There is an underbelly of seething hatred among a subset of Americans being used by the alt-left to gin up violence and hate, to push the country towards a civil war.

It's working because so many far leftists love the idea of pretending to be victims.

Cloward and Piven, and Saul Alinsky.

Read those and you can see exactly what's happening.

That is all.

These statues have been up over a hundred years in many cases.  Why now do they have to be torn down?  Why are they so threatening to the left, and the media?  Did Lee, or maybe Stonewall Jackson get down off their horses, and start looting like the BLM in Baltimore?

Maybe if the statues offend you, don't look at it when you drive, or walk by?   

Fear. The unstoppable march to the left has been interrupted by Trump. Anything that could potentially be a rallying point, or focus of conservatism must be crushed.

Anger. When you lose, it's common to get angry about the loss of power, and lash out at those who win. Including their statues.

Hate. They can't face the fact that their lives are miserable, and someone else is 'making it'. Success without progressive thought cannot be allowed to flourish, so they hate, and stamp out any signs of a reduction in the sad, and tortured movement to the left.

I see tonight they're just going to go ahead and tear down statues themselves.  What's next, take George Washington off the dollar bill because he owned slaves?  The left wants to erase all the early history of this country so they can reconstruct it as they want. 


Maybe we should just declare the Constitution null and void because some of the signers were slave owners.  My bet is BHO has a lot to do with this as well as Soros.

What, did Trump not say loudly enough that white people were evil racists? MLK, Jr must be spinning in his grave.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/08/14/mercks-ceo-quits-trumps-council-over-charlottesville/564125001/

I've learned to never underestimate the ability of either party to fuck it all up. So the Dems are not "over", and the Repubs are not in the throes of a dynasty.

However, the DNC needed to do some serious soul searching and appears to have utterly failed to do so. A truly sizeable chunk of Democratic voters absolutely despised Clinton, to the point that they were willing to accept the possibility of a win by Donald Fucking Trump (myself included)! My opinion is that the writing was on the wall very early on in the process, and the DNC failed to recognize it. So they put up sole support for The Anointed One, and the rest is history.

They'll come around, of course, through some combination of putting up a better candidate and the Repubs screwing things up. I'm just not sure how long it'll take.

:social liberalism: 

:fiscal sense, and answers that aren't automatically "more government" and "more shitty laws":

Those concepts are mutually exclusive.

I enjoyed your story, and I thank you for your service.

I'm going to hold to my opinion. If women can meet or exceed a minimum military standard that we determine would allow value-added to combat regiments (and I believe such minimum standard can be found), then I see no problem allowing them in combat roles. This is no different than we expect of men, to meet or exceed a minimum standard to adequately function in the military unit.

No prob. I'm not a 'meets minimum standards' kind of guy. We can lower standards so that women will by physically strong enough to 'do the job' in most cases. There is still the physical limitations to deal with, but more important is the psychological makeup of women v men, where one isn't tested until they are actually 'tested'. Combat is a very, very poor place to work on our social conscience issues. If even one man in a squad dies as a result of a woman not carrying the weight(figuratively), that's one too many losses. What price progressive advancement? Your son? Not mine, no sir.