8
   

Four Dead In O-Hi-O

 
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 08:15 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
It's the kind of subtle situation that you don't expect fire-eating bullshit artists to understand, especially those who were not there.


Odd thing to hear from the mouth of the historian.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 08:18 pm
I was all gung ho for the war while still on active duty. I knew zip about it, but it seemed the patriotic thing to do. A few months after they released me, I read in the LA Times about prisoners, strung by the cheeks with barbed wire, like fish. In the same article, there was a description of Viet Cong getting tossed out of helicopters. Americans and South Vietnamese were complicite, in that article. "I thought we were the good guys" flashed through my mind. I knew by then that the Americans often could not distinguish between friend and foe and that the Cong were as vicious as we were. I learned that we had been lied into it by our government. It was very disturbing. The more I found out about it, the less I wanted this war to continue.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 08:24 pm
I'm curious... Was anyone ever charged or convicted of the shooting at Kent State?
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 08:55 pm
@Ceili,
No. I don't believe so. It is likely that a few people in command positions were quietly retired.
Ceili
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 09:37 pm
@realjohnboy,
Thanks
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 10:02 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
I recall when it happened and believing the Guard was not provoked to kill their fellow citizens this way.
I believe there was malice on the part of the ones did the shooting.
He who throws rocks at men bearing guns shoud expect to get shot. That shoud be very, very clear.
That shoud be explained at mother 's knee.

Ed, I wonder if u 'd feel differently, if guys were hitting YOU with rocks.

(However, the Guard did not aim as carefully as it shoud have.)





David
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 04:38 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
I recall when it happened and believing the Guard was not provoked to kill their fellow citizens this way.
I believe there was malice on the part of the ones did the shooting.
He who throws rocks at men bearing guns shoud expect to get shot. That shoud be very, very clear.
That shoud be explained at mother 's knee.

Ed, I wonder if u 'd feel differently, if guys were hitting YOU with rocks.

(However, the Guard did not aim as carefully as it shoud have.)





David


Stupid bastard. The innocent students who were guilty of being on their way to class had no rocks and were not even interested in the protest.
msolga
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 04:41 am
@edgarblythe,
Hear, hear, edgar!

I remember Ohio. How could one forget an event like that?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 04:48 am
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
He who throws rocks at men bearing guns shoud expect to get shot.
Thats why Id raher see gun control so that people who espouse such views can be separated from their phallic desire while other people are about..
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 04:48 am
@edgarblythe,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
I recall when it happened and believing the Guard was not provoked to kill their fellow citizens this way.
I believe there was malice on the part of the ones did the shooting.
He who throws rocks at men bearing guns shoud expect to get shot. That shoud be very, very clear.
That shoud be explained at mother 's knee.

Ed, I wonder if u 'd feel differently, if guys were hitting YOU with rocks.

(However, the Guard did not aim as carefully as it shoud have.)





David


edgarblythe wrote:
Stupid bastard. The innocent students who were guilty of being on their way to class
had no rocks and were not even interested in the protest.
That is the reason that I said that thay shoud have aimed more carefully.
Presumably, if u r being stoned while u have a gun, u will peacefully
just let them continue hitting u with rocks. That 's fine.





David
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 04:51 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
I recall when it happened and believing the Guard was not provoked to kill their fellow citizens this way.
I believe there was malice on the part of the ones did the shooting.
He who throws rocks at men bearing guns shoud expect to get shot. That shoud be very, very clear.
That shoud be explained at mother 's knee.

Ed, I wonder if u 'd feel differently, if guys were hitting YOU with rocks.

(However, the Guard did not aim as carefully as it shoud have.)





David


edgarblythe wrote:
Stupid bastard. The innocent students who were guilty of being on their way to class
had no rocks and were not even interested in the protest.
That is the reason that I said that thay shoud have aimed more carefully.
Presumably, if u r being stoned while u have a gun, u will peacefully
just let them continue hitting u with rocks. That 's fine.





David

You goddammed idiot. YOu don't even know what happened there, but you are so fanatic to defend shooting people you defend killing people who were not throwing rocks and were just passing by.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 04:55 am
@farmerman,
David wrote:
He who throws rocks at men bearing guns shoud expect to get shot.
farmerman wrote:
Thats why Id raher see gun control so that people who espouse such views can be separated
from their phallic desire while other people are about..
U can RATHER
anything u wanna rather, but the Republic was NOT built that way
because the Founders were rather more freedom loving than u r.
Therefore: I win and u lose.





David
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 04:58 am
@OmSigDAVID,
You oughta quit on this David. Your coming off as a great reason why birth control should often be retroactive
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 04:59 am
@edgarblythe,
Just let it go, edgar. David is just playing his usual games. Not worth responding to.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 05:06 am
@edgarblythe,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
I recall when it happened and believing the Guard was not provoked to kill their fellow citizens this way.
I believe there was malice on the part of the ones did the shooting.
He who throws rocks at men bearing guns shoud expect to get shot. That shoud be very, very clear.
That shoud be explained at mother 's knee.

Ed, I wonder if u 'd feel differently, if guys were hitting YOU with rocks.

(However, the Guard did not aim as carefully as it shoud have.)





David


edgarblythe wrote:
Stupid bastard. The innocent students who were guilty of being on their way to class
had no rocks and were not even interested in the protest.
OmSigDAVID wrote:
That is the reason that I said that thay shoud have aimed more carefully.
Presumably, if u r being stoned while u have a gun, u will peacefully
just let them continue hitting u with rocks. That 's fine.





David

edgarblythe wrote:
You goddammed idiot.
Well, if I 'm an "idiot" then where does that leave YOU??
I 'm not poverty stricken living in a trailer and still working.



edgarblythe wrote:
YOu don't even know what happened there, but you are so
fanatic to defend shooting people you defend killing people
who were not throwing rocks and were just passing by.
Everyone who lived thru those times knows what happened.
What a stupid thing for u to say.

Notice how he does not answer
about letting himself get hit with rocks as the National Guardsmen were.
Ed just knows how to hurl personal insults.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 05:10 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
You oughta quit on this David. Your coming off as a great reason why birth control should often be retroactive
The heckler's veto does not impress me.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 05:16 am
@farmerman,
David wrote:
He who throws rocks at men bearing guns shoud expect to get shot.
farmerman wrote:
Thats why Id raher see gun control so that people who espouse such views
can be separated from their phallic desire while other people are about..
Its kinda weird how anti-freedom people are so obsessed with the penises
of freedom lovers. Thay always come back to that, over n over again, single-mindedly.





David
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 05:20 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Thats because you are there, with your single issue mind, reminding me of the phallic association.
You stand there with a gun , pronouncing who is or isnt anti-freedom. What, has someone given you the license to cleanse our shores of those who dont agree with your gun totin ways?

HMMMMM, David, ya gotta take some time off and enjoy the spring, Theres so much out there that dosnt need to be shot.
msolga
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 05:27 am
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 05:35 am
@msolga,
Thanks Olga. There has never been any valid excuse for this. Our little sojourn into becoming more of a police state needed to end by recognizing that these kids died or were wounded to help prop up some paranoid gangster administration.

 

Related Topics

New A2K is Anti-Free Speech - Question by Brandon9000
Oh My God - Discussion by cjhsa
Is free speech an illusion? - Question by Angelgz2
Does freedom of speech excuse preaching hate? - Discussion by izzythepush
Time To Boycott EA games? - Discussion by RexRed
respect or free speech? - Discussion by dyslexia
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/05/2021 at 11:31:13