I think I'm having a change of heart. I mean, the Freedman's Bureau Act allows refugees and freedman MALES to rent no more than 40 acres at 6%, plus taxes. After three years, there was the ability to purchase for around $10 per acre. So, we can take this a few ways.

1.) Reparations only apply to male descendants
2.) Any male who wishes to apply for these reparations may do so through the Agriculture Department, with a promise to farm for at least three years. The land would be rented for three years at 6% interest with a balloon due at the end of three years.
3.) Any male identified as eligible for reparations may elect to receive the going rate of acreage at the time of wrongdoing (1860-1864) instead of farming. A check for $40, less applicable taxes, would be issued.
4.) Open the program up to females also with same terms.

Also, if reparations are decided to be paid for the past atrocities, all other "reparations-like" programs administered by the government shall be abolished now that the wrong has been righted. There shall be no other future recourse upon ratifying legislation.

---

I think I'm having a change of heart. I mean, the Freedman's Bureau Act allows refugees and freedman MALES to rent no more than 40 acres at 6%, plus taxes. After three years, there was the ability to purchase for around $10 per acre. So, we can take this a few ways.

1.) Reparations only apply to male descendants
2.) Any male who wishes to apply for these reparations may do so through the Agriculture Department, with a promise to farm for at least three years. The land would be rented for three years at 6% interest with a balloon due at the end of three years.
3.) Any male identified as eligible for reparations may elect to receive the going rate of acreage at the time of wrongdoing (1860-1864) instead of farming. A check for $40, less applicable taxes, would be issued.
4.) Open the program up to females also with same terms.

Also, if reparations are decided to be paid for the past atrocities, all other "reparations-like" programs administered by the government shall be abolished now that the wrong has been righted. There shall be no other future recourse upon ratifying legislation.

Can we also institute a fine for all future applications of the Race Card?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

My Serious, Serious question to anyone saying there should be reparations paid.

Would you rather be here now... or in Africa dying of AIDs or working in a diamond mine, or being ethnically cleansed because you're just a little bit darker than the people next door?

Cause Russell Wilson wouldn't have even made it this far if he wasn't a descendant of slaves.

I don't know anybody in real life who thinks that paying reparations is possible or desirable.

Personally, I acknowledge that this country owes the descendants of slaves something.

At the very least, we should acknowledge how a lot of the intense economic development that happened in the Americas during the years 1500 to 1890, that we still enjoy the fruits of today, was on their uncompensated and abused backs. That's like morally the bare minimum. Acknowledge it and don't make excuses for it.

The next thing we can do is recognize that this gives our government, which aided and abetted this practice for so long, a duty to specially uplift communities of color. I think we can do that through certain color blind policies that are targeted at the poor in general.

1.) That's not true.  If Slavery in and of itself was a catalyst for massive economic growth then the societies that practice it today wouldn't be economically backward.  The south would have been leading in economic development instead of lagging for so long.  The German Miracle post WWII had nothing to do with Slavery.  The Japanese expansion had nothing to do with slavery.  Hong Kong had nothing to do with Slavery.  Etc.  The argument that America's wealth especially current wealth is as a result of slavery is asinine.  

2.) As for the idea that government intervention lifts anyone up, the facts, again, are against you.  Since the declaration of a War on poverty we have redistributed more than 20 trillion dollars in welfare and entitlements.  We spend more than any country in the history of mankind on public schools.  The poverty rate is almost identical to when we got started in the first place.  Where is the dividend that Government intervention is some magic boon that will uplift the huddled masses?The benefits haven't been felt, but the underlying insolvency of large entitlements will be.    

During the whole of slavery and segregation A black child had a far greater chance of being raised in a two parent household than they do today.  During the post WWII era between 45 and 60 Black men owned businesses at a rate of 40%, Blacks lead middle class expansion, black teen unemployment was lower than whites and marriage rates were equivalent to or higher than that of their white counterparts.  Over that time the poverty rate shrank from 87% to 47%, one of the most dramatic economic expansions  in history just based on the numbers, let alone the backdrop of Jim Crow.  What happened?  "Hello, I'm from the government and I'm here to help!"  We instituted programs that subsidized abandonment and did what 400 years of slavery and a hundred years of Jim Crow couldn't do, we destroyed the black nuclear family.  

3.) Why is it always the GOVERNMENT in general that takes the blame.  In 1860 all slaves were owned by democrats.  Jim Crow Laws were PASSED by Democrats.  Social Security was passed with the explicit promise that it wouldn't cover certain black dominated industries, and in exchange for not passing anti lynching laws.  FDR appointed a former klansman to SCOTUS Truman's secretary of state talked about America as a white country, LBJ is suspected of being affiliated with The Klan and used the N word more frequently than Chris Rock.  Why is it that slavery has been ascribed to the country as a whole when by and large slavery and segregation lie at the feet of one political party?  

4.) Russel Wilson is also the descendant of Slave owners.  If you or anyone thinks that you have pure lineage then you're kidding yourselves.  Not only did blacks enslave other blacks in Africa, (then and now) but blacks owned slaves in the CSA.  Oprah's family owned slaves, Kamala Harris' Family owned slaves etc. etc. etc.  

5.) Heritage doesn't have squat to do with immigration policy.  "As a descendant of a slave I think 2 + 2 = 6"  Life doesn't work that way.  In order to acknowledge that the individual has sovereignty we should strip the sovereignty of the state?  In what world does that make sense?

---

I think I'm having a change of heart. I mean, the Freedman's Bureau Act allows refugees and freedman MALES to rent no more than 40 acres at 6%, plus taxes. After three years, there was the ability to purchase for around $10 per acre. So, we can take this a few ways.

1.) Reparations only apply to male descendants
2.) Any male who wishes to apply for these reparations may do so through the Agriculture Department, with a promise to farm for at least three years. The land would be rented for three years at 6% interest with a balloon due at the end of three years.
3.) Any male identified as eligible for reparations may elect to receive the going rate of acreage at the time of wrongdoing (1860-1864) instead of farming. A check for $40, less applicable taxes, would be issued.
4.) Open the program up to females also with same terms.

Also, if reparations are decided to be paid for the past atrocities, all other "reparations-like" programs administered by the government shall be abolished now that the wrong has been righted. There shall be no other future recourse upon ratifying legislation.

Can we also institute a fine for all future applications of the Race Card?

I mean reparations fixes all, right?

---

Russel Wilson recently made a comment about immigration and qualified his position with the trope "As a Descendant of Slaves" etc. etc. With all the talk of reparations, I thought it would be worth pointing out that slavery is probably one of the most ubiquitous institutions in human history.  If you go back far enough, everyone everywhere is descendant of a slave.  And historically Slavery isn't exclusive to blacks.  In fact, the term SLAVE is derivative of SLAV who were a European ethnic group more historically associated with Slavery than Africans.  

Why is the left allowed to perpetuate the FEELING that slavery only started in 1776 as an institution created by whites for blacks?

The ancient Egyptians enslaved Israelites. I'm pretty sure the word used for them was not a derivative of Slav.

Russel Wilson is a descendant of slaves brought to this country legally. Our government sanctioned the practice and was responsible.The bad guy is easily identified. Whether or not you think reparations are justified, your idea that we all descended from slaves is not only untrue, it's irrelevant.

I think he meant the English word is derived from a European root not so much the institution. Unless I got wooshed and didn't realize it.

---

I'm condescending. That means I talk down to you. 
Check out the Jag's Forum Alternative: Duval Football Fans.

The ancient Egyptians enslaved Israelites. I'm pretty sure the word used for them was not a derivative of Slav.

Russel Wilson is a descendant of slaves brought to this country legally. Our government sanctioned the practice and was responsible.The bad guy is easily identified. Whether or not you think reparations are justified, your idea that we all descended from slaves is not only untrue, it's irrelevant.

What?

People like you are just so pathetically sad and guilt-ridden.

The bad guy is easily identified? Dude... according to whom? The British at the time? It was a practice done around the world especially in developing countries which the US very much was and the British very much weren't.

And yes, we are ALL descended from slaves you nitwit. All of us. And why is that any more irrelevant than Russell Wilson great great great great great grandparents?

So we're name calling now, are we? 

So, because the British weren't a developing country it was easier for them to denounce slavery? That's the dumbest thing I've read today, but it's early.

I know for a fact I'm not descended from slaves brought to this country. That's what's relevant to this discussion. Whether or not slavery was practiced elsewhere is irrelevant. That slavery is morally wrong, and that it was sanctioned and even encouraged by state governments, allowed by the national government, and that even after slavery was abolished there was systematic oppression and discrimination against African-Americans slaves for at least another 100 years is what's relevaNt.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Ur right. Historical context doesn't matter. The nation's that sold us the slaves don't matter. The fact that native Americans owned slaves even after the civil war doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is bashing America.

---

Ur right.  Historical context doesn't matter.  The nation's that sold us the slaves don't matter.  The fact that native Americans owned slaves even after the civil war doesn't matter.  The only thing that matters is bashing America.

That's a pathetic distortion. There was substantial opposition to the practice of slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries. It was in no way a universally accepted practice.

I am bashing slavery, Jim Crow and institutional discrimination. They were perpetuated by Americans.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Ur right.  Historical context doesn't matter.  The nation's that sold us the slaves don't matter.  The fact that native Americans owned slaves even after the civil war doesn't matter.  The only thing that matters is bashing America.

That's a pathetic distortion. There was substantial opposition to the practice of slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries. It was in no way a universally accepted practice.

I am bashing slavery, Jim Crow and institutional discrimination. They were perpetuated by Americans.

"Were" is the key word. You should be more concerned about the new form of slavery the Democrats created that we are still seeing now.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Ur right.  Historical context doesn't matter.  The nation's that sold us the slaves don't matter.  The fact that native Americans owned slaves even after the civil war doesn't matter.  The only thing that matters is bashing America.

That's a pathetic distortion. There was substantial opposition to the practice of slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries. It was in no way a universally accepted practice.

I am bashing slavery, Jim Crow and institutional discrimination. They were perpetuated by Americans.

True.  And that was reflected in the discourse at the founding.  It wasn't some institution deemed the foundation of the Union.  Quite the opposite, just read the declaration of independence.  

And to be more accurate, they were perpetuated by democrats.

---

I think I'm having a change of heart. I mean, the Freedman's Bureau Act allows refugees and freedman MALES to rent no more than 40 acres at 6%, plus taxes. After three years, there was the ability to purchase for around $10 per acre. So, we can take this a few ways.

1.) Reparations only apply to male descendants
2.) Any male who wishes to apply for these reparations may do so through the Agriculture Department, with a promise to farm for at least three years. The land would be rented for three years at 6% interest with a balloon due at the end of three years.
3.) Any male identified as eligible for reparations may elect to receive the going rate of acreage at the time of wrongdoing (1860-1864) instead of farming. A check for $40, less applicable taxes, would be issued.
4.) Open the program up to females also with same terms.

Also, if reparations are decided to be paid for the past atrocities, all other "reparations-like" programs administered by the government shall be abolished now that the wrong has been righted. There shall be no other future recourse upon ratifying legislation.

Black folks tried to get their 40 acres and a mule, but it was awfully hard when they had no money, and when all of the stores that might have sold them seed and supplies on credit refused as a matter of racist principle.

Read a history book sometime.  It's all there.

---

That's a pathetic distortion. There was substantial opposition to the practice of slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries. It was in no way a universally accepted practice.

I am bashing slavery, Jim Crow and institutional discrimination. They were perpetuated by Americans.

"Were" is the key word. You should be more concerned about the new form of slavery the Democrats created that we are still seeing now.

Taxation isn't slavery, homeslice.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I don't know anybody in real life who thinks that paying reparations is possible or desirable.

Personally, I acknowledge that this country owes the descendants of slaves something.

At the very least, we should acknowledge how a lot of the intense economic development that happened in the Americas during the years 1500 to 1890, that we still enjoy the fruits of today, was on their uncompensated and abused backs. That's like morally the bare minimum. Acknowledge it and don't make excuses for it.

The next thing we can do is recognize that this gives our government, which aided and abetted this practice for so long, a duty to specially uplift communities of color. I think we can do that through certain color blind policies that are targeted at the poor in general.

1.) That's not true.  If Slavery in and of itself was a catalyst for massive economic growth then the societies that practice it today wouldn't be economically backward.  The south would have been leading in economic development instead of lagging for so long.  The German Miracle post WWII had nothing to do with Slavery.  The Japanese expansion had nothing to do with slavery.  Hong Kong had nothing to do with Slavery.  Etc.  The argument that America's wealth especially current wealth is as a result of slavery is asinine.  

2.) As for the idea that government intervention lifts anyone up, the facts, again, are against you.  Since the declaration of a War on poverty we have redistributed more than 20 trillion dollars in welfare and entitlements.  We spend more than any country in the history of mankind on public schools.  The poverty rate is almost identical to when we got started in the first place.  Where is the dividend that Government intervention is some magic boon that will uplift the huddled masses?The benefits haven't been felt, but the underlying insolvency of large entitlements will be.    

During the whole of slavery and segregation A black child had a far greater chance of being raised in a two parent household than they do today.  During the post WWII era between 45 and 60 Black men owned businesses at a rate of 40%, Blacks lead middle class expansion, black teen unemployment was lower than whites and marriage rates were equivalent to or higher than that of their white counterparts.  Over that time the poverty rate shrank from 87% to 47%, one of the most dramatic economic expansions  in history just based on the numbers, let alone the backdrop of Jim Crow.  What happened?  "Hello, I'm from the government and I'm here to help!"  We instituted programs that subsidized abandonment and did what 400 years of slavery and a hundred years of Jim Crow couldn't do, we destroyed the black nuclear family.  

3.) Why is it always the GOVERNMENT in general that takes the blame.  In 1860 all slaves were owned by democrats.  Jim Crow Laws were PASSED by Democrats.  Social Security was passed with the explicit promise that it wouldn't cover certain black dominated industries, and in exchange for not passing anti lynching laws.  FDR appointed a former klansman to SCOTUS Truman's secretary of state talked about America as a white country, LBJ is suspected of being affiliated with The Klan and used the N word more frequently than Chris Rock.  Why is it that slavery has been ascribed to the country as a whole when by and large slavery and segregation lie at the feet of one political party?  

4.) Russel Wilson is also the descendant of Slave owners.  If you or anyone thinks that you have pure lineage then you're kidding yourselves.  Not only did blacks enslave other blacks in Africa, (then and now) but blacks owned slaves in the CSA.  Oprah's family owned slaves, Kamala Harris' Family owned slaves etc. etc. etc.  

5.) Heritage doesn't have squat to do with immigration policy.  "As a descendant of a slave I think 2 + 2 = 6"  Life doesn't work that way.  In order to acknowledge that the individual has sovereignty we should strip the sovereignty of the state?  In what world does that make sense?

1) Slavery is a boon to pre-industrial societies. In a pre-industrial society things like houses and roads are built by slaves, and the harvesting and extraction is done by slaves. The houses and roads persist as the society industrializes. But high rates of slavery also held those same societies back from industrializing. An industrial society like post world War II Germany does not just emerge ex nihilio. it always emerges from a pre-industrial society, or as a colony of a society that is already industrialized, as was the case in Hong Kong. the industrial revolution had not yet taken place at the time of American independence.

2) your numbers are probably out of date.  Families of all races are decaying, and last I checked, a black child is more likely to live with his biological father than a white child, today.

3) it's much easier to leave or join a political  party than it is to leave or join a country.  So it's much easier to argue that the country as a whole bears moral debts from events 50 or 150 years ago, than it is to claim that a political party does.

4) blacks owning slaves was rare on this continent. Again, the whole point is what condition they were in as they immigrated, to explain why they immigrated.  Discussing conditions in Africa, past or present, is besides the point, and it invites a conversation about the history of colonies like Liberia and Congo, that I don't think you want to have..

5) Russell Wilson's story frustrates both of the leading narratives of immigration. Trump supporters like to brag about how their ancestors came here legally... Of course they did! there were no immigration laws back then, is that what they want to return to. Democrats like to quote the statue of liberty's poem, as if, in the age of airplanes and interstate highways, we can afford to have the same attitudes about migration that we had in the age of steamships and steam locomotives. Russell Wilson shows that both narratives are missing a lot of pertinent facts.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I think I'm having a change of heart. I mean, the Freedman's Bureau Act allows refugees and freedman MALES to rent no more than 40 acres at 6%, plus taxes. After three years, there was the ability to purchase for around $10 per acre. So, we can take this a few ways.

1.) Reparations only apply to male descendants
2.) Any male who wishes to apply for these reparations may do so through the Agriculture Department, with a promise to farm for at least three years. The land would be rented for three years at 6% interest with a balloon due at the end of three years.
3.) Any male identified as eligible for reparations may elect to receive the going rate of acreage at the time of wrongdoing (1860-1864) instead of farming. A check for $40, less applicable taxes, would be issued.
4.) Open the program up to females also with same terms.

Also, if reparations are decided to be paid for the past atrocities, all other "reparations-like" programs administered by the government shall be abolished now that the wrong has been righted. There shall be no other future recourse upon ratifying legislation.

Black folks tried to get their 40 acres and a mule, but it was awfully hard when they had no money, and when all of the stores that might have sold them seed and supplies on credit refused as a matter of racist principle.

Read a history book sometime.  It's all there.

---

"Were" is the key word. You should be more concerned about the new form of slavery the Democrats created that we are still seeing now.

Taxation isn't slavery, homeslice.

To fund functions not enumerated in the constitution it actually is a form of slavery homeslice.

---

Black folks tried to get their 40 acres and a mule, but it was awfully hard when they had no money, and when all of the stores that might have sold them seed and supplies on credit refused as a matter of racist principle.

Read a history book sometime.  It's all there.

---

Taxation isn't slavery, homeslice.

To fund functions not enumerated in the constitution it actually is a form of slavery homeslice.

I think if you had actually experienced slavery your view on that matter may change.
It's an extremely silly comparison.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

To fund functions not enumerated in the constitution it actually is a form of slavery homeslice.

I think if you had actually experienced slavery your view on that matter may change.
It's an extremely silly comparison.

I said a form of, not actually picking cotton under a whip.  If u had actually taken the time to...

Nevermind

---

I think I'm having a change of heart. I mean, the Freedman's Bureau Act allows refugees and freedman MALES to rent no more than 40 acres at 6%, plus taxes. After three years, there was the ability to purchase for around $10 per acre. So, we can take this a few ways.

1.) Reparations only apply to male descendants
2.) Any male who wishes to apply for these reparations may do so through the Agriculture Department, with a promise to farm for at least three years. The land would be rented for three years at 6% interest with a balloon due at the end of three years.
3.) Any male identified as eligible for reparations may elect to receive the going rate of acreage at the time of wrongdoing (1860-1864) instead of farming. A check for $40, less applicable taxes, would be issued.
4.) Open the program up to females also with same terms.

Also, if reparations are decided to be paid for the past atrocities, all other "reparations-like" programs administered by the government shall be abolished now that the wrong has been righted. There shall be no other future recourse upon ratifying legislation.

Black folks tried to get their 40 acres and a mule, but it was awfully hard when they had no money, and when all of the stores that might have sold them seed and supplies on credit refused as a matter of racist principle.

Read a history book sometime.  It's all there.

---

"Were" is the key word. You should be more concerned about the new form of slavery the Democrats created that we are still seeing now.

Taxation isn't slavery, homeslice.

Well, it's good that I wasn't talking specifically about taxation then, though in actuality it is both a form of slavery and theft, since they are both the forcible confiscation of a person's life.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

1.) That's not true.  If Slavery in and of itself was a catalyst for massive economic growth then the societies that practice it today wouldn't be economically backward.  The south would have been leading in economic development instead of lagging for so long.  The German Miracle post WWII had nothing to do with Slavery.  The Japanese expansion had nothing to do with slavery.  Hong Kong had nothing to do with Slavery.  Etc.  The argument that America's wealth especially current wealth is as a result of slavery is asinine.  

2.) As for the idea that government intervention lifts anyone up, the facts, again, are against you.  Since the declaration of a War on poverty we have redistributed more than 20 trillion dollars in welfare and entitlements.  We spend more than any country in the history of mankind on public schools.  The poverty rate is almost identical to when we got started in the first place.  Where is the dividend that Government intervention is some magic boon that will uplift the huddled masses?The benefits haven't been felt, but the underlying insolvency of large entitlements will be.    

During the whole of slavery and segregation A black child had a far greater chance of being raised in a two parent household than they do today.  During the post WWII era between 45 and 60 Black men owned businesses at a rate of 40%, Blacks lead middle class expansion, black teen unemployment was lower than whites and marriage rates were equivalent to or higher than that of their white counterparts.  Over that time the poverty rate shrank from 87% to 47%, one of the most dramatic economic expansions  in history just based on the numbers, let alone the backdrop of Jim Crow.  What happened?  "Hello, I'm from the government and I'm here to help!"  We instituted programs that subsidized abandonment and did what 400 years of slavery and a hundred years of Jim Crow couldn't do, we destroyed the black nuclear family.  

3.) Why is it always the GOVERNMENT in general that takes the blame.  In 1860 all slaves were owned by democrats.  Jim Crow Laws were PASSED by Democrats.  Social Security was passed with the explicit promise that it wouldn't cover certain black dominated industries, and in exchange for not passing anti lynching laws.  FDR appointed a former klansman to SCOTUS Truman's secretary of state talked about America as a white country, LBJ is suspected of being affiliated with The Klan and used the N word more frequently than Chris Rock.  Why is it that slavery has been ascribed to the country as a whole when by and large slavery and segregation lie at the feet of one political party?  

4.) Russel Wilson is also the descendant of Slave owners.  If you or anyone thinks that you have pure lineage then you're kidding yourselves.  Not only did blacks enslave other blacks in Africa, (then and now) but blacks owned slaves in the CSA.  Oprah's family owned slaves, Kamala Harris' Family owned slaves etc. etc. etc.  

5.) Heritage doesn't have squat to do with immigration policy.  "As a descendant of a slave I think 2 + 2 = 6"  Life doesn't work that way.  In order to acknowledge that the individual has sovereignty we should strip the sovereignty of the state?  In what world does that make sense?

1) Slavery is a boon to pre-industrial societies. In a pre-industrial society things like houses and roads are built by slaves, and the harvesting and extraction is done by slaves. The houses and roads persist as the society industrializes. But high rates of slavery also held those same societies back from industrializing. An industrial society like post world War II Germany does not just emerge ex nihilio. it always emerges from a pre-industrial society, or as a colony of a society that is already industrialized, as was the case in Hong Kong. the industrial revolution had not yet taken place at the time of American independence.

Not all pre-industrial societies emerge as industrial powers.  There were countless societies that had slaves but never emerged as industrial powers.  One of the main catalyzing factors between a society like Europe and that of Africa.  The biggest actually being the access to navigable waterways and ports.  With the advent of Sea travel that was the first iteration of what we now relate to as the internet-the free flow of ideas and information between societies.  That was the foundation of the innovation and development that lead to industrialization etc.  It's also not a mistake that the industrial revolution happened sans the Wealth of nations & the concept of individual liberty, free markets, Capitalism and the primacy of individualism.

Also as you pointed out, free consensual societies have been empirically proven to be economically superior to coerced societies and systems of slavery.  A free employee or contractor pursuing their own interest is demonstrably more productive and thus more profitable than a slave.  The over reliance on slave labor and a reluctance to innovate was one of the main reasons that the South lagged behind the north not only at the time of the civil war but for several generations afterward.  

2) your numbers are probably out of date.  Families of all races are decaying, and last I checked, a black child is more likely to live with his biological father than a white child, today.

Last you checked?  28% of black kids live in two parent households.  51% of Hispanic kids, 72% of whites Asians and jewish americans are 80% plus.  Also this isn't a legacy of slavery.  AS mentioned, you were orders of magnitude more likely to live with your father as a black child in the 19th century than the 21st.  Freed slaves worked against all odds to reunite and in some cases buy back their family members.  The modern trait of abandonment isn't a symptom of racism or segregation, its a symptom of secular progressivism and unfortunately, as you stated, it is spreading.  

3) it's much easier to leave or join a political  party than it is to leave or join a country. 

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

So it's much easier to argue that the country as a whole bears moral debts from events 50 or 150 years ago, than it is to claim that a political party does.

As such you have perfectly underscored the reason that collective guilt is an asinine concept.  However, the idea that the democratic party can take so much credit for the proliferation of slavery, passing all the laws on segregation, on and on and then turn around and try to claim the moral high ground and bash the country as a whole for their own actions is one of the biggest political con jobs in history.  

4) blacks owning slaves was rare on this continent. Again, the whole point is what condition they were in as they immigrated, to explain why they immigrated.  Discussing conditions in Africa, past or present, is besides the point, and it invites a conversation about the history of colonies like Liberia and Congo, that I don't think you want to have..

Some studies show an ownership rate among free blacks in the south equal to or in some cases higher than their white counterparts.  Some of the biggest supporters of the confederacy were black.  Some owned and bread slaves etc. etc. etc.  Not to mention all slaves were bought from tribes in their native countries.  

5) Russell Wilson's story frustrates both of the leading narratives of immigration. Trump supporters like to brag about how their ancestors came here legally... Of course they did! there were no immigration laws back then, is that what they want to return to.

Tell that to Wong Kim Ark.  The constitution has always delegated to congress the ability to set parameters for immigration, naturalization, citizenship etc. etc. etc.  Ellis Island was a buffer to screen for disease.  

Democrats like to quote the statue of liberty's poem, as if, in the age of airplanes and interstate highways, we can afford to have the same attitudes about migration that we had in the age of steamships and steam locomotives. Russell Wilson shows that both narratives are missing a lot of pertinent facts.

No Russell Wilson doesn't have an argument.  He has a feeling.  His lineage to slavery has jack all to do with the amount of people that can be assimilated into this country annually and does nothing to increase the amount of resources available to sustain them once they get here.  It also doesn't give him any more or less authority on the matter.  

The 14th amendment was passed specifically to address the citizenship of slaves.  That has nothing to do with economic migrants who don't like the fact that we have an immigration policy.

---

To fund functions not enumerated in the constitution it actually is a form of slavery homeslice.

I think if you had actually experienced slavery your view on that matter may change.
It's an extremely silly comparison.

It's quite funny that you are lecturing him on the slavery experience. Are you speaking from first hand knowledge? Because it really seems like you think your experience is more relevant than his.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I was thinking the same thing. Not a line one wants to cross.

Muhammad Ali had no problem crossing it:

“Thank God my granddaddy got on that boat.”

— 1974 response when asked for his impression of Africa

Who is going to give him grief about saying it? Black folks can say it but watch what happens when a white person say it.

---

To fund functions not enumerated in the constitution it actually is a form of slavery homeslice.

I think if you had actually experienced slavery your view on that matter may change.
It's an extremely silly comparison.

There's not a single person alive who has actually experienced slavery as an institution in the US so you have made a pretty silly qualification.

---