Zone1 Broad-brush reparations to all blacks is unconstituional

[JoeB131]

Still doesn’t compare to having one’s entire family mirdered by Hitler, and those Jews didn’t get reparations.

Except for the hundreds of billions we spend propping up the Zionist Entity.

 

[MarcATL]

Plenty of people, including black people.

And that means what exactly?

 

[MarcATL]

Examples:

Black #1: Grew up with my dad, attended the same public school, studied hard like my dad, and won a free college education, paid for by the government. He majored in engineering and ended up marrying a black girl in his class, who majored in teaching. She also got a free education. They went on to have comfortable middle-class lives, eventually affluent. They went on to have 3 children by 1960.

Black #2: Grew up in Alabama, and was forced to attend inferior black schools. No colleges down there were letting in blacks, and especially not giving them FREE educations. As a result, he ended up with a working class job, dealt with the Jim Crowe laws for another 15 years until they were abolished, and struggled financially.

NOW….you are telling me that all six of these blacks all deserve deserve reparations, decided solely by skin color?

Decided solely based on their legacy, being a descendant of an American slave.

 

[Dr.Know]

It's constitutional for descendants of American slaves.

If you're a descendant of an American slave, then it's constitutional to repair the harm done to them and their descendants.

Harm ????? Bringing them over to the USA was the best thing that ever happened to them ELSE they would GO BACK. All you have to do is show that they earn more money and have a better life in the USA than in an African shithole.

Any reparations given should be predicated on migrating back to Africa.

How about reparations for the Chinese that were brought here to build the rail roads ?

 

[MarcATL]

Harm ????? Bringing them over to the USA was the best thing that ever happened to them ELSE they would GO BACK. All you have to do is show that they earn more money and have a better life in the USA than in an African shithole.

Any reparations given should be predicated on migrating back to Africa.

How about reparations for the Chinese that were brought here to build the rail roads ?

Chinese weren't forced to come here. They chose to. Plus they weren't promised anything, like 20 acres and a mule by the government

No reparations for them.

 

[martybegan]

And that means what exactly?

Exactly what I said it means.

Stop using the Ron Swanson method of answering everything with a question.

 

[MarcATL]

Exactly what I said it means.

Stop using the Ron Swanson method of answering everything with a question.

Black Americans are owed reparations, and they're gonna get them.

Bottom line.

 

[martybegan]

Black Americans are owed reparations, and they're gonna get them.

Bottom line.

No, they are not, and the ones that might have been are long dead.

And they were owed by the people that enslaved them.

 

[Lisa558]

Decided solely based on their legacy, being a descendant of an American slave.

And that isn’t constitutional. Damages must be proven. Someone four generations away from slavery, who lived in a northern state and got a free college education, became a professional, and lived a comfortable life cannot proven damages.

The affluent blacks near me, eating in steakhouses and buying designer shoes at $500 a pop, obviously recovered from whatever their great-grandfather endured. Their “payoff” for that is the privilege of growing up in this country where they have enjoyed great opportunities.

I am very grateful to have grown up here, rather than Eastern Europe. You should be glad for the same.

 

[Lisa558]

Black Americans are owed reparations, and they're gonna get them.

Bottom line.

Not in our lifetimes. Any candidate who proposes that might win the votes of most blacks, but he will lose the votes of most whites. And there are more whites than blacks.

 

[JoeB131]

And that isn’t constitutional. Damages must be proven. Someone four generations away from slavery, who lived in a northern state and got a free college education, became a professional, and lived a comfortable life cannot proven damages.

They can still demonstrate that they were less likely to get callbacks on their resumes, still more likely to be pulled over by the police due to racial profiling, etc.

The affluent blacks near me, eating in steakhouses and buying designer shoes at $500 a pop, obviously recovered from whatever their great-grandfather endured. Their “payoff” for that is the privilege of growing up in this country where they have enjoyed great opportunities.

Yes, how dare they have nice things. Next, they'll be appearing on posters, and Lisa will wet her Depends!

That someone has worked hard to eat at a nice steakhouse (I assume they aren't eating there every day) or affording a nice pair of shoes, doesn't take away from the fact they had to overcome a lot more obstacles than you or I had to.

I am very grateful to have grown up here, rather than Eastern Europe. You should be glad for the same.

I am. I also understand that this was a CHOICE made by my grandfather. No one brought him over here in chains. Did he encounter prejudice for being a German-American between the World Wars? You betcha. But that kind of thing pretty much ended with my Dad's Generation who stopped speaking German and doing German stuff.

Not in our lifetimes. Any candidate who proposes that might win the votes of most blacks, but he will lose the votes of most whites. And there are more whites than blacks.

Not all white people are as awful as you are...

 

[IM2]

Then each person who's protection was violated makes a case against those who violated it. Not broad brush "government gives money to people unconstitutionally"

Given the fact other groups have received reparations, your equal protection argument has no merit.

 

[martybegan]

Given the fact other groups have received reparations, your equal protection argument has no merit.

What other groups? The only ones I remember are the Japanese interment victims, and they lost property and money due to the unconstitutional acts perpetrated on them. And even then only those interned were paid, and not the crazy amounts being foisted by the reparations grifters.

 

[IM2]

No, they are not, and the ones that might have been are long dead.

And they were owed by the people that enslaved them.

The governments of this nation owes blacks. Your argument only uses slavery as an excuse to deny. Because you choose to ignore everything in else. So once again, I'm going to show you this and tell you that your opposition is only due to your personal racism.

I am quite sure no one living in 1980 was alive when the U.S.government made the 1851 Fort Laramie treaty with the Sioux Nation or were participants in Custers violation of that treaty. Nor were they alive when President Grant decided it was OK to let settlers and people prospecting for gold tresspass into land promised to the Sioux thereby violating thetreaty. No one in 1980 was alive when the U.S. government decided to take the land from the Sioux by military force. No one in 1980 was alive when the U.S. government decided to cut off supplies they promised the Sioux as condition for their surrender after whipping the U.S. Army at The Battle of Little Bighorn. But in 1980, the government of the United States decided reparations were due to the Sioux Nation for what was done to them in the 1800’s. They awarded the Sioux nation 105 million dollars.

United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980)

United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians

supreme.justia.com

Your equal protection argument is malarkey..

 

[martybegan]

The governments of this nation owes blacks. Your argument only uses slavery as an excuse to deny. Because you choose to ignore everything in else. So once again, I'm going to show you this and tell you that your opposition is only due to your personal racism.

I am quite sure no one living in 1980 was alive when the U.S.government made the 1851 Fort Laramie treaty with the Sioux Nation or were participants in Custers violation of that treaty. Nor were they alive when President Grant decided it was OK to let settlers and people prospecting for gold tresspass into land promised to the Sioux thereby violating thetreaty. No one in 1980 was alive when the U.S. government decided to take the land from the Sioux by military force. No one in 1980 was alive when the U.S. government decided to cut off supplies they promised the Sioux as condition for their surrender after whipping the U.S. Army at The Battle of Little Bighorn. But in 1980, the government of the United States decided reparations were due to the Sioux Nation for what was done to them in the 1800’s. They awarded the Sioux nation 105 million dollars.

United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980)

United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians

supreme.justia.com

Your equal protection argument is malarkey..

In those cases there are viable treaties agreed to by both parties. Thus it's not reparations but treat violation compensation.

And governments don't have their own money, it's the people that have the money, and there is no Constitutional basis for taking my money and giving it to someone else because of their race, what happened to their ancestors, or what happened when my ancestors weren't even here.

 

[IM2]

What other groups? The only ones I remember are the Japanese interment victims, and they lost property and money due to the unconstitutional acts perpetrated on them. And even then only those interned were paid, and not the crazy amounts being foisted by the reparations grifters.

There are no reparations grifters. I get tired of dishonest whites like you. Whites are still practicing racism and blacks are still being harmed. You purposefully refuse to talk about white behavior afteer slavery and the fact you think only Japanese have reccieved reparations shows that you really don't know anything about the issue.

Blacks lost money and property during Jim Crow, and have lost a minimum of 16 trillion dollars since the beginning of this century. And why do whites like you lie about how you should not be ressponsible when you practice the same behavior? President Johnsons signature has not stopped whites from being racist, but it has allowed people like you, lisa and others to maximize the use of plausible deniability.

Stop listening to whiite race pimps and do some research.

 

[martybegan]

There are no reparations grifters. I get tired of dishonest whites like you. Whites are still practicing racism and blacks are still being harmed. You purposefully refuse to talk about white behavior afteer slavery and the fact you think only Japanese have reccieved reparations shows that you really don't know anything about the issue.

Blacks lost money and property during Jim Crow, and have lost a minimum of 16 trillion dollars since the beginning of this century. And why do whites like you lie about how you should not be ressponsible when you practice the same behavior? President Johnsons signature has not stopped whites from being racist, but it has allowed people like you, lisa and others to maximize the use of plausible deniability.

Stop listening to whiite race pimps and do some research.

Then sue the people that took the property. They just did this in LA for some beach property recently, didn't they?

Non realized assumed gains are not losses, That's Ponzi scheme talk.

Reparations are not owed due to thought crime, which seems to be the basis of your current rant.

 

[IM2]

In those cases there are viable treaties agreed to by both parties. Thus it's not reparations but treat violation compensation.

And governments don't have their own money, it's the people that have the money, and there is no Constitutional basis for taking my money and giving it to someone else because of their race, what happened to their ancestors, or what happened when my ancestors weren't even here.

Yes, they were reparations. And the constitutional precedent for reparations has been established. Reparations are not being asked for because of race, nor are they only for what happened when your ancestors weren't here.

For the first five years after WW2 in Chicago alone, there were over 300 documented acts of terror by whites against blacks who tried living in or near majority-white neighborhoods. In 1951, a black man named Harvey Clark and his family tried to move into the Cicero neighborhood of Chicago. A white mob vandalized his home and burned his furniture in the front yard. The police did nothing.

In 1955, there were more than 200 recorded acts of violence against blacks by whites in Philadelphia alone. In 1964, blacks again tried renting an apartment in Cicero, their apartment was vandalized. Police acted this time. They entered the apartment, took out the furniture, and told the people they were evicted. During the same period in Detroit, there were over 200 acts of terror to stop black families from moving to the suburbs. In a fifteen year span from 1950 to 1965, more than one hundred recorded bombings of black-owned homes occurred in Los Angeles. In 1987, another black family tried moving into Cicero. They got gunfire and firebombs. Again, that was in 1987, not 1887.

Consistently since the end of slavery, there has been a section of the white community who violently resisted the efforts of blacks to live successfully in America. During this time, prosperous blacks faced acts of terror while thriving black communities got destroyed by mobs of angry whites who felt they were losing out because blacks had acquired the same things whites had. This kind of terrorism has gone long ignored in understanding the brutality and hardcore resistance to black freedom in America. Forgotten is that blacks worked hard to get what they had, but that did not matter because blacks were always to be lesser than whites, and the caste was to be maintained by any means necessary. White immigrants, whose descendants will say today how they are not responsible because their ancestors did not enslave people, committed violence against blacks.

This is also why we ask for reparations. It's time the dishonest arguments people like you make stopped.. We ask for reparations because equal protection has never existed for blacks.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, they were reparations. And the constitutional precedent for reparations has been established. Reparations are not being asked for because of race, nor are they only for what happened when your ancestors weren't here.

For the first five years after WW2 in Chicago alone, there were over 300 documented acts of terror by whites against blacks who tried living in or near majority-white neighborhoods. In 1951, a black man named Harvey Clark and his family tried to move into the Cicero neighborhood of Chicago. A white mob vandalized his home and burned his furniture in the front yard. The police did nothing.

In 1955, there were more than 200 recorded acts of violence against blacks by whites in Philadelphia alone. In 1964, blacks again tried renting an apartment in Cicero, their apartment was vandalized. Police acted this time. They entered the apartment, took out the furniture, and told the people they were evicted. During the same period in Detroit, there were over 200 acts of terror to stop black families from moving to the suburbs. In a fifteen year span from 1950 to 1965, more than one hundred recorded bombings of black-owned homes occurred in Los Angeles. In 1987, another black family tried moving into Cicero. They got gunfire and firebombs. Again, that was in 1987, not 1887.

Consistently since the end of slavery, there has been a section of the white community who violently resisted the efforts of blacks to live successfully in America. During this time, prosperous blacks faced acts of terror while thriving black communities got destroyed by mobs of angry whites who felt they were losing out because blacks had acquired the same things whites had. This kind of terrorism has gone long ignored in understanding the brutality and hardcore resistance to black freedom in America. Forgotten is that blacks worked hard to get what they had, but that did not matter because blacks were always to be lesser than whites, and the caste was to be maintained by any means necessary. White immigrants, whose descendants will say today how they are not responsible because their ancestors did not enslave people, committed violence against blacks.

This is also why we ask for reparations. It's time the dishonest arguments people like you make stopped.. We ask for reparations because equal protection has never existed for blacks.

There is no contract to be disputed or compensated for being in arrears of.

None of your long post makes any rational case for reparations Soley based on race, which is what you are looking for.

Equal protection has been the law of the land since the 60's, after correcting the mistake made in Plessey.

 

[MarcATL]

No, they are not, and the ones that might have been are long dead.

And they were owed by the people that enslaved them.

They are owed by the government that wronged them.

That government still exists.

They're going to get their reparations.

Period.