Nelson Mandela

Stop it please. I rather like being on his ignore list. I can say all kinds of nasty things about him and not worry about any reprisals.

OK, that is funny.
 
maineman said:
does brent think we ought to hang those folks from operation rescue who bombed abortion clinics?


Dang! I missed that comment, Mainemane. I'd sure like to see an answer to that.

Immie
 
maineman said:
you have yet to show us any evidence that Nelson Mandela butchered anyone...

and I am saying that whites in south africa that did not rise up against Apartheid were complicit... and therefore not innocent. I doubt highly that any whites who died in the struggle to end apartheid were "butchered" and if they were killed, I doubt highly that they had previously opposed Apartheid

This sure sounds like the "with us or against us" bullshit that W was spouting while selling us this fucked up war.
 
Brent said:
OK, that is funny.

Thanks a lot Beefy. It looks like I am no longer on his ignore list. I will repay your kindness in a most gruesome way.

Brent, when or if you read this. I don't hate you in any way. I was trying to get a point across. And I don't think I said you were a tool of the devil rather I said you acted like one. Big difference there in my books.

I'll go back and check.

Immie
 
Beefy said:
This sure sounds like the "with us or against us" bullshit that W was spouting while selling us this fucked up war.

no ..it doesn't.... the whites in South Africa were either part of the solution or part of the problem... do you recall any of them giving up the farmlands that their ancestors had taken at gunpoint?
 
Immanuel said:
I'm beginning to think, Brent, that maybe you are a tool of the devil attempting to destroy the credibility of people of faith.

Immie

Okay, well it wasn't that you were acting like one but I did not say you WERE a tool of the devil. It was probably a little harsh.

I do apologize for that. Next time I will make sure I say you are acting like one.

Immie.
 
maineman said:
no ..it doesn't.... the whites in South Africa were either part of the solution or part of the problem... do you recall any of them giving up the farmlands that their ancestors had taken at gunpoint?

Its all relative. Are you giving your house back to the indians? It can be extrapolated as an argument. Colonization is an ugly thing, and it leads to more ugliness. We are where we are because of such ugliness. Does that make sense?
*note, I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but on message boards it can look that way. Everything here is at face value.
 
it is all relative...my guess is that the pressure for me to give my house back to the indians would be significantly greater if native americans were the overwhelming majority of the population, don't you think? And the land in Maine where MY house is located was purchased from the Penobscot Indians
 
maineman said:
it is all relative...my guess is that the pressure for me to give my house back to the indians would be significantly greater if native americans were the overwhelming majority of the population, don't you think? And the land in Maine where MY house is located was purchased from the Penobscot Indians

So it makes a difference if the population being oppressed is a majority? It would matter less if it was a minority? At what point does it become relevant?
 
You also said that it would be different if it were a majority. I called you out on it. Deal with it, and answer the question if you can.
 
it would be different.... wouldn't it? If there were a handful of caucasians who had stolen the native american's land and were livin' large while millions and millions of native americans were subjegated as second class citizens, do you not think that there would be a different dynamic than we have here today?

and I answered your UN question.... did that clear that up for you?
 
maineman said:
it would be different.... wouldn't it? If there were a handful of caucasians who had stolen the native american's land and were livin' large while millions and millions of native americans were subjegated as second class citizens, do you not think that there would be a different dynamic than we have here today?

and I answered your UN question.... did that clear that up for you?

Indeed it would be a different dynamic. Thanks for the answer. Its a funny thing about collectivist thought though isn't it. That the individual doesn;t matter that much, that you have to place a number on something for it to matter. That's a big difference between you and me.

At what point do the numbers outweigh the injustice?
 
where did I ever say that the individual did not matter? I really get tired of you and your pal dixie making a living by putting words in other folks' mouths
 
maineman said:
where did I ever say that the individual did not matter? I really get tired of you and your pal dixie making a living by putting words in other folks' mouths


My pal Dixie. Okay. Whatever.

My point is that your statements indicate that certain property issues become more pertinent with numbers. That the number of people behind a certain issue give said issue more validation. Its collectivist.

my guess is that the pressure for me to give my house back to the indians would be significantly greater if native americans were the overwhelming majority of the population

How does this respect the individual?
 
This is nice. The only time I have to read Immie's statements are when you fellas quote him. Hmm. Maybe I should ignore Maineman, too? ;) I love this feature!
 
Brent said:
This is nice. The only time I have to read Immie's statements are when you fellas quote him. Hmm. Maybe I should ignore Maineman, too? ;) I love this feature!

Don't be getting all flippant with the ignore feature, unless you want to shield yourself from dissent and thus become irrelevant yourself. It is there for trolls, like the ones you used to use. Not for guys like maine or immie. Don't shoot yourself in the foot.
If you want to ignore everyone, go to http://www.intolerantchristians.com
 
Brent, is this really a man that you think so highly of? It is this kind of thing that makes me and others wonder about you and question your Christlikeness

Francisco Franco:

On October 1, 1936 he was publicly proclaimed as Generalísimo of the Fascist army and Jefe del Estado (Head of State).


Political command
He managed to fuse the ideologically incompatible national-syndicalist Falange ("phalanx", a far-right Spanish political party with ideology similar to that of Mussolini's movement) and the Carlist monarchist parties under his rule.

From early 1937 every death sentence had to be signed (or acknowledged) by Franco.

Spain under Franco
Spain was bitterly divided and economically ruined as a result of the civil war. After the war a very harsh repression began, with thousands of summary executions, an unknown number of political prisoners and tens of thousands of people in exile, largely in France and Latin America. The 1940 shooting of the president of the Catalan government, Lluís Companys, was one of the most notable cases of this early repression, while the major groups targeted were real and suspected leftists, ranging from the moderate, democratic left to Communists and Anarchists, the Spanish intelligentsia, atheists and military and government figures that had remained loyal to the Madrid government during the war. The bloodshed in Spain did not end with the cessation of hostilities, many political prisoners suffered execution by the firing squad, under the accusation of treason by martial courts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Franco#World_War_II

Immie
 
Immie, beadie W is just lost. His flavor of the week is Franco. Next week it might be L Ron Hubbard. Take it with a grain of salt.
 
Beefy said:
Immie, beadie W is just lost. His flavor of the week is Franco. Next week it might be L Ron Hubbard. Take it with a grain of salt.

It doesn't really matter anyway. He's probably still got his fingers in his ears and is singing "lalalalalalalalalala" as loud as he can so he can't hear me.

And, please anyone but L. Ron Hubbard. :)

Immie
 
Back
Top