If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "Gary Drescher" wrote in message news Have you directly or indirectly inherited some of the wealth that the slave owners stole from the black population? Thought so. What wealth was stolen from the black population by the slave owners? Ironically, the point of this subthread is that the right-wing slavery-apologists here on r.a.p. haven't gotten over losing the Civil War. Right-wing slavery-apologists here on r.a.p. haven't gotten over losing the Civil War? The Civil War ended 141 years ago. Nobody here on r.a.p. lost it. That's why it's ironic. -- FF |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
Montblack wrote: ("Skywise" wrote) Have you ever heard George Carlin's little piece on the F word? http://www.erenkrantz.com/Humor/SevenDirtyWords.shtml That's bogus man, 'tits' doesn't even belong on the list! -- FF |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "Gary Drescher" wrote in message . .. You apparently fail to grasp the distinction between punishment (which no one in this debate advocates) and civil reparation (returning something to its rightful owner). In the case of reparations for slavery, assuming the "rightful owners" were not all dead, what is it that would be returned to them? Money. In a civil action if the wronged party has lost a limb, a family member, or property that is now unrecoverable, they receive monetary compensation instead. -- FF |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
Steven P. McNicoll wrote: wrote in message oups.com... ... Eminent domain has been (ab)used for that purpose since before the Constitution was adopted. I've been opposed to the practice since first becoming aware of in the early 1970s. But I am not so dishonest as to argue that it is unConstitutional, or something new. Indeed, I am astonished that a case disputed centuries old settled law got to the USSC It is pretty hard to see how an arugment can be made that a prohibiton of confiscation of property WITHOUT just compensation does not implicitly permit confiscation WITH just compensation. "Just compensation" is not enough. The Fifth Amendment says private property shall not be taken FOR PUBLIC USE without just compensation. That's a good point. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the confiscation of property for tranfer of ownership to another private party. Indeed, if that is distinct from confiscation for public use then it doesn't even require just compensation for forced private party to private party transactions. Historically property that was not being developed, what we now call 'greenspace' was often condemned, and confiscated then sold (perhaps typically at public auction, but certainly not always ) to developers. While the legal argument was that this was done for the pubic good, to increase the tax base or employment the real reason usually was that some infuential developer wante dthe property bur the owner didn't want to sell, at least not for what the developer was willing to pay. Right or wrong (personally, I deplore the practice and would like to see it outlawed) it has been going on for as long as there has been formal ownership of real estate. If it was the intent of the founding fathers to outlaw the practice they should have been more specific. I wish they had. -- FF |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
wrote in message ups.com... Matt Whiting wrote: Gig 601XL Builder wrote: "Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... just as they stole Africans to use as slaves. Matt Actually the Americans bought the slaves. In many cases from Africans. I said Europeans, not Americans. The Americans may have bought them, but they were still buying stolen (kidnapped) "goods." I believe most of the slave traders were European, but I'm sure some enterprising Africans got into the action as well. In Africa the traders were mostly African. A number of Americans sailed the 'slave triangle'. They would take slaves from Africa to the Southern US or (maybe) the Carribean, take cotton, tobacco or mollases to New England, and then take manufactured goods to Africa. So the Americans were basically the customers and the UPS of the day. And to the parent post that said, "they were still buying stolen (kidnapped) "goods." "Stolen" is a legal term. At the time there wasn't a law against the slave trade so they weren't stolen they were bought and sold in accordance with the law of the time. |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
... And to the parent post that said, "they were still buying stolen (kidnapped) "goods." "Stolen" is a legal term. At the time there wasn't a law against the slave trade so they weren't stolen they were bought and sold in accordance with the law of the time. "Stolen" is a moral as well as legal term. Legalized theft can still constitute stealing, in the moral sense. --Gary |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message ... "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message ... And to the parent post that said, "they were still buying stolen (kidnapped) "goods." "Stolen" is a legal term. At the time there wasn't a law against the slave trade so they weren't stolen they were bought and sold in accordance with the law of the time. "Stolen" is a moral as well as legal term. Legalized theft can still constitute stealing, in the moral sense. But this thread is suggesting a legal remedy. If we are going to get money and lawyers involved we have to stick to the legal use of the term. If we are talking about the moral issues a heart felt apology should be enough. |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
... "Gary Drescher" wrote in message ... "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message ... And to the parent post that said, "they were still buying stolen (kidnapped) "goods." "Stolen" is a legal term. At the time there wasn't a law against the slave trade so they weren't stolen they were bought and sold in accordance with the law of the time. "Stolen" is a moral as well as legal term. Legalized theft can still constitute stealing, in the moral sense. But this thread is suggesting a legal remedy. If we are going to get money and lawyers involved we have to stick to the legal use of the term. Why? That seems like an arbitrary and unmotivated rule restricting a discussion that involves both moral and legal issues. We should be able to use any sense of any term we want, as long as it's clear what sense we're using (as long as it's clear that we are not referring to a violation of the then-current property laws). If you prefer to use another term instead, such as "immorally taken", that's fine. No substantive question is affected by the choice of terminology. --Gary |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fleet Air Arm Carriers and Squadrons in the Korean War | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | October 5th 04 02:58 AM |
(OT) TN NG 287th ACR mobilized first since Korean War: | CallsignZippo | Military Aviation | 0 | May 13th 04 06:50 AM |
North and South Korean overviews online. Your comments please !! | Frank Noort | Military Aviation | 0 | May 12th 04 08:40 PM |
US kill loss ratio versus Russian pilots in Korean War? | Rats | Military Aviation | 21 | January 26th 04 08:56 AM |
SOVIET VIEW OF THE KOREAN WAR | Mike Yared | Military Aviation | 0 | December 28th 03 05:41 AM |