Planet Rugby Forum

Rinkals wrote:

Wilson's Toffee wrote:We will be able to take our pick from

a) White Monopoly Capital fake news
b) Foreign government takeover of the RSA
c) Lies, lies and damned lies, all due to bladdy agents
d) Justifying of land grabs (fok the Constitution )
e) Racism, racism and racism
f) Traitorous sellers out to White Monopoly Capital/Foreign Governments
g) Strange White values that demands responsible government - not the African way !!
h) All of the above and then some more

It is tiresome - crooks never roll over and die when they are caught, they carry on ad nauseam until everyone else is mentally exhausted. Way to win, for them.

Jesus, what a stupid post.

Can I suggest that you emigrate?

Here. read this on why South Africa isn't Zimbabwe.

The irony of it all is that he is a Trump fluffer.

Wilson's Toffee wrote:We will be able to take our pick from

a) White Monopoly Capital fake news
b) Foreign government takeover of the RSA
c) Lies, lies and damned lies, all due to bladdy agents
d) Justifying of land grabs (fok the Constitution )
e) Racism, racism and racism
f) Traitorous sellers out to White Monopoly Capital/Foreign Governments
g) Strange White values that demands responsible government - not the African way !!
h) All of the above and then some more

It is tiresome - crooks never roll over and die when they are caught, they carry on ad nauseam until everyone else is mentally exhausted. Way to win, for them.

As an outsider, can someone explain what the 'tipping point' would be? What combination of factors would finally bring an end to this clown? What are we looking at, popular unrest, party support exhausted, cronies jumping ship, legal prosecution??? At what stage will even Zuma realises the game is up and flees to some gulf state or 'retires' to his homestead having secured immunity as a condition of leaving office.

danny_fitz wrote:

Wilson's Toffee wrote:We will be able to take our pick from

a) White Monopoly Capital fake news
b) Foreign government takeover of the RSA
c) Lies, lies and damned lies, all due to bladdy agents
d) Justifying of land grabs (fok the Constitution )
e) Racism, racism and racism
f) Traitorous sellers out to White Monopoly Capital/Foreign Governments
g) Strange White values that demands responsible government - not the African way !!
h) All of the above and then some more

It is tiresome - crooks never roll over and die when they are caught, they carry on ad nauseam until everyone else is mentally exhausted. Way to win, for them.

As an outsider, can someone explain what the 'tipping point' would be? What combination of factors would finally bring an end to this clown? What are we looking at, popular unrest, party support exhausted, cronies jumping ship, legal prosecution??? At what stage will even Zuma realises the game is up and flees to some gulf state or 'retires' to his homestead having secured immunity as a condition of leaving office.

Danny, the NEC (ANC's National Executive Council) has discussed Zuma's removal twice, once in November and once a few week ago. The second one came a lot closer to asking him to step down (to the point that Zuma had to threaten them to get them back in line), but he did survive.

The Opposition is tabling a no confidence debate but the ANC is adamant that the voting should not be secret presumably because they want to identify any ANC MPs who vote against Zuma. The ANC has party lists who go to parliament and Members are selected by the executive rather than elected, so anyone not backing Zuma will be without a job.

The Constitutional Court will rule on this, after which they will have the debate, which could potentially topple Zuma.

However, even divided as the ANC are, I'm not sure that they would vote with the opposition because of idealogical differences.

Zuma will step down as President of the ANC at the end of the year, and is hoping to install his proxy, Dlamini-Zuma (his ex-wife who still lives with him), as President, both of the Party and the Country.

As the details of the Gupta email leaks become public, so his position has weakened and it is no longer clear whether he will be able to carry out his plans. Although he has the backing of the Zulus (who are the largest tribe), he has haemorrhaged support, even being booed by the Trade Unionists on Labour Day.

(Sorry if this isn't terribly clear as I'm dashing this off prior to going to a meeting and it's a bit rushed)

danny_fitz wrote:

Wilson's Toffee wrote:We will be able to take our pick from

a) White Monopoly Capital fake news
b) Foreign government takeover of the RSA
c) Lies, lies and damned lies, all due to bladdy agents
d) Justifying of land grabs (fok the Constitution )
e) Racism, racism and racism
f) Traitorous sellers out to White Monopoly Capital/Foreign Governments
g) Strange White values that demands responsible government - not the African way !!
h) All of the above and then some more

It is tiresome - crooks never roll over and die when they are caught, they carry on ad nauseam until everyone else is mentally exhausted. Way to win, for them.

As an outsider, can someone explain what the 'tipping point' would be? What combination of factors would finally bring an end to this clown? What are we looking at, popular unrest, party support exhausted, cronies jumping ship, legal prosecution??? At what stage will even Zuma realises the game is up and flees to some gulf state or 'retires' to his homestead having secured immunity as a condition of leaving office.

Interesting you should mention that. Old Jay-Zee already has a home in the Dubai, bought and paid for the people who uses him to milk our country dry, the Gupta brothers. 3 Indian guys who came here with nothing and have used state resources to build a dynasty. They're actually blatant these days, not even trying to hide it anymore.

These guys aren't stealing millions...they're stealing BILLIONS. In Dollar value.

Rinkals wrote:

Wilson's Toffee wrote:We will be able to take our pick from

a) White Monopoly Capital fake news
b) Foreign government takeover of the RSA
c) Lies, lies and damned lies, all due to bladdy agents
d) Justifying of land grabs (fok the Constitution )
e) Racism, racism and racism
f) Traitorous sellers out to White Monopoly Capital/Foreign Governments
g) Strange White values that demands responsible government - not the African way !!
h) All of the above and then some more

It is tiresome - crooks never roll over and die when they are caught, they carry on ad nauseam until everyone else is mentally exhausted. Way to win, for them.

Jesus, what a stupid post.

Can I suggest that you emigrate?

Here. read this on why South Africa isn't Zimbabwe.

Define why it's stupid. All those points stated by WT has been used by the ANC, and will be used by them until they (eventually? hopefully?) lose power. Go and read your favourite Verwoerd (it must irk you to say you like a Verwoerd ) latest post on News24, where she effectively says exactly the same as WT - what reasons the ANC will use to try and hide their corruption.


And speaking about Zimbabwe, and favourite lefty journalists, why don't you read your favourite Max du Preez's article on how the current regime isn't all that different from Zimbabwe. There, HE, the God of the Left, actually said that.
http://www.news24.com/Columnists/MaxduP ... e-20170425

troglodiet wrote:

Rinkals wrote:

Wilson's Toffee wrote:We will be able to take our pick from

a) White Monopoly Capital fake news
b) Foreign government takeover of the RSA
c) Lies, lies and damned lies, all due to bladdy agents
d) Justifying of land grabs (fok the Constitution )
e) Racism, racism and racism
f) Traitorous sellers out to White Monopoly Capital/Foreign Governments
g) Strange White values that demands responsible government - not the African way !!
h) All of the above and then some more

It is tiresome - crooks never roll over and die when they are caught, they carry on ad nauseam until everyone else is mentally exhausted. Way to win, for them.

Jesus, what a stupid post.

Can I suggest that you emigrate?

Here. read this on why South Africa isn't Zimbabwe.

Define why it's stupid. All those points stated by WT has been used by the ANC, and will be used by them until they (eventually? hopefully?) lose power. Go and read your favourite Verwoerd (it must irk you to say you like a Verwoerd ) latest post on News24, where she effectively says exactly the same as WT - what reasons the ANC will use to try and hide their corruption.


And speaking about Zimbabwe, and favourite lefty journalists, why don't you read your favourite Max du Preez's article on how the current regime isn't all that different from Zimbabwe. There, HE, the God of the Left, actually said that.
http://www.news24.com/Columnists/MaxduP ... e-20170425

If you don't agree with rinkhals, you are stupid.

handyman wrote:

troglodiet wrote:

Rinkals wrote:

Wilson's Toffee wrote:We will be able to take our pick from

a) White Monopoly Capital fake news
b) Foreign government takeover of the RSA
c) Lies, lies and damned lies, all due to bladdy agents
d) Justifying of land grabs (fok the Constitution )
e) Racism, racism and racism
f) Traitorous sellers out to White Monopoly Capital/Foreign Governments
g) Strange White values that demands responsible government - not the African way !!
h) All of the above and then some more

It is tiresome - crooks never roll over and die when they are caught, they carry on ad nauseam until everyone else is mentally exhausted. Way to win, for them.

Jesus, what a stupid post.

Can I suggest that you emigrate?

Here. read this on why South Africa isn't Zimbabwe.

Define why it's stupid. All those points stated by WT has been used by the ANC, and will be used by them until they (eventually? hopefully?) lose power. Go and read your favourite Verwoerd (it must irk you to say you like a Verwoerd ) latest post on News24, where she effectively says exactly the same as WT - what reasons the ANC will use to try and hide their corruption.


And speaking about Zimbabwe, and favourite lefty journalists, why don't you read your favourite Max du Preez's article on how the current regime isn't all that different from Zimbabwe. There, HE, the God of the Left, actually said that.
http://www.news24.com/Columnists/MaxduP ... e-20170425

If you don't agree with rinkhals, you are racist.

Fixed for accuracy.

troglodiet wrote:

handyman wrote:

troglodiet wrote:

Rinkals wrote:

Wilson's Toffee wrote:We will be able to take our pick from

a) White Monopoly Capital fake news
b) Foreign government takeover of the RSA
c) Lies, lies and damned lies, all due to bladdy agents
d) Justifying of land grabs (fok the Constitution )
e) Racism, racism and racism
f) Traitorous sellers out to White Monopoly Capital/Foreign Governments
g) Strange White values that demands responsible government - not the African way !!
h) All of the above and then some more

It is tiresome - crooks never roll over and die when they are caught, they carry on ad nauseam until everyone else is mentally exhausted. Way to win, for them.

Jesus, what a stupid post.

Can I suggest that you emigrate?

Here. read this on why South Africa isn't Zimbabwe.

Define why it's stupid. All those points stated by WT has been used by the ANC, and will be used by them until they (eventually? hopefully?) lose power. Go and read your favourite Verwoerd (it must irk you to say you like a Verwoerd ) latest post on News24, where she effectively says exactly the same as WT - what reasons the ANC will use to try and hide their corruption.


And speaking about Zimbabwe, and favourite lefty journalists, why don't you read your favourite Max du Preez's article on how the current regime isn't all that different from Zimbabwe. There, HE, the God of the Left, actually said that.
http://www.news24.com/Columnists/MaxduP ... e-20170425

If you don't agree with rinkhals, you are racist and stupid.

Fixed for accuracy.

Fixed again.

Rinkals wrote:

Wilson's Toffee wrote:We will be able to take our pick from

a) White Monopoly Capital fake news
b) Foreign government takeover of the RSA
c) Lies, lies and damned lies, all due to bladdy agents
d) Justifying of land grabs (fok the Constitution )
e) Racism, racism and racism
f) Traitorous sellers out to White Monopoly Capital/Foreign Governments
g) Strange White values that demands responsible government - not the African way !!
h) All of the above and then some more

It is tiresome - crooks never roll over and die when they are caught, they carry on ad nauseam until everyone else is mentally exhausted. Way to win, for them.

Jesus, what a stupid post.

Can I suggest that you emigrate?

Here. read this on why South Africa isn't Zimbabwe.

EDIT :

What you do not seem to realise, Rinkals, is that the heyday of the leftist "liberal" in South Africa has come and gone. Even those as far "left" as Max du Preez and Grootes. And people like Melanie Verwoerd. They have been found out, labelled as 'racist" and "colonials" and put in a box where they will be kept and made irrelevant, permanently.

Look at Helen Zille - once the pinnacle of peaceful multi racial resistance in South Africa, the poster girl of non racialism - now she is basically a pariah within her own party, a leper, outcast and discredited. A rich woman, a Black Sash tannie, who could not adapt to Africa and the African way ...

Used and cast aside. Much like on of Ramaphosa's flavoured condoms..

handyman wrote:

troglodiet wrote:

Rinkals wrote:

Wilson's Toffee wrote:We will be able to take our pick from

a) White Monopoly Capital fake news
b) Foreign government takeover of the RSA
c) Lies, lies and damned lies, all due to bladdy agents
d) Justifying of land grabs (fok the Constitution )
e) Racism, racism and racism
f) Traitorous sellers out to White Monopoly Capital/Foreign Governments
g) Strange White values that demands responsible government - not the African way !!
h) All of the above and then some more

It is tiresome - crooks never roll over and die when they are caught, they carry on ad nauseam until everyone else is mentally exhausted. Way to win, for them.

Jesus, what a stupid post.

Can I suggest that you emigrate?

Here. read this on why South Africa isn't Zimbabwe.

Define why it's stupid. All those points stated by WT has been used by the ANC, and will be used by them until they (eventually? hopefully?) lose power. Go and read your favourite Verwoerd (it must irk you to say you like a Verwoerd ) latest post on News24, where she effectively says exactly the same as WT - what reasons the ANC will use to try and hide their corruption.


And speaking about Zimbabwe, and favourite lefty journalists, why don't you read your favourite Max du Preez's article on how the current regime isn't all that different from Zimbabwe. There, HE, the God of the Left, actually said that.
http://www.news24.com/Columnists/MaxduP ... e-20170425

If you don't agree with rinkhals, you are stupid.

Oh, nonsense, don't be so delicate.

@Trog,

Seeing that you have called me out on this, do you seriously see any of WC points from a to h which isn't stupid?

I don't know where you get that Max du Preez is a favourite of mine: I agree with some of what he writes, but by no means all of it and I have certainly been critisized on here for saying (repeatedly) that South Africa isn't the same as Zimbabwe. The DailyMaverick article covers it pretty well, without mentioning things like the Constitution (under which Madonsela delivered her report into Nkandla) or the Independent Judiciary (which upheld her findings and forced Zuma to pay back a portion of the cost of the upgrades).

Rinkals wrote:

handyman wrote:

troglodiet wrote:

Rinkals wrote:

Wilson's Toffee wrote:We will be able to take our pick from

a) White Monopoly Capital fake news
b) Foreign government takeover of the RSA
c) Lies, lies and damned lies, all due to bladdy agents
d) Justifying of land grabs (fok the Constitution )
e) Racism, racism and racism
f) Traitorous sellers out to White Monopoly Capital/Foreign Governments
g) Strange White values that demands responsible government - not the African way !!
h) All of the above and then some more

It is tiresome - crooks never roll over and die when they are caught, they carry on ad nauseam until everyone else is mentally exhausted. Way to win, for them.

Jesus, what a stupid post.

Can I suggest that you emigrate?

Here. read this on why South Africa isn't Zimbabwe.

Define why it's stupid. All those points stated by WT has been used by the ANC, and will be used by them until they (eventually? hopefully?) lose power. Go and read your favourite Verwoerd (it must irk you to say you like a Verwoerd ) latest post on News24, where she effectively says exactly the same as WT - what reasons the ANC will use to try and hide their corruption.


And speaking about Zimbabwe, and favourite lefty journalists, why don't you read your favourite Max du Preez's article on how the current regime isn't all that different from Zimbabwe. There, HE, the God of the Left, actually said that.
http://www.news24.com/Columnists/MaxduP ... e-20170425

If you don't agree with rinkhals, you are stupid.

Oh, nonsense, don't be so delicate.

@Trog,

Seeing that you have called me out on this, do you seriously see any of WC points from a to h which isn't stupid?

I don't know where you get that Max du Preez is a favourite of mine: I agree with some of what he writes, but by no means all of it and I have certainly been critisized on here for saying (repeatedly) that South Africa isn't the same as Zimbabwe. The DailyMaverick article covers it pretty well, without mentioning things like the Constitution (under which Madonsela delivered her report into Nkandla) or the Independent Judiciary (which upheld her findings and forced Zuma to pay back a portion of the cost of the upgrades).

None of his points are stupid, as they have all been used by the ANC as excuses. Once again, I ask you to read Melanie Verwoerd's latest article on News24, in which she says basically exactly what WT is saying. She goes even further, by saying she used to play a game whilst in parliament, by checking how long it takes for Mbeki to come up with any of those excuses.

This, whilst she was a MP of the ANC! The very government and party she served.

And you have quoted good ol' Max du Preez on many occasions, and I am 100% sure you mentioned your man-love for him. I'm not in the mood to go and search for it, but it's out there, I remember it well.

But hey, let's pick and choose which article by whichever author suits us best in any given scenario. If Max says something you like, you'll give him a blowie that whole week. If he says something you dislike (i.e. when he's speaking the truth - which doesn't happen often I admit), you suddenly don't know much about him.

Ah. Okay.

You are crediting him with using satire.

I'm afraid it hadn't occurred to me that he knew what it was, and frankly, I'm still not entirely convinced he wasn't being literal.

Anyway, the point of me posting was to keep political developments here in the spotlight by drawing attention to interesting articles in the media (or what I consider to be interesting articles: WT may not agree). While I appreciate that Melanie Verwoerd has knowledge of the inside workings of the ruling party, I don't always agree with her and the same goes for Max du Preez.

Rinkals wrote:Ah. Okay.

I've once again lost an argument by being presented with facts, and will revert to calling those who presented the facts "stupid".

It was an argument?

Fair enough, declare yourself as the winner with my blessing.

Rinkals wrote:It was an argument?

And we have finally discovered the root cause of the problem.

It's not that you continuously lose arguments, but rather that you don't know what an argument is.


Progress.

It's only an argument if I'm winning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvcnx6-0GhA

As I have repeatedly said, I'm posting articles on the current political scenario in South Africa.

If you want to attack me at every turn, that's entirely up to you.

I posted an article on the Gupta emails. WT then posted some incoherent nonsense which I took for the usual verkrampt WT diatribe and which you obviously took for elevated satire. Fair enough. Your opinion of WT is obviously a lot higher than mine, but that's entirely up to you.

At no point did I engage in any "argument".

Bokkom wrote:It's only an argument if I'm winning.

Nonsense.

I engage on here mostly to get the opinions of other posters and to offer my own.

If you want to attack me on my opinions, please feel free.

I will endeavour to understand your point of view and, if it has merit, then I will accept it.

I would like for my own to be similarly considered, but I don't hold out much hope of that ever happening. Certainly not from my own countrymen, anyway.

Rinkals wrote:

Bokkom wrote:It's only an argument if I'm winning.

Nonsense.

I engage on here mostly to get the opinions of other posters and to offer my own.

If you want to attack me on my opinions, please feel free.

I will endeavour to understand your point of view and, if it has merit, then I will accept it.

I would like for my own to be similarly considered, but I don't hold out much hope of that ever happening. Certainly not from my own countrymen, anyway.

If we were not ducked already the past few months now a new mining charter is introduced to further erode investors confidence. It's taken 2 months to find investors opening their purses again and now we have to start all over again with another 3 possible months before it starts all over again. This will lead to more job losses. Less consumer spending and shrinkage of business to wait out this further blow. We are already reducing all expenses . Considering downsizing. Have staff on short time. Just as we started seeing improvement and were considering stopping short time this comes along. It's almost as though they are on a mission to destroy the economy. Every one of my suppliers and clients are experiencing the same problem. There is no exception. One client downscaled investment in 27 shops this year to the 10 they are committed to under binding lease agreements. That's two thirds of their expansion put on hold. The main investor is an Irishman. Two of the top brand holders have sold out their shares. Whitey Basson has had enough and sold out a portion of his shares.

Rinkals wrote:

Bokkom wrote:It's only an argument if I'm winning.

Nonsense.

I engage on here mostly to get the opinions of other posters and to offer my own.

If you want to attack me on my opinions, please feel free.

I will endeavour to understand your point of view and, if it has merit, then I will accept it.

I would like for my own to be similarly considered, but I don't hold out much hope of that ever happening. Certainly not from my own countrymen, anyway.

You just cannot help but being the outraged victim, eh ?

You just might want to take a step backwards and think again - you are not coming over very good. Hasn't been coming over well for a while, now...

Sards wrote:If we were not ducked already the past few months now a new mining charter is introduced to further erode investors confidence. It's taken 2 months to find investors opening their purses again and now we have to start all over again with another 3 possible months before it starts all over again. This will lead to more job losses. Less consumer spending and shrinkage of business to wait out this further blow. We are already reducing all expenses . Considering downsizing. Have staff on short time. Just as we started seeing improvement and were considering stopping short time this comes along. It's almost as though they are on a mission to destroy the economy. Every one of my suppliers and clients are experiencing the same problem. There is no exception. One client downscaled investment in 27 shops this year to the 10 they are committed to under binding lease agreements. That's two thirds of their expansion put on hold. The main investor is an Irishman. Two of the top brand holders have sold out their shares. Whitey Basson has had enough and sold out a portion of his shares.

Chamber of Mines and other roll players (Solidarity, e.g) refuses to take part in the new Mining Charter. Says the process was flawed, the most important roll players (owners of mining rights and mines) were not consulted, were actually purposely ignored and sidelined. So now they applied for an interdict to stop implementation of the MC.

The government is out of its mind, with this open rape of private capital. Not the first time they did it to mining rights holders, either.

Rinkals wrote:

Bokkom wrote:It's only an argument if I'm winning.

Nonsense.

I engage on here mostly to get the opinions of other posters and to then call it stupid, racist or verkramp if it differs from my own.

Fixed for accuracy.

Rinkals wrote: If you want to attack me at every turn, that's entirely up to you.

I posted an article on the Gupta emails. WT then posted some incoherent nonsense which I took for the usual verkrampt WT diatribe and which you obviously took for elevated satire. Fair enough. Your opinion of WT is obviously a lot higher than mine, but that's entirely up to you.

At no point did I engage in any "argument".

A couple of points.

I don't attack you at every turn, only when you sprout a lot of nonsense. Which unfortunately, is all of the time.

Secondly, you call WT's post "incoherent nonsense" because you are off the opinion that he is "verkramp". Whether he is or isn't verkramp (and to be honest he does hold much more "verkrampte" views than me) should not be a factor when arguing his post. It really seems like all you are doing is "Oh, that post was made by a right-winger and is therefore wrong". You clearly didn't understand his post, which is 100% true - even "lefty" politicians, journalists and academia agrees - as they are literally every excuse used by the ANC to try to shift the blame for their own failures.

You didn't engage in any argument? So by responding to WT's post and calling it nonsense you are not arguing? Interesting viewpoint.

If there's one very good piece of advice I can offer you, it'll be to hear other people out, listen to what they say, and determine whether it's true or not - no matter who the other person is or what his political persuasions are. I find myself agreeing with Julius Malema, Maimane, Pieter Mulder, Jeremy Cronin and others very often. But I also disagree with them just as often. From that list, it might surprise you that Jeremy Cronin is actually one of the politicians I agree with most, and I have a lot of respect for him as politician, even though I'm everything but a communist or socialist.


Nothing to do with the above, but a question I wanted to ask you for quite some time now.... and I'm solely looking for your personal opinion and feelings on this matter given your acquaintance with the person involved. Not trying to engage in an argument with you (especially now that we know you don't do arguments). Just looking for your feelings on this, honestly. I won't even respond to your answer.

You have stated on here that you shared a flat with Derek Hanekom back in the 80s. You should thus know him rather well and might even consider him a friend.

What is your feelings about the fact that he tabled a motion of no confidence in Zuma at their NEC meeting, but will not have the ethics to vote for a similar motion in parliament (unless maybe they do go for a secret ballot)? Does this skew your opinion of him? Would you call him an honourable person if he voted against such a motion in parliament? Realise this is the one thing you and I, and WT and Nipper and Max du Preez and Melanie Verwoerd and Julius Malema AND Pieter Mulder agree on - that Zuma must go.

Wilson's Toffee wrote:

Rinkals wrote:

Bokkom wrote:It's only an argument if I'm winning.

Nonsense.

I engage on here mostly to get the opinions of other posters and to offer my own.

If you want to attack me on my opinions, please feel free.

I will endeavour to understand your point of view and, if it has merit, then I will accept it.

I would like for my own to be similarly considered, but I don't hold out much hope of that ever happening. Certainly not from my own countrymen, anyway.

You just cannot help but being the outraged victim, eh ?

You just might want to take a step backwards and think again - you are not coming over very good. Hasn't been coming over well for a while, now...

There is no outrage at all.

I am merely referencing articles which may be of interest in the South African political arena.

And if your opinion runs counter to mine, then I think you can rest assured that I'm very happy about that.

troglodiet wrote:

Rinkals wrote: If you want to attack me at every turn, that's entirely up to you.

I posted an article on the Gupta emails. WT then posted some incoherent nonsense which I took for the usual verkrampt WT diatribe and which you obviously took for elevated satire. Fair enough. Your opinion of WT is obviously a lot higher than mine, but that's entirely up to you.

At no point did I engage in any "argument".

A couple of points.

I don't attack you at every turn, only when you sprout a lot of nonsense. Which unfortunately, is all of the time.

Secondly, you call WT's post "incoherent nonsense" because you are off the opinion that he is "verkramp". Whether he is or isn't verkramp (and to be honest he does hold much more "verkrampte" views than me) should not be a factor when arguing his post. It really seems like all you are doing is "Oh, that post was made by a right-winger and is therefore wrong". You clearly didn't understand his post, which is 100% true - even "lefty" politicians, journalists and academia agrees - as they are literally every excuse used by the ANC to try to shift the blame for their own failures.

You didn't engage in any argument? So by responding to WT's post and calling it nonsense you are not arguing? Interesting viewpoint.

If there's one very good piece of advice I can offer you, it'll be to hear other people out, listen to what they say, and determine whether it's true or not - no matter who the other person is or what his political persuasions are. I find myself agreeing with Julius Malema, Maimane, Pieter Mulder, Jeremy Cronin and others very often. But I also disagree with them just as often. From that list, it might surprise you that Jeremy Cronin is actually one of the politicians I agree with most, and I have a lot of respect for him as politician, even though I'm everything but a communist or socialist.


Nothing to do with the above, but a question I wanted to ask you for quite some time now.... and I'm solely looking for your personal opinion and feelings on this matter given your acquaintance with the person involved. Not trying to engage in an argument with you (especially now that we know you don't do arguments). Just looking for your feelings on this, honestly. I won't even respond to your answer.

You have stated on here that you shared a flat with Derek Hanekom back in the 80s. You should thus know him rather well and might even consider him a friend.

What is your feelings about the fact that he tabled a motion of no confidence in Zuma at their NEC meeting, but will not have the ethics to vote for a similar motion in parliament (unless maybe they do go for a secret ballot)? Does this skew your opinion of him? Would you call him an honourable person if he voted against such a motion in parliament? Realise this is the one thing you and I, and WT and Nipper and Max du Preez and Melanie Verwoerd and Julius Malema AND Pieter Mulder agree on - that Zuma must go.

Thanks, but I don't need you to lecture me.

Rinkals wrote:

troglodiet wrote:

Rinkals wrote: If you want to attack me at every turn, that's entirely up to you.

I posted an article on the Gupta emails. WT then posted some incoherent nonsense which I took for the usual verkrampt WT diatribe and which you obviously took for elevated satire. Fair enough. Your opinion of WT is obviously a lot higher than mine, but that's entirely up to you.

At no point did I engage in any "argument".

A couple of points.

I don't attack you at every turn, only when you sprout a lot of nonsense. Which unfortunately, is all of the time.

Secondly, you call WT's post "incoherent nonsense" because you are off the opinion that he is "verkramp". Whether he is or isn't verkramp (and to be honest he does hold much more "verkrampte" views than me) should not be a factor when arguing his post. It really seems like all you are doing is "Oh, that post was made by a right-winger and is therefore wrong". You clearly didn't understand his post, which is 100% true - even "lefty" politicians, journalists and academia agrees - as they are literally every excuse used by the ANC to try to shift the blame for their own failures.

You didn't engage in any argument? So by responding to WT's post and calling it nonsense you are not arguing? Interesting viewpoint.

If there's one very good piece of advice I can offer you, it'll be to hear other people out, listen to what they say, and determine whether it's true or not - no matter who the other person is or what his political persuasions are. I find myself agreeing with Julius Malema, Maimane, Pieter Mulder, Jeremy Cronin and others very often. But I also disagree with them just as often. From that list, it might surprise you that Jeremy Cronin is actually one of the politicians I agree with most, and I have a lot of respect for him as politician, even though I'm everything but a communist or socialist.


Nothing to do with the above, but a question I wanted to ask you for quite some time now.... and I'm solely looking for your personal opinion and feelings on this matter given your acquaintance with the person involved. Not trying to engage in an argument with you (especially now that we know you don't do arguments). Just looking for your feelings on this, honestly. I won't even respond to your answer.

You have stated on here that you shared a flat with Derek Hanekom back in the 80s. You should thus know him rather well and might even consider him a friend.

What is your feelings about the fact that he tabled a motion of no confidence in Zuma at their NEC meeting, but will not have the ethics to vote for a similar motion in parliament (unless maybe they do go for a secret ballot)? Does this skew your opinion of him? Would you call him an honourable person if he voted against such a motion in parliament? Realise this is the one thing you and I, and WT and Nipper and Max du Preez and Melanie Verwoerd and Julius Malema AND Pieter Mulder agree on - that Zuma must go.

Thanks, but I don't need you to lecture me.

Fair enough, I won't do to you what you so love to do to the rest of us.

But be a gentleman and just answer my question about your friend Mr. Hanekom please.


*I'm starting to get the impression you read posts in the following way:
- check who the author is.
- read first sentence.
- quickly scan for something that may offend you, or anybody else except white males
- be offender
- throw hissy-fit

But black Trump was democratically elected, he even won the popular vote? I'm surprised to see certain posters shift in thought with regards to questioning and standing up to an elected official.

A new progressive spine.

troglodiet wrote:

Rinkals wrote:

troglodiet wrote:

Rinkals wrote: If you want to attack me at every turn, that's entirely up to you.

I posted an article on the Gupta emails. WT then posted some incoherent nonsense which I took for the usual verkrampt WT diatribe and which you obviously took for elevated satire. Fair enough. Your opinion of WT is obviously a lot higher than mine, but that's entirely up to you.

At no point did I engage in any "argument".

A couple of points.

I don't attack you at every turn, only when you sprout a lot of nonsense. Which unfortunately, is all of the time.

Secondly, you call WT's post "incoherent nonsense" because you are off the opinion that he is "verkramp". Whether he is or isn't verkramp (and to be honest he does hold much more "verkrampte" views than me) should not be a factor when arguing his post. It really seems like all you are doing is "Oh, that post was made by a right-winger and is therefore wrong". You clearly didn't understand his post, which is 100% true - even "lefty" politicians, journalists and academia agrees - as they are literally every excuse used by the ANC to try to shift the blame for their own failures.

You didn't engage in any argument? So by responding to WT's post and calling it nonsense you are not arguing? Interesting viewpoint.

If there's one very good piece of advice I can offer you, it'll be to hear other people out, listen to what they say, and determine whether it's true or not - no matter who the other person is or what his political persuasions are. I find myself agreeing with Julius Malema, Maimane, Pieter Mulder, Jeremy Cronin and others very often. But I also disagree with them just as often. From that list, it might surprise you that Jeremy Cronin is actually one of the politicians I agree with most, and I have a lot of respect for him as politician, even though I'm everything but a communist or socialist.


Nothing to do with the above, but a question I wanted to ask you for quite some time now.... and I'm solely looking for your personal opinion and feelings on this matter given your acquaintance with the person involved. Not trying to engage in an argument with you (especially now that we know you don't do arguments). Just looking for your feelings on this, honestly. I won't even respond to your answer.

You have stated on here that you shared a flat with Derek Hanekom back in the 80s. You should thus know him rather well and might even consider him a friend.

What is your feelings about the fact that he tabled a motion of no confidence in Zuma at their NEC meeting, but will not have the ethics to vote for a similar motion in parliament (unless maybe they do go for a secret ballot)? Does this skew your opinion of him? Would you call him an honourable person if he voted against such a motion in parliament? Realise this is the one thing you and I, and WT and Nipper and Max du Preez and Melanie Verwoerd and Julius Malema AND Pieter Mulder agree on - that Zuma must go.

Thanks, but I don't need you to lecture me.

Fair enough, I won't do to you what you so love to do to the rest of us.

But be a gentleman and just answer my question about your friend Mr. Hanekom please.


*I'm starting to get the impression you read posts in the following way:
- check who the author is.
- read first sentence.
- quickly scan for something that may offend you, or anybody else except white males
- be offender
- throw hissy-fit

WTF?

"I get the impression..."?

I am merely posting articles on the South African political thread about political events. I don't really care what your impression of me is, but I am aware that you have some standing on this forum and you obviously hope to tar me as some kind of deranged imbecile.

WT and I come from completely different backgrounds in terms of me being english and a liberal. I know he despises me for it and that's fair enough; I am not particularly well disposed towards him either.

Please don't bother giving me another lecture on how you think I should behave or what your impression is of me: I really couldn't be arsed.

Rinkals wrote: WTF?

"I get the impression..."?

I am merely posting articles on the South African political thread about political events. I don't really care what your impression of me is, but I am aware that you have some standing on this forum and you obviously hope to tar me as some kind of deranged imbecile.

WT and I come from completely different backgrounds in terms of me being english and a liberal. I know he despises me for it and that's fair enough; I am not particularly well disposed towards him either.

Please don't bother giving me another lecture on how you think I should behave or what your impression is of me: I really couldn't be arsed.

I'm going to ignore everything in your post and won't comment on any specific statement or request.


This post merely serves to request you, Rinkals, to give your OPINION on the questions I asked about Derek Hanekom. I ask YOUR opinion on this purely due to you having stated on a previous occasion that the two of you used to be flatmates.

For clarity, I will repeat the question:

...I'm solely looking for your personal opinion and feelings on this matter given your acquaintance with the person involved. Not trying to engage in an argument with you. Just looking for your feelings on this, honestly. I won't even respond to your answer.

You have stated on here that you shared a flat with Derek Hanekom back in the 80s. You should thus know him rather well and might even consider him a friend.

What is your feelings about the fact that he tabled a motion of no confidence in Zuma at their NEC meeting, but will not have the ethics to vote for a similar motion in parliament (unless maybe they do go for a secret ballot)? Does this skew your opinion of him? Would you call him an honourable person if he voted against such a motion in parliament? Realise this is the one thing you and I, and WT and Nipper and Max du Preez and Melanie Verwoerd and Julius Malema AND Pieter Mulder agree on - that Zuma must go.

Thank for drawing my attention to that.

You are right, I only read the part where you were lecturing me on how I should behave on here and didn't really have the time or the inclination to bother with the rest of it.

But thanks for putting us back on track rather than continue with this petty infighting.

I haven't spoken to Derek for a year or two, certainly not since the Zupta thing gained currency.

He called for the motion for Zuma to step down in November, but I didn't expect there to be a lot of support for the subsequent call in the last NEC meeting, even with the Gupta email leaks. Again, I can't see too many ANC MPs voting with the DA, if and when the no-confidence debate happens, secret ballot or no.

I know Derek for an honourable man (a lot more pragmatic than his wife, Trish, who was a real firebrand - I was at a dinner with them a few years ago and she had a bit of a go at me) but I would imagine that he would vote as directed by the Whip, especially as he heads the disciplinary council.

It seems obvious that, if he had the courage of his convictions, he would vote with the opposition and against Zuma. After all, that's what he has been trying to do in the last 2 NEC meetings. However, from a pragmatic point of view, what would that achieve? I doubt that they'll get the numbers to unseat Zuma and force an election, so all it would do is paint him as a traitor and a counter-revolutionary which would limit his influence and empower Zuma's supporters.

For the ANC to survive, Zuma and his proxy, Dlamini-Zuma, will be ousted in December. Failing which, I would anticipate a purge and a probable split which will make an ANC victory in 2019 a lot less likely.

Despise you ? For being a liberal and English ?

Dear God, you presume too much.

I do not despise you - I find you amusing. Like a puppy.

So now the PP is doing her bit to scare off investors and destroy business confidence and devalue the rand. Seems like every fuckwit in government is trying to destroy the country before they get thrown out

They are playing to a populist oriented auduence The main thing now is to get the approval of Dlamini -Zuma as Presidential candidate for the next session. For that they musr dizcomfit white monopoly capital (the opposition) and threaten whites/business/the West into submission. People like Hanekom will also be classes as such.

It is a mafia fighting for a takeover and survival. Nothing more. The ANC has been totally captured, Years ago.

Despite being provided with tons of evidence of the fraudulent corrupt practices of the Guptas, the Hawks elite ant-corruption have been sitting on their hands and refusing to investigate anything that might possibly implicate President Zuma or his friends and family.

However, it would appear that, in using the mighty US dollar to launder their funds, the Guptas may have laid themselves open to be pursued by the US Federal Authorities.

http://www.fin24.com/Economy/the-almighty-dollar-a-guptaleaks-game-changer-20170717

Johannesburg - To date, the apparent efforts of the Hawks, South Africa's priority crime-combating unit, to investigate any of the voluminous allegations made against the Guptas have been minimal to non-existent.

But the Guptas’ repeated use of US dollars to move their kickbacks around the globe, along with previously hidden ties to US companies, may render the Hawks' efforts (or lack thereof) irrelevant.

Under American anti-bribery and anti-money laundering laws, one link to the United States could expose all members of any broader conspiracy to the jurisdiction of American courts.

In addition to personal US criminal liability, ill-gotten gains are also at risk.

The US Department of Justice's Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative recently seized billions of dollars of assets – including bank accounts, real estate, art, jewelry, aircraft and yachts – located around the world.

When announcing the latest such seizure last Friday – stemming from contracts corruptly obtained by bribing Nigeria's former oil minister – a senior official at the US Department of Justice remarked:

"Corrupt foreign officials and business executives should make no mistake: if illicit funds are within the reach of the United States, we will seek to forfeit them and to return them to the victims from whom they were stolen."

I've predicted this would happen at some point in time, but this happened at the worst possible time for the ANC. There were too many ideological differences within the alliance (ANC, Cosatu and the SACP); it just couldn't last forever.

The succession race of the ANC just became much more interesting too. If one of the pro-Zuma camp takes over, I don't think the commies will necessarily go into an alliance with the ANC due to that group's fraudulent activities of late. But then again, will they go into an alliance with a pure capitalist like Rhamaphosa - who isn't exactly loved by the unionists due to his shares in Lonmin and the resultant Marikana slaughter.

And will the moderates (Rhamaphosa, Gorhan, Phosa etc.) stay in the ANC if the criminals have control of the ANC, and they also don't have the numbers in the party to make any difference without the support of the commies?

SACP resolves to contest elections
2017-07-15 15:26
Tshidi Madia, News24


Ekurhuleni – The South African Communist Party has ended its 14th congress by resolving to contest elections.

The party has campaigned with the African National Congress since 1994, but announced that it would effectively stand on its own in future elections.

"We have resolved that, while the SACP will definitely contest elections, the exact modality in which we do so, needs to be determined by a way of concrete analysis of the concrete reality and through the process of  active engagement with worker and progressive formations," read newly elected 2nd deputy general secretary Chris Mathlako.

This formed part of the declarations adopted from the congress, where delegates had been singing songs about wanting state power.

News24 understands all commissions resolved to contest the elections.

"This is the dominant view, we want state power. The leadership has been reluctant, but its time," said one delegate.

"We have now resolved on the issue of the SACP and its electoral options by building on the resolutions of the 12th and 13th congresses of our party," said SACP general secretary Blade Nzimande.

He said the party would still meet with its alliance partners to discuss the resolutions adopted at the congress.

Nzimande also said the alliance remained strategic, but that the "mode" in which it functioned was outdated.

"The alliance mode of operation is incapable of holding together the alliance any further," he said.

He added that the alliance - which is made of the SACP, Cosatu and Sanco - would disintegrate, with serious consequences.

"[You] can’t come here sing about state power, take a resolution, then go and sit back and not raise funds for the congress," said Nzimande.

He urged party members to go out and raise funds for the SACP.

"But please do not take any money from the Guptas," he added.

Trog, this whole thing about the position where Ramaphosa is offered one of the 2 mooted Deputy President positions on the inevitable victory of Zuma's wife is apparently a ploy to prevent there being such a split.

If Ramaphosa wins in December, then I expect the ANC to remain much the same as it has since the split of COPE. If Dlaminin-Zuma (in effect Zuma) wins, then I expect there to be a significant split that will make the COPE episode seem small fry. Given that there has probably been significant voter fraud within the ANC recently, I think the likelihood of a win for the Zuma camp is very high.

The no-confidence debate will be interesting.

Mahkozi Khoza's claim of death threats (from a cell phone linked to the Guptas) should make it extremely difficult for Mbete to refuse a secret ballot as it provides evidence that MPs who vote against the vote may be targeted for assassination if their identities are known.

Trog, Have you seen this?

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2017-07-15-trainspotter-the-a-bomb-a-r2-billion-amnesty-package-for-zuma/#.WWx3A63MbBk

The Daily Maverick is saying that business and political interests have raised R2 billion to be paid to Zuma in exchange for his resignation.

Further that Zuma will be pardoned for any actions he took while President which may be deemed illegal.

Fu ck that.

I hope he ends his days in jail, personally. Although there's no chance of that, unfortunately, if Shabir Shaik's eight year long ongoing deathbed throes are anything to go by.

Rinkals wrote:Trog, Have you seen this?

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2017-07-15-trainspotter-the-a-bomb-a-r2-billion-amnesty-package-for-zuma/#.WWx3A63MbBk

The Daily Maverick is saying that business and political interests have raised R2 billion to be paid to Zuma in exchange for his resignation.

Further that Zuma will be pardoned for any actions he took while President which may be deemed illegal.

Fu ck that.

I hope he ends his days in jail, personally. Although there's no chance of that, unfortunately, if Shabir Shaik's eight year long ongoing deathbed throes are anything to go by.

He'll do anything to stay in power if the alternative is jail. I mean anything. It's a good deal man, he gets amnesty, we get a new president. I don't know why they are throwing money as well, he must have more than that already stashed away.

Interesting piece in the dailymaverick about chicken runners and clingons.

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2017-07-24-letter-from-trumpland-wieners-on-the-grill-next-to-the-boerewors-and-sosaties/

After [Trump's] election, American liberals’ greatest fear was a descent into the full darkness of authoritarianism: Pinochet’s Chile, say, or P W Botha’s South Africa.

As someone who actually remembers living under the Big Crocodile’s rule, though, I’ve been able to provide something of a public service for American liberals in highlighting the differences between lightweight, wannabe authoritarianism, and, well, the real, full-blown thing.

Those pictures of police shootings and Black Lives Matter protests: they would have all been banned under 1980s emergency regulations.

Maybe newspapers would have uncovered a range of scandals related to Botha and his cronies – meetings with, say, the Israelis or the Americans to turn up election dirt on Helen Suzman – but one suspects even Vrye Weekblad or the Weekly Mail would have struggled to come up with as much, as quickly, as have the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Finally, this Michael Flynn fellow – the one whom Trump tried to persuade James Comey to stop investigating for election collusion with Russia. Many political commentators here in the US have speculated, for excellent reasons, that Flynn has significant dirt on Trump to motivate such unusual political risk-taking.

Yet in 1977, when a Nationalist South African politician named Rob Smit uncovered information about slush funds in what would later become the Info Scandal, he was mysteriously murdered in his home in Springs, the words RAU TEM spray-painted across his walls – the meaning of this haunting phrase still unknown, four decades later. 1

For now, Flynn still strolls around Washington DC with impunity, news outlets reporting that he has founded a business consultancy called, without any apparent irony, Resilient Patriot.