New York – The defense team for Sholom Rubashkin has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court the lower courts’ decision to deny bail for the Orthodox Hasidic Jewish businessman before sentencing next month.
Rubashkin’s counsel, led by appellate attorney Nathan Lewin, filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court on March 11, asking the high court to overturn the decision of the lower courts denying Rubashkin bail pending his forthcoming sentencing. He has now taken the additional step of making a direct application to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who presides over the Iowa judicial district in which Rubashkin’s case is being heard, to grant Rubashkin his immediate release on bail pending his sentencing and appeal.
Lewin asserts that federal prosecutors were overzealous in Mr. Rubashkin’s prosecution from the start, submitting him to considerably more severe restrictions and potential punishment than other employers targeted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials for hiring even larger numbers of illegal workers than were discovered at Agriprocessors. He further points out that the judge presiding over Mr. Rubashkin’s case improperly allowed prejudicial evidence of alleged immigration infractions, despite the fact that the only charges against Mr. Rubaskin related to alleged bank fraud.
As reports of these and other irregularities in the case have filtered down to the grassroots community, several Jewish organizations have joined in questioning the basis for prosecutors’ assertion that Rubashkin is a flight risk who must remain imprisoned before sentencing. They are also critical of the federal government for relentlessly targeting Rubashkin over the last two years, seemingly to retroactively justify the massive 2008 raid on the Agriprocessors plant – which included Black Hawk military helicopters and more than 600 federal agents – that economically destroyed the town of Postville and left the company bankrupt.
Mr. Rubashkin’s bank fraud convictions were for inflating invoices to expand a line of credit he used to operate his business, even though timely payments were made on the loan and the bank appeared uninterested in the accuracy of the invoices.
Prosecutors were allowed to include inflammatory evidence regarding the employment of illegal workers at the bank fraud trial, even though the judge had previously ruled such evidence would prejudice the jury and had severed the immigration and bank fraud cases for that very reason. The charges regarding harboring illegal immigrants were eventually dropped.
Perhaps most dismaying, prosecutors fragmented two basic charges into 163 counts in seven superseding indictments. And the prosecutors have shown unusual harshness in resisting Mr. Rubashkin’s request – even with the posting of a large bond and his hiring of a round-the-clock private guard – to spend the first days of Passover and celebrate the seders with his family.
“We are deeply concerned about the seeming pattern of overzealous prosecution in this case,” said Rabbi Pesach Lerner, executive vice president of the National Council of Young Israel.
Similarly, Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, executive vice president of Agudath Israel of America, reported that “the volume of e-mails and phone calls we have received about the Rubashkin case has reached a loud crescendo in recent weeks, as the full horror of how he is being singled out for harsh treatment has become strikingly clear.”
Rabbis Lerner and Zwiebel, along with representatives of other Jewish groups, are exploring ways of expressing their deep concern to the federal prosecutors in Iowa as well as the Justice Department at the national level.
In the meantime, private advocates for Rubashkin have launched a “Justice for Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin” Web page at http://justiceforshalom.org.
Despite the fact that the jury found in a special interrogatory that Rubashkin did not profit personally from false invoices presented to the lending bank, prosecutors have indicated that they view an appropriate prison sentence as being in the 22 to 27 year range. Rubashkin is the father of 10 children, including an autistic teenage boy who depends heavily on him.
Members of the community who wish to communicate their respectful concern over the handling of the Rubashkin case and the excessive sentence they are seeking are urged to contact the Justice Department – Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison at 202-514-3465 or [email protected] and sign an online petition available at www.justiceforsholom.org.
(Press Release Submitted to YWN))
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
39 Responses
I wish him well but IMHO, this action will only publicize to the rest of the country how well we behave. It is not a very good example for a “father of 10 children, including an autistic teenage boy who depends heavily on him” to set.
i truly hope that now the ribono shel olem will help. now is the time for nissim, its the time that hashem did big nissim so please lets all daven, plead, beg and storm the gates of heaven so that HE should help this yid in such a terrible situation. if anyone has connections to the gedolei hador please ask them to daven on his behalf!!!!
This situation breaks my heart.
Obviously he broke the rules to keep afloat and with no criminal intent. It certainly sounds like the judges and jury alike are trying to make him a “scapegoat” of sorts.
Clearly some of what he did was against the law and he was caught. I am sure that he deeply regrets what he did.
He is obviously an ethical man who supports his very large family and paid all of his workers and didn’t do anything to aggrandize himself. I am sure that an unprejudiced jury can seek an appropriate sentence where the punishment fits the crime. Perhaps instead he could do community service.
What good can be accomplished by imprisoning a man who not only tirelessly supported his family but who treated his workers fairly and brought employment to many people from within his community as well!!
Who cares about your so-called humble opinion. I suggest you do some more research about the case before you make such ignorant comments.
My comment was directed at #1.
My thoughts, number ONE is that his is a KIDDUSH HASHEM since if this would have happened to someone of another ethnicity, there would have been rallies, riots and looting!!!!!
WE Jews follow the law and rules of government and are petitioning the courts and writing to our politicians to assist him in a legal fashion. KUDOS to US!
In addition as #2 stated, this is really a time of nissim. Do you think that “163” counts is coincidence. In Yiddishkeit there is no co-incidence. Sholom Rubashkin’s fate is tied to the numbers “163” and his faith is tied to the number “613” do you think that is a coincidence? I have very strong feelings that this is a sign in itself and that SMR will be matzliach in the end.
I think the U.S. is the best country to live in, but it still needs alot of fixin’.
The problem is that until something like this happens, everyone goes around with Sholom Oly Nafshi.
Why is Charlie Rangel and his cohorts running around scott free, and SMR has to sit like a he’s the biggest threat to society.
We must fix the legal & penal system, NOW.
My only question is how many years do think is fair for him to sit? He committed serious crimes and there were multiple counts against him. Personally, while I feel bad, I don’t know how a father with 10 kids and an autistic child at home can have the audacity to committ crimes that would take him away from his family. Their business could have made plenty millions without breaking one law. Nobody likes to hear it but sadly he did it to himself. Crime DOESN’T PAY!!!
#8, I don’t think these crimes warrant 22 to 27 years by any stretch of the imagination. The article says the bank did not seem concerned with the inaccurate invoices. The prosecutors are rashaim.
#8 As I had heard it, the things going on with the banks were being taken care of.
He was already paying back whatever the banks thought he had falsly taken.
The illegal alien situation is not the fault of employeers who in some state in many cases were not even allowed to ask the immigration status of potential employees under “racism” laws.
So what were these “serious crimes”, that you accuse him of?
WellInformedYid, it pains me to say this, but I do only because this is the approach of his lawyers, but we’re dealing not with someone who maliciously committed crime but who was way in over his head. Let it be a cautionary tale, yes, but let people learn that they have to run a business a bit less heimish and a bit more professionally. But there was a good degree of ehrlichkeit all along the way.
hereorthere,
As has become distressingly frequent in your posts here, what you heard (and then shared with the rest of us) was wrong. In America, there is no such thing as “racism laws.” I’m not sure if you’re referring to anti-discrimination law, or some body of the legal code that exists only in your imagination, but either way, neither federal or state antidiscrimination law or the laws that exist only in your head would supercede the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which requires employers to verify the legal status of their employees. In any event, the immigration charges against Rubashkin involved conspiracy to harbor illegal immigrants and abetting identity theft. Both of which would have required not just that he had hired illegal immigrants, but that he knew that they were here illegally, so whether or not he was required to ask is not relevant in the least.
From Fox News; L.A. Judge Rules Against Asking Suspects About Immigration Status
Thursday, June 26, 2008
PrintShareThisLOS ANGELES — A California judge blocked a lawsuit that sought to enlist Los Angeles police officers in weeding out illegal immigrants.
Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu on Wednesday rejected arguments that the city’s policy — under which most suspects are not asked about their immigration status — conflicted with federal and state law.
Los Angeles police work in communities with large numbers of illegal immigrants, and generally don’t inquire about immigration status because it could discourage undocumented people from helping officers and reporting crimes.
Police Chief William Bratton said the judge preserved “an essential crime-fighting tool for us.” Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said the ruling recognized that “turning local police into federal immigration agents would lead to fewer arrests, prosecutions and convictions.”
Under a 1979 order formally known as Special Order 40, LAPD officers do not ask about immigration status while interviewing victims, witnesses and suspects, and do not arrest people based on immigration status.
Officers alert immigration officials if a suspect is a gang member who has been previously deported, or if a suspect is arrested for a felony or multiple misdemeanors.
The lawsuit filed in April 2007 was brought on behalf of unidentified police officers who said they were afraid to speak out, but who depicted a revolving door legal system in which the same illegal immigrants are repeatedly arrested instead of deported.
The lawsuit sought to require officers to inform federal immigration officials when illegal immigrants are arrested on drug charges.
The judge referred to the national debate over immigration, but said he sought to “avoid considering the political aspects of the case and focus only on the legal ones.”
Paul Orfanedes, a lawyer for Harold P. Sturgeon, who brought the case, said the judge sidelined tens of thousands of law enforcers who could help immigration authorities.
Police “are being gagged. It’s don’t ask, don’t tell as regards to legal status,” Orfanedes said.
The ruling granted motions for summary judgment in favor of the Police Department and the American Civil Liberties Union, which intervened in the case.
Hector Villagra, an ACLU attorney, said the decision affirmed that the federal government, not local law enforcement, is responsible for carrying out immigration law.
By asking that Special Order 40 be thrown out, Villagra said, plaintiffs are “asking for carte blanche to engage in racial profiling,” he said.
mosheemes2
Now the article just posted was about police but I remember hearing from Sean Hannity (or Rush or both) that employeers were forbidden (now matter what the “laws” said from also asking immigration status.
So obviously what you posted about what I said is wrong not just here but about my other posts as well.
Just like the liberals do not like following the Constitution so to they will not follow any laws that conflict with whatever their agenda is on any given day.
mosheemes2 also the article which you obviously did not read before your erronious claims of “identity theft” specifically says;
“He further points out that the judge presiding over Mr. Rubashkin’s case improperly allowed prejudicial evidence of alleged immigration infractions, despite the fact that the only charges against Mr. Rubaskin related to alleged bank fraud.”
So you should check out the facts, before going around telling others who “wrong” they are.
Point by point here:
As you said, the article you cited has nothing to do with our conversation, since it refers to a Los Angeles policy regarding the police and not employers. If you’d understood the article, you’d have realized it also undermined your point. The lawsuit was about whether the police were allowed to have a policy that said they would not ask about immigration status, not whether they could ask. Nowhere does it suggest that a police department could not ask about immigration status if they wanted to. (Off the top of my head, Maricopa County, Arizona (where Phoenix is) rather famously sweeps for illegal immigrants every once in a while.)
In any event none of this has anything to do with the obligation of employers and while I’m not sure whether you heard Hannity or Rush wrong, or whether they were wrong (sadly, it happens), you’re information is wrong.
From the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Handbook:
“Employment is often the magnet that attracts individuals to reside in the United States illegally. The purpose of the employer sanctions law is to remove this magnet by requiring employers to hire only individuals who may legally work here: citizens and nationals of the United States, lawful permanent residents, and aliens authorized to work. To comply with the law, you must verify the identity and employment authorization of each person you hire, complete and retain a Form I-9 for each employee, and refrain from discriminating against individuals on the basis of national origin or citizenship.”
If you can find anywhere where there is a law that would contradict what the immigration authorities tell employers, let me know where that is, and then let immigration know, because they seem to be unaware of it.
I suspect when you got your job you gave your employer some sort of evidence that you were allowed to work in this country. I know that I had to.
As for your quote about the Rubashkin case, I did read the article. I have no idea what he did or what was appropriate evidence in the bank fraud trial. All I was saying was that the question of whether or not he was allowed to ask his employees if they were here legally had no bearing on the immigration charges, since the things he was charged with accused him of knowing the employees were here illegally. I did not say he did those things, and you are certainly free to believe he did not, but if so, you should have said that the immigration thing wasn’t a big deal because he wasn’t guilty, not because it wasn’t his fault.
It’s a big internet. If you can find anywhere to back up your claim that employers cannot ask they’re employees about their immigration status, I’ll admit I was wrong (and possibly look for a new profession. I’m a corporate side immigration attorney.) But until then, I think I’ll side with the USCIS on this over what you think you heard from Rush and Hannity. Chag Sameach
My whole point in posting this article is to show that despite the fact that you have claimed that once a law is in place therefore no one ever goes against it as in employeers being illegally harrassed, for asking immigration status
this articles peoves that there are those who do such harrsaasment no matter what the law says.
Since Hannity was actually out in the field with the minutemen and since he takes calls from employeers who are harrassed by “authorities” for asking about immigration status there does not need to be a written law that anyone can trace and that some lib can get in trouble, over.
Just like there is no law in Israel that says that religious Jews can be singled out for harrassment but everyone knows it happens anyway.
And you have not even addressed the fact that you falsly claimed that Rubashkin was supposedly guilty of identity theft when in fact he was never even charged, with that crime.
You still have not shown what these “serious crimes” are, that you accuse him of.
Ok, so we agree that your original claim “The illegal alien situation is not the fault of employeers who in some state in many cases were not even allowed to ask the immigration status of potential employees under “racism” laws” is false, right? You are now agreeing with me that there are no such laws. Since this is all that I’ve claimed, I’m not sure why you’re still trying to continue this conversation with regard to whether even though there was no law preventing asking his workers what their status was, and, in fact, he was obligated by law to do so, you seem to think it would be a valid defense to not following the law that liberals would have given him a hard time. I think you’re wrong about that, (after all every employer in the country (or at least those who follow the law) verifies there employees immigration status) but I also don’t want to argue the point, because I can’t tell you for sure that no employer has ever been harassed by someone over this. All I can say is that the law requires employers to ask and there is no law forbidding them form doing so. It appears you agree about this now, and as usual, I once again ask that rather than attempt to debate me, you just try harder in the future to not say things that are wrong.
As for why I haven’t shown what the serious crimes I’ve accused Rubashkin of were, I’d say that’s because I didn’t accuse of of serious crimes. That was someone else. In fact the only thing I’ve said about what crimes he may or may not have committed is that I have no idea what he did. I stand by that.
Finally, I never said Rubashkin was guilty of identity theft, I said he’d been charged with abetting identity theft. You seem to think he was never charged with that. So here, quoting from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Press release following the indictment of Shalom Rubashkin (It’s on their website):
“The indictment charges Agriprocessors Inc., a Postville, Iowa, meat processing company, and Sholom Rubashkin, 49, of Postville, with conspiracy to harbor illegal aliens for profit, harboring illegal aliens for profit, conspiring to commit document fraud, aiding and abetting document fraud, aiding and abetting aggravated identity theft, and bank fraud.”
To be clear here, this means that you had no idea what Rubashkin had been charged with until presumably you read the sentence I wrote, but felt comfortable publicly accusing someone else of lying about it. Please stop doing that. There just isn’t any reason for that to happen.
Since we seem to agree now that your original statement that employers were “in some state in many cases were not even allowed to ask the immigration status of potential employees under “racism” laws” was not true (the law (though not the law Rubashkin was accused of violating) in fact requires them to ask), and I have no interest in debating whether liberal harassment is an excuse for breaking the law, I’m not sure why why we should continue this conversation.
As for why I haven’t shown what the serious crimes I’ve accused Rubashkin of were, I’d say that’s because I didn’t accuse of of serious crimes. That was someone else. In fact the only thing I’ve said about what crimes he may or may not have committed is that I have no idea what he did. I stand by that.
Finally, I never said Rubashkin was guilty of identity theft, I said he’d been charged with abetting identity theft. You seem to think he was never charged with that. So here, quoting from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement press release following the indictment of Sholom Rubashkin (It’s on their website):
“The indictment charges Agriprocessors Inc., a Postville, Iowa, meat processing company, and Sholom Rubashkin, 49, of Postville, with conspiracy to harbor illegal aliens for profit, harboring illegal aliens for profit, conspiring to commit document fraud, aiding and abetting document fraud, aiding and abetting aggravated identity theft, and bank fraud.”
In the future, please make sure things you say are true, especially before you accuse other people of making things up.
mosheemes2 Aghain you are looking for side issues to pretend you are right when you are still very wrong.
You said ;”In any event, the immigration charges against Rubashkin involved conspiracy to harbor illegal immigrants and abetting identity theft. Both of which would have required not just that he had hired illegal immigrants, but that he knew that they were here illegally, so whether or not he was required to ask is not relevant in the least.”.
If he was not allowed to ask their immigration status because the liberal authorities would have found excuses to bring him up on some discrimination charges whether there is a specific law about immigration or not, then he still could not have “gotten away” with asking their immigration status.
This your other belief that he “had to know” is wrong as well.
If the law would always stop authorities from making false charges and in other ways, being corrupt there would not be all these “corrupt cops” that are so often in the news.
So yes Your last line where you say “In the future, please make sure things you say are true, especially before you accuse other people of making things up.” is something you should learn to follow.
And the charges of Identity theft are not explained in any detail on that website.
They do not say exactly WHO’S identity was supposedly stolen or exactly what Rubashkin did to “aid and abet” the theft.
Just being accused does not make him guilty, and these sound like trumped up charges just to get the “evil religious Jew who does not support animal rights”.
How come Acorn which is doing all this with illegals and identity theft as well as pedophilia and prostitution as has been exposed on many episodes of Hannity’s show with camera footage showing them supporting it, and none of them has been arrested or brought up on any charges?
Because they were liberals, and not
Religious Jews.
And we have never “established” that there are no laws against asking immigration status.
I am not a professional researcher and have no access to every law ever passed.
Just beacsue I did not (yet) find such a law is no more “proof” that it does not exist, then not finding a “piece of G-d” that can be examined in a laboratory is any “proof” He supposedly does not exist as atheists love to falsly claim.
This is really the last time I’m doing this, because I’m really tired of having to tell you that I’ve never suggested anything about Sholom Rubashkin’s guilt.
I honestly do not care if you post your opinions on this site all day. I disagree with almost all of them but so what? I do care when you post as fact things that are just false and if you were interested in convincing me or anyone else of the accuracy of your opinions, ridiculous sloppiness with facts is a bad thing to be doing.
I’ve posted here from the guide the government makes for employers saying that the law requires them to ask their workers whether their here legally. I’ve told you that I’ve been asked to prove that when I got my job. I’ve told you that I am a corporate immigration attorney. There really isn’t any more I can do to convince you that you’re just not right that that is the law.
And no the press release from ICE does not say what the details of the charges against Rubashkin were, but that’s because it’s a press release. (although if you care, it’s a matter of public record I’m sure you can find a way to get it), but it does make clear that 1. I did not make up that they included aiding and abetting identity theft and 2. You made no effort to verify that you were wrong about that before accusing me of making it up. You should apologize for that and stop doing it.
If you did not want people to think Rubashkin was guilty you would not have lied that I had said there was a law against him asking immigration status, as you did in your first post to me, becuase at that time I had not said there was such a law.
I at that time had just said that he was not allowed to ask, I did not say “there is a law stiopping him” before you lied that I had said that there was such a law.
You told me you were a corporate immigration attorney?
Where did you say that, before?
That says plenty about your motivations to attack the employeer and not the illegals who come in here and steal American jobs.
So if there were such a law you would be the last one to fess up and admit it.
As to your #1 You should have right away said where you got your information from because it was not in the artivcle you were posting under and an “attorney” is supposed to present the facts with their sources, or didn’t you know that?
And
#2 I looked at the article carefully before responding to you and there in the article was absolutely no mention of identity theft, so you claim that I ‘made no effort’ is just another lie, on your part.
But I know liberals love to play fast and loose with the truth.
And again nothing in my first post where you started attacking me was false and you cannot prove anything in that first post ‘was’ false.
Perhaps I wrong about some details in subsequent posts, but so were you, especially in your firts post claiming what I had said in ‘my’ first was supposedly false.
This is especially true about you being wrong
since in your first post here to me, you
falsly claimed “As has become distressingly frequent in your posts here what you heard (and then shared with the rest of us) was wrong.”
You mean like where someone tried to make out like I was a “fearmongering zealot” when he in fact was doing everything he accused me of?
I wasn’t wrong there and I showed I wasn’t.
Or like where someone else falsly accused me of
“making the most inane comments ever posted on this site” for pointing out the evils of doping up boys with Ritalin because he “taught one kid who got worse after being off Ritalin” so that suppoosedly proves that all those other boys who the man hating feminist teachers, was doped up to hold them back really need to be drugged up just because these non doctors claim they need to be”?
Nope; No one proved me wrong there, either.
The problem with liberals is that they think just by claiming someone is wrong, that “makes” them wrong.
As a lawyer you should understand that but since you obnviously do not, you are so obviously wrong, on that point, as well.
Yom Tov is soon, so I’m just going to ask how you can possibly reconcile the statement “If you did not want people to think Rubashkin was guilty you would not have lied that I had said there was a law against him asking immigration status, as you did in your first post to me, beucase at that time I had not said there was such a law.
I at that time had just said that he was not allowed to ask, I did not say “there is a law stiopping him” before you lied that I had said that there was such a law.” with the statement you made about racism laws in number 10 that prompted my first comment? You did say there were laws that prevented employers (or employeers as you seem to think they’re called) from asking about immigration status. I did not make that up.
And actually the distressing frequency I was referring to was referring to was not the Ritalin conversation (that’s why I said that was inane and not wrong) but our original discussion about Robert Hanssen’s current incarceration status, your belief that Pat Buchanan had never said anything more plainly antisemetic than Barack Obama has (despite his dabbling in Holocaust denial and his public accusations about the first Gulf War being waged on behalf of the Jews), or your discussion of Alec Baldwin’s comments about Ken Starr that were made about Henry Hyde on a different program than the two you tried to guess that he’d made it on. I’d say that’s an impressive record of things that are objectively wrong.
“And again nothing in my first post where you started attacking me was false and you cannot prove anything in that first post ‘was’ false.
Perhaps I wrong about some details in subsequent posts, but so were you, especially in your firts post claiming what I had said in ‘my’ first was supposedly false.”
Let’s assume for the moment that your right and I can’t “prove” that your first statement was false, because proof for you that any law doesnt exist would seem to require that I post the laws of the United States, each individual state, and every subsequent court decision to show that no one has ever suggested that an employer cannot ask their employees to provide proof that they can legally work here. (This despite the fact that I’ve already shown that the law requires the opposite, and the fact that the petition linked to on this page, which I certainly hope after all of this, that you’ve read and signed, mentions the efforts Agriprocessors took to ensure that their workers were allowed to work here) That still wouldn’t make it necessarily true that you didn’t say anything false. I know this because it’s not true and, honestly, there’s no way you can tell me you know otherwise, or tell me you know that I don’t know otherwise because I do. (That thing about me being an immigration lawyer is in the last paragraph of comment 16 by the way. And I’d love to hear you flesh out the idea that somehow I’m biased because it would be BAD for the corporate immigration law business if contradictory laws existed that led to every employer owner in America violating immigration laws evey time they hired an employee.)
And that’s really the problem here. I don’t know how many ways I can say the that issue I have here isn’t that you’re conservative, or that I think my opinions on everything must be right (they’re certainly not). It’s just in this case (and in several others) the issue here is one of fact, not opinion, and one of us must be right, and yeah, since I’m the one who knows what he’s talking about and doesn’t just spout stuff off that he vagulely remembers from Hannity or Rush that conforms to his biases, in this case (as well as the others) the person who’s right is me. From reading your posts on this site you seem to be someone who isn’t all that informed about issues he talks about. And as long as that’s true, either stick to offering opinions and not made-up facts, or better yet, become informed. We’d all be better off for it.
Finally, left me see if I understand you:
1. I made a claim about what Rubashkin was charged with. (I’m not sure why I need to cite sources for that, when my point is that before you make comments you should have a basic familiarity with the case, which would include knowing what he’s been accused of)
2. You accused me of lying about what he’d been charged with, since (I think, I’m not totally clear why you didn’t know what he’d been charged with) you seem to have not known that the trial in which he’d been convicted did not involve everything he’d been charged with.
3. I suggested you made no effort to find out that I was right before you accused me of lying. (This is true. Just googling “Rubashkin identity theft” (not in quotes) would have led you to Wikipedia would have told you what he’d been charged with and you could verify that elsewhere). There wasn’t any reason for you to rely on this article alone to know what he’d been charged with, after someone else told you there were other charges.
4. You respond that you had made an effort by reading the article on this page (which honestly, I hope you did before you commented in the first place).
If that’s what happened, I’m going to repeat that in the future, you should make an effort to verify what people say before you accuse them of lying. You don’t know enough about things to assume you know everything and it’s not my job to provide sources to alleviate your ignorance.
You say in comment #23; This is really the last time I’m doing this”
Then after I responded in comments #24 and #25
you respond again in comments #26 -28 inclusive.
But supposedly you are so honest and truthful.\
Your screennames even claims it.
And I have several bridges to sell.
Yom Tov is soon, so I’m just going to ask how you can possibly reconcile the statement “If you did not want people to think Rubashkin was guilty you would not have lied that I had said there was a law against him asking immigration status, as you did in your first post to me, beucase at that time I had not said there was such a law.
I at that time had just said that he was not allowed to ask, I did not say “there is a law stiopping him” before you lied that I had said that there was such a law.” with the statement you made about racism laws in number 10 that prompted my first comment? You did say there were laws that prevented employers (or employeers as you seem to think they’re called) from asking about immigration status. I did not make that up.;;;;
That is blatently false I did NOT in statement #10 even use the word “law”.
And since you want to play games of attacdking typos I can do that too.
;;;;;And actually the distressing frequency I was referring to was referring to was not the Ritalin conversation (that’s why I said that was inane and not wrong);;;;
Your response to me about that was both wrong and inane but you cannot even say what was supposedly so inane about something you now admit was not wrong.
;;; but our original discussion about Robert Hanssen’s current incarceration status, your belief that Pat Buchanan had never said anything more plainly antisemetic than Barack Obama has (despite his dabbling in Holocaust denial and his public accusations about the first Gulf War being waged on behalf of the Jews),;;;;
And Obama sat for years listening to his preacher say the same things.
As I said before and you still have no answer, according you Hitler was less antisemitic then Buchanon because Hitler never denied the holocaust.
In fact when Hitler was giving his antisemitic speeches in the 1920’s it hadn’t even happened yet so it couldn’t be denied.
;;;or your discussion of Alec Baldwin’s comments about Ken Starr that were made about Henry Hyde on a different program than the two you tried to guess that he’d made it on.;;;
So it wasn’t on those particular shows.
My point was not about exactly what shows it was on.
My point was that he was promoting and supporting the idea of mob rule and cold blooded murder by the mob, against anyone the liberals decided tyhey wanted silenced permanently.
I was not wrong about that and again you have no answer and in typical liberal game playing fashion you have to hide behind insignificant details that you peek out from behind and weakly scream, “I’m right about the insignificant detail”.
;;; I’d say that’s an impressive record of things that are objectively wrong.;;;;
Yes an impressive record of things you are wrong about.
From post 10: “The illegal alien situation is not the fault of employeers who in some state in many cases were not even allowed to ask the immigration status of potential employees under “racism” laws.”
The last word in that sentence is “laws,” right?
I didn’t think the employeer thing was a typo. You did it every time you used the word, so I’m pretty sure you meant to do it.
And I did respond to your question about Obama and Hitler on your post at that article, shocking that you said I still had no answer without checking. You asked why people think Buchanan has said worse things than Obama, and the answer is because he has in fact said things that are much worse than anything Obama has said. (Holocaust denial is really bad right? Or did I miss the speech where Obama suggested Holocaust survivors suffered from faulty memories? Probably it was in the same speech where he to quote one of your remarkably well sourced thoughts “apologized to the Arabs for America saying “America has been arrogant”.” I’ll let you Google the words “america has been arrogant” so you can see what you would have learned had you bothered to make sure Obama had said that to the Arabs before claiming that he did) I guess you may not have been asking that question rhetorically, in which case, I hope that answers your quesetion. But if you actually thought the answer was that they both have said the same things, you stand corrected.
And no your point wasn’t that Alec Baldwin was on, but your point was to tar all liberals based on a very clear recollection of how the crowd reacted to what he said, a recollection that’s remarkable considering you had no idea who he threatened or who he said it to. But doubtlessly you vividly remember the rest of it. (Did you even see it? Im thinking not.) Yes, you are wrong about Alec Baldwin in the same way a liberal would be wrong to suggest that Ann Coulter actually wishes that the New York Times editorial staff had been murdered by Timothy McVeigh, but all I care about is that you posted something and got the details wrong, even though three seconds of effort could have gotten them right.
Yes, I did say I wasn’t going to respond to you any more, but since you’ve started denying things you wrote on this page, I’ve felt the need to see this to its end. So you’ve got me, I’ve been wrong once on this board. It feels good to admit. You should try it some time
“no one has ever suggested that an employer cannot ask their employees to provide proof that they can legally work here.”
Really?
So just because you claim all the laws say a certain thing (with fits your liberal pro Obama (who is pro illegal alien) biases)that means everyone obeys the law?
All those ACORN pro illegal alien types and their sympathizers in the government never harass anyone, huh?
Tell me oh mr super smart lawyer with all the answers, what law says it is ok for hate filled Blacks to beat up on and kill Jews as happened in the Crown Heights riots where then mayor David Dinkins said “let them vent” which they did for 3 days?
Since you are demanding people believe that if the law does not say it’s ok then it does not happen.
Then you say;
“I know this because it’s not true and, honestly, there’s no way you can tell me you know otherwise, or tell me you know that I don’t know otherwise because I do. ”
In other words I must accept without proof anything you claim just because you claim it.
Have you tried that one in court lately, counselor?
LOL
And that’s really the problem here. I don’t know how many ways I can say the that issue I have here isn’t that you’re conservative,;;;;;;
So you claim; Just like you claimed that you weren’t going to post on this article anymore then continued to do so.
;;;;;;;; or that I think my opinions on everything must be right (they’re certainly not).;;;;
Where have you ever admitted to me that you were wrong about anything?
;;;;;; It’s just in this case (and in several others) the issue here is one of fact, not opinion,;;;;
Again that is your unproven claim that you obviously expect me to blindly accept without question.
I don’t.
;;;; and one of us must be right, and yeah, since I’m the one who knows what he’s talking about;;;;
As evidenced by the fact that you ciontinue to falsly claim that I supposedly made no effort to cjheck the facts when I did and after my proving that you deliberately made false claims like yours about not posting here anymore when you obviously did after saying you wouldn’t.
Oh yeah everyone should really accept your claims of being so “right” …hahahahahahahahaha
;;; and doesn’t just spout stuff off that he vagulely remembers from Hannity or Rush;;;
I did not say vaguely or “vagulely” as you seem to think it’s spelled.
See I told you I could play your game.
;;; that conforms to his biases, in this case (as well as the others) the person who’s right is me. From reading your posts on this site you seem to be someone who isn’t all that informed about issues he talks about.;;;;
You certainly seem not to know more then you think I supposedly do.
And I am not the one who claimed to be a professional in the subject.
I’ll tell you one thing if I ever needed a lawyer in this area I’d sure want someone competent in the subject and you certainly haven’t shown yourself to be, that, not by a long shot.
;;;;;;;And as long as that’s true, either stick to offering opinions and not made-up facts, or better yet, become informed. We’d all be better off for it.;;;;;;;
Made up facts such as falsly claiming I said in my origional post (#10) there was a law when the word ‘law’ does not even appear in that post.
;;;;;;Finally, left me see if I understand you:
1. I made a claim about what Rubashkin was charged with. (I’m not sure why I need to cite sources for that, when my point is that before you make comments you should have a basic familiarity with the case, which would include knowing what he’s been accused of);;;;
I did and do have “a basic familiarity” with the case.
Basic does not mean every detail, look it up.
;;;;;2. You accused me of lying about what he’d been charged with, since (I think, I’m not totally clear why you didn’t know what he’d been charged with):::
Because none of these articles on YWN that I remember seeeing, ever said anything about it and I did not realize they would leave things like that, out.
::: you seem to have not known that the trial in which he’d been convicted did not involve everything he’d been charged with.;;;;
If it did not involve everything he was charged with, then obviously they must have thought they had no case on that charge (or there was a plea bargin, which from the article, seems that there was no such plea bargin) so then it would not matter, in the end.
;;;3. I suggested you made no effort to find out that I was right before you accused me of lying.;;;
You are at it again.
You did not “suggest” it, you SAID it, big difference, counselor.
;;;;(This is true. Just googling “Rubashkin identity theft” (not in quotes) would have led you to Wikipedia would have told you what he’d been charged with and you could verify that elsewhere). There wasn’t any reason for you to rely on this article alone to know what he’d been charged with, after someone else told you there were other charges.;;;;
Wikipedia is not reliable, everyone knows that.
Neo nazis have quoted wiki articles to me to ‘prove’, “the Jews are all evil”, according to their twisted idiology.
And there was no reason for me ‘not’ to rely on this article, why would they not post the whole story?
And you did not say you got that from outside sources, you simply claimed it as if we must accept it, just because ‘you’ say so.
;;;;;;;;4. You respond that you had made an effort by reading the article on this page (which honestly, I hope you did before you commented in the first place).
If that’s what happened, I’m going to repeat that in the future, you should make an effort to verify what people say before you accuse them of lying. You don’t know enough about things to assume you know everything and it’s not my job to provide sources to alleviate your ignorance..
;;;;;;;;;;;;
And I will repeat; You should do the same, since you keep falsly accusing me of not making the effort when I did.
You are the one ‘assuming’ that I made no such effort.
And it is your job to back up your claims, it certainly is not ‘my’ job to prove ‘your’ claims.
“And it is your job to back up your claims, it certainly is not ‘my’ job to prove ‘your’ claims.”
No it’s not. Here’s where you once again seem to not understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. If you say there are racism laws, you should be able back that up with something. You’re not entitled to believe they exist just because you feel like they should. You don’t know they exist. The only reason I can’t prove to your satisfaction that they don’t is because it’s literally impossible to do so to your satisfaction. (Again, what evidence would serve as proof you were wrong here?) And yeah, before you claim they do you should know that they do and not hide behind nonsense about ACORN and David Dinkins. It’s not too much to ask.
And I really don’t understand what’s so hard for you to get about why you shouldn’t have accused someone of lying about something, when in you were basing that on your own misreading of a news article. You seem grossly overconfident of what you know about the news. (Really you should look at Wikipedia more often and then VERIFY, like I said when I posted and you ignored in your response so that you could pretend I said Wikipedia was a trustable source) You get facts wrong constantly and it doesn’t seem to cause you the least bit of shame. I can’t understand that.
I’m not falsely accusing you of not making an effort. I don’t consider having read the article you’re commenting on sufficient effort to believe you can tell other people they don’t know what they’re lying. I’m not sure how you can given that in this case it clearly wasn’t. And I don’t think it’s unreasonable to believe that people who are interested in telling me I’m wrong about the facts of the Rubashkin case are interested enough in the case to actually use an outside source to tell me I’m wrong or find out I’m right. Can you explain why you didn’t care enough about Sholom Rubashkin to know what he’s been accused of, until last week?
Last week, I was posting here because of my secret plan to get corporations to make sure all of their employees are legal even though they don’t have to. This week, I make the same claim and it’s because I have a pro-illegal immigrant bias. It’s almost like you don’t care as long as you can attack me personally and not deal with substance of my criticism. Imagine that.
31.From post 10: “The illegal alien situation is not the fault of employeers who in some state in many cases were not even allowed to ask the immigration status of potential employees under “racism” laws.”
The last word in that sentence is “laws,” right?;;;
Ok I should have said laws or rules made up against the law.
;;;I didn’t think the employeer thing was a typo. You did it every time you used the word, so I’m pretty sure you meant to do it.;;;
Well guesss what your ASSUMPTION is still wrong because I know how to spell it and if it appeared more then once that way, it was still unintentional.
I also since you bring it up, have a tendency to spell the as ‘teh’ and that sometimes appears more then once in the same post.
It hardly means I intend to spell it thatw ay.
;;And I did respond to your question about Obama and Hitler on your post at that article, shocking that you said I still had no answer without checking.;;;
I kept checking for at least two or three days after wards.
After that I figured why bother since I see no indication anyone else is readung that far back anyway.
But now that you claim to have responded there i will probably go back and answer anything you said there.
;;;;You asked why people think Buchanan has said worse things than Obama, and the answer is because he has in fact said things that are much worse than anything Obama has said. (Holocaust denial is really bad right? Or did I miss the speech where Obama suggested Holocaust survivors suffered from faulty memories?;;;
So if someone starts another holocast, that is just fine with you, as long as they did not deny the last one?
You claimed that someone is an antisemite ONLY if they deny the holocaust so anyone who says “kill all the Jews just like in the last holocaust”
Yolu are just fine with that, you could be their buddy because they are such Jew lovers?
;;;;; Probably it was in the same speech where he to quote one of your remarkably well sourced thoughts “apologized to the Arabs for America saying “America has been arrogant”.” I’ll let you Google the words “america has been arrogant”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5101244/President-Barack-Obama-America-has-been-arrogant-and-dismissive-towards-Europe.html
“President Barack Obama: America has been ‘arrogant and dismissive’ towards Europe
President Barack Obama has declared that America has “failed to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world” and has “shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” towards its allies.”
so you can see what you would have learned had you bothered to make sure Obama had said that to the Arabs before claiming that he did);;;
So if he said it to the Europeans you think the Arabs weren’t listening as well?
The fact is that you had claimed he never said it at all.
;;;; I guess you may not have been asking that question rhetorically, in which case, I hope that answers your quesetion. But if you actually thought the answer was that they both have said the same things, you stand corrected. ;;;;
No actually not, as shown above.
;;;And no your point wasn’t that Alec Baldwin was on, but your point was to tar all liberals based on a very clear recollection of how the crowd reacted to what he said, a recollection that’s remarkable considering you had no idea who he threatened or who he said it to.;;;
I know he had said it to a late night TV talk show audience so your claim that “I had no idea” is just another of your liberal lies.
;;; But doubtlessly you vividly remember the rest of it. (Did you even see it? Im thinking not.);;;
I heard it when Hannity played it on his radio show.
;;; Yes, you are wrong about Alec Baldwin in the same way a liberal would be wrong to suggest that Ann Coulter actually wishes that the New York Times editorial staff had been murdered by Timothy McVeigh,;;;;
Liberals claim that anyway and when they say it in your company I’m sure you do not breate them and tell them “they have no idea what they are talking about and should get their facts straight before “spewing” anything”.
I’ll bet you never talk to your fellow liberals that way.
having pointed that out, the fact is that Counter saying “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.”
Well after the fact as a joke is far very far from yelling at an audience that “all of us together, and then yelling it again even louder “ALL OF US TOGETHER” would go down there and kill him and his family and angrily yelling at his audience to “shut up, I’m not finished” and then continued to spew how he wanted to kill his wife and children.
Coulter told a joke years after the fact with no anger.
Baldwin yelled out in anger how he wanted to get the audience with him to right now and go and commit murder.
There is a huge difference, which you obviously fail to recognize because it down not fit your liberal bias.
;;;;but all I care about is that you posted something and got the details wrong, even though three seconds of effort could have gotten them right.;;;
No you do not care about that, because I got a couple of details wrong far from “all of them”.
The fact that you can’t be honest about that proves you have some agenda other then the truth, which you obviously do not care about.
And it takes far more then 3 seconds, at least on my computer or on my work computer fromw hich I often post and have very little time to do so before by boss starts yelling about it (and I am not stealing the bioss’s time, since I work through lunch just about every day and get no overtime pay even when I work the overtime hours).
;;;Yes, I did say I wasn’t going to respond to you any more, but since you’ve started denying things you wrote on this page, I’ve felt the need to see this to its end. So you’ve got me, I’ve been wrong once on this board. It feels good to admit. You should try it some time;;;
Again that is false reasoning on your part since you still make false claims that I got “all the details wrong” for one example, obviously the truth is not what motivates you.
You just have to get the last word and be percieved as right no matter what.
I am not the one who is not telling deliberate falsehoods like those I keep catching ‘you’ in.
So I really am done here now. You now concede you should have said something else (you do realize that “rules made up against the law” is the opposite of a law right? against and opposite are synonyms) in your original sentence, which is all that I’ve wanted. (I’m still not sure why you told me you didn’t say the word laws, to be clear I don’t think you’ve been deliberately making things up. I think you don’t know what you’re talking about. But that doesn’t explain how you didn’t know what you said.)and that’s really all that I wanted here. You are fully entitled to believe Rubashkin was justified in not checking his employees status because if he had the libs would have harassed him. The fact that this doesn’t actually mitigate the immigration charges that have been made against him (Agriprocessors did ask their employees about their status and no one suggests otherwise) makes that a bizarre claim, but I have neither the time nor the patience to explain that to you. But again, in the future, don’t claim there are laws about something unless you actually know those laws exist. It will save both of us a lot of time and agrievation.
It’s also fine that you didn’t keep checking an old article, but before accusing me of not responding here, why didn’t you check to see if I had? Wouldn’t that have made sense?
As for the Buchanan thing, for the third time now: You compared Obama to Buchanan, not me. The fact that Buchanan has said worse things than Obama has doesn’t mean Obama is not an antisemite, and you’re free to call him one. It just means he hasn’t said some antisemtic things that Buchanan has, contrary to what you at least implied. Clear now?
I’m glad you Googled the Obama quote, not so glad you keep arguing about it even after you know it didnt say what you claim it did. The Allies in Europe Obama apologized to were not Arabs, what with Arabia being a place noted for not being Europe. Israelis were also listening to that speech, does that means Obama has apologized to them? Or maybe, just maybe, you should be limiting your comments to what the man said and not what you’d like to imagine he did.
Finally, really it’s weird to be accused of bias by someone who excuses Ann Coulter, who writes books about how to make political arguments, when she says she says she wants people dead, because she was making a joke (and note, I am willing to excuse her, so much for my bias.), but seems to think it’s impossible that a guy who is a professional comedian appearing on a comedy program might have been joking too. And I’m sure you could tell how riled up the audience was by listening to a clip on a partisan radio show. For example you leave out the fact that after Baldwin’s speech, Conan O’Brien pulled out an air mask and put it over his face. In other words, there was a prop on stage for it, (do you think Conan O’Brien usually kept an airmask by his desk for his guest?) but no it couldn’t have been a (bad, tasteless) joke like Coulter’s. Even the Media Research Center seemed to think it was, but you know better.
But all of this doesn’t matter. If you’ve seen anything from what I’ve said, it’s that I wouldn’t have said anything about what you said had you bothered to check your facts and gotten the details you got wrong, right in the first place.
And I’m really not sympathetic to the fact that you don’t have time to make sure what you say id true. If you can’t verify what you say, don’t say it. It’s really that simple. Because if there’s one thing we can both agree on, it’s that you’re not telling deliberate falsehoods, you’re just someone who knows much less about things than he thinks he does.
By the way, I also have not told a deliberate falsehood here, I did intend to not post again before when I said I wouldn’t (Why would I have said that if I didn’t?)
“And it is your job to back up your claims, it certainly is not ‘my’ job to prove ‘your’ claims.”
No it’s not. Here’s where you once again seem to not understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. If you say there are racism laws, you should be able back that up with something.;;;;
And if you claim no such laws exist you should be able to back that up.
And if someone says on a radio show there is no way to prove that on a message board or blog.
You can’t post a piece of a radio show (perhaps a transcript if you can get it, but that can be forged).
;;;; You’re not entitled to believe they exist just because you feel like they should. You don’t know they exist. The only reason I can’t prove to your satisfaction that they don’t is because it’s literally impossible to do so to your satisfaction.;;;
Or yours.
;;;; (Again, what evidence would serve as proof you were wrong here?) And yeah, before you claim they do you should know that they do and not hide behind nonsense about ACORN and David Dinkins. It’s not too much to ask. ;;;
Who is “they”?
And what ‘nonsense’ (with proof that it is nonsense)?
So I really am done here now.;;;
Sure.
;;; You now concede you should have said something else (you do realize that “rules made up against the law” is the opposite of a law right? against and opposite are synonyms) in your original sentence, which is all that I’ve wanted.;;;
That is not all you said.
You started with personal attacks claiming the supposed “frequency ” with which I am supposedly wrong when the examples you gave did not show my main points to be wrong.
And “getting me” on details, did not prove me wrong in the main points.
;;; (I’m still not sure why you told me you didn’t say the word laws, to be clear I don’t think you’ve been deliberately making things up.;;;
I truly thought I had not said the word law. I am sorry for that.
;;; I think you don’t know what you’re talking about. But that doesn’t explain how you didn’t know what you said.);;;
I say a lot of things on many blogs, it’s hard to remember every detail on everything I have ever posted.
I just knew I had not quoted any ‘specific’ law that I had claimed to exist when it didn’t so I thought I had not said “laws”, even in general.
;;;and that’s really all that I wanted here. You are fully entitled to believe Rubashkin was justified in not checking his employees status because if he had the libs would have harassed him. The fact that this doesn’t actually mitigate the immigration charges that have been made against him (Agriprocessors did ask their employees about their status and no one suggests otherwise) makes that a bizarre claim, but I have neither the time nor the patience to explain that to you.;;;;
That still shows liberal anti business bias and
in this case possible antisemitism because I have never heard of an illegal alien who employeed other illegals who was ever charged with that crime.
They get to sneak in here and undercut legtitimate businesses and when the legitiamte busineses are taxed to death and with artificially inflated “minimum wage” laws many businesses are forced to hire illegals or go out of business.
Minimum wages laws cause problems like this and this I know from personal experience since I was once fired, because of minimum wage laws.
;;;; But again, in the future, don’t claim there are laws about something unless you actually know those laws exist. It will save both of us a lot of time and agrievation.;;;
Fine, and you should stick to the subject.
If you want to tell me I am wrong about something you should do it exactky the say way you would with someone you cared about.
Also you should not bring in other issues like “you always ” this or that.
Or used name calling “inane” as it totally obliterates the message you are trying to convey.
You attract and convince more people, with sweet things (and pleasant attitudes), then with foul ones
:::It’s also fine that you didn’t keep checking an old article, but before accusing me of not responding here, why didn’t you check to see if I had? Wouldn’t that have made sense?;;;
You are right about that.
::As for the Buchanan thing, for the third time now: You compared Obama to Buchanan, not me. The fact that Buchanan has said worse things than Obama has doesn’t mean Obama is not an antisemite, and you’re free to call him one. It just means he hasn’t said some antisemtic things that Buchanan has, contrary to what you at least implied. Clear now?:::
Well if it wasn’t you, then someone else said Obama was no antisemite and I brought up Buchanon because it is easy to see antisemitism in him and yet seemingly for some, not in Obama, who is not very different in his hatred of Jews.
So perhape he never personally never denied the holocaust, but what he is doing is exactly what
anyone else would be doing in order to get the world to have another one.
If that is not antisemitism, nothing is.
;;;I’m glad you Googled the Obama quote, not so glad you keep arguing about it even after you know it didnt say what you claim it did. The Allies in Europe Obama apologized to were not Arabs, what with Arabia being a place noted for not being Europe. Israelis were also listening to that speech, does that means Obama has apologized to them? Or maybe, just maybe, you should be limiting your comments to what the man said and not what you’d like to imagine he did.;;;
He also went to the Arabs and acted very pro Arabs and extremly anti Israel, he for example never did to any
OPEC leader, what he did to Netenyahu (which no president has ever done to anyone, who had been invited to the White House.
:::Finally, really it’s weird to be accused of bias by someone who excuses Ann Coulter, who writes books about how to make political arguments, when she says she says she wants people dead,;;;
Again she simply joked about where McVeigh should have gone which is not the same and trying to actually foment such hatred as to cause someone to actually go and kill someone.
I do not endorse or support what she said, but it is not the same hate filled rant like Baldwins or like those I see on pro liberal blogs on a very regular basis.
;;; because she was making a joke (and note, I am willing to excuse her, so much for my bias.), but seems to think it’s impossible that a guy who is a professional comedian appearing on a comedy program might have been joking too.:::
Baldwin is a dranmatic actor, not a comedian.
::: And I’m sure you could tell how riled up the audience was by listening to a clip on a partisan radio show. For example you leave out the fact that after Baldwin’s speech, Conan O’Brien pulled out an air mask and put it over his face. In other words, there was a prop on stage for it, (do you think Conan O’Brien usually kept an airmask by his desk for his guest?) but no it couldn’t have been a (bad, tasteless) joke like Coulter’s. Even the Media Research Center seemed to think it was, but you know better.;;;
I did not know about the mask, but I was not accusing Conon of having said it.
Perhaps Baldwin had indicated something of what he planned to say right before and Conon quickly thought of a way to distance himself from it without actually condemning it as he surely would have if it had been an anti gay joke about how “all gays are NAMBLA loving pedophiles” for example.
If something like that had been said there is no way, Conon would have just used a gas mask.
He would have specifically said it was “homophobic” and he would never endorse such a thing”.
He might have put forth his opinion in a joking way but he would have been crystal clear that his pro gay, ‘anti homophobia’ opinion itself, was absolutely, no joke.
;;;;But all of this doesn’t matter. If you’ve seen anything from what I’ve said, it’s that I wouldn’t have said anything about what you said had you bothered to check your facts and gotten the details you got wrong, right in the first place.;;;
Based on your previous attacks on me I’d say that is not true.
You were and still are wrong both about what I said about Ritalin and about the issues I brought up as well.
You claimed I had said “you cannot learn Torah if you have taken Ritalin” which I never said.
;;;And I’m really not sympathetic to the fact that you don’t have time to make sure what you say id true. If you can’t verify what you say, don’t say it. It’s really that simple.;;;
You do not do that, certainly not in all cases as per my response above.
And it is far from “that simple”.
These articles move down the pages pretty fast and if there is something people need to think aboutthat affects Jews or peoples lives in general I think I need to point out some issues while most people are still reading the articles.
I may have to risk getting a few details wrong but people need to start thinking about certain things like misconceptions that “Democrat = good for Jews” wich at least these days, is not true.
;;; Because if there’s one thing we can both agree on, it’s that you’re not telling deliberate falsehoods, you’re just someone who knows much less about things than he thinks he does.;;;
Perhaps less about details but not about the important issuses.
If someone wants people dead, it does not matter as much which show they said it on as the fact that they certainly did say it.
;;;By the way, I also have not told a deliberate falsehood here, I did intend to not post again before when I said I wouldn’t (Why would I have said that if I didn’t?);;;
If I had said that to you after doing something like that you would not accept that as an excuse.
In fact you say things like “that does not chnage your origional statement”.
And this applies, especially since you are so medyiek on the small details.