Cape Town – Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe's government has reportedly indicated, for the first time, that it may hand back land to some white farmers whose farms were forcibly taken away from them during the height of the country’s controversial land reform programme.
This comes a decade and a half after the Zimbabwean government seized large swaths of land from white farmers in the country - a move that saw a drastic deterioration in the country's economy.
Same behavior the globe over---TAKE whatever they want, but then--NOW what do we do with it ? WORK ? we dont wanna do DAT. Just gimme, it do it by itself.
You don't know what the hell you are talking about.
The whole thing over their is corrupt and unorganized.
Serious question- When in history was it productive, organized and not corrupt? Is this something recent or ongoing since the beginning of time as we know it? I don't know enough about this whole situation and was just curious...
You don't know what the hell you are talking about.
The whole thing over their is corrupt and unorganized.
Critics of the reforms have blamed the programme for low production on the farms as the majority of the beneficiaries lacked the means and skills to work the land.
Serious question- When in history was it productive, organized and not corrupt? Is this something recent or ongoing since the beginning of time as we know it? I don't know enough about this whole situation and was just curious...
Rapes, murders, crimes of every kind were done, during the redistribution of land from white farmers, to the less fortunate Africans. Production is vastly down, its a mess. A mess liberals are silent about.
Of course, it's not nearly that one-sided or simplistic. But leave it to Mr. "Six" to reduce the variegated colors and tones of a real landscape to the black and white abstraction that is Demagogue World. I think he is scanning the latest high resolution images of Pluto from the New Horizons probe for evidence of "liberals".
Of course, it's not nearly that one-sided or simplistic. But leave it to Mr. "Six" to reduce the variegated colors and tones of a real landscape to the black and white abstraction that is Demagogue World. I think he is scanning the latest high resolution images of Pluto from the New Horizons probe for evidence of "liberals".
Nice personal attack, Alinsky teach you that diversion tactic? Do tell how I reduced something like state sponsored genocide against a ethnic group into black and white. Elaborate how genocide has more angles, or wealth distribution. I am sure Stalin would have a million reasons why wealth redistribution was also "complicated". Does it matter if Mugabe was a tyrant from the start, if the population readily followed the commands to rape, maim, and murder? Liberals scream for blood when a minority is shot by police, but when the Zimbabwe massacres happen against white people. Not a peep. Doesn't fit your agenda.
While men were being hacked apart, and their wives and children were being raped, where was their white privilege? Where was the outrage over that happening to a minority?
Let me guess, the next tactic is to label me racist.
Word of the day for you , conceited.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 09-12-2015).]
* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.) * RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.) * RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.) * RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.) * RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.) * RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.) * RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.) * RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.) * RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.) * RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.) * RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.) * RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Critics of the reforms have blamed the programme for low production on the farms as the majority of the beneficiaries lacked the means and skills to work the land.
Don't they know it's racist to expect non-farmers to have the same skills farmers have? The land should produce the same amount of food regardless - because it's FAIR.
As the famous commentator Paul Harvey was fond of saying; "And now for the rest of the story."
Recent commentary from someone living in Zimbabwe:
"Zimbabwe, which up until 1980 was the biggest exporter of agricultural products in Africa and one of the richest nations on the continent, is now utterly impoverished. It produces barely enough food to support its pitifully poor citizenry while its formerly beautiful farms and ranches sit empty, idle, rotting away and covered in weeds. Its ruler, Robert Mugabe, installed in 1979 after a communist backed insurgency, renamed the nation Zimbabwe and still rules the former nation of Rhodesia just as ruthlessly and stupidly as he has always done.
Mugabe hates Europeans and anything that might suggest that Europeans contributed in any way to the betterment of black African lives. He particularly hates Cecil Rhodes, the founder of Rhodesia and the man for whom Cecil the Lion was named. Honest Dlovu is a crony of Mugabe, and the recipient of a very large parcel of agricultural property which was taken without compensation from a European owner in 2001. He knows nothing about farming or ranching, but he does know how to do what makes his boss happy."
So Dlovu teams up with a Professional Hunter (the rough equivalent of a big game Outfitter in the US) and they hatch a plan to rid the nation of another symbol of European ascendance - Cecil. They set up the bait and find the patsy (an American dentist) and magically, Cecil is gone, the dentist is responsible, Mugabe (who will shed some crocodile tears for the cameras) is ecstatic. The dentist will be prosecuted. The landowner will be found uninvolved and if the Professional Hunter is part of the Mugabe cabal, he will be pardoned for his minor transgression.
This has everything to do with symbolism and nothing to do with poaching or illegal hunting. Mugabe got rid of Cecil the Lion, pizzed on Cecil Rhodes' grave and bagged an American. All in a day's work. 'Course the only cash flow that Zimbabwe has right now is sport hunting, so Mugabe will again kill the goose, but he's far too ignorant and mentally impaired to notice
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-12-2015).]
Let them starve. They made their bed..... Perhaps Darwinism will work its magic. The smart and strong with survive and the rest with their bad traits will die off.
The U.K. Guardian, which I think it's fair to say is a liberal-friendly media venue (am I wrong?), has not been silent about the long story of Zimbabwe and its president, Robert Mugabe, and the displacement of white farmers by blacks under the Mugabe land reform programs.
Just four from the larger number of reports that I pulled, more or less at random, from searching the U.K. Guardian website with keywords "Zimbabwe Mugabe white farmers displaced land".
I have not pored closely over every word, but it didn't seem like any of these four reports were dripping with unqualified admiration for Robert Mugabe and his land reform initiatives that have displaced so many whites from the farms that they once owned in Zimbabwe.
How could this be? A mere statistical fluctuation that is more noise than signal? Or could the latest "line about liberals" from PFF's "Six Man" be something of a mislead? Number_Of_Six_Man_Misleads = Number_Of_Six_Man_Misleads + 1 ..?
6
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-13-2015).]
Rinselberg, Progressivism / Liberalism is pretty much responsible for every major failure on this planet... pick anything... the NAZI Holocaust (Socialist Labor Party), Negro Eugenics and the KKK (Democrat party / Margaret Sanger), Islamification of Europe, USSR / Communism, North Korea / Communism, I mean... holy crap... pick out nearly anything in history that was bad, and there's a direct correlation with socialism or "progressive" people making decisions based on pure emotion rather than logic.
It's not that progressive/liberal thinking people are inherently bad, but they have a propensity for being gullible and are susceptible to propaganda... this causes them to make decisions almost entirely based on emotion, rather than logic.
Any clear-thinking logical person would see that there's a real problem with Islam.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Rinselberg, Progressivism / Liberalism is pretty much responsible for every major failure on this planet... pick anything... the NAZI Holocaust (Socialist Labor Party), Negro Eugenics and the KKK (Democrat party / Margaret Sanger), Islamification of Europe, USSR / Communism, North Korea / Communism, I mean... holy crap... pick out nearly anything in history that was bad, and there's a direct correlation with socialism or "progressive" people making decisions based on pure emotion rather than logic.
It's not that progressive/liberal thinking people are inherently bad, but they have a propensity for being gullible and are susceptible to propaganda... this causes them to make decisions almost entirely based on emotion, rather than logic.
Any clear-thinking logical person would see that there's a real problem with Islam.
If there's such an overwhelming panoply of liberal-slash-progressive failures to choose from, why did the poster in question stake the post in question on what looks to be (by the light of my small "investigation") an easily falsifiable statement about "liberal silence" and what's been going on in Zimbabwe?
I see the word "liberal" being used by dennis_6 with the abandon of a Cajun cook throwing on the hot sauce. It doesn't mean anything or anyone in particular, the way that he has been using (overusing) it. This repetitive L-wording smacks of rant, diatribe, name-calling, misdirection, disinformation and overreach.
I would be shocked if he were even to attempt to provide some substance to this idea that liberals are silent about Zimbabwe in some way that sets them apart from non-liberals and whatever they have been saying (or not saying) about Zimbabwe.
His post raises the question (but does not answer the question in any way) of who dennis_6 is talking about when he calls out "liberals". Liberals in Zimbabwe? Liberals in the United Kingdom? Liberals in the United States? Liberals at the United Nations?
It's disconcerting to see such nebulous and seemingly unsupported conclusions from Dennis put forward with such astonishing confidence and certainty on his part.
I don't want to position myself as the "anti-Dennis" or the forum nemesis of dennis_6.
I think he could "up" his posting game if he were to reexamine more of what he takes as his starting points or the foundations that support his conclusions. He could be more persuasive (potentially) by subjecting his drafts to a Red Team analysis (he would have to be that, himself) and trying to anticipate how his messages are coming across to someone who isn't already "sold" on his closing points. Instead of just preaching to the choir.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-13-2015).]
The U.K. Guardian, which I think it's fair to say is a liberal-friendly media venue (am I wrong?), has not been silent about the long story of Zimbabwe and its president, Robert Mugabe, and the displacement of white farmers by blacks under the Mugabe land reform programs.
Just four from the larger number of reports that I pulled, more or less at random, from searching the U.K. Guardian website with keywords "Zimbabwe Mugabe white farmers displaced land".
I have not pored closely over every word, but it didn't seem like any of these four reports were dripping with unqualified admiration for Robert Mugabe and his land reform initiatives that have displaced so many whites from the farms that they once owned in Zimbabwe.
How could this be? A mere statistical fluctuation that is more noise than signal? Or could the latest "line about liberals" from PFF's "Six Man" be something of a mislead? Number_Of_Six_Man_Misleads = Number_Of_Six_Man_Misleads + 1 ..?
6
It is you that mislead, show me where liberal news agencies like CNN plastered this all over the news, like they did Travyon Martin, or Michael Brown? They didn't, a few news articles silently published on the web and ZERO activism from bleeding heart liberals. No riots, no anything. Just crickets. That is the problem with liberals, they want blood if something happens to a "protected" group and they don't care about non protected groups. I can give stateside examples, if you want to go there.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 09-13-2015).]
What about the Rohinga that are being persecuted in Myanmar? What about... take your pick. The list goes on and on.
"
EXACTLY. What about that story? Why isn't the liberal press bombarding us like they did with the Lion? it was a lion, THESE are people. Where is your bleeding heart for the people in Myanmar Rinselberg? Where is your rallies and marches for those people rinselbrg? Don't their lives matter too? oh wait let me guess, you don't really care about those people until another liberal tells you to.
You are right the list goes on and on because the liberal media refuses to cover stories not pertaining to what they perceive as a protected class be it people or animals.
Not often; however, throughout history... conservatives (masked as liberal leaders) are often times the ones creating the propaganda in the first place.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
If there's such an overwhelming panoply of liberal-slash-progressive failures to choose from, why did the poster in question stake the post in question on what looks to be (by the light of my small "investigation") an easily falsifiable statement about "liberal silence" and what's been going on in Zimbabwe?
I don't want to position myself as the "anti-Dennis" or the forum nemesis of dennis_6.
I think he could "up" his posting game if he were to reexamine more of what he takes as his starting points or the foundations that support his conclusions. He could be more persuasive (potentially) by subjecting his drafts to a Red Team analysis (he would have to be that, himself) and trying to anticipate how his messages are coming across to someone who isn't already "sold" on his closing points. Instead of just preaching to the choir.
Love the Red/Blue reference in there...
On the topic of liberalism... it was clear to me that he was referring to the mentality of many impoverished nations which ultimately leads to a welfare-state type of environment. I mean, you need not look further than countries such as Venezuela or Brazil... who were very successful at one point, but through propaganda were able to incite the less franchised to "encourage" wealth distribution through coercion. As is the case with any situation like that, you end up with a total break-down of society and the producers either leave (or are killed) leaving the non-producers to figure it out.
It fails every time, and this is also what happened in Zimbabwe...
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 09-13-2015).]
Yup.....a quote from Tip O'Neill (D), and a PERFECT example of why Leftist Liberals are so historically inept at foreign policy, international relations and defense of the nation.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-13-2015).]
I feel like it is 2005 and I half expect Toddster and Fierobear to chime in with this bullshit.
funny how badly they mix history with modern echo chamber fable nazi's are liberals [while everyone thought they were extreme rightwingers inc the nazi's themselves ] the KKK were democrat's [ really extreme nut-con's]
want to fact check look where the neo-nazi/KKK/skinheads are aligned with today those guys hate liberals just like the originals did btw do any of our extreme rightwing members ever fact check anything ??? or is lying to the members here ok as long as the intent is good ?
btw 2 Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe stole the country BACK from a rabid racist Conservative white ONLY power structure in a long bloody WAR or nobody was right everybody was WRONG
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
I guess Rayb doesn't want to comment on Obama being a racist and bigot for deporting so many illegals at the southern border. I guess that makes Obama a nutcon.
funny how badly they mix history with modern echo chamber fable nazi's are liberals [while everyone thought they were extreme rightwingers inc the nazi's themselves ] the KKK were democrat's [ really extreme nut-con's]
want to fact check look where the neo-nazi/KKK/skinheads are aligned with today those guys hate liberals just like the originals did btw do any of our extreme rightwing members ever fact check anything ??? or is lying to the members here ok as long as the intent is good ?
btw 2 Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe stole the country BACK from a rabid racist Conservative white ONLY power structure in a long bloody WAR or nobody was right everybody was WRONG
Ray you realize whites are a minority in Africa and in the world, minorities are protected right? So Mugabe would be a nut con and you hate him with a burning fire? Insert mic echo for the silence that ensues...
That's fine. When you start your forum, you can allow whomever and whatever you want.
Having been a member of PFF since almost day one, I can say for a fact that there would be absolute chaos here if none of the trouble-makers in these forums weren't turfed occasionally.
quote
Originally posted by dennis_6:
Just because I don't like someones view point, doesn't mean it doesn't deserve "air time".
Oh, is that how it's supposed to work in O/T? Yeah, I guess opposing views (from the majority) do get "air time" here... along with heaps of abuse.
[EDIT] One thing needs to be clarified. Rarely, if ever, do people get banned from this forum for their "view point". They usually get banned for being complete dickheads.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 09-13-2015).]
Just remember the "cultural revolution" in China where Mao shipped off the city dwellers out to the farms and the starvation that followed as those city dwellers had no clue how to farm. Millions died from the transfer of people into jobs they didn't know how to do. I expect that this will happen to those in South Africa until there is an outcry for help and the US will be asked to feed the starving population and those running the show in S Africa will make millions from the free aid, sold to those "starving" who have money.
Maybe the UAE can spend the $$ from selling oil to the rest of the world to feed those Africans. But I doubt it.
Oh, is that how it's supposed to work in O/T? Yeah, I guess opposing views (from the majority) do get "air time" here... along with heaps of abuse.
[EDIT] One thing needs to be clarified. Rarely, if ever, do people get banned from this forum for their "view point". They usually get banned for being complete dickheads.
You do understand, I have been on here since 01 a whopping 2 years after you, right?
