Does the Right really understand the meaning of the protests?

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It seems to me that the Right wears blinders where the meaning of the protests over confederate memorials is concerned. They seem to have a political agenda used as a template when they gauge the movement to remove confederate memorials.

Some want to argue that past presidents and statesmen who held slaves are just as culpable in the preservation of slavery and the dissolution of the Union as those in the confederacy.. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, even Benjamin Franklin have been cited as examples of slave owners whose monuments and memorials worthy of removal just as the confederate leaders may or may not be worthy.

The difference is, and this is the salient point, the confederacy was formed to preserve state's rights. And, in particular, a state's right to permit its citizens to hold, beat, abuse, sell and buy human beings as labor without pay.

Confederate leaders raised their swords in open defiance in order to destroy the United States of America. Inarguably an so act of treason.

Many of these confederate monuments were erected during the darkest days of African American repression otherwise known as the era of Jim Crow. While proclaimed free, African Americans were not free to excerise their right to vote, own property or live in peace and security. African Americans lived every day with the threat of mob violence should they merely fail to step out of the way of a White person. If they had the temerity to whistle or cat call at a White woman. If they did not comply with senseless rules of segregation by sitting anywhere on a municipal bus or a lunch counter.

Monuments dedicated to the confederacy were built ostensively as a commemoration of southern heritage. But to the Black citizens of the south, they were built as warnings not to step out of line, to remember their proper place, to not become 'uppity'.

Does the Right understand that level of indignation? Does the Right respect all the rights extended to all the citizenry?

Whenever a group petitions to enjoy all the rights all Americans are to enjoy, which side on our political spectrum provides the resistance? Civil rights were opposed by the Right. Women's rights were opposed by the Right. Gay rights are opposed by the Right.

Anybody else see a pattern here?

Protest is not OBSTRUCTION you worthless commies!!! Get bent.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

It seems to me that the Right wears blinders where the meaning of the protests over confederate memorials is concerned. They seem to have a political agenda used as a template when they gauge the movement to remove confederate memorials.

Some want to argue that past presidents and statesmen who held slaves are just as culpable in the preservation of slavery and the dissolution of the Union as those in the confederacy.. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, even Benjamin Franklin have been cited as examples of slave owners whose monuments and memorials worthy of removal just as the confederate leaders may or may not be worthy.

The difference is, and this is the salient point, the confederacy was formed to preserve state's rights. And, in particular, a state's right to permit its citizens to hold, beat, abuse, sell and buy human beings as labor without pay.

Confederate leaders raised their swords in open defiance in order to destroy the United States of America. Inarguably an so act of treason.

Many of these confederate monuments were erected during the darkest days of African American repression otherwise known as the era of Jim Crow. While proclaimed free, African Americans were not free to excerise their right to vote, own property or live in peace and security. African Americans lived every day with the threat of mob violence should they merely fail to step out of the way of a White person. If they had the temerity to whistle or cat call at a White woman. If they did not comply with senseless rules of segregation by sitting anywhere on a municipal bus or a lunch counter.

Monuments dedicated to the confederacy were built ostensively as a commemoration of southern heritage. But to the Black citizens of the south, they were built as warnings not to step out of line, to remember their proper place, to not become 'uppity'.

Does the Right understand that level of indignation? Does the Right respect all the rights extended to all the citizenry?

Whenever a group petitions to enjoy all the rights all Americans are to enjoy, which side on our political spectrum provides the resistance? Civil rights were opposed by the Right. Women's rights were opposed by the Right. Gay rights are opposed by the Right.

Anybody else see a pattern here?

I see destruction, death, lies, deception, hate, bitterness, past slavery and segregation, when one one peels back the facade of libs.

 

[OKTexas]

It seems to me that the Right wears blinders where the meaning of the protests over confederate memorials is concerned. They seem to have a political agenda used as a template when they gauge the movement to remove confederate memorials.

Some want to argue that past presidents and statesmen who held slaves are just as culpable in the preservation of slavery and the dissolution of the Union as those in the confederacy.. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, even Benjamin Franklin have been cited as examples of slave owners whose monuments and memorials worthy of removal just as the confederate leaders may or may not be worthy.

The difference is, and this is the salient point, the confederacy was formed to preserve state's rights. And, in particular, a state's right to permit its citizens to hold, beat, abuse, sell and buy human beings as labor without pay.

Confederate leaders raised their swords in open defiance in order to destroy the United States of America. Inarguably an so act of treason.

Many of these confederate monuments were erected during the darkest days of African American repression otherwise known as the era of Jim Crow. While proclaimed free, African Americans were not free to excerise their right to vote, own property or live in peace and security. African Americans lived every day with the threat of mob violence should they merely fail to step out of the way of a White person. If they had the temerity to whistle or cat call at a White woman. If they did not comply with senseless rules of segregation by sitting anywhere on a municipal bus or a lunch counter.

Monuments dedicated to the confederacy were built ostensively as a commemoration of southern heritage. But to the Black citizens of the south, they were built as warnings not to step out of line, to remember their proper place, to not become 'uppity'.

Does the Right understand that level of indignation? Does the Right respect all the rights extended to all the citizenry?

Whenever a group petitions to enjoy all the rights all Americans are to enjoy, which side on our political spectrum provides the resistance? Civil rights were opposed by the Right. Women's rights were opposed by the Right. Gay rights are opposed by the Right.

Anybody else see a pattern here?

I'm impressed you put so much effort in such idiocy. You snowflakes want to boil the reasons the south succeeded to a singular issue, that's simply a lie. The vast majority of the people who fought for the south never owned a slave and were tired of northern economic aggression and policies. Some went on to be very successful business people and contributed greatly to their communities. Houston is one example where former southern officers did this and now are purging the city of their names without regard to their post war contributions. Lincoln simply violated the primary founding principle, that free men ought to be able to govern themselves and destroyed that principle with the iron fist of tyranny. You seem to forget many of the northern states were also slave holders.


.

When did the Union fire on Ft. Sumpter? Did Lincoln give the order?

Lincoln forced the souths hand by reinforcing a post on foreign soil, he chose to do that knowing what would happen, he had been warned. You can't excuse what he did or the war crimes perpetrated by his generals.


.

 

[Nosmo King]

It seems to me that the Right wears blinders where the meaning of the protests over confederate memorials is concerned. They seem to have a political agenda used as a template when they gauge the movement to remove confederate memorials.

Some want to argue that past presidents and statesmen who held slaves are just as culpable in the preservation of slavery and the dissolution of the Union as those in the confederacy.. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, even Benjamin Franklin have been cited as examples of slave owners whose monuments and memorials worthy of removal just as the confederate leaders may or may not be worthy.

The difference is, and this is the salient point, the confederacy was formed to preserve state's rights. And, in particular, a state's right to permit its citizens to hold, beat, abuse, sell and buy human beings as labor without pay.

Confederate leaders raised their swords in open defiance in order to destroy the United States of America. Inarguably an so act of treason.

Many of these confederate monuments were erected during the darkest days of African American repression otherwise known as the era of Jim Crow. While proclaimed free, African Americans were not free to excerise their right to vote, own property or live in peace and security. African Americans lived every day with the threat of mob violence should they merely fail to step out of the way of a White person. If they had the temerity to whistle or cat call at a White woman. If they did not comply with senseless rules of segregation by sitting anywhere on a municipal bus or a lunch counter.

Monuments dedicated to the confederacy were built ostensively as a commemoration of southern heritage. But to the Black citizens of the south, they were built as warnings not to step out of line, to remember their proper place, to not become 'uppity'.

Does the Right understand that level of indignation? Does the Right respect all the rights extended to all the citizenry?

Whenever a group petitions to enjoy all the rights all Americans are to enjoy, which side on our political spectrum provides the resistance? Civil rights were opposed by the Right. Women's rights were opposed by the Right. Gay rights are opposed by the Right.

Anybody else see a pattern here?

I'm impressed you put so much effort in such idiocy. You snowflakes want to boil the reasons the south succeeded to a singular issue, that's simply a lie. The vast majority of the people who fought for the south never owned a slave and were tired of northern economic aggression and policies. Some went on to be very successful business people and contributed greatly to their communities. Houston is one example where former southern officers did this and now are purging the city of their names without regard to their post war contributions. Lincoln simply violated the primary founding principle, that free men ought to be able to govern themselves and destroyed that principle with the iron fist of tyranny. You seem to forget many of the northern states were also slave holders.


.

When did the Union fire on Ft. Sumpter? Did Lincoln give the order?

Lincoln forced the souths hand by reinforcing a post on foreign soil, he chose to do that knowing what would happen, he had been warned. You can't excuse what he did or the war crimes perpetrated by his generals.


.

Ft. Sumpter was on an island in Charleston harbor. Charleston was, and still is in the United States of America. That's not "foreign soil". Unless you happen to commit treason and consider it such.

 

[Nosmo King]

It seems to me that the Right wears blinders where the meaning of the protests over confederate memorials is concerned. They seem to have a political agenda used as a template when they gauge the movement to remove confederate memorials.

Some want to argue that past presidents and statesmen who held slaves are just as culpable in the preservation of slavery and the dissolution of the Union as those in the confederacy.. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, even Benjamin Franklin have been cited as examples of slave owners whose monuments and memorials worthy of removal just as the confederate leaders may or may not be worthy.

The difference is, and this is the salient point, the confederacy was formed to preserve state's rights. And, in particular, a state's right to permit its citizens to hold, beat, abuse, sell and buy human beings as labor without pay.

Confederate leaders raised their swords in open defiance in order to destroy the United States of America. Inarguably an so act of treason.

Many of these confederate monuments were erected during the darkest days of African American repression otherwise known as the era of Jim Crow. While proclaimed free, African Americans were not free to excerise their right to vote, own property or live in peace and security. African Americans lived every day with the threat of mob violence should they merely fail to step out of the way of a White person. If they had the temerity to whistle or cat call at a White woman. If they did not comply with senseless rules of segregation by sitting anywhere on a municipal bus or a lunch counter.

Monuments dedicated to the confederacy were built ostensively as a commemoration of southern heritage. But to the Black citizens of the south, they were built as warnings not to step out of line, to remember their proper place, to not become 'uppity'.

Does the Right understand that level of indignation? Does the Right respect all the rights extended to all the citizenry?

Whenever a group petitions to enjoy all the rights all Americans are to enjoy, which side on our political spectrum provides the resistance? Civil rights were opposed by the Right. Women's rights were opposed by the Right. Gay rights are opposed by the Right.

Anybody else see a pattern here?

I see destruction, death, lies, deception, hate, bitterness, past slavery and segregation, when one one peels back the facade of libs.

If you're Conservative, look in the mirror. It's easier than trolling,with deception.

 

[OKTexas]

It seems to me that the Right wears blinders where the meaning of the protests over confederate memorials is concerned. They seem to have a political agenda used as a template when they gauge the movement to remove confederate memorials.

Some want to argue that past presidents and statesmen who held slaves are just as culpable in the preservation of slavery and the dissolution of the Union as those in the confederacy.. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, even Benjamin Franklin have been cited as examples of slave owners whose monuments and memorials worthy of removal just as the confederate leaders may or may not be worthy.

The difference is, and this is the salient point, the confederacy was formed to preserve state's rights. And, in particular, a state's right to permit its citizens to hold, beat, abuse, sell and buy human beings as labor without pay.

Confederate leaders raised their swords in open defiance in order to destroy the United States of America. Inarguably an so act of treason.

Many of these confederate monuments were erected during the darkest days of African American repression otherwise known as the era of Jim Crow. While proclaimed free, African Americans were not free to excerise their right to vote, own property or live in peace and security. African Americans lived every day with the threat of mob violence should they merely fail to step out of the way of a White person. If they had the temerity to whistle or cat call at a White woman. If they did not comply with senseless rules of segregation by sitting anywhere on a municipal bus or a lunch counter.

Monuments dedicated to the confederacy were built ostensively as a commemoration of southern heritage. But to the Black citizens of the south, they were built as warnings not to step out of line, to remember their proper place, to not become 'uppity'.

Does the Right understand that level of indignation? Does the Right respect all the rights extended to all the citizenry?

Whenever a group petitions to enjoy all the rights all Americans are to enjoy, which side on our political spectrum provides the resistance? Civil rights were opposed by the Right. Women's rights were opposed by the Right. Gay rights are opposed by the Right.

Anybody else see a pattern here?

I'm impressed you put so much effort in such idiocy. You snowflakes want to boil the reasons the south succeeded to a singular issue, that's simply a lie. The vast majority of the people who fought for the south never owned a slave and were tired of northern economic aggression and policies. Some went on to be very successful business people and contributed greatly to their communities. Houston is one example where former southern officers did this and now are purging the city of their names without regard to their post war contributions. Lincoln simply violated the primary founding principle, that free men ought to be able to govern themselves and destroyed that principle with the iron fist of tyranny. You seem to forget many of the northern states were also slave holders.


.

When did the Union fire on Ft. Sumpter? Did Lincoln give the order?

Lincoln forced the souths hand by reinforcing a post on foreign soil, he chose to do that knowing what would happen, he had been warned. You can't excuse what he did or the war crimes perpetrated by his generals.


.

Ft. Sumpter was on an island in Charleston harbor. Charleston was, and still is in the United States of America. That's not "foreign soil". Unless you happen to commit treason and consider it such.

At that point is was within the Confederate States. And no it is not treason to consider it as such, there is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent the secession of a State. The supreme court didn't even rule on it till after the war.


.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It seems to me that the Right wears blinders where the meaning of the protests over confederate memorials is concerned. They seem to have a political agenda used as a template when they gauge the movement to remove confederate memorials.

Some want to argue that past presidents and statesmen who held slaves are just as culpable in the preservation of slavery and the dissolution of the Union as those in the confederacy.. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, even Benjamin Franklin have been cited as examples of slave owners whose monuments and memorials worthy of removal just as the confederate leaders may or may not be worthy.

The difference is, and this is the salient point, the confederacy was formed to preserve state's rights. And, in particular, a state's right to permit its citizens to hold, beat, abuse, sell and buy human beings as labor without pay.

Confederate leaders raised their swords in open defiance in order to destroy the United States of America. Inarguably an so act of treason.

Many of these confederate monuments were erected during the darkest days of African American repression otherwise known as the era of Jim Crow. While proclaimed free, African Americans were not free to excerise their right to vote, own property or live in peace and security. African Americans lived every day with the threat of mob violence should they merely fail to step out of the way of a White person. If they had the temerity to whistle or cat call at a White woman. If they did not comply with senseless rules of segregation by sitting anywhere on a municipal bus or a lunch counter.

Monuments dedicated to the confederacy were built ostensively as a commemoration of southern heritage. But to the Black citizens of the south, they were built as warnings not to step out of line, to remember their proper place, to not become 'uppity'.

Does the Right understand that level of indignation? Does the Right respect all the rights extended to all the citizenry?

Whenever a group petitions to enjoy all the rights all Americans are to enjoy, which side on our political spectrum provides the resistance? Civil rights were opposed by the Right. Women's rights were opposed by the Right. Gay rights are opposed by the Right.

Anybody else see a pattern here?

yes, you Brown Shirts think violence is the answer to every problem. You seek to use violence to erase the history of the conquered Americans you so desperately hate.

 

[Yarddog]

It seems to me that the Right wears blinders where the meaning of the protests over confederate memorials is concerned. They seem to have a political agenda used as a template when they gauge the movement to remove confederate memorials.

Some want to argue that past presidents and statesmen who held slaves are just as culpable in the preservation of slavery and the dissolution of the Union as those in the confederacy.. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, even Benjamin Franklin have been cited as examples of slave owners whose monuments and memorials worthy of removal just as the confederate leaders may or may not be worthy.

The difference is, and this is the salient point, the confederacy was formed to preserve state's rights. And, in particular, a state's right to permit its citizens to hold, beat, abuse, sell and buy human beings as labor without pay.

Confederate leaders raised their swords in open defiance in order to destroy the United States of America. Inarguably an so act of treason.

Many of these confederate monuments were erected during the darkest days of African American repression otherwise known as the era of Jim Crow. While proclaimed free, African Americans were not free to excerise their right to vote, own property or live in peace and security. African Americans lived every day with the threat of mob violence should they merely fail to step out of the way of a White person. If they had the temerity to whistle or cat call at a White woman. If they did not comply with senseless rules of segregation by sitting anywhere on a municipal bus or a lunch counter.

Monuments dedicated to the confederacy were built ostensively as a commemoration of southern heritage. But to the Black citizens of the south, they were built as warnings not to step out of line, to remember their proper place, to not become 'uppity'.

Does the Right understand that level of indignation? Does the Right respect all the rights extended to all the citizenry?

Whenever a group petitions to enjoy all the rights all Americans are to enjoy, which side on our political spectrum provides the resistance? Civil rights were opposed by the Right. Women's rights were opposed by the Right. Gay rights are opposed by the Right.

Anybody else see a pattern here?

Does the Left understand the power of the first amendment? The KKK has currently less than 5000 members in the US when back in the 60s and beyond they numbered in the millions. They have their marches every year but year after year their numbers continued to drop. Any wonder why? Because normal Americans like us both Democrat and Republican heard what they have to say so we marginalize, reject and ignore them.

More than half of today's KKK groups formed in the last three years in the US

This is why they should not be violently opposed in the streets. There was no reason to, and by doing so you actually recruit more of them because you make them feel oppressed. They are damned by their own speech.

But instead the radical elements on your side are trying to paint Trumps base as Racists, KKK, White supremists in the majority. Pushing the constant drumbeat of white guilt, telling kids they are oppressors because of the color they were born, its no wonder now you have seen the KKK double in number in the last few years.

What you dummies don't realize is their brand was on the way out. they were going to become extinct like the dinosaurs. Kids today would rather have gotten along except for everyone constantly being told about and beaten over the head about their race.

Racial differences are the tool politicians use to get votes with, they are really not so concerned about the casualties they leave behind because they live in a bubble, constantly reinforced by the also brainwashed LW media that supports and coddles them.

as far as groups like the KKK goes, they should also be protested using the rules of the First amendment. This is one of the things that is supossed to make us different from places like Somalia.

How does the KKK conform to the clause in the first amendment stating "peaceably assemble" when they come packing heat?

I'm no fan of the KKK. Their message is hateful and close minded, but unless the laws in Virginia don't allow them to carry, I guess it was legal. Unless they threatened with a gun.

Authorities should have them under a microscope whenever they assemble to march, but what happened in this case is the two groups were there for confrontation and they were allowed to face off. The counter protestors were basically taking the job away from the police and once they engage in violence, then they are also breaking the law. You cant excuse that because you think one side has a morally superior cause. The end result will be the opposite of what you want, though I believe that what a lot of people want is hightened tension and conflict so they can find a way to scrutinize Trump.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It seems to me that the Right wears blinders where the meaning of the protests over confederate memorials is concerned. They seem to have a political agenda used as a template when they gauge the movement to remove confederate memorials.

Some want to argue that past presidents and statesmen who held slaves are just as culpable in the preservation of slavery and the dissolution of the Union as those in the confederacy.. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, even Benjamin Franklin have been cited as examples of slave owners whose monuments and memorials worthy of removal just as the confederate leaders may or may not be worthy.

The difference is, and this is the salient point, the confederacy was formed to preserve state's rights. And, in particular, a state's right to permit its citizens to hold, beat, abuse, sell and buy human beings as labor without pay.

Confederate leaders raised their swords in open defiance in order to destroy the United States of America. Inarguably an so act of treason.

Many of these confederate monuments were erected during the darkest days of African American repression otherwise known as the era of Jim Crow. While proclaimed free, African Americans were not free to excerise their right to vote, own property or live in peace and security. African Americans lived every day with the threat of mob violence should they merely fail to step out of the way of a White person. If they had the temerity to whistle or cat call at a White woman. If they did not comply with senseless rules of segregation by sitting anywhere on a municipal bus or a lunch counter.

Monuments dedicated to the confederacy were built ostensively as a commemoration of southern heritage. But to the Black citizens of the south, they were built as warnings not to step out of line, to remember their proper place, to not become 'uppity'.

Does the Right understand that level of indignation? Does the Right respect all the rights extended to all the citizenry?

Whenever a group petitions to enjoy all the rights all Americans are to enjoy, which side on our political spectrum provides the resistance? Civil rights were opposed by the Right. Women's rights were opposed by the Right. Gay rights are opposed by the Right.

Anybody else see a pattern here?

Mitch and Paul want tens of millions of Americans to suffer and die without healthcare.
Republicans work to move the wealth of the nation to the top 1%.
Voter suppression.
Lies.
Republicans almost destroyed this country under Bush. Now they want to finish the job under Trump.

If Trump wasn't trying to destroy this country would he be doing anything differently?

If he WERE trying to destroy the country. he'd be you, Nazi scum....

 

[BlueGin]

Does the Left understand the power of the first amendment?

Yes. That's why we always fight so hard to defend it. It's also why the right fights so hard to censor speech that criticizes them.

The KKK has currently less than 5000 members

But their sympathizers number in the tens of millions, and many are highly placed in the Republican Party.

This is why they should not be violently opposed in the streets.

They should be violently opposed in the street when they violently attack peaceful protestors, which they just did. Those people who bravely fought off the Nazis are heroes.

HAHAHAHAHA

Liberals are a riot.

 

[BlueGin]

BTW.

Americans are not on board with the removal of the confederate statues.

PBS/NPR Poll: Most Americans Think Confederate Statues Should Stay - NTD.TV

 

[Nosmo King]

It seems to me that the Right wears blinders where the meaning of the protests over confederate memorials is concerned. They seem to have a political agenda used as a template when they gauge the movement to remove confederate memorials.

Some want to argue that past presidents and statesmen who held slaves are just as culpable in the preservation of slavery and the dissolution of the Union as those in the confederacy.. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, even Benjamin Franklin have been cited as examples of slave owners whose monuments and memorials worthy of removal just as the confederate leaders may or may not be worthy.

The difference is, and this is the salient point, the confederacy was formed to preserve state's rights. And, in particular, a state's right to permit its citizens to hold, beat, abuse, sell and buy human beings as labor without pay.

Confederate leaders raised their swords in open defiance in order to destroy the United States of America. Inarguably an so act of treason.

Many of these confederate monuments were erected during the darkest days of African American repression otherwise known as the era of Jim Crow. While proclaimed free, African Americans were not free to excerise their right to vote, own property or live in peace and security. African Americans lived every day with the threat of mob violence should they merely fail to step out of the way of a White person. If they had the temerity to whistle or cat call at a White woman. If they did not comply with senseless rules of segregation by sitting anywhere on a municipal bus or a lunch counter.

Monuments dedicated to the confederacy were built ostensively as a commemoration of southern heritage. But to the Black citizens of the south, they were built as warnings not to step out of line, to remember their proper place, to not become 'uppity'.

Does the Right understand that level of indignation? Does the Right respect all the rights extended to all the citizenry?

Whenever a group petitions to enjoy all the rights all Americans are to enjoy, which side on our political spectrum provides the resistance? Civil rights were opposed by the Right. Women's rights were opposed by the Right. Gay rights are opposed by the Right.

Anybody else see a pattern here?

Does the Left understand the power of the first amendment? The KKK has currently less than 5000 members in the US when back in the 60s and beyond they numbered in the millions. They have their marches every year but year after year their numbers continued to drop. Any wonder why? Because normal Americans like us both Democrat and Republican heard what they have to say so we marginalize, reject and ignore them.

More than half of today's KKK groups formed in the last three years in the US

This is why they should not be violently opposed in the streets. There was no reason to, and by doing so you actually recruit more of them because you make them feel oppressed. They are damned by their own speech.

But instead the radical elements on your side are trying to paint Trumps base as Racists, KKK, White supremists in the majority. Pushing the constant drumbeat of white guilt, telling kids they are oppressors because of the color they were born, its no wonder now you have seen the KKK double in number in the last few years.

What you dummies don't realize is their brand was on the way out. they were going to become extinct like the dinosaurs. Kids today would rather have gotten along except for everyone constantly being told about and beaten over the head about their race.

Racial differences are the tool politicians use to get votes with, they are really not so concerned about the casualties they leave behind because they live in a bubble, constantly reinforced by the also brainwashed LW media that supports and coddles them.

as far as groups like the KKK goes, they should also be protested using the rules of the First amendment. This is one of the things that is supossed to make us different from places like Somalia.

How does the KKK conform to the clause in the first amendment stating "peaceably assemble" when they come packing heat?

I'm no fan of the KKK. Their message is hateful and close minded, but unless the laws in Virginia don't allow them to carry, I guess it was legal. Unless they threatened with a gun.

Authorities should have them under a microscope whenever they assemble to march, but what happened in this case is the two groups were there for confrontation and they were allowed to face off. The counter protestors were basically taking the job away from the police and once they engage in violence, then they are also breaking the law. You cant excuse that because you think one side has a morally superior cause. The end result will be the opposite of what you want, though I believe that what a lot of people want is hightened tension and conflict so they can find a way to scrutinize Trump.

The United States Department of Justice has deemed the Klan to be a terrorist organization. Restricting their rights to carry weapons during demonstrations does not threaten the constitution. Should we permit a group of self identified ISIS members to carry weapons during a protest march?

Isn't the greater responsibility somewhere between common sense and ensuring domestic tranquility?

 

[Uncensored2008]

HAHAHAHAHA

Liberals are a riot.

In the most literal sense.

 

[Uncensored2008]

BTW.

Americans are not on board with the removal of the confederate statues.

PBS/NPR Poll: Most Americans Think Confederate Statues Should Stay - NTD.TV

The left seeks to eradicate the history of their enemy, America.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
The United States Department of Justice has deemed the Klan to be a terrorist organization. Restricting their rights to carry weapons during demonstrations does not threaten the constitution. Should we permit a group of self identified ISIS members to carry weapons during a protest march?

Isn't the greater responsibility somewhere between common sense and ensuring domestic tranquility?

The Klan is a joke. A smattering of malcontent fools.

Now you democrats are a MAJOR threat to liberty and the fundamental freedoms of our society. Even as we speak Pelosi and the other fascists are demanding the 1st Amendment be revoked.

 

[Yarddog]

It seems to me that the Right wears blinders where the meaning of the protests over confederate memorials is concerned. They seem to have a political agenda used as a template when they gauge the movement to remove confederate memorials.

Some want to argue that past presidents and statesmen who held slaves are just as culpable in the preservation of slavery and the dissolution of the Union as those in the confederacy.. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, even Benjamin Franklin have been cited as examples of slave owners whose monuments and memorials worthy of removal just as the confederate leaders may or may not be worthy.

The difference is, and this is the salient point, the confederacy was formed to preserve state's rights. And, in particular, a state's right to permit its citizens to hold, beat, abuse, sell and buy human beings as labor without pay.

Confederate leaders raised their swords in open defiance in order to destroy the United States of America. Inarguably an so act of treason.

Many of these confederate monuments were erected during the darkest days of African American repression otherwise known as the era of Jim Crow. While proclaimed free, African Americans were not free to excerise their right to vote, own property or live in peace and security. African Americans lived every day with the threat of mob violence should they merely fail to step out of the way of a White person. If they had the temerity to whistle or cat call at a White woman. If they did not comply with senseless rules of segregation by sitting anywhere on a municipal bus or a lunch counter.

Monuments dedicated to the confederacy were built ostensively as a commemoration of southern heritage. But to the Black citizens of the south, they were built as warnings not to step out of line, to remember their proper place, to not become 'uppity'.

Does the Right understand that level of indignation? Does the Right respect all the rights extended to all the citizenry?

Whenever a group petitions to enjoy all the rights all Americans are to enjoy, which side on our political spectrum provides the resistance? Civil rights were opposed by the Right. Women's rights were opposed by the Right. Gay rights are opposed by the Right.

Anybody else see a pattern here?

Does the Left understand the power of the first amendment? The KKK has currently less than 5000 members in the US when back in the 60s and beyond they numbered in the millions. They have their marches every year but year after year their numbers continued to drop. Any wonder why? Because normal Americans like us both Democrat and Republican heard what they have to say so we marginalize, reject and ignore them.

More than half of today's KKK groups formed in the last three years in the US

This is why they should not be violently opposed in the streets. There was no reason to, and by doing so you actually recruit more of them because you make them feel oppressed. They are damned by their own speech.

But instead the radical elements on your side are trying to paint Trumps base as Racists, KKK, White supremists in the majority. Pushing the constant drumbeat of white guilt, telling kids they are oppressors because of the color they were born, its no wonder now you have seen the KKK double in number in the last few years.

What you dummies don't realize is their brand was on the way out. they were going to become extinct like the dinosaurs. Kids today would rather have gotten along except for everyone constantly being told about and beaten over the head about their race.

Racial differences are the tool politicians use to get votes with, they are really not so concerned about the casualties they leave behind because they live in a bubble, constantly reinforced by the also brainwashed LW media that supports and coddles them.

as far as groups like the KKK goes, they should also be protested using the rules of the First amendment. This is one of the things that is supossed to make us different from places like Somalia.

How does the KKK conform to the clause in the first amendment stating "peaceably assemble" when they come packing heat?

I'm no fan of the KKK. Their message is hateful and close minded, but unless the laws in Virginia don't allow them to carry, I guess it was legal. Unless they threatened with a gun.

Authorities should have them under a microscope whenever they assemble to march, but what happened in this case is the two groups were there for confrontation and they were allowed to face off. The counter protestors were basically taking the job away from the police and once they engage in violence, then they are also breaking the law. You cant excuse that because you think one side has a morally superior cause. The end result will be the opposite of what you want, though I believe that what a lot of people want is hightened tension and conflict so they can find a way to scrutinize Trump.

The United States Department of Justice has deemed the Klan to be a terrorist organization. Restricting their rights to carry weapons during demonstrations does not threaten the constitution. Should we permit a group of self identified ISIS members to carry weapons during a protest march?

Isn't the greater responsibility somewhere between common sense and ensuring domestic tranquility?

Why were they issued a permit then? They should have been arrested then for bringing weapons if there is a law against that in Virginia. This was a law enforcement issue and the police on the scene just sort of hung back letting everything unfold.

I actually do agree, there is no reason for a lawful protest march to include bringing weapons. Of course, everyone will have their excuse for bringing them. The Black panthers brought their shotguns back in the 60s

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Does the Right understand that level of indignation? Does the Right respect all the rights extended to all the citizenry?”

Clearly these questions are rhetorical.

 

[Nosmo King]

It seems to me that the Right wears blinders where the meaning of the protests over confederate memorials is concerned. They seem to have a political agenda used as a template when they gauge the movement to remove confederate memorials.

Some want to argue that past presidents and statesmen who held slaves are just as culpable in the preservation of slavery and the dissolution of the Union as those in the confederacy.. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, even Benjamin Franklin have been cited as examples of slave owners whose monuments and memorials worthy of removal just as the confederate leaders may or may not be worthy.

The difference is, and this is the salient point, the confederacy was formed to preserve state's rights. And, in particular, a state's right to permit its citizens to hold, beat, abuse, sell and buy human beings as labor without pay.

Confederate leaders raised their swords in open defiance in order to destroy the United States of America. Inarguably an so act of treason.

Many of these confederate monuments were erected during the darkest days of African American repression otherwise known as the era of Jim Crow. While proclaimed free, African Americans were not free to excerise their right to vote, own property or live in peace and security. African Americans lived every day with the threat of mob violence should they merely fail to step out of the way of a White person. If they had the temerity to whistle or cat call at a White woman. If they did not comply with senseless rules of segregation by sitting anywhere on a municipal bus or a lunch counter.

Monuments dedicated to the confederacy were built ostensively as a commemoration of southern heritage. But to the Black citizens of the south, they were built as warnings not to step out of line, to remember their proper place, to not become 'uppity'.

Does the Right understand that level of indignation? Does the Right respect all the rights extended to all the citizenry?

Whenever a group petitions to enjoy all the rights all Americans are to enjoy, which side on our political spectrum provides the resistance? Civil rights were opposed by the Right. Women's rights were opposed by the Right. Gay rights are opposed by the Right.

Anybody else see a pattern here?

Does the Left understand the power of the first amendment? The KKK has currently less than 5000 members in the US when back in the 60s and beyond they numbered in the millions. They have their marches every year but year after year their numbers continued to drop. Any wonder why? Because normal Americans like us both Democrat and Republican heard what they have to say so we marginalize, reject and ignore them.

More than half of today's KKK groups formed in the last three years in the US

This is why they should not be violently opposed in the streets. There was no reason to, and by doing so you actually recruit more of them because you make them feel oppressed. They are damned by their own speech.

But instead the radical elements on your side are trying to paint Trumps base as Racists, KKK, White supremists in the majority. Pushing the constant drumbeat of white guilt, telling kids they are oppressors because of the color they were born, its no wonder now you have seen the KKK double in number in the last few years.

What you dummies don't realize is their brand was on the way out. they were going to become extinct like the dinosaurs. Kids today would rather have gotten along except for everyone constantly being told about and beaten over the head about their race.

Racial differences are the tool politicians use to get votes with, they are really not so concerned about the casualties they leave behind because they live in a bubble, constantly reinforced by the also brainwashed LW media that supports and coddles them.

as far as groups like the KKK goes, they should also be protested using the rules of the First amendment. This is one of the things that is supossed to make us different from places like Somalia.

How does the KKK conform to the clause in the first amendment stating "peaceably assemble" when they come packing heat?

I'm no fan of the KKK. Their message is hateful and close minded, but unless the laws in Virginia don't allow them to carry, I guess it was legal. Unless they threatened with a gun.

Authorities should have them under a microscope whenever they assemble to march, but what happened in this case is the two groups were there for confrontation and they were allowed to face off. The counter protestors were basically taking the job away from the police and once they engage in violence, then they are also breaking the law. You cant excuse that because you think one side has a morally superior cause. The end result will be the opposite of what you want, though I believe that what a lot of people want is hightened tension and conflict so they can find a way to scrutinize Trump.

The United States Department of Justice has deemed the Klan to be a terrorist organization. Restricting their rights to carry weapons during demonstrations does not threaten the constitution. Should we permit a group of self identified ISIS members to carry weapons during a protest march?

Isn't the greater responsibility somewhere between common sense and ensuring domestic tranquility?

Why were they issued a permit then? They should have been arrested then for bringing weapons if there is a law against that in Virginia. This was a law enforcement issue and the police on the scene just sort of hung back letting everything unfold.

I actually do agree, there is no reason for a lawful protest march to include bringing weapons. Of course, everyone will have their excuse for bringing them. The Black panthers brought their shotguns back in the 60s

We're the local police complicit in the violence, or overwhelmed? It has been a comfortable position for White Nationalists to take, saying the cops let it happen. That comfort comes when, if we accept it, the KKK and the other bigots were innocent victims being assaulted and egged on at the behest of a conspiracy driven Left wing police force.

I believe that, while aware a demonstration was happening, the police were understaffed. Not deliberately but because resources were either unavailable or uncalled for. Stuff happens and excusing violence due to mistakes or blaming violence on conspiracy seems less than intellectually honest or responsible.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It seems to me that the Right wears blinders where the meaning of the protests over confederate memorials is concerned. They seem to have a political agenda used as a template when they gauge the movement to remove confederate memorials.

Some want to argue that past presidents and statesmen who held slaves are just as culpable in the preservation of slavery and the dissolution of the Union as those in the confederacy.. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, even Benjamin Franklin have been cited as examples of slave owners whose monuments and memorials worthy of removal just as the confederate leaders may or may not be worthy.

The difference is, and this is the salient point, the confederacy was formed to preserve state's rights. And, in particular, a state's right to permit its citizens to hold, beat, abuse, sell and buy human beings as labor without pay.

Confederate leaders raised their swords in open defiance in order to destroy the United States of America. Inarguably an so act of treason.

Many of these confederate monuments were erected during the darkest days of African American repression otherwise known as the era of Jim Crow. While proclaimed free, African Americans were not free to excerise their right to vote, own property or live in peace and security. African Americans lived every day with the threat of mob violence should they merely fail to step out of the way of a White person. If they had the temerity to whistle or cat call at a White woman. If they did not comply with senseless rules of segregation by sitting anywhere on a municipal bus or a lunch counter.

Monuments dedicated to the confederacy were built ostensively as a commemoration of southern heritage. But to the Black citizens of the south, they were built as warnings not to step out of line, to remember their proper place, to not become 'uppity'.

Does the Right understand that level of indignation? Does the Right respect all the rights extended to all the citizenry?

Whenever a group petitions to enjoy all the rights all Americans are to enjoy, which side on our political spectrum provides the resistance? Civil rights were opposed by the Right. Women's rights were opposed by the Right. Gay rights are opposed by the Right.

Anybody else see a pattern here?

Which side opposes and attacks proponents of things like white student unions?

Which side opposes fair divorce laws for men and fair compensation for the much more physical jobs that only men are expected to do?

Keeping your eye on the ball I see.

Once again, thanks to the Left, the will of the MINORITY is being imposed on the MAJORITY...

POLL: Most Black Americans Don’t Want Confederate Statues Removed

It's past time the MAJORITY told the easily-offended, Constitution/Law-violating MINORITY to STFU.

Wasn't it the will of the majority to keep Jim Crow laws in place? Was it the will of the majority to prevent homosexuals from taking advantage of the rights and protections of legal marriage?

It's called the 'Tyranny of the Majority' and it's not always a good thing.

Correct.

Indeed, it explains why the Framers created a Constitutional Republic rather than a democracy: to safeguard citizens’ rights and protected liberties from the capricious, often wrongheaded, will of the people.

In our Constitutional Republic citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; measures prohibiting gay Americans from marrying were proof of that.

The states are subject to the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, and residents of the states are at liberty to enact laws and measures provided those laws and measures are consistent with Constitutional jurisprudence.

The tyranny of the majority is never a good thing, and thankfully the Framers were well aware of that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

“Does the Right understand that level of indignation? Does the Right respect all the rights extended to all the citizenry?”

Clearly these questions are rhetorical.

Do you of the Khmer Rouge understand the concept of liberty? Do you thugs grasp how rare this land with liberty is? Do you have an concept of what it is you are destroying?