Monday, April 28, 2014

Cliven Bundy - Blacks were better off as slaves

Cliven Bundy was trying to say that welfare has done Blacks wrong. That, in itself, is pretty racist. But by comparing it to slavery and picking cotton, he rather distracts from his point.

Freepers originally decided the media trapped him. But soon they realized they've been saying the same thing for years, slavery comparisons and all. So they decided the media trapped him and lied AND he was right.

vette6387 explains how welfare is almost exactly like slavery, except for the being forced to work and pay.
Blacks have moved from the one plantation to the other, there is no question of the truth of that statement. The only difference is that on the “Government Plantation,” they don’t have to work and they get “paid” by the taxpayer, whereas in the former they worked and didn’t get paid.
Darksheare wants to stick to his fictional narrative, racist quote bedamned!
So it is okay for government to confiscate, kill, and destroy because Harry Reid has a deal with China?
dfwgator doesn't get why a conversation about race can't include the possibility of returning to slavery.
Lefties always whine about how they want a “conversation on race in this country.”

Then they get it, and immediately slam anybody down who says something they don’t agree with.

They don’t want a “conservation”, they want a “lecture”.
cuban leaf is sure everyone is going to start talking about welfare slavery!
Fred Reed pointed this out over a decade ago. I’ve been mentioning it here (as have many others), and now, Bundy says “the emperor has no clothes” and the leftist media makes sure everybody hears him.

And guess what everybody is talking about? This is a really good thing.

I really like this Bundy guy
BitWielder1 is in no way endorsing slavery, but...
If they were slaves rather than on welfare, they would have an incentive to escape the plantation and they would be applauded when doing so.
Note: I am in no way endorsing slavery. For blacks or anyone.
I'm saying multi generational welfare is a cruel trap, every bit as demoralizing as slavery.
Raebie is pretty sure poverty is worse than slavery:
Dear Democrats. Please provide numbers and an explanation for the following:

1) The number of black abortions each year
2) The number of black men sitting in prision
3) The number of black children being raised without a father
4) The percentage of black men that are unemployed

And how many years are we into Obama’s presidency?

But hey, Let’s Move!
LeoWindhorse - nonmilitary negroes are far too tolerated.
I agree with Bundy , it’s a good question .

Applies to some , certainly not all , but DEFINITELY applies to some . Many ,mostly urban and never having served in the military types .

There is way too much tolerance in this country for the intolerable
LyinLibs is sure all blacks are basically in jail nowadays:
The debate boils down to this:




I imagine some folks would choose to remain locked in jail, while others might yell ‘Get me out of here’ and prefer manual labor picking tobacco.

Remember folks, a crazy amount of black men land in prison.

I think the statistic I saw was 40% of black men enter prison at least once.

Prison isn’t much different from slavery.
JennysCool - the GOP has some black friends!
Just guessing that Herman Cain, Dr. Ben Carson, Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder and a whole bunch of other prominent black communicators completely understand what Bundy is rather clumsily saying. And they would never accuse him of "racism" for saying it. As another FReeper said above, it's just part of the "conversation" that the Libs would rather not have.
MeganC is pretty sure government racism makes private racism OK.
Considering how the civil rights of minorities are more often trampled by government than by amateur racists one must wonder if these people do, indeed, prefer being beaten and whipped by Officer Massa’ over plain old Massa’?

Bundy is right in that some of these people merely traded Democrat-owned rural plantations for Democrat-owned urban plantations.
Sheapdog just straight up thinks blacks should be slaves, and apartheid was good.
Unfortunately many blacks were better under slavery in America and under apartheid in South Africa than in their current conditions. A multi-faceted statement but but I think arguments can be made for the case but as one says in a PC world there is no need for debate or argument merely acceptance into the new techno feudal slavery of our NWO.
Uncle Sham hauls out this old saw:
Slavery in the United States will one day be looked upon as the best thing ever to happen to the black race. It was their key to the door of freedom and independence, and a seat at the table of the modern world. It was also infinitely better than being killed by the tribe that captured you rather than being sold to the white man at the dock. Those were the only two choices back then.
UncleSam then explains how one might conclude blacks are bad at life.
I don’t understand just how he could possibly have the day to day life experience like many of us do with the give and take (mostly take) interaction with the culture under discussion.

Just how many black people can he come in contact with on a day to day basis stuck like he is in the middle of a thousand acre ranch. Is his opinions based on television watching sports and the multitude of marketing commercials that TV viewers are slammed with featuring black folks.

Is he annoyed when he shops at a big city Walmart or when he must visit a Government office and gets a blank stare. No doubt his experience must be with the mail man who has a cell phone plugged in his ear and delivers your neighbors mail into your mail box.

Does this idiot think that he is special and a few loud talking brothers standing all night on a big city corner would cause him to conclude that maybe times are not good for the black culture.

This is the part of the rant that I being an old white dude must say that I of course have many black friends. The truth being that all my black friends have all passed on.

Just sayin.
dragnet2 thinks this whole thing was a media hoax.
I believe Mr. Bundy was baited. His situation has nothing to do with race relations. He got played.

Absolutely. He's not a professional public speaker or debater. He's a rural rancher. Anyone with his stature and background would eventually say something the leftist could use and run with.

This is exactly what the leftist and those in big controlling government wanted...They needed this badly...

Discredit, distraction and deception...This is what they operate on.


  1. Among conservatives (and straight-ticket Republican Party voters), freepers are the rule, not the exception.

  2. No, my friend. They are not. If they were the rule, slavery would not have ceased to be.

    Conservatives believe in self reliance and working hard to get what you want - that is the antithesis of being a slave owner.

    Bundy's musings on race - I say fuck him. He's part of the problem. Said it before - I'll say it again - anyone who fixes on the color of someone's skin (or sex, or sexuality) best not meet me. I dislike discrimination, intensely. Unless it's aimed at hipsters, of course. Everyone has their limits. :P

    Meanwhile, in other news - Ukraine is falling apart, Syria has fallen apart but doesn't know it yet, The missing plane has not been found and the audience is getting bored with that, there was a huge Federal over-reaction to some dude grazing his cattle on federal land - so lets run a racist statement into the ground.

    1. Conservatives believe in self reliance and working hard to get what you want

      I hope you don't think that belief is the sole domain of conservatives. Or that a majority of liberals don't believe that, too.

    2. Gods, no!

      It just seems to be more prevalent in Conservatives or what I call classical Liberals.

    3. Well EC ... I stick with what I said about freepers being the rule among conservatives rather than the exception.

      You, kind sir, are the exception among conservatives.

    4. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "classical liberal," either. I see it used a lot in reference to JFK. Could you explain that to me? And what's the difference between classical and modern liberals? Because my political positions are pretty far to the left, both economically and socially.

    5. "Classical Liberals" believe that regulation of societies and markets etc. should be at the minimum level compatible with maintenance of basic standards of social responsibility over time (constitutions exist to prevent a transient electoral mandate hijacking the long term agenda).

      Classical Liberals are therefore in favour of free markets, freedom of expression, freedom from discrimination, freedom of choice and so on. These people essentially do not exist in present day America as a mainstream political force, hence the term 'Liberal' has been co-opted to mean right wing Social Democrats like the Democratic Party. The Libertarians are in some ways closer to "Classical Liberals" (but devolved into a Poe'esque comedic parody) and the Republicans are far right quasi-theocrats by international standards.

      There is no mainstream American party with an agenda that includes: legalising Homosexual Marriages, disbanding the DEA, breaking the power of the Teachers Unions (and Tort Lawyers), outlawing all Racial Discrimination, dismantling market distorting Tax Breaks and Agricultural Subsidies AND (because "Freedom to..." has to balance with "Freedom from...") abolishing the Death Penalty, breaking the power of the NRA, enacting Universal State Backed Healthcare and ratifying things like the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child[1].

      I cite the latter because it is an example of Exceptionalism that still passes without comment in US political discourse but would be viewed as deeply suspect by a Classical Liberal since "exceptions" are by definition "additional regulations" and if you believe in the cumulative wisdom of crowds (like the free market) it is difficult to explain why the rest of the planet is wrong and one country (alone) is right. Democrats avoid such issues, Libertarians are against *any* regulation of anything (Anarchists) and Republicans don't need to explain because whatever the USA does is objectively right by definition (Theocrats).

      [1] There are only two other countries not party to the convention - South Sudan and Somalia and both have concrete plans to ratify. The USA does not because art. 37 prohibits executing minors or sentencing them to life without parole.

    6. Well, I guess I kind of fit that, although I view free markets with suspicion. At best I believe they're a necessary evil, and I believe more regulation is needed. Economically I'm a socialist, except I don't think that all businesses should be owned by the government. I believe that a 50/50 balance between capitalism and socialism is necessary, and if you tilt too far toward either one, it's a recipe for disaster.

    7. Euphgeek..Do you work for private or public sector?

    8. I work in the private sector.

    9. Start you won business and you will not be spouting that socialist crap....funny many European countries are moving back to more privatization.

    10. Start and run your own business and you will not be spouting that socialist crap. Funny numerous European countries a removing back to more privatization.

      Wow, you are far left..

    11. Actually, my wife is a small business owner, and she agrees with me. Sorry to burst your bubble, but not every business owner is an economy destroying 100% capitalist.

    12. "Sorry to burst your bubble, but not every business owner is an economy destroying 100% capitalist."
      Typical liberal..want socialism for other business except your own. I think your wife need to give cradle to the grave benefits to her employees and 3 years paid maternity medical leave and lifetime disability and medical

      Every liberal business owner I have met is a hypocrite.

    13. Who said she doesn't want socialism for her own business? She's a sole proprietor, by the way, no employees but herself. Again you've embarrassed yourself by jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

    14. Why would his wife do that? A socialist sees that as the responsibility of the state. Private sector provision of such benefits and services is antithetical to socialism.

    15. "A socialist sees that as the responsibility of the state."
      Funny, I see far left liberals wanting a $23 minimum wage and full health insurance and other benefits and a 8 week paid vacation..

    16. Yes...provided by the state. By the way, I haven't seen anyone advocate a $23 minimum wage, so [citation needed], but a minimum wage at least as high as $15/hour would instantly produce millions of new taxpayers. You know, that 47% your side says loves the government handouts and hates to work? The people your side has wet dreams about taxing into the poor house while millionaires hide their money in offshore accounts and pay practically nothing? Yeah, you could totally tax them under existing laws if they made that much.

    17. Many groups want $21.75 per hour minimum wage...

      Produce new taxpayers? Lol..small business would lay off or not hire people in droves..People currently paying $14-15 per hour would have to raise their wage up to $20 or more..

      You are one of those who think small business owners are rolling in money...guess what? Most are not..

      And co's like McDees would do the automation route and they are seriosulsy looking at this already.

      ..and let's not even discuss inflation this would create.

      You liberals are clueless tarting at the boy in the white hut who would not know how to run a streetside lemonade stand.

    18. "Who said she doesn't want socialism for her own business? She's a sole proprietor, by the way, no employees but herself."
      The gov't cans till take half or more of her business. does not matter if she is a sole proprietor or not.

    19. Yeah, that's what your corporate masters tell you so you'll keep your head down and do as you're told like the good little idiot you are. Just accept your shitty wages and don't rock the boat. With people making that much more money, they'll have more to spend on goods and services, even from those small businesses, which will more than make up for the hike in wages. If the businesses can't afford to pay their employees a livable wage, they don't deserve to be in business.

      And do tell how the government can take half or more of my wife's business, other than in taxes.

    20. Euph - First off, you, to my mind, fit the definition of a classic liberal. Not over fond of being told what to do by law or executive fiat, but you work hard to do right and remove injustice. More like you and most of the left/right arguments would simply disappear.

      In regards to the minimum wage. Are you - personally - willing to pay more for a cup of coffee or a burger? Your wife runs a business, which means you know exactly how tight the margins are. I'm betting she is pulling in maybe 3 cents on the dollar.

    21. OK, if that's your definition of a classic liberal, I can see that. I just wondered if you thought I was more conservative than I actually am.

      As for minimum wage, yes I would gladly pay more for goods and services. In my mind, it's a small price to pay so that others are able to afford to live without having to take advantage of welfare, or at least not take advantage of it as much.

    22. Adding: As long as the prices aren't raised solely because the CEO is now only making $1.9 million instead of $2 million.

    23. Lol..."classical liberal". That's a phrase a lot of libertarians use to try to appropriate the term "liberal". They see the increases in state power in the progressive era, the new deal, civil rights and don't understand why liberals started supporting them.

      Omg, why'd they all come down with this disease of "statism"? If they'd pay more attention to outcomes rather than just theory, they might understand. But then they wouldn't be libertarians.

    24. Because libertarianism is more in line with the founders tradition, especially Jefferson. How can statists call freedom lovers like the founders liberals, then apply the same label to themselves? How many FF's would support income tax, excessive regulations, big government and gun control?

  3. The system of welfare as we have it hurts poor people more than it helps them. Creates dependency and stifles motivation.

    1. Catch me disagreeing with that? Not a hope in hell.

      Welfare is to catch the ones that slip, it shouldn't be a cradle to grave thing. I even (reluctantly) accept that private charity just doesn't cut it at the moment. Too many need help, and too few willing to help out of their own pockets.

      Don't mean I got to like it. I'd rather see a booming economy, where pretty much everyone can get a job that actually covers the bills, so the Government can get out of the fucking way and the decision to help or not is back in our hands.

    2. Both of you are ignoring the fact that we've done away with jobs that "actually cover the bills." Most people on welfare have to work to receive their benefits, and there's a time limit on those benefits, too.

    3. Dumbest decision ever. And yes, you can blame both parties equally for that. Republicans "Let the owners do what they want, as long as they contribute to the coffers." Democrats, "Tax the fuck out of them and make half of the businesses illegal."

      *shrug* What you gonna do?

    4. The system of welfare as we have it hurts poor people more than it helps them. Creates dependency and stifles motivation.

      I won't bother arguing that this is paint-by-numbers horseshit for which you have no valid evidence. And I won't bother arguing that if you want to look for laziness, stupidity, dishonesty and a basic lack of motivation and effort in American society, you're better off looking among the rich than among the poor, most of whom do more and harder work in a single day than, say, Donald Trump has managed in his entire coddled life.

      Instead, I'm going to point out that if welfare programs worked beautifully and efficiently, keeping people's heads above water while protecting their chance for upward mobility, the average conservative would oppose them even more strongly than they do now.

      Because as you know and I know, the problem conservatives have with welfare isn't that it hurts the poor, it's that it doesn't hurt them enough to satisfy either their basic sadism or their creepy conflation of Social Darwinism with pseudo-Christianity.

    5. Among the good faith folks on both sides, you generally see this kind of sample bias.

      Liberals look only at those who need entitlements, and how they are saved from awful circumstances.

      Conservatives look only to those who do not deserve entitlements.

      There are both, but until we acknowledge that fact, there will not be anything like reform, just partisan point-making.

      I'm not optimistic about the chances for reform in the nixt 15 years - the politics trumps the policy.

    6. And anon1, your mere statement does not make any sense when pared with human nature. Ambition is an intrinsic force - people are motivated by more than hunger.

      Which requires you to decide that certain groups work differently, and then away we go...

    7. The system of corporate tax subsidies, loopholes and shelters hurts big businesses more than it helps them. It creates dependency and stifles motivation.

    8. There are both, but until we acknowledge that fact, there will not be anything like reform, just partisan point-making.

      Sorry, Ozy, but I think you're being oversimplistic. Most of us already acknowledge this. Ideologues on the left generally understand that welfare fraud exists and that welfare programs can have unintended and negative consequences. Their solution, generally speaking, is to try to improve the system.

      And ideologues on the right generally understand that some deserving people really need help. But for the most part, they don't believe that social programs are appropriate or effective or moral or what have you.

      So really, we're dealing with two basically incompatible worldviews: one to which social programs are necessary and beneficial -- which, by the way, is the viewpoint to which a pretty large portion of the civilized world adheres -- and one to which social programs amount to meddling with the Natural Order, whether defined as God, the Invisible Hand or both. Obviously, the debate over Obamacare's a good example; there are people who see some problems with it and want to improve it, and there are people who oppose it, period, and who would oppose improving it on principle even -- or especially -- if those improvements were guaranteed to work.

      Trying to reduce such a fundamental distinction to "partisan finger-pointing" is kind of silly, if you ask me. This is a serious argument, people on both sides are passionate about it, and as usual, the "both-sides-do-it, a-pox-on-both-their-houses" camp doesn't add much of anything but inertia to the debate.

    9. All that said, I'd also like to add that I find the basically paternalisticattitude toward the poor to be kind of repulsive across the ideological spectrum. Having visited homeless shelters as well as corporate boardrooms, I'm pretty sure that the most pressing "reforms" needed in this country have nothing at all to do with stamping out welfare fraud. I can't swear that this country would be better run by a random selection of homeless people than by its current "thought leaders," but I'd be happy to put the theory to the test any old time.

    10. @7:55 PM Anon:

      Yeah, I was indulging in some facile parallelism. But I do think it holds in the political (as opposed to the ideological) arena, at least for now.

      The kookiness on the right has left the other side with no political choice but a defensive crouch, and to avoid any change to entitlements, lest they be gutted (c.f. Ryan's budget). This leads to rhetoric about how awesome this thing we are keeping is, and so the narrative is set and the empty finger-pointing again displaces policy.

      Make no mistake - I understand and condone the left's position on this, as any other choice leads to a worse outcome. I'm definitely not a Freeper decrying half a loaf as treason.

    11. "I won't bother arguing that this is paint-by-numbers horseshit for which you have no valid evidence. And I won't bother arguing that if you want to look for laziness, stupidity, dishonesty and a basic lack of motivation and effort in American society, you're better off looking among the rich than among the poor, most of whom do more and harder work in a single day than, say, Donald Trump has managed in his entire coddled life'

      The rich people I know work 12-14-16 hour days and yes my statement is correct.I bet Trump works long hours. The welfare system we have has created generational poor.

    12. You're really a jerk. I know a lot of poor and lower-middle class people who work 12-14-16 hours a day, no exaggeration. And they have for a long time, because their wages aren't going up. Some of them work the worst fucking jobs, like taking care of the elderly in their homes because their rotten stuck-up sons can't be bothered to look in on their arrogant prick.

  4. "Reminds me of a little story from back in 1969 when I moved to Mississippi with my new husband who got a job there. I went to get my driver’s license, and on the application form was a space for indicating my race. I thought long and hard and put down ‘C’ - the sheriff looked at me and sarcastically said, “I am assuming that by putting a ‘C’ you mean ‘Caucasian’ but down here it means ‘Colored’, so if you want that on your license, go ahead and leave it - otherwise you need to put a ‘W’ - ahh those were the days!" -- Sioux-san

    It's very telling what some people miss about the good old days.

  5. Black, Mormon, female and running for congress? The perfect Freeper storm;page=1#1

  6. Hey, it's libertarian type 17 -- The Historian!

    Well I do know my history! And I'm still right. Go back to DailyCuss and worship your messiah some more.

    1. I don't think you know your history as well as you think you do. How do you know that the FF wouldn't support income tax? Or "big government" (however you define it)? I'd ask about "excessive regulations" but I'm still waiting to see enough regulations first. And I think the FF would be just fine with gun control, especially since they didn't have semi-automatic guns with high capacity magazines and armor-piercing bullets. I say we let everyone have as many front-loading muskets they want, as the FF intended. Lastly, I would note that anyone who calls the president a "messiah" does so because they lack a logical argument.