Government claims it owns children, threatens 2nd mom with jail

[UncleBuck]

local Democrat governments. my dad was a Republican back then. racism was a Democrat thing north and south, just like slavery. I say was like dekocrats ever overcame it and here you are reminding me they didnt.

racism was a southern conservative thing, hence why the people your daddy voted for voted against civil rights.

and hence why you hate civil rights - because your racist daddy taught you to hate black people.

or "purples" and "mulattos" as you call them.

 

[MarWan]

literally stealing someone's home?

It would be so nice of you if you said that to the Israelis

 

[tangerinegreen555]

local Democrat governments. my dad was a Republican back then. racism was a Democrat thing north and south, just like slavery. I say was like dekocrats ever overcame it and here you are reminding me they didnt.

Revisionist asshole who steadfastly refuses to live in a fact based world.

Fact: You're a goddamn racist

Fact: Your so called racist rebels switched from Democrat to Republican after the 1964 CRA and the 1965 VRA.

Fact: You spin everything, have zero objectivity.

Fact: You put ideology over fact

Fact: Your content here sucks

Go look for some pre 1982 pennies, I think I saw a few wheat pennies on the sidewalk.

 

[SunnyJim]

Interesting and reasonable questions.

About how many years would you say have to pass for a persons claim of "hey my ancestor lived on your land, so give it to me now" would be invalid ?

Should people today be held responsible for what somebody else did hundreds of years ago ? Why ?

That would depend on how you, specifically, define 'responsibility' for a crime, and if you have tangibly benefited from the proceeds of that crime.

So if your grandfather murdered a person, you are guilty of murder ?

It is likely my ancestors used offensive force, how is that relevant to my innocence or guilt ?

Using your own examples, you would not be guilty of the murder committed by your grandfather, but you would be guilty of being in possession of stolen goods if your grandfather murdered someone and robbed them after the victim was killed, transferring those goods to you.

Your example of murder, possessing stolen goods (although not necessarily being directly involved in the theft itself), and some version of a Statute of Limitations relating to handling stolen goods seems eerily similar to the excuses made by Nazis when they were found to be in possession of stolen artworks from the Jewish population many years after the end of WWII.

Old Heinrich exclaims to the judge in his defense, "I didn't steal this Rembrandt from Herr Goldman, my late 'cousin' did. It's mine now, though. Finders keepers and all that. I should've have to repatriate the proceeds back to the original owner (or his family)."

You believe the artworks should remain in the hands of murderers and/or thieves and should not be returned to the rightful owners (or descendants of owners), or face the threat of legitimate 'defensive force'?

 

[Rob Roy]

How is that any more ridiculous than any of the rest of your libertarian delusion?

Thank you for asking. Although your question is a bit of a presupposing mess.

It implies that a similarity between holding individuals accountable and holding individuals accountable for the actions of others is the same thing. It is

That would depend on how you, specifically, define 'responsibility' for a crime, and if you have tangibly benefited from the proceeds of that crime.



Using your own examples, you would not be guilty of the murder committed by your grandfather, but you would be guilty of being in possession of stolen goods if your grandfather murdered someone and robbed them after the victim was killed, transferring those goods to you.

Your example of murder, possessing stolen goods (although not necessarily being directly involved in the theft itself), and some version of a Statute of Limitations relating to handling stolen goods seems eerily similar to the excuses made by Nazis when they were found to be in possession of stolen artworks from the Jewish population many years after the end of WWII.

Old Heinrich exclaims to the judge in his defense, "I didn't steal this Rembrandt from Herr Goldman, my late 'cousin' did. It's mine now, though. Finders keepers and all that. I should've have to repatriate the proceeds back to the original owner (or his family)."

You believe the artworks should remain in the hands of murderers and/or thieves and should not be returned to the rightful owners (or descendants of owners), or face the threat of legitimate 'defensive force'?

Some interesting points, but you didn't address whether you think the passage of time is relevant, I was curious what you thought. For instance, if your ancestors came from England, but their land was stolen by an invading Viking 1100 years ago, should the ancestors of the Viking restitute them?

Were we talking about goods or land and is there a difference ?

 

[schuylaar]

Revisionist asshole who steadfastly refuses to live in a fact based world.

Fact: You're a goddamn racist

Fact: Your so called racist rebels switched from Democrat to Republican after the 1964 CRA and the 1965 VRA.

Fact: You spin everything, have zero objectivity.

Fact: You put ideology over fact

Fact: Your content here sucks

Go look for some pre 1982 pennies, I think I saw a few wheat pennies on the sidewalk.

i haven't seen wheat pennies in forever..are they worth anything? had a whole bunch of buffalo nickles at one point..wonder what they were worth.

 

[PCXV]

Thank you for asking. Although your question is a bit of a presupposing mess.

It implies that a similarity between holding individuals accountable and holding individuals accountable for the actions of others is the same thing. It is

You maintain the benefits of the offensive force they used. If someone stole your car and sold it to me, would it be offensive force for you to take it back from me?

 

[Rob Roy]

You maintain the benefits of the offensive force they used. If someone stole your car and sold it to me, would it be offensive force for you to take it back from me?

Yes, I'm aware of what you are saying. Certainly if I'm alive and the car thief is alive, I could get restituted. Unless of course if the car theft crime was committed by a government agent and involved an asset forfeiture, then kiss my car good bye.

However my question was more about if your ancestor committed a crime centuries ago, are you personally liable to restitute the ancestors of the victim of the crime?

 

[tangerinegreen555]

i haven't seen wheat pennies in forever..are they worth anything? had a whole bunch of buffalo nickles at one point..wonder what they were worth.

Nothing much, really.

Unless you stumbled into some old guy's collection and they look shiny new.

Or a rare date.

 

[londonfog]

Yes, I'm aware of what you are saying. Certainly if I'm alive and the car thief is alive, I could get restituted. Unless of course if the car theft crime was committed by a government agent and involved an asset forfeiture, then kiss my car good bye.

However my question was more about if your ancestor committed a crime centuries ago, are you personally liable to restitute the ancestors of the victim of the crime?

yes. let the healing begin

 

[Rob Roy]

yes. let the healing begin

Since many "afro-americans" have mixed racial ancestry, because it was common for white masters to fornicate with African slave women , should modern day American "blacks" also restitute American Indians ?

 

[londonfog]

Since many "afro-americans" have mixed racial ancestry, because it was common for white masters to fornicate with African slave women , should modern day American "blacks" also restitute American Indians ?

because you believe bullshit like "Roots" and don't realize that many "blacks" were Indians or were mated with Africans, I will just LOL @u..

I will also add, you are somewhat stupid @st0wandgrow by your question

 

[SunnyJim]

Thank you for asking. Although your question is a bit of a presupposing mess.

It implies that a similarity between holding individuals accountable and holding individuals accountable for the actions of others is the same thing. It is



Some interesting points, but you didn't address whether you think the passage of time is relevant, I was curious what you thought. For instance, if your ancestors came from England, but their land was stolen by an invading Viking 1100 years ago, should the ancestors of the Viking restitute them?

Were we talking about goods or land and is there a difference ?

The passage of time is relevant in the prosecution of certain crimes.

We are talking about any laws drafted by the 'involuntary government' of your 'plantation', whether they pertain to child protection, land ownership, ownership of goods, or other.

You either believe your government is completely 'involuntary', rendering any and all laws (particularly 'age of consent' laws) it passes or enforces 'illegitimate', or you cherry pick certain laws passed by your 'involuntary government' (most likely the ones protecting your current ownership rights) to support and want enforced.

Would you let a Native American family take possession of your home and its contents when you aren't home, and do you support the nonintervention of the 'involuntary government' when the Natives use 'defensive force' against you and your family upon your return (particularly if they DO NOT CONSENT to being forced into interacting with you or your family)?

 

[PCXV]

Yes, I'm aware of what you are saying. Certainly if I'm alive and the car thief is alive, I could get restituted. Unless of course if the car theft crime was committed by a government agent and involved an asset forfeiture, then kiss my car good bye.

However my question was more about if your ancestor committed a crime centuries ago, are you personally liable to restitute the ancestors of the victim of the crime?

Sure, why not? In the scenario you describe there is no government to enforce any private property rights or any other social construct. Time is a social construct (as are statutory limitations), family exists in nature and therefore your blood makes you guilty, at least subjectively. If they want to enact revenge on you for what your ancestors did to theirs, what is stopping them as both sides subjectively think they are using defensive force.

Also, how do you plan to get restituted by the thief? He is long gone and anonymous. All you have is me and I'm using defensivs force to protect the property I rightfully paid for.

 

[Rob Roy]

because you believe bullshit like "Root" and don't realize that many "blacks" were Indians or were mated with Africans, I will just LOL @u

Nice way to avoid answering the question. However this excerpt from an article written by Henry L. Gates differs with your opinion. Enjoy...


Exactly How "Black" Are Black Americans?

* According to Ancestry.com, the average African American is 65 percent sub-Saharan African, 29 percent European and 2 percent Native American.

* According to 23andme.com, the average African American is 75 percent sub-Saharan African, 22 percent European and only 0.6 percent Native American.

* According to Family Tree DNA.com, the average African American is 72.95 percent sub-Saharan African, 22.83 percent European and 1.7 percent Native American.

* According to National Geographic's Genographic Project, the average African American is 80 percent sub-Saharan African, 19 percent European and 1 percent Native American.


* According to AfricanDNA, in which I am a partner with Family Tree DNA, the average African American is 79 percent sub-Saharan African, 19 percent European and 2 percent Native American.

And for our African-American male guests, there has been still another astonishing fact revealed about their paternal ancestry — their father's father's father's line — through their y-DNA: A whopping 35 percent of all African-American men descend from a white male ancestor who fathered a mulatto child sometime in the slavery era, most probably from rape or coerced sexuality. In other words, if we tested the DNA of all of the black men in the NBA, for instance, just over one-third descend from a white second or third great-grandfather. In my own case, he was my great-great-grandfather, and he was most probably of Irish descent, judging from our shared y-DNA haplogroup.

I find two things quite fascinating about these results. First of all, simply glancing at these statistics reveals that virtually none of the African Americans tested by these DNA companies is inferred to be 100 percent sub-Saharan African, although each company has analyzed Africans and African immigrants who did test 100 percent sub-Saharan in origin. Ranges, of course, vary from individual to individual. Spencer Wells, director of National Geographic's Genographic Project, explained to me that the African Americans they've tested range from 53 percent to 95 percent sub-Saharan African, 3 percent to 46 percent European and zero percent to 3 percent Native American. So there is a lot of genetic variation within our ethnic group, as is obvious to anyone even casually glancing at black people just walking down the street.






What this means is that even the most phenotypically "African" (or what used to be called "Negroid") African Americans have dramatically significant levels of European ancestry, a fact that would have astonished many of our forebears, both black and white. It is also a fact that astonishes the guests on Finding Your Roots. And this finding is important because it deconstructs the very American notion of biologically "fixed races" that our society inherited from the racist pseudoscience of the 18th century and drew upon to justify slavery and the property rights of masters who fathered children with their slaves.

And second, these findings show that the common claim that many African Americans make about their high percentage of Native American ancestry is a myth.Joanna Mountain broke down to me our low amounts of Native American ancestry in this way: "Eighty percent of African Americans have less than 1 percent Native American ancestry. Over 2.5 percent have between 2 percent and 3 percent. And of all African Americans who have at least 1 percent Native American ancestry, the average is 2 percent Native American." So much for all of those putative Cherokee roots on just about every black person's family tree, fabricated to explain why your great-grandmother had "high cheekbones and straight black hair"! Why there is such little evidence of genetic mingling between African Americans and Native Americans deserves a column of its own.

 

[tangerinegreen555]

Nice way to avoid answering the question. However this excerpt from an article written by Henry L. Gates differs with your opinion. Enjoy...


Exactly How "Black" Are Black Americans?

* According to Ancestry.com, the average African American is 65 percent sub-Saharan African, 29 percent European and 2 percent Native American.

* According to 23andme.com, the average African American is 75 percent sub-Saharan African, 22 percent European and only 0.6 percent Native American.

* According to Family Tree DNA.com, the average African American is 72.95 percent sub-Saharan African, 22.83 percent European and 1.7 percent Native American.

* According to National Geographic's Genographic Project, the average African American is 80 percent sub-Saharan African, 19 percent European and 1 percent Native American.


* According to AfricanDNA, in which I am a partner with Family Tree DNA, the average African American is 79 percent sub-Saharan African, 19 percent European and 2 percent Native American.

And for our African-American male guests, there has been still another astonishing fact revealed about their paternal ancestry — their father's father's father's line — through their y-DNA: A whopping 35 percent of all African-American men descend from a white male ancestor who fathered a mulatto child sometime in the slavery era, most probably from rape or coerced sexuality. In other words, if we tested the DNA of all of the black men in the NBA, for instance, just over one-third descend from a white second or third great-grandfather. In my own case, he was my great-great-grandfather, and he was most probably of Irish descent, judging from our shared y-DNA haplogroup.

I find two things quite fascinating about these results. First of all, simply glancing at these statistics reveals that virtually none of the African Americans tested by these DNA companies is inferred to be 100 percent sub-Saharan African, although each company has analyzed Africans and African immigrants who did test 100 percent sub-Saharan in origin. Ranges, of course, vary from individual to individual. Spencer Wells, director of National Geographic's Genographic Project, explained to me that the African Americans they've tested range from 53 percent to 95 percent sub-Saharan African, 3 percent to 46 percent European and zero percent to 3 percent Native American. So there is a lot of genetic variation within our ethnic group, as is obvious to anyone even casually glancing at black people just walking down the street.






What this means is that even the most phenotypically "African" (or what used to be called "Negroid") African Americans have dramatically significant levels of European ancestry, a fact that would have astonished many of our forebears, both black and white. It is also a fact that astonishes the guests on Finding Your Roots. And this finding is important because it deconstructs the very American notion of biologically "fixed races" that our society inherited from the racist pseudoscience of the 18th century and drew upon to justify slavery and the property rights of masters who fathered children with their slaves.

And second, these findings show that the common claim that many African Americans make about their high percentage of Native American ancestry is a myth.Joanna Mountain broke down to me our low amounts of Native American ancestry in this way: "Eighty percent of African Americans have less than 1 percent Native American ancestry. Over 2.5 percent have between 2 percent and 3 percent. And of all African Americans who have at least 1 percent Native American ancestry, the average is 2 percent Native American." So much for all of those putative Cherokee roots on just about every black person's family tree, fabricated to explain why your great-grandmother had "high cheekbones and straight black hair"! Why there is such little evidence of genetic mingling between African Americans and Native Americans deserves a column of its own.

You sure do worry a lot about people of color.

You scared of them?

 

[Rob Roy]

Sure, why not? In the scenario you describe there is no government to enforce any private property rights or any other social construct. Time is a social construct (as are statutory limitations), family exists in nature and therefore your blood makes you guilty, at least subjectively. If they want to enact revenge on you for what your ancestors did to theirs, what is stopping them as both sides subjectively think they are using defensive force.

Also, how do you plan to get restituted by the thief? He is long gone and anonymous. All you have is me and I'm using defensivs force to protect the property I rightfully paid for.

"Your blood makes you guilty"...aren't ALL people related to one another if you go back far enough ? That's why I asked if there is a time limit and what it should be.

I'm not suggesting I can or should go back in time centuries and reconstruct a case for restitution, I wouldn't know how to do that or how I could interview dead people to ascertain who did what to who.

If somebody wants to enact revenge on me for what my ancestors may have done, that seems a little racist, if the basis of there claim is based on my race rather than on actions I didn't do and wasn't even alive when those events took place. It gets complicated doesn't it?

 

[Rob Roy]

You sure do worry a lot about people of color.

You scared of them?

That's not constructive to the conversation. If you need attention, I can fuck with you later, but I'll first have to consume some intoxicants so I can dumb it down for the betterment (sic?) of your comprehension. Might I suggest you masturbate quietly until I can get to you?

 

[londonfog]

Nice way to avoid answering the question. However this excerpt from an article written by Henry L. Gates differs with your opinion. Enjoy...


Exactly How "Black" Are Black Americans?

* According to Ancestry.com, the average African American is 65 percent sub-Saharan African, 29 percent European and 2 percent Native American.

* According to 23andme.com, the average African American is 75 percent sub-Saharan African, 22 percent European and only 0.6 percent Native American.

* According to Family Tree DNA.com, the average African American is 72.95 percent sub-Saharan African, 22.83 percent European and 1.7 percent Native American.

* According to National Geographic's Genographic Project, the average African American is 80 percent sub-Saharan African, 19 percent European and 1 percent Native American.


* According to AfricanDNA, in which I am a partner with Family Tree DNA, the average African American is 79 percent sub-Saharan African, 19 percent European and 2 percent Native American.

And for our African-American male guests, there has been still another astonishing fact revealed about their paternal ancestry — their father's father's father's line — through their y-DNA: A whopping 35 percent of all African-American men descend from a white male ancestor who fathered a mulatto child sometime in the slavery era, most probably from rape or coerced sexuality. In other words, if we tested the DNA of all of the black men in the NBA, for instance, just over one-third descend from a white second or third great-grandfather. In my own case, he was my great-great-grandfather, and he was most probably of Irish descent, judging from our shared y-DNA haplogroup.

I find two things quite fascinating about these results. First of all, simply glancing at these statistics reveals that virtually none of the African Americans tested by these DNA companies is inferred to be 100 percent sub-Saharan African, although each company has analyzed Africans and African immigrants who did test 100 percent sub-Saharan in origin. Ranges, of course, vary from individual to individual. Spencer Wells, director of National Geographic's Genographic Project, explained to me that the African Americans they've tested range from 53 percent to 95 percent sub-Saharan African, 3 percent to 46 percent European and zero percent to 3 percent Native American. So there is a lot of genetic variation within our ethnic group, as is obvious to anyone even casually glancing at black people just walking down the street.






What this means is that even the most phenotypically "African" (or what used to be called "Negroid") African Americans have dramatically significant levels of European ancestry, a fact that would have astonished many of our forebears, both black and white. It is also a fact that astonishes the guests on Finding Your Roots. And this finding is important because it deconstructs the very American notion of biologically "fixed races" that our society inherited from the racist pseudoscience of the 18th century and drew upon to justify slavery and the property rights of masters who fathered children with their slaves.

And second, these findings show that the common claim that many African Americans make about their high percentage of Native American ancestry is a myth.Joanna Mountain broke down to me our low amounts of Native American ancestry in this way: "Eighty percent of African Americans have less than 1 percent Native American ancestry. Over 2.5 percent have between 2 percent and 3 percent. And of all African Americans who have at least 1 percent Native American ancestry, the average is 2 percent Native American." So much for all of those putative Cherokee roots on just about every black person's family tree, fabricated to explain why your great-grandmother had "high cheekbones and straight black hair"! Why there is such little evidence of genetic mingling between African Americans and Native Americans deserves a column of its own.

This is all part of bullshit propaganda to displace people from knowing who they really are. they really are. The same bullshit that enable land to be stolen and then claim it can not be claim by it's rightful owner because we now are supposedly clueless as to what is what and who is who.
I would suggest you do some reading on the Dawes Roll and 5 dollar Indians
In the mean time enjoy some pics of Indians.

.

 

[tangerinegreen555]

That's not constructive to the conversation. If you need attention, I can fuck with you later, but I'll first have to consume some intoxicants so I can dumb it down for the betterment (sic?) of your comprehension. Might I suggest you masturbate quietly until I can get to you?

I think you're scared as fuck of anybody who isn't white.

You would piss your fucking pants if a non white made eye contact with you.