You need to stare at a mirror. Your demon is there.

But that is just that. You think someone that does what he does deserves a harsh response. I didn't expect that of you. You have always tended to be more of a humanitarian than I am. If it were me, I'd call in an airstrike and impale the survivors as an example. I never expected you to even accept that just because he threatened force he should be ground into dust. Like I said, can't always be right.

My thought was, is and probably will always be is this. If they want to fight it in court 1000 times, I have no issue even if it involves public funds. OTOH, if they want to threaten violence, they need to be made an example of

Well, when it is your property, I guess you can have sex with the person of your choice. Much like a gold digger. You sold yourself as property to that rich man, you don't get to say "No". In the case of the black people, it was someone else that sold them so it is different.

All racists believe all races are inferior to one (presumably their own, I guess) race? Is that a fact? There is no possibility that they might think some races are equal and some are not, or that there is a spectrum, or that some races have some superior abilities while others excel (or retard) in others? I believe I have heard lots of different racial beliefs that probably cause as much disagreement among the flavors or racists as with any of those races thus elevated or denigrated.

Bundy: "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."

Uggabooga or death by Uggabooga?

I don't believe his analogy is exactly equivalent, but I do believe he is on the right track in that depriving people of freedom is the sin, not the type of bonds put on the slave. The difference between those dependent on gov and a slave is one of choice. People who are dependent have a choice while a slave does not.

There are more differences than that. Someone who is on unemployment is dependent to some degree but owns their own children, gets to vote, and has a whole array of constitutional rights denied the slave. We're all dependent in some way.

A prisoner is not a slave but may have any number of rights suspended.

Same with service in the military.

A free people are dependent on government only to the degree to which they voluntarily cede their freedom. Thus, the difference between a free person and a slave is one of choice, of which the slave has none.

Your analogy to a prisoner is a good one. During the late 1800's prisoners in Oklahoma were sent to Kansas to serve their time. Being a Territory Oklahoma was not allowed to run their own prison system (although there was a Federal Prison in McAlester). In any case the prisoners in Kansas were treated like slaves and worked to death in coal mines. In 1907 Oklahoma gained statehood and one of the first acts of the new government was to build a state prison in order to remove Oklahoma prisoners from the inhuman conditions they were being subjected to in Kansas.

And the argument that was the strongest was that while those in prison did have some rights suspended those rights were laid out by the state government and not by some guy who was working them to death while hiring them out to mine owners.

But I don't think you cede all your freedoms if you are dependent on the government. You do have to live by their rules, but if you work for someone you must live by their rules, or if you are in business for yourself there are rules you must abide by that are set-up by your customers.

I know an old guy who had a terrible stroke and wound up on Social Security Disability. He can work and earn up to a set amount each month if he is able, but the only other restriction on him is that he cannot be out of the US for more than 30 days at a time or move to another country and take up residence. But he is no shape to go anywhere anyway, so the lose of those freedoms is not that big of a deal to him.

My point was that when they show up to announce that the time of reckoning has come, they are justified in bringing major force, not that they should use it with impunity just to show who's boss.

The guy makes threats? Show up with force just in case, he's not necessarily going to follow through with those threats.

Oh dude, spare me and get bleeping real. This was in your post, the one in which you complained about stereotyping:

I mean please, racist gubmint haters congregate on the web and bounce their rhetoric off of each other. No surprise at all that they begin to sound alike.

Just being dependent does not mean a person forgoes their civil rights. They will have those rights whether they are dependent or not. Hence choice is only part of that difference. The law guarantees their civil rights independent of their choices except in a few instance which you mention and neither of those has to do with dependency. So Bundy's comparison is ridiculous. How many people are better off without civil rights? Take the most dependent person imaginable--someone in a coma. Is that person better off without civil rights?

And we care about Bundy and his justification for his bad behavior, why? Next he will say "it's a fair cop but society is to blame".

I didn't realize I was providing a defense of Bundy, that was not my intention. As I indicated above, I think he was onto something but probably not what he intended.

I do appreciate that you agree with Patrick Henry and me that freedom is more important than security.

A slave could easily have greater security than a free person. Living under totalitarianism provides greater security, so does socialism.

While it is likely true that having some gainful work to occupy one's time is generally better than chronic idleness enabled by enough of stipend to survive and not much more, not sure I'm going to give Bundy a nod for being on the right track. His take has it that govt. subsidy is some nefarious doing. More likely is that the multi-generational welfare dependency seen here and there was the end-result of decades of struggle by blacks in Jim Crow America to survive with large pockets barely doing so.

Post emancipation blacks were not often educated to any degree and plenty of whites were disinclined to hire them for anything, aside from some share cropping arrangement. There were plenty of segments of the nation in which poor whites had trouble finding work at various points and I can only imagine it was even harder for blacks.

Implying that perhaps they were better off as slaves is sort of ignoring the fact that it was their enslavement and its aftermath that laid the groundwork for difficulties in the Jim Crow era. I can easily imagine that in various urban centers, doling out a welfare stipend seemed at the time to be a better alternative than having legions of people on the bare edge of survival and turning to crime at times to survive.

So where you at on the TV social engineering project on every channel?