Is this True?: Reagan and Mandela

[Sallow]

Mandela had a history of terrorism after-all, maybe that had something to do with it. Democrats seem to think Mandela's history started when he got out of prison.

So did the Contras (Who raped, murdered and killed American Nuns), the Iranian government (Who took American Hostages) and the Muj (who were led by Osama Bin Laden).

Didn't stop Reagan from helping those folks.

Mandela admitted to 156 acts of terrorism and was caught while planing to blow up schools with children present. He was on the terrorist watch list until 2008 as I recall. The Iranian hostage crisis was during the Carter years, Reagan had the hostages released.

Why didn't Clinton have Osama killed when he had the chance..8 years and he did nothing, then he stuck Bush with the problem but obviously the plan was already in the works and 9/11 happened?

Yeah Reagan had the hostages release an hour after his inauguration..

Wonder how he swung that one..

Oh yeah. Treason.

 

[Zander]

Let the Mandela hagiography continue....

 

[Lumpy 1]

[ame=http://youtu.be/R36lCK4IFuk]Nelson Mandela Freedom Fighter or Terrorist ? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Flopper]

Mandela was a communist Reagan brought down soviet union stop race baiting.

Communist, Socialist, or whatever you choose to call him, he has done more for the African people than any other man in history. In a hundred years, Reagan will be just a footnote in world history while the influence of men like Mandel and Ghandi will live on. He has done what would seem to be impossible 50 years ago. He has created a multiracial democratic government in South Africa.

ok what has he done for Africa? Maybe you meant south Africa?
Really so what did he actually do?
Has Somali improved?
Libya?
Egypt?
Chad?
East Africa?
Ethiopia?
Uganda?

If the conservative government of South Africa hadn't kept him in prison for nearly a third of his life, his impact on the continent would have been far greater.

So what did he actually do?

He took his country from the extremes of apartheid through to democracy. But what was so remarkable was how he did it. For someone who suffered under apartheid as he did, you would expect he would have taken bloody revenge and led the nation into a civil war. However, he choose to work with De Klerk to bring a peaceful end to apartheid.

 

[Katzndogz]

Yes. After 30 years of bloody civil war DeKlerk and Mandela were able to bring an end to apartheid.

It's like saying Mamoru Shigemitsu and General Sutherland brought a peaceful end to WWII?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Communist, Socialist, or whatever you choose to call him, he has done more for the African people than any other man in history. In a hundred years, Reagan will be just a footnote in world history while the influence of men like Mandel and Ghandi will live on. He has done what would seem to be impossible 50 years ago. He has created a multiracial democratic government in South Africa.

ok what has he done for Africa? Maybe you meant south Africa?
Really so what did he actually do?
Has Somali improved?
Libya?
Egypt?
Chad?
East Africa?
Ethiopia?
Uganda?

If the conservative government of South Africa hadn't kept him in prison for nearly a third of his life, his impact on the continent would have been far greater.

So what did he actually do?

He took his country from the extremes of apartheid through to democracy. But what was so remarkable was how he did it. For someone who suffered under apartheid as he did, you would expect he would have taken bloody revenge and led the nation into a civil war. However, he choose to work with De Klerk to bring a peaceful end to apartheid.

That's great, but are the people better off?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Are things better in South Africa because of mandela?

SABC News.com - SA debt increases:Wednesday 30 January 2013

SAIRR laments high rate of unemployment
SABC News.com - SAIRR laments high rate of unemployment :Sunday 11 November 2012

SABC News.com - Agricultural sector shedding 30 000 jobs a year:Thursday 7 February 2013

 

[Flopper]

ok what has he done for Africa? Maybe you meant south Africa?
Really so what did he actually do?
Has Somali improved?
Libya?
Egypt?
Chad?
East Africa?
Ethiopia?
Uganda?

If the conservative government of South Africa hadn't kept him in prison for nearly a third of his life, his impact on the continent would have been far greater.

So what did he actually do?

He took his country from the extremes of apartheid through to democracy. But what was so remarkable was how he did it. For someone who suffered under apartheid as he did, you would expect he would have taken bloody revenge and led the nation into a civil war. However, he choose to work with De Klerk to bring a peaceful end to apartheid.

That's great, but are the people better off?

Were the slaves better off back on the plantation?

South Africa today is far different than 20 years ago. Living restrictions are gone, neighborhoods that were once all white are integrated, the homelands are no more. Black and white shoppers buy sneakers and eat frozen yogurt together without caring that such a thing was once unthinkable under Apartheid. Freedom of speech and the press, and free elections with universal suffrage, and basic human rights that we take for granted are now guaranteed in the constitution. No doubt South Africa faces some big problems and the old ways die hard, but they're on the right path.

It's hard to believe that less than 25 years ago, blacks that who were in majority in South Africa lived under these restrictions.

• Blacks could not marry or even date whites
• Interracial sex was against the law
• Blacks had no vote
• Blacks could only travel in certain areas
• Blacks could only have certain jobs
• Blacks had to live in demarcated areas, and these were pretty terrible. If they had any economic worth, they were moved to other places
• Blacks had to carry a "pass" and authority to be where they were
• There were separate public seating
• There were different public transport systems
• There were different doors, blacks only or whites only
• The NGK (Dutch Reformed Church) taught that blacks had no souls.

In every sense of the word, they were third class citizens in the country of their birth. The amazing thing is they put up with it for so long.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If the conservative government of South Africa hadn't kept him in prison for nearly a third of his life, his impact on the continent would have been far greater.

So what did he actually do?

He took his country from the extremes of apartheid through to democracy. But what was so remarkable was how he did it. For someone who suffered under apartheid as he did, you would expect he would have taken bloody revenge and led the nation into a civil war. However, he choose to work with De Klerk to bring a peaceful end to apartheid.

That's great, but are the people better off?

Were the slaves better off back on the plantation?

South Africa today is far different than 20 years ago. Living restrictions are gone, neighborhoods that were once all white are integrated, the homelands are no more. Black and white shoppers buy sneakers and eat frozen yogurt together without caring that such a thing was once unthinkable under Apartheid. Freedom of speech and the press, and free elections with universal suffrage, and basic human rights that we take for granted are now guaranteed in the constitution. No doubt South Africa faces some big problems and the old ways die hard, but they're on the right path.

It's hard to believe that less than 25 years ago, blacks that who were in majority in South Africa lived under these restrictions.

• Blacks could not marry or even date whites
• Interracial sex was against the law
• Blacks had no vote
• Blacks could only travel in certain areas
• Blacks could only have certain jobs
• Blacks had to live in demarcated areas, and these were pretty terrible. If they had any economic worth, they were moved to other places
• Blacks had to carry a "pass" and authority to be where they were
• There were separate public seating
• There were different public transport systems
• There were different doors, blacks only or whites only
• The NGK (Dutch Reformed Church) taught that blacks had no souls.

In every sense of the word, they were third class citizens in the country of their birth. The amazing thing is they put up with it for so long.

ok but what does that have to do with are they better off now?

 

[Flopper]

Mandela had a history of terrorism after-all, maybe that had something to do with it. Democrats seem to think Mandela's history started when he got out of prison.

So did the Contras (Who raped, murdered and killed American Nuns), the Iranian government (Who took American Hostages) and the Muj (who were led by Osama Bin Laden).

Didn't stop Reagan from helping those folks.

Mandela admitted to 156 acts of terrorism and was caught while planing to blow up schools with children present. He was on the terrorist watch list until 2008 as I recall. The Iranian hostage crisis was during the Carter years, Reagan had the hostages released.

Why didn't Clinton have Osama killed when he had the chance..8 years and he did nothing, then he stuck Bush with the problem but obviously the plan was already in the works and 9/11 happened?

At that time if you were black, you confessed or wish you had. The government made no secret of torture during interrogation. It was considered a deterrent. Blacks and occasionally whites were commonly subjected electric shocks, made to sit on imaginary chairs, half drowned in buckets of water and so on. Children arrested in demonstrations were routinely flogged and released. Those charged with violence were treated as terrorist which meant unlimited detention at the description of the police. The number of confessions made jury trials for most blacks unnecessary. In 1969, the government eliminated jury trials for blacks since white juries almost always convicted regardless of the evidence.

 

[jwoodie]

(yawn) The Obamanuts must be feeling a little defensive these days...

 

[Flopper]

That's great, but are the people better off?

Were the slaves better off back on the plantation?

South Africa today is far different than 20 years ago. Living restrictions are gone, neighborhoods that were once all white are integrated, the homelands are no more. Black and white shoppers buy sneakers and eat frozen yogurt together without caring that such a thing was once unthinkable under Apartheid. Freedom of speech and the press, and free elections with universal suffrage, and basic human rights that we take for granted are now guaranteed in the constitution. No doubt South Africa faces some big problems and the old ways die hard, but they're on the right path.

It's hard to believe that less than 25 years ago, blacks that who were in majority in South Africa lived under these restrictions.

• Blacks could not marry or even date whites
• Interracial sex was against the law
• Blacks had no vote
• Blacks could only travel in certain areas
• Blacks could only have certain jobs
• Blacks had to live in demarcated areas, and these were pretty terrible. If they had any economic worth, they were moved to other places
• Blacks had to carry a "pass" and authority to be where they were
• There were separate public seating
• There were different public transport systems
• There were different doors, blacks only or whites only
• The NGK (Dutch Reformed Church) taught that blacks had no souls.

In every sense of the word, they were third class citizens in the country of their birth. The amazing thing is they put up with it for so long.

ok but what does that have to do with are they better off now?

I think that's a silly question for anyone who values freedom.

The answer to the question, "Were Blacks Better Off Under Apartheid?", is emphatically, no! Blacks were not better off under apartheid. Why? Because for whatever mistakes and errors Blacks are making today, especially in the area of public policy, they in sum are better off for having the right and ability to ascend to a measure of self-rule - a necessary step for any person or community seeking to reach self-sufficiency, and the fullest measure of self respect and self-love.

http://www.blackelectorate.com/articles.asp?ID=541

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Were the slaves better off back on the plantation?

South Africa today is far different than 20 years ago. Living restrictions are gone, neighborhoods that were once all white are integrated, the homelands are no more. Black and white shoppers buy sneakers and eat frozen yogurt together without caring that such a thing was once unthinkable under Apartheid. Freedom of speech and the press, and free elections with universal suffrage, and basic human rights that we take for granted are now guaranteed in the constitution. No doubt South Africa faces some big problems and the old ways die hard, but they're on the right path.

It's hard to believe that less than 25 years ago, blacks that who were in majority in South Africa lived under these restrictions.

• Blacks could not marry or even date whites
• Interracial sex was against the law
• Blacks had no vote
• Blacks could only travel in certain areas
• Blacks could only have certain jobs
• Blacks had to live in demarcated areas, and these were pretty terrible. If they had any economic worth, they were moved to other places
• Blacks had to carry a "pass" and authority to be where they were
• There were separate public seating
• There were different public transport systems
• There were different doors, blacks only or whites only
• The NGK (Dutch Reformed Church) taught that blacks had no souls.

In every sense of the word, they were third class citizens in the country of their birth. The amazing thing is they put up with it for so long.

ok but what does that have to do with are they better off now?

I think that's a silly question for anyone who values freedom.

The answer to the question, "Were Blacks Better Off Under Apartheid?", is emphatically, no! Blacks were not better off under apartheid. Why? Because for whatever mistakes and errors Blacks are making today, especially in the area of public policy, they in sum are better off for having the right and ability to ascend to a measure of self-rule - a necessary step for any person or community seeking to reach self-sufficiency, and the fullest measure of self respect and self-love.

:: BlackElectorate.com ::

Without economic stability what good is freedom?

 

[Flopper]

ok but what does that have to do with are they better off now?

I think that's a silly question for anyone who values freedom.

The answer to the question, "Were Blacks Better Off Under Apartheid?", is emphatically, no! Blacks were not better off under apartheid. Why? Because for whatever mistakes and errors Blacks are making today, especially in the area of public policy, they in sum are better off for having the right and ability to ascend to a measure of self-rule - a necessary step for any person or community seeking to reach self-sufficiency, and the fullest measure of self respect and self-love.

:: BlackElectorate.com ::

Without economic stability what good is freedom?

A lot, for someone who has been deprived of basic human rights. However, South Africa has relatively stable government compared to rest of Africa.

South Africa in the post-apartheid period has registered steady growth. While much of the world staggered in the wake of the global financial meltdown, South Africa has managed to stay on its feet – largely due to its prudent fiscal and monetary policies.
The country is politically stable and has a well capitalized banking system, abundant natural resources, well developed regulatory systems as well as research and development capabilities, and an established manufacturing base.
Ranked by the World Bank as an “upper middle-income country”, South Africa is the largest economy in Africa – and it remains rich with promise.

South Africa: economy overview

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I think that's a silly question for anyone who values freedom.

The answer to the question, "Were Blacks Better Off Under Apartheid?", is emphatically, no! Blacks were not better off under apartheid. Why? Because for whatever mistakes and errors Blacks are making today, especially in the area of public policy, they in sum are better off for having the right and ability to ascend to a measure of self-rule - a necessary step for any person or community seeking to reach self-sufficiency, and the fullest measure of self respect and self-love.

:: BlackElectorate.com ::

Without economic stability what good is freedom?

A lot, for someone who has been deprived of basic human rights. However, South Africa has relatively stable government compared to rest of Africa.

South Africa in the post-apartheid period has registered steady growth. While much of the world staggered in the wake of the global financial meltdown, South Africa has managed to stay on its feet – largely due to its prudent fiscal and monetary policies.
The country is politically stable and has a well capitalized banking system, abundant natural resources, well developed regulatory systems as well as research and development capabilities, and an established manufacturing base.
Ranked by the World Bank as an “upper middle-income country”, South Africa is the largest economy in Africa – and it remains rich with promise.

South Africa: economy overview

ok they were deprive and got their freedom, that was how many years ago? Now hows that economic stability thing going?

 

[Flopper]

Without economic stability what good is freedom?

A lot, for someone who has been deprived of basic human rights. However, South Africa has relatively stable government compared to rest of Africa.

South Africa in the post-apartheid period has registered steady growth. While much of the world staggered in the wake of the global financial meltdown, South Africa has managed to stay on its feet – largely due to its prudent fiscal and monetary policies.
The country is politically stable and has a well capitalized banking system, abundant natural resources, well developed regulatory systems as well as research and development capabilities, and an established manufacturing base.
Ranked by the World Bank as an “upper middle-income country”, South Africa is the largest economy in Africa – and it remains rich with promise.

South Africa: economy overview

ok they were deprive and got their freedom, that was how many years ago? Now hows that economic stability thing going?

With the highest GDP on the continent, a growth rate last year better than the US, and half the world, and a debt to GDP ration half the US, I'd say they're doing OK. However, they have a long way to go. They are performing way under their potential.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I would say you're wrong.

Are things better in South Africa because of mandela?

SABC News.com - SA debt increases:Wednesday 30 January 2013

SAIRR laments high rate of unemployment
SABC News.com - SAIRR laments high rate of unemployment :Sunday 11 November 2012

SABC News.com - Agricultural sector shedding 30 000 jobs a year:Thursday 7 February 2013

 

[Flopper]

I would say you're wrong.

Are things better in South Africa because of mandela?

SABC News.com - SA debt increases:Wednesday 30 January 2013

SAIRR laments high rate of unemployment
SABC News.com - SAIRR laments high rate of unemployment :Sunday 11 November 2012

SABC News.com - Agricultural sector shedding 30 000 jobs a year:Thursday 7 February 2013

You totally ignore the value of freedom to a people who lived under the heal of white men for over a century. Economic progress means little if you can't reap the rewards of that progress.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I would say you're wrong.

Are things better in South Africa because of mandela?

SABC News.com - SA debt increases:Wednesday 30 January 2013

SAIRR laments high rate of unemployment
SABC News.com - SAIRR laments high rate of unemployment :Sunday 11 November 2012

SABC News.com - Agricultural sector shedding 30 000 jobs a year:Thursday 7 February 2013

You totally ignore the value of freedom to a people who lived under the heal of white men for over a century. Economic progress means little if you can't reap the rewards of that progress.

Without economic stability what good is freedom? It's only a word if you can use it. And it takes money to be free and do what you want.

You got to have money to cloth feed house yourself
You got to have money to buy that tool to defend that freedom with.
Once again
Without economic stability what good is freedom?

 

[Pogo]

Reagan never really supported Mandela. He vetoed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act. His position was clear. He believed the Anti-Apartheid movement would lead to civil strife and he supported the status quo in South Africa. However, this should not be surprising. He opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. His bogus tales of food stamps chiselers and welfare queens tended to employ racial imagery and often outright racist references to blacks.

Mandela was a communist Reagan brought down soviet union stop race baiting.

I know what you mean. I brought down a tree in my yard the same way. I went out of town, and when I came back it had fallen.

Yay me.