• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Donald Trump: Don't change abortion laws

Please prove that there are inherent rights.

:lol: Rights are an a priori, not a physical measurable.

I disagree, they are a completely man-made concept.

:) Prove it.

If you cant prove they exist inherently in humans, I suggest using an argument less personal and with a more solid, supportable (legally) foundation.

On the contrary, the argument that our rights are inherent and inalienable is central to our founding.
 
I have disagreed with you from time to time, but this time you are way over the line. These 'hippies' are college students, they are human, have moms and dads just like jaded jarheads.

1. I have long argued in this forum that hippies are not people - it's an ironic self deprecation of my actual position
2. Which apparently wasn't made explicit enough in the thread, which is why I surrounded it later with [tongue in cheek][/tongue in cheek]

Photos tend to freeze the 'action' so people appear to 'just stand around'

That is incorrect - pictures of people in motion are clearly people in motion. This picture was clearly taken not while the people in it were being shot at.

but i'd imagine many civilians you know would be in rather stunned shock if the No-Gos fired up their friends... oh wait, you only know steely eyed combat vets... :roll:

Civilians tend to run, jumble, and push at each other in attempts to get out of the way. Many will rush to hide. For example, the hill immediately beyond the focus of the shot offers excellent defilade, and that is where many would naturally go if, in fact, people on the raised road were under fire.

The 'staged' dead guy is infact Jeff Miller and the photo isn't staged

I didn't say it was staged (in fact, I acknowledged that it might be an iconic shot I simply hadn't seen), I said it looked off because it was both clearly after the event and there were no visible indications that the guy had actually been shot to death. Another poster pointed out the blood trail in the background, which clears that up.
 
Sheila Jackson Lee, is that you?

What, did you stop paying attention after 1972?



:shrug: if you disagree that hurling rocks is assault, let's meet up. I'll throw rocks at you until you agree you are being physically damaged.

The rock throwing was wrong of course, but the guards had gone back up the hill away from the students and once they reached the top of the hill 28 guards turned around and shot into the crowd.

Why ?

WHAT EVENTS LED DIRECTLY TO THE SHOOTINGS?

Shortly before noon, General Canterbury made the decision to order the demonstrators to disperse. A Kent State police officer standing by the Guard made an announcement using a bullhorn. When this had no effect, the officer was placed in a jeep along with several Guardsmen and driven across the Commons to tell the protestors that the rally was banned and that they must disperse. This was met with angry shouting and rocks, and the jeep retreated. Canterbury then ordered his men to load and lock their weapons, tear gas canisters were fired into the crowd around the Victory Bell, and the Guard began to march across the Commons to disperse the rally. The protestors moved up a steep hill, known as Blanket Hill, and then down the other side of the hill onto the Prentice Hall parking lot as well as an adjoining practice football field. Most of the Guardsmen followed the students directly and soon found themselves somewhat trapped on the practice football field because it was surrounded by a fence. Yelling and rock throwing reached a peak as the Guard remained on the field for about ten minutes. Several Guardsmen could be seen huddling together, and some Guardsmen knelt and pointed their guns, but no weapons were shot at this time. The Guard then began retracing their steps from the practice football field back up Blanket Hill. As they arrived at the top of the hill, twenty-eight of the more than seventy Guardsmen turned suddenly and fired their rifles and pistols. Many guardsmen fired into the air or the ground. However, a small portion fired directly into the crowd. Altogether between 61 and 67 shots were fired in a 13 second period.
...

WHY DID THE GUARDSMEN FIRE?

The most important question associated with the events of May 4 is why did members of the Guard fire into a crowd of unarmed students? Two quite different answers have been advanced to this question: (1) the Guardsmen fired in self-defense, and the shootings were therefore justified and (2) the Guardsmen were not in immediate danger, and therefore the shootings were unjustified.

WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS?

Although we have attempted in this article to answer many of the most important and frequently asked questions about the May 4th shootings, our responses have sometimes been tentative because many important questions remain unanswered. It thus seems important to ask what are the most significant questions which yet remain unanswered about the May 4th events. These questions could serve as the basis for research projects by students who are interested in studying the shootings in greater detail.

(1) Who was responsible for the violence in downtown Kent and on the Kent State campus in the three days prior to May 4th? As an important part of this question, were "outside agitators" primarily responsible? Who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building?

(2) Should the Guard have been called to Kent and Kent State University? Could local law enforcement personnel have handled any situations? Were the Guard properly trained for this type of assignment?

(3) Did the Kent State University administration respond appropriately in their reactions to the demonstrations and with Ohio political officials and Guard officials?

(4) Would the shootings have been avoided if the rally had not been banned? Did the banning of the rally violate First Amendment rights?

(5) Did the Guardsmen conspire to shoot students when they huddled on the practice football field? If not, why did they fire? Were they justified in firing?

(6) Who was ultimately responsible for the events of May 4, l970?

http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/lewihen.htm
 
Last edited:
The rock throwing was wrong of course, but the guards had gone back up the hill away from the students and once they reached the top of the hill 27 guards turned around and shot into the crowd.

Why?

:shrug: I wasn't one of the shooters, I couldn't speak directly to their motivations. My bet would be it wasn't a thought-out decision, but a reaction.



As a general rule, however, if you attack security forces, don't be astonished when they respond with superior force. That's what they are there for.
 
No, we were discussing the "anti-War"/"Pro-North Vietnam" movement.

You use a slash there to indicate that the two movements were equivalent, one and the same, and that's nonsense. Anti-War =/= Pro N. Vietnam. It's as inane as "You're either with us or against us" with "with us" defined as the policy of all out war.

:shrug: broadly I haven't.

LOL, obviously, and you appear to have spent the same amount of time studying the protest movement of that era.
 
Sheila Jackson Lee, is that you?

What, did you stop paying attention after 1972?

Two Vietnams? No, there never were two Vietnams, and still aren't. There is one country, Vietnam. It was taken over by the French until the war of independence in 1954, then by the Americans for the next 18 years. After that, the civil war lasted a while longer. Now, the nation is united, just as it would have been back in '54 had we heeded the advice of the French not to get involved in a land war in SE Asia. That was the voice of experience talking, but it was drowned out by fears of "Commies" and the so called "domino theory."

:shrug: if you disagree that hurling rocks is assault, let's meet up. I'll throw rocks at you until you agree you are being physically damaged.

OK. I'll bring my rifle.

And the kids at Kent State weren't "attacking security and first responders" when the National Guard opened fire on an unarmed crowd. That's just a revision of history.
 
Could you tell me whose name protesters are chanting in the last bit of this video? I understand it was rather popular with the people who weren't necessarily siding with the communists, but can't quite make it out.

Additionally, do you happen to know what country these pictures were taken in? I swear that lady looks familiar.

It takes about 5 minutes of serious research to figure out that there were many factions and deep divisions in the broad "anti-war" protests throughout that era. That you're conflating all of the various factions and camps into one supposedly homogeneous group indicates what we already knew, which is you haven't given the era those 5 minutes of serious research.
 
Two Vietnams? No, there never were two Vietnams, and still aren't.

Apparently you were paying attention to other things. Yes, in fact, there was a North and South Vietnam, just as today (for example) there is a North and South Korea. Were North Korea to attempt to invade and seize the South, we would properly call that an invasion and an attempted subjugation under a cruel and murderous form of tyranny. Because that is what it would be, just as it was for South Vietnam.

OK. I'll bring my rifle.

Hey! Now you get it ;)

And the kids at Kent State weren't "attacking security and first responders" when the National Guard opened fire on an unarmed crowd.

:( Aw, you lost it again. Let's try this again. Let's meet up and I'll throw rocks at you....
 
It takes about 5 minutes of serious research to figure out that there were many factions and deep divisions in the broad "anti-war" protests throughout that era. That you're conflating all of the various factions and camps into one supposedly homogeneous group indicates what we already knew, which is you haven't given the era those 5 minutes of serious research.

So you can't answer the questions?

Gosh. It seems no one can help me with this data gap..... :(
 
So you can't answer the questions?

Gosh. It seems no one can help me with this data gap..... :(

LOL, right, and if I find ANY "conservative" who's a racist, it means all conservatives are racists and since I CAN find self described conservatives who are racists, YOU are a racist!! cpwill logic! :peace

That's your argument here, beliefs of some members of a group apply to all other members of the group! Some group of marchers said that chant so 1) all anti-war protesters either said that chant or agreed with it, and 2) "sided" with communists, just like all who protested the Iraq war 'sided' with Saddam Hussein, and everyone against NSA and drone strikes and the occupation of Iraq and wars all over the ME love the terrorists and want them to win! USA USA USA With us or against us!!! Dissent = treason!

:roll:
 
This man has a record of making pro-abortion statements and donations to pro-abortion politicians. He has no business pursuing this nomination and does not deserve the support of anyone with a conscience.

Which means, of course, we can already rule out pro-aborts.
 
1. I have long argued in this forum that hippies are not people - it's an ironic self deprecation of my actual position 2. Which apparently wasn't made explicit enough in the thread, which is why I surrounded it later with That is incorrect - pictures of people in motion are clearly people in motion. This picture was clearly taken not while the people in it were being shot at. Civilians tend to run, jumble, and push at each other in attempts to get out of the way. Many will rush to hide. For example, the hill immediately beyond the focus of the shot offers excellent defilade, and that is where many would naturally go if, in fact, people on the raised road were under fire. I didn't say it was staged (in fact, I acknowledged that it might be an iconic shot I simply hadn't seen), I said it looked off because it was both clearly after the event and there were no visible indications that the guy had actually been shot to death. Another poster pointed out the blood trail in the background, which clears that up.

So you are just being a jerk when you say hippies ain't people- got it...

I didn't say the picture was taken AS the people are being shot at- i said a photo freezes motion so it looks like people are just standing still. If the f-stop is set correctly you can see a hummingbird's wings while the bird is in flight. The reaction of civilians- i'd opine you don't have much experience with what people do under stress or where the Shooters are from the folks in the photo. The volley lasted approx 13 seconds, less than half the troops fired. No drawout firefight- just 13 seconds. many of the people were stunned and in shock- you do know what that is keyrect super troop??? Due to trees and other objects I doubt the people saw who was shooting at them and the Troops didn't see most the civilians they shot.

How many civilians know the word defilade or what it means??? get real... :doh

You know so little about the events of that day and yet had to throw in with your 'expert' opinion that has now turned out to be so less than expert... (you saying now your combat trained eye saw the defilade but not a 8 foot blood trail??? :confused:

got it, snarky, convinced civilians would know how to take cover, (they are milling around), NO idea of how much shooting was done and at what distance, couldn't see a 8 foot blood trail, but sure enough to make a series of now disproven statements.... :peace
 
This man has a record of making pro-abortion statements and donations to pro-abortion politicians. He has no business pursuing this nomination and does not deserve the support of anyone with a conscience. Which means, of course, we can already rule out pro-aborts.

And yet he has so many PUBs following him like he is the latest Pied Piper... go figure... perhaps a woman's right to choose isn't that big a deal for most PUBs... :peace
 
...



That is incorrect - pictures of people in motion are clearly people in motion. This picture was clearly taken not while the people in it were being shot at.



Civilians tend to run, jumble, and push at each other in attempts to get out of the way. Many will rush to hide. For example, the hill immediately beyond the focus of the shot offers excellent defilade, and that is where many would naturally go if, in fact, people on the raised road were under fire.



I didn't say it was staged (in fact, I acknowledged that it might be an iconic shot I simply hadn't seen), I said it looked off because it was both clearly after the event and there were no visible indications that the guy had actually been shot to death. Another poster pointed out the blood trail in the background, which clears that up.

The shots only lasted 13 seconds.
The student/victim is on the ground bleeding.
The photo most likely was taken after the shooting stopped.

Here is the story behind the photo:

WHAT IS THE STORY BEHIND THE PULITZER PRIZE WINNING PHOTO OF THE YOUNG WOMAN CRYING OUT IN HORROR OVER THE DYING BODY OF ONE OF THE STUDENTS?

A photograph of Mary Vecchio, a fourteen year old runaway, screaming over the body of Jeffery Miller appeared on the front pages of newspapers and magazines throughout the country, and the photographer, John Filo, was to win a Pulitzer Prize for the picture. The photo has taken on a life and importance of its own. This analysis looks at the photo, the photographer, and the impact of the photo.

The Mary Vecchio picture shows her on one knee screaming over Jeffrey Miller's body. Mary told one of us that she was calling for help because she felt she could do nothing (Personal Interview, 4/4/94). Miller is lying on the tarmac of the Prentice Hall parking lot. One student is standing near the Miller body closer than Vecchio. Four students are seen in the immediate background.

John Filo, a Kent State photography major in 1970, continues to works as a professional newspaper photographer and editor. He was near the Prentice Hall parking lot when the Guard fired. He saw bullets hitting the ground, but he did not take cover because he thought the bullets were blanks. Of course, blanks cannot hit the ground.

As I mentioned he was using a telephoto lens and black and white film.
 
Last edited:
:shrug: I wasn't one of the shooters, I couldn't speak directly to their motivations. My bet would be it wasn't a thought-out decision, but a reaction.



As a general rule, however, if you attack security forces, don't be astonished when they respond with superior force. That's what they are there for.

Sorry I was not specifically asking you why , but it was more of a general why.

Then in my quotes from the article I posted the thoughts on the why and possible answers to the why that were brought up by those who were there.
 
Last edited:
LOL, right, and if I find ANY "conservative" who's a racist, it means all conservatives are racists and since I CAN find self described conservatives who are racists, YOU are a racist!! cpwill logic! :peace

Huh. So only one person was chanting Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh? Cause it sure sounds like the majority of the march - in fact, it's the dominant sound.

The argument without evidence that the anti-war movement wasn't, in fact, pro North Vietnam. They were pro-socialism, many pro-communism. They thought that the enemy was correct. They were on their side. I can demonstrate where the movement was. Can you demonstrate portions of the movement where they were anti North Vietnam?
 
Last edited:
Huh. So only one person was chanting Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh? Cause it sure sounds like the majority of the march - in fact, it's the dominant sound.

The argument without evidence that the anti-war movement wasn't, in fact, pro North Vietnam. They were pro-socialism, many pro-communism. They thought that the enemy was correct. They were on their side. I can demonstrate where the movement was. Can you demonstrate portions of the movement where they were anti North Vietnam?

I have looked through a few of the articles I found and I can't find a word about ho ho ho chant.
I did find another saying the Kent State students were saying before the tear gas went off though.

From the Slate article:

Don’t get me wrong. Nobody at Kent State in 1970 wanted to be martyrs; nobody who came to that rally on May 4 would have ever expected for those guns to have been loaded. My students (today) think it’s stupid; there are guns, of course they are loaded. When you see the guardsmen standing there with their bayonets, their rifles, we didn’t think they would be loaded! Why would you have loaded weapons on a college campus? There was nothing that warranted that. There wasn’t anything happening there; the only thing students did was say some foul words—one, two, three, four, we don’t want your ****ing war; pigs off campus—that wasn’t polite, gave them the finger, it was expressive; the guardsmen decided to disperse the rally and that’s where you see all the teargas (2nd image from top).

May 4, 1970: The Kent State University shootings told through pictures (PHOTOS).
 
Huh. So only one person was chanting Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh? Cause it sure sounds like the majority of the march - in fact, it's the dominant sound.

The argument without evidence that the anti-war movement wasn't, in fact, pro North Vietnam. They were pro-socialism, many pro-communism. They thought that the enemy was correct. They were on their side. I can demonstrate where the movement was. Can you demonstrate portions of the movement where they were anti North Vietnam?

Where did I say it was "only one person"? Nice straw man! But if you want, go ahead, show me the evidence that you can stereotype the entire movement as one homogeneous group, all sharing the same beliefs, the same objections to the war, believed in the same methods to end the war. Proceed.....

Bottom line is the anti-war movement was a lot of things, with lots of people protesting the war for various reasons. My uncle who volunteered became part of that movement after he got back from Vietnam and after nearly all his unit got ambushed and killed (he was back in the states because of a car crash while on leave), and he was NOT and is not pro-socialism, pro-north Vietnam. I'd go into it, but again, that 5 minutes of serious research would tell you there were many like him, and you obviously haven't done the requisite 5 minutes to find people like him that were part of the broader movement.
 
Last edited:
I have looked through a few of the articles I found and I can't find a word about ho ho ho chant.

I thought we were talking about the broader movement at that point. I'm not aware of that being a specific feature of the Kent State protests.
 
Feel free to provide backing of your assertion.

It's you who's stereotyping the movement, not me, and I have better things to do than the five minutes of investigation that would tell you the movement was diverse and included many people who protested for various reasons, like these folks. I'm not aware that my uncle ever joined this group formally, but he agreed with them, and going in to Vietnam he was a gung ho paratrooper...

It's hard to believe this is something you care AT ALL about and don't already know. I'm serious - any reading on the subject will tell you the 'movement' was simply not homogeneous. It appears you know as much about the movement as you know about one of the biggest events in the era which is the Kent St. shootings, which is nearly nothing.
 
Really? Are you serious?
Are you too young to remember when that happened?

Most were college students, not hippies.
Many were on their way going to or heading back from class.

The girl kneeling on the ground, screaming was 14 years old.
Most of the students were probably in total shock.
No one expected the National guards to open fine on a bunch of non violent teens who were protesting the Vietnam war.

Send your teen/young adult to college to find out that teen/ young adult was shot while going to or from class?
Every parents nightmare.

But to be told that the US National Guards randomly shot into a crowd of unarmed teens.
That's a nightmare that never should happened.

I will never forget that day.

Hippies aren't people.
 
This is stupid. The abortion laws are already set, they are not changing no matter what any candidate says. It's time that everyone grew the hell up and got over it.
I don't have a horse in the abortion race. However. I also don't think this dismissive approach to laws is exactly right either.
It is the same attitude that once said "A woman doesn't have a right to vote. The law says so so get over it"
People fight against things they think are wrong. There is no fault in that whether we all agree on what is wrong or right or not.

Hippies aren't people.
I thought that said nipples aren't people. :ninja:
Hippy is a label and a label cannot be a person it is true. There are people, however, who are hippies.
Calling any group of people non-humans is akin to the Japanese believing no outsider was human in feudal Japan.
 
I don't have a horse in the abortion race. However. I also don't think this dismissive approach to laws is exactly right either.
It is the same attitude that once said "A woman doesn't have a right to vote. The law says so so get over it"
People fight against things they think are wrong. There is no fault in that whether we all agree on what is wrong or right or not.

But they're making this one of the central tenets of their platform and it's a completely losing proposition. No President who gets in office is going to be able to change it, no matter how much they wish they could. It's a lost cause, and because it's a lost cause, they're wasting time focusing on it when the majority of Americans who might otherwise vote for them actually care about other, actually important issues. That's why they spend all of their time losing.
 
Could you tell me whose name protesters are chanting in the last bit of this video? I understand it was rather popular with the people who weren't necessarily siding with the communists, but can't quite make it out.




Additionally, do you happen to know what country these pictures were taken in? I swear that lady looks familiar.

View attachment 67199814


I was at such protests...and we didnt chant anyone's names. We were against the war, period. So you found one where people sided with the North? That's nice.
 
Back
Top Bottom