November 27, 2018 9:05 am at 9:05 am #1631176
I’ll not be answering individual posters in this thread, but could not let it go on the way Joseph, the troll, framed it. Enjoy your conversation.
Typical of Democrats, makes a statement then doesn’t want to back it up against arguments 😜November 27, 2018 9:13 am at 9:13 am #1631175
” If the former is overwhelmingly doing one thing while the latter is overwhelmingly doing the opposite, I have full confidence in the way the Torah world is acting versus the others.”
EXACTLY! and many others feel the same way. This is what part of what drives the groupthink I mentioned above.
Though I do question your assumption. I have heard many shmussen over the years that we our decorum in shul is lacking and we should take a page from the Goyim and conservative/reform how they behave in their sanctuary.
Are you saying that if we talk in shul more than they talk in their sanctuary we should continue talking?November 27, 2018 9:15 am at 9:15 am #1631190
You lost me at “victim of serial adulterer.” By all accounts (except her own) she was an enabler and complicit in these acts you claim to despise, and even worse acts that the MSM isn’t reporting on. Only insidious Democrat operatives have the audacity to still defend that machsheifa.
Orthodox Jews lean right because the left is consistently wrong on every single issue. Unlike most other groups we vote based on Torah values, not based on greed, lust or populism. Not to say the Republicans fully represent Torah values, but they are by far more in line with them than the anti-Semitic, socialist party of Toeva and government handouts.November 27, 2018 4:49 pm at 4:49 pm #1631808
I stated I’d not be responding to individual posts, BUT How DARE YOU misquote me and claim I lost you at “victim of serial adulterer.”
I NEVER wrote that Trump’s opponent was the victim of a serial adulterer. I wrote that Trump was a serial adulterer.
Save your false accusations for someone else, you are producing ‘alternate facts’ or ‘fake news’
It is reprehensible that you use a set of quotation marks to surround words that I NEVER wrote and attribute them to me.
Your apology and retraction of the false quote is due.
MODERATORS: please take note of this falsehood posted by CuriosityNovember 27, 2018 7:01 pm at 7:01 pm #1631895
CTL, are you really Joseph? You used one of his favoritr tactics. You blew one item out of proportion while ignoring all of the numerous critiques of your luficrous defense of the Democrats and attack on the RepublicansNovember 28, 2018 1:50 am at 1:50 am #1632065
Ubiquitin, do Torah Jews (as opposed to am ha’aretzot – and yes, some who wear the uniform are am ha’aratzot) talk during davening? In any case, a chazaka can be overturned where we know that it is inapplicable. This was Rav Yonatan Eibeschutz’ reply to the Emperor who pointed out that they were the rove.
1. You posted on November 27, 2018 at 7:13 am “The national Republican Party is the antipathy of Family Values. It ran a thrice married serial adulterer for President in opposition to a woman who was the victim of a husband who committed adultery.” So you each owe the other half an apology.
2. Your blanket refusal to dialogue with individuals (other than Joseph and Curiosity) is very childish. Would you refuse to rebut an opponent in court?November 28, 2018 4:32 pm at 4:32 pm #1632505
I am conducting a trial in appellate court this week which is why I’m not responding to individual posters.
I don’t owe an apology, I did not put words in quotation marks and claim someone else wrote them.while
Curiosity wrote an out and out lie and besmirched me, which is why I did comment. (My son saw it and brought it to my attention, I didn’t have time for the CR while fine tuning my opening remarks. Court recessed at 3:30 and I am a passenger on the way back to my office so I am able to respond to you.November 28, 2018 6:46 pm at 6:46 pm #1632549
I think there are two reasons:
1) Orthodox Jews are socially conservative because the Torah is socially conservative. Republican policies are more socially conservative than Democrat policies.
2) Many Orthodox Jews get their news primarily from radio–because they don’t have TVs. And the media on the radio is extremely conservative.November 28, 2018 9:31 pm at 9:31 pm #1632672
Benignuman: You should have left it with your first reason alone and you’d be on the mark.
You vastly overrate both the preponderance as well as the effect of your second reason. Not as many Orthodox Jews primarily get their news from the radio as you imagine. This is especially the case with the more conservative believing Jews. Many of them even eschew radio altogether, just as the do television.
And even among the minority of Orthodox Jews who do listen to radio significantly, they by and large don’t simply accept anything they hear. Additionally, the radio itself isn’t as overall conservative as you seem to assume.
As a final point, are you consistent by similarly attributing the overwhelming liberalism of secular/atheist/irreligious/Reform/Conservative/OO Jews to their obtaining their news from television and other media that are extremely liberal?November 28, 2018 9:33 pm at 9:33 pm #1632676
Liberal ideas are emotions without logic, in Judaism there is no such a thing as not been an intelectual we are educated to use logic to an extreme in the way we learn , we make deductions etc.
Liberal ideas are all nice when one only considers emotions “fre healthcare for all” “ free y for all “ it sounds nice but the math doesn’t work. So many examples.
Other than that we understand what not twisting the law means thus we don’t relate to the need to keep on making changes to a constitution, we see the value of conserving . We understand contract law ( constitution is like a contract )
And then you have the total criticism of religion and God from the left …November 28, 2018 9:36 pm at 9:36 pm #1632687
CTL, good luck on your appeal. You did call Bill Clinton an adulterer. However, so far as I know neither has been with another man’s wife so halachically neither is an adulterer. BTW, Bill’s moll excused his actions.November 29, 2018 10:48 am at 10:48 am #1633027
The definition of Adulerty in halacha has nothing to do with the definition in US laws, and as this is a discussion about non-Jewish politicians in the US it dos not apply.November 29, 2018 11:12 am at 11:12 am #1632872
The second part of your comment makes sense “we see the value of conserving .”
The first is silly and is actually parly contradicted by the second. We put aside logic in place of mesora (which I am not criticizing by the way I do value mesora and do think it should (generally) trump logic)
I do think though the quote above is partly true, we are trained to glorify the past and are afraid of change. I do think this plays out in the political sphere as well.
Take guns for example, using logic it is absurd to suggest that well 240 years ago they thought it was a good idea so now we just have to accept it. (It may be a good idea today too, that is not my point, my point is accepting it even if it is a bad idea today just because 240 years ago they thought it was a good one)) . Yet many conservatives make that very argument, “well that is jus the way it is” I think this resonates well with many in our community
“do Torah Jews (as opposed to am ha’aretzot – and yes, some who wear the uniform are am ha’aratzot) talk during davening? ”
Yes. and from what I hear (I cant speak of first hand experience) more than other groups.
(note: You have a different definition of “Torah Jews” than Joseph does, I’m going with his definition since this was his thread)November 29, 2018 11:14 am at 11:14 am #1632968
I included the second reason because when I discuss politics with my fellow frum Jews I hear them making the same arguments, using the same terms, that I hear from conservative pundits on the radio. More importantly, large percentages of my fellow frum Jews appear to subscribe to conservative/Republican political positions even where it doesn’t have a basis in Torah–and is sometimes contrary to Torah hashkafah. For example, I hear people vociferously supporting the conservative positions on gun control, immigration, and climate change despite the Democratic/liberal positions being more in line with the Torah on those issues.
With regard to your last point, I absolutely agree that the overwhelming liberalism of secular/atheist/irreligious/Reform/Conservative/OO Jews is due in large part to their obtaining their news from liberal media. I would only add, however, that they are also strongly influenced towards liberalism from their college environments where liberalism is even more dominant than it is in the general mainstream media.
We are all influenced by the media we consume and the opinions of our peers and our teachers. A person has to work hard to try to think through each issue independently and even then he can’t entirely eliminate the influence of others.November 29, 2018 2:46 pm at 2:46 pm #1633179
CTL, the definition varies from state to state. MN follows the halachic definition at least halfway (it is a question whether a secular law requiring a divorce decree has halachic ramifications for bnei Noach). This is also the Common Law definition. In any case, the sheva mitzvot apply to non-Jews whether they realize it or not. The Rema (Responsa 10) even says that their obligation in dinim requires them to adopt all of Choshen Mishpat (this seems to be Ramban’s opinion in his discussion of Shimon and Levy wiping out Shechem although some say that they can change from our pesak so long as they have some pesak and others say that they can do what they want so long as it is fair and equitable).
Benignuman, who says that these positions are against Torah? The Tanach relates that the Plishtim issued a weapons control law to keep the Israelites in check. We are also told that Hashem also gave certain lands to certain non-Jewish peoples.There is also
גבול שמת בל יעברון בל ישובון לכסות הארץ (Tehillim 104:10). As for climate change, that is a scientific and economic (cost-benefit) issue.November 29, 2018 4:24 pm at 4:24 pm #1633306
Who cares about Minnesota law? Trump’s adultery was based in NY and Clinton in Arkansas and Washington DC.
Noe of the other things you post have anything to do with US law. We no longer operate under English Common Law. The Noahide Laws don’t apply in the US legal system.
All you post is merely obfuscation………………………..
I’ve had a Family law practice for many decades and have great knowledge of what adultery is in the USA. For a long time it was the main way to get a divorce decree in the civil courts.November 29, 2018 4:49 pm at 4:49 pm #1633330
Not selling weapons to people because they might use them to commit crimes is a halacha. And ownership of wepons is certainly not a “right” in halacha.
גבול שמת בל יעברון בל ישובון לכסות הארץ is not speaking about immigration but about Hashem not bringing another mabul. That Hashem gave certain lands to some people in no way indicates that immigration is forbidden. Avraham was an immigrant in Canaan and the Yidden were refugees when they went to Egypt during the famine. Amon and Moav were faulted for not greeting B’nel Yisrael with food and water when they were coming into Eretz Yisroel from the Midbar. Sodom is punished because of their mistreatment of visitors. Etc.
Climate change is more a question of fact but the idea that people are supposed to protect the planet, l’avda v’l’shamra, comes from the Torah and there is certainly no Torah based reason to be skeptical. And yet, I find that frum Jews typically are skeptical of climate change.November 29, 2018 5:35 pm at 5:35 pm #1633367
CTL, frum Jews in America vote based on Torah values. So Avi’s point about the halachic ramifications are very relevant.
Benig: I think your circle of acquaintances are not representative of the greater frum world. Think Boro Park, Williamsburg and Monsey, for example. I don’t think what you ascribed applies as much there.
Additionally, I don’t agree that Democrats are closer than Republicans on the issues of climate change and immigration to Torah values. I probably agree about gun control. Climate change? That it’s man made is far from established. And what to do about it isn’t clearly established according to Jewish law. And immigration open borders isn’t a Torah value. Republicans are opposed to illegal immigration; they aren’t opposed to legal immigration. Allowing illegals to not face consequences for their law breaking in coming in isn’t a Jewish law; au contraire. The Sheva Mitzvos require that the law be enforced.November 29, 2018 6:32 pm at 6:32 pm #1633409
“Allowing illegals to not face consequences for their law breaking in coming in isn’t a Jewish law; au contraire. The Sheva Mitzvos require that the law be enforced..”
If our parents, and grandparents, especially many of those seeking entry to escape the Shoah or the precious few survivors seeking to escape the DP camps after the Shoah had diligently observed the rules at the time governing immigration to the U.S. and were 100 percent truthful in their responses to the immigration questionnaires and interviewers at Governors’ Island, I personally know of many who never would have been allowed entry. Yes, I’m certain there are some terrible people mixed among the migrants at the Mexican border but the majority are escaping a toxic and deadly environment in the home countries. Please don’t lecture about their obligations to observe the Sheva Mitzvos. On climate change and GHG, I would suggest the vast majority of Jewish scientists who have studied the issue are in agreement with respect to human activity being the primary factor in accelerating atmospheric warming and thus should be the focus of mitigation efforts. If you really believe that burning coal versus using renewables is m’doraissah, than not much more to say about your distorted notion of yiddeshkeit.November 29, 2018 7:14 pm at 7:14 pm #1633433
I don’t know Boro Park and Williamsburg, true. But I know plenty of Monsey and it applies there. I am not saying that Torah requires one to follow the Democratic positions on Climate change or immigration, but only that the Democratic positions are more in line–in a general sense–with Torah Hashkafa.
With respect to Climate Change, there is no Torah basis for being skeptical and usually we follow chachmei umos ha’olam when it comes to scientific metzios. With respect to immigration, I am referring to the attitude toward immigrants generally, not the question of whether it should be done illegally. I think most Democrats agree (Obama certainly did) that immigration must be done legally. The issue is what do with those who are already here and how vicious should the US be in preventing more people from coming in illegally.November 29, 2018 8:54 pm at 8:54 pm #1633493
Rebyidd consistently has the best posts. I hope s/ he turns that talent to good use one day.November 29, 2018 9:04 pm at 9:04 pm #1633499
Isn’t entertaining people here a good use?November 29, 2018 10:50 pm at 10:50 pm #1633514
Yeah but it wont make him her rich.November 29, 2018 11:22 pm at 11:22 pm #1633526
Benig: I don’t agree with your assessment regarding climate change and immigration. The chachmei umos ha’olam also tell us that the world and mankind is millions (or billions) of years old and that most of the rest of the Creation narrative given in Bereishus is also fiction. Must we bite? Even with that, regarding climate change being man-made I don’t think the scientists themselves consider it being man-made as a firmly established fact. Additionally, the issue of climate change has been heavily politicized within the scientific community. They’ve been caught with their pants down admitting among themselves in private emails that they were lying to the public in order to whip up greater alarm. (Their only response to that scandal was to demand whoever publicized their private correspondence be caught.)
Regarding the attitude toward immigrants, the only real dispute between the two political parties is regarding illegal ones; regarding legal ones there’s little disagreement between them. And regarding illegal ones, the Sheva Mitzvos demands that the law be upheld and enforced. Which falls closer to the Republican position on the issue.November 30, 2018 8:03 am at 8:03 am #1633679
Chachmei Umos Haolam is not an absolute blanket.
The onky thing that means, in our case of science for example , is an admission that Science is a legitimate concept and has in it Teva, a creation of Hashem.
However, there’s a vast difference between Science & scientists . The latter could be fraught with error or fraud.
Take coffee , eggs , alcohol, chocolate as examples.. During the last decade or so,contradictory scientific studies negated each other’s findings.
We’re being hit with C hachmei Umos Haolam over the head to believe scientists without question. That’s not what what it means.November 30, 2018 11:30 am at 11:30 am #1633707
CTL, the fact that the Noahide laws are not applied is a big problem.
Benig, what percentage of gun owners commit crimes with their guns? Moreover, criminals have never had a problem getting guns. Laws only affect law-abiding citizens. Anyway, now it is possible to print out a gun on the Internet.
Dor, there is no comparison. The German and Austrian Jews were exactly the type who could have helped the US economy. They were barred because of antisemitism and the pusillanimity of American Jews in high positions. What do you mean by “100% truthful”? They were not criminals or drug users c”v. Those who lied were Nazis.November 30, 2018 11:30 am at 11:30 am #1633711
Joseph and ZionGate,
I am not saying that we always must follow chachmei umos haolam. If their conclusions or reasoning are keneged Torah, we don’t follow them. But in the case of Climate Change, their studies and theories are not keneged Torah, so I would have expected the bulk of frum Yidden to presume the validity of their conclusions. There are certainly some arguments against the mainstream positions by other scientists, and there is some evidence of some scientists trying to downplay or hide contradictory data. But such arguments aren’t Torah-based arguments, but rather the typical arguments one hears on conservative radio or websites.
I submit that the reason why the majority of frum Jews land on the skeptical side despite the large majority of scientists on the man-caused Climate Change side, is because they are primarily exposed to skeptical side on conservative radio or websites.November 30, 2018 11:30 am at 11:30 am #1633712
It’s not just frum people. Most religious people are Republican/Conservative. (with the possible exception of Muslims).
Without going into some of the many other reasons the Democrats and liberals are becoming increasingly hostile to religion. The pundits wonder why the evangelicals support Trump even though he isn’t even nominally religious in his personal life. The answer is simple. Much as Trump makes fun and insults other people, one group he NEVER starts up with or makes fun is religious people or religious leaders.
Yes Obama is a family man who went to church for twenty year listening to Jeremiah Wright deliver his message of hate. But when he talks about “clinging to guns and religion” instead of joining his enlightened crowd, when he tried t force Catholic employers to violate their religious principles it’s easy to understand why religious people don’t want his ilk in office.November 30, 2018 11:30 am at 11:30 am #1633713
It’s not just frum people. Most religious people are Republican/Conservative. (with the possible exception of Muslims).
Without going in some of the many other reasons the democrats and liberals are becoming increasingly hostile to religion. The pundits wonder why the evangelicals support Trump even though he isn’t even nominally religious in his personal life. The answer is simple. Much as Trump makes fun and insults other people , one group he NEVER starts up with or makes fun is religious people or religious leaders .
Yes Obama is a family man who went to church for twenty year listening to Jeremiah Wright deliver his message of hate. But when he talks about “clinging to guns and religion” instead of joining his enlightened crowd, when he tried t force Catholic employers to violate their religious principles it’s easy to understand why religious people don’t want his ilk in office.November 30, 2018 12:29 pm at 12:29 pm #1634464
My mistake for mixing up the seifa d’seifa with the seifa d’reisha. What I meant to type was: ‘You lost me at, “victim of a husband who committed adultery.”‘ The point of my statement (which you didn’t address) is sustained.
Here’s a life tip for you: I know certain arguments fly in the courtroom like claiming evidence obtained illegally is inadmissible, or minor misquotes can invalidate the content of an argument. But when you’re debating outside the courtroom with rational people, harping on technicalities is not going to convince anyone that your point of view is valid and will only make you appear dishonest. In the CR, you’re talking to a jury not to a judge.
Good luck with your court case.November 30, 2018 1:00 pm at 1:00 pm #1634449
Benig: I would submit the reason they’re skeptical is because there’s compelling reasons to be skeptical of the man-made climate change proponents. But even if we grant your assumption that the reason is greater exposure to the expression of conservative viewpoints on the issue, subscribing to the popular scientific notion of man-made climate change is no more closer to a Torah viewpoint than subscribing to skepticism of that viewpoint. The Torah doesn’t tell us to generally accept the viewpoints of scientists on such matters. Indeed Chazal at times dispute the scientific findings on issues. I know of no Torah based reasoning that we are to assume that scientists’ current views (they do change with time as you know) on issues are by default correct.
What are your thoughts on my last point, above, regarding the immigration issue, with Republicans being closer to the Torah position?December 1, 2018 7:25 pm at 7:25 pm #1634728
Rep.Rashida Tlaib, (D) Supports a “one-state solution”-Palestine. Supports BDS
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D) Hopes Allah would awaken people to “the evil doings of Israel.”
Former Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D) boarded a ship trying to break Israe’s military blockade in the waters outside Gaza.
McKinney precedd Rep. Hank Johnson (D) compared Jews in Israel to termites.
Former Rep. Keith Ellison (D), former Nation of Islam spokesman and current Dep. DNC Chairman is friend of Louis Farrakhan and stated that U.S. policy in the Mideast “is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people”. Guess which country?
Al Sharpton visited the White House over 100 times when Obama was president.
Farakhan who loves Hitler but hates those Jewish termites is normalized in the Dem party, including photo ops with Obama..
Sen. Bernie Sanders (D) honeymooned in the USSR but never condemned its treatment of the Jews. A big fan of former presidential candidate Jesse Jackson (D), he refused to condemn his Hymietown statements. But he did find time to condemn Israel’s military response to Hamas rockets and terror tunnels.
Pres. Bill Clinton (D) and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D) relied on the renowned anti-Israel duo of Max and Sid Blumenthal. Max wrote a book “Goliath, Life and Loathing in Greater Israel”in which he compared to Jews to Nazis numerous times. Talk about self-loathers. Hillary, not to be outdone was photographed kissing Yaser Arafat’s wife, Suha.
We could go on all day. The point is, although we can certainly find plenty of Jew-haters on the right. We do not see them normalized and placed in glorified positions within the party. David Duke is still waiting for his invitation to the White House. To paraphrase the late great Ed Koch, “Jews have got to be crazy” to support the Democrat partyDecember 1, 2018 7:30 pm at 7:30 pm #1634769
#1 I was not and am not debating anyone. I posted an opinion
#2 I don’t take kindly to being misquoted. Your use of the quotation marks falsely attributed a statement to me that I never made. That is not harping on a technicality, you posted a lie.
#3 I don’t rely on luck in the courtroom (and I don’t practice criminal law where defense attorneys look look to exclude evidence not legally obtained), and in Appellate Court there are no juries, just a multi-judge panel.
I won the case in appellate court (upholding my win in Superior Court). The children of the deceased first wife could not be removed from their late father’s estate and trust by the second wife who is both executrix and trustee. I wrote the original Prenuptial agreement 35 years ago which protected any issue of the first marriage. The second wife was trying to gain more than $5 million for her children with the husband at the expense of his two children from wife number one.
At my insistence, the late husband had provided an equal amount of life insurance for his second set of children which passed outside the estate and trusts. Wife two was being greedy and had made some decisions and transactions in the trusts without the consent of the other Trustee (an attorney in my firm).
Not only was my win in Superior Court upheld, but an order was issued for the Judge in Probate Court to remove Wife #2 as both Executrix and Trustee for malfeasance and appoint an institutional trustee i her place.
BTW, my pointing out that the Republican Party was not a family values party, did not state that the Democrat Party was. I merely pointed out the hypocrisy in claims made.
I am not enamored of most candidates who run on the national level. I voted against Trump,. not for Clinton ( a person I have known personally since 1970 when her last name was still Rodham.December 1, 2018 7:36 pm at 7:36 pm #1634786
Joseph, we follow them unless there is a clear contradiction to Halacha. for example, if a non-Jewish doctor says that a Jew must eat on Yom kippur he eats. Even where there is a seeming contradiction, such as the setting of the value of pi at 3, attempts are made to resolve the difficulty. Thus we see that their views are taken into consideration. Having written that, I will repeat that economists must also be heard as to the costs. There must also be free academic discourse and not, as some leftists have proposed, silencing anyone who disagrees.December 1, 2018 9:59 pm at 9:59 pm #1634954
As far as climate change- I think it is the response to it that does not sit well with frum people. While the Torah enjoins us to take care of the world, we still recognize that there is a borei who is mechadesh maaseh beraishis kol yom. He did not create the world and abandon it to us. when environmentalists talk about saving the world, it often seems that they are leaving G-d out of it and that their actions are like dor haflaga’s who felt compelled to build supporting pillars to hold up the heavens lest it be destroyed, denying that Hashem was in charge. Plus there is the anti-Torah attitude that animals are equal to or even more important that humans. So even if climate change theories are true, frum people associate this with environmentalists in general, and hence do not rush to accept its implications.December 3, 2018 12:48 pm at 12:48 pm #1635920
On immigration, I am more referring to an attitude towards immigrants generally and especially illegal immigrants rather than policy proposals. The animosity, fear and vitriol towards illegal immigrants in the frum community (a community which gladly employs those same immigrants) does not come from Torah but from conservative media.December 3, 2018 1:22 pm at 1:22 pm #1635952
Benig: May I suggest that attitude more likely comes from the crime element associated with illegal immigrants.December 3, 2018 2:03 pm at 2:03 pm #1635984
“On immigration, I am more referring to an attitude towards immigrants generally and especially illegal immigrants rather than policy proposals.”
Then your point has nothing to do with how people should vote. If your neighbor used a racial slur, it should bother you, but it shouldn’t make you feel like you need to vote the opposite of how he votes. Also, illegal immigrants are law breakers. People who respect the law are not going to take kindly to being told they can’t criticize law-breakers. They absolutely deserve animosity. I will say that proudly for the rest of my life.
People on any religious-right are going to like rules and discipline. People on the political left don’t. Orthodox Judaism’s tendency to vote Republican might further be amped up by socioeconomic reasons. I read the medium income for MO families is 150K… You aren’t exactly going to find a lot of Bernie supporters in that bracket.December 3, 2018 5:25 pm at 5:25 pm #1636408
“People on any religious-right are going to like rules and discipline. People on the political left don’t.”
I am on the political left and I love Rules and Discipline, after all I’m an Attorney at Law.
I just spent 4 months chairing the revision of my Democratic Town Committee’s Rules.
I believe in the rule of law and adherence to the law, I believe that bad laws should be changed by working through the system, not by overthrowing the system. I know many members of the political left who have those same attitudes.
There are extreme fringes on the left and right who advocate force and anarchy for social change. The key word is extreme. Please don’t paint the left with such a broad brush.
BTW>>>>I live in Fairfield County, CT where 150K is an ordinary income and loads of people earning many times that supported Sanders. Many wealthy people believe in sharing wealth and paying a fair share of the burden to care for the old, ill and impoverished in this country.December 4, 2018 7:43 am at 7:43 am #1636691
CTL, that is because they have so many loopholes that they will not have to bear the burden. If they really wanted to help those less fortunate they would eliminate zoning laws that prevent the building of affordable housing (c”v in their neighborhoods -someone wrote a master’s thesis on this called “We will not be forced out again”: The Scatter Site Housing. Controversy in Forest Hills, Queens and the Reshaping of Public. Policy which you can read online). They can also support free markets. See Extreme Poverty’s End in Sight by Chelsea Follett on the Cato Institute blog.
I do agree however that liberals love rules. It seems that every day there is a new PC rule – and woe to the person who dares to refuse to bow down to the idol. According to Clyde Wayne Crews Jr., writing in Forbes (How Many Rules And Regulations Do Federal Agencies Issue?, unelected Federal bureaucrats issue on the average over ten new regs every day. That, of course, is in addition to all of the state and local regs issued. In fact, almost every American is guilty of some crime. Gene Healy (also of the Cato Institute) wrote a book on this called Go Directly to Jail: The Criminalization of Almost Everything.December 4, 2018 9:22 am at 9:22 am #1636705
They are more favorable to Israel. Conservative American values are closer to Torah values than liberal values.December 4, 2018 9:30 am at 9:30 am #1636706
You will find that most suburbs or rural towns with minimum acreage zoning that precludes building ‘affordable housing’ have these requirement because they have septic systems, or cesspools and wells…not city water and sanitary sewers. Thus the limitation on density of housing.
I live in a neighborhood with 1/2 acre minimum lots (mine is about 4+ acres). We have sewers and city water. I paid off a 40K assessment for those sewers over 19 years. On my block (quite long) you can buy a 4BR 2 BA house built a in 1954 for $289K (listed yesterday), a 3, BR3BA w/pool remodeled this fall for $505K or a 7BR, 6BA McMansion for $975K.
1/4 mile up the street there are no sewers or city water. Minimum acreage for a legal lot is 2.5 acres and houses start at $625K.
The south end of town is about to get sewers this coming spring and acreage requirements will drop to 1/2 acre. Lots of houses built in the 60s and 70s (raised ranches) available for approx $300K) on 1 acre lots.
Cheaper to buy a 300K 3BR Raised Ranch then rent a 2 BR apt in town ($2400 average).
There are proposals before Planning and Zoning for three apartment developments of 200 units each. Town ordinance requires 15% minimum be ‘affordable housing’
BTW, this is a traditional Republican town and they control P&Z and BOE. The Town Council has a one vote Dem majority after 8 years of Republican dominanceDecember 4, 2018 10:15 am at 10:15 am #1636757
Saying you want to change bad laws is generally how liberals say they want laxity. I highly doubt when you said that you meant “these laws are bad because they aren’t strict enough; we should make them more strict.” The only exception I know of being gun control. On that issue, I agree with the liberals as do many frum posters here.
In NYC, for example, they claim crime has gone down, which a lot of people (including Democrats) are skeptical of. They’re clearly labeling fewer things as crimes. They’ve de-facto legalized drugs. People just walk down crowded streets smoking pot, which I don’t even think you’re allowed to do in the states where it’s officially legal. They clearly aren’t pursuing dealers or gangs, probably because they know almost all the individuals would be members of liberal’s protected groups like illegal immigrants or really any minority.December 4, 2018 12:12 pm at 12:12 pm #1636885
Actually there are many laws I’d like made more strict and/or enforced.
I’d like strong noise ordinances in my town.
I’d like the police to stop those setting off illegal fireworks in the summer.
Until legalized, I’d like drug laws enforced. I don’t approve of decriminalization of marijuana. Either make it legal or enforce the laws that are on the books.
I don’t want 16-20 year olds tried as juveniles
DUI should mean fines, loss of license and jail time.
The list goes on……………..
My Liberalism has to do with free choice, equal rights applied to all groups, not just some.
I want strict gun control with compulsory education before granting a license, not banning ownership of all guns.December 4, 2018 12:57 pm at 12:57 pm #1636959
1. Why should possession of small amounts of pot, or even hard drugs, be a criminal offense? All that does is create career criminals. The Portuguese system (which the Israel Anti-Drug authority has recommended to the Knesset) treets it as a public health problem and has had remarkable success.
2. Everyone wants free choice to do what they want to do. Are you in favor of free choice not to sell cakes for gay weddings? Are you opposed to compulsory “diversity training” (= indoctrination)?
3. Your excuses hold true about outlying areas (although infrastructure can be built as it was when close suburbs were developed after WW2)but what about inner ritzy suburbs? Not to mention designating whole urban neighborhoods as “historic” so that they can remain in the hands of the limousine liberals who claim to love the poor.
4. How do you feel about the threat to Jews from the Left? One of the bastions of liberal academia, Columbia, has been declared the worst college for Jews in America.
5. What is “strict gun control with compulsory education before granting a license”? Do you mean like driving? While it is a good idea anyway criminals will still get guns as always. One can even print a gun from the Internet.December 4, 2018 5:35 pm at 5:35 pm #1637301
I respect and agree with almost everything you said. I would say everything, but I’m personally a fan of fireworks 🙂
I don’t want you to think I’ve never met moderate liberals like you before; I have many in my own family. But, the extreme, new-age liberals have become very prevalent in the press and among young people. The people like Joe Lieberman and Jim Webb are being phased out, unfortunately, and replaced with crazier, loonier liberals. This is just my perspective, of course.
One other thing, I am glad to see most people around here are sensible about gun-control, but I think people could be even more hardliner. Certain weapons should get a wholesale ban given that mass killings is their only purpose. I personally don’t agree that “protecting hunting” is a plus for guns rights either. I would point out that when it comes to hunting as it pertains to gun control, the pro-gun posters here conveniently forget about the halachah.December 4, 2018 6:40 pm at 6:40 pm #1637357
Protecting hunting is important, and religious accommodation should be made so that people who don’t eat animals that have been shot should be able to catch the animals and then shecht them.December 4, 2018 9:13 pm at 9:13 pm #1637434
#1 The fireworks drive our dogs crazy
#2 Many fires are started by these illegal fireworks
#3 I have no problem with legal fireworks and permitted displays
#4 Joe Lieberman continually moved to the right and is far from a liberal at this time. I personally have known him for more than 50 years and worked in his first campaign in 1970 (a Democratic primary for State Senate in my hometown of New Haven) 4 young Yale Law student worked on that campaign and I got to know them well: Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham.
#5 the left wing fringe should not be called Liberals, in most cases they are either socialists or radicals and that is quite a different philosophyDecember 5, 2018 7:28 am at 7:28 am #1637622
1-3. Aren’t non-show fireworks already illegal? You can add personal injuries caused by them. BTW, while I generally like dogs. barking dogs drive ME crazy, especially when I am trying to sleep.
4. I guess he was mugged by reality. After what you wrote about Bill I would think that you would not want to admit having known him. I would also not put crooked, anti-religious Hilary down on a list of people who can recommend me.
5. I agree. Actually, in Europe and Israel libertarians are called liberals, which is the original meaning of the word. See the website of the Liberal International for their platform. A true liberal would, for example, oppose laws against consensual adult activities (including all types of drugs) as well as anti-discrimination laws that apply to individuals.December 5, 2018 7:29 am at 7:29 am #1637624
BTW, there is also a group called Conservatives International.
Getting back to the O.P.’s question here are Russell Kirk’s Ten Conservative Principles:
First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.
Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.
Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.
Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.
Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.
Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.
Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.
Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.
Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.
Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.