So, any of you rednecks gearing up to defend Bundy ranch?

I dunno, his argument is essentially "government dependence is worse than slavery". Is that racist in the strictest "I believe they are inferior and should be slaves" sense of the term? Not exactly, but it's still a pretty offensive comparison. I'd call it more racially insensitive, but either way it's completely inappropriate to say in my opinion.

Honestly, I still don’t understand how what he said was racist in the slightest. He’s actually arguing that black people deserve better than they have.

But he used the word “negro” so I guess behead him or something.

cryptophreak said:

But he used the word “negro” so I guess behead him or something.

Click to expand...

Speaking to reporters over the weekend, he recalled driving by a public housing project in North Las Vegas, Nevada, and seeing "at least a half-dozen (black) people sitting on the porch, they didn't have nothing to do."

"Because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?" he added in comments first reported by The New York Times and later seen on video. "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."

Click to expand...

I am not sure how you can say this was not racist.

and more recently:

"Maybe I sinned, and maybe I need to ask forgiveness, and maybe I don't know what I actually said, but when you talk about prejudice, we're talking about not being able to exercise what we think. ... If I say Negro or black boy or slave, if those people cannot take those kind of words and not be (offended), then Martin Luther King hasn't got his job done yet," he told anchor Chris Cuomo on Friday, adding, "We need to get over this prejudice stuff."

Click to expand...

I think he should be reminded that MLK was assassinated 45+years ago.

If you're not sure whether an enslaved race is better off free, you're an idiot.

Al said:

If you're not sure whether an enslaved race is better off free, you're an idiot.

Click to expand...

His whole point is that they are not free, which is the same thing celebrated black hip-hop artists say every day.

The difference is he says it with an accent and a cowboy hat.

Getting financial assistance (welfare) ≠ slavery, IMO.

Of course, but that makes him wrong, not a racist.

In a way it is a slavery, it makes one dependand on it and have their life limited/organised in a way and often the people are unable to get away from it. But whether he meant something deep like that is another question...

Leo(T.C.K.) said:

organised in a way and often the people are unable to get away from it.

Click to expand...

I have to agree with Leo here. Having been on welfare myself, it does feel like a trap. I mean, the initiatives to get people off welfare are pathetic at best.

If governments really wanted people to get to work they'd allow them to work part time until they get a proper job. Instead welfare seems to be an excuse to get votes and tax the working population even more.

Regan was bout' as retarded as this guy.

Al said:

Getting financial assistance (welfare) ≠ slavery, IMO.

Click to expand...

According to Merriam Webster, one definition of slavery is the submission to a dominating influence. The Oxford Dictionary defines slavery, in one context, as excessive dependence on or devotion to something. The point I think Bundy might be making is that the federal government, in all its power and wisdom, seems to give off the impression that it thinks it alone can solve deep social and economic problems through welfare and other social programs and policies. It has the power to wield its mighty sword whenever it feels all based on the "greater good" and takes no responsibility for the damage left in its wake. People in the government may be held accountable at times, but whne is the government itself truly held accountable for the failure of its policies?

Look at the desert tortoise, which is the critter caught in the middle of this debate and conflict between Bundy and the USG. Even though 5 million plus acres have been set aside for decades to preserve the habitat for this animal, its numbers are still diminishing, although its status as "Threatened" has not changed on over 20 years. Has this effort just been a waste of time and resources? After all, the land in dispute is only a small portion of the land set aside for desert tortoise sanctuary.

Bundy is an ignorant old man who has obviously lived a fairly sheltered existence in regards to the multicultural world around him. His words were poorly chosen, to say the least, and the method of delivery was downright wrong. That said, I am not sure the intent was to harm or attack anyone of color. Oh well, mine is but one interpretation.

N1ghtmare said:

Regan was bout' as retarded as this guy.

Click to expand...

Am not saying his policies were stellar. But the phrase hits home imo. No need for social programmes if someone can earn enough to emancipate themselves.

Sir_Brizz said:

The government should make every person on welfare is [...] trading "free" work time for companies who won't spend money on more people for the welfare money.

Click to expand...

.

So the government would subsidize companies with wage-free, forced, workers.

Not a good idea.

Work should be less taxed. It isn't logical to tax work as if to discourage it.

I've been following the story on the Daily show & colbert report.

Same place i get all my republican news

Sir_Brizz said:

That's worse than having a bunch of freeloaders making money for doing nothing? They aren't forced, they are the ones choosing to take advantage of welfare. And there should be plenty of options for things they can do, not the government selecting one for them.

Click to expand...

How is the gov supposed to make them do stuff, including working for free, if not by force?

And yes, subisizing companies with workers that get payed by the gov is worse than giving it to people who do nothing to earn it (and you know, the company does nothing to earn that free labor either). Companies tend to prefer to not spend money if they don't have to. If they don't have to pay for labor, they won't. In the end, all it does is remove the ordinary job that earns John Doe his wage, and replace it with one that's done by Jane Doe for free.