Let's Start A Riot?!?!

Here's a secret: "liberals" aren't left. They're like the Democrats, a bunch of people out only for their own image, not wanting actual progress if it changes their comfortable way of life at all.

Politics in the US is center-right and far right. There is no real leftist party.

Ask Thomas Sowell. He knows more about it than you or I, but I'm sure you won't watch the videos. I know you haven't yet, I just posted it.

I disagree with you 100%. And being that your comment is based on your perception, you have no ability to change my mind on that. Next.

And "the left" doesn't have to just be an official political party. When we say "the left" we mean citizens and politicians with leftist ideologies, if that makes it more clear.

I mean, you saw how threatened Democrats are by Bernie's slightly leftist policies. You can see it in their stupid "Ban on Chokeholds" laws they're trying to pass, even though Eric Garner was murdered when chokeholds were ALREADY illegal in NYC. They're a bunch of spineless cowards who aren't interested in progress.

Ok I just now got you were only talking about political parties. Yes, the current Democratic party is in turmoil due to competing center, center-left and leftist ideologies, but traditionally they are more center than far left.

I, and I would say most everyone here, when saying, "the left" mean leftist citizens and politicians. Not the entire party. Like I said, social media has given a voice to every nutjob out there and even allowed those not even from America to chime in with their opinions, which are basically irrelevant.

Democrats care about one thing, staying in office forever and getting more Democrats elected. That's it. (ok, that's technically two things, but...) Republicans aren't much better but at least they don't change like a flowing river every time someone screams in the crowd.

Population is relevant. No matter how many times you say it isn't. When you are trying to confiscate weapons from a much smaller population, you don't need as many resources to do so.

Now, progressives/leftists/liberals, whatever you nitpickers want to call them, want to completely obliterate the police forces. Who's going to come take the guns from people's hands? A community watch group? Bernie?

Not everything is about race, that's our media. And of course when humans are told, "It's not your fault that you are failing in life, it's XYZ's fault.." they will jump on that train every time. You've bought into the hype as well. The vast, vast majority of people here, of any race, don't even ponder about it until the media splashes it all over our TV, or it's a sudden topic like now. I mean, have you seen our news yesterday? This man's funerals (plural) are being televised...there are celebrities there, it's like he was someone important to them all in life. He was a career violent criminal who they are doing everything they can to make a saint, just for the media coverage. It's absolutely absurd and just a show.

Just as with the other times we've had such "race riots.." the apologetic white liberals came out of the woodwork, pleading for forgiveness for slavery of which nobody alive today was part of, then after a few weeks when something new popped up for them to focus on, we all went back to business as usual. Nothing changed.

This time they'll knock down a couple statues, rename a few streets, take a knee with some African garb draped over their necks...and the Democrats will feel like they've proven they're "down" and they'll make up some more lies, everyone will be filled with such righteousness they can barely see themselves in the mirror from the glow they are emitting and we'll go back to normal.

The issue here, as with everywhere, is the haves and have nots. The have nots want to be the haves, but they either don't know how, don't know the right people or simply don't want to do what it takes and want it given to them, and the haves just want to make sure they remain the haves. That has nothing to do with race.

The have and have nots have been intentionally divided by race. Do some research on redlining.



People are STILL affected by this, no matter what one disconnected author and academic may spout without citations.

And there are some socialists out there who don't want to take your guns.

Do some research on police abolition. It means not answering every public service call with some thug with a gun.

Yes, there is supposedly redlining, then they scream reverse redlining when someone breaks down their wall about redlining with facts that don't fit their narrative.

Supermarkets didn't build "way" outside the ghetto because the people in those neighborhoods were black, they did so because they were poor and poor people tend to not have money. That's why they call them poor. And lenders charged (past tense) poor people higher rates due to risk, not race. If you have no or little history of revolving debit payments, that makes you a risk. Like me.

It's not nitpicking to point out that these are three separate groups, all of whom hate the other two. The leftists are the only ones who are actively calling for abolition of police.


More than one thing can be true. Class IS the larger divide, but to claim race doesn't factor in is preposterous. Is that seriously your argument?

And you obviously didn't read much of what I wrote. I don't have "guns" so they aren't "my guns." I'm simply making the point of why those who do and are law abiding don't see taking theirs but not the guns from the criminal element in the US a very good idea.

My argument is it's not a factor to the degree the media pushes. And only seems to push when certain events occur, for ratings.

I love how people can come on here and make ethnocentric statements and generalized attacks on "white people" and they aren't even questioned, by the way.

And there we have it. If for whatever reason those particular videos of Thomas Sowell didn't have enough "facts" for you, I can post others. Or you can easily find them yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y021WAdUlW8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7hmTRT8tb4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5csE8q9mho

In case anyone is wondering, Thomas Sowell is the same guy who claims Trump isn't a racist.

He's one of the radicals, anything right of Stalin / Mao isn't progressive enough.

It's really important to differentiate between "liberals" and "progressives" because they get mashed together too much. Liberals, who we now call "classic liberals" are individualists and believe in maximum personal freedoms, responsibilities and empowerment. This means fewer social / legal restrictions on actions, things like homosexual marriage, free speech, desegregation, that kind of stuff. "Progressives", previously known as Marxists / Communists, are collectivists, they believe in minimum personal freedoms, responsibilities and power. Progressives desire to transfer all personal freedom / responsibility to a central collective authority.

These two groups would naturally be enemies but during the 20th century they ended up joining forces in many places as both opposed the Authoritarian Imperialism that the great powers were using during that time. Nelson Mandela wrote about how his independence movement didn't trust the communists but ultimately had to accept their assistance due to their connections and influence. This happened in many countries around the world.

If you ever want to tell if someone is an authoritarian progressive, just see who the believe should be setting standards for socially acceptable behavior. If they are revolted at the very idea, congrats you got a liberal on your hand, if they believe a central authority should do that, well their a progressive.

And you seem to think everyone is. So?

"Lets get rid of the militarized police"

"WOW LOOK AT THE AUTHORITARIAN HERE!"

Jesus christ what a bad take.

Literally half your posts on this forum have been in this thread. Maybe log off for a bit.

It's not that I don't agree with this, but for the purposes of this forum discussion, anyone "left of center" politically, loves to lump anyone right of center as, "alt-right." I've seen DirectX state that in multiple posts when referencing anyone in this thread who is not just screaming, "all cops are bad."

But now I have to try and navigate the differences of the "left of center" folks when I post any comment so nobody gets their panties in a wad over a title? Sorry, not sorry.

Unfortunately they've all joined together in one unholy alliance known as the Democrat Party. And it's more Liberals / Progressives, "left" is just a direction typically on the old Conservative (no change / change slowly) vs Liberal (change fast) line. During the 20th century Marxism / Communism demanded the entire world change to this ultra idealistic society which is only "left" as it demanded rapid change in the form of workers over throwing their governments.

I just posted on the difference between classic liberalism (maximum personal freedoms / empowerment) and modern progressiveism (minimum personal responsibility / centralizes power).

False. And damn insulting. You think only minorities are into drugs? Only white people have guns? Wrong on both counts.

No, literally not half my posts have been in this thread. Perhaps you and your like minded brethren should log off for a bit.

Using the new buzzwords, its a "systematic" system to keep those with opposing thoughts down while allowing those here that share same thoughts free reign to insult and call those they disagree with names.

Cops tv show canceled and some cities are banning the use of tear gas.

Yeah I saw that. COPS for years was literally an hour of cops just kicking the ***out of white dudes, anyhow. Was funny from time to time but I never understood the point of it. Then again, I hate basically anything "reality TV" ish so.

Ehhhh, they really are three separate groups. Here, a humble field guide.

Leftist: These are your "to the left of the Chairman" types. They're the ones who talk about things like general strikes. They mostly go for Bernie here but will grumble that he doesn't go far enough. They want an actual, in the streets revolution. Some of them might even participate instead of waiting for others to do it for them! Everyone holds up Bernie as the figurehead for these types; the truth is that it's going to be AOC's wing of the party sooner rather than later.

Liberal: The core constituency of the DNC. In most European countries they'd be a center right party. They get chided by the other wings of the party about their love of big business (and the ensuing campaign donations). Most people think that Hillary Clinton is the standard bearer for these types; the reality is that it's Chuck Schumer.

Progressive: An attempt at a middle ground. These people want sizable reforms without burning it all down. Think Elizabeth Warren.

If any of them could agree on anything for more than ten minutes (and they found someone who was actually good at politics to help them), they might accomplish something! Neither of those things is likely to happen.

Is Live PD Still going to air??? Love that show....whenever I get the chance to watch it.

You weren't being asked to navigate thus. That was just a brief description of how two incompatible beliefs become intertwined and why they make funny accusations. Classic Liberals fought against systemic (laws / social norms) racism / sexism / homophobia because the state shouldn't be limiting personal freedoms. Progressives said "hey in our government all are legally, socially and economically equal". What they forgot to mention was "all animals are equal, some are more equal then others".

Sir, in my opinion, rest of post is good, I would just disagree that Elizabeth Warren would fit here. May I counter with Senator Mark Warren from VA?

YOU weren't asking me to navigate...but obviously it seemed to matter to others.

Just tell me what I call self-righteous ideologues who brush aside fact for perceived notions because it gets them pats on the back from "American liberals."