talking points that piss you off

[BritishDixie]

Liberals are "nice people", conservatives are "nasty people"

The rich have a "fair share" that they must pay for welfare

South Africa is a better country now than in 1994

Global Warming

[BritishDixie]

South Africa is a better country now than in 1994

Global Warming

Cool! Now there's somebody we can talk to about all the talking points we hate, like "Black people are better off now than in 1964", "the 13th Amendment was a great idea", "Science is typically correct", things like that.

Whoa I'm not denying any of those things. But given the rise in AIDS, crime and corruption in SA since 1994, I find these rosy depictions of the rainbow nation gut-wrenching, as it seems to be going the way of Rhodesia. As for global warming I find the science behind it questionable, and often politically motivated.

[BritishDixie]

South Africa is a better country now than in 1994

Global Warming

Cool! Now there's somebody we can talk to about all the talking points we hate, like "Black people are better off now than in 1964", "the 13th Amendment was a great idea", "Science is typically correct", things like that.

Whoa I'm not denying any of those things. But given the rise in AIDS, crime and corruption in SA since 1994, I find these rosy depictions of the rainbow nation gut-wrenching, as it seems to be going the way of Rhodesia. As for global warming I find the science behind it questionable, and often politically motivated.

You know what there hasn't been a rise in? Segregation. You know what else there hasn't been a rise in? Bantustans. Know what else? Forced removals. Know what else? Racist violence. Know what there has been a rise in? Multi-racial democratic elections.

As for global warming, what political motivation is there, asides from preventing more Democratic coastal states from flooding?

BritishDixie is pretty clearly a racist troll who think South Africa and "Rhodesia" (ROFL) were awesome countries a couple of decades ago.

So Zimbabwe is now better off than it was when it was Rhodesia. You do realize that 75% of the Rhodesian Armed Forces were black. Or that Morgan Tsvangirai praised Ian Smith as "Zimbabwe's greatest Prime Minister". Or that the struggle was mainly a conflict between supporters of the Smith government on one side, and Marxist terrorists on the other, not a clear cut racial conflict. How many white Rhodesian Farmers have been butchered or had their property destroyed under the Mugabe regime. The Rhodesian Army never did that to black Rhodesians.

South Africa is a better country now than in 1994

Global Warming

Cool! Now there's somebody we can talk to about all the talking points we hate, like "Black people are better off now than in 1964", "the 13th Amendment was a great idea", "Science is typically correct", things like that.

Whoa I'm not denying any of those things. But given the rise in AIDS, crime and corruption in SA since 1994, I find these rosy depictions of the rainbow nation gut-wrenching, as it seems to be going the way of Rhodesia. As for global warming I find the science behind it questionable, and often politically motivated.

You know what there hasn't been a rise in? Segregation. You know what else there hasn't been a rise in? Bantustans. Know what else? Forced removals. Know what else? Racist violence. Know what there has been a rise in? Multi-racial democratic elections.

As for global warming, what political motivation is there, asides from preventing more Democratic coastal states from flooding?

You mean a one party state, where a large majority of the ANC's supporters only support it because it was the "great liberator" (read terrorist group) organization. I have massive respect for Mandela, but not for any other ANC thugs who currently run the country.

[BritishDixie]

South Africa is a better country now than in 1994

Global Warming

Cool! Now there's somebody we can talk to about all the talking points we hate, like "Black people are better off now than in 1964", "the 13th Amendment was a great idea", "Science is typically correct", things like that.

Whoa I'm not denying any of those things. But given the rise in AIDS, crime and corruption in SA since 1994, I find these rosy depictions of the rainbow nation gut-wrenching, as it seems to be going the way of Rhodesia. As for global warming I find the science behind it questionable, and often politically motivated.

You know what there hasn't been a rise in? Segregation. You know what else there hasn't been a rise in? Bantustans. Know what else? Forced removals. Know what else? Racist violence. Know what there has been a rise in? Multi-racial democratic elections.

As for global warming, what political motivation is there, asides from preventing more Democratic coastal states from flooding?

You mean a one party state, where a large majority of the ANC's supporters only support it because it was the "great liberator" (read terrorist group) organization. I have massive respect for Mandela, but not for any other ANC thugs who currently run the country.

DA, COPE, IFP, etc. are all fairly active, with the DA actually controlling the governance of Western Cape. And yes, when someone's shooting at you and violently oppressing you support the people who shoot back.

Unlike the ANC, the South African Police and Army never went out into areas where blacks lived and either bombed or necklaced them. Many of the black deaths during the apartheid era were caused by people on their own side, killing what they thought were "sell-outs" (read people just trying to make their way in life). One final point, if South Africa is a beacon of multi-racial democracy, why doesn't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hain, who used to pal around with terrorists, return to live there.

[BritishDixie]

South Africa is a better country now than in 1994

Global Warming

Cool! Now there's somebody we can talk to about all the talking points we hate, like "Black people are better off now than in 1964", "the 13th Amendment was a great idea", "Science is typically correct", things like that.

Whoa I'm not denying any of those things. But given the rise in AIDS, crime and corruption in SA since 1994, I find these rosy depictions of the rainbow nation gut-wrenching, as it seems to be going the way of Rhodesia. As for global warming I find the science behind it questionable, and often politically motivated.

You know what there hasn't been a rise in? Segregation. You know what else there hasn't been a rise in? Bantustans. Know what else? Forced removals. Know what else? Racist violence. Know what there has been a rise in? Multi-racial democratic elections.

As for global warming, what political motivation is there, asides from preventing more Democratic coastal states from flooding?

You mean a one party state, where a large majority of the ANC's supporters only support it because it was the "great liberator" (read terrorist group) organization. I have massive respect for Mandela, but not for any other ANC thugs who currently run the country.

DA, COPE, IFP, etc. are all fairly active, with the DA actually controlling the governance of Western Cape. And yes, when someone's shooting at you and violently oppressing you support the people who shoot back.

Unlike the ANC, the South African Police and Army never went out into areas where blacks lived and either bombed or necklaced them. Many of the black deaths during the apartheid era were caused by people on their own side, killing what they thought were "sell-outs" (read: people just trying to make their way in life). One final point, if South Africa is a beacon of multi-racial democracy, why doesn't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hain, who used to pal around with terrorists, return to live there.

Are you familiar with the Sharpeville massacre? A crowd of unarmed black protesters was fired upon by South African police. 69 dead, 180 injured. Many of them were shot in the back as they were fleeing.

How about the Soweto Uprising, where 176-600 unarmed students were shot dead by police while protesting educational changes?

How about the squalor and slums of the Bantustans many black South Africans were forced into under apartheid?

How about the forced removals of tens of thousands of civilians from District Six and the bulldozing of their homes?

How about the political prisoners of Robben Island?

How about the destruction of Sophiatown, the occupation of Namibia (South-West Africa), the executions at Vlakplaas? You're attempting to defend an indefensible regime.

As for Hain, he seems to be pretty established politically in the UK, and (except for the alternative medicine thing/donations scandal) seems like a FF.
 
Also, I saw your comments in the thread on Louisiana and thought you'd appreciate this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was joking on that thread. I'm not a racist, but I can empathize with the old South African Government's dilemma. Ending minority rule, especially before the 1990's, would have consigned whites (and probably coloureds and asians) to permanent second class citizenship. Even with the concessions De Klerk managed to wring from the ANC in 1994, those are now steadily being chipped away. If you were white, and living in South Africa, and could see what was happening across the rest of the continent, would you want to risk your priviledged existance in the name of equality. My guess is not. But I am not a racist, I do believe that we are all one people under God. But I'm not blind to the majority rule posed in Africa. If you look at what happened to Rhodesia, or Kenya then you can see why the whites were not inclined to hand over the reigns of power to the majority.

[BritishDixie]

British Dixie's posts.

The chances of RSA turning into Zimbabwe are ridiculously tiny (admittely, greater than zero but not much greater).

Of course, I can't leave without pointing out that Zimbabwe isn't actually exactly what it is in the imaginations of most racists (ie. The vast majority of the victims of Mugabe have been blacks).

I know, which is what makes the whole thing even more sad. We aided and abetted Mugabe's rise to power, only to find that he began murdering his own people.

[BritishDixie]

Denying that American Civil war was about Slavery.

While certainly there other issues at stake they all came down to one fundamental point - the strong structural differences in the economy and society of the South vis-a-vis the North and this was fundamentally due to slavery (and the Cotton-Export dependant economy it created).

I'm not getting involved here.

[BritishDixie]

Denying that American Civil war was about Slavery.

While certainly there other issues at stake they all came down to one fundamental point - the strong structural differences in the economy and society of the South vis-a-vis the North and this was fundamentally due to slavery (and the Cotton-Export dependant economy it created).

You have a point.

What I was mostly referring to was the way it was taught in like eighth grade history.  A lot less focus on the economic part of the war and more on some sort of notion that the North was full of abolitionists and that the Union Army went down South because Slavery offended them so.

As someone who just finished 8th grade history, this is pretty much accurate. Abolitionist movement is trumped up, Lincoln is idolized, and rationale portrayed as "South like slavery. Lincoln no like slavery. South no like Lincoln. South leave. Lincoln decide to save black people. Lincoln's people burn Atlanta."

I remember a discussion about this in a history class. It was more like

South evil, north nice, Davis bad man, Lincoln like God, south like Nazis, north help south, reconstruction a success.

[BritishDixie]

While going through some complaints at work today, I fell across something which made me facepalm:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"I am very concerned by the recent decision of the federal government to abandon the complete version of the census forms. Is this another means of hiding the perverse effect of the open doors immigration policy on the linguistic vitality of Francophone communities across the country? We fear that it is"

Dear Lord. TEH IMMIGRANTSZ ARE DESTROYING TEH COUNTRY AND TEH ZOMGZ FRENCH LINGUAGE!111

Why are European neo-Nazis so much more influential (from my point of view, at least) than the Americans? Golden Dawn, the National Front, the BNP, the Sweden Democrats; the American Nazi Party can't hold a candle to them.

The National Front, the BNP and the Sweden Democrats might be disgusting pieces of trash, but they are not, properly speaking, neo-nazis. There might not be any outright far-right party in America, but is the GOP's right-wing (Bachmann, Palin, Beck, etc) any less nutty than FN or BNP politicians ?

Well said. Now can we get along condemning the far-left as well. Jean-Luc Melenchon and his ilk.

[BritishDixie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is not far left?

[BritishDixie]

So he is a nutty leftist, just not a nutty far-leftist?

Basically. When you know actual French far-leftists, you can easily see the difference.

Yes but France is several notches to the left of almost every other developed western nation with the exception of the Scandinavian states. Although the difference is their political discourse seems competent, whereas in France it seems like half of their politicians are still stuck in the 1790's. Melenchon would be considered a far-leftist outside of France. Even the BBC, a bastion of liberal-leftism, calls him a far-leftist, as to other such bastions like the Guardian.

[BritishDixie]

I would join in this argument, but considering who we're arguing against, I think I prefer to ram my head into the wall.

Aw I'm not that dum

[BritishDixie]

So he is a nutty leftist, just not a nutty far-leftist?

Basically. When you know actual French far-leftists, you can easily see the difference.

Yes but France is several notches to the left of almost every other developed western nation with the exception of the Scandinavian states. Although the difference is their political discourse seems competent, whereas in France it seems like half of their politicians are still stuck in the 1790's. Melenchon would be considered a far-leftist outside of France. Even the BBC, a bastion of liberal-leftism, calls him a far-leftist, as to other such bastions like the Guardian.

By that logic dailymail is a center newspaper?

Nope. It is very right-wing. But then the Guardian is incredibly left-wing. As for the 'Independent'. The title makes me want to laugh.

[BritishDixie]

So he is a nutty leftist, just not a nutty far-leftist?

Basically. When you know actual French far-leftists, you can easily see the difference.

Yes but France is several notches to the left of almost every other developed western nation with the exception of the Scandinavian states. Although the difference is their political discourse seems competent, whereas in France it seems like half of their politicians are still stuck in the 1790's. Melenchon would be considered a far-leftist outside of France. Even the BBC, a bastion of liberal-leftism, calls him a far-leftist, as to other such bastions like the Guardian.

By that logic dailymail is a center newspaper?

Nope. It is very right-wing. But then the Guardian is incredibly left-wing. As for the 'Independent'. The title makes me want to laugh.

The problem is that your classifying BBC as a left-wing paper, that's like saying CNN is left-wing.

But even its own commentators own up to its left wing bias. For instance Andrew Marr said "The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities, and gay people. It has a liberal bias, not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."

I don't know much about CNN, but I thought it was centrist.

[BritishDixie]

Obviously this thread is a disaster, but with regards to France it should be pointed out that a certain disconnect between rhetoric and reality is a traditional (the most traditional?) feature of political language there. In any case, the existence of a formerly viable hard left political tradition does not make the entire country so inclined...

But then the Guardian is incredibly left-wing.

Hahaha, no.

Didn't they endorse the Lib Dems? Obviously far-left.

Perhaps I should have phrased it differently, but anyone denying that the Guardian has a leftist bent is obviously living in a dreamworld. I wouldn't call the Lib Dems far-left, but their claim that they are centrist is just laughable.

[BritishDixie]

Obviously this thread is a disaster, but with regards to France it should be pointed out that a certain disconnect between rhetoric and reality is a traditional (the most traditional?) feature of political language there. In any case, the existence of a formerly viable hard left political tradition does not make the entire country so inclined...

But then the Guardian is incredibly left-wing.

Hahaha, no.

Didn't they endorse the Lib Dems? Obviously far-left.

Perhaps I should have phrased it differently, but anyone denying that the Guardian has a leftist bent is obviously living in a dreamworld. I wouldn't call the Lib Dems far-left, but their claim that they are centrist is just laughable.

Clearly the Lib Dems are liberal. I don't know how a British person becomes so Americanized as to come to believe that liberalism and leftism are the same thing.

I didn't say that they were. But the Liberal-Democrats are emphatically not "liberal" certainly economically, where they are similar to Labour, wanting to avoid public spending cuts, aside of course from in defence. They are probably the most socially liberal major party, which also puts them on the centre-left. Their main distinction with Labour is their woolen themes of localism and decentralization, as well as a bigger emphasis on environmentalism. There main pretense to being centrist is that they are not particularly unpopular in the North or South (they are infact unpopular in both). This largely extends from their positioning themselves as the party of the centre during the ideologically extreme 1980's (they were far less left wing than Labour, but were still centre-left).

[BritishDixie]

I didn't say that they were. But the Liberal-Democrats are emphatically not "liberal" certainly economically, where they are similar to Labour, wanting to avoid public spending cuts, aside of course from in defence.

On which planet do you live on at the moment?

I'm not talking about the actions of the Party in power, where they are the junior partner, but about their general ideology, as represented in the main by people like Vince Cable and Simon Hughes. They have been more like this since the early 2000's, when they started getting disillusioned Labour supporters due to the Iraq War, and shifted further to the left on public spending in order to help maintain this support.

[BritishDixie]

Obviously this thread is a disaster, but with regards to France it should be pointed out that a certain disconnect between rhetoric and reality is a traditional (the most traditional?) feature of political language there. In any case, the existence of a formerly viable hard left political tradition does not make the entire country so inclined...

But then the Guardian is incredibly left-wing.

Hahaha, no.

Didn't they endorse the Lib Dems? Obviously far-left.

Perhaps I should have phrased it differently, but anyone denying that the Guardian has a leftist bent is obviously living in a dreamworld. I wouldn't call the Lib Dems far-left, but their claim that they are centrist is just laughable.

Yes, because the Liberal Democrats is an emphatically center-right party, following a center-right agenda.

Where is the evidence for this. You do realize that the "cuts" would be working far more effectively if it weren't for the Liberal-Democrats watering them down at every possible stage.

[BritishDixie]

Could we just lock this thread? This has turned into a total and utter disaster and train wreck, courtesy of our latest stupid troll.

I fail to see how my posts are stupid and trollish. I don't think of your left-wing posts as stupid or trollish, rather I just disagree with them.