The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Anti-Choice Killers Score Another "Hit": Assassinate Kansas Abortion Doctor in Church.
http://www.kansas.com/news/breaking/story/833730.html

WICHITA - 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.

Tiller, 67, was shot just after 10 a.m. at Reformation Lutheran Church at 7601 E. 13th, where he was a member of the congregation. Witnesses and a police source confirmed Tiller was the victim.

No information has been released about whether a suspect is in custody.

Homicide detectives and Sedgwick County District Attorney Nola Foulston have arrived at the church.

Members of the congregation who were inside the sanctuary at the time of the shooting were being kept inside the church by police, and those arriving were being ushered into the parking lot. Witnesses are being transported downtown for interviews and other members of the congregation are slowly being released from inside the sanctuary.

Tiller has long been a focal point of protest by abortion opponents because his clinic, Women's Health Care Services at 5701 E. Kellogg, is one of the few in the country where late-term abortions are performed.

Protesters blockaded Tiller's clinic during Operation Rescue's "Summer of Mercy" protests during the summer of 1991, and Tiller was shot by Rachelle Shannon at his clinic in 1993.

Tiller was wounded in both arms, and Shannon remains in prison for the shooting.

Tiller's clinic was severely vandalized earlier this month. According to the Associated Press, his lawyer said wires to security cameras and outdoor lights were cut and that the vandals also cut through the roof and plugged the buildings' downspouts. Rain poured through the roof and caused thousands of dollars of damage in the clinic. Tiller reportedly asked the FBI to investigate the incident.

Sgt. Bart Brunscheen of the Wichita Police Department said there has been no activitiy today at Tiller's clinic, although security crews were being brought in to make sure the building was secure. Officials also were going to check the clinic's security cameras to see if there was any activity over night.

Tiller and his clinic have faced continuous threats and lawsuits. A Wichita jury ruled in March that he was not guilty of illegal abortion on 19 criminal charges he faced for allegedly violating a state law requiring an "independent" second physician's concurring opinion before performing later term abortions. Immediately following the ruling in this criminal case, the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts made public a similar complaint against Tiller that was originally filed in December 2008. Tiller's medical license could eventually be suspended or revoked by the board on the basis of the complaint.

Check Kansas.com for updates."


Amazing that for 40 years all we ever heard coming from all sides of the GOP was "those damn liberals." Well, their attitudes were nothing compared to this bunches actions. And do not tell me their is no link. And we are tired of hearing about "a few bad apples". You need to get your fanatical freaks under control. And that goes for the racist commentators as well....We must stop the Domestic Right Wing Terrorists in our midst.

This is a sad story.

Hey, 5-15% still counts as a few!

There is simply no justification for the acts these people committed. None.

Before 1993, when the first notable case of a reproductive physician was shot and killed, I did not think that the more extreme pro-life zealots would actually kill someone to make their point. With the exception of clinic bombings and vandalisms of various abortion clinics- as well as a kidnapping of a doctor and his wife in 1982- I didn't think it would go this far. But, I was wrong.....

Just terrible.  It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

The analysis of this news story is pathetic.  This is being spun out of control by nut-ball lefties with no news digestion skills like FOTD.  At this point, we know one man shot another, the victim was a controversial abortion doctor.  To this point, there does not seem to be a conspiracy and the pro-life groups are distancing themselves from the a-hole who did this.  It's also assumed at this point that Roeder shot Tiller because he was a controversial abortion doctor.  There's been nothing conclusive reported that this is the case.  For all we know at this point, Tiller could have been a former in-law, could have owed Roeder money, or could have been road rage.  Too often we mistake a reporter(s) personal inflection or assumptions as being fact.

If you've got a guy who's an avowed tax protester, is a member of the inflammatory Operation Rescue, was the member of an anti-government militia group, and who did prison time for having bomb components in his car, what conclusion would you draw?

More fun stuff from a McClatchy report today. The gist is that the suspect previously avowed killing abortion providers.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/69151.html

After all, Conan, you've drawn conclusions on this board before with circumstantial evidence. What's keeping you from doing so now?

Conan? Let's see, oh yes....picks nose and rubs it on TNF.

BILL O and FAUX HAVE MORE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS!
http://themoderatevoice.com/33790/tiller-was-often-demonized-on-oreillys-cable-show/

"Tiller’s name first appeared on “The Factor” on Feb. 25, 2005. Since then, O’Reilly and his guest hosts have brought up the doctor on 28 more episodes, including as recently as April 27 of this year. Almost invariably, Tiller is described as “Tiller the Baby Killer.”

Tiller, O’Reilly likes to say, “destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000.” He’s guilty of “Nazi stuff,” said O’Reilly on June 8, 2005; a moral equivalent to NAMBLA and al-Qaida, he suggested on March 15, 2006. “This is the kind of stuff happened in Mao’s China, Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union,” said O’Reilly on Nov. 9, 2006."

Get educated....we just might be fighting the wrong terrorists!

Gee, that previously much-maligned government report on right-wing extremists looks prescient now.

With one whole arrest, I think we are talking about a terrorist, not terrorists.

Wilbur

You forget, facts are only important to rational people, not sensationalists.

It has been a day and you are basing the "facts" that there was no other person or group involved based on news reports in the last 24 hours.

"Facts" would only be what proper authorities had released to the media, not an interpretation of what this might have been, or could be as the investigation deepens.  The facts so far show that Operation Rescue says this guy was not a member.  I've also not seen any credible authority call this "terrorism".  That's an opinion, not fact.  By all facts presented via the media so far, this was the act of an obsessive individual.

The facts so far are that no one has connected this guy to another person or group that advocated the death of this doctor.  It doesn't matter to me what side of the abortion fence someone is on, my point is too many people run with limited information and allow their imagination to blow things like this up into Al-Qaeda proportions.  Personally, I think abortion is a moral issue and I don't believe it's up to government to legislate morality one way or the other.  I definitely am not a personal advocate of abortion.

"Godfather of American white power Tom Metzger (of WAR) may have been railroaded in a civil suit. But Bill O'Reilly is a more legitimate candidate to be charged with inciting violence."

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/06/01/how-to-try-bill-oreilly-for-dr-tillers-murder/

I think regardless of which side of the fence one is on in regards to the abortion issue, killing doctors doesn't lend any credibility to the pro-life side, it only damages it. It's one thing to peacably demonstrate at a reproductive clinic, quite another thing to resort to that kind of violence. Then again, I must say that many on the pro-life side tend to be extremist, and some of them, a bit dotty.

Well, in an honest assessment, if I viewed abortion as the unadulterated murder of innocent children and I have spent a decade attempting to stop the murder by all legal means, assassinating those directly responsible for the action would be a logical and justified course of action.   Certainly if I discovered the identity of someone in Tulsa that was murdering or raping dozens of innocent people a year and no one else was doing anything to stop them I would seriously consider doing my vigilante part.  It doesn't qualify as terrorism if you are killing the offending party (just as the killing of US troops in Iraq is not terrorism.  Terrorism is the infliction of fear into non-parties to affect a political goal.  In this instance a direct actor was killed.  An assassination perhaps, but not terrorism imho).

I agree with the notion that it will not serve as a means to the end.  I join wholeheartedly in  condemning the action.  But I am a bit surprised that no one has at least pointed out that if you feel your God has dictated the action as the murder of the most innocent people possible, then a violent reaction is justified.  It can be viewed as a logical statement from such a fanatical perspective (killing 1 guilty party to save hundreds of innocent parties).

(ready for this post to be taken way, way out of context in 3 - 2 - 1 -)

Assassination? So, you are substituting this word for terror? One in the same. Using Gawd to rationalize murder? Despicable.

Sparty, you can't have it both ways. And that's not taking it out of context. You're just being wishy washy....

On the bright side, you've done an excellent job debunking the rationale behind the war on terra.

I think this sentence is a lot more important than the one preceding it. Especially the word "fanatical."

Probably nothin but.....

"The phone number is written on an envelope with the name "Cheryl" and "Op Rescue." Cheryl is Cheryl Sullenger, Operation Rescue's senior policy adviser, who in 1988 was convicted of conspiring to bomb a California abortion clinic. She served two years in prison."


"No, he hasn't called me recently," Sullenger said. 

Does recently mean like 8 hours or 5 years?

The defenders of this sort of behavior are the same ones who support torture.

Tiller Assassin's Believed Some Homicide Justifiable, Some Americans Agree
http://kansasjackass.blogspot.com/2009/06/tiller-assassins-believed-some-homicide. html



Here, have a little sample of the supporters of domestic terrorism on Twitter as compiled by Carnal Nation:

Crap, I always forgot hashtags. I'm happy Tiller's dead. - Jennifer Waite, Selah, Washington
UPDATE... Doctor George Tiller was aborted today in his 204th trimester - aren't paybacks a grumble - Punch
oh HAPPY DAY! Tiller the baby killer is DEAD! - Samantha Pelch
George Tiller the baby killer was shot dead this morning. God bless the gunmen who hopefully won't be caught. - readnwatchchris, Creedmor. NC
was George Tiller the baby killers brain scrambled the way he scrambled full term fetuses.. one can only hope - Brad S
Infamous baby killer George Tiller gunned down at (irony) church. Why do I not feel sorry for him? Have fun at Judgment Day. - James Fiddler
tiller the baby killer shot dead...wow. is it insensitive of me to say what goes around comes around? - Brad M. Negulescu Cleveland.
George Tiller the Baby Killer shot dead. May he rot in Hell. - Amy Strong
Tiller Baby Killer was shot and killed this morning Justice has been served. - Shirl Ledeux
Thinking about "Tiller the baby killer" He now knows the wages of sin is death. - Dianne McDowell
May Tiller rot in Hell , infanticide is the murder of babies, he WAS a provider of death like Hitler, Bundy the list goes on.... - Dennis, A People Voip Company
Burn in hell George Tiller - mikedanben Sparta, NJ (41.005501,-74.672)
No need to pray for George Tiller. We know he went straight to hell!!!!! - Laurie D. Bailey Olive Branch, MS
Good ridence to Tiller - babies will not be murdered because he is now gone. Wonder how he likes hell! - Jay Emess, Southern, NJ
Karma is a beautiful thing. Cheers to the hero who sent George Tiller where he belongs... straight to hell. - Matthew Kamar
omg!george tiller abortion dr. was killed n his church parkn lot! hell yea! - Sarah Gulick, Wtichita, Ks
George Tiller: Burning in Hell for the last three hours. - darthdilbert Kettering, Oh
Hmm, I know it's wrong, but I feel like the Late-Term Abortion Doctor George Tiller, got what was he deserved..... - Mary Keogh London England
Boom Boom Boom. George Tiller was served a very very late term abortion this morning. - Chad Coleman, coeur d'alene, Id
A few more added 6:54 PM Pacific Time

Guy shoots a Dr. to death in Church. Me I'm willing to bet that Jesus was his co-pilot. - jeremyawhitman
Tiller the Killer goes to Church and ends up in Hell - mshellisright, Tulsa
Tiller the Baby Killer is finally dead....God took care of what needed to be done.... - Cynthia Wrench
The left-wing nutjobs don't understand that Tiller the baby killer was not human. No human kills babies, only monsters. Good riddance - Sami Shamieh, Walnut Creek, CA
I guess Obama the Messiah can't resurrect Tiller the baby killer. - Sami Shamieh, Walnut Creek, CA
The person who shot Tiller the baby killer simply excercised a man's right to choose. - Sami Shamieh, Walnut Creek, CA
the killing of tiller the baby killer was JUSTICE, not murder. - eqbt
Glad someone offed Tiller. Baby Killer. - Kat, Kansas


Great cuntry we've become....

Pee Wee Editorialist's at The Whirled failed in their morning rag to condemn the accomplices and the motivators of terrorism. Not even a mention of the nation wide network of those in cahoots. Shameful.

It shows class and reality, especially considering the Lortons have been supporters of Planned Parenthood for some time.  They perhaps represent a more rational view of the issue than paranoid pro-choicers calling this terrorism and moronic pro-lifers calling this justified.

Why is it you think the rest of the world should share your pot-addled irrational thought patterns?  You are starting to sound like a troofer, AOX.

Faux Netwerk spooner.....

It's a known fact I sleep with a Bill O'Reilly blow up doll.

I suspected as much. :D You should upgrade to the Ann Coulter blow up (if you can stand the hissing noise).

Seriously, the World can't afford to spend much space commenting on the killing. They read the comments sections after their news stories. They are well heeled cowards.

Here is the question that bothers me. Alcohol causes fetal baby syndrome. Cigarette smoke, even second hand, is absorbed by a fetus and is known to cause stillborns. Both cause death or deformity on these same fetuses. What keeps these people who yell about baby killers from applying their venom towards RJReynolds, Bacardi or the personal users of their products? Afterall, every single worker in their companies know these facts and yet continue to sell their death dealing products. Every user should know the effects of their products as well. It is a thin line when you start to apply justice using your personal beliefs as a basis rather than the law.

Just wondering how far their rationalizations extend.

Wishy washy?  Really, I thought I was being pretty clear.  I'm not trying to justify the murder in any way shape and form.  My views are closer to the abortion doctors than the fundamentalist who shot him. 

Au contraire, I was pointing out the error in the pro-life argument:  if you truly believe abortion is murder and similarly believe in a fundamentalist or literal translation of the bible (eye for an eye, life for a life . . .), then the killing of the abortion doctor is mandated by your God.  Anything less is picking and choosing what portions of the totally true book you choose to adhere to (which I'm fine with, but it negates the fundamentalist mindset, you can no longer claim your actions are a product of mandate instead of thought - hence, a catch 22).  If anything it was a jab at the Conservative Christian pro-life stance, but in reality it was just an observation.

And assassination and terror are two very different things.  The English language has different words for different ideas, enabling us to communicate with specificity. 

Assassinate:  to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons.

Terrorize: to coerce by threat or violence.

The two are certainly related.   But there is certainly a difference.  When a particular person is killed to achieve a political end, it is generally an assassination.   When groups of people or the population in general is targeted to coerce a political objective, it is terrorism.  I further separate the two by the inclusion of unrelated parties in acts of terrorism while an assassination, by definition, involves related parties.

Hence:  killing thousands by running a plane into a building = terrorism.  A sniper round to kill JFK = assassination.   Blowing up a bus outside an abortion clinic - terrorism.  Gunning down an abortion doctor = assassination.

Words should not be used loosely.  The purpose of the two is the same, they are a means to a political end.  Both are, of course, frown upon in the Western world.  But there is a difference.  Labeling everything "terrorism" is a very dangerous thing.

And before you get all huffy about using God to rationalize murder, aside from power God is probably the #2 rationalization for murder in the history of the world.  By commented on that fact I am not contributing to it (in case you haven't figured it out, I'm not very religious . . .).  But I think it's cute that you feigned indignation.

"hissing noise" That was brilliant!


I guess some would call it selective outrage, some could say you are reaching in your hypothetical comments.  The employees of tobacco and alcohol manufacturers are much further removed than they guy who sucks a fetus out of it's mother's womb.  There are laws in place which deal with mothers who ingest drugs or alcohol that harm a fetus, anyone else up the line is pretty much secondary or tertiary to injury to the fetus.  I guess we can reach as far as we want on alcohol and tobacco.  The government makes too much revenue off the two substances every year to ban them outright (okay, now I'm rambling).  They are obviously harmful and have caused millions and millions of deaths and maimed many fetuses as well.  Again, what causes a more traumatic picture in the mind of the average individual: someone operating a cigarette rolling machine or packaging line in a brewery or someone using their medical degree to terminate a fetus?

I could compare your comments along the lines of pro-lifers saying:  "How can you be so concerned about the rights of dung beetles, trees, and horned owls, yet indifferent to incipient, innocent human life?"

Not sparring with you, just trying to answer your question. 

+1

However some people (on both sides) believe that it's government's job to help them shoulder the guilt they carry.

"Mommy Government says it's going to be ok."

A good effort but I still have qualms about motivation. Its easier to be incensed with the words and pics associated with abortion, yet the tragedy is spread over a longer period and affects more people with alcohol and tobacco. Yet no one shoots well educated tobacco executives. FWIW I agree with your summary. Keep the guv out of the process.

It absolutely is despicable, and even more disturbing is when some of them claim that God Himself is speaking to them, directing their movements. I have seen many of these people, spoken to many of the rank and file pro-lifers, and many the mainstream pro-lifers, I will concede are decent people. But it's that group of extremists that scare me the most.....

Millions and millions of people throughout history have been killed in the name of God and "lesser" gods.  There's extremists in every group, yet we are told to be tolerant (and should be, IMO) to those more peaceable in religious, political, ethnic, or some other idealogical group.  Yet I see people in the pro-choice crowd attempting to link the entire pro-life movement to the actions of one lone nut-job.  Many of those I'm hearing this loudest from have preached a message of tolerance toward Islam because it's a very, very small percentage of Muslims who engage in terrorist activities toward the U.S. and toward Christians and Jews.

It's a drect act vs. a secondary act is my guess waterboy, or in other words a direct action of an individual vs. contributory negligence by individual(s).  Plus images of mutilated human fetuses is much more horrifying to the average individual than a "peaceful" stillbirth or someone born with their eyes too far apart, when I was growing up, that was simply referred to as "a birth defect". 

I would assume that most pro-lifers are concerned with the well-being of the fetus regardless of whether or not it's the mechanical or chemical termination of that life or substance abuse which can harm it.  I've never seen any data or commentary to suggest that's not a concern of pro-lifers nor have I read that it's a specific concern, I can only assume that's the case.  I think using alcohol or tobacco during pregnancy is as stupid as using abortion for birth control, but I'm not here to be the morality police for others conscience or common sense nor lack therof.

FWIW, I understand where you are coming from about shocking images.  I walked out of a pro-life presentation in the chapel at the Catholic high school I attended.  This wasn't a protest or demonstration by some radical weirdo, but rather someone from a prominent Catholic family in Tulsa who had made pro-choice philosophy his life's work (some of you will know who I am talking about).  The presentation included a slide show which showed mutilated fetuses and other bits of the abortion procedure.  It was pretty stomach-turning.  I simply told the priest who asked where I thought I was going that: "I'm not Catholic and I don't agree with the way this is being presented.  It's making me ill and I'm going to the student lounge to study."  He gave me a hasty verbal dismissal.  I tracked him down later and explained in no way was I making a statement, I simply felt there were better ways to get my attention than gruesome photos, and as a Protestant, I had no religious obligation to sit through the presentation.  He understood my point and there were no repercussions over it.

You're absolutely right, there are extremists in every group. Thing is, they are the ones who, despite their minority status within their particular groups, are most visible, and the most violent. Same thing with Protestant Christians. The majority of them that are politically active tend to be fairly decent people, even though I may not agree with them wholeheartedly about the issues. But they don't resort to violence when they don't get their way on an issue. It's that small minority of them that do resort to it, which tends to make the news.

As for the pro-choice crowd, yes, there are extremists there, too. And they scare me just as much as the extremists on the pro-life side of the debate.

In other words, fundamentalists suck.

Got no problem with that.

I wouldn't say that. It seems to be a stereotype that if someone is a protestant or a fundamentalist, that there is no innate intellectual curiosity at play, and this is simply not true. Yes, I've known a number of willfully ignorant protestants and fundamentalists in my day (and that would make for a heck of a good thread unto itself), but there were those others who stayed abreast of current events and history and arts and sciences that made a most favorable impression.

Sorry Jaynes, but a fundamentalist is necessarily hostile to and therefor not abreast of science.  If you believe a bronze aged manuscript is THE SOURCE of knowledge above and contrary to all else, then the notion of science is kind of out the window.  You can't see the four corners of the Earth, hares don't chew their cud, bats are not birds, the mustard seed isn't the smallest, unicorns and dragons do not exist, the Earth spins and moves around the Sun, the Earth isn't 5,000 years old, germs cause disease, muteness is not caused by the devil, women were not created from man's rib, Pi is not 3, and all animals on Earth wouldn't fit on Noah's boat, etc.    If you literally believe the King James version of the bible as the word of God, you either have to make wild stories to explain away the scientific flaws or simply abandon science.

Keep in mind I am talking about self proclaimed strict fundamentalists, every word is Gods and absolutely true.  Of course, when different books of the bible disagree on lineage and numbers it is hard to study the bible and honestly hold this view.

I am NOT arguing that religious people are not scientific or intelligent.  Just hard to argue that you are a science minded individual who abandons science when it differs from the Bible.

I suspect that the best middle ground to reach with them is, the Bible shows that things were created. But science merely shows how these creations things work, how they fuction, breaks it all down for us all the way down to the cellular level. I'm not the most religious man on the planet-not even close- and I'm not a fundamentalist, let alone a protestant. I have however reached commong ground with a few of them of the Southern Baptist variety: these guys at least read the newspapers and magazines devoted to current events, they watch TV, and are not isolated from the outside world. We may not always see eye-to-eye, but, there is no rancor or animosity. Now, certain fundamentalist pentecostal groups? Not so much....

So a man with untreated schizophrenia and personalized religious and political beliefs kills someone and it is because of Pentecostals? It sucks that this tragedy is drawing out such anti-religious bigotry!

I'm not saying it's due to Pentecostal Fundamentalists; that is a seperate issue unto itself. If the evidence supports that he did it, so be it. I will not indict an entire religion because of it. But, now that you mention it, if he does go to church or belongs to a fringe political sect, and that organization fosters that kind of sociopathic behavior, maybe we should take a closer look.

Probably the most succinct conclusion in this thread, other than RW's "Fundamentalists suck".

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ttiSAxcedV4/R8A5yk3JhKI/AAAAAAAAAqg/IRhjFTiVjWI/s320/ostrich-head-NoRevolving%2BDoorHere-ItISInTheLobby.jpg)

Anyone attend Church Sunday and get an earful about this issue? Highly doubtful. Not many posties attend church.

And some of the ones who do, tend to be some of those Dominionist churches or something else on the fringes of society.....

'Weaponized Christianity' and 'homegrown terrorism'
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-10661-Pittsburgh-Grassroots-Examiner~y2009m6d7-Weaponized-Christianity-and-homegrown-terrorism


"Could these denunciations have a more practical basis, such as fear of asset forfeiture and/or jail time like the recent case against the Holy Land Foundation "under the "material support" provision of the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which provides that money in the hands of a terrorist organization, even if for charitable purposes, supports the organization's terrorist objectives" ? The protected status of Christianity in the US should not result in any more preferential treatment, and the assets of these groups should be seized. Environmental and animal rights groups are labeled as 'terrorists' for far less than what these kinds of militant theocrats advocate."

 This is the first time the term Weaponized Christianity has been used, it fits. American-Taliban or Dominionists?

My pro-life bona fides are well known in this forum, however I thought Tiller's murder was wrong. Still, Tiller was a scum bag and I will not lose any sleep over his assassination  abortion.

http://www.dr-tiller.com/botch-watch.htm

In other news, Cristen Gilbert, killed by Tiller, and Private William Long, murdered by a muslim convert, still dead.

UPDATED:  Here is a video of a follower of the religion of peace protesting at Pvt. Long's memorial service:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/026475.php#respond

Another media whore on display.

Guido, the woman rights basher and anti American constitution contributor, comes back to show the hate.


Look what your boy Olielly is up to....
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7205

The internet has made it possible to keep honesty alive in our society by exposing these frauds.

What about the rights of the woman Tiller killed? Also, since my wife and sisters (as well as millions of other women) are pro-life, they too must be women's rights bashers as well. Aborting Tiller is not the way to send the pro-life message, just as capital punishment is also inconsistent with being pro-life (in my opinion), but I have no complaints about his being off this planet. Good riddance to that scum bag.

Hey George, is it hot where you currently reside?

Brought to you by FOTD, the dhimmicrat.

So, he's a scumbag for helping young women too shy to disclose they were raped through incest and too late to confess their shame? He was wrong for sparing the child of a life with aids or disablement? He was wrong for saving the woman but aborting a fetus?

Operation Rescue are terrorists. "On Wednesday, MSNBC news anchor Rachel Maddow revealed the ties between Dr. Tiller’s alleged assassin Scott Roeder, to the extremist antiabortion group “Operation Rescue”, and how he repeatedly got away with violating federal laws protecting abortion clinics."
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20090604_maddow_exposes_scott_roeder/


Guido, you are so disingenuous to suggest you don't agree with his murder. Your rhetoric does not match up with your empathy. That's why you live a lie.

Correction, Rachel Maddow is NOT an anchor, she's a commentator/news entertainer, just like O'Reilly, Beck,  Hannity, Olbermann, Matthews, Limbaugh, etc.

She is an anchor woman. Yes, an entertainer too. She is a truth teller. She does not promote hate.

Only a misogynist could twist it like that...


"A news presenter is, broadly speaking, a person that presents a news show on television, radio or the Internet. The term is not commonly used by people in the industry as they tend to use more descriptive - and sometimes country-specific - terms. Examples include "newsreader", "newscaster", and "news anchor"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_presenter

Put the bong down for a second.  Maddow's show is NOT a NEWS SHOW.  It is political commentary, and no she doesn't promote hate, except for hate toward conservatives.

Considering the other five MALE commentators I likened her to, it's not even remotely misongyny.  You are the only person here who routinely posts op-ed columns as hard news.  So I guess this latest mis-characterization should come as no surprise.

Conan the empty suit....the demon gets news from Rachel. Don't know what you get.

Guido, in the context of this board, I cannot recall ever questioning or demenaing your intelligence: among some of the more virulent pro-lifers out there, you actually seem to be posessed of a higher level of intelligence. As such, I must say that although we do not always agree, I actually respect your opinion and your demonstrated capacity for rational thought (you'd said that you're an attorney, after all), and I suppose I'd prefer discussing the issue with you rather than with some of your more socially inept brethren in the pro-life movement. With that in mind, such emoting and histrionics over the issue should be ideally beneath you.

W_T_F? Jaynie, what planet are you on? Uranus?

No, I'm on Earth.

Jaynie? Very cute :)

This demon is old enough to recall the horror of the first terrorist in the USA to gain National attention as he picked off innocent victims from the University of Texas bell tower. Today, such behavior seems common place.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=1052

As the first months of the Obama Administration unfold, a growing consensus is emerging that a resurgence of right-wing hate groups and radical ideas is spreading across the United States. Law enforcement officials, civil rights groups, and many others have all expressed worries about this troubling trend.
This February, in the last issue of the Intelligence Report, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported on the continued growth of hate groups, whose numbers have risen by more than 50% since 2000. It attributed that growth mainly to fears about non-white immigration, but pointed out that the rise of a black man to the White House also appears to have contributed. And it said the ongoing economic meltdown, which some have already blamed on racial minorities and undocumented Latino immigrants, could well add to a worsening situation.

Two months later, a Department of Homeland Security report, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," was leaked to the press. Dated April 7, the report mirrored many of the conclusions of the SPLC and added that "rightwing extremists [could] attempt to recruit and radicalize returning [military] veterans." (The Report has written extensively about the problem of extremists in the military.)

Already, there is evidence of the violence that an expansion of the radical right may portend. Some of it is chilling.

In late April, a man shot to death two Okaloosa County, Fla., sheriff's deputies responding to a domestic disturbance call. Officials said Joshua Cartwright was interested in militia groups and that his wife told police that he was "severely disturbed" by Obama's election.
Three days before the DHS report was issued, a gunman in Pittsburgh killed three police officers. Internet postings by the suspect in the months before the murders suggest the man was motivated by racist and anti-Semitic ideology, antigovernment conspiracy theories, and a fear that Obama would pass confiscatory gun laws.
Around the same time, a Marine who had earlier been arrested for armed robberies near Camp Lejeune, N.C., was indicted for threatening Obama. Kody Brittingham's journal allegedly contained neo-Nazi propaganda and a plan to assassinate the then president-elect.
On Jan. 21, the day after Obama's inauguration, a white man in Brockton, Mass., allegedly murdered two black people and planned to kill as many Jews as he could that night. Police said the man told them he'd been reading white supremacist websites and believed that whites were facing a genocide.
Last December, a woman who had just shot her husband to death in Belfast, Maine, told police that James Cummings was "very upset" with Obama's election, had been in touch with white supremacist groups, and had talked of building a "dirty bomb" chock full of deadly radioactive materials. Police found many of the components for that bomb, along with an application for the neo-Nazi National Socialist Movement filled out by Cummings.
And in late October, two racist skinheads were arrested in Tennessee and charged in connection with an alleged plot to murder more than 100 black Americans, beheading some of them, and then to assassinate Obama.
The government report was met with howls of outrage from pundits, politicians and others on the right who characterized it as an attack on conservatives and veterans — an absurd contention for anyone who actually read the document.

Televangelist Pat Robertson, the gay-bashing founder of the Christian Coalition, even said the DHS report "shows somebody down in the bowels of that organization is either a convinced left winger or somebody whose sexual orientation is somewhat in question."

These expressions of anger were disingenuous at best. The reality is that many of these same people have done their best to pour fuel on the flames of incipient antigovernment fury, feeding the same kind of white-hot popular anger that animated the militia movement of the 1990s, with all its violence.

MSNBC commentator Pat Buchanan recently said Obama would face a "bloodbath" if he legalized undocumented workers. U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) fears Obama will set up "re-education camps for young people." U.S. Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) warns there are 17 "socialists" in the Congress. FOX News' Glenn Beck calls Obama a fascist, a Nazi and a Marxist, and even refloated militia-era conspiracy theories about secret concentration camps for patriots.

People like Beck — who described himself as a mere "rodeo clown" when he was called out on such statements — may be craven opportunists pandering for ratings. It really doesn't matter. Their lunatic rants, planted in the rich soil of social discontent, make it that much harder for our country to advance toward a better future.

Now that you mention it, they are. That they do not desire to exercise their rights does not make it any more correct to attempt to give them up for all women. The proper course is to choose not to exercise their rights.

It's like a woman choosing not to vote, but rather than just not voting, deciding they need to campaign to take away all women's voting rights. Maybe they're afraid that if they have the right, they might vote despite not wanting to do so at the present.

Or, less charitably, they could be one of the morons who believe they ought to be a good Christian wife and do what her husband tells her to do, and her husband tells her she shouldn't vote. (I know several people who have that honest belief, described that way)

So the thread starts out blaming Christians for the action of a man with schizophrenia killing that wicked abortionist.  And it devolves into basically calling Christian women stupid.  Somehow I am not surprised.  Tell us, Nate-dawg, what are the 'proof texts' that inform women of this status?  And Mr. Jaynes, you are surprised that Guide uses inflammatory language to describe this abortionist's murder, when he throws his own fellow pro-lifers under the bus by calling them the filthy 'whore' wored? Really? Further, Guide is not 'pro-life,' in that I imagine he is for the death penalty and has limited sympathies for little babies being starved out by UN sanctions or being bombed.

And it appeared Tiller and women were the victims. What a mistake. It's those poor extremist fundies, fetuses, and you who are the victims! Got it now.

Here. This might give you some hope: http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/alzheimers-breakthrough-study.html

"A scientific breakthrough in the understanding of how Alzheimer's disease may spread across the brain of elderly patients might lead to novel ways of treating senile dementia, scientists have announced.

A study has discovered that a key brain protein linked with Alzheimer's disease has infectious properties that allow defects in the protein to be transmitted through the brain and so leads to debilitating neuro-degeneration.

It is the first time that scientists have detected infectious properties in the so-called tau protein which causes aggregates of particles known as "neurofibrillary tangles" to build up inside the brain cells of Alzheimer's patients. The tangles lead to the disease's symptoms.

But the researchers emphasised that the discovery does not mean that the disease itself is infectious, only that the tau protein seen in Alzheimer's disease is able to convert otherwise healthy brain proteins into the defective form associated with the disease."

And never believe a poster who writes like a 4 year old.....

That is why most of your posts go uncommented on.  Rally it is.  Further, glad that you think Alzheimer's Disease is a joke.

It's not a joke....but your personal attacks are......

<---- This suit does make me look a bit empty, doesn't it?

Did you ever pay much attention to Olbermann when he'd take off on one of his Bush war rants? "Lunatic rants" brought some of JO's worst spittle-flying, Bush-hating diatribes to mind.  "Bush and Cheney are war criminals!!!!"

How did Senator Harry Reid help unify the country by saying that the "war was already lost"?

Dissention is guaranteed by the First Amendment to our Constitution.  Unless you have a state-run media that controls every single word and every disaffected lunatic is locked up, there's no guarantee that some lone nut won't take words wrong and act on them.  You've managed to blow this whole Tiller situation into something far bigger than it really is.  It's as if you are trying to use this as an excuse as to why all the leading conservative "news anchors" (as you call them, commentators/news entertainers as I call them) should be permanently muzzled.  I'm sure to you, all any of us need is Maddow, Matthews, JO, Huffpo, Koz, Pravda, Al-Jazeera, etc. for real information on the real world.

Your spin on what is and is not terrorism is interesting.  What cause or political aim was the lone gunman in Austin advancing? 

Man you are out there.  This is relevant to the conversation at hand, why?  It's not even a medical journal.  It scares me there are people who get their "news" from moonbat blogs.

Nathan, there are also people who believe they need to be advocates for ALL the fetuses who have no say as to whether or not it gets to go full-term or get sucked out of the womb. 

Tell me why the rights or views of pro-choicers are more sacrosanct than those of pro-lifers.

He mocks people with AD and then accuses his target of attacking others.  Typical.

That you can't understand the difference between a subset of Christian women and all Christian women speaks volumes about you. People are free to live their lives however they like. I like that about my country. That doesn't mean I can't observe people's choices and comment about them.

And Conan, this is just rehashing the standard abortion argument, but as long as a fetus is a fetus, it's dependent on the goodwill of the person carrying it for its survival. I believe the needs or wishes of the woman carrying the fetus take precedence. If she desires to carry the fetus to term, great. If not, that's her decision. Just as I don't advocate forcing people to go through invasive and medically risky procedures, I do not advocate forcing women to go through a medically risky pregnancy. (and they are all medically risky, albeit some more than others)

If we had transporters from Star Trek, I'd be all for having no more abortions. Just whisk the fetus away risk-free into a gestation bubble where it can develop into a baby. As long as we can't do that, women should be free to choose what goes on with their own bodies.

I might have a different view if I was prone to anthropomorphizing things.

That is to say I understand how others hold a different view; I just disagree with the idea of controlling a woman's body to the degree of forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term. Not to mention not desiring a return to back alley abortions with coat hangers.

Whoa, are you seriously comparing voting rights to abortion rights? If so, just wow.

So a woman that opposes abortion because she thinks it's amoral or even murder never crossed your mind, did it? She should be a good little girl and keep her mouth shut or blindly obey her overbearing husband who she mostly certainly fears contradicting. Folks, meet the classic misogynist.  

As he is obviously extreme in his pro-life stance, such would not come as a surprise, as it does seem to be the same rhetoric that many of that particular stripe uses to describe the abortion issue. However, I am surprised that someone of his implied education (if I'm not mistaken, he is an attorney by profession), would resort to strictly emotionalist means to make his case.


I've watched the show, and in comparison, I've got to say that Olbermann does a better job. Even Sean Hannity does a better job. Maddow, in my opinion, was more effective-and I dare say more credible-when she did her show on Air America Radio.

FOTD:

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_m_DoIVtk9hM/R4bjQTXFJlI/AAAAAAAAAcc/LU4uHXoH2Iw/s400/donkey+clown.jpg)

Wow, they even have a certification award for donkey Clown.  A classic...

Of course, if one runs in more mainstream Evangelical circles, one would find a more reasonable and rational approach to things. As long as they don't let the likes of Pat Robertson or Tim and Beverly LaHaye, etc, do their thinking for them, we're ok. 

I'm familiar with the Evangelical scene too, and I've known some pretty smart people in that crowd. I've also met people in that who are too easily led and influenced by some of their more extreme members of their leadership.

you know nothing....besides, you failed the litmus test.

Here's a taste of conservative bigotry from some closed minded "anti constitutionalists"....

http://www.americafirstparty.org/docs/principles.shtml

What leadership? The Protestants are more schismatic than I dunnowhat.  I repeat, NOT ONE woman I have ever known - even secondhand - believes it is their role to sit down and shut up or whatever.  Nathan knows bunch.  I find that odd.

Well, I'm no feminist, but I do understand that the Southern Baptist Convention has yet to ordain a female pastor. And though I'm no feminist, I believe that if one feels the Calling to go into the minisrty, they should follow that Call.

And I've already mentioned who seems to be in Leadership positions in the extreme elements of the Religious Right, and don't even get me started on Pat Boone.

So the nation's largest denomination - which includes in its membership some big name D's - is an extreme, fringe group?

um, no....? All I said is that they don't ordain women.

Yes, they are both fundamental rights. One is the right to choose your leaders. The other is the right to control your own body. (Abortion being a minor subset of the second, not the end all and be all some make it out to be)

And just to be inflammatory, I'll call the SBC a hateful fringe group. I liked them a lot better before they were taken over by the wingnuts in the 80s. (I was raised a Baptist)

And Know Nothing, perhaps you just haven't asked. As I mentioned, I know a few and know of several more who subscribe to that belief. Maybe it's a Glenpool fundie church thing.

And Conan, the views of the pro-lifers are not any less valid than those of those on the pro-choice side. No more than the views of theocrats are inherently less valid than proponents of secular government. I personally believe that a person should have the singular decision making authority about what goes on with or in their body. Everything from what food to eat, what drugs to take (or not take), to whether to carry a pregnancy to term. Similarly, I believe that government and religion should not be mixed, therefore I do not promote theocratic arguments. It's simply not a society I want to live in.

As far as abortion is concerned, my preference would be to live in a society where it is perfectly legal and easily available, yet never used because all children are wanted and those who choose not to bear children have easy access to contraceptives. The sad thing is that many of our policies relative to sex ed (especially abstinence-only programs) make things worse on that front. As long as we refuse to educate people about sex in general and contraception in particular, people will continue to have unwanted children. (Not that contraception is 100%, but it's far better than nothing!)

Making abortion illegal will pan out about like the drug war. It will cost a lot of money, ruin a lot of lives, but do nothing to stop abortions from occurring.

The most effective ways to prevent abortion are keeping people's economic outlook positive so they feel like they can support a baby and provide the tools women need to prevent pregnancy (asking people not to love is like asking them to cut off their hand..few have the fortitude to comply)

I think we all agree that in a perfect world there would be no abortion.

A point of order and a common misconception of people in Oklahoma:


Southern Baptist Convention is definitely NOT the largest denomination in the nation.

Catholics are the Nations largest denomination by some order of magnitude.  Per the 2004 Census unless otherwise noted:

Catholics: 71,796,719
Methodist: 19,969,799
Southern Baptist Convention Members: 16,266,920 (2007)

Even if we want to expand the definition it still falls short:
Southern Baptist: 28,280,728 (includes all subsets, direct and indirect affiliations)
All Baptist: 47,744,049 (all inclusive)


/not arguing it is a fringe group.  It represents a full 5.5% of the population of the United States.  Just pointing out that in Oklahoma it is easy to assume Southern Baptists run the country when they are in reality a vocal minority themselves.

Perhaps Southern Baptists are the largest denomination by weight? 
Deserves further exploration.
(http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/jerry_falwell_300.jpg)

Ha, how far in there do you want to explore?

That is what the Devil wants you to think.  Your post has therefore been disregarded!

Roman Catholicisim is a religion, not a denomination. Just sayin. And they do not allow women clergy either.

Numbers or not, Conservative christians have significant political power because they've  voted in a solid bloc since Reagan came to power.  Catholics used to have that same sort of power but they really splintered after Vatican II liberalized the church.  What's still on the table is how much the Bush presidency did or did not splinter the political power of the CC bloc.  They're also going through a major generational change, with lots of Gen X and Yers taking over leadership positions from the old skool fire and brimstone guys.   

Which is kind of sad, since voting for one candidate or another should be a matter of persuasion and not coercion. Nobody wants to be painted as unchristian, so they give into that kind of pressure. That could be a theory to explore. I've seen some religious leaders imply that to vote for, say, Bill Clinton in 1992 was a sin unto God, and even some of the rank and file behaving as if one cannot call themselves a Christian if one does not view a certain issue in a specific way.

For another instance, I remember back in the 1980s during the Iran Contra scandal, we had Jerry Falwell pushing to get Oliver North a Presidential pardon, and others claiming that the Contras were God-fearing, moral and good Christian people. And from what I got from that was, not to support Oliver North in what he did, not to supposrt the Contras was not only unchristian, but also unpatriotic. And if they can be as inflamed about just this issue, by calling one's religious commitment into question as well as their patritoism in some cases, just think what it's like come election season! And with the abortion issue, it is just as polarizing!

Ha! Numbers, denominations, whatever! No matter? Big difference, apparently. Someone does not know the difference between a denomination and a religion!

Huh???  Bigotry and "anti-Constitutionalists?

"FOUNDING PRINCIPLES
OF THE AMERICA FIRST PARTY
PRESERVE AND PROTECT OUR PEOPLE AND OUR SOVEREIGNTY
Support a military whose mission is to protect our nation, not police the world
Strengthen our borders and promote rational immigration policies
Protect English as our common language
Seek friendship with all nations, but avoid entangling alliances
Work to maintain our nation's sovereignty and oppose all attempts to make our nation subservient to the precursors of global government
Apply American values to our foreign policy

PROMOTE ECONOMIC GROWTH AND INDEPENDENCE
Restore accountability and Constitutionality to budgets and taxes
Promote tax policies that adhere to the Constitution, enhance individual freedom, encourage savings and investment, and promote the family
Eliminate unconstitutional portions of the federal government
Rebuild our manufacturing base and protect American workers
Protect our right to fair trade and oppose free trade, exit NAFTA and the WTO
Help American businesses stay in America
Promote a Buy American policy
End taxpayer bailouts of corporations and foreign governments
Implement a self-sufficient energy policy

ENCOURAGE THE TRADITIONAL VALUES OF FAITH, FAMILY, AND RESPONSIBILITY
Protect and recognize the sanctity of all human life
Defend the traditional family unit based on one man and one woman
Promote the primacy of parents in the lives and education of their children
Respect the free exercise of religion
Recognize the Judeo-Christian heritage of our shared values

ENSURE EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW IN PROTECTING THOSE RIGHTS GRANTED BY THE CREATOR
Defend the self-evident truth, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”
Preserve and protect all of the Bill of Rights
Oppose all quota systems.  Merit and behavior must prevail
End judicial tyranny and restore balance to our political system
Restore property rights and restrict government land confiscation

CLEAN UP OUR CORRUPTED POLITICAL SYSTEM
Remove the primary source of corruption by sharply reducing the size and scope of the federal government to its limited powers under the Constitution, and return control over all other matters to the states
Require that all political donations be promptly disclosed and come from voters
Enforce fair uniform standards for ballot and debate access to give voters more choice
Implement clean election practices—restore paper ballots
Reform the lobbying system so that the only organizations permitted to lobby are those organizations whose money is acquired strictly from voter donations.  Reasonable individual voter donation amount limits must be established.
End lavish Congressional pensions-put them on Social Security
Ban taxpayer funded Congressional campaign mailings
Restore the rights of states in the manner of choosing Senators and Representatives and promote the citizen legislator"

If you think opposing quota systems is bigotry or maintaining the sanctity of all human life is anti-Constitution, your brain is too baked in THC.

I think the CC wing of the GOP is in disarray.  More moderate and socially-liberal Republicans don't welcome nor care for their influence on the party and I think the CC's are starting to feel disenfranchised from the GOP.  It's been a powerful bloc, but I think we are all realizing there's Hell to pay for allowing too much influence from one group or another within any political party, and you are right, they did wield a huge amount of influence for about 20 years.

If it weren't so important to me to be able to vote in primaries, I would have changed my registration from Republican to "unaffiliated" already.

"If You Gave Jerry Falwell an Enema He Could be Buried in a Matchbox"

Christopher Hitchens
 

I would say feeling disaffected, annoyed, lied-to, used, taken for granted, turned off, tuned out.  Their simplistic views helped propel the GOP to majorities in the Fed.  For me, at the local level the tax-and-spenders are no different in the GOP versus the Dems.  I refuse to register Partisan despite the primaries because my yard, bumper, and blog can do more than my single vote. The CC is not in disarray, they are in rebellion.  And even now the CC is mocked, ridiculed, blamed, and scorned by the tax-and-spending 'moderates'. Even secular conservatives like Rush Limbaugh are now being asked to basically leave the GOP.  Who is left? Last one out turn out the lights!

The problem, I think, is that when one seeks the endorsement of the CC bloc, it's apparently an all-or-nothing-at-all proposition. It's a theory, but it looks as if one has to agree to the entire CC agenda in its entirety, or none of it. If one agrees to their agenda, it's their way, all the way, no moderation, no variance. If one chooses to reject it, they do so at the peril of losing an election.

"The terrorists hate our freedoms"... Hey, Dubya was RIGHT for once!

The Terrorists Are Winning...

Wednesday, 10 June 2009, 11:12 am
Column: Bradblog.Com
The Terrorists Are Winning...
...white, American, rightwing terrorists that is.

Brad Friedman,
BRAD BLOG

"George Tiller’s clinic will close in the wake of the Wichita abortion provider’s shooting death, lawyers for the Tiller family said today," the Wichita Eagle is reporting. "Lee Thompson and Dan Monnat, the family’s lawyers, said in a statement that the clinic, Women’s Health Care Services, will be permanently closed, effective immediately."
Waytago anti-choice terrorists! You're winning!

Even Tiller's accused murderer, Scott Roeder is celebrating, telling CNN them that closure is "a victory"!

On Sunday, the assassin of the man Bill O'Reilly repeatedly described as "Tiller the Baby Killer", told AP "there are many other similar events planned around the country," prompting Keith Olbermann to wonder, appropriately: "Why is the far right not calling for him to be waterboarded to tell us against whom the next gun or bomb will be directed?"

Good question, though Dick Cheney could not be reached for comment.


Roeder should definitely be tried as a terrorist.

I agree, someone doesn't know the difference.  

Catholic:: of, relating to, or forming the ancient undivided Christian church or a church claiming historical continuity from it

Denomination:  a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices

Christian:  one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

Religion:  (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural  (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance


Within Christianity there are subsets of beliefs.  Generally there are three subsets of Christianity:  Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant.   Catholics are still generally a united group.  Orthodox has two primary subsets:  Eastern and Greek (also Orental and Asyryn, but in general).  Protestants have many subsets: Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian and many others.  Some groups have splintered to a point that they are sometimes considered new religions including Mormons and Unitarians.  

In case you were unaware, Catholics believe in Jesus, choose the books of the Bible, and established most of the basic tenants of the faith.  Catholics profess belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.  They were THE Church for the first 1600 years or so.  Hence, they are Christian.  Which would be the same religion as all other sects or denominations of Christianity (being defined as followers of Christ).

Catholics do have different beliefs and practices than other groups of Christians. Just as Eastern Orthodox members have different beliefs and practices.  Or Members of Guts Church have different beliefs and practices than those at Boston Avenue Methodist.  However, they are all defined by a professed belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.  Ergo, Christian.

And what do we call a group with the same core tenants that has different practices and beliefs?  By definition: a denomination.  

If definitions aren't your thing, go look at any census or any other web site that counts religious affiliation.  Catholic is always a subset of Christian.  The World Book of Religions and Wikipedia agrees.  How does Catholicism garner itself into an entire new religion?

You should be tried for being a dumba$$.

If what Roeder is accused of having done, falls under the definition of terrorism, then yes he should be tried as such.

Why? Try him on capital murder, it's easier. From what I've read he's already confessed.

Then the true test will be if he is waterboarded!

Capital Murder, yes, but, if it was due to some sociopolitical or religiopolitical agenda, would that not fall under the definition of Terrorism?


Kinda like that ninny Mancow Mueller?

RELATED THREAD!
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=13634.msg133857;topicseen#msg133857

Meanwhile, in unrelated news, a lone 88 year old whacko shoots up the Holocaust Museum...

Since September 11, 2001, more innocent American citizens have been killed by anti-abortion activists and other fringe right terrorists than by al Qaeda. Hate crimes are all related....

Bull $hit.  REAL stats, please?

More fetal humans have been sucked down the drain in that time than Americans killed by Al Qaeda, anti-abortion activists, and fringe right terrorists combined, about 1.3mm per year.  Where's your outrage?  That's genocide against unwanted  fetuses, isn't it FOTD?

Stand outside and plead with everybody going into all the clinics that you will either 1) adopt the baby or 2) suck up the responsibility to pay for the child growing up.  Then start saying other people aren't doing enough to stop abortions.  Some 3rd party person telling you what to do that will never see you again doesn't help raising a child.

You obviously missed that I was lampooning his outrage in my post to Mr. Moonbat.  More Americans killed by pro-lifers and white supremacists than Al Qaeda since 9/11????  He's off his rocker.

If he stated in US States, I think that might be accurate.  I do not think we have any confirmed deaths from Al Qaeda on US soil since 9/11.

Now if you look at the world, its way off.

Nice conflation there. Rationality called, he said he was going to be late for dinner.  ::)

Unless we've started giving people citizenship before they're even born. Those who want US citizenship for their future children will be happy knowing that all they have to do is come into the country sometime while they are pregnant. What's next, citizenship for eggs?

Since your understanding of religion does not appear to go much beyond Wikipedia or the top two or three internet search results, I concede totally to why you feel the way you do.  IMHO this is akin to saying Judaism and Islam are Semetic denominations because of their common Biblical ancestry. Heck, you get confused over your own 'libertarianism!'  You have lost ALL CREDIBILITY by referencing Wikipedia as your primary source of info.  Ha ha!

The Roman Catholic Church only recognizes its authority as the Body of Christ.  It has its own Bible.  Has its own cosmology.  Has its own path to paradise.  Is the oldest, most powerful corporation on the planet.  Do you know what 'catholic' means?  I consider Catholics Christians, but to apply some equanimity with other religious orders or sects or splinter groups so as to call them a denomination is to call Mormonism a denomination.

You questioning someone else's credibility is craptastic.

Nice ad-hominem drop, rube.

No big.  If being called a bugs bunny name is his best I can take it.

NP, I just wanted a reason to use the word 'rube'.

 ;D

By way of clarification, your primary argument is as follows:

Catholics are Christians.  But they are a different religion than Christians.  Therefor, they aren't a denomination of Christianity.

Do I have that correct?


They are both Semitic, but they are different religions.  Within Judaism there is multiple denominations (or sects): Orthodox, Hasidic, reform, etc.  Within Islam there are multiple denominations: Sunni, Shia, Sufi, etc.  But Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism are Semitic religions - they technically claim to worship the same God (the God of Abraham/אַבְרָהָם/إبراهيم‎/Ibrāhīm, all the same God).  You seem to have trouble putting this into categories and subsets.

So, we could run a simple organization progression:  Choice (options) - Subset (options)

Monotheistic (henotheism, pluralistic, philosphical) - Semitic (pagan) - Christian (Jewish, Islamic)- Catholic (Protestant) - Roman Catholic (Greek Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian, Syrian, etc.).


I'm confused now, I admit.  Mostly because that statement was out of no where, but also because it didn't make sense.  Why was "libertarianism" in quotes?  I don't get it.


I have listed actual statistical numbers.  Definitions.  Census data and categories.  As well as other data points to support to support my contention.  I then said that everything from the World Book of Religions to Wikipedia agrees, and that makes Wikipedia my primary source?  And even if it was, I'm not sure why you are mocking my source.

Thus far your primary source has been thin air.  Nothing to support your contention whatsoever.  Saying Catholics are not Christian is simply ridiculous, then ignoring all merits of the discussion following is simply typical.  Usually when you make a contention you are required to support it.

But to appease your simple mind here I went through Google and randomly picked links, so here are some other sources.  Now, I looked but I couldn't find one to support your contention, but that probably doesn't mean anything.  Catholics as a denomination of Christians:

http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=227134

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/denominations.htm

http://netministries.org/denomlst.htm

http://christianity.about.com/od/denominations/Denominations.htm

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Christianity

http://www.usachurches.org/christian-denominations.htm

http://www.slco.lib.ut.us/religden.htm

http://churchrelevance.com/qa-list-of-all-christian-denominations-and-their-beliefs/

http://www.worldchristiandatabase.org/wcd/about/denominations.asp

Here is a source listing Catholic as a Christian Denomination from the Southern Baptist Convention:

http://www.sbc.net/redirect.asp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.namb.net%2Fatf%2Fcf%2F{CDA250E8-8866-4236-9A0C-C646DE153446}%2FBB_american_denomination.pdf&key=denomination&title=033010+BB+MajAmerDenominatons&ndx=SBC%2C+IMB%2C+NAMB%2C+ANNUITY%2C+LIFEWAY%2C+WMU%2C+ERLC%2C+SEMINARIES

and a discussion of Denominations:
http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/clwhydenomination.asp

Here, you should be VERY impressed by this one:
http://www.wikichristian.org/index.php?title=Denominations



CHRISTIAN:  one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

That defines the religion of Christianity. 

CHRISTIAN:  one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

Again, by definition, Catholic is a demonimation of the Christian religion. 

I think you are confused by the simplistic breakdown of Protestant or Catholic.   In your organizational tree you need to start with "Christian" and then branch out.  Some are harder to place than others (as I discussed in my previous post) such as Mormons and Unitarians in the Christian tree, or Seiks for Hindus and Dervishes for Islam (sub denomination of Sufi, which itself isn't exactly Islam).

Please try harder to frame your argument in a coherent way.


I defined it.  Thanks for reading before you blather on.  I really hope my logic, sources, and facts don't get in the way of your blather.

Not at all.  Roman Catholicism is a Christian religion.  I cannot help it if I am the only one who is right in this world! Ha ha!

Christianity is the religion, Catholicism is merely one sect of the whole. As are the Church of England, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Episcopalians, and the rest.

9 o'clock show totally different than the 7 o'clock show.  Please tip your waitress.

Which makes them ALL denominations, and Know Nothing true to his moniker, yet again.

Sure whatever.

Yep right you are.  The Catholic Church claims to be the only true Church.  But to the outsiders is just one of many.  Makes sense.

Actually, KK is correct calling Catholocism it's own religion, citing certain schools of religious philosophy.  Not all schools of Christian philosophy agree with this notion, but it does exist and KK didn't make it up on his own.  IOW, KK didn't pull this out of his arse.  I can actually allude to it fairly quickly in one of CF's Googled references:

"Today, however, Roman Catholicism is not the only accepted Christian church. Thus to be a Roman Catholic means to be a certain kind of Christian: one with unique beliefs, practices and traditions that are distinct from those of other Christians. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church continues to maintain that it alone has carried on the true tradition of the apostolic church and has traditionally regarded dissenting groups as heresies, not alternatives (Martin Luther was swiftly excommunicated). However, the recent Second Vatican Council declared all baptized Christians to be "in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." {1}"

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/denominations/catholicism.htm

I was brought up in the Episcopal (Anglican) Church, the Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed as repeated at every mass:

Apostles Creed 
   I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen 

Nicene Creed A.D. 381 
   We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
 
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.
 
For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
 
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
 
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets.
 
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.   


Might come as a surprise to some of you who have never attended an Episcopal mass, considering the Episcopalians are generally regarded as being the first to tell the Pope to go to hell.

Conan, many Christian (if not most) denominations claim to THE CORRECT ONE.  Many claim that unless you believe in their brand of Christianity you are going to hell.  So each of these many Christian sects is it's own religion, distinct and apart from the Christian religion?

However, I have yet to see a reference to the school of thought stating Catholicism is it's own religion. The portion you referenced simply says that being "Catholic means to be a certain kind of Christian."  Which is to say it is a denomination of Christianity.  Even if the Catholics (or other Christian sects) wished to pretend they were a separate denomination or that they are the only TRUE Christians, it doesn't make it so.  There are no beliefs in Catholicism that separate it to such an extent as to override the underlying commonality (a belief in the teachings of Jesus).  Just like Hindus believe in a pantheon of Gods and Mulsims believe Mohammad was the consummate Prophet.

Your argument more greatly supports the notion that Catholics are Christians, as evidenced by the Nicene Creed you posted. They recite all the major tenants of Christianity with the additional statement that they believe their brand is the correct brand.  How does that exclude them from the group?  And if so, are all other sects of Christianity their own religion?

My entire argument is very simple:  Christian = follower of Jesus Christ.  The rest is just details.

(I have no vested interest in this argument.  Just amused that the definition of Christian could somehow exclude the "original" denomination of Christians.)

Right.  Christian = follower.  Either way you slice it SBC is not the largest denomination which was my original assertion.  Sorry I am swimming against the herd on this but there you go.

No problem.  I don't care which way someone swims, so long as they support their contentions.  I agree with your underlying premise.  SBC isn't the largest.

Pastor interested in effect of right-wing writings on accused shooter

"In his first media interviews since the shooting, Buice said he's curious whether any clues might be gleaned from the writings of right-wing radio talk-show host Michael Savage and Fox News personalities Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, whose books were seized as evidence from Adkisson's residence by police.

"The words you choose may be the difference between war and peace," said Buice, speaking to a belief in the power of "dehumanizing language."

"I believe in rigorous debate," he said. "But what's the difference between a political opponent and a cockroach? You stomp a cockroach. You debate a political opponent. I believe, if you truly listen to your opponent, it will make you better."

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/aug/06/pastor-interested-effect-right-wing-writings-accus/


and don't forget this as the culture war turns for the worse....


Church shooter pleads guilty; letter released

Adkisson to spend life behind bars for crimes
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/feb/10/church-shooter-pleads-guilty-letter-released/
It was a simple plan, he wrote, borne out of hopelessness but rooted in patriotism.

“The future looks bleak,” the ex-soldier lamented. “I’m absolutely fed up! So I thought I’d do something good for this country — kill Democrats ‘til (sic) the cops kill me.”

With what he believed to be his last pen strokes, Jim David Adkisson urged other suicidal soldiers against the “liberalism that’s destroying America” to leave their own trail of carnage behind.

“I’d like to encourage other like-minded people to do what I’ve done,” Adkisson wrote. “If life ain’t worth living anymore, don’t just kill yourself. Do something for your country before you go. Go kill liberals.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/opinion/14rich.html?th&emc=th

OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Obama Haters’ Silent Enablers
By FRANK RICH
Published: June 13, 2009
WHEN a Fox News anchor, reacting to his own network’s surging e-mail traffic, warns urgently on-camera of a rise in hate-filled, “amped up” Americans who are “taking the extra step and getting the gun out,” maybe we should listen. He has better sources in that underground than most.

The anchor was Shepard Smith, speaking after Wednesday’s mayhem at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. Unlike the bloviators at his network and elsewhere on cable, Smith is famous for his highly caffeinated news-reading, not any political agenda. But very occasionally — notably during Hurricane Katrina — he hits the Howard Beale mad-as-hell wall. Joining those at Fox who routinely disregard the network’s “We report, you decide” mantra, he both reported and decided, loudly.

What he reported was this: his e-mail from viewers had “become more and more frightening” in recent months, dating back to the election season. From Wednesday alone, he “could read a hundred” messages spewing “hate that’s not based in fact,” much of it about Barack Obama and some of it sharing the museum gunman’s canard that the president was not a naturally born citizen. These are Americans “out there in a scary place,” Smith said.

Then he brought up another recent gunman: “If you’re one who believes that abortion is murder, at what point do you go out and kill someone who’s performing abortions?” An answer, he said, was provided by Dr. George Tiller’s killer. He went on: “If you are one who believes these sorts of things about the president of the United States ...” He left the rest of that chilling sentence unsaid.

These are extraordinary words to hear on Fox. The network’s highest-rated star, Bill O’Reilly, had assailed Tiller, calling him “Tiller the baby killer” and likening him to the Nazis, on 29 of his shows before the doctor was murdered at his church in Kansas. O’Reilly was unrepentant, stating that only “pro-abortion zealots and Fox News haters” would link him to the crime. But now another Fox star, while stopping short of blaming O’Reilly, was breaching his network’s brand of political correctness: he tied the far-right loners who had gotten their guns out in Wichita and Washington to the mounting fury of Obama haters.

What is this fury about? In his scant 145 days in office, the new president has not remotely matched the Bush record in deficit creation. Nor has he repealed the right to bear arms or exacerbated the wars he inherited. He has tried more than his predecessor ever did to reach across the aisle. But none of that seems to matter. A sizable minority of Americans is irrationally fearful of the fast-moving generational, cultural and racial turnover Obama embodies — indeed, of the 21st century itself. That minority is now getting angrier in inverse relationship to his popularity with the vast majority of the country. Change can be frightening and traumatic, especially if it’s not change you can believe in.

We don’t know whether the tiny subset of domestic terrorists in this crowd is egged on by political or media demagogues — though we do tend to assume that foreign jihadists respond like Pavlov’s dogs to the words of their most fanatical leaders and polemicists. But well before the latest murderers struck — well before another “antigovernment” Obama hater went on a cop-killing rampage in Pittsburgh in April — there have been indications that this rage could spiral out of control.

This was evident during the campaign, when hotheads greeted Obama’s name with “Treason!” and “Terrorist!” at G.O.P. rallies. At first the McCain-Palin campaign fed the anger with accusations that Obama was “palling around with terrorists.” But later John McCain thought better of it and defended his opponent’s honor to a town-hall participant who vented her fears of the Democrats’ “Arab” candidate. Although two neo-Nazi skinheads were arrested in an assassination plot against Obama two weeks before Election Day, the fever broke after McCain exercised leadership.

That honeymoon, if it was one, is over. Conservatives have legitimate ideological beefs with Obama, rightly expressed in sharp language. But the invective in some quarters has unmistakably amped up. The writer Camille Paglia, a political independent and confessed talk-radio fan, detected a shift toward paranoia in the air waves by mid-May. When “the tone darkens toward a rhetoric of purgation and annihilation,” she observed in Salon, “there is reason for alarm.” She cited a “joke” repeated by a Rush Limbaugh fill-in host, a talk-radio jock from Dallas of all places, about how “any U.S. soldier” who found himself with only two bullets in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden would use both shots to assassinate Pelosi and then strangle Reid and bin Laden.

This homicide-saturated vituperation is endemic among mini-Limbaughs. Glenn Beck has dipped into O’Reilly’s Holocaust analogies to liken Obama’s policy on stem-cell research to the eugenics that led to “the final solution” and the quest for “a master race.” After James von Brunn’s rampage at the Holocaust museum, Beck rushed onto Fox News to describe the Obama-hating killer as a “lone gunman nutjob.” Yet in the same show Beck also said von Brunn was a symptom that “the pot in America is boiling,” as if Beck himself were not the boiling pot cheering the kettle on.

But hyperbole from the usual suspects in the entertainment arena of TV and radio is not the whole story. What’s startling is the spillover of this poison into the conservative political establishment. Saul Anuzis, a former Michigan G.O.P. chairman who ran for the party’s national chairmanship this year, seriously suggested in April that Republicans should stop calling Obama a socialist because “it no longer has the negative connotation it had 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago.” Anuzis pushed “fascism” instead, because “everybody still thinks that’s a bad thing.” He didn’t seem to grasp that “fascism” is nonsensical as a description of the Obama administration or that there might be a risk in slurring a president with a word that most find “bad” because it evokes a mass-murderer like Hitler.

The Anuzis “fascism” solution to the Obama problem has caught fire. The president’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and his speech in Cairo have only exacerbated the ugliness. The venomous personal attacks on Sotomayor have little to do with the 3,000-plus cases she’s adjudicated in nearly 17 years on the bench or her thoughts about the judgment of “a wise Latina woman.” She has been tarred as a member of “the Latino KKK” (by the former Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo), as well as a racist and a David Duke (by Limbaugh), and portrayed, in a bizarre two-for-one ethnic caricature, as a slant-eyed Asian on the cover of National Review. Uniting all these insults is an aggrieved note of white victimization only a shade less explicit than that in von Brunn’s white supremacist screeds.

Obama’s Cairo address, meanwhile, prompted over-the-top accusations reminiscent of those campaign rally cries of “Treason!” It was a prominent former Reagan defense official, Frank Gaffney, not some fringe crackpot, who accused Obama in The Washington Times of engaging “in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain.” He claimed that the president — a lifelong Christian — “may still be” a Muslim and is aligned with “the dangerous global movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood.” Gaffney linked Obama by innuendo with Islamic “charities” that “have been convicted of providing material support for terrorism.”

If this isn’t a handy rationalization for another lone nutjob to take the law into his own hands against a supposed terrorism supporter, what is? Any such nutjob can easily grab a weapon. Gun enthusiasts have been on a shopping spree since the election, with some areas of our country reporting percentage sales increases in the mid-to-high double digits, recession be damned.

The question, Shepard Smith said on Fox last week, is “if there is really a way to put a hold on” those who might run amok. We’re not about to repeal the First or Second Amendments. Hard-core haters resolutely dismiss any “mainstream media” debunking of their conspiracy theories. The only voices that might penetrate their alternative reality — I emphasize might — belong to conservative leaders with the guts and clout to step up as McCain did last fall. Where are they? The genteel public debate in right-leaning intellectual circles about the conservative movement’s future will be buried by history if these insistent alarms are met with silence.

It’s typical of this dereliction of responsibility that when the Department of Homeland Security released a plausible (and, tragically, prescient) report about far-right domestic terrorism two months ago, the conservative response was to trash it as “the height of insult,” in the words of the G.O.P. chairman Michael Steele. But as Smith also said last week, Homeland Security was “warning us for a reason.”

No matter. Last week it was business as usual, as Republican leaders nattered ad infinitum over the juvenile rivalry of Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich at the party’s big Washington fund-raiser. Few if any mentioned, let alone questioned, the ominous script delivered by the actor Jon Voight with the G.O.P. imprimatur at that same event. Voight’s devout wish was to “bring an end to this false prophet Obama.”

This kind of rhetoric, with its pseudo-Scriptural call to action, is toxic. It is getting louder each day of the Obama presidency. No one, not even Fox News viewers, can say they weren’t warned.

OP-ED COLUMNIST
A Threat We Can’t Ignore
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/20/opinion/20herbert.html?emc=eta1

By BOB HERBERT
Published: June 19, 2009
Even with the murders that have already occurred, Americans are not paying enough attention to the frightening connection between the right-wing hate-mongers who continue to slither among us and the gun crazies who believe a well-aimed bullet is the ticket to all their dreams.

I hope I’m wrong, but I can’t help feeling as if the murder at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington and the assassination of the abortion doctor in Wichita, Kan., and the slaying of three police officers in Pittsburgh — all of them right-wing, hate-driven attacks — were just the beginning and that worse is to come.

As if the wackos weren’t dangerous enough to begin with, the fuel to further inflame them is available in the over-the-top rhetoric of the National Rifle Association, which has relentlessly pounded the bogus theme that Barack Obama is planning to take away people’s guns. The group’s anti-Obama Web site is called gunbanobama.com.

While the N.R.A. is not advocating violence, it shouldn’t take more than a glance at the newspapers to understand why this is a message that the country could do without. James von Brunn, the man accused of using a rifle to shoot a guard to death at the Holocaust museum last week, was described by relatives, associates and the police as a virulent racist and anti-Semite.

Investigators said they found a note that had been signed by von Brunn in the car that he double-parked outside the museum. The note said, “You want my weapons — this is how you’ll get them.”

Richard Poplawski, who, according to authorities, used a high-powered rifle to kill three Pittsburgh police officers in April, reportedly believed that Zionists were running the world and that, yes, Obama was planning to crack down on gun ownership. A friend said of Poplawski, he “feared the Obama gun ban that’s on the way.”

There is no Obama gun ban on the way. Gun control advocates are, frankly, disappointed in the president’s unwillingness to move ahead on even the mildest of gun control measures.

What’s important to grasp here is that this madness has nothing to do with hunting, which the politicians always claim to be defending, and everything to do with the use of firearms to resist policies and lawful government actions that some gun owners don’t like.

In a speech in February to the Conservative Political Action Conference, the executive vice president of the N.R.A., Wayne LaPierre, said: “Our founding fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules.”

A new book by Dennis Henigan, a vice president at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, goes into detail on this point. In “Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths That Paralyze American Gun Policy,” Mr. Henigan refers to a Harvard Law Journal article written by an N.R.A. lawyer titled, “The Second Amendment Ain’t About Hunting.” In the article, the lawyer makes it clear that for the N.R.A., the right to bear arms is “directed at maintaining an armed citizenry. ... to protect against the tyranny of our own government.”

There was a wave of right-wing craziness along those lines during the Clinton administration. Four federal agents were killed and 16 others wounded in 1993 during an attempt to serve a search warrant at the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Tex., where a stockpile of illegal machine guns had been amassed. The subsequent siege ended disastrously with a raging fire in which scores of people were killed.

In the aftermath of Waco, the N.R.A. did its typically hysterical, fear-mongering thing. In a fund-raising letter in the spring of 1995, LaPierre wrote: “Jack-booted government thugs [have] more power to take away our Constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us. ...”

Whatever the N.R.A. may intend by its rhetoric, there is always the danger that those inclined toward violence will incorporate it into their twisted worldview, and will find in the rhetoric a justification for murder. On the second anniversary of the Branch Davidian fire, less than a week after LaPierre’s inflammatory fund-raising letter went out, Timothy McVeigh blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

You cannot blame the N.R.A. for McVeigh’s actions. But you can sure blame it for ignoring the tragic lessons of history and continuing to spray gasoline into an environment that we have seen explode time and again.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has reported a resurgence of right-wing hate groups in the U.S. since Mr. Obama was elected president. Gun craziness of all kinds, including the passage of local laws making it easier to own and conceal weapons, is on the rise. Hate-filled Web sites are calling attention to the fact that the U.S. has a black president and that his chief of staff is Jewish.

It might be wise to pay closer attention than we’ve been paying. The first step should be to bring additional gun control back into the policy mix.


OTAY, light it up gunners.

Sometimes I get honored with a copy of the Southern Poverty Law Center magazine. Regardless of your politics, it is worthy of reading. It is both interesting and horrifying. In fact, it scares the bejeezus out of me what is happening under our very eyes that we decide to ignore because of our irrational fears of government "takin' er guns away'.

Required reading for the intelligent! Kinda splains why Guido, Conan, No Knothing, Iplawless etc. aren't in touch.

Randall Terry warns of ‘potential violence’ if health care reform passes

http://www.examiner.com/x-5697-Grassroots-Politics-Examiner~y2009m7d18-Randall-Terry-warns-of-potential-violence-if-health-care-reform-passes?cid=examiner-email


“Let all those in government be warned: They cannot order people to pay for murder and betray God Himself without horrific consequences” -Randall Terry
Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue, and other local anti-abortion advocates will hold a press conference at the National Press Club on Tuesday, July 21 to discuss what they will and will not do if healthcare passes.
 
"Let all those in government be warned: They cannot order people to pay for the murder of babies, and betray God Himself, without horrific consequences."
 
The recent murder of Dr. George Tiller at his place of worship was trumpeted as God’s justice by Terry while other groups such as the American Center for Law and Justice fought to protect the “truth truck” displaying a picture of Tiller with the provocative message “Tiller the Killer Gets no Peace.”.
 
Terry says it is clear that many elements in the pro-choice congress and White House want to force Americans to pay for what he calls the murder of the unborn in their healthcare program.
 
“If that happens, it is tantamount to the government putting a gun to taxpayers' heads to pay for the brutal murder of an innocent child. This is tyranny and evil of the highest order.”
 
Terry ominously suggests that violence will result with or without his prodding:
 
"Please understand: neither I, nor any thinking person wants the convulsions that would inevitably come from such a government policy -- the decision to force Americans to pay for the murder of their neighbor.
 
"Nevertheless, the sheer horror and frustration of such an evil policy will lead some people to absolutely refuse to pay their taxes. And I believe -- if my reading of history from America and around the world is correct -- that there are others who will be tempted to acts of violence.
 
"If the government of this country tramples the faith and values of its citizens, history will hold those in power responsible for the violent convulsions that follow."
-Randall Terry

No outrage from this unAmerican bs? Why do Kristians hate people?


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXcMjUeZci0[/youtube]

 Randall Terry is a terrorist. There might be damage? Reprisals? Whhaaaa....if i can't get it my way, let's settle this through violence. Pu$$ies.

 It's a real war the right wing hate media shills are starting.

http://www.action3news.com/Global/story.asp?S=11015366

Makeshift bomb thrown at Neb. abortion clinic
Associated Press - August 30, 2009 12:05 PM ET

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) - Lincoln police say someone attempted to throw a Molotov cocktail at the local Planned Parenthood clinic, but missed.

Instead, police say, the makeshift explosive fell just short of the building and burned pavement in the parking lot. It was reported about 11:20 p.m. Thursday.

The incident is under investigation. Police aren't sure whether it's linked to a recent string of crimes involving Molotov cocktails.

The Planned Parenthood fire came on the eve of a 2-day abortion protest at a clinic in Bellevue, which is about 45 miles northeast of Lincoln.

Information from: KOLN-TV, http://www.kolnkgin.com

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Seven of the last eight posts on this thread are from the same poster.

The sound of one hand clapping...

The fight goes on!

Its all in how you present stuff. My count was 4 of the last 5 were his posts. Now its 5 of the last 8. Improving.

1 of the last 4

Now only one in the last five...

The solution to pollution is dilution.

Might as well play 1:6

Tulsa's version were out in force last night!



Those racist radicals http://www.theusapatriots.com/

 http://www.newson6.com/Global/category.asp?C=121535&clipId=4073692&autostart=true  See both sides...

You know what this thread is missing?  A picture of a rabbit with a pancake on its head:

(http://www.worldofzach.com/rabbit_pancake.jpg)

And now, it's perfect.

And this little goddess

(http://peopleofwalmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/211.jpg)

A classic thread jack that CF will not be called out on because the TulsaNerdForum Moderators are not Groove Crushing haters.

Townsend, you are a hypocrite.

This thread has devolved into FOTD screaming from on top of his box on the street corner.  You can't jack crap.

Townie, man up. Nobody used capitals. There's no screaming. Just you dirty posters who say one thing then do just the opposite. You have no integrity.

That Fauxturd really knows how to pamper his dog......

(http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/8940/doggieboypq8.jpg)

FOTD is getting all the Nerd Forumers out of their squaller.

By the looks of that tub you be in the squaller....

AP source: Census worker hanged with 'fed' on body http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jbzG_BlkG2Hfc818EPRRn1bBlP6gD9AT8QC80
By DEVLIN BARRETT and JEFFREY McMURRAY (AP) – 8 hours ago
WASHINGTON — The FBI is investigating the hanging death of a U.S. Census worker near a Kentucky cemetery. A law enforcement official says the word "fed" was scrawled on his chest.
The body of Bill Sparkman, a 51-year-old Census field worker and occasional teacher, was found Sept. 12 in the Daniel Boone National Forest in rural southeast Kentucky.
Investigators have said little about the case. A law enforcement official, who was not authorized to discuss the case and requested anonymity, tells The Associated Press the word "fed" was written on the dead man's chest.
FBI spokesman David Beyer said the bureau is helping state police determine if Sparkman's death was the result of foul play, and if so, whether it was related to his census work.''


The wingnuts will get worse if they are not crushed - and soon

Yep GOP wingnuts are out lynching the G-men now.  News you can believe in!

In his optimism that an entire region of inbred hillbillies could actually be crushed, he never mentioned GOP right wing terrorists. Are there some of those as well?

As dumb as those folk are they probably meant to spell "red" or "Jed". ;)

Maybe not GOP wingnuts but worse....insurrectionists.

This stuff is just unreal- The far radical left just does not quit. The brite spot is that this should help Obama be a one-term president. I cannot see Obama winning a 2nd term. Many people I know who voted for Obama are sorry they did. If the vote can be re-done today it's likely Obama would not carry Michigan, Ohio, and FL.. As for me I think anyone who runs against Obama in 2012 will be a shoo-in for president even if it's Micky Mouse. We are worse off then the Jimmy Carter era. I am a big supporter of Sarah Palin and I hope she gets elected as president in 2012.  :)

OK seriously, which one of you guys made up this persona?

/facedesk

That explains ALOT....nice play...backing a quitter.

That doesn't fly....sorry.

W T F? This old broad is from Austria and she’s wandering around talking about Hitler being elected? Not in Austria he wasn’t.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyfD_QIwjtA&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

It isn't really socialism these people fear...it's the fact we are no longer controlled by white people....

As much as the devil wants to correct intolerance, he can't fix stupid.

Once again, you show your own intolerance by insisting that the issue is about race.

Explain to me what is the common thread with all these people?

Also, please explain what's the issue in your opinion.

We'll approach it from your angle.

Could it have anything to do with the fact that Obama's platform was "share the wealth" and what equals a socialisitic medical plan, which can easily be interpreted as trying to lead the way into a socialistic government?  And the fact that Communism was based on Socialism?  Now don't get me wrong, while I disagree with a lot of our Presidents plans, I don't think he is the equivelant to Hitlar, but that doesn't mean that those that think he is are racist.  After all, Hitler was the penical of White Supremacy, so those who look apon Hitler as a negative thing (yes, I am one of those) would be in effect agaisnt racism.

Your constant race baiting is getting to be a really old schtick.  Claiming everyone that is against someone of a minority is a racist is just idiotic.  So far, you seem to be the most racist member of this board that I have seen.

Obtuse angle. Good luck with chiseling away at the errant foundations he's laid devil man.

Six months ago I did not believe racism played much of a role in anti-Obamania. At least not overtly. Now I am being converted. E-mails, conversations, bumper stickers, guests on Fox etc. have made me realize that it is a strong undercurrent. Still not mainstream, but certainly an aggravating factor.  Many people make a distinction between racism and discrimination. They may make disparaging, cynical, stereotypical remarks about minorities but strongly deny that they would ever discriminate against them. (Remember Seinfeld talking about gays? "Not that there's anything wrong with that")
But when the crowd thins and they talk openly, you see and hear the long held beliefs start to surface and you wonder just how fair and open minded the criticisms are.

A friend of mine recently confided to me her horror to hear her mom, who has a masters degree in the counseling field, exclaim that Obama was the anti-christ. Her minister in the Church of Christ had informed the congregation. She didn't know how to respond any more than I did when a close worker back in the Nixon years asserted that Kissinger was the anti-christ, followed by a secession of anti-christ figures culminating with "that one". Doesn't take much to be one apparently. These were smart, educated people. The one thing they seem to have in common is religion and southern location.

Notes off hand:

-sp. equivalent, Hitler, upon, against, pinnacle.

-Share the wealth is not Obama's platform but a recurve of the wealth distribution was and is in order. That doesn't imply a change in economic systems as much as it does a recognition of a system that has been abused.

-Whether that medical plan is "socialistic" is arguable considering that it attempts to force everyone to participate rather than just those with good jobs. Sounds pretty fair to me. The single payer element would have given the customer a choice. Sounds pretty free market American to me.

-Communism and Socialism are not necessarily intertwined with each other. Denmark is Socialist but not Communist. A lot of countries (including ours) mix the elements.

FOTD thought the discussion thread was about domestic terrorism. You seem to want to take the discussion down a notch to the healthcare issue. That is not a division defined by race.


This fight against hate is not race bait oriented. The rhetoric from the right is definitely idiotic and the big question remains: What are the leaders of the opposition doing to quell the hatred? Nothing. They let their entertainers and their GOPeers fan the flames. Those South Carolina GOPeers are the cream of the crop. Michele Bachman needs to be censored. Why did this hate talk not happen under Bush? Because, the hate was aimed, justifiably, towards the liars who led and their foolishness with regard to the handling of our economy.


FOTD will tell you that the domestic terrorists assemble their ideology through the belief they can get their cuntry back. Back to what? That old time religion? They fear their values have been lost. Guess what? Live with the change.

I won't say that there aren't racist on the far right that their basis of opposition aren't those beliefs.  What I am saying is that the racism/discrimination also exists on the left and eveywhere in between. I am also saying that trying to play the race card at every possible opening does nothing more then give a generic answer to any opposition and promotes the vary thing that you are claiming is the problem.


And this relates to racism how?  I know a guy that thinks every promonant political figure is the anti-christ.  He thought Bush was, now he thinks Obama is.  But then again, I am also of the belief that to be religious you have to step beyond logical thought, so not much can be placed into these arguments.

Everyone has a weakness, mine is spelling.  I have always been horrible at it, and add in my typo's, and you could come up with a large list of these throughout my posts.

During his campaign he was quoted making the statement of “Share the wealth”.  His opponents jumped on this to push the socialistic outlook of Obama.  I never said that this is what he was trying for, but what it was interpreted as this.

Once again, I said could be interpreted.
But, as I said, Communism was based on Socialism.  I’m not trying to say that these people are correct in their assessment, only that it doesn’t automatically make them racist because they have different views.

A fight against hate is not race bait, but to claim that every issue is about race when there is no evidence to support the claims is.  There are those out there that are exactly what you claim, but that does not make all that oppose you or POTUS racist. 

Claim every issue?

Health Care is a fight to keep the Health Care Mafia (Big Pharma and The Insurance Family and greedy Doctors abandoning their ethics) in check....the Economy was about the greed and Banksters....the lack of education is about privatization....church and government should be exclusive...where is race?

FOTD plays the race card when he can use it as back up to the stacked deck.... kinda like a wild card. But it's no joker as it speaks the truth about our history.

Then how is it that you took an article about a killing over the abortion issue, and immediatly started turning it into a race issue?  First post.  Stop playing innocent, you know that your going to turn every issue you can into a race issue because that is what everything is about with you.  I think you need to start reading a little more Martin Luther King Jr, and a little less Don King.

No. The first post is about inciting murder over the right to free choice. This form of Domestic Terrorism stems from not being able to accept the right of choice guaranteed by the constitution.

You don't understand the discussion difference between racism and race.

As I said, a killing over the abortion issue.  That shouldn't even be a discussion of if the pro-choice crowd is right on the issue, or the pro-life crowd is right.  It's about the fact that someone on one side took their views to the point of taking the life of someone on the other (the fact that it was a pro-lifer is just an ironic point).  However, you made sure that before you ended your comments on the issue that you brought up the racists on the right.  Then you bring more race issues into the thread.  As to where this stems from, it comes from an individuals intollerance to others, which exists on both sides of the line. And I'm trying to figure out where in the constitution your guaranteed "choice".


Without race, racism does not exist, so you cannot logically separate the two.

That is what bugs me about the whole thing.  People don't have any clue pancakes they are talking about.  You have republicans claiming they must stop the socialist health care bill to save peoples medicare, etc etc.  Making a living will means they are going to try to kill you.  Nonsensical morons yelling about crap they don't understand.  It is pretty sad that this is what the Republican party has been reduced to as their base.  I guess the educated Republicans who know pancakes is going and have valid arguments just don't yell loud enough.  And No, repeating Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity doesn't make you have valid arguments.

It's the "baffle them with bull****" strategy.  Pepper the debate with misstatements, half-truths, and outright falsehoods that might seem plausible to people who are sympathetic to your cause. Present it all as fact and you'll pick off enough people to destroy a consensus.  It's an inherently undemocratic strategy, and designed more to ensure failure of an initiative than to foster discussion.  But then that's where we are with the Republican rump these days. More interested in making sure Obama meets his Waterloo than trying to join in a productive debate.

(http://www.chimpout.com/forum/imagehosting/140483a0063b70c8.gif)

/obligatory

however, to accuse just one side of these tactics would be inaccurate.  While there are seemingly a large number on the right that are dangerously fanatic, I think it is primarily because the views of the right tend to attract the more aggressive types.  This does not mean that they do not exist on the left, nor that the same tactics are not used.

A quick jaunt to the sidetrack of the subject of racism.  I know that it is a problem in this country, but it is quickly dieing.  I can say this by comparing it to 30 - 40 years ago.  While we still have a large fight left ahead of us, it is a mostly winnable battle. There will be, of course, a few hold outs until the aliens show up.  My point has been that not every prejudice is based on race, and when you try to claim it is, you only add fuel to the fire.  While many of the ones that are claimed to be racist might be just that, unless there is something to justify the claims (a history of showing a prejudice against a minority), constantly saying people are is like pissing in the wind.  Your message gets lost.  

I believe most Americans believe in helping the unfortunate and allowing the rest that are able, to accumulate their own wealth.  A little nuance of disagreement.

FOTD is not going into a long discussion over race and the institutions that have been weaken by the government trying to neutralize race as an issue without the proper follow ups and re calibrations to insure success.

This differs greatly from racism which will change as the WASP's become a minority.

Protestantism is a religion. Just fyi.....it's not a race.

W = White
A = Anglo
S = Saxon
P = Protestant

Only one letter/word referring to religion.  Let me know when white is no longer another word for Caucasian, which is a race.  Anglo-Saxon is a coincidence of ancestory, kind of like African.

Just FYI.

This demon's told you before and will tell you again....in two generations the majority will be chartreuse.

The devil doesn't mean to scare you but you came from Africa just like all the rest of the human species.

What do either of the two factoids above have to do with the fact that WASP is, in part, a racial identifier?  That was the only thing I was calling your hand on in reference to Protestantism.

Curses!



Religious group sued for allegedly inciting harm through prayers


http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/10/a-former-military-lawyer-who-served-in-the-reagan-white-house-is-suing-a-dallas-based-religious-group-for-allegedly-inciting.html

"Klingenschmitt, 41, told The News that he has "never incited anybody" to hurt Weinstein, whom he called a "paranoid megalomaniac who has a history of anti-Christian persecution."

Kinda fun suit in my eyes.  If you think prayer really is a powerful force and can effect a result, then you can not argue that the other person isn't put in a "reasonable fear of harm" by your actions.  By taking an action that you believe can effect a result, and in this instance it is a negative result - it is the same as throwing a rock at a window:  you reasonable expect something to happen.  And if your actions intentionally put another in a reasonable fear of harm, it's a tort.

OR . . . prayer is a quaint remnant of bronze age beliefs and isn't meant to effectuate an actual result. In which case whatever utterances I make have no actual effect on you and are never actionable.  But if you believe your prayers really will cause harm to befall someone else - it makes an interesting case.

In this instance the guy prays every day that this other guy's "days are short", that he is non-productive, and that other essentially bad things happen to him.   Actionable?  I'm not sure and on a personal level I don't think so.  But interesting anyway. 

What the heck is "kinda fun" about a person using our taxpayer supported judicial system to carry on a BS lawsuit and forcing someone to hire counsel at considerable expense to defend against it? Perhaps from a plaintiff lawyer POV it's fun because all it costs them is a small filing fee.
But seriously, are you suggesting that a prayer is a tort? Could luck with that, especially when it comes to establishing causation of an actual injury. If something bad happens to this guy, how is he going to link it to a prayer? And what if it was the prayer?  Will this guy turn around and sue God?  I guess if the defendant is found liable he will have one heck of an indemnification/contribution claim against God.

I could see the fun in trying to make the argument.  Also, I think he was saying the intent is what causes the tort, not relating to any actual damages.

Other than slander per se, I cannot right now think of any "tort" that can exist without actual damages. Meaning, without actual damages, you have no cause of action, ergo, your lawsuit is BS.  I guess that moron plaintiff could argue he has suffered the injury of last resort, "emotional distress". Good luck connecting that to a prayer, though. Plus, according to the defendant, this guy already has some preexisting issues that would militate that contention.

I see it as the equivilant of putting duds in a gun, giving it to a guy, telling him it's loaded with life ammo, and him pointing it at someone and pulling the trigger.  It doesn't do anything, but he believed it would 

I'm not an attorney, so I don't know how the lawsuit would play out in that situation, but I could still see the fun in arguing the case.

While it sounds "fun", and I do not begrudge those who think it is by any means, my entire point is that the courts should not be the place for personal entertainment.

I do agree that the court room should not be used as a source of personal entertainment, and fun should not be the basis of filing a suit.  However, if you must argue a case, why not argue one that you will enjoy doing so if it's being filed regardless?

One person murdering someone else does not make an act of terrorism. Tiller the baby serial killer got what he deserved and as far as I am concerned this murder is just an act of vigilante justice.

So people who most likely do not believe in God are going to sue over something they view as make believe. I know lets sue Harry Potter nerds if they recite any hocus pocus from one of the Harry Potter books.

Why does this not surprise me coming from you.

 ::)

Are you proposing that we return to the ways of the "old West"?

I can't argue with you about that.

Wingnut self-parody alert!

Another source:

http://rackjite.com/archives/4059-John-Brek-photo-one-of-30-threats-a-day-Obama-receives.html

John Brek - photo - one of 30 threats a day Obama receives

President Obama receives 30 threats a day. A 400% increase over George W. Bush. Of course - like the Birthers, Tea Baggers and Rush Limbaugh - this too has nothing to do with race.  

The most recent threat was by John Brek - a New Jersey airport security guard taken into custody on a $100,000 bond - for being overheard making threats against the President the day before President Obama was to come through that airport to campaign for Senator Corzine.

One may wonder what KIND OF PERSON brags to coworkers around the coffee koisk that he wants to off the President? What does that KIND OF PERSON look like?

Going to John Brek's apartment the Secret Service found his front door adorned with "God Bless America" and "United We Stand" signs. Inside they found 43 guns. His father of the same name, said his son was an avid Republican and NRA member who needed the cache of weapons for rabbit hunting. John Brek NY Daily News

And of course allow me to add some truth that isn't allowed to be said.  

What channel on television did John watch ya think? We can't say FOX NEWS YOU BETCHA!

Who do you think he watched on Fox News? We can't say GLENN BECK!

Who do you think he listens to on the Radio?  We can't say Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannnity.

What websites do you think he went to?  We can't say FreeRepublic and MaxNews.

What KIND OF PEOPLE do you think John most relates to? We can't say Tea Baggers.

Speculation as truth?

/snicker

FOTD admits he too slips in a peak at the freak show every now and then....watch Rachel and then Bill...whew, mirror images.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6pdAXusgqk&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]


The anti abortionists and their assassins are the lowest form of life in this great country. Reprehensible publicity stunt to generate fear and hatred. Expect more hate from these domestic terrorists until their politicians speak out against this premeditated violence....

Don't expect Sullivan, Inhofe, Coburn et al to say a thing because to them this is about putting abortion rights on trial instead of Scott Roeder.

Here is an American hero: Kennedy spars with church on abortion
He exchanges nasty comments with bishop

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/10/24/kennedy_spars_with_catholic_church_on_abortion_and_health_care/

Hate for Sale!


http://www.macsconfederate.com/shirts.htm



Heh heh - those bastards must really be pissed off about Obama...This devil is so pleased he got elected, if for nothing else than that.

Umm, yeah.  Maybe needed a NSFW label on that one FOTD.  Overt racist images/T-shirt shopping can get a person fired instantly from their job.

FOTD, do us sensible folk a favor and remove the link, it's repugnant.  We all get there are pinhead web sites out there, let's not use TNF as a portal to those. + What CF said.

or...no clicky on FOTD linky in the future.  It just makes sense.

Remove it? No way. Guido posted those guys jerking off which set a new standard.

This is what is left of the Republican base.

Did you notice the BOOKS section? Don't think any of the books were more than 40 pages long. The devil imagines that their clientele spend less time reading than the contributors to that site do.

Towny, don't click on the links FOTD puts up. Your loss.

You guys should be working and not waisting time at TNF! Get to work.

Wow.  That's some evil smile right there.

Why would you want to post that, dude?

Really FOTD?

Please don't post that stuff. Please delete that post.

Come on....you know why the devil posts this stuff....it exposes the vast right wing conspirators...Well, This devil will not advocate shutting down their link. It is my intention to expose the fact that these sites exist and flourish, here in 21st century America.

Well then...I have lost respect for you.

I have always appreciated your posts and tireless efforts to rail against republicans, but there is a line. Posting links to websites that promote nasty racism is that line for this forum, in my opinion.

I politely ask again...please delete that post.

Which domestic, right wing terrorist outfit shot at that notoriously left winger Lou Dobbs' home recently?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qjbgk1TKLWY

How is what I said inaccurate?

     Tiller made a living killing viable human babies,those were his victims.How does that not make him a serial killer? Do you know what viable mean? It means the ability of the baby to survive outside the uterus. Which is 20-35% chance at 23 weeks and 50-70% at 24 to 25 weeks and more than 90% at 26 to 27 weeks.   The law failed to take out this man so another man Scott Roeder took it up himself to see that Tiller would never kill another baby again.

RM, this is why there has to be a line drawn. Jamesrage is a little fool who thinks his beliefs should dominate the majority and they will even use their theories to justify murder. So do those who post hate web sites.

Glou Dobber!

 Hate is hate - if you hate ANYONE just for who you think they are, you are a d o u s c h e bag.


Congress Expands Hate Crime Bill Despite Right-Wing Opposition
Wednesday 28 October 2009
by: Yana Kunichoff, t r u t h o u t | Report

http://www.truthout.org/1028098

What theories?


The same thing can be said about abortionist, so pot meet kettle.

The law didn't take out Tiller because Tiller was performing perfectly legal medical procedures. You may disagree with its morality, but that fact remains indisputable.

And the abortion clinic where Tiller worked still operates. So killing Tiller did nothing.

Roeder is on trial for murder and will almost certainly be convicted. Tiller was never convicted of any crime that I'm aware of, despite legal harassment. To equate the two is dishonest.

JR....are you a member of a certain religious denomination?

Rachel Maddow Interview with Former Evangelist Frank Schaeffer: Christian Right Is 'Trolling for Assassins'
AlterNet. Posted November 19, 2009.


Schaeffer: "There is a crazy fringe [receiving] messages that have been pouring out of FOX News ... talking about doing away with Obama, asking God to kill him."

http://www.alternet.org/rights/144054/rachel_maddow_interview_with_former_evangelist_frank_schaeffer:_christian_right_is_'trolling_for_assassins'?page=1


" Has anybody else crept out by this? "
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZzsjULXDnA[/youtube]


" So, there‘s a direct parallel here with Timothy McVeigh‘s t-shirt on the day of the Oklahoma City bombing in which he said that the tree of liberty had to be watered occasionally by the blood of tyrants.  And that quote, we saw again at a meeting at which Obama was present being carried on a placard by someone carrying a loaded weapon.

What we‘re looking at right now is two things going on. We see the evangelical groups that I talk about in my new book, “Patience with God,” enthralled by an apocalyptic vision that I go into in some detail there. They represent the millions of people who have turned the “Left Behind” series into best sellers.  Most of them are not crazy, they‘re just deluded.

But there is a crazy fringe to whom all these little messages that have been pouring out of FOX News, now on a bumper sticker, talking about doing away with Obama, asking God to kill him.

Really, this is trolling for assassins.  And this is serious business.
It‘s un-American.  It‘s unpatriotic."


"Look, this is the American version of the Taliban.  The Taliban quotes the Quran and al Qaeda quotes certain verses in the Quran, in and out of context, calling for jihad and bloody war and the curse of Allah on infidels."


"And what surprises me is that responsible—if you can put it that way—Republican leadership and the editors of some of these Christian magazines, et cetera, et cetera, do not stand-up in holy hour (ph) and denounce this."

Army fears anti-Obama politics at Palin event

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091119/ap_en_ce/us_palin_fort_bragg


Sarah could make more serious dough letting Levi beitch slap her and terminate dividing our country without reason......

Madow is becoming a total crank.  How do you watch that crap night after night?

Okay... Yes he was...the census taker supposedly killed in Appalachia....he did himself in....

there's still gobs and gobs of debris to come out in this thread....stand by.

Okay, not sure how that graphic little graphic relates, but you gotta wonder how they arrived at the conclusion that someone staged their suicide to look like a homicide.

Deranged on all counts...

More right wing terrorism, this time in Arkansas.

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2009/dec/25/majors-shooting-tragedy-community-say-authorities/

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Review some of the posts in this thread and how others define "terrorism" and I think you will see the point I was making.

O/T: In less than two months we have had two terrorist attacks in this country, neither of which fit within the profile the Homeland Security Department's "right wing extremists" warning. Remember this gem:


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/14/homeland-security-warns-rise-right-wing-extremism/

Conviction angers anti-abortion militants
Some fear Scott Roeder’s guilty verdict will embolden others to violence

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35162547/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

'Everybody is pretty angry'
The Rev. Donald Spitz, of Chesapeake, Va., who runs the Army of God Web site supporting violence against abortion providers, said the rejection of that argument has upset those who view Roeder as a hero.

"I know there is not a lot of good feeling out there — everybody is pretty angry," he said.

Spitz was the spiritual adviser to Paul Hill and was with him at his 2003 execution for the killing of a Florida abortion provider and a clinic escort in 1994, an event that led to a lull in violence at abortion clinics. While saying he knows nothing of impending plans by others against abortion doctors, Spitz scoffed at suggestions that Roeder's conviction will have a similar effect.

"Times change," Spitz said. "People are not as passive as they have been. They are more assertive."

"Network of extremists
Others are demanding a federal investigation and prosecution of what they claim is a network of extremists, citing Roeder's testimony that he talked to others about justifiable homicide of abortion doctors."

Sons of Terror

http://kmareka.com/2010/01/31/sons-of-terror/

" Good people can disagree. Dr. Tiller was murdered in church, where he served as an usher. Anti-abortion activists don’t represent all Christians. Abortion is not an easy moral issue. People of conscience who oppose abortion can aid women in need and children in poverty, they can use their freedom of speech to persuade, they can vote as they choose. They should reject the criminals who are using this issue to continue the tradition of domestic terror in the name of patriotism."


Supporters of the convicted murderer of Dr. Tiller are terrorists in our midst.

(Reuters) - The office of Representative Anthony Weiner on Thursday received a threatening letter containing an unidentified white powder, his office said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62O4O920100325

And still, no outrage from our GOP operatives. Amazing. Tyrannical Repiglican politicians will continue to cause great pain to our nation.

Getting Scary Out There
Mar 29 2010, 8:15 AM ET
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/0%203/getting-scary-out-there/38063/

What we shall take as a given is the incredible vacuity of the opposition. By now, everyone is surely familiar with the dishonest, fear-mongering arguments peddled by opponents of health care reform; it shouldn't be necessary to rehearse (or refute) them here. I don't mean to suggest there weren't reasonable arguments to be made, merely that, by and large, and for whatever reason, they weren't. Instead, the other side chose the route of hyperbole and hysterical misrepresentation. Maybe because it had worked for them in the past.

Over-the-top opposition to President Obama has by no means been restricted to that one issue, of course. From the very start of this presidency --- from before the very start --- a moderately liberal Democrat whose political views (as distinct from his personality) are actually rather safely conventional, has been portrayed as a radical, a socialist, a communist, a crypto-terrorist, a Muslim, and of course an illegal alien pretender in our midst.

For elected officials who spew this line, it's hard to explain their behavior except by suspecting that they are exceptionally sore losers. It's just not credible that they don't know better. They lost control of the House and Senate in 2006, and they lost the presidency in 2008. Did they not expect there would be policy consequences? They can't seriously contrive to feel cheated --- to feel there was some sort of legislative legerdemain --- when a Democratic majority voted in favor of a policy advocated by Democrats for almost a century and proposed by a Democratic president. What did they think was going to happen? Opposition is one thing, but outraged accusations of Solonic malpractice are another. To the extent that they believe their own cant --- and it's quite likely that much of the indignation is feigned --- they must believe the country and its direction are theirs by divine right, and that any government, regardless of how legitimately elected and installed, with a different set of policies, constitutes a usurpation. Such a feeling would go some way toward explaining the grotesquerie of the Bush v. Gore decision back in 2000, as well as Republican responses to President Obama's recent attempts at bipartisanship, which their leadership appeared to interpret as an offer to cede decision-making in toto to the opposition caucus. And to feel aggrieved when that did not occur.

More disturbing still is the behavior of the Tea Partiers and their fellow-travelers. Their importance, and certainly their numbers, are absurdly exaggerated by the media. Why not? They make for a great story. But their capacity for mischief isn't dependent on the existence of vast hordes of like-minded comrades. Nor even on a coherent set of beliefs: one of the more disturbing things about the Tea Party movement is how ill-defined its credo actually is. Once you get past the slogans --- many of them drawn verbatim from Fox News talking points --- you look in vain for serious content. Yes, these people are mad as hell and they aren't going to take it anymore. No argument there. But they don't seem able to define with any precision what "it" is.

Those pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache, or decorated with a hammer and sickle, or sporting a lipsticked Joker grin, do not exactly suggest a sophisticated understanding of either politics or history, nor a desire to engage in serious forensics. This very morning on NPR, I heard several interviews Ina Jaffe had conducted with people who had traveled to Searchlight, Nevada, to attend the big weekend Tea Party rally. One participant said of Harry Reid, "He's a traitor, really. He hates America, really." (Those "reallys" sure make his inanity more persuasive, don't they?) With someone like that, there isn't much point in sitting down for a frank exchange of views; reality itself is just a pesky inconvenience to such people. And if you factor in the recent death threats, and drawings of nooses sent to House and Senate members, and the spitting, and the shouts of "******" and "friendly fellow," you begin to grasp that this inchoate anger is all the more dangerous precisely because it isn't wedded to a recognizable set of political principles. It's just rage, free-floating and ready to blow. Rage that's been cultivated, guided, and validated by some of more irresponsible media stars on the right. With the shameful assistance and connivance of some elected officials.

Why is this scary? Haven't there always been nuts among us? Has not the invocation of Richard Hofstadter's "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" become a trusty, rusty cliche of liberal journalism, especially by those who haven't read it? Well, yes. But for those of us who recall President Clinton's first term, there is nothing innocuous about this sort of thing. A similar taint of illegitimacy had been attached to the Clinton presidency in some circles, with all sorts of wild rumors (no, not those rumors, I'm talking about ones that weren't true) given much wider currency than they ever merited. The flames were similarly fanned by voices in the right-wing media (some of them the same people who are active and influential today), and given official imprimatur by the likes of the late Congressman (her preferred title) Helen Chenoweth, who affirmed the existence of black helicopters being flown over Western skies by secret government agents, and Congressman Dan Burton, who famously put a lethal bullet through a cantaloupe to prove Vince Foster had been murdered (unless the melon had in some way insulted his honor, but if that's the case, he kept it to himself), to President George H. W. Bush, to Pat Buchanan, to Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

Small wonder that these beliefs began to seem plausible to the credulous, the alienated, the politically disappointed, and yes, thank you, Richard Hofstadter, the paranoid. And they gained momentum --- and a growing simulacrum of respectability --- during the first 15 months of Clinton's presidency, by which time they had reached a high-water mark. And what finally checked their growth and re-routed their course? Do a time line if you doubt me. It was Timothy McVey's bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The reality of where all this anger could lead was a wake-up call, and America did wake up. We heard less of those insane fantasies after that. Until recently.

Would I blame the enablers if something terrible were to happen? Of course I would. They might bear no legal liability, and in any case, I'm enough of a First Amendment absolutist to feel great hesitation about criminalizing any speech that doesn't violate the "clear and present danger" doctrine. But would there be moral culpability? You bet there would. And maybe more...as far as I know, Slobodan Milosevic didn't personally pull any triggers either. It's a reckless game these people are playing.

And it's time to stop it. We shouldn't have to wait for the next Oklahoma City to dial things back. Because I'm willing to bet that at this very moment, creative variations of that Oklahoma City bombing are being planned all over the country, planned by people who believe that the Rush Limbaughs and the Glenn Becks of the world, and maybe the Sarah Palins and the Rick Perrys and the Joe Wilsons too, are secretly urging them on.


and in other news:

Tennessee man pleads guilty in plot against Obama


Mar 29, 8:24 PM (ET)

By SHEILA BURKE

JACKSON, Tenn. (AP) - A Tennessee man authorities say is a white supremacist has pleaded guilty to plotting to kill then-presidential candidate Barack Obama and dozens of other black people in 2008.

Twenty-one-year-old Daniel Cowart of Bells, Tenn., pleaded guilty Monday to eight of 10 counts in an indictment accusing him of conspiracy, threatening a presidential candidate and various federal firearms violations. Under a plea agreement, he faces 12 to 18 years in prison, but a federal judge could choose a longer sentence.

Co-defendant, 19-year-old Paul Schlesselman of Helena-West Helena, Ark., pleaded guilty in January and will be sentenced April 15.

Authorities have described the two as skinheads who planned a cross-country robbing and killing spree that would end with an attack on Obama.

But no mention of the arrest of a guy threatening to kill Repiglican Eric Cantor? Odd isn't it?

really? http://www.margieburns.com/blog/_archives/2010/3/29/4492602.html

btw....another right wing (Jew hating) NUT!


I liked your other avatar better....

Every day now. GOP won't call off their dogs....

Nancy Pelosi Threatened: California Man Arrested For Health Care Reform Threats

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/07/nancy-pelosi-threatened-c_n_529139.html

Where in that story did they mention this guy's political affiliation?

Coco, why has not one GOP leader said, "you nuts need to cut this crap out"?

They might offend their only base left?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XRRzBtKcFY[/youtube]

If you fail to speak out against this stuff, then you are a McVeighite.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr86F9rsihU&feature=related[/youtube]

If you continue to ignore the under pinnings of this attitude, then you too are racist and ignorant.

You are the only racist on here.

Look you drunk, you have no basis to say that.

fotd is not a racist, he is a Marxist.  Disrupt, defame, and discredit your enemy by any means necessary.  I guess it is a little bit racist because it uses minorities as pawns for a political gain.

Marxist? Where do you arrive at that conclusion?

Here's another right wing terrorist:

http://lifenews.com/state5014.html

Abortion provider killed:  National news

Pro-lifer killed:  Crickets

Looks like one of your brothers....

Big diff....sorry you can't recognize it.

The threat of America's nativist far right
While Peter King holds hearings on homegrown jihadists, the growing menace of white supremacist terror goes unremarked

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/24/far-right-terrorism


"Yet the distinction belies the reality of a movement that has long encouraged its adherents to act in "leaderless resistance" cells or carry out one-man guerrilla attacks (and become celebrated as "Phineas Priests", named for the Bible story of a man who executed an interracial couple)."

Oh Lord!  You're back to finish your book.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/tea-party-group-warns-white-extinction-america

"This county is dying not because it is aging, it is dying because of infertility as public policy."

 I hope he will get desperate enough to get a gun and shoot himself with it...

Beck: you need to get a gun because of Obama

http://www.rob-servations.com/1/post/2011/06/beck-you-need-to-get-a-gun-because-of-obama.html


A total Beck-up, just completely Becked! And Beck You, Too!

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2011/summer/inside-the-dhs-former-top-analyst-says-agency-bowed

...published in the Summer 2011 edition of the SPLC's Intelligence Report, Johnson acknowledged that the "Rightwing Extremism" report came about as a result of four questions asked of his team by Napolitano: "Are we seeing a rise in domestic terrorism? If so, is it related to the election of a black president? What are the chances of it escalating to violence? And what are we going to do about it?"

 It appears that the report's http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf conclusions were dead on.

You do realize this report is two years old, correct?  We've had two years of poor economy and a black president and armageddon hasn't happened.

"Right wing" is incredibly misleading, especially since the common vernacular considers conservatives, Christian zealots, and Tea Party Patriots as "right wing".  It's easy for the ill-informed to tie the two together.

The views espoused by hate groups are generally anti-government, anarchist, and even anti-social to an extent.

" (U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

"— (U) A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009. The alleged gunman’s reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a Jewish-controlled “one world government.”

No, that's an example of a paranoid nut job.

Did you read the rest of the first link?  The author of the report is a complete moron, oops, I mean Mormon.  He's blaming political pressure for crappy work?  Typical bureaucrat.  Democrats were in control of the White House and both houses of Congress when this report came out.  It's pretty hard to claim political pressure on this one.

"What ultimately happened?

Napolitano eventually told Congress that DHS was going to remove the report from its websites. Some of the people in the media assumed they were recalling the report. That never happened. There is actually a formal process involved when you want to rescind a report. The only reason you do so is if there was something erroneous in the document. Napolitano also told Congress that DHS was going to pull this report back and refashion it into a much more usable format. It never happened.

Is it off the DHS website today?

Yes. It was removed from various law enforcement computer systems, and classified systems too. But they never sent out an official recall notice saying, "Hey, you need to destroy this document, it's erroneous."

What happened to your DHS unit?

When the right-wing report was leaked and people politicized it, my management got scared and thought DHS would be scaled back. It created an environment where my analysts and I couldn't get our work done. DHS stopped all of our work and instituted restrictive policies. Eventually, they ended up gutting my unit. All of this happened within six to nine months after the furor over the report. Analysts then began leaving DHS. One analyst went to ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement], another to the FBI, a third went to the U.S. Marshals, and so on. There is just one person there today who is still a "domestic terrorism" analyst.

They are very concerned with anti-war activists and environmentalists too. Only right wing hate groups are okeedokee with law enforcement, and that's because law enforcement identifies with right wing hate groups.

White Supremacist Stampede
A startling number of white-power candidates are seeking public office. Eve Conant reports on their under-the-radar strategy and David Duke’s White House flirtation.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/04/white-supremacists-running-for-political-office-in-2012-in-growing-numbers.html

 Oh, but don't say the TeaBaggers are racist, the local trolls will jump all over you for it: "Using the Race Card..." unknowingly outing themselves as racists, thereby. Go ahead trolls, defend David Duke.
Meanwhile, there's something to be learned here if y'all can get your heads out of your butts for a minute: TeaBaggers and White Supremacists found that they were not able to wield influence in the political sphere. To remedy that, they got serious about electoral politics and, starting from local Water Commisioner and School Board races on up, are engaging the process. It has helped them a lot that they had organizational support and money from the Kochs and Coors and Mellon fortunes, but how they are using that support to leverage an agenda that has gotten away from it's backers and envigorated a slice of the electorate is educational. For a group of people that might comprise 25-30%, they have been extremely effective in promoting their goals and it's because they have engaged the system rather than pretending that it's all a sham and taking a superior pose, nose in the air, ground crumbling beneath feet. They may be stupid racists loaded with bad information and stirred to a boil by a schizphrenic moron and an oxycontin addict, but they are able to project their imprint on Congress and effect our daily lives and our future.

WOW.
Norwegian Killer Linked to Tea Party and EDL

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/07/norwegian-killer-linked-to-tea-party-and-edl/

The Nightmare in Norway and the threat of Fundamentalist Christian, blonde, blue-eyed terrorists in our midst.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_41hMKcNSQ&feature=player_embedded#at=13[/youtube]

Don't go there.

Just because a right wing terrorist in Norway targeted liberals campers does not equate to anything happening in America.

Whether Breivik was connected to any neo-Nazi or right-wing group remains to be seen. "There is an Oklahoma comparison," Hagai M. Segal, a terrorism expert with New York University in London, told TIME.com. "That could be an incredibly serious development. I am skeptical that there is a larger right-wing group connected to this, but it wouldn't surprise me if you had a small cell. It is extremely hard to do something like this by yourself."

We're seeing a rise in right wing extremism. Be it connected to anything in this country needs to be studied. There's obvious similarities.

Everyone with an opinion is anxious to get it heard when crap like this happens.
 
 ::) ::) ::)

Question: What's the difference between Anders Breivik and the average American Republican-Tea Party member?

Answer: Breivik is Norwegian. :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

What is your need to equate this tragedy to anything happening in America? Don't you think that rabid political responses on either extreme could cause this kind of problem? Don't you realize that makes you part of the problem?

He definately has comparable traits with people that commit these types of acts.....

I am shocked that he is only going to get 21 years in Norway's Halden Fengsel Prison.  The most posh "rehabilitation" facility in the world.

His prison experience will include:

Each cell is decorated and features a flat screen TV and mini-fridge and large windows.
(http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000yBNnQGpMLTM/t/200/I0000yBNnQGpMLTM.jpg)

There are no bars, each 10 cells open up into a large posh living room and kitchen with staleness appliances, modern wrap-around sofas and coffee tables.
(http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000eB2x3KTNt8g/t/200/I0000eB2x3KTNt8g.jpg)

Weather enjoying a friendly game of chess with the guards or expressing his creativity in the professional sound studio, Breivik will never feel intimidated, because the guards are not allowed to carry guns, and half of the guards are women.  Guards also participate in using the campus facilities like the fitness center with jogging trails through over 70 acres of pristine forest.  A day trip with some cross country skiing or perhaps the challenging climbing wall may make for a pleasant Saturday for Breivik.
(http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000.sue6qTH6EI/t/200/I0000.sue6qTH6EI.jpg)

Prisoners are encouraged to utilize the two-story hospitality facility where our friend Breivik can host parties with friends and family from the outside, or perhaps organize an intimate dinner party with a lady guest.

When meal time comes around, every day is a treat with the professional culinary studio responsible for providing inmates with a wide array of fresh and locally grown ingredients.
(http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I00003y_EDUyL9d8/t/200/I00003y_EDUyL9d8.jpg)

I'm sure his short term loss of freedom will more than make up for the 93 kids who ARE DEAD FOREVER!

Cite for any of that craziness?

Maybe, he'll rehabilitate and go around the world trying to prevent the types of dogma that put him in the mindset of hate and violence through education of people around the globe. beats killing him off. And who are we to judge how other country's treat their prisoners?

Meanwhile, we'll see more mass murdering behavior emanating from the under belly of religious extremists until every internet forum adopts a no tolerance position against hate.

A nice pictorial: http://alexmasi.photoshelter.com/gallery/Halden-Prison-Luxury-detention-in-Norway/G0000.pWT7uxO5qE

An article written on Norway's prison in Time: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1986002,00.html

The prison website: http://www.haldenfengsel.no/

If that happened, you would have never been allowed to come back.  :o

Mr. America, please take that back. I am not part of the problem. When I was a fool you had no problem kicking the snot out of me. You really don't want to be out there beating on a clown.

I bet Breivik is really getting excited!  I't's like the week before a trip to Disney Land!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ytz-pP8p1Bg[/youtube]

Another Time article:http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2000920,00.html

You seem more concerned with the punishment than the crime or what drove this lunatic to the point of mass murder.

Learn from others....

You kill 93 innocent children, and I don't give a smile about whether or not your mommy hugged you, or how soft your fabric softener makes your underwear.   

At that point I care about the punishment and whether or not it functions as a deterrent to others.

I don't care about this person.  His rehabilitation is not of interest to me.

"people without the knowledge of past history is like a tree without roots"

 
I will keep that in mind as we head towards the "upcoming future." :D

I tried real hard to remember the last time a rabid Liberal extremist who loves guns and hates Christians caused this kind of problem anywhere. I'm sure some on the forum have the names on the tip of their tongues and will share. But it didn't really surprise me that a conservative who hates muslims and loves guns killed 93 people. The same mindset is at work here and is all over the nets.

Like that lefty Ted Kaczynski

Good example: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/07/anders_breivik_unabomber.html Anders Breivik Plagiarized Ted Kaczynski    America seems to be exporting it's moral and spiritual bankruptcy.....

But a lousy comparison, BEE BEE. "For instance, Kaczynski wrote: "One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general."

Breivik's manifesto reads: "One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is multiculturalism, so a discussion of the psychology of multiculturalists can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of Western Europe in general."


Ted's imprisonment wasn't much of a deterrent to other one's?

Fundamentalism Kills by Chris Hedges

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/fundamentalism-kills-by-chris-hedges/

"The battle under way in America is not between religion and science. It is not between those who embrace the rational and those who believe in biblical myth. It is not between Western civilization and Islam. The blustering televangelists and the New Atheists, the television pundits and our vaunted Middle East specialists and experts, are all part of our vast, simplistic culture of mindless entertainment. They are in show business. They cannot afford complexity. Religion and science, facts and lies, truth and fiction, are the least of their concerns. They trade insults and clichés like cartoon characters. They don masks. One wears the mask of religion. One wears the mask of science. One wears the mask of journalism. One wears the mask of the terrorism expert. They jab back and forth in predictable sound bites. It is a sterile and useless debate between bizarre subsets of American culture. Some use the scientific theory of evolution to explain the behavior and rules for complex social and political systems, and others insist that the six-day creation story in Genesis is a factual account. The danger we face is not in the quarrel between religion advocates and evolution advocates, but in the widespread mental habit of fundamentalism itself.
We live in a fundamentalist culture. Our utopian visions of inevitable human progress, obsession with endless consumption, and fetish for power and unlimited growth are fed by illusions that are as dangerous as fantasies about the Second Coming. These beliefs are the newest expression of the infatuation with the apocalypse, one first articulated to Western culture by the early church."


TTC is wearing his Christopher Hedges mask!!!!

This really must suck @ssclown. Doesn't it?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VbxO8ZUVHo&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Why oh why couldn't Abdo be a Christian?

He was a terrorist.  It matters not what his religion or the color of his skin is.

Soon he will be painted by MSNBC as a misunderstood youth, who never really had a strong father figure.  His short experience in the military exposed him to strong anti Muslim sentiments, causing him to withdraw and seek solace  in his faith. After his exposure in 2010 as a conscientious objector, he became the victim of a rash of hate mail and threats from right-wing organizations.  This made it hard to get a girlfriend so he decided to kill a bunch of people.

. . . something like that.  Give it a couple of days.

It sure as sh!t does matter to @ssclown and those that think like him.

Teatown like groups.  He likes to sort people by income, race, religion, gender, disability, education, and sexual persuasion. 

It is his food.

If that's the case, then what we have in here is the pinnacle of stereotypical mindlessness.

I remember the good old days when gaspar and I would interject recipes into heated discussions. His stubborness over his clearly flawed macaroni and cheese recipes made his views pale to my superior cheese and macaroni masterpieces.

My wife would kill you with a badger for a superior cheese and macaroni masterpiece.

May I suggest rotini with a cheese sauce made from smoked provolone, lightly seasoned with onions and garlic, and topped with finely diced proscuitto? Serve with a nice white wine, a garden salad, and freshly baked Italian bread.

I'm hungry.

Food porn.

Why did you have to do that to me? There's no way I can get she who must be obeyed to make that tonight. :( (and my "cooking" skills are limited to following the instructions on the box..sad, but it is what it is)

With . . . a badger?  How does that work, exactly?

EDITED:  Just . . . never mind.

Wisconsin 5 Cheese Bake

1 (16 ounce) package elbow macaroni
1 cup shredded mozzarella cheese
1 cup shredded Swiss cheese
1 cup grated Parmesan cheese
1 cup shredded provolone cheese
1/2 cup ricotta cheese
1/2 cup sour cream
1/2 cup heavy cream
1 tablespoon chopped fresh parsley
1/2 teaspoon dried Italian seasoning
1/2 teaspoon garlic salt


Preheat the oven to 400 degrees F (200 degrees C). Bring a large pot of lightly salted water to a boil. Add macaroni, and cook until tender, 6 to 8 minutes. Drain.

In a large bowl, toss together the mozzarella cheese, Swiss cheese, Parmesan cheese and Provolone cheese. Remove about 1/2 cup for topping and set aside. In a separate bowl, stir together the ricotta cheese, sour cream and heavy cream. Season with parsley, Italian seasoning and garlic salt.

Pour the ricotta cheese mixture and drained macaroni into the bowl with the cheeses and toss lightly. Do not mix too thoroughly, it's better left messy. Pour into the prepared baking dish. Sprinkle the reserved cheese over the top.

Bake in the preheated oven until cheese is melted, about 10 minutes, then turn the oven to broil. Broil for about 5 minutes to brown the top.

That was back when we still had Karma.  Karma favors macaroni!

You guys love to poke fun at peacefulness but fully support chaos, divisiveness, racism, prejudice and hate. Soldiers in the culture war you are....



Think Again: 'Bad Things Happen Someplace, Muslims Involved'
http://www.thewashingtoncurrent.com/2011/07/think-again-bad-things-happen-someplace.html

"The fact that each of these writers represents the “left” and “right” on The Post points to two salient facts about today’s political discourse. First off, the left supports and believes in actual journalism. Its complaint with the media is that journalists allow other factors—laziness, sensationalism, silliness, and the right’s “working of the refs”—to interfere with the process of informing news consumers. But on the right, the actual news is a problem, and so journalists are attacked when they report it overly zealously, regardless of whether it is true."


MSM deserves to go the way of the Dodo.


"“Left” and “right” are not equivalents in this country any more. One is genuinely concerned with facing reality and addressing it, however imperfectly and often, mistakenly. The other couldn’t care less."

Sound familiar?

You need to go the way of aox & fotd.

He's right, at least about the part you quoted.

You didn't fall for that claptrap did you? He throws out an anti-republican screed penned by one of the biggest leftists in the country, Eric Alterman, then attacks the MSM because it doesn't go with batsh!t crazy columns like his. 

I am no fan of the MSM, but I will take it over The Nation or any other publication that gives Alterman a platform.

Which Marshall's beer would you recommend with that?

Toss these cheeses, stir these creams,...Typical of you to treat things differently. And Swiss and Italian? Are you the freakin United Nations? Reserved cheese? Who can afford such luxuries in this economy?

Try this...

 1 tablespoon salt
 1 pound elbow, shell or other bite-size shaped pasta
 2 (12 fluid ounce) cans evaporated milk
 1 cup chicken broth
 3 tablespoons butter
 1/3 cup flour
 1 1/2 tablespoons Dijon mustard
 1/2 cup grated Parmesan cheese
 Freshly ground black pepper
 1 pound grated extra-sharp cheddar cheese

1. Bring 2 quarts of water to boil in large soup kettle. Add salt and pasta. Using package directions as a guide, cook until al dente. Drain. To prevent sticking, drain and immediately pour onto a large lipped baking sheet and let cool while preparing sauce.

2. Meanwhile, microwave the milk and chicken broth in a 4-cup Pyrex measuring cup or bowl until hot and steamy (not boiling). Melt butter in the empty pasta pot; whisk in flour, then hot milk mixture. Continue to whisk until thick and bubbly, 3 to 4 minutes. Whisk in mustard, Parmesan and pepper. Turn off heat, stir in cheddar until melted.

3. Add drained pasta (and optional flavoring ingredients, see notes) to sauce, and stir until everything is well combined over low heat. Stir to heat through, and thin with a little water if the sauce is too thick. Serve hot.

I have all those ingredients. What's the yield?

Serves six

Wow, the clown posted something disparaging right before your reply and either the mods removed it or the clown did....does the clown have a conscience?

When they stop worrying about being branded as partisan for reporting the facts, I'll retract my statement. They need to face the fact that sometimes, the facts don't support the ideological position of one side or the other.

Yeah, it's just like you to complain about foreign cheeses while expecting us all to have a microwave. ;)

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.”....Robert Heinlein

I think what Bob was saying is that you should be able to make your own macaroni and cheese.  On reflection, however, I'm forced to admit that when I offer to make dinner, SWMBO and the kids want to eat out.

Fantastic. May I borrow "SWMBO" in the future sometime?

That's pretty funny right there.

I can. I believe the instructions on the box say "boil the round elbow-looking things, toss in a gobsmacking amount of butter, a dash of milk, and the powder we put in the box. Stir." I'd rather have something that doesn't taste like cardboard, though.

Another timely reminder of the original intent of this thread. Where are those in the right wing who stand for non violence and a woman's right to privacy?

Planned Parenthood firebombed, right wing silent
A potential incident of domestic terrorism this week got a yawn from most of the press -- and the political right
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/07/30/planned_parenthood_terrorism/index.html


" We obviously don't know yet, but this attack seems more likely to be the work of a politically motivated person with conservative beliefs than a random act of vandalism. In other words, domestic terrorism. Someone threw a Molotov cocktail at a women's health clinic. It's insane that only a couple of Internet feminists actually seem to care. "

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I was scrambling to cut and paste the mac 'n' cheese recipes quick as possible before the thread locks down or disappears.  The carb content looks wonderful, but the cheese, I'm afraid, would slow me down too much.

Looks like some good eating when I can consume 100 g's of fat per meal again ;)

Ahhh but to combat this 117 degree weather you need a nice layer of fat to prevent your fluids from evaporating.

All of these mac and cheese recipes are SPF 50!

I did it that way once.  Wasn't so good.  I learned the hard way that there is actually another step in there between boiling and adding the other ingredients.... "strain water out".  I hate cooking, its so complicated and there are so many rules.

Here's something to help cool you off, Mt Shasta last week.

(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p309/kallsop2/P1010082-1.jpg)

Dude, are you serious?  You're an artist.  Cooking is way easier.  My horribly drawn stick figures can attest to this.

You ever decide your work sucks and you start over?  That's all you have to do if you screw up your pasta.  Toss it and start again.

Same as with any dish.  Trial and error.

I just looked up and remembered this is supposed to be about "domestic right wing terrorists"...so BOOM I dropped a bomb on you baby.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRadA7074wk[/youtube]

Mmmmm, yummy! Mashed thread for lunch!

About an hour ago I turned off of Pine onto Gap Band Drive. We all sort of giggled. That is what I like about inner city Tulsa. A sense of ourselves seasoned with a little humor. Anyone remember Guava?

And all this time I thought that luscious cheese sauce was intended...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0Po0eZtmNc&NR=1[/youtube]


and an oldie but goodie:


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ssybQg1ZAY&feature=share[/youtube]

Billy is what you get when you look for the roots of the Teabagger movement.

Cooking isn't all that hard.  Basically Science on an edible level.  The art is in the presentation.  For the science your takinbg one or more items then adding heat or cold to achieve a different compound. 

Uhhhhh...Thank You....Mrs.Brown.....

Not really.  

 Nothing is more natural and easier for me than art, except perhaps breathing.  Its like your saying "You ever decide your breathing sucks and you start over?  ;)   Your horribly drawn stick figure is my Mac-n-cheese lol.

And to slide even further off topic.  Here is the painting I finished just this week. I had created the design for the chalkfest and decided to do an actual painting with it.  The original is 5 feet x 7 feet (and does not have the watermark).  I am going to try and make cards printed from it to sell.  It looks knockout on the wall in my contemporary/deco styled den.  Makes quite an impact but will probably put it up in one of the windows at the Philcade space for the museum and have it for sale as well.

Titled "Tulsa Skyport"

(http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/4610/skyport5x7cardwebwater.jpg)

I really like that. Has a little Borg influence (or the Borg's had a little Deco influence).

Jon Stewart Show
John Oliver interviews the woman, Froma Harrop, who first called the Tea Party "Terrorists."

This is funny!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-12-2012/civil-disservice

Rachel Maddow reports on the latest domestic terrorism...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41MOKWGf_ps[/youtube] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41MOKWGf_ps

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#47572951

Nobody knows, nobody cares.... This national network of intimidation and violence seems to be expanding while political leaders allow anti-abortion hate to continue unchecked. This is the front line on the war against women.

During memorial day weekend, keep in mind the victims (I'm not talking zygotes) ...

Fixed that for you moron.

Really TeaTownClown.

Don't cheapen Memorial Day by confusing a holiday set aside to honor war heroes with abortion fights.

Show some respect.

These people who are being hunted down are on the front lines of an American civil war gone violent.

You are mistaken to try to shift my point and turn it around on me.

RM, did you fail to condemn what is taking place in the war on women and attack me instead?

Yes. I focus on you.

Politically, we are probably similar in our views. In approach to discussing those views, we are quite different.

In my viewpoint, you don't want to convince anyone of your opinions. You just want to yell.

Two examples from you this week clearly show your style. Instead of discussing Mitt Romney's political past, his campaign rhetoric, or his business history as a venture capitalist, you just want to point out he is a Mormon. Most of us are not Mormon and I assume that you think if you make fun of the Mormon religion, people won't vote for him.

The second example is in this thread. On page 18 (in a thread about domestic terrorism) you quickly associate a Norwegian mass murderer with the Tea Party, then on this page talk about abortion rights and associate it with war veterans, Memorial Day, and the civil war.

I don't know if I ever convinced any posters on TulsaNow of anything, but truly believe all you have ever done is piss off people. You remind me of the preachers who stand on the street corner and "repent" at the buildings. The non-believers despise you and the believers are embarrassed of you.    

Posters here have a lot in common with that street preacher yelling repent. We have little chance of swaying others opinions and we often look crazy to each other. In the end, just like the street preacher, we yell to satisfy our own needs, not to convince others of our views.

But we can be better. This forum could be a repository of thoughts and ideas. It could be a site that people go to express themselves and find words to agree or disagree with other expressions.

I like reading and agreeing your comments. I also like reading comments from those that are just plain wrong (you know who I am talking about). I appreciate their time to post. I don't get mad at them for being stubborn or incorrect; I laugh at the opportunity to post an different viewpoint.

I do get mad at TeaTownClown. He mostly parrots the views of Bill Maher (an entertainer who panders to the atheist, woman-haters, and far left). When Maher does it, it is with a studio audience signaled to laugh at his jokes. When TTC does it, he embarrasses the posters like me who would probably have agreed with him.

TNF, is like a cool party with lots of good conversation, free bar and a great diversity of well informed people with a few characters who try a bit too hard. Even the extreme viewpoints are welcome to me, though. We are at our best when discussing our passions like cycling, art, development, transportation, food, entertainment and stuff only found locally. I especially enjoy the fact that we have posters monitoring from Arizona, Cali, NC etc. They still carry Tulsa with them. The gay comics thread was a pretty good example.

Passionate people can sometime irritate others as they infuse their particular passions into every conversation (Obama, liberals, abortion, guns, conservatives, TPartiers..blah, blah).  Its maddening, but boring without them. You have to call them out on it though or they will sour the party.

Good job Rm.

Shooting at and threatening OBGYN's goes unnoticed. Instead, taking aim at me becomes the priority.

Too bad if you don't liken to my fingering the opposition. Their tactics are violence and hatred. This is not civil disobedience. Refusal to abide by our laws becomes acceptable when believers use religious doctrine to supersede the will of the courts. Too often in the name of religious ideology we witness the will of some over the rights of others. I merely use some of the same messaging that the righties hide behind and that upsets you because that's not the way we are suppose to behave?

Funny how Rachel Maddow or Bill Maher are perceived if it is I who link their messages. Why don't you ignore it if you don't like it? When I first came across TNF, it was one sided. It still is when it comes to women.

There are posters on this forum who engage in far worse verbosity than mine and their use of personal attacking much more direct. But I refuse to personally attack them and instead choose to annoy them. This is the combat necessary to engage the enemy in the culture war. All is fair in war and politics....right?

You and I share little in the same politics as you suggest. You seem to pander to the establishment while refusing to go the extra mile and call on their leadership to quell this divisiveness and hatred swamping our communities.

Some people just can't stand non theists. Live with it. Our country was founded on the principles of separation between church and state. Fine if you can't boil it down to what's really going on in this country. Churchianity does not dictate to me. I have strong moral foundation and refuse to be pushed around by congregants of fear and hate.

I will continue my assaults as long as religious institutions engage in manipulating our politicians while fostering a separate agenda from the mainstream. Living in the deep south has made many here fail to see what the rest of the country desires. I will continue to annoy when political affiliates refuse to accept our laws, diversity, and truth. And I will continue to be one voice for the victims of religious doctrine and political extremism that goes unnoticed.

You were fine till you related your post to Memorial Day. Our country may be seriously divided on our political views and our religion, but we are not having a civil war. In fact I don't like its characterization as a war at all. Calling this a war gives opposing groups justification for warlike behaviors including terrorism. You feed their game.

 

What? That's ridiculous. It's a principled argument. I give opposing groups no justification for their hate and terror, but those that refuse to stop their preaching do just that.

Why don't you guys want to address the real issue here?

...stop their preaching?...

Its not the issues, its the tactics of approaching those issues that is getting you, and some others, grief. No one is shy about bringing up issues on this forum but the discussions are often lame and shallow having been parroted from political websites. I like the way you try to shake up those who keep trying to keep their heads buried in suburban sand, but when over used those tactics bcome counter productive and play into a mindless game of flash-bomb throwing. People lose track of the arguments because they're distracted by the noise.

There is no justification for hate and terrorist activities against medical doctors who legally perform procedures and I don't remember anyone around here supporting that. When you redirect the spotlight onto Memorial Day as a day to remember those doctors it is analogous to Gaspar throwing in an Obama grenade in a thread about cycling. 

More domestic right wingers arrested:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/05/three-arrested-in-alleged-chicago-terror-plot.html

Here's another rabid right wing organization getting busy:


Oh wait, they're not:


http://www.suntimes.com/news/12776463-418/eyewitness-recalls-violence-of-tinley-park-restaurant-attack.html

Free bar sounds good!  Where is that party?

http://warisacrime.org/content/three-nato-activists-charged-terror-plot-after-posting-video-police-harassment


Check,

The alleged assailants are believed to be members of the Hoosier Anti-Racist Movement (H.A.R.M.). The clearly orchestrated attack targeted a meeting of around a dozen members of the Illinois European Heritage Association that had been advertised online. That group has considerable links to the White Pride movement and is heavily represented on the Stormfront.org message boards, a collection of online forums that aims to spread “white pride world-wide.”
http://rt.com/usa/news/white-racist-park-tinley-006/

According to authorities, the suspects stormed into the Tinley Park eatery cloaked in disguises and began assaulting the alleged white supremacists with steel batons and hammers.

Although authorities have not apprehended all of the suspects in the attack, two of the victims have also been charged, but not with any crimes related to the incident. Steven Speers of North Dakota was arrested for having an outstanding warrant for possession of child pornography and Francis Gilroy of Florida was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon.


...and Mate.

"like a party"....similar to, reminiscent of, containing elements that are congruent. I'm laughing and enjoying the party right now. ;)

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/05/29/491318/arson-attack-womens-health-no/

"Religion...the largest hate group on Earth."


http://wwav-no.org/

Please, even though these were obviously domestic terrorist activities, don't lump all religions into these factories of hate. My church is full of reasonable, moderate, loving people who (being located near downtown) deal with troubled people daily. They don't deserve to be called haters.

"Extremist Religion.....the largest hate group on Earth." would be more accurate.

Some think all religion is extreme. I see value in it for lost souls and those seeking a meaning to all this.  But the religious leaders like the politicians lack in any effort to put down this violence. Religion serves a great purpose. Unfortunately, it can make things messy around the globe....

That's because it is an insidious movement that relies on small cells of "true believers" who are willing to act out the insanity of their leaders. They use religions and the human tendency to find meaning in life through spirituality as their core mechanism. Then they mix in their politics and split off. Koresh and Jones were not aberrations, they were merely too large to succeed. These smaller groups are hard to track, hard to prosecute and easily dispersed. Just like cock roaches.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/05/31/492878/rape-victim-refused-emergency-contraception-in-oklahoma/


Canadian Valley should be stripped of government subsidies and tax favored status....

Did you catch the part where that was a female doc?

Kind of goes against the “war on women” meme.

Religious choices should have nothing to do with the treatment a doctor gives a patient.  If a treatment is available to help the health of a patient and the patient wants that treatment, then it should be given.

Not at all. The fact the doc is a woman is insignificant to dereliction of duty. Lots of stupid people eat their own.

Should every OB/GYN be required to provide abortion services if it’s against their religious, professional, or personal moral beliefs?

One can certainly have a moral code without religion.  Who is to say this was a religion issue with the doctor, but rather the way they interpret their hippocratic oath?  And some doctors have a pathetic bedside manner.

The patient eventually got the treatment she needed (and personally, if all she was asking for was the morning after pill, I can’t say I disagree after a rape) at another hospital.  Should she have had to go to two hospitals until getting treatment?  Probably not, but I have no idea how big the facility is in Yukon.  I’d think it impossible to have all the staff needed present for every situation which may arise hour by hour on a holiday weekend.  At the very least, the attending doc could have offered to call someone else in who was willing to provide what the young woman wanted.

I don’t condone the manner in which it is claimed she was treated, but without knowing all the facts nor an interview with the attending physician, it’s kind of hard to say she fell victim to some sort of agenda.

As to a Think Progress story being posted on this topic describing the incident, this hardly rises to the level of domestic right wing terrorism, but I’m considering the source.  ;D

When on duty, be a doctor, not a religious leader.


Of course it was.  It was in Oklahoma.


"Eventually" is sad.


She did.  Why else are those rules there?

There are some doctors who have a deep personal belief that they earned their medical degree for the sake of improving or saving lives, not terminating them.  Should doctors be required to perform euthanasia if it goes against their own moral code or how they interpret the code of ethics they are required to observe as physicians?  Should Catholic hospitals be required to perform abortions on their campus?  

Moral code doesn’t equate to religion with every person.

If CVH is staffed more-or-less like a minor emergency center on a weekend, I can see this happening if there is only one physician on staff.  Not saying it’s right, but the story is angled to imply how back’erds Oklahoma and Oklahomans are when it’s simply an issue of a doctor with horrible bed side manner not being coerced to do something against her personal beliefs.  For all we know she may be wiccan or atheist.  There’s not a shred of evidence offered she’s a religious zealot.

Not only is it sad, but finding that acceptable is pretty solid proof that the person expressing that opinion doesn't grasp how Plan B and its ilk work. Hours count. The sooner you take it, the less likely you are to get pregnant.

Conan, have you ever heard the phrase "uncle tom?" Also, would it be OK with you if some government bureaucrat refused to provide some service to you because they thought it was immoral or whatever?

You're really stretching on this one.  I'm not sure why.

What does Uncle Tom or a government employee have to do with this case?  CVH is owned by Integris not the government.

That's my take as well. Where do you draw the line with moral code? And how do you defend that line in a court of law. Maybe my moral code forbids me to enable the use of Prozac or Viagra. As a driver for UPS can I refuse to knowingly deliver those products that I feel are morally abhorrent? Are Dr.s and Pharmacists going to be the only protected class?

You expressed disbelief that it is possible for one member of a minority group to use the tools of oppression against another member of that same minority group, hence my question about Uncle Tom.

The government employee thing was a simple question. Would it be OK with you if government bureaucrats denied you services because of their moral disapproval of your request? Wouldn't you tell them they ought to get another job if they aren't comfortable with what they're being asked to do? I'm sure it would be possible for the doctor to not work the ER if she so chose. God forbid that people have to deal with the consequences of their moral choices, though. It is often inconvenient to make certain decisions related to morality. I don't understand why we have decided it's OK for one group of people to push those consequences onto another group of people.

If you're a quaker, don't become a cop. If you believe that contraception is morally wrong, don't put yourself in a position to have to dispense/prescribe it. It's pretty simple.

The EC thing is a bit of a distraction, though. The real shame is that they couldn't even do a rape kit at the first hospital! Once again, this is something that needs to be done with as little delay as possible.

No, I’m not stretching at all.  Why should anyone be able to compel someone else to do something which is against their personal moral code?

Far as I know, doctors are not charged with providing abortions or care which is contrary to their personal code of ethics when they become licensed to practice medicine.

If anyone is aware of this doctor’s actions being in violation of her medical license, please speak up.  

Look, I don’t disagree that curtness and obstinate attitude is the last thing a woman wants to encounter after being raped.  In fact, I’d be really furious if that were my child in the same situation.  However, I’m of the belief that my personal will should never over-ride someone else’s ethics or morals.

I’d say this will serve pretty good PR for others in a similar situation to avoid said medical facility.  However, I’m getting that the implication we should get from this story is that somehow what this doctor did was immoral or illegal and I simply don’t see it that way.  Uncompassionate, yes.  

Her choice could've done harm to her patient.  That's a problem.

Now who is reaching?

That’s not the same as being asked to provide a method to terminate human life if the doctor is of the belief that life begins at conception.  Are you saying that only people with pro-choice views should be allowed to practice medicine?  There are some who don’t see Plan B or morning after as contraception but rather inducement of an abortion. 

Hmm. There is nothing in the medical code of ethics or licensing provisions that force a doctor to use minority blood in a transfusion. If my moral code prohibits it I can certainly refuse to do so with your argument. We'll just wait till some majority blood is available...look! There's some over at that other hospital!

She was raped a few hours before.

What if you went to an emergency room and the doctor thought X-rays were the devil's work?

Those "some" are wrong.

Point well taken, but would there have been any more harm in simply telling the patient they couldn’t provide the proper care and refer her to a facility that could?

The story did say they couldn’t even administer a rape kit at this facility.

From what I understand, the so called "morning after pill" will not stop a pregnancy after fertilization has occured. It will only limit the possibility of fertilization, which is why it must be used within so many hours. Even I would say it was a stretch to call it a abortion type drug.

Now, I really have no clue if there is such a thing as an abortion pill. If so, I've never heard of it.

Wonder who's making decisions on that funding.

There is, it's called RU-486. It's only useful for the first 2 or 3 months, I believe, but it's much safer than a surgical abortion. Basically, it induces a miscarriage. As far as I'm aware, all states in the US require it only be used in an inpatient setting. Also, Plan B can prevent implantation after fertilization. It does not, however, do anything at all if the zygote has already implanted in the uterine lining.

Conan, no, I'm not saying only pro-choice doctors should be allowed to practice. I am saying that if they choose to put themselves in a position where they are the only physician on duty at an ER, for example, they should not be allowed to deny care. They can choose to only practice non-emergency medicine, for example. You might note that this wasn't really a problem until a few years ago. What did doctors previously do?

If you can't afford your own contraceptives, don't work in a Catholic hospital or go to a Catholic college.

One more thing to consider is if it’s like a minor emergency center on weekends with one or two GPs manning it, that’s probably not the first place to go if you have been raped.  I have no idea what the staffing situation is like there since I’ve never been in.  It’s easy for us all to make a lot of suppositions without having been there or talking to the physician in charge.  Who knows, she may well have said she couldn’t prescribe such a thing and the implication became that she “wouldn’t”. 

I would hope the hospital or clinic in this story will conduct a thorough review of how the patient was handled, and take a look at how well that doctor’s behavior fits their standards.

I'm not really sure what one has to do with the other, but thanks for playing!

Really?  Selective comprehension that much?  Give it another try. Thanks for feigning ignorance.

Why don't you try explaining it slowly enough that I can understand? I have a suspicion as to what you could have meant to communicate, but it seems nonsensical enough that I doubt that my interpretation is correct.

After all, one is about a medical professional refusing to do their job, while the other is about certain organizations choosing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Not really analogous, as best I can tell.

OK, I'll type slowly for you.

One is about an employee being required to supply a service against their moral convictions.  You said don't work there.
The other is about the employer/health provider being required to supply a service against their moral convictions.  I said don't work/go to school there.

I believe the comparison is valid.

Another WOW but not so surprised....are these the crowd RMoney is trying to cater to?

Amazing how the GOP welcomes Nutbags....

Ayers *cough* Dohrn *cough*

lameout

Care to explain how these militia men differ from the Weather Underground terrorists?

Another false equivalency thrown down by Mista Conan....

One big diff is 45 years.... these killers are roaming around without any condemnation from the church or the head of the political party they align themselves with. The Weathermen were independent and were put to rest after a year.


These terrorists are evolving ....

Cox is in custody and on trial, he is a member of the Sovereign Citizen Movement and not the GOP.  Weapons charges and conspiracies.  Other than that, I see no mention of property damage or harm to other individuals.

Now why is it again GOP leaders and the church should apologize for a lone nut bag who didn’t even support Miller in his 2010 bid for the Senate?

You are slipping...

Meanwhile Ayers participated in bombing the NYPD police HQ, The Pentagon, and The U.S. Capitol Building.  Not to mention his cohorts who were killed building bombs ostensibly at his behest.  Ayers walks free and no one in the Democrat Party has ever sought to distance themselves from him. 

a 25 page thread and you pick out just a single nutbag from the thread....there's a pattern here and you are too blind to see. Ayers is ancient history.

He's part of an expanding network....you keep lying to yourself. Ayers? He's real threatening.... ::)

RMoney is assembling his flock and you have no idea what's in store. They won't prioritize rounding up right wing terrorists....bet on it.

Now here's an interesting change up!

Were it not for such repulsion with having a Black man run our country, this might be revolutionary....

What a load of claptrap that piece is.

Palin has power?  Since when?

I hear she has to run off of a portable generator.

I know I'm speculating far too far ahead but I'll bet you this guy wanted to become a right wing hero like Zimmermann and Breivik, inspired by Limbaugh. At least I'll be surprised if that's not the case. Glad they caught him alive.

http://www.wafb.com/story/19071381/gunman-opens-fire-on-packed-theater

You know nothing but feel compelled to bloviate anyway.

BULLSH!T!!!!! You're just a biased biggoted flaming bag of crap throwing troll.

Yeah, but he's our biased biggoted flaming bag of crap throwing troll.  :D

Turns out he is a medical school dropout. What is happening in Colorado anyway? Columbine, then this? I thought the state was pretty laid back. Aurora is like Broken Arrow. Is it a suburban thing?

Well that didn't take long.  ABC immediatly came out with a report claiming the gunman was a TeaParty member.  They are now making a quiet retraction.

ABC News and Brian Ross are apologizing for an "incorrect" report that James Holmes, the suspect in the Colorado theater shooting, may have had connections to the Tea Party.

"An earlier ABC News broadcast report suggested that a Jim Holmes of a Colorado Tea Party organization might be the suspect, but that report was incorrect," ABC News said in a statement. "ABC News and Brian Ross apologize for the mistake, and for disseminating that information before it was properly vetted."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/07/abc-news-tea-party-connection-incorrect-129588.html

I bet it's less than a day now until others adopt this tragedy for political gains.

Why in the hell would anyone immediately start looking at political connections?  There are 12 dead people at the hands of a lone nut job...JFC!

Gas, it won't take that long I'm sure.

Not to defend the press, but I heard that remark shortly after the story broke. The reporter said that they had done some preliminary name searches and on Facebook found the name "Jim" Holmes with a reference to Tea Party membership. He carefully pointed out that they had no idea if it was the same Holmes. The suggestion was pretty weak and I doubt anyone but those with political aims thought otherwise. Everyone wants to put some sort of reason or logic to crazy crimes like this. Back in my day it was always the Black Panthers or hippies.

As a guy with a pretty common name, (one year there were 144 phone book entries with my name) its not surprising.

I'm not talking about last night's incident, but certainly in the recent past gunmen have shot and killed others and claimed that the reason they did so was to stop the "liberals." Specifically I recall the incident in the Tennessee church a couple of years ago and the guy that shot and killed the head of the Arkansas Democratic Party a couple of months later. And I also seem to recall some guy in California who was prevented from going on a shooting rampage.

I can't say that "right wing" violence is more common than "left wing" violence (scare quotes because obviously not all wingers are murderers), but it definitely happens.

(http://media.kboi2.com/images/090727_controversial_sign1.jpg)

Does Obama's foreign policy actually kill 12,000 people a year?

Don't question the alternative universe inhabited by ODS zombies.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/248803-James-Holmes-Family-Tied-To-DARPA-And-Mind-Manipulation-Work

Is it Batman's fault?....

Mote in one's eye versus beam in another's....


As with so many things, when comparing apples to apples the story is a little bit different.  If gonna compare Obama's war record, then it must be compared to Baby Bush.  4,500 of our kids in Iraq, plus another 1 million miscellaneous Iraqi's killed under Bush's little tantrum adventure.  Compared to Obama actually performing the withdrawal of combat personnel that was for so long "promised" by Baby Bush.  And death rate of our kids dropping like a rock in the meantime.


Side note - this clown in Colorado has put me firmly back on the side of the death penalty for him.

Why?

So we can pay $250,000 per year for his incarceration for the next 20 years while he gets government-paid attorneys for appeal after appeal instead of $25 to 30K per year and the possibility someone will do a Dahmer on him in the bathroom in his first three years in prison?

http://www.tulsaworld.com/specialprojects/news/crimewatch/article.aspx?subjectid=450&articleid=20120802_11_A1_CUTLIN588297

you know it's gonna get stranger when they start wanting to shoot up their own.....

Emotional knee jerk reaction.  I want to see him die.

Unfortunately, unless you are the prosecutor, a survivor, or relative of one of the dead, you won’t get to.  At least if he dies a violent death in general population you can live vicariously through that.

Yeah...about the best I can hope for - and that would be good enough.  Give me a week, and I will regain emotional stability and say go for life, no parole - voting with my pocketbook.

Again....this is sick. A sick society and a sick Nation.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/05/us/wisconsin-temple-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

From NBC: "A witness told officers the shooter was a white male, with a heavy build, bald head and wearing a sleeveless T-shirt, Oak Creek Patch reported."

More restrictive gun laws would not have helped...just remember that. Nothing...literally nothing will change anything about guns in this country.

The fact that shootings like this are becoming so routine that occasionally the media has to choose which one to cover is irrelevant as well.

There is no point in even discussing more restrictive gun laws because they wouldn't make a difference.

Makes sense, right? Indeed, to be even more sensible...if all of the Sikhs had had guns this might not have happened, either.

It's all very sensible if you just ignore logical thought.

Its interesting that the FBI, NYPD, etc. can routinely save the day by stopping terrorists attacks (or at least the ones they engineered)
and yet real acts of terrorism like this
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-08-05/shooting-sikh-temple-wisconsin/56809408/1
happen un-abated and with increasing frequency.

Of course,  more money and authority is always the answer.



http://pathwhisperer.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/psychopath-earns-his-keep-shahed-hussain-cons-jury-as-well-as-newburgh-mugs

I would ask "W T F is wrong with people" but I know the answer.

As I detect a note of sarcasm, what do you think the answer is?

Something other than saving America by destroying it's freedoms.
...and a lot less theater.

If this doesn't say a mouthful. American's are sub human. Our government is inept.

So, like the rest of us, you know what you don't want but don't have something else to propose as a replacement.

They say that the first step is recognizing that there is a problem. I think most Americans agree that there is a problem but profoundly disagree about what the problem is. Some say it's too many guns, some say it's too few guns, some say it's too much rage, some say the filthy liberals have removed God from the classroom, while the Tulsa World commenters believe we have too many Brown People. Where do you start? Meanwhile, we see popular culture promoting a paranoid vision of the National Security State provoking arguments about which brand of smart phone is hardest for Big Brother to crack. Read Corey Doctorow's Little Brother. Porn scanners in airports, anyone?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/06/642541/anti-sikh-violence/

Freedoms that are protected in the constitution of the United States. Anytime we have gun issues, taking peoples guns away or making them harder to get always seems to be the answer for this right that the Federal Government is unable to take away, period (those pesky bill of rights).

However, if any issues with voter fraud come about, we cannot impede people in the slightest in order that that it is as easy as possible to do something that is not protected in the constitution one little bit.

Shadowesque post. Are you trying to say that the Federal Government tries to take away gun rights but is willing to let just anyone vote without reservation? If so, then no, that doesn't seem accurate. The only limitation on guns I remember being passed in my lifetime was the Brady law during Reagan's time. No one has much bothered with it since then. The few who tried to introduce some sanity during Clinton's era were summarily politically executed by the NRA.

Voting fraud doesn't really exist. There are probably more stolen, unregistered, illegal, carnage producing guns right here in River City than there were fraudulent voters across the nation during the last decade.

You almost never hear of mass murder using voter fraud. Unless you swallow internet poo.

Snap.

We will never know because no one had to show an ID.

OMG.  Yeah, we'll also NEVER know who won Florida in 2000 because the Supreme Court didn't allow a recount...
I believe that VOTING is a basic human right.  And that it's a separate issue from reasonable and logical gun control laws that could save lives if enacted.

Owning a gun should be considered a priviledge, and the act of stockpiling weapons that can only be used for mass murder of people should be outlawed.
I already know a crazy person in the Tulsa area who's a "survivalist" and has a stockpile of weapons about 30 miles east of town.

I was addressing the "probably" in Aqua Man's post.

Why don't you turn this person east of Tulsa in to the ATF?

Guess someone should have told that Chinese guy that he must use a gun to kill 9 people....

Mass murder knows no gun/knife/car/hammer/bomb boundaries.


http://news.yahoo.com/chinese-teen-kills-eight-knife-attack-reports-102629246.html

I was careful to use the word "probably" because no one knows just how many illegal weapons are passed around, hoarded, sawed off, stolen etc. any more than we know how many fraudulent voters exist. However, we do have arrest records, crime stats, and caches of stolen weapons recovered that give us some idea (even though they may not have been purchased with ID's Red) of the scope of both problems.

Voter fraud is microscopic compared to illegal weapons. If we are knowingly not prosecuting cases of voter fraud then ...why? Could it be that voter fraud is hardly worth the expense of investigation and prosecution?

Many of which are likely owned by the ATF and waiting for a place to let them "walk".

A good use of the word "probably".

I can't claim to have a solution to the problem of gun violence.  It's an especially intractable one because it lies at the intersection of both constitutional rights and privacy.  If we believe that the Second Amendment gives each of us the right to keep and bear arms, and we ignore the first part of that badly constructed sentence (something we can and have argued previously), then the only way to prevent some of these violent crimes is to have government surveillance of all our communications and government access to our medical, financial, and employment records.  That's far too intrusive, i think, and it's very unlikely that anyone in our government would propose to do that.

So we have two immutable positions, one that says our Second Amendment rights will not change, and another that says our right to privacy is equally sacrosanct.  Meanwhile, as we're stuck between these two rocks, people will die.

Frankly, I'm at a loss here.  That's the problem as I see it, yet I cannot see any way to overcome it that doesn't involve a re-interpretation of the Second Amendment or giving up any pretense to privacy.

No replacement is necessary, because we are also doing the things that actually help prevent terrorism, as evidenced by its rarity in this country. Unfortunately, those things that we are doing to stop al-Qaeda style terrorism from abroad don't do jack smile to keep racists and xenophobes from killing people. The only solution there is to make it socially unacceptable to hold and promote racist and xenophobic views, rather than filling radio and TV with scum as we do now.

Good police work also helps. Rarely do morons like this not blab about their plans beforehand. One can unobtrusively observe from a distance and figure out if they're all talk or if they're actually dangerous. The massive (automated) surveillance state is not necessary. Nor is the idiocy that is airport security, but that's a rant for another thread.

I’m with you.  I’m at a loss as to what the correct answer is. 

Of course, the first response when we see senseless acts like this is to try and figure out a way the government can protect us better from such random acts of violence.  We can retract guns, restrict diesel fuel and nitrogen fertilizer, give everyone a dull knife, a musket with a few lead balls and several grams of gun powder.

The unfortunate reality, is people like this asshat in Wisconsin or the one in Colorado, or the one in Arizona would figure out a way to cause mass harm to people, if that is their intent.  If weapons had not been available, the white supremacist could simply drive his truck into the middle of a crowd leaving the temple.

You simply can’t legislate the crazy out of people.  There’s intent and obviously some sort of mental illness which causes people to do this, not weapons being plentiful.  

Being a gun owner and soon-to-be-registered-conceal-carry-permit-owner, I'm a little split on this.

I don't mind having the right to bear arms.  We are reserved it in the 2nd Amendment.  Did the framers really think we'd start concocting machines that could spit 60 rounds in a minute and hold 100 rounds or more?

Did they really think we'd need AKs or AR15s to hunt for our food?

I don't mind people owning the ARs/AKs, but how about limiting the number of rounds these things can fire at one time?  Or even restrict or ban the use of 30 round clips in a .40 cal.  That's where I see it, and I'm sure many would disagree.

I think if you carry a .40 or a .45 and can't get the job done with even a 15 round magazine, you don't even need to be carrying a firearm.

This times 100.

Restrict away.  Only people like you and I who are interested in staying within the law will observe it. 

That’s the point, how is the government planning on rounding up all the millions of 30 round mags out there?

There you go again. Why do you hate government when it comes to protecting it's populace from within. I never see you posting anti government comments when it comes to the military.


James Holmes' Psychiatrist Contacted University Police Weeks Before Movie-Theater Shooting: ABC Exclusive
http://abcnews.go.com/US/james-holmes-psychiatrist-contacted-university-police-weeks-movie/story?id=16943858

We always loved to have the campus cops show up...they had no power to bust us.

It turns out Holmes’s psychiatrist (U COLO.) contacted campus police weeks before shooting. Pass a law that as soon as something like this is reported it goes straight to the FBI. Do this  FIRST so the info can be in the nics system.

That is "reasonable gun control."

I think you just need to be lucky and to lower your exposure to gun nutz flipping.

You don't have to. You seem to expect instant gratification and perfection from government. You don't get that from any other large organization (and probably not even from yourself), so why do that? Attrition will take care of the problem over time, just as it took care of fully automatic weapons being used more than extremely rarely in crime in the US. Now they're really effing expensive, so nobody bothers.

We have to start somewhere. And by that I don't mean "start taking away all the guns". I mean start making it harder for people to outfit themselves with weaponry really only useful for criminal activity by making it more expensive. On the other hand, I'd be perfectly happy if low-end decent handguns, rifles, and shotguns were even cheaper than they are now.

I never said they had to.  From this point forward would be just fine.

Think zombie apocolypse. 15 rounds might not be enough.

Believe it or not RM, they make rounds marketed as 'zombie killers'.

No joke.

12ga rounds with #4 Copper shot and a slug at the base.  They'll put a hole about 6" wide in any zombie that may attack you!

The only point I was making was that arms ownership is protected under the constitution where voting is not. Whatever you think it should be, voting is a privilege granted by the states.

But one seems to be protected with far more veracity than the other.

I don’t expect instant gratification out of government, it’s far to big and dense to move quickly on anything.  I’m making the point that regardless of what ever ban or restrictions go into place, it does absolutely nothing to make the rest of us safer.  

I don’t think you understand the mentality of people when they know something they want will be restricted or will become obsolete by mandate- they start to hoard items like ammunition or magazines, they don’t simply disappear from the streets or people’s homes.  If you can’t buy the things you want, you steal them or buy them on the black market.  I seem to recall that McVeigh, et al were involved in a large scale theft of fire arms from someone either in Arkansas or Oklahoma.



I fail to see how anything I said had to do with a hatred of government or anti-government.  How is stating they can’t possibly round up all the large capacity mags a slam on government?  My point is simple: restrict or ban one popular weapon of choice and the criminally insane will simply find another way to make their way onto CNN 24/7. 

You can’t legislate the crazy away, but I agree on one point you made: Anyone who states or indicates some sort of rage incident like the one in Colorado should be reported to the FBI pronto.

A well-armed populace seems to be the only logical solution for their own safety.

Magazines are not currently tracked or regulated, so here's what would happen.

1. Government makes big-donkey magazines illegal.
2. Retailers can no longer sell legally.
3. A $10 magazine is now worth up to $100 if sold illegally, making a million dollar industry into a billion dollar industry.
4. Lots of cheep magazines are smuggled around.
5. People are incarcerated for possession of big-donkey magazines even though they may have never committed another crime.
6. Criminals and nut-bags still have big-donkey magazines, because, well, they're criminals and nut-bags.
7. People will still die from criminals and nut-bags.

Sounds like lots of other things we have attempted to outlaw.

Our typical process:
1. Identify the problem.
2. Ignore the problem.
3. Treat the symptom because it's easier.
4. Be shocked because the problem persists.

 

Was the Wisconsin gunman a product of his environment, or was being trained to kill just an enabler?

(after enlisting in the army at Fort Sill, Oklahoma,) Page did well enough after joining in 1992 to be assigned to a psychological operations unit at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The unit is regarded in the US military as exclusive.

But at the time Fort Bragg was also a recruiting centre for white hate groups including the National Alliance, once regarded as one of the most effective such groups and also among the most extreme because it openly glorified Adolf Hitler. The Military Law Review at the time reported that National Alliance flags were openly hung in barracks and, out of uniform, soldiers sported neo-Nazi symbols and played records about killing blacks and Jews.

"White supremacists have a natural attraction to the army," the Military Law Review said. "They often see themselves as warriors, superbly fit and well-trained in survivalist techniques and weapons and poised for the ultimate conflict with various races."

In 1995, two soldiers with the 82nd Airborne murdered a black couple in Fayetteville, the city neighbouring Fort Bragg, in a racially motivated attack.
Others serving at the base during the 1990s were arrested for hoarding ammunition in preparation for an attack on businesses, including media organisations, owned by African Americans and Jews. Soldiers were also arrested as members of skinhead gangs involved in assaults.

A former colleague in the psychological operations unit, Fred Allen Lucas, said that Page called him a "race traitor" for dating Latina women and took to calling other races "dirt people".
"It didn't matter if they were black, Indian, Native American, Latin – he hated them all," Lucas told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/07/wade-michael-page-wisconsin-shooting?newsfeed=true

Gaspar, please continue to ignore our almost complete success in eliminating the use of machine guns, grenades, and the like in crime. It makes it a lot easier to dismiss everything else you say when you ignore history.

Republicans Blasted Obama Administration For Warning About Right-Wing Domestic Terrorism

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/08/07/645421/right-wing-extremism/

The gunman in the shooting at a Sikh temple over the weekend has been labeled a potential domestic terrorist — defined as one who incites politically-motivated violence against his or her own country. In Wade Michael Page’s case, that political motivation was likely white supremacy, a growing problem in the United States.
But when, in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security reported that white supremacy is the US’s biggest threat for domestic terror, it was met with harsh criticism. Conservatives blasted the department for defining terror threats too broadly, instead of focusing on potential Islamic terrorists. Then-House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) was one of those who berated DHS, saying that they weren’t focusing on the real threats the US faces:
[T]he Secretary of Homeland Security owes the American people an explanation for why she has abandoned using the term ‘terrorist’ to describe those, such as al Qaeda, who are plotting overseas to kill innocent Americans, while her own Department is using the same term to describe American citizens who disagree with the direction Washington Democrats are taking our nation. Everyone agrees that the Department should be focused on protecting America, but using such broad-based generalizations about the American people is simply outrageous.
The report was titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” and it named white supremacists, radical anti-abortionists, and a few “disgruntled veterans” as most susceptible to recruitment by extremist groups, or to harboring resentment that may lead to domestic terrorism. DHS stressed that, during recessions, these threats go up, and law enforcement should be on the lookout for such extremism:
DHS/I&A has concluded that white supremacist lone wolves pose the most significant domestic terrorist threat because of their low profile and autonomy—separate from any formalized group—which hampers warning efforts..[...]
Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.
The report’s findings were congruous with previous studies that indicate right wing extremism is responsible for more instances of violence every year (with the exception of 2001, when the September 11th attacks happened) in the United States than Islamic extremist. It also tracks with the rise of hate groups in the US since 2000.
Sec. Janet Napolitano ended up withdrawing the report and apologizing to veterans who felt they’d been called out, stressing that the threat was limited to a very small number of veterans.
Page, the Sikh temple shooter, was one of these veterans. According to Oak Creek, Wisconsin law enforcement, he served in the army from 1992 to 1998. He was administratively discharged in 1998, and had a known “patterns of misconduct.” After leaving the service, he was arrested twice, once for a DUI and once for criminal mischief — both in the 1990s.
The gunman had also been tracked by the Southern Poverty Law Center for around a decade because of his ties to white supremacy groups. While he apparently “popped up” on the FBI’s radar about six years ago, it seems they had no active investigation.

I think we're well acquainted with the problem of gun-related violence.  We differ on how to attack it.  

On one hand, a re-interpretation of the Second Amendment as having as it's main purpose the establishment of a well regulated militia could by itself go far toward reducing the number of firearms in circulation.  The individual right to keep and bear arms would be subordinate.  Membership in the state militia would be required of anyone desiring to keep and bear arms.

We can all imagine the outcry.  The NRA would be loudest, and any politician who endorsed the idea would likely face well-funded opposition.  Judges who re-interpreted the amendment could expect to see impeachment proceedings, deserved or not.  (In fact, I heard earlier today that one of the tea party ideas in Kansas is to bring an end to an independent judiciary, an idea that is antithetical to our system of government.  But that's another thread.)

Someone pointed out the story about Holmes psychiatrist contacting the police.  This is the other side of the equation, the other immovable rock.  OK, so he contacted the police.  What are they to do?  He hadn't committed a crime, so he couldn't be arrested.  He amassed weapons and ammunition, but that's perfectly legal.  And while he may have confided thoughts about killing to his doctor, thoughts, fantasies, and the like aren't crimes.  What would we have the police do?  They cannot simply walk into his house and confiscate everything.  Remember, up until committing a crime, he has the same expectations of privacy as any of us.

We could establish a list of people we believe are pre-disposed to commit violent crime, a sort of national snitch list not unlike TSA's no fly list.  Doctors, police, employers, and other 'qualified' people could make recommendations on whether someone is pre-disposed to violence, and the presence of their name on the list would bar them from legally purchasing guns or ammunition.

It wouldn't work, of course, because there are plenty of guns to be had illegally.  And it would be another useless bureaucratic tool peppered with bad data, just like TSA's list.  

The only way to reduce the number of illegal guns would be by going house-to-house searching for them.  Washington DC barred all firearm possession at one time.  I don't know if that is still true, but imagine the response if our police departments began searching our houses.  There's not one judge in the country who would sign off on a search warrant for an entire city or town.

Any attempt to rein in gun violence brings conflict between two cherished rights, the right to keep and bear arms and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.  Which one would you sacrifice?

(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/387085_466450256706627_1133249098_n.jpg)

Take a look back into this thread......revelation?

Take a valuum & chill.

Ya know, that was a good point too. Sorry I just couldn't quite get it earlier. I do think we should amend the constitution to include voting as a protected right at least equal to arms ownership. I don't trust the states to allow me anything I really want.

Can’t count on the state for liquor after 9pm or Sundays.

Really?  That would be the re-interpretation brought about by "public school graduates".  Everyone should realize from their elementary school English, that the first part (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state) is by definition a subordinate clause.  Which means - also by definition - that is unable to stand alone as a sentence, which means it's only purpose is to serve as a component of the sentence to provide further clarification or explanation in support of the main part of the sentence.  (Sadly, it didn't do just a great job of that in this case.)

Nevertheless, the rest of the sentence - the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed - IS the main part of the sentence - the independent clause - and as such, is able to stand alone as a complete sentence, thereby fulfilling the requirement of an independent clause that it BE able to stand alone as a complete sentence.  Also contains the phrase "the people" - long interpreted in ALL other parts of the Constitution to bestow an individual right.  And finally, just in the last couple of years, judged to also apply to the second amendment.

Basic 6th grade English.  Sad that so many can't even understand to that level....


2nd Amendment
As ratified by the states and certified by Thomas Jefferson while Secretary of State -
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Is the arrogance necessary H? Private school kids do badly in English courses too you know. My rejoinder is that context and comprehension are just as important as sentence structure and analysis.

Second amendment enthusiasts are anxious to strictly construe its language. They share that with fundamentalist religious sects, as though the words are more important than the meaning or intent. Thus, Christians today find the sentence, "easier to thread the eye of a needle with a Camel than a rich man to enter the gates of heaven..." as being somewhat strange (sorry, I am quoting from memory not the book itself). We all understand the sentiment but most believe that the wealthy do have a chance to enter heaven as well if they follow certain guidelines. In fact, the correct translation for Camel was actually hemp.

So, is that it? Is it a religious thing for this zealous second amendment behavior? Do you think that the time period, the context of the writing, the difference in elocution, the intent of the framers, the change in technology, the change in population, the change in the operation of the government, the massive differences in the world 225 years later...has no bearing on its application?

We as Christians are taught to pray  ... Thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven.   In Heaven it is said... the laws are written not in books or scrolls, but in the hearts and minds of men.

In so many discussions whether it be about abortion, drugs, guns, crime in general, poverty, poor health, etc. etc.  it almost always seems to me that we eventually get to the point that, well if instead of fighting about this or that law, our society would spend our time effort and money on adequately learning about and teaching the basics like good decision making skills and good life habits, we would put a serious dent in all of the above problems.  

There are far too many people plucking away at the leaves of the tree of evil and far too few hacking away at it's roots.

By far and away the preferred approach - and the one most often "run away from" by our (in particular Oklahoma's) legislators - hacking at education every day.

Arrogance?  Hmmm...maybe just a tiny bit, but much more dismay....that people could actually make it through 12 years of school and not understand that basic structure from 6th grade English.  The only reason I find viable is that the meaning is actually understood, but the hidden agenda is trying to misdirect.  Otherwise, we get back to the point that the education is beyond worthless - be it public or private.  (Many of the worst misdirectors are from private schools.)

There is a large body of writings by the guys that wrote the original that does indeed show their thoughts while writing the sentence.  They actually DID mean what they wrote.  What a novel idea!!  The redefinition is a local/recent phenomenon.  

So now we get to the discussion of how "flexible" the Constitution is - with the attendant propositions that the founders really meant "this" or "that" rather than what they wrote.  The phrase "the people" is clear, unambiguous, used widely throughout, and would seemingly be impossible to not understand.  And yet, it is....we define corporations as people and in the case of the second amendment, try to redefine people as not.

It IS a religious thing for the gun control advocates - an article of faith that says if society takes away guns from law abiding citizens, crime will decrease.  Despite MANY laws and examples - here and worldwide - showing the reality is exactly the opposite.

You can't logically argue religion. Its a faith thing. Therefore there can be no logical discussion of second amendment rights.

Why do you think the founding fathers did not include a right to vote for the people within the constitution? Did they not value the people's opinions or was it just an oversight they figured later generations or states would remedy?

They decided it was a states rights thing - they said when the Federal elections would be, then let the states set who/how/what etc.  Or who couldn't vote.  It was a very exclusive group in most states.  And remained so up until the 19th Amendment and then the Voting Rights Act.

Huh, the opposite? Really? Sounds like you've got some religion going on there. You may want to check out crime statistics in the other developed English-speaking countries. There's a lot less murder and a lot fewer shootings. You'll note that they pretty much all have fairly strict gun control. I don't advocate that level of gun control, but if you think that they don't have less gun crime specifically and less violent crime generally, you've got your eyes closed, your fingers stuck in your ears, and are shouting "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU" at the top of your lungs.

There's no sense in acting like the Swift Boaters. I happen to think that other factors have a stronger influence on the murder and violent crime rates than the availability of guns and would rather attack those social issues instead of private gun ownership, but what you wrote just isn't true. You must remember that nothing the NRA says can be trusted. They are lying liars more interested in creating division in the electorate to help their political party than they are at protecting gun ownership by reaching a reasonable consensus on what should and should not be allowed.

At some point, the folks in the cities/states with a far above US average gun violence rate will get fed up and do something rash. That will not serve your ends or mine.

Simply use the Google and you find this happening all over the world, we are not some bizarre island of violence.  There are nut-jobs with guns everywhere.  We, however, are one of the few countries where there are also non-nut-jobs with guns.  When a 72 year old man pops a gang-banger with an assault rifle holding up a Homeland store you don't hear too much about it.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/nigeria-mosque-attack-church-shootings-16955200#.UCLT5KmRi5R
Guns are illegal in Nigeria.

http://english.cri.cn/6909/2012/03/30/1461s690385.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9446242/Chinese-teenager-stabs-8-people-to-death.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13091128
Guns also illegal in China.

In fact, for a country much larger than Europe, we're about the same for rampage killings.  China currently holds the title though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers
Great tool, you can sort by weapon and several other categories.

So, they valued gun rights more than voters rights. In fact, they didn't really care if your state even allowed you to vote, but they insisted all people could own guns to form a militia. That implies that even non citizens of the country have rights to gun ownership since a state could grant voting privileges to non citizens if they so desired.

I'm having less and less good feelings about these guys.

Absent a grammar lesson, the sentence contains two ideas.  What I'm getting at is that we presently see the second idea - private ownership of firearms - as the dominant one while the idea of a militia is more on the order of a mere historical curiosity.  I doubt that the courts parse the language for grammatical content, and instead, try to discern the meaning contained in those words.  It would be within the Supreme Court's power to say that the first (subordinate) phrase defines the state's interest in security as superior to an individual's right to own firearms.  In fact, they've already done so.

Another way to view it is that while an individual may own firearms, the state has the right to limit his use of them or limit the kinds he may have.  These restrictions on firearms have been well-established since the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. Our rights under the Second Amendment are not absolute.  The state and federal governments can limit them...if there's pressure to do so and our legislators have the political will. Both the 1934 and 1968 acts came about as a reaction to violence, spawned by the gang wars during Prohibition and the assassinations in the 1960s.   

We can already see evidence of that, and that rash "solutions" trample more than just the second amendment:

Mayor Lee's Stop-and-Frisk Idea Was Not Just Controversial, but Uncreative

On May 16, federal judge Shira A. Scheindlin granted class-action status to a lawsuit opposing New York City's stop-and-frisk policy. As the New York Times reported, "she was disturbed by the city's 'deeply troubling apathy towards New Yorkers' most fundamental constitutional rights.'"

In her ruling, Scheindlin cited several of Columbia University law and public health professor Jeffrey Fagan's "factual determinations":

    Between 2004 and 2009, NYPD officers conducted at least 170,000 unlawful frisks -- where there was no reasonable suspicion to stop the person.

    In 4,000 of those stops, "police gave no reason other than 'high crime area' to justify the stop."

    "The percentage of documented stops for which police officers failed to list an interpretable 'suspected crime' has grown dramatically from 1.1 percent in 2004 to 35.9 percent in 2009."

    "Guns were seized in .15 percent of all stops. This despite the fact that 'suspicious bulge' was cited as a reason for 10.4 percent of all stops."

    "Police officers are more likely to list no suspected crime category (or an incoherent one) when stopping Blacks and Latinos than when stopping Whites."

Six weeks after and 3,000 miles away from Scheindlin's order, Mayor Ed Lee announced that he was considering implementing stop-and-frisk in San Francisco. Apparently, a meeting with NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg had turned him onto the strategy. For more than a month, Lee stood firm through a wave of outrage. But this week, he is backing away from the idea, without ever having explained why it would work better here than it has in other cities.

"He doesn't want to implement a policy that has the potential to include racial profiling," said his spokeswoman, Christine Falvey, according to the Chronicle. "Looking at best practices, he came up with other options that have a lot more community support."

From the start, the mayor suggested that his city's version of stop-and-frisk would be different from the ones in New York City and Philadelphia, which are both facing lawsuits because of the policy. The problem was that he never explained how -- only dropping vague lines about how it would not involve racial profiling and noting that he would rename the strategy in order to avoid the negative connotations.

"I will evolve as we go through this, evolve names of programs," Lee told the Chron. "If it means rephrasing that, I'll be clearly open to that, but I've got to get the guns."

Which means, the plan wasn't just constitutionally controversial, but uncreative as well. Even Lee's boy Bloomberg recently acknowledged that stop-and-frisk has its flaws, that "the practice needs to be 'mended, not ended,'" as NYC's mayor said in June.

When Bloomberg implemented stop-and-frisk in 2002, it was innovative and promising, its potential problems still theoretical. Since then, problems have emerged that Bloomberg is now looking to "mend." Lee, despite the advantage of hindsight, announced his support for stop-and-frisk without offering any tangible improvements to the policy. He pitched an idea liberals have opposed for years without explaining why liberals should support it this time around.

Stop-and-frisk's effect on crime remains questionable. Civil liberty and personal safety are on opposite ends of the seesaw, and most debates over police enforcement strategies are debates about finding the proper balance.
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/08/mayor_ed_lee_stop_and_frisk.php

Apparently so.  It was pretty much a case of "if you were a white male who owned property (including other people), then you could be a voter."

Federal law allows non-citizens to own firearms here, as long as they are legally here, and fulfill all the other requirements.  And yes, I guess non-citizens could be allowed the vote as long as they are legal residents - depends on the state.  Can't see Oklahoma doing that....

Your comment about "the guys" goes to a thought similar to what I have said from time to time.  The noise we hear is all about how it was all "self-sacrifice" to free the people from the tyranny of King George.  They certainly did take a risk, and not all of them thrived.  But, that sure did leave a whole LOT of people under the tyranny of just a different set of 'bosses'.  (Remember The Who - We Won't Get Fooled Again....?  Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.) 

Personally, I like the life I have here - but I have friends who have felt so unwelcome that they left - and yes, it is a big loss!  Would it have been better or worse if continued under King George??  That is one of those rhetorical questions that really has no correct answer.  Canada hasn't done all that bad with the kind of relationship they have maintained.  (Also, Australia and New Zealand).  Other than the fact that they don't have the freedom to own a firearm, the differences are subtle overall.

Despite what the NRA may have told you, that's not actually true. Handguns are (generally) not allowed in Canada. Long guns are not. You can take a long gun into Canada, even, if you dot your Is and cross your Ts and have a legitimate purpose for taking it.

Not me - the religious part of it is that the Brady Group types advance the idea that somehow gun ownership by law abiding citizens leads to more crime than if guns are not owned by same.  That is the dogma, and that is the falsehood.  There is no indication that taking guns away lead to less crime.  And Australia, New Zealand, etc are the examples - no decrease in crime after gun "buybacks" (confiscation).  

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

We do have evidence here that crime rates in states allowing concealed carry has decreased - and at a greater rate than the states that did not allow concealed carry. 

The problem in comparing does not address the fact that those two countries already had draconian anti-gun laws.  The confiscation of the remaining guns was affecting a fairly small group in overall terms within those countries.


Was listening to CSPAN last night where the US Conference of Mayors was talking about gun violence in cities (I think from January).  They said that of the approximate 13,000 gun deaths, over 1/2 were 'gang' related, the vast majority involving black males from 16 to 24.  If one looks at the issue ONLY from the 1,000 mile view, guns might be seen as the problem.  When we know for a fact that it is educational, economic, and family issues that are the core problem - gangs come about as a surrogate "family" and a means to make money.  Combine that with the fact that there are huge profits to be made by illicit trade in drugs.  Guns - invariably stolen or otherwise illegally acquired - are then used as a tool to enable the trade.

So this somehow translates into the notion that law abiding owners - no matter the type of firearm they have - can be disarmed and reduce all this murder.  What can that notion be other than an article of faith in a cult religion of ignorance and stupidstition??

When the reality is the same reality we finally acknowledged at the end of alcohol prohibition - the war on drugs is an abject failure.  It has been for 100 years.  It directly leads to dramatic increases in illegal activity at all levels of society.  It is insanity.

Take away the profits, and the problem is at least reduced if not eliminated.  Yeah, I know, we still have moonshiners - just at a miniscule rate compared to the prohibition era.

This weeks addition: http://www.businessinsider.com/shooter-near-texas-am-university-has-been-taken-in-by-police-2012-8

No comparison.
The former were premeditated rampages.   The later was someone being evicted from their home.

There is even some small glimmer of hope on the horizon for Canada - they are moving around a bill that would de-register long guns, and require destruction of the government records for long guns.  Well, except Quebec, of course...  good move for the country!  There may be hope for them after all.

Today's edition:  http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/15/security-guard-shot-at-pro-life-groups-dc-headquarters/

Thank God they caught the guy!

Man, it sure got quiet in a hurry in this thread after the shoot out at FRC. And yes, I am glad they caught the guy, regardless of his motives...

You're so predictable....and boring.