Steve_American wrote:1] The Japanese Americans who were interned got reparations. So, you 1st point is wrong.
Your assertion was that reparations were "owed" in a legal sense. You offered no legal theory in your assertion. Despite many lawsuits, Japanese internees were never awarded "reparations" by any US court of law, because of sovereign immunity. Therefore, I am right. It is true that Norm Mineta, a Democrat; Alan Simpson, a Republican; and, Pete Wilson, a Republican co-sponsored legislation to give grants to Japanese-Americans who were actually interned by the US government--Norm Mineta himself was so interned.
Slavery was constitutional and it was practiced by certain private citizens. The US government itself did not own slaves. The state cannot be held liable for the lawful practices of private individuals operating within the law. There is nobody alive today who was enslaved. Segregation was imposed by some of the several states, mostly in the US South. Using the formula of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, states that had segregation laws could, in theory, give a grant to those who permanently resided in the state and were substantially affected by the state's policies. Like Japanese internees, the people who would get such benefits are getting older, so they had better act fast. Segregation in the federal workforce was implemented by Woodrow Wilson, a progressive like yourself. At Wilson's direction, his administration fired many black at-will employees simply because they were black. Wilson's appointees were
recorded to have said such things as "A Negro's place is in the cornfield." This policy lasted until FDR, where it began to come to an end just as FDR interned Japanese Americans after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. FDR maintained a racially segregated military, however. Again, these people are getting old, so if the federal government were to offer some sort of grant to such individuals, it would not affect all blacks. It would mostly grant some form of payment to people who are pretty old already.
Steve_American wrote:2] I didn't say that reparations were owed for slavery. I said they were owed for Jim Crow and maybe slavery. Indentured servants was over 200 years ago.
I'm sure Pants-of-dog would argue that time heals no wounds, as indentured servitude was also used against native Americans as a form of debt peonage. The Thirteenth Amendment eliminated indentured servitude in the United States, along with ending debtor's prisons and instituting bankruptcy laws. Indentured servitude continued in other parts of North America into the early 20th Century, when it was finally abolished by the British Empire.
Steve_American wrote:3] You claimed that they "will" be going to prison. In my America if the white was a cop he would almost never go to prison and even a non-cop will maybe not go the prison. Maybe 50-50 chance.
This is usually because the white person has a well-founded fear. One of Barack Obama's proposed remedies was to get police to start wearing body cameras. A lot of police objected. I think, in many cases, because they treat others the way they are treated and they don't like being called out for foul language and such. However, one of Obama's suggestions has led to what I think may be an unintended affect: complaints against police officers are getting more quickly resolved as body cameras are showing that the complaints are by people calling the cops racist and charging them with misconduct when the body cameras show that no misconduct occurred and the detainee or arrestee simply lied. I hope such people will face legal sanction if it is determined that the complaint was willful. At any rate, body cameras on police officers is a good thing. Police agencies need to start releasing more footage of false charges against police officers to combat the fraud perpetrated by groups like Black Lives Matter, and the leftist Democrats in the media.
Steve_American wrote:4] Your idea of "moral" and my idea of "moral" are different I think. Almost every rich businessman has been immoral in my opinion.
Perhaps. I don't think every rich person has been "immoral" in some dastardly way. Sure, I would think there are many people who would complain about them. For example, I'm dismissive about complaints that Zuckerberg stole people's ideas to get Facebook running. If the ideas aren't subject to copyright, patent or trademark, people are free to use ideas. Such complaints are usually about people trying to get money. However, once it was clear that the US government's (In-Q-Tel, CIA) interest in Facebook was broad based and not just on using six-degrees of separation to get members of terrorist groups, my opinion of Zuckerberg changed. I also have a very dim opinion of Larry Page and Sergey Brin at this point, and Google in general. I consider their efforts to help the Chinese government oppress its citizenry is deplorable. However, I do use Android and GMail. I've switched to using DuckDuckGo.com, and in my opinion, you should too.
Steve_American wrote:lying about ACC with a comp. paid propaganda program to keep humanity from acting until it is too late
I think lying about ACC with government-paid propaganda to get people to accept higher taxes, more regulations and fewer freedoms via a dictatorship of a "scientific-technological elite" that Dwight Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address is similarly immoral. In my arguments with ACC people, they simply attack people who are skeptical of ACC theory and the government-paid propaganda surrounding it.
Steve_American wrote:5] The reparations might take the form of the US Gov. paying every public school district something like $3000 + half the grade level in dollars per year for each Black student in its schools. So, at grade 12 it would be 12/2= $6000 + $3000 = $9000/per Black student. This would really help the inner city schools improve.
I would support school vouchers with additional supplements for poor black students, including school breakfast and lunch programs, provided the vouchers could be used for a school of the parent's choice, and provided that none of the funds of the voucher be used for religious instruction if the parent chooses a private school.
Zionist Nationalist wrote:There are no more slaves alive so reparations are not justified. they already got everything civil rights their own president
black celebrities are all over the media.
That is the problem with the reparations debate. The Democratic party, for the most part, is totally unserious about it. After all, they elected Barack Obama and had political majorities in both Houses of Congress and did nothing to address the issues, just as they did nothing to address the immigration issue. Barack Obama's position before DACA late in his second term was no different than Trump's, and nobody is calling Obama a racist for deporting even more people than Trump or Bush.
Affirmative-action, for all intents and purposes, is judicially imposed reparations. Today, it has somewhat of a deleterious effect in that a lot of blacks who are not college ready are admitted to college, fail in their studies, and are saddled with student debt. I find it somewhat amusing that today's left is in a back door sort of way acknowledging the debt-peonage college graduates face. Many 4 year college programs could be completed online with proctored testing centers for under $10k. Higher education institutions are even more corrupt than the medical system.
Zionist Nationalist wrote:this victimhood mentality need to end if blacks want to stop being the most criminal and uneducated group in the US
they need to take responsibility to their own actions reparations wont change anything its another tactic of the democrats to make sure blacks will stick to them during the coming elections
Welfare was also, in many respects, a form of reparations for the economic exploitation of blacks. It also has had a lot of unintended consequences. Non-racial age-based systems like Social Security are what got blacks to start voting for the Democratic party, even as it was the Democratic party in the Southern states that was actively oppressing them. Imagine a 65-year old sharecropper in 1940 getting his or her first Social Security check. It must have been like manna from heaven. Welfare was supposed to help poor single parent families, but it had unintended consequences. Perverse incentives like the man-in-the-house rule and providing more money for each additional child born--including, and usually out-of-wedlock births--left blacks with broken homes. Most black children in America are bastards. Instead of addressing that fact by trying to repair black families, the establishment pushed to disuse the word "bastard" and consider its use insensitive or even "offensive." First coined in a Readers Digest article in the 1960s, the term "welfare queen" came into use to describe women who abused the welfare system--often with fraudulent claims. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, issued a report entitled
The Negro Family: The Case For National Action as Assistant Secretary of Labor for Lyndon Johnson--he was later an esteemed US Senator from New York, back when the Democrats were a respectable party. It's well worth reading for anyone seriously interested in the unintended effects of welfare, which have been known now for 50+ years, but is employed by the Democrats as a vote-buying scheme. It's sickening.
This whole exercise in reparations or basic guaranteed income is just more "money for nothing". Not a single serious Democrat is ignorant of the reason a basic guaranteed income was not adopted--addictive drugs. We're currently dealing with a massive inflow of heroin, fentanyl, crystal methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana from the Mexican border and no doubt huge numbers of our politicians in both parties are on the take and betraying the people they purport to serve.
Steve_American wrote:Inner city schools are under funded, therefore inferior.
If you think otherwise, then why are the richest neighborhoods in the suburbs spending over $20,000 per student in HS?
The richest neighborhoods also have troubled kids, albeit not at the rate of poor neighborhoods. Money isn't a cure-all tonic or panacea. There isn't nearly the correlation between funding and test scores that you are supposing. Desegregating schools was done not because black schools were inherently bad. In fact, blacks did better in school before desegregation. Black schools were dilapidated compared to white schools, and the books were more up-to-date in white schools. This sense of pity among liberals not only required desegregating schools, but required busing to integrate schools--often imposing 30-60 minute bus rides for students that weren't thrilled about it. It was more of a social experiment than a remedy.
The reason for the difference in school funding is that elementary and high school education have always been handled at the local level--since Thomas Jefferson set up the first public schools. Black neighborhoods tend to have high property and violent crime rates, which drives property prices down. This drives down property values, which are the primary source for school funding.
Suntzu wrote:I saw Black kids with poor/marginal scores/grades in the same school going for free. Any Black kid who can do a 1000 on the SAT can get a free ride somewhere.
Hell, if they can play football or basketball well and write their own name they can get a free education.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden