If the lawyers in the Slavery Reparations case don't get sanctions, they may.........

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by LSUBud, Jan 27, 2004.

  1. M.O.M

    M.O.M Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    Messages:
    264
    Likes Received:
    2
    I saw that.
    My point was its about much more than the issue of the Confederacy.
    If the point of reparations is to repay black folks for mistreatment, systematic and govermentally enforced, then the North is not immune for their actions during that period.

     
  2. LSUBud

    LSUBud Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    564
    Likes Received:
    2
    Somewhere in the Constitution, Justice Sandy Baby found that there should only be 25 more years of Affirmative Action. You'll look long and hard for it in the Constition, because apparently, Sandy has a Constitution in her office that only she is privy to.
     
  3. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Even under that scenario, it would be impossible to prove damages. How is a descendant of a slave going to prove that because his ancestor was a slave he is financially damaged? The fact that Great Great Grand Pappy was a slave in 1850 did not inhibit the 20th century descendant's ability to earn a living.
     
  4. JD

    JD Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well, that's a novel argument
    Let's tell that to tort plaintiffs- only if you prove that you cannot make a living can you recover your damages.
    That would be a good defense for Enron- Hey you employees can still make a living, so it doesn't matter how much we stole from you-you don't get squat.
     
  5. JD

    JD Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    1
    I can't argue with that- I will also point out that slavery depressed the wages of all workers.
     
  6. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Well then, what are their damages? Pain and suffering? I don't think they were physically injured. Mental anguish? From what? Watching Roots? Have they suffered pecuniary damages? Past lost wages? Future economic losses? Let's see some proof. What about Statute of Limitations? Surely whatever civil wrongdoing may have been perpetrated was over a year ago. And as far as the Enron employees, that's apples and oranges. Those people were damaged and they can prove it. And, most importantly, the Enron malfeasance didn't happen 150 years ago.
     
  7. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    if i am half black do i get to pay myself?
     
  8. LSUBud

    LSUBud Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    564
    Likes Received:
    2

    If there hadn't been a slave trade, odds are that MOST of the slaves would have wound up as DINNER on another Africans dinner plate, OR as a slave in Africa.

    There's STILL slavery in Africa. Where's the outcry in that??? Who do you guys think CAPTURED the American slaves??? It was other AFRICANS.

    If anything, the American slave trade SAVED the lives of many of the slaves.

    Does that make American slavery "right"???

    NO.

    However, I'm not going to judge another generation for something that they might have considered right or wrong AT THE TIME. What will they say 1,000 years from now with respect to Capital Punishment?

    Do you want those alive 1,000 years from now to judge you because of beliefs you have today?

    100 years from now, I believe that many will look back at Affirmative Action as a CLEARLY RACIST institution and will wonder WHAT THE F*(&K were we thinking about.

    But, there are many today who think that it's PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE.
     
  9. JD

    JD Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    1
    Bud, slavery was well known to be morally repugnant well before the civil war. The american south was the only place in the western world where it was practiced. So no one is placing 21st century ideals onto the 19th century-the 19th century plantation owners were using 14th century notions to protect and obtain wealth immorally-and they knew it.
     
  10. LSUBud

    LSUBud Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    564
    Likes Received:
    2
    The only reason is became "morally repugnant" in those "Western" countries was due to the fact that they didn't rely on an agricultural economy like the American South. And, it wasn't that long BEFORE the Civil War that Slavery had been outlawed.

    It's STILL practiced in Africa.

    I KNOW that Affirmative Action is MORALLY REPUGNANT. Does that stop others from practicing RIGHT NOW, in the 21st Century? What will they say in 150 years about a CLEARLY RACIST practice still being allowed to exist in the 21st Century? Will they JUDGE us? I suspect even the MOST ARDENT A.A. proponent realizes the RACIST nature of Affirmative Action - but, just like the slave owners (who consider slaves to be savages), they ralionalize it SOMEHOW in their own minds.
     

Share This Page