Obama pimped his own daughter to sexual predator

First topic message reminder :

'Disgusted': Barack Obama FINALLY weighs in on Weinstein scandal – but says nothing about his teen daughter Malia interning with the sex pest OR whether he will return producer's campaign donations

Former president Barack Obama issued a statement Tuesday about the sexual assault scandal swirling around Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein – five days after it first became global news.

He condemned Weinstein on behalf of himself and former first lady Michelle Obama, but made no mention of the internship his teen daughter Malia took with the Weinstein Company this year when she was 18.

The former president also made no mention of whether he will return the $680,000 that Weinstein raised for his 2012 re-election campaign, or the millions he collected during $32,400-per plate fundraising dinners at his New York and California homes.

'Michelle and I have been disgusted by the recent reports about Harvey Weinstein,' Obama said in a statement.

'Any man who demeans and degrades women in such fashion needs to be condemned and held accountable, regardless of wealth or status.'


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4968282/Disgusted-Obama-FINALLY-weighs-Weinstein-scandal.html

smelly-bandit wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


You should have that loony-toon quote framed and immortalised into a wall poster for your deep, dark basement corner,  and title it something like  :

'The drug_addled alternative "truth" according to SmellyBumTrollster'...

Why do all the Muslim loving Obama worshipping clones take such offence at the suggestion that Obama is a Muslim

It's almost like you're all closet case islamophobes

Do you perchance have a hat full of aggressive extreme-right-wing alt.news catchphrases there,  SmellyTrollingBum  ???

Where you enjoy dragging out a handful and stringing them together at random..

They certainly chose poorly, didn't they? But are you saying that all women who chose poorly are Stupid?

That sounds a bit like victim-blaming.

Original Quill wrote:They certainly chose poorly, didn't they?  But are you saying that all women who chose poorly are Stupid?

That sounds a bit like victim-blaming.

The irony is so bad here, it deserves more than a chapter

smelly-bandit wrote:

Yeah, so your hero is a huge sexual predator.

And by the way, just because you don't like someone doesn't make it okay to say that he pimped out his daughter to a predator. That's not what a decent person does.

Ben Reilly wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Yeah, so your hero is a huge sexual predator.

And by the way, just because you don't like someone doesn't make it okay to say that he pimped out his daughter to a predator. That's not what a decent person does.

But he reeled you in

We both know Obama is like smelly thinks, and yet smelly is able to make you so defensive

I'm not being defensive about anything, Didge. I just hate hypocrisy, and I hate making false accusations just because you don't like somebody.

Ben Reilly wrote:I'm not being defensive about anything, Didge. I just hate hypocrisy, and I hate making false accusations just because you don't like somebody.

And yet you are full of hypocrisy

You just went big time over a supposed offense

Telling me I should be mindful how some people may feel offended.

I am half Irish

I know what itrs like to be offended

i have broad shoulders you snowflake

Even whern you wanted to cook me in an oven

Original Quill wrote:They certainly chose poorly, didn't they? But are you saying that all women who chose poorly are Stupid?

That sounds a bit like victim-blaming.

victim-baiting??

is that like the race-baiting obama was always doing??

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:They certainly chose poorly, didn't they?  But are you saying that all women who chose poorly are Stupid?

That sounds a bit like victim-blaming.

victim-baiting??

is that like the race-baiting obama was always doing??

Not at all like racism that was visited upon Obama.  That was quite real, having no other justification other than race itself.  Victim-baiting is rather a responsive strategy given by oppressors, who try to escape well-deserved criticism by lobbing criticism back.  It's really an extreme defensive maneuver, engaged in by the desperate.  

We all saw Trump try to avoid his failures in Puerto Rico, by blaming Puerto Rico itself.  Very often in rape cases, the defense will try to paint the victim as a wanton woman, or as having invited the crime by wearing provocative clothing.  It's extreme as, having no defense himself, the malefactor simply tries to shift the focus rather than squaring up and denying the facts.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

victim-baiting??

is that like the race-baiting obama was always doing??

Not at all like racism that was visited upon Obama.  That was quite real, having no other justification other than race itself.  Victim-baiting is rather a responsive strategy given by oppressors, who try to escape well-deserved criticism by lobbing criticism back.  It's really an extreme defensive maneuver, engaged in by the desperate.  

We all saw Trump try to avoid his failures in Puerto Rico, by blaming Puerto Rico itself.  Very often in rape cases, the defense will try to paint the victim as a wanton woman, or as having invited the crime by wearing provocative clothing.  It's extreme as, having no defense himself, the malefactor simply tries to shift the focus rather than squaring up and denying the facts.

such awful racism the American people showed when they elected their first black president

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Not at all like racism that was visited upon Obama.  That was quite real, having no other justification other than race itself.  Victim-baiting is rather a responsive strategy given by oppressors, who try to escape well-deserved criticism by lobbing criticism back.  It's really an extreme defensive maneuver, engaged in by the desperate.  

We all saw Trump try to avoid his failures in Puerto Rico, by blaming Puerto Rico itself.  Very often in rape cases, the defense will try to paint the victim as a wanton woman, or as having invited the crime by wearing provocative clothing.  It's extreme as, having no defense himself, the malefactor simply tries to shift the focus rather than squaring up and denying the facts.

such awful racism the American people showed when they elected their first black president

Yes, you act as if it's phenomenon, instead of what it should be: a normal event.  It should not even distinguish itself. All people are equal in the eyes of the law.  Yet, you wave it like a flag.

Your own response gives testimony to the racism that you harbour inside.  It is the attitude of the American south.  Niggah, we give you this great gift, and you act like it ain't special.  Such ingratitude.  Youse uppity, boy!

tell me if you've heard this one??

two sexual predators walk into a bar and rape some women.

the end

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

such awful racism the American people showed when they elected their first black president

Yes, you act as if it's phenomenon, instead of what it should be: a normal event.  It should not even distinguish itself.  All people are equal in the eyes of the law.  Yet, you wave it like a flag.

Your own response gives testimony to the racism that you harbour inside.  It is the attitude of the American south.  Niggah, we give you this great gift, and you act like it ain't special.  Such ingratitude.  Youse uppity, boy!

well it wasn't a normal event was it, what part of "first" black president don't you understand??

I'm simply pointing out that if America was as racist as you say it is,then why would it elect a black president??

America must be the worst white supremacist nation ever

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, you act as if it's phenomenon, instead of what it should be: a normal event.  It should not even distinguish itself.  All people are equal in the eyes of the law.  Yet, you wave it like a flag.

Your own response gives testimony to the racism that you harbour inside.  It is the attitude of the American south.  Niggah, we give you this great gift, and you act like it ain't special.  Such ingratitude.  Youse uppity, boy!

well it wasn't a normal event was it, what part of "first" black president don't you understand??  

I'm simply pointing out that if America was as racist as you say it is,then why would it elect a black president??

America must be the worst white supremacist nation ever

Because it took nearly 100-years to free blacks from human bondage; and nearly 250-years to elect one as a president.  But we don't have to rely on that singular statistic.  Take a look at Charlottesville, VA.  

The USA is a racist nation, born in slavery, and persisting in white-supremacy.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

well it wasn't a normal event was it, what part of "first" black president don't you understand??  

I'm simply pointing out that if America was as racist as you say it is,then why would it elect a black president??

America must be the worst white supremacist nation ever

Because it took nearly 100-years to free blacks from human bondage; and nearly 250-years to elect one as a president.  But we don't have to rely on that singular statistic.  Take a look at Charlottesville, VA.  

The USA is a racist nation, born in slavery, and persisting in white-supremacy.

a racist nation persisting in white supremacy that frees black slaves and elected a black president??

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Because it took nearly 100-years to free blacks from human bondage; and nearly 250-years to elect one as a president.  But we don't have to rely on that singular statistic.  Take a look at Charlottesville, VA.  

The USA is a racist nation, born in slavery, and persisting in white-supremacy.

a racist nation persisting in white supremacy that frees black slaves and elected a black president??  

Begrudgingly.  Only begrudgingly.

You have to take into account that the United States was the last major-nation, slave state.  It had to be pulled kicking and screaming into the modern era.  

By "kicking and screaming" I mean, look at Charlottsville...and that is 150-years after it was pulled into the modern era.  Still strongly white-supremacist, and even Neo-Nazi.  And while Obama was elected--primarily with the support of the west coast--the racist Republicans prevented him from governing fully and effectively.  What he did, he did despite RW opposition.

There is no changing the US and it's white-supremacist leaning.  There is only isolating it, and shutting it off from the rest of civilization.  The Pacific States of America offers that morally cleaner alternative.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

a racist nation persisting in white supremacy that frees black slaves and elected a black president??  

Begrudgingly.  Only begrudgingly.

You have to take into account that the United States was the last major-nation, slave state.  It had to be pulled kicking and screaming into the modern era.  

By "kicking and screaming" I mean, look at Charlottsville...and that is 150-years after it was pulled into the modern era.  Still strongly white-supremacist, and even Neo-Nazi.  And while Obama was elected, the racist Republicans prevented him from governing fully and effectively.  What he did, he did despite RW opposition.

There is no changing the US.  There is only isolating it, and shutting it off from the rest of civilization.  The Pacific States of America offers that morally cleaner alternative.

im confused??

so America voting for a black president TWICE is in your mind nothing but an indication of how racist America is??

and the war to end slavery, wasn't that mostly white Americans fighting other white Americans to free black American slaves???

not sure who you think pulled America into the modern era, from an historical standpoint it was Americans who pulled themselves out of the era of slavery

but they are still persisting in white supremacy because a white man drove his car into a crowd of white people

as for obama not being allowed to rule effectively, isnt that what you're doing to trump??

you have a very confusing way of looking at the world quill

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Begrudgingly.  Only begrudgingly.

You have to take into account that the United States was the last major-nation, slave state.  It had to be pulled kicking and screaming into the modern era.  

By "kicking and screaming" I mean, look at Charlottsville...and that is 150-years after it was pulled into the modern era.  Still strongly white-supremacist, and even Neo-Nazi.  And while Obama was elected, the racist Republicans prevented him from governing fully and effectively.  What he did, he did despite RW opposition.

There is no changing the US.  There is only isolating it, and shutting it off from the rest of civilization.  The Pacific States of America offers that morally cleaner alternative.

im confused??

so America voting for a black president TWICE is in your mind nothing but an indication of how racist America is??

and the war to end slavery, wasn't that mostly white Americans fighting other white Americans to free black American slaves???  

Both of these examples are an indication that the America of the 1860's, and of the 2000's, was lagging too far behind.  Collective ideology works in demanding ways...everything is interlaced, so that when something--even something you favour--lags too far behind, it becomes too difficult to maintain.  

America was entering the industrial era in 1860, and it was apparent that many nations would no longer include America in their economic plans when it still maintained a slave-based economy.  It's not for nothing that it was the Industrial North that became the prime agent of anti-slavery.  They must have seen and felt other nations shaking their heads and shaming them.

Likewise, with the election of Obama as president.  Not only was he immensely popular, but he was probably the most intelligent president we've ever had; he certainly was the best.  The world was promoting women and people of color all over, and only the US consistently impaneled an all-white, male cabinet year after year.  It became an overwhelming sentiment to elect this wonderful, brilliant black man to the Oval Office.

SB wrote: not sure who you think pulled America into the modern era, from an historical standpoint   it was Americans who pulled themselves out of the era of slavery

World sentiment.  See above.

SB wrote:but they are still persisting in white supremacy because a white man drove his car into a crowd of white people  

And because hundreds, if not thousands marched under Nazi flags, and shouted white supremacist slogans, and cheered the killing of that young woman.  It must have reminded many of Munich.

SB wrote:as for obama not being allowed to rule effectively, isnt that what you're doing to trump??  

you have a very confusing way of looking at the world quill

Republicans have changed the face of American politics.  Voter suppression.  Gerrymandering.  Lack of due process of law.  Colluding with foreign powers to sell one's office.  All of these acts, when performed, then become normal procedures of American politics.  Another way to state it is: what goes around, comes around.  It's the new normal.

But there are even more persuasive arguments.  The Republicans have swung so far the the right that their proposals appear criminal in the eyes of the left.  When someone supports a platform that is diametrically the opposite of what you not only support, but what you built, of course you are going to be diametrically opposed to it in return.  You don't ask the police to "reach-across-the-aisle" to work with the bank robbers--to find common ground, do you?  Ridiculous.

Again, speaking of Republican precedents, it seems that they have also institutionalized non-cooperation.  If it is now normal for Republicans to be exclusive and non-cooperative, how stupid to expect that the other side would be anything else?  Do you want to go into the boxing right with both hands tied behind your back?

But--and this is the stunning point--the Republicans presently control both houses of Congress, and the presidency and the Supreme Court.  How can you even tell--why should you have to ask: "isn't that what you're doing to trump??   "  They should be able to do things without us...without the other side.  The left is no longer given a chance to be obstructionist

Consequently, Republicans and conservatives own everything that happens, including Trumpcare, Puerto Rico, Yemen, Afghanistan, North Korea, and four dead soldiers in Niger, whom Trump tried to sweep under the rug even while he's touting the glory of standing up for the national anthem at football games.  We have but to set up our lawn chairs and watch the parade of Vaudeville acts.

so let me get this straight

white supremacist Americans force other white supremacist Americans to free black slaves...................because they are racist ...................who hate blacks...................but voted for a black president.

not sure what you want me to do with that to be honest quill.

ok???

smelly-bandit wrote:so let me get this straight

white supremacist Americans force other white supremacist Americans to free black slaves...................because they are racist ...................who hate blacks...................but voted for a black president.

not sure what you want me to do with that to be honest quill.

ok???

Don't make up nonsense.  Read it carefully.  There was a Civil War, did you not know? A mercantile and industrial North, joining with opinion world-wide, felt the need to rid the nation of slavery, promoted by an agrarian and cash-cropping South, dependent upon it.

Just because it's good for business, however, doesn't mean America has changed its' sentiments. Once well-intended, Republicans have embarked upon taking advantage of Southern racial sentiments, to create a coalition known as the Southern Strategy. That merger has solidified white-supremacy in America.

Come back to me when you are serious.

Ta...

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:so let me get this straight

white supremacist Americans force other white supremacist Americans to free black slaves...................because they are racist ...................who hate blacks...................but voted for a black president.

not sure what you want me to do with that to be honest quill.

ok???

Don't make up nonsense.  Read it carefully.  Come back to me when you are serious.

Ta...

i get it

you're obsessed with the narrative that America is a racist nation.

its the same with south Africa, people are convinced that all south Africas woes are because of apartheid despite the ANC being in power for the last two decades plus change in an unbroken run.

you will never allow anything or anyone to challenge your narrative, lies and falsehoods are just part and parcel of your narrative

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Don't make up nonsense.  Read it carefully.  Come back to me when you are serious.

Ta...

i get it

you're obsessed with the narrative that America is a racist nation.

its the same with south Africa, people are convinced that all south Africas woes are because of apartheid despite the ANC being in power for the last two decades plus change in an unbroken run.

Yes, well you don't speak well for South Africa do you?  In fact, you are living proof that what was done in SA was necessary.  Lot's of lilly-white apartheid champions running around, cheering for legless lady-killers, was not the best PR for you guys.

SB wrote:you will never allow anything or anyone to challenge your narrative, lies and falsehoods are just part and parcel of your narrative

Bluster and ill-conceived blunder won't save apartheid.  Give it up, poppy.

quill i doubt you could find south Africa on an atlas if it was the only country in red and everything else was blue.

you can pretend that south Africa is a success story, but the reality is that its gripped by corruption and never before seen poverty.

a crime rate with a body count so high it rivals countries locked in civil war.

and lets not pretend that America has ever interfered in the affairs of another country that didn't leave that country in a complete state of ruin

which again is something i dont understand, perhaps you can help me out here

America according to you is a white supremacist nation.

so why didn't it support the apartheid government??

Im not convinced you're fully up to date with what "white supremacist" means

I'm happy to give Obama the benefit of the doubt based on his impeccable record. He is not poverty stricken and has no need to sacrifice his precious daughter to anyone. The girl did internships under several people in different countries, not just at Weinstein's studios.

More than likely she put her feet down and insisted she wanted to work at Weinstein's studios and the lech must have known that the POTUS's daughter was offlimits.

I'm actually almost starting to feel sorry for Weinstein. He is FINISHED - his marriage, job, income, reputation - all in tatters.

These people run off to rehab clinics as soon as they get into trouble with the law. The clinics charge tens of thousands per day. Most ordinary people would happily give him advice for free and save him a ton of money in clinic fees. > "Put your ego and your d*ck away". Simple!!

SB wrote:quill i doubt you could find south Africa on an atlas if it was the only country in red and everything else was blue.

It used to be, during the days of Apartheid, the place where they stuck the hose in when the world got an enema.

sb wrote:America according to you is a white supremacist nation.

so why didn't it support the apartheid government??

What we are witnessing, along with the normalization of child rape and pussy grabbing, is the emergence of open white-supremacy under the tutelage of commander Trump. It's all in the timing.

Original Quill wrote:

sb wrote:America according to you is a white supremacist nation.

so why didn't it support the apartheid government??

What we are witnessing, along with the normalization of child rape and pussy grabbing, is the emergence of open white-supremacy under the tutelage of commander Trump.  It's all in the timing.

Ah bless

You're so cute

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What we are witnessing, along with the normalization of child rape and pussy grabbing, is the emergence of open white-supremacy under the tutelage of commander Trump.  It's all in the timing.

Ah bless

You're so cute

Thank you, Russ.  

As for support for Apartheid South Africa, it was simply a loser nation.  It could be compared to Harvey Weinstein today...sexual pervert, personified.  No one is going to identify with Weinstein today, even the most dedicated sex offender.  Why undertake the burden of supporting a proven loser, even if a loser yourself?

Causes like SA Apartheid, Neo-Nazism and white-supremacy are at the anus-hole of history--smelly, and about to be expelled from human existence.  The only question is whether it is served the dignity of coming out whole, or as diarrhea.  White-supremacy looks over at Apartheid and says, ewww....I don't want to be associated with him!  Never mind that he's the same thing.

I guess losers can recognize a loser in someone else as well as anyone.  The American south could see there was no advantage in supporting loser Apartheid South Africa.  Note that rats, when leaving a sinking ship, do not organize their retreat.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does, [your turn].

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Ah bless

You're so cute

Thank you, Russ.  

As for support for Apartheid South Africa, it was simply a loser nation.  It could be compared to Harvey Weinstein today...sexual pervert, personified.  No one is going to identify with Weinstein today, even the most dedicated sex offender.  Why undertake the burden of supporting a proven loser, even if a loser yourself?

Causes like SA Apartheid, Neo-Nazism and white-supremacy are at the anus-hole of history--smelly, and about to be expelled from human existence.  The only question is whether it is served the dignity of coming out whole, or as diarrhea.  White-supremacy looks over at Apartheid and says, ewww....I don't want to be associated with him!  Never mind that he's the same thing.

I guess losers can recognize a loser in someone else as well as anyone.  The American south could see there was no advantage in supporting loser Apartheid South Africa.  Note that rats, when leaving a sinking ship, do not organize their retreat.

You're so funny Quill

The thing is that America was and still is a zero fucks given country

When the rest of the world has embraced the Islamic hatred of Jews and is howling for the blood of Jews in Israel, America to its very great credit continues to support noble Israel.

If America wanted to, they could have supported south Africa and given zero fucks to World opinion the way they always do.

Furthermore its blatantly obvious that the reason apartheid failed, wasn't because of a black uprising but because of external pressure and crippling sanctions imposed by the rest of the white western world.



Again I ask you why, if America was and is such a white supremacist nation did it pull support for another white supremacist government when in fact had they supported the SA regime it would still be going strong like Israel

It's is utterly illogical to suggest that the only reason America didn't support SA was because it was a losing cause when it was the actions of America itself that caused the case to fail in the first place.

FYI California is part of racist America don't forget, so if in your mind I'm a racist apartheid sympathiser by virtue of my birthplace, I guess the same standard applies to you, if America is racist then so dear Quill are you

SB wrote:You're so funny Quill

The thing is that America was and still is a zero fucks given country

When the rest of the world has embraced the Islamic hatred of Jews and is howling for the blood of Jews in Israel, America to its very great credit continues to support noble Israel.

If America wanted to, they could have supported south Africa and given zero fucks to World opinion the way they always do.

Furthermore its blatantly obvious that the reason apartheid failed, wasn't because of a black uprising but because of external pressure and crippling sanctions imposed by the rest of the white western world.

Confusing, rambling post. Let me see if I can pull it together for you: You appear to be positive about Israel; and you see some sort of equivalency to South Africa, back in the apartheid days. In other words, Zionism and apartheid = good...in your framing of things.

Pulling this altogether, you appear to say that as both Israel and SA are underdogs (a false premise), and America is the savior because America disregards world opinion, and America is all-powerful and can do what it wants.

First, South Africa apartheid is nothing like Israel. Israel began as a refuge for the outcast and unprotected. Jews have always been the outlanders of Europe, first because they putatively killed Jesus, then because putatively, they were opportunistic business people who took advantage of the weak and poor. By contrast, those who would support apartheid in South Africa were the overlords—indeed, white supremacists—and the outlanders were the native black peoples. Right off, you’ve got your variables erroneously crossed from reality.

Second, America cannot, and will not steer a course independent of world opinion. Using the instant example of slavery, the world began to find distaste in the practice around 1800. In 1815, the Congress of Vienna declared its opposition to slavery. In 1818, the UK, Spain and Portugal entered into bilateral treaties abolishing the slave trade. In 1818, also, France abolished the slave trade, and Britain and the Netherlands took steps to ban slave trading. The next year in Canada all blacks were freed. Finally, in Britain the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 comes into force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom So you see, abolition was on the move. In America, it was intertwined with economics in the south, so it was not until the Civil War that the United States fell into line.

Third, yes I agree that SA apartheid came down as a result of outside pressure and “crippling sanctions”. Apartheid in South Africa ended with its elections from April 27 and 28 in 1994. Shame on South Africa that it took soo long; it should be an embarrassment to all white South Africans that it took external measures to get their collective head out of their ass. It was the twentieth-century, FCS!

SB wrote:Again I ask you why, if America was and is such a white supremacist nation did it pull support for another white supremacist government when in fact had they supported the SA regime it would still be going strong like Israel

It's is utterly illogical to suggest that the only reason America didn't support SA was because it was a losing cause when it was the actions of America itself that caused the case to fail in the first place.

Because, while both apartheid South Africa and the American south are racist cultures, they are otherwise entirely different cultures.  The American south is racist as a result of a cash-cropping economy up to the 19th-century, using slavery, creating a clear caste system.  South Africa whites simply assumed superiority and created a dual system of laws to implement it.

These two cultures see no kinship with one another.  Common entailments do not make the two cultures synonymous.  

SB wrote:FYI California is part of racist America don't forget, so if in your mind I'm a racist apartheid sympathiser by virtue of my birthplace, I guess the same standard applies to you, if America is racist then so dear Quill are you

The United States has evolved into Blue states (liberal) and Red states (conservative and white-supremacist).  California, the largest population within the US, is a strong Blue state.  So the same standard decidedly does not apply.

Indeed, I take great pains to distinguish both California, and indeed, the entire Pacific coastal states, from the United States.  Thus:

*  United States = Neo-Nazi, white-supremacist and KKK;

* California and the Pacific coastal states = liberal, caring and inclusive democracies.

It is my great hope that the saner part of America--California and the Pacific coastal states--can separate off from the Neo-Nazi, white-supremacist part, and carry on with a mature, responsible membership in the modern world community.

Original Quill wrote:

SB wrote:You're so funny Quill

The thing is that America was and still is a zero fucks given country

When the rest of the world has embraced the Islamic hatred of Jews and is howling for the blood of Jews in Israel, America to its very great credit continues to support noble Israel.

If America wanted to, they could have supported south Africa and given zero fucks to World opinion the way they always do.

Furthermore its blatantly obvious that the reason apartheid failed, wasn't because of a black uprising but because of external pressure and crippling sanctions imposed by the rest of the white western world.

Confusing, rambling post.  Let me see if I can pull it together for you: You appear to be positive about Israel; and you see some sort of equivalency to South Africa, back in the apartheid days.  In other words, Zionism and apartheid = good...in your framing of things.  

Pulling this altogether, you appear to say that as both Israel and SA are underdogs (a false premise), and America is the savior because America disregards world opinion, and America is all-powerful and can do what it wants.

First, South Africa apartheid is nothing like Israel.  Israel began as a refuge for the outcast and unprotected.  Jews have always been the outlanders of Europe, first because they putatively killed Jesus, then because putatively, they were opportunistic business people who took advantage of the weak and poor.  By contrast, those who would support apartheid in South Africa were the overlords—indeed, white supremacists—and the outlanders were the native black peoples.  Right off, you’ve got your variables erroneously crossed from reality.

Second, America cannot, and will not steer a course independent of world opinion.  Using the instant example of slavery, the world began to find distaste in the practice around 1800.  In 1815, the Congress of Vienna declared its opposition to slavery.  In 1818, the UK, Spain and Portugal entered into bilateral treaties abolishing the slave trade.  In 1818, also, France abolished the slave trade, and Britain and the Netherlands took steps to ban slave trading.  The next year in Canada all blacks were freed.  Finally, in Britain the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 comes into force.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom  So you see, abolition was on the move.  In America, it was intertwined with economics in the south, so it was not until the Civil War that the United States fell into line.

Third, yes I agree that SA apartheid came down as a result of outside pressure and “crippling sanctions”.  Apartheid in South Africa ended with its elections from April 27 and 28 in 1994.  Shame on South Africa that it took soo long; it should be an embarrassment to all white South Africans that it took external measures to get their collective head out of their ass.  It was the twentieth-century, FCS!

sorry quill but you don't get to indulge in revisionist history or moral relativism

you see America did support the SA regime (trick you) to a point, and that point was fighting the spread of communism in southern Africa, the ANC were the African arm of communism and the SADF fought them because SA was a westernized democratic (relatively speaking) nation, they didn't subscribe to communism and america quick to use any proxy they could , were happy to support the SADF's efforts

America even supported the SA govt in naming maneldas beloved MK as a terrorist organization and Mandela the chief terrorist.

once the threat of communism in Africa had reduced to manageable levels, America ever the fickle friend , turned its back on its one time ally and left it to the mercies of those who thought they knew best.

alas for the impoverished blacks of freed SA, when one thinks on how their lot in life has taken a turn for the worse since they were given their freedom its almost like you guys are the real racists and you freed them on purpose.

but on the issue of whether you're a racist on not, i have to say you are.

you say

"it should be an embarrassment to all white South Africans that it took external measures to get their collective head out of their ass."

you condemn all whites in south Africa on your own ignorance and intolerant generalization, utter hypocrisy of course, we all know you would never blame all Muslims for 9/11, but whites make good targets for Californian tolerance dont they?

obviously your history is only slightly better than your grasp of law, you do know that many white south Africans were part of the ANC and many white liberals in government opposed the apartheid dont you???

but hey ho, lets just generalize, im cool with that since it gives me license to blame all blacks and Muslims for anything i choose in the future, if all whites are to blame for apartheid then all Muslims are to blame for 9/11 and all Americans including Californians are white supremacist racists

good chat

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Confusing, rambling post.  Let me see if I can pull it together for you: You appear to be positive about Israel; and you see some sort of equivalency to South Africa, back in the apartheid days.  In other words, Zionism and apartheid = good...in your framing of things.  

Pulling this altogether, you appear to say that as both Israel and SA are underdogs (a false premise), and America is the savior because America disregards world opinion, and America is all-powerful and can do what it wants.

First, South Africa apartheid is nothing like Israel.  Israel began as a refuge for the outcast and unprotected.  Jews have always been the outlanders of Europe, first because they putatively killed Jesus, then because putatively, they were opportunistic business people who took advantage of the weak and poor.  By contrast, those who would support apartheid in South Africa were the overlords—indeed, white supremacists—and the outlanders were the native black peoples.  Right off, you’ve got your variables erroneously crossed from reality.

Second, America cannot, and will not steer a course independent of world opinion.  Using the instant example of slavery, the world began to find distaste in the practice around 1800.  In 1815, the Congress of Vienna declared its opposition to slavery.  In 1818, the UK, Spain and Portugal entered into bilateral treaties abolishing the slave trade.  In 1818, also, France abolished the slave trade, and Britain and the Netherlands took steps to ban slave trading.  The next year in Canada all blacks were freed.  Finally, in Britain the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 comes into force.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom  So you see, abolition was on the move.  In America, it was intertwined with economics in the south, so it was not until the Civil War that the United States fell into line.

Third, yes I agree that SA apartheid came down as a result of outside pressure and “crippling sanctions”.  Apartheid in South Africa ended with its elections from April 27 and 28 in 1994.  Shame on South Africa that it took soo long; it should be an embarrassment to all white South Africans that it took external measures to get their collective head out of their ass.  It was the twentieth-century, FCS!

sorry quill but you don't get to indulge in revisionist history or moral relativism

you see America did support the SA regime (trick you) to a point, and that point was fighting the spread of communism in southern Africa, the ANC were the African arm of communism  and the SADF fought them because SA was a westernized democratic (relatively speaking) nation, they didn't subscribe to communism and america quick to use any proxy they could , were happy to support the SADF's efforts  

America even supported the SA govt in naming maneldas beloved MK as a terrorist organization and Mandela the chief terrorist.

once the threat of communism in Africa had reduced to manageable levels, America ever the fickle friend , turned its back on its one time ally and left it to the mercies of those who thought they knew best.

Not the real of America.  You confuse prioritizing and tactical moves with bigger themes and strategies, and call them American.  Even the great America cannot do it all at once.

The anti-communism of a Ronald Reagan should never be confused with support for South African racism, even though the two were coincidental and might have traveled on the same track for a while.  Each was to be dealt with in it's turn, as we see now in hindsight.  We no sooner put to sleep the Soviet Union, then apartheid South Africa was the succeeding project.

SB wrote:alas for the impoverished blacks of freed SA, when one thinks on how their lot in life has taken a turn for the worse since they were given their freedom its almost like you guys are the real racists and you freed them on purpose.

That sounds very much like the Antebellum literature that came out of the south after our Civil War.  The Blacks were better off under slavery because we took care of them.

But you denied them the agency of their own personhood.  That is a human crime in itself, never mind the economics and status of their situation.  That is the very cause of racism, in the first place.  

Blacks and Asians weren't put on this earth to serve you...fuck off!

SB wrote:but on the issue of whether you're a racist on not, i have to say you are.

you say

"it should be an embarrassment to all white South Africans that it took external measures to get their collective head out of their ass."

you condemn all whites in south Africa on your own ignorance and intolerant generalization, utter hypocrisy of course, we all know you would never blame all Muslims for 9/11, but whites make good targets for Californian tolerance dont they?

obviously your history is only slightly better than your grasp of law, you do know that many white south Africans were part of the ANC and many white liberals in government opposed the apartheid dont you???

but hey ho, lets just generalize, im cool with that since it gives me license to blame all blacks and Muslims for anything i choose in the future, if all whites are to blame for apartheid then all Muslims are to blame for 9/11 and all Americans including Californians are white supremacist racists

good chat

You measure a people by the results. Good and noble liberals might have been among the apartheid South Africans, but that’s like when Ben says there are many good Texans…but it doesn’t matter. Texans still, in the main, do bad things. Their congressional delegates and Senators, not to mention their Governors, still pursue polices that are wrong.

I don’t generalize, the election process does. The whole population winnows down to a few elected leaders, and it’s who they are and what they do that counts. The collective will is generalized in the election, and the policies are what come out.

Obviously, those good and noble liberals in South Africa were voices not heard, opinions not heeded. That’s part of who and what you are…or, that is to say, what South Africa was at the time of apartheid.

When Hitler came to power, so were there good and noble people in Germany at the time. They did the only thing they could do…they up and left.

What am I proposing? That good and noble people in the US just up and leave. I propose the Pacific States of America, a nation of good and noble purposes, separate from the Neo-Nazi, KKK, white-supremacist in control of the United States of America. It’s a move that is peaceful, it’s noble, and it allows for expression of the other side.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:
Thank you, Russ.  
As for support for Apartheid South Africa, it was simply a loser nation.  It could be compared to Harvey Weinstein today...sexual pervert, personified.  No one is going to identify with Weinstein today, even the most dedicated sex offender.  Why undertake the burden of supporting a proven loser, even if a loser yourself?
Causes like SA Apartheid, Neo-Nazism and white-supremacy are at the anus-hole of history--smelly, and about to be expelled from human existence.  The only question is whether it is served the dignity of coming out whole, or as diarrhea.  White-supremacy looks over at Apartheid and says, ewww....I don't want to be associated with him!  Never mind that he's the same thing.
I guess losers can recognize a loser in someone else as well as anyone.  The American south could see there was no advantage in supporting loser Apartheid South Africa.  Note that rats, when leaving a sinking ship, do not organize their retreat.

.... so if in your mind I'm a racist apartheid sympathiser by virtue of my birthplace, I guess the same standard applies to you, if America is racist then so dear Quill are you

Your birthplace has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. People criticise you purely because of your odious posts, and nothing else. Reading thru your bigoted crap is like wading thru excrement on the pavement.

Having worked in the NHS for decades, if you ask me to think of the ten NICEST people I have ever observed at work, several south African nationals would be among that list. Most south african expats go out of their way to show everyone that they are not in any way supportive of the notoriously vile ideology of apartheid.

YOU OTOH spend all your days and nights strutting around on here, chanelling the odious spirit of the founding fathers of apartheid. So suck it up when taken to task on it, Bandit, instead of moaning like a fuckpig.

Quill did you just drop the F bomb on me??

Tut Tut, it would appear that you are somewhat rattled by the revelation that you're a white supremacist

Jules wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

.... so if in your mind I'm a racist apartheid sympathiser by virtue of my birthplace, I guess the same standard applies to you, if America is racist then so dear Quill are you

Your birthplace has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. People criticise you purely because of your odious posts, and nothing else. Reading thru your bigoted crap is like wading thru excrement on the pavement.

Having worked in the NHS for decades, if you ask me to think of the ten NICEST people I have ever observed at work, several south African nationals would be among that list. Most south african expats go out of their way to show everyone that they are not in any way supportive of the notoriously vile ideology of apartheid.

YOU OTOH spend all your days and nights strutting around on here, chanelling the odious spirit of the founding fathers of apartheid. So suck it up when taken to task on it, Bandit, instead of moaning like a fuckpig.

Is apartheid something else you know nowt about??

smelly-bandit wrote:Quill did you just drop the F bomb on me??

Yeah.

SB wrote:Tut Tut, it would appear that you are somewhat rattled by the revelation that you're a white supremacist

Lol. Rumors notwithstanding, there is no such thing as white people. We are all different hues and complexions. It's a false assumption.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:Quill did you just drop the F bomb on me??

Yeah.

SB wrote:Tut Tut, it would appear that you are somewhat rattled by the revelation that you're a white supremacist

Lol.  Rumors notwithstanding, there is no such thing as white people.  We are all different hues and complexions.  It's a false assumption.

So I take it that means God emperor trump is neither racist nor a white supremacist.

You know?? Seeing as how there is no white

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:They certainly chose poorly, didn't they?  But are you saying that all women who chose poorly are Stupid?

That sounds a bit like victim-blaming.

victim-baiting??

is that like the race-baiting obama was always doing??

You're so full of your racist bullshit, SmellyFascistTwatBum'...

Give us just one example of that alleged "race baiting"..

Nope, can't can you, you delusional little maggot ?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

victim-baiting??

is that like the race-baiting obama was always doing??

You're so full of your racist bullshit,  SmellyFascistTwatBum'...

Give us just one example of that alleged "race baiting"..

Nope,  can't  can you,  you delusional little maggot  ?

Errrrrr he supported the domestic terror group and black supremacist movement BLM

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yeah.



Lol.  Rumors notwithstanding, there is no such thing as white people.  We are all different hues and complexions.  It's a false assumption.

So I take it that means God emperor trump is neither racist nor a white supremacist.

You know?? Seeing as how there is no white

I said there are no white people. I didn't say there are no white supremacists. White supremacists perceive themselves to be white, and superior. They like to kill others. That seems to be at the bottom of it.

smelly-bandit wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


You're so full of your racist bullshit,  SmellyFascistTwatBum'...

Give us just one example of that alleged "race baiting"..

Nope,  can't  can you,  you delusional little maggot  ?

Errrrrr he supported the domestic terror group and black supremacist movement BLM

But he also supported that white supremacist group, Christians. Just an equal opportunity baiter, eh?

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Errrrrr he supported the domestic terror group and black supremacist movement BLM

But he also supported that white supremacist group, Christians.  Just an equal opportunity baiter, eh?

right you are quill

just another white supremacist



that's Desmond Tutu in case you didn't know