Puerto Ricans DO YOU GUYS still Hate HOPKINS for this (VIDEO)

cause you are you ****ing racist bitch yea im so racist that i have a half white daughter .... :rofl:@ this FISHSTICK eating SOB..

lol@shaNks accusing me of trying to start shit... :rofl:

i know bu they think it will just because our governor is. it didn't happen in 1993,1998,2000. it won't happen now. it wont happen never. everybody that lives here knows that.

pr will never be a state. i know bu they think it will just because our governor is. it didn't happen in 1993,1998,2000. it won't happen now.

a eso tu les llamas los mamadores aka estadistas. pr will never be a state.

:lol1: relax man it was a joke. even that some ppl might think what i just say. a eso tu les llamas los mamadores aka estadistas.

I cannot believe that Horus didn't mention Floyd once. :lol1: mas respeto caballo. relax man it was a joke. even that some ppl might think what i just say.

^^ albizu era un tira piedras..! :lol1: mas respeto caballo.

cant believe you guys fell for the bait. horus and his bummies are trying to cause beef between blacks and PRs. dont let him get his ways

I cannot believe that Horus didn't mention Floyd once.

Why explain, when we could watch a movie ! :) (I have it ready just incase) damn this is some Fucck up shit..

^^ albizu era un tira piedras..! :lol1:

I'm aware of that, where in my post did I say otherwise? Please, quote me where I stated that a "dictatorship of the proletariat" can be accomplished without revolution. Please. I'll give you 5 million points if you can do so. Also aware of that. I simply meant socialism but to specifically indicate (since there is a lot of ignorance on this site) that it would mean a workers democracy not a totalitarian state. Well that's kinda my point. Socialism does not advocate revolution as being the only means of change, and communism as Marx intended it does.

I can quote you hundreds of sources that say the same thing. I've studied this shit my entire life. smh again. There is nothing wrong with quoting wikipedia if it provides the correct definition. I'm aware of that, where in my post did I say otherwise? Please, quote me where I stated that a "dictatorship of the proletariat" can be accomplished without revolution. Please. I'll give you 5 million points if you can do so. Also aware of that. I simply meant socialism but to specifically indicate (since there is a lot of ignorance on this site) that it would mean a workers democracy not a totalitarian state. Yes, I'm a aware, reformists. I never used the term "social democracy" I said socialist democracy which is where the confusion came (again I was trying to clarify a workers democracy, not a totalitarian state like what is in Cuba, not realizing the term could easily be confused with a social democracy, my mistake on my part for not being more clear). See above. Again, yes I'm well aware (I consider myself a Marxist/Leninist/Trotskyist and have studied Marx, history, socialism, revolution, etc. for many years, as well as I write for a Socialist newspaper and am a member of the CWI). We simply have a misunderstanding of a term (or better yet, how I used it). well, glad we are understanding :D.

LOL great, quoting Wikipedia, that really gives you credibility. The only one here who's "smokin" is you, since if you actually knew what a dictatorship of the proletariat meant, you'd know the only way by which it would be achieved is revolution. Social democracy is directly opposed torevolution, it advocates changing the system gradually via legal means. Social democracy is not pure socialism, but a combination of socialist and capitalist ideas in a democratic society where all members have equal power. In a dictatorship of the proletariat, those who used to be the working class under the capitalist system would take power. Please explain to me how this is the same thing. Marxism sees the dictatorship of the proletariat as a transitional period between capitalism and communism, not as a final form of government. This is strongly different from social democracy, which never intends to transform itself into another kind of government. that's some quality response.

I'm pretty sure Mayorga has done so more disrespectful shit. RM: I'm going to send Cory Spinks home to his mother. Some random guy: ... Ricardo, Cory's mother died. RM: Yeah... I know. RM: Make sure you **** your wife the night before I fight you so you don't get stretched out like a ****** like you did against Hopkins. (To ODLH) Mayorga is a pretty bad person overall.

WTF are you smoking? Do you even know it means? Proletariat = the working class Dictatorship of the proletariat means a "workers democracy." ::smh:: Further: "the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." The term does not refer to a concentration of power by a dictator, but to a situation where the proletariat (the working class) would hold power and replace the current political, economic and social system controlled by the bourgeoisie (the propertied class). In short, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" would replace the current "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"; the crucial distinction being that while the bourgeoisie is by definition a minority, the proletariat is, similarly, always the majority . Many Marxists refer to this transitional stage as socialism or "workers' democracy". source LOL great, quoting Wikipedia, that really gives you credibility. The only one here who's "smokin" is you, since if you actually knew what a dictatorship of the proletariat meant, you'd know the only way by which it would be achieved is revolution. Social democracy is directly opposed torevolution, it advocates changing the system gradually via legal means. Social democracy is not pure socialism, but a combination of socialist and capitalist ideas in a democratic society where all members have equal power. In a dictatorship of the proletariat, those who used to be the working class under the capitalist system would take power. Please explain to me how this is the same thing. Marxism sees the dictatorship of the proletariat as a transitional period between capitalism and communism, not as a final form of government. This is strongly different from social democracy, which never intends to transform itself into another kind of government.

No that's not what I said. Che would have definitely favored a true socialist democracy (dictatorship of the proletariat), not a dictatorship of Fidel. They definitely had their differences and that's part of the reason why Che left. Whoa, a social democracy is a very different thing than a dictatorship of the proletariat.

:rofl::haha: dude are you retarded??? whatever im done with you. even horus agree with me. The signs off a beaten man!:bounce: Bitchass dude to the fullest!:rofl:

:lol1: Owned me how?? Dumbass cant even hold a logic conversation....You stupid mothafucka...how did you own me boy?? Did I not just pull up a post of yours and you've basically went left field on me and now you claimed you owned me!?!?!:rofl: You still yet to answer the damn question dumbass...What the fucking difference??? Re-read the last post again dumbass! :haha: dude are you retarded??? whatever im done with you. even horus agree with me.