Cliven Bundy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

You said,

No. You did. I only said, “Cliven's not a hero. He's an excuse. He's an excuse for looney, white supremacist, anti-U.S. government, slim[e]balls to get out their guns, wave them around and ejaculate a few rounds of stupidity, ignorance and hatred. They're such magnificent specimens of masculinity, don't you think?”

If I’m required to read Cliven’s idiotic remarks literally, then please do me the curtesey of reading mine, literally and without assumption.

Yeah, we could argue about the literal dictionary definition of “white supremacist” (n. a person who believes that the white race is or should be supreme), “neo-nazi” vs “nazi”, what the subject of the third sentence in quotes is etc. But that would be all aside the point. It is telling that this non-point is the only thing you seem to find disturbing.

It will cost you on average $16 per head per month to rent grazing land from a private owner. The U.S. in Nevada is charging less than $2 per head per month, yet Bundy won’t pay it? Not disturbing?
Of course not. He doesn’t recognize the Federal government, just the good ol’ county sheriff.

How about the fact that up until twenty years ago Cliven’s cattle grazed legally for free and as of twenty years ago illegally for free and yet at the same time he complains about the welfare negro? Disturbing?
No, he has a negro friend who’s down with that.

How about the fact that Cliven claims to be a freedom-lover and yet he often finds himself wondering whether or not the negro was better off enslaved? Isn’t that downright contradictory?
Not really. Cliven is a deep and careful thinker and you got to read him carefully.

How about the fact that Cliven doesn’t seem to know that slaves in the South had no assurances of a family life? Not disturbing?
Enough with the lib tears. I’m drownin’ here. Anyway this isn’t about race its about guns.

How about the fact that there’s a young woman who claims she is a lover of freedom but doesn’t seem to find anything at all disturbing or puzzling about any of Cliven’s views? She finds them all just peachy keen? Disturbing?
Naw, not disturbing...shameful.

---

I don't find anything disturbing with his views because I've watched and listened to his several interviews since and understand what he was trying to convey. He is an old man from a different era and a rural rancher, not a college English grad who can speak in eloquent manners like professional public speakers. You also seem so upset over his use of the word "negro", however, in his youth and during that time period, "negro" was the politically correct, non-racist way to refer to a black individual. Today we use "African American" and even now there are people claiming that is offensive. So, please, inform the world how you would like to be referred to when someone is trying to describe a person's race and color of skin, that is not offensive.

You are still missing the entire point. You called the militia and anti-BLM protesters "white supremacists". How do you know that? Have you talked to any of them? Have you asked each of these protesters and militiamen what their views are of African descended American peoples?

I also don't care what he owes the BLM. Just because the federal government believes it has the right to declare arbitrary rules and regulations whenever it feels like, just because it can, does not mean such rules are okay. He has to pay money so cows can chew on grass? What's next? Oh wait. Lawmakers in Washington state suggested passing a bicycling air pollution tax because humans exhale carbon dioxide and threatens the O-Zone with green house gases. I guess the government can start enforcing breathing taxes at the point of a gun too? Screw the government.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/04...-claims-bogus/

It strikes me that some people will always take the side of a crank because the federal government is always wrong. Which would be the federal government that abolished slavery, passed the civil rights act and sawn the new deal through to save the world economy. Oh well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

It strikes me that some people will always take the side of a crank because the federal government is always wrong. Which would be the federal government that abolished slavery, passed the civil rights act and sawn the new deal through to save the world economy. Oh well.

---

... and helped defeat Nazism and came to the rescue of europe during WW1 and introduced the new Deal to help end the worst depression in US history and introduced affordable health care to finally make available treatment for those who couldn't afford it before...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kittyKaiti

You also seem so upset over his use of the word "negro", however, in his youth and during that time period, "negro" was the politically correct, non-racist way to refer to a black individual.

---

A lot has happened since he was a youth. Most people learn throughout life. Some children pick their nose. As adults they are expected not to do that in public.

Kittykaiti you are beyond hope. Sane people would not expect to be allowed to use government or private land they do not own without being subject to regulation of that use. There's nothing arbitrary about charging fees that approximate the cost (or even a fraction of it) that someone's use exacts on land.

A lot of militia men are bigots. Perhaps not every group, but it's difficult to keep track of every group of nutjobs threatening the government. So you say your nutjobs are equal opportunity nutjobs. That's fine. They are still morons.

There's a species of bird in California that has changed it's wingspan in the last 100 years so it can fly out of the way of cars quicker.

I don't know if it's natural selection, or if the birds willed it to happen.

I do know the Goldwater Republicans are dying off.

The Europeans who sailed the triangle, the Africans who enslaved other tribes and sold them, the New Worlders who bought them so they could turn fields into thriving plantations, they're all dead now. They weren't trying to change the world, they were trying to make a buck in hard times.

Debate is fine, but actually changing things is slower, and not always dependent on what's right. The way it is, that is what's right.

Cliven Bundy doesn't need a Harvard education, in fact it would probably interfere with his duties as a rancher. His parents didn't debate if he should be smart or stupid, but the lion's share of ranchers know enough to pay their bills.

Fifty years ago the US was 85% white, if I win a Debate that says we should be 100% white, I doubt all the non-whites will leave. There are unseen forces at work here. Like REALITY. I'm positive Cliven wishes the Blacks had not been brought over here as Slaves. I heard him say that the Mexicans are much better workers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

It strikes me that some people will always take the side of a crank because the federal government is always wrong. Which would be the federal government that abolished slavery, passed the civil rights act and sawn the new deal through to save the world economy. Oh well.

---

Change comes from the bottom up. And never the top down. Change occurs because of people... and not from people in positions of power.

I always think it's funny when people will dismiss all news organizations...but then have no problem citing Alex Jones as their source of information...often their main source ...and not even cracking a smile.

Quote:

---

You are still missing the entire point. You called the militia and anti-BLM protesters "white supremacists".

---

I thought you said the whole point was the over-reaction of BLM officers. But okay, like Buttslinger’s birds with enlarged wingspans, the situation has evolved. So now listen very carefully.

Cliven's not a hero. He's an excuse. He's an excuse for looney, white supremacist, anti-U.S. government, slim[e]balls to get out their guns, wave them around and ejaculate a few rounds of stupidity, ignorance and hatred.

Did I say the milita were white supremacist? Look again. Did I say the anti-BLM protesters were white supremacist? Look again. For the record, I don’t doubt quite a number of those folk are white supremacists, given the “associations” to which you yourself as well as Broncofan have alluded. But didn’t say anything of like, “X are white supremacist slimeballs.” Instead I said that looney, white supremacist, anti-U.S.government slimeballs were using Cliven as an excuse. See the difference now. And who are these slimeballs? Some of them have driven down to Bunkerville to be sure (and btw the town’s not all the happy with the influx of all those armed assholes). But those slimeballs are all over the U.S. and the web waving their guns (literally and metaphorically) and loudly ejaculating their rounds of stupidity (that word, “stupidity” should’ve been a clue that this part of the sentence was a metaphor), ignorance and hatred. I believe somebody here posted a screen-sized picture of a gun while supporting Cliven’s racism.

Quote:

---

I also don't care what he owes the BLM. Just because the federal government believes it has the right to declare arbitrary rules and regulations whenever it feels like,

---

Of course the new regulations on land use weren’t arbitrary. They arose from a conservation study that predated the regulations by nearly five years. We live in a democracy, and we have passed an endangered species protection act. I know. I know. Freedom fears a liberal’s tears. But the arbitrary act here was not the government passing new regulations on land use. The arbitrary act was not enforcing them for twenty years. In my opinion the local official who oversaw those particular Federal lands upon which Cliven was freeloading needs to lose his or her job.

Quote:

---

Lawmakers in Washington state suggested...

---

Safe to say you’re not for State’s rights then, right? But the key difference here is the word, “suggested.” In a democracy you can suggest and consider anything. We live in a fuckin’ democratic republic! We can propose things. We can discuss things. We can discover together why they’re silly or why we might want to implement them. That’s the fucking point of a democracy. But Cliven didn’t break a suggestion. He broke the law.

Quote:

---

You also seem so upset over his use of the word "negro", however, in his youth and during that time period, "negro" was the politically correct, non-racist way to refer to a black individual. Today we use "African American" and even now there are people claiming that is offensive. So, please, inform the world how you would like to be referred to when someone is trying to describe a person's race and color of skin, that is not offensive.

---

Here the keywords are “seem” and “upset.” I’m not. But that doesn’t much matter. The world doesn’t tip-toe around or give two shits about my feelings. I suppose if Cliven was 90, I’d find his usage of the word “negro” quaint. So how old is Cliven? He was born in 1946. He’s now 67. How many 67 year old guys here use the word “negro”? The word “black” displaced the word “negro” in the very late 60’s early 70’s. Cliven was 24 in 1970. He clearly decided to resist the change. But hey, that's okay. But what’s up with the phase, “the negro”? The negro this. The negro that. I do find that a little objectifying but certainly not damning. I certainly don’t need to tell the world “Please don’t refer to African-Americans as the Negro.” But since you asked, here is what the world should know is offensive: A man who wonders, not once, not twice, but often wonders whether the negro was better off under slavery, is not a man who loves or even knows the meaning of the word, “freedom.” Cliven is just a rancher who wants to feed his cows for free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

In my opinion the local official who oversaw those particular Federal lands upon which Cliven was freeloading needs to lose his or her job.

---

A good post. I want to focus on this point because I think it's an important rebuttal for the overreaching, excessive force arguments. I think officials should try to use the least intrusive means necessary to prevent someone from breaking the law. You are talking about the local official who didn't enforce the federal law, but imo it's even a failure of the federal government's enforcement powers once violations had gone on for a while. And that's because they were not able to abate the illegal actions. This was not civil disobedience on the part of Bundy because he threatened to use force to protect his cattle.

I think people have a right not to comply with a law that violates a clearly established constitutional norm. That would be for instance if a state made abortion illegal, no matter how it was performed and when. You can't see from the face of the constitution that such an action would be unconstitutional, but there is clear precedent on the issue. The highest court in the land has ruled on that specific issue...not an ancillary issue but that issue. Of course, there would be limits to whether you could use force in resisting attempts to enforce that law. But at least you wouldn't be making this crazy argument that everyone is entitled to his own interpretation of the constitution regardless of how our judiciary has ruled. That's a recipe for anarchy.