Reparations for slavery: pro or con?

[swarmyone]

Originally Posted by MsElena

Actually, I would take a few scalps and I know where just to start.

shit!

[MsElena]

Originally Posted by swarmyone

shit!

LMAO now THAT made me laugh. Thanks Swarmy.

You're startin to dig me. I feel the connection building between us. Pretty soon we'll be grudge fucking.

[john_galt]

Let me give you a tutorial about government thorough; The president is the chief executive officer and the attorney general works for him. Now as we have recently seen the attorney general can choose to enforce a law or not. Obama has made the same statement, he can choose for the attorney general to enforce a law or not. So an attorney general can also enforce a law that only exists in theory by threatening an action if the subject does not submit to some measure. Ask Boeing about this in South Carolina. No law was broken but they are being extorted into doing something to avoid a federal investigation.

The Supreme Court is filled with Bush appointed conservatives... can you name them? Let me help you out; Chief Justice John Roberts appointed by George Bush. Justice Antonin Scalia appointed by Ronald Reagan (notice that is not George Bush). Justice Anthony Kennedy appointed by Ronald Reagan. Justice Clarence Thomas appointed by George H. W. Bush (wrong Bush). Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg appointed by Bill Clinton. Justice Stephen Breyer appointed by Bill Clinton. Justice Samuel Alito appointed by George W. Bush (thats two). Justice Sonia Sotomayor appointed by Barack Obama. Justice Elena Kagen appointed by Barack Obama. Hmmmm that sounds like two for George W. Bush and two for Barack Obama. What a fool you are thorough. LMAO

Oh, and the breakdown of the court is 4 conservative, 4 liberal, and 1 (Kennedy) swing vote. Twice the fool are you.

Why do you see race in every issue. I guess you have racist problems. I'm talking about reparations over perceived and real injustices against groups of people; black, Indian, Jewish, Chinese, Japanese, Irish, Polish, etc. Do you start to see how convoluted this thing will become? Everyone has been slighted in some way but when an activist says reparations, they mean for slavery. Try to read a book it would help.

[thorough9]

Originally Posted by john_galt

Let me give you a tutorial about government thorough; The president is the chief executive officer and the attorney general works for him. Now as we have recently seen the attorney general can choose to enforce a law or not. Obama has made the same statement, he can choose for the attorney general to enforce a law or not. So an attorney general can also enforce a law that only exists in theory by threatening an action if the subject does not submit to some measure. Ask Boeing about this in South Carolina. No law was broken but they are being extorted into doing something to avoid a federal investigation.

The Supreme Court is filled with Bush appointed conservatives... can you name them? Let me help you out; Chief Justice John Roberts appointed by George Bush. Justice Antonin Scalia appointed by Ronald Reagan (notice that is not George Bush). Justice Anthony Kennedy appointed by Ronald Reagan. Justice Clarence Thomas appointed by George H. W. Bush (wrong Bush). Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg appointed by Bill Clinton. Justice Stephen Breyer appointed by Bill Clinton. Justice Samuel Alito appointed by George W. Bush (thats two). Justice Sonia Sotomayor appointed by Barack Obama. Justice Elena Kagen appointed by Barack Obama. Hmmmm that sounds like two for George W. Bush and two for Barack Obama. What a fool you are thorough. LMAO

Oh, and the breakdown of the court is 4 conservative, 4 liberal, and 1 (Kennedy) swing vote. Twice the fool are you.

Why do you see race in every issue. I guess you have racist problems. I'm talking about reparations over perceived and real injustices against groups of people; black, Indian, Jewish, Chinese, Japanese, Irish, Polish, etc. Do you start to see how convoluted this thing will become? Everyone has been slighted in some way but when an activist says reparations, they mean for slavery. Try to read a book it would help.

And just who will President Barack Obama, AG Holder, and an appeals court judge in San Francisco "extort" into paying reparations? Your motive and rationale are racially tinged. You oppose the African-American president, the Black AG, and the appointment of an Asian Appeals judge, but you say that you have specific "reasoning" for that opposition: a bunch of one-liners that are fed to you by the equally racially-tinged FOX news and closet-racist public radio stations whose ideas you run to this board and regurgitate as your own. Do you really think that you're the only person on this board with a radio in your pick-up truck? LOL. Like i said, you are a race-baiter. You come to this board with a mealy-mouthed hatred for minorities that is disguised in/by your "Conservative" POV.

1)You oppose POTUS indiscriminately - no matter what he does.

2)You oppose AG Holder because he "refused" to prosecute a "black panther"

3)You oppose Goodwin Liu because he has stated that he supports the idea of reparations for some of the groups of people of color who've been extorted by the government.(Everyone has been slighted in some way but when an activist says reparations, they mean for slavery.)

The only thing that you can give me a tutorial in is the mechanics of mealy-mouthed hatred. You wrote a rambling monologue with scattered "examples" of what can be considered for reparations, but you've showed your true colors: (see the highlighted portion above). You have no idea how the government works: what is possible or impossible within a three-tiered system of checks and balances, and you harp upon BS talking points, until they become irrelevant(Mr. Birther), and when all else fails, you fall back on the old Dixie-crat/Conservative/Republican scare tactics. That's typical race-baiting, and you are attempting to do nothing that hasn't been done repeatedly in the past, that's why it's so easily recognizable. Anyone with half-a-brain, the willingness to think independently and not succumb to the mob-mentality, and the the ability to read through your BS can see what's at your core. Reparations are irrelevant, and they have been since Andrew Johnson took office after Lincoln was assasinated, reversing Sherman's 40 Acres and a Mule policy; and since Grant removed troops from the South effectively putting an end to Reconstruction. Reparations are moot.

P.S. the ability to cut and paste does not make you smart. I've got google too, Beach! LOL. You're not NEARLY as sharp as you think that you are...

[catnipdipper]

Quite a thorough bashing I'd say old bean.

Good job and extremely thorough too!

Poor John is a 5o something college graduate working on his associate's degree.

[MsElena]

So......does that mean we'll get our land back? If so, hot damn.....I'm building a casino!!!

[john_galt]

I stopped reading your foolishness about three sentences in. I have written about the problems with reparations for going on 20 years so your argument about the president, AG, and nominee are BS (as are you). This is about policy and not race no matter how hard you try to make it that. What race are the Irish? I notice that you didn't respond to your beat down on the make up of the Supreme Court. I also still notice that not once have you actually talked about the topic but have just attacked me. What's up with that? Nothing constructive to add or are you just the troll boy of the day? May I make a scurrilous charge right now? It sounds like you and catnip are butt buddies or maybe you are one and the same....

[thorough9]

Originally Posted by john_galt

I stopped reading your foolishness about three sentences in. I have written about the problems with reparations for going on 20 years so your argument about the president, AG, and nominee are BS (as are you). This is about policy and not race no matter how hard you try to make it that. What race are the Irish? I notice that you didn't respond to your beat down on the make up of the Supreme Court. I also still notice that not once have you actually talked about the topic but have just attacked me. What's up with that? Nothing constructive to add or are you just the troll boy of the day? May I make a scurrilous charge right now? It sounds like you and catnip are butt buddies or maybe you are one and the same....

Of course you stopped reading. You are the typical type who ignores what you can't combat and besides, you can't form your own opinion without first watching FOX or listening to talk radio, so you'll have nothing to say until later tonight after O'Reilly goes off. You raised the subject of reparations and then tried to back off. First it's about slavery, then it's not, then it is again. If it's about policy and not race, why did you say and i quote, "Everyone has been slighted in some way but when an activist says reparations, they mean for slavery". Your opposition to Liu was because he supported reparations and then you tipped your hand and showed your true colors and defined what you saw as reparations. The difference between you and I, is that I am not trying to hide personal hangups about race, behind policy. I'm not going to repeat what I've said b/c you have no answer, or "you stopped reading". As far as addressing your supposed beatdown, my response flew right over your head(I'll give you an decoder ring so that you can understand my posts).

As for your "mission accomplished" victory, small victories for small people. You are see-thru, transparent, and as easy to read as a large-print, bouncing-ball teleprompter; as easy to read as books for old people: Same old subject, different book cover.

P.S. Professor Liu was not confirmed, and the subject of reparations was never raised, not even on your source of opinion, FOX news. Conservatives openly opposed his "Progressively liberal approach" and opinions concerning the roles of police, but someone pulled out the "reparations" boogey-man just for racially motivated hucksters like yourself.

[CuteOldGuy]

I didn't say anything of the sort. I said it makes me suspicious of his reasoning ability. And it does. It's as foolish as saying the holocaust never occurred. I wouldn't want someone like that on the Court either. And the Supreme Court is not a place for a diversity of opinion. It is for people who can read and understand the Constitution, and apply it accordingly.

And you know, I don't let Galt think for me, nor do I let Fox News or anyone else think for me. I don't even watch Fox News. I knew what Galt was saying, and I agree with him, that Mr. Liu does not belong on the appellate bench. This is America and I can think that if I want. And I don't think the courts are the place for creativity and the discovery of new rights not envisioned by our Founders. No, reparations will not ever be made, but if Mr. Liu sees a right to reparations, who knows what other rights he will come up with? So I disagree with his reasoning.

The Native American issue is different, because we had numerous treaties with the sovereign Indian nations, and I think we broke all of them. Treaties are as much the law of the land as the Constitution is. It takes no creativity to see that we owe the Native Americans.

And you are wrong about the statute of limitations. If you have a claim for money against an individual, business or government that does not arise out of a contract, your claim dies with you.

I am bored with this discussion. It is difficult to be in a battle of wits with those who are unarmed.

[thorough9]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I didn't say anything of the sort. I said it makes me suspicious of his reasoning ability. And it does. It's as foolish as saying the holocaust never occurred. I wouldn't want someone like that on the Court either. And the Supreme Court is not a place for a diversity of opinion. It is for people who can read and understand the Constitution, and apply it accordingly.

And you know, I don't let Galt think for me, nor do I let Fox News or anyone else think for me. I don't even watch Fox News. I knew what Galt was saying, and I agree with him, that Mr. Liu does not belong on the appellate bench. This is America and I can think that if I want. And I don't think the courts are the place for creativity and the discovery of new rights not envisioned by our Founders. No, reparations will not ever be made, but if Mr. Liu sees a right to reparations, who knows what other rights he will come up with? So I disagree with his reasoning.


I am bored with this discussion. It is difficult to be in a battle of wits with those who are unarmed.

So, I'll say it again for those who forgot to take their Geritol: WTF does the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco have to do with the Supreme Court? And WTF does the "holocaust never occurred" have to do with reparations? Did you take your medication today, Mr. Old Guy? Mr Liu is of an opinion that is different from yours, so he doesn't belong on the bench? This is America, Father Time, and just as you can think what you want, so can Mr. Liu. The courts "interpret" laws - existing laws - not hypothetical "what ifs". There is no law concerning reparations to be intepreted. There is/will be no lawsuit concerning reparations b/c there is no law that has been broken.

I can see it now: There's a case before the court concerning legalizing marijuana and prostitution. LOL. Mr. Justice, Your Honor Sir, Liu comes back from a recess and grants reparations for slavery. Hooray for Mr. Liu!!! I'm rich, Bitch!!!!


What Mr. Liu is in favor of, to the chagrin of conservatives, is reigning in the power of the police state and reversing the erosion of civil liberties that were packaged into the Patriot Act. They just said "reparations" to get you old farts riled up: They're gonna give all the Social S'curity to the Negroes and Injuns(no offense)

And according to your narrow view of the "discovery of new rights not envisioned by our founders", women, minorities, and unless you own at least 100 acres of land - you couldn't vote either. So your "rights not envisioned by our Founders" argument is ridiculous, not to mention cutting off your own foot. And as far as your battle of the wits comment, please. you're neither clever nor witty. You'd have to pull your head out of the providers' asses to be either, and with your twisted sense of self-satisfying logic, who really cares. I'd invite you to meet me outside, but I'm afraid that you might blow away in a puff of smoke and spiderwebs. lol. You'd better pray that someone does support reparations, and that you can somehow prove that you're either part black or native. B/c when the Republicans take away your Medicare, you're really gonna feel it. LMAO!


On a SN, to the douche from Mobile, AL, Mr. Kool-aid Man, there are more White people on welfare than black ones.

37.8% white* (37.8% of the white population (223,553,265) is on welfare)
That's approximately 84.5 million people.
27.78% black* (27.78% of the black population (38,929,319) is on welfare) That approximately 10.8 million people.

So if welfare is reparations for slavery, there must have been a whole GANG of white folks singing spirituals and waiting for Mr. Lincoln to pass that proclamation. ROTFLMAO!!!!

[Enchanterlingum]

Nobody should get a dime they didn't earn.

[kcbigpapa]

Originally Posted by Enchanterlingum

Nobody should get a dime they didn't earn.

So you are advocating a 100% estate tax? Seems a little harsh.

[john_galt]

thorough I stop reading because you are a waste of time especially when you make stupid claims. I do not cut and paste. Never have and never will. This is what I study so shove it.

[BigMikeinKC]

Originally Posted by kcbigpapa

So you are advocating a 100% estate tax? Seems a little harsh.

But it would be fun to see Daddy's little rich kids having to work for living.

[CuteOldGuy]

Thorough, you are becoming as much fun as Longer. Thank you for lightening the mood and brightening my day.