Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
nah mods
My only point was that what “most Americans” think Is completely irrelevant.
“They don’t have to, but there’s nothing wrong if they do.”
assuming that’s correct.
Its also true that there’s noting wrong if they don’t . Which is what Nadler said .you can of course disagree with him, but your statement “Nadler should never have said what he did!” is puzzling. why shouldn’t he say what he believes
“I take that as a Threat -“it only makes you look worse”.”
You must be redefining “threat”
“A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true. Although the statement may be possible or plausible, it is not based on fact. Rather, it is something made up, or it is a misrepresentation of the truth.””
Exactly as Ive been telling you “A fabrication is a lie ”
so what is a fabrication?
“A fabrication is a lie ”Oh so if you tell the truth, but are overly confident, is that a fabrication??
No ” A fabrication is a lie ”Thank you for the exceelent source.
while we are quoting excellent sources lets define lie (noun)
vocabulary.com:
“a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth”dictionary.com:
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression;imposture:
His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.
4. the charge or accusation of telling a lie:Websters:
1a: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive
b: an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker or writer
2: something that misleads or deceives
3: a charge of lyingOxford:
1 an intentionally false statement.
2 used with reference to a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression.There is simply NO defitnion of “lie” that includes a truthful statement.
“So the fact that it came true, doesn’t mean that you’re Not a Manipulative Liar!”
It means EXACTLY that. Truth is the exact opposite of a lie.
“There are obviously enough people who are willing to and able to pay a huge premium for matzos they like better.”
I am one of those people
It occurred to me that perhaps as a limud achus, maybe there is a hiddur to have tastier matzah?
Based on Rashi Pesachim 99b כדי שיאכל מצה של מצוה לתיאבון משום הידור מצוהand perhaps the Geamra Pesachim 107b* רָבָא הֲוָה שָׁתֵי חַמְרָא כּוּלֵּי מַעֲלֵי יוֹמָא דְפִיסְחָא, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּנִיגְרְרֵיהּ לְלִיבֵּיהּ דְּנֵיכוֹל מַצָּה טְפֵי לְאוּרְתָּא
Would you buy such a sevara ?
(* Though I understood peshat there that Rava wanted to eat MORE matzah not necessarily with more of an appetitie.
I wrote a shtickel on this years ago prompted by a disagreement we had, as to whether there was an inyan/mitzva to eat more than a kezayis of Matzah. Some achronim bring a rayah from this Gemara (avnei Nezer) that eating more is a mitzvah though others (moadim uzmanim linjed on that page) say not muchrach)Health
“most Americans don’t feel that way … Nadler should never have said what he did!.”
This is a complete non-sequitur.
Laws, interpretations of laws , interpretation of the constitution, has exactly zero to do with how “most Americans feel”
If you think American law should reflect biblical law or “God’s will” (presumably as defined by you) say so and make the case for the argument
There is no constitutional provision for “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion… unless a PEw research poll shows most Americans want it”
So while interesting. It in no way is related to “Nadler should never have said what he did”
Also
Most does not equal half
The poll you cited does NOT show “most Americans” don’t agree.
In response to the question “The bible should have xxxx influence on laws of U.S. ”preference for “not much /not at all” 50% vs “A great deal/none ” 49%
Part 2
“When I talk to people that just need correcting – I’d talk like that.
When I talk to Ballai Gaiva, it’s more Strong!”Lol
It doesn’t come off strong .It comes of foolish
See because of that absurd assertion
now you have to dig through the internet, misconstrue a type of lie from a non-authorativie website to try to save face.
and it only makes you look worse(not that this absurd conversation reflects to great on me either…)
a more normal approach would have been to be clear from the get go.Also why don’t you give me the benefit of the doubt.
when you said something untrue I didn’t call you a liar It was a mistake big deal people are wrong all the time. Ive been wrong. Theres no shame in that.And here I didn’t say something untrue. What I said was completely true.
Referring to this:
You had said: ““At that time I didn’t read her file – so I didn’t know that her motion contained her evidence.”I replied: “Lol. so when you said “she will provide evidence” You were lying correct? ( To be clear: you are big on calling people liars, I dont think you were lying (then) . I think you were simply mistaken, and perhaps hopeful that somehow things would go your way. “)
Why don’t you do the same?
Even if Thomas et al won the day. and Scotus took the case. which would have made me wrong. completely wrong.
Still say “thats ok, you made a mistake”“as long as I don’t end up being a Liar.”
Oy hasn’t been working out
“Ya See, you can end up being correct & a Liar.”
How?““The Lie of Fabrication”
“Fabrication is telling others something you don’t know for sure is true.””You cut of the rest. ThAT is a type of lie btw.
By definition a lie isnt true (happy to provide a source – a normal one like a dictionary)
If I say “today is Thursday”
Which of the 8 lies is that?
Obviously its none (even if I’m 100% sure its Thursday) simply because its true.On the other hand if I say something untrue like “Health is making a good point ” clearly that’s a lie, it isn’t true.
So we can look to the list of lies to see what type it is.
But you can’t look to a list of lies to categorize a true statement“At the time you made the Fabrication, you didn’t know for sure that it would come True!”
No I was 99.99999% sure. (Even if I was wrong, I’d say I was wrong not necessarily a lie, but it would be reasonable to call it a lie in that case)
“Eg. S/o says Joe stole a bike & later on you found out he was correct.”
Ummm yes obviously that person told the truth. I never in my wildest dreams thought that would be controversial .
Even if it was a flat out guess. He never met or heard of Joe.
If he was right he was right its not a lie.
No one would possibly entertain the thought that he “lied” if he was right“S/o says SCOTUS will declare a case moot & later on you found out he was correct.”
Ditto“Both of these cases are the Lie of Fabrication”
Um no neither are cases of lying of say kind
“It’s sad that you can’t see beyond your own Nose!”
Lol!
“I don’t lie, like you do.”
Lol if by “Lie ” you mean be correct. then you are right, almost nothing you have said on this thread has been true.
“Just because I thought it was a good possibility, ”
Lol on Jan 18 Yo uwere not sure!
“I’m not going to agree with s/o who wrote that he Knows for Sure!”
you disnt have to agree. but saying “Your a liar” when you really meant “I think theres a good possiblity you are right but don’ t be so sure” is hilarious.“I didn’t write that – Hopeline did.
”no hopeline didint
They listed ” “8 different lies people tell:”
These are different types of “lies” Not different types of truths
a Lie by definition is something not true.
For example You misrepresenting what Hopeline wrote is a lie. You arent telling the truth.“Take it up with them.”
I dont have a question for them.
(and besides they aren’t as authorative as you seem to think. have you even heard of them before? )“No one thinks it’s definitely gonna happen.
But your post was different than e/o’s thought process.”Lolololol YOU said you also thought it could happen ! in htat same post “Just because I thought it was a good possibility, ”
you are easily my favorite poster. I wish you only success in life” but you said they will!”
And they didThe word for that is truth.
” How about picking up a Mussar Sefer?!?”
Our conversations are the best mussar.
The depths people can go to to not say “I’m sorry I called you a lair”:
Reinterpreting “lie”
Contradicting your own posts “Just because I thought it was a good possibility,”.. vs .”. But your post was different than e/o’s thought process.”“Almost e/o knew that they could declare the motion as moot.”
Lol!
you didint
even after I told you they would. yo udindt say maybe I was right, but I didnt know for sure./ yo usaid I was a liar and that Trump still had a chance. You cited Goyish prophets to buttress your claim.“So what was your intention to your original post?!?”
quite simple really
I have an absulte fasciation with people that can look at black and say its white.
Ive mentioned this before disagreeing over ordinary things doesnt intrest me. Is Pizza better or Ice cream, you like Pizza I like ice cream. there is no right/wrong thats boringThis is what interests me. There was no chance of Trump winning (certainly not by Jan 18 when you STILL called me a liar)
Most people would say wow I hoped he would win, sadly I was wrong.
but not you you double down reinterpret . Even the word “liar” you cam up with a new defitnion for
I find it fascinating“It’s Not part of the definition, it’s an example.”
Lol! An example of the defitnion.
If it isn’t a lie, it isn’t a “lie of fabrication”
Did you really never learn the difference between Motzei shem Ra and Lashan Hara?while we are repeating:
I asked this before (three times before this is the 4th)
If I tell you there will be a tornado tomorrow. I have absolutely know way of knowing this* I straight up made it up, lets say I got it from I don’t know Goyishe prophets.
But lo and behold there was a tornado.
did I lie?and (2nd time)
Moreover using your “lie of fabrication” definition the way you are. Every time the weather report says “there will be sun tomorrow etc” It is a lie. Even if they were right. since obviosuly they cant be 100% certain.
Is this what you are saying?Health
“I’ll quote it again:”
I already told you why that defitnion didnt help (namely it is a type of LIE ie it is a type of untruth, what I told you was true.
Posting it again doesn’t add anything.
“The Lie of Fabrication”
Again this is posting a type of “LIE” what I told was not a lie at all. By any definition I can find .
You cut off the end of the defintion there “…Fabrications are extremely hurtful because they lead to rumors that can damage someone else’s reputation. Spreading rumors is not only a lie but is also stealing another’s reputation. Paul wrote: I admit that I love spreading rumors. It’s all about telling lies about someone you don’t like. It usually works.”
This is not at all the subject at hand. (This is called a lie of omission leaving out information)So anyway going with your definition
I asked this before (twice before)
If I tell you there will be a tornado tomorrow. I have absolutely know way of knowing this* I straight up made it up, lets say I got it from I don’t know Goyishe prophets.
But lo and behold there was a tornado.
did I lie?Moreover using your “lie of fabrication” defitnion the way you are. Ever ytime the weatehr report says “there will be sun tomorrow etc” It is a lie. Even if they were right. since obviosuly they cant be 100% certain.
Is this what you are saying?“There are 4 types of Lies – White ones, gray ones, black ones, red ones”
Interesting source.
but these are 4 types of LIES.
I did not lie at all
What I told you was true.I am not familiar with the definition of “lie” you are using
you said :
““I called you a Liar, because at that time no one could know for sure what will happen, ie – it’s possible there are exceptions in this case – Not to declare that it is Moot!””Yes I know what happened.
But the court DID declare it moot I was right. I am not familiar with a defintion of “lie” that would include my having told the truth as being a “lie” simply becasue you don;’t thik I should have been so sure.I asked this before
If I tell you there will be a tornado tomorrow. I have absolutely know way of knowing this* I straight up made it up, lets say I got it from I don;t know Goyishe prophets.
But lo and behold there was a tornado.
did I lie?(* note: this is not at all analogous to our case since I had good reason to know the court wouldnt take the case In fact AFTER the court declined to hear the case you said you too new, as I did: “I and a lot of people realized that they were delaying the case so they wouldn’t have to get involved.”)
“People make motions and later on the Judge reads them and decides the next step.”
Sure it happens.
This was never in dispute
But The judge reading the motion on his own is not a “court case” nor a “hearing”“It’s obvious that you never had a Court case!”
true“You have to read the legal definition.”
do you have another definition? the one you provided earlier defined “hearing” they way I understood it. A hearing involves “evidence and/or argument presented” before the judges. Not judges reading motions or petitions on their own.but ok, If your using your own definition of hearign, thats fine.
This is the part that I find more interesting:
“I called you a Liar, because at that time no one could know for sure what will happen, ie it’s possible there are exceptions in this case Not to declare that it is Moot!”
are you using your own definition of “Liar”?
I’m not familiar with this one.
Could you provide a source that defines “Liar” as Correctly predicting something that “at that time no one could know for sure what will happen,”
I have never heard a Liar defined this way. Is it the Legal definition? Maybe from Secret Supreme court?Yes it was theoretically possible (keep in mind 3 justices voted to hear it) for me to have been wrong. And the court to have agreed to hear the case
but as I predicted, they didn’t agree to hear it.If the court granted Ceartiori, and agreed to hear the case, then perhaps I lied (we can quibble If I was mistaken or lying,)
But they didn’t, SO I was right.
What definition of “liar” are you using?Health
I’m going to back up a bit
I think the discussion over your reinterpretation of “hearing” isnt going anywhere. IF you won’t listen to the definition YOU provided that proves you wrong, you certainly won’t listen to me.
LEts get back to the subject at hand.
On Jan 18 I told you The court would dismiss the case for being moot .
You called me a liar and brought up “Goyish” prophets to back up you claim.My question is 2 fold (though they are linked)
1) Why didnt you mention this reinterpretation of “hearing” then why did you only think of it on feb 4 , 2 weeks later? You should have said on Jan 18, something to the effect of “oh you mean it will be dismissed as moot, that may happen. however that is still a hearing” Why when I said it will be dismissed as moot did you say I was a liar?
when I said “. The Supreme court doesn’t hear cases that are moot, ie theoretical cases with no practical ramification (Article III section 2 of the constitution limits court’s scope to “cases & controversies” . Any election litigation is now theoretical Biden won (even if unfairly) There is a zero percent chance that the case will be heard. Zero.”
As soon as you saw that, you should have said whoa that makes no sense declaring it moot IS a hearing,? Why did you only think of this reinterpretation 2 weeks later?
2) Even if I was using a “lay person” definition and not a “legal one” Thats ok I’m a lay person. You should have said on Jan 18 “oh you mean it will be dismissed as moot, that may happen. however legally that is still a hearing”
I said it would be dismissed as moot , you called me a liar
It was dismissed as moot
why can’t you grant that?Earlier you said “your a baal gaivah how were yo uso sure” For arguments sake, fine it wass pure gaivah., and I got lucky. but I was right, I didnt lie, at least on the dismissal.
why can’t you grant that?Health
“Yes there is.”As mentioned. At conference ONLY judges are present “According to Supreme Court protocol, only the Justices are allowed in the Conference room at this time—no police, law clerks, secretaries, etc”
you can’t have a “proceeding before a judge” if there are only judges.“They read the Motions and make decisions, like whether to Grant Certiorari or not.”
This point was never in dispute. This is EXACTLY what happens. (there is no court case, there are no hearings) they read the motions and make decisions. Of course as you said some are read more than others as some may be more vague.
And I told you months ago they would deny Certioari
you called me a liar for my correct predictionThis is what we are arguing about
Yes youve stuck in dozens of wrong facts as well, that Ive explained to you. But don’t get distarcted from the original pointYou say “They read the Motions and make decisions, like whether to Grant Certiorari or not.”
As if it is a chidush.
This is what Ive been telling you for months. Of course, I knew what they would decide, so I told you that too
you called me a liar, and Can’t grant that I didn’t lie even when time has proven me right
THAT is the argument“Now they are interested in Oral Arguments and/or More Evidence, before any Judgment!”
At conference could they provide a ruling on the actual case. IE overrule or uphold the lower courts decision or are there limits on their “judgement” ?Health
“So they heard the case on the day of a conference.”
no such thing
Heard = ” Any proceeding before a Judge or other magistrate, w/o a jury in which evidence and/or argument is presented to determine some issue of fact or both issues of fact and law. Etc” (defintion supplied by you. Well done!)
conference = ” The Justices meet in a private conference to discuss cases argued earlier that week. The Justices also discuss and vote on petitions for review” (from Supreme court website)There is no “proceeding before a judge” on conference days. The only people in attendene are the judges. They mean different things.
“So do they come to the conclusion?… They read the case and they make decisions on it”
Even if they did. (and Earlier I said I’m sure they sometimes read it, and you said they “almost alays read it)
That in no way whatsoever changes the fact that the case was dismissed for being moot, as I said it would“So they did Hear the case,”
They didnt. They denied Certiorari“I gave you the definition of “Hearing” – 2 times already.”
YEs. it was an excellent defnition.
Thank you very much for supplying it. You should read it as it says CLEARLY that a hearing is when evidence/arguments are presented before a judge. NOT when judges gater and decide whther to accept a case.
It is impossible to have read the definition and think “hearing” and conference are interchangeable“And like you said -“and if you have any lingering questions I’ll of course gladly answer”!”
I Do!
Here’s what I find confusing.
You say the court “heard” the case.
Yet they denied Certiorari (do you argu on this fact as well?)What would have happened if the court granted Certiorari. In other words LEts’ say Gorsuch , ALito and Thomas convinced 2 others that they should take the case.
Would would that mean? they agree to hear a case they already heard?What do you think Granting Certiorari means?
“How many times do I have to tell you – that the Motions contained the evidence and they read the Motions?!?”
hopefully no more times. since it isnt correct. The motions contianed evidence on the CASe. The court did not hear the case .
A writ of Certiorari is when a higher court reviews the case of a lower court.
The supreme court DENIED the writ to quote from the Supre court’s order “The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied. ” (easily available online search (ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.) MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2021)Like everything you’ve said on this topic you have more terms mixed up:
“An argument day is when they declared a Writ of Centorari.
In a conference day, they could have a Hearing.”This is incorrect.
Argument days are when ” an opportunity for the Justices to ask questions directly of the attorneys representing the parties to the case, and for the attorneys to highlight arguments that they view as particularly important. Arguments are generally scheduled on specified Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday mornings beginning on the first Monday in October, and continuing through the end of April” (see supremecourt . gov where this quote is pulled verbatim)
Conference days are when ” The Justices meet in a private conference to discuss cases argued earlier that week. The Justices also discuss and vote on petitions for review”
It is on conference days (NOT argument days) that Certiori is granted/denied . note Judges conference is PRIVATE. “According to Supreme Court protocol, only the Justices are allowed in the Conference room at this time—no police, law clerks, secretaries, etc” (source UScourts . gov)
There is no hearing, there are no arguments. The Justices discuss cases that had been heard and whether should hear others“And that’s what they did and then they made a Judgment to dismiss the case due to Mootness!”
Yes As I said they would (though technically not a judgment, they denied certiorari because of its mootness)
Soooooooo I didn’t lie…..
Your’e starting to repeat yourself more , I’m starting to worry you arent reading my posts.
I’ll still gladly reply to nay new information you provide (like definitions of “hearing” that prove you wrong, or correct your mixed up conference/argument days)
and if you have any lingering questions I’ll of course gladly answer
but if you are just going to repeat “judgment of mootness” over and over , then sadly our fun might have to endLol health!
Sure there could have been thousands of reasons. don’t forget 3 justices voted to hear it. I knew a majority wouldnt’ but I could have been wrong (in whcih case we can quibble If I lied, or was mistaken)
But I was right, the case was not heardyou provide an excellent defintion of heard/hearing:
““Any proceeding before a Judge or other magistrate, w/o a jury in which evidence and/or argument is presented to determine some issue of fact or both issues of fact and law. Etc.””YES! nailed it “….in which evidence and/or argument is presented …” EXACTLY right. A confrence in which the judges discuss among themselves whether to accept the case (whcih is what happened Feb 22), with no evidence or arguments presented. Is NOT a hearing.
It was originally scheduled for Feb 19. Have a look at SCOTUS’s calendar 2/19 was NOT an argument day (argument days marked in red) it was a conference day (marked in green) There were NO arguments there was no evidence presented.
According to the Defitnion YOU provided it was not a hearing.
Hopefullly Health, if you have the tiem to read the correct defitnion of hearing provided by Health, you will see it says exactly what I have been saying. and not as Health has been wrngly claiming that the case was heard.And again, to belabor the point, you said I was a liar for saying it would be dismissed as moot, so even if a hearing took place (and none did see the defitnion provided by Health) you should still apologize for calling me a liar, when I so clearly told the truth
I think this is my favorite conversation with you yet.
Health
“This is what I called you a Liar on:”
that was once
here is another “but what I know is that you are a Compulsive Liar!”
This was on Jan 18. Earlier that day at 6:35 PM I explained to you that the case would be dismissed as moot, I cited chapter and verse, why The Court doesnt rule on moot cases.
You did not say “Oh but it still will be heard” , that redefitnion of “heard” only came later.
Instead you said I lied when I said the case would be dismissed. you cited Goyish prohpets to back up your claim .On Jan 19 I explained again “On Jan 20 (tomorrow) it will certainly be irrelevant (arguably it was irrelevant on Jan 6 or even Dec 14 (this is one argument made by the City of Detroit and the Governor in their briefs )
This is why they were hoping for an expedition, it was denied.
The case will not be heard.”To which you replied “I think this is another one of your Manipulating Lies!” AFTER I explained it will be dismissed as moot
A few days later you came up with the nonsensical idea that this is still called “judgment”
“We have a difference of Opinion what “Heard” means with regards to Court Cases.”
no I told you what heard meant, and you made up your own defintion not found in any dictionary.“In a lot of trials, it never goes to the point of e/o physically being there, but instead they Judge up on the case w/o that!”
ummm, yeah. Exactly as Ive been telling you for months.
“But even though you’re a Know It All”
I’m not a know it all.I was dead wrong, I thought when faced with black and White evidence. I said the case would be dismissed as moot, you said Iwas lying, It was dimsissed, you say “sorry you were right”
Never did I dream you’d redefine “heard” “judgment” and “case” all in an effort to do what ?
Avoiding saying “sorry for calling you a liar”?I was wrong. plain and simple
Health
Thanks for a new point!
Sadly, it is still wrong.You said:
“Your statements, especially before the Judgment, that it will be dismissed as Moot, is Only because of your Extreme Gaiva!!!”Again that could be (as I said earlier) , But Gaivah and Liar are not synonymous nor interchangeable.
a lie is something that is untrue
a baal Gaivah or one who is arrogant is one who has exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities
They are not interchangeableHere is an example to help:
If I say “I am certain it will snow tomorrow! I am 100% sure it will snow!”
If it snows tomorrow, then I didn’t lie. I may have been a baal gaivah for being so sure. But if I was right and it snowed then I told the truth,(As to whether in fact I was a baal gaivah I would like to quote my dear friend Health who said “I and a lot of people realized that they were delaying the case so they wouldn’t have to get involved.”
Lots of people knew the court was delaying to avoid getting involved in other words to avoid judging the case (of course they HAD to get involved they had to accept the petition but can choose not to hear it nor pass judgment rather to just dismiss it.
But lots of people knew this. I have no special abilities, I’m surprised you didnt know it, I was telling you over and over. Perhaps you should have listened to Health who says he knew it too, instead of arguing for 2 months about a case that Health says he knew the court was “delaying the case so they wouldn’t have to get involved.”
To be clear I definitely have some Gaivah, but in this case you overestimate my gaivah. my knowledge didn’t come from any special ability. It is something ” a lot of people realized” even Health claims he realized it Sadly, you didnt and called me a liar when I said it)mods
love the new titleJoseph
‘ is it the right of the government to deny entry where both parties (owner and patron) agree on permitting it?”
Yes. there is no “right of gym ownership” The government can not allow you to operate gym
We can think of many example where both parties agree on doing something yet the Government can prevent them. Certainly if said activities are deemed to pose a risk to public health(That said I don’t think I agree with such a policy IF all involved are aware of the risks the gym should be allowed to operate , but as to whether the Government has the right to shut them down. certainly)
rightwriter
” …to go to a gym and so on.”
I don’t really understand the problem. There is no “right to go to gym” Not I Israel nor America. If Gymgoers (or the government” doesn’t want non-vaccinated people in the gym why isn’t that their right?
Or as DY said “if you’re worried about losing you freedom, take the vaccine.”
You have the right to refuse the vaccine. Why doesn’t a gym (or the government) have the right to refuse entrance to non-vaccinated?
why do only you get rights and not the rest of us?I reread your past few posts
and you are getting more desperate making up more things and repeating the same nonsense over and over .I’ll keep it simple:
Let me know where you lose me1. I said the case would be dismissed as moot.
2. You said I was a liar
3. The case was dismissed for being moot
4. Ergo I did not lie , and you should apologizeIf you have any lingering questions or any points that still confuse you that you need clarification on I am of course happy to take the time to explain it to you. (free of charge!)
If you have no questions but just want to repeat your same nonsense “judgment of moot” that you learnt in secret supreme court, that is fine too. all of which has already been replied to (over and over)
If you have nothing new to add. See you back here when (if) Powell admits she lied (or judge rules she did) I’m super excited to hear what new “logic” you come up with to STILL back her up once she herself admits she lied.
all the best!
Health
Again
Even if the wrong things your saying are true. It STILL doesn’t change anything. (And make no mistake you have it completely wrong)Its quite simple really:
I said the case would be dismissed as moot.
You said I was a liar
Even if the gave a “judgment of moot” I was still right“The reason I think was to Show Off to e/o.”
That’s true but only partly. As I’ve mentioned in the past my favorite discussions are ones where one is clearly wrong but can’t admit it.
You accused me of lying. What I said would happen is EXACTLY what happened. I find it fascinating that you can’t just say sorry for calling you a liar“Because that implies that they don’t even read it, but SCOTUS reads their cases & they give decisions (Judgments)!”
No you made that inference. I explicitly said the case wouldbe dismissed as moot. If you didn’t know what that m ant or entailed, that is in you.
“You have an obsession on what’s called hearing on a case.”
I have an obsession with facts.
“It’s like they won’t even look at any evidence.”
Whether they do or don’t is completely irrelevant.
“They look at evidence and they hear/read cases before them!”
First they have to agree to hear the case. This is called granting certiorari. It was not granted in this case. The court refused to hear it.
“Like I said before -“If you would have posted – it’s likely that they wouldn’t have a Full Blown Case, like Perry Mason, I wouldn’t have replied to that Post”!”
Ah, but that’s not what I said, because it would’ve been nonsense. What I said was they would refuse to hear the case, and would dismiss it as moot. You called me a liar. Yet this is EXACTLY what happened“Why you might ask?”
Lol I would never ask such a silly question. What do you mean ”
could Not have possibly known whether the SCOTUS would dismiss it or Not!”
I did know! I was right on target.Health you just redefine words to avoid apologizeing. Its impressive actually.. first “heard”, then “court case”, “judgment “and now ” liar.”
I love it.
I think we are done here.
Your posts are getting more repetitive than usual
Just so I have it right:
In your view if a person predicts (guesses) what will happen, and was right. He is a liar.Correct?
Look You know I love our conversations, and am happy to keep on going.
I have a longer reply pendingbut to keep it short
Here are your words verbatim :
“This is what I wrote:
“Btw, the case is Still pending, but you know that the SCOTUS will give a Judgement of “Moot”.
How do you know that?””
So this is called Lying.”Yes that is what you wrote.
Except I wasn’t lying I was exactly right.The normal response is for you to say “wow you were right, I’m sorry I accused you of lying”
and I’d say “no problem Health! We can still be friends, thanks for your kind words wishing you a lifetime of Health and hapiness”
“Let’s get it straight – I was only talking about You & your friends!”
Sydney Powell ad I aren’t friends
“Yes, this is called a case, even though you call it “No case””
Lol You calld it No case these are your words.: “I’ll tell what it means – they read the case and decided not to take it.”
“This is what I wrote:…. So this is called Lying.”
ah but I was right, a simple apology is in order
“In this case, they decided that they wouldn’t hear it”
Yep like Ive’ been telling you for months
“For you to constantly post -“that they wouldn’t hear it”, is because of your Haughtiness, that you think You are a Know It All!”
you can say it was because whatever you want. Haughtiness, shoteh, genius, navi. Bottom line s I was right.
“If you would have posted – it’s likely that they wouldn’t have a Full Blown Case, like Perry Mason, I wouldn’t have replied to that Post!”
Lol I never would have said that. You made up this distiction between “full blown case ” and not. There is no such thing in real supreme court . The court either hears a case or doesn’tujm
I replied, but IT may not have gotten past YWN censors (not that I blame them the comments should be censored thats how offensive they are)
“Yet despite multiple requests you cannot produce even a single direct source.”
I already supplied a source. He called Sandra Fluke a “feminazi” it was not over abortion, as you wrongly claimed.
He called her and said about her far far worse. He said things all would consider ” offensive ” by any meaningful definition of the term (most republicans criticized him at the time and yes of course he “apologized” )If you don’ t think they are offensive comments, then we have different definitions of the word, and simply speak different languages.
As I said earlier, I have no interest in supplying lists of offensive things for you to say, it was a joke, it was along time ago, he/she/they deserved it. Yes Iv’e heard all that before. I’m not interested in hearing it again
You wanted an example I supplied it. That is all
Look if you say : “what do you want he spoke for 3 hours daily he was passionate he was funny (and he was), sure he occasionally said offensive things, The good outweighed the bad.”
I disagree, but that is a judgment call and people can disagree.
To say he never said anything offensive, and if he did it was always ok becasue “Sarcasm” is preposterous.
There are plenty of lists of offensive things I mentioned a few, there are others if you care for truth.If you have a specific question on the topic I am of course happy to answer. Otherwise all the best
midwesterner
“Did you ever listen to him explain the development of the term Feminazi? Who it is referring to and what it means?”
Yes, more than once (he is quite repetitive, though I don’t blame him give his task)
ujm
” about people haven’t regularly listened to him ”
wrong.“You write that he referred to Chelsea Clinton as the White House dog. ”
more than once
“Okay, that seems like an offensive comment.”
you are welcome.
” And you write that he apologized for it.”
I wrote “apologized” ( he blamed it on a producer error, what a sloppy producer he must have had to make the same mistake 3 times)
Having an original show for 15 hours every week for over 30 years there’s bound to be some offensive commentary. Have you never made offensive comments?”
lol, I told you I knew you’d have excuses
I asked you so nicely to spare me.
No I have never insulted a kid on national radio. 3 times.
“Additionally, referring to the president’s daughter as the White House dog is hardly the biggest aveira out there.”
lol! I’m surprised it isn’t a mitzva
see we speak different languages .
Again,I know yo have canned excuses for your guy” do you even know how or in what sense he used that? ”
yes“Clearly not. Because you openly claimed he meant something he never did (and reapeatedly pointed out as such when the MSM claimed he meant exactly what you claimed, even though he never used it as such.) ”
I said no such thing
“Those who he applied the term feminazis, and the ONLY group he ever applied it to, were those advocating for laws permitting abortion-on-demand”
This is factually incorrect.
But again, I know you have excuses for everything he says. you ove him and can’t see fault, I get that. Really I do.
“. He didn’t even apply that term to general supporters of abortion.”
You arent telling the truth. Ive heard him refer to people demanding equal wage “feminazis” as well as Sandra fluke who thought health insurance should include Birth control. I know I know the Nazis supported equal wages too.
Look, I’m not getting sucked into this silliness with you.
anything he ever said, you will claim, well he speaks so long what do you expect, or its not that offensive (or both lol). You can also lie about who he called what (which his strange If you’ve listened to him regularly I’m not even sure where this bizarre limitation of his term came from, did you even listen to him? )
Again I get that you can do that. No need to prove me right
ujm
“expressing a point humorusly” is not a license to be a bigot.
Take the SNL example, the whole show is “expressing points humorously” people are still all bent out of shape over a “joke” they deemed offensive.There are plenty of Offensive things rush has said availabel online.
I’m not so interested in having you explain why each was “just a joke”to avoid you saying I couldnt come up wit hany I’ll provide 2 examples.
One which Rush later admitted was offensive and “apologized” (though he did it 3 times). The other is less offensive but highlights the double standard among his supporters
1)in 1993 when Clinton was in the Whitehouse he held up a picture and introduced the world to “socks the white house cat” He then said “and here is the white house dog” with a picture of then 12 year old Chelsea Clinton.
I know Know , it was “sarcastic” and was trying to make a point.
He did variations of this “joke” 3 times
2) He often used the term “feminazi” (I once heard him clai to have coined it) I’m old enough to remember how ben out of shape people got when AOC called the camps on the southern border “concentration camps” How dare she minimize the holocaust. Yet rush described those who want equal rights for women as “nazis” (almost) daily and all is fine. Because hey He is being “humorous”
spare me
Health
“is in case a clown like you took a Federal case all the way up to SCOTUS.
They wouldn’t waste their time to even read it!”ding ding ding!
nailed it!
Yes!
when there are clowns invloved the case is certain to get tossed!*“How many times do I have to tell you that they read it and made decisions on it, ie. Judgment?!?”
hopefully no more times, since it is wrong, as you finally acknowledged “they read the case and decided not to take it.”
Ie they decide NOT to take the Court case, if they decide not to take the case, then there is no case.and again, even if there was a case, still doesn’t change the fact that when I told you Jan 18th the case would be dismissed as moot, and I was lying, I wasnt lying.
“Before you comment on things that you Know Nothing about – How about researching the the Topic?!?”
Lol!
I was right on every prediction I made on this thread, you have been mystified has to how I know all these things asking “but how do you know that”* BTW this is the answer to your question posed Feb 8 (before the Court denied certiorari, ie. declined to hear the case)
I had said “…they will dismiss it without judgment (probably for being moot)”
You asked “And again – how do you know that? “Are you either a Shoita, Koton or Deaf?”You would have known it to, if you just put down your blinders , as you correctly note a case brought by a clown wouldn’t stand a chance of being heard, or even read.
Yserbius
while what you say is 100% true. And I think the world is a better place now that he is gone. that in no way diminishes the fact that he was no dummy. He knew what he was doing
“Yes, they read almost every case & then they make decisions.”
Lol at “almost” So maybe this is one of the cases they didn’t read?
(and again, ‘m not saying they didn’t read it, I read it it didn’t take that long,I’m sure they did too)“Sometimes they’ll take the case, sometimes they won’t.”
correct. I’m glad to have explained this to you.
On Dec 20th you didn’t know that, you said the opposite: “Then that will be the first time in history – that SCOTUS accepted a petition, but didn’t have a Court case afterwards!”Then you were under the mistaken impression that once a petition is accepted they always have a “court case” Now you correctly note “Sometimes they’ll take the case, sometimes they won’t”
You are most welcome!
“When they don’t want to take it – they have different ways to get rid of it.
One of the ways is to get rid of it – is by dismissed it because it was moot!”correct! As I have been telling you for months. They don’t always take court cases (as you now agree) Though in the past you called me a liar when I said this.
The court chooses which cases to hear. I told you (over and over) that they would not hear Powell’s case. You called me a liar .
“SCOTUS doesn’t work the way you think”
It works exactly As Ive been telling you for months
.
“I found out how it works – when I did my case.”Was your case this week? Because a few weeks ago you didn’t know how it worked. I think this may be the source of your confusion you are confusing secret supreme court with regular supreme court. I don’t know anything about secret supreme court.
In regular suprme court they don’t always hear the case as you correctly note now, and not like you said Dec 20.
no thanks are necessary for my having explained this to you It is my pleasure .Yes, it’s all a selfish plot to keep people alive and clicking on their website so the ads get more views
Health
“Did you ever take a case to SCOTUS, like I did?”
no“They might tell e/o that it is dismissed as being Moot, but what does that mean?”
Already explained it to you January 18th. after which you insisted that I was wrong, the case would still be “heard” and that I was a liar
“I’ll tell what it means – they read the case and decided not to take it.”
Maybe, maybe not .
Regardless Doesn’t change the fact that I correctly said this would happen months ago, and AFTER I told you this you said I was a liar“In other words, it’s really a Judgment.”
Thats not how words work. words have definitions, not all words are interchangeable“Stop confusing yourself that it’s not Really a Judgment.”
not confused. Even if Thomas is wrong when he wrote the court declined to review the case.It still doesnt chaneg the fact that when I told you January 18th that the case would be dismissed as moot, I was not lying.
At any rate looking forward to the outcome in Powell’s case.
I’m super excited to see what pretzel logic you will come up with to defend her when (if) it is ruled that she lied, or she settles and apologizesYserbius
ITs hard to seperate the man from the character
He had to fill 3 hours day in and day out. That is no easy to do. He can’t just say wel its a slow news day so lets call it after 10 minutes.
Natrually a lot of gibberish came forth in that time.Sadly some iof his listeners believed it because their gadol said it . Many knew it was shtick don’t take him (too?) seriously of course everything/most of what he said was imbecilic
ujm
I’d like to see a source for that.
(I’m not arguing)
allow me to clarify. At no point did I mean to imply that Rush Limbaugh wasn’t an intellectual . I meant his show. His show was not intended to stimulate thought , or to be “high brow” it was intended to entertain the masses who already agreed with him.
If you were looking for an honest intellectual take on politics/news if you looked to Limbaugh’s show, or SNL you were looking in the wrong place
The comparison between Rush and che is an apt one.
bot are entertainers first and foremost (though rush was far more entertaining than che) People who go to either of them for news or rational intellectual takes on any subject are looking in the wrong place.That people take anything either of them says/said seriously is puzzling .
Its like being offended by Howard Stern. Um, yes that is the point, if you don’t like it shut it off.
Limbaugh was more akin to Howard Stern than to Bill Buckley“And I’m sure they read the Motions.”
They may have, (though impossible to tell from the order and dissents)
The court denied certiorari. Certiorari is the process when a higher court reviews the lower court’s decision. SCOTUS denied it, meaning they aren’t reviewing the case.
They aren’t saying anything as to whether there was fraud, or whether Pensylvanis’ court had right to change deadline. They simply arent ruling on it.
As spelled out in Thomas’s dissent “The motions of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. for
leave to intervene as petitioner are dismissed as moot” (note not “judged as moot”) later in the dicisio he describes the court as “doing nothing ”
similarly Gorsuch and Alito in their dissent, agree with Tomas that ” we should grant review in these cases.” Becasue the court DID NOT reviwe it. The petiton for the court to review the case was denied,. The case WAS NOT heard. and again “These cases call out for review, and I respectfully dissent from the Court’s decision to deny certiorari. ”Health
“It’s way past anything that SCOTUS could change. This is a judgment of moot.”
Lol as late as Jan 18 you still thought there was a chance, based on “goyishe prophets”
you called me a liar, when I told you The case would be dismissed for being moot (2 weeks before you invented “judgement of moot” .
an apology would be niceRR34
“Ben Hechts book is based on”
yes ” based on.” There have been many reviews of it written over the decades. I did not say it was all unture.
The bulk of it is true.what I pointed out was that Ben Hecht was a Zionist. By any definition of the word.
“The Gri”z- and the Chofetz chayim and R’ elchana wasserman etc…
all were ardent beleivers in settling in e”y, anf all davened regularly to malchus beis Dovdi to be established – i.e. a Jewish state with different leaders.”Nu nu so mazel Tov they were Zinoists. Thats a good thing!
Not sure what your point is.
If you enjoy redefining “Zionism” from its commonly understood definition to include “he Gri”z- and the Chofetz chayim and R’ elchana wasserman”
That’s’ fine. Though I’m not sure what it has to do with anything .“only led to violence against the Altanela”
It wasnt “only the altalena” (assassination of de Haan, The Saison when Hagannah worked with the British agaisnt tHe Irgun, and when Begin famously ordered his followers not to fight back) Still not sure what your point is.RR44
Yes it is based on records, but is not all true (most is)
“The differences only led to violence against the Altanela, menachem Begin was very insistent that his followers do not descend into violence/lies etc”
there was other violence as wel. But at any rate, Menachem Begin was a Zionist too. His views on zinoism were closer to Ben Gurion’s than to lehavdil, Rav Elchonon z”l’s
ditto for Ben Hecht. He too was a zionist.
IF you want to redefine zinosim to include “The Gri”z- and the Chofetz chayim and R’ elchana wasserman etc” That’s fine with me.
But by ANY definition of Zionism you use Ben Hecht was one.
petition denied
…….RR44
“but he saw the zionist leaders for what they were.”
not quite right. He was a revisionist Zionist a follower of Jabotinsky and Begin. He believed (strongly) there should be a Jewish State. Naturally as a follower of revisionist Zinosim he was opposed to the Labor Zionist Leaders , who while they all agreed s to the need for a Jewish political state, they had different ideas as to how the state should look. Occasioanlty the disagreements led to lies/exagerations about the other group (as in parts of Ben Hecht’s book) other times these disagreements led to violence (Altalena for example) .
But they were all Zionists“was maskim to the Gri”z. does that make them zionists?”
did the Griz believe we should establish a State for Jews? If so then yes he was a Zionist. If not, then he wasn’t.
“Unfortunately seems we are barely arguing anymore”
Thats great!
I would phrase the summary slightly differently, we disagree if there theoretically is such a law.
We agree that practically speaking there isn’t .as you said “We both agree the defendant would lose.”“So what are we arguing about?”
Two minor points (in addition to whether there theoretically exists suc ha law, which of course there isn’t , though to be fair some scholars say what you say) though one I’m less sure about
namely
1) IF a law only exists in theory but not in practice does that law exist? I say of course not.
Like according to the man deamaor that An Ir hanidachas could never happen, ie it doesn’t exist (lehavdil). there is no such thinkg as ir hanidachas So what’s the point? Lilmod ulekabel sechar (note: not just in case it ever does happen, according to this man deamaor that is not a thing) .
Lehavdil in the constitution there is no such thing as “Lilmod ulekabel sechar” There is no theoretical law if it can’t happen in real life, then it isn’t a law, in fact the court won’t even rule on theoretical cases- I grant that reasonable people can disagree on this point
2) The fact that it has never happened PROOVES that this interpretation isn’t correct. How could no one have made this claim before (in fact the court has ruled the reverse ,that there is no right to secede, and there are laws limiting the 1st amendment wehn it comes to talk of overthrow the government) ? – I’m less sure about this, I think it weakens your contention but granted it isnt proof.“I like spicy cholent”
me too! see you thenRR44
“The “Outrageous claim” has long been proven by the brilliant book perfidy by ben Hecht – although the book is illegal in the Zionist state.”
Its not.
I bought it in Israel it was widely available.It is a good book, though a bit ahistroical.
It is also a very Zionist book Ben Hecht was an ardent ZionistKY
“Really. So when the guy is coming at his victim with knife upraised
The victim tells him, ”hang tight, let me just make a quick call to my local court to see if I can kill you in self defense right now. BTW can you tell me the exact specifications of your knife because they will need to know. Also how much do you weigh?”no, he does what he needs to do. Then later the police/court will determine if what he did was justified . He claims the guy had a knife, witnesses say it was plastic etc etc.
(to be clear if he was right to FEEL threatened that would be justified too in many cases eg although knife was plastic he had reason to think was real)I’m not saying any chidushim.
you say “that’s what I have been trying to get you to understand all along.”
I got it. You keep making the same mistake.Do you think A person can stab anyone he wants then say “Self defense! The guy was coming wit h a knife upraised”?
and that is it end of discussion! He made the claim, uttered the magic phrase and now can’t be questioned.
Johnny Cochran could’ve saved himself a lot of time, forget trying on gloves, just have OJ say the magic phrase and he walks“I see it that the law says self defense is permitted.”
correct.
” I see the situation in in currently and I make a quick decision based on how I think the law applies to my specific scenario.”
Correct
“I don’t worry about the fact that I will not know how to answer in every other scenario. It really makes no difference.”
correct.
BUT you skipped what happens next if the police, later and courts deem your action to not have been justified. The knife was plastic for example, or he didn’t even have a knife you just claimed that he did so you can stab him.
Obviously you’d be in trouble.Just because (you claim) you were acting in self defense doesn’t mean you are guiltless no matter what happens
“Same here.”
Correct!
“The law (according to my chosen constitutional scholar) allows overthrow of tyrannical government.”
ok, lets go with this
“I, decide that the government stealing the vote fits the bill. Bingo I can act on it.”
Correct.
BUT the police and courts will later determine if your act was jsutified, was the government really tyranical, are your claims true. Saying ” tyrannical government ” is not a magic phrase that lets you do what yu want, just like claiming “self defense” isn’tDo I know if a different situation that you are curious about, also fits the bill of this law?
Dunno. Come over shabbos after the cholent. If I can keep my eyes open we can schmooze about it. Whats the difference??”Two differences
1) curiosity, I find this discussion interesting
2) In my opinion it weakens your view. There have been many, (ok several.) To the best of my knowledge, NOT ONE of them made this claim, seems a bit odd. No its not proof of anything, just strangeI’d rather come for the cholent though
KY
” Here to the law states that the citizenry has the right to overthrow a tyrannical government the application is the question”
So Ive given it more thought, and there are two separate points, that I conflated into one, thank you for setting me straight
1) There is no such law
2) Even if there were The court applies the law.You list all sorts of variables for the knife case to try to obfuscate the issue (see not just me!). It really isnt complicated the law is (not a verbatim quote ) “No killing unless in self defense”
Who gets to decide what is self defense ? the court. easy.You say the law allows for overthrow the government, if it is tyranical. Again who decides how tyrannical ? If they try to discourage mail in voting is that tyranical? IF they demand voter ID would that be tyrannical? “I said it certainly applies in a case where it is having its vote stolen” who decides if votes are stolen?” well I say: ” Trump stole votes in 2016! he is tyrannical!” Is that a magic phrase that lets me shoot him? NOTE: these aren’t questions for you. The court would decide. The court says “hey why’d you shoot the President,” I’d say, “well He came at me with a knife, my life was in danger” court says “how big etc…” And decides If my action was justified. OR I say “he stole the election,” court would ask for proof, I’d say “well it feels that way”, and court would decide if my action was justified
So back to Jan 6 Even if there were a law that said you have ” right to overthrow a tyrannical government” Who would decide when the government is tyrannical?. Again easy – the court. not you, not me. The court.
So the shirtless viking when he gets his day in court can argue I was fulfilling my second amendment right (The court of course would be confused by what he meant, and he will mention whatever scholarly explanation he digs up) but it is the court that interprets. IT isnt a magic get-out-of jail phrase that he can use.“Perhaps the reason you cannot come up with any cases where the courts allowed arms Uprising against the government is because until now we never had a tyrannical government in the United States of America”
Fair enough, though hard to argue Locking up people based on their ethnicity wasn’t tyrannical. (Though court did allow it) You still could argue nobody tried using this secret magic interpretation of the 2nd amendment known only to some scholars, so it was never tested in court.
(as an aside as you may know there have been armed uprisings against “Tyrannical governments” sadly the rebels in those cases didn’t go to court , wit hone exception The court ruled in Texas v White in 1869 that there was no “right to secede” Its strange that there would be a “right to overthrow” but not secede. but I grant it is possible. ITs stranger still that they made no mention of the 2nd amendment it their arguments but again I guess that only gives right to ovetrhtrow not secede)
Hopefully one of the “insurgents” wil use the 2nd amendment in court, so we can get a ruling.
Sadly I don t think their lawyers will think of it .
Here’s’ hoping they read YWN coffee room!Health
“Where they actually heard the case & they dismissed it – that is a judgement.”
Fair enough .
Excited for February 19th?“You asked 2 questions”
no I didn’t.
“And I answered them!”
no you didn’t. you repeated what I said , which is fine , you don’t have to care what I said, and are of course free to repeat the “answers” I have already givenKY
“Your evading my point.”
I’m not.
I’m showing that your point can’t be true. Since practically it wouldn’t work.
Laws are by definition practical. Having a law that if *** thinks the Government is tyranical he/she/they have the right to use force to overthrow it. With *** being an entitiy to be deteriiiiend later Is not a law any country would have .If you think it is fine.
That is our disagreement .“I’m not the one who made the law. It’s on the books. ”
You are and its not.
There is no such law on the books. There have been over 200 years of Court cases. Can you provide ONE court opinion, even a rejected minority opinion that gives people that interprets the 2nd amendment as giving a right to overthrow the government think the government?In fact even the 1st amendment is somewhat limited when it comes to talk of overthrowing the government see the Smith act and US code 18 U.S. Code § 2385 – Advocating overthrow of Government” Now while SCOTUS in Yates Vs. US did interpret The SMith act more narrowly (that abstract talk of overthrow the Government was ok) They did not overturn the entire law as being against the 2nd amendment. In fact he second amendment isnt even mentioned in the decision decisions.
“Is blm also correct?”
you say “Cute what you did there” I’m not sure what you mean, that was my only question to you, from the get go. but I got my answer “If they are part of the terrible issue, then yes. ” thanks.“So what about a six inch steak knife? I don’t know. ”
Here’s the thing, I DO know. The court decides. period. That is the answer to your question. ITs simple really. I’m not sure why you find mine more challenging
“A-ha! Got you! If you can’t answer that, obviously your not clear on the issue!”
nope you didn’t get me. and I can answer it . In fact the The answer to your question is crystal clear so much so, I’m surprised you even asked it . It has to be otherwise society couldn’t function. yo u cant have a system where each individual person decides what mode of attack deserves lethal force nor what constitutes a tyrannical government .