It's not a matter of appeasing me,
[cut]Here is the reasoning for my harsh words:
The police resemble roving gangs of warlords, many of whom take pride in molesting the newly beleaguered 'second' class out of existence, raping their women with the protection of both the courts and the corrupt socialist bureaucracy.
This is equivalent to saying the U.S. Police Force goes out of its way to rape and murder African-Americans. Due to the extreme lack of truth behind this statement, I immediately assume you are attempting to fabricate factual information just to prove you point that South Africa was better under Apartheid. This for one is why I don't take you seriously.
It had at least 3 first world cities (Cape Town, Johannesburg, Durban) that would rival many other former European colonies like Montreal, Sydney, and Auckland.
Again, you ignore obvious, glaring facts that contradict your argument just so you can somehow capitalize in proving your absurd point that South Africa was better under Apartheid. Funny, when I was in Sydney and Montreal I must have overlooked the sprawling shantytowns that make up most of the urban population. Again, it appears you're attempting to fabricate truths just to prove your belief that South Africa was better under Apartheid.
The 'death of Johannesburg' blog visually chronicles the decline of Johannesburg from a world class city to something similar to Detroit; a burned out, boarded up city that is a mere shadow if its former glory.
I just reviewed your site, and I'm curious how you can deduce the state of a city by some photos a person posts online. Not to mention the fact that this person clearly has an objective in mind. I mean, the blog is called The Death of Johannesburg, do you think the author is going to post pictures of Johannesburg improving even if the city was improving?
This puts South Africa in an economic purgatory. It is either a very poor developed country or a developing country with negative GDP growth. I don't know which is worse.
Well, there has been this thing in the news lately, called a global recession. And just for your information, South Africa is reporting growth again, so this is old information.
25% unemployment rate - and growing
Pre-recession employment rates. EDIT - and the source is a well-respected statistics organization based in South Africa, called Quantec.
While some of these points appear to just be mere ignorance, I also have to conclude that because so many of these points are so drastically unintelligent, the only possible explanation for your argument is that you are trying to find an excuse for why you believe South Africa was better under Apartheid. Due to this reasoning, I come to the conclusion that your motives are genuinely racist and lack any merit whatsoever. It seems that you believe South Africa was better under Apartheid not because it was
factually better, but because you
want it to be better.
EDIT -
Also, you win the award for the greatest use of the race card by one person in a thread.
You realize you are arguing in support of Apartheid. How does one disagree and not bring up "the race card?"
I am merely connecting the dots here. I do not think that his conduct, dancing included, is appropriate for a head of state.
But when they waltz, it's perfectly fine.
How can you honestly tell yourself you are not being racist?