Jump to content

Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election


Recommended Posts

There is no hope for peace until both of the two sides decide to stop killing each other AT THE SAME TIME. It is usually called a PEACE TREATY, and when it gets violated it results in wars.

There will always be war in the middle east. There can be no peace because the two sides don't want peace, and those of us not living there will simply have to accept the reality and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And ultimately, I would agree with such position, short of us showing a genuine ability to mediate in good faith, the best for everybody would be to withdraw support from all sides, and let them figure out their own affairs. At issue at this point in the discussion is not that the parties do or don't, but how we see it, and how we react to it. With a position severely skewed to one side, as has been clearly demonstrated by the obvious inaction on the settlements agenda, it's very questionnable whether it encourages the sides to move toward a genuine, in good faith peace process, or away from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who ever gets the Jewish vote wins the election. That's how it's always been. Jewish people control many of the media outlets in this country. Plus they have a ton of influence. They know this and are keen to get the Jewish vote on their side. I don't blame them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who ever gets the Jewish vote wins the election. That's how it's always been. Jewish people control many of the media outlets in this country. Plus they have a ton of influence. They know this and are keen to get the Jewish vote on their side. I don't blame them.

That is so not true. I don't have the numbers on this but I am pretty sure the Liberals won the Jewish vote in every vote in the last 15 years accept the last one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And ultimately, I would agree with such position, short of us showing a genuine ability to mediate in good faith, the best for everybody would be to withdraw support from all sides, and let them figure out their own affairs.

Which doesn't work. It eventually becomes a regional problem and then we start seeing thing like refugees and violence at things like the Olympics.

We tuck our heads, withdraw involvement and it usually affects us anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, you implicitly admit (by failing to provide any argument) that the same standard should be applied to all agendas, but still, Dobbin, we'd still like to know which one (in your view), it should be, i.e 1) normal, common sense standard, where an actual overall progress toward the goal has to be shown to qualify as success; OR 2) Dobbin-like approach, where a massive overall regression could still be seen as important "progress" and "success" as long as some (very specific) criteria carefully selected by Dobbin are met, and without unnecessary reference or relevance to the overall state of the situation?

You called Oslo a success but it for a very limited area that did not include many of the important questions.

Talks thereafter were focussed on a few things a time.

You have stated you want all of it dealt with or Canada should impose sanctions.

Canada has supported continued talks and is against violence and settlements. We have supported the step by step process.

Where is Canada's involvement in this?

2) Diplomatic isolation and other "restrictive sanctions" imposed after election of Hamas (multiple references e.g. US eases diplomatic boycott of Hamas

This is another U.S. move.

3) Declaring it a terrorist organisation.

We have indeed declared the militant wing a terrorist organization. You think they aren't?

We also called the militant wing of the IRA a terrorist organization.

It didn't stop Canada for assisting in the conflict though.

4) Specifically by Canada, interruption of aid

We didn't stop aid because Hamas was in power. We haven't stopped since either.

In short, we have not imposed sanctions of Palestinian people living in Gaza.

And here's what there's on Israel's persistent expansion of settlements (which is, according to Dobbin, another important agenda in the resolution of this conflict), in the way of real, practical actions:

There must be a missing link here.

Of course I cannot pretend to have all information pertainiting to such actions, and if I missed anything, Dobbin would graciously oblige us all by posting references to the appropriate examples.

And now everybody, relax comfortably in your seat, as Dobbin would explain, logically and rationally, the nature of this paradox, i.e. why exactly that way of action (and inaction) is correct, rational, and would necessarily lead to successful resolution of the conflict.

I haven't seen where Canada has imposed sanctions on Gaza.

Canada gives the biggest amount of aid to Gaza. We were the first country to rush aid in following the last conflict with $4 million in immediate assistance.

Edited by jdobbin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a bone head...

Explain to me how they don't?

Look who is at the top of every media outlet just in Toronto. I'm talking Producers, Senior editors, CEO's and the like. Basically the people who decide what gets airtime. A large proportion of them are Jewish. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it because there isn't. It's just a fact and I'm pointing it out and to why it makes sense to get the Jewish vote on their side. If it wasn't important it wouldn't have made the newspapers and media would it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Explain to me how they don't?

Look who is at the top of every media outlet just in Toronto. I'm talking Producers, Senior editors, CEO's and the like. Basically the people who decide what gets airtime. A large proportion of them are Jewish. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it because there isn't. It's just a fact and I'm pointing it out and to why it makes sense to get the Jewish vote on their side. If it wasn't important it wouldn't have made the newspapers and media would it?

Could you please provide a list of all the Jewish senior editors, producers and CEOs. Don't worry about names, just give me the total number, with the total number of senior editors, producers and CEOs in Toronto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you please provide a list of all the Jewish senior editors, producers and CEOs. Don't worry about names, just give me the total number, with the total number of senior editors, producers and CEOs in Toronto.

Why do you take such great offense to having Jewish people greatly involved with the media? Look at the editors of any of the major newspapers in this country. If you read them that is. Usually listed in the editorial section of the paper in case you had trouble finding it.

I just don't understand why you have a problem with Jewish people Toadbrother, they have just as much right as anyone else does to be in positions of power within the media. Do you not agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you take such great offense to having Jewish people greatly involved with the media? Look at the editors of any of the major newspapers in this country. If you read them that is. Usually listed in the editorial section of the paper in case you had trouble finding it.

I just don't understand why you have a problem with Jewish people Toadbrother, they have just as much right as anyone else does to be in positions of power within the media. Do you not agree?

I asked a very specific question, and got projection instead. I don't really care if the entirety of Toronto is Jewish, Lithuanian or Martian (well, that's a lie, I might care if Martians were running Bay Street). Now I realize that you just made your claim up, and now I get to enjoy as you run away as you always do from the idiotic things you say. But let me be clear here, I made the request for information, not you, and you can either choose to answer the question I asked, or simply try to fling up red herrings.

I guess it depends on the level of intellectual honesty you care to demonstrate, or repudiate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People see one or two Jewish names and assume that the entire media is controlled by Jews, forgetting that there are thousands of people in various positions of differing levels of power and authority in the media. When one buys into a certain stereotype, it's easy to see anything as confirmation for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People see one or two Jewish names and assume that the entire media is controlled by Jews, forgetting that there are thousands of people in various positions of differing levels of power and authority in the media. When one buys into a certain stereotype, it's easy to see anything as confirmation for it.

Mr. Canada is nothing if not a firm believer in the power of the stereotype, which is why I so enjoy cornering him and watching him squirm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara Amiel

Former editor of Sun Media

Lorrie Goldstien

Current editor of Sun Media

I don't wish to waste more of my time with this. If you don't wish to believe what I've said then don't, it doesn't matter to me one bit. If you ever look into what I've said you can see for yourself. No one can convince anyone of anything that they refuse to believe. You are refusing to accept what I've said out of ignorance and hatred for my staunch conservativeness, nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didn't answer my question. I want totals, numbers, statistics. You made a claim, back it up or at least have the decency to say you can't.

I don't get paid to do that sort of work. If you would like to pay me I'd gladly do the math for you, if not you'll need to do that on your own.

Jewish people are less than 1% of the total population. I guarantee that they fill more senior editorial and production positions then that. To disagree with this shows your true ignorance...keep going baa baa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara Amiel

Former editor of Sun Media

Lorrie Goldstien

Current editor of Sun Media

I don't wish to waste more of my time with this. If you don't wish to believe what I've said then don't, it doesn't matter to me one bit. If you ever look into what I've said you can see for yourself. No one can convince anyone of anything that they refuse to believe. You are refusing to accept what I've said out of ignorance and hatred for my staunch conservativeness, nothing else.

Brave Sir Robin ran away.

Bravely ran away, away!

When danger reared its ugly head,

He bravely turned his tail and fled.

Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about

And gallantly he chickened out.

Bravely taking to his feet

He beat a very brave retreat,

Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!

He is packing it in and packing it up

And sneaking away and buggering up

And chickening out and pissing off home,

Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara Amiel

Former editor of Sun Media

Lorrie Goldstien

Current editor of Sun Media

I don't wish to waste more of my time with this. If you don't wish to believe what I've said then don't, it doesn't matter to me one bit. If you ever look into what I've said you can see for yourself. No one can convince anyone of anything that they refuse to believe. You are refusing to accept what I've said out of ignorance and hatred for my staunch conservativeness, nothing else.

You've named three individuals. Do you know how many thousands of individuals are involved in Canada's media industry? I doubt that the percentage of Jews in the media industry is significantly greater than the percentage of Jews in the general population. If you think otherwise, the onus is on you to back it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There must be a missing link here.

No Dobbin, your vision is true this time around and it is indeed an empty space. You'll have to fill it with references, or explain how and why your peaceful strategy refused to react in any real, practical way to a massive build up of settlements in the last two decades (and even as much as notice the problem), and how is it conductive to peace, or whatever else it may be conductive to.

The examples of real, meaningful actions against the other side were posted. Canada certainly participated in some, and it certainly did nothing at all, zero is zero, in real practical terms on the settlements agenda, and now you'll either explain the logical meaning of this double act, or leave you strategy, and by extension, party policy that promotes it, utterly bankrupt as a genuine approach to resolution of this conflict.

As opposed to making a lot of noise, wrapping laurels around your chest and doing nothing, or worse still tacitly supporting one side, thus escalating and prolonging it.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.Canada does not recognise Hamas government

2. CBC Timeline: Canada suspends aid to Hamas government

Plus of course, declaring it (Hamas) a terrorist organisation.

Your turn Dobbin: real, practical acts against massive violations of the settlements agenda which is (ostensibly, ie. based on your words) a key element in resolution of this conflict.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus of course, declaring it (Hamas) a terrorist organisation.

The militant wing of Hamas is a terrorist organization. You think it isn't?

They unilaterally refused to be part of the process.

Nevertheless, Canada committed money in 2006 to go directly to the people of Gaza to the tune of $300 million. We continue to do this now.

As long as the Hamas as head of the Palestinian Authority refuses to recognize even the Oslo accord which you considered a success, aid will not go directly to the PA to distribute.

Your turn Dobbin: real, practical acts against massive violations of the settlements agenda which is (ostensibly, ie. based on your words) a key element in resolution of this conflict.

The turnover of Gaza.

Edited by jdobbin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The turnover of Gaza.

Another "misunderstanding" of plain English, Dobbin? OK, let's try again: there's been a 70% increase in illegal settlements in the last two decades, which is a clear and massive violation of the settlements agenda, and what did your "peaceful" strategy do about it in real, practical measures, like those that have been applied to the other side for its violations?

Try again, and I'll hold you to it until you either provide examples of such measures, or admit that your strategy is obviously one sided and therefore useless and bankrupt as a genuine, in good faith approach to mediation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,741
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    timwilson
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • User earned a badge
      Posting Machine
    • User earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • User went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Videospirit earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Videospirit went up a rank
      Explorer
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...