Is this a preview of what we might see in 2016 on a national level at the Republican National Convention? I doubt such a move would occur but it is interesting to see it happening at the state level considering social issues have been a solid plank within the GOP since the days of Reagan and before.

Report from Las-Vegas Review Journal:

By a show of hands, convention-goers adopted the platform as proposed by a separate committee without the two planks on marriage and abortion, following the Clark County GOP’s lead in removing hot-button social issues from the party’s statement of its principles. Some 520 delegates attended the convention, but less than half were present when the platform was adopted at about 7:30 p.m. Little debate preceded the vote, a far contrast to earlier in day.

State party Chairman Michael McDonald said it was a successful convention at the end of the day.

“I think it was about inclusion, not exclusion,” McDonald said, referring to the platform. “This is where the party is going.”

Republicans who sat on the platform committee said they decided not to deal with social issues this year because the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts have weighed in and it doesn’t make sense for the party of “personal freedom” to have the government or the political party get involved in people’s personal lives.

“The issue was how can we back out of people’s personal lives,” said Dave Hockaday of Lyon County, who sat on the platform committee. “We need to focus on issues where we can have an impact.”

Previously, the state party platform defined marriage as “between a man and a woman,” as does the Nevada Constitution. The past document also described the party as “pro-life,” or against abortion, a stance most Republicans still agree with.

Would this fly in the Texas Republican Party or the Georgia Republican Party? I’m certain it would not. However, depending on the part of the country, there is a divide growing within the party over whether social issues should continue continue as major part of the platform. The fact that the Nevada GOP felt strongly enough to retreat in those areas is a pretty fascinating move from a political standpoint.

Is this a good move or will this simply drive away a good portion of the party faithful if social issues take a back seat?

49 COMMENTS

  1. hmmm, let’s see – in 2005 (less than 10 years ago) – there was a nationwide movement to preserve the definition of marriage. It was such a settled thing in society that the only thing that changed democrats minds was lack of donations…which promptly went up after their switch.

    Society *wants* their values represented. To exclude the 2 issues Americans are united the most on is just plain dumb.

    • Surfisher: That is exactly it. The GOP has been trying to hold together an odd coalition. The Tea Party, which is where the action is, has a bullet-focus on smaller government and lower taxes–and local control. It blunts that message if the party has to also proclaim that the feds should control how we behave in our personal, private lives.

      But I think this is only the beginning. By the 2016 election, the GOP probably won’t “stand for” anything, thereby alienating a lot fewer people. . . .

        • Surf: Interesting pun.

          To “stand for” means to build your reputation on an ideal–to be identified with something.

          But it also means, pretty much, the opposite. That is, to “put up with,” as when we say we WON’T “stand for” that!

  2. As an Independent, and a Conservative Christian, I have voted Republican because they stood for the values I hold dear. If they abandon these social issues I see no reason to continue to support them. In fact I would probably just stop voting altogether since I have sworn to never knowingly vote for anyone that is not pro life. It is so sad to see this once great country destroy itself by abandoning God and the values it was founded on and choosing immorality instead.

    • Wanda — our nation is not destroying itself, it is the scuzzy politicians that keep getting elected, that are doing the job!

      Instead of not voting (because the GOP are turning out to be the same scumbags as the Dems) find Tea Party or Libertarian or Constitutionalists candidates, that represent your views, and vote for them ON MERIT instead of political affiliation.

      Just a suggestion — for choosing not to vote is also your right!

      • Surf (meant as a nickname):

        I hear Wanda. If you’re part of a coalition, and the party is taking you for granted, and not paying attention to your issues, I think it’s reasonable to sit out an election. For instance, a lot of Black people think Obama has not done anything for them, so they are turned off.

        If you just “go along,” you risk having your issues continue to be ignored.

        Of course, you should also consider the alternative. If you don’t support the side that’s neutral (ignoring you), you risk helping elect the side that’s actually hostile toward your issues.

    • Wanda:

      There is nothing illegal or ill moral about voting for a third party…THAT IS WHY THEY ARE THERE ON THE BALLOT ! The excuse you are wasting your vote is simply HOG WASH used to intimidate. You are exercising your right to vote…how you do it is not the point nor their concern.

      I can’t believe I agree with Surfisher/oblivious !

      • Bob: Yeah.

        You had the better answer. If we feel strongly about one issue, we really should seek a party that champions that issue. That’s how we got Prohibition, for better or worse. If it had been left up to the major parties, they would have argued the case back and forth, soliciting contributions to keep talking–but it wouldn’t have gotten done. It’s really the Prohibition Party that made it happen.

        Personally, I’d like to see a lot of parties, and let them form coalitions in order to govern. . .

          • Bob: I was agreeing with you.

            I earlier said that staying home was reasonable if you feel that your party has neglected what you think is important, but after reading your post, I agreed that it would be much better to vote for a third party that DID push what you value.

            And then I said I wish that we had more single-issue parties, which would form coalitions, but still keep their ideals–instead of our current system, in which the major parties MOUTH support for issues, but really don’t want to win, because then there would be nothing to fight about (and solicit funds for).

  3. Wanda – choosing not to vote at all is the reason that many politicians have recently been elected – are we now better off because of this lethargy and not voting for “the best of the worst” and aren’t there the “alternatives” as Goethe stated?? This attitude will eventually leave us open to no longer having the freedom to vote! Pretty Cool, Huh!!!

  4. I’m sure there were people who thought slavery wasn’t important enough to divide the nation over. You have to draw the line somewhere. If republicans won’t be against abortion, then they are effectively for it. Like saying, we don’t like slavery, we’d like to give women voting rights, we’d like to reverse the democrats passage of Jim Crowe laws…but gosh its just so divisive. We have to go after the moderates and independents.

    Social issues (maybe not these same social issues, but the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness don’t have a lot to do with gov’t spending)…social issues were the core of the reason that America became a nation in the first place. If our government doesn’t stand for any social issues, and only fiscal issues…our government has lost its soul.

    • Josh — I value your posts, but this one is nonsensical.

      Our Constitution was designed for the SOLE PURPOSE that the Individual Rights of American Citizens are to be SUPREME — NOT INFRINGED — by any elected US government.

      This has nothing to do with social issues.

  5. I know this is off-topic, but I am totally P’d off.

    Can someone explain to me why we ever listen to anything that gangster Netanyahu says? Watch him and listen to him. He thinks everything he says is “an offer you can’t refuse.”

    Today, he’s playing the “take my ball home” game, because the PLO and Hamas are trying to patch up their feud. Wouldn’t that, you know, be NECESSARY if the word of the Palestinians were to mean anything??

    We lost our BEST chance of peace there when Hamas won a perfectly legal election and we did everything we could to destroy them. Oh, yeah, we LIKE democracy, don’t we?

    INSTEAD, we should have got the Hamas-led government to sit down and negotiate. They would have done so to make the PLO look ineffectual, but more importantly, if you REALLY want to “negotiate,” you have to deal with the extreme of the opposition. Otherwise, the extremists will undermine any agreement.

    I am so sick of Israel deciding our Middle East policy. If it were up to me, I would say, fine, so long, Benny, and I would sit down with the PLO/Hamas representatives and work out what THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA wants from a peace agreement there, and if Benny doesn’t want to participate, fine, we should sign a peace treaty between THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the new Palestinian State, with a clause that if either of us is attacked, the other will come to its aid.

    • –And another thing. I am so sick of hearing about “Israel’s right to exist.” Why doesn’t anyone ever talk about the Palestine State’s “right to exist”????

      • Goethe…isn’t Hamas classified as a terrorist organization by both the U.S. government and the EU which forbids direct dealings with Hamas? Now that the Palestine Liberation Organization and Hamas, the Islamic militant group, have brokered a reconciliation pact, don’t we have a peace treaty problem. One of Hamas’ main goals is to eradicate Israel and it seems to me Israel has the same intent towards Hamas. Taher al-Nounou, an adviser to Ismail Haniya, the group’s prime minister in Gaza, reiterated on Sunday that Hamas would not recognize Israel. Jen Psaki, a State Department spokeswoman said “any Palestinian government must unambiguously and explicitly commit to nonviolence, recognition of the state of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations between the parties”. This may go on a long time.

        • Tess: People who have no power can only rant. In our media, we hear about attacks on Israel, but we do not hear about the attacks on the Palestinians.

          Yeah, Hamas is “labeled” as a “terrorist” group, but who’s doing the labeling? And what are the criteria? And what is it like to live daily, for one’s entire life, in a concentration camp, oh excuse me, “occupied territory”?

          I remember hearing a news report about Israel celebrating that they killed a leader of the Palestinians (and some “collateral damage,” of course). And you know how it went down? The Palestinian was riding in an OX CART, and he was blown up by a MISSILE fired from a HELICOPTER GUNSHIP. What is wrong with this picture?

          And, yes, of course, Hamas says it wants to “destroy” Isreal–because they have no power. People who have “nothing to lose” tend to be irresponsible. So–give them something to lose. Give them internationally recognized borders. Give them a chance to build an economy that doesn’t depend on total control by Israel.

          I am not anti-Semitic. I am not anti-Jew. I have friends who are Jews, and they feel much the same as I do on the subject. As long as we refuse to talk to people who do not agree with us, how can we ever fantasize that we will ever have peace??

          • Goethe…Not trying to cross you but as I read history there has never been any “Palestinian land” anywhere because there has never been a Palestinian country. It has always been an unseparated part of other countries or empires. About 1948, the UN General Assembly recommended that Western Palestine be divided into two new states, one Jewish and one Arab, with Jerusalem to be an international territory for ten years. The Jewish community in Palestine accepted. The Arab Nations didnot accept so there has been war ever since. Fortunately, Eastern Palestine had already been given King Abdullah to become Jordan, which I believe is a Palestinian state. I am not saying one is right and another is wrong. I do say that the Palestinians were given a chance to have their own country and, for whatever their reason, declined and have been in a state of revenge ever since. This is not to excuse Israel’s retaliation methods. Since 2000, Hamas has been linked with more than 400 attacks, including more than 50 suicide bombings, many of them terrorist attacks directed at Israeli civilians. There is something wrong with this picture, too.

            • Tess: No offense taken. Just a difference of opinion. I guess it depends on where your sympathies lie.

              I see the founding of the State of Israel as largely a colonial act by European countries, who wanted to get rid of their Jewish population, and America, with its guilt complex.

              There’s talk of Palestine being a “barren” land, since there were not great edifices there. But if you go for that, it’s the same as saying the Europeans also did not really “take” land from Native Americans. And that’s why Arabs and Muslims objected to it as the latest example of drawing arbitrary lines.

              Prior to World War I, there more than five times as many Arabs as Jews in Palestine (Galilee, Samaria, and Judea).

              Regarding Jordan, that would be like saying the Native Americans should have been pushed to Canada. Jordan is Jordan and Palestine is Palestine, and never the twain shall meet. There has always been a divide between Palestine and Jordan (Trans-Jordan). Here’s a nice site that shows boundaries over the years:

              https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/pre48maptoc.html

              In hindsight, however, we should have taken advantage of the friendship between the US and Jordan. Maybe we should have unilaterally created a Palestinian State as a temporary protectorate of Jordan–and make Israeli tanks, bulldozers, and gunships stay out. If the Palestinians had a state, even if created from the outside, at least they would have had “something to lose.”

              I am not crazy about the combining of church and state. When people think God is only on their side, people on the other side are, by definition, NOT the “chosen people,” and therefore, have no rights under God.

              And, finally, yes, the firing of primitive missiles is deplorable, but I see it more as a symptom of the problem, not the problem, itself. And, it is, of course, counterproductive, because of Israel’s well financed and equipped policy of massive retaliation, which ALWAYS kills more Palestinians, anyway. But if you have no power and you have no rights, and no respect or recognition, what do you do?

            • Goethe…I’m not sure exactly where my sympathies lie. Both factions seem rather hard liners to me. I basically lay the blame for the present political mess at England’s doorstep. Under the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the British and French agreed to divide up the Arab world between themselves. The British took what is now Iraq, Kuwait, and Jordan. The French took modern Syria, Lebanon, and southern Turkey. Palestinian’s and Zionist’s fates was to be determined later. By 1917 the Brits had made three separate secret agreements. The Arabs believed they would get their Arab kingdom promised to them through the Sharif Hussein agreement.. The French and British planned to divide up that same land among themselves. And the Zionists expected to be given Palestine as promised by the Balfour Agreement.. Specifically, Winston Churchill (1921) said “I am told the Arabs would have done it for themselves. Who is going to believe that? Left to themselves, the Arabs of Palestine would not in a thousand years have taken effective steps toward the irrigation and electrification of Palestine. They would have been quite content to dwell–a handful of philosophic people– in the sun-scorched plains, letting the waters of the Jordan continue to flow unbridled and unharnessed into the Dead Sea”.

              I do believe the PLO, without Hamas, should be given a homeland.

              Church and State are separate entities. Made very clear by the writers of the US Constitution. No where will one find the word “God” in it’s texts. Yet millions of American will insist it is there or the belief of the writers. More and more politicians use religion as a “vote getter”. As for “the chosen” people, I believe that is an English expression. You said you had Jewish friends, as do I, and they do not use that expression or reasoning for supporting Isreal.

            • Tess: Well, duh. Of course your Jewish friends are not going to refer to themselves as the “chosen people.” It’d sorta be like my telling people I’m white. But, ok, they’re not, technically, the “chosen” people.

              The Children of Israel are actually called God’s “treasured people out of all the people on the face of the earth” (Deuteronomy 7:6)

              And that’s what I meant by church-and-state. I am as uneasy with Israel as I am with Iran, or with the religious right here, who demand that we all dance to their drummerboy.

            • Goethe..I agree with all of your post except the “duh”. I think you can take the old Testament and find a suitable interpretation for almost any situation. God promised the Jews, in Genesis 12:2-3 -, “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” Christianity was introduced to the world by a group of Jewish Apostles who followed Jesus Christ.

              I agree that Israel is an open warrior nation without sanctions. Iran is a warrior nation but restrained by world sanctions which we know don’t always work. And the United States has become a warrior nation as we attempt to police the world.

            • Tess: Yeah, the front AND back of the bible are poetry, open to be abused for anyone’s misuse and abuse.

              Regarding sanctions, the Ukrainian situation is a perfect testing ground for a world without war.

              I had had great hope for the world after Bush41 got the entire world on his side to deal with Saddam. It seemed possible that invasion might no longer be accepted by the world. Of course, that was before Bush43 invaded the same sovereign country without legitimate provocation.

              But it appears that we are now trying to deal with miscreants using sanctions, instead of guns. It takes longer, of course, but imagine a world in which war is not the first thought.

              I guess we will see if economic sanctions dissuades Russia from cutting up Ukraine. If it works, we will have gone a long way toward eliminating war.

    • Goethe Behr— how dare you use Logic on this topic?!

      That makes you an “anti-Semite”…by default.

  6. OFF-TOPIC:

    The Supreme Court is going to have to decide if police can take someone’s cell phone and snoop into it without a warrant.

    Seems to me, they have three options: (1) yes, cops have no limits, (2) they need a warrant, or (3) a cell phone cannot be confiscated.

    The way I see it, a cell phone is now a computer, not just a communication device. Therefore, it’s not just an object, it’s an EXTENSION of our minds/brains. So confiscating and snooping into a cell phone is the same as hypnotizing someone to poke around in his head. So a cell phone should be considered part of a “person,” and be exempt from investigation on grounds of self-incrimination, not to mention unreasonable search.

    What think you on’t?

    • Goethe Behr — (3) cannot be legally done without (2)….so cops would want (1).

      It will be interesting to see if this liberal Supreme Court decides in favor of a Police State — which has been their trend — or upholds the US Constitution (which they are required to do).

      • Surf: I don’t think that computers or phones should ever be used against someone, because as I said, they are an extension of our brains, so it’s not just unreasonable search, it’s also requiring self-incrimination.

        But it’s not a liberal-conservative thing. It is the so-called CONSERVATIVES on the court who are always giving the cops more power, not the liberals. What we need are libertarians.

  7. Off-topic, except that it has to do with morals, I guess.

    I am uncomfortable with the Don Sterling situation–the owner of the LA Clippers, who is being punished for a private phone call to a girlfriend.

    But let’s remember this is not a government matter. When Obama was asked about it, he just said stupid people say stupid things and show that they’re stupid. (That is, “stupid is as stupid does.”) A perfect response.

    No, this is an example of big business doing what it can to protect profits. The NBA should have just issued a statement that Sterling’s comments were not an example of NBA philosophy or policy. And that should have been it.

    It should have been up to the public to decide whether it wanted to support Sterling and his team, and it should have been up to the team to protest, as they did.

    • Goethe – no question that Sterling is prejudiced but it is also his 1st Amendment right and his team. Once their relationship is severed and she’s paying her own money for all the tickets she can bring anyone she wants. While i despise BHO, his response was a good one as well as appropriate one. BTW – am I racist because I despise BHO??? An avowed and declared hater of the U.S. because of it’s supposed Colonialism – which has never happened except upon its creation. You can tell BHO is lying, because his lips are moving. And Benghazi + IRS are just the latest examples.

      Tess, I’m responding here instead of below you on McConnell – DUH!!! Did you ever think his remarks are politically driven rather than racist.

      • Sam: I do think that the last couple of weeks show that racism is alive and well in the US of A. Sterling was a sterling example (and I think it’s great that the guy who slapped him down is named Silver). And then there’s the welfare cowboy, who grazes his cattle free on land that belongs to We The People. (Glenn Beck slapped him down for that.). Anyway, he said “negroes” would be better off as slaves.

        Of course, both of these guys are very stupid, but the thing is, there are many millions of such stupid people in this country.

        Speaking of stupid, I always thought Mitch McConnell was stupid, too. You don’t announce IN PUBLIC that you are going to spend all your time being hostile and obstructionist. If he had a brain, he would have said he’s anxious to work with the new President to make the country work. He could have been just as obstructionist, he just didn’t have to announce that politics and control was all he cared about.

        However, although he’s from the south and sounds like a dimwitted version of Foghorn Leghorn, I don’t see him as racist, at least not obviously so. I just see him as stupid and blindly partisan.

        Oh, btw, do you have an opinion on the discussion Tess and I have been having on Israel?

        • Goethe – I don’t have a very strong knowledge about the Palestinian-Israel situation. In the beginning it was Judea land (not the Canaanites) and the Jews have been run off it many times in the 3000 years. But in ’47 the Israel friendly UN decided to give the Jews back their homeland and took it out of Palestine’s area. Their was a refugee shift of several hundred thousand each that left new Israel and came from everywhere to Israel.

          All Arab nations were dissatisfied and have declared an informal religious, war against Israel since ’47. This shouldn’t be too surprising, as Muslims as a whole since 6xx have been on a jihad of sorts to rule the world with Islam and Sharia, rather they be peaceful or fundamentalists.

          The present day situation is unfortunate and the U.S. shouldn’t be involved unless the entire Arab world attacks Israel. Israel isn’t innocent by any means, but It is the only Democracy in the Middle-East and they are not trying to extend their borders beyond what they fought to keep and won a little more of in the 6 day war.

          The Arab world will never be happy or even falsely project peace as long as Israel exists. Even if they could take out Israel, the Islamic world would not be satisfied, it would be just another rung in the ladder of jihad to rule the world. Without firing shots they are taking over Spain, UK, and France. It will never end until they succeed or a coalition makes the Middle-East flatter, blacker and glowing in the dark.

          Goethe – I do respect your opinions, and I know you have close Muslim ties.You should understand the very big picture more so than most. I am not in favor of ANY religious group “ruling” – I am only in favor of our FREEDOM and RIGHT TO CHOOSE – worldwide.

      • Sam…”DUH” is such a degrading and hostile utterance….Mitch McConnell, Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling all have the right to their repellant manifestations…the loss of morals is their curse. McConnell’s ideological injustice has resulted in an undeclared war on the outside groups promoting Tea Party challengers as well as the declared war on President Obama. From Glenn Beck: ‘Mitch McConnell is as big of a danger to this country as Barack Obama is’. From: The Atlantic 2008: Mitch McConnell opined that Barack Obama would do very well because: “America is ready to elect its first African American President, especially one with light-skin and and no Negro dialect.”

        • Tess: I remembered Harry Reid making that remark about Obama, not McConnell:

          http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2010/01/republican-minority-leader-mitch.html

          I Googled “Mitch McConnell” racism, and didn’t find anything substantive.

          Back to the remark, I’ve said similar things, myself, but it wasn’t racism against Obama, it was just a comment on American racism. I think Obama was elected because he was seen as an “African/American,” not an “African-American.” That is, he has no direct connection to slavery, since his African connection is recent.

          And, again, I don’t see McConnell as racist, but rather stupid and power obsessed.

          • Goethe…I stand corrected on the last quote of Mitch McConnell but not on the remark that Mitch McConnell was racist in saying to President Obama ..” ‘I don’t care what you come up with we’re going to be against it.’ Racism is often invisible but enduring. July 2010 McConnell acknowledged his single most important political goal: President Obama being a one-term President. He refused Barrack Obama’s telephone call on election night saying he was asleep (and the sky is falling). Voter-ID laws are a form of racism. There is no constitutional amendment that allows racism…just individuals without any reverence to life do this.

            • Tess: Democrats think the intensity of the hostility toward Obama proves racism. But that forgets how hostile Democrats were toward Bush. Haters gonna hate. Doesn’t prove anything.

              However, it is TOTALLY disingenuous to claim that racism is dead. That’s why it’s funny when Stephen Colbert says he doesn’t recognize race–people tell him he’s white, and he believes them.

              Racism, like sexism, ageism, or any other chauvinism is really just a matter if differentiation. We recognize differences, and we can’t help thinking that those who are different are somehow not as great as we are–whether we want to admit it, even to ourselves.

              The trick is to recognize differences and to learn to APPRECIATE those differences. We ain’t even near that point.

              BTW, speaking of Colbert, even if you don’t like him, you’ll have to admit that this is the BEST EVER response to a criticism:

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDqP82SQCZc

              I wish at least one politician would one day come out swinging like this after a false charge.

            • I just watched the Colbert thing again. He says, “I am not a racist. I don’t even see race, not even my own. People tell me I’m white and I believe them–because I just devoted six minutes explaining how I’m not a racist. . .and that is about the ‘whitest’ thing you can do.'”

              If you can’t see the humor in that, you gotta admit that you’re just prejudiced against him!

        • Tess – I’m not sure I know where to begin – 1st, I will apologize for yelling DUH @ you, beyond that, I am going to make several comments that you probably won’t like.

          Before that – joke – The “Blonde” walked into the kitchen and it was on fire, called the fire department direct and frantically announced the situation. The dispatcher asked,”How do we get there?” (before GPS was open to public use). The Blonde responded, “DUH, big red truck!!” — It’s really easy to assume!

          “Racist” is a relatively new, widely and often used by P.C. people trying to degrade someone else because we have our 1st Black POTUS (Democrat, I might add, a Pub still would not be allowed – he or she would be called an Uncle Tom / Plantation Mama by the Democrats and MSM) who has spent over six years taking us back 50 years to before the 60’s creating divisiveness, especially racial.

          Once upon a time, when I was young, we had primitive communications, my father. his friends and my friends, plus the local multi-ethnic ecology, set how my emotions and prejudices run. My father raved how Texans came to CO, bought up lots of land surrounding our streams in the mountains and fenced it off so it was hard to find good fishing – so I didn’t like Texans – It was called prejudice. The Mexicans ran in groups and more than once had a shiv against my ribs and what few coins I had were taken – but Coloreds often stood by my side – so i didn’t like Mexicans but Coloreds were cool – it was called prejudice. Not till I went in the Navy, my ecology became the World and I worked and INTEGRATED completely with all types of Negroids, Mongoloids, and Caucasians and we were brothers and sisters having each other’s backs, did i realize even prejudice is a lousy word, racism not invented yet, but good and un-good souls exist in all wakes of life.

          As Goethe explained, McConnell is not “racist” just old, ignorant has never been forced to trust all souls in life threatening environment. He is also politically confused. He should retire. He doesn’t distaste or not trust BHO nearly as much as I do!!! Older people have a tendency to be more straightforward and less P.C.

          As for Bundy, you too have become Low Info – The NY Times printed only parts of Bundy’s speech to make him look “racist”. The NYTimes and rest of MSM again being Liberal and protecting Democrats and Obama / Administration. Read ALL of Bundy’s remarks – again an old person saying it like it is!!!
          http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/cliven-bundys-pro-black-pro-mexican-anti-government-statements-completely-discredits-new-york-times/

          Sterling (born Donald Tokowitz, April 26, 1934) is definitely a conundrum and dichotomy! He is old (80) and a billionaire and I doubt he gives a flying . . . about “racism”. It is his team and no one can do a thing about him. Is he prejudiced? Absolutely!! He is very business oriented and has been since he entered business. He has also been charged for prejudiced business practices before. see his Wiki profile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Sterling

          • Sam: Mostly agree, except for Bundy. I went to the link, and I think less of him now than I did before.

            Yes, I did read the whole thing–the “full text. The reason his words were taken “out of context” is that the context was goofy, illiterate blather.

            He’s deciding what’s better for someone else. He’ attributing an entire social situation to one dubious cause. Why does this cheat have a soap box?

            Regardless of the blather, he’s still saying it’s good having one person OWN another, rape them at will, separate families, sell them as the wish, beat them, feed them slop, and, you know, have them work without pay.

            Bundy is offended by people sitting on the porch socializing. His ideal is “Arbeit macht frei” (“work makes you free”)–any guesses who else thought that way? Anybody? Anybody?

            • Goethe – I can certainly understand your thoughts and conclusions. What I got was the Government subsidy issue. It is meant for people temporarily and if people, regardless of ethnicity, are on their butts 24/7 living off the Gov instead of looking for, “driving” towards, doing what they can even if menial, work . . . then I’m on his side. Remember this is a man who has sweated blood and tears a whole lot of his life.

              Bundy is pissed in his fight because in ’93 BLM wanted to limit his grazing rights, and give it to the tortoises (to be moved from their original habitat for solar energy start-up). He should pay his annual $$, but it doesn’t end there. The Reid-Chinese company never got off the ground, I doubt the Tortoises were ever moved and the issue stayed in the courts. Now there is a new Solar Energy called Dry Lake SEZ (supported by Reid and BHO) that will be killing off the wildlife including the Tortoises. As a result BLM wants to kick Bundy off the land he was grazing on to protect what wildlife that will be left.
              http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/04/12/feds-want-relocate-desert-tortoise-chinese-solar-farm-sponsored-harry-reid/
              I can’t support Bundy, he should pay his fees, but I can’t support the BLM to support a solar energy experiment over a cattle ranching business.

              There was a time (<1906, 1934) when it didn't cost a dime to use the "people's land" because it was "open range". And in his mind the Gov wants to take his money and rights to land he worked for and give it to people to de-incentivize them to work. It so happens that community is black, I don't think it would matter if it were latino, euro-american "white trash", or asian – if they ain't working and he is. In addition, once again the Gov is trying to take away something he had rights to and support an initiative that has always failed.

              He may have been very wrong to picture it in term's of Plantation-Slave ecology – we threw that away in the U.S. 150 years ago. And his point was the group is chained to a different slavery, not "workin' for the man" but instead sitting on their butt waiting for a government handout.

              He said a lot of them are "old", maybe like me, their government "handout" is something they worked 55 years for. That doesn't excuse the under 62.

            • Sam:

              I had to look up BLM–Bureau of Land Management. Aren’t they the people who paid farmers to sit on THEIR butts? But even that had the benefit of supporting farm prices–at a time when farmers were human beings instead of corporations. Also, it allowed the land to heal, instead of being destroyed by planting the same crops over and over.

              I get what you’re saying. Personally, I feel that we should have a permanent WPA (FDR’s “Works Progress Administration”). Then, if someone were out of work, for whatever reason, they could be paid for fixing roads, building bridges, even picking up litter.

              My objection is Bundy going directly from “they’re sittin’ around doin’ nothin'” to “they’d be better off abused as beasts of burden.”

              It’s like hearing a Jew is dying of cancer, and saying he’d be better off in a gas chamber–which is quick. Yes, there’s a certain logic to that, too, but it also would show a heinous mentality.

            • Goethe – I agree completely, the more I look in to Bundy, the more I figure he is a bitter, cantankerous, old man who the Gov (BLM) screwed with and won’t let it go.

              The Solar Energy impacts have caused him troubles, and environmentalists protected Solar Energy for obvious reasons. This doesn’t excuse Bundy, he should have paid his fees and still fought in court – he’s not too smart plus he would have to be a Liberal / Democrat to gain any national support.

              Unfamiliarity with BLM is not unusual if you live east of the USMtnSts Timezone (+7T). Part of Dept of Interior (DOI) they have been using Government Control to screw with us in the west for many, many decades. a little good and a lot of not-so-good. The bigger the Gov, the more they want to control and politicize.
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_land
              http://www.doi.gov/bureaus/index.cfm

          • Sam..thanks for not calling me names. Without being lengthy, I was born fifty miles from nowhere on my Grandfather’s cattle ranch and he wasn’t too happy when oil was found on his land. I had no personal contact with other races until I went off to school where I saw racism (prejudice) in full bloom. The inequality of it all remains with me. Probably something like the mark that navy life left on you.

            By the way, I have a young grandson, who insisted on attending the University in Denver. He loves Colorado’s climate. No further comment on that.

            Clive Bundy’s problem is that he broke the law by allowing his cattle to graze on federally owned land for 20 years in violation of the law. After a long court battle, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management won, and Bundy owes one million dollars in accumulated fines. Bundy’s answer: “I abide by all Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing.” Whether or not Bundy is racist is the least of his worries at this time. So, take me out of your Low Info listing.

            As for Sterling, I strongly believe, especially nearing life’s end, he might want to get it right. I find the actions of the Clipper’s team equally repugnant. It didn’t take a secret recording for the player’s to understand Sterling’s racism. The team, for years, has known of Sterling’s racism so why did they prostitute their beliefs and sign contracts to play for the Clippers. A million dollars or more buys a lot of silence and a lot of “yessirs”.

            • Tess – Re- DU, it is a top three for Law Schools in the U.S. – Politically, It leans a little left but is almost in the middle. If your grandson is a skier or cross-country buff, he will love all four seasons here, however if he doesn’t ski the winter’s a bitch even if you’re young.

              Bundy – I beat that to death in a reply to Goethe, however, nothing’s simple. Bundy should pay BLM, but the $$ are a hoax!! they started charging and monitoring in the first place and used the excuse that the pay was for restoration due to overgrazing (in ’06 and in the ’30’s). That is just so much B.S.

  8. If we punished everyone who has made a racist remark…would even two be left standing? Rep. Bennie Thompson just called Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas an “Uncle Tom.” No ripples of righteous indignation heard. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had the audacity to tell his commander in chief –‘I don’t care what you come up with we’re going to be against it.’ A racist statement. He received praise. Charles Barkley, who spent eight years with the Clippers, while still in the NBA League,said “Bleep-bleep. . . . See, that’s why I hate white people.” The NBA’s comment then : “There’s no comment from us, because there’s nothing to comment about.” The two (three) people who deserve moral scruitiny for this ruckus (especially TMZ) will get no reprimand. That Sterling’s thinking was wrong is undisputed and I understand the players being upset but why didn’t they express their concerns to Sterling personally before the public display of taking off their “shooting” shirts and dumping them on the floor. Not one player is returning those million dollar paychecks signed by Sterling.

Comments are closed.