Am I a racist ?

**Redleg** · 09-09-2005, 17:34

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Now if say Israel was to claim Germany owed them more for the suffering and attempted to get it forced upon Germany - then yes that would be criminal in my opinion since Germany has already paid the reprations and had agreed on the amount.
But they didn't pay the amount that was claimed , and the only way you could force it for the full amount would be through the courts , so if the courts found the claim to be valid then they would be forced to pay . None of which would be criminal .

So then Germany is still not paying on the reprations that they agreed upon?

Again notice what the Supreme Court actually did - not what you want to believe it did. It is forcing the government to abide to a treaty that was signed by both parties.
No the payment is a sign of "goodwill" for breaches of obligation , while recognising the claim as legitimate it has no intention of honouriong it, what do you think I believed it was????

Well what did you think I meant with my statement? Which lead to this discussion - its really clear to me what I meant. Especially if one leaves the statement in the context in which it was made

Should I be forced to pay additional tax dollars to give Americans of African descent who's ancestors might have been slaves as a form of repration for their being taken has slaves from Africa. Often not by American Slavers but many other countries as well.
Do you expect to ? As I said in my first reply to Panzers "don't tell the African Americans" it is a spurious claim being made by dodgy lawyers , it is completely different from all the others mentioned .
People are focusing on the ridiculousness of the dodgy claim to avoid addressing the legitimate claims .

Not at all - I am not focusing on just that aspect - I am focusing on other aspects as well. But the statement you seem to take issue with does indeed focus on just that aspect.

Again forcing taxpayers to pay for sins of the past generations is all spurious claims. However again nice attempt at selective reasoning.

So....Only if it comes now over 60 years after the events and after such reprations that Germany has agreed on paying.
What if it comes 130 years after the event and after agreed provisions have not been made ? What about after 170 years ?
Unless there is a time limit specified then it is not criminal .

Agreed - but that is different then what you initial claimed my statement meant.

If I had a 999 year lease on a property for a nominal rate and it was a fully legal contract , then the descendants of the owners contacted my descendants after realising that they could get a better deal elsewhere tried to break the contract what would be the legal outcome ? They would lose wouldn't they , as the original contract is still valid unless both parties agree to renegotiate or there is a clause that allows for such provisions.

And that is what is happening in several courts in several lands - a far cry from forcing one to pay for the sins of previous generations is it not.

BTW . back to reparations , it was only a couple of years ago that the Swiss were made to cough up the money to holocaust victims , yet they (like the Austrians ) are having difficulty finding them .
What is criminal is waiting 60 years to make the payments , not making a claim for the payments after 60 years .

Then shame on the swiss for keeping their ill gotten gains - but again it seems the Swiss are not attempting to make the current generation pay for the sins of the previous now does it.

**ah_dut** · 09-09-2005, 18:42

On this issue, I agree with Redleg. I mean if you've paid your dues (and sure as heck if it's agreed and from a previous generation or worse yet mroe than 5 generations removed) you must be insane to expect taxpayers money to compensate you. If for example, germany paid the amount it agreed to, you have no right to ask for any more...it's an agreed compensation that is/was agreeable to both parties and since it was agreed should not be changed.

And seriously, if we took their land and they want it back, they may have a point. but sometimes this goes too far. I refuse to accept that anybody deserves compensation for slavery in the 1800s....

**BDC** · 09-09-2005, 18:59

Originally Posted by ah_dut

On this issue, I agree with Redleg. I mean if you've paid your dues (and sure as heck if it's agreed and from a previous generation or worse yet mroe than 5 generations removed) you must be insane to expect taxpayers money to compensate you. If for example, germany paid the amount it agreed to, you have no right to ask for any more...it's an agreed compensation that is/was agreeable to both parties and since it was agreed should not be changed.

And seriously, if we took their land and they want it back, they may have a point. but sometimes this goes too far. I refuse to accept that anybody deserves compensation for slavery in the 1800s....

I demand reparations from the African slave dealers who sold other Africans into slavery, for making me liable for compensation claims.

**yesdachi** · 09-09-2005, 19:06

Originally Posted by BDC

I demand reparations from the African slave dealers

Yah, except that it would be their great great great grand kids. Lets hope one of them was related to Bill Gates.

**Tribesman** · 09-09-2005, 20:42

Again forcing taxpayers to pay for sins of the past generations is all spurious claims. However again nice attempt at selective reasoning.

And that is what is happening in several courts in several lands - a far cry from forcing one to pay for the sins of previous generations is it not.
I don't get it at all Red forcing tax payers to pay is spurious unless it is courts that are forcing tax payers to pay ?????
So who other than the courts would be forcing tax-payers to pay ?

**Devastatin Dave** · 09-09-2005, 20:46

Can I get reperations for how 10% of me that was repressed from the 90% of me?

**Devastatin Dave** · 09-09-2005, 20:53

Oh and does Halle Berry's 50% gets reperations from the other 50% of her? (of course I wouldn't mind giving her 100% or my lovin', nyuck, nyuck, nyuck!!!)

**Redleg** · 09-09-2005, 21:15

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Again forcing taxpayers to pay for sins of the past generations is all spurious claims. However again nice attempt at selective reasoning.

And that is what is happening in several courts in several lands - a far cry from forcing one to pay for the sins of previous generations is it not.
I don't get it at all Red forcing tax payers to pay is spurious unless it is courts that are forcing tax payers to pay ?????

Yep you don't get it.

So who other than the courts would be forcing tax-payers to pay ?

It would be the courts if they decided to honor spurious claims for reprations. The courts telling the government they must abide by the agreed upon treaties is not spurious now is it?

It would be the government if say in the United States Congress some idiot of a representive or senator in an attempt to pander to one segment of the voting public attempt to get such spurious legislation through congress.

**Don Corleone** · 09-09-2005, 21:39

Redleg, I might be mistaken, but I believe Tribesman is trying to make the point that if it's the court system that's ordering the payments, how could it be illegal.

To that, Tribesman, you're a slave to the lawyers in your country if you really honestly believe justice and what the judges say are one and the same.