It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: buster2010
GOP Scrambles to Condemn Rancher's Remarks on Race
Offering words of encouragement for a rancher leading an armed standoff against federal rangers turns out to be not so great of a political move – especially when the rancher in question muses publicly about the benefits of slavery.
Republicans – including possible 2016 candidate Rand Paul -- are scrambling to distance themselves from defiant Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy after he made startling comments about slavery and African-Americans in a New York Times article published Wednesday night.
“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do. “And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
What's the best way to lose GOP support? Start running your mouth like a racist ahole.
Seeing how this man has made his living by allowing his cattle to graze on public land and not paying for it then he is no better than the people he is complaining about seeing how he is getting something for nothing. Some of the ignorant comments that really stuck out is "they put their young men in jail" are all judges black now? And why were the slaves allowed to have families? Because that puts more workers in the field and more product you can sell in the form of their children.
He simply can't see in his mind that they do have more freedom simply because they don't have someone standing over them with a whip beating them if they didn't work fast enough.
Sean Hannity, for his part, just broke his own silence on his radio show.
"His comments are beyond repugnant to me, his comments were beyond despicable to me, beyond ignorant to me," he said. [Source]
originally posted by: theantediluvian
You know what's worse than people "pulling the race card?" People pulling the "they're just pulling the race card, card" to excuse every ignorant old hillbilly who says some stupid sh*t in front of a camera.
For the past several weeks, the conservative Fox News network has given a major platform to Bundy. Some of its hosts and guests have portrayed his standoff with authorities over not paying fees to use federal land as a populist fight against an encroaching government. In a two-week stretch this month, Fox News devoted four hours and 40 minutes to Bundy’s story during late afternoon and evening broadcasts, according to progressive watchdog Media Matters. But Fox News was noticeably silent on Thursday morning as others reacted to Bundy's controversial remarks on race, published Wednesday night by The New York Times. The Times' Adam Nagourney reported that Bundy had wondered during a public press conference if “Negro” people were “better off as slaves." Fox News host Greta Van Susteren quickly condemned Bundy’s remarks on her blog, but media attention remained focused on how Hannity might respond. That's because Hannity has led the charge in promoting Bundy’s cause and, in recent days, sparred with Jon Stewart on the issue.
originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: namehere
originally posted by: namehere
i think he was comparing how the government behaves today to slave owners, saying that life is worse now for poor and minorities than slavery ever made it, in his opinion. i don't think he was trying to be racist at all, i think he was just pointing out how destructive the government is to the people.
I'll paraphrase what hes saying.
Is there some truth to what he's saying? Possibly.
- Blacks under slavery had a skill, cotton picking, which they passed on to their children. As silly as it may seem, it was an actual skill when you consider the abrasiveness of the plant itself.
- Without skills, they and their families were now left relying on government subsidies.
- He goes on to say that the family unit was more in tact during those days than it is today.
Is it a poorly worded analogy? I'd say yes.
Does he really think that slavery was a good thing? I doubt it.
a reply to: anon72
originally posted by: anon72
IF he did make those statements,
Does not lessen the wrong doings by the Feds/BLM.
This is absolutely correct.
Regardless of his personal beliefs and opinions, it is absolutely inexcusable for the government to send an army of 200 to 300 men to "collect fees" and impound cattle.
This is nothing more than a red herring.
Character assassination plain and simple intended to deflect from the real issue: the fact that our government is quickly turning America into a police state.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
Children who held down good paying cotton picking jobs I suppose? Are you f'ing serious?
originally posted by: Southern Guardian
The armed chair patriots who quickly ran to support bundy (because he was opposing Obama's federal government enforcing the law) without really doing research into the legitimacy of his claims to grazing now find themselves having to defend more of his idiocy. But hey, you won't get any of their supporters admitting they jumped the gun into supporting this man, no siree, point of no return now.
The point isn't what he said. The point is the GOP scrambling. Like cockroaches. And I'd say the same thing if it was that other side, whatever they're called (I really don't care).
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: Southern Guardian
The armed chair patriots who quickly ran to support bundy (because he was opposing Obama's federal government enforcing the law) without really doing research into the legitimacy of his claims to grazing now find themselves having to defend more of his idiocy. But hey, you won't get any of their supporters admitting they jumped the gun into supporting this man, no siree, point of no return now.
What part of "Disproportionate militarized response to resolve a civil matter" is confusing you? I could give a rat's ass who or what Cliven Bundy is or what he's doing... My problem is the Feds sent snipers and enacted an illegal as hell "Free Speech Zone" outside his property in the name of rounding up some cattle. That's wrong and it warranted a patriotic boot jammed so far up the feds' ass they could taste their breakfast from the previous week.
Even this arch-conservative denounces this guy because they ( the GOP establishment) are worried about being revealed to the VOTING public for being a supporter of a racist who they have elevated to hero status.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: ~Lucidity
Was there or was there not a "Free Speech Zone" established on the site by the feds?
I am looking for a simple "yes" or a simple "no" here. No need to soliloquize on it, yet.
originally posted by: ~Lucidity
And frankly, I don't care either way.
And don't tell me when to "soliloquize" and when not to. This is a free speech zone.
originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask
Oh hell I have been republican all my voting life and I have been one of the most outspoken people against Bundy on this website since the get-go.
I'm still laughing my butt off at all this idiocy though.