Are Groups That Actively Pursued Tiller Culpable In His Murder?
Rogers Cadenhead of the Drudge Retort writes that one group in particular might bear some responsibility for the murder of George Tiller. However, unlike some Tiller haters, Jenn Giroux (right), who runs Women Influencing the Nation, posted this after the murder:
Women Influencing the Nation condemns all form of murder. The murder of George Tiller is in direct contradiction with the beliefs and morals embraced by those of us who believe that every life is precious in the eyes of God and no individual has the right to take the life of another. We encourage everyone to pray for the repose of Dr. Tiller’s soul.
Rogers points out that Giroux, who runs ChargeTiller.com, spent two years pursuing criminal charges against Tiller, and referred to him as “Tiller the Killer,” and falsely charged that he performed illegal abortions. Giroux also accused Tiller of bribing government officials on a page that was taken down after his killing.
The accused assassin posted this on her site.
It seems as though what is happening in Kansas could be compared to the ‘lawlessness’ which is spoken of in the Bible,” it said. “Tiller is the concentration camp ‘Mengele’ of our day and needs to be stopped before he and those who protect him bring judgment upon our nation.
I’m not sure that you can claim causality when some whack-job does something insane. You never know just what sets people off. Cadenhead makes a case for how important it is for these anti-abortion groups to distance themselves from these acts of violence:
Anti-abortion groups that go after individual doctors with rhetoric as strong as Giroux’s share responsibility for his death. When you tell people that a doctor is committing murder and has bribed government officials to escape prosecution, you’re encouraging people like Tiller’s murderer to view violence as a justifiable act. Anti-abortion activists know this. Since 1993, there have been 14 attempted murders of abortion providers, 13 bombings of medical care locations, and now two doctors killed.
No matter how you feel about abortion, you should recognize that protests against doctors at their hospitals and homes are a form of political violence intended to stop Americans from engaging in a legal activity. If Giroux is genuinely remorseful about Tiller’s murder, her group should repudiate the practice of going after individual abortion doctors the way they pursued Tiller.
Blood on their hands just like ALL US taxpayers and voters for what the Bush2 admin did in Iraq in OUR name. 50% of the “uncounted Iraqi collateral” were children.
bobfrommadison Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Jeez. Can you say non sequitur?
Southern Girl Lib Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:57 pm
4,
I appreciate your point, but the right wing whack jobs who troll this site do not give one damn about the Iraqi children. And this is beyond sad.
4moreyears Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:16 pm
SGL, Didn’t Mark Foley, Teacher-Coach Denny Hastert’s point Page person like them covered with BarBQ sauce?
Right bob, Back on Topic.
WHO’s side are you one the Baby Killer or our Old Testament Rights?
bobfrommadison Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:48 pm
4moreWHO’s side are you one (sic) the Baby Killer or our Old Testament Rights?
Since Roe v Wade mentions “viability” numerous times in the decision, and the definition of “viability” has changed dramatically in the ensuing 36 years, the decision has, in my opinion, been rendered invalid.
Therefore, one must each determine for himself a solitary moment when human life begins in order to define life, and therefore whom should have constitutional protection.
The only moment in human development that can legitimately be shown where one minute there was no life and the next there was, is conception.
I used to support “the right to choose”, as it definitely improved my chances on a Friday night.
But now, I believe to simplify abortion as a “choice” is the pinnacle of cynicism…and counterintuitive to liberty and liberalism.
…To the point where Nancy Pelosi can defend abortion because “They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health.”
That answer your question?
OldLefty Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:13 pm
“This week, the focus is on contraceptives. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has claimed that the package would spend “hundreds of millions on contraceptives” Yesterday on ABC’s This Week, host George Stephanopoulos asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) about the provision. Pelosi replied:
PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those – one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.”
I love how these guys don’t want contraception, they don’t want abortion, they want Viagra for EVERYBODY, and they want marriage, where Phyllis Schlafly says, “By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don’t think you can call it rape,” …just like the Taliban.
Then you wonder why the poorest states, who take the most federal dollars, who teach abstinence only, have the highest rates of teen pregnancy.
bobfrommadison Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Lefty-
Attack attack attack.
My response was considered and considerate, and stated nothing regarding my stance on contraception.
Take a break.
Respond to my definition of life guaranteed constitutional protection. Then you might be considered credible.
And Phyllis Schlaffly? Please. Care to join the rest of us in the next century?
OldLefty Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:55 pm
bobfrommadison,
Maybe you’re right…see what happens when you listen to the right wing too much? you start get just like them.
Since post viability abortions are illegal excpt for the health of the mother, and….
If you show as much concern for those for who already are born, or concern for alternatives like prevention, or enforcing responsibility on the fathers, (even if it also affects THEIR lives,) or more sympathies for the girl getting raped by a family member, then, YOU might be considered credible.
Until then spare us the changing of Pelosi’s words, and the pious outrage.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:01 am
or enforcing responsibility on the fathers, (even if it also affects THEIR lives,)
—-
I’m not sure how it’s handled in all states, but in my state the father is considered at least partially fiscally responsible for the child and have a minimum child support payment that has to be made every month or it is taken out of their paycheck along with taxes. Even if they have no job there is an amount they are liable for that if/when they get a job comes out of their paycheck.
Though it would be nice to be able to make Father’s even more responsible, I’m not sure how to affect that legally.
However from a strictly legal and “privacy” concern no state allows for the legal privacy of fathers and allows the woman to unilaterally make decisions regarding abortion with no consent from the father. So it’s a double edged sword.
If you want to force responsibility, you also have to concede at least some input in the abortion “decision”
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Are Groups That Actively Pursued Tiller Culpable In His Murder?
Are groups that actively petitioned the end of the war culpable in the Arkansas soldier’s murder?
Epiphany Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Show me where Pino, these groups encouraged and said United States soldiers are the concentration camp ‘Mengele’(s) of our day and need to be stopped before they and those who protect them bring (God’s) judgment upon our nation.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:05 pm
but the right wing whack jobs who troll this site do not give one damn about the Iraqi children.
And what would make you say that? Wow.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Perhaps we should all start referring to Bushco as Bush the Baby killer and Cheney the Baby Killer. Would this upset the right wing any?
Kregg Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Budda said: Perhaps we should all start referring to Bushco as Bush the Baby killer and Cheney the Baby Killer. Would this upset the right wing any?
K: Naw… You guys have been attributing all that is bad to them for so long that you’ve lost any credibility you might have had long ago…
Budda Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Naw, I believe you are wrong Kregg. People have justly been attributing Buschco’s mistakes to them and it is now being widely excepted. Credibility is being boosted everyday by revelations of Bush-the-baby-killer and Cheney-the-baby-killers actions. You are in the minority on this my friend.
Kregg Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Budda said: Naw, I believe you are wrong Kregg. People have justly been attributing Buschco’s mistakes to them and it is now being widely excepted. Credibility is being boosted everyday by revelations of Bush-the-baby-killer and Cheney-the-baby-killers actions. You are in the minority on this my friend.
K: Well, since BO is continuing in the exact same path as the ‘baby-killers’ then I expect that you will also call him one?
flap Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Barack Obama is a baby killer just like Bush and Cheney! Idiocy. All presidents have been indirectly involved in killing people.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:33 pm
O’Loofah is not accepting the blame either. But he has blood on his hands as well. Not only for this murder, but the murder last year at the church in Tennessee. You have the right to free speech, but hate speech can and does have consequences. I really think the rhetoric has gotten too heated in the last 20 years with the success of Boss Limpballs and the internet.
flap Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Thank God for Limbaugh and the internet or we’d only get people like you running the media. And I don’t mean that you or any other libs are bad, but it’s good to have a little bit of balance.
Hate speech? To libs, hatespeech = disagreement.
I detest abortion! HATESPEECH.
I disagree with gay marriage! HATESPEECH.
Sotomayor said a racist remark! HATESPEECH.
Southern Girl Lib Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:18 pm
You are a dittohead and brainwashed beyond help. I long for the days of disagreement Reagan/O’Neill style.
flap Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
I don’t even listen to Limbaugh. Get a clue. I long for pre-1973 days (when I wasn’t even alive) when abortion was illegal so this crap wouldn’t even be an issue.
Sarah Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Flap: “I long for pre-1973 days (when I wasn’t even alive) when abortion was illegal so this crap wouldn’t even be an issue.”
Ah. I see. So you long for the days of back-alley abortions when women AND their fetuses BOTH had a better chance of dying, but a much worse death. You long for the days when women were shamed for carrying their child born of rape or incest to term. You crave the tradition of men leaving pregnant women behind, with absolutely no child-support system in place.
I hope, at the very least, that everyone who is anti-choice is also very pro-welfare.
Hope for Change Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Well said Sarah
Do anti-choice people seriously believe that NO abortions were performed before Roe v Wade? They were performed in people’s unsanitary bedrooms by unqualified persons using unsterile equipment.
Most of the people who ‘long for pre-1973 days’ are people like Flap, who weren’t even alive then, and have no clue what they are longing for.
And believe me Flap, ‘this crap’ WAS an issue even before Roe v Wade
flap Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Sarah, then what we’ve gotta do is allow men to opt out of child support. If I impregnate a woman, and she can KILL MY CHILD at will, I should be able to tell her that I’m opting out of child support because I want her to kill the child. Empower women via the right to kill their progeny, then empower men via the right to opt out of child support. Perfectly fair.
I have no clue what I’m longing for? I know that killing is wrong. I realize it was an issue before Roe v. Wade, but it was not mainstream and a “right” before then. People got abortions in secret. There was some stigma. I mean, killing your children…seems like there should be a little stigma attached to that, you know? Now it’s all fun and games, screw around and then kill your child afterwards, under the guise of “privacy” and the worn-out mantra of “choice.” It’s aggravating.
As to rape and incest: do I think it’s an easy issue? Of course not. If I had a wife or daughter who was raped, it would be horrible. Do I think rape or incest legally justifies terminating human life? NO.
Sarah Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Flap: “Empower women via the right to kill their progeny, then empower men via the right to opt out of child support.”
Finally, an anti-choicer who confesses they’re not interested in the welfare of the fetus once it’s born.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Men have no choice when it comes to their unborn children.
OldLefty Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:53 pm
blissfulconservative said,
“Men have no choice when it comes to their unborn children.”
……………………
Some of the most misogynistic posters who claim that the women’s choice was to not engage, should expect the same response.
But if you feel that way, why not work to make men HAVE to take responsibility, if you want them to have a choice….even if that means that they have to give up college and get a full time job, or their parents have to pay the child support until they are of age?
Sarah Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Men have no choice when it comes to their unborn children.
Wait a minute. You were just arguing that women should’ve exercised their choice NOT to have kids BEFORE they became pregnant. Men ALSO should’ve exercised their choice not to create a child.
Yet again, the woman is demonized.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Sarah
Do men have the right to tell the woman who is carrying their child that they HAVE to carry it to term?
Men are demonized for wanting the child, not paying for the child, etc. It isn’t a one sided issue. The fact is, if you aren’t ready to be a parent you shouldn’t have sex. The only 100% form of birth control is abstinence no matter which doctor you talk to.
women SHOULD exercise thier choice prior to the act. did the woman willingly have intercourse with a man withouth protection? If so, the man should have the same parental rights as the mother.
EricG Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:07 pm
“Hate speech? To libs, hatespeech = disagreement.”
No, your misunderstanding us if you think that.
Hate speech is words like ‘fagot’ and ’sodomite’ and ‘wetback’ and ‘nigger.’
“I detest abortion! HATESPEECH.
I disagree with gay marriage! HATESPEECH.
Sotomayor said a racist remark! HATESPEECH.”
I detest abortion too. And I’m pro-choice. You fit that into your head for me, please God just think about it for once. (Not hate speech.)
I agree strongly with legal gay-marriage and I know enough about the law to say without a doubt that it is illegal and unconstitutional to deny gays the right to marry. You are on the other side and nobody will tell you to change your mind. You are free to vote as you will and say what you want. (Not hate speech.)
Sotomayor, I think, made a racial charged remark. If we are going to call her a racist then we have to include the rest in the equation. That means Rush Limbaugh, George W. Bush and most GOP Republicans HATE BLACK PEOPLE and HATE WOMEN … are you even listening to this country and the people within it’s borders? If anyone who says anything but perfect little statements of PC Nature are racists then most conservatives have to put on their KKK robes and just start talking about ’seperate but equal.’ What you said isn’t hate speech, it’s an opinion but if you are willing to give me that Rush Limbaugh and heck … all of FOX Network is a bunch of anti-minority bigots? Didn’t think so.
So the last one is not hate speech either. Not unless you want to help in uncovering the racists in amidst our media…
flap Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:42 pm
“I detest abortion too.”
Why do you detest it? What is wrong with abortion?
I detest slavery…should we make it legal then? Why did we ban it?
Sarah Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Are you talking about enslaved people, or enslaved fetuses?
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Old
If men should HAVE to pay for their children they should also have the right to say the woman HAS to keep them. Right?
Sarah Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Nope. It’s not their body. She’s not livestock.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:02 pm
And the child isn’t trash that can be disposed of out of convenience. What is IN her IS part of their body.
OldLefty Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:06 pm
While I agree with Sarah, I say we have a long way to go before we see a time where men are forced to be responsible, if they choose not to be.
Even if you claim it is NOT her body, she can mis and not even know she was pregnant. Technically, no one even has to know, and in the case of rape, no one may never know who the father is which is why I think it is nobody eles’s business.
Sarah Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Bliss: “And the child isn’t trash that can be disposed of out of convenience.”
Well, you’re certainly not up to adopting it, and you aren’t interested in paying more taxes for welfare. So technically, it seems you think the child is more of a treasure when it’s a fetus, but trash it when it’s out in the world and needs support.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Sarah
Once again….you don’t know me. Period. How many children have you adopted? How many abortions have you paid for? How many poor Iraqi children have you taken in? How many wounded soldiers have you helped?
Sarah Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Well, then let’s get to know ya…
ARE you interested in adopting?
ARE you interested in paying more taxes for welfare?
Me? I haven’t adopted any kids. But then, I’m not demanding that women HAVE to have them if they can’t take care of them for any number of reasons. I’m not sure I’ve paid for any abortions, either (unless you count NARAL contributions and Planned Parenthood taxes). And I think I’ve made it clear, I save the majority of my care and compassion for Americans, rather than Iraqis (although I wish them well, if they wish me well). In terms of wounded soldiers, I HAVE sent care packages, which is admittedly wimpier than performing triage on the field, but then I didn’t condone entering a war before figuring out what the objectives for victory were.
You, on the other hand, seem pretty interested in fetuses, and I know you’re a vocal supporter of the war and the troops, so how about you?
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Perhaps we should all start referring to Bushco as Bush the Baby killer and Cheney the Baby Killer.
You understand, right, that since Saddam has been deposed, the number of Iraqi civilians and children specifically dying per month has gone DOWN?
No? you didn’t know that? Why wouldn’t you know that I wonder?
Kregg Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Pino,
Most of the deaths of women and children are now at the hands of the idiots we are fighting.
Southern Girl Lib Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Two wrongs don’t make a right. One death is too many for me. The invasion into a country who had no quarrel with us has cost the lives of well over 100,000 to include innocent women, children, and babies.
EricG Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:14 pm
You buy into some serious propaganda over there, don’t you?
Tell me how about civilians died in the war. The exact number of people killed by American and Iraqi forces up until this point. The number please:
???
What’s the matter?
Oh, that’s right … we have a biased media that feeds us whatever the Pentagon wants us to hear.
We don’t have a number on that because people buy the crud that you bought up like a mule lead down the road…
I don’t buy it for one second.
Your stats are dead wrong. It’s fabricated crud from the govt to hide their awesome and disgusting bloodshed … the kind of bloodshed that if even one so-called ‘pro-lifer’ was truly anything but a useless hypocrite they would have helped me in denouncing from the beginning of this war.
COWARDS! ALL COWARDS WHO WILL ONLY FIGHT FOR AN ALLY THAT THEY CANNOT SEE BUT COWER BEFORE OUR OWN MILITARY AND ‘FREE PRESS.’
Go drink the Kool-aid over at FOX Nation … we deal in reality over here…
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Most of the deaths of women and children are now at the hands of the idiots we are fighting.
I do, they ignore. But, even accounting for that. The raw number of innocent Iraqi civilian deaths in absolute has gone DOWN. DOWN. Fewer. More children ALIVE. LESS dead.
Hello? Tap tap tap. Is thins thing on?
Hello?
Sarah Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Yeah, the microphone wasn’t working yesterday either, ’cause you never did answer as to how many kids you’ve adopted.
(Cha!)
TDro319 Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:45 pm
“The raw number of innocent Iraqi civilian deaths in absolute has gone DOWN.”
And it only cost us 4000+ American soldiers. You must also consider the number of innocent men, women and children in Iraq who have been seriously injured. How many have been displaced, lost their homes, because of this war.
And besides, you have no proof that if we hadn’t invaded Iraq the killings by Saddam would have continued. And why was Bush so concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people when hundreds more have been killed in Darfur at the same time?
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:50 pm
You have no proof that the mass murders carried out by saddam and his crew wouldn’t have continued.
Why don’t you call obama and ask him to send some troops to darfur if that makes you happy? You can’t have it both ways. Either you ARE for stepping in or you aren’t.
Oh wait, you only approve if a democrat is in power.
Daddio Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:19 am
Yadda, yadda, yadda TDro. Boring.
How many died for your freedom? Do you go and stomp on their graves because they possibly killed innocent civilians, inadvertantly, pushing back Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo to free Europe and Japan?
Do you abhor those who died to expell our British oppressors and cement our freedom as a new nation?
OldLefty Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:26 am
It makes a difference whether you believe that that war was justified or unjustified, based on truth or lies…
We should not confuse those who create and initiate the mission, and those who carry it out.
Remember, Major General Smedley Darlington Butler:
“I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.”
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:28 am
was our involvement in Europe during WWII justified?
OldLefty Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:31 am
GuidoVanHorn said,
“was our involvement in Europe during WWII justified?”
…………………….
It is my opinion that it was.
Don’t forget, that Japan attacked us, Germany declared war on us and invaded other countries and were attacking England.
Daddio Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:33 am
So we shouldn’t have gone to war to fight Hitler or Mussolini?
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:40 am
Lefty is saying that we should have…
OldLefty Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:40 am
Daddio,
What are you talking about?
I just said, we should, because, ‘Japan attacked us, Germany declared war on us and invaded other countries and were attacking England.’
Daddio Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:41 am
No better reason to fight a war than for freedom from a tyrant. Freedom that is endowed upon us by God. No greater love has a man than he lay down his life for his friend. Why can’t the Iraqi people be our friends? What is wrong with fighting for the freedom of people who cannot fight for themselves?
Daddio Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:43 am
I was writing my comments while Lefty was making her post so therefore I didn’t see her remarks until I posted mine. My apology.
OldLefty Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:55 am
Daddio, no problem.
As for “No better reason to fight a war than for freedom from a tyrant”
First off, there are many places suffering MORE than Iraq had been; you going to have our kids die for all of them?
Then you have the problem that many of those who came into the Bush administration with the intent of overthrowing the tyrant are the very same people who supported and armed him, and made money with him, with no regard for the people.
Lastly, after WW11, the Marshall plan was implemented in such a way as to avoid even a whiff of war profiteering while Bremer went in and wrote a free market constitution that conv1nced many Iraqis that that was the ONLY reason for going to war with them.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
how many kids you’ve adopted.
Zero.
You missed the post that described how pertinent that really is.
For example, how many times have you enlisted that allow you to speak to War Policy.
Or, or, how many times have you been licensed to teach that allow you to speak on Education Issues?
Or, how many times have you been sworn in as a Corrections Officer that gives you the right to speak to the death penalty.
As if.
But back to the point. As a direct result of the US Invasion of Iraq, FEWER children are dying in Iraq. Fewer.
So, if you were going to define a metric of success in Iraq based on children dying, I would say that I would use children dying per month. And that metric has shown the invasion to be a success.
Truth and fact NEVER enter the liberal mind.
Sarah Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Pino: “Truth and fact NEVER enter the liberal mind.”
Oh, c’mon. Let’s be grownups. Stop throwing hairbrushes and let’s be a little more civil, yes?
Zero. You missed the post that described how pertinent that really is.
Likewise, you missed the post that explained, in as many single-syllable words as possible, how absolutely relevant the adoption question is, even though it obviously makes you incredibly uncomfortable (perhaps because it’s sinking in, how unfair it is to make women have kids they can’t care for, and then kick welfare out from under them, or refuse to adopt their kids, or go after deadbeat dads, etc.).
For example, how many times have you enlisted that allow you to speak to War Policy. Or, or, how many times have you been licensed to teach that allow you to speak on Education Issues? Or, how many times have you been sworn in as a Corrections Officer that gives you the right to speak to the death penalty.
Not talking about “speaking.” Everyone has the right to speak. I’m talking about “doing.” And you illustrate beautifully, once more, that the anti-abortion side would rather be all talk, no action when it comes to compassion and care for children, most of them refusing to adopt the already-born, unwanted children they’re claiming to advocate for. Once the kid’s out of the womb, they appear to think their work is over.
But back to the point. As a direct result of the US Invasion of Iraq, FEWER children are dying in Iraq. Fewer. So, if you were going to define a metric of success in Iraq based on children dying, I would say that I would use children dying per month. And that metric has shown the invasion to be a success.”
Dude, you’ve got me confused with someone else on this board. I didn’t “define a metric of success” that way. If you pay attention, I hardly talk about the war at all on here. I have to confess, I really don’t give a rat’s ass about Iraqis. I save my compassion, energy and caring for fellow Americans. Although I don’t wish them harm, if they don’t wish us harm.
EricG Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Pino – “how many times have you enlisted that allow you to speak to War Policy. Or, or, how many times have you been licensed to teach that allow you to speak on Education Issues? Or, how many times have you been sworn in as a Corrections Officer that gives you the right to speak to the death penalty.”
Pino, seriously … this is America. I want to introduce you to the US Constitution if you didn’t know about it already.
The ‘right’ to speak is not absolute but nor does it hinge upon our ability to have ‘gone there and done that.’ Your thinking would make a world where only police officers could talk about crime and only officers could talk about war strategy.
That would be a communist regime of fascist rule.
This country is better than that. Heck, YOU are better than that.
We can use our minds to say what we will and when we are speaking of that which is not our personal experience we are expressing our freedom of speech in America.
If we use your standard then only Sarah, the other women of Liberaland, myself and maybe a few others may ever speak of abortion and adoption.
We are directly affected by it in our lives and people like yourself who hold an opinion despite the situation not directly affecting your life, right here, right now, should be kept from the debate and rejected as ‘nonsense folks.’
Think about it.
Most antiabortion activists are men and are not adopted.
They would all have to throw away their dead baby signs and resign their website domains to me if they listened to you.
Also if that was the case then all the wars of America would be blacked-out from the public and they would spend our treasury dry and you and me would never even know until the depression set in.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:48 pm
You long for the days when women were shamed for carrying their child born of rape or incest to term.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I think that pro-lifers are pro-life with exception of health of mother and victim of crime.
I may be wrong, but that is the opinion of all most every single person I know.
Sarah Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Pino, meet Flap, who thinks those who are raped or impregnated incestuously should give birth.
But I would agree with you…I think most anti-choicers DO have some modicum of compassion for those women who are victims of rape, incest, or medical circumstances.
flap Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Does the baby realize it was created via rape or incest? Do you understand what life is? Have you had basic biology? Got a GED?
“Modicum of compassion?” How magnanimous of you! Gimme a break, you have no idea what you’re talking about. What the hell are “medical circumstances”?
4moreyears Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Palin-Bachmann 2012
Because the Raped Must Birth
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
The invasion into a country who had no quarrel with us has cost the lives of well over 100,000 to include innocent women, children, and babies.
No, hon, it didn’t. It has SAVED lives of innocent women, children and babies.
The larger point that is trying to be made is that right wingers don’t care about Iraqi children is gross and reprehensible. In fact, it sounds like the SAME language those abhorrent extreme anti-abortion people use.
EricG Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:49 pm
You believe that if you want.
You go right into Baghdad and try selling that idea on the streets.
The people of Iraq would break you apart like a rag-doll. They have said many times that they hated Saddam but with Saddam there was running water, safe streets and no curfews.
Just like Dick Cheney you are assuming that you were right to support the murder of innocent children with ’shock and awe’ and the torture of arabs with ‘enhanced interrogation.’
You are grasping at straws to try and justify the Bush Co immoral and unamerican actions.
I think we SAVED a MILLION lives when Obama won the presidency over McCain. I see a build-up of troops under McCain in Iraq and my magic crystal ball says they would have been attacked in increased number under a Republican President.
Prove me wrong. My assertion is just as valid as Cheney’s that ‘torture saved lives’ and your assertion that ‘war saves lives.’
Both are outright wrong and downright dangerous ways to think.
Who do we kill today? To save who? How many are you willing to kill to save one innocent life? One hundred? One MILLION?
Why don’t we just kill everyone that doesn’t agree with us? That seems like it would prevent future wars … seems like the right thing to do … right?
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Have you talked to soldiers coming home who have positive things to say about what is going on in Iraq? I mean the ones who have literally talked to Iraqi’s on the streets. You do know that tourists are starting to visit Iraq, right?
pino Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:56 pm
No he doesn’t. But then again; how could he have time to think this through….
pino Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Then again, it may not be his fault:
If you are not liberal in your 20’s, you have no heart.
If you are not conservative in your 40’s, you have no head.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:51 pm
“No, hon, it didn’t. It has SAVED lives of innocent women, children and babies.”
……………………….
That requires you to believe the perpetrators of the war, who many think lied.
But if you do believe it than how can we not go into Darfur, N Korea, Myanmar etc?
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Giroux gets to change her tune the second that someone takes her words to the next logical step and a million other hate-mongers of the antiabortion movement keep this crud rolling downhill everyday.
These people are responsible to the extent that they carelessly disregarded the ramifications of their actions while they were out there claiming their own moral superiority.
Giroux and all those like her should step forward to announce the radical changes they are making to the Pro-Life Movement to ensure that these tragedies never happen again.
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:31 pm
I dunno if you can go after the groups that are anti-abortion. After all, you’d have to ban the Bible because that is where they get their mojo. Ultimately, we are stuck as a free society to put up with the misdeeds of zealous fundamentalists that think they hear the voice of God in their heads. Charge him, convict him, and lock him up. Then he’ll have a lot of time to talk to God.
EricG Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
“After all, you’d have to ban the Bible because that is where they get their mojo”
Not really. Anybody can show you ways of reasoning something else out the same passages.
It’s true they are all quoting the Bible and using it as an excuse for their illogical stances … but it all comes down to very specific interpretations not shared by every single who reads the Bible.
Basically, you have be an interesting version of fundamentalist to hold these perspectives.
And it IS the anti-abortion groups to blame, though not in a direct sense. Groups like evangelicals and the likes of Jerry Falwell Jr. support a lack of understanding toward scripture because if anyone comes to a different reasoning on the same passages they are ‘misinterpreting The Word’ but when they read it they are ’seeing the Truth.’
It’s all horse-hockey. You have to read all these fancy words to jump into the debate but trust me … if an anti-choice nimrod said it then there is someone like me who can just quote another part of the Bible and refute the whole argument.
That’s why religious views on society are so counter-productive. No matter what it comes to a personal view of the same texts.
Thus we need to have solid and clear laws that protect the health and safety of citizens.
Like Roe v. Wade.
crh3e Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Well said Eric G. The part where you mention Falwell Jr. I agree with 100% as a native of Lynchburg,VA.
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:32 pm
You believe that if you want.
Has nothing to do with belief; look it up.
But if you do believe it than how can we not go into Darfur, N Korea, Myanmar etc?
Ahh, I see. So now, now that your whole argument against the Iraq was has gone away, you wanna change the tactic and complain because we HAVEN’T gone to war in other places?
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:53 pm
The ‘right’ to speak is not absolute but nor does it hinge upon our ability to have ‘gone there and done that.’ Your thinking would make a world where only police officers could talk about crime and only officers could talk about war strategy.
Child. I’m not the one making that point; Sarah is. If you are just going to talk without facts, have some respect and just say what you need to say without acting all RIGHTEOUS. If the past is any indication of the future, you are not going to be very successful in you legal career.
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Are we sure that’s not Julia Louis-Dreyfus (Elaine, from Seinfeld) in that photo?
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:19 pm
No, Elaine’s way prettier.
flap Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Despite the fact that JL-D is a huge lib, she was very attractive. And extremely talented.
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
“Are Groups That Actively Pursued Tiller Culpable In His Murder?”
Hell yeah they are, and they know it too, and they admit to it by all the things they’ve cleansed off their web sites since this latest assassination committed ONCE AGAIN by the terrorists of the radical evangelical right.
DHS had it right.
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Though I am not an attorney, I’ll tell you what: For anyone—or any group—complicit in the Triller murder case, I would hope the family goes after civil damages to the tune of backbreaking millions.
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Though I am not an attorney
Shocker.
For anyone—or any group—complicit in the Triller murder case
For anyone—or any group—complicit in the
Triller soldier murder case….damages to the tune of backbreaking millions.
The gentle liberal left.
Candy83 Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:23 pm
…Oh, no!
Pino offered up a note from his brainwashed base to talk down my “gentle liberal left” stance…in suggesting the family of the murdered doc going after civil damages in a lawsuit.
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Sorry, too many tags….
Though I am not an attorney
Shocker.
For anyone—or any group—complicit in the Triller murder case
For anyone—or any group—complicit in the
Trillersoldier murder case….damages to the tune of backbreaking millions.
The gentle liberal left.
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:48 pm
No matter how you feel about abortion, you should recognize that protests against doctors at their hospitals and homes are a form of political violence
—-
Is Alan saying that protest is violence…or only protests against abortion doctors?
though I agree you shouldn’t harass people at their homes under the guise of good taste, I think protesting doctors at their clinics (as long as it isn’t unduly intrusive)is fair game, and constitutionally protected as a right of assembly, and is no more violent then this post is.
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:20 am
“Are groups that actively pursued Tiller culpable in his murder?”–Alan Colmes.
A resounding NO! That is as absurd as saying those who actively pursued the end to torture as culpable in this soldiers murder.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:50 am
Sarah,
Yeah, the microphone wasn’t working yesterday either, ’cause you never did answer as to how many kids you’ve adopted.
I’m not entering into an abortion debate, but you always bring this point up – and I’ve never understood it. There is a multi year wait for people to adopt newborns, isn’t there?
Seems like it would make more sense to encourage people to adopt out their unwanted newborns rather than encourage more people to get in line to adopt, wouldn’t it?
Sarah Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:53 pm
According to the Fox News archives on abortion statistics:
“Approximately 1.5 million U.S. women with unwanted pregnancies choose abortion each year. Most are under 25 years old and unmarried. Women who are separated from their husbands and poor women are more likely to choose abortion than other women. More than two-thirds of the women who seek abortions have jobs. Nearly one-third are in school.”
If anti-choicers are encouraging women to abandon abortion (or are trying to stamp out abortion) in favor of adoption, or in favor of raising the child herself, then it stands to reason that, in addition to favoring increased welfare benefits, anti-choicers would do what they could to promote adoption, by engaging in adopting the products of these unwanted pregnancies that they’ve worked so hard to create.
There’s a multi-year wait for people to adopt white newborns, yes.
But there are thousands of American newsborns and foster children who are the result of unplanned, unwanted pregnancies that anti-choicers seem to ignore in their quest to promote adoption and ban abortion.
It stands to reason, if more mothers were reassured that their children would be adopted by good families (like the anti-choicers who encourage them to birth their fetuses), there would be fewer abortions.
My view, anyway.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 4:56 am
There’s a multi-year wait for people to adopt white newborns, yes.
—
do you care to back up that statement with anything other than your own authoritative mind?
and it’s a completely racist statement.
I don’t know the stories behind every foster child, but I know several people that are involved in the foster care program most of which take a very loving approach to their job.
From the foster children I’ve known most are the result of drug addicted or alcoholic abusive parents who are unable to safely raise their children.
The extra sad portion are the kids who are overmedicated by the state as they try to mask the symptoms of abuse and abandonment as psychological disorders that can be cured with Ritalin and Prozac.
just from my point of view anyway.
Making some common sense changes to the adoption process would help speed up the wait
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:37 pm
You can’t put the blame on O’Reilly, his minions and the Fox News Network. They are doing God’s work to rid the USA of abortionist, gays, non-christians, blacks, hispanics, Asians, Muslims, Jews, and anyone else who disagrees with their philosophys. Fox News is right and everyone else is wrong. Repent now or feel the mighty power of His terrible swift sword! Remember, Fox News and Jesus love you.
June 5th, 2009 at 7:45 am