Posted on 06/19/2009 4:49:01 AM PDT by Altura Ct.
OK, it's a James Bond flick, but if you watch it as a spoof on slave reparations, it's hilarious! Kinda the way we used to mess w/each other's minds before PC!
Have you seen the plan for reparations? Even at the best case scenario for the pro reparations crowd not one dollar would go directly into a “victim’s” pocket. It would go to community programs directed and administered by ( at the time it was set up ) Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and other race pimps like them. Since both of their falls from grace I imagine now ACORN would be the managing group for all of the money.
I made it through the “brick and mortar Socialists” - she’ll be prepared to write what they want her to write to get a passing grade -but she’ll know they are all full of “Ship High In Transit” — :)
That’s the spirit.
Everything Good to You, your Daughter and family....
amen to that.
These idiots that are pushing this crap don't want equality they want, and want, and want. Everything but, equality and what is fair.
They bastardize the concept of "judging people on the content of their character not on the color of their skin"
The ironic quality of their argument is they are at the pinacle of societal evolution, to be the lawmakers and crying unfair they are being repressed" cry me a river.
If we pay reparations, we have to include the white folks who resisted the slavery movement-or fought in the Union Army paying with their lives. Problem also is NO ONE is living today that took up the cause.
If reparations were made how are they going to sort out who is a descendant of a slave? Those that came to this country after slavery? Is it based merely on color of skin?
Reparations? We have been paying it for years in the form of affirmative action, quotas and in other forms to eliminate inequalities that existed in the past.
More improvement is needed, but let’s hear it from blacks where else on this planet they would have it better in terms of freedom, standard of living, and equal opportunity - and where great strides have been made in recent history to amend for the past.
The problem is the race-baiters constant drumbeat of perpetual ‘victim’ status and pulling out the race card when necessary has morphed into demands for Equal Results, not Equal Opportunity.
Automatice exclusion for reparations:
Registered voters of the party of slavery: DEMOCRATS.
Descendants of resgistered voters of the party of slavery: DEMOCRATS.
Many legal experts point to the fact that slavery was not illegal in the United States[22] prior to the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified in 1865). Thus, there is no legal foundation for compensating the descendants of slaves for the crime against their ancestors when, in strictly legal terms, no crime was committed.
[...]
Other legal experts point to the fact that the current U.S. government did not exist prior to June 21, 1788 when the United States Constitution was ratified. Therefore, the U.S. government inherited the institution of slavery, and cannot be held legally liable for the enslavement of Africans by Europeans prior to that time. Figuring out who was enslaved by whom in order to fairly apply reparations from the U.S. Government only to those who were enslaved under U.S. laws, would be an impossible task.
[...]
The most effective legal argument against reparations for slavery from a legal (as opposed to a moral standpoint) is that the statute of limitations for filing lawsuits has long since passed. Thus, courts are prohibited from granting relief. This has been used effectively in several suits, including "In re African American Slave Descendants", which dismissed a high-profile suit against a number of businesses with ties to slavery.
Perhaps the most cogent argument against reparations (though this is not a legal argument) is that few African-Americans are of "pure" African blood since the offspring of the original slaves were occasionally the progeny of Caucasian male masters (and a variety of White males) by means of rape, concubinage or threat and forcibly slave-breeding of African and Black female slaves.
Slavery was abolished over 140 years ago and some people act like they are still slaves. The problem is that they are still slaves - to the (d) party.
Especially with kids who have peanut allergies. ;-)
My great grand parents came from Germany in the late 1800s AFTER slaverly was abolished.
My mother's ancestors came over and settled in Lee County, Texas about 1890.
Dad's ancestors came over in the 1880s and settled in Williamson County Texas.
I agree with you. Why should I pay reps for something that was done BEFORE my ancestors got here?
No kidding. Too bad the Great Society movement wasn't stopped years ago.
Astonishingly (to me), they tend to diss him as an oreo or an Uncle Tom!!
Representatives of majority back districts will continue to push for reperations because their constituents expect to get money from the government. Democrat representatives for other districts will continue to avoid the issue because it’s exactly the kind of thing that can kill a career. It will never pass and never go away.
You're making a typical PC mistake of accepting liberals at their word on something without reading between the lines. The clause which is supposedly upsetting the black caucus members doesn't "stave off" reparations demands by even one day. It merely says that the particular apology resolution doesn't authorize or support such a claim. There is no provision in the resolution stating that the Congress is of the opinion that such reparations are inappropriate. It just says they aren't endorsed by this particular bill.
In another post you stated that reparations would destroy the Democratic Party if enacted. I disagree. It would seriously harm a large number of Democrats in marginal districts, enough likely to cost them control of Congress. It would fall far short of destroying them.
But that's why they aren't passing reparations this year. They're waiting until after the next amnesty and a few more years of routine minority population growth drives the white population down a bit more. Then, they'll pass a reparations bill that includes Latinos and perhaps some other minorities, and they'll do it with impunity.
A resolution such as the one being considered right now serves a certain purpose. It makes it appear that most elected Democrats don't support reparations at a time in which there isn't enough popular support to pass it. This is no different than most Democrats claiming to oppose same-sex "marriage", while plotting to appoint judges who will force it on us. The Dems know full well that amnesty and non-white population growth will eventually change things to the point that they can safely pass reparations. They just need to pretend they don't support them until that time arrives.
Meanwhile, the expansion of the apology to include Jim Crow is designed to bring in other minorities. Only blacks were enslaved, so a reparations proposal based solely on that wouldn't include Latinos, Asians, etc. But if Jim Crow is included, then it can be claimed that numerous minorities were victims of American policies of that type, and the reparations bill can expand to include additional groups. Essentially, everyone but whites will be included.
Even the opposition by the black caucus serves a purpose. It makes the average white voter think the Dems as a whole oppose reparations. That it's only a few extremist blacks who favor it. Just as they think only a few extremist politicians support same-sex "marriage", since Obama and Hillary both claimed to oppose it. But elected Dems can claim this year to oppose both reparations and same-sex "marriage", but they are quietly working to bring both policies about by appointing only pro-homosexual agenda judges and by slowly driving down the white population via open borders, amnesty, and tax levels that make it hard for whites to have larger families.
Never listen to what the Dems are saying without looking at what they're doing. Otherwise, you'll forget how we were assured that the 1964 Civil Rights Act didn't authorize quotas or set-asides, and that the 1965 Immigration Bill wouldn't change our demographics, and that the 1980s era amnesty was the last one.
No, I’m not serious. It’s just my way of ridiculing this absurd concept.
But I am serious about making the point that the proponents of reparations conveniently overlook that it takes both a buyer and a seller to have a trade in anything. Accordingly, to the extent that a trade is judged immoral, there is no logical basis for screeching ad nauseam about the buyers (and their descendants) while pretending that the sellers had no culpability.
If we could bring this aspect of the matter to the discussion, the entire issue would go away.
We have given over 40 years of 'reparations' culminating in the election of a black that has a very poor resume for assuming the highest post in the world.
Okay, gotcha. Sorry for my confusion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.