What is "Black Lives Matter"?

[jamil]

Dudes. Why the animosity? We're just talking. It's just talk. We're talking about race. So what? It shouldn't be a big deal. What separates blacks from whites other than socially is just minor DNA differences. Don't take it so seriously or we won't be able to have nice things.

Anyway...

I can agree with this. And I was referencing HW Bush.

May 1, 1992 Presidential address (excerpt):

I spoke this morning to many leaders of the civil rights community. And they saw the video, as we all did. For 14 months they waited patiently, hopefully. They waited for the system to work. And when the verdict came in, they felt betrayed. Viewed from outside the trial, it was hard to understand how the verdict could possibly square with the video. Those civil rights leaders with whom I met were stunned. And so was I, and so was Barbara, and so were my kids.


March 11, 2000 President Clinton on Diallo shooting:

But the larger fact is that we all have the feeling, I think, that it probably wouldn't have happened, as I said, if it had been a white, young man in a white neighborhood under the same facts

Kut, c'mon. I asked for the equivalent. I don't see anything racially divisive about those statements. I don't see any attempt to exploit the situation for political gain. The timing is appropriate, the conclusions are reasonable given the evidence. The message is not lecturing, though Clinton got pretty close. Still reasonable though.

Obama took sides right away, making judgements before the story for both sides was even known. Why else do that but for political gain? And after it all came out, it turns out, Obama was wrong. Neither incident was anything like Rodney King or Amadou Diallo. I can see why those former events would make Blacks suspicious of every case. But not every case is racism. Not even most cases are racism. Neither Martin nor Brown were shot because of their race. Their own actions got them shot. If there were some secret videos catching both Zimmerman and Wilson making it clear that those shootings were racially motivated. Okay. The president speaking out in the way he did would still amount to lecturing, but it wouldn't have been all that divisive. He'd have a good reason to make that judgement.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Dudes. Why the animosity? We're just talking. It's just talk. We're talking about race. So what? It shouldn't be a big deal. What separates blacks from whites other than socially is just minor DNA differences. Don't take it so seriously or we won't be able to have nice things.

Anyway...



Kut, c'mon. I asked for the equivalent. I don't see anything racially divisive about those statements. I don't see any attempt to exploit the situation for political gain. The timing is appropriate, the conclusions are reasonable given the evidence. The message is not lecturing, though Clinton got pretty close. Still reasonable though.

Obama took sides right away, making judgements before the story for both sides was even known. Why else do that but for political gain? And after it all came out, it turns out, Obama was wrong. Neither incident was anything like Rodney King or Amadou Diallo. I can see why those former events would make Blacks suspicious of every case. But not every case is racism. Not even most cases are racism. Neither Martin nor Brown were shot because of their race. Their own actions got them shot. If there were some secret videos catching both Zimmerman and Wilson making it clear that those shootings were racially motivated. Okay. The president speaking out in the way he did would still amount to lecturing, but it wouldn't have been all that divisive. He'd have a good reason to make that judgement.

Jamil, I think we both know, that if Obama had said either of the things Bush or Clinton had, he would have been crucified. If there's nothing racially divisive about those statements, then there's certainly nothing racially divisive about the president's statement concerning Martin or Brown. In fact, who is being divided by those statements, Black people and.....?
Further, of the three presidents were speaking about, who is the most likely to seek political gain? If we're assuming the political is from courting Black people, who is most likely to see a benefit from it: The actual Black guy, the guy called the "first Black president," or the president who comes from a party that traditionally does poorly with minorities?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

From Mark Young, a friend of Chuck Woolery

I will solve the #Blacklivesmatter reparation demand once and for all. Any civil war era slaves still alive call me, I will pay you myself

 

[Kutnupe14]

From Mark Young, a friend of Chuck Woolery

Is the reparations demand specifically acknowledged as being from the time of slavery?

 

["Username"]

If it only goes to slavery on the continent of North America, it would be pretty short sighted.... It should go back at least as far as Ishmael.... what with the power of compounding interest and all.

 

[HoughMade]

I am fully in favor of any and all slave owners paying reparations to any and all former slaves. Let's get on top of that.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I am fully in favor of any and all slave owners paying reparations to any and all former slaves. Let's get on top of that.

First, I need to be issue a disclaimer. I do not agree with reparations in any form for any reason. In my opinion it would create way more divisiveness than we already had. However, since the idea of reparations seems to be always be met with unwaviering disdain, and is rountinely brought up, let's discuss it.
Keeping in mind the Japanese persons held in concentration camps during the war were paid out reparations for protections the govt didn't provide, and out right oppression codified by law, what is the argument of denying reparations for Blacks who endured a longer span of oppression codified, by law under Jim Crowe, before, during, and well after Japanese internment? ...who many of those who were subject to, are alive today? If one believes legislated segregation actually was "separate but equal," then that would end the matter, but honestly who is so naïve to believe that?

 

[jamil]

Jamil, I think we both know, that if Obama had said either of the things Bush or Clinton had, he would have been crucified. If there's nothing racially divisive about those statements, then there's certainly nothing racially divisive about the president's statement concerning Martin or Brown. In fact, who is being divided by those statements, Black people and.....?
Further, of the three presidents were speaking about, who is the most likely to seek political gain? If we're assuming the political is from courting Black people, who is most likely to see a benefit from it: The actual Black guy, the guy called the "first Black president," or the president who comes from a party that traditionally does poorly with minorities?

If Obama would have said what Bush or Clinton said under identical conditions, I would have no problem with that. But he didn't say the same things. And we've discussed the differences already. Said a different way, Bush didn't make his statements personal, about him. Clinton didn't make it personal either. Why did Obama preach to us about what his son would have looked like? He made the underlying message very personal by doing that.

Second, you and I obviously don't see the political gain aspect the same way. I'm not saying the political gain is to court Blacks. Except for some pockets on each fringe, they already support him solidly. The objective is to defeat opposition to progressive policies. Creating divisions along several fronts helps that happen. And it's not for the benefit of Blacks, it's for the benefit of moderate whites.

 

[jamil]

First, I need to be issue a disclaimer. I do not agree with reparations in any form for any reason. In my opinion it would create way more divisiveness than we already had. However, since the idea of reparations seems to be always be met with unwaviering disdain, and is rountinely brought up, let's discuss it.
Keeping in mind the Japanese persons held in concentration camps during the war were paid out reparations for protections the govt didn't provide, and out right oppression codified by law, what is the argument of denying reparations for Blacks who endured a longer span of oppression codified, by law under Jim Crowe, before, during, and well after Japanese internment? ...who many of those who were subject to, are alive today? If one believes legislated segregation actually was "separate but equal," then that would end the matter, but honestly who is so naïve to believe that?

Maybe I'll say more later, not much time at the moment. I don't favor reparations. It punishes people who had no say in it. I would say the government shouldn't have had the power to incorporate slavery or internment at all.

It's impractical to punish just the ones who did. What was done to them, and what was done to Blacks, and what was done to Native Americans, was reprehensible. How can a price be put on that? And how can you determine who is responsible? We can get all philosophical about it and say "society did it, society should pay for it". But there is no such thing. We're talking about practice, not principles, or philosophy. And in the most practical sense, there are only individuals and families, some of whom throughout history did some awful things, and some of them didn't. Some of them voted for awful representatives and some of them didn't. Rather demanding to be reimbursed for past harms that the government has done, I'd rather see Blacks demand that the power to ever do anything like that in the future be stripped from the government. Trumpers probably won't like that, because it kinda ruins it for Trump's Islamic strategy.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Maybe I'll say more later, not much time at the moment. I don't favor reparations. It punishes people who had no say in it. I would say the government shouldn't have had the power to incorporate slavery or internment at all.

It's impractical to punish just the ones who did. What was done to them, and what was done to Blacks, and what was done to Native Americans, was reprehensible. How can a price be put on that? And how can you determine who is responsible? We can get all philosophical about it and say "society did it, society should pay for it". But there is no such thing. We're talking about practice, not principles, or philosophy. And in the most practical sense, there are only individuals and families, some of whom throughout history did some awful things, and some of them didn't. Some of them voted for awful representatives and some of them didn't. Rather demanding to be reimbursed for past harms that the government has done, I'd rather see Blacks demand that the power to ever do anything like that in the future be stripped from the government. Trumpers probably won't like that, because it kinda ruins it for Trump's Islamic strategy.

So would it be fair to say that you opposed reparation for Japanese interment camp victims? Who btw, were paid $20K in 1988, 43 years after the practice ended.
But you make a solid point. One cant put a price on such things. To do so in effect justifies the act.

 

[jamil]

So would it be fair to say that you opposed reparation for Japanese interment camp victims? Who btw, were paid $20K in 1988, 43 years after the practice ended.
But you make a solid point. One cant put a price on such things. To do so in effect justifies the act.

Back in 1988 I probably didn't think about it. I don't imagine there'd be many scenarios where reparations would be justified. That includes the Japanese.

 

[printcraft]

I'm all for making the demoncrats pay it.
There were no Republican slave owners, true story.

 

[rhino]

I'm all for making the demoncrats pay it.
There were no Republican slave owners, true story.

Haha! Donnie!

 

[chipbennett]

Or his comments about the Prof Gates incident. What was that he said? Something along the lines of "I don't have all the facts, but the police were wrong"? What were the facts of that? Police were called about an apparent break in, they show up and the door has obviously been kicked in, they ask for ID and Gates blows up at them accusing them of racism. I had something similar happen, I had went out with some friends and forgot my keys at home. They dropped me off and I realized I was locked out so I went to climb through a window, an officer happened to be driving by and stopped. What was the outcome? I showed him my ID, he told me to have a nice night and I wished him the same.

I believe the police acted stupidly is the phrase you're trying to remember.

 

["Username"]

Seems her son's black life did not matter.....

[video=youtube_share;TTTbnMgs0uo]http://youtu.be/TTTbnMgs0uo[/video]

 

[churchmouse]

Seems her son's black life did not matter.....

[video=youtube_share;TTTbnMgs0uo]http://youtu.be/TTTbnMgs0uo[/video]

This nut job was looking for hero worship among her fan base.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Black Woman Launches Reparations Site Guilty White People | The Daily Caller

 

["Username"]

Black Woman Launches Reparations Site Guilty White People | The Daily Caller

She's SOL with me..... my "white guilt" is at absolute zero.

 

[bmbutch]

She's SOL with me..... my "white guilt" is at absolute zero.

Just checked my "white guilt meter", it is also at Zero!

 

[jbombelli]

Guilt based on race is a ridiculous idea, and anyone who promotes it is a fool.