Running from Bundy

With many republican politicians and new organizations embracing Cliven Bundy and 'the Bundy cause' over the past few weeks, it is kind of funny to turn on the news today after Mr Bundy's racial comments have gone public and see how fast they are running from him.

For anyone who missed it, Mr Bundy recently said "the prisons were full of young Negros because they never learned to pick cotton and that Negros were better off when they were slaves".

Personally, I have been torn on the Bundy issue. I think the BLM overstepped and created an issue were there really wasn't one. But there are civilized ways to handle such disputes involving courts. You can't have people take up arms against the government. It's not the 1800's wild west.

Mr Bundy's comments don't change my view that there is enough blame to go around on both sides, but it does confirm suspicions, I had of him. (redneck racist).

Damn I thought this was about Al Bundy !

Quote: Buzzard

Damn I thought this was about Al Bundy !

I'm not sure Cliven Bundy isn't Al Bundy all grown up (so to speak). lol

Is Cliven a member in good standing of the " NO MAAM " club ?

Quote: kewlj

. But there are civilized ways to handle such disputes involving courts. You can't have people take up arms against the government. It's not the 1800's wild west.

He's not interested in the courts because he lost in the court of law.
He lost his case. The problem is he refuses to obey the law and obey the courts.
He owes the Govt big bucks. If I owed the govt, I pay. Its that simple for me.
He refuses to pay, thats why the Govt wants the cattle, he owes due to a court decision and refuses to abide and pay his bills.

Quote: kewlj

You can't have people take up arms against the government. It's not the 1800's wild west.

Absolutely wrong. This is why the second amendment was created. To fight back against tyranny.

Quote: rudeboyoi

Absolutely wrong. This is why the second amendment was created. To fight back against tyranny.

And just who is going to decide if certain actions are oppressive? So when the police show up to arrest John Smith with a murder warrant, if Mr Smith feels 'oppressed' he has the right to fire on the authorities? There has to be some rule of law that is recognized. In the absence of that you have the wild west of the movies. It is 2014, rudeboyoi, not the 1860's, not the 1700's.

How can law possibly determine that law itself is being oppressive? Its up to the individual to decide.

"First of all it isn't enough to say I don't agree with what [Bundy] said. This is a despicable statement. It's not the statement, you have to disassociate yourself entirely from the man. It's not like the words exist here and the man exists here. And why conservatives, or some conservatives end up in bed with people who, you know, he makes an anti-government statement, he takes an anti-government stand, he wears a nice big hat and he rides a horse, and all of a sudden he is a champion of democracy. This is a man who said that he doesn't recognize the authority of the United States of America. That makes him a patriot? I love this country, I love the Constitution, and it is the Constitution that established a government that all of us have to recognize. And for him to reject it was the beginning of all of this. And now what he said today is just the end of this."

"And I think it is truly appalling that, as Chuck says, there are times when somehow simply because somebody takes an oppositionist stand, he becomes a conservative hero. You got to wait, you got to watch, you got to think about it. And look, do I have the right to go in to graze sheep in Central Park? I think not. You have to have some respect for the federal government, some respect for our system. And to say you don't and you don't recognize it and that makes you a conservative hero, to me, is completely contradictory, and rather appalling. And he has now proved it."

-Fox News' Charles Krauthammer

Then there's the possibility that he's just stupid.

It's got nothing to do with whether his position on the cattle thing is right or wrong. He's just an idiot.

Quote: Mosca

Then there's the possibility that he's just stupid.

It's got nothing to do with whether his position on the cattle thing is right or wrong. He's just an idiot.

+100. His statements support your conclusion.

Quote: rudeboyoi

Absolutely wrong. This is why the second amendment was created. To fight back against tyranny.

This is not tyranny, it's freeloading. Bundy has been grazing cattle on public lands without paying the associated fees. All of the other ranchers are paying for the right to graze on public land, Bundy is not.

I'm as big a supporter of the 2A as you're likely to find and this is not a case where armed insurrection is justified.

The quote that riled everybody up:

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “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.”

He's kind of got a point. The "picking cotton" remark is unfortunate, but the overall point that the welfare state has done more harm than good has some validity.

Obviously, nobody is better off as a slave.

If you're looking for a euphemism for work ethic while bemoaning the lack thereof among certain urban minorities, "picking cotton" is probably the worst possible phrase you could employ.

Com on, now Terrible Tom. Let's not minimalize this redneck's comments. To say the "picking cotton" remark is UNFORTUNATE, is like saying it's unfortunate that John Kennedy was killed, but other than that the Dallas trip was a success.

The man said, they were better off, happier even as slaves. I am not of African American blood lines, but geez. Slaves were property. The woman were raped with no recourse. The men beaten, even killed. Families not recognized and broken up. Let's not trivialize this redneck's ignorance.

Now, if you or anyone is trying to make sense of his words, perhaps you can help me, because I frankly don't understand the "They abort there young children" comment. Is he talking about fetuses here? Because when I hear young children, I think 3, 4 years old. Are they (in his mind) aborting 3-4 years olds? And if he is talking about fetuses as in abortion, that's kind of interesting, because, usually people that display these types of thought patterns complain about just the opposite....that blacks have too many kids in order to 'pad' their welfare checks, food stamps and other subsidies. Or does 'abort' have an entirely different meaning here that I am not familiar with?

For what it's worth: Republican politicians and commentators that fell in love with Mr Bundy, just a week early, were quick to throw him under the bus, as expected, but almost all did so, with a written statement read by some spokesperson. Sean Hannity, who is one of my least favorite people, had to gonads to do it himself, and admit that it was a mistake to embrace such a person as he did. He did this on both on his radio show and his TV show, and for that I have a some new respect for Mr Hannity. I don't find much that he says that I can agree with, but I respect that he stood up like a man and admitted he made a mistake.

Quote: kewlj

Com on, now Terrible Tom. Let's not minimalize this redneck's comments. To say the "picking cotton" remark is UNFORTUNATE, is like saying it's unfortunate that John Kennedy was killed, but other than that the Dallas trip was a success.

And, there goes my Diet Pepsi all over the keyboard!

Mad props, that one was great!

Quote: TerribleTom

This is not tyranny, it's freeloading. Bundy has been grazing cattle on public lands without paying the associated fees. All of the other ranchers are paying for the right to graze on public land, Bundy is not.

If the land is truly public, why should there be any associated fees? Public land should be free for all to use.

I will be putting my trailer there next week. Don't want no steers shitting in the front yard!

Quote: rudeboyoi

If the land is truly public, why should there be any associated fees? Public land should be free for all to use.

The Tyranny of the commons kinda of makes this a problem.

Quote: rudeboyoi

If the land is truly public, why should there be any associated fees? Public land should be free for all to use.

Yep, there's a fee to enter Yosemite & the Grand Canyon, though they are owned by the public. The Golden Gate Bridge is owned by the public, and if you drive southbound, you'll sure as hell pay a bridge toll. No exceptions.

Maybe these fees are unfair and/or lousy policy. (For the sake of preventing traffic jams, saving time, and conserving ga$oline, I'd prefer that all bridge tolls be abolished.) But are these fees worthy of an armed insurrection like the one George Washington crushed? No way.

Quote: rudeboyoi

If the land is truly public, why should there be any associated fees? Public land should be free for all to use.

Have you ever paid a Day Use Fee at a State Park?

BLM land is free for all to use for non-commercial purposes. If you want to use public land to make money, the public has a reasonable expectation to some share of that money.

States sell timber off of public lands. Mushroom harvesters pay a royalty to the state. You even have to pay for a permit to cut firewood on public land.

Quote: kewlj

Com on, now Terrible Tom. Let's not minimalize this redneck's comments. To say the "picking cotton" remark is UNFORTUNATE, is like saying it's unfortunate that John Kennedy was killed, but other than that the Dallas trip was a success.

The man said, they were better off, happier even as slaves. I am not of African American blood lines, but geez. Slaves were property. The woman were raped with no recourse. The men beaten, even killed. Families not recognized and broken up. Let's not trivialize this redneck's ignorance.

Now, if you or anyone is trying to make sense of his words, perhaps you can help me, because I frankly don't understand the "They abort there young children" comment. Is he talking about fetuses here? Because when I hear young children, I think 3, 4 years old. Are they (in his mind) aborting 3-4 years olds? And if he is talking about fetuses as in abortion, that's kind of interesting, because, usually people that display these types of thought patterns complain about just the opposite....that blacks have too many kids in order to 'pad' their welfare checks, food stamps and other subsidies. Or does 'abort' have an entirely different meaning here that I am not familiar with?

For what it's worth: Republican politicians and commentators that fell in love with Mr Bundy, just a week early, were quick to throw him under the bus, as expected, but almost all did so, with a written statement read by some spokesperson. Sean Hannity, who is one of my least favorite people, had to gonads to do it himself, and admit that it was a mistake to embrace such a person as he did. He did this on both on his radio show and his TV show, and for that I have a some new respect for Mr Hannity. I don't find much that he says that I can agree with, but I respect that he stood up like a man and admitted he made a mistake.

OK, "unfortunate" may have been an understatement. He's definitely one supremely ignorant redneck.

Most pro-life folks view a fetus as an unborn child. Abortion rates are high among poor urban minorities. I'm not surprised that Mr. Bundy finds this troublesome.

It is spectacularly difficult to discuss poverty and race in this country without being called a racist. Bill Cosby can't even get away with it. That some redneck Mormon rancher can't do so is no surprise.

Red rock canyon costs $7 to enter. Calico basin costs nothing to enter. A mountain divides the two. You can cross to either side entering either way. Why is it necessary to charge money on one side and not the other?

Cliven Bundy is an ignorant stupid idiot. But the public lands issue is much bigger than him.

Quote: TerribleTom

It is spectacularly difficult to discuss poverty and race in this country without being called a racist.

Perhaps so, but it is impossible if you start with the premise that "they" were better off being slaves...

Quote: TerribleTom

Bill Cosby can't even get away with it. That some redneck Mormon rancher can't do so is no surprise.

That Bill Cosby found some opposition within his own race for his position is no surprise; there are people that talk loud who profit from the very poverty of those they supposedly champion. He didn't make anywhere near the incendiary statement Bundy made; he just created a stir. Some people drop the word "racist" way too easily; those were the ones who were upset with Cosby. EVERYONE should be upset with Bundy.

Quote: mickeycrimm

Cliven Bundy is an ignorant stupid idiot. But the public lands issue is much bigger than him.

There is a huge public lands issue but I think some far right folks picked the wrong wagon to jump aboard. His actions set the lands agenda back just because some will now associate it with racism...

The government can't afford to take care of the land they have, they grab land for suspicious reasons, and they keep it when it is unnecessary.

What do grazing fees pay for?

This might be a good time to compare and contrast the remarks of Mr. Bundy and those of the Clippers owner.

Quote: Sabretom2

What do grazing fees pay for?

"The Federal grazing fee for 2014 will be $1.35 per animal unit month (AUM) for public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and $1.35 per head month (HM) for lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The 2014 fee is the same as last year’s."

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2014/january/NR_01_31_2014.html

There is a lot to be found about what grazing fees are; not much on how it is spent--until I find out something different, I think it gets mixed in with the rest of the money the government collects and then spent...

Quote: RonC

"The Federal grazing fee for 2014 will be $1.35 per animal unit month (AUM) for public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and $1.35 per head month (HM) for lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The 2014 fee is the same as last year’s."

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2014/january/NR_01_31_2014.html

There is a lot to be found about what grazing fees are; not much on how it is spent--until I find out something different, I think it gets mixed in with the rest of the money the government collects and then spent...

That's awfully cheap compared to the price of beef.

Quote: mickeycrimm

That's awfully cheap compared to the price of beef.

Yes, it is...but the price of the beef we eat is far removed from most cow/calf operations (typically what I see on large chunks of land in Texas...and what we do on our land). You keep a cow to have a calf each year and then sell the calf at 4-6 months. Prices for calves are high now because the drought and other considerations caused many herds to be trimmed in size. The prices fluctuate a lot--I've gotten .38 cents (per pound) for an old cow; recently it has been .80 cents or so, It evens out over time.

During that year period to get a calf, I have to buy hay, supplemental feed and minerals (the grazing quality of the land in Nevada appears very poor and the cattle probably need supplements to keep them in good condition), keep a horse or buy gas for a vehicle or two to work the cattle, and provide basic "doctoring" for cattle--pull calves, give shots, treat minor wounds, euthanize cows that go down and can't get up, etc. Plus, on private property, taxes are due.

There is a lot of feed involved once the calf leaves the ranch and heads to the feedlot--with corn prices artificially high (the corn growers love it, of course) due to ethanol production and other factors, it can cost a good deal to get the calf from shipping weight to slaughter weight. I raised one for myself a year or two ago--it was at a loss if you consider how much it cost to raise him and how much the meat was worth then!! Now, it'd be break-even. I'll raise one again this year without regards to cost--I like to know where those steaks came from!

I am betting Bundy and many ranchers are making good money right now (taxable income, if they profit from their operation) but there will be years in the near future where they'll eke out a small profit or a loss. Most wealthy landowners here are rich (counting their assets, not money in the bank alone) because of the increase in the value of their land; not the crop or animal production. They bought land at $200-$300 an acre that is selling at $10,000 or more in some cases.

I've been around farming/ranching forever; it can be profitable but it can also have many dry years.

What happens with cows that are injured and you have to put down? Do most ranchers just then butcher the cow for their own private consumption?

I don't think what Bundy is saying is too far removed from the ideas of the Elijah Muhammed and the Nation of Islam. They believe that the black man is enslaved and demoralized by the welfare system. They're all about be productive and moral and stand on your own two feet. I don't know about that Farrakhan cat who leads them now though. I bet like the Nation of Islam Bundy is anti-Semitic also. Radicals go round in circles LOL.

Quote: rudeboyoi

Absolutely wrong. This is why the second amendment was created. To fight back against tyranny.

Your right. Snipers, helicopters, armed agents, etc. Nasty people. Just put a lien on the dudes assets.

More to the point, Bundy had to be producing some nasty tasting beef. Grazing cows in the desert? He's a low end cattle farmer at best.

Quote: rudeboyoi

What happens with cows that are injured and you have to put down? Do most ranchers just then butcher the cow for their own private consumption?

If they are "down", no respectable slaughter house will take them. They are destroyed and buried. I guess those who can butcher at home may do that to them, but not me--we haven't butchered on the farm since the 70's. I've not seen any of my Texas friends butcher any downed animals and my family never has done so.

Injured? Depends--if it is not "down" it can still be marketed...

They end up as 4-d meat. Dead, diseased, decayed or dying. Not for human consumption and end up at a by-products plant.

deleted