I’m curious to know more about what reparations would end up entailing. Who would be eligible? What amount would it be and what would the payments look like? Does everyone eligible get the same amount or is there some calculation to determine how much each person qualifies for?

i dont know! i honestly have no clue. it really depends based on area within the country, too.

i'm not an expert. that's why you first acknowledge it as a government, create a system and panel that involved those aggrieved to help figure it all out.

I think part of the reason it polls poorly is because nobody knows what it is or what it could look like.

Gimpy wrote:I’m curious to know more about what reparations would end up entailing. Who would be eligible? What amount would it be and what would the payments look like? Does everyone eligible get the same amount or is there some calculation to determine how much each person qualifies for?

That's the point--that's the conversation that needs to be started. John Conyers has introduced legislation (which hasn't even reached the floor of the House) to simply study the idea--that's where we're at. I don't think it necessarily involves cash payments to individuals, though it should involve restitution of specific pieces of property that was stolen--again, this happened recently enough that there may be in some cases records of such transactions. (And, I would add since I would not be shocked if the same kind of thing didn't occasionally happen to poor whites, they too should be compensated.)

TenuredVulture wrote:

Gimpy wrote:I’m curious to know more about what reparations would end up entailing. Who would be eligible? What amount would it be and what would the payments look like? Does everyone eligible get the same amount or is there some calculation to determine how much each person qualifies for?

That's the point--that's the conversation that needs to be started. John Conyers has introduced legislation (which hasn't even reached the floor of the House) to simply study the idea--that's where we're at. I don't think it necessarily involves cash payments to individuals, though it should involve restitution of specific pieces of property that was stolen--again, this happened recently enough that there may be in some cases records of such transactions. (And, I would add since I would not be shocked if the same kind of thing didn't occasionally happen to poor whites, they too should be compensated.)

does someone else have to reintroduce it since he passed away

TNC's "The Case for Reparations" may be a good reading for some

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ns/361631/

Uncle Milty wrote:Shocked to see the other N word trending on twitter. Thanks Roger Stone.

http://mrmokelly.com/2020/07/roger_stone_mokelly/

Roger Stone being interviewed on a black radio program, on AM radio in Los Angeles as weird as that sounds, reaches into the bag of old-timey racial type slurs to say that he doesn't want to argue with the host, sort of mutters it to who knows who but what a pile of trash

I guess there couldn't shouldn't wouldn't be any surprise in this except that of course it happened. And it happened when the host said that there are thousands upon thousands of people who get no special treatment in jails and prisons but Stone hit the lottery.

Uncle Milty wrote::notsureifserious.gif:

12:30 of the audio in the link

no, i'm serious. i turned up the volume and listened to it several times. although that may be what he's saying, i'm not convinced. it's easy to hear it that way since those words were ascribed to it, but let someone listen to this without the prior hint and i bet they don't come up with the same conclusion.

Bucky wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote::notsureifserious.gif:

12:30 of the audio in the link

no, i'm serious. i turned up the volume and listened to it several times. although that may be what he's saying, i'm not convinced. it's easy to hear it that way since those words were ascribed to it, but let someone listen to this without the prior hint and i bet they don't come up with the same conclusion.

I thought it was unclear, but his behavior after the slip made it more clear. He knew he fucked up and you can hear it in his voice and in his sudden excuses for not hearing the host. If he didn't say it, I don't think he would have responded to the host like he did. He understood right away what the host heard... no confusion or clarification.

I'd love to hear reactions/thoughts on this video. The incident not the arguing at the end.

dude was an a$$hole with that donut stick, but the cop was absolutely out of line. cops are like umpires- they've got to take a lot of @#$% and rise above it.

What crime did the yellow shirt kid commit?

Can't exactly arrest someone for being an ahole

Yeh, I can see why the cops were pissed, but that cop committed assault and should be read his rights. If the arrested guy is smart, he'll file a complaint as soon as they let him.

https://nypost.com/2020/07/19/woman-who-live-streamed-defacing-blm-mural-strikes-again/

Always figured it was white trash attacking the BLM murals.

pacino wrote:Can't exactly arrest someone for being an ahole

streets would be barren

The only thing bad about that video is that idiot didn’t get knocked out.

c'mon, the cop was in the wrong, but i don't want to see him suffer any bodily harm.

For me this is a case where everyone is wrong.

In some jurisdictions I think they could stretch it to an assault arrest. Doubt they get a conviction. Harassment might be a possibility as well.

Is there a limit to provocation we expect anyone to ignore?

More importantly is there any way dangling donuts helps, with or without the excessive response?

Only one side of that has the ability to arrest or kill.

With that comes a lot of requirements. Or, it should. The officer will be able to go home after having a donut dangled near him.