ubiquitin

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 1,051 through 1,100 (of 5,421 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: The fat lady has sung #1930208
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    participant

    “ubiq it still has to be counted and ratified by congress. if there’s proven fraud, they won’t .”

    Yes, As Ive said.

    But it shows a profound lack of understanding of basic US civics to think it is “dumb” to assert that the electroal college changed anything

    “you make it sound like u asked me about Mitch before…answer: yes it was dumb of him and Putin and op and others.”

    Yes I mentioned Mcconell in my first comment on this thread (its still there have a look)
    And iI hate Mitch Mconell as much as the next guy, but if you think he doesn’t understand the electoral system as well as you, well then you shouldnt call others dumb

    in reply to: Another Health/Ubiquitin “Classic”. Will it ever end? #1929963
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health

    “Do you know what “State Response” means?!?”

    No

    Her tweets like her claims are gobbledygook. Scotus isnt giving her a date. The only court case she might be involvedi n is the one in which Dominiion may sue her for her baseless allegations.

    So back to my simpel question.

    At what point, if she hasnt released her evidence, would you say “Hmmm maybe she was lying”? Jan 6? Jan 20? Januray 2022 ? 2120? Surely at SOME point if she had something hse’d have shared it. When?

    Please give a date, a milestone anytime marker. Not Cryptic copy/pasted haiku’s from twitter. name calling is fine if it makes it easier for you. I’m just looking for benchmark please. Thanks

    in reply to: Another Health/Ubiquitin “Classic”. Will it ever end? #1929854
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health

    So to be clear By January 14th, when she hasn’t released her secret evidence, it is fair to call her a liar for saying she has evidence that she will release “soon” ?

    in reply to: The fat lady has sung #1929674
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    participant

    “ubiq you’re a cool one just don’t cut my paragraph in half in order to preach to me.”
    no preaching, just explaining

    The second half of your paragraph doesnt make your incorrect statement true. Yo uwrote “if trump proves fraud it won’t matter what the college voted. if he doesn’t prove fraud, so then what changed? was anyone phoning their hopes on the Clintons8 to vote 4 trump and now conclude they didn’t?”

    This is of course incorrect. It doesnt matter. IF I voted for Trump becaue he promised He would build a wall and mexico would pay for it. Turns out I was duped. anything I can do about it? No. The eelctoral college is not much different. They voted the votes were certified. PEriod end of story

    Of course if it turns out there WAS fraud Republicans would make a ruckus in congress (as they should) but that won’t chaneg the electoral college vote that already took place.

    So this statment “pretty dumb that everyone’s acting like the electoral college voting changed anything. ” remains wrong.
    and again. to be clear, are you saying McConnell is dumb?

    in reply to: Another Health/Ubiquitin “Classic”. Will it ever end? #1929675
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health

    “She’ll produce evidence to SCOTUS.”

    I cant help but notice you havent answered my question.

    Here it is again :

    Simple question: At what point, if she hasnt released her evidence, would you say “Hmmm maybe she was lying”? Jan 6? Jan 20? Januray 2022 ? 2120? Surely at SOME point if she had something hse’d have shared it. When?

    in reply to: Another Health/Ubiquitin “Classic”. Will it ever end? #1929676
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health

    Not sure Why you copied her Twitter?

    We know she is lying you dont have to keep proving it by posting more of her lies. Maybe she filed in wrong Scotus, she needs secret SCOTUS can you please forward her contact info..

    “She’ll produce evidence to SCOTUS.
    Not to You or any Lib!”

    The clock is ticking, Why would she kep it hidden? Is that how it works in secret Supreme court? In real supreme court there is no “secret evidence”

    in reply to: The fat lady has sung #1929572
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Participant

    “pretty dumb that everyone’s acting like the electoral college voting changed anything. ”

    You need a crash course in civics.
    In the Unite States we dont vote for President we vote for electors. The outcome of that election was originally in dispute

    The electoral college, the group that chooses the President elected Joe Biden. This is not in dispute.
    all that is left is for Congress to formally count the vote.

    Keep in mind the appointment of electors is up to the states. In theory a state can appoint eelctors for whomever they want regardless of outcome of state vote, in fact there is a movement that many states signed too to give all the states electors to the winner of the national popular vote., regardless of who won the state.

    Now it is theoretically possible for congressmen to slow things down make trouble etc. But to say “pretty dumb that everyone’s acting like the electoral college voting changed anything.” (I assume you include Mitch Mcconell who congratulated biden after electoral colege win)
    shows a profound lack of understanding of elementary US civics

    in reply to: Another Health/Ubiquitin “Classic”. Will it ever end? #1929567
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    torah

    she hasnt.
    Yes a bunch of affidavits were released (most that werent pertinent credible or both) . While afidavits are not nothing, my gut tells me you don’t accept affidavits alleging Kavanaugh’s wrongdoing

    At any rate in more than one of her press conferences she alleged she had actual hard evidence of vote tampering which she said she will release “soon”

    She lied .

    Sure you can believe whatever you want and come up with all sorts of contrived distinctions that the court rejected based on “standing” not “merit” as if that is somehow better

    “The most recent case docketed at the scotus”
    name of case please? I cant find it

    ” includes the forensic audit from michigan,”
    This wasnt released by Sidney Powell

    in reply to: Biden is Senile #1929453
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    ujm

    “Mock it now if you wish, but when it happens remember you heard it here first.”

    a. I heard it elsewhere first
    b. My question for you though, is what is the “penalty” if your prediction doesn’t materialize? Do you start a thread saying “WOW I was wrong”? Can we put an asterisk on all your posts noting that you don’t really know what you are talking about?

    why should we be impressed by your astute prediction if it turns true, when there is no down side to your having made it?

    in reply to: Student Loan Forgiveness #1929422
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Gadol

    that argument can be made to oppose any policy. don’t ban abortion, what about all the previously aborted fetuses, don’t get rid of the draft, what about all those previously drafted ? No tax cuts, what about those who paid the higher taxes etc etc *

    It is a silly (albeit emotional) argument. If it is good policy, it should be enacted asa soon as possible those who “missed it” well life isnt fair. If it is not good policy, argue why it isn’t. But your argument is an emotianla not logical one.

    (*yes these aren’t EXACTLY the same)

    in reply to: Another Health/Ubiquitin “Classic”. Will it ever end? #1929418
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health

    “Who does she have to prove it to – to you?!?”

    she doesnt have to do anything. She isn’t going to the Supreme court. (Of course perhaps secret SCOTUS, but admittedly, I don’t know much about secret SCOTUS. Maybe she will win her imaginary secret SCOTUS case and Trump can be secret President, and we al live happily ever after. Wouldnt that be nice

    Of course if she was serious she would have shown her evidence looong ago As you may know the Electoral college already voted, the votes will be formally counted Jan 6, then Biden gets inaugurated Jan 20.

    Simple question: At what point, if she hasnt released her evidence, would you say “Hmmm maybe she was lying”? Jan 6? Jan 20? Januray 2022 ? 2120? Surely at SOME point if she had something hse’d have shared it. When?

    in reply to: Another Health/Ubiquitin “Classic”. Will it ever end? #1929415
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Abba

    “After the 2016 election the Democrats claimed foriegn intervention was the reason that Trump won”

    Noone (serious) claimed that. ALL (including Trump in rare moments of candor) agree there was foreign intervention in 2016. As to how much of a role that played is impossible to know Noone (serious) claimed it was THE reason he won.

    “hey even impeached him and it wasn’t substaniated. ”

    They impeached him over another matter entirely

    “Now it’s the Republican’s turn and they are claiming voter fraud. What is the differance?”

    the difference is The Republicna attorney general and after 60 court cases several of which presided over by Republicna justices, no evidence of significant fraud was shown.

    in reply to: Another Health/Ubiquitin “Classic”. Will it ever end? #1929292
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    torah

    she said on more than one occasion that she will be releasing her evidence “soon” proving fraud she said she had evidence that Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, had taken bribes and conspired to orchestrate Trump’s defeat.

    It is past “soon” she hasn’t released all this evidence she lied

    Health
    Thanks for proving my point

    in reply to: Another Health/Ubiquitin “Classic”. Will it ever end? #1929138
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “Is it just Powell & Trump or is it all Conservatives?
    Or is it Anyone who Disagrees with you on any Topic?!?”

    People who, on more than one occasion, have shown that they say things that simply are not true. With particular case for those who say things that are מילתא דעבידא לגלויים.. and again not just once or twice it has to be a pattern.

    Both Trump and Powell fit that bill perfectly

    in reply to: Another Health/Ubiquitin “Classic”. Will it ever end? #1928927
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “Which one are You?!?”

    I’m the type who knows not to take anything Powell says seriously

    in reply to: Toiveling basic George Foreman without cord getting wet? #1928237
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Meno

    I think he was replying regarding a keurig, which is waht DY was reffering too

    in reply to: Hi Jack! #1927450
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Not really

    It isnt “your thread” You don’t own it, you didnt pay for it . You start a topic that interests you, if people like it they comment if not they don’t. Sometimes, as is the nature of human conversation, topics shift usually m’iniyan linyan be’oso inyan, but sometimes over time it changes and moves more from the original to a new inyan . You can try to bring it back and if people like your comment they will reply. But I don’t think people are required to reply only within the narrow confines of the orignal OP.

    in reply to: Another Health/Ubiquitin “Classic”. Will it ever end? #1926840
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health

    “I’ll repeat …”

    Yes I know you’ll repeat thats your specialty. Please provide proof of some kind

    “Polls are meaningless in this Country.”
    national polls were amazingly accurate both in in 2016 and 2020

    “Obama grew the country, but Trump was against that. And with the Pandemic the USA wasn’t so much more populated.”

    So I have this straight: You are sying that Obama “let the flood gates open to this country” increasing the population but this increased population couldn’t vote for Biden becasue they died in the pandemic?

    in reply to: Another Health/Ubiquitin “Classic”. Will it ever end? #1926783
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health

    “The reason why Trump beat Obama is because Obama let the flood gates open to this country (more pop.)”

    I dont follow wouldn’t that more population viote for Biden? Maybe thats How he won!
    At least try to sort of make sense sense in your nonsense

    “The only way Biden could beat Trump is with Cheating!”

    So stick to that prove that ignore all the polls that has Biden ahead, and prove he couldnt win with cheating that is the task of this thread.
    I know you think repeating things over and over with exclamation points is proof. But it just isn’t

    All I am replying to is one specific point. Namely the Fderalis comment that It is unlikely for Biden to have beaten Obama

    Which his completely true. BUT it ignores the (more unlikely) fact that Trump “beat” Obama too. Can you provide any poll that showed Trump at a higher approval rating on election day than Obama on his?

    in reply to: Another Health/Ubiquitin “Classic”. Will it ever end? #1926701
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health

    Your’e confused. this comment “Trump got more votes because the Country saw what Obama did for 8 years.” doesn’t make sense Trump isnt running against 2012 OBama

    LEt’s back up
    The argument is in a sense How could 2020 Biden have beaten 2012 Obama. That Biden beat Trump (nationally) isn’t really surprising, and isnt the argument in point 1, after all he was up in almost every poll. IF it is so hard to believe Biden beating Trump nationally, the argument would have been THAT.

    What is surprising is that more people voted for Biden than Obama in 2012 (and I grant it is surprising)

    In other words we would expect Obama to have most votes then Biden then Trump (and undoubtedly thats how most American’s would vote today) . That Biden beat Obama is the surprise. so Biden must have cheated THIS is the argument in point 1.

    With me?

    BUT Trump beat Obama too. So to square this you need to take one of several options

    1) There was something different about this election that led to more turnout so Both Biden and Trump got more votes than the far more popular Obama (possibilities for this listed above)
    2) Biden cheated and Trump cheated but Biden cheated more
    3) Biden cheated but was worried that people would say “how could you have gotten more votes than Obama?” So he also cheated giving Trump more votes than Obama so that intelligent people couldnt argue “How did biden beat OBama” If Trump did too. Strangely people are ignoring the fact that Trump beat Obama and saying “how could Biden beat Obama” anyway

    in reply to: Toiveling basic George Foreman without cord getting wet? #1926680
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    same as Goldilocks

    Ive toiveled several George Forman grills sandwich makers , hot water urns, the pizza maker from betty crocker over the years. LEt them sit for week before using and havent had any problems.

    Never anything electronic with a display screen like Keurigs

    in reply to: Another Health/Ubiquitin “Classic”. Will it ever end? #1926636
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    rational

    part 2

    Their third point ““Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton in every major metro area around the country, save for Milwaukee, Detroit, Atlanta and Philadelphia.””
    Has since been retracted

    Their fourth point
    “Biden Won Despite Democrat Losses Everywhere Else”

    Not sure why this indicates fraud Biden might be stuck with a Republican Senate. If your cheating just go all the way and grab a few senate seats. Why cheat half way?

    Fifth
    “Biden Overcame Trump’s Commanding Primary Vote”

    What primary? Against Joe Walsh? Against Rocky De Le fuente? Sure Trump has a small vocal fired up base that likes him. noone denied that. not sure the relevance

    So to sum up out of their 5 points
    #3 isnt true (as they concede)
    #5 & #2 are meaningless and silly
    #1 is true for both Biden AND Trump
    # 4 is arguably “proof” that he DIDN’t cheat

    in reply to: Another Health/Ubiquitin “Classic”. Will it ever end? #1926633
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    rational

    “One good article is by The Federalist titled “5 More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms”.”

    It isn’t a good article it is fluff disguised by fancy wording

    Lets start with their first “anomaly ”

    “Candidate Joe Biden was so effective at animating voters in 2020 that he received a record number of votes, more than 15 million more than Barack Obama received in his re-election of 2012.”

    Now this is true. But Trump also got millions more votes than Obama did in 2013 6 or so million more. Obama was far more popular nationally in 2012 than Trump is in 2020. SO unless you are arguing that the fraud gave millions of extra votes to both candidates but more to Biden than Trump this argument doesn’t make any sense.

    Trump won the 2nd most votes from any candidate in history, sadly his opponent got even more. But that shouldn’t be surprising .Nationally Biden was ahead in (nearly) EVERY poll. As many votes as you’d expect Trump to get, you’d Expect Biden to get more (of course the nationa lvote isnt wha matters but that is what this example discusses)

    As to WHY there were so many voters this year , thats a fair discussion population growth? Ease of voting by mail? After decades of being told “This is the most important election in our lives “people believed it? Hatred of Trump ? Hatred of AOC? Love of Trump? Any combination of the above.

    But any argument that alleges fraud because Biden got more votes than Obama has to explain how Trump pulled the same feat.

    Their second argument
    “Biden is set to become the first president in 60 years to lose the states of Ohio and Florida on his way to election”

    These kind of “rules” are silly. things change. There have been only 46 presidents elected in the US history . see xkcd’s excellent cartoon entitled “electoral precedent” wit h a fellow making his predictions 1788 “no candidate has ever been elected”
    1792 “no incumbent has ever been elected”

    2000 “No republican has won without Vermont ”
    2012 ” No democrat can win without Missouri”

    in reply to: Another Health/Ubiquitin “Classic”. Will it ever end? #1926084
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    torahvaluesoverparty

    I’m sorry about the name I thought it was funnier than mean. I misjudged, thank you mod for fixing it.

    “But I would love to see some more of you try to defend this video”

    I did not defend the video. all I pointed out is that you don’t KNOW what it shows. Sure if you want your guy to win no matter what then you see what you want. Ditto for me.
    That’s why I said, make sure Bill Barr gets it, make Sure Gulliani gets it and can show it to a judge

    I’m not sure why saying let them investigate is a controversial position

    in reply to: Another Health/Ubiquitin “Classic”. Will it ever end? #1926061
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Torahvaluesoverparty

    ” Then this happened….”

    then what happened? Whats in the box? Is it dinner menus? Trump Tax returns? Rolodes with plumbers who operate late at night? Who knows

    Make Sure bill Bar gets the video (hopefully he is on Yeshiva World and has access to this wiki) Send it To Gulliani so he can bring it to a 42nd court hearing or however many they are up to.

    But You (and I) dont know what you looking out just because someone narrates it.

    Fixed it for you

    in reply to: Tal Umotor Reminder #1926060
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Thanks DY!

    in reply to: Another Health/Ubiquitin “Classic”. Will it ever end? #1925946
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “I want to open a forum to discuss the facts alone”

    The problem is this is almost impossible to do.

    I’m skeptical that anyone here is equipped to investigate a allegation. Weve all seen video of People walking around a room as a narrator says “here is a poll worker taking Biden votes counting them again, taking Trump votes throwing them in a shredder etc” Is this a fact? OF course not.

    We can share all the various allegations from today until tomorrow those who support one way. Is it at all plausible that a Biden van showed up full of ballots that they carted into a polling place in NEvada? Did the star witness the Trump campaign put up in Michigan , Melissa Carrone, who appeared drunk and had to be shushed by Guilliani seem even remotely credible?

    If you want to beleive then of course it is plausible and of course she does.

    But without the ability to investigate we don’t have any real way of knowing. so listing thess ” “allegations” and yes, allegations is pointless.

    What is more useful is creating a wiki of those who CAN and HAVE investigated .
    People like judges who have heard evidence and ruled one way or the other – these are useful facts. Certainly pointing out party of affiliation of judges is fact too that may be relevant

    so here is one fellow who unlike people here CAN actually investigate allegations Attorney General Bill Barr (appointed by Trump) said “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election”

    This “can be factually confirmed and verified with sources.” so it satisfies your criteria.

    in reply to: Tal Umotor Reminder #1925939
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    If a person accidentally starts Baruch aleinu tonight (*Friday Dec 4th) he completes the beracha.

    does he say Vesein Tal umatar livracha?

    At first glance. Of course he does, it is the 60th day after the tekufa so we start asking for rain. Of course we don’t actually start until Motzei Shabbos only becasue we dont say baruch aleinu on shabbos. In a scenario where you would say Baruch aleinu (like above case) . Seem like you SHOULD say Vesein tal umatar

    However I vaguely recall seeing in Ishei Yisroel that the fellow doesnt say vesein tal, since Klal yisroel hasnt started yet, so should continue to say vesein beracha. I looked and can’t find it. Does anyone know any sources that address this ?

    in reply to: How far is too far? #1925367
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    syag
    “know me too well to use the term cult member on me”

    The distinction between Trump’s 19 books describing how smart rich and good at deal making he is, as not being indicative of a narcissist personality because they are not “memoirs” but Obama’s 2 memoirs are sign of narcissist could only be made by a cultist

    in reply to: Tal Umotor Reminder #1925300
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    RE

    Thats fair, and in academic literature this year which seforim refer to as “kesidron” is referred to as “normal” (though a 384 day long leap year is also refereed to as “normal” )

    in reply to: Tal Umotor Reminder #1925264
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    RE

    There are a few minor inaccuracies in your discussion on the calendar

    “whereas Jewish holdays are determined through the moon. Pesach is spring and Succos fall time”

    This is a bit contradictory if holidays are by the moon then they have nothing to do with seasons. The truth is holidays are based on BOTH the moon and the sun. The DATE is based on the moon but has to be in right season based on the sun.

    “that lunar year having normally 354 days”
    There isnt really such a thing as a “lunar year*” we take 12 months and call it a year these years can vary 353, 354, 355 years of course there are leap years with 13 months with 383, 384, 385 days. I’m not sure what you mean by “normally” having 354 days. This isnt the most common length for a year (mode) nor the average (mean) . The average length for a year (rounded to the nearest whole number) is actually 365 exactly as you said to keep it in sync with the sun.

    This is why the Gemara in Makkos says Hasatan = 364 corresponding to the days of the year minus Yom kipppur. Many wonder why use the “goyish calendar” or the “solar calendar” The answer is simple. The number of days in an (average) Jewish year is 365 (rounded to the whole number). There is no such thing a “Days in a lunar year” A lunar year doesn’t have days it has 12 lunar months . For example see Megillah 5a Where we learn “lechodshei hashana” that we count months for a year not days. see RAshi there. If we DID count days the number of days in a year is 365 and if someone made a neder not to drink wine for a year if you count by days would have to wait 11 days longer . But we DON’t count days we count Months so after 12 months can drink wine again. it might be 3 53, 354 or 355 days but we dont count days.

    “The variation of the two months above causes the movement of Rosh Hashanah as Adu lo Rosh,”

    The opposite is true Lo Adu Rosh (and other dechuyos) determine how many days are in kislev and cheshvan . the Molad for Tishrei 5782 is Monday Night. Because the molad is after noon Rosh Hashana is pushed to Tuesday. Because Rosh hashana is pushed to Tuesday (not pushed because Lo adu rosh, but principle is the same), and thsi past Rosh Hashana was Shabbos we need a calendar with 353 days So we make both cheshvan and Kislev chaser with 29 days “subtracting” a day from the 354 days we get by having 6 months of 29 alternatign with 6 months 30 ( (6×30)+(6×29) = 354).
    The reason why we don;t want Rosh hashana on Friday or Wednesday is to avoid Y”K on Sunday or Friday which see R”H 20a

    (* Similarly, there isnt really such a thing a solar month. We take a solar year (approximately 365 days) and divide it into 12 arbitrary chunks of time varying 31/30 days (and one 28) )

    These are admittedly minor “inaccuracies” and forgive my nitpicking. I just enjoy the topic

    in reply to: Tal Umotor Reminder #1925247
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    ujm

    “Why did we change our calculations for VTUM based on the Pope’s decision?”

    We didn’t change, we use the exact same calculation. However the Calendar you use changed.

    SO for example Lets say someoen decides that its too confusing to call December “December” since it isnt the 10’th month and for now on we will call December “Dodecamber” Naturally we will start Saying Vesein Tal umatar on Dodecamber 4 or 5th. But not becasue WE changed our nomenclature, but because they did

    We count 60 days from Tekufas Shmuel We always have. and still do . Tekufas Shmuel Assumes the year to be exactly 365 days and 6 hours. The Julian Calendar assumes the same. Society follows the Gregorian Calendar. So we use a different date, not because we changed, but because they did.

    Tekufas Shmuel on the Calendar we use fell out Oct 7 3 AM. count 60 days (Oct 7 is #1) and Day 60 will Be Shabbos Dec 5th. So at the satrt of Shabbos ie Friday night Dec 4th we would have started Vesein tal umatar if we said baruch aleinu on Shabbos

    If you prefer to use the Julian Calendar and ignore Gregory’s change.
    Then Tekufas Shmuel this year was Wed Sep 24 3 AM. (on the Julian Calendar) 60 days later is Shabbos Nov 22 on the Julian Calendar (that is this week PArshas Vayishlack Nov 22 Julian = Dec 5 Gregorian) and Vesein tal umatar is on the same day

    in reply to: How far is too far? #1925208
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    syag

    “Im not a cultist”

    you are .

    Normally your posts sort of make sense. When it comes to Trump you throw all sense out the window. for example “He didn’t say book, he said memoir. Bush wrote one memoir. Only 497 pages. Obama wrote at least 2. Trump wrote none.”

    In this context what’s the difference between a book and a memoir? The books Trump wrote aren’t novels they are books extolling how great he (allegedly) is. Ive read several of them. They are not much different than memoirs (Except less heavy on fact)
    This is how one review described ArT of the Deal . “Part memoir and part how-to, this is the first book by Trump, the billionaire New York real estate developer who looks like a movie star and acts like a showboat gambler. ”

    And don’t forget how we got here it was in response to someone pointing out “I think mainly he is a supreme narcissist” [regarding Trump]
    Is there any doubt that a person who says “I alone can fix it” is a supreme narcissist? There shouldn’t be for non-cult members .

    in reply to: Democrats cheated, Biden won #1925200
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “Even I took a case to SCOTUS & I’m Not even a Lawyer!”

    I heard Trump is going to the same imaginary SCOTUS you did.

    Maybe he can win and be an imaginary President! Wouldn’t that be nice

    in reply to: “Give me liberty or give death”! #1923946
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “Give me liberty or give me death”

    what an interesting maamar chazal. Where can it be found? is it Bavli? Yerushalmi? Medrash?
    Are You sure we pasken that way Lemayseh? I cant seem to find it in Shulchan Aruch

    in reply to: Raphael Warnock #1921275
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    CT Lawyer
    “Lawyers have to deal in precise words to avoid litigation and conflicty.”

    a. this isn’t a courtroom
    b. You are wrong. Can you please point to a dictionary that defines “Antisemitism” to include Palestinians?
    Although when it was first coined in the late 1800’s in very rare instances included other groups. today the only people who say “I can’t be an antisemite Palestinians are Semites” are themselves antisemites.

    in reply to: Would you read my blog? #1919317
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    BYM

    congratulations on almost graduating. Enjoy 4th year it is a much needed break between the bust years behind you and the busy years ahead. MAzel tov on your children as well

    Years ago we had a discussion
    as to whether “calculus, chemistry (maybe?), physics and organic chemistry” were ” necessary for the practice of medicine”

    BTL Advice and Planning

    Now that you have completed your some actual rotations in third year. I’m curios how often any of those subjects came up in the “practice of medicine” ?

    in reply to: New Conservative Supreme Court Supermajority #1915827
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health
    nothing you said in your post contradicts anything Ive said in this thread

    Ive discussed abortion many times before what Iv said in those threads hasnt changed

    In this thread I was correcting a misstatment you made namely that there is no such thing as a pregnancy endagering a mother.

    There is as you now clairfy
    thank you for your clarification.

    The next question is who decides what constitutes a “threat ot he mother” is that strictly a medical question or is it halachic too?
    Again IVe discussed this in several threads so there is no reason to repeat it here

    in reply to: New Conservative Supreme Court Supermajority #1915766
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “So it is – but that’s the point of the Wiley article. The people that use it, whether in the Medical field or not, Should Stop using it!”

    Meh. This may surprise you Oksana H. Baltarowich MD does not get to regulate speech
    and more to the point, regardless of what you want to call it. Ectopic pregnancies in the uterus exist. See the Wiley article.

    “A.- I don’t care what some dictionaries do – let them read the Wiley article.”

    It doesn’t matter what you care about. It matters what lawyers who write the laws (and judges who interpret them) care about, and what dictionary they read What if they dont stumble across the wiley article like you did?

    “B. – You can’t call Interstitial pregnancies – Intrauterine, because they are outside the endometrial cavity.”
    Stop grasping its in the uterus. period. (and again even if it wasn’t it is still a pregnancy)

    Look this conversation is boring. You are the first I’ve heard claim there is no such thing as a pregnancy that threatens the mother’s life. though I did fins a quack who made a similar argument online though she since retracted (referenced above). I have enough experience with you to know you arent capable of retracting.

    I have Chazal, and poskim on my side who all refer to cases where a mother’s life is endangered. Sadly I have real world experience too. Nobody I know in real life thinks these things don’t exist. If you are forced to redefine basic words like “pregnancy”, “abortion” and “uterus” to back up your bizarre claim (and if any ONE of those words maintains its Webster’s definition your point is wrong)

    If you have any specific question. I’d be happy to answer otherwise believe whatever you want

    in reply to: New Conservative Supreme Court Supermajority #1915606
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health

    ““The Term “Cornual Pregnancy” Should Be Abandoned”

    Yes it should be , but it is still used, and I mentioned “interstitial pregnancy” to avoid this confusion .

    As you correctly noted “The term “cornual pregnancy” …. 3 of these are intrauterine pregnancies”
    It is an imprecise term, BUT as you correctly noted it is used for intrauterine pregnancies.

    So to sum up
    “Abortion only applies to Intrauterine pregnancy!”

    a. That isn’t necessarily true (sure some dictionaries may take a more limited definition but not al do)
    b. Some ectopic pregnancies are intrauterine (eg interstitial pregnancies sometimes imprecisely referred to as Cornual pregnancies)

    BTW see “Is Abortion Really Necessary For Treating Ectopic Pregnancies?” On the federalist dot com whre the author argued against allowing abortion even for ectopic pregnancies (Though to be fair, she has since apologized after consultation with doctors, hopefully if Roe gets overturned whoever writes any law will consult with Doctors BEFORE they write it and not correct it after like this author)

    in reply to: character vs policy Which is more important? #1915492
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    policy can always be undone
    I have heard from most of my friends that Obama was the worst President for ISrael. Yet these same friends extoll the virtues of Trump, and how Israel is in the best position it has ever been.

    Changing character is much much harder. Trump has had a corrosive effect on Americna politics, undoing it is much harder than undoing any policy that you dont like. 4 more years of this would make it almost impossible to undo

    in reply to: New Conservative Supreme Court Supermajority #1915355
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health

    “Do you see the word Uterus?”

    I did , and as always you are wrong

    1. That is one definition and of course it isnt exact. for example Abortion can occur spontaneously as in “spontaneous abortion” clearly your definition is lacking. (I provided a better definition earlier, Webster’s is fine too)
    2. Some ectopic pregnancies occur in the uterus, I realize this is advanced stuff that isnt taught in ambulance driving school . Look up “cornual pregnancy” or “interstitial pregnancy” which occurs in the uterus thus would be labetled an “abortion” even according to your inexact definition

    “Either you believe in Abortion, ”
    what does “believe in abortion” mean?

    in reply to: New Conservative Supreme Court Supermajority #1915221
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    GH

    ” but our newest Associate Justice refused to classify Roe in her listing of “super precedents” such as Brown v. Board of Ed”

    Brown vs Board of Ed is another great example of “originalists” abandoning their originalism. No “originalist” would dream of saying it was wrongly decided although obviously the 14th amendment was not meant (nor intended). As you point out Amy Coan Barret labeled it a “super-precedent”
    Scalia would often be asked about this, which angered him once complaining “Waving the bloody shirt of Brown again, eh?” He did try to defend it on numerous occasions, though not very convincingly.

    in reply to: New Conservative Supreme Court Supermajority #1915220
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health
    “There is Nothing Wrong to Remove this condition, whether acc. to Halacha or Xitianity”

    I never said there was

    YOU said “there is no such thing” (as a mother being endangered by a pregnancy)

    your definition of abortion applies to Ectopic pregnancy “An abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy. It uses medicine or surgery to remove the embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus.”
    Since you obviously don’t know, Ill fill you in. If diagnosed early then medicine is used “to remove the embryo or fetus” (usually methotrexate) if late then surgery is needed. Regardless this is an abortion according to the definition you supplied.

    in reply to: New Conservative Supreme Court Supermajority #1914987
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    anon
    “It applies to Federal and State legislation as well the Constitution, and they oppose judicial activism”
    Yes obviously

    Yet Kavanaugh engaged in judicial activism, when it suited him. I didnt say the entire opinion was an example. I specifically said his third reason
    In his third reason he makes a case that we need the results of an election right away. including this bizzare sentence “want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after Election Day and potentially flip the results of an election”
    THIS argument is pure judicial activism No where in the constitution does it say results must be available on election day.
    This is not an argument neither based on a textual nor originalist interpretation of the constitution. IT is pure activism driven by his desired outcome

    (GH, yes they are different but they are related and in this conversation the difference is largely inconsequential . furthermore “originalism” is sometimes used to refer to “original intent” and sometimes “original meaning” while original intent would include secondary sources , motivations behind the law etc, “original meaning typically does not and is pretty much the same as “textualism”)

    in reply to: New Conservative Supreme Court Supermajority #1914986
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health

    google is your friednd
    Ectopic pregnancy “a pregnancy in which the fetus develops outside the uterus, typically in a fallopian tube.”
    define abortion “the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.”

    Sure I grant that you didnt mean ectopic pregnancy in your comment

    BUT it is a pregnncy and it does pose risk to the mother these are indisputable facts

    in reply to: New Conservative Supreme Court Supermajority #1914821
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    akuperma
    “There are five originalists, but that doesn’t guarantee a right wing decision,”

    I like the gist of your post but this isnt true. “originalist” is just an excuse used by the right when they want to limit the protection of the constitution. It works to their favor, that the framers had more limited view too . nobody argues that Free speech/press doesnt cover internet speech, (although originally it didnt obviosuly) because that isnt something they want to limit.
    Look at the great originalist Scalia, he creatively reinterpreted the 14th amendment when he wanted to give the Republican the presidency.
    If that is ancient history for you, look no further than this week Kavanaugh’s decision thrid reason makes a passionate defense of having results counted by “election day” however this is not mentioned in the constitution

    in reply to: New Conservative Supreme Court Supermajority #1914807
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health

    “Removal is not an Abortion. So Abortion could become Illegal!

    I think this is an idea people could get behind. Make abortion illegal.
    Only embryo or fetus “removal” , reduction or termination would be allowed

    in reply to: New Conservative Supreme Court Supermajority #1914779
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health love it!!

    “Removal is not an Abortion.
    So Abortion could become Illegal!”

    Lets make everyone happy.
    Abortion is banned, only embryo or fetus removal is allowed .
    I assume reduction and termination would be ok too. But no abortion!

    Akuperma
    I liked most of your post. It might make you feel better though to consider that “originalist” isn’t really a thing. Nobody would argue the constitution doesn’t protect internet speech although originally obviously it didn’t. “Originalist” is used as a magic word to reduce protections by interpreting the constitution as narrowly as possible. If they want to protect something they forget to be originality (like scalia in Bush v Gore with his creative reinterpretation of the 14th amendment)
    So bottom line is it depends more on what the judges want to protect than on how they claim to view the constitution

    in reply to: New Conservative Supreme Court Supermajority #1914675
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    There is a lot of confusion in this thread

    “Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), Lawrence v. Texas (2003),” will no be overturned, and there wont even be cases brought (to the supreme court) to overturn them.

    ” and Roe v. Wade (1973)”
    Doubtful it will be overturned.
    Though even if it is, keep in mind it will still be up to states. In most states it will remain legal in a few states it might be curtailed.

    “I’ve Posted this Before – with Modern Medicine – there is No Such Thing!”

    This is pure ignorance. To use the least controversial example tubal pregancy. (Yes Yes I know you will say it is different, and I agree it is, but it is a pregancy and it does endanger the mother to say “there is No Such Thing” is wrong.

    “Even before Roe v Wade mother’s whose lives were endangered were permitted to abort to save their lives. Reversing Roe v. Wade would not change that.”
    Who decides what constitutes “lives were endangered” ?

Viewing 50 posts - 1,051 through 1,100 (of 5,421 total)