• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Cliven Bundy is a Racist.....

Status
Not open for further replies.

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
You can invoke what you Will...it's just funny you would invoke Documents that only exist because the Federal Government exists. No Federal Government, no Federal Constitution.

To be honest, I like watching the pro-firearm, anti-Federal Government, Republican, tea party 2.0 wing get exposure for what they really represent.


I have said this for years: The tea party is infested with Racists...actually, all types of Bigots.
Those rights existed LONG before the federal government, and I never ever said I was against federal government, I am against a all powerful abusive federal government. Claiming otherwise is the act of a liar.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Does Institutional Racism exist in your world... Basically, you just described it in your second line...obviously scooting around it.

You just said that Blacks are worse off now than they were before Social Services. Before Social Services Black males were Lynched, Legally; Blacks were Slaves; Could not Vote; Could not own Property; could not eat at a White restaurant; get medical help at a White hospital. You're saying they were worse off then...Clyde Bundy, is that you?

Yes, institutional racism exists. It is still practiced extensively today, although of course it's gotten better. But I wasn't talking about race, as I made perfectly clear.

I specifically said that what I was saying was not limited to blacks. So your cute attempt at a straw man instantly fails.

If it was limited to blacks, you could talk about Jim Crow and lynchings all you want. (Although you'd still be attempting to conflate the existence of social services with the enfranchisement of blacks and the abolition of segregation laws, which are related only temporally.)

But I was talking about all poor people, and I made that excruciatingly clear. Last I checked, poor whites weren't victims of lynchings during any part of the 20th century, and haven't been the victims of Jim Crow laws until very recently. They were never legally prohibited from owning property. So none of your crap sticks to what I said.

Literally the only thing I said specific to blacks is that there is a disproportionate correlation between being black and being poor. This is an inarguable fact, and it's not racist to point it out, especially if I believe there are ample circumstantial and cultural (as opposed to, you know, "racial" AKA genetic) explanations for this fact. And the only reason I mentioned it is because it is pertinent to the thread topic.

Furthermore, I wasn't talking about any or all "social services". I was clearly talking about individuals who have become dependent, which is not the same thing as every individual who has any received any public assistance.

Are you even capable of having an honest discussion? I'm asking that entirely seriously. Do you twist the things I say because you're genuinely incapable of believing that I say what I mean (why do you prejudge me so? Have I ever said or done anything racist?), or because you're just a dishonest individual?
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Those rights existed LONG before the federal government, and I never ever said I was against federal government, I am against a all powerful abusive federal government. Claiming otherwise is the act of a liar.

Before the Constitution of the United States, they existed in the United States?

I like your broad statement; it's something I would when on the defensive.



Most people are against an abusive Federal Government...you are obviously not referring to the U.S. Federal Government; it's not abusive.

Those Rights existed long before...then what was the point of the Constitution, and BoR's?
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Before the Constitution of the United States, they existed in the United States?

I like your broad statement; it's something I would when on the defensive.



Most people are against an abusive Federal Government...you are obviously not referring to the U.S. Federal Government; it's not abusive.

Those Rights existed long before...then what was the point of the Constitution, and BoR's?

Your ignorance about history, rights, and government are not my problem. Many if most people disagree with you that our government has become abusive. But I will just wait until the government turns on you, and watch you beg for sympathy. I have no doubt you already use the system as it is now.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I specifically said that what I was saying was not limited to blacks. So your cute attempt at a straw man instantly fails.

If it was limited to blacks, you could talk about Jim Crow and lynchings all you want. (Although you'd still be attempting to conflate the existence of social services with the enfranchisement of blacks and the abolition of segregation laws, which are related only temporally.)

But I was talking about all poor people, and I made that excruciatingly clear. Last I checked, poor whites weren't victims of lynchings during any part of the 20th century, and haven't been the victims of Jim Crow laws until very recently. They were never legally prohibited from owning property. So none of your crap sticks to what I said.

Furthermore, I wasn't talking about any or all "social services". I was clearly talking about individuals who have become dependent, which is not the same thing as every individual who has any received any public assistance.

Are you even capable of having an honest discussion? I'm asking that entirely seriously. Do you twist the things I say because you're genuinely incapable of believing that I say what I mean (why do you prejudge me so? Have I ever said or done anything racist?), or because you're just a dishonest individual?



I know you did; I reade that you added that little nugget at the end, because you knew I would call you out on it. Now that we've established your jumping through hoops while I'm here...

No person here stated Social Services Enfranchised...let's stick to Actual exchanges here, not manufactured nonsense.

No, you were primarily referring to Blacks in your post.


Jim Crow exists in modern times, against Whites? LOL, please, I want to read this, explain...

Social Service Dependency is nonsense. The MAJORITY of people who utilize those Services only do so because that is all they have access to. Social Services doesn't even cover basic necessities for families that utilize the services...part of the reason people who are in that place, can't get out.

I'm not judging you, just reading your comments.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Your ignorance about history, rights, and government are not my problem. Many if most people disagree with you that our government has become abusive. But I will just wait until the government turns on you, and watch you beg for sympathy. I have no doubt you already use the system as it is now.



Yea, I use the System...I drive on public roads to my 40 hour per week job; my wife does as well (she works 50+ hours per week).--just one example.

You don't want to pay taxes, basically, you don't want to contribute to this Community of people--American's, America.

Who's the problem here...I'll save the question mark since we both know, you just don't want to admit it, or you don't see it.

You don't want to contribute to a better Society, and more Effective, and Efficient Government, step aside, and let the adults work out the issues.
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I know you did; I reade that you added that little nugget at the end, because you knew I would call you out on it. Now that we've established your jumping through hoops while I'm here...

No person here stated Social Services Enfranchised...let's stick to Actual exchanges here, not manufactured nonsense.

No, you were primarily referring to Blacks in your post.


Jim Crow exists in modern times, against Whites? LOL, please, I want to read this, explain...

Social Service Dependency is nonsense. The MAJORITY of people who utilize those Services only do so because that is all they have access to. Social Services doesn't even cover basic necessities for families that utilize the services...part of the reason people who are in that place, can't get out.

I'm not judging you, just reading your comments.


Now that we've established that you're just a dishonest individual... This will be my last response to you, unless you're willing to engage this post honestly.

You did, in fact, conflate the existence of social security with the enfranchisement with blacks. I argued that dependency is worse for the poor, in the long run. You then said that this means I think it was better for blacks when there was segregation and disenfranchisement. Well, that's the whole point of talking about ALL poor people: isolating the effects of social security dependence from the only-temporally-related legal changes which are specific to blacks. (You see what I mean about prejudging me?) So the only way your remarks about disenfranchisement are not a non-sequitur is if the implementation of social security is inseparable from the enfranchisement of blacks etc.

It's clear that you have come to a preconceived notion of who I am and what I believe, so you read the things I say through glasses tinted by that fact. You are not capable of giving me the benefit of the doubt. You literally accuse me of saying things "because I know you will call me out", when in fact I had not even noticed you had returned to the forum until AFTER I wrote that post, including the aforementioned "nugget".

In fact, I carefully didn't limit it to blacks because I DON'T BELIEVE it applies "primarily" to blacks.

If I told you that I firmly believe to the core of my being that genetics do not dictate outcomes (and in fact that we grossly overestimate their influence on them), and that so-called "race" is therefore literally incapable of in any way influencing outcomes (as opposed to things which may happen to correlate with race, like pre-existing poverty, or cultural norms), would you even believe me?

Or am I racist because I make comments about cultures to which members of any race can, and do, belong? And race and culture are now somehow the same thing?




Also, by your "LOL" over "Jim Crow against whites", it's clear that you're yet AGAIN prejudging me and allowing that to color your interpretation of what I said. I'm not talking about "reverse racism" or any of that crap, which you clearly suspect I am.

It's quite simple. Many "Jim Crow" laws are still on the books. These laws derive from an era where the law was considered a "tool", to be used or not at the discretion of the law enforcer wielding it. Thus, they could be selectively wielded against blacks, or whatever other undesirable individuals might attract the ire of the law enforcer. Today, the law is viewed as a self-actuating phenomenon, deserving equal application to all its offenders. So now, perhaps somewhat ironically, laws which were inarguably passed as Jim Crow laws are enforced against whites (usually poor ones) as well as the originally intended targets.

A great many of the gun laws discussed extensively on this forum are of this exact provenance.
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
The true racists are those that use race pandering to keep people down, or those so hooked on the system they rant and call out evil racists where none exist.

Basically those that are smart and racist use the system to keep a barrier to people self sustenance, and those so stupid they cannot fathom earning and providing without handouts.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Yeah, the main failure is the comparison to slavery. Slavery was none too kind to "the black family", or black prosperity, or anything else good for blacks.

But I do think it's fair to point out that there is certainly a subset of American culture which has become dependent, and that in general members of this group tend to be worse off than they were before such dependency was common (say, in the middle portion of the 20th century), and that there is a strong correlation between being poor and being dependent (and therefore belonging to a culture of dependency), and a disproportionate correlation between being black and being poor.

But it's not limited to blacks, of course. Whites, and members of any other race, can fall into the same trap of dependency. And the worst part is it's hard to argue that the immediate removal of subsidy makes any one dependent's life better.

There were white slaves too.

But of course that's not mentioned.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Take the off topic personal disagreements to PM please.....and mind the rules.


I agree.

Racist Bundy, and his Racist, gun-toting band of thugs (self-professed tea party 2.0 militia types) are toeing the line of insurrection; if they cross that line, the Federal Government ought to reestablish Order, by any means necessary.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Now that we've established that you're just a dishonest individual... This will be my last response to you, unless you're willing to engage this post honestly.

You did, in fact, conflate the existence of social security with the enfranchisement with blacks. I argued that dependency is worse for the poor, in the long run. You then said that this means I think it was better for blacks when there was segregation and disenfranchisement. Well, that's the whole point of talking about ALL poor people: isolating the effects of social security dependence from the only-temporally-related legal changes which are specific to blacks. (You see what I mean about prejudging me?) So the only way your remarks about disenfranchisement are not a non-sequitur is if the implementation of social security is inseparable from the enfranchisement of blacks etc.

It's clear that you have come to a preconceived notion of who I am and what I believe, so you read the things I say through glasses tinted by that fact. You are not capable of giving me the benefit of the doubt. You literally accuse me of saying things "because I know you will call me out", when in fact I had not even noticed you had returned to the forum until AFTER I wrote that post, including the aforementioned "nugget".

In fact, I carefully didn't limit it to blacks because I DON'T BELIEVE it applies "primarily" to blacks.

If I told you that I firmly believe to the core of my being that genetics do not dictate outcomes (and in fact that we grossly overestimate their influence on them), and that so-called "race" is therefore literally incapable of in any way influencing outcomes (as opposed to things which may happen to correlate with race, like pre-existing poverty, or cultural norms), would you even believe me?

Or am I racist because I make comments about cultures to which members of any race can, and do, belong? And race and culture are now somehow the same thing?




Also, by your "LOL" over "Jim Crow against whites", it's clear that you're yet AGAIN prejudging me and allowing that to color your interpretation of what I said. I'm not talking about "reverse racism" or any of that crap, which you clearly suspect I am.

It's quite simple. Many "Jim Crow" laws are still on the books. These laws derive from an era where the law was considered a "tool", to be used or not at the discretion of the law enforcer wielding it. Thus, they could be selectively wielded against blacks, or whatever other undesirable individuals might attract the ire of the law enforcer. Today, the law is viewed as a self-actuating phenomenon, deserving equal application to all its offenders. So now, perhaps somewhat ironically, laws which were inarguably passed as Jim Crow laws are enforced against whites (usually poor ones) as well as the originally intended targets.

A great many of the gun laws discussed extensively on this forum are of this exact provenance.


Calm down here. Bundy, and his band of gun-toting thugs that made their way from all four corners of this fine Country, are Racists, and/or support a Racist.

You see...all better now.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I am curious, don't most of the great socialist countries outlaw homosexuality?


EU is a massive Socialist Union...does this count? Here's a bone for you:

Globally, UN treaty bodies have included sexual orientation and gender identity on the open-ended lists of discrimination grounds on the basis of the relevant UN covenants. In the EU, lesbian, bisexual and gay people are currently protected from discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation under EU law in the field of employment only. Transgender persons are protected from discrimination on the ground of sex to the extent that discrimination arises from gender reassignment (the EU directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services).
The EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Transgender persons are protected from discrimination on the ground of ‘sex’ in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in line with the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice.

http://fra.europa.eu/en/theme/lgbt

So what are you implying, if say, I didn't have a link? That America is Nicer to Homosexuals than other States?

Don't bother with that BS.

They even go so far as to protect Transgender People, which is not even close to being a protection in the U.S. The issue of Same Sex Marriage is being discussed, but not Transgender People getting Married. Of course it is assumed to be included...but is it really...who knows for sure.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top