On Monday’s Countdown show, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann placed blame on FNC host Bill O’Reilly for inciting the recent murder of Dr. George Tiller, widely known for performing late-term abortions in Kansas. After showing a number of clips of O’Reilly and other FNC personalities attacking Tiller, Olbermann encouraged his viewers to request that businesses like restaurants that run FNC on their televisions change the channel because "Fox News Channel will never restrain itself from incitement to murder and terrorism – not until its profits begin to decline, when its growth stops." Referring to O’Reilly, he also declared that "the goal here, to get this blindly irresponsible man and his ilk off the air," and that "we must again make the world safe for people condemned by the Fox News Channel."
Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Monday, June 1, Countdown show on MSNBC:
KEITH OLBERMANN, IN OPENING TEASER: Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow? Domestic terrorism. Dr. George Tiller, women’s health physician, performer of legal abortions, is assassinated in his church. And in the very same sentence, anti-choice zealots wash their hands of his murder, and say he had it coming.
RANDALL TERRY, ANTI-ABORTION ACTIVIST: Pro-life leaders, the pro-life movement are not responsible for George Tiller’s death. George Tiller was a mass murderer, and, horrifically, he reaped what he sowed.
OLBERMANN: What he sowed? Or what right-wing extremists sowed.
BILL O’REILLY, FROM THE O’REILLY FACTOR: Dr. Tiller has blood on his hands.
OLBERMANN: The politics with Richard Wolffe. That advent of that which the Homeland Security Department warned, right-wing domestic terrorism, with Andrew Sullivan.
...
OLBERMANN, LATER IN OPENING TEASER: And when hate speech turns into murder, when phrases like "Dr. Tiller the Baby Killer" become network slogans. When there is a straight line between what was said on that network and that Kansas church.
O’REILLY: In the state of Kansas, there is a doctor, George Tiller, who will execute babies for $5,000.
OLBERMANN: The time has come to quarantine Fox News. All that and more now on Countdown.
O’REILLY: I wouldn’t want to be these people if there is a Judgement Day.
...
OLBERMANN, BEFORE COMMERCIAL BREAK AT 8:15 P.M.: The number of times the name and a distorted view of the work of Dr. George Tiller has been mentioned on one cable network was at least 28 in just four years. This, while the only thing not asked of the audience that heard the repetitive and cowardly and dangerous incitements against him was: Who will rid me of this meddlesome doctor? The assassination of Dr. Tiller and the responsibility and irresponsibility of the Fox News Channel.
...
OLBERMANN, DURING COMMERCIAL BREAK AT 8:16 P.M.: And culpability. A man demonized by a television network is murdered. The television network says we didn’t do it, television can’t influence what people do. Well, then, why the next thing you see will be a commercial trying to influence you to buy something. to ask you to buy something?
...
OLBERMANN, BEFORE COMMERCIAL BREAK AT 8:26 P.M., WITH A CLIP OF O’REILLY ON SCREEN: Without propaganda that rationalizes it, terrorism is impotent. Unfortunately, we have just this sort of propaganda without conscience. The responsibilities of the extreme far fight in the assassination of Dr. George Tiller.
...
OLBERMANN, BEFORE COMMERCIAL BREAK AT 8:32 P.M.: And words can kill. After domestic terror claims Dr. George Tiller, what the right-wing extremists of Fox have to answer for tonight, and what we can do peacefully to quiet them. You’re watching Countdown on MSNBC.
...
OLBERMANN, BEFORE COMMERCIAL BREAK AT 8:41 P.M.: Call a man a baby killer, a Nazi, like al-Qaeda, like Stalin, like Hitler, do it for four years. Then, the last part of the ingredient, act surprised when somebody shoots the man.
...
OLBERMANN, DURING COMMERCIAL BREAK AT 8:43 P.M.: A television channel that repeatedly branded those it criticized politically as baby killers, as executioners, as equivalents of Nazis, Hitler, Mao Zedong, al-Qaeda, Stalin. A television channel that repeatedly all but encouraged its viewers to commit a religious jihad against one of those it criticized. Something from the extremists in the Middle East, the product of fiction? No, it is elsewhere on your television, and it is time that it be stopped peacefully before it enables the death of another George Tiller.
...
OLBERMANN, AT 8:45 P.M.: When the incitement to assassinate comes across national television on 28 separate occasions, what to do when a man’s words help to kill, a suggestion next.
...
KEITH OLBERMANN: Finally tonight, our number one story and the very serious, very unsettling part the Fox News Channel played in the assassination of Dr. George Tiller, a horrifying realization that a television figure can be a facilitator for domestic terrorism
This was underscored, proved even, today when a man named Frank Schaeffer wrote for the Huffington Post that, as a former member of the anti-abortion, activist far right he believes he, quote, "shares the blame for the murder of Dr. Tiller," as we believe here does Fox News Channel.
Schaeffer followed his father Francis, an evangelist, into the field, each writing books. His father's was called A Christian Manifesto. "In certain passages, he advocated force if all other methods for rolling back the abortion ruling of Roe V. Wade failed. He compared America and its legalized abortion to Hitler’s Germany, and said that whatever tactics would have been morally justified in removing Hitler would be justified in trying to stop abortion."
"Like many writers of moral/political/religious theories, my father and I would have been shocked that someone took us at our word, walked into a Lutheran Church and pulled the trigger on an abortionist. But even if the murderer never read Dad’s or my words, we helped create the climate that made this murder likely to happen."
Of course, in this case, the murderer clearly heard the words from Fox News Channel, or, in the most benign of constructions, read the words of those who had heard the words from Fox News Channel. There's a comment thread from the Operation Rescue Web site from April and May 2007. I'm not implying these other posters had a hand in this. These are merely comments from readers about an anti-Tiller prayer event in Wichita. It begins with a post from April 6, asking: "Has Bill O'Reilly been invited to any of the Tiller events? And if so, what has been his reply? Has Fox News covered any of the events?"
There are two subsequent answers echoing the invitation. And then there is the ninth post from May 19, 2007, which reads "Bless," misspelled, "everyone for attending and praying in May to bring justice to Tiller and the closing of his death camp." That was posted by Scott Roeder. Scott Roeder is the name of the suspected terrorist who was arrested yesterday for assassinating Dr. George Tiller. And what were the kinds of things he and/or those around him heard about Dr. Tiller from Fox News?
O’REILLY CLIP #1: Killing babies in America, that's the subject of this evening’s "Talking Points Memo."
O’REILLY CLIP #2: For $5,000, "Tiller the Baby Killer" – as some call him – will perform a late-term abortion for just about any reason.
O’REILLY CLIP #3: You're okay with some woman being depressed executing her child hours before it's born?
JESSE WATTERS, PRODUCER FOR THE O'REILLY FACTOR, FOLLOWING A WOMAN: There's a lot of evidence there that he was performing illegal late-term abortions and covering up instances of child rape.
O’REILLY CLIP #4: You should be very disturbed by what continues to happen in Kansas. This man, Dr. George Tiller, known as "Tiller the Baby Killer," is performing late-term abortions without defining the specific medical reasons why.
LAURA INGRAHAM, ON FOX AND FRIENDS: Dr. George Tiller, who is one of the few doctors in the United States who performs the Hitlerian procedure known as a partial birth abortion.
O’REILLY CLIP #5: Tiller has killed thousands, thousands of late-term fetuses without explanation.
O’REILLY CLIP #6: No question, Dr. Tiller has blood on his hands.
O’REILLY CLIP #7: "Tiller the Baby Killer" out in Kansas, acquitted, acquitted today of murdering babies.
O’REILLY CLIP #8: There's got to be a special place in hell for this guy.
O’REILLY CLIP #9: This guy will kill your baby for $5,000, any reason. Any reason. You go in, you go, "The Glenn Beck Program upset me today, and I can't have the baby." Bang, you got five grand, he's taking them out.
OLBERMANN: For four years, on at least 28 occasions, that is what was said on Fox News Channel. Nazism, al-Qaeda, Hitler, Mao Zedung, Stalin, baby-killing, pedophilia, "Tiller the Baby Killer" – again and again and again. And tonight, confronted with the inevitable result of the instigation, the principal perpetrator at Fox News Channel made no acknowledgement of culpability, nor even regret. He said, "No backpedaling here. I report honesty. Everything we said about Tiller is true, and my analysis was based on those facts. It is clear that the far left is exploiting the death of the doctor. Those vicious individuals want to stifle any criticism of people like Tiller. That and hating Fox News is the real agenda here. ... If these people were so compassionate, so very compassionate, so concerned for the rights and welfare of others, maybe they might have written something, on things, about the 60,000 fetuses who will never become American citizens."
It is useless to urge restraint on men who believe self-editing of freedom of speech should apply only to others that they are flawless and blameless and righteous. It is useless to make Frank Schaeffer’s argument to them even though they have made parallel ones about how liberal television degrades children, about how liberal television hypnotizes voters, about how liberal entertainment destroys American values. When they reply, "Not in this case, bad apple, TV can't make that happen," it is useless to say if TV can't make something happen, then why do people advertise on it with the same commercial again and again and again in hopes of making buzz words sink in? The Geico gecko, "Viva Viagra," FreeCreditReport.com, "Tiller the Baby Killer." Don't tell them. They will not listen.
We know this because of the case earlier this year of a Fox News commentator named Bernard Goldberg. In February, it was revealed that last July before he walked into a Unitarian church in Tennessee and opened fire during a children's play, Jim David Adkisson had written a note of explanation. "This was a symbolic killing," he said. "Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate and the House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book."
That 2005 book was called the 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America. And on the list was everybody from Al Gore to Anna Nicole Smith. Mr. Goldberg did not even offer as much as his regrets, never mind offer his resignation. His employer Fox News responded to reporting that placed the books of several of its hosts in Adkisson’s home by sending one of the same producers who stalked the late Dr. Tiller to stalk the reporter who’d had the nerve to link that network to the two people killed by Adkisson in Tennessee.
So what to do? Viewer boycotts mean little. You are already here. You are not watching Fox News Channel. Advertiser boycotts are also of limited value. Most make barely a dent in a company. Besides which, in this economy, an advertiser that found its sales boosted by association with malaria would start breeding mosquitoes. If there is a solution, it is perhaps an indirect boycott. It is probably your experience, as it has been mine, that stores, bars, restaurants, waiting rooms, often show Fox News on their televisions. Don't write a letter, don’t make a threat, just get up and explain if they will not change the channel, leave the place and say calmly why it is you are taking your business elsewhere. If you know a viewer of that channel, show them this tape or just the tape of the attacks on Dr. Tiller that set the stage for his assassination. Fox News Channel will never restrain itself from incitement to murder and terrorism. Not until its profits begin to decline, when its growth stops. So, not so much as a boycott here as a quarantine because this has got to stop.
That I have a commercial conflict of interest here is obvious, so I'll make the first symbolic contribution to this quarantine. One of my pleasures obviously is constantly criticizing him in that Ted Baxter voice. It is the idea of laughter, as a social sanction against inflexible behavior. But this is no time for laughter. This is serious. Serious as death. As serious as George Tiller's death. So as of this show's end, I will retire the name and the photograph and the caricature. The words may still be quoted in the future as developments dictate. But the goal here is to get this blindly irresponsible man and his ilk off the air. We're only in the television news business, a profession that is at times about two inches up from carnival barking. We must again separate it, television from terrorism. And we must again make the world safe for people condemned by the Fox News Channel. That's Countdown for this, the 2,223rd day since the previous President declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. I’m Keith Olbermann. Good night and good luck.
—Brad Wilmouth is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
BILL, SUE THIS PUKE BAG ALREADY FOR SLANDER
June 1, 2009 - 20:49 ET by Lord ErondJust do it already.
"Let him who would move the world, first move himself." -Socrates
"We sit together, the mountain and I, until only the mountain remains." -Li Po
he would
June 2, 2009 - 00:06 ET by dr_devil_dogif he thought he had a case.
Slander
June 2, 2009 - 08:03 ET by allanfIt is nearly impossible for a "public figure" to win a libel or slander action. The bar was set very high by the US Supreme Court to protect speech.
...
June 1, 2009 - 20:50 ET by EugeniaThis fat-headed nitwit at MSNBC is just doing his usual schtick to be relevant to his dozen wacko viewers. He has to glom onto O'Reilly's success to even have a show. He's as pathetic as his diatribes.
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything."
-- GK Chesterton
mirror mirror
June 1, 2009 - 22:28 ET by 24enak"he has to glom onto O'Reilly's success to even have a show." Hello look in the mirror this is what this whole website does, glom onto other news outlets and ridicule them.
Tried and Failed
June 1, 2009 - 20:57 ET by TexndocPfft. He's tried and failed for years to make a dent in FoxNews ratings. Yawn.
What I don't understand is why Conservatives even bother to be interviewed on that network. Not Olbermann's show, but occasionally Chris Matthews will have a Kay Bailey Hutchison or somebody. I've had it - they should boycott completely, as the entire network has launched into rubber-room and straight-jacket status. And ...NO ONE's WATCHING.
I blame ...
June 1, 2009 - 21:01 ET by ArchConservativeI blame the deaths of hundreds of thousands of babies on Olbermann and NBC and Matthews, et. al. I blame the deaths of 1000s of Vietnam-era armed forces personnel on Cronkite. I blame the death of a certain young woman on Sen. Kennedy. I blame Sen. Byrd (d-WV) for the terrorism he foisted on minorities when he was a Klansman. I blame race based hate and violence on Rangel and Jesse Jackson and Sharpton.
You support the troops by supporting the mission! If you don't support the mission, have the guts to say you don't support the troops.
Obama: Not my President. Ever.
Well said.
June 1, 2009 - 21:07 ET by Radical1979Well said.
The fact that Kieth Olbermann
June 1, 2009 - 21:02 ET by nwahsThe fact that Kieth Olbermann would pick the bones of a murder victim for political fodder is reason enough he should be fired. But he won't be, and of course its wrong. The price of freedom is the company of idiots.
I didn't leave the Republican party, they kicked me out.
Oh, Olby you're so right!!!
June 1, 2009 - 21:04 ET by NC CopSo I guess the rabid, anti-military, left wing is responsible for the murder of the soldier outside of the recruiting center by the Muslim convert who hated the military, right???
Can't wait to see Olbermann the hypocrite write that one off.
What a scumbag.
incendiary language
June 1, 2009 - 21:26 ET by nicholas nicklebyNC Cop,
On one hand, you may have a point--incendiary langauge may lead to certain unhinged people taking the law into their own hands. With that in mind, I think we should strive to remain civil and remember that our actions may have reverberations beyond what we plan.
On the other hand, you're comparing O'Reilly specifically picking out Tiller and dedicating 30+ segments to what a terrible person he is to ... what? If you can find me one--JUST ONE--example of someone on MSNBC singling out this recruiter, then maybe you could compare. Or okay, let's make the case broader: what have people on MSNBC (or on the left more broadly) said that was bad about soldiers?
See, NC Cop, I'm pretty left, but I'm also pro-military--I have a bunch of family and friends in the military, so I care about soldiers. And I don't see a lot of spitting on soldiers on the left--that may have been a Vietnam-era thing, but these days, everyone I know wants our soldiers to be safe.
Now, that said, I don't watch a lot of MSNBC or other tv news, so maybe you could point me to some example of some on-air pundit making the case against our soldiers that O'Reilly made against Tiller. Any examples would be good for this conversation.
It is not about O'Reilly,
June 1, 2009 - 22:37 ET by kgIt is not about O'Reilly, Tiller or soldiers. It is about nut cases that years ago were locked up because they posed a danger to society. It's about the left forcing these people on the streets because their rights might be violated. It is about unintended consequences of actions not directly related. It is about the deterioration of society that is being pushed hard upon society by the left.
"DumbAssity of Dope"
what?
June 1, 2009 - 23:03 ET by nicholas nicklebyKG, I agree that nut-cases are a problem--and will find any pretext to do something crazy. But I'm not sure what history of the mentally ill that you're looking at, but most of the big closures happened because of funding reasons, not rights issues. I don't think it was exactly a left-right issue.
Tiller got so much attention
June 1, 2009 - 22:46 ET by GrannyGrump42Tiller got so much attention because of many factors, not the least of which was that Tiller himself was a media whore. He cultivated a high profile for himself.
Then there's the fact that even among abortionists he was a particularly deplorable specimen.
Add to that the whole born-alive babies brouhaha surrounding Obama's candidacy -- with Tiller being the most high profile purveyor of post-viability abortions.
A perfect storm of media attention.
But then John Salvi shot up an obscure New England abortion facility when his train derailed. So there's no reason to believe that every nut who will shoot somebody picks the person or place getting the most media attention.
Sure GG42
June 1, 2009 - 23:11 ET by nicholas nicklebyI'm not going to argue about this right now--my point was that the above commenter said that the situations were the same: that the left was focused on how awful soldiers are, the same way that O'Reilly focused on how awful Tiller was. Now, I asked for some evidence of how the left has been mean to soldiers. I don't think there is. (I may be wrong about that, but I'm on the left, many of my family and friends are liberals, and we're all pro-military. The idea that the left is somehow against soldiers is some weird baby boomer, Vietnam-era thing.)
Now, that point stands whether or not Tiller was a perfect storm of media attention--the fact is that the O'Reilly paid a lot of attention to what this man was doing and how it was wrong, and that there's no comparison with what liberals say about soldiers.
(And Tiller may have been a fan of the spotlight--but that doesn't mean that O'Reilly had to spend 30+ segments on him. O'Reilly is a grown man, he can make his own decisions about what to focus on.)
Nick, you been in a hole since 2002?
June 2, 2009 - 00:56 ET by Captain Kirock"Now, I asked for some evidence of how the left has been mean to soldiers. I don't think there is."
You didn't see any of the anti-war protests for the last 7 years, did you?
Since you and The K.O. Kid are so quick to blame BOR, where's your evidence that Tiller's killer even wacthed BOR's show?
oh, anti-war protests--and here I thought they were anti-WAR
June 2, 2009 - 01:38 ET by nicholas nicklebyCaptain,
This is some weird baby boomer Vietnam flashback stuff going on all over the internet tonight--it's like you guys remember the "Hey hey LBJ, How many kids did you kill today?" chant and can't get it out of your heads.
Captain, the anti-war protests of the last 7 years have been anti-WAR, not anti-soldier. (With one exception that I can vaguely remember--some professor saying that he hoped soldiers died. It was someting like that.) So, except for that one example that I provided, can you provide any evidence of anti-soldier activity or rhetoric?
As for blaming O'Reilly for the death of Tiller, I never did--I merely pointed out that O'Reilly's anti-Tiller segments have no equivalent anti-soldier rants on the left. If you have evidence to the contrary, please link.
Nick, the only one stuck in the 60s here is you
June 2, 2009 - 02:26 ET by Captain KirockThe list of the Left's insults to US soldiers is too lengthy to list here. A few that stand out:
1. Kos saying he was glad private security guards (all ex-US military) were killed in Iraq and their bodies mutilated.
2. A columnist for the LATimes stating that he did not support the troops, nor the mission.
3. Newsweek printing false allegations of US soldiers flushing the Koran in Gitmo.
4. Murtha's various slanders against the Haditha Marines.
5. Dick Durbin comparing our soldiers to Nazis.
6. John Kerry claiming that US soldiers were attacking Iraqi civilians "in the dark of night."
7. Any Code Pink protest. Their recent attacks on the Marine recruiting office in Berkeley is a good example of their hatred for all things military.
8. Inaccurate reports that circulated a few years ago that the US military had been responsible for nearly 600,000 civilian deaths in Iraq, which most of the media gleefully reported without question.
9. The "General Betray-us" slander, which started on the blogs, made its way to the K.O. Kid's show and eventually became a talking point for Senate Democrats.
Is that enough for you?
a good list, Capt.--could you provide links?
June 2, 2009 - 02:46 ET by nicholas nicklebyCaptain,
Off the top of my head, I know that Kos and Durbin both retracted and apologized for their statements (and Durbin didn't really compare the troops to Nazis--he said that if you heard about some of the actions, you would think they were done by Nazis, in the Soviet gulags, or by Pol Pot); Kerry actually said that there's no reason for our troops to be going in the dead of night and terrorizing women and children; and the General Betray-us ad was roundly condemned by many liberals and Democrats (what do you mean it became a talking point?); but I'd be interested in reading more about these--could you provide links? I mean, who is this LATimes columnist? What did Code Pink do? Last I checked, they tend to protest within the strictures of the law, with the occasional vandalism--just like anti-abortion activists protest mostly within the law, with the occasional vandalism.
[Edit to add: That's off the top of my head, but if you're interested, I could find links tomorrow.]
Not buying it Nick
June 2, 2009 - 12:46 ET by Captain KirockSorry Nick, but I'm not buying your excuses for Kos, Durbin, or Kerry. Their first instincts were to blame the soldiers and accuse them of all sorts of crimes. When the facts were unclear and things were uncertain, they attacked and were not able to give our soldiers the benefit of the doubt. And no, they were not attacking a policy. They (along with Murtha) were attacking specific soldiers.
I do recall Durbin apologizing on the Senate floor, but I do not recall Kos or Kerry apologizing. (Oh yeah, Kerry also told a group of students that they better go to school, or else they would end up in Iraq, implying that only stupid people joined the military.)
I'm not sure about Kos, but I am certain that Kerry never apologized for his comments on Face the Nation.
buy, don't buy--I'm just pointing to differences btw products
June 2, 2009 - 13:40 ET by nicholas nicklebyCapt,
I didn't say Kerry apologized--I said that he didn't really say what people accused him of saying. As for Kos, I just reread his explanation for his statements, and I wouldn't call it an apology ( http://www.dailykos.... ), but the fact of the matter is he wasn't talking about the troops--he was talking about mercenaries.
As for them "attacking specific soldiers"--that doesn't make sense. Look at it this way: O'Reilly mentioned Tiller by name--what soldiers did Durbin mention by name? Or Murtha? (I'm still not recalling what he said, so if you could point me to it, that would be great.)
Or think of it this way: Durbin said something, regretted it, apologized. O'Reilly said something, a man has been shot, and all O'Reilly can say now is that he's being targeted by people who hate him.
If you can't see the difference between those two scenarios, then you're not really looking. (Now, to be clear, I wouldn't say O'Reilly is responsible for the killing of Tiller, but I think his style of talking about the issue is one that doesn't help political debate. And, as he himself said, when people stop trying to change things politically and start trying to change things violently, then you've got the end of the nation as we know it.)
I'm not sure what your point is here
June 2, 2009 - 16:52 ET by Captain KirockI was merely pointing out that some people on the Left in this country hate the military and routinely target the military with scorn and ridicule.
The guys Kos was talking about were not mercenaries. Do you consider security guards mercenaries? How about people who provide private security for public events? Are they also mercenaries? Is it ok for them to be killed and then have their bodies burned and hung from lamp posts?
Kos thought it was good. As a matter of fact he took pleasure in what happened to those Americans.
Do you feel the same way Nick?
By your response you seem to think it's ok to murder these people as long as you can tag them "mercenaries."
scorn and ridicule vs. "If I could get my hands on Tiller"
June 2, 2009 - 17:25 ET by nicholas nicklebyCaptain,
I don't think you're totally wrong about some military service being held up to scorn; for instance, Kerry's statement about staying in school so you don't go to Iraq was certainly painting the military option as the worse of the two, which could be construed as scorn. (Of course, considering Kerry's military service, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt--but I certainly see why you would say that.)
But this scorn and ridicule is a long way from the things O'Reilly said, which could be seen as incitement to violence (not in a legal sense, I want to be clear). For instance, Bill O'Reilly said, "And if I could get my hands on Tiller -- well, you know." That seems pretty different to me from Kerry's statement about staying in school--I think it's much easier to imagine someone hearing O'Reilly and being violent towards Tiller than it is to imagine someone hearing Kerry (or Kos) and being violent towards soldiers.
As for Kos's remarks on mercenaries, I don't necessarily agree--I don't really like when anyone dies who doesn't need to--but I can see his point: there's a difference between someone sacrificing something for their country or community, and someone doing a job. I mean, there's a reason why we give Purple Hearts to soldiers but not to security guards at the mall.
(Now, you see, your argument would be valid if some shooter listened to Kos and went after mercenaries. But since this shooter went over soldiers, I don't think it works, unless you want to argue that Kos created an environment in which the distinction was unclear. Which would be odd, since Kos's whole point is that there is a distinction.)
So I will assume
June 2, 2009 - 17:46 ET by Captain KirockSo I will assume that you're ok with former American soldiers now working as security guards being killed and Kos taking pleasure from that. After all (accoring to your's and Kos' reasoning), they were just doing a job and being paid money to do something controversial. They were not heroes to their country. Their deaths are regretable, but it's ok to take pleasure from that because you don't agree with the Iraq War.
Using this same faulty reasoning, am I to assume that you are also ok with the killing of Tiller? After all, he was just doing a job and being paid money to do something controversial. It's not like Tiller was a hero to his country or something. His loss is regretable but it's ok to take pleasure from it becuase you don't agree with late term abortions.
I must say that I find your reasoning rather extraordinary.
uh...
June 2, 2009 - 19:00 ET by nicholas nicklebySo I will assume that you're ok with former American soldiers now working as security guards being killed
I'm not sure where you get that since I wrote this:
"I don't really like when anyone dies who doesn't need to"
I'm not sure I can make it plainer to you Captain, if you missed that. (Hmm--maybe that "who doesn't need to" is confusing? I meant that some deaths seem to be unpreventable, as when doctors note that "it's just someone's time.")
Also, I didn't say anything about controversy making things okay. In fact, Kos also doesn't say that controversy makes death ok--he's merely pointing out that there's a difference between soldiers and soldiers-of-fortune. It's like what Twain said: there's a difference between lightning and the lightning bug.
If you'd like to continue to make up arguments and put them in my mouth, I can't stop you. If you're genuinely confused about the point I'm making, I wish you asked a question.
And lastly, if you actually want to refute my arguments about there being a difference between O'Reilly singling out Tiller and saying "If I could get my hands on Tiller..." and Kos saying that he doesn't like mercenaries, please do. If you can make an argument that somehow connects Kos to the recent shooting, please do. I'm interested to hear your argument, if you care to share it.
That's the difference between us, Nick
June 2, 2009 - 19:18 ET by Captain KirockI see both situations as terrible tragedies for their families.
You and Kos see the murders of the ex-US servicemen in Iraq as almost justified, as they were serving a policy you do not support.
Don't worry, you're not alone. Some on this site feel the same way about Tiller's murder. I'm not one of them, though.
You keep harping on O'Reilly. What proof do you have that Tiller's killer was motivated by O'Reilly's show? Or are you just assuming that all right wing crazies watch Fox News 24/7?
Captain...If they're
June 2, 2009 - 20:01 ET by JerCaptain...
If they're news junkies, like Tim McVeigh, I doubt they're watching MSNBC. And O'Reilly's on three times a day. [Although I think some of BOR's remarks about Tiller crossed the line, I do not hold him responsible. The murderer of Tiller is responsible.]
By the way, let me just echo something Nick posted earlier in the thread. Yes, there are some jerks on the left who don't like the military, but I and every one of my "liberal" friends have nothing but total respect and admiration for the US military and all of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who serve here and around the world. This notion of the left being predominantly comprised of a bunch of America haters who detest any and all things even remotely involving our military is a terrible misperception.
Jer
Unfortunately, Jer . . .
June 2, 2009 - 20:45 ET by Captain Kirock. . . most of the leaders and opinion makers for the Left are decidedly anti-military. Harry Reed, Dick Durbin, and Nancy Pelosi all have publicly displayed a notable animus towards our military. Other leading Lefties like Kos, Move On.org, The Nation, and Code Pink have expressed outright hostility towards the military. I know they don't speak for all of the Left, but they rarely come under fire from their fellow liberals when they attack the military.
As for O'Reilly, I seriously doubt he had any influence on Tiller's killer. From what I understand, the killer has been on the warpath against abortionists since at least 1996, when he was arrested with bomb making equipment in his car. I'm not sure if Fox News even existed then.
Hell, just the city of San
June 2, 2009 - 21:09 ET by BDHell, just the city of San Francisco ALONE says it all....
An exaggerated
June 2, 2009 - 21:17 ET by JerAn exaggerated cariacature...my sister and brother-in-law are Marin County libs who say differently.
Jer
Please don't hammer me with that 83% again. I concede. :-)
Exagerated? Is it normal
June 2, 2009 - 21:38 ET by BDExagerated?
Is it normal to demand the ouster of all recruters from the schools?
Is it normal to demand the removal of recruiting stations?
Closure of a voluntary Junior ROTC program in the schools?
Prohibit the display of the USS Iowa at the waterfront?
Request the navy NOT participate in fleet week?
Demand the closure of the US army facilities in the metropolitan area?
And finally. Have you ever BEEN IN UNIFORM IN SAN FRANCISCO? I have. Least freindly reception I have ever faced.
→ WOW BD
June 2, 2009 - 21:41 ET by Cool ArrowMaybe it's not normal, but I can see where it might give a convert to Islam the idea he should shoot a recruiter.
"The only reason Clarence Thomas is on the court is because he's black". - Joe Biden
If all the demands and
June 2, 2009 - 21:59 ET by JerIf all the demands and requests you mention represent the prevailing opinion of the San Francisco citizenry and were enacted in accordance with the majority view, then I would, with great reluctance and dispair, feel compelled to agree.
Jer
Not in uniform in SF, but frequently in TN and GA during the Vietnam era, and never experienced any disrespect of any kind.
We must assume those
June 2, 2009 - 22:19 ET by BDWe must assume those demands were the prevailing opinion of the SF community otherwise they would have been squelched by the residents. One or two of them would represent an aberation (maybe a school board with a couple of loopy members etc) but the totality represents a different story.
The residents of San Francisco are simply anti-military.
I too have spent much time in GA and TN in uniform and unlike my reception in San Francisco, I found it to be a bonus and allowed me to fit in in those communities with little friction. In fact, I fit in better wearing BDU's than people in suits.
Captain K
June 2, 2009 - 21:13 ET by JerI strongly disagree that most are, but will stipulate there are enough knuckleheaded statements made that the impression is conveyed and it infuriates me.
Reid and Pelosi are inept, incompetent and should be booted from their leadership positions. But I haven't seen any evidence of an anti-military animus. Durbin made a clumsy analogy, was caught in a sh!tstorm, and appropriately apologized. The MoveOn ad was a shameful, extraordinarily dumb move, as was Kos' remark, Ted Rall's cartoons, A. Whitney Brown's unfunny diary at dKos, all of which I have personally blasted here at NB because they are neither representative of my view nor that--I am convinced--of the majority of Democrats. Code Pinkos are fringe nutjobs and The Nation [at least when I was reading it years ago] is a socialist rag.
We libs either served in the military, or have friends or relatives in the military. [I spent six years in the Army Reserve and my dad was a WWII combat veteran...my first cousin a Viet war vet]. Believe me, most of us respect the military and honor all of those who serve.
Jer
Seems like Fox News started around 1997. May be off a couple of years.
→ Thanks, Jer
June 2, 2009 - 21:23 ET by Cool ArrowAnd let's not forget John Murtha. I even linked to MSNBC for ya'.
Of course, Murtha is a lying sack of dung, and he never apologized for attempting to taint the case.
"The only reason Clarence Thomas is on the court is because he's black". - Joe Biden
See, there you go
June 2, 2009 - 21:24 ET by general companyPosting something with some common sense and insight. So if begs the question: if these folks represent your party, are in-fact the heart of your party, why are you still a liberal?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
general company
June 2, 2009 - 21:42 ET by JerBecause the progressive bloggers, talking heads and media hacks trying to outdo and outshout each other to get noticed are farther left than the majority of Democrats. I consider myself a centrist or slightly left of center Democrat, but on the NB spectrum that puts me squarely in the liberal camp so I just go with that.
Jer
I was just being a
June 2, 2009 - 23:12 ET by general companySmart a$$ anyway, but these are your folks. Your party revers them, I am at a loss as to why?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Evenin' Jer
June 2, 2009 - 21:51 ET by RESTLESS 1Boy, this has to be the longest resignation from a blog in modern history. ;) (just kidding, glad you're still here).
But, speaking of Ted Rall.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Restless...
June 2, 2009 - 22:08 ET by JerOuch! ;-)
Remember when Kareem Abdul-Jabbar announced his retirement from the NBA and every city in the league staged elaborate good-bye ceremonies for him, and then he decided to play another year?
...well, blame Dan the Man. He's signing off his posts with "Jer-gate Day 10" [as of today] He holds the key to the exit door which he can use at any time.
Jer
→ Farewell Lew
June 2, 2009 - 22:15 ET by Cool ArrowAlcindor, we hardly knew ye'.
"The only reason Clarence Thomas is on the court is because he's black". - Joe Biden
Have to admit
June 2, 2009 - 22:38 ET by general companyI was a little concerned about the post you made to Coco earlier. : ]
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Ted Rall
June 2, 2009 - 22:20 ET by JerOh, and about Ted Rall...
I hate to say "I told you so", but I told you so. Being the political genius that I am, I predicted that the progressives would begin attacking Obama's left flank once they realized he would never govern from the outer reaches of the ideological spectrum where they are firmly perched. That's where they want him to be and the right claims him to be but it ain't where he is.
Jer
Jer,
June 2, 2009 - 22:31 ET by RESTLESS 1I just wonder what chrissie and olbernotaman will have to say about rall.
Ideologically, the 0 is as far left as can be, but politically, he knows he can't get away with it. Socialising our private enterprises, nominating a racist judge, possibly orchestrating a govt. takeover of health care is a good lean to the left for the first 120 or so days.
As for Afghanistan, the main 'plaint from these "progressives", he knows damn well that he must stave off a major attack or start packing his bags, so he does what he thinks is just enough in dealing with the threat of terrorists. Then, when he thinks he has the based covered, the norks start testing nukes, the Iranians thumb their nose at him, and Israel may just unleash hell on Iran and Syria sooner rather than later. He deals with these things by going on a "date night" with Michelle.
I'll grant that he's in a tough situation, but it is one of his own making.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Agree Jer
June 2, 2009 - 22:43 ET by Captain KirockAs much as I dislike him, Harry Reid was an excellent minority leader. He ran circles around majority leader Bill Frist and may have chased Frist out of politics all together.
As a majority leader, Reid is a disaster. He almost always seems off message now, and out of step with the President. It's one thing to lead the minority, it's an entirely different thing to run the Senate.
As for Pelosi, well, she's just plain nuts.
Captain K...
June 2, 2009 - 22:54 ET by JerWhen I watched Reid come out on the Capitol steps and joke "my staff told me not to say this, but you can actually smell the tourists waiting in line..." that closed the case for me.
Jer
Jersey Devil
June 3, 2009 - 00:32 ET by jerseydevelNick
You write -
But this scorn and ridicule is a long way from the things O'Reilly said, which could be seen as incitement to violence (not in a legal sense, I want to be clear). For instance, Bill O'Reilly said, "And if I could get my hands on Tiller -- well, you know."
"...could be seen as incitement..." ??? Cut me a break.
Just like Olbermann (6/1/09) blaming O'Reilly for inciting this act... Yeah.
This speaks to the ubiquitous failure in liberal thought. Denial to take personal responsibility.
With exception to those not psychologically present, every individual holds in his own possession - and attributable to no other - the capacity to make a decision. To make a choice. The RESPONSIBILITY, the moral and ethical integrity to make that choice, right vs. wrong, resides with no other. The responsibility in the choice taken to execute an act (good or bad) is the sole responsibilty of the individual making the choice. These faux arguments of blaming others is total BS.
jerseydevel
June 3, 2009 - 01:01 ET by JerYou were here when the Michael Savage recording was posted--and remains so--in which he holds Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein personally responsible for the death of the four officers in Oakland.
There was not a single objection from the site's conservatives. All who commented on it applauded Savage.
Why not look it up and make the same observation you have posted above.
Jer
Yeah, personally I wish
June 2, 2009 - 06:34 ET by GrannyGrump42Yeah, personally I wish O'Reilly had featured a different Deplorable Abortionist in each segment. I could have provided him with an Abortionist of the Week for months on end, and he'd never have run out of sordid stories.
We can start with Warren Hern, who chews his fellow abortionists out in private for being dangerous quacks, then publicly fights safety regulations on the grounds that there are no dangerous quacks practicing abortion.
How about 47 continuous
June 2, 2009 - 20:36 ET by BDHow about 47 continuous cover stories regarding Grainger and his cronies at Abu Ghraib in the New York Times?
oh, did someone shoot Granger?
June 2, 2009 - 20:58 ET by nicholas nicklebyBD, in order for your argument to hold, somebody would have to shoot (or attack) Granger and friends. Do you see the difference?
O'Reilly pointed out Tiller as an evil man--someone shoots Tiller. (I'm not arguing that O'Reilly is legally culpable, but I think this shows the power of certain words.)
The NYT talks about Granger--.... where's the second part? Wasn't he found guilty and is now serving his term?
Or do you want to argue that murdering Tiller is comparable to charging Granger with a crime? Because, frankly, I think it's easy to see that one is an act of vigilantism, the other is an act of law. (You might argue that the law in either case is not just or fair, but then your responsibility as a moral citizen is to try to change the law--not to act outside of it.)
Little thick there arnt you
June 2, 2009 - 21:13 ET by general companyHe was comparing the responsibility of the Times towards our troops being attact, with Oberdude claims the BOR is responsible for Tiller. I understand you dont think the Times should ever be held to account, but there it is. Thank me
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
held to account
June 2, 2009 - 22:06 ET by nicholas nicklebyso GC, do you think that the NY Times should be held to account for increasing attacks on US forces?
Do you think that O'Reilly should be held to account for increasing attacks on Tiller?
I think the Times
June 2, 2009 - 22:52 ET by general companyWent out of there way to subvert the war effort using a handful of bad apples, the troops that really suffered had nothing to do with it. But the Times didnt care, they had an agenda that had very little to do with winning a measly little war, or protecting our troops and this country.
I think BOR was concerned as I am about the illegal actions of abortion clinics in general and Tillers specifically. He was also concerned that rapist were going free.
Do I equate one to the other? NO not by a long shot. BOR had a very ligitiment concern. The Times had very little justification, and not just about Abu Grab either.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
so..
June 2, 2009 - 23:04 ET by nicholas nicklebyThanks for the clear response, GC, but just to make sure I have it down:
The NYT has an agenda and over-emphasized the story, but O'Reilly has a legitimate concern--and that's the difference between them.
I'm uncomfortable with that becaus, well, you know the old saying, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"?
So, O'Reilly may have had legitimate concerns--did he go about expressing those concerns in the best way possible? Don't you think saying things like "he has blood on his hands" might give someone the wrong idea? If one is concerned about illegal actions, well, you call the cops. (O'Reilly does, after all, have quite a few people working for him, some of whom do specialize in following people to get interviews--why not get someone to follow Tiller and catch him in an illegal act? Wouldn't that make more sense if you were worried about illegal actions?)
Look I gave you my thoughts
June 3, 2009 - 00:19 ET by general companyWhat are yours, is every critisim hate speach now?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
I have to give you my thoughts...
June 3, 2009 - 09:04 ET by nicholas nickleby... because if I don't give you my thoughts, you'll assume something wrong.
I didn't ever say anything about "hate speech," GC. I simply point out that when you call someone Tiller the Killer for 30+ segments and what Tiller is doing is legal, you may be inciting some people to take the law into their own hands.
Being that Grainger et al
June 2, 2009 - 21:14 ET by BDBeing that Grainger et al are still in custody, their fates are not linked. And their fates were NOT linked to the NYT coverage as the prosecution was ongoing prior to the coverage (We in the military take care of our own. If they are bad, we handle it FAR BETTER than our civilian counterparts.
BUT, as we know the uproar from the 47 covers and OVER coverage of the press DID lead to increased attacks on US forces in theater. THose attacks DID lead to dead comrades.
Sorry BD
June 2, 2009 - 21:35 ET by general companyI probably shouldnt had spoken for you, but it seemed very obvious.
The tactic of suggesting so many hypotheticals in a simple statement is annoying.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Hey, no sweat
June 2, 2009 - 21:40 ET by BDHey, no sweat
wait, BD, are you saying what I think you're saying?
June 2, 2009 - 22:04 ET by nicholas nicklebyBD,
You seem to be saying that the NYT coverage of Abu Ghraib abuse led to increased attacks on US forces overseas. Do I have that right?
So, would it be fair to say that you believe that words have consequences?
If so, do you think that O'Reilly's words had some consequences in the case of Tiller's murder?
THe New York Times sets the
June 2, 2009 - 22:28 ET by BDTHe New York Times sets the standard from the rest of the media. If they cover a story, the rest of the press will usually use its stories via the AP feed which most NYT stories are fed to. Thus they unduly influence coverage. A single story in the NYT will appear in hundreds of newspapers world wide whereas a story in the Fargo Forum will not.
O'Reilly does not have that influence.
ah...
June 2, 2009 - 22:55 ET by nicholas nicklebyBD,
You seem to be saying that the NYT is responsible because they have a big audience while O'Reilly can't be held responsible because he has a little audience. Is that a fair re-statement of your position?
But what if it turns out that Scott Roeder was one of Bill O'Reilly's audience? In that case, would you say that O'Reilly shares some measure of responsibility?
→ So what Nickles?
June 2, 2009 - 23:04 ET by Cool ArrowAnd what if John Hinckley shot somebody to impress Jodi Foster?
Lock her up too?
No, wait! Lock up Robert DeNiro whom Hinckley tried to emulate.
"The only reason Clarence Thomas is on the court is because he's black". - Joe Biden
ha
June 2, 2009 - 23:14 ET by nicholas nicklebyno offense, Cool, but you see how silly that argument is? Jodie Foster did nothing to incite Hinckley--she didn't say "Will no one rid me of that meddlesome president!" or anything comparable.
(That quote, by the way, is a joking reference to Thomas a Becket's assassination.)
→ I knew that
June 2, 2009 - 23:20 ET by Cool ArrowJudges would have accepted "turbulent priest" as well.
But that's why I included DeNiro. He's the one who gave Hinckley the idea.
"The only reason Clarence Thomas is on the court is because he's black". - Joe Biden
:)
June 2, 2009 - 23:37 ET by nicholas nicklebynice, CA (I like "meddlesome" because you can almost imagine Henry as some Scooby-Doo villain)--I said where it was from because I didn't want you thinking "that's an odd way for him to say that."
Now, onto the disagreement: I still think there's a difference because no one in the movie actually shoots or even mentions shooting the president. (Although I haven't seen it in a while!) I also think it takes someone really crazy to get caught up in a movie like that, but O'Reilly has a news show--you don't have to be totally crazy to get worked up over news, am I right?
Now, I assume you think the idea of locking up De Niro is ridiculous--I agree with that. To be clear, I also think the idea of locking up O'Reilly over this is ridiculous--in both cases, there's no legal culpability. I do, however, think that O'Reilly's language can occasionally be inflammatory, and I wouldn't mind it if he emphasized the "vigiliantism is not ok" line a little more. The truly crazy people are always going to find something to go crazy over, right? But I don't think we should make it easy for them--and for the rest of us, a little less inflammatory language in our news might not be so bad.
As I've said before, I come here in part to see what other people believe, but also just to remind myself (and them) that people can disagree politically and still remain fully human in each other's eyes. Now that's a digression--back to the disagreement!
→ I agree Nick
June 2, 2009 - 23:45 ET by Cool ArrowI'd lock up Dustin Hoffman for Ishtar, but all DeNiro did was portray a guy who seemed to work himself into the mindset of an assassin.
Don't guess there are any real-life examples of loons taking cue from a stupid movie script.
I gues it was a little farfetched
"The only reason Clarence Thomas is on the court is because he's black". - Joe Biden
Cool (or Nick)...
June 3, 2009 - 00:06 ET by JerA lawsuit was brought against Oliver Stone alleging Natural Born Killers had incited a murder committed by someone who had seen the excessively violent film. I believe it was either dismissed or overturned on appeal.
The leading case involving the vicarious liability of one inciting violence was the Metzger case in Oregon. A jury verdict awarded the plaintiff 12 million dollars in civil damages, finding that Metzger, a rabid white supremacist, had encouraged violence against minorities and the perpetrators had essentially acted as his agents when they murdered a young black man. The case has been heavily criticized.
Do you know if there have been any successful cases involving inflammatory song lyrics?
Jer
BTW...Ishtar quip....funny
→ Not offhand, Jer
June 3, 2009 - 00:11 ET by Cool ArrowLet's call Sharon Tate and see if she can help us.
"The only reason Clarence Thomas is on the court is because he's black". - Joe Biden
You seem to be saying that
June 3, 2009 - 06:29 ET by BDYou seem to be saying that the NYT is responsible because they have a big audience while O'Reilly can't be held responsible because he has a little audience. Is that a fair re-statement of your position?
But what if it turns out that Scott Roeder was one of Bill O'Reilly's audience? In that case, would you say that O'Reilly shares some measure of responsibility?
oooookay
June 3, 2009 - 09:01 ET by nicholas nicklebyThe New York Times sets itself up as the "Paper of Record"
Yeah, but doesn't O'Reilly brag about his influence? Doesn't he also run a news show? I mean, when you say he's "simply a commentator" I'm not sure what the other options are--it reminds me of when people say Limbaugh is just an entertainer. That is, you're right that O'Reilly is not, say, a politician, but he's also not a stand-up commedian--he may not be making laws, but he's commenting on real life things.
Just to be clear, I don't think he's legally culpable, any more than Cramer (of Mad Money) is legally culpable when people lose money following his advice. (Of course, when that happens, his feet get held to the fire a little.) But I think that there is some responsibility in both--not because of what O'Reilly talked about, but because of how he talked about it. You can debate abortion without declaring what he did illegal (since late-term abortions are legal, and since there was no evidence that he was performing illegal acts--and if he was performing illegal acts, why didn't O'Reilly show proof of that? Or find proof of that--doesn't Jesse Waters specialize in following people?)
(Or think about this: do you remember that young girl he had on who discussed her procedure with Tiller? Did you think about how O'Reilly ususally blames parents when children go wrong (cf. Miley Cyrus, Britney Spears), or says there's no reason for us to judge when other children go wrong (cf. Bristol and Levi), but on this issue, he's very clear that his focus is on Tiller? Do you think it's strange that O'Reilly would change his style when discussing this one guy?)
Yeah, but doesn't O'Reilly
June 3, 2009 - 20:13 ET by BDYeah, but doesn't O'Reilly brag about his influence?
Doesn't he also run a news show?
You can debate abortion without declaring what he did illegal (since late-term abortions are legal, and since there was no evidence that he was performing illegal acts--and if he was performing illegal acts, why didn't O'Reilly show proof of that? Or find proof of that--doesn't Jesse Waters specialize in following people?)
Of course they do
June 2, 2009 - 23:12 ET by general companySo, would it be fair to say that you believe that words have consequences?
But not just out of convenience.
Unless you can prove what BOR said was a lie, I really dont understand what your problem was with his reporting.
The Times lies everyday, and they are supposed to be on our side. They vilify anyone who dissagrees with there agenda. Is that ok with you? Or is it just fine because the Time and you are on the same page so to speak
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
slander is not the issue GC
June 2, 2009 - 23:43 ET by nicholas nicklebyGC,
O'Reilly isn't being charged with slander, so the question of whether he told the truth or not is not the question.
The questions on the table are, Was his language inflammatory? And did it possibly contribute to Roeder's murder of Tiller?
Not sure if I agree with your assesment
June 3, 2009 - 01:44 ET by general companyIf it is not slander, how can it be inflammatory? Can an honest and educated commentary be considered inflammatory? If so we will never again hear the truth, it will be lost to us in a cloud of PC dust.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Correct. O'Reilly simply
June 3, 2009 - 06:36 ET by BDCorrect. O'Reilly simply covered the story which to those on the left by itself consider inflamatory.
Other things the left has considered inflammatory:
The list goes on....
honest but inflammatory
June 3, 2009 - 09:11 ET by nicholas nicklebyGC,
I think we're going to disagree about what constitutes an honest and educated commentary. I believe we can debate abortion without getting into arguments that might inflame people.
For instance, I think the alternative to legal abortions is not a world without abortions, but a world with unsafe, illegal abortions; and right now, the estimate is that 70,000 women a year die due to unsafe abortions. So, outlawing abortion isn't really going to work--it's just going to result in an increase of dead women.
How can we reduce the number of abortion-related deaths--of both women and fetuses? I'm not sure; increased education about contraception; increased education and availability about adoption. Got any other ideas?
honest vs inflammatory
June 3, 2009 - 09:13 ET by nicholas nicklebyGC,
I think we're going to disagree about what constitutes an honest and educated commentary. I believe we can debate abortion without getting into arguments that might inflame people.
For instance, I think the alternative to legal abortions is not a world without abortions, but a world with unsafe, illegal abortions; and right now, the estimate is that 70,000 women a year die due to unsafe abortions. So, outlawing abortion isn't really going to work--it's just going to result in an increase of dead women.
How can we reduce the number of abortion-related deaths--of both women and fetuses? I'm not sure; increased education about contraception; increased education and availability about adoption. Got any other ideas?
Well to bad for us then?
June 3, 2009 - 09:32 ET by general companyI think we're going to disagree about what constitutes an honest and educated commentary.
Really, I must not seem to be all that reasonable to you?
How can we reduce the number of abortion-related deaths--of both women and fetuses?
It all starts with "responsibility", until we practice it, we will continue to fail at just about all social problems, murder, theft, rape, hate. We have refused to instill responsible behavior, in-fact we encourage the opposite. Without it, we wont make progress.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
no more unreasonable than I seem to you, maybe
June 3, 2009 - 10:46 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi GC,
I don't think you're unreasonable--I just think that we would probably disagree on some fundamentals, like whether "baby killer" is an appropriate thing to say: I imagine (and we haven't talked about this here, so I could be wrong) that you think "baby killer" is a fair way to describe Tiller's practice; whereas I would disagree--I don't think late-term abortions are "baby killing."
And I agree about teaching responsibility as a way to lower abortion rates and crime rates--but how do we go about teaching it?
(Also, I do think there's something ironic here in that I've been arguing that O'Reilly has some responsibility for his words. Don't get me wrong--Roeder is responsible for the shooting; but O'Reilly has responsibility for his words--responsibility in this case meaning that he should understand that his words might have some effects.)
When then?
June 3, 2009 - 11:36 ET by general companyI don't think late-term abortions are "baby killing."
My neighbor had her child early, at about 7 months. The child was so small you could hold him in just one hand, I know this because I did. Was that not a baby? This child plays most everyday with my grandchild, they are both just under 3. He is perfect, in all respects. When did he become a babe?
And I agree about teaching responsibility as a way to lower abortion rates and crime rates--but how do we go about teaching it?
This is actualy quite simple, first thing you need to do is to quit encouraging bad behavior. This will require some cooperation from the media and our Gov., but it can be done. But instead what do we do, we ridicule those who practice absence, or the religious, or anyone else who practices good behavior. Our Gov. tries to raises our children, all while they encourage poor behavior. If we ridiculed those that practice poor behavior on the same scale that it is currently excused or encouraged do you honestly think we would have the social problems on the scale we currently do?
Abortion is part of this problem, it is a desensitizing of the public. We say this act is ok, so what is so bad about other bad behavior.
I have found that liberals are quick to excuse poor behavior, while ignoring the causes, or even worst, passing the blame to folks they dont like.
I am not a very religious person, but I do believe in many of its practices. I think the Ten Commandments are very good/relivent. I think we should install a secular copy of them in every class room. I think they give us a foundation that works. What we have been doing is a complete failure by every measure, but we continue, and even expand these policies.
We took our woman out of our households and put them in the work place. Our woman being the social people they are, kept us abreast of the goings on in our neighborhoods, schools, communities. They help with the raising of all of the kids, they let us know who needed charity, and how best to expend our efforts. When I was a kid, I new everyone in the neighborhood, now many folks wont even let their kids roam alone in the very community they live in.
I came to this realization a few years back, I am working to meet and talk to everyone in our community. To talk about all things that can positively influence our children. I go to local High School games even though my kids dont play, I go to PTA, I go to open school board meetings, and I help with charities when I can. I let the kids wash my car in town who are fund raising, I help build the Church on my road that I will probably never attend. So I practice what I preach as well.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Thanks GC--here's some of my thoughts
June 3, 2009 - 16:00 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi GC,
a) Neighborhood feeling:
Thanks for your answer--it's very interesting to see how other people think about the issue. I, for one, agree with you that there's a loss of local community feeling--I don't know if any of my neighbor's know me, and there's definitely a loss involved there. (It may be the smallest example, but it does bother me a little bit that people no longer run over to their neighbor's to borrow a cup of sugar.)
I don't think the answer to that loss is to return the women to the homes/neighborhoods--I mean, I know a male friend who has a new baby, and is on paternity leave while his wife continues to work (he's a teacher, so he's got a good union to support paternity leave right now; I think the plan later is for her to take maternity leave when his leave runs out). So, I don't think returning women to the home is the key, but maybe having someone at home. (How to do that? I think it would help to have universal health care--I mean, if you think about it, if people didn't have to pay healthcare, they might not need to take that job that takes them away from home all the time. That's just one possibility; I'm sure there are others--maybe more tax cuts for children?) (Also, my dad (also a grandparent) also does that thing where he brings the car to the kid's car wash! Is that a grand-dad thing?)
b) Commandments
And I also am not a very religious person, so some of the 10 commandments I think are unnecessary--say, 1-4 in the Jewish/Talmudic division: all the ones that have to do with "I am thy Lord, thou shalt have no other god before me, no idols, not take the Lord's name in vain, keep Sabbath holy." Everything after that we can agree on--stealing, murder, false witness, coveting, adultery, honoring father and mother. (Can we agree on that? Or do you think the first 4 are necessary?)
c) Encouraging/Discouraging acts
Now, first, while I agree with you that the government and media can play a role in promoting positive acts (and discouraging negative ones). At the same time, I'm not entirely clear how to go about this--you're not thinking of bringing back the stocks are you? I wouldn't mind some sort of public shaming, as long as we had some structure of public penance and forgiveness as well. (I mean, if someone does something wrong, well, I may be a soft liberal, but I believe in second chances for most, but not all things.)
(It may also be that we disagree about some acts being negative/positive--for instance, I have no problems with gay marriage, whereas some people on this site might have problems with it. (I don't want to speak for you.) Actually, I think that's a classic example of government getting in the way of good behavior--if people want to settle down and start a family together, well, I think that's good.)
So, we might disagree about what should be encouraged/discouraged, and I'm not entirely clear about the methods by which we could do that. (That's what I mean when I said how: what concrete actions should the gov't take to encourage correct actions? Enforcing certain laws would be a start; maybe increasing child support?)
d) Abortion and life
Now, I've left the hardest question for last: when does a fetus become a baby/alive? I think viability is certainly a part of it--a life has to be NOT self-supporting (I think preemies are babies, even if they require respirators), but possibly capable of self-supporting. (A lot of late-term abortions that I'm reading about are not at all viable--the babies would require massive amounts of surgery, and would live in pain for their short lives.) That might be my opinion for late-term abortion; for earlier term abortions, I don't think fetuses are alive until they're viable--so, first trimester abortions I wouldn't restrict in any way. (Though I might prefer people learn how to use condoms if they're going to have sex.)
NN I am still here?
June 3, 2009 - 21:16 ET by general companyI don't know if any of my neighbor's know me, and there's definitely a loss involved there.
So what are you waiting for, be pro active. I here folks all the time suggest that this one or that one is so bad, mean, or what ever. I travel this country a lot, all I ever find are great people. Go borrow the sugar, you will meet some very good friends.
I don't think the answer to that loss is to return the women to the homes/neighborhoods
Why not, by your own admission you are not very social. The woman is, ask your woman who knows more then her about what goes on in her work place, ask her who solves all of the personal problems?
I mean, if you think about it, if people didn't have to pay healthcare,
they might not need to take that job that takes them away from home all
the time.
Well I think it is just wonderful your male friend got time off from work because his wife had a baby, but I would be more impressed if he deferred his time to his wife, who actually did the real hard work. Liberals,,good grief?
So if we had rationed health care (or Universal to you liberals) Maybe she doesn't receive the Ultra Sounds that she received, or the Prenatal care, or get the OBGYN visits she needed, or the Medication. And if she feels something is wrong, maybe they wont be available to help her save the Baby? After birth, the child gets to stand in line, proud as a Peacock with their mother to see if they have the Measles or the Chicken Pox. No thanks, our successful birth rate is as low as I care to see it get.
At the same time, I'm not entirely clear how to go about this--you're not thinking of bringing back the stocks are you?
Did I even come close to suggesting this? Color me offended. I have raised all of my kids with barely the threat of a spanking.
I wouldn't mind some sort of public shaming, as long as we had some structure of public penance and forgiveness as well
My goodness, how did I give you the impression that I would go anywhere close to this? I preach responsibility, not demoralization. I lift a spirit, not defeat it. EVER!! Brings tears to think anyone would suggest that I would be so oppressive. BTW I just checked this with my Daughter and she is less then impressed with you, to put it mildly.
So, we might disagree about what should be encouraged/discouraged, and
I'm not entirely clear about the methods by which we could do that.
Good grief man, How about we start with violence, maybe we should discourage it? Methods? Their are no methods, each child is an individual, they have individual needs, wants, problems, situations, why on Earth do you think Gov problem solving doesn't work?
As far as abortion is concerned, I am against it. I have very personal reasons for my beliefs, that are not religious based. I wont elaborate, just know that I hate the practice.
If you would like to continue this, maybe you should PM me. I do not want to spend all of my avalible time on this site answering/asking you/your questions. Maybe a personal talk would be more effective?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
O'Reilly fires back
June 1, 2009 - 21:04 ET by nkviking75O'Reilly used his Talking Points Memo tonight to comment on this type of nonsense. It was taped before Olbermutt mouthed off, so there's no direct response to him.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Who does Olberdork blame....
June 1, 2009 - 21:06 ET by superconfor the murder of an Army recruiter and the wounding of another by a muslim convert...?
They won't touch that one with a ten foot pole. Who does he blame for the 7 people who got murdered in Chicago Saturday night...? No right-wingers. No story.
I would sure like to run into that guy.
Hey Janet Napolitano...I'm proud to be a Right-winger.
New details on recruiting office murder
June 1, 2009 - 21:18 ET by nkviking75More details are out on the Army recruiting office murder today. The victims were actually young soldiers just out of basic who had volunteered to work at an office near their home towns. William Long, 23, of Conway, AR, died of his wounds, while Quinton Ezeagwula, 18, of Jacksonville, AR, was reported in stable condition. The police chief said the shooter probably had "religious and political" motives for what he did.
No word on whether he watched MSNBC.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
DHS foreshadowing
June 1, 2009 - 22:42 ET by 24enakI read the DHS report and what was in it became true this weekend, whether or not you agree or disagree with his abortion clinic, he did not do anthing against the law in Kansas. To fix the problem change the law not kill. Stay on topic for crying out loud this is about Tiller and his assassination.
He broke the law openly. 1.
June 1, 2009 - 22:57 ET by GrannyGrump42He broke the law openly.
1. Kansas law required an INDEPENDENT second physician. Tiller had somebody he provided office space to, who'd lost her own practice for quackery, rubber stamping his abortion patients. HE ADMITTED AS MUCH IN COURT.
2. Kansas law required that the abortion be necessary to prevent the woman's death or to prevent loss of a major bodily function. But if a woman was sick enough to meet those requirements, she'd be too sick to travel to Kansas; her own doctor would do a c-section or induce labor close to home. The whole law was nonsensical on its face but they had to include the "health" exception because the Supreme Court invented third trimester abortions in <I>Roe</i> and <I>Doe</i> and thus the state HAD to put in a nonsensical "health exception" in order to pass Constitutional muster.
All you have to do is look at the example of Christin Gilbert -- 19 years old, in good health, 28 weeks pregnant. Her baby would have had a better than 90% chance of survival if delivered live. After the tender ministrations of Tiller and his staff, she was dead. On what supposed health grounds?
Here are some examples of Tiller's "health" abortions:
http://realchoice.bl...
Count Four: On July 8, 2003, tiller performed an abortion on a 28-weeks pregnant woman without determining fetal viability. There was no note of any medical condition of the mother.
Count Six: On July 15, 2003, Tiller performed an abortion on a patient who was 28 weeks pregnant. There was no note of any medical condition of the mother.
Count Eight: On November 18, 2003, Tiller did an abortion on a patient who was 29 weeks pregnant, without any basis for the abortion documented.
Count Twelve: On August 19, 2003, Tiller performed an abortion on a patient who was 31 weeks pregnant, without any documentaion of what the supposed medical justification was.
Count Fourteen: On August 5, 2003, Tiller performed an abortion on a woman who was 26 weeks pregnant, without any documentaion of the supposed medical justification.
Count Eighteen: On August 12, 2003, Tiller perfomed an abortion on a woman who was 25 weeks pregnant, not documeting the alleged medical justification.
So his charts on these patients, and many others like them, contained NO documentation whatsoever of any medical problem that necessitated terminating their pregnancies, via abortion or any other means.
He broke the law all the time.
Robert Heinlein defined "an honest politician" as "one who stays bought". And Tiller made wise purchases when he bought politicians.
so...
June 2, 2009 - 00:12 ET by dr_devil_dogare you saying that it was ok to murder him then? if he was breaking all those laws seems like the proper way to deal with him might have been through lawful means. naw, why bother, just gun him down in church. perfect solution.
*pokes the needle on the phonograph*
June 2, 2009 - 00:18 ET by katainkent___________________________________________
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past - George Orwell - 1984
Amen, Dr devil dog
June 2, 2009 - 00:20 ET by 24enakpun intended
wassa matter, hairless wussy? Don't have the stones?
June 2, 2009 - 00:31 ET by R D HelmC'mon on, tweezer-wielding pud-knocker.
Do you have the stones to do battle with me?
-Dave
Apparently not RD... they seemingly love throwing their monkey
June 2, 2009 - 13:01 ET by pahuberpoo at everyone tho'
Free range trolling on display.
Where do you get from "Look,
June 2, 2009 - 06:37 ET by GrannyGrump42Where do you get from "Look, the guy broke the law openly and frequently" to "So shooting him was okay"?
You might as well assert that every district attorney who ever prosecuted a criminal case is an advocate of vigilante justice.
so...
June 2, 2009 - 00:13 ET by dr_devil_dogare you saying that it was ok to murder him then? if he was breaking all those laws seems like the proper way to deal with him might have been through lawful means. naw, why bother, just gun him down in church. perfect solution.
so...
June 2, 2009 - 00:13 ET by dr_devil_dogare you saying that it was ok to murder him then? if he was breaking all those laws seems like the proper way to deal with him might have been through lawful means. naw, why bother, just gun him down in church. perfect solution.
so...
June 2, 2009 - 00:13 ET by dr_devil_dogare you saying that it was ok to murder him then? if he was breaking all those laws seems like the proper way to deal with him might have been through lawful means. naw, why bother, just gun him down in church. perfect solution.
Trolls to to the left of me
June 2, 2009 - 00:24 ET by bigtimerTrolls to to the left of me trolls to the right.
You poor pathetic buggers really don't have a real life do you?
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
bt,
June 2, 2009 - 00:34 ET by R D HelmLOL-That reminds me of a certain Yes tune,
Circa 1980 +
More or less. :-)
-Dave
Good mornin', BT/Dave...
June 2, 2009 - 00:42 ET by Georgia GirlOh my! You guys are up at this hour? It's past my bedtime, but I'm on a deadline. I've never been on here at this hour -- checking out the night life for my little break. ^_^
GG,
June 2, 2009 - 00:47 ET by R D HelmLOL-
Oh, nevermind.
Dave
Dave... Me too. I have
June 2, 2009 - 00:45 ET by bigtimerDave...
Me too.
I have to get out of here soon..take care of the trollsters...they are all over the place like stink on shite here the last two days...we all know why.
So transparent...so typical.
So Obama.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
'night, bt.
June 2, 2009 - 00:49 ET by R D Helm-Dave
J...no, it's the pop-up ads...
June 2, 2009 - 08:04 ET by Georgia GirlIt messed up the access but is fine now.
so...
June 2, 2009 - 00:13 ET by dr_devil_dogare you saying that it was ok to murder him then? if he was breaking all those laws seems like the proper way to deal with him might have been through lawful means. naw, why bother, just gun him down in church. perfect solution.
so...
June 2, 2009 - 00:13 ET by dr_devil_dogare you saying that it was ok to murder him then? if he was breaking all those laws seems like the proper way to deal with him might have been through lawful means. naw, why bother, just gun him down in church. perfect solution.
Hey troll 24...another one
June 1, 2009 - 23:01 ET by bigtimerHey troll 24...another one coming out of the wood-work here...
How do you feel about what the gentlemen were talking about above?
No hypocrisy in the msm here is there with their non-reporting on this with you on the left.
Sneak on back over to Dkos or whatever rat-hole you escaped from...you are fooling no one....anymore than a lot of you that think you do here.
You are so tolerated and you know it...but the right side of life is so unfair to you and your ilk.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
What a day, huh? You are correct as they have come here to
June 1, 2009 - 23:16 ET by pahubertry and pounce on any conservative for not being sad for such a poor excuse of a human. Tiller, in the end, reaped what he sowed... death.
I don't visit the Dkos,
June 2, 2009 - 00:37 ET by 24enakI don't visit the Dkos, thks very much. media matters, countdown (and O'Reilly occasionally during commercial) daily show, colbert report and CNN throughout the day.
BTW do you even try to find the story on the msm. cnn.com front page Suspect arrested in recruiting center shooting
MSNBC.com front page scroll down to US and world news Political motive cited in military office attack
nice try, better luck next time and thanks for playing.
24enak troll, I blame you and your lefty friends for the...
June 1, 2009 - 23:15 ET by R D Helm...terrorist attack that resulted in the death of an American soldier earlier today.
http://americanpower...
After all, you and your lefty Camel-dong sucking friends have been telling us for eight years that the Islamists are actually our friends.
Was this heinous, murderous act "friendly?"
What say you?
-Dave
Hi RD, place me in with you as I blame this troll for that
June 1, 2009 - 23:17 ET by pahuberrecruiter, as well.
pa,
June 2, 2009 - 00:19 ET by R D HelmOh, I am there, and then some.
-Dave
You said what?
June 2, 2009 - 00:47 ET by 24enakWay to pigeon hole the hundreds to thousands of Islamists extremist there are in world with the over 1.1 billion Muslims. No it wasn't friendly, there are extreme Islamists terrorist just as there are extreme Christian terrorist (KKK). I blame you for the de-evolution of man and society. Camel-dong sucking is that similar to a donkey show, no matter what just don't post a link, which I am sure you could.
Your intelligence is overwhelming
June 1, 2009 - 23:23 ET by general companyStay on topic for crying out loud this is about Tiller and his assassination.
Well actualy, the thread is about Oberdude blaming BOR.
So you read the DHS report, and beleived every word. Well congratulations
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Well actually
June 2, 2009 - 01:01 ET by 24enakOberdude was blaming BOR for the assassination of Tiller. The DHS also did a report about left wing extremism a while back warning that environmentalist pose a threat to companies through computer hacking or a possible bomb. I also didn't say that i beleived every word of it, I was trying to make the point that I didn't hear a talking head whine about and that I actually read it, and came up with my own opinion. Sorry if my intelligence was to subtle and went over your head. And since I can talk slower maybe you should read s-l-o-w-e-r.
There is slow
June 2, 2009 - 21:02 ET by general companyand then there is you. 2 hrs to comprehend my post? Type as fast as you can, I can keep up.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Wonder who Obermann blames
June 1, 2009 - 21:24 ET by Don DeskinsWonder who Obermann blames for the 60,000 late term abortions (murders) that the good doctor performed.
And look at the "compelling
June 1, 2009 - 21:31 ET by GrannyGrump42And look at the "compelling medical reasons" for these post-viability abortions:
http://realchoice.bl...
I'll share just one third of the examples:
The PDF of a complaint against Tiller and Krisin Neuhaus was filed in October of 2006 and is available here. It includes the criminal complaints filed against Tiller for illegal late abortions:
Count One: On July 22, 2003, Tiller performed an about on a 14 year old patient who was 26 weeks pregnant, relying on a diagnosis of Anxiety Disorder Not Otherwise Specified or Adjustmen Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood.
Count Four: On July 8, 2003, tiller performed an abortion on a 28-weeks pregnant woman without determining fetal viability. There was no note of any medical condition of the mother.
Dount Seven: On November 18, 2003, Tiller performed an abortion on a 16-year-old who was 29 weeks pregnant. She had a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder, Single Episode.
Count Ten: On July 30, 2003, Tiller performed an abortion on a patient who was 27 weeks pregnant, diagnosing the fetus as non-viable but with no indication of how this was supposedly determined.
Count Thirteen: On August 5, 2003, Tiller performed an abortion on a 15-year-old girl who was 26 weeks pregnant, based on a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder, Single Episode.
Count Sixteen: Blurred, so I can't determine the date of the abortion. The patient was 28 weeks pregnant. There was no documentation of the supposed medical justification for the abortion.
Count Nineteen: On August 19, 2003, Tiller performed an abortion on a 15-year-old who was 26 weeks pregnant, based on a diagnosis of Acute Stress Disorder.
Count Twenty Two: On November 4, 2003, Tiller performed an abortion on a patient who was 25 weeks pregnant, wihtout any documentation of the supposed medical justification.
Count Twenty Five: On September 9, 2003, Tiller performed an abortion on a 15-year-old girl who was 25 weeks pregnant, reverting to Major Depressive Disorder, Single Episode.
Count Twenty Eight: On November 4, 2003, Tiller did an abortion on a woman who was 25 weeks pregnant, without documeting whatever her medical problem was supposed to be.
GrannyG... Once again
June 1, 2009 - 21:41 ET by bigtimerGrannyG...
Once again thanks.
I've been reading your first link here for awhile.
I hope others do as well.
It's a keeper.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
And what role
June 1, 2009 - 22:35 ET by Jack Hermandid the former Kansas Governor and current HHS Secretary have in ensuring prosecutions in these instances were avoided?
Tiller directly contributed
June 1, 2009 - 22:59 ET by GrannyGrump42Tiller directly contributed heavily to her campaigns, and established a PAC that gave her huge donations.
Like Robert Heinlein said, an honest politician is "one who stays bought". Sebelius was bought and paid for.
Sorry.
June 2, 2009 - 00:33 ET by Jack HermanRhetorical question.
I came, I listened, I yawned
June 1, 2009 - 21:36 ET by jefflebowskiMaybe he should try doing his schtick in the nude. That would be shocking. Isn't that what he's after? Pitiful....just pitiful!
Angry White Dude
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Nothing shocking about this Jeff
June 1, 2009 - 21:52 ET by RESTLESS 1It was never a matter of "if", just "when" olbernotaman would spew this bs. Doesn't matter though. Only his mom and two other people saw any of it. I'm guessing the other two were chrissie and madcow doing show prep.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
So, God forbid
June 1, 2009 - 21:50 ET by RESTLESS 1If some liberal whack job shoots W. dead, then Olbermann will be accepting blame? Matthews??? Madcow???
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Real world calling RESTLESS 1
June 1, 2009 - 23:04 ET by 24enakRESTLESS 1 could you deal in reality and not in hypotheticals, a year ago in yet another church killing in Tenn. a man went into a "liberal teaching church" with a gays welcome sign and killed two people, injured six others. His home had such literary works as Bill O'Reily, Savage, Hannity, Goldberg. "he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets." Does that sound familar? Their have been multiple bombing on abortion clinics and two church shootings/killings in the last two years in the real world. The fact is, for the most part the left-wing extremists (i.e. tree huggers/ PETA) don't kill other human beings in cold blood. No IFs and or buts about it!
24... You are an obvious
June 1, 2009 - 23:13 ET by bigtimer24...
You are an obvious Troll.
Don't they teach you just a wee bit better how not to be so obvious?
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
What other
June 2, 2009 - 00:40 ET by Jack Hermanliterary works were in the Tennessee murderer's library? You don't wish to speak of hypotheticals but write as though you know what is in these murderer's mind. Do you have solid proof that he was acting on the words of those authors or are you simply hypothesizing with the limited information you possess?
nuff said
June 2, 2009 - 01:09 ET by 24enakhttp://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/Jul/28/church-shooting-police-find-manifesto-suspects-car/
nuff said
June 2, 2009 - 01:11 ET by 24enakhttp://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/Jul/28/church-shooting-police-find-manifesto-suspects-car/
Olbermann's book
June 2, 2009 - 01:43 ET by Logic over emotionWell we know Olbermann's book wasn't there because no one bought it.
You provide a link
June 2, 2009 - 09:38 ET by Jack Hermanbut it's more hypothesis. As I asked, what other reading material was in this man's possession? You don't know.
It's FNC's fault!
June 1, 2009 - 21:57 ET by goldboughEverything is Fox News' fault. Even Olbermann's low ratings.
goldb... Good
June 1, 2009 - 22:08 ET by bigtimergoldb...
Good shot!
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
There was a time when this
June 1, 2009 - 22:24 ET by marvlThere was a time when this kind of reckless and baseless nonsense would have drawn gasps from the public and a stiff fine from the FCC. The entire MSNBC network should be banned from the airwaves, and Olbermann in particular should be permanently banned from broadcasting. This kind of slanderous BS has no business on ANY show.
I think perhaps the problem is that G.E. has a damn fool idiot for a CEO.
I will deduce, marvl
June 1, 2009 - 23:13 ET by 24enak"slanderous BS has no business on ANY show" so I will deduce that you don't watch/listen to Hannity, Rush, Beck, O'Reilly, Fox and Friends, Levin, Savage. And though you probaly don't think it is BS, there is no arguement that it is not slanderous what they say. From the last line I know you watch and repeat the words of Bill O'Reilly.
Yawn... your comments are not even provocative. This site
June 1, 2009 - 23:23 ET by pahuberallready has several resident trolls and it is my duty to inform you that while you have been able to squeez alot of your poo around in a timely manner the quality of said poo lacks in entertainment value.
Keep trying and maybe.... we can have a second looksee, k?
This troll isn't going to
June 1, 2009 - 23:36 ET by bigtimerThis troll isn't going to last long here...but they sure are marching on on in here today....
...nothing to do with DKos eh 24, same talking points, same BS all the way around...same trolls...no matter your sister trolls you fool no one...and you should have never been hired, you are so obvious.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Yep, you got that right BT.
June 1, 2009 - 23:44 ET by pahuberI've grown tired of biting on their ignorant comments.
I just say whatever comes to mind... kinda like rate the troll... perhaps we need some scale here at NB's here now for that since there seems to be so many of them. Maybe, we could have like a NB's troll survivor where they must compete in several categories to not get banned... like amusement entertainment cleverness etc... of course this would probably stress bal out.
What with the name calling?
June 2, 2009 - 01:22 ET by 24enakTroll? who are you Mimi Bobek? and whats with all the Andrew Breitbart do they have to pull a string or something. I have my own opinions and wasn't hired DOB '89. I have checked in on this site for 10 months periodically
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. ~ not Andrew Breitbart
Recruiting station murder
June 1, 2009 - 22:24 ET by sweetbeatriceUsing Olbermann's logic, everyone who has criticized the war and any network or journalist who has partaken in such criticism, is complicit in the murder of the young soldier today in Arkansas. Shame on you Mr. Olbermann.
late term abortion pics...priests for life
June 1, 2009 - 22:43 ET by rfpzzzzzgraphic reality of partial birth abortions
http://www.priestsfo...
rfpzzz... Yep...click it
June 1, 2009 - 23:08 ET by bigtimerrfpzzz...
Yep...click it for the folks here that think this is just peach-keen.
We do not treat animals this way.
...ask Michael Vick.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Keep in mind this isn't how
June 1, 2009 - 23:12 ET by GrannyGrump42Keep in mind this isn't how Tiller did his. He performed a lethal injection (yes, the very same drug used to execute criminals) into the baby's beating heart, then spent three days dilating the mother's cervix. All while keeping her in a nearby motel.
On Day Three she'd return, be given drugs to induce labor, and expel the rotting corpse of her baby into a basement toilet.
compassionate killing?
June 2, 2009 - 00:51 ET by konoIt's not possible to match the cruelty involved in the customary partial-birth abortion procedure without getting downright Medieval.
It sounds like GG42 is trying to make Tiller's approach sound gentle and compassionate, though. I'm still stuck on the part where he injected the lethal dose into their beating heart. Our courts wouldn't allow us to execute Charles Manson that way, and even if we were injecting the hearts of death-row inmates with a drug that would heal all diseases, our press would scream about torture over the method until their vocal cords ruptured. But no screaming about it being done to defenseless babies who may be within a week or two of birth.
I don't condone the killing of Tiller, because you can't fight murder with murder. But his deeds went way beyond monstrous, both in nature and in scale.
Curious "but" there, Kono
June 2, 2009 - 01:44 ET by nicholas nicklebyI don't condone the killing of Tiller, because you can't fight murder with murder. But his deeds went way beyond monstrous, both in nature and in scale.
So what are you saying, Kono? You don't condone the murder... <b>but</b> the murdered man was doing something monstrous.
I don't want to read into what you're saying, but it sounds like you're saying that you kinda sorta maybe do condone Tiller's murder.
I'd be curious to hear your position explained a little more.
Not trying to make it sound
June 2, 2009 - 06:40 ET by GrannyGrump42Not trying to make it sound gentle and compassionate. Just pointing out that he wasn't one of the guys dragging them out alive feet first and stabbing them in the skull.
He switched to the digoxin injections at some point -- used to inject formaldehyde into the baby's brain. He didn't inject enough formaldehyde into Sarah Brown's brain to kill her so she was born blind, paralyzed, and mentally retarded. I'm wondering if the publicity over that was part of the reason he switched to digoxin.
And I'm not clear how the image of the rotting baby in the mother's body for three days before being expelled into a basement toilet is supposed to be a kinder, gentler image.
It is absolutely pathetic
June 2, 2009 - 00:50 ET by Jack Hermanthat the media and liberals weep over a terrorist having advanced interrogation techniques (no, they're not torture) performed on them, but the examples of abortion you provided are simply considered a choice or right.
personal to Olbermann
June 2, 2009 - 00:29 ET by konoI'd say "f--- you", Keith, if it weren't so obvious that you're already completely f---ed. So "bless you", instead.
What a winning team MSNBC has assembled there: Keith, Chris, and Rachel -- more obnoxious, misleading idiocy than thought to be humanly possible.
I don't think it was right
June 2, 2009 - 01:41 ET by jdhawkI don't think it was right that Dr. Tiller was murdered. The perpetrator ought to receive the rule measure of the law for this crime.
Nevertheless, about 4,000 children were aborted today and 4,000 yesterday, and 4,000 the day before, and it goes on and on without end. While Dr. Tiller's family and loved ones surely mourn his death, who mourns for the deaths of these children? They are just statistics on the page of a blog.
If Dr. Tiller's murder makes at least one late term abortionist think twice about his or her actions, it will have come to some good.
Frankly, at $5,000 for each late term abortion, I doubt that it will . . .
If Dr. Tiller's murder
June 2, 2009 - 01:49 ET by nicholas nicklebyIf Dr. Tiller's murder makes at least one late term abortionist think
twice about his or her actions, it will have come to some good.
There's a word for using violence to effect political change, jdhawk--it's "terrorism."
That might be an inflammatory statement on my part, but I want to inflame you a little bit here because I think we all need to realize that violence is not the answer--the moment people start thinking "well, this political system isn't working for me--I know what I'll do, I'll shoot someone"--that's when democracy breaks down. If you're against abortion, then you have to make an argument to convince people that abortion is bad.
We have to act
June 2, 2009 - 02:33 ET by AgentAmericanThe leftist media have finally gone over the edge. Perhaps they'll never return.
2010: A GOP Hill
O'reilly is a goner.
June 2, 2009 - 04:17 ET by goldwaterfanI don't see any scenario where Bill keeps his job. This is big. The guy incited murder. Roger and Rupert are gonna drop him pretty soon. They'll pay him every last dime of what they signed him for, but they are done with him.
Are you serious? Of
June 2, 2009 - 04:34 ET by NonArabOmarAre you serious? Of course, he's keeping his job.
He was reporting an on abortionist, end of story. If you fire O'Reilly, you'd have to fire the entire left wing media for inciting violence by eco-terrorists, jihadists, gang members, animal rights activists.
When is it wrong to report the facts on someone?
Did you catch the news of the muslim convert/left wing anti-war activist that shot some army recruiters? Will the mainstream media report this act of violence?
I believe it's Dr Tiller
June 2, 2009 - 04:39 ET by Jack BauerI believe it's Dr Tiller who is the "goner" in this story.
As to the meat of your post. You're frackin' nuts. And I'm not even a fan of O'Reilly.
LOL
June 2, 2009 - 04:45 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsYou're frackin' nuts.
You Brits have a way with words.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
whoa, that's a fantasy scenario
June 2, 2009 - 09:04 ET by SickofLibsYeah, they're going to drop their top rated show that has ruled the roost for close to 10 years.
If BOR "incited murder" as you claim, then he'll be indicted and tried.
I'll be waiting on that.
Herr Olbergoebbels
June 2, 2009 - 04:38 ET by Lord ErondWhy don't you guzzle Bill's big fat ratings schwanz you no talent hack?
"Let him who would move the world, first move himself." -Socrates
"We sit together, the mountain and I, until only the mountain remains." -Li Po
Wow, Olbermann is
June 2, 2009 - 05:36 ET by msh1973Wow, Olbermann is insane. How did we get to this place in America?
Olbermann/Abortionist
June 2, 2009 - 06:40 ET by greggyI blame Keith Olbermann for the murders of logic, reason, and simple human decency - several times a week. I blame Olbermann for not taking his meds, and endangering the psychological health of the sad souls who actually listen to him. The guy is a completely unhinged sycophant.
Olbermann's an idiot...
June 2, 2009 - 08:41 ET by taocpaWhat a shock! Olbermann is such a moron. In 4 years, at least 28 ocassions? What does that translate into, 7 times a year roughly over maybe 200 shows a year, the equivalent of less than 1% a year? Give me a break.
And Keith, you're no Edward R. Murrow.
When will the madness end? Hopefully, January 20, 2013.
Tom
I blame Olbermann for my
June 2, 2009 - 23:18 ET by rbosqueI blame Olbermann for my insomnia and my gray hair.
Oh yeah, and global warming.