There is an important concept in Western jurisprudence of which you are apparently ignorant. It is called ex post facto law, which is expressly forbiden in the US Constitution. Your advocacy of ex post facto solutions for political grievances is anti-western and unconstitutional. There is no debating this.
To make something retroactively illegal, and to hope to penalize people who were not even alive when the act in question occurred, is the essence of tyranny. Who can know what lawful actions today will be penalized tomorrow depending upon future political whims?
Calling people names and invoking Hitler in a debate is simply proof that you not only do not know how to conduct a civil debate, but your point is indefensible.
Truth is not black or white in the sense that some truth is for blacks and some truth is for whites. The truth IS black and white when it comes to whether or not ex post facto laws are wrong.
The remedy for slavery was to set the slaves free. Get off of the lawsuit plantation and act like a free moral agent, and stop trying to milk ancient grievances for cash – and self-righteousness.
Let\’s not get stuck on stupid here with comparing the Black Slavery Reparations suits to the Holocaust survivor settlements. The reason why the LIVING Holocaust survivors received compensation is because they themselves had personally been victimized and they had proof supported by scads of documentation that their money, their homes and their means of earning a living were seized by the Nazis and Nazi collaborators. The children, grandchildren, etc of DECEASED Holocaust victims & survivors were prohibited from suing or receiving any settlement due to the fact that they personally did not lose property, life or limb. Second, these Holocaust suits were not well receieved by all in the American Jewish community because of the fact that innocent people who had nthing to do with the Holocaust would be potentially financially harmed. Elderly annutitants with annuities which they rely on for modest interest incomes from Allianz for example.
But the Black Slavery Reparations suits are being brought by descendents of American blacks who have been long dead(not all whom were slaves). These blacks suing today did NOT suffer loss of their own property, or freedom at the hand of the slavery profiteers. Therein lies the big difference between the Holocaust settlements and the Black Slavery Reparations suits.
Now, even though individuals themselves are not being targeted by this greed-driven reparations suit, the public at large will suffer as companies like Aetna are forced to jack up their already unaffordable health insurance rates to pass on the costs of litigation defense or settlement to the public customers at large. So guess what that means for those struggling to afford health insurance and healthcare on their own? Guess what that will do for the prices of life and long term care insurance products? Guess what it will do in the property & casualty industry as well? As these companies trim costs to help offset the losses due to this litigation, tons of jobs will be eliminated, and rates will be raised across the board, too.
You think insurance rates are unaffordable and insureds are b*tching about their rates now, just you wait and see. The thing that has me extremely resentful is that my ancestors fled the pogroms of eastern Europe and came here – long after slavery was no longer an issue. My people were impoverished Jews who lived in the shtetles of eastern Europe. My ancestors had NOTHING to do with slavery in America! Yet I and everybody else, will have to suffer unjust economic hardship as a direct result of the fallout from these reparations suits because corporations pass on their losses to the public by way of higher prices, reduced services and job cuts. I think I will personally counter-sue the twit that initiated this case for attempting to cause me economic harm for no reason at all because she certainly did not suffer as a result of slavery and she certainly got alot more of a helping hand to make it in life than I ever did. (So much for the white privilege nonsense!)
She enjoyed far more unearned social privileges than I ever did or ever will (unless I get lucky and hit the Powerball jackpot), getting to go to Harvard Law School and all – while I had to scrape and struggle, incurring tens of thousands of dollars in unaffordable student loan debt just to go to a crappy state college in order to try to climb out of poverty not be able to go on to ANY law school, never mind Harvard or Yale, because there simply is no equivelent hand-outs for low-income white people who are economically disadvantaged by reason of disability or age or socio-economic status.
Yet she wants to indirectly extort money from me and every other American citizen – whether they be less fortunate than her or not, just because she and all her plaintiffs are greedy and adept at playing the race card. I had to scrape and struggle from the very bottom to get modestly successful through self-employment because even with a college degree in IT, nobody wanted to hire a disabled 30-something yr old college grad seeking to re-enter the workforce when there were plenty of younger, non-disabled 23 yr olds to choose from. So I had to create my own job opportunity to try and make a living – on nothing to start out with, either.
I resent these race-baiting greeds who want to cause me more economic hardship (on top of what I have already suffered as a disabled woman) that I don\’t deserve to have to suffer as a result of these costly lawsuits which have NO merit, period. People like that are what is wrong with this country and our legal system.
You still display ignorance of the basic tenants of logic. Are you going to champion the argument that God gave humans their rights sometime AFTER the law making slavery legal was passed?
There is a component of American Jurisprudence (descendant from English Common Law) called nunc pro tunc, literally meaning \”now for then\”. It is a term used to describe that which was from the begining.
The definitions of rights (some of which were enumerated in our constitutions) were not created at the point they were written down, they PRE-EXISTED from the beginning.
The invokation of Hitler was not my doing, if you cared to read the threads below. Additionally, the topic is pertinent because both the Jews and Japanese-Americans have been successful in reparations lawsuits based on past atrocities. Mentioning Hitler was quite appropriate. If I hurt your delicate sensibilities by pointing out deficiencies in your arguments, just say so. No need to retaliate with more pointless argument.
The fact of the matter is there is legal precedent set for reparations suits and these precedents were set by other ethnic groups. Logic insists this suit must also move forward according to law and legal precedent. I\’ve seen no argument presented thus far that suggests otherwise. Not to mention there are Judges who agree. . .
The Old London Coffee House at Front and Market in Phila. is where slaves were inspected and sold after being brought to America from their homeland. The building has changed hands many times over the years and it appears that businesses do not thrive in that place.
I stood outside of the building a couple of months ago. It was vacant and the former owner had done some patchwork repairs to make it into a bar. It felt very creepy, very sad, very malevolent – you could almost feel the suffering and sadness of the people who were auctioned off from there.
The Old London Coffee House at Front and Market in Phila. is where slaves were inspected and sold after being brought to America from their homeland. The building has changed hands many times over the years and it appears that businesses do not thrive in that place.
I stood outside of the building a couple of months ago. It was vacant and the former owner had done some patchwork repairs to make it into a bar. It felt very creepy, very sad, very malevolent – you could almost feel the suffering and sadness of the people who were auctioned off from there.
Your stating a case has no merit doesn\’t make it so, Scott. The courts have ruled it DOES. Are you in possession of some prevailing truth that states otherwise? If so, please share it. Prove up or shut up.
Right. The court did not aquit OJ Simpson. A J U R Y of 12 acquitted OJ Simpson. That case was a criminal case that had nothing to do with this CIVIL case (if you were smart, you\’d recognize that OJ LOST the Civil case which is judged by a different standard of proof). Also its disposition was based on both law and facts, whereas the decision to allow this case to continue was at LAW.
It is not I who need stand embarrased, Scott, being you\’ve already proven yourself a fool.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
There is an important concept in Western jurisprudence of which you are apparently ignorant. It is called ex post facto law, which is expressly forbiden in the US Constitution. Your advocacy of ex post facto solutions for political grievances is anti-western and unconstitutional. There is no debating this.
To make something retroactively illegal, and to hope to penalize people who were not even alive when the act in question occurred, is the essence of tyranny. Who can know what lawful actions today will be penalized tomorrow depending upon future political whims?
Calling people names and invoking Hitler in a debate is simply proof that you not only do not know how to conduct a civil debate, but your point is indefensible.
Truth is not black or white in the sense that some truth is for blacks and some truth is for whites. The truth IS black and white when it comes to whether or not ex post facto laws are wrong.
The remedy for slavery was to set the slaves free. Get off of the lawsuit plantation and act like a free moral agent, and stop trying to milk ancient grievances for cash – and self-righteousness.
This is not about the immorality of slavery. It\’s about insurance contracts, hence the inclusion in this newsletter.
Stop judging the merits of this case based on welfare, aff. action, etc. This is about life insurance, and only life insurance.
All else is inapplicable.
Let\’s not get stuck on stupid here with comparing the Black Slavery Reparations suits to the Holocaust survivor settlements. The reason why the LIVING Holocaust survivors received compensation is because they themselves had personally been victimized and they had proof supported by scads of documentation that their money, their homes and their means of earning a living were seized by the Nazis and Nazi collaborators. The children, grandchildren, etc of DECEASED Holocaust victims & survivors were prohibited from suing or receiving any settlement due to the fact that they personally did not lose property, life or limb. Second, these Holocaust suits were not well receieved by all in the American Jewish community because of the fact that innocent people who had nthing to do with the Holocaust would be potentially financially harmed. Elderly annutitants with annuities which they rely on for modest interest incomes from Allianz for example.
But the Black Slavery Reparations suits are being brought by descendents of American blacks who have been long dead(not all whom were slaves). These blacks suing today did NOT suffer loss of their own property, or freedom at the hand of the slavery profiteers. Therein lies the big difference between the Holocaust settlements and the Black Slavery Reparations suits.
Now, even though individuals themselves are not being targeted by this greed-driven reparations suit, the public at large will suffer as companies like Aetna are forced to jack up their already unaffordable health insurance rates to pass on the costs of litigation defense or settlement to the public customers at large. So guess what that means for those struggling to afford health insurance and healthcare on their own? Guess what that will do for the prices of life and long term care insurance products? Guess what it will do in the property & casualty industry as well? As these companies trim costs to help offset the losses due to this litigation, tons of jobs will be eliminated, and rates will be raised across the board, too.
You think insurance rates are unaffordable and insureds are b*tching about their rates now, just you wait and see. The thing that has me extremely resentful is that my ancestors fled the pogroms of eastern Europe and came here – long after slavery was no longer an issue. My people were impoverished Jews who lived in the shtetles of eastern Europe. My ancestors had NOTHING to do with slavery in America! Yet I and everybody else, will have to suffer unjust economic hardship as a direct result of the fallout from these reparations suits because corporations pass on their losses to the public by way of higher prices, reduced services and job cuts. I think I will personally counter-sue the twit that initiated this case for attempting to cause me economic harm for no reason at all because she certainly did not suffer as a result of slavery and she certainly got alot more of a helping hand to make it in life than I ever did. (So much for the white privilege nonsense!)
She enjoyed far more unearned social privileges than I ever did or ever will (unless I get lucky and hit the Powerball jackpot), getting to go to Harvard Law School and all – while I had to scrape and struggle, incurring tens of thousands of dollars in unaffordable student loan debt just to go to a crappy state college in order to try to climb out of poverty not be able to go on to ANY law school, never mind Harvard or Yale, because there simply is no equivelent hand-outs for low-income white people who are economically disadvantaged by reason of disability or age or socio-economic status.
Yet she wants to indirectly extort money from me and every other American citizen – whether they be less fortunate than her or not, just because she and all her plaintiffs are greedy and adept at playing the race card. I had to scrape and struggle from the very bottom to get modestly successful through self-employment because even with a college degree in IT, nobody wanted to hire a disabled 30-something yr old college grad seeking to re-enter the workforce when there were plenty of younger, non-disabled 23 yr olds to choose from. So I had to create my own job opportunity to try and make a living – on nothing to start out with, either.
I resent these race-baiting greeds who want to cause me more economic hardship (on top of what I have already suffered as a disabled woman) that I don\’t deserve to have to suffer as a result of these costly lawsuits which have NO merit, period. People like that are what is wrong with this country and our legal system.
You still display ignorance of the basic tenants of logic. Are you going to champion the argument that God gave humans their rights sometime AFTER the law making slavery legal was passed?
There is a component of American Jurisprudence (descendant from English Common Law) called nunc pro tunc, literally meaning \”now for then\”. It is a term used to describe that which was from the begining.
The definitions of rights (some of which were enumerated in our constitutions) were not created at the point they were written down, they PRE-EXISTED from the beginning.
The invokation of Hitler was not my doing, if you cared to read the threads below. Additionally, the topic is pertinent because both the Jews and Japanese-Americans have been successful in reparations lawsuits based on past atrocities. Mentioning Hitler was quite appropriate. If I hurt your delicate sensibilities by pointing out deficiencies in your arguments, just say so. No need to retaliate with more pointless argument.
The fact of the matter is there is legal precedent set for reparations suits and these precedents were set by other ethnic groups. Logic insists this suit must also move forward according to law and legal precedent. I\’ve seen no argument presented thus far that suggests otherwise. Not to mention there are Judges who agree. . .
Your making a complete fool of yourself. Please just stop. There is no merit to this case. None.
The Old London Coffee House at Front and Market in Phila. is where slaves were inspected and sold after being brought to America from their homeland. The building has changed hands many times over the years and it appears that businesses do not thrive in that place.
I stood outside of the building a couple of months ago. It was vacant and the former owner had done some patchwork repairs to make it into a bar. It felt very creepy, very sad, very malevolent – you could almost feel the suffering and sadness of the people who were auctioned off from there.
The Old London Coffee House at Front and Market in Phila. is where slaves were inspected and sold after being brought to America from their homeland. The building has changed hands many times over the years and it appears that businesses do not thrive in that place.
I stood outside of the building a couple of months ago. It was vacant and the former owner had done some patchwork repairs to make it into a bar. It felt very creepy, very sad, very malevolent – you could almost feel the suffering and sadness of the people who were auctioned off from there.
Your stating a case has no merit doesn\’t make it so, Scott. The courts have ruled it DOES. Are you in possession of some prevailing truth that states otherwise? If so, please share it. Prove up or shut up.
A court also acquitted OJ Simpson. This case has no merit. It\’s absurd! You\’re embarrassing yourself.
Right. The court did not aquit OJ Simpson. A J U R Y of 12 acquitted OJ Simpson. That case was a criminal case that had nothing to do with this CIVIL case (if you were smart, you\’d recognize that OJ LOST the Civil case which is judged by a different standard of proof). Also its disposition was based on both law and facts, whereas the decision to allow this case to continue was at LAW.
It is not I who need stand embarrased, Scott, being you\’ve already proven yourself a fool.