R********ns? Who has to pay? (Page 2): Heck, she now claims all but her are just yelling from the cheap seats. I'm thinking she will finish up with her 15 minutes long before here...

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Carol Kelly wrote:

We truly have a mess in this country. Who would have thought that 40 new members of the House would bring us to our knees. AOC IS “the boss” because she created the new green deal!! She talked the talk to all the drunks in the bar where she worked and thought they agreed with her. So with the help of les miserables in NY she got herself elected to Congress. And she’s still mouthing off. But her listeners are no longer drunk on alcohol, they’re drunk on power.

Heck, she now claims all but her are just yelling from the cheap seats. I'm thinking she will finish up with her 15 minutes long before here next e******n.

Carol Kelly

Liberty Tree wrote:

No way to define it except free handouts. Since you are part black what percentage do you get? My descendants came here from England in the 1890's, never owned s***es and were lower middle class as far as income. I am in line for no cut of the pie.

Nor am I. I don’t owe them a plug nickel!

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

byronglimish wrote:

Are you just a mouth full or are you a current sponcer of a black family?

And your neighborhood hooker doesn't count.

Kevy never did anything for anybody.

Kevyn

nwtk2007 wrote:

So what you are wanting is actually an "affirmative action" payment. I get it. But with my being part black, I still want my cut if the left are so determined to hand out free money to black people. What about the Asians who have been discriminated against like just recently during WWII? WE could go on and on but this actually boils down to free money for black people. A r****t notion!

certanly the decendents of s***es are different than other immigrants. You if the descendent of a s***e should get a cut. And don’t think of it as affirmative action think of it as a victims compensation fund.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Kevyn wrote:

Set it up like the way victims of the 9-11 attack were compensated. And it isn’t just s***ery that the r********ns are owed for. Discrimination in housing, the GI bill civil service and segregation have kept Black families from amassing the same family wealth similar white families received. This also needs to be addressed.

I'm 55 years old. All of that happened before my time. And no one in my family ever owned a s***e. My ancestors fought for the Union.

Can you please explain the origin of my debt to black people? Is it the color of my skin?

Trooper745 Loc: Carolina

Kevyn wrote:

Set it up like the way victims of the 9-11 attack were compensated. And it isn’t just s***ery that the r********ns are owed for. Discrimination in housing, the GI bill civil service and segregation have kept Black families from amassing the same family wealth similar white families received. This also needs to be addressed.

First off, let me say that I agree with r********ns advocates that s***ery was a horrible, despicable violation of basic human rights. The gross discrimination that followed emancipation made a mockery of the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. I also agree that s***e owners and s***e traders should make r********ns to those whom they ens***ed. The problem, of course, is that s***es, s***e owners and s***e traders are all dead. Thus, punishing perpetrators and compensating victims is out of the hands of the living.

Punishing perpetrators and compensating victims is not what r********ns advocates want. They want government to compensate today's b****s for the bondage suffered by our ancestors. But there's a problem. Government has no resources of its very own. The only way for government to give one American a dollar is to first -- through intimidation, threats and coercion -- confiscate that dollar from some other American. Therefore, if anybody cares, a moral question arises. What moral principle justifies punishing a white of today to compensate a black of today for what a white of yesterday did to a black of yesterday?

There's another moral or fairness issue. A large percentage, if not most, of today's Americans -- be they of European, Asian, African or Latin ancestry -- don't even go back three or four generations as American citizens. Their ancestors arrived on our shores long after s***ery. What standard of justice justifies their being taxed to compensate b****s for s***ery? For example, in 1956, thousands of Hungarians fled the brutality of the USSR to settle in the U.S. What do Hungarians owe b****s for s***ery?

There's another thorny issue. During s***ery, some free b****s purchased other b****s as a means to free family members. But other b****s owned s***es for the same reason w****s owned s***es -- to work farms or plantations. Are descendants of these s***e-holding b****s eligible for and deserving of r********ns?

When African s***ery began, there was no way Europeans could have ens***ed millions of Africans. They had no immunity from diseases that flourished in tropical Africa. Capturing Africans to sell into s***ery was done by Arabs and black Africans. Would r********ns advocates demand that citizens of Ghana, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Kenya and several Muslim states tax themselves to make r********n payments to progeny of people whom their ancestors helped to ens***e?

R********ns advocates make the foolish unchallenged argument that the United States became rich on the backs of free black labor. That's nonsense that cannot be supported by fact. S***ery doesn't have a very good record of producing wealth. S***ery was all over the South, and it was outlawed in most of the North. Buying into the r********ns argument about the riches of s***ery, one would conclude that the antebellum South was rich and the s***e-starved North was poor. The t***h of the matter is just the opposite. In fact, the poorest states and regions of our nation were places where s***ery flourished -- Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia -- while the richest states and regions were those where s***ery was absent: Pennsylvania, New York and Massachusetts.

One of the most ignored facts about s***ery's tragic history -- and it"s virtually a secret today -- is that s***ery was a worldwide institution for thousands of years. It did not become a moral issue until the 18th century. Plus, the moral crusade against s***ery started in the West, most notably England.

I think the call for s***ery r********ns is simply another hustle. Advocates are not demanding that government send checks to individual black people. They want taxpayer money to be put into some kind of r********ns fund from which black leaders decide who receives how much and for what purpose.

Liberty Tree

Carol Kelly wrote:

Most of the b****s in America today have no one among their ancestors who were s***es. Many of them came here of their own free will looking to get all they can.
If this sounds familiar, yes, I’ve written it before.

They also forget that they may have had black ancestors who owned s***es. It is always left out of the discussion that there were black s***e owners.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Carol Kelly wrote:

We truly have a mess in this country. Who would have thought that 40 new members of the House would bring us to our knees. AOC IS “the boss” because she created the new green deal!! She talked the talk to all the drunks in the bar where she worked and thought they agreed with her. So with the help of les miserables in NY she got herself elected to Congress. And she’s still mouthing off. But her listeners are no longer drunk on alcohol, they’re drunk on power.

Let us hope and pray that these Progressives, new and old, will ultimately end up being better than any advertisement we could buy for the 2020 e******ns.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

archie bunker wrote:

I'm 55 years old. All of that happened before my time. And no one in my family ever owned a s***e. My ancestors fought for the Union.

Can you please explain the origin of my debt to black people? Is it the color of my skin?

That is exactly what it is arch! I guarantee you they won'[t make a single black person pay anything to any other black person, even though that person is a direct descendant of one who sold b****s into s***ery.

EL Loc: Massachusetts

Carol Kelly wrote:

Most of the b****s in America today have no one among their ancestors who were s***es. Many of them came here of their own free will looking to get all they can.
If this sounds familiar, yes, I’ve written it before.

And how about other nationalities who came her LEGALLY and were discriminated against and not allowed to get jobs?.....Like...."Irish need not apply". and some others before and following them. Shouldn't their offspring be reimbursed as well? Not everyone was treated equally.

This is all so stupid. The generation of today has nothing to do with what happened in the past. We owe them nothing. Each person should stand on his/her own. Otherwise we all have to sue Adam and Eve because they caused this whole thing in the first place.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Trooper745 wrote:

First off, let me say that I agree with r********ns advocates that s***ery was a horrible, despicable violation of basic human rights. The gross discrimination that followed emancipation made a mockery of the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. I also agree that s***e owners and s***e traders should make r********ns to those whom they ens***ed. The problem, of course, is that s***es, s***e owners and s***e traders are all dead. Thus, punishing perpetrators and compensating victims is out of the hands of the living.

Punishing perpetrators and compensating victims is not what r********ns advocates want. They want government to compensate today's b****s for the bondage suffered by our ancestors. But there's a problem. Government has no resources of its very own. The only way for government to give one American a dollar is to first -- through intimidation, threats and coercion -- confiscate that dollar from some other American. Therefore, if anybody cares, a moral question arises. What moral principle justifies punishing a white of today to compensate a black of today for what a white of yesterday did to a black of yesterday?

There's another moral or fairness issue. A large percentage, if not most, of today's Americans -- be they of European, Asian, African or Latin ancestry -- don't even go back three or four generations as American citizens. Their ancestors arrived on our shores long after s***ery. What standard of justice justifies their being taxed to compensate b****s for s***ery? For example, in 1956, thousands of Hungarians fled the brutality of the USSR to settle in the U.S. What do Hungarians owe b****s for s***ery?

There's another thorny issue. During s***ery, some free b****s purchased other b****s as a means to free family members. But other b****s owned s***es for the same reason w****s owned s***es -- to work farms or plantations. Are descendants of these s***e-holding b****s eligible for and deserving of r********ns?

When African s***ery began, there was no way Europeans could have ens***ed millions of Africans. They had no immunity from diseases that flourished in tropical Africa. Capturing Africans to sell into s***ery was done by Arabs and black Africans. Would r********ns advocates demand that citizens of Ghana, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Kenya and several Muslim states tax themselves to make r********n payments to progeny of people whom their ancestors helped to ens***e?

R********ns advocates make the foolish unchallenged argument that the United States became rich on the backs of free black labor. That's nonsense that cannot be supported by fact. S***ery doesn't have a very good record of producing wealth. S***ery was all over the South, and it was outlawed in most of the North. Buying into the r********ns argument about the riches of s***ery, one would conclude that the antebellum South was rich and the s***e-starved North was poor. The t***h of the matter is just the opposite. In fact, the poorest states and regions of our nation were places where s***ery flourished -- Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia -- while the richest states and regions were those where s***ery was absent: Pennsylvania, New York and Massachusetts.

One of the most ignored facts about s***ery's tragic history -- and it"s virtually a secret today -- is that s***ery was a worldwide institution for thousands of years. It did not become a moral issue until the 18th century. Plus, the moral crusade against s***ery started in the West, most notably England.

I think the call for s***ery r********ns is simply another hustle. Advocates are not demanding that government send checks to individual black people. They want taxpayer money to be put into some kind of r********ns fund from which black leaders decide who receives how much and for what purpose.

First off, let me say that I agree with r********n... (show quote)

In summary, the entire idea is bogus and impossible to implement.

To be honest, the only persons I have met who advocate for such a program are those already on the gov dole, receiving free money in all sorts of ways. And they see this as a way to get more. Fortunately, those who us who work, across all races, think the idea of giving people more free money is lunacy and an insult to all of us who work for a living!

archie bunker Loc: Texas

[quote=nwtk2007]That is exactly what it is arch! I guarantee you they won'[t make a single black person pay anything to any other black person, even though that person is a direct descendant of one who sold b****s into s***ery.[/quote]

Makes you wonder about Kevyn. Did his family own s***es? If so, how much should he pay out of his pocket for every black man, woman, and child in America today?

Oh wait! He's talking about taking our money, not his.....

vernon

Kevyn wrote:

Set it up like the way victims of the 9-11 attack were compensated. And it isn’t just s***ery that the r********ns are owed for. Discrimination in housing, the GI bill civil service and segregation have kept Black families from amassing the same family wealth similar white families received. This also needs to be addressed.

How about the w****s that were forced into poverty ,because they couldn't get a job because of s***ery.
Then they were forced to fight the rich mans war.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

archie bunker wrote:

Makes you wonder about Kevyn. Did his family own s***es? If so, how much should he pay out of his pocket for every black man, woman, and child in America today?

Oh wait! He's talking about taking our money, not his.....

They are always talking about someone else's money.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

vernon wrote:

How about the w****s that were forced into poverty ,because they couldn't get a job because of s***ery.
Then they were forced to fight the rich mans war.

Yeah! They already have affirmative action forcing w****s more qualified to scrounge for less well paying jobs!