ANC MP wants Springbok Emblem removed

 "Why not lead by example?"

The excellent men have led by the example. They have convinced people that destroying faster, bigger and harder was superiority.

As to painting some kind of universality in consumption as if everyone on Earth was consuming at the same rate. Some excell more than others.

Africa is a big place: the world is bigger. And the world is not big enough for the excellent men.
Mostly two kinds of places in a world driven by excellent men.

Places that still have resources. Places that no longer have resources.
The first kind of places are of first interest for the excellent men and they wont let people settle down for that little experience in the bush.

The second kind of places put people in the situation they do no consume antibiotics, wear no shoes, barely eat every day.

The resources of the world are monopolized by excellent men who consider that destroying them faster, harder, bigger. Useless to paint it as you could settle anywhere with no interferences.


"He tries to talk in riddles because he doesn't have the mental capacity to deliver a clear logical argument. Another guy who thinks he's the smartest one in the room...when actually he has a lower IQ than the chair his a55 is on."

There is no speaking in riddles.

Stating that rugby did not make SA richer, it made it poorer is nothing like a riddle. It is hyperbole for sure and plainly straightforward as well.

On the IQ thing: as the situation stands, it takes no high IQ to observe the situation.
When it comes to finite resources, praising their destruction and enacting it at the bigger, faster, harder rate only drives to their depletion faster.
There is no sign of a higher intelligence in that observation.

On the other hand, trying to cover for it requires quite a lot of intelligence. It seems these days, a way too high intelligence for the human species. And by the way, the recourse to some other ways to get the dismissing points accross.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw9oX-kZ_9k

@Traditionalist. You clearly don't know the difference between producing and consuming. 
If you have to choose one person to run a producing country- not just a consuming-
1. Barack oBama2. David Cameron3. a 10-year-old child
4. Jacob Zuma
Who would you vote to run a country between these 4? 
I can assure you the top 2 make a contribution in the world. (i.e.- they also produce- rather than just consume. 
The difference between a good leader is that they realise they are public servants- This is not the case in Africa where prime ministers appoint themselves as Kings. (Sometimes forever like Mugabe.

  ". No they are not, some of them are just plain pirates and crooks, some are not."
Being a pirate or a crook does not exclude from being an excellent person.

As long as a pirate thinks and works toward achieving bigger, faster, harder destruction of resources, that pirate is an excellent man.

"That is not the issue at all. The issue is that the majority of the populace (90%), with all the political power see the need to protect themselves from the minority (10%) with no political power. The majority discriminates against the minority. The Minority must carry the majority. The ratio is just too big to be sustainable. In the rest of the world, the majority put a similar system in place to help the minority - The majority helps the minority by their own choice. - Spot the difference?"

The difference was spotted. As shown earlier.

In North America, the majority (excellent men) has been discriminating positively themselves at the expense of a minority.
The minority brought the resources. The majority (excellent men) brought the schemes to destroy them faster, bigger and harder.

The minority supported the majority as excellent depend on resources to excell. Without resources available, they cant destroy them.

So the story that a majority of discriminating positively toward themselves was unprecedented is strongly infirmed by those examples.

In SA, the minority (excellent men) has been discriminating positively themselves at the expense of a majority.

The majority brought the resources. The minority (excellent men) brought the schemes to destroy them faster, bigger and harder.

The majority supported the minority.

As to will, will is nothing with  means. The excellent men's ways lead to a destruction of means.

" Ever heard of sustained development? Resources can be recycled and replenished."
Sustained development is the PC wording the excellent men have been using to hide from the consequences of their ways.

In a world of limited resources, when you push for destroying harder, bigger, faster resources, sooner than later, you are forced into destroying less and less.

"
Rugby has got nothing to do with the consumption of resources. Yes, it creates income, but that's not the reason for the interference. The transformation of SA rugby and the idiotic governmental threatening of the Bok emblem have nothing to do with anything but spite towards the white people of SA. The people that's driving this does  not even care about the rest of the populace who also holds the Bok dear. Petty vindictiveness by a small minority...and you seem to be OK with that, hence my GFY. I rarely use profanity and thought twice about using it earlier, but you are obviously not really interested in discussing this topic, you'd rather spam us with vague rhetoric?"

Rugby is a human activity. All human activities consume resources.
The excellent men think and work toward shaping activities so that the consumption associated to an activity is the biggest, fastest, hardest possible.

The transformation in rugby and other things have all to do with resources.

On SA resources alone, rugby is a jeopardized activity. Less and less resources to support it (the consumption of SA resources was done)
Therefore resources must be brought from abroad.
The transformation is a front cover to help achieving that goa l.

Sure traditionalist. Maybe you should go back to living in a mud hut if you dont believe in production or consumption. 

"Why not lead by example?" The excellent men have led by the example. They have convinced people that destroying faster, bigger and harder was superiority. I was asking you, why YOU DON'T LEAD BY EXAMPLE. Was my question not clear enough for you? Here I will try again... TRADITIONALIST if you hate consumption/capitalist world so much why don't YOU lead by example qnd rid yourself of all the things it has brought you. Is that clear enough? The simple answer is that the consumption of resources has made a nice comfortable little life for you. One that you'll do anything to hold on to. Oh no no. I see now. The evil excellent men have brainwashed you and it's their fault that you love TV so much. You poor guy. It must be tough being such a victim of the world.

 Plum, he seems to be advocating mass consumption of resources. I don't have a problem with that, provided that beer is the resource.

 "

I was asking you, why YOU DON'T LEAD BY EXAMPLE. Was my question not clear enough for you? Here I will try again...

TRADITIONALIST if you hate consumption/capitalist world so much why don't YOU lead by example qnd rid yourself of all the things it has brought you. Is that clear enough?

The simple answer is that the consumption of resources has made a nice comfortable little life for you. One that you'll do anything to hold on to.

Oh no no. I see now. The evil excellent men have brainwashed you and it's their fault that you love TV so much. You poor guy. It must be tough being such a victim of the world."

What example?

Keeping arguing that somehow the benefit of the consumption was universally distributed goes beyond being outdated.

People have always been out of the excellent men's sytem. Not all people on the world have access to antibiotics. So why keep claiming as if it was otherwise?

In SA, you cant even train people in rugby so claiming antibiotics, cellphones, stuff for all is gross.

Victim? At the moment, the victims are clearly identified, all the guys who claim that their rugby team is taken from them other than as a consequences of their own actions.

SA resources are down, therefore the support of the activity of rugby is jeopardized. That is not a victim's attitude.

The victim's attitude comes people who figure themselves as victims of their government whereas they brought the consumption resources.

"Plum, he seems to be advocating mass consumption of resources."

No use for that. The excellent men have done this very successfully. Not only mass consumption but mass consumption at the fastest possible rate.

" @Traditionalist. You clearly don't know the difference between producing and consuming."

Which is?

The excellent men have been dressing production as something else than consumption.

What they've been calling production is nothing more than consumption (and very often consumption of others' resources)

Giving pratical non sense like producing more than consuming.

As to the leaders things.

Obama in charge of any african country could do nothing.
Cameron in charge of any african country could only do what has been done in the past: a dragging pump to provide England with an inflow of resources.

Zuma in charge of the US could do as well as Obama.
Could Zuma be in charge of England? Until they have a black guy in charge, this question is preposterous.
When they have one, Zuma could do the same as this guy.

Is it just me or does anyone else struggle to understand what this Traditionalist person is ever talking about?

I can see he's using English words but whatever he writes always seems like a stream of inarticulate and garbled rubbish that has no context and makes no sense.

He's either a wind-up merchant intentionally trying to confuse everyone or else he's a half-wit looking up words in a dictionary and typing them haphazardly as he finds them. 

 Probably not.

The excellent men struggle to assume the consequences of their actions.

So indeed, anything related to the depletion of resources that is been happening is somewhat out of their reach.

Not because it is hard to understand, but because the excellent men have been the main actors in their process of depleting the earth of resources.

And the excellent men are not the best friends with responsibility.

 There are some really interesting points raised under this thread and the question of Denny about who started Apartheid.   The real starter was actually a full-blown plan of the English Government in the 1800's to rule a rather difficult SA colonial system.
There cannot e doubt that there were opposing views expressed by leaders not favoured by the English.  It is a fact that President Kruger said that there should be no discrimination between Christians - irrespective of race.  The other example was that of  Merriman.  He was Premier of the Cape Colony - where Blacks and Coloureds had voting rights prior to 1910.   Merriman was a liberal with a keen interest in enhancement of the interests of all people and had the strong support of both language groups in the Cape Colony.  When he was asked who should become first Union Premier - President Steyn of the Free State indicated that Merriman should get that job.  That raises the question why Botha - supported by Smuts - was actually appointed.   They were because of the "divide-and-rule" policy of the English Government.   One of their first actions was to use racism to get the Land Act of 1913 on the law book.  Both Botha and Smuts used racism as a means to get support for their other ventures in support of their party.  There were literally thousands of Black protestors killed in riots of Blacks in 1919-1921 in especially the Eastern Cape.  
In 1924 the then National Party in partnership with the then Labour Party formed a coalition government.   The Labour Party had the support of the Unions - where a large portion became Afrikaans speakers.  The Unions was effectively run by the Communists.  Many Afrikaans speakers became Communist supporters and with the exception of Bram Fisher - most leaders ended up in the later National Party.  There were no new discrimination laws passed in the period 1924 to 1933 - and no changes made to what Botha and Smuts did in the period 1910 to 1924.  
During the Great Depression in 1933 - a coalition was formed between Hertzog and Smuts and that was soon followed by removing the Blacks voting rights in 1936.   From there onwards the implementation of racial discrimination proceeded rapidly and was escalated when the NP took over the Government in 1948.   They used fear of the Black majority to keep power and they used the chaos in many Black-ruled  states in Africa for the said purpose.  
I think that the issue should be seen in real context.   The problem did not start in 1948 - it started in 1795 - when the Cape became a Colony of the UK.                    

 There was no UK in 1795.....

 Ceradunce just a bit of advice for you - read the following and do not open your mouth about history - since you know more about history than of rugby:-
"The Acts of Union were twin Parliamentary Acts passed during 1706 and 1707 by the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Scotland, putting into effect the terms of the Treaty of Union, agreed on 22 July 1706, following prolonged negotiation between Queen Anne's Commissioners representing both parliaments. The Acts joined the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland to form a united Kingdom of Great Britain"
Since when was 1707 after 1795?

 But you still seem to have that little comprehension issue, it seems. Read the piece again and try that again. If you still do not agree that there was no UK in 1795, then feel free to ask and I will gladly explain it to you. 
Hint. There is a big difference in "..a united Kingdom of Great Britain..." (note lowercase "u" in united) and the United Kingdom.. note upercase in United. 

 Ag Kak - idioot.  The Act of Union of 1707 lead to the United Kingdom - there was no other legislation that governed the name usage subsequently.   Are you too dim to realize that - doffies?  

 Ou ComradeMike, you should be glad that Becs is not around.

In short - because I do am not interested in getting into a lengthy one for you one for me  argument with you again - the following is what happened, and I will put the different names in bold for you. Hope you understand this time around.

First of all, the UK as we now know today it is actually the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It comprises of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Island. As you should know, they were not always part of one sovereign state.

The Acts of Union on 1707 came about due to a treaty to unite two kingdoms, i.e. England and Scotland to form the Kingdom of Great Britain. That was the name of the state the. The Kingdom of Great Britain. Not the United Kingdom of Britain.

The Kingdom of Great Britain, officially Great Britain /?re?t ?br?.t?n/,[1][2][3] was a sovereign state in western Europe from 1 May 1707 to 31 December 1800. The state came into being following the Treaty of Union in 1706, ratified by the Acts of Union 1707, which united the kingdoms of England and Scotland to form a single kingdom encompassing the whole island of Great Britain and its outlying islands.

Wales, at that stage, has already been "part" of England since the 1500s.

The next, to follow, was a similar treaty to unite the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland into one state. That happened in 1801 and it was only then that the name was changed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or UK (United Kingdom) for short.

So, to summarize, it was the Kingdom of Great Britain, or Great Britain as it was commonly known, that annexed the Cape Colony. The UK simply did not exist in 1795, or even 1707, as you have suggested.

In fact, the "United" in the name actually refers to the Union between the state of the Kingdom of Great Britain and the state of Northern Island. It does not even refer to the unification of England, Scotland and Wales as well, because they were already unified when the Kingdom of Great Britain came about.

QED.

 7, 8, 9 ....10. How many times has poor old Tokkie been on the canvas?