Thanks to Cliven Bundy he has exposed the bigger picture

That certainly isn't going to happen for a long time. They over played their hand without actually looking at what was in their hand. They thought they could rile up the base and all the crazies. And they did. The problem was they put the wrong ammunition in their guns and they all backfired.

 

Okay, I will say so. Now, what's the difference?

 

The difference is, one more time, you people are making up lies and inventing crap to demonize this dead beat old rancher to an even greater degree than the truth of the matter allows.
What's the matter? Just can't seem to hate enough?

We know how he feels about the BLM, and I've commented on such. But when the progressive spin mills start to lie and invent positions Bundy has not taken (or can be proved to have taken) then we see how really sick the racist left really is and how their imagined moral high ground is a laugh
and yet another lie.

 

We know how he feels about the BLM, and I've commented on such. But when the progressive spin mills start to lie and invent positions Bundy has not taken (or can be proved to have taken) then we see how really sick the racist left really is and how their imagined moral high ground is a laugh
and yet another lie.[/QUOTE] You are still not answering the question. What is the difference between the two; having no use for the federal government and not recognizing the federal government? The semantics of the two statements is the same. Explain to me how they are not.

 

The difference is not in what Bundy is saying, or not, but what you lot are saying.

Is having no use for the BLM the same as having no use for the rest of the federal government? Does Cliven Bundy hate our armed forces, the federal highway system and bridges, the federal meat inspectors that help get his product to market (this one is a favorite lie of mine as it's been alleged by leftist sophists in print and the media without one ounce of evidence to back it up....like all the other inducements to despise Cliven Bundy)?
Does Cliven Bundy hate our national parks? Our border patrol? Our constitution? I've seen no evidence to support this. Have you?

I haven't heard Bundy say this and neither has anyone else!
I'm sorry I can't help you justify your unreasoning rage for someone you didn't even know existed until a couple of weeks ago.
I'm sorry letting cows eat wild grass in the middle of nowhere, depriving no one of anything of value, seems to propel you into fits of hate and anger. I'm sorry you have a two faced hypocritical standard for law breakers (boil Bundy in oil because he broke the law....but don't worry about the tens of millions of illegals that rob our taxpayers blind every single day of the year).

I'm sorry you folks have to lie in order to hate more. It must suck to be so emotionally crippled.

 

Ok, I'll tackle it. This is actually a bit easy. First, if we taxpayers didn't provide what we provide to any recipient of a break from the US government who you call "welfare recipients" like the timber companies and people like Clive Bundy, what would happen would be a shift in market prices upward. For every increased cost a producer of any good or service must deal with, the cost is passed on to the customer. Period. That's how businesses work. They calculate all their liabilities, which is manpower, benefits, trucks, materials, overhead, and far too many other things to list that impact the cost to operate the business. Once all that work is done, then pricing is done to fit within the marketplace while creating a return sufficient to keep the business owner in business. If profit gets too small or disappears, they won't stay in business. So your leftist dream of pushing costs onto more businesses in America that make money only harms you and me directly. No matter how it plays out, the consumer pays for EVERYTHING. The complaint is always about all the companies not paying taxes or getting too much in breaks. What if they had to pay more and give up profit? Do you think they just accept higher costs and shrunken profits? Absolutely not. They will only sustain lower profits if the market will not bear the price increase they need to institute to overcome the increased operational costs, assuming all other efficiencies are already found. So while we hate that the oil companies get huge subsidies while enjoying ridiculous profits, they'd likely pay more in taxes if forced by the government, then adjust prices upward to maintain profit so long as that price adjustment didn't push them too high to remain competitive.

So let's review. You want everyone getting a break from the government (businesses and farmers as best I can tell from your OP) to give up any government break and instead bear those costs themselves. So what happens? You and I go shopping for products or services and find the prices inching higher as the market prices shift in parallel with their rising costs you just inflicted on them. So still, they don't pay more. They charge YOU more and write the check out of those higher revenues to pay what you just asked them to pay. See how that works? YOU pay it either way! And yes, I run a business and I fully understand both the economics of the situation and the reality of how businesses react to rising operating costs. But great job for making "them" pay more!! You just screwed yourself but it looks great on paper to your constituents.

Next, Bundy has demonstrated no hate of poor people on welfare. He did state that he sees the plight of people on welfare as a different form of slavery, but to the government instead. It's his opinion and that same opinion has been expressed here in different ways as people have stated that welfare is a disincentive to work, keeps people from progressing forward, and it makes people feel (sometimes) like they are worth less than they actually are to society. It's demeaning to some and his view wasn't to be hateful. He was feeling badly that people are in that position. I admit his way of stating his thoughts was awkward, poorly worded, and racially aimed insofar as he only talked about blacks on welfare instead of everyone on welfare. It was in poor taste and easy to see the racist connotation's roots if you didn't listen for his meaning and took it only at face value and not in context. And you'll hate the link, but it actually contains his full statement instead of the one taken out of context, and while politically incorrect, his point is anti-racist. He also speaks well of Spanish people. http://www.infowars.com/unedited-video-shows-bundy-making-pro-black-pro-mexican-comments/

Lastly, where did you get that the government paid for his water tanks? I can't find the link now but when this broke out, the article I was reading was discussing that he had paid for infrastructure changes to that land at his own expense in order to graze cattle there. If that's incorrect, please help me out with a link or two. I'm not certain either way on that.

If your point was aimed at the Republicans, I can't speak for them because I'm not one of them. But your OP kinda scatters all over the place regarding Bundy, timber companies, poor welfare, wealthy welfare and taxpayer expense. Everything bought in this country that had a tax was funded by the taxpayer. Companies don't just operate and set prices based on all other costs, then pay taxes out of their profits. They calculate it into their pricing structure and pass it on to the buyer, just like they do with the price of their accounting department, their buildings, their trucks, fuel, heating and air conditioning and everything else they have to pay for to operate. That's just how it works and it would be foolish to think the tax burden is not passed onto the customer.

 

Thanks! Naturally I new your answer would make zero sense. Look, let me explain something to you so you hopefully understand. If Cliven Bundy does not recognize the federal government, the meaning of that is simple. It means for him, it doesn't exist. Therefore there is nothing for him to hate or have an opinion about. He cannot hate or have an opinion about the armed forces, federal highways, federal meat inspectors, etc. because all those entities are part of the federal government and that is not recognized because those things do not exist. So, with all due respect, your answer makes no sense. Again, one more time. There are many facets of the federal government. If Clive Bundy does not recognize the federal government, common logic tells us that these facets of government do not exist in his eyes. This is a very simple analogy to understand. I do not know how to make it any simpler than that.

 

Oh..okay. I hope I can keep up with a mental giant like yourself.

Big fail at step one. And I can't say I'm surprised. Who says Cliven Bundy does not recognize the government, per se.
We know he does not recognize the authority of the BLM but what about all the other agencies and governmental functions I listed?
Have you provided one shred of evidence to prove Bundy does not recognize the legitimacy of our armed forces, for instance.

NOPE! You sure haven't.
Hopefully you understand.

Yes. Simple is the word.
Unfortunately everything that followed your initial failed presumption and undocumented allegation is just so much blah blah blah.

 

Of course, the rich can break the law because they create wealth, but the workers are mere parasites.

No wonder the Right love this Bundy guy

 

Actually if you are calling Bundy a master capitalist he is being treated like a cross between John Dillinger and Charles Manson while the tens of millions
of illegal "workers," whose very presence here is a violation of federal law, are absolutely bathing in benign neglect from the same people who claim to be so zealously guarding "the law" in Bundy's case.
So you are wrong.

The right, by and large, do not "love" Bundy. So you are wrong again.
At least you are consistent.

 

I thought Bundy was refusing to pay his rent - so he's a Commie, right?

 

It's very obvious you missed the entire beef I have with Bundy and his goons. Okay, so I summarized how we pay tax subsidies to timber companies for roads, maintaining BLM lands at tax payer expense, paying subsidies to farmers for crop insurance, politicians on their own farms, football stadiums, players, owners, etc. All these subsidies coming on the backs of many who are struggling with jobs, who need food stamps to survive. And okay. You want all that fine. I understand how markets work and how the tax payer props up those markets to exist. My real beef comes when the ignorant, arrogant, self centered right, such as the likes of Bundy go off the rail to demonize the government for helping him help us, even though we pay twice, to go and strut his all mighty twisted vision about poor black people on welfare. I mean give me a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) break. Does he not know that poor people also pay a certain amount of federal taxes to his cause by which he is able to profit off of a federal government he does not recognize? I mean this whole marriage we have with all these Bundy types, them hating the federal government and poor people, while these same Bundy types use our tax dollars to prop up their own profits, somehow gives them the right to go on a hating spree of others. And even the poor who are getting their cut of welfare from the government at a cost less than what the Bundy crowds are getting, doesn't justify their arrogance and ignorance over others, just because they are moving the markets around.

Bottom line, the Bundy's of the world do not understand their place or appreciate the benefits they receive where many of the working poor are not able to play the same game he plays. But, that those same working poor are just the same providing him the means to create this symbiotic relationship he has no idea exists. Bundy needs to understand this is a scratch my back I'll scratch yours arrangement here. Yes, without trucks, materials, overhead, ranchers, farmers, etc. the markets do not flow. Just remember one thing; those trucks ,materials, cows, and farm goods go no where unless that taxpayer pays for those roads and bridges for them to get there.

 

Yep, right on cue. I new you would twist your own original claims by saying Bundy does not recognize the federal government, but wait a minute, I never said government per se. You're playing dodge ball with your own message and I have better things to do than to argue you down about your own bs statements that you didn't mean literally. Folks know this game and to try and play it with me is the ultimate fail for you. Move along. You've been had.

 

My understanding of Bundy's beef is only with the authority over that land, which seems to be that he doesn't recognize that the federal government owns or controls that land. How did you twist it into a hate of the entire government? What we saw was an overreach by a federal agency in that they brought in a heavily armed team, helicopters and snipers included, to enforce a court order. What normally takes place over court orders is an act on the part of law enforcement, not of the federal government sending in groups of people armed in tactical gear to handle a trespassing dispute. That's what he hates and many Americans sided with him because they don't ever want the same happening to them over some different dispute. They took a stand against the method the government chose to enforce their position, not over some hate of the government in its entirety.

I don't think Bundy fits your political position because he didn't make the claims against the government, against blacks, or against taxpayers that you are attempting to tie him to. He's a working guy with a family who had heavily armed soldiers in the form of federal agents show up and use force against them. He took a stand and people stood with him. He's still in the wrong regarding paying the fees, but in no way should enforcing a court order require snipers. Period. We have plenty of people not paying their taxes and other things owed to the government, but I have yet to read another report of agents showing up with snipers and helicopters to destroy their livelihood instead of managing it through the courts and law enforcement. He owes the money and they should have threatened arrest over it. They also could have rounded up his animals, at his expense, and just pushed them back onto his land and sealed off his access to the federal property, also at his expense (via court order).

This just played out in a horrible way and the government has egg on its face. The racism claim played perfectly into their hand for destroying his character, effectively removing a lot of public support. The timing was not coincidental.

 

Why do Liberals think they can put works in people's mouths and twist what they're saying, then claim, LOOK, look what he was "thinking" I mean said, I mean implied, I mean said....whoops.

Oh yeah. If we didn't help farmers out, guess what food would cost in this country. &*(@)(@ bunch of Liberal hypocrites. I think everypne can get on board keeping food production in THIS country. Then, how many liberals will (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about helping our farmers, yet have no problems handing over millions to "green" companies that go bankrupt, with the owners basically walking off with the money, since no one kept track of the cash loaned out. It could've gone anywhere.

The basis of his argument is sound. But he's not all there. Sending armed military to your property is a bit over the top, considering the money spent trying to punish the man has gone way over the amount owed. Stupid. As always the govt WASTES tax dollars.

 

You are drawing a conclusion based on information you and I have no idea about. How do you know that Bundy didn't have a small army with him and intelligence suggested that is what he was amassing? This may have been a calculated plan by the federal govt. to see if the Bundy crowd would go to these lengths to protect someone who was breaking the law. Maybe once they realized how crazy these people really were, the feds decided to go to plan B. All they have to do is freeze his assets and his accounts and not a shot needs to be fired. As to my twisted idea of hate of the entire government, it sort of goes with the territory. Literally! As for being a twisted idea, I would take issue with that by the language that is commonly used in the west. Many out there either do not recognize government, they hate government, and have no use for government. Over time, to the casual observer, I think it would stand to reason why one would draw such a conclusion.

And I would also take issue with your claim about Bundy and his claims he has made about government. If a man, any man says to me he doesn't recognize the federal government, that man has some strong sentiments against the federal government. And so I'm not trying to tie him to anything other than what comes out of his own mouth.

I'm not sure about egg on the face. I'm not going to contest that either way. I still believe the Feds were testing the waters. And your right, the racism should have never been injected into this. It destroyed Bundy's hero status of the overreaching govt. claim they were making.

 

I'm trying to figure out why some people are assuming Cliven Bundy is a man of wealth?

As a rancher I believe he is probably working his rear off and has done that for his life. Do we know what he brings home financially?

 

Does it matter if he is or isn't? He broke the law. That's what matters.

 

It's not Bundy that the left hates, it's the reminder that that the left used to be anti big government, and has since become monster bureau state apologists. This cognitive dissonance performs a cranial spanking on their pea brains. Bundy reminds the left how neutered they have become feeding at the piggy trough. Same for the TP, same for libertarians. The left hates anything that reminds of its own hypocrisy, and particularly hates anything that might get through to its precious "young dumb idealistic" voter bloc.

I mean why make such a deal over an old kook in the desert otherwise?

 

This is hilarious. You remind everyone about the left feeding at the piggy trough while Bundy for twenty years has been feeding at it illegally. Lol! That was a good one. Thanks for the cognitive dissonance lesson you accidentally threw back in your own face.

 

It doesn't matter to me if he is or isn't. I have noticed some have assumed that he is, so I asked the question as it made me curious. I've known ranchers/farmers most of my life and have never known one that I would consider wealthy. Most have been chronically cash poor, with all of their assets tied up, requiring them to go back into their business so they can continue.

I looked for an answer via google before asking and came up empty, so I have to question why some have assumed that he is a man of wealth.

 

What many on the Right don't seem to realize/accept, is that people like Cliven Bundy DO generally represent Republicans... whether that is claimed or not.

Yes, people see Bundy and they see "Conservative-Republican" (along with the Tea Party). His values (including his racist views) are inextricably linked to the Right, as illustrated by the policies they advocate. In the eyes of many Americans, there is no difference; in reality there is practically no difference.

If Bundy's thoughts and ways aren't a relatively accurate representation of the current crop of politicians on the Right... then I don't know what is.

 

Yep. Fox reflects the American Right (crazy ideas and all) and Cliven Bundy is their poster child.

 

You are largely correct.

Bundy was the Right-wing's poster child, until the racism within him was uttered out loud (what they've been dog-whistling, in obvious ways before). And now, the charade is essentially over; Bundy's values (exhibited violence, racism and White privilege) are those of the today's (paid-for) Republican/Conservative; it is what they have been selling in packages that don't look like "Bundy". They want it to look more like Ted Cruz or the Koch Bros. etc.

The Bundy "issue" (the essence of the Right's agenda) is grafted into America's consciousness at this point and likely for a few years to come. Bundy represents what the GOP, Tea Party and Conservatives are advocating, in one ugly package.