StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Debating on SB about the political slant of American universities, so to my poll...

I'm at KSU, the place where four people died for opposing a strong government presence. You do the math.

IG-88E wrote:I'm at KSU, the place where four people died for opposing a strong government presence. You do the math.

They fucking deserved it, for pelting the guardsmen with ROCKS, and for
burning down the campus ROTC building. Fuck them, and fuck their "memorial"
on campus...

Too the Left or Uner Left like Ultra. Yet, half of them will tone down, and be Fundie parents in a few years after their graduation.

MKSheppard wrote:

IG-88E wrote:I'm at KSU, the place where four people died for opposing a strong government presence. You do the math.

They fucking deserved it, for pelting the guardsmen with ROCKS, and for
burning down the campus ROTC building. Fuck them, and fuck their "memorial"
on campus...

I know. If you throw rocks at armed guardsmen, things like that'll happen. It's too bad they died but it wasn't the brightest things they could have done.

MKSheppard wrote:

IG-88E wrote:I'm at KSU, the place where four people died for opposing a strong government presence. You do the math.

They fucking deserved it, for pelting the guardsmen with ROCKS, and for
burning down the campus ROTC building. Fuck them, and fuck their "memorial"
on campus...

I'M WITH YOU SHEP, DON'T GET ME WRONG! Although my stance isn't as hard-lined as yours is, I still believe the students were at fault, not the Guard.

In my not so esteemed reguard, I think that liberalism thrives well in an academic areana and conservitism thrives better in a household and a family areana.

So is there a liberal slant in Universities? To the most part yes, though one can find highly conservitive universities as well.

With the exception of some of the fundie Christian schools, the faculty of most major universities tend to be predominantly liberal. The political leanings of the student body, however, varies greatly from region to region.

Whatever is Crazy, However Typicaly its Libral as Libral is assocated with "Peace and Understand"

Or to put it another way


All Liberals Realy want is a Socialist Utopia, Meanwhile the Conservatives want a Totaliatiran Dicatorship(IE if you took either to the extreme)

Now in Todays day and age, which is it more accetable to be?

Socialist? Or Facist?

MKSheppard wrote:

IG-88E wrote:I'm at KSU, the place where four people died for opposing a strong government presence. You do the math.

They fucking deserved it, for pelting the guardsmen with ROCKS, and for
burning down the campus ROTC building. Fuck them, and fuck their "memorial" on campus...

Ah...rock-pelting justifies deadly force from government troops. Thank you, Mr. Statist.

I presume you have no problems with Waco or Ruby Ridge, then?

MKSheppard wrote:

IG-88E wrote:I'm at KSU, the place where four people died for opposing a strong government presence. You do the math.

They fucking deserved it, for pelting the guardsmen with ROCKS, and for
burning down the campus ROTC building. Fuck them, and fuck their "memorial"
on campus...

Ah, so a few people throwing rocks at guardsmen makes it ok for them to fire on a crowd of people regardless of which ones were actually doing the assaulting?

Brilliant logic dumbass.

Alyeska wrote:rocks at guardsmen makes it ok for them to fire on a crowd of people regardless of which ones were actually doing the assaulting?

Brilliant logic dumbass.

Have you looked into the backstory and the preceeding three days? No? Fuck off.

Alyeska wrote:

MKSheppard wrote:

IG-88E wrote:I'm at KSU, the place where four people died for opposing a strong government presence. You do the math.

They fucking deserved it, for pelting the guardsmen with ROCKS, and for
burning down the campus ROTC building. Fuck them, and fuck their "memorial"
on campus...

Ah, so a few people throwing rocks at guardsmen makes it ok for them to fire on a crowd of people regardless of which ones were actually doing the assaulting?

Brilliant logic dumbass.

No, it doesn't make it right but they shouldn't really be suprised. If you're in the middle of a mob throw rocks at heavily armed men, then expect them to shoot back sooner or later.

Mr Bean wrote: All Liberals Realy want is a Socialist Utopia, Meanwhile the Conservatives want a Totaliatiran Dicatorship(IE if you took either to the extreme)

Now in Todays day and age, which is it more accetable to be?

Socialist? Or Facist?

Socialist. It's not bad to be utopic when you're young. The 20 year's old conservative far right wingers give me shivers.

IG-88E wrote:

Alyeska wrote:rocks at guardsmen makes it ok for them to fire on a crowd of people regardless of which ones were actually doing the assaulting?

Brilliant logic dumbass.

Have you looked into the backstory and the preceeding three days? No? Fuck off.

So, it is ok to fire into a crowd of protestors because UNKNOWN people firebombed the ROTC building? It is ok to use Deadly Force against people who are not? It is ok to kill people for the actions of a few?

Next time a city has a riot because their team lost a major sporting event, lets just see if the police decide to open fire with their weapons because store fronts are being vandalized.

You ought to fuck off. You don't use deadly force unless your life is absolutely threatened and you sure as hell don't place soldiers in a situation that they do not have the proper training for.

Patrick Degan wrote: Ah...rock-pelting justifies deadly force from government troops. Thank you, Mr. Statist.

I presume you have no problems with Waco or Ruby Ridge, then?

You've never been stoned before have you, asshole?

Those guardsmen had every right to defend themselves, same as Randy
Weaver had every right to defend himself when the BATF opened fire
on him for no reason.

Alyeska wrote: Next time a city has a riot because their team lost a major sporting event, lets just see if the police decide to open fire with their weapons because store fronts are being vandalized.

Actually yeah. If people are trashing my store because their
shitty team won a championship, I'm wasting the lot of
them with a crew served weapon and then cleaning up later...

Alyeska wrote:
So, it is ok to fire into a crowd of protestors because UNKNOWN people firebombed the ROTC building? It is ok to use Deadly Force against people who are not? It is ok to kill people for the actions of a few?

Next time a city has a riot because their team lost a major sporting event, lets just see if the police decide to open fire with their weapons because store fronts are being vandalized.

You ought to fuck off. You don't use deadly force unless your life is absolutely threatened and you sure as hell don't place soldiers in a situation that they do not have the proper training for.

1. May 1 Students gather in Kent and cause a bit of a riot, smashing store windows and assaulting police officers.
2. May 2 A group of STUDENTS, yes they were STUDENTS, it was confirmed, not UNKNOWNS, burn down the ROTC buildic, then ATTACK firefighters sent to put it out.
3. May 3 The next day, a large group of students start a sit-in at Lincoln and Main, the corner of the campus. Several people throw objects at Guard members.
4. The Guard slowly marches the students back, enduring bricks, rocks, and BAGS OF SHIT being thrown at them. One Guardsmen and three students are treated for injuries.
5. May 4:a large group of students gathers at the Commons, yelling anti-war slogans. Worried about another possible riot, the Guard appears and shoots off some tear gas. The students begin to disperse. The Guard marches a little farther to make sure they're leaving.
6. The Guard, unfamiliar with the campus, get trapped between a wall, a fence, and the students. Several guardsmen drop to firing crouches while officers have a quick conference. They decide to back off.
7. The students follow, screaming at the Guards. A brick slams into one guard's head. He drops, stunned. Four others spin and point their rifles.
8. They see a student walking towards them. One hand is giving them the finger, the other is behind his back, holding something. He yells "Shoot me, motherfuckers! Shoot me!" Someone else throws a rock.
9. The Guard has FINALLY been pushed too far. After enduring two days and three nights of unrelenting abuse, they open fire. The shooting lasts 13 seconds. 4 die, 11 are injured.
10. The guard leaves, calling for medical help for the students.

I FULLY support the actions the Guard took, May 4. Although I beleive that the whole situation could have been avoided, and that the Guard's presence was unneccesary, they did what they felt they had too. Had I been a Guardsman that day, I too would have pulled my trigger.

IG-88E wrote: 1. May 1 Students gather in Kent and cause a bit of a riot, smashing store windows and assaulting police officers.
2. May 2 A group of STUDENTS, yes they were STUDENTS, it was confirmed, not UNKNOWNS, burn down the ROTC buildic, then ATTACK firefighters sent to put it out.
3. May 3 The next day, a large group of students start a sit-in at Lincoln and Main, the corner of the campus. Several people throw objects at Guard members.
4. The Guard slowly marches the students back, enduring bricks, rocks, and BAGS OF SHIT being thrown at them. One Guardsmen and three students are treated for injuries.
5. May 4:a large group of students gathers at the Commons, yelling anti-war slogans. Worried about another possible riot, the Guard appears and shoots off some tear gas. The students begin to disperse. The Guard marches a little farther to make sure they're leaving.
6. The Guard, unfamiliar with the campus, get trapped between a wall, a fence, and the students. Several guardsmen drop to firing crouches while officers have a quick conference. They decide to back off.
7. The students follow, screaming at the Guards. A brick slams into one guard's head. He drops, stunned. Four others spin and point their rifles.
8. They see a student walking towards them. One hand is giving them the finger, the other is behind his back, holding something. He yells "Shoot me, motherfuckers! Shoot me!" Someone else throws a rock.
9. The Guard has FINALLY been pushed too far. After enduring two days and three nights of unrelenting abuse, they open fire. The shooting lasts 13 seconds. 4 die, 11 are injured.
10. The guard leaves, calling for medical help for the students.

Funny how assholes like Alyseka conviently "forget" all this shit when they
blame us of being statists...

MKSheppard wrote:Funny how assholes like Alyseka conviently "forget" all this shit when they
blame us of being statists...

It is. It was a riot situation and they were throwing rocks at armed Guardsmen, it sad they died but not suprising. It certainly isn't going to break my heart that they got a Darwin Award. Same goes for the idiot Palestinians that try the same thing.

MKSheppard wrote:

Patrick Degan wrote: Ah...rock-pelting justifies deadly force from government troops. Thank you, Mr. Statist.

I presume you have no problems with Waco or Ruby Ridge, then?

You've never been stoned before have you, asshole?

As a matter of fact, I have. And what does that have to do with anything, fuckwit?

Those guardsmen had every right to defend themselves same as Randy Weaver had every right to defend himself when the BATF opened fire
on him for no reason.

The guardsmen did not have the right to respond with deadly force against students armed only with rocks. Nor was it their only option in the situation, which further negates any presumed "right" to simply open fire. The law is very specific on when and under what conditions lethal response is justifiable.

As for Randy Weaver and co., I will remind you that Kevin Harris opened fire first and hit one of the Federal marshals, who had identified himself as a U.S. Marshal. Despite what you may believe, it isn't actually legal to open fire on law enforcement officials. This of course does not mitigate in any way the later deaths of Vicki and Sara Weaver, or the overall conduct of the FBI in the incident. There was no reason for shooting after the initial exchange on the hillside; all the authorities had to do was sit tight and wait the Weavers out.

However, I point out that the Kent State students had even less in the way of armament when they were gunned down than the Weavers, who had a whole arsenal handy.

I guess your sympathies for the victims of government actions depend upon which side of the political spectrum they fall on, though.

Patrick Degan wrote:

MKSheppard wrote:

Patrick Degan wrote: Ah...rock-pelting justifies deadly force from government troops. Thank you, Mr. Statist.

I presume you have no problems with Waco or Ruby Ridge, then?

You've never been stoned before have you, asshole?

As a matter of fact, I have. And what does that have to do with anything, fuckwit?

Those guardsmen had every right to defend themselves same as Randy Weaver had every right to defend himself when the BATF opened fire
on him for no reason.

The guardsmen did not have the right to respond with deadly force against students armed only with rocks. Nor was it their only option in the situation, which further negates any presumed "right" to simply open fire. The law is very specific on when and under what conditions lethal response is justifiable.

Becuase getting stoned can kill, even in riot gear. And frankly, the hippies out to have known better than to stone armed soldiers.

Most universities are gonna be somewhat the the "left".

Most young people are going to somewhat liberal because they dont have the life experience yet, that tells them not everything can be solved by govt or good intentions.

I heard a saying once: If you are not and conservative you dont have a heart.
If you are old and liberal you dont have a brain.

Now thats a gross simplification but I think its safe to say many young college kids are going to be idealistic.

Patrick Degan wrote: As a matter of fact, I have. And what does that have to do with anything, fuckwit?

Then you know stoning is potentially fatal.

As for Randy Weaver and co., I will remind you that Kevin Harris opened fire first and hit one of the Federal marshals, who had identified himself as a U.S. Marshal.

Wrong. The US Marshals identified themselves by opening fire on and killing
the Weaver's dog. You, never, ever shoot someones dog. To me, that is
a shootable offense.

On the other hand, if you shoot a police dog, you are now guilty of
the death of an police officer. So don't whine about how it's "only
a dog."

Patrick Degan wrote: The guardsmen did not have the right to respond with deadly force against students armed only with rocks. Nor was it their only option in the situation, which further negates any presumed "right" to simply open fire. The law is very specific on when and under what conditions lethal response is justifiable.

Please remove yourself from your soap box and place yourself in the shoes of the guards. You've been tormented for over 50 hours straight by people "only" armed with rocks, bricks, BAGS OF SHIT, and molotov cocktails. Suddenly, you're a member of a group of roughly 20 (yes, that's all that were involved in the actual massacre), cut off from support (which is halfway across campus), surrounded by screaming students who might not hesitate to beat you to a pulp, and CERTINLY don't hesitate to throw heavy objects at you. Then, a student approaches your group, one hand behind hit back like he's holding a gun (it turned out he had a brick) and screaming "shoot me, motherfuckers!" Attempts to pacify people like this in the past few days have mostly ended in violence, and if the students choose to attack your group, thye have enough that they WILL overrun you.
What do you do, Patrick?