06/08/2009 11:17:42 PM EST

Should We Waterboard the Domestic Terrorist Who Shot Dr. Tiller?

posted by Cenk

I think we can all agree that the man who shot Dr. George Tiller is a domestic terrorist. I know what Republicans think we should do with accused terrorists -- waterboard them. So, let's get it on.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
Initial reports are that the suspect is an anti-abortion activist named Scott Roeder. Good enough. Let's torture the son of a bitch. Remember the people in Guantanamo Bay were just detainees, they were not convicted of anything before we started the "enhanced interrogation" techniques. Most of them didn't even have the verifiable criminal and terroristic history of Roeder who was previously arrested with bomb making material and has called murder of doctors "justifiable homicide" before. So, if you can't waterboard Roeder, then who can you waterboard? He is the perfect candidate.

Also, in this case, there might literally be a ticking time bomb. He's been arrested for having bomb making material before! And he's a god-damned terrorist who just killed someone. What more do we need? We can't afford to wait while there might be another ticking time bomb out there.

We should start with waterboarding him and work our way up to even more enhanced interrogation. Now, some squeamish liberals who are soft on terrorism might disagree, but I'm sure all of my conservative friends agree, right? Sean Hannity? Rush Limbaugh? Bill O'Reilly? You're all on board for torturing this terrorist detainee, right?

I'm sure they'll be on TV talking about it on Monday. I'm sure of it. Because I know they don't think waterboarding and torture is just what we do to Muslim detainees. I know they're men of their word and would torture anyone suspected of terrorism, no matter what their race or political affiliation is. Right?

Watch The Young Turks on You Tube

UPDATE: Vote in the AOL Poll on this topic here.

< Cenk, where you go wrong on 9-11. | Freedom of speech in Kyrgyzstan - to be or not to be? >
 Display:
Should We Waterboard the Domestic Terrorist Who Shot Dr. Tiller? | 83 comments (83 topical, 0 hidden)
While it seems most obvious that Cenk's (4.25 / 3)
commentary is dripping in sarcasm, I think Mr. Roeder should share some cell time with Lynndie England and a broom stick.

by gatekeeper50 on 06/01/2009 07:39:02 AM EST

What then makes... (4.25 / 3)
...a terrorist a terrorist, Atraindust?  Islamists who plant a bomb in an American building are doing so under the belief that Americans, by their infidelity to Allah, are guilty of a capital offense.  They believe that they are purifying the world in Allah's blessed name, and that this is an act of great morality in an evil society.  Tim McVeigh believed that he was helping to crush the spirit of the evil oppressive federal government, and thus he believed what he was doing was moral and that his targets had great crimes they needed to be forcibly punished for.  Why are they regarded as terrorists and a person who assassinates an abortion doctor or blows up an abortion clinic classifable as otherwise?  Is the only difference that you personally find abortion so abhorrant that the doctors "kinda deserve what is coming to them" but you don't see that Islamist terrorists feel the same way about Jews and Christians?  Nobody (almost nobody, a few Satanists or sociopaths, maybe) actually believes that what they are doing is evil.  Dr. Tiller didn't, his murderer didn't, Saddan Hussein didn't.  It is folly to let your personal feelings about an issue substitute for how a label should be used by everyone.

by Milltycoon on 06/03/2009 03:00:44 AM EST

Well (2.67 / 2)
 first of all the term terrorist seems like the most over used term in our society. Second I dont even want to use the stupid term because it is a word that has no clear definition that everyone can agree on. If you tried to google it or wikipedia it they would give you ten different answers or say well we cant get a clear defintion of what is terrorism and what isnt. And I say that you cant say that this guy is a terrorist right away unless you have evidence that the only reason he did it was for a terror(fear) inducing result. Maybe that is why he did it. But he might also have done it because he couldnt stand that the guy was doing something immoral and he thought he deserved to die. Like if an Islamic person kills George Bush maybe its terrorism but maybe he just killed him because he thinks for him killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and torturing others that he just deserves to die. I wouldnt jump to call the guy a terrorist you probably would. I say its terrorism when the only intent is to cause terror. Revenge and murder is sometimes just that. If it strikes terror into others that might be a secondary effect.

by atraindust on 06/03/2009 10:44:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Cenk, writing at 2:00am can be a bad idea (4.00 / 5)
If I'm calculating right and you're in D.C., then you wrote this at 2:00am.  That's usually my most dangerous time, when I'm most susceptible to getting angry when some self-righteous hypocritical creep decides that hurting people -- whether by torturing them or by outright murdering them -- is a good idea.  And when I do that, I'm liable to scream bloody murder about his cohorts' hypocrisy and about all the other hypocrisy that I see in the world.  I know that I should avoid confronting those issues so late at night, because my blood pressure goes up and it's harder for me to get to sleep.

Hmmm...

No.  I take that back.  I'm susceptible to getting angry with self-righteous hypocritical creeps at absolutely any time of day, especially those who've promoted torture.

Go forward!

by EveningStarNM on 06/01/2009 06:01:53 AM EST

On second thought... (3.60 / 4)
...No, on third thought, again, never mind.  Keep up the good work, just make sure you get plenty of sleep.

by EveningStarNM on 06/01/2009 06:07:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
we all know the answer (4.00 / 3)
Of course he shouldn't be waterboarded.

But domestic terrorist? Abso-friggin-lutely.

Look, what this man did will most certainly make everyone who works at a women's health clinic, Planned Parenthood, or any other place that provides abortions go to work this morning scared and uncertain of their own well-being, not to mention all the patients. That is terrorism, thus Tiller's killer is a terrorist.

The question is: where do we put his ass? Because I won't want him in my backyard grilling steaks and shit.

But whatever comes of this, if this dude turns out to be white: watch out 50-year-old-white-angry-mal es because your lives are about to change drastically because you will all be racially profiled as domestic radical terrorists;)

Hmmm, on second thought: I wouldn't bet on it.

Oh, and the answer to the question of where to imprison his ass: life sentence in a good ol' fashioned American high security prison.

Y

by chrisandyasemin on 06/01/2009 11:32:17 AM EST

I preferred your first position: (4.80 / 5)
"I won't want him in my backyard grilling steaks and shit."

We certainly can't have a domestic terrorist like him inside our borders.  We don't want people like him walking our streets, or even in our prisons where our incompetent guards would probably let him escape or, at the very least, he would corrupt the nicer, more civilized kinds of criminals that we keep.

No, our justice system can't handle him.  We need to send him to some other country with a better, fairer justice system.  America's isn't strong enough...

...or so we've been told.

by EveningStarNM on 06/01/2009 12:22:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
GITMO (4.00 / 3)
Absolutely. I'm sure Rush and Cheney will bring up this idea, tomorrow at the latest.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 06/03/2009 12:17:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Terrorist Might Be a Stretch (4.00 / 1)

Sometimes I get the notion that former Pres. G.W. Bush and the Neo-cons greatly de-sensitized us to the term "terrorist."

It's strange, because the goal of the original deluge of this word in speeches and in the media was of course riddled with irony in the nature of its political agenda behind it. Americans of all types now seem to be taking this word and running with it for many (inaccurate) explanations to things that are otherwise a mystery, or completely random.

 And that's where I think Tiller's slaying comes into play: this murder was not an act of terrorism, but rather, a targeted assassination. Sure, the killer had a political desire to see the nation's perspective on abortion change, but he HAD to know one dead abortion doc wouldn't change it. Perhaps this slaying was nothing more than the killer's frustration at the futility of his efforts. At any rate, I highly doubt the killer had any grand political goal as the outcome of his actions, and I would not label it as a terrorist act. He did, however, target an individual to murder because that individual had different viewpoints, opinions and practices, which prompts me to believe this was more an assassination than terrorism.

 That's not to say your larger point of whether this will have greater social repercussions for his demographic (i.e., old white guys) is anything but right on the mark. Racial profiling will not result from this, but I'm very interested to see if a hint of religious profiling creeps into the national dialogue when discussing this topic.

by maxwalters on 06/09/2009 03:04:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No (4.00 / 0)
Torture is illegal. We don't torture. Its sad that the conservatives has thrust this debate on the American people when they ought to know better as the party that loves to talk about their values. What the hell are we fighting for if we are just going to act like the terrorists?

by gotchange on 06/10/2009 03:33:53 PM EST

"50 Times The Punishment Rule" (3.80 / 5)
This is a crime and will definitely be ignored by the MSM they are already all over the missing Air France plane.  I propose here and now that Christians that do horrible insane acts like this are levied 50 times the punishment.  They obviously know better than to break the thy shall not kill commandment or do anything wrong.  This is an example of self righteousness gone wrong.  The man was a doctor performing a medical procedure.  If bush cared about you abortion freaks when he had the presidency 2/3rd majority in the house and senate, and a conservative leaning supreme court.  He would have overturned Rove v. Wade.  I say you hold a press conference and let this guy tell the world why he did, what he did.

by terrill on 06/01/2009 10:11:04 AM EST

To Freedom Momma, atraindust, Red Neck (3.80 / 3)
and MarkDotThat:

Please understand our anger with what Scott Roeder did.  We're trying to understand your anger with and fear of people who want to allow abortions.

But you're scaring the hell out of us.  We really don't understand your reasoning, and we don't see you making any attempts to understand ours.  And while you claim to value the unborn, we so often see your disdain for the already born, such as adult women.

You say that you're "pro-life", as if we are "anti-life", but all we hear when one of your number commits a murder like this is your "Tsk, tsk, the victim shouldn't have been performing abortions."

And while you claim to be appalled at what Roeder did, very often you sound like you support him, like Freedom Momma does when she talks about blowing the brains out of someone who was holding a gun to your daughter's head, a comparison that we believe is completely illegitimate, and dishonestly prejudicial.

We simply do not see the comparison as legitimate, and people on your side are killing people who clearly do have lives and consciousness, who have families, children of their own.  These acts which are designed to terrorize people into not performing or not obtaining abortions, are definitely, to us, acts of terrorism.

We do understand that you see a fetus (and some will say even a zygote) as a person endowed with rights by their creator.  We disagree, although we're willing to place some restrictions on the practice of abortion, especially after a fetus has become "viable".

I don't think you'll ever be satisfied with that, and I don't think it's reasonable to believe that our policies will ever change significantly.  That makes me concerned with whether or not you can accept that, or if we might have to take stronger action against you.

I know that we will never persuade you to our point of view.  Our educational system has failed to teach some essential realities about nature and our relationship to it, and has allowed various sets of fantasies to go unquestioned.  This causes a lot of people to suffer a lot of unnecessary distress.

Nevertheless, we do want to know what you will do, since it should be clear to you by now that abortions will be allowed, and there's nothing you can do about it.

by AnEngineer on 06/09/2009 02:46:03 PM EST

Pro-Choice is amazingly arrogant... (2.67 / 2)
A lot of pro-choice people are completely missing a very basic point that most in the pro-life movement (the man who shot Tiller did a great disservice to his cause) realize.

I am aware that the life movement has been hijacked by religious radicals, and I'm aware of how absurdly ignorant many of them are.

I hate that I can't express my views without having a bunch of false labels thrown at me.

There was a time (back when childbirth was more deadly to the mother, and back when christianity was more powerful) that abortion had little stigma attached to it.

The truth is, abortion gained it's stigma to a great extent due to a better scientific understanding of pregnancy.

Single-celled organisms are considered life.  Parasites that rely entirely on the host for survive are considered life.

So why not a human embryo with a unique genetic code that is developing seperate from the mother?

Anyone who's taken eighth grade biology knows when life begins.

Here's a concept for you.  I'm gonna throw scripture at you so you can scoff at it.

Thou shalt not kill.

I know... it's horrible of me for trying to impose such arcane and out-dated beliefs upon you.  So let me modernize it so we can justify your position

Thou shalt not kill unless it is more convenient to do so.

by BJ2727 on 06/10/2009 01:37:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I am pro-life. (4.80 / 4)
I like life.  I think life is a great thing and should be encouraged.  I'm amazed at the continuum of the phenomenon of Life that had one beginning and hasn't stopped yet.

I loathe murder and war.  I despise the death penalty.  I abhore the unnecessary deaths of mothers who discover late in their pregnancies that carrying the fetus to term would kill them, but who are forced to carry them anyway because of some ridiculous religious idea that "God", whatever that is, supposedly cherishes every fetus, embryo, and zygote -- but not necessarily the mother.

Arrogance?  What is more arrogant?  To think that a bare coupling of a sperm and an egg has more rights than an adult woman, or to respect that woman's right to decide what to do with her body?

You have chosen to assign characteristics and meaning to a biological agent that is less valuable to me that the woman who carries it, you demand that I agree with your characterization and definition, and you call me arrogant?

by AnEngineer on 06/10/2009 02:18:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'll simply respond to your points... (2.75 / 2)
I abhore the unnecessary deaths of mothers who discover late in their pregnancies that carrying the fetus to term would kill them, but who are forced to carry them anyway because of some ridiculous religious idea that "God", whatever that is, supposedly cherishes every fetus, embryo, and zygote -- but not necessarily the mother.

I had an aunt go through exactly that.  She didn't die. She had the abortion, and to be honest I respect that decision.  A situation like that is really lose-lose.  A life was preserved.  As a pro-lifer I can't say I'm opposed to that.

I'm not as heartless and fanatical as you think I am.

I just think in the vast majority of abortion cases, nobody has to die.  I'm not asking people to give them voting rights.  I'm just asking people to end the pattern of death!

To think that a bare coupling of a sperm and an egg has more rights than an adult woman, or to respect that woman's right to decide what to do with her body?

I believe in the woman's right to choose what to do with her body.  But not necessarily her right to choose what to do with someone else's.

You have chosen to assign characteristics and meaning to a biological agent that is less valuable to me that the woman who carries it, you demand that I agree with your characterization and definition, and you call me arrogant?

First of all, these characteristics include "living" and "human."  You have refuted neither.

Second of all, I demand nothing from you but acknowledgement that reasonable people can disagree, even on this subject.

I never mentioned god in this discussion because it's really not relevant.  Like I said, It really bothers me that this movement has been hijacked by a bunch of religious nuts and killers. 

I'm a 20 year old college student from Massachusetts, I support gay marriage, extensive use of contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and Education about safe sex.  I just happen to be pro-life as well.

by BJ2727 on 06/10/2009 02:32:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Refute what? (5.00 / 4)
"...these characteristics include 'living' and 'human'."

Those characteristics aren't reasons to prefer an unborn fetus over a person.

"I believe in the woman's right to choose what to do with her body.  But not necessarily her right to choose what to do with someone else's."

You're contradicting yourself.  You apparently view even a zygote as a person.  I do not -- not in the least.  You want to weaken a woman's right to choose what to do with her body by assigning rights to that zygote, embryo, or fetus that I do not recognize.

It's this conflict of rights that is at the root of our disagreement.  We can either go to war or we can compromise.  I'll go along with restricting late-term abortions unless the mother's life or health is at risk if you will leave her alone at all other times.  Short of that, this conflict will continue.

Abortions are legal, and that is not going to change.  You should find a way to get over it.

And I do not grant you the exclusive right to the term "pro-life", as if I am "anti-life".  It makes me think you are a very disingenuous person.  You are merely anti-abortion, and no more "pro-life" than I am.

And, by the way, I am not "pro-abortion", but I'll skip explaining the nuance.

by AnEngineer on 06/10/2009 02:53:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
point for point again (3.00 / 2)
Those characteristics aren't reasons to prefer an unborn fetus over a person.

Are you going to give me a good reason to think that an unborn fetus isn't a person?  Other than the fact that it hasn't developed as much as an infant?

  You want to weaken a woman's right to choose what to do with her body by assigning rights to that zygote, embryo, or fetus that I do not recognize.

Give me a good reason why an embryo or fetus isn't human.  An embryo is less developed than a fetus, a fetus, less developed than an infant.  A baby is less developed than a kid who is in puberty, a kid who's in puberty is less developed than a 30 year old.

Aside from how easy it is, is there a reason to think this is any different?  Am I less human than I will be when I'm 21?  What's the cutoff?

How is killing okay?

Abortions are legal, and that is not going to change.  You should find a way to get over it.

Well it can't be banned now.  There's too high a demand for it.  It'd just go underground, which could get ugly.

The key is to decrease demand.  Contraceptives, sex education, all those things that the religious right cringes about need to be let in because they work.  The US is more religious than France and has a much higher abortion rate.  That's a sign our sex education isn't enough.  Abstinence doesn't work.  We need to try harder to prevent this from ever happening.

Maybe we can agree on that?

As for the pro-life, pro-choice thing.  That's just what they're called.

by BJ2727 on 06/10/2009 03:27:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This is old ground. (4.00 / 4)
"Are you going to give me a good reason to think that an unborn fetus isn't a person?"

A "person" is a legal construct, defined by law.  Look it up.  Words matter.  Neither a zygote, and embryo, nor a fetus are persons.

And even if you want to use a looser, colloquial definition, I still will maintain that they are not persons.

Sorry, but purely emotional appeals aren't going to work here.

by AnEngineer on 06/10/2009 06:10:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That is obsurd (3.00 / 2)
A "person" is a legal construct, defined by law.  Look it up.  Words matter.  Neither a zygote, and embryo, nor a fetus are persons.

I'm sorry, but if a person is nothing more than a legal construct, why do we care about the holocaust?  Why do we care about the destruction of the native americans?

By your definition anyone can be denied the right to live if the law says so.

US law used to say that African Slaves count as 2/3 of a person.  Even if the law says it's so, that doesn't make it true.

And even if you want to use a looser, colloquial definition, I still will maintain that they are not persons.

Like Hitler and the Jews.  Like Cortez and the Aztecs...
You can deny and deny all you want.  You haven't made a LOGICAL case.

Sorry, but purely emotional appeals aren't going to work here.

All I've seen out of you are emotional pleas.  I haven't heard an ounce of logical discussion out of you.

by BJ2727 on 06/10/2009 09:24:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I looked up the definition of person (2.67 / 2)
http://www.thefreedictionar y.com/person
1. A living human.

http://dictionary.reference .com/browse/person

1.  a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.

2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.

http://www.merriam-webster. com/dictionary/person
1. Human, Individual

I'm starting to suspect that you made up a definition of "person" to suit your argument.  I couldn't find anything about a person being nothing but a legal construct.

Like many who hold the pro-choice view, there's a huge gap between the facts and whatever comes out of your mouths.

by BJ2727 on 06/10/2009 09:43:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Legal vs. Colloquial Definitions (4.20 / 4)
http://legal-dictionary.the freedictionary.com/Person

Note that corporations are "persons", but that an unborn fetus is not a legal person.  A "person" is an entity that has certain rights that are recognized by all.

It seems that only anti-abortionists think of zygotes, embryos, or fetuses as persons -- although the number broadens when a fetus becomes "viable".  And although I think that a viable fetus that doesn't threaten its mother should be allowed to be born, I still don't really care that much because it doesn't think, it doesn't have emotions, it isn't conscious, makes no intentional attempts to communicate, and I can't shake hands with it.

It isn't a person, as I understand the word.

But I might be wrong once it becomes viable, so I'm interested in seeing that pregnancy proceed normally.  Nevertheless, I'll give the person, with whom I can shake hands, the benefit of the doubt in all other situations.

by AnEngineer on 06/10/2009 10:27:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
P.S. (4.20 / 4)
The category "human being" also be used to include creatures that have such deformities in the womb that they stand no chance of living after they've passed through the birth canal, possibly killing the mother.  "Human being" is not a sufficient categorization to prohibit abortions.

by AnEngineer on 06/10/2009 10:32:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Arrogance I refer to (2.00 / 1)
Is the arrogance the pro-choice people show when they take the worst examples, and assume that is the same for everyone.

I don't pretend to know you.  Don't pretend to know me.

by BJ2727 on 06/10/2009 02:43:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The arrogance that I refer to (4.00 / 4)
is the arrogance the anti-abortion people show when they demand to take control of what women do with their bodies.

I'm telling you that is what you are doing.  Is there anything else I need to know about you that is relevant to this discussion?  If so, I'm listening.

by AnEngineer on 06/10/2009 02:59:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That's because too many pro-lifers (3.00 / 1)
Don't know what they're doing.  Like the idiot who shot teller.  Did he really think killing him would help things?

All it does is give people an excuse to avoid discussion about a topic that deserves serous consideration.

And like I said, let's try to stop the problem before it starts.

by BJ2727 on 06/10/2009 03:30:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ummmmm Pretty Damn Presumptuous AnEngineer (2.00 / 3)
I am pro choice.  Why did you make all of those assumptions about me?  Wow, you are a defensive person, aren't you?  My post just states that there is NO comparison to this murderer and the terrorists.  Apples and oranges my friend.  Actually, more like apples and steel ball bearings.

by MarkDotThat on 06/10/2009 10:53:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Sorry for the misunderstanding (4.00 / 4)
Of course, your criticism of the obvious and simple comparison of Roeder to other terrorists made me think that you wanted to minimize what he'd done, and... well, like I said, I'm sorry for mistaking your position.

But wait a second.  "Steel ball bearings" and "NO comparison".  You do want to minimize it, after all.

Well, on the other hand you seem to think that such a simple comparison is "convoluted".  It may be merely lack of mental acuity rather than denial.

Yes.  That's it:  You claim that there are only three "Islamic fundamentalist terrorists" and, naturally, offer no evidence to support such a ridiculous claim.

(I'm a "defensive" person?  You should try to avoid irrelevant mischaracterizations of others in the future.  It's a two-edged sword that more often than not ends up wounding an unskilled owner such as yourself, and derails what otherwise might have been a good conversation.)

Have a nice day.

by AnEngineer on 06/10/2009 12:18:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
More presumtions (none / 1)
Mr Engineer, by pointing out that the comparison is like apples to steel ball bearings, I am in NO way minimizing this horrid act of murder.  I am just pointing out that it is not terrorism for political, ideological gains like, say bombing a wedding reception, flying a plane into an iconic building or severing the head of a reporter on camera.  The murder of the doctor was horrid.  It was a hate crime of the first order.  It was not terrorism.  It was not conspiratorial in nature.  It was not meant to deter a culture, subculture or society from their way of life.  It was the heinous act of a sick individual filled with hatred for the doctor because of his individual profession.

Secondly, I did not claim that there were only three terrorists.  I stated that only three were water boarded.

by MarkDotThat on 06/11/2009 02:42:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Bad Spelling--Sorry (none / 0)
Sorry, mispelled presumptuous AND went back to read my original post.  My bad, it DOES read like I was stating that there were only three terrorists--I apologize for not being clear the first time.

by MarkDotThat on 06/11/2009 02:49:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
what a Splenda idea (3.33 / 2)
I thought we were all agreed that sugar-free cookies should be hammered down his gullet until he breaks and gives us the names and whereabouts of his accomplices.

by Twba on 06/01/2009 11:31:41 AM EST

Cookies where proven to work (4.50 / 3)
better than waterboarding. Waterboarding has been proven to be ineffective in gaining actionable intelligence .

AND here is the added benefit,  they are legal! Thats right, you dont have to break treaties and American law to use a nice plate of cookies. You will never have to worry about being investigated or brought up on charges for giving someone a cookie.

On the other hand

Torture takes the gun right out of the hand of our soldiers.

They are at risk of being tortured in revenge for the torture we did

Enemy combatants will not surrender because we have a  reputation of using torture.

They cant forge alliances with the local inhabitants because  our reputation for using torture precedes us.

Now you cant say that about a cookie now can ya?


by Chinese Democracy on 06/01/2009 03:10:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You catch more flies... (4.20 / 4)
...with honey than with vinegar, but we've always known that's true even if we sometimes forget it.

by EveningStarNM on 06/01/2009 12:14:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You do understand the sarcasam of Cenk's post? (3.67 / 2)
"We can't afford to wait while there might be another ticking time bomb out there."

If the RWnuts argue this point for foreign terrorists, why isn't it acceptable for domestic terrorists?

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 06/03/2009 12:16:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
As EveningStarNM said before ... (3.20 / 4)

posting at 2 a.m. can be a bad idea. And in this case it certainly was.

'nuff said ...

by Corgano on 06/01/2009 06:34:06 AM EST

Why? (4.20 / 4)
I thought it was high-quality sarcasm of an obvious hypocrisy on the part of Repugnantcans.

by EveningStarNM on 06/01/2009 07:06:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Waterboarding (3.00 / 1)
"I think we can all agree that the man who shot Dr. George Tiller is a domestic terrorist. I know what Republicans think we should do with accused terrorists -- waterboard them. So, let's get it on."

I disagree with your synopsis altogether. The man who shot Dr. Tiller is NOT a domestic terrorist. He is a man who felt compelled to defend 35,000 innocent lives by destroying the person who destroyed them. Sort of like those who fight in wars defending the country they love.

If a man were holding a gun to your daughter's head and threatening to blow her brains out, you might feel entirely justified in blowing his brains out first. At least, your daughter would hope you came to her rescue. All of those innocent abortion victims did not have anyone come to their rescue in time.

Just because something is legal doesn't necessarily make it right. Just like, just because something is illegal doesn't necessarily make it wrong. As human beings we have to decide if we think life is worth defending.

I don't believe I could ever take another person's life--except in an extreme circumstance like the above mentioned, but defending life is ALWAYS right.

Interrogation methods are used for the express purpose of gaining information that one does not already have. I'm not sure what information you would want to be extracting from Dr. Tiller's killer that you think waterbo arding, or any form of interrogation, would be needed. Right or wrong is between him and God. Our law has rules and those rules must be used to judge this case. He may be killed as a result of his actions or he may spend the rest of his earthly life in jail. Those are consequences he has to face. One just wonders how many people will grow up to make new laws in the future as a result of his actions.

by Freedom Momma on 06/09/2009 10:52:26 AM EST

I know you're trying to make a point... but... (3.00 / 1)
First of all, torture is wrong and a bad idea under any circumstances.  It jeopardizes the treatment of American POW's everywhere, and is a good recruiting tool to spawn new generations of terrorists.

With that said, this isn't a good comparison.

The Bush/Cheney camp have argued that because of the nature of this war, these detainees are no longer civilians, but in fact prisoner's of war.

Unless I'm not mistaken, this man is not associated with any group that the United States is at war with.

You also need to consider the man's citizenship.  The government (apparently) has some leeway in how they treat the citizens of foreign countries, but when it comes to dealing with American citizens, terrorist or not, it's more difficult to deny them due process, and certainly difficult to avoid an eighth ammendment lawsuit concerning cruel and unusual punishment.

Another thing to consider is, he may not be considered a threat to national security.  Just a threat to abortionists.

I'm thinking like a lawyer right now.  Keep that in mind.  All I'm saying is your comparison is weak.  Easily deflected and obviously emotionally driven.

by BJ2727 on 06/10/2009 01:13:55 PM EST

Actually, the Beelzebush administration (3.50 / 1)
vis-a-vis Dick Cheney and David Addington with DoD support from Donald Rumsfeld and Steven Cambone created a whole new classification of "UNLAWFUL COMBATANT" in an attempt to circumvent the Geneva Convention on prisoner of war (POW).   This creation of a golem opened the door to the inhumane treatment at all the detention centers and the major controversy that President Obama is allowing to be covered up, rather than exposed, investigated, indicted, and incarcerated.

by gatekeeper50 on 06/10/2009 01:47:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
continued (2.75 / 3)
What magically happens when the baby comes out the birth canal that makes it a person all of the sudden? Maybe we should be able to kill babies when theyre 1 yrs old I mean theyre still dependent on others to stay alive and their brains arent fully developed and they wont remember any of this time period when they grow up...... so I guess we can call in a Dr. and put the kid down if the parents arent ready to take responsibility for their actions. OK done with the rant. Now this guy obviously handled the situation wrong and there is a system set up that you have to go through. You cant just kill people and take justice into your own hands. Like if someone killed my mom I would want to kill them but I wouldnt. I am a liberal but I cant follow you guys on this late term abortion crap. When is a baby a life with rights? Piss on that Doc and piss on any of you who support abortions at any point!!!!!!

by atraindust on 06/02/2009 09:42:59 PM EST

Well, if you insist on arguing about abortion... (4.60 / 4)
"What magically happens when the baby comes out the birth canal that makes it a person all of the sudden?

Personhood is a legal definition.  When a fetus emerges from the birth canal it takes its first breath and becomes conscious.  That's when the baby is legally classified as a "person", complete with all the rights conferred on persons.

I'm reminded of when Henry Hyde, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, held hearings against what he falsely called "partial birth abortion", which is correctly called "dilation and extraction", a procedure used to abort a pregnancy in the third trimester.  A woman testified before him who had had that procedure.  Rep. Hyde called her evil.  The woman had been pregnant with a fetus having no skull, intestines growing outside of its body, and no chance to live.  And, according to her doctor, giving birth to it was a risk to the mother.  Hyde wanted her to go through with the birth anyway.

There are reasons that even third-trimester abortions are necessary, but the Hyde Amendment forces women to risk their lives for his immoral certainty.

When do a woman's rights prevail over those of an unborn fetus?

Always.  It's as simple as that.

by EveningStarNM on 06/03/2009 12:01:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
P.S. (4.60 / 2)
Hyde is not now the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee.  He's dead now, and the hearings were held in 1997.

I'd say "rest in peace" to Mr. Hyde, but I try not to be a hypocrite.

by EveningStarNM on 06/03/2009 12:08:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
A baby has rights after ther umbilical cord is (3.00 / 2)
severed, and there are no external medical devices aiding its life continuing; and after its mother says it does.

by gatekeeper50 on 06/02/2009 09:56:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You are (1.50 / 3)
a cold blooded heartless bastard if you think a baby before that cord gets cut or before the mother says it is a baby is just a desposable thing

by atraindust on 06/02/2009 10:07:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Cold blooded heartless bastards send babies to (3.75 / 3)
war based on lies and false confessions extracted by torture, out CIA agents for political motivation, hire other cold blooded heartless bastards to occupy nations and force the residents to flee or be killed in their own neighborhoods, and believe they have any say over what a woman does concerning her own reproductive choices extending to what I previously stated.  It is her body, her morals, and her spirit she must contend with having made that choice.

by gatekeeper50 on 06/03/2009 01:12:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
We are (1.75 / 3)
talking about abortion and you bring up CIA agents and unjustified wars. Like my first post said sober up!!!!

by atraindust on 06/03/2009 10:57:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You are the one that is engaging in an (3.67 / 2)
unjustified war on this forum, I was merely equating you with the cold blooded heartless people that you have associated yourself with.

by gatekeeper50 on 06/03/2009 03:07:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I have not associated (3.67 / 2)
myself with anyone. What are you talking about? I am against the war in Iraq and I hate Bush. Cheney even more. They should go to prison but they wont because politicians are about just that POLITICS. I am against torture please dont associate me with Republicans. Because I am against late term abortions unless the women is in danger or the baby wont live dosnt make me a republican. Its sad that everyone gets into these camps and if you disagree on 1 issue then you arent part of that camp. Thats why I say Cenk has groupies. I wonder if people just make up their mind when the people they listen to tells them their idea. Sometimes I think some Turks are just RLimbaugh fanatics at the other end of the spectrum. I wouldnt be a member of the Youngturks if I associated with the past administration.

by atraindust on 06/03/2009 08:07:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Since I was about 20 when Cenk took his first (4.00 / 1)
breath (or breast), I'm a bit too old to be anybody's groupie.  Cenk has stated in the past he is in line with the current Roe v Wade decision's limitations on abortion.  I, on the other hand, believe the mother has sole and final say on reproductive choice until the child is born and living without external medical assistance.  Since I can never have an abortion, nor put any female in the position of making that choice (vasectomy), my belief will have little impact on civilization other than letting others that share the same thoughts know they aren't alone.  I applied no label to you when I wrote my first statement, and I only camp out with my wife.

by gatekeeper50 on 06/03/2009 09:15:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
When is a baby a life with rights? (none / 0)
Don't know, why don't you tell us?

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 06/03/2009 12:26:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Roll Me One Cenk (2.50 / 1)
Wow!  Perhaps the most absurd comment/question that I've read in a very long time.  To compare this scumbag who murdered the doctor to the three (not 100's, as you would like to imply) Islamic fundamentalist terrorists aiming to destroy Western Civilization and it's population, is so convoluted it's absurd.  Cenk, whatever you're smoking, please roll me one.  At least put me in touch with your connection so that I too can lose all touch with reality in the name of blind ideology.  I'd love to be able to throw out reason, logic, sanity and facts and just go about my day blindly and happily following some ideology.   "whooshhhh, cough,  'ere man, try this"

by MarkDotThat on 06/09/2009 01:06:42 PM EST

Waterboarding (2.50 / 1)
What this person did was completely wrong but of course we should not waterboard him.    We used waterboarding to gain information not to just torture someone for something illegal.   & nbsp;Such a dumb question to even ask.   Shows the liberal mentality of everyone that answered yes to the question.    Obviously they don't even know why we used waterboarding.  I'm not perfect but I try to be informed on all issues, not just those that are important to me.    Seems to many people chose not to gather their own information and decide to just believe what they hear rather than gain facts from many sources to make and EDUCATED opinion not just their own agenda opinion.

by WorldsGoneCrazy on 06/10/2009 02:42:42 PM EST

Waterboarding and other torture techniques were (4.00 / 1)
ONLY used to punish, exact revenge, and satisfy pathological sadistic character failures.  There was NO information gained by those actions and to believe otherwise is your refusal to come to grips with the reality that you were conned by swindling charlatans, graft grubbing grifters, and misanthropic troglodytes (ie Cheney, Addington, Bush, Gonzales, Feith, Wolfowiz, Rumsfeld, Cambone, et al.).  There is NO evidence that any information was obtained by any torture technique and ONLY false confessions to justify a previously prepared agenda were exacted by those methods.

by gatekeeper50 on 06/10/2009 06:05:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sober UP!! (2.25 / 3)
Yes Cenk was being sarcastic but with that out of the way; I must say Cenk you're nuts and all your TYT groupies are too if you say this guy is obviously a terrorist. If I kill a child molestor because he was in my community that doesnt make me a terrorist. If we use this classification system then almost all crimes are acts of terrorism. If I kill that pedophile it might scare all the other pedophiles in the neighborhood but that doesnt make that my intent. The fact that this Dr. didnt break the law and the molestor did skews the analogy a bit but you cant act like this doctor is removing tumors. He is removing babies and killing them. The key is late term abortion we arent talking about a packet of cells for stem cell research. We're talking about a 5-6 month old baby with a brain, heart, hands, eyes.Imean come on

by atraindust on 06/02/2009 09:30:19 PM EST

Do you deny... (4.60 / 4)
...that these people kill with the intention of terrorizing other OBGYNs and their staffs who provide abortion services?

It would be odd if you did, since the terrorists who kill these medical practitioners say they do it for that reason.

by EveningStarNM on 06/02/2009 09:53:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
reply (2.25 / 3)
I dont deny that he wants to scare others from doing this. I am saying that doesnt make him a terrorist. If your brother gets bullied at school and you go into his school and kill one of the kids that bullied him that doesnt make you a terrorist. That makes you an overreacting vigilante. A criminal who should go to jail but not a terrorist.

by atraindust on 06/02/2009 10:02:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No, Spiderman is a vigilante (5.00 / 6)
I dont deny that he wants to scare others from doing this. I am saying that doesnt make him a terrorist

Then your understanding of what terrorism is needs work. Breaking the law in order to manipulate people through fear is terrorism, and that's exactly what this guy did.

by OneHitKill on 06/03/2009 01:31:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hey (2.50 / 1)
if that was his primary goal then yes he is a terrorist, but any time you commit an act of violence against someone for something they did it may scare others that do the same. now that doesnt make you a terrorist...unless the only reason you did it was to scare others from doing the same. if you beat up my sister and i shoot you and then you ask me if i wanted to scare other guys from beating up my sister. i would say yes because people need to know they cant get away with it. but that wasnt my only goal. my primary goal was for revenge against someone who beat up a family member. now if you have evidence that this guy wasnt really mad at this doc individually it was just a message killing to scare then okay he is a terrorist but i dont know how everyone knew that an hour after he commited the act. QUIT labeling everryone a terrorist instantly. that was my point.

by atraindust on 06/03/2009 07:26:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Word first aid (4.20 / 4)
QUIT labeling everryone a terrorist instantly.

You're preaching to the choir on that point. The word "terrorist" has been abused to the point of meaninglessness. But part and parcel of repairing the word is using it correctly, which I believe I have.

by OneHitKill on 06/04/2009 02:47:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh, and you overlooked something else, too. (4.60 / 4)
Not all 5- to 6-month old fetuses have brains, hearts, hands, or eyes.  That's why some pregnant women think that a third-trimester abortion might be necessary.  But I'm sure you didn't overlook that intentionally, did you?

by EveningStarNM on 06/03/2009 01:06:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No (2.33 / 2)
I didnt overlook this quit bringing up issues that are a 1 in a 1000. Were talking about killing healthy babies not babies that are going to die because its not developing right or have life threating diseases or pregnancies that threaten the mother. The vast majority of these abortions are this so lets talk about that.

by atraindust on 06/03/2009 10:23:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
1 in 1000? (4.00 / 4)
Hmmm... if you're willing to overlook this issue, what else don't you want to talk about?

Face it: you believe that a fetus has more rights than a woman.  That's why your argument can't win.

by EveningStarNM on 06/03/2009 10:32:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I dont think (2.67 / 2)
a fetus has more rights than a woman. I dont want to have race between women and unborn babies for more rights either. I just wish you werent immoral enough to think that killing a third trimester fetus was like taking out the garbage. Youre either brainwashed by watching liberal talk all day or I am going to start believing Gods and Devils because you are evil. But this is getting away from the point. I dont want to sound like I am supporting this guy who killed that doc. You cant just go around killing people, especially if youre mad because they killed someone that doesnt make any sense. Thats not order or justice. Thats chaos and a society I dont want to live in. I hope he goes to jail for life.

by atraindust on 06/03/2009 11:12:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Finally! Some meat to dissect! (4.60 / 4)
"I dont want to have race between women and unborn babies for more rights either."

But that's exactly what the abortion debate is all about: a conflict of rights of which there is no doubt that a woman has and of which there is little doubt that a zygote lacks, despite cries from the so-called "pro-life" movement.

"I just wish you werent immoral enough to think that killing a third trimester fetus was like taking out the garbage."

You lost me there, but you never really had me, anyway.  If you want to be taken seriously, try to avoid putting words in your opponent's mouth that he can later shove down your throat as a outright lies.

"Youre either brainwashed by watching liberal talk all day or I am going to start believing Gods and Devils because you are evil."

The final indicator that you know you've lost the argument.

"You cant just go around killing people..."

And now we come full circle: when does the combination of a sperm and an egg become a person?  I've answered that question.  You've avoided it (I'm not sure why).  The debate ends there.

I won't be returning to this thread.  You're obvious hostility and unwillingness to confront the core issues of the problem makes further discussion unproductive, and you've become uninteresting.

by EveningStarNM on 06/03/2009 12:30:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
youre dissection was a joke (2.33 / 2)
i never said a zygote has rights a six month old baby isnt a zygote though of course now who is putting words in someones mouth. A sperm and egg become a life to me before it comes out of the womb not at creation but at some point before birth and to you it seems that it happens when it comes out of a women like the outside air is magic and breaths life into the previously lifeless baby. thats why i say you act like its taking out the trash because its just simple i mean you keep using these terms like obviously, simple, or no doubt. Nothing about figuring out when does a sperm and egg get rights is obvious or simple. i am against late term abortions unless there are these medical reasons and for it where these are the reasons as well so eborujion i dont know whats youre beef. and i am FOR stem cell research i was saying that killing a 6 month baby ISNT like a packet of cells for SCR its something different

by atraindust on 06/03/2009 07:46:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No truce after all, Ken? (4.00 / 2)
You just can't control your obsession with me, can you?  You'll even lie to try to get my attention -- I mean, it was you, wasn't it, who started things off by publishing an old street address of mine.  

Turnabout will always be fair play in my book, Ken.  You took it upon yourself to publish information about me without my consent.  Do you expect to be treated differently?

Oh!  Right.  Aside from being a psychopath, you're also a hypocrite!  I should have known.

You should have kept the truce, Ken, but I guess an attention-starved piece of shit like you just can't help but dig himself a deeper hole.

by EveningStarNM on 06/03/2009 01:11:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Really? (4.33 / 2)
Then why did you publish one of my old street addresses?  I never published that address.  Why did you publish even a part of my cell number?  I've never published it here.  And why did you publish two of my email addresses?

Because you "refused" to?  Or because you were trying to intimidate me?

Is there any other evidence besides your current behavior needed to prove that you are a psychopathic liar?  Could there be any better demonstration in this forum that you simply enjoy hurting people for no reason whatsoever?

Are you upset that you have failed to intimidate me, Ken?  Did you think that when you published my address that I wouldn't publish yours?  Or weren't you thinking that far ahead?

And how did you get that information about me, Ken?  I got my information about you off of public web sites.  Where did you get the list of my previous residences?  It certainly isn't on the public web.

Are you trying to claim that my invitition was more than an invitation for you to prove what a creep you are, which you have so thoroughly done?

And why have you never listed those "threats" that you say that I've made to you?  Why have you not reported them to the authorities, since you claim that I've committed some crime against you.  Are you a coward?  Are you afraid that I might do something if you reported me?  Or are you afraid that the police would arrest you for wasting their time?

And to whom are you writing these insane posts, Ken?  Do you really think that anyone will think anything more than that you are a horrible excuse for human excrement?

Go ahead, Ken.  Please.  Keep playing your impotent, psychopathic, homophobic games.  There are still people who haven't seen you in action and who don't know how mentally deranged you are.  Every time you post, someone new sees you for how you are, and they wonder why you're not locked up.

by EveningStarNM on 06/03/2009 11:09:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
YOU have a conscience??? (4.33 / 2)

ROFLMAO!

What will you think of next!

by EveningStarNM on 06/04/2009 02:31:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
How many times are you going to tell this lie, Ken (4.33 / 2)
Did I post a list of my previous residences ANYWHERE?  Do you really think it's okay for you to post any information about me for any reason whatsoever?  Are you anything other than an immoral, lying sack of shit who deliberately tries to hurt people strictly for his own entertainment?

C'mon, Ken.  I know you've got a bunch more rationalizations for what you did.  Lay 'em out!  Let's see 'em!  Everybody's waiting for your next one!

by EveningStarNM on 06/04/2009 02:37:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
By the way... (4.33 / 2)
You did NOT get my addresses off of any public web site.  You PAID to get that list.

Why did you do that, Ken?  Did you feel "threatened"?  You poor thing!  Is that why you felt compelled to publish it here?

Oh!  Right.  You just wanted to intimidate me, didn't you!  Gosh, Ken.  I'm so sorry that it didn't work!

Stop it!  You're killing me!

by EveningStarNM on 06/04/2009 02:42:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Good, Ken! (4.00 / 1)
More! More!  Just keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper.

You really can't control yourself, can you?  Your obsession with me just drives you to post irrelevancies and personal attacks and to ignore all of the social norms that others know make a civil society.  Completely unprovoked, you entered this thread threatening to give my personal information to a stranger.  Why would you do that, Ken?

This is very revealing.  Once again, you show your true character.  Your posting of my information without my consent is more descriptive of your character than anything I could possibly say about you.

Please!  Don't stop now!  Keep it up!  I'm interested in seeing the full extent of your obsession with me, Ken.  Is it sexual?  Do you get some deep sexual pleasure when I respond to your attacks?  Is that what it really is, Ken?  Are you simply sexually attracted to a man and that's why you're so hostile?  That's actually a well-known phenomenon, Ken.  Lots of men who are afraid to admit that they're homosexual erupt in the kind of antisocial attacks that you demonstrate.  But the ones who can accept their sexuality are the ones who escape their unhappiness and eventually find fulfillment.

But I'm sorry, Ken.  I'm just not interested in you "that way".  I'm just not gay.  It's not that I think you're a bad person for having such desires for me, although I wish you were more honest about it.  There's nothing wrong with being gay.  It's just that I'm not that way, and I couldn't give you the satisfaction that you so obviously crave.

by EveningStarNM on 06/03/2009 04:20:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Really? (3.00 / 1)
You know this guy? Does he work with you in the accounts department at Chemtura?

by OneHitKill on 06/03/2009 01:33:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey! Ken is back with his LBJdim ID! (4.00 / 1)

by EveningStarNM on 06/03/2009 04:26:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oops! (none / 0)
I was wrong.  It turns out that LBJdim isn't KenTX.

by EveningStarNM on 07/12/2009 01:25:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
WTF? (4.33 / 2)

Are you fücking crazy? You are really equating a medical doctor who provided one of the most unpleasant yet absolutely necessary services on this planet to women in desperate need for such a procedure with a pedophile? You are truly a despicable person! First of all, what Dr. Tiller did was legal, second: he did it for very good medical reasons, third: only if all other options were exhausted. We're not talking about that "omg, not another one, I better go to the abortionist to shave it away" kind of mindset, but life-threatening conditions for the mother, and, most of the time: new-borns not being able to survive on their own and without any chance of improving, like babies without heads or brains who would have died at birth anyway or in slightly better cases suffered through some excruciating days to weeks before being relieved.

Just for the record: I'm against any late-term abortions in cases where neither of those conditions are met.

Late-term abortion is in most of those rare and extreme cases the most merciful treatment there is to alleviate human suffering. I don't get that kind of pseudo-"pro-life" at all... You'd have rather prolonged and unnecessary agony than a quick merciful death. Just like having 100 starving children in some slum in SA is WAY better than allowing to use condoms.

Besides that: your statement "we arent talking about a packet of cells for stem cell research" sounds like you think abortions are performed to harvest stem cells! Well, you're WRONG. Stem cell researchers just emtpy the haz-mat trash-cans -figuratively speaking- at the abortions done anyway.

And, as others have pointed out: if that hideous act of violence doesn't constitute terrorism then nothing does! The difference between that and killing criminals is that the law would have penalized them anyway (if convicted), so you are acting as a vigilante, i.e. punishing them instead of the law! Terrorism by definition is an act of violence to push an agenda and to spread terror on people not directly responsible for the percieved evil.

by eborujion on 06/03/2009 11:46:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
hey (2.00 / 3)
eveningstar chill with the straw man arguments and a baby doesnt become conscious when it comes out of the canal goofy. "yeah one time a baby had no head and the mother wanted to get an abortion" no one is talking about killing X-men babies so chill with the deformed stories. OF COURSE there are situations where it is appropriate. I dont think anyone would kill a doctor for aborting a pregnancy that was threatening the mother and had no chance of the baby living. Straw MAN!!

by atraindust on 06/03/2009 10:53:05 AM EST

And yet, that is exactly what happened! (4.33 / 2)
Do you really think a lunatic like the murderer of Dr. Tiller would see a difference? For that ilk, all abortions are murder. X-Men babies?!? So you would allow killing infants with superpowers?

by eborujion on 06/03/2009 12:10:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Xmen = mutant = I was saying deformed babies with (2.00 / 1)
mutations or diseases. Not healthy babies just because the mother is mentally stess out about how a kid will change her life. I hope you were kidding with the superpowers.

by atraindust on 06/03/2009 08:15:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Cenk (1.67 / 1)
Cenk,

I could tell by your looks that you are a very angry liberal. Just a few cards short of crazy. Actually you look possessed. I imagine this little article was a misguided attempt at humor, however the issues associated with this sad story don't merit an attempt at humor.

Red

by Red Neck on 06/09/2009 11:45:38 AM EST

I'm not sure if you realized this (none / 0)
They will say he should get rights because he's a citizen. It doesn't have so much to do with politics or religion as its made out to be.

by nmaks on 06/01/2009 05:24:47 PM EST

cenk (none / 1)
Are you mentally challenged?  Waterboarding is used to encourage people to give up information.  What information do you think Scott Roeder has?

by mikehoncho on 06/13/2009 03:01:40 PM EST

I Don't think So .... (none / 0)
The Beast takes many forms. Tiller the Killer was definitely one of them. I'm a bit old fashioned and tend to rejoice when the beast is slain. I'm on the other end of this thing from Cenk. I think it would be more appropriate to establish a National Scott Roeder Day. It is claimed that Tiller terminated some 60,000 unborn children, many of those late term by a unbelievably gruesome technique. No one should be upset he was finally terminated.

by Brutal on 07/07/2009 08:20:04 AM EST

Taste the freshness! (none / 0)
Not only did he terminate more than 60,0000 unborn Patriots or about 1 every 5 hours for his entire career. It is also reported that he could not stop smiling while doing it and often was heared laughing uncontrollably in an evil manner. When I visited him to learn how to inflict more pain to the fetuses in the 1990s we sat down more than once and enjoyed what he called "late term roast", an obgyn delicacy (which gave him the nickname Tiller the baby griller) where the adrenaline released during such a gruesome procedure adds enormously to the flavor. My mouth waters just remembering that tender baby meat.... My favorite though was stuffed 7months, my term of endearment for George thus was "The Baby Filler", I liked it even more than the very fine ground embryo you get from normal 1st-trimester abortions where one week's harvest is needed to get a single meal. It is a shame that devouring baby flesh has become so inopportune nowadays. With Dr. Tiller passed one of the finest chefs of that business who will be always remembered by fetus gourmets round the world as a master of his craft.

Btw: read your post again! you glorify MURDER. What beast? A doctor? How loathsome is that! You're not only on the other end from Cenk on this, you are on the other end of humanity and sanity on this issue. YOU are the monsters! Pro-life my ass! Fucking christians! We need more lions!

by eborujion on 07/07/2009 09:00:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It is claimed that Tiller terminated some 60,000 (none / 0)
Claimed by ignorant RWnuts who are unable to do math or think for themselves.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 07/12/2009 01:58:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Should We Waterboard the Domestic Terrorist Who Shot Dr. Tiller? | 83 comments (83 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: