All You Bundy Lovers....Your New Hero Speaks....Shoots Self in Foot

[Avatar4321]

He's actually had five days in court - lost all five.

Which is why he should be fighting to get the law changed. Be a much wiser use of his time.

So court is a waste of time.
Grabbing your guns and calling your militia buddies over to join your "range war" is a "better" use of his time?????

Why on earth would you have to grab a gun and call militia buddies to petition Congress to change the laws?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Bundy folks, seriously accept that a guy can be for less federal control and be a raving racist at the same time.

Again, I think most would be open to exploring how states could be given more power to care for public land, but lose the racist pos.

I will go even further. I think the discussion he has prompted could become a very valuable one in terms of reviewing grazing fees, the amount and management of public land, and "environmental" restrictions. And his views are race really have no bearing on any of those discussions at all.

But none of that changes the fact that he is not entitled to free feed for his cattle. All Americans own that land and are entitled to compensation for allowing this guy to pursue his commercial venture on our land. If he refuses to pay what he owes (to the people he owes the money to) then the consequences are justified.

He says he'll pay the state of Nevada or the county the grazing fees. (although he hasn't paid them anything) But he doesn't owe JUST the people of Nevada or of Clark County - he owes ALL Americans.

I'm open to the discussion of the legitimate questions that have been raised. But I am resolute in my position that he should pay what he owes or get his cattle tossed off our land.

That's an interesting issue. The clean air and water acts have been very cost effective, and they are premised on states having the power to set up their own EPAs to enforce federal regulations. State EPAs generally cost the state taxpayer NOTHIGN, and actually bring in more money through permitting fees and such than it costs to run them.

It'd be interesting to see if states should get the revenue from public lands. I really dunno. I know for certain that in Wyo and Colo, the states get more revenue from tourists visiting public land (and not Natl Parks) than animal grazing. And in Wyoming right now there's a disturbing issue of land that is permitted for grazing also being permitted for gas extraction, which the ranchers say is screwing up the cattle.

better for states to own their own public lands.....before the Feds sell them off to China......

 

[bendog]

Now you are figuring it out. Wondering/speculating, and saying something definitive are two totally different things. It's not a difficult concept to understand.

If you're asking the question, you're a racist. Only a racist would speculate that slavery was better.

Except that's not true at all because slavery and race aren't linked. Are you seriously thinking the Romans were racist for thinking their slaves were better off as slaves than being free?

Slavery and race are only uniquely mixed in the United States history. The ironic part is it was started by a black man.

FF's sake. Bundy ain't talking roman. Give it a ******* rest you bogus Christian.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Right-Winger spews racism! I'm shocked!

Maybe he is auditioning for Duck Dynasty.

And you honestly don't think the third world flooding our nation isn't also?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Now you are figuring it out. Wondering/speculating, and saying something definitive are two totally different things. It's not a difficult concept to understand.

If you're asking the question, you're a racist. Only a racist would speculate that slavery was better.

Except that's not true at all because slavery and race aren't linked. Are you seriously thinking the Romans were racist for thinking their slaves were better off as slaves than being free?

Slavery and race are only uniquely mixed in the United States history. The ironic part is it was started by a black man.

Sit back, folks, and hear the story about how slavery in the USA is all the fault of the black man. You will love it! It is better than watching "Song of the South" in Technicolor!

 

[Howey]

it looks like a hit piece


how long til he is a child rapist

It "looks" like a hit piece? Did you read the article or just my post?
It's a direct quote. Looks like he hit himself pretty good.

How long til' the Tea Party asks him to run for office is a better question.

from a single source

not one other of the 1000 people there said a peep about it

until it is confirmed by a second source it is suspect

Google is your friend. He's quoted by pages of conservatives and liberal sites with the comments.

 

[Duped]

And the courts are the ones to intercede not the federal government.

The courts ordered him to remove his cattle from federal lands. He has refused to obey the courts.

The courts have ordered illegals to enter the country legally. They refuse to obey the courts (but the libs coddle them and protect them anyway). Double standard?

Double Standard; the heart of liberalism!

 

[tinydancer]

I think the key thing at play here with the left's new "target du jour" is that Bundy is being called a racist for thinking blacks would be better off not on welfare.

And the bottom line is no one gives a shit anymore what leftists think about Bundy or any one else they call racist.

We're numb to the word because it means nothing anymore because they have beat the "racist drum" to freaking death.

 

[Synthaholic]

If you're asking the question, you're a racist. Only a racist would speculate that slavery was better.

Except that's not true at all because slavery and race aren't linked. Are you seriously thinking the Romans were racist for thinking their slaves were better off as slaves than being free?

Slavery and race are only uniquely mixed in the United States history. The ironic part is it was started by a black man.

FF's sake. Bundy ain't talking roman. Give it a ******* rest you bogus Christian.

You're closer than you know: he's a Mormon.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Now you are figuring it out. Wondering/speculating, and saying something definitive are two totally different things. It's not a difficult concept to understand.

If you're asking the question, you're a racist. Only a racist would speculate that slavery was better.

Except that's not true at all because slavery and race aren't linked. Are you seriously thinking the Romans were racist for thinking their slaves were better off as slaves than being free?

Slavery and race are only uniquely mixed in the United States history. The ironic part is it was started by a black man.

So true,

These people are the real racist accusing, just the white man for slavery. Yet they like to brag about how intelligent, they're? LOL.

 

[paperview]

He's all hat, no chattel.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I think the key thing at play here with the left's new "target du jour" is that Bundy is being called a racist for thinking blacks would be better off not on welfare.

And the bottom line is no one gives a shit anymore what leftists think about Bundy or any one else they call racist.

We're numb to the word because it means nothing anymore because they have beat the "racist drum" to freaking death.

"hey put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton"

Thats what Bundy said. Spin away

 

[ClosedCaption]

He's all hat, no chattel.

Post of the thread

 

[paperview]

Now you are figuring it out. Wondering/speculating, and saying something definitive are two totally different things. It's not a difficult concept to understand.

If you're asking the question, you're a racist. Only a racist would speculate that slavery was better.

Except that's not true at all because slavery and race aren't linked. Are you seriously thinking the Romans were racist for thinking their slaves were better off as slaves than being free?

Slavery and race are only uniquely mixed in the United States history. The ironic part is it was started by a black man.

Oh geezez. This stupidity again.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Now you are figuring it out. Wondering/speculating, and saying something definitive are two totally different things. It's not a difficult concept to understand.

If you're asking the question, you're a racist. Only a racist would speculate that slavery was better.

Except that's not true at all because slavery and race aren't linked. Are you seriously thinking the Romans were racist for thinking their slaves were better off as slaves than being free?

Slavery and race are only uniquely mixed in the United States history. The ironic part is it was started by a black man.

Since there are far more unemployed whites than blacks in America, how can it not be racist to single out the black unemployed for the remedy of returning them to slavery for 'their own good'?

Oh, btw, applying Bundy's logic to the problems of poverty and unemployment among Native Americans,

wouldn't the right remedy be to return them to their condition when they had it 'better'?

As in, give them their 'ancestral' rights to all of the lands that were taken from them?

 

[Synthaholic]

I think the key thing at play here with the left's new "target du jour" is that Bundy is being called a racist for thinking blacks would be better off not on welfare.

And the bottom line is no one gives a shit anymore what leftists think about Bundy or any one else they call racist.

We're numb to the word because it means nothing anymore because they have beat the "racist drum" to freaking death.

Is that how it works, TD? The Right-Wing spends the past 5 years making racist statements, and using dog whistle racism, and making every issue into race, and because the rest of the country calls them out on it each time we're made YOU numb to the charge?

 

[Clementine]

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Let's pick this apart now, because if you want to avoid Civil War, it's paramount that we discuss the underlying problem.

Many businesses, (in this particular case Ranchers) are being driven out of business by absurd and inane taxation. The amount of people businesses fleeing Blue States like California should give you a hint, even New York State has begone a "StartUp NY" program which makes the first 10 years tax-free for all new businesses.

In Nevada, practically every cattle rancher in Clark County has left, because of shady and unjust codes and taxes being passed by an Army of Unelected Pencil Pushers. What are these taxes for? TO maintain the WELFARE STATE.

Whether it's Too-big-to-fail Corporate welfare, or Buy-minority-vote welfare, the Welfare State, in all it's forms, comprises the overwhelming majority of the US expenses. The Government must find as many revenue sources as it can to keep buy minority votes and keeping the people under control with Government handouts. This mean that they must TAKE from those who WORK and give it to those who DO NOT WORK.

They must print (burrow) money and pass innumerable codes and taxes and regulations in between to make up the shortfall. This drives inflation and makes it so that the "WORKING POOR" cannot even afford to live without welfare. The result is that now the Government must take MORE from those who WORK and re fortunate enough to make ends meet, and give it to those who are also working but cannot --- because of runaway inflation.

However, the difference in lifestyle between the Working Poor and the Welfare-Receiver has become too small for the Welfare-Receiver to go back to work. Thus, the Welfare-Receiver has no incentive to do better. They'd rather sit in front of the Welfare House for days with their whole family.

Their children grow up never learning HOW TO WORK, this is where the "picking cotton" statement comes from. WHITE ranchers and farmers are out there in Nevada literally doing chores as tedious and tiresome as PICKING COTTON, while the Government TAXES THE SHIT OUT OF THEM to steal their money and give it to ABLE BODIED WELFARE-RECIPIENTS.

So if you want to understand why we're in this situation, why there has been a prelude to Civil War over the past two weeks, this is why.

And ask yourselves, are blacks any better off in Chicago, Detroit, Rochester, Camden, etc, then they were before LBJ's Welfare State: "I'll have these ******* Voting Democrat for the next 200 years."

Yes, LBJ will most certainly have them voting Democrat for the next 200 years to STEAL our money unless we put an end to this absurdity --- Civil War.

Are you ready?

The left will never look at the truth regarding the welfare state and what their policies have done to change how minority families function. Great points that you made, but all will fly over the heads of the talking point parrots.

The minority families have been destroyed, the middle class is flailing and the lower class has already crossed over to the permanent welfare ranks. Government views the little people as insignificant peons to be used when the need arises. Now, they appease one half to get the votes and the rest of us have become slaves who get a healthy dose of propaganda, courtesy of the liberal media, to keep us from rising up against government. This latest incident is merely what happens when people see through the false rhetoric and realize that we were being duped.

Anyone who says anything regarding the break down of minority families and the lack of work ethics will always get attacked by the left. The liberal policies haven't helped people, in fact, they've made them more needy and less able to change things. Generations of welfare have insured that no work ethic or ambition has been passed on. The rest of us work harder each year to just to have the bare necessities. No sympathy for the workers, only those in need of government assistance. Government has expanded the guidelines so more will qualify as needy and they send the message that there is something noble about being on the doles. They make workers who earn a good living feel guilty about having it better than the next guy. Only the truly wealthy get away with anything because the politicians need them to survive. It's actually the wealthy that control things in a sick partnership with government.

We are all being trained to live like communists. The whole bit about paying your fair share, spreading the wealth around and doing whatever government tells you to do, no matter how oppressive, is all designed to ease us into a socialist state. Fighting against it brings on vicious attacks and accusations ranging from racism to greed. Their claim of doing things for the greater good makes it difficult to explain the truth to the uneducated, who are easily won over with fancy, meaningless rhetoric.

They have sought to turn as many people desperate as possible because they know that once people are completely on the doles, and working an entry level job won't increase the quality of living one iota from the welfare, no one will even attempt to move up. Incentive is completely gone. It's either exist on whatever the government will give you or hope for a miracle that allows people to find employment that pays well when they have no training or experience. Haven't seen people jump from a high school drop out on welfare to a cushy office job pulling down a big salary. And the ladder between the two stations has had many rungs removed. It's all by design. While government policies have created this impossible situation, it's easy for them to blame the greedy wealthy people with claims that they unscruptuously grabbed the lion's share of money and failed to leave any for the next guy. To believe this, people must have virtually no understanding of how things actually work. The dumbing down of students in schools and convincing people that they are victims has ensured a growing group of people who won't question those who claim to be their salvation.

Too many people have never even attempted to acquire the skills needed to get by in life. It's not worth it. Why bust your ass to keep a roof over your heads, food on the table and enough left over for the tattoo parlor when sitting home and collecting welfare will give you the same sad quality of living? For the unskilled and uneducated, the only difference between a life of dependence and an independent life is 40 hours of work. Hardly worth it when that is the only change.

For those who do work, government tries to convince them that they need government to control companies to ensure their survival. Raising minimum wage is their favorite way of showing they 'care', which places blame solely on the private sector, and the end result is fewer jobs and way fewer well paying jobs. Their solutions don't create opportunities for people to advance themselves, they merely serve the purpose of destroying the means by which people could elevate.

Of course, welfare doesn't elevate you or give you the satisfaction of improving your own life. Most will never know that. They have no idea that many ended up living well because they applied themselves. Getting promotions and raises in the private sector beats the hell out of little increases in alms. Sad that so many people have no idea what that means. Liberal politicians have too many convinced that it's the fault of big companies who refuse to pay. Back in the day, and I'm showing my age here, jobs with meat packing plants or even some factories allowed people to live quite well. More people used to own their own homes and build retirement nest eggs. People got raises and the longer they were with companies, the better off they were. The main thing workers had in common was starting at the bottom in entry-level jobs drawing minimum wage and they went up from there. It's government interference that tied the hands of the private sector. Their tampering doesn't favor a free market, it favors government control and all roads lead to the same dead end for the people.

Government has tilted the playing field just so they can rush in on their white horses and 'save the day.' Only the ignorant believe that is their real intent. Every time government 'helps', things get worse and more end up needing to reach into the public coffers to survive.

Socialism/communism requires more than half dependent on government and we are dangerously close. The cattle rancher's predicament is merely another way that government is attacking small businesses and catering to the wealthy.

I liked the post that demonstrated the left's new language because it gives a perfect example of how propaganda is shaping public opinion. Benghazi was all about a few unhappy protesters, Fort Hood was just workplace violence and the people protesting the government over the cattle grazing are called domestic terrorists. People are being trained to view political dissenters as evil terrorists. The real terrorists are treated like victims of a captialist country.

That is how it has always worked in history when tyrants could taste the power. They want a compliant population and anyone not willingly entering into a mind-numbed existence is vilified and even jailed.

As more people realize this, more confrontations with the oppressive government will occur. Most people innately reject being controlled. I think a lot of people don't realize they are being indoctrinated. When you teach them young, you shape their whole lives.

None of this is anything new to some of you. Anyone who has followed history and read about the process by which radicals proceed to take over countries knows that this is going by the book, literally. The ignorance from the rest is what will help bring us down. The useful idiots are currently trained to spout talking points and attack those who speak the ugly truth. I hope more people stand up against this before it's too late.

I hate violence. I wish reasoning would do the trick. But we have two sides and they are completely opposite regarding the best direction for the country. As the left has increased the number of voters by buying them with the workers money, some states now want to do away with electoral colleges and elect based on popular votes. This means they feel they have that crucial 51% to take over America, destroy the constitution and bring in socialism/communism.

Next step? How do you fight this type of corruption by going through a corrupt system? It's becoming clear why our founders wrote the constitution the way they did and why the right to bear arms was meant to keep government in check. Radicals don't like that. It's clear why they want that right removed.

 

[rightwinger]

Its 1230 on April 24

How fast can Fox News and the Republicans run away from Bundy? When are they going to do another impassioned plea on his plight

 

[PredFan]

in your post you claim that your support of bundy is due to your support of human rights and opposition of 'wildly aggressive government.' since the government waited more than two decades to attempt to remove the cattle from the land i wouldn't in any way call them wildly aggressive, so that just leaves human rights.

so if you're saying your support of this man is due to his human rights being infringed upon i think it only fair that you back up your statement. it does go to the heart of the thread, whether or not bundy is some sort of right-wing hero and why.

Ok, despite what it says in my sig, let me try to get through to you.

The point of my post was that just because we support Mr.Bundy against the aggressive government, it does NOT logically follow that we support everything that he says and does. Unless you can show that the BLM agents were all black people, then the OP's connection from what happened at his ranch to what he said about blacks is bull shit. To imply that because we supported him then means we support his statements about blacks now is illogical and downright ignorant. I don't know how to make it simpler than that.

you left out 'human rights' this time. and i do understand the position. really. you can support someone on one thing and despise everything else about them. that's a simple concept.

you, however, hung your support of bundy on the infringement of human rights and aggressive government. the government took more than two decades to attempt to remove his cattle. that's hardly aggressive.

that leaves human rights - and i'd like to know, if that's the reason you support him, which of his human rights were infringed - or did you mistype when you put that in your post?

I left it out because it seemed to confuse you and it isn't relative to the point I was trying to make. The issue of what, if any, of his human rights being violated is a discussion in its own right and almost totally different than what this thread is about. I have discussed that kind if thing previously in more appropriate threads.

 

[Avatar4321]

If you're asking the question, you're a racist. Only a racist would speculate that slavery was better.

Except that's not true at all because slavery and race aren't linked. Are you seriously thinking the Romans were racist for thinking their slaves were better off as slaves than being free?

Slavery and race are only uniquely mixed in the United States history. The ironic part is it was started by a black man.

FF's sake. Bundy ain't talking roman. Give it a ******* rest you bogus Christian.

Clearly having a rational discussion with you is impossible. You completely miss the point. Slavery and racism are not inseparably connected.