🚀 go-pugleaf

You are correct sir. If reparations are granted, I will cease to pay any
income tax State or Federal. So will many millions of others.


Thomas Jackson wrote in message
<304e78e2.0201221655.5ed66d67@posting.google.com>...
>Short list:
>
>1) Who was affected?
>   It CANNOT be a blanket program because it has to be proven that any
>recipients really are descendants of those who were "adversely
>affected" (more about that a little later) by oppression.  And,
>plueeese.....none of this kunta kinte geneology mumbo-jumbo - it would
>have to be being verifiable. Current African americans (AA's) want it
>to be all current AA's and some (make that most) are not worthy!  They
>were manufactured over here.
>2) What did they lose?
>   Most of the africans who came over here were sold to the dutch
>slave traders by fellow african tribes that had conquered them.  So
>they would have been slaves anyway, unless the conquering tribe
>decided to off those they had conquered to reduce the overhead of the
>lessers they had conquered.
>3) Why did some end up in better circumstances (judges, politicans,
>athletes, etc) than others (poverty, poor skills, etc.)?
>   It is evident that AA's have done BETTER over here in American than
>they would have done if they all stayed over there.  You have a
>billionaire (the guy that owns BET) and many, many millionaires
>(sports stars, judges, politicians, media moguls, etc.) as well as
>successful "learned" people like judges and politicians.  The people
>mentioned in this section have had the opportunity to help their
>brethren who have been "discriminated against", but have not by and
>large.
>   Now contrast that with the plight of the African in the bush and
>tell me who has it better.  And why a lot of "them" have succeeded
>over here  in the good ol' USA.
>   Chutzpah for some and Affirmative Action for the rest.
>4)  Some of those who didn't benefit from slavery are expected to be
>paying.
>    As noted in 1) above a VERIFIABLE geneology would have to be done
>- not only for anyone getting any reparations, but for those who would
>be expected to pony us the reparations as well.
>    Take my specific case.
>
>    My british/scottish families came to America in the late 1890's so
>they did not benefit from slavery or the slave trade.  One of the
>brits later married an American Indian descendant of an chief.  So
>there I qualify for reparations for the taking of the lives and land
>taken and the liberty and pursuit of happiness removed to small Indian
>reservations.  And everyone knows the American Indians were stepped on
>a long time before those removed to the USA from Africa were.  And,
>using the logic of AA's clamoring for their reparations they are owing
>me because they are benefitting from the earlier oppression against
>the American Indian, don'cha know.
>
>I rest my case, for now, but not my argument.
>
>Bring it on,
>Thomas

"Thomas Jackson" <achevyl89@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:304e78e2.0201221655.5ed66d67@posting.google.com...
> Short list:
>
> 1) Who was affected?
>    It CANNOT be a blanket program because it has to be proven that any
> recipients really are descendants of those who were "adversely
> affected" (more about that a little later) by oppression

Of course it can be a blanket program. Most blak folks here in the South are
descendents of slaves. Of course just making it direct payments to black
people wouldn't be a good idea.


> 2) What did they lose?
>    Most of the africans who came over here were sold to the dutch
> slave traders by fellow african tribes that had conquered them.

Don't know what you are basing this on. However, when you sue you should go
after who was in volved in "wronging" you who also has the money. The former
tribes don't, the USA does.

> 3) Why did some end up in better circumstances (judges, politicans,
> athletes, etc) than others (poverty, poor skills, etc.)?
>    It is evident that AA's have done BETTER over here in American than
> they would have done if they all stayed over there.  You have a
> billionaire (the guy that owns BET) and many, many millionaires
> (sports stars, judges, politicians, media moguls, etc.) as well as
> successful "learned" people like judges and politicians.  The people
> mentioned in this section have had the opportunity to help their
> brethren who have been "discriminated against", but have not by and
> large.
>    Now contrast that with the plight of the African in the bush and
> tell me who has it better.  And why a lot of "them" have succeeded
> over here  in the good ol' USA.

SOrry, but it is insane to pull the "but they are better off here than in
Africa" arguement.No group of people would want to be ripped from their
homes, have many members die in transit to the USA, and be sold into
servitide for generations just for the chance that a couple of them might be
well off in 400 years.

> 4)  Some of those who didn't benefit from slavery are expected to be
> paying.
>     As noted in 1) above a VERIFIABLE geneology would have to be done
> - not only for anyone getting any reparations, but for those who would
> be expected to pony us the reparations as well.
>     Take my specific case.

No I won't. It is the US goverment thqat allowed the slavery, so if there
were reperations than the US government should pay.

> I rest my case, for now, but not my argument.

The arguement does need a rest, as we'll never pass reparations for slavery
anyway. It'd cost too much and every segment of the government would be
against it.

>
> Bring it on,
> Thomas

On 22 Jan 2002 16:55:19 -0800, achevyl89@hotmail.com (Thomas Jackson)
wrote:

>Short list:
 *snip troll*

reparations = extortion...

reparations will never be seriously proposed in a legislative context,
why? because reparations are extortion and so far beyond the pale of
reason that no sane, thinking legislator would ever support this silly
concept. You might consider the concept of reparations for slavery a
type of "society at large troll". end of argument
cheers

Jack McLain
Durham, NC

"Yes, a cigar is a banana for the monkey of the soul"
             Switters: aka Tom Robbins