Posted on 04/24/2014 1:46:38 PM PDT by servo1969
Full title- "SEAN HANNITY Responds to Cliven Bundy’s “Beyond Repugnant, Beyond Despicable” Racist Comments (Video)"
The New York Times broke the story today about Cliven Bundy’s racist comments to supporters during one his recent rallies. Bundy said “the negro” would be better under slavery than sitting collecting welfare “in front of the government house.”
This afternoon Sean Hannity responded to Bundy’s comments on his radio show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-m3JW-eK3k
Rancher Cliven Bundy decided to lecture his supporters on slavery and the “negro” on Saturday. Media Matters posted the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbnRnhrNFEY
Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, April 24, 2014, 3:30 PM
The New York Times broke the story today about Cliven Bundy’s racist comments to supporters during one his recent rallies. Bundy said “the negro” would be better under slavery than sitting collecting welfare “in front of the government house.”
This afternoon Sean Hannity responded to Bundy’s comments on his radio show:
Rancher Cliven Bundy decided to lecture his supporters on slavery and the “negro” on Saturday. Media Matters posted the video:
Dude?
The Washington Post posted his comments:
“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.”
I bet the militia is a group of people who are also sick of the race card being played when anyone says a “code word” that might offend blacks. If Al Shrapnel shows up, I doubt they lay down their arms and apologize.
Since when is HE the arbiter of what I must write? MUST I have to absolutely address my comments the way he wants me to? Isn't this the FREE Republic?
Why is HE or you worrying about what I write, be it "cotton candy" or not? What's it to him or you? You MUST have better things to do than to follow MY comments.
I don't NECESSARILY follow his, yours or anyone's comments but follow those that appear interesting or amusing.
Isn't that allowed here?
I thought that was the idea here....NOT scolding others for their own opinions.
Can 'without objection." You forgot 'hostile,' and 'exclusive use.' If the federal government allowed open range grazing, then the grazing wasn't hostile. If the land was open range and the livestock of any other ranchers grazed on that land, it wasn't exclusive use.
Given that, do you think the gov should call off the dogs?
It was a land grab and 53 other ranchers succumbed to the change and are gone.
This is what you replied to in #134 post. You made it sound like you had no idea what had been going on re the history of it all.
If you dont know the history of it all, you cant have any intelligent opinion of the situation.
So, have you caught up with it all ?
For white man that is. We are the only ones to whom that one sticks.
Hannity knee-jerked to Zimmerman and looks to have done the same to Bundy.
If he stays true to form he will have forgotten all about his comment come Monday.
Bundy’s not a media person. He probably ranches a lot more than he watches TV.
He’s being taken out of context. The entire explanation he’s giving is based on the danger of big government. He starts of with “we don’t want to go back”. He says it more than once.
Then in a concerned and humble tone he HYPOTHESIZES whether it’s better for blacks to be slaves or be bound to the government. Then, still speaking about how the government is injuring blacks, he mentions the break down of the family and jobs and violence issues that so many others have mentioned.
Now, it’s in context, except that he goes on to praise Mexicans as hard working, family oriented, deserving of citizenship.
That is not a racist. That is an untrained, complex man being honest with you about what he sees, and honest people put him in context.
The classic signature of a troll. When they are addressed with facts they deflect and then continue on later repeating the same points that were debunked as if it never happened.
You’re kidding, right?
You must be the only one.
You sure talk about childhood, mommy’s and such a lot. I think your stuck on something in your emotional development. And, show some respect around here.
Thank you for your patience with this discussion bigdaddy45.
While I respect your opinion, it remains that your opinion is based on what you've been taught to think about slavery, but not actual experience with slavery.
And while you may think that I've concluded that prison is worse than slavery, I'm saying that it is an unresolved question, which I think is the point that Bundy was trying to make. While I know that the PC answer is to say that slavery was worse, I cannot prove that one is worse than the other. Neither can Bundy for that matter.
And Bundy shouldn't be politically attacked for just asking the question, especially since there are no clear answers. In fact, liberals attacking him for asking the question begs the further question if liberals are using the Hollywood stereotype of the horrors of slavery to exploit blacks by indoctrinating them to be victims, today's blacks having never experienced slavery.
If you think a discussion of slavery is a good campaign issue for 2014, then go for it. In fact, you should open a campaign consultancy business. Let me know how well that works out for you chief.
A good point.
Whites are the only ones to whom it _applies_ in the Ministry of Truth’s commissar’s handbook
I said nothing about what you should or shouldn't write. That is a lie. I merely pointed out that you responded to substance with fluff. That's a fact.
I’m pretty sure being a slave is not a good thing without having experienced it. I’ve also never drowned or caught on fire and positive I wouldn’t like those things either.
Let me get my earplugs.
Hypothetical rhetorical questions are too complicated for the modern low-information man to understand. Putting one in context is stretching way beyond the capabilities of a public-schooled television-trained sheeple of the modern age.
Not kidding one bit.
I have to say this first. To me, the U.S. Constitution and laws enacted in accordance with it are the Law of the Land. However, since Marbury v. Madison, an overreaching Congress, and power-hungry administrative regulators, we no longer live under the Law of the Land. We live under the law of the land. Consider all of the laws that are contrary to “shall not be infringed” under the Second Amendment; laws for which you can be arrested and serve time.
I don’t think the feds can call off the dogs, because they know it will set a dangerous precedent for them.
Everything freedom-loving in me says Bundy’s supporters not only have the right, but almost the duty, to oppose the feds at Bunkerville.
Everything freedom-loving in me says leave Cliven Bundy alone, but only if the BLM and NPS quit charging anyone grazing fees.
Everything freedom-loving in me says that the nation must revisit the idea of federal ownership of so much land.
Everything logical in me says let the principle of freedom and liberty be the winner here, and not to hold up Cliven Bundy as a hero.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.