Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I would go. I'd treat it as a teachable moment, and an historic one.The march happens tomorrow, yet you have already accused the marchers of arson, assault and battery, vandalism and general mayhem.I know it's a common and unfortunate way to react to a demonstration that one disagrees with. Belittle the demonstrators, dismiss them,as thugs, kooks, loons and, in this case, wet behind the ears know,nothing children. It makes those who disagree somehow feel superior, pushing down others. It's as if every lesson we learned since the playground can be disposed of out of convenience due to lack of conscience.You're giving the coming protest and protesters a lot of blame for things that have not happened. What makes you believe that the kids and other marchers are less than law abiding citizens?
Because of their track record. I have never seen one of these protests that didn't involve a lot of profanity and civil disobedience. Not here. Not in any other state. And not in DC. I'm sure the ANTIFA and BLM folks are already polishing up their gear.
Why does this sort of criticism meet with the sounds of crickets whenever pro-lifers or those who oppose Gay rights march? I guess it all depends on whose or is being gored. I wonder what it would be like if a counter protest held by gun toting folks who refuse to see nuance and havoc and fear through the smoked glass lens of absolute gun rights? Who would call them less than law abiding citizens and complain of disruption,before the march begins?
Do I object to demonstrations conducted by people who don't block vehicle or pedestrian traffic or entrances to businesses or public buildings, who pick up after themselves,and who are courteous to those who pass by? Nope. I have participated in a number of those myself.
Do I object to people shouting profanity, blocking vehicle and pedestrian traffic, shouting insults and threats to people who don't join them, who commit arson, vandalize, and destroy property, and generally terrify everybody in the area? You can pretty well count on it.
You can also count on me referring to them in very uncomplimentary terms.
Are you prescient or merely biased?
I cited the history of these kinds of things and that history makes what will happen pretty predictable. Are you deliberately avoiding that argument in order to defend people who I see as violating the rights of the peaceful and law abiding?
If this turns out to be a peaceful, respectful demonstration by courteous demonstrators, I will acknowledge it. But I wouldn't be taking my kids or grand kids there knowing the demonstration was scheduled. I bet you wouldn't either.
Only on Fox!!They will BEG Father Government to strip them of constitutional rights granted by our founders...they will beg to be protected from themselves and the very same lowlifes they stand shoulder to shoulder with....haha
Think about that...you can’t make this shit up. Do we really need to wonder why nobody sane can take these Loons serious?
Not really.Wow. You people are terrified of these kids.
That's hilarious.
Ah. They must be the only people ever to do that. I don't recall you ever whining about others doing it.Not really.Wow. You people are terrified of these kids.
That's hilarious.
They will be in my way.
They interfere with my ability to meet my obligation to my employer.
I would go. I'd treat it as a teachable moment, and an historic one.The march happens tomorrow, yet you have already accused the marchers of arson, assault and battery, vandalism and general mayhem.I know it's a common and unfortunate way to react to a demonstration that one disagrees with. Belittle the demonstrators, dismiss them,as thugs, kooks, loons and, in this case, wet behind the ears know,nothing children. It makes those who disagree somehow feel superior, pushing down others. It's as if every lesson we learned since the playground can be disposed of out of convenience due to lack of conscience.Because of their track record. I have never seen one of these protests that didn't involve a lot of profanity and civil disobedience. Not here. Not in any other state. And not in DC. I'm sure the ANTIFA and BLM folks are already polishing up their gear.
Why does this sort of criticism meet with the sounds of crickets whenever pro-lifers or those who oppose Gay rights march? I guess it all depends on whose or is being gored. I wonder what it would be like if a counter protest held by gun toting folks who refuse to see nuance and havoc and fear through the smoked glass lens of absolute gun rights? Who would call them less than law abiding citizens and complain of disruption,before the march begins?
Do I object to demonstrations conducted by people who don't block vehicle or pedestrian traffic or entrances to businesses or public buildings, who pick up after themselves,and who are courteous to those who pass by? Nope. I have participated in a number of those myself.
Do I object to people shouting profanity, blocking vehicle and pedestrian traffic, shouting insults and threats to people who don't join them, who commit arson, vandalize, and destroy property, and generally terrify everybody in the area? You can pretty well count on it.
You can also count on me referring to them in very uncomplimentary terms.
Are you prescient or merely biased?
I cited the history of these kinds of things and that history makes what will happen pretty predictable. Are you deliberately avoiding that argument in order to defend people who I see as violating the rights of the peaceful and law abiding?
If this turns out to be a peaceful, respectful demonstration by courteous demonstrators, I will acknowledge it. But I wouldn't be taking my kids or grand kids there knowing the demonstration was scheduled. I bet you wouldn't either.
But I fear those who oppose this march will set the bar so high that if the grocery store coupon section from tomorrow's Washington Post is fished out of the Reflecting Pool, the chorus of "I told ya so!" will be deafening
What's really scary is I'll be there handing out Tide Pods.Whats terrifying is the fact that so many liberals in our media and halls of Congress and in our brain warped cities think these children are all knowing and worth listening to even though most of them couldn't tell you what the 1st amendment is.... Now that's scary!Wow. You people are terrified of these kids.
That's hilarious.
You nailed it.I know it's a common and unfortunate way to react to a demonstration that one disagrees with. Belittle the demonstrators, dismiss them,as thugs, kooks, loons and, in this case, wet behind the ears know,nothing children.
What a moron.Ah. They must be the only people ever to do that. I don't recall you ever whining about others doing it.Not really.Wow. You people are terrified of these kids.
That's hilarious.
They will be in my way.
They interfere with my ability to meet my obligation to my employer.
No, you're scared of them.
Yeah, that would be terrible. How does that stack up against a nut case getting an AR and killing tens of people, me boy. Must be much worse. I mean, not having an AR or missing your day at the capital building must be about as bad as those 50 people who were killed. Though, in my humble but correct opinion, you could just not have the ability to shoot an ar and have the results we see in other countries, with no mass killings.Mayor of D.C. Proclaims loudly and often that she "hates guns" this is the base of all this, the emotion of hate
I respect guns I hunted and I know what they can do. My perspective is fact.
Little more parenting and would not have very isolated wack job teens running around blasting away but Libs prefer emotion as default
I have a number of guns, and have hunted for over 50 years. And I am of the opinion that no one needs an assault rifle.
Except those that can not shoot straight.
People who don't hunt, who don't do recreational shooting of any kind, and who will probably never face a threatening situation requiring the use of a firearm technically don't NEED a firearm of any kind. But the second amendment says absolutely nothing about anybody's personal need. It does suggest that when citizens are called to defend their country, they should be allowed arms to do so. In such a case an AR type weapon might come in very handy.
But we don't NEED many things that we like to have. What logic applies for somebody like me to not have an AR-14 rifle? I have never used a gun in any manner to threaten somebody or defend myself and have never harmed a living thing with any kind of weapon except maybe a tree if I missed the target, but if I just enjoy having an AR-15 in my collection, what harm is there in that?
And what principle of the constitution says that my rights to a peaceful outing with my family to visit the U.S. Capital Building or any other site should be cancelled or made inadvisable because the place is flooded with a bunch of angry people most likely practicing poor citizenship and might or might not be dangerous to innocent bystanders?
And what countries would that be? The ones with much higher percentages of households with guns than we have but that are small, homogenous populations with decent shared values and strong emphasis on personal responsibility and accountablility? The ones like Finland and Switzerland have very low crime rates involving guns or anything else.
Or countries like Honduras with rigid gun controls and ranked 88th in the world for the number of households with legal guns but has the highest homicide rate in the world, more than 76% due to gun crime?
The problem is not the number or type of weapons. The problem is a cultural one. Create a society in which personal responsibility and accountability is expected of all citizens, put biological fathers back into the homes, and allow God or religious faith that inspires peace and appreciation for life back into the schools and other public institutions, and I am reasonably certain that within a generation we won't be seeing guns as much of a public issue at all.
The march happens tomorrow, yet you have already accused the marchers of arson, assault and battery, vandalism and general mayhem.I know it's a common and unfortunate way to react to a demonstration that one disagrees with. Belittle the demonstrators, dismiss them,as thugs, kooks, loons and, in this case, wet behind the ears know,nothing children. It makes those who disagree somehow feel superior, pushing down others. It's as if every lesson we learned since the playground can be disposed of out of convenience due to lack of conscience.You're giving the coming protest and protesters a lot of blame for things that have not happened. What makes you believe that the kids and other marchers are less than law abiding citizens?
Because of their track record. I have never seen one of these protests that didn't involve a lot of profanity and civil disobedience. Not here. Not in any other state. And not in DC. I'm sure the ANTIFA and BLM folks are already polishing up their gear.
Why does this sort of criticism meet with the sounds of crickets whenever pro-lifers or those who oppose Gay rights march? I guess it all depends on whose or is being gored. I wonder what it would be like if a counter protest held by gun toting folks who refuse to see nuance and havoc and fear through the smoked glass lens of absolute gun rights? Who would call them less than law abiding citizens and complain of disruption,before the march begins?
Do I object to demonstrations conducted by people who don't block vehicle or pedestrian traffic or entrances to businesses or public buildings, who pick up after themselves,and who are courteous to those who pass by? Nope. I have participated in a number of those myself.
Do I object to people shouting profanity, blocking vehicle and pedestrian traffic, shouting insults and threats to people who don't join them, who commit arson, vandalize, and destroy property, and generally terrify everybody in the area? You can pretty well count on it.
You can also count on me referring to them in very uncomplimentary terms.
Are you prescient or merely biased?
I cited the history of these kinds of things and that history makes what will happen pretty predictable. Are you deliberately avoiding that argument in order to defend people who I see as violating the rights of the peaceful and law abiding?
If this turns out to be a peaceful, respectful demonstration by courteous demonstrators, I will acknowledge it. But I wouldn't be taking my kids or grand kids there knowing the demonstration was scheduled. I bet you wouldn't either.
LIBERALISM. WHEN STUPID JUST ISN'T STUPID ENOUGH.They will BEG Father Government to strip them of constitutional rights granted by our founders...they will beg to be protected from themselves and the very same lowlifes they stand shoulder to shoulder with....haha
Think about that...you can’t make this shit up. Do we really need to wonder why nobody sane can take these Loons serious?
So, you are calling a whole lot of people unreasonable and not responsible.I would go. I'd treat it as a teachable moment, and an historic one.The march happens tomorrow, yet you have already accused the marchers of arson, assault and battery, vandalism and general mayhem.I know it's a common and unfortunate way to react to a demonstration that one disagrees with. Belittle the demonstrators, dismiss them,as thugs, kooks, loons and, in this case, wet behind the ears know,nothing children. It makes those who disagree somehow feel superior, pushing down others. It's as if every lesson we learned since the playground can be disposed of out of convenience due to lack of conscience.
Why does this sort of criticism meet with the sounds of crickets whenever pro-lifers or those who oppose Gay rights march? I guess it all depends on whose or is being gored. I wonder what it would be like if a counter protest held by gun toting folks who refuse to see nuance and havoc and fear through the smoked glass lens of absolute gun rights? Who would call them less than law abiding citizens and complain of disruption,before the march begins?
Do I object to demonstrations conducted by people who don't block vehicle or pedestrian traffic or entrances to businesses or public buildings, who pick up after themselves,and who are courteous to those who pass by? Nope. I have participated in a number of those myself.
Do I object to people shouting profanity, blocking vehicle and pedestrian traffic, shouting insults and threats to people who don't join them, who commit arson, vandalize, and destroy property, and generally terrify everybody in the area? You can pretty well count on it.
You can also count on me referring to them in very uncomplimentary terms.
Are you prescient or merely biased?
I cited the history of these kinds of things and that history makes what will happen pretty predictable. Are you deliberately avoiding that argument in order to defend people who I see as violating the rights of the peaceful and law abiding?
If this turns out to be a peaceful, respectful demonstration by courteous demonstrators, I will acknowledge it. But I wouldn't be taking my kids or grand kids there knowing the demonstration was scheduled. I bet you wouldn't either.
But I fear those who oppose this march will set the bar so high that if the grocery store coupon section from tomorrow's Washington Post is fished out of the Reflecting Pool, the chorus of "I told ya so!" will be deafening
Well that is your right of course. For myself, I don't see people acting disrespectfully and maliciously as a constructive venue for a teaching moment, nor would I willingly put my kids or grandkids or anybody else's kids at risk of assault, injury, or being frightened out of their wits. If you have ever witnessed one of these things up close and personal, and I have, I would hardly describe it as a teaching moment. It is not something any reasonable or responsible person would want to be close to.
Yeah, that would be terrible. How does that stack up against a nut case getting an AR and killing tens of people, me boy. Must be much worse. I mean, not having an AR or missing your day at the capital building must be about as bad as those 50 people who were killed. Though, in my humble but correct opinion, you could just not have the ability to shoot an ar and have the results we see in other countries, with no mass killings.Mayor of D.C. Proclaims loudly and often that she "hates guns" this is the base of all this, the emotion of hate
I respect guns I hunted and I know what they can do. My perspective is fact.
Little more parenting and would not have very isolated wack job teens running around blasting away but Libs prefer emotion as default
I have a number of guns, and have hunted for over 50 years. And I am of the opinion that no one needs an assault rifle.
Except those that can not shoot straight.
People who don't hunt, who don't do recreational shooting of any kind, and who will probably never face a threatening situation requiring the use of a firearm technically don't NEED a firearm of any kind. But the second amendment says absolutely nothing about anybody's personal need. It does suggest that when citizens are called to defend their country, they should be allowed arms to do so. In such a case an AR type weapon might come in very handy.
But we don't NEED many things that we like to have. What logic applies for somebody like me to not have an AR-14 rifle? I have never used a gun in any manner to threaten somebody or defend myself and have never harmed a living thing with any kind of weapon except maybe a tree if I missed the target, but if I just enjoy having an AR-15 in my collection, what harm is there in that?
And what principle of the constitution says that my rights to a peaceful outing with my family to visit the U.S. Capital Building or any other site should be cancelled or made inadvisable because the place is flooded with a bunch of angry people most likely practicing poor citizenship and might or might not be dangerous to innocent bystanders?
And what countries would that be? The ones with much higher percentages of households with guns than we have but that are small, homogenous populations with decent shared values and strong emphasis on personal responsibility and accountablility? The ones like Finland and Switzerland have very low crime rates involving guns or anything else.
Or countries like Honduras with rigid gun controls and ranked 88th in the world for the number of households with legal guns but has the highest homicide rate in the world, more than 76% due to gun crime?
The problem is not the number or type of weapons. The problem is a cultural one. Create a society in which personal responsibility and accountability is expected of all citizens, put biological fathers back into the homes, and allow God or religious faith that inspires peace and appreciation for life back into the schools and other public institutions, and I am reasonably certain that within a generation we won't be seeing guns as much of a public issue at all.
How about France, The UK, Germany, Spain, Australia, and many others.
And relative to your argument about culture, perhaps you can tell me how that is going to stop the killers who shot and killed the people in the Florida school, in Las Vegas, In the southern church, and on and so forth. How about Texas. How about Colorado.
Those killers could care less about your cultural dreams and your religions.
Just as in Australia. Where in 1996 there was a mass killings. Here is a recent report on their experience:
"Australia hadn't experienced a fatal mass shooting — one in which five or more people are killed — since the 1996 shooting. In the 18 years prior, 1979-1996, there were 13 fatal mass shootings"
Australia hasn't had a fatal mass shooting since 1996. Here's what it did
No other advanced nation of the world has anything close to the number of mass shootings we have. And all here, and the one in Australia in 1996, So your retort makes no sense. None at all. You see, the one difference between us and the other advanced countries of the world is that in all the others, they ban the sale of assault rifles.
LIBERALISM. WHEN STUPID JUST ISN'T STUPID ENOUGH.They will BEG Father Government to strip them of constitutional rights granted by our founders...they will beg to be protected from themselves and the very same lowlifes they stand shoulder to shoulder with....haha
Think about that...you can’t make this shit up. Do we really need to wonder why nobody sane can take these Loons serious?
So, you are calling a whole lot of people unreasonable and not responsible.I would go. I'd treat it as a teachable moment, and an historic one.The march happens tomorrow, yet you have already accused the marchers of arson, assault and battery, vandalism and general mayhem.Do I object to demonstrations conducted by people who don't block vehicle or pedestrian traffic or entrances to businesses or public buildings, who pick up after themselves,and who are courteous to those who pass by? Nope. I have participated in a number of those myself.
Do I object to people shouting profanity, blocking vehicle and pedestrian traffic, shouting insults and threats to people who don't join them, who commit arson, vandalize, and destroy property, and generally terrify everybody in the area? You can pretty well count on it.
You can also count on me referring to them in very uncomplimentary terms.
Are you prescient or merely biased?
I cited the history of these kinds of things and that history makes what will happen pretty predictable. Are you deliberately avoiding that argument in order to defend people who I see as violating the rights of the peaceful and law abiding?
If this turns out to be a peaceful, respectful demonstration by courteous demonstrators, I will acknowledge it. But I wouldn't be taking my kids or grand kids there knowing the demonstration was scheduled. I bet you wouldn't either.
But I fear those who oppose this march will set the bar so high that if the grocery store coupon section from tomorrow's Washington Post is fished out of the Reflecting Pool, the chorus of "I told ya so!" will be deafening
Well that is your right of course. For myself, I don't see people acting disrespectfully and maliciously as a constructive venue for a teaching moment, nor would I willingly put my kids or grandkids or anybody else's kids at risk of assault, injury, or being frightened out of their wits. If you have ever witnessed one of these things up close and personal, and I have, I would hardly describe it as a teaching moment. It is not something any reasonable or responsible person would want to be close to.
So, me poor ignorant clown, you can call me anything you want. And my grandkids will be among those marching, with my full support. So, me boy, I suspect you to be a dipshit. Without doubt.
Yeah, that would be terrible. How does that stack up against a nut case getting an AR and killing tens of people, me boy. Must be much worse. I mean, not having an AR or missing your day at the capital building must be about as bad as those 50 people who were killed. Though, in my humble but correct opinion, you could just not have the ability to shoot an ar and have the results we see in other countries, with no mass killings.I have a number of guns, and have hunted for over 50 years. And I am of the opinion that no one needs an assault rifle.
Except those that can not shoot straight.
People who don't hunt, who don't do recreational shooting of any kind, and who will probably never face a threatening situation requiring the use of a firearm technically don't NEED a firearm of any kind. But the second amendment says absolutely nothing about anybody's personal need. It does suggest that when citizens are called to defend their country, they should be allowed arms to do so. In such a case an AR type weapon might come in very handy.
But we don't NEED many things that we like to have. What logic applies for somebody like me to not have an AR-14 rifle? I have never used a gun in any manner to threaten somebody or defend myself and have never harmed a living thing with any kind of weapon except maybe a tree if I missed the target, but if I just enjoy having an AR-15 in my collection, what harm is there in that?
And what principle of the constitution says that my rights to a peaceful outing with my family to visit the U.S. Capital Building or any other site should be cancelled or made inadvisable because the place is flooded with a bunch of angry people most likely practicing poor citizenship and might or might not be dangerous to innocent bystanders?
And what countries would that be? The ones with much higher percentages of households with guns than we have but that are small, homogenous populations with decent shared values and strong emphasis on personal responsibility and accountablility? The ones like Finland and Switzerland have very low crime rates involving guns or anything else.
Or countries like Honduras with rigid gun controls and ranked 88th in the world for the number of households with legal guns but has the highest homicide rate in the world, more than 76% due to gun crime?
The problem is not the number or type of weapons. The problem is a cultural one. Create a society in which personal responsibility and accountability is expected of all citizens, put biological fathers back into the homes, and allow God or religious faith that inspires peace and appreciation for life back into the schools and other public institutions, and I am reasonably certain that within a generation we won't be seeing guns as much of a public issue at all.
How about France, The UK, Germany, Spain, Australia, and many others.
And relative to your argument about culture, perhaps you can tell me how that is going to stop the killers who shot and killed the people in the Florida school, in Las Vegas, In the southern church, and on and so forth. How about Texas. How about Colorado.
Those killers could care less about your cultural dreams and your religions.
Just as in Australia. Where in 1996 there was a mass killings. Here is a recent report on their experience:
"Australia hadn't experienced a fatal mass shooting — one in which five or more people are killed — since the 1996 shooting. In the 18 years prior, 1979-1996, there were 13 fatal mass shootings"
Australia hasn't had a fatal mass shooting since 1996. Here's what it did
No other advanced nation of the world has anything close to the number of mass shootings we have. And all here, and the one in Australia in 1996, So your retort makes no sense. None at all. You see, the one difference between us and the other advanced countries of the world is that in all the others, they ban the sale of assault rifles.
So long as we ignore the destruction done to our culture, no amount of gun control is going to make that much difference. The USA is not any other country and there is no country in the world that can we can measure ourselves by their yardstick. So long as the left, and even some on the right, blame the guns or other things that are the symptoms rather than the root cause and ignore the factors that are making us a less successful society, no amount of laws, rules, regulation, or stripping people of their rights will make much difference if any.
Your argument is stupid and selfish. And you are, in my opinion, a clown. How does it feel to be controlled by the NRA?So, you are calling a whole lot of people unreasonable and not responsible.I would go. I'd treat it as a teachable moment, and an historic one.The march happens tomorrow, yet you have already accused the marchers of arson, assault and battery, vandalism and general mayhem.
Are you prescient or merely biased?
I cited the history of these kinds of things and that history makes what will happen pretty predictable. Are you deliberately avoiding that argument in order to defend people who I see as violating the rights of the peaceful and law abiding?
If this turns out to be a peaceful, respectful demonstration by courteous demonstrators, I will acknowledge it. But I wouldn't be taking my kids or grand kids there knowing the demonstration was scheduled. I bet you wouldn't either.
But I fear those who oppose this march will set the bar so high that if the grocery store coupon section from tomorrow's Washington Post is fished out of the Reflecting Pool, the chorus of "I told ya so!" will be deafening
Well that is your right of course. For myself, I don't see people acting disrespectfully and maliciously as a constructive venue for a teaching moment, nor would I willingly put my kids or grandkids or anybody else's kids at risk of assault, injury, or being frightened out of their wits. If you have ever witnessed one of these things up close and personal, and I have, I would hardly describe it as a teaching moment. It is not something any reasonable or responsible person would want to be close to.
So, me poor ignorant clown, you can call me anything you want. And my grandkids will be among those marching, with my full support. So, me boy, I suspect you to be a dipshit. Without doubt.
And once again we have he/she who cannot and will not address the argument resorting to insulting the one making an argument. Another pretty reliable sign that I am right.
yup. The president of the nra, prior to Trump, was the biggest liar in their experience. And they will lie again, over and over.I would go. I'd treat it as a teachable moment, and an historic one.The march happens tomorrow, yet you have already accused the marchers of arson, assault and battery, vandalism and general mayhem.I know it's a common and unfortunate way to react to a demonstration that one disagrees with. Belittle the demonstrators, dismiss them,as thugs, kooks, loons and, in this case, wet behind the ears know,nothing children. It makes those who disagree somehow feel superior, pushing down others. It's as if every lesson we learned since the playground can be disposed of out of convenience due to lack of conscience.Because of their track record. I have never seen one of these protests that didn't involve a lot of profanity and civil disobedience. Not here. Not in any other state. And not in DC. I'm sure the ANTIFA and BLM folks are already polishing up their gear.
Why does this sort of criticism meet with the sounds of crickets whenever pro-lifers or those who oppose Gay rights march? I guess it all depends on whose or is being gored. I wonder what it would be like if a counter protest held by gun toting folks who refuse to see nuance and havoc and fear through the smoked glass lens of absolute gun rights? Who would call them less than law abiding citizens and complain of disruption,before the march begins?
Do I object to demonstrations conducted by people who don't block vehicle or pedestrian traffic or entrances to businesses or public buildings, who pick up after themselves,and who are courteous to those who pass by? Nope. I have participated in a number of those myself.
Do I object to people shouting profanity, blocking vehicle and pedestrian traffic, shouting insults and threats to people who don't join them, who commit arson, vandalize, and destroy property, and generally terrify everybody in the area? You can pretty well count on it.
You can also count on me referring to them in very uncomplimentary terms.
Are you prescient or merely biased?
I cited the history of these kinds of things and that history makes what will happen pretty predictable. Are you deliberately avoiding that argument in order to defend people who I see as violating the rights of the peaceful and law abiding?
If this turns out to be a peaceful, respectful demonstration by courteous demonstrators, I will acknowledge it. But I wouldn't be taking my kids or grand kids there knowing the demonstration was scheduled. I bet you wouldn't either.
But I fear those who oppose this march will set the bar so high that if the grocery store coupon section from tomorrow's Washington Post is fished out of the Reflecting Pool, the chorus of "I told ya so!" will be deafening
Tyrannical Government?
Guess it's time for us all to bunker up!
So, you are calling a whole lot of people unreasonable and not responsible.I would go. I'd treat it as a teachable moment, and an historic one.The march happens tomorrow, yet you have already accused the marchers of arson, assault and battery, vandalism and general mayhem.
Are you prescient or merely biased?
I cited the history of these kinds of things and that history makes what will happen pretty predictable. Are you deliberately avoiding that argument in order to defend people who I see as violating the rights of the peaceful and law abiding?
If this turns out to be a peaceful, respectful demonstration by courteous demonstrators, I will acknowledge it. But I wouldn't be taking my kids or grand kids there knowing the demonstration was scheduled. I bet you wouldn't either.
But I fear those who oppose this march will set the bar so high that if the grocery store coupon section from tomorrow's Washington Post is fished out of the Reflecting Pool, the chorus of "I told ya so!" will be deafening
Well that is your right of course. For myself, I don't see people acting disrespectfully and maliciously as a constructive venue for a teaching moment, nor would I willingly put my kids or grandkids or anybody else's kids at risk of assault, injury, or being frightened out of their wits. If you have ever witnessed one of these things up close and personal, and I have, I would hardly describe it as a teaching moment. It is not something any reasonable or responsible person would want to be close to.
So, me poor ignorant clown, you can call me anything you want. And my grandkids will be among those marching, with my full support. So, me boy, I suspect you to be a dipshit. Without doubt.
And once again we have he/she who cannot and will not address the argument resorting to insulting the one making an argument. Another pretty reliable sign that I am right.
