• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cliven Bundy stands by racially charged comments, ‘That’s exactly.....[W:696:1188]

Re: Cliven Bundy stands by racially charged comments, ‘That’s exactly what I said’

AJiveMan said:
Salvatore R. Lauro
Director, Office of Law Enforcement and Security
1849 C Street, NW, Rm. 5637
Washington, D.C. 20240
Phone: 202-208-3269
Click to expand...

You're still sucking wind, my friend.
 
Re: Cliven Bundy stands by racially charged comments, ‘That’s exactly what I said’

beefheart said:
I already did, you don't accept that a LEO has the responsibility to utilize deadly force when warranted. Not my job to prove it to you further, you are the one playing the semantic game. I know they do, and I accept it, you don't accept it, so,it is up to you to prove your assertion.

Don't play obtuse.
Click to expand...

You're doing a fine job of dodging the issue.
 
Re: Cliven Bundy stands by racially charged comments, ‘That’s exactly what I said’

apdst said:
You're doing a fine job of dodging the issue.
Click to expand...

I answered your question, you can't comprehend the answer.

Run along now.
 
Re: Cliven Bundy stands by racially charged comments, ‘That’s exactly what I said’

apdst said:
You're doing a fine job of dodging the issue.
Click to expand...
Hows this?


The BLM Office of Law Enforcement & Security, headquartered in Washington, D.C., is a federal law enforcement agency of the U.S. government. All Law Enforcement Rangers and Special Agents receive their training through Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). Law Enforcement Rangers attend the Land Management Police Training (LMPT) academy at FLTEC, while BLM Special Agents attend the Criminal Investigator Training Program (CITP) at FLETC.
BLM Law Enforcement Rangers and Special Agents make up the law enforcement capability of the BLM. Rangers and Special Agents are located in each of the western states that have BLM lands. Law Enforcement Rangers make up the uniformed high visibility enforcement of laws. Special Agents investigate crimes against property, visitors and employees.
Uniformed Law Enforcement Rangers enforce Federal laws and regulations governing BLM lands and resources. Law Enforcement Rangers also enforce some or all state laws on BLM lands. As part of that mission Law Enforcement Rangers carry firearms, defensive equipment, make arrests, execute search warrants, complete reports and testify in court. They establish a regular and recurring presence on a vast amount of public lands, roads, and recreation sites. The primary focus of their jobs is the protection of natural resources, protection of BLM employees and the protection of visitors. They use K-9s, helicopters, snowmobiles, dirt bikes and boats to perform their duties.
Special Agents are criminal investigators who plan and conduct investigations concerning possible violations of criminal and administrative provisions of the BLM and other statutes under the United States Code. Special agents are normally plain clothes officers who carry concealed firearms, and other defensive equipment, make arrests, carry out complex criminal investigations, present cases for prosecution to U.S. Attorneys, and prepare investigative reports. Criminal investigators occasionally conduct internal and civil claim investigations.
Click to expand...
Would they be trained in the of, and issued, fire arms if they were not authorized to use them?
 
Last edited:
Re: Cliven Bundy stands by racially charged comments, ‘That’s exactly what I said’

Buck Ewer said:
Hows this?



Would they be trained in the of, and issued, fire arms if they were not authorized to use them?
Click to expand...

IOW, would the government over-step it's legal bounds to do whatever it wanted? History tells us, YES!

I mean, look at these clowns...they were ready to start a firefight over a bunch of cows. You really want ignorant asses like that totin' a badge and a gun?
 
Last edited:
Re: Cliven Bundy stands by racially charged comments, ‘That’s exactly what I said’

apdst said:
IOW, would the government over-step it's legal bounds to do whatever it wanted? History tells us, YES!

I mean, look at these clowns...they were ready to start a firefight over a bunch of cows. You really want ignorant asses like that totin' a badge and a gun?
Click to expand...
The BLM Safety Manual H1112-1 (Section 26.2) specifies that only State Directors may authorize a nonlaw enforcement employee to carry a firearm while on official duty. Upon an employee’s successful completion of the prescribed training, background clearance, and proficiency testing, a letter of authorization from the State Director’s office will be sent to the employee’s manager; the manager ensures a copy of the letter is delivered to the employee. The employee is then authorized to transport and carry a firearm Authorizations to carry firearms are effective for 1 year. Proficiency testing must be repeated prior to reauthorization each year.
Due to the statistically demonstrated high hazard level associated with carrying and handling firearms, a Firearms Instructor shall refuse to authorize an employee to carry a firearm if the employee demonstrates an obvious lack of situational awareness or appropriate level of caution with a firearm regardless of the employee’s otherwise successful completion of the proficiency course of fire.
Click to expand...
Pretty much the same as any other law enforcement training and authorization of fire arms use.
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/media...ia/IMs/2012.Par.55078.File.dat/wy2012_035-pdf
 
Last edited:
Re: Cliven Bundy stands by racially charged comments, ‘That’s exactly what I said’

apdst said:
I mean, look at these clowns...they were ready to start a firefight over a bunch of cows. You really want ignorant asses like that totin' a badge and a gun?
Click to expand...
They were not ready to start a fire fight over a bunch of cows... Bundy's militias were.
That is why the BLM backed away, to pursue law enforcement of the court order on another day in another setting without the bloodshed the militias were there for.
That is why nobody is dead.
They demonstrated decorum, good judgement and a willingness to avoid bloodshed when confronted by those who would stop them from completing their duties with the threat of deadly force.
 
Last edited:
Re: Bundy questioned whether blacks were better off as slaves

mac said:
No-one is defending his "welfare", they're denouncing the tactics of the BLM/Feds.
Click to expand...

Ah, so it is the fault of the government. Not his fault for not paying to use land that he didn't own. Yep, there's that "personal responsibility." A person is responsible for their own actions unless they are conservative - then it's the fault of the government or the liberal media (possibly both).

He was getting something for nothing from the government. When a single mom in a big city does that it's called "welfare." .
 
Re: Cliven Bundy stands by racially charged comments, ‘That’s exactly what I said’

apdst said:
IOW, would the government over-step it's legal bounds to do whatever it wanted? History tells us, YES!

I mean, look at these clowns...they were ready to start a firefight over a bunch of cows. You really want ignorant asses like that totin' a badge and a gun?
Click to expand...

Ignorant asses shouldn't be totin' guns, but that hasn't stopped the ignorant asses for showing up and making it a standoff.
 
Re: Bundy questioned whether blacks were better off as slaves

rocket88 said:
Ah, so it is the fault of the government. Not his fault for not paying to use land that he didn't own. Yep, there's that "personal responsibility." A person is responsible for their own actions unless they are conservative - then it's the fault of the government or the liberal media (possibly both).

He was getting something for nothing from the government. When a single mom in a big city does that it's called "welfare." .
Click to expand...
What was laughable was that Bundy didn't even know the correct terms. He kept referring to welfare recipients as those getting government subsidies....
Subsidies, something as a cattle rancher and farmer he knew all about getting from the government.
:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
Re: Cliven Bundy stands by racially charged comments, ‘That’s exactly what I said’

rocket88 said:
Ignorant asses shouldn't be totin' guns, but that hasn't stopped the ignorant asses for showing up and making it a standoff.
Click to expand...

And the clowns with the BLM were ready to kill people over a bunch of cows.

The long and the short of it is: was it really important enough to kill American citizens for?
 
Re: Cliven Bundy stands by racially charged comments, ‘That’s exactly what I said’

apdst said:
And the clowns with the BLM were ready to kill people over a bunch of cows.

The long and the short of it is: was it really important enough to kill American citizens for?
Click to expand...
The BLM officers were not ready to start a fire fight over a bunch of cows... Bundy's militias however, were.
That is why the BLM backed away, to pursue law enforcement of the court order on another day in another setting without the bloodshed the militias were there itching for.
That is why nobody is dead.
The BLM demonstrated decorum, good judgement and a willingness to back away and avoid bloodshed when confronted by those who were willing to stop them from completing their duties with the threat of deadly force.
 
Re: Cliven Bundy stands by racially charged comments, ‘That’s exactly what I said’

Buck Ewer said:
The BLM officers were not ready to start a fire fight over a bunch of cows... Bundy's militias however, were.
That is why the BLM backed away, to pursue law enforcement of the court order on another day in another setting without the bloodshed the militias were there itching for.
That is why nobody is dead.
They demonstrated decorum, good judgement and a willingness to back away and avoid bloodshed when confronted by those who were willing to stop them from completing their duties with the threat of deadly force.
Click to expand...

The BLM showed up like it was Mogadishu. Yes, they were ready for a firefight.

I believe it shows a very high degree of incompetance that NO ONE in the BLM said, "maybe we shouldn't roll in, armed to the teeth, looking like we're looking for trouble. It's just a buncha cows, afterall".
 
Re: Cliven Bundy stands by racially charged comments, ‘That’s exactly what I said’

Buck Ewer said:
The BLM officers were not ready to start a fire fight over a bunch of cows... Bundy's militias however, were.
That is why the BLM backed away, to pursue law enforcement of the court order on another day in another setting without the bloodshed the militias were there itching for.
That is why nobody is dead.
They demonstrated decorum, good judgement and a willingness to back away and avoid bloodshed when confronted by those who were willing to stop them from completing their duties with the threat of deadly force.
Click to expand...

A good call considering that the Bureau of Land Mismanagement has apparently allowed this free grazing (adverse use easement?) since 1993.

Something to think about: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/easement/easementsacquiredbyuseofproperty.pdf
 
Re: Cliven Bundy stands by racially charged comments, ‘That’s exactly what I said’

apdst said:
The BLM showed up like it was Mogadishu. Yes, they were ready for a firefight.

I believe it shows a very high degree of incompetance that NO ONE in the BLM said, "maybe we shouldn't roll in, armed to the teeth, looking like we're looking for trouble. It's just a buncha cows, afterall".
Click to expand...
They were armed as they were with backup from other agencies because Bundy's organizers had put out a call to arms across the country in the weeks prior to the confrontation. Some militias coming from as far away as New Hampshire and Idaho.
The BLM officers in charge said exactly that. It was not worth the potential for bloodshed they saw coming.
As you may remember it was the BLM who had the good sense to back away so no one would be killed ..."over a bunch of cows."
 
Re: Cliven Bundy stands by racially charged comments, ‘That’s exactly what I said’

Buck Ewer said:
They were armed as they were with backup from other agencies because Bundy's organizers had put out a call to arms across the country in the weeks prior to the confrontation. Some militias coming from as far away as New Hampshire and Idaho.
The BLM officers in charge said exactly that. It was not worth the potential for bloodshed they saw coming.
As you may remember it was the BLM who had the good sense to back away so no one would be killed ..."over a bunch of cows."
Click to expand...

That post just made the BLM look even more idiotic.
 
Re: Cliven Bundy stands by racially charged comments, ‘That’s exactly what I said’

ttwtt78640 said:
A good call considering that the Bureau of Land Mismanagement has apparently allowed this free grazing (adverse use easement?) since 1993.

Something to think about: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/easement/easementsacquiredbyuseofproperty.pdf
Click to expand...

The case has been in litigation for almost twenty years. The court order came down to confiscate Bundy's cattle just a few months ago. They were executing that recent court order when the brew-ha-ha ensued.
This could not be construed as "adverse use easement" because charges had been filed every year the trespass and un-authorized use occurred.
 
Last edited:
Re: Cliven Bundy stands by racially charged comments, ‘That’s exactly what I said’

apdst said:
That post just made the BLM look even more idiotic.
Click to expand...
No ...What would have made them look "idiotic" would be if they allowed bloodshed over, as you say ...a bunch of cows."
Of the two groups the BLM demonstrated the better judgement by backing away.
 
Re: Cliven Bundy stands by racially charged comments, ‘That’s exactly what I said’

Buck Ewer said:
No ...What would have made them look "idiotic" would be if they allowed bloodshed over, as you say ...a bunch of cows."
Of the two groups the BLM demonstrated the better judgement by backing away.
Click to expand...

If they already knew the militia people were going to be there, they should have never rolled in like Sherman's March, to begin with!
 
Re: Cliven Bundy stands by racially charged comments, ‘That’s exactly what I said’

apdst said:
And the clowns with the BLM were ready to kill people over a bunch of cows.

The long and the short of it is: was it really important enough to kill American citizens for?
Click to expand...

The real long and short of it is no one was injured or killed but dealing with a 20 year scofflaw with ties to violent anti-govt. groups is not only important, it is essential. The Govts. actions were totally correct and I can't believe any American would say otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Re: Cliven Bundy stands by racially charged comments, ‘That’s exactly what I said’

apdst said:
If they already knew the militia people were going to be there, they should have never rolled in like Sherman's March, to begin with!
Click to expand...
I'm certain that none of them knew, for sure, how successful the call to arms by Bundy's people would be until that day when they all met in that dry wash...
They had to at least attempt to act on the court order... You see it is their duty as sworn law enforcement agents.
When it became apparent that the militias would make good on Bundy's promise to do "whatever it takes"...
The BLM sensibly backed away.
 
Re: Cliven Bundy stands by racially charged comments, ‘That’s exactly what I said’

Alan Keyes, my candidate in 2000, lets the left have it with their twisting what Bundy said.

Bundy was recalling public housing projects in North Las Vegas.

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

Ammon Bundy, Cliven Bundy’s son, told WND that the quotes were taken out of context and that his father was commiserating over the poor situation in which blacks find themselves because of oppressive government programs, regulations and practices.

Keyes said that was evident. (Zimmer note: except for those who have eaten the dung from the NYT and cannot find the moral courage to state they have been duped.)

“I find it appalling that we basically have a history of the leftist liberalism that wants to extinguish black people by abortion [and] destroying the family structure,” Keyes told WND. “All of these things if you just look at the effects, you would say this was planned by some racist madman to destroy the black community.”

Then when somebody comes along to comment on that damage, the leftists all scream “racism,” he said.

“I think it’s time somebody started to recognize the racism that exists in its effects – the hard leftist ideology using the black community for their sacrificial lamb, for their sick ideology. It’s time we called them what they are,” he said.

“Now it’s racist to point it out.”


Conservative Musings: Alan Keyes Supports Clive Bundy. The Story Is Not The One Reported By New York Times, Surprised?
Click to expand...


Bundy in full:
…” and so what I’ve testified to ya’, I was in the WATTS riot, I seen the beginning fire and I seen the last fire. What I seen is civil disturbance. People are not happy, people is thinking they did not have their freedom; they didn’t have these things, and they didn’t have them.

We’ve progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and sure don’t want to go back; we sure don’t want the colored people to go back to that point; we sure don’t want the Mexican people to go back to that point; and we can make a difference right now by taking care of some of these bureaucracies, and do it in a peaceful way.

Let me tell.. talk to you about the Mexicans, and these are just things I know about the negroes. I want to tell you one more thing I know about the negro.

When I go, went, go to Las Vegas, North Las Vegas; and I would see these little government houses, and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids…. and there was 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 the kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for the young girls to do.

And because they were basically on government subsidy – so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never, they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered are they were better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things? Or are they better off under government subsidy?

You know they didn’t get more freedom, uh they got less freedom – they got less family life, and their happiness -you could see it in their faces- they were not happy sitting on that concrete sidewalk. Down there they was probably growing their turnips – so that’s all government, that’s not freedom.

Now, let me talk about the Spanish people. You know I understand that they come over here against our constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here and they’re people – and I’ve worked side-by-side a lot of them.

Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structure than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together, and I’ll tell you in my way of thinking they’re awful nice people.

And we need to have those people join us and be with us…. not, not come to our party.
Click to expand...
Compassion, concern, lament, respect and love for his fellow human beings... and disdain for what government has done to them.

And your NYT... why not aim your seething rage at the disgusting smear masters for lying to you and getting you all jerked up? This is the same evil that took Zimmerman's quote out of context to paint him as a racist.
 
Last edited:
Re: Cliven Bundy stands by racially charged comments, ‘That’s exactly what I said’

apdst said:
You're still sucking wind, my friend.
Click to expand...

You wanted link/s to BLM law enforcement, because didn't you say that the BLM didn't have law enforcement officers? And I gave you that.

I also gave you the address and phone number to the BLM in DC, so you could write or call them, and you don't want that now, and resort to a snarky response, how is anyone to take you seriously debating anything?
 
Re: Cliven Bundy stands by racially charged comments, ‘That’s exactly what I said’

TheNextEra said:
No it is my opinion. If I were an extremist I would say he was a racist.
Click to expand...
Calling someone and idiot who isn't, is extreme.
So you seem to be operating under the opinion that both aren't extreme positions to take when they are. :shrug:
That IS idiotic on your part and IS your problem, not mine.
 
Re: Bundy questioned whether blacks were better off as slaves

The Mark said:
I viewed his narrative about black persons as disparaging. Matter of opinion I suppose. And I think that he did not intend it as such - only his unwitting stereotypical view of things got in the way.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you did. :doh

The Mark said:
When someone uses the term/phrase "the negro", it sure as hell sounds to me as if he's referring to all black people.

What, only black people on welfare get to be called "the negro"?, now? How is that fair?
Click to expand...
Wtf?
Out of context.
It is more than apparent he is speaking to those in the welfare state.

Do you honestly think he was addressing those who weren't?
I would hope not as that would be out of context.
And yet here you are suggesting exactly that. :doh




The Mark said:
As I said, his comments make me think one of two things are likely:

  2. He has an appalling lack of knowledge, partially of history, partially of present, which led him to compare current conditions to conditions during slavery, and not instantly dismiss it as a reasonable comparison.
  3. He actually thinks slavery would be better for black persons.

As I see it, this means he was either unintentionally racist, or intentionally racist, with the former being most likely.
Click to expand...
Which is really asinine given the fact of content of context of what he said.
He was speaking concern, not hatred, intolerance or disparagement.


The Mark said:
As I said, I think he's unknowingly racist.

As in, he doesn't realize that what he's saying is racist.
Click to expand...
Which is really asinine given the fact of content of context of what he said. Nothing he said was racist.
He was speaking concern, not hatred, intolerance or disparagement.


The Mark said:
It was how he used it.

It appeared disparaging to me.
Click to expand...
How absurd. He didn't use it to disparage. In content and context there was no disparagement.


Excon said:
These are not the words of a racist.

We’ve progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and sure don’t want to go back; we sure don’t want the colored people to go back to that point; we sure don’t want the Mexican people to go back to that point; and we can make a difference right now by taking care of some of these bureaucracies, and do it in a peaceful way.​


Content and context matter. His words were not racist.
Click to expand...




reconmark said:
Fine I will, do you have the intelligence to comprehend it or the intellectual integrity to admit when I prove you wrong?

[Blah
Blah
Blah]
Click to expand...
Wow. You really went over the deep end with that irrelevant info.
His words were not racist.
Nothing you provided shows they were.
You have failed to prove what I said wrong. His words were not racist.
It is you who do not have the intellect or integrity to understand and admit the truth.


He was speaking concern, not hatred, intolerance, disparagement or of the thought that his race was better.
Especially as he said the Mexican's had better values. That is not what a racist says.


All you keep doing is showing that you do not have the ability to discern and comprehend outside of your own unintelligent ridiculous bias.
And when it is pointed out to you, you fail to have the integrity to admit you are wrong.
His words were not racist.
He was speaking concern, not hatred, intolerance, disparagement or of the thought that his race was better.
And yet here you are idiotically claiming a non-existent racism.
Truly sad.

One you should try to understand his comments in context.
He was speaking in comparison to.
And he said we do not want to go back to that. Or do you really not understand that?
Those are not the word of a racist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom