching.) Why in the world do you get so emotional about Nanci pelosi’s husband? because she’s a democrat? Really? chill out. Step back. or maybe you all just need to turn off your idiot boxes and find something else to do with yourselves. screaming at other jews because they insulted your political figure head is just a bit much.
Adding to my question, is it even possible for like minded people to present two sides of a story?
I’m not understanding why this isn’t bothering everyone who wants answers to what actually happened.i was hoping for actual information, not rhetoric
So someone who watched it just told me it is actually not full presentations of the interviews and depositions, but rather selected sections and clips with lots of narrative. And considering there is not a single soul in the room to ‘cross examine’ as is normally done in hearings I am not understanding what we are supposed to be gaining from this hearing different than what has already been expressed and leaked all year. Can someone who does not mind communicating kindly please clarify for me what will be presented? What can possibly be accomplished in regard to answers?
not quite sure if you are being funny or condescending but I was told by someone that it was just excerpts and clips so I was trying to clarify from people who might know.
Im not understanding. are you saying this guy was just a set up? He bought weapons special for this purpose.
So the hearings begin tonight and it will be televised unedited in full form so we can see all of it for ourselves? And hear all the questions and responses and evidence so we can draw conclusions?
er – correct, I meant surveilance, not the big investigation. But I think you understood the point I was trying to make, not about the details of the dossier or the investigation into trump etc, just the simpler piece of procuring, passing along and using information that is fake, known to be fake etc. We have seen adequate evidence of phony evidence and sources, and abuse of authority of chairmen (regardless of the issues being investigated) to know that we have to be skeptical and careful what we believe. It’s really a shame and undermines a lot of things we need to rely on.
Reb E – you missed the boat there. It wasn’t about losing a supreme court judge, it was about an assassin going to a judges house to murder him and his wife and children because he didn’t like the vote he was going to make. You don’t find that to be a problem?