Sign up with GoogleA judge ruled that he and Mr Shaik had a generally corrupt relationship. Maybe its guilt by association but he didnt distance himself.
-
Ask a question and get free supportUnlock new privileges and see hidden discussionsWin prizes and earn reputation
-
Question of the day ~ How often do you braai?
-
Afristay giveaway.Win a 2-night stay for two people at an establishment of your choice with R1,000 in spending money. Enter here.
Zuma: I'll be like Mandela
- Thread starter Freshy-ZN
- Start date
A judge ruled that he and Mr Shaik had a generally corrupt relationship. Maybe its guilt by association but he didnt distance himself.
Freshy-ZN
Executive Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 5,730
Just because something doesnt make it to court doesnt mean there is no guilt. A criminal case is very hard to prove and prosecutors will only really take them on if there is a reasonable chance.
My gripe with Zuma actually has nothing to do with any of the corruption scandal (excepting that he was ruled by default to be party to a generally corrupt relationship with Shaik), nor does it have anything to do with conspiracy theories re the Xhosa vs Zulu thing.
My gripe has to do with what he himself has admitted to and said. Prime example being the shower scene. This man is not fit to run a country. He has no right trying to follow in the legendry footsteps of Mandela. He has no right to try pretend to be interested in fighting corruption. He is nothing more than a celebrity bad-boy, a Zulu Robbie Williams but with even less tact.
My gripe with Zuma actually has nothing to do with any of the corruption scandal (excepting that he was ruled by default to be party to a generally corrupt relationship with Shaik), nor does it have anything to do with conspiracy theories re the Xhosa vs Zulu thing.
My gripe has to do with what he himself has admitted to and said. Prime example being the shower scene. This man is not fit to run a country. He has no right trying to follow in the legendry footsteps of Mandela. He has no right to try pretend to be interested in fighting corruption. He is nothing more than a celebrity bad-boy, a Zulu Robbie Williams but with even less tact.
HosstheBoss
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2006
- Messages
- 817
Condemning: (v.) the act of putting on a condom
your right Angelo, we apologise, we would never expect his almighty Zuma to wear a condom!
Last edited:
HosstheBoss
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2006
- Messages
- 817
Yup, knowingly slept with a HIV positive woman, 30 years his junior, daughter of close friend, without protection, while leading the moral regeneration campaign and while taking the lead on the anti-aids campaign....
yup, perhaps
and what’s up with the western eyes? please explain this to a "whitey" whose family line has been in Africa for 309 years and the furthest west he has been is Cape Town
BTTB
Executive Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2004
- Messages
- 8,195
Hello Hoss,
What I was trying to say is that the Zulu's have their cultures.
What is not acceptable to Westernised Cultures, may be OK with the Zulu Culture?
Like having more than one "wife" for example?
I am by no means defending Zuma.
I think what he did was repugnant.
I was just trying to reason why he slept with someone other than his wife? Adultery is no more common in white or black families, but it is more accepted in the latter culture. I am not sure if the Zulu's have a name for it.
The problem with being promiscuous is that you are at a higher risk of getting AIDS, than a couple who marry for life.
KZN has the highest incidence of AIDS in South Africa, maybe the world, probably as a result of this Culture of Promiscuity?
5th Generation here.
Seeing as according to the courts he "enjoyed a generally corrupt relationship" its not very surprising people condemn him is it?!
That was never proven.
The very fact that one half of the equation was solved, ie, Shaiks "generally corrupt relationship with Zoooma" leads inexorably to the solving of the other half, ie, if Shaik had a generally corrupt relationship with Zuma then the inverse must be true. It is proven otherwise whom is Shaik (guilty) having the relationship with? The other half is automatically true - whether on not found guilty in a court of law.
Why don't you 'get' this?
ergo: zuma can never equal mandela
as zuma is "generally corrupt."
Last edited:
HosstheBoss
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2006
- Messages
- 817
Ja, having re-read my post and your reply to it I think I got on my high horse a little there;
My apologies for disrespecting your opinion