You knew it would happen eventually, but now we get to see how the right responds to the first terrorist attack on US soil since Obama assumed the presidency:
George Tiller, the Wichita doctor who became a national lightning rod in the debate over abortion, was shot to death this morning as he walked into church services.
No, it’s not anywhere near the scale of 9/11, but it fits the definition of terrorism nonetheless: “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.”
Will Republicans rally around President Obama in his efforts to fight the terrorist threat, as Democrats rallied around President Bush in the immediate wake of 9/11? It remains to be seen.
I came here first, knowing that I would get the kind of smearing generalization about pro-lifers that is bound to come rushing from the left in the wake of the despicable shooting in Kansas. For someone who claims to have the chops to be a professional journalist, this is extremely irresponsible when NO facts are in about the crime itself.
Should it be discovered that this murder was committed by a lone actor, motivated by his anger about the late-term abortions being performed at Dr. Tiller’s clinic, it will still not represent the entire pro-life movement.
I remember another terrorist action against a clinic just a few years back. I think it involved some nutcase in a car.
We all gave the wingnuts shit about it.
Just heard crickets from those fiends.
17,000 people are murdered in the U.S. every year.
Uggh! This stuff plagued us during the Clinton years. Don’t recall hearing of a single incident during the Bush years. It is unsettling to see the nuts with guns are out killing doctors again.
Everyone should watch Lake of Fire it is a quite heavy and enlightening documentary of the abortion debate in this country. Has some particularly chilling interviews with Paul Hill, the first man to be executed for shooting abortion providers down in Florida.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Jennings_Hill
The pro-life groups believe in murder….because God is on their side.
@3: Troll condones murder AND torture.
What would Jesus say? And how many Abortion doctors would Jesus murder?
You freekin’ hypocrite.
@1: did anyone say that this “represented” the entire anti-abortion community?
How about the previous shooting of this same dcotor? How about the burglary and vandalism of his clinic?
Yeah, just a random act of abortion protester…..BS. No more than Abu Graib was torture dictated straight from the top.
@5
Huh? I just stated a crime fact. There are 17,000 murders in the U.S. ever year. Calm down.
@1, If ‘it’ doesn’t represent the entire pro-life movement, then there is no general left, as you so hypocritically generalize.
Correct @ 6
I dunno. Troll simply said there are 17,000 murders in the United States every year. That is almost 1,500 per month on average. Probably somewhere around 6,000 in the 4 months and 11 days since Barack Obama was sworn in as president.
Certainly the murder of George Tiller can properly be described as an act of terrorism. But is Tiller the first person in the entire country, out of probably 6,000 murder victims, to have been killed for political reasons so far this year?
Maybe he is. I dunno.
@7
I think by claiming that this is the “first terrorist attack on US soil since Obama assumed the presidency” the implication is clear. Your comments further clarified that pro-abortion folks will be more than happy to start spinning paranoid fantasies that pro-lifers are huddled in church basements plotting assassination and building bombs.
These peope are radicals, but unlike real terrorists in this world, they do not have the endorsement or support of the vast majority of those who hold the basic view they claim to be “fighting” for.
Goldy asks, “Will Republicans rally around President Obama in his efforts to fight the terrorist threat, as Democrats rallied around President Bush in the immediate wake of 9/11?”
First we have to see if President Obama will even speak-out on this crime, let alone label it a terrorist threat.
Goldy, let me ask you: Do you think Obama will even mention this murder in Kansas City? Yeah, I know, you were just asking a rhetorical question, but still.
oh right…. “he was acting alone”, “we don’t condone violence”, “we’re saving THE CHILDREN”, and last but not least….. “Life begins when a man gets an erection”….stick your “pro-life” where the sun don’t shine.
@10 You (and many of the other commenters) have a very shallow concept of terrorism. Terrorism is not simply acts of violence intended to achieve political goals, it involves acts of violence directed at uninvolved innocents to achieve politicals goals.
This is not terrorism. The sick-minded people who do not have sancutary within the ranks of legitimate and reasonable pro-life people (who are the vast majority of those in the movement, and who are also a majority of Americans, if recent polls are any guide) believe they are fighting a war. They target those who they feel are engaged in the activities they seek to disrupt those actions directly. Terrorists seeks to create negative pressure against the political power opposing them by creating fear and anger in the general population.
This is the same reason that I argue with those who label the ELF and ALF terrorists. They are not terrorists; they are soldiers in campaigns for which they have only a few mentally ill followers.
Anyone hear who has studied warfare – both symmetrical and assymetrical – knows the difference.
@9
So, if some crackpot had managed to get a shot off at President Bush, the media would have been fair in labeling the gunman as a terrorist representing the anti-war movement?
This is terrorism. If this is how the right wing religious wackjobs want to do this – then fine. Somebody might just decide to fight fire with fire. Wouldn’t it be a shame if some folks decided to shoot down Randall Terry and some of the other idiots on the right who’ve decided to use abortion as a way to make a living and as a political wedge issue? I guess not actually.
And what about this terrorism?
http://blackpoliticalthought.b.....fatal.html
How about all the burned churches by left wing terrorists (especially the churches that burned when Clinton was young). Where is the outrage? How about Obama ordering charges dropped against the terrorist nigger black panther pieces of shit who were intimidating white voters in Philadelphia. Where is the outrage? How about Hillary being under sniper gunfire… hahahahahahaha what a stupid lying CUNT and you tards adore her. FUCK ME TO TEARS
@1 Let’s back up here a bit, pardner.
First of all, Goldy has never claimed to be a professional journalist; he’s a political blogger, so right off the bat you’re misrepresenting him and trying to put words in his mouth.
Secondly, there is an organized rightwing movement that applauds violence against abortion providers, and regardless of whether or not this actor was a lone actor or someone affiliated with a pro-life group, the fact remains that organized elements of America’s political right applauds this kind of act — which makes those elements fair game for political commentary.
Third, you seem to assume that everyone is “pro-life” or “pro-abortion” along strict “right-left” political lines. That’s wrong. I don’t know whether there are any pro-choice rightwingers, but I do know there are plenty of pro-life liberals.
For years, Republicans attempted to justify the most odious excesses of the Bush regime — including kidnappings, torture, and murder of innocent detainees — by arguing that “no more terrorist attacks against the U.S.” had occurred on his watch. In fact, dozens of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil happened during Bush’s presidency, but because they were committed by Americans against Americans, the right refused to recognize them for what they were: Acts of domestic terrorism committed by fanatics who were trying to achieve a political objective by burning down buildings and harming innocent people. What happened today was a terrorist act by any reasonable definition of the term, comparable to the domestic terrorism that plagued Northern Ireland for decades: Group against group, ideology against ideology.
Your main point seems to be that people who call violent anti-abortion activists “terrorists” are “smearing” the entire portion of the U.S. population that is politically conservative. You’re full of shit.
@3 Untold numbers of rabbits are murdered by cars in the U.S. every year. Cars should be banned! They’re bad for the environment.
@4 “Don’t recall hearing of a single incident during the Bush years.”
So if a tree falls in the forest, but no one heard it fall, it didn’t fall?
Nice crowd you run with Stupes. Troll too.
” … since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid (“stink bombs”).” — Wikipedia
That’s a lot of terrorism, or crime, or whatever you want to call it.
@11 “These peope are radicals, but unlike real terrorists in this world, they do not have the endorsement or support of the vast majority of those who hold the basic view they claim to be ‘fighting’ for.”
First of all, they are real terrorists. Second, we don’t need you to tell us they’re fringe lunatics who don’t represent the pro-life movement as a whole. Why do you assume we’re dumb? Take your supercilious spewing somewhere else. Here, you come across as patronizing and presumptuous. That doesn’t play before our crowd. You are a fool.
The whole rightwing pro-life shtick would have more credibility if they had a modicum of respect for human life after it’s born. Oh, most of them mean well, but somehow their concern for the sanctity of life disappears when the lives belong to people who are different from themselves.
@14 “ELF and ALF terrorists … are not terrorists; they are soldiers in campaigns …”
Bullshit. What you want to do is reframe the debate by trying to control the definition of terms. Sorry, pal, we’re not buying what you’re selling.
@17 Now here we have an example of a supercilious troll (we’ve already got one on this blog, which is one too many, and we sure as hell don’t need another one) trying to redefine a garden-variety crime as terrorism. Or would Troll deign to explain to us how rape, burglary, and assault are political crimes and have a political motive when the alleged perp (notice I said “alleged” because no one has been convicted in the Pressly case) is black and the victim is white?
The only thing the comment at 17 proves is that Troll is a racist pig, which we already knew from numerous previous similar comments.
@18 “… burned churches by left wing terrorists (especially the churches that burned when Clinton was young).”
If you’re referring to the southern black churches burned by bedsheet-wearing terrorists in the 60s, there’s no way those hicks and yahoos were “left.” In fact, today they form the core base of your party …
Shooting the doctor is the wingnut equivalent of a debate. They care so much about the sanctity of human life they were forced to kill him.
It all makes sense to the criminally insane Republican base.
@17
Whites make up 71% of the U.S. population. Blacks make up 12%. Guess how many white women were raped by black men from 1990 to 2000, and guess how many black women were raped by white men.
re 15: Yes. They probably would have. Only Democratic politicians and civil rights workers are assassinated by lone gunmen with CIA connections.
If people who burn down green houses are terrorists, then this was also a terrorist act. In the first, they just lost property. In the second, the doctor was murdered.
I see this as the extreme result of the mindset of the hate that mark and troll and cyn and puddy and the rest say every day. Their ideas are not attracting a mass following anymore. They are getting more and more desperate, more and more marginalized. Finally the people that think like them, turn to violence, because nobody will do what they demand. They feel they have no other options.
When progressives were marginalized, they started grass roots campaigns, and changed the the hearts and minds of people, till they started to win elections with the validity of their arguments.
When conservatives became marginalized, and found they couldn’t change the hearts and minds of a majority of people with validity of their arguments, they get bitter, turned to their guns, and started to shoot people.
If you guys don’t start to tone it down, it’s just going to get worse.
re 30: Is that your reason for shooting the doctor, or are you just making conversation?
@30
Answer: 87,532 white women were raped by black men in that decade. During that same period, 32 black women were raped by white men.
Tell me that isn’t a form of terrorism.
Here’s a representative sampling of rightwing comments on AOL’s news story:
“This is just as likely another left wing stagged event to get sympathy for gun control.”
“This stand of it’s ok to kill babies but not murderers has got to be the most idiotic group of people around.”
“I’m not quite sure what the fuss is all about…surely the good doctor could understand someone’s rationale for wanting to rid the world of someone that was not ‘wanted'”
“Now he can find out first hand if he was right. Does a selfish unfeeling irresponcible bitch have more rights than an unborn child. God has the final judgement on all of us.”
Nice people, these rightwing illiterates, most of whom can’t even spell at a fourth-grade level.
It’s good that they caught the right wing lunatic that did this. He will be sent to jail but real justice would require that his family be exposed to the same kind of terror. I predict there will be a backlash against the right here including the possibility that there will be extreme violence directed at the anti-abortion crowd. If that happens, I won’t mind one bit. I wouldn’t do it unless they came after someone close to me, but I would probably cheer for anyone who did offer these fucks an eye for an eye type of justice.
What would the media say if one of the doctor’s relatives shot some wingnut marchers picketing an abortion clinic?
Preemptive war? Why not?
@21
Certainly not intending to imply that. But I just remarking on the fact that this was a big and far too common story during the Clinton years and then the media filter tended to shift focus during the Bush years. Just goes to show what effect a media filter and political administration can have on the broader social consciousness.
I suspect that the change in administration is a change in perspective. Just like when Janet Napolitano became Homeland Security head and shifted focus on the emergent threat of right wing neo nazism and domestic terrorism. Just because we are now focusing on the threat doesn’t mean it didn’t exist in the past.
@30 Why don’t you enlighten us? Do you have firm figures from a reliable source?
As a terrorist activity, should be a law enforcement concern, like progressives believe, or a military one, like conservatives believe? Do you really want Obama to pour the military into Wichita, to liberate it, like we invaded Iraq?
Is the analogy lost on you conservatives?
32 You a carpet muncher?
36 Ooooops, they showed the FBI searching the right wing lunatics car and it had an OBAMA/BIDEN sticker on it. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH I fucking LOVE IT!
@38 One of the oldest bromides in the newspaper business is that most “crime waves” are manufactured by the press. Usually not intentionally, but when papers shift to crime reporting because other news is slow, this results in a public perception that crimes has increased when it hasn’t. There are numerous historical examples of publicly-perceived “crime waves” that occurred during periods when actual crime rates were stable or declining.
Media filters do influence public perceptions, and public perception vs. reality is a huge issue, especially in debates of white vs. black crime rates.
Getting to the truth of whether blacks commit more crimes than whites is extraordinarily difficult. In addition to distortion of public perceptions created by media reporting patterns, other factors that bear on the issue include: The willingness of victims to report crimes to authorities; the willingness of police to investigate; police success or failure in solving crimes and making arrests; willingness of prosecutors to charge perpetrators; willingness of juries to convict perpetrators; sentencing disparities; and so on. For these reasons, the fact that a disproportionate percentage of prison inmates are minorities is not a reliable guide to whether non-whites commit crimes at higher rates than whites.
And you know this because you read it on dailypus??
Hey, what about…
I have asked you a few times to post the link to prove your claim. Of course, I’m still calling you a liar!
Your turn… post the link of me threatening or admit you lie.
RE 42: iF THIS WAS A ‘STAGED EVENT’, AS MANY WINGNUTS CLAIM, HOW WOULD THAT FIT INTO THE SCHEME?
Yes, it contradicts your other theory, but no matter to the wingnut mind — because the arguments are separately compartmentalized, they do not suffer the realization of error that the normal mind experiences.
Another lie.
Damn, you are one of the biggest liars on this blog.
Do you have any proof to back up your allegation?
@42 It wouldn’t surprise me to learn the GOP is so bad that even rightwing fanatics voted for Obama. In fact, we got a taste of that during the campaign, with organizations like “Rednecks For Obama” and “Bikers For Obama” cropping up all over the country. See, e.g.,
http://rednecks4obama.com/
http://bikers4obama.blogspot.com/
Gotta love it!!
re 44: You’ve threatened me too, you piece of garbage. And when I called you on it, you came up with the absurd excuse for being a chicken that you lived in LA.
Liar, Liar, Haggar ‘comfort fit’ slacks on fire
Considering you were the only person that was bothered by the homophobic hatred from steve/gbs/byebyegoober, I could ask what type of crowd are you running with?
Here’s a clue, you goatfucking faggot cunt. Our calling you a faggot cunt is not to belittle gays and women. It is to belittle you, you worthless goatfucking faggot cunt piece of shit.
05/05/2009 AT 8:46 PM
http://horsesass.org/?p=15786&.....ent-916253
“The suspect was described as a white male in his 50’s or 60’s, 6’1,” 220 lbs, wearing a white shirt and dark pants. The car is licensed to Merriam, Kansas. The car was later pulled over near Gardner, Kansas and a person was arrested at the time.” — Wikipedia
How long should I wait for you to post a link to back up your claim before I call you a racist liar?
“Anti-abortion activist Randall Terry of Operation Rescue responded to Tiller’s death by issuing a statement in which he wrote: ‘George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller’s killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name, murder.’
“The president of Operation Rescue, Troy Newman, commented that ‘Operation Rescue has worked tirelessly on peaceful, non-violent measures to bring him to justice through the legal system, the legislative system […] Mr. Tiller was an abortionist. But this wasn’t personal. We are pro life, and this act was antithetical to what we believe. Our prayers go out to his family and the thousands of people this will impact …. We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning’.” — Wikipedia
As one can readily see, a range of attitudes exists within the pro-life community toward vigilante acts against abortion providers.
49 So do you think he’s connected with left wing hate groups, you know, Obama sticker and all? Maybe Obama will just let him go with no charges.
I wonder how many churches robert “sheets” byrd burned to the ground.
Wasn’t it the 60’s when the democrats were fillerbusting the civil rights act. Wasn’t it the 60’s when democrats were using dogs/hoses on blacks?
53 Yes it was Marvin, they are a dangerous, dangerous group of individuals especially bye gop and ylb and correctnotintouchwithreality. Run Marvin run!
A crowd that spurns ignorance, seeks truth, calls out corruption when it sees it and admits mistakes as gbs and steve did.
VERY UNLIKE the crowd YOU run with and SUPPORT through your mindless copying and pasting of right wing talking points here.
I rest my case. He hates Democrats too Stamn.
“Will Republicans rally around President Obama in his efforts to fight the terrorist threat, as Democrats rallied around President Bush in the immediate wake of 9/11?”
You’re saying there is some sort of equivalence between the two incidents? If so, you need to get a sense of proportion at the very least.
It is possible to make your main point — and a valid one — without resorting to this sort of kneejerk gibberish.
Next time try a little harder. It will pay benefits.
re 50: Even if I searched the link out, you would just not mention it for a while , and then go back to the same lie. You have done this to me and others, time and again.
You can call me a racist and a liar if it pleases you, but you can also call a Yugo a Porsche — which I have no doubt you would do if you were attempting to sell a Yugo.
I want Barack Obama to come out and CALL THIS TERRORISM.
Tone it down? This guy just got murdered for doing what is legal in this country.
Randall Terry’s remarks about “preparing his soul for God”, the guy was killed in a church you idiot. His relationship with God (as it used to be in this country 30-40 years ago) was private. None of Terry’s beeswax.
Killing for different reasons has different names. The pro=life people want to call it murder – that’s their belief. I think waterboarding is torture and yet you’ll find other people who think it isn’t and call it a different name. Can’t have it both ways. Either there are different terms for different things or not.
It’s not personal. It sure is and I hope Obama does say something.
14 BM (ha ha, I said BM)
You’re funny, and I don’t mean just your looks.
Terrorism “is” acts of violence intended to intimidate and cause fear in the targeted group. 9/11 is a case in point. After that event, you were wetting the bed when you weren’t sleeping under it, I imagine.
The so-called pro-life murderers have been very effective at
(a) Intimidating doctors from offering abortion services
(b) Intimidating medical schools from teaching abortion procedures
(c.) Creating a need for additional security at family planning facilities around the country
(d) Making anti-abortion protestors who gather near clinics seem much more intimidating by the fact that the occurrence of these sorts of acts of violence (intimidating both doctors and the women who go to such clinics)
As we can tell from the quotes @51, the so-called “pro-life” community is split on whether to publcly applaud or publicly condemn pro-life murderers, but I’m pretty sure they ALL appreciate their effect on the practice of offering abortion as part of family planning. It’s also the reason that they fear RU-486. No more clinics, no more high-profile doctors, just the old family physician prescribing for their patients–regular old medicine. How many doctors will they have to shoot as its use becomes more widespread?
Anyway, Randall Terry is dead fucking right. This administration and its supporters WILL use Tiller’s killing to intimidate pro-lifers into “surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions” (specifically, murder and incotement to murder). Yep, we will seek out, try, imprison, and possibly execute these terrorists. And we will destroy the groups who enable them. You can fucking well count on it.
From ProLifeBlogs (no further attribution)
http://www.prolifeblogs.com/ar....._georg.php
From the Kansas Ciry Star:
Well look at that. Right wing coward, traitor and baby raper Stammmmmmmerin’ Marvin calling someone a liar. What the fuck gives Marvin – the biggest liar in the history of HA the right to talk about anyone else?
I had assumed Marvin was the coward who shot the doc right up until the real shooter was arrested. I hope someone close to Marvin is the reverse target in return. Now THAT would be justice.
Here’s the Google cache verion of Operations Resue’s “Tiller Watch” page.
http://74.125.155.132/search?q.....#038;gl=us
Sorry, that one’s wrong too. They clearly have links to their Tiller Watch page, but Operation Rescue took it down already. Hmmmm, why, I wonder?
You murderous right-wing jesus-freak religionist goons just sicken me.
Show me one place your “Prince of Peace” advocated killing for ANY reason.
Sick, twisted hypocrites.
“They’ll know we are Christians by our love.”
Right Mr. Cynical? mark? mark1? Puddybuddy? troll? man of truth? vanderleun? Marvin Stamn? and all the rest?…
…how ’bout YOU get the same compassion and understanding you show others. THAT will be justice.
You murderous right-wing jesus-freak religionist goons just sicken me.
Show me one place your “Prince of Peace” advocated killing for ANY reason.
Sick, twisted hypocrites.
“They’ll know we are Christians by our love.”
Right Mr. Cynical? mark? mark1? Puddybuddy? troll? man of truth? vanderleun? Marvin Stamn? and all the rest?…
…how ’bout YOU get the same compassion and understanding you show others. THAT will be justice.
GLAD it posted twice. Fuck you bastards.
BTW, Tiller was acquitted this year of all charges brought against him at the behest of the pro-life commmunity. They must have been absolutely enraged by that heapin’ helpin’ o’ justice.
HuffPo:
Now every woman in the US, including married ones, who wishes to consider safe, legal abortion among her family planning choices will instead fear for her life.
Mission accomplished, assholes. We are coming after you.
Eric Rudolph was well-financed through a secret network. Prepare to be infiltrated.
@19 : Goldy implied that he would be a good choice to replace Jim Vesely on the Seattle Times editorial board. (http://horsesass.org/?p=15983) You will probably say Goldy was joking, but humor always contains some element of truthfulness, and although we may have differing opinions on whether that job requires professional journalistic skills, most people consider that position to be available only to qualified professionals who have learned the boundaries.
But more importantly, what the heck kind of dodge is that to say the bloggers are somehow less burdened than anyone else when it comes to trying to get the story right? It’s possible to make a statement that is biased to your own point of view without smearing and over-generalizing.
My comment never made any inference that Goldy was smearing Republicans or conservatives, just pro-lifers. Also, I don’t assume that pro-lifers are all right-left and there was no insinuation as such, but those who are pro-abortion tend to hang out on the left side of the room.
This was not terrorism by the definition used by most experts in international relations. If you wish to define it as terrorism, than gang warfare is terrorism, violence between organized crime families is terrorism.
The UN’s definition: “Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby – in contrast to assassination – the direct targets of violence are not the main targets.”
Since the main target of the pro-life movement is the abortion industry, this act would not be classified by UN as terrorism, per se.
I won’t smear the readership of this blog by suggesting that your lack of self-control, lowering yourself to vulgarity, is representative of the other readers.
@26 : They are not terrorists. I’m not saying that what ALF and ELF do is better than what the pro-life nuts do, I’m just saying that it’s not terrorism. When Al Qaeda straps a bomb on a kid and sends him running into a crowded market in Baghdad to kill people who are not the direct targets of his cause, that is terrorism. Terrorism is the application of force indirectly to achieve political goals. When ALF/ELF/pro-life wackjobs bomb and strike directly at the source of their anger, that is not terrorism. It is violent, it is destructive, it is counterproductive, it is evil, but it is not terrorism, it is vigilantism. Saying it is just makes it easier to use this sort of broadly-defined labeling to attack everyone who is ideologically aligned with the goal of the assailant(s) but would never condone or consider using any kind of violence as a tool.
@35 : So now you’re going to use comments to make your point? Comments are often anonymous, sometimes spoofed by people wanting to make the other side look bad (right and left wingnuts do it, let’s be honest)
@37 : Do you want to be the first one who gets their IP traced if that happens. The first amendment doesn’t grant you the right to incite violence. Watch yourself.
———–
With that being said, the statements coming from Operation Rescue are vile and will send the wrong message to would-be copycats. We need common sense compromise on this issue so that the country can get past it and move on. It should be remanded back to pre-Roe v. Wade, leaving it to the states, most of which had already legalized abortion and made law to regulate it in ways that were approved by a majority of their citizens. It is a 10th Amendment breach but reversing Roe v. Wade would have the effect of releasing federally imposed values on some states, and releasing others to adopt more liberal policies than federal law currently allows. Do we honestly believe that California, Oregon, Masscashussets, Connecticut, and about forty other states would outlaw abortion or impose such restrictions as to make it impossible for a woman to get one? No, of course not. A few states would impose reasonable restrictions, and one or two might outlaw it completely.
Or, here’s a better idea: men and women should stop thinking that they can have sex without consequence. Abortion is a backstop for people who want to have their cake and eat it too.
Oh, and BM:
In 2007, the forced-pregnancy movement held a four-day rally to honor Paul Hill, who murdered abortion provider Dr. John Britton and his clinic escort in Pensacola, Florida in 1994.
Oh, yes they did.
From the event sponsors:
71 BM
By “men and women” you mean “women,” right? What about married couples? Abortion is legal, get fucking used to it.
Question: You’re against contraception, too, aren’t you? Yeah, I thought so.
@73 : Nice non sequitur, but I never said anything about opposing contraception. However someone wants to avoid getting pregnant is their personal decision. One you get there, taking the path of abortion is a way of avoiding paying any price for mistakes. Since this country suffers from an overdose of consequence avoidance, maybe we need to take a different approach than always choosing the easier path. Personally, I’m glad that my mom and dad had me.
(Very funny using my initials. Let me know when you introduce some 4th grade humor into your shtick.)
Personally, I am scared of fanatics. When they don’t get their way, they resort to violence.
I just think, in this age, there are more right wing ones, that are desperate and freaked out that less and less people are following their ideology any more. Troll and mark sure sound that way.
74
Bullshit on your non sequitir dodge. had I said you said anything about it, I’d be guilty as charged. But all I did was ask. and look at you bob and weave.
[Once] you get there, taking the path of abortion is a way of avoiding paying any price for mistakes.
“Since this country suffers from an overdose of consequence avoidance”
I just read the factoid about the man who has fathered 20to21 kids already in Tennessee, and he’s only 29.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....08393.html
Desmond Hatchett, a 29 year old who lives in Knoxville, Tennessee, has fathered 20 (maybe 21) children with at least 11 different mothers.
The kids, who are between 11 months and 11 years old, require food, clothing, etc. which doesn’t come cheap. That’s a problem for their minimum-wage earning father.
Don’t they teach birth control methods in Tennessee?
I liked some of the comments
You know it’s pretty bad when he makes OctoMom look virginal…..
He should be a rising star among conservatives and Catholic clergy. Maybe he’ll be the second spokesman for abstinence and antiabortion.
@75
I’m more afraid of black males. Abortion doctor killers just kill abortion doctors. And I’m not one of those. Black males will kill you for your tuba-playing change. They affect me more. I’m a kajillion times more likely to be robbed and killed by a black male than an abortion doctor is likely to be killed by an abortion foe.
74 BM
Bullshit on your non sequitir dodge (oh, and note the spelling for the next time you want to use a term you do not know). Had I said that you said anything about it, I’d be guilty as charged. But all I did was ask. and look at you bob and weave.
You know I don’t believe you, but fair enough. I guess we’re agreed then, that contraception should be freely available, along with enough information that all women of child-bearing age are both capable of and empowered to make these important decisions for themselves.
And it’s all about “paying a price” for you guys, isn’t it? What about failed contraception? No contraception is 100% effective. What I dislike about you and yours is the notion that anyone who disagrees with your RELIGIOUS beliefs around this should be bound by those beliefs instead of by their own legally protected religious and/or decisions.
I’ll bet you’re the king in your fantasy world, aren’t you? It’s already been decided and it ain’t about to be reversed. It’s been decided by our highest court that it is a federal issue of the right to privacy in medical decisions. Suck. On. That.
Oh, you mean that when high administration officials commit war crimes they, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law? I couldn’t agree more. Hey, if they all beleive in personal responsibility, shouldn’t they turn themselves in?
Please Ignore @76 as a premature ejaculation…
Funny that BM is the only guy defending Tiller’s murder.
Ah, and BM, I use a lot of humor that is far more sophisticated than 4th grade, but you haven’t gotten any of it. Best of luck in the future with that.
@78
I’m a kajillion times more likely to be robbed and killed by a black male than an abortion doctor is likely to be killed by an abortion foe.
And you’re a kajillion times more likely to be robbed and killed by a white male than you are of having an intelligent thought.
The right wingers care about life until you’re born – then they don’t give a good golly fuck what happens to you !
@71
Bryan, you’re largely correct in pointing out that what this gunman did in Kansas City does not fit the definition of terrorism set out by the UN. It was a targeted political assassination.
If you want to impress me, you’ll take that definition, apply it to the various folks who’ve been picked up around the globe and sent to Guantanamo and realize that over 90% of them don’t either.
We throw the term “terrorist” around far too much in our society, as we tend not to question it as much when it’s someone we’re particularly afraid of.
Myrick @ 71 says:
Hear me clearly, Mr. “proud Reagan Republican.” You and your lot are not the arbiters of people’s sexual behavior anymore, and we are never going back to a time when that was the case. We will have abortion on demand if that’s what women want, and we will ride roughshod over you forced-birth zealots and fetus fascists to have it.
And Goldy, read more carefully, will you? Dr. Tiller was murdered by the right-wing TERRORIST (eat shit, Myrick) in WICHITA, not Kansas City.
Daddy Love : My spelling was correct. Check it yourself before you make such a stupid remark.
And WTF? @73:
I was responding to your semi-rhetorical question and it was a non sequitur. I didn’t bob and weave; I gave you my opinion. Just because my solution doesn’t fit your parameters, doesn’t mean it isn’t valid. Abortion is a way of escaping a predictable consequence of having sex.
I’m not defending Tiller’s murder, and won’t do so at any time in the future. I won’t even be happy about it. It’s ironic that you would say so because it makes my initial point: this will be used to smear all pro-lifers. I have been very clear that what he did was despicable and I’ve been arguing with some of the more radical pro-lifers all afternoon about my position.
As far as your humor goes, I get it, it’s just not funny.
Lee, you wanna know what isn’t intelligent? Screaming bloody murder because one person was killed involving an issue you care about, but remaining silent over thousands of people being murdere … brb … my hot pocket is done.
Taking the longer and larger view…
The culture wars are over, and the paleo-relgio-conservatives LOST. Abortion is legal and staying that way. This is why they resort to murder, because the ballot box is a BIG LOSER for them.
Gay marriage is all but over. Those who wish to enforce their religious beliefs about marriage onto the populaion at large are LOSING, and this loss will continue until everywhere but Mississippi will be friendly to gay marriage. BM, consider moving there.
What else? School vouchers are another big loser (because they do not improve outcomes, among other things), but charter schools may become the engine if innovation they should always have been.
Immigration? Well, guess who isn’t getting elected? The anti-immigrant Republican. We will soon integrate our immigrants into the mainstream, and will be all the stronger because of it.
Do we have any other culture war issues? Feel free to fill out the list. But be aware: there isn’t one that the consevatives are winning on.
They’re just praying for a terrorist attack to use against us. Nice.
@86
Abortion is a way of escaping a predictable consequence of having sex.
That’s correct, and it should remain legal. Making it illegal – anywhere – is an attempt by government to impose a moral choice on an individual.
IMO this is clearly a hate crime.
This is just a case where the murderer’s beliefs against late term abortion, drove him to murder a prominent late term aborionist…
Right my left leaning HA faithful?
Or do you forget this hate crime that wasn’t terrorism either….
http://horsesass.org/?p=3323
This dude is a terrorist. Haq was a terrorist…
F them both.
86 BM
You are correct, and I am wrong regarding the spelling. Good job and thank you. I am always open to correction.
Dude. I never ask semi-rhetorical questions. I asked YOU a question. Whether you thought that it followed logically is not at issue at all. And your “answer” that “however someone wants to avoid getting pregnant is their personal decision” as far as I am concerned avoids answering the question directly (and BTW, “however someone wants to terminate a pregnancy is their personal decision” is what the US SUPREME COURT decided). Tough luck there, eh?
Do you support the right of an adult woman, single or married, to freely obtain and use contraception (including but not limited to estrogen/progesterone-based birth control pills) without regard to the wishes of either you or their sexual partners, whether spouse or not?
How’s about it, pally?
Ah, and lack of the funny bone is a conservative tell.
Do what I do…
Keep posting the link over and over.
How long did I post your link about how hard it was for you to be around blacks 24/7?
Did you see ow I kept posting the gay hatred by steve/gbs/bibigoober?
Of course, you are lying so you can’t provide a link.
There is nothing more you would enjoy than rubbing my words in my face like I do with you and the steve/gbs/bibigoober trio.
People like Right Stuff make me sick. Speaking out only against “hate crimes” because it’s fashionable and thinks it gives him greater cache in progressive circles, but remains silent about the far more pervasive … brb … some of my hot pocket just spilled onto the carpet.
@90
This is getting totally nitpicky, but what Haq did is closer to actual terrorism because he shot random people solely because of their perceived affiliation while the Kansas murder this morning was targeted at a very specific individual.
Good catch though.
90 RS
I am with you. But it is also clearly intended to terrorize those whould presume to perform abortions in the future. And I would not be surprised if he were funded by and encouraged by those who ooppose legal abortion. As I said, prepare to be infiltrated.
But as for Haq, how was his crime even a hate crime? I mean, maybe it was, but even if it is a hate crime (because of its targeting a religio-ehtnic minority), there’s no reason to beleive is a weirdo Christian with a thing about shooting Jews is intending to or succedding in terrorizing Jews.
However, a Christian fanatic shooting prominent a abortion provider seems in every way to be intending to terrorize both the abortion-providing community AND women seeking abortions.
My my how ignorant you are.
Murderous? And how exactly does that apply to me?
Right-wing? In your little mind anyone that isn’t a left wing-nut has to be a right winger. Some day you might learn better.
Jesus-freak religionist? Say, do you have a link where I am a jesus-freak? Of is this another situation where I’m calling you out for lying.
You sound pretty bitter. Do you wish you your mom would have aborted you?
@95
Why is it clear? Was it clear that the niggers who robbed and murdered Tubaman intended to terrorize others who would presume to wait at bus stops at night?
Never going to happen.
Too many democrats also lied us into war.
Sucks for you bush haters that the democrats were so complicit in lying the country into a war.
A search of the Kansas Department of Corrections website, and they have a listing for Scott Roeder, which matches the suspect description.
His full name is Scott Philip Roeder. He is 51 years old. Birthday is 25 February 1958. He is 6′-2″ tall and weighs 230 lbs. He was convicted in 1996 in Shawnee County, Kansas for Criminal Use of Explosives.
According to records from the Kansas Secretary of State’s office, and available on the Kansas VoterView website, he is a registered Republican in Shawnee, Kansas. According to the voter records, he last voted in 1994.
—
No surprises here – SOUNDS like Marvin and Troll to me.
I’m #100!!!
No Troll you’re still a zero!
@91 I’ll just accept your apology and ignore the condescending manner in which it was given.
I don’t have to meet any litmus test you devise for “fairness” in terms of what I think is right and wrong, so you can ease up on the interrogation. Your continued attempts to drag this conversation over to the issue of contraception is a non sequitur, as I previously stated. Abortion is not contraception, so my views on that topic have little bearing on the abortion issue. I sense you’re trying to drag me into a debate about legislating morality, and that’s not where my opposition to unrestricted or lightly restricted abortion comes from. It comes from a) a concern for the declining value we are placing on life, b) a concern for the rights of an unborn life, and c) a concern for the increasing ease with which the consequences of people’s actions are mitigated, thus encouraging more corrosive behavior.
If you see children as the equivalent of a punishment for bad choices (as our president has alluded to feeling) aren’t we evolved enough to avoid making the bad choices? I’m sure if a friend of yours drank eight beers, jumped in his car, got in an accident, and then killed a small children playing on the side of the road, you would blame your friend. Yes? Sex is something that can always result in a baby, no matter how many precautions are taken. It is disturbing that a fetus has no rights in the decision to end its existence, simply because the two people who made it happen were stupid enough to think that it wouldn’t happen to them.
Or, if you don’t see pregnancy – accidental of otherwise – as a punishment, it does not have to end in abortion, even if the parents do not feel capable of raising a child. Adoption waiting lists are long and with all of the problems the human race has to solve, would it hurt so much to allow a few more smart, good, and productive people come into the world to help find solutions? Consider all of the people you look to as role models, as bright lights in our world: now consider that we could have several more of those people if we just find a way to make bringing a child into the world the default option for dealing with unwanted pregnancy instead of abortion.
On another note, I’m extremely disturbed by the amount of racial slurs that are being used by some of the commenters, as well as those who have advocated an “eye for an eye” approach. My local bar is pretty libertarian, but even they bounce the rowdies.
Fuck off stamn…
@102 Hey Bowel Movement – why don’t YOU try to bounce some of us. You are indeed extremely disturbed.
How come you assholes only “value” life until the baby is born? Then you just don’t give a shit what happens do you? Death penalty, starvation due to lack of social programs, war, death due to improper/inadequate health care, etc., etc., Why are THOSE lives any less valuable than the ones waiting to be born? Fucking hypocrites.
If you’re so “disturbed” “Byron” then just stay the fuck away. Do us ALL a favor.
We have too many “murderous right-wing jesus-freak religionist goons” as it is.
Just for the record, I think this guy who shot the doctor should be put away for life.
Let me see if I get this straight. What passes for debate on this high-minded temple of Seattle left-wing thought is:
@104 : Making ridiculuous juvenile jokes about my name. You’ll never emerge from the fringes (or the ooze) trying to argue that way. Evolve and join the rest of the culture.
@105 : Once again making fun of my name and slanderously calling me a murderous Jesus freak and insinuating that somehow not enjoying racial slurs rules me out of membership in your club. Don’t worry, I’m slumming here today. You’ve all given me enough for my next article. Thank you.
You all sound more like the Alpha Betas from Revenge of the Nerds than intelligent liberals.
Goldy – You’re really breeding a nice crop of brown-shirts in here. Maybe the next time the left-wing establishment uses some hate crime to claim that right-wing blogs and talk radio are fostering ideological extremism that turns easily to violent action you’ll think about what is going on with your own site.
Hey Myrick, you’re new here, aren’t you? As the ex officio HA greeter, it’s my duty to provide you with the HA ad hoc posting rules:
1. This is a liberal blog.
2. Anyone can post here, except JCH.
3. There is no censorship.
4. As liberals, our mission is to verbally kick the living shit out of you America-hating wingnut traitors.
5. No mercy for wingnuts!
6. Our terms are unconditional surrender; after which there will be trials.
7. JCH is a nazi.
Any questions?
@108 “Maybe the next time the left-wing establishment uses some hate crime to claim that right-wing blogs and talk radio are fostering ideological extremism that turns easily to violent action you’ll think about what is going on with your own site.”
Yeah well, payback is a bitch isn’t it? For years, rightwing asswipes have tried to discredit reputable scientists and responsible environmentalists by throwing them in the same basket as the ELF; and now you want to complain about our side doing the same thing? Hey, turning political debate into a form of civil war wasn’t our idea, that was your side’s idea:
“[T]his is a civil war, … only one side will prevail, and … the other side will be relegated to history. This war has to be fought with the scale and duration and savagery that is only true of civil wars. While we are lucky in this country that our civil wars are fought at the ballot box, not on the battlefields, nonetheless it is a civil war.” — Newt Gingrich
So you guys decide to play that way, and you expect us to be nice in return? Get lost. This blog exists for only one purpose: To kick wingnut ass! If you wish to come here to get your wingnut ass kicked, we’re happy to have you! The more, the merrier!
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
Dear Mr. Myrick,
With all due courtesy, take your hateful misogyny (if you do not for whatever reason allow a woman to have control over her own body, you hate women – therefore you’re a misogynist) and religious bigotry and go fuck yourself.
The difference between wingnuts like you and those of us in the reality-based community is very simple. You see, you espouse a twisted perversion of ‘faith’ that empowers you to hate, fight, and kill anyone that disagrees with your narrow little weltanschauung. We have the truth.
If you support or condone the murder of Dr. Tiller, you are a murderous Jesus freak, simple as that. Now that I’ve whipped it like Dream Whip, here’s your ass. I have no further use for it, or you. Traitor.
Roger is my hero.
@110 : Since I just finished watching several episodes of Gilmore Girls with my fiancee, I’m fairly certain you can retract your uninformed character attack.
That’s been a red herring for a long time, this charge of misogyny. If I saw a woman stabbing a man to death, I would rush in to save the man. Does that make me a misogynyst?
If you had read my comments, you would already have found that I condemned the killing and I don’t think their should be any mercy for the man who committed a crime. My guess is that won’t stop you from labeling me.
I noticed that none of my firing squad use either your real name, or have a link to a website. If your views are so heartfelt and passionate, why the anonymity? Me, I was raised that if you can’t put your name on something and stand in front of it, you shouldn’t be saying it at all. But that’s just me.
When you live in the dark, that’s where your ideas will originate. But, since you claim that it’s me who is in the dark, provide some illumination. What is the truth you hold?
I never even began this line of commenting to make any statement about abortion. You guys all knee-jerked yourselves into a frenzy because someone dared shine a light on the immediate campaign from the left to make political hay and smear your enemies with the actions of one man.
@108 : I’m not new here. I read the posts frequently, I just don’t normally feel compelled to jump into the mosh pit. I knew what you guys were like before I jumped on, so there’s no need to explain. Contrary to the oddly chosen insinuations to my weak constitution, I know what passes for debate here and elsewhere when it comes to the left. Ad hoc is the order of the day, just as it was with the Jacobins. Your rhetoric is only different in that it is delivered in English rather than French. But I suspect that the tough talk is a veneer to conceal a lack of real arguments to back up your opinions. When the facts fail you, fisticuffs will have to do.
The only one on here who has even come close to a good challenge that might lead to better understanding of the opposite positions (that’s what grown-ups try and do; listen) is Daddy Love.
The other two pro-lifers seem to fit your stereotypes (sorry guys, but it’s true) which is why, I suspect, you’ve chosen to focus on me.
Why does every thing have to be an argumentative, uncouth, debate. This man had a wife, he has kids and grandkids who are at this time mourning the murder of thier husband, dad, grandpa.
Where is the empathy here?
Have you never lost a loved one?
Would you want your loved one hashed up over the internet?
Murder is never acceptable,And whoever murdered him for what ever reason does not involve a debate… judgement is handed out by God and God alone.
SHAME on you GOLDY you need to get with jon and talk about empathy.
Hey Bowel Movement if you’re so ready to stand behind your right wing bullshit – especially if you think you’re ready to “bounce” those you don’t agree with – why not show up to a DL event and prove your manhood? Or are you like your hero today who shot an unarmed man from the corner closet – hiding out because you’re just a little bitch?
@115 : I’ve actually considered coming down to DL. I’m fairly certain your invitation isn’t genuine.
I’m just going to be honest. You sound stupid when you start making accusations that I have, in any way, the same kind of mind or character as the deranged personality that would commit an act like this. I don’t know how many times I have to say this: I think what he did was evil and wrong. I also think that what you are doing is wrong.
If your implication is that by coming to DL, you’ll give me a “lesson,” you’re just proving my earlier statement that this site is not taking steps to avoid cultivating a brownshirt (or blackshirt, if you prefer your fascism with a side of pasta) mentality.
We all have to deal with people we don’t like and don’t agree with. Most of us have the self-esteem to not feel compelled to attempt to bully. And that’s really what you intend to do. Alinsky, by the book. It’s all bait, right down to the name calling. You won’t get me, and you look feckless and lacking in the righteousness you proudly scream to possess.
Just get some sleep. Dream your dreams of hacking Republicans to bits. And keep telling yourself that all of your enemies are spreading hate.
Oh, and all these “progressives” in the Seattle area … where do they meet for DL? In one of the upscale bars in one of the most whitest and exclusive neighborhoods in Seattle.
@107 What, you don’t want to waterboard this terrorist to find out who aided and abetted this attack? Are you going all squishy on us at the critical moment? We never could count on you Sunshine Patriots at crunch time.*
* E.g., that was certainly true when it was Five Deferments Cheney’s turn to enlist.
@117 Do you have a problem with us talking like Republicans?
@110 Since when does “information” have any relevance to political crotch-kicking?
Wingnuts have never let facts get in the way of their name-calling (see, e.g., the RNC’s juvenile efforts to label President Obama a “socialist”), so why should we bother with technicalities?
I’m a Democratic Party hack and liberal propagandist. I use foul language. I call names. I kick shins. In short, I behave like a Republican. (That’s not surprising, because I used to be a Republican, and was trained by Republicans.) Get used to it.
@114 Who said we “debate” anything here? Those are your words; that’s you misrepresenting this blog. That’s absurd; we don’t debate here. We kick wingnut ass, pure and simple. How many times does that have to be explained to you?
@ Bryan Myrick
Sure looks like it’s a member of the far right to me! And while most of the right to life folks and more moderate voices on the right may not share in the far rights views they don’t do much to distance themselves from the far right and seem to find them useful every now and again.
@120 : You don’t get it, do you? It’s not abut party politics. When GOPs do it, Dems do it, left, right, whatever… it sounds ridiculous. Personal attacks instead of logical arguments. A complete absence of listening in favor of lining up the next cut-and-paste soundbite on whatever issue is being discussed. It’s robospeak and both sides sound stupid when they engage in it.
You couldn’t manage to run a marriage the way you resolve differences, why do you think we can run a country that way.
For the record, when I hear fellow conservatives and Republicans reducing political conversation to a childish bickering match I step into that fight, too. The thing is, I just don’t see the kind of trash-talking and untrained argument-making when I spend time on right-wing blogs.
We can’t all get along, but when the conversation gets as ugly as it did here this afternoon it makes it much easier for the right to label the left as a bunch of Bolsheviks who simply wish to listen to their own words instead of discuss.
@117 “We all have to deal with people we don’t like and don’t agree with. Most of us have the self-esteem to not feel compelled to attempt to bully. And that’s really what you intend to do. Alinsky, by the book. It’s all bait, right down to the name calling. You won’t get me, and you look feckless and lacking in the righteousness you proudly scream to possess.”
You’re obviously too good for this site, so why are you here? Why haven’t you left and found some bloggers with more class than us?
@124
You hear trash talking in this blogs comment threads because this is where we come to trash talk people.
Check out what Billy ‘O had to say about Tiller.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QBDV-HjgBQ
@124 “It’s not abut party politics.”
Of course it is, if you substitute “tribalism” for “party politics.” Our tribe good, your tribe bad. That’s the wingnut worldview in a nutshell. Do you think we’re different? Do you think I care about a peregrine falcon’s pedigree or resume? I’m a rabbit, he’s a fucking falcon, and that’s all I need to know! His tribe bad, my tribe good. Sorry it’s that way, I don’t like it either, but you’re from the other tribe so we’re gonna kick your ass. It’s been that way for millions of years and I don’t see it changing anytime soon.
@121 : You have to be kidding. Obama’s not a socialist? What else would he have to do to qualify and what is your definition of socialism? You might like what he wants to do, but what he wants to do is socialism. I’m going to list a few things off. Your response will be to tell me how important these things are, and how they’re so wonderful for the country, but you won’t be able to say they’re a) not happening, or b) not socialist policy.
1) Raising the tax rate on the “wealthy” to ease burden on lower income-earners.
2) Having the government take ownership positions in private companies.
3) Pursuing additional powers for the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and an agency as yet unformed, to take over corporations against the wishes of their ownership.
4) Moving the country in the direction of government-run healthcare (not just insurance, but having advanced control of the delivery of care) instead of pursuing private sector solutions.
There are more, but I’ll stop there to see if you can manage this little contest.
Remember, if you make the argument that these steps are necessary without challenging whether they are actually socialist, you lose the game.
@124 “The thing is, I just don’t see the kind of trash-talking and untrained argument-making when I spend time on right-wing blogs.”
Well then, you must be either blind, illiterate, or a liar because there’s not much else on rightwing blogs.
Or check out what the members of the right are saying on the Tacoma News Tribune’s website.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/.....r_comments
Would your church let a repeat child rapist be a highly respected member of your church? No, but a repeat child killer is welcome with open arms? Sick puppies. Of course killing sick puppies would carry a stiffer penalty.
@127 : Then you are part of the problem, not the solution. I’m sorry you take pride in your complete uselessness to the process of making things better. I don’t share your apathy or your cynicism.
Bryan,
There are two positions that I think you’ve articulated, and I have issues with both.
First, is this an act of terrorism? Frankly, I think Goldy was being facetious, and you took the bait. Hard. You might want to consider taking the hook out of your mouth, because I think you read far more into Goldy’s post than was really there.
Based on the paltry information that was available when Goldy posted this, I doubt anyone would seriously call this terrorism.
Having said that, certain factions of the pro-life movement have not exactly acquitted themselves all that well. Randall Terry, for example, called Dr. Tiller a “Mass Murder” and expressed regret that Dr. Tiller wasn’t able to repent his sins before dying. I think these kinds of comments are as abhorrent and reprehensible as any abortion. The rhetoric of people like Randall Terry plays no small role in these kinds of violent acts.
Moreover, Operation Rescue’s “Tiller Watch” is rather frightening. While the constant denunciation of abortion doctors as “mass murders” and OR’s “Tiller Watch” might not rise to the full level of organized terrorism, I find such actions and rhetoric to be indistinguishable from those of mullahs, imams and mujtahids whose anti-western rhetoric provided the primary impetus behind the 9/11 attacks. I don’t think it’s mere coincidence that the rhetoric of both groups is most often delivered from a pulpit.
In this sense, Goldy does ask a rather interesting question. Will people like Randall Terry continue to wield influence within the Republican Party? The most significant problem that the Republican Party faces right now is the Hobson’s choice the party faces between pandering to its current base, thereby alienating mainstream America, and embracing a more restrained and moderate agenda that would appeal to mainstream American yet alienate the Republican base. Doesn’t this incident provide yet another backdrop for this dilemma?
Second, you’ve expressed some dismay over the incidence of abortion, but, frankly, you haven’t clearly delineated exactly what your position is. Nor, for that matter, have you articulated any specific policy proposal. While quite a few folks here have jumped to conclusions regarding your position, you bear at least some responsibility for having failed to clearly articulate what your position is.
Your stance on the morality of abortion appears to be confined to abortions done out of some form of convenience is morally wrong, perhaps even “murder”. If I’m not reading you correctly, please correct me if I’m wrong.
While I can agree with this on a theoretical level, I find myself hard-pressed to sit in judgement of anyone else’s moral choices. As an individual, I find “Judge not that ye be not judged,” and “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” to be moral imperatives that are as strong as “thou shalt not kill.”
As a man, I’m even more reluctant to tell a woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy, “Sorry, sweetie, but you should have thought about this before you had sex.” No man will ever face this moral dilemma, and I find it horribly pretentious for a man to sit in judgement of any specific woman’s decision. The word “misogyny” is an apt description of this kind of male behavior.
Since I believe we, as individuals, have no place in judging the moral decisions of other individuals, that leaves the judgement to institutions as a matter of public policy. However, when it comes to public policy, I’m not at all sanguine in any government’s ability to carve out a reasonable distinction between an abortion of convenience and an abortion of necessity.
As a public policy issue, I see the decision of whether or not to abort a fetus as a medical decision that a women should be free to make according to the dictates of her own conscience and in consultation with a competent physician. It’s her body. She owns it, not us.
@128 “You have to be kidding.”
I don’t kid about anything, even when I’m kidding.
“Obama’s not a socialist?”
No, he’s not, and I’ll go further and say right now he’s working his butt off to save capitalism.
“Raising the tax rate on the ‘wealthy’ to ease burden on lower income-earners.”
Well, let’s see. Heirs get a $3.5 million exemption, and working stiffs get a $3,650 exemption. The top capital gains rate is 15% and a middle class wage earner pays a marginal rate of 32.65% (25% + 7.65% FICA). CEOs ride on private jets but wage earners can’t even deduct bus fare to work. And you think Obama’s feeble attempts to give a miniscule amount of tax relief to ordinary Americans — which won’t come remotely close to equalizing the tax rates at the bottom and top ends of the income spectrum — are socialism?! Man, are you full of shit!
“Having the government take ownership positions in private companies.”
If my tax money is gonna be used to bail out banks and automakers, you’re damn right I want stock! Do you think the current shareholders should get our tax money for free? Or are you want of those knuckleheads who prefers to let those companies go under and put the country through another Great Depression in the name of ideological purity? P.S., it was your party and president who started throwing public money at failing banks and collapsing capitalism — and you criticize Obama for it? Man, you’re double full of shit.
“Pursuing additional powers for the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and an agency as yet unformed, to take over corporations against the wishes of their ownership.”
Personally, I don’t think that compares with violating the Constitution and federal law, and lying to the world about it, but I never called Bush a “socialist.” I called him a fascist, which is what he (and many of his Republican supporters) are. Why is it that guys like you don’t have a problem with Big Brother government when your side is doing it, only when we’re doing it? That seems awfully two-faced and hypocritical to me.
“Moving the country in the direction of government-run healthcare (not just insurance, but having advanced control of the delivery of care) instead of pursuing private sector solutions.”
Does it make a rat’s ass of difference whether it’s government-run or privately run, if it works? Once again, I see ideological idiocy interfering with pragmatism. I simply want something that works. As we have both government-run and private health care in this country, it’s possible to put military health care, VA health care, Medicare, and Medicaid alongside private health care for direct comparison to see which is better. For starters, what we see is that A & O costs are 50 times as much in the private sector as in Medicare. Private health insurance companies skim off about 25% of all U.S. healthcare spending, and deliver no actual health care or anything else of value. The huge insurance bureaucracy that money pays for exists mainly to deny claims and screw policyholders. By comparison, Medicare spends less than 1% on administration and the rest pays for doctors, hospitals, and other things that actually reach patients. So, private health care gets its ass kicked on efficiency, cost, and fairness. Some claim private health care is better than government health care, but I’d rather be in a VA hospital than no hospital, if I need a hospital. And if that’s “socialism,” then I want it.
Now let me tell you a true story. Last summer I met a woman in her 70s working as an itinerant campground worker. She lives in a fifth wheel and is paid minimum wage. When the campground where she’s working closes down for the season, she migrates south to find work at another one that’s still open. That’s how she’s spending her retirement.
Her husband fought in World War 2. Of course he had veterans benefits, but when he had his heart attack and the ambulance took him to the V.A. hospital, they turned him away because all their beds were full and the V.A. hospital was red-tagged against any more admissions. This was under Bush, who tightened eligibility for V.A. medical benefits and squeezed the V.A. budget so he and the GOP congress could give bigger tax breaks to billionaires. So the ambulance took this veteran to a private hospital and he ended up with $70,000 of medical debts. And then he died and left his widow with those debts.
This couple raised several children. They owned a 4-bedroom house when they retired. She lost everything. The medical creditors took it. So now she’s alone, homeless, lives in a travel trailer, and on the threshold of turning 80 still has to work for basic necessities.
This is wrong. This is what our private health care system does to innocent people. We treat dogs better than this. If this is the best our private health care system can do, then let’s get rid of it, and replace it with government-run health care that may not always have enough hospital beds (when the wrong political party is in power) but at least doesn’t take people’s homes and push them into penury. If that’s socialism, I’d rather have socialism than the evil, greedy, money-grubbing, crass and uncaring, corrupt and larcenous private health care system that has developed in this country.
If you want to pay a thousand dollars a month to a private health insurer who, when you get very very sick and are facing very very big medical bills, pulls a fine-print screwjob on you, go right ahead! Then you’ll come to me, a lawyer, and I’ll sue the bastards and get you a settlement and a nice fee for myself, and everyone will be happy, and then you’ll crawl back into your wingnut ideology and start ranting about “tort reform.” Hey, I’m willing to represent idiots, assholes, and fools. All lawyers are. We wouldn’t have any business if we didn’t.
@128 If our new friend Myrick doesn’t realize Obama is hell-bent on saving capitalism from itself, just as FDR did, in order to preserve the capitalist way of life in this country, then he’s even more ignorant and misinformed than I initially thought.
@123
It was terrorism. Please read this post at Orcinus.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2.....hadis.html
@131 No, I’m part of the solution, because before we can accomplish anything constructive for the average citizens of this country, we have to clear the wingnut obstructionists out of the way, and that’s my job. Other people make policy; I’m the bouncer.
Maybe the dumbass known as “Bryan” should change his mane to “Rip van Winkle” since he’s obviouly been asleep for the last eight years.
BUSH was the socialist, you idiot.
Bryan @ 128
You have to be kidding. Obama’s not a socialist
Not speaking for the Rabbit, but I think there’s a difference between an informed debate about the variety, forms and boundaries of socialism that Republicans consistently avoid engaging and the kind of sound-bite sloganeering that Republicans use as part-and-parcel of an agenda based on the politics of fear. By throwing around the “socialist” label, Republicans avoid having to engage in debates about the advisability of specific policy proposals, and I think Roger is quite correct in referring to the RNC’s use of the word as “juvenile”.
What else would he have to do to qualify and what is your definition of socialism?
Well, among other things, one can reasonably argue that true socialism isn’t just ownership of the means of production. It involves outright control and administration of the means of production–a stance that President Obama has consistently disavowed. That should take care of most of your points, but let’s take a closer look:
1) Raising the tax rate on the “wealthy” to ease burden on lower income-earners.
Allowing the top marginal tax rates to return to the level they were under President Clinton can hardly be regarded as “socialism” on any level. The concept of a progressive tax predates any notion of socialism whatsoever, and it’s predicated on the notion that the wealthy wouldn’t be wealthy if the government didn’t exist to protect that wealth in the first place.
2) Having the government take ownership positions in private companies.
As I noted above, ownership is insufficient for full-blown socialism. No one in the Obama Administration is proposing that the government actually run these companies. In that sense, merely capitalizing these firms through public funds doesn’t constitute socialism in the truest sense.
3) Pursuing additional powers for the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and an agency as yet unformed, to take over corporations against the wishes of their ownership.
I’m afraid you’re going to have to be more specific here, because it seems to me that you’re mashing together a number of different policy proposals currently on the table. Further regulation, and structuring regulatory agencies to be more effective, is not socialism.
Having said that, I’m not sure what you mean by “take over” corporations, because everything I’ve seen stops at capitalization. If I’m misinformed, then, please clarify.
4) Moving the country in the direction of government-run healthcare (not just insurance, but having advanced control of the delivery of care) instead of pursuing private sector solutions.
Again, I’m not sure this is a fair characterization of the policy proposals that are on the table. However, even if it is, I’m not sure how government-run health care constitutes socialism any more than other public services, such as fire prevention, police and public schools, constitute “socialism” in the purest sense of the word.
There are more, but I’ll stop there to see if you can manage this little contest.
Well, then I think you’ll have to come up with more. The list so far seems to have come up a little short.
@132 While I can agree with this on a theoretical level, I find myself hard-pressed to sit in judgement of anyone else’s moral choices. As an individual, I find “Judge not that ye be not judged,” and “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” to be moral imperatives that are as strong as “thou shalt not kill.”
Actually — forgive me, DJ — this argument doesn’t withstand logical analysis. Society passes judgment on citizens’ moral choices every day. We don’t let people steal, murder, or cheat on their taxes; they go to jail for that. Why? Because of pragmatic necessity. Society needs rules, or you’ll have chaos.
Most things that are crimes are against the law because they are perceived to hurt others. Aborting a fetus certainly hurts it; and what can be more natural than believing the law’s highest duty is to protect innocent, vulnerable, defenseless babies?
The whole abortion debate boils down to whether people believe a fetus is human or not. Settling this is harder than it initially appears. It’s not merely a stretch, it’s a strain to the breaking point, to argue that a single fertilized egg is a human being. It’s not; it simply isn’t. It has no form; it can’t think; it feels nothing. It’s a cell, a life form, but defining it beyond that is damn near impossible.
The other side of the coin is that a baby is not only a human being but is exactly the same baby that it was the moment before its birth. The act of being born involves no measurable physiological transformation. If a baby can think and/or feel the moment after leaving the womb, it certainly could do so while it was still in the womb.
So, at some point, a single fertilized cell that is not a human being morphs into a fetus that is a human being. When does it cease to be a cell mess and become a human being?
This was the central factual question that the Roe v. Wade court wrestled with — and could not answer. Any answer was bound to be arbitrary. This is not unusual; the legal system exists to resolve disputes, not ascertain absolute truths, or even squishy ones. The Roe v. Wade court decided, first of all, that the Constitution implies an individual right of privacy. Having read the case several times, as the trained lawyer that I am, I found its reasoning on this score impeccable. I also consider the privacy holding of Roe v. Wade by far the most important aspect of the case, and one that is being recklessly put at risk by those seeking to overturn Roe.
The Roe court pretty much hit a wall when it tried to define human life and deal in practical terms with the abortion issue. They more or less said that for the first trimester a fetus is not a human being and you can do whatever you want with it, in the second trimester it’s sort of becoming a human being and sort of isn’t quite there yet, and the law can put some restrictions on what you can do with it, and in the third trimester it’s almost a human being and the government can take a lot of interest in what happens to it in the same sense as the government can put restrictions on your latitude to kill your neighbor. Or something like that. Their reasoning was very strained, not very convincing, and all over the map.
Frankly, I would feel this part of the decision could go, except for two things. First, anyone who thinks making abortion illegal will stop abortions is nuts. Of course, they’ll argue that laws against murder don’t stop murder, but that doesn’t mean we should repeal the murder statutes and let people kill other people as they please. They have a point. If you believe a given fetus is a human being, and also believe that killing human beings should be against the law, then it’s awfully hard to see how you could think the law should allow the mother to abort her child. Except then you start getting into the exceptions, such as when someone has to choose between saving the mother’s life or the fetus’s life. These things do get messy, and the law does get confronted with Hobson’s choices of this kind, and there are no easy or neat solutions to some of the problems that get thrown the courts’ way. That’s why judges need good judgment and practical life experience, and need to use it.
The other thing that gives me pause about overturning the abortion portion of Roe v. Wade is the most likely outcome will be a decision leaving it up to the state legislatures, and this is the worst thing that could happen. Why? Because in all 50 states, every legislative session would turn into a battle royale between pro-life and pro-choice forces, and legislatures would get nothing else done and the schools, highways, and everything else we look to state governments to provide would fall apart from neglect. That’s too high a price to pay for the privilege of fighting over abortion ad infinitum. What Roe v. Wade did was remove the abortion fight from the nation’s legislatures, enabling them to get other pressing work done, and this achievement should not be given up lightly. It did pretty much settle the issue, making it possible for our political system to deal with other business. It would be foolhardy to saddle our country with that political battle all over again, especially because a legal solution to the moral issues raised by abortion is no solution at all, because people who want abortions will continue getting them no matter what the law says.
If abortion is a moral wrong, and I believe it is, or at least I believe late-term abortion after the cell mass has become definable as a human being is, and you want to stop abortions then you have to get people to not want abortions. You do this by changing the culture. I happen to think that abortion is, to some extent, a generational phenomenon, an artifact of the self-indulgent baby boomer generation, and that you can get upcoming generations to reject abortion as a solution to the problem it’s supposed to solve. I think that’s actually easier than most people believe, if you’re willing to be patient, because every generation is different from the generations that went before it. For example, as late as the 1950s, America’s racial conflict and racial prejudices appeared intractable; but look at the progress we’ve made on racial tolerance since then. It was largely a matter of waiting for the old generations to die off, of course. It can work the same with abortions. Needless to say, if you want abortion to go away, then you ought to be doing everything you can to maximize the availability of alternatives to abortion.
In this, the pro-life movement is falling on its ass, and working against itself. Their M.O. is to demand that pregnant women accept responsibility for bringing their children into the world and raising them while denying them the means to do so. No one gets abortions for recreation; an abortion is often the desperate act of a person who feels trapped by her circumstances. If you do nothing to make it possible for her to keep the baby, you’re pushing her into an abortion clinic. Like I said, here is where the pro-lifers really fall on their ass, because most (not all; there are anti-abortion liberals) are also adherents of a political ideology that says you’re on your own and if you can’t make it that’s tough shit. Their utopian ideology of rugged individualism doesn’t work in the real world, at least for some people, but that doesn’t stop them from trying to shove it down all our throats, and you almost wish someone had aborted them while they had the opportunity and thereby saved the rest of us a lot of useless trouble and grief.
Roger @ 139
Actually — forgive me, DJ — this argument doesn’t withstand logical analysis. Society passes judgment on citizens’ moral choices every day.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear, but I was drawing a distinction between individual moralizing, i.e. me, personally, condemning specific women for their moral choices, and the judgements we make as a society as expressed in the public policy decisions we make. I think it’s a distinction very worth upholding, because it precludes the kind of individual action that triggered the present discussion.
The whole abortion debate boils down to whether people believe a fetus is human or not.
I’m going to quibble on this a bit, but I think the quibble has value. A fetus is, in fact, human. This is a biological fact. The fetus has human DNA. Indeed, I’d even go so far as to say that, biologically, a fetus is a human organism.
I’d use the word “person” in place of the word “human”. It avoids any potential logical issues arising from what science tells us.
In this, the pro-life movement is falling on its ass, and working against itself. Their M.O. is to demand that pregnant women accept responsibility for bringing their children into the world and raising them while denying them the means to do so.
This is a by-product of the marriage between the pro-life movement and the Republican Party. By attaching themselves to conservatism in general and the Republican Party in particular, the pro-life movement was forced to adopt a number of policy positions that are counter to their overall objectives.
This was a mistake for the pro-life movement. They chose political expedience over adherence to principal. One wonders what would have happened if the pro-life movement had stayed clear of partisan politics and, instead, continued to push their core issue as a matter of principle. There’s a lesson there for all single-issue groups.
I’d use the word “person” in place of the word “human”.
I believe we’re trying to say the same thing but you made a better (i.e., clearer) choice of words.
I believe we’re trying to say the same thing but you made a better (i.e., clearer) choice of words.
Yeah, but then I went and used the word “principal” when I should have said “principle”.
Myrick @ 124 says:
Haven’t been to Sound Politics, much, have you, Myrick? To quote the poster known as Pudge, you’re a liar.
And by the way, I’m using my real name.
@46 and 48 Fool and Idiot Stamn says:
When I said that the anti-abortion factions believe murder is justified, I was just quoting their material (the moral relativism is lost on those simple-minded folks and on an idiot like Stamn). Poor foolish Stamn – I guess you have not read their material. They say that stuff all the time – after the first time they shot him in both arms, burglarized his practice and tried to set it on fire.
No one beleives you Stamn beciuuase you accuse others of lying when, in fact, you are the biggest lying idiot of all.
You want the proof that that anti-abortion crowd justifies murder?
Here it is, and I will expect your apology any time in the century you pathetic lying fool. do you enjoy being a complete buffoon?:
This quote is from a leading Kansas City anti-abortion activist (I refuse to call these muderers pro-life, ’cause they ain’t.
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....id=topnews
Yeah, keep calling these people “fringe” – but the anti-abortion thugs are supported tacitly by the mainstream. They kill, intimidate and get mainstream help for their little war.
Hye Byron,
Here is the game. Your lack of knowledge about the history of the US and the the world regarding thses issues is what is truly funny. Only a juvenile will argue pionts in a vaccum. Making up a “boogeyman” called socialism and attributing these “actions” to socialism simply shows how little you know:
1)
Umm, under Eisenhower the tax rate on the wealthy was 3X higher than it is now. That makes Eisenhower a socialist.
2)
The government has done this since FDR took over some banks. When the private industry fails, the government has to step in to clean up the mess. Of course, it was Bush who initiated this – so Bush is also a socialist by your limited definition.
3) Pursuing additional powers for the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and an agency as yet unformed, to take over corporations against the wishes of their ownership.
Yeah, right. We should just let our taxpayuer money go to the banks without any strings attached – that was how Bush the socialist handled it.
4) Moving the country in the direction of government-run healthcare (not just insurance, but having advanced control of the delivery of care) instead of pursuing private sector solutions.
This is the biggest laugher of all. Obama has proposed a privately run plan – not a single payer plan. Even though every other industrialized country in the world has government run health care (and they are ALL socialist by your limited definition), we would not.
It is amazing how easy it is to refute such a limited argument based on so few facts.
Game over, you lose.
And still no link backing up your allegation.
146..
prove you’re not, asshole.
…or maybe Lee should have more fun with you.
Since you’re all so balanced, comment on the shooting of two Army recruiters today in Little Rock, one dead one wounded.
http://www.startribune.com/nation/46633377.html
Are you going to even try and be rational, balanced people and discuss this the same way as you talked about the Tiller murder?
Oh yeah.
I can absolutely see how they’re the same thing, birdbrain.
@150 : That’s not a response. It is just as tempting to claim that anti-war fervor in this country led to that crime as anti-abortion insanity led to Tiller’s murder.
Should I assume because you do not decry the shootings you sympathize with the violence? You offer nothing to indicate otherwise, just a weak attack on me. Focus on the point, not me.
@ 149
Since you’re all so balanced…
Are you going to even try and be rational, balanced people and discuss this the same way as you talked about the Tiller murder?
@ 150
I can absolutely see how they’re the same thing, birdbrain.
@ 151
You offer nothing to indicate otherwise, just a weak attack on me. Focus on the point, not me.
To recap:
149 asks a loaded question with no substantive justification for why the comparison is valid. 150 says that the comparison is bullshit, and 151 complains because 150 didn’t provide a substantive response to the lack of substance at 149.
Bryan, do you always piss and moan about the behavior of other people when yours is hardly any better, or is this just an aberration sparked by your intense dislike for the politics of most of the folks here?
By the way, I see you’ve not taken the time to reply to either of my comments @ 133 or 138. Are there any inferences we might draw from that about what passes for well-reasoned debate in the Myrick household?
Why? Any shooting is a tragedy. Not enough is known about the shooting you mentioned to draw any conclusions.
But to equate the shooting of a respected women’s health provider who has been a target of domestic terrorist for decades, with a shooting that is perhaps random, possibly personally vindictive against one or both of the victims…to draw that sort of equivalence without knowing any of the facts of the incident…illustrates in bold relief just what kind of narrow minded, prejudiced and just plain stupid an individual you are. You have one view of the world which you foist upon people who strongly disagree with you.
Further…the view you have has been discusssed and argued AD NAUSEUM here and most of us are fucking sick of it. Your moronic pseudo libertarian bullshit got a lot of time to be effective for the last eight-twelve years and is a fucking miserable, abject failure.
So just fuck off…and take your jackass buddies with you.
@151
Anti-abortion insanity did lead to DR. Tiller’s murder.
And until you get that through your head you will become more and more marginalized. Who knows, if you get marginalized and angry enough maybe you’ll be shooter or bomber too.
Take a look around people are fleeing away from people who espouse views like yours like rats from a sinking ship.
@150
We know all about Tiller and his murder. We know nothing about the shooting in Little Rock.
Michael @ 154 & 155
Even without knowing any of the details of the Little Rock murders, there’s one difference can already point out. And it’s obvious. There are no liberal/Democratic groups that have leaders standing on pulpits denouncing military recruiters as “mass murderers.”