NY-09, Special Election Thread

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

no but someone who accuses me of something that according to Judaism deserves the death penalty is trolling.

What I'm doing is defending myself for his foolish accusation.  (I didn't bring up my theology only as a defense to why I'm strong on a specific point which happens to be one of the biggest issues in the race this thread is about)

If I'm trolling so is both the person I'm responding to and the one he's responding to.

Fine, but why (on a social, not personal, level) do you care?

Related question: Did the Book of Ruth get deleted from the version of the Tanakh used by reactionary maniacs when I wasn't paying attention?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I answered that because this type of legislation is one of the biggest fronts to god possible.
 (I can give many other reasons like kicking people out of their jobs as Town Clerks for not betraying their religion)

It's not betraying anybody's religion to sign civil documents unless they lead to something objectively sinful happening. Discrimination on the basis of sex or gender is an example of something that's objectively sinful. It was sinful then and it is sinful now. The only differences are the information that we now have, and the material conditions that allow us to have it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's so cute when people feign ignorance of what's going on in that book.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's so cute when people feign ignorance of what's going on in that book.

site me a pasuk or be quit, you am haraetz rasha.

PS if you dont' understand that your interpretation of anything in the bible says is worthless anyway.
[/quote]

''Am ha-aretz rasha' is kind of an absurd thing to call me, since I'm not Jewish and as such can't be 'am ha-aretz, unless you're using the term in a way I'm unfamiliar with--possible, I admit. And rasha is meaningless coming from you. If anybody is a rasha here it's the one who cares more about policing the way other Jews (and all goyim, for that matter) live their lives than about actually helping people. It would be slightly understandable if you were a reb, but I somehow doubt you are.

Pasuk: Ruth 1.16-17; 4.15; 4.17. I apologise if the chapter and verse divisions work differently in Jewish Bibles; if you need help you can search a Christian one online pretty easily (though I am sorry if you have to do that). I know what the conventional interpretations here are, and they're legitimate, but you can't deny that there are some questions raised there (or, if you do, you're hilarious).

That said, I do agree with you on the way New York City is redistricted. The Orthodox Jews are an obvious community of interest. Though, it needs to be said, while most Orthodox Jews I've met certainly agree with you on this substantively, they're not as creepily obsessive about it. This is because being an Orthodox Jew is a religion (among other things, like an ethnicity and a cultural identification), not a membership in some weird coterie of like-minded bigots.

ETA: You misspelled 'cite'.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I answered that because this type of legislation is one of the biggest fronts to god possible.
 (I can give many other reasons like kicking people out of their jobs as Town Clerks for not betraying their religion)

It's not betraying anybody's religion to sign civil documents unless they lead to something objectively sinful happening. Discrimination on the basis of sex or gender is an example of something that's objectively sinful. It was sinful then and it is sinful now. The only differences are the information that we now have, and the material conditions that allow us to have it.

"Objectively sinful"? Wtf is that even supposed to mean? "Sinful" pretty much means "a sin according to the tradition of religion x [as defined by context, but usually Christian or some Christian tradition], irrespective of what the law or the rather minimal rules of "absolute morality" have to say on the subject".

It's supposed to mean 'a phrase used in an argument with another religious person when a certain set of assumptions have already been established, mainly because the other religious person is obviously trolling anyway'.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

the reason I'm so confident that this is so because with out Weprin's homo problems there is 0 chance Turner wins the Orthodox vote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yup, no slavering hatred and sin here, just the shining love of God. Yessirree.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

the reason I'm so confident that this is so because with out Weprin's homo problems there is 0 chance Turner wins the Orthodox vote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yup, no slavering hatred and sin here, just the shining love of God. Yessirree.

when they decide to do teshuva we'll talk right now there in a mereda against HKB.
(it wasn't just the marriage that lost him votes it was also his speech and parade marches)
and just to let you know if this district is gerrymandered you will do to the democratic party what Coollidge did to the Republican party (which crystallized under that Roosevelt yemach shemo)

...which...which aspect of what Coolidge did to the Republican Party? Do you mean leading it to one EC landslide and setting up another? Indirectly leading to a crushing defeat later on with my economic policies? Making it more conservative somehow? And what does any of this have to do with the shape or demographics of NY-09?

While I can parse most of what you're saying, your random use of Hebrew nouns (other than teshuva, which should be obvious to anyone) also isn't helping your case, as it makes you seem insular.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lord knows I got those.

I got 99 problems but gay marriage ain't one.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

the reason I'm so confident that this is so because with out Weprin's homo problems there is 0 chance Turner wins the Orthodox vote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yup, no slavering hatred and sin here, just the shining love of God. Yessirree.

when they decide to do teshuva we'll talk right now there in a mereda against HKB.
(it wasn't just the marriage that lost him votes it was also his speech and parade marches)
and just to let you know if this district is gerrymandered you will do to the democratic party what Coollidge did to the Republican party (which crystallized under that Roosevelt yemach shemo)

...which...which aspect of what Coolidge did to the Republican Party? Do you mean leading it to one EC landslide and setting up another? Indirectly leading to a crushing defeat later on with my economic policies? Making it more conservative somehow? And what does any of this have to do with the shape or demographics of NY-09?

While I can parse most of what you're saying, your random use of Hebrew nouns (other than teshuva, which should be obvious to anyone) also isn't helping your case, as it makes you seem insular.

1. Coolidge lost the Jewish vote for the Republicans (and also lost many Catholics) (look it up if you don't know why)
2. the message was specifically for you and not meant that everyone should understand it. (and you supposedly know Hebrew, which I know see isn't true so don't lecture me on the bible again)

1. Okay, I'll bite. I'd love to hear your interpretation of the politics of the 1920s.
2. That's asinine. We're on a public forum and you're making a fool of yourself. (I never claimed to be fluent in Hebrew, just that I could more-or-less make out what you were saying because the vocabulary you were using was not exactly advanced. Okay, here, you want to play rough? Give me an analysis of the Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard. A GOOD analysis. In Koine Greek. Now.)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

KKK and 1924 Immigration bill

1924 Immigration bill, yes, but the Democrats were much more in the pocket of the KKK than the Republicans were.

I'm still not convinced the orthodox Jew vote itself would have turned this district. What % of the district are they again? The catholic vote is more interesting imho. Not to say gay marriage didn't have an impact with them, but perhaps the general state of the economy and the resulting approval of Obama because of it had something to do with it?

Not to mention gay marriage is not an issue for the Republicans to run on nationwide. Well, maybe 2012 will be the last cycle for that. Beyond that you will start to get majorly f'ed. Trust me.

The key point is that McCain already won over 90% of the Orthodox Jewish vote in this district in 2008. They couldn't be the deciding factor because they didn't have any more room to swing (although I suppose there might have been a turnout differential). Any talk on here of marriage is just noise.

because if not for the marriage Weprin would have won the Orthodox vote big putting him
if you can't understand this basic fact your totally clueless into the Orthodox vote.
and if you except that the Orthodox vote would have voted for Weprin but didn't because of marriage but still can't figure out how marriage effected the election then I suggest you see someone to help you with basic logic and math.

There is a bit of logic here. The Presidency has the greatest influence on foreign policy, the Congress some, and state offices very little. If Israel is priority #1, priority #1 will sway the Presidential vote, priorities #2,#3... will balance the Congressional vote, and priorities #2,#3... will dictate the state office vote.

not the way I broke it down
1. is the reason why Orthodox Jews voted for Turner over Weprin is gay marriage (very easy to prove if you want to look at any Orthodox Web site on this election, speak to may Orthodox Jews is in this district, read the Orthodox Newspapers that went for Turner, find out why prominent Orthodox Jews endorsed Turner, look at the polling data that breaks down Orthodox Jews into a separate category)
and now point 2 which is where I said it was illogical
and if you except that the Orthodox vote would have voted for Weprin but didn't because of marriage but still can't figure out how marriage effected the election then I suggest you see someone to help you with basic logic and math.

This exchange puts me in the uncomfortable position of defending Bob, but his analysis has the benefit of being grammatically coherent. Do you even realise that he's not actually disagreeing with you?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

KKK and 1924 Immigration bill

1924 Immigration bill, yes, but the Democrats were much more in the pocket of the KKK than the Republicans were.

Coolidge, and Davis specifically (keep in mind that the presidents position is mistakenly taken for the parties even in are own times)

If you're interested in the Democrats' positioning at this time I'd highly recommend a book titled The 103rd Ballot: Democrats and the Disaster in Madison Square Garden, about the 1924 DNC. It's considerably more complicated than just Davis, although I agree with you that Coolidge sure as Hell didn't do sh**t for Jews or Catholics (or much of anybody, really; then again he also didn't do much stuff against anybody in particular, so...).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

KKK and 1924 Immigration bill

1924 Immigration bill, yes, but the Democrats were much more in the pocket of the KKK than the Republicans were.

Coolidge, and Davis specifically (keep in mind that the presidents position is mistakenly taken for the parties even in are own times)

If you're interested in the Democrats' positioning at this time I'd highly recommend a book titled The 103rd Ballot: Democrats and the Disaster in Madison Square Garden, about the 1924 DNC. It's considerably more complicated than just Davis, although I agree with you that Coolidge sure as Hell didn't do sh**t for Jews or Catholics (or much of anybody, really; then again he also didn't do much stuff against anybody in particular, so...).

the 1924 immigration bill was against Jews and Catholics.

I understand it's more "complicated than just Davis" but the effect of his condemning the Klan and Coolidge not had a damning effect on ethnic whites voting Republican for years afterwards.

All right, I'll concede this point. Though I don't even remember how it came up.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

KKK and 1924 Immigration bill

1924 Immigration bill, yes, but the Democrats were much more in the pocket of the KKK than the Republicans were.

Coolidge, and Davis specifically (keep in mind that the presidents position is mistakenly taken for the parties even in are own times)

If you're interested in the Democrats' positioning at this time I'd highly recommend a book titled The 103rd Ballot: Democrats and the Disaster in Madison Square Garden, about the 1924 DNC. It's considerably more complicated than just Davis, although I agree with you that Coolidge sure as Hell didn't do sh**t for Jews or Catholics (or much of anybody, really; then again he also didn't do much stuff against anybody in particular, so...).

the 1924 immigration bill was against Jews and Catholics.

I understand it's more "complicated than just Davis" but the effect of his condemning the Klan and Coolidge not had a damning effect on ethnic whites voting Republican for years afterwards.

All right, I'll concede this point. Though I don't even remember how it came up.

here's how

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, yes.

Here's a question for you: Don't you also argue that it's gerrymandered already?