Where is this country really headed?

[Langston Hughes]

Don't see what his comments have to do with anything going on. Of course, you see everything as being motivated by race, so...

That's a distortion. I said I felt he was motivated by self interest and getting over using false claims of right. I included the analysis by a Nevada tv news that showed his claim was untrue and you made no comment on it as did his supporters. Then he comes out and makes bigoted statements not just to supporters at his place but on a radio program. I post those because not only is he a fraud who has no ancestral rights he is ALSO a bigot.

 

No one had to see race, he went out of his way to make it known. Until he made his comments he was just another wannabe who used the anti-government sentiment for personal gain. Then he added bigot to his resume.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Langston Hughes

[NickF1011]

That's a distortion. I said I felt he was motivated by self interest and getting over using false claims of right. I included the analysis by a Nevada tv news that showed his claim was untrue and you made no comment on it as did his supporters. Then he comes out and makes bigoted statements not just to supporters at his place but on a radio program. I post those because not only is he a fraud who has no ancestral rights he is ALSO a bigot.

 

No one had to see race, he went out of his way to make it known. Until he made his comments he was just another wannabe who used the anti-government sentiment for personal gain. Then he added bigot to his resume.

And what does "bigot" being on his resume have to do with anything that is actually happening there, except that it helps rile up the opposition?

[Langston Hughes]

And what does "bigot" being on his resume have to do with anything that is actually happening there, except that it helps rile up the opposition?

It's just par for the course. I like the comments DL Hughley made on his show...."how did we get dragged into it....why do these anti-government types try to fix the black man?"

 

Too me it's just another typical character flaw that runs deep in the most vocal anti-government types. You'll object to that but this guy is a fraud who couches his personal feelings in anti-government rants.

[FiredMotorCompany]

It's just par for the course. I like the comments DL Hughley made on his show...."how did we get dragged into it....why do these anti-government types try to fix the black man?"

 

Too me it's just another typical character flaw that runs deep in the most vocal anti-government types. You'll object to that but this guy is a fraud who couches his personal feelings in anti-government rants.

So racists or others who express unpopular or distasteful opinions are not to expect justice...because of their opinions?

 

A man can be denied justice because people don't like him?

 

The issue is the legal access to the grazing land and assertions by BLM that fees are due. Whether he is a racist, or an Obama campaign donor should play no part in the resolution.

Edited April 25, 2014 by FiredMotorCompany

[Langston Hughes]

So racists or others who express unpopular or distasteful opinions are not to expect justice...because of their opinions?

 

A man can be denied justice because people don't like him?

 

The issue is the legal access to the grazing land and assertions by BLM that fees are due. Whether he is a racist, or an Obama campaign donor should play no part in the resolution.

 

The legal access to the BLM land has been decided already, in court. What is now happening is the freakshow act where he makes wild claims, various people angry at the government buy into it and try to act like he's being treated unfairly. As for his claims to ancestral rights through his maternal grandparents, a local TV news took a look at it and it seems that his claims do not hold water.

 

Posted 22 April 2014 - 04:41 PM

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25302186/an-abbreviated-look-at-rancher-cliven-bundys-family-history

Now what happens if the new story is correct that the Bundy family does not have ancestral claim to this land? What if he's been pretty loose with his story?

 

 

There was no reply to this, which i expected because it is pretty damaging to Cliven bundy's case.

 

Bundy repeated a similar claim Thursday when he told TheBlaze website: “My family has preemptive, adjudicated livestock water rights filed with the state of Nevada. They were established in 1877 when the first pioneers entered the valley. Among those first pioneers were my grandparents from my mother’s side. My father either bought or inherited his Nevada state livestock water rights and I, in turn, have done the same.”

Contrast that with the 1998 opinion from U.S. District Judge Johnnie Rawlinson in a case where it was determined Bundy wouldn’t be allowed to use federal land for his cattle because of failure to pay grazing fees to the Bureau of Land Management. Rawlinson wrote that it wasn’t until roughly 1954 that “Bundy or his father or both have grazed livestock on public lands owned by the United States and administered by the BLM.”

 

 

You are correct that it doesn't affect his legal case, but we are not discussing his legal case, we are discussing the sideshow around the case. The BLM has a court order giving them the right to round up the cattle. The court has ordered fees to be paid and assessed the higher fees. So his feelings about slavery and black people are a part of the sideshow and this discussion.

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

You are correct that it doesn't affect his legal case, but we are not discussing his legal case, we are discussing the sideshow around the case. The BLM has a court order giving them the right to round up the cattle. The court has ordered fees to be paid and assessed the higher fees. So his feelings about slavery and black people are a part of the sideshow and this discussion.

No. You were just trying to throw aspersions upon anyone and everyone that objects to the blatant abuses this administration and government in general perpetrate daily.

[Langston Hughes]

No. You were just trying to throw aspersions upon anyone and everyone that objects to the blatant abuses this administration and government in general perpetrate daily.

Well so much for your sabbatical and playing nice. .

 

Fired,

He's a fraud and a bigot. Both of these things he brought on himself with these "claims" of his. Do you want to debate either his feelings on "the Negro" or his "pre-emptive rights?" We can either/both debates if you would wish. It's pretty clear that Cliven Bundy is a sinking ship as even his most ardent TV supporter Hannity denounced his most recent statement about "the Negro." Now that people are seeing how fictitious his claim to "pre-emptive rights" are and the type of man he is, the only people standing with him will be people of the same ilk.

[FiredMotorCompany]

Well so much for your sabbatical and playing nice. .

 

Fired,

He's a fraud and a bigot. Both of these things he brought on himself with these "claims" of his. Do you want to debate either his feelings on "the Negro" or his "pre-emptive rights?" We can either/both debates if you would wish. It's pretty clear that Cliven Bundy is a sinking ship as even his most ardent TV supporter Hannity denounced his most recent statement about "the Negro." Now that people are seeing how fictitious his claim to "pre-emptive rights" are and the type of man he is, the only people standing with him will be people of the same ilk.

Playing nice?

 

I am not defending Clive Bundy. I am reacting to your statements that seem to suggest that his racial comments are further justification for his prosecution.

[Langston Hughes]

Playing nice?

 

I am not defending Clive Bundy. I am reacting to your statements that seem to suggest that his racial comments are further justification for his prosecution.

His racial comments are only further proof that he's part of the lunatic fringe. That is all. Edited April 25, 2014 by Langston Hughes

[sprinter]

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25302186/an-abbreviated-look-at-rancher-cliven-bundys-family-history

 

Now what happens if the new story is correct that the Bundy family does not have ancestral claim to this land? What if he's been pretty loose with his story?

Lets analyze a couple of paragraphs from the KLAS-TV article:

 

Bundy repeated a similar claim Thursday when he told TheBlaze website: “My family has preemptive, adjudicated livestock water rights filed with the state of Nevada. They were established in 1877 when the first pioneers entered the valley. Among those first pioneers were my grandparents from my mother’s side. My father either bought or inherited his Nevada state livestock water rights and I, in turn, have done the same.”

 

Separate records from the website FamilySearch, which is sponsored by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, indicate that Christena Jensen was born in Nevada in 1901 and that Bodel Jensen was born in Nevada in 1924. Christena Jensen’s parents originally were from Utah. This is the side of the family where Cliven Bundy claims long-standing livestock water rights.

 

Bundy claims that his grandparents on his mother’s side owned the land which gives him the right that he now has. Looking at the second paragraph, his grandmother Christena was born in Nevada in 1901 and Christena parents were originally were from Utah. So her parents were probably born in Utah and moved to Nevada when? The article doesn’t state that. In all probability they could have owed the land in 1877 which is 24 years before Christena was born. But the article suggests the 1877 date is incorrect but has no proof it isn’t. Nevada’s first census was in 1875 according to Ancestry.com “In 1875, the state legislature of Nevada ordered a state census. During the first 15 years of statehood, Nevada had seen an enormous influx of people. The silver boom was at its height, and the population was higher than it would be at any time during the 19th century.”

 

The person who done all the back ground checks for the news article work pretty hard digging through old documents trying to insinuate Bundy is lying. However, more of the opposite is proven. Why did they skip on providing the documents from the FamilySearch website? Also the 1875 Nevada census could possibly have shown Christena’s mother and father living someplace in Nevada. I’m sure the first state census is well preserved and archived for study. Why not provide that information too? But the real kicker in the whole story is that the article acts like the Bundy’s mothers side isn’t real family. Just because the rights were not pass down from the Bundy’s side of the family doesn’t make it fraudulent.

 

This is for you LH

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Orfj-DdB1A8/TK3-nyPkhHI/AAAAAAAAANA/J67a7NLdVN0/s1600/Bill+Engvall+Here%27s+Your+Sign.jpg

[NickF1011]

It's just par for the course. I like the comments DL Hughley made on his show...."how did we get dragged into it....why do these anti-government types try to fix the black man?"

 

Too me it's just another typical character flaw that runs deep in the most vocal anti-government types. You'll object to that but this guy is a fraud who couches his personal feelings in anti-government rants.

 

You point it out because it fits your (incorrect) stereotype of what conservatives are. Nothing more, nothing less. If it was so "typical", you wouldn't have to point it out. Everybody would already assume it.

[FiredMotorCompany]

His racial comments are only further proof that he's part of the lunatic fringe. That is all.

A lunitic...maybe. But your attempt to slander those you disagree with by calling him and them "lunitic fringe" is disingenuous and petty.

 

*-corrected spelling

Edited April 25, 2014 by FiredMotorCompany

[xr7g428]

So now it looks like there are two versions of what Bundy said and they are very different. It appears that the New York Times and Media Matters did some serious editing to change the nature of what he was saying.

 

I am not choosing any side in this as I don't think we have all of he facts or that either side is really coming to the table with clean hands. It sounds like the government was being used to further a special interest, and that Bundy hasn't been paying. What ever it is, the problem has nothing to do with desert tortoises.

 

First the full clip:

 

http://youtu.be/agXns-W60MI

And then the edited version:

 

http://youtu.be/FbnRnhrNFEY

Edited April 25, 2014 by xr7g428

[sprinter]

If you prefer to read it:

 

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/unedited-tape-bundy-emerges-sheds-light-racist-remarks

 

And the NY Times has been caught lying before:

 

http://www.bing.com/search?q=ny+times+caught+lying&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=ny+times+caught+lying&sc=0-11&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=f8b7f8eea2494d80a8b3f7a197b01239

 

[FiredMotorCompany]

If you prefer to read it:

 

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/unedited-tape-bundy-emerges-sheds-light-racist-remarks

 

And the NY Times has been caught lying before:

 

http://www.bing.com/search?q=ny+times+caught+lying&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=ny+times+caught+lying&sc=0-11&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=f8b7f8eea2494d80a8b3f7a197b01239

 

What? Out of context excerpts aren't cricket?

 

I'm shocked........................................not.

[fmccap]

Well so much for your sabbatical and playing nice. .

 

Fired,

He's a fraud and a bigot. Both of these things he brought on himself with these "claims" of his. Do you want to debate either his feelings on "the Negro" or his "pre-emptive rights?" We can either/both debates if you would wish. It's pretty clear that Cliven Bundy is a sinking ship as even his most ardent TV supporter Hannity denounced his most recent statement about "the Negro." Now that people are seeing how fictitious his claim to "pre-emptive rights" are and the type of man he is, the only people standing with him will be people of the same ilk.

Another racist bigot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMyV9632PZA

 

A CNN interview with a black man defending Bundy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu_YKgGRFZ8

[cal50]

 

You point it out because it fits your (incorrect) stereotype of what conservatives are. Nothing more, nothing less. If it was so "typical", you wouldn't have to point it out. Everybody would already assume it.

 

 

The person that does race baiting also take the bait and runs with it equally well.

[Langston Hughes]

Lets analyze a couple of paragraphs from the KLAS-TV article:

 

Bundy repeated a similar claim Thursday when he told TheBlaze website: “My family has preemptive, adjudicated livestock water rights filed with the state of Nevada. They were established in 1877 when the first pioneers entered the valley. Among those first pioneers were my grandparents from my mother’s side. My father either bought or inherited his Nevada state livestock water rights and I, in turn, have done the same.”

 

Separate records from the website FamilySearch, which is sponsored by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, indicate that Christena Jensen was born in Nevada in 1901 and that Bodel Jensen was born in Nevada in 1924. Christena Jensen’s parents originally were from Utah. This is the side of the family where Cliven Bundy claims long-standing livestock water rights.

 

Bundy claims that his grandparents on his mother’s side owned the land which gives him the right that he now has. Looking at the second paragraph, his grandmother Christena was born in Nevada in 1901 and Christena parents were originally were from Utah. So her parents were probably born in Utah and moved to Nevada when? The article doesn’t state that. In all probability they could have owed the land in 1877 which is 24 years before Christena was born. But the article suggests the 1877 date is incorrect but has no proof it isn’t. Nevada’s first census was in 1875 according to Ancestry.com “In 1875, the state legislature of Nevada ordered a state census. During the first 15 years of statehood, Nevada had seen an enormous influx of people. The silver boom was at its height, and the population was higher than it would be at any time during the 19th century.”

 

The person who done all the back ground checks for the news article work pretty hard digging through old documents trying to insinuate Bundy is lying. However, more of the opposite is proven. Why did they skip on providing the documents from the FamilySearch website? Also the 1875 Nevada census could possibly have shown Christena’s mother and father living someplace in Nevada. I’m sure the first state census is well preserved and archived for study. Why not provide that information too? But the real kicker in the whole story is that the article acts like the Bundy’s mothers side isn’t real family. Just because the rights were not pass down from the Bundy’s side of the family doesn’t make it fraudulent.

 

This is for you LH

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Orfj-DdB1A8/TK3-nyPkhHI/AAAAAAAAANA/J67a7NLdVN0/s1600/Bill+Engvall+Here%27s+Your+Sign.jpg

 

Sprinter,

You can not have ancestral rights if your mother leaves the state, marries a man and then later returns and buys property that her family has never lived on before.

 

 

And here's a decision against Bundy long before there was any talk of Solar

 

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Order-US-v.-Bundy-7-9-13.pdf

 

As this court previously ruled in United States v. Bundy, Case No. CV-S-

98-531-JBR (RJJ) (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 1998), “the public lands in Nevada are the property of the United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, whenMexico ceded the land to the United States.” CV-S-98-531 at 8 (citing United States v. Gardner,107 F.3d 1314, 1318 (9th Cir. 1997)). Moreover, Bundy is incorrect in claiming that the Disclaimer Clause of the Nevada Constitution carries no legal force, see Gardner, 107 F.3d at 1320; that the Property Clause of the United States Constitution applies only to federal lands outside the borders of states, see id. at 1320; that the United States‘ exercise of ownership over federal lands violates the Equal Footing Doctrine, see id. at 1319; that the United States is basing its authority to sanction Bundy for his unauthorized use of federal lands on the Endangered Species Act as opposed to trespass, see Compl. at ¶¶ 1,3, 26-39; and that Nevada’s “Open Range” statute excuses Bundy’s trespass. See e.g., Gardner, 107 F.3d at 1320 (under Supremacy Clause state statute in conflict with federal law requiring permit to grazewould be trumped).

 

 

Edited April 25, 2014 by Langston Hughes

[Langston Hughes]

If you prefer to read it:

 

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/unedited-tape-bundy-emerges-sheds-light-racist-remarks

 

And the NY Times has been caught lying before:

 

http://www.bing.com/search?q=ny+times+caught+lying&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=ny+times+caught+lying&sc=0-11&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=f8b7f8eea2494d80a8b3f7a197b01239

 

 

Wow, it's still bigoted. All that and he's still a anti-government bigot. Good job.

 

and here's the unedited radio interview about his comments

 

http://www.mediaite.com/online/bundy-explains-negro-remarks-im-wondering-if-theyre-better-off-being-slaves/

 

Are you by chance wondering whether blacks are better off as property and able to be beaten, sold, killed, raped and tortured without consequence to the owners or do you denounce his remarks as ignorant?

Edited April 25, 2014 by Langston Hughes

[Langston Hughes]

A lunitic...maybe. But you're attempt to slander those you disagree with by calling him and them "lunitic fringe" is disingenuous and petty.

 

I'm not slandering Cliven Bundy.

 

slan·der

ˈslandər/Submit

nounLAW

1.

the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.

"he is suing the TV network for slander

 

[Langston Hughes]

Another racist bigot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMyV9632PZA

 

A CNN interview with a black man defending Bundy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu_YKgGRFZ8

 

So you found Cliven Bundy's one black friend, but ignore the rest of the black people offended by what he said. Good Job.

 

So are you wondering if black people are better off as slaves?

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

I'm not slandering Cliven Bundy.

 

Read my comment again. I didn't accuse you of slandering Bundy. I accused you of slandering those you grouped him with.

 

Try again.

Edited April 25, 2014 by FiredMotorCompany

[Langston Hughes]

 

You point it out because it fits your (incorrect) stereotype of what conservatives are. Nothing more, nothing less. If it was so "typical", you wouldn't have to point it out. Everybody would already assume it.

 

i point it out because it is that typical and still denied by conservatives.

[Langston Hughes]

Read my comment again. I didn't accuse you of slandering Bundy. I accused you of slandering those you grouped him with.

 

Try again.

 

I didn't slander anyone, including Cliven Bundy.

[sprinter]

 

 

Sprinter,

You can not have ancestral rights if your mother leaves the state, marries a man and then later returns and buys property that her family has never lived on before.

 

 

Where did the tard come up with this?