Those who came to protest (a constitutional right) the removal of the statue are reviled.
Those who came to stop them from protesting ( a violation of their constitutional rights) are glorified.
The violence during the protests is being blamed on the protesters, the ones fighting the protesters are being praised.
Both sides are critical of the police response during the protests and have filed complaints.

Many of the posters on this site who are criticizing those protesting the removal of the statue, and have no problem with trying to throttle their freedom of speech, don't criticize the violence of the counter protesters

This is where you went off the rails. It is ok by you to protest a statue being removed (constitutional), but a protest against hate is somehow a violation of the constitution? They didn't come to stop them from protesting..... they came to also express their opinion - against hate and the the KKK. I think you need to think about it some more and take off your blinders......

[Edited on 8/16/2017 by Sang]

Just exactly where did I go off the rails in the original post?

I have noticed on all the posts responding to the original that no one has bothered to include in their quotes the line
"I'M NOT MINIMIZING THE VIOLENCE OR SUPPORTIVE OF IT."

Some of the posters need to get their heads on correctly and READ what is posted rather than "kneejerking" to it.

I think everyone there wanted to fight each other. I think ignoring the Nazis as if they don't exist would've been a more powerful response. Then Trump would've been backed into a corner to call them the losers they they are. Instead, the fighting gave Trump all the ammo he needed to bash the left. That's why Obama always preached to rise above that low level garbage.

I think everyone there wanted to fight each other. I think ignoring the Nazis as if they don't exist would've been a more powerful response. Then Trump would've been backed into a corner to call them the losers they they are. Instead, the fighting gave Trump all the ammo he needed to bash the left. That's why Obama always preached to rise above that low level garbage.

Ignoring Nazis was already tried in Germany in the 1930s.

I'm just looking for the best way to defeat these animals. And to be clear, in no way am I agreeing with Trump that there is blame on both sides. The blame falls on the scum who don't belong in the US, and Trump's recklessness failed to make that point. I'm merely wishing the good guys had a better strategy, but they didn't because they let their emotions get the best of them. Trump should've communicated something to that affect instead of the embarrassment we saw yesterday from him.

Those who came to protest (a constitutional right) the removal of the statue are reviled.
Those who came to stop them from protesting ( a violation of their constitutional rights) are glorified.
The violence during the protests is being blamed on the protesters, the ones fighting the protesters are being praised.
Both sides are critical of the police response during the protests and have filed complaints.

Many of the posters on this site who are criticizing those protesting the removal of the statue, and have no problem with trying to throttle their freedom of speech, don't criticize the violence of the counter protesters

This is where you went off the rails. It is ok by you to protest a statue being removed (constitutional), but a protest against hate is somehow a violation of the constitution? They didn't come to stop them from protesting..... they came to also express their opinion - against hate and the the KKK. I think you need to think about it some more and take off your blinders......

[Edited on 8/16/2017 by Sang]

Just exactly where did I go off the rails in the original post?

I have noticed on all the posts responding to the original that no one has bothered to include in their quotes the line
"I'M NOT MINIMIZING THE VIOLENCE OR SUPPORTIVE OF IT."

Some of the posters need to get their heads on correctly and READ what is posted rather than "kneejerking" to it.

So those weren't your words where you thought protesting the removal of the statue was their constitutional right (which it was) but protesting against them was also not a constitutional right? Instead, you called it "a violation of their constitutional right" - meaning you only think it is a right if you agree with it...... Really not that hard to understand.

Group A hates due to their belief system and Group B says it's wrong. Then Group B hates Group A due their belief system and their hate is okay? I don't get it.

Hate is hate and it is wrong<--IMHO

I hate Nazis. You know, that whole genocide thing. I don't care if you get it or not.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/16/news/trump-manufacturing-council-ceos/index.html

Campbell Soup CEO latest to quit Trump council
by Jill Disis @jdisis
August 16, 2017: 1:06 PM ET

The CEO of Campbell Soup Co. became the latest CEO Wednesday to walk away from President Trump.
"Racism and murder are unequivocally reprehensible and are not morally equivalent to anything else that happened in Charlottesville," CEO Denise Morrison said. "I believe the President should have been -- and still needs to be -- unambiguous on that point."
The company had said just two days earlier said she would stay in the council.
Less than an hour earlier, Inge Thulin, the chief executive of 3M, quit Trump's manufacturing council.
"I joined the Manufacturing Jobs Initiative in January to advocate for policies that align with our values and encourage even stronger investment and job growth," Thulin said in a statement. "After careful consideration, I believe the initiative is no longer an effective vehicle for 3M to advance these goals."
They follow the CEOs of Merck, Under Armour and Intel, two leaders of the AFL-CIO and the president of a manufacturing industry group. Grassroots organizations are pressuring other CEOs to follow them out the door.
The AFL-CIO officials quit the council late Tuesday, after a staggering press conference in which the president said that "very fine people" were mixed in with neo-Nazis in Charlottesville.
"I cannot sit on a council for a President that tolerates bigotry and domestic terrorism," said Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO.
Sixteen other members of the manufacturing council either have told CNNMoney that they will stay or have not answered a request for comment. Trump set up the council in January to hear their advice on revitalizing American manufacturing, a focus of his campaign.
Among those who have said they will stay on, some have argued that it is valuable to have a seat at the table as the government shapes policy that could affect their companies and employees.
In that group are top talent from Dow Chemical, Nuco, Whirlpool, International Paper, Boeing and Newell Brands.

The guy who drove the car into the crowd trumped anything else that occurred that day, and that falls squarely on the shoulders of the nazis. No mystery there.

Anyone who think what happened with these Nazis first marching through the streets with torches yelling Nazi slogans like something out of 1930s Germany and then showing up the next day with assault rifles, clubs, helmets, body armor, and shields was acceptable in 2017 should all be shipped to some other country. They came looking for trouble. These inbred animals and their twisted Nazi ideology have no place in a civilized society in the 21st century. We need to squash these scum bags before they regress out whole society back to when this country was an ugly place. We should be far past this kind of thing at this point in time. A national embarrassment led by our DOTUS, Dictator of the United States.

Theo, you just love you some Nazi Klan.

Thx 68, you always cut to the heart of the matter. Bright side, at least these worms are out where intelligence can get nice fat files on them before they crawl back under their rocks.

"It was a gathering of HATE GROUPS: Neo nazi, Klan, and other white supremacist scumbags. I guess YOU think thats just fine and dandy, like trump."

Pops, I agree with you until I noticed you only mentioned "one" side in your list of hate groups. Why is that?

People who are against neo nazi's and klan are "hate groups" to YOU?, got it.

So the other side, throwing bags of piss and excrement is OK?

We Fought the Nazi's once with far worse weapons. they should be happy that was all they got.

Sure bet Heather would have been happier getting hit by a bag of piss.

Look, if you are a sack of sh*t eventually you will attract same.

So the other side, throwing bags of piss and excrement is OK?

No, of course not. But what you fail to realize, since your mind is clouded with hatred for the left, is that you are exposing the fact that you are only angered by the counter-protesters. The nazis didn't bother you so much, but those damn liberal idiots sure did!!! There was bad behavior, and evil dysfunction. The latter doesn't bother you as much as the first. Psychology is cool. Exposed!

http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/16/investing/ceos-trump-manufacturing-council/index.html

Stunning rebuke for the CEO president
by Matt Egan @mattmegan5
August 16, 2017: 4:29 PM ET

America's CEOs are running away from the CEO president.

The collapse of President Trump's business councils on Wednesday was a stunning and unprecedented rebuke to a chief executive who prides himself on being business-friendly.

It showed just how radioactive corporate leaders believe Trump has become barely seven months into his presidency. Customers, employees and activists put enormous pressure on CEOs after Trump insisted that both sides were to blame for violence at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

At least eight executives quit Trump's manufacturing council this week. A second economic strategy council was reportedly on the verge of dissolving itself -- before the president decided to save face and disband both groups himself.

It's highly unusual for a CEO to put out a statement calling out a sitting president. But that's what happened -- repeatedly -- as the CEOs desperately tried to distance themselves from him.

"This ship of state is sinking -- and the CEOs want to get off of it," said William Klepper, a professor at the Columbia Business School.

That doesn't bode well for Trump's economic agenda of tax cuts and infrastructure spending.

Several CEOs specifically called out Trump's incendiary comments over the weekend and again on Tuesday, when he blamed "both sides" for the violence in Virginia.

Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) CEO Alex Gorsky, for instance, slammed Trump for "equating those who are motivated by race-based hate with those who stand up against hatred."

Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase (JPM), started a memo to employees on Wednesday by saying: "I strongly disagree with President Trump's reaction to the events that took place in Charlottesville." He added, "There is no room for equivocation here."

And Campbell Soup (CPB) CEO Denise Morrison said she had no choice but to quit the manufacturing council after Tuesday, when Trump clung to his point of view in an off-the-cuff press conference.

"Racism and murder are unequivocally reprehensible and are not morally equivalent to anything else that happened in Charlottesville," the CEO said.

Keep in mind that Trump handpicked his CEO councils -- and praised them lavishly. In December, he hailed the executives on his strategy forum as "pioneering CEOs" who are "at the top of their fields."

Likewise, the White House called the members of the manufacturing council "some of the world's most successful and creative business leaders" when it was formed in January.

Merck (MRK) chief executive Kenneth Frazier, one of America's most prominent black CEOs, touched off the CEO exodus on Monday when he cited a "responsibility to take a stand against intolerance and extremism."

It didn't help that Trump quickly attacked many of these respected business leaders. Trump lashed out at Frazier within minutes, saying his resignation will give him "more time to LOWER RIPOFF DRUG PRICES!"

The next day, Trump called the CEOs who were quitting "grandstanders" who should not have joined in the first place. He dismissed Walmart (WMT) CEO Doug McMillon, who criticized Trump's initial response to Charlottesville, as a "very nice guy" who "was making a political statement."

Of course, Trump already had a shaky relationship with corporate America. His views on climate change, immigration and trade put him at odds with many CEOs. And because he can say anything at any time, it was always risky for corporate leaders to align too closely with him.

Indeed, Trump's decision to quit the Paris climate agreement led Tesla (TSLA) founder Elon Musk and Disney (DIS) boss Bob Iger to leave Trump's councils in June. Former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick cut ties after Trump's controversial travel ban.

Yet most CEOs were willing to keep their seat at Trump's table. They argued it gave them a way to influence policy and help move the country forward.

And then came Trump's response to Charlottesville, the final straw for CEOs who were forced to stand up for employees and customers.

All this raises questions about the fate of Trump's economic agenda. His push to repeal Obamacare has already sputtered in Congress. He had been relying on support from the business community to push tax reform and infrastructure spending.

For those proposals and anything else Trump wants, this week shows that CEOs will think twice before attaching their name.

Those who came to protest (a constitutional right) the removal of the statue are reviled.
Those who came to stop them from protesting ( a violation of their constitutional rights) are glorified.
The violence during the protests is being blamed on the protesters, the ones fighting the protesters are being praised.
Both sides are critical of the police response during the protests and have filed complaints.

Many of the posters on this site who are criticizing those protesting the removal of the statue, and have no problem with trying to throttle their freedom of speech, don't criticize the violence of the counter protesters

This is where you went off the rails. It is ok by you to protest a statue being removed (constitutional), but a protest against hate is somehow a violation of the constitution? They didn't come to stop them from protesting..... they came to also express their opinion - against hate and the the KKK. I think you need to think about it some more and take off your blinders......

[Edited on 8/16/2017 by Sang]

Just exactly where did I go off the rails in the original post?

I have noticed on all the posts responding to the original that no one has bothered to include in their quotes the line
"I'M NOT MINIMIZING THE VIOLENCE OR SUPPORTIVE OF IT."

Some of the posters need to get their heads on correctly and READ what is posted rather than "kneejerking" to it.

So those weren't your words where you thought protesting the removal of the statue was their constitutional right (which it was) but protesting against them was also not a constitutional right? Instead, you called it "a violation of their constitutional right" - meaning you only think it is a right if you agree with it...... Really not that hard to understand.

It looks that way, if you take the version you "THINK" was posted, but that wasn't what was posted.
Go back and READ the post rather than kneejerking.

Those who came to protest (a constitutional right) the removal of the statue are reviled.
Those who came to stop them from protesting ( a violation of their constitutional rights) are glorified.
The violence during the protests is being blamed on the protesters, the ones fighting the protesters are being praised.
Both sides are critical of the police response during the protests and have filed complaints.

Many of the posters on this site who are criticizing those protesting the removal of the statue, and have no problem with trying to throttle their freedom of speech, don't criticize the violence of the counter protesters

This is where you went off the rails. It is ok by you to protest a statue being removed (constitutional), but a protest against hate is somehow a violation of the constitution? They didn't come to stop them from protesting..... they came to also express their opinion - against hate and the the KKK. I think you need to think about it some more and take off your blinders......

[Edited on 8/16/2017 by Sang]

Just exactly where did I go off the rails in the original post?

I have noticed on all the posts responding to the original that no one has bothered to include in their quotes the line
"I'M NOT MINIMIZING THE VIOLENCE OR SUPPORTIVE OF IT."

Some of the posters need to get their heads on correctly and READ what is posted rather than "kneejerking" to it.

So those weren't your words where you thought protesting the removal of the statue was their constitutional right (which it was) but protesting against them was also not a constitutional right? Instead, you called it "a violation of their constitutional right" - meaning you only think it is a right if you agree with it...... Really not that hard to understand.

Where did I say having a counter protest was not a constitutional right. It is not a constitutional right to stop some one from protesting.
Those who came to stop the protest were trying to violate the constitutional right of the original protesters.
Now, do you understand what was written?

I watched Trump's speech at the NY hotel lobby where he wanted to talk about infrastructure. All the reporters wanted to talk about was his Chartlottesville comments. They wanted to pigeon hole him to see if he would make a statement where they could twist it around against him. The MSM are not acting like independent reporters, more like propagandists.

After 7 months of 45 attempting to pretend to be President, reading his tweets, watching him still in campaign mode, it is evident that he thrives on sparring and enjoys creating confrontation. And that goes to the way HE deals with the press and everyone else. He wasn't pigeon holed. That's laughable. He chose to answer questions asked of him. If he wanted, he could have stopped at any point, but he didn't. He enjoys going toe to toe and always has to attempt to get in the last word. After he first said he was finished, why did he continue to attempt to answer questions - because he can't help himself in spite of the damage he did to himself yesterday? He's his own worst enemy in front of a microphone when he has to deal with questions & going impromptu.

Group A hates due to their belief system and Group B says it's wrong. Then Group B hates Group A due their belief system and their hate is okay? I don't get it.

Hate is hate and it is wrong<--IMHO

I hate Nazis. You know, that whole genocide thing. I don't care if you get it or not.

What makes your hate any better than theirs ?

And I'm not condoning/supporting anybody/anything by saying that either. It is an honest question.

Let's hate Americans too, we committed genocide against Natives and stole everything from them due to hate, greed, and their different manner of worship. We just did it over multiple decades instead of during the duration of WWII. I bet you'd love living on a Reservation, it is just a step or two above a Concentration Camp.

To simplify my position, you can't abolish "hate" with "hate". It is like trying to put out a forest fire by tossing wood on it. Your a smart person, I'd think you'd get that. But I suppose it is easier to point a finger at others and be part of the problem...not the solution.

Gotdrumz, the fact that you had to go back about 400 years to find a good comparison should tell you all you need to know. Only a damn fool cannot connect the dots there.

To simplify my position, you can't abolish "hate" with "hate". It is like trying to put out a forest fire by tossing wood on it. Your a smart person, I'd think you'd get that. But I suppose it is easier to point a finger at others and be part of the problem...not the solution.

One is a cancer and the other is chemo. You are angry with the chemo for attacking the cancer - be proud.

What makes your hate any better than theirs ?

I'm not comparing myself to them. You are comparing them to me. However, I'm not marching in the streets against Nazism. I would think that the basic core tenets of Nazism would be repulsive to just about any person and just about any American. I wouldn't think that anyone would actually have to justify hating Nazism. This is obviously not the case. Oh well.

Let's hate Americans too, we committed genocide against Natives and stole everything from them due to hate, greed, and their different manner of worship. We just did it over multiple decades instead of during the duration of WWII. I bet you'd love living on a Reservation, it is just a step or two above a Concentration Camp.

I have three great uncles that died in WWII. One in Okinawa, one during the Guadalcanal Campaign, one in Italy. For as much focus that people rightfully place on honoring American veterans, it blows me away that the same people that not that long ago equated not "supporting the troops" with treason have absolutely zero issue with Nazis with torches and swastika flags marching and chanting in the streets. Again, oh well.

To simplify my position, you can't abolish "hate" with "hate". It is like trying to put out a forest fire by tossing wood on it. Your a smart person, I'd think you'd get that. But I suppose it is easier to point a finger at others and be part of the problem...not the solution.

I absolutely despise the entirety of the tenets and beliefs of white supremacy, white nationalism and Nazism. If you think that makes me part of the "problem," I don't care.

Those who came to protest (a constitutional right) the removal of the statue are reviled.
Those who came to stop them from protesting ( a violation of their constitutional rights) are glorified.
The violence during the protests is being blamed on the protesters, the ones fighting the protesters are being praised.
Both sides are critical of the police response during the protests and have filed complaints.

Many of the posters on this site who are criticizing those protesting the removal of the statue, and have no problem with trying to throttle their freedom of speech, don't criticize the violence of the counter protesters

This is where you went off the rails. It is ok by you to protest a statue being removed (constitutional), but a protest against hate is somehow a violation of the constitution? They didn't come to stop them from protesting..... they came to also express their opinion - against hate and the the KKK. I think you need to think about it some more and take off your blinders......

[Edited on 8/16/2017 by Sang]

Just exactly where did I go off the rails in the original post?

I have noticed on all the posts responding to the original that no one has bothered to include in their quotes the line
"I'M NOT MINIMIZING THE VIOLENCE OR SUPPORTIVE OF IT."

Some of the posters need to get their heads on correctly and READ what is posted rather than "kneejerking" to it.

So those weren't your words where you thought protesting the removal of the statue was their constitutional right (which it was) but protesting against them was also not a constitutional right? Instead, you called it "a violation of their constitutional right" - meaning you only think it is a right if you agree with it...... Really not that hard to understand.

Where did I say having a counter protest was not a constitutional right. It is not a constitutional right to stop some one from protesting.
Those who came to stop the protest were trying to violate the constitutional right of the original protesters.
Now, do you understand what was written?

Do domestic terrorist groups deserve to go unchallenged?, are YOU a proud supporter of them?.

Do you think people shouldn't be allowed to protest?
Are you a fascist that thinks only those who agrees with them are allowed the right to speak and protest?

"No fundamental right...is absolute."

Those who came to protest (a constitutional right) the removal of the statue are reviled.
Those who came to stop them from protesting ( a violation of their constitutional rights) are glorified.
The violence during the protests is being blamed on the protesters, the ones fighting the protesters are being praised.
Both sides are critical of the police response during the protests and have filed complaints.

Many of the posters on this site who are criticizing those protesting the removal of the statue, and have no problem with trying to throttle their freedom of speech, don't criticize the violence of the counter protesters

This is where you went off the rails. It is ok by you to protest a statue being removed (constitutional), but a protest against hate is somehow a violation of the constitution? They didn't come to stop them from protesting..... they came to also express their opinion - against hate and the the KKK. I think you need to think about it some more and take off your blinders......

[Edited on 8/16/2017 by Sang]

Just exactly where did I go off the rails in the original post?

I have noticed on all the posts responding to the original that no one has bothered to include in their quotes the line
"I'M NOT MINIMIZING THE VIOLENCE OR SUPPORTIVE OF IT."

Some of the posters need to get their heads on correctly and READ what is posted rather than "kneejerking" to it.

So those weren't your words where you thought protesting the removal of the statue was their constitutional right (which it was) but protesting against them was also not a constitutional right? Instead, you called it "a violation of their constitutional right" - meaning you only think it is a right if you agree with it...... Really not that hard to understand.

Where did I say having a counter protest was not a constitutional right. It is not a constitutional right to stop some one from protesting.
Those who came to stop the protest were trying to violate the constitutional right of the original protesters.
Now, do you understand what was written?

Do domestic terrorist groups deserve to go unchallenged?, are YOU a proud supporter of them?.

Do you think people shouldn't be allowed to protest?
Are you a fascist that thinks only those who agrees with them are allowed the right to speak and protest?

These aren't people, they are domestic terrorists, are YOU one of them?, or just a sympathizer?.

What if there was a group of extremist Muslims protesting something. Would he be against a counter protest? What if an Islamic radical armed their car into a counter protest? I'm 100% positive that the right wingers would have quite a different reaction, and I'm 100% sure our liar-in-chief would not be blaming "multiple sides."

Those who came to protest (a constitutional right) the removal of the statue are reviled.
Those who came to stop them from protesting ( a violation of their constitutional rights) are glorified.
The violence during the protests is being blamed on the protesters, the ones fighting the protesters are being praised.
Both sides are critical of the police response during the protests and have filed complaints.

Many of the posters on this site who are criticizing those protesting the removal of the statue, and have no problem with trying to throttle their freedom of speech, don't criticize the violence of the counter protesters

This is where you went off the rails. It is ok by you to protest a statue being removed (constitutional), but a protest against hate is somehow a violation of the constitution? They didn't come to stop them from protesting..... they came to also express their opinion - against hate and the the KKK. I think you need to think about it some more and take off your blinders......

[Edited on 8/16/2017 by Sang]

Just exactly where did I go off the rails in the original post?

I have noticed on all the posts responding to the original that no one has bothered to include in their quotes the line
"I'M NOT MINIMIZING THE VIOLENCE OR SUPPORTIVE OF IT."

Some of the posters need to get their heads on correctly and READ what is posted rather than "kneejerking" to it.

So those weren't your words where you thought protesting the removal of the statue was their constitutional right (which it was) but protesting against them was also not a constitutional right? Instead, you called it "a violation of their constitutional right" - meaning you only think it is a right if you agree with it...... Really not that hard to understand.

Where did I say having a counter protest was not a constitutional right. It is not a constitutional right to stop some one from protesting.
Those who came to stop the protest were trying to violate the constitutional right of the original protesters.
Now, do you understand what was written?

Do domestic terrorist groups deserve to go unchallenged?, are YOU a proud supporter of them?.

Do you think people shouldn't be allowed to protest?
Are you a fascist that thinks only those who agrees with them are allowed the right to speak and protest?

These aren't people, they are domestic terrorists, are YOU one of them?, or just a sympathizer?.

Now, we get to the crux of your problem. You are following the same ideals of the Nazi party from the 1930's. You declare a group you don't like as "non-people" and try to force others to see that their removal is "good for the country". Next you'll be wanting to build camps to relocate them away from others like you, then those "non-people" will start to disappear. You'll just stand there and say "Those weren't people, just vermin, so we eradicated them for you. Why are you so concerned about a few vermin?"

What would be the next group, Jews, Catholics, Republicans, Libertarians, Asians, gays, anybody that doesn't agree with you 100%?

WHERE DOES IT END?

So Pops, you are a Nazi. You just try to deflect people away from your true self by attacking others.

Gotdrumz, the fact that you had to go back about 400 years to find a good comparison should tell you all you need to know. Only a damn fool cannot connect the dots there.

Actually my reference was just to our own history as a nation. We were the ones that waged war in the name of progress and drove them to the Reservations. That only ended less than a century ago.

One is a cancer and the other is chemo. You are angry with the chemo for attacking the cancer - be proud.

Actually I'm not angry. I think it's counter productive to try to end one type of hate with more hate
Your analogy works for you, but for me hate is hate. I don't care to place a merit system on it. That just leads to minimizing and justifying behaviors.

I appreciate your civil approach to debate our individual perspectives.

Jerry said..."I'm not comparing myself to them. You are comparing them to me."

You missed the point as usually happens when people react on emotion. I am comparing "hate" in the connotation of being a verb. I am not attaching any noun to hate in any manner whatsoever. That personalizes it, which either takes away or increases the act of hating by an individual or group of people.

Jerry said..."I absolutely despise the entirety of the tenets and beliefs of white supremacy, white nationalism and Nazism."

I don't condone what they do or represent either. People responding to their hate with more hate escalated the entire situation in North Carolina. That is the premise of my perspective on the issue.
Hate + Hate = more hate <---PERIOD

Jerry said..."If you think that makes me part of the "problem,""

Yeah posting on a message board about how much you hate is helping the matter.

Jerry said..."I don't care."

Yet you made a comment, classic !

[Edited on 8/18/2017 by gotdrumz]

Those who came to protest (a constitutional right) the removal of the statue are reviled.
Those who came to stop them from protesting ( a violation of their constitutional rights) are glorified.
The violence during the protests is being blamed on the protesters, the ones fighting the protesters are being praised.
Both sides are critical of the police response during the protests and have filed complaints.

Many of the posters on this site who are criticizing those protesting the removal of the statue, and have no problem with trying to throttle their freedom of speech, don't criticize the violence of the counter protesters

This is where you went off the rails. It is ok by you to protest a statue being removed (constitutional), but a protest against hate is somehow a violation of the constitution? They didn't come to stop them from protesting..... they came to also express their opinion - against hate and the the KKK. I think you need to think about it some more and take off your blinders......

[Edited on 8/16/2017 by Sang]

Just exactly where did I go off the rails in the original post?

I have noticed on all the posts responding to the original that no one has bothered to include in their quotes the line
"I'M NOT MINIMIZING THE VIOLENCE OR SUPPORTIVE OF IT."

Some of the posters need to get their heads on correctly and READ what is posted rather than "kneejerking" to it.

So those weren't your words where you thought protesting the removal of the statue was their constitutional right (which it was) but protesting against them was also not a constitutional right? Instead, you called it "a violation of their constitutional right" - meaning you only think it is a right if you agree with it...... Really not that hard to understand.

Where did I say having a counter protest was not a constitutional right. It is not a constitutional right to stop some one from protesting.
Those who came to stop the protest were trying to violate the constitutional right of the original protesters.
Now, do you understand what was written?

Do domestic terrorist groups deserve to go unchallenged?, are YOU a proud supporter of them?.

Do you think people shouldn't be allowed to protest?
Are you a fascist that thinks only those who agrees with them are allowed the right to speak and protest?

These aren't people, they are domestic terrorists, are YOU one of them?, or just a sympathizer?.

Now, we get to the crux of your problem. You are following the same ideals of the Nazi party from the 1930's. You declare a group you don't like as "non-people" and try to force others to see that their removal is "good for the country". Next you'll be wanting to build camps to relocate them away from others like you, then those "non-people" will start to disappear. You'll just stand there and say "Those weren't people, just vermin, so we eradicated them for you. Why are you so concerned about a few vermin?"

What would be the next group, Jews, Catholics, Republicans, Libertarians, Asians, gays, anybody that doesn't agree with you 100%?

WHERE DOES IT END?

So Pops, you are a Nazi. You just try to deflect people away from your true self by attacking others.

How am I a nazi, you brainless wonder?. because I think the kkk and neo-nazi groups are vermin ?. boy are you stupid.

In your hate filled mind, who will be next? When those you think are vermin go through their camps and die at the hands of those you approve of, will you send a small box containing their ashes with a letter to their family explaining how they died of pneumonia?
Will you feel any sadness at the death of them, or will you cajole and laugh as you imagine the sound of them being crushed like bugs under your hobnail boots?

quote:

Gotdrumz, the fact that you had to go back about 400 years to find a good comparison should tell you all you need to know. Only a damn fool cannot connect the dots there.

Actually my reference was just to our own history as a nation. We were the ones that waged war in the name of progress and drove them to the Reservations. That only ended less than a century ago.

Just visit Pine Ridge, then we'll talk.