Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The decision does say that you need to be a permanent resident in order to vote in Illinois, but I can’t imagine anyone reading that as suggesting that that means what you think it implies. It’s just that the English language doesn’t really have a way to differentiate between the Illinois resident who likes living in his local Hilton because he enjoys room service and not being tied down by a lease, and the guy next door who’s been posted to Illinois for a year by his employer but returns to his house, wife and kids in Ohio every weekend.
Popa,
I just skimmed through the decision and don’t see anything in it that says that that aspect of residency applies to anyone who doesn’t live outside of the state. In other words, you can be a resident if you live in Illinois, or if you leave but intend to stay. Did I miss something?
The rule as it stands now is that a requirement for 30 to 50 day period of residency is ok for reasons of logistics.
As an aside, at least as of when I went there (five years ago), Fordham did not offer academic scholarships to anyone. Financial aid was only need based. Otherwise, I pretty much agree with everything that’s been said above.
I’m not sure I understand the question. M’dinei Shamayim, you should repay money you owe, even if it can’t be collected in court or by a Beis Din.
If the lender/vendor wants to take you to Beis Din, the Beis Din will figure out whether or not at the time the debt was incurred, you intended to make the debt dependent on American law, which you would have been entitled to do.
Mod80,
While that’s often the case that’s not always true. From Merriam-Webster:
a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded
I wish I was secure enough about my Cheilek in Olam Haba to be able to do something like mock the Rambam’s views on the existence of sorcery in a public forum.
But for the fun of it here goes my attempt at comparing the two platforms. By my count two proposals are similar, and both parties believe some things that are either universal or really vague:
Meet the Needs of Working, Unemployed and Farm Families
– Raise the minimum wage to $12 an hour.
The 2008 Democratic platform would have had it indexed to minimum wage, but would have put it nowhere near $12 an hour
-Unemployment insurance for all workers.
This was in the Democratic platform, but UI should be self funding
– Moratorium on farm foreclosures
Nope. Nothing
– Labor law reform to remove barriers to workers who want to join a union.
Not Specific
– No privatization of Social Security. Increase benefits.
This is nonsense. There are lots of Democratic ideas that neither the Republican or Communist parties support. Does that make them the same?
– Universal prescription drug coverage administered by Medicare. Universal health care system.
Again, non-specific
– Restore social safety net. Welfare reform that includes job training, supports and living wages.
Who doesn’t support “welfare reform that includes job training?” Also, it’s not in the Democratic platform
– Full funding for equal, quality, bi-lingual public education. No vouchers.
The platform pointedly does not support equal bilingual education
Make Corporate Giants Pay
– Repeal tax cuts to the rich and corporations.
Not in the platform
– Close corporate tax loopholes.
Again, who doesn’t support this?
– Restitution to workers’ pensions.
Not even sure what this means, but if it means companies should honor their contractual obligations, than again this is pretty universal
– Strong regulation of financial industry.
Not specific. I imagine in 2008, this was also non-controversial. It’s unbelievable that it is now
– Regulation and public ownership of utilities
Not in platform
– Prosecute corporate polluters. Public works program to clean our air, water and land
Who opposes this?
– Aid to cities and states. Federally funded infrastructure repair and social service programs
Vague and universal
Foreign Policy for Peace and Justice
– No to war with Iraq – End military interventions
Nope. Dems favored “bringing it to a responsible close.”
– Repeal Fast Track and NAFTA, stop Free Trade Area of the Americas(FTAA). No secrecy.
Specifically not in the Democratic Platform
– Save Salt II Agreements, reject Star Wars and Nuclear Posture Review
Not in platform
– Abolish nuclear weapons
Certainly not
– End military interventions.
No
– Cut military budget and fund human needs.
No
Defend Democracy and Civil Rights
– End racial profiling.
Not in platform
– Repeal the death penalty.
No
– Enforce civil rights laws and affirmative action.
Enforcing laws is a pretty universal thing
– Repeal USA Patriot Act.
Explicitly not
– Legalization and protection of immigrant>rights.
Somewhat vague, but possibly in the both platforms
– Public financing of elections. Overall election law reform including Instant Runoff Voting.
Nope
– Youth and student bill of rights. Guarantee youth’s right to earn,learn and live.
Nope
What are the rules for open plagiarism in the coffee room?
Because by remarkable coincidence, this sentence, including its misspelling “This is takn from the DNC Platform 2008 and compared against the Commmunist Party USA (CPA)” along with the rest of that post also appeared on Free Republic a year ago.
The Roman Empire fell well after it outlawed gay marriage. Many many civilizations (Mayan, Incan, Russian, Mongolian and Vikings to start with, although obviously, how you define “collapse” matters here) did not have gay marriage and collapsed anyway.
Bezelal
Do you know of any credible Rabbi who would suggest that in our day and age, an act of pedophilia is not a violation of multiple issurim?
Myfriend,
1) She’s not a lady acting as a judge, she’s a retired judge acting as an arbitrator. If, as a result of her gross negligence (which is what your accusing her of) she cost the plaintiff’s money that was rightfully owed them, I imagine she’d be open to being sued herself (although she’d probably win that suit). In any event, she’s not some actress they pulled off the street.
2) For the umpteenth time, she didn’t just determine that it wasn’t a $3000 wig, she also, at least claimed to know that it was a cheap wig. Georgi’s employees presumably are aware of the brands they sell, and while there is no such thing as wigmaker confidentiality in the law, even if there was, revealing that they don’t sell the wig in question wouldn’t violate it. Furthermore, it seems logical that the question she called Georgi with wasn’t “Do you sell this brand of wig?” but was the question she had left the room to ask, which was “Is it possible to repair this type of wig?” Why wouldn’t the employee be able to answer that question?
3) Assuming she just made the whole thing up, she has opened herself and the show up to quite slander suit from the couple once Georgi returns from France and confirms what you seem to think he easily can.
Let’s be dan l’kav zechus here, but you can’t just make stuff up in order to do so.
I’m not assuming anything, it’s just that the alternative to assuming it was a five dollar wig isn’t assuming the judge didn’t know what she was looking at, it’s assuming that the judge simply made up the part about asking Georgi about the brand and finding out it was cheap wig. I find that to be extremely unlikely.
PBA,
I can’t really speculate about whether she’d wear a five dollar sheitel, but she wouldn’t need to if she bought it to try to commit fraud against the dry cleaner. It seemed from the clip, that the wig had some sort of identifying tag, which really does explain every question being asked here.
The problem with PBA’s theory is that the judge said she knew the brand, which is how she knew it wasn’t the $3000 wig, and that, aside from it not being what they said it was, it was a five dollar wig.
Mogold,
I’m not sure how saying that a letter claiming expertise about a disease will not be effective if the writer can’t spell the disease is nitpicking. If the goal here is to use this case to confirm whatever it is you already believed to be true about Zionists, Hadassah or me, mission accomplished. If the goal is to write a persuasive letter or post on a public forum, I think msseeker, judging from the responses, failed rather spectacularly here.
I would suggest that before sending a letter to Hadassah chapters questioning the diagnoses of their doctors based on information that came from a website, you make sure you know how to spell the name of the disease your claiming to know something about.
Editor,
I’m thinking that was directed at me, but I’m not sure I’ve ever suggested I was pals with either of the people you mentioned.
Anyway, while it’s not something I know a ton about, I’m pretty sure the National Security Waiver provision is included in the act (so the Presidents have gone by at least the letter of the law), and I think the Constitutional argument is certainly not baseless. If you’d like to sue the President and attempt to compel him to move the embassy, you’re more than welcome to try. I’d imagine it’s a lost cause for now.
Again, relying on your attorney in good faith can be a defense (it usually isn’t), but at least in theory, that should be argued in court. Laws against torture would never be enforced if a government was able to claim it was relying on its own interpretation of the law and therefore can’t be brought to trial.
Yes, on a legal level killing a terrorist is better than torturing him. Killing people (and even assassination) is obviously not banned during war. Torture is, by the Convention Against Torture, which the US has signed.
Bush, like any person who claims that he violated the law because it was immoral is more than welcome to argue that at trial. Neither you nor I have any idea if that’s accurate because we don’t know the facts. Generally, the burden to prove a defense of necessity is on the defendant, who to this point hasn’t really bothered to even suggest he needs that defense (Bush is still insisting he was relying on his lawyers in believing waterboarding was not illegal).
I’m not all that comfortable paskening halacha in the Coffee Room, especially where it’s not at all relevant to the conversation, but I’d say that yes a person who kills or tortures a rodef is patur in certain situations. That person is not however somehow exempt from going to Beis Din simply because they say that’s what they did.
Amnesty International is not a Jewish organization and is not concerned about halacha.
Amnesty would also disagree with you premise that torture was or is ever necessary to save lives. If Bush wants to say that he broke the law in order to do so though, he’s welcome to do that. Amnesty though is perfectly within reason in thinking the place that argument should take place is in a courthouse.
You guys can support whatever you’d like. Torture is illegal no matter who you do it to. There are two questions here: 1. Is waterboarding torture? 2. Were there mitigating circumstances? Amnesty’s position on the first is clearly that it is (and they’re not American, so I’m not sure where the idea of trying them for sedition comes from, nor can I imagine that anyone here thinks it’s illegal to say pretty much whatever you want about the president so long as you don’t threaten him physical harm). As for the second, usually that would be a matter for the courts.
Amnesty would hypocrites if they didn’t think Bush should be prosecuted here, since they would think anyone else should be.
The name of the party is the Democratic Party. Democrat Party is a term used by its opponents. Here’s a quick history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase) . It’s no more an effort to make Democrats seem to be the only people who care about democracy than the Republican’s name suggests that Democrats don’t want a Republic, or the Constitution Party’s name suggests that both major parties don’t believe in that.
I think, and this is why I was cryptic, (also I don’t have the cite on me for the Teshuva) he was opposed to people publicly disseminating his views, especially in summary, especially in other languages, when they may not have actually understood what he meant. I really don’t want to say more, because, in saying what I’m saying I am doing exactly what he said you shouldn’t do.
Abolishing elections would violate the Republican Form of Government Clause in the Constitution. According to the Supreme Court, if a state tried that, Congress would have the right to override them.
I’d post what Rav Moshe said about people translating his Teshuvos without his permission and why he felt that way, but ironically I would be over a Psak of Rav Moshe.
This isn’t all that complicated an issue. Milk is a product sold through interstate commerce, and as such, the Constitution explicitly gives the government the right to regulate it. If you believe that the Constitution means nothing more than it says (and most people on this site do feel that way, I believe), that’s really the end of the story.
You can argue if you’d like that there’s some right not written in the Constitution to eat whatever you’d like, but then I’d expect you to be much more sympathetic to those who argue for similar freedom to engage in medical procedures or marital relationships without government interference.
In any event, it’s not surprising that the FDA is arguing against the creation of that right in this instance, since regardless of what you think about raw milk, a court deciding that people have the Constitutional right to eat whatever they want would effectively put the FDA out of business.
“4. Rosh (Kesuvos 13:17): If a man married a woman from a city of the same quality as his own, even if he married her in his city we force him to live in her city. We learn from “Be’ulas Ba’al”… Another reason is because he can go to visit his friends, but she cannot, due to “Kol Kevudah.””
This would appear (and I’m relying on Kasha’s translation here) to mean the opposite of what Kasha is implying it means. A woman in her own town evidently could go out to visit her friends, otherwise it wouldn’t matter where she lived.
More hashkaficly, suicide (at least outside of the context of mental illness) aside from being wrong in its own right, is also by definition an act of poor middos, as it involves kefiyas hatov to hashem and to one’s community for all of the reasons they give for a person to stay in this world. The same does not follow with murder.
For one thing incentives matter. Murder can be disincentivized in this world through punishment in this world. Suicide cannot.
“The actions of a godol are more informative than that of an anonymous poster.”
Ok, but why are you ascribing the motives of the Godol in this case to “pulling rank,” as opposed to considering that perhaps, being that he is a godol, there were extenuating circumstances that simply do not apply to most marriages?
Rav Reiets,
I came into this thread relatively late, but I am one of the people it seems you are suggesting c”v Hashem is being defended from on this thread. If there was any sort of Torah expressed on this thread beyond a blanket condemnation of non-jews and their motives, and a conversation around my own correction of a blatent misrepresentation of what the word Apikores means, I missed it. Please let me know what I am missing. Thanks
“Nothing of the sort. It’s a get off the rest of the year scot-free card. And I mean in practice not in theory.”
Ok so for Lashon Hara Free hours, the theory is all that matters and the practice (even where personal experience says the practice exists) does not matter. For Mother’s Day, your insistance that in practice it means something you still won’t say if you’ve ever actually observed is important?
Volvie,
It seems obvious to me that one of the purposes of Mother’s Day is to encorage people to put more thought into what their mother does for them the rest of the year. This is exactly analogous to a Lashon Harah free hour.
“I’m not conducting any sociological studies and don’t really care to analyze why the lack of parental respect exists in society.”
No you’re not doing that and you don’t care. You just assumed you knew the answer. Obviously, if Mother’s Day actually was a cause of shirking off Kibbud Am, you would have a point. My point is it’s not and as such there really is at a minimum no reason to oppose observing it.
That’s really not the question though. You’re claiming Mother’s Day is the cause of that lack of respect. I’m saying that’s facially ridiculous. If you can tell me that any of the >50 people you know have ever given you the sense they weren’t being nice to their mother because they were saving it all for Mother’s Day, I’ll tell you we can agree to disagree on this. I’d also be shocked.
“It may give them that excuse the other 364 days. Hey mom, you have your day — and it ain’t today.”
Again have you ever met anyone you thought felt that way? I work with non-Jews, some of whom are not particularly nice to their mothers (some of whom are), I have never gotten the sense that any of them justified their attitudes based on the existence of Mother’s Day
Volvie,
Have you ever met anyone (Jewish or not) who thinks that way? Assuming they ignore their mother 364 days a year, why would the existence of a holiday in a country where such things are not compulsary make them think that?
Volvie,
The Swastika point is ridiculous. Swastika’s are bad because they suggest the person flying them is a Nazi and, even if the person is not, the cause negative associations for other people. If there is a single person on this earth who is offended by Mother’s Day due to it’s (supposed) Klan origins, or who even thinks about the Klan when it’s mentioned you’d have a point. Neither is true.
Wolf,
February 2nd is Candlemas. I suspect describing or linking to information about it would violate any number of this site’s policies, so out of respect for them, I will not.
Once we’re nitpicking, you guys do realize that aside from the purpose of Groundhog Day (determining the weather based on whether an animal sees its shadow) would seem to be a clear issur d’oraysah, it also happens to mark an obscure, but nontheless real, religious holiday.
More substantively, Volvie, obviously there’s a difference between observing negative a commandment more scrupulously on Do Not Steal Day than focusing on your mother on Mother’s Day. There is a National Day of Prayer, would it be inapporpriate for me to express my hakaras hatov on that day to Hashem for enabling me to live somewhere where I can freely practice my religion (honestly, I’d never considered doing it, but I can’t see what would be wrong with it)?
RoB,
The Rambam defines an Apikores and it looks nothing like what Volvie said its clearest definition was.
“Chazal have only and 100% consistently decided halacha as per HKBH. Stating otherwise is the plainest definition of apikorsus.”
Rambam:
????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?? ?????????? ???? ?? ??????? ?????:
????? ???? ????? ??? ?’ ????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??”? ???? ???? ??? ?’ ???? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????:
I’ve heard that too. But I’d also imagine that would have been much more difficult to do in nineteenth century Utah, where I’d think able bodied Mormon men were probably at a premium regardless of their marital status.
I realized as I was typing this, that some of the answer could be that in the 1870’s a significant percentage of Mormons were probably converted from somethign else seeing as how the religion itself isn’t much older than that, which would explain the gender disparity.
charliehall,
Off-topic but I don’t understand the idea there. Regardless of who they married, there should have been the same number of men and women voters. Is the idea that the men who couldn’t find wives in Wyoming and Utah moved away? That the men who couldn’t find wives because of plural marriage would vote against the faith? Something else?