Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I meant the latter I was answering your question.
There is no difference between the two other than the name.
I dont belive in coincidences. Similarly a whole herring, that has been split into a butterfly fashion from tail to head along the dorsal ridge, gutted, salted or pickled, and cold-smoked over smouldering woodchips Aka a Kipper (Wikipedia) is quite similar as well
Azoi zugt men beshem hasfoorim hakedoishim
Other than the name, Absolutely nothing.
it’s completely assur to lekatchila make plans to gramm grammen to a different tune than minhag avoseinu.
There.
though we still need someone to inform us that it’s completely assur to lekatchila make plans to gramm grammen
lightbright
“What are the barriers…”
financial (primarily)
Even if the mashgichim worked for the agency whcih they often due, that doesnt really solve the problem. Say R’ Yankel is a mashgiach temidid and yukel’s knish gesheft. Even if the OU is the one paying him, if he pulls the hashgacha he is out of a job. It is not like there are restaurants waiting around sans mashgichim that he can quickly get a new job, and he wont get paid for not working.
Unless there was a communal fund to pay mashgichim whether or not they are currently supervising a store/faciility/plant etc ultimatly you have to relly that the mashgiach is trustworthy enough to forgo hsi own sallary (at least for a time) to prevent you from eating treif.
(There are some smaller chasidish hashgachos that do work this way)
that said
“If the plant manager does not like how the mashgiach’s certification then he/she can just fire him and get a new one who will do as he says.” I dont think that is quite right, if the plant is under the OU, regardless of who is paying the mashgiach I dont think the plant can just replace the mashgiach without the supervising agency’s ok.
“There was a Rav in Chicago…”
Ive heard that with the Ridvaz, though Al Capone must’ve been quite tough at age 6 for it to have been him
LU
The mechaber does NOT say “shnei mini ochlin” That is what the Rambam says.
Though the A”H is explicit that the foods have to be different (as I mentioned earlier http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/inaccurate-things-teachers-tell-us/page/3#post-649963). This not clear at all from the MB nor the Shulchan aruch. In fact the MEchaber implies they dont have to be different, (shnei manos bassar oh shel mini ochlin = two portions of meat or of types of food) and the MB does not comment at all.
As for labeling the Rambam as a misprint, I could hear my Rebbeim fuming at tthat. Though who knows perhaps it is.
“I guess some posters have no sense of humor!”
I get it!
wishing posters will die sooner is hilarious!
classic humor!
It then gets funnier when you lead people on and dont answer direct questions, that clearly resulted from a lack of understanding of your original hilarious joke!
good Stuff!
“It definitely can help; by letting the world know that we won’t tolerate terror!”
how? doesnt bombing have that affect?
“I’m not aware of any insult to my religion from any Iraqi.”
What?
“I have no problem using Russia for US oil needs!
Do you?!?”
what? no
You are making less sense than usual.
This conversation is getting boring and more repetitive than usual.
If you have anything new too add please do so.
If you are willing (able?) to reply to my questions please do so
Otherwise all the best until next time.
(And no, before you ask, there is no cash to be made for responding to questions you want to have a conversation no problem, otherwise buh-bye)
“Let me ask you a question – Do you even know what the Muslim religion preaches about other religions?… joan Peters
Of course I do, and I have read Peters. I never meant to insinuate Islam was a peaceful religion. all I said was 1) saying “Islamic Terrorism” doesnt help any and 2) It is insulting to some and can hurt/
“You come here pretending you’re the epitome of intelligence”
I never pretended that. Though kudos to you for picking up on it.
“we don’t need them for allies. We should be their partners,”
got it! PArtners not allies, acts of terrorism not terrorists.
Tell me are you often partners with people who insult your religion?
“And we don’t need the other Muslim countries.”
no of course not. We will tunnel to IRaq and fuel with oil from our friends in Russia and Venezuella.
“For the last time…”
while that may be what you menat this is the first time youve said that.
“For 2 million dollars, I’ll give you the case that went to the US Supreme Court!”
Nah I’m good.
But for one million dollars I’ll sell you a bridge. though I should warn you the EMS on the bridge only follows actual EMS protocols.
“Let me ask you a question – Do you even know what the Muslim religion preaches about other religions?… joan Peters
Of course I do, and I have read Peters. I never meant to insinuate Islam was a peaceful religion. all I said was 1) saying “Islamic Terrorism” doesnt help any and 2) It is insulting to some and can hurt/
“You come here pretending you’re the epitome of intelligence”
I never pretended that. Though kudos to you for picking up on it.
“we don’t need them for allies. We should be their partners,”
got it! PArtners not allies, acts of terrorism not terrorists.
Tell me are you often partners with people who insult your religion?
“And we don’t need the other Muslim countries.”
no of course not. We will tunnel to IRaq and fuel with oil from our friends in Russia and Venezuella.
“For the last time…”
while that may be what you menat this is the first time youve said that.
“For 2 million dollars, I’ll give you the case that went to the US Supreme Court!”
Nah I’m good.
But for one million dollars I’ll sell you a bridge. though I should warn you the EMS on the bridge only follows actual EMS protocols not imaginary ones
” i find myself reacting with exactly that thought when i hear sane, respected posters defend them in the face of what is so obvious to me and others.”
again I am not talking about a difference of opinion. That I respect and view as healthy. IT is disagreement in fact that I find entertaining. such as a poster claiming a source for a EMS guidline that was obiously made up or a SCOTUS case that never happened.
I get saying Obama was wrong for avoiding the phrase “islamic terrorsim” that isnt my (main argument) Reasonable peope can disagree. But then deciding that it wasnt an issue that confuses me. OR not criticizing Bush for the same.
“or your friends as quite as exempt from such behavior.”
My friends are all solidly in your camp to one degree or other.
“Lastly, regarding that math thread,…”
They dont have access to google? If you are unsure go google. That is ok too. That is how we learn more. Always inquire. Im not expecting anyone to believe everything (or anything) I say. but challenge it. say PEMDAS doesn’t always apply because xyz (and then of course We’d google that too)
syag
“i can barely read it all”
Dont its pretty silly,
“it is just not something obama supporters/trump oposers would understand/agree to/admit.”
Not quite, I explained why Obama avoided the term, and then Health changed his mind and said the term wasnt an issue, of course he then changed back again.
“to be true regarding obama and hilary supporters as well.”
Oh one hundered percent correct! But I find it more true with Trump supporters. Trump ran a campaign built on falsehoods. while Hilary is without question a liar, the foundations of her political career wasnt conspiracy theroires about where people were born or lies regarding Mexican rapists abd getting MExico to pay for a wall that will never get built.
Or as Gingrich said regarding the GOP convention when challenged that crime was down he replied ” Though the statistics may show that It doesn’t feel that way” (Im paraphrasing) I found this astounding that he openly admitted facts arent as important. Of course we have only seen more of this leading to “alternative facts”
Health
“Obama! Now why do you think that is?!?”
I believe I already told you no fewer than 3 times. Dubya too avoided the phrase for the same reason “Americans understand we fight not a religion…Ours is not a campaign against the Muslim faith. Ours is a campaign against evil”
“Now you’re changing the topic”
Lol you are tha master at changing topics (this is a thread about Trump’s (initial) refusal to answer a simple direct question. you have managed to throw in all sorts of inaccurate and/or irelvvant “Thoughts” (much like your friend Trump)
This point is not off topic. I am pointing out to you that you wouldnt like it if your religion was used to color ideas yu disagreed with (at least I assume you dont like, it as you didnt actually answer my question, as usual)
“Iraq would have begged us to help them to defend themselves against ISIS”
A. What religion do the majority of IRaqis practice?
B. Last I checked Iraq doesnt border the US”
Deja vu?
“I said that the reason we were safer under Obama than Bush, was because Clinton ignored any Islamic threat!
Lol you keep saying the same thing That were safe under Obama thanks to Clinton. while nonsensical, of course I will let it slide
LU
“which it does a lot”
Its not common to prove someone wrong.
I mean getting such gems as “I said it wasn’t terrorism, but a terrorist act” or the same poster saying “Your problem is that your Idol Obama couldn’t say Islam and terrorist together” followed by “It’s not saying them together, it’s showing the terrorists that we’ll do anything to prevent your ideology”
This isnt common.
The very first thread I commented on was http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-x-0 (I had long been a lurker) Watch how long the “discussion” goes about an elementary school math problem. Now I get not remembering the order of operations, or not remembering to apply them. but what blew my mind was when the answer and explanation were revealed people were still arguing! This is math the topic with only one correct answer. Its black and white there should be no roo for discussion or argumet. Yet people argue.
I chose ubiquitin becasue I had just read about it and thought it was interesting
LU
Thanks for the clarigfication. You got me axcited since I have been looking for sources that say yo uneed two different foods and they are surprisingly few. the Aruch Hashulchan being a notable exception.
now this may be because it is obvious that “two portions”, have to be two different foods (otherwise could just cut piece of meat in 2 and call it 2 portions) But 2 steaks or 2 pineapples are certainly 2 portions. So im not sure why a person wouldnt be yotzei.
Interestingly in Mikrai kodesh R’ Frank says that two peices of meat from different parts of anaimal that taste different are a kosher shalach manso ( eg white and dark chicken?)
yy
I dont think I’m going to convince him, i just find it fascinating when people are proven wrong and instead of retracting double down
LU
no,
From wikipedia: “Ubiquitin is a small protein that exists in all eukaryotic cells. It performs its myriad functions through conjugation to a large range of target proteins. A variety of different modifications can occur. The ubiquitin protein itself consists of 76 amino acids and has a molecular mass of about 8.5 kDa. Key features include its C-terminal tail and the 7 lysine residues. It is highly conserved among eukaryotic species: Human and yeast ubiquitin share 96% sequence identity.”
It was discivered by Israelis in the 70s’80’s for which they won the nobel prize in chemistry
” is implying that there’s no such thing as Islamic Terror”
Well all the victims very much implies there is such a thing.
Growing up several rebbeim taught that it was a mitzvah to avoid paying taxes. They explained how the Western world was built on “geganvet yidisheh gelt” and whatever taxes we avoided paying was simply “geratavet yidshe gelt” of course they cautioned us to make sure we would never get caught.
Assuming you view this “shitah” as an inaccurate portrayal of yidishkeit. How would you feel if when a pesron who had this view was arrested it was labeled “Jewish-tax-evasion” ?
“There is enough airspace in Iraq without the so-called Muslim Allies!”
A. Whar religion do the majority of IRaqis practice?
B. Last I checked Iraq doesnt border the US
“More absurdity and manipulation from you!”
Nope that was from YOU: “that we safer under Obama than him! It was the fault of his predecessor – Billy Boy” You said we were safe under Oabam thanks to Clinton.
Have I mentioned you are my favorite poster?
“I answered this already – here it is again:”
Lol yet more lies.
You havent answered my question
here is a reminder you said :
“Your problem is that your Idol Obama couldn’t say Islam and terrorist together!”
I asked why it was important to say them together?
Now you are saying “”It’s not saying them together”
Ok, so your inital statement was wrong?
“From the news yesterday:”
got it I misunderstood your “reply” since this non-sequitor is irrelevant. My apologies. But brings us back to my question
Yo usaid why do we need allies. I replied “”Lol, look at a map ISIS is based in Iraq, what look whose airspace is needed, look where US bases are.” now that we are past your distraction can you answer my question please?
Without Muslim allies, how do you imagine an attack against ISIS occuring
“My point was – it wasn’t Bush’s fault, that we safer under Obama than him! It was the fault of his predecessor – Billy Boy!”
Clinton kept us safe under Obama. Ok got it.
“Iraq would have begged us to help them to defend themselves against ISIS.”
Most of the Muslim world is against ISIS thats why workign with them will benefit all
“Oh, of course it does, but you’re trying very hard to disillusion everyone!”
Other than the mods, nobody is reading. Like all conversations of ours they get pretty stupid quickly since you dotn reply to simple direct questions (care to change that this post alone has 2 questions Ive asked you several times)
“keep trying to push that lie “
what lie? that bombs are more deadly than name calling?
also note: as usual you havent actually answered my question here it is again: “how does saying the words Islamic and Terrorism together help?”
“Why do you think ISIS is based in Iraq?”
Well mostly becasue they are. But ok, i’ll bite where are they based. LEt me guess on the grassy knoll or maybe in imaginary supreme court
“I’ll post the answer below.”
answer to what?
“Um yeah we have been safer under Obama than Bush.”
That’s because…”
what? we were safer under Obama because Bill Clinotn dint think Islam terror was a threat. Does that make sense to you? becasue that is what you wrote.
thr bottom line is we were safer under Obaam than Bush so your critiscm of “failled liberal polcies” doesnt hold much water
“To answer your question:”
which question does this answer?
“You need ground troops!”
Yes but we still need allies in the region where basis are eg Kuwait, Saudi Arabia
“It’s not saying them together, it’s showing the terrorists that we’ll do anything to prevent your ideology!”
Dont bombs give that message in an even better way than saying the magic words “Islamic terrorism”?
“More jokes! We don’t need the so-called Muslim allies to protect us!”
Lol, look at a map ISIS is based in IRaq, what look whose airspace is needed, look where US bases are.
“All the liberal policies have done nothing to protect us!”
Um yeah we have been safer under Obama than Bush.
also note how you didnt reply to my point.
” when they don’t have a logical opposing argument, they resort to insults!”
Said the Trump-worshiper. youre guy won based on insulting his way to the Top as Jeb mentioned during the campaign.
I cant list all his insults since this is a yeshiva website.
“That’s funny! Your problem is that your Idol Obama couldn’t say Islam and terrorist together!”
I told you hes not my idol
And how does saying Islamic Terrorism together help? Other than turning away Muslim alies that we need what purpose would it accomplish?
If George Dubya could understand this, you shouldn’t have trouble
BTW “straw man” sine I see you couldn’t be bothered to look it up is
“an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument.”
Nobody suggested letting in “ALL so-called refugees” certainly not on this thread, sinc eit isnt the topic at hand. and not on any other that I can recall
“Stop trying to equate your Idol with the President!”
I would never. compare the two. Even the comparison made ealrier between Trump and 3rd graders is insulting to third-graders
Though when it comes to a willful disregard for truth you do remind me of the Donald
see here for one of severla examples
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/if-im-not-antisemitic/page/2#post-649397
1) I doubt it, but at any rate Joseph made the argument “nowadays” perhaps it made sense centuries ago.
3) Why isnt it practical? The same way we have davening hats and jackets (and some have gartels) we can easily have ties. To make matters worse, when I was in yeshiva a guy wore a tie and the mashgiach told him to stop since that wasnt “the Yeshiva’s tzura”
2) Is the best point SO i will start with that one.
first of all it doesnt really respond to my point. All I was saying is that the oval office comparison is a childish one. You point out that there are (other times) that people do wear suits and ties daily which while true isnt my point. If Joseph said you should wear a jacket since at a buisness metting you woudl wear one, my point 2 would fall away, but that isnt the arguemnt he made. and it wasnt what I replied to
A quick google image search yields many results with those in the oval office on a regular basis sans jacket
As to your actual point, the point oen of convention it would be strange for a janitor to show up at work in a suit and tie. The convention in many areas is not to wear a jacket for shacharis this isnt disrespctful if it is the convention
“Who denounced all forms and instances of being in the spotlight?”
future Potus did: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/what-i-learned-from-the-turx-controversy#post-649136
As he was backing you up I inadvertently assumed you agreed with him.
I’m sorry I should’ve been more careful
question though is public criticism of A Democrat PResident also a Chilul Hashem? Or only when directed against a Republican (even if clearly misunderstood)
LU
“The Mishna Berurah states very clearly that the mishloach manos must contain two different types of food”
Where does he state that “very clearly”?
The Mechaber says “shtei Manos” ie two portions which presumably can be the same food I dont recall the M”B saying you need two different foods
Though there are Acharonim that do say this (Aruch Hashulchan I believe) and some poskim make the case that it is obvious that the two portions have to be different. BUt where does the M”B say this at all, let alone “Very clearly”?
thanks
As to your question:
“Do you think that the liberal policies’ of letting in all these so-called refugees is going to have more terror in France or less?!?”
“ALL these So-called refugees”?
Probably more. why do you ask, are you starting a new thread?
On this thread we were discussing Trump’s refusal to condemn terrorism when doesnt fit with his xenophobic worldview. To which you explained in a very Conwayesque manner that that was a “terrorist act not Terrorism” what does letting in refugees have to do with the subject at hand
Also look up “straw-man”
Dearest Dearest Health
Have I mentioned how you are may favorite poster?
“Things like this didn’t happen, when France was more Conservative!”
then few hours later:
“It didn’t matter which party was in charge!”
I find your blatant disregard for the truth amusing. you make a obviously false statement are exposed as not telling the truth and instead of hiding in shame or thanking for being corrected you attack those who take the item to explain things to you.
sound like any one you know? I’ll give you a hint he is Orange and is very sensitive about his hands
“a Yid being a member of the WH press corps, assigned to question the POTUS, is what I find particularly problematic. I don’t see a problem for a Yid to work in the White House for the President”
Kudos to yo ufor laying out your double standards for all to see. Asking a question (Especialy an easy one) doesnt raise any negative spotlights I have not heard a single source (other than on YWN!!!) questioning the right of the JEwish reporter to dare question the President. Being a key advisor to the president is far more “in the spotlight”
LU
” I don’t think the Gedolei Hador would disagree with him.”
This simply isnt factual (in a general sense). Gedolim often argue on the Mishna Berurua.
As for this specific example. There are Respectable ways of arguing with a Gadol of the stature of The CC. R’ Moshe does just that by mitigating the CC stament as alluded too by DY. While not blatantly arguing, he doesnt really add something that the CC didnt know and yet says the CC’ rule “He said that in circumstance X, the result will certainly (he uses the word “b’vadai”) be Y. Since X happened, Y must be true.” Doesnt always apply because Z.
“Things like this didn’t happen, when France was more Conservative!”
Lol. You need to brush up on your French History. Terrorism in France was much worse in thr 70’s and 80’s. now granted in the 80’s the socialist Mitterand was PResident. But guess what Party Pompidou and Destang were from?
And of course there were a few bombings int eh 90’s under Chirac
“grill him”
you are really streching. He lobbed an easy low ball question About anti-semitism.
“”Mr. President, how have you been able to accomplish so much good in so little time?”
and if Trump had replied “How dare you accuse me of not being able to accomplish a lot, of course I could the most qualified person ot ever be elected by the largest electoral and popular margins in histroy, typical media asking trick questions…”
That too would have been a chilul Hashem
And if He didnt ask a question and Trump said “look at the Jew who wont ask a question”
that too would have been a chilul Hashem
etc etc
Joseph
“He probably shouldn’t have been there asking questions. “
I asked you this earlier, you replied “no, being quiet wouldn’t result in a c”H in such a case”
do you really not think the idea that Jews shouldnt ask questions at all, even easy “non-antagonistic” has the possibility of causing chilul Hashem as well
If word got out I can see the headline:
JEWISH REPORTERS REFUSE to TAKE PART in PRESS CONFERENCE
# do they respect the president?
# What are they hiding?
Arguably this would cause a bigger chillul Hashem than a reporter clearly being misunderstood by a President who is known to not be playing with a full deck
Joseph
“That means sometimes you’ll have to wait *longer* than 6 hours (based on 60 minutes).”
Yes, one of the noseh keilim points this out (I forget off hand bais meir? Yad Efraim? Chavos Daas?) though the Pri Chadash focuses on the winter when wait would be shorter.
Again though, as mentioned this isnt the mainstream view.
yehudayona
the Pri Chadash says it is Shaos Zemaniyos, though this is certainly not the mainstream view
Joseph (and DY)
So the only solution would be to avoid asking questions or being near him.
Or as Joseph says “should avoid being in front of him on the expressway if that might unreasonably antagonise him.”
but doesnt that run the risk of causing chillul Hashem too? If he finds out that Jews are afriad to aks him even an easy question or to be in fron of him on an expressway as we fear eh might act “unreasonably”?
“Its vice versa Turx national c hillul Hashem not talking in shul”
That makes even less sense. How is a reporter being clearly misunderstood a national chillul Hashem?
“there is a basic difference between acting inappropriately during davening and what Turx did. One is a Chillul Hashem on a national level, and one isn’t.”
How is acting inappropriatly during davening a Chillul Hashem on a national level?
golfer
“Even taking that into consideration though, as we humans observe the universe with our eyes or telescopes from here on earth, that makes the earth the center of the universe to us. The universe is vast, and from our perspective we are at the center,”
you dont need to observe the universe to reach that mistaken conclusion. A person is always the center of what he can observe. Right now wherever you are you can see equally in all directions aropund you (if you remove walls and furniture in your way) That doesnt make you the center of the universe.
“Very good! You’re starting to get it!”
no no please dont accuse me of getting it.
Im am just making sure I understand you correctly. But I certainly dont get it! This distinction like most of your postings exist only in your head and are not grounded in reality as most of us see it.
This is why I find our discussions so fascinating and enlightening
(and it is why you are a fan of The Donald (is that respectful enough?))
“I believe certain families have always had this custom of not eating outside their own home, with limited exceptions of certain people they do trust.”
Im not sure what you mean by “Always” There is a halacha of eid echad neeman beyisurin there is no asterisk that not everybody has this minhag. BTW, Almost By definition all customs didint always exist but rather developed over time.
” This is not exactly a new phenomenon,”
Depending on how you define “new” Im fairly certain it is. I would absolutely love if you can provide reference to such a hanhaga more than a century or 2 ago.
See Syag’s accurate comment.
” and I don’t think there’s been a real increase in the numbers that follow this chumra.”
On this I know for certain you are mistaken as I know people who have adopted this “minhag”
LU
you correctly point out changes that led tio this shift. both of which I mentioend as well.
However this is the case for All of the shifts.
For example Zionism, I assume you view that as a change. however it can (and is) easily be argued that it is a change due to shifts in the world that allowed for it.
Or as you put it (And I whole heartedly agree)
So it’s not necessarily about the ideology being different but about the situation being different. The same ideology calls for different responses to different situations.
This is true for every change that takes place including mass kollel, maintaing a certain levush, Zionism etc
Which is why it is silly to say charedisim is the “default” and all other streams are changes.
A fantastic example of change that has occured is this thread:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/home-baked-cookies-in-mm
historically if someone was frum you ate their food. Period. now people have developed all sorts of policies and guidelines not to eat outside their house (one poster wrote even water!).
now there may be many possible reason for this shift. whether it is due to a decline in standards, a proliferation of modern technologies that raise many halachic issues that some may rule differently, or a way to show how frum the person is is completely beside the point.
The point is Yidishkeit as practiced today by any segment, is quite different than practiced years ago. This is but another (admittedly minor) example.
Again and I cant stress this enough, the reasons may not be bad reasons. Their certainly are many who might be lax in their kashrus and this new geder of not trusting anyone’s kashrus isnt necessarily a bad innovation. But an innovation it is.
“I believe Ben and Jerry’s non-dairy ice cream is DE so you can’t eat it with a fleishig meal.”
who eats ice cream with a fleishig meal?
If in fact it is DE and there is no dairy it can be eaten AFTER fleishigs (not with) which is when most people eat ice cream anyway
Helth
“most like his agenda!”
Lol you dont get it. what does your “liking his agenda” have to do with my respecting him?
“I did respond to that – I said it wasn’t terrorism, but a terrorist act. Just like he doesn’t respond to homicides everyday in this country!”
But this isnt a dail occurance in Canada. As you acknowledged.
But let me see if I get this straight
Terrorism anywhere – Yhe Us President should handle
Terrorist acts – only in America is it his job
Is that about right?
Health, you said
“But with your obsession to putting down our president…”
I will tell you why I oppose Trump (and his vehement supporters) so much
Note: Not you, as you know I am quite fond of you. our conversations have been quite eye opening for me.
I will elaborate with an example from Bret Stephens ( A conservative) who said the following recently at a Daniel PEarl memorial lecture:
“Consider this recent exchange [Trump]
To which the president replies:
We are not a nation of logicians.
… The president is responding to a claim of fact not by denying the fact, but by denying the claim that facts are supposed to have on an argument.
This is my problem with Trump. Differences of opinion are critical to a democracy. Many dictatrorships have “elections” but with one candidate to choose from these are meaningless. While on most points I side with Democrats there are many many issues I side with Republicans. and that is healthy. Changing power every few years is a sign of a healthy democracy. Disagreement is good.
However in order to have a difference of opinion we need to agree on baseline facts.
for example there is a problem of mass shootings in the US. now soem feel more gun restrictions will help some feel arming more citizens will help. fine that is healthy. but if one where to argue that we have a lower mass shooting rate than other countries the discussion cant even begin.
Trump ran (and won!) a campaign based on blatant falshoods. starting with his early claim of Mexico sending rapists and murderers etc… If we cant agree that that isnt true how can we ever solve anything.
(While Hillary was no honest abe, the foundations of here campaign weren’t lies)
Until Trump starts telling the truth it is critical to call him out, not to be numbed by his blatant disregard.
As Stephens says in that same speech
for the record Trump did denounce antisemitism today.
Health
People have to earn respect. Calling Trump a “third grader” is insulting to third graders. If I had a third grader who treated people the way Trump does I would smack him upside the head (not literally, but thats beside the point). that he tricked millions to vote for him doesnt change that one bit.
“Our president is responsible for American lives, not Canadian lives!”
I responded to that point already of course you ignored it as you always do and as Trump does when pointed out over and over how wrong almost everything he says is)
Here is a reminder. YOU criticised Obama that he “couldn’t handle all the terrorism that occurred here and abroad!”
IT seems earlier you viewed the job of President as handling Terrorism that occurs abroad. And I dont disagree. With Great power comes great responsibility.
for the record Trump did denounce antisemitism today.
Health
People have to earn respect. Calling Trump a “third grader” is insulting to third graders. If I had a third grader who treated people the way Trump does I would smack him upside the head (not literally, but thats beside the point). that he tricked millions to vote for him doesnt change that one bit.
“Our president is responsible for American lives, not Canadian lives!”
I responded to that point already of course you ignored it as you always do and as Trump does when pointed out over and over how wrong almost everything he says is)
Here is a reminder. YOU criticised Obama that he “couldn’t handle all the terrorism that occurred here and abroad!”
IT seems earlier you viewed the job of President as handling Terrorism that occurs abroad. And I dont disagree. With Great power comes great responsibility.
“But with your obsession to putting down our president…”
I will tell you why I dislike Trump (and his vehement supporters) so much
Note: Not you, I am quite fond of you. our conversations have been quite eye opening for me and further help me understand the mindset of Trump and his supporters
I will elaborate with an example from Bret Stephens ( A conservative) who said the following recently at a Daniel PEarl memorial lecture:
“Consider this recent exchange [Trump]
To which the president replies:
We are not a nation of logicians.
… The president is responding to a claim of fact not by denying the fact, but by denying the claim that facts are supposed to have on an argument.
This is my problem with Trump. Differences of opinion are critical to a democracy. Many dictatrorships have “elections” but with one candidate to choose from these are meaningless. While on most points I side with Democrats there are many many issues I side with Republicans. and that is healthy. Changing power every few years is a sign of a healthy democracy. Disagreement is good.
However in order to have a difference of opinion we need to agree on baseline facts.
for example there is a problem of mass shootings in the US. now soem feel more gun restrictions will help some feel arming more citizens will help. fine that is healthy. but if one where to argue that we have a lower mass shooting rate than other countries the discussion cant even begin.
Trump ran (and won!) a campaign based on blatant falshoods. starting with his early claim of Mexico sending rapists and murderers etc… If we cant agree that that isnt true how can we ever solve anything.
(While Hillary was no honest abe, the foundations of here campaign weren’t lies)
Until Trump starts telling the truth it is critical to call him out, not to be numbed by his blatant disregard.
As Stephens says in that same speech
“Maybe he should name all the victims of homicide in Chicago EVERYDAY”
To you that is the same as denouncing a terror attack?
Lol NC
“In summary: you should wear a hat and jacket for davening.”
This discussion isnt about that at all. But I accept your summary
So tomorrow should I wear my hat on top of my tallis or under it? Or instead of Atifa with the tallis?
Joseph
“His popularity among the frum is a direct result of the alternative having been Clinton.”
I thought so but I am no longer so sure. Hillary is gone oiver batel she is no longer running and is unlikely to run again.
So why are so many still fully enamored by Trump. Im not saying they have to villify everything he does. But I see many almost worshiping him.
Look at the recent incident with the reporter. By any objective measure Trump was wrong. He misunderstood the question and cut the reporter off before he can finish. (Of course the question could have been phrased better but any English speaker could have deciphered the question)
Yet look at the comments: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/ywn-videos/526481/watch-this-trump-slams-frum-reporter-turx-in-press-conference-calls-his-question-insulting.html so many people criticize the questioner!
” result of his enemies being worse than he is.” Who are his emnemies? The Truth?
see no good in conservative people like President Trump.”
more lies. First of all Trump isnt a conservative.
Second of all I do see some good, for example his pick of niki Haley for UN
“Btw, he doesn’t comment on things that are obviously bad!”
Wanna bet?…
“Maybe he should name all the victims of homicide in Chicago everyday?!?”
Lol he HAS commented on Chicago homicide! I guess it isnt “obviously bad”
“but McCain is definitely liberal!” Mcain is liberal and Trump is conservative? What definition are you using?
BTW read Bret Stephens recent speech regarding Trump OR is he a liberal too?
“because it has become the norm to dress less respectably, you will realize that it is proper wear a hat and especially a jacket for davening.”
While your point might be half true. There are times where people do dress respectably, such as state dinner or something like that where black ties tuxedos are worn. In those instances hats are not worn though they may have been once upon a time.
“The normal way to wear a jacket when wearing tefillin is to have one arm out; there is nothing ridiculous about it.”
that is pretty much what I have been trying to say. when davening our garb is quite different than when in front of a president. We have our own standard of dress for davening that we consider bekavadik including a hat, tefillin and halaf a jacket without a tie. None of these are how we would appear in front of a President. I didnt mean this as an arguemnt NOT to wear ajacket just that the argument to wear a jacket becasue thats what would be worn in front of a president ” is in fact a ridiculous argument.”