Obama: My Plan Will 'Spread The Wealth Around'

[Murphy3]

As far as redistributing the wealth goes, the more power we give our government to redistribute our wealth, the more freedom we lose as a society. What is next? Just how deep is Obama willing to cut?

What is the goal? To eliminate poverty? Give me a break. All that will be accomplished is that the 'rich' will become angry. Many of those will see less incentive to work as hard.. and hell, the poor will have less incentive to work as hard. They'll be getting more and more of a free ride. There will be less incentive for educating the poor. There will be less incentive for our society to work. Where exactly does it all end? Our society is fat and lazy enough as it is. Hell, all we need as a society is an excuse to inch further and further to the lazy side. Obama's ideas teach just that.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no, it's not "reparations", that is an intangible claim. from how I read the comments it is about real claims of actual acts.

the rule of law says theyhave to seek redress against those who have taken from them, right?

what would be wrong about that scenario?

That's not how I read or heard the comments (I've listened to them quite a few times now), but let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right and Obama was talking about individuals seeking redress against the individuals who allegedly took money or property from them.

In that case, we're talking about actions that occurred 50 years ago or so, and the statute of limitations would undoubtedly bar any civil (or criminal) action.

the perpertrator was protected by the laws. they used their positions of power to act and to shield themselves. that is the judicial issues that I read obama speaking towards.

even if they were not living, their estate could be pursued.

Again, assuming that you are correct, the statute of limitations would likely bar any civil action. And rightfully so. There certainly has been nothing to prevent them from suing for quite a long time.

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

As far as redistributing the wealth goes, the more power we give our government to redistribute our wealth, the more freedom we lose as a society. What is next? Just how deep is Obama willing to cut?

The difference between the left and the right:

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. He learns how to catch his own damn fish and he eats for life.

So all you need to worry about is how many different kinds of fish the dems will be handing out (I know you prefer fish sticks, murph). Can you smell what Barack is cooking?

[Silk Smoov]

Slavery Reparations needs to be paid. PERIOD !!!
All direct bloodlines to slaves should have reparations paid to them. Big business has been built from forced slavery. Free labor, land taken and lives lost before and after slavery was abolished on paper. It is only right. BUT, I dont think it can be given in the form of reparations. I thought reparations only comes from one nation paying reparations to another nation.

Government back then was the biggest corruptor of slavery, and to be honest, Democrats were next to them in the corruption of slavery.

[Rhylan]

I shouldn't even dip my toe into this water, but where's the money for the reparations going to come from?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

I shouldn't even dip my toe into this water, but where's the money for the reparations going to come from?

I was about to ask the same question...

I'm white, but a first-generation American in my family... Do I have to pay?


Also, did Obama require reparations to become the first black President of the United States? (well, after he actually wins...)

If he can achieve that, then ANY black man in this country who sets his MIND to it can too...

[Flacolaco]

That is a pickle for sure. Where is that money going to come from?

I'm all for a one time symbolic gesture of some sort, something to help make amends, but we're getting on to quite a few generations since slavery, and everyone's been born for a while now with a birth certificate, a social security card, and a free public education, same as me.

Originally Posted by Underdog

If he can achieve that, then ANY black man in this country who sets his MIND to it can too...

Well said, sir.

[rabbitproof]

It's not just African slavery. The chinese were made to build railroads and barred from immigration on race alone. The japanese were detained during ww2. Native Americans were slaughtered by the millions (over time). Latinos kicked out of Texas, California and other places. Irish, Italian immigrants all going through their beats. Women not being able to vote.

Where does it end?

Anyways, not to disregard the wrong that has occurred in the past, but Obama becoming president means a hell of a lot to where our country has come from and is at, for all of us.. because after 43 straight white (mostly rich) men, a new type of face is going to join the most tight knit club in our country. And regardless of Obama's policies, that's something special. This is Jackie Robinson x100 and in a way, it is America herself realizing her own greatness (and once again, setting an example to the world).

I thought about posting this the other day but it seems more apt now. This is from a social and fiscal conservative poster at another forum I frequent:

"I'm not sure if I've ever really been behind McCain. It really has
nothing to do with him being too left or too maverick. His life story
is inspiring, but he's not an inspiring candidate insofar as turning
this country around. I think that was a miscalculation on the GOP
side. The GOP is old and white and for the most part out of touch
with the world. They do need some younger blood.

I have become more cynical about the process and what politicians say
as compared to what they actually can or actually do. It's somewhat
like finding out WWF was fake...I stopped getting so emotionally
involved with it. I've pretty much just put my head down and worked
my butt off the last 2-3 years in my own law firm.

I watched 4.5 hours of debates and didn't learn how either candidate
was going to really fix anything...nor did I hear accurate
descriptions of what the actual causes of the problems were/are. I'm
tired of hearing about how great the people are in this nation, from
people who aren't going to help the people remain that way. More
money, from either candidate, isn't going to really help us relative
to other nations.

I won't be happy that Obama gets elected in less than 2 weeks, but I
will be extremely happy for those of you that want him elected.

I can't imagine, given what some of you live or have lived through re
racism, seeing someone with your own skin tone become the most
powerful person in the world. That will be amazing...and long
overdue.

When Obama wins next Tuesday, those that were discriminated against or
those those that were unjustly barred from voting in the past
elections will somehow hopefully find some sort of peace (after the
jubilation). It's not 40 acres and mule, but I think it could be
worth more than that.

And if it makes the hateful people of America squirm for a minimum of
4 years, I'm all for that, too."

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

It's not just African slavery. The chinese were made to build railroads and barred from immigration on race alone. The japanese were detained during ww2. Native Americans were slaughtered by the millions (over time). Latinos kicked out of Texas, California and other places. Irish, Italian immigrants all going through their beats. Women not being able to vote.

Where does it end?

Anyways, not to disregard the wrong that has occurred in the past, but Obama becoming president means a hell of a lot to where our country has come from and is at, for all of us.. because after 43 straight white (mostly rich) men, a new type of face is going to join the most tight knit club in our country. And regardless of Obama's policies, that's something special. This is Jackie Robinson x100 and in a way, it is America herself realizing her own greatness (and once again, setting an example to the world).

+1,000,000 rep

[Burn this City]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

As far as redistributing the wealth goes, the more power we give our government to redistribute our wealth, the more freedom we lose as a society. What is next? Just how deep is Obama willing to cut?

What is the goal? To eliminate poverty? Give me a break. All that will be accomplished is that the 'rich' will become angry. Many of those will see less incentive to work as hard.. and hell, the poor will have less incentive to work as hard. They'll be getting more and more of a free ride. There will be less incentive for educating the poor. There will be less incentive for our society to work. Where exactly does it all end? Our society is fat and lazy enough as it is. Hell, all we need as a society is an excuse to inch further and further to the lazy side. Obama's ideas teach just that.

There's a lot of flawed statements in your opinion:

1)"Redistributing wealth" won't make rich people angry - it'll make greedy people angry. Warren Buffett and George Soros agree.

2)Citing Adam Smith, we know that capitalism and competition go hand-in-hand and as long as we live in a capitalistic society, people will compete for every dollar in the marketplace regardless of how heavily it is taxed. You could tax 90 cents of every dollar, but as long as that dollar exists in a competition-driven market, has value and thus purchasing power, it presents an opportunity to surpass another in wealth, and you will have no trouble finding people willing to compete for it. It's not the tax system or "redistributing wealth" that leads to a lack of incentive, it's removing competiton that leads to socialism. As long as there's an opportunity to compete in the market, there will always be incentive to progress. This is Macroeconomics 101.

3)You vastly overestimate the amount of freedom you currently have.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

I shouldn't even dip my toe into this water, but where's the money for the reparations going to come from?

Maybe lets ask Germany, Britain, Canada, Japan or even our own government how to do it? The wealth of many big businesses were built off the back of slaves who were forced into free labor. To truly understand the reasons for reparations would be to understand the slave trade and Jim Crow laws altogether and the effects.

Just to educate some on the many ways of reparation payments is to understand Obama. Obama truly knows good solutions to this all. I agree 100% with Obama, and this is another reason I fully support Obama. He just gets it. It does not start or end with reparations but Obama speaks to the very core of the problems we face as Americans.

It is very sad to hear that people truly think that Obama wants to rob from the rich, and give to the poor. That is a cope out, and flat wrong. Also it is a cope out to think that Obama wants reparation payments. Obama has a good solution, and it helps people of ALL colors. So, in essence I too believe in the perfect solution that hits upon the very core of the problem from the past from slavery and Jim Crow laws. It is in the form of EDUCATION.

To truly learn more about Obama on this issue and to stop the dumb ass posts about Obama stealing from the rich, please take the time to learn what Obama really said. Dont read into tidbit stories and make your own assumptions. Read and learn about Obama when he spoke DIRECTLY on this issue. Dont be a coward with slandering Obama. Take the time to learn about this guy. He truly does get it, and that includes many topics and concerns of people of ALL color.

Here you go: http://daily.iflove.com/world/2008-0...nt_6899271.htm

Obama opposes slavery reparations, apology

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama opposes offering reparations to the descendants of slaves, putting him at odds with some black groups and leaders.
The man with a serious chance to become the nation's first black president argues that government should instead combat the legacy of slavery by improving schools, health care and the economy for all.

"I have said in the past -- and I'll repeat again -- that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed," the Illinois Democrat said recently.
Some two dozen members of Congress are co-sponsors of legislation to create a commission that would study reparations -- that is, payments and programs to make up for the damage done by slavery.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People supports the legislation, too. Cities around the country, including Obama's home of Chicago, have endorsed the idea, and so has a major union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

Obama has worked to be seen as someone who will bring people together, not divide them into various interest groups with checklists of demands. Supporting reparations could undermine that image and make him appear to be pandering to black voters.

"Let's not be naive. Sen. Obama is running for president of the United States, and so he is in a constant battle to save his political life," said Kibibi Tyehimba, co-chair of the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America. "In light of the demographics of this country, I don't think it's realistic to expect him to do anything other than what he's done."

But this is not a position Obama adopted just for the presidential campaign. He voiced the same concerns about reparations during his successful run for the Senate in 2004.

There's enough flexibility in the term "reparations" that Obama can oppose them and still have plenty of common ground with supporters.

The NAACP says reparations could take the form of government programs to help struggling people of all races. Efforts to improve schools in the inner city could also aid students in the mountains of West Virginia, said Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington bureau.

"The solution could be broad and sweeping," Shelton said.

The National Urban League -- a group Obama is to address Saturday -- avoids the word "reparations" as too vague and highly charged. But the group advocates government action to close the gaps between white America and black America.

Urban League President Marc Morial said he expects his members to press Obama on how he intends to close those gaps and what action he would take in the first 100 days of his presidency.

"What steps should we take as a nation to alleviate the effects of racial exclusion and racial discrimination?" Morial asked.

The House voted this week to apologize for slavery. The resolution, which was approved on a voice vote, does not mention reparations, but past opponents have argued that an apology would increase pressure for concrete action.

Obama says an apology would be appropriate but not particularly helpful in improving the lives of black Americans. Reparations could also be a distraction, he said.

In a 2004 questionnaire, he told the NAACP, "I fear that reparations would be an excuse for some to say, 'We've paid our debt,' and to avoid the much harder work."

Taking questions Sunday at a conference of minority journalists, Obama said he would be willing to talk to American Indian leaders about an apology for the nation's treatment of their people.

Pressed for his position on apologizing to blacks or offering reparations, Obama said he was more interested in taking action to help people struggling to get by. Because many of them are minorities, he said, that would help the same people who would stand to benefit from reparations.

"If we have a program, for example, of universal health care, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because they're disproportionately uninsured," Obama said. "If we've got an agenda that says every child in America should get -- should be able to go to college, regardless of income, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because it's oftentimes our children who can't afford to go to college."

One reparations advocate, Vernellia Randall, a law professor at the University of Dayton, bluntly responded: "I think he's dead wrong."

She said aid to the poor in general won't close the gaps -- poor blacks would still trail poor whites, and middle-class blacks would still lag behind middle-class whites. Instead, assistance must be aimed directly at the people facing the after-effects of slavery and Jim Crow laws, she said.

"People say he can't run and get elected if he says those kinds of things," Randall said. "I'm like, well does that mean we're really not ready for a black president?"

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

That's not how I read or heard the comments (I've listened to them quite a few times now), but let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right and Obama was talking about individuals seeking redress against the individuals who allegedly took money or property from them.

In that case, we're talking about actions that occurred 50 years ago or so, and the statute of limitations would undoubtedly bar any civil (or criminal) action.

Again, assuming that you are correct, the statute of limitations would likely bar any civil action. And rightfully so. There certainly has been nothing to prevent them from suing for quite a long time.

you have pointed out the very issues that obama is referencing in the pursuit through judicial means.

there ha been something that prevented these claims, and that is rooted in the power structure that allowed for the dispossession to occur in the first place.

[Rhylan]

Silk, what businesses in operation today were built on the backs of slave labor?

Which buisness benefitted from Jim Crow laws? Jim Crow laws were all about social exclusion and most importantly, inequality of education. Don't you think it hurt the overall business climate to have a huge slice of the non-white population denied an equal education? Certainly you're not saying that these businesses benefitted by "conveniently" being able to exclude non-white workers on the grounds of "qualifications."

[chumdawg]

I'm watching McCain stump right now in PA, and I'm wondering how you guys view his plan to double the child tax credit. Who is going to pay for that?

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I'm watching McCain stump right now in PA, and I'm wondering how you guys view his plan to double the child tax credit. Who is going to pay for that?

Who's going to pay for people to keep more of their own money? I am confused.

If it's possible to get a refund, because for some unfathomable reason you don't pay enough in taxes to cover your tax credit, then I don't really support that.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you have pointed out the very issues that obama is referencing in the pursuit through judicial means.

there ha been something that prevented these claims, and that is rooted in the power structure that allowed for the dispossession to occur in the first place.

Again, I'm just assuming arguendo that you're right about what Obama is referencing.

The statute of limitations applies to everybody, not just "dispossessed" peoples. It says that, depending upon the type of claim that you have, you have to bring it within a certain period of time or it is barred.

In this case, I'm having trouble understanding why our hypothetical individual victim of dispossession has been unable to bring a lawsuit against the individual that wronged him/her.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

Silk, what businesses in operation today were built on the backs of slave labor?

Which buisness benefitted from Jim Crow laws? Jim Crow laws were all about social exclusion and most importantly, inequality of education. Don't you think it hurt the overall business climate to have a huge slice of the non-white population denied an equal education? Certainly you're not saying that these businesses benefitted by "conveniently" being able to exclude non-white workers on the grounds of "qualifications."

Wealth was built from the backs of slaves, which is big business. Jim Crow laws was the
2nd form of slavery after slavery was abolished. So, in this form I consider slavery and Jim Crow laws as one, whenever discussing the efforts of so called slavery reparations.

No, it did NOT effect the overall climate of business by excluding blacks. The effect was the income distribution of whites and blacks, then to top it off, taking education away from blacks meant even bigger difference in income desparity. Add all of this up, then tell me what happens next? We all know what happens next, all you have to do next is to so call open everything up to all people based on qualifications, then since blacks were held back from getting qualified, so then you have a legal basis to not hire a large number of blacks.

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I'm watching McCain stump right now in PA, and I'm wondering how you guys view his plan to double the child tax credit. Who is going to pay for that?

I disagree with it. I also am not sold on the health care credit.

But they're less abhorrent than letting the Bush Tax Cuts lapse (across the board tax increase for everyone), Cap Gains increase, payroll tax increase, payroll tax limits being lifted, and so on...

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

Wealth was built from the backs of slaves, which is big business. Jim Crow laws was the
2nd form of slavery after slavery was abolished. So, in this form I consider slavery and Jim Crow laws as one, whenever discussing the efforts of so called slavery reparations.

No, it did NOT effect the overall climate of business by excluding blacks. The effect was the income distribution of whites and blacks, then to top it off, taking education away from blacks meant even bigger difference in income desparity. Add all of this up, then tell me what happens next? We all know what happens next, all you have to do next is to so call open everything up to all people based on qualifications, then since blacks were held back from getting qualified, so then you have a legal basis to not hire a large number of blacks.

You still can't name a business. That's my point. You can't hold today's businesses or citizens accountable for slavery. I'm sorry it happened, but it's NOT MY FAULT. I can't do a damn thing about it. You're gonna have to quit saddling white people with the burden.

I still don't get how you don't think the overall climate of business wasn't affected by the exclusion of blacks? A huge pool of resources ignored for damn near a full century and you don't think it had a negative effect? Sure doesn't speak well of how you view blacks if you think business "did just fine without 'em."

You're a blabbering idiot defeating your own argument. I wish you would leave this board. For 7 .5 years I've stayed out of every argument about race on this message board, but this is just freaking stupid and I'm sick of reading your drivel.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

You still can't name a business. That's my point. You can't hold today's businesses or citizens accountable for slavery. I'm sorry it happened, but it's NOT MY FAULT. I can't do a damn thing about it. You're gonna have to quit saddling white people with the burden.

I still don't get how you don't think the overall climate of business wasn't affected by the exclusion of blacks? A huge pool of resources ignored for damn near a full century and you don't think it had a negative effect? Sure doesn't speak well of how you view blacks if you think business "did just fine without 'em."

You're a blabbering idiot defeating your own argument. I wish you would leave this board. For 7 .5 years I've stayed out of every argument about race on this message board, but this is just freaking stupid and I'm sick of reading your drivel.

Who is the government? Are you saying that the government is white? I dont get it. I am going to ignore your idiot remark, because that would defeat the purpose if I acted did the same back.

Get off your Mr. ELITEST mind, and step into the new world. I can care less what you did in the past when it comes to slavery, and YOU dont owe me a dime, in fact, I MAY owe you, because of all the tax breaks I get. Again, I am not going to get into the name calling with the idiot mess based on your lack of knowledge and debate skills. All I can tell you is to grow up and keep living in the future, and continue to think that businesses has suffered due to keeping blacks out for an extended period of time. I will just sit here and wait for a Moderator to step in on your name calling tactics.

Just to show you how much you DONT know, here are 3 companies for you.
AETNA, CSX and Fleet Boston.

[alby]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

You still can't name a business. That's my point. You can't hold today's businesses or citizens accountable for slavery. I'm sorry it happened, but it's NOT MY FAULT. I can't do a damn thing about it. You're gonna have to quit saddling white people with the burden.

I still don't get how you don't think the overall climate of business wasn't affected by the exclusion of blacks? A huge pool of resources ignored for damn near a full century and you don't think it had a negative effect? Sure doesn't speak well of how you view blacks if you think business "did just fine without 'em."

You're a blabbering idiot defeating your own argument. I wish you would leave this board. For 7 .5 years I've stayed out of every argument about race on this message board, but this is just freaking stupid and I'm sick of reading your drivel.

I agree.

[dude1394]

Ah the "rich" get closer and closer...If he needs a little more dollars to buy a few votes, then 150K will be next..then 100K...

One of the things I've seen at Republican rallies is that people just don't believe Barack Obama when he says he'll raise taxes only on those who make more than $250,000 a year. It's not that these people make that much money or even think they'll make that much money sometime in the next four years. It's that they believe Obama, once in office, would lower the threshold and raise taxes on people who make less than $250,000.

Obama's position in the past was that he would raise taxes on families making more than $250,000 a year and individuals making more than $200,000. But in his new ad, "Defining Moment," he seems to lower it to $200,000 for families. "Here's what I'll do as president," Obama says in the ad. "To deal with our current emergency I'll launch a rescue plan for the middle class That begins with a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans. If you have a job, pay taxes and make less than $200,000 a year, you'll get a tax cut." That seems kind of ambiguous, but the graphic on the screen says clearly: "Famlies making less than $200,000 get tax cut." Now, the McCain campaign is pointing out something that Joe Biden said in a Pennsylvania TV interview yesterday:

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

Wealth was built from the backs of slaves, which is big business. Jim Crow laws was the
2nd form of slavery after slavery was abolished. So, in this form I consider slavery and Jim Crow laws as one, whenever discussing the efforts of so called slavery reparations.

No, it did NOT effect the overall climate of business by excluding blacks. The effect was the income distribution of whites and blacks, then to top it off, taking education away from blacks meant even bigger difference in income desparity. Add all of this up, then tell me what happens next? We all know what happens next, all you have to do next is to so call open everything up to all people based on qualifications, then since blacks were held back from getting qualified, so then you have a legal basis to not hire a large number of blacks.

Three words:
Get Over It

[Rhylan]

1. Silk, who keeps invoking slavery and Jim Crow and somehow expects the government (meaning, all of us) to pay for it, tells me to stop living in the past.

2. You may not BE an idiot, but you're sure being an idiot on this board the last few weeks. You've turned into a bit.

3. I didn't say that there were zero businesses operating today who were in operation before 1865 - and if I did, that wasn't what I intended. How'd Fleet Boston use slaves, and how does it relate to what they're doing today? If you're going to confiscate wealth to redistribute benefits to the umpteenth generation of black people since slavery, then you need to make a very direct link between the effects of slavery and the umpteenth generation of white people who won't get any of those remunerations.

4. You asked me who the government is. I assume this is because you think "The Government" would be the source of the wealth and benefits that would make up whatever perverse form of asset confiscation that you label reparations. Guess what - the government is of the people, for the people, and by the people. It's us. This gets right back to why you don't get this - you think "The Government" somehow has its own assets and wealth. It doesn't. It's OUR money, yours and mien. I'm not taking less so that you can take more just because of your skin color. Again, I'm sorry it happened the other way around for the first 190 years of American history, but not every white person was responsible then, and very few white people alive today had anything to do with it. I'm 28, I don't care what color anybody is, I never have, and I didn't do anything wrong. Get off my back.

5. You should go read the list of moderators.

[chumdawg]

I'm wondering what the McCain strategy is. It's seven days until the vote. What, you can have it? Is that the strategy?

[mary]

McCain, Oct. 12, 2000: [W]e feel, obviously, that wealthy people can afford more.
....
And I think middle-income Americans, working Americans ... all of the taxes that working Americans pay, I think they – you would think that they also deserve significant relief, in my view.
...
[H]ere's what I really believe, that when you are – reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...tax_hooey.html

That was the maverick I used to respect.

Anyway, if spreading the wealth = a progressive tax structure, then McCain's plan is progressive as well....just sayin.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

1. Silk, who keeps invoking slavery and Jim Crow and somehow expects the government (meaning, all of us) to pay for it, tells me to stop living in the past.

2. You may not BE an idiot, but you're sure being an idiot on this board the last few weeks. You've turned into a bit.

3. I didn't say that there were zero businesses operating today who were in operation before 1865 - and if I did, that wasn't what I intended. How'd Fleet Boston use slaves, and how does it relate to what they're doing today? If you're going to confiscate wealth to redistribute benefits to the umpteenth generation of black people since slavery, then you need to make a very direct link between the effects of slavery and the umpteenth generation of white people who won't get any of those remunerations.

4. You asked me who the government is. I assume this is because you think "The Government" would be the source of the wealth and benefits that would make up whatever perverse form of asset confiscation that you label reparations. Guess what - the government is of the people, for the people, and by the people. It's us. This gets right back to why you don't get this - you think "The Government" somehow has its own assets and wealth. It doesn't. It's OUR money, yours and mien. I'm not taking less so that you can take more just because of your skin color. Again, I'm sorry it happened the other way around for the first 190 years of American history, but not every white person was responsible then, and very few white people alive today had anything to do with it. I'm 28, I don't care what color anybody is, I never have, and I didn't do anything wrong. Get off my back.

5. You should go read the list of moderators.

1. I responded to the questions and concerns about reparations. I gave data to support the arguement about slavery reparations, and why reparations are being asked for by many organizations. If you dont want me to bring it up, then dont talk about reparations. You talk about reparations, then I talk about reparations. Real simple. I did not bring it up, I just added to the discussion.

2. No, I am not being an idiot, I have been fighting bigotry, so if that makes me a idiot, then so be it.

3. Yes, you asked me to name a business now that is operating that gained from slavery. You asked several times, so then I named three of them. You need to learn more history before asking me about Fleet Boston. By you asking me what did Fleet Boston do, tells me you dont know anything about the past with slavery and big business. Learn more history on the bank founded by John Brown, a notorious Rhode Island slave trader who also financed the voyages of slave ships. Stop your silly arguement about wealth distribution, that is just plain silly. This issue is about the past. Just like you talk about upteenth generations of blacks getting reparations, I can also talk about slavery wealth being passed down to upteenth generations of whites. So dont go there.

4. Yes, you are right there are ZERO people alive that were part of the slave trade, but there are scores of business still around from profiting from slave trade, and there are scores of people still alive from the Jim Crow laws. I say this to rebut your arguement on responsibility. I do feel that reparations should be entitled to direct descendents, but I dont think giving more would be best. I think that education for the lower income levels would be the best way to give reparations, and that would include people of all color. Would that benefit more blacks? No, because there are more lower class whites than blacks, but there are a bigger percentage of blacks in the lower class, so that would be a fair trade off. IMO.

I have stated the facts here on this issue and I added to the conversation on this reparations issue, plus provided accurate data on what Obama said. If you have a problem with that, so be it. The facts are the facts. Deal with it, by you said you are 28, so deal with it like a man. You dont have to call a person an idiot because they have another viewpoint or has data that is against what you believe in.

5. You may need to brush up on who the moderators are. Flacolaco IS a moderator

[Flacolaco]

5. You may need to brush up on who the moderators are. Flacolaco IS a moderator

Correction, Flacolaco is Silks favorite moderator. And I think he was trying to point out that he himself is a moderator, Silk. Why bring me into it?

[Rhylan]

I give up.

Silk wants better education in lower income areas and wants to call it reparations to make a bunch of people feel like they're finally sticking it to whitey after all these years.

Most of us want better education in lower income areas because it's just the right thing to do.

</thread>

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Correction, Flacolaco is Silks favorite moderator. And I think he was trying to point out that he himself is a moderator, Silk. Why bring me into it?

He brought you into it. I pointed you out during our conversation when you posted, and I called you Mr.Moderator. So I was assuming that is what he was talking about, unless he is talking about I can't post back to him in a certain tone because he is a moderator and he is right and I am wrong. I honestly dont think he is saying that.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

I give up.

Silk wants better education in lower income areas and wants to call it reparations to make a bunch of people feel like they're finally sticking it to whitey after all these years.

Most of us want better education in lower income areas because it's just the right thing to do.

</thread>

Once again, you just proved to silly and just want to make silly assumptions. Once again you are calling the government whitey. Sticking ole whitey (I meant government) with education for the poor ole down troden blacks and white. See how silly that sounds? The government is the people so that includes people of all color not just whites as you mentioned.

[Rhylan]

I just meant that as a moderator I'm pretty sure it's okay to tell someone they're an idiot. It's just an opinion. You're just a bit at this point and need to stop posting as far as I'm concerned, for the sanity of all those around you.

I never called the government whitey. You keep making my points for me. The government being "everybody" is exactly my point. Confiscate from everyone to reward on the basis of race. Or even worse, reward on the basis of poor education and CALL it reparations! You're nuts.

Now, let me break it down for you - I don't mean it's worse to provide some kind of solution to failing schools in low SES areas. I support that. What I'm saying is that it's downright retarded to somehow align that with reparations for slavery or Jim Crow. It's an internet message board bit.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

I just meant that as a moderator I'm pretty sure it's okay to tell someone they're an idiot. It's just an opinion. You're just a bit at this point and need to stop posting as far as I'm concerned, for the sanity of all those around you.

I never called the government whitey. You keep making my points for me. The government being "everybody" is exactly my point. Confiscate from everyone to reward on the basis of race. Or even worse, reward on the basis of poor education and CALL it reparations! You're nuts.

Now, let me break it down for you - I don't mean it's worse to provide some kind of solution to failing schools in low SES areas. I support that. What I'm saying is that it's downright retarded to somehow align that with reparations for slavery or Jim Crow. It's an internet message board bit.

I think it is downright dumb as hell to think that you as a moderator has the right to violate the community board standard by calling someone an idiot. Statements like that shows how Elitest you think you are. You also sound like a dumb ass for calling reparations a "REWARD". That is stupid as hell, and you should know better than to call reparations a "REWARD". So what you are saying is the "JEWS" were rewarded by Germany for genocide? Yes, that is indeed what you call it. Dont play around like that was different because it is NOT.

Get off your high horse and learn about the history we are talking about. You got the answers to your questions but you skipped over it to try to make another point. You can take your ass off of here for all I care. Just because you are a moderator dont give you a right to call people names or tell them to take a hike because you disagree with them. If you were any kind of moderator you would have done something about these racists remarks on here. Dont sit here and say people are just using sarcasm to make points. I dont mean to being the race issue back up, but you talked about my posting style for the last two weeks, and those last two weeks I have made it a point to point out what I feel is racist statements and several other posters have said the same exact thing and they were posters from different backgrounds and color.

So you can take that "REWARDS" crap back to Mayberry. That was an insult to people of all colors who have experienced slavery, genocide and abuse. Once again you did say that about the government, you stated that if the government had to pay for education for blacks and lower class then that is sticking it to whitey. Which means you think the government is white...Real simple. You should have left that part off, or said stick it to the current government for what the past government did. IMO

[kg_veteran]

I think it is downright dumb as hell to think that you as a moderator has the right to violate the community board standard by calling someone an idiot.

He's saying that he understands the rules and what is allowed here better than you do, not that he has special privileges.

I think it's "downright dumb as hell" to keep whining when no one cares. Let it go.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

He's saying that he understands the rules and what is allowed here better than you do, not that he has special privileges.

I think it's "downright dumb as hell" to keep whining when no one cares. Let it go.

How is it that you know what he is trying to say? You are assuming because if you read his post you know EXACTLY what he said. Cut the whining crap. Move on with the discussion w/o insults. BOTH of you. And, please dont go there, because you are the one who called me a "Village Idiot". We were discussing topics w/o insults and your buddy had to take it over the top with name calling. You do the exact same thing. If you think I wont respond then you indeed need some help. You should know by now that I will reply back when you start the name calling. It is how it will ALWAYS go. You did the same thing with Chum and Mavdog as well, but you backed up and tried to take a lesser tone after your name calling. You should have done the same with your 'Village Idiot" remarks.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

I just meant that as a moderator I'm pretty sure it's okay to tell someone they're an idiot. It's just an opinion. You're just a bit at this point and need to stop posting as far as I'm concerned, for the sanity of all those around you.

I never called the government whitey. You keep making my points for me. The government being "everybody" is exactly my point. Confiscate from everyone to reward on the basis of race. Or even worse, reward on the basis of poor education and CALL it reparations! You're nuts.

Now, let me break it down for you - I don't mean it's worse to provide some kind of solution to failing schools in low SES areas. I support that. What I'm saying is that it's downright retarded to somehow align that with reparations for slavery or Jim Crow. It's an internet message board bit.

Part in bold goes against your entire post on this matter.

[DirkFTW]

I just meant that as a moderator I'm pretty sure it's okay (under the rules) to tell someone they're an idiot.

I just meant that as a moderator I'm pretty sure it's okay (for moderators) to tell someone they're an idiot.

Two equally valid readings of the same sentence. But the part where Rhylan says "It's just an opinion" suggests that the first interpretation is correct because he's elaborating on the previous sentence on why it's okay under the rules. I think KG's point is not refuted.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

How is it that you know what he is trying to say?

Because I've known Rhylan for 7 years or so and I can read in context.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Because I've known Rhylan for 7 years or so and I can read in context.

Of course thats it. I should have known

[Rhylan]

Or, because KG passed 4th grade English?

I dunno, the fact that your reading comprehension skills are so poor is why this has gone on and on with no resolution.

Let me make it real simple:

1. You're citing a need for vast improvement in failing public schools. This is a correct assessment and right on the money.

2. You're suggesting that corrective action be taken. This is also something I agree with.

3. You're calling that corrective action "reparations for Slavery and Jim Crow." By doing so, you imply that the actions will only benefit blacks.

4. This shows you are eager to make a completely colorblind issue a race issue. This is what makes you a race baiter, an illogical debater, a worthless forum contributer, and an utterly failed bit.

In my opinion!

My calling you an idiot has everything to do with my opinion and nothing to do with me being a moderator.

My being a long time moderator and long time member of the board means that I have a very firm grasp of what is or isn't an acceptable expression of personal opinion.

And there's not a lot of racism on this board. There's a lot of opinion on this board about race that you don't agree with. That doesn't make it racist. This, again, is why you're an idiot.