Pamela Geller: The Coming Civil War

[raykeller]

http://pamelageller.com/2017/06/america-civil-war.html/

Pamela Geller: The Coming Civil War
The left has been at war against America for decades. The right represents
those of us who favor individual freedom and capitalism â?" and the left are
those who want government controls and socialism.

Political violence became an essential and successful means of leftist
warfare in the 60â?Ts, the decade of destruction. The success of the violent
â?ostudent rebellionâ?ťÂ in 1964 and the so-called Free Speech MovementÂ
has set the table for the leftâ?Ts warmongering and treason. It was clear
from the outset that the â?ostudent revolutionâ?ť violently ushered in at
Berkeley in the mid-sixties would come to this. The left is evil, and they
mean to destroy our way of life, our freedom and us. It took decades to norm
their anti-Americanism, their hatred of freedom and individual rights, but
they have reached their tipping point. And the long beaten and battered
among us have had it.

Ayn Rand explained why the left is seeking nothing less than the breakdown
of American society:

The attempt to solve social problems by means of physical force is what a
civilized society is established to prevent. The advocates of mass civil
disobedience admit that their purpose is intimidation. A society that
tolerates intimidation as a means of settling disputesâ?"the physicalÂ
intimidation of some men or groups by othersâ?"loses its moral right to
exist as a social system, and its collapse does not take long to follow.

Politically, mass civil disobedience is appropriate only as a prelude to
civil warâ?"as the declaration of a total break with a countryâ?Ts political
institutions.

The left is targeting the most powerful office in the world â?" the
Presidency. But, as the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise and others at the
Congressional baseball practice shows, theyâ?Tre targeting everyone on the
Right. There will be more of this.

President Trump was elected by Americans who oppose the left-wing coup and
are fed up with living under the leftâ?Ts oppressive boot. Trump is our
proxy. We fought back the non-violent way â?" through the ballot box. From
the moment he was elected, the left refused to accept the will of the
people.

This Russian witchhunt is, according to the pundit David P. Goldman
(columnist â?oSpenglerâ?ť), an â?oillegal and and unconstitutional
mutiny.â?ťÂ Spengler also noted that â?oone of the Republican Partyâ?Ts most
distinguished statesmen,â?ť whom he did not name, â?orecently told a closed
gathering that a â?~cold coupâ?T is underway against the president.â?ť

...

[kick ray-ray]

On 7/26/2017 11:26 AM, raykeller wrote:
> http://pamelageller.com/2017/06/america-civil-war.html/
>
> Pamela Geller: The Coming Civil War

No.

[Mr. B1ack]

It's indeed unlikely - at least as we generally think
of a "civil war".

THE biggest deterrent is "investment" ... ie the money,
property, jobs pension-plans etc that most have stake in
within the current establishment. A shooting war would
pretty much destroy all that. It's why Marx wanted to get
rid of that class of people - which was small in Russia
but is huge in the USA/west - because they were a
major buffer against revolution.

The second largest deterrent is the "territory" issue. In
many civil wars, "We" live HERE and "They" live THERE.
But in the modern USA/west everybody's all mixed up
in terms of where they live. "The Enemy" may literally
live right next door. Thus there's no home territory to
protect, no enemy territory it's OK to blast. All you'd
get was the occasional minor skirmish - ones that
wouldn't wreck the infrastructure or alter perceived
territorial boundaries very much.

BUT ... conventional civil wars aren't the only way to
have one. In the modern USA/west it'd take the form
of a police state. Whomever's in charge would seek
to intimidate/crush/disappear the ideological opposition.
Instead of bullets - dread. Neither our 'left' or 'right' are
above playing this game. Gotta have the right players
on the team though. Of note, the cops/military love
Trump - not Schumer or Pelosi or Hillary ...........

Ideological suppression/oppression preserves the
economy and all money/property rights and the usual
social services and such - just not so much for SOME
people, the most-reviled 10%.

[Gunner Asch]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 18:29:51 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
wrote:

All they would need to do..is legalize dueling.

And publicly announce the results of any duels. Win, lose, chickened
out. And put a premium on bravery. Call out a college professor..and
he says he wont fight...its published widely that he is a coward and
of no account.

Before long..no one will listen to him. Hoist by his own petard..and
gutlessness. If he accepts, he may lose. Or even more remotely..he
may win. But before long..he will lose and then we will be done with
him. Before long..given the actual small numbers of Leftists in our
society..they will have ether been killed or invalided out of the
limelight and into obscurity.

Or my personal favorite...pick the liberal you hate the most..and go
hunting him/her. One supposes one could make it a requirement that
one publishes the intent to do away with the Leftist before going on a
hunt..shrug. And the Lefty could do anything he/she could to stay
alive, including leaving America. And that too would be a
satisfactory result we all could live with.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Steve from Colorado]

On 07/26/2017 12:26 PM, raykeller wrote:
> http://pamelageller.com/2017/06/america-civil-war.html/
>
> Pamela Geller: The Coming Civil War
> The left has been at war against America for decades. The right represents
> those of us who favor individual freedom and capitalism

> and the left are those who want government controls and socialism.
>
> Political violence became an essential and successful means of leftist

> warfare in the '60s, the decade of destruction. The success of the violent
> student rebellion in 1964 and the so-called Free Speech Movement
> has set the table for the left's warmongering and treason. It was clear
> from the outset that the student revolution violently ushered in at

> Berkeley in the mid-sixties would come to this.

The Berkeley Free Speech Movement, not the "so-called" Free Speech
Movement, was non-violent and for a patriotic cause, i.e., freedom of
speech, which is guaranteed by our 1st Amendment. University of
California president Clark Kerr had decided that the First Amendment
didn't apply on the Berkeley campus, which is what the Left still
believes, as per their riots to prevent "Milo" and a woman speaker (Ann
somebody) from speaking on campus this year. Mario Savio was a true
American hero and patriot who had nothing whatsoever to do with the
violence by SDS, Black Panthers, and the Chicago 7 who came later.

Pamela Geller's links to events in 2016 have nothing to do with the Free
Speech movement and everything to do with George Soros funded radical
Antifa groups of our times. Too bad Pamela Geller is so loose with
facts and sloppy with the history of the Free Speech Movement. She
could have made her points without resorting to revisionist history.


--
See something; Leak something.

www.globalgulag.us

[rbowman]

On 07/26/2017 04:29 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
> The second largest deterrent is the "territory" issue. In
> many civil wars, "We" live HERE and "They" live THERE.
> But in the modern USA/west everybody's all mixed up
> in terms of where they live. "The Enemy" may literally
> live right next door. Thus there's no home territory to
> protect, no enemy territory it's OK to blast. All you'd
> get was the occasional minor skirmish - ones that
> wouldn't wreck the infrastructure or alter perceived
> territorial boundaries very much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas

The prelude might be self-segregation. I lived for roughly half my life
back east. New Hampshire was the last stronghold; when that started to
get overrun by Massachusetts transplants I headed west. I was in Rawles'
American Redoubt way before he was. This doesn't mean I share his
Christian, pro-Israel views but there's enough room for both of us. I guess.

[Winston Smith]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 18:47:40 -0600, Steve from Colorado wrote:
>On 07/26/2017 12:26 PM, raykeller wrote:

>> http://pamelageller.com/2017/06/america-civil-war.html/
>> Pamela Geller: The Coming Civil War

>> Political violence became an essential and successful means of leftist
>> warfare in the '60s, the decade of destruction. The success of the violent
>> student rebellion in 1964 and the so-called Free Speech Movement
>> has set the table for the left's warmongering and treason. It was clear

>> from the outset that the student revolution? violently ushered in at

>> Berkeley in the mid-sixties would come to this.
>
>The Berkeley Free Speech Movement, not the "so-called" Free Speech
>Movement, was non-violent and for a patriotic cause, i.e., freedom of
>speech, which is guaranteed by our 1st Amendment.

Yes. This piece badly confused "mass civil disobedience" with
violence. Gandhi was a threat to no one and no one was intimidated -
at least not by threat of violence.

You sit at the counter and when the cop says you are under arrest you
say yes officer and go along quietly. Someone else takes your seat.
Another arrest and a third takes the seat. Soon the cops figure out
they don't have jails for 1,000 and the local magistrate blanches at
the idea of muddling through 1,000 hearings in the glare of publicity.

Violence is simply an admission of failure. Granted, today's left
becomes violent at the drop of a hat but we all see their failures
written large on the wall.

The piece targets some example of a Free Speech Movement that turned
violent. The conservative government turned violent at Kent State.
Somehow Geller doesn't mention that.

Sorry to say, Ray's author has a point but by over selling it, she
actually discredits it.

>University of
>California president Clark Kerr had decided that the First Amendment
>didn't apply on the Berkeley campus, which is what the Left still
>believes, as per their riots to prevent "Milo" and a woman speaker (Ann
>somebody) from speaking on campus this year.

Ann Coulter

In fact that movement started to level the playing field because the
left wasn't getting heard. Now they morph it to keep the right from
being heard. Sad.

[Martin Eastburn]

And organized civil war is becoming difficult with the massive
domestic spying. They stop anything before it gets going.

Non-social contact is the only way and that is localized.

You could see the writing on the wall when the University of California
system hired known Felons and Ex-Cons as department heads and directors.

Angela Davis is just one.

Martin

[tRudy Crayola]

Yes!! You sick in the head smelly little runt!


--
Rudy's Nut & Fruit farm- Sacramento

[Wile E. Coyote]

Winston Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in
news:vslinc9sv54qecuur...@4ax.com:

> The conservative government turned violent at Kent State.

That is an absurd statement.

--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017

[Spain]

On 7/27/2017 5:48 AM, Wile E. Coyote wrote:
> Winston Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in
> news:vslinc9sv54qecuur...@4ax.com:
>
>> The conservative government turned violent at Kent State.
>
> That is an absurd statement.
>

As naked lies go...

;-)

[Spain]

Yes, tRudey, yes.

[Winston Smith]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 11:48:09 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote" wrote:
>Winston Smith wrote

>
>> The conservative government turned violent at Kent State.
>
>That is an absurd statement.

Why?

"KENT STATE"
Perhaps there is no place called Kent State.

Perhaps there is a Kent State but nothing of note ever happened there.

"VIOLENT"
Perhaps the students ignorantly wandered into a posted rifle range.

Perhaps shooting unarmed students handing out flowers is not violence.

"GOVERNMENT"
Perhaps soldiers in uniforms provided by the government, carrying
rifles provided by the government, and shooting bullets provided by
the government is not a government action.

"CONSERVATIVE"
Perhaps President Nixon was not a conservative.

I believe that covers every word in my post. I look forward to your
reasoning.

[Spain]

On 7/27/2017 3:20 PM, Winston Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 11:48:09 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote" wrote:
>> Winston Smith wrote
>>
>>> The conservative government turned violent at Kent State.
>>
>> That is an absurd statement.
>
> Why?
>
> "KENT STATE"
> Perhaps there is no place called Kent State.

Wrong.

>
> Perhaps there is a Kent State but nothing of note ever happened there.

Wrong.

> "VIOLENT"
> Perhaps the students ignorantly wandered into a posted rifle range.

Wrong.

> Perhaps shooting unarmed students handing out flowers is not violence.

Perhaps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

The war had appeared to be winding down in 1969, so the new invasion of
Cambodia angered those who believed it only exacerbated the conflict.
Across the U.S., campuses erupted in protests in what Time called "a
nation-wide student strike", setting the stage for the events of early
May 1970

Kent State Protest Activity 1966-1970[edit]
During the 1966 Homecoming Parade protesters walked dressed in military
paraphernalia with gas masks.[12]

During the fall of 1968 the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and
a campus Black Student Organization staged a sit in to protest police
recruiters on campus. 250 black students walked off campus in a
successful amnesty bid for the protesters.[12]

On April 1, 1969 the SDS members attempted to enter the administration
building with a list of demands where they clashed with police. Kent
State revoked the charter of the SDS. On April 16 a disciplinary hearing
involving two of the protesters resulted in a clash between supporters
and opponents of the SDS. The Ohio State Highway Patrol was called and
58 were arrested. Four SDS leaders were spent six months in prison as a
result of the incident. [12]

On April 10, 1970 Jerry Rubin a leader of the Youth International
Party(Yippie) party spoke on campus. In remarks reported locally, he
said "“The first part of the Yippie program is to kill your parents.
They are the first oppressors.” These remarks frightened local residents
who took them literally. Two weeks after that Bill Anthrell an SDS
member and former student distributed flyers to an event in which he
said he was going to napalm a dog. The event turned out to be an anti
napalm teach in.[12]

> "GOVERNMENT"
> Perhaps soldiers in uniforms provided by the government, carrying
> rifles provided by the government, and shooting bullets provided by
> the government is not a government action.

Perhaps the Ohio Guard doesn't represent the entirety of the US Government.

> "CONSERVATIVE"
> Perhaps President Nixon was not a conservative.

Indeed so.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/337447/nixon-100-was-he-americas-last-liberal-john-fund

Conrad Black proclaimed in a 2011piece on NRO that Nixon was “halfway to
Mount Rushmore.” I have a more negative take: I believe that Richard
Nixon governed more as a liberal than anything else, and that the
Watergate scandal set back the cause of conservatism. From our failure
to control runaway spending to restrictions on campaign finance, we are
still dealing with the repercussions of his mistakes. There is clear
evidence that Nixon didn’t really like or trust conservatives, even if
he hired a bunch of them. Rather, he used them and freely abandoned
their principles when convenient. In a 1983 interview, he told historian
Joan Hoff that his many liberal initiatives as president (from the
creation of the Environmental Protection Agency to his calls for
universal health insurance) reflected his own background and association
with the “progressive” wing of the Republican party. In private, Nixon
was scathing about conservatives ranging from Ronald Reagan (he
considered him a showy “know-nothing”) to William F. Buckley Jr., the
founder of National Review. John C. Whitaker, a top Nixon aide, wrote in
Presidential Studies Quarterly that he sat with Nixon on a plane the day
after Buckley lost the 1965 race for mayor of New York to liberal
Republican John Lindsay. “The trouble with far-right conservatives like
Buckley,” Nixon told Whitaker, “is that they really don’t give a damn
about people and the voters sense that. Yet any Republican presidential
candidate can’t stray too far from the right-wingers because they can
dominate a primary and are even more important in close general
elections. Remember, John,” Nixon lectured, “the far-right kooks are
just like the nuts on the left, they’re door-bell ringers and balloon
blowers, but they turn out to vote. There is only one thing as bad as a
far-left liberal and that’s a damn right-wing conservative.” Whitaker
wrote that this and other conversations he had with Nixon were
indicative of “Nixon’s visceral tilt towards the moderate/liberal side
when dealing with domestic legislation, coupled with his respect (maybe
fear is a better word) for the political clout of the right wing, so
necessary to win national elections.”

Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/337447/nixon-100-was-he-americas-last-liberal-john-fund

> I believe that covers every word in my post. I look forward to your
> reasoning.

Why?

[Spain]

On 7/26/2017 10:17 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
> And organized civil war is becoming difficult with the massive
> domestic spying. They stop anything before it gets going.
>
> Non-social contact is the only way and that is localized.
>
> You could see the writing on the wall when the University of California
> system hired known Felons and Ex-Cons as department heads and directors.
>
> Angela Davis is just one.
>
> Martin

She should be in a federal penitentiary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Davis

Angela Yvonne Davis (born January 26, 1944) is an American political
activist, academic, and author. She emerged as a prominent
counterculture activist and radical in the 1960s as a leader of the
Communist Party USA, and had close relations with the Black Panther
Party through her involvement in the Civil Rights Movement.

Because she had purchased the firearms used in the crime, Davis was
prosecuted for conspiracy involving the 1970 armed take-over of a Marin
County, California, courtroom, in which four persons were killed. She
was acquitted.[4]

She supported the governments of the Soviet Bloc for several decades.
During the 1980s, she was twice a candidate for Vice President on the
CPUSA ticket, but in 1991 left the party.[6]

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/26/2017 3:51 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 18:29:51 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:53:51 -0700, kick ray-ray
>> <ray.keeler.W...@obvious.con> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/26/2017 11:26 AM, raykeller wrote:
>>>> http://pamelageller.com/2017/06/america-civil-war.html/
>>>>
>>>> Pamela Geller: The Coming Civil War
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> It's indeed unlikely - at least as we generally think
>> of a "civil war".

It's just not going to happen.

>
> Or my personal favorite...pick the liberal you hate the most..and go
> hunting him/her.

Also not going to happen. You've never done that, you don't have the
courage to do that.

[tyre biter]

On 7/27/2017 3:48 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> You've never done that, you don't have the courage to do that.

11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <William....@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8

> and I won't die soon.

Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.

> You certainly have no means to hasten my death.

Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.

[Winston Smith]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 15:32:24 -0600, Spain wrote:
>On 7/27/2017 3:20 PM, Winston Smith wrote:

>> Perhaps shooting unarmed students handing out flowers is not violence.
>
>Perhaps.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
>The war had appeared to be winding down in 1969, so the new invasion of
>Cambodia angered those who believed it only exacerbated the conflict.
>Across the U.S., campuses erupted in protests in what Time called "a
>nation-wide student strike", setting the stage for the events of early
>May 1970
>
>Kent State Protest Activity 1966-1970[edit]
>During the 1966 Homecoming Parade protesters walked dressed in military
>paraphernalia with gas masks.[12]

Worth noting, the real national guard were wearing gas masks on the
day they killed four and wounded nine. Nothing over the top with the
protester's view of government tactics against civilians. It was
prophetic.

>During the fall of 1968 the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)
>

>On April 1, 1969 the SDS members attempted to enter the administration
>building with a list of demands where they clashed with police.

Oooh, demands! Kill them!!!

>On April 10, 1970 Jerry Rubin a leader of the Youth International
>Party(Yippie) party spoke on campus.

Background noise. From the same source you cite, two of the dead were
not involved in the protest; they were walking from one class to the
next. One of them was even a member of ROTC. The other two were
involved but one was 225 feet away and the other was 343 feet away.

The military said they were in fear of their lives. How does an
unarmed student, a football field away, threaten a person in a
military group all armed with a rifles, shotguns, and gas grenades?

>> "GOVERNMENT"
>> Perhaps soldiers in uniforms provided by the government, carrying
>> rifles provided by the government, and shooting bullets provided by
>> the government is not a government action.
>
>Perhaps the Ohio Guard doesn't represent the entirety of the US Government.

Bogus bit of logic. Nothing represents the entirety of the US
Government except the entirety of the US Government.

Still, the components are real and their actions are government
actions.

The governor said "I think that we're up against the strongest,
well-trained, militant, revolutionary group that has ever assembled in
America."

Four students, two merely changing classes???

He also said "We are going to eradicate the problem." Next day four of
them were eradicated.

>> "CONSERVATIVE"
>> Perhaps President Nixon was not a conservative.
>
>Indeed so.
>http://www.nationalreview.com/article/337447/nixon-100-was-he-americas-last-liberal-john-fund

There are very few politicritters that have any intention of following
conservative principles. I have great difficulty distinguishing self
described conservative politicians from those that call themselves
liberal. There is political rhetoric for campaign time and there is
stuffing your pocket for the rest of the time.

>> I believe that covers every word in my post. I look forward to your
>> reasoning.
>
>Why?

To see if he can come up with anything to back up his bleatings.

[Spain]

On 7/27/2017 5:40 PM, Winston Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 15:32:24 -0600, Spain wrote:
>> On 7/27/2017 3:20 PM, Winston Smith wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps shooting unarmed students handing out flowers is not violence.
>>
>> Perhaps.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
>> The war had appeared to be winding down in 1969, so the new invasion of
>> Cambodia angered those who believed it only exacerbated the conflict.
>> Across the U.S., campuses erupted in protests in what Time called "a
>> nation-wide student strike", setting the stage for the events of early
>> May 1970
>>
>> Kent State Protest Activity 1966-1970[edit]
>> During the 1966 Homecoming Parade protesters walked dressed in military
>> paraphernalia with gas masks.[12]
>
> Worth noting, the real national guard were wearing gas masks on the
> day they killed four and wounded nine.

Which have unique impacts on live fire too...

> Nothing over the top with the
> protester's view of government tactics against civilians. It was
> prophetic.

Briefly, there and Chicago.

>> During the fall of 1968 the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)
>>
>> On April 1, 1969 the SDS members attempted to enter the administration
>> building with a list of demands where they clashed with police.
>
> Oooh, demands! Kill them!!!

Now they demand all black classes and dorms.

>> On April 10, 1970 Jerry Rubin a leader of the Youth International
>> Party(Yippie) party spoke on campus.
>
> Background noise. From the same source you cite, two of the dead were
> not involved in the protest; they were walking from one class to the
> next. One of them was even a member of ROTC. The other two were
> involved but one was 225 feet away and the other was 343 feet away.

And?

The climate was one of chaos.

Made so by the left.

> The military said they were in fear of their lives. How does an
> unarmed student, a football field away, threaten a person in a
> military group all armed with a rifles, shotguns, and gas grenades?

Bullets and crowds are a poor mix.

But an out-numbered Guard had reason for concern.

>>> "GOVERNMENT"
>>> Perhaps soldiers in uniforms provided by the government, carrying
>>> rifles provided by the government, and shooting bullets provided by
>>> the government is not a government action.
>>
>> Perhaps the Ohio Guard doesn't represent the entirety of the US Government.
>
> Bogus bit of logic.

Facts and no more.

> Nothing represents the entirety of the US
> Government except the entirety of the US Government.

Posse Comitatus.

> Still, the components are real and their actions are government
> actions.

Ohio's, yes.

Not the USA's.

> The governor said "I think that we're up against the strongest,
> well-trained, militant, revolutionary group that has ever assembled in
> America."

The SDS was that and more.

> Four students, two merely changing classes???

Crowd dynamics.

> He also said "We are going to eradicate the problem." Next day four of
> them were eradicated.

And in time so was the problem.

>>> "CONSERVATIVE"
>>> Perhaps President Nixon was not a conservative.
>>
>> Indeed so.
>> http://www.nationalreview.com/article/337447/nixon-100-was-he-americas-last-liberal-john-fund
>
> There are very few politicritters that have any intention of following
> conservative principles.

A lie.

> I have great difficulty distinguishing self
> described conservative politicians from those that call themselves
> liberal.

Darell Isa & Nancy Pelosi - compare and contrast.

> There is political rhetoric for campaign time and there is
> stuffing your pocket for the rest of the time.

Trump has a full pocket on his own dime.

His salary is going to the Gettysburg battlefield renovations.

>>> I believe that covers every word in my post. I look forward to your
>>> reasoning.
>>
>> Why?
>
> To see if he can come up with anything to back up his bleatings.

What came up here is your tendency to protect liberal positions.

Anyone who has read you over the years knows you're as inconsistent as
summer storm.

[Winston Smith]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 18:21:18 -0600, Spain wrote:

>What came up here is your tendency to protect liberal positions.

Can't be. Ed says I'm an unenlightened knuckle dragging troglodyte of
the extreme right.

>Anyone who has read you over the years knows you're as inconsistent as
>summer storm.

I can see how you might think that. It's called independent thinking
and being objective instead of picking a team and mindlessly bleating
out the sound bites passed around in the echo chambers. Unlike most of
the "debaters" on usenet, I'm not a party loyalist. Both have their
good points; both screw up big time. No crime in pointing out when the
latter is the case. Other than some people would rather I didn't.

[Spain]

On 7/27/2017 7:43 PM, Winston Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 18:21:18 -0600, Spain wrote:
>
>> What came up here is your tendency to protect liberal positions.
>
> Can't be.

But still is.

> Ed says I'm an unenlightened knuckle dragging troglodyte of
> the extreme right.

Ed can eat my arse, you?

>> Anyone who has read you over the years knows you're as inconsistent as
>> summer storm.
>
> I can see how you might think that.

I can agree you are.

> It's called independent thinking
> and being objective instead of picking a team and mindlessly bleating
> out the sound bites passed around in the echo chambers.

No, it's called old man libitard roots, and they show.

> Unlike most of
> the "debaters" on usenet, I'm not a party loyalist.

No, you're a flip flopper.

> Both have their
> good points; both screw up big time. No crime in pointing out when the
> latter is the case. Other than some people would rather I didn't.
>

Nah.

Some people would rather they have a sound read on your partisan
attachments.

Those you seem to think you hide.

Game over.

[Martin Eastburn]

1970 may 4 - I think that was Johnson wasn't it ?

For us, it was a scary time. Revolt and burning of buildings on college
campuses and many people killed while in biology / labs that were
blown... ROTC blown etc

Campus cops started (state law) pistols on their hips for the first
time. That was alarming as our landlord was a campus cop and he was
just able to walk down the street much less shoot that 357 he had on his
hip. Others had army surplus 45's. These guys were in their 80's and
90's while half a dozen were younger and mostly doing the office /
investigation work.

Martin

[Winston Smith]

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:02:55 -0500, Martin Eastburn wrote:

>1970 may 4 - I think that was Johnson wasn't it ?

Johnson was elected in 1964 having finished the term Kennedy's was
elected to in 1960 and chose not to run in 1968.

Nixon was elected in 1968 and 1972. He took office January 1969.

[raykeller]

"Martin Eastburn" <lion...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:bAzeB.157106$bO5....@fx16.iad...

<https://farleftwatch.com/2017/07/26/far-left-militia-training-for-guerrilla-warfare/>

<https://farleftwatch.com/author/farleftwatchblog/>
Fhttps://farleftwatch.com/author/farleftwatchblog/ar left militia training
for "guerrilla warfare"
"That's right. A far left militia claiming to have 30+ vetted branches is
providing training materials for violent guerrilla warfare and all of this
information is publicly available on their own website. Not surprisingly,
the same left-leaning publications that were outraged by the NRA ad I
mentioned earlier have not reported on this publicly available information.
In fact, some of these publications have even championed the growth of the
far left militia movement. In June, Mother Jones published an article
praising Redneck Revolt and other left-wing militants. In July, The Guardian
published an article with similar sentiments."

[Winston Smith]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 22:12:49 -0600, Spain wrote:
>On 7/27/2017 7:43 PM, Winston Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 18:21:18 -0600, Spain wrote:
>>
>>> What came up here is your tendency to protect liberal positions.
>>
>> Can't be.
>
>But still is.
>
>> Ed says I'm an unenlightened knuckle dragging troglodyte of
>> the extreme right.
>
>Ed can eat my arse, you?

I don't care to eat your arse but thanks for the invitation. Ed will
speak for himself.

>>> Anyone who has read you over the years knows you're as inconsistent as
>>> summer storm.
>>
>> I can see how you might think that.
>
>I can agree you are.

I'm not locked into one party on every nuisance of every issue that
comes along. You seem to have a more limited scope in your thinking.

>> It's called independent thinking
>> and being objective instead of picking a team and mindlessly bleating
>> out the sound bites passed around in the echo chambers.
>
>No, it's called old man libitard roots, and they show.

My roots are working for Goldwater and later Nixon. That proved to be
a mistake.

>> Unlike most of the "debaters" on usenet, I'm not a party loyalist.
>
>No, you're a flip flopper.

Your term for anyone that doesn't lock-step mouth a particular party's
talking points.

>> Both have their
>> good points; both screw up big time. No crime in pointing out when the
>> latter is the case. Other than some people would rather I didn't.
>
>Nah.

Really? Seems to confirm what I wrote about your limited scope in your
thinking.

>Some people would rather they have a sound read on your partisan
>attachments.
>
>Those you seem to think you hide.

How can I be hiding a partisan attachment when you just wrote "you're
as inconsistent as summer storm" and "you're a flip flopper"?

Which is it - I go after both parties (what you call flip-flop) or I'm
a locked in liberal?

[rbowman]

On 07/27/2017 11:02 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
> 1970 may 4 - I think that was Johnson wasn't it ?

Not even a little bit. Part of the protest was against Nixon's attack on
Cambodia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_Campaign

In the long term you can argue Nixon's actions gave Pol Pot and the
Khmer Rouge a leg up. When Vietnam invaded Cambodia the Khmer may have
gotten some back channel aid from the US. By the Vietnam was a Soviet
client while the Chinese were backing the Khmer. Nixon figured he could
play the Chinese against the Soviets. Again in the long term, he got
played.

Nixon took office on January 20, 1969. When I recited my chain of
command, he was the asshole at the end of the line.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Winston Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in

news:a2lknc9gr20eidfoa...@4ax.com:

So you are so stupid as to think the government ordered the Guardsman to
shoot the protestors?

[Wile E. Coyote]

Winston Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in

news:rfsknc524eqde37fk...@4ax.com:

> Background noise. From the same source you cite, two of the dead were
> not involved in the protest; they were walking from one class to the
> next. One of them was even a member of ROTC. The other two were
> involved but one was 225 feet away and the other was 343 feet away.

That's what happens when you cause unrest, innocents get killed. Which the
protestors can then exploit. Even though they were ultimately responsible.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Martin Eastburn <lion...@consolidated.net> wrote in news:bAzeB.157106
$bO5....@fx16.iad:

> 1970 may 4 - I think that was Johnson wasn't it ?

Automatically disqualified from the discussion.

[Red Prepper]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 22:12:49 -0600, Spain <ka...@mad.rid> wrote:
> Ed can eat my arse

Ed would enjoy that.

[Spain]

On 7/28/2017 2:05 AM, Winston Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 22:12:49 -0600, Spain wrote:
>> On 7/27/2017 7:43 PM, Winston Smith wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 18:21:18 -0600, Spain wrote:
>>>
>>>> What came up here is your tendency to protect liberal positions.
>>>
>>> Can't be.
>>
>> But still is.
>>
>>> Ed says I'm an unenlightened knuckle dragging troglodyte of
>>> the extreme right.
>>
>> Ed can eat my arse, you?
>
> I don't care to eat your arse but thanks for the invitation. Ed will
> speak for himself.

Let's just leave it at your lack of consistency is confirmed then.

>>>> Anyone who has read you over the years knows you're as inconsistent as
>>>> summer storm.
>>>
>>> I can see how you might think that.
>>
>> I can agree you are.
>
> I'm not locked into one party on every nuisance of every issue that
> comes along. You seem to have a more limited scope in your thinking.

Once the Dems declared cultural and economic war on America there really
was only one party of occasionally loyal opposition, RINO trash like
McCain aside.

>>> It's called independent thinking
>>> and being objective instead of picking a team and mindlessly bleating
>>> out the sound bites passed around in the echo chambers.
>>
>> No, it's called old man libitard roots, and they show.
>
> My roots are working for Goldwater and later Nixon. That proved to be
> a mistake.

1/2 credit.

Goldwater was his own gold standard and a solid asset to Arizona and the
nation.

He would be appalled at what McTraitor became.

>>> Unlike most of the "debaters" on usenet, I'm not a party loyalist.
>>
>> No, you're a flip flopper.
>
> Your term for anyone that doesn't lock-step mouth a particular party's
> talking points.

No, the term is not universal nor was it meant to be. Don't think to
appeal to the herd to camouflage your own peculiar inconsistencies.

>>> Both have their
>>> good points; both screw up big time. No crime in pointing out when the
>>> latter is the case. Other than some people would rather I didn't.
>>
>> Nah.
>
> Really? Seems to confirm what I wrote about your limited scope in your
> thinking.

Self-rising yeast in lieu of solid reasoning.

>> Some people would rather they have a sound read on your partisan
>> attachments.
>>
>> Those you seem to think you hide.
>
> How can I be hiding a partisan attachment when you just wrote "you're
> as inconsistent as summer storm" and "you're a flip flopper"?

Simple, it's known as hypocrisy, pretending to one thing, then mouthing
the dogma of another.

> Which is it - I go after both parties (what you call flip-flop) or I'm
> a locked in liberal?

You're basically a phony.

You ride along with the herd and then wait until they get a bit ahead of
you and do a little partisan back-stabbing.

It's rather un-evolved behavior at best.

[Spain]

On 7/28/2017 8:44 AM, Wile E. Coyote wrote:
> Winston Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in
> news:a2lknc9gr20eidfoa...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 11:48:09 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote" wrote:
>>> Winston Smith wrote
>>>
>>>> The conservative government turned violent at Kent State.
>>>
>>> That is an absurd statement.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> "KENT STATE"
>> Perhaps there is no place called Kent State.
>>
>> Perhaps there is a Kent State but nothing of note ever happened there.
>>
>> "VIOLENT"
>> Perhaps the students ignorantly wandered into a posted rifle range.
>>
>> Perhaps shooting unarmed students handing out flowers is not violence.
>>
>> "GOVERNMENT"
>> Perhaps soldiers in uniforms provided by the government, carrying
>> rifles provided by the government, and shooting bullets provided by
>> the government is not a government action.
>>
>> "CONSERVATIVE"
>> Perhaps President Nixon was not a conservative.
>>
>> I believe that covers every word in my post. I look forward to your
>> reasoning.
>>
>>
>>
>
> So you are so stupid as to think the government ordered the Guardsman to
> shoot the protestors?

This is the implication he made, yes.

[Spain]

On 7/28/2017 8:46 AM, Wile E. Coyote wrote:
> Winston Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in
> news:rfsknc524eqde37fk...@4ax.com:
>
>> Background noise. From the same source you cite, two of the dead were
>> not involved in the protest; they were walking from one class to the
>> next. One of them was even a member of ROTC. The other two were
>> involved but one was 225 feet away and the other was 343 feet away.
>
> That's what happens when you cause unrest, innocents get killed. Which the
> protestors can then exploit. Even though they were ultimately responsible.
>

Bingo.

[Spain]

He's a wild man when it comes to arse, or so I have read here.

[Ed Huntress]

That's just Pecker's fantasies. He's desperate for some gay sex -- he
can't stop talking about it -- and he's trolling around to see who is
interested.

So far, he's gotten some interest from Spammy's sock-puppet trolls,
but we don't know if they've actually consumated the relationship.

--
Ed Huntress

[tyre biter]

On 7/28/2017 3:17 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 15:14:22 -0600, Spain <ka...@mad.rid> wrote:
>
>> On 7/28/2017 8:59 AM, Red Prepper wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 22:12:49 -0600, Spain <ka...@mad.rid> wrote:
>>>> Ed can eat my arse
>>>
>>> Ed would enjoy that.
>>
>>
>> He's a wild man when it comes to arse, or so I have read here.
>
> That's just Pecker's fantasies. He's desperate for some gay sex -- he
> can't stop talking about it -- and he's trolling around to see who is
> interested.

But Cuntdress, YOU are the one who trolls here for gay sex, everyone
knows that

> So far, he's gotten some interest from Spammy's sock-puppet trolls,
> but we don't know if they've actually consumated the relationship.

What everyone does know is you are a cunt in a dress.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 15:59:46 -0600, tyre biter <b...@ben.dum> wrote:

>On 7/28/2017 3:17 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 15:14:22 -0600, Spain <ka...@mad.rid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/28/2017 8:59 AM, Red Prepper wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 22:12:49 -0600, Spain <ka...@mad.rid> wrote:
>>>>> Ed can eat my arse
>>>>
>>>> Ed would enjoy that.
>>>
>>>
>>> He's a wild man when it comes to arse, or so I have read here.
>>
>> That's just Pecker's fantasies. He's desperate for some gay sex -- he
>> can't stop talking about it -- and he's trolling around to see who is
>> interested.
>
>But Cuntdress, YOU are the one who trolls here for gay sex,

No, once Pox and Pecker realized they'd bullshitted their way into a
corner, they tried to make it about me. But they failed. The only ones
who are pretending are the failed trolls, like you, Biter.

Anyone like Pecker, who constantly fantasizes about gay sex, has a
problem if he can't just be open about it.

>... everyone
>knows that

No, you have no idea who "everyone" is. You're talking about you and
your failed troll buddies -- and your other socks.

>
>> So far, he's gotten some interest from Spammy's sock-puppet trolls,
>> but we don't know if they've actually consumated the relationship.
>

>What everyone does know is that Pecker has been courting us.

Right.

--
Ed Huntress

[tyre biter]

On 7/28/2017 4:23 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 15:59:46 -0600, tyre biter <b...@ben.dum> wrote:
>
>> On 7/28/2017 3:17 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 15:14:22 -0600, Spain <ka...@mad.rid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/28/2017 8:59 AM, Red Prepper wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 22:12:49 -0600, Spain <ka...@mad.rid> wrote:
>>>>>> Ed can eat my arse
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed would enjoy that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He's a wild man when it comes to arse, or so I have read here.
>>>
>>> That's just Pecker's fantasies. He's desperate for some gay sex -- he
>>> can't stop talking about it -- and he's trolling around to see who is
>>> interested.
>>
>> But Cuntdress, YOU are the one who trolls here for gay sex,
>
> No,

Yes.

>> ... everyone
>> knows that
>
> No, you have no idea who "everyone" is.

Find one person here to defend you then.

>crickets<

[Ed Huntress]

Why would I need someone to defend me? Against what? A slander attack
by impotent little trolls, like you?

--
Ed Hunress

[tyre biter]

>crickets<

[Wile E. Coyote]

Spain <ka...@mad.rid> wrote in news:olg9eg$94f$3...@news.mixmin.net:

SDS is responsible. They provoled that response deliberately for agitprop
purposes. Classic commie move.

[Winston Smith]

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 15:12:38 -0600, Spain wrote:

>Let's just leave it at your lack of consistency is confirmed then.
>

>No, the term is not universal nor was it meant to be. Don't think to
>appeal to the herd to camouflage your own peculiar inconsistencies.
>

>Self-rising yeast in lieu of solid reasoning.
>

>You're basically a phony.
>
>You ride along with the herd and then wait until they get a bit ahead of
>you and do a little partisan back-stabbing.
>
>It's rather un-evolved behavior at best.

You are a party loyalist in a corner, arguing just like the libs you
claim to hate. Specifically lots of character assassination based on
nothing but your opinion. Opinion made up at the moment to fit because
you have no answer to facts. Never reply to anything, just morph to
some new point and gravitate to your end game of name calling.

I'm getting bored with your rambling, you are a troll and that's all
you are. You said I'm all over the place and that I'm a lock-step died
in the wool liberal that's never held anything but a liberal thought
since infancy. One of those statements has to be wrong. But you ignore
that.

You just ignored my question how unarmed kids, a football field away,
and moving further away, could threaten a military group armed with
rifles, shotguns, and gas grenades.

Your answer was "The climate was one of chaos. Made so by the left."
But the left didn't have guns; they had words. The US government did
have guns. And used them. On innocents far away. Whatever the
circumstances, the basic fact is the government sent out armed
military to kill innocent civilians.

Then you use another tactic of the left and blame the victim for his
own demise.

You ignored the fact that the guard is part of the US Army, trained,
equipped, and controlled by US Army standards and policies to try and
shift the blame to the state of Ohio. The governor calls out the
guard. He does not command them in the field. But you ignore that. To
you it's like one of Al Gore's inconvenient facts.

You have no answers so what do you do? You pull an Ed. You just call
me the worse name you can think of, liberal. Ed does the same and
calls me the worse name he can think of, conservative.

You and Ed are soul mates. Not a bit of difference in your blind party
loyalty. You like red Jersey's on your team; Ed likes blue Jersey's.
Other than that you are identical.

[Ed Huntress]

Your cricket call isn't working, Biter. Your jackals are occupied
scavanging some road kill.

Don't count on much from them, though, if they do show up. They're
impotent cowards, too.

--
Ed Huntress

[Winston Smith]

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:46:31 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote" wrote:

>That's what happens when you cause unrest, innocents get killed. Which the
>protestors can then exploit. Even though they were ultimately responsible.

It may be an open question who was responsible.


Extracted from Spain's cite
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_state_shooting

... neither side could convince the other and after meeting with the
students, Nixon expressed that those in the anti-war movement were the
pawns of foreign communists. After the student protests, Nixon asked
H. R. Haldeman to consider the Huston Plan, which would have used
illegal procedures to gather information on the leaders of the
anti-war movement. Only the resistance of J. Edgar Hoover stopped the
plan.

According to FBI reports, one part-time student, Terry Norman, was
already noted by student protesters as an informant for both campus
police and the Akron FBI branch. Norman was present during the May 4
protests, taking photographs to identify student leaders, while
carrying a sidearm and wearing a gas mask.

In 1970, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover responded to questions from
then-Congressman John M. Ashbrook by denying that Norman had ever
worked for the FBI, a statement Norman disputed. On August 13, 1973,
Indiana Senator Birch Bayh sent a memo to then-governor of Ohio John
J. Gilligan suggesting that Norman may have fired the first shot,
based on testimony he [Bayh] received from guardsmen who claimed that
a gunshot fired from the vicinity of the protesters instigated the
Guard to open fire on the students.

A 2010 audio analysis of the Strubbe tape by Stuart Allen and Tom
Owen, who were described by the Cleveland Plain Dealer as "nationally
respected forensic audio experts," concluded that the guardsmen were
given an order to fire. It is the only known recording to capture the
events leading up to the shootings. According to the Plain Dealer
description of the enhanced recording, a male voice yells "Guard!"
Several seconds pass. Then, "All right, prepare to fire!" "Get down!,"
someone shouts urgently, presumably in the crowd. Finally, "Guard! ...
" followed two seconds later by a long, booming volley of gunshots.
The entire spoken sequence lasts 17 seconds.

Further analysis of the audiotape revealed that what sounded like four
pistol shots and a confrontation occurred approximately 70 seconds
before the National Guard opened fire. According to The Plain Dealer,
this new analysis raised questions about the role of Terry Norman, a
Kent State student who was an FBI informant and known to be carrying a
pistol during the disturbance.

[rbowman]

On 07/28/2017 05:12 PM, Wile E. Coyote wrote:
> Spain <ka...@mad.rid> wrote in news:olg9eg$94f$3...@news.mixmin.net:
>
>> On 7/28/2017 8:46 AM, Wile E. Coyote wrote:
>>> Winston Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in
>>> news:rfsknc524eqde37fk...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> Background noise. From the same source you cite, two of the dead were
>>>> not involved in the protest; they were walking from one class to the
>>>> next. One of them was even a member of ROTC. The other two were
>>>> involved but one was 225 feet away and the other was 343 feet away.
>>>
>>> That's what happens when you cause unrest, innocents get killed. Which the
>>> protestors can then exploit. Even though they were ultimately responsible.
>>>
>>
>> Bingo.
>>
>
> SDS is responsible. They provoled that response deliberately for agitprop
> purposes. Classic commie move.
>

They hardly could get that response without poorly trained National
Guard troops being present. Mexico, China, and so forth you expect
someone to start shooting protesters, not the US.

The #BlackLiesMatter agitators might be a little more subdued if the
Guard capped a few at random, but they are fairly confident that won't
happen, jst some good photo ops of riot police with batons cracking a
head or two.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Winston Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in

news:h1innche2rkr0gmm1...@4ax.com:

Thin to say the least.

[Spain]

On 7/28/2017 5:25 PM, Winston Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 15:12:38 -0600, Spain wrote:
>
>> Let's just leave it at your lack of consistency is confirmed then.
>>
>> No, the term is not universal nor was it meant to be. Don't think to
>> appeal to the herd to camouflage your own peculiar inconsistencies.
>>
>> Self-rising yeast in lieu of solid reasoning.
>>
>> You're basically a phony.
>>
>> You ride along with the herd and then wait until they get a bit ahead of
>> you and do a little partisan back-stabbing.
>>
>> It's rather un-evolved behavior at best.
>
> You are a party loyalist in a corner,

I'm no more a "party loyalist" than manchurian candidate McStain.

> arguing just like the libs you
> claim to hate. Specifically lots of character assassination based on
> nothing but your opinion. Opinion made up at the moment to fit because
> you have no answer to facts. Never reply to anything, just morph to
> some new point and gravitate to your end game of name calling.

Oh snifffle, did your widdle feelings get hurt when I caught you being a
hypocrite again?

I've done it before, so very many times.

You should be used to it by now, Winnie.

> I'm getting bored with your rambling, you are a troll and that's all
> you are.

So "bored" you went into a multi-paragraph rant, lol.

You hypocrite.

> You said I'm all over the place and that I'm a lock-step died
> in the wool liberal that's never held anything but a liberal thought
> since infancy. One of those statements has to be wrong. But you ignore
> that.

I demand a citation for those self-styled and inaccurate claims.

>crickets<

> You just ignored my question how unarmed kids, a football field away,
> and moving further away, could threaten a military group armed with
> rifles, shotguns, and gas grenades.

The citation was made - the activities of the leftist underground and
their rampant cop-killing and bombings are unassailable.

You LOSE again, Winnie Poo.

> Your answer was "The climate was one of chaos. Made so by the left."

Precisely.

> But the left didn't have guns; they had words.

No, they had BOMBS and GUNS.

Ever hear of the SDS?

Weather Underground?

Black Panthers?

Well...have you?

> The US government did
> have guns. And used them. On innocents far away. Whatever the
> circumstances, the basic fact is the government sent out armed
> military to kill innocent civilians.

The US government?

Cite the official order then.

Go on, Winnie, DO IT NOW!

>crickets<

> Then you use another tactic of the left and blame the victim for his
> own demise.

Sod off you mincing pansy leftard.

> You ignored the fact that the guard is part of the US Army, trained,
> equipped, and controlled by US Army standards and policies to try and
> shift the blame to the state of Ohio. The governor calls out the
> guard. He does not command them in the field. But you ignore that. To
> you it's like one of Al Gore's inconvenient facts.

So you admit the Governor of Ohio is responsible.

Good.

> You have no answers so what do you do? You pull an Ed. You just call
> me the worse name you can think of, liberal. Ed does the same and
> calls me the worse name he can think of, conservative.

But you're neither, you're a quizling hypocrite who flip flops like a
fidget spinner - always have been too.

> You and Ed are soul mates. Not a bit of difference in your blind party
> loyalty. You like red Jersey's on your team; Ed likes blue Jersey's.
> Other than that you are identical.

I adhere to PRINCIPLES, not PARTY, whore.

And my principles say your face needs to be kicked in.

[Spain]

Boo fucking hoo!

Pity they didn't gun you down too.

[tyre biter]

Your defenders are where?

>crickets<

> Your jackals are occupied
> scavanging some road kill.
>
> Don't count on much from them, though, if they do show up. They're
> impotent cowards, too.

Poor Crazy Eddy, all alone with his faggotry.

[tyre biter]

On 7/28/2017 4:51 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

>> Find one person here to defend you then.
> Why would I need someone to defend me?

>crickets<

[tyre biter]

On 7/28/2017 4:23 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

> they tried to make it about me.

Poor put upon Crazy Eddy Cuntdress.

[Winston Smith]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 10:37:32 -0600, Spain wrote:

>I'm no more a "party loyalist" than manchurian candidate McStain.

I'll accept that. You aren't under the impression McBush is a loyal
conservative Republican - are you ??

He is however very loyal to the party of the swamp. You too are loyal
to a fixed idea that does not exist in reality.

Peace, my friend, live long and prosper.

[Winston Smith]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 10:38:54 -0600, Spain wrote:

>Boo fucking hoo!

The rational conservative steps up with facts and logic to prove his
case. ;>}

>Pity they didn't gun you down too.

So you are supporting the guy that gunned down some Senators a few
weeks ago? I figured you would. Pretty much proves you are in fact a
liberal in disguise.

[Winston Smith]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 15:26:39 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote" wrote:
>Winston Smith wrote

>
>>According to The Plain Dealer,
>> this new analysis raised questions about the role of Terry Norman, a
>> Kent State student who was an FBI informant and known to be carrying a
>> pistol during the disturbance.

>Thin to say the least.

Granted. Very thin. But enough that one must at least question the
self-serving conclusion that the victim is in fact responsible for
their own demise.

As it may be, my original comment at the start of this thread that
government forces in fact killed innocent civilians stands. They also
killed civilians that were not totally innocent but presented no real
threat. The right, just like the left, strongly refuses to take
responsibility to the extent of trying to deny it happened.

[Spain]

On 7/29/2017 11:27 AM, Winston Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 10:37:32 -0600, Spain wrote:
>
>> I'm no more a "party loyalist" than manchurian candidate McStain.
>
> I'll accept that.

Oh goody!

> You aren't under the impression McBush is a loyal
> conservative Republican - are you ??

All Bushes are pawns of the new world order.

> He is however very loyal to the party of the swamp.

Yes he is.

Claims Klintoon is like a brother to him!

> You too are loyal
> to a fixed idea that does not exist in reality.

I'm OK with that.

> Peace, my friend, live long and prosper.

Right back at ya!

[Spain]

On 7/29/2017 11:30 AM, Winston Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 10:38:54 -0600, Spain wrote:
>
>> Boo fucking hoo!
>
> The rational conservative steps up with facts and logic to prove his
> case. ;>}

Nah, I just like to snipe at vermin.

>> Pity they didn't gun you down too.
>
> So you are supporting the guy that gunned down some Senators a few
> weeks ago?

Nope.

> I figured you would.

Really?

> Pretty much proves you are in fact a
> liberal in disguise.

Was McVeigh a "liberal"?

[Spain]

On 7/29/2017 11:42 AM, Winston Smith wrote:
> As it may be, my original comment at the start of this thread that
> government forces in fact killed innocent civilians stands.

Under STATE command and muster.

> They also
> killed civilians that were not totally innocent but presented no real
> threat.

Hindsight - the threat was real enough that Bill Ayers acted.

> The right, just like the left, strongly refuses to take
> responsibility to the extent of trying to deny it happened.

No denial seen.

Stop being hyperbolic.

[Ed Huntress]

>Poor tyre biter, all alone with his faggotry.
>

[Ed Huntress]

It sounds like Biter's got the hiccups.

--
Ed Huntress

[tyre biter]

>> Poor tyre biter, all alone with my faggotry.

>crickets<

[tyre biter]

On 7/29/2017 12:45 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

>crickets<

[Ed Huntress]

>>> Poor tyre biter, all alone with his faggotry.
>
> >crickets<

Oh, he's all alone with his crickets.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

You DID eat them alive! And they were your pets!

You're disgusting.

--
Ed Huntress

[tyre biter]

Is there anyone here defending Crazy Eddy Cuntdress?

Class?

Beuhler?

Anyone?

Lol.

[tyre biter]

You're a cunt in a dress.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Winston Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in

news:jmhpnc5h8tod5r30j...@4ax.com:

If the SDS was not there and causing a riot, no one would be dead. Period.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Winston Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in

news:jmhpnc5h8tod5r30j...@4ax.com:

Not a threat? The augmentented recording showed 4 shots fired before the
Guard opened fire. I don't know if your memory is any good but radicals were
killing cops and blowing Guard and recruting centers reguarly back then.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Spain <ka...@mad.rid> wrote in news:olidmv$osc$2...@news.mixmin.net:

That is not the right approach. He is in fact being openminded about it.

[Spain]

On 7/29/2017 12:54 PM, Wile E. Coyote wrote:
> Winston Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in
> news:jmhpnc5h8tod5r30j...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 15:26:39 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote" wrote:
>>> Winston Smith wrote
>>>
>>>> According to The Plain Dealer,
>>>> this new analysis raised questions about the role of Terry Norman, a
>>>> Kent State student who was an FBI informant and known to be carrying a
>>>> pistol during the disturbance.
>>
>>> Thin to say the least.
>>
>> Granted. Very thin. But enough that one must at least question the
>> self-serving conclusion that the victim is in fact responsible for
>> their own demise.
>>
>> As it may be, my original comment at the start of this thread that
>> government forces in fact killed innocent civilians stands. They also
>> killed civilians that were not totally innocent but presented no real
>> threat. The right, just like the left, strongly refuses to take
>> responsibility to the extent of trying to deny it happened.
>>
>>
>
> If the SDS was not there and causing a riot, no one would be dead. Period.
>

Fact!

[Spain]

On 7/29/2017 12:56 PM, Wile E. Coyote wrote:
> Winston Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in
> news:jmhpnc5h8tod5r30j...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 15:26:39 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote" wrote:
>>> Winston Smith wrote
>>>
>>>> According to The Plain Dealer,
>>>> this new analysis raised questions about the role of Terry Norman, a
>>>> Kent State student who was an FBI informant and known to be carrying a
>>>> pistol during the disturbance.
>>
>>> Thin to say the least.
>>
>> Granted. Very thin. But enough that one must at least question the
>> self-serving conclusion that the victim is in fact responsible for
>> their own demise.
>>
>> As it may be, my original comment at the start of this thread that
>> government forces in fact killed innocent civilians stands. They also
>> killed civilians that were not totally innocent but presented no real
>> threat. The right, just like the left, strongly refuses to take
>> responsibility to the extent of trying to deny it happened.
>>
>
> Not a threat? The augmentented recording showed 4 shots fired before the
> Guard opened fire. I don't know if your memory is any good but radicals were
> killing cops and blowing Guard and recruting centers reguarly back then.
>

Winnie does not do so well under that kind of factual rebuttal.

[Spain]

LOL!

It's humor, dude...

[Ed Huntress]

You're sounding desperate, Biter. Why do you care? I don't care. If
one of your jackals or sock puppets "defended" you, no one would
believe him, anyway.

OTOH, I don't need anyone to defend me. That's for weaklings and
cowards, like you.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

Your needle is stuck on "Mental age 13." Try unscrewing it from your
arm and then get a new one.

--
Ed Huntress

[tyre biter]

You're looking abandoned, Crazy Eddy.

> Why do you care?

For shits and grins.

I don't care.

Is that why you're still here pecking madly away?

> If
> one of your jackals or sock puppets "defended" you, no one would
> believe him, anyway.

I need no defense, Cuntdress.

But you sure do.

> OTOH, I don't need anyone to defend me.

Yeah you do!

> That's for weaklings and cowards, like me.

>crickets<
>

[Ed Huntress]

That sums you up perfectly.

--
Ed Huntress

[tyre biter]

I have to relate to you on a level you can handle.

> Try unscrewing it from your
> arm and then get a new one.

Try not being a cunt in a dress.

[tyre biter]

> That sums me up perfectly.
>
I know!

[Ed Huntress]

>> That sums you up perfectly.
>>
>I know!

Right.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 13:54:04 -0600, tyre biter <b...@ben.dum> wrote:

>On 7/29/2017 1:37 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 12:54:42 -0600, tyre biter <b...@ben.dum> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/29/2017 12:50 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 12:47:00 -0600, tyre biter <b...@ben.dum> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/29/2017 12:45 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 11:08:52 -0600, tyre biter <b...@ben.dum> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/28/2017 4:51 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Find one person here to defend you then.
>>>>>>>> Why would I need someone to defend me?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> crickets<
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It sounds like Biter's got the hiccups.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> crickets<
>>>>
>>>> You DID eat them alive! And they were your pets!
>>>>
>>>> You're disgusting.
>>>>
>>> You're a cunt in a dress.
>>
>> Your needle is stuck on "Mental age 13."
>
>I have to relate to you on a level you can handle.

You took a wrong turn, little boy.

>
>> Try unscrewing it from your
>> arm and then get a new one.
>
>Try not being a cunt in a dress.

Try growing up. It only hurts for a little while.

--
Ed Huntress

[tyre biter]

On 7/29/2017 2:09 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>> You're sounding desperate, Biter.
>>>> You're looking abandoned, Crazy Eddy.
>>>>
>>>>> Why do you care?
>>>> For shits and grins.

> That sums me up perfectly.
> I know!
> Right.

yep.

[tyre biter]

On 7/29/2017 2:11 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 13:54:04 -0600, tyre biter <b...@ben.dum> wrote:
>
>> On 7/29/2017 1:37 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 12:54:42 -0600, tyre biter <b...@ben.dum> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/29/2017 12:50 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 12:47:00 -0600, tyre biter <b...@ben.dum> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/29/2017 12:45 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 11:08:52 -0600, tyre biter <b...@ben.dum> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/28/2017 4:51 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Find one person here to defend you then.
>>>>>>>>> Why would I need someone to defend me?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> crickets<
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It sounds like Biter's got the hiccups.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> crickets<
>>>>>
>>>>> You DID eat them alive! And they were your pets!
>>>>>
>>>>> You're disgusting.
>>>>>
>>>> You're a cunt in a dress.
>>>
>>> Your needle is stuck on "Mental age 13."
>>
>> I have to relate to you on a level you can handle.
>
> You took a wrong turn, little boy.

Talking to Crazy Eddy is _always_ "wrong turn"...

>>> Try unscrewing it from your
>>> arm and then get a new one.
>>
>> Try not being a cunt in a dress.
>
> Try growing up. It only hurts for a little while.

How little did you grow up, Crazy Eddy?

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 14:22:08 -0600, tyre biter <b...@ben.dum> wrote:

>On 7/29/2017 2:09 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>>> You're sounding desperate, Biter.
>>>>> You're looking abandoned, Crazy Eddy.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you care?
>>>>> For shits and grins.

>> That sums you up perfectly.
>> I know!
>> Right.
>
>yep.

Yep.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

You can do it. And try not to be such a fucking coward. You can use
your real name. I won't threaten to kill you, unlike Gunner and your
sock puppets.

Are they back from the laundry yet?

--
Ed Huntress

[tyre biter]

On 7/29/2017 2:25 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> For shits and grins.

>>> That sums me up perfectly.

>>> I know!
>>> Right.
>> yep.
> Yep.

Yep.

[tyre biter]

Nut you can't seem to.

> And try not to be such a fucking coward. You can use
> your real name.

Sure, and woo identity theft?

Pass.

> I won't threaten to kill you, unlike Gunner and your
> sock puppets.

Gutless to the end...

> Are they back from the laundry yet?

Are you still blowing your boyfriend?

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/27/2017 4:48 AM, Wile E. Coyote wrote:
> Winston Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in

> news:vslinc9sv54qecuur...@4ax.com:
>
>> The conservative government turned violent at Kent State.
>
> That is an absurd statement.

It isn't, "Wiley", you dumb illiterate fat fuck.

[kick ray-ray]

On 7/27/2017 10:02 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
> 1970 may 4 - I think that was Johnson wasn't it ?

No, dummy. Nixon was inaugurated 20 January 1969. The Kent State
massacre more than a year later.

--
<VBG> Cites? indeed $75/hr fascinating "I've not" buffoon "hold that
thought" backhoe "the list" cull 264mph "3/5/8 years street cop"
swingers "Libs" leftists

[Spain]

It is tRudey, you out of work failed dwarf of a home appraiser.

[Ed Huntress]

No, I'm just trying to avoid going over your head. You started this
shit, you cowardly troll.

>
>> And try not to be such a fucking coward. You can use
>> your real name.
>
>Sure, and woo identity theft?
>
>Pass.

And how does using your real name "woo" identity theft? If someone is
going to steal your identity, they need a lot more than your name.

>
>> I won't threaten to kill you, unlike Gunner and your
>> sock puppets.
>
>Gutless to the end...

Yes, they are.

>
>> Are they back from the laundry yet?
>
>
>Are you still blowing your boyfriend?

And Biter, having run out of gas, reaches into his homoerotic-slur
dirtbag like all trolls eventually do....

--
Ed Huntress

[tyre biter]

On 7/29/2017 3:44 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> Are you still blowing your boyfriend?
> And Biter, having run out of gas, reaches into his homoerotic-slur
> dirtbag like all trolls eventually do....

Sorry my guess hit a little too close to your home, Crazy Eddy...

[Ed Huntress]

You're the one who brought up your gay-sex fantasies, Biter. Like Pox
and Pecker, you're too dim to realize you just revealed what's on YOUR
mind, not mine.

--
Ed Huntress

[tyre biter]

On 7/29/2017 3:49 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 15:46:31 -0600, tyre biter <b...@ben.dum> wrote:
>
>> On 7/29/2017 3:44 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>> Are you still blowing your boyfriend?
>>> And Biter, having run out of gas, reaches into his homoerotic-slur
>>> dirtbag like all trolls eventually do....
>>
>> Sorry my guess hit a little too close to your home, Crazy Eddy...
>
> You're the one who brought up your gay-

Crazy Eddy, it's all but over - time for you to exit the closet, swish...

[Ed Huntress]

Ha-ha! The tyre biter is just flat out of gas.

How's your family, BTW? Is this your sister or your girlfriend?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2289526/I-stop-eating-TIRES-Woman-rubber-addiction-consumes-feet-shavings-day-good-job-fiance-works-tire-factory.html

--
Ed Huntress

[tyre biter]

On 7/29/2017 4:19 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 15:52:12 -0600, tyre biter <b...@ben.dum> wrote:
>
>> On 7/29/2017 3:49 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 15:46:31 -0600, tyre biter <b...@ben.dum> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/29/2017 3:44 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>>> Are you still blowing your boyfriend?
>>>>> And Biter, having run out of gas, reaches into his homoerotic-slur
>>>>> dirtbag like all trolls eventually do....
>>>>
>>>> Sorry my guess hit a little too close to your home, Crazy Eddy...
>>>
>>> You're the one who brought up your gay-
>>
>> Crazy Eddy, it's all but over - time for you to exit the closet, swish...
>
> Ha-ha! The tyre biter is just flat out of gas.

You can't quit me, brokeback, LOLOLOL!

[Ed Huntress]

You can't quit ME, you sleazy, cowardly faggot troll.

Is all of that LOLO stuff supposed to be you yodelling?

--
Ed Huntress

[tyre biter]

Stop projecting, Cuntdress.

> Is all of that LOLO stuff supposed to be you yodelling?

It's the sound you make when yer cawk-gargling.

[Ed Huntress]

I think it's you yodelling.

--
Ed Huntress

[Winston Smith]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 12:27:39 -0600, Spain wrote:
>On 7/29/2017 11:42 AM, Winston Smith wrote:

>> As it may be, my original comment at the start of this thread that
>> government forces in fact killed innocent civilians stands.
>
>Under STATE command and muster.

Muster, yes; command, no.

>> They also
>> killed civilians that were not totally innocent but presented no real
>> threat.
>
>Hindsight - the threat was real enough that Bill Ayers acted.

The threat assessment was fatally flawed. We should not have needed to
wait until after to realize that.

>> The right, just like the left, strongly refuses to take
>> responsibility to the extent of trying to deny it happened.
>
>No denial seen.
>
>Stop being hyperbolic.

Can I at least do a tangent from time to time?

[Winston Smith]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 18:54:33 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote" wrote:

>If the SDS was not there and causing a riot, no one would be dead. Period.

So, the government is driven by a handful of wingnuts? I thought they
were supposed to be the grown ups.

And no riot. The guard fixed bayonets at the original scene and the
students headed over a hill. The guard followed them. At the time of
the shooting they were milling around 100 yards away.

[Winston Smith]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 18:56:59 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote" wrote:

>Not a threat? The augmentented recording showed 4 shots fired before the
>Guard opened fire. I don't know if your memory is any good but radicals were
>killing cops and blowing Guard and recruting centers reguarly back then.

Put it in context. None of the students were armed. There was an FBI
informant on the scene with a pistol and a gas mask.

He came pretty well prepared. The background implication - which, yes,
we will never know the truth of it - is government instigator.

I'm sure you won't believe it, I don't really, but disprove it before
you deny the possibility as a certainty.