(A) First, there are a number of legitimate reasons why right-minded citizens might want to protest the movement and/or destruction of Civil War monuments, honoring Confederate icons. One should never forget that none of the Confederates - including Jefferson Davis - was ever charged with treason, and for a good reason: the question of whether states had the RIGHT to secede from the Union was never finally adjudicated in court, and it is a toss-up which viewpoint would prevail. Lincoln was petrified of a USSC decision concluding that the rebels were exercising their Constitutional rights. Which is why he quickly granted amnesty to all.
(B) Demonstrations do not "turn violent." This expression promotes a Narrative and not the truth. The counter-protesters provoked the violence; they could have peacefully protested, or staged their own demonstration (after obtain permits, etc) at the time of their choosing. THEY chose to make this a "violent" incident, not the original demonstrators.
(C) One whack-job in a Challenger is not representative of anything but that person's motives and action. He did not speak or act for anyone but himself. To believe or suppose or say that he was representative of the original demonstrators is nonsense.
(D) We cannot have a society where any public edifice is subject to removal or destruction if ANYONE is offended by it, no matter how pure or heartfelt the sentiment may be. We DO live in a society where taking offense is the new national sport, after all. For example, here in my hometown of Pittsburgh we have a "Rachel Carson" bridge. She of the "Silent Spring" narrative, which ultimately resulted in millions of people in the third world being ravaged and killed by malaria. Tear down the bridge? No. Live with it and communicate your unhappiness in productive ways.
(E) Calling for a temporary halt to immigration, or to immigration from hotbeds of Islamic violence does not make one a "racist" or a "bigot," or a "hater." Same for immigration from Central and/or South America.
(F) No matter what the President's response was, the Left was going to use it to attack the President for SOMETHING. In this case, they have attacked him for what he DIDN'T say. If you can't see this idiocy for what it is, they you are the idiot.
(B) Demonstrations do not "turn violent." This expression promotes a Narrative and not the truth. The counter-protesters provoked the violence; they could have peacefully protested, or staged their own demonstration (after obtain permits, etc) at the time of their choosing. THEY chose to make this a "violent" incident, not the original demonstrators.
(C) One whack-job in a Challenger is not representative of anything but that person's motives and action. He did not speak or act for anyone but himself. To believe or suppose or say that he was representative of the original demonstrators is nonsense.
(D) We cannot have a society where any public edifice is subject to removal or destruction if ANYONE is offended by it, no matter how pure or heartfelt the sentiment may be. We DO live in a society where taking offense is the new national sport, after all. For example, here in my hometown of Pittsburgh we have a "Rachel Carson" bridge. She of the "Silent Spring" narrative, which ultimately resulted in millions of people in the third world being ravaged and killed by malaria. Tear down the bridge? No. Live with it and communicate your unhappiness in productive ways.
(E) Calling for a temporary halt to immigration, or to immigration from hotbeds of Islamic violence does not make one a "racist" or a "bigot," or a "hater." Same for immigration from Central and/or South America.
(F) No matter what the President's response was, the Left was going to use it to attack the President for SOMETHING. In this case, they have attacked him for what he DIDN'T say. If you can't see this idiocy for what it is, they you are the idiot.
