Zone1 Broad-brush reparations to all blacks is unconstituional

[IM2]

Redistribution of wealth at the barrel of a government gun is redistribution of wealth at the barrel of a government gun, no matter how it's compartmentalized or the language used to justify it.

Excluding and confiscating wealth literally at the barrel of a gun is what whites did for at least 190 years.

 

[IM2]

Pretty much all immigrants were discriminated against.

Then they unified by white skin and practiced Jim Crow.

 

[IM2]

People like you--people who demand black people are incapable of achieving on their own and the nanny state is required to sustain them and who express contempt for any person who objects to that--have caused far more suffering to people than people like me. That's a fact.

So whites are incapable of achieving on their own and the nanny state must sustain them. It is this cognitive dissonance from whites on the right that is THE problem. To people like you everybody but whites are dependent on the government. But the record shows that whites have been the prime beneficiary of nanny government.

 

[el midgetron]

So whites are incapable of achieving on their own and the nanny state must sustain them. It is this cognitive dissonance from whites on the right that is THE problem. To people like you everybody but whites are dependent on the government. But the record shows that whites have been the prime beneficiary of nanny government.

Well at least whites were able to create the nanny government and build civilization. If any one is entitled to the fruits of the “white’s” labor, I guess it would be whites. Blacks people apparently feel entitled to the benefit of the labor of white people…… the irony.

View attachment 882338

 

[MarcATL]

His point is that there are minorities who are on the receiving end of bigotry and hate much more than blacks. A Jew is 2.6x more likely to be a victim of a hate crime than a black.

So quick bitching and be thankful that you were born in this country. And be glad that young people aren’t being so brainwashed that they want YOU dead.

How about you being thankful no one is killing you today?

 

[JoeB131]

A good topic would be WHY has it deteriorated - which is definitely has - since the 1970s. Blacks were making real progress, and within the last few years, bam! - a big step back even though no anti-black laws were instituted to account for that.

So what happened since my high school and college days to account for all this?

I think you are a tad confused.

First, EVERYTHING has kind of deteriorated since the 1970's. We can thank the Right Wing for that, as they have spent the last 50 years demolishing the middle class.

Back in the 1960s, black folks could get some of those good factory jobs with the good union wages, at least in the North. All those jobs disappeared.

White people were able (mostly) to adapt to the technical service economy, at least a little better than blacks were.

Discrimination was not written into the founding documents.

Yes, it was. Not only slavery, but the 3/5th compromise. America was founded on racism. We should fix that.

 

[Lisa558]

How about you being thankful no one is killing you today?

Oh, have we descended so low that Jews should be thankful that no obnoxious leftist pro-Palestinian is killing them TODAY, and go back to figuring out how we can get the trillions to pay off blacks because of something 70 years ago?

You sure demonstrate a scary tolerance for Jew-hatred and threats of violence against them TODAY while demanding money for blacks for something two generations ago.

I say that until Claudine Gay is fired for enabling calls to genocide Jews on her campus that we curtail discussions of righting past wrongs for blacks. Let’s deal with the current crisis first.

 

[el midgetron]

Yes, it was. Not only slavery, but the 3/5th compromise. America was founded on racism. We should fix that.

The US was founded on the principle that all men are created equal. This principle was introduced into a world were slavery and discrimination were universal. There is simply no reason to “write discrimination” into the founding documents when it was already the status quo, the globe over. The idea that all men are equal is much more socially radical than any discriminatory law of the time. Liberals love to ignore the context of America’s founding.

Specifically for the 3/5 compromise, this was progress towards counting slaves the same as free people (including free blacks) and eventually granting them their freedom. The compromise was made about how slaves were counted (as free people) towards representation and taxation. Free states without slaves wanted slaves to be counted towards slave-state’s taxation burden. Slave states wanted slaves to count towards their representation. It’s not about each slave being 3/5 if a person, rather it’s 3/5 the number of slaves counts is added to the free population count. Counting slaves the same as free men, even in part, was progress away from not counting them at all.

It’s kinda of strange the left takes issue with the compromise rather than the continued institution of slavery in the south that required the compromise be made.

This was the reality of how the universal practice of slavery was shed by the American experiment. It didn’t happen over night because the universal practice of slavery was entrenched in colonial America the same as everywhere else on the globe. It was the founding principles that acted as a guide away from this inequality.

Ironically, counting slaves the same as free people would have only increased the slave-state’s representation, influence and power.

 

[JoeB131]

The US was founded on the principle that all men are created equal.

Yes, but they really only meant White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, didn't they?

This principle was introduced into a world were slavery and discrimination were universal.

Except they weren't "universal". Slavery had been abolished in much of Europe by the 18th century.

Specifically for the 3/5 compromise, this was progress towards counting slaves the same as free people (including free blacks) and eventually granting them their freedom. The compromise was made about how slaves were counted (as free people) towards representation and taxation. Free states without slaves wanted slaves to be counted towards slave-state’s taxation burden. Slave states wanted slaves to count towards their representation. It’s not about each slave being 3/5 if a person, rather it’s 3/5 the number of slaves counts is added to the free population count. Counting slaves the same as free men, even in part, was progress away from not counting them at all.

You can try painting a happy face on this bit of bullshit all day. The South wanted them counted in the Census, but not give them freedom. The North didn't want them counted at all. EVERYONE INVOLVED WAS BEING AN ASSHOLE.

It’s kinda of strange the left takes issue with the compromise rather than the continued institution of slavery in the south that required the compromise be made.

Except that the fact that slavery was continued after the revolution was the problem. If you really do start a revolution on the basis of "All Men Are Created Equal", the first ******* thing you do is end Slavery.

 

[el midgetron]

Yes, but they really only meant White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, didn't they?

Nope.

Except they weren't "universal". Slavery had been abolished in much of Europe by the 18th century.

Absolutely. The philosophical idea that all men are created equal originated in Western Culture. It’s just that human history goes back a tad further than the 18th century. But regardless, perhaps we can agree that slavery and discrimination exhausted universally outside the white world in the 18th century?

You can try painting a happy face on this bit of bullshit all day. The South wanted them counted in the Census, but not give them freedom. The North didn't want them counted at all. EVERYONE INVOLVED WAS BEING AN ASSHOLE.

Predictably you are shifting the blame away from the slave states on to the people who were amongst the first in the world to abolish slavery. This was about how to resolve the unfavorable institution of slavery. This wasn’t about “black people”. There were free black people who counted in full amongst the population.

Except that the fact that slavery was continued after the revolution was the problem. If you really do start a revolution on the basis of "All Men Are Created Equal", the first ******* thing you do is end Slavery.

The founding principle was that all men were created equal. Each state had its own right to governance. To federally mandate otherwise would have prevented the union of the states because the slave states would have never gone along with it. The founders recognized this and knew slavery was something that future generations would have to resolve, which they did. The union of the states after the Revolution was needed for the survival of the American experiment.

FFS, look at how government works now and tell me why you would expect instant gratification 250 years ago.

 

[JoeB131]

Absolutely. The philosophical idea that all men are created equal originated in Western Culture. It’s just that human history goes back a tad further than the 18th century. But regardless, perhaps we can agree that slavery and discrimination exhausted universally outside the white world in the 18th century?

If the Founding Fathers had lost, Slavery in America would have been abolished by 1830.

Predictably you are shifting the blame away from the slave states on to the people who were amongst the first in the world to abolish slavery. This was about how to resolve the unfavorable institution of slavery. This wasn’t about “black people”. There were free black people who counted in full amongst the population.

Except we weren't the first to abolish slavery, we were one of the last.

We didn't even abolish it in 1865. They just found a new way to do it called "Debt Peonage", which wasn't outlaws in this country until 1942, and only then because we didn't want to give the Axis something to complain about.

The founding principle was that all men were created equal. Each state had its own right to governance. To federally mandate otherwise would have prevented the union of the states because the slave states would have never gone along with it. The founders recognized this and knew slavery was something that future generations would have to resolve, which they did. The union of the states after the Revolution was needed for the survival of the American experiment.

Blah, blah, excuses are like bungholes... everyone has one and they all stink.

 

[el midgetron]

If the Founding Fathers had lost, Slavery in America would have been abolished by 1830.

Maybe if the issue of slavery was a simplistic as you make it. The truth is even Britain didn’t really abolish in 1833. The slavery abolition act required slave to continue working as unpaid apprentices for a number of years after the act was passed.

British colonies experienced some serious slave revolts which expedited British abolition. However, even in your example slavery didn’t end over night like you argue it should have in the Americas. In an extreme example, the British took control of Sierra Leone in 1808 but didn’t abolish slavery there until 1928.

It’s just a more complicated issue than you seem to understand.

Except we weren't the first to abolish slavery, we were one of the last.

Thats rich. It sounds like you have a very white European centric view of history. Take a look how long some African nations took to abolish slavery. The western world led the rest of the world in the abolition of slaves. As much as it makes liberals cry, white people did that.

We didn't even abolish it in 1865. They just found a new way to do it called "Debt Peonage", which wasn't outlaws in this country until 1942, and only then because we didn't want to give the Axis something to complain about.

By “they” I assume you mean evil white people? Peonage was not invented by white people and is still prevalent today in Asian and Africa. Again it’s just another layer to a complicated issue.

Blah, blah, excuses are like bungholes... everyone has one and they all stink.

I’ll trust your expertise in that department.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I’m not a white woman

And I’m not a typical lib who thinks men and women are interchangable

White woman have been harmed by affirmative action and discriminated against to benefit less qualified black women

So if sone individual white women have lucked out others have not

And white males are being assigned to the back of the bus in all cases

I never claimed you were a white women but that still doesn't negate the fact that the example you used of affirmative action has benefitted white women more than any other group.

The governmental agencies that track these metrics are the reason we know this. Why would you think that you know better than the people whose job it is to monitor enforce compliance with the government regulations that allows them to continue receiving certain funding?

That is statement about some "individual white women" lucking out applies across the board to just about every other group as well. Some people through the luck of the draw manage to benefit from affirmative action in every category, others do not. That does not nothing to negate the fact that white women have benefitted the most.

If you're entitled to something but are deprived of it and do nothing to try to ensure your rights are not violated, then you're part of the problem as to why you did not benefit. FoxFyre explained to us numerous incidents where her rights were violated but never said why she didn't file a complaint or claim about it.

How are white men now forced to sit at the back of the bus? How specifically?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Ive see dark-skin guys act this way when it comes to matters of pedophilia.…

What an ignorant argument.

An ignorant argument? It was an analogy but one I've observed time and time again.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

So just to be clear, it’s not slavery you oppose. Its only slavery in the context of the US that you oppose.

Chattel slavery as practiced in the United States of America as part of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

Our government doesn't have jurisdiction to do anything about any other nation engaging in the very same behavior it has, right?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

You keep saying that over and over and over and over and over. But you cannot say what the physical or material harm was to any specific person now living. Inconvenience is not physical or material harm. That something might have happened is not physical or material harm. Just because something is unfair is not physical or material harm. If every person who was inconvenienced or even somewhat harmed by bad government policy were to be compensated for that, we will be paying reparations pretty close to all Americans who have ever lived.

Bad policy for somebody has been part of government for as long as we have had government and yes bad policy is worse for some than it will be for others. But not all black people who lived in the Jim Crow era, even not all those who were subject to Jim Crow laws, were physically or materially harmed. Unless you can show something from a credible unbiased source other than your opinion to dispute that, I will stand by my post. Good night my friend.

The violation of a Constitution right is a material harm.

Freedom of movement under United States law - Wikipedia​

​

As early as the Articles of Confederation the Congress recognized freedom of movement (Article 4), though the right was thought to be so fundamental during the drafting of the Constitution as to not need explicit enumeration.[4]​

​

The U.S. Supreme Court in Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1868) declared that freedom of movement is a fundamental right and therefore a state cannot inhibit people from leaving the state by taxing them. In United States v. Wheeler. 254 U.S. 281 (1920), the Supreme Court reiterated its position that the Constitution did not grant the federal government the power to protect freedom of movement. However, Wheeler had a significant impact in other ways. For many years, the roots of the Constitution's "privileges and immunities" clause had only vaguely been determined.[5] In 1823, the circuit court in Corfield had provided a list of the rights (some fundamental, some not) which the clause could cover.[6][7] The Wheeler court dramatically changed this. It was the first to locate the right to travel in the privileges and immunities clause, providing the right with a specific guarantee of constitutional protection.[8] By reasoning that the clause derived from Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, the decision suggested a narrower set of rights than those enumerated in Corfield, but also more clearly defined those rights as absolutely fundamental.[9] The Supreme Court began rejecting Wheeler's reasoning within a few years. Finally, in United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Supreme Court overruled Chief Justice White's conclusion that the federal government could protect the right to travel only against state infringement.[2][3][10]​

​

The U.S. Supreme Court also dealt with the right to travel in the case of Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). In that case, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, held that the United States Constitution protected three separate aspects of the right to travel among the states:​

(1) the right to enter one state and leave another (an inherent right with historical support from the Articles of Confederation),​

​

(2) the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger (protected by the "Privileges and Immunities" clause in Article IV, § 2), and​

​

(3) (for those who become permanent residents of a state) the right to be treated equally to native-born citizens (this is protected by the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause; citing the majority opinion in the Slaughter-House Cases, Justice Stevens said, "the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ... has always been common ground that this Clause protects the third component of the right to travel.").​

​

 

[AMart]

Chattel slavery as practiced in the United States of America as part of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

Our government doesn't have jurisdiction to do anything about any other nation engaging in the very same behavior it has, right?

Government didn't enslave them retard and whites were slaves, and even worse non slaves. Non slaves died horrible deaths. Chattel slavery is a God send for slaves you ******* ***** stank ass black ass ***** who steals hair. Blacks owe whites.

As many as 20,000 Irish immigrants perished from cholera and yellow fever during the six-year construction of the New Basin Canal, begun in 1832. The victims were buried wherever they died.

The immigrant Irishmen who hacked through swampland with picks and shovels were paid $1 a day for their labor. Wives were paid 50 cents for a half-day's work, considered too dangerous for slaves who sold from $500 to $1,500 each

Mass grave of Irish diggers stirs quarrel - UPI Archives

The mass grave of thousands of Irish ditch diggers killed by disease 150 years ago is at the center of a neighborhood quarrel over a housing project....

www.upi.com

 

[Mac-7]

I never claimed you were a white women but that still doesn't negate the fact that the example you used of affirmative action has benefitted white women more than any other group.

The governmental agencies that track these metrics are the reason we know this. Why would you think that you know better than the people whose job it is to monitor enforce compliance with the government regulations that allows them to continue receiving certain funding?

That is statement about some "individual white women" lucking out applies across the board to just about every other group as well. Some people through the luck of the draw manage to benefit from affirmative action in every category, others do not. That does not nothing to negate the fact that white women have benefitted the most.

If you're entitled to something but are deprived of it and do nothing to try to ensure your rights are not violated, then you're part of the problem as to why you did not benefit. FoxFyre explained to us numerous incidents where her rights were violated but never said why she didn't file a complaint or claim about it.

How are white men now forced to sit at the back of the bus? How specifically?

As long as “diversity” is the goal of affirmative action straight white males will be targets of lib discrimination

 

[AMart]

As long as “diversity” is the goal of affirmative action straight white males will be targets of lib discrimination

No it's genocide of whites

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Because it’s annoying to be called a racist when you’re not. Look at how you went off when I called you a blacktivist or angry. IOW, you expect to be able to yell ”racist!” at people simply because they object to race-based bias (ironic) and then get all huffy when someone calls you a blacktivist or angry.

If I called you a "hackivist" do you think people would view that label in a positive or negative light?

And your constant misrepresentation of why there are people on this board who classify you as a racist is just as disingenuous as your portrayal of me as the stereotypical "angry Black woman". You sure did screech when were you were referred to as a "princess" didn't you? Why was that?

Your use of certain language has nothing to do with a disagreement or seeing the same situation from two different perspectives. We provided you with a list of things that are racist when said by white people about Black people so that you could avoid making such statements, on the off chance that you really didn't know what you were saying is racist. But no, instead of taking them to heart, you doubled down on a lot of it.

I don't care whether or not you're a racist, I am paid good money for my professional opinion on multiple topics, including if specific action(s) can be alleged to be a violation of any of the laws covered by the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 (yeah, including racial discrimination). In your case, I am simply pointing out that the comments you make are being made intentionally with the complete knowledge that they are indeed racist which may be taken as prima facie evidence of your intent. Meaning you knowingly made the statements, knowing they were racists and intending for them to be received as such.

So make sure when you go crying to the moderators that you explain properly what was actually said instead of falsely claiming that you were attacked in a violation of Zone 1 rules.