Radical Conservatism, not racist, but #1 amongst racists.
edit: I mean, I don't even...
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
What's funny (not haha funny) is that his views on blacks are not too far off from what some of my conservative friends spout - that blacks are disadvantaged because of welfare and that if we'd get rid of that evil program then they would have a chance to succeed. They wouldn't use the word "negro" or suggest that slavery was better, but generally speaking it's a fairly mainstream conservative position.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote: Reid, who has publicly denounced Bundy for breaking the law for months, released a statement calling on Republicans to step away from Bundy. “To advance his extreme, hateful views, Bundy has endangered the lives of innocent women and children. This is not a game. It is the height of irresponsibility for any individual or entity in a position of power or influence to glorify or romanticize such a dangerous individual, and anyone who has done so should come to their senses and immediately condemn Bundy. For their part, national Republican leaders could help show a united front against this kind of hateful, dangerous extremism by publicly condemning Bundy."
Am I missing something?
Isn't this Bundy guy hurting innocent black men? Why women and children?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
One of the armed people who came to defend Bundy's cattle said that they were going to use women and children as human shields in case the federal government opened fired on them.
[ April 24, 2014, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
The shenanigans over this controversy involved someone (not Bundy himself) scheming to put women and children between themselves and federal agents so that if there was any violence, the federal government would be seen to be monstrous.
quote:"We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front," said Richard Mack, the head of the radical Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and the NRA's Law Enforcement Officer of the Year in 1994 while serving as a plaintiff in their litigation to overturn the Brady Law. "If [federal agents are] going to start killing people, I'm sorry, but to show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot ... I would have put my own wife or daughters there, and I would have been screaming bloody murder to watch them die."
I don't know if that's what Reid was referring to, though. It's probably just the general concept of bunkering up in some kind of armed resistance to the BLMs enforcement action. If any kind of violence DID break out, anyone in the area could be hurt.
Bundy is SUCH a joke. I don't know how he's gotten all this public support. He simply thinks he can break the law with impunity, and he's got a bunch of idiots like Mack around who want some kind of dramatic violent showdown, even if they have to purposely throw their wives in front of bullets to show how mean the feds are.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Bundy's basically the conservative self-induced shame singularity. He combines nearly every form of bigotry alongside a Randian entitlement complex, gets in a kerfluffle over the US government for the silliest reasons imaginable via the use of land that isn't his to graze cattle and ignore fees for years then have various nutty separatists with tons of guns assemble their militiamen come and guard his brave freeloading.
Rand Paul and every GOBBAMENT type even jumps out in support of him. Then he starts talking about black people and cotton picking and saying them "negroes" probably had it better under slavery. And it gets revealed that the militia's strategy was to push women up in front to be human shields.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
What's a "GOBBAMENT" type?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
imagine a cranky old man sharing a bunch of right wing chain mails about whatever it is obama apparently did this time or that there's now FEMA death camps or whatever, and he's saying things like IT'S THE DURNED GOBBAMENT'S FAULT KEEP THOSE BUR'CREATS OFFA MY RIGHTS DONT TREAD ON ME NOT IN MY MURICA and makes a big Bundy-ish stink about governmental overreach, right before going to the polls and making sure that there's governmental overreach, just for, you know, the good God-approved things, like specifically to make sure gay people are second class citizens and women don't really own their own uterus during a pregnancy per se
yassir. gobbament.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Borowitz from the New Yorker nails it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
that's something i really honestly didn't even think of. like, normally someone like that is ingrained in the studious use of dogwhistling — but this guy missed the mark SO HARD in his code switching (because he's a crazy racist nutter) that he's forced to move directly to Acts II and Acts III which will include him saying that either he has black friends (don't get him wrong) or that a hypothetical black person he might find involved in his struggle against the tyrranical GOBBAMENT would be just as welcome there as anyone else he is helping liberate from the tyrrany of handout culture slavery.
followed by "he's not a racist, that's namecalling, you were the intolerant ones all along"
just watch
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote:imagine a cranky old man sharing a bunch of right wing chain mails about whatever it is obama apparently did this time or that there's now FEMA death camps or whatever, and he's saying things like IT'S THE DURNED GOBBAMENT'S FAULT KEEP THOSE BUR'CREATS OFFA MY RIGHTS DONT TREAD ON ME NOT IN MY MURICA and makes a big Bundy-ish stink about governmental overreach, right before going to the polls and making sure that there's governmental overreach, just for, you know, the good God-approved things, like specifically to make sure gay people are second class citizens and women don't really own their own uterus during a pregnancy per se
yassir. gobbament
Wow. Just wow.
Your disdain for conservatism is rather obvious, but this over-the-top, sneering, stereotyping, holier-than-thou, patronizing, and totally WRONG-HEADED straw man portrait of a conservative has reminded me of why I don't interact with you when it comes to politics. And you have the audacity to criticize OSC when he uses "leftaliban?"
It's funny. I'm actually inclined to agree with you that Bundy is a bit of a nutter. (Ok, that understates it. He's batsh*t crazy.) His legal arguments are nonsense to the same degree as those who claim they don't have to pay taxes. But that doesn't give you license to use insulting stereotypes to describe everyone who might support his position.
The state of political discourse in our country Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Samprimary often goes quite a few steps too far, yes. That's putting it mildly especially when something like this comes up.
I think it should be said, though, that he is speaking about what even you all but label a lunatic fringe of American politics. That said, who exactly thinks this guy's position deserved support (basically ANY of his positions) and isn't a nutter or simply a schmuck? Are we not allowed to mock and ostracize that kind of either nuttiness or cynical manipulation because we might offen some of those conservatives who support his position?
He's a toxic jackass who deserves to be scorned, and it is no real surprise to anyone that this thick vein of racism was under the surface considering his lunatic fringe-ness.. A much better sign of how screwy American politics is is that it is often not considered acceptable to oust and reject te lunatic fringe for fear of alienating the uncomfortable but also somewhat accepting base-this being a fundamental flaw for both sides.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think Brian's call for civility is on target, although I enjoy mockery and scorn all too often.
It's unfortunate, though, that more reasonable people have allied themselves with Bundy. His claims are NOT reasonable. If you accept his narrative without question, it is somewhat sympathetic, but his narrative is extremely self-serving and doesn't really have much overlap with reality.
The mistake people made is in assuming that in rugged individualist vs. big government, big government was always going to be in the wrong. In Bundy's case, he's too much a nut and a scofflaw for that to be true.
Self-serving nuttery example: saying he doesn't believe in the legitimacy of the federal government when it wants to, you know, enforce federal law. But also all but wrapping himself in the flag for a photo op and accepting the "patriot" label.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
I thought one of the main arguments was that Nevada land should be owned by the state of Nevada. Something like 85% of Nevada's land is owned by the federal government. There was something about how when Eastern states applied for statehood there was an agreement for the federal gov't to forfeit the land to the state but when western states became states that precedent was ignored. Then in 1950's or something states attempted to get the land through the court system and the supreme court struck it down.
Anyway, having an opinion on that doesn't seem like a lunatic opinion.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
An opinion on what the law SHOULD be doesn't change what the law IS, and refusal to comply with the law while assembling a bunch of people holding (if not brandishing) weapons is something else again.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brian J. Hill:
Your disdain for conservatism is rather obvious, but this over-the-top, sneering, stereotyping, holier-than-thou, patronizing, and totally WRONG-HEADED straw man portrait of a conservative has reminded me of why I don't interact with you when it comes to politics. And you have the audacity to criticize OSC when he uses "leftaliban?"
It's funny. I'm actually inclined to agree with you that Bundy is a bit of a nutter. (Ok, that understates it. He's batsh*t crazy.) His legal arguments are nonsense to the same degree as those who claim they don't have to pay taxes. But that doesn't give you license to use insulting stereotypes to describe everyone who might support his position.
The state of political discourse in our country
"Strawman"? But there are so many like Bundy that nobody better take a match to the Republican party. Honestly. How many of yours can you dismiss as "nutters" before wondering why you are keeping company with them?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brian J. Hill:
quote:imagine a cranky old man sharing a bunch of right wing chain mails about whatever it is obama apparently did this time or that there's now FEMA death camps or whatever, and he's saying things like IT'S THE DURNED GOBBAMENT'S FAULT KEEP THOSE BUR'CREATS OFFA MY RIGHTS DONT TREAD ON ME NOT IN MY MURICA and makes a big Bundy-ish stink about governmental overreach, right before going to the polls and making sure that there's governmental overreach, just for, you know, the good God-approved things, like specifically to make sure gay people are second class citizens and women don't really own their own uterus during a pregnancy per se
yassir. gobbament
Wow. Just wow.
Your disdain for conservatism is rather obvious, but this over-the-top, sneering, stereotyping, holier-than-thou, patronizing, and totally WRONG-HEADED straw man portrait of a conservative has reminded me of why I don't interact with you when it comes to politics. And you have the audacity to criticize OSC when he uses "leftaliban?"
It's funny. I'm actually inclined to agree with you that Bundy is a bit of a nutter. (Ok, that understates it. He's batsh*t crazy.) His legal arguments are nonsense to the same degree as those who claim they don't have to pay taxes. But that doesn't give you license to use insulting stereotypes to describe everyone who might support his position.
The state of political discourse in our country
A quick question for you good sir!
Did you follow the exchange which led to this description!
In it I was asked what I would call a "GOBBAMENT type" person. These are real people, all too distressingly common, and you may or may not have run across some people who are eerily well described by this hypothetical sample, especially if your family traffics in conservative chain emails, free republic bulletins, or Newsmax articles.
Did you, after I described this particular type of person, assume that I was providing my description of all conservatives? Or that I do not think that there are any conservatives which are not pretty much like what I've pictured above? Because that is a necessary mistake you had to have made to have had the response to me that you did!
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: An opinion on what the law SHOULD be doesn't change what the law IS, and refusal to comply with the law while assembling a bunch of people holding (if not brandishing) weapons is something else again.
I was just responding to this:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That said, who exactly thinks this guy's position deserved support (basically ANY of his positions) and isn't a nutter or simply a schmuck?
An opinion of what the law should be and being a nutter or simply a schmuck is something else again.
With all that being said, I think I'm starting to mix some of the posts in this thread with a similar thread that's going on at Ornery. I think I'll bow out of this one to avoid mixing up who said what.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
'The state should own this land' is not what this guy is about. I'm sure Louis Farrakhan thinks littering is bad-that doesn't mean we look at him and say, "He's got some decent ideas!"
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
Well that's what I was told from a guy who was protesting at the site. He seemed disappointed that it was not getting communicated.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
He has made many claims; that Nevada owns the land is one of them. Problem there is that the state of Nevada disagrees with him.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Well that's what I was told from a guy who was protesting at the site. He seemed disappointed that it was not getting communicated.
Yes, it is certainly one of his issues. Not disputing that. But you don't look at a pretzel M&M and say, "Hey, I've got pretzels if anyone wants 'em!" That not what you have, really, even if it's a part of it.
This is what I was getting at with Brian. The lunatic fringe on the right is unquestionably more powerful right now than on the left, but it exists on both sides. And the real example of a problem in American politics isn't the existence of a lunatic fringe on either side. It's the tolerance of them by their respective bases, whether for cynical reasons (basically all fte more mainstream politicians now rushing to repudiate him) or for team spirit reasons (Brian's angry rejection of mockery).
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brian J. Hill:
quote:imagine a cranky old man sharing a bunch of right wing chain mails about whatever it is obama apparently did this time or that there's now FEMA death camps or whatever, and he's saying things like IT'S THE DURNED GOBBAMENT'S FAULT KEEP THOSE BUR'CREATS OFFA MY RIGHTS DONT TREAD ON ME NOT IN MY MURICA and makes a big Bundy-ish stink about governmental overreach, right before going to the polls and making sure that there's governmental overreach, just for, you know, the good God-approved things, like specifically to make sure gay people are second class citizens and women don't really own their own uterus during a pregnancy per se
yassir. gobbament
Wow. Just wow.
Your disdain for conservatism is rather obvious, but this over-the-top, sneering, stereotyping, holier-than-thou, patronizing, and totally WRONG-HEADED straw man portrait of a conservative has reminded me of why I don't interact with you when it comes to politics. And you have the audacity to criticize OSC when he uses "leftaliban?"
It's funny. I'm actually inclined to agree with you that Bundy is a bit of a nutter. (Ok, that understates it. He's batsh*t crazy.) His legal arguments are nonsense to the same degree as those who claim they don't have to pay taxes. But that doesn't give you license to use insulting stereotypes to describe everyone who might support his position.
The state of political discourse in our country
No, you have to understand, there really is a (hopefully small but distressingly vocal) group of people who really do think this way. And thanks to the advent of Facebook, I have to see their badly Photoshopped Hitlerbama memes and typo riddled fake Cosby quotes on a regular basis. It'd be a lie to say this is a strictly conservative phenomenon, though. (the existence of the Huffington Post alone accounts for some of that) It's just that we already have a perfectly good term for hippies, and they already receive all the justly deserved ridicule that you are outraged is being directed to "gobbament types."
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
I'm mostly just irritated by the misspelling of "gub'mint".
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: I'm mostly just irritated by the misspelling of "gub'mint".
I am almost ready to concede that point, but I have always heard it as 'gobbamint' when they're really getting all agitated or talking to me about long form birth certificates
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Don't get me wrong I believe in prophets turning up in diverse places but man...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:"Is there really a black man in the house?” A lone “whoo” goes up from the folding chairs. "You’re with the media, right?” The cameraman nods, and the singer returns his focus to the folding chairs. “So, are we racists here today? That’s how they’re trying to spin this one — this is good. Channel 13 came at me the other day — a cute little blonde, of course. They sent her at me, y’know, go get the story! Go get the radical…” The generator cuts out, silencing the mic, and the story about how he isn’t a racist is lost.
ahahahahahahahaha
quote:It’s dizzying and hot at the camp, and a very friendly man named Roy, wearing an Obama t-shirt with a joker smile painted on, hands me a cold bottle. He's from nearby Mesquite and has been a close friend and supporter of Bundy's these last few years. When I tell him I’m from New Mexico, the former cop says he has a very good buddy who used to work as a sheriff in my area.
“He got in a bit of trouble,” he chuckles. “He pulled over a carload of illegals one night, didn’t have room to haul ‘em all, so he put a chain around their neck and put a padlock through it, went to the next one, then he chained ‘em to a tree!”
He buckles with laughter as the story heats up. “Then he left ‘em and went to town to get his pickup to haul ‘em all back in. So, you might imagine, that didn’t play well — ha! You’re a young’un, but everything wasn’t against the law, way back when.”
ahaha .. ha ... ha ...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
ah remember the good old days when you could chain brown people to a tree by their neck and not get in trouble, laughs the people who are literally assembled to protest overreach of government power Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote: laughs the people who are literally assembled to protest overreach of government power
(emphasis mine)
Therein lies the problem. Rather than attribute this thought to a single, racist person, you've decided that ALL PEOPLE who are assembled to protest the overreach of government power think such despicable thoughts.
As I said before, I don't support Bundy's cause. But I HATE how his actions are held up as an example of how conservatives "really" think. Sam, in your sneering, mocking straw man portrait of Joe GOBBAMINT (or Gub'mint, in an alternative spelling of his last name--I blame Ellis Island,) you mentioned Rand Paul supporters. That's just as much of a "dog whistle" as the so-called "racist code words" mentioned previously. Liberals like to imply that the millions of Americans who agree with Rand Paul's ideas must necessarily think the thoughts of your fictional Mr. Dadgum-Guv'ment. You may claim that no, you're only referring to the radical right-wingers, not to all conservatives, but your use of the plural pronoun "people" and the Rand Paul dog-whistle belie your true feelings. No one likes to be called a bigot, but your mockery of Jerry GOBBMINT reveals you to be just as bigoted as you claim Jerry is, right down to your use of the Southern dialect to make him sound uneducated and unsophisticated in thought.
I've been accused in this and other threads of promoting civility in our political discourse. I attest that accusation to be true. The fact is, there was a time in American politics where the debate focused on ideas. People disagreed, but about issues, not on person spouting them. Nowadays, what passes for political discourse is who can cleverly reduce the “other guy” to a caricature that will fit in a 30-second soundbite or TV commercial. Thus the never-ending ads in the 2012 campaign featuring Obama as the “dangerous radical” or Romney as the “unfeeling wealthy plutocrat.” This is the cable news-ization of American politics, and it’s frustrating. If this makes me sound like an old-timer yokel yearning for the good ol’ days, so be it. And yes, I’m well-enough versed in history to know that we’ve always had mud-slinging in politics, BUT it’s the degree to which it’s permeated American culture that bothers me. Not to mention the degree to which it's permeated the Hatrack community.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Brian, you have both failed to address my last question to you, and have engaged in yet another redressable error.
If you want to lambast me for my failures of political discourse, you need to be sure that your own discourse is capable of accurately measuring mine.
quote:As I said before, I don't support Bundy's cause. But I HATE how his actions are held up as an example of how conservatives "really" think. Sam, in your sneering, mocking straw man portrait of Joe GOBBAMINT (or Gub'mint, in an alternative spelling of his last name--I blame Ellis Island,) you mentioned Rand Paul supporters. That's just as much of a "dog whistle" as the so-called "racist code words" mentioned previously. Liberals like to imply that the millions of Americans who agree with Rand Paul's ideas must necessarily think the thoughts of your fictional Mr. Dadgum-Guv'ment.
what I said is that rand paul AND those gobbament types jumped up in support of him. You yourself are inventing the assertion that I am saying that all rand paul supporters are like my lovely little example. I would like to think you would be against cramming words in other people's mouths, if you're going to be standing here trying to lecture others on the high road of political discourse you've taken.
quote:Liberals like to imply that the millions of Americans who agree with Rand Paul's ideas must necessarily think the thoughts of your fictional Mr. Dadgum-Guv'ment.
Thank you for telling us what liberals apparently do!
quote:You may claim that no, you're only referring to the radical right-wingers, not to all conservatives, but your use of the plural pronoun "people" and the Rand Paul dog-whistle belie your true feelings.
You were wrong when you presumed I was describing all conservatives (like, completely so, with my language not being what you accused it of being, and with no statement of mine you can use to support your original accusation)
You could apologize for your accusatory overreach, but instead you're doubling down on the most tenuous of word linkages and deciding that you will judge me through mind-reading.
If you want to keep this supposed ethos of a bulwark of positive and productive political discourse against me, you've got to own up to your own fallacy.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
What the Washington Post and NYTimes fails to do is include the entire statement in the article.
When actually taken in context, Bundy's statement wasn't even remotely racist. He did use the word Negro, which some people are angry about, even though nobody batted an eye when Harry Reid used it when describing Obama during the 08' election.
His statements later in that same statement are very kind to Blacks, and even more so to Mexicans. He said that Mexicans are hard working people with high family values, and that we should be welcoming them to our country.
As far as the land dispute, I can see where he is coming from. I can also say that he is breaking the law, and some courts have ruled in the government's favor.
Whether Bundy is a racist or not, or whether he is right in his fight or not, is irrelevant. What this whole ordeal HAS done is start a conversation about imminent domain, which is a positive thing. This isn't an issue affecting one guy in Nevada, it is affecting people in other parts of the country too.
Also, the line about the desert tortoise needing to use the land is the biggest BS argument I have ever seen someone use. Just last August the BLM said it was going to have to kill hundreds of desert tortoise because of "lack of funding." Seriously? The desert tortoises can't live without the BLM watching their every move, making sure they are doing alright?
I'd link the Washington Post article, but it looks like they removed it a couple of weeks ago. No idea why really. I was able to find a petition that was started on change.org though.
Cliven Bundy's statements were not just racist, they were outrageously racist. It doesn't get off the hook by being, by some measure, benevolent racism.
If you can't see that, and you really want to stand up for the idea that bundy's statement wasn't even 'remotely' racist, then you have a few very gaping blind spots in terms of understanding racism.
If you'd like though you can bring up the 'full context' of his quotes for us.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Also, the line about the desert tortoise needing to use the land is the biggest BS argument I have ever seen someone use. Just last August the BLM said it was going to have to kill hundreds of desert tortoise because of "lack of funding." Seriously? The desert tortoises can't live without the BLM watching their every move, making sure they are doing alright?
err...a very brief look at the euthanizing the tortoises thins shows that this is exactly the case.
They have tortoises in their care that are sick or otherwise unable to support themselves in the wild. Because of funding cuts, they are no longer going to be able to provide care for them, so they are planning on euthanizing them as opposed to releasing into the wild where their deaths will involve a lot more suffering.
I don't get how this rates a "Seriously?" nor how it shows that the need or preserving a natural habitat for other desert tortoises is the biggest BS argument you've ever heard. Could you explain?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
They were trying to adopt some of those tortoises out, IIRC. But it's hard to take care of them properly, they need a lot of space and specific conditions.
But yeah, they were captive and couldn't be released.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Wait, so how did that there was a tortoise preservation care system that's getting shut down due to budget cuts get turned into a talking point in favor of Cliven Bundy? Where's this one being propagated?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Geraine, the racist part of the comment was not just the term, "Negro". It was everything. To be exact, it was the term "The Negros" implies he lumps all people with dark skin as a single "type". That "Type" is poor, lazy, criminal and welfare dependent. He doesn't say "Those Negros on Welfare" or "The poor Negros" or even "All the Negros I've seen." He lumps all of them from that race into one group which is the definition of racist.
He then shows a complete lack of understanding of the horrors of slavery, instead portraying it as a low-wage employment that managed to give the "workers" everything they need--stable family life, productive employment, even food and board.
What he leaves out is the shackles, the lack of family life in many plantations-- families the slaves created could be broken up by the financial whim of the master. Food and lodging were provided, though the food was grown, cooked, and served by the slaves and the lodging was built by the slaves from timber cut and trimmed by the slaves. The slaves provided their own food and lodging, but the masters paid for it---from the profits they earned off of the slaves work. What was it we white folks provided for the slaves again?
There was Religion of course. But the Christianity forced on most of the slaves was lacking in the whole, "Rest one day in seven" thing, and all the gentleness of the Bible was downplayed in favor of the commandments of obedience to your masters. Even the parts of the Old Testament that discussed how slaves should eventually be freed and treated well was replaced by imaginary arguments that dark skin was the mark of Cain.
And European Enlightenment and Science. The White man brought those to the slaves--except it was a crime to teach them to read most places, so maybe not much there.
And Mr. Bundy said that all this, plus whippings and constant humiliation, and no economic freedom, no health care or retirement--just work until you die was equal to being on welfare.
Its scary that a cattle rancher suggests that treating millions of people like cattle is better than living in a mixed race world.
Of course if they did go back to a slavery system I'm sure Mr. Bundy would happily let his Negros graze on government land without paying fees.
And Mr. Bundy has no idea what welfare is like--portraying it as bored do-nothing people picking up their checks and doing nothing else. The fact that most people on welfare are either already working at low paying jobs, or that they are on there for a short time until they can get their lives together, or that more European Americans are on welfare than African Americans does not cross his mind. He assumes that ALL AFRICAN AMERICANS are either in jail or on welfare.
That is why his comments were racist. Not because he used the word Negro.
And I find it amusing that he fears a culture of entitlement for African Americans looking for enough to eat, while claiming entitlement to free grazing lands provided by the US Government for his cattle.
Finally, in a statement he made to defend his racist remarks, he said that if we find his word racist, maybe its because Doctor Martin Luther King Junior didn't finish his job.
Yeah, Dr. King was lazy like all Them Negros, unless, the reason he didn't finish his job was because some backwoods gun loving white man who disagreed with the way these United States were going, shot Dr. King dead before Dr. King had the opportunity to finish.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Just to add on to Darth_Mauve's comments Geraine, any time someone says ANYTHING of the form "All Xs are Y" red flags should go up for you. And it doesn't matter whether it takes the form of "Black people are lazy" or "Mexican people are hard working". Those expressions are indicators of a profoundly ignorant worldview, where there is some sort of essential nature to different races.*
*As well as a misguided view of the legitimacy of the concept of race in the first place.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Can we talk about basketball?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Because there is absolutely nothing racial and controversial related to any major sport in the U.S.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
I just want to point out that there was in point in US history where political contests were polite and idealistic.
I mean, seriously, go look up some of the stuff the candidates said about each other in the first few presidential elections.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:The blood thirsty Jackson began again to show his cannibal propensities, by ordering his Bowman to dress a dozen of these Indian bodies for his breakfast, which he devoured without leaving even a fragment.
--Coffin Handbill, 1828
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:John Adams is a hideous hermaphroditical character with neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.
-Richmond Examiner
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg: I just want to point out that there was in point in US history where political contests were polite and idealistic.
I mean, seriously, go look up some of the stuff the candidates said about each other in the first few presidential elections.
I really can't tell if you're being ironic or not, since this is a 'good old days' sentiment so often expressed. Others have already pointed out it is just wrong, though.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Sorry, was just a typo. It should read "no point," not "in point."
Just a response to Brian saying that at one point in history the debate centred around ideas.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Geraine, I have to ask: have *you* read all f what bundy said? I mean, how do you get around expressing a positive view of slavery? How do you get past him driving past a housing project once, seeing some black people, and then realizing he can sum up the entire race nationwide? How do you pivot around him likening himself to Rosa Parks?
Scratch a radical anyone, and chances are you're likely to find some shade of jackass ignorant of history. Bundy is no exception. One of my favorite parts is how he encouraged people to 'peacefully' resist government tyranny...just like the Minutemen!
C'mon, Geraine, I know you're not the biggest fan of the people taking most satisfaction here, but seriously. You can jettison bundy from the conservative tent entirely without guilt. Truthfully should've been done a long time ago.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Everybody who's anybody in the conservative establishment has made a public statement saying they don't support this stuff Bundy is spouting.
It's okay, there's always the owner of the L.A. Clippers if he needs a friend.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
conservatives really do need to jettison the bundys from the conservative tent. problem is, they find themselves not doing so until the lunacy touches on unsuitably coded bigotry. and, i would say, that's the real conversation to be had.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
oh good the clippers guy. he's awesome too. and i am sure will be surrounded by calls of I'm-Not-A-Racist
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote: I totally beat Sen. Sumner with my cane, on the senate floor.
Senator Preston Brooks, 1856
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg: Sorry, was just a typo. It should read "no point," not "in point."
Just a response to Brian saying that at one point in history the debate centred around ideas.
Looking at the course of American politics, the modern era is actually the most polite. Back in the day, politicians used proxies to insult each other, and the stuff Jefferson and Adams said about each other that was repeated by others was pretty heinous.
Things got better when Hanna invented the modern election campaign. Better still later on.
Now we've managed to veil everything in sarcasm, false niceties and code words.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:John Adams is a hideous hermaphroditical character with neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.
-Richmond Examiner
Thanks BB! That's one of my favorites. I was just about to post it. Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:John Adams is a hideous hermaphroditical character with neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.
-Richmond Examiner
My hometown has always excelled at bashing yankees. Well, at least until that whole civil war thing. Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: It's okay, there's always the owner of the L.A. Clippers if he needs a friend.
Hail Hydra.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*snort* that got a grin from me, man.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
aahahahaah
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Everybody who's anybody in the conservative establishment has made a public statement saying they don't support this stuff Bundy is spouting.
It's okay, there's always the owner of the L.A. Clippers if he needs a friend.
quote:Donald Sterling banned for life, fined $2.5 million
quote:The armed anti-government play-warriors who built a military force around a racist redneck rancher in Nevada have split into rival factions and are now at the brink of civil war, calling each other crazies and traitors and spreading rumors that Eric Holder planned a drone strike on them.
guaranteed by armed militiamen: the freedomest place on earth Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, man, if we have to have a civil war in the next couple of years, a bunch of right-wing gun nuts shooting each other in an empty wasteland would be just about the best kind.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Geraine, I'm pretty curious to read your response to the people that rebutted your argument that Bundy's remarks weren't racist. Do you stand by your earlier argument, or did you find what they (Dan and Strider, particularly) said persuasive? If you do stand by it, what are your thoughts on what they said?
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
This Bundy guy's character as opposed to Dirty Harry Reid?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
this needs to be a theme park
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
We could make said theme park a mandate in our Constitution. That would probably make heads explode.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Now gather round th' campfire and let me tell you the tale, as I pull out my good ol' kevlar-plated travel gitar, ..
of ol' Cliven "Freedom" Bundy, a hero right quick like Johnny Appleseed. But instead'o seedin' trees, he seeded Freedom.
Y'see it's when a man's got Grit and Gumption — the Grit and Gumption necessary to freeload on fed'ral land, he earns us back our God (th' correct God, I shant hes'tate to add) and Founder granted rights. The rights to say shockingly ig'nant things 'bout the Negro, causing a bunch o' conservatives up in D.C. to drop you right quick like a bad habit, and regret standing behind you at all ... the rights to get in fistfights and shouting matches 'cause half o' you think the Eric Holder's gonna kill y'all with drones or fluoride or sommat ... the rights to use George Washington as an icon by ignoring that the Whiskey Rebellion was a thing ...
and it is for that man, and those rights, and those freedom, and a bunch o' guns, and God, and that we're totally not racist and what happened wasn't racist at all stop being so bigoted you P.C. obsessives, that we sing this song to every hero who literally just doesn't acknowledge the federal government.
and it goes a little sompin like this:
OH, Good Old Cliven Bundy Now Some Would Call Him Fundie But Here We Know Tha
*is shot for 'degenerating political discourse' that'll show me*
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: Geraine, I'm pretty curious to read your response to the people that rebutted your argument that Bundy's remarks weren't racist. Do you stand by your earlier argument, or did you find what they (Dan and Strider, particularly) said persuasive? If you do stand by it, what are your thoughts on what they said?
Bundy raises a point about black culture that is ignored. When 12% of the population is African American and 36% of all abortions are performed on African-American women, there is a problem. When the rate of un-wed mothers in the African American community is 72%, there is a problem. Many blame it on "racism" or lack of "equal opportunity," but this doesn't explain why other minorities have vastly lower numbers.
Is the language Bundy used racist? After rereading the statements, yeah, they were. I was wrong. Was my judgement a little biased since he is a (fairly distant) relative? Yeah probably.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
you're a distant relative of bundy?
that's actually kinda neat, haha
quote:Many blame it on "racism" or lack of "equal opportunity," but this doesn't explain why other minorities have vastly lower numbers.
those numbers being? i would like to see what dataset you are using.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Jake: Geraine, I'm pretty curious to read your response to the people that rebutted your argument that Bundy's remarks weren't racist. Do you stand by your earlier argument, or did you find what they (Dan and Strider, particularly) said persuasive? If you do stand by it, what are your thoughts on what they said?
Bundy raises a point about black culture that is ignored. When 12% of the population is African American and 36% of all abortions are performed on African-American women, there is a problem. When the rate of un-wed mothers in the African American community is 72%, there is a problem. Many blame it on "racism" or lack of "equal opportunity," but this doesn't explain why other minorities have vastly lower numbers.
Is the language Bundy used racist? After rereading the statements, yeah, they were. I was wrong. Was my judgement a little biased since he is a (fairly distant) relative? Yeah probably.
Coincidentally the Bundys appear to be Mormons if not descended from Mormons.
Still makes their treason stink. Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I would love to see that statistic divided out to include other races and see if they also included 1. the income level of the woman and 2. the age of her mother at the birth of her first child.
I don't know if the high number of abortions among African Americans is the result of racism. Getting an abortion is extremely expensive, requires time off from work, and difficult to access (certain states have a single digit number of clinics-- I believe Mississippi has just one), and the stigma surrounding it is so great, that I can't imagine that most people were pressured into having an abortion, who didn't actually want one themselves. Though it might be interesting to have women of a variety of races pose as pregnant women seeking abortion counseling, and tell similar stories and see if there's a difference in suggestions of what to do. (Then again, if white women are consistently pressured into keeping their rapist's baby more so then black women, maybe that isn't a good thing).
Actual teen births (which is not the same as being an unwed mother, or having an abortion, and I realize that one of the big populations of abortion haves are married mothers who can't afford an ADDITIONAL child) among hispanics and blacks are very similar http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/reproductive-health/teen-pregnancy/trends.html. In the Old Man Blogs Thread, there was a discussion about how strongly Catholic values would compel hispanics to vote Republican should Republicans make concessions on illegal immigration, and the answer was "not necessarily". But Catholicism probably does reduce the number of hispanic women seeking an abortion.
Poverty has a lot to do with it. Children of teen mothers are more likely to become teen parents themselves, and for children in poor schools with few role models with stimulating careers, teen mother is a concrete thing that high schoolers see their friends doing. African American women are much more likely to live in poverty than their white counterparts. http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf
The other minority is asian, and the fact that asians are generally wealthier. This link breaks down pregnancy rate by country of origin, and it's interesting to see that folks from less well off countries have more teen pregnancies.
Skimming the document, there were some quotes from the folks involved, and they are also HIGHLY insulted at the welfare programs incentivizing marriage, and a family structure that doesn't work for them.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: you're a distant relative of bundy?
that's actually kinda neat, haha
quote:Many blame it on "racism" or lack of "equal opportunity," but this doesn't explain why other minorities have vastly lower numbers.
those numbers being? i would like to see what dataset you are using.
I guess it's kind of neat. I've never met the man, but my great-grandmother was a Bundy. I believe Cliven is a son of my great-grandmother's sister. Also interesting: my great-great-grandmother was Native American. I wonder if Cliven could pull the Native American card. He at least has more of a claim to it than Elizabeth Warren
That mean I condone his behavior or what he said. I can tell you that my family has been in southern Utah and Nevada for over 150 years, and have farmed here for about that long.
The datasets are all over the internet, on pro-life and pro-choice sites alike. A quick google search on black abortion rates or minority abortion rates will result in dozens of articles. The results in each almost mirror each other.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
From a sociological perspective, I am often baffled at the supposed 'contradiction' between the current economic and political statuses of various minorities in the United States. Often this surprise is a pretty transparent, cynical ploy to justify racism. Other times it's genuine, and I should make clear I believe the latter in your case, Geraine.
Now, all of that said, from a sociology and history perspective...which of these minorities started in the United States at literally the lowest possible point, that of not being deemed human at all? I often marvel at how quickly people sometimes expect groups-always groups other than themselves, mind-to overcome enormously powerful historic forces, even though they all but never in history are overcome quickly.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
In that vein, I really recommend "The Warmth of Other Suns", a long, but very good history of the great migration of black people from farming the plantations where their ancestors were enslaved to the cities of the north and west, framed by the stories of three individuals. More so than any school history lesson, it really put in perspective some of the things that black people had to deal with, and explains why certain things are the way they are (ghettos, Trayvon Martin, education funding).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: The datasets are all over the internet, on pro-life and pro-choice sites alike. A quick google search on black abortion rates or minority abortion rates will result in dozens of articles. The results in each almost mirror each other.
i'm well aware. what i'm asking is what datasets you are using. can you provide them?
Posted by m. bowles (Member # 3743) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Oh, man, if we have to have a civil war in the next couple of years, a bunch of right-wing gun nuts shooting each other in an empty wasteland would be just about the best kind.
I doubt it will be like this ^^. It will be more like a bunch of "gun nuts" shooting at powder blue hats.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: When 12% of the population is African American and 36% of all abortions are performed on African-American women, there is a problem.
I agree! I look forward to your ideas on convincing white people to have more abortions Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: When 12% of the population is African American and 36% of all abortions are performed on African-American women, there is a problem. When the rate of un-wed mothers in the African American community is 72%, there is a problem.
theamazeeaz discussed this, but it'd be useful for you to adjust your numbers for socioeconomic status and see if there is still a large discrepancy between races. If your own defense of differences in "black culture" rest on this data, and the data shows the difference correlates more with income/education than with race, what is your next step? I actually don't know how the numbers will come out, but you really shouldn't be making claims without knowing the relevant statistics. And as theamazeeaz points out, there could be other factors as well that need to be taken into consideration, but this would at least provide a primary adjustment to what are highly uninformative figures.
p.s. - I'll refrain from getting into a discussion regarding what moral failing you see in unwed mothers, so as to stay on target.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Strider,
There is nothing morally wrong with unwed mothers. The problem is that 41% of children in single parent households live in poverty. That is almost half.
The income disparity? According to a Huffington Post article posted last year, there is actually a higher percentage of whites living in poverty than blacks:
quote: The number of Americans in poverty remained largely unchanged at a record 46.5 million. Single-mother families in poverty increased for the fourth straight year to 4.1 million, or 41.5 percent, coinciding with longer-term trends of declining marriage and out-of-wedlock births. Many of these mothers are low income with low education. The share of married-couple families in poverty remained unchanged at 2.1 million, or 8.7 percent.
By race or ethnicity, a growing proportion of poor children are Hispanic, a record 37 percent of the total. Whites make up 30 percent, blacks 26 percent.
While education and poverty no doubt play a role, it isn't the only cause. There is a growing "thug" or "hip-hop" culture that affects not only blacks, but other races as well.
I'd like to ask though your personal opinion on a few of questions:
1) Do you believe a 2 parent household is better than a 1 parent household?
2) Do you believe that education and poverty are the only factors that contribute to abortion rates?
3) Do you believe that the "thug" culture contributes to poverty, crime, and the abortion rates?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The income disparity? According to a Huffington Post article posted last year, there is actually a higher percentage of whites living in poverty than blacks
what
that's completely untrue and it doesn't look like what the article is saying at all. the huffpo article is saying that of a total percentage of children in poverty, 30% are white and 26 percent are black.
What that article is saying is that there's a higher total number of white people living in poverty in America than the total number of black people living in poverty in America. Considering that blacks are only somewhere around 12 to 14 percent of the population, wouldn't that make sense?
As per the last census finding in the US, 9.9 percent of white children live in poverty(the lowest figure) and 38.2 percent of black children live in poverty (the highest figure).
That's about one in ten versus well over one in three.
and the primary influencing factor is supposed to .. not be poverty how, I wonder?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not sure how one could look at 'hip-hop culture', or what I imagine is meant by it, and not think poverty was one of the key factors in its evolution. Songs about slinging dope in the project, likely part of what is meant, are...what, they cause inner city drug sales and not the other way around, I guess?
But since you're asking for personal opinions-and I do respect your guts in being willing to speak openly and solicit opinions on such a controversial subject-a question for you in turn: his many hip hop musicians can you name without looking them up?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Germaine what would you suggest? Outlawing "Thug" culture? Setting up a government agency to make it illegal for African Americans to listen to, own, or enjoy certain types of music?
Or perhaps we should just ban "Thug Culture" and make sure that all minorities prescribe to the approved successful WASP culture that has proven to be so successful.
Or are you suggesting that we should just give up and not care about those who's own choices have brought them poverty. Let them starve in their own failed culture. Its not for us to care.
Laying blame only does one thing: It frees you up from having to solve the problem.
Blaming a culture is not different than blaming a race. You are just saying, "They may not have been born lazy sinning terrible people--but that is what they all become."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dude, I think that's an absurd charge to level, Darth.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I just want to get back to the actual numbers wrt poverty and race, as well as the addressing of geraine's interpretation/filter for "thug" and "hip-hop" culture — whose presence in "quotes" is admittedly indicative of something culturally closeted, like 'those kids and their "rap music"'
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Germaine what would you suggest? Outlawing "Thug" culture? Setting up a government agency to make it illegal for African Americans to listen to, own, or enjoy certain types of music?
Or perhaps we should just ban "Thug Culture" and make sure that all minorities prescribe to the approved successful WASP culture that has proven to be so successful.
Or are you suggesting that we should just give up and not care about those who's own choices have brought them poverty. Let them starve in their own failed culture. Its not for us to care.
Laying blame only does one thing: It frees you up from having to solve the problem.
Blaming a culture is not different than blaming a race. You are just saying, "They may not have been born lazy sinning terrible people--but that is what they all become."
Blaming culture has NOTHING to do with race. The culture is permeating into Hispanic and white culture as well. Do you know many whites or Hispanics that have a good, high paying, productive life while prescribing to the thug culture? Yes, there are a few such as M&M and a few other rappers, but as a whole, those that prescribe to that lifestyle tend to live in poverty, use drugs, and break the law.
I have never said that the culture is the only thing keeping blacks (or any race for that matter) down. The thug culture is simply more present in the black community, and as such affects them more.
Over the past 50 years there has been a moral culture shift that has regrettably led to a gigantic rise in single parent households among all races. A higher percentage of those single parent households are black. That's a fact. I'm sure the mothers do their best to do what is right for their kids. We live in a society where it is extremely difficult to provide for a family on one income, and as such single parent families tend to be more prone to living in poverty. Abortion rates, crime rates, etc are all direct results of this.
It has nothing to do with laziness. I've never even mentioned that, and the fact that you would even accuse me of saying that means you aren't actually reading a damn thing I'm typing.
And Sam, the exact numbers don't really matter. They are higher in the black community. There is a consensus on this. Nit-picking over a few percentage points here and there isn't going to change that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:And Sam, the exact numbers don't really matter. They are higher in the black community. There is a consensus on this. Nit-picking over a few percentage points here and there isn't going to change that.
nitpicking over percentage points is one thing, geraine, but calling what I was correcting you on as "nitpicking" is, to be frank, inane. you were taking a piece of data and reading it wholly incorrectly, to the extent of providing the opposite of a real percentage gap. You literally said that data showed that "there is actually a higher percentage of whites living in poverty than blacks" when the data you were providing didn't actually say that and the reality is, by a significant margin, the opposite situation. Responding to being corrected on that as "the exact numbers don't really matter" doesn't help your case, it's dissembling.
it is enough of a habit that I am always sure to ask you to provide your sources and numbers, because you are very frequently in need of clarification and correction in terms of things like socioeconomic data.
quote: The thug culture is simply more present in the black community, and as such affects them more.
Please explain thug culture completely for us? How do you define it, what are its hallmarks, etc
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Culture is a collective response to the environment. Sometimes it is created proactively (by the group itself alone), and other times it is re-actively to other cultures', well, cultures.
Saying it is culture is the same as saying race, in this regard... Especially since race, IMO, is largely a cultural construct.
As far as "moral culture shift", I would counter that it was largely a shift in employment status of women that led to a rise in single parent households, which is amoral on the face of it.
That blacks appear to be affected more by this would imply to me, that they had to have more women working, likely due to other cultural an socioeconomic pressures on them in the last 50 years.
In short, I think you are putting the cart before the horse.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
it is very easy to criticise marginalized groups, ethnic or otherwise, for situations arising largely from a legacy of oppression which continues to be very real and very pervasive in society and law. it's why it's important to dissect this "thug culture" thing that's being touted here. it's an easy thing to do, to point to black culture and say 'see, they're doing it to themselves' when one is stridently ignoring, purposefully or not, the conditions that arose to a particular culture among disaffected, impoverished, neglected people in american innercities. so, yes, carts and horses.
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
The state of political discourse in our country ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)