Here's the thing about CharlottesvilleIt

[cnm]

Like I said, the whole "parties switched sides" myth is promoted in order for modern Democrats to exonerate their past.

Absolutely. People in the South don't vote for the party of Northern Aggression at all. No way, José.

 

[cnm]

What's wrong with letting the COMMUNITY decide

Nothing. The fascists were protesting the Community decision.

 

[cnm]

Well that's bullshit. Mark Levin is one of the most Conservative of all Conservatives and he's written a book calling for a convention of states to change the constitution. Doesn't sound like "status quo" to me.

But of course he isn't conservative, he's radical.

 

[Correll]

I know we've beaten this topic to death here and there must be at least a few dozen threads on the topic at least, but I feel like there is a profound point or two that needs to be made. You can agree with me or disagree, I don't really care. This is simply my viewpoint on the situation as a whole.

First of all, to view this as a binary left/right issue is patently stupid. In fact, to view this as a singular issue is equally foolish. This is actually several issues rolled into one and it's being promoted as a binary narrative by the media and the liberal left, as well as many on the right who've fallen for the trap.

Let's get some things in order so we have clarity. Charlottesville had proposed removing a Confederate monument citing it's offensiveness to certain citizens. A group of people who opposed this obtained a permit to peacefully protest the removal. The group was "Unite the Right" ...not a hate group, not white supremacists. However, several neo-nazi and KKK hate groups showed up to join the protest. Also showing up was Antifa, a radical extremist left organization who came to violently protest the protesters. The police, whether overtly or passively, were instructed to not intervene and violence erupted between the fringe extremist elements at the protest. It quickly got out of control and resulted in a slimeball white supremacist killing someone with his car.

Since then, the left has exploited the tragedy to score political points and bash Trump, Republicans, the right, Conservatives and everyone who is not a left wing liberal. The right, for the most part, have condemned the actions of the white supremacists and the violence from both sides while questioning where the police were. Trump made the statement that "there were good people on both sides." This was immediately attacked by the left and media who are fully invested in a binary narrative.

Trump was correct. There were good people on both sides. Not both sides of the violent extremist groups, but both sides of the issue regarding the removal of the statue. The peaceful protesters who didn't engage in violence. They were there to exercise their First Amendment rights. And this is where the left (and some on the right) are completely missing the point. There is more than one issue here!

First there is the issue of whether or not a Confederate statue is appropriate. Some say yes, some say no, and it doesn't have anything to do with racism or white supremacy. No doubt, there are some who favor keeping the statues who are white supremacists. There are also some who favor tearing down the statues because they hold a racist view toward white people. But these elements do not represent the vast majority of the general public. Most people who favor keeping the statues are viewing it as a historical thing that we shouldn't change because some may be offended. Most people opposed are doing so in deference to sensitivities of those who are offended. Both sides have a valid and compelling point that has nothing to do with white supremacy.

In a free society, we should be able to engage in these kind of debates without things devolving into violence. We cannot condemn violence from one side while turning a blind eye to violence from the other. We have to consistently condemn ALL the violence because that's how free society operates.

So now we see there is a clear secondary issue here. It's the right of free people to peacefully protest. Whether you agree or disagree with the right or left on this issue or any other, you should support their right to peacefully demonstrate. Violence is totally unacceptable... right OR left! It doesn't matter if you view one side as abhorrent and intolerable, they still have the right to peacefully demonstrate and you don't have the right to violently attack them.

Some on the Left have attempted to argue that "Hate Speech" isn't protected by the First Amendment. This is patently absurd. So-called "Hate Speech" is exactly what IS protected! Non-offensive speech doesn't require protection. The Left has concocted this "Hate Speech" label to apply to any speech they disagree with politically, and that's a very dangerous thing to do. You can denounce what you consider "hate speech" but you don't have any right to shut it down, especially not with violence. Once you've crossed that line into violent acts, you've lost your freedom of speech and you need to go to jail.

i agree completely.

 

[Correll]

What's wrong with letting the COMMUNITY decide

Nothing. The fascists were protesting the Community decision.

As is their right. You do support the First Amendment don't you?

 

[cnm]

In my world-----it was the Democrats that supported UNIONS, WELFARE, and CIVIL RIGHTS----
Yankees demos are not red neck demos

Really, it was Yankees of both parties who supported civil rights and Crackers of both parties who opposed them. It's not rocket science, no matter how desperately history is rewritten in the South, one has only to consult the voting records.

 

[cnm]

As is their right. You do support the First Amendment don't you?

But Boss wanted the community to decide, which it had. From his point of view what was left to protest?

 

[cnm]

As is their right.

I don't think fascists have the right to assault standing groups of elderly counter protesters as reported by HuffPost.

 

[Correll]

As is their right. You do support the First Amendment don't you?

But Boss wanted the community to decide, which it had. From his point of view what was left to protest?

The fact that they disagreed with the communities decision.


YOu didn't answer my question. Do you support their right to Speech?

 

[Correll]

As is their right.

I don't think fascists have the right to assault standing groups of elderly counter protesters as reported by HuffPost.

I agree.

But you have not answered the question as to whether they have the Right to Speech.

 

[cnm]

If it hadn't been for Republicans, Civil Rights would've never passed.

Yankees, not Crackers.

 

[cnm]

But you have not answered the question as to whether they have the Right to Speech.

I understand that in America they can chant antiSemitic slogans as long as they are not determined to be hate speech. Of course I guess it's up to the courts to decide whether 'Jews will not replace us' and 'Blood and soil' is hate speech.

Less than a minute in...

 

[Correll]

But you have not answered the question as to whether they have the Right to Speech.

I understand that in America they can chant antiSemitic slogans as long as they are not determined to be hate speech.

Ouch. Incredible. YOu do not support the First Amendment.


Do you consider yourself a "Liberal"? Or more of a Leftist or Marxist?

 

[cnm]

The fact that they disagreed with the communities decision.

But Boss had implied the community's decision was determinative.

 

[cnm]

Ouch. Incredible. YOu do not support the First Amendment.

What? You mean they can't chant antiSemitic slogans even if the slogans are not determined to be hate speech?

 

[Correll]

The fact that they disagreed with the communities decision.

But Boss had implied the community's decision was determinative.

I strongly doubt that he implied that that meant that no one was allowed to express disagreement.

 

[cnm]

But you have not answered the question as to whether they have the Right to Speech.

Depends where they are. They don't have the right to speech on private grounds, that's for sure.

 

[Correll]

Ouch. Incredible. YOu do not support the First Amendment.

What? You mean they can't chant antiSemitic slogans even if the slogans are not determined to be hate speech?

We've covered the fact that you do not support Free Speech.


I'm curious if you can hold that position and still consider yourself a liberal, or if you identify more as a Leftist or a Marxist.

Simple question. Just for my own understanding of the issue.

Which are you, in your own mind?

 

[irosie91]

The Nazis held torch marches? I did not know. There were Nazi chants? what did they say?

Here you go. I don't speak German so can't translate.

Ok----so it was night so they held lights------which look somewhat different from the lights that the
Charlotte people held. I had no idea that ---holding lights at nite is somehow a SIGNIFICANT
symbol of Nazism. Did they GOOSE-STEP like the Iranians do? what were the Nazi chants----
"charlotteville uber alles"? I still believe that lots of the demonstrators on the "right" were
trying to save a statue of Robert E. Lee-----hero of "DIXIE"

 

[cnm]

I strongly doubt that he implied that that meant that no one was allowed to express disagreement.

The tenor of his post was not about permission.