Should Blacks Pay Reparations To Whites?

[katsteve2012]

Their accomplishments were "greater" by default.

As a majority that suppressed, oppressed and in many cases exploited every group of minorities that ever arrived here, they ensured that their accomplishments often came at the expense of others....in some cases, even their own.

The topic was lives lost in the Civil War.

Your inability to read the word "sacrifice" and understand it's meaning is noted.

Please consider yourself ridiculed.

Your race baiting in noted and dismissed.

If you consider the truth to be "race baiting" so be it.

Your blatent misrepresentation of the real reason that the war was actually fought is noted......and ridiculous.
And typical.

Oh? Are you claiming the Civil War was not about slavery?

Of course not. It was about industrializing the entire country and preserving the United States. Slavery wss an inconvienient hinderance in the way of progress.

The fact that slaves were freed was only a necessary by product of the process.

In Lincoln's own words..."I can think of no greater calamity than the assimilation of blacks into society as the white mans equal".

There was no "humanitarian sacrifice"

Lincoln was well know as a rabid Abolitionist and the voters knew that and knew that the South would resist.

His attempts of diplomacy with the Southerns, whom he conquered and ruined, should be taken with a large grain of salt.

The soldiers of the North were not stupid. THey knew that slavery was the cause of the war, and they supported LIncoln enough to fight and die for him.

Are you serious? Lincoln WAS NOT an abolitionist....let alone a "rabid" one.

The true abolitionists of that era believed that slavery should have been abolished and never should have even happened. They also believed that freed slaves should have been able to assimilate into society as equal citizens. Lincoln did NOT share those beliefs.

Lincoln looked at the future economic impact of a manual labor system on an industrial process system and made the right business decision for the future of America....if he could have preserved the union and continued slavery, he would have done so.

Lincoln and Abolitionism | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

 

[katsteve2012]

Their accomplishments were "greater" by default.

As a majority that suppressed, oppressed and in many cases exploited every group of minorities that ever arrived here, they ensured that their accomplishments often came at the expense of others....in some cases, even their own.

The topic was lives lost in the Civil War.

Your inability to read the word "sacrifice" and understand it's meaning is noted.

Please consider yourself ridiculed.

Your race baiting in noted and dismissed.

If you consider the truth to be "race baiting" so be it.

Your blatent misrepresentation of the real reason that the war was actually fought is noted......and ridiculous.
And typical.

Oh? Are you claiming the Civil War was not about slavery?

Of course not. It was about states rights and industrializing the entire country and preserving the United States. The South wanted toveven expand slavery to western territories and the North wanted to preserve a predominately white labor force.

Slavery was an inconvienient hinderance in the way of progress.

The fact that slaves were freed was only a necessary by product of the process.

It's a fact that numerous southern white voters left the Democratic party after the Civil Rights act was passed

How racism explains Republicans’ rise in the South

Again? What is this, your screen saver?

One election. 41 years ago?
Really?

One election, after the Civil Rights Act, after Nixon supposedly started flipped the southern racists, thus disproving your claims.


If not for the "racist southerns" Carter would have carried just 10 states out of 50, many of them tiny.

Yet, Jimmy Carter was a supporter of Civil Rights.

Jimmy Carter was a southern farmer by trade. He was from the south and appealed to the rural masses of the southern region.

The fact that he was a supporter of civil rights was pivotal in him obtaining 92% of the black vote.

If the South was HALF as racist as you claim, those rural masses would have been turned off by his support of civil rights.

Instead the rural areas and the older voters where were his support was strongest, among white voters.

Nope. Carter was a born again Christian and a farmer from the deep South.

That appeal AND 92% of the black vote was enough for him to gain the votes to clinch the election.

However on a national basis Ford got more of the total white vote.....and substantially more in the 1980 election.

 

[xotoxi]

I think that residents in the states Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia should pay reparation to the people of Maine, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, California, Nevada, and Oregon for acts of treason leading to war. It should be a yearly payment of $100 per resident for the next 99 years.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Their accomplishments were "greater" by default.

As a majority that suppressed, oppressed and in many cases exploited every group of minorities that ever arrived here, they ensured that their accomplishments often came at the expense of others....in some cases, even their own.

The topic was lives lost in the Civil War.

Your inability to read the word "sacrifice" and understand it's meaning is noted.

Please consider yourself ridiculed.

Your race baiting in noted and dismissed.

If you consider the truth to be "race baiting" so be it.

Your blatent misrepresentation of the real reason that the war was actually fought is noted......and ridiculous.
And typical.

Oh? Are you claiming the Civil War was not about slavery?

Of course not. It was about industrializing the entire country and preserving the United States. Slavery wss an inconvienient hinderance in the way of progress.

The fact that slaves were freed was only a necessary by product of the process.

In Lincoln's own words..."I can think of no greater calamity than the assimilation of blacks into society as the white mans equal".

There was no "humanitarian sacrifice"

Lincoln was well know as a rabid Abolitionist and the voters knew that and knew that the South would resist.

His attempts of diplomacy with the Southerns, whom he conquered and ruined, should be taken with a large grain of salt.

The soldiers of the North were not stupid. THey knew that slavery was the cause of the war, and they supported LIncoln enough to fight and die for him.

Abolitionists' Daddies Bought Them Exemption From Having to Fight

SCROTUS's Dred Scott decision authorized slaveholders to bring their Africans into the free states. But Northerners didn't want untamed savages on their land, even if they came in chains. For one thing, the slaveholders would have turned them loose at night to loot their opponents' property. So Northerners fought to keep the South from taking over the North with its peculiar institution.

The South had slavery, the North had sweatshops. Only those who consider the working class to be inferior believe that the North had moral superiority.

 

[S.J.]

I've told you before, I'm not a Democrat. Neither of today's parties are concerned for the well being of America.

Sure, when is the last time you voted for a Republican?

It is not I who is making up a story about 2 political parties who have changed over time.

Says the not so artful dodger who claims Republicans and Democrats decided to "switch sides" but can't name any.

 

[Correll]

Your non sequitur is noted and dismissed.

My point stands as the final word, until, if ever, you can bring yourself to actually address it.






You are the one that put forth the argument that blacks deserve some sort of credit for the sacrifices of their ancestors.

I have asked you what you think whites deserve for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors, in that case.

You have yet to answer that.

A lot of bullshit and babble, but no answer.

Their accomplishments were "greater" by default.

As a majority that suppressed, oppressed and in many cases exploited every group of minorities that ever arrived here, they ensured that their accomplishments often came at the expense of others....in some cases, even their own.

The topic was lives lost in the Civil War.

Your inability to read the word "sacrifice" and understand it's meaning is noted.

Please consider yourself ridiculed.

Your race baiting in noted and dismissed.

If you consider the truth to be "race baiting" so be it.

Your blatent misrepresentation of the real reason that the war was actually fought is noted......and ridiculous.
And typical.

Oh? Are you claiming the Civil War was not about slavery?

It was a Cause; the North should have insisted on an Order to Show Cause before Congress, assembled, to get some results instead of making excuses.

Your gibberish is noted and dismissed. I can't be bothered to try to strain any meaning from it at this point in time.

 

[Correll]

The topic was lives lost in the Civil War.

Your inability to read the word "sacrifice" and understand it's meaning is noted.

Please consider yourself ridiculed.

Your race baiting in noted and dismissed.

If you consider the truth to be "race baiting" so be it.

Your blatent misrepresentation of the real reason that the war was actually fought is noted......and ridiculous.
And typical.

Oh? Are you claiming the Civil War was not about slavery?

Of course not. It was about industrializing the entire country and preserving the United States. Slavery wss an inconvienient hinderance in the way of progress.

The fact that slaves were freed was only a necessary by product of the process.

In Lincoln's own words..."I can think of no greater calamity than the assimilation of blacks into society as the white mans equal".

There was no "humanitarian sacrifice"

Lincoln was well know as a rabid Abolitionist and the voters knew that and knew that the South would resist.

His attempts of diplomacy with the Southerns, whom he conquered and ruined, should be taken with a large grain of salt.

The soldiers of the North were not stupid. THey knew that slavery was the cause of the war, and they supported LIncoln enough to fight and die for him.

Abolitionists' Daddies Bought Them Exemption From Having to Fight

SCROTUS's Dred Scott decision authorized slaveholders to bring their Africans into the free states. But Northerners didn't want untamed savages on their land, even if they came in chains. For one thing, the slaveholders would have turned them loose at night to loot their opponents' property. So Northerners fought to keep the South from taking over the North with its peculiar institution.

The South had slavery, the North had sweatshops. Only those who consider the working class to be inferior believe that the North had moral superiority.

Not sure how any of that relates to anything I said, but thanks for playing.

 

[Correll]

The topic was lives lost in the Civil War.

Your inability to read the word "sacrifice" and understand it's meaning is noted.

Please consider yourself ridiculed.

Your race baiting in noted and dismissed.

If you consider the truth to be "race baiting" so be it.

Your blatent misrepresentation of the real reason that the war was actually fought is noted......and ridiculous.
And typical.

Oh? Are you claiming the Civil War was not about slavery?

Of course not. It was about states rights and industrializing the entire country and preserving the United States. The South wanted toveven expand slavery to western territories and the North wanted to preserve a predominately white labor force.

Slavery was an inconvienient hinderance in the way of progress.

The fact that slaves were freed was only a necessary by product of the process.

Again? What is this, your screen saver?

One election. 41 years ago?
Really?

One election, after the Civil Rights Act, after Nixon supposedly started flipped the southern racists, thus disproving your claims.


If not for the "racist southerns" Carter would have carried just 10 states out of 50, many of them tiny.

Yet, Jimmy Carter was a supporter of Civil Rights.

Jimmy Carter was a southern farmer by trade. He was from the south and appealed to the rural masses of the southern region.

The fact that he was a supporter of civil rights was pivotal in him obtaining 92% of the black vote.

If the South was HALF as racist as you claim, those rural masses would have been turned off by his support of civil rights.

Instead the rural areas and the older voters where were his support was strongest, among white voters.

Nope. Carter was a born again Christian and a farmer from the deep South.

That appeal AND 92% of the black vote was enough for him to gain the votes to clinch the election.

However on a national basis Ford got more of the total white vote.....and substantially more in the 1980 election.

View attachment 128366

1. Sure, there were reasons the SOuth voted for Carter. Obviously.

2. And the supposed so horribly racist South, did not consider Carter's support of Civil Rights reason to vote against him. As was my point, that nothing you said, contradicted.

3. Not sure what point you are trying to make with the black vote number.

4. Nor with the national white vote.

 

[danielpalos]

Their accomplishments were "greater" by default.

As a majority that suppressed, oppressed and in many cases exploited every group of minorities that ever arrived here, they ensured that their accomplishments often came at the expense of others....in some cases, even their own.

The topic was lives lost in the Civil War.

Your inability to read the word "sacrifice" and understand it's meaning is noted.

Please consider yourself ridiculed.

Your race baiting in noted and dismissed.

If you consider the truth to be "race baiting" so be it.

Your blatent misrepresentation of the real reason that the war was actually fought is noted......and ridiculous.
And typical.

Oh? Are you claiming the Civil War was not about slavery?

It was a Cause; the North should have insisted on an Order to Show Cause before Congress, assembled, to get some results instead of making excuses.

Your gibberish is noted and dismissed. I can't be bothered to try to strain any meaning from it at this point in time.

just clueless and Causeless, typical right winger?

 

[Correll]

The topic was lives lost in the Civil War.

Your inability to read the word "sacrifice" and understand it's meaning is noted.

Please consider yourself ridiculed.

Your race baiting in noted and dismissed.

If you consider the truth to be "race baiting" so be it.

Your blatent misrepresentation of the real reason that the war was actually fought is noted......and ridiculous.
And typical.

Oh? Are you claiming the Civil War was not about slavery?

It was a Cause; the North should have insisted on an Order to Show Cause before Congress, assembled, to get some results instead of making excuses.

Your gibberish is noted and dismissed. I can't be bothered to try to strain any meaning from it at this point in time.

just clueless and Causeless, typical right winger?

It's not my job to learn your personal language. Sometimes I can pick up some of your meanings, other times I can't be bothered to even try.

I'm pretty sure that you are CAPABLE of being clear, but that you chose to NOT be clear, in your ongoing attempt to hide that you are an Enemy of America and Americans.

So, if you want to make a point, in normal every day English, go right ahead, and I'll almost certainly respond to it.

 

[danielpalos]

If you consider the truth to be "race baiting" so be it.

Your blatent misrepresentation of the real reason that the war was actually fought is noted......and ridiculous.
And typical.

Oh? Are you claiming the Civil War was not about slavery?

It was a Cause; the North should have insisted on an Order to Show Cause before Congress, assembled, to get some results instead of making excuses.

Your gibberish is noted and dismissed. I can't be bothered to try to strain any meaning from it at this point in time.

just clueless and Causeless, typical right winger?

It's not my job to learn your personal language. Sometimes I can pick up some of your meanings, other times I can't be bothered to even try.

I'm pretty sure that you are CAPABLE of being clear, but that you chose to NOT be clear, in your ongoing attempt to hide that you are an Enemy of America and Americans.

So, if you want to make a point, in normal every day English, go right ahead, and I'll almost certainly respond to it.

It was a Cause; the North should have insisted on an Order to Show Cause before Congress, assembled, to get some results instead of making excuses.

 

[katsteve2012]

I've told you before, I'm not a Democrat. Neither of today's parties are concerned for the well being of America.

Sure, when is the last time you voted for a Republican?

It is not I who is making up a story about 2 political parties who have changed over time.

Says the not so artful dodger who claims Republicans and Democrats decided to "switch sides" but can't name any.

Newsflash: most if not all Democratic lawmakers who were in power in 1964, are deceased.

I'm not "claiming" anything. No need to.
It is a FACT that the South prior to the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was predominately Democratic, now it is predominately Republican.
You just refuse to acknowledge history.

Demise of the Southern Democrat Is Now Nearly Complete

 

[Correll]

Oh? Are you claiming the Civil War was not about slavery?

It was a Cause; the North should have insisted on an Order to Show Cause before Congress, assembled, to get some results instead of making excuses.

Your gibberish is noted and dismissed. I can't be bothered to try to strain any meaning from it at this point in time.

just clueless and Causeless, typical right winger?

It's not my job to learn your personal language. Sometimes I can pick up some of your meanings, other times I can't be bothered to even try.

I'm pretty sure that you are CAPABLE of being clear, but that you chose to NOT be clear, in your ongoing attempt to hide that you are an Enemy of America and Americans.

So, if you want to make a point, in normal every day English, go right ahead, and I'll almost certainly respond to it.

It was a Cause; the North should have insisted on an Order to Show Cause before Congress, assembled, to get some results instead of making excuses.

Still no clue what you are trying to say.

 

[Correll]

I've told you before, I'm not a Democrat. Neither of today's parties are concerned for the well being of America.

Sure, when is the last time you voted for a Republican?

It is not I who is making up a story about 2 political parties who have changed over time.

Says the not so artful dodger who claims Republicans and Democrats decided to "switch sides" but can't name any.

Newsflash: most if not all Democratic lawmakers who were in power in 1964, are deceased.

I'm not "claiming" anything. No need to.
It is a FACT that the South prior to the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was predominately Democratic, now it is predominately Republican.
You just refuse to acknowledge history.

Demise of the Southern Democrat Is Now Nearly Complete

Yet Carter nearly swept it in 1976, 12 YEARS LATER.

So, if they were upset over the civil rights act, they seem to have got over it, a LONG TIME AGO.

 

[katsteve2012]

I've told you before, I'm not a Democrat. Neither of today's parties are concerned for the well being of America.

Sure, when is the last time you voted for a Republican?

It is not I who is making up a story about 2 political parties who have changed over time.

Says the not so artful dodger who claims Republicans and Democrats decided to "switch sides" but can't name any.

Newsflash: most if not all Democratic lawmakers who were in power in 1964, are deceased.

I'm not "claiming" anything. No need to.
It is a FACT that the South prior to the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was predominately Democratic, now it is predominately Republican.
You just refuse to acknowledge history.

Demise of the Southern Democrat Is Now Nearly Complete

Yet Carter nearly swept it in 1976, 12 YEARS LATER.

So, if they were upset over the civil rights act, they seem to have got over it, a LONG TIME AGO.

No. He did not nearly "sweep it". The popular votes as well as the electoral votes prove otherwise.

The election results of 1980, which was when Carter faced Reagan show a dramatic shift in the other direction, and actually was a near "sweep" thereby proving that presidential elections are not only cyclical, but are also not indicative of lasting change. The "real south" reemerged just 4 years later.

1976 Presidential General Election Results

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

If you consider the truth to be "race baiting" so be it.

Your blatent misrepresentation of the real reason that the war was actually fought is noted......and ridiculous.
And typical.

Oh? Are you claiming the Civil War was not about slavery?

Of course not. It was about industrializing the entire country and preserving the United States. Slavery wss an inconvienient hinderance in the way of progress.

The fact that slaves were freed was only a necessary by product of the process.

In Lincoln's own words..."I can think of no greater calamity than the assimilation of blacks into society as the white mans equal".

There was no "humanitarian sacrifice"

Lincoln was well know as a rabid Abolitionist and the voters knew that and knew that the South would resist.

His attempts of diplomacy with the Southerns, whom he conquered and ruined, should be taken with a large grain of salt.

The soldiers of the North were not stupid. THey knew that slavery was the cause of the war, and they supported LIncoln enough to fight and die for him.

Abolitionists' Daddies Bought Them Exemption From Having to Fight

SCROTUS's Dred Scott decision authorized slaveholders to bring their Africans into the free states. But Northerners didn't want untamed savages on their land, even if they came in chains. For one thing, the slaveholders would have turned them loose at night to loot their opponents' property. So Northerners fought to keep the South from taking over the North with its peculiar institution.

The South had slavery, the North had sweatshops. Only those who consider the working class to be inferior believe that the North had moral superiority.

Not sure how any of that relates to anything I said, but thanks for playing.

The Way Yankees Obviously Viewed Indians Was the Way They Viewed Blacks

You think Northerners were Liberals about race back then and different from the way they are now? They felt the South wanted to take over the North; that's why they fought. Just because the South only made one invasion, at Gettysburg, doesn't mean the North felt it was only about secession and not about defending their own territory.

 

[S.J.]

The election results of 1980, which was when Carter faced Reagan show a dramatic shift in the other direction, and actually was a near "sweep" thereby proving that presidential elections are not only cyclical, but are also not indicative of lasting change. The "real south" reemerged just 4 years later.

You think every election is about race? You don't think 12.4% inflation, double digit interest rates, and a series of foreign policy blunders had anything to do with Carter losing nearly every state in the country? You are truly clueless.

 

[katsteve2012]

The election results of 1980, which was when Carter faced Reagan show a dramatic shift in the other direction, and actually was a near "sweep" thereby proving that presidential elections are not only cyclical, but are also not indicative of lasting change. The "real south" reemerged just 4 years later.

You think every election is about race? You don't think 12.4% inflation, double digit interest rates, and a series of foreign policy blunders had anything to do with Carter losing nearly every state in the country? You are truly clueless.

I don't think that EVERY election is about race or even welfare as you do. But Reagan gained many votes by way of his own "race card". Educate yourself.

The racism at the heart of the Reagan presidency

 

[danielpalos]

It was a Cause; the North should have insisted on an Order to Show Cause before Congress, assembled, to get some results instead of making excuses.

Your gibberish is noted and dismissed. I can't be bothered to try to strain any meaning from it at this point in time.

just clueless and Causeless, typical right winger?

It's not my job to learn your personal language. Sometimes I can pick up some of your meanings, other times I can't be bothered to even try.

I'm pretty sure that you are CAPABLE of being clear, but that you chose to NOT be clear, in your ongoing attempt to hide that you are an Enemy of America and Americans.

So, if you want to make a point, in normal every day English, go right ahead, and I'll almost certainly respond to it.

It was a Cause; the North should have insisted on an Order to Show Cause before Congress, assembled, to get some results instead of making excuses.

Still no clue what you are trying to say.

I prefer to assume you are just clueless and Causeless; but, I may be wrong, "twice a day".

Abolition of slavery was public policy after 1808. The South had Cause for Eminent Domain.

 

[S.J.]

The election results of 1980, which was when Carter faced Reagan show a dramatic shift in the other direction, and actually was a near "sweep" thereby proving that presidential elections are not only cyclical, but are also not indicative of lasting change. The "real south" reemerged just 4 years later.

You think every election is about race? You don't think 12.4% inflation, double digit interest rates, and a series of foreign policy blunders had anything to do with Carter losing nearly every state in the country? You are truly clueless.

I don't think that EVERY election is about race or even welfare as you do. But Reagan gained many votes by way of his own "race card". Educate yourself.

The racism at the heart of the Reagan presidency

Dude, you are a fucking moron. The only threads I see you participating in are about race and racism. Don't try to include me in your obsession. It's the only thing in your miserable life. BTW, your link is a fucking joke, just like Jimmy Carter. His own party thought he was a joke. For you to claim Reagan won because of racism is utterly ridiculous. I would feel sorry for you but you're too much of a jerk.