We don't need no stinkin reparations

RaceBannon

TurdBomber said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

dnc said:

greenblood said:

To say electing a black president is a form of reparations is stupid. It's just as stupid as being pro reparations in the first place.

Especially when you're Mitch McConnell and there's no way in fucking hell you voted for said


Neither did I, don't twist.

McConnell trying to use Obama as proof of the country's progress is hysterically ironic even by McConnell standards.

Would Obama have won in 1968?

The country has made massive improvements in race relations and electing Obama is concrete proof.

Things are worse than ever

Biden needs to get elected

SFGbob

GreenRiverGatorz said:

dnc said:

greenblood said:

To say electing a black president is a form of reparations is stupid. It's just as stupid as being pro reparations in the first place.

Especially when you're Mitch McConnell and there's no way in fucking hell you voted for said presodent.






Neither did I, don't twist.

McConnell trying to use Obama as proof of the country's progress is hysterically ironic even by McConnell standards.

You don't think it's a sign of our progress? Am I the only one that remembers 2008 because I recall hearing non-stop how it was a sign of our progress.

dnc

SFGbob said:

dnc said:

SFGbob said:

greenblood said:

To say electing a black president is a form of reparations is stupid. It's just as stupid as being pro reparations in the first place.

It would be, but that isn't what he said.

"We tried to deal with our original sin of slavery by fighting a civil war, by passing landmark civil rights legislation, elected an African American president," Barack Obama, in 2008, McConnell said. "I don't think we should be trying to figure out how to compensate for it. First of all, it would be hard to figure out whom to compensate."

Unless you also think he was saying that the Civil War was a form of reparations. He is listing how far we have come and what we have already done to address our "original sin" and that we now shouldn't be trying to figure out a way to further "compensate" for that original sin.

Saying we elected a black president to address the original sin of slavery isn't calling it reparations but it's just as FS.

You don't think there was an element of that in Obama's election? I recall Tom Hanks claiming it was one of the reasons he was going to vote for Obama.

https://youtu.be/UsHNvM8QB4o

I couldn't get past the "3/5 of a human being" comment.

The misapplication of the 3/5 compromise blows my mind.

If it wasn't for the 3/5 compromise we may have never been able to abolish slavery. Counting blacks as 3/5 of a person rather than a whole person was by far the best thing the Constitution did for the black cause.

People who don't understand this shouldn't comment on it.

SFGbob

dnc said:

SFGbob said:

dnc said:

SFGbob said:

There are all kinds of "worst aspects" regarding reparations. Transferring wealth from people who had nothing to do with slavery to people who were never slaves is another one of many.

I mean I'm not really pro reparations but there's no denying that there are people still benefiting from the ramifications of slavery and people still suffering from the ramifications thereof. It's not as simple as saying "you were never a slave".

I'd be pro reparations if I thought it would actually fix anything. The wounds of slavery are too deep to simply throw money at it and think it will go away though.

How do you quantify the "ramifications" and how do you work out form of compensation for those ramifications? How do you compensate people for slavery who were never slaves?

"I'm not really for reparations."

hth

Fine, you're not for them. But you just said there are people who are benefiting and people suffering from the "ramifications." Okay, so how would we quantify the ramifications? I'm asking you a question I'm not claiming you're favor of them.

PurpleThrobber

The Throbber is Irish - I want my fucking check from the Brits - goddamned oppressors.

dnc

SFGbob said:

dnc said:

SFGbob said:

dnc said:

SFGbob said:

There are all kinds of "worst aspects" regarding reparations. Transferring wealth from people who had nothing to do with slavery to people who were never slaves is another one of many.

I mean I'm not really pro reparations but there's no denying that there are people still benefiting from the ramifications of slavery and people still suffering from the ramifications thereof. It's not as simple as saying "you were never a slave".

I'd be pro reparations if I thought it would actually fix anything. The wounds of slavery are too deep to simply throw money at it and think it will go away though.

How do you quantify the "ramifications" and how do you work out form of compensation for those ramifications? How do you compensate people for slavery who were never slaves?

"I'm not really for reparations."

hth

Fine, you're not for them. But you just said there are people who are benefiting and people suffering from the "ramifications." Okay, so how would we quantify the ramifications? I'm asking you a question I'm not claiming you're favor of them.

I don't know how one would quantify it. I don't think there's a way to ever be accurate on it let alone precise. That doesn't mean we should deny such ramifications exist.

SFGbob

RaceBannon said:

TurdBomber said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

dnc said:

greenblood said:

To say electing a black president is a form of reparations is stupid. It's just as stupid as being pro reparations in the first place.

Especially when you're Mitch McConnell and there's no way in fucking hell you voted for said


Neither did I, don't twist.

McConnell trying to use Obama as proof of the country's progress is hysterically ironic even by McConnell standards.

Would Obama have won in 1968?

The country has made massive improvements in race relations and electing Obama is concrete proof.

Things are worse than ever

Biden needs to get elected

I hear he knows how to work with segregationists.

TurdBomber

dnc said:

SFGbob said:

greenblood said:

To say electing a black president is a form of reparations is stupid. It's just as stupid as being pro reparations in the first place.

It would be, but that isn't what he said.

"We tried to deal with our original sin of slavery by fighting a civil war, by passing landmark civil rights legislation, elected an African American president," Barack Obama, in 2008, McConnell said. "I don't think we should be trying to figure out how to compensate for it. First of all, it would be hard to figure out whom to compensate."

Unless you also think he was saying that the Civil War was a form of reparations. He is listing how far we have come and what we have already done to address our "original sin" and that we now shouldn't be trying to figure out a way to further "compensate" for that original sin.

Saying we elected a black president to address the original sin of slavery isn't calling it reparations but it's just as FS.

Yeah, I agree that the one-for-one (or 3 for 1) analogy is pretty dumb.

SFGbob

dnc said:

SFGbob said:

dnc said:

SFGbob said:

dnc said:

SFGbob said:

There are all kinds of "worst aspects" regarding reparations. Transferring wealth from people who had nothing to do with slavery to people who were never slaves is another one of many.

I mean I'm not really pro reparations but there's no denying that there are people still benefiting from the ramifications of slavery and people still suffering from the ramifications thereof. It's not as simple as saying "you were never a slave".

I'd be pro reparations if I thought it would actually fix anything. The wounds of slavery are too deep to simply throw money at it and think it will go away though.

How do you quantify the "ramifications" and how do you work out form of compensation for those ramifications? How do you compensate people for slavery who were never slaves?

"I'm not really for reparations."

hth

Fine, you're not for them. But you just said there are people who are benefiting and people suffering from the "ramifications." Okay, so how would we quantify the ramifications? I'm asking you a question I'm not claiming you're favor of them.

I don't know how one would quantify it. I don't think there's a way to ever be accurate on it let alone precise. That doesn't mean we should deny such ramifications exist.

I didn't deny it. But if there is no way to quantify it and you can't even tell me what these "ramifications" are then why is the Congress even holding this hearing?

dnc

Does anyone outside of Kentucky even like Mitch McConell? I know conservatives think he's too liberal, liberals think he's an asshole, Trump has vacillated on him. How tf is he still running the GOP Senate?Nobody else wants the jerb?