Those *dangerous* Korean War relics

("Skywise" wrote)
Why the [#%&*] else would there be reparations if not to punish?


There are two regular posters who (sometimes) use the F'enheimer.

Maybe that number is now three?

Enjoyed the 'heck' out of your post, otherwise.


Montblack-not-blue

"Skywise" wrote in message
...
"Gary Drescher" wrote in
:
No, it's apparently based on your own misreading of your own post.
Nothing
in your original post referred to *punitive* reparations.

Why the **** else would there be reparations if not to punish?
Specific to this issue, slavery in America pre Civil War, what
tangible property is to be returned? What other reason would
there be (re slavery) for white people alive today to give
*anything* to black people alive today? The only thing taken
away from the blacks was their freedom. That has already been
returned to them. Anything more is punative.

You're being intentionally obtuse. One thing that was stolen from the slaves
(and thereby from their descendents' inheritance) was the massive value of
the slaves' forced labor; that was, after all, the whole point of slavery.
And advocates of reparations explicitly make that argument.

So even if you had some basis for disagreeing with that argument for making
nonpunitive reparations, it *still* would not vindicate your assertion that
anyone has been arguing that *punitive* reparations would be warranted
against individuals alive today.

The question of reparations is complex, and others in this thread have
mentioned some factors that legitimately detract from the case for
reparations. But your "punitive" misconstrual is not among those factors;
rather, it is just a red herring.

--Gary

In article ,
"Gary Drescher" wrote:

One thing that was stolen from the slaves
(and thereby from their descendents' inheritance) [snip]

The *potential* inheritance. Nobody's inheritance is guarenteed.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

From derelict AA guns to Confederate rednecks? Wow, this has to be a
record G


Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Jim Macklin posted:

I said the people who fought on both sides of the Civil War
were honorable people.

You've also said that slavery was wrong. How can one be "honorable" if one
is fighting to preserve something that is wrong?

I've never been a "redneck with a Confederate flag" on my
car. I do not have any desire to own slaves, but I don't
have any false ideas about why slavery existed either.

I didn't accuse you of being a redneck, etc... I'm just curious about how
you're framing your notions of honor and equating real slavery to a lack
of vision about one's options, as in the example you gave about low wage
earners in company towns.

Neil

Recently, Kingfish posted:

From derelict AA guns to Confederate rednecks? Wow, this has to be a
record G

Not really... both can neatly fall under the category of "Those
'Dangerous' Korean War relics". ;-)

Neil

("Neil Gould" wrote)
Not really... both can neatly fall under the category of "Those
'Dangerous' Korean War relics". ;-)


I believe the Yanks fought on The South's side in that one. g


Montblack

wrote in message
oups.com...

You mean like the way the Bill of Rights was not properly
ratified?


In what way was the Bill of Rights not properly ratified?



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.

wrote in message
ps.com...

Aside from the language prohibiting individual states from enterring
into a confederation.


That applies to states within the union, not to former states that had
seceded from it.



Seceding first, and enterring into a confederation later is an
intellectually dishonest shell game, not an action that is
permissible under the Constitution.


Nonsense.

"Skywise" wrote in message
...

I'll second that. I'm sick and tired of the descendents of
the slaves demanding recompense (in whatever form) from the
descendents of the slave owners. Were you personally enslaved?
Were you personally a slave owner? I thought not. Remember the
past, yes, but get over it.


Are the descendents of the slaves demanding recompense from only the
descendents of the slave owners? I thought the reparations effort was to
gain compensation from the federal government, which would presumably obtain
it from general revenue. That would have all taxpayers paying reparations,
not just those that are descended from slave owners.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:tcqgg.26072$ZW3.9062@dukeread04...

I can't think of his name right now, but there is a black
reporter for the Wall Street Journal who wrote a book about
how glad his ancestors were slaves in America, so he doesn't
have to live in Africa.


I'm not aware of any book like that, but Walter Williams has often pointed
out that the descendants of slaves in the US today benefited from the slave
trade because their ancestors were removed from Africa and brought to what
is now the US.