Senate The Bundy Standoff

This hasn't happened. I criticized a specific conservative commentator and her fans by saying that particular segment of the conservative movement encourages racist discourse by making sympathetic comments here. What part of that is generalizing? Bundy's viewpoint should be disqualifying. Encouraging his viewpoint should be disqualifying. Period.

I've never said my criticisms apply to all conservatives. I said there is a fraction of conservatives to whom it applies.

 

"Fraction of" I could handle...But that's a focusing down on the original scope. "Significant portion of" or the "group of" is much more broad. But that's not even the point. It's not about a specific commentator, because anyone could tit for tat personality figures all day long. It's about the specific issues contained within.

-Originally, there was a core group of supporters who were basically Bundy's neighbors in the area and who criticized their local sheriff. Which "side" does that represent?

-When the story broke, there was a small subset of people who supported the larger issue of federal government intrusion without knowing anything specifically about Bundy. Rogue Ten even, in his typical way, mentioned the Marxists who might support Bundy's collective property stance. Which "side" does that represent? *Hint-it has nothing to do with him specifically.

-As Bundy stood firm, taxation protestors from the left and right also kind of identified with him. Which "side" does that represent? *Hint-it has nothing to do with him specifically.

-Today, prior quotes from Bundy broke which indicated that he had racist views, which was the first time people were forced to look at Bundy the person, and not just some faceless issue on the news. When his racist views broke, I bet it caused 99% of both sides to rethink their support.

When this was just a broad story, people from Marxists on the left to survivalist militias on the right simply looked at the general issue. When it was just a poor rancher sticking it to the federal government, everyone from anonymous to occupy to the freemen movement was sympathetic. Could someone have a mixture of all of the above or none of the above? Sure. There is a "fraction" of both conservatives and liberals who supported the issue, not necessarily the person. That is, besides the personalities who make a living by remaining controversial.

Now, my point is that I'm completely baffled how anyone could ignore all of those specific points and counter-points, and sit back and say "well, Bundy is conservative hero....Rush Limbaugh said so" and act like that statement has any meaning whatsoever.

 

Put Rush Limbaugh and Hannity together and you have an audience at least 10% of the U.S. population, overwhelmingly Republican. Of course it has meaning when Limbaugh floats Bundy as a senatorial candidate. And it's about him specifically.

 

So in layman's terms, this thread is revolving around another wacky conservative?

 

You almost could tell what Bundy was thinking in advance of him even opening his mouth by the mere fact that racist magnet Rand Paul was hovering around him.

 

Yes, because every listener who tunes into Rush does so for no other reason than to get Bundy elected to Congress. Out of however many hours a show is, it's the only thing that is discussed or matters. Since I don't listen to Limbaugh and you haven't even put up a specific quote, I don't even know how serious that was, if it was made in passing, when it was made, or if it was a serious call for him to run. I could certainly see Rush or Hannity say something along the lines of "You go Bundy, let's get that guy to run for Congress!" Without it being a serious call for election.

Hey, remember when Sandra Fluke didn't want to pay for birth control, and people like Henry Waxman was touting her to run for Congress, not because of her qualifications, but because she became e-(in)famous? Why, Waxman was an actual sitting politician, and not just a radio personality. Limbaugh makes a living by stirring the pot. Waxman presumably should have known better. (although he is retiring) Fluke was even a "welcomed speaker" at the 2012 democratic national convention. Which is worse?

My point isn't about birth control, but how some people get wrapped up in a moment of time and single issue candidates are a bad idea.

 

sandra fluke is a lawyer and a women's rights activist. these are generally considered decent springboards for political involvement. also "didnt want to pay for birth control"

**** off

and i cant speak for "anonymous" and other strawmen you have constructed in your mind, but any marxist "support" of bundy was, like mine earlier in this thread, expressed facetiously, as a way of calling attention to the hypocracy of populist conservatives. of course marxists are not going to support a wealthy rancher trying to claim public land. the goshute tribes that originally inhabited that land, to name one group, have a far stronger claim to it than some rancher with (nonexistant) mormon ancestors who used the land (apparently its now come out that his family was in arizona until the 1950s, lol)

another tack marxists have taken with this issue is "wow, look at how much more effective the populist right is than us, ****"

 

See, that's my point. Way to pull a George Clooney.

You can make broad judgements against who you view as the other side all day long, even though the issue is more nuanced than that, but the first time a debate finger pointed back at you, it's all "How dare you make broad generalizations! I'm taking my toys and going home!"

Score one for critical analysis, eh?

 

As someone who does tune in to Limbaugh and Beck and even Hannity, I can tell you this was a huge deal in their stirring the pot nonsense. I don't give them credibility, they are charlatans of the worst sort. But their audience are the Bundys and the Duck Dynastys and the Nugents. I can group it all into one giant ball of crap. And that giant ball consists of a large population of voters of approx half this country. The Electoral College made it look like a landslide and that is terribly misleading.

It is hard to listen to those shows for more than a few minutes, but I wish to be informed as to what they are saying.

 

What's interesting to me is that the Rand Pauls of the world ought to know better than to buddy up to these guys, because racism is invariably lurking around the core Tea Party types, and it's so deeply embedded in their psyches that people like Bundy aren't even aware that comments like these are considered racist by an outside world. They don't live in that world. The world they live in, comments like that are daily conversation at the dinner table. But the reason the Rand Pauls of the world do hover around guys like Bundy is that they are racist sympathizers and secret racists themselves, just a barely clever enough to try to conceal it.

 

This. That is so very accurate. I have been watching this ridiculous sum of people reveal it since 9/11. It has been amazing to watch this really happen, but there it is.

 

ummmm you're making demonstrably false equivalences that nobody except yourself appears to be buying. and i didnt accuse you of making a "broad generalization", i pointed out that you flat out made that up. there has been no "marxist support" of bundy. the last time a marxist had a strong opinion about someone like bundy it was during collectivization under stalin

expecting an experienced activist and lawyer to run for political office is in no way equivalent to advocating that racist rancher violently refuses to pay his fines run for senate

 

It's white angst over the big demographic shift, getting more angsty with each passing year. Rand Paul is trying to ride that wave while trying to distance himself from it, while trying to ride it. While pretending not to be riding it.

People focus on the ethnic minority aspect of the shift, but ignore the age part. The number of people in their nineties is going to triple by 2042. That scares me. They'll be waving their canes around like those documentary reels of the last Civil War veterans on parade. If you think Bundy is a douchy old coot now, imagine what he'll be like if he's alive 28 years from now.

 

"They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton...are they better off as slaves...". WTF. Perhaps his first move in political office should be to pass mandatory cotton picking classes for all negroes so that they can BE FREE

 

Rogue, the point is that all of that is only true from your point of view. I never said Fluke wasn't qualified, I said she was vaulted to instant e-fame for a single issue. if you're so offended by distilling Fluke's issue down to a soundbite, then don't do the exact same thing to others. Especially if it's going to bend you so out of shape when it's done back at you.

There most certainly was marxist support for Bundy when this was first reported on. It just doesn't fit within your "us vs them" mentality, so you choose to ignore it. I did more than outline how this unfolded, and how, just like every other issue in the world, it isn't a binary one. Previously, I mentioned the occupy movement, because when this Bundy issue first broke, there was some occupy cross-identification with his stance against the federal government. But since that doesn't agree with your mindset, you just ignore that part of reality. You can't see the issues that revolve around property rights, government overreach, and the like, because in your mind, this is about nothing other than "Bundy is a racist, and therefore all conservatives are racist," and you don't care about any other specifics.

Again, if Bundy actually runs for Congress, instead of sitting in jail, (or ends up dead from a hail of FBI gunfire) come talk to me. If some conservative analysis comes down from a credible source, come talk to me. Well, I'm quite sure that A LOT of people on BOTH sides who may have supported Bundy without knowing much about him will be rethinking their support, and this will become just another forgotten issue du jour.

Jabba, I have to give you credit for a masterful dodge. Rogue should send you a big bag of cookies as a thank you.

 

Let me tell you about the Negro.

It's the Spanish word for "black."

 

i only hope we manage to initiate some sort of cataclysm before i get anywhere near 90, because i may lack the constitution for autoeuthanasia

 

I couldn't make any sense of your post, my old friend, so I didn't even know how to dodge it. I simply moved on.

 

google doesnt agree. first of all, occupy is a far broader movement than "marxists", including liberals, anarchists, so on an so forth. second of all, a search for "occupy supports bundy" reveals a newsbusters article chastizing occupy-supporters for not falling in line with bundy and an article about o'reilly doing the same. occupy reno may have shared a support bundy photo, but again, that's one branch facebook page, the bottom line is, it seems the occupy support of bundy exists largely in the fevered minds of conservatives, like yourself, who understand neither situation

marxists support bundy reveals a bunch of angry right wing nonsense and, in the third result... my post in this very thread, so you can see how fertile that ground is. would you like to scramble for a different boogeyman out of your bag of tricks to lie about? silly me, of course you would. floor's yours

 

So 2012 didn't happen?

 

no, he's right, occupy was pretty much another huge, sad, failure-to-launch of the american left

btw, 2012 marked the 100th anniversary of the last time a socialist got any appreciable percentage of the popular vote in a united states presidential election

 

Rogue, I'll give you that occupy is a far broader movement than "marxists", including liberals, anarchists, so on an so forth... If I gave the impression that one uniquely defined the other, then that's not true.

But....that....is....exactly....my....point.... You can sit there with all seriousness and point out that a group like "occupy" is a nuanced collection of differing ideologies which may or may not coalesce under a broad umbrella and mean it. Or become offended because Sandra Fluke isn't just a soundbite and has nuance herself, and so on. But then, in the exact same post, you express an idea that "conservatives are racist, no if ands or buts" or that Rush Limbaugh represents every right leaning politician in the country, no nuance needed or wanted. That's fine if all you want to do is tear the other side down regardless of issue, but not so good if you want to actually examine anything.

If Bundy came out in a white KKK robe from the beginning, you might have a point. But for a week, this issue was about community property, and eminent domain and government taxation. At least in the Chicago metro area (because said area is easily 90% democratic party) there was quite a bit of occupy/leftist cross identification with the issue. No one carried about Bundy, the person, nor did anyone know anything about him. It was just a faceless issue where some guy was "sticking it to the man." Now, a week later, racist quotes emerge from Bundy, and you're acting like everyone should have known that from the beginning but only holding the right wing to that standard. Quite a few people on...both..sides....will now distance themselves from Bundy for precisely that reason, and he will fade away. (or it will at least go back to being a local Sheriff/Dept of the Interior issue in Nevada.) That is, unless some other sensational event happens like there is a Waco-revisited siege or something that is newsworthy.