|
|
Post by garfield on Jan 31, 2013 8:58:40 GMT 10
;D
Zimbabwe has just $217 in the bank
Mr Biti announced this week that the entire African nation had exactly $217 in its all public accounts after it paid its civil servants last week, NBC News reports.
He told reporters in the capital, Harare, that some of them were probably better off than the state.
After a decade of inflation hit 500 billion percent in 2008 — leading to the issuance of 100 trillion-dollar bills in Zimbabwean currency — the country switched to the U.S. dollar and formed a coalition government in 2009, which the International Monetary Fund credited in September with taming inflation and stabilizing the economy.
But the debt the country built up during those years of nationalist rule by President Robert Mugabe left it with a minimal tax base and few cash reserves, the IMF said, leaving Zimbabwe vulnerable to economic "shocks."
Biti, an opposition member of Mugabe's coalition, said the lack of cash threatened elections that are expected some time after a March referendum on a new constitution.
"The government finances are in a paralysis state at the present moment," he said, adding that the country might have to seek donations to stay afloat.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 31, 2013 9:58:37 GMT 10
Dunno why you put up the grinning face icon Garfield, unless you gain some sort of pleasure at the spectacle of blackfellas suffering. In what way is Mugabe a "lefty"? Are you saying that the demand for black majority rule in Africa was the exclusive property of the "left"? I beg to differ. It was successive Conservative Governments in Britain that opposed Ian Smith's UDI in Rhodesia, from Ted Heath to Maggie Thatcher. From memory the Lancaster House Agreement that set up Mugabe's Zimbabwe was signed in London in 1979 with the Thatcher Government acting for the British. In other words Margaret Thatcher was midwife to the birth of Mugabe's Zimbabwe. "Lefty"?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2013 19:19:31 GMT 10
Now C'mon Pim, never let fact get in the way of Garfies rhetoric. Of course Garfy has no solution, if he was in charge, he would abolish taxation, especially for land holders (who just happen, in the main, to be White). And he wonders why he gets labelled the Village Idiot.
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 31, 2013 19:51:19 GMT 10
Just more proof that Garfield wants the Village Idiot title back from Salem. It is a very close race.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Stockton on Feb 2, 2013 15:52:43 GMT 10
re#1 above.
Question - in what way is Mugabe a' lefty'?
His biography says in 1958 he went to Ghana & following their style of politics, became a Maxist. He spent 10 years or so in jails for his efforts during 1960s & 1970s while setting up ZANU resistance movement.
The rest of your second paragraph does need a little revision if you don't mind.
Heath (PM 1970 to 1974) & Thatcher (PM 5th May 1979 to 1990) In between times, Wilson & after he was rolled by James Callaghan were Labor PM's until Thacther beat Callaghan in May 1979. So to suggest that in the 5 years or so leading up to the Lancaster House deal in December 1979 was solely a conservative project is not 100% correct.
Lets face it, in the lead up to the May '79 election, Rhodesia would hardly have been of great interest to either Callaghan or Thatcher. A quick review of Callaghan's biography indicates he was one of the first politicians (from either side ) to make contact with what could be loosely called 'Black African leadership' starting back in the early 1960's. If anything, he was the attending doctor to the formation of what was to be Zimbabwe.
In addition to fighting an election, Thatcher for the remainder of 1979 had the lead up to & execution of the Falklands war, the setting up of The Housing Act 1980 & the odd IRA inccident or 2 to address. May I suggest being 'midwife' to Mugabe is stretching the truth a little?
|
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Feb 2, 2013 16:01:14 GMT 10
Mugabe was following leftist doctrine thats why its "another lefty success story"  |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Stockton on Feb 2, 2013 16:05:45 GMT 10
re#2
"Now C'mon Pim, never let fact get in the way of Garfies rhetoric. Of course Garfy has no solution, if he was in charge, he would abolish taxation, especially for land holders (who just happen, in the main, to be White). And he wonders why he gets labelled the Village Idiot. "
For the record, the only land taxes in any state of Australia is 'Land Tax' & a variety of levies (here in SA termed 'Emergancy Services Levy'). The vast majority of properties in Australia are residential homes. If the owner lives in that residence (as a principal place of residence) that property is already exempt from land tax in each state & territory.
This exemption is available to all property owners who apply for it, notwithstanding their color, creed or place of birth.
all in all - a statement of empty rhetoric.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 2, 2013 16:07:10 GMT 10
OK Stockton you've obviously spent some time on a bit of fact checking. Good for you. Seriously! Mine was a "back of the envelope" post.
I'm not sure, though, what your post actually proves. Given that resistance to white minority rule in Africa tended to be supported by one superpower during the Cold War because the other side tended to support the continuation of white minority rule as the "status quo", I still don't see how this qualifies Mugabe as a "lefty". I've always questioned the use of the desriptors "left" and "right" in any case. They don't describe anything except for people like you andGarfield for whom "lefty" means "anyone who disagrees with me". In my opinion Mugabe is just another African Bad Guy and Garfield loves stories about African Bad Guys because they feed into his own little white supremacist fantasies.
As for the fact checking in your #4, OK, I accept your correction on the facts but not necessarily on the interpretation. It is a fact that Ian Smith's UDI and subsequent white minority rule in Rhodesia was opposed by British Governments, and that would include Thatcher. I'm short of time here so can't re-check the facts but I'm pretty sure the Thatcher Government was in power at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Stockton on Feb 2, 2013 19:02:06 GMT 10
re#8,"In my opinion Mugabe is just another African Bad Guy and Garfield loves stories about African Bad Guys because they feed into his own little white supremacist fantasies."
Well one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. It all depends on which way the AK47 is pointing. And there is no one on this board dark enough to be classified as a 'black comrade' so terrorist is a good description of Mugabe. he had a single answer to a complex problem -take back the land from the white farmers & kick them out of the country.
Great idea just who was going to run those farms is still to be addressed some 30 years later. Those terrorists knew how to kill- they didn't know how to farm.
The UDI was done at 11am on 11th Nov 1965 (that should bring back some memories for you). In summary both Labor & the Conservatives were in power for that 15 years to 1979
So yes, Thatcher did sign off on the deal in Dec 1979 as you say, just 7 months after winning the May election. However, Labor had done much of the hard work in the years preceding that deal.
And as I said, neither wanted anything to do with Rhodesia given they had the same problem (all be it much closer to home in more ways than one) in Ulster. But 30 years of hind sight is a wonderful gift.
|
|
|
|
Post by chequeredflaggg on Feb 3, 2013 8:09:57 GMT 10
;D Zimbabwe has just $217 in the bankMr Biti announced this week that the entire African nation had exactly $217 in its all public accounts after it paid its civil servants last week, NBC News reports. He told reporters in the capital, Harare, that some of them were probably better off than the state. After a decade of inflation hit 500 billion percent in 2008 — leading to the issuance of 100 trillion-dollar bills in Zimbabwean currency — the country switched to the U.S. dollar and formed a coalition government in 2009, which the International Monetary Fund credited in September with taming inflation and stabilizing the economy. But the debt the country built up during those years of nationalist rule by President Robert Mugabe left it with a minimal tax base and few cash reserves, the IMF said, leaving Zimbabwe vulnerable to economic "shocks." Biti, an opposition member of Mugabe's coalition, said the lack of cash threatened elections that are expected some time after a March referendum on a new constitution. "The government finances are in a paralysis state at the present moment," he said, adding that the country might have to seek donations to stay afloat. surprised its even got that much, surprised it has a bank account at all, except in its own banks.. the Post-apartheid black miracle. |
|
|
|
Post by chequeredflaggg on Feb 3, 2013 8:10:40 GMT 10
Id say that even that $217 bucks is because they mugged someone last night..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2013 9:09:00 GMT 10
Zimbabwe was a product of what was the right and ethical thing to do with a nation under colonialist rule, left or right government in tbe west had the consensus view on that...no blame game there.
Mugabe who had the promise of being a good and positive leader for Zimbabwe and in time from good he has gone to bad as is the case in many colonised nations that have new found freedom....in time these young nations will find their feet and the autocracy and despots will fall from grace.
The important part is these nations were given the opportunity of freedom by western nations....adjustment takes time.
Israel's colonisation actions is being condoned by the west and that is a greater crime by western governments in these times.
Nothing being said here or the media as such ...just pointless blame games based on race.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Stockton on Feb 3, 2013 12:26:39 GMT 10
re#14 The important part is these nations were given the opportunity of freedom by western nations....adjustment takes time.
After 33 years I would have thought it time for Mugabe to stand aside. He will not of course. One party state, no media. And that is before you speak of no food, no electricity, no water for his people whom he loves so dearly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2013 19:00:52 GMT 10
Sink or swim the nation has been set adrift and that is what the people wanted, Mugabe turned out to be an arsehole, and yet he won't last forever.
Israel's criminal activities that are undermining the ME and peace in the Islamic world is far more important issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Feb 3, 2013 19:14:03 GMT 10
Israel's criminal activities that are undermining the ME and peace in the Islamic world is far more important issue. Well actually its not really, the mussies worst enemy by far and away is themselves. But then again your biggest fear is that there are right wingers around such is the mentality. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2013 21:02:26 GMT 10
I don't fear the RW.....its surely a worry there are so many RW with psychotic mental issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 4, 2013 9:19:58 GMT 10
re#8,"In my opinion Mugabe is just another African Bad Guy and Garfield loves stories about African Bad Guys because they feed into his own little white supremacist fantasies." Well one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. It all depends on which way the AK47 is pointing. And there is no one on this board dark enough to be classified as a 'black comrade' so terrorist is a good description of Mugabe. he had a single answer to a complex problem -take back the land from the white farmers & kick them out of the country. I'm not going to be verballed into some sort of "lefty" defence of Mugabe. I'll leave that to lollipop "radical chic" fruitcakes like KTJ. By the same token I reject the idea that in rejecting the oversimplifications of the lollipop radical chic, I therefore embrace the oversimplifications of the lollipop extremist white backlash reactionaries who yearn for the simplistic "verities" of the halcyon days when white supremacists ran the place. If we strip away all the loaded language, I'd say that in there somewhere buried away among the agenda-laden vitriol is the notion that when you destroy one economic model that doesn't mean you've got another one all ready to function like a well-oiled machine. 'Twas ever thus. Why should 11am on 11/11/1965 bring back memories? Certainly that same date ten years later, in 1975, brings back memories of events in Australian politics that are totally unrelated to the issue of white minority rule in southern Africa. What's your point? I disagree strongly that the issues faced by the British in Ulster were/are analagous to the issues faced by the white minority in Rhodesia but I won't press that issue except to say that if "in hindsight" you see parallels between the "troubles" in Ulster and white minority rule in southern Africa then you probably need to get a new prescription for your glasses. Your other point is that while the Thatcher Conservatives signed off on the Lancaster House deal in 1979, most of the spadework had been done by UK Labour. No argument from me on that one! What that means is that opposition to white minority rule in southern Africa was not a "left vs right" thing, as Garfield with his usual distortions and misrepresentations (unchallenged by you, interestingly enough) is trying to portray it as, it was bipartisan. So to the extent that Mugabe is some sort of misshapen "Caliban" product of Western politics, he wasn't created by the "left" but by the policy change embodied in the "Wind of Change" speech by Macmillan in 1960 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_of_Change_(speech) As far as continents like Africa and Asia are concerned, the 1950s and 1960s were years of decolonisation where the old imperialist European powers like Britain, France, the Netherlands and Belgium lost their overseas possessions in the "Wind of Change" described by Macmillian in his 1960 speech. Portugal hung on for a while longer in Africa and so did the white supremacists in Anglophone southern Africa. All that's left are the crumbs. Portugal lost even those in the latter years of the 20th century when she abandoned East Timor to her fate in the 1970s and was eased out of Macau in the 1990s by the Chinese. I seem to remember she'd had a fragment of India (Goa?) which the Indians walked into and took over in the 1950s(?). The French are all that's left with a few islands in the Pacific and the Indian Oceans and there's a use-by date on New Caledonia with the Matignon Accords. It's never been about "left vs right" and Mugabe is not any sort of leftist icon except in the fevered imaginations of the ill-informed, the ignorant and the hysterical such as the hilarious Garfield on the one extreme and the equally loopy KTJ on the other. You might have a view on the "Wind of Change" speech that differs from mine and that's fair enough, but the guy who spruiked "Wind of Change" all over Africa from Ghana to South Africa in 1960 was Harold Macmillan, Conservative Prime Minister of Her Majesty's Government. It's considered the most definitive speech about the need to dismantle the old European colonial empires given by a Western statesman in the post WW2 decolonisation era. And there, I put it to the ill-informed ignoramuses of this board who are stuck in their hopelessly inaccurate and inadequate Cold War "left/right" bullshit, is the genesis of someone like Robert Mugabe. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Stockton on Feb 4, 2013 19:55:21 GMT 10
re# 19 'Your other point is that while the Thatcher Conservatives signed off on the Lancaster House 'deal in 1979, most of the spadework had been done by UK Labour. No argument from me on that one!
Good we agree.
Thus the word "Conservative" in 'It was successive Conservative Governments in Britain that opposed Ian Smith's UDI in Rhodesia, from Ted Heath to Maggie Thatcher. ' was simply to stir up Garfield?
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 4, 2013 19:59:54 GMT 10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2013 20:14:38 GMT 10
Who on earth is stupid enough to call Mugabe a lefty? l Garfy, Bubbles, The Wife-beater..... |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Stockton on Feb 4, 2013 20:19:37 GMT 10
re#21 Who on earth is stupid enough to call Mugabe a lefty?
For the second time & purely for your benefit -Robert Mugabe himself back in 1958. (well Maxist actually but I, possibly wrongly, thought Maxist was lefty enough for most.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2013 20:24:52 GMT 10
Add Stock to that list
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 4, 2013 20:27:03 GMT 10
re#21 Who on earth is stupid enough to call Mugabe a lefty? For the second time & purely for your benefit -Robert Mugabe himself back in 1958. (well Maxist actually but I, possibly wrongly, thought Maxist was lefty enough for most.) Maxist? What on earth is that? |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Stockton on Feb 4, 2013 20:29:37 GMT 10
Pim what this issue highlights is how liberal (in the UK meaning of the word not Australian sense, although SA's 'small l lberal" is close), or how socially aware many of the rich in the UK were. Harold who happens to be a great uncle is one of many in the family dating back to the early 1800's who were funding anti slavery (USA) & anti child labour (UK) issues long before the ALP & similar came on the scene.
|
|
|
|
Post by bender on Feb 4, 2013 20:31:22 GMT 10
Hell, we've had right wingers on this board who've steadfastly argued that Hitler was a lefty.
It's just silly, they make an outrageously false argument, attribute it generically to the left and then debate it with a fervour that leads you to think that they've actually blanked out the memory that they created the claim that they're now debating and really think that it came from someone on the left..
In a sense it's all they really can do. Arguing about reality has never contained happy memories for them. Look at Buzz and his utterly lunatic claims that all he reads is how the lefties support female genital mutilation and want violent muslims out here. Now there is not one post on this board that even approximates what Buzz has claimed, yet he believes that's all he sees.
Garfield obsessively starts posts stating that this is what the lefties believe and then proceeds into fanciful lunacy.
It goes on and on. Trying to answer them calmly and rationally by asking them to show the posts that gave them cause to believe these delusional things results in abuse or claims of persecution, or (most often) a shrill repitition of the claim as if saying it enough times will make it more real.
Here's a tip guys, if someone asks you for proof of what you're claiming that the lefties here believe and you can't provide any actual evidence of your claim, then maybe it's not real, it's possible that you made it up yourself, whether to give yourself a win in an argument or to simply make your own stated beliefs seem not so extreme.
Sorry guys, I guess that right now you're thinking that I'm persecuting you, that I'm shooting the messenger, hell that I'm saying this because I want hundreds of thousands of genitalia mutilating muslims here.
You're free to feel all that, but if you look at the boards history and can't find actual posts that you can use as examples of what you believe the left is in favour of shouldn't you also contemplate that you've become delusional.
|
|
