NationStates Jolt Archive

Basically, I want to hear examples of FoxNews' bias to the right. I want to see where they've lied for the Bush administration. Give your best evidence, or give a lot of examples if you want.

"Those protesters were blocking traffic, they had to be roughed up a little"

Re: War for oil protesters, last year.

What was the lie? Were the protestors not blocking traffic? Were they roughed up more than necessary? Were there no protestors at all?

Not a lie, just an example of bias against the protesters. I don't watch very often, not living in the US, but from what I gathered, several people were quite hurt by police and there was some uproar about it at the time.

Maybe they shoudln't have protested in the streets? I was on an EMT call, and a woman wouldn't roll down her window when an officer asked her to, so he broke her window. She got pretty bloody. But it was her fault for breaking the law, if she got hurt, it's her fault.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1238901,00.html

Media Matters has 175 examples here (http://mediamatters.org/search.html?string=fox+news), dated and verified from transcripts, and debunked using other sources.

One quick example is the way they have misrepresented John Kerry's position on same sex marriage. A teaser for the "Hannity and Colmes" show stated The same-sex marriage debate has been heating up in Congress and on the campaign trail this week. Sen. John Kerry has been slamming President Bush's position on the controversial issue... So why won't he take a stand on the issue? Is Kerry dodging the issue so that he can court voters?
A reply is here (http://mediamatters.org/items/200407160001) complete with links to other news sources that prove Kerry has taken a position opposing the FMA, and has held that position for quite some time. That's one example--like I said, there are hundreds of others, and Media Matters has only been at this for a little over a month, I believe.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/steinreich1.html

Maybe they shoudln't have protested in the streets? I was on an EMT call, and a woman wouldn't roll down her window when an officer asked her to, so he broke her window. She got pretty bloody. But it was her fault for breaking the law, if she got hurt, it's her fault.
Where else were they going to protest? On their armchairs?

Maybe they shoudln't have protested in the streets? I was on an EMT call, and a woman wouldn't roll down her window when an officer asked her to, so he broke her window. She got pretty bloody. But it was her fault for breaking the law, if she got hurt, it's her fault.


that's probably what saddam said about gassing the kurds. if they hadn't been rebelling he wouldn't have had to exterminate their villiages.

When FOX news 'The Investigators' did a story on a major milk manufacturer and the effect that the hormones that they where giving the cows, Fox told the reporters to rewrite the story. Feeling that FOX may be worried about being sued for incorrect information, the reporters brought in the documentation and evidence for the report. They didn't even look. When they asked in frustration if they where being asked to lie, the director said yes. They where able to get that admission in writting and attempted to file a whistleblower suite against FOX. It was dismissed. Because FOX wasn't asking them to lie? No. Because asking your newsteam to lie isn't against the law.

A scary precident for a news station more concerned with it's ratings than it's credibility.

But this is only one ancedote. Then there is this film (http://www.outfoxed.org/) about FOX as well.

And then there's this case (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/prog_cb/pcb_11/upheld_cases?a=87101) where the British Office of Communications found that Fox News had violated standards and practices on an episode of "The Big Show" with John Gibson.

Where else were they going to protest? On their armchairs?
Yes. Because the only public place you can protest is the middle of a busy road, and your armchair. Anyone ever heard of this newfangled idea they have called the "sidewalk"? It's like, outside, BUT NOT THE ROAD! Imagine that.

that's probably what saddam said about gassing the kurds. if they hadn't been rebelling he wouldn't have had to exterminate their villiages.
Yes, because people protesting and being moved is morally equivalent to mass genocide. *rollseyes

Yes. Because the only public place you can protest is the middle of a busy road, and your armchair. Anyone ever heard of this newfangled idea they have called the "sidewalk"? It's like, outside, BUT NOT THE ROAD! Imagine that.

Quite obviously there were too many people for that. Sidewalks typically aren't very wide.

A word about the protestors in the streets.

The day the war started I watched the news channels feverishly, scanning from one to the other. Around 4-5pm, I got a little tired of seeing it and needed a break. Flipping through the channels I hit, of all things, TRL on MTV. Only then did I find out that protesters had shut down Times Square, and that many major cities had the same thing happening.

Why do the protesters have to do that? Because if they don't NO ONE PAYS ATTENTION. Free speech zones aren't free speech. Protests and assemblies are the things that the nation is founded on (Tea Party?)--the ability to challenge and question the government, to hold it responsable.

Much in the same way the 24hour news cycle has had to resort to yellow journalism to keep viewers on the nipple, protesters have to resort to methods that won't ignored, like civil disobedience. If we deal with non-violent protest with violence and make excuses, how much better are we?

Break the laws and you'll be punished. If you don't have that basic understanding, all order is worthless. Practical reality doesn't matter, laws are laws are laws, without them we are savages.

OK whatever you think, I don't mind- But it doesn't excuse being beaten up by police, who are supposed to be protecting your rights.

OK whatever you think, I don't mind- But it doesn't excuse being beaten up by police, who are supposed to be protecting your rights.
Protecting other people's rights to live in a lawful society?

Yes, because people protesting and being moved is morally equivalent to mass genocide. *rollseyesno the justification of violence by the state against those under its control, that's what's the same.
But it was her fault for breaking the law, if she got hurt, it's her fault. that's what you said, that's the same attitude the iraqis took toward the kurds, "the resisted so we used sufficient force to end their resistance." its fundimentally the same mindset just on a larger scale

Arammanar--why aren't you dealing with any of the stuff that actually shows how Fox is full of shit? Are you dodging the questions?

Break the laws and you'll be punished. If you don't have that basic understanding, all order is worthless. Practical reality doesn't matter, laws are laws are laws, without them we are savages.
if you have no self control or morality i suppose that is true, but i suspect most people don't behave the way they do only out of fear of the consequences of breaking the law.

Protecting other people's rights to live in a lawful society?

Protecting the protesters right to free assembly and free speech.

if you have no self control or morality i suppose that is true, but i suspect most people don't behave the way they do only out of fear of the consequences of breaking the law.

I agree.

no the justification of violence by the state against those under its control, that's what's the same.
Again, nice way of equating mass genocide with someone resisting arrest after an officer had asked her four times politely to roll down her window.

that's what you said, that's the same attitude the iraqis took toward the kurds, "the resisted so we used sufficient force to end their resistance." its fundimentally the same mindset just on a larger scale
If you think policemen are "fundimentally" the same as Iraqi execution squads, then you're truly morally bankrupt. They weren't killing anyone, they were subduing someone.

Protecting the protesters right to free assembly and free speech.
They have that. They also have limits to it. You can't yell "Bomb" on an airplane and call it free speech, you can't block traffic and call it a protest.

Arammanar--why aren't you dealing with any of the stuff that actually shows how Fox is full of shit? Are you dodging the questions?
The last thing I read was the protestor thing, that's what I'm dealing with.

Dealing with non-violence with violence and calling it moral scares me. Stalin kind of scary.

They have that. They also have limits to it. You can't yell "Bomb" on an airplane and call it free speech, you can't block traffic and call it a protest.

Look- seriously. Think about it for a second. If they want their viewpoints heard, they have to be out in force, and if they're going to be there in large numbers, blocking traffic is inevitable. Denying them the right to gather together and protest with the excuse of "blocking traffic" and using physical violence as a threat is wrong. It's not like there is only one road in New York. Sure, it's an inconvenience for commuters, but they simply take a detour. They weren't destroying property. They weren't causing violence. They were simply expressing a political viewpoint and were victims of violence themselves.

Look- seriously. Think about it for a second. If they want their viewpoints heard, they have to be out in force, and if they're going to be there in large numbers, blocking traffic is inevitable. Denying them the right to gather together and protest with the excuse of "blocking traffic" and using physical violence as a threat is wrong. It's not like there is only one road in New York. Sure, it's an inconvenience for commuters, but they simply take a detour. They weren't destroying property. They weren't causing violence. They were simply expressing a political viewpoint and were victims of violence themselves.
Well, I can't get my point across unless I beat some Muslim to death. If it's inconvenient to him, he should just get used to using less blood. Just because no one will take them seriously unless they mess with other's lives doesn't give them the moral mandate to do it.

If you think policemen are "fundimentally" the same as Iraqi execution squads, then you're truly morally bankrupt. They weren't killing anyone, they were subduing someone.




if you don't understand that state sponsered violence exists is all fundimentally similar, that bloodying up someone who doesn't follow your command and killing someone who doesn't follow your command and exterminating a villiage of people who don't follow your command are all related forms of violence then you are the one whose morality is essentually bankrupt.

you are the one who justifies evil in the name of order, your masters just haven't ask as much from you as saddam did from his minions, but don't be certain they never will.

This MediaMatters site has a pretty big archive of right-wing bias in the media. I don't see any left-wing bias examples. Does the writer(s) of MediaMatters believe that American media is entirely conservative? From CNN to (the most obvious) FoxNews?

Well, I can't get my point across unless I beat some Muslim to death. If it's inconvenient to him, he should just get used to using less blood. Just because no one will take them seriously unless they mess with other's lives doesn't give them the moral mandate to do it.

Huh? Where the hell did that come from.

On a side note: This guy is blocking traffic. What happens next?

http://pekingduck.org/archives/tiananmentankman2.jpg

So was this guy. Now he's dead.

http://www.sinomania.com/china_image_archive/photo_albums/china_2000-/kentstate1_72px.JPG

Do you see my point? Are these particular actions justified?

I just want to add, if you're using the roads in New York, you're in idiot. THe smart people take the subway :p

if you don't understand that state sponsered violence exists is all fundimentally similar, that bloodying up someone who doesn't follow your command and killing someone who doesn't follow your command and exterminating a villiage of people who don't follow your command are all related forms of violence then you are the one whose morality is essentually bankrupt.

you are the one who justifies evil in the name of order, your masters just haven't ask as much from you as saddam did from his minions, but don't be certain they never will.
If someone won't roll the window down, you break it. If people won't move, you move them. You can't tie the government's hands but so much. Do you ask a murderer to drop his gun? Yes. Then he shoots at you. Do you ask him again? No, he had his chance and threw it away, so you shoot him. The needs of the many outweigh the wants of the few. It's not evil to move protesters, it's evil for them to draw innocents into their war with the powers that be.

Huh? Where the hell did that come from.

On a side note: This guy is blocking traffic. What happens next?

http://pekingduck.org/archives/tiananmentankman2.jpg

So was this guy. Now he's dead.

http://www.sinomania.com/china_image_archive/photo_albums/china_2000-/kentstate1_72px.JPG

Do you see my point? Are these particular actions justified?
As justified as the Chinese government.

It's not evil to move protesters, it's evil for them to draw innocents into their war with the powers that be.

So...the status quo is always right and it is not a right to dispute it?

As justified as the Chinese government.

As a matter of fact, the second image is one of four protesters shot dead by the US National Guard at Kent State University in the 1970's.

So...the status quo is always right and it is not a right to dispute it?
If people have a problem with the status quo, they fight with those perpetrating the status quo. If protesters don't like a war, they protest with the government, not people going to work who have no affect on oil or war.

If someone won't roll the window down, you break it. If people won't move, you move them. You can't tie the government's hands but so much. Do you ask a murderer to drop his gun? Yes. Then he shoots at you. Do you ask him again? No, he had his chance and threw it away, so you shoot him. The needs of the many outweigh the wants of the few. It's not evil to move protesters, it's evil for them to draw innocents into their war with the powers that be.


and won't saddam argue it was the evil kurdish militants who drew the rest of their villiage into the conflict with the powers that be, that it was their fault, not his that the innocents were gassed along with the guilty.

won't he argue that the needs of the many(the iraqi state) outweighed the needs of the few(the kurdish villiagers).

and won't saddam argue it was the evil kurdish militants who drew the rest of their villiage into the conflict with the powers that be, that it was their fault, not his that the innocents were gassed along with the guilty.

won't he argue that the needs of the many(the iraqi state) outweighed the needs of the few(the kurdish villiagers).
You and your infantile moral reductionism. Resisting arrest and having your window broken is on a whole different plane than dissenting and being executed. If protesters break laws, are asked to stop, don't, and get their faces broken, boo hoo. If they're gunned down and their bodies thrown in the river, that's different. And you should know that, and know that you're just straw manning this argument. If you don't know that, then you're so devoid of anything approaching morals I won't even deal with you.

I'm sorry, but it's just wrong to compare the cops to Saddam Hussein. Saddam killed those Kurds without pause or remorse. Cops don't immediately start beating heads. They ask you to move yourself. If you don't comply after repeated requests they will move you with as little force as possible. Only if you start to physically fight back will they return in kind.

Arrammanar, I noticed you kept quiet about that little photo about the Kent University incident. Talondar, check it out too.

I dare you to argue that was justified.

Arrammanar, I noticed you kept quiet about that little photo about the Kent University incident.

I dare you to argue that was justified.
They told the crowd to disperse for 3 days. They were stoned. Later they were surrounded on a football field. That's when they fired. So yes, they were justified in shooting, since there was a real risk of them being injured or killed.

They told the crowd to disperse for 3 days. They were stoned. Later they were surrounded on a football field. That's when they fired. So yes, they were justified in shooting, since there was a real risk of them being injured or killed.

Umm. A bunch of unarmed stoned students presented a real threat to national guard units armed with heavy weaponry. Right. You just lost all credibility.

I'm sorry, but it's just wrong to compare the cops to Saddam Hussein. Saddam killed those Kurds without pause or remorse. Cops don't immediately start beating heads. They ask you to move yourself. If you don't comply after repeated requests they will move you with as little force as possible. Only if you start to physically fight back will they return in kind.
now you don't really know how much pause or remorse either the cops or saddam had, your just making assumptions based on your beliefs about the motivations of both.

Umm. A bunch of unarmed stoned students presented a real threat to national guard units armed with heavy weaponry. Right. You just lost all credibility.
They national guard had pistols. And they didn't know the contents or lack thereof of every one of the 3000 protesters' backpacks, pockets, etc. The guards were surrounded by a mob that had been throwing rocks at them. I would have warned them, then fired as well. I'm not dying in the name of your free speech if you attack me. Neither were they. And better to have lost credibility in the eyes of fools then to have never have had it all.

Unless that protestor turned violent against the police there was no justification for that shooting. Am I right to assume there was no violence instigated by the poor soul shown in the picture?

"Roughing up" is not equal to the shooting of an innocent protestor. Let's put it this way. If a bunch of protestors are sitting in the middle of the street for their protest blocking traffic and they will not get up at the request of the cops, would it be immoral for these cops to pick up the people and bodily move them out of the way? If you have large numbers of this, it's not impossible that there'll be an accident where knees get skinned, a little bit of blood is drawn; the people get "roughed up". And protestors (just like police) aren't perfect. Sometimes cops screw up, and sometimes protestors screw up. If a protestor starts to fight against a cop who's moving him, you have more injuries.

I'm being longwinded, but you can't compare the murder of the Kurds to the "roughing up" of these protestors.

You and your infantile moral reductionism. Resisting arrest and having your window broken is on a whole different plane than dissenting and being executed. If protesters break laws, are asked to stop, don't, and get their faces broken, boo hoo. If they're gunned down and their bodies thrown in the river, that's different. And you should know that, and know that you're just straw manning this argument. If you don't know that, then you're so devoid of anything approaching morals I won't even deal with you.
your disgusting tendency to morally justify one type of violence then deny its related to another form of violence just shows your essentual inability to understand moral issues. you say boo hoo to broken faces but deny its just a razor thin line to murder.

you tell lies to justify the murder of students at kent state, then claim that saddam is fundimentally different than american state authorites for his murderous ways. you are either a very evil person or a very dim one.

Rubber bullets, firehoses

NON VIOLENT WAYS TO DISPERSE A CROWD and if you even dare say that the national guard was justified in using lethal force you are a disgrace to a country that was founded on the principle that you and I can agrue with the government to our hearts content. I am a United States Sailor, I serve the government and protect these rights. I do this because there is little I believe in but the right of free speech. That man, that kid died excercising his right. There were other ways.

They national guard had pistols. And they didn't know the contents or lack thereof of every one of the 3000 protesters' backpacks, pockets, etc. The guards were surrounded by a mob that had been throwing rocks at them. I would have warned them, then fired as well. I'm not dying in the name of your free speech if you attack me. Neither were they. And better to have lost credibility in the eyes of fools then to have never have had it all.


they were mainly armed with m1 rifles that's what did all the killing, they weren't surrounded or under attack at the time of the shooting(though there had been rocks thrown earlier). get your facts straight

your disgusting tendency to morally justify one type of violence then deny its related to another form of violence just shows your essentual inability to understand moral issues. you say boo hoo to broken faces but deny its just a razor thin line to murder.

you tell lies to justify the murder of students at kent state, then claim that saddam is fundimentally different than american state authorites for his murderous ways. you are either a very evil person or a very dim one.
There's a difference between cutting someone's face with glass because you have to, and shooting them because you want to. As for the whole Kent State thing, the soldiers were stoned, outnumbered, and the mob was advancing on them threatenly. What part of that is a lie? You're either a very deluded person or an idiot. Or perhaps both.

Rubber bullets, firehoses

NON VIOLENT WAYS TO DISPERSE A CROWD and if you even dare say that the national guard was justified in using lethal force you are a disgrace to a country that was founded on the principle that you and I can agrue with the government to our hearts content. I am a United States Sailor, I serve the government and protect these rights. I do this because there is little I believe in but the right of free speech. That man, that kid died excercising his right. There were other ways.
And I'm an Army MP. If people are threatening at me, stoning me, and disregarding my orders to leave a place they're not allowed to be, and I'm threatened, I'll shoot them. I'm not dying for their freedom of protest. They don't threaten Army personel, they don't get shot.

Unless that protestor turned violent against the police there was no justification for that shooting. Am I right to assume there was no violence instigated by the poor soul shown in the picture?

As far as I know.

"Roughing up" is not equal to the shooting of an innocent protestor. Let's put it this way. If a bunch of protestors are sitting in the middle of the street for their protest blocking traffic and they will not get up at the request of the cops, would it be immoral for these cops to pick up the people and bodily move them out of the way? If you have large numbers of this, it's not impossible that there'll be an accident where knees get skinned, a little bit of blood is drawn; the people get "roughed up". And protestors (just like police) aren't perfect. Sometimes cops screw up, and sometimes protestors screw up. If a protestor starts to fight against a cop who's moving him, you have more injuries.

I'm being longwinded, but you can't compare the murder of the Kurds to the "roughing up" of these protestors.

No- it's not equal in severity by any means- but the point I was trying to make is that how far do you go? What is justified? Personally I believe that the commuters could have gone around the protest. Police should only have physically removed people who were just there to cause damage. Let them sit there.

The testimony of the Guardsmen, which was supported in court, said the students were advancing on the Guardsmen. When 3000 people walk at you angrily, you've been threatened.

And I'm an Army MP. If people are threatening at me, stoning me, and disregarding my orders to leave a place they're not allowed to be, and I'm threatened, I'll shoot them. I'm not dying for their freedom of protest. They don't threaten Army personel, they don't get shot.

Not even going into your obvious lack of experience with the military, in this country you cannot just SHOOT people for being a nuissance, you cannot just SHOOT and use LETHAL FORCE because you suspect that your life might come into danger, not if you are a member of the military where you JOB is to protect these people. Anti war protesters piss me off. I've had coffee thrown on me, I've been hassled on my way to work, I've been beaten up once. This is not grounds to SHOOT people or use lethal force. This is people not demonstrating what they want in the appropriate manner. Beyond that, a member of the military does not shoot first, especially on their own citizens.

Does the Boston Massacre ring a bell? Those were people throwing crap and snowballs at Brittish soldiers. More than ten people were gunned down. The soldiers were in a small amount of danger. That happens when you put on the uniform. Gunning down angry students, using lethal force because you SUSPECT that you might be injured is WRONG.

Not even going into your obvious lack of experience with the military, in this country you cannot just SHOOT people for being a nuissance, you cannot just SHOOT and use LETHAL FORCE because you suspect that your life might come into danger, not if you are a member of the military where you JOB is to protect these people. Anti war protesters piss me off. I've had coffee thrown on me, I've been hassled on my way to work, I've been beaten up once. This is not grounds to SHOOT people or use lethal force. This is people not demonstrating what they want in the appropriate manner. Beyond that, a member of the military does not shoot first, especially on their own citizens.

Does the Boston Massacre ring a bell? Those were people throwing crap and snowballs at Brittish soldiers. More than ten people were gunned down. The soldiers were in a small amount of danger. That happens when you put on the uniform. Gunning down angry students, using lethal force because you SUSPECT that you might be injured is WRONG.
Wrong or not, it's legal. The soldiers in both incidences were exonerated. Force should be the last resort, but if people won't listen, won't respond to tear gas, there's only so much you can do.

Do you really condone the use of lethal force against US citizens?

I'm no expert on protests. I've never organzied one before, but I do know that in a lot of places you have to get permits. You have to register the date and place your organization will be protesting. Don't the cops generally work with you then to direct traffic around you, and to keep things from getting out of hand?
If these protestors decided to put this thing together without any warning, that would be wrong. Blocking major routes is inconvenient and potentially dangerous. What if an ambulance or fire engine has to pass through?

Do you really condone the use of lethal force against US citizens?
Must be a terrorist...
Oh wait, only unpatriotic, non-GOP liberals are terrorists...

I'm no expert on protests. I've never organzied one before, but I do know that in a lot of places you have to get permits. You have to register the date and place your organization will be protesting. Don't the cops generally work with you then to direct traffic around you, and to keep things from getting out of hand?
If these protestors decided to put this thing together without any warning, that would be wrong. Blocking major routes is inconvenient and potentially dangerous. What if an ambulance or fire engine has to pass through?
uh...dude, Spiderman has got more of a handle on things than I think you realize...

Must be a terrorist...
Oh wait, only unpatriotic, non-GOP liberals are terrorists...


Don't bend my question in any way, this is straight forward. This isn't some liberal/conservative bull.

Do you really condone the use of lethal force against US citizens?
No, I don't. If a murderer is getting away, police should ask him nicely to stop. If a mob is beating a bunch of Guardsmen, the Guardsmen should run away without hurting them. Seriously, I support force when needed, which should be rarely. However, people are too stupid to follow the rules, and they suffer for it.

Don't bend my question in any way, this is straight forward. This isn't some liberal/conservative bull.
Uh, first, I'm not taking anyone's side. I wasn't calling you a terrorist. I was calling him because you implied he condoned the use of force on citizens...but anyway, it was humor . . . calm down...

uh...dude, Spiderman has got more of a handle on things than I think you realize...

Yeah yeah, I get it. New York is a bitch to drive through. Throw in a few dozen, hundred, thousand protestors blocking the streets, and it makes it worse.

No, I don't. If a murderer is getting away, police should ask him nicely to stop. If a mob is beating a bunch of Guardsmen, the Guardsmen should run away without hurting them. Seriously, I support force when needed, which should be rarely. However, people are too stupid to follow the rules, and they suffer for it.
uh...I found that taking that side of the argument is a very bad thing...(for why I say that, read the thread about abortion...)

Yeah yeah, I get it. New York is a bitch to drive through. Throw in a few dozen, hundred, thousand protestors blocking the streets, and it makes it worse.
Which is why you have webs that shoot out of your wrists and sticky fingers so you can cling to walls...when are we going to get this tech for our cops?

(silly string and duct tape...)

uh...I found that taking that side of the argument is a very bad thing...(for why I say that, read the thread about abortion...)
I'd rather be right and be disliked than be a liar and be liked.

I'd rather be right and be disliked than be a liar and be liked.
Then see what you think about my stance on a particular type of rape

(silly string and duct tape...)
Duct tape does solve everything.

No, I don't. If a murderer is getting away, police should ask him nicely to stop. If a mob is beating a bunch of Guardsmen, the Guardsmen should run away without hurting them. Seriously, I support force when needed, which should be rarely. However, people are too stupid to follow the rules, and they suffer for it.

Do you not understand the importance of disobeying the rules? It's the only power we the people have. I don't have a billion dollars or an oil tycoon daddy. I'm not an ambulance chaser who made it big. I don't think you are either. The people have to be able to picket, have to be able to strike, have to be able to walk out, have to be able to boycott, have to be able to hand out flyers and have to be able to gather. Granted, it's dangerous on either side but if the cause is that important you can't give up just because a soldier says 'no'.

There were other options. They could have fired rubber bullets, fired fire hoses, or, failing that, rounds into the sky. They were scared and made a mistake, a terrible mistake that cost some young people their lives. Exonerrated or not, no one should have died that day. Your ONLY power against the government is your right to ignore the rules when it is important. There are consequences, as the students learned that day. Things can get out of hand and mistakes can be made. The shooting was a mistake and you condone the use of violence on United States Citizens.

Then see what you think about my stance on a particular type of rape
I'd rather not touch the abortion thread. That's not an argument I have time to get into :/

Do you not understand the importance of disobeying the rules? It's the only power we the people have. I don't have a billion dollars or an oil tycoon daddy. I'm not an ambulance chaser who made it big. I don't think you are either. The people have to be able to picket, have to be able to strike, have to be able to walk out, have to be able to boycott, have to be able to hand out flyers and have to be able to gather. Granted, it's dangerous on either side but if the cause is that important you can't give up just because a soldier says 'no'.

There were other options. They could have fired rubber bullets, fired fire hoses, or, failing that, rounds into the sky. They were scared and made a mistake, a terrible mistake that cost some young people their lives. Exonerrated or not, no one should have died that day. Your ONLY power against the government is your right to ignore the rules when it is important. There are consequences, as the students learned that day. Things can get out of hand and mistakes can be made. The shooting was a mistake and you condone the use of violence on United States Citizens.
I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. If a protest is justified, then it should occur, but it should occur within the boundaries of laws. If the laws are unfair, they should be petitioned to be changed. If the system is corrupt and the laws cannot be changed, only then do you resist. You don't lend support to your cause if you cause more problems then the system you oppose. The Guardsmen didn't have rubber bullets or fire hoses, they were cornered. Most did fire into the sky, some didn't. The mistake wasn't the Guardsmen shooting, it was the young people resisting. If you violently oppose a just authority, by stoning it, cursing it, moving towards its defenders with open hostility, then you can't be surprised when it defends itself. I condone the death penalty, so I condone violence against citizens, when it is justified. When defenders of order feel their lives are threatened, violence is justified.

Uh, first, I'm not taking anyone's side. I wasn't calling you a terrorist. I was calling him because you implied he condoned the use of force on citizens...but anyway, it was humor . . . calm down...

No, I just wanted to keep the question pure. Sometimes commentary detracts from the heart of the matter.

I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. If a protest is justified, then it should occur, but it should occur within the boundaries of laws. If the laws are unfair, they should be petitioned to be changed. If the system is corrupt and the laws cannot be changed, only then do you resist. You don't lend support to your cause if you cause more problems then the system you oppose. The Guardsmen didn't have rubber bullets or fire hoses, they were cornered. Most did fire into the sky, some didn't. The mistake wasn't the Guardsmen shooting, it was the young people resisting. If you violently oppose a just authority, by stoning it, cursing it, moving towards its defenders with open hostility, then you can't be surprised when it defends itself. I condone the death penalty, so I condone violence against citizens, when it is justified. When defenders of order feel their lives are threatened, violence is justified.

Okay, I'll play a game with you: Lets live in your world.

You're right, violence was required. It was unavoidable. Now, what mistake did the guardsman STILL make, even using your logic?

Okay, I'll play a game with you: Lets live in your world.

You're right, violence was required. It was unavoidable. Now, what mistake did the guardsman STILL make, even using your logic?
I don't know, what mistake did they make?

I don't know, what mistake did they make?

They used a level of force that wasn't warranted. They didn't have to kill. Just wounding the same amount of students would have worked. Gunshots go off, no one checks to see if anyone died. People RUN.

There isn't any,"oh my god, gunshots!" "oh don't worry, it's just the guard wounding people in the leg."

But they used a level of force that wasn't warranted by the situation. They ended the lives of four people when a leg or two, if that was even required, would have sufficed.

It wasn't called for, to kill them. Getting back to where this was branched off, it wasn't called for to beat the protesters for blocking traffic. The blocked traffic! The cities own workers do that everyday. It's an inconvenience, not life threatening. Bust out a water hose and spray the suckers down, it'll be fine.

You can't use lethal force against citizens because they are inconveniencing you. Even if they are threatening you because the moment you do you just gave them something more to protest. You just proved them right. The civil rights movement wouldn't have gotten anywhere if people followed your logic.

They used a level of force that wasn't warranted. They didn't have to kill. Just wounding the same amount of students would have worked. Gunshots go off, no one checks to see if anyone died. People RUN.

There isn't any,"oh my god, gunshots!" "oh don't worry, it's just the guard wounding people in the leg."

But they used a level of force that wasn't warranted by the situation. They ended the lives of four people when a leg or two, if that was even required, would have sufficed.

It wasn't called for, to kill them. Getting back to where this was branched off, it wasn't called for to beat the protesters for blocking traffic. The blocked traffic! The cities own workers do that everyday. It's an inconvenience, not life threatening. Bust out a water hose and spray the suckers down, it'll be fine.

You can't use lethal force against citizens because they are inconveniencing you. Even if they are threatening you because the moment you do you just gave them something more to protest. You just proved them right. The civil rights movement wouldn't have gotten anywhere if people followed your logic.
So if someone advances on you with a gun, you try and shoot it out of his hand right? No, you warm them, try to take them down non-violently, and if it doesn't work, you shoot them. That's all there is to it. Civil rights activists did get shot when they threatened police or soldiers, but the majority cooperated with police, that was the point behind civil disobedience.

So if someone advances on you with a gun, you try and shoot it out of his hand right? No, you warm them, try to take them down non-violently, and if it doesn't work, you shoot them. That's all there is to it. Civil rights activists did get shot when they threatened police or soldiers, but the majority cooperated with police, that was the point behind civil disobedience.

Are we thinking of the same civil rights movement? I seem to remember a hell of a lot of people getting beaten for SITTING in a restaraunt. And don't recall any of those students having guns, paticularly the four in question.

What, I ask you, is the justification for using lethal force in a situation where your own life, while possibly in danger, isn't clearly at risk?

Are we thinking of the same civil rights movement? I seem to remember a hell of a lot of people getting beaten for SITTING in a restaraunt. And don't recall any of those students having guns, paticularly the four in question.

What, I ask you, is the justification for using lethal force in a situation where your own life, while possibly in danger, isn't clearly at risk?
They didn't know that their lives weren't at risk. You tell people to leave, and they don't. They outnumber you, they've already shown you that dislike you based on the swearing and the rocks, what are you supposed to think?

What, I ask you, is the justification for using lethal force in a situation where your own life, while possibly in danger, isn't clearly at risk?
Even if I had an automatic rifle I'd be concerned about my life if I was facing down a crowd of 3000. It doesn't take a gun to hurt, maim, or kill somebody. I could die just by being trampled.

They didn't know that their lives weren't at risk. You tell people to leave, and they don't. They outnumber you, they've already shown you that dislike you based on the swearing and the rocks, what are you supposed to think?

That these people obviously don't like you. Not that they are enemy troops threatening your country. Damn man, don't you realize that not every part of life has an easy out? Sometimes you get put in a situation where you're going to get hurt one way or another. I've learned that in the last two years that I've served. Lethal force isn't justified because you're scared or people are being mean or bullying you.

Even if I had an automatic rifle I'd be concerned about my life if I was facing down a crowd of 3000. It doesn't take a gun to hurt, maim, or kill somebody. I could die just by being trampled.
Exactly, people don't die in crowded spaces because of fire, they die because people running from the fire crush them. Some guy runs at a Guardmans and he could very well be trampled or beat by the mob.

That these people obviously don't like you. Not that they are enemy troops threatening your country. Damn man, don't you realize that not every part of life has an easy out? Sometimes you get put in a situation where you're going to get hurt one way or another. I've learned that in the last two years that I've served. Lethal force isn't justified because you're scared or people are being mean or bullying you.
When you're scared of them killing you it is. People die in riots, or did the 60's and 70's just escape your notice?

When you're scared of them killing you it is. People die in riots, or did the 60's and 70's just escape your notice?

Oh yeah, I know that. But here's a problem with that.

You say they were surrounded. Funny thing, when shots go off and people run...it's away from the shots.

Now, assuming they didn't shoot? The mob rushes the soldiers and beats them within an inch of their lives if not killing them?

Sucks to be the soldiers, should have wounded someone.

STILL NO JUSTIFICATION for using lethal force on people exercising their constitutional right to assembly.

Oh yeah, I know that. But here's a problem with that.

You say they were surrounded. Funny thing, when shots go off and people run...it's away from the shots.

Now, assuming they didn't shoot? The mob rushes the soldiers and beats them within an inch of their lives if not killing them?

Sucks to be the soldiers, should have wounded someone.

STILL NO JUSTIFICATION for using lethal force on people exercising their constitutional right to assembly.
They can't assemble on government owned property and threaten its soldiers.

Once you start throwing rocks and threatening a person you cross over from "Right to Assembly" to Assault. And those people you're assaulting have a right to protect themselves.

They can't assemble on government owned property and threaten its soldiers.

Who says they can't? The government owns EVERYTHING. If you assemble, it is on Government Owned Property (hey, another acronym for GOP).

And they can threaten the soldiers. They'll be arrested. But do you know why they were protesting? At a college? (a public place for a group of people to gather and protest, btw.)

Once you start throwing rocks and threatening a person you cross over from "Right to Assembly" to Assault. And those people you're assaulting have a right to protect themselves.

You're right, protect. Still no lethal force required here. It was a bunch of kids.

Who says they can't? The government owns EVERYTHING. If you assemble, it is on Government Owned Property (hey, another acronym for GOP).

And they can threaten the soldiers. They'll be arrested. But do you know why they were protesting? At a college? (a public place for a group of people to gather and protest, btw.)
A state college's land is owned by the government. They were protesting military action, do that on Capitol Hill.

You're right, protect. Still no lethal force required here. It was a bunch of kids.
Kids can still kill you.

You're right, protect. Still no lethal force required here. It was a bunch of kids.
Alright, I can agree with that. Wounding shots would have been preferable to lethal ones. Can you agree with me, though, that some kind of force was necesary?

A state college's land is owned by the government. They were protesting military action, do that on Capitol Hill.

Kids don't have that option and there wasn't time!

Vietnam claimed so many young people. They weren't old enough to vote. They had no SAY about going and dying for a war that they didn't want and didn't understand. Exceptional action is the only way to get exceptional results and they did. Because of this event and ones like it the press (which at the time was powerful and not corporately owned like today) changed the public opinion of the war and helped bring about changes. Lowering the voting age to 18, changing the requirements to declare a general draft, and limiting the presidents discretionary powers in undeclared war.

You say go to capitol hill? How can you do that when you are 16 or 17, have no money and no one wants to listen to you? Things aren't clear cut, they aren't black and white. And some options don't exist. It's like a mexican becoming president in the next few years. It's a nice idea and allowed by the rules but it isn't going to happen any time soon because that is unfortunately the world we live in. A world where there is only so much that is actually possible for you, depending on who you are and where you come from. This isn't a new idea. This was the world those children lived in. They were being sent off to war with NO ability to oppose it. So they gathered and they got angry and a symbol of their anger was sent to them. And they died because undue force was brought against them.

If Fox news is slanted to the right, so what...it's being bashed for being a right leaning news source, even if it did tell it's anchors to give equal time to Kerry and Bush, and even though it did tell it's anchors not to pay too much attention to some of the swift boat captains that were against Kerry. It's just become a constant crucifixion of Conservatives/Republicans.

Alright, I can agree with that. Wounding shots would have been preferable to lethal ones. Can you agree with me, though, that some kind of force was necesary?

Yes, I agree that for a quick resolution that force was necesary. I've already named the kind of force that would be required: Fire hoses and rubber bullets. If those weren't available then the blame is on the National Guard right from the get go for failing to be prepared.

They were unarmed children!

Under the genova convention killing an unarmed enemy soldier is a crime, much less killing one of your own young citizens that you've sworn to protect.

If those weren't available then the blame is on the National Guard right from the get go for failing to be prepared.
Yes, if the Guardsmen knew that they were going to disperse a protest, they should have brought the right tools. They were facing college kids, not a rebel insurgency blowing up buildings and should have prepared correctly.

Just because they were under prepared doesn't mean that they can jump to lethal force. I'm sure warning shots would have done the job just as good.