• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate Approves $4.6 Billion for Claims by Black Farmers, American Indians

I think that when you systematically use the power of government to effectively screw and entire race of people that the gravity of that matters a whole hell of a lot more than the statute of limitations.

but thats just me...

So like I said, if one of my ancestors was part of a group that was systematically screwed by a government 500 years ago, I should get a check in the mail?

What is the statute of limitation on the Indian claim in this case?

Depends on what claims we're talking about. If the Indians are getting paid out for the same discrimination claims that the blacks are (discrimination in the USDA in the 70-90s), then it probably hasn't run. If they're complaining about discrimination in the 1800's, it's run.
 
So like I said, if one of my ancestors was part of a group that was systematically screwed by a government 500 years ago, I should get a check in the mail?



Depends on what claims we're talking about. If the Indians are getting paid out for the same discrimination claims that the blacks are (discrimination in the USDA in the 70-90s), then it probably hasn't run. If they're complaining about discrimination in the 1800's, it's run.

The Indians claim is not discrimination, but missappropriation of royalties owed to them by the Federal government (money the government handled due to use of Indian lands for mining, agriculture use dating back to the late 1800's
 
RightinNYC

Did you ever see a comedian named Kevin Meaney who was mildly big about a dozen years ago? He used to do this routine on stage where he would talk about the concerns some folks had about certain things that sounded legit and had merit. Then he would say something like "and you know how i feel about that?" And the band would break out into tune and he would sing the old song I don't care, I don't care, I don't care I don't care I don't care". And he would repeat that poking fun at the objections to an otherwise solid idea or point.

I guess that is how I feel about the whole statute of limitations thing and the Native Americans. When you consider what was done to them, I really don't care about the statute or if it was honored or not.
 
What both sides keep doing is over-reading their mandate and turning independents off. You watch, if Republicans try to shut down government or start talking impeachment, they'll turn independents off again.

You can't with without independents and independents largely want things done and want them done quickly and efficiently.


Well, although we can't be 100% sure what is going to happen in the future, I don't think impeachment is on the table. However, investigations into how, or why certain things done, and passed may not be constitutional, and have those righted is a good thing.

If Repubs get back to following the constitution before trying to pull fast ones like the current set of clowns, then they will be rewarded with longevity in their positions.

j-mac
 
Well, although we can't be 100% sure what is going to happen in the future, I don't think impeachment is on the table. However, investigations into how, or why certain things done, and passed may not be constitutional, and have those righted is a good thing.

If Repubs get back to following the constitution before trying to pull fast ones like the current set of clowns, then they will be rewarded with longevity in their positions.

j-mac

Michelle Bachmann: "Whether or not this is an impeachable offense is one that the Congress would have to make a determination on."

That's impeachment talk, ain't it?

US Faces 'Disaster' from Financial Reform Bill, Bachmann Warns

If you guys keep electing people like that, I don't think it will good for you long-term at all. This is, after all, one of the Tea Party darlings who also goes on national television and lies about the cost of a presidential trip.
 
Here. Does this seem like something worth looking into? Or are we going to keep turning a blind eye to possible corruption? I hope the Republican's really do put a new face on Washington. The one it's wearing now is really ugly.

.Zombie » Pigford v. Glickman: 86,000 claims from 39,697 total farmers?

scooped again, and again, you've gone further than i, you're ahead of me

thanks

what exactly did the sherrod's new communities do, or, better, exactly what was done to them, to warrant their being awarded 12.8M gratis from ag

and why the 330K for mental anguish

sounds awfully soft to me

either way, she should never have been fired, one of the white house's most weak kneed moments, and there have been quite a few of those

thanks for the intel, friend, knowledge is power

Pigford v. Glickman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The Indians claim is not discrimination, but missappropriation of royalties owed to them by the Federal government (money the government handled due to use of Indian lands for mining, agriculture use dating back to the late 1800's

In that case, I would imagine that most of the earlier claims are time-barred, and they're just being mentioned by the press as additional color for the story.

RightinNYC

Did you ever see a comedian named Kevin Meaney who was mildly big about a dozen years ago? He used to do this routine on stage where he would talk about the concerns some folks had about certain things that sounded legit and had merit. Then he would say something like "and you know how i feel about that?" And the band would break out into tune and he would sing the old song I don't care, I don't care, I don't care I don't care I don't care". And he would repeat that poking fun at the objections to an otherwise solid idea or point.

I guess that is how I feel about the whole statute of limitations thing and the Native Americans. When you consider what was done to them, I really don't care about the statute or if it was honored or not.

You're still not answering my question.

"If one of my ancestors was part of a group that was systematically screwed by a government 500 years ago, should I get a check in the mail?"

Michelle Bachmann: "Whether or not this is an impeachable offense is one that the Congress would have to make a determination on."

That's impeachment talk, ain't it?

One person talking about impeachment =/= "impeachment is on the table."
 
Rightin NYC

"If one of my ancestors was part of a group that was systematically screwed by a government 500 years ago, should I get a check in the mail?"

Let me be blunt and direct about this. All of us probably had family who got screwed by the system somewhere down the line. I admit that. But what we did to the Native Americans is of such a magnitude and disgrace that I believe it trumps any complains you or I might have.

Is that a legal principle you can build a case on? Nope. But it is how i feel about this. And the law be damned.
 
Rightin NYC



Let me be blunt and direct about this. All of us probably had family who got screwed by the system somewhere down the line. I admit that. But what we did to the Native Americans is of such a magnitude and disgrace that I believe it trumps any complains you or I might have.

And you're basing this on...?

Unless you're arguing that the US's treatment of NA's was more brutal than any government's treatment of anyone else in history, this is an absolutely untenable position.

Is that a legal principle you can build a case on? Nope. But it is how i feel about this. And the law be damned.

Well, fortunately the legal system doesn't operate based on irrational emotion.
 
Michelle Bachmann: "Whether or not this is an impeachable offense is one that the Congress would have to make a determination on."

That's impeachment talk, ain't it?


Well, as someone already said, one rep doesn't speak for the entire body. But if there is something there I am sure you wouldn't want it overlooked just because it is Obama we are speaking of would you?


j-mac
 
Well, as someone already said, one rep doesn't speak for the entire body. But if there is something there I am sure you wouldn't want it overlooked just because it is Obama we are speaking of would you?


j-mac

ok, then what is there to look at
 
I can't wait to see where Obama and the Senate get 22,974,655 mules to give to black people not to mention 40 acres of arable land to each of them, but then with today's technology they can grow in the desert and since the Federal Government owns most of Nevada they can have that. This is based on the promise of Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman in January 1865 and we might want to revisit it now that Mr. Apologize is in the house .

This is political correctness has run amuck and sooner or later it has got to be stopped or it will either kill this Nation the rest of the way or I fear there will be a very Violent backlash.

I believe they did this because in court the Plaintiffs might have had to prove damages and they can't because they were not even born.
 
Last edited:
I can't wait to see where Obama and the Senate get 22,974,655 mules to give to black people not to mention 40 acres of arable land to each of them, but then with today's technology they can grow in the desert and since the Federal Government owns most of Nevada they can have that. This is based on the promise of Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman in January 1865 and we might want to revisit it now that Mr. Apologize is in the house .

This is political correctness has run amuck and sooner or later it has got to be stopped or it will either kill this Nation the rest of the way or I fear there will be a very Violent backlash.

I believe they did this because in court the Plaintiffs might have had to prove damages and they can't because they were not even born.

Alaska has alot of land too.
 
They're worse than ever because white people don't like the fact that brown people have positions of power. Period. I'm sick of white people whining all the time. You are not worse off because of brown people. You're worse off because rich white people on Wall Street stole your retirmement and devalued your home with unethical investment tools, got a bailout from both parties, and gave themselves Billions in bonuses.

They want you to be angry at brown people because it keeps the poor and middle class at war with themselves while they get richer and richer and richer off of their unscrupulous tactics.

If working people of all races would stop being whiny little bitches about race and fighting with one another, maybe we could get back to an economy that values WORK instead of the ability to craft schemes that make them richer by shuffling **** around.

You worry about this bill, but you don't worry about the fact that a "farmer" from Tennessee runs for office on "smaller government" but has collected $20 million in government farm subsidies over the past decade? Imagine how many others like him are making a killing off your tax dollars. But that doesn't bother us because their white? Is that the point?



Only white farmers get subsidies?

I'm sick of people, who want to lay on their ass, waiting for a check, because they think they've been oppressed in the freest country in the history of the world.
 
Rightin NYC



Let me be blunt and direct about this. All of us probably had family who got screwed by the system somewhere down the line. I admit that. But what we did to the Native Americans is of such a magnitude and disgrace that I believe it trumps any complains you or I might have.

Is that a legal principle you can build a case on? Nope. But it is how i feel about this. And the law be damned.

Because, they're indians. Right? If these were white folks, crying about gett ass ****ed more than a century ago, you would say, "tuff ****".
 
And you're basing this on...?

Unless you're arguing that the US's treatment of NA's was more brutal than any government's treatment of anyone else in history, this is an absolutely untenable position.



Well, fortunately the legal system doesn't operate based on irrational emotion.

I really don't care what kind of position it is. Nor do I care how the legal system operates. It is what it is and I make no apologies for it not will I try to justify it. Do with it what you will.
I
Don't
Care.
 
Because, they're indians. Right? If these were white folks, crying about gett ass ****ed more than a century ago, you would say, "tuff ****".

Perhaps they'll deduct whatever lives were lost at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. Almost half the cavalrymen were not Americans (Irish, German, Canadian, etc.) so there might be some reparations made for the descendants of these people too.
 
I really don't care what kind of position it is. Nor do I care how the legal system operates. It is what it is and I make no apologies for it not will I try to justify it. Do with it what you will.
I
Don't
Care.

That sort of attitude tends to lessen the spirit of the debate.
 
That sort of attitude tends to lessen the spirit of the debate.

If that is how you see it - that is your right. How I see it is this: we screwed over these folks royally. Now the Senate jumps in to remedy the situation. A few would throw up the narrow legalistic argument of a statute of limitations. That sort of thing applies to litigation in the courts and not Congressional action. If that is all you got - I don't care about such trivial legalisms which don't even apply here.
 
If that is how you see it - that is your right. How I see it is this: we screwed over these folks royally. Now the Senate jumps in to remedy the situation. A few would throw up the narrow legalistic argument of a statute of limitations. That sort of thing applies to litigation in the courts and not Congressional action. If that is all you got - I don't care about such trivial legalisms which don't even apply here.


So when it suits you, the rule of law is thrown out because you think that a group of people were screwed by the forming of this country hundreds of years ago? And in your mind then how long should the descendants of these peoples be able to lay claim to their ancestors hardships? 3rd generation? 4th, 5th? How long do they get to whine, and cry about how hard they have it while living in a country where we make a rock quarry owner with too much stone, a millionaire for placing a stone in a box, and marketing it as adopting a pet rock? Really? How long do we as a nation allow this collective guilt of existence rule our actions and afford large settlements to groups of people that are suing in numbers 3 times that of documented black farmers at the time? Hell, I have a garden, and I am descended from Irish immigrants during the potato famine. Can I get a piece of this blatant money grab?

What a joke.


j-mac
 
So when it suits you, the rule of law is thrown out because you think that a group of people were screwed by the forming of this country hundreds of years ago? And in your mind then how long should the descendants of these peoples be able to lay claim to their ancestors hardships? 3rd generation? 4th, 5th? How long do they get to whine, and cry about how hard they have it while living in a country where we make a rock quarry owner with too much stone, a millionaire for placing a stone in a box, and marketing it as adopting a pet rock? Really? How long do we as a nation allow this collective guilt of existence rule our actions and afford large settlements to groups of people that are suing in numbers 3 times that of documented black farmers at the time? Hell, I have a garden, and I am descended from Irish immigrants during the potato famine. Can I get a piece of this blatant money grab?

What a joke.


j-mac
the joke, and it's a poor one, is your post
terming the appropriation of a court ordered settlement a 'money grab'
the Native Indian claim took 12 trials to conclude ... over decades
the black farmers were twice reamed; first when they were denied farm loans because of their color and again, in the processing of claims for that injustice. federal employees were responsible for withholding those federal loans, just as federal employees were responsible for mismanagement of the revenues due the Indians for extraction of minerals on their lands, and for selling Indian land to individuals
the court found both parties were entitled to be made whole. justice was finally delivered, despite its being delayed
 
the joke, and it's a poor one, is your post

Great opening to foster reasoned debate. I bet you are a real hoot in person. :roll:


terming the appropriation of a court ordered settlement a 'money grab'
the Native Indian claim took 12 trials to conclude ... over decades

We should do what we can to help the NA tribes that are mired in abject poverty through development, and schools to help them succeed in this country. Money handouts is NOT the answer. Teach a man to fish.

the black farmers were twice reamed; first when they were denied farm loans because of their color and again, in the processing of claims for that injustice. federal employees were responsible for withholding those federal loans, just as federal employees were responsible for mismanagement of the revenues due the Indians for extraction of minerals on their lands, and for selling Indian land to individuals
the court found both parties were entitled to be made whole. justice was finally delivered, despite its being delayed

Yeah, tell that to someone who doesn't know the deal pal...."Pigford v. Glickman: 86,000 claims from 39,697 total farmers?"

Zombie » Pigford v. Glickman: 86,000 claims from 39,697 total farmers?


j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom