This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Red Nose Day
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
legaleagle  14 Mar 15 5.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 14 Mar 2015 12.38pm
Quote Pikester at 14 Mar 2015 11.44am
Quote MileFan at 13 Mar 2015 10.01pm
if they want real help bend over and let whites rule, call me racist but blacks always f*ck it up. You just have to look at South Africa. Mandela hailed a hero but since he took ovr crime up economy down etc etc. I don't know why but I can't stop laughing. Maybe you could get some T Shirts made up. What a disgraceful thing to say.
1. To black politician Lord Taylor of Warwick (born in Birmingham), 1999: “And what exotic part of the world do you come from?”
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 Stirlingsays 14 Mar 15 6.32pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 14 Mar 2015 5.05pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 14 Mar 2015 12.38pm
Quote Pikester at 14 Mar 2015 11.44am
Quote MileFan at 13 Mar 2015 10.01pm
if they want real help bend over and let whites rule, call me racist but blacks always f*ck it up. You just have to look at South Africa. Mandela hailed a hero but since he took ovr crime up economy down etc etc. I don't know why but I can't stop laughing. Maybe you could get some T Shirts made up. What a disgraceful thing to say.
1. To black politician Lord Taylor of Warwick (born in Birmingham), 1999: “And what exotic part of the world do you come from?”
For one this is media reporting and for two any twit knows that Phillip just jokes around. There isn't anything malicious that I can see in those jokes. It's only the lefty professionally offended who get on their high horse about it.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| legaleagle 14 Mar 15 8.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
And being "disgusted"as you were at a suggestion Philip is a racist is an entirely appropriate and proportionate response? I get it now.Nothing wrong with "horsing around" with a bit of casual racist banter,eh?.Only a stupid leftie could possibly find it inappropriate in such a high profile public figure(not that you pigeon hole people) and black/asian people would find it amusing.Bring back the days of Empire and The Black and White Minstrel Show asap Why on earth didn't we have a harmless laugh and chant at Suk-Young today for being a dirty "slitty-eyed" so and so when he fouled Wilf. After all,its only harmless a harmless laugh,isn't it Stirling and the player would have found it as appropriate and amusing as everyone else.No doubt Wilf is always up for a laugh with a bit of "harmless" racist banter too
Edited by legaleagle (14 Mar 2015 9.24pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
.| Hoof Hearted 14 Mar 15 9.20pm | |
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 14 Mar 2015 11.26am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Mar 2015 10.40am
You just have to look at places like Zimbabwe. When it was colonial Rhodesia it prospered by exporting copper and had a great railway system. Now the railway is fcuked both financially and physically and only survives on handouts from China (in return for the major slice of the copper no doubt). It may have been un PC by the poster to suggest "blacks" always fcuk up... but the state of Africa kind of backs this statement up unfortunately... corruption, greed, incompetence.....
1.The copper was/is in the British colony of Northern Rhodesia now known as Zambia,as opposed to the British territory of Southern Rhodesia now known as Zimbabwe,so at least try to have a basic grasp of facts if you are going to advance an argument tending towards a proposition of inherent racial inferiority. 2.Take a look at places like Moldova,Uzbekistan. Note the health of the economies,their corruption etc,the extent to which their rulers f-up. and then take a look at the colour of the skin of the people that rule in those states.Poverty,corruption and repression do not stem from skin colour/race.The logic of your proposition is that we shouldn't vote for black politicians here due to inherent racial lesser ability to "govern" than those of a superior at governing white race.We are indeed headed back to the dark ages (no pun intended).
Makes little difference - it was an example of a major fcuk up that wouldn't have occurred under colonial rule. I don't think all black people are inferior but in Africa there are a lot of greedy/corrupt/incompetent people (who just happen to be black) now running most countries and sadly running them into the ground. The worst of the lot is Mugabe. As for your last point I'd rather vote for that Chukka fella than Balls/Miliband or Prescott. But he's had the benefit of our education system.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 becky over the moon 14 Mar 15 9.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 14 Mar 2015 2.08pm
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Mar 2015 1.27pm
The 'jollying along' is as far as it goes.....No one is compelled to do spit and no one I've ever met via a charity would ever agree with anything else...Charity runs on its helper's goodwill by definition.....You are bending things a bit to suggest that this is bullying.....A bit like those that say a tap on the shoulder is assault. You using old quotes from people like Blake, who isn't talking about charity shows....is a bit off....Shall we include 'taxation' for the NHS or education as the 'general good'. Na...I don't think you can use that quote to fairly make your point.
As I say, the practical result of your view point would be that those in need would have less....More death more suffering. Nope....It doesn't look like we are going to agree here. Like I say your moaning is the belly aching of the priviliaged.
Save the Children £163K; British Red Cross £184K; Christian Aid £126K; Oxfam £119K...... bloody expensive all this 'goodwill' isn't it ....
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
| imbored UK 14 Mar 15 9.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Mar 2015 9.20pm
Quote legaleagle at 14 Mar 2015 11.26am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Mar 2015 10.40am
You just have to look at places like Zimbabwe. When it was colonial Rhodesia it prospered by exporting copper and had a great railway system. Now the railway is fcuked both financially and physically and only survives on handouts from China (in return for the major slice of the copper no doubt). It may have been un PC by the poster to suggest "blacks" always fcuk up... but the state of Africa kind of backs this statement up unfortunately... corruption, greed, incompetence.....
1.The copper was/is in the British colony of Northern Rhodesia now known as Zambia,as opposed to the British territory of Southern Rhodesia now known as Zimbabwe,so at least try to have a basic grasp of facts if you are going to advance an argument tending towards a proposition of inherent racial inferiority. 2.Take a look at places like Moldova,Uzbekistan. Note the health of the economies,their corruption etc,the extent to which their rulers f-up. and then take a look at the colour of the skin of the people that rule in those states.Poverty,corruption and repression do not stem from skin colour/race.The logic of your proposition is that we shouldn't vote for black politicians here due to inherent racial lesser ability to "govern" than those of a superior at governing white race.We are indeed headed back to the dark ages (no pun intended).
Makes little difference - it was an example of a major fcuk up that wouldn't have occurred under colonial rule. I don't think all black people are inferior but in Africa there are a lot of greedy/corrupt/incompetent people (who just happen to be black) now running most countries and sadly running them into the ground. The worst of the lot is Mugabe. As for your last point I'd rather vote for that Chukka fella than Balls/Miliband or Prescott. But he's had the benefit of our education system. NO black people are 'inferior'. Jesus Christ. A person's value can never be reduced to their racial status and it's not 'PC' to make such a claim. Edited by imbored (14 Mar 2015 9.34pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 14 Mar 15 9.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Mar 2015 9.20pm
Quote legaleagle at 14 Mar 2015 11.26am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Mar 2015 10.40am
You just have to look at places like Zimbabwe. When it was colonial Rhodesia it prospered by exporting copper and had a great railway system. Now the railway is fcuked both financially and physically and only survives on handouts from China (in return for the major slice of the copper no doubt). It may have been un PC by the poster to suggest "blacks" always fcuk up... but the state of Africa kind of backs this statement up unfortunately... corruption, greed, incompetence.....
1.The copper was/is in the British colony of Northern Rhodesia now known as Zambia,as opposed to the British territory of Southern Rhodesia now known as Zimbabwe,so at least try to have a basic grasp of facts if you are going to advance an argument tending towards a proposition of inherent racial inferiority. 2.Take a look at places like Moldova,Uzbekistan. Note the health of the economies,their corruption etc,the extent to which their rulers f-up. and then take a look at the colour of the skin of the people that rule in those states.Poverty,corruption and repression do not stem from skin colour/race.The logic of your proposition is that we shouldn't vote for black politicians here due to inherent racial lesser ability to "govern" than those of a superior at governing white race.We are indeed headed back to the dark ages (no pun intended).
Makes little difference - it was an example of a major fcuk up that wouldn't have occurred under colonial rule. I don't think all black people are inferior but in Africa there are a lot of greedy/corrupt/incompetent people (who just happen to be black) now running most countries and sadly running them into the ground. The worst of the lot is Mugabe. As for your last point I'd rather vote for that Chukka fella than Balls/Miliband or Prescott. But he's had the benefit of our education system. Yup,makes little difference.They all look the same anyway,don't they, so no need to actually know the difference between one country and another. You are right,"we" didn't f-up under colonial rule in Central and Southern Africa at all.Everything ran perfectly for the rulers and we did very nicely indeed out of it and made a mint and lived in the lap of luxury there,while they "served" us.Don't you worry about the majority in Northern and Southern Rhodesia,whose lot was somewhat worse then than now. Read up about it sometime. Who needed corruption to obtain access to wealth and power when we just lorded it and pretty much banned access to it for them full stop? Mugabe? He had a Marist and Jesuit school education. He has Bachelors and Masters degrees awarded by the University of London (you get lots of time to study when you are sent to prison for years for being so uncivilised as to call for "one man,one vote" (an example of our greatness in instilling democratic values when "we" ruled your "paradise" of Southern Rhodesia).Interesting, seeing as you think Black people might actually be capable of ruling provided they receive"our education". A dodgy tyrant is a dodgy tyrant/potential tyrant whether its the current white skinned dictator in Belarus,the President of Zimbabwe,the unarguably white skinned Vladimir Putin or our late lamented Sir Oswald Mosley,with his impeccable good old "white" public school education.Race is irrelevant.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hoof Hearted 14 Mar 15 9.39pm | |
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 14 Mar 2015 9.32pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Mar 2015 9.20pm
Quote legaleagle at 14 Mar 2015 11.26am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Mar 2015 10.40am
You just have to look at places like Zimbabwe. When it was colonial Rhodesia it prospered by exporting copper and had a great railway system. Now the railway is fcuked both financially and physically and only survives on handouts from China (in return for the major slice of the copper no doubt). It may have been un PC by the poster to suggest "blacks" always fcuk up... but the state of Africa kind of backs this statement up unfortunately... corruption, greed, incompetence.....
1.The copper was/is in the British colony of Northern Rhodesia now known as Zambia,as opposed to the British territory of Southern Rhodesia now known as Zimbabwe,so at least try to have a basic grasp of facts if you are going to advance an argument tending towards a proposition of inherent racial inferiority. 2.Take a look at places like Moldova,Uzbekistan. Note the health of the economies,their corruption etc,the extent to which their rulers f-up. and then take a look at the colour of the skin of the people that rule in those states.Poverty,corruption and repression do not stem from skin colour/race.The logic of your proposition is that we shouldn't vote for black politicians here due to inherent racial lesser ability to "govern" than those of a superior at governing white race.We are indeed headed back to the dark ages (no pun intended).
Makes little difference - it was an example of a major fcuk up that wouldn't have occurred under colonial rule. I don't think all black people are inferior but in Africa there are a lot of greedy/corrupt/incompetent people (who just happen to be black) now running most countries and sadly running them into the ground. The worst of the lot is Mugabe. As for your last point I'd rather vote for that Chukka fella than Balls/Miliband or Prescott. But he's had the benefit of our education system. Yup,makes little difference.They all look the same anyway,don't they, so no need to actually know the difference between one country and another. You are right,"we" didn't f-up under colonial rule in Central and Southern Africa at all.Everything ran perfectly for the rulers and we did very nicely indeed out of it and made a mint and lived in the lap of luxury there.Don't you worry about the majority in Northern and Southern Rhodesia,whose lot was somewhat worse then than now. Read up about it sometime. Who needed corruption to obtain access to wealth and power when we just lauded it and banned any access to it for them full stop?
There seems to be more poverty, more in-fighting, more famine etc to me. I don't disagree that GB benefitted immensely from the colonies, but there was order rather than chaos.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 14 Mar 15 9.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Now I wonder if any hol outsiders could guess which 2 posters on this thread, without having looked at anything else on HOL, support ukip?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hoof Hearted 14 Mar 15 9.49pm | |
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 14 Mar 2015 9.47pm
Now I wonder if any hol outsiders could guess which 2 posters on this thread, without having looked at anything else on HOL, support ukip?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 14 Mar 15 9.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I've been found out finally!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 14 Mar 15 10.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Mar 2015 9.39pm
Quote legaleagle at 14 Mar 2015 9.32pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Mar 2015 9.20pm
Quote legaleagle at 14 Mar 2015 11.26am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Mar 2015 10.40am
You just have to look at places like Zimbabwe. When it was colonial Rhodesia it prospered by exporting copper and had a great railway system. Now the railway is fcuked both financially and physically and only survives on handouts from China (in return for the major slice of the copper no doubt). It may have been un PC by the poster to suggest "blacks" always fcuk up... but the state of Africa kind of backs this statement up unfortunately... corruption, greed, incompetence.....
1.The copper was/is in the British colony of Northern Rhodesia now known as Zambia,as opposed to the British territory of Southern Rhodesia now known as Zimbabwe,so at least try to have a basic grasp of facts if you are going to advance an argument tending towards a proposition of inherent racial inferiority. 2.Take a look at places like Moldova,Uzbekistan. Note the health of the economies,their corruption etc,the extent to which their rulers f-up. and then take a look at the colour of the skin of the people that rule in those states.Poverty,corruption and repression do not stem from skin colour/race.The logic of your proposition is that we shouldn't vote for black politicians here due to inherent racial lesser ability to "govern" than those of a superior at governing white race.We are indeed headed back to the dark ages (no pun intended).
Makes little difference - it was an example of a major fcuk up that wouldn't have occurred under colonial rule. I don't think all black people are inferior but in Africa there are a lot of greedy/corrupt/incompetent people (who just happen to be black) now running most countries and sadly running them into the ground. The worst of the lot is Mugabe. As for your last point I'd rather vote for that Chukka fella than Balls/Miliband or Prescott. But he's had the benefit of our education system. Yup,makes little difference.They all look the same anyway,don't they, so no need to actually know the difference between one country and another. You are right,"we" didn't f-up under colonial rule in Central and Southern Africa at all.Everything ran perfectly for the rulers and we did very nicely indeed out of it and made a mint and lived in the lap of luxury there.Don't you worry about the majority in Northern and Southern Rhodesia,whose lot was somewhat worse then than now. Read up about it sometime. Who needed corruption to obtain access to wealth and power when we just lauded it and banned any access to it for them full stop?
There seems to be more poverty, more in-fighting, more famine etc to me. I don't disagree that GB benefitted immensely from the colonies, but there was order rather than chaos. Hoof,for what its worth my MA research was into the Central African Federation in the 1950's,which was comprised of Northern Rhodesia,Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland (now Malawi). The lot of the average person was sh1t. IMO they were somewhat worse off than now and there weren't tv crews then filming a lot reporting things or the internet so it was a pretty isolated part of the world.When push came to shove back in Whitehall the "interests"of the settler always trumped those of the locals,including economically. There was "order" for the rulers and an appearance of order overall looking from outside since it appeared that way to many here. On the ground,the locals were basically in general terms exploited and shafted something rotten,so "we" set a good example for people to follow...For a local on the ground,I suspect life was viewed as tending more towards the "chaos" end of the spectrum than the "order" end. I'm being simplistic I know,but life can seem very ordered when the Master and Mistress know their place,as do the cook,maids,houseboys and gardner, especially when there's an iron fist available to back up the velvet glove any time anyone steps out of place and built in legal discrimination to make sure the locals don't get too uppity.Bit like feudalism was here and the deep South in the USA. Lots of poverty in the Southern USA today,but would many say they were better off then...
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.