05-02-2014 08:34 PM
170 ... 34567
tools
  1. A895's Avatar
    There are still older people in the south that regularly use those same terns. They are not seen as racists. The younger people just accept that they talk that way and know it will change as these people pass on. There's no need to make a fuss if you know there is no racist intent behind what is said.

    Sent from my SCH-R970X using Tapatalk
    News Flash: They are seen as racist and are treated as such. There is racist intent with racist words, there is no excuse for it.


    Sent from my XT907 using Mobile Nations mobile app
    04-26-2014 02:08 PM
  2. phoneaddict78's Avatar
    News Flash: They are seen as racist and are treated as such. There is racist intent with racist words, there is no excuse for it.


    Sent from my XT907 using Mobile Nations mobile app
    Well certainly you must hold Bill Clinton and Harry Reid to the same standards for their past comments, hugh? Or do your standards fluctuate according to ideology?

    Sent from my LG-LS980 using AC Forums mobile app
    04-26-2014 02:13 PM
  3. A895's Avatar
    Well certainly you must hold Bill Clinton and Harry Reid to the same standards for their past comments, hugh? Or do your standards fluctuate according to ideology?

    Sent from my LG-LS980 using AC Forums mobile app
    If they said something racist that is racist intent regardless of ideology. You expected my answer to change? I hold everyone to the same standards. Mind you though I couldn't call Bill Clinton racist just off one statement. Compare that to Bundy who sounds racist with most of what he says.

    Sent from my XT907 using Mobile Nations mobile app
    04-26-2014 03:16 PM
  4. Aquila's Avatar
    The idea that something can be racist (or not) based on the social acceptance of their words and deeds is probably a logical non-starter. Is it based on the majority of society's interpretation or is this some sort of racial relativism that each subculture can define their own values? Can something be wrong on 1st avenue but right on 2nd avenue? Just like any moral truth or understanding, there is rarely a point where something becomes moral or immoral, it is usually a matter of us becoming more aware of the morality or immorality of a previously less than fully explored concept.

    Taking racism out of the equation and replacing that variable with theft; can one point to the day where theft stopped being a moral action and became an immoral action? How about murder? Was murder not only okay, but the thing to do until someone had a tablet that said, "thou shall not"? Or was it always wrong and the moral observation is simply that, an articulation of the obvious moral nature of murder or theft ... or racism.

    We obviously did not flip a switch and one day things that were previously right became wrong. We examined our values over time and came to understand how our previous perception was wrong and started taking actions to be better. These statements would have been racist in 1500 and in 1776 and in 1863 and in 1961 and in 1968, just as they are in 2014. The only difference is one of social acceptance... and perhaps we ought to strive to utilize insights that we have gained over the centuries rather than trying to revert to accepting injustices. Why would we want to turn hard-won knowledge off?

    A tradition of immorality or hatred cannot be its own justification for the future perpetuation of further immorality or hatred. While one can make an argument of ignorance when it comes to moral issues, one cannot use ignorance as a justification or a mechanism to flip the status of an action from moral to immoral or vice-versa.
    GadgetGator and msndrstood like this.
    04-26-2014 04:51 PM
  5. phoneaddict78's Avatar
    If they said something racist that is racist intent regardless of ideology. You expected my answer to change? I hold everyone to the same standards. Mind you though I couldn't call Bill Clinton racist just off one statement. Compare that to Bundy who sounds racist with most of what he says.

    Sent from my XT907 using Mobile Nations mobile app
    So your standards basically change with ideology.

    Sent from my LG-LS980 using AC Forums mobile app
    04-26-2014 04:51 PM
  6. A895's Avatar
    So your standards basically change with ideology.

    Sent from my LG-LS980 using AC Forums mobile app
    No. Did you take a view of my entire post?
    04-26-2014 05:29 PM
  7. toober's Avatar
    So now that it's been fully established that he is a racist, does that negate his arguments of federal overreach?
    04-26-2014 07:05 PM
  8. A895's Avatar
    So now that it's been fully established that he is a racist, does that negate his arguments of federal overreach?
    While I agree the government had too much land in that region, I mist say that he should not have stopped paying his dues in the first place. Did he really give a reason why he stopped paying?

    Sent from my XT907 using Mobile Nations mobile app
    04-26-2014 07:13 PM
  9. Aquila's Avatar
    So now that it's been fully established that he is a racist, does that negate his arguments of federal overreach?
    I personally do not think those two things are related; as he does not seem to be basing his thoughts on the role of government upon any such premise except perhaps to the extent that he does not approve of the government welfare programs, but that seems to be another example of government overreach, not the cause of his opinions.
    04-26-2014 07:15 PM
  10. toober's Avatar
    While I agree the government had too much land in that region, I mist say that he should not have stopped paying his dues in the first place. Did he really give a reason why he stopped paying?

    Sent from my XT907 using Mobile Nations mobile app
    He says he tried to pay the fees to the state, but they would not take his money. He claims he does not recognize the authority of the federal government. Thing is, if you look at Nevada's constitution, it says the federal government is the boss.
    GadgetGator likes this.
    04-26-2014 07:21 PM
  11. A895's Avatar
    He says he tried to pay the fees to the state, but they would not take his money. He claims he does not recognize the authority of the federal government. Thing is, if you look at Nevada's constitution, it says the federal government is the boss.
    Regardless of beliefs of the feds. You have to respect their authority like also the fact his cattle (cows?) were grazing on federal land was part of the problem.

    Sent from my XT907 using Mobile Nations mobile app
    04-26-2014 08:11 PM
  12. Aquila's Avatar
    Regardless of beliefs of the feds. You have to respect their authority like also the fact his cattle (cows?) were grazing on federal land was part of the problem.

    Sent from my XT907 using Mobile Nations mobile app
    One does wonder why he didn't purchase his own land for the purpose of grazing and/or supposing he already had land, didn't utilize that?
    A895 likes this.
    04-26-2014 08:19 PM
  13. Mooncatt's Avatar
    One does wonder why he didn't purchase his own land for the purpose of grazing and/or supposing he already had land, didn't utilize that?
    I could be wrong because I don't know a lot about ranching, but I think a lot of land out west is open range where ranchers let their livestock graze instead of buying and fencing in their own land. Factor in things like how arid it can be and the amount of land needed for a large herd, the cost of fencing it all in, the time needed to patrol the fence and then get supplies out to fix it (not to mention the terrain making it difficult to reach some areas), and I could see why it would be easier and maybe cheaper to graze public lands.
    04-26-2014 08:48 PM
  14. toober's Avatar
    One does wonder why he didn't purchase his own land for the purpose of grazing and/or supposing he already had land, didn't utilize that?
    It is my understanding that he does own land but it is common practice to allow cattle to graze on the federal lands as long as you pay the fees. His family has used these lands for generations before the BLM took over. Prior to this dispute, Mr Bundy and his family had paid grazing fees to the state of Nevada. After the BLM took over, he tried to continue his payments to the state, but they would not take his money. Since he did not recognize the authority of the federal government, he refused to pay the fees to them. This led to penalties and fees piling up over the course of a few decades until the BLM sent in their cattle rustlers to take the cows found on federal land. They also sent in armed agents to surround the Bundy ranch. Once the story got out about the happenings on the ranch, armed militia members from across the country started converging on the property in a standoff with the federal government. This lasted a few days. with a daily press conference, until Mr Bundy said negro, then everyone went home and tried to get as much distance from him as possible.
    04-26-2014 08:57 PM
  15. Aquila's Avatar
    I could be wrong because I don't know a lot about ranching, but I think a lot of land out west is open range where ranchers let their livestock graze instead of buying and fencing in their own land. Factor in things like how arid it can be and the amount of land needed for a large herd, the cost of fencing it all in, the time needed to patrol the fence and then get supplies out to fix it (not to mention the terrain making it difficult to reach some areas), and I could see why it would be easier and maybe cheaper to graze public lands.
    And if everyone is in agreement that land is public, or that they allow neighbors to use their personal land that's all fine. But as soon as you're notified that you are trespassing, with a libertarian outlook on property, isn't the conversation over until an agreement can be made as to whether or not one has the right to be there? Take the government out, and say it is his neighbor's land. He has permission, has done so for ages... the neighbor suddenly says, "no more". Dispute doesn't exist for that, does it?

    I would think that regardless of how long you've been using someone else's property and whether or not they have been billing you for that use, once they request you cease to trespass, is that not enough to mandate your compliance? If property rights are absolute, which is the foundation of the libertarian interpretation of capitalism - what gives one the right to negate another's property rights?
    04-26-2014 09:27 PM
  16. A895's Avatar
    It is my understanding that he does own land but it is common practice to allow cattle to graze on the federal lands as long as you pay the fees. His family has used these lands for generations before the BLM took over. Prior to this dispute, Mr Bundy and his family had paid grazing fees to the state of Nevada. After the BLM took over, he tried to continue his payments to the state, but they would not take his money. Since he did not recognize the authority of the federal government, he refused to pay the fees to them. This led to penalties and fees piling up over the course of a few decades until the BLM sent in their cattle rustlers to take the cows found on federal land. They also sent in armed agents to surround the Bundy ranch. Once the story got out about the happenings on the ranch, armed militia members from across the country started converging on the property in a standoff with the federal government. This lasted a few days. with a daily press conference, until Mr Bundy said negro, then everyone went home and tried to get as much distance from him as possible.
    I went back and watched the part where he said "negro" and I laughed at how ignorant he sounded. That is beyond nuts. He literally said slavery was better for "negroes" than sitting on their buns on government assistance. I'm done. As a black person myself I understand there are those who abuse government subsidies (even more so for those who aren't minorities considering most people on food stamps and whatnot are white) but to say things such as he said was beyond ignorant. That is racist.

    Sent from my XT907 using Mobile Nations mobile app
    msndrstood and nolittdroid like this.
    04-26-2014 09:30 PM
  17. Aquila's Avatar
    I don't know that this means anything, but I find it interesting. This guy says he doesn't acknowledge the Federal Government as even existing (lets ignore the fact that he does "follow state law" and Nevada's Paramount Allegiance clause would create a contradiction) - why does he reference the foundation of property rights in (or not in) the US Constitution? Do we often make judgments of the articles of federation of non-entities? That's strange. Why does he do interviews in front of the US Flag? I think the non-acknowledgement thing is either a badly coached lie or justification after the fact, or he's not articulating what he means at all​.
    A895 and rexxman like this.
    04-26-2014 09:39 PM
  18. toober's Avatar
    I went back and watched the part where he said "negro" and I laughed at how ignorant he sounded. That is beyond nuts. He literally said slavery was better for "negroes" than sitting on their buns on government assistance. I'm done. As a black person myself I understand there are those who abuse government subsidies (even more so for those who aren't minorities considering most people on food stamps and whatnot are white) but to say things such as he said was beyond ignorant. That is racist.

    Sent from my XT907 using Mobile Nations mobile app
    You may need to listen again. He didn't say that slavery was better. What he said was that he sometimes wondered if people were better off picking cotton than being slaves to the federal government. While the way he chose to convey this thought was appalling, there has been much discussion on this in the past with many people feeling that the poor in this country are held captive by the very systems put in place to help them. I really don't think there was any racist intent in what he was trying to say, just an old man given a podium and not knowing how to say the things that he wants to say.
    04-26-2014 09:55 PM
  19. Mooncatt's Avatar
    And if everyone is in agreement that land is public, or that they allow neighbors to use their personal land that's all fine. But as soon as you're notified that you are trespassing, with a libertarian outlook on property, isn't the conversation over until an agreement can be made as to whether or not one has the right to be there? Take the government out, and say it is his neighbor's land. He has permission, has done so for ages... the neighbor suddenly says, "no more". Dispute doesn't exist for that, does it?

    I would think that regardless of how long you've been using someone else's property and whether or not they have been billing you for that use, once they request you cease to trespass, is that not enough to mandate your compliance? If property rights are absolute, which is the foundation of the libertarian interpretation of capitalism - what gives one the right to negate another's property rights?
    That's how I see it. There was an agreement between land owner (government) and land user (Bundy). If the land ownership, for all intents and purposes, was transferred to another owner (state to federal), then the former agreement would be voided and he should have conformed to the new "owner's" payment terms. Just because he doesn't recognize the Federal government doesn't mean he can treat the land as if it's still under state control and reinstate the old agreement.

    You had asked why he didn't use his own land and I was just addressing that specific question in my response. I was thinking you meant why he and/or his family didn't use their own land in the first place, not the current dispute.
    04-26-2014 09:55 PM
  20. Aquila's Avatar
    That's how I see it. There was an agreement between land owner (government) and land user (Bundy). If the land ownership, for all intents and purposes, was transferred to another owner (state to federal), then the former agreement would be voided and he should have conformed to the new "owner's" payment terms. Just because he doesn't recognize the Federal government doesn't mean he can treat the land as if it's still under state control and reinstate the old agreement.

    You had asked why he didn't use his own land and I was just addressing that specific question in my response. I was thinking you meant why he and/or his family didn't use their own land in the first place, not the current dispute.
    I think we're more or less on the same page from the "what ought to have happened" sort of spectator perspective. Of course, legally there may be more to it (apparently not, since the courts have ruled a few times, but it is possible) - but if you let me use your land for my business and a decade later business is booming then you decide to stop letting me use your land unless I pay you royalties or whatever you want, I'm either moving out or paying you - regardless of what it may mean to my business or bottom line. Your land, your rules (aside from anything that's in a contract).
    04-26-2014 10:01 PM
  21. A895's Avatar
    You may need to listen again. He didn't say that slavery was better. What he said was that he sometimes wondered if people were better off picking cotton than being slaves to the federal government. While the way he chose to convey this thought was appalling, there has been much discussion on this in the past with many people feeling that the poor in this country are held captive by the very systems put in place to help them. I really don't think there was any racist intent in what he was trying to say, just an old man given a podium and not knowing how to say the things that he wants to say.
    Sometimes the best way to say some things is too not say it at all. By even having the word "negro" in a sentence in 2014 is not cool at all.

    Sent from my XT907 using Mobile Nations mobile app
    04-26-2014 11:05 PM
  22. nolittdroid's Avatar
    It may have been mentioned that he is a racist. Personally, I do not think he's a racist, just an ***** that is conveying his thoughts using terms that were parts of normal speech in past generations but are considered racist today. Dr King himself referred to blacks as negros and "black boy", while an extremely offensive term today, was a common term back in the 50s and 60s when Bundy was young. Maybe we should look past the poorly chosen words and find out if he has ever mistreated anyone or showed any racist tendencies in the past.

    Sent from my SCH-R970X using Tapatalk
    Dr Martin Luther King Jr was black in the 1950s. It was a different time back then. It is now 2014 and generally, anyone who possesses a shred of intelligence knows better to talk like that, unless they're an unapologetic racist. Please do not compare an ignorant old white man to a black man who was killed for demanding to be treated equally.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    A895, msndrstood and rexxman like this.
    04-27-2014 11:20 AM
  23. toober's Avatar
    Dr Martin Luther King Jr was black in the 1950s. It was a different time back then. It is now 2014 and generally, anyone who possesses a shred of intelligence knows better to talk like that, unless they're an unapologetic racist. Please do not compare an ignorant old white man to a black man who was killed for demanding to be treated equally.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    Sorry, I try to judge people by their actions and any known intent rather than the poorly chosen words that come out of their mouth. All I have seen in this case is that he chose to use some words that are considered offensive. I have not seen anything stating that he has ever mistreated anyone in any way. Statements made by people that know him personally say that he is a good man and is not a racist. You are right, he is an old man. In his lifetime, how many different terms have been in mainstream use for black people? Could it be that as a rancher he is out of touch with current trends and what may be considered offensive? Could it be that he is just guilty of ignorance? I know that racism exists in this country and needs to be fought every time it is encountered. Can we really compare this old man's poorly chosen words to the actions of true, hardcore racists out there?
    04-27-2014 01:05 PM
  24. A895's Avatar
    Sorry, I try to judge people by their actions and any known intent rather than the poorly chosen words that come out of their mouth. All I have seen in this case is that he chose to use some words that are considered offensive. I have not seen anything stating that he has ever mistreated anyone in any way. Statements made by people that know him personally say that he is a good man and is not a racist. You are right, he is an old man. In his lifetime, how many different terms have been in mainstream use for black people? Could it be that as a rancher he is out of touch with current trends and what may be considered offensive? Could it be that he is just guilty of ignorance? I know that racism exists in this country and needs to be fought every time it is encountered. Can we really compare this old man's poorly chosen words to the actions of true, hardcore racists out there?
    We can compare it to being ignorant. There is no excuse point blank.

    Sent from my XT907 using Mobile Nations mobile app
    04-27-2014 01:12 PM
  25. GadgetGator's Avatar
    You may need to listen again. He didn't say that slavery was better. What he said was that he sometimes wondered if people were better off picking cotton than being slaves to the federal government. While the way he chose to convey this thought was appalling, there has been much discussion on this in the past with many people feeling that the poor in this country are held captive by the very systems put in place to help them. I really don't think there was any racist intent in what he was trying to say, just an old man given a podium and not knowing how to say the things that he wants to say.
    It's fine to discuss if the current system is benefitting people in the manner it was intended to. But it's quite another pondering if slavery was better as if it only involved some innocent act of "picking cotton". He basically sat there and romanticized slavery. Stated that it kept families together. Totally negating the fact that many families were split up and sold off to different owners. Also ignoring the beatings, whippings, rapes, and outright murder that went on too. Oh no no no. It was just a sunny day picking cotton. How nice. And completely wrong.

    I don't know that this means anything, but I find it interesting. This guy says he doesn't acknowledge the Federal Government as even existing
    And yet he keeps a copy of the Constitution in his pocket. Between that and his complaining about welfare and subsidies even while taking his own, the man is full of ironic inconsistencies. I don't think I have ever seen such blatant hypocrisy before.
    04-27-2014 01:37 PM
170 ... 34567

Similar Threads

  1. [FREE]Ranch Warriors(Bruce Lee Zombies are Invading)!
    By PGSoulYed in forum Android Games
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-04-2013, 06:48 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD