- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A Turtledove Story of South African History (possible Land Use Solution added on p.4)
Posted on 8/27/18 at 4:39 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 8/27/18 at 4:39 pm to AggieHank86
quote:"If we must start with" a racist premise, clearly we must reach a poorly founded conclusion. Right?
if we must start with THEIR premise that greater non-White ownership of agricultural land would be a social good for the country.
quote:So now the equation is racism and city parks? Pardon me as a park-lover if I buy out of that comparison.
We need not AGREE with that premise, any more than we must agree that city parks are a social good.
quote:...and...Racism is now a "social good"? Sorry! No dice! We all bleed red through the skin, AH86.
What is the best way to achieve that “social good,”
quote:So the same should be true for aboriginals worldwide?
In 1994, there should have been affirmative goals for non-White land ownership
e.g. How far does this track? Mexican Texas and California?
Native Americans, Aboriginal Britons?
Aboriginals in general?
Then again as we ALL descended from Africa, what gives one racial subsegment of ALL of us such aboriginal rights on the African continent?
quote:Which would inevitably result in taxpaying landowners paying for the government to redistribute their land.
The pragmatic response is for the government to buy property at market value
2
Posted on 8/27/18 at 4:55 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Is it a “problem” that submarines do not fly? They are not designed for it, just like my OP was not designed to solve the land reform problem
lol, that's what you're calling genocide. Agenda revealed.
This post was edited on 8/27/18 at 11:53 pm
Posted on 8/27/18 at 5:02 pm to NC_Tigah
You COMPLETELY ignored the point of my post.
You clearly want to discuss their premise, and I will be glad to discuss that with you. But not until you address the question that I raised first.
Do you see a better way to achieve their ends, while preserving the economy?
quote:And the only thing you do is go back and argue with the underlying premise. Sad.
IF we accept THEIR idea of “societal good,” how do we achieve that end without destroying the economy and/or starving people?
You clearly want to discuss their premise, and I will be glad to discuss that with you. But not until you address the question that I raised first.
Do you see a better way to achieve their ends, while preserving the economy?
Posted on 8/27/18 at 5:05 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Not necessarily. One of the options I discussed was resale at market price, with governmental financing.
Which would inevitably result in taxpaying landowners paying for the government to redistribute their land.
Posted on 8/27/18 at 5:12 pm to More&Les
quote:Have you EVER made the slightest effort NOT to be ridiculous? You REALLY need to get your news from somewhere other than Gateway Pundit or InfoWars.quote:lol, that's what your calling genocide. Agenda revealed.
Is it a “problem” that submarines do not fly? They are not designed for it, just like my OP was not designed to solve the land reform problem
The stats say that an average of five or six people have died per month in farm attacks since 1994 across a country roughly a quarter the size of the continental US, most of which are attributed to simple violent crime ... rather than some sort of politically-motivated pogrom.
Those figures are cerainly not inconsequential, but they would not constitute “genocide” in a small town ... much less a population of five million ... even if they WERE political.
Yes, the crime problem needs to be addressed, but stop pretending that it is something it is not.
This post was edited on 8/27/18 at 5:26 pm
Posted on 8/27/18 at 5:15 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Oh my.
You COMPLETELY ignored the point of my post.
Goodness then, I may have missed it.
So in context of multiple racist presumptions, what was the point of your post?
Posted on 8/27/18 at 5:16 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
with governmental financing
quote:
with governmental financing
quote:Who pays for that governmental financing?
with governmental financing
Posted on 8/27/18 at 5:21 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:You really DO struggle with the English language, don’t you? I restated the “point” in the very post to which you replied. AGAIN:
Oh my. Goodness then, I may have missed it. So in context of multiple racist presumptions, what was the point of your post?
quote:And you respond about:
IF we accept THEIR idea of “societal good,” how do we achieve that end without destroying the economy and/or starving people?
quote:demonstrating that you also have difficulty with abstract thought.
multiple racist presumptions
This post was edited on 8/27/18 at 5:37 pm
Posted on 8/27/18 at 5:25 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:The borrower. It is this newfangled concept called “interest.”. Humans have been experimenting with it for about 7,000 years.
Who pays for that governmental financing?
The nice thing about this type of loan is that the collateral cannot walk away.
Posted on 8/27/18 at 5:32 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The stats say that an average of five or six people have died per month in farm attacks since 1994 across a country roughly a quarter the size of the continental US,
There are so few white farmers left that a white farmer has a 3.2X higher chance of being murdered than anyone else in a murder country.
Posted on 8/27/18 at 5:33 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Who pays for that governmental financing? The borrower.
Lol
Posted on 8/27/18 at 5:36 pm to AggieHank86
The borrower. It is this newfangled concept called “interest.”. Humans have been experimenting with it for about 7,000 years. The nice thing about this type of loan is that the collateral cannot walk away
Why have no private parties stepped into this obviously profitable venture?
Why have no private parties stepped into this obviously profitable venture?
Posted on 8/27/18 at 5:38 pm to Dawgfanman
Political instability, paired with the facts that private lenders generally like to see collateral equal to about twice the principal amount and that they seek a profit rather than break-even to achieve a governmental objective.
But AGAIN, I am not saying that such loans would be a capitalist’s wet dream. They would simply be a means of implementing the government’s stated policy.
Why do people on this forum have such difficulty focusing upon the issue under discussion? Is is like the forum mascot is the Fightin’ Tangent.
But AGAIN, I am not saying that such loans would be a capitalist’s wet dream. They would simply be a means of implementing the government’s stated policy.
Why do people on this forum have such difficulty focusing upon the issue under discussion? Is is like the forum mascot is the Fightin’ Tangent.
This post was edited on 8/27/18 at 5:45 pm
Posted on 8/27/18 at 5:45 pm to AggieHank86
quote:No.
ou really DO struggle with the English language
You posted a diatribe postulating racially based solutions.
quote:Like ignoring abject racism?
with abstract thought.
I'm sorry. Perhaps you don't get it.
You don't presuppose racism as a ""hypothetical solution"" without accepting what you've done. Own it. Then discuss it.
Put another way, try cutting skin color out of your ""abstractions"".
Posted on 8/27/18 at 5:48 pm to NC_Tigah
Holy Crap, did you finish High School?
An indicator of abstract thought is the ability to assume ANY set of facts or presumptions and to reason from those assumed facts. To do that, you need NOT accept the premise as true.
An indicator of abstract thought is the ability to assume ANY set of facts or presumptions and to reason from those assumed facts. To do that, you need NOT accept the premise as true.
This post was edited on 8/27/18 at 5:53 pm
Posted on 8/27/18 at 5:51 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
that private lenders generally like to see collateral equal to about twice the principal amount and that they seek a profit rather than break-even to achieve a governmental objective.
You’re legit retarded.
Posted on 8/27/18 at 5:54 pm to the808bass
quote:Son, I have watched you post. I have at least twenty points on you. Probably thirty.
You’re legit retarded.
This post was edited on 8/27/18 at 6:07 pm
Posted on 8/27/18 at 5:57 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Newfangled indeed.
Who pays for that governmental financing?
The borrower. It is this newfangled concept called “interest.”
Here is another "newfangled concept" . . . collateral.
Without it, lenders don't lend, or they lose.
In this instance, borrowers have no appropriate collateral.
So what you are proposing is 2008 FannieMae on steroids.
That fallacy is in turn amplified logarithmically when one anticipates land-use ineptitude of the new owners.
Again, who pays?
Them with the monies pay.
Posted on 8/27/18 at 5:58 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Son, I have watched you post. I have at least twenty points on you. Probably thirty.
On the Medicaid scale? Maybe.
Posted on 8/27/18 at 6:03 pm to NC_Tigah
My GOD you are slow. The LAND is the collateral. The government does not NEED to make a profit, and having land as collateral minimizes thae chances of affirmative LOSS.
No, it will not be profitable. It is not SUPPOSED to be profitable. It is SUPPOSED to satisfy governmental objectives regarding land ownership.
And the “ineptitude” issue is minimized if you sell to the former longtime employees on THAT property, as I suggested in the original post on this issue.
AGAIN, this is not a program that I would CHOOSE to implement here. It is the only program with any likelihood of meeting THEIR objectives in THEIR country without wrecking the economy or starving people.
TRY to separate those concepts in that tiny organ you use in place of a brain.
No, it will not be profitable. It is not SUPPOSED to be profitable. It is SUPPOSED to satisfy governmental objectives regarding land ownership.
And the “ineptitude” issue is minimized if you sell to the former longtime employees on THAT property, as I suggested in the original post on this issue.
AGAIN, this is not a program that I would CHOOSE to implement here. It is the only program with any likelihood of meeting THEIR objectives in THEIR country without wrecking the economy or starving people.
TRY to separate those concepts in that tiny organ you use in place of a brain.
This post was edited on 8/27/18 at 6:16 pm
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News