Milhouse

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 904 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Trump Endorsing White Supremacists #1905979
    Milhouse
    Participant

    Charliehall lies through his teeth yet again. Gavin McInnes is NOT an antisemite, and NOT a Holocaust denier. There’s nothing antisemitic about the Proud Boys. The idea that they are a “hate group” comes from the awful, despicable SPLC. Anyone connected with or quoting SPLC is an awful person. Hall probably gives them money.

    Trump may spout nonsense about many topics, but not about Jews; not even Charliehall can actually believe Trump is antisemitic, he’s just lying about it as usual.

    And no, the antisemites are overwhelmingly for Biden. Not that that should make any difference; neither candidate can control whom these people support, let alone whom they mischievously publicly endorse.

    in reply to: Abortions for Goyim #1904548
    Milhouse
    Participant

    I explained above that the difference between a Jew and a goy is whether we go after rov.

    Excuse me? Are you seriously trying to suggest that the majority of foetuses are nefalim?! That’s ridiculous. Everyone knows the exact opposite is true.

    in reply to: Abortions for Goyim #1904237
    Milhouse
    Participant

    My understanding is that the current “conservative” approach to abortion is based on Catholic ideology

    Your understanding is wrong. And your understanding of the Catholic position is also wrong, but for different reasons.

    How do your poskim, like the Tzitz Eliezer, shtim with Rav Moshe Feinstein’s famous teshuva on abortion clinics?

    You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the poskim’s positions. It’s the Tzitz Eliezer who is relatively meikil. Reb Moshe insists on a plain language reading of the Rambam, that abortion IS ALWAYS MURDER, whether it is done by a yid or a goy. The fact that a yid is not executed for it doesn’t make it not murder, it’s just a gezeras hakasuv that this particular kind of murder is not punished by human courts when it is committed by a Jew, but is when it’s committed by a goy.

    As I pointed out earlier, this is EXACTLY THE SAME as killing a goy. There is no machlokes at all, that when a goy kills another goy he must be executed, but when a yid kills a goy he is not. Would anyone suggest for even a minute that this means it’s not murder?! Of course it’s murder, and Hashem will punish anyone who does it, but it’s a gezeras hakasuv that human courts are not authorized to do justice in such a case. The same is true for abortion.

    The Rambam is also clear that the ONLY circumstances in which it is permitted to kill an unborn baby are the same circumstances in which it is permitted to kill a born baby or an adult — when he is a rodef.

    in reply to: Abortions for Goyim #1904088
    Milhouse
    Participant

    What kind of question is this? The halacha is very clear and there is NO MACHLOKES WHATSOEVER. Killing an unborn baby has exactly the same halachic status as killing a goy. In both cases a yid who does it is exempt from human justice, but must face Hashem’s justice, while a goy who does it must be tried in a court of law, sentenced to death, and executed. This is not some kind of moshol; it means literally that the nations are OBLIGATED to execute all goyishe abortionists. If they don’t do so they are violating the 7 mitzvos themselves.

    in reply to: Patronized for wearing a mask #1901290
    Milhouse
    Participant

    Oh, and by the way, the story with Reb Yisroel Salanter is a bobbe maiseh. It never happened, and you certainly can’t derive any halochos from it.

    in reply to: Patronized for wearing a mask #1901289
    Milhouse
    Participant

    “Reb Eliezer”, you’re also wrong about doctors being able to pasken to eat on Yom Kippur. NO DOCTOR HAS THE RIGHT TO GIVE A HETER TO EAT. If you need a heter you must ask a ROV, not a doctor. The ROV should ask the doctor for his opinion, and then decide the halocho taking into account what the doctor says. But the doctor himself cannot pasken, and you cannot eat just because the doctor said so.

    in reply to: Patronized for wearing a mask #1901288
    Milhouse
    Participant

    “Reb Eliezer”, of course I saw the article you linked. I commented on it. It was FALSE the first time, and it’s still FALSE. It’s a stupid amhoratzus, nothing more. But now I know that you never bothered to look the BHL up yourself, which means it’s dishonest of you to pretend to quote it. If you got the information from a YWN article then that is your source, not the BHL. To quote a source you have to have seen it yourself.

    in reply to: Patronized for wearing a mask #1901287
    Milhouse
    Participant

    Mrs Plony: ” I recall a chapter in A House Full of Chessed where Rebbetzin Machlis kept bringing her baby to have his bilirubin tested so he could have his circumcision on the eighth day, and miraculously his levels fell to an acceptable number just in time”

    She was getting his bilurubin tested so the MOHEL would agree to do the bris. As far as every doctor in the world is concerned this obsession with jaundice is one big narishkeit, and there’s no reason not to circumcise a baby who’s bright yellow.

    in reply to: Patronized for wearing a mask #1900634
    Milhouse
    Participant

    The Woodward “revelation” is nonsense. It’s no different from what he said publicly at a press conference on March 30, that he knows how big a panic he could create if he were to play the story up, so he’s being careful not to do that, like a responsible person, not like an irresponsible reporter such as Jim Acosta. Fauci (you still worship him, don’t you?) has completely repudiated any suggestion that Trump’s public message ever diverged from the information he was given. Woodward is simply trying to influence the election; he’s functioning as an integral part of the Democrat campaign and should be given no more credibility than any other Democrat spokesman.

    in reply to: Patronized for wearing a mask #1900608
    Milhouse
    Participant

    The halacha is that if you have a medical question (like whether to be mechalel Shabbos for a choleh, or whether a baby boy is too yellow for milah) then you ask a doctor.

    Mrs Plony, NOBODY asks a doctor whether a baby is too yellow for milah. The UNIVERSALLY accepted halacha is that we do NOT ask doctors. If we were to ask the doctors there would be no such thing as a delayed bris for yellowness, and the whole halacha about it would have been long forgotten. We ask only a mohel who has received the tradition from the mohel who trained him, and we disregard the unanimous advice of all doctors that postnatal jaundice is no reason to delay circumcision.

    in reply to: Patronized for wearing a mask #1900605
    Milhouse
    Participant

    Reb Eliezer: proud, look up in Biur Halacha O’CH 554 about the Cholara epidemic to stay inside but when need to go out, wear a mask.

    No, he does not say that. Please do not repeat things that you saw quoted somewhere but did not bother looking up yourself. If you had looked it up you would have seen that the person who quoted it to you was lying or incompetent.

    The Biur Halacha says that if someone insists on fasting during a cholera epidemic, then he should protect himself by staying home to avoid breathing the bad air that was then falsely thought to cause the disease. If he must go out, he should hang some camphor and mint leaves over his nose, in the hope that the strong smell will protect him from the bad air. NOTHING about masks. Anyone who tells you he mentions a mask is not telling you the truth.

    Of course nowadays we know that cholera has nothing to do with bad air, and all the precautions people thought they were taking were useless. They should have been doing something very different: boiling and/or chlorinating their water, and washing their hands frequently (in clean water!) Which goes to show that the so-called “experts” don’t necessarily know what they’re talking about. And that applies now just as it did then.

    in reply to: October Surprise #1897588
    Milhouse
    Participant

    NoM, Biden was never at the top of his wits. He’s always been Slow Joe. But senility happens; some people get it and some don’t, and it’s clear to anyone who pays attention that he has it.

    Why would anyone have to be “respected in the Democrat Party” to tell Biden what to do? if it comes to it, the 0bama machine will simply give him the choice between resigning or having a funeral. They don’t have to be respected to do that, just powerful. The only resistance would be from “Dr” Jill, who has visions of being another Edith Wilson, and from Harris whose presidential ambitions would be cut short by a replacement candidate.

    in reply to: QAnon #1897587
    Milhouse
    Participant

    “However, given her prior posts, media statements etc.,”

    WHAT “prior posts, media statements etc”? There aren’t any that are antisemitic. Attacks on Soros are not antisemitic, and never will be.

    in reply to: QAnon #1897586
    Milhouse
    Participant

    No, BT, theories about cabals secretly controlling governments are usually NOT about Jews. They’re usually about such people as the Freemasons, the Templars, the Illumnati, the Bilderbergs, the CFR and Trilateral Commission, the House of Windsor, etc., none of whom are Jewish. The first one that involved Jews was the Protocols, which was cribbed from earlier French works about the Freemasons. The Russian secret police simply substituted “Jews” for “Freemasons”.

    There are, of course, people who really do try to manipulate governments, and one of those currently doing so, with some success, happens to be a Jew by birth, although not in any other way: George Soros. Attacks on him are NOT antisemitic; most people who write about him have no idea he’s even Jewish. And the attacks are mostly true.

    Even the claim that he was a Nazi collaborator MAY be true, although there’s no genuine evidence for it. It’s based entirely on an interview he gave, in which he phrased himself ambiguously; if you don’t listen carefully it sounds like he is admitting it, and that’s where those who make the accusation are coming from — certainly not from any antisemitic motive! On the contrary, an antisemite would consider it a compliment to say that Soros helped the Nazis.

    in reply to: why cant ywn ever show any gaffs of trump #1897577
    Milhouse
    Participant

    This site has a strangely schizophrenic character. Most of the articles are reprinted verbatim from AP, which is an active arm of the Democrat Party. AP writers, like most news reporters, are simply Democrats with bylines. But the selection of which articles to run sometimes shows a bias in the other direction, as do those few articles not sourced from AP.

    in reply to: Tzitzis on Shabbos #1897574
    Milhouse
    Participant

    Deliberately separating them is forbidden, at least according to some opinions. Merely playing with them should be fine; if they happen to become separated in the process it was unintentional and therefore not a problem. There is no reason to invent a new gezera to avoid it.

    in reply to: October Surprise #1897458
    Milhouse
    Participant

    NoM, the difference is that Biden is not physically capable of being president. He’s got serious dementia, which is why he’s being kept as much out of public as possible.

    GHT, the DNC bylaws say the vacancy is filled by a special meeting of the full DNC, voting under its usual rules.

    The RNC bylaws say the RNC can fill the vacancy or it can call a new convention; if it does not call a new convention, then at the meeting to fill the vacancy each state delegation gets the same number of votes as that state would have at a convention.

    in reply to: QAnon #1897393
    Milhouse
    Participant

    What a pack of lies from the usual liars. There was NOT ONE THING antisemitic about anything Greene shared. And there’s nothing antisemitic or frightening about the “Qanon” kooks. They’re idiots, not Jew-haters. Unlike Antifa and BLM, who are outright violent criminals, in open rebellion against the USA.

    in reply to: October Surprise #1897378
    Milhouse
    Participant

    The October Surprise will be Biden’s. Either his tearful announcement of his resignation due to ill health, or else his funeral. (And that is exactly how the DNC will present his choices to him: Either you resign or you won’t see tomorrow.) If there’s a funeral they will try to keep it from being as blatant a political rally as the infamous Wellstone funeral, but they will fail. And his replacement will be a surprise candidate, not someone who ran in the primaries, and certainly not Harris. Perhaps Michelle 0bama.

    in reply to: October Surprise #1897379
    Milhouse
    Participant

    PS: Or Fauci.

    in reply to: hechsher? #1897365
    Milhouse
    Participant

    Many years ago I spoke to Rabbi Schwarcz about this. He certifies Jewish-owned businesses that are open on Shabbos, by setting them up with a heter mechira. On Shabbos the business is owned by a nochri, and the Jewish former owner is not allowed to set foot there. Al pi din this is 100% permitted, IF the business is not publicly known to be Jewish-owned.

    He also makes a point of occasionally visiting his places on Shabbos, so they don’t think Shabbos is a “free day” when the rabbi will not come and they can do whatever they like.

    in reply to: BLM vs HAMAS #1896150
    Milhouse
    Participant

    akuperma, the dichotomy you create is false. The “Palestinians”‘ are no less racist than BLM. In fact they’re more racist. Their ideology requires that Jews be allowed to live only as their subjects, and the very idea of a Jew who is free is anathema to them, like the idea of a feral cow or sheep. And their goal now is to finish what their grandfathers started, together with their German allies.

    Meanwhile BLM is a Marxist movement, but they’ve replaced class with race. Their goal is to establish a dictatorship of the <s>proletariat</s> intersectionally oppressed. They don’t care about actual black people, any more than classical Marxists cared about actual working people.

    in reply to: Jacob Blake #1896148
    Milhouse
    Participant

    Of course the execrable jackk deliberately makes up arguments. Of course police can’t go around shooting anyone known to bear arms. There’s nothing wrong with bearing arms, it’s one of our civil liberties, just like speaking our minds or going about our business unmolested. So long as someone is not doing anything to make them think he’s going to shoot them or anyone else without just cause, the presumption or even knowledge that he’s armed is irrelevant. But when someone is resisting arrest, refusing orders, and reaches for something that may well be a gun, the police can and should shoot him. They can’t afford to wait until he starts shooting. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO RESIST ARREST.

    in reply to: Jacob Blake #1896147
    Milhouse
    Participant

    That we now know there was no gun in the car makes no difference. He was resisting arrest, repeatedly disobeying the police’s orders, and reached into the car. The moment he reached in the police were right to shoot him.

    Yes, charliehall, in the back. And if you did that you would deserve to be shot in the back too. Do you seriously think they have to wait until he retrieves a gun, turns around, and begins firing?!

    He was already armed with a knife. And now he was reaching for something. That’s enough.

    Now that we know there was no gun we can only speculate what his intention was. Perhaps he was planning to get in and drive away, because he knew there was a warrant out for him and he had no intention of going to prison. Letting him escape would have endangered the community, so that would justify the shooting too, even under the modified fleeing felon rule that we have now.

    The underlying problem is that too many black people imagine that being arrested is optional, that they have the right to disobey police orders and do what they like. George Floyd did the same thing, so that the police had to restrain him, which in his health condition was a bad idea for him. Eric Garner too. In both cases the police did nothing wrong, and the victims caused their own deaths by resisting while in such poor health that any kind of stress could kill them. Floyd had just swallowed a huge quantity of drugs, probably to avoid being arrested with them on him, so it’s really a straight case of suicide. Garner committed suicide by fighting when his heart wasn’t up to that stress.

    in reply to: Is anyone going to Uman this year #1895287
    Milhouse
    Participant

    The antisemitism of some or most Ukranians is irrelevant. They’re certainly not more antisemitic than they were when they slaughtered the kedoshim who are buried in Uman, or when Reb Nachman moved there for the specific purpose of being buried with those kedoshim, or when he asked that people come to him on Rosh Hashona.

    in reply to: Is anyone going to Uman this year #1895286
    Milhouse
    Participant

    GHT once again evading. Gamzu specifically paskened on the importance of the pilgrimage, which he had no right to do. And you cited him approvingly. Now are you going to defend that, or change your mind and denounce it.

    in reply to: Is anyone going to Uman this year #1895012
    Milhouse
    Participant

    No, GHT, I’m not going to let you get away with this dishonesty. You approvingly cited Gamzu pretending to be a posek, and now you must either attempt to defend it or explicitly renounce it. Neither Gamzu nor any “public health official” or “elected official” is entitled to even express an opinion on the importance or lack thereof of the pilgrimage to Uman. Not even rabbonim and dayonim, especially ones who are not chassidim, have the right to an opinion on the matter. The only ones entitled to pasken on it are those who try to go every year, and the eltere chassidim of Breslav who are the transmitters of the Breslaver derech. The government will ultimately decide whether to facilitate the pilgrimage or make it difficult to impossible, but they cannot pasken on its importance.

    And your condemnation of those who will be moser nefesh to go this year proves that all your protestations about the carnival are dishonest. You were never upset about the carnival, you were always upset about thoe who sincerely go to the Rebbe AS HE REQUESTED. Which means לא עלינו תלונותיכם כי על גו׳

    in reply to: Is anyone going to Uman this year #1894804
    Milhouse
    Participant

    So Gamzu has become a posek, and can say what is or isn’t necessary?

    in reply to: Is anyone going to Uman this year #1894803
    Milhouse
    Participant

    People go to Uman because REB NACHMAN EXPLICITLY ASKED FOR IT and promised that he will look after anyone who goes. That’s why people were moser nefesh to go in the difficult years, before it became a carnival. In recent years, yes, there have been those who go for the sideshows, and Reb Nachman is an afterthought (but at least that!).

    But this year once again going takes mesirus nefesh, so if GHT actually believes what he claims to he should be admiring those who brave the difficulties and go even this year. He might even say that if you don’t go this year it shows that you’re a fake and — in the event that Moshiach has ch”v not yet come by next year — you shouldn’t go then either. But since he doesn’t actually mean it he isn’t admiring those people, he’s condemning them! How does this make sense? Anyone going this year is not going to party! They’re going for the Rebbe, and surely the Rebbe will daven for them and help them.

    in reply to: cholent help (again) #1885278
    Milhouse
    Participant

    My bobbe a”h used to make a pareve cholent, and put prunes in it.

    in reply to: Freedom of Speech #1883940
    Milhouse
    Participant

    No, charliehall, wartine does not suspend the first amendment. There is no exception in it for war. Schenck has been completely repudiated and is not good law, which is why those who quote Holmes’s line about falsely shouting fire in a theater make such fools of themselves.

    in reply to: Freedom of Speech #1883941
    Milhouse
    Participant

    Hitler never murdered anyone either. But he was responsible for tens of millions of murders. Marx’s philosophy was responsible for more murders than any other philosophy ever — including all of Hitler’s murders.

    in reply to: Freedom of Speech #1883935
    Milhouse
    Participant

    n0m, more ignorance. Your claim about displaying a confederate flag was that “There are two instances that it could be illegal. 1) To incite hate. 2) Anywhere that it is beholden to The Civil Rights Act. [Such as the workplace.]”. This is unambiguously wrong. Even if the “fighting words” doctrine were still law (and it probably is not) that would not justify either of your claims.

    Inciting hate is not fighting words. Fighting words means one thing and one thing only: words directed to a particular person, said directly to his face, that are of such a nature that it would be completely natural for him to lose control of himself and punch you, so that in fact he didn’t consciously choose to punch you, you made him do it. In such a case the Court of 1942 erroneously believed that states could ban you from provoking him by saying such things to him. Speech not directed at an individual was NEVER included in this doctrine.

    In any case it is very doubtful whether the doctrine itself is still good law. Chaplinsky has not yet been explicitly overruled, but only because nobody has tested it in decades; if it ever came up again it’s very likely that it would be overruled.

    Your next claim refutes itself: For you BLM can be based on a lie. For people who live in it, it would be lying to see from without, all that is experienced in the first hand. A lie is a lie is a lie. It can’t be a lie for one person and not for another. And the FACT is that BLM’s founding claim is a lie. It is a FACT, which you cannot deny without being a damned liar yourself, that Michael Browne, rather than being shot with his hands up in surrender, was shot while he was charging at Darren Wilson. It is also an undeniable fact that BLM’s other founding martyr, Trayvon Martin, was killed while he was actively trying his best to murder George Zimmerman. There has never been a clearer case of self defense in human history. It is also a fact that there is no pattern of police murdering black people; on the contrary, police kill black criminals LESS often than they kill white criminals. Every single claim BLM exists to make is a lie. And if you defend those claims then you are a liar.

    in reply to: Freedom of Speech #1882690
    Milhouse
    Participant

    akuperma: Under American law, the only time being pro-Nazi was illegal was when the United States was at war with Nazi Germany.

    Even then it was legal to be pro-Nazi. The first amendment has no exception for wartime. Taking actions for the purpose of helping the enemy is treason; but simply saying the enemy is right is protected speech.

    n0m, wrong as usual: I do not think this post was questioning a general display of The Confederate Flag. There are two instances that it could be illegal. 1) To incite hate. 2) Anywhere that it is beholden to The Civil Rights Act. [Such as the workplace.]

    The first amendment knows of no exception for “inciting hate”. Nor can the civil rights laws override it.

    The situation of a confederate flag in the workplace is legally tricky. The government has no authority to make it illegal to display it in the workplace; however your employer can forbid it, and the government has effectively required all employers to do so. If you put up a swastika at work you are in no legal trouble; but if your employer doesn’t make you take it down he can be in trouble. But this hasn’t been thoroughly tested; if an employer were to refuse to ban it, and insist that doing so violates his freedom of speech, he might well prevail.

    As for BLM, the entire movement is premised on a lie. Remember that it all started with “Hands up don’t shoot”, i.e. the LIE that the vicious thug Michael Brown was trying to surrender when he was shot. And from the very beginning, in Ferguson, it was antisemitic. Funded by Soros, the organizers blamed Israel for Brown’s death.

    in reply to: Do our eyes tell us what happened to GEORGE FLOYD #1882003
    Milhouse
    Participant

    That Floyd swallowed a large dose of fentanyl immediately before he was arrested is not directly proven, but it is the most reasonable hypothesis that explains all of the evidence. The most likely reason he would have swallowed it just then would be that he was about to be arrested and didn’t want to be caught with it and charged with distribution.

    in reply to: Do our eyes tell us what happened to GEORGE FLOYD #1882001
    Milhouse
    Participant

    n0m, calling a legitimate killing in self-defense “murder”, even with the caveat that it’s not in the legal sense, is still a filthy lie. It is not murder in ANY sense. It’s the exact opposite of murder.

    in reply to: Do our eyes tell us what happened to GEORGE FLOYD #1881999
    Milhouse
    Participant

    Syag, Trayvon Martin was in the act of murdering George ZImmerman. He was bashing his head into the concrete. What he looked like had absolutely nothing to do with it. Nor did his race play any role in the entire episode.

    And the death of such a person is a good thing, because it makes everyone around him safer. All the people who would have been his victims had he lived are now safe from him. Ba’avod Resha’im Rina. The Gemara says explicitly that although Hashem does not rejoice at the death of the wicked, he encourages others to rejoice. When the Egyptians drowned He didn’t want the mal’achim to sing, but He did want us to sing. Binfol Oyivcha applies only to our fellow Bnei Yisrael.

    in reply to: Do our eyes tell us what happened to GEORGE FLOYD #1881659
    Milhouse
    Participant

    N0m, you continue to lie and lie and lie and lie and lie. You are incapable of telling even one word of truth.

    That you consider killing in legitimate self-defense or defense of others to be “murder” is telling. It proves that at least your screen name is not a lie — you have no mesorah and you are anti-Torah. Killing in self-defense or defense of others is not murder it is a MITZVAH. And the death of the attacker is a good thing to be celebrated.

    Floyd swallowed a large dose of fentanyl immediately before being arrested.

    And the list I gave was just the names that BLM is championing, which is why they came to mind. And not one of them was murdered. (Two of them weren’t even killed by police. Trayvon Martin was killed by an ordinary person whom he was trying to murder, and Sandra Bland committed suicide.) If there were a significant problem of police murdering black people, why can’t the BLM movement come up with even a single case to protest?

    And they are completely typical of police killings, except for one thing: They were black, and that is NOT the typical police killing. Police are MORE LIKELY to kill white criminals than black ones. But nobody complains when they kill a good-for-nothing white criminal who was attacking them.

    Even when a Somali Minneapolis policeman, who was hired for no other reason than his skin color, shot a white woman, Justine Damond, (and that WAS murder), and it took the state almost a year to charge him, there were no protests, let alone riots, and you certainly did not say one word about it, even though it was all over the news. You miserable hypocrite.

    in reply to: Do our eyes tell us what happened to GEORGE FLOYD #1881641
    Milhouse
    Participant

    2scents, the “victim” DID NOT ASPHYXIATE. There was no physical sign of it.

    in reply to: Do our eyes tell us what happened to GEORGE FLOYD #1881579
    Milhouse
    Participant

    n0m, nobody could be that stupid. You are lying on purpose.

    Floyd was definitely not murdered. There is no doubt of that. The worst possible verdict is manslaughter by neglect, i.e. the cops should have checked on him more frequently, and once he stopped struggling they should have moved him to a different position. Maybe.

    But the main cause for his death seems to be the large dose of fentanyl that he had just swallowed, and his generally bad health condition. He brought his own death on himself, just like Eric Garner did. Pressure to his back (not his neck) may have contributed slightly, and may have been the factor that pushed him over the edge he had placed himself at. That is all.

    in reply to: Do our eyes tell us what happened to GEORGE FLOYD #1881581
    Milhouse
    Participant

    n0m, you are probably one of those liars who insist to this day that Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Alton Stewart, Sandra Bland, Tamir Rice, Freddy Gray, Jamar Clark, and many others were all murdered. The truth is NONE of them were murdered. Most of them richly deserved their deaths. The rest were unfortunate victims of circumstance. But not one was the victim of wrongdoing by anyone. And anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

    in reply to: Say “NO” To Trump’s Peace Plan #1874659
    Milhouse
    Participant

    DC, what on earth are you talking about? There is no such thing as “the Cairo-Jericho accords”, and in 1969 Israel did not give anyone anything.

    in reply to: Say “NO” To Trump’s Peace Plan #1874658
    Milhouse
    Participant

    “And no, when it gave Gaza to the PA nobody had any idea that Hamas would stage a coup there more than a year later.“

    What did they think would happen? Hamas would just drop their guns and sing cumbaya?

    Everyone thought the PA would remain in charge. Nobody at the time expecfed the Hamas coup. Probably not even Hamas.

    in reply to: Say “NO” To Trump’s Peace Plan #1873955
    Milhouse
    Participant

    BY1212, we certainly do own those places. How can you say we don’t? Even if we don’t control them (and for decades we did, so there’s no reason we can’t do it again) they’re still our property. They were our property throughout the years when various thieves and occupiers controlled them, and they will still be our property no matter who will control them in the future until Moshiach comes. The Arabs are squatters there, nothing more.

    And the prohibition on giving away land from which it will be easier for the enemy to attack us, should they choose to do so, is an explicit and undisputed halacha in Shulchan Aruch, so those rabbis who held otherwise were wrong.

    Every military expert agrees that giving these areas away will indeed make us more vulnerable. Even those who support it admit this, but say that the risk is worth taking for the sake of the promise of peace. If the Arabs are no longer our enemies, and decide not to attack us in the first place, then it won’t matter how vulnerable we are, and we’ll be safer than if we kept the land and they remained enemies.

    But the halacha says explicitly that we are forbidden from taking this into account. We must make our calculation assuming that the enemy will attack, and consider whether control of this area will make a difference in that eventuality. If it will be of no use to them in an attack, then we may give it away (at least as far as Hilchos Pikuach Nefesh is concerned) but if it will be useful to them, as every serving military expert says it will, then we must not only not give it away but we must fight to keep it, even though fighting inherently involves risk to life. We cannot allow the country to be vulnerable to a potential attack, even from those who promise not to attack us.

    Considerations of Kedushas Ho’oretz, Lo Sechoneim, and our lack of right to give away that which Hashem has given us, are all secondary, because they’re all subject to pikuach nefesh. (Except according to the Ramban, who holds that mitzvas kibush ho’oretz applies nowadays, and it’s obvious that that mitzvah overrides pikuach nefesh. This is why the zionist rabbonim oppose giving away land in all circumstances, even if pikuach nefesh demands otherwise. But the Lubavitcher Rebbe didn’t hold like the Ramban.)

    in reply to: Say “NO” To Trump’s Peace Plan #1873954
    Milhouse
    Participant

    Coffee Addict, you need some more coffee. Israel did not give anyone anything in 1969.

    And no, when it gave Gaza to the PA nobody had any idea that Hamas would stage a coup there more than a year later.

    in reply to: Living in Eretz Yisroel #1873877
    Milhouse
    Participant

    Living in Eretz Yisroel, if one can do it, is definitely a good thing, but whether it’s an actual mitzvah depends on a machlokes Rambam and Ramban. The Ramban holds that the mitzvah of living in Eretz Yisroel applies at all times. But the Rambam holds that it was a one-time command to the generation who came in with Yehoshua and does not apply nowadays; nowadays it’s only a desirable thing, but not itself a mitzvah.

    However there is one thing everyone agrees on: A Jew may never consider chutz lo’oretz his home. Eretz Yisroel is always every Jew’s home, it’s just that most of us, for one reason or another, are currently living away from home. A person may live away from home for an extended period, whether for work, or something he has to do in some other place, or just to experience a different country; but his legal home remains the place where he intends eventually to return. That’s where he is based for taxes and voting, and for his driver’s license, and that is what the gemara means when it says that “Whoever lives in chutz lo’oretz is as if he has no G-d”. The moment a Jew says of chu”l “This is my home, I have no reason ever to leave here”, then he has become an apikores.

    in reply to: What Did I do?! #1872514
    Milhouse
    Participant

    Nobody ever plays on a level field. The world is not level. Nobody has the right to expect a level field, or to complain that it isn’t. You are expected to do the best you can with what you are given, that’s all. Some have a better start than others and will achieve more; you have no right to be jealous of them. What the other person has did not come at your expense; if he didn’t have it you wouldn’t have got it instead.

    There is no “systematic racism”, or “inherent racism”. What there is is the fact that many black people are criminals. Many more, proportionately, than white people. When 1/32 of the population (young black men) commit more than HALF of the violent crime, it simply makes sense that whenever you see a young black man whom you don’t know, you have to consider that he may be a violent criminal. Every honest black person will admit that he does the same thing. Even Jesse Jackson admitted it, in a rare honest moment.

    The difference between that and racism hinges on those two little words “may be”. A racist is someone who thinks that every young black man IS a violent criminal; a reasonable person is one who when he first meets such a person considers that he MAY BE, but if he has a chance to observe the person he modifies his consideration in accord with what he sees, and the more information he gets the more he modifies it.

    But if a decent young black man is tired of always being suspected and feared, he should blame not the people who RIGHTLY AND JUSTLY suspect and fear him, but all the criminals who look like him. If they didn’t commit their crimes nobody would think twice about him.

    It’s the same as Arabs in Eretz Yisroel. You’d have to be crazy to get in a car with an Arab driver, or not to worry a little when you see an Arab in the street, because so many of them have attacked and murdered Jews. So all the rest of them unfortunately have to pay a price by being suspected even if they’re tzadikim gemurim, because nobody can read their minds and know that.

    in reply to: Say “NO” To Trump’s Peace Plan #1872392
    Milhouse
    Participant

    DC, Israel did not hand anything over to Hamas in 1969! Israel did not hand anything to anyone in 1969. And it has never handed anything to Hamas. You’re just saying crazy things.

    in reply to: Chaim Deustch #1872391
    Milhouse
    Participant

    Joseph, Deutsch has a good chance because the leftist vote will be split between Clarke and her challengers from the left, who think she’s not leftist enough.

    bsharg2, if you are not registered as a Democrat you CAN NOT vote in the Democrat primary. And it’s too late to change your registration. The deadline for that was Feb 14. (It used to be in the previous October, but they recently changed the law to move it to February.)

    in reply to: Cancel Culture #1872387
    Milhouse
    Participant

    Whatever Lee was, he was not a traitor. He felt he owed his loyalty to Virginia. He was against secession, but when the state eventually voted to secede he had no choice. To join the North and fight his state would have been treason. So he did the honorable thing.

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 904 total)