Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

There are 20 comments on the Newsday story from Jun 21, 2008, titled Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel. In it, Newsday reports that:

Safety pins and screws are still lodged in 15-year-old Ami Ortiz's body three months after he opened a booby-trapped gift basket sent to his family.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#52828 May 20, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
I have authority to take issue because you are making a claim of obligation as if there is some sort on my part.
Do you vote?

If you do, thats where the obligation is. You buy into our system. Our system is a representative democracy - meaning that others make decisions for us as elected officials.

If you dont vote, then you might have a faint argument. But very faint, as you still consume our services.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#52829 May 20, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
Buildings and people, your point?
You stated that, "Government doesn't exist..."

What organization built and maintains these buildings?

Who are all these people on the public payroll?

Who inspects the meat you eat?

Who is requesting tax dollars from you?
former res

Cheshire, CT

#52830 May 20, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know all of the traffic laws, do you?
I travel in a courteous manner, people stop at intersections to avoid accidents not because there are some words on paper.
I didn't ask if you knew ALL the traffic laws.(Mr. Straw Man..)

I asked if you generally follow them? We all had to pass an exam showing basic understanding of these laws.

Would you speed if safe but knowing PoPo with radar were in the area? Why or why not?(Example - 3 in the morning on I95 - no traffic)
former res

Cheshire, CT

#52831 May 20, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true, the catholic church isn't imposing their faith on you by threatening you with a cage abducted gun.
Once you agree you don't recognize the authority/existence of the Federal gov't, why does this not make the rest of the discussion moot?

Any point in our continuing this discussion?

Why or why not?
former res

Cheshire, CT

#52832 May 20, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
...If you dont vote, then you might have a faint argument. But very faint, as you still consume our services.
If so, I'd like to hear the argument for not voting, esp when already complaining about a lack of valid representation.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#52833 May 20, 2013
A CLOSER LOOK AT NEWTON'S FIRST LAW OF MOTION:

"If the vector sum of all the forces acting on a particle is zero then and only then the particle remains unaccelerated (i.e., it remains at rest or moves with constant velocity."

..........

If the sum of all the forces on a given particle is F and its acceleration is a, then, we say:

a = 0 if and only if F = 0.

So, if the sum of the forces acting on a particle is known to be zero, we can be sure that the particle is unaccelerated, or if we know that a particle is unaccelerated, we can be sure that the sum of the forces acting on the particle is zero.

However, the concept of rest, motion or acceleration is meaningful only when a frame of reference is specified.

Let's probe this concept deeper:

An elevator falls down after the cable snaps.

The cabin and all the bodies fixed in the cabin like a ceiling lamp are accelerated with respect to the earth and this g is about + 9.8 m/s^2 in the downward direction.

Consider the lamp in the cabin.

The forces acting on the lamp are:

a) The gravitational force say W by the earth and

b) The electromagnetic force T (tension) by the rope.

The direction of W is downward and that of T is upward.

The net force (W - T) acts downward.

Now, measure the acceleration of the lamp from the frame of reference of the cabin - the lamp in it is at rest and the acceleration of the lamp is zero.

A person say A inside the lift uses Newton's First Law to conclude that the sum of the forces acting on the particle is 0,

i.e., W - T = 0, or W = T

If we measure the acceleration from the ground frame outside the falling lift, the lamp in the lift has an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2.

Thus, a is not equal to 0.

A person say B who measured this acceleration concludes from Newton's First Law that the sum of the forces is not 0.

Thus, W - T is not equal to 0.

Or, W is not equal to T.

Now, both A and B cannot be simultaneously correct as W and T can be either equal or unequal.

So, one of the frames is bad and as such one should not apply the first law in that frame.

There are some frames of reference in which Newton's First Law is valid.

Measure acceleration from such a valid frame and we're permitted to say that a = 0 if and only if F = 0.

But, there exist other frames in which Newton's First Law is not valid.

We may find that even if the sum of the forces is not 0, the acceleration is still 0.

Or, we discover that the sum of the forces is 0, yet the particle is accelerated.

So, the validity of Newton's First Law depends on the frame of reference from which the observer measures the state of rest, motion and acceleration of the particle.

Thus, a frame of reference in which Newton's First Law is valid is called an inertial frame of reference.

A frame of reference in which Newton's First Law is invalid is called a non-inertial frame of reference.

NOTE: The First Law is also the law of inertia of which we say there are 2 kinds - inertia of rest and inertia of motion.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#52834 May 20, 2013
ADDENDUM:

Newton's laws refer to a particle and relate the forces acting on the particle with its acceleration and mass. In any practical situation, we deal with extended bodies which are collections of a large number of particles. Newton's laws may be used even if the object under consideration is an extended body provided each part of this extended body has the same acceleration (in terms of magnitude and direction).

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#52838 May 20, 2013
ABSOLUTE CONSCIOUSNESS:

Absolute Consciousness is the Origin and Causal Mechanism of both existence as well as of non-existence but it EXCEEDS or is BEYOND the dualism of existence and non-existence. Existence and non-existence are aspects of the cosmic and supracosmic manifestation of the Absolute. By existence is meant the cosmic and supracosmic manifestation - the gradations of consciousness-energy, while non-existence refers to a state of awareness akin to nirvana in which one is not aware of the cosmic and supracosmic strata of existence. It is a complete blotting out of existence as seen in the cosmic and supracosmic manifestation. The Absolute is other than these extremes.
Voluntarist

United States

#52839 May 20, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't the fact that you are getting some value in return
create an obligation on your part for compensation?
Are you talking to yourself?
Voluntarist

United States

#52840 May 20, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you vote?
If you do, thats where the obligation is. You buy into our system. Our system is a representative democracy - meaning that others make decisions for us as elected officials.
If you dont vote, then you might have a faint argument. But very faint, as you still consume our services.
Who us our?

Why would I vote if I can't vote on having a government or not?
Voluntarist

United States

#52841 May 20, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
You stated that, "Government doesn't exist..."
What organization built and maintains these buildings?
Who are all these people on the public payroll?
Who inspects the meat you eat?
Who is requesting tax dollars from you?
Human beings
Voluntarist

United States

#52842 May 20, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't ask if you knew ALL the traffic laws.(Mr. Straw Man..)
I asked if you generally follow them? We all had to pass an exam showing basic understanding of these laws.
Would you speed if safe but knowing PoPo with radar were in the area? Why or why not?(Example - 3 in the morning on I95 - no traffic)
I would have to know them all to follow them all .

I would travel as fast as reasonable and prudent.

The speed limit is just a suggestion.

I answered your question about traffic laws besides, men and women's intent of traffic laws is not about safety it states as much in the code.

Can you guess what the legislative intent is?
Voluntarist

United States

#52843 May 20, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Once you agree you don't recognize the authority/existence of the Federal gov't, why does this not make the rest of the discussion moot?
Any point in our continuing this discussion?
Why or why not?
Because you are claiming that I have some obligation for just merely living.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#52844 May 20, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you talking to yourself?
Guess that makes you a free-loader or at least
a wannabe free-loader. That is if you had the balls
to actually not pay your taxes.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#52845 May 20, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
Human beings
Seems you're basically giving up.

I accept your unconditional surrender as you have
stopped responding to the questions and the issue.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#52846 May 20, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
The speed limit is just a suggestion.
Prima facie [edit]

Most states have absolute speed limits, meaning that a speed in excess of the limit is illegal per se. However, some states have prima facie speed limits.[70] This allows motorists to defend against a speeding charge if it can be proven that the speed was in fact reasonable and prudent.

Speed limits in Texas, Utah,[71] and Rhode Island are prima facie. Some other states have a hybrid system: speed limits may be prima facie up to a certain speed or only on certain roads.

A successful prima facie defense is rare. Not only does the burden of proof rest upon the accused, a successful defense may involve expenses well in excess of the cost of a ticket, such as an expert witness. Furthermore, because prima facie defenses must be presented in a court, such a defense is difficult for out of town motorists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_...
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you guess what the legislative intent is?
No.

The 55 mph speed limit in the 70s was about energy. That federal law ended in '87.

Parts of Texas have speed limits of 85.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#52847 May 20, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you are claiming that I have some obligation for just merely living.
But if you don't recognize the authority of the US gov't why would you pay taxes? But I'm sure you do anyway. Out of pragmatism, correct?

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#52848 May 20, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
Who us our?
Why would I vote if I can't vote on having a government or not?
I take that as a claim that you do not vote

Fine - thats your choice

But it also takes the steam out of your argument against taxes, as well as 98% of any discussion on the issue.

"our" is the rest of us here who participate in civic affairs by recognizing the legitimacy of the system.
Voluntarist

United States

#52849 May 20, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Guess that makes you a free-loader or at least
a wannabe free-loader. That is if you had the balls
to actually not pay your taxes.
What am I getting that I am not paying for?
Voluntarist

United States

#52850 May 20, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Prima facie [edit]
Most states have absolute speed limits, meaning that a speed in excess of the limit is illegal per se. However, some states have prima facie speed limits.[70] This allows motorists to defend against a speeding charge if it can be proven that the speed was in fact reasonable and prudent.
Speed limits in Texas, Utah,[71] and Rhode Island are prima facie. Some other states have a hybrid system: speed limits may be prima facie up to a certain speed or only on certain roads.
A successful prima facie defense is rare. Not only does the burden of proof rest upon the accused, a successful defense may involve expenses well in excess of the cost of a ticket, such as an expert witness. Furthermore, because prima facie defenses must be presented in a court, such a defense is difficult for out of town motorists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_...
<quoted text>
No.
The 55 mph speed limit in the 70s was about energy. That federal law ended in '87.
Parts of Texas have speed limits of 85.
That's really funny the burden of proof on the defense, in Connecticut the rules of criminal procedure apply.

Legislative intent is for identification and revenue.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Monterey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Seaside street name could honor Obama (Feb '10) Fri Apathy 99
where can I find heroin in monterey? (Oct '14) Apr 18 BrocSD 8
News Four suspects still at large in Monterey Penins... Apr 15 M JC 29 1
News Jewish-Christian charity helps Ukrainians move ... Apr 3 Azat 1
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) Apr '15 svorpion 1,531
News Homicide suspect Victor Cabrera has long histor... (Oct '08) Mar '15 mando 12
News Carmel waste broker accused of bribery (Dec '08) Mar '15 Gary 16
More from around the web

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]