He used the right words. It included everyone.....there were antagonists on BOTH sides.
“He used the right words. It included everyone.....there were antagonists on BOTH sides.”
Exactly. Nothing confusing about it unless you are the one trying to confuse the issue. That being the NYT.
“He used the right words. It included everyone.....there were antagonists on BOTH sides.”
Really? Because it looks to me like one side had a permit and was exercising its constitutionally protected right to free speech, while the other side presented itself with the specific intent and purpose of denying the first side its constitutional rights by attacking them violently.
What places the first side on the same moral plane with the second? Is exercising constitutional rights morally equivalent to denying them by violence?
Even if the first side moved to defend itself after the felonious assault by the second, that was just the exercise of another of their rights.
No, the only way the first side is at fault is in holding and speaking opinions that others find objectionable. That’s it. That’s the only thing they did wrong.