Nevada Ranch Armed Standoff - Everyone vs The Feds

[werepossum]

This is a key part of the story which could reveal some sane basis for why Bundy attracted the wide-ranging support he did.

Not that he's not a lying, racist, welfare queen, hypocrite, but all that is another story standing right beside and possibly obscuring whether or not the BLM acted fairly or judiciously.

And, no, I do not think BLM land should revert to the states, perhaps especially this state, stolen from the Indians and conjured into being in 1864 to aid Abraham Lincoln's 2nd presidential bid, this state with less than 1/3rd of the population of the city of New York.

Yep. A lot of people assumed that because the BLM has acted badly in the past, it is acting badly now. The only thing to support that is its treatment of Bundy, yet that treatment is exactly the same whether the BLM is acting in good faith or ill. Further, a lot of us didn't really stop and think that the very length of the dispute tends to exonerate the BLM in this instance. Were they actively working on a Harry Reid-type land swap, surely they would have moved a lot more quickly as real estate deals don't customarily linger over decades even around western BLM/EPA jurisdictions. Unfortunately for those of us who want to know, the smartest thing for the BLM to do now is to shut up and let this guy talk himself out of his last remaining support. The longer he goes without producing anything more evidential than cancellation of his grazing rights, the better it looks for the BLM, and the more he talks about anything, the better it looks for the BLM.

I agree that these lands need to remain federal. The high desert is a very fragile ecosystem and it takes huge amounts of land to support a health population of any mega fauna. But it's worth pointing that pretty much all our land is either stolen from the Indians or bought after having been stolen from the Indians.

 

[PlanetJosh]

Maybe he's using racist comments to try to shift media attention away from some big national topics and on to his cause. That's a tall order and probably just a conspiracy theory.

 

[Vic]

Stewox posted his ideology in detail the other day (please search for it, I'd do it but search is a pain in the ass on tapatalk), and it was completely national socialist.

 

[Perknose]

since a vote for any of that scum is akin to wearing a nazi yellow armband.

Lol, talk about your low information voter. He's conflating the YELLOW STAR jews had to wear on their lapels with nazi armbands.

Let me hip you to nazi armbands, sm625: Yellow was not a color Nazi brass favored.

 

[emperus]

It doesn't but it does allow money to come in without making this guy a major distraction from other things that are far more important.

Or, they could do what law enforcement does. Enforce the law. Or is he different somehow?

 

[werepossum]

Lol, talk about your low information voter. He's conflating the YELLOW STAR jews had to wear on their lapels with nazi armbands.

Let me hip you to nazi armbands, sm625: Yellow was not a color Nazi brass favored.

lol Clearly he's referencing the Jewish Nazis.

 

[emperus]

lol I do believe that is currently the world's safest bet.


To be fair, that's not what he said. I too took his statements to that conclusion - that if he were allowed to own them they'd be better off - but that's our own logical inference, not what he actually said. DVC made that argument better than can Bundy, even though like any thinking person DVC rejects its conclusion. Just as when people are claiming he refused to pay his grazing fees, it's important to use the actual facts.

Again, we are given Bundy too much credit. We all know what he meant with the words he chose. It is the same thing the majority of his supporters I'm sure believe. I tire of people trying to pretty up his words or trying to enable him by saying that's not what he meant or his words weren't racist.

Hannity of all people said his words were racist and denounced them. I'm not sure why that is so hard for some on this forum.

 

[emperus]

Yep. A lot of people assumed that because the BLM has acted badly in the past, it is acting badly now. The only thing to support that is its treatment of Bundy, yet that treatment is exactly the same whether the BLM is acting in good faith or ill. Further, a lot of us didn't really stop and think that the very length of the dispute tends to exonerate the BLM in this instance.
.

Who is a lot of people? You must mean a lot of uninformed people who believed the right wing spin that the BLM was stealing land that Bundy owned. I think most rational people and some normally irrational people on the right wonder why this is even a story.

 

[werepossum]

Again, we are given Bundy too much credit. We all know what he meant with the words he chose. It is the same thing the majority of his supporters I'm sure believe. I tire of people trying to pretty up his words or trying to enable him by saying that's not what he meant or his words weren't racist.

Hannity of all people said his words were racist and denounced them. I'm not sure why that is so hard for some on this forum.

I have no problem with you assuming you know what he meant, as long as you acknowledge that wasn't what he said. I came to the same conclusion; I just think it's important to differentiate between our logical conclusions and what he actually said. DVC is certainly no fan of Bundy and without doubt one of the smartest people here, and he could make a reasonable case for Bundy's words not being racist, just poorly framed. Personally I don't think Bundy's words can make logical sense without being based on racist assumptions - whether or not those racist assumptions are underpinned by any animosity - but clearly it's possible for reasonable people to differ.

Who is a lot of people? You must mean a lot of uninformed people who believed the right wing spin that the BLM was stealing land that Bundy owned. I think most rational people and some normally irrational people on the right wonder why this is even a story.

I don't think anyone has ever thought the BLM was stealing land that Bundy owned. The whole issue has been about grazing rights and whether they are being improperly terminated since day one. The only real obfuscation has been trying to make it about unpaid grazing fees.

Well, that and trying to make this about the BLM and federal government in general rather than basing it solely on this situation. Some fail on both sides.

 

[dank69]

I have no problem with you assuming you know what he meant, as long as you acknowledge that wasn't what he said. I came to the same conclusion; I just think it's important to differentiate between our logical conclusions and what he actually said. DVC is certainly no fan of Bundy and without doubt one of the smartest people here, and he could make a reasonable case for Bundy's words not being racist, just poorly framed. Personally I don't think Bundy's words can make logical sense without being based on racist assumptions - whether or not those racist assumptions are underpinned by any animosity - but clearly it's possible for reasonable people to differ.


I don't think anyone has ever thought the BLM was stealing land that Bundy owned. The whole issue has been about grazing rights and whether they are being improperly terminated since day one. The only real obfuscation has been trying to make it about unpaid grazing fees.

Well, that and trying to make this about the BLM and federal government in general rather than basing it solely on this situation. Some fail on both sides.

The whole thing was framed as a "land grab" from the beginning.

 

[emperus]

I have no problem with you assuming you know what he meant, as long as you acknowledge that wasn't what he said. I came to the same conclusion; I just think it's important to differentiate between our logical conclusions and what he actually said. DVC is certainly no fan of Bundy and without doubt one of the smartest people here, and he could make a reasonable case for Bundy's words not being racist, just poorly framed. Personally I don't think Bundy's words can make logical sense without being based on racist assumptions - whether or not those racist assumptions are underpinned by any animosity - but clearly it's possible for reasonable people to differ.


I don't think anyone has ever thought the BLM was stealing land that Bundy owned. The whole issue has been about grazing rights and whether they are being improperly terminated since day one. The only real obfuscation has been trying to make it about unpaid grazing fees.

Well, that and trying to make this about the BLM and federal government in general rather than basing it solely on this situation. Some fail on both sides.

I actually don't think DVC made a reasonable point on why his comments weren't racist. In fact I was very disappointed that he initially said he didn't believe his comments were racist. I just chose not to come at him, because he is generally cordial. That was probably my fault.

Secondly, I am not assuming what he meant. I made a logical inference from the words he spoke and later corroborated. A very easy logical inference that everyone in the world besides a few here have seemed to make.

Lastly, it was framed as a land grab. Read the first post in this thread and watch some of the early Hannity coverage. I guarantee if you polled the majority of people who support Bundy, none of them would even be able to explain why they support him or they would believe their support is because the Feds are trying to take his land.

 

[Mxylplyx]

This is absolutely true; Jon Stewart is a comedian headlining a comedy program on Comedy Central, and anyone who claims he's a "journalist" or what have you is being ignorant. However, I think you'll find that most of Jon Stewart's viewers don't consider him a news source but an entertainer, a point which he himself has clarified multiple times. How many people in Sean Hannity's audience consider him a news source? Because he's just as much the entertainer that Jon Stewart is, yet for some reason, his fans take his word as gospel in a way that Stewart's fans emphatically don't. Perhaps this explains why Hannity's viewers are consistently less well-informed than Stewart's; they incorrectly assume their entertainment is news.

Very well said

 

[RampantAndroid]

This is absolutely true; Jon Stewart is a comedian headlining a comedy program on Comedy Central, and anyone who claims he's a "journalist" or what have you is being ignorant. However, I think you'll find that most of Jon Stewart's viewers don't consider him a news source but an entertainer, a point which he himself has clarified multiple times. How many people in Sean Hannity's audience consider him a news source? Because he's just as much the entertainer that Jon Stewart is, yet for some reason, his fans take his word as gospel in a way that Stewart's fans emphatically don't. Perhaps this explains why Hannity's viewers are consistently less well-informed than Stewart's; they incorrectly assume their entertainment is news.

While this may be true on the whole, in general, I've found stewart's fans will quote him on Facebook as if everything he said was the truth...which to me makes him annoying (and the people quoting him.)

 

[Knowing]

Media Matters selectively edited a clip. Is discussion proceeding as if they did not?

Should I find some Black Panther rhetoric echoing what he said? What about comments by the honorable Sonia Sotomayer?

 

[HomerJS]

ahhh....the white old and angry male stereotype...yet, so accurate

that makes me feel like a racist for saying that, maybe the justice shoudn't allow people say that stereotype

(yes, massive irony)

He has his justice. He took his case to court and lost.

So what's your point??

 

[ivwshane]

While this may be true on the whole, in general, I've found stewart's fans will quote him on Facebook as if everything he said was the truth...which to me makes him annoying (and the people quoting him.)

On Facebook you say? Lol

 

[fskimospy]

Media Matters selectively edited a clip. Is discussion proceeding as if they did not?

Nope. I've watched his full remarks. Still super racist.

Should I find some Black Panther rhetoric echoing what he said? What about comments by the honorable Sabrina Sotomayer?

1.) Not sure who you think supports the Black Panthers here.
2.) Not sure why you would think that two wrongs make a right.
3.) If you're going to try and attack someone and have decided you aren't going to spell their name right the least you could do is at least spell the correct name incorrectly.

 

[ivwshane]

Media Matters selectively edited a clip. Is discussion proceeding as if they did not?

Should I find some Black Panther rhetoric echoing what he said? What about comments by the honorable Sabrina Sotomayer?

By all means post the unedited clip! I'm sure it will help/s

 

[HomerJS]

Media Matters selectively edited a clip. Is discussion proceeding as if they did not?

Should I find some Black Panther rhetoric echoing what he said? What about comments by the honorable Sabrina Sotomayer?

Excuse me but there are plenty of "unedited" clips for your amusement.

Also let's see when was the last black group who pointed arms at federal authorities who were there to execute a legitimate court order??

Also when was the last time a "liberal" news channel made a hero of this kind of group??

I'll wait.


BTW - If you are going to use a JOTSC learn her name even if you don't like her.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I actually don't think DVC made a reasonable point on why his comments weren't racist. In fact I was very disappointed that he initially said he didn't believe his comments were racist. I just chose not to come at him, because he is generally cordial. That was probably my fault.

To be fair, I believe what I wrote was something to the effect that I didn't think his comments were necessarily racist on their face. I would stand by that. I think they were stupid, insensitive, and poorly articulated, but not necessarily racist. He was comparing the lot of a particular group of people (African-Americans) under slavery to what it is today, and suggesting it might have been better in the former situation. As I said I totally reject his sentiment that slavery was better (I consider that only slightly less stupid than saying the Native Americans are better off now than before we almost completely genocided them out of existence), but I don't see it as racist per se.

Obviously African-Americans are unique in our nation's history in that they are the only racial group which was originally brought here as chattel, largely for the specific purpose of being slaves, so there really is no other group for which this precise comparison (i.e., conditions under slavery versus under current conditions) makes any sense. A person could reasonably take what he said to mean that black people are distinctively ill-equipped for life as free people, or some similar racist sentiment, but that is not the way I took his statement. I took it as a direct comparison between conditions under slavery and under long-term public assistance.

 

[Knowing]

By all means post the unedited clip! I'm sure it will help/s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agXns-W60MI

"If we are to proceed toward true liberation, we must cut ourselves off from white people..... [otherwise] we will find ourselves entwined in the tentacles of the white power complex that controls this country.”

Also let's see when was the last black group who pointed arms at federal authorities who were there to execute a legitimate court order??

I don't care about that, at all.

Also when was the last time a "liberal" news channel made a hero of this kind of group??

What kind of group?

I'll wait.

You're begging the question, so expect a considerable wait.

BTW - If you are going to use a JOTSC learn her name even if you don't like her.

Ah yes, I misspelled something - release the hounds! Well done, grammar Nazi.

 

[HomerJS]

In this unedited clip at around 1:45 when Cliven the Great gets to worst part of his speech that motorcycle you hear is Fox News getting the fuck out of town.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agXns-W60MI#t=137

 

[Perknose]

To be fair, I believe what I wrote was something to the effect that I didn't think his comments were necessarily racist on their face. I would stand by that. I think they were stupid, insensitive, and poorly articulated, but not necessarily racist. He was comparing the lot of a particular group of people (African-Americans) under slavery to what it is today, and suggesting it might have been better in the former situation. As I said I totally reject his sentiment that slavery was better, but I don't see it as racist per se. Obviously African-Americans are unique in our nation's history in that they are the only racial group which was originally brought here largely for the specific purpose of being slaves, so there really is no other group for which this precise comparison (i.e., conditions under slavery versus under current conditions) makes any sense.

You know how I know you've been a lawyer WAY too long, DVC?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

You know how I know you've been a lawyer WAY too long, DVC?

Ahem . . . guilty as charged.

 

[Knowing]

Nope. I've watched his full remarks. Still super racist.

So you don't see any of the negatives associated with public housing as one of the clearest cut cases of institutional racism in the history of this country?

Interesting.

1.) Not sure who you think supports the Black Panthers here.

I for one think they had legitimate grievances.

2.) Not sure why you would think that two wrongs make a right.

I don't know why you would think that. I don't have to wonder much why you would provide me with an argument that was so easy to argue against though.

3.) If you're going to try and attack someone and have decided you aren't going to spell their name right the least you could do is at least spell the correct name incorrectly.

I don't know who you think I'm attacking, but once again I do see you providing me with a motive for ill without clarifying that I had ill intentions.