Pro life murderers "are to be commended for their restraint"? 
- Edit 1
- Edit 1Before modification by Joel at 13/02/2012 12:50:00 AM
You really do make this embarrassingly easy.
Yeah, always makes me feel dirty using that line, too, but the man was a masterful performer; one could almost believe him when he said he never traded arms for hostages, at least until the moment he admitted doing just that after it was proven.
As for Tiller, he's one of less than a dozen abortionists killed since Roe v Wade, by people who believe they are murdering babies. The Pro-Life groups are to be commended for their restraint. And of course, you are part of the Left, who claims the exclusive right to write the narrative, so our moral majority religious fanatics are identical to atheists & anti-religious potheads like Jared Loughner and Timothy McVeigh. Hey, you want to look at left vs. right violence, until Kennedy was shot by a communist, ONLY Republican presidents had ever been assassinated.
Um... which black ministers endorsed Ike over JFK in 1960?
Not that it matters; Nixon was the candidate actually RUNNING that year, and he got the important endorsements: From Allan Dulles and his "plumbers" in November of '63, April and June of '68 and twice more in '72. Speaking of Dixiecrats, if you want to talk about where they began bolting the Democratic Party, it was when Truman desegregated the military back in the '40s, but they did not JOIN REPUBLICANS and provide their subsequent boll weevil victories until Nixons GOP seduced them with the Southern Strategy in response to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Southern Strategy is well documented by senior GOP campaigners rather than any liberals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater#Atwater_on_the_Southern_Strategy
Loughner has remained conspicuously silent about any political loyalties, but painting McVeigh as ANYTHING but a far right conservative is an act of sheer desperation. Let us just see: Anti-tax gun nut disciplined by the Army for buying a White Power T-shirt from the Klan, and wrote to a friend before his terrorist murders that " I have come to peace with myself, my God and my cause. Blood will flow in the streets, Steve. Good vs. Evil. Free Men vs. Socialist Wannabe Slaves." Yeah, he was a real godless commie liberal, alright.
As far as "until the last time a president was killed only Republicans has been," Lincoln was so liberal he started a war to prevent peaceful legal secession (rather than to affirm the Fifth Amendment right not to "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law") and assassinated by A CONSERVATIVE. The other cases were one Radical Republican murdering another because he did not get a political job, and yet another Republican murdering one. Notwithstanding the last assassins membership in the Republican Party, his anarchism makes him undeniably liberal, and he seems to have been largely incited by Emma Goldman, who published defenses of him after the assassination. I guess that makes Palin the far rights modern day version of Goldman, and no less reprehensible for representing the opposite end of the political spectrum. I have no reservation condemning Palin and Goldman for the same incitement to political murder; how 'bout you...?
And Loughner
Loughner has declare no affiliation, beyond his stated hatred of the liberal Democratic House member he badly wounded while trying to murder.
Argument already shredded; he was a racist Army vet who worked at gun shows and ranted about the evils of taxes and socialism, then attacked the government.
The guy ATTACKED THE IRS; that and his anti-government rants sound more actions of the anti-tax Tea Party than any liberal. He did endorse a few other liberal principles amid many conservative ones though, so I do not put him entirely within either sides camp.
On what basis do you claim he is liberal? Fanatically religious members of the military do not exactly scream, "LIBERAL."
I had to look that up, but see nothing about it indicating the woman is a liberal. Is it because she taught at a university? Like Gingrich?
She is doing so well she is retiring and one of her aides is running in a special election to complete her term. You know who first suggested Palins crosshairs could get Giffords shot? Gabrielle Giffords, BEFORE the shootings. If Palin wants to play the victim and accuse her of "blood libel" AFTER the shootings, she should do it to the womans face. While the Duke and Sharpton incidents were reprehensible, they were not violence, so I do not know what relevance they have except as another attempt to accuse people like Gabrielle Giffords of "victimizing" those who incite people to murder them. Truth is not libel, but blaming ones victims IS shameful.
The Weather Underground is guilty of violence, but not murder; they thought it was OK to destroy property as long as they ensured no one was killed, which would not be true even had they managed to avoid killing, but they did not. I neither excuse nor condone them, but they were not inciting murder, deliberately or otherwise. More importantly, their actions and the Unabombers combined are still dwarfed by politically motivated right wing murders, attempted murders and incitement to murder.
Personally, I agree with the Founding Fathers that secession by PEACEFUL means ought to be legitimate, but since the GOP was founded on the notion it is not, any Republican advocating it now is advocating treason. Consequently, accusing others of treason in the same breath is hypocritical; regardless, advocating vigilante violence against them would be as unconscionable to the Founding Fathers as it is to me.
No, I think you guys still have the market cornered on that one; my argument is simply that people who dislike the rights protected by the Constitution should either amend it or leave rather than treasonously ignore it except when convenient. Fortunately, the First Amendment does not protect inciting mob violence, and consequently no one—left, right or upside down—has any "right" to do so.
Now look what you did! You made me quote Reagan.
Yeah, always makes me feel dirty using that line, too, but the man was a masterful performer; one could almost believe him when he said he never traded arms for hostages, at least until the moment he admitted doing just that after it was proven.
George Tiller and Gabrielle Giffords come to mind; I suppose Matthew Shephard does not count since he was "only" savagely beaten and left in the middle of nowhere to die of exposure, not shot.
When pro life groups feel obliged to disavow vigilante murder of people on their "wanted" posters, things have gotten out of hand. The best to be said is it is not as bad as when people blew up churches with kids inside, even as the GOP devised the Southern Strategy to RECRUIT VOTES from them.
Votes are votes. The Southern Strategy is another myth, since the switch was well underway in Eisenhower's elections, and I don't know how you can condemn a man for appealing to the Southern vote, and turning around and implementing affirmative action (not to mention getting just about every black minister's endorsement over JFK in 1960). Those BASTARDS! How dare they screw over and betray their racist redneck base! Republicans KEEP campaign promises and they are pandering to special interests. Break campaign promises and they still get all the blame for them. When pro life groups feel obliged to disavow vigilante murder of people on their "wanted" posters, things have gotten out of hand. The best to be said is it is not as bad as when people blew up churches with kids inside, even as the GOP devised the Southern Strategy to RECRUIT VOTES from them.
As for Tiller, he's one of less than a dozen abortionists killed since Roe v Wade, by people who believe they are murdering babies. The Pro-Life groups are to be commended for their restraint. And of course, you are part of the Left, who claims the exclusive right to write the narrative, so our moral majority religious fanatics are identical to atheists & anti-religious potheads like Jared Loughner and Timothy McVeigh. Hey, you want to look at left vs. right violence, until Kennedy was shot by a communist, ONLY Republican presidents had ever been assassinated.Um... which black ministers endorsed Ike over JFK in 1960?
Not that it matters; Nixon was the candidate actually RUNNING that year, and he got the important endorsements: From Allan Dulles and his "plumbers" in November of '63, April and June of '68 and twice more in '72. Speaking of Dixiecrats, if you want to talk about where they began bolting the Democratic Party, it was when Truman desegregated the military back in the '40s, but they did not JOIN REPUBLICANS and provide their subsequent boll weevil victories until Nixons GOP seduced them with the Southern Strategy in response to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Southern Strategy is well documented by senior GOP campaigners rather than any liberals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater#Atwater_on_the_Southern_StrategyLoughner has remained conspicuously silent about any political loyalties, but painting McVeigh as ANYTHING but a far right conservative is an act of sheer desperation. Let us just see: Anti-tax gun nut disciplined by the Army for buying a White Power T-shirt from the Klan, and wrote to a friend before his terrorist murders that " I have come to peace with myself, my God and my cause. Blood will flow in the streets, Steve. Good vs. Evil. Free Men vs. Socialist Wannabe Slaves." Yeah, he was a real godless commie liberal, alright.
As far as "until the last time a president was killed only Republicans has been," Lincoln was so liberal he started a war to prevent peaceful legal secession (rather than to affirm the Fifth Amendment right not to "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law") and assassinated by A CONSERVATIVE. The other cases were one Radical Republican murdering another because he did not get a political job, and yet another Republican murdering one. Notwithstanding the last assassins membership in the Republican Party, his anarchism makes him undeniably liberal, and he seems to have been largely incited by Emma Goldman, who published defenses of him after the assassination. I guess that makes Palin the far rights modern day version of Goldman, and no less reprehensible for representing the opposite end of the political spectrum. I have no reservation condemning Palin and Goldman for the same incitement to political murder; how 'bout you...?
Cannoli can proclaim "self defense" all he likes, but unless the Unabomber is released from prison I know of no liberal murderers in the US to concern him. Granted, some conservatives define "defense" broadly, as with people who murder abortion doctors "in defense of the unborn," but I obviously reject that definition. It is pathetic; in the US, conservatives killing liberals just over abortion almost certainly outnumber liberals killing conservatives over ANYTHING. The century of (usually Democratic) conservatives lynching people dwarfs the Unabomber by orders of magnitude. It disturbs and alarms me when conservatives respond by saying I cannot complain, let alone demand any law enforcement prevent such things, because "yeah, but, the Unabomber...."
And Loughner
Loughner has declare no affiliation, beyond his stated hatred of the liberal Democratic House member he badly wounded while trying to murder.
McVeigh
Argument already shredded; he was a racist Army vet who worked at gun shows and ranted about the evils of taxes and socialism, then attacked the government.
and the guy who 9-11ed the IRS building
The guy ATTACKED THE IRS; that and his anti-government rants sound more actions of the anti-tax Tea Party than any liberal. He did endorse a few other liberal principles amid many conservative ones though, so I do not put him entirely within either sides camp.
and the Fort Hood guy
On what basis do you claim he is liberal? Fanatically religious members of the military do not exactly scream, "LIBERAL."
and the teacher who shot up a faculty meeting...
I had to look that up, but see nothing about it indicating the woman is a liberal. Is it because she taught at a university? Like Gingrich?
Then there are the hoaxes like Tawana Brawley and the Duke lacrosse team. If you subscribe to that bullshit formulation that equates Sarah Palin with Gifford's shooting (and how about the fact that everyone is going on and on about the wounded liberal who is, by every report, every time you turn around, recovering splendidly, but no one really seems to give a damn about the Republican-appointed judge who was killed that day - conservative victims get no press, while liberals' comparatively lesser victimization is widely promulgated), Al Sharpton & his ilk are far more guilty on the incitement-to-violence standings.
She is doing so well she is retiring and one of her aides is running in a special election to complete her term. You know who first suggested Palins crosshairs could get Giffords shot? Gabrielle Giffords, BEFORE the shootings. If Palin wants to play the victim and accuse her of "blood libel" AFTER the shootings, she should do it to the womans face. While the Duke and Sharpton incidents were reprehensible, they were not violence, so I do not know what relevance they have except as another attempt to accuse people like Gabrielle Giffords of "victimizing" those who incite people to murder them. Truth is not libel, but blaming ones victims IS shameful.
And what about the Weather Underground? Granted, they didn't get to kill all those servicemen, but only because they screwed up and set off their bomb prematurely. If there is a disparity in favor of liberals when it comes to political violence, it is probably due to the greater likelihood of ineptitude and pusillanimity on their part. But wait! The WU blast damaged leftwing actor Dustin Hoffman's home, so that counts as violence against a liberal, and thus is attributable to the conservatives! Damn! Foiled again!
The Weather Underground is guilty of violence, but not murder; they thought it was OK to destroy property as long as they ensured no one was killed, which would not be true even had they managed to avoid killing, but they did not. I neither excuse nor condone them, but they were not inciting murder, deliberately or otherwise. More importantly, their actions and the Unabombers combined are still dwarfed by politically motivated right wing murders, attempted murders and incitement to murder.
I have no problem sweeping up Unabombers along with nazis, klansmen and other perpetrators of political violence. However, there is a great difference between one guy in a wilderness shack and the governor of the nations second largest state chiding a presidential primary rally for not "do[ing]" things to the "treasonous" Fed Chair like Republicans in his state would. For that matter, it is rather ridiculous for anyone to endorse secession at a press conference then accuse someone else of treason a year later.
So infidelity is okay if you plan to get divorced, or are legally hindered from an advantageous separation? If treason is acceptable to a would-be secessionist, there is no motive for secession! It is precisely because they take things like the law and treason seriously that drives secessionists - they recognize lawful obligations and wish to be free of them.Personally, I agree with the Founding Fathers that secession by PEACEFUL means ought to be legitimate, but since the GOP was founded on the notion it is not, any Republican advocating it now is advocating treason. Consequently, accusing others of treason in the same breath is hypocritical; regardless, advocating vigilante violence against them would be as unconscionable to the Founding Fathers as it is to me.
Maybe we DO need a new law: If you or your spouse has public supported seceding from the United States, you cannot be president of it.
America, love it or leave it! The new slogan of the Left. No, I think you guys still have the market cornered on that one; my argument is simply that people who dislike the rights protected by the Constitution should either amend it or leave rather than treasonously ignore it except when convenient. Fortunately, the First Amendment does not protect inciting mob violence, and consequently no one—left, right or upside down—has any "right" to do so.