Another "Pro Lifer" kills...

Arnie Guitar · Jun 4, 2009

Quote from cgroupman:

...I do like the female broadcasters, however...

I agree 100%.
Martha McCallum, that's damn near perfection there...

dsq · Jun 4, 2009

Quote from mike oxbig:

He said "is far more balanced". And to suggest they are not is nonsense.

Fox newscasts(and im not talking about hannity/oreilly propagandists) almost always editorialize news reports.They dont report the facts alone they insert opinion in the story ad nauseam.

You dont see that on normal media like cbs,abc,nbc as bad as they may be.

Arnie Guitar · Jun 4, 2009

Quote from dsq:

You dont see that on normal media like cbs,abc,nbc as bad as they may be.

put down the crack pipe.

bigdavediode · Jun 4, 2009

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

You wrote: "Pro-lifers have to moderate their zeal, or they will continue to generate these ongoing terrorist attacks. All it takes is for you to put one little extra word in, such as "convenience" to motivate some nutcase with a gun. Or O'Reilly to repeat his made-up nickname "Tiller the Baby Killer." It's got to stop."

That's quite a stretch to infer that I've blamed everybody in the pro-life movement. The reality is that the invective of many, many people who are pro-life and their lack of criticism of the demogogues like O'Reilly are helping to drive borderline cases to violence.

Just like Clinton did with Rush after Oklahoma City, you claim the pro life movement is responsible for what you term terrorism.

Murder, attempted murder and bombings for the express purpose of intimidation is terrorism. The fact that you think the dictionary definition is what "I term" terrorism seems to indicate that you think there's some debate about this.

bigdavediode · Jun 4, 2009

Quote from mike oxbig:

He said "is far more balanced". And to suggest they are not is nonsense.

WTVT, a Fox affiliate, and Fox News network's lawyer went to court to fight for the right to lie on air as part of their appeal of a whistleblower award against them. Because the court found that there only an FCC policy and not a law, rule or regulation they were permitted to intentionally lie and therefore the whistleblower statute did not apply.

This was their DEFENSE!

AAAintheBeltway · Jun 4, 2009

Quote from bigdavediode:

That's quite a stretch to infer that I've blamed everybody in the pro-life movement. The reality is that the invective of many, many people who are pro-life and their lack of criticism of the demogogues like O'Reilly are helping to drive borderline cases to violence.

Murder, attempted murder and bombings for the express purpose of intimidation is terrorism. The fact that you think the dictionary definition is what "I term" terrorism seems to indicate that you think there's some debate about this.

This is exactly the problem I have with your formulation. You throw around terms like terrorism that imply organized, group activity, then you deny that you meant to impugn "everybody" in the pro life community. Maybe not everybody, but you clearly intended to apply the terrorism label to more than just the deranged individuals who shot some abortionists. You are attempting to taint an entire movement as somehow culpable for some violence going back many years that is clearly the work of deranged individuals working alone.

I absolutely object to calling these killings terrorism. I call them acts by mentally deranged individuals. They are clearly lone wolves, not members of cells or participants in an organized conspiracy. Terrorism implies random acts of violence against a population at large. Car bombs, bombs in pizzarias, transit bombings. These killings were certainly criminal, but they were not terrorism as it is generally undestood.

bigdavediode · Jun 4, 2009

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

This is exactly the problem I have with your formulation. You throw around terms like terrorism that imply organized, group activity, then you deny that you meant to impugn "everybody" in the pro life community. Maybe not everybody, but you clearly intended to apply the terrorism label to more than just the deranged individuals who shot some abortionists. You are attempting to taint an entire movement as somehow culpable for some violence going back many years that is clearly the work of deranged individuals working alone.

Okay. So in your view, Islam is not culpable because of various attackers acting alone. I agree, actually. I also agree that not all pro-life advocates are culpable.

However, they share responsibility if they have not objected to the increasingly shrill and dangerous demogoguery on tv and radio referring to baby murderers, baby killers, "there's blood on their hands" etc. etc.

I absolutely object to calling these killings terrorism. I call them acts by mentally deranged individuals. They are clearly lone wolves, not members of cells or participants in an organized conspiracy. Terrorism implies random acts of violence against a population at large. Car bombs, bombs in pizzarias, transit bombings. These killings were certainly criminal, but they were not terrorism as it is generally undestood.

That's why God made dictionaries.

Terrorist: a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorist

jem · Jun 4, 2009

Quote from bigdavediode:

Okay. So in your view, Islam is not culpable because of various attackers acting alone. I agree, actually. I also agree that not all pro-life advocates are culpable.

However, they share responsibility if they have not objected to the increasingly shrill and dangerous demogoguery on tv and radio referring to baby murderers, baby killers, "there's blood on their hands" etc. etc.

That's why God made dictionaries.

Terrorist: a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorist

The difference is that abortionists are killing babies which could exist outside the mom's body.

They stick screw driver like instruments into the babies heads, crush the baby skulls and suck out dismembered baby parts with a vacuum (when things go according to a plan)

They are barabaric.

Does that mean we should kill abortionists -- absolutely not.

Abortion is a barbaric act of killing. It is as disgusting as the stuff we see in slaughter houses - only we eat the animal.

Why are liberals saving animals from barbaric acts and not defenseless human babies?

I have every right to speak the truth. Is not progressive, empathetic or truly liberal to support the butchering of un born human babies.

Ok - now that I spoke the truth about killing babies.

Let me say this - just like gay marriage... if the majority of people in your state wish to kill babies and the supreme court of your state does not think that human babies are class fit for protection... feel free to hack away.

We still live in America and I do believe in states rights and majority rule.

gigsup · Jun 4, 2009

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

This is exactly the problem I have with your formulation. You throw around terms like terrorism that imply organized, group activity, then you deny that you meant to impugn "everybody" in the pro life community. Maybe not everybody, but you clearly intended to apply the terrorism label to more than just the deranged individuals who shot some abortionists. You are attempting to taint an entire movement as somehow culpable for some violence going back many years that is clearly the work of deranged individuals working alone.

I absolutely object to calling these killings terrorism. I call them acts by mentally deranged individuals. They are clearly lone wolves, not members of cells or participants in an organized conspiracy. Terrorism implies random acts of violence against a population at large. Car bombs, bombs in pizzarias, transit bombings. These killings were certainly criminal, but they were not terrorism as it is generally undestood.

Calling this bullshit artist out aren't you AAA. What is the motive behind these individuals who paint whole groups as somehow a threat to the US? Highly suspicious.

bigdavediode · Jun 4, 2009

Quote from jem:

The difference is that abortionists are killing babies which could exist outside the mom's body.

They stick screw driver like instruments into the babies heads, crush the baby skulls and suck out dismembered baby parts with a vacuum (when things go according to a plan)

They are barabaric.

I don't find that any more barbaric than an appendectomy.

Why should your opinion on appendectomies or abortions overrule mine given that my beliefs are, obviously, different than yours?

Does that mean we should kill abortionists -- absolutely not.

On that we can agree.

Abortion is a barbaric act of killing. It is as disgusting as the stuff we see in slaughter houses - only we eat the animal.

Excellent point. "Meat is murder" is also a slogan that's thrown around by extremists.

Why are liberals saving animals from barbaric acts and not defenseless human babies?

Because they're typically not babies.

I have every right to speak the truth. Is not progressive, empathetic or truly liberal to support the butchering of un born human babies.

If it is butchering of babies, then any defense is justified, including killing to prevent it. Do you see how you cornered yourself? In one paragraph you say that killing to prevent the killing of babies is wrong while also claiming that it is actually killing of babies, which if it were any defense would be fair and justified.

Ok - now that I spoke the truth about killing babies.

Let me say this - just like gay marriage... if the majority of people in your state wish to kill babies and the supreme court of your state does not think that human babies are class fit for protection... feel free to hack away.

We still live in America and I do believe in states rights and majority rule.

If the majority ruled against birth control (since it's murdering babies) then you would abide by this and have many children?

I wouldn't.