Its amazing how they can take something out of context and run with it isn't it? Shameful, that they can twist words and then present them as facts. The public needs to start doing their own scoring and then watch the news that seems the least biased to them. Eventually the networks would be forced to either share the true news, or face declining viewership and eventual insolvency.

Thanks for taking the time to listen to the full interview. +1

Indeed.

Okay, I'm back, I just listened to the full interview. I'm not convinced that Bundy is a racist at all. He was referring to a *specific* group of black people who he saw in *government housing*, not referring to ALL black people at all. Wow. But the way the lefty media apparently edited it, there's no context for what he was saying. When you watch the whole interview, it seems very clear that he's not trying to dehumanize blacks or Mexicans at all. If anything he's trying to point out the harm being done by people being dependent on government instead of learning to work with their own hands. Wow, so this guy's really being subjected to character assassination. And if people figure that because he uses the term 'colored' or 'Negro' that makes him a racist, well, he's not a young man and probably doesn't feel bound by the new terms of today like African-American. Negro and colored are not and never were evil, racist terms in themselves, though they may invoke images of evil, racist problems of America's past.

Wow...I retract my previous statement about him probably being a racist. I was wrong. This guy is not a racist. He seems like a decent fellow, actually, probably someone I could have at my dinner table if I was a social person like that. I'm sure we could have an interesting conversation, too. Huh.

I'm starting to get really concerned about the news media, even more than usual. First the Trayvon Martin stuff, I remember the way they tricked everybody on that, and now this. What the heck am I watching? How much of anything I hear in the news is true anymore?

I suddenly feel a lot older than 31. Just unreal.

Yeah, I've been meaning to actually sit down and listen to the whole thing. I've noticed that news media has trouble giving you full context when it comes to quoting people...

By media, I mean State Contolled Media.

Fox has decided to tone it down so as not to piss off the State, but they are not yet its mouthpiece.

Limbaugh is definitely no mouthpiece for the State Controlled Media.

stadler; I can appreciate your sensitivity to the issue in general, but based on reading your total post, I'm sure that if you had watched the entire video of his discussion - you wouldn't feel quite so much that he was speaking racially as much as he was speaking as a man that is deeply driven in his personal belief in a strong and close family. His comments weren't even about black people in general, but to those he saw while driving through a public housing project area in N. Las Vegas. He's just an uncomplicated man who's found himself in the limelight because of what seems to be an honestly principled disagreement with a government that's more and more out of touch with all of the citizens of this country.

Personally, I thought your input was important to the thread. Txs for commenting.

I didn't see him being coaxed on the video, he was just telling stories. As to his rights - yes.

I agree.

The media is not a monolith, it includes Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Not that I agree with a lot of what they say either, but refusing to deal with any of the media will not advance the cause of freedom one inch. And since the media has as much access to YouTube as the rest of us, insensitive remarks such as the ones Bundy made will eventually be pounced on by the liberal portion of the media anyway.

What we need is to better understand the philosophies and communication skills of our potential allies in the fight for freedom, before giving them our full public support.

There is a LOT more to the legal history than what you may be aware of. I'd suggest more research, because you're only parroting the MSM side.

You can't talk to someone like the current media.

I liked the sci-fi series "Bablylon 5". In one of the episodes, the main character and his wife get interviewed by the press. Of course you get to see the whole interview and the comments made. Then they play it back, but this time the questions are mysteriously different and the answers are pieced together to make the whole thing look 180 degrees out of reality.

That's what happens with today's media.

Want to get your point out there? Blog or post it on YouTube. I love Claven on the Culture.

+1

"I've not been on here much lately."
Please remedy that.

Excellent points stadler

Thank You Sir! Please stick with us; your clear thinking is desperately needed, these days!!! -- john

I got the sense that he was expressing sadness for both conditions -- the old slavery and the current "slavery" -- and implying that there are more of us in the current "slavery" than there were 'way back in the old slavery days. still, states' right have been perverted by the feds!!! and, yes, he said some very "unfortunate things"!!!

I posted the unedited version. It's revolting how things are twisted to fit an agenda.

Clive Bundy has subsequently emphatically confirmed that he is no racist and was in fact comparing the condition of people dependent on the government welfare state with slavery. Bundy is being smeared by the spin in the New York Times, which has been self righteously picked up by people who should know better. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014...

The pathetic little lout Harry Reid has now proclaimed, “Today, Bundy revealed himself to be a hateful racist. But by denigrating people who work hard and play by the rules while he mooches off public land, he also revealed himself to be a hypocrite.”

Welfare recipients "work hard and play by the rules"? Really? Has life long politician and former amateur pugilist Harry Reid himself ever worked a productive day in his whole life? And how is Bundy, a productive man who runs, maintains, and defends a private ranch, "mooching off public land" because the government refuses to recognize property rights to the land, leaving ranchers to depend on grazing and water rights that are all that are recognized, when they are at all, by the government?

How is it Bundy's fault that the government has outlawed private property rights in over 85% of Nevada, forcing people to rely on a government controlled kingdom with a system of "special use permits" and "fees" reminiscent of feudalism? Were all the tenants of the feudalists throughout history "moochers" for having to rely on their lords' land in a caste society? Harry Reid is an ignorant smear artist who has been listening to too many of his imaginary friends.

For more on the history of the fate of property rights on western lands and how the viros are exploiting it to get rid of people, see my post elsewhere on this page: Search for "The reason for this is that the original Homestead Act limited the amount of previously unowned land that the settlers could claim ..."

There is a good deal of history and politics behind this that Harry Reid and his imaginary friends don't want you to know about and which explain the obvious absurdity that a ranching family for over a hundred years is suddenly being forcibly displaced by armed BLM agents -- surrounding a private home with snipers and killing their cattle in the name of "fees" imposed for eating grass and "trespassing cows", while relying on arcane bureaucratic "court orders" piling absurdity on top of absurdity that you aren't supposed to question.

No. I never said it was ‘about’ the word negro. I used that specific example to show that Bundy is archaic -hence my usage of the word dinosaur to describe Bundy. You seem to align my choice of word with age. I never saw it that way.

sigh. I've made my point on this. It's not about the word "negro" although I understand the collective lamestream gasp.

I've not been following news much lately, but just started learning about this fellow's statements. Well, it's a sensitive issue for me, since I'm a black man, and I certainly don't appreciate the quotes I've heard this guy saying. I am sure, absolutely sure, that *all* black people who live in his area are not merely sitting around with nothing to do. That's just plain ignorant and racist to say. The people who are working are probably the people he doesn't see sitting around on the porch or what have you. I can assure you, nobody was happier under slavery. At least government dependence can be scaled back and people can educate themselves and actively participate in the freedom their forefathers earned. But as slaves, slaves under abuse and slow death--much harder to accomplish things, though a few exceptional people did do so. These folks who may be dependent on handouts aren't slaves to the government so much as slaves to their own mentality. It is their choice to rely on a handout (with varying degrees of choice, such as those who didn't earn enough to save at all, much less for retirement or folks who are infirmed and the like). It's pride in one's own value that makes a person refuse to accept handouts and work with their own hands, to the extent possible for each one.

Either way, so....SWAT teams? Over a tax bill? Is this what I'm hearing? What possible reason could there be for SWAT teams to pay a visit over a tax issue? Was this someone who was known for aggression/unprovoked violence against law enforcement? I can't see the logic there. Even if say he's known to own firearms and there's some legitimate cause for concern about that, just send a squad car or two, and if they start a gunfight, then the consequences are on them.

I think if the guy is a racist--and yeah, he probably is, if my reading comprehension is still correct here--that's not really my business, so long as he doesn't create any problems for me. If this is just a media ad hominem attack to distract from the issue, well, obviously it's working on plenty of folks, right?

I think if we'd started in a society where race wasn't an issue, that'd make all this easier, wouldn't it? But because it was an issue and the government made laws to separate people by race, some of the legislative efforts to undo that ended up creating reverse racism and then making it difficult for everyone to have an equal playing field. So now it's like, oh, you're a racist if you don't agree with certain laws. I guess I'm just thinking of the stuff I heard recently on TV about repealing Affirmative Action, for example. The thing is, in a truly equal and free society, no group, including blacks, should be given preferential treatment of any kind. There are plenty of poor whites who probably can't afford college, either, but if there was a program to help poor whites in the same way there have been programs for blacks, I'm sure people would be crying racism. A national association for the advancement of white people would be viewed in the same light as the KKK. Well, you can't have it both ways. It's racist to uphold one group above another, period. It's just that the horrors of history and some of the still stark realities of the present make the issue difficult for a lot of people to understand. I don't mean to digress from the point of this thread, though. I just felt a need to express that, and I've not been on here much lately.