Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 211 to 220 of 220

Thread: Nelson Mandela has died

  1. #211
    Quote Originally Posted by FrankRep View Post
    True or False.

    Queen Elizabeth II is the Monarch of The Bahamas.

    TRUE.


    Yay Facts!
    True or False. Ron Paul's name was on a newsletter that some people have decried as racist. Yay facts! You posted your "fact" to push the nonsensical idea that somehow the Bahamas has a decent economy because it's not run by blacks. That was the context of the discussion. Schiffhead said "No black run countries are doing well". Well the Bahamas is a black run state and it's doing fairly decently. A titular monarchy which isn't running the day to day affairs of the country is an irrelevant "fact" to that point.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #212
    Quote Originally Posted by schiffheadbaby View Post
    Big difference. Most hillbilly areas would do fine absent government transfer payments.

    Imagine how much more dire the situation in Africa would be if it weren't for international organizations transferring wealth to support them.

    Why aren't the farms in Zimbabwe doing well now? I figure that once the hillbilly whites left Mugabe's black buddies should be increasing the yields since they are much wiser and proficient than the backward white?
    Imagine people were ethical and left them alone. Self-determination for the backwards redneck hillbillies and the blackest man in Africa with bones through his nose. He'll hunt big game and feed his family and tribe, make some poison darts, brew some beers, play soccer, start a fire, build a hut. While the hillbilly will hunt some buck and feed his family and neighbors, make arrows or re-load, brew some beer, play his banjo, start a campfire, maybe build a nice little shed.

    Holy $#@!, not a whole lot of difference between the two people, is there?

    Leave them the hell alone.

  4. #213
    Quote Originally Posted by schiffheadbaby View Post
    Big difference. Most hillbilly areas would do fine absent government transfer payments.

    Imagine how much more dire the situation in Africa would be if it weren't for international organizations transferring wealth to support them.

    Why aren't the farms in Zimbabwe doing well now? I figure that once the hillbilly whites left Mugabe's black buddies should be increasing the yields since they are much wiser and proficient than the backward white?
    I am sure you know but most of the foreign aid are stolen by western backed dictators/rulers. The second largest portion go into military equipment for the dictator or bribe money to buy off the necessary idiots and the smallest portion go into actual aid

    Why did the Zimbabwean farms fail? maybe because the gave the modern farms to inexperienced people? Nobody ever accused Mugabe of being the smartest person in the room.

    I wish more western leaders will listen to people like you and cut off ALL the aids and loans. That would be the best thing they ever did for that continent.

  5. #214
    Ah yes, the wonderful altruistic British Empire- and of course, it's successor:

    Afghanistan: British Imperialism 101
    By Eric Margolis
    December 7, 2013

    Those wondering what lies in store for Afghanistan need only look at the way the British Empire ruled Iraq in the 1920’s. As Shakespeare wrote, “what is past is prologue.”

    Imperial Britain created the state of Iraq after World War I to secure Mesopotamia’s vast oil deposits that had become vital for the Royal Navy. To control this artificial nation seething with unrest, Britain imposed a puppet king, Faisal, and created a native army commanded by British officers.

    Britain’s colonial rule was formalized by the 1930 Anglo-Iraq Treaty, a deal between puppet and master.

    But real power in Iraq was held by the Royal Air Force, which was “granted” two permanent bases at Habbaniyah and Basra. The RAF ruled supreme over the open wastes of Iraq.

    Winston Churchill, patron saint of today’s war-lusting neoconservatives, authorized the RAF to use poison gas against “unruly” tribesmen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Britain created public institutions and sham political parties in Baghdad that had no links at all to Iraq’s population, which mostly hated their British rulers.

    British Iraq was the prologue to today’s Afghanistan. The British Empire’s heir, the American Imperium, plans to duplicate the Iraqi Brittanica in Afghanistan.

    Afghanistan’s US-installed current ruler, Hamid Karzai, a former CIA “asset,” may stay on after 2014 or be replaced by another US-designated president. Change the title of president to king, and, voila!, Iraq’s puppet king, Faisal.

    Washington says it will withdraw all US combat troops from Afghanistan by 2014. But read the fine print. As of now, 14,000-16,000 US troops will remain on so-called “anti-terrorism” missions and for “training” – though Washington admits there are not more than 50 al-Qaida members in Afghanistan.

    In other words, the old British system of white officers commanding native troops. A good $4-5 billion annually from the US and allies will go to hiring up to 400,000 pro-government troops (under US command).

    These mercenaries will fight half-heartedly for the Yankee dollar, not ideology. CIA will maintain another mercenary force of about 2,000, and a fleet of killer drones. Add commandos from the shadowy US Special Ops Joint Command (JSOC), a copy of Her Majesty’s assassins, Britain’s famed SAS.

    The ongoing US stealth occupation of Afghanistan will be enshrined by a new US-Afghanistan security treaty (read 1930 Anglo-Iraq Treaty), another deal between puppet and string-puller, made respectable by rigged elections and bribed chieftains and a big dose of drug money.

    The Soviets did the same thing after they invaded Afghanistan. It’s good old imperialism 101.

    US public relations firms will keep up a steady drumbeat of happy news about the US-run government building girl’s schools and improving public health.

    Not a peep will come about the US-backed and paid tribal and government chiefs who run Afghanistan’s ever growing export business in morphine and heroin. Under US control, Afghanistan has become the world’s leading exporter of heroin and opium. Drug output rose 50% last year according to the UN. Drug money and laundering it has corrupted the entire Afghan government and provides most of Kabul’s revenue, aside from US handouts.

    Most important, just like the British in Iraq, the US will retain 2-4 key airbases. Bagram, built by the Soviets, will be the nerve center of the US control of Afghanistan. In Afghanistan’s arid, treeless terrain, air power is decisive. Without its total, 24-7 control of the air, the US would not be able to sustain bases in Afghanistan. The US Air Force, the primary tool of US global power, will police the skies of South Asia and defend the puppet regime in Kabul. India is expected to lend discreet support for the ongoing US occupation of Afghanistan.

    That’s Plan A. But Afghanistan, rightly known as the “Graveyard of Empires,” has a way of frustrating grand imperial designs. That nation’s fierce Pashtun tribesmen, with whom this writer took the field in the 1980’s anti-Soviet struggle, have withstood the full might of US military power and its panoply of high-tech weapons, armed with nothing more than AK-47’s rifles and dauntless courage.

    The British Empire, which invaded Afghanistan four times, also sought to maintain garrisons there – and utterly failed. The ongoing US occupation, re-labeled “reconstruction,” will also likely fail. So far, America’s longest war – some 12 years -has cost nearly $1 trillion, 2,000 US dead, 17,000 wounded and innumerable Afghan dead and wounded.

    Taliban – a coalition of Pashtun tribes – will fight on as they always have. America faces another decade of war unless it finally decides to admit failure and depart.

    So why then will the US continue to occupy and run Afghanistan? Geopolitics. US bases deep in Afghanistan will overwatch the vital energy-rich Caspian Basin. Oil has the same effect on America policy-makers as catnip does on felines.

    Washington can’t bring itself to admit it was defeated in Afghanistan – and by lightly-armed tribesmen. Better to stay on and pretend victory, though supporting a US occupation garrison in Afghanistan costs billions annually.

    What’s more, western politicians can’t face their voters and admit the Afghan war was an idiotic folly, a waste of a trillion dollars and the lives of their soldiers. Or admit that Taliban was never involved in the 9/11 attacks, that were mounted from Europe, and knew nothing about them. The truth is too painful and dangerous.
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/e...native-troops/
    There is no spoon.

  6. #215
    And finally, a "Mandela story" on lewrockwell.com.

    But not much about Mandela himself in the article!

    Nelson Mandela’s Battle Against Socialism, Unionism, and Interventionism

    By Thomas DiLorenzo

    December 9, 2013

    “Workers of the world unite, keep South Africa white.”

    –Slogan of early twentieth-century South African Labor Unions

    “South Africa’s apartheid is not the corollary of free-market or capitalist forces. Apartheid is the result of anti-capitalistic or socialistic efforts to subvert the operation of market (capitalistic) forces.”

    –Walter E. Williams, South Africa’s War Against Capitalism

    During the twentieth century the worldwide socialist movement attempted to criticize capitalism by associating it with Nazi Germany since the Nazis did not nationalize many industries as the Russian socialists had done (they allowed ostensibly private enterprises that were nevertheless regulated, regimented and controlled by the state). The truth is that the roots of Nazism or “national socialism” were thoroughly socialistic. The Nazis were “national” socialists, whereas the Soviets claimed to be international socialists. The Nazis and the communists were ideological clones who considered the ideas of classical liberalism (free-market capitalism, limited government, low taxes, private property, the rule of law, peace), and those who espoused them, to be their mortal enemy.

    Similarly, the international socialist movement has long attempted to associate another kind of socialist movement – the former South African Apartheid laws – as some kind of abuse of capitalism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Government-imposed discrimination against black South Africans was instigated by white labor unions associated with various Marxist and communist movements. It was a pervasive system of government regulation, regimentation and control. This of course is the exact opposite of free-market capitalism.

    It was this form of massive government interventionism that the late Nelson Mandella battled against in his youth, and for which he was imprisoned for twenty-seven years by the South Africa government. (Unfortunately, Mandella himself was a socialist and a covert member of the executive committee of the South African Communist party who idolized such totalitarian monsters as Fidel Castro. He apparently never understood that it was a version of Castroite socialism that had victimized him and the black population of South Africa, and that what South African blacks needed the most was the economic freedom and opportunity provided by free-market capitalism).

    What Was South African “Apartheid”?

    Two books are indispensable to understanding the system of government-imposed, institutionalized discrimination against South African blacks known as “Apartheid.” They are The Colour Bar by William H. Hutt, and South Africa’s War Against Capitalism by Walter E. Williams. Both were published before the final collapse of Apartheid.

    The origins of institutionalized discrimination against South African blacks were in the violent, Marxist-inspired white labor union movement (which had American ties) of the early twentieth century. One of the first leaders of this movement, as Hutt describes, was one W. H. Andrews, who formed a chapter of the International Socialist League and who became the first secretary of the Communist Party of South Africa. He championed the use of violence and terrorism to “protect” white workers from competition from blacks. This union movement eventually became joined at the hip with the South African government so as to use the coercive powers of government (which can be far more violent and terroristic than mere unions alone) to deprive South African blacks of economic opportunity.

    The first “Colour Bar Act,” as they were known, was the 1911 Mines and Works Act, which listed numerous jobs that could not legally be performed by blacks. South African capitalists opposed this law because they wanted to be able to hire employees in a free market. In such a market, the generally lower-skilled and less-educated black workers (less skilled because of inferior educational opportunities as well as racism) could indeed find employment, albeit at a lower, entry-level wage than more experienced and skilled white workers. The unions’ main goal was to deprive “the capitalist class,” which they harshly condemned, of this opportunity to hire black workers. As Hutt explained, what the general secretary of the white workers’ labor union opposed was “the desire of the capitalist class to achieve economies by bringing better-remunerated and more responsible work within the reach of the Africans.”

    The Mines and Works Act of 1926 was the result of “the combination of socialism and racism” brought about by the ruling Nationalist party, a socialist political party that had formed a coalition government with the South African Labour Party. The lynchpin of this law was known as “the rate for the job,” a law that mandated minimum wages that precluded thousands of black workers from offering to become employed at entry-level wages, thereby depriving them of employment opportunity altogether. This of course is the effect of minimum-wage laws anywhere and everywhere. As Hutt wrote, the law “had the effect of preventing the entry of subordinate races or classes into the protected field.”

    A 1922 Apprenticeship Act saw to it that only whites could attain apprenticeships in numerous trades, with apprenticeship being a prerequisite for employment. When South African blacks attempted to bypass all these socialistic, protectionist labor laws by becoming entrepreneurs and starting their own business enterprises, the union-dominated South African government issued Obama-style “directives” or executive orders forbidding the opening of any black-owned businesses, “even in African urban areas.” There was also a system of “job reservations” where hundreds of jobs were “reserved” for white workers only.

    There were also pervasive separate-and-unequal laws and regulations affecting just about every institution in South African society. Inter-racial marriage was outlawed, as was sexual intercourse between whites and non-whites. These all of course had nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism or markets or a free society and were entirely the work of the dark hand of statism. As Walter Williams concluded in South Africa’s War Against Capitalism, “The whole ugly history of apartheid has been an attack on free markets and the rights of individuals, and a glorification of centralized government power.”
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/t...can-apartheid/
    Last edited by JohnM; 12-09-2013 at 10:54 AM.
    "Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand." - John Adams

    "He is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down on profanity and immorality of every kind." - John Witherspoon


    Why I stand with Rand

  7. #216
    xxxxx
    You have the right to remain silent. Anything you post to the internet can and will be used to humiliate you.



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #217

  10. #218
    Quote Originally Posted by enhanced_deficit View Post
    is there any new update on this?
    Nelson Mandela is still dead.

  11. #219
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Nelson Mandela is still dead.

    source?
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler

  12. #220
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Nelson Mandela is still dead.
    Thankfully.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678


Similar Threads

  1. [Video] Stefan Molyneux Exposes Nelson Mandela
    By FrankRep in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 128
    Last Post: 12-12-2013, 03:46 PM
  2. Do you approve of Nelson Mandela?
    By Cutlerzzz in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-09-2013, 01:51 PM
  3. Cruz Praises Nelson Mandela; Freepers Angry
    By RonPaulFanInGA in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-08-2013, 12:40 AM
  4. 2008: U.S. has Nelson Mandela on terrorist list
    By enhanced_deficit in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-03-2013, 07:49 PM
  5. The Ron Paul Nelson Mandela comparison
    By Thrashertm in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-22-2011, 08:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •