benny Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 I don't you think you know what you are talking about. About caring about your syntax first!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 About caring about your syntax first!? I don't know if that could be a major concern of yours considering what we have seen in some responses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 I don't know if that could be a major concern of yours considering what we have seen in some responses. You seem to know! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 You seem to know! About your responses? No, I don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 About your responses? No, I don't. About "Replying to Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election"!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 About "Replying to Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election"!? Is that what you are replying to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Is that what you are replying to? yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 yes And I thought you were replying to another thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 And I thought you were replying to another thread. If so, you were wrong! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 If in your terminology, "peace talks" can be synonimous with "massive increase in illegal occupation", it's just another ruse and smokescreen to hide the obvious conclusion that genuine peace is nothing this strategy is about, pampering to annexation ambitions of Isreaeli govenment is.The elephant in the closet on peace talks is that no leader speaks for the "Palestinians". If one group is willing to "accept" a deal another isn't. As a group, the one thing their leaders agree on is that any deal with Israel is temporary and eventually Israel must be destroyed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 About caring about your syntax first!? An exclamation point followed by a question mark? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) The elephant in the closet on peace talks is that no leader speaks for the "Palestinians". If one group is willing to "accept" a deal another isn't. As a group, the one thing their leaders agree on is that any deal with Israel is temporary and eventually Israel must be destroyed. Isn't a topic about the Canadian Grits and Tories!? Edited July 27, 2009 by benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 I gave the link. How is anything conveniently left off? The Washington Post, like most newspapers, uses two sources to check facts. The story you provided doesn't talk about the settlements in question but using your own math, you come up with a number of 100. Yet again, it doesn't mean there is only 100 people living in the settlements that the Israelis are going to remove people from. The numbers that you have talked about are your own made up numbers. If it it was just 100, it certainly wouldn't require the entire Israel defence forces to do the job. And according to W.P. the fact is that somebody called "Wallerstein" (who happened to be the leader of outpost settlers) said something about 8,000 residents in some "outposts". Which you're trying to sell as the fact that there's a project to remove 23 "settlements" with 8,000 settlers. Which is obviously two different things, not in the least because a professional and credible news agency described one of such outposts as a handful of families. Which even then did require the help of the army to be removed. See, you really need me here to straighten things out for you, because you either unable, or persistently wouldn't admit plain obvious facts, and obvious logical conclusions from them. While it's becoming really obvious that truth and facts isn't really something your "peace" strategy is about. Maybe the spin to divert attention from, and whitewash the illegal acts of your friendly party (hint) is? Laughable is the bloviating I am seeing here. And in your mind you consider your "laughability" as a proper substitute for a meaningful logical argument? You certainly should use this same commendable "argument" to a more profitable end, try e.g. "laughable is that you think that I don't have a million of $$", and go check your bank account now. Admit that Hamas is terrorist organization. Is that so hard? No, I did answer it, but you weren't interested in the discussion. Most certainly, both parties are guilty in massive and persistent violations of peace agendas. Your "peace" strategy however, only wants to see, and react to, violations by one side. This is why it has nothing to do with genuine agenda of peace, and I don't think you could have made it any more obvious, thank-you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 And according to W.P. the fact is that somebody called "Wallerstein" (who happened to be the leader of outpost settlers) said something about 8,000 residents in some "outposts". Which you're trying to sell as the fact that there's a project to remove 23 "settlements" with 8,000 settlers. Which is obviously two different things, not in the least because a professional and credible news agency described one of such outposts as a handful of families. Which even then did require the help of the army to be removed. Actually, it was pretty specific: 23 settlements, 8000 settlers. The Washington Post style guide specifies they need two sources for a claim made in their papers. Pinhas Wallerstein is head of the Binyamin Regional Council. The other source would be the Israeli government. The story has been reported on Reuters and other news sources. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/090721/...rael_outposts_2 The Defense Ministry says it will not reveal the locations of all the outposts to maintain an element of surprise but they include those built after March 2001, a group that Israel committed to remove during the administration of former U.S. president George W. Bush.The evacuation is expected to be met with resistance from the settlers. Wallerstein said that some 8,000 people live at the outposts. All of this including the numbers are reported in Hareetz which were the first to report the evacuation of Gaza including the timing and the numbers. See, you really need me here to straighten things out for you, because you either unable, or persistently wouldn't admit plain obvious facts, and obvious logical conclusions from them. The fact is that you have not shown me anything to indicate that there is only 100 people in the 23 settlements. While it's becoming really obvious that truth and facts isn't really something your "peace" strategy is about. Maybe the spin to divert attention from, and whitewash the illegal acts of your friendly party (hint) is? One again the fact is that you can't admit that Hamas is a terrorist organization. And in your mind you consider your "laughability" as a proper substitute for a meaningful logical argument? You certainly should use this same commendable "argument" to a more profitable end, try e.g. "laughable is that you think that I don't have a million of $$", and go check your bank account now. Your focus solely on Israel is really breathtaking. No, I did answer it, but you weren't interested in the discussion. Most certainly, both parties are guilty in massive and persistent violations of peace agendas. Your "peace" strategy however, only wants to see, and react to, violations by one side. This is why it has nothing to do with genuine agenda of peace, and I don't think you could have made it any more obvious, thank-you. No, you didn't answer it. Your focus has been pretty much on Israel. Hamas isn't part of any peace agenda. Israel has come to the table. Your Hamas has now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Actually, it was pretty specific: 23 settlements, 8000 settlers. The Washington Post style guide specifies they need two sources for a claim made in their papers. Pinhas Wallerstein is head of the Binyamin Regional Council. The other source would be the Israeli government.The story has been reported on Reuters and other news sources. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/090721/...rael_outposts_2 All of this including the numbers are reported in Hareetz which were the first to report the evacuation of Gaza including the timing and the numbers. The fact is that you have not shown me anything to indicate that there is only 100 people in the 23 settlements. One again the fact is that you can't admit that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Your focus solely on Israel is really breathtaking. No, you didn't answer it. Your focus has been pretty much on Israel. Hamas isn't part of any peace agenda. Israel has come to the table. Your Hamas has now. This is the board called "Federal Politics" ("Canadian Politics") not the one on "the Rest of the World" ("International Politics"). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) This is the board called "Federal Politics" ("Canadian Politics") not the one on "the Rest of the World" ("International Politics"). Think you'll find this refers to the stance of some people who believe Canada should withdraw from the region. It is a federal issue. The rule you broke is to quote the entire post. Edited July 27, 2009 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Think you'll find this refers to the stance of some people who believe Canada should withdraw from the region. It is a federal issue. This is relevant to this national board only if these people are Canadians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 This is relevant to this national board only if these people are Canadians. Federal policy does include foreign affairs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Federal policy does include foreign affairs. The battle for Jewish support in the next Canadian election is not reducible to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 The battle for Jewish support in the next Canadian election is not reducible to that. For some it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 For some it is. Do they make you happy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 Do they make you happy? Do they make you happy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 Do they make you happy? no Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 no Why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 no I find them entertaining. All of those little special interest groups that really do determine the course of both political policy and the makeup of government. We are losing sight of the real goal of government in a democratic society folks, and that is really too bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.