And so the character assasination of Cliven Bundy Begins!!!!!

[Deborah K]

Harry Reid Issues Statement On "Hateful Racist" Cliven Bundy
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-24/harry-reid-issues-statement-hateful-racist-cliven-bundy

Okay, the war is on. Time to expose Prince Harry. Gotta go for now, but I'll do my part when I get back home. Soldier on, fellow freedom fighters.

 

[cajuncocoa]

What a fucking moron, as well as those here who are rationalizing his comments. It's no wonder why the "heartless/white privileged" stereotype is applied to libertarians.

Does welfare do more harm than good? Yes. Is it worse than physical bondage? No, not even close.

Don't lecture the anarchists on how to frame their arguments because we're somehow hurting the advancement of libertarianism and Rand's 2016 election hopes when you're defending Bundy's beliefs that completely contradict everything you claim to be fighting for.

Now if the NYT lied and it turns out that Bundy never made these comments, fine.

I'm not defending his comments. I agree, his comments are offensive at worst ...and just plain wrong at best.

But this whole thing is a distraction from the main issue.

Surely you're not suggesting that he doesn't deserve our support against the BLM just because he made some offensive comments, are you?

 

[AuH20]

The dogs will keep chasing cars until they finally get run over. The American people truly deserve their fate if they are this gullible.

 

[Madison320]

None of this has anything to do with the main issue regarding the Bundy Ranch. Even people who hold "outrageous views" deserve to have their rights protected. The media sought to distract people with this, and it looks like they're succeeding.

Exactly what I was thinking. What difference does it make whether Bundy is a racist? I think this points to a bigger problem which is a general loss of the rule of law. It doesn't matter whether you violated a law or if the law was just. It only matters who you are and what people think of you. If Bundy is a racist does that mean we can throw him in jail, take his stuff?

 

[cajuncocoa]

Okay, the war is on. Time to expose Prince Harry. Gotta go for now, but I'll do my part when I get back home. Soldier on, fellow freedom fighters.

 

[AuH20]

 

[ravedown]

the battle ended with the word "negro", on to the next battle. no one in the political or media world is going to touch this now.

 

[Badger Paul]

I was going say, maybe Harry Reid knew something about this fellow the rest of us didn't. He may be devious but he's not stupid.

I'll be honest I've never even heard of Cliven until this month. Supposedly this dispute has been going since 1993. That's 20 years and three presidents ago! Why wasn't he a cause celebre before then? The question is no different today as it was back then, is it right for the Feds to own so much land and how does it affect those who wish to use it? And yet that's not what's being discussed is it? It's all about wanna-be macho men thinking how cool it is to be a "rebel" (especially when a Democrat is President. When it's a Republican they're law-abiding Patriots) and joining this supposed "cause" when no one cared or concerned themselves about what he was going through for 21 years until the Feds showed up to actually enforce the law and scene was created. They puffed him up to be a hero and now since he's been declared a bigot his "friends" whether Hannity or Fox or the National Review won't be there to pump in the hot air anymore and he'll deflate pretty quickly. And then he'll wonder where everyone went. It will pretty sad and the Feds will round up his cattle when the TV cameras are all gone.

So let's cut to f'ing chase: Either you believe in the rule of law or you don't. You may not like the law, you challenge it in court or get people in government who will help to change it. But it doesn't remove it. So there you are. Now if you want to be an anarchist, that's fine. But there consequences for doing so: death, prison or complete isolation from society. There's no political outcome to it because the politics does not support armed conflict. Never has, never will and if you believed it you wouldn't be at RPF now would you? You'd be in your bunker preparing for the standoff. And I'm tired of seeing the politics being tarnished by bigots and buffoons. A man can stand up to the Powers that Be but in this country he has to do so either in the courtroom or the ballot box, not at the barricades. Again, you may not like it but that's the way it is. Otherwise, just don't give a damn anymore. Go away and leave it behind and do something else because you can't change it because nobody wants it to change. If they did, well don't you think we'd have another internal war by now?, another revolution? When did that ever take place? No. Helping Cliven honestly would have meant changing law so these disputes don't take place anymore. Instead people would rather help him dishonestly which will only lead to his eventual downfall.

 

[cajuncocoa]

the battle ended with the word "negro", on to the next battle. no one in the political or media world is going to touch this now.

Oh, please. Harry Reid used that word to describe Obama's dialect. Go look at the video I posted in #245. Don't take the hypocrites' bait.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

Oh, please. Harry Reid used that word to describe Obama's dialect. Go look at the video I posted in #245. Don't take the hypocrites' bait.

It's sad how people here fall for the bullshit so easily, isn't it?

 

[cajuncocoa]

So many people on this site are ready to cave as soon as the media and/or general public point fingers at us for whatever reason. Either we have to be careful to frame our arguments so Boobus can understand it (and watering it down in the process) or worry that the media will paint us as racists for standing up for someone even if they believe some questionable things. I'm an individual; I don't play "guilt by association".

It's disheartening to read this site at times.

 

[ravedown]

Harry Reid can get away with anything. that's a given. making cliven bundy the champion of your cause is now toxic. this is as much a battle of public opinion as anything, and bundy blew it,

 

[AuH20]

It's sad how people here fall for the bullshit so easily, isn't it?

White guilt can turn some people into a pretzel. With that said if Bundy made a ridiculous comment along the lines of "Blacks are mentally incapable of exercising liberty" I would be up in arms. But he made no such malevolent comments. He was engaging in clumsy social commentary. You can tell alot by his non-threatening cadence in the video as well. That is not a hateful man.

 

[Danke]

I think we all know what he was trying to say, he just picked the wrong way to say it. Government is the problem, not the solution.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Harry Reid can get away with anything. that's a given. making cliven bundy the champion of your cause is now toxic. this is as much a battle of public opinion as anything, and bundy blew it,

Stop worrying about "public opinion." Have the courage to stand for what's right.

Do you know why Harry Reid gets away with it? Those on the Left stand behind him....No. Matter. What.

Time we did the same. Not because of what Bundy said. But because his cause is right.

 

[Danke]

 

[pcosmar]

I'll be honest I've never even heard of Cliven until this month. Supposedly this dispute has been going since 1993. That's 20 years and three presidents ago! Why wasn't he a cause celebre before then?

Because they hadn't had 200 armed Rustlers come for his herd before.

These same BLM that killed a mentally confused black man in the desert after fucking with him.
They attacked unarmed protesters that confronted them.

This is not about Clive Bundy.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I'm not defending his comments. I agree, his comments are offensive at worst ...and just plain wrong at best.

But this whole thing is a distraction from the main issue.

Surely you're not suggesting that he doesn't deserve our support against the BLM just because he made some offensive comments, are you?

I was addressing people earlier who were rationalizing and defending his comments (before anyone began claiming they were taken out of context).

I agree with you in that attention should be refocused on the defense of property rights. What I have a problem with though is people playing the "blacks were better served under antebellum" card which does nothing but make it that much more difficult to convince people why libertarianism is morally/ethically superior.

 

[Wadesc]

This was supposed to be a war of public opinion, and he just lost it.

For 90% of the American public, they arent going to the sophisticated social nuance and benevolent "old crazy uncle" in his statements. That is wishful thinking of the worst kind.

This is so easily thrust into the public eye in the favor of his detractors that there is no way to see it other than a total failure. If you are going to play the game, you have to play it well.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I was addressing people earlier who were rationalizing and defending his comments (before anyone began claiming they were taken out of context).

I agree with you in that attention should be refocused on the defense of property rights. What I have a problem with though is people playing the "blacks were better served under antebellum" card which does nothing but make it that much more difficult to convince people why libertarianism is morally/ethically superior.

OK, thanks for clarifying. That makes sense, and I agree with you.

(Not directed at you, NIU):
Let's not get caught up in defending the indefensible....that was never the issue for which we supported Bundy in the first place, and it shouldn't attract or detract. Keep your eyes on the prize, people!!