Let the people who advocate immediate majority rule in South Africa and Rhodesia take note. It would be very nice to have a minimal libertarian government and that is what South African libertarians would like to achieve. But as long as the choice is between being governed by a relatively informed white minority and a Socialist black majority, ‘apartheid’ in South Africa will stay.
The major black ethnic groups lumped together under the general term 'Bantu' are as distinct from one another as Germany and France. They are largely illiterate, largely uncaring, mutually mistrustful, mutually antagonistic. They are not the great single black mass yearning to be free that sentimentalists and self-servers in other lands try to portray them.
I regret the fact that honest, law-abiding blacks cannot own property in or near white cities, but I realize that without this restriction separate development will fail — and with it the capitalist system in South Africa.
As all libertarians should know, unlimited democracies tend towards totalitarian systems, with the rulers competing with each other to control the political machinery. Some years ago, the whites realized that a democracy may deteriorate into a dictatorship in the ‘wrong’ hands—especially when those hands have the wrong color to boot.
Pa ElGrande wrote: » You have sunk to name calling and repeating public relations agency derived nonsense. The public relations agency objective is to denigrate people by creating favourable interpretations to the following questions. Were these climate skeptics qualified? Were they doing any research in the climate change field? Were they accepting money, directly or indirectly, from the fossil fuel industry? This doesn’t answer skeptics questions about the science and as they acknowledge themselves, are about public relations in the climategate emails. The other connection this PR agency has is with David Suzuki a Canadian activist whose daughter was the original Greta.
gozunda wrote: » Oh ffs - You are obsessed. Is everyone with whom you dont agee with a KOCH OIL OLIGARCH! The lack of basic comprehension in your comments regarding how scientific research works is quite astounding. Just to let you know that not every scientist needs to be 'climate scientist' btw. These scientists are qualified to review the methodology used by Mann and it was they who found his methodology deeply flawed. The writer of the article is yet another scientist who is neither a climate denier or a skeptic. He simply cautions others to learn from those mistakes (whether deliberate or otherwise). Here is the quote again- in case you are in doubt. It's a shame that by repetition - you identify the real denier and skeptic of those very basic facts. Truely Bizarre.
KyussB wrote: » So lets make this clear: . . .
KyussB wrote: » Their criticisms were dealt with and debunked by climate scientists more than a decade ago...If someone is funded by known propagandists - i.e. has massive conflicts of interest - does that affect their credibility, in your eyes?
gozunda wrote: » The findings regarding flaws in the methodology of Manns work remain along with the emails from East Anglia University and the latest refusal by Mann to allow his data to be verified as an indication of issues of alarmist data which has crept into the issue of climate change. So what you are saying is thst Richard Muller (who btw) is a fully qualified and bonafide scientist is contrary to his own declaration a 'denier' and 'skeptic'. Or are you saying that as an keyboard warrior you are somehow more qualified to decide what is science and what is not? Really? I dont think so. You see thats the thing about science - it's not the cult of personality that you would like it to be. In this instance one scientist has reviewed other scientists work and found there is a case to answer. The recent court case involving Manns now debunked Hockey Stick data further backs up these issues with regards to Manns research and its use by the IPCC. That some of the climate screamers and real deniers dont like that is completely irrelevant.
KyussB wrote: » Richard Muller the director of a Koch oil-oligarch funded think-tank? Yea I'll pass on that discreditable source, thanks...Why the fuck is everyone you guys cite linked to Koch think tanks? If your views aren't so discreditable - go find people citing those views, who aren't associated with such discreditable think-tanks...
Richard A. Muller (born January 6, 1944) is an American physicist and professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley. He is also a faculty senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
1) How many layers are there to the rotten onion that is the Trudeau Foundation? You're going to want to buckle up for this one! 2) It appears as though Greta Thunberg and Justin Trudeau are more closely linked than we know, but it's very likely that Greta has absolutely no idea. Let's take a look at some interesting connections. <snip> 16) The head of events and media relations for the Thunberg family is a guy named Daniel Donner. There are many articles online that state this, but this one from Everyone Group details how he presented Greta with the 2019 Makwan Prize. 17) Daniel Donner also just happens to work with media strategy and outreach as part of the European Climate Foundation’s Strategic Communications team, focusing on both news media and digital platforms. 18) It probably won't surprise anyone to learn that the ECF’s founder, John H. McCall MacBain, is the Chair of the Board of Directors for the Trudeau Foundation. 19) McCall MacBain gave the Trudeau Foundation $928,000 between 2015-2016. This National Post article highlights many of the corporate kingpins involved in the Trudeau Foundation. The connections between these companies and the Foundation are staggering!source
gozunda wrote: » I think Tmh is bizarrely referencing Rosa Parks who helped highlight and bring an end to discrimination and segregation during the civil rights era in the US.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks Quite hilarious that a wealthy kid from a privileged background could be held in comparison. We know greta thinks her childhood was stolen by all the adults but seriously?
Jimmy Garlic wrote: » They are trying to insinuate that anyone who questions the motives behind Greta and co is also a racist. Much like the start of this thread when it was insinuated that those who questions Greta must be paedophiles. Smear tactics.
Tell me how wrote: » Swing and a miss for both of you. The analogy implied that at that time, on the first of December 1955 and the days immediately afterwards, Rosa would not have been spoken highly of in many of the bars and houses around Montgomery. She was not the first person to refuse to move from their seat to accommodate a white person, but, given her prominence with the NAACP they initiated a strike of the bus system which ultimately lead to a change in the practice of segregation. Now, people, black and white look at Rosa as a trailblazer.See the similarities with Greta's story at least to the point of Not being the first person to do it. initiating wide scale protests, became a figurehead for the cause. So be clear, I'm not suggesting you are a racist for questioning Greta, I'm suggesting you are a Luddite in coming to terms with the reality of what is happening.
gozunda wrote: » Frankly - No. I'd suggest perhaps you are a fantasist? And dont know the meaning of "Luddite' ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Tell me how wrote: » You should add that little confused guy graphic to your profile. It's quite apt.
gozunda wrote: » It's a shrug and denotes 'whatever' I do think you may ust be projecting yourself there Btw you seem to have missed the main part of my comment.
gozunda wrote: » It's a shrug and denotes 'whatever'. I do think you may just be projecting yourself there Btw you seem to have missed the main part of my comment. Had a issue posting when my laptop ran out of power. But no worries
Also, I see your usual added edit and it is irrelevant. The point ... is how some people are hardwired to complain irrespective of the lack of validity in their reasoning.
Tell me how wrote: » I know you edit comments up to 6 hours after they have been posted. It is hard to know when you are finally finished. I had caught it though.
hetuzozaho wrote: » Her latest updates are coolhttps://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1185967021156159488 I guess she'll soon be heading south for Santiago on her slow travels as she says. #uniteBehindTheScience. Go greta!
jimgoose wrote: » Yes! 400 pages of bull-scutter! :pac:
KyussB wrote: » Richard Muller the director of a Koch oil-oligarch funded think-tank? Yea I'll pass on that discreditable source, thanks... Why the fuck is everyone you guys cite linked to Koch think tanks? If your views aren't so discreditable - go find people citing those views, who aren't associated with such discreditable think-tanks...
Matt Barrett wrote: » ...and Greta is an unwitting shill for the Illuminati? Yeah, I don't buy it.
Eric Cartman wrote: » don't think anyone said that. That said I doubt she's doing it on her own. Many posters here insist greta is doing this on her own of her own virtue and everything is above board.......while also insisting that every group opposing her is some sort of koch/ big oil funded conspiracy...
Matt Barrett wrote: » I assumed you read the OP. She's likely a hell of a lot of help being a teenager. I can't see her being fed opinions, maybe help with speech writing.
weldoninhio wrote: » So explain the videos where she is asked a question and has no idea at all how to answer. She’s nothing without a script.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a8522b26abe4367117071263a70671.svg)
