Bundy Ranch

[boyst]

It would be a nice story, if he hadn't done it to himself. Without provocation. The media reaction is exactly that -- a reaction to his own ignorance and racism. The fact that it overshadows his story is not a surprise or unique. And frankly, it should have been expected.

Until you talk some real country boys, some people who don't live in the "real world" so many of us fine "real" americans do....well, don't judge his ignorance. You call it ignorance, that is your ignorance. His viewpoint is very popular. It is not racist nor is it any other ist. It is just the way a lot of people are... and it doesn't have to do with race.

 

 

I do not think he is a racist. (His own words contradict your belief) We are going to start judging people by their words and not their intentions, meaning or other relevant info. Awesome. But, I do not know him at all and go on a large, strong, beautifully stretched limb again to say I do not think he is racist, he is just not refined or all that bright. I do not think he holds people on separate standards based on race alone. (Not people, just "the negro") The negro? Dude, I use that word all the time. As a farmer in the South I need to. I have much in common with the teens of todays youth who use it often, and I am a lot like a rap star. They say it more then anyone. It's just a word and only idiots put meaning in to it. Bury it, be done with it and move on. Let the idiots be idiots and when they say stupid stuff, ignore them (inb4, you're idiot, i ignore you, herpderp). I think he is like many older men and women in this society that grew up in small towns, ignorant communities and raised a little backwards to what culture has deemed cultural. (In other words, backwards) Most of America is backwards, then. I guess from atop middle class society and from the great heights of upper class people forget how crummy the bottom of the barrel is with not being as advanced and cultured as you modern folk.

 

He comes across as many of the 45-50+ year old men I meet in my field. They're not racists, they're not mean spirited or evil, even. They're just set in their ways. (Set in their racist ways that reflect how the world looked 50 years ago) And how it still looks across the state of Ohio, Western New York, Texas, Iowa, the South, and California. All places I have spent a great amount of time and seen the same types of people. And, I have met people from all across this country and been all over it, too. This world is not much different then it was 50 years ago. Maybe its different on 5th Avenue, and Main Street is now a hipster place, but Cotton Grove Road, Grimes Mill Road, Monroe Street, and Telegraph Road are much the same as they were 50 years ago. They have been in the same position of life for a long time, in the field too long, if you will. (Not every old person is a racist, not every farmer is a racist, but so far you've done nothing but generalize when we're talking about a specific person who very clearly opined his views) I've met thousands of old people and farmers here in the South and I think I have heard each one of them make a racist remark. I think 98% of the world I know has made some type of racist remark or action. If you say your world is any different you're full of poo. They don't need to understand why people wear a hat backward, or why they listen to music loud, or why tight jeans are fashionable, and they most certainly do not understand why some ethnicities act a certain way. They don't understand it because they just don't care to and they don't see the reasoning. (Like the excessive lengths you're going through in this post to try to convince yourself that what this guy said is somehow innocent) What is he guilty of? Being a racist? I don't think he is. I think he is just another one of the millions across this country who hold a different viewpoint then what others do and just one of those who doesn't agree with what societal standards have pretended to set for years. Whats the point of wearing a hat backward?

 

See, I am getting off the subject and I am doing so on purpose. The color of a guys skin matters as much as the backward hat he is wearing to guys like this. (Hogwash. Absolute hogwash and completely untrue. He specifically called out an entire race, not a generation) Yet, I am sure if either one of us actually knew him we'd be able to say for sure but I have heard enough idiots speak and seen enough idiots in front of a camera or microphone put their foot in their mouth. I imagine his calling out an "entire race" was not calling out an entire race.

 

Do not confuse his issues and statements about welfare to be about race. (You cannot separate the two now, which is entirely his own fault and completely deserved, he shot himself in the foot with his own mouth I will say this just to annoy you. Why is it so many more blacks are on welfare then whites %? I think it's a major issue in this country. I think because of that a simpleton would define that as the majority of those on welfare are black. I don't label it as a black issue, I label it as just an issue. The easiest way to explain this guys view on welfare? (It's easy to explain his view on welfare -- it's okay for Bundy to take from the government for free because he's a white male but not okay for "the negro" who was better off in slavery. Do you really want to defend him more?) I guess I missed the statement he said that him being a white male means he gets to be a criminal, I think you're confusing a George Zimmerman pop-op here. Your bad. Everything he has earned has come with struggle, blood, sweat and tears. (Except for the free grazing he's been enjoying for TWENTY YEARS, yes. You're right. He's a self made man.) Yep, he was allowed to rip off the government just like those millions of blacks on welfare who haven't done anything. The fact that he is an !@#$ who mooched illegally off the government not withstanding in this argument (yet). He worked hard for what little is his and has seen it taken from him and just had enough. That is at least his viewpoint and we cannot argue against that; we can only argue its validity. (No, we can and have argued against it.) Oh, is that what you call your blathering? I just misunderstood it for not taking meds.

 

Bundy just doesn't care or get it when it comes to who tells him what he can and can't do because he is an !@#$. (A racist ass) One badass dude who is my hero.

 

 

 

So if I understand you correctly, my asking someone else a question about a position they espoused in an earlier post, somehow gives you an avenue of insight into my overall intelligence and my ability to discuss "confusing" subjects. Okay...

 

You are right in one area. I didn't provide any counter arguments. Doing so would have been a waste of my time. I did however get exactly the type of response I was expecting.

Here is your prize.

Edited April 27, 2014 by jboyst62

[boyst]

Are you talking about the federal government's right to own 85% of Nevada rather than the state's right to own it? Isn't that where he mentioned that he didn't recognize the Feds right to own it?

Of all states, I guess I am fine with them taking Nevada. Florida would have been my preference, but I wasn't around.

[IDBillzFan]

So not wanting to read 10 pages what is the verdict of the people here on this rancher?

 

That once again we're provided the perfect story of the perfect idiot to be the perfect foil to get Generation Selfie talking about anything other than the topics and issues that genuinely warrant our full attention.

[boyst]

That once again we're provided the perfect story of the perfect idiot to be the perfect foil to get Generation Selfie talking about anything other than the topics and issues that genuinely warrant our full attention.

Sure, but if this was a black man doing this you'd feel entirely different. Racist.

[Deranged Rhino]

Until you talk some real country boys, some people who don't live in the "real world" so many of us fine "real" americans do....well, don't judge his ignorance. You call it ignorance, that is your ignorance. His viewpoint is very popular. It is not racist nor is it any other ist. It is just the way a lot of people are... and it doesn't have to do with race.

I have plenty of experience with real country boys in both work and friendships. I'm more familiar with "good ol' boy" thinking and logic than you're aware. I'm also deeply familiar with the personal pains and effects of racism -- subtle and direct.

 

The popularity of a viewpoint has NOTHING to do with its validity or its racism or lack there of. Suggesting otherwise is ignorant. And yes, I will judge that kind of ignorance because it's destructive and divisive. It's designed to hurt and injure, not educate or enlighten.

 

To say that it's not racist to make hateful and incredible uninformed generalizations about an entire RACE of people based on a small sample size of personal experience is IDIOTIC. It's the literal definition of racism...

 

You're like 3rd right now, defending a man you admit you do not know (and your posts illuminate to the rest of us you don't even know the content of what he actually said) -- yet you jump to defend him because you're assuming he's just being picked on.

 

You're wrong. And your red responses are hilarious -- and in no way address the issue. Good work trying though.

Edited April 27, 2014 by GreggyT

[boyst]

I have plenty of experience with real country boys in both work and friendships. I'm more familiar with "good ol' boy" thinking and logic than you're aware. I'm also deeply familiar with the personal pains and effects of racism -- subtle and direct.

 

The popularity of a viewpoint has NOTHING to do with its validity or its racism or lack there of. Suggesting otherwise is ignorant. And yes, I will judge that kind of ignorance because it's destructive and divisive. It's designed to hurt and injure, not educate or enlighten.

 

To say that it's not racist to make hateful and incredible uninformed generalizations about an entire RACE of people based on a small sample size of personal experience is IDIOTIC. It's the literal definition of racism...

 

You're like 3rd right now, defending a man you admit you do not know (and your posts illuminate to the rest of us you don't even know the content of what he actually said) -- yet you jump to defend him because you're assuming he's just being picked on.

 

You're wrong. And your red responses are hilarious -- and in no way address the issue. Good work trying though.

You're like an idiot now, labeling a man you know nothing about.

 

You could label anyone anything if you take 5 minutes worth of words they say to make a viewpoint.

 

We'll agree to disagree. I don't need to waste my time with someone of such high moral authority and expertise on ism's. I bow down to your knowledge and weep that there are many more like you in this country. What a craphole we live in.

[dayman]

Until you talk some real country boys, some people who don't live in the "real world" so many of us fine "real" americans do....well, don't judge his ignorance. You call it ignorance, that is your ignorance. His viewpoint is very popular. It is not racist nor is it any other ist. It is just the way a lot of people are... and it doesn't have to do with race.

 

This is a pretty stupid post you have made here, jboyst. You don't have to have a lynch mob in mind or overt hate in your heart to be racist...you just have to believe the things this guy said.

[Deranged Rhino]

You're like an idiot now, labeling a man you know nothing about.

 

You could label anyone anything if you take 5 minutes worth of words they say to make a viewpoint.

 

We'll agree to disagree. I don't need to waste my time with someone of such high moral authority and expertise on ism's. I bow down to your knowledge and weep that there are many more like you in this country. What a craphole we live in.

You're making a huge leap at the end that is ridiculous. Just because I'm calling, justifiably so I'll add, one man's comments racist does not mean I'm a high moral authority on anything.

 

Answer me this: Do you believe that African Americans as a whole were better off as slaves than as citizens? Yes or no.

Edited April 27, 2014 by GreggyT

[boyst]

You're making a huge leap at the end that is ridiculous. Just because I'm calling, justifiably so I'll add, one man's comments racist does not mean I'm a high moral authority on anything.

 

Answer me this: Do you believe that African Americans as a whole were better off as slaves than as citizens? Yes or no.

Magenta.

 

This is a pretty stupid post you have made here, jboyst. You don't have to have a lynch mob in mind or overt hate in your heart to be racist...you just have to believe the things this guy said.

It is not stupid.

 

What makes you so sure you believe him or he believes himself? Do his actions speak louder? Do we care if he is racist? Does it have anything to do with the story?

 

No, it is people like GreggyPoo who take important issues and look for any label they can to make it a non issue. They take folks like Joe the Plumber and marginalize him because he was never a certified plumber, or George Zimmerman is a white racist, and so on and so on until they get guys like Bundy and use that as an argument for why this whole issue is not important.

 

It's called foolish. I don't care what Bundy personally thinks. I don't care if he tortures kittens and puppies every 3rd Tuesday. It has no baring whatsoever to me and my life but what he is fighting for does. I don't think he is racist and I don't care if he is, further. An idiot can make a valid point and still be an idiot. A smart person can make a stupid mistake and still be smart.

[dayman]

Magenta.

 

It is not stupid.

 

What makes you so sure you believe him or he believes himself? Do his actions speak louder? Do we care if he is racist? Does it have anything to do with the story?

 

No, it is people like GreggyPoo who take important issues and look for any label they can to make it a non issue. They take folks like Joe the Plumber and marginalize him because he was never a certified plumber, or George Zimmerman is a white racist, and so on and so on until they get guys like Bundy and use that as an argument for why this whole issue is not important.

 

It's called foolish. I don't care what Bundy personally thinks. I don't care if he tortures kittens and puppies every 3rd Tuesday. It has no baring whatsoever to me and my life but what he is fighting for does. I don't think he is racist and I don't care if he is, further. An idiot can make a valid point and still be an idiot. A smart person can make a stupid mistake and still be smart.

 

Well that isn't exactly the same as "talk to some country boys his point of view is popular."

[Deranged Rhino]

Magenta.

Come on, answer the question... or at least admit you're full of it. Do you believe that African Americans as a whole were better off as slaves than citizens? If you don't believe that, which I'm almost certain you do not, then what are we arguing about?

[DC Tom]

Come on, answer the question... or at least admit you're full of it. Do you believe that African Americans as a whole were better off as slaves than citizens? If you don't believe that, which I'm almost certain you do not, then what are we arguing about?

 

I say "maybe."

 

Really, it's a bull **** question.

[Deranged Rhino]

I say "maybe."

 

Really, it's a bull **** question.

No, Tom, it's not a bull **** question. Not when this is the very question that caused the outrage. And the answer is without question NOT maybe.

[dayman]

No, Tom, it's not a bull **** question. Not when this is the very question that caused the outrage. And the answer is without question NOT maybe.

 

It could be maybe. What if I think that slaves worked 9-5, Mon-Fri, and went home to families who live on a farm with chickens and a garden?

[DC Tom]

No, Tom, it's not a bull **** question. Not when this is the very question that caused the outrage. And the answer is without question NOT maybe.

 

It is a bull **** question, because you're treating "slavery" and "freedom" both as though it's some monolithic practice uniform throughout all places and all times. Even a cursory reading of the history shows that slavery in the border states in 1859 was not slavery in the deep South in 1800, and the non-specificity of your question leads to the obvious counter-argument for any answer to cherry-pick your comparison (no doubt why jboyst answered how he did.)

 

Also why I answered maybe - what comparison are you looking for? Alabama plantation slaves in 1840 compared to African-Americans today? (Yes, slaves were worse off. Frickin' duh.) Or the slave community in Lexington, VA, in 1855 as compared to the same during the Reconstruction? (Actually...probably better off as slaves, as they had food, shelter, and better opportunities for work and education.)

 

So yes, your question is bull ****. It's a setup, and not even a subtle one given that jboyst saw through it.

[Deranged Rhino]

It is a bull **** question, because you're treating "slavery" and "freedom" both as though it's some monolithic practice uniform throughout all places and all times. Even a cursory reading of the history shows that slavery in the border states in 1859 was not slavery in the deep South in 1800, and the non-specificity of your question leads to the obvious counter-argument for any answer to cherry-pick your comparison (no doubt why jboyst answered how he did.)

 

Also why I answered maybe - what comparison are you looking for? Alabama plantation slaves in 1840 compared to African-Americans today? (Yes, slaves were worse off. Frickin' duh.) Or the slave community in Lexington, VA, in 1855 as compared to the same during the Reconstruction? (Actually...probably better off as slaves, as they had food, shelter, and better opportunities for work and education.)

 

So yes, your question is bull ****. It's a setup, and not even a subtle one given that jboyst saw through it.

It's not a set up. It's not even my question. It's a question Bundy volunteered on his own to wade into and provide his own answer. No one tricked him into answering this question, and no one is trying to trick Jboyst or you into answering it. But denying that Bundy's rant about "the negro" (again, how he phrased his lecture) was racist AND ignorant is idiotic.

 

Are you taking that position? You, the king of declaring who is idiotic really going to take up the position that Bundy's answer is somehow irrelevant to the conversation? Or somehow misunderstood?

 

Any system of slavery that existed in the Americas or the United States was not more beneficial to the African American population than being a citizen. You're the one trying to obscure the issue and cherry pick in order to defend your "maybe" answer -- which is a bull **** answer. I know the history as well or better than you on this matter, and there is no objective or verifiable argument you can make that ANY variation of chattel slavery in the United States is better for the African American population as a whole. How do I know that? Because all forms of chattel slavery throughout the colonies and United States shared one universal theme: Slaves were property.

 

If you think there's any merit to the argument that African Americans were better off as property then you're not a serious thinker. And I know you are a serious thinker. So start thinking.

Edited April 28, 2014 by GreggyT

[boyst]

Well that isn't exactly the same as "talk to some country boys his point of view is popular."

It is popular. Narrow mindedness is a special trait of so many in this country. Unfortunately, so many in my life will hold race or ethnicity as a factor when judging someone.

 

Come on, answer the question... or at least admit you're full of it. Do you believe that African Americans as a whole were better off as slaves than citizens? If you don't believe that, which I'm almost certain you do not, then what are we arguing about?

No, there is no need because it has no basis on this issue. The best answer I can give is just like this topic and your crusade of race; my answer has nothing to do with your issue and that is just the same as your issue having to do with the major subject.

 

Create your own thread to discuss how bad you feel for blacks. I'll make one for how bad I feel for white guys or something.

I say "maybe."

 

Really, it's a bull **** question.

I say it's even. Back then they could get a lot of free fresh air.

 

No, Tom, it's not a bull **** question. Not when this is the very question that caused the outrage. And the answer is without question NOT maybe.

Who's outraged?

 

It could be maybe. What if I think that slaves worked 9-5, Mon-Fri, and went home to families who live on a farm with chickens and a garden?

You know what makes me sad? I guess images of Django Unchained come to mind, but sadly there were probably more then a few slaves who were content with slavery.

 

It is a bull **** question, because you're treating "slavery" and "freedom" both as though it's some monolithic practice uniform throughout all places and all times. Even a cursory reading of the history shows that slavery in the border states in 1859 was not slavery in the deep South in 1800, and the non-specificity of your question leads to the obvious counter-argument for any answer to cherry-pick your comparison (no doubt why jboyst answered how he did.)

 

Also why I answered maybe - what comparison are you looking for? Alabama plantation slaves in 1840 compared to African-Americans today? (Yes, slaves were worse off. Frickin' duh.) Or the slave community in Lexington, VA, in 1855 as compared to the same during the Reconstruction? (Actually...probably better off as slaves, as they had food, shelter, and better opportunities for work and education.)

 

So yes, your question is bull ****. It's a setup, and not even a subtle one given that jboyst saw through it.

hey, wait a minute!

 

Also, I have just been goading him through this process because its been fun to watch how far off the track he will go to cry about racism when it has 0.0% to do with it. My blathering has just been nonsense strung together with some thoughts between.

 

It's not a set up. It's not even my question. It's a question Bundy volunteered on his own to wade into and provide his own answer. No one tricked him into answering this question, and no one is trying to trick Jboyst or you into answering it. But denying that Bundy's rant about "the negro" (again, how he phrased his lecture) was racist AND ignorant is idiotic.

 

Are you taking that position? You, the king of declaring who is idiotic really going to take up the position that Bundy's answer is somehow irrelevant to the conversation? Or somehow misunderstood?

 

Any system of slavery that existed in the Americas or the United States was not more beneficial to the African American population than being a citizen. You're the one trying to obscure the issue and cherry pick in order to defend your "maybe" answer -- which is a bull **** answer. I know the history as well or better than you on this matter, and there is no objective or verifiable argument you can make that ANY variation of chattel slavery in the United States is better for the African American population as a whole. How do I know that? Because all forms of chattel slavery throughout the colonies and United States shared one universal theme: Slaves were property.

 

If you think there's any merit to the argument that African Americans were better off as property then you're not a serious thinker. And I know you are a serious thinker. So start thinking.

I stopped reading your stuff, so I didn't read this.

[IDBillzFan]

It's not a set up. It's not even my question. It's a question Bundy volunteered on his own to wade into and provide his own answer. No one tricked him into answering this question, and no one is trying to trick Jboyst or you into answering it. But denying that Bundy's rant about "the negro" (again, how he phrased his lecture) was racist AND ignorant is idiotic.

 

Are you taking that position? You, the king of declaring who is idiotic really going to take up the position that Bundy's answer is somehow irrelevant to the conversation? Or somehow misunderstood?

 

Any system of slavery that existed in the Americas or the United States was not more beneficial to the African American population than being a citizen. You're the one trying to obscure the issue and cherry pick in order to defend your "maybe" answer -- which is a bull **** answer. I know the history as well or better than you on this matter, and there is no objective or verifiable argument you can make that ANY variation of chattel slavery in the United States is better for the African American population as a whole. How do I know that? Because all forms of chattel slavery throughout the colonies and United States shared one universal theme: Slaves were property.

 

If you think there's any merit to the argument that African Americans were better off as property then you're not a serious thinker. And I know you are a serious thinker. So start thinking.

 

Too bad progressives don't get this worked up over something relevant. Imagine the good you could finally do.

[dayman]

Actually the best news for this guy is Sterling.

[boyst]

Actually the best news for this guy is Sterling.

why? They're nothing at all related in any shape or form.

 

Just to make sure you understand, and GreggyPoo does, too... They're nothing alike.