Payment for Services Rendered

Genealogy is halfway finished and I have at least two slaves in my ancestry probably more since it is not completely finished and I am listed as caucasian on my birth certificate so is everyone in the family. So who do you want to get this money? Are you going to be upset when they start handing this money out and half the people there are white or caucasian?

I'm not sure how all these generations later a wrong done to an ancestor can be repaid. Imagine one person who was a slave and marries and they have children and those children have children and so forth and over a period of a hundred and fifty years, how many ancestors there are from just one person who was a slave.

goose raises a very good point ....

One slave from 200 years ago will now have hundreds of great-great-great grandchildren. For the sake of discussion - If that one slave 'earned' $1,000 (random figure) in his/her lifetime and you (author of this thread) want that $1,000 distributed ... it would have to be split equally amongst all those hundreds of great-great-great grandchildren (none of whom actually earned it). $1,000 becomes $5.00 each.


- and then there is the cost of geneology for all 300 million Americans to determine who in this country is actually decended from slaves.

- and the cost of verification.
- and the cost of court proceedings.
- and the cost of documentation.
- and the cost of banking.
- and the cost of recordkeeping - salaries, computers, time, etc.
- and the cost of more court proceedings from all the people that will argue with the fact that they think they should get paid and they didn't.

- and the cost of more court proceedings when white people, and hispanic people, (and everyrone else) get their $5 but the NAACP (or Al Sharpton, or Jesse Jackson, or whoever) get upset and sue.

- and the cost of adding a special tax to everyone in this country to pay the money.

- and the cost of court proceedings when black people complain that they shouldn't be taxed to pay for their own payments.

- and then more cost to pay for court proceedings from people who had their ancestors not even come to this country until well after slavery ended and they don't think they should have to pay the special 'payment tax'.

- etc etc etc .... all over the $5 'payment' to someone who didn't even earn it to begin with.

Oy!

Ah, but FF, you're not taking into account the pretty golden nougat at the center of all this reparations business...
$$ INFLATION. $$

According to some, (this guy for example) considering inflation, the descendants of slaves would be paid 15 times what their ancestors should have been paid. So, if a slave worked for 50 years of her life, her overall lifetime wages, at minimum wage, would have been $12,480. Adjust for inflation and the current wages of that same slave would be $187,200, to be paid to their descendant today.

He goes on to estimate that if there were a million slaves and each one worked these 50 years, the 1861 dollar amount owed to these slaves would have been $12.5 million but adjusted for INFLATION, this number becomes 187.2 BILLION dollars owed to the descendants of slaves today.

And if half the black people in the US today (approximately 18 million people, which I think is probably a little high) are descended from slaves (which I think is probably a little high) that would be $10,400 owed to each person! And the lower that number, the more each individual gets of the $187 billion pie.

So you see, it IS worth it to them to pursue this venture. $10,400 (or more) of free money is a tidy sum. And it is free. Because they would have to do nothing for it but be a descendant of someone. They had no choice to be born a descendant of this person, just as I had no choice about being born white. But they want their money, nonetheless.

[edit on 25-2-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

That I didn't have anything to do with it.

My family didn't have anything to do with it.

My family line died in the Civil War over it.

That I will not kneel before you like I did have something to do with it and should be sorry.

Hi all!

Sorry for the delay, guys. I had a little computer issue (the laptop wire-thingy was broken, it kept popping out and making me lose my work, so I had to go replace it). Anyways, on with the show...

It looks like there are a few basic concerns, so instead of responding to individual posters, I'll try to tackle some of the more common points of contention.

1. Individuals enslaved the people, not the government.
I do not think that calling for reparations from the descendants of slave owners is fair. That would be blaming them for the crimes of their ancestors. I contend that the US government is at fault for allowing an unlawful practice to flourish, and then benefitting from it.

First, the US government claims that "all men" (not "citizens") are created equal, and naturally endowed with the right to liberty. Then, it dirtied its hands by taxing the import of slaves. Compare and contrast these two excerpts.

The US Declaration of Independence (1776) states:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution (1789) states:
"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."

[Now that I'm thinking about it, perhaps that $10/person figure would be a good starting point for pinning down an amount.]

2. The Africans in question had been initially enslaved by Africans; Europeans simply purchased them.
That is of no relevance. The moment that the US government collected that tax, they involved the US government.

(Incidentally, slaves were also kidnapped by traders.)

3. This country had a war to free the slaves; we paid our price.
That is also irrelevant. While I thank all of those whose family members served on the Union side of that war, the damage had already been done. I'm glad that enough of the country also found the practice repugnant, enough to push the issue. However, the labor had already been stolen.

Finally realizing that you were wrong does not mean you don't have to attempt to begin to 'make up' for it.

4. The (former) slaves have long since died; why should we pay?
Because it is an old debt. Because we're the United States and we claim to treat people fairly. Because we've proven so quick to point the finger at others for mistreating their country's ethnic minorities.

Just like your house, unless otherwise specified or legally 'tied-up', will go to your children, so too should reparations.

5. The 'War on Poverty' and various social programs cost enough money already; why should we give 'them' more?
The 'War on Poverty' and our nation's social programs are an aide to all, black, white, and everyone else. In no way does that address the lives, and labor, stolen through slavery.

6. The black American population has boomed; they must not be hurting too badly.
The resilience of black Americans has no bearing on this.

I'm sure some people will say, she calls everything she disagrees with irrelevant. Untrue. Those things are truly irrelevant, and I would be happy to debate why you think they should matter to this conversation.

Also, to respond to a few people...

Originally posted by df1
Ignorance of the plight of slaves is unacceptable to you, but we are suppose to accept your continued ignorance of the plight of the American Indians as just fine & dandy.

"Continued"? When have you and I ever discussed the plight of the Native American community? Never. At least I admitted my ignorance and asked, which is more than I can say for most.

Originally posted by seagull
I've asked this question before, and I don't recall getting an answer then either, so my expectations of getting one here are rather low; but I'm going to try anyway. What good will reparations do?

This is the first time you've posted in this thread. When have you asked me before?

To answer your question, it will begin to clean up the image of our government, at home and abroad. Also, depending on how its allocated, it could be used in a lot of good ways in the black community. It wouldn't 'make up' for slavery, but it could help fund our collective recovery. It's common belief in the black community that we all need therapy as a result of being raised by parents, who were raised by parents, etc, who were severely traumatized. Not once, not twice, but every single day. That first generation of ex-slaves carried the plantation with them, which sociologists say, for example, is why soul food is so bad for you, and why we beat our kids.

Originally posted by BenevolentHeretic
B. I thought we were talking about black American reparations. You aren't deflecting, are you? Please don't bring up other countries when it's convenient and disallow them when it's not.

The only reason I'm mentioning either Japanese-internment or Holocaust reparations is because those are our only national precedents. The Holocaust reparations, not so much our thing, but since we were instrumental in helping the Jews, I figured it could count. Make sense? I don't want to be unfair, but I really had to set some parameters on this discussion, or we'd be all over the place.

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
That would be blaming them for the crimes of their ancestors. I contend that the US government is at fault for allowing an unlawful practice to flourish, and then benefitting from it.

While slavery was a moral "crime", it wasn't unlawful. It was totally legal.

The US Declaration of Independence (1776) states:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

The D of I holds no force in law. It's a set of guiding principles, but going against it breaks no laws.

While I thank all of those whose family members served on the Union side of that war, the damage had already been done.

So, do you feel that thanking those who died to free the slaves is sufficient? Well, I am also grateful to the slaves who helped build this country. So, if you can thank those who gave their lives to eliminate slavery, I can thank the slaves and that should be it.

Just like your house, unless otherwise specified or legally 'tied-up', will go to your children, so too should reparations.

And so, in essence, do debts (as should the debt of slave reparations if it exists.). A debt also transfers to the descendants. If a person dies owing money, that money comes out of the estate (which now belongs to the children)

and why we beat our kids.

Why do white people beat their kids? Why do they beat their wives?

The only reason I'm mentioning either Japanese-internment or Holocaust reparations is because those are our only national precedents.

That's the only reason anyone mentions them.

I realize you're probably busy, but when you have the time, I'd like you to address the issues in my posts here:

www.abovepolitics.com...

by BH
I'm not sure what you're suggesting happen. I made clear what I would support. Will you make clear what you'd like to see?
...
Would white Americans who are decendants of slaves also receive reparations in equal amounts?
...
A. I believe those were paid to the actual survivors, not their descendants.

Here:
www.abovepolitics.com...

by BH
Then the responsible parties are the descendants of the slave-owners who directly profited from the services rendered. If the guy next door remodels his house, MY property values go up. I benefit. But I don't owe him anything toward the price of his remodel.

When a company underpays someone, THE COMPANY is sued, not the government and not the population. And the beneficiaries of that lawsuit are the employees themselves, not the descendants of the employees.

And here:
www.abovepolitics.com...

by BH
The government ALLOWED the people to own slaves. They did not REQUIRE them to own slaves. The choice was the individual's. They made the choice to own slaves or not.
...The government ALLOWS the people to go bungee jumping. They do not REQUIRE them to go bungee jumping. The choice is ours. We make the choice to go bungee jumping or not.

If we are hurt while bungee jumping, we sue the company, not the government which allows bungee jumping to be legal.

How many African tribal leaders, etc. captured and sold their own people.

How about getting some money from the Tribal leaders and taking them to court?

I'm all for reparations! Anybody currently alive who was enslaved prior to 1865 should certainly get paid for their work! I'm guessing nobody's going to claim this though.

Seriously, this is just lazy people looking for a free buck. You can't get paid for something that happened 140 years ago...and was legal at the time. Sure it was morally wrong, I agree with that, but expecting to be paid for it now is just greed. It has been what? 7 generations since the slaves were freed? If your lineage hasn't made something of itself by this point, it's lack of motivation, not slavery that's holding you back.

Ya know...my great, great, great grandfather was murdered back in the day. Should I get reparations from the great, great, great grandson of the person who did it?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The D of I holds no force in law. It's a set of guiding principles, but going against it breaks no laws.

Do you have a source for that? It's not that I don't believe you, I'd just like to look into it further.

It was totally legal.

But only because Congress knowingly created such a contradiction. Just like with the illegal wire-tapping... even if they allow(ed?) it, it's still illegal, according to pre-existing laws. I think slavery broke that same "rule," but, then again, I'm not a lawyer.

So, do you feel that thanking those who died to free the slaves is sufficient?

Please! I was being nice thanking them. As I understand it, the Civil War occurred because of a series of congressional disagreements, that led to the secession of many states. Southern "boys" wanted their "toys," and the adults of the nation were forced to shut them down. That's a dispute between two groups of white people, which only tangentially involved the slave population. That's like a custody dispute between two people who don't really even like being with their kid. A power struggle, more than genuine concern for the kid.

So, if you can thank those who gave their lives to eliminate slavery, I can thank the slaves and that should be it.
...

And so, in essence, do debts (as should the debt of slave reparations if it exists.). A debt also transfers to the descendants. If a person dies owing money, that money comes out of the estate (which now belongs to the children)

In one sentence, you're anti-reparations, period. In the next, arguing where it should come from. So...let me get this right: you're not actually against reparations, per se, you just don't want it to come from your tax-dollars?

Why do white people beat their kids? Why do they beat their wives?

I have no idea. I'm not a sociologist.

That's the only reason anyone mentions them.

So...um, what's your point?

when you have the time, I'd like you to address the issues in my posts here:

I already have. You're asking me the same questions I responded to in my last post. This is why I said I wouldn't be responding individually. Apparently no one reads my posts unless they're specifically directed to them.

by BH
Will you make clear what you'd like to see?

I thought it would be obvious that we're not at that point. Considering the reponses in this thread, including yours, there's still a great deal of convincing to do that a call for reparations is even legitimate. I think discussing a plan is jumping the gun at bit.

Would white Americans who are decendants of slaves also receive reparations in equal amounts?

I believe I addressed this already... The best idea I've heard so far was that whatever money not be given directly to individuals, but instead put toward community-use facilities, ie, free therapy centers, or whatever.

A. I believe those were paid to the actual survivors, not their descendants.

I think I addressed this already as well. We waited too long (see #6).

[Your two analogies about property values and companies underpaying employees]

I don't know what you're talking about with the property values thing, but "underpaying"?! Ha! Try "killing." That would be a better analogy... and, yes, in that case the children/descendants would receive whatever settlement. Further, if the government knowingly benefited, they would be liable as well. (See #1)

If we are hurt while bungee jumping, we sue the company, not the government which allows bungee jumping to be legal.

Again, bad analogy, as the victim in this case didn't "go bungee jumping," ie, voluntarily participate in a risky activity.

Btw, I noticed no one responded to my basketball analogy about running out the shot-clock.

BH is right, the Declaration has absolutely no legal standing.

The U.S. Constitution is the founding document for our current government, and it certainly did recognize slavery. In fact one of only two restrictions on Amendments made it impossible to ban the importation of slaves until the year 1808.

However, the Constitution is quite clear that corruption of blood is illegal. So you can't legally blame someone for the sins of their ancestors.

will those who worked the underground railroad then be compensated for all the meals served, all their selfless work by those that benefitted from their work also? what about all those men and women who worked on their behalf giving speeches, lobbying government?

better yet, talking about compensation for services rendered....ummm.....can I be compensated for the work my grandmother, her mother, her mother's mother, and on through the centuries done without pay while society held her down and practically made a slave. can I be paid double if I find that she was forced into the marriage to begin with?

tell, ya what, the first mistake we made was taking the poor african from their homeland....so now, let's pitch in and we can all buy them tickets back to africa......who wants a one way ticket to africa?

Originally posted by djohnsto77
However, the Constitution is quite clear that corruption of blood is illegal. So you can't legally blame someone for the sins of their ancestors.

The "corruption of blood"? This is a new term for me and perhaps others. If you're going to introduce new elements to the discussion, I would appreciate it if you posted a source. I'll do it this once, but it really is your responsibility. Otherwise, it's just unsourced opinion.

The portion of the Constitution containing the phrase

Article 3, Section 3, Clause 2

"The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
Article 3

An excerpt from the annotations

...the Court in one case quoted with approval the English distinction between a disability absolute and perpetual and one personal or temporary.
The rest of the article

However, since it's illegal, according to you and the Constitution, one could argue that descendants of slaves, who automatically inherited the "disability absolute and perpetual" of their mothers (ie, were born enslaved), were being "legally blamed" for the "sins of their ancestors," that "sin" being born to a black woman in America.

Thank you for helping me flesh out my ideas on the illegality of slavery.

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
Do you have a source for that? It's not that I don't believe you, I'd just like to look into it further.

Source1
In the midst of a war, while forming constitutions in their own provinces, men obviously felt that the treaty and the articles were more difficult projects of practical politics, and set more useful or dangerous legal precedents, than the Declaration itself. The latter was not a legislative instrument. Its issuance was a propaganda adjunct to the act of declaring independence on July 2- and that act in turn, was just the necessary step toward the two projects men were principally wrestling with.
...
The Declaration was not meant to give a religious foundation to this nation, to its founding, its founding documents, its legal system or laws. It was not intended to give a theological discourse on the creation of mankind.

Slavery was totally legal.

Please! I was being nice thanking them.

So, you don't really feel grateful? You were just being nice?

In one sentence, you're anti-reparations, period.

I always have been anti-reparations. I'm just trying to become more fully educated on the issue. I've never asked a pro-reparations person what they want and where it should come from before. I've always stated MY opinion, but never asked about others. I'm doing that now.

So...let me get this right: you're not actually against reparations, per se, you just don't want it to come from your tax-dollars?

No. I am against reparations, per se and every other way. 100% Against. I realize, though, that it still might happen whether I approve or not. So I'm discussing the details of this possibility. I have already said that if reparations are taken from my tax dollars, I will still pay my taxes. My argument is out of logic, not selfishness.

I have no idea. I'm not a sociologist.

Well, if slavery is why black people beat their kids, there has to be a reason why whites do it. I contend that people beat their kids for different reasons and using slavery to explain why blacks misbehave is a cop-out.

So...um, what's your point?

My point is that when others mention Jews and Germans and other countries who had slaves, you say their deflecting and ask that we speak of The US only. When you need them for your argument, you bring them up. I thought that was obvious.

Apparently no one reads my posts unless they're specifically directed to them.

I read every word of your posts and I respond to every issue you direct toward me.

b
I thought it would be obvious that we're not at that point.

No, it wasn't obvious. As I said, this is the first discussion I've had with you or any pro-reparations person about this. I understand now that you're not willing to say what you want. If you can't tell me what you want, how can you possibly convince me that you should get it? You just want a nebulous thing called reparations? Well, then as far as I'm concerned, my opinion is no. As far as I'm educated about it I disagree with reparations for the numerous reasons I have put forth.

You know, good luck selling your position when you're not willing to say what it is you want.

Considering the reponses in this thread, including yours, there's still a great deal of convincing to do that a call for reparations is even legitimate. I think discussing a plan is jumping the gun at bit.

Okay. But when someone is asking for something FROM ME, I have a right to ask exactly what it is. If they're not willing to say, then the answer is no. Because that's my position going into this.

It's a good negotiating tactic, to get agreement before you say exactly what it is you want, but I personally don't agree to something that I don't have the details on.

We waited too long (see #6).

You mean this?

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
6. The black American population has boomed; they must not be hurting too badly.

I don't get the connection.

Well, we waited too long for slavery, then. If there are any slaves still alive I'm already convinced that they should be paid for their work. My disagreement is that the descendants should be paid for work they didn't do.

I don't know what you're talking about with the property values thing, but "underpaying"?! Ha! Try "killing."

You position has always been clear. This money would not be "for slavery" but for "payment of services rendered. Now you're bringing "killing" into it. And I revert to my previous position that there's no monetary value that can be put on slavery and there shouldn't be.

Again, bad analogy, as the victim in this case didn't "go bungee jumping," ie, voluntarily participate in a risky activity.

True. But the underpaid people in my examples sued the company that underpaid them, not the government. And you deflected my question with but "underpaying"?! Ha! Try "killing." instead of addressing the actual issue.

Btw, I noticed no one responded to my basketball analogy about running out the shot-clock.

I don't speak basketball. So I can't. I read it and my brows furrowed in confusion, but that's the only answer I have.

Speaking of payment, the meals and housing the slaves received is a form of payment for services rendered. The slaves did not pay for food and housing, it was provided for them.

Are you familiar with "Company Towns"? Same concept. As I said earlier, slavery has existed, and still exists, in many forms and in many cultures throughout history.

What you are asking for is special treatment. You don't deserve it, imo.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Speaking of payment, the meals and housing the slaves received is a form of payment for services rendered. The slaves did not pay for food and housing, it was provided for them.

I asked about this in another thread saying that IF reparations were paid, we'd have to deduct housing and food. This was the response:

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
I doubt that the Germans deducted 'concentration camp' expenses from Holocaust survivors.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So, you don't really feel grateful? You were just being nice?

So, you're not going to address my take on the war? You're just going to guilt-trip me?

If I'm wrong, explain why. HH is not the issue. (Seems like ATS'ers are growing increasingly fond of attacking the messenger.)

No. I am against reparations, per se and every other way... My argument is out of logic, not selfishness.

Ok, I get it now.

I contend that people beat their kids for different reasons and using slavery to explain why blacks misbehave is a cop-out.

You would have to take up the methodology the sociologists used with the sociologists themselves. I'm simply sharing their findings.

My point is that when others mention Jews and Germans and other countries who had slaves, you say their deflecting and ask that we speak of The US only.

I did not. I told people they were deflecting when they brought up
-what was going on in Africa at the time
-the guilt one would feel from accepting "charity" (which was only good for a laugh)
-that race is a tool to divide us.

As I said, this is the first discussion I've had with you or any pro-reparations person about this...

Well then, that's unfortunate, since I don't know all that much about the "official" movement either. That's my next step. Like I said in the thread 'Real Talk about Minority Privilege,' I just wanted to know why people opposed it so... well, viciously.

You know, good luck selling your position when you're not willing to say what it is you want...It's a good negotiating tactic, to get agreement before you say exactly what it is you want

I'm trying very hard to ignore all the smart remarks, especially from you, but it is becoming more difficult with each exchange. Don't make assumptions about me, what I'm "willing" to do, or the inner-workings of my mind. Ask me a question and I'll do my best to answer it, but you can't expect me to continue taking you seriously when you're behaving in a way that's so out of character. You're usually more thoughtful, less petty.

What's going on with you?

when someone is asking for something FROM ME, I have a right to ask exactly what it is. If they're not willing to say, then the answer is no

Then you're answering a request that hasn't been posed. No one's asking for anything here. I'm inquiring about the objections to the concept and refining my own plan of action. As I said, hold your horses- next thread.

You mean this?

Excuse me. It's number four, although I have faith that you could have figured that out yourself. I mean, I gave them titles.

I don't know what you're talking about with the property values thing, but "underpaying"?! Ha! Try "killing."

Now you're bringing "killing" into it.

Because they labored, for free, under deplorable conditions. So, it wasn't simply under payment. IMO, a better example would be a state-sanctioned sweat shop, thereby including all pertinent elements.

And you deflected my question with but "underpaying"?! Ha! Try "killing." instead of addressing the actual issue

No, I did address the issue, by correcting what I saw as a faulty analogy. I disagreed, but I did not deflect.

I don't speak basketball. So I can't

Ask your husband. Give him a chuckle. My bf laughed, while being surprised that I knew enough about the sport to think of it.

Then go back to where ever the hell you came from ... Should be or SLOGAN from now on ... in the U.S. Whether it is Mexico , South American, Africa, Austrailia, Euroupe, Ireland, London Spain, France .... OR the Hawaian islands .... Just cause you are here and came from there doesn't make you any different than me ... My four fathers were abolished by CONTROL ... That black people turned into their own little slavery thing. And the whole slave trade ... was involved in many more things than just ... PEOPLE ...

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
So, you're not going to address my take on the war?

I will do that here:

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
While I thank all of those whose family members served on the Union side of that war, the damage had already been done.

This makes no sense to me. Slavery happened. Many people died to stop it. Damage was done, yes and it still is done. If I'm stepping on someone's toe and I realize it, I stop. What can I do to take away the fact that I stepped on their toe? Nothing. I can apologize, but the damage is done.

Finally realizing that you were wrong does not mean you don't have to attempt to begin to 'make up' for it.

Those who were wrong and those who were wronged are dead. The damage is done and there's nothing that can be done about that. You are not owed simply because you share blood with those who were wronged. There's no way that I or anyone can "make up" to you what someone else did TO SOMEONE ELSE.

You would have to take up the methodology the sociologists used with the sociologists themselves. I'm simply sharing their findings.

But you put it forth as your opinion. There was no source. Is it what you believe? If so, then you can stand behind it instead of putting it off on "sociologists"

I did not. I told people they were deflecting when they brought up
-what was going on in Africa at the time
-the guilt one would feel from accepting "charity" (which was only good for a laugh)
-that race is a tool to divide us.

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
No deflection, ie, bringing up Irish indentured servants, or the perceived failings of contemporary black Americans.

That would be off-topic.

I'm trying very hard to ignore all the smart remarks, especially from you,

I'm sorry. I would like you to realize, though, that I get impatient with what I "perceive" as your like remarks. And the thing. It seems to me that we're equally "snotty". But I will try to do better.

I am sorry.

I'm inquiring about the objections to the concept and refining my own plan of action. As I said, hold your horses- next thread.

Got it!

Excuse me. It's number four, although I have faith that you could have figured that out yourself. I mean, I gave them titles.

See? I couldn't figure it out. I read over them again and I honestly didn't know which one you meant. And when you respond like this, I just want to say, "Never mind" and that's what I'm saying on this one. I forget the subject now and I'm not willing to look over the threads again to figure out the original point. And what you just said was a smart remark.

Ask your husband. Give him a chuckle. My bf laughed, while being surprised that I knew enough about the sport to think of it.

He hates sports more than I do.

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
Then go back to where ever the hell you came from ...

Please feel free to join the conversation.

Tantrums don't get us anywhere and as far as I'm concerned, aren't really welcome. It's like we're having a discussion about an important issue and a child runs in the room screaming and flailing interrupting the adults.

Go play.

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
IMO, that's like if you're playing basketball, and the guy guarding you puts you in a headlock, thereby running out the shot clock, and your team loses. Shouldn't the ref call that?

I'll take a run at this since it's came up a couple of times.

It's more like you're playing basketball, say Indiana vs. Purdue. Remember, it's 2007. The game's coming down to the wire all tied up with 5 seconds to go. The ref blows the whistle calling an infraction on Indiana committed in 1895 giving Purdue 2 free throws and the ball.

No one on the current Indiana team committed the infraction, no one on the current Purdue team was directly impacted by the infraction. Should the ref call that?

Matter of fact, I think it's happened.

Damn Boilermakers.