Reid calls supporters of cattle rancher "terrorists"

"Racism" aside, am I the only one who is tired of hearing about Cliven Bundy? I understand the cause at one point, but FFS, these non-MSM sources (IE: The Blaze, Young Cons, etc.) just keep going on and on and on with Bundy this, Bundy that. You'd think he has his own reality show...
ETA: While on the subject of "racist" terminology, to include the two variants of "the N-word", I will say this... First off, I'm about as against political correctness as they come, but there are some terms that just do absolutely nothing to further a respectful and rational dialog in our common vernacular, and two of those such terms are the two aforementioned "N-words." I understand at one point they were words in common usage and were accepted, but times do change sometimes for the better and today, in our modern language those two words do absolutely nothing except anger, offend, shock, hurt or otherwise disparage, and really serve no positive purpose in modern language (similar to a certain C-word) in any real tangible context. If someone grew up or lived during a time when those words were acceptable to use, well, sorry, but they aren't any more and instead of going on using them (as in Mr. Bundy's case) how about taking a higher road and actually showing some respect for other people on this one?

These threads are sort of like a NASCAR race. People don't necessarily want a winner as much they do a crash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RMAC757

It's not a race problem it's a society problem.

---

Amen !!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RMAC757

Not sure what I said that would warrant a TO. I voiced an opinion. That's it. How is that diferent than any other thread on the this board?

---

I didn't name anyone, did I?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hghclsswhitetrsh

I didn't name anyone, did I?

---

[Beer]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RMAC757

A little ad on. All people black, white, yellow, purple whatever are better off not relying on the state. We tend to associate welfare with one particular group when in fact those numbers are often skewed and misleading. As stated previously. The same percentage of blacks and whites are on welfare. The total percentage of of those groups is a huge spread. 70% to 12.5%. It's not a race problem it's a society problem.

---

I'm not quite understanding this argument. I googled a bit and found others who are stating the same as being some sort of statistical proof that whites and blacks are equally likely to be on welfare.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if whites make up 70% of the population and blacks make up 12.5% of the population, and both blacks and whites make up the same percentage of people on welfare, approximately 39% each, wouldn't that mean that blacks are 5.6 times more likely to be on welfare than whites?

davsel, I think his point is that about 39% of blacks and 39% of whites are on welfare so there are nearly 6 times as many whites on welfare as blacks.

Personally, I think all of that is beside the point which is why I called Bundy inarticulate. I think Bundy's point was that the government handout gravy train makes slaves of all the recipients. I agree with that. As an outsider (I'm neither white nor black nor a recipient), I would also tend to agree the government handouts have virtually destroyed the family structure in recipients. I think he was trying to say you can see that most visibly in the black community and I believe that is also true. The rest of what he said was simply stupid -- but it also doesn't take away (much as the NYT and WP and other liberal rags would like it to) from the fact that the BLM was overreaching and tyrannical in this instance. In fact, there appears to be a pattern of government at all levels becoming tyrannical and corrupt for the last couple decades or so. Just look at Kelo v. New London; what a crock ... Souter should have been forced to resign for the decision he wrote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

davsel, I think his point is that about 39% of blacks and 39% of whites are on welfare so there are nearly 6 times as many whites on welfare as blacks.

---

I believe the 39% refers to the percentage of the welfare total.
This would mean there are an equal number of whites and blacks on welfare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davsel

I believe the 39% refers to the percentage of the welfare total.
This would mean there are an equal number of whites and blacks on welfare.

---

I interpreted his statement as he wrote it however, your interpretation caused me to actually look it up.

According to http://statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/, taken from HHS and Cato on Jan 1 2014,

38.8% of welfare recipients are white
39.8% of welfare recipients are black
15.7% of welfare recipients are Hispanic
2.4% of welfare recipients are Asian
3.3% of welfare recipients are Other.

So yes, the total numbers of white and black recipients are nearly the same which means the percentage of each race on welfare will vary inversely with their percentage of the total population.

[obama]

The full uncut/unedited interview/press conference video (over 1 hour long):
http://bambuser.com/v/4549915