Martin Luther King, Jr, on the concept of reparations:
“Can any fair-minded citizen deny that the Negro has been deprived? Few people reflect that for two centuries the Negro was enslaved, and robbed of any wages–potential accrued wealth which would have been the legacy of his descendants. All of America’s wealth today could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation.”
By your standards, Dr. King was too stupid to be allowed to vote.
Who defines “legitimate functions of the state”? I happen to think providing a safety-net for the less fortunate (without whom capitalism just would not work, btw) a legitimate function.
Again, please define “welfare” and the characteristics of a “welfare state”.
“Robbery by ballot” is a completely nonsensical phrase in a democracy or republic.
“… guys and gals …”? Okay, I’ll play. Does that include professional hockey teams? Nurses? Prisoners?
And the single example you could come up with of a welfare “leech” was actually a proud capitalist and an entrepreneur. He turned around and sold those steaks and lobsters at a profit.
How nice of you to pick an example of “ignorance” that also exhibits your racism.
I gotta say our OP is more tenacious than most of his ilk. Not much better at listening than the others, but he hasn’t slunk off to his preferred echo chamber yet.
That ought to count for something. 
I would really like to see the OP respond to his blatant and total misunderstanding of what an ex post facto law is. It’s one thing for a person simply not to understand some function or power of government – it’s quite another to adopt an arrogant position that anyone who doesn’t understand certain public policy issues should be stripped of the right to vote, while at the same time being totally wrong about the issue at stake.
Let me illustrate: right after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, families of service members killed in action were eligible for a one-time death gratiuity from the government of $6,000. In late 2003, this amount was increased to $10,000, and made retroactive to September 11. In early 2005, this amount was increased again to $100,000, retroactive to the invasion of Afghanistan.
There are something like 1,500 families who received $100,000 because of this retroactive change to benefits. I would like to ask the OP to comment whether this benefit is “super duper illegal” (or whatever silly phrase he used), and whether he wants 1,500 families of deceased service members to return as much as $94,000 to the Treasury?
Untrue. Here is what you said, directly quoted from you:
The fact is that MLK was shot primarily because of his race, and the radical notion that black people are equal to white people. He was “held back” from the rest of his life because of race.
I have another serious question for you: do you know any black people? I’m not talking about the guy in your math class two seats over, I’m talking about someone you talk to about things like how they view race in America. Because I cannot imagine anyone who has spent any amount of time getting acquainted with actual minorities would say something as patently out-of-touch like that race simply doesn’t matter in the United States. I literally can only imagine that coming out of the mouth of someone who has been sheltered in a homogeneous lifestyle of privilege, such that they assume that everyone has it the same as them.
Maybe it’s different in Hawaii. AIUI, there are few blacks there (but a great many Asians).
“The fact is that MLK was shot primarily because of his race, and the radical notion that black people are equal to white people.” I always figured James Earl Ray (the gunman) was a patsy for some larger conspiracy. (Those theories have been swirling around since the day it happened, though.)
Actually, several of my neighbors in my condo complex here in Honolulu are black, and the rule, as handed down by my missus, is DO NOT, under any circumstances, bring up ANY SORT of racial issues in polite conversation. (1.6 percent of HI’s population is black, out of a total of a million and a half roughly.)
Giving benefits retroactive to families of our fallen heroes does not fall under what constitutes an ex post facto law. Those families sacrificed and our nation gave back to them for that sacrifice. An ex post facto law is: when a person is prosecuted or punished for something that is illegal currently, but was not illegal when the act in question was committed. (i.e. Slavery prior to 1865 and subsequent reparations.)
My point of “who’s going to pay” still remains unaddressed, as is the inherently fascist concept of punishing people who, as individuals, did nothing illegal and had nothing to do with slavery or the slave trade. My ancestors had nothing to do with the slave trade, and I was not born until 1995. So, answer why I should have to pay for something I didn’t do? (And the point of equal protection of the laws remains unaddressed.)
Suuuuure. It wasn’t a white supremacist who killed MLK, it was “they.” Riiiight. Just like “they” control the banking system and “they” took asbestos out of cigarette filters.
So I think my point is correct: you haven’t really engaged any living black person on what their experience is like, and how it may be different from yours. Why do you think your wife doesn’t want you to engage in such a conversation? Do you think she thinks that you would say something horribly offensive, like that they would be better off if they just pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and that race doesn’t matter?
Nobody is proposing to prosecute white people for slavery. There’s a long history of various kinds of reparations in U.S. law, from a new law allowing reparations to be paid to American hostages in Iran, to Japanese internees who were paid for being unconscionably locked up during WWII.
Should those Japanese families give the money back?
It remains unaddressed because I doubt anyone in this thread is arguing FOR reparations. What we are saying is that you have a terrible understanding of the law and the Constitution.
Could be. J. Edgar Hoover really hated King.
I honestly think that the Klan did it, and set Ray up because they didn’t like him for whatever reason. (Ref: Monty Python’s Life of Brian, “We ARE struggling together!”)
Ray wanted to move to Rhodesia which sort of baffles me because they allowed blacks to vote, had integrated schools and public facilities, and had a majority black House of Representatives (72 out of 100 members were black). Strange that a white supremacist would want to move there. He might have confused it with then-under-apartheid South Africa, though.
My wife is a lady, and she acts like it. Bringing those kinds of controversial subjects up in polite conversation is a big N-O in our condo, or when we’re over at others’ houses as guests. It’s just bad manners, be you a guest or a host. “Politics, sex, religion: three subjects not for the dinner table.”
The internee’s reparations went not just to families, but also to actual internees. Same with the Iran hostages. Those people getting money actually lived through those events, and you simply can’t say the same of the modern Negro and slavery in the Antebellum South. You simply can’t.
It sounds to me that you think you will never talk to anyone about their experiences as a minority in the United States because the topic is taboo; yet you’re pretty confident that minorities aren’t held back if they just try hard enough. Am I getting this right?
None of this has anything to do with a prohibition on an ex post facto law.
You’re wrong. But you’re also a very engaging poster, so my suggestion is that you admit your error and we move along.
Good idea. Since “WE ARE STRUGGLING TOGETHER!” I propose an abortion ban.
If anyone has any clue what that segue means, please explain.
A segue is a two-wheeled contraption that can balance itself and move around upright in precisely the way a fetus cannot.
The guy wanted to move along. I did move on to the next topic.
“We ARE struggling together,” the thread title, is a reference to Monty Python’s Life of Brian, a specific scene of the film, in which the several anti-Roman resistance groups are in Pilate’s palace trying to kidnap him, but the infighting between the groups is hindering their ability to actually achieve their objectives, and they start attacking each other…sound familiar yet?
But that’s not important, right now.
Boy, you really skipped over the part about admitting your error.
So anyway, why do you hate freedom?
That attempt at a loaded question was so bad…
All human beings are endowed with natural rights, inalienable, “life, liberty, and property.” The unborn child has the right to life equally as much as you or I. Who are these feminist slime to say that a child doesn’t have that right? It is NOT their body, and it is NOT their property. It is the body of another person entirely.
So you’re one of those libertarians who only think rights matter when you personally agree with them, then.