|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 4, 2013 20:39:23 GMT 10
They can never find those examples when challenged, bender.
And "challenged" is the perfect term for these misfits.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Stockton on Feb 4, 2013 22:08:28 GMT 10
re#23 For the spelling police, you may have noticed I typed 'Maxist' instead of 'Marxist'.
But then anyone who knew anything about this topic would have known it to be a typo. That error doesn't actually change the fact that he professed to be Marxist long before he returned from Ghana to Rhodesia & took up his political activities.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 4, 2013 22:23:11 GMT 10
It's a typo if you do it once.
But to do it twice in the same sentence just means that you're a bit of a twat.
As for anyone professing to be anything, just because someone claims to be a Marxist doesn't make them one. Just imagine if we had someone here who claimed to be an accountant who couldn't count past three.
Now that would be really funny! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Salem on Feb 4, 2013 22:58:48 GMT 10
Regarding Bender and others talking about showing proof where they have agreed with FGM, I think their total silence on it (except to pop up in the thread and attack the poster) speaks volumes, as Sonex so aptly described on another topic. Nov 19, 2012, 9:08am, skippy wrote: Nov 18, 2012, 11:43am, sonex wrote:
Ironic that you should support Jesus Saves in his call to sterilize all Palestinians, maybe you should be more concerned about the forty thousand abortions carried out in Israel each year.
Still waiting for your evidence I supported sterilizing Palestinians Sonex.
You failed to object to the proposal, you commented on it, but your failure to object resulted in your tacit approval. Rubbish, what kind of twisted logic is that? Is that the best you can offer for your lies?
I didn't make the rule, but I do know it, now you do as well.
tacit (comparative more tacit, superlative most tacit)
1.Done or made in silence; implied, but not expressed; silent; as, tacit consent is consent by silence, or by not interposing an objection. en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tacit
1. understood without being openly expressed; implied: tacit approval. 2. silent; saying nothing: a tacit partner. 3. unvoiced or unspoken: a tacit prayer.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/tacit Still waiting for your evidence I supported sterilizing Palestinians Sonex.
You failed to object to the proposal, you commented on it, but your failure to object resulted in your tacit approval.
newstalkback1.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=503&page=1#6197
|
|
|
Post by chequeredflaggg on Feb 5, 2013 3:36:58 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. really..is it more important to Zimbabweans and Africa...
or just more important to Leftoids?
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 5, 2013 9:02:46 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! Stockton, that above post was from me. It's a matter of not only attributing it to the author, but to be seen to be doing so. Not at all. For a wild moment I thought you and I might actually be engaging in a good faith exchange of views but I can see, with regret, that I might be mistaken. I don't need to stir up Garfield, Stockton. He manages to do that all on his own. Do I really have to reconstruct Garfield's original wind-up post in order to establish the context? I take it you read Bender's excellent #27 in which he cogently and accurately describes how people like Garfield and Buzz invent fantasies and claim as a no-brainer that this is what something they generically call "the left" believes. Y'know, how people like Bender and me and others love the idea of female genital mutilation and how we support jihadists ... and so on ad nauseam. So it was in that spirit that I responded to Garfield. I'm not really convinced that I'm under any obligation to justify myself to you on this, but I suspect you're being yet another one of these people who pluck fantasies about the generic "left" and attribute dark and base motives to people you disagree with while at the same time turning a blind eye to the most egregious and outrageous claims emanating from the fevered imaginations of the paranoid and conspiracy theory-obsessed Labor haters. The gravamen of Garfield's OP is that Mugabe is some sort of lefty "icon". It's something we see regularly on boards like this one. Apache/Geronimo used to come out with it regularly and often. The bile and vitriol that would spew forth and the vile motives that he would attribute to people he denounced as "lefty" made it clear that he held people like us responsible for Mugabe. It was bizarre but there you are. He was even worse than Garfield. Mind you Garfield is starting to come close so there isn't much between him and Apache. I was attempting to respond by highlighting the role of successive Conservative British Governments in opposing white minority rule in southern Africa. If I played up the role of Conservative Governments and played down the role of British Labour Governments it wasn't in order to distort or mislead, it was to correct the balance. If I indulge in 100% fact checking to make sure I've got every historical detail right down to the nth degree then I'd spend an hour or more typing up a post. I do have better things to do with my time, Stockton! To label Mugabe some sort of lefty icon in order to score cheap partisan points is to indulge in the most disgraceful bowdlerisation and misrepresentation of the historical background to a grotesque phenomenon like Mugabe, who is part of the detritus left behind in the wake of Britain's withdrawal from Empire. It is true that in the immediate postwar years after WW2 it was UK Labour who supported the dismantling of Empire. I'm not going to fact-check here because of time constraints but I'm pretty sure that Britain let India(1947 - from memory) during the term of the Attlee Labour Government. It's also true that the Tories were po-Empire in the immediate postwar period. They weren't alone in this. The Dutch tried to hang on to Indonesia and the French tried to hang on to Indochina and the Maghreb in North Africa. Don't forget that in the UK Churchill had another term as PM left in him. I forget the exact years in the 1950s. Don't misunderstand me! I don't despise Tories anymore than I despise Liberals here in Australia. I've read a lot of Churchill's memoirs and also stuff that's been written about him. His insights in the early years of the Cold War when Greece came close to falling to the Communists make for compelling reading. I have immense respect for Churchill as a historian and acknowledge his achievements as a statesman. He had Stalin to rights. He could read the guy while Roosevelt was clueless and naive as regards Soviet intentions in Europe. But at the same time Churchill was an old Empire Loyalist Tory. Fair enough. He was a product of his time and his class. It took until 1960 when Churchill was no longer in the loop for the Tories not just to bend to the "Wind of Change" but to acknowledge that there was a wind blowing! But the point is that they did end up acknowledging it, and when they did acknowledge it they did so in a way that was important and powerful. You have to respect and admire the way they did it. Macmillan's "Wind of Change" speech to the South African Parliament in 1960 was in the context of a month-long tour he made as UK Prime Minister, from Ghana to Kenya to South Africa. Apparently he got a particularly frosty reception when he told the South African white minority Parliament that the days of white minority rule were numbered and that Britain could not support the idea of bantustans. That took some doing, in my view. It's true that the south Africans responded to the "Wind of Change" speech by declaring themselves a republic and legislating the apartheid state into existence. They got a generation of police state out of it, with international pariah status. With the 250 000 strong white minority in neighbouring Rhodesia riding piggyback. So, having said all of the above, I've been forced to reconsider and I think I've understated the role of the British Conservatives. I mentioned spadework. If British Labour under Harold Wilson did anything it was to build on (Tory PM) Macmillan's "Wind of Change" tour of 1960. Garfield tries to distort and trivialise the situation in post white-supremacist southern Africa by pointing to a Bad Guy like Mugabe and saying that it's "all the Left's fault". What ignorant rubbish. I realise that we'll never get a reasoned argument from a clown like Garfield so I'll put this question to you, Stockton: does the existence of a Bad Guy like Mugabe in Zimbabwe mean that Macmillan's "Wind of Change" tour of Africa, with all its consequences not just in southern Africa but throughout all of Britain's former African territories, was wrong-headed and bad policy? Or do you think, as I do, that it was the right thing to do?
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Feb 5, 2013 9:21:14 GMT 10
Mugabe followed leftist ideals to the letter, just like the Greeks and the Spaniards, a couple more lefty success stories
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 5, 2013 9:48:00 GMT 10
I guess I have to thank Garfield for proving my point!! And I repeat my last paragraph of #34 for the benefit of Stockton: Garfield tries to distort and trivialise the situation in post white-supremacist southern Africa by pointing to a Bad Guy like Mugabe and saying that it's "all the Left's fault". What ignorant rubbish. I realise that we'll never get a reasoned argument from a clown like Garfield so I'll put this question to you, Stockton: does the existence of a Bad Guy like Mugabe in Zimbabwe mean that Macmillan's "Wind of Change" tour of Africa, with all its consequences not just in southern Africa but throughout all of Britain's former African territories, was wrong-headed and bad policy? Or do you think, as I do, that it was the right thing to do?
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 5, 2013 16:40:23 GMT 10
Mugabe followed leftist ideals to the letter, just like the Greeks and the Spaniards, a couple more lefty success stories . I thought he was more like your heroes in Hitler and Mussolini.
|
|