Posted on 04/24/2014 1:46:38 PM PDT by servo1969
The United Negro College fund started in 1944, when negro was still being used by most of American society. Why they haven’t changed the name , I have no idea. But the word rubs people the wrong way. Whether It’s an accurate word to describe people or not doesn’t matter. They hear “negros are lazy welfare people that would be better off as slaves” and they will turn against that. Saying “the negro” sounds like someone is talking about an animal. It’s at best a stupid stereotype. Bundy shot himself in the foot. He will lose a huge chunk of public support. Not everyone, but enough. FBI will come in and arrest any militia is left and take everything. And no one will give a shit.
I used to listen to Hannity on the radio. Then one day, I asked myself, who was the bigger idiot? Him or me for listening to him. I decided that if I continued listening to him, I would be the bigger idiot. I changed the station and never looked back.
There'll be as many supporters as there were last time. Not everyone hears the Lefty dog-whistles...
But that BAMN guy isn’t dependent on public perception for his livelihood and freedom. He isn’t well known with news stories about him every day. Bundy needs to be the patriotic rebel standing up against the jackbooted thugs taking our freedom. He needs to keep his mouth shut about things that can (and will) be misinterpreted to paint him as a racist/white supremacist that he isn’t. Don’t pontificate about race relations. Keep on the message.
I’ll tell you why they haven’t changed the name “Negro”. It’s because “they”, are changing the language to suit them. As in calling each other “Nigger” but don’t dare say that word if you aren’t Black.
It’s to gain control and make others, mostly Whites, feel “racist”. I call BS on the word game because I’ve heard: Black, Nigra, Negro, Nigger, Coloreds, African, African-American and more from people referring to themselves over the years.
If Mr. Bundy used a word he’s comfortable with and used to saying, so what? I doubt he meant any disrespect and he’s entitled to his opinion and use of words as much as any one else.
For further clarification on my point, listen to some Jay-Z rap music, my nigga.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. No matter what color those birds are.
The position of the Feds is so silly, it's actually hard to get your mind around it. There's nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the right to own land in any state except for military installations, arsenals, and the like. Highways, maybe. Parks are a stretch, nice as many of them are. States can own those to the same purpose, if the legislature allocates the money and pays the owners.
But open rangeland? Special spaces for turtles or campaign contributors' Federally funded solar kickback projects? Random tracts of land for putatively endangered species? Forget about it.
Nevada permits open range grazing, and Bundy's cows have been grazing on open range in Nevada. The Feds have no business being there, never mind charging money for it. Bundy is right.
I don't care about tone.
At some point, party politics take a back seat to reality. You can't frame the Bundy story politically. No politician would touch it. I don't expect them to.
My comments are entirely apolitical.
The more they try to politicize speech by Bundy, or Duck Dynasty, attacking the personal integrity of the individual speaking, the more obvious it becomes that the progressives use of tactics designed to pit each of us against the other in a ever so Marxist way, becomes plainly visible.
I am not playing that game. I will not be used in that way.
But it seems clear to me, just from the recent months of constant bickering here on free Republic with the Putin supporters fighting the anti-Putin crowd with ridiculous nonsequiters and a fair about of venom. Something that came out of the blue and I never thought I would see it here.
Now this mess, and I could make a longer list given time.
I would ask you why these comments about the failed results of 100 years of US government social programs by a westerner trying to make a life in a very inhospitable place, should be somehow important politically to the National Republican Party. A Party who once again, are tripping and falling while trying to distance themselves from a rancher's comment that is absolutely, spot on true?
I would ask how it is, that a party, that seems to be currently engaged in using more Marxist tactics to damage the Tea Parties credibility should be held up in high regard or protected against some western ranchers comments about 100 years of failed government social engineering?
I only pose the questions, because frankly, I don't think you have a answer.
Actually, there is no answer but to rip the guts of that party out and rebuild it.
But to do that, you need people with backbone.
and I don't see very many.
So the party does not need protection from a ranchers comments. It need to buried in them, have these comments shoved into their orfices until they can stomach a little bit of “plain talk”, as it is referred to in my circles..and give up this garbage called politically correct. If we cannot accomplish that, then I see no choice but to burn it.
And then start over.
Sure. He’s free to say anything he wants. But others are free to use that to paint him as something he isn’t and dismiss him and anything he says out of hand. If the government is after you, public perception is everything. Is he a patriot, standing up to jackbooted thugs? Or is he a racist that deserves everything that’s happening to him? The answer to that question is everything.
I don’t see how the Feds going after him has anything to do with what he “deserves”. No citizen of this country is beholden to the gov’t. WE, including Mr. Bundy, ARE the gov’t.
We are not “deserving” of any abuse by the Feds. None. Not ever. No matter what our views. See 1st amendment.
Branding him a racist or a patriot is subjective. He is an American citizen first and foremost. The Constitution protects him one way or the other.
I know that, and you know that. But making ignorant statements about black people is going to turn a bunch of people against him and what he stands for. No support, no public outcry when the Feds swoop in to steal his cattle and his ranch and home. There are still going to be supporters, sure. People that can see through the bullshit and can separate the message from the messenger. But with opinion so evenly split, he needs all the help he can get.
I look at it like this... David Koresh: religious man, defending his faith and his family from the forces of evil? Or gun nut child molester? People will defend the former. No one is going to ride in and help the latter.
I see what you are doing here. You’ve implied Mr. Bundy is everything but a decent American citizen and I’m not playing anymore.
You are just stirring a pot. Well, this part of the “melting pot” isn’t going to waste any more of my time with your insinuations.
Your comment makes no sense. You must be a rainbow type guy.
Some say Bundy is a hero because he took a stand against the overgrown, overburdening, over-intruding, federal government and say it doesn’t matter what Bundy, himself, argued. I can partly agree with that.
However, most of the pro-Bundy arguments with which I agree have been made by Bundy supporters and not by Bundy himself when he made his arguments before judges.
Bundy’s argued that he’s a sovereign citizen when it comes to the federal government. He specifically says he’s not a U.S. citizen and that what he calls the “territory of the United States” has no jurisdiction over him.
I believe most of Bundy’s supporters are proud citizens of the United States who want to reclaim their God-given rights and to limit the federal government to the powers given it under the Constitution of the United States of America. They don’t see themselves as something other than a U.S. citizen nor the U.S. as a territory with no jurisdiction over them.
Again, if the revolution starts here, I’ll stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Bundy.
Is that going to tell us the reason why each of the former ranchers chose or were driven to leave?
I believe the BLM probably drove out some of the ranchers in Clark County, perhaps most.
Given the growth of Las Vegas, I'm not willing to state as fact that all of the former ranchers were driven out by the BLM unless I have a primary source. If you wish to state it as fact, please continue.
As far as current direction of growth goes, I don't know. Articles from a decade ago describe the growth as 'in all directions." Las Vegas certainly grew to the north as well as the west. North Las Vegas, a separate municipality, is now the third-largest city in Nevada.
“Negros” are far from being the only recipients of welfare. A trip through Appalachia will reveal whole communities of “white negroes” who never bothered to learn how to pick cotton or do meaningful work. A primary means of earning extra money there is moonshining or burglary.
Moral conservatives do know better - than to side with racists, regardless of who else opposes the racist.
I will not compromise my morality to support such evil as racism. Liberals also abhor (most) murderers. Should I then side with conservative killers?
What you are espousing is exactly what immoral Liberals support: Morality based on politics, selective morality based on whose side you are on. That's not conservatism.
Hi Scoutmaster,
Assume that Bundy has a herd of approaching 700 plus or minus each year. They are spread over an area, we were told, of about the size of half of the state of Delaware.
Given that, no one bull is going to be able to service that herd. Assume 5% of the herd is bull...that’s 35 bulls. Assume that the remainder are a combination of cow, calf, and marketable beef cattle. Since market weight from calf on that kind of fodder has be at least a year and a half proposition, and since market weight is approximately 1200 pounds, and since market price is about 1.35 per hoof pound, then we can estimate the size of Bundy’s operation.
Each cow will be bred every other year, so to keep the herd at 700, he would have to have either a gestating cow or cow with calf for over 50% of that herd...I’m betting it approaches 65%. That means that of the 665 remaining cattle, there are about 430 cows. That leaves 430+35=465 and 700-465 = 235 potentially marketable animals at various ages. Assume half of those are marketable. That’s 118 or so a year.
That’s a gross of right around 200,000 a year. Obviously, with that big a spread, there has to be help that gets paid, vets, medicines, some fattening feed at some point, and fuel, transport, etc.
Add on top of that 1.35 a month per cow/calf pair (or eating unit) and you’ll get something like 8000 dollars a year. (Over 10 years that’s only 80,000, so the government isn’t telling us how they got to a million.
Obviously, if a million is correct, then there’s no way those ranchers can stay in business.
But, even the 8000 a year is 8000 out of the rancher’s pocket directly.
I’m betting he clears no more than 60 grand a year, if that.
Excellent explanation, thanks.
We're talking about two different things. You're talking about what the law should be, which is an appropriate discussion. I'm talking about what the law currently is.
Congratulations! Sometimes it takes a while to learn that the only way to win is not to play 'the game'.
**
Well......it took me a while, anyway. :o)
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.