Posted on 12/21/2014 10:15:12 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
This POS has blood in his hands, just like the rest of them.
Prof. Of Education...nuf said.
ferguson has nothing to do with rights or liberty.
it is a lawless riot by useless criminals..
the FACTS show the officer was acting properly.. nevertheless the FACTS are thrown out and replaced iwth the EXPIRED “RACE” CARD...
the cops should have arresed the looters and brought them to JUSTICE...
***If whites are involved, uprisings tend to be framed as rebellions. .....
When blacks are involved, however, an uprising isn’t a rebellion; it’s a riot. ****
Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Turner%27s_slave_rebellion
It’s a riot that Obama and Holder whipped up with their agent Sharpton and then tried to turn it into a rebellion. It spread some but never took off like the Watts and Rodney riots did. It quickly degenerated into Demonstrations and die-ins and the like. The Left keeps trying to whip the horse back into life but are only getting some spasms and twitches which they are trying to magnify as Unrest and Righteous Rebellion.
A rebellion happens when a populace refuses to support an unjust governmental system that is putting too much of a burden on them or is no longer representing them any longer and attempts to over throw it.....sometimes the people have the tools and numbers to make it work and sometimes they do not.
When a real rebellion happens in the US it will not be a liberals dream come true. Just in terms of logistics it is a nightmare scenario for the left. This is why the overrunning of the country with illegals....somehow when push comes to shove I do not think the left will get what they think they will get. If you came to a country for a better life and freedoms would you join the side to save the country and its rights or fight to destroy them?
What a crock of crap!
It is not a riot or a rebellion but the start of the Social War. It is the Third World(blacks, Mexicans, Asians, non-westerners, against those of European descent and it will be to the death) The Euro American is losing and unless we becomes unified will disappear.
Notice that he defines rebellion as resistance to control. Before the war broke out, the
Southern states legally disbanded federal control and replaced with state control to which the people gave the right of governance.
When Lincoln ordered invasions of Pensacola and Charleston, the South defended its property.........nothing resembling rebellion.
The federal political class and the media used the idea of rebellion to incite the masses to invade a duly constituted republic..
Martha Fergussen knows something of riots...bread or blood!
Now that you mention it, a lot of fine musical instruments were burned as fuel during the French Revolution.
Although, what is now the Hope Diamond, has been shown to most probably be from the French Crown jewels that disappeared during the Revolution.
I guess those draft riots in 1863 NYC, where whites rioted and lynched blacks, were really rebellions, too; however, Pres. Lincoln and the history books never got around to calling them that even as Lincoln called in the army to kill almost 400 of the rioters. /s
I was well aware of the riots in NYC during the Civil War.
The ‘working class’ Irish were sorta ‘pulling’ for the South because they figured the stoop and manual labor they were performing would go to the Black if they were to ‘invade’ NYC.
Where History doesn’t ‘serve’ the Blacks (well, teach them) is that SLAVERY was NOT invented in 1800 because rich White Cotton Farmers didn’t want to or wouldn’t let WHITES pick the cotton so they heard about these ‘Darkies’ in Africa and figured it was good cheap labor. Would imagine the Chamber of Commerce had something to do with that also.
Now, ‘they’ neglect to inform the Blacks that slavery went back to breathing and in the 1800’s version - Blacks were selling Blacks to the Highest bidder.
That ‘clown Congressman’ that fabricated the slave trade routes as being STILL populated with the sharks with a taste for ‘dark’ meat as the Slave Traders would just randomly throw the passengers overboard. Also it was a well known fact that the White owners of the Slaves were hanging and beating beyond recognition all the time, in fact made sport of it. (’THEY’ also neglect to point out that the slaves on the ships were bought and paid for by the ships Captains or agents were aboard....The Slave owners - as well as the Shippers, would be damn fools to not do anything to keep the ‘help’ well fed, nourished and in shape, as their only ‘value’ was the ability to be sold or toil in the fields.
I am NOT trying to say it was a picnic etc but all ‘new’ groups in this country started at the bottom and worked their way up by either ‘mingling’ with other groups and adopting their names etc or just start their own schools etc.
When it came to the Civil War, the Irish were merely trying to protect their own turf.. Face it, when it is ALL you have or can expect to get, it isn’t so bad and even worth fighting over....
It could be defined as a rebellion- if their goal is to have a new system of government that lets them steal, loot, kill, and sell drugs openly and freely. Of course, they are not far from that now.....
The meaning comes from the old medieval theory of the "four humours" - a sanguine person has a predominance of red blood (sanguis) in his body and hence is florid of complexion, jolly, and busy. From that, "sanguine" has come to mean "optimistic" or "hopeful".
What the author meant (I think) is that because Jefferson was in favor of rebellion he was bloodthirsty - i.e. "sanguinary". That fits better with the tone of the article - that bloodletting in the streets is justified as rebellion.
I am aware of the words, their modern definition and their common origin.
Sauguine: optimistic or positive, especially in an apparently bad or difficult situation.
“he is sanguine about prospects for the global economy”
synonyms: optimistic, bullish, hopeful, buoyant, positive, confident, cheerful, cheery; informal upbeat
“he is sanguine about the advance of technology”
To my mind, TJ was optimistic or sanguine about occasional outbreaks of insurrection being a good thing for society. He could also be remarkably sanguinary, as when he discussed how needful it was that the French Revolution should succeed.
“My own affections have been deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to this cause, but rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated. Were there but an Adam and an Eve left in every country, and left free, it would be better than as it now is.”
https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/592/
So I guess he was both sanguine and sanguinary about revolution. For some obscure reason, he never seemed to think revolution might be aimed at him as a great landowner and slavemaster. He apparently always seemed to think of himself as a yeoman farmer. He was an odd duck in a number of ways.
You're right that Jefferson is the classic head-in-the-clouds thinker - long on intellectual speculation and short on practical brains. He went bust farming which was hard to do in that time and place with such a nice piece of property.
If he had been paying attention, he would have known that John Adams et al. sat hard on cousin Sam very early in the Revolution because he was a rioter/leveller with a taste for bloodshed (a very sanguinary fellow in fact), and they already saw where that would lead. But the problem of organized resistance versus riot never crossed TJ's mind.
TJ was never to my knowledge directly involved in any conflict whatsoever (while governor of VA, he skedaddled when Jack Jouett warned him of the advancing British), and sanguine or sanguinary his thoughts were untainted by any practical knowledge or experience.
But like C.S. Lewis said about Keats, he may well have had no idea what he meant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.