Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The Sephardim are heavily attending the old time Flatbush Yeshivos (Mir, Chaim Berlin, etc.)
The Sephardic community is growing in Flatbush.
Shmuel Skaist?
Why are you assuming being vaccinated stops propagation by those vaccinated? We’ve been hearing from the busy bodies that you gotta still social distance and mask after being vaccinated since we’re unsure vaccinating stops propagation.
Meir: What you’re relaying regarding the young couples and families from Flatbush moving to Lakewood seems to be correct. Interestingly, over the last few years it is also starting to occur with Boro Park, but to a lesser degree. The Yeshivos there are still growing but at a smaller pace.
Has this situation improved or worsened over the last decade?
AAQ: I think we already have such places. There are Yeshivos today located away from the metropolitas, in areas distant from major Jewish communities.
AAQ: It didn’t fail; it lasted quite a number of decades.
Nor was it realistically expected to last forever.
Lakewhut, in your OP you posited that flatbush is becoming less in-town since so much of the old Flatbush crowd moved to Lakewood. Now in your follow up post you’re positing that Lakewood isn’t in town. That begs the question, if Flatbush and Lakewood aren’t it, what is?
In town generally refers to New York City (all boroughs), Monsey and Lakewood, along with their immediate nearby’s.
Why should we care about a fight between the ICC and the zionists. That said, you make a good point about midda k’neged midda with this comparison.
A fair argument doesn’t require making someone look bad. In the Beis Medrash we also disprove other’s arguments to their face without it being considered bad form or shaming.
He was what in America would be described as left-wing Modern Orthodox. He had to reprint one of his books after taking out a problematic passage that earned him very strong criticism by leading Orthodox rabbis for being incompatible with Torah Judaism.
And Madeleine Albright had two Jewish parents who brought up her up as a Christian.
Many Jewish surnames are shared with German surnames.
Bottom line: The airlines have no effective way of banning specific persons. They can send the person a certified letter saying he’s no longer welcome. But they don’t have enough information to stop him from flying with them again if he buys a new ticket using a different home address and a different credit card number or method of payment.
No one answered the OP’s question.
Charlie, are you on the record as having stated that you will reserve judgement on the sexual harassment allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, Roy Moore and President Trump until the investigations are complete? Or do you reserve such hypocrisy only for allegations against Democrats?
CY: Avi Weiss is also referred to by his adherents as a highly regarded Orthodox TC and posek.
Reb Eliezer: Incorrect. The Republicans do not support stopping welfare, food stamps, medicaid, WIC, HEAP, Section 8, etc. The NEVER advocated discontinuing them. And, in fact, the vote every year to fund them in their proposed budgets.
Yseribus: The Democrats oppose repealing the Second Amendment. So your point is pointless.
DY: There are certain positions that if a candidate supports that would disqualify him from people voting for him regardless how good he is on all other issues. For example, if a candidate supported legalizing murder (of living people) even if supported fully funding Yeshivos and supported every other cause important to the Jewish community, it would be wrong for anyone to support him. Especially if in his elected position he could have any influence on effecting that terrible position he advocates into public policy.
Legalizing murder is an extreme example. But who is to say that support of abortion or public support of toeiva aren’t disqualifiers as well.
Charlie, if he’d accurately call himself Mr. Avi Weiss and stick to defending Jews in the political arena and stay out of the religious arena, virtually no one would find fault or criticize him.
The biggest internal antisemism is by left-wing Jews against Jews more to their right
Of course this is openly visible by those like the Reform/Conservative against the Orthodox. But it’s also true, even if less visible, among certain left-wing Yarmulka donning who call themselves Orthodox but attack those they deem extremely “too frum”.
You might consider these victims the Jews’ Jews. P
Like father, like son.
Charlie, explain the difference, if any, between Eric Yoffie and Avi Weiss.
AAQ: I personally support vaccinating. I have not asked a shaila. I haven’t yet vaccinated. My rabbonim have not taken a public position on vaccinating. But I’ve heard bona fide Gedolim, who everyone agrees are Gedolei Yisroel (as well as bona fide regular rabbonim and poskim), on both sides of the vaccination issue.
And I think my situation is very common.
GHD: I’m all for vaccines, but don’t pretend that Gedolei Yisroel are unanimous on this. You have Gedolim on both sides.
ENS: YCT and OO are bona fide apikorsum, in the same way Reform and Conservative are bona fide apikorsum. It is a befeirush mitzvah to mock them.
DY: How was he transparent this time? Did Fauci say take whatever vaccine is available since that is good for society even though it may not necessarily be best for you?
Is it proper to recommend what is best for public policy even if it may be bad advice for different individuals?
Where did I ever say he never said anything offensive? You must have confused me with someone else. Frankly, I doubt there’s one in a million people alive who never said something offensive in 30 years.
As far as Sandra Fluke, everything Rush said about her was on target and well deserved. She was publicly advocating for free contraceptives to unmarried college students, whining that 40% of them can’t afford it. Here’s a little tip Sandra: offer the practice of abstinence for unmarried folks rather than publicly promoting immorality via governmental support of premarital relations.
And, again, if someone apologized for something you should be proud rather than faulting them and using their apology itself as proof of wrongness. I don’t recall you being angry at Barack Obama for what he offensively said about, and later apologized to, the Cambridge Police Department and Sergeant Crowley. Or about Obama’s apology for having lied when he claimed everyone will be able to keep their current health insurance plan after Obamacare would be passed, which turned out to be false.
ubiq: “I said no such thing.”
You certainly have said exactly that. To quote your own factually incorrect words: “Yet rush described those who want equal rights for women as “nazis” (almost) daily.” That hasn’t happened even once. And I’ll point out again — if he had said that “almost daily”, as you claimed, for 30+ years you should be able to point to a source very easily — in fact many sources over the 30+ years — of a direct verbatim quote or recording. Yet despite multiple requests you cannot produce even a single direct source.
And the fact that to prove he had made offensive comments in 30+ years of a daily show you had to resort to an apologized for incident from literally over a quarter of a century ago, with the Clinton family, further demonstrates how rare (not to mention how tame) it was.
ubiquitin: Your comment is further amplification and demonstration of exactly what I pointed out in my previous comment about people haven’t regularly listened to him trying to explain what he said based on third hand reports from the extremely biased and antagonistic mainstream media. How often have you listened to a good portion of his show? He isn’t and never was a bigot. Any reports otherwise are from the left, whether from the MSM or other organs of the left, falsely reporting or entirely misinterpreting him.
You write that he referred to Chelsea Clinton as the White House dog. Okay, that seems like an offensive comment. And you write that he apologized for it. 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? Have you never apologized? You ought to be lauding him for apologizing, not criticizing him for an error he apologized for. And, for the record, such mistakes by him were relatively quite rare. Additionally, referring to the president’s daughter as the White House dog is hardly the biggest aveira out there.
Now as far as your own demonstration of absolutely incorrectly describing Rush’s comments. You brought up the term feminazi. As Midwesterner nicely pointed out, do you even know how or in what sense he used that? 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.) No, Rush never described those who want equal rights for women as “nazis” or any 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 for all and anyone who wanted it at anytime during pregnancy, and who furthermore encouraged as many abortions as possible. Supporting and encouraging killing millions and millions of innocent unborn children is at least arguably, for some fair-minded folks, considered to be nazi-like. He didn’t even apply that term to general supporters of abortion. Yet that fallacy you expressed that he used the term feminazi in lieu of the term feminist is another one (of many) of the falsehoods commonly attributed to Mr. Limbaugh.
As a side note, Rush was a strong supporter of Israel long before it was popular. He went to Israel in the early 1990s and received a personal tour of the country by Ariel Sharon, in addition to having a meeting with P.M. Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders. He was also a big supporter of Orthodox Jewish positions in the United States.
What anyone who spent any regular amount of time listening to Rush knows is that the left and the mainstream media and the comments above speaking ill regarding Mr. Limbaugh are from people who rarely (if ever) listened to him. All they know is third-hand claims about what he allegedly said. 99.8% of it is complete rubbish. (Note for the uninitiated: that percentage is a joke; but the point is not.)
Mr. Limbaugh, as his listeners well know, had a very good sense of humor. And he often used sarcasm to make his excellent points. And the nitwits who rarely listen to him, and don’t understand his humor, often and repeatedly took his sarcasm as being comments he said and meant literally. (They often did the same with President Trump.)
I can challenge anyone to produce a source (and not from his detractors) for any of the false claims made regarding what he said. (The man produced three hours of audio five days a week for over thirty years!; if he said it, surely there’s ample original source material to find and produce for us.) The vast majority of it will have absolutely no source; and the little that does will turn out to be from comments made not literally but rather Rush expressing a point humorously.
Apikorsum are rightfully cancelled.
Bill Buckley disagreed with you. He held highly of Mr. Limbaugh as an intellectual.
Che was likely an affirmative action hire.
A truly great American:
Reagan, Buckley and Limbaugh were the three giants of American conservatism.