Do you remember the last whites-only referendum?

JustAsk said:
Stop dancing around dude
Click to expand...

WHAT?!

You're being blatantly idiotic here by plainly ignoring the fact that a large percentage of the population COULD NOT VOTE - mainly due to being too young to vote. GEDDIT?

Ultimately your argument is completely invalid. Geddit?
 
Flanders said:
WHAT?!

You're being blatantly idiotic here by plainly ignoring the fact that a large percentage of the population COULD NOT VOTE - mainly due to being too young to vote. GEDDIT?

Ultimately your argument is completely invalid. Geddit?
Click to expand...
Actually that comment was for the other oke .

Ignoring the insults...

Whites estimation in 1992 were a little more then 5 million.
At that time their life expectancy was around 73 average.
This is a group not known for many kids.
As per wiki 2.8 million voted...3.3million was registered.
Mostly older people vote,a global fact.
Your argument assuming that almost 2 million whites were children.Highly unlikely
 
JustAsk said:
Your argument assuming that almost 2 million whites were children.Highly unlikely
Click to expand...

Well, until you can tell us how many were children, I think it'd be wiser not to go around insinuating that that the majority of whites were not for change.
 
The_Librarian said:
Where the whites have to choose to continue the existing political policy of apartheid, or to discard it.

Sadly, things have gone downhill from there... :(
Click to expand...

Ja, things would have been so much better if we kept the NAT's and apartheid in place. :wtf:
 
JustAsk said:
Your argument assuming that almost 2 million whites were children.Highly unlikely
Click to expand...
Without insult and sorry however 'highly unlikely' is right up there with your other incorrect estimate.
Go and check the data.
 
Well I was to young to remember it, but given all the propaganda at the time and the press being controlled by the Nats, I actually wonder how many whites really knew what they were voting for or what it was about.
 
Sneeky said:
Without insult and sorry however 'highly unlikely' is right up there with your other incorrect estimate.
Go and check the data.
Click to expand...
Well show me the data.You just can't have a 5 million strong group with a life expectancy of average 73 at the time to have 2 million children.Dude,older people are the biggest voters,worldwide standard.Your argument also suggests that all adult whites registered.
 
JustAsk said:
Well show me the data.You just can't have a 5 million strong group with a life expectancy of average 73 at the time to have 2 million children.Dude,older people are the biggest voters,worldwide standard.Your argument also suggests that all adult whites registered.
Click to expand...
Says who, you who said there were 10 million whites around the patch at the time?
I never said the figure was 2 million kids, you just did. I think though you will be surprised at what it is.

You have no decency to reference it yourself, you are just trolling now.
 
Last edited:
IT WAS 85% OF THE REGISTERED 3.3 MILLION VOTERS...2.8 MILLION
 
Last edited:
Sneeky said:
Says who, you who said there were 10 million whites around the patch at the time?
I never said the figure was 2 million kids, you just did. I think though you will be surprised at what it is.

You have no decency to reference it yourself, you are just trolling now.
Click to expand...

Keep debating semantics...you're getting deperate.
 
Mila said:
And you think there was 7 million unregistered voters?
Click to expand...

I see you lot still using the old tactic...focusing on petty little kark,diverting the issue...because you are unable to supply a decent argument.
 
JustAsk said:
I see you lot still using the old tactic...focusing on petty little kark,diverting the issue...because you are unable to supply a decent argument.
Click to expand...

What you on about? I tried to state some numbers. You said 10 million. People asked you to back up your claims.
5 million were not even close. You made bs statements. You claimed that only a fraction of whites that was eligible to vote did.
Aparently you are wrong. If my links are wrong please correct me.

As of the census of 2001, there are 4,293,638 Whites and 1,409,690 White households residing in South Africa
Click to expand...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Africa#section_1
 
Fudzy said:
Why are you talking about 2001?
Click to expand...

Because its the numbers I can find. Like I said. Show me I'm wrong. ( no snarkey)
I was just trying to put numbers to the argument.( it wasn't making sense to me:o )
Can we say white population increased decreased or stayed the same? I don't think it halved. Could it be?
 
Last edited:
Why do you people even entertain this cretins drivel?

His figures are wrong, his assumptions are wrong... he is just trolling the lot of you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X