d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You've got a beer making operation... any chance you can tweak it to make some shine?

I've had Dandilion Shine... tasted much better than you'd expect.

Distilling is a far step from brewing, the law doesn't like that

 Ouze wrote:
I think what he said was racist, but because of the ideas behind what he said, not his specific word usage.

 Smacks wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I think what he said was racist, but because of the ideas behind what he said, not his specific word usage.

May I ask what ideas specifically you felt were racist? I didn't feel that what he said was racist, especially given the context of his age, schooling etc... His comments about Hispanic people underlined that.

 LordofHats wrote:
And very unfortunate implications.

 whembly wrote:
If he's not racist... he's at the very minimum guilty of bad stereotypes.

 Smacks wrote:

 whembly wrote:
If he's not racist... he's at the very minimum guilty of bad stereotypes.

Maybe, but impoverished black people living in the ghetto, and black men in prison isn't just some "mythical" stereotype. It is a genuine social problem that is driven by "real" racism. Arguing that he was talking about all black people, is putting words in his mouth. He was talking about black people in 'plight' who have basically been forgotten by the government. Which is an argument that serves his purpose.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
When he says that he will say something about "the negro" he is talking about all black people.

If I said that I will say something about all "the whites", the implication is that I am talking about the whole race.

 Smacks wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
When he says that he will say something about "the negro" he is talking about all black people.

If I said that I will say something about all "the whites", the implication is that I am talking about the whole race.

Only if you take it out of context. He put his words in context prior to that in his preable about the government and also afterwards when he talked about specific black people in social housing. If you want to take it out of context and twist it so you can scream "Oh snap! he's a racist!" which is exactly what the media wants to do because scandal and sensationalism is their meal ticket. I'm not going to buy into that.

What I heard was a fairly old man, arguing that the situation for black people (generalization) in America is still diabolical, and hardly an improvement on slavery. AND that Hispanic people are nice people who deserve more respect.

CNN's Dan Simon noticed Jason Bullock, a black [<---whembly] six-year Army veteran who serves as one of Bundy's bodyguards, hanging around at the Nevada ranch. Simon asked Bullock whether he found Bundy's remarks about blacks and slavery offensive.

"Mr. Bundy is not a racist," he told CNN. "Ever since I've been here, he's treated me with nothing but hospitality. He's pretty much treating me just like his own family."

 Smacks wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
When he says that he will say something about "the negro" he is talking about all black people.

If I said that I will say something about all "the whites", the implication is that I am talking about the whole race.

Only if you take it out of context. He put his words in context prior to that in his preamble about the government and also afterwards when he talked about specific black people in social housing. If you want to take it out of context and twist it so you can scream "Oh snap! he's a racist!", which is exactly what the media wants to do because scandal and sensationalism is their meal ticket. I'm not going to buy into that.

What I heard was a fairly old man, arguing that the situation for black people (generalization) in America is still diabolical, and hardly an improvement on slavery. AND that Hispanic people are nice people who deserve more respect.

"And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom."

 whembly wrote:
Would this change anyone's mind?

CNN's Dan Simon noticed Jason Bullock, a black [<---whembly] six-year Army veteran who serves as one of Bundy's bodyguards, hanging around at the Nevada ranch. Simon asked Bullock whether he found Bundy's remarks about blacks and slavery offensive.

"Mr. Bundy is not a racist," he told CNN. "Ever since I've been here, he's treated me with nothing but hospitality. He's pretty much treating me just like his own family."

I'll use a source that I typically don't post:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cliven-bundy-bodyguard-take-a-bullet?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

Exit question: Why the feth does Bundy need body guards? Did it really escalate that much?

 daedalus wrote:
I don't know how prevalent racism is in the UK, but you usually don't really give stuff like that the benefit of the doubt here. For one, slavery is too much of dark part of history even still. For another, we DO have entire rural communities that are openly and disgustingly racist against people who aren't of the "right" race.

 whembly wrote:
Would this change anyone's mind?

CNN's Dan Simon noticed Jason Bullock, a black [<---whembly] six-year Army veteran who serves as one of Bundy's bodyguards, hanging around at the Nevada ranch. Simon asked Bullock whether he found Bundy's remarks about blacks and slavery offensive.

"Mr. Bundy is not a racist," he told CNN. "Ever since I've been here, he's treated me with nothing but hospitality. He's pretty much treating me just like his own family."

I'll use a source that I typically don't post:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cliven-bundy-bodyguard-take-a-bullet?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

Exit question: Why the feth does Bundy need body guards? Did it really escalate that much?

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Would this change anyone's mind?

CNN's Dan Simon noticed Jason Bullock, a black [<---whembly] six-year Army veteran who serves as one of Bundy's bodyguards, hanging around at the Nevada ranch. Simon asked Bullock whether he found Bundy's remarks about blacks and slavery offensive.

"Mr. Bundy is not a racist," he told CNN. "Ever since I've been here, he's treated me with nothing but hospitality. He's pretty much treating me just like his own family."

I'll use a source that I typically don't post:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cliven-bundy-bodyguard-take-a-bullet?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

I have a black friend. I can't possibly be racist.

Just saying

Exit question: Why the feth does Bundy need body guards? Did it really escalate that much?

Only in his head where he's the only one who can stop the new world order by not paying his bills.

Would your friend attest to that?

I guess he's one of those militia guys?

 whembly wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

So I want to hear the justification for why this guy isn't a huge pile of gak.

So... What then??!

I have a weird respect for bundy simply because he's trying to stand up to the Feds...

Just as I respect the OWS Crew for doing their spiel....

If nothing else, it sparks debates....

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Tell me, what family life did slaves have? What "things" were they allowed to do? Get lynched if a white man didn't like the way they looked at a white woman or hell, even if a white man didn't like the way a white woman looked at the black man?

 whembly wrote:
Oh... so, because he's on your team, it's okay.... is that it?

Think about it for a bit: Reid was remarking apparently with some amazement on the nation's highest-ranking black Democrat at the time as being notably "light-skinned" and having "no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one."

Let that sink in for bit. If you don't see it, then there's no point in discussing further.

This is not the way Obama talks. At least it is not the way he talked in the scores of speeches I’ve watched him give, the public appearances I’ve seen him make. This is a put on. This is phony.

 d-usa wrote:
So you have the same amount of respect for drug cartels,

 d-usa wrote:
coyotes

 d-usa wrote:
and tax evaders?

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past week, by now you’re familiar with the standoff between the Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and 67 year-old rancher Cliven Bundy. Why did this happen? We’ve heard stories from the Bundy’s not paying the feds their grazing fees, to protecting desert tortoises, to Harry Reid’s efforts to build massive solar facilities. But what I wanted was to get down to basics. Was this land grab even constitutional? I decided to find out.

The following are excerpts from my interview with Guy Maisnik, a 30 year real estate lawyer and Constitutional law real property expert, regarding the Bundy’s case against the United States concerning Bundy’s rights to use real property adjacent to his ranch to graze his cattle over the objection of the United States.

AG: We just witnessed the standoff between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Bundy supporters with the BLM retreating. Regardless of what we all witnessed, do you believe Bundy has an uphill legal battle against the United States Government?

Guy Maisnik: Unfortunately I do, particularly in the Ninth Circuit. This case will need to get to the Supreme Court for Cliven Bundy to achieve judicial relief, and it will be a challenge getting there. However, I would encourage those who care about freedom to understand the critical importance of Mr. Bundy’s plight and how it impacts every American and America’s future. Because this case is complex and does not have the emotional appeal of a civil liberties case or a criminal case, it may not get long-term attention. But it’s one of the single most important cases impacting Americans today. This case hits America’s heart and the basic underpinnings of a free society.

AG: You’ve heard Bundy and his supporters repeatedly claim that the federal government had no right to remove his cattle or impose fees and that the federal government has no right to that land. Is there any validity to this claim?

GM: The United States District Court of Nevada disagreed with Bundy, and so will the 9th Circuit. The linchpin of the U.S. Government’s case is United States v. Gardner, 107 F.3d 1314 (9th Cir. 1997), where the federal government prevailed on facts similar to Bundy’s. In Gardner, the US Forest Service issued a ten-year permit allowing the Gardners to graze their cattle in the Humboldt National Forest. Because of a fire that burned over 2000 acres of land, the Forest Service and Nevada Department of Wildlife closed off the land to grazing for two years. Nevertheless, after a short period of time, the Gardners ignored the closure and resumed grazing. The Forest Service revoked the Gardner’s permit. The Gardners argued that the federal government was not the land owner, and that the land belonged to the state of Nevada. The federal district court disagreed, and the 9th Circuit court affirmed the district court’s holding.

AG: What were the key arguments made by Bundy and the Gardners?

GM: Bundy’s and Gardners’ arguments were similar, and they both lost. The courts ruled: 1) that the federal government was authorized to retain public lands for its own purposes, and was not required to hold land for the establishment of future states; 2) that the Equal Footing Doctrine did not operate to give the state title to the public lands within its boundaries; and 3) that federal ownership of public lands did not encroach upon the core powers reserved for the states under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. There were other arguments and discussions, but these were central.

AG: Can you explain the basis of the courts’ ruling?

GM: The Gardners argued that the United States obtained the land from Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, but that it had a duty to hold that land in trust for the creation of future states; that the federal government had no authority to retain the land once the state was created; and that when Nevada became a state, all lands within its boundaries became Nevada property. The Gardners argument was based on an 1845 U.S. Supreme Court case known as Pollard. Pollard addressed the issue of land that was ceded to the federal government by Virginia and Georgia to discharge debts each incurred during the Revolutionary War. Eventually, the federal government created the new state of Alabama out of a portion of the state of Georgia, and the issue was whether certain shoreline property in question belonged to the federal government or Alabama. The court’s verdict: Alabama. The Pollard court concluded that the federal government had no rights to the property in question.

AG: Do you agree with the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Gardner regarding federal land ownership and its impact on the Bundy case?

GM: I do not. The Ninth Circuit distinguished the Pollard case because Virginia and Georgia were part of the original thirteen colonies which had independent claims to sovereignty before their statehood, and that Nevada never had pre-statehood sovereignty. This is a twisted and absurd result. The fact that the federal government was the initial owner of the land that later became Nevada is irrelevant. The Ninth Circuit created an unsupportable distinction essentially out of thin air (very thin, one might add) by reasoning that Pollard did not apply to Gardner. And once the Ninth Circuit decided that the property in question never belonged to Nevada, it was easy for the Court to invoke the Property Clause of the Constitution that Congress has the power “to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States and all the broad powers associated.” In other words, the federal government can do whatever it wants with its own property.

AG: Tell us how the Ninth Circuit applied the Equal Footing Doctrine?

GM: You mean how the Ninth Circuit misapplied the Equal Footing Doctrine? The Equal Footing Doctrine requires that upon admission to the Union, a new state possesses the same powers of sovereignty and jurisdiction as did the original thirteen states. The Gardners argued to be on equal footing, Nevada had to have title and eminent domain of all lands within its boundaries to satisfy the Equal Footing Doctrine. A reasonable conclusion. However, the Gardner court didn’t think so, and imprudently and improperly held that the Equal Footing Doctrine only applies to the “shores of and land beneath navigable waters” because the particular dispute in the Pollard case was only over shore land. The Ninth Circuit concluded that because the Supreme Court has not extended the Equal Footing Doctrine to “fast dry land,” the federal lands in question were not reserved for the state of Nevada. That is a misapplication of the Equal Footing Doctrine and a complete misreading of Pollard. Here is what the Pollard Court said about federal land: “When Alabama was admitted into the union, on an equal footing with the original states, she succeeded to all the rights of sovereignty, jurisdiction, and eminent domain… the United States ha[s] no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere…..”

The Ninth Circuit misconstrued Pollard, misapplied the Equal Footing Doctrine and along the way stepped on virtually every western state’s rights and freedoms of persons within those states.

AG: Is it your review that the 10th Amendment also applies to the Bundy’s claims?

GM: If the District court had gotten the Pollard case right, there would be no reason even to address the 10th Amendment. However, the Ninth Circuit seems to believe that the 10th Amendment doesn’t apply to real property rights, concluding a state may exercise jurisdiction over federal lands within its state so long as its exercise of power does not conflict with federal law. Really? The 10th Amendment provides that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Looks like the court got turned around on that one in Gardner and Bundy. Oh well, maybe next time…

AG: Maybe this will serve as a wakeup call for all Americans, because your little piece of the American dream could very well be the next land-grab on the Fed’s radar.

A Town Called Malus wrote:When he says that he will say something about "the negro" he is talking about all black people.

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

 Smacks wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Tell me, what family life did slaves have? What "things" were they allowed to do? Get lynched if a white man didn't like the way they looked at a white woman or hell, even if a white man didn't like the way a white woman looked at the black man?

No I'm not going to argue with you about the merits of slavery. that is a ridiculous misrepresentation of what is being discussed. The subject was downtrodden black people on welfare in 2014. Are you trying to say that just because they aren't being lynched anymore, there is nothing more to be done with regard to civil rights?

 LordofHats wrote:
Or we can accept that for someone talking about consitutionallity, GM is a moron.

What Bundy and Gardner tried to do was walk into a court and say the United States doesn't own federal land because federal land is public land held in the public trust which is completely nonsense argument. The United States is the public trust and they do own the land. Their entire view of state's rights makes 0 sense even from the perspective of really conservative judges (who are the ones who decided both those cases).

Their argument boils down to the US Government doesn't own the land because it's not the US Government.

 LordofHats wrote:
Or we can accept that for someone talking about consitutionallity, GM is a moron.

What Bundy and Gardner tried to do was walk into a court and say the United States doesn't own federal land because federal land is public land held in the public trust which is completely nonsense argument. The United States is the public trust and they do own the land. Their entire view of state's rights makes 0 sense even from the perspective of really conservative judges (who are the ones who decided both those cases).

Their argument boils down to the US Government doesn't own the land because it's not the US Government.

 whembly wrote:
There's a distinct possibility that this'll go to the SC. Not that it'll help Bundy though...

 loki old fart wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Or we can accept that for someone talking about consitutionallity, GM is a moron.

What Bundy and Gardner tried to do was walk into a court and say the United States doesn't own federal land because federal land is public land held in the public trust which is completely nonsense argument. The United States is the public trust and they do own the land. Their entire view of state's rights makes 0 sense even from the perspective of really conservative judges (who are the ones who decided both those cases).

Their argument boils down to the US Government doesn't own the land because it's not the US Government.

Government by the people for the people.
If the government owns the land for the people, and on behalf of the people. Then the people own the land.

Interesting thought eh

 LordofHats wrote:
Or we can accept that for someone talking about consitutionallity, GM is a moron.

 loki old fart wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Or we can accept that for someone talking about consitutionallity, GM is a moron.

What Bundy and Gardner tried to do was walk into a court and say the United States doesn't own federal land because federal land is public land held in the public trust which is completely nonsense argument. The United States is the public trust and they do own the land. Their entire view of state's rights makes 0 sense even from the perspective of really conservative judges (who are the ones who decided both those cases).

Their argument boils down to the US Government doesn't own the land because it's not the US Government.

Government by the people for the people.
If the government owns the land for the people, and on behalf of the people. Then the people own the land.

Interesting thought eh