Posted on 04/24/2014 10:44:44 AM PDT by absentee
[embeddable youtube of audio is at the link]
"That's exactly what I said. I said I'm wondering if they're better off under government subsidy, and their young women are having the abortions and their young men are in jail, and their older women and their children are standing, sitting out on the cement porch without nothing to do, you know, I'm wondering: Are they happier now under this government subsidy system than they were when they were slaves, and they was able to have their family structure together, and the chickens and garden, and the people had something to do? And so, in my mind I'm wondering, are they better off being slaves, in that sense, or better off being slaves to the United States government, in the sense of the subsidies. I'm wondering. That's what. And the statement was right. I am wondering."
(Excerpt) Read more at therightscoop.com ...
Nah, just modifies the dimension.
>> That is the antithesis of the American dream.
Of course the thesis of the American dream is neither about fatherless homes, abortion, incarceration, crack, welfare, etc...
How are Bundy’s remarks any worse than something Biden would say?
Dear FRiend, just amongst us FRiends here, let me give you my thoughts on race -- in every way, shape & form relevant:
I believe every "race" (whatever that word might mean) is the same in having a few super-achievers (i.e., the Bill Gates, Herman Cains, & say, Senator Inouyes), many solid citizens, and some no-accounts.
You may remember the term "poor white trash" not only comes from the slave-era, but was first used by black house-slaves, referring to white people of even lower social status than themselves.
So slavery for them was preferable to conditions of some others, i.e., "white trash".
Even today, our welfare roles are filled with a majority of poor white people, people for whom the words "land of the free, home of the brave" are meaningless gibberish.
They care about one thing only: when is the next government hand-out?
These people, as much as some blacks, are wards (="slaves") of the state, and their votes maintain the welfare systems we have today.
The fact that "slavery" to government is easier life than the old ante-bellum form, should not make it more socially acceptable, and government policies should be directed towards freeing the "slaves" from its own benign clutches.
Doubtless some of these guys are old Southern Democrats, or even Dixie-crats, but it's really not necessary for today's Dems to "plant" anyone.
All they really have to do is make d*mn-sure that any off-the-wall, misinterpret-able statements by conservatives get the widest possible publicity.
Of course, you know the definition of "good luck": where preparation meets opportunity.
Bundy's statements are good-luck for Democrats/media.
To me the issue is clear: “does a welfare/entitlement lifestyle lead to a loss of initiative, an acceptance of dependence, and a generational effect?”
First of all, ante-bellum slavery was weaker in border-states (Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri), stronger in the Upper South (Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas) and virtually iron-clad in the Deep South (South Carolina through Texas).
In the Deep South, in practical terms, there was no escape.
But more to the point, FRiend, if you expand today's definition of "slavery" to mean "any and all obligations", then there's no such thing as "freedom", since we all owe something to someone for some past or future blessing.
But the real issue here is whether such obligations were freely entered into, or not.
As voting citizens, we are obligated to obey all laws, even such "slave-like" obligations as war-time military drafts.
But we remain "free" so long as we consider those laws to be self-imposed.
And, of course, we are always free to leave a state or country whose laws we don't like, for one whose laws we prefer.
So, to use your example: people working for their long-term retirement, who begin to chafe under the harness they've put on themselves are still free to leave.
Not without costs, of course, but those are the terms of agreements they freely chose.
In that sense, our welfare-class did chose their life-style, and can leave it if they wish.
But the fact is, many won't (making them government "slaves") until they are pushed, and trained, and motivated, and offered opportunities then kicked in the b*tt to rejoin "the land of the free, home of the brave".
That should be our ideal and goal, regardless of how often or how far we fall short of it.
That's a worthy thought worth considering.
Why, for example, was he at Watts as he claims? Perhaps he was doing his Mormon obligation as a young man to be a missionary. Who knows? There does appear to be many more democrat Mormons than I imagined. Reid has been all around his property years now. One would think they'd had some kind of contact even if only through Reid's land business intermediaries.
My gut says that's just too elaborate a scheme for anyone to pull off, but it wouldn't hurt anything to know his voting record.
Bundy commented on the urban black subculture.
To survive the NAACP et al requires homogenity. There can be no divisions between good and bad or have and have not nor educated and uneducated black former slaves. They are all alike in the eyes of the racists black leadership.
The black population must be lumped.
Unlike spotted owls there can be no subgroups. Splitting , even obvious splitting, is not allowed. The wealthy unmarried common law wife of a zillionaire pro basketball star is no different than the slimy commonlaw wife of a projects street corner drug dealer.
“In my humble opinion, anyone who defends slavery is an enemy of freedom.”
Who defended slavery?
This was a premeditated hit, a setup by a homosexual Times reporter.
Right out of alinsky's rules for radicals.
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
That said, many on here trashing Mr Bundy, I am not familiar with a lot of names.
Sleeper agents or trolls?
The rest of you, didn't you learn anything from the George Zimmerman fiasco?
Anyone who believes that blacks were better off under the chattel slavery system of 17th, 18th and 19th century America.
“Anyone who believes that blacks were better off under the chattel slavery system of 17th, 18th and 19th century America.”
Of course liberty is better than slavery. Goes without saying.
However, there are other aspects of the question that can be discussed—if one has the fortitude and the ability to see vital distinctions.
Consider just their physical well-being—and the “they” to whom I refer are not fine people like Thomas Sowell (Sowell for President), or even prosperous scoundrels like Al Sharpton.
The “they” to whom Bundy referred, and to whom I now refer, are the denizens of the slums. Born perhaps with little chance, but in any case now living on the dole, with all the problems we have heard about until we can’t stand one more recitation.
Take liberty out of the equation, just as a philosophical exercise, and consider their physical well-being. Slaves did not have the benefit of modern medicine, so control for that as well.
There’s a lot to think about, isn’t there? What about the possibility of a whipping versus the danger of a stomping or stabbing at a school that is not teaching you to read or do arithmetic?
There are certainly problems with prenatal care in our slums. Fetal alcohol syndrome, crack babies, mothers smoking and eating a terrible diet...
And what about the rights of the preborn? It was announced that for the last year for which data were available, more black babies were aborted than born in New York City.
Similar questions could be asked about spiritual well-being.
Of course it is human liberty and dignity that finally decide the question, no matter where our musings may take us, but consider this: What if Bundy had said, “Look what they’ve done with their freedom?”
Would that have been more palatable than what he actually said? Because that is the meaning I took.
Now, to history. There was no slavery in the United States of America in the 17th century, for the very good reason that no such country existed.
Slavery existed in America from the date of the founding—which some people date from 1776, others from 1789, and for all I know still others from 1968. It was outlawed by the 13th Amendment in 1865.
That comes to 89 years at most.
Slavery existed in England for many centuries. Mooselimbs still practice it in Africa and the Middle East. Considering human history and the antiquity of slavery, it didn’t really take us too long to get rid of it.
The first slaves in the colonies of the 17th century were white indentured servants given sentences as such.
Many Irish who were found guilty of such crimes as stealing a chicken found themselves with a 7 year sentence in the new world working as an indentured slave.
“The first slaves in the colonies of the 17th century were white indentured servants given sentences as such.”
Yup. Still not America. As you said, colonies.
So you would favor the reimposition of chattel slavery in 2014 for “the denizens of slums” then?
From Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address:
“One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”—March 4, 1865
“So you would favor the reimposition of chattel slavery in 2014 for “the denizens of slums” then?”
Dear God.
I’m sorry; I thought I was exchanging remarks with someone who speaks English.
Well, the dialog was fun while it lasted!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.