Discussion:
Ted Cruz Refers to Israel's Fence
(too old to reply)
Yisroel Markov
2015-11-16 22:05:59 UTC
Permalink
In his immigration plan. To wit:

To regain control of our border, a Cruz Administration will:

Build a wall that works. The unsecured border with Mexico invites
illegal immigrants, criminals, and terrorists to tread on American
soil. Millions of people from all over the world, including from
hostile nations and terrorist havens, have been apprehended at our
southern border – and many who make it through are never caught. This
is a failure of the highest order. I will fulfill the promise Congress
made to the American people almost 10 years ago by completing all 700
miles of priority fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, and dedicate
the resources necessary to replace all single-layer fencing along the
U.S.-Mexico border to build a fence that keeps people out and that is
technology-supported and law enforcement-accessible. If other nations,
such as Israel, can build an effective border wall, the United States
certainly can.
https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan/

Somebody should point out to Cruz the differences between Israel-Egypt
border in the Sinai and the USA-Mexico border in California, Arizona,
New Mexico, and Texas.
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Shelly
2015-11-18 13:35:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yisroel Markov
Build a wall that works. The unsecured border with Mexico invites
illegal immigrants, criminals, and terrorists to tread on American
soil. Millions of people from all over the world, including from
hostile nations and terrorist havens, have been apprehended at our
southern border – and many who make it through are never caught. This
is a failure of the highest order. I will fulfill the promise Congress
made to the American people almost 10 years ago by completing all 700
miles of priority fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, and dedicate
the resources necessary to replace all single-layer fencing along the
U.S.-Mexico border to build a fence that keeps people out and that is
technology-supported and law enforcement-accessible. If other nations,
such as Israel, can build an effective border wall, the United States
certainly can.
https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan/
Somebody should point out to Cruz the differences between Israel-Egypt
border in the Sinai and the USA-Mexico border in California, Arizona,
New Mexico, and Texas.
Which are?
--
Shelly
Yisroel Markov
2015-11-19 14:39:05 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 13:35:00 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
Post by Shelly
Post by Yisroel Markov
Build a wall that works. The unsecured border with Mexico invites
illegal immigrants, criminals, and terrorists to tread on American
soil. Millions of people from all over the world, including from
hostile nations and terrorist havens, have been apprehended at our
southern border – and many who make it through are never caught. This
is a failure of the highest order. I will fulfill the promise Congress
made to the American people almost 10 years ago by completing all 700
miles of priority fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, and dedicate
the resources necessary to replace all single-layer fencing along the
U.S.-Mexico border to build a fence that keeps people out and that is
technology-supported and law enforcement-accessible. If other nations,
such as Israel, can build an effective border wall, the United States
certainly can.
https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan/
Somebody should point out to Cruz the differences between Israel-Egypt
border in the Sinai and the USA-Mexico border in California, Arizona,
New Mexico, and Texas.
Which are?
Sheer length, for one. Terrain - Israel's fence is almost 100% in the
desert. There are no staging areas and no supportive population on its
other side - it's Egyptians, which are seriously hostile to would-be
migrants, while there are places on the Mexican side of the border
housing major tunneling operations.
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
topazgalaxy
2015-11-20 14:12:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yisroel Markov
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 13:35:00 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
Post by Shelly
Post by Yisroel Markov
Build a wall that works. The unsecured border with Mexico invites
illegal immigrants, criminals, and terrorists to tread on American
soil. Millions of people from all over the world, including from
hostile nations and terrorist havens, have been apprehended at our
southern border - and many who make it through are never caught. This
is a failure of the highest order. I will fulfill the promise Congress
made to the American people almost 10 years ago by completing all 700
miles of priority fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, and dedicate
the resources necessary to replace all single-layer fencing along the
U.S.-Mexico border to build a fence that keeps people out and that is
technology-supported and law enforcement-accessible. If other nations,
such as Israel, can build an effective border wall, the United States
certainly can.
https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan/
Somebody should point out to Cruz the differences between Israel-Egypt
border in the Sinai and the USA-Mexico border in California, Arizona,
New Mexico, and Texas.
Which are?
Sheer length, for one. Terrain - Israel's fence is almost 100% in the
desert. There are no staging areas and no supportive population on its
other side - it's Egyptians, which are seriously hostile to would-be
migrants, while there are places on the Mexican side of the border
housing major tunneling operations.
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
In my opinion, in the USA, if we can send a man to the moon, if we can choose to spend 500 million dollars on building mosques in the middle East (yes, the USA has done that), if we as a nation can choose to allow 2 or 3 trillion dollars in corporate taxes to be lost as we allow USA corporations to move overseas for tax purposes, then yes, we could have the will to build a real wall/security boundary and use drones and other technology to keep our border safe.

But IMHO due to political reasons from both parties, we do not have the will or desire to do this which is really a tragedy because illegal immigration not only allows terrorists into our country but it is also hurting millions of Americans.
Herman Rubin
2015-11-20 19:28:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by topazgalaxy
Post by Yisroel Markov
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 13:35:00 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
Post by Shelly
Post by Yisroel Markov
Build a wall that works. The unsecured border with Mexico invites
illegal immigrants, criminals, and terrorists to tread on American
soil. Millions of people from all over the world, including from
hostile nations and terrorist havens, have been apprehended at our
southern border - and many who make it through are never caught. This
is a failure of the highest order. I will fulfill the promise Congress
made to the American people almost 10 years ago by completing all 700
miles of priority fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, and dedicate
the resources necessary to replace all single-layer fencing along the
U.S.-Mexico border to build a fence that keeps people out and that is
technology-supported and law enforcement-accessible. If other nations,
such as Israel, can build an effective border wall, the United States
certainly can.
https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan/
Somebody should point out to Cruz the differences between Israel-Egypt
border in the Sinai and the USA-Mexico border in California, Arizona,
New Mexico, and Texas.
Which are?
Sheer length, for one. Terrain - Israel's fence is almost 100% in the
desert. There are no staging areas and no supportive population on its
other side - it's Egyptians, which are seriously hostile to would-be
migrants, while there are places on the Mexican side of the border
housing major tunneling operations.
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
In my opinion, in the USA, if we can send a man to the moon, if
we can choose to spend 500 million dollars on building mosques in the
middle East (yes, the USA has done that), if we as a nation can choose
to allow 2 or 3 trillion dollars in corporate taxes to be lost as we
allow USA corporations to move overseas for tax purposes, then yes,
we could have the will to build a real wall/security boundary and use
drones and other technology to keep our border safe.
Post by topazgalaxy
But IMHO due to political reasons from both parties, we do not have
the will or desire to do this which is really a tragedy because illegal
immigration not only allows terrorists into our country but it is also
hurting millions of Americans.

It is not quite that easy. If the border were essentially unsettled,
one could, in principle, build a wall along it with only a few guarded
entry points; this would not, however, prevent tunnels under the wall,
or drones or small aircraft crossing it. But there are several cities
on the border, and there is even a national park on the north shore of
the Rio Grande, which is a large part of the border. The term "wetback"
was used for Mexican immigrants because of the possibility of crossing
the Rio Grande when it was shallow, much of the year. And most of the
drug traffic goes by boat on the coasts, of which the Coast Guard manages
to intercept about 30%/

Because of the Rio Grande part of the border, a wall can only be
built on the brder with New Mexico, Arizona, and California.. All of
these areas can be, and many have been, tunneled under already. And
walls can be breached.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
***@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Yisroel Markov
2015-11-23 15:05:37 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:12:00 +0000 (UTC), topazgalaxy
Post by topazgalaxy
Post by Yisroel Markov
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 13:35:00 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
Post by Shelly
Post by Yisroel Markov
Build a wall that works. The unsecured border with Mexico invites
illegal immigrants, criminals, and terrorists to tread on American
soil. Millions of people from all over the world, including from
hostile nations and terrorist havens, have been apprehended at our
southern border - and many who make it through are never caught. This
is a failure of the highest order. I will fulfill the promise Congress
made to the American people almost 10 years ago by completing all 700
miles of priority fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, and dedicate
the resources necessary to replace all single-layer fencing along the
U.S.-Mexico border to build a fence that keeps people out and that is
technology-supported and law enforcement-accessible. If other nations,
such as Israel, can build an effective border wall, the United States
certainly can.
https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan/
Somebody should point out to Cruz the differences between Israel-Egypt
border in the Sinai and the USA-Mexico border in California, Arizona,
New Mexico, and Texas.
Which are?
Sheer length, for one. Terrain - Israel's fence is almost 100% in the
desert. There are no staging areas and no supportive population on its
other side - it's Egyptians, which are seriously hostile to would-be
migrants, while there are places on the Mexican side of the border
housing major tunneling operations.
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
In my opinion, in the USA, if we can send a man to the moon, if we can choose to spend 500 million dollars on building mosques in the middle East (yes, the USA has done that), if we as a nation can choose to allow 2 or 3 trillion dollars in corporate taxes to be lost as we allow USA corporations to move overseas for tax purposes,
An astonishing and probably incorrect figure. The annual federal
budget had $3.2 trillion in revenue in 2015, and corporate taxes
supplied less than 10% of that, or $310 billion. (The average since
1974 has been 10.6%.) How do you figure a $2 trillion loss from a few
inversions?
Post by topazgalaxy
then yes, we could have the will to build a real wall/security boundary and use drones and other technology to keep our border safe.
Of course we can. We can also send a manned mission to Mars, or build
a bridge to Hawaii. The question is not whether we can, but whether
this is the best solution to the problem, and whether these
significant resources are better expended elsewhere. Plus there are
non-financial aspects to bad decisions - have you heard Trump say
yesterday that he's open to the idea of having Moslems register as
such with the government, as long as "we have effective management
procedures"?
Post by topazgalaxy
But IMHO due to political reasons from both parties, we do not have the will or desire to do this which is really a tragedy because illegal immigration not only allows terrorists into our country but it is also hurting millions of Americans.
It doesn't have to, but you're right - politically, a solution is
difficult, as it is with any problem that's not easy to analyze in
soundbites. Just like with those "2 or 3 trillion dollars in corporate
taxes to be lost as we allow USA corporations to move overseas for tax
purposes." It would've been more productive to address the question of
why a USA corporation would want to do that in the first place, and
now of all times, but do you see such an attempt in the media you
consume?
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
mm
2015-11-26 00:09:20 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:05:37 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
Post by Yisroel Markov
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:12:00 +0000 (UTC), topazgalaxy
Post by topazgalaxy
Post by Yisroel Markov
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 13:35:00 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
Post by Shelly
Post by Yisroel Markov
Build a wall that works. The unsecured border with Mexico invites
illegal immigrants, criminals, and terrorists to tread on American
soil. Millions of people from all over the world, including from
hostile nations and terrorist havens, have been apprehended at our
southern border - and many who make it through are never caught. This
is a failure of the highest order. I will fulfill the promise Congress
made to the American people almost 10 years ago by completing all 700
miles of priority fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, and dedicate
the resources necessary to replace all single-layer fencing along the
U.S.-Mexico border to build a fence that keeps people out and that is
technology-supported and law enforcement-accessible. If other nations,
such as Israel, can build an effective border wall, the United States
certainly can.
https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan/
Somebody should point out to Cruz the differences between Israel-Egypt
border in the Sinai and the USA-Mexico border in California, Arizona,
New Mexico, and Texas.
Which are?
Sheer length, for one. Terrain - Israel's fence is almost 100% in the
desert. There are no staging areas and no supportive population on its
other side - it's Egyptians, which are seriously hostile to would-be
migrants, while there are places on the Mexican side of the border
housing major tunneling operations.
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Not surprisingly, both Topaz and imo Yisroel are wrong and the truth
lies in the middle.
Post by Yisroel Markov
Post by topazgalaxy
In my opinion, in the USA, if we can send a man to the moon, if we can choose to spend 500 million dollars on building mosques in the middle East (yes, the USA has done that), if we as a nation can choose to allow 2 or 3 trillion dollars in corporate taxes to be lost as we allow USA corporations to move overseas for tax purposes,
An astonishing and probably incorrect figure. The annual federal
It is astonishing and incorrect. What she should have said is that
more than $2 trillion in profits have been kept overseas, so as not to
pay taxes on them, rather than that amount IN taxes.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-04/u-s-companies-are-stashing-2-1-trillion-overseas-to-avoid-taxes
Post by Yisroel Markov
budget had $3.2 trillion in revenue in 2015, and corporate taxes
supplied less than 10% of that, or $310 billion. (The average since
1974 has been 10.6%.) How do you figure a $2 trillion loss from a few
inversions?
But it's not just a "few" inversions to get to 2.1 trillion dollars in
profits untaxed. IMO, that makes your statement wrong too.
Post by Yisroel Markov
Post by topazgalaxy
then yes, we could have the will to build a real wall/security boundary and use drones and other technology to keep our border safe.
Of course we can. We can also send a manned mission to Mars, or build
a bridge to Hawaii. The question is not whether we can, but whether
this is the best solution to the problem, and whether these
significant resources are better expended elsewhere. Plus there are
non-financial aspects to bad decisions - have you heard Trump say
yesterday that he's open to the idea of having Moslems register as
such with the government, as long as "we have effective management
procedures"?
Your implication is correct.

And Trump's a banana. Or much worse. And he lies all the time.
He's an embarrassment to the country.
Post by Yisroel Markov
Post by topazgalaxy
But IMHO due to political reasons from both parties, we do not have the will or desire to do this which is really a tragedy because illegal immigration not only allows terrorists into our country but it is also hurting millions of Americans.
It doesn't have to, but you're right - politically, a solution is
difficult, as it is with any problem that's not easy to analyze in
soundbites. Just like with those "2 or 3 trillion dollars in corporate
taxes to be lost as we allow USA corporations to move overseas for tax
purposes." It would've been more productive to address the question of
why a USA corporation would want to do that in the first place, and
Because they dont' want to pay taxes.
Post by Yisroel Markov
now of all times, but do you see such an attempt in the media you
consume?
Yisroel Markov
2015-11-27 16:43:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by mm
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:05:37 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
Post by Yisroel Markov
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:12:00 +0000 (UTC), topazgalaxy
[snip]
Post by mm
Post by Yisroel Markov
Post by topazgalaxy
In my opinion, in the USA, if we can send a man to the moon, if we can choose to spend 500 million dollars on building mosques in the middle East (yes, the USA has done that), if we as a nation can choose to allow 2 or 3 trillion dollars in corporate taxes to be lost as we allow USA corporations to move overseas for tax purposes,
An astonishing and probably incorrect figure. The annual federal
It is astonishing and incorrect. What she should have said is that
more than $2 trillion in profits have been kept overseas, so as not to
pay taxes on them, rather than that amount IN taxes.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-04/u-s-companies-are-stashing-2-1-trillion-overseas-to-avoid-taxes
Post by Yisroel Markov
budget had $3.2 trillion in revenue in 2015, and corporate taxes
supplied less than 10% of that, or $310 billion. (The average since
1974 has been 10.6%.) How do you figure a $2 trillion loss from a few
inversions?
But it's not just a "few" inversions to get to 2.1 trillion dollars in
profits untaxed. IMO, that makes your statement wrong too.
Topaz said "2 or 3 trillion dollars in corporate taxes to be lost"
rather than "2 or 3 trillion dollars in corporate profits untaxed." I
responded to what she said, not what, IYO, she should've said. And
those profits were untaxed *before* the recent spike in inversions and
foreign acquisitions of US companies, so any new developments will
only add to that figure (which was built up before inversions), not
"get to" it. These two facts make your opinion incorrect.

And people, generally, never want to pay taxes, so that factor is a
weak answer to the "why now" question.

[snip]
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
mm
2015-12-27 20:50:51 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:43:14 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
Post by Yisroel Markov
Post by mm
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:05:37 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
Post by Yisroel Markov
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:12:00 +0000 (UTC), topazgalaxy
[snip]
Post by mm
Post by Yisroel Markov
Post by topazgalaxy
In my opinion, in the USA, if we can send a man to the moon, if we can choose to spend 500 million dollars on building mosques in the middle East (yes, the USA has done that), if we as a nation can choose to allow 2 or 3 trillion dollars in corporate taxes to be lost as we allow USA corporations to move overseas for tax purposes,
An astonishing and probably incorrect figure. The annual federal
It is astonishing and incorrect. What she should have said is that
more than $2 trillion in profits have been kept overseas, so as not to
pay taxes on them, rather than that amount IN taxes.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-04/u-s-companies-are-stashing-2-1-trillion-overseas-to-avoid-taxes
Post by Yisroel Markov
budget had $3.2 trillion in revenue in 2015, and corporate taxes
supplied less than 10% of that, or $310 billion. (The average since
1974 has been 10.6%.) How do you figure a $2 trillion loss from a few
inversions?
But it's not just a "few" inversions to get to 2.1 trillion dollars in
profits untaxed. IMO, that makes your statement wrong too.
Topaz said "2 or 3 trillion dollars in corporate taxes to be lost"
rather than "2 or 3 trillion dollars in corporate profits untaxed." I
responded to what she said, not what, IYO, she should've said.
You describe it with IYO as if it is just my opinon. Isn't it your
opinion and the only sensible opinion that it was not 2+ trillion
dollars of taxes lost but 2+trillion of income not taxed? It's
supported by articles I found on the web.

And if my opinion were wrong, and she were right -- and her words are
what you replied to -- then it's even more true that it takes more
than "a few" inversions to to get to 2.1 trillion dollars of taxes
lost, not just income not taxed. So yes, your statement was wrong,
either way.
Post by Yisroel Markov
And
those profits were untaxed *before* the recent spike in inversions and
foreign acquisitions of US companies, so any new developments will
only add to that figure (which was built up before inversions), not
So it's going to get even worse.
Post by Yisroel Markov
"get to" it. These two facts make your opinion incorrect.
No. Huh? That has nothing to do with making my opinion
incorrect. If you think it does, try to explain it, and you'll
probably see for yourself that I'm right. It's not just a "few"
inversions to get to 2.1 trillion dollars in profits untaxed. Using
the word "few" is sort of like saying that cop who shot the guy 16
times, just shot him a few times.

My opinion is correct. You surely dont' think Topaz was closer to
accurate than I, do you.
Post by Yisroel Markov
And people, generally, never want to pay taxes, so that factor is a
weak answer
You call it weak but it IS the answer.
Post by Yisroel Markov
to the "why now" question.
What has that got to do with it. I didnt' try to or pretend to answer
the "now" portion of your question. If you hadn't snipped that part
of my reply, that would have been obvious. I thought we were having
a reasonable discussion instead of just trying to appear to win.
Post by Yisroel Markov
Post by mm
Post by Yisroel Markov
It would've been more productive to address the question of
Post by topazgalaxy
why a USA corporation would want to do that in the first place, and
Because they dont' want to pay taxes.
Post by topazgalaxy
now of all times, but do you see such an attempt in the media you
consume?
Plainly, I ignored the part about "now". and ftr that's because I
don't know the answer. I might guess that some relevant law changed,
or that the new generation of managers has a different personality
from those who went before them, but those are guesses. What do you
think the reason is?
Post by Yisroel Markov
Post by mm
Post by Yisroel Markov
Post by topazgalaxy
but do you see such an attempt in the media you
consume?
I don't know what this means, but I'll ask you the same question.
Post by Yisroel Markov
[snip]
topazgalaxy
2015-11-30 21:34:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yisroel Markov
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:12:00 +0000 (UTC), topazgalaxy
Post by topazgalaxy
Post by Yisroel Markov
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 13:35:00 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
Post by Shelly
Post by Yisroel Markov
Build a wall that works. The unsecured border with Mexico invites
illegal immigrants, criminals, and terrorists to tread on American
soil. Millions of people from all over the world, including from
hostile nations and terrorist havens, have been apprehended at our
southern border - and many who make it through are never caught. This
is a failure of the highest order. I will fulfill the promise Congress
made to the American people almost 10 years ago by completing all 700
miles of priority fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, and dedicate
the resources necessary to replace all single-layer fencing along the
U.S.-Mexico border to build a fence that keeps people out and that is
technology-supported and law enforcement-accessible. If other nations,
such as Israel, can build an effective border wall, the United States
certainly can.
https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan/
Somebody should point out to Cruz the differences between Israel-Egypt
border in the Sinai and the USA-Mexico border in California, Arizona,
New Mexico, and Texas.
Which are?
Sheer length, for one. Terrain - Israel's fence is almost 100% in the
desert. There are no staging areas and no supportive population on its
other side - it's Egyptians, which are seriously hostile to would-be
migrants, while there are places on the Mexican side of the border
housing major tunneling operations.
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
In my opinion, in the USA, if we can send a man to the moon, if we can choose to spend 500 million dollars on building mosques in the middle East (yes, the USA has done that), if we as a nation can choose to allow 2 or 3 trillion dollars in corporate taxes to be lost as we allow USA corporations to move overseas for tax purposes,
An astonishing and probably incorrect figure. The annual federal
budget had $3.2 trillion in revenue in 2015, and corporate taxes
supplied less than 10% of that, or $310 billion. (The average since
1974 has been 10.6%.) How do you figure a $2 trillion loss from a few
inversions?
the very high figure I quoted I heard or read on a news story; apologies if I am wrong.
We still are losing alot in corporate taxes as big companies go overseas to avoid the USA taxes.
Post by Yisroel Markov
Post by topazgalaxy
then yes, we could have the will to build a real wall/security boundary and use drones and other technology to keep our border safe.
Of course we can. We can also send a manned mission to Mars, or build
a bridge to Hawaii. The question is not whether we can, but whether
this is the best solution to the problem, and whether these
significant resources are better expended elsewhere.
You have some good points. However, having totally porous borders has cost our country dearly IMO

Plus there are
Post by Yisroel Markov
non-financial aspects to bad decisions - have you heard Trump say
yesterday that he's open to the idea of having Moslems register as
such with the government, as long as "we have effective management
procedures"?
What can I say about The Donald?
He shoots his mouth off in all different directions with no censorship. Sometimes I do not think his ears know what his mouth is saying, like they are all separate or something.
Do we really want him as commander in chief? Not me.

I am not voting for him. That I can tell you.
Post by Yisroel Markov
Post by topazgalaxy
But IMHO due to political reasons from both parties, we do not have the will or desire to do this which is really a tragedy because illegal immigration not only allows terrorists into our country but it is also hurting millions of Americans.
It doesn't have to, but you're right - politically, a solution is
difficult, as it is with any problem that's not easy to analyze in
soundbites. Just like with those "2 or 3 trillion dollars in corporate
taxes to be lost as we allow USA corporations to move overseas for tax
purposes." It would've been more productive to address the question of
why a USA corporation would want to do that in the first place, and
now of all times, but do you see such an attempt in the media you
consume?
The media is reporting news in 10 second sound bites which often does not get to the heart of the matter.
For myself that is why I often watch the PBS News hour and similar programs to get the news and the background information in depth.
Post by Yisroel Markov
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Shelly
2015-12-01 13:12:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yisroel Markov
Plus there are
Post by Yisroel Markov
non-financial aspects to bad decisions - have you heard Trump say
yesterday that he's open to the idea of having Moslems register as
such with the government, as long as "we have effective management
procedures"?
Why no just have them wear yellow crescents on their outer clothing?
Post by Yisroel Markov
What can I say about The Donald?
He shoots his mouth off in all different directions with no censorship. Sometimes I do not think his ears know what his mouth is saying, like they are all separate or something.
Do we really want him as commander in chief? Not me.
I am not voting for him. That I can tell you.
I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat and all I can say is I am 100%
agreement with you here. I was for Trump before he opened his mouth and
all he has done since is put ten more feet into it since.
--
Shelly
topazgalaxy
2015-11-30 21:35:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yisroel Markov
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:12:00 +0000 (UTC), topazgalaxy
Post by topazgalaxy
Post by Yisroel Markov
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 13:35:00 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
Post by Shelly
Post by Yisroel Markov
Build a wall that works. The unsecured border with Mexico invites
illegal immigrants, criminals, and terrorists to tread on American
soil. Millions of people from all over the world, including from
hostile nations and terrorist havens, have been apprehended at our
southern border - and many who make it through are never caught. This
is a failure of the highest order. I will fulfill the promise Congress
made to the American people almost 10 years ago by completing all 700
miles of priority fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, and dedicate
the resources necessary to replace all single-layer fencing along the
U.S.-Mexico border to build a fence that keeps people out and that is
technology-supported and law enforcement-accessible. If other nations,
such as Israel, can build an effective border wall, the United States
certainly can.
https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan/
Somebody should point out to Cruz the differences between Israel-Egypt
border in the Sinai and the USA-Mexico border in California, Arizona,
New Mexico, and Texas.
Which are?
Sheer length, for one. Terrain - Israel's fence is almost 100% in the
desert. There are no staging areas and no supportive population on its
other side - it's Egyptians, which are seriously hostile to would-be
migrants, while there are places on the Mexican side of the border
housing major tunneling operations.
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
In my opinion, in the USA, if we can send a man to the moon, if we can choose to spend 500 million dollars on building mosques in the middle East (yes, the USA has done that), if we as a nation can choose to allow 2 or 3 trillion dollars in corporate taxes to be lost as we allow USA corporations to move overseas for tax purposes,
An astonishing and probably incorrect figure. The annual federal
budget had $3.2 trillion in revenue in 2015, and corporate taxes
supplied less than 10% of that, or $310 billion. (The average since
1974 has been 10.6%.) How do you figure a $2 trillion loss from a few
inversions?
Post by topazgalaxy
then yes, we could have the will to build a real wall/security boundary and use drones and other technology to keep our border safe.
Of course we can. We can also send a manned mission to Mars, or build
a bridge to Hawaii. The question is not whether we can, but whether
this is the best solution to the problem, and whether these
significant resources are better expended elsewhere. Plus there are
non-financial aspects to bad decisions - have you heard Trump say
yesterday that he's open to the idea of having Moslems register as
such with the government, as long as "we have effective management
procedures"?
SNIP FOR LENGTH

Regarding Trump and his statements, his statement about Muslims cheering in New Jersey when the Twin Towers were attacked is true. Now he exaggerated the amount IMO, but of course who sat and counted the cheering ones? But I remember the media/news that day and I saw the footage myself, there indeed were Muslims in Jersey City New Jersey cheering when the Towers were hit, and fell.

They were on video. I saw them and it was reported on a few stations.
And the Palestinians were cheering too and handing out candy.
And they did not care about their fellow Muslims who died when those towers fell.
Fred Goldstein
2015-12-01 05:19:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by topazgalaxy
...
Regarding Trump and his statements, his statement about Muslims
cheering in New Jersey when the Twin Towers were attacked is true.
Now he exaggerated the amount IMO, but of course who sat and counted
the cheering ones? But I remember the media/news that day and I saw
the footage myself, there indeed were Muslims in Jersey City New
Jersey cheering when the Towers were hit, and fell.
They were on video. I saw them and it was reported on a few stations.
And the Palestinians were cheering too and handing out candy.
And they did not care about their fellow Muslims who died when those towers fell.
NO, there weren't Muslims in Jersey City cheering. Trump admitted that
he only saw it on TV. There was a TV station in New Yor that misreported
the clip of Palestinians. A DailyKos diarist wrote,

"...there is a real explanation for him having seen this on TV. I live
in NY as well. One of the TV stations ran this footage on either
September 11 or 12 and, originally, claimed it took place in New Jersey
(if I remember correctly, they said Union City).

"Sometime later, the location of the footage was corrected.

"I remembered this footage because of the sheer callousness of the
people celebrating and, in particular, this one woman at the beginning
of the video. It always struck me how grotesque a display of joy this
one woman shows in the death of thousands in the states. Sure, I know
she grew up in occupied territory. I realize she sees the West as the
great evil. But to cheer the death of non-combatants? Well, I have no
words for that."

So while you may have seen it "reported", it didn't actually happen. At
least not in New Jersey, or anywhere else in the US. Trump is simply lying.
mm
2015-12-01 07:01:03 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 05:19:47 +0000 (UTC), Fred Goldstein
Post by Fred Goldstein
Post by topazgalaxy
...
Regarding Trump and his statements, his statement about Muslims
cheering in New Jersey when the Twin Towers were attacked is true.
Now he exaggerated the amount IMO, but of course who sat and counted
the cheering ones? But I remember the media/news that day and I saw
the footage myself, there indeed were Muslims in Jersey City New
Jersey cheering when the Towers were hit, and fell.
They were on video. I saw them and it was reported on a few stations.
And the Palestinians were cheering too and handing out candy.
And they did not care about their fellow Muslims who died when those towers fell.
NO, there weren't Muslims in Jersey City cheering. Trump admitted that
he only saw it on TV. There was a TV station in New Yor that misreported
the clip of Palestinians. A DailyKos diarist wrote,
"...there is a real explanation for him having seen this on TV. I live
in NY as well. One of the TV stations ran this footage on either
September 11 or 12 and, originally, claimed it took place in New Jersey
(if I remember correctly, they said Union City).
"Sometime later, the location of the footage was corrected.
"I remembered this footage because of the sheer callousness of the
people celebrating and, in particular, this one woman at the beginning
of the video. It always struck me how grotesque a display of joy this
one woman shows in the death of thousands in the states. Sure, I know
she grew up in occupied territory. I realize she sees the West as the
great evil. But to cheer the death of non-combatants? Well, I have no
words for that."
So while you may have seen it "reported", it didn't actually happen. At
least not in New Jersey, or anywhere else in the US. Trump is simply lying.
He lies all the time. He lies to the very people who support him.

He also has this strange idea that if there is a "tailgate style
party", that means there are thousands and thousands of people. That
4 people can't have such a party.

But think about it. You're at work in downtown Jersey City and
someone has a radio or heard about it on the way into work, so instead
of going to see what happened, you rush to get your car and some food
so you can have a party while you watch. People who were at home
would have stayed home to watch on tv, and I don't think there are
thousands of Muslims working in any one downtown area in Jersey,
including Jersey City. But now he says it's Patterson. You could
only see tthe top of the WTC from Patterson iirc, so if you went
outside, there was nothing to see.


And then there's the retweeting (or at least he says it's a REtweet)
that 85% of whites killed are killed by blacks, when it's realy 15%.
And he's interviewed about that and says, paraphrasing closely, I
just retweeted it. I don't know if it's true or not. I get thousands
of tweets, I can't check them all out. The interviewer, O'reilly,
the famous one, I gather is a buddy and he let's him get away with
this morally bankrupt answer.


And then there were the lies about the debate moderator and her
bleeding, Carly Fiorina and her appearance, and several others I've
already forgotten. But I'm sure those who work for the other Reps
and the Dems have been keeping a list.

It's an embarrassment just to have him running and even one person
supporting him.
mm
2015-12-01 07:33:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by mm
People who were at home
would have stayed home to watch on tv, and I don't think there are
thousands of Muslims working in any one downtown area in Jersey,
including Jersey City. But now he says it's Patterson. You could
only see tthe top of the WTC from Patterson iirc, so if you went
outside, there was nothing to see.
I've been gone to long. Downtown Historic Patterson is so
interesting. It was an "industrial park" one of whose investors was
Alexander Hamilton. It was restored 20 or 30 years ago and you can
see the original factories. Water is tapped off the Passaic above the
Great Falls, and a network of water channels runs through the historic
downtown that powered machinery and mills 230 years ago.

It was there Holland built one of the first submarines**, which he
planned to use to sail under British ships and drill holes in their
hulls to sink them.


I've been there twice. The waterfall alone is worth seeing, but yet I
forgot where Patterson was. It's not on the Hudson River. It's so
far inland that you can't see anything in NYC from there, except
maybe from the roof of a fairly tall building. So I don't doubt that
people of all sorts went to the roof to see what they could see. but
they didn't bring their cars, or food, other than the morning cup of
coffee and a doughnut. And from a helicopter, you coudln't tell
Muslims from anyone else.

http://www.nps.gov/pagr/planyourvisit/index.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Falls_%28Passaic_River%29
** 1874
Recent Irish emigre and Patterson, NJ, schoolteacher JOHN PHILLIP
HOLLAND submitted a submarine design to the Secretary of the Navy, who
passed the paperwork to a subordinate. No one would willingly go
underwater in such a craft, that officer suggested, and, even if the
idea had merit, he warned Holland, "to put anything through Washington
was uphill work."

Holland's first design: a 15.5 foot-long one man boat with a
foot-operated treadle to drive not only the propeller, but also to
control the one-cubic-foot ballast tank and discharge "used" air.
1878
HOLLAND found sponsorship with the Fenians, a group of Irish
revolutionaries, looking for a way to harass the British Navy. He
built a small prototype submarine, "Holland No. 1" to test out his
theories – including the use of a gasoline engine. The trial was
successful enough to encourage building a larger, more warlike, boat.
1881
HOLLAND launched the "Fenian Ram" – 31 feet long, armed with a ram bow
and an air-power cannon. Tests continued for two years, to depths of
sixty feet for as long as one hour. Surface and submerged speeds were
about the same, 9 knots.

However, the Fenians became increasingly frustrated with Holland's
delays, and, faced with some internal legal squabbles, stole their own
boat and hid it in a shed in New Haven, CT, where it remained for
thirty-five years. Holland had nothing more to do with the Fenians;
the boat was eventually donated to the city of Patterson, where it is
now on display in West Side Park.
1883
HOLLAND and several investors formed the Nautilus Submarine Boat
Company, hoping to sell a submarine to the French, then at war in
Indochina. The company prototype, dubbed the "Zalinski Boat" after one
of the investors, was launched in 1885. Too heavy for the launching
ways, the boat smashed into some pilings and was badly damaged.
Repaired, she made some token trial runs but the French war had ended
and the company went bankrupt.
mm
2015-12-02 05:10:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by mm
Post by Fred Goldstein
So while you may have seen it "reported", it didn't actually happen. At
least not in New Jersey, or anywhere else in the US. Trump is simply lying.
"Keep far from a false matter." Shemos 23:7 Trump said "I'm a
Presbyterian; I'm a Presbyterian", but he was sleeping in Sunday
school or they didn't cover this (or he didn't go). Or maybe they
think it only applies to Jews.

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor". Shemos
20:6 I know Presbyterians think this part of Exodus applies to
them, but it's ninth out of ten, and Don probably got sleepy by the
time they got to it. (sarcasm)

"There are six things that the Lord hates, and the seventh is an
abomination of His soul Haughty eyes, a lying tongue," Mishlei
6:16–17 I'm sure they like Proverbs a lot, but may not have a
formal schedule for learning them. Anyhow, I'm sure he has a reason
each time that what he says is an exception to the rule.

All can be found at:
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16377#showrashi=true
Post by mm
He lies all the time. He lies to the very people who support him.
More than 4 pages of examples, about 74 examples (82 but 8 are things
others said about him, although some of them contradict lies Trump
told), of things he said, though a few are judged true or mostly true
(but those are mostly criticisms of other candidates.)
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/
The variety of topics is amazing.

And even this page doesn't count everything. It only has one lie
related to Megyn Kelly, but I have no doubt that when he claimed she
was bleeding "wherever", it was a female reference and that when he
later said it referred to bleeding around the eyes, he was lying.
Carly Fiorina knew that too. Same story when he insulted her looks
and then lied about what he had been referring to. (also not listed)

And it doesn't list recent false tales either, like the false tweeting
about how many whites killed are killed by blacks or the thousands and
thousands of Muslims celebrating, and some before those two iirc.

He's had decades to practice this technique and when he does it, he
knows what he's doing. He knows that later he can always give a
different meaning to what he said from what he intended people to take
from it when he first said it.

He's done this so much, I doubt if he can stop if he tries. There are
other liars among Pres. candidates, but I wouldn't say that about any
of them.

BTW, "Pants on fire" is after my time, but somehow I learned about it.
Maybe it's not used everywhere English is, but it comes from the
rhyme, "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire."
mm
2015-12-02 06:48:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by mm
And it doesn't list recent false tales either, like the false tweeting
about how many whites killed are killed by blacks or the thousands and
thousands of Muslims celebrating, and some before those two iirc.
Another one that didn't make it is that Obama said the US should take
10,000 Syrians (over the next year, iirc), but he claims it's 200,000.
People tell him it's 10,000 but he says, roughly "No. I know people.
It's 200." He's lying.
mm
2015-12-02 14:17:19 UTC
Permalink
Another one that didn't make it [the list] is that Obama said the US should take
10,000 Syrians (over the next year, iirc), but he claims it's 200,000.
People tell him it's 10,000 but he says, roughly "No. I know people.
It's 200." He's lying.
Another one that didn't make the list is the occasion just a few days
ago that he ridiculed the physical problems, caused by a joint
disease, of Serge Kovaleski, a respected reporter with many years
experience, who contradicted Trump about Moslems in Jersey City. It
was his report in the NYTimes of the reports of others of alleged
celebrations of Moslems that was the only evidence that had happened,
and Trump claimed the news report supported him. But when Serge
Kovaleski contradicted him, Trump waved his arms wildly in an awkward
way, and said roughly "You have to see this guy". Later, when people
complained that he was ridiculing someone for his physical problems,
he said "I never saw him." Conceivably true**, but if true, someone
told him about his physical problem. Why would Trump have said "You
have to see him" if Trump didn't know he looked unusual.

**But NBC news had an interview with a woman who said the two met
years ago and talked to each other. So that is the lie. Ridicule
is another problem. Then Trump said he deserved an apology!

http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/29/media/donald-trump-new-york-times-serge-kovaleski/
"In an interview with The Times on Thursday, Mr. Kovaleski said he and
Mr. Trump “were on a first-name basis for years.”

“I’ve interviewed him in his office,” he said. “I’ve talked to him at
press conferences. All in all, I would say around a dozen times, I’ve
interacted with him as a reporter while I was at the Daily News.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/27/donald-trump-nyt-reporter-serge-kovaleski-should-s/

And then he had some woman from the audience months ago come up on the
stage to see if he was wearing a toupee or not. She didn't look
closely, didn't even touch his hair, and said or motioned that it was
his real hair. If she really cared, she would have closer and longer.
As she was leaving, he said approx. "I never met you, [right?]" Well
of course not. Someone who works for him hired her.


Also about 2.5 years ago, an 83-year old woman in Chicago, with a
Jewish name, sued him for dealings about the apartment she bought, I
think it was, and she said he lied on the witness stand during the
trial.
mm
2015-12-14 14:21:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by mm
Another one that didn't make it [the list] is that Obama said the US should take
10,000 Syrians (over the next year, iirc), but he claims it's 200,000.
People tell him it's 10,000 but he says, roughly "No. I know people.
It's 200." He's lying.
Another one that didn't make the list is the occasion just a few days
ago that he ridiculed the physical problems, caused by a joint
disease, of Serge Kovaleski, a respected reporter with many years
experience, who contradicted Trump about Moslems in Jersey City. It
was his report in the NYTimes of the reports of others of alleged
celebrations of Moslems that was the only evidence that had happened,
and Trump claimed the news report supported him. But when Serge
Kovaleski contradicted him, Trump waved his arms wildly in an awkward
way, and said roughly "You have to see this guy". Later, when people
complained that he was ridiculing someone for his physical problems,
he said "I never saw him." Conceivably true**, but if true, someone
told him about his physical problem. Why would Trump have said "You
have to see him" if Trump didn't know he looked unusual.
**But NBC news had an interview with a woman who said the two met
years ago and talked to each other. So that is the lie. Ridicule
is another problem. Then Trump said he deserved an apology!
http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/29/media/donald-trump-new-york-times-serge-kovaleski/
"In an interview with The Times on Thursday, Mr. Kovaleski said he and
Mr. Trump “were on a first-name basis for years.”
“I’ve interviewed him in his office,” he said. “I’ve talked to him at
press conferences. All in all, I would say around a dozen times, I’ve
interacted with him as a reporter while I was at the Daily News.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/27/donald-trump-nyt-reporter-serge-kovaleski-should-s/
And then he had some woman from the audience months ago come up on the
stage to see if he was wearing a toupee or not. She didn't look
closely, didn't even touch his hair, and said or motioned that it was
his real hair. If she really cared, she would have closer and longer.
As she was leaving, he said approx. "I never met you, [right?]" Well
of course not. Someone who works for him hired her.
Also about 2.5 years ago, an 83-year old woman in Chicago, with a
Jewish name, sued him for dealings about the apartment she bought, I
think it was, and she said he lied on the witness stand during the
trial.
And this one I just saw referred to in a column, but had never heard
directly mentioned.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/25/trump-s-lies-slander-civil-war-dead.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12015350/Donald-Trumps-river-of-blood-golf-course-claim-is-disputed-by-historians.html
topazgalaxy
2015-12-01 14:26:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Goldstein
Post by topazgalaxy
...
Regarding Trump and his statements, his statement about Muslims
cheering in New Jersey when the Twin Towers were attacked is true.
Now he exaggerated the amount IMO, but of course who sat and counted
the cheering ones? But I remember the media/news that day and I saw
the footage myself, there indeed were Muslims in Jersey City New
Jersey cheering when the Towers were hit, and fell.
They were on video. I saw them and it was reported on a few stations.
And the Palestinians were cheering too and handing out candy.
And they did not care about their fellow Muslims who died when those towers fell.
NO, there weren't Muslims in Jersey City cheering. Trump admitted that
he only saw it on TV. There was a TV station in New Yor that misreported
the clip of Palestinians. A DailyKos diarist wrote,
I respectfully disagree with you. I saw the TV clip myself and heard the reporter, yes, on TV and it was not just one TV station. I am convinced that some Muslims (not all, not necessarily "thousands" as Trump said, but some) were cheering in New Jersey when the towers were hit. And there are reports on the internet of people who were driving in their cars in New Jersey and while they were driving the towers fell and they saw live Muslims cheering on the streets of New Jersey when the towers fell.

Could some news reports have confused the Palestinians with Muslims in New Jersey? Sure. Maybe that is what you saw. But I know what TV clips I saw too.
And we will never know how many celebrated in their living rooms or bedrooms behind closed doors. And I believe I saw the clip with the happy Palestinian woman and I knew that was not New Jersey and it was not reported that way

And we will never know how many thought what Al Quaida did was terrible and wrong.

But the truth is, yes, some Muslims in New Jersey did celebrate.
Post by Fred Goldstein
"...there is a real explanation for him having seen this on TV. I live
in NY as well. One of the TV stations ran this footage on either
September 11 or 12 and, originally, claimed it took place in New Jersey
(if I remember correctly, they said Union City).
"Sometime later, the location of the footage was corrected.
"I remembered this footage because of the sheer callousness of the
people celebrating and, in particular, this one woman at the beginning
of the video. It always struck me how grotesque a display of joy this
one woman shows in the death of thousands in the states. Sure, I know
she grew up in occupied territory. I realize she sees the West as the
great evil. But to cheer the death of non-combatants? Well, I have no
words for that."
So while you may have seen it "reported", it didn't actually happen. At
least not in New Jersey, or anywhere else in the US. Trump is simply lying.
I think Trump is exaggerating when he says "thousands", but no , he is not lying. Not on this point anyway.

The truth is we will never know how many Muslims celebrated (behind closed doors) or were outraged when those towers were attacked...
Shelly
2015-12-01 14:26:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by topazgalaxy
Regarding Trump and his statements, his statement about Muslims cheering in New Jersey when the Twin Towers were attacked is true. Now he exaggerated the amount IMO, but of course who sat and counted the cheering ones? But I remember the media/news that day and I saw the footage myself, there indeed were Muslims in Jersey City New Jersey cheering when the Towers were hit, and fell.
They were on video. I saw them and it was reported on a few stations.
And the Palestinians were cheering too and handing out candy.
And they did not care about their fellow Muslims who died when those towers fell.
First of all the videos were of Palestinians dancing in the streets and
cheering, not N.J. residents. But, just for the sake of argument, let's
say there were some [small] gatherings in N.J. of Muslims cheering. You
miss the point. What Trump is doing there is selecting the antics of a
few to paint a broad picture of millions of others who share nothing
with them other than being Muslim. It is no different, in my opinion,
than the tactics that Hitler used to turn the population against the
Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and even Catholics. It is reprehensible --
and the sadder story is that about 15% (1/2 of 31%) of Americans are
eating it up.

Note that this is coming from someone who supported Trump before he
began his litany of bigotry.
--
Shelly
topazgalaxy
2015-12-01 17:43:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
Regarding Trump and his statements, his statement about Muslims cheering in New Jersey when the Twin Towers were attacked is true. Now he exaggerated the amount IMO, but of course who sat and counted the cheering ones? But I remember the media/news that day and I saw the footage myself, there indeed were Muslims in Jersey City New Jersey cheering when the Towers were hit, and fell.
They were on video. I saw them and it was reported on a few stations.
And the Palestinians were cheering too and handing out candy.
And they did not care about their fellow Muslims who died when those towers fell.
First of all the videos were of Palestinians dancing in the streets and
cheering, not N.J. residents. But, just for the sake of argument, let's
say there were some [small] gatherings in N.J. of Muslims cheering. You
miss the point. What Trump is doing there is selecting the antics of a
few to paint a broad picture of millions of others who share nothing
with them other than being Muslim. It is no different, in my opinion,
than the tactics that Hitler used to turn the population against the
Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and even Catholics. It is reprehensible --
and the sadder story is that about 15% (1/2 of 31%) of Americans are
eating it up.
Note that this is coming from someone who supported Trump before he
began his litany of bigotry.
--
Shelly
I agree with the majority of your post; where we disagree is whether or not any Muslims were cheering in New Jersey when the towers fell.

His exaggeration was that "thousands" of Muslims were cheering in Jersey, well, I totally disagree with him.

As I have said earlier, he shoots his mouth off in all directions.

Our current Commander in Chief certainly is more self controlled with his speech, however, Obama has his own way of dividing the country too. Just not as bombastic as Trump.
We are certainly living in challenging times.
Shelly
2015-12-02 01:59:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by topazgalaxy
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
Regarding Trump and his statements, his statement about Muslims cheering in New Jersey when the Twin Towers were attacked is true. Now he exaggerated the amount IMO, but of course who sat and counted the cheering ones? But I remember the media/news that day and I saw the footage myself, there indeed were Muslims in Jersey City New Jersey cheering when the Towers were hit, and fell.
They were on video. I saw them and it was reported on a few stations.
And the Palestinians were cheering too and handing out candy.
And they did not care about their fellow Muslims who died when those towers fell.
First of all the videos were of Palestinians dancing in the streets and
cheering, not N.J. residents. But, just for the sake of argument, let's
say there were some [small] gatherings in N.J. of Muslims cheering. You
miss the point. What Trump is doing there is selecting the antics of a
few to paint a broad picture of millions of others who share nothing
with them other than being Muslim. It is no different, in my opinion,
than the tactics that Hitler used to turn the population against the
Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and even Catholics. It is reprehensible --
and the sadder story is that about 15% (1/2 of 31%) of Americans are
eating it up.
Note that this is coming from someone who supported Trump before he
began his litany of bigotry.
--
Shelly
I agree with the majority of your post; where we disagree is whether or not any Muslims were cheering in New Jersey when the towers fell.
Read again what I wrote. Please then point to where I said "not any
Muslims were cheering in New Jersey". We have no way of knowing whether
that is true or false. What I said was "all the videos were of
Palestinians dancing in the streets", and I stand by that statement.
Post by topazgalaxy
His exaggeration was that "thousands" of Muslims were cheering in Jersey, well, I totally disagree with him.
As I have said earlier, he shoots his mouth off in all directions.
Our current Commander in Chief certainly is more self controlled with his speech, however, Obama has his own way of dividing the country too. Just not as bombastic as Trump.
We are certainly living in challenging times.
Given the choice between an inept president (like Carter) or a president
who resembles Hitler in his bigotry and slander tactics (the Big Lie),
I'll take ineptitude every time and twice on Sunday.
--
Shelly
topazgalaxy
2015-12-02 05:11:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
Regarding Trump and his statements, his statement about Muslims cheering in New Jersey when the Twin Towers were attacked is true. Now he exaggerated the amount IMO, but of course who sat and counted the cheering ones? But I remember the media/news that day and I saw the footage myself, there indeed were Muslims in Jersey City New Jersey cheering when the Towers were hit, and fell.
They were on video. I saw them and it was reported on a few stations.
And the Palestinians were cheering too and handing out candy.
And they did not care about their fellow Muslims who died when those towers fell.
First of all the videos were of Palestinians dancing in the streets and
cheering, not N.J. residents. But, just for the sake of argument, let's
say there were some [small] gatherings in N.J. of Muslims cheering. You
miss the point. What Trump is doing there is selecting the antics of a
few to paint a broad picture of millions of others who share nothing
with them other than being Muslim. It is no different, in my opinion,
than the tactics that Hitler used to turn the population against the
Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and even Catholics. It is reprehensible --
and the sadder story is that about 15% (1/2 of 31%) of Americans are
eating it up.
Note that this is coming from someone who supported Trump before he
began his litany of bigotry.
--
Shelly
I agree with the majority of your post; where we disagree is whether or not any Muslims were cheering in New Jersey when the towers fell.
Read again what I wrote. Please then point to where I said "not any
Muslims were cheering in New Jersey". We have no way of knowing whether
that is true or false. What I said was "all the videos were of
Palestinians dancing in the streets", and I stand by that statement.
Post by topazgalaxy
His exaggeration was that "thousands" of Muslims were cheering in Jersey, well, I totally disagree with him.
As I have said earlier, he shoots his mouth off in all directions.
Our current Commander in Chief certainly is more self controlled with his speech, however, Obama has his own way of dividing the country too. Just not as bombastic as Trump.
We are certainly living in challenging times.
Given the choice between an inept president (like Carter) or a president
who resembles Hitler in his bigotry and slander tactics (the Big Lie),
I'll take ineptitude every time and twice on Sunday.
--
Shelly
Well, I believe that most of the videos were of Palestinians dancing in the streets, but I have read eye witness accounts (not reporters) who saw Muslims celebrating in Jersey. And I saw videos of both -- Muslims in Jersey and the Pals celebrating. We may not have seen the exact same videos.

Regarding the Presidents, I agree with the principle of your last sentence
however we can debate for a long time if Obama is "inept" or intentionally dividing the country. Obama's bigotry may just be more subtle than Trump; I would rather have a candidate for office show me (before he is elected) what a jerk he is so I can be more informed and not vote for him. So I am glad Trump is doing just that. I wish Obama had done that so more Americans could have seen what he really stands for.

Personally, since Obama is a Harvard educated lawyer, I think he is "dumb like a fox." (no not Fox news) And I think in certain respects he is very biased. My opinion.
Shelly
2015-12-02 14:17:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by topazgalaxy
Well, I believe that most of the videos were of Palestinians dancing in the streets, but I have read eye witness accounts (not reporters) who saw Muslims celebrating in Jersey. And I saw videos of both -- Muslims in Jersey and the Pals celebrating. We may not have seen the exact same videos.
Do you
(a) have links to those "eye-witness" accounts? I would love to have
their reliability assessed. Also, is "witnesses" short for two or does
it mean hundreds?
(b) have links to those videos that "you saw" that were not discredited
ones (with later retractions as to not being in NL)?
Post by topazgalaxy
Regarding the Presidents, I agree with the principle of your last sentence
however we can debate for a long time if Obama is "inept" or intentionally dividing the country.
Hmm. What is your basis for saying he is INTENTIONALLY dividing the
country? The same could have been said of (to name a few) Lincoln, FDR,
and LBJ. I'll wait for your answer here and not speculate. BTW, I think
he is a very bad president.
Post by topazgalaxy
Obama's bigotry may just be more subtle than Trump;
The way you state it, you assume as a given that he is a bigot, subtle
or not. I don't accept supposed axiom at all. I, for one, think that he
has a vision which simply doesn't and cannot work. He tries too hard to
negotiate (foreign policy), and comes of as a weakling. The opposition
takes advantage of that weakness. That is ineptitude, not bigotry.
Post by topazgalaxy
I would rather have a candidate for office show me (before he is elected) what a jerk he is so I can be more informed and not vote for him.
I would rather have neither. Also, I am not so sure about that. I
ABSOLUTELY do NOT want a hate-mongering demagogue stirring up the
populace that can lead to some, unfortunately, not so unimaginable things.
Post by topazgalaxy
So I am glad Trump is doing just that. I wish Obama had done that so more Americans could have seen what he really stands for.
Again, what ITO does he "really stand for"? AISI it is where all
Americans have access to health care, are not homeless, and that there
is peace in the world. Those are lofty goals, AISI. His methods, though,
of getting from A to Z leave a lot to be desired.
Post by topazgalaxy
Personally, since Obama is a Harvard educated lawyer, I think he is "dumb like a fox." (no not Fox news)
And I think in certain respects he is very biased. My opinion.
....and you, of course, are not.
--
Shelly
topazgalaxy
2015-12-03 15:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
Well, I believe that most of the videos were of Palestinians dancing in the streets, but I have read eye witness accounts (not reporters) who saw Muslims celebrating in Jersey. And I saw videos of both -- Muslims in Jersey and the Pals celebrating. We may not have seen the exact same videos.
Do you
(a) have links to those "eye-witness" accounts? I would love to have
their reliability assessed. Also, is "witnesses" short for two or does
it mean hundreds?
Yes there are links, and again, I am not saying THOUSANDS of Muslims celebrated, but some did. You can look up the reports yourself. As far as "reliability", well, I believe the accounts. Why is that so difficult? Why does the "news" have to be so black or white? I think the believe that NO Muslims celebrated is ridiculous too.

We will never know how many witnesses saw Muslims celebrating in New Jersey.
We will never know how many Muslims were upset when the towers fell.
My opinion is that there were some Muslims who celebrated and there are some reports on the internet of witnesses. ?Hundreds of witnesses? I do not know.
Post by Shelly
(b) have links to those videos that "you saw" that were not discredited
ones (with later retractions as to not being in NL)?
https://twitter.com/chuckerino/status/668463672801427457

I do not have a twitter account, but just a few people saying "I lived in Jersey and I saw it with my own eyes" is enough for me.
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
Regarding the Presidents, I agree with the principle of your last sentence
however we can debate for a long time if Obama is "inept" or intentionally dividing the country.
Hmm. What is your basis for saying he is INTENTIONALLY dividing the
country?
His policies on the police and race I believe are very divisive. And I do not think he is that stupid or incompetent.
I remember the incident years ago when he was a new President and a black college professor was arrested in his own home in Cambridge by a white police officer.
Obama made a comment very quickly, before he had all the evidence of what had happened, that this is representative of black persons oppression by the police.So his leanings or bias became evident. It is foolish for a Harvard Law professor -- a lawyer-- to jump to conclusions before all the evidence is in. A lawyer should know better. I am not convinced it was all an innocent mistake ie what Obama said.
A female black police officer was later interviewed on TV and asked about the POTUS' comments and she felt that Obama was very wrong and was biased against the police.
When all the facts were uncovered, as I recall, the President was just wrong and then they had that famous beer summmit.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Louis_Gates_arrest_controversy


Of course that was early in his leadership and we have other incidents now; at least he is waiting now for more facts to come in but his decisions, like telling a meeting of police chiefs in Chicago that we need to have the police go out in ice cream trucks and give out ice cream to drug dealers to make a difference in the community, well, what can I say? Even Rahm Emmanuel his former chief of staff and now mayor of Chicago criticized Obama's policies regarding the police because Chicago is seeing a spike in homicides and crime.

See article in Investor's Business Daily October 29th 2015
"Pushing More of What is behind a Spike in Crime" ( I cannot get it on the internet)
I think Obama is biased against the police. My opinion. By his policies/statements towards law enforcemnt I think he is dividing the country.

I found another Op Ed-- last year the spike in cop killings was atrocious.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/051215-752237-obama-presides-over-89-percent-spike-in-cop-killings.htm

=============================================================================

In one of his books (Dreams from My Father, or the Audacity of Hope..I am not sure which book), Obama described in his book that he had only one job in private industry and he stated "I felt like I was working behind enemy lines."
He said that.
To me, that kind of statement,combined with his health care law and other statements indicate to me that for whatever reason he is biased against the self employed and businesses. Why the heck should anyone describe a private industry job as his being behind enemy lines?

You can call it incompetence if you want to, but I think it goes deeper than that. My opinion.

Then we can look at his health care law and without rehashing our numerous debates, one of the main things the law did was benefit the demographic of voters who typically vote Democratic and punish the demographic of voter who typically vote Republican. I know that the POTUS did not write the law himself however, the way that law divided the country among "winners" and "losers" , along racial and voting lines, well, I do not believe Obama is all that innocent. Sorry. He is to smart for that. He would have to claim ignorance and I do not accept that; especially after he told the whole country 'we make this promise to the American people, if you like your health insurance , you can keep your health insurance...." etc etc.

That law created winners and losers for sure; I see this in my travels and discussions with various people. I do not believe it was an accident on the part of the President. He is too smart for it to be an accident. And he kept pushing the lie of you can keep your insurance all the way until the re election period.
That law has divided the country. People who are self employed, small businesses (the enemy in private industry per Obama) lost.





The same could have been said of (to name a few) Lincoln, FDR,
Post by Shelly
and LBJ. I'll wait for your answer here and not speculate. BTW, I think
he is a very bad president.
Post by topazgalaxy
Obama's bigotry may just be more subtle than Trump;
The way you state it, you assume as a given that he is a bigot, subtle
or not. I don't accept supposed axiom at all. I, for one, think that he
has a vision which simply doesn't and cannot work. He tries too hard to
negotiate (foreign policy), and comes of as a weakling. The opposition
takes advantage of that weakness. That is ineptitude, not bigotry.
We both can agree he is inept. But I feel (as I wrote above) not totally inept in all areas, and very willing to "weaken" some Americans so others get a benefit.
That to me shows bias/favoritism
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
I would rather have a candidate for office show me (before he is elected) what a jerk he is so I can be more informed and not vote for him.
I would rather have neither. Also, I am not so sure about that. I
ABSOLUTELY do NOT want a hate-mongering demagogue stirring up the
populace that can lead to some, unfortunately, not so unimaginable things.
Post by topazgalaxy
So I am glad Trump is doing just that. I wish Obama had done that so more Americans could have seen what he really stands for.
Again, what ITO does he "really stand for"? AISI it is where all
Americans have access to health care, are not homeless, and that there
is peace in the world. Those are lofty goals, AISI. His methods, though,
of getting from A to Z leave a lot to be desired.
I do not understand all of your abbrieviations...?ITO?
AISI??
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
Personally, since Obama is a Harvard educated lawyer, I think he is "dumb like a fox." (no not Fox news)
And I think in certain respects he is very biased. My opinion.
....and you, of course, are not.
I have strong opinions on certain subjects. Are you totally unbiased and without opinions?

Nevertheless, neither one of us are President. At least we can hopefully agree on that. My only resemblance to a candidate right now is my cankles.
Shelly
2015-12-04 02:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by topazgalaxy
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
Well, I believe that most of the videos were of Palestinians dancing in the streets, but I have read eye witness accounts (not reporters) who saw Muslims celebrating in Jersey. And I saw videos of both -- Muslims in Jersey and the Pals celebrating. We may not have seen the exact same videos.
Do you
(a) have links to those "eye-witness" accounts? I would love to have
their reliability assessed. Also, is "witnesses" short for two or does
it mean hundreds?
Yes there are links, and again, I am not saying THOUSANDS of Muslims celebrated, but some did. You can look up the reports yourself. As far as "reliability", well, I believe the accounts. Why is that so difficult? Why does the "news" have to be so black or white? I think the believe that NO Muslims celebrated is ridiculous too.
Ok, what are the the links. You say they are there, so produce them. I
asked whether witnesses meant two or HUNDREDS. I never said THOUSANDS.
Post by topazgalaxy
We will never know how many witnesses saw Muslims celebrating in New Jersey.
We will never know how many Muslims were upset when the towers fell.
My opinion is that there were some Muslims who celebrated and there are some reports on the internet of witnesses. ?Hundreds of witnesses? I do not know.
I am sure there were SOME Muslims that were happy about it. I am as sure
of that as I am that there have Muslim terroist attacks in the US.
However, the description of "dancing in the streets in N.J." I find,
well, rather far-fetched.
Post by topazgalaxy
Post by Shelly
(b) have links to those videos that "you saw" that were not discredited
ones (with later retractions as to not being in NL)?
https://twitter.com/chuckerino/status/668463672801427457
THIS is your reference link? WhooBoy! Get real.
Post by topazgalaxy
I do not have a twitter account, but just a few people saying "I lived in Jersey and I saw it with my own eyes" is enough for me.
Of course it is -- for YOU. Hey topaz, did you know that I saw the top
of the Empire State Building sway 50 feet to side before coming back to
straight up during a hurricane when I lived there. I can get a few more
people to say the same thing as we were in a group at the time. Of
course you will believe me because "just a few people that were there
saw it with their own eyes" and that is enough for you. Can you say
"confirmation bias".
Post by topazgalaxy
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
Regarding the Presidents, I agree with the principle of your last sentence
however we can debate for a long time if Obama is "inept" or intentionally dividing the country.
Hmm. What is your basis for saying he is INTENTIONALLY dividing the
country?
His policies on the police and race I believe are very divisive. And I do not think he is that stupid or incompetent.
Which policies, specifically? How are they very divisive?
Post by topazgalaxy
I remember the incident years ago when he was a new President and a black college professor was arrested in his own home in Cambridge by a white police officer.
Obama made a comment very quickly, before he had all the evidence of what had happened, that this is representative of black persons oppression by the police.So his leanings or bias became evident. It is foolish for a Harvard Law professor -- a lawyer-- to jump to conclusions before all the evidence is in. A lawyer should know better. I am not convinced it was all an innocent mistake ie what Obama said.
Was is indicative or was he wrong? How do you know he didn't have the
evidence?
Post by topazgalaxy
A female black police officer was later interviewed on TV and asked about the POTUS' comments and she felt that Obama was very wrong and was biased against the police.
A police officer (of whatever color) said he was biased against police
officers. Hmmmmm.
Post by topazgalaxy
When all the facts were uncovered, as I recall, the President was just wrong and then they had that famous beer summmit.
So famous I don't know what you are talking about.
Post by topazgalaxy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Louis_Gates_arrest_controversy
Of course that was early in his leadership and we have other incidents now; at least he is waiting now for more facts to come in but his decisions, like telling a meeting of police chiefs in Chicago that we need to have the police go out in ice cream trucks and give out ice cream to drug dealers to make a difference in the community, well, what can I say? Even Rahm Emmanuel his former chief of staff and now mayor of Chicago criticized Obama's policies regarding the police because Chicago is seeing a spike in homicides and crime.
....and even assuming what you say is 100% accurate (which I doubt),
please explain how he is intentionally dividing this country.
Post by topazgalaxy
See article in Investor's Business Daily October 29th 2015
"Pushing More of What is behind a Spike in Crime" ( I cannot get it on the internet)
I think Obama is biased against the police. My opinion. By his policies/statements towards law enforcemnt I think he is dividing the country.
Determination bias.
Post by topazgalaxy
I found another Op Ed-- last year the spike in cop killings was atrocious.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/051215-752237-obama-presides-over-89-percent-spike-in-cop-killings.htm
=============================================================================
In one of his books (Dreams from My Father, or the Audacity of Hope..I am not sure which book), Obama described in his book that he had only one job in private industry and he stated "I felt like I was working behind enemy lines."
Context! Right now "I feel like I am writing behind enemy lines". Context!
Post by topazgalaxy
He said that.
To me, that kind of statement,combined with his health care law and other statements indicate to me that for whatever reason he is biased against the self employed and businesses. Why the heck should anyone describe a private industry job as his being behind enemy lines?
Ahhh. Now we come back to it -- Obamacare (formerly known as Romneycare
as it was modeled after the one in Massachusetts). Was it divisive?
Absolutely. Was a move to get everyone covered essential? Also,
absolutely. From three months before his inauguration the Republicans
has one and only one goal -- do anything they could to make him a one
term president, even if it crippled the country. They did that with
EVERY bill, so nothing has been done for seven years. Then they complain
that "he didn't consult with them". Phooey.

BTW, there is a minimum size at which company sponsored health care is
mandatory - in case you were unaware.
Post by topazgalaxy
You can call it incompetence if you want to, but I think it goes deeper than that. My opinion.
Determination bias.
Post by topazgalaxy
Then we can look at his health care law and without rehashing our numerous debates, one of the main things the law did was benefit the demographic of voters who typically vote Democratic and punish the demographic of voter who typically vote Republican.
You mean if favored the under-employed and unemployed more that the
employed? Oh the unemployment rate of blacks is much higher and the
poorer people tend to be more Democratic than Republican? Golly gee.
What a surprise.
Post by topazgalaxy
I know that the POTUS did not write the law himself however, the way that law divided the country among "winners" and "losers" , along racial and voting lines, well, I do not believe Obama is all that innocent. Sorry. He is to smart for that. He would have to claim ignorance and I do not accept that; especially after he told the whole country 'we make this promise to the American people, if you like your health insurance , you can keep your health insurance...." etc etc.
Yada, yada, yada.
Post by topazgalaxy
That law created winners and losers for sure; I see this in my travels and discussions with various people. I do not believe it was an accident on the part of the President. He is too smart for it to be an accident. And he kept pushing the lie of you can keep your insurance all the way until the re election period.
That law has divided the country. People who are self employed, small businesses (the enemy in private industry per Obama) lost.
....and the Republicans countered with a better law. Oh, wait, that was
not even on their agenda. Their only agenda was to block ANYTHING Obama
put forward.
Post by topazgalaxy
The same could have been said of (to name a few) Lincoln, FDR,
Post by Shelly
and LBJ. I'll wait for your answer here and not speculate. BTW, I think
he is a very bad president.
Post by topazgalaxy
Obama's bigotry may just be more subtle than Trump;
The way you state it, you assume as a given that he is a bigot, subtle
or not. I don't accept supposed axiom at all. I, for one, think that he
has a vision which simply doesn't and cannot work. He tries too hard to
negotiate (foreign policy), and comes of as a weakling. The opposition
takes advantage of that weakness. That is ineptitude, not bigotry.
We both can agree he is inept. But I feel (as I wrote above) not totally inept in all areas, and very willing to "weaken" some Americans so others get a benefit.
That to me shows bias/favoritism
....and we call that real politics. Of course, his opponents do none of
that and never even heard of "pork barrel" and "you wash my hand and I
wash yours". They are too pure for that. OK, I see.
Post by topazgalaxy
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
I would rather have a candidate for office show me (before he is elected) what a jerk he is so I can be more informed and not vote for him.
I would rather have neither. Also, I am not so sure about that. I
ABSOLUTELY do NOT want a hate-mongering demagogue stirring up the
populace that can lead to some, unfortunately, not so unimaginable things.
Post by topazgalaxy
So I am glad Trump is doing just that. I wish Obama had done that so more Americans could have seen what he really stands for.
Again, what ITO does he "really stand for"? AISI it is where all
Americans have access to health care, are not homeless, and that there
is peace in the world. Those are lofty goals, AISI. His methods, though,
of getting from A to Z leave a lot to be desired.
I do not understand all of your abbrieviations...?ITO?
AISI??
ITO was a typo. It should have been IYO, which stands for "In Your
Opinion", a standard abbreviation.
AISI is a standard one meaning "As I See It".
Post by topazgalaxy
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
Personally, since Obama is a Harvard educated lawyer, I think he is "dumb like a fox." (no not Fox news)
And I think in certain respects he is very biased. My opinion.
....and you, of course, are not.
I have strong opinions on certain subjects. Are you totally unbiased and without opinions?
Absolutely not. I have strong biases and opinions. However, I recognize
what they are and try my best to be objective.

Here is a classic example for me. I am strongly pro-choice. I believe
that this the woman's (and lesser so the man's) prerogative until the
fetus is viable if removed from the woman. I am strongly biased and
opinionated there. However, I am objective enough to recognize that the
other side strongly believes that life begins at conception (as opposed
to viability) and so for them it really is murder. That is what is
called trying to be objective, while still having biases and being
opinionated on the subject. I don't see that from you w.r.t. Obama or
Islam (not Muslims).
Post by topazgalaxy
Nevertheless, neither one of us are President. At least we can hopefully agree on that. My only resemblance to a candidate right now is my cankles.
Cankles???????
--
Shelly
Fred Goldstein
2015-12-04 03:53:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shelly
I am sure there were SOME Muslims that were happy about it. I am as sure
of that as I am that there have Muslim terroist attacks in the US.
However, the description of "dancing in the streets in N.J." I find,
well, rather far-fetched.
Indeed. Maybe four guys smiling about it in a house, but that's a whole
lot different from the claimed THOUSANDS on the streets of Jersey City,
a lie often repeated by The Donald. Which was just a TV station's
mislabeling a clip from Palestine.
...
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
I remember the incident years ago when he was a new President and a
black college professor was arrested in his own home in Cambridge by
a white police officer.
Obama made a comment very quickly, before he had all the evidence of
what had happened, that this is representative of black persons
oppression by the police.So his leanings or bias became evident. It
is foolish for a Harvard Law professor -- a lawyer-- to jump to
conclusions before all the evidence is in. A lawyer should know
better. I am not convinced it was all an innocent mistake ie what
Obama said.
Was is indicative or was he wrong? How do you know he didn't have the
evidence?
Obama wasn't wrong. The case was widely publicized here in Boston. The
Harvard professor (Gates) was walking into his own (Harvard-owned
faculty rental, not owned) house and the police treated him like a
burglar after a white neighbor phoned in a false burglary complaint.
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
A female black police officer was later interviewed on TV and asked
about the POTUS' comments and she felt that Obama was very wrong and
was biased against the police.
A police officer (of whatever color) said he was biased against police
officers. Hmmmmm.
But he was not biased against police; he was responding to a false arrest.
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
When all the facts were uncovered, as I recall, the President was just
wrong and then they had that famous beer summmit.
So famous I don't know what you are talking about.
I do recall the Beer Summit. It did happen.
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Louis_Gates_arrest_controversy
Of course that was early in his leadership and we have other
incidents now; at least he is waiting now for more facts to come in
but his decisions, like telling a meeting of police chiefs in
Chicago that we need to have the police go out in ice cream trucks
and give out ice cream to drug dealers to make a difference in the
community, well, what can I say? Even Rahm Emmanuel his former chief
of staff and now mayor of Chicago criticized Obama's policies
regarding the police because Chicago is seeing a spike in homicides
and crime.
....and even assuming what you say is 100% accurate (which I doubt),
please explain how he is intentionally dividing this country.
As we just found out this week, Rahmbo helped cover up a murder by a
Chicago cop until after the election. The cop is now finally under
indictment. Crime is up, I'd suggest, because the cops do not want to
work with the law-abiding members of the community; many of them view
the populace as the enemy. This doesn't work very well. At least not to
prevent crime.
mm
2015-12-04 06:03:57 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 03:53:38 +0000 (UTC), Fred Goldstein
Post by Fred Goldstein
As we just found out this week, Rahmbo helped cover up a murder by a
We didn't find that out at all. Shame on you.

(And shame on you for resorting to the childish game of modifying his
name.)

Do you think any mayor watches the video of every cop shooting, or
any of them for that matter? No, they don't. If the cops say it was
self-defense, people below the mayor assume it was and they tell the
mayor.

That you don't believe him, that you think he did see it or knew what
it showed, is no excuse for saying as if it were fact that we found
something out. Shame on you.
Post by Fred Goldstein
Chicago cop until after the election. The cop is now finally under
indictment. Crime is up, I'd suggest, because the cops do not want to
work with the law-abiding members of the community; many of them view
the populace as the enemy. This doesn't work very well. At least not to
prevent crime.
Fred Goldstein
2015-12-06 04:23:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by mm
On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 03:53:38 +0000 (UTC), Fred Goldstein
Post by Fred Goldstein
As we just found out this week, Rahmbo helped cover up a murder by a
...
Do you think any mayor watches the video of every cop shooting, or
any of them for that matter? No, they don't. If the cops say it was
self-defense, people below the mayor assume it was and they tell the
mayor.
That you don't believe him, that you think he did see it or knew what
it showed, is no excuse for saying as if it were fact that we found
something out. Shame on you.
No, the shame is on Emanuel for covering up a murder. John Kass in the
Chicago Tribune wrote,
Post by mm
If he had released that video before this year's election, he would
not have won a second term.
If the public had seen Officer Jason Van Dyke pumping 16 shots into
McDonald, most of them while the 17-year-old was on the ground, here's
what would have happened.
Chicago's black political and religious leaders on the South and West
sides would have been unable to campaign for the mayor. A white cop
shooting a black teenager? They'd have abandoned him.
And without black votes, Rahm Emanuel might be having lunch with
Axelrod and Patrick, but not at City Hall.
The "he" on top refers to the mayor himself; Kass' point is that he did
in fact know about it, and helped the police cover it up during the
election. This was not just another one of the 50 or so police shootings
a year in Chicago, this was a particularly serious case, and reached the
mayor quickly.
mm
2015-12-06 05:37:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 04:23:28 +0000 (UTC), Fred Goldstein
Post by Fred Goldstein
Post by mm
On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 03:53:38 +0000 (UTC), Fred Goldstein
Post by Fred Goldstein
As we just found out this week, Rahmbo helped cover up a murder by a
...
Why did you leave the sentence above but snip my most important
Post by Fred Goldstein
Post by mm
We didn't find that out at all.
There were only 4 lines that you snipped. You should have kept them
all.
Post by Fred Goldstein
Post by mm
Do you think any mayor watches the video of every cop shooting, or
any of them for that matter? No, they don't. If the cops say it was
self-defense, people below the mayor assume it was and they tell the
mayor.
That you don't believe him, that you think he did see it or knew what
it showed, is no excuse for saying as if it were fact that we found
something out. Shame on you.
No, the shame is on Emanuel for covering up a murder.
You don't know that he knew it was a murder. You just think so.

If you want to contradict the people who make up or repeat lies on the
other side, you'd better not do the same thing yourself, because you
lose all your credibiliity, and you hurt the arguments of those who
agree with you on those other issues.
Post by Fred Goldstein
John Kass in the
A columnist! You cite a columnist? What good is the opinion of a
columnist when it comes to knowing what the truth is? How would Kass
know? Is he a bosom buddy of the mayor? Did he have the mayor over
for a meal and drug him so he "confessed"? If you had cited the
mayor's mother or wife, who said he confided in her, who might know
the truth, that might be worth something.

Why don't you cite Rush Limbaugh? He is just as much a psychic as is
John Kass.
Post by Fred Goldstein
Chicago Tribune wrote,
Post by mm
If he had released that video before this year's election, he would
not have won a second term.
This and the rest of your quote here mean nothing. They discuss what
would happen if he had released the video. They say nothing about
whether he knew what was in the video.

Though he may have known, you don't know that and that's what makes
your stating it as a fact in your previous post a shameful display of
your disregard for the truth.
Post by Fred Goldstein
Post by mm
If the public had seen Officer Jason Van Dyke pumping 16 shots into
McDonald, most of them while the 17-year-old was on the ground, here's
what would have happened.
Chicago's black political and religious leaders on the South and West
sides would have been unable to campaign for the mayor. A white cop
shooting a black teenager? They'd have abandoned him.
And without black votes, Rahm Emanuel might be having lunch with
Axelrod and Patrick, but not at City Hall.
The "he" on top refers to the mayor himself; Kass' point is that he did
in fact know about it,
Really? Then how come Kass doesn't say that? Anger has made you
blind.

Even if that were his point -- and he doesn't say that -- there's
nothing here to prove that point.
Post by Fred Goldstein
and helped the police cover it up during the
election. This was not just another one of the 50 or so police shootings
a year in Chicago, this was a particularly serious case, and reached the
mayor quickly.
These last 4 lines are worthless blather.

That I have to explain to you the rules for telling the truth is
really disappointing.
Yisroel Markov
2015-12-04 14:32:25 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 02:02:10 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
Well, I believe that most of the videos were of Palestinians dancing in the streets, but I have read eye witness accounts (not reporters) who saw Muslims celebrating in Jersey. And I saw videos of both -- Muslims in Jersey and the Pals celebrating. We may not have seen the exact same videos.
Do you
(a) have links to those "eye-witness" accounts? I would love to have
their reliability assessed. Also, is "witnesses" short for two or does
it mean hundreds?
Yes there are links, and again, I am not saying THOUSANDS of Muslims celebrated, but some did.
A CBS report used the word "swarms."
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
You can look up the reports yourself. As far as "reliability", well, I believe the accounts. Why is that so difficult? Why does the "news" have to be so black or white? I think the believe that NO Muslims celebrated is ridiculous too.
Ok, what are the the links. You say they are there, so produce them. I
asked whether witnesses meant two or HUNDREDS. I never said THOUSANDS.
"CNN anchor Alisyn Camerota [...] quizzed Giuliani, hoping he would
say that Trump is “lying.” She was frustrated when Giuliani merely
said that Trump had been “exaggerating,” and pointing out hitherto
ignored examples of handfuls of Muslims celebrating in New York. [...]
After Giuliani’s interview, an exasperated Cuomo admitted, “Were
people celebrating on 9/11? Yes. Is it wrong? Yes. Should you say
thousands were? No.” [...]

"In Jersey City, within hours of two jetliners’ plowing into the World
Trade Center, law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a
number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and
holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the
devastation on the other side of the river."
The Washington Post, 9/18/2001

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/12/01/7-pieces-of-documentation-that-vindicate-trumps-claim-of-911-muslim-celebrations/

[snip]
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Shelly
2015-12-04 17:58:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yisroel Markov
On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 02:02:10 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
Well, I believe that most of the videos were of Palestinians dancing in the streets, but I have read eye witness accounts (not reporters) who saw Muslims celebrating in Jersey. And I saw videos of both -- Muslims in Jersey and the Pals celebrating. We may not have seen the exact same videos.
Do you
(a) have links to those "eye-witness" accounts? I would love to have
their reliability assessed. Also, is "witnesses" short for two or does
it mean hundreds?
Yes there are links, and again, I am not saying THOUSANDS of Muslims celebrated, but some did.
A CBS report used the word "swarms."
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
You can look up the reports yourself. As far as "reliability", well, I believe the accounts. Why is that so difficult? Why does the "news" have to be so black or white? I think the believe that NO Muslims celebrated is ridiculous too.
Ok, what are the the links. You say they are there, so produce them. I
asked whether witnesses meant two or HUNDREDS. I never said THOUSANDS.
"CNN anchor Alisyn Camerota [...] quizzed Giuliani, hoping he would
say that Trump is “lying.” She was frustrated when Giuliani merely
said that Trump had been “exaggerating,” and pointing out hitherto
ignored examples of handfuls of Muslims celebrating in New York. [...]
After Giuliani’s interview, an exasperated Cuomo admitted, “Were
people celebrating on 9/11? Yes. Is it wrong? Yes. Should you say
thousands were? No.” [...]
"In Jersey City, within hours of two jetliners’ plowing into the World
Trade Center, law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a
number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and
holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the
devastation on the other side of the river."
The Washington Post, 9/18/2001
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/12/01/7-pieces-of-documentation-that-vindicate-trumps-claim-of-911-muslim-celebrations/
[snip]
A handfull/number is [unfortunately] to be expected. There are nutjobs
everywhere. To say thousands or even hundreds is to represent this
handful as representative. It is nonsense.
--
Shelly
Herman Rubin
2015-12-04 19:19:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shelly
Post by Yisroel Markov
On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 02:02:10 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
Well, I believe that most of the videos were of Palestinians dancing in the streets, but I have read eye witness accounts (not reporters) who saw Muslims celebrating in Jersey. And I saw videos of both -- Muslims in Jersey and the Pals celebrating. We may not have seen the exact same videos.
Do you
(a) have links to those "eye-witness" accounts? I would love to have
their reliability assessed. Also, is "witnesses" short for two or does
it mean hundreds?
Yes there are links, and again, I am not saying THOUSANDS of Muslims celebrated, but some did.
A CBS report used the word "swarms."
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
You can look up the reports yourself. As far as "reliability", well, I believe the accounts. Why is that so difficult? Why does the "news" have to be so black or white? I think the believe that NO Muslims celebrated is ridiculous too.
Ok, what are the the links. You say they are there, so produce them. I
asked whether witnesses meant two or HUNDREDS. I never said THOUSANDS.
"CNN anchor Alisyn Camerota [...] quizzed Giuliani, hoping he would
say that Trump is “lying.” She was frustrated when Giuliani merely
said that Trump had been “exaggerating,” and pointing out hitherto
ignored examples of handfuls of Muslims celebrating in New York. [...]
After Giuliani’s interview, an exasperated Cuomo admitted, “Were
people celebrating on 9/11? Yes. Is it wrong? Yes. Should you say
thousands were? No.” [...]
"In Jersey City, within hours of two jetliners’ plowing into the World
Trade Center, law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a
number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and
holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the
devastation on the other side of the river."
The Washington Post, 9/18/2001
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/12/01/7-pieces-of-documentation-that-vindicate-trumps-claim-of-911-muslim-celebrations/
[snip]
A handfull/number is [unfortunately] to be expected. There are nutjobs
everywhere. To say thousands or even hundreds is to represent this
handful as representative. It is nonsense.
The "handful" is somewhat higher than you think. It certainly exceeds
1000 among those residing in the US, and probably more than 10,000 for
Europe. This is a dangerous number already.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
***@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
topazgalaxy
2015-12-04 19:30:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
Well, I believe that most of the videos were of Palestinians dancing in the streets, but I have read eye witness accounts (not reporters) who saw Muslims celebrating in Jersey. And I saw videos of both -- Muslims in Jersey and the Pals celebrating. We may not have seen the exact same videos.
Do you
(a) have links to those "eye-witness" accounts? I would love to have
their reliability assessed. Also, is "witnesses" short for two or does
it mean hundreds?
Yes there are links, and again, I am not saying THOUSANDS of Muslims celebrated, but some did. You can look up the reports yourself. As far as "reliability", well, I believe the accounts. Why is that so difficult? Why does the "news" have to be so black or white? I think the believe that NO Muslims celebrated is ridiculous too.
Ok, what are the the links. You say they are there, so produce them. I
asked whether witnesses meant two or HUNDREDS. I never said THOUSANDS.
Post by topazgalaxy
We will never know how many witnesses saw Muslims celebrating in New Jersey.
We will never know how many Muslims were upset when the towers fell.
My opinion is that there were some Muslims who celebrated and there are some reports on the internet of witnesses. ?Hundreds of witnesses? I do not know.
I am sure there were SOME Muslims that were happy about it. I am as sure
of that as I am that there have Muslim terroist attacks in the US.
However, the description of "dancing in the streets in N.J." I find,
well, rather far-fetched.
Post by topazgalaxy
Post by Shelly
(b) have links to those videos that "you saw" that were not discredited
ones (with later retractions as to not being in NL)?
https://twitter.com/chuckerino/status/668463672801427457
THIS is your reference link? WhooBoy! Get real.
Post by topazgalaxy
I do not have a twitter account, but just a few people saying "I lived in Jersey and I saw it with my own eyes" is enough for me.
Of course it is -- for YOU. Hey topaz, did you know that I saw the top
of the Empire State Building sway 50 feet to side before coming back to
straight up during a hurricane when I lived there. I can get a few more
people to say the same thing as we were in a group at the time. Of
course you will believe me because "just a few people that were there
saw it with their own eyes" and that is enough for you. Can you say
"confirmation bias".
Post by topazgalaxy
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
Regarding the Presidents, I agree with the principle of your last sentence
however we can debate for a long time if Obama is "inept" or intentionally dividing the country.
Hmm. What is your basis for saying he is INTENTIONALLY dividing the
country?
His policies on the police and race I believe are very divisive. And I do not think he is that stupid or incompetent.
Which policies, specifically? How are they very divisive?
Post by topazgalaxy
I remember the incident years ago when he was a new President and a black college professor was arrested in his own home in Cambridge by a white police officer.
Obama made a comment very quickly, before he had all the evidence of what had happened, that this is representative of black persons oppression by the police.So his leanings or bias became evident. It is foolish for a Harvard Law professor -- a lawyer-- to jump to conclusions before all the evidence is in. A lawyer should know better. I am not convinced it was all an innocent mistake ie what Obama said.
Was is indicative or was he wrong? How do you know he didn't have the
evidence?
Post by topazgalaxy
A female black police officer was later interviewed on TV and asked about the POTUS' comments and she felt that Obama was very wrong and was biased against the police.
A police officer (of whatever color) said he was biased against police
officers. Hmmmmm.
Post by topazgalaxy
When all the facts were uncovered, as I recall, the President was just wrong and then they had that famous beer summmit.
So famous I don't know what you are talking about.
Post by topazgalaxy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Louis_Gates_arrest_controversy
Of course that was early in his leadership and we have other incidents now; at least he is waiting now for more facts to come in but his decisions, like telling a meeting of police chiefs in Chicago that we need to have the police go out in ice cream trucks and give out ice cream to drug dealers to make a difference in the community, well, what can I say? Even Rahm Emmanuel his former chief of staff and now mayor of Chicago criticized Obama's policies regarding the police because Chicago is seeing a spike in homicides and crime.
....and even assuming what you say is 100% accurate (which I doubt),
please explain how he is intentionally dividing this country.
Post by topazgalaxy
See article in Investor's Business Daily October 29th 2015
"Pushing More of What is behind a Spike in Crime" ( I cannot get it on the internet)
I think Obama is biased against the police. My opinion. By his policies/statements towards law enforcemnt I think he is dividing the country.
Determination bias.
Post by topazgalaxy
I found another Op Ed-- last year the spike in cop killings was atrocious.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/051215-752237-obama-presides-over-89-percent-spike-in-cop-killings.htm
=============================================================================
In one of his books (Dreams from My Father, or the Audacity of Hope..I am not sure which book), Obama described in his book that he had only one job in private industry and he stated "I felt like I was working behind enemy lines."
Context! Right now "I feel like I am writing behind enemy lines". Context!
Post by topazgalaxy
He said that.
To me, that kind of statement,combined with his health care law and other statements indicate to me that for whatever reason he is biased against the self employed and businesses. Why the heck should anyone describe a private industry job as his being behind enemy lines?
Ahhh. Now we come back to it -- Obamacare (formerly known as Romneycare
as it was modeled after the one in Massachusetts). Was it divisive?
Absolutely. Was a move to get everyone covered essential? Also,
absolutely. From three months before his inauguration the Republicans
has one and only one goal -- do anything they could to make him a one
term president, even if it crippled the country. They did that with
EVERY bill, so nothing has been done for seven years. Then they complain
that "he didn't consult with them". Phooey.
BTW, there is a minimum size at which company sponsored health care is
mandatory - in case you were unaware.
Post by topazgalaxy
You can call it incompetence if you want to, but I think it goes deeper than that. My opinion.
Determination bias.
Post by topazgalaxy
Then we can look at his health care law and without rehashing our numerous debates, one of the main things the law did was benefit the demographic of voters who typically vote Democratic and punish the demographic of voter who typically vote Republican.
You mean if favored the under-employed and unemployed more that the
employed? Oh the unemployment rate of blacks is much higher and the
poorer people tend to be more Democratic than Republican? Golly gee.
What a surprise.
Post by topazgalaxy
I know that the POTUS did not write the law himself however, the way that law divided the country among "winners" and "losers" , along racial and voting lines, well, I do not believe Obama is all that innocent. Sorry. He is to smart for that. He would have to claim ignorance and I do not accept that; especially after he told the whole country 'we make this promise to the American people, if you like your health insurance , you can keep your health insurance...." etc etc.
Yada, yada, yada.
Post by topazgalaxy
That law created winners and losers for sure; I see this in my travels and discussions with various people. I do not believe it was an accident on the part of the President. He is too smart for it to be an accident. And he kept pushing the lie of you can keep your insurance all the way until the re election period.
That law has divided the country. People who are self employed, small businesses (the enemy in private industry per Obama) lost.
....and the Republicans countered with a better law. Oh, wait, that was
not even on their agenda. Their only agenda was to block ANYTHING Obama
put forward.
Post by topazgalaxy
The same could have been said of (to name a few) Lincoln, FDR,
Post by Shelly
and LBJ. I'll wait for your answer here and not speculate. BTW, I think
he is a very bad president.
Post by topazgalaxy
Obama's bigotry may just be more subtle than Trump;
The way you state it, you assume as a given that he is a bigot, subtle
or not. I don't accept supposed axiom at all. I, for one, think that he
has a vision which simply doesn't and cannot work. He tries too hard to
negotiate (foreign policy), and comes of as a weakling. The opposition
takes advantage of that weakness. That is ineptitude, not bigotry.
We both can agree he is inept. But I feel (as I wrote above) not totally inept in all areas, and very willing to "weaken" some Americans so others get a benefit.
That to me shows bias/favoritism
....and we call that real politics. Of course, his opponents do none of
that and never even heard of "pork barrel" and "you wash my hand and I
wash yours". They are too pure for that. OK, I see.
Post by topazgalaxy
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
I would rather have a candidate for office show me (before he is elected) what a jerk he is so I can be more informed and not vote for him.
I would rather have neither. Also, I am not so sure about that. I
ABSOLUTELY do NOT want a hate-mongering demagogue stirring up the
populace that can lead to some, unfortunately, not so unimaginable things.
Post by topazgalaxy
So I am glad Trump is doing just that. I wish Obama had done that so more Americans could have seen what he really stands for.
Again, what ITO does he "really stand for"? AISI it is where all
Americans have access to health care, are not homeless, and that there
is peace in the world. Those are lofty goals, AISI. His methods, though,
of getting from A to Z leave a lot to be desired.
I do not understand all of your abbrieviations...?ITO?
AISI??
ITO was a typo. It should have been IYO, which stands for "In Your
Opinion", a standard abbreviation.
AISI is a standard one meaning "As I See It".
Post by topazgalaxy
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
Personally, since Obama is a Harvard educated lawyer, I think he is "dumb like a fox." (no not Fox news)
And I think in certain respects he is very biased. My opinion.
....and you, of course, are not.
I have strong opinions on certain subjects. Are you totally unbiased and without opinions?
Absolutely not. I have strong biases and opinions. However, I recognize
what they are and try my best to be objective.
Here is a classic example for me. I am strongly pro-choice. I believe
that this the woman's (and lesser so the man's) prerogative until the
fetus is viable if removed from the woman. I am strongly biased and
opinionated there. However, I am objective enough to recognize that the
other side strongly believes that life begins at conception (as opposed
to viability) and so for them it really is murder. That is what is
called trying to be objective, while still having biases and being
opinionated on the subject. I don't see that from you w.r.t. Obama or
Islam (not Muslims).
Post by topazgalaxy
Nevertheless, neither one of us are President. At least we can hopefully agree on that. My only resemblance to a candidate right now is my cankles.
Cankles???????
--
Shelly
For the vast majority of your questions in the above post,I feel I have answered the questions already.
I feel on some level he is biased against the police and the self employed and people in private industry.
His words and actions reflect that
I also believe by the way that he is biased towards Islam; that fact that in the Homeland Security documents/rules he has intentionally eliminated words like
"Islamist" and "jihad" says plenty.It almost Orwellian in logic, like the book Animal Farm with the concept that "some pigs are more equal than others."

For him to claim that ISIL/ISIS has no connection to Islam is so absurd it either represents flat out propaganda, or that he is stuck in his mind in his childhood days and that sweet sound (to him) of the call to Muslim prayer.

Let us see how the latest attack in California is described by the White House and senior law enforcement (who have the government breathing down their necks). It is like the Fort Hood attack that was called "work place violence" for way too long
topazgalaxy
2015-12-04 19:32:20 UTC
Permalink
Topaz said--
Nevertheless, neither one of us are President. At least we can hopefully agree on that. My only resemblance to a candidate right now is my cankles.
Post by Shelly
Cankles???????
--
Shelly
Cankles is a silly term when a person has chronic swelling in their lower legs, so that their Calves and Ankles are not distinguishable.
Basically due to swelling they do not have that nice sexy ankle that models with thin legs in high heels tend to have.
For some time,when Hillary was running against Obama, people would say she had cankles and that is why she wore pants suits. (Of course, such silly comments on a male candidate would probably not occur.) I mean , what is next for female candidates...seeing if they shave their legs or not?
So my statement that "my only resemblance to a candidate....." was just some humor.
Herman Rubin
2015-12-04 07:31:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
Well, I believe that most of the videos were of Palestinians dancing
in the streets, but I have read eye witness accounts (not reporters)
who saw Muslims celebrating in Jersey. And I saw videos of both --
Muslims in Jersey and the Pals celebrating. We may not have seen the
exact same videos.
Post by Shelly
Do you
(a) have links to those "eye-witness" accounts? I would love to have
their reliability assessed. Also, is "witnesses" short for two or does
it mean hundreds?
(b) have links to those videos that "you saw" that were not discredited
ones (with later retractions as to not being in NL)?
Post by topazgalaxy
Regarding the Presidents, I agree with the principle of your last sentence
however we can debate for a long time if Obama is "inept" or
intentionally dividing the country.
Post by Shelly
Hmm. What is your basis for saying he is INTENTIONALLY dividing the
country? The same could have been said of (to name a few) Lincoln, FDR,
and LBJ. I'll wait for your answer here and not speculate. BTW, I think
he is a very bad president.
Post by topazgalaxy
Obama's bigotry may just be more subtle than Trump;
The way you state it, you assume as a given that he is a bigot, subtle
or not. I don't accept supposed axiom at all. I, for one, think that he
has a vision which simply doesn't and cannot work. He tries too hard to
negotiate (foreign policy), and comes of as a weakling. The opposition
takes advantage of that weakness. That is ineptitude, not bigotry.
Post by topazgalaxy
I would rather have a candidate for office show me (before he is
elected) what a jerk he is so I can be more informed and not vote for him.
Post by Shelly
I would rather have neither. Also, I am not so sure about that. I
ABSOLUTELY do NOT want a hate-mongering demagogue stirring up the
populace that can lead to some, unfortunately, not so unimaginable things.
Post by topazgalaxy
So I am glad Trump is doing just that. I wish Obama had done that so
more Americans could have seen what he really stands for.
Post by Shelly
Again, what ITO does he "really stand for"? AISI it is where all
Americans have access to health care, are not homeless, and that there
is peace in the world. Those are lofty goals, AISI. His methods, though,
of getting from A to Z leave a lot to be desired.
I am not even convinced of that. But granting that he WANTS that, the
first question is whether it can be done, and for that, the answer to
the domestic issues in a resounding NO! The physical limitations prevent
it, and even if we had enough physicians, and we are far short, the
government and insurance company treatment of all those in a given
category as equally competent is FALSE.

To have world peace, thsoe who believe there is reward in dying to
spread one's faith will have to be kept under strict control, if
not eliminated. You can see how much worse he has made this. Golda
Meir put it well about dealing with the Palestinians.
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
Personally, since Obama is a Harvard educated lawyer, I think he is
"dumb like a fox." (no not Fox news)

Alas, lawyers are not that well educated. I doubt that there is a
logical legal system, and the "reasoning" of lawyers shows it.
Post by Shelly
Post by topazgalaxy
And I think in certain respects he is very biased. My opinion.
....and you, of course, are not.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
***@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
m***@btinternet.com
2015-12-02 05:10:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by topazgalaxy
Our current Commander in Chief certainly is more self controlled
with his speech, however, Obama has his own way of dividing the country
too. Just not as bombastic as Trump.
We are certainly living in challenging times.
I'd say the opposite. American politics has got into a pathological state.
When Republicans and Democrats can't eat at the same fried chicken
restaurants, you know that something is deeply wrong.

The President has still managed to function as a constitutional,
accepted President, and kept up a semblance of normality. He's
done it by ducking difficult decisions on the deficit, on economic
policy, and fudging most of the cultural issues. It won't be easy
for his successor to continue with those policies. But he has done
it. The USA won't fall apart on Obama's watch.
Herman Rubin
2015-12-04 03:52:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by topazgalaxy
Our current Commander in Chief certainly is more self controlled
with his speech, however, Obama has his own way of dividing the country
too. Just not as bombastic as Trump.
We are certainly living in challenging times.
I'd say the opposite. American politics has got into a pathological state.
When Republicans and Democrats can't eat at the same fried chicken
restaurants, you know that something is deeply wrong.
Yes, something is deeply wrong. The government is violating the
rights of the individual, and giving away the strength of the country.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
The President has still managed to function as a constitutional,
accepted President,
Accepted, yes; consstitutional, no. Ramming through "agreements"
between countries without even Congressional approval, when they are
really treaties, is hardly Constitutional.

and kept up a semblance of normality. He's
Post by m***@btinternet.com
done it by ducking difficult decisions on the deficit, on economic
policy, and fudging most of the cultural issues. It won't be easy
for his successor to continue with those policies. But he has done
it. The USA won't fall apart on Obama's watch.
He has made very bad decisions on international matters, which alas
will never be controlled, and has made what will be WWIII far worse
than it need be. The terrorists in Riverside were behaving according
to Orthodox Islam.

Separation of Church and State was first promulgated by Roger Williams
in the new colony of Rhode Island 375 years ago. Where is there any
attempt to observe it outside of the United States? Possibly France
will give it lip service, but I am not even sure of that. Freedom isn't
free, and far too many want immediate pleasure under serfdom. Obama has
tried to move the majority of Americans to that.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
***@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
m***@btinternet.com
2015-12-04 17:57:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Herman Rubin
Separation of Church and State was first promulgated by Roger Williams
in the new colony of Rhode Island 375 years ago. Where is there any
attempt to observe it outside of the United States? Possibly France
will give it lip service, but I am not even sure of that. Freedom isn't
free, and far too many want immediate pleasure under serfdom. Obama has
tried to move the majority of Americans to that.
Separation of Church and State is something that Americans think
is important, but in fact isn't. What matters is freedom of
conscience - it shouldn't be illegal or excessively burdensome
to follow an accept religious or ethical tradition. (There's bit
of fudge in there, obviously you can't allow people to claim carte
blache immunity from the law by inventing spurious religious dogmas).
Herman Rubin
2015-12-04 19:32:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Herman Rubin
Separation of Church and State was first promulgated by Roger Williams
in the new colony of Rhode Island 375 years ago. Where is there any
attempt to observe it outside of the United States? Possibly France
will give it lip service, but I am not even sure of that. Freedom isn't
free, and far too many want immediate pleasure under serfdom. Obama has
tried to move the majority of Americans to that.
Separation of Church and State is something that Americans think
is important, but in fact isn't. What matters is freedom of
conscience - it shouldn't be illegal or excessively burdensome
to follow an accept religious or ethical tradition. (There's bit
of fudge in there, obviously you can't allow people to claim carte
blache immunity from the law by inventing spurious religious dogmas).
One cannot have freedom of conscience if the consciences of some are
allowed to restrict others who will not harm them from acts in which
they believe. In the US, it is illegal for preachers to endorse
candidates; it should be illegal for them, or others acting in the
name of religious or quasi-religious conscience, to endorse proposed
legislation. The state has the right to impose judgment on actions;
religions should only have the right to persuade their believers, or
with due process expel them. Deliberately harming someone who one
believes to be doing something "immoral" should be automatically a
hate crime.

The greatest immorality of all is to impose one's
morality on others.

Alas, this applies to many Jews as well, and Judaism is one of the
most tolerant religions. Religous discrimination is older than
Judaism, and belief in real separation of church and state is modern.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
***@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
m***@btinternet.com
2015-12-06 04:24:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Herman Rubin
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Herman Rubin
Separation of Church and State was first promulgated by Roger Williams
in the new colony of Rhode Island 375 years ago. Where is there any
attempt to observe it outside of the United States? Possibly France
will give it lip service, but I am not even sure of that. Freedom
isn't free, and far too many want immediate pleasure under serfdom.
Obama has tried to move the majority of Americans to that.
Separation of Church and State is something that Americans think
is important, but in fact isn't. What matters is freedom of
conscience - it shouldn't be illegal or excessively burdensome
to follow an accept religious or ethical tradition. (There's bit
of fudge in there, obviously you can't allow people to claim carte
blache immunity from the law by inventing spurious religious dogmas).
One cannot have freedom of conscience if the consciences of some are
allowed to restrict others who will not harm them from acts in which
they believe.
If your conscience says that you must restrict others' freedom
of conscience, then of course something must give. That's why you
need the fudge weasel term "legitimate religious tradition".
Post by Herman Rubin
In the US, it is illegal for preachers to endorse
candidates; it should be illegal for them, or others acting in the
name of religious or quasi-religious conscience, to endorse proposed
legislation.
The two things are a bit different. If a religious organisation
endorses a candidate, it soon becomes effectively a political
party, so it should be governed by the rules applying to political
parties. If it expresses a view on legislation, then it's an interested
party, and really every American citizen is potentially an
interested party to every law. A law to, say, raise the high school
leaving age is going to affect virtually everyone, so everyone,
whether as an individual or a corporate entity (employer, football
team, Professor of Statistics), should have the right to express
their views.
Post by Herman Rubin
The state has the right to impose judgment on actions;
religions should only have the right to persuade their believers, or
with due process expel them. Deliberately harming someone who one
believes to be doing something "immoral" should be automatically a
hate crime.
The greatest immorality of all is to impose one's
morality on others.
Alas, this applies to many Jews as well, and Judaism is one of the
most tolerant religions. Religous discrimination is older than
Judaism, and belief in real separation of church and state is modern.
Until quite modern times, and even today in a limited sense, the
secular authorities would recognise the beth din. So it had the
power to decide certain cases between Jews, and sometimes even
between a Jew and a non-Jew, though not usually capital cases.
If the parties refused to obey the ruling, then in the last
resort it could call in the secular authorities to make arrests.

In the US, that has never happened. So a Jewish court can operate
on by consent and community pressure. It cannot subpoena witnesses
or impose fines. In Britain, (I'm not sure about the US), its possible
in some cases to have what is called binding arbitration. Both sides
agree in advance to appoint a tribunal (the beth din), and abide by
the outcome. Then the secular authorities enforce the ruling if
the loser tries to dissent.

Then religions can enforce standards of behaviour, on their own
premises. You can ban anyone from wearing shoes in the mosque,
just as you can in your own house.
Shelly
2015-12-06 15:16:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Herman Rubin
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Herman Rubin
Separation of Church and State was first promulgated by Roger Williams
in the new colony of Rhode Island 375 years ago. Where is there any
attempt to observe it outside of the United States? Possibly France
will give it lip service, but I am not even sure of that. Freedom
isn't free, and far too many want immediate pleasure under serfdom.
Obama has tried to move the majority of Americans to that.
Separation of Church and State is something that Americans think
is important, but in fact isn't. What matters is freedom of
conscience - it shouldn't be illegal or excessively burdensome
to follow an accept religious or ethical tradition. (There's bit
of fudge in there, obviously you can't allow people to claim carte
blache immunity from the law by inventing spurious religious dogmas).
One cannot have freedom of conscience if the consciences of some are
allowed to restrict others who will not harm them from acts in which
they believe.
If your conscience says that you must restrict others' freedom
of conscience, then of course something must give. That's why you
need the fudge weasel term "legitimate religious tradition".
Post by Herman Rubin
In the US, it is illegal for preachers to endorse
candidates; it should be illegal for them, or others acting in the
name of religious or quasi-religious conscience, to endorse proposed
legislation.
The two things are a bit different. If a religious organisation
endorses a candidate, it soon becomes effectively a political
party, so it should be governed by the rules applying to political
parties. If it expresses a view on legislation, then it's an interested
party, and really every American citizen is potentially an
interested party to every law. A law to, say, raise the high school
leaving age is going to affect virtually everyone, so everyone,
whether as an individual or a corporate entity (employer, football
team, Professor of Statistics), should have the right to express
their views.
Post by Herman Rubin
The state has the right to impose judgment on actions;
religions should only have the right to persuade their believers, or
with due process expel them. Deliberately harming someone who one
believes to be doing something "immoral" should be automatically a
hate crime.
The greatest immorality of all is to impose one's
morality on others.
Alas, this applies to many Jews as well, and Judaism is one of the
most tolerant religions. Religous discrimination is older than
Judaism, and belief in real separation of church and state is modern.
Until quite modern times, and even today in a limited sense, the
secular authorities would recognise the beth din. So it had the
power to decide certain cases between Jews, and sometimes even
between a Jew and a non-Jew, though not usually capital cases.
If the parties refused to obey the ruling, then in the last
resort it could call in the secular authorities to make arrests.
In the US, that has never happened. So a Jewish court can operate
on by consent and community pressure. It cannot subpoena witnesses
or impose fines. In Britain, (I'm not sure about the US), its possible
in some cases to have what is called binding arbitration. Both sides
agree in advance to appoint a tribunal (the beth din), and abide by
the outcome. Then the secular authorities enforce the ruling if
the loser tries to dissent.
Then religions can enforce standards of behaviour, on their own
premises. You can ban anyone from wearing shoes in the mosque,
just as you can in your own house.
We have binding arbitration over here as well, if both parties in a
civil suit agree to it.
--
Shelly
Herman Rubin
2015-12-07 02:59:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Herman Rubin
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Herman Rubin
Separation of Church and State was first promulgated by Roger Williams
in the new colony of Rhode Island 375 years ago. Where is there any
attempt to observe it outside of the United States? Possibly France
will give it lip service, but I am not even sure of that. Freedom
isn't free, and far too many want immediate pleasure under serfdom.
Obama has tried to move the majority of Americans to that.
Separation of Church and State is something that Americans think
is important, but in fact isn't. What matters is freedom of
conscience - it shouldn't be illegal or excessively burdensome
to follow an accept religious or ethical tradition. (There's bit
of fudge in there, obviously you can't allow people to claim carte
blache immunity from the law by inventing spurious religious dogmas).
One cannot have freedom of conscience if the consciences of some are
allowed to restrict others who will not harm them from acts in which
they believe.
If your conscience says that you must restrict others' freedom
of conscience, then of course something must give. That's why you
need the fudge weasel term "legitimate religious tradition".
Post by Herman Rubin
In the US, it is illegal for preachers to endorse
candidates; it should be illegal for them, or others acting in the
name of religious or quasi-religious conscience, to endorse proposed
legislation.
The two things are a bit different. If a religious organisation
endorses a candidate, it soon becomes effectively a political
party, so it should be governed by the rules applying to political
parties. If it expresses a view on legislation, then it's an interested
party, and really every American citizen is potentially an
interested party to every law. A law to, say, raise the high school
leaving age is going to affect virtually everyone, so everyone,
whether as an individual or a corporate entity (employer, football
team, Professor of Statistics), should have the right to express
their views.
In the US, a non-profit organization is quite limited in what it can
support. It is illegal for a university football team to include
prayer in its huddle, although this is often done,as this is forcing
religion on others. It is illegal for a labor union to support either
side on the right of abortion. It should be equally illegal for a
religion, even one whose views on abortion are known, to take action
to support having those views enacted. They should not have the right
to suggest what someone who does not accept their religious views be
required to follow them; the only action which they should be allowed
to take against members who do not follow is expulsion. And they should
not have the right to do this if a member does not vote the religion's
way; freedpm of religion requires that people allow others to do what
is immoral to them.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Herman Rubin
The state has the right to impose judgment on actions;
religions should only have the right to persuade their believers, or
with due process expel them. Deliberately harming someone who one
believes to be doing something "immoral" should be automatically a
hate crime.
The greatest immorality of all is to impose one's
morality on others.
Alas, this applies to many Jews as well, and Judaism is one of the
most tolerant religions. Religous discrimination is older than
Judaism, and belief in real separation of church and state is modern.
Until quite modern times, and even today in a limited sense, the
secular authorities would recognise the beth din. So it had the
power to decide certain cases between Jews, and sometimes even
between a Jew and a non-Jew, though not usually capital cases.
If the parties refused to obey the ruling, then in the last
resort it could call in the secular authorities to make arrests.
See what I wrote above; I do not accept it. A beth din should only
have the power to make a decision if BOTH parties agree; if one party
disagrees, the beth din could convene a higher court to decide if the
person could no longer be a member of that branch of Judaism.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
In the US, that has never happened. So a Jewish court can operate
on by consent and community pressure. It cannot subpoena witnesses
or impose fines. In Britain, (I'm not sure about the US), its possible
in some cases to have what is called binding arbitration. Both sides
agree in advance to appoint a tribunal (the beth din), and abide by
the outcome. Then the secular authorities enforce the ruling if
the loser tries to dissent.
There is binding arbitration in the US, much the same. However, it is
now being questioned whether the practice of requiring binding arbitration
in contracts, usually in the fine print, is valid. It is hard to get a
fair arbitration panel in many cases.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Then religions can enforce standards of behaviour, on their own
premises. You can ban anyone from wearing shoes in the mosque,
just as you can in your own house.
On their own premises is one thing, but outside is another. AFAIK,
all the major religions, and I specifically include Judaism, impose
standards of behavior outside the religious buildings. Enforcement
of this by the religion is often nonexistent; I believe most Catholics
use various methods of birth control, explicitly prohibited. And how
many cases of violation of the Decalogue have come before batei din?
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
***@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
m***@btinternet.com
2015-12-07 14:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Herman Rubin
In the US, a non-profit organization is quite limited in what it can
support. It is illegal for a university football team to include
prayer in its huddle, although this is often done,as this is forcing
religion on others. It is illegal for a labor union to support either
side on the right of abortion. It should be equally illegal for a
religion, even one whose views on abortion are known, to take action
to support having those views enacted. They should not have the right
to suggest what someone who does not accept their religious views be
required to follow them; the only action which they should be allowed
to take against members who do not follow is expulsion. And they should
not have the right to do this if a member does not vote the religion's
way; freedpm of religion requires that people allow others to do what
is immoral to them.
So there's a parking lot within walking distance of the church, which doesn't
have one of its own. The city proposes to pass a bylaw banning parking there
on Sundays, in other to use the space for temporary stalls. So the church
cannot even express its view? Clearly there can't, in justice, be a blanket
ban on preachers expressing their views on public policy, in their capacity
as preachers.
Post by Herman Rubin
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Until quite modern times, and even today in a limited sense, the
secular authorities would recognise the beth din. So it had the
power to decide certain cases between Jews, and sometimes even
between a Jew and a non-Jew, though not usually capital cases.
If the parties refused to obey the ruling, then in the last
resort it could call in the secular authorities to make arrests.
See what I wrote above; I do not accept it. A beth din should only
have the power to make a decision if BOTH parties agree; if one party
disagrees, the beth din could convene a higher court to decide if the
person could no longer be a member of that branch of Judaism.
That was the historical reality. The secular authorities recognised the beth
din, individual Jews couldn't simply exempt themselves from its
jurisdiction.
Post by Herman Rubin
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Then religions can enforce standards of behaviour, on their own
premises. You can ban anyone from wearing shoes in the mosque,
just as you can in your own house.
On their own premises is one thing, but outside is another. AFAIK,
all the major religions, and I specifically include Judaism, impose
standards of behavior outside the religious buildings. Enforcement
of this by the religion is often nonexistent; I believe most Catholics
use various methods of birth control, explicitly prohibited. And how
many cases of violation of the Decalogue have come before batei din?
In the Catholic case there's a distinction between private and public acts.
Excommunication is only imposed for public acts, like remarriage after
divorce, not for sexual activity outside of marriage itself. But unlike
Judaism, there isn't a concept of a religiously-prescribed secular penalty,
the only real penalty is to declare someone no longer a member. All
the burnings of heretics were done, in theory at least, by the secular
authorities, for violating the good order of the Princes realm.
Herman Rubin
2015-12-07 17:41:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Herman Rubin
In the US, a non-profit organization is quite limited in what it can
support. It is illegal for a university football team to include
prayer in its huddle, although this is often done,as this is forcing
religion on others. It is illegal for a labor union to support either
side on the right of abortion. It should be equally illegal for a
religion, even one whose views on abortion are known, to take action
to support having those views enacted. They should not have the right
to suggest what someone who does not accept their religious views be
required to follow them; the only action which they should be allowed
to take against members who do not follow is expulsion. And they should
not have the right to do this if a member does not vote the religion's
way; freedpm of religion requires that people allow others to do what
is immoral to them.
So there's a parking lot within walking distance of the church, which doesn't
have one of its own. The city proposes to pass a bylaw banning parking there
on Sundays, in other to use the space for temporary stalls. So the church
cannot even express its view? Clearly there can't, in justice, be a blanket
ban on preachers expressing their views on public policy, in their capacity
as preachers.
You have come up with a good exception, but it can go too far as well.
It was only in the last century that the courts in the US ruled the
"Blue laws" (they were written on blue paper) were unconstitutional,
as they enforced Christian moralities on others.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Herman Rubin
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Until quite modern times, and even today in a limited sense, the
secular authorities would recognise the beth din. So it had the
power to decide certain cases between Jews, and sometimes even
between a Jew and a non-Jew, though not usually capital cases.
If the parties refused to obey the ruling, then in the last
resort it could call in the secular authorities to make arrests.
See what I wrote above; I do not accept it. A beth din should only
have the power to make a decision if BOTH parties agree; if one party
disagrees, the beth din could convene a higher court to decide if the
person could no longer be a member of that branch of Judaism.
That was the historical reality. The secular authorities recognised the beth
din, individual Jews couldn't simply exempt themselves from its
jurisdiction.
This was historical reality, indeed. But this was more than allowing
batei din, it was establishing them as part of the legal system. It
was not religious freedom.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Herman Rubin
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Then religions can enforce standards of behaviour, on their own
premises. You can ban anyone from wearing shoes in the mosque,
just as you can in your own house.
On their own premises is one thing, but outside is another. AFAIK,
all the major religions, and I specifically include Judaism, impose
standards of behavior outside the religious buildings. Enforcement
of this by the religion is often nonexistent; I believe most Catholics
use various methods of birth control, explicitly prohibited. And how
many cases of violation of the Decalogue have come before batei din?
In the Catholic case there's a distinction between private and public acts.
Excommunication is only imposed for public acts, like remarriage after
divorce, not for sexual activity outside of marriage itself. But unlike
Judaism, there isn't a concept of a religiously-prescribed secular penalty,
the only real penalty is to declare someone no longer a member. All
the burnings of heretics were done, in theory at least, by the secular
authorities, for violating the good order of the Princes realm.
Some in the Catholic hierarchy proposed denying certain rites to
those who would vote to allow abortion, and I believe also to those
who would vote to require inclusion of contraceptive materials in medical
insurance. From my knowledge of demographics and voting patterns, I
would venture to state that a majority of Catholics in Congress would
have done this last one mentioned, and possibly the first one. The
church finally overruled those.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
***@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Yisroel Markov
2015-12-08 16:46:38 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 14:33:10 +0000 (UTC),
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Herman Rubin
In the US, a non-profit organization is quite limited in what it can
support. It is illegal for a university football team to include
prayer in its huddle, although this is often done,as this is forcing
religion on others. It is illegal for a labor union to support either
side on the right of abortion.
I'm not aware of any such restriction. Can you please source?
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Herman Rubin
It should be equally illegal for a
religion, even one whose views on abortion are known, to take action
to support having those views enacted. They should not have the right
to suggest what someone who does not accept their religious views be
required to follow them; the only action which they should be allowed
to take against members who do not follow is expulsion. And they should
not have the right to do this if a member does not vote the religion's
way; freedpm of religion requires that people allow others to do what
is immoral to them.
So there's a parking lot within walking distance of the church, which doesn't
have one of its own. The city proposes to pass a bylaw banning parking there
on Sundays, in other to use the space for temporary stalls. So the church
cannot even express its view? Clearly there can't, in justice, be a blanket
ban on preachers expressing their views on public policy, in their capacity
as preachers.
The Professor is being inexact. The church, meaning its clergy or
other officials, can freely express any view they like (because First
Amendment), with no prior restraint. However, as Meir has mentioned,
if and when a church starts acting as a political party or an
auxiliary thereof - pulling for candidates rather than decrying
parking regulations - it stands in danger of losing its tax-exempt
status. (That is, its receipts will remain tax-free, but they will no
longer be deductible to the donors. Its property tax exemption can be
endangered, too.)

Of course, precisely where the line between church and party auxiliary
is crossed will be in the eye of the beholder, including a judge.
AFAIK, churches have published voter guides, seeking to inform voters
of their take on the election issues without explicitly endorsing a
candidate, and that had survived scrutiny. Whether the threat of a
loss of benefit counts is effectively a prohibition has also been
litigated, and the answer is "it depends."

[snip]
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
mm
2015-12-23 14:30:53 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 8 Dec 2015 16:46:38 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
Post by Yisroel Markov
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 14:33:10 +0000 (UTC),
.....
Post by Yisroel Markov
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Herman Rubin
It should be equally illegal for a
religion, even one whose views on abortion are known, to take action
to support having those views enacted. They should not have the right
to suggest what someone who does not accept their religious views be
required to follow them; the only action which they should be allowed
to take against members who do not follow is expulsion. And they should
not have the right to do this if a member does not vote the religion's
way; freedpm of religion requires that people allow others to do what
is immoral to them.
So there's a parking lot within walking distance of the church, which doesn't
have one of its own. The city proposes to pass a bylaw banning parking there
on Sundays, in other to use the space for temporary stalls. So the church
cannot even express its view? Clearly there can't, in justice, be a blanket
ban on preachers expressing their views on public policy, in their capacity
as preachers.
The Professor is being inexact.
Yes, he is being inexact.
Post by Yisroel Markov
The church, meaning its clergy or
other officials, can freely express any view they like (because First
Amendment), with no prior restraint. However, as Meir has mentioned,
I hate to have another fight, but.... Like a lot of people in this
situation, you are being inexact, Yisroel. I appreciate your
willingness to give me credit, but I did not mention what follows.
There are simple ways around this, such as, Related to what Meir
said..., or Let me give my expanded view of what Meir said...
Post by Yisroel Markov
if and when a church starts acting as a political party or an
auxiliary thereof -
I didn't say anything about the line above.
Post by Yisroel Markov
pulling for candidates
This line above is, in other words, what I did say. **
Post by Yisroel Markov
rather than decrying
parking regulations
I didn't mention anything about this, either, one way or the other,
but you're saying that I mentioned it. I didn't and I *wouldn't*.
And it misrepresents what I would have said. Churches and clergy
speaking from the pulpit are not obliged to limit their advocacy to
secular topics or non-controversial topics. They can, may, and
should afaic, take positions on abortion, etc. Issues, not
candidates.
Post by Yisroel Markov
- it stands in danger of losing its tax-exempt
status. (That is, its receipts will remain tax-free,
I didn't say this either. I don't know if readers would think I
mentioned something this far down.... well, it's not that far down.
It's still in the first sentence.... but paraphrasing someone
accurately is of paramount importance.

You've dramatically twisted and distorted what I said.

Have you seen any of the posts I've made over the years, probably in
this ng too, objecting to the use of "in other words" to rewrite what
somone else has said. "In other words" should only be used to rewrite
what the person using it has said, because experience has shown in any
situation with even small disputes, "IOW" will be followed by
something that means something different. The situation here is
similar, but worse.
Post by Yisroel Markov
but they will no
longer be deductible to the donors. Its property tax exemption can be
endangered, too.)
Of course, precisely where the line between church and party auxiliary
is crossed will be in the eye of the beholder, including a judge.
AFAIK, churches have published voter guides, seeking to inform voters
of their take on the election issues without explicitly endorsing a
candidate, and that had survived scrutiny. Whether the threat of a
loss of benefit counts is effectively a prohibition has also been
litigated, and the answer is "it depends."
[snip]
** For the record, this is what I said. It's much different from what
you said I mentioned:
"clergy are free to say or write whatever they want**, including
endorsing political candidates or political parties, but not to do so
from their pulpit or while inside their religious building operating
tax-free because it is is religious. "
Yisroel Markov
2015-12-07 22:22:19 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 19:32:44 +0000 (UTC), Herman Rubin
Post by Herman Rubin
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Herman Rubin
Separation of Church and State was first promulgated by Roger Williams
in the new colony of Rhode Island 375 years ago. Where is there any
attempt to observe it outside of the United States? Possibly France
will give it lip service, but I am not even sure of that. Freedom isn't
free, and far too many want immediate pleasure under serfdom. Obama has
tried to move the majority of Americans to that.
Separation of Church and State is something that Americans think
is important, but in fact isn't. What matters is freedom of
conscience - it shouldn't be illegal or excessively burdensome
to follow an accept religious or ethical tradition.
I partially agree - this may not be very important in a more or less
homogenous state with a clear majority culture and small minorities,
where - importantly - the latter are not perceived as threatening by
the former. (You covered that in your other post.) The USA is unique
in this regard - it is more diverse than even Ahashverosh's empire, so
even its majorities are relatively small. Plus it was founded as a
haven from oppresion by societies which did perceive minorities as
threatening.
Post by Herman Rubin
Post by m***@btinternet.com
(There's bit
of fudge in there, obviously you can't allow people to claim carte
blache immunity from the law by inventing spurious religious dogmas).
One cannot have freedom of conscience if the consciences of some are
allowed to restrict others who will not harm them from acts in which
they believe. In the US, it is illegal for preachers to endorse
candidates; it should be illegal for them, or others acting in the
name of religious or quasi-religious conscience, to endorse proposed
legislation. The state has the right to impose judgment on actions;
religions should only have the right to persuade their believers, or
with due process expel them.
A preacher ought to have as complete freedom of speech regarding any
issue at all as anyone, IMHO.
Post by Herman Rubin
Deliberately harming someone who one
believes to be doing something "immoral" should be automatically a
hate crime.
A crime, period.

[snip]
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net
2015-12-06 04:24:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Herman Rubin
Separation of Church and State was first promulgated by Roger Williams
in the new colony of Rhode Island 375 years ago. Where is there any
attempt to observe it outside of the United States? Possibly France
will give it lip service, but I am not even sure of that. Freedom isn't
free, and far too many want immediate pleasure under serfdom. Obama has
tried to move the majority of Americans to that.
Separation of Church and State is something that Americans think
is important, but in fact isn't. What matters is freedom of
conscience - it shouldn't be illegal or excessively burdensome
to follow an accept religious or ethical tradition. (There's bit
of fudge in there, obviously you can't allow people to claim carte
blache immunity from the law by inventing spurious religious dogmas).
I agree that Americans make a ridiculous fuss about separation of church and state. We British Jews have no problem living in a country with an established church.
Shavua Tov and Chanukah sameach
Henry Goodman
Shelly
2015-12-06 12:06:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net
I agree that Americans make a ridiculous fuss about separation of church and state. We British Jews have no problem living in a country with an established church.
Then you are just lucky. We here in the US would rather not rely on
"luck". We have learned from the history of Europe that a strict
separation of church and state is essential to GUARANTEEING freedom of
religion. You can keep your luck. We'll stick with law.
--
Shelly
m***@btinternet.com
2015-12-06 15:17:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shelly
Post by henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net
I agree that Americans make a ridiculous fuss about separation of church and state. We British Jews have no problem living in a country with an established church.
Then you are just lucky. We here in the US would rather not rely on
"luck". We have learned from the history of Europe that a strict
separation of church and state is essential to GUARANTEEING freedom of
religion. You can keep your luck. We'll stick with law.
It doesn't work like that.
If society attaches a value to a Jew's traditions, traditions will be protected - you'll
have Hannukah and circumcision and salt beef sandwiches and so on. If it attaches
a value to Jewish conscience, conscience will be protected - special arrangements
will be made for Jews if it's decided to hold a religious service to commemorate
victims of a terrorist attack, for example. If it attaches a value to equality, equal rights
will be observed - Jews won't be disqualified from holding public offices or
practicing certain trades.

But the law itself offers only a slight protection. The SCOTUS simply decides that
within the penumbra of meaning of the right to bear arms there's a right to bare
arms, and synagogues which insist on modesty are shut down and their assets
confiscated, on constitutional grounds.
Yisroel Markov
2015-12-07 21:04:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:17:01 +0000 (UTC),
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Shelly
Post by henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net
I agree that Americans make a ridiculous fuss about separation of church and state. We British Jews have no problem living in a country with an established church.
Then you are just lucky. We here in the US would rather not rely on
"luck". We have learned from the history of Europe that a strict
separation of church and state is essential to GUARANTEEING freedom of
religion. You can keep your luck. We'll stick with law.
It doesn't work like that.
If society attaches a value to a Jew's traditions, traditions will be protected - you'll
have Hannukah and circumcision and salt beef sandwiches and so on. If it attaches
a value to Jewish conscience, conscience will be protected - special arrangements
will be made for Jews if it's decided to hold a religious service to commemorate
victims of a terrorist attack, for example. If it attaches a value to equality, equal rights
will be observed - Jews won't be disqualified from holding public offices or
practicing certain trades.
But the law itself offers only a slight protection. The SCOTUS simply decides that
within the penumbra of meaning of the right to bear arms there's a right to bare
arms, and synagogues which insist on modesty are shut down and their assets
confiscated, on constitutional grounds.
That's a good point. A just application of the law is in the hands of
the judiciary, and thus dependent on the goodwill of the rulers
(including, in a democracy, the people at large). One needs only look
at Russia today (or, even more so, in the Soviet days) to see a
country that has decent-sounding laws on the books but an application
of them that perverts justice for the weak.
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Shelly
2015-12-14 14:10:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Shelly
Post by henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net
I agree that Americans make a ridiculous fuss about separation of church and state. We British Jews have no problem living in a country with an established church.
Then you are just lucky. We here in the US would rather not rely on
"luck". We have learned from the history of Europe that a strict
separation of church and state is essential to GUARANTEEING freedom of
religion. You can keep your luck. We'll stick with law.
It doesn't work like that.
If society attaches a value to a Jew's traditions, traditions will be protected - you'll
have Hannukah and circumcision and salt beef sandwiches and so on. If it attaches
a value to Jewish conscience, conscience will be protected - special arrangements
will be made for Jews if it's decided to hold a religious service to commemorate
victims of a terrorist attack, for example. If it attaches a value to equality, equal rights
will be observed - Jews won't be disqualified from holding public offices or
practicing certain trades.
...and that is where you simply don't understand us. WE don't want to
require society to "attach a value". Freedom of religion is absolute --
unless it inflicts harm of someone else. It is a fundamental right. That
is reason for it being in our Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments
to the constitution). We don't want the government to "attach a value"
to circumcision. It is not of their [expletive deleted] business.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
But the law itself offers only a slight protection. The SCOTUS simply decides that
within the penumbra of meaning of the right to bear arms there's a right to bare
arms, and synagogues which insist on modesty are shut down and their assets
confiscated, on constitutional grounds.
--
Shelly
m***@btinternet.com
2015-12-14 15:44:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shelly
...and that is where you simply don't understand us. WE don't want to
require society to "attach a value". Freedom of religion is absolute --
unless it inflicts harm of someone else. It is a fundamental right. That
is reason for it being in our Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments
to the constitution). We don't want the government to "attach a value"
to circumcision. It is not of their [expletive deleted] business.
Can you see the inherent problem in that?
Shelly
2015-12-14 16:23:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Shelly
...and that is where you simply don't understand us. WE don't want to
require society to "attach a value". Freedom of religion is absolute --
unless it inflicts harm of someone else. It is a fundamental right. That
is reason for it being in our Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments
to the constitution). We don't want the government to "attach a value"
to circumcision. It is not of their [expletive deleted] business.
Can you see the inherent problem in that?
In what? I really don't understand your question.

Our rights are OURS. They are not something our government "grants" to
us because they "deem value in them".
--
Shelly
Herman Rubin
2015-12-14 18:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shelly
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Shelly
...and that is where you simply don't understand us. WE don't want to
require society to "attach a value". Freedom of religion is absolute --
unless it inflicts harm of someone else. It is a fundamental right. That
is reason for it being in our Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments
to the constitution). We don't want the government to "attach a value"
to circumcision. It is not of their [expletive deleted] business.
Can you see the inherent problem in that?
In what? I really don't understand your question.
Our rights are OURS. They are not something our government "grants" to
us because they "deem value in them".
This is something a real small d democrat does not realize, and
why democracy is a bad idea. In a democracy, 50.01 percent of the
people could enslave the other 49.99 percent. Even the Athenian
Constitution put limits; a meeting of the assembly (all citizens
were in the voting body) could not impose a penalty of death or
imprisonment, and could only exile one person. This was called,
in our terminology, "ostracism", as the names were written on
broken pieces of pottery, "ostrakon".
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
***@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Herman Rubin
2015-12-14 18:23:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Shelly
...and that is where you simply don't understand us. WE don't want to
require society to "attach a value". Freedom of religion is absolute --
unless it inflicts harm of someone else. It is a fundamental right. That
is reason for it being in our Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments
to the constitution). We don't want the government to "attach a value"
to circumcision. It is not of their [expletive deleted] business.
Can you see the inherent problem in that?
To a libertarian, no. It is the initiation of force or fraud which
is actionable under libertarianism.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
***@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
m***@btinternet.com
2015-12-14 23:15:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Herman Rubin
To a libertarian, no. It is the initiation of force or fraud which
is actionable under libertarianism.
But that doesn't apply to small children, surely?
mm
2015-12-15 07:21:50 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 23:15:59 +0000 (UTC),
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Herman Rubin
To a libertarian, no. It is the initiation of force or fraud which
is actionable under libertarianism.
But that doesn't apply to small children, surely?
You sound like an enemy of Judaism. I'm not surprised.
cindys
2015-12-15 00:20:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Shelly
...and that is where you simply don't understand us. WE don't want to
require society to "attach a value". Freedom of religion is absolute --
unless it inflicts harm of someone else. It is a fundamental right. That
is reason for it being in our Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments
to the constitution). We don't want the government to "attach a value"
to circumcision. It is not of their [expletive deleted] business.
Can you see the inherent problem in that?
----
I don't see a problem, and I agree with Shelly. Why would I want my ability to freely be able to practice my religion (or not) depend on the whims of the government?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
m***@btinternet.com
2015-12-15 01:09:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by cindys
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Shelly
...and that is where you simply don't understand us. WE don't want to
require society to "attach a value". Freedom of religion is absolute --
unless it inflicts harm of someone else. It is a fundamental right. That
is reason for it being in our Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments
to the constitution). We don't want the government to "attach a value"
to circumcision. It is not of their [expletive deleted] business.
Can you see the inherent problem in that?
----
I don't see a problem, and I agree with Shelly. Why would I want
my ability to freely be able to practice my religion (or not)
depend on the whims of the government?
Someone simply declares that circumcision is harming a child
(and that's not obviously wrong, far-fetched, unreasonable,
although anti-circumcision arguments usually start out in
rational terms, but you quickly realise that the welfare of
Jewish boys is not something the anti-circs are very concerned
about).
Shelly
2015-12-15 03:26:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by cindys
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Shelly
...and that is where you simply don't understand us. WE don't want to
require society to "attach a value". Freedom of religion is absolute --
unless it inflicts harm of someone else. It is a fundamental right. That
is reason for it being in our Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments
to the constitution). We don't want the government to "attach a value"
to circumcision. It is not of their [expletive deleted] business.
Can you see the inherent problem in that?
----
I don't see a problem, and I agree with Shelly. Why would I want
my ability to freely be able to practice my religion (or not)
depend on the whims of the government?
Someone simply declares that circumcision is harming a child
(and that's not obviously wrong, far-fetched, unreasonable,
although anti-circumcision arguments usually start out in
rational terms, but you quickly realise that the welfare of
Jewish boys is not something the anti-circs are very concerned
about).
You still have not replied to what you meant by "that". So, what is the
"that" with which you see an inherent problem? Truthfully, I have NO
idea what you are getting at.
--
Shelly
m***@btinternet.com
2015-12-15 15:44:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shelly
You still have not replied to what you meant by "that". So, what is the
"that" with which you see an inherent problem? Truthfully, I have NO
idea what you are getting at.
Any religious activity must be allowed, except that which causes harm to others.

Fine. So we just declare that the activity causes harm to others.

Circumcision - harming an baby boy. Ban.
Kosher slaughter - harming a fluffy animal - ban.
Ku Klux Klan all white school - breaks segregation laws, harms blacks, ban.
Jewish all Jewish school - we banned the KKK all white school, sorry, must ban.
Rabbi won't perform mixed Jewish/ non-Jewish weddings - we've established the
precedent that this sort of thing is "harm".
Shelly
2015-12-15 16:49:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Shelly
You still have not replied to what you meant by "that". So, what is the
"that" with which you see an inherent problem? Truthfully, I have NO
idea what you are getting at.
Any religious activity must be allowed, except that which causes harm to others.
Fine. So we just declare that the activity causes harm to others.
Circumcision - harming an baby boy. Ban.
Kosher slaughter - harming a fluffy animal - ban.
Ku Klux Klan all white school - breaks segregation laws, harms blacks, ban.
Jewish all Jewish school - we banned the KKK all white school, sorry, must ban.
Rabbi won't perform mixed Jewish/ non-Jewish weddings - we've established the
precedent that this sort of thing is "harm".
IOW your "that" is ridiculous examples. I needn't bother to answer your
"examples" as they are too ludicrous to waste my time. The only one that
needs answering is the circumcision one. It has not been established
that any harm is done to the boy. In fact, quite the opposite as there
is a reduced chance of infections.
--
Shelly
Yisroel Markov
2015-12-15 21:16:03 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:49:50 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
Post by Shelly
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Shelly
You still have not replied to what you meant by "that". So, what is the
"that" with which you see an inherent problem? Truthfully, I have NO
idea what you are getting at.
Any religious activity must be allowed, except that which causes harm to others.
Fine. So we just declare that the activity causes harm to others.
Circumcision - harming an baby boy. Ban.
Kosher slaughter - harming a fluffy animal - ban.
Ku Klux Klan all white school - breaks segregation laws, harms blacks, ban.
Jewish all Jewish school - we banned the KKK all white school, sorry, must ban.
Rabbi won't perform mixed Jewish/ non-Jewish weddings - we've established the
precedent that this sort of thing is "harm".
IOW your "that" is ridiculous examples. I needn't bother to answer your
"examples" as they are too ludicrous to waste my time. The only one that
needs answering is the circumcision one. It has not been established
that any harm is done to the boy. In fact, quite the opposite as there
is a reduced chance of infections.
I have to disagree. Like I said before, even if the law is sound, this
is not a guarantee that it will be justly applied. (Case in point -
USSR and Putin's Russia.) So while it's true that these examples are
ludicrous, that is only because of the prevailing legal climate, which
arises out of the cultural climate. In that sense, Malcolm is indeed
right - the things he mentioned do not occur, to a large extent,
because this society values what we do. Sorry, but saying otherwise is
of a "it can't happen here" variety, and we've seen such statements
proved false before.
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Shelly
2015-12-15 23:26:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yisroel Markov
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:49:50 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
Post by Shelly
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Shelly
You still have not replied to what you meant by "that". So, what is the
"that" with which you see an inherent problem? Truthfully, I have NO
idea what you are getting at.
Any religious activity must be allowed, except that which causes harm to others.
Fine. So we just declare that the activity causes harm to others.
Circumcision - harming an baby boy. Ban.
Kosher slaughter - harming a fluffy animal - ban.
Ku Klux Klan all white school - breaks segregation laws, harms blacks, ban.
Jewish all Jewish school - we banned the KKK all white school, sorry, must ban.
Rabbi won't perform mixed Jewish/ non-Jewish weddings - we've established the
precedent that this sort of thing is "harm".
IOW your "that" is ridiculous examples. I needn't bother to answer your
"examples" as they are too ludicrous to waste my time. The only one that
needs answering is the circumcision one. It has not been established
that any harm is done to the boy. In fact, quite the opposite as there
is a reduced chance of infections.
I have to disagree. Like I said before, even if the law is sound, this
is not a guarantee that it will be justly applied. (Case in point -
USSR and Putin's Russia.) So while it's true that these examples are
ludicrous, that is only because of the prevailing legal climate, which
arises out of the cultural climate. In that sense, Malcolm is indeed
right - the things he mentioned do not occur, to a large extent,
because this society values what we do. Sorry, but saying otherwise is
of a "it can't happen here" variety, and we've seen such statements
proved false before.
And I have to disagree with you [partly]. Yes, saying "it can't happen
here" is ridiculous as all sorts of things have happened here. However,
it IS based on the constitution. So, even if the political climate says
otherwise, prohibiting it would violate the constitution.

The main point, and one in which we agree (you and I) is that it is not
up to the government to "grant us rights". The rights are fundamentally
ours and it incumbent on the government to protect those rights -- not
deem them valuable or worthless.
--
Shelly
Yisroel Markov
2015-12-16 15:58:41 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 23:26:36 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
Post by Shelly
Post by Yisroel Markov
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:49:50 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
Post by Shelly
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Shelly
You still have not replied to what you meant by "that". So, what is the
"that" with which you see an inherent problem? Truthfully, I have NO
idea what you are getting at.
Any religious activity must be allowed, except that which causes harm to others.
Fine. So we just declare that the activity causes harm to others.
Circumcision - harming an baby boy. Ban.
Kosher slaughter - harming a fluffy animal - ban.
Ku Klux Klan all white school - breaks segregation laws, harms blacks, ban.
Jewish all Jewish school - we banned the KKK all white school, sorry, must ban.
Rabbi won't perform mixed Jewish/ non-Jewish weddings - we've established the
precedent that this sort of thing is "harm".
IOW your "that" is ridiculous examples. I needn't bother to answer your
"examples" as they are too ludicrous to waste my time. The only one that
needs answering is the circumcision one. It has not been established
that any harm is done to the boy. In fact, quite the opposite as there
is a reduced chance of infections.
I have to disagree. Like I said before, even if the law is sound, this
is not a guarantee that it will be justly applied. (Case in point -
USSR and Putin's Russia.) So while it's true that these examples are
ludicrous, that is only because of the prevailing legal climate, which
arises out of the cultural climate. In that sense, Malcolm is indeed
right - the things he mentioned do not occur, to a large extent,
because this society values what we do. Sorry, but saying otherwise is
of a "it can't happen here" variety, and we've seen such statements
proved false before.
And I have to disagree with you [partly]. Yes, saying "it can't happen
here" is ridiculous as all sorts of things have happened here. However,
it IS based on the constitution. So, even if the political climate says
otherwise, prohibiting it would violate the constitution.
I think you're missing the point. The Constitution is subject to
interpretation, and that can change. Dred Scott was merely the most
notorious decision that was later overturned; the Supreme Court has
overturned precedent before and after. Malcolm has offered a plausible
way in which a hostile court can uphold a law enacted by a hostile
legislature (like the Blaine amendments, still on the books in many
states) and call it one of the "reasonable restrictions on rights."
Post by Shelly
The main point, and one in which we agree (you and I) is that it is not
up to the government to "grant us rights". The rights are fundamentally
ours and it incumbent on the government to protect those rights -- not
deem them valuable or worthless.
Sure. But we're not talking about the rights themselves, but of
legislative and judicial decisions on whether specific practices come
within the scope of those rights. Smoking peyote doesn't. Owning an
automatic firearm doesn't. Having private religious schools does, but
that argument had to go all the way to the Supreme Court, with the
final decision relying on the traditional understanding (not
definition!) of liberty and the 14th (not the 1st!) Amendment, so if
the political climate had been different... (And it took ten weeks to
deliberate, so it wasn't a sure thing.) Etc.
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Herman Rubin
2015-12-16 20:27:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yisroel Markov
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 23:26:36 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
Post by Shelly
Post by Yisroel Markov
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:49:50 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
..................
Post by Yisroel Markov
I think you're missing the point. The Constitution is subject to
interpretation, and that can change. Dred Scott was merely the most
notorious decision that was later overturned; the Supreme Court has
overturned precedent before and after.
Dred Scott was not overturned by judicial action, but by the
post Civil War amendments to the Constitution. A case of overturning
is Ferguson vs. Plessey, which allowed "separate but equal". However,
it was finally overturned, with a lot of sociological gobbledygook, but
essentially on the observation that in practice separate was not equal.
The original was 5-4; the overturning was unanimous.

Malcolm has offered a plausible
Post by Yisroel Markov
way in which a hostile court can uphold a law enacted by a hostile
legislature (like the Blaine amendments, still on the books in many
states) and call it one of the "reasonable restrictions on rights."
I have seen too many decisions by the court which would be rejected
by anyone who understood basic logic, which is content independent.
Post by Yisroel Markov
Post by Shelly
The main point, and one in which we agree (you and I) is that it is not
up to the government to "grant us rights". The rights are fundamentally
ours and it incumbent on the government to protect those rights -- not
deem them valuable or worthless.
Sure. But we're not talking about the rights themselves, but of
legislative and judicial decisions on whether specific practices come
within the scope of those rights. Smoking peyote doesn't. Owning an
automatic firearm doesn't. Having private religious schools does, but
that argument had to go all the way to the Supreme Court, with the
final decision relying on the traditional understanding (not
definition!) of liberty and the 14th (not the 1st!) Amendment, so if
the political climate had been different... (And it took ten weeks to
deliberate, so it wasn't a sure thing.) Etc.
The 14th Amendment was necessary, as the 1st did not refer to
states, and until recently, there was no Federal legislation on
education. I see "No Child Lwft Behind" as reducing education to
most; its contrapositive is "No Child Gets Ahead", and we lose much
of the mental abilty of those who have more of it.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
***@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Shelly
2015-12-16 23:26:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Herman Rubin
Post by Yisroel Markov
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 23:26:36 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
Post by Shelly
Post by Yisroel Markov
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:49:50 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
..................
Post by Yisroel Markov
I think you're missing the point. The Constitution is subject to
interpretation, and that can change. Dred Scott was merely the most
notorious decision that was later overturned; the Supreme Court has
overturned precedent before and after.
Dred Scott was not overturned by judicial action, but by the
post Civil War amendments to the Constitution. A case of overturning
is Ferguson vs. Plessey, which allowed "separate but equal". However,
it was finally overturned, with a lot of sociological gobbledygook, but
essentially on the observation that in practice separate was not equal.
The original was 5-4; the overturning was unanimous.
Malcolm has offered a plausible
Post by Yisroel Markov
way in which a hostile court can uphold a law enacted by a hostile
legislature (like the Blaine amendments, still on the books in many
states) and call it one of the "reasonable restrictions on rights."
I have seen too many decisions by the court which would be rejected
by anyone who understood basic logic, which is content independent.
Post by Yisroel Markov
Post by Shelly
The main point, and one in which we agree (you and I) is that it is not
up to the government to "grant us rights". The rights are fundamentally
ours and it incumbent on the government to protect those rights -- not
deem them valuable or worthless.
Sure. But we're not talking about the rights themselves, but of
legislative and judicial decisions on whether specific practices come
within the scope of those rights. Smoking peyote doesn't. Owning an
automatic firearm doesn't. Having private religious schools does, but
that argument had to go all the way to the Supreme Court, with the
final decision relying on the traditional understanding (not
definition!) of liberty and the 14th (not the 1st!) Amendment, so if
the political climate had been different... (And it took ten weeks to
deliberate, so it wasn't a sure thing.) Etc.
The 14th Amendment was necessary, as the 1st did not refer to
states, and until recently, there was no Federal legislation on
education. I see "No Child Left Behind" as reducing education to
most; its contrapositive is "No Child Gets Ahead", and we lose much
of the mental abilty of those who have more of it.
Herman, "No child gets ahead" is the inverse of "No child left behind",
and not the contrapositive.

Proving a contrapositive proves the original.
--
Shelly
Herman Rubin
2015-12-17 17:44:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shelly
Post by Herman Rubin
Post by Yisroel Markov
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 23:26:36 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
Post by Yisroel Markov
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:49:50 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
..................
Herman, "No child gets ahead" is the inverse of "No child left behind",
and not the contrapositive.
Proving a contrapositive proves the original.
No, it is the contrapositive. The two statements are equivalent.

One child being left behind another is equivalent to one child
getting ahead of another.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
***@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Shelly
2015-12-17 20:11:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Herman Rubin
Post by Shelly
Post by Herman Rubin
Post by Yisroel Markov
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 23:26:36 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
Post by Yisroel Markov
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:49:50 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
..................
Herman, "No child gets ahead" is the inverse of "No child left behind",
and not the contrapositive.
Proving a contrapositive proves the original.
No, it is the contrapositive. The two statements are equivalent.
One child being left behind another is equivalent to one child
getting ahead of another.
No, you are wrong and as a mathematics professor you should know better.
It is the inverse.

The comparison is not between one child and another. The comparison is
having one child more than, say 2 or 3 sigma away from the rest of the
population. There could still be children more than 2 or 3 sigma ahead.

Here is an example of why your statement is false. Take a group of 100
children. Say 99 have the same test scores. etc. One child has scores
that are 25% lower. Bringing him up to the others is what the sentence
means. Now take that same group of 100 but the one student is 25%
higher. Are you really contending that bring him down to the rest is
the same as bringing the first child up to the rest? That would be
*your* contrapositive and, of course, it is absurd. Now bringing that
first child up is admirable while bringing the second child down is
deplorable, so how can they be the same thing?
--
Shelly
m***@btinternet.com
2015-12-17 20:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Herman Rubin
No, it is the contrapositive. The two statements are equivalent.
One child being left behind another is equivalent to one child
getting ahead of another.
Although presumably at Purdue university department of statistics someone
has done work on the difference between low and high outliers. "No child
left behind" can be fulfilled if you have no low outliers, you don't necessarily
have to eliminate the high outliers.
Herman Rubin
2015-12-20 00:24:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Herman Rubin
No, it is the contrapositive. The two statements are equivalent.
One child being left behind another is equivalent to one child
getting ahead of another.
Although presumably at Purdue university department of statistics someone
has done work on the difference between low and high outliers. "No child
left behind" can be fulfilled if you have no low outliers, you don't necessarily
have to eliminate the high outliers.
It is not just the outliers, there is much of the normal curve
out there. The upper 10% are capable of achieving what the average
person can at age 18 by age 15, and the lower 25%, which is roughly
the level to which things are taught if there is a great effort to
teach, cuts another 10%. Realize that a 10% change in the rate of
mental development of a child through secondary school is approximately
2 years, 10% of the population are losing 5 years.

Also, the rates are different for different subjects, and even different
ways of teaching the same subject. I got good grades in English classes,
although frankly I do not know how to write; I just make few mistakes,
and mistakes in spelling and grammar are what most make.

I believe that with a good curriculum taught by teachers who understand
their subjects at least a large proportion should have learned and
understood the basics of all of the sciences, and also have a reasonable
understanding of ancient and modern history by the time they are 15 or 16.
Now, essentially nobody can get a good look at those foundations, and can
we trust someone to take things into account who does not even know the
things? Hardly.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
***@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
m***@btinternet.com
2015-12-20 15:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Herman Rubin
It is not just the outliers, there is much of the normal curve
out there. The upper 10% are capable of achieving what the average
person can at age 18 by age 15, and the lower 25%, which is roughly
the level to which things are taught if there is a great effort to
teach, cuts another 10%. Realize that a 10% change in the rate of
mental development of a child through secondary school is approximately
2 years, 10% of the population are losing 5 years.
Also, the rates are different for different subjects, and even different
ways of teaching the same subject. I got good grades in English classes,
although frankly I do not know how to write; I just make few mistakes,
and mistakes in spelling and grammar are what most make.
I believe that with a good curriculum taught by teachers who understand
their subjects at least a large proportion should have learned and
understood the basics of all of the sciences, and also have a reasonable
understanding of ancient and modern history by the time they are 15 or 16.
Now, essentially nobody can get a good look at those foundations, and can
we trust someone to take things into account who does not even know the
things? Hardly.
Not all subjects are mathematics.
In maths it's maybe reasonable to talk of mathematical knowledge as
something separate from a child's psychological and social development.
But in English, a fifteen year old simply can't write like an 18 year
old. 15 year olds have only just put aside their Marvel comics and
they like vampires and pulp fantasy. By 18, they've turned into
sophisticated young ladies and gentlemen.
In languages, it's other way round. Younger children become fluent
easily, older students often do quite well in the initial exercises,
but they find it hard to extend to use in real situations.
Yisroel Markov
2015-12-15 16:38:44 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 01:09:19 +0000 (UTC),
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by cindys
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Shelly
...and that is where you simply don't understand us. WE don't want to
require society to "attach a value". Freedom of religion is absolute --
unless it inflicts harm of someone else. It is a fundamental right. That
is reason for it being in our Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments
to the constitution). We don't want the government to "attach a value"
to circumcision. It is not of their [expletive deleted] business.
Can you see the inherent problem in that?
----
I don't see a problem, and I agree with Shelly. Why would I want
my ability to freely be able to practice my religion (or not)
depend on the whims of the government?
Someone simply declares that circumcision is harming a child
(and that's not obviously wrong, far-fetched, unreasonable,
although anti-circumcision arguments usually start out in
rational terms, but you quickly realise that the welfare of
Jewish boys is not something the anti-circs are very concerned
about).
Oh, so that's what you mean. Surely, though, circumcision is the only
practice that will fit into this loophole. And even then, society may
attach value (as IMHO most Americans do) to the free practice of
religion per se - any religion - rather than specific practices.
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Shelly
2015-12-15 16:51:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yisroel Markov
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 01:09:19 +0000 (UTC),
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by cindys
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Shelly
...and that is where you simply don't understand us. WE don't want to
require society to "attach a value". Freedom of religion is absolute --
unless it inflicts harm of someone else. It is a fundamental right. That
is reason for it being in our Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments
to the constitution). We don't want the government to "attach a value"
to circumcision. It is not of their [expletive deleted] business.
Can you see the inherent problem in that?
----
I don't see a problem, and I agree with Shelly. Why would I want
my ability to freely be able to practice my religion (or not)
depend on the whims of the government?
Someone simply declares that circumcision is harming a child
(and that's not obviously wrong, far-fetched, unreasonable,
although anti-circumcision arguments usually start out in
rational terms, but you quickly realise that the welfare of
Jewish boys is not something the anti-circs are very concerned
about).
Oh, so that's what you mean. Surely, though, circumcision is the only
practice that will fit into this loophole. And even then, society may
attach value (as IMHO most Americans do) to the free practice of
religion per se - any religion - rather than specific practices.
Furthermore, circumcision is done by a large percentage of the
non-Jewish population for medical reasons -- reduced infections later in
life.
--
Shelly
mm
2015-12-15 07:21:08 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:44:40 +0000 (UTC),
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Shelly
...and that is where you simply don't understand us. WE don't want to
require society to "attach a value". Freedom of religion is absolute --
unless it inflicts harm of someone else. It is a fundamental right. That
is reason for it being in our Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments
to the constitution). We don't want the government to "attach a value"
to circumcision. It is not of their [expletive deleted] business.
Can you see the inherent problem in that?
No.
Herman Rubin
2015-12-07 00:10:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Herman Rubin
Separation of Church and State was first promulgated by Roger Williams
in the new colony of Rhode Island 375 years ago. Where is there any
attempt to observe it outside of the United States? Possibly France
will give it lip service, but I am not even sure of that. Freedom isn't
free, and far too many want immediate pleasure under serfdom. Obama has
tried to move the majority of Americans to that.
Separation of Church and State is something that Americans think
is important, but in fact isn't. What matters is freedom of
conscience - it shouldn't be illegal or excessively burdensome
to follow an accept religious or ethical tradition. (There's bit
of fudge in there, obviously you can't allow people to claim carte
blache immunity from the law by inventing spurious religious dogmas).
I agree that Americans make a ridiculous fuss about separation of church and state. We British Jews have no problem living in a country with an established church.
Shavua Tov and Chanukah sameach
Henry Goodman
It depends on what the established church can do, and on what respect
those not affiliated with a mainstream church are given.

There might not be problems NOW, but British history is full of them.
In the late 19th century, only Trinitarians were allowed to teach in
British universities. There are worse, if one goes farther back.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
***@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
m***@btinternet.com
2015-12-07 02:53:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Herman Rubin
It depends on what the established church can do, and on what respect
those not affiliated with a mainstream church are given.
There might not be problems NOW, but British history is full of them.
In the late 19th century, only Trinitarians were allowed to teach in
British universities. There are worse, if one goes farther back.
But until the late 19th century, Oxford and Cambridge were not
the institutions they are now. Essentially they were finishing
colleges for young gentlemen, passing the admissions tests was
no great academic feat, the undergraduates were still legally
minors, and they were run like the public schools, but with a
regime more suited to older pupils. They were also primarily theological
training institutions. Younger sons of landed families would go
into the church, it was one of the big professions, and the master
of the college would be a clergyman. There was also compulsory
daily chapel, seen as an integral part of the life, which was
essentially a halfway house between a monastery and secular priesthood,
the dons lived in community, but without taking solemn vows.


It was only at the end of the 19th century that a professional
scientific class developed, and that model started to become
unsustainable. Universities needed scientists and industry needed
technically trained men. Then mass education was rolled out and
schools needed vast numbers of teachers. And Oxford still had a
stranglehold on politics, but the landed gentry did not. The
religious tests made less and less sense, theology was more and
more just another subject rather than the central purpose of
the college.

But that was pretty modern. In 1800, it was no more surprising
that Corpus Christi College was exclusively Anglican than it
was that Douai was exclusively Catholic or a yeshivah should
be exclusively Jewish.
mm
2015-12-07 23:57:40 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 04:24:00 +0000 (UTC),
Post by henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Herman Rubin
Separation of Church and State was first promulgated by Roger Williams
in the new colony of Rhode Island 375 years ago. Where is there any
attempt to observe it outside of the United States? Possibly France
will give it lip service, but I am not even sure of that. Freedom isn't
free, and far too many want immediate pleasure under serfdom. Obama has
tried to move the majority of Americans to that.
Separation of Church and State is something that Americans think
is important, but in fact isn't. What matters is freedom of
conscience - it shouldn't be illegal or excessively burdensome
to follow an accept religious or ethical tradition. (There's bit
of fudge in there, obviously you can't allow people to claim carte
blache immunity from the law by inventing spurious religious dogmas).
I agree that Americans make a ridiculous fuss about separation of church and state. We British Jews have no problem living in a country with an established church.
I agree, I really do, that it didn't have to be this way, but now that
it is, now that we have a First Amendment that prohibits the
estabilishment of religion, we have to enforce it or it will probably
go the other way. There certainly are many who want to put too much
religion (read that, Xianity) in public life, and if they got what
they wanted, they'd want much more.

BTW, clergy are free to say or write whatever they want**, including
endorsing political candidates or political parties, but not to do so
from their pulpit or while inside their religious building operating
tax-free because it is is religious. That is, contributions and
money-earned by doing religious things, (publishing, concerts,
lectures, and lots of other things, no income tax*** and no property
tax and probably no excise tax, maybe no customs tax, and it's only
recently that totally non-religious businesses owned by churches etc.
have been income and property taxed, and iiuc still not all of it.) It
probably helps if they say, "Affiliation noted for identification
only" meaning that they're not speaking or writing in the name of
their church or shul****.

***For the churches. Clergy pay income tax. No property tax on
church-owned property.


**However many clergy don't want to endorse candidates or political
parties, because it antagonizes members of their congregation, or
their superiors for heirarchical clerical systems. ****When they do
do so, some of their own members want them to make clear they're not
speaking for their church.


There is a famous true story that was, and I hope is told in just
about every American primary school, that the Pilgrims came to America
for religious freedom and then when one of their own, Roger Williams,
disagreed with them, they threw him out. They didnt' learn anything
from their own history. In the winter I believe. He spent the first
winter living with Indian friends. Later he founded the town later
the capital of Rhode Island, which not too suprisingly, he called
Providence. " He named the area in honor of "God's merciful
Providence", which he believed was responsible for revealing such a
haven for him and his followers to settle." wikip.

Despite this, when the US began, several states required a Xian oath
to hold public office, to practice law in court, to serve on a jury.
We were desperate for soldiers during our war with Britain, but once
the country was estabilished, I can see them requiring a Xian oath to
serve in the armed forces.

This did not change in... New York or Pennsylvania, one of them,
until about 1784, in Maryland until 1826 and in other some other
states on other dates before 1826. Without the 1st Amendment, along
with the belief in it that many of all groups had, it might never have
changed.


BTW, several important, influential people in several states would not
ratify the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights was in the works to be
passed soon afterwards. So even though I might be willing to not have
a First Amendment religious protection, they probably woulnd't have
been.

The nomination Robert Bork for the Supreme Court was not confirmed by
the Senate, and many current conservatives seem to believe it wasn't
for good reason. But I heard him on the radio saying that there would
be nothing wrong with having a government religion in areas where most
people agreed on which one.
Post by henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net
Shavua Tov and Chanukah sameach
Henry Goodman
Loading...