25 Apr 2014

Al Pacino Agrees 100% With My Cliven Bundy Analysis

Bundy Ranch 34 Comments

A lot of people flippantly say that Gigli is the worst movie ever made, but that is clearly refuted by Al Pacino’s cameo. Substitute “intimidate” for “extort” and “agency” for “prosecutor,” and you have my response to what’s been going on in Nevada.

WARNING: This is Al Pacino, so there’s f-bombs galore.

34 Responses to “Al Pacino Agrees 100% With My Cliven Bundy Analysis”

  1. DanB says:

    Wait…the message I got from this video is that public sympathy for Cliven and his followers has lasted just about as long as Ben and J Lo’s marriage did.

  2. Andrew' says:

    Whether he is a good figure head for a movement versus whether he has a good point about turtles are separate issues. But enough about Al Pacino.

    • Andrew' says:

      Just for the record, I don’t want to have to defend people against obvious smear attacks.

      I want to sing and dance!

      • Bob Murphy says:

        Andrew’ this is why I want to be PC, if we want to attract good singers and dancers.

        • Grane Peer says:

          Nobody puts baby in the corner.

  3. joe says:

    How about you don’t use property that does not belong to you and you don’t make racist comments about black people? Seems like a pretty simple lesson. Very straight forward. The problem is using libertarian ideas to justify theft and racism.

    • Anonyblogger says:

      “How about you don’t use property that does not belong to you”

      Oh no you di’n’t!

    • Major_Freedom says:

      “How about you don’t use property that does not belong to you”

      The land does not belong to any of the thugs in the BLM, nor is it owned by anyone else in the federal government.

      Bundy wasn’t trespassing on anyone’s land

      • Anonyblogger says:

        Also hilarious that a person who doesn’t care about who property belongs to in every other circumstance is suddenly waving the NAP-flag.

        I believe that’s called “irony” in the biz.

    • pawel says:

      Not the master of hip response, but damn – don’t you have to justify this stuff before you utter your nonsense?
      Libertarian ideas. You have to state one, then point to the disruption of one. Which one seems to be disturbed?

      ps. What is Bob Murphy’s response to photon problem of the NAP principle:
      around 21″
      Wiki entry is less generous to his photons problem – flashlight was in the paper I presume:

      ps2. don’t like David, he sounds like a raging religious consequentialist..brrr… there is no ought out of is – you just made an ought out of is silly, by making this statement. There are two statements: about real world, testable and never true because next test can always come negative and about abstractions which have no bearing on the former – Mr Coase, to which group your statement belongs? Mr Hume – you blew yourself up.
      It is a sort of religious belief in the lack of external logical morality. Hmm, I tend to look down at mere statements like these since I discovered they are not set in stone, UPB is on my list I guess, that is what my subconscious tell me.

      ps3. I really like the estoppel principle. You can’t oppose something that you are already doing. Can’t put a finger on it… And it makes me crazy. If I swith a light in my home am I aggressing at my neighbour. And if I turn the thing to the stuff I burn in my furnace (he does some burning too) do I get to say what he is burning and on what basis (he cuold be burning trash which isn’t cool)? Generally we burn coal – eastern Europe – it stinks and makes you want to look for clean air.

      Does the NAP require some external system of justice or is it the basis of one?

    • Z says:

      “How about you don’t use property that does not belong to you ”

      So does that property belong to you then?

    • Z says:

      Bundy’s comments about ‘negros’ have nothing to do with libertarianism one way or the other.

  4. Mule Rider says:

    Regardless of all the semantics, context, etc. of the Bundy situation, whether it be about his thoughts on race or managing cattle on public lands and the rights, roles, and responsibilities of individual ranchers as well as the state and federal governments, I find the reaction of the uber-Leftist/Progressive/Statist crowd very interesting now that Bundy has put forth some awkward and insensitive comments. You could tell from the get-go when this was little more than a stand-off between he and passionate supporters and the BLM that their ire was already raised, but as soon as these comments surfaced, they wasted no time pouncing on his individual remarks and contorting them in such a way to castigate EVERYONE sympathetic to the liberty movement, shutting off any and all honest debate (what little there was) on the matter. This tactic is not new, although I’m always somehow amazed each time it is successfully deployed.

    • DanB says:

      If you were a minority would you want Bundy and his ilk calling the shots locally, absent federal authority?

      • Tel says:

        Every individual is a minority.

        • DanB says:

          You sir have apparently not studied social psychology….

        • Grane Peer says:

          I’m thinking of a black swan

          • Z says:

            Or a red squirrel

            • Grane Peer says:

              Well, it’s probably not really a squirrel

      • andrew' says:

        You refer to the minorities in desert?

        Calling what shots?

        • DanB says:

          Andrew…minorities in general.

          Noah Smith had a good piece on what I’m talking about and I agree with it heartily. I also believe it makes any discussion of race highly relevant when dealing with libertarian ideologies.


        • DanB says:

          Let me add….yes in the desert.

          I am from AZ and let me tell you there are plenty of big trucks, american flags, freedom bumper stickers, and guns around. Yet, hispanic minorities in our community are constantly harassed and live in a perpetual state of fear that is greater than in probably any other state.

          • andrew' says:

            What did Bundy say about Hispanics?

            Please answer.

      • guest says:

        … If you were a minority …

        The term “minority” assumes that which you’re attempting to prove.

        If you see yourself as no different than anyone else, then you’re not a minority.

        If others see you as a minority, well that’s their right, as individuals, to think so. As long as they aren’t violating your *individual* rights, then no harm has been done.

        If you think you’re a minority, then that means you think you’re set apart, in some way, from most other humans.

        If you think you’re a minority simply because of the way your ancestors were treated, then you’re a racist.

    • pawel says:

      Death by association. Also logical fallacy called? I forgot: Ginger says negroes are evil, thus everything Ginger says is therefore wrong.

      Ginger is [not smart–edited by RPM] and [neither] are liberals. I think it’s called a fallacy fallacy loosely speaking. Sort of reverse of appeal to authority.

  5. andrew' says:

    Except he didn’t. Read it again. You’ll eventually realize he was making pro black statements.

    I accept apologies in cash.

    • andrew' says:

      Not only are people wrong, they are exactly wrong. I had no idea adults were such hacks. But it doesn’t surprise me anymore.

  6. andrew' says:

    Bundy is not assuming all blacks let alone all non whites are whatever you assume he is calling them.

    YOU ARE! You are the racists! You owe me, bundy, and all minorities an apology. Really.

  7. Major_Freedom says:

    Unedited video from Bundy, if anyone’s interested…


    • Major_Freedom says:

      What Bundy said, with the bold portions being what the mainstream media edited out:

      …” and so what I’ve testified to ya’, I was in the WATTS riot, I seen the beginning fire and I seen the last fire. What I seen is civil disturbance. People are not happy, people is thinking they did not have their freedom; they didn’t have these things, and they didn’t have them.

      We’ve progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and 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 the Mexican people 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.

      Let me tell.. talk to you about the Mexicans, and these are just things I know about the negroes. I want to tell you one more thing I know about the negro.

      When I go, went, go to Las Vegas, North Las Vegas; and I would see these little government houses, and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids… and there was always at least 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 subsidy — 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’ve often wondered are they were better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things? Or are they better off under government subsidy?

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

      Now, let me talk 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’re people — and I’ve worked side-by-side a lot of them.

      Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structure than most of us white people. When you see those 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, not come to our party.

      • Major_Freedom says:


        Lefty outlets (like HuffPo) defended Shirley Sherrod after her equally not all that controversial racist remarks (against white people):


      • Anonymous says:

        They “edited out” everything he said in 2013 too. Shocking. What they did not do is modify or distort what he said.

        • andrew' says:

          Context doesn’t matter? Odd view.

          See below.

          The idea that he’d praise Hispanics to bash blacks is 1 silly and 2 false.

          So, this time the news isn’t bald face lying. Give them a medal.

      • andrew' says:

        So the assumption by the progmeisters has to be that Bundy’s point is Mexicans good, blacks bad.

        That is asinine on its face.

        I wish I could ever give the left an even break.

Leave a Reply