26 Apr 2014

Cliven Bundy’s Bodyguard vs. Smug CNN Guy

Bundy Ranch 139 Comments

This CNN guy doesn’t know what to do.

139 Responses to “Cliven Bundy’s Bodyguard vs. Smug CNN Guy”

  1. skylien says:

    I love that fun picture:


    For those not understanding German:

    “Just why?
    Why is my shadow black?”

    “When racists are depressed”

  2. skylien says:

    I am sure Bundy works already on the “Albinizer” to make his body guard white soon.


  3. guest says:

    The interviewer is out of touch when he assumes that the right to vote somehow makes the Black Community’s lifestyle better.

    If you keep voting for the Welfare State, you’re going to tend to be poorer.

  4. Philippe says:

    what if Bundy had said something like “I’m just wonderin’ whether the Jew might have been better off in the concentration camps than getting welfare checks from the gubment… they don’t get no more freedom with the welfare than they got in the camps. They get less freedom.”


    • skylien says:

      It would just be extremely stupid. That’s all. How can get it any worse than in a concentration camp?

      BTW, it was also stupid to compare it to slavery.

      How about if I say: „People are better off as a serf to a usual aristocrat during medieval times than being stranded alone today on an island after a shipwreck and being injured deadly but free.“ Am I arguing for serfdom with this comparison? It is a stupid comparison, and of course it is possible that I have an agenda (re-instituting serfdom) behind it. But can you for sure say I have? No.

    • guest says:

      They starved people in concentration camps, so I’m pretty sure that would be worse for blacks than getting welfare checks AND being slaves in the old South.

      Aside: Would you mind criticizing Abraham Lincoln, for the record?:

      The Lincoln-Douglas Debates 4th Debate Part I
      September 18, 1858



      • skylien says:

        Right. This is an example of what a racist would say.

      • Philippe says:

        why do you want me to criticize Lincoln?

        Lincoln held racist views, but his views also changed throughout his life, especially as a result of the civil war. Whereas before the war he had made plans to send liberated slaves to Africa and other countries, after the war he proposed giving black people the right to vote, which is ultimately what motivated his assassin.


        • Andrew' says:

          1. Booth festered for the entire war. It’s weird that you think you can read his mind like you can Bundy’s.

          2. Again, nothing Lincoln proposed to do TO THE SOUTH can be used for mindreading. They were at war.

          • Andrew' says:

            Lincoln had a Road to Damascus on Race

            Obama has evolved on gay marriage

            DIck Cheney really cares about spreading Democracy.

            and I have a bridge over swampland in Florida to sell you.

          • Philippe says:

            yeah you’re right it’s difficult to say for certain about Booth. I don’t think I can read his mind.

            • Philippe says:

              I didn’t say Lincoln had a ‘road to Damascus’. I said his views changed throughout his life. Your other examples are completely irrelevant.

              • andrew' says:

                Again you can’t believe what someone says if saying it helps them win a war. That’s all.

        • guest says:

          I asked you about Lincoln in the hope that I could compare your assessments of their similar-sounding language.

          Skimming over the TheRoot article, I notice an attempt to be circumspect about Lincoln’s words that is missing from your analysis of Cliven Bundy’s words.

          For someone willing to give Lincoln somewhat of a pass on the language he used so long as he “wrestl[ed] with the better angels of our nature”, “wrestled with race until the end”, and since “his struggle ultimately made him a more interesting and noble man than the mythical hero we have come to revere”, you come down pretty hard on Bundy.

          As to Lincoln being a “Great Emancipator”:

          Spielberg’s Upside-Down History: The Myth of Lincoln and the Thirteenth Amendment


          • Philippe says:

            Nothing that Thomas DiLorenzo writes should be taken seriously as the man is a compulsive liar.

            • guest says:


              Well, the DiLorenzo article cites more people than DiLorenzo, if that matters to you.

              If not, that’s fine, too, since my main point is to compare your thoughts on Bundy’s and Lincoln’s similar-sounding words.

          • Philippe says:

            What is ‘my analysis of Bundy’s words?’

            • Philippe says:

              “willing to give Lincoln somewhat of a pass on the language he used”

              I said “Lincoln held racist views, but his views also changed throughout his life, especially as a result of the civil war.”

              So far you guys have attacked anyone who suggests Bundy hold racist views.

              What Lincoln thought is not at all relevant to Bundy. You only bring Lincoln up because you’re obsessed with him for some reason.

              • guest says:

                My hope, in bringing up Lincoln, was to influence you to reassess your claim that Bundy is a racist.

                Lincoln, who was definitely a racist, is (probably) loved by you, but Bundy not so much.

                I thought that maybe my approach would allow you to see some room for circumspection about Bundy’s words.

              • Philippe says:

                I don’t love Lincoln, nor hate Bundy. What Lincoln said has nothing to do with Bundy.

                You thought that if I read a racist quote from Lincoln, that would make me see that there is nothing at all racist in any of Bundy’s remarks, nor anything which could appear to be racist in his remarks?

                How does make sense?

              • Philippe says:

                how does that make sense?

            • guest says:

              What is ‘my analysis of Bundy’s words?

              Let me try and answer that in this way:

              My analysis of Bundy’s words is that, whether or not they are racist, they are irrelevant to the issue of who owns that land.

              Would you agree with this analysis?

              • Philippe says:

                Yes. Bundy claims the land belongs to the state of Nevada, but according to the state of Nevada it belongs to the United States government.

              • Philippe says:

                actually, just the United States.

              • guest says:

                Yes. …

                Ok. Thank you for your time.

    • andrew' says:

      It would be completely different. Partly because it would be untrue which is one reason he wouldn’t say it.

      This illustrates why you still don’t understand.

      It is almost impossible to explain something to people who refuse to understand.

      Even with that. It would still just be incorrect and not necessarily racist.

      • Philippe says:

        “It would be completely different”.

        No it wouldn’t.

        “Partly because it would be untrue which is one reason he wouldn’t say it.”

        In his comments, Bundy said black people have less freedom because of ‘government subsidy’ than they had as slaves. That is obviously untrue, yet he said it.

    • skylien says:


      Want to read what real racists think?


      “1 Make no mistake about it, I am advocating total and complete WHITE POWER in this world!”

      “5 The only answer to SCUM POWER must be, and is, WHITE POWER. The power of the elite of the world, the White human beings who have already proved their natural, God-given superiority over this gathering swarm of scum, must drive it back, re-establish order and culture in the world, and maintain that order the only way order has ever been maintained – BY FORCE!”

      Emphasis in original!

      • Harold says:

        Real racists also hold slightly derogatory opinions about blacks, but do not believe in violent enforcement of white power. By saying this is what real racists believe you imply that those holding a less extreme view are not real racists – or to put it another way are not racists.

        • skylien says:

          You know racism is a very serious charge. It describes people like I have quoted above. And as soon as someone is labeled racist he is usually met with the same horror, hatred and antipathy as if they would think like those guys I have quoted, which is not in the least appropriate if lets say a weak form of “racism” (which might just mean that this person doesn’t feel comfortable with a person of whatever skin-color, but he would never argue, nor even think of re-instituting slavery, or call for the dominance of the white man, or any other legal distinction…) really is there.

          I understand that you can define racism as anything that lets a person act differently just because a different skin color is involved. However I think it would be better to call weak forms of “racism” merely prejudiced. I am arguing for this for several reasons:

          1: If someone says something like Bundy, and you are completely honest, it should be clear that it does not necessarily follow that he is racist or even as I would call it prejudiced. He made a comparison, that’s it. He did not call for anything! And comparisons in which you compare the actual situation of someone with another long gone or maybe fictional though obviously for all very bad situation is a technique often used to emphasize how bad the actual situation really is. That is a technique used to make a point. In this case it is clear that he is lamenting the current situation of blacks and would much rather see them better off, which to me is just not racist. (BTW Do you honestly think those white power guys like I quoted would lament that they abort their children and that their young man are put into prison? I seriously doubt that!)

          Right this must not be the case. Maybe Mr Bundy really is not only prejudiced but even really racist and has the agenda of re-instituting slavery and tries with veiled remarks to steer public opinion to that direction. (However to me Mr Bundy doesn’t appear at all to be someone who would make veiled hints at hidden agendas.)

          The point is that from what he said you cannot say for sure if he is racist, nor even prejudiced. Do you want to heap all the hate people reserve for mental retards like those white power guys on someone if you are not sure if he even is what I call only prejudiced?

          2: I dare say that nearly everyone has some prejudices, don’t you think? I mean you might not even be aware of that you have them too! In a strange way that would nearly make the whole world racist, sexist, keynesianist, libertarianist etc… Would be quite weird to treat the whole world like real racists.

          3: Merely treating someone differently and then calling this racist, sexist etc makes those terms partly worthless. Because that counts for treating someone POSITIVELY different as well. I admit for example I treat women differently than man. I try treating them courteous because I like doing that. I do things for women I wouldn’t do for men. Would that make me sexist to women? Or does it make me sexist to men? That is ridiculous.

          4. Different cultures. Different cultures correlate with skin color and very often call for different behavior. You can’t behave in Tokyo like you do in New York, because people are different. Does it make you racist because you treat people different because you try to respect their culture? Or does it make you racist if you don’t like a particular culture and therefore avoid them?

          For those reasons I would only call someone racist if he calls for something like I quoted above (Basically if someone calls explicitly or implicitly for different laws for different races). Luckily enough this doesn’t happen all too often anymore. The charge racism mainly is used today to smear people whom you disagree with on other issues.

          • skylien says:

            Sorry, instead of “Right this must not be the case.” it should be “Right this has not to be the case.”

            Slightly different meaning of course…

            Though I guess I won’t receive an answer anyway.

          • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

            This is a good post, particularly Point 1.

            I would suggest to you that the reason we got here is because of some built-in cultural assumptions. Right now, in modern American culture, racially-based slavery is considered just about the worst thing imaginable. Only genocide is probably more reviled. Questions like abortion or the death penalty or stand your ground or drone strikes all are seen as debatable topics where intelligent folks can respectfully disagree. But slavery is beyond the pale.

            In fact, it is SO beyond the pale that to even raise hypothetical questions implying it might not be as completely terrible as we imagine it is treated as the implication of support for it. In other words, Bundy may not have called for a return to slavery, but he questioned whether or not it was as awful as cultural norms dictate it was. And that sort of questioning, hinting, and implication will simply NOT be tolerated.

            This is the same game they played with Walter Block. ANY sort of statement that seems to advance the notion that slavery had some positive outcomes or that its devastating effects were perhaps overstated is treated as equivalent to excusing ALL of its abuses or calling for its re-institution.

            In other words, you’re right (Bundy did not say anything explicitly racist), but it doesn’t matter (because he did question a belief that is held religiously by most Americans).

            • skylien says:

              Right, and thanks for the answer, even though it would have been Harolds turn. Whatever..

              • Harold says:

                OK – my turn. My point was not specifically about Bundy, but about real racism. Maybe we will get back to Bundy.

                Your definition is “I would only call someone racist if he calls for something like I quoted above (Basically if someone calls explicitly or implicitly for different laws for different races).” And that “weak” forms should be referred to as prejudice, not racist.

                Prejudice is “preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or experience”. Racism is then a sub-set of prejudice if we define it as “belief that all members of a race posses characteristics or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.” It does not make a lot of sense to differentiate between racism and prejudice based on the extremity of the views. If it is a prejudice based on race it is racism. If it is a prejudice based on gender it is sexism.

                Also your “bar” (calling for different laws) is set extremely high. Anyone that refused to serve or employ black people would not be racist by your definition since they are not calling for different laws.

                So if you hold unsupported beliefs about the superiority of some races you hold racist beliefs and you are a real racist.

                It is not racist or prejudiced if the distinction IS based on evidence. Hence it is not racist to say black people have darker skin than whiter people, or Mexicans tend to like spicier food or Black people were enslaved in USA. It is not racist to compare conditions for blacks before and after slavery. If you think poor blacks on welfare may have been better off under slavery, but do not think that poor whites on welfare would have been better off enslaved, then you are racist. I do not have time right now to look back to exactly what Bundy said and to analyse it. Maybe later, but whether of not Bundy was racist does not affect the main point about racism.

                If you keep silent about your racist beliefs and don’t act on them, nobody will ever know. If you open your mouth and tell everyone then everyone will know. The criteria we generally use to distinguish racists from non-racists is whether they talk and act racist, not what goes on in their head.

                That depends on what you do and why you do it. It is not sexist to stand up for a pregnant woman because she needs the seat more than you. It is sexist to stand up for a fit and able woman if it is because you believe women are less able to stand than men due to the weakness of their sex. For whilst your false belief in their weakness may be to their advantage by getting them a seat, it will be to their disadvantage when going for that promotion. It is not sexist to open doors for women if you also open doors for men. Women are generally less physically strong than men, so it is not sexist to take this into account, by carrying a heavy bag for example. It isn’t that difficult. If your actions are based on belief not backed up by evidence, then it is sexist.

                MF compares this to Walter Block. I think these are very different. Walter is savvy and has media experience. He gets publicity by saying controversial things. His comments, although given in an interview and not written, were probably much more thought through than Bundy’s, and were intended to provoke something of the storm they did create.

              • skylien says:

                I don’t want the discussion to be to broad, so I try concentrate it on the important points.

                Let’s apply a „preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or experience“.

                What if the employer who doesn’t want to hire blacks, does this because he made bad experience with them on average while maybe neutral with others and e.g. very good ones with lets say asians? Hence he uses the obvious characteristic of skin color to sort for people who according to his experience have a higher chance of being good and motivated employees. That isn’t racist according to your definition, right?

                So your notion that only by watching the actions of someone it makes it clear if he is racist is a bit tricky. So you not only need to judge their behavior, you would also need to know their experiences, which you cant.

                I agree though that there might be clearer cases in which past experience can’t play much of a role, like a restaurant owner who doesn’t want to serve blacks. That is really hard to justify. So I will back paddle a bit. There are cases in which the term could be used justifiably. I just want to avoid blaming someone wrongly. I rather like to call too few people racist than the other way around.

                What about preference? All people act on preference. I don’t need to think that women are too weak to stand up. I can stand up anyway, just because I like to do a woman a favor. There is no need to imply any negative thought into this. Just as it isn’t in any way negative to any men I am not standing up for. This also counts for holding doors open or carrying bags. There is no need to think that women aren’t able to do that or are to weak in any form.

                What about preference if it is about culture? As I said culture correlates with skin color and origin. Are people racist who discriminate against people based on their culture or origin because they prefer other cultures?

              • Harold says:

                For the employer who does not want to employ blacks. Is his experience wide enough that he can reasonably draw conclusions about all blacks? Or is it more likely that he is acting on prejudice? He correlates skin color when actually he is seeking other beneficial qualities that make a good employee. By using color as a proxy it is very likely he is being racist. He does have access to other information also, such as CV’s, references and interviews. Someone who refuses to employ blacks because he has had some bad black employees is racist. It may be possible in principle to include such information in a Bayesian type calculation without being racist, but that is probably impossible in practice.

                With regard to identifying racism, I identified the criteria we generally use. Other criteria are available. However, if someone has racist thoughts in their head, but they do not act on them it is probably fine. In a related argument elsewhere, someone pointed out that they find two guys kissing a bit uncomfortable, but they would not dream of trying to prevent them from doing so. That is OK, as we cannot always get beyond our prejudice, but we can stop ourselves acting on it.

                Preference is a can of worms. Some of our preferences are based at least partially on our prejudices. This is unfortunately unavoidable if we are to act in the world since we do not have full information. This means that some of our preferences are based on racist or sexist beliefs. The best we can do is to question our actions in light of this, and ask ourselves if our preferences are reasonable.

                Standing for a woman may have non-sexist origins. It also may have sexist origins. It is very, very likely to have a mix of the two in our society, and therefore if you want to avoid all possibility of sexist behaviour one should avoid doing so UNLESS the person is obviously less able than you at that time. Why would one believe that it is the right thing to do to give up your seat to someone who is just as capable of standing as yourself? Often it is because we have been brought up with a belief that this is correct behaviour – but what is the reason behind it? Perhaps you can think of a reasonable non sexist explanation, in which case I would like to hear it, but it seems likely to me that it stems from a belief that women need to be protected and looked after. If we hold these beliefs then we cannot help but view women as not as good as men at things they are actually just as good at. Personally I don’t mind these minor sexist behaviours much, but I can still accept they are sexist. They have positive as well as negative effects – courtesy and politeness are positive things. It is possible to stand for a particular woman to do her a favor, as you might do a favor for a man, so it depends on whether you think it is generally the right thing to do.

                If one lives in a culture that is intrinsically sexist so that such behaviour is expected by everyone, then it is difficult, and you will disadvantage yourself if you avoid sexist behaviour. That does not make the behaviours non-sexist.

                I am not sure what you mean about discrimination based on culture, but I think the same things would apply.

  5. Andrew' says:

    For the record, I like that reporter guy when he’s doing moderately humorous puff pieces where his being a goober is a feature.

  6. Bob Murphy says:

    Guys, I realize I was asking for it by posting this video, but I really don’t relish logging in and seeing joe vs. the world when he is obviously trolling. That’s how the blog was for a few years, and now I want to try something different, where 50% of the comments aren’t taken up by people hurling insults at each other.

    So, it would help if you would ignore obvious trolls. If you lack the willpower, then it just means I have to delete more comments.

    • guest says:

      I don’t mind going back and forth with joe, for the record.

      • Dan says:

        Clearly, but that’s not really the point.

    • andrew' says:

      Years? You only gave me like 4 weeks!

      • guest says:

        Next, Bob will be like:

        “You have 15 comments to comply.”

        • andrew' says:

          I got Joe to actually attempt to support his troll comment.

          That may or may not be progress.

          I’m just not sure pacifism works in open comments.

          • andrew' says:

            Think of it this way, even if Joe’s logic doesn’t improve, and i just got him to make more bad comments, at least he isn’t wandering the streets or trollinh the local bar.

  7. Richie says:

    So much for the kinder, gentler blog. Different trolls, same worn-out strawmen about libertarians. I’ve got better things to do. Bye-bye.

    • Dan says:

      It’s a work in progress

      • Bob Murphy says:

        I need to clone myself. I’ll call him, Blog Builder.

        • Dan says:


        • andrew' says:

          Clone comments. Two comments. Is that technically possible? If not, WordPress should make it happen.
          Comment competition! One is for the mythical meek who would comment if everyone was nice. The other is free for all. Let the cows and turtles work it out amongst themselves.

          You realize the trolls want to hurt your blog. How are you helping us fight them?

  8. Philippe says:

    I think this whole situation has been confused by Bundy’s flawed legal arguments, which are based on his own personal beliefs and not on anything recognized by either Nevada or US law.

    The real story here is Bundy’s claim of unfair treatment of ranchers by the BLM. The problem is he has shot himself in the foot with this one too, as he has been flagrantly ignoring court orders and refusing to pay fees and fines for 20 years, so is seen by many as a criminal or semi-criminal.

    Also Bundy’s remarks are often muddled and on occasion offensive, even if ultimately “he means well”.

    He clearly has some odd beliefs which can be identified as coming from movements such as Posse Comitatus, with the racist associations there. He also associates with dubious far-right militia types. So even if Bundy isn’t a nasty man, it could be that he’s always been surrounded by ideas which many would see as highly suspect.

    Bundy’s beliefs seem to be a bit mixed up from what I can see. Also he appears to be very ignorant about some things, such as slavery, leading him to make weird remarks.

    These weird remarks, which are apparently racist but might be blamed on him being a confused and ignorant old man, have led people to ask who this Bundy fellow really is. Before he was the Fox News hero, fighting back against the tyranny of that communist Barak Obama. Now he just seems like a weird racist with loopy beliefs.

    All in all he may have an important point about ranchers being unfairly treated by the BLM. But that point is being buried under his gibberish legal theories and confused rants about this and that, and his dubious associations with certain groups and beliefs.

    • andrew' says:


      • Philippe says:

        Instead of having a clear story which makes sense to the rest of the world, it’s just a weird confused mess. The group looks like a bunch of nutters with all sorts of mixed up and confused ideas.

        • andrew' says:

          But enough about the blm.

          All Bundy ever wanted was to turn desert into burgers.

          He didn’t ask to be a movement.

          • Philippe says:

            unfortunately he decided, due to some idiosyncratic legal theories of his own, that he could simply ignore the courts for sixteen years. So now he owes $1 million in fines.

            • andrew' says:

              The blm may sort of “own” way too much land. And now that people know how badly they are acting we just might take it away from them.

              • Philippe says:

                you won’t get the federal government to give up land to the state or sell it by acting like a bunch of mentally confused semi-criminal far-right nutcase clowns.

              • andrew' says:


                We’ll see what say the moderates. They are a fickle bunch.

    • guest says:

      … a confused and ignorant old man …

      Don’t forget to mention that he’s white.

      Also, don’t forget to say “extreme”.

      • Philippe says:

        you appear to be completely incapable of logical or reasonable thought at times.

        • guest says:

          But then I’m a nobody, so who can really care?

        • guest says:

          My comment about the saying the word “extreme” comes from this incident:

          Sen. Schumer and Other Senior Dems Play Politics w/ Budget Crisis on Conf Call 3/29/11

          • Philippe says:

            you have your little obsessions, don’t you.

    • Bogart says:

      Yes and he has the oligarchy in Washington with its propaganda arm the Main Stream Media in an uproar. I would say that it is because he is absolutely correct in his theories against the “legal theories” of the government. The simple fact is that the US Federal Government has never had a claim to this property and even if it had when Nevada became a state, it has abandon this property years before the BLM even existed. Bundy and his cohort then homesteaded the property thus taking over ownership of the property.

      Then what is really comical is the whole “Endangered Species” thing about this tortoise. None in the US Government seemed to care about this animal when they killed thousands of them when they ran out of money to take care of them at their own breeding ground.

  9. andrew' says:

    Okay. Let’s try again.

    What he said obviously wasn’t racist.

    • Philippe says:

      His actual comments are racist. But I’m trying to give him the benefit of the doubt by assuming he’s just a confused and ignorant old man and not a nasty piece of work.

      • Dan says:

        You’re very charitable, Philippe.

      • andrew' says:

        No. They aren’t racist comments.

        • Philippe says:

          as you can see, we disagree.

          • andrew' says:

            You are welcome to your personal opinion, but nobody has shown Bundy to have had racist intent.

            It is fine, although puzzling to choose to take offense at what he wasn’t trying to say.

            Its not fine to slander an individual you only care about as a kludge against people you only want to win elections against.

        • andrew' says:


          I know that if i had a million years some people will still refuse to understand.

          But here goes.

          What Bundy said was that the negro [sic] and the Spanish [sic] are a lot like everybody else (he said Hispanics are even better in some ways- and no, obviously not in a racist sense)- or at least could be minus perverse government incentives.

          This is the only way you can sincerely interpret what he said in context.

          The difference is that blacks were oppressed by slavery and now some are oppressed by welfare perverse incentives.

          And he is right to point out that handouts have not brought equality and independence.

          That even someone that the left can smear as racist can make even the remotest claim like this should be make them ashamed with the sorry performance of entitlements that were supposed to be a hand up, which is one reason they have to deflect and make this about accusations of racism.

          • Philippe says:


            And he is right to point out that handouts have not brought equality and independence.”

            I don’t think these statements are racist. But these are your statements. They’re both vague and questionable. The underlying beliefs are questionable.

            For some reason you are making an equivalence between black people receiving welfare support and slavery. Quite odd that. I’m not sure “perverse incentives” counts as “oppression”. Are you saying the supposed “oppression” of ‘perverse incentives’ is the same as under slavery?

            • andrew' says:

              No I’m not making an equivalence.

              Black people were under slavery. Now they aren’t. They are assumed to be better off now. They are- we know because few choose to enter slavery. However Bundy wonders if some are worse off with nothing to do than something to do.

              It just isn’t that novel of a thought.

  10. guest says:

    Why is this white guy lecturing a black guy about racism? I am outraged.

    (Sorry, Bob. That had to be done. No it didn’t, but I think you know what I’m getting at. I won’t be offended if you delete this. lol)

    • andrew' says:

      He’s trying to understand his “mentality”.

      Bill weir being condescending is a trip.

      Has anyone else noticed that half these news anchors look like comedians these days?

  11. Bob Murphy says:

    OK kids, here’s the deal: I have figured out how I can fairly quickly bring up all the comments matching a certain search term, and delete them in one fell swoop.

    But, that means if you have responded to a certain-person-who-is-justifying-his-banishment-by-showing-up-under-a-new-name, then your response will be orphaned, and it ends up looking goofy.

    I really am not going to be spending 30 mins per blog post, cleaning up after you guys. And I’m not going to throw up my hands and say, “OK fine, I’ll let 6 people have the comment section, but the main posts are still mine!”

    No, the next step is that I will go the Gene Callahan route and hold up every single comment for my approval. That will destroy discussion.

    I don’t want to turn this car around, but if you kids don’t settle down back there, I will.

  12. andrew' says:

    It doesn’t bother me if ken b was lurking. It bothers me he says things like no one has addressed whether Bundy’s cents were racist. It is all I’ve been doing. So I prove yet again that Bundy’s comments are pro-black. Of course in a world of concern trolls who are waiting to pounce and racism is the most convenient ad hominem he chose his words poorly. But to the shame of welfare state apologists he still may have a bit of a point. You can’t argue on legitimacy rates, incarceration, fathering, nor employment. You can only really shout “what he said is racist because…[reasons].” And hope the shouting distracts people long enough.

    Ive noticed people want to make every issue about anything but the issue- usually something to help them win the upcoming national election.

    If blm wins in a stacked court that they can do whatever silly thing they want with 90% of Nevada, we can have this thing called Congress we can use to take that privilege away from them. We should. Selling federal land has been a libertarian plank for longer than I’ve been alive I think.

    Bob is right. Bundy made that harder because his public speaking skills are leave a little to be desired because he is a rancher. He wants to ranch.

  13. andrew' says:

    Bob, what do you want us to do? Philippe is fairly respectful and as you see I am fairly respectful to him.

    We can’t tell when a concern troll is here in disguise because they all use the same talking points.

    You just want fewer repeater comments?

    • Dan says:

      I think it’s pretty easy to figure out what you should avoid doing. Don’t respond to the trolls, especially if you’re going to get into a competition of who gets the last word. He’s made it clear that it’s easier to delete one off comments, but when people respond over and over those comments get orphaned and make things look goofy.

      Also, don’t insult people. He doesn’t have a problem with people disagreeing, but he doesn’t want people getting personal.

      And don’t belabor your points. There is no reason to keep saying the same thing over and over and over. If you look back at your comments and find that you’ve said the same thing seven times, you should probably realize that saying it an eighth time isn’t necessary. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree and move on.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      andrew’, Dan’s answer to you is correct, but more specifically: I’m saying I was away from the computer for several hours, and in that time you guys all realized that He Who Must Not Be Named had come back under a different name. There was then a whole series of arguments involving 4 of you with him.

      So I’m saying, whenever that happens in the future, my response will be to delete all comments from whatever the new name is. But, if 4 of you have been arguing with him, then I would have to go through and delete each of your responses too, since I can’t just delete everything by your name because maybe you were elsewhere arguing with someone else who has not been banned.

      The above is way too much work for me. I am not going to take 30 minutes doing the above, any time He Who Must Not Be Named comes back and you guys say, “Game on! Let’s show these trolls we mean business while Bob has a life!”

      So if it keeps happening, I’m just going to switch to holding up every comment for individual approval, which will be awful but better than the current arrangement.

  14. andrew' says:

    Sorry for multi post but a free market economist might suggest cpetition. Sell the land rights with turtle conditions and fees are based on how well the land users support turtle numbers.

    The blm has little incentive to even help the turtles.

  15. andrew' says:

    The entire legal case of the blm rests on the assumptiom theu get to do whatever they want with the land.

    This is untrue.
    The BLM’s Mission is: ‘To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.’

    This case should have gone to the supreme court where they should have asked if he is actually harming the turtles.

    After 4 score and 20 years of harming turtles, if there are still turtles, then he is as pathetic a turtle hater as he is a race hater.

Leave a Reply to guest

Cancel Reply