quote Originally posted by cliffw: I love fishing, . Now, let me reel you in. Actions speak louder than words. History is my news source. News outlets are just commentary. History does not have to be ancient. My hate for Nobama does not come from his actions.

So you think history isn't biased?? Good luck with that.

quote Originally posted by newf: I was relating what you seem to be assuming about me to what someone could assume about you and how unfair it is to do so.

quote Originally posted by newf: You are not interested but felt the need to research it and bring it up? Interesting I hope you actually learned something about my great Province. You've even felt the need to use the Provincial flag as your avatar, congrats Make sure you get it correct now it's Newfoundland and Labrador. Upset because of what Obama said? Not in the least, in fact it's funny you say that as it's people being upset with anything Obama says that started this thread and another just like it. So if you can

I learned a lot about your great Province. Mostly the fact that it isn't the Republic of Newfoundland.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I learned a lot about your great Province. Mostly the fact that it isn't the Republic of Newfoundland.

good

quote Originally posted by newf: I can comment I suppose. I noticed that one of the first companies you mentioned was CitiGroup which as far as I can tell WAS partially owned by the U.S. Government but since then has sold their remaining stock at a profit. You seem to be commenting about GM mostly and not the thousands of companies that you mentioned first. I'm certainly not going to be shocked that GM and some of it's companies are owned in part by the Gov't but you did say thousands like the Gov't has been snapping companies up in a bid to conrol as many as possible, I would just like to see some verification of that claim.

Ok, give me equal effort of your thoughts on Ally Bank, and AmeriCredit first... before I bother spending any time looking up anything else.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Ok, give me equal effort of your thoughts on Ally Bank, and AmeriCredit first... before I bother spending any time looking up anything else.

Both GM companies aren't they? I think the Gov't bailout and subsequent ownership of GM was necessary to prevent a far worse unemployment and economic disaster. I don't think the Government will have any part of GM in time.

quote Originally posted by newf: Both GM companies aren't they? I think the Gov't bailout and subsequent ownership of GM was necessary to prevent a far worse unemployment and economic disaster. I don't think the Government will have any part of GM in time.

No, Ally is a bank that's owned 73% by the US government. It is 4% owned by GM, but that's only because it used to be called GMAC, but it has absolutely nothing to do with GM anymore.

But, go back and read what I said... I hate that I have to repeat myself. When GM was looking for a financing arm, they decided to buy a new bank, rather than re-merge GMAC, who aleady had the necessary skills / processes to handle auto loans. The government, rather than re-merge them, used the opportunity to buy another bank (AmeriCredit). So Ally Financial is 73% owned by the government, run by a board of directors that was elected by the US government, and has no association with General Motors, and does nothing with auto loans. It's just one of many banks the government owns. The government currently owns HUNDREDS of banks that are not otherwise considered GSEs.


I get frustrated when I type out a lot of crap, and you respond with one sentence. Either I'm an idiot and type way more than I need to, or you're brushing me off?

I'm kind of the impression that unless I send you a link to a speech directly from Obama that says... "I plan to take over the world and buy up all the banks and companies that have union membership" that you're still not going to believe me, and even then, you'd probably find a justification for it. I still love you like an American loves his Canadian brother, but I really think you're pulling my dick here (as Bill Parcells used to say to me).

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: No, Ally is a bank that's owned 73% by the US government. It is 4% owned by GM, but that's only because it used to be called GMAC, but it has absolutely nothing to do with GM anymore. But, go back and read what I said... I hate that I have to repeat myself. When GM was looking for a financing arm, they decided to buy a new bank, rather than re-merge GMAC, who aleady had the necessary skills / processes to handle auto loans. The government, rather than re-merge them, used the opportunity to buy another bank (AmeriCredit). So Ally Financial is 73% owned by the government, run by a board of directors that was elected by the US government, and has no association with General Motors, and does nothing with auto loans. It's just one of many banks the government owns. The government currently owns HUNDREDS of banks that are not otherwise considered GSEs. I get frustrated when I type out a lot of crap, and you respond with one sentence. Either I'm an idiot and type way more than I need to, or you're brushing me off? I'm kind of the impression that unless I send you a link to a speech directly from Obama that says... "I plan to take over the world and buy up all the banks and companies that have union membership" that you're still not going to believe me, and even then, you'd probably find a justification for it. I still love you like an American loves his Canadian brother, but I really think you're pulling my dick here (as Bill Parcells used to say to me).

BUT WHY in this thread about israel
are you demanding answers about USA owned banks
that is called a thread hi-jack
and bad enuff to hi-jack a thread
worse to get snippy about people NOT responding to your hi-jack
want to talk banks
start a new thread
this on is about mid-eastern borders

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: No, Ally is a bank that's owned 73% by the US government. It is 4% owned by GM, but that's only because it used to be called GMAC, but it has absolutely nothing to do with GM anymore. But, go back and read what I said... I hate that I have to repeat myself. When GM was looking for a financing arm, they decided to buy a new bank, rather than re-merge GMAC, who aleady had the necessary skills / processes to handle auto loans. The government, rather than re-merge them, used the opportunity to buy another bank (AmeriCredit). So Ally Financial is 73% owned by the government, run by a board of directors that was elected by the US government, and has no association with General Motors, and does nothing with auto loans. It's just one of many banks the government owns. The government currently owns HUNDREDS of banks that are not otherwise considered GSEs. I get frustrated when I type out a lot of crap, and you respond with one sentence. Either I'm an idiot and type way more than I need to, or you're brushing me off? I'm kind of the impression that unless I send you a link to a speech directly from Obama that says... "I plan to take over the world and buy up all the banks and companies that have union membership" that you're still not going to believe me, and even then, you'd probably find a justification for it. I still love you like an American loves his Canadian brother, but I really think you're pulling my dick here (as Bill Parcells used to say to me).

Not at all it's just that I've seen you talk out of your ass plenty of times and fail to back it up and you did say that the Obama Administration has taken over "thousands" of companies but when pressed you have shown ones directly related to the GM take over and others that aren't even considered nationalization as far as I can tell.

This was your exact statement "Literally, there have been over 1000 corporations that have been purchased by the US government. The only ones which make headlines are GM, Chrysler, and some of the banks... but there are actually over 1000 corporations, smaller ones, that have been purchased by the US government."

Can you or can you not show proof of it? You must have gained this knowledge from somewhere, so if you can't prove it through links at least tell us where you learned of it.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: I'm confused by your arguement. Who are you comparing comparing an "entity" deciding to press an old claim to Newfoundland to? I'll assume that you mean the Innu tribes or Native Indians. If so you might want to look at the land claims they have and what they have control of. As for ridiculing a U.S. president in terms of comparing it to Mid-East Peace talks, there is a long history of U.S. mediation so how this particular speech is something new I have no idea.

I have, quite awhile ago in reference to another discussion. The native peoples once claimed all of Newfoundland--in fact, all of Canada and N. America. Thru forced treaty, inter-tribal slavery, starving and other assorted maltreatments, they now have very little of their First Nations lands--forced off it just as the Plains and southern inhabitants were by the Anglos down in the US region.

Maybe Israel can do like Canada has done--offer to integrate the Palestinians into the society and buy them off with a few million or billion $ Ca.

I sure haven't seen anything that indicates Canada has offered to return all their tribal lands to them--or even a sizable % of it. I don't expect them to either or the US to make that offer either, other than in small areas of reservation type accomadations.

That's no where near the same as saying--"Here ya go--this was your homeland before we displaced you--it is now once again your homeland--we are leaving it completely and it's all yours once again---you now totally govern yourselves, and you can now apply for recognition as a fully soveriegn nation in the United Nations".
/\
THAT ain't gonna happen, but that IS what you are calling for Israel to do in reference to Palestine.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: I have, quite awhile ago in reference to another discussion. The native peoples once claimed all of Newfoundland--in fact, all of Canada and N. America. Thru forced treaty, inter-tribal slavery, starving and other assorted maltreatments, they now have very little of their First Nations lands--forced off it just as the Plains and southern inhabitants were by the Anglos down in the US region. Maybe Israel can do like Canada has done--offer to integrate the Palestinians into the society and buy them off with a few million or billion $ Ca. I sure haven't seen anything that indicates Canada has offered to return all their tribal lands to them--or even a sizable % of it. I don't expect them to either or the US to make that offer either, other than in small areas of reservation type accomadations. That's no where near the same as saying--"Here ya go--this was your homeland before we displaced you--it is now once again your homeland--we are leaving it completely and it's all yours once again---you now totally govern yourselves, and you can now apply for recognition as a fully soveriegn nation in the United Nations". /\ THAT ain't gonna happen, but that IS what you are calling for Israel to do in reference to Palestine.

Nope. I don't know why you think that but where have I said that Israel should say "Here ya go--this was your homeland before we displaced you--it is now once again your homeland--we are leaving it completely and it's all yours once again---you now totally govern yourselves, and you can now apply for recognition as a fully soveriegn nation in the United Nations".

Nothing could be further from the truth as to what I am saying.

Again I think the arguement as it pertains to Natives in North America is a rather poor one because of the major differences between Europeans settling land where the Native peoples lived and the ongoing population balance and history that the region of Israel has seen over the years, especially within the last 100 years which is the period we are talking about.

I said (Again I state) that I think both Israel and Palestine both need/deserve homelands. As to where exactly the borders of which are is up to them to settle through (hopefully) peaceful negotiation.

As for your assertion that Canada has merely bought oFf the Innu and Inuit, sure some might say so but it seems to be working for the most part as these peoples are a very important part of our history and current countries culture. There is not a lot (in comparison) of strife between the Innu Inuit nations and Canada, so if you are saying that is what Israel should do in regards to the Palestinians, give them land and money and treat them in high regard (now, certainly not in the past), ummm sure if that's what they think is best.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. (I'll wait until you consult with your usual sources to make up your mind for you)

If that's going to be your attitude, then no thanks.

(and you wonder why people call you a "troll"?)

quote Originally posted by fierobear: If that's going to be your attitude, then no thanks. (and you wonder why people call you a "troll"?)

haha funny stuff Bear, all the bashing you do to me and I make one joke and you get upset. I don't think it was any worse than you saying "If I could dance like that, I'd go for my own reality TV show."

But I'm truly sorry if I hurt your feelings.

You can go ahead and answer the questions now.


BTW each time I've been called a troll by a member of what I affectionately call the "Conservatorium" I have asked them to back it up, to which there has yet to be a reply. I suspect that some people equate a difference of opinion or being asked direct questions with being a troll and the only thing they can come up with when someone takes a different position or asks a tough question is to respond with name calling.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: haha funny stuff Bear, all the bashing you do to me and I make one joke and you get upset. I don't think it was any worse than you saying "If I could dance like that, I'd go for my own reality TV show." But I'm truly sorry if I hurt your feelings. You can go ahead and answer the questions now.

Your response doesn't invite reasonable discourse. No thanks.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Your response doesn't invite reasonable discourse. No thanks.

Awwww...OK come back when you get your balls back then and want to actually state your opinion on the issue.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Awwww...OK come back when you get your balls back then and want to actually state your opinion on the issue.

I'll come back when you drop the crap. How about that?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I'll come back when you drop the crap. How about that?

Honestly man, all the times you have called names and attacked others on here and now you are going to pretend that a couple of silly little comments by me are upsetting you enough that you refuse to state your opinion on this posts topic and answer a couple of direct questions.

I even apologized and you wouldn't accept it and answer them. I'm sorry Bear but if you can't take it you shouldn't be dishing it out, and you seem to love to dish it out. Oh well, it's been a slice talking with you.

quote Originally posted by newf: Nope. I don't know why you think that but where have I said that Israel should say "Here ya go--this was your homeland before we displaced you--it is now once again your homeland--we are leaving it completely and it's all yours once again---you now totally govern yourselves, and you can now apply for recognition as a fully soveriegn nation in the United Nations". Nothing could be further from the truth as to what I am saying. Again I think the arguement as it pertains to Natives in North America is a rather poor one because of the major differences between Europeans settling land where the Native peoples lived and the ongoing population balance and history that the region of Israel has seen over the years, especially within the last 100 years which is the period we are talking about. I said (Again I state) that I think both Israel and Palestine both need/deserve homelands. As to where exactly the borders of which are is up to them to settle through (hopefully) peaceful negotiation. As for your assertion that Canada has merely bought oFf the Innu and Inuit, sure some might say so but it seems to be working for the most part as these peoples are a very important part of our history and current countries culture. There is not a lot (in comparison) of strife between the Innu Inuit nations and Canada, so if you are saying that is what Israel should do in regards to the Palestinians, give them land and money and treat them in high regard (now, certainly not in the past), ummm sure if that's what they think is best.

You did, did you not, say they were displaced when Israel was formed in the late 40s? And you DO concede, that the land acquired in the '67 war is at least part of the land in question? (Because, that IS the land being discussed by the rest of us and by the POTUS.)

I have never, in the many years that I have been following this issue, seen or heard anyone with the Plestinians ask for a homeland anywhere else except where Israel now sits. In fact, they insist upon that very plot of land and the phrase "push Israel into the sea" has become and been common usage, no matter if it was the PA, the PLO, or Yassar Arafat in his heydey.

If it were as simple a matter of finding them somewhere else in the region, there's plenty of land, but it isn't that simple. Jeruselem. Hebron and other cities are non-negotiable for either side.

Long before that, but within your 100 year timeline, there were several plans allowing for and specifying 2 separate states--one for the Jews--one for the Palestinian Arabs. Each time, it was the Arabs that rejected the plans--whether they were offered thru the League of Nations, The British Mandate, or the UN. Each time, it was the Arabs that began bloodshed. The Palestinian Arabs (Arab League and Arab Higher Committee for Palestine were simply not going to accept the existance of Israel. They simply weren't and the current Palestinians aren't either.



This is the map of the plan that was put forward by the UN, which the Jews accepted, and the Arabs and Palestinians rejected. Had it been accepted by both sides and implemented, there would be 2 separate nations there today, but the Palestinians would have none of it, war broke out shortly before it was to be implemented and we have the result of that rejection today.

Fierobear, DON'T FEED THE TROLL!!!

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Fierobear, DON'T FEED THE TROLL!!!

Right on cue. Back up your claims now.

quote Originally posted by newf: Honestly man, all the times you have called names and attacked others on here and now you are going to pretend that a couple of silly little comments by me are upsetting you enough that you refuse to state your opinion on this posts topic and answer a couple of direct questions. I even apologized and you wouldn't accept it and answer them. I'm sorry Bear but if you can't take it you shouldn't be dishing it out, and you seem to love to dish it out. Oh well, it's been a slice talking with you.

I was trying to have a decent conversation with you, and instead of answering my questions, you made a crack about my sources. No thanks.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Fierobear, DON'T FEED THE TROLL!!!

Yup. Good advice.

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 05-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I was trying to have a decent conversation with you, and instead of answering my questions, you made a crack about my sources. No thanks.

NO Bear I responded to all of your questions and was plenty cordial about it if you want to look back. You made the first crack as far as I can tell with your "dancing" comment.

Your sources? Are you OK? I never once mentioned your sources in this thread.

I simply asked a direct question about the topic of the thread which you for some reason you seem afraid to answer.

As for Avengador comments or your assertion that I am being a troll, again back it up.

quote Originally posted by newf: Not at all it's just that I've seen you talk out of your ass plenty of times and fail to back it up and you did say that the Obama Administration has taken over "thousands" of companies but when pressed you have shown ones directly related to the GM take over and others that aren't even considered nationalization as far as I can tell. This was your exact statement "Literally, there have been over 1000 corporations that have been purchased by the US government. The only ones which make headlines are GM, Chrysler, and some of the banks... but there are actually over 1000 corporations, smaller ones, that have been purchased by the US government." Can you or can you not show proof of it? You must have gained this knowledge from somewhere, so if you can't prove it through links at least tell us where you learned of it.

Bullshit, you're avoiding the question I asked. Please re-read my last two posts to you.

I'm waiting for your response.

Well I think I've beat my drum about as much and loudly as I can for now Newf. Netanyahu has given Israel's reply and with Obama's mideast special envoy George Mitrchell now resigned, I don't think anything will come of any of this anyway.

Later Canuck!

quote Originally posted by maryjane: You did, did you not, say they were displaced when Israel was formed in the late 40s? And you DO concede, that the land acquired in the '67 war is at least part of the land in question? (Because, that IS the land being discussed by the rest of us and by the POTUS.)

I did. Now of course you do concede that the POTUS mentioned the 1967 borders as a starting point in which there would be swapping and negotiating of land.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: I have never, in the many years that I have been following this issue, seen or heard anyone with the Plestinians ask for a homeland anywhere else except where Israel now sits. In fact, they insist upon that very plot of land and the phrase "push Israel into the sea" has become and been common usage, no matter if it was the PA, the PLO, or Yassar Arafat in his heydey. If it were as simple a matter of finding them somewhere else in the region, there's plenty of land, but it isn't that simple. Jeruselem. Hebron and other cities are non-negotiable for either side.

I am not defending the actions of Yassar Arafat or militant Palestinians, the fact that there has been plenty of blood spilled by both sides is exactly why mediation is necessary IMO.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Long before that, but within your 100 year timeline, there were several plans allowing for and specifying 2 separate states--one for the Jews--one for the Palestinian Arabs. Each time, it was the Arabs that rejected the plans--whether they were offered thru the League of Nations, The British Mandate, or the UN. Each time, it was the Arabs that began bloodshed. The Palestinian Arabs (Arab League and Arab Higher Committee for Palestine were simply not going to accept the existance of Israel. They simply weren't and the current Palestinians aren't either.

Again I'm not sure where you may think I've defended such actions. Both sides have committed have committed atrocities over the years. The Israeli's were given a homeland so I doubt they would be rejecting much, not that the Arab nations shouldn't have accepted and recognised the Jewish state.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: This is the map of the plan that was put forward by the UN, which the Jews accepted, and the Arabs and Palestinians rejected. Had it been accepted by both sides and implemented, there would be 2 separate nations there today, but the Palestinians would have none of it, war broke out shortly before it was to be implemented and we have the result of that rejection today.

Here is a map as well


So why are 1967 borders being rejected by Israel now then. If they just accepted all would be sunshine a lollypops.
I'm not sure why it seems so difficult to see both sides of the issue and see that maybe a homeland for both is acceptable. I'm not defending either peoples actions over the years as both have been wrong IMO at times and I certainly don't agree with terrorist tactics by anyone but that does not mean that I don't think that a peaceful settlement can be achieved. Which as far as I know what the POTUS and many of his predecessors have tried to accomplish. It seems some just wanted to crap on any attempt simply because of who it was coming from.

quote Originally posted by newf: So why are 1967 borders being rejected by Israel now then. If they just accepted all would be sunshine a lollypops.

Do you truly believe that? It wasn't enough in 1967. What makes you think it would be today?

quote Originally posted by newf: I doubt much will come of it either and I'm damn well positive that no one here is going to settle it. I never thought that supporting a homeland for both parties would be so friggin controversial.

I should of realized sooner your just a troll. Nothing more...you remind of the smart ass kid in the back of the class room who thinks their clever arguing nonesense just for kicks. i hope it takes you far in life.

quote Originally posted by newf: Your sources? Are you OK? I never once mentioned your sources in this thread.

Really? Was someone else typing at your keyboard?

quote Originally posted by newf: (I'll wait until you consult with your usual sources to make up your mind for you)

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Do you truly believe that? It wasn't enough in 1967. What makes you think it would be today?

That particular sentence was meant as sarcasm, I probably should have marked it as such.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-22-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Seriously Bear like I said don't dish it out if you can't take it. It was a joke, get over it.

OK. I'll take you at your word. What question did you want answered?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: OK. I'll take you at your word. What question did you want answered?

Oh cool, thanks. Honestly I was just kidding with my "sources" comment.

Pretty simple questions actually.

What is your position on a Palestinian homeland? Do you not think they should have any claim to one?

20.4% of the citizens of Israel are Arab. That is 1,573,000 citizens. Many are Bedouin, and mostly Sunni Muslim.

Israel has never kicked Arabs out as a race, and Arabs are able to own their own land within Israel. They successfully have run for political office and hold government jobs. Trouble makers have been shut out, not legitimate citizens

This is not a racial/religious issue. It is a political issue generated by extremists in the Muslim community.

Don't forget that Jordan doesn't want them. Egypt doesn't want them and Syria doesn't want them.

You need a separate state for them but, they will not rest until they have driven Israel off the continent. It is just that simple.

So peace is not likely any time soon. So, the wall is a great idea, albeit with its own set of problems.

Arn

[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 05-22-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Oh cool, thanks. Honestly I was just kidding with my "sources" comment. Pretty simple questions actually. What is your position on a Palestinian homeland? Do you not think they should have any claim to one?

Until recently, I would have said yes to a Palestinian homeland. Then I read that there might not actually be any such thing as a "Palestinian". It seems to be a catch-all phrase for migrant workers of various origins. One thing I read said that there were basically no people in what is now Israel at the time that Jewish people started arriving in the early part of the 20th century. It was described as barren like the moon. There were no cities. The Jews who settled there reclaimed the land.

If there is such a thing as a Palestinian, and their heritage and home go back centuries, then yes, they should have a homeland. But I don't think the issue is as simple as it is made out to be.

The big question I have - if the Arab world cares so much for these people, why haven't Syria, Jordan or Egypt given them some land, even if it were only temporary? I don't see any of them bending over backwards for these "Palestinians", and most of them seem only to care about the Palestinians at the *expense* of Israel.

Should Central American migrants in America have a homeland of their own? (regardless of legal or illegal entry into the country - that's a separate discussion)
The U.S. now controls land that used to belong to Mexico.
If you ask a member of La Raza, the U.S. is occupying their land. And they're not above using violence to retake it. They're just not as organized as the PLO, Hamas, etc.
Should the U.S. give the land that used to belong to the La Razans back? Don't they deserve a homeland of their own?

So we have a group of people who claim they don't have a homeland and all they want is a country of their own - so give them part of yours.

Like Palestine, La Raza also has their own flag.


Like Palestine, La Raza claims to have a historical claim on the "disputed lands."

La Raza would be the U.S. equivalent to the PLO in the '60's.