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

[ogibillm]

Dodge noted and ignored.

not a dodge. you claim to support the man because you support his human rights.

explain to us which human rights were infringed upon. maybe we'll support him too.

from the department of redundancy department:
"vacuous conservative"

You also seem to have reading comprehension problems. You are among friends there because it seems to be a problem with you liberals. Your question goes off on an irrelevant tangent. Address the point of my post or have fun arguing with yourself.

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.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

AH it was New York Times interview where they were asking him about Welfare and the Welfare state way before he made the statement--- which basically forced him to make this statement.

He didn't come out of no where with this statement,t they were asking him about it, and he made an observation about REALITY:

Why the **** are all these able-bodied adults at the Welfare house, taking money from people who work?

Yeah the cotton part was dumb and most certainly rang of racism. What he should have said was "The Welfare state has never taught them how to work for a living."

And shall we ask when we observe Detroit, Chicago and Camden...has the Welfare State made blacks better off?

Also bear in mind that no blacks showed up to his ranch.

 

[ogibillm]

He wondered about it, i.e. he was asking the question, not making the statement one way or the other.

couching speculation in the form of a question does not mean you get to say whatever you want and claim innocence.

But it does mean people quoting it have to tell the truth about what was said. and he did not say "they would be better off a slaves"

no. he implied it. that was the meaning of his statement, but he did not directly say those words.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Basically what his position SEEMS to be is what several people on this board have said. That entitlements have ruined black inner city culture and society. What he did wrong is the way he said it, which quite frankly is about as offensive as you can get. Bringing up cotton picking is idiotic.

His tone does not imply hatred of black people, nor do his words. It implies an observation of a situation.

Again, though, his choice of words was quite frankly horrific.

Well, honestly, I don't think the fact that there are people on these boards who echo his sentiments is a real ringing endorsement. There are plenty of racists on these boards.

But if you interpret his remarks as lamenting a culture of entitlement, he may be right. But his views are more than a little ironic considering he has been feeding his cattle off the government teat for free for decades.

Mr. Pot, this is Mr Kettle.

He originally paid the government, but when they changed the terms he disputed it and withheld payment. He's on record saying he would pay Nevada, he just won't pay the feds.

and the government gets not only his fees (if he paid them) they get the sales taxes on his product, his income taxes, and the county gets his property taxes. The government is getting paid, just not his grazing fees until the dispute is settled.

So if I decide to pay my bills to people other than the ones I owe, that's OK, huh?

1) Sales tax is local - the feds don't get that. And EVERY business owner (even the ones who own the property they conduct their business on - pay sales taxes.

2) Those same business owners who own the land their business is on also pay income taxes.

3) The county doesn't get his property taxes on federal land

Bottom line is this guy thinks he has a right to a government handout - or that if HE doesn't get to choose the payee, then he doesn't have to write a check.

He doesn't have a hoof to stand on. His lamenting the entitlement culture among some blacks is the height of hypocrisy.

 

[tinydancer]

Typical idiot liberal. Because we support human rights and don't like government aggression, to the limited liberal mind it means we love the guy and we espouse everything he thinks and says.

You really have to have a diminished mental capacity to be liberal.

From the Department of Redundancy Department:

"Idiot Liberal"

the raw hate put out by people like Reid and their base over one citizen rancher, is some sad shit

Yup. They play follow the leader with that evil bastard Reid.

Bundy is just the new "target du jour".

 

[ogibillm]

You ha e a problem woth reading comprehension. It's been a problem for you for as long as I've been here. You are dodging the point of my post and your argument is irrelevant, so I'm not going off on a tangent with you. Especially when you don't have the ability to understand what you are being told. Address the point of my post or remain ignorant.

was the point of your post not that you support him because of infringement on his human rights, not because of anything he may say or do otherwise?

if that is the case please explain how his rights have been infringed upon.

it should be easy since it's the reason you support the guy, and surely you wouldn't support him without a reason, right?

<Facepalm> try reading it again because you are way off.

you spend a lot of posts telling us how wrong we are but don't offer any clarification.

clearly i did not get your intended meaning, since you are claiming that human rights had nothing to do with it.

that said, try explaining it to me again. use small words.

 

[BlindBoo]

which of Bundy's 'human rights' was infringed upon by requiring he pay for the use of land that wasn't his?

and that he had previously agreed to pay for.

He signed the contract.

Used to be that one's word, one's signature was worth something. Not any more though.

The government unilaterally changed the contract. He disputed it.

First, it must be admitted that legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The Bureau of Land Management has been charging him grazing fees since the early 1990s, which he has refused to pay. Further, BLM has issued orders limiting the area on which Bundy’s cows can graze and the number that can graze, and Bundy has ignored those directives. As a result, BLM has sued Bundy twice in federal court, and won both cases. In the second, more recent action, Bundy’s defense is that the federal government doesn’t own the land in question and therefore has no authority to regulate grazing. That simply isn’t right; the land, like most of Nevada, is federally owned. Bundy is representing himself, of necessity: no lawyer could make that argument.

But Bundy is still wrong. He is trying to exercise property rights over land that is not his. The owner gave him free use for years and then changed its policy and raised his rent, and eventually tried to evict him. Conservatives and libertarians don't accept the argument that long-time tenancy on private land gives one quasi-ownership rights (though states like California and cities like New York seem to be pushing law in this direction), so they should not accept it in this case. You can't defend property rights by trashing property rights. Had this been a case of the government using its fiat power to override a past written contractual obligation, I would have been sympathetic perhaps, but it is not.

I would love to see a concerted effort to push for government to divest itself of much of its western land. Ten years ago I would have said I would love to see an effort to manage it better, but I feel like that is impossible in this corporate state of ours. So the best solution is just to divest. But I cannot see where the Bundy Ranch is a particularly good case. Seriously, I would love to see more oil and gas exploration permitted on Federal land, but you won't see me out patting Exxon on the back if they suddenly start drilling on Federal land without permission or without paying the proper royalties. At least the protesters in San Francisco likely don't believe in property rights at all. Conservatives, what is your excuse?

I suppose we can argue about whether the time for civil disobedience has come, but even if this is the case, we have to be able to find a better example than the Bundy Ranch to plant our flag.

Bundy Ranch the Wrong Hill for Libertarians to be Dying On | Coyote Blog

 

[manifold]

Ok, IF this guy is a racist (his words appear to confirm that but, it could possibly be a misquote or just a very unsophisticated and unfortunate choice of words), imho it doesn't have any bearing on the real issue.

In the United States you have the right to be as stupid as you want to be. I'm not interested in "reforming" him or "demonizing" him or "idolizing" him. I just think he ought to pay what he owes - period.

I understand that his words seem to indicate a particular "mindset" but personally, I don't give two hoots about his mindset. Just pay up. If he chooses not to pay what he owes, that choice should have consequences. And the same goes for anybody - no matter what their political persuasion.

That's MHO.

Basically what his position SEEMS to be is what several people on this board have said. That entitlements have ruined black inner city culture and society. What he did wrong is the way he said it, which quite frankly is about as offensive as you can get. Bringing up cotton picking is idiotic.

His tone does not imply hatred of black people, nor do his words. It implies an observation of a situation.

Again, though, his choice of words was quite frankly horrific.

No offense but you really can't have it both ways, unless what you call the truth horrifies you.

 

[rightwinger]

Has this been corroborated by another source other than NYtimes?

Do you think Breitbart will cover it?

NY Times is such an unreliable source

 

[martybegan]

couching speculation in the form of a question does not mean you get to say whatever you want and claim innocence.

But it does mean people quoting it have to tell the truth about what was said. and he did not say "they would be better off a slaves"

no. he implied it. that was the meaning of his statement, but he did not directly say those words.

People are still paraphrasing what he said to make it look worse. That one statement doesn't need to look worse, its bad enough. But since the progressive statists see the blood in the water, they have to embellish to go for the kill.

Question: Do you think Bundy really wants to re-enslave Blacks?

 

[namvet]

I realize you are suffering from George Zimmerman withdrawal syndrome, but it's so nice that your new hero is speaking up and revealing himself as the true American he...and you stupid rednecks...perceive him to be:


“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.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/u...ming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0

who's your daddy ???

 

[tinydancer]

I do find it amazing that all the liberals can rant on and on and on about Bundy being a welfare queen, when Al Sharpton owes double if not triple in back taxes a we hear crickets.

Why aren't the same people who think Bundy's cattle, his ranch, his family and his supporters should all be blown away screaming for Al Sharpton and his family to be surrounded by 200 armed men, 9 helicopters and snipers to collect Al's long over due tax debt?

Hypocrisy thy name is liberal.

 

[rightwinger]

I do find it amazing that all the liberals can rant on and on and on about Bundy being a welfare queen, when Al Sharpton owes double if not triple in back taxes a we hear crickets.

Why aren't the same people who think Bundy's cattle, his ranch, his family and his supporters should all be blown away screaming for Al Sharpton and his family to be surrounded by 200 armed men, 9 helicopters and snipers to collect Al's long over due tax debt?

Hypocrisy thy name is liberal.

They both owe money

Doesn't justify the racist Bundy continuing to receive government handouts while he condemns "negroes" who are on welfare

 

[martybegan]

Ok, IF this guy is a racist (his words appear to confirm that but, it could possibly be a misquote or just a very unsophisticated and unfortunate choice of words), imho it doesn't have any bearing on the real issue.

In the United States you have the right to be as stupid as you want to be. I'm not interested in "reforming" him or "demonizing" him or "idolizing" him. I just think he ought to pay what he owes - period.

I understand that his words seem to indicate a particular "mindset" but personally, I don't give two hoots about his mindset. Just pay up. If he chooses not to pay what he owes, that choice should have consequences. And the same goes for anybody - no matter what their political persuasion.

That's MHO.

Basically what his position SEEMS to be is what several people on this board have said. That entitlements have ruined black inner city culture and society. What he did wrong is the way he said it, which quite frankly is about as offensive as you can get. Bringing up cotton picking is idiotic.

His tone does not imply hatred of black people, nor do his words. It implies an observation of a situation.

Again, though, his choice of words was quite frankly horrific.

No offense but you really can't have it both ways, unless what you call the truth horrifies you.

How is this having it both ways? Did he out and out say he hated black people? From what I have read is the reporter asked him his position on the welfare state, and he replied.

Yes his language was crude. He's an older guy, and I run into that from older people of all races. Every listen to an old black man (who as Chris Rock says, experienced ACTUAL racism) talk about white people when he thinks no one is listening?

Congrats. progressives have their "gotcha" moment. Now instead of arguing the merits of the debate they can call him a racist and absolve themselves of ever having to make another actual point in the discussion. Maybe next we will find out he doesn't like gay marriage and we can round up a lynch mob.

 

[Stephanie]

Typical idiot liberal. Because we support human rights and don't like government aggression, to the limited liberal mind it means we love the guy and we espouse everything he thinks and says.

You really have to have a diminished mental capacity to be liberal.

From the Department of Redundancy Department:

"Idiot Liberal"

the raw hate put out by people like Reid and their base over one citizen rancher, is some sad shit

Raw hate?

Yeah..there would be raw hate.

Bundy just said that some Americans would be happier picking cotton and being slaves.

That should make the fiber in any American's body bristle.

That viewpoint is disgusting and completely Anti-American.

Close to a million Americans died in a Civil War to assure freedom for ALL Americans.

all that spew above, it's too bad people like and harry Reid don't feel this rancher deserves the same...you must be done haten on Joe the plumber, so it's onto someone new

 

[Katzndogz]

These statements even if true are as inconsequential as Phil Robertson saying he worked with black people and they were happy.

 

[namvet]

this isn't about Bundy. its about an armed Militia that stood up to a illegal socialist regeime. its the Militia I back and if needed ill help supply them with money for more weapons to kill these cockroach's

 

[ogibillm]

I do find it amazing that all the liberals can rant on and on and on about Bundy being a welfare queen, when Al Sharpton owes double if not triple in back taxes a we hear crickets.

Why aren't the same people who think Bundy's cattle, his ranch, his family and his supporters should all be blown away screaming for Al Sharpton and his family to be surrounded by 200 armed men, 9 helicopters and snipers to collect Al's long over due tax debt?

Hypocrisy thy name is liberal.

first, nobody is calling for anyone to be 'blown away'

second, as far as i can tell sharpton has admitted to owing the money (although i believe he disputes the amount) and is repaying. could be wrong. if i am, and he isn't, by all means lock him up.

 

[PredFan]

not a dodge. you claim to support the man because you support his human rights.

explain to us which human rights were infringed upon. maybe we'll support him too.

from the department of redundancy department:
"vacuous conservative"

You also seem to have reading comprehension problems. You are among friends there because it seems to be a problem with you liberals. Your question goes off on an irrelevant tangent. Address the point of my post or have fun arguing with yourself.

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.

 

[ClosedCaption]

No wonder Republicans have a hard time seeing racism or racist thoughts. They just spin everything and pretend they are "serious" discussions.