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?

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?

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.

You’re really nothing more than an ankle-biter.

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.”

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.

You’re grasping at straws kid.

Herding cats?

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.

Fixed that for you, Frank.

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.

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.

“The people of Paris, rich and poor alike , are free to sleep under Paris’ bridges”

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?

So what are we doing in the middle east again?

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?

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.

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.