Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

I don't know if Mr. Bundy's use of the word "Negro" is considered racist or not or just more how they speak out there, as Harry Reid also said that Obama had "no Negro dialect" and both are from Nevada. Reid was allowed to slide on that one though. Mr. Bundy was very foolish though to wade into openly pondering whether blacks had it better during slavery than now. I mean that's like bringing up whether, technically-speaking, businesses have the right to discriminate based on skin color if they wish to. It is just asking for it. He was also foolish to not realize that the media would spin his comments out of context.

Reid says he has revealed himself to be a "hateful racist," but I don't see anything hateful in his remarks so much as just at worst some major ignorance and insensitivity.

Bundy's comment regarding Negros being dependent on the government dole pale in comparison to LBJ's comments about getting getting them addicted to government subsidies.

“I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” —Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”—LBJ

[Pete]

It's OK to Leave the Plantation : The New Underground Railroad

http://www.amazon.com/Its-OK-Leave-P...CH3XAT9J7CXE94

Note the "also bought" list of books at the bottom of the page.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by Pete

It's OK to Leave the Plantation : The New Underground Railroad

LOL, best not tell "Bush the Younger."

[JJ2K1]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

I question your fundamental grasp of the political and practical realities of race in politics. What Mr. Bundy says in that video (and your interpretation of it) doesn't change anything WRT the basic realities. In fact - the only people who see it the way you've described it are the professional race baiters, their sycophants, and the perpetually aggrieved "victims" with a permanent chip on their shoulder.

Please explain to me the ROI Republicans can expect from pandering to black voters, the majority of whom could care less about Republican (wish I could say conservative) values. Romney was right - 47% of the electorate WILL NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN - and blacks are a significant portion of that percentage. Blacks represent approximately 14% of the US population. 93% of the ones who voted in 2012 did so for Obama (even higher in 2008). The overwhelming majority are Democrats (22% of Democrats vs. 02% of Republicans). Those percentages have been relatively stable for an extended period. (http://www.people-press.org/files/20...4-12-V-101.png as one example). The Condoleezza Rices, Herman Caines, Ben Carsons, et al are an aberration, apparently despised by the black community and viciously denigrated by the "progressive establishment" as "race traitors". They will vote Republican anyway. Sadly there aren't enough of them to make any difference and they have no where else to go. Bottom line - Republicans can safely ignore blacks.

The demographic that Republicans should be recruiting are the Hispanics. They outnumber the blacks, they are evenly divided among conservatives, liberals and independents hence the potential to be swayed by reasoned appeals, and their culture has conservative roots that core Republican values already appeal to. And they're not still whining about slavery, an institution ended by force of arms and a lot of blood almost 150 years ago. If Republicans are going to engage in a "bidding war" with Democrats for voter blocks, they need to concentrate their efforts where they have the best chance of bearing fruit. Why give a shit about the political significance of what Mr. Bundy says? And why continue attempting to modify essentially irrelevant behavior to appease a demographic that refuses to progress beyond 1965 and won't make a difference when the votes are cast?

You really hit the nail on the head!

[GratefulCitizen]

In post #239, there is an attached screen shot (enlarged, cropped) of what the LA Times had last night.
The picture is now gone from the linked article.

For some odd reason, the video in this link isn't working.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid..._that_man.html

Funny how information that doesn't fit the MSM narrative disappears down the memory hole.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

For some odd reason, the video in this link isn't working.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid..._that_man.html

Funny how information that doesn't fit the MSM narrative disappears down the memory hole.

Works for me.

Pat

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by PSM

Works for me.

Pat

I can find the video elsewhere, but this one still won't come through.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

I can find the video elsewhere, but this one still won't come through.

Did you try a different browser?

Pat

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by PSM

Did you try a different browser?

Pat

Must be an Apple thing.
Regardless, LA Times changed and CNN is downplaying/trying to get ahead this.

Won't work.
Alternative media is already shredding the "racist" meme.

WRT the inability of the MSM to control the narrative, I have to wonder...
Does it hurt?

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

I question your fundamental grasp of the political and practical realities of race in politics.

Based upon my posts in this thread and elsewhere on this BB, members of PS.COM can judge for themselves my grasp of contemporary political issues and the impact of race upon them.

Originally Posted by Peregrino

In fact - the only people who see it the way you've described it are the professional race baiters, their sycophants, and the perpetually aggrieved "victims" with a permanent chip on their shoulder.

Sir, with respect, you are wrong.

"Across the street," BTDTs who are not "race baiters" have expressed concerns similar to mine. At last month's CPAC, there was a panel that addressed the same issues I raised in my post <<LINK>>.

Originally Posted by Peregrino

The demographic that Republicans should be recruiting are the Hispanics. They outnumber the blacks, they are evenly divided among conservatives, liberals and independents hence the potential to be swayed by reasoned appeals, and their culture has conservative roots that core Republican values already appeal to.

In my experience, blacks and Latinos "compare notes" IRT the way Republicans talk about both. In my experience, non white voters will agree with many of the GOPs core values but when the discussion turns to how Republicans and other conservatives talk about and treat those same groups, the conversation stops cold.

Originally Posted by Peregrino

And they're not still whining about slavery, an institution ended by force of arms and a lot of blood almost 150 years ago.

I think this highly controversial statement speaks for itself.

In response, I will pose a rhetorical question. Why do some hector blacks for "whining" about slavery but say nothing about whites who lament the "lost cause"?

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

....In response, I will pose a rhetorical question. Why do some hector blacks for "whining" about slavery but say nothing about whites who lament the "lost cause"?

Because in everything there must be balance. They balance the ones who tell southern whites to "get over it" while they cheer on blacks who whine about slavery.

But the bottom line question for all those people running from Bundy - "So only the politically correct deserve protection?"

[akv]

If the issue is excessive government use of force, and perceptions of the victim aren't the point; Should the legacy of the late Rodney King be yet another victim of excessive government force, or a violent serial criminal asshat who deserved the beat down?

I don't know what the Republicans need to do in 2016, perhaps victory does come by targeting the Hispanic vote. If so, why would any minority voter on the fence vote for a GOP candidate who is tolerant of a perceived bigot?

[Richard]

I've been reading a lot of differing views on the Bundy matter and find myself to be pretty much in agreement with this oped:

Wouldn't it be nice if we could all make up our own laws? Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy has been doing that for 20 years, running his cattle on federal lands and refusing to pay the grazing fees that thousands of other ranchers do because he refuses to recognize the federal government's ownership.

In fact, he says, he doesn't "recognize the United States government as even existing." He argues that his family was on the land before the government was so he shouldn't have to pay, despite numerous court rulings saying he must.

Now his long simmering battle has come to a boil. When the Bureau of Land Management tried to carry out a court order by confiscating hundreds of his cattle, the rancher's call for help was answered by scores of armed men and a passel of legislators, including would-be president Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and fellow GOP Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada, who admiringly called Bundy's gun-toting supporters "patriots."

As the deadly shootout with the Branch Davidians near Waco, Texas, in 1993 showed, armed zealots are more than willing to die to make a point. One member of the Bundy army, former Arizona sheriff Richard Mack, said they even planned to use women as human shields, so they would be the first to die on television if the feds opened fire.

Faced with that kind of lunacy, the BLM wisely, if temporarily, backed off despite the obvious risk of sending a dangerous message that if you don't like a law, you needn't obey it.

Meanwhile, the lawmakers who foolishly rushed to Bundy's side were learning the risks of such opportunism. Inspired by huge news media attention, the 67-year-old rancher expanded to reporters on other topics, including that blacks in government subsidized housing might be "better off as slaves, picking cotton." A spokesman for Heller quickly told The New York Times that the senator "completely disagrees" with that, and Paul issued a statement saying Bundy's remarks were "offensive."

Beneath this clownish theater, there are some serious points. One is that Westerners have long and understandably chafed at federal ownership of so much land in the West, including more than 80% of Nevada.

But Bundy's claim of title is simply wrong. Nevada and other states specifically ceded any claim to the land when they joined the union. They even wrote that fact into their constitutions. Further undermining Bundy's case, the U.S. Constitution's Property Clause gives Congress authority over national territory. The Supreme Court has upheld that power as "without limitation."

It's not hard to understand the frustration of a cattle rancher who is told — as Bundy was — that he can no longer run his cattle on federal grazing land because of harm to the protected desert tortoise. That decision deserves re-evaluation. But not at the point of a gun.

The government obviously cannot let Bundy declare that he is above the law without inviting everyone else to do the same.

Tortoises and armed mobs aside, he eventually must be compelled to pay his bills.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...bates/8125347/

Richard

[GratefulCitizen]

Wouldn't it be nice if we could all make up our own laws?
http://youtu.be/ejvyDn1TPr8

Some animals are more equal.

[Paslode]

As the deadly shootout with the Branch Davidians near Waco, Texas, in 1993 showed, armed zealots are more than willing to die to make a point. One member of the Bundy army, former Arizona sheriff Richard Mack, said they even planned to use women as human shields, so they would be the first to die on television if the feds opened fire.

Faced with that kind of lunacy, the BLM wisely, if temporarily, backed off despite the obvious risk of sending a dangerous message that if you don't like a law, you needn't obey it.

Armed Zealots could describe the Agency personal that laid siege on the compound and incinerated a bunch of children in the process...and it has been said on this very board that the David Koresh could have been apprehended on his frequent trips outside the compound and the agencies did not.

What is being described as lunacy, is actually a tactic that has worked well against superior forces in places A-Stan, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon.

Meanwhile, the lawmakers who foolishly rushed to Bundy's side were learning the risks of such opportunism. Inspired by huge news media attention, the 67-year-old rancher expanded to reporters on other topics, including that blacks in government subsidized housing might be "better off as slaves, picking cotton." A spokesman for Heller quickly told The New York Times that the senator "completely disagrees" with that, and Paul issued a statement saying Bundy's remarks were "offensive."

But what if Bundy were named Travon Martin?

The government obviously cannot let Bundy declare that he is above the law without inviting everyone else to do the same.

Our Politicians are above the law, why not Bundy? Maybe the the IRS workers that owe Millions in back taxes should be compelled to pay up as well....instead of receiving bonuses.