All You Bundy Lovers....Your New Hero Speaks....Shoots Self in Foot

[edthecynic]

As I said he used poor language, very poor language. I have no clue about his not saying cotton, I've not heard about that, but I don't think he meant it in a horrible or racist manner. If he did he would not have said he does not want 'Blacks" to go back or 'Hispanics'. He would not have said what wonderful people they were if her were racist or trying to be racist.

I believe the context does not make it seem anywhere near as ominous compared to what was in the Times.

So then you agree with Bundy that the "family life" of a slave was better and they were happier back then. Just thing of how wonderful it was to have the master sell the black family's children, who were just property after all, and how great it was to know the master was fucking your wife and daughter. How could a slave's "family life" be any better than that????

I never said I agreed with him, I said I believe he believed he was actually advocating for Blacks and Hispanics. I also said when read in context you can see where he was going or what he was trying to say.

Yeah, he was saying being dependent on government today is worse than being property back then, which is moronic to everyone but racists who think slavery was not all that bad. Or to put it in his words, the negro was happier as property than as a government dependent.

 

[CaféAuLait]

So then you agree with Bundy that the "family life" of a slave was better and they were happier back then. Just thing of how wonderful it was to have the master sell the black family's children, who were just property after all, and how great it was to know the master was fucking your wife and daughter. How could a slave's "family life" be any better than that????

I never said I agreed with him, I said I believe he believed he was actually advocating for Blacks and Hispanics. I also said when read in context you can see where he was going or what he was trying to say.

Yeah, he was saying being dependent on government today is worse than being property back then, which is moronic to everyone but racists who think slavery was not all that bad. Or to put it in his words, the negro was happier as property than as a government dependent.

Call me racist whatever, I am saying the entire transcript compared to what the NY Times printed shows something wholly different. When I read the NY Times piece, I thought he was a horrible, nasty ole racist man. When reading the entire piece IMO he believed he was advocating for Blacks and Hispanics, no matter how poorly or awful.

 

[ScienceRocks]

How exactly is he wrong?

 

[Statistikhengst]

I believe he believed he was actually advocating for Blacks and Hispanics.

Was Bundy "Shirley Sherroded"?


Bundy's entire 'speech'...


…” and so what I’ve testified to ya’, I was in the WATTS riot, I seen the beginning fire and I seen the last fire. What I seen is civil disturbance. People are not happy, people is thinking they did not have their freedom; they didn’t have these things, and they didn’t have them.

We’ve progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and sure don’t want to go back; we sure don’t want the colored people to go back to that point; we sure don’t want the Mexican people to go back to that point; and we can make a difference right now by taking care of some of these bureaucracies, and do it in a peaceful way.

Let me tell.. talk to you about the Mexicans, and these are just things I know about the negroes. I want to tell you one more thing I know about the negro.

When I go, went, go to Las Vegas, North Las Vegas; and I would see these little government houses, and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids…. and there was always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch. They didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for the kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for the young girls to do.

And because they were basically on government subsidy – so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never, they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered are they were better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things? Or are they better off under government subsidy?

You know they didn’t get more freedom, uh they got less freedom – they got less family life, and their happiness -you could see it in their faces- they were not happy sitting on that concrete sidewalk. Down there they was probably growing their turnips – so that’s all government, that’s not freedom.

Now, let me talk about the Spanish people. You know I understand that they come over here against our constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here and they’re people – and I’ve worked side-by-side a lot of them.

Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structure than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together, and I’ll tell you in my way of thinking they’re awful nice people.

And we need to have those people join us and be with us…. not, not come to our party.

I think he used very poor choice of words, If anyone reads all the comments in context, I don't believe he meant to come off they way he did.

Was he trying to advocate in a very poor manner given the scope of his words? Or was he really being a blatant racist?

It's possible to have one or two good solid ideas and then ruin them with racist or bigoted interjections that derail the entire thing.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that what he said about black people, lumping them all into one group, and making these assumptions about them, is RABIDLY racist.

And attributing it to his age, as one member did, doesn't make it better. It makes it worse, far, far worse, for this guy has been around long enough and should have enough sense in his head to know better.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether he was "trying" to be racist or not. The comments that are at the heart of this are virulently racist.

It's bullshit, imo, no matter how you slice it.

 

[L.K.Eder]

cletus bundy is just misunderstood.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I love this thread. Nutters are so understanding and forgiving. Heartwarming stuff.

 

[edthecynic]

I never said I agreed with him, I said I believe he believed he was actually advocating for Blacks and Hispanics. I also said when read in context you can see where he was going or what he was trying to say.

Yeah, he was saying being dependent on government today is worse than being property back then, which is moronic to everyone but racists who think slavery was not all that bad. Or to put it in his words, the negro was happier as property than as a government dependent.

Call me racist whatever, I am saying the entire transcript compared to what the NY Times printed shows something wholly different. When I read the NY Times piece, I thought he was a horrible, nasty ole racist man. When reading the entire piece IMO he believed he was advocating for Blacks and Hispanics, no matter how poorly or awful.

Again, Bundy denied ever saying anything about "cotton picking" on the Alice Jones show and he accused the NY Times of adding those specific words to what he said to make him look like a racist and Jones agreed that the Times adding those words was despicable. The fact is, Bundy actually said those "cotton picking" words he himself admitted made him look like a racist, so he should know what he meant by saying "the negro" was happier "picking cotton."

 

[Sallow]

I believe he believed he was actually advocating for Blacks and Hispanics.

Was Bundy "Shirley Sherroded"?


Bundy's entire 'speech'...


…” and so what I’ve testified to ya’, I was in the WATTS riot, I seen the beginning fire and I seen the last fire. What I seen is civil disturbance. People are not happy, people is thinking they did not have their freedom; they didn’t have these things, and they didn’t have them.

We’ve progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and sure don’t want to go back; we sure don’t want the colored people to go back to that point; we sure don’t want the Mexican people to go back to that point; and we can make a difference right now by taking care of some of these bureaucracies, and do it in a peaceful way.

Let me tell.. talk to you about the Mexicans, and these are just things I know about the negroes. I want to tell you one more thing I know about the negro.

When I go, went, go to Las Vegas, North Las Vegas; and I would see these little government houses, and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids…. and there was always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch. They didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for the kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for the young girls to do.

And because they were basically on government subsidy – so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never, they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered are they were better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things? Or are they better off under government subsidy?

You know they didn’t get more freedom, uh they got less freedom – they got less family life, and their happiness -you could see it in their faces- they were not happy sitting on that concrete sidewalk. Down there they was probably growing their turnips – so that’s all government, that’s not freedom.

Now, let me talk about the Spanish people. You know I understand that they come over here against our constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here and they’re people – and I’ve worked side-by-side a lot of them.

Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structure than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together, and I’ll tell you in my way of thinking they’re awful nice people.

And we need to have those people join us and be with us…. not, not come to our party.

I think he used very poor choice of words, If anyone reads all the comments in context, I don't believe he meant to come off they way he did.

Was he trying to advocate in a very poor manner given the scope of his words? Or was he really being a blatant racist?

Then why did he deny that he said anything about "picking cotton" on Alice Jones today, accusing the NY Times of injecting those words to make him look like a racist???? Obviously even Bundy thought what he said was racist and felt he had to deny he said it!!!

As I said he used poor language, very poor language. I have no clue about his not saying cotton, I've not heard about that, but I don't think he meant it in a horrible or racist manner. If he did he would not have said he does not want 'Blacks" to go back or 'Hispanics'. He would not have said what wonderful people they were if her were racist or trying to be racist.

I believe the context does not make it seem anywhere near as ominous compared to what was in the Times.

Cliven Bundy is a not only a feckless lawbreaker..he's a racist one.

 

[Toro]

What's funny is that in the 18th century paradise where only landholders could vote that a handful of extremist right wingers would like to bring back, this racist redneck would get a vote but a young educated person who was renting would not.

 

[Plasmaball]

Yeah! Lets make that 36% of the 16 to 19 year old Black represent the condition of all of "the Blacks"! That'll show 'em (and make you feel better too) but the fact is that you are most likely no more employed than that 36%. Yet you stand on your soap box and want to down them, while probably making all sorts of excuses for your own possible lack of employment and productivity. That's pretty hypocritical and comical at the same time. It's akin to the anti-government handout jerks offs complaining about "entitlements" while they are receiving entitlements themselves. What a bunch of bigoted clowns!

No. Even when I was wrong, I delineated the two. Or can you not read? Doc was wrong. There's a big difference between "16 and 19" and "16 and up."



And it is wholly arrogant of you to down me, and make up your own judgements about my unemployment situation. Believe me, I speak from experience. Unemployment is not fun. I can only imagine what it's like for someone who isn't working and taking on a government subsidy. These genetic arguments must cease, at once.

That's pretty hypocritical and comical at the same time. It's akin to the anti-government handout jerks offs complaining about "entitlements" while they are receiving entitlements themselves. What a bunch of bigoted clowns!

Well for one thing, I rejected taking unemployment benefits when I was fired from my first job. When someone suggested I apply for welfare, I said no. When someone suggested I get food stamps. I said no. I did not believe in dependence on my government. Not one iota. That still is true. I was taught to depend on myself.

I didn't "down" you about your employment situation or lack thereof. Note that I said "possible" , I don't know you and your own situation. But I will say that if you are not employed and are trying to down a race of people for not being employed (especially when it represents the minority of that race) , I think it's pretty hypocritical of you to do so.
What "genetic arguments" are you referring to?


How did you "reject" unemployment, when I would think that one has to apply for unemployment? How were you eligible for unemployment if you were "fired" from your job?

He is lying..his grandmother helps him out and he lives with her...which is perfectly fine, but this rejection is just garbage.

 

[JoeB131]

It's better to be owned as property and have a purpose, than to be free unowned and without a purpose. Think about it.

^^^^^^^^^^ When Cliven Bundy doesn't go far enough, here's Templar taking it in for the home stretch. ^^^^^^^^

All I can says is "Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck!"

and Runs with Scissors pretty much defines "without a purpose". I remember when he started a thread about his job situation, and he came up with all sort of excuses as to why he couldn't do any of the things that people helpfully suggested.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Funny, this isn't about me. Try debating the topic. Very disingenuous to resort to ad hominem. Funny, if any of you cared about anyone getting a job, you'd be writing your congressmen and senators to pass jobs legislation. But nope.
Sent from my ADR8995 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Runs-With-Scissors, you make it about you when you have the gall to criticize people for taking assistance.

Even though unlike you, a lot of them HAVE jobs.

 

[Stephanie]

What's funny is that in the 18th century paradise where only landholders could vote that a handful of extremist right wingers would like to bring back, this racist redneck would get a vote but a young educated person who was renting would not.

good grief

 

[Statistikhengst]

 

[JoeB131]

Fatherless households, 40% drop out and unemployment, it's time we talked about the effect these Democrat Programs have on the black family

How is the government responsible for any of those things?

It strikes me that what causes fatherless households is having sex outside of marriage and without birth control. Well, you wingnuts are against giving them the birth control.

We might be able to reduce the drop out rate if a school in Pilsen had the same funding as a school in Evanston. But, geez, "equality"? That sounds like some pretty Commie shit, Comrade Frank!

Hey, but we can talk about unemployment! Maybe we can stop signing those free trade treaties that move jobs overseas!

 

[Toro]

Okay, let me set some things straight here.

1)What Bundy said was racist. Nor do I condone it. I have never been a racist in my life. In fact, I agreed with Rand Paul when he first condemned him.

2)To people who think I advocate slavery, I will never in my life condone the act of slavery. My grandmother's family gave room and board to black sharecroppers in the 1930's and 40's, they understood that all black men and women were just as human as they were. Slavery itself turns my stomach. But to me, the slavery of one era would have been preferable to the slavery of government subsidies. Even for me.

Now to address his statement.

But even still there is some validity to at least one part of Bundy's statement. A great deal of African Americans are are being subsidized by their government. They may or may not be working when they get these subsidies. The point here being is that they are being held back.

Working or no, it's still slavery. When you are working and barely making a living, coupling it with a subsidy, you are essentially a slave to your government. There may be no need to progress any further. When you're not working, and receiving a subsidy, you are enslaving yourself to government. Either way, they are being held down by the the weight of their own dependence.

Of course, Bundy's statement was bigoted and racist. It was way out of line, especially the "picking cotton" reference. But what people (namely the left) don't remember, or care to remember, is that Harry Reid made similar comments about Obama, and was forced to apologize. He referred to Obama in 2008 as a "light skinned African American" with "no Negro dialect." So, why all the outrage now? All I see here is one enormous double standard.

Once again. I will never condone slavery, whether it from the days of old, or from this government. I am proud that I am able to see people equally, instead of just 'black', 'white', 'gay' or 'straight.' I am proud of the fact that our country was able to see past such barbarous thinking, to understand that all men were in fact created equal.

Here's the "problem". Bundy made the statement as an old man. People MY age are used to calling blacks "colored" or "Negro". It's nothing unusual. I have heard it all my life and it doesn't bother me nearly as much as it does younger blacks and (apparently) white folks who suffer from perpetual "white guilt".

Bundy was merely acting like a man of his age. Funny - young "politically correct" white children are far more "offended" than I, a black man, who is 69 years old. Could Bundy have made a smarter choice of words? You bet. Because in this "environment" the left is slinking around, hunting and pecking for even the thinnest trip up so they can pounce.

Frankly, I am far more offended (as a man who has fought for this country, bled for this country and served this country for 22 years) by the statements of that worthless gutter trash Harry Reid and his dismissal of folks he "disagrees" with as "terrorists". The only "terrorist" in Nevada is Harry Reid.

Unlike democrats - I don't see racism on every corner nor do I use it as an excuse to attack in the way these "white folks" do - or our infamous "leaders" namely Sharpton (the useless) or Jackson (the worthless) race-baiting slime.

Moral of the story? Liberals are slime - always looking to defame and never holding their own to the same "standards" that they demand of conservatives. Shame on them and God help the United States.

The moral if the story is that knee-jerk conservatives mindlessly defended a free-loading racist nutter who was breaking the law and are now trying to deflect their embarrassment by blaming others.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I believe he believed he was actually advocating for Blacks and Hispanics.

Was Bundy "Shirley Sherroded"?


Bundy's entire 'speech'...


…” and so what I’ve testified to ya’, I was in the WATTS riot, I seen the beginning fire and I seen the last fire. What I seen is civil disturbance. People are not happy, people is thinking they did not have their freedom; they didn’t have these things, and they didn’t have them.

We’ve progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and sure don’t want to go back; we sure don’t want the colored people to go back to that point; we sure don’t want the Mexican people to go back to that point; and we can make a difference right now by taking care of some of these bureaucracies, and do it in a peaceful way.

Let me tell.. talk to you about the Mexicans, and these are just things I know about the negroes. I want to tell you one more thing I know about the negro.

When I go, went, go to Las Vegas, North Las Vegas; and I would see these little government houses, and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids…. and there was always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch. They didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for the kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for the young girls to do.

And because they were basically on government subsidy – so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never, they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered are they were better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things? Or are they better off under government subsidy?

You know they didn’t get more freedom, uh they got less freedom – they got less family life, and their happiness -you could see it in their faces- they were not happy sitting on that concrete sidewalk. Down there they was probably growing their turnips – so that’s all government, that’s not freedom.

Now, let me talk about the Spanish people. You know I understand that they come over here against our constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here and they’re people – and I’ve worked side-by-side a lot of them.

Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structure than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together, and I’ll tell you in my way of thinking they’re awful nice people.

And we need to have those people join us and be with us…. not, not come to our party.

I think he used very poor choice of words, If anyone reads all the comments in context, I don't believe he meant to come off they way he did.

Was he trying to advocate in a very poor manner given the scope of his words? Or was he really being a blatant racist?

The 'context' is irrelevant. There is no context that makes his thoughts about slavery better.

Sometimes people you have to learn to cut your losses and move on.

 

[mudwhistle]

Ok, I understand now. Bundy is not an obnoxious freeloading hypocritical racist. He is an "Old Man".

Well, so am I, so I am looking forward to getting away with stealing from the public and advocating slavery for anyone with too much pigment in his skin .... I assume that I have your support.

WOO_HOO!

So basically, how you frame your statement dictates it's acceptability.


So if you say you hate Republicans you're cool.

If you say you hate crazy assed crackers you're cool.

If you say you hate conservatives with their guns and their religion, you're cool.



But if you say you think negros aren't better off today than they were during slavery, even though they constantly talk about slavery, as a matter of fact they have a whole month to celebrate slavery, you're a racist.



Gotcha......

 

[mudwhistle]

I believe he believed he was actually advocating for Blacks and Hispanics.

Was Bundy "Shirley Sherroded"?


Bundy's entire 'speech'...


…” and so what I’ve testified to ya’, I was in the WATTS riot, I seen the beginning fire and I seen the last fire. What I seen is civil disturbance. People are not happy, people is thinking they did not have their freedom; they didn’t have these things, and they didn’t have them.

We’ve progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and sure don’t want to go back; we sure don’t want the colored people to go back to that point; we sure don’t want the Mexican people to go back to that point; and we can make a difference right now by taking care of some of these bureaucracies, and do it in a peaceful way.

Let me tell.. talk to you about the Mexicans, and these are just things I know about the negroes. I want to tell you one more thing I know about the negro.

When I go, went, go to Las Vegas, North Las Vegas; and I would see these little government houses, and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids…. and there was always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch. They didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for the kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for the young girls to do.

And because they were basically on government subsidy – so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never, they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered are they were better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things? Or are they better off under government subsidy?

You know they didn’t get more freedom, uh they got less freedom – they got less family life, and their happiness -you could see it in their faces- they were not happy sitting on that concrete sidewalk. Down there they was probably growing their turnips – so that’s all government, that’s not freedom.

Now, let me talk about the Spanish people. You know I understand that they come over here against our constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here and they’re people – and I’ve worked side-by-side a lot of them.

Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structure than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together, and I’ll tell you in my way of thinking they’re awful nice people.

And we need to have those people join us and be with us…. not, not come to our party.

I think he used very poor choice of words, If anyone reads all the comments in context, I don't believe he meant to come off they way he did.

Was he trying to advocate in a very poor manner given the scope of his words? Or was he really being a blatant racist?

The 'context' is irrelevant. There is no context that makes his thoughts about slavery better.

Sometimes people you have to learn to cut your losses and move on.

We keep telling you people this about Obamacare, or about Bush and WMDs, or about the 2000 election and you guys never do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As I watched the discussion Randall had with Doc, I gleaned that the opinion of a black man no longer means as much to a liberal, when it comes from the other end of the spectrum. Dare I say it, whoever thinks such a thing is a hypocrite. I recall Doc telling me that Pheonixops as a black man knew whether slavery is preferable to government subsidy or not, but apparently, Randall didn't. Isn't that racist? To imply that one black man's opinion is worth more than another's?

When liberals get a contradictory opinion on the subject from another black man, a Republican conservative black man, his opinion no longer holds any weight. This is the inherent flaw of the liberal argument about racism. One black man's opinion should hold just as much weight as the other.

What does holding weight even mean?