Started By
Message
locked post

NYT, Media Matters edits Bundy's full speech.

Posted on 4/25/14 at 11:43 pm
Posted by S.E.C. Crazy
Alabama
Member since Feb 2013
7905 posts
Posted on 4/25/14 at 11:43 pm
So, why cut out the beginning and ending of his speech ?


Transcribed speech in full.
For the record.

quote:

“ And so what I've testified to you - I was in the Watts riots. I seen the beginning fire and I seen the last fire. What I seen is civil disturbance. People who were not happy, people are thinking they don't have their freedoms, they didn't have these things and, they didn't have them.

WE HAVE PROGRESSED QUITE A BIT FROM THAT DAY UNTIL NOW, AND WE SURE DON'T WANT TO GO BACK. We sure don't want the colored people to go back to that point. We sure don't want these Mexcian people to want to go back to that point. And we can make a difference right now by taking care of some of these bureaucracies, and do it in a peaceful way.”

Now the part in the middle that was reported.

“ Let me tell you about the Mexicans, and these are just things I know about the negro, I want to tell you one more thing I know about the negro. When I go went go to Las Vegas, and I would see these little government houses, and in front of that government house the door was usually open and in front of that house and the older people and the kids - and there's always usually a half a dozen people sitting on the porch. They didn't have nothing to do. They didn't have nothing for the kids to do. They didn't have nothing for the young girls to do.

And because they were basically on government subsidies - so now what do they do ? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never, they never learned how to pick cotton. And I have often wondered were they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things ? Or are they better off under government subsidies ?

You know they didn't get more freedom, they got less family life and happiness - you could see it in their faces - they weren't happy sitting on that concrete sidewalk. Down there they was probably growing their turnips - so that's all government, that's not freedom.”

Now, the other part they left out.

“ Now, let me tell you about the Spanish people. You know, I understand that they come over here against our constitution and cross our borders. But they're here and they are people - and I've worked side by side with a lot of 'em.

Don't tell me they don't work, and don't pay taxes. And don't tell me they don't have better family structures than most of us white people. When you see these Mexican families, they're together, they picnic together, they're spending their time together, and I'll tell you in my way of thinking they're awful nice people. And we need to have those people join us, and be with us, not come to our party.”


Now I know Mr Bundy is not a greatly educated man, and not very well spoken, I grant that. But why did the NYT only show the parts of the speech that make him look bad and racist, but not show the parts that make him seem to be NOT A RACIST ? It's called an agenda.

I take it that Bundy was more or less stating ( in an unlearned way ) that todays government assistance is a form of slavery also, he was asking a rhetorical question, not stating that black people were better off as slaves( and if you read the first part where he says NO ONE WANTS TO GO BACK TO THOSE DAYS ), then you could have understood that, yes, this man has a way of bumbling his words, but in the end he doesn't seem racist. He was juxtaposing slavery, to the slavery that Johnson's government assistance programs have brought about. Of course, like I said, he is not a well spoken man, but when his statements are viewed in full, this looks more like a hatchet job to me. Lots of people cant speak in public eloquently, but that doesn't make them a racist.

Now, he might actually be a racist, but the NYT's should not cut and splice the tape in order to make him appear as such, when they had other parts that made him seem like a caring person who doesn't want to go back to yesteryears ways.

But the NYT's has an agenda, so they want to hide the fullness of the conversation.

I am not saying that the middle portion of his speech sounds any better, but when placed in full context, I don't see Bundy as a racist, but rather as a guy that probably shouldn't be talking to the media.


This post was edited on 4/26/14 at 12:50 pm
Posted by cwill
Member since Jan 2005
54752 posts
Posted on 4/25/14 at 11:58 pm to
Posted by TerryDawg03
The Deep South
Member since Dec 2012
15638 posts
Posted on 4/25/14 at 11:58 pm to
Do you have a link? This shite is getting out of hand.
Posted by SpidermanTUba
my house
Member since May 2004
36128 posts
Posted on 4/26/14 at 12:04 am to
quote:

and these are just things I know about the negro


Did the NYT cut out other racist remarks by Bundy or did they include all of them? Just curious.

quote:


“ Now, let me tell you about the Spanish people. You know, I understand that they come over here against our constitution and cross our borders.


I had no idea we had a big problem with illegal Spanish immigrants. That's an awful long haul to immigrate without papers though I guess plenty of Irish and Italians did it 100+ years ago.
quote:


I don't see Bundy as a racist,


He clearly IS a racist, though, so we gotta wonder what's up with you?
This post was edited on 4/26/14 at 12:06 am
Posted by TerryDawg03
The Deep South
Member since Dec 2012
15638 posts
Posted on 4/26/14 at 12:18 am to
quote:

I guess plenty of Irish and Italians did it 100+ years ago.


Source?
Posted by SpidermanTUba
my house
Member since May 2004
36128 posts
Posted on 4/26/14 at 12:23 am to
quote:



Source?


What do you think W.O.P stands for?
Posted by Clames
Member since Oct 2010
16536 posts
Posted on 4/26/14 at 12:26 am to
I've never met more proud, hateful racists than those like you.
Posted by asurob1
On the edge of the galaxy
Member since May 2009
26971 posts
Posted on 4/26/14 at 12:44 am to
SEC Crazy defending a racist...no way.
Posted by C
Houston
Member since Dec 2007
27816 posts
Posted on 4/26/14 at 12:51 am to
NYT is such trash. Editing this mans comments is no different than what was done to Zimmerman. Just because they are flawed people you don't have to turn them into villains.
Posted by Clames
Member since Oct 2010
16536 posts
Posted on 4/26/14 at 1:12 am to
That's the really the only tactic they have left. It's the logical conclusion for those who live their lives playing the victim card.
Posted by L.A.
The Mojave Desert
Member since Aug 2003
61198 posts
Posted on 4/26/14 at 1:20 am to
quote:

So, why cut out the beginning and ending of his speech ?
You already know the answer to that question. They did it to cast him in the worst possible light and to help a staunch liberal like Harry Reid.

I'm not defending Bundy's comments. But his words were intentionally edited for political purposes. No one can deny that.
Posted by S.E.C. Crazy
Alabama
Member since Feb 2013
7905 posts
Posted on 4/26/14 at 1:29 am to
You must have missed the part where I said “ now he might be a racist ” but the fact is, in reading his statement in full, he seems to be more of a stumbling, uneducated, hard worker who is in over his head talking to the media, than a racist.

But then again if you didn't have an agenda also, maybe you could read between the lines.

Posted by gthog61
Irving, TX
Member since Nov 2009
71001 posts
Posted on 4/26/14 at 4:22 am to
all the more reason to hate liberals

They really are scum, wouldn't cross the street to piss on one.
Posted by lsutothetop
TigerDroppings Elite
Member since Jul 2008
11323 posts
Posted on 4/26/14 at 5:49 am to
I don't think I've ever been as cynical about the left in my life as I am today.

What's amazing to me is that the editing is completely unnecessary. If they wanted to portray Bundy as being a backwater farmer, they could post the speech in full. It wouldn't be hard. There's no reason to be so blatantly dishonest here.
Posted by Revelator
Member since Nov 2008
57832 posts
Posted on 4/26/14 at 6:08 am to
quote:

that todays government assistance is a form of slavery



And it is.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123774 posts
Posted on 4/26/14 at 6:18 am to
quote:

He clearly IS a racist, though, so we gotta wonder what's up with you?
Now might be an excellent time for the term "racist" to be defined here. Perhaps our resident libs will give it a shot?
Posted by Bestbank Tiger
Premium Member
Member since Jan 2005
70843 posts
Posted on 4/26/14 at 7:11 am to
Definitely a dumbass.

quote:

And I have often wondered were they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things ? Or are they better off under government subsidies ?


Slaves worked and didn't get paid. Welfare recipients (of any race) get paid and don't work. If you polled people on which deal they would rather take, how do you think the percentages would break down?
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123774 posts
Posted on 4/26/14 at 7:17 am to
quote:

Definitely a dumbass.
Without question.
Posted by imjustafatkid
Alabama
Member since Dec 2011
50271 posts
Posted on 4/26/14 at 8:03 am to
Wait. He thinks Mexicans pay taxes and should be given amnesty?

But, but....racist! Everything he stands for is wrong!
Posted by Rex
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
66001 posts
Posted on 4/26/14 at 9:53 am to
So, wait... you think that full speech isn't racist?

first pageprev pagePage 1 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram