Jenny, you are right and you win. Here is your prize-winning post. I should have recognized it back then. Sorry.
Hyperbole. My issue was with the 3/4 figure. not that in some ridiculously rare situations events like that can happen, and even then we aren't sure because we have to trust what the women say, when, in fact, the other majority of women reveal that they actually hide/lie about it intentionally.There is s serious trust issue in anything they have to say.
Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. (American Heritage Dictionary definition) How is it NOT?
An individual was murdered. No threats were made. No sieges established. No promise of ongoing systematic action. No demands were made. No manifesto was published. A crazy guy, now disowned by almost everyone he knew, killed someone who he personally thought did not deserve to live. That is murder. It is not terrorism. It never ceases to amaze me how liberals and libertarians can fight tooth and nail to prevent governments from calling terrorists 'terrorists' and treating them as such, and then can turn on ideological enemies, and look for every reason to call them 'terrorists.' Childish and obfuscates the real issue and the simplicity of that issue. If this was an act of terrorism, then there is a terrorist movement in the United States against the Post Office, being perpetrated by dogs.
You are so wrong on this one, it's not funny.
You can now argue with the FBI that this wasn't terrorism, because THEY say it was and meets their legal definition. Forget dogs and postal offices.
There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as ...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)
THE FBI DIVIDES TERRORIST-RELATED ACTIVITY INTO TWO CATEGORIES:
A terrorist incident is a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, in violation of the criminal laws of the United States, or of any state, to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
A terrorism prevention is a documented instance in which a violent act by a known or suspected terrorist group or individual with the means and a proven propensity for violence is successfully interdicted through investigative activity.
Roeder killed the guy because of his social objective (abortion). This fits the terrorism definition as dictated by the FBI and why the FBI is actively guarding clinics around the country as you read this from, as the FBI says, "terrorists".
So, is the FBI liberal now too? Or is it your opinion (again) that real facts don't matter?
I really wish they would be more consistent on what is and isn't a homicide, would likely end up with far fewer angry or confused people taking the law into their own hands.
When you walk up on someone and blow them away with a firearm without due cause, that's homicide. I think federal agents are reminding this terrorist of that law as we type.
I'm pretty sure that he won't be confused after that. Nor should anyone else who's been watching these terrorist assassinations of doctors over the last few years.
Once again, shooting people who are not actively engaged in trying to kill another person at the time you kill them is murder.
If a women was walking across the street to the clinic to get a late term abortion, was hit by a drunk driver, and her and her fetus was killed; the drunk driver would be charged with two counts of murder. Yet if she makes it into the clinic and pays the Doc 5k to kill the fetus it is NOT murder? It may be legal, but a death is a death...period.
So, judging by the fact that under certain circumstances the fetus is viewed as a person, not a disposable piece of tissue, what if the gunman killed the doctor as he was about to do an abortion? After all, the doctor WOULD be trying to kill another person, an unborn one.
One more scenario, if a gunman went into a church, shot a pregnant women, and her and her fetus died, he would be charged with - you guessed it - 2 murders. Yet if that women talked to the abortion doctor in that church and said she was mad at her husband and wanted to make him suffer. Than she paid the Doc 5k for a late term abortion, than it's all fine and dandy? Just because it's technically legal sure as hell doesn't make it right.
--------------------------------- Mean People Suck
If a women was walking across the street to the clinic to get a late term abortion, was hit by a drunk driver, and her and her fetus was killed; the drunk driver would be charged with two counts of murder. Yet if she makes it into the clinic and pays the Doc 5k to kill the fetus it is NOT murder? It may be legal, but a death is a death...period. So, judging by the fact that under certain circumstances the fetus is viewed as a person, not a disposable piece of tissue, what if the gunman killed the doctor as he was about to do an abortion? After all, the doctor WOULD be trying to kill another person, an unborn one. One more scenario, if a gunman went into a church, shot a pregnant women, and her and her fetus died, he would be charged with - you guessed it - 2 murders. Yet if that women talked to the abortion doctor in that church and said she was mad at her husband and wanted to make him suffer. Than she paid the Doc 5k for a late term abortion, than it's all fine and dandy? Just because it's technically legal sure as hell doesn't make it right.
Stop making sense and pointing out the hypocrisy.
Another thing, if you think it's bad to shoot someone that kills babies, then don't do it.
If a women was walking across the street to the clinic to get a late term abortion, was hit by a drunk driver, and her and her fetus was killed; the drunk driver would be charged with two counts of murder.The driver would? In what state would this happen? Pretty sure at the most it would be manslaughter, not murder. Yet if she makes it into the clinic and pays the Doc 5k to kill the fetus it is NOT murder?It's the equivalent of a brain dead coma patient, in which case the mother has the right to terminate it, at least that's how the law sees it. It may be legal, but a death is a death...period. So, judging by the fact that under certain circumstances the fetus is viewed as a person, not a disposable piece of tissue, what if the gunman killed the doctor as he was about to do an abortion?According to current FEDERAL law, the gunman would be guilty of murder. That's what would happen. The court and town would not hail him as a "hero" for saving a life because.. figure that part out. After all, the doctor WOULD be trying to kill another person, an unborn one.Again, figure that part out above first, and you have your answer to this one. One more scenario, if a gunman went into a church, shot a pregnant women, and her and her fetus died, he would be charged with - you guessed it - 2 murders.In what states? Yet if that women talked to the abortion doctor in that church and said she was mad at her husband and wanted to make him suffer.Wow, you are really going to stretch this "example" out, huh? I don't think you'll find a doctor willing to do this. Than she paid the Doc 5k for a late term abortion, than it's all fine and dandy?No. Just because it's technically legal sure as hell doesn't make it right.Things are not "technically legal" when it comes to abortions and murder. Abortion is legal. Murder is not. Your analogies are not really made with good reasoning but are assuming EVERYTHING above you said is murder in every case.
"The man charged with murdering a high-profile abortion doctor claimed from his jail cell Sunday that similar violence was planned around the nation for as long as the procedure remained legal, a threat that comes days after a federal investigation launched into his possible accomplices.
A Justice Department spokesman said the threat was being taken seriously and additional protection had been ordered for abortion clinics last week. But a leader of the anti-abortion movement derided the accused shooter as "a fruit and a lunatic."
Scott Roeder called The Associated Press from the Sedgwick County jail, where he's being held on charges of first-degree murder and aggravated assault in the shooting of Dr. George Tiller one week ago.
"I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal," Roeder said. When asked by the AP what he meant and if he was referring to another shooting, he refused to elaborate further."
Terrorism is the use of violence to intimidate people into policy change. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT OPERATION RESCUE, ET AL, IS DOING.
Terrorists. Fucking terrorists.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
1. The guy that killed the dr. should be killed using the DEATH PENALTY for 1st degree murder. Sorry but I somehow think even the libs will go along with that since it's serves their interests- Even the anti death ones will gladly see a pro lifer hanged.
2. I saw all the major pro life organizations condemn this act the day it happened, so enough of the bullshit about them not condemning it. really, just do a simple google it's there.
I saw several so called open minded people on this thread show just how much their minds are closed... i dare not mention names or i'll be banned for being honest.
there.
The Christians I know would pull the trigger on the guy that shot the Dr. if convicted without hesitation. As would myself. He committed murder.
It's not my place to judge the Dr's deeds, my faith says he's standing before God right now answering for those so I don't need to lose any sleep over it. Though If I were him I'd be a bit worried.
1. The guy that killed the dr. should be killed using the DEATH PENALTY for 1st degree murder. Sorry but I somehow think even the libs will go along with that since it's serves their interests- Even the anti death ones will gladly see a pro lifer hanged. 2. I saw all the major pro life organizations condemn this act the day it happened, so enough of the bullshit about them not condemning it. really, just do a simple google it's there. I saw several so called open minded people on this thread show just how much their minds are closed... i dare not mention names or i'll be banned for being honest. there. The Christians I know would pull the trigger on the guy that shot the Dr. if convicted without hesitation. As would myself. He committed murder. It's not my place to judge the Dr's deeds, my faith says he's standing before God right now answering for those so I don't need to lose any sleep over it. Though If I were him I'd be a bit worried.
Eye for eye
Tooth for tooth
Burning for burning.
Blood for blood.
Life for life.
The bible also says God abhors the spilling the blood of the innocent. The "good" doctor spent the last several decades killing the most innocent. of life.
60,000 abortions, a large portion of which were third term viable human life, babies. He would conduct these abortions for any reason whatsoever. Take a listen:
Comments
Hyperbole. My issue was with the 3/4 figure. not that in some ridiculously rare situations events like that can happen, and even then we aren't sure because we have to trust what the women say, when, in fact, the other majority of women reveal that they actually hide/lie about it intentionally.There is s serious trust issue in anything they have to say.
You are so wrong on this one, it's not funny.
You can now argue with the FBI that this wasn't terrorism, because THEY say it was and meets their legal definition. Forget dogs and postal offices.
FBI Website on Terrorism and its definitions/guidelines
Excerpt:
Roeder killed the guy because of his social objective (abortion). This fits the terrorism definition as dictated by the FBI and why the FBI is actively guarding clinics around the country as you read this from, as the FBI says, "terrorists".
So, is the FBI liberal now too? Or is it your opinion (again) that real facts don't matter?
"TO MICHAEL!"
When you walk up on someone and blow them away with a firearm without due cause, that's homicide. I think federal agents are reminding this terrorist of that law as we type.
I'm pretty sure that he won't be confused after that. Nor should anyone else who's been watching these terrorist assassinations of doctors over the last few years.
Once again, shooting people who are not actively engaged in trying to kill another person at the time you kill them is murder.
If a women was walking across the street to the clinic to get a late term abortion, was hit by a drunk driver, and her and her fetus was killed; the drunk driver would be charged with two counts of murder. Yet if she makes it into the clinic and pays the Doc 5k to kill the fetus it is NOT murder? It may be legal, but a death is a death...period.
So, judging by the fact that under certain circumstances the fetus is viewed as a person, not a disposable piece of tissue, what if the gunman killed the doctor as he was about to do an abortion? After all, the doctor WOULD be trying to kill another person, an unborn one.
One more scenario, if a gunman went into a church, shot a pregnant women, and her and her fetus died, he would be charged with - you guessed it - 2 murders. Yet if that women talked to the abortion doctor in that church and said she was mad at her husband and wanted to make him suffer. Than she paid the Doc 5k for a late term abortion, than it's all fine and dandy? Just because it's technically legal sure as hell doesn't make it right.
---------------------------------
Mean People Suck
Stop making sense and pointing out the hypocrisy.
Another thing, if you think it's bad to shoot someone that kills babies, then don't do it.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Not domestic terrorism, eh?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/07/scott-roeder-abortion-doc_n_212346.html
"The man charged with murdering a high-profile abortion doctor claimed from his jail cell Sunday that similar violence was planned around the nation for as long as the procedure remained legal, a threat that comes days after a federal investigation launched into his possible accomplices.
A Justice Department spokesman said the threat was being taken seriously and additional protection had been ordered for abortion clinics last week. But a leader of the anti-abortion movement derided the accused shooter as "a fruit and a lunatic."
Scott Roeder called The Associated Press from the Sedgwick County jail, where he's being held on charges of first-degree murder and aggravated assault in the shooting of Dr. George Tiller one week ago.
"I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal," Roeder said. When asked by the AP what he meant and if he was referring to another shooting, he refused to elaborate further."
Terrorism is the use of violence to intimidate people into policy change. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT OPERATION RESCUE, ET AL, IS DOING.
Terrorists. Fucking terrorists.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
I admit I stopped reading about page 5 so....
1. The guy that killed the dr. should be killed using the DEATH PENALTY for 1st degree murder. Sorry but I somehow think even the libs will go along with that since it's serves their interests- Even the anti death ones will gladly see a pro lifer hanged.
2. I saw all the major pro life organizations condemn this act the day it happened, so enough of the bullshit about them not condemning it. really, just do a simple google it's there.
I saw several so called open minded people on this thread show just how much their minds are closed... i dare not mention names or i'll be banned for being honest.
there.
The Christians I know would pull the trigger on the guy that shot the Dr. if convicted without hesitation. As would myself. He committed murder.
It's not my place to judge the Dr's deeds, my faith says he's standing before God right now answering for those so I don't need to lose any sleep over it. Though If I were him I'd be a bit worried.
Eye for eye
Tooth for tooth
Burning for burning.
Blood for blood.
Life for life.
The bible also says God abhors the spilling the blood of the innocent. The "good" doctor spent the last several decades killing the most innocent. of life.
60,000 abortions, a large portion of which were third term viable human life, babies. He would conduct these abortions for any reason whatsoever. Take a listen:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mviFMpy_sBU&feature=related