another vicious hate crime

as the facts prove, blacks commit hate crimes at TWICE the rate of whites
--as usual, the US MSM doesn't cover it
..don't try to say it isn't a hate crime--I will LAUGH
here's another one--black ''''girl'' sucker punches WHITE girl!!!!!!


You gotta love Good Ole Harmonica, he will take this ONE isolated incident and put it on EVERY black person in America. Tell me Harmonica do you think the McMichaels and Bryan are guilty of a Hate Crime?
 
Horrible incident. But I didn't see anything that would demonstrate that race had anything to do with it. What is the point of posting this?


Well, there were almost certainly hundreds of warning signs that this violent thug was a violent thug, but no one could say anything about it, for fear of being called wacist.


If we would ever get over that, we could, you know, NOT wait until a child is in the fucking hospital, or worse, before we take steps for their protection.
 
Yes, Lincoln was on the Left. (I read three books on the summer of 1859 the summer before the 2016 election. There were obvious similarities.) All the abolitionists were the leftists of these days.

As for whether the Left or Right will win, Cromwell was certainly on the right by some ways of thinking --- but it was the Cavaliers who identified with the rich, and WERE rich. I'd say Cromwell was a puritan, humorless, Lenin-type Leftist. Leftists identify with the poor, Rightists with the rich: actual personal income doesn't matter.

The right per se never won during the French Revolution, though the whole West of France rose in combat. But Napoleon took over as a rightwing strongman, and enjoyed a lot of support, obviously.

The Left did win the Russian Revolution, but only for some 70 years, and now the right is more dominant, perhaps.

I think we won't give up the good fight just yet, thanks anyway.
Sure..cogent post. I think that we really can't stretch the Left/Right thing too far in history..religion is neither Left or Right..and the English Civil war was a religious conflict.
You could say that out of the horror of Cromwell's rule....was born the modern Parliament---and it ended Divine right of rule for Kings in England.

The interesting thing about Napoleon..is that he kept a lot of the reforms of the revolution in place. In many ways..he sowed the seeds of the end of feudalism in France. Thus Socialism. Of course, The Communard was a French thing.
The English, OTOH, simple converted Feudalism to commerce..and rolled on.

Ultimately..we are the inheritors of that..here in the US. The Aristocracy of the Rich...it's a bit better than Primogeniture for determining Social Position--it's more accessible..but it amounts to the same thing eh?
 
Sure..cogent post. I think that we really can't stretch the Left/Right thing too far in history..religion is neither Left or Right..and the English Civil war was a religious conflict.
You could say that out of the horror of Cromwell's rule....was born the modern Parliament---and it ended Divine right of rule for Kings in England.

The interesting thing about Napoleon..is that he kept a lot of the reforms of the revolution in place. In many ways..he sowed the seeds of the end of feudalism in France. Thus Socialism. Of course, The Communard was a French thing.
The English, OTOH, simple converted Feudalism to commerce..and rolled on.

Ultimately..we are the inheritors of that..here in the US. The Aristocracy of the Rich...it's a bit better than Primogeniture for determining Social Position--it's more accessible..but it amounts to the same thing eh?
The Communard was a straightforward throwback to the Revolution; Napoleon was not referenced. The French were looking backward, but the Germans were looking forward. The Parisians had no idea how much trouble they were about to have with the newly united Germans.

I think wealth is a lot more ---- accessible ---- than noble families, the aristocracy. And benefits society far, far more than the aristocrats of 1st century Rome or 19th century England.
 

Forum List

Back
Top