41 votes

Alex Jones Show Video: Cliven Bundy Responds To New York Times Racism Report - 4/24/14

Alex Jones Show Video: Cliven Bundy Responds To New York Times Racism Report - 4/24/14


http://youtu.be/wCJ59tls0vc



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Semantics make poor arguments...

You talk about valuing liberty; how is accepting a welfare check an act of liberty?

I never said welfare was an act of liberty. I said unlike slavery, welfare doesn't require you to lose your liberty if you desire to improve your life.

Google "successful people who were once on welfare or food stamps." You'll see links to countless people that are famous but there are thousands that aren't famous that turned themselves around.

Granted, there are some people that just refuse to better themselves but they wouldn't make very good slaves either. For those type of people, I'm all for cutting off public welfare. I've never been an advocate for public welfare but neither do I "often wonder" whether slavery is better.

If you want to compromise with me, I'm willing to say those that continue on welfare, must help themselves by working in a community garden, growing crops to eat. I have no problem providing them seeds for a home garden and build a greenhouse. I'm for teaching them skills so they can provide for themselves.

If they don't work, they don't eat. It's not slavery but being hungry is a great motivator.

Serious? I never said welfare

Serious?

I never said welfare was an act of liberty. I said unlike slavery, welfare doesn't require you to lose your liberty if you desire to improve your life.

So, when the government makes demands on the recipient for their privilege to receive welfare; that is not slavery? When government makes it more beneficial for a fatherless home to collect welfare, than a home with a father, you don't think that is slavery? Isn't slavery basically the inability to live ones life based on ones own decisions without coercion or the use -or threat of use- of force?

When a Master sells the child out from under it's slave parents.

how does that help? They always have the choice to go get a job and stop accepting welfare. If they are slaves, they have no choice other than what the master says.

If we are already all slaves, then we must all be better off as slaves, at least that what Bundy "often wondered" of welfare recipients.

The availability of jobs

The availability of jobs within the market/economy is directly related to the policies of the Federal Government. If the government makes it such that low skilled workers are no longer utilized here in the States, then it is impossible for the low skilled worker to get a legal job; and therefore they stay on welfare.

If we are already all slaves, then we must all be better off as slaves, at least that what Bundy "often wondered" of welfare recipients.

Well the welfare recipient certainly is not better off now than before. Whether they are eligible for a job is not based on their industriousness or knowledge and skills, but on the policies of those far removed from their particular life situation.

Millions of people come to America that can't speak our language

and work many jobs. Government isn't stopping anyone from getting a job. I'd venture to say many welfare recipients have an "off the books income" as well as welfare.

Slavery doesn't equal a better family life than welfare. People that don't have a great family don't have one because they don't want one. Plenty of well-off people have dysfunctional families.

Do you understand how

Do you understand how immigration works? First if you are talking about illegal immigrants, then the answer is simple,they work for less money, they don't receive health insurance, and they don't pay taxes. If you are talking about legal immigrants, then you should look at the low to no interest loans and grants they receive to starting a business, via the Federal Government and the States. Those legal emigrants also receive 7 years tax holiday -meaning they don't have to pay any taxes for 7 years, so they can survive on less pay then an American.

I'm not talking about dysfunctional families. Do you understand that welfare mothers cannot be married and the father cannot be in the house if they want to receive the maximum benefits from welfare.

Yes, I understand how it all works...

and I would still take a welfare check over being a slave as I pointed out in my original post.

"There is no defending any of it."

Again, When slaves were freed and could not provide food, clothing, and shelter for their family, and they died either of starvation or from the elements I can assure you there were many who wished they were in the slaves quarters with their wives and children, sitting in front of a fire with a bowl of porridge.

Being a slave is a terrible thing, and rape, beatings, and murder certainly took place, yet those who could not provide for their loved ones and who were forced to watch them die certainly knew at that time that the slave quarters were far better, the food was much more filling, the shelter was much more inviting, and this is a topic which has had much discussion and those in the past who refer to slavery being better than the alternative of death and starvation are in fact correct, when their premise is based on facts from the day.

The question is how politically correct do we as a movement want to be? How afraid are we to confront issues labeled by the status quo as too taboo to discuss? Apparently for some this topic is too far removed today to have a valid conversation based on facts, this is exactly what the media, the political class, and those who use race as a crutch want people to believe, which has lead to the fact that the issues of welfare-ism will never be solved since it cannot be discussed.

For the rest of us who know the truth, it is hard not to accept what he said in the best of light since he declared after the fact that he was not a racist (a racist would have reveled in the fact the media gave them attention), only those out there who are "uncomfortable" with the way he said it, or the specific words he used from a bygone era that many cannot understand today or have been taught were unacceptable, but the truths are still relevant no matter how hard anyone wants to bury their head in the sand and hide behind political correctness trumping the first amendment.

So while he may be a bigot, the theory is valid and been discussed before without so much fanfare and political correct whining. Read, educate, and learn the facts, because I would dare say there were roughly 1 million plus slaves that were they alive today would agree with the sentiment Bundy presented; however politically incorrect.

The one thing to notice from the book is how many slaves went directly back to the plantations that provided them food and shelter, as there is ZERO need to ask them what was better at the time, but telling in and of itself. Sorry if that is too much reality, but it is time to toss the chains of political correctness and meet the propaganda head on to work to make this nation, this planet, this universe a better place for all, but it will not get done shoving ones head in the sand because of self righteous, race bating, and scared people who will not face facts and work to make life better for everyone. The elite depend on other to parrot the unacceptable, to jump on the race bandwagon, when many of them have no clue of real history themselves. I personally am ashamed of Rand Paul, but understand that in his position he must take a status quo stance, even if it is based on foolish divide and conquer rather than facts.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2160484/The-end-slav...

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

Really?

Some statements are politically incorrect and some statements are just plain stupid. "Read, educate and learn the facts" so you can tell the difference.

I mean here's a guy that refuses to be treated like a slave by the federal government saying welfare recipients would be better off as cotton-pickin' slaves. It's just sounds silly to me and a dumb statement to make to a biased media. I could careless about political correctness.

Who thinks we should replace long-term welfare with the slavery we had back in the 17-1800's? Do you really think people on welfare would be better off?

If you do, we'll just agree to disagree.

You don't tell a woman that you want to sleep with but haven't that you think her friend is smokin' hot even if it's true. That's just stupid. Trying to defend yourself to her after sayin' it is just insane. If you want a woman that you can have that kind of discussion with, good luck.

I completely agree with you:

"Some statements are politically incorrect and some statements are just plain stupid"

Very clever using your second sentence to support your first!
You are obviously reacting on an emotional level, and the reason I say so it simply because you misquoted what was actually said. This is fine in order to justify your loathing of an elderly rancher, but reality she's a bitch. HINT: turn off Fox, or go to work there, as twisting ones words to meet an agenda would make you a shoe in.

See, you have misquoted Mr. Bundy when what he actually said was "I often wondered if they would not have been better off" not as you imply in your emotionally charged post above, where you state"would be better off as cotton-pickin' slaves", in which case I agree that "It's just sounds silly to me and a dumb statement to make to a biased media" and I doubt anyone would disagree with you there.

From your response it is now obvious as I attempt to reply to you that you have taken one post out of context and have no idea what the posts reference was actually about, I highly suggest you ""Read, educate and learn the facts" so you can tell the difference." from the previous posts, and come back with a response that makes sense.

P.S. sorry for being a sarcastic bastage, but I couldn't resist. The points you have missed so far is as follows:

1. You have completely changed the meaning of a sentence by twisting its words to meet an agenda in your head to justify calling someone you do not know a racist, because the media played a sound bite 500 times.
2. I fully agree that the conversation was not the best idea, yet he was obviously prodded about African Americans by the media to even talk about such in an attempt to get a Grand Torino moment, which they did.
3. No one post in this entire series supports any form of slavery, so not real sure who you are agreeing to disagree with, but g'luck with that.
4. As for your last point, keep working on that one, but please change more than the words!

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

Really Again?

"You are obviously reacting on an emotional level"? Did I curse? Did I call you something inappropriate? Or is that your catch-all statement when someone differs from your opinion? Oh, because I "misquoted", I'm emotional?

I said that Bundy said ""would be better off as cotton-pickin' slaves".

Bundy actually said:

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” Bundy said Saturday, according to the Times, “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 continued. “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.”

Exxxcuuuussse me! I was emotional and waaaay off. I said, Cliven said, 'they would be better off as cotton pickin' slaves' and he really said "are they better off as slaves, picking cotton". Somebody get me a Kleenex! Stat!

HINT: I don't watch Fox. I don't own a television, haven't since 2009. Mostly get my news from this site and Drudge Report, which links stories from several sources. I rarely listen to talk radio unless some major event occurs. This story I would not consider a major event, newsworthy, yes. It will become major if the Feds raid the ranch and I'll be pulling for Bundy and the militia.

"P.S. sorry for being a sarcastic bastage, but I couldn't resist. The points you have missed so far is as follows:"

No worries, I love sarcasm as long as it's funny, however, not sure what a "bastage" is though. See, I was being sarcastic because you misspelled "bastard".

"1. You have completely changed the meaning of a sentence by twisting its words to meet an agenda in your head to justify calling someone you do not know a racist, because the media played a sound bite 500 times."

From my original post, my quote..."I don't think Cliven is a racist per se but the man needs to think through everything when making statements about slavery. It wasn't a hard days work and coming home to your family." Notice the first nine words of my quote in my original post, I bolded them to help you out.

"2. I fully agree that the conversation was not the best idea, yet he was obviously prodded about African Americans by the media to even talk about such in an attempt to get a Grand Torino moment, which they did."

His best response would have been...'As far as African-Americans are concerned, the government has enslaved many with welfare and no hope and change, not to mention they have imprisoned hundreds of thousands disproportionately compared to whites under the sad joke they call The War on Drugs. I sympathize with them more than ever because the government wants to be my master and make me bend my knees too, figuratively speaking."

"3. No one post in this entire series supports any form of slavery, so not real sure who you are agreeing to disagree with, but g'luck with that."

I simply asked the question based on Cliven's statement that I emotionally misquoted by getting the words "cotton" and "picking" out of order, whether anyone thinks that 17-1800's slavery is better than receiving welfare. If so, we'll disagree. I guess I disagree with Cliven. However, I was informed that slavery was better than dying of starvation, (personally, I'd rather die) and the fact that nobody whipped a slave so hard they couldn't work, therefore I don't know what I was talking about when it came to slavery being worse than welfare. I thought they were interesting points of views from people that supposedly advocate freedom. They were responses to my original post.

"4. As for your last point, keep working on that one, but please change more than the words!"

Nothing to change there. Either you get it or you don't. It helps to have some experience with women. If you do, you'll easily understand how it applies to our discussion on saying things that you shouldn't say even if you believe it's true and thinking you're clever enough to talk your way out of it using some kind of egotistical pseudo-logic.

Okay, I need to run to the store for more Kleenex.

Yes, it appeared you were either basing your misquote on

emotion, or usually people that come in to make a point using misquotes are trying to push an agenda, that's simply the way things are, if that was not your intention I apologize. Then there was a fact that you used historical knowledge based on three Hollywood movies as opposed to books written during the time, or books derived from others written from first hand accounts. There is no need to rehash your misquote, as I had already showed what you stated versus what was actually said, and the difference is your statement made it appear as Bundy was declaring slavery was better for blacks, when in reality he was saying he "often wondered" if they would be better off. Big difference when dealing with the race bating media propaganda machine, so I assumed that you got your quote from them.

1. Here, let me show you where you had some doubt "per say".
2. His best response would have been not to talk to the NY times about race, unfortunately he did, so what he "should have said" has zero bearing on the discussion.
3. Unfortunately, it wasn't "cotton" or "picking" you had out of order, you changed the entire quote which is what the media is doing to demonize Bundy, while it may not have been your intent, that is the fact.

Had you been participating in the conversation or debate since we started you would have already read how many slaves returned to the very plantations they were freed from, so it matters not if you think death is better than slavery, the facts are the slaves returned with their families because they obviously thought it better to work the land then to die from exposure or starvation shows that they; unlike you, chose to work for the plantation owner than to starve to death. While it is very admirable that if you were a slave you would have chose death, it has zero bearing on factual evidence at the time nor the discussion at large.

Your statement about 17-1800's slavery is confusing as no one, not even Bundy said slavery would be better than welfare, he stated he pondered if they would be better off, and no one so far as I have read has stated anything remotely close to supporting slavery over welfare, so I am still confused if you are debating yourself on this point, or are you trying to make a point? Did you follow the link to the book written about the time post slavery?

4. I am not sure that telling a woman that in fact her butt looks big in a pair of jeans is comparable to an elderly rancher that still talks as if were 1930. While the girl might be angry, the rest of the nation does not label him a sexist, a racist, or anything else.
I do understand what you are saying about things you shouldn't say which takes us back full circle to the statement: "saying things that you shouldn't say even if you believe it's true and thinking you're clever enough to talk your way out of it using some kind of egotistical pseudo-logic." or you could have simply said "being politically correct".

Might want to get some hearing aid batteries and glass cleaner so that you can hear what is actually said and read the text a little clearer, then you might be able to make a valid point.

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

After this reply, I'm done, think whatever you want..

Yes, it appeared you were either basing your misquote on emotion, or usually people that come in to make a point using misquotes are trying to push an agenda, that's simply the way things are, if that was not your intention I apologize.

I do have an agenda, it's called "Liberty for all."

Then there was a fact that you used historical knowledge based on three Hollywood movies as opposed to books written during the time, or books derived from others written from first hand accounts.

All three movies were based on books from first hand accounts. It takes 2 seconds to Google confirmation.

There is no need to rehash your misquote, as I had already showed what you stated versus what was actually said, and the difference is your statement made it appear as Bundy was declaring slavery was better for blacks, when in reality he was saying he "often wondered" if they would be better off. Big difference when dealing with the race bating media propaganda machine, so I assumed that you got your quote from them.

I never used the word "declared". I'd "never wonder" if having no liberties as a slave would be better than receiving a welfare check. I also think it's ridiculous for anyone to "often wonder" whether having no liberties is preferable to anything.

1. Here, let me show you where you had some doubt "per say".

It's "per se", not "per say".

2. His best response would have been not to talk to the NY times about race, unfortunately he did, so what he "should have said" has zero bearing on the discussion.

If you don't talk to the press, then they write what they want anyway and the fact that you refuse to answer tough questions. You have to talk to the press. He could have turned their questions into a positive and possibly killed their agenda to paint him a loon.

3. Unfortunately, it wasn't "cotton" or "picking" you had out of order, you changed the entire quote which is what the media is doing to demonize Bundy, while it may not have been your intent, that is the fact.

See, here's where you are acting like the media by suggesting my intent. I used an adjective "cotton pickin'" with a noun, "slaves" versus Bundy's quote of a noun and a verb, "as slaves, picking cotton." They mean the same, nothing more.

Had you been participating in the conversation or debate since we started you would have already read how many slaves returned to the very plantations they were freed from, so it matters not if you think death is better than slavery, the facts are the slaves returned with their families because they obviously thought it better to work the land then to die from exposure or starvation shows that they; unlike you, chose to work for the plantation owner than to starve to death. While it is very admirable that if you were a slave you would have chose death, it has zero bearing on factual evidence at the time nor the discussion at large.

This makes no sense. You meant former slaves.

After slavery, former slaves had some liberties. Masters were no longer masters. They negotiated with their former slaves to work the land in return for a share of the crops and a place to live. It became two parties entering a contract. That's a big difference than say, "get out there now and pick that cotton boy or I'll whoop you." I'm sure if I had a harsh master that beat me, I'd never enter a contract with him even after being free. I'd would have killed him, took as much wealth of his as I could gather, got on a horse and not looked back.

Former slaves didn't have to fear being punished for not doing as the master demanded and could leave when they could gather enough resources to venture out and explore other opportunities. The master didn't have to allow a former slave to stay on his land if they felt they weren't of value or feared them. That's very different than having no liberties as a slave.

Also, many former slaves returned to the planation because they were told they could get 40 acres and a mule on land they had worked as slaves. So, in a way, that was their "welfare" check though I'd say they earned it. However, many didn't end up getting that because federal and state reconstruction programs emphasized waged labor instead.

Bundy "often wondered" if they would have been better off if slavery had continued.

Your statement about 17-1800's slavery is confusing as no one, not even Bundy said slavery would be better than welfare, he stated he pondered if they would be better off, and no one so far as I have read has stated anything remotely close to supporting slavery over welfare, so I am still confused if you are debating yourself on this point, or are you trying to make a point? Did you follow the link to the book written about the time post slavery?

Bundy quote, "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?

I guess I take the word "slaves" to imply that one has no liberties, therefore, it's hard to imagine anyone that wonders such, values liberty and anyone that thinks it's reasonable for someone to wonder such, values liberties as well. What really blows my mind is someone that is fighting for his liberty against the federal government "wonders" whether being a slave, with no liberties is preferable to receiving a welfare check and people on a liberty-forum defending him for wondering such. It has nothing to do with race. Do you "wonder" if anyone would be better off without liberty? That is my point.

4. I am not sure that telling a woman that in fact her butt looks big in a pair of jeans is comparable to an elderly rancher that still talks as if were 1930. While the girl might be angry, the rest of the nation does not label him a sexist, a racist, or anything else.
I do understand what you are saying about things you shouldn't say which takes us back full circle to the statement: "saying things that you shouldn't say even if you believe it's true and thinking you're clever enough to talk your way out of it using some kind of egotistical pseudo-logic." or you could have simply said "being politically correct".

Might want to get some hearing aid batteries and glass cleaner so that you can hear what is actually said and read the text a little clearer, then you might be able to make a valid point.

I'm not sure what your point is there since you concede to understand my analogy of saying stupid things, whether you believe them to be true, is not always wise.

This whole back and forth between us is ridiculous. We're both liberty advocates. The only point I was making in my original post was that I, personally, would rather have a welfare check than have my liberties taken by force. No one can deny that many slaves were treated harshly. Just the fact that they had no liberties and were considered property would never make me "wonder" if I would be better off than receiving a welfare check. I'd rather die fighting for freedom than live as a traditional slave.

The EFFING Neo-Con RATS in the GOP (Who are RACISTS...

...themselves), will now use this in 2016 to call Rand Paul a racist for supporting Bundy.

Rats like Lyndsey Graham, Peter King and John McCain are as racist as they come; They never saw a Muslim they didnt want to bomb.

There's no question that Bundy made racist remarks by saying he has wondered many times if "...negroes weren't better off as slaves than they are today."

Tell you this Bundy...NO ONE IS BETTER OFF AS A SLAVE - EVER...NO ONE! No matter how this guy tries to back-track, those remarks are RACIST.

Tell you this too Bundy...NOT ALL BLACKS are sitting around on welfare. In fact there are more WHITES on welfare than blacks.

Unbelievable. The guy lumps all blacks into one generalized category which is racist in itself.

But Rand was addressing his issues with the Feds and the federal land-use issue.

Guess you have to be REALLY CAREFUL who you support these days - even if it might be for the correct reason.

I wonder, did Rand vet this guy at all before publically supporting him?

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

"NO ONE IS BETTER OFF AS A SLAVE"

First I would like to say I am of a mixed race, and can and will debate this rationally. While I have no clue what type of person Bundy is I can honestly say this topic has been discussed by several groups through the years that debate in search of truth and ignore political correctness used to divide the masses and brainwash those that would become so offended by someone exercising their first amendment right, and the inconvenient truth is sometimes masked in propaganda and race bating.

The reality is that during the time of slavery in the U.S. slaves were profit or livestock. This meant that for the most part they were well fed, kept healthy, had a roof over their heads, and clothes on their backs, and while this was to the slave owners benefit to provide for the slaves it cannot be stressed enough that when crop profits were low the slaves were fed less, treated worse, and so on, just so you understand that I do not support slavery in any fashion, but there is a murky truth to what was said.

Providing the necessities of life to ensure health and maintained strength the slave owners treated their slaves much like their cows, or perhaps their family dog, as they all had a role to play in the farmers success. When slavery ended and slaves were set free many slaves and their families died from exposure, as they failed to provide food, clothing, and shelter for themselves and their families, this is the truth like it or not. Once they were not provided food, clothing, and shelter from the owners they were to fend for themselves, and in this instance for many slaves the reality was it was better to be a slave then dead in the snow. No matter how filled with propaganda one is, it has to be clear to any honest person that to be alive, fed, warm, dry, and with your family would be better than to watch your family die one by one in the snow because you could not provide for them, free or not.

I do not know if this is what Bundy was talking about, but so far as his plight only cowards and politicians would even comment about what it is claimed he said. To all their own, but the BLM and their threatening tactics to collect a bill are still the topic at hand, and I will reserve my opinion on his statements when I hear the audio that they claim they have being a racist.

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

Sorry Blounttruth - You can polish it up any way you want...

...you can try to rationalize it over and over and write lots of fancy words about it. But you can't justify it.

Obviously you disagree with my statement that "no one is ever better off as a slave."

But just because you are of mixed race (which you mentioned at the start) doesn't mean a thing. So do you think that gives you some special right to justify slavery?

Our founding papers said "ALL men are created equal" and that "Life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness" are basic rights of man.

Slavery violates the LIBERTY part of this philosophy.

So there IS NO "RATIONAL" DEBATE about this (as you put it).

As soon as you "rationalize" a practice which violates any right of man, then you're on the road to justifying it. Then the next step is to agree with it when it's happening right in front of you.

And remember, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN "DEAD IN THE SNOW" (as you put it) because they would have remained in their native African countries in the FIRST place.

Sorry but your arguments are full of holes.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Sorry Pawnstorm, but I have no clue what you are accusing me

of rationalizing? While it is your "opinion" that "no one is ever better off as a slave." my premise is based on the actual, factual, books and data from that time in our history. You obviously did not read all the posts I have on the subject or you simply did not click on the link to the book and the story of the freed slaves based on eyewitnesses and other writings of the time.
So no matter how fancy I write, the facts are that many slaves went back to their plantations after being freed, this is not based on my rationalizing, only historical fact, and in that fact we find that the slaves chose to return to working for scraps, as opposed to being free and starving, hence the agreement with Bundy that perhaps some were better off living on the plantation rather than being dead.

Me being of mixed race does have a bearing on knowing when someone is filled with hate. Growing up and seeing first hand racism towards my grandmother means I know first hand the ugly side of racism and my point was simply that the words coming out of Bundy's mouth were not hate filled words of a proud racist. My fancy words may confuse some, but I would appreciate you linking any post of mine where I justified slavery, then once you fail I will accept your full apology.

So knowing now that I never once justified slavery, and have rejected it entirely since my first post, I can only add that your rant about justification matters not. It doesn't matter what documents said what, the reality is slavery did happen, it is alive and well today, slaves did die in the snow, so lets deal with what did happen as we know it instead of making up things as we go.

So in closing, your premise that I justified slavery is wrong, no where did I do this. your position that documents and rationalizing blah blah means this and that, but the fact is slavery did exist, so no need to create hypothetical's, nor put words in others mouths to try and make your points, and I assume you recognize since your entire post was based on claiming I said something I never did we can patch up all those holes in my arguments and we can once again focus on facts, books written at the time, and as for your utopia of the slaves staying in Africa instead of being dead here in the snow, it is a feel good story but the United States was far from the only nation that purchased and used slaves, so lets just change that to THEY "MIGHT" NOT HAVE BEEN "DEAD IN THE SNOW.

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

To be fair... it was the fact

To be fair... it was the fact that slaves were forcefully denied their freedom that resulted in them lacking the skills to survive in the world once freed. I, too, would rather be a slave than dead in the snow, but that isn't a choice anyone should have to make, because we all have the right to the opportunity to learn how to survive without being dependent. Slaves are made to be dependent by slavery. It was true then, and in a different way, it is true now.

I agree that it should have never been a choice anyone had to

make, yet in reality they did. I also agree that many died for lack of skills to survive, and many could not find work years after being freed, but the era I am talking about is 6-8 months post slavery, when many tried to go North and fell to the weather, famine, disease, dysentery, things that were not present at the plantations, and it forced many to decide whether to try and continue North, or go back to the plantation where they had food, safety,shelter, but with it came the abuse and degradation, point being that many chose the latter.

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

Almost a valid point, but you forget that many whites in the

War torn South suffered the same fate, and it wasn't due to being slaves. Disease and famine played a huge roll in the deaths, and although you are correct no one should have to make the choice of slavery or death the fact is they were dependent and the great emancipator did nothing to help them after his political victory, in fact slavery continued in the North for years to come, and under the stars and stripes, not the confederate flag.

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

To get back on point....

Bottom line if you take the raw statement of Mr. Bundy and assume that he meant what history has taught, that the freed slaved suffered far more death in freedom then at the hand of their owners then he would be factually correct.

If he was implying that instead of buckling down and getting a job (i.e. picking cotton) building, cleaning floors, or even academically succeeding and becoming a doctor to support their family rather than being a welfare lifer, I cant see how anyone would disagree.

His use of the"N" word however disliked does not a racist make, as I think everyone can excuse a 87 year old who spends his time doing back breaking work, not listening to the pundits declaring what Americans can and cant say to be politically palatable from generation to generation.

In the end I have seen racists, I have been in a city where I found myself in the middle of a Klan rally, and my dark skin senses told me to evacuate, even though I am Native American. People who are hate filled racists speak proudly of their race being superior, speak of other races at inferior. and often speak of killing or race wars as a good thing. Mr. Bundy is no violent racist no matter what came out of his mouth, the bottom line is you can let your emotions explode over what the status quo allows one to say to determine if Mr. Bundy; coming from a different era in time, might deserve a pass as this is how the older folks referred to people of color, as shown by Clint Eastwood in Grand Torino.

I may be off base, Bundy may be a drooling murderous tool, racist to the core and hate filled. I am simply saying that what came out of his mouth proves nothing about the man, other than he tries to be as brutally honest as he can, and this may certainly effect his efforts to fight off the BLM if the media gets their way via attacking him in an never ending effort to divide us all.

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

LittleWing's picture

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times

Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. He went on to explain: It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The super national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto determination practiced in past centuries." ~ David Rockefeller @ June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting

If Wars Can Be Started by Lies, They Can Be Stopped By Truth.

The old buzzard

said it wasn't over.

And now the toilet paper of record (thank you Gerald Celente), and the Southern Poverty Law Center are going to ruin his reputation.

Whether he is a bigot or not

Whether he is a bigot or not it has nothing to do with his stand against the encroachment of the Government Police State upon State land and his property. The leftist media will ride this story until Cliven Bundy is responsible for helping Hitler with the Holocaust, we all know that. But the truth is is that the Constitution, States Rights, Property rights.. are there to protect ALL men and women of the Republic, from the cosmically enlightened on down to the simple minded bigots. Cliven Bundy bigot or not made foolish remarks, but all fools still have rights and if we don't defend the fool's rights we lose ours too.

NYT is toilet paper

I disagree with Bundy but I disagree with NYT even more. bundy isn't racist, he wants the black community off welfare and owning land in Nevada and anywhere making a living for themselves. I disagreed that slavery was good for black families in only that they clung to each other in fear they would be separated. I think they were far better off before the welfare state in livelihood though there education and a greater chance to rise to higher middle class didn't start improving till 1964. He is confusing moral decline with slavery. Morally all races were better off then, but we still had no justice with it.

NY times wont issue a correction

news like this needs to get out.

What bundy needs to point out is were ALL slaves on the governments plantation.

____

"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon