Post by Hoosier Hillbilly on Apr 24, 2014 8:52:07 GMT -5
Republican politicians began backtracking on their support of Nevada anti-government rancher Cliven Bundy after the New York Times caught Bundy making (((racially-inflammatory))) remarks blaming African-Americans for willingly submiting to dependency on federal assistance.
“They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton,” Bundy was quoted as saying to a group of supporters last Saturday. “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.”
Line for line I would like to interpret the above 'as-to-what-he-was-saying
Line #1 The negro ( as it was perfectly correct to say 'in-his-time' / mine too ) has failed to take advantage of their freedom from slavery, as is apparent by the number of unwed mothers, young blacks in jail because of the lack
of a responsible father and family experience, because they never had to be responsible for themselves as active
contributors to the family or any work experience.
Line #2 into #3 It's puzzling to think they might have actually been better off if they hadn't been freed, at least some-of-them, having a work ethic and a family for support to honor, respect, teach morals, and help them learn the merits of hard work.
The rest of line #3 and #4 The government has not been a good step-dad by handing out their living without them taking some responsibility for it [this includes the mothers].
{insert} Even when there is a father (maybe not husband), he doesn't admit living with them for fear they'd loose the government hand-out.
Were they actually freed? Are they now independent? Are they worse off \now/ than what they were before government started making their living for them?
I think that's what he was saying, and if it was, I'm in total agreement with him!
I see nothing -racist- about telling the truth. Contrary to what ever Holder thinks!
“They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton,” Bundy was quoted as saying to a group of supporters last Saturday. “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.”
Line for line I would like to interpret the above 'as-to-what-he-was-saying
Line #1 The negro ( as it was perfectly correct to say 'in-his-time' / mine too ) has failed to take advantage of their freedom from slavery, as is apparent by the number of unwed mothers, young blacks in jail because of the lack
of a responsible father and family experience, because they never had to be responsible for themselves as active
contributors to the family or any work experience.
Line #2 into #3 It's puzzling to think they might have actually been better off if they hadn't been freed, at least some-of-them, having a work ethic and a family for support to honor, respect, teach morals, and help them learn the merits of hard work.
The rest of line #3 and #4 The government has not been a good step-dad by handing out their living without them taking some responsibility for it [this includes the mothers].
{insert} Even when there is a father (maybe not husband), he doesn't admit living with them for fear they'd loose the government hand-out.
Were they actually freed? Are they now independent? Are they worse off \now/ than what they were before government started making their living for them?
I think that's what he was saying, and if it was, I'm in total agreement with him!
I see nothing -racist- about telling the truth. Contrary to what ever Holder thinks!