Ok, here's the deal with me. I'm black, and I think monetary reparations are bullsh*t. Those responsible for this "movement" are just trying to line their pockets IMO. The vast majority of my friends and family are also against it. I've been wondering for a while now where the hell the people are who actually support these kind of reparations. All this stuff is doing is creating a new form of pedjudice. I'm sick people assuming I'm for monetary reparations simply because of my skin color, when I myself hardly know any black folks who are for them. Usually when I tell them my stance they reply with something like "Well, good. Nice to see you're not all getting in my pockets..." And usually, although we agree in principle, I want to respond with "F*ck you" (or something to that effect). Ah, hell, now I'm rambling. Anyway, my point is, I'm for reparations of a different type: education. I want everyone to learn about the people whose backs this country was built on. Not mandatory classes, mind you, just there for those who are willing to take the opportunity. Maybe better representation in public schools. A monument, museum, anything to make sure they're remembered. I simply don't want my ancestors to be forgotten. IMO, its the only way to give reparations to the generations who were truly wronged. I think this is really the wish of all African-Americans in this country. For us, our ancestors aren't simply generations that came before us and are now gone. They're an extenson. They are us and we are them. We have a need to live the way they wished us to because of what they gave up for us to get here. To ask that money be paid to us because of what they went through is one of the most selfish insults to who they were that I could imagine. Thats how you want your ancestors to be honored? Through your damn pockets? Personally, I don't want any money from the government, why the hell would I deserve it? How have I been wronged? And how were those paying the money responsible? No, I simply ask that this country show some respect and gratitude to a group of people who helped make it as great as it is today. Not because we have to, but because we should want to. And, I'll be first in line to make a donation.
This is honestly one of the greatest posts I have ever read. I agree that the details of slavery and the slaves contributions to this country should be a standard part of the curriculum, just as any other part of our history. Not the PC revisionist history, but the real stuff. I just wanted to let you know what an outstanding post that was AstroRocket.
Originally posted by Refman The Japanese people who were harmed were paid their settlement. it is no different than a traditional lawsuit settlement. To say that this is the same thing is ridiculous. So boo hoo to you. There is a lawsuit pending on reparations right now. Boo hoo to yourself. I didn't say that Federal entitlements and welfare should be scrapped. I said that the persons receiving the reparations should waive their rights to these programs. That doesn't harm anybody else. So...gee...I guess I have a point after all. Right because a black person given reparations for the enslavement of their ancestors could never be a victim of discrimination in this country. They should quite obviously give away their rights to take advantage of federal programs that any number of Americans have access to because they were finally given compensation for the crime of slavery that was committed against their ancestors. Your point just flew away again. Oh, I get it. You want the money. NOW it makes sense. Shall we just scrap all of civil law while we're at it? You're a lawyer I think. Are you going to play naive on us here? Jews have received reparations... were you against that too because it was about money? How is not agreeing to reparations holding anybody accountable for anything? I'm just not willing to fork over even more money to the government than I already do so that it can be given to somebody who didn't know or have any tangible connection to the wronged party. You're already of the opinion that the descendants of slaves have suffered no damage and not everyone shares that opinion. You should agree to support a study on the subject just in the highly unlikely event that you could be dead wrong. Be realistic...this isn't about what is right and just, it is about political power and money. Yes, white people hold the political power and money. Perhaps if our country were right and just this topic would have been addressed a hundred years ago by those who held political power but it wasn't. Black people didn't even have the right to until 60 years AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation. To seriously expect that they could have litigated reparations at the time is simply ridiculous.
This suit will be thrown out of court because the plaintiffs have no standing. Since when have the social programs in this country been about discrimination? Your logic is circular and you're not making sense. Denying reparations wouldn't scrap civil law. You are really stretching here. Believe me that Title 11 and section 1983 would still be alive and well. Who was given the money, the Jews who were harmed or their ancestors a century and a half later? If it was the ancestors, then I'm against it. This is about money and political power because it is another instance where the African-American "leadership" (Sharpton, et al) are trying to get the rest of us to bow down to what they want or the dissenters will be called racists. Come on man, make a decent point. A lawsuit at the time would have been unsuccessful because slavery was not illegal when it happened. There is a provision in the Constitution that does not allow ex post facto. You just refuse to believe that you WRONG on this one. You don't deserve any DAMNED MONEY because of what happened then. No...because it is clear that there is no legal leg for this claim to stand on.
Anybody with common sense would agree with you on this. The type of reparations that Timing is asking for is ludicrous and I find his assertions incredulous.
Originally posted by Refman This suit will be thrown out of court because the plaintiffs have no standing. It may well be and then there'll be another and another. Since when have the social programs in this country been about discrimination? Your logic is circular and you're not making sense. What is affirmative action? Do you really think discrimination plays no role in poverty? Denying reparations wouldn't scrap civil law. You are really stretching here. Believe me that Title 11 and section 1983 would still be alive and well. What are you talking about? You said this is about money, civil law is about money. What's your point? If the only way to address damages is in civil court then how the heck can you complain about it being about money? How else do you propose people seek damages? With tootsie rolls and popsicles? Who was given the money, the Jews who were harmed or their ancestors a century and a half later? If it was the ancestors, then I'm against it. Fortunately for the affected Jews they were freed by an invading army and a new government appeared. Maybe if the US government had been toppled this would have been settled. This is about money and political power because it is another instance where the African-American "leadership" (Sharpton, et al) are trying to get the rest of us to bow down to what they want or the dissenters will be called racists. Come on man, make a decent point. Oh christ... lol Stamp your feet, stamp your feet and cry for me. A lawsuit at the time would have been unsuccessful because slavery was not illegal when it happened. There is a provision in the Constitution that does not allow ex post facto. Were concentration camps legal in Germany? Hmm... Government sponsored murder, rape, and kidnapping are certainly illegal. I'd really like to hear a US Attorney get on television and explain that the reason they're not settling the case is because slavery was not illegal. That would be pretty interesting. You just refuse to believe that you WRONG on this one. You don't deserve any DAMNED MONEY because of what happened then. Hey pal, I'm not black and I resent your tone. If this subject irks you that much then run along. Go watch Fox News or something. No...because it is clear that there is no legal leg for this claim to stand on. The study is to examine the impact of slavery on the black community and whether reparations are warranted. It's not about a couple of lawyers sitting around an office discussing how they can wiggle their way out of the situation.
What type of reparations have I asked for? Find that passage please. You're so angry about the subject that you can't see straight. Take a breath, Bill O'Reilly will be on soon don't worry.
Res judicata will not allow further suit. Once a suit has been ruled on it cannot be litigated again. Affirmative action is not a funds based social program. Therefore for this discussion it is irrelevant. Most civil cases seeking damages are to redress wrongs done to THE PLAINTIFF. There is a deterrant motivation against the defendant (don't do that again). This is NOT about justice...it is ONLY about money. You STILL didn't answer my question. The laws of germany are not germane to this discussion. They do not and never have had our Constitution. Maybe ex post facto laws are valid over there...I don't know...I DO know that they are not allowed HERE. Oh...that's intelligent. I disagree with you strongly so I must be condescended to. As for the Fox News comment...what have they ever done to you? You keep talking about how this is about civil laws, but you don't want lawyers involved. How bizarre.
You are asking for consideration of monetary reparations. What is your problem with O'Reilly? Why must you be so flippant? It really hurts your argument.
Originally posted by Refman Res judicata will not allow further suit. Once a suit has been ruled on it cannot be litigated again. How are multiple civil trials against tobacco companies allowed then? The suit filed a few months ago was against private companies not the federal government. Affirmative action is not a funds based social program. Therefore for this discussion it is irrelevant. Reparations are sought for the effects of slavery. This isn't a bargaining session. We didn't disallow federal programs to Japanese recipients. Most civil cases seeking damages are to redress wrongs done to THE PLAINTIFF. There is a deterrant motivation against the defendant (don't do that again). This is NOT about justice...it is ONLY about money. Descendants are plaintiffs just like the parents of a deceased person are plaintiffs in civil action for wrongful death. That's our system of laws. Justice is upholding fairness and what is righteous. How you don't find this to be just is beyond me. You STILL didn't answer my question. It was a sarcastic question. You want to know if the ancestors of WWII Jews were given reparations 150 years later? Let me break out a history book... The laws of germany are not germane to this discussion. They do not and never have had our Constitution. Maybe ex post facto laws are valid over there...I don't know...I DO know that they are not allowed HERE. Of course it's germane to this issue. You're thinking in terms of legalities while hiding from what is obviously a heinous and disgusting chapter in American history. There is a precedent for reparations in Germany and even in our own country. You can't hide in the court room and dismiss this issue. Oh...that's intelligent. I disagree with you strongly so I must be condescended to. As for the Fox News comment...what have they ever done to you? Hey you're the one blowing your top here, not me. I disagreed with you strongly so I must be black. Oookay... Fox News is awesome! You keep talking about how this is about civil laws, but you don't want lawyers involved. How bizarre. The topic of this thread was about a study on reparations. There is no suit pending against the government. You haven't even seen a suit and you're pissed. You don't even want a study, you just know you're not paying anyone a damn thing. How bizarre.
Actually in the past in these discussions I've been more an advocate of free tuition to colleges and lower level school funding rather than cutting checks to people. I may have even brought up a tax free status for slave descendants but I'm not sure where that discussion went. Search feature is disabled pretty much for older stuff I guess. BKagy brought up many excellent points in the discussion so it's a shame we can't go get it. My not being a lawyer probably hurts my argument with you more than my sarcasm. You want to discuss points of law and you obviously have that advantage. I think MadMax and I talked about this topic a little and he brought up some legal points though not the same as yours. I have no problem with Bill, he's funny. I just had a feeling you were a fan.
Its really interesting after being on this board for a while one can still have so much to learn about others here. I will remember to never argue with Refman on legal matters . I also find his ability to deny obfuscation and avoid responding to condescension 'refreshing'. I also liked AstroRocket's post here.
Agreed, AstroRocket's post is a shining example of what a great post is. If more ppl used common sense and self-responsibility to govern their lifes, we all would be so much better off.
Well, I think anyone with common sense and a heart would be a Democrat...so there. Timing makes a great point when he says that there was no way for African-Americans in that day to fight for reparations. The reason that Jews and Japanese were given reparations so soon after the fact was because there wasn't widespread racism against them like there was against African-Americans for years and years afterwards. Maybe they should ask for reparations for all the years of segregation and discrimination up until the Civil Rights Act of 1964...of course, then people would argue that it didn't involve them as well.
I am against reparations but I think you are incorrect here Refman. The Japanese who were interned in camps during WWII were giving reparations even after TWO supreme court decisions basically called them okay. (Incidently, and I think I've said this once before, I find it far sadder that our highest court twice justified the interment camps than that they were used at all). So given the apparent violation of ex post facto with the Japanese, why wouldn't a law suit filed soon after slavery not be allowed?
Man, I knew to stay out of this one. . . . I knew it would only irratate me. People act like the wrongs against black folx stopped in 1865. . . . hell it . . .it did stop not 1964 . . . . or yesterday . . . oops. . . .sorry I forgot racism no longer exists. Rocket River "Rodney King was totally out of line . . . . " - Homey D Clown
Originally posted by Rocketman95 Well, I think anyone with common sense and a heart would be a Democrat...so there. I know you are just trying to be sarcastic, but it's still offensive. I consider myself a Republican because I think that the Democrat's view that they can take as much of my hard-earned money as they want to, to do with as THEY see fit, rather ANNOYING. I think its common sense that all of their anti-business policies would shrink the ecomony until there is no $ left for any of their programs. And as far as heart, don't tell Republicans we don't have compassion and empathy. Its just that I want to be the one to decide where many of my charitable contributions go, not some slick politician in DC with convoluted loyalties. Timing makes a great point when he says that there was no way for African-Americans in that day to fight for reparations. The reason that Jews and Japanese were given reparations so soon after the fact was because there wasn't widespread racism against them like there was against African-Americans for years and years afterwards. That still does not address the fact that the injured parties are no longer alive. Its a ludicrous proposition to argue for making all historical wrongs 'right' by reparations to descendants. Where do you start and where do you end? Whose ancestors have not been wronged by someone? Maybe they should ask for reparations for all the years of segregation and discrimination up until the Civil Rights Act of 1964...of course, then people would argue that it didn't involve them as well. RM95, its interesting that you take a law designed to protect against discrimination, and then make a leap of logic that since the law did not exist previously that the government supported discrimination. That would be like saying that since the government did not have a homeland security department that it supported terrorist activities. I think that you would be more accurate if you argued that people should seek reparations from State governments that had discriminatory laws, e.g. voting. Apparently there is some legal weakness there, or we would have seen a slew of those suits.
