I am amazed at the reports by the press and main stream media on how President Trump didn?t condemn the racial right in his statements. I have watched and listened to his statements and it is very clear that he did and furthermore he has condemned David Duke and the KKK publically many times in the past.

So what is the problem? Are they so blinded by hatred that their eyes and ears won?t allow them to comprehend what they see and hear or are they so intent on pushing their agenda that they chose to tell their public what they want the story to be? One of the sad parts of this latest protest gone bad is the comments by the members of the GOP swamp who are willing to recite the press?s account of the events without even taking the time to listen to what President Trump actually said in his several statements. Is it so comfy in the swamp that they will attempt to over through their own party to keep him from making waves or Heaven forbid, actually start the draining process?

What would have happened if only the protesters (not the counter protesters) showed up? Would they have destroyed public property, set fires and robbed businesses like other protest groups have in the past? Would the violence have been avoided if the Police had been allowed to do their job and kept the two groups separated? I know the main stream media wants a story they can run with that boost their agenda, but how can the local government defend their actions with their own citizens?

President Trump?s statements that both sides participated in the fighting was exactly correct and both groups came to fight with helmets and clubs in their possession. Peaceful protesters don?t need these items.

Lastly, where were the media?s and the politician?s outrage during the many recent protest rallies across the country where the liberal left protesters attacked free speech at numerous colleges? They have destroyed public property, set fires, broken into business where they robbed and looted and even attacked the law enforcement. Where are the politician?s outrage and condemnation? Is freedom of speech not protected in the USA any longer?

I am aware that the Liberal Left politicians support and fund the protesters that push their agenda so they will never speak out against them, but where were the Politicians on the Right during these events that seemed to somehow find their voices now? 

They lost. All they have left is their hate. 

The Right can be quite hypocritical, but the level the left has achieved is astounding. Brain dead lemmings on the left just believe the first word they hear from the liberal propagandist media (%90 of the current media) & run with it blindly with hate filling them up. I know it has been used before, but liberalism does seem to be a mental disorder. Communists love those useful idiots though.... 

There was some clown on some news broadcast yesterday (don't remember which one) that actually said hate speech isn't free speech. 

Being on the wrong side of history is causing a lot of butt hurt among the rwnj's...lol 

The Right can be quite hypocritical, but the level the left has achieved is astounding. Brain dead lemmings on the left just believe the first word they hear from the liberal propagandist media (%90 of the current media) & run with it blindly with hate filling them up. I know it has been used before, but liberalism does seem to be a mental disorder. Communists love those useful idiots though....?

Dude... read what you just wrote and lookup the definition of propaganda, then lookup the definition of hypocrisy and think about it for a bit. 

Emp is wrong again.

"There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or 'fighting' words ? those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

- Justice Frank Murphy, 1942 

The hypocrisy on the left is so very sad!

Some think is ok to burn the U.S. flag

Yet same people would exploded in HATE if someone burned either of these flags:


 

President Trump was asked point blank if he felt there were good people on the white supremacist side of the event in Charlottesville, VA, he said yes.

This is why people are pissed. He didn't get arrested for saying what he said, hence his freedom of speech. However, words have consequences. He's reaping what he has sown. 

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. ? In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.?

Karl popper 

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Do you not see the obvious flaw in this? 

That is why it is a paradox. Along with the paradox of freedom, pretty famous philosophical position.

Doesn't make it true or right, just something to think about 

President Trump was asked point blank if he felt there were good people on the white supremacist side of the event in Charlottesville, VA, he said yes.

No he didn't. None of what you wrote is true. 

Do you not see the obvious flaw in this??

The blind never see their flaws. 

There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or 'fighting' words ? those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

All of those have since been brought before the Supreme Court. 

President Trump was asked point blank if he felt there were good people on the white supremacist side of the event in Charlottesville, VA, he said yes.

No he didn't. None of what you wrote is true.

So, according to the left, if you harbor fringe element views, then you can't be a good person? I wonder if they apply the same logic to Antifa, radical Islamic terrorism, BLM, code pink, et. al 

All of those have since been brought before the Supreme Court.

Yes and more often than not, SCOTUS ruled on the side of freedom of speech. The uninformed seem to cherry pick decisions and try to make them apply to the situation they want without even reading and understanding the totality of all their decisions on the subject. 

The blind never see their flaws.

To quote emp, don't you see (pun intended) the obvious flaw in this. :)

And I agree 

Very punny 

Is holding an ISIS rally free speech? 

President Trump was asked point blank if he felt there were good people on the white supremacist side of the event in Charlottesville, VA, he said yes.

This is why people are pissed. He didn't get arrested for saying what he said, hence his freedom of speech. However, words have consequences. He's reaping what he has sown.?

Isn't that the same as saying there are good people in Islam? 

If you are marching next to someone carrying a nazi flag, you need to leave, or acknowledge you are not a good person. 

0k - back at you.

If you are marching next to someone carrying a blm/liberal flag, you need to leave, or acknowledge you are not a good person. 

0k - back at you

Back at you???


Obviously AMDG's post hit home with you...not surprised though. 

Wrong again.

Just becoming more fed up with the left's B.S. 

If you are marching next to someone carrying a nazi flag, you need to leave, or acknowledge you are not a good person.?


It is protected speech and the right to assemble. If we start deciding what speech is and isn't allowed we are on a slippery slope to becoming China or North Korea. Like it or not, disgusting or not it is protected. Just like BLM hate speech against cops was protected until they stated killing cops and burning things and destroying property. Talk isn't illegal. Signs are not illegal. 

If you are marching next to someone carrying a blm/liberal flag, you need to leave, or acknowledge you are not a good person.

There is no moral equivalence between BLM and Neo- Nazis - i should not even need to explain that

It is protected speech and the right to assemble.

Their right to assemble and speak this hate out loud does not make them, or anyone who marches next to them a better person. 

Their right to assemble and speak this hate out loud does not make them, or anyone who marches next to them a better person.

The problem is terms like "better person" and "good person" are too subjective. There's no measure for either. 

The problem is terms like "better person" and "good person" are too subjective. There's no measure for either.

Maybe this is better - if you are marching next to a nazi flag - you are a bad person. You need to self evaluate your beliefs quickly.

but feel free to parse words and equivocate all you like in some backhanded defense of those marching with those carrying nazi flags. 

if you are marching next to a nazi flag - you are a bad person.

Again, the term "bad person" is too subjective. What it does do is make their actions socially abhorrent to most people.

but feel free to parse words and equivocate all you like in some backhanded defense of those marching with those carrying nazi flags.

Oh please. Who left you in charge of judging peoples hearts and minds enough to say whether they're a bad person or good person. The only thing you can judge is their actions. 

Again, the term "bad person" is too subjective. What it does do is make their actions socially abhorrent to most people.

by the way - the "bad person" i am using is in direct response to the Trump "good people on both sides" to be clear.

However, not a subjective view at all. There are objective evils in the world. Nazi Germany was objectively evil. If your own feelings are close enough to theirs to carry their flag in public - you are evil. If you find yourself marching next to that flag - and you do not leave - you are condoning that hate with your actions, and you are not "a good person" 

Ok, you apply your own standards to good and evil, that's fine, but don't assume that your standards are universally shared by all or are the bench mark of good and evil.

Nazi Germany was objectively evil.

That implies that all of Nazi Germany (which is comprised of all her people) was evil which is definitely not the case. 

There is no moral equivalence between BLM and Neo- Nazis - i should not even need to explain that

BLM uses violence as a means to their end. That is a moral equivalent. By your reckoning, your defense there means you are condoning their violence. 

What? Nazis want racial genocide. You can't equate the two. 

No. Nazis want racial superiority. Racial hierarchy with whites at the top. Know your enemy. Both BLM and neo-nazis profess violence as a necessary tool. A moral equivalent. 

They put over 8 million people in ovens. Please please stop the backhanded support for anyone who marches next to that symbol. 

That implies that all of Nazi Germany (which is comprised of all her people) was evil which is definitely not the case.

Nazi Germany - including ALL its people, not in active opposition, were evil. If you were there and not actively doing what you could do to stop it - you were part of the evil. Cold but true. 

AMDG - do you think this ok?

If you are a BLM supporter, you are a bad person and evil. 

If you are a BLM supporter, you are a bad person and evil.

There is no inherent evil in protesting or supporting a belief that people are being treated badly by police -

There is no inherent evil in protesting or supporting the removal of symbols you find offensive.

If they engage in unjustified violence that is evil.

It is very apparent that your frame of reference is preventing you from seeing the this rather clear distinction between these groups and Neo Nazis. My Christian recommendation is you should give that some thought. 

Nazi Germany - including ALL its people, not in active opposition, were evil. If you were there and not actively doing what you could do to stop it - you were part of the evil. Cold but true.?


Nuremberg trials. Being under orders was no excuse for participating. Living in fear is no excuse for sitting back and watching. And trying to cover your own sick attitudes by using other groups as a deflection is no excuse for supporting them. You've displayed who you are.