Does South Africa belong to blacks? Watch

This discussion is closed.
an Siarach
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#21
Report 14 years ago
#21
(Original post by labouriteslayer)
And why don't you think this land we are in is for Anglo-Saxons?
And how do you come to that conlcusion?
0
-mb-
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#22
Report 14 years ago
#22
Debates about who parts of the world "orginally" belonged to are utterly pointless...

Palestine was Muslim, then Jewish , then Muslim controlled over the centuries.

America used to "belong" to the Red Indians (note they did not believe in "owning" land at all). It certainly doesn't now, all due to immigration. Yet, once primarily white owned, whites then felt entitled to exclude blacks - it was a white country, wasn't it?

What about Australia and the Aborigines? The white John Howard now excludes boats of immigrants....

Actually, you can go back to the beginnings of civilisation is Messopotamia - does that mean we can all stake a claim to a piece of Iraq now?

You see, it's a nonsense "debate".

What you can debate, is what is/was "best" for a country, and this is down to perspective and opinion, and requires speculation on alternative histories, which is often rather invalid, due to the impossibility of simulating every consequent difference.

In my opinion, it is fair to say that South Africa could well be in worse state now, using the state of comparable black-african governed countries that we see today.
0
kingslaw
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#23
Report 14 years ago
#23
(Original post by labouriteslayer)
Yes, but you don't deserve any of those things.

I provided evidence of what leftists support, and you pathetically tried to find safety in arguing semantics, shamelessly using an obvious lie that Clinton isn't a leftist.

Let me explain this to you slowly, subnormal... the quotes I posted were, indeed, opinions. However, they were opining on a factual event that actually happened. In other words, they were editorials that were being analytical about an indisputable fact. And that factual event is why I posted them. Do you understand what I am getting at or do you need to breathe through your mouth for a few moments longer?

It is a verifiable fact that Clinton took the aforementioned action, and the leftists in his audience took the other aforementioned action. The analytical opinions were posted because they reported the actions, which you totally failed to notice because you were sidetracked by all the big words in them. But to state for the record and hopefully clear it up in your seemingly nonexistant mind, I did not post the quotes for the opinions which so badly distracted you, I posted them for the verifiable fact which was the subject of the opinions, and the opinions which surrounded the verifiable fact is trivia that you should disregard.

You know, Hitler did send the mentally non-functional to death camps just as quickly as he did jews, and at times like this I wish he had kept Britain.

Granted, I could pore over sources in true journalistic fashion, but obviously I am not going to waste that much effort, because you don't deserve that much effort.

Dear god you are hard work! Lets take the 'evidence' you provided apart and see where you have completely f*cked up.

Bill Clinton has made this boast a number of times during the past few years when speaking to Jewish or liberal audiences, and he always gets a lot of applause
Where? When? Purely unsubstantiated - not a thread of evidence.

Some of those who applaud are just being trendy, just going along with the fashion of hating White people and worshipping the idea of equality and multiculturalism, but others are active-duty members of the enemy army.
Ditto

that we must not do anything to slow the flow of immigrants from the Third World into the United States
Out of the quotes given in the passage, nothing gives substance to this claim that it his belief.

More "diversity" will be good for us, he said. Anyway, he gloated, there's nothing you can do to stop it
If he made such a gloat, why is the article so reluctant to print an example of this gloat?

The White majority in America will become a minority within the next 50 years, so get used to it, you wrongheaded bigots. The White America you knew and loved will become non-White
Once again, no proof to say this is what Clinton thinks.

These are the wimps who cheered Bill Clinton when he boasted to college audiences during the past eight years that the White majority in America was on the way out: that within the next few decades the White majority would be shoved aside by people of color and by feminists and by homosexuals and by others who hadn't been given a chance to run things yet
I'm sure you've worked out the pattern by now. No evidence to back up that Clinton ever made this boast or thinks like this.

Anyone can print an article saying that something happened if they dont back it up with any evidence. I can print an article saying that we all decended from Martians - doesnt make it true. However, some idiot could copy and paste it into a forum and start screamin "THIS HAPPENED - ITS FACT" like you have done top back up a point. Such an article would no doubt suffer from the same lack of evidence as reality as the article you posted, so anyone with half a brain would dismiss it as rubbish. Much like anyone with half-a-brain has dismissed the articles you put up - we're just waiting for you to catch up!

To save all this bother, if the aim of the left is so clear, then why don't you just show an example of left-wing literature that proves your point. There must be an abundance of it! It simply makes more sense on your behalf.

Why have I stooped so low as to try and help you formulate an effective arguement?!?!
0
sarah101
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#24
Report 14 years ago
#24
(Original post by labouriteslayer)
And why don't you think this land we are in is for Anglo-Saxons?
You're just creating an argument for argument's sake. If we were living in Anglo-Saxony, maybe it would belong to the Anglo-Saxons. But we're not.
0
-mb-
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#25
Report 14 years ago
#25
Debates about who parts of the world "orginally" belonged to are utterly pointless...

Palestine was Muslim, then Jewish , then Muslim controlled over the centuries.

America used to "belong" to the Red Indians (note they did not believe in "owning" land at all). It certainly doesn't now, all due to immigration. Yet, once primarily white owned, whites then felt entitled to exclude blacks - it was a white country, wasn't it?

What about Australia and the Aborigines? The white John Howard now excludes boats of immigrants....

Actually, you can go back to the beginnings of civilisation is Messopotamia - does that mean we can all stake a claim to a piece of Iraq now?

You see, it's a nonsense "debate".

What you can debate, is what is/was "best" for a country, and this is down to perspective and opinion, and requires speculation on alternative histories, which is often rather invalid, due to the impossibility of simulating every consequent difference.

In my opinion, it is fair to say that South Africa could well be in worse state now, using the state of comparable black-african governed countries that we see today.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#26
Report 14 years ago
#26
(Original post by kriztinae)
you cant say that!
you cant predict what would have happened to a country if there was no western interference! they might have been better off, maybeworse off! you cant say
You can have a fuc*in good guess.
0
randdom
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#27
Report 14 years ago
#27
(Original post by labouriteslayer)
I'd like the leftists to answer this question. When many blacks talk about South Africa they say things like "whites had apartheid there, when it wasn't even their country in the first place".

What are your thoughts on that? Do you believe South Africa is a country that should belong to blacks?
I believe that South Africa is a country where Black and white people should be equal. Neither black or white people should be discriminated on in terms of race. I also believe that the government to an extent should represent the racial make up of the country. Meaning that is shouldn't be an all black or all white government.
0
NDGAARONDI
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#28
Report 14 years ago
#28
(Original post by labouriteslayer)
And why don't you think this land we are in is for Anglo-Saxons?
Actually Anglo-Saxons are the equivalent of whites in South Africa. I'm pretty sure there were people living in this country as we know it today before the Anglo-Saxons came along!
0
roff
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#29
Report 14 years ago
#29
(Original post by kriztinae)
i think i get what your trying to say and i dont think your trying to be racist rite?
southafrica originally, before it got taken over etc did belong to black people. etc etc
but the dutch and the lebanese and the greeks etc all moved there many years ago and settled. some settlers were fair and worked their way to make a living, others were not
the dutch have been living there the longest and from what my southafrican friends have told me, the blacks dont mind other people living in their country, as in whites, but as long as they are given rights.
i think the country itself should be run by the people who are elected like any democratic country. if the candidate is black so what? if he is white? whats the difference, as long as both races are treated fairly.
Eh? Since when did Greek and Lebanese settlers move to South Africa 200 years ago? If anything, it's more likely that there was a presense of the former group than the latter.
0
WildAmerican
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#30
Report 14 years ago
#30
North, East and West Africa have had blacks for what...10,000 years and they havent changed at all over that time. Is there some all powerful mighty whitey over there "holding the black man down"? I think not, we all know why they havent made anything of themselves.
0
Hooty McBoob
Badges: 0
#31
Report 14 years ago
#31
European governments subsidising their farmers to such a degree that African famers cant export anything(e.g. Kenya) doesnt exactly help their development either though. Also who are you to say that they havent made anything of themselves? there are Africans doctors, lawyers and nurses just as there are European ones.
0
labouriteslayer
Badges: 0
#32
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#32
(Original post by sarah101)
You're just creating an argument for argument's sake. If we were living in Anglo-Saxony, maybe it would belong to the Anglo-Saxons. But we're not.

Right, we're living in Britain. So the land is only for indigenous peoples of Britain (Anglos, Celts, Scots, Welsh)
0
labouriteslayer
Badges: 0
#33
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#33
(Original post by kingslaw)
Where? When? Purely unsubstantiated - not a thread of evidence.

Are you really this much of an idiot? Can you read? Portland State University in Oregon on June 13 was the date and location. I hand you concrete evidence of a source and you say unsubstantiated? You wouldn't be able to find your own arse with both hands even if I gave you a map. How are you allowed on the streets?
0
kingslaw
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#34
Report 14 years ago
#34
(Original post by labouriteslayer)
Are you really this much of an idiot? Can you read? Portland State University in Oregon on June 13 was the date and location. I hand you concrete evidence of a source and you say unsubstantiated? You wouldn't be able to find your own arse with both hands even if I gave you a map. How are you allowed on the streets?
I give up. Everyone else understands it. I've even got rep from people saying I should give up on trying to make a bloody obvious point comprehendible for the likes of yourself.

Tell you what, lets just say your right (we have to humour you). Find me some evidence from a LEFT-WING source (that means not from some NF/BNP site like the last one, but LEFT-WING) backing up your point. An example of a lefty saying in an article that racism by ethnic minorities is Ok.
0
lala
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#35
Report 14 years ago
#35
I'm pretty sure there were people living in this country as we know it today before the Anglo-Saxons came along!
Yep, you're absolutely right, there were shitloads. There's nothing indigenous to Britain about the Anglo-Saxons! Actually, humans themselves were preceded in these fair isles by various other creatures: perhaps they have more right to be here than we do? The first human inhabitants of modern day Britain were immigrants themselves in that they moved here rather than being born. Added to that constant flows of invasions for a while and many many flows of immigrants a long time before the twentieth century has made the population of Britain very mixed up for a good long while: ethnic homogeneity has not been a reality here for thousands of years.
0
labouriteslayer
Badges: 0
#36
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#36
(Original post by kingslaw)
Find me some evidence from a LEFT-WING source (that means not from some NF/BNP site like the last one, but LEFT-WING) backing up your point. An example of a lefty saying in an article that racism by ethnic minorities is Ok.

It WAS a left-wing source, subnormal. It came from Clinton's own mouth and the applause of the leftist audience.

Of course, we both know why you demanded a literary source. A literary source with liberals as authors or editors would never allow the left to look bad. It's only when liberals let their guard down that their true natures are revealed, such as the speech with Clinton. The fact that you demanded something written and approved by liberals is no surprise.
0
labouriteslayer
Badges: 0
#37
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#37
(Original post by lala)
Yep, you're absolutely right, there were shitloads. There's nothing indigenous to Britain about the Anglo-Saxons! Actually, humans themselves were preceded in these fair isles by various other creatures: perhaps they have more right to be here than we do? The first human inhabitants of modern day Britain were immigrants themselves in that they moved here rather than being born. Added to that constant flows of invasions for a while and many many flows of immigrants a long time before the twentieth century has made the population of Britain very mixed up for a good long while: ethnic homogeneity has not been a reality here for thousands of years.

Then I take it you support whites taking control of South Africa again?
0
material breach
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#38
Report 14 years ago
#38
(Original post by labouriteslayer)
Then I take it you support whites taking control of South Africa again?
whites taking control of south africa? what are yhou on about, first you say blacks are taking it over and now you say white are
think about what you are saying before you speak
0
lala
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#39
Report 14 years ago
#39
(Original post by labouriteslayer)
Then I take it you support whites taking control of South Africa again?
How you arrived at that conclusion is beyond me, I haven't even mentioned South Africa. You also haven't yet answered my questions about definitions of indigenous, presumably because yours is full of holes.
0
labouriteslayer
Badges: 0
#40
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#40
(Original post by Speciez99)
whites taking control of south africa? what are yhou on about, first you say blacks are taking it over and now you say white are
think about what you are saying before you speak
Are you truly this stupid? Judging by your incoherency I'd say yes.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have a role model?

Yes - I know them personally (294)
26.11%
Yes - they're famous (286)
25.4%
No I don't (546)
48.49%

Watched Threads

View All