This Is the Kind of Crap that Pisses Me Off

[Arrian]

Carver,

And Mugabe is not deporting white people, he is simply making them give up their ill gotten properties.

Land redistribution is a fine idea, but even you must agree that Mugabe's current methods are flawed. Let's take the case of a farmer whose family got their plot of land while the country was a Brittish colony. I think some form of compensation for improvements to the land (irrigation systems, etc.) is in order. Not the land itself, as the premise of redistribution is that the land was stolen.

Now let's take the example (the minority, to be sure) of a farmer who bought his land in 1981. According to an article I read today, these people are being kicked off their land too. That just isn't right.

It's not the idea of land redistribution that's bad. It's the method being used. And the resulting impact on the country. The economy is in ruins, farm production has dropped off to a small fraction of normal output, and most of the targetted land is unoccupied. Much of the land is being given to civil servants and other Zanu-PF hangers-on who haven't a clue how to farm.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Carver
$2.5 billion, and Johnson started BET on a budget of about $2000 a week . And he's not a great executive?

He has his own harem too. Bunnygrrl's aunt used to work for Johnson (not in the harem, though).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian
I think some form of compensation for improvements to the land (irrigation systems, etc.) is in order. Not the land itself, as the premise of redistribution is that the land was stolen.

-Arrian

I don't think any recompense for improvements to stolen property are a good idea. It doesn't discourage land theft.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
He has his own harem too.

I thought that only Arab billionaires had those.

[chequita guevara]

If you have enough money, anyone can have a harem. Consider Hugh Hefner.

[Arrian]

chegitz,

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. Then again, you are considerably to the left of me politically, so that's to be expected. A good compromise (and one I thought was actually negotiated) would be for the government of Britain to pay all of, or help with, the compensation.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian
chegitz,

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree.

Now that's the kind of thing that's so rare on this forum.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
you guys need to shut it, seriously.... instead of saying how the centuries of European colonization, slave trade, and imperialism is wrong, you complain about a bunch of white farmers... the native Africans should kick them off the damn continent...

Hah, Any Euro's and all the America's should do the same with the Africans!

This is a very sick racist comment.

[joseph1944]

The bad thing here giving the land back is that when a person is give something they don't always appreciate it.
Giving land to a worker is different from being a farmer.
The worker maybe be a great worker on the farm, but if he does not know what to plant, went to plant, irrigate properly, having all the land in the world is not going to help.

[Carver]

Originally posted by Arrian
Carver,
I think some form of compensation for improvements to the land (irrigation systems, etc.) is in order.

Zim was still offering compensation for improvements to the land.

Now let's take the example (the minority, to be sure) of a farmer who bought his land in 1981. According to an article I read today, these people are being kicked off their land too. That just isn't right.

Well this gets back back to the admittedly murky area of buying stolen property. Knowingly buying stolen property is illegal. So we have to trace the whole ownership history of the farm.

I'll remind you that not all white owned property is being redistributed. About 25% of the white farms are being left as is. So Zim is using some (good) discrimination on what land to take.

[Ramo]

No, I DON'T think blacks should be enslaved.

Hmmm.. you seem to be having a case of senility in addition to idiocy. Let me refresh your memory:

"So, it seems blacks can't manage, and this is not only about countries, but also about companies (say at least one known black multibillionaire bussinesman), etc. Blacks are good workers in my opinion, but bad chiefs. If someone else controls them (USA in early XIX age, South Africa until the black revolution), country lives good. If, however, leaders are also blacks, everything turns bad. I am ready to discuss, we could search reasons."

So you think:
1. Blacks shouldn't/can't manage businesses.
2. Blacks shouldn't/can't manage governments.
3. Slavery in 19th century US was a good thing.
4. Apartheid in South Africa was a good thing.

You're just digging yourself in deeper and deeper.

I even agree that they should have rights to be elected to parliament/presidents seats. But when country is ruled (more than 60% of government) by blacks it isn't good in my opinion.

Yep, they might try throw off their shackles of oppression. We can't have that.

And this is based on facts.

I won't repeat myself, re-read what i claimed in first posts.

Every single one of your ignorant claims have been refuted.

I think US laws about blacks are quite good

Yes, God bless our racial profiling policies or the crack/powdered cocaine sentencing disparity.

Chris, why do (and many people) think that if person once was KKK member (he isn't anymore), he is a total stupid and he can't even post true facts anymore?

1. I live in the US; you (apparantly) live in Lithuania. I can tell you with absolute certainty that the assertion that 70% of violent criminals are blacks is full of ****.

2. The fact that he was a grand wizard of the KKK shows he has an agenda in oppressing blacks, and is certainly not reliable in providing information on their supposed inferiority. You don't seem to understand the crimes the KKK has committed in the US.

[Sikander]

Stupid racist sh!t flying from every direction. I'm outta here!

[Mihai]

There are here two things : 1. The right (or not) to redistribute the land and 2. the way it is done.

I'll start with no 2 because is more clear and easy. Mugabe is taking the land just to give it to his supporters, without any consideration about skills in farming. Zimbabwe will face a famine and Mugabe's opposants (most of them blacks) will suffer first.

About 1. When in a country there is a huge diparity between poor and rich and specially when the poors are very poor, there is the risk that the poors will take by force the assets of the riches, some of those assets being wasted in the process. You cannot talk about the "fundamental right of private posesion" with a hungry man.
The right of the conquerer for the land is less about time, and more about population. When you conquer a land and settle it, after a few generation (3 or 4, so everyone alive remember as been 'here') the land is rightful own by the conquerer. That's histroy about. But when you conquer a land and settle only a few people who own most of the land, that is true only as long as you have the power to enforce your laws.

[Mihai]

Sonic

Blacks cannot govern a country?
Bahamas

White can govern a country?
Romania

Blacks cannot be chiefs?
Colin Powell

White civs superior to black civ?
Where were white civs during Ancient Egipt (who was black)?

Every large separable group (nations, races, etc) have its ups and downs. Just because black civs are down now doesn't mean blacks are dumber. China is a very good example of a civ/race/nation who was up, is down and it will up again.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ramo
1. I live in the US; you (apparantly) live in Lithuania. I can tell you with absolute certainty that the assertion that 70% of violent criminals are blacks is full of ****.

You're right. According to the American government, 51.5 per cent of murderers are black, and 47 per cent of murder victims are also black.

In terms of all violent crimes, 48 per cent committed by blacks and 48 per cent by whites. In terms of rapes, 52 % by whites, 44 per cent by blacks.

The vast majority of crimes are committed against people of the same race.

This info from

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/htius.pdf

and

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/soo.pdf

The problem with this statistic is that racists like David Duke point to it and say blacks are more violent than whites. As a result, Every black person gets blamed for the actions of a very small minority.

Blacks in the US are much more likely to murder, and to be the victim of murder compared to whites. However, we're still talking about a small percentage of the population. The number of blacks who committed a murder in 1999 was 25.6 per 100,000, down from 49 per 100,000 in 1980. Even if we use the higher number and multiplied it by say 25 years, we're still talking about 1225 murders per 100,000. So about 99 per cent of the black population in the US are not murderers.

Having said that, I recall that many American black leaders have recognized that there is a problem with high crime rates within their community and they are trying to deal with this problem.