I still can't understand this sub's support for this Bundy ranch guy.

Do some users here support him for being rich and being able to organise a massive influx of armed citizens to the ranch?

Do some users support him just because the fed didnt like him?

Was he actively trying to campaign against the government trying to liberate unfortunate people?

Did he do ANYTHING to help the poor and unfortunate?

No, he was trying to earn money and refused to give a part of the millions of dollars he earned by grazing on public land.

With the influence of the local sheriff, kind words from a governor, and the maximum coverage given by Russia Today, why should I feel empathetic to this millionaire rancher?

One "thug with influence trying to earn more money" against another "thug with influence trying to earn more money" is what I'm seeing here.

I'd appreciate legitimate arguments here in this thread and respectfully want to direct racist, adhominem, post-history-invoking args, doxxing, death threats etc in my PM.

Haven't followed this thoroughly but I'll give my rough interpretation.

How was his wealth gauged? His property is worth a bit but any old pioneer family in any western state that kept their land whose grand kids didn't chop it up for a quick buck to go live in the city has a decent amount of equity. He has cows but again not physical money and is there any reports on his calving season? The trucks and equipment any ranch has is decent equity but not necessarily money in the bank. In my experience most mid size ranchers are not rich in the sense you think unless he has oil or gas that is being worked on his property. Why is he considered rich?

Nevada high desert is not like Wyoming or Montana land. This is scorched earth desert and what little water he has access to is highly coveted in Nevada. Remember Nevada ranchers have not been friendly to the government ever, look up the three bombs that were set off in the Forest Service and BLM buildings in Carson City in 1995. Or the range wars in general.

In the late 80's the USFWS designated a turtle in Nevada endangered. Then in 89' they designated the turtle threatened. The feds designated hundreds of thousands of acres to this turtle and started buying ancient homestead grazing rights on BLM land from the ranchers to further protect this turtle while in the background they were selling this land to the Chinese and other interests. Ranchers were not impressed with this fake conservation plan. He argues the feds are land grabbing and not protecting this turtle like they said and I believe that. So he did what he's done for a hundred years, he grazed his cattle in this scorched desert. He refused to pay these fee's that he always paid before because he feels they are not utilizing the money properly and I believe that. Now the feds are using the turtle, the fees, and these so called racist comments from an old crusty rancher against him to get his land.

I'd say some users might support him because he didn't submit and back down. He stood his ground, even if that meant physical confrontation. I would like to think I can do the same.

Like I said, I don't know the guy, and my question has more to do with how major media outlets attempt to control public opinion, rather than the details of this event. It would help this sub if we stopped trying to argue with each other and actually respond to each other's questions rather than release our frustration on each other. I'm frustrated with people too, but when I come here I try to stay on topic and cooperative.

Attempt to control public opinion, or profit?

This story just got juicier. Now it's going to attract a whole bunch of people that didn't even know who the rancher dude was or his situation. EVERYONE is going to cover it now. Ratings, man.

The first thing wrong with people's perception of the situation. Is the land in question is NOT public land. It is federal land. Federal land is PRIVATE. The federal reserve bank is a private banking cartel. Their banks are on federal private property. If you are protesting on federal property don't have any plans for next 15 years.

The second thing is the ties to china in this whole mess. China is coming to the USA, whole cities. Have you ever seen how many people live in major Chinese cities? Idaho has sold 50 square miles to China for $800 billion. To build a city to be owned, governed and policed by china.

Weather or not you support this Bundy guy is up to you. Just remember if it wasn't for the Internet freedoms we have the feds would have rolled this guy for sure.

Federal land is PRIVATE

I didn't think the feds owned land accept whats beneath a federal building. How is this private fed land?

semantics.

the public lands in Nevada are the property of the United States because the United States has held title to those public lands.

So in a sense it's "private" to the federal government because they can do whatever the fuck they want with it, but we can't (well not without their authorization).

to be honest I don't care much about his cows

You should care. Because without those cows in the picture, this would've been a non-event. You can deny it all you like, it's no matter to me. But this is the bottom line. I personally cared about his cows and their well-being. That's why I was pissed. Everybody had their own reasons for being there.

Many of those women and men would not have shown up in force to fight the feds if this issue was simply over land ownership and rich people. Sorry bud, but this just wouldn't have gained any spark at all without those images of cattle being stolen and tortured in the middle of a bunch of rednecks and jackboots fighting over desert land. People care more about the animals - that's why this was all over cattle and turtles, not people and money.

I'm glad that people care about animals, but my question is one that focused more on media and public opinion, rather than the reasons people showed up. We all come from different regions and idealogies, it's unrealistic to expect that we will all care equally about each issue. It may be more important and more effective to find common ground between us than to demand that we all care about things.

Here's the video for anyone who still doubts he made the remarks.

Now let's get the full context shall we?

http://bambuser.com/v/4549915 - listen from 14 min to 18 min

He openly supported civil rights He said mexicans are superior to white people. His old as shit vocabulary is to blame, the man doesnt have a racist bone in his body. This happened on Saturday, yet it took the media till now to figure out he said this.

Does this change anyones view? We're being played boys.

If you can't attack what a man is fighting for, then you must attack his character. Classic tactic used by the establishment and MSM.

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?

How the heck can you say "the man doesnt have a racist bone in his body"? Non-racist people don't "wonder" if "the Negro" was "better off as slaves, picking cotton".

Nah, pretty sure saying that doesn't make you a full blown racist, not like he believed in that idea wholeheartedly.

the man doesnt have a racist bone in his body

Its debatable, and quite honestly a distraction from the bigger picture. I've said nigger , I've thought of some pretty racist stuff, and people don't call me racist, nor do I consider myself one.

Many people would consider you a racist. And people definitely would call you a racist if you were to use "nigger" in public on a regular basis (or even once, depending on who heard it).

True, though its all about context and your audience. I can also say I am fully ignorant to the other sides plight, though I try to be good to anyone that isn't an asshole. Its an issue that will hopefully fade with time, and I hope we can all just quit finding excuses to shit on one another.

What exactly is a perfect politically correct world you envision? This old man is more altruistic than you could possibly hope to be. This is a different generation speaking and it isn't racist. What is wrong with you? You don't want racism but you implant it where it doesn't belong. Could you possibly be the problem?

Maybe a world where people don't wonder if slavery was a better alternative than nonslavery.

Why do you feel it's so important for me to debate you on this? Do you share this guy's views and are worried that if he's a racist it means you're a racist?

Because I actually watched the whole video and heard what he said in its entirety. Taking what he said though out of context like the media and you do does he at least not present a arguable theory?

Suggesting that black people were better off as slaves picking cotton is pretty damn racist no matter the context.

Yeah, can't refer to Negroes as "Negro." Can't use "colored" or "black" or "african american." God forbid Clive uses actual history as a basis for determining the living situation of a group of people he saw come from segregation, to where we are now. Many records show that several groups of slaves did not want to leave the plantations they lived upon as slaves. And those "slaves" were usually paid in the north. Some were educated and led good lives, until they were removed from their land to be "set free."

No, let's forget truth and say that all black people hated slavery, not one supported it at all, and slavery that involves farm work and paid wages is far worse than incarcerating black males and making them build highways for less than competitor's in the area.

Obviously the current slavery is better than the old slavery. /s

Sounds like you might be a bit racist yourself.

Nah, I got over that long ago. The differences are melanin and cultural. Big whoop.

Oh yeah... The left needs to do everything to destroy the person. They got nothing against the ideas.

You have to watch the whole thing. Media matters are dicks.

There is no taking out of context the part where he states "Let me tell you about the Negro". That statement right there tells me he considers blacks a different species than himself.

Also, the part where he bases his analysis of the "Negroe", on what he witnessed in a housing project, speaks volumes about how he processes information regarding blacks.

'There's no question about it, in the next 40 years a Negro can achieve the same position that my brother has.' - Robert F. Kennedy, Washington Post, May 27, 1968

1968

Oh, and I drive through south Atlanta every day for work. I've seen what he is talking about first hand. The other day, I drove by a woman crying on the sidewalk on Joseph P Lowery and Martin Luther King. Can't imagine what triumph of horror put her there, and she's one of many I see.

The welfare and justice system are actually keeping blacks poor and there is data to support that.

I totally agree, but I also realize that any ghetto USA is not completely representative of blacks in America. However, it wasn't necessarily what he said, it was how he said it.

All he did was ask the question if black people were better off picking cotton than aborting their children and going to jail.

http://www.bet.com/news/health/2013/04/01/commentary-why-are-black-abortion-rates-so-high.html

While Black women account for 13 percent of the female population, they accounted for 30 percent of all abortions.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics_of_incarcerated_African-American_males

A black male born in 1991 has a 29% chance of spending time in prison at some point in his life.[5] Nearly one in three African American males aged 20–29 are under some form of criminal justice supervision whether imprisoned, jailed, on parole or probation. One out of nine African American men will be incarcerated between the ages of 20 and 34. Black males ages 30 to 34 have the highest incarceration rate of any race/ethnicity. (According to America Community Survey.)

There is some "truth" to what he says. The state really does more to destroy black families than help them.

I reject the idea of "better off picking cotton" or whatever... But Planned Parenthood was founded to eliminate black people. I mean we have to be honest here.

Yeah I'm not saying I agree with his statement. I'm just saying he isn't the robe-dawning KKK member the media is trying to make him out to be. I hadn't even been following this stuff and just by looking on politics it made me visit conspiracy for the first time in a while.

That's pretty bad. Wow.

Let's face the facts here. The US government has done many things for which it needs to be brought to task. Coming down hard on Cliven Bundy is not one of them. This prick got open use of land that IS NOT HIS, and was charged much, much less than what any private land owner would have charged him. And yet he still feels he doesn't need to pay. He feels he should be able to use public resources for his own gain for no personal cost. So, do I get to shoot up the neighborhood if the local bus service changes its rates? The guy is a fucking leech and deserves to be put in jail.

[deleted]

The times was quoting the guy directly, at a press conference Bundy held. It's on video and audiotape. There were at least 50 witnesses, almost all his own supporters. There's no reason to lie about this guy being a racist.

I've searched YouTube and cannot find said video. If you have a link please share. Because all I've seen is people saying he said it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbnRnhrNFEY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbnRnhrNFEY

Do you believe it now?

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/04/bundy-hoax-exposed-full-video-of-cliven-bundys-non-racist-pro-black-pro-mexican-anti-government-remarks-2944710.html?utm_content=awesm-publisher&utm_medium=facebook-share&utm_source=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fa

Nope.

But there is a reason. Because it distracts from the issue. Whether it's true or not doesn't matter, it's that it is a tactic being employed by the media. If someone is accused of running a red light, does it matter if he hates puppies or white women or Legos?

In the back of my own mind if someone is resorting to these tactics, that means they might have a really weak case.

Of course it matters. Nobody is going to be perfect, but people deserve to be presented all angles of the issue to make up their mind. Some media will present him as an enemy of the state while others will present him as a one man hero fighting the tyranny bravely. Just because he opposed the gov, he isn't going to be absolved of his bigotry. You think any black people in his farm will support him after his remarks? Or did he have any political gain trying to appease other racists?

"They", right. Because it's totally implausible that some redneck militia type dude harbors racist opinions.

Frankly, I don't get how this guy has so much support. He lost two court appeals, it's completely clear to anyone that he's violating the law... even Glenn Beck thinks this guy is in the wrong, for fuck's sake.

...and of course, as soon as he says something polarizing, the bright folks at /r/conspiracy can't even consider the possibility that he actually said it. Anybody who goes up against the government is a total saint, and if there seems to be anything bad about them, it's been manufactured by the evil federal overlords who exist only to lie and bring misery?

To the bitter end, no matter what. That kind of loyalty is almost cultish

"They" went with racist? You are blaming someone else for his comments?

I wonder, are you defending the X-Men director, since "they" went with child molester for his story?

Breitbart and Infowars aren't even mentioning this, much less questioning if it's true.

Bullshit. Bundy came on the AJ show right when they went on air at Noon EST.

Here's the article: http://www.infowars.com/cliven-bundy-responds-to-new-york-times-racism-remarks/

Guess you didn't notice that my post was 2 hours before that.

The story must be preserved as originated. Bad government picking on self entitled old, patriotic, taker.

[deleted]

I'm never going to be on the same side as someone who uses phrases like "The Negro", I'll make my own third side before I do.

This is fluff, and you are clearly falling for it. When they attack a man's character like this, rather than what he is fighting for, it means they are struggling.

All the reputable media had his remarks in quotes, NYTimes, Washington Post, etc.

I don't think anyone made Mr. Bundy say what he said.

I'm not saying it's fabricated info, I'm saying it's irrelevant to the situation.

This man has freedom of speech just like the rest of us, if you disagree with his seemingly racist views, that's fine!

But it should not detract to the amount of support we give him while he battles the feds for his livelihood.

The Asian male is usually expected to take care of the elders of his family. The Negro male makes up the majority of the NBA's professional athletes.

The black male.....

The colored male....

The African male.....

The African American male.....

So which ones are racist, which ones aren't? Perhaps it's just your racism getting in the way. You know what kind of person thinks something is racist.... a racist.

And you just suggested that I'm racist, what does that say about you?

It says that I suggested that someone who said:

I'm never going to be on the same side as someone who uses phrases like "The Negro", I'll make my own third side before I do.

Feels that the term "The Negro" is inherently racist. That is rather odd to me. Of course, I don't believe in offensiveness being transferred without the receiving end wanting it, so that's how I justify my accusation that you are racist.

Are you offended by my racism?

Hah! Is the ant concerned about health insurance?

[deleted]

First he showed he was a liar (His Father bought the ranch in '48)and then he showed he was a bigot (Let me tell you about the Negro). I will not stand with a liar or a bigot. So yeah, sign me up with the Big, Bad, Evil Government on this one.

[deleted]

Naughty, naughty, moving the direction of the discussion.

Naughty, naughty,

Extremely Naughty!

[deleted]

When did Socrates demand a reply?

No. Socrates asked intelligent questions that made sense and steered a conversation into a direction where a reasonable result could be found. You on the other hand are just an idiot trying to prep up your so-called "argument" (which is really just drivel and contrarianism) by using intellectual sounding words (at least I guess they sound intellectual to you) while making no sense at all. Embarrassing.

[deleted]

You're right and the other dude is mad because he's wrong.

That's what it looks like to me, as well.

No. He's saying "one less quack for the gov't haters to rally behind, please".

[deleted]

You've had 2 years to rally behind the Native Americans and ranchers who have been fighting the government and big oil over the Keystone XL pipeline using their land without consent.

Where have you been?

[deleted]

well said

Of course not, Ron Paul was in the government for years.

Uh, when did the rules change to grant you the right to demand an answer to your nonsensical question?

[deleted]

Why are you changing the terms? Demand answers, refuse to reply?

Whats wrong with using Negro? Is that a naughty word now?

Negro

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/negro

1.Anthropology . (no longer in technical use) a member of the peoples traditionally classified as the Negro race, especially those who originate in sub-Saharan Africa.

2.Older Use: Often Offensive. a black person.

If you're an American, quit playing dumb by ignoring historical context.

Why don't you quite being retarded. "Negro" is a perfectly acceptable word of the English language. Haven't you heard of the "Negro College Fund"?

Playing dumb isn't a very good way to win an argument. Mainly because even if you successfully convince anyone that you really are unaware of the facts, you're still not right.

http://www.uncf.org

Context is important. The word itself is not inherently a racist word, as nigger would be or chink.

I don't see how any of that is relevant to what Bundy said. Referring to black Americans as "the Negro" would be racist even if it weren't in a statement suggesting they'd be better off as slaves.

And you're right; context IS important. And that's exactly why it was racist for him to use the term. Did you forget the context in which he was using it?

Its a cultural difference that you're not accepting as valid. He wasn't using it in a derogatory fashion. (I suppose you wont accept this, the same way Westeners cannot accept the eating of dogs in Asian countries)

I don't get pissed at work when people call me a polak. Its supposedly a very hateful term for polish people, but they use it endearingly, and thus its not an offensive word in that context.

If the dude was a racist bigot, he woulda said nigger.

He suggested that black people would be better off if they were still slaves.

First off, you ignored my initial point, the controversy surrounding the word Negro. I'm taking that as acquiescence.

I wouldn't expect a cattle rancher to be eloquent with his use of hyperbole, but how does his examination of African-Americans status in the US make him a racist? Even if he did truly believe in the literal manifestation of his statement, I don't see how that means he hates black people. (if he truly believes that they're quality of life would be better under slavery, thats ignorance, not racism)

He believes that negroes are highly discriminated against by the system, to the point where it simply becomes a modern and accepted form of oppression. I don't think I need to mention incarceration rates among young black males, as well as the massive income inequality between blacks and other demographics.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/28/these-seven-charts-show-the-black-white-economic-gap-hasnt-budged-in-50-years/

Why do you feel it's so important for me to debate you on this? Do you share this guy's views and are worried that if he's a racist it means you're a racist?

Lol cause Ive been debating competetivley for the past 6 years of my life. Get dumpstered scrub

That's gotta be one of the top 5 most cringe-inducing comments I've ever had the pleasure of reading. Keep it up!

#rekt

Thank you.

[deleted]

Amen.

False title: Bundy's comments were not in the least degree racist.

Really unfortunate that he is a total racist. He has completely forfeited all the legitimacy of his cause and even worse, has painted the liberty movement as a racist and ignorant extension of the tea party. We absolutely must distance ourselves from this guy. It's sad, we had a borderline revolution in the works. He really threw us under the bus.

I'm curious if these racist comments have been recorded or if its a take our word for it situation. I've seen plenty of post about the racist comments, including the apparent quotes. However, I haven't seen a video of him saying that - hell not even a voice recording. I

He is an old timer and he's god damn right with what he said. “Let Me Tell You About The Negro, They Abort Their Children, Put Their Young Men In Jail, Because They Never Learned How To Pick Cotton”. Now that might strike a marxists heart but this is an old man and he says what's on his mind. Whites are guilty of this too. He meant most of the US citizens are welfare queens that don't know a days work. I know it might be shocking but the majority shares his view. You are actually a minority with a hugbox view of the world.

What is this "liberty movement" you coined?

So the guy that has been the king of all welfare queens, is trying to point out other welfare queens?

I linked the actual video in this thread. If you listen to what he said entirely he is far from racist. I think there is a big difference in your definition of "welfare queens". This guy wakes up puts in a hard days work on his ranch operation. The people you see in the city getting a welfare check to buy crack and rob your daughter are considered "welfare queens". See the difference?

See the difference?

I think I'm starting to. Black people on welfare are lazy, crack smoking daughter robbers. This guy is just a hard working white rancher who deserves his welfare. Amirite?

Sure you are. Can you name what kind of welfare Bundy gets? Then I want you to compare that with what a white or negro family gets. Are you comparing them? What are the differences you see? Looking forward to reading your answers cyking.

his welfare?...20 years without paying grazing fees.
Compare them?...there is no comparison. Most people are off welfare within 5 years. This guy is at 20 years and counting.

Grazing fees for scorched earth that the BLM wants to sell to China with a disguised motive of protecting a turtle that's not endangered. He always paid his "welfare fees" as you put it up until the BLM started buying ancient grazing rights from ranchers under the false pretext of protecting turtles, then never protecting the turtles and selling the land. No that is not the definition of a welfare recipient. That is the definition of someone not putting up with over reaching fed bullshit.

Most people are off welfare within 5 years

He recieves no welfare check. Why you insist on labeling him a welfare recipient is beyond me. Not even my friend who is a Rangeland Ecology & Management professor, who is very liberal, calls him that. Where did you learn this from? I'm curious.

Prepare for downvotes from retarded liberals who would give their own home and be homeless so minorities didn't have to be.

I would love to see a gay Sponge Bob fanboy give up his ipod and endless supply of hot pockets from moms fridge to give Jamal Washington his bed.

Oh I forgot, they just pretend to care.

"Yeah, he must have meant all of the US citizens getting welfare as "negroes" and "cotton pickers". No way he was racist against blacks. We are all infact wrong to assume that he might be a racist bigot who hates black people."

Go watch the vid I linked. He is far from racist and you got played. BTW statistics don't lie, but that's a whole different argument.

statistics don't lie

Please keep your bigotry and racism in /r/GreatApes.

^{Just so unwitting users dont mistakenly visit that shithole sub, its the reincarnation of /r/niggers}

Never been to that sub, and not a bigot. How did you deduce that ideology from the comment "statistics don't lie". Fascinating..

Since you supported his racist and bigoted statements as having some truth, it is extremely likely that you are a racist with comments like "statistics don't lie". I've been to that sub and this is like the only argument those inbreds use in the comment to defend their racism.

not a bigot

Easily falsifiable by looking at your previous comment.

I guess you need to keep lurking that sub to form your opinions about statistics. Also keep lurking your racist subs to form generalized opinions of people. Always remember in your mind everyone is racist or a potential racist because they disagree with you. If someone says "I don't like that black guy" he is racist. Hey, it's easy being you.

I'd rather stare at a wall for hours than lurk in that sub, thank you. The pathetic thing is that you proudly came on with racist stuff and now you're trying to hide your racist opinions.

I'd have comparatively more respect for someone sticking with their racist beliefs like a man than someone being racist and then slinking and cowering away trying to hide their racist beliefs when called out for being racist.

He is an old timer and he's god damn right with what he said. “Let Me Tell You About The Negro, They Abort Their Children, Put Their Young Men In Jail, Because They Never Learned How To Pick Cotton”. Now that might strike a marxists heart but this is an old man and he says what's on his mind. Whites are guilty of this too.

Was this the comment that caused you to label me a racist? See how I put whites in with blacks and brought the point together that both abuse the system and the system promotes the abuse. The guy is right that blacks and whites have forgotten what work is. Good old fashioned hard days work with an ice cold beer at the end of the day. He drives the point home by explaining that he does not want to attach himself to the teat of the system or obey unjust laws that are thinly veiled real estate takeovers. He tried to explain in his old fashioned ways that we depend to much on the system and not enough of ourselves. Why can't you understand that? Why try to label me a racist because I agree with his out of context quote?

[deleted]

So, he's not a racist? The story is fabricated?

[deleted]

Wow! Insightful answer!

Thanks so much!

[deleted]

Ok,in your opinion, is he a racist?

[deleted]

Why then are you demanding a reply from this r/user?

From your own earlier comment to ringopenedragon, above: Your comment:

"...then you didn't answer the question, you claimed a manufactured, non available option. Sack up, answer the question. If we all decide to choose our own sides in the fight, the winner is already declared..."

[deleted]

Some people, no matter how many manifestations, can be counted on to never change.

So you don't feel comfortable answering the question? That's cool.

As I black man I dont find this racist. we cant say a man is racist for asking a question.

I don't agree with racism. I do however agree with his right to be racist. To attack him in this manner shows they don't want to force it to a head.

I agree that he has rights, which includes speaking his mind (racist as he is), and GET called out for his speech.

If he can't take it, don't dish it out.

And as far as his cattles, he has no right to graze without paying.

I'd still like to see or at least hear him dishing it out, as all I have found is typed quotes. I'm sorry but that doesn't suffice for me.

How do you define right?

here

from a comment from /u/readyready

thanks bud

I'd still like to see or at least hear him dishing it out, as all I have found is typed quotes.

I don't think he denied what was "typed".

How do you define right?

By law.

I don't think he denied what was "typed".

Don't just accept it because someone else said it buddy. Someone else pointed me to this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbnRnhrNFEY

By law.

Nice contribution. I'm still open for that definition if you'd like to give it a try.

Don't just accept it because someone else said it buddy. Someone else pointed me to this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbnRnhrNFEY

And??? (I'm waiting for some kind of rebuttal).

Nice contribution. I'm still open for that definition if you'd like to give it a try.

It's been TRIED in court multiple times for Mr. Bundy. If he's been losing for 20 years. He needs to try harder.

What am I supposed to be rebutting? I was asking for proof, which I then supplied myself.

I was asking for a definition of right as in inalienable rights. So what the law says is right? The only rights you have are what the law grants you?

I was asking for a definition of right as in inalienable rights. So what the law says is right? The only rights you have are what the law grants you?

No, US laws say you have the right to do any thing, EXCEPT where the laws defined what and how Government can regulate.

Grazing on public land is 1 area where the law allows the Government to regulate. (And that's LAWS passed in the past, by US Congress, duly elected representatives of the People).

SOL for Mr. Bundy.

I'm sure you'd appreciate your neighbour's right to free speech when he sets up stage and bad mouths and degrades the female members of your family. How would you feel if the local news channel broadcast your neighbour's press release calling your mother, wife or sisters deragotary names? Would you fight for his rights to free speech?

Yeah, him calling blacks "negroes" and "cotton pickers" doesn't affect you directly. So he has a right to say that.

I won't fight for it but I won't fight against it. I will respect it as I do with everyone else. If he is within the communities agreed upon noise ordinances, I don't really care what he has to say.

I feel like you're trying to get me to feel an emotional response with the scenarios you listed. Trying to bring emotion into a discussion, leads me to believe you don't have an argument worth standing on - otherwise you would have just said it.

If you do have something to say, heres a great place and time to do it...

Having emotions is not a bad thing in arguments. Infact it is trivial to experimentally prove that no human is capable of having an argument without emotions. You must be a super computer bot or something if you can switch off all emotions when arguing here. And you type that way too.

You want an argument? How about there's a very thin line between free speech and hate speech?

The first amendment was written expressly for the purpose of protecting people from emotional responses to their opinions.

I'm not saying that I can refrain from all emotion during all arguments, however, the basis of my arguments is never emotion as is the case with yours.

There is no line. "Hate speech" is free speech. I'd argue that trying to prevent someone from being able to speak "hate speech" is in itself "hate speech". Hate is an opinion. Who's opinion is correct. I'm someone who say's: I don't know. In my eyes, it would be rather arrogant to assume to know the correct opinion. Hence my view of agreeing with his right to be racist.

If you think you know the "correct" opinion, I guess you could logically stand behind limiting allowable speech.

I just gave an example to better illustrate my opinion. You fell back on something like "You're being emotional, so your point is moot. I'm not emotional, so I'm right" kinda argument, which can be argued as in itself an emotional response.

I did not mean to say hate speech should be violently curtailed and silenced. You speak what most would perceive as hate speech, and I call you out on your racist, bigoted and ass-backwards opinion. Just as you have the right to your racist opinions, we have the right to insult and mock you for it.

We are both exercising our right to free speech here.

You're making stuff up. I haven't said anything remotely racist. I have at no point said "I'm right".

You're argument was based completely on emotion.

It seems like you don't have anything to say, but you're more then welcome to continue exercising you're free speech. And just as in your emotionally charged hypothetical example, I don't really care.

edit: ah 2 days old, i see.

Having a 2 day old account somehow makes my points invalid? You can keep using your account for years and have people analyse behavioral patterns when you accidentally step on the wrong toe, to feel validated by virtue of account age. I'd rather be called a shill.

It was you who brought up increasingly off topic points in this thread and now its so offtopic, its a general discussion on who's more wrong. I tried answering you, but now I feel I've replied you enough.

Its like out of the playbook...so obvious I can't believe you had me going for so long. Wish you the best bud!

Cheers!

I frankly don't care if he spends his weekends spitting on minorities, he's still in the right about the federal government.

That it doesnt exist?

You don't care if he spends his weekends spitting on people who've done nothing to him? What's wrong with you?

What's wrong with you? If the people being spit on don't care, why should I?

What a ridiculous statement. Anyone being spit on for no reason would care. Anything reasonable to defend your statement, or are we done here?

Anyone being spit on for no reason would care

And you're saying my statement is ridiculous... have you no concept whatsoever of the absolute? No, of course not, why am I even asking... if you did you wouldn't make such laughable absolute statements.

[deleted]

That it doesnt exist?

Why are you changing the terms? Demand answers, refuse to reply?

You've had 2 years to rally behind the Native Americans and ranchers who have been fighting the government and big oil over the Keystone XL pipeline using their land without consent.

Where have you been?

I linked the actual video in this thread. If you listen to what he said entirely he is far from racist. I think there is a big difference in your definition of "welfare queens". This guy wakes up puts in a hard days work on his ranch operation. The people you see in the city getting a welfare check to buy crack and rob your daughter are considered "welfare queens". See the difference?

You don't care if he spends his weekends spitting on people who've done nothing to him? What's wrong with you?

I guess you need to keep lurking that sub to form your opinions about statistics. Also keep lurking your racist subs to form generalized opinions of people. Always remember in your mind everyone is racist or a potential racist because they disagree with you. If someone says "I don't like that black guy" he is racist. Hey, it's easy being you.

He suggested that black people would be better off if they were still slaves.