Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Posted: 1/31/2001 7:50:24 PM EDT
Might these militant blacks learn to read history so they can relise that while white people did buy and own slaves, it was their fellow Africans that enslaved them in the first place! they might try suing them! It worked like this, one tribe attacks other tribe , takes prisoners, to earn their keep prisoners are forced to work! white guys show up to trade with tribe, tribe has nothing to trade but wants modern european goods, tribe looks at their slaves and says hey europeans we will give you free labor if you give us your trade goods, european says cool we need people to work the tobbacco and cotton fields as they are not getting enough indentured slaves from europe! So therefore it is the black tribes in africa who are responsible for slavery not white folks! If these blacks looked at africa now at this very moment blacks are still enslaving each other over there! Sue them![>(]
Link Posted: 1/31/2001 8:17:08 PM EDT
Let's not let the facts get in the way of their stupidity, man! Truly, I don't know which amazes me more; How f*cking stupid some people can be, or the fact that some people actually take dumb sh*t like this seriously.
Link Posted: 1/31/2001 8:34:36 PM EDT
Isn't welfare reparations enough?
Link Posted: 1/31/2001 8:44:32 PM EDT
Don't worry. If they should win this potential case and say each of them get $5000, just find something to sell them and you'll come way out ahead by getting some of your tax $$'s back. I suggest crack cocaine or something that looks like it. They'll be broke in less than a week and come looking for more. If affirmative action hasn't worked yet, it never will. It's been over 30 years and you'd think that would at least have helped some of them. Free medical, free college + free spending money, free food, free heat, free clothes, free rent, free police protection, no taxes, no responsibilities, sleep till noon and then hang out with your buddies all night getting high. Yep, it's been tough on 'em alright. I say settle with them at $10,000 each. Those that accept the money get a free trip back to ebola infested, AIDS infected, famine & drought ridden Africa where they will immediately become tiger-a-roni. They'd spend the 10 grand to get back here faster than you can say OOGA-BOOGA!
Link Posted: 1/31/2001 11:32:17 PM EDT
I say settle with them at $10,000 each. Those that accept the money get a free trip back to ebola infested, AIDS infected, famine & drought ridden Africa where they will immediately become tiger-a-roni. They'd spend the 10 grand to get back here faster than you can say OOGA-BOOGA!
View Quote
LOL
Link Posted: 2/1/2001 3:29:57 AM EDT
The United States only sanctioned slavery from 1789 to 1862. That's 73 years. Prior to that, for more than 200 years, the British were in charge. They should sue the British given the fact that they initiated it, prepetuated it, profited from it. The United States dumped the institution in a (relatively) short time and at great expense after we became independent of Great Britain. Furthermore, we should offset any reparations with the cost (plus compounded interest) of the Civil War, which was prosecuted by the Federal Government and, as all the plaintiffs to the case will tell you, was fought over slavery [;)]. Then, we should put teams of economists on the assessment of the actual economic cost of affirmative action and its enforcement and offset that expense as well. Once those two factors are calculated and weighed against the benefit of slavery (interest compounded, less the cost of slave maintenance)during the period 1789-1862, we will probably see that the slave descendants owe the Federal Government money rather than the other way around. Heck, forget about offsets. Let's initiate a counter-suit!
Link Posted: 2/1/2001 3:53:19 AM EDT
Furthermore, we should offset any reparations with the cost (plus compounded interest) of the Civil War, which was prosecuted by the Federal Government and, as all the plaintiffs to the case will tell you, was fought over slavery Not to argue your point, I agree. But just as a footnote, the "war between the states" was fought over a states right to succeed from the union, not slavery. Slavery was an issue that fueled the fire, but NOT the main reason for the war.
Link Posted: 2/1/2001 4:07:30 AM EDT
Don't forget..slave importation was banned in 1800, so all the remaining were born here, not brought here. Slavery was a dieing institution easily by 1850..economically indefensible: Young male slave, good health cost $1000 in 1850..few could afford 'em. Then owner had to feed, clothe, care for, and GUARD em, + chase 'em when they ran off, plus they would work only hard enuf to aviod a beating[-!-] It would have been FAR CHEAPER for Abe L to simply have BOUGHT all the slaves from their owners, than it was to fight a war. The war was to prevent the splitting up of the Union by the British and French: Read the memoirs of German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck for a revealing look at the plans of the European financiers to divide the USA as early as 1850.
Link Posted: 2/1/2001 4:32:41 AM EDT
X_RING, that little wink after my statement about slavery indicates that I know and you know that salvery was not the issue. Howvere, the PLAINTIFFS to the reparation suit are in an odd position. THEY are the ones who are saying at the same time that it was all about slavery while claiming that we owe them reparations. FRED, I agree. From the our revolution on, the European financial interests led by the British were determined to "balkanize" the United States. Slavery was the wedge issue. That is why the British were running slaves on the one hand while funding the Abolishinists on the other. Thus, there was a move after the Civil War in the US Congress to sue Great Britain for damages. Likewise, Lincoln accepted the services of the Irish Brigade under the condition that they have US support in the invasion of Canada after the South was put down. So, on the strength of the United States versus the European Oligarcy, Lincoln may have had grounds for prosecuting the war. I think that the tragedy was that both sides of the conflict were right. The Europeans just manipulated them into position and lit the fuse. HOWEVER, Lincoln was shot and the surviving consiprators fled to Canada. What happened subsequently has led me to conclude that the South was more right and I agree with Lee in his statement to the Govenor of Texas in 1870 that if he had known what use the Federal Government was to make of their victory, he would have died at Appomatox with his sword in his hand!
Link Posted: 2/1/2001 4:35:16 AM EDT
Those that accept the money get a free trip back to ebola infested, AIDS infected, famine & drought ridden Africa where they will immediately become tiger-a-roni.
View Quote
Tigers are Asian. In Africa, it would be lion-a-roni.
Link Posted: 2/1/2001 4:48:36 AM EDT
Just like GINSENG already said anyone who wants the money should be made to leave the country. I don't remeber seeing such a pathetic display of greed at any other time in my life.
Link Posted: 2/1/2001 5:51:55 AM EDT
Tiger-a-roniAHHHAAAHAH, LION-A-RONI-ahhahahahah,oooga booga-AHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHHHA, c`mon stop it already, your killing me.
Link Posted: 2/1/2001 6:09:16 AM EDT
Liberty Ship said:
They should sue the British given the fact that they initiated it, prepetuated it, profited from it. The United States dumped the institution in a (relatively) short time and at great expense after we became independent of Great Britain.
View Quote
You can't just sue a foreign government, IIRC. you need the US to say "OK." It has something to do with setting foreign policy. I guess a question might be: "Why aren't the British descendents of slaves suing the British gov't?" Maybe it's because the British took better care of their freedmen.
Top Top