Just words, folks, remember.
More from Bill O:
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Bill O’Reilly’s George Tiller Death Fantasy Moment From 2006
June 1st, 2009
76 Comments
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Breaking News
- Adrianna Nicole In The Kitchen
- Aurora Snow In Bed
- Lisa Ann Upstairs
- Woman Smuggled Cocaine From Venezuela In Bikini Bottoms
- Twilight: New Moon Makes $140 Million, Third Largest Opening Ever
- Radiation Leak @ 3 Mile Island
- Tila Tequila Live Streaming Mental Meltdown
- 31 Die In Chinese Mine Blast In Heilongjiang Province, 82 Trapped
- Victoria Justice Stars In New Nickeloden Show “Victorious”
- CERN’s Large Hadron Collider Back Up And Running
Live News
Sad…..
Is there a transcript somewhere? I don’t want to listen to that fat fucker.
Transcript here.
Words have meaning. You can’t just spout off a monologue of anger and then toss out a Free Speech/Just Words/Love The Sinner, Hate The Sin disclaimer, expecting to be free of responsibility for your words. Words are just words but they can give an unbalanced person a target.
[...] Death: A Debate About Speech, George Tiller murdered, The Politics of “Murder”, Bill O’Reilly’s George Tiller Death Fantasy Moment From 2006, Randall Terry presser: ‘Tiller reaped what he sowed’, On Rivers of Rage, Liberal [...]
Well, shit. I just typed up a transcript of my own, and before I post it, I refresh the comments and see Oliver’s linked to it.
Couldn’t you have done that in the first place, Oliver?
Anyway, I noticed one difference in the transcripts where yours omits a key part:
OK, so I’m — I’m the fascist. I’m the bad guy. I’m the problem. Not Tiller! No, he — he. No. He’s a good guy. Now Tiller is pumping all kinds of money into… uh… obviously, the attorney general race. He wants the guy that’s gonna let him off the hook to win, those of you listening in Kansas, you oughta know that. You know, I’m not gonna tell you who to vote for, you guys know these guys better than I do, but I’ll tell you what: anything Tiller wants, I’m voting the other way. (chuckles) And if I could get my hands on Tiller, ah… you know… can’t be vigilantes! Can’t do that. I know that. Just a figure of speech. But despicable? Oh, my God. It doesn’t get worse. Does it get worse? No.
Back with your calls and comments.”
Crud, I screwed up the formatting AGAIN.
First two bold paragraphs are the quote, the blockquoted part is my words.
Oliver, you GOTTA get the preview function back…
J.
You keep scrubbing all you can, J., but I’m tellin’ ya, that spot’s a keeper.
O’Reilly’s words are disgusting. I feel nothing but contempt for him. He deserves to be shunned and to see his career dwindle rapidly to nothing. What a smug, pompous, fatuous, despicable diarrhea stain of a man.
He’s also not the least bit responsible for the death of George Tiller. Even if it turns out that the murderer watched the O’Reilly Factor religiously, which wouldn’t surprise me at all, O’Reilly isn’t responsible for Tiller’s death. Even had O’Reilly called unceasingly for Tiller’s head during every minute of airtime he was somehow allowed to bray his filth, he still wouldn’t be responsible. At all.
I’ve listened to O’Reilly. I’ve listened to Limbaugh. I’ve even listened to Malkin and Liddy, in small doses. I often feel ill afterward, but I’ve never been tempted to take up arms against what they tell me are the enemies of America. That’s because I have a conscience, and the ability to think for myself. Not everyone has the former, but the latter is universal. So I wouldn’t dream of letting Tiller’s murderer off the hook one iota just because someone else flapped his lips.
You’re right, OW — they’re just words. Disgusting words. Because let’s face it, that’s all O’Reilly’s got: talk, cheap talk free of responsibility or consequence, bullying bluster and nothing more. What he needs is a sense of shame and basic human decency. Until that comes, and I’m not holding my breath, what he deserves — as I said above — is ostracism. No more guest spots on the Daily Show, no more audiences for his blather. Don’t give this bastard one more flicker of attention.
R.I.P., Dr. Tiller.
Congratulations Felix,
An honest liberal who understands the concept of individual responsibility and freedom of speech. You sir are a bit unsusual compared to the normal commentors here.
It’s kinda interesting, I turned the Ed Show just as I was having dinner and he did a segment with an O’Reilly clip on this subject and the title to his caption was also ‘Just Words’.
The liberal stovepipe operation is in full force for this one.
Will probably warrant a ‘Special Comment’ from Keith Olbermann tonight- sure to be what many liberals will say was his best one ever. Then tomorrow the liberal blogs will have a field day replaying all the video clips from tonight’s broadcasts on Tiller’s murder, and nothing from all the pro-life factions who unequivocally denounced this act.
he did a segment with an O’Reilly clip on this subject and the title to his caption was also ‘Just Words’.
Yes, he did as the big orange satan ordered us all to.
Dennis, apologies mate, but I just can’t get that impressed by the denunciation of a dude’s murder by someone who’s been calling him a murderer for years. If I said over and over again on television to millions that you were had blood on your hands and were ‘Dennis the baby killer,’ and then somebody hurt you and I denounced it, I think your family would rightly call bullshit. Expressed graphically:
MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER(denouncement)
These wingnuts are dangerous and unpredictable. Like the neo nazi bastard who shot up little jewish kids in LA years ago. Like Tim McVeigh. Like the people who went to Sarah Palin rallies crying for Obama to be killed. Like the guy who killed the police in PA a few months ago. Like this guy.
How much more does it take before law enforcement and the FBI steps in? We need to start acting to prevent further tragedies.
And wingnuts wonder why they cling to their guns so tightly, because they are paranoid racists who would love to shoot people in church. They are sick, vile cowards.
Well, Parthy, if you said it two and a half years ago and it was on tape, I would hope my family wouldn’t be playing the video tape of it before I was buried as some sort of evidence to a half-baked conspiracy theory.
Tell you what, I’ll make a copy of this page and if something dire happens to me in a couple of years, I’ll tell them not to blame you if some conservative site tells them what you called me here today.
AO: “An honest liberal who understands the concept of individual responsibility and freedom of speech.”
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from taking responsibility of your speech.
If you call someone a baby killer, say they have blood on their hands, and their judgment day is coming, then you have to share the responsibility of what happened. You are helping to create an atmosphere that normalizes violence against abortion providers.
I’ll tell them not to blame you if some conservative site tells them what you called me here today.
Fair enough amigo (assuming you’re kidding and you realize I didn’t call you anything of the sort).
I think you’re misconstruing the idea here as a “half-baked conspiracy theory” though. Nobody is arguing that O’Reilly or any conservative intentionally caused Tiller harm or hoped somebody would kill him (Although frankly I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the more passionate abortion opponents hoped he’d be put out of commission somehow, however it might have come.) As CSS pointed out, they’re contributing to an atmosphere of violent rhetoric, however undeliberately.
Well, I just forced myself to watch O’Lielly’s show to see what he’d say about this. As expected, the main point was how sorry the audience should be for HIM because of all those mean far-left liberals shamelessly exploiting the murder of this evil monster to silence truth-tellers like him.
What a waste of skin.
CS,
We live in a different culture than you do where individual liberty and freedom of speech are core concepts on which our nation was founded. Felix got it right, you not so much.
Parthenon
“they’re contributing to an atmosphere of violent rhetoric, however undeliberately.”
Does that hold for the left or are only conservatives capable of that. Liberals have been poisoning the air over the war in Iraq for quite some time. Now a young black man from Little Rock, a recent convert to Islam, has apparently gunned down an army recruiter. Do you think Oliver will make that a featured blog post?
Info on recruiting center shooting: (CNN) — An Arkansas man was arrested Monday in connection with a shooting at a Little Rock military recruiting center that killed one soldier and wounded another, authorities said.
Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad — a 24-year-old Little Rock resident formerly known as Carlos Bledsoe — faces a first-degree murder charge and 15 counts of engaging in a terrorist act, Little Rock Police Chief Stuart Thomas said. The terrorist counts stem from the shots fired at an occupied building
Shall we attribute this to Islam and the koran the same way you attribute Tiller’s murder to the pro-life movement folks? Or did this fella just “misinterpret the koran” or something?
Just wondering.
We live in a different culture than you do where individual liberty and freedom of speech are core concepts on which our nation was founded. Felix got it right, you not so much.</i.
Inciting violence is a crime. Not saying O’Reilly did that. But if he did, it would be criminal.
And, plus, being innocent of criminal acts does not absolve one of personal responsibility and opprobrium for one’s actions. What O’Reilly did was despicable, and he acted with malice. Simply because such behavior is legal doesn’t mean I (or anyone else) should leap to his defense.
“Liberals have been poisoning the air over the war in Iraq for quite some time.”
I wonder if AO thought that Republicans were “poisoning the air” over the war in Kosovo with their unrelenting criticisms of the latter in 1999. I’m sure he/she did. Regarding the larger context of your post, could you please quote for me one anti-war-in-Iraq individual who said/wrote that he/she would “like to get his hands on” an army recruiter?
LOL Rotter,
Did I think it a good idea to stick our noses into the Balkans to change a news cycle or two, no I didn’t. But why stop there, let’s talk Panama, Nam, Korea, WW2. How far you wanna go back?
LOL if you want some hatefilled rhetoric from the left look up the Berkely code pink Fiasco of last year.
“Did I think it a good idea to stick our noses into the Balkans to change a news cycle or two, no I didn’t.”
Translation: Criticism over a particular war should only be characterized as “poisoning the air” over that war if it’s one I support!
“if you want some hatefilled rhetoric from the left…”
Even buying into your premise here (and I do not) that being “hatefilled” is automatically a bad thing, when did I say or imply that there was no hatefilled rhetoric from the left? You’re “responding” to claims I never made in the first place.
It seems to me to be highly improbable that Tiller’s killer (and Dr Tiller was not assassinated: Famous leaders are assassinated, not amoral Doctors) was motivated by some random anti – abortion commentary. I just read that he commented on a pro- life forum about Tiller a year or so ago.
Was he a terrorist? If shooting a “civilian” makes him a terrorist, then yes. But do we know that he intended to scare other abortionists? No, we do not. Maybe he only intended to stop Dr Tiller from performing any more late – term abortions — permanently.
In the end, blaming the “right wing” is , at best, foolish; at worst, dangerously close to calling for repression of the opposition. While this not is surprising behavior for liberals, it is best nipped in the bud.
OReilly says can’t be vigilantes. But that’s after a huge diatribe of nicknames of baby killer. What did you expect? The doctor had to wear a vest to work, and had already been shot previously.
Granted I’m not sure about anything late term except in the case of where the mother is in danger, and that’s it. But that’s no reason to become an executioner like this. How is this pro-life? And all the shooter did was set back that side and made them all look bad.
Was O’Reilly responsible for some of it? Yes and no. He didn’t actually abet, but I’d say he’s coming across as the Iago to the shooter’s Othello. A hissing snake whispering hate in the ear of somebody mentally imbalanced.
In the end, blaming the “right wing” is , at best, foolish; at worst, dangerously close to calling for repression of the opposition.
Will you morons shut the fuck about how conservatives are being victimized by this? For crying out loud you’ve been bitching all day about how liberals are trying to silence you. There’s just a little bit of a contradiction going on there.
You want to know who’s been fucking silenced? Who’s been fucking repressed?
Dr. George Tiller.
Wow. O-dub’s wing-nuts defending the murder of an innocent man who practiced legal health-care.
Why am I not surprised?
GOP = hate, terrorism, murder
In a few decades they’ll be as reviled as the KKK. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of whack-jobs.
LOL,
“GOP = hate, terrorism, murder
In a few decades they’ll be as reviled as the KKK.”
Wow what a long sighted perspective. You’re going to look back on yourself in later years and feel quite foolish. You’re a zealot, a member of the lunatic fringe that populates the far side at either end of the spectrum.
was motivated by some random anti – abortion commentary
Agreed. He was motivated by the anti-choice narrative as a whole (”amoral doctor” would be a good example of this). Bill O’Reilly, Randall Terry etc. propagate this narrative. They know what they’re doing, things like this have happened before. Why do their own dirty work when they can get a few unhinged whack-jobs to do it for free?
Was he a terrorist? If shooting a “civilian” makes him a terrorist, then yes. But do we know that he intended to scare other abortionists? No, we do not. Maybe he only intended to stop Dr Tiller from performing any more late – term abortions — permanently.
By that logic, NO form of terrorism could be described as such. Was 9/11 terrorism, or a case of mass murder?
In the end, blaming the “right wing” is , at best, foolish; at worst, dangerously close to calling for repression of the opposition.
I’m not blaming what the right believes as a whole, I’m blaming the narrative and loaded terms they use to demonize the opposition. You (both collective and specific) use terms like “baby killer” “abortionist” and such, knowing full well their meaning and impact, knowing about acts like these, and not giving a shit. But hey, not your fault. YOU didn’t pull the trigger, you were just happy that it was done.
“You’re a zealot, a member of the lunatic fringe that populates the far side at either end of the spectrum.”
Sez the guy defending the murder of an innocent doctor.
AO, I’m happy to make book recommendations for you given your piss-poor knowledge of history and politics, but in this case I suggest you go buy yourself a dictionary.
There’s nothing fringe about my positions — they’re held by the overwhelming majority of Americans. For example, you are a right-wing fanatic desperately clinging to a dying, near-dead, political party.
Have fun with that.
“You … use terms like … “abortionist” “?
How about “fetal removal specialist” ?
Better ?
What a maroon!
But do we know that he intended to scare other abortionists? No, we do not.
Yes, we do. His involvement in Operation Rescue, which does advocate that kind of fear as a weapon, and his possession of one of the OR leader’s phone numbers on him when he was arrested support that hypothesis. So does the realization that targeting such a high-profile doctor, and being aware of his history, makes any ignorance of larger repercussions a laughable suggestion.
And killing him in a church is fear-forcing of high order. Abortion doctors are no longer safe in God’s house. That is an inevitable message here. The doctor could have been shot at his house, to and from his way to work, at the store – many other places in his daily life. The choice of a church is a premeditated choice of venue to create more fear.
KC
Poor Frankie, it’s a shame that his loaded terms are so important to him that he just can’t live without them.
LOL,
I’ve told you before I don’t have much use for Howard Zinn. Go ahead and reccomend a few books, I’d like to see what molded your mind.
Look at the position you just staked out;
““GOP = hate, terrorism, murder
In a few decades they’ll be as reviled as the KKK”
Followed by this little gem; “There’s nothing fringe about my positions — they’re held by the overwhelming majority of Americanss.”
Yep, the vast majority of Americans thinks that the GOP = hate, terrorism, and murder. Right.
You go farther and farther out on a limb making yourself look ridiculous if one parses your statements and positions.
While Obama won a majority of the vote it was not a vast majority. People poll roughly 1/3 Republican 1/3 Democrat and 1/3 independant. The numbers shift slightly from time to time depending on various political winds. The center shifts from side to side.
It’s a shame you don’t have the grasp of history you think you do. It ought to give you a little better perspective. But the quality of education has slipped quite a bit, so I suppose you’re just another casualty of a P.C. education.
How do you get a perspective on what the vast majority of Americans think over there in Korea? From blogs like this? You’re in an echo chamber here.
You may not perceive yourself as on the fringe but look back at the positions you’ve staked. Face it, you’re out at the far end. Good luck with that.
I read these right wingers trying to separate words from actions and I keep thinking “Charles Manson”.
Charles Manson never touched anyone. He just spoke “words”.
Rupert Murdoch and his media terrorists Bill O’Reilly, Hannity, Malkin, Beck, et al, repeatedly express violent fantasy solutions and militant right wing eliminationists like “Amused Observerd” are quick to defend their ‘words’.
Rupert “Charles Manson” Murdoch, his cult of media terrorist, and the vicious right wing extremists that parrot their violent rhetoric have blood on their hands.
“Yep, the vast majority of Americans thinks that the GOP = hate, terrorism, and murder. Right. ”
You don’t get out much, do you AO?
Here’s a hint: It’s not 1983 any longer. Republicans are a minority party, and headed towards becoming a regional party. They don’t attract independent voters any longer (just ask John McCain). The GOP’s views on immigration, gay marriage, and national defense (Iraq and Afghanistan) are in opposition to the majority view of America. Your party leader is Rush Limbaugh, a racist drug-addict.
Americans don’t like racist drug addicts. They don’t like political parties led by racist drug addicts.
I’ll grant you that you’ve got about 25 percent of Americans, but that number will only drop as older Republicans die off and younger voters laugh at the ridiculous farce that is the party of Limbaugh, Michael Steele, and Newt Gingrich.
“How do you get a perspective on what the vast majority of Americans think over there in Korea?”
AO, there are these things called “telephones” and “computers” that allow me to communicate with friends and family back in the States. Kind of amazing world we live in, isn’t it?
“People poll roughly 1/3 Republican 1/3 Democrat and 1/3 independent.”
Not true. Not true at all in 2006 and 2008. But keep fooling yourself. It’s cute to see a delusional moron like yourself try and argue with adults.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/05/republican_party_deep_trouble.html
41% of Americans identify as Democratic, and only 27% as Republican. In terms of Electoral College math, that’s huge.
The GOP can make a come-back, of course, but it can’t do it with its current failed leadership. I’m going to enjoy every second of the inevitable blood-letting. Delicious.
Strowbridge pontificated:
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from taking responsibility of your speech.
If you call someone a baby killer, say they have blood on their hands, and their judgment day is coming, then you have to share the responsibility of what happened.
If I had the inclination, I’d collect all the venom he’s spouted against his critics — or, at least, just me — and compare it to what O’Reilly said about Tiller. “Subhuman” leads the pack — by denying me my humanity, that would reduce the “crime” of killing me from murder to, say, animal cruelty.
It’s an odd, odd world when Strowbridge criticizes someone else for over-the-top rhetoric.
J.
Stowbridge has a national television and radio show?
My, the amazingly learned things one discovers in conversation with Jay the Lesser.
Right winger “Jay Tea” engages in the sleaziest kind of false equivalency.
He compares one of Rupert “Charles Manson” Murdoch’s thugs, Bill O’Reilly, who has both a national television show AND a national radio show and who has used both to repeatedly target Dr. Tiller, to some commenter on a blog.
Murdoch’s thug O’Reilly got one thing right when he conceded: “OK, so I’m — I’m the fascist. I’m the bad guy. I’m the problem.”
Yes. But the bigger problem is Murdoch and the companies that advertise through his media properties.
Self-important dipshit “Newsy” engages in his stock in trade — hyperbole, taking quotes out of context, and general asshattery.
“The sleaziest kind of false equivalency?” Wow, and I wasn’t even trying. Damn, I’m good to get that kind of superlative. Of course, it would actually mean something if it came from someone with a shred of a clue, but I’ll take what I can get.
Here’s the stuff “Newsy” doesn’t want you to read or hear:
Here, O’Reilly reads an excerpt from a column attacking him, then paraphrases and interprets it. It’s no grand confession, just a rhetorical device. Not a great one, not even well done, but hardly some sincere profession of guilt.
But thanks for playing, “Newsy.” Keep trying, and maybe some day someone will take you seriously.
No, not really. But keep telling yourself that.
J.
Billo plays ultra Christian on tv and we’re supposed to memory hole his Those Who Trespass novel where a pimp named Robo had sex with 15 year old girls and we’re supposed to memory hole his sexual harassment of Andrea Mackris
And killing him in a church is fear-forcing of high order. Abortion doctors are no longer safe in God’s house.
See, Zython? He called him a “abortion doctor” . Those pesky labels – describing a person as doing what he actually does …
How inconvenient!
As to your point. Not only are “abortion doctors” not safe in Church: http://tinyurl.com/ltshjq
As to your point. Not only are “abortion doctors” not safe in Church.
OMG! Gay people disrupted a church service! Why it’s just like shooting someone down in cold blood!
Frank: “As to your point. Not only are “abortion doctors” not safe in Church: http://tinyurl.com/ltshjq”
You are one sick fucker, you know that?
You are comparing an at of domestic terrorism by right-wing extremists… to peaceful protests.
Frank DiSalle: It seems to me to be highly improbable that Tiller’s killer (and Dr Tiller was not assassinated: Famous leaders are assassinated, not amoral Doctors) was motivated by some random anti – abortion commentary. I just read that he commented on a pro- life forum about Tiller a year or so ago.
My dictionary contains this note: “assassinate implies that a politically important person has been murdered.” Considering Tiller was well known and controversial in the realm of reproductive rights, assassinate sounds like the right word to me.
Was he a terrorist? If shooting a “civilian” makes him a terrorist, then yes. But do we know that he intended to scare other abortionists? No, we do not. Maybe he only intended to stop Dr Tiller from performing any more late – term abortions — permanently.
You’re right, he’s a suspected terrorist.
How often have you made it a point to correct those on the right when they refer to a suspected terrorist as simply a terrorist?
Actually those numbers are 39% and 32% with the independants running at 28% or as I said earlier roughly 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, with the middle shifting with the political winds. Notice the shrinking of the independants matches the gain in Democrats. The smart money says they will shift again. You consider your self an expert in history, why don’t you examine it a little closer.
Remember the positions you have staked out. GOP=murder etc. and your claim that the overwhelming number of Americans will hold them with the same level of animosity as the kkk in 20 years or so. You’re on the fringe man.
Speaking of cute I find it amusing you speak of adults. You are obviously a young man, probably educated above your ability. Educated above your ability and unable to find a decent job in your native country. When you tire of Korea you can always come back to the states and get a job delivering pizzas.
The only thing Rupert “Charles Manson” Murdoch’s pervert O’Reilly got right was his statement, “OK. So, I’m the fascist, I’m the bad guy, I’m the problem.”
Yes. When a pervert like Bill O’Reilly, who had to pay a small fortune to make his sexual harassment problems ‘go away’ and uses proxy thugs to stalk young women like some sick dangerous voyeur, takes a dictatorial view of how to use the power of government to socially regiment women’s personal decisions as if he were a self-proclaimed Taliban leader and then repeatedly uses his national television program and national radio program to repeatedly target Dr. Tiller for violent suppression, yes, O’Reilly is the fascist. O’Reilly is the bad guy. O’Reilly is the problem.
But the bigger problem is Rupert “Charles Manson” Murdoch coordinating his media terrorists and his vast media properties, including our American airwaves, to push a fascist world view.
“Actually those numbers are 39% and 32% with the independants running at 28% or as I said earlier roughly 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, with the middle shifting with the political winds.”
Um, no.
But please feel free to keep playing pretend. And please learn how to spell (it’s “independents”). Like I said, I’m happy to suggest some basic intro. material for history and politics, but you should start out with “Dick and Jane” given your high level of illiteracy, AO.
Jaim the Spell Check Nazi.
Bravo for him.
Almost as bad as Redneck Repack bragging about moving pianos.
Some of you guys are seriously f’ed up.
Has anyone thought of leaving all of the snide remarks, witty comebacks, and general nonsense for an honest and objective debate? There is no “side” better than the other IMHO. I think it is a shame that there is such a demand for abortions in cases where the mother’s health and well-being are not endangered. I don’t like abortion but, I would be hesitant to outlaw it or apply the definitions where it would be allowable. I would say that part of that is cowardice of taking that step, but also weighing practical application against a principled stance. Women would get an abortion either in a clinic, or a back alley warehouse, and then we know what our problem would be.
If I understand the procedure correctly, the whole concept of a late-term abortion is sick in my book. Some of the drawings I have seen make me shudder. To be quite honest, I am not sure how many people actually provide them and what the criteria is for it to be legal/allowable. There are so many facets to the abortion issues, it just isn’t pro-choice/pro-life. The marital consent, age of consent, late term, wellness of the mother, rape, incest…..I mean the list goes on. There are so many uinique scenarios out there I couldn’t count them.
What I strongly feel is that if it is totally outlawed we will find more baby’s in dumpsters, and more young women and girls keeping pregnancies secret and putting their own lives in danger. Any thoughts from anyone on reasonable steps forward?
Reducing unwanted pregnancies would seem to be the common ground.
But many of the solutions that I consider reasonable are very contentious solutions for a very vocal group of right wingers.
Better reproductive education is correlated with lowering unwanted pregnancies. “Abstinence only” education programs are correlated with higher unwanted pregnancy rates.
And yet a very vocal group of right wingers don’t want effective reproductive education taught to children and insist the only alternative is “abstinence only” programs which are known to be ineffective. (Republican Sarah Palin’s failure in this respect is a recent example).
Providing condoms and the pill to those under 18, especially those known to be sexually active, would reduce unwanted pregnancies. But that’s also a hyper-contentious issue to many conservatives.
I’ve argued that single payer national health care would reduce abortions. Commenter “SFC B” made a case arguing against it. He made a comparative list of nations with some form of government health care and their abortion rates. Several had higher abortion rates than the US. The majority, however, had lower abortion rates.
It’s been extremely rare to met a right-winger who has adopted, in my experience. Though most every right-winger I’ve met that was against abortion always brought adoption. Apparently adoption was always someone else’s option.
Is poverty and unwanted pregnancies correlated? As I understand it it is.
Reducing the factors that are correlated with unwanted pregnancies, or at least studying why they are correlated, would be a good step forward.
But using government to reduce poverty and provide health care as methods to reduce unwanted pregnancies are just more contentious issues for right wingers.
Even studying the issue is a contentious issue to some right wingers.
Nearly every right winger I’ve ever met has argued against every method of reducing unwanted pregnancies that I’ve mentioned. There might be exceptions but I don’t hear them.
Instead, right wing media terrorists, paid by people like Rupert Murdoch, use their national television and radio program to demonize clinic doctors and incite violence.
I won’t compromise with right wing terrorists like Bill O’Reilly.
It’s a women’s choice. No restrictions.
I think it is a shame that there is such a demand for abortions in cases where the mother’s health and well-being are not endangered.
And where do you get the idea that this has anything to do with what Tiller did?
And what’s with this:
I would say that part of that is cowardice of taking that step, but also weighing practical application against a principled stance.
Weighing practical application against a principled stance? So outlawing abortion is principled but not practical while legal abortions are practical but not principled? Bullshit.
If I understand the procedure correctly, the whole concept of a late-term abortion is sick in my book.
The concept of ending a pregnancy that puts the life of the mother and child at risk sickens you? The concept of terminating a pregnancy in the case of severe birth defects because the parents have made a difficult choice about quality of life for their child, sickens you?
To be quite honest, I am not sure how many people actually provide them and what the criteria is for it to be legal/allowable.
So to be honest, you haven’t done any research at all into the subject, choosing instead to denigrate the principles and morality of those who choose late term abortions, or abortions period, because you feel “sickened” by something you haven’t even bothered to understand.
Any thoughts from anyone on reasonable steps forward?
Could you first stop pretending that you’re at all prepared for an an honest and objective debate?
@ Fafaroo,
Fafaroo: And where do you get the idea that this has anything to do with what Tiller did?
I didn’t, my exact words were, “I think it is a shame that there is such a demand for abortions in cases where the mother’s health and well-being are not endangered.” I said abortions. Not late-term abortions.
Fafaroo: Weighing practical application against a principled stance? So outlawing abortion is principled but not practical while legal abortions are practical but not principled? Bullshit.
Almost, a principled stance doesn’t mean it is correct. It means that you are taking a stance based upon a set of principles. The fight is to make abortions illegal based upon a set of principles. The practical application of ending it(real world), would be chaotic if we did this, in my opinion. Hence, my statement about my cowardice in wanting to take that step in light of what could happen in practical application. So before we say that this needs to be stricken based upon principles, we need to think about how things could be even worse. I suppose you must have not noticed my concerns about young women going to unregulated, unsafe, places if we outlawed abortion?
Fafaroo: The concept of ending a pregnancy that puts the life of the mother and child at risk sickens you? The concept of terminating a pregnancy in the case of severe birth defects because the parents have made a difficult choice about quality of life for their child, sickens you?
No, saving a mother’s life doesn’t, I would implore you to point out where I said that, but since it seems you are looking to spar instead of discuss, I say again, the concept of a late term abortion sickens me. What I mean is the mechanics of the procedure and what is done to terminate the pregnancy.
Fafaroo: So to be honest, you haven’t done any research at all into the subject, choosing instead to denigrate the principles and morality of those who choose late term abortions, or abortions period, because you feel “sickened” by something you haven’t even bothered to understand.
No I have not done “research” on the subject. I’m a regular citizen, not a pundit or politician. Please point out where I denigrated the “morality” of who choose late term abortions or abortions period. I understand the major issues in abortion, and the particular issue of late-term abortions that have people so polarized.
Fafaroo: Could you first stop pretending that you’re at all prepared for an an honest and objective debate?
I didn’t realize I was pretending. Maybe you don’t think I am being honest, but surely you will admit that my first and subsequent statements aren’t as snide as yours. Perhaps that is an indication that I would like to be more objective even if people don’t agree with me.
Perhaps if you had zeroed in on this quote from me, I don’t like abortion but, I would be hesitant to outlaw it or apply the definitions where it would be allowable., you wouldn’t have seen this as some sort of attack.
I don’t like abortion but, I would be hesitant to outlaw it or apply the definitions where it would be allowable.
The fact that you don’t like abortions colors the language that you use to describe the debate in the face a complete absence of facts. And I’m sorry but “I’m a regular citizen, not a pundit or politician” is a pretty sad excuse for being ill-informed.
Any objective and honest debate would have to begin with you taking some responsibility for educating yourself on the issue, would it not?
If you had, you’d be far more sensitive to the fact that you completely skipped over the point that the pro-choice position is a principled position, as well. It isn’t a position that rests solely on the ickiness of abortions but, “Oh well, what the hell ya gonna do we can’t have women dying in alleys.”
There’s also the very moral and principled position that woman have a right to do whatever the hell they want with their bodies and make choices for their own families whether you find it “a shame” or “sickening.”
The fight, in other words, Dkel, is to keep abortions legal based upon a set of principles. Not simply practicality.
Well, all this talk about personal responsibility has got me intrigued. Since he doesn’t do his own dirty work, maybe bin Laden isn’t so bad after all?
See, Zython? He called him a “abortion doctor” . Those pesky labels – describing a person as doing what he actually does …
How inconvenient!
I never said there was anything wrong with “abortion doctor”, I said there was something wrong with “baby killer” “amoral doctor” and “abortionist*”. But the fact that you equate “abortion doctor” with “baby killer” only serves to strengthen my point.
As to your point. Not only are “abortion doctors” not safe in Church: http://tinyurl.com/ltshjq
“Those damned faggerts won’t leave us good Christians alone! All we want to do is take their rights away. Won’t someone think of the children!!!!!!”
You know, I was wrong about you, Frank, you weren’t cheering for George Tillers death. I do believe that you were upset about it. You were angry that you didn’t get the chance to do it yourself.
*See end of 2nd definition.
Fafaroo,
Either I have not explained myself well, or you cannot understand me. Do you not see that I am against banning abortions? Do you not see that I said a “principle” is not necessarily correct? Principles are what you operate off of whether you are a neo nazi or a clergyman. I inferred that banning it based on “principles” won’t work when you look at practical application. It seems that you agree with this, but are just desperate to find a way to be high strung and confrontational.
And I am not “ill-informed”, however, I haven’t done “research” on abortions or late term abortions. But there are very few sane people that haven’t formulated an opinion on it based on material that is readily available.
BLUF: (Bottom Line Up Front)
1. I believe we should do what we can to save a mother’s life ALWAYS.
2. I wish that there was not such a demand for abortions in the case where the mother’s health was not in jeapordy. (personal opinion…cuss me for it if you like.)
3. I don’t like abortion. (again personal opinion) But, I would not outlaw it because of what I think will happen if we do. i.e. backroom abortions and more young women dying or having severe complications.
Of course that is an opinion, you don’t have to like it, but please don’t read in, or completely add statements or sentiment that I did not include. I am interested in how much “research” you do on any of these subjects. When I mean research, I mean more than reading newspapers, blogs, and watching television. I understand research to mean in depth study, analyzing trends across socioeconomic groups, polling and the whole nine.
News Reference,
I apologize, I didn’t answer you. I agree that the use of contraceptives, especially condoms is the best option. The pill is good, but I think that with underage people having sex, there is less discipline along with the lack of maturity. I agree that the push for abstinence only programs is really myopic. If people would admit what their actions and urges were at that age we would be a lot better off.
I don’t believe that making condoms available is “promoting” sex.
I do differ with you on one subject that has been a lightning rod for many, and that is the fact that a “husband” (Meaning that it would apply to married couples) would have “zero” say in the matter. I understand the way people feel about this in regard to it being a woman’s body and a woman’s right. However, I feel that in regard to a marriage a woman has every right to decide whether or not she gets pregnant. However, once she is, does a husband and soon-to-be father have no right in regard to this. I know what my gut feeling would be if I were in that situation. But looking at it realistically I wonder if it is black and white, or if there are gray areas. Your thoughts?
That would also make Islam not the least bit responsible for the 911 attacks. Wahabism… militant madrassas? Not responsible.
Al queda? Still wouldn’t be responsible. At all. The perpetrators, the ones who actually carried out the attacks, the ones legally responsible, were all killed back in 2001.
So what are we doing in the middle east again?
Zython: Your mind reading act needs some work
Of course that is an opinion, you don’t have to like it, but please don’t read in, or completely add statements or sentiment that I did not include.
It isn’t that i don’t care for your opinion or that I’m reading anything into it. But you’re saying you want an honest and objective discussion about abortion as if that isn’t what your witnessing.
At the same time, don’t give me this “There is no ’side’ better than the other IMHO.” Because one side wants to make abortions illegal and the other wants to keep them legal.
So yeah, one side is better than the other.
Abortion is legal.
What Tiller was doing was legal.
It should stay legal.
End of discussion.
No one on the pro-choice side of this is arguing against any of that. So why come down like, “Oh well, we need to dialogue about this because abortion makes people feel bad blah blah blah.”
If people have a problem with abortion because of their personal feelings, don’t get an abortion.
But don’t start in with the “both sides are bad” bullshit.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the law as it stands now.
What’s there to discuss?
If people have a problem with abortion because of their personal feelings, don’t get an abortion.
“The people of Paris, rich and poor alike , are free to sleep under Paris’ bridges”
Fafaroo,
Use the context of the entire paragraph. You are dead on in what you are looking at but you miss the big picture. The “side” I am talking about is in the context of the bickering.
“Has anyone thought of leaving all of the snide remarks, witty comebacks, and general nonsense for an honest and objective debate? There is no “side” better than the other IMHO.”
There are two differing opinions, yes you think you are right and people with differing opinions think they are right. However an open discussion shouldn’t be going for the “kill shot” with every post. You are trying that with me, and we are closer in agreement than you realize or are willing to admit. How could you have a discussion with somebody with a different viewpoint, with the way you carry on. There hasn’t been one instance of I think this is right because. You, like a lot of other people go to name calling, snide remarks and……
Jesus Christ….nevermind.
However an open discussion shouldn’t be going for the “kill shot” with every post.
Dkel, what kind of “open discussion” are you looking for exactly?
There are people who want abortion to be illegal.
There are people who want it to keep it legal but they feel all icky about it and need to let everyone know how icky it is–and that’s it a terrible, icky shame there are women who get abortions just because they don’t want to be pregnant.
And there are people who want to keep abortion legal and who don’t feel the need to attach some huge social stigma to it.
You and I are closer in opinion than the first group of people, but I also see all the hand-wringing and squeamishness as the same kind parochial, paternalistic, patriarchal crap that animates the people I have zero common ground with.
Now maybe you and I can have an “open discussion” about abortion but an open discussion is going to involve me calling you “parochial, paternalistic, patriarchal.” If you have a problem with that, then maybe it isn’t an open discussion you really want. That goes with an “honest” discussion as well.
Of course, if you want an “objective” debate, as you also suggested, how exactly do sentences such as:
“I think it is a shame that there is such a demand for abortions in cases where the mother’s health and well-being are not endangered.”
“I don’t like abortion”
and
“the whole concept of a late-term abortion is sick in my book”
constitute objectivity? I mean, Dkel, in the sentence right after you call for an “objective debate” you cast judgment on women who get abortions for reasons you disagree with.
I don’t see how “abortion should be legal, but women should feel bad about getting them if they aren’t dying” is some kind of objective position.
I don’t care whether the subject is abortion or something else, I have a problem with people who chide others for “taking sides” and “calling names” when they themselves are completely clueless about the biases of their own language and what it is they’re actually looking for.
What you have been reading in these thread, Dkel, is an open, honest debate. And objectivity, is, of course, impossible.
“Gay people are allowed to marry people of the opposite gender”
Fixed that for you, Frank.
I’m following up here on FreD’s and Newsy’s musings on the parameters of personal responsibility. Which, if I’m paraphrasing them correctly, are: if O’Reilly isn’t to blame for Tiller’s murder because words are not equivalent to actions, does that mean that Charles Manson isn’t responsible for the murder of Sharon Tate? And does that mean that bin Laden isn’t responsible for the 9/11 attacks?
FreD first. The clear difference between bin Laden and O’Reilly is that the first is a military leader commanding soldiers into battle, while the second is a pompous ass who sneers on TV for a living. However popular Billo may be, he’s still just a guy with opinions — nothing more. Opinions are free, and worth every penny. Military orders are something else entirely. Sure, soldiers can refuse to follow the orders of a commanding officer (or to enlist in the first place), so ultimately it is about the individual soldier’s choice, but military training is designed to forestall such choice-making. As a soldier, one is expected to be an instrument — a trigger to be pulled by the finger of a commanding officer’s order, to torture a metaphor. That officer understands and accepts responsibility for the actions taken by soldiers under his command. So, short answer: bin Laden is absolutely responsible.
Newsy: your example of Manson brings up the specter of brainwashing, a term that is subject to a variety of definitions. Some might say, for example, that military training is a form of brainwashing. Others might say that Fox News is a form of brainwashing. You might also find the term applicable to instances of interrogation, “enhanced” or otherwise. And, of course, there are the methods of cult leaders to be considered: Charles Manson, Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite, etc.
Brainwashing is undeniably a real phenomenon. The question here is, under what circumstances can a person’s free will and capacity for rational, independent thought be said to have been overcome by the persuasion of another? I don’t have a simple answer. I don’t really know what form the psychological abuse of Manson’s followers took, or how much of what they did is attributable to their own choices versus Manson’s commands. However — and this is the salient point — there is a clear and substantial difference between what Manson did and what mainstream right-wing media spokesmen do.
Understand, please, that I do not like these people and what they say — I’m no concern troll, I’m a hard-core liberal whether you accept that or not — but BILL O’REILLY HAS AN OFF SWITCH, praise the FSM. Limbaugh’s dittoheads are dittoheads by choice — enthusiastic, voluntary choice. It’s sad, it’s frustrating, it’s downright infuriating that so many people make that choice — but it’s theirs to make. Rush does not, cannot, make it for them. He and O’Reilly are celebrities, faces on a screen. They can be ignored and defied without fear of retribution. The same cannot be said of a cult leader or a commanding officer.
This is probably what Congress is like….
“Dkelsmith”: “This is probably what Congress is like….”
Herding cats?
Jaim,
Gosh you’re right I dropped the decimals. Kind of you to worry about my spelling. I noticed you never got back to me about that little too/to thing I chided you about a week or two back.
You’re grasping at straws kid.
“Felix Helix”, I’m an independent with a conservative streak.
I understand that many liberals see words as just words, just symbols, and conservatives use that to try to disassociate their vicious right wing hate from the actions those words precipitate.
There are even a lot of liberals who are complicit with separating right wing hatemongers from the deaths that their hatemongering generates.
Some liberals, “Felix”, who never criticize hatemongers that encourage violence, will suddenly jump up to criticize anyone who dares criticize the speech of hatemongers encouraging violence.
You assert that “He [Rush Limbaugh] and O’Reilly are celebrities, faces on a screen. They can be ignored and defied without fear of retribution.”
And yet every Republican leader trembles at the thought of crossing right wing radio host Rush Limbaugh because there are consequences to mouthing off (just words) to your boss.
Republicans repeatedly groveling to Rush Limbaugh has clearly shown who is the leader of the Republican Party: Rush Limbaugh.
And it’s ironic that you’d dismiss those right wingers as celebrities when the right wing has made an industry of attacking “celebrities”. Right wingers genuinely believe that “liberal” celebrities and the “liberal” media have profound power.
Whether it’s “liberal” “celebrities”, “liberal” news people, “liberal” radio hosts, “liberal” TV hosts, or just “liberal” writers, the right wing has made very coordinated attacks on the “liberal” media and “liberal” media personalities.
Right wing book writer Bernard Goldberg even made a list of 100 American “liberals” who were cited by that last church murderer, Jim Adkisson.
Jim Adkisson said that because he couldn’t kill the people listed in Bernard Goldberg’s book, he went out to kill random liberal church goers as a “symbolic killing.”
Terrorist Jim Adkisson was a fan of books by Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, both part of Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp media terrorist company.
Mass media has mass power, that’s why there used to be rules limiting how mass media’s power was concentrated. Media diffusion used to prevent a single person, like Rupert Murdoch, from spewing Jim Jones radio Flavored Kool-aid across the nation like some untouchable monarch.
Anyone with a national radio audience or a national TV audience has power. And someone who can get any Republican leader that crosses them to apologize within days, that’s profound power.
Rupert “Charles Manson” Murdoch’s terrorist Bill O’Reilly has both a national TV audience AND a national radio audience.
Anyone that underestimates the power of ‘just’ radio should read up on how Rwanda radio hosts calling to “cut down the tall trees” was the trigger for the Rwandan genocide.
And the power of television and television imagery is even more compelling than radio.
Murdoch’s goons target people deliberately and systematically.
It’s meant to instill fear and hate.
Murdoch’s fortunes rely on fear and hate.
When someone with a vast national audience, both on the radio and on television, repeatedly targets someone and essentially asks, “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?”
That’s a call for an assassination.
Right winger Bill O’Reilly knew what he was doing. He repeatedly targeted Dr. Tiller for assassination. It was done as part of Rupert Murdoch’s coordinated fear and hate campaigns in order to achieve political objectives.
That’s terrorism.
Why don’t you seek prosecution against O’Reilly, News Idiot, if you think you have such a definitive case against him? Otherwise, you’re just pissing in the wind, trying to convince people of something most here do not agree with, even some of the most ardent of O’Reilly haters.
You’re really nothing more than an ankle-biter.
Dr. Tiller’s wife would have a strong case against Murdoch and his goons.
But while I see Murdoch’s goons as clearly contributing to Dr. Tiller’s assassination and despite the clear and compelling evidence that Murdoch’s thug O’Reilly serially targeted Dr. Tiller, I’d be surprised if it made much headway in the courts.
That doesn’t detract from what should be the onerous responsibility of Murdoch and his thugs for coordinating a media attack against Dr. Tiller.
From this point forward, Murdoch’s NewsCorp is a terrorist network: Murdoch and his thugs use terror for political purposes.
And again, News Idiot, your charges are baseless and laughable, and likely nothing more than just a casual opinion you have no real conviction for; unless you are certifiably nuts.
If someone takes a shot at Bill O’Reilly, will you admit culpability because of your serial targeting of him?
Would you admit Keith Olbermann was an accomplice to the crime because of his insanely bizarre obsession for the man, night after night after night?
Felix Helix,
The legitimacy of the “military leadership” of bin Laden (the self proclaimed Islamic warrior), or O’Reilly (the self proclaimed cultural warrior who’s ‘looking out for us’) is debatable. But at least you’re getting closer to the point. Working in business, I’ve seen ruthless sociopaths con, manipulate, and ruin decent and good people who committed the sin / mistake of being naïve and peaceful. Who’s to blame? Welcome to the nuanced world of liberal thought.
“Would you admit Keith Olbermann was an accomplice to the crime because of his insanely bizarre arguments obsession for the man, night after night after night?”
Yeah, Olbermann’s anti-O’Reilly rhetoric is EXACTLY on the same level as the latter’s anti-Tiller rhetoric (”baby killer,” “blood on his hands,” “I’d like to get my hand on him,” etc). Felt the need to let the False Equivalency horses out of the barn this afternoon, Dennis?