Pointing out statistical facts is not bigotry or racism. Using them to define an entire race is. The fact that both Jesse Jackson and myself would be relieved to find the people walking up behind us aren't black speaks to the factual data, nothing more. The fact that Jesse can say it without condemnation and I can't is why we can't make any progress. Until the black community is prepared to hear the truth, regardless of who speaks it, they will be forever trapped in their urban plantation under the rule of their leftist slave masters, some of whom happen to be black. Until the white community is prepared to hear the truth, regardless of who speaks it, they will keep electing the same people that keep us divided. Lose the black label, the white label, the D label and the R label. Then and only then you will see who the real enemy of the people really are.
Regardless of who says it, it's still racist. One of the most racist participants in the P&R forum is black, but that doesn't change the fact that his disparagement of his own people is racist. And talking about "leftist slave masters" on the one hand and "losing . . . the D label and the R label" is simply disingenuous.
Leftist's are not D's. They have hijacked the D party. Leftist's are to D's as ISIS is to Islam, as black thugs are to the black community, as the Klan is to the white community. Extremists of all stripes must be identified, culled out, and in most cases terminated with extreme prejudice as they are invariably beyond the point of rehabilitation.
Or as tea-partiers and evangelicals are to the "R" party. As for extremism, it has been and probably still is a mantra for conservatives that "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice", which sounds great but which also has brought us to the point of robocop confrontations, the TSA, the Homeland Security Department, the NSA and all the rest of it. If this sort of extremism is also to be excised, then there's a lot to talk about.
If you're going to draw that moral equivalence then surely you can point out some incidents where the Tea Party and Evangelicals were rioting, looting and killing each other, and those around them. Please stick to modern day events. The Crusades aren't really relevant. That said, hard right Evangelicals are clearly nuts and should be shunned by the R party. They won't be because they vote just like lefties vote, so the extremist elements of our society have more say than they should. Tea Party folks, other than a very few, are completely non-violent. Sadly the movement has been hi-jacked by the Republican establishment and has little power these days other than to provide talking points for hard left media types.
I must have missed your accounts of "leftists" rioting, looting and killing each other, and those around them". As to "modern day events", the robocops, TSA, HSD and so forth are about as "modern day" as one can get. What do the Crusades have to do with it? As for tea party "folks" being non-violent, you may want to ask the Cliven Bundy groupies about that, as well as the militia men who think we ought to head down to the border and shoot anyone who tries to cross. Extremists of whatever persuasion are fond of inciting others to violence, then innocently asking "who, me?" when it all starts coming down.
You must miss all the anarchist protest at G20 meetings and several other events that take place globally. Anarchists are leftists. As to Bundy being some equivalent is laughable. Please show the people he shot, the buildings he burned and looted. That said, he is nothing but a phony patriot tax evader and should have been arrested. The R's do have a problem being duped by those that hide behind flags and bibles.
Anarchists are closer to libertarians than "leftists" (whatever those are). In any case, I clearly missed your discussion of protesters at G20 meetings. As for Bundy shooting anybody, his followers shot and killed two police officers and a civilian.