He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7323667.stm

Okay, so he had dead people on the electoral register, he had armed guards posted at the ballot boxes for weeks stuffing votes into them by the fistfull, he was apparently handing out free tractors to voters in some areas, and he still loses.

C'mon, Bobby, you need to brush up on your electoral fraud. You should be an old pro at it by this stage.

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

Why does everyone care so much about Zimbabwae when there are loads of others out there like him?

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

Because all the other dictators are good at their job.

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

he is being rather good. drip feeding the results with the opposition in front first then gradually a 'government comeback' is marvellous

he's gone for gritty realistic lies this time

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

Well, Musharaff (or how you spell his name) in Pakistan have been slipping lately.

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

Vladimir Putin seems to be doing well.

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

Is this "Name the Dictator" or what.





P.S. STALIN.

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

http://www.sokwanele.com/map/all_breaches

yo.

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

MARGARET THATCHER!!!1

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

They are letting negros vote?

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

"We're all negroes now."

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

Haha

They probably didn't realize that the other candidate was doing the same thing.

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

Dead negroes too.

Which to my mind is witchcraft

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

Unexpected.

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

hay mz you have 1337 posts now you're cool :)


edit: maybe you should never post again to keep it that way. ever.

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

I know!

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

What ever happened to good old Honest Graft?

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

About ****ing time!

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

Something is about to happen, it seems!

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/af...ina/index.html

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

I belive that would be to obvious, T&F. Not to mention it has been done all before.

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

you want to cut out the hard bit and automatically arrive at the conclusion you would be arguing for but without doing any arguing?

a curious approach.

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

A thread full of links to the latest events with intermittent nonsense? Oh, why won't someone think of the children!

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

Interesting idea (o_O). Just an aside though, assuming that Britain/Empire actually did some good in the world, do those countries/communities/etc havean obligation therefore, in a world of complete balance and order, to pay Britain money?

It would suck balls (in a bad way :( ) if Australia and Canada, and the US presumably and etc all had to prop britain up - again.

;)

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

Assumption is the mother of all ****ups.

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

the only problem with T&F's theory is that British compensation would come from Italy and they'd probably default on the payments :(

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

Even the catholic church gave up the concept of original sin. Yes we might be responsible for the economics of today, but we're not responsible for the empire which happened before most of us on this board were born, just like we're not responsible for slavery. That doesn't mean that what happened with the empire wasn't wrong in a number of aspects. It also doesn't mean we shouldn't pour resources (not necessarily just money) into helping africa either for a number of reasons.

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

One could argue that helping people who need it is always a good thing, whether you're responsible for creating the situation they're in or not.

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

I didn't say we shouldn't help people in Africa because there's plenty we're responsible for in the here and now. In fact we're probably doing much the same damage without actually 'owning' these countries. So really there's plenty in the here and now to be sorry about rather than worry about something in the past that actually, has nothing to do with me. I just think the tirade against imperialism was pointless.

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

Ah, I misread a shouldn't for a should in your last sentence.

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

Well that's all well and good, but how far does it go?

Imagine if Britain (hypothetically speaking) blew the shit out of some distant third-world country for it's own reasons. Then, there was a general election and a new government was elected. Dose Britain still have an obligation to that country or does it all become irrelevent because it was the 'other' government?

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

It's entirely subjective and I won't pretend there are arbitrary time periods. I think something that happened in a previous administration might well be related as that is within our own generation. You might think different.

But am I responsible for endorsing slavery or the evils of the empire? I've not been part of the system/generation that was responsible for either, I wasn't even alive. I am sorry that Britain took part in such acts; but I will not be made to be feel guilty for something that ultimately, had nothing to do with me.

With respect to Africa, which is what T&F's post was about, it is clearly right to help Africa - but not because of the Empire - modern economics? Yes, as quite frankly modern capitalism crushes them and we need to accommodate them to prevent tremendous suffering on the continent. Because it is generally a good thing to help people less fortunate than you? I would say certainly, but it depends on your morals. But I couldn't sit here and let an argument pass that sets out to make people feel guilty about something that wasn't to do with them (unless you are DM lol) - I didn't want to post, but I was far too irritated. We can be responsible for our own actions before we start attempting to feel guilty about something that is nothing to do with us.

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

A better reason is that by helping them develop properly, they then can become large consumers which will help everyone's economy.

Then we can actually afford to help them develop!

:(

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

A good practical reason but we're talking morality here about whether we should help.

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

Extremist twaddle. Giving people free money? Where will it end? Next thing you'll be arguing in favour of some kind total redistribution of wealth and some kind of revolution which will destroy Capitalism and the state. And then we'll be in Utopia or something.

Re: He wouldn't gerrymander a bee
 

Are we? I thought we were discussing whether we should help africans ... if that's only a moral question, then that's your perspective. To me, if you're really interested in the issue, then you need to address the means to which that help might come.

Clearly, the current form of aid doesnt seem to be achieving much (though perhaps better than nothing, depending on how much you value african lives i suppose).

Thus, if Britain is in no state to actually provide any aid, then an argument that they should be providing that aid is totally pointless and a waste of time given that it cant happen.

So, what i said was still relevent.

Err, isnt the whole social security system already an excercise in re-distributing wealth and giving "free money" to those who least deserve it?

Also, it doesnt follow that the destruction of capitalism and the state will result in a Utopia. In fact, to me, it would sound quite dire, actually.