posted
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
posted
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"
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 Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
'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!"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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 ...
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 powerPosts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because there is absolutely nothing racial and controversial related to any major sport in the U.S.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
oh good the clippers guy. he's awesome too. and i am sure will be surrounded by calls of I'm-Not-A-Racist
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
The state of political discourse in our country 
