Democrat Rising Star Stacey Abrams Calls for Revolution Against Whites

originally posted by: icanteven
Fact: There has been and continues to be systemic discrimination against the communities that Abrams points out.

Proof? sure, there may be isolated incidents, but systemic? Hardly.

But the question is, should there be justice metted out on behalf of Americans who have been terrorized by the state based on characteristics of a group?

Terrorized? Are you talking about some other Islamic country or something?

LGBT Americans were deprived of their inalienable right to marry until recently.

Sorry, but...

Fact: Marriage is strictly/historically a religious institution, all of which only recognize marriage as between a man and a woman (non-trans in both cases).

And what does that have to do with 'terrorizing' anyway?

No right was granted by the court.

Courts don't grant Rights, they adjudicate specific legal questions brought before them.

It was always there; the court merely recognized it.

No, like all activist judges, some radical judge took it upon themselves to pervert/twist/distort the meaning to fit their own delusional beliefs.

But the state disenfranchised LGBT people and deprived them the ability to exercise their right to marry.

The State didn't deny them the exercise of a Right, it prevented the meaning of marriage from being perverted/distorted.

We demand justice.

So, start working on getting States to grant same sex civil unions, that I think most people who are against distorting the meaning of marriage would be ok with.

originally posted by: icanteven
a reply to: Metallicus

Sure. The Equality Act is next. It would amend the civil rights act to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes.

Further eroding, perverting and destroying the social fabric that holds our nation together.

You people won't be satisfied until 'England prevails' here in the USA.

originally posted by: seeker1963
I understand why those of you who are attracted to the same sex fought for marriage rights. It was over insurance with employers. I agree with that. So yes, you guys/gals/zees got a win.

No, they succeeded in getting the Supreme Court to pervert/distort the meaning of a word, nothing more.

All they needed to do is get approval for Civil Unions.

My bitch is why does any human being have to ask the STATES permission to get married?

You don't.

Marriage licenses are not required by law in order to get married, even today.

Marriage licenses initially were required for anyone wanting to 'inter-marry' - meaning, interracial marriages. They are no longer required for that as far as I know.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I don't know where you get the idea that marriage licenses aren't required by law in order to get married, but here in Missouri you certainly have to have one. And the marriage has to be performed by a minister, judge, or "[marriages] may also be solemnized by a religious society, religious institution, or religious organization of this state, according to the regulations and customs of the society, institution or organization, when either party to the marriage to be solemnized is a member of such society, institution or organization."


From the Missouri government site:

A marriage license is issued by the Recorder of Deeds in each Missouri county and is valid only in Missouri. Marriage license applicants are not required to be be Missouri residents. Both must appear in person before the recorder of deeds or a deputy recorder and present valid identification containing date of birth, along with a Social Security card, to apply for a marriage license. Fees for a marriage license and copies may vary by county.

mo.gov

More info (emphasis mine):

• Applicants for a marriage license must be at least 18 years old.
  
• Applicants who are younger than 18 must have consent from a custodial parent or guardian.
  
• Applicants wishing to apply who are younger than 15 must obtain a circuit court order.
  
• Applicants cannot be married already and may not be related by blood, through and including first cousins.
  
• The license must be picked up prior to the marriage ceremony. The person performing the ceremony must have the license prior to the ceremony.
  
• The person performing the marriage ceremony shall return the license to the issuing Recorder of Deeds within 15 days. If a marriage ceremony does not occur, the license shall be void after thirty days from the date of issuance.
  

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Thejaybird

To say that "Too few people in this country are the perpetrators or victims of anything worthy of paying any type of repercussions" is missing the point. The point is that this country, through its own, intentional volition, has oppressed people of color since its inception. As such, in order to repair the relationship, reparations are due to the oppressed. Make no bones about it; the people that were oppressed at the beginning of the American story, are the people who are still being oppressed today.

I would argue I am not missing the point at all. I just don't buy into your overly simplistic view of this nation and who lives here.

Once again who gets paid these repetitions? Not all "people of color" (which is quite a broud defintion) have experienced the same level of oppression. Clearly they don't all deserve the same compensation.

... and not all "people of no color" are complicit in the oppression that has taken place.

Don't get me wrong there are definitely pools of wealth that are tainted by wrong doing and there are descendants of people who deserve a portion of that wealth as reperations. But since you could not possibly structure any coherent tax law that targets/benefits these small groups of people you will never see reperations paid.

The indigenous people had their land taken from them by force. Black people were brought here in chains and sold into slavery to benefit the white slaveholders of their time. The leaders of their time pushed the indigenous people on to reservations. The leaders of their time continued to keep black people from advancing through the Jim Crow kleptocracy and, later, by creating FHA regulations that disallowed them from "moving up" via the free market of real estate.

Excellent recap of history... and if you can create tax law that garnishes wealth from "The leaders of their time" and redistributes it the oppressed equitably* you might have something. But I would expect the logistics of such laws would be impossible to administer.

* keeping it simple; the descendants of "people brought here in chains and sold into slavery" would logical deserve more compensation than people who have been victims of "FHA regulations" ... they aren't all the same people... not by a lot.

... also there are groups of white people who have been systematically opposed by "The leaders of their time" over the course of our nations history; do they not deserve some recognition?

Logistically, it is quite simple: the government created the problem, so the government should be the entity to make reparations.

I don't know about you, but I am fine with my tax dollars going towards this, especially if it can be the first step in making amends with the folks who have lived their entire existence in the shadow of oppression.

Since my familiar wethly is both very much younger and in no way directly attributed to any of the oppressive acts you listed above I can tell you unequivocally that I would have a problem with my wealth being garnished as any "first" or "last" step. I can pay these people my sympathies, but I will not willingly pay for sins that my family did not create nor directly benefite from*.

In fact I could make a pretty good claim that my family should be counted on the side of the "oppressed" rather than the side of "The leaders of their time" .... "The leaders of their time" might look and talk a lot like you, I see no similarities between them and me.

*a simplistic argument can be made that by simply living in society I benefit from all the wrongs that went into building that society... but again that is a simplistic argument and the counter would be; so too does the indigenous person
alive today benefit from the society built in part on those wrongs.


So again even if we can agree that someone deserves to pay and receive some type of reperations; we will never agree as a nation who those people are ... nor could we hope to lagistcaly carry out the fair redistribution of wealth. It's a pie in the sky thought.

... I would even go as far as to say it might be a dangerous thought; in that the more time and effort we waist on it the less time and effort we are putting into moving forward as a society.

Much better we spend our energies finding ways to end any oppression, against any group of people, that still exist to day and build systems that guard against it in the future.

Why go straight to taxes to serve as reparations? There are a multitude of budget line items that can be cut to make up for the difference. My goodness, we could pull troops from the 150 countries that they are in to make up for the difference.

Redistribution of wealth is not what is being discussed here. Reparations are. They are not the same thing, nor do they come from the same place.

And, to be accurate, "freedom" was a "pie in the sky" idea when this country was formed.

As a nation, if we are to be honest, we owe reparations to the indigenous people and black people. They are the two collective entities that have been most affected by faulty policy from a historic perspective.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: icanteven
a reply to: Metallicus

Sure. The Equality Act is next. It would amend the civil rights act to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes.

Further eroding, perverting and destroying the social fabric that holds our nation together.

You people won't be satisfied until 'England prevails' here in the USA.

Seriously? "You people" ?!? It is 2019.Your way of thinking is, at best, outdated. We have progressed as a society. Sorry you did not keep up. And, no...you have no response to that. Your way of thinking has been moved on from. To quote Harlan Ellison: "You do not have a right to your opinion. You have a right to your informed opinion. Nobody has the right to be ignorant".

Marriage in the United States sees between 40 and 50% of them end in divorce. You don't see that as an "erosion, perversion, and destruction" of the social fabric in this country?

Well, at least you are honest in displaying your bias.

originally posted by: riiver
a reply to: tanstaafl

I don't know where you get the idea that marriage licenses aren't required by law in order to get married, but here in Missouri you certainly have to have one.

Yes, that is what they will tell you, but the reality is somewhat different.

Blacks Law dictionary defines license as permission to do that which otherwise would be illegal.

It also defines a marriage license as required for persons who want to intermarry. Intermarry is legally defined as inter-racial marriage, and it was illegal in every State in the Union in the early days, hence the need for a license.

The courts have also found that getting a marriage license makes the State a Third Party in your marriage, which is why they claim the power to force you to accept the garbage they teach your children in schools, what schools you can or can't send your children too, and even the power to take them away.

And the marriage has to be performed by a minister, judge, or "[marriages] may also be solemnized by a religious society, religious institution, or religious organization of this state, according to the regulations and customs of the society, institution or organization, when either party to the marriage to be solemnized is a member of such society, institution or organization."

Yes, and most Ministers/Pastors are also under the impression that you need a license, but there are a lot who realize the truth.

From the Missouri government site:

No thanks, I'll choose not to listen to the originator of the 'fake news' as proof of the 'fake news'.

All they need is your willingness to believe to give power to their lies.

originally posted by: Thejaybird
Seriously? "You people" ?!? It is 2019.Your way of thinking is, at best, outdated.

Actually, it is looking more and more like your way of thinking - as its roots and real implications are exposed - is on its way out already.

We have progressed as a society. Sorry you did not keep up. And, no...you have no response to that.

Good try...

What you call progress I call perversion and destruction. And just because your radical militant minority has been able to make some 'progress' in perverting and destroying the fabric of our society, doesn't mean it will remain. People are catching on, and in fact I believe the jig is up and your radical militant agenda is doomed.

Your way of thinking has been moved on from. To quote Harlan Ellison: "You do not have a right to your opinion. You have a right to your informed opinion. Nobody has the right to be ignorant".

Who the frack is Harlan Ellison - oh, just some $random_writer that happens to have said some things you like so you quote him to make yourself look a lot smarter than you are.

Marriage in the United States sees between 40 and 50% of them end in divorce. You don't see that as an "erosion, perversion, and destruction" of the social fabric in this country?

I do, but I also see it as the result of the work of the radical militant minority - you know, people like you.

Thejaybird

Why go straight to taxes to serve as reparations? There are a multitude of budget line items that can be cut to make up for the difference. My goodness, we could pull troops from the 150 countries that they are in to make up for the difference.

Redistribution of wealth is not what is being discussed here. Reparations are. They are not the same thing, nor do they come from the same place.

And, to be accurate, "freedom" was a "pie in the sky" idea when this country was formed.

As a nation, if we are to be honest, we owe reparations to the indigenous people and black people. They are the two collective entities that have been most affected by faulty policy from a historic perspective.

Your response conpleatily ignores the points I made and quibbles over semantics. But to answer you...

If you don't want to increase taxes to play for the reperations that's fine, though you were the one who said you would be happy to have your tax money go to them ...

If we do things like pull troops from 150 countries to make up the difference I still expect the money to be used and distributed to all people equitably along the same arguement I made and you ignored. Not all people from your two groups have suffered equally; some just arrived in this country last night; it would be yet another systemic wrong to treat them equally when handing out compensation.

... I also expect a tax decrease along the same argument that I am not responsible for the wrong doing and so if tax money is saved by cutting programs I expect my tax burden to reflect that loss



Reperation are a redistribution of wealth; you want to give one group of people money and the only place that can come from is another group. Its not going to be conjured out of thin air...

... Redistribution of wealth is not a dirty word; it can happen for the most legitimate of reasons ... reparations are a good example. The problem with your simplistic approach to it is that you don't care if you take from people who are not responsible and you don't care about the equitable redistribution to people of color (as if all people of color have experienced the same level of oppression when that clearly is not true)


As a nation we have to do our level best to ensure that all citizens have a fair and equal opportunity to succeed and prosper. That requires us to spend money on combating current systemic oppression. I have absolutely no issue with my tax money going to current programs that have this as a goal. Pull those troops from 150 countries and we have even more money to spend on these domestic programs.

Compensation payments to all indigenous people and black people for wrongs committed against these groups of people? You'll have to go after the people who comited those wrongs. Not everyone in this nation is responsible and they are unlikely to accept that they must pay for the sins of others. Once again waitsing enarger on this idea is simply another wrong; we should be spending our energy on building up our country for all people going forward.