great

seslisohbet seslichat sesli sohbet sesli chat

i’ve had a few drinks and wrote pro-life instead of pro-choice

hahaha

i think my support of planned parenthood and general confusion at the pro-life argument will clear up any confusion

i’m a total atheist so there isn’t any part of the argument that makes sense to me.

i wish i could edit comments, i’ll have to proofread in the future

haha

i’ve never called abortion murder

and i’ve never called anyone a baby killer

i’m totally pro-life.

your argument is completely false.

you’ve been putting words in my mouth this whole time, find any of those words written by me.

if you’ll scroll up you’ll find that i was one of those saying it wasn’t in appropriate for think progress to look to OR as being a part in this, as its clear they have a link… we should investigate if it is a criminal one and put them away if it is.

i support planned parenthood.

you’re way out of line.

You may recall the enormous controversy that erupted in April over a Department of Homeland Security report that assessed the threat of “right wing extremists.” The story provoked days of nonstop cable chatter, and DHS chief Janet Napolitano ultimately apologized.

One passage from the DHS report that provoked nonstop outrage said that right wing extremists “may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

That quote by Michelle Malkin that you posted describing the killing of Tiller as “terrorism” wasn’t by Michelle. It was a quote from a post on some other blog and she linked to Google. She didn’t call it terrorism. In fact, she was basically pulling the “oh NOW the left uses the word ‘terrorism’” card. Just didn’t want you giving her credit for something she didn’t actually do.

they should not have a significant part in the dialog

unfortunately they have the majority share of the dialog.

you said i project alot and then implied i think charles manson should be released… whos projecting there

certainly there are individuals within the “pro-life” lobby who are criminals and should be put away.

but not everyone is like this, there are plenty of people who don’t like abortion but respect the legality of it…. they don’t protest though

certainly these people are dispicable.

i don’t see how i’m creating a reality not based on facts.

you seem to think the facts are that everyone who is pro-life is an extremist of that point of view

clearly you don’t have the biggest fondness for facts, and you’re attacking and name calling someone who generally agrees with most of your points.

i’m just not trying to demonize everyone who has a point of view, because there are many people who do think abortion is wrong but would never act violently in opposition to it. there is no problem with these people (i am not one of them, i don’t think the abortion issue should be a debate and the fact that we still discuss roe v. wade as a “controverstial decision” saddens me)

lots of capital letters and insults don’t make you right

and calling me a liar certainly doesn’t either

and there most certainly is a difference between opposing abortion and advocating violence.

you are an idiot if you believe otherwise

to oppose abortion is different than advocating the murder of anyone who was apart of it.

i think to oppose abortion is someones own right, and as a result that person should not get an abortion, but i think to ban abortions would be absolutely unconstitutional.

you speak with a lot of sweeping generalizations, certainly not everyone in the organization is criminal.

and individuals are responsible for their own actions

Daddy Love made the point that we don’t know if OR is responsible for this YET…. i would have to agree. there seem to be enough potential links that we need to investigate to see if they were criminally involved or more directly responsible.

i didn’t mean to convey that they couldn’t be responsible or that we shouldn’t look into it, but i won’t leap to conclusions without facts and evidence to support it.

i’ll leave that to the republicans.

calavzma Says:
but they are not responsible for the actions of Roeder.

they are, however, certainly responsible for creating a culture of hate within their organization and we can take them to task for that.

This current situation reminds me of Manson…he didn’t physically participate in the killings but was convicted of murder.

but they are not responsible for the actions of Roeder

No, we do not know if they are responsible for the actions of Roeder.

I read her post. She points out that people are calling the murder “terrorism” then spends the rest of the post telling us how unfair that is and how wide-eyed innocents who have only publicly called Tiller a mass-murderer will now be hounded for their simple exercise of free speech. She herself mentions that “blood on his [Tiller's] hands” in the post.

She is NOT saying that his murder is a terrorist act. Quite the opposite.

I support a robust investigation of pro-life groups, including infiltration. Also, I believe that this is not the last of such acts we will witness, including quite possibly an attempt at presidential assassination.

believe me, i’m not defending OR, i’m just saying they are not legally responsible for the acts, they are not to blame.

that being said, i do believe the public should judge an organization by the types of individuals who support it. and in this case that does not bode well for OR

i think they’re a hateful group with no respect for the constitution of the privacy of their fellow americans, certainly they are not an admirable group and they very likely had an impact on the decision Roeder made to kill someone guilty of no crime.

but they are not responsible for the actions of Roeder.

they are, however, certainly responsible for creating a culture of hate within their organization and we can take them to task for that.

Zooey Says:

I just can’t get my mind around killing someone because you’re “pro-life.”

I can’t get my mind around someone calling themselves “pro-life” and then killing someone they disagree with.

calavzma Says:
that being said… think progress would certainly not be to blame for the acts of someone who was a member in their community

just as OR is not responsible for the acts of a member of their online community.

IMO the mission, rhetoric, tone and purpose of the organization has to be taken into account. If an organization was influencing violence in ways subtle or overt, plausibly deniable or not, they should bear some responsibility for actions they influenced, whether they pulled the trigger or not…

During the inquisitions (and even now) the catholic church insists that it never killed anyone. In the auto de feys (sp?), as well as all other instances, no member of the clergy was involved in garrotting or burning anyone alive: the church made a judgement, and the secular authorites were commanded to do the church’s dirty work. Thus, by THEIR admission, they never killed anyone (wink, wink). Semantics, no more.

More parrallell with: “…was found to have assassinated….”.

In such an instance I would actually expect law enforcement to be investigating TP, how it operates and moderates, and other posters who may have a connection. Posters who ‘just agreed’ with violent rhetoric would not be criminally culpable, but the point is to determine if anyone WAS. And TP itself would have some measure of responsibility to indicate that by its own content (not the posters) it did not foment the action.

Investigation is and should be necessarry.

For our part, I agree with everyone else who says that we need to see the site (wasn’t it more than one?), and determine how the site itself may or may not have been involved in inciting the action, and to see how their community posts. It is suspicious that they apparently had a special link that pertained specifically to the man who was murdered. What was the content of that site?

And finally, I strongly believe that there is a great difference between TP (a blog for political commenters) and a member-seeking religious based organization’s blog (whose purpose is, most likely, to increase their membership — in which case, all comments allowed to stand reflect directly on the organization in one way or another). Their site is not “just a blog” if its purpose is to increase membership in the parent organization.

But, we need to see it. And perhaps that is why it is unavailable — something a little condemning there….? …..

And CFP — do you have that number (I assume its supposed to be TP’s office number) on a post-it in your car? Why or why not?