Support NeoGAF

[Chumly]

Yeah but the argument is that it was wrong for the government to take that area because they took the good land where the tortoise lived but not the bad land.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it was never his land to begin with. Regardless if it was the states or federal governments land it doesn't mean that the government can't change its mind with what to do with the land.

 

[sangreal]

Yeah but the argument is that it was wrong for the government to take that area because they took the good land where the tortoise lived but not the bad land.

the land has belonged to the United States since 1848. They did not take anything*, they just changed the cost to graze on it

*From Bundy -- the land was taken from Mexico in the Mexican–American War

 

[Vicetrailia]

Sure, the rampant corporate lobbying that more or less writes all legislation for starters. The fact that gerrymandering has upended the democratic process and ensures that less votes leads to more representation. The fact that wages have been stagnant for decades and the average worker has very few rights or protections. The fact that wealth taxes are absurdly low and in effect the well off pay less than half the tax rate that everyone else does. The fact that these absurd tax rates are the primary reason we have large annual deficits that are in turn used to justify cuts to programs that help the poor? I could go on for days. Our government is shit, anyone that says otherwise has their eyes closed to reality.

You're right. I wouldn't talk about them in this topic though, seems really out of place.

 

[SapientWolf]

Sure, the rampant corporate lobbying that more or less writes all legislation for starters. The fact that gerrymandering has upended the democratic process and ensures that less votes leads to more representation. The fact that wages have been stagnant for decades and the average worker has very few rights or protections. The fact that wealth taxes are absurdly low and in effect the well off pay less than half the tax rate that everyone else does. The fact that these absurd tax rates are the primary reason we have large annual deficits that are in turn used to justify cuts to programs that help the poor? I could go on for days. Our government is shit, anyone that says otherwise has their eyes closed to reality.

Americans could educate themselves about the issues and elect qualified leaders that care deeply about the problems that you mentioned and have a plan to create a better hahahAHAHA. I can't even finish that sentence. If we're not electing lolCATS and reality show stars in 2050 then I'll consider that a great victory.

 

[Averon]

Yeah but the argument is that it was wrong for the government to take that area because they took the good land where the tortoise lived but not the bad land.

Well tough shit for Bundy. It is the BLM's land to use however they wish. Bundy has no say in the matter.
If the BLM want to raze and salt the earth on the land, it is their right to do so.

 

[Sneds]

Well tough shit for Bundy. It is the BLM's land to use however they wish. Bundy has no say in the matter.
If the BLM want to raze and salt the earth on the land, it is their right to do so.

This is going off-topic but, in principle, it's right for the public to have a say in how government-owned land is used. Environmentalists do this. For example, protesting against fracking on government owned land would be valid as would campaigning against salting the earth.

 

[LegendofJoe]

Ok, so nothing to do with why Bundy isn't paying his taxes?

More or less, sorry for detailing the topic.

 

[sangreal]

This is going off-topic but, in principle, it's right for the public to have a say in how government-owned land is used. Environmentalists do this. For example, protesting against fracking on government owned land would be valid as would campaigning against salting the earth.

Yes, and that say is through Congress not armed uprising. Congress approved the fee. BLM maintains an entire history of that here: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html

You're right, the BLM can't do whatever they want with public land, but we the public as a whole can -- through congress -- and we decided to charge ranchers to run their cattle on it. Likewise, I imagine it would be frowned upon by the rest of the public if I wanted to run my cattle in Central Park

Bundy is not actually arguing that he should be able to use public land for free anyway -- his argument is that it belongs to the County, not to the United States and that he tried to pay the county to graze on their land. That's in direct contradiction to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the US Constituion, the Constitution of the State of Nevada, and the US law granting Nevada statehood. He is an armed separatist and it is incredible that politicians ever backed him, even if you agree the federal government owns too much western lands or administers it poorly.

That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right
and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain
at the sole and entire disposition of the United States

 

[Chumly]

This is going off-topic but, in principle, it's right for the public to have a say in how government-owned land is used. Environmentalists do this. For example, protesting against fracking on government owned land would be valid as would campaigning against salting the earth.

You would be correct but an individual can't just decide that he's going to do with whatever he pleases on federal land. Otherwise environmentalists could just decide to shut down all fracking themselves.

 

[Sneds]

Yes, and that say is through Congress not armed uprising. Congress approved the fee. BLM maintains an entire history of that here: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html

I'm in favour of non-violent direct action when it comes to environmental issues but that wouldn't cover Bundy's case which I have no sympathy for.

I was making a broader point as a poster mentioned 'salting the earth' which I hope people would protest against in that hyperthetical scenario!

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Yes, and that say is through Congress not armed uprising. Congress approved the fee. BLM maintains an entire history of that here: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html

And that's exactly the message Republicans are campaigning with.
Check out this guy running for Congress.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2otXPONjys

 

[Oblivion]

lol, Bundy has plastered his FB page with various links to Black conservatives saying the same thing he did:

https://www.facebook.com/bundyranch

 

[Chumly]

lol, Bundy has plastered his FB page with various links to Black conservatives saying the same thing he did:

https://www.facebook.com/bundyranch

Holy shit at the people commenting out in the open on Facebook. Those supporters are fucking scary.

 

[kaching]

Sure, the rampant corporate lobbying that more or less writes all legislation for starters. The fact that gerrymandering has upended the democratic process and ensures that less votes leads to more representation. The fact that wages have been stagnant for decades and the average worker has very few rights or protections. The fact that wealth taxes are absurdly low and in effect the well off pay less than half the tax rate that everyone else does. The fact that these absurd tax rates are the primary reason we have large annual deficits that are in turn used to justify cuts to programs that help the poor? I could go on for days. Our government is shit, anyone that says otherwise has their eyes closed to reality.

So, in other words, because of special interests who think they're above the law with no respect for our democratic process or the common good, solely focused on whatever works for their own private interests. Like Bundy.

 

[leadbelly]

speak truf to powah

I read about this. At first I thought he was in denial about this, but then I watched the original video in full. I'm not sure exactly what Bundy's views are on black people, perhaps his views are based a little bit on ignorance. What you can say though is his use of language was always going to get him into trouble. However, it is out of context. The guy mentioned claimed Bundy just isn't very tactful and, "not an orator. Maybe that has some truth to it I don't know.

Anyway, as I said, it is out of context. He actually said something before the words posted in this thread.

Concerning slavery he stated: "We've progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and we sure don't want to go back. We sure don't want these coloured people to go back to that point; we sure don't want these Mexican people to have to go back to that point". Whatever you may think about his words, he certainly wasn't suggesting slavery was a good thing. That wasn't what he was trying to say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agXns-W60MI#t=42

 

[LaserBuddha]

I read about this. At first I thought he was in denial about this, but then I watched the original video in full. I'm not sure exactly what Bundy's views are on black people, perhaps his views are based a little bit on ignorance. What you can say though is his use of language was always going to get him into trouble. However, it is out of context. The guy mentioned claimed Bundy just isn't very tactful and, "not an orator. Maybe that has some truth to it I don't know.

Anyway, as I said, it is out of context. He actually said something before the words posted in this thread.

Concerning slavery he stated: "We've progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and we sure don't want to go back. We sure don't want these coloured people to go back to that point; we sure don't want these Mexican people to have to go back to that point". Whatever you may think about his words, he certainly wasn't suggesting slavery was a good thing. That wasn't what he was trying to say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agXns-W60MI#t=42

He said slavery might be better for them than what they have now. That is incredibly condescending and racist and is trying to downplay the negativity of slavery.

That quote you posted and your excuses for him do not contradict that.

 

[leadbelly]

He said slavery might be better for them than what they have now. That is incredibly condescending and racist and is trying to downplay the negativity of slavery.

That quote you posted and your excuses for him do not contradict that.

My excuses? I did not make any excuses for him.

Part of my post:

I'm not sure exactly what Bundy's views are on black people, perhaps his views are based a little bit on ignorance. What you can say though is his use of language was always going to get him into trouble

The reason I posted that video is because the quote is taken out of context, which it is.

 

[sangreal]

My excuses? I did not make any excuses for him.

Part of my post:



The reason I posted that video is because the quote is taken out of context, which it is.

It really isn't. The additional context doesn't change what he said at all. Okay, he doesn't want to go back to the days of slavery -- he still believes black people were better off then than now. He also apparently believes they had a stable family life despite forced breeding and their kids being sold off. But hey, at least they had chicken

Have you bothered to listen to his "clarifications" where he repeats his belief in the premise -- black people would be better off as actual, literal slaves than they are today. He repeated this multiple times, after the controversy. It was not a slip of the tongue or a poor choice of words.

It's really amazing to me that the guy can double-down on his remarks and people still show up to claim they were out of context.

e: sorry, he is only wondering if black people would be happier with the righteous life of having their families torn apart, rape, lashings, beatings, breeding, forced labor, and murder. He isn't sure

 

[LAUGHTREY]

I read that whole thing.

Who are these people? This is like a cult! The entire thing is so surreal. I almost wish I could have been there just to experience it.

Man, I hope someone compiles all this crazy into a documentary.

This shit is scary.

"The message I gave to you all was a revelation that I received. And yet not one of you can seem to even quote it.”

Cliven continues, sermon-like: "The records of our bible — how long have they been kept? Thousands of years. They’ve been turned over generation after generation, buried, and all kinds of things happen to ‘em. And yet, here, something I felt was inspired [by God] and yet we haven’t even carried it forth for even a couple of days. Shame on us.” Smattering of clapping.

This is not going to end well.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

My excuses? I did not make any excuses for him.

Part of my post:



The reason I posted that video is because the quote is taken out of context, which it is.

You don't need context to interpret him thinking the black family was stronger during slavery times. He's just contradicting himself, not giving further explanation.

Stahp.

 

[leadbelly]

It really isn't. The additional context doesn't change what he said at all. Okay, he doesn't want to go back to the days of slavery -- he still believes black people were better off then than now. He also apparently believes they had a stable family life despite forced breeding and their kids being sold off. But hey, at least they had chicken

Have you bothered to listen to his "clarifications" where he repeats his belief in the premise -- black people would be better off as actual, literal slaves than they are today. He repeated this multiple times, after the controversy. It was not a slip of the tongue or a poor choice of words.

Nope. I haven't heard any of his clarifications. Care to give me some links?

I think it does change what he said though. He qualified his statement by first saying he doesn't want to go back to the days of slavery. What i get from that, is that he doesn't really think slavery is a good thing. So then, he was using his 'observations' to make a point. That point being that black people are better off as slaves than being on government subsidy. Seems to be another one of his anti-Federalist attacks.

It does seem to be some ignorance in there. You get the impression he thinks all black people are just surviving on government hand-outs. I can imagine that sounded offensive to some.

There was a video earlier in this thread that outlined the views of some of these militia groups and linked them to Bundy. We're talking some real dangerous racists.However, I'm not sure if that is entirely his views. I don't know.

 

[tranciful]

...

So then, he was using his 'observations' to make a point. That point being that black people are better off as slaves than being on government subsidy.

...

You get the impression he thinks all black people are just surviving on government hand-outs.

....that's what people are offended by. And rightfully so.

 

[leadbelly]

You don't need context to interpret him thinking the black family was stronger during slavery times. He's just contradicting himself, not giving further explanation.

Stahp.

That was the original video. Where the OP quote came from.

 

[Eppy Thatcher]

Holy. Fuck.

People are amazing man. 2014 and your mind is right along in the fuckin 20s or some shit. I mean i miss flapper girls as much as the next guy but...

jesus horatio christ...

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Holy. Fuck.

People are amazing man. 2014 and your mind is right along in the fuckin 20s or some shit. I mean i miss flapper girls as much as the next guy but...

jesus horatio christ...

Yeah, he's one fucked up fossil. People continue to shock me every day.
I guess I don't hang around with any racists, so I'm pretty much completely sheltered from this shit. This guy and the owner of the Clippers are people I thought were very rare in life but wtf... probably not.

 

[sangreal]

Nope. I haven't heard any of his clarifications. Care to give me some links?

I think it does change what he said though. He qualified his statement by first saying he doesn't want to go back to the days of slavery. What i get from that, is that he doesn't really think slavery is a good thing. So then, he was using his 'observations' to make a point. That point being that black people are better off as slaves than being on government subsidy. Seems to be another one of his anti-Federalist attacks.

It does seem to be some ignorance in there. You get the impression he thinks all black people are just surviving on government hand-outs. I can imagine that sounded offensive to some.

There was a video earlier in this thread that outlined the views of some of these militia groups and linked them to Bundy. We're talking some real dangerous racists.However, I'm not sure if that is entirely his views. I don't know.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/bund...-wondering-if-theyre-better-off-being-slaves/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCJ59tls0vc

I don't believe that he thinks all black people are on the government teet (though he is himself), but it is offensive that he believes those who aren't are reliant on the government because they lack the family values of slaves (wtf) and haven't learned to pick cotton. Further, he is not using the "welfare is slavery" metaphor as a rhetorical device -- as you can see in the above clips he actually believes that welfare is worse for black people than literal slavery. He repeated this many times. That comparison doesn't even deserve the slightest legitimacy. It's rooted in the notion that black people provide no value and are unhappy unless they're forced to work and commit to a christian family structure (nevermind that this is not the reality of slavery).

 

[Cyan]

At this point I am beyond confused as to what the Republicans were ever taking a stand for here. Are they now for anarchy? I don't get any of this. Now they're surprised they've supported a fucking open racist, and that's what made their support misguided? That was just the cherry! None of this even makes sense! Do they even stop for a second to think about the causes they are supporting other than "well, iffin' it puts us in opposition of the FED'RAL GUBMENT, then it's ok by me!"

I think some of the more extreme conservatives were honestly hoping that this would end in gunfire and dead civilians and finally, at long last, a scandal to hang around Obama's neck.

 

[speculawyer]

Yep, they're fucking nuts. Living in an alternate reality that sounds like the feverdream of a right wing talk radio host.

They sure are . . .

“The assumption is that the BLM is part of the federal government. But we need to check the facts on that one. The BLM doesn’t work for the government: they work for the United Nations. They might as well be wearing blue helmets. If we find out there’s money being exchanged between Harry Reid and the Chinese government, no one should be surprised.”

O RLY?

Harry Reid and the Chinese? . . . Hmmm . .

Breaking: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch for Chinese Solar Farm!

Commies & solar panels! On noes!

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

They sure are . . .

O RLY?

Harry Reid and the Chinese? . . . Hmmm . .

Breaking: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch for Chinese Solar Farm!

Commies & solar panels! On noes!

#Agenda 21

 

[Open Source]

I think some of the more extreme conservatives were honestly hoping that this would end in gunfire and dead civilians and finally, at long last, a scandal to hang around Obama's neck.

They already have plenty to choose from, and the ideal strategy for them is to focus entirely on Obamacare - something that affects a wide audience, rather than something far away that has no direct bearing on their lives. Besides, Obama's not running in 2014, so it has to be an issue that can be tied to Congress.

Anyway, I find some irony in Bundy's message. On the one hand, he says blacks were better off in some ways under a government that oppressed them (or at least, allowed them to be oppressed). And yet, at the same time, he wants us to believe that government's oppression of him is bad and that he's not better off. He lacks an appreciation for the fact that individual freedom is of paramount importance regardless of whether some rancher or some bureaucrat thinks you're better off under someone's thumb.

He's certainly correct that blacks in America have not made the gains you would expect to follow the civil rights advances that have been made, and indeed have lost ground in key areas thanks to well-intended government policies with disastrous side effects. But that's a far cry from taking away someone's freedom altogether, and it has little relevance to his own situation.

I find "I wonder if ____ were better off when they had less freedom" to be a dangerous and ignorant line of Bloombergian thinking.

 

[leadbelly]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/bund...-wondering-if-theyre-better-off-being-slaves/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCJ59tls0vc

I don't believe that he thinks all black people are on the government teet (though he is himself), but it is offensive that he believes those who aren't are reliant on the government because they lack the family values of slaves (wtf) and haven't learned to pick cotton. Further, he is not using the "welfare is slavery" metaphor as a rhetorical device -- as you can see in the above clips he actually believes that welfare is worse for black people than literal slavery. He repeated this many times. That comparison doesn't even deserve the slightest legitimacy. It's rooted in the notion that black people provide no value and are unhappy unless they're forced to work and commit to a christian family structure (nevermind that this is not the reality of slavery).

Well, first of all, what he said was always going to sound offensive, as we all know. That part can't really be questioned. I did however think it was used as a rhetorical device on the clip I posted because he first qualified his statement by pretty much saying slavery isn't a good thing and that the ending of it is progress (not a literal quote obviously, but basically what he meant).

In these videos he does seem to keep emphasising the fact that he was only 'wondering'. I think he means he just had a passing curiosity rather than seriously considering it. However, you're right, he does seem to believe they were better under slavery. He seems to buy the idealised version of 'slavery'. Certainly a lot of ignorance in there.

As far a context, I remember watching this:

Posse comitatus. The core of his ideology. It's thoroughly explained in this Maddow clip: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...t-context-missed-in-rancher-hype-236481603620

I'm not sure he fits this really. The people she is describing are extreme racists. I don't know for sure, obviously, he could be just as extreme, but it seems to me his racism is more stupid ignorance than harmful.

 

[Deified Data]

This shit is scary.



This is not going to end well.

Are we to assume the he believes his actions to be divinely-inspired?

 

[Cyan]

Well, first of all, what he said was always going to sound offensive, as well all know. That part can't really be questioned. I did however think it was used as a rhetorical device on the clip I posted because he first qualified his statement by pretty much saying slavery isn't a good thing and that the ending of it is progress (not a literal quote obviously, but basically what he meant).

"I'm not racist, but..."
"I'm not saying slavery was a good thing, but..."

etc

 

[leadbelly]

"I'm not racist, but..."
"I'm not saying slavery was a good thing, but..."

etc

Well, yeah, but as sangreal said, I did think it was a rhetorical device. It was said merely to make a point about the extent of government control. That was kind of what it sounded like to me.

However, it does seem that he may genuinely believe that from the other videos.

 

[LAUGHTREY]

Steve, from Beaver, Utah, says it’s all down to regulation and changes that happened during Vietnam. “I want it to be like it was growing up in the fifties. I want it to be just like that — for [the kids]. Though it can’t be just like that, because they have the internet.”

"That's what's wrong: the Internet," agrees another.

I just don't even know anymore.

 

[speculawyer]

Are we to assume the he believes his actions to be divinely-inspired?

Apparently. He seems to have a bit of FLDS in his style. He gets revelations and then tries to get his backers to do them.

The crowd, fresh off their victory at the Battle of Bunkerville, gives Bundy a standing ovation. But he doesn’t seem pleased. He reproaches the crowd for failing to follow the word of God – to the letter – which he says is being delivered through him. They failed, for example, to follow his instructions to tear down the toll booths at Lake Mead and disarm the Park Service.

"The message I gave to you all was a revelation that I received. And yet not one of you can seem to even quote it.”

Cliven continues, sermon-like: "The records of our bible — how long have they been kept? Thousands of years. They’ve been turned over generation after generation, buried, and all kinds of things happen to ‘em. And yet, here, something I felt was inspired [by God] and yet we haven’t even carried it forth for even a couple of days. Shame on us.” Smattering of clapping.

He goes on to explain that, although they managed to deter the BLM, they failed to do it "within one hour," as the revelation had prophesied. So when an hour passes, he decides to get in his bulldozer and march on the BLM himself. The dozer gets stuck in the mud and he receives another revelation.

“It come to my mind real plain — the good Lord said, ‘Bundy, it’s not your job, it’s THEIR job.’ So we come back over here and heard that they had brought some cattle back. So I want you to understand,” addressing the crowd, "This is not my job, it’s YOUR job.

"This morning, I said a prayer, and this is what I received. I heard a voice say, 'Sheriff Gillespie, your work is not done. Every sheriff across the United States, take the guns away from the United States bureaucrats.’” Lots of clapping for this.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bundy-ranch-uncensored?src=spr_TWITTER&spr_id=1456_55028630

The bit about the bulldozer getting stuck in the mud cracks me up.

OK, we all know Alex Jones is a charlatan or nut case. But I'm still amazed that Fox News gave this story so much coverage. They managed to make CNN's coverage of the Malaysian jet look good.

 

[B-Dubs]

Apparently. He seems to have a bit of FLDS in his style. He gets revelations and then tries to get his backers to do them.


http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bundy-ranch-uncensored?src=spr_TWITTER&spr_id=1456_55028630

The bit about the bulldozer getting stuck in the mud cracks me up.

OK, we all know Alex Jones is a charlatan or nut case. But I'm still amazed that Fox News gave this story so much coverage. They managed to make CNN's coverage of the Malaysian jet look good.

Any reason to attack the administration, I suppose.

 

[Particle Physicist]

I think some of the more extreme conservatives were honestly hoping that this would end in gunfire and dead civilians and finally, at long last, a scandal to hang around Obama's neck.

Yup. They are all about obstructionism against Obama no matter the subject matter. It's why they were glorifying Putin as well. This whole shit is rooted in racism, it's just that publically most Republicans know to use code words instead of open racism. The only thing Fox News and their ilk are shocked about is that Bundy was too stupid to keep his racism 'hidden.'

 

[Great Poster]

Star Trek is pretty fucking racist, they treat entire other species as if they're all the same! The Federation has segregated ships! Humans are in all the powerful positions! Non-humanoids are nowhere to be seen!


They committed to their side, they can't back down now, that'd be giving in.

Duh! Fucking alienzes...fuck 'em all HUMANS rule..fucking 6 eyed, 3 mouthed freaks...go back to picking dilithium!!!

 

[Oblivion]

Was this posted?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6zpiHkK7Tg

Bundy says he "might" in fact be a welfare queen himself but it doesn't count cause he's somehow contributing to society.