Bundy Ranch

[Dante]

Summed up very succinctly by Lyndon B. Johnson: "I'll have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years."; soft-slavery is perpetual multi-generational dependance, which serves to hold a group of people in a perpetual underclass by making their chains fit softly upon their wrists.

 

It is the desruction of the black family. It is the marginalization of the black male. It is the handout that replaced that paycheck which made the former possible. It is the incentivization of these same behaviors, generation after generation, which normalizes, and removes the shame. But most importantly, it is the slave masters, using these humans for nothing more than their votes, much like the Southern farmer in his field.

I wish I and Bundy put it this succinctly. This is all the guy was trying to say. But he is a relic from generations ago.He actually believes you can say what you think without having to say it through the PC filter. He's not a paid talking head or politician. I assume no University there. He's a rancher in the middle of no where.

[GG]

I wish I and Bundy put it this succinctly. This is all the guy was trying to say. But he is a relic from generations ago.He actually believes you can say what you think without having to say it through the PC filter. He's not a paid talking head or politician. I assume no University there. He's a rancher in the middle of no where.

 

Except Bundy didn't say what TyTT said. Relic or not, he's either a racist, idiot or both. There's no explaining it away.

 

As for the land rights, Bundy has zero land rights to federally owned land. Successive court rulings have confirmed that.

[DC Tom]

Soft slavery? What's that?

 

It's when you "emancipate" an unskilled, illiterate labor force, and give them no economic recourse outside of the form of indentured servitude euphemistically named "sharecropping."

[TakeYouToTasker]

I wish I and Bundy put it this succinctly. This is all the guy was trying to say. But he is a relic from generations ago.He actually believes you can say what you think without having to say it through the PC filter. He's not a paid talking head or politician. I assume no University there. He's a rancher in the middle of no where.

And an ignorant one, at that. I won't defend what he said outside of the very narrow post I've already made. The man said what he said, and I'll leave him to defend the rest on his own.

[Deranged Rhino]

Is it possible for you to understand that Bundy may have land rights?

 

He sounds like a crusty old man who didn't articulate a premise very well that has been discussed here in a not so frank way as Bundy did.

 

What are Bundy's views that you are opposed to? Please use only his words.

 

Why bring sexual orientation into this?

He has no land rights. His "case" is a lost cause and has been for 20 years. The man's problem isn't his inability to articulate his positions, he articulated it quite well by stating all that he knows about "the negro". You backed the wrong horse, digging in and defending him now makes you look desperate and stubborn, not noble. Even Hannity of all people, the lowest of the low, has dumped him. It's time for you to do the same.

 

Any defense of what this rancher said, and what he said was that "the negro" was better off in slavery -- nothing deeper -- is intellectual tap-dancing at best, or racism of the lowest kind at worst. You cannot defend that. Not even Tasker's tap dancing can defend it; it merely talks around it. What the man said is simply not true by an objective measure. None. It's an indefensible position on top of his already losing land case.

 

And an ignorant one, at that. I won't defend what he said outside of the very narrow post I've already made. The man said what he said, and I'll leave him to defend the rest on his own.

Your post doesn't address in any way what Bundy said. Your post is decrying the current system, which, even with its faults, is infinitely preferable to being a literal slave. Any argument to the contrary is hokum -- and disingenuous hokum at that.

 

I wish I and Bundy put it this succinctly. This is all the guy was trying to say. But he is a relic from generations ago.He actually believes you can say what you think without having to say it through the PC filter. He's not a paid talking head or politician. I assume no University there. He's a rancher in the middle of no where.

"This" was in no way what he was trying to say. And even if it was, it's still woefully incorrect.

Edited April 26, 2014 by GreggyT

[TakeYouToTasker]

Gregg:

 

In my defense of Bundy, I could give a rat's wet ass about his position on "negros", gays, or the color blue.

 

None of those things change the actions of the government, which I find to be far more offensive than any backward notions held by some dumbass hillbilly rancher.

 

In other words, I don't support Bundy because he his Bundy. I support him because I oppose the actions of the government in this case, and because Bundy's lesser evils to not in any way mitigate the big picture.

 

As to my position on soft slavery, I'll thank you to explain, in some detail, what is woefully incorrect about it.

Edited April 26, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[Deranged Rhino]

Gregg:

 

In my defense of Bundy, I could give a rat's wet ass about his position on "negros", gays, or the color blue.

 

None of those things change the actions of the government, which I find to be far more offensive than any backward notions held by some dumbass hillbilly rancher.

 

In other words, I don't support Bundy because he his Bundy. I support him because I oppose the actions of the government in this case, and because Bundy's lesser evils to not in any way mitigate the big picture.

Bundy's land position is not an issue to me. I get and respect that it might be to you, but I side with the courts on this issue while remaining sympathetic to issues of eminent domain as a whole. This guy is not someone who should be made a champion of a cause -- any cause, let alone one which you're clearly passionate about. Why? Because even without going into the actual merits of the case, he is so easy to dismiss because of his own actions and words. The guy openly admits he doesn't believe in the United States of America while riding a horse waving an American flag. He's a clown, and tying him to your cause makes your cause seem silly. If you want to make someone the face of your cause, you have to make sure that someone is bulletproof. That might not be fair, but neither is the world.

 

As to my position on soft slavery, I'll thank you to explain, in some detail, what is woefully incorrect about it.

 

It's incorrect because, even with its flaws, freedom is infinitely better than being an actual slave. Your diatribe is a dressing down of the system we have today, which is a perfectly fine discussion and you might even have valid points. But when you couch those points in a discussion about slavery and say that our current system is in any way worse, or even comparable, for the African American population than the system of chattel slavery is just utter nonsense. It's simply not true and can never be successfully argued.

 

Slavery in the Americas as a whole, and in the United States specifically, was one of the most reprehensible and horrific chapters in human history. We'll never know precisely how many millions of lives were lost, how many families were forever shattered, how many generations were wiped from existence in the name of this institution. Say what you want about the welfare state and the destruction of the modern black family -- those are valid topics for discussion (though certainly not in Bundy's case). But when you start that conversation by saying that it's comparable to the horrors of actual slavery, it betrays absolute ignorance of history -- aside from being factually incorrect.

[3rdnlng]

He has no land rights. His "case" is a lost cause and has been for 20 years. The man's problem isn't his inability to articulate his positions, he articulated it quite well by stating all that he knows about "the negro". You backed the wrong horse, digging in and defending him now makes you look desperate and stubborn, not noble. Even Hannity of all people, the lowest of the low, has dumped him. It's time for you to do the same.

 

Any defense of what this rancher said, and what he said was that "the negro" was better off in slavery -- nothing deeper -- is intellectual tap-dancing at best, or racism of the lowest kind at worst. You cannot defend that. Not even Tasker's tap dancing can defend it; it merely talks around it. What the man said is simply not true by an objective measure. None. It's an indefensible position on top of his already losing land case.

 

 

Your post doesn't address in any way what Bundy said. Your post is decrying the current system, which, even with its faults, is infinitely preferable to being a literal slave. Any argument to the contrary is hokum -- and disingenuous hokum at that.

 

 

"This" was in no way what he was trying to say. And even if it was, it's still woefully incorrect.

 

Don't paraphrase. Quote him specifically and in context. Also, don't put words in my mouth. You claim I am digging in and defending him but you couldn't be further from the truth. I'm defending his right to challenge the government. I also realize he might just not be as articulate as some others and have tried to think through his thought process using his words and placing myself in his position. Painting him as a bigot to defend the government's actions is a cheap way out for you.

[Deranged Rhino]

Don't paraphrase. Quote him specifically and in context.

 

I quoted him faithfully and in context. If you disagree, I suggest you look at what he said for yourself rather than pretending I'm in someway taking him out of context.

 

Also, don't put words in my mouth. You claim I am digging in and defending him but you couldn't be further from the truth.

And yet, this is now your third post where you're digging in and defending him... so I have to be somewhat close to the truth.

 

I'm defending his right to challenge the government.

That's fine. But he has lost already and will only continue to lose because his case is not as strong as you claim. If the cause is important to you, then you cannot make this man the face of that cause. Standing by him now does your cause a disservice. But it's your right to do so, I'm not trying to argue otherwise.

 

I also realize he might just not be as articulate as some others and have tried to think through his thought process using his words and placing myself in his position. Painting him as a bigot to defend the government's actions is a cheap way out for you.

I'm not painting him as a bigot. He did with his own words and actions. Just because his enemy is the same as yours, doesn't mean he has to be your friend, or cause. The man said a terribly ignorant thing that happens to be rooted, most likely, in a deep seeded racism. I'll admit the second part is speculation on my part, but the evidence seems to be on my side.

[boyst]

This is starting to turn in to a Joe The Plumber type of headline. The story is greatly different but the MSM is really having fun on this one.

[Deranged Rhino]

This is starting to turn in to a Joe The Plumber type of headline. The story is greatly different but the MSM is really having fun on this one.

As they should.

[boyst]

As they should.

Why? Why should this not be covered evenly with real news coverage and not the popular op ed shows that dominant the "news" forum?

 

Why is Harry Reid involved in this? The guy is shady as hell and even getting his hands dirty in the NC Senate race. Why is the BLM so incompetent? Is it just another series of federal idiocracy? Does it have electrolytes? This entire story is annoying and can be summed up as this:

 

A rogue American rancher is allowed to break the law that was technically never Constitutional for decades until he mounts a big enough presence that someone who should not even know he exists gets a itch to act like a big shot to get a feather in their cap and stirs a pot with spork.

[3rdnlng]

I quoted him faithfully and in context. If you disagree, I suggest you look at what he said for yourself rather than pretending I'm in someway taking him out of context.

 

 

And yet, this is now your third post where you're digging in and defending him... so I have to be somewhat close to the truth.

 

 

That's fine. But he has lost already and will only continue to lose because his case is not as strong as you claim. If the cause is important to you, then you cannot make this man the face of that cause. Standing by him now does your cause a disservice. But it's your right to do so, I'm not trying to argue otherwise.

 

 

I'm not painting him as a bigot. He did with his own words and actions. Just because his enemy is the same as yours, doesn't mean he has to be your friend, or cause. The man said a terribly ignorant thing that happens to be rooted, most likely, in a deep seeded racism. I'll admit the second part is speculation on my part, but the evidence seems to be on my side.

 

You may be a writer, but you certainly aren't a reader. Quote what he said in context and verbatim. You paraphrased his words. After that, you might want to visit the Benghazi thread, conspiracy guy that you are.

[Deranged Rhino]

You may be a writer, but you certainly aren't a reader. Quote what he said in context and verbatim. You paraphrased his words.

I'm not sure why you have a hard time understanding that there is a search button -- I quoted him verbatim in post 178. And have quoted him faithfully ever since. How many times do I have to quote him before you'll admit that what I'm saying is accurate?

[3rdnlng]

I'm not sure why you have a hard time understanding that there is a search button -- I quoted him verbatim in post 178. And have quoted him faithfully ever since. How many times do I have to quote him before you'll admit that what I'm saying is accurate?

Put it in context, once.

[Deranged Rhino]

Put it in context, once.

*Old man holds a daily news-conference to discuss his cause.

 

*On a day when only one reporter shows up, he opts to pontificate more about his views, going deeper than ever before because there's no one there to keep him on topic. This led him to discuss many things, including his views about "the negro".

 

*Said views are abhorrent examples of unbridled racism at worst or shameful ignorance at best and will now and forever overshadow any cause he may have once been the champion of.

 

* The above context shocks exactly NO ONE.

 

... Also, the entire interview is on tape. You still want to keep defending this guy? Really? This is the great stand you want to undertake, arguing about the context of an old man's obviously ignorant life philosophy?

Edited April 26, 2014 by GreggyT

[OCinBuffalo]

“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.”

Oops.

 

http://www.politico....ndy-105982.html

Dammit. As I said: I knew that there was some reason why the Feds went overboard. Perhaps they had the inside track on this guy, and they were going to "clean up the streets" ? Ask yourself: when isn't this Administration "going after the "bad" guys"?

 

Also, the other thing I didn't know: The BLM boss is a rookie D-bag, who had no experience and was questioned pretty hard by the Senate, because he had no experience, when he was being confirmed. You take an idiot rancher + government turd with something to prove?

 

Not hard to see how we ended up here. Now this is starting to make sense. Well, from an "I'm not either idiot" perspective.

You are about to find out (edit: this wasn't meant to be ominous or obnoxious. Got cut off mid post) -- over the next news cycle.

Quoted for truth

Never happened.

 

During his exclusive interview with Sheriff Richard Mack on Monday, Ben Swann asked the sheriff about that soundbite. Did protestors place women where they could be in the line of fire?

“It was a tactical ploy that I was trying to get them to use.” says Mack. Mack goes on to clarify that the ploy was not adopted and that he was not on the scene during the standoff. He continued by saying that he would risk his own life as well in taking a stand.

“I would have been next. I would have been the next one to be killed. I’m not afraid to die here, I’m willing to die here. But the best ploy would have been to have had women in front because one, I don’t think they would have shot them. Two, if they had it would have been the best thing to show the rest of the world that these ruthless cowards will do anything they are told. If they are told to shoot they will shoot. Just like when they shot Vicki Weaver when they blew her head off in front of her little girl while she was holding a baby.” says Mack.

Sheriff Mack says several women he personally knows who were on the scene volunteered to move to the front of the line. Video from Infowars, which we have shown you gives a very clear picture of exactly what was happening. It is important to note for the purpose of clarity that no formation of women and children in the front line actually took place.

 

 

http://benswann.com/...federal-agents/

Yeah? And you know what all of this boils down to?

 

"You're doing it wrong." Who the F cares about your nuance here? All of a sudden, you expect people who say things like "the science is settled" to deal in nuance?

 

No. You're doing it wrong too.

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

You're doing it wrong.

He's either a racist or an unmitigated idiot.

 

Take your pick.

WTF? GG not only dancing on the edge of OCinBuffalo infringement with "unmitigated"...anything, but he does it again with a "take your pick" close?

 

Come on. Did you write this during a meeting? You're doing it wrong too. Stop copying me.

I guess Auschwitz wasn't that bad either. Lots of family time together.

One thing you can always count on PTR to do: run some ridiculous hyperbole, and then run away. Let me add the substance that is lacking....

 

Question: has dumbass rancher caused anyone to die? Is this guy Timothy McVeigh....because he bunched liberal panties? Since Rancher Dumbass hasn't caused anyone to die, or lose their liberty/pursuit of hapiness? This story has no gold for liberals, and they are best served by being done with it. Keeping it going only damages them, and no one else. By sheer accident, this story is the tactical equivalent of what the left has been doing since 2007. (look up David Ploufe) The strategy has been: make false assertions in the media, such that a "conversation" must occur. In doing so, some of your argument has been planted, subconsciously, and now you've moved the ball forward. I will explain.

 

IF we all stop deluding ourselves for a second: what's really going on here?

 

1. Conservatives/libertarians are smirking, and "tee hee"ing this, because it represents a punch in the mouth for statists, and one that doesn't cost anybody anything, because this guy is claimed by no one, and speaks for no one. The simple fact is: government was forced to back down. That bunches leftist panties, no matter what, and thus it's hilarious for the right, no matter what, because they had nothing to do with it. They get to laugh at Harry Reid et al...who were defeated totally by what we now know is an obvious tool.

 

2. As a result of getting punched in the mouth, the left has decided to overreach again. This time? Even bigger hyperbole than normal. This time: "we've finally found 1 guy who matches the caricature ". Yeah. 4 damn years later. But, they don't realize that they are reinforcing the "exception that proves the rule". They are reinforcing one fact:

 

Leftist ideology is collapsing all around us, leaving only identity politics, as the sole plank of the 2014-2016 Democrat platform.

 

Imagine that. An entire political party that has been reduced to a single plank. This is "Known Nothing" status. And, rather than see the threat straight, they are propagating it. The very last thing Democrats want right now is to be the party of race/gender and literally nothing else. However, that is who "dumbass rancher story" is defining them as, and they are assiting it.

 

The irony is palpable. By sheer accident, the left's tactic of "insert the indefensible, because some of it will stick" is being used against them.

And those that share his views, even a more "gentile" wording of those views, are as small minded as he is. It's why a-political folks, moderates, or independents have a VERY hard time voting republican even in the face of democratic stupidity. Hatred of someone because of their race or sexual orientation is not something I can ever support -- not matter how you try to scrub away the racist undertones of such statements.

 

The fact that you're so quick to defend him on this subject is not something to be proud of. There is a difference between having principles and being stubborn.

Yeah...I guess. But, as I said above, there's the other side to that coin: when all Democrats are is the party of identity, and also stupidity? You are dead right. You are right, but you're still dead.

Summed up very succinctly by Lyndon B. Johnson: "I'll have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years."; soft-slavery is perpetual multi-generational dependance, which serves to hold a group of people in a perpetual underclass by making their chains fit softly upon their wrists.

Apparently this is copy me thread.

It's when you "emancipate" an unskilled, illiterate labor force, and give them no economic recourse outside of the form of indentured servitude euphemistically named "sharecropping."

Perhaps the single dumbest move in American history, or at least in American politics, is that Sherman's orders regarding this weren't followed.

 

Imagine: most of African America living in Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Oklahoma, etc. An entirely different history of who fought the Comanche, and perhaps the Apache, and why. That's a hell of thing, but, if you think about it: it's the most likely outcome. Put on your racist 1870s cap for a moment, and realize how dumb they were for not supporting Sherman: why wouldn't you send black homesteaders to fight Natives? Why wouldn't you displace them out of the South, to the same places you were displacing the Indians? Why not have 2 "undesirable" people in a fight? I recall "Everybody wins" being the punchline of that joke.

 

Southern labor issues? As if they couldn't get more Irish. See? If we are really being 1870s racist, you can't do that without the Irish.

Edited April 26, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[Deranged Rhino]

Yeah...I guess. But, as I said above, there's the other side to that coin: when all Democrats are is the party of identity, and also stupidity? You are dead right. You are right, but you're still dead.

You're still under the presumption that I'm somehow a democrat. But I do appreciate you acknowledging I'm right.

[Trump_is_Mentally_fit]

Summed up very succinctly by Lyndon B. Johnson: "I'll have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years."; soft-slavery is perpetual multi-generational dependance, which serves to hold a group of people in a perpetual underclass by making their chains fit softly upon their wrists.

 

It is the desruction of the black family. It is the marginalization of the black male. It is the handout that replaced that paycheck which made the former possible. It is the incentivization of these same behaviors, generation after generation, which normalizes, and removes the shame. But most importantly, it is the slave masters, using these humans for nothing more than their votes, much like the Southern farmer in his field.

 

Did you just make up the Johnson quote? And I'd would be so much happier, as would most progressives, if we replaced welfare with jobs. But that would never fly, creating government jobs to get people working! I acually think you are right about the generation incentive to bad behavior but I disagree with your time tline. I think it started with slavery, where the he'll is the incentive for a slave to work? Not doing work is the goal of a slave. And during segregation blacks were kept from the good jobs while immigrants came in and passed them by. And the idea that Conservatives care, or want to help is stupid, they don't even want the poor to get health insurance.

 

It's incorrect because, even with its flaws, freedom is infinitely better than being an actual slave. Your diatribe is a dressing down of the system we have today, which is a perfectly fine discussion and you might even have valid points. But when you couch those points in a discussion about slavery and say that our current system is in any way worse, or even comparable, for the African American population than the system of chattel slavery is just utter nonsense. It's simply not true and can never be successfully argued. Slavery in the Americas as a whole, and in the United States specifically, was one of the most reprehensible and horrific chapters in human history. We'll never know precisely how many millions of lives were lost, how many families were forever shattered, how many generations were wiped from existence in the name of this institution. Say what you want about the welfare state and the destruction of the modern black family -- those are valid topics for discussion (though certainly not in Bundy's case). But when you start that conversation by saying that it's comparable to the horrors of actual slavery, it betrays absolute ignorance of history -- aside from being factually incorrect.

it's sad you actually have to explain this to someone

[TH3]

Gregg:

 

In my defense of Bundy, I could give a rat's wet ass about his position on "negros", gays, or the color blue.

 

None of those things change the actions of the government, which I find to be far more offensive than any backward notions held by some dumbass hillbilly rancher.

 

In other words, I don't support Bundy because he his Bundy. I support him because I oppose the actions of the government in this case, and because Bundy's lesser evils to not in any way mitigate the big picture.

 

As to my position on soft slavery, I'll thank you to explain, in some detail, what is woefully incorrect about it.

 

So you don't want the government to be able to execute the rule of law?