'Millions of Africans' will flood Europe unless it acts now, warns European chief, as Paris evacuates huge migrant camp

First topic message reminder :

Europe is "underestimating" the scale and severity of the migration crisis and "millions of Africans" will flood the continent in the next five years unless urgent action is taken, a senior European official has warned. The dire prediction from Antonio Tajani, president of the European Parliament, came as Paris evacuated almost 3,000 migrants sleeping rough from a makeshift camp near the city centre - the 34th such evacuation in two years. In an interview with Il Messagero newspaper, Mr Tajani said there would be an exodus "of biblical proportions that would be impossible to stop if we don't confront the problem now".


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/07/millions-africans-will-flood-europe-unless-acts-now-warns-european/

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's not blacks we are speaking of.  It's Africans.

So you don't think that white Africans should have their land taken away then. Jolly good.

I think that someone should go back to before Spanish and Portuguese land grants, and establish rights according to pre-European authority. It is that European authority that is the illegitimate element that taints the whole process.

Other than that, I wouldn't assume to interlope onto their ability to sort out their own affairs.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

And why not? Because the people of Africa don't want Europeans there? In that case, why do they think they have the right to go to Europe?

We've been discussing why colonization and exploitation didn't work.  Go back to page 2 of this thread and read two excellent posts, one by Wolf on exploitation, and one by HT on colonization and the exploitative purposes of Europe on Africa in the 19th-century.

No one has a right to immigration.  It's an offer or privilege extended by the host.  That is what was wrong with the way Europe pillaged Africa in the 19th-century...they didn't respect the host.

We would hope that Europe would extend a helping hand now that it is more civilized.

Exactly. And so if a country says no...or we wish to control that, why the fuss over mass immigration into Europe?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you don't think that white Africans should have their land taken away then. Jolly good.

I think that someone should go back to before Spanish and Portuguese land grants, and establish rights according to pre-European authority.  It is that European authority that is the illegitimate element that taints the whole process.

Other than that, I wouldn't assume to interlope onto their ability to sort out their own affairs.

How are you going to establish who should own the land now then? The people running the farms have a better claim than those who aren't.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

We've been discussing why colonization and exploitation didn't work.  Go back to page 2 of this thread and read two excellent posts, one by Wolf on exploitation, and one by HT on colonization and the exploitative purposes of Europe on Africa in the 19th-century.

No one has a right to immigration.  It's an offer or privilege extended by the host.  That is what was wrong with the way Europe pillaged Africa in the 19th-century...they didn't respect the host.

We would hope that Europe would extend a helping hand now that it is more civilized.

Exactly.   And so if a country says no...or we wish to control that, why the fuss over mass immigration into Europe?  

I don't know. Tommy started this thread. I think that Europeans should be most open to accepting Africans. They are a wonderful addition to our society. I hope we can enjoy more of them.

Tommy and Victor are in the opposing corner.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you don't think that white Africans should have their land taken away then. Jolly good.

I think that someone should go back to before Spanish and Portuguese land grants, and establish rights according to pre-European authority.  It is that European authority that is the illegitimate element that taints the whole process.

Other than that, I wouldn't assume to interlope onto their ability to sort out their own affairs.

It's too late for that though. Raggs has a point...you can't just take away homes and land from people who've lived there for generations. That's like saying the whole of the Pakistani population in the UK can fuck off out of their homes to let poor white families live there.

What can be done is to take land purchased in massive swathes by huge corporations who do nothing but sit on it so that it becomes more and more financially viable for them, and give it to the poorest people to help them live and thrive. But they won't because Africa is eaten up by corruption in high places.

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Exactly.   And so if a country says no...or we wish to control that, why the fuss over mass immigration into Europe?  

I don't know.  Tommy started this thread.  I think that Europeans should be most open to accepting Africans.  They are a wonderful addition to our society.  I hope we can enjoy more of them.

Tommy and Victor are in the opposing corner.

So do you think that Africans should be open to accepting Europeans then?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think that someone should go back to before Spanish and Portuguese land grants, and establish rights according to pre-European authority.  It is that European authority that is the illegitimate element that taints the whole process.

Other than that, I wouldn't assume to interlope onto their ability to sort out their own affairs.

How are you going to establish who should own the land now then? The people running the farms have a better claim than those who aren't.

That's where I say it's really up to the Africans themselves.

I certainly am not going to make the same arrogant mistakes that 19th-century Europeans did, and assume to sort things out for them! Leave Africa to Africans.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think that someone should go back to before Spanish and Portuguese land grants, and establish rights according to pre-European authority.  It is that European authority that is the illegitimate element that taints the whole process.

Other than that, I wouldn't assume to interlope onto their ability to sort out their own affairs.

It's too late for that though.   Raggs has a point...you can't just take away homes and land from people who've lived there for generations.  That's like saying  the whole of the Pakistani population in the UK can fuck off out of their homes to let poor white families live there.  

What can be done is to take land purchased in massive swathes by huge corporations who do nothing but sit on it so that it becomes more and more financially viable for them, and give it to the poorest people to help them live and thrive.  But they won't because Africa is eaten up by corruption in high places.  

I don't think land should just be given to people who are poor. If they had a decent Government, they could buy it, and then rent it out to those who want to run a farm or whatever.

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Exactly.   And so if a country says no...or we wish to control that, why the fuss over mass immigration into Europe?  

I don't know.  Tommy started this thread.  I think that Europeans should be most open to accepting Africans.  They are a wonderful addition to our society.  I hope we can enjoy more of them.

Tommy and Victor are in the opposing corner.

There are Africans here.   Where I live there are many of them.   But you can't just open the door to all and sundry.   They should be a wonderful addition to their own society.   If the most skilled people they have abandon their country, where does that leave its poorest?  To the mercy of what's keeping that country in poverty, that's what.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think that someone should go back to before Spanish and Portuguese land grants, and establish rights according to pre-European authority.  It is that European authority that is the illegitimate element that taints the whole process.

Other than that, I wouldn't assume to interlope onto their ability to sort out their own affairs.

It's too late for that though.   Raggs has a point...you can't just take away homes and land from people who've lived there for generations.  That's like saying  the whole of the Pakistani population in the UK can fuck off out of their homes to let poor white families live there.  

What can be done is to take land purchased in massive swathes by huge corporations who do nothing but sit on it so that it becomes more and more financially viable for them, and give it to the poorest people to help them live and thrive.  But they won't because Africa is eaten up by corruption in high places.  

Poor argument.
Many lands owned by white Africans were originally seized off other people.
So how is it too late?
That some white farmer own land because they inherited this based off nothing they did?
How is that fair?
So yes you can take away farms and compensate and redistribute this fairly to all the citizens on that nation today
Look how poor your argument is. Its based on racial lines and not citizenship

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How are you going to establish who should own the land now then? The people running the farms have a better claim than those who aren't.

That's where I say it's really up to the Africans themselves.

I certainly am not going to make the same arrogant mistakes that 19th-century Europeans did, and assume to sort things out for them!  Leave Africa to Africans.

You were certainly keen to interfere before when you started down this road:

I think the point that Wolf is making is, they did nothing right, ether. They did nothing right to establish their claims to those lands. One take-away cancels out another take-away, and justice prevails.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

It's too late for that though.   Raggs has a point...you can't just take away homes and land from people who've lived there for generations.  That's like saying  the whole of the Pakistani population in the UK can fuck off out of their homes to let poor white families live there.  

What can be done is to take land purchased in massive swathes by huge corporations who do nothing but sit on it so that it becomes more and more financially viable for them, and give it to the poorest people to help them live and thrive.  But they won't because Africa is eaten up by corruption in high places.  

I don't think land should just be given to people who are poor. If they had a decent Government, they could buy it, and then rent it out to those who want to run a farm or whatever.

I've already posted that many of the poorest are not allowed to own land. This is a country where the majority of the poor rely heavily on having land to work. They deserve a few acres surely?

Thorin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

It's too late for that though.   Raggs has a point...you can't just take away homes and land from people who've lived there for generations.  That's like saying  the whole of the Pakistani population in the UK can fuck off out of their homes to let poor white families live there.  

What can be done is to take land purchased in massive swathes by huge corporations who do nothing but sit on it so that it becomes more and more financially viable for them, and give it to the poorest people to help them live and thrive.  But they won't because Africa is eaten up by corruption in high places.  

Poor argument.
Many lands owned by white Africans were originally seized off other people.
So how is it too late?
That some white farmer own land because they inherited this based off nothing they did?
How is that fair?
So yes you can take away farms and compensate and redistribute this fairly to all the citizens on that nation today
Look how poor your argument is. Its based on racial lines and not citizenship

I think they can't establish who originally owned the land though, and if it was a legitimate ownership.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think land should just be given to people who are poor. If they had a decent Government, they could buy it, and then rent it out to those who want to run a farm or whatever.

I've already posted that many of the poorest are not allowed to own land.   This is a country where the majority of the poor rely heavily on having land to work.   They deserve a few acres surely?

If they pay rent, yes. I don't think it should just be given to them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't know.  Tommy started this thread.  I think that Europeans should be most open to accepting Africans.  They are a wonderful addition to our society.  I hope we can enjoy more of them.

Tommy and Victor are in the opposing corner.

So do you think that Africans should be open to accepting Europeans then?

In the spirit of friendship, yes...I would hope so. But as HT and I both say, it's a privilege, not a right.

Keep in mind that we, in America, feel that immigration is an enrichment to our society, not a detriment. Who, in his right mind, would have rejected Albert Einstein, Andrew Carnegie, John Muir or Joseph Pulitzer? Heaven forbid.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Poor argument.
Many lands owned by white Africans were originally seized off other people.
So how is it too late?
That some white farmer own land because they inherited this based off nothing they did?
How is that fair?
So yes you can take away farms and compensate and redistribute this fairly to all the citizens on that nation today
Look how poor your argument is. Its based on racial lines and not citizenship

I think they can't establish who originally owned the land though, and if it was a legitimate ownership.

So if nobody can establish who did, then is it not best to redistribute the lands Rags?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think they can't establish who originally owned the land though, and if it was a legitimate ownership.

So if nobody can establish who did, then is it not best to redistribute the lands Rags?

No, it's best to keep things as they are. Anyone can claim that someone stole their land, but nobody in their right mind would just take their word for it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So if nobody can establish who did, then is it not best to redistribute the lands Rags?

No, it's best to keep things as they are. Anyone can claim that someone stole their land, but nobody in their right mind would just take their word for it.

Well that is a poor argument rags when there is disputes over lands
So do you think its best to keep things the way they are in the Israeli Palestinian conflict?

What an absurd argument you are making and allowing people to keep land they really have no right to in many cases. Only with legal documents would they have rights and even then if done born from racist policies those rights would nullified.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, it's best to keep things as they are. Anyone can claim that someone stole their land, but nobody in their right mind would just take their word for it.

Well that is a poor argument rags when there is disputes over lands
So do you think its best to keep things the way they are in the Israeli Palestinian conflict?

What an absurd argument you are making and allowing people to keep land they really have no right to in many cases. Only with legal documents would they have rights

They're not really disputes though, it's just a bunch of people claiming that black people should own the land. Do any of these people have legal documents to show that the land is really their land? If not, they have no claim to it. You want the white people to have documents, but you don't seem to think that the black people who want the land should have any.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Well that is a poor argument rags when there is disputes over lands
So do you think its best to keep things the way they are in the Israeli Palestinian conflict?

What an absurd argument you are making and allowing people to keep land they really have no right to in many cases. Only with legal documents would they have rights

They're not really disputes though, it's just a bunch of people claiming that black people should own the land. Do any of these people have legal documents to show that the land is really their land? If not, they have no claim to it. You want the white people to have documents, but you don't seem to think that the black people who want the land should have any.

You see how you made it a racial argument again rags over skin colour?
This is about Africans, no matter whether white, black or Asian ethnicity.
In the past white Afrucans benefited from a racist authoritarian government. That means that many White African inherit based off a racist system, that they never legally should have had.
Again read slowly, my view is that the land should be redistributed for all citizens, not matter their ethncity

Thorin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

It's too late for that though.   Raggs has a point...you can't just take away homes and land from people who've lived there for generations.  That's like saying  the whole of the Pakistani population in the UK can fuck off out of their homes to let poor white families live there.  

What can be done is to take land purchased in massive swathes by huge corporations who do nothing but sit on it so that it becomes more and more financially viable for them, and give it to the poorest people to help them live and thrive.  But they won't because Africa is eaten up by corruption in high places.  

Poor argument.
Many lands owned by white Africans were originally seized off other people.
So how is it too late?
That some white farmer own land because they inherited this based off nothing they did?
How is that fair?
So yes you can take away farms and compensate and redistribute this fairly to all the citizens on that nation today
Look how poor your argument is. Its based on racial lines and not citizenship

In an ideal world, yes. It's already been done in Zimbabwe. It caused strife and people died.

This makes nice reading...and it would only be the tip of the iceberg if a law was passed that said anyone could take what they pleased from the white community.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/bury-them-alive-white-south-africans-fear-for-their-future-as-horrific-farm-attacks-escalate/news-story/3a63389a1b0066b6b0b77522c06d6476

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's where I say it's really up to the Africans themselves.

I certainly am not going to make the same arrogant mistakes that 19th-century Europeans did, and assume to sort things out for them!  Leave Africa to Africans.

You were certainly keen to interfere before when you started down this road:

I think the point that Wolf is making is, they did nothing right, ether. They did nothing right to establish their claims to those lands. One take-away cancels out another take-away, and justice prevails.

There are two discussions going on here: 1) the moral one, in which we discuss the depravity with which European raped Africa, and the remedy we should feel compelled to advocate; and 2) the legal one, wherein both HT and I agree that, legally, it's up to each country to determine immigration policy for itself. In democratic countries, the moral influences the legal, and that's why we engage morals as well as legality in the same discussion.

It is a moral statement I make, that Europeans stole, and pillaged the lands of Africans. It is a legal determination if a present African administration wants to take-away lands from contemporary holders.

My statement about 'canceling out' is just me, waxing philosophical about poetic justice. It's a non sequitur, like all statements about poetic justice.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They're not really disputes though, it's just a bunch of people claiming that black people should own the land. Do any of these people have legal documents to show that the land is really their land? If not, they have no claim to it. You want the white people to have documents, but you don't seem to think that the black people who want the land should have any.

You see how you made it a racial argument again rags over skin colour?
This is about Africans, no matter whether white, black or Asian ethnicity.
In the past white Afrucans benefited from a racist authoritarian government. That means that many White African inherit based off a racist system, that they never legally should have had.
Again read slowly, my view is that the land should be redistributed for all citizens, not matter their ethncity

Are you suggesting it's not about skin colour? You're the one banging on about white Africans, so you're making it a racial argument too.

If you "redistribute" land, then by default you have to take it off some white people and they will get less land, yes? That would not be fair.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

I've already posted that many of the poorest are not allowed to own land.   This is a country where the majority of the poor rely heavily on having land to work.   They deserve a few acres surely?

If they pay rent, yes. I don't think it should just be given to them.

What if they can't afford rent? What's to stop landlords from putting the rents sky high?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


You see how you made it a racial argument again rags over skin colour?
This is about Africans, no matter whether white, black or Asian ethnicity.
In the past white Afrucans benefited from a racist authoritarian government. That means that many White African inherit based off a racist system, that they never legally should have had.
Again read slowly, my view is that the land should be redistributed for all citizens, not matter their ethncity

Are you suggesting it's not about skin colour? You're the one banging on about white Africans, so you're making it a racial argument too.

If you "redistribute" land, then by default you have to take it off some white people and they will get less land, yes? That would not be fair.

To me is not about skin colour but your answer, you believe it is Rags

How else do you want me to define Africans by ethnicity Rags?

Well some white farmers inherited this land from their ancestors taking this by forced.

So should they have this land legally?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Poor argument.
Many lands owned by white Africans were originally seized off other people.
So how is it too late?
That some white farmer own land because they inherited this based off nothing they did?
How is that fair?
So yes you can take away farms and compensate and redistribute this fairly to all the citizens on that nation today
Look how poor your argument is. Its based on racial lines and not citizenship

In an ideal world, yes.       It's already been done in Zimbabwe.   It caused strife and people died.

This makes nice reading...and it would only be the tip of the iceberg if a law was passed that said anyone could take what they pleased from the white community.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/bury-them-alive-white-south-africans-fear-for-their-future-as-horrific-farm-attacks-escalate/news-story/3a63389a1b0066b6b0b77522c06d6476

So you can only present reverse racism here under Mugabe?

So you say its just that white Africans keep farms they never legally purchased?

Some have and I am against Mugabe taking farms and giving to his cronies.

So why do you continue to support only white African farmers? Many of which inherited these farms from former annexation?

Do you now see why it should be redistributed evenly to all citizens, no matter whether black or white?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If they pay rent, yes. I don't think it should just be given to them.

What if they can't afford rent?   What's  to stop landlords from putting the rents sky high?

It's like saying that "poor" people here should just be given some land. That would be silly. If the Government bought the land which is not being used, they could rent it out and regulate the rent themselves.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you suggesting it's not about skin colour? You're the one banging on about white Africans, so you're making it a racial argument too.

If you "redistribute" land, then by default you have to take it off some white people and they will get less land, yes? That would not be fair.

To me is not about skin colour but your answer, you believe it is Rags

How else do you want me to define Africans by ethnicity Rags?

Well some white farmers inherited this land from their ancestors taking this by forced.

So should they have this land legally?

It clearly is about skin colour to you because you're talking about black people and white people. The argument is that white people stole the land, yes? Then the argument is that it should be taken from them and given to black people who did not do anything to earn it. At least the people running the farms actually put some effort into it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

What if they can't afford rent?   What's  to stop landlords from putting the rents sky high?

It's like saying that "poor" people here should just be given some land. That would be silly. If the Government bought the land which is not being used, they could rent it out and regulate the rent themselves.

Its nothing like that.
I mean are you happy to allow White African farmers to have land based off where they took many of these lands under a former racist government?

How is that acceptable Rags?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's like saying that "poor" people here should just be given some land. That would be silly. If the Government bought the land which is not being used, they could rent it out and regulate the rent themselves.

Its nothing like that.
I mean are you happy to allow White African farmers to have land based off where they took many of these lands under a former racist government?

How is that acceptable Rags?

Are you happy to see it taken off them and given to people who have no right to it?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


To me is not about skin colour but your answer, you believe it is Rags

How else do you want me to define Africans by ethnicity Rags?

Well some white farmers inherited this land from their ancestors taking this by forced.

So should they have this land legally?

It clearly is about skin colour to you because you're talking about black people and white people. The argument is that white people stole the land, yes? Then the argument is that it should be taken from them and given to black people who did not do anything to earn it. At least the people running the farms actually put some effort into it.

I think I made a clear distinction its not about skin colour rags

As I have stated about citizenship

The argument is that some Brits and Dutch stole lands in the past. Their ancestors have benefited off this.

Your argument to maintain this racist status quo is now based on being prosperous?

I think think this video needs to be shown again

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Its nothing like that.
I mean are you happy to allow White African farmers to have land based off where they took many of these lands under a former racist government?

How is that acceptable Rags?

Are you happy to see it taken off them and given to people who have no right to it?

What right did the people have, who claim to own them, have any legal rights, in the first place?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you happy to see it taken off them and given to people who have no right to it?

What right did the people have, who claim to own them in the first place?

What right does anyone else have to take it off those who are already running it?

Thorin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

In an ideal world, yes.       It's already been done in Zimbabwe.   It caused strife and people died.

This makes nice reading...and it would only be the tip of the iceberg if a law was passed that said anyone could take what they pleased from the white community.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/bury-them-alive-white-south-africans-fear-for-their-future-as-horrific-farm-attacks-escalate/news-story/3a63389a1b0066b6b0b77522c06d6476

So you can only present reverse racism here under Mugabe?

So you say its just that white Africans keep farms they never legally purchased?

Some have and I am against Mugabe taking farms and giving to his cronies.

So why do you continue to support only white African farmers? Many of which inherited these farms from former annexation?

Do you now see why it should be redistributed evenly to all citizens, no matter whether black or white?

From an emotional point of view yes, I think that land should be distributed evenly, particularly in a country so vast. It's not just white's who are depriving the poor though, is it?

I'm not 'presenting' anything about Mugabe. It's a fact.

And who exactly is African? I'm sure most of the white population consider themselves as much African as the black population.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


What right did the people have, who claim to own them in the first place?

What right does anyone else have to take it off those who are already running it?

So you think we should never tackle corruption then Rags?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What right does anyone else have to take it off those who are already running it?

So you think we should never tackle corruption then Rags?

It would be pretty corrupt to take land off someone and give it someone who didn't earn it, don't you think? Let's face it, the idea is to take it off white people and give it to black people, which is racist, corrupt, and discriminatory.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you happy to see it taken off them and given to people who have no right to it?

What right did the people have, who claim to own them, have any legal rights, in the first place?

You could present that argument to the whole of America. Take all the land off everyone who is not Native American?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So you can only present reverse racism here under Mugabe?

So you say its just that white Africans keep farms they never legally purchased?

Some have and I am against Mugabe taking farms and giving to his cronies.

So why do you continue to support only white African farmers? Many of which inherited these farms from former annexation?

Do you now see why it should be redistributed evenly to all citizens, no matter whether black or white?

From an emotional point of view yes, I think that land should be distributed evenly, particularly in a country so vast.   It's not just white's who are depriving the poor though, is it?

I'm not 'presenting' anything about Mugabe.  It's a fact.  

And who exactly is African?   I'm sure most of the white population consider themselves as much African as the black population.

Thank you as nobody is really African, its a social construct.

But you are still making a racial argument

As surely they are all Africans?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin wrote:


What right did the people have, who claim to own them, have any legal rights, in the first place?

You could present that argument to the whole of America.    Take all the land off everyone who is not Native American?

So what is Las Vegas?

Look, Mugabe isn't interested in who legally owns the land, he just wants white people out so that black people can have it. It seems he has supporters here for his racist attitude.

Thorin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:


From an emotional point of view yes, I think that land should be distributed evenly, particularly in a country so vast.   It's not just white's who are depriving the poor though, is it?

I'm not 'presenting' anything about Mugabe.  It's a fact.  

And who exactly is African?   I'm sure most of the white population consider themselves as much African as the black population.

Thank you as nobody is really African, its a social construct.

But you are still making a racial argument

As surely they are all Africans?

No, it's not racial from me. It's about the rich manipulating and keeping the poor even poorer.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So you think we should never tackle corruption then Rags?

It would be pretty corrupt to take land off someone and give it someone who didn't earn it, don't you think? Let's face it, the idea is to take it off white people and give it to black people, which is racist, corrupt, and discriminatory.

So you are actually backing corruption rags.
As you have to show what legal rights you back.
Can you show me?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Thank you as nobody is really African, its a social construct.

But you are still making a racial argument

As surely they are all Africans?

No, it's not racial from me.   It's about the rich manipulating and keeping the poor even poorer.

Well on that we both agree.

Sorry but there really has been some poor piss based racial arguments made based on skin colour and property before this though.

Thorin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

No, it's not racial from me.   It's about the rich manipulating and keeping the poor even poorer.

Well on that we both agree.

Sorry but there really has been some poor piss based racial arguments made based on skin colour and property before this though.

It is about skin colour - Mugabe made it so.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Well on that we both agree.

Sorry but there really has been some poor piss based racial arguments made based on skin colour and property before this though.

It is about skin colour - Mugabe made it so.

That argument is as bad as blaming Syl for what Stormee and Major say

Its never about skin colour unless you yourself make it so rags

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It is about skin colour - Mugabe made it so.

That argument is as bad as blaming Syl for what Stormee and Major say

Its never about skin colour unless you yourself make it so rags

It is about skin colour. Are you really suggesting that Mugabe wants to take land off rich white people and give it to poor white people? Get real. He wants black people to have it. Don't blame me for his policies.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


That argument is as bad as blaming Syl for what Stormee and Major say

Its never about skin colour unless you yourself make it so rags

It is about skin colour. Are you really suggesting that Mugabe wants to take land off rich white people and give it to poor white people? Get real. He wants black people to have it. Don't blame me for his policies.

Does Mugabe rule South Africa Rags?

Its only you making this racial just as Mugabe does

Go figure

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It is about skin colour. Are you really suggesting that Mugabe wants to take land off rich white people and give it to poor white people? Get real. He wants black people to have it. Don't blame me for his policies.

Does Mugabe rule South Africa Rags?

Its only you making this racial just as Mugabe does

Go figure

You and Wolfboy were talking about Mugabe, so I did too. Of course it's racial.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Does Mugabe rule South Africa Rags?

Its only you making this racial just as Mugabe does

Go figure

You and Wolfboy were talking about Mugabe, so I did too. Of course it's racial.

So you are now arguing like Jules, Rags

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You and Wolfboy were talking about Mugabe, so I did too. Of course it's racial.

So you are now arguing like Jules, Rags

No I'm not - it's nothing like what she said. Don't start stirring - it was enough that you were arguing in another thread.