Obama reverses policy on reparations

Discussion in 'Off-topic Political' started by bdee, Dec 25, 2010.

  1. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

  2. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,372
    555
    113
    Obama's going to pay them from his stash.
     

  3. TippinTaco

    TippinTaco New Member

    4,447
    0
    0
    welp guys we might as well pack up and head back to Europe. It's a fact anyone touching the Blue Ridge Mountains and the Smokey Mtn's will have some issues to over come if this is the case. I'm pretty sure if we date this back I wonder what the White House will do if it comes to find out that indians lived on the exact land? :D Obama isn't worried, the Gov will protect his house while the rest of us would lose ours or be faced with a large tax :(
     
  4. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    My question is what 'traditionally' means in practice. Does it mean something older than 50 years, 200 years, 2000 years?

    Our precedent is to compensate someone who is the victim, not the heirs of victims.

    Case in point, when it came to reparations for the internment camps for the Japanese in WW2, we later went back and compensated those who had been interned. Losses based on potential inheritances were not honored.

    Another case in point: In Vietnam, lots of guys had agent orange dumped on them. The VA will take care of their illnesses. Birth defects based on that exposure is not covered.
     
  5. TippinTaco

    TippinTaco New Member

    4,447
    0
    0
    does anyone know of any ACTUAL slaves that are still alive? Slavery basically ended when Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1865 was created. Anything there after I would assume was voluntary or fear persuasion. In this case even if you were a child of that time or born on that very same date, you would be 145 years old. It's possible my opinion in this holds no ground persay, but I would honestly assume reparations wouldnt be owed to anyone due to slavery. Indians of the United states on the other hand, have and always will be Indians. Some migrated during the Indian Removal Act while others such as the Cherokee did what they could to save their land, but some if not most were forced to relocate in what we know as the Trail of Tears.

    I see your point clearly, but when it comes to Indian tribes, what the US Gov did in the 1800's still affects them today. I really think if this reversal of the policy isn't worded just right, our Us Gov is about to have a fun time in court for a long time coming. I happen to have a few friends that live in Cherokee NC. Both are tribe members and its aways fun to listen to thei stories and what not which isn't the squating duck happy fox lingo. Its usually about how they despice the Us gov. Ehh who knows what will happen but Georgia is one of the states that did the cherokee REALLY bad.
     
  6. Opus X

    Opus X Member

    348
    0
    16
    So can it be extracted from the document that the UN supports an Israeli state?
     
  7. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    No the oldest person alive in in the 114 yo range. If memory serves the last known slave died in 1960s.

    I get your point about the tribes still being impacted today. But like with the Japanese reparations, they only accepted damages from people who had something and lost it because of governmental policy. Even their children born later had no claim. Even if they could show what they might have had but for this policy.

    The real impact of this UN policy is going to impact Israel, because there are thousands of people who were forcibly removed from there homes and are still in refugee camps sixty years later. It's complicated by the fact that the surrounding states refuse to give them passports, or even the children of people people born in these refugee camps, any form of citizenship, because that would give legitimacy to Israel's actions.

    There were also Jews forced from their homes in the 1950s from Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Jordan and as far away as Morocco, and sent to Israel without compensation.
     
  8. TippinTaco

    TippinTaco New Member

    4,447
    0
    0
    I see your point. I guess the issue isn't if they have a valid winnable case.. It's the fact they will bring a lawsuits just to see if they can win.
     
  9. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    Perhaps a law that says the loser pays all attorneys fees would shut down a lot of frivolous lawsuits.