Ten oz

Right. If my wife texts me at 1pm that she is heading home for the day and I know her commute is only 15 minutes it would be logical for me to assume come 2pm she is home. However it wouldn't make it true.

Assuming you understand the problem with guessing what would have happened if history were different I am confused why you'd list problems in Central Africa. Who is to say what Africa would be like today had slavery never existed? It doesn't matter though because this thread isn't asking anyone to imagine a world where slavery didn't happen. Slavery did happen. This thread is asking about potentially doing something in response to things which happened. While true I would argue that misinformation drives that dislike. There is a lot of propaganda out there regarding how Affirmative Action has been implemented, the way organizations discriminate against white males, that welfare is reparations by another name, and etc, etc, etc. The problem I see with a study is that I don't believe it would change minds. People ignore climate studies, deny evolution, and are will & able to justify police shooting unarmed people in the thousands nationally. There is no limit to the cognitive dissonance. The ongoing ramifications of slavery and segregation are different in GA than in CA. I don't see a one size fits all solution. In GA blacks voters are still be disenfranchised at polls after all. My opposition to reparations isn't rooted in how unpopular it is. I just think there are many other things that need to happen which can better ensure equality. Things people are already fighting for.

All discussion isn't honest. Not only do some people troll for S&Gs but certainly key words attract bots.

Hatred between ethnic groups has existed for thousands of years as well. I think you conflating how long something has existed within human culturals with value/purpose. Go back 10k yrs and people have been dancing, painting, wearing jewelry, played games, tattooing their bodies, and etc too. Many things have existed within human cultural for a very long time. You are looking at religion in isolation and asking why be the same is true for many things.

I started a thread about debunking 9/11 conspiracies a couple years back and it was closed before anyone could reply. I was told by a Moderator that such a thread may attract an unwanted element (trolls and conspiracy nuts) to the site. My thread didn't contain anything objectionable and hadn't broken any forum rules yet was closed. I accept the Moderators choice as they felt it was beat for the site. I don't consider it unfair. They are many reasons for a thread to be closed and no single rule can account for all scenarios.

I literally said "I doubt we would" after the question. The suggestion was that the situation is more complicated than the question implies. The last sentence in the post was "I don't see this conversation as simply being one where yay or nay cuts it". That clearly lays out that all or nothing at all is not the the way I see this. I think you read my post with an assumed subtext which wasn't there. Reparations has historically been about land. It is what slaves were promised and what Natives have been fighting for and are still fighting for. The ability to purchase land where they want or get equal treatment by banks is what Blacks were denied during Segregation. The Case for Reparations linked in the OP talks about land. The first section of the article is about land. It opens with the telling of how Ross family lost their land: The case for Reparations continues and follows Clyde Ross through his life and addresses predatory lending behavior and mortgage discrimination: The first sections continues and discusses the Contract Buyers League. The article discusses wealth inequality and how even black families with higher incomes have less wealth than white families with lower income. Connections are made to white flight and in pacts it had on poverty values and the neighborhoods Blacks lived in: All of this is NOT to say that we must discuss reallocating land. Rather I am pointing out that land is a major part of the discussion. It isn't some off topic item. Blacks not receiving the land they were promised, not being able to buy and live in the locations of there choosing even when they could afford to, and predatory lending which made (makes) property more expensive and difficult to own is one of the central causes of the wealth gap between Blacks and Whites to this day.

So that seems like a reasonable starter. Where is becomes more complicated to consider is contemplating what happens in the events like if SCOTUS were to side with Natives in the Carpenter v. Murphy case: If you and I agree that it might be a good idea to let Natives own the Reservations they have tribal sovereignty over does that mean we think Natives should own 19 million acres of Oklahoma if SCOTUS were to open the door to it being Reservation land!? I doubt we would . Sometimes what is reasonable or logical at one level doesn't seem that way anymore when expanded out or scaled up. For me what promises the Govt has made is one of the central arguments for Reparations. For slaves the foundation for Reparations started with the promise of 40 acres and a mule ( also see Special Field Order 15). What was promised, taken, and or denied serve a central component to any discussion about Reparations. **I am not in favor of Reparations nor am I in favor of giving 19 million acres of Oklahoma to Natives. I am trying to have a conversation that addresses the history and takes a sober look at the issue. Extrapolating out these concepts isn't easy which is one of the reason they've been debated for over a hundred years. I don't see this conversation as simply being one where yay or nay cuts it.

I am not referencing the full idea of restoring promised lands (the discussion with Zapatos). Rather I am specifically addressing allowing Tribes ownership of the Reservations they currently have Tribal Sovereignty over. I think most lay political observers already assume this to be the case anyway. The collective geographical area of all reservations is 56,200,000 acres. The average value in the U.S. of an acre of land is around $1,200. Natives living on Reservations can't access any of that value. They do not own the land. The have governance over it but not ownership. Giving Natives ownership of land they already have tribal sovereignty is an easy win in my opinion. It doesn't require taking land from anyone.

You wouldn't agree that allowing Natives to own Reservation land as opposed to it being manage by the federal govt in a trust would also be palatable?

And yet to a degree is currently being considered in the Supreme Court. In Carpenter vs Murphy Patrick Murphy was sentenced to death in Oklahoma for a murder and argued that he was tried in the wrong court. His team argued that most of Oklahoma is Indian Territory and that Murphy should be tried in Federal Court which is responsible for Reservations. The argument contends that the Indian Removal Act forcibly moved under Andrew Jackson but that Congress had never properly disestablished Reservations in Oklahoma. The ramifications of the ruling could make the Eastern part of Oklahoma including Tulsa a reservation. You may feel it is an arbitrary line which entire (govt, state, township, colony, etc) took land but courts do have a standard they follow. If Oklahoma loses its authority it will open up countless legal challenges regarding property rights. It doesn't need to but there are cases in court now where it is. Reservations for example can't be bought or sold. The land is controlled in a trust controlled by the Federal Govt. Natives are not able to build wealth via buying of selling. That system is being challenged around the country. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/native-americans-property-rights/492941/ You brought up reparations for those wrongly locked up. That also is currently being being fought in court. As mentioned in my early objections to reparations I feel there are other ways to to promote equality and reaching catharsis. There are already a thousand plates spinning. People are battling against gentrification, abusive police departments, prejudicial drug laws, unequal representation in govt, and etc. Reparations need not be equivalent to any one singular thing. However there are numerous things being battled that do need to be addressed (by the govt as a whole not by this thread specifically).

No I never said in ALL cases. Nor does it need to be all cases for my statement to stand. I didn't move the goalposts. It simply hadn't accorded to me when typing the previous post that one would read it as the U.S. should identify all property I'll gotten throughout all of history. I assume one would understand it applied to what we (U.S.) was liable for.

My understanding is that only about a third of the money goes to care.The rest goes to profit and administrative costs. There are a lot of wealthy @##holes cruising around in yachts off the back of our ridiculous system. So even it every Doctor and Nurse were retained at full salary there would be a decline. Your point about more people getting care is what the Healthcare mandate in the ACA addresses. Private Insurance companies agreed to expand care in trade for more paying customers. It was a good first step in my opinion. I think the mandate needs be better enforced and and cost control at current levels. All new expansion of coverage should be handled by Medicare. That basically freezes the private healthcare industry where they are without a significant decline in spending and allows the nation to shift over to a single payer program overtime. It isn't bumper striker material though.

Kidding or not the suggestion would be far less expensive than what is happening.

I don't follow your logic. If I make a promise I am responsible for that promise. If numerous others also made promises I am still only responsible for the ones I made. The U.S. govt would be addressing promises it specifically made. New York City was founded in 1624 as a Dutch settlement. The United States Govt wouldn't exist for another 164yrs. Arbitrary is your word. Its Prejudicial language. You are treating your opinion of how things should be as a position of authority rather than merely an opinion. Land has been taken from one individual and given to another. We can debate over whether or not it should be done but there is nothing debate over whether or not it can be done. It can.

You joke but I have long felt that the U.S. should pay Mexico to handle border security. Here in the U.S. we spend $30 billion a year directly on agencies like Border Patrol, Immigration Custom Enforcement, and Custom Border Protection. That $30 billion doesn't cover the additional money spent by local govts, detention centers & prisons, or on assistance provided by DOD other DHS agency like Coast Guard, TSA, or etc. The number probably closer to $50 billion. By contrast Mexico whole national budget is $291 billion. If we gave Mexico even a quarter of what we are spending to police the border it would be a massive incentive for their govt to police it. We'd could put different metrics in places promising a center amount of money provided illegal crossing are held to a certain threshold.

Greed Total tax revenue brought in by the U.S. Govt in 2018 was $3.3 trillion. If you are asking how much tax revenue was specifically generated by private insurance companies and associated industries like pharmacies or medical equipment manufactures I do not know the answer to your question. It would require a level of research I have not performed. This link outlines how much is spent per type of service: Dental, Hospice, Nursing, etc Link. It amounts to $3.5 trillion or 18% of national GDP. The situation is stupid. People have retirement accounts investigated in private insurance, pharmaceutical companies, and etc. I want the country to move towards single payer but believe it must be done in steps overtime. We cannot transform and eliminate spending to a $3.5 trillion dollar a year industry over night. As an industry, in dollars, it is large as the federal Govt itself and employees millions of people.

I limited it to address the specific idea that shape matters with the most brevity. I assume, perhaps incorrectly but it remains to be seen, that Dark0717 doesn't know the basics.

It varies by State. In most cases one must file a lawsuit against the authority which prosecuted them. There is not a national standard.

I think the govt should. There is also legal precedence for it. Many exonerated people have been award payment though not nearly enough of them. No it isn't arbitrary. If the objective is for U.S. govt is to fulfill promises it made than it (U.S. govt) would need to have existed and made the promise. The U.S. govt would not be attempting to fulfill or correct promises made by England, Spain, France, or etc. The Constitution was ratified in 1788 so that would serve as the line. Nothing arbitrary about it. The Govt has the right to take property. We can debate whether or not it should in our opinions or how popular doing so might be but legally it can take land. They is nothing to debate there.

Not all land was inhabited by native thus not all land was taken from them. Some land was even given to the English and French via agreement or trade with varies Native tribes. Post revolutionary War after the Country was established there were established native communities recognized by the Govt.. It is that land I am referencing. Like the land taken via the Indian Removal Act. Likewise for slaves specific things were promised people by the government. For example during the Civil War many freed slaves were promised land and some who fought were even rewarded land for their service. Then after the war the land was taken from them and returned to white owners, Link. I think the electorate could accept the idea if it was handled specifically enough. It would just be all the land returned to all native and slaves. Rather it would be specific land that was promised or taken from Natives or slaves and is still owned (past down through heirs) by the same families. Land which has long since become part of a park, property of the county, owned by a utility, and etc, etc, etc would be left out of it.

Electrons orbit the atomic nucleusis. Different electrons orbit at different distances creating shells. The Valence Shell is the outer most electron shell around an atom. Atoms with Valence shells of 1 or 2 electrons are good conductors of electricity because an electron in a valence shell of 1 or 2 can be more easily dislodged allowing for electron flow. Atoms with valence shells consisting of 3-5 electrons are insulators. Their electrons are not easily dislodged which hinders electron flow. A valence shell of 1 is the best conductor and of 5 is the best insulator. Electricity is made of negatively charged electrons. They move to ground because it is positively charged. The electricity moves via the path of least resistance and as described above least resistance is determined by the valance shell of atoms. It doesn't matter how sharp an insulator is electricity won't like to "shoot out" of it. Likewise it does matter how dull or sharp a conductor is electricity will like to "go into" it.

I think it fits in with what I previous mentioned. What do you think of the govt returning land previously belonging or promised to Natives & Slaves?

There is a difference between identifying a behavior and passing judgement on behavior. Science studies lots of direct things animals do but seldom from the perspective of certain behaviors being rational, good, bad, or whatever. Every trait every species has isn't useful and evolution isn't purposeful. After thousands of years humans still murder, commit suicide, and etc. That doesn't mean murder or suicide is rational. Most kids hate learning to read. The consistency of that among children doesn't mean humans are hardwired not to read. Correlation does not imply causation. Rational is relative. Men having several wives and public executions were once considered rational. For those who find community and comfort in religion their beliefs are rational relative to the positive impact within their own lives. Irrationality in my opinion only exists when it is expressed. Thoughts, emotions, fears, wants, beliefs, and etc are never irrational. It is the choices people make based on their feelings that can be deemed irrational.

As the National Emergency continues and Agency search for ways to give reallocate money to Trump's wall it is worth discussing the fact that previous executive orders at the remain unfinished. Border Patrol hasn't been able to hire more agents despite increases in their recruitment budget and spending.

Boom!!!! Whether it is climate change, the opioid epidemic, healthcare, or etc no solution can be considered free from how those who will profit will respond.