Self Editor

Forum: pol
Page 3298
Subject: Domestic terrorist shoots abortion doc in church

Posted by: Perm Dude - [154552311] Sun, May 31, 2009, 18:46

In front of his wife. Suspect in custody.

Who will no doubt claim his desire to be a martyr for his cause.

Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Sun, May 31, 2009, 19:12

This is definitely a murder the affects of which will be felt for years to come....

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sun, May 31, 2009, 20:08

I'm sure his wife and the parishoners there agree with you, MBJ.

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, May 31, 2009, 20:22

Is anybody that shoots somebody in public now a "domestic terrorist" or what did this guy do to qualify him as one?

That being said, not the exact way to promote the pro-life cause.

Frick
ID: 4945458
Sun, May 31, 2009, 20:32

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Sun, May 31, 2009, 20:59

Frick is exactly right. This was a murder done in a public place of a high-profile target, intended to send a message of fear to other abortion doctors. It fits the definition to a T.

Tree
ID: 41371322
Sun, May 31, 2009, 23:47

man, i posted about this hours before you did...stealing my thunder... ;o)

i will be interested to find out more about the suspect. it's interesting that just a few days ago i was discussing christian fanaticism and how dangerous it can be, and i'm curious as to whether this guy fits the part.

although some of the anti-choice folks have already come out against it, i'm sure there will be those who discuss the "thousands of lives" this guy "saved" by killing Dr. George Tiller.

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Sun, May 31, 2009, 23:52

I actually haven't heard that last part. At all. Almost everyone I've read so far have been very clear that this action was wrong.

Many of them, of course, portray Tiller as a mass murderer. (As an aside, the guy specialized in late term (post-viability) elective abortions. I can't say I disagree with their portrayal of the guy). The shooting was wrong on so many levels, however, and the wide pro-life movement recognizes that on many levels as well.

Tree
ID: 41371322
Sun, May 31, 2009, 23:58

i don't disagree with you PD. i said i am sure there are those who WILL come out and make a martyr of the shooter.

astade
Sustainer
ID: 214361313
Mon, Jun 01, 2009, 01:33

let us know when that happens... this was straight up heinous.

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Mon, Jun 01, 2009, 06:01

Tiller was a partisan dick.

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Mon, Jun 01, 2009, 09:03

What is terrorism? Since terror is in the name I'm guessing that frightening the opposition is part of the definition. While the killer probably had many reasons, I would guess that one of them was to strike fear into other doctors so that they wouldn't perform abortions. So I would say that yes, the killer could be described as a terrorist.

Every killing strikes fear into other people. I grew up in a gangland with drive-bys and cop helicopters flying overhead sometimes. I'd hear the "pop pop pop" while sitting in my parents house. So are those gangbangers and coke heads terrorists? No, they're gangbangers and coke heads.

I don't consider this guy to be a terrorist. He's a murderer, should spend the rest of his life in jail, and (even worse) set back the pro-life cause, but he's not a terrorist.

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Mon, Jun 01, 2009, 10:25

I don't think you have a clear understanding of what "terrorist" means, except you don't like it applied here.

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Mon, Jun 01, 2009, 10:34

FWIW, even Michelle Malkin is calling it terrorism.

nerveclinic
Leader
ID: 05047110
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 05:07

Box if you don't understand why killing this guy was a terrorist act, you're slower then I thought.

It's so obvious, it's not even worth debating among intelligent individuals.

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 06:18

All of that sun in Dubai has turned your brain into jello like how Alec Baldwin talks about in the Hulu commercials.

He's not a terrorist.

Mith
Dude
ID: 01629107
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 06:30

I have to imagine that if we were talking about a middle easterner who entered a synagogue during a service and gunned down a rabbi who was well known to be despised by many Islamist groups (several of which the gunman directly associated with) which were openly desperate to stop his activities - most people would have no problem calling it an act of terrorism.

In fact I think you would have your typical backlash against outlets like the NY Times and Reuters from various outspoken rightists specifically for avoiding the term 'terrorism' in their coverage.

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 06:56

Like Chris Rock says, "Dr. King was assassinated. Malcolm was assassinated. That nigga over there? That mo fugger got shot."

Not every nutbar that kills someone is a terrorist.

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 07:51

But some are. This one is.

Saying he isn't again and again doesn't change the fact.

You really need to figure out, in your own mind, what constitutes being a terrorist.

Tree
ID: 41371322
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 08:52

Not every nutbar that kills someone is a terrorist.

no one here is going to argue that point with you. the list of killers who are not terrorists is significantly longer than the list of those who are.

but this clearly fits any definition of the word terrorism. the killer targets Tiller for political reasons, his history shows that this wasn't his first criminal act or attempted criminal act against a doctor that performs abortions, and it was an act intended to strike fear into those who are involved with providing these services.

Mith
ID: 2894309
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 09:06

Like Chris Rock says...

What could the difference between getting "shot" and assassinated (according to Chris Rock, no less) have to do with whether a particular murder is also an act of terrorism?

Is this to claim that it's not an act of terrorism because the victim is of lesser stature than Malcolm X? Or is it just an excuse to post a quote that includes the n-word?

Because I cannot come up with a single relevant association between that quote from a comedy routine and the question of whether Tiller's murder should be considered an act of terrorism.

Boldwin
ID: 133532810
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 09:34

Thus insulting martyrs everywhere.

Mith
ID: 2894309
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 09:37

My mistake. I guess the latest stroke of genius from that nigga over there in post 17 went right over my head.

boikin
ID: 532592112
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 09:50

What was this guys motivation? If he killed the doctor as act of revenge, then this is not an act of terrorism. If his reasoning was that the killing the doctor would cause less people to do and/or have abortions then the act would terroristic in nature.

Every killing strikes fear into other people. I grew up in a gangland with drive-bys and cop helicopters flying overhead sometimes. I'd hear the "pop pop pop" while sitting in my parents house. So are those gangbangers and coke heads terrorists? No, they're gangbangers and coke heads.

actually this falls directly into the definition of terrorism. Gangs use the threat of violence and the use of violence to coerce groups of people to do what they want.

Mith
ID: 2894309
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 10:27

Boikin #23

I don''t think you can indiscriminately call streetgang shootings (or firearm discharges) terrorism.

For example, shooting rival gang members for encraoching on territory is not terrorism. Extortion, which I think falls under the heading of you were getting at, might be something a gray area, especially if the extortion involves activities any more political than simple 'protection' payments from local residents and business owners.

Anyway, I think a political motive on the part of Scott Roeder is fairly obvious. Rather than at or near Tiller's home or clinic, Roeder chose a highly visible and obviously symbolic place, Tiller's church, to commit the murder.

And if there's any doubt that Roeder fit the profile of a domestic terrorist, you probably haven't seen this McClatchey article.

boikin
ID: 532592112
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 10:43

I don''t think you can indiscriminately call streetgang shootings (or firearm discharges) terrorism.

tell that to people who can not leave there house because they are afraid to being shot by random bullets.

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 10:51

But that's not the aim of the gangbangers. To be a terrorist, terror has to be the goal, not a side effect.

Frick
ID: 4945458
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 10:59

I think you could call some gang shootings terrorism. If a potential witness in a trial is murdered in a very visible and graphic manner, the message is clear, don't testify or this could happen to you. Part of the reason for the killing was to prevent the victim from testifying, but the highly visible method also has the goal of sending a message to others.

Not every murder is terrorism, but killing a high profile target in a public setting is generally going to fit the definition of terrorism.

boikin
ID: 532592112
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 11:00

I am not so sure that terror is not part of goals. A scared community usually fights back less.

Mith
ID: 2894309
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 11:07

The point of terrorism is elicit fear within a populace for the purpose of challenging authority. It is the use of fear of violence as a means to a political goal. Eliciting fear within a populace for the purpose of securing the ease of criminal activity by keeping them docile and afraid of you is not terrorism, even the victims are unquestionably "terrified".

Boxman
ID: 424542210
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 11:17

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 11:21

Is that the goal?

You haven't offered up your definition of "terrorist" Boxman. Why not?

Mith
ID: 2894309
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 11:25

Every killing elicits fear.

Exactly. Which is why I explicitly distinguished the purpose behind the elicitation of fear as significant in determining whether the incident is an act of terrorism.

Frick
ID: 4945458
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 11:29

Every killing elicits fear

To the person being killed? Mostly likely unless they are dead before they are aware of it.

To the family and friends? Maybe, if it was a random event, not so much. If a family member happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time do I feel fear? Not really, I might not go to that location, but it doesn't inspire fear.

In this case the message is very clear, if you perform abortions you could be killed, so change your line of work. How is that the same as a random killing. If you believe this was a random event this discussion is pointless.

Boxman
ID: 424542210
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 11:42

How is that the same as a random killing.

What's a random killing?

When a serial killer goes berserk, he may pick his victims at random, but the entire community is held hostage.

Way before my time the guy near (25 miles or so) us was John Wayne Gacy. People knew kids and other people were disappearing and were terrified. Was Gacy a terrorist?

So let's say a serial killer targets women or gays like Dahmer. Since they're targeting a group of people are they terrorists? No, they're serial killers.

See you guys want to paint the brush of terrorist on people and you just can't do that. Not everybody that kills someone, including the recent wacko, is a terrorist. Murderer yes, terrorist no. You gotta be real careful who you call a terrorist because of the political and legal implications of such. Imagine the difference had Al Qaeda actually been part of a conscripted government (like the Nazis in Germany or the Imperial Japanese) and the Geneva Conventions formally and unquestionably applied. Gitmo could not have occured nor secret prisons nor waterboarding. So once we start talking about Americans as terrorists without careful consideration of that term we are opening ourselves up to serious problems.

Mith
ID: 2894309
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 12:02

You gotta be real careful who you call a terrorist because of the political and legal implications of such.

I fully agree. We went through a peroid folliowing 9/11 in which certain portions of the political right applied that term to mean everything from insurgent to jihadist to Islamist. In fact if pressed I'm quite sure I can come up with a post in which he acknowledged using the terms 'terrorist' and 'insurgent' interchangably when talking about any anti-occupation factions in the early Iraq War, regardless of tactics and be they Saddam loyalists or al-Qaeda in Iraq or part of any other group.

So I applaud the effort from anyone on the right to more carefully apply the term. But there is a strong case to be made that Roeder is, in fact, a terrorist.

Tree
ID: 41371322
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 12:03

So once we start talking about Americans as terrorists without careful consideration of that term we are opening ourselves up to serious problems.

Eric Rudolph wasn't a terrorist?

Daniel Andreas San Diego isn't a terrorist?

The KKK isn't listed as an official terrorist group?

Americans can be, and ARE terrorists.

Mith
ID: 2894309
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 12:18

Eric Rudolph... Daniel Andreas... The KKK...

He didn't say that Americans can't be terrorists, Tree. He just want you to be careful in your application of the term. And as stated I agree with him on that. That's obviousl enough even though his denial that Roeder fits the bill clearly means that I don't agree with his definition of terrorist, whatever that def. might be.

Although I think it's pretty clear at this point that Boxman doesn't have a very strong handle on the term, since through his repeated denials he still refuses to offer any necessary criteria to qualify terrorism, much less any reasons for why Roeder fails to meet that criteria.

Boxman
ID: 424542210
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 12:18

But there is a strong case to be made that Roeder is, in fact, a terrorist.

But he ain't and the stronger we as a society put our foot down on this the safer we'll all be. He's still going to jail for the rest of his life hopefully.

Tree: Eric Rudolph wasn't a terrorist? No.

Daniel Andreas San Diego isn't a terrorist? Don't know him.

The KKK isn't listed as an official terrorist group? They shouldn't be and neither should the Black Panthers or any other constitutionally legally formed group. Them boys be nuts but they're not terrorists.

Americans can be, and ARE terrorists.

No never not once not at all and not ever.

So let's say 20 years from now there's a Republican President with a dominantly Republican House, Senate and Supreme Court. We get fed up with you liberal types so we just classify the DNC as a terrorist organization, seize their funds and jail anybody who has ever given money or logistical support to them.

Or how about we get a bunch of socialists in our government (kinda like now) and we just start classifying conservatives and Republicans as terrorists to polish them off.

I'm scared of flying, but I have to for work every now and then. My boss makes me do it therefore he's a terrorist.

That crazy b!tch in traffic this morning cutting everybody off scared everyone on I-90. She must be a terrorist.

My dog growled at the vet two weeks ago and terrified them to the point of using restraints. My dog is a terrorist.

You gotta be careful about the kind of power you're willing to give the government and forsee how they will abuse it.

You start throwing out the word "terrorist" in regards to constitutionally protected Americans then you might as well throw out the constitution too.

Mith
ID: 2894309
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 12:24

Boxman, as far as I can tell, the depth of each of your arguments that Roeder is not a terrorist, through your quoting of Chris Rock and comparisons with bad drivers and your boss who makes you fly and so forth, amounts to: No, he's not or: because he is not.

Did I miss any actual arguments on what it takes to be a terrorist and why Roeder doesn't qualify?

Tree
ID: 41371322
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 12:34

the analogies at the end of your post - beginning with the 20 years in the future scenario are so silly, i'll let someone else address them.

i'll take on your more specific points.

Eric Rudolph wasn't a terrorist? No.

The FBI disagrees, labeling his attack at the Olympics as a "terrorist attack."

in fact, Louis Freeh, the director of the FBI at the time said "Within the FBI's Domestic Terrorism Program, there is no higher priority than the capture of Eric Robert Rudolph."

Daniel Andreas San Diego isn't a terrorist? Don't know him.

He's #3 on the FBI's most wanted terrorist list.

And an American. born. and bred.

Tim McVeigh must not have been a terrorist either. You probably haven't heard of him either. here's a link to the wikipedia entry about him...

Frick
ID: 4945458
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 12:39

Why can't Americans be terrorists? The KKK (or at least the old version of it) should be classified as a terrorist organization. They used terror to achieve their goals. The Blank Panther party as it was initially formed had the purpose of stopping police brutality, they didn't use terror as a method to achieve their goals (at least not initially, the initial purpose of the group was very different from what it morphed into.)

What was the point of your GOP/DNC hypothetical? If some part of the DNC splintered off and started bombing and shooting GOP members it could rightly be called a terrorist organization.

Boxman, do you believe that part of Roeder's motivation was to scare other doctor's into not performing abortions?

Boxman
ID: 424542210
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 12:40

No American citizen should ever be classified as a terrorist by their own government. They are citizens protected by the full authority of the Constitution and must remain so.

The United States is conducting a "War On Terror(ists)". Do you want our government at war with our own people given the precedents we have set with how our country handles terrorists?

Mith
ID: 2894309
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 12:42

Oh my goodness.

Tree
ID: 41371322
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 12:56

guess John Walker Lindh should be exonerated and freed.

wow. really Boxman? you can't be a terrorist because you're an American?

wow.

Boxman
ID: 424542210
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 12:58

Is he an American citizen? Then try him in court.

Tree
ID: 41371322
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 13:00

what does that have to do with anything!?!?!

he was tried in court. so was Rudolph. so was McVeigh. and so will San Diego when he's caught.

but that doesn't make them not terrorists.

biliruben
ID: 461142511
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 13:01

I can't figure out if it's simple ignorance, an addiction to Rush, or perhaps crystal meth.

Boxman
ID: 424542210
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 13:02

but that doesn't make them not terrorists.

Yes it does. You aren't going to like the direction the government takes on how they handle terrorists. Watch. The laws will not get easier they will get harsher. Governments abuse power all the time and once you start labeling citizens as terrorists then you've set the wheel in motion.

Mith
ID: 2894309
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 13:10

Boxman I'm trying to pin down your position:

Americans who commit acts of terrorism are not terrorists because the methods we rightfully use to deal with terrorists are an abuse of power if applied to American citizens.

Would you say I've summed it up correctly?

tree, on the treo
ID: 55220277
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 13:19

I can't decide if that was a lay up, or an empty netter...

Boxman
ID: 424542210
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 13:24

Boxman I'm trying to pin down your position:

My position is that American citizens should never be referred to as terrorists by their own government.

The United States has used questionable and argumentally illegal methods in dealing with terrorists that came from other countries notably in the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Therefore, to avoid the gradual erosion of existing civil rights and Constitutional protections, no American citizen should be referred to as a terrorist because one day it will lead to us treating American citizens in the same manner we treated actual terrorists from Iraq and Afghanistan.

tree, on the treo
ID: 55220277
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 13:29

so despite committing actual acts of terror, they're not actual terrorists because they're americans?

Mith
ID: 2894309
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 13:33

My position is that American citizens should never be referred to as terrorists by their own government.

Is that the specific position behind all of your statements that Roeder is not a terrorist? Or were there other reasons as well? The reason I ask is that you challenged Tree's and Nerveclinic's and my and others' references to Roeder as a terrorist, not the government's.

The reason I keep asking is that while I obviously don't agree with you, if I'm going to form a response I want to make sure I understand you as fully as possible.

Boxman
ID: 424542210
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 13:37

Tree: so despite committing actual acts of terror, they're not actual terrorists because they're americans?

They are murderers. Since they are American citizens, protected by the U.S. Constitution, isn't a life sentence without parole as the result of a murder conviction good enough punishment for you? There are already laws that govern against the activity that they have done.

Is that the specific position behind all of your statements that Roeder is not a terrorist? Or were there other reasons as well? The reason I ask is that you challenged Tree's and Nerveclinic's and my and others' references to Roeder as a terrorist, not the government's.

It starts with you. People make up the government.

If/when the government calls him a terrorist I will challenge that too.

Mith
ID: 2894309
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 13:47

When did you form the opinion that the English definition of the word 'terrorist' should be changed to explicitly exclude Americans?

Boxman
ID: 424542210
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 13:49

Hang on, let me get my Blackberry and check out my calendar...

tree, on the treo
ID: 55220277
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 13:54

so, the bombing on the federal building in oklahoma was not terrorism, but murder?

and if 9/11 were perpetuated by a bunch of americans, it would be murder, and not terrorism?

got it. thanks for clearing that up for me. I was worried that tim mcveigh might be labeled a terrorist, when he is really only a murderer..

Mith
ID: 2894309
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 13:56

Well the reason I ask is that over the past year I've never once heard you state that William Ayers is nort a terrorist. He's been a prominant topic in many, many discussions here over the past year. So unless this is a conclusion you have pretty recently come to, it seems likely that you've been somewhat less than forthcoming in some of your arguments.

Building 7
ID: 471052128
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 14:15

The article does not mention how many abortions this guy performed in his lifetime, but one can estimate:

5 abortions per day
240 working days per year
37 years of doing abortions

5 * 240 * 37 = 44,400 estimated abortions in his life. This is equal to the entire population of LaCrosse, Wisconsin being wiped out completely.

At 10 abortions per day the grand total is 88,800. That's a lot. I wonder if he holds the record.

Boxman
ID: 424542210
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 16:49

B7: Appauling isn't it? And all for nothing if we banned abortion and opened up our minds/hearts/wallets to these women and helped them as a society and as faith based organizations. That many murders by one man can only put him in disgraceful company with horrific leaders of nations. The world is a safer place for unborn human lives, but I didn't want it this way. I would've much preferred he faced his judgment due to natural causes.

Among the things that disgusts me about abortion is the loss to society. How many Nobel winners, Presidents, inventors, and other people has our society murdered before they even had a chance. Maybe the guy who would come to know a new financial theory that would've saved us from this crisis would've been born. We will never know. What an abomination and a disgrace to our country that we permit this.

Boldwin
ID: 133532810
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 16:55

Let's see...his Lutherin pastor made off like a bandit tickling Tiller's ears as he ripped viable live babies' arms and legs off.

So where does he go now? Find a wealthy pimp or druglord whose ears need tickling? Apply to the mafia for a new suger daddy?

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 16:56

I suppose you believe that his pastor should have locked his doors? Is that what your Jesus would have done?

Boldwin
ID: 133532810
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 16:58

Maybe an abu ghraib interogator who needs conscience numbing.

Boxman
ID: 424542210
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 16:59

You know Boldwin that's something that I don't understand about this. Tiller was an usher at his church. How in the hell does the Pastor tolerate that? I doubt Tiller was working on his salvation or even felt guilt about what he was doing. Hate the sin, not the sinner, but damn.

Boldwin
ID: 133532810
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 16:59

We would have let him in the door, not accepted his money and set his conscience on fire.

Boldwin
ID: 133532810
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 17:02

I don't think there are drugs, women, riches, gurus, or liberal backpatters enuff in the world, to quiet that conscience no matter how he tried to kill it.

tree, on the treo
ID: 55220277
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 17:02

baldwin..care to comment on whether americans can be terrorists? curious as to your thoughts on this....

Boxman
ID: 424542210
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 17:06

Even if Tiller thought what he was doing was OK, which is disturbing in and of itself, how in the hell does one even look at that carnage on a daily basis multiple times? What kind of a person can look at those cut up people, sleep at night, tuck in their children, and eat their dinner?

Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 17:06

Jesus would have called him out every time he was in church, I think for the disgusting, immoral late term abortions he performed for money.

Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 17:10

I don't think my definition of "terrorism" includes the acts of any one man, acting alone. When I think if a terrorist I think of someone acting in concert with others to achieve a political aim by means of violence and the threat of violence.

I don't think of a lone zealot as a terrorist if he wasn't acting at the behest of others.

Boxman
ID: 424542210
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 17:14

If Tiller was a church goer I wonder what he thought of the Bible verse, "I knew you before I knit you together in your mother's womb."

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 17:24

I don't think this act is about Tiller, in the end. It is about his killer, and how pro-lifers will deal with it.

Attempts to make this about Tiller will marginalize pro-lifers up and down the spectrum. It is a no-win situation for the movement.

Mith
Dude
ID: 01629107
Tue, Jun 02, 2009, 17:26

I don't think of a lone zealot as a terrorist if he wasn't acting at the behest of others.

He was clearly a part of a network of like-minded people, many of whom surely approve of what he did, even if he acted alone.

And if he'd used a suicide belt instead of a gun would you still be weighing the question on whether he acted alone?

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 06:07

I don't think this act is about Tiller, in the end.

I think it is. If he were a truck driver or a policeman he'd still be alive.

Frick
ID: 4945458
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 08:19

MBJ raises an interesting point, but I'm not sure I agree. He might have acted alone, but his actions are likely to be approved by a select few. If a lone muslim walked into a church and shot an outspoken member of the clergy would we consider it terrorism?

So the act wasn't about Tiller, it was about abortion. By acting against something he did, isn't there an implied message to any other doctor that performs abortions?

Mith
Dude
ID: 01629107
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 08:26

That's exactly right, Frick. If it was, in fact, about Tiller (and therefore specifically about abortion) then I don't see how anyone can deny that the motive for the murder was anything but political - and therefore unquestionably an act of terrorism. Boxman's crusade to have the language amended notwithstanding, of course.

Tree
ID: 41371322
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 09:07

Boxman -

what of the four so-called "Bronx Terrorists"?

Three are American-born. One is Haitian-born. They are charged with the same crimes, in the same plot.

Is one a terrorist, the other three not?

sarge33rd
ID: 4854439
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 10:46

How can Box possibly maintain that US Citizens can not be called terrorists, when we have a few in Guantanamo, and he along with many others on the far right; maintain that only terrorists are there?

Mith
ID: 2894309
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 11:03

Tree I'm pretty sure that the underlying issue for Boxman is that he believes any attempt to stem or halt the government's encroachment on the rights terror suspects of any stripe is futile. So he prioritizes securing the rights of Americans to not be tortured by their government - by changing the meaning of the word terrorist to specifically disinclude Americans (presumably this also means disqualifying the word 'terrorism' to describe any act committed by any American which would be an act of terrorism if committed by any non-American and perhaps also disqualifying the word 'terror' from describing the feeling or emotion any person or persons might experience as a result from any act committed by any American, including those acts which would clearly elicit feelings of terror in people when committed by any non-American).

So obviously, the whole point of his position is specifically against the equal application for that term, however illogical that is to anyone who relies on the consistent meanings of words. So I don't see the point of your continued 'what about this guy' and 'what about these guys' questioning. He's not clearly concerned with the discrepancy.

There are two other issues I have ('other' because I do happen to reside in the "meanings-of-words-do-matter camp"). The second issue is that Boxman seems to have given up the fight against rights-encroachment rather suddenly and after some notable progress has been made in that direction. Perhaps Boxman doesn't believe the Obama Administration has any real interest in restoring or preserving detainee rights or maybe he feels Obama means well but is just too stupid to enact any lasting effect. But clearly, something the has done in the area detainee rights has Vice President Cheney (who I firmly believe would eagerly torture every last combatant picked up on principle alone) in a tizzy.

The last issue is that this position of Boxman's feels like he made it up in the moments before he he published post 36. In post 3, Boxman took exception to Tree's application of the term, 'domestic terrorist', but offered nothing about the very notion of a "domestic terrorist", which he clearly feels now is something that does not exist. In post 11 he challenges the use of fear as a qualifier, effectively arguing that the term 'terrorist' is being applied to broadly, not that any specific status (such as nationality) of the assailant specifically disqualifies the term. In post 15 he relies solely on an insult in attempt to make his case. In post 17 he cites a completely inapplicable quote from a comedian to support the argument that the term is applied to broadly in the case of Roeker. And in #32, he repeats that same point.

Then, 30 minutes later, he explains that the reason Roeker is not a terrorist is that he is an American citizen and that no American, regardless of any actions he commits, is capable of terrorism. This is one of the most bold policies ever suggested in this forum, pissing, frankly, on the Constitution - and Boxman has already personally adopted it. I think I could excuse most people for entertaining such a fleeting thought long enough to post it. But frankly there is something seriously wrong with the thought process of anyone who sticks with such a notion after giving it a few minutes of thought.

Boldwin and MyBoyJack have both participated in this discussion, including since Boxman has . Why is it that neither has offered any opinion on what has surely been the most curious topic breached thus far? Baldwin recently stated that when Boxman isn't exhibiting abject juvenile behavior, he tends toward brilliance. Through this thread and certainly since Boxman laid out his position in #s 36 and 41, his posts have not been at all like the type of juvenile activity that B was referring to.

So I'd really like to know if this is the latest example of the brilliance that Baldwin was referring to.

Tree
ID: 41371322
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 11:29

So I don't see the point of your continued 'what about this guy' and 'what about these guys' questioning. He's not clearly concerned with the discrepancy.

in essence, you're correct. for me, it's a bewildering position he's taken, and i'm trying to wrap my head around it by pointing out some very specific examples.

the Bronx case struck me as perfect, because it's 4 guys, 3 from this country and one who isn't, who are charged with the same crimes, yet, by Box's definition, they all are not terrorists - just one.

Boxman
ID: 424542210
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 11:46

Perhaps Boxman doesn't believe the Obama Administration has any real interest in restoring or preserving detainee rights or maybe he feels Obama means well but is just too stupid to enact any lasting effect.

It isn't just the Obama Administration that you have to think of, but rather the dozens more that will follow his. What one President does today another can simply overturn in four years.

I want to ensure that no American citizen protected under our Constitution can be subjected to the treatment of enemy combatants and/or those captured mainly during our campaigns in Iraq or Afghanistan. Referring to Constitutionally protected Americans as "terrorists" will one day lead to such treatment. And if you do not think such an action is possible, note the Japanese internment during World War II. We are certainly capable of such an act and should nip ANY aspirations of a sequel, however slight, in the bud.

And if you were as serious as you claim about anti-torture then you would side with me instead of seeking out some sort of fight.

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 12:01

Referring to Constitutionally protected Americans as "terrorists" will one day lead to such treatment

Nonsense. The fear that another Dick Cheney will come along and manipulate a future George W. Bush is simply another example of fear mongering in the hopes that we don't use language in a simple way.

You are advocating PC speech, Boxman. I would have hoped you'd see the folly of such a thing.

Mith
ID: 2894309
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 12:22

And if you were as serious as you claim about anti-torture then you would side with me instead of seeking out some sort of fight.

I'm not picking a fight. This place used to be about exchanging ideas. Now trying to push people to do so has suddenly become taboo?

Further, last I heard from you on the topic of torture was that we should not prosecute those who have presided over such crimes. So my understanding of your greater position is that we should not punish torturers for the crimes they commit, but rather accept the fact that such crimes are a sad but unchangeable reality (talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy) and shrug our shoulders and look away as such crimes are committed against foreigners, while we protect Americans from that same fate by imposing the curious technicality of altering the English Language definition of the word torture (you do agree that this is what your idea, right?) to disinclude Americans.

So much for all men being created equal, huh?

Sorry, but I quite am serious about my anti-torture stance and don't side with any part of this ridiculous position (or stroke of genius, as I assume Baldwin opines).

Boxman
ID: 424542210
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 12:54

What is your question from 87?

Boxman
ID: 424542210
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 13:38

From the WSJ.

The Religious Right Didn't Kill George Tiller
The left tries to smear 'Christianists' as akin to Islamic extremists.

By JAMES KIRCHICK

On Sunday, abortion doctor George Tiller was murdered at his church in Wichita, Kan. He was one of a handful of doctors in the U.S. who performed late-term abortions and for decades had been a target of virulent criticism from antiabortion activists. His clinic had been bombed and vandalized, and in 1993 he was shot in both arms in a failed assassination attempt. Tiller's alleged killer, Scott Roeder, is a long-time radical antiabortion activist with reported ties to a militant antigovernment organization called the Freemen.

Within hours after the murder, every antiabortion group in the country denounced the attack. Robert P. George, a leading Catholic intellectual opponent of abortion, wrote that "George Tiller's life was precious" and characterized his murder as "a gravely wicked thing." He called on his fellow abortion opponents to "teach that violence against abortionists is not the answer to the violence of abortion."

Even Operation Rescue, the extreme antiabortion group that organized a six-week blockade of Tiller's office in 1991, issued a statement condemning the murder. "We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning," Troy Newman, the organization's president, said.

These unqualified reproaches are nothing new. The organized antiabortion movement has always opposed violence against abortion providers. That has never stopped opportunistic prochoice activists, however, from conflating their passionate rhetoric with the behavior of individual criminals. True to form, on Sunday, Mike Hendricks of the Kansas City Star accused anyone who had criticized Tiller as a murderer (Tiller aborted healthy, nine-month old fetuses) of being an "accomplice" to his death.

Over the past decade this argumentative tactic has taken on an even more insidious twist. In addition to fighting violent, Muslim jihadists abroad, some liberals argue that America must deal with its own, homegrown terrorists. These are not just people who commit violence but millions of socially conservative evangelicals and Catholics -- "Christianists" -- who comprise the base of the Republican Party and threaten the stability of the country.

In 2007, former New York Times Middle East Bureau Chief Chris Hedges published a book called "American Fascists" that compared conservative evangelicals to European brownshirts of the 1920s and 1930s. That same year, CNN's Christiane Amanpour hosted a three-part series, "God's Warriors," that equated Christian (and Jewish) fundamentalists with Muslim extremists.

The comparison between the religious right and Islamic extremists is invariably partisan so as to smear the GOP as being held hostage to forces as dangerous as Hamas or Hezbollah. "Even as the Bush administration denounces and battles Islamic religious zealotry abroad, fundamental Christian zealotry is taking hold here at home," wrote Stephen Pizzo on the liberal Alternet Web site in 2004. On his popular HBO program, comedian Bill Maher frequently compares murderous Islamists to censorious Christians.

But if the reactions to the death of Tiller mean anything, the "Christian Taliban," as conservative religious figures are often called, isn't living up to its namesake. If "Christianists" were anything like actual religious fascists they would applaud Tiller's murder as a "heroic martyrdom operation" and suborn further mayhem.

Radical Islamists revel in death. Just witness the videos that suicide bombers record before they carry out their murderous task or listen to the homicidal exhortations of extremist imams. Murder -- particularly of the unarmed and innocent -- is a righteous deed for these people. The manifestos of Islamic militant groups are replete with paeans to killing infidels. When a suicide bomb goes off in Israel, Palestinian terrorist factions compete to claim responsibility for the carnage.

There is no appreciable number of people in this country, religious Christians or otherwise, who support the murder of abortion doctors. The same cannot be said of Muslims who support suicide bombings in the name of their religion.

Yet speak of the disproportionately violent strain in Islam to a "progressive" person and you'll be met with sneering recitations of millennia-old Christian crusades or Jewish settlements in the West Bank. As for conservative Christians' contemporary political endeavors, lobbying to ban the teaching of evolution in schools or forbidding same-sex marriage simply does not threaten society in quite the same way as the genital mutilation of young girls or the bombing of the London transit system.

I happen to support a legal regime that would, in Bill Clinton's famous words, keep abortion safe, legal and rare. I hold no brief for the religious right, and its views on homosexuality in particular offend (and affect) me personally. But it's precisely because of my identity that I consider comparisons between so-called Christianists (who seek to limit my rights via the ballot box) and Islamic fundamentalists (who seek to limit my rights via decapitation) to be fatuous.

In the coming days, we will hear more about how mainstream conservative organizations and media personalities created an "environment" in which the murder of an abortion doctor became an inevitability. Just as talk radio was blamed for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, an attempt will be made to extend the guilt for this crime from the individual who pulled the trigger to the conservative movement writ large. But the Christian right's responsible reaction to the death of George Tiller should put to rest the lie that Judeo-Christian extremists are anywhere near as numerous or dangerous as those of the Muslim variety.

Mr. Kirchick is an assistant editor of the New Republic and a contributing writer to The Advocate.

Mith
ID: 2894309
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 13:54

I agree with the premise of the column; no, the religious right did not kill George Tiller. But the writer falls into precisely that same trap he blasts the left for in that premise; no, "The left" (a reference to a far broader group of people than the "Religious Right") does not [try] to smear 'Christianists' as akin to Islamic extremists, as his byline boldly claims.

For confirmation one need only look through this thread for claims from the progressives that it is the religious right who is collectively is responsible for Tiller's murder. In fact considering that the notion hadn't even been breached here by any of the verious leftists who have weighed in, I don't see the point in pasting that column at all.

Anyway, it's too bad that Mr. Kirchick fails to recognize the embarrassing hypocrisy in his work, and I guess that goes for Boxman, too.

tree, on the treo
ID: 55220277
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 13:55

nice article, and no different from what such liberals as perm dude said very early in this thread.

what's your point?

Mith
ID: 2894309
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 14:10

no different from what such liberals as perm dude said

Right, as in post #7. Typically that type of column is the sort of thing you bring into a discussion to respond to people behaving as the writer of the column alleges. But nothing like that happened here (except for when the writer of that column broadly and sloppily accused "the left" of blaming the religious right for Tiller's murder).

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 14:17

Some Christianists can't help it, MITH--they think of themselves as martyrs constantly being persecuted by "society" or "the mainstream media" or "secular government" so much that they'll invent reasons why their worldview is so, or speak of outliers as being representative.

boikin
ID: 532592112
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 14:45

Mith
ID: 2894309
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 14:56

What's offensive about it, boikin? Do you know anyone who identifies him/herself as a Christianist?

Do you understand the intended difference between 'Christian' and 'Christianist', similar to the difference between 'Muslim' and 'Islamist'?

sarge33rd
ID: 4854439
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 15:10

or the qualifier at the beginning of PD's sentence, which will invariably make it a true statement...SOME

boikin
ID: 532592112
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 16:34

no because it is a made up word.

Mith
ID: 2894309
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 16:38

Jack Balkin sees the same correlation as Boxman.

But Balkin chooses to challenge the government's human rights violations by asking the tough questions rather than bury them under some transparent oddball technical gimick of amended rhetoric.

100

Mith
ID: 2894309
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 16:41

no because it is a made up word

So you don't understand what he means by Christianist? And the reason you can't figure it out is that its a "made up word"?

Well by absolutely wacky coincidence, someone at dictionary.com happens to have invented the very same word!

101

Boxman
ID: 424542210
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 16:45

I'm glad Balkin brought up the Jose Padilla case. Further proof to my thesis. Perhaps that will give the doubters some pause.

102

boikin
ID: 532592112
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 16:52

Mith that is not definition...that is history of christian fundamentalism. Maybe you should look under the dictionary tab and see there is no definition.

look it is made up word along with screenager.

103

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 16:55

Your thesis is that a future president will commit crimes against Americans who are called "terrorists" (as Bush did) on account of the stigma of someone being labeled a "terrorist."

So you don't want Americans to be called terrorist, even when they engage in terrorist activities. You have no problem with non-Americans being called "terrorists," yes? Because they have no rights to be violated?

104

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 16:56

It should be noted that Padilla should not be called a terrorist not because of what Bush has done to him, but because, in fact, he is not a terrorist.

105

Mith
ID: 2894309
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 17:03

look it is made up word

I honestly don't see your point here. That Christianist is a new enough term to not yet appear in dictionaries doesn't in any way challenge the point made in post 93.

How do you think new words get added to the language? Does post 93 really not make any sense to you until a major dictionary editor decides that 'Christianist' is used widely enough to be included in the following year's edition?

106

boikin
ID: 532592112
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 17:20

Like i said i find it offensive, i understand the connotation the word is trying to imply, secondly you ask me if i know anyone that is self described Christianist and i don't and honestly i don't think there are any.....i common user name for nazist is MITH. I mean maybe it will catch on too.

107

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 17:22

i understand the connotation the word is trying to imply

Do you? You find if "offensive" (up from "borderline offensive" for some reason) but you don't say why except you don't like new words.

108

Mith
Dude
ID: 01629107
Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 18:23

i common user name for nazist is MITH

Well that would make my moniker a pretty poor choice, but I'm not so sure that it's all that common. Certainly not as common as 'Christianist'.

Is 'Islamist' offensive too? Or is that one ok because the term was coined before you were born?

109

Boldwin
ID: 133532810
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 06:57

Boldwin and MyBoyJack have both participated in this discussion, including since Boxman has . Why is it that neither has offered any opinion on what has surely been the most curious topic breached thus far? Baldwin recently stated that when Boxman isn't exhibiting abject juvenile behavior, he tends toward brilliance. Through this thread and certainly since Boxman laid out his position in #s 36 and 41, his posts have not been at all like the type of juvenile activity that B was referring to.

So I'd really like to know if this is the latest example of the brilliance that Baldwin was referring to. - MITH

Boxman is onto something.

Something that has been painfully obvious to me for a long long time.

People like Tree, and PD it seems as well, and the power elite, intend to smear christians by fatuously connecting them to muslim terrorists.

Tree disingenuously mocks me for predicting that in one thread, and then does that exact same thing himself in this thread.

More is in play than semantics in this thread. What is really significant is motive. And the motive of the Tree's of this world are not benevolent. They are of violent intent toward people like me. And anyone with eyes to see, can see how desperately Tree wants to make that bogus connection.

110

Mith
Dude
ID: 01629107
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 08:14

Got it. Forever disqualifying any and all Americans from from any future guilt of terrorism = brilliance.

111

Boldwin
ID: 133532810
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 08:37

Such a term is not a precise tool.

Which makes it ever so useful to domestic Goebbel's.

112

Boxman
ID: 424542210
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 08:57

Got it. Forever disqualifying any and all Americans from from any future guilt of terrorism = brilliance.

It'll keep you out of the gulag won't it? Lest you wind up like Padilla.

113

sarge33rd
ID: 4355747
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 08:57

radicals...are radicals. Whether christian or muslim or bald or red-headed...none of that matters. What matters, is they are radicals. Radicals, engaging in murder to further their own socio-political agendas...are terrorists. Regardless of nationality, regardless of religion, regardless of party affiliation.

114

Boxman
ID: 424542210
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 09:00

Sarge: Aren't you in favor of treating "terrorists" as a police action to be prosecuted?

115

sarge33rd
ID: 4355747
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 09:05

terrorism is a crime...so yes.

116

sarge33rd
ID: 4355747
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 09:07

which FTR, has what to do with your claim that US citizens can not *be* terrorists?

117

Boldwin
ID: 133532810
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 09:34

How to edit a perfect piece? [to avoid posting the entire thing]

For years, we've had to hear about the grave threat that Americans might overreact to a terrorist attack committed by 19 Muslims shouting "Allahu akbar" as they flew commercial jets into American skyscrapers. That would be the equivalent of 19 pro-lifers shouting "Abortion kills a beating heart!" as they gunned down thousands of innocent citizens in Wichita, Kan.

Why aren't liberals rushing to assure us this time that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"? Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful.

According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion – which is consistent with liberals' hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject. In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers, five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade.

In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists. Let's recap that halftime score, sports fans: 49 million to five.

So in a country that is more than 50 percent pro-life – and 80 percent opposed to the late-term abortions of the sort performed by Tiller – only five abortionists have been killed. And in a country that is less than 0.5 percent Muslim, several dozen Muslims have killed thousands of Americans.

But the killing of about one abortionist per decade leads liberals to condemn the entire pro-life movement as "domestic terrorists." At least liberals have finally found some terrorists they'd like to send to Guantanamo.

Tiller bragged about performing 60,000 abortions, including abortions of viable babies, able to survive outside the mother's womb. He made millions of dollars performing late-term abortions so gruesome that only two other abortionists – not a squeamish bunch – in the entire country would perform them.

Tiller was protected not only by a praetorian guard of elected Democrats, but also by the protective coloration of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America – coincidentally, the same church belonged to by Tiller's fellow Wichita executioner, the BTK killer.

The official Web page of the ELCA instructs: "A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born." As long as we're deciding who does and doesn't have an "absolute right to be born," who's to say late-term abortionists have an "absolute right" to live?

I wouldn't kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn't want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists?

Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, then don't shoot one. - Ann Coulter

118

Boxman
ID: 424542210
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 09:36

Radicals, engaging in murder to further their own socio-political agendas...are terrorists.

We have laws in this country that punish murderers. The man who murdered Tiller will hopefully spend the rest of his life in prison in accordance with the appropriate punishment for murdering someone.

So what is to be gained by also adding him as a terrorist? How do you add more time to a prison sentence on top of life without parole?

119

Boldwin
ID: 133532810
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 09:39

That won't stop PD from some day calling catholics who actually believe in the sacredness of life, terrorists.

120

Pancho Villa
ID: 1254048
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 09:40

What is really significant is motive. And the motive of the Tree's of this world are not benevolent. They are of violent intent toward people like me.

And so we move beyond mere 'drama queen' status to full blown paranoid delusional.

There is nothing more than semantics in play in this thread. Using the Tree's of this world and violent intent toward people like me is a classic example of semantics at work. How else to explain how a thread about a nutcase murdering a doctor degenerates into claims that not just Tree, but the Trees of the world, are motivated to violence against not just you, but people like you?

It's all about semantics.

121

sarge33rd
ID: 4355747
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 09:44

So Box; you've abandoned your claim that Constitutional protections would prohibit use of the term terrorist in reference to a US citizen; and now alledge the term doesnt apply because you ca not add time to a life sentence? Would the fact that you can not add time to a life sentence, also apply to a foreign national? Or are their lives magically extendable beyond a life sentence?

122

Boldwin
ID: 133532810
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 10:00

As long as liberals insist on using and abusing this imprecise term, Goebbels slanders millions of peaceful innocent and peaceful Germans, leading to their demonization and eventual deportation to death camps.

Would you say that such a slanderer was a terrorist?

123

biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 10:06

If you think liberals have a monopoly on throwing around the term "terrorist", you haven't been reading the papers for the last decade.

When we started using the term to demonize delusional idealists who open mink cages, I thought we had gone too far. Now the thumpers are aghast that the term is being used not quite "precisely" when applied to one of theirs.

If you ever used the term "eco-terrorist" you are partly to blame.

124

Pancho Villa
ID: 1254048
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 10:09

If you ever used the term "eco-terrorist" you are partly to blame.

The term has been applied to me on this forum, by none other than the brilliant Boxman.

125

Boxman
ID: 424542210
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 10:12

Let me know when you answer the questions in 118 Sarge and I will answer yours.

126

sarge33rd
ID: 4355747
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 10:36

yours is an academic question with no response.

what is to be lost, by calling a tree a tree; instead of a wood grain life form?

(Could you be a little less JHS Box? Answer mine and I'll answer yours. judas priest...grow up.)

127

Mith
ID: 2894309
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 10:42

Boldwin As long as liberals insist on using and abusing this imprecise term

You ass. For almost a decade it is the political right who has done precisely that - for the purpose of accusing the left of anti-patriotism! You and I have even argued the point before. After reading that sentence, I immediately recalled an exchange we had in the now deleted thread titled, "The Left and the Future of Iraq", where you referred to Zarqawi as an insurgent. At the time this struck me as odd since I'd so often seen the right chastize the left for using that term for any opposition in Iraq, regardless of faction they belong to or the tactics they employ - and here you were using it on someone who I believed was unquestionable a terrorist. Here's a part of that exchange:

69 Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 43021239
Sun, Jan 30, 2005, 09:20 That's funny I thought you conservatives always get bent out of shape when Zarqawi and the non-Iraqis are referred to as 'insurgents'. Now you're defending use of the term.

72 Baldwin
ID: 40022277
Sun, Jan 30, 2005, 12:50 MITH

While I think everyone feels the term isn't perfect, it's just the closest in the language ATM. Liberals because they are mostly idiots are often angry we aren't calling them legitimate freedom fighters. Many conservatives think we should just be calling them terrorists.

74 Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 43021239
Sun, Jan 30, 2005, 13:29 Either your deliberately confusing the matter even further or you're a liberal by your own definition. Broadly, "liberals: are most certainly not "often angry" because you don't call Zarqawi a freedom fighter. Can you really be that dense as to still deny that there exists more than one faction among the people shooting at Americans in Iraq, and that they are largely distinctive in their motives and tactics? I fully agree that some or many fit the description of terrorist. The problem is with imbeciles who deride anyone who uses the term 'insurgent' because they think they all are terrorists.

It won't be hard for me to find posts where you defend that very position. Either you're the idiot or you're deliberately muddling the subject.

75 Baldwin
ID: 40022277
Sun, Jan 30, 2005, 13:46 I think you'll find I've used insurgent and terrorist interchangably.

76 Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 43021239
Sun, Jan 30, 2005, 13:56 I think you'll find that most people who have worked to keep up haven't. My guess is that if you tried to keep that in mind you'd understand better where a lot of people are coming from on this topic.

Its sad that you openly admit to liberally applying a term like "terrorist" to where it might or might not belong. And you're the one accusing liberals of driving people off the board with hate speech.

But now it is the left who appliues the term too loosely - because it happens to describe some Americans no less!

128

Boldwin
ID: 133532810
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 10:42

Bili

Don't think I've used that term. Eco-weanies, I forget what I used to call them.

But eco-freaks embedding nails meant to injure or kill loggers do not differ from Tillers killer in any significant way other than that they were unwilling to look their victims in the face as they did it.

Interesting but...

People who use the term eco-terrorists are not as sanguine as Tree.

129

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 10:44

Is there any real question that those being referred to as "eco-terrorists" are actually terrorists?

I believe bili's point was to refute the nonsense notion that the use of "terrorist" is completely a "liberal" invention.

130

Boldwin
ID: 133532810
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 10:47

MITH

You are actually calling me an ass for calling Zarqawi a terrorist? It's a stretch in his case when he engineers car bombings...actually handcuffs innocent people and forces them to drive explosive laden vehicles away.

But I am at risk of misapplying the term there.

Ok, whatever. Unbelievable.

131

Boldwin
ID: 133532810
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 10:50

That in MITH's mind is...'liberally applying a term like "terrorist" to where it might or might not belong.'

Sheesh...lets just watch this site jump the shark some more, shall we?

132

Mith
ID: 2894309
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 10:57

You are actually calling me an ass for calling Zarqawi a terrorist?

No, fool. I'm calling you an ass for accusing the left of using the term liberally, after I can recall an discussion when you happily acknowledged that for you the term is interchangable with 'insurgent' and that conservatives in fact reject the use of 'insurgent' in favor of 'terrorist', regardless of the nature of their activities or tactics employed.

I'm calling you an ass for accusing me of the thing you have openly admitted doing yourself.

133

Mith
ID: 2894309
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 10:59

lets just watch this site jump the shark some more, shall we

So why don't we change the definition of "jump the shark" to specifically disinclude rotoguru1.com?

134

Tree
ID: 41371322
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 11:35

People like Tree, and PD it seems as well, and the power elite, intend to smear christians by fatuously connecting them to muslim terrorists.

Tree disingenuously mocks me for predicting that in one thread, and then does that exact same thing himself in this thread.

More is in play than semantics in this thread. What is really significant is motive. And the motive of the Tree's of this world are not benevolent. They are of violent intent toward people like me. And anyone with eyes to see, can see how desperately Tree wants to make that bogus connection.

whatever Baldy.

what is VERY clear in nearly every thread there you address me directly, is that your language and tone is filled with more spite and violence than mine.

you constantly deride me, and call me names. and if you think i have a wish of violence toward you, or "people like you", then quite frankly, you're an ignorant, clueless, f*ck.

i abhor violence. i hate it with every fiber in my body. yes, i believe that sometimes it is a necessary evil, but if you think i wish ill on Christians, you're a big fool.

on to the bigger issue, since at this point we'll just allow the lurkers to decide who is more foolish, and who has aimed more angry words at the other, and who is more capable of violence toward the other.

i really don't care what religion you are. i don't care if you're muslim or christian or jewish or anything else. if you kill others because of your religious beliefs, you're one and the same.

be it a fanatical islamist who murders a westerner in the name of Allah, a fanatical Christian who kills an abortion doctor in the name of God, or a right wing jewish extremist who assassinates the Israeli prime minister because he doesn't want peace with Arabs.

a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. it doesn't matter if they are muslim or christian or jew. or black, or white. or american or saudi or israeli or palestinian or irish or spanish or columbia or whatever.

i am not making a distinction, other than the crime committed. that's you baldwin.

you're the poor, persecuted Christian, who is such a fraud you're actually willing to use your beliefs to demean another and accuse them of wishing violence on you. that's sick and makes a mockery of anyone who is truly a Christian.

at this point, i think i have more to fear from you than you do from me.

135

Boldwin
ID: 133532810
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 13:11

You didn't abhor violence when you wished that I be sent to prison and raped there.

136

tree, on the treo
ID: 55220277
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 15:23

it was a mistake when I said it and I was out of line.

iI have apologized for that error previously. and I apologize for it now, again.

137

Boldwin
ID: 133532810
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 18:21

So explain how that violence abhorance works at the heavy weight wrestling?

They have a pacifist seating seaction there or what?

138

Tree
ID: 41371322
Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 19:05

the violence in wrestling is considerably less than the violence in the Bible.

additionally, it's scripted violence, with pre-determined results. it's no different than a fight scene in an action movie.

139

Boldwin
ID: 133532810
Fri, Jun 05, 2009, 00:40

But you love it.

140

Tree
ID: 41371322
Fri, Jun 05, 2009, 01:30

and your point? i mean, aside from having none?

141

Tree
ID: 41371322
Sun, Jun 07, 2009, 23:43

nope, that's not terrorism...oy...

WICHITA, Kan. – The man charged with murdering a high-profile abortion doctor claimed from his jail cell Sunday that similar violence was planned around the nation for as long as the procedure remained legal, a threat that comes days after a federal investigation launched into his possible accomplices.

A Justice Department spokesman said the threat was being taken seriously and additional protection had been ordered for abortion clinics last week. But a leader of the anti-abortion movement derided the accused shooter as "a fruit and a lunatic."

Scott Roeder called The Associated Press from the Sedgwick County jail, where he's being held on charges of first-degree murder and aggravated assault in the shooting of Dr. George Tiller one week ago.

"I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal," Roeder said. He would not elaborate.

142

nerveclinic
ID: 2621613
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 14:21

Interesting.

I just read the whole thread and even Tiller's defenders didn't stumble onto his true defense for his actions.

One should make the argument that he is less guilty of wrong doing then even early trimester abortionists.

In fact, there is no wrong doing. The guy was a hero for many women who did a horrific but life saving job for the mother.

Third Trimester abortions are almost all illegal, yet he was performing them.

I heard a story on BBC about this case.

1) The vast majority of the abortions he performed were in the case of un-viability of the fetus. It was medically proven that the fetus could not live outside the womb. Many examples were given like, all the organs, heart, lungs, stomach were growing outside the body with no cavity to insert them.

To the anti Tiller's, is it wrong to terminate an unviable fetus? Medically certain it cannot live?

Please don’t answer with a riddle. Let’s assume it’s a fact it wouldn’t live, would you force the mother to carry it to term? A mother who wanted the baby and now knows she is holding a dead baby instead?

2) The second group is where the mother’s life is seriously endangered by the birth. Again, an example of the medical conditions the women were experiencing was explained in detail. Had the pregnancy not been terminated, it was highly probable the woman would have died.

These are the only cases he was allowed to abort.

Baldwin. If a doctor told you your wife would die, unless you terminated a pregnancy, would you say bye honey, nice knowing you? MBJ?, B7? Bye dear? See you in heaven? I’m curious about that.

If not, you would have needed this man, it’s all he did, because late term abortions are otherwise illegal.

It was noted that almost all his patients did not want to end the pregnancy.

I know that doesn’t make a tidy story, about how he was evil on earth.

His detractors will now come on to explain that the woman’s life being endangered is an elaborate ruse. What a sorry group of men.

No one bothered to find out the whole story.

143

Boldwin
ID: 25282121
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 17:58

That abortionists are willing to lie about 'the health of the mother' excuse is so self-evident it doesn't need comment. It is a total joke NARAL and planned parenthood are playing in the face of the supreme court and their decision language.

144

Mith
Dude
ID: 01629107
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 18:08

It's true. We abortionists just love the smell of dead fetuses in the morning.

145

Boldwin
ID: 25282121
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 18:26

Smells like....money.

146

sarge33rd
ID: 33647616
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 18:28

re 143....No Boldwin, that those of oyu on the far right fringe, are so callous about the lives's and choices other people are faced with; is the true shame and so contrary to your claims of personal responsibility and freedom to fail/succeed that it would be laughable were it not so tragic in these cases.

Little besides this case, could possibly do more than illustrate my contention that you are for personal freedom, PROVIDED the individual exercise the freedom of agreeing with you in lock step. That attitude ever prevalent before in civilized history?

147

Boldwin
ID: 25282121
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 18:38

Killing someone because you got drunk and didn't get the birth control right, does not constitute personal responsibility or acceptable freedom.

148

Tree
ID: 41371322
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 18:46

because you got drunk and didn't get the birth control right

because, of course, that's the only reason people have abortions.

149

nerveclinic
Leader
ID: 05047110
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 18:46

That abortionists are willing to lie about 'the health of the mother' excuse is so self-evident it doesn't need comment.

Oh but it does need comment to anyone who isn't a liar. A charlatan. or a simpleton.

Besides, the possibility there is any chance a woman could die from the pregnancy destroys your good versus evil, Satan versus Jesus world view. Where there are no gray areas. Where everything is a black and white fairy tale.

Actually it wasn't planned parenthood. It was a medical doctor explaining the various conditions on BBC.

So Baldwin...

and you won't answer this because you are truly disturbed.

Yes or no.

If a pregnancy will likely cause the death of the mother, is that an acceptable reason to abort?

What would you do if it was your wife?

You won't acknowledge the fact that it is possible, because then you will have to excuse a particular abortion, or the execution of the woman, and that's screws up your perfect world view. Where everything is an easy choice.

If the fetus was without a doubt medically in viable, cannot live outside the womb (example all the organs are outside the body) is it acceptable to remove the corpse?

You have valid ethical arguments why an abortion of convenience is immoral. Then you throw it all out the window, and come across looking like a the immoral beast yourself for being willing to put your own daughter or wife's life at risk.

You are truly living in a dream world.

Then you lash out at people who label your ilk as an extremist like a Muslim jihadist.

How is killing your wife by forcing her to go through with a pregnancy that will likely kill her any different then stoning a woman for "adultery"?

I am calling you out right now.

You will not answer those two questions. You cannot. Because whichever answer you give, your world falls apart in front of everyone eyes.

You would have to leave the fantasy world to answer.

150

Boldwin
ID: 25282121
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 19:15

I'll give you a comparable that I know actually happens. It does occasionally happen that a JW mother with cancer refuses chemo because it would kill her baby. On the otherhand we do not require heroic medical efforts to save an otherwise doomed person no matter how old.

[and no, food and water do not constitute heroic efforts]

151

Tree
ID: 41371322
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 20:37

in other words, another question asked of you that you won't respond to directly?

152

Boldwin
ID: 25282121
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 20:40

I would apply those principles. We are consistant.

153

Tree
ID: 41371322
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 20:47

but you wouldn't answer the question asked. par for the course for you.

154

Boldwin
ID: 25282121
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 20:52

We are willing to risk the life of the mother for the life of the baby. Deal with it.

155

WiddleAvi
Sustainer
ID: 361032112
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 21:21

Boldwin - That is a fair answer. DO you think everyone should be required to do the same or are you open to people saying we will save the mom instead of the baby ?

156

Boldwin
ID: 25282121
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 22:00

I will defer that answer to God who decided that the original inhabitants of the promised land would lose their lives and be thrown out because of the ramant practice of killing their babies.

You people are free to vote however you wish but be aware that you are bringing armageddon down around your ears. [for that and so many other reasons]
___________________________________________

The important issue is that that is a bogus claim in 99.9% of abortions. It is just a false hope originally extended to anti-abotion forces that there might be some kind of moderation to the killing of babies. No one in their heart of hearts believes any different. You can't tell me you actually believe abortionists are actually concerned about actual health conditions of the mother. It's convenience pure and simple.

157

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 22:01

The important issue is that that is a bogus claim in 99.9% of abortions.

Link?

158

Boldwin
ID: 25282121
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 22:02

Just ask George Tiller...wait, what source would you accept?

159

rockafellerskank
Dude
ID: 27652109
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 22:03

I will defer that answer to God

link to god please?

160

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 22:05

The important issue is that that is a bogus claim in 99.9% of abortions.

Give me any source which claims that 99.9% of third trimester abortions are bogus claims.

161

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 22:20

Here's FOX News from 2003

Of the 1.6 million abortions performed in the U.S. each year, 91 percent are performed during the first trimester (12 or fewer weeks' gestation); 9 percent are performed in the second trimester (24 or fewer weeks' gestation); and only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks' gestation), approximately .01 percent of all abortions performed.

162

WiddleAvi
Sustainer
ID: 361032112
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 22:20

Boldwin - Just by the way, according to the Torah, If the mothers life is at risk you are required to save the mothers life. According to you Boldwin wouldn't that be God's answer ?

163

WiddleAvi
Sustainer
ID: 361032112
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 22:24

God / Torah's view on abortion.

According to this by choosing the babies life over the mother you are going against God Boldwin.

165

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 22:28

Widdle, Baldwin cherry picks the old testament. You should have realized that. The Bible is unerring. At least, the parts he believes.

166

WiddleAvi
Sustainer
ID: 361032112
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 22:31

Why did you delete post 164 Boldwin ?

167

Boldwin
ID: 25282121
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 22:32

The link you cite only lists the Talmud as it's source for that particular issue. The Talmud is a collection of the oral traditions of the Pharisees, not part of the 'old testament'.

The only applicable scripture I am aware of applies the death penalty to anyone who kills an unborn baby.

168

Boldwin
ID: 25282121
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 22:34

Brief confusion between Torah and Talmud. As you may or may not know, the word Torah is not commonly used in christian parlance.

169

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 23:01

The only applicable scripture I am aware of applies the death penalty to anyone who kills an unborn baby.

I'm only aware of Ex. 21, which was very specifically about the very strange act of a woman who had a miscarriage as a result of being struck when two men are fighting each other. That passage isn't about abortion at all, if that is what you are referring to.

170

Tree
ID: 41371322
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 23:15

The link you cite only lists the Talmud as it's source for that particular issue. The Talmud is a collection of the oral traditions of the Pharisees, not part of the 'old testament'

The Talmud is part of the Torah. The Tanakh is the written law, the Talmud the oral law.

171

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 23:17

Freakin' Jews. Think they know everything about the Torah.

172

Tree
ID: 41371322
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 23:20

which brings us back to Avi's post on what the Torah says...

173

Boldwin
ID: 25282121
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 23:37

According to Jesus...

He said to them: “Isaiah aptly prophesied about YOU hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honor me with [their] lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. 7 It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach as doctrines commands of men.’ 8 Letting go the commandment of God, YOU hold fast the tradition of men.”

9 Further, he went on to say to them: “Adroitly YOU set aside the commandment of God in order to retain YOUR tradition. 10 For example, Moses said...

Therefore I do not care what the pharisees had to say on the matter, and if they in fact ever recommended killing an unborn baby then they indeed acted according to Jesus' description of them.

174

Boldwin
ID: 25282121
Mon, Jul 06, 2009, 23:54

That passage isn't about abortion at all - PD

That passage shows exactly what value God places on that 'unviable tissue matter' as you might call it, namely equal to your life. Quite literally. Your life would be forfeit in exchange for that baby even if you killed it accidentally.

175

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Tue, Jul 07, 2009, 00:02

Maybe. But to get there you'd have to make the Bible a living document and subject to some interpretive analysis--the very thing you abhor when speaking of the Constitution.

176

Razor
ID: 385371019
Tue, Jul 07, 2009, 00:10

You can't tell me you actually believe abortionists are actually concerned about actual health conditions of the mother.

I know lots of women who have some small reason to have concern over the health conditions of the mother.

177

Boldwin
ID: 25282121
Tue, Jul 07, 2009, 00:20

Interpretation belongs to God. All you have to do is collect all the scriptures that bear on the issue at hand and sincerely let the combined message those scriptures describe interpret the Bible for you.

If you have another scripture to add to the mix feel free to bring it up.

178

nerveclinic
Leader
ID: 05047110
Tue, Jul 07, 2009, 01:14

I knew you wouldn't directly answer, but you came close enough. I knew you would try to deny medical conditions exist that can kill the mother, makes life simpler, proclamations more logical.

No one denies the examples of mothers life being threatened are rare, (see PD's low incidence numbers) but they are there.

Yet you did answer in your round about way. You would hand your wife a death sentence, then blame it on God's will when it happened. "Nice knowing you honey, see you in a better place."

Such a man.

I would never even consider this for a moment, my wife's life would be the only deciding question.

We can extrapolate further if your wife was raped and impregnated, you would likewise compel her to carry the rapists baby.

Such odd, cruel and twisted choices.

If a church member is dieing of cancer, and needs chemo, you would council her to withhold it to save the baby?

Hows that been working out for the mother?

179

nerveclinic
Leader
ID: 05047110
Tue, Jul 07, 2009, 02:37

Then you wring your hands when people say you are a lunatic cult?

180

Pancho Villa
ID: 5362078
Tue, Jul 07, 2009, 09:22

Interpretation belongs to God.

The only way God enters the equation is if Tiller's murderer uses a "God told me to do it" insanity defense, which would basically admit that an obsessive belief in God's laws and Biblical justification are a mental disease.

The prosecutors, defense team, judge and jury will all be men and women. God won't be in the courtroom.

181

Boldwin
ID: 25282121
Tue, Jul 07, 2009, 11:48

Nerve

Out of curiousity, if you found out that a person had been fathered by a rapist would you feel free to shoot him?

182

Mith
ID: 2894309
Tue, Jul 07, 2009, 11:53

Asinine question.

183

Boldwin
ID: 25282121
Tue, Jul 07, 2009, 12:15

The correct answer in Nerve's case is, 'That depends on how old he is.

184

Tree
ID: 41371322
Tue, Jul 07, 2009, 13:07

on the heels of #181, i'd like to ask a similarly related question:

What *is* the price of tea in China?

185

DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Tue, Jul 07, 2009, 15:30

Boldwin:

If your child died, would you mind carrying them around in a backpack with you for a couple of months?

186

Boldwin
ID: 25282121
Tue, Jul 07, 2009, 16:11

DWet

I don't know why people have a hard time understanding the term heroic measures. No I would not insist on carrying around a dead baby. Not even a genuinely braindead baby. Not that I'd trust anyone from the Hastings Institute on that diagnosis.

187

Boldwin
ID: 25282121
Tue, Jul 07, 2009, 16:14

Nerve

Instead of the barrage of hitpieces directed at Trig maybe you would feel free to actually direct your piece toward Trig and accomplish what liberals all think should have happened?

188

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Tue, Jul 07, 2009, 16:16

I agree with Baldwin. In fact, his position matches the Catholic Church on the matter as well--not that he'd say that out loud. When a mother's life is in jeopardy, she is asked to give prayerful consideration of the life of the child but is not required to sacrifice her life, even if the baby might be otherwise viable.

189

DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Tue, Jul 07, 2009, 16:40

186: Thanks. Sincerely.

For the record, my personal answer to your question in #181 would be no (including your implications).

190

DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Tue, Jul 07, 2009, 16:44

Now, re: 187--that blogger is a doofus.

Rather than accept that most people (I'd suggest basically everyone on 'the left') disagree with Palin on politics, he dismisses it with a pithy
"And yes, some hate her because they hate her religion, politics, blah blah blah."

Because, heaven forfend, people disagree with someone's qualifications, experience, and political views. That can't be it! Let's think of some other reason.

191

Boldwin
ID: 25282121
Tue, Jul 07, 2009, 16:57

Things have gotten so heated around here that I can't tell if there's a small outbreak of niceness breaking out.

192

DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Tue, Jul 07, 2009, 17:18

Mmmmm.... could be, wabbit, could be.

193

sarge33rd
ID: 33650716
Tue, Jul 07, 2009, 17:50

you use a book written by man, to condemn the actions OF man. You hold this book aloft, as though it were (in point of fact) the FINAL arbiter.

I'll concede that you *may* be right and it *may* be such. But this is not held as a point of fact. It is held as a matter of faith. Your "Gods" law, does not apply to those of us who do not believe in his very being.

As I understand you rather circitious response to NCs question.....IF your wife were pregnant and IF the DR said that carrying to term would most likely kill her; you would still counsel her to carry to term. Is that correct?

194

Boldwin
ID: 25282121
Tue, Jul 07, 2009, 20:56

Your "Gods" law, does not apply to those of us who do not believe in his very being.

Tell it to gravity.

Do everything within your power to save lives but above all, do no harm.

AKA the Hippocratic oath.

195

nerveclinic
ID: 7654813
Wed, Jul 08, 2009, 14:54

Out of curiousity, if you found out that a person had been fathered by a rapist would you feel free to shoot him?

I was going to offer you a shovel to dig a deeper hole, but I just noticed you're driving a John Deere exacavator.

The correct answer in Nerve's case is, 'That depends on how old he is.

The correct answer is Baldwin:

If my wife was raped, I would not insist she carry the rapists baby to term.

The psychological damage would be greatest during the pregnancy, not if she choose to birth it and it was outside the body.

Of course that's too complicated an ethical/moral equation for you to wrap your head around.

196

Boldwin
ID: 25282121
Wed, Jul 08, 2009, 15:08

I'm pretty sure having your body deliberately torn to bits due to no falut of your own, imposes pretty harsh psychological damage.

197

nerveclinic
ID: 49626814
Wed, Jul 08, 2009, 15:26

I'm pretty sure having your body deliberately torn to bits due to no falut of your own, imposes pretty harsh psychological damage.

Are you talking about American missiles? Because as far as I can tell you're all for tearing to bits foreigners.

Such hypocrasy, but when has that ever stopped the rightous?

198

sarge33rd
ID: 4064815
Wed, Jul 08, 2009, 16:04

re 194....show me the post, where I denied the reality of gravity.

IOW, yet another strawman/deflection, from the king of such.

199

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Wed, Jul 08, 2009, 16:32

Your anti-God bias is showing, sarge.

201

Boldwin
ID: 25282121
Wed, Jul 08, 2009, 17:23

Sarge#197

show me the post, where I denied the reality of gravity

Your "Gods" law, does not apply to those of us who do not believe in his very being. - Sarge#193

All of God's laws apply to you, no matter how many of them you flout. His patience is not infinite.

202

Tree
ID: 41371322
Wed, Jul 08, 2009, 17:34

All of God's laws apply to you, no matter how many of them you flout.

is "do as i say, not as i do" one of God's laws, because that's the one you subscribe to more than any other.

203

sarge33rd
ID: 4064815
Wed, Jul 08, 2009, 17:54

gravity Boldwin, is a scientific fact. Demonstrable, proveable, testable,quantifiable. None of which, apply to your faith. Hence, those laws you attribute solely TO your faith...are so much smoke and mirror to me.

204

Boldwin
ID: 25282121
Wed, Jul 08, 2009, 17:56

When the hail starts, remember that sentence.

205

sarge33rd
ID: 4064815
Wed, Jul 08, 2009, 18:02

lol Hail, is the entirely predictable result from specific atmospheric conditions. Temp, humidity, wind etc. The "weather", is not proof of any specific God, nor of any specific set of laws attributable to any specific God.

206

Boldwin
ID: 25282121
Wed, Jul 08, 2009, 18:41

Tell it to the Egytians in Moses' day.

207

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Wed, Jul 08, 2009, 18:43

Nobody is asking you to believe in God, sarge. So get off the sandbox.

208

Boldwin
ID: 25282121
Wed, Jul 08, 2009, 21:53

Egyptians

209

sarge33rd
ID: 456598
Thu, Jul 09, 2009, 09:10

I think you're misunderstanding my point PD.

Boldwin quotes the bible as his sole source in support of his position. My point is; that source is meaningless; to millions upon millions upon millions of people. If he has no better source in support for his contention, then his contention is equally meaningless.

210

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Thu, Jul 09, 2009, 09:14

Why is the source "meaningless?" Because you say it is? What is it, specifically, which causes you to say that it is without meaning entirely?

Just because you don't believe it isn't enough. I don't believe in the Koran, but I would hardly say it is "meaningless."

211

CanadianHack
ID: 747218
Thu, Jul 09, 2009, 09:41

Meaningless is obviously too strong a choice of words and that nitpick detracts from Sarge's point.

Do you really believe that 10 plagues were rained down upon Egypt as the bible says? Is there any extra-biblical evidence whatsoever for them? Can the bible's version be considered reliable when the book tells of people living in whales, turning into pilars of salt and other nonsense?

And to try to get this back on topic ... if somebody is dumb enough to believe that nonsense is true, are they not also dumb enough to think that it is OK to go into a church and shoot somebody as this Scoot Roeder idiot did ?

212

Pancho Villa
ID: 5965298
Thu, Jul 09, 2009, 09:53

The Bible and the Koran are both meaningless in this context, which is that God's laws trump man's laws, based on scripture as it relates to pregnancy termination.

As I stated earlier, it will only come into play if Tiller's accused murderer cops an insanity defense based on orders from God.

Baldwin can speculate endlessly as to what happens in the afterlife to those who defy scriptures, or provide justification for the accused because he was acting as an agent for God.

That's not to say there won't be one or more on the jury that are sympathetic to the motives, enough so that the murderer will be exonerated. If that happens, it won't be any more a case of triumph for God's law than it was in the O J Simpson verdict.

213

Boldwin
ID: 467910
Thu, Jul 09, 2009, 12:03

PV

How many times do I have to say that no one is authorized to act as God's avenging angel and that he specifically said 'vengence is mine'...it is not something that we have any right to extract.

He has millions of millions of angels perfectly capable of teaching Sarge and Hack what the Egyptians were taught when the Isrealites were freed from captivity.

Sadly it will be a fatally steep learning curve if they don't start learning now.

214

CanadianHack
ID: 31645103
Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 07:28

In Baldwin's mind not only does his god exist - despite an alarming lack of evidence. There are also millions and millions of angels that exist - despite the lack of evidence. There are probably many, many other devils, demons, demi-gods etc he imagined into existence as well. Its all an over-active imagination.

We can learn a lot about Baldwin's mind from the imaginary phantoms he dreams up. Angels - who are usually seen as loving, helpful entities - in his world are essentially magical hitmen who have killed millions in some of the most horrible ways imaginable. Baldwin seems to enjoy imagining this. This shows how twisted and petty he is. He feels powerless in this world, but don't worry, his imaginary "friends" will get you.

Baldwin, I hope you get well soon.

215

Boldwin
ID: 467910
Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 07:38

And I hope you get in the ark before the rain falls.

216

CanadianHack
ID: 31645103
Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 07:48

Your imaginary god has no moral problems with killing all but two people on earth.

What an evil monster!

217

Boldwin
ID: 467910
Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 09:38

It is the penalty for people who abandon all moral sense...but of course you don't believe in moral sense. Very timely.

218

CanadianHack
ID: 31645103
Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 09:53

Since your god abandoned all moral sense repeatedly (i.e. genecides, plagues, floods are all quite clear from reading his own propoganda in the bible), when will your god be killed in a flood?

Baldwin, I think the problem here is you have no idea what morality is. You think killing all but two people on earth is a moral act.

219

Boldwin
ID: 467910
Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 09:57

I trust his morals more than yours.

You aparently believe people should be free to kill their babies and skip away from the corpse free to fornicate again, without those pesky child-rearing responsibilities getting in the way.

220

CanadianHack
ID: 31645103
Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 10:01

Even *if* I did believe that, it is a far lesser crime than killing everyone on earth save for two people. That includes this baby you are so worried about and millions of others.

By your own standards, that you are trying to thrust onto me, your own god is immoral. It kills babies repeatedly.

221

Boldwin
ID: 467910
Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 10:08

The Bible Handbook, by Henry H. Halley, notes that at Megiddo, archaeologists found the ruins of a temple of Ashtoreth, goddess-wife of Baal. He writes: “Just a few steps from this temple was a cemetery, where many jars were found, containing remains of infants who had been sacrificed in this temple . . . Prophets of Baal and Ashtoreth were official murderers of little children.” “Another horrible practice was [what] they called ‘foundation sacrifices.’ When a house was to be built, a child would be sacrificed, and its body built into the wall.”

20 Halley comments: “The worship of Baal, Ashtoreth, and other Canaanite gods consisted in the most extravagant orgies; their temples were centers of vice. . . . Canaanites worshiped, by immoral indulgence, . . . and then, by murdering their first-born children, as a sacrifice to these same gods. It seems that, in large measure, the land of Canaan had become a sort of Sodom and Gomorrah on a national scale. . . . Did a civilization of such abominable filth and brutality have any right longer to exist? . . . Archaeologists who dig in the ruins of Canaanite cities wonder that God did not destroy them sooner than He did.”

How many million aborted babies do you think he should allow before he acts? In his perception the blood of each one cries out for vengence and those who take life so frivilously must pay with their own.

222

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 10:09

and those who take life so frivilously must pay with their own

Riiight. Nice train wreck at the end there, Baldwin.

223

Tree
ID: 41371322
Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 10:11

You aparently believe people should be free to kill their babies and skip away from the corpse free to fornicate again, without those pesky child-rearing responsibilities getting in the way.

you apparently believe it's acceptable to ignore what anyone else says.

i don't believe anyone here is advocating abortion as a form of birth control - personally, i find it disgusting. yet you keep hanging on your already refuted point because it's the only life preserver you have.

224

CanadianHack
ID: 31645103
Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 10:13

Since your god takes life so frivilously, he must pay with his own.

That is very clear from your logic, if you were using any.

225

Boldwin
ID: 467910
Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 10:13

Hack

BTW [in harmony with nearly every culture's most early history accounts] in Japanese caligraphy the symbol for a large ship is the shape of a ship's hull with eight occupants.

226

Boldwin
ID: 467910
Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 10:15

There is all the difference in the world between murder and a justice system imposing execution as a punishment for murder.

227

Boldwin
ID: 467910
Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 10:21

Riiight. Nice train wreck at the end there, Baldwin. - PD

More on that historic note: In order to drown out the cries of the babies as the babies slid down into the fire...

...drummers would drum continuously.

They'd just drum away like the little drummer boy from some people's favorite christmas carrol.

Pahrumpahpumpum.

Like so many drummers in this thread in fact.

228

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 10:28

Don't bother to try to distance yourself from Tiller's killer when, in the end, you use the same Biblical OT imagery as he did.

Is aborting a brain-dead baby justification for Tiller to pay with his own life? How about 50 brain-dead babies?

229

Boldwin
ID: 467910
Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 10:42

Drum on PD.

Try not to obfuscate the ugly reality with a few excedingly rare exceptions to the rule.

230

Building 7
ID: 471052128
Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 10:59

Re: #62 ..... They said on the news he did 60,000 abortions in his lifetime. My estimate of 44,400 was not too far off. Still not sure if that is the record. That's over 10 times the amount of soldiers lost in Iraq, for comparison.

231

Tree
ID: 41371322
Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 11:06

i like how Baldwin ignores points in which he has no argument - such as the one where he continues to lie about the positions of posters on this board.

but, i suppose as long his God accepts lying, he'll continue to do it.

232

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 11:11

Try not to obfuscate the ugly reality with a few excedingly rare exceptions to the rule.

Oops. I guess in a thread about a third-trimester abortion doctor it is out-of-place to talk about third-trimester abortions and the ramifications of the same.

233

Boldwin
ID: 467910
Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 13:24

Because they're only performed on braindead or completely dead babies? Puleeze. You can rest your little drummer boy arms when the dead ones slide down Molech's arms.

234

sarge33rd
ID: 116461011
Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 13:57

nobody said ONLY on those two conditions Boldwin.

Either of those two and/or the mother's life being in jeopardy...constitute 3 separate conditions under which a 3rd trimester abortion would/could be explored as an option.

If you wish to refute something; please quit paraphrasing it inaccurately, and then refuting said inaccurate phrase.

235

Boldwin
ID: 467910
Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 14:34

Reread PD#228 and you will see that I was exactly dealing with exactly what PD was speaking about. And he was deliberately setting up a strawman that Tiller's abortions were braindead babies so why worry.

236

sarge33rd
ID: 13647119
Sat, Jul 11, 2009, 12:24

No he wasn't. He asked a straight forward question, and did not in the course of that question; pose it as the only reason for the abortions. Since you did not answer it, I will simplify it for you and ask it again:

Is aborting a brain-dead baby justification for ~~Tiller~~ an abortionist to pay with his own life?

How about 50 brain-dead babies?

237

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Sat, Jul 11, 2009, 12:38

Baldwin is absolutely desperate to try to excuse Tiller's killer without abandoning his position that the babies Tiller specialized in aborting were the ones he claims a woman need not be forced to carry to term.

He also seems intent on not studying exactly what Tiller did other than to use his as a characterization.

Third-trimester abortions are not convenience abortions. Baldwin simply can't get his black/white head around the gray of women entering their third trimester with (for example) news that their baby will die, at latest, within a week of birth of a horrible disease.

238

Boldwin
ID: 467910
Sat, Jul 11, 2009, 18:56

Baldwin is absolutely desperate to try to excuse Tiller's killer

I have absolutely no interest in absolving Tiller's killer. He took something that belongs to God.

without abandoning his position that the babies Tiller specialized in aborting were the ones he claims a woman need not be forced to carry to term. - PD

Complete BS. Tiller was just an abortionist with even less scrupples than most. Trusting his word on the stated excuse is ludicrous.

239

Tree
ID: 41371322
Sat, Jul 11, 2009, 19:25

Trusting his word

you may very well be the last person on this board to be able to judge honesty.

240

Boldwin
ID: 467910
Sun, Jul 12, 2009, 10:29

These guys of course are your trusted sources...

Snopes and UPI without comment [until pressed], scrub archives and change Obama's reputed birthplace the day after WND points out discrepencies.

241

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sun, Jul 12, 2009, 10:44

Get.

A.

Life.

242

sarge33rd
ID: 146181210
Sun, Jul 12, 2009, 11:18

I echo 241

243

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Sun, Jul 12, 2009, 11:45

According to Baldwin, this doesn't exist:

Also, that people who have actually seen and touched the certificate don't exist.

244

Tree
ID: 41371322
Sun, Jul 12, 2009, 11:46

because, of course, World Nut Daily is a completely accurate source of information. Their credibility is just as bad as yours Baldwin.

245

Boldwin
ID: 467910
Sun, Jul 12, 2009, 18:47

That is a short form anyone in the world can get just by asking for one long after the fact. Many foreign born people have that form. It is the long form that he will not release no doubt because he cannot produce one. If he is willing to produce that why wouldn't he also be willing to produce the long form?

246

Tree
ID: 41371322
Sun, Jul 12, 2009, 19:34

please produce your long and short form birth certificate Baldwin.

247

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Sun, Jul 12, 2009, 19:45

Many foreign born people have that form

Ha. Many of those foreigners born in Hawai'i have that form...

248

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Sun, Jul 12, 2009, 19:48

Baldwin--show me where on this form that an applicant can request the hospital (long) form rather than the Certificate of Live Birth. Take your time.

And why, oh why, do you think we don't notice that you change your target like a drunk Irishman tossing midgets?

249

Boldwin
ID: 467910
Sun, Jul 12, 2009, 21:54

I've been talking about the long form since day one, PD. And I very early on linked you to foreign born people who had that short form.

And that's just a silly question, it's not an application form.

You can ask for a short form much after a birth and you can have been born anywhere to get it.

The long form I believe you would get upon going home from the hospital.

250

Boldwin
ID: 467910
Sun, Jul 12, 2009, 22:13

Don't get me wrong, there are many other reasons Barack doesn't qualify, the citizenship of his father, the age of his mother, what his residence in Indonesia reveals about his citizenship, etc.

251

bibA
Leader
ID: 261028117
Sun, Jul 12, 2009, 22:33

The long form I believe you would get upon going home from the hospital.

I don't remember getting a "long form birth certificate" upon going home from the hospital. However, the birth certificate I did have in later years was given to me by my parents. That birth certificate was certainly no longer than the one attributed to be Obama's, and actually a bit shorter. It was sufficient to obtain my driver's license, draft card, and passport. It had the place of birth, date, my parents names, state seal, etc.

I did lose it once, and requested another. The new one was identical to the "short form" I had originally possessed.

Just recently my brother needed to obtain a copy of his birth certificate, and it also was no longer than Obama's.

Do any of you out there besides Baldwin have these "long form birth certificates"? Maybe there is something wrong with the one I have, but it has certainly been sufficient to adequately prove my identity and place of birth for more than half a century.

252

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Sun, Jul 12, 2009, 23:21

Barack Obama is a US citizen. The citizenship of his father doesn't matter (neither did the fact that Kenya automatically confers temporary citizenship on all children born of Kenyan citizens).

Age of the mother doesn't matter either. His Indonesian residence didn't change squat.

All these are just wacky backup plans.

Long form? Seriously? You want Barack Obama to locate a hospital form which his family never received, because you disbelieve the Certificate of Live Birth?

253

Tree
ID: 41371322
Sun, Jul 12, 2009, 23:53

i still haven't seen Baldwin's long form birth certificate either. best i can tell, he was born of a gay Muslim cleric from Cairo, and an illegal immigrant Latina from Nuevo Laredo. oh, and that he was born in Singapore.

i mean, that's what i heard, and until baldwin produces the long form birth certificate, i have no reason to take his word on it.

god. re-reading that, it sounds so absurd. and people actually believe similar about Obama. oy.

254

Tree
ID: 248472317
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 16:03

Good lord, this would be a horrific thing.

Online posting of women's abortion information challenged in Oklahoma

I just can't imagine how such a thing isn't a total invasion of privacy.

255

sarge33rd
ID: 161128207
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 08:34

The law, passed in May, requires doctors to fill out a 10-page questionnaire for every abortion performed, including asking the woman about her age, marital status, race and years of education. In all, there are 37 questions the women are to answer.

Critics say the act would be harassment and an invasion of privacy.

State Sen. Todd Lamb helped draft the abortion legislation and describes it as "a common sense measure with bipartisan support." He said the left has tried to skew the law's intent through a campaign of misinformation.

"We're not trying to embarrass anybody, hurt anybody or make anybody's identities known. That's not the purpose of the legislation," the Republican lawmaker said.

"We want to collect hard data that can be a useful tool in helping prevent future unwanted pregnancies."

I wonder, will they require similar forms from Doctors treating a patient who smokes for cancer? I mean, could they not gather data for the prevention of cancer that way?

SUCH a blatant and obvious intent to harass. This need to be struck down and HARD.

256

sarge33rd
ID: 161128207
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 08:38

The law also bars women from seeking abortions solely because of the sex of the fetus, with fines up to $100,000 for doctors who "knowingly violate" it.

Since RoevWade made no call on this topic, ie...there is nothing I know of the federal law which precludes a woman from getting an abortion for whatever reason. (it is not relevant as to why she wants it done)....would this part of the bill not place the entire bill in violation? Wouldn't this, render the law moot?

257

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 13:51

Re: 255-- in principle, this is a good thing IF USED PROPERLY. Frankly Sarge, I think that your blanket opposition to this is the equivalent of the people crying about "death panels".

Re: 256-- Gosh, I hope not. You're probably technically right, but that's the sort of stuff we do need to be stopping. Similarly, the Constitution doesn't say anything, so I ought to have the right to bear nuclear rocket launchers on my person.

258

Tree
ID: 248472317
Tue, Dec 22, 2009, 21:35

The anti-abortion activist charged with gunning down a Wichita, Kansas, doctor cannot use the "necessity defense" at trial, a judge ruled Tuesday.

259

Myboyjack
ID: 560301921
Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 22:31

If he'd shot this doctor/monster, would he have been a hero?

260

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 23:10

One murderer, murdering another; doesnt make the first any less guilty. Though yes, that Dr is in fact a monster.(Assuming he is guilty of the allegations. Which the article certainly seems to strongly indicate.)

261

Tree
ID: 320371412
Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 07:57

and...there is a WORLD of difference between this "doctor", and other doctors who perform abortions.

262

Myboyjack
ID: 447112610
Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 08:17

The world of difference is mostly that he gave up the pretence that dismembering a child was a medical proceedure.

263

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 09:44

Well, that is a difference all right. But this one was clearly the kind of back alley abortionist that the Left has been trotting out as a boogeyman for 40 years.

This is an oversight failure on a massive scale.

264

Myboyjack
ID: 447112610
Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 10:26

And the oversight was allegedly due to the reticence of a pro-abortion administration to investigate the numerous allegations and red flags for fear of offending its pro-abortion constituentcy.

265

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 11:21

Sounds like it.

I've been debating with pro-choicers for years about the fact that they have, by-and-large, abandoned the "safe" part of "safe and legal." There is no advantage to women if legal abortions are performed exactly as we are told illegal abortions were.

266

Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615
Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 14:06

to me, this guy is a serial killer. he stabbed to death children.

but to put every doctor who performs abortions in the category of this monster is not just.

267

Myboyjack
ID: 447112610
Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 15:26

Tree- I agree with you that legally he was different. I see no moral difference in stabbing the child on the table or in the cervical canal, however. Equally monstrous.

268

biliruben
ID: 41431323
Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 09:46

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html?utm_source=digg&utm_medium=email

"Back in the United States, the percentage of terror attacks committed by Muslims is almost as miniscule as in Europe. An FBI study looking at terrorism committed on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 found that 94 percent of the terror attacks were committed by non-Muslims."

"In fact in 2013, it was actually more likely Americans would be killed by a toddler than a terrorist. In that year, three Americans were killed in the Boston Marathon bombing. How many people did toddlers kill in 2013? Five, all by accidentally shooting a gun"

Report abuse

269

biliruben
ID: 271048311
Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 12:05

Link.

Not sure what the deal is and how to free the pop-up for most of my browsers, but that "create a link" thing only works on 1 of 4 browsers for me. Any idea how to have chrome release the hostage for rotoguru?

Report abuse

270

Mith
ID: 3692387
Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 12:08

You could just

{a href="www.your.link.here.com" target="_blank"}your text here.{/a}

Report abuse

271

biliruben
ID: 561162511
Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 12:17

Yeah. I do it just infrequently enough that I have to look up the syntax every time. The mind. It goes. The fog is closing in!!

Report abuse

272

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 19:53

Ahh, so muslim terrorists are a miniscule problem in the grand scheme of things.

Riiiight.

Report abuse

Forum: polPage 3298Subject: Domestic terrorist shoots abortion doc in church

Forum: pol
Page 3298
Subject: Domestic terrorist shoots abortion doc in church