'Wait, that was racist?', Wild West edition

*headshot*

/thread

 

It's also worth noting that Bundy was using that example to illustrate his anti-government stance, which has been co-opted, with Bundy as the poster boy, by several prominent politicians and an entire teevee network.

Therefore, his views on race are absolutely fair game.

 

Glenn Thrush ‏@GlennThrush 29m

Pro tip: When .@adamnagourney is the only guy at your press conference, this happens. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?hpw&rref=us …

 

Occasional rancher Gene Lyons weighs in

http://www.nationalmemo.com/bundy-standoff-fox-news-costume-drama/

On a side note, my family has had a a cattle operation in the past. We leased land to run the cows on and we paid for it. If we hadn't, the person who owned the land, would have taken the cows.

The BLM stuff, its all a smokescreen. Dude's a deadbeat and he either needs to pay or lose his cattle.

 

Bundy can be wrong, he can be selfish, a freeloader, a liar and a fame whore.

That has no bearing on whether or not the BLM acted responsibly, or whether land policy in general should be reexamined.

 

How much more responsibly can the BLM act, than withdrawing from a court-mandated action to avoid confrontation between armed agents and armed protesters?

And, this argument (not between you and I, just in general) is NOT about land policy being reexamined, and you know that.

 

Without weighing in on the bigger issue, I think the BLM deserves a LOT of credit for backing down when violence seemed inevitable. (And it actually compared favorably with past instances in which the government seemed more interested "in winning" no matter what the cost in violence). Cliven Bundy is an annoyance. But he's not worth anyone -- even crazy people -- losing their lives over. That's why I hope the government continues with its cautious approach and doesn't listen to those on the sidelines who seem to want violence in order to teach the protesters a lesson. That never ends well.

 

After this interview I think they're going to be able to tell him to pay, to get his cattle off the land (if they aren't supposed to be there), and nobody is going to ride to his rescue again. Certainly Fox News and wingnut radio won't.

 

The BLM did eventually withdraw, yes. But were all of their actions responsible up to that point.

As for the argument, like a lot of things, people of the fringe will cling to certain aspects of it. But, while land policy has been set, and examined, it's never received this much publicity, or been considered by so many people.

I think most people were unaware of the fact that the Feds own so much Western land.

Are those lands best managed from Washington, or could there be better stewards of the lands?

 

That is not one-hundredth of one percent of the issue as Cliven Bundy or his supporters saw it.

The issue was he has the rights to do whatever he wants. Except he doesn't.

 

Who's argued this?

Not me. Has anyone else said this?

 

Uh, Cliven Bundy?

Deliberately obtuse is not your thing.