Slavery reparations?

[Ernie S.]

Yes. Unless you have a way to determine that there was no mental, physical, economical, or academic advantage lost. Somehow I think that the first two would stop you in your tracks every time. Just because someone succeeded in spite of does not change the obligation to pay.

barack obama is not descended from slaves. He deserves nothing for skin color. From what I understand, his wife can trace her roots back to slavery, though her great great great grandfather was Irish.
I guess that makes her 90% slave black, making her daughters 45% slave black

So, how would you divvy up the pot?

barack gets nothing? Or a full share based on skin color.

Interestingly, the only slave blood in the Presidents lineage comes from his mother's side. His mother's line has been traced to the first black slave in the Colonies, John Punch.

The POTUS is descended from his mother. His mother is descended from a slave. He is in. He may donate his share but he still gets it. It would honorable of him to do so and something i believe he would do.

So someone a dozen generations removed from slavery, with perhaps 1% slave blood gets a full share?

Do you have any idea how many US citizens can claim some percentage of slave blood?

Put me in for a share.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Look up the definition of "disproportionately." Learn your language.

Why would I have to look it up? The disproportion is due to racism. Learn to see in more than one dimension.

Aside from the juvenile nature of your repartee, your "logic" would conclude that reparations would simply be another form of racism. Circularity, anyone?

One of my favorite things about these arguments.

Back in the day people of a certain race were made to endure undue hardships for no better reason than because they were of that race. This was wrong.

To make it right, I propose that we force people who weren't responsible for those actions to endure undue hardships for no better reason than because they were of the same race as the perpetrators.

There's gotta be a Democrat or two that can appreciate the irony there, no? Anyone with a little honesty and a functioning logic circuit?

 

[Truthmatters]

here is the truth you righties dont seem to get.

If we did this people wold check their families for slave connections.

many many people would then realize they have black blood even if they didn't know it.


you would be giving this money to many many people of all colors.


it would be an amazing thing to see white racists hunting down their slave history to gain from it.

heaven

 

[Truthmatters]

Why would I have to look it up? The disproportion is due to racism. Learn to see in more than one dimension.

Aside from the juvenile nature of your repartee, your "logic" would conclude that reparations would simply be another form of racism. Circularity, anyone?

One of my favorite things about these arguments.

Back in the day people of a certain race were made to endure undue hardships for no better reason than because they were of that race. This was wrong.

To make it right, I propose that we force people who weren't responsible for those actions to endure undue hardships for no better reason than because they were of the same race as the perpetrators.

There's gotta be a Democrat or two that can appreciate the irony there, no? Anyone with a little honesty and a functioning logic circuit?

The people who now own property that was given to them by a slave owner don't deserve the property they have.

Did we allow the Nazis children to keep what their parents plundered and killed to gain?


hell no

why let these kids keep stolen property?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

here is the truth you righties dont seem to get.

If we did this people wold check their families for slave connections.

many many people would then realize they have black blood even if they didn't know it.


you would be giving this money to many many people of all colors.


it would be an amazing thing to see white racists hunting down their slave history to gain from it.

heaven

So if righties understood that there are white racists out there who would try to make a claim at free money, they would then come around and agree that reparations should happen?

Your entire post was like, 5 sentences and 1 word. How did you lose continuity in such a short distance?

 

[Asclepias]

Look up the definition of "disproportionately." Learn your language.

Why would I have to look it up? The disproportion is due to racism. Learn to see in more than one dimension.

Aside from the juvenile nature of your repartee, your "logic" would conclude that reparations would simply be another form of racism. Circularity, anyone?

How so? Was it racist when the Japanese received reparations?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Aside from the juvenile nature of your repartee, your "logic" would conclude that reparations would simply be another form of racism. Circularity, anyone?

One of my favorite things about these arguments.

Back in the day people of a certain race were made to endure undue hardships for no better reason than because they were of that race. This was wrong.

To make it right, I propose that we force people who weren't responsible for those actions to endure undue hardships for no better reason than because they were of the same race as the perpetrators.

There's gotta be a Democrat or two that can appreciate the irony there, no? Anyone with a little honesty and a functioning logic circuit?

The people who now own property that was given to them by a slave owner don't deserve the property they have.

Did we allow the Nazis children to keep what their parents plundered and killed to gain?


hell no

why let these kids keep stolen property?

So anyone who was a slave owner wouldn't have owned a single thing if it wasn't for their slaves? How were they able to afford to buy slaves? People weren't cheap, even in colonial times, homie.

Part of the problem is that you can't measure what portion of who's property is rightly owed to who when you're this far removed from the crime. I actually addressed this at length last time I responded to you, but apparently you skipped my response and just repeated the same argument, so I'm not gonna expound again.

 

[Asclepias]

Why would I have to look it up? The disproportion is due to racism. Learn to see in more than one dimension.

Aside from the juvenile nature of your repartee, your "logic" would conclude that reparations would simply be another form of racism. Circularity, anyone?

One of my favorite things about these arguments.

Back in the day people of a certain race were made to endure undue hardships for no better reason than because they were of that race. This was wrong.

To make it right, I propose that we force people who weren't responsible for those actions to endure undue hardships for no better reason than because they were of the same race as the perpetrators.

There's gotta be a Democrat or two that can appreciate the irony there, no? Anyone with a little honesty and a functioning logic circuit?

I'm not democrat but no one is being forced to do anything. Black people were not compensated for what happened. The Japanese were. There is a precedence. Pay up.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

here is the truth you righties dont seem to get.

If we did this people wold check their families for slave connections.

many many people would then realize they have black blood even if they didn't know it.


you would be giving this money to many many people of all colors.


it would be an amazing thing to see white racists hunting down their slave history to gain from it.

heaven

Another incredibly INSANE idea from a liberal who thinks that compassion equates to giving people something and that since it is obviously born from compassion, any stance against it can only be based in evil.

I have some news for you. IF I have African-American ancestors, I really don't give a crap because I am an American. Some of my little great nieces and nephews DO have African-American blood in them because I have several nieces who have married African-American men. Good men, one of which is going for 20 in the Marines. We have had this discussion and I will tell you EXACTLY what I told them.

Slavery was a horrible, horrible thing. It ended officially in the US in 1863. Any person who was a slave has long since passed. They deserve our respect. But NO ONE deserves a dime from the government because no one alive today was a slave. They concur and feel as I do that it is a stupid and condescending attempt to obtain their vote.

I can see that your time away has neither taught you anything nor have you done anything to obtain any education concerning the real world. Your card-carrying status as a political hack is still valid.

 

[Asclepias]

barack obama is not descended from slaves. He deserves nothing for skin color. From what I understand, his wife can trace her roots back to slavery, though her great great great grandfather was Irish.
I guess that makes her 90% slave black, making her daughters 45% slave black

So, how would you divvy up the pot?

barack gets nothing? Or a full share based on skin color.

Interestingly, the only slave blood in the Presidents lineage comes from his mother's side. His mother's line has been traced to the first black slave in the Colonies, John Punch.

The POTUS is descended from his mother. His mother is descended from a slave. He is in. He may donate his share but he still gets it. It would honorable of him to do so and something i believe he would do.

So someone a dozen generations removed from slavery, with perhaps 1% slave blood gets a full share?

Do you have any idea how many US citizens can claim some percentage of slave blood?

Put me in for a share.

If you got the records I see no issue with that.

 

[Truthmatters]

One of my favorite things about these arguments.

Back in the day people of a certain race were made to endure undue hardships for no better reason than because they were of that race. This was wrong.

To make it right, I propose that we force people who weren't responsible for those actions to endure undue hardships for no better reason than because they were of the same race as the perpetrators.

There's gotta be a Democrat or two that can appreciate the irony there, no? Anyone with a little honesty and a functioning logic circuit?

The people who now own property that was given to them by a slave owner don't deserve the property they have.

Did we allow the Nazis children to keep what their parents plundered and killed to gain?


hell no

why let these kids keep stolen property?

So anyone who was a slave owner wouldn't have owned a single thing if it wasn't for their slaves? How were they able to afford to buy slaves? People weren't cheap, even in colonial times, homie.

Part of the problem is that you can't measure what portion of who's property is rightly owed to who when you're this far removed from the crime. I actually addressed this at length last time I responded to you, but apparently you skipped my response and just repeated the same argument, so I'm not gonna expound again.

they would only have been able to keep the lands they could have worked by themselves.

ANYTHING they were able to build beyond subsistence would have been done with the labor of a slave.


horses and little machinery you fool.


get a clue

 

[Truthmatters]

here is the truth you righties dont seem to get.

If we did this people wold check their families for slave connections.

many many people would then realize they have black blood even if they didn't know it.


you would be giving this money to many many people of all colors.


it would be an amazing thing to see white racists hunting down their slave history to gain from it.

heaven

Another incredibly INSANE idea from a liberal who thinks that compassion equates to giving people something and that since it is obviously born from compassion, any stance against it can only be based in evil.

I have some news for you. IF I have African-American ancestors, I really don't give a crap because I am an American. Some of my little great nieces and nephews DO have African-American blood in them because I have several nieces who have married African-American men. Good men, one of which is going for 20 in the Marines. We have had this discussion and I will tell you EXACTLY what I told them.

Slavery was a horrible, horrible thing. It ended officially in the US in 1863. Any person who was a slave has long since passed. They deserve our respect. But NO ONE deserves a dime from the government because no one alive today was a slave. They concur and feel as I do that it is a stupid and condescending attempt to obtain their vote.

I can see that your time away has neither taught you anything nor have you done anything to obtain any education concerning the real world. Your card-carrying status as a political hack is still valid.

your just a fucking idiot with NO morals



TO THIS DAY


when we find Nazi booty stolen in WWII its returned to the familys who originally owned it and The kids of the Nazis who stole It in the first place get nothing.



why because its black people do you want the kids of the thieves to get the stolen goods?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Aside from the juvenile nature of your repartee, your "logic" would conclude that reparations would simply be another form of racism. Circularity, anyone?

One of my favorite things about these arguments.

Back in the day people of a certain race were made to endure undue hardships for no better reason than because they were of that race. This was wrong.

To make it right, I propose that we force people who weren't responsible for those actions to endure undue hardships for no better reason than because they were of the same race as the perpetrators.

There's gotta be a Democrat or two that can appreciate the irony there, no? Anyone with a little honesty and a functioning logic circuit?

I'm not democrat but no one is being forced to do anything. Black people were not compensated for what happened. The Japanese were. There is a precedence. Pay up.

If reparations happened, it would be by force. The government would tax whoever they decided must pay said reparations and, though the force isn't up front and apparent when you file, you -are- punished by said government if you decide you don't want to pay what they've decided you owe.

And precedence? Okay, so rather than addressing my argument you're gonna ignore it and go pseudo-legalistic. I'll go that route with you.

The Japanese were compensated while the victims were still alive. Given that there are no direct victims of said kidnapping or slavery still alive to claim standing, and given the sort of confusion that would be caused by trying to set a fair price generations down the road from the crime, as well as trying to determine who should be responsible for paying, not to mention who should benefit and to what degree, this factor alone constitutes a great enough deviation from the compensation of the Japanese to qualify this particular case for its own separate consideration.

 

[Immanuel]

here is the truth you righties dont seem to get.

If we did this people wold check their families for slave connections.

many many people would then realize they have black blood even if they didn't know it.


you would be giving this money to many many people of all colors.


it would be an amazing thing to see white racists hunting down their slave history to gain from it.

heaven

So if righties understood that there are white racists out there who would try to make a claim at free money, they would then come around and agree that reparations should happen?

Your entire post was like, 5 sentences and 1 word. How did you lose continuity in such a short distance?

I think what she is really saying is that she expects her cut proving that she is greedy and expects everyone else to provide for her.

Immie

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The people who now own property that was given to them by a slave owner don't deserve the property they have.

Did we allow the Nazis children to keep what their parents plundered and killed to gain?


hell no

why let these kids keep stolen property?

So anyone who was a slave owner wouldn't have owned a single thing if it wasn't for their slaves? How were they able to afford to buy slaves? People weren't cheap, even in colonial times, homie.

Part of the problem is that you can't measure what portion of who's property is rightly owed to who when you're this far removed from the crime. I actually addressed this at length last time I responded to you, but apparently you skipped my response and just repeated the same argument, so I'm not gonna expound again.

they would only have been able to keep the lands they could have worked by themselves.

ANYTHING they were able to build beyond subsistence would have been done with the labor of a slave.


horses and little machinery you fool.


get a clue

Sorry, but you're the fool here. People bought slaves to work their land. You probably didn't have slaves back then if you weren't a land owner, and you weren't a land owner unless you had the means to be a land owner. It wasn't like guys were homeless and then they bought slaves and sat back and let their slaves develop empires.

And only keeping the land they could've worked themselves? So you're assuming that, if slaves in particular weren't available, those land owners -definitely- wouldn't have had the wherewithal to hire people via the avenues that -were- legal to work those lands?

And no, not anything they built beyond subsistence was done with the labor of a slave. Where the fuck are you getting this? Do you really have no understanding of running a business? The massive management chain at GM isn't thousands of people paid to sit idly at their desks and wait for the guys on the assembly lines to -DO EVERYTHING-. I feel like I'm having this discussion with a fucking 6 year old.

 

[Asclepias]

One of my favorite things about these arguments.

Back in the day people of a certain race were made to endure undue hardships for no better reason than because they were of that race. This was wrong.

To make it right, I propose that we force people who weren't responsible for those actions to endure undue hardships for no better reason than because they were of the same race as the perpetrators.

There's gotta be a Democrat or two that can appreciate the irony there, no? Anyone with a little honesty and a functioning logic circuit?

I'm not democrat but no one is being forced to do anything. Black people were not compensated for what happened. The Japanese were. There is a precedence. Pay up.

If reparations happened, it would be by force. The government would tax whoever they decided must pay said reparations and, though the force isn't up front and apparent when you file, you -are- punished by said government if you decide you don't want to pay what they've decided you owe.

And precedence? Okay, so rather than addressing my argument you're gonna ignore it and go pseudo-legalistic. I'll go that route with you.

The Japanese were compensated while the victims were still alive. Given that there are no direct victims of said kidnapping or slavery still alive to claim standing, and given the sort of confusion that would be caused by trying to set a fair price generations down the road from the crime, as well as trying to determine who should be responsible for paying, not to mention who should benefit and to what degree, this factor alone constitutes a great enough deviation from the compensation of the Japanese to qualify this particular case for its own separate consideration.

Not all the Japanese victims were alive. Their heirs got the compensation. I already said that it should be based on the fair market value of the land at that time based on the 40 acres and a mule promise plus accumulated interest. The government can print money the same way they do when they pay for wars. The tax payers will pay into it but they did the same thing for the Japanese.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

here is the truth you righties dont seem to get.

If we did this people wold check their families for slave connections.

many many people would then realize they have black blood even if they didn't know it.


you would be giving this money to many many people of all colors.


it would be an amazing thing to see white racists hunting down their slave history to gain from it.

heaven

Another incredibly INSANE idea from a liberal who thinks that compassion equates to giving people something and that since it is obviously born from compassion, any stance against it can only be based in evil.

I have some news for you. IF I have African-American ancestors, I really don't give a crap because I am an American. Some of my little great nieces and nephews DO have African-American blood in them because I have several nieces who have married African-American men. Good men, one of which is going for 20 in the Marines. We have had this discussion and I will tell you EXACTLY what I told them.

Slavery was a horrible, horrible thing. It ended officially in the US in 1863. Any person who was a slave has long since passed. They deserve our respect. But NO ONE deserves a dime from the government because no one alive today was a slave. They concur and feel as I do that it is a stupid and condescending attempt to obtain their vote.

I can see that your time away has neither taught you anything nor have you done anything to obtain any education concerning the real world. Your card-carrying status as a political hack is still valid.

your just a fucking idiot with NO morals



TO THIS DAY


when we find Nazi booty stolen in WWII its returned to the familys who originally owned it and The kids of the Nazis who stole It in the first place get nothing.



why because its black people do you want the kids of the thieves to get the stolen goods?

What are the stolen goods?

Are there slave-owner sons with foot lockers containing, amongst other family heirlooms, bundles of slave labor?

With the Nazis and Jews there were specific pieces of jewelry. . . solid items that could be identified and returned. If we were talking about something like this, I would be more inclined to agree with you, but we are not.

What we're talking about is your desire to assume that someone who descended from a slave-owner would own nothing if not for the slaves owned by his/her ancestor, and so they should have their property confiscated to compensate others for crimes that these descendants had -zero- part in.

Not same-same, dummy.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So anyone who was a slave owner wouldn't have owned a single thing if it wasn't for their slaves? How were they able to afford to buy slaves? People weren't cheap, even in colonial times, homie.

Part of the problem is that you can't measure what portion of who's property is rightly owed to who when you're this far removed from the crime. I actually addressed this at length last time I responded to you, but apparently you skipped my response and just repeated the same argument, so I'm not gonna expound again.

they would only have been able to keep the lands they could have worked by themselves.

ANYTHING they were able to build beyond subsistence would have been done with the labor of a slave.


horses and little machinery you fool.


get a clue

Sorry, but you're the fool here. People bought slaves to work their land. You probably didn't have slaves back then if you weren't a land owner, and you weren't a land owner unless you had the means to be a land owner. It wasn't like guys were homeless and then they bought slaves and sat back and let their slaves develop empires.

And only keeping the land they could've worked themselves? So you're assuming that, if slaves in particular weren't available, those land owners -definitely- wouldn't have had the wherewithal to hire people via the avenues that -were- legal to work those lands?

And no, not anything they built beyond subsistence was done with the labor of a slave. Where the fuck are you getting this? Do you really have no understanding of running a business? The massive management chain at GM isn't thousands of people paid to sit idly at their desks and wait for the guys on the assembly lines to -DO EVERYTHING-. I feel like I'm having this discussion with a fucking 6 year old.

Yes you are.

 

[jwoodie]

Aside from the juvenile nature of your repartee, your "logic" would conclude that reparations would simply be another form of racism. Circularity, anyone?

One of my favorite things about these arguments.

Back in the day people of a certain race were made to endure undue hardships for no better reason than because they were of that race. This was wrong.

To make it right, I propose that we force people who weren't responsible for those actions to endure undue hardships for no better reason than because they were of the same race as the perpetrators.

There's gotta be a Democrat or two that can appreciate the irony there, no? Anyone with a little honesty and a functioning logic circuit?

I'm not democrat but no one is being forced to do anything. Black people were not compensated for what happened. The Japanese were. There is a precedence. Pay up.

How much would you like? Would that be considered payment in full? Would white people with no genealogical connection to slavery be required to foot the bill? How about bonus points for abolitionists?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I'm not democrat but no one is being forced to do anything. Black people were not compensated for what happened. The Japanese were. There is a precedence. Pay up.

If reparations happened, it would be by force. The government would tax whoever they decided must pay said reparations and, though the force isn't up front and apparent when you file, you -are- punished by said government if you decide you don't want to pay what they've decided you owe.

And precedence? Okay, so rather than addressing my argument you're gonna ignore it and go pseudo-legalistic. I'll go that route with you.

The Japanese were compensated while the victims were still alive. Given that there are no direct victims of said kidnapping or slavery still alive to claim standing, and given the sort of confusion that would be caused by trying to set a fair price generations down the road from the crime, as well as trying to determine who should be responsible for paying, not to mention who should benefit and to what degree, this factor alone constitutes a great enough deviation from the compensation of the Japanese to qualify this particular case for its own separate consideration.

Not all the Japanese victims were alive. Their heirs got the compensation. I already said that it should be based on the fair market value of the land at that time based on the 40 acres and a mule promise plus accumulated interest. The government can print money the same way they do when they pay for wars. The tax payers will pay into it but they did the same thing for the Japanese.

Not all the victims were alive, but the fact that you'd specify that leads me to believe that you're missing the point, there. All the people receiving compensation were alive during the perpetration of the crime and affected directly.

Also, to specify, I only entertain this Japanese argument to play devil's advocate. I don't support -any- government funded reparations. At some point, you're taking money from the tax payers (or taking their buying power via currency printing) to right wrongs for which many of them aren't responsible. I never, ever support making someone pay for crimes in which they had no part. Never. Ever.

Also, the government offered 40 acres and a mule to each freed slave, so I'm assuming that you're still suggesting we work with the original number of 40 acre plots and mules that would've been? Like, if 1 slave accounts completely for 40 descendants, then they each get an acre and a couple cuts of mule steak?

Interest? At what rate? Why that rate?