- This topic has 311 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Health
“I want justices that the Torah has No problem with!!!”
So you think Trump will appoint charedi Judges?
BTW I have a side queston for you. Since youve been so upfront with answering questions until now (See I can be facetious too) Seriously though this question is easier than my others:
Im sure youve seen the picture of R’ Moshe learning outdoors with tzitzis over shirt. (ITs easily googleable search “R’ Moshe) IF you look closely his shirt has stripes.
I’m curious what your thoughts are on the fact that hes wearigna striped shirt
Thanks (This doesnt have to turn into a side discussion, I wont even reply if you dont want)
Of course not, again such a law means that the government is mandating an official school policy, it is requiring the school to implement a religious action.
That’s something that clearly violates the principle of freedom of religion.
However if the parent body of an individual school decided upon their own to act in accordance with the majority of the particular school’s population in prayer policy, with the caveat that the minority population within that school is not required to attend or take part in any way.
I don’t see the difference. By allowing time for “prayer”, you are privileging specific religious practices over others.
If your argument is that the “prayer” should happen outside school, not during school hours, and organized by parents, not the government or teachers, I believe that would be legal today.
Wallace v. Jaffree discusses the issues with “voluntary” prayer.
Why do you come here with your double talk?
I asked you a question – I’ll repeat it.
Question – “They used to post (EEOC) after the SCOTUS decision just saying it means “not more than de minimis cost”. Now they added in “or burden on business operations;”.”
When did they add it in?
I think they changed it after my Court case!!
If you’re not interested in my opinion why are you asking me questions?
Hypothetically (and it would once again help to know which case you mean) the law says “undue hardship”. That was defined as “de minimis”, but when a “burden on business operations” example came up, the EEOC realized “de minimis” was insufficient in defining “undue hardship”.
Not uncommon, I would imagine, similar to IRS regulations come out to allow or disallow various tax shelters as they are created.
Ubiq -“So you think Trump will appoint charedi Judges?”
No. But there are a lot of people who could qualify for my requirements, even if they’re not Jewish!
“Im sure youve seen the picture of R’ Moshe learning outdoors with tzitzis over shirt. (ITs easily googleable search “R’ Moshe) IF you look closely his shirt has stripes.
I’m curious what your thoughts are on the fact that hes wearigna striped shirt”
I’ve seen the picture. What color are the stripes? They’re probably white. There’s nothing wrong.
GAW -“Hypothetically (and it would once again help to know which case you mean) the law says “undue hardship”. That was defined as “de minimis”, but when a “burden on business operations” example came up, the EEOC realized “de minimis” was insufficient in defining “undue hardship”.”
Sorry; anything on the EEOC website is because that’s the law.
So the EEOC can’t define “undue hardship”! (Only the courts.)
Now they added in “or burden on business operations;”.”
When did they add it in?
I think they changed it after my Court case!!
Health
“I’ve seen the picture. What color are the stripes? They’re probably white. There’s nothing wrong.”
Theyre not…
Health
“I really don’t understand you! Are you in some sort of denial?!?”
Nope
“I posted the US Code here in this topic, right above my response to Charlie! I even put it in question marks!”
I found the code. I know the code requires reasonable accomodation as Ive been saying all along and as you conceded. That ist what we are discussing
“I proved that I was right!
Why do you keep denying this?!? Because you can’t admit that you’re wrong?!?”
No, If I’m wrong i admit, and I provided a link were I have done such.
We are discussing wheter the supreme court changes laws. You say they do. I am fairly certain you are wrong but am eager to be corrected. You have not provided a link to where scotus chnages law. Granted after a supreme court rulin ie after they explain a law that carification is sometimes ammended to the original law. But that is doen by congress not the courts. You have not provided a source that says otherwise.
At any rate as menitoned earleir, At the time of TWA v Hardison see the ruling: “the 1967 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines in effect at the time requiring an employer, short of “undue hardship,” to make “reasonable accommodations” to the religious needs of its employees” These terms where already in the law at the time. Not after.
At any rate you are wrong on two points:
a the supreme court does not ammend the law
b this law had already been ammended before the ruling
Ubiq -“Theyre not…”
So what color are they?
Ubiq -“Granted after a supreme court rulin ie after they explain a law that carification is sometimes ammended to the original law. But that is doen by congress not the courts”
So you finally understand! Obviously there was a communication problem.
I never meant they write new laws. But somehow I think you knew that!
Yes, they say what the law means! In this case “undue hardship” means not more than “de minimums”!
What I thought you were arguing about was about that definition becomes part of the law or not, ie. US Code!!!
Health.
You thought nothing. Stop your silly games. I’ve been saying that repeatedly. The Supreme Court doesn’t write laws. You kept insisting they do. You are wrong.
They determine what undyear hardship means. Not you.
You kept saying what gives them the right, they need you changed to “moral rught” (not sure what that means in this setting, you never clarified when asked)
You’ve confusesdone yourself so much, you don’t know what youreally own opinio was.
These where the 2 points we were most recently discussing;
a the supreme court does not ammend the law
b this law had already been ammended before the ruling
I’d be happy to point out where u incorrectly disputed the two above points
Ubiq -“You kept insisting they do. You are wrong.”
Never! All I said was there rulings are put into the law, ie. US Code!
“They determine what undyear hardship means. Not you.
You kept saying what gives them the right, they need you changed to “moral rught” (not sure what that means in this setting, you never clarified when asked)”
Stop changing what I wrote! What I’ve posted previously is that what gives them the right (ie. Moral right) to severely restrict the employment discrimination law?!?
“You’ve confusesdone yourself so much, you don’t know what youreally own opinio was.”
Wrong again!!!
“These where the 2 points we were most recently discussing;
a the supreme court does not ammend the law
b this law had already been ammended before the ruling”
“I’d be happy to point out where u incorrectly disputed the two above points”
Why don’t you first explain what you mean by a & b? Then we can discuss it. Maybe I’ll disagree or maybe not!
We seem to not be able to get each other’s points across!
Health
Please stop lying “When did they add it in? I think they changed it after my Court case!!”
In context “they” seems to refer to suprem court. If you meant congress fine. I’m sorry if I misinterpreted what you said. Though I have been you could have clarified earlier (unless you are changing your mind again like you did when you didnt know SCOTUS’s job was to interpret law), as I have been repeating that point to you over and over.
“what gives them the right (ie. Moral right) to severely restrict the employment discrimination law?!? “
And Ive answered. They didnt severly restrict it at the time was not required if caused undue hardship. All they decided that violating seniority was undue hardship. It is their job to decide what constitutes undue hardhsip.
Again I’m not sure what you mean by moral right. you never clarified.
I’m also not sure how you intereprt the law. (since you didnt answer when asked) Earlier you said they didnt misinterpret in this case, is that still your position.
“Why don’t you first explain what you mean by a & b? “
gladly! which word needs explaining? (a. you seem to no longer be arguing on in your previous post)
“We seem to not be able to get each other’s points across! “
no it is becasue you change your postion when you realize you are wrong.
For example. You repeatedly asked why SCOTUS had a right to decide laws. I replied it is in the constittuion, you asked where I told you where. After several morte back and forths you said “I meant moral right” Clearly this was a position switch as it didnt come up int he first 5 posts regarding SCOTUS’s “right” to interpret laws. You do this in most conversations you have which is why you are my favorite poster here
Ubiq -“Please stop lying “When did they add it in? I think they changed it after my Court case!!”
In context “they” seems to refer to suprem court. If you meant congress fine. I’m sorry if I misinterpreted what you said”
It’s obvious that you don’t begin to understand my post, but the first thing you do is say I’m lying!
It’s also obvious that you don’t fully read all my post’s!
That comment was on EEOC.
“Again I’m not sure what you mean by moral right. you never clarified.
I’m also not sure how you intereprt the law. (since you didnt answer when asked) Earlier you said they didnt misinterpret in this case, is that still your position.”
Do I have to clarify to you an English teacher?!? You should know the difference between right and wrong! Their definition of “undue hardship” severely restricts Religious rights in employment!
Health
” but the first thing you do is say I’m lying!”
Nope not the first thing. It is only after repeated questions that you fail to answer. and after you’ve been caught lying, changing what you’ve been saying without owning up to it.
This isnt our first such discussion you know
“Do I have to clarify to you an English teacher?!?”
Lol, the irony of that statement! (note proper use of exclamation) I know I know you meant it ironically.
“Their definition of “undue hardship” severely restricts Religious rights in employment!”
Ok so vote for a liberal candidate who will place liberal justices to support your liberal interpretation. What does that have to do with anything.
As for their “moral right” it comes from the Ribono shel Olam who was metzaveh benei noach in dinim which includes courts to interppret ambiguous wording in laws.
BTW, didnt you earlier say you didnt think they misinterpreted in this case
Also congrats on finally admitting that they were interpreting “undue burden” and not adding. Though I was really looking for a more direct, admission.
Ubiq -“Ok so vote for a liberal candidate who will place liberal justices to support your liberal interpretation. What does that have to do with anything.”
Wrong! Like I posted to Charlie – I don’t go by the Goyishe definition of liberal and conservative! Trump appears to be close to Torah rules, not like the libs!
“As for their “moral right” it comes from the Ribono shel Olam who was metzaveh benei noach in dinim which includes courts to interppret ambiguous wording in laws.”
Yeah right; especially now when the SCOTUS dealed with gay marriage!
How about thinking before posting?!?
“BTW, didnt you earlier say you didnt think they misinterpreted in this case”
Don’t you read the posts before posting yourself?!?
I was talking about my case.
“Also congrats on finally admitting that they were interpreting “undue burden” and not adding. Though I was really looking for a more direct, admission.”
If you would have asked that previously to mention it; I’d have!
IDK you were confused about that!
Health
“Wrong! Like I posted to Charlie – I don’t go by the Goyishe definition of liberal and conservative! Trump appears to be close to Torah rules, not like the libs!”
you can go with any definition you like. The bottom line is that regarding the issue we spent most of the time discussing, your problem is with the corurt not applying the law liberally enough. The Torah has many rules rregarding some Trump is closer regarding others Hillary is closer. As mentioned regarding Shabbos you prefer a liberal interpretation.
“Yeah right; especially now when the SCOTUS dealed with gay marriage!
How about thinking before posting?!?”
So dinim is no longer a mitzvah for goyim?
“Don’t you read the posts before posting yourself?!?”
I thought TWA is your case. (Trying to give you benefit of the doubt that you didnt make your case up) sorry if I was wrong (see another apology)
“If you would have asked that previously to mention it; I’d have!
IDK you were confused about that!”
no confusion we went over that point 7 times before you admitted that it wasnt the supreme court that added anything.
Ubiq -“I thought TWA is your case. (Trying to give you benefit of the doubt that you didnt make your case up)”
Actually I had a case that went to the US Supreme Court! I couldn’t and can’t tell you the name because cases are _____ vs. ______ and my privacy would be no more!
“So dinim is no longer a mitzvah for goyim?”
Of course they are! My point was that SCOTUS is interested in keeping the Torah just like their judgment on Gay marriage!!!
Health
“I couldn’t and can’t tell you the name “
Oh you could. But if you dont want that is obviously your right.
Though supreme court cases are public so if you were so concerned about your privacy, brining it up in the first place wasnt smart. Are you sure it was SCOTUS and not the secret supreme court, or perhaps it was nothing?
“Of course they are! My point was that SCOTUS is interested in keeping the Torah just like their judgment on Gay marriage!!!”
I was addresing your qestion about what gives them the”right” after you changed what you emant to “moral right” I figured I’d reply to that too. Setting up a legal system is a chiyuv, that they dont allways follow everything in the Torah, in no way changes the moral right of the existence of a supreme court
Ubiq -“Though supreme court cases are public so if you were so concerned about your privacy, brining it up in the first place wasnt smart. Are you sure it was SCOTUS and not the secret supreme court, or perhaps it was nothing?”
Your post is full Letzonus (making fun)! It’s a good thing Elul is very soon, because you could Klapp Al Chait – Latznu!
Btw, I personally don’t care about my privacy, but YWN does!
If they changed the rules and e/o posted their real name, I would too!
“I was addresing your qestion about what gives them the”right” after you changed what you emant to “moral right” I figured I’d reply to that too. Setting up a legal system is a chiyuv, that they dont allways follow everything in the Torah, in no way changes the moral right of the existence of a supreme court.”
I wasn’t questioning their moral right of existence, but the morality of their judgments! They seem very immoral to me!
Health
“It’s a good thing Elul is very soon, because you could Klapp Al Chait – Latznu!”
what do you mean could klapp Al cheit? I do! dont you? I have a minhag to make sure I cover all bases so “LAtznu” wont be a lie. I see you have the same minhag considering how much Dofi and sheker your posts contain.
Seriously though I;m sorry if was too harsh. You are genuinely my favorite poster here, which is why I spend so much time discussing things with you. sometimes I get a little caught up in the heat of the moment.
“Btw, I personally don’t care about my privacy, but YWN does!”
they dont, see the rules “http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/rules-of-the-ywn-coffee-room-please-read”
They dont let you post contact info. And dont want me to pry out persoanl info, which as I said earlier is why i am leaving it alone.
If you want to post the case, it is completely your prerogative, ywn has no rule against it.
incidentally, care to admit you were wrong about the rule?
“I wasn’t questioning their moral right of existence, but the morality of their judgments! They seem very immoral to me!”
Ha. So you asked “what right” they had to judge. After I provided the source you said you meant what “moral right” do they have to judge. Now you concede they do in fact have both the legal and moral authority to judge.
Is that fair?
Ubiq -“And dont want me to pry out persoanl info, which as I said earlier is why i am leaving it alone.
If you want to post the case, it is completely your prerogative, ywn has no rule against it.”
I know that I can. But I want an even playing field – I’d like your name & everybody’s name first before I post the case which contains my name!
“incidentally, care to admit you were wrong about the rule?”
Which rule?
“Ha. So you asked “what right” they had to judge. After I provided the source you said you meant what “moral right” do they have to judge. Now you concede they do in fact have both the legal and moral authority to judge.
Is that fair?”
Fine. But when I wrote – “what “(moral) right” do they have to judge”, it was a rhetorical question! But I think you knew that!
Health
“Which rule?”
You said “Btw, I personally don’t care about my privacy, but YWN does!
If they changed the rules… “
There is no such rule that YWN cares about your privacy. They font want contact info given out, they dont want peoplke to try to pry/pressure people to divulge personal info. But there is no rule (that i can find) thta prevents you from giving up “your privacy” Again, you have every right to obviously. However when you said this was a rule on ywn that prevented you from revealing the court case, You are wrong.
Here are the rules again: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/rules-of-the-ywn-coffee-room-please-read
can you either point out the rule that prevents you from saying whcih court case you refer to. OR admit that you made up that it was against the rules?
Thanks
“But when I wrote – “what “(moral) right” do they have to judge”, it was a rhetorical question! But I think you knew that!”
amazing! So we went from “what right do they have” meaning the most obvious legal right, to “moral right” to a rhetorical question about morality of their judgement.
Amazing stuff.
Ubiq -“There is no such rule that YWN cares about your privacy. They font want contact info given out, they dont want peoplke to try to pry/pressure people to divulge personal info. But there is no rule (that i can find) thta prevents you from giving up “your privacy” Again, you have every right to obviously. However when you said this was a rule on ywn that prevented you from revealing the court case, You are wrong.
Here are the rules again:
can you either point out the rule that prevents you from saying whcih court case you refer to. OR admit that you made up that it was against the rules?”
I made a mistake because I know that I’ve never seen anyone’s real name here so I assumed that was the rule! If it’s not – I believe you, but I’m not going to be the first. When I see others that do it, like the owner, I’ll join in. I might use a different SN.
“amazing! So we went from “what right do they have” meaning the most obvious legal right, to “moral right” to a rhetorical question about morality of their judgement.
Amazing stuff”
Actually I never meant what legal right!
When I wrote “what right?”, it was obviously a rhetorical question! Because just like in Germany, they made rules against Jews, so too here when the Congress specifically made a law to accommodate Shabbos observers – I think that was when they amended the Civil rights law in the 90’s, the courts went ahead and watered it down!
I’m not talking about their definition of “undue hardship”!
I’m sorry that you didn’t understand this in the beginning!!!
“I made a mistake because I know that I’ve never seen anyone’s real name here so I assumed that was the rule! If it’s not – I believe you, but I’m not going to be the first. When I see others that do it, like the owner, I’ll join in. I might use a different SN.”
I wasnt asking you to, just curious if youd admit your mistake. Dont feel pressured. DO what feels right to you.
“it was obviously a rhetorical question! “
Well it wasnt obvious to you, since after I explained what right a few times, it was only then that you decided it was rhetorical
“I’m not talking about their definition of “undue hardship”!”
Isnt that part of the law? IS that what we have been discussing from the get go.
As I asked before, do you think congress required an empolyer to suffer a loss on Shabbos? How much loss?
Ubiq -“I wasnt asking you to, just curious if youd admit your mistake. Dont feel pressured. DO what feels right to you.”
From previous -“I made a mistake” etc.
Is this good enough?
“Isnt that part of the law?”
Of course it is!
“IS that what we have been discussing from the get go.”
We discussed a lot of things.
“As I asked before, do you think congress required an empolyer to suffer a loss on Shabbos? How much loss?”
What’s your definition of a loss?
I’m not going to argue with you until you learn about the law!
I’ll give you a hint – an appeal’s court decided what more than “de minimus” is!
Heatlh
I dont want to hijack another thread over this nonsense.
But I enjoyed this gem of yours:http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/are-we-allowed-to-discuss-stuff-from-class-on-here-and-ask-questions-about-it#post-623049
On this thread you posted:
“According to Mod 80 – Ubiq -feivel, you can post your contact info, but I can’t ask you to!”
yet I explicitly wrote a few posts up:”They dont want contact info given out,…”
Your dishonesty is amazing! Seriously great stuff
“Is this good enough?”
Yes I lost the bet 🙁
“What’s your definition of a loss?”
whats yours>?
“We discussed a lot of things.”
Yes but the very first post of yours that led to this fantastic discussion was “”Some people can’t get jobs in certain fields in this wonderful country of yours’, because they are Shomer Shabbos!” and you said this was because “they are … Antisemitic,”
and i have been patiently educating you that it is not antisemitism but their interpretation of the law which is their job to do.
“an appeal’s court decided what more than “de minimus” is”
what right did they have to decide that!!!!!!! (kidding)
Ubiq -“and i have been patiently educating you that it is not antisemitism but their interpretation of the law which is their job to do”
You really can’t argue that it’s not Antisemitism because you don’t even know what the definition or the interpretation of the civil rights law is!!!
“You really can’t argue that it’s not Antisemitism because you don’t even know what the definition or the interpretation of the civil rights law is!!!”
I’m not sure what you mean. “Undue hardship” Is obviously a vague term. IT is up to the courts to define. That their definition doesn’t fit yours might make the court more conservative than you but it doesn’t make it more anti-semitic.
you have been saying that the court changed the law and that they had no right to rule on it. You were wrong on both accounts (I say “were” becasue you now concede that you didint mean they have no right and that the court didnt actually change anything)
Ubiq-“you have been saying that the court changed the law and that they had no right to rule on it. You were wrong on both accounts (I say “were” becasue you now concede that you didint mean they have no right and that the court didnt actually change”
Who said that I was wrong? I said that they were morally wrong! When I said that they changed the law I was talking about my case!
“I’m not sure what you mean. “Undue hardship” Is obviously a vague term. IT is up to the courts to define. That their definition doesn’t fit yours might make the court more conservative than you but it doesn’t make it more anti-semitic.”
You don’t make any sense here! Your assumption that my opinion about the Antisemitism was because I didn’t like their definition of undue hardship is wrong! I wrote they’re Antisemitic because they didn’t follow their own definition in my court case!
“I said that they were morally wrong!”
nope. you first implied legal, and dint correct me when I said their right to judge came ferom the constitution.
you then said what “moral right” did they have we I addressed as well.
no you are saying (and I’m paraphrasing) that question meant what moral right did they have to disagree with you. Which you identified as a rhetorical question.
” I wrote they’re Antisemitic because they didn’t follow their own definition in my court case!”
where did you rite that? and can you elaborate ion “their own definition” and “how they didnt follow it”
Thanks
Ubiq -“”I said that they were morally wrong!”
nope. you first implied legal,.”
Where did I imply legal right?
“and dint correct me when I said their right to judge came ferom the constitution.”
And why should I correct something that’s Not wrong!
“you then said what “moral right” did they have we I addressed as well. no you are saying (and I’m paraphrasing) that question meant what moral right did they have to disagree with you. Which you identified as a rhetorical question”
The rhetorical question was going on “What right”, not what moral right!
“where did you rite that?”
Right here -“You really can’t argue that it’s not Antisemitism because you don’t even know what the definition or the interpretation of the civil rights law is!!!”
“and can you elaborate ion “their own definition” and “how they didnt follow it””
Their definition of “undue hardship”!
They didn’t follow it in my court case against _______!
“Where did I imply legal right?”
See next sentence
“And why should I correct something that’s Not wrong!”
Becasue according to you now, it wasnt addresing your question.
Here is a recap:
ME: “The court interprets the law. That is their role.””
you: “Who says?”
Me” The constitution”
you “What does the Constitution say that they can misinterpret the law anyway they feel?!?”
Me :”Article 2. you now say misinterpret earlier you said “I happen not to have a problem with that interpretation, but what I just posted was to make a point” Which is it? At any rate earlier you asked “”Who says” regarding The courts interpreting the law. This is in the constitution. You dont get to decide (though of course you can have an opinion). but interpreting the law is PRECISELY the courts role.”
YOU: “Again they have No right, call it what you want – interpret or misinterpret, to change the basic normal understanding of the law!”
ME: “you couldnt be more wrong. That is PRECISELY the job of the courts in general, and the supreme court in particular. Namely to interpret the law…”
YOU: “Courts have No right to change the basic meaning of the law!
Even if they have the right to interpret the law!.. “
ME: “It is the courts job to determine what “reasonable accommodation” means Kudos on you for fianly admitting that you were wrong on that point, …””
YOU: “I never said that they didn’t have the right! What I said it’s just like in “
None of this makes sense if you didnt mean “legal right” at this point in the conversation you said “moral right” and then later said it was rhetorical
“The rhetorical question was going on “What right”, not what moral right!”
why didnt you say so during one of the first 10 or so responses on that specific question?
“”You really can’t argue that it’s not Antisemitism because you don’t even know what the definition or the interpretation of the civil rights law is!!!””
Of course I can! because in my secret court case the court ruled that whatever I say is correct.
“Their definition of “undue hardship”!”
which is…
Ubiq -“What does the Constitution say that they can misinterpret the law anyway they feel?!?”
If you start from this point, your correct but I’m talking about my Court case! Before that I was talking about “moral right”!
“Of course I can! because in my secret court case the court ruled that whatever I say is correct.”
Btw, my case is not secret! Just you don’t know what it is! Maybe ask one of your legal buddies to help you!
“Their definition of “undue hardship”!
which is…”
It’s clearly defined in a few court cases! It’s not my job to teach you law!!!
“If you start from this point, your correct but I’m talking about my Court case! Before that I was talking about “moral right”!”
Have I mentioned, that you are without doubt my favorite poster?
“Btw, my case is not secret! Just you don’t know what it is! Maybe ask one of your legal buddies to help you!”
I have asked several
“It’s clearly defined in a few court cases! It’s not my job to teach you law!!!”
Lol my friend. I dont need you to teach me anything. Just trying to understand your point of view. (though of course if i learn something in the process, that is great too)
Ubiq -“I have asked several”
Keep searching! It’s there!
“I dont need you to teach me anything.”
So why do you keep asking – “Their definition of “undue hardship”!
which is…”
It is indeed unfortunate that I have to vote for Hillary Clinton. What makes it unfortunate is that she has many drawbacks as a candidate (catalogue omitted). But what is more unfortunate is the Republican nominee, who leaves me no choice but to vote for Hillary. And don’t tell me about the Libertarian or Green Party candidates – a vote for those folks is a non-vote. I threw away my vote on John Anderson in 1980, it felt good for a day or so, and then Ronald Reagan ruined America. What’s worse, I betrayed the one US president who made the greatest positive impact on the security of Israel since Truman recognized State of Israel at the time of its founding: President Jimmy Carter, who brokered the peace ageement between Egypt and Israel and still stands to this day.
When the dust settles from the 2016 election, the first question Americans should consider is how our two major parties nominated two such minor candidates – one barely acceptable, and one utterly unacceptable.
Health
“Keep searching! It’s there!”
Thats what people say about eh Loch ness monster. (It is also what you said regarding the difference in EMS protocol between 1 vehicle and mutlti-vehicle mva’s)
“So why do you keep asking – “Their definition of “undue hardship”!
which is…”
To understand your point of view
Huju -“When the dust settles from the 2016 election, the first question Americans should consider is how our two major parties nominated two such minor candidates – one barely acceptable, and one utterly unacceptable.”
The problem is that you got it wrong! Trump is the one acceptable. Hillary is the one who’s utterly unacceptable!
Ubiq -“Thats what people say about eh Loch ness monster.”
IDK whether there is such a thing or not, but the implication that I’m making up my case is False!
“(It is also what you said regarding the difference in EMS protocol between 1 vehicle and mutlti-vehicle mva’s)”
For s/o who has no experience, with absolutely very little knowledge about EMS protocols, how on earth do you portray that you’re an expert?!? Is it because you have a MD license, like you claim?
FYI, I’m still willing to explain what I was posting back then!
“So why do you keep asking – “Their definition of “undue hardship”!
which is…”
“To understand your point of view”
You possibly can’t understand my POV, unless you’re knowledgeable about the law. And so far, I haven’t seen you post the definitions of undue hardship, which they’re a few!
“how on earth do you portray that you’re an expert?!?”
I in no way shape or form claim to be an expert and quick correctio: you said “with absolutely very little knowledge about EMS protocols,” I have NO knowledge about EMS protocols
“FYI, I’m still willing to explain what I was posting back then!”
Don’t worry. you explained it quite well.
“You possibly can’t understand my POV, unless you’re knowledgeable about the law. “
Re “health” reply to the brilliant huju: If I were to respond to your incorrect comment like Donald Trump, I would call you an unclever name (e.g., “Hopeless Health,” or, if I knew you were a woman, “Hideous Health”), but that would make me sound like Dopey Donald. Donald Trump is so utterly unfit to be anything than what he is (a rich kid who inherited a successful business, and a con, as real business success Mike Bloomberg calls him), but it is too late at night for me to explain it to you slowly. He went bankrupt several times (don’t tell me what he said about not him, just the companies he ran), tried to sell a vodka when he himself does not touch the stuff (maybe you want to buy his Trump Tefillin), and is tied into the Chinese government in one of his over-leveraged investments. And he thinks the way to evaluate Brexit (or any other serious issue) is by how it will impact his golf courses.
Yes, Hillary’s got baggage, and conflicts of interest, but Dopey Donnie has put his money and neck in a Chinese noose. Who you gonna trust? Someone who may have made some promises in exchange for money (Hillary), or someone who can be financially ruined by foreign powers if they don’t like his decisions as US president (Dopey Donnie)?
As smart as you are, until you know what the meaning is, of “undue hardship”, I can’t explain my problem with my court case!
Eg. If I say I don’t like hot dogs and you say why? I can’t explain why – if you don’t know hot dogs come from a cow, and you never heard of such an animal! If I tried to explain it, it would be frivolous in your mind!
Why don’t you ask your lawyer buddies to teach you the meaning?!?
Health
Why cant you say “I dont like hot dogs because they come from a cow”
I’d say “oh I didnt realize they come from cows, now I know why you dont like them that isnt frivolous at all”
“Why don’t you ask your lawyer buddies to teach you the meaning?!?”
a. because I know the meaning
b. Im a great googler (only for things that exist though)I dont need them
c. IT doesnt really affect the conversation, as Ive explained above
d. They are being mean to me about how long this ridiculous conversation is 🙁
e. Ealier you said you dont have a problem with your court case. and it was just an example, though not sure of what
Ubiq -“Why cant you say “I dont like hot dogs because they come from a cow”
I’d say “oh I didnt realize they come from cows, now I know why you dont like them that isnt frivolous at all”
If was that simple, I’d definitely post it; it’s not!
“Why don’t you ask your lawyer buddies to teach you the meaning?!?”
“a. because I know the meaning”
That’s what I’m telling you – you don’t!
“b. Im a great googler (only for things that exist though)I dont need them”
It does exist, despite your denial! You obviously didn’t find out the definitions that I’m talking about!
“c. IT doesnt really affect the conversation, as Ive explained above
d. They are being mean to me about how long this ridiculous conversation is”
Well I think it does!
“e. Ealier you said you dont have a problem with your court case. and it was just an example, though not sure of what”
I don’t know what you’re talking about! This is what I posted – “I wrote they’re Antisemitic because they didn’t follow their own definition in my court case!”
Don’t feed the troll. You’ll never get any point conceded. Religious Jews know that Hillary is no true friend of the Jews, Israel, the Torah, or Hakodesh Boruchu. On the other hand, all of Trump’s kids are married to Jews and all the enemies of Israel are scared of him. Hillary will appoint Supreme Court justices who will make anti-Torah decisions for the sake of a globalist/leftist/Jewhating agenda. We all know it, too. It’s just a matter of who wants to be honest with themselves.
“That’s what I’m telling you – you don’t!”
So educate me. Please
“If was that simple, I’d definitely post it; it’s not!”
Ah so your example was flawed! Anyway give it a shot. Your a great explainer and I’m a pretty good understander. Dont sell your self short
“It does exist, despite your denial!”
Heres what confuses me, earlier you indicated you were ok with us finding it (you encouraged me and others to searhc for it) but didnt want to post the name. If it was a real case I would have found it (and known your name I guess) which you said you were ok with. So why play this game? Just provide the name of the case or search terms that will turn it up? OR say I dont want you to find the case because I wont to be private. Which is fine too. but why this weird middle game?
“This is what I posted – “I wrote they’re Antisemitic because they didn’t follow their own definition in my court case!””
Its been a long thread youve posted all sorts of contradictory staments
eg:
“I happen not to have a problem with that interpretation, but what I just posted was to make a point”
Now I remember why I don’t come to this thread
Don’t feed the troll.
I think the trolls are feeding each other in this thread
“You’ll never get any point conceded.”
both Health and myself have in fact conceded points
“Religious Jews know that Hillary is no true friend of the Jews, Israel, the Torah, or Hakodesh Boruchu. On the other hand, all of Trump’s kids are married to Jews”
so Are all of hillary’s I guess that no makes her a friend of the Torah and Hakodesh Barach hu. Seriously though, Trumop is “Like very very smart” and “really really rich” but a friedn of hakodosh baruch hu? you must have a funny hakadosh baruch hu. friends of mine dont support gambling and live openly adulterous lives
” and all the enemies of Israel are scared of him.”
the whole world and most of America is scared of him
” We all know it, too.”
i dont
CA
“Now I remember why I don’t come to this thread”
Sigh sometimes I wonder why I do
Huju -“someone who can be financially ruined by foreign powers if they don’t like his decisions as US president (Dopey Donnie)?”
I don’t like your posts – they smell like a born & bred DemonCrat!
If you’re worried about the Donald, you should be more worried about DemonCrats running this country! Have you ever heard about the national debt? Do you know how much it has increased with Obama running the show?!? Do you think your idol Hillary will lower it or increase it?!?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.