Radio host Hal Turner — accused of hosting a website that incited Connecticut Catholics to “take up arms” and singling out two Connecticut lawmakers and a state ethics official — was taken into custody in New Jersey late today after state Capitol police obtained an arrest warrant for him.
Turner, who has been identified as a white supremacist and anti-Semite by several anti-racism groups, hosts an Internet radio program with an associated blog. Last week, the blog included a post that promised to release the home addresses of state Rep. Michael Lawlor, state Sen. Andrew McDonald and Thomas Jones of the ethics office.
Flashback: Turner was a Sean Hannity pal
For years, Hannity offered his top-rated radio show as a regular forum for Turner’s occasionally racist, always over-the-top rants. Hannity also chatted with him off-air, allegedly offering encouragement to Turner as he struggled to overcome a cocaine habit and homosexual leanings. Turner has boasted that Hannity once invited Turner and his son on to the set of Fox News’s Hannity and Colmes.
I repeat: If we should be saying, “Not all Muslims are terrorists”, then we should be saying, “Not all anti-abortion activists are terrorists”, let alone “All those who oppose abortion are terrorists”.
The supposed connection between Operation Rescue and this killer wouldn’t stand up in a High School debating club, let alone a Court Room.
And calling the white supremacist movement a “right wing terrorist” group is only throwing fuel on the fire of divisiveness.
If this blog is representative of the left, you are playing a dangerous game.
The connection between Operation Rescue and the terrorist killer of Dr. Tiller is pretty solid, Frank — and that’s with only a small bit of evidence now known to the public. Bet yout bottom dollar that the DoJ is about to put terrorist enabler Randall Terry and his extremist group underthe proctoscope.
Your own overwheening assertions suggest that you are in sympathy woth the terrorists who kill health care workers. Yours is a good name to be aware of in these unceratian times.
[...] Oliver Willis: Sean Hannity’s pal, the white supremacist Hal Turner, has some trouble with the law. [...]
Frank,
I couldn’t agree with you more. There is absolutely no difference between those who would shoot abortion doctors and those who would fly planes into buildings. Both groups of people are using violence in an attempt to terrorize people into submitting to their particular up world views.
The problem is that no one is saying that all anti-abortion activists are terrorists.
What we are saying is that there are a whole lot of people on the right and in the mainstream who have been busy playing Marie Barone by putting incindiary material out for consumption and then acting surprised and then saying, “What? Don’t look at me,” when someone actually does what they’ve been alluding to for years.
There are nut-jobs on both sides of the political spectrum. The difference is that liberal pundits aren’t in the business of nudge-nudge, wink-winking theirs.
So right winger “Frank ‘Taliban’ DiSalle”, who has previously argued on behalf of terrorists and rapists, decides that he needs to also protect the terrorist Operation Rescue organization in a thread about a purported white supremacist who has reportedly ““incited Connecticut Catholics to “take up arms”” and specifically targeted two Connecticut lawmakers.
“Frank” even threatens that if anyone makes the obvious connections between right wing terrorist advocates and actual acts of right wing terrorism, that those that make that obvious connection are: “playing a dangerous game.”
How so, “Frank”? What, explicitly, are you threatening to do?
Be specific.
How often have you operationalized your “dangerous” threats?
Are you a lone wolf or are you working with a terrorist cell?
Who else is in your terrorist cell?
If this blog is representative of the left, you are playing a dangerous game.
Why, are you gonna blow up Oliver’s house or something? Are dumbass, gun-toting, right-wing jackasses prone to violence or something? Maybe we should review the Sarah Palin Rally videos just in case.
False equivalence in 3…2…
The dangerous game that is being played is that you are attempting to paint fringe groups with a broad brush, thus including mainstream , ordinary citizens with whom you disagree.
Let’s look at “Newsie’s” Comment:
He accuses me of threatening harm or violence , when I did no such thing.
He labels me “Right winger” in a thread about “‘Right Wing’ Terror”
He asks me who is in my terrorist cell, thus affirming his own lie, and further smearing me.
He claims, falsely, that I have defended rapists and terrorists.
What could his intention be , other than to imply that I am a terrorist?
And, why?
Because I said there is no connection between anti-abortionists and white supremacists. Would that he could show such a connection. Would that Oliver could show such a connection. What a blow that would strike against the foes of abortion!
That is what this is all about: Not terrorism. But the silencing of foes of abortion. And, no, that is not terrorism; that is oppression, and flies in the face of the freedom of expression, upon which this country was built.
I read the following this morning:
Frank DiSalle,
Your denial that OR is now a terrorist org. is against the evidence.
i.e. operating in cells, using terror to achieve their aims further radicalization.
Listen to what I am saying. Operation Rescue is a terrorist origination.
What I did not say was “Everyone in operation Rescue terrorist.”
Nor “Everyone who is anti-choice is a terrorist.”
Doing saying or even believing that has become one of the hallmarks of mainstream con “thought”. ( I find it surprising that all of a sudden the movement of “your with us or against us.” has suddenly found the meaning of subtly.) Please stop projecting, tanning me with that brush is not only silly it is offensive.
I’m not a con, this is not meant as an insult or a challenge.
Peace Be With you.
Grumpyman: You are arguing a point I did not make…
I said “… there is no connection between anti-abortionists and white supremacists… ”
As to whether or not Operation Rescue is a terrorist organization, I will that to DoJ to decide.
I made no reference to any comment of yours.
Further, I didn’t read your saying, “Frank, of course, you’re not a terrorist”.
Frank DiSalle,
Yes you are right.
My point (in this thread) stands, over all.
But yes, I was mistaken in my comment to you here.
Peace be with you
And now right winger “Frank ‘Taliban’ DiSalle” goes beyond his defense of terrorism to citing a right wing extremist blog that is claiming that America’s democratic republic is now to be re-branded a “tyranny” which “will ultimately be answered with bloodshed” because ? right wing extremists didn’t get their way in the last election?
Welcome to the right wing: Crazy and Violent.
Thanks for outing yourself, “Frank ‘the Terrorist’ DiSalle”.
I said “… there is no connection between anti-abortionists and white supremacists… ”
Other than both groups overwhelmingly vote Republican, that’s true.
…offering encouragement to Turner as he struggled to overcome a cocaine habit and homosexual leanings.
Shocked. Shocked, I say.
If words and calls to action have no meaning, why are we hunting Osama bin Laden. He didn’t fly airplanes into buildings or blow up any embassies.
Other than both groups overwhelmingly vote Republican, that’s true.
Duros: I trust you have perused their voting records to acquire that information.
Frank DiSalle, June 4, 2009 at 7:37 am
I repeat: If we should be saying, “Not all Muslims are terrorists”, then we should be saying, “Not all anti-abortion activists are terrorists”, let alone “All those who oppose abortion are terrorists”.
The supposed connection between Operation Rescue and this killer wouldn’t stand up in a High School debating club, let alone a Court Room.
And calling the white supremacist movement a “right wing terrorist” group is only throwing fuel on the fire of divisiveness.
If this blog is representative of the left, you are playing a dangerous game.
I repeat: If we should be saying, “Not all Republican’ts are hypocritical lying sacks of kimchee who distort and smear liberal principles at every step”, then we should be saying, “Not all conservatives are hypocritical lying sacks of kimchee who distort and smear liberal principles at every step”, let alone “All those who oppose liberals and liberal policy are lying sacks of kimchee that distort and smear liberal principles at every step”.
The supposed connection between your latest attempt to dodge any culpability between you and your ilk and this latest example of Republican’t domestic terrorism wouldn’t stand up in a High School debating club, let alone a courtroom.
And smearing and belittling those calling the white supremacist movement a “right wing terrorist” group is only throwing fuel on the fire of divisiveness.
If your comment is representative of the better sort of drivel coming from the Reich wingnuts these days, then you are still playing the dangerous game you always have around here.
z_adura, well-played, sir. Well-played.
Frank, you’re an idiot. Only you could, one day, state that “liberals are just as bigoted as anyone else” and then the next, ask Duros to provide evidence for a claim that is almost certainly true. You are a sad, unintelligent person.
Speaking of personhood, Frank – have you looked at that website I provided yet? You figure out why being human doesn’t necessarily make you a person? If I could actually get through you skull for once, I would be super-excited.
“The supposed connection between Operation Rescue and this killer wouldn’t stand up in a High School debating club, let alone a Court Room.”
Let me be blunt here- if the guy who shot up the recruiting station was captured with the phone number of Louis Farrahkhan- Farrakhan would be en route to Gitmo- the fact that the OR Person- a convicted Terrorist mind you, isn’t currently undergoing “enhanced interrogation” is all you need to now about the difference between the way Islamic and Christian terror are treated in this country.
Frankly OR and many other forced-birth groups and the anti-choice terror movement are like Sinn Fein and the IRA- divided but working towards the same goal with many overlapping connections. Heck Eric Rudoplh met the same welcome in Appalachia that Bin Laden did in the NW tribal regions of Pakistan so quit trying to pretend that these are somehow distinct entities with no connection.
Heck Eric Rudoplh met the same welcome in Appalachia that Bin Laden did in the NW tribal regions of Pakistan so quit trying to pretend that these are somehow distinct entities with no connection.
Fundamentalist religious zealots with martyrdom complexes are bad news. There, I said it.
Mambochicken: You have become the worst of all possible things — boring.
Leave me alone, and see if you have anything to say…
I doubt you will.
Duros: I trust you have perused their voting records to acquire that information.
Would it surprise you if I said I had? It ain’t rocket surgery.
The problem is that no one is saying that all anti-abortion activists are terrorists.
Well…. Frank is.
He claims, falsely, that I have defended rapists and terrorists.
No, you just approve of them.
Frank, of course, you’re not a terrorist,
I have no way of verifying that one way or the other.
I’d comment on your other statements, but you basically repeated yourself in the previous post’s comments.
Yes, Frank. Being “boring” is the worst of all possible things. You’re right. Better that I murder abortion doctors than be boring. Better that I deny women their reproductive rights and rights to privacy than be boring. You really are incapable of being rational, aren’t you?
And I will note that you didn’t address the points I’ve made. Want to comment on personhood, Frank? Or perhaps your raging hypocrisy? I’d love to hear what you have to say.
Idiot.
How’s this, Mambochicken?
If personhood is a “philosophical construct”, then does that make it relativitic?
Can I, for example, declare myself to be a person, but not you? That would seem satisfactory to me, but you might not like it.
Thank God — yes, I said it – that British University professors don’t determine personhood.
One more thing.
You have called me an idiot for the last time.
This is the last comment of yours to which I will respond. I leave you with the fervent hope that you are forever treated by others the way you have treated me .
And once again, it’s all about Frank.
You have called me an idiot for the last time
Oh, poor, poor, Frank. Just close your eyes, cover your ears, and sing “Na, na, na, na”, then you won’t even hear the criticisms of your latest off-topic rant. Better yet, unplug your computer and go read a book.
Frank, you just refuse to learn anything. I went to the trouble of providing a link re: personhood to you in that previous thread. Of course you can’t just reasonably declare me not to be a person, no more than you can reasonably declare that a chair is not a chair, or that table salt is not white in color. “Person” is defined by a number of features. I, and you, possess all of these features, so far as I can tell. Terri Schiavo, infants, fetuses, the severely mentally-handicapped, dogs, horses, trees, computers, clouds, cars, and rocks ARE NOT PERSONS. Again, I am merely illustrating that invoking “personhood” for an anti-abortion stance is not a legitimate argument.
You want to argue for the rights of potential persons? Fine, tell me how the rights of potential persons outweigh the rights of actual persons. In the case of fetuses that may be born with severe mental handicaps, they aren’t even potential persons… so explain why THEIR rights outweigh the rights of an actual person?
It’s not hard to understand, Frank. It’s really not hard.
You’re ignorant, and you’re damn proud of your ignorance. That’s messed up.
Frank: “You have called me an idiot for the last time”
You’re an idiot. Gee, how’d I do that?!
No, Duros, it’s about “I am not gonna let it be about Frank”.
What some other commenter thinks about me was not , is not , and will not be the topic du jour any more …
mambochicken23: I went to the trouble of providing a link re: personhood to you in that previous thread. Of course you can’t just reasonably declare me not to be a person, no more than you can reasonably declare that a chair is not a chair, or that table salt is not white in color. “Person” is defined by a number of features. I, and you, possess all of these features, so far as I can tell. Terri Schiavo, infants, fetuses, the severely mentally-handicapped, dogs, horses, trees, computers, clouds, cars, and rocks ARE NOT PERSONS.
Coming in late here and I haven’t read the previous thread which contained the link to which you refer, so my objection may be moot. But I would have serious objection any definition of “person” that excluded someone because of their mental capacity (Terri Schiavo, infants, … the severely mentally-handicapped [yes, I specifically umlauted one item you mention off that list]). I would not want to find that I suddenly had no more rights than a rock because someone else decided I didn’t score higher than some arbitrary line on an IQ test.
From the snippet of High-Grade Crazy from Andy Klaven that Frank posted earlier:
Well, nine actually, not seven, and they haven’t taken away anyone’s right to make a final decision. They ruled that in the matter of abortion, women and their doctors should be free to decide.
Sean, I understand that it’s an uncomfortable topic. First off, it’s not simply scoring above some arbitrary line on an IQ test. There are elements that are essential to being a “person.” In certain cases, nonhuman animals are closer to being “persons” than some humans.
In the case of humans who lack all components of self-awareness (amongst other things) – they are not persons. Terri Schiavo was not a person at the end of her life. Infants are not persons – they are potential persons.
This is not to say that we should round up all the mentally-handicapped and kill them. This is not to say that it’s okay if I kill a dozen babies. It’s not, in much the same way that rounding up a bunch of dogs and killing them in cold blood is not. With infants, it’s even more egregious than dogs, because they ARE potential persons, which would seem to confer a bit more import on them. There are lots of good reasons to not kill infants, the retarded, and dogs – but “personhood” isn’t one of them.
I brought this up because Jay, initially, stated that late-term fetuses are persons. I contested that argument, and pointed out a few other examples that many people don’t commonly think of. A fetus isn’t a person, and it doesn’t gain personhood the instant it’s born. It does, however, gain other sorts of protections that make it abhorrent to kill them. These mostly stem from the fact that it is not parasitic upon the mother at this point.
I know it’s unsavory, perhaps, but it’s the legit truth of the matter. Otherwise you have to contend that simply having human DNA is enough to confer rights upon you that you don’t confer to other living animals, which may actually be more aware and person-like than many humans.
Quaker: I think he was referring to the Justices that voted for Roe v Wade, not the total number of Justices.
Two, they took away the rights of the citizens of at least 34 (38?) states where abortions were illegal, to so rule.
Three, they took from all of us the right to discuss it in 50 legislatures.
Sean, you weren’t even called an idiot, your gender preferences weren’t invoked, and you weren’t subject to vile epithets. I’d ask for proof of identity. Of course, there is nothing “evident” about the concept that some humans are not persons. It is a semantic subterfuge, a device to deprive people of their rights by using pseudo – scientific language.
Right wing extremist “Frank ‘Taliban’ DiSalle”: “Of course, there is nothing “evident” about the concept that some humans are not persons. It is a semantic subterfuge, a device to deprive people of their rights by using pseudo – scientific language.”
Which is exactly what government forced pregnancy pushers are doing to women by taking away their freedom to make their own choices about when to reproduce.
Right wing extremists claim that women are not “persons” and do not have the human right to choose when to reproduce.
Extremists like “Frank ‘Taliban’ DiSalle” even protect terrorists who use assassinations to deprive people of their rights to freely choose when to reproduce.
I don’t negotiate with terrorists and I won’t compromise with terrorists.
It’s a woman’s human right to chose whether or not to carry a fetus to term.
A woman’s freedom to make her own reproductive decisions is central to her personhood.
Without the freedom to make her own reproductive decisions a woman is reduced to chattel in a Burka.
No Taliban government restrictions.
It’s a woman’s choice. No restrictions.
“News” “Reference” There is no constitutional evidence , nor is there any precedent in all of jurisprudence, that what goes on in a woman’s womb is her sole, untrammeled jurisdiction.
You are just spouting cant : It’s a woman’s choice. No restrictions.
None?
Can she stick a butcher knife in there, if she takes a mind to?
Can she broadcast her own giving birth on her own television station?
Shoot, can she even propel her body across the street against a red light without incurring a fine ?
No, no and no!
Oh , to you and all the other nominalists out there : I don’t become a “terrorist” because you call me one.
Frank, I didn’t call Sean an idiot because he didn’t say anything that suggested he was one. He raised a point that was worth discussing, and gave context for his comment by saying that he arrived late to the conversation.
You, on the other hand, tend to not do anything like that. For example, you won’t even put forth an argument for why you consider all animals with human DNA “persons.” You assert it, but then don’t put an ounce of effort into defending it. Typical.
Explain to me why simply having human DNA is necessary and sufficient to be a person. What makes human DNA so fucking special? The answer, in the context of this discussion, is nothing. You’re just being hugely anthropocentric. If there was a gun to my head, and I was told that I had to kill either a normal, healthy puppy, or a brain-dead human being, I would kill the human, and feel no remorse for the decision. This mainly stems from the fact that the puppy is more of a person, at that juncture, than the human. A self-aware talking alien who is in the room with me and that human… I would again kill the human, as a self-aware talking alien is probably a person, while a human without a functioning brain is just a collection of organic matter.
I’ve already explained that I don’t advocate taking the “rights” away from certain individuals that are not persons; for the final time, there are very, very good reasons to treat them with respect and not subjugate them. “Personhood” isn’t one of them.
This is a philosophical conversation, Frank. Let’s see you reasonably defend the idea that all human DNA is special, in all relevant cases. And if it will allow you the freedom to actually engage this issue, I won’t even call you an idiot this time. I would very much like to see you defend your position. Seriously.
mambochicken23: Sean, I understand that it’s an uncomfortable topic. First off, it’s not simply scoring above some arbitrary line on an IQ test.
…
With infants, it’s even more egregious than dogs, because they ARE potential persons, which would seem to confer a bit more import on them. There are lots of good reasons to not kill infants, the retarded, and dogs – but “personhood” isn’t one of them.
But it is essentially scoring above some arbitrary line. At some point you’d say this infant is now _____, has demonstrated _____ or is capable of _____ (whatever your criteria is) and is therefore a person. At the other end of things, someone suffering the mental degenerations that may come with age would stop being a “person” because they weren’t able to _____ or _____ or whatever. There is a condition you would place on their abilities that would determine whether they were a person or not.
But nothing involving humans and their capacities has a natural clear sharp dividing line. There a no point at which you can say in this second they are now a person but in the previous one they were not.
Otherwise you have to contend that simply having human DNA is enough to confer rights upon you that you don’t confer to other living animals, which may actually be more aware and person-like than many humans.
Yes. I would contend exactly that. I don’t have nay problem with recognizing that animals have certain inherent rights, but they are not people.
Frank DiSalle: Sean, you weren’t even called an idiot, your gender preferences weren’t invoked, and you weren’t subject to vile epithets. I’d ask for proof of identity.
That’s because mambo and I have having a respectful conversation about our different points of view. It is possible. Not everything here has to degenerate into kindergarten level name calling.
Of course, there is nothing “evident” about the concept that some humans are not persons. It is a semantic subterfuge, a device to deprive people of their rights by using pseudo – scientific language.
I agree. There is a certain twisting of the commonly accepted idea of “person” as synonym for human needed to say some people are not people and some animals are. If the word “person” were to be replaced in the conversation with “self-aware” or some other such term I don’t think I’d have as different a view as mambo. the fact is, though, that defining a certain type of human as a non-person (i.e., non-human (or even subhuman as some have been known to do here)) has historically been used to justify all sorts of abuse.
What some other commenter thinks about me was not , is not , and will not be the topic du jour any more …
I for one am glad to hear THAT.
mambochicken: For example, you won’t even put forth an argument for why you consider all animals with human DNA “persons.” You assert it, but then don’t put an ounce of effort into defending it. Typical.
Explain to me why simply having human DNA is necessary and sufficient to be a person. What makes human DNA so fucking special?
I won’t attempt to speak for Frank but, jumping into the middle again, for myself I don’t really see the distinction between the word “person” and the word “human” and wouldn’t have thought it necessary to defend the idea any more than I’d have to defend the idea that water is wet.
If you could post again the link you referred to earlier perhaps I would then better understand what you are representing by the word “person”. Because it is the use of that particular word, and then saying certain people who don’t measure up aren’t people, that I find disturbing.
This mainly stems from the fact that the puppy is more of a person, at that juncture, than the human. A self-aware talking alien who is in the room with me and that human… I would again kill the human, as a self-aware talking alien is probably a person, while a human without a functioning brain is just a collection of organic matter.
I might do the same thing if forced in such a dramatic scenario. But, again, it’s declaring a living human to not be a “person” that gives pause. I’m not trying to split hairs here on some minor semantic point of word choice. But it’s that saying some one is not a person carries darker connotations than saying they are not self-aware.
If you wrote exactly the same thing but used “self-aware” in place of “person” I don’t think I’d have that different a view than you. But that declaring someone not a person smacks of stripping them of their humanity and we’ve seen to often where that has lead.
Sean,
Here’s the link for you:
http://www.dunbar-i-l.demon.co.uk/philosophy/pv_2.htm
I do want to stress that I am not using the term “person” in the everyday, common way that people typically use it. In fact, I’ve had to be very careful to not use the word in this conversation at points where someone could jump on me for my inconsistency. But, when discussing it philosophically, “personhood” is fairly well-defined, and it isn’t defined as the typical usage. Self-awareness, which you bring up, is an essential component of personhood.
In the past, many people have been denied their rights because they were considered less than persons. Slavery, genocide, etc., all have roots in this kind of thinking. However, this is due to the dominating power bastardizing the philosophical argument for their own advantage. Clearly, slaves in the American South were self-aware persons. Same goes for Native Americans who were slaughtered. The people who committed atrocities against these groups were using an irrelevant characteristic to declare these persons as somehow beneath human empathetic decency – the color of their skin, the fact they had land that the Europeans wanted, etc. However,
I just want to be clear that personhood, comprised of elements such as conceptual thought, self-awareness, and free will, is not simply bestowed upon individuals when they exit the birth canal.
Perhaps it’s just the semantics – saying that any human isn’t a “person” just sounds bad. Maybe we should invent a new word that doesn’t carry these ugly connotations. I understand that issue.
Can she stick a butcher knife in there, if she takes a mind to?
Yes, she can. She’ll go to jail, but the choice is hers.
Can she broadcast her own giving birth on her own television station?
Been done. Youtube.
Again, the choice is hers.
That’s sort of central to the point, Frank. I don’t know why you don’t get that.
mambochicken23: I do want to stress that I am not using the term “person” in the everyday, common way that people typically use it.
…
Perhaps it’s just the semantics – saying that any human isn’t a “person” just sounds bad. Maybe we should invent a new word that doesn’t carry these ugly connotations. I understand that issue.
Thanks for the link. I’ll look into it in a bit when I have some time.
But, yes, it is the choice of the word “person” and the way in which you’re using it that attaches a distinct emotional connotation to a discussion that is trying to be analytical. I’m for inventing a new word.
Thanks for this. It’s been interesting and, in it’s way, a lot of fun.
But, again, it’s declaring a living human to not be a “person” that gives pause.
What about zombies?
When I see Hal Turner standing in front of a polling place on voting day, dressed in a military uniform and swinging a billy-club (like the Black Panthers did in Philadelphia last Nov. 4th..) then I’ll start to worry that he’s inciting violence.
Until then, he’s just another a internet wing-nut with an opinion…
What about zombies?
Enh. They aren’t living. You can shoot ‘em with impunity. Headshots preferred.
Well, okay then. But are they persons?
And how is it that corporations are people?
“Duros62″ brings up a good point.
Right wing judicial activists redefined corporations as having personhood.
In fact, my Merriam-Webster Dictionary has as the sixth definition of “personhood”: “one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties”
This isn’t just a philosophical discussion. There are legal ramifications to “personhood”: Rights and duties.
Can she stick a butcher knife in there, if she takes a mind to?
I’m pretty sure suicide is legal in most states.
Can she broadcast her own giving birth on her own television station?
That goes beyond bodily autonomy and into airwave rights. But she CAN record it to video and show it to others.
“News” “Reference” There is no constitutional evidence , nor is there any precedent in all of jurisprudence, that what goes on in a woman’s womb is her sole, untrammeled jurisdiction.
As opposed to you who believe it’s yours?
Two, they took away the rights of the citizens of at least 34 (38?) states where abortions were illegal, to so rule.
Three, they took from all of us the right to discuss it in 50 legislatures.
So you’re saying your upset they took away your “right” to decide who should and shouldn’t give birth? You’re unraveling piece by piece each day.
Also, why should abortion laws be different between states? Is Wyoming too cold for abortion, is Utah too far above sea level?
Also, why should abortion laws be different between states? Is Wyoming too cold for abortion, is Utah too far above sea level?
Because we live in the United States, not the American Nation .
This is a Republic , a Union of 50 States …
Because it says in the Bill of Rights :
[Amendment IX]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
[Amendment X]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Right wing extremist “Frank ‘States Rights’ DiSalle” explains in a thread about terrorist white supremacists why he believes that the excuse given for slavery, states rights, should also allow him to force women to have children.
I’ve always been offended by traitorous secessionists trying to carve up my American Nation.
While I’m fine with states exercising considerable latitude with regards to many things, slavery and the subjugation of women are non-negotiable.
If right wing terrorists want to start another Civil War to decide the issue, I’d suggest they rethink their strategy.
It will not go well for them.
“News”"Reference”
Do you post these comments just so they’ll be corrected ?
You do know what the common name is for someone who “deliberately posts a contentious post, with the intention of provoking a hostile response”?
I don’t care if States’ Rights were used an excuse for slavery (by the way that usage is incorrect); the Bible was used as justification, as well, and that doesn’t make the Bible useless.
I don’t know where “your” American nation is located , but it is not between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans nor is it between Canada and Mexico; here, you will find the United States of America.
As for your dream of another Civil War, it will never happen, while there is only one person like you in existence.
Were there to be several of your ilk, or perhaps a dozen, then perhaps the Republic would be in jeopardy.
Because we live in the United States, not the American Nation .
This is a Republic , a Union of 50 States …
So you’re saying states should make abortion illegal because they can?
By that logic, why do we even have a federal government? Why aren’t the 50 states separate countries?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Like the right of choice?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I’m pretty sure the Constitution forbids states from infringing the rights of the people. Nice try.
the Bible was used as justification, as well, and that doesn’t make the Bible useless.
No, just Bible-thumpers like you.
So you’re saying states should make abortion illegal because they can?
No , Zython, because they want to .
I guess you were sleeping through 8th Grade Civics…
Shouldn’t have stayed up late watching Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles .
No , Zython, because they want to .
Those same states also want to recriminalize sodomy. Doesn’t make it right.
Again, if you think state governments should be able to choose which national laws they do and do not wish to obey, then why even have a national government?
By the way, you never told me what the punishment would be should abortion become illegal.
Frank, your federalism argument is basically irrelevant. Roe v. Wade was decided in the SCOTUS, binding all inferior levels of government. The fact that you think the issue ought to be subject to federalism is fair, you can make that argument. But you can’t make the argument that it is legal to do so.
Zython, I will say this for the last time: There couldn’t possibly be one single punishment for having an abortion, if it were made illegal.
What kind of answer are you expecting? A $50 fine ? Death by bonfire ? Banishment to Cleveland ?
Don’t be stupid enough to ask me again.
Perthenon: But you can’t make the argument that it is legal to do so.
Before Roe v Wade, abortions were illegal in 34 (possibly 38) states. If a state wanted to sue the Federal Government for mandating payments by the state for abortions, for example, the end result might be that the state successfully argues that each state should have jurisdiction over medical practices in that state, and THAT right, therefore, supersedes the right of the Supreme Court to artificially construct a “right to privacy” .
The precedent is to be found in the States’ current procedures for setting aside the right of certain religions to proscribe transfusions. The right to the free practice of religion can be set aside.
BTW, for anyone who is interested : I never, at any time suggested that a state could, on it own, simply refuse to comply with Federal Law.
I am getting tired of explaining simple english sentences to smart alecks. If it is not there, I didn’t say it .
Right wing extremist “Frank ‘Taliban’ DiSalle”: “we live in the United States, not the American Nation”
I’ve always been fascinated by the right wing’s absurd and offensive claim that they could carve our American Nation up into little pieces and that somehow that’s what made them more patriotic than those of US who see our American Nation as indivisible.
Again:
I’ve always been offended by traitorous secessionists trying to carve up my American Nation.
But I’m patriotic that way.
“There couldn’t possibly be one single punishment for having an abortion.”
Why not?
Zython, I will say this for the last time: There couldn’t possibly be one single punishment for having an abortion, if it were made illegal.
Fine, I’ll play by your weenie rules. Give me a sample case and an appropriate punishment.
What kind of answer are you expecting? A $50 fine ? Death by bonfire ? Banishment to Cleveland ?
Well, I was expecting SOMETHING. When someone breaks a law, they get punished. That’s the entire point of laws.
It seems that the punishment for abortion really isn’t something that anti-choicers like to think about. Frank, if you’re not willing to punish someone for breaking a law, then that means the law shouldn’t exist.
Gosh, how reassuring. Even if I take a few days off, “Newsie” (I think I like this alternate spelling) is still the flaming asshole he/she/it always is.
Wow, Frank. You got “Newsie” worked up that he’s given you more monikers than a Car Talk staffer — “right wing,” “extremist,” and “Taliban!” That might be a record. Don’t expect it to last long, though — “Newsie’s” apparently lost his/her/its meds, and should be going even more apeshit soon.
So, “Newsie,” what’s your latest catch phrase that you think makes you sound so tough and patriotic and whatnot?
I’ve always been offended by traitorous secessionists trying to carve up my American Nation.
But I’m patriotic that way.
Someone better not tell “Newsie” about the whole Jesusland thing from 2004 or so…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusland_map
J.
If a state wanted to sue the Federal Government for mandating payments by the state for abortions, for example, the end result might be that the state successfully argues that each state should have jurisdiction over medical practices in that state,
Please, trace for me the legal argument by which a suit over payments would lead to total jurisdiction independent of federal oversight. The suit you posit would end state payments if it were successfully argued (which it wouldn’t be), it would most emphatically NOT lead to jurisdiction. Your hypothesis is like saying Kelo v. New London could have led to state property seizures w/out compensation.
and THAT right, therefore, supersedes the right of the Supreme Court to artificially construct a “right to privacy” .
No it wouldn’t. Federal law still supercedes states’ rights, as I assume you’re aware. Such a decision over payments would not overturn Roe. That you believe privacy rights are artifically constructed is personally interesting, but ultimately irrelevant. The SCOTUS didn’t agree.
Zython, I am not here to do your bidding … I cannot think of one good reason to construct a hypothetical abortion and devise a punishment for it.
Abortions were legal in my home state before Roe V Wade.
A State can devise its own procedure for the enforcement of laws. It could say, for example, that the Federal Government cannot make us fund abortions for minors, without the written consent of the parent(s) or guardian.
I am not a lawyer, and I do not play one on TV or in weblogs. The untrammeled right to an abortion may have been “granted” to women by an absurd definition of “privacy”; it can be altered or removed in some way by case law…
I don’t see how you can deny the inevitability of childbirth as an outcome of pregnancy. There would seem, IMHO, to be a legal nexus there between the inevitability of life at birth , and the preservation of life by not preventing childbirth.
That you believe privacy rights are artifically constructed is personally interesting, but ultimately irrelevant. The SCOTUS didn’t agree.
For now .
I don’t see how you can deny the inevitability of childbirth as an outcome of pregnancy.
Miscarriage.
There would seem, IMHO, to be a legal nexus there between the inevitability of life at birth , and the preservation of life by not preventing childbirth.
By that logic, murder should be legal since death is an inevitable outcome of life.
Frank, your post just confirms my point that anti-choicers like yourself don’t like talking about the results of making abortion illegal. Whether it’s because you haven’t thought of it, or because you’re too ashamed to admit that you want to put onesixth of the American people in prison, either way, you should really reevaluate your position on this issue.
Obscene right wing extremist “Frank DiSalle”, who has argued on behalf of terrorists and rapists, now has discredited right wing Commentary Magazine blogger “Jay Tea” protecting the boundaries of civility because…
…well, because “Frank DiSalle’s” arguments on behalf of right wing terrorists and rapists rights (over a woman’s right to control her reproductive decisions) are the kind of thing that Commentary Magazine bloggers like to protect when it’s in their interests and then decry the next moment when it’s not.
Right Winger’s First Rule: Rules Are For Other People.
Hey, “Jay Tea”, don’t you need to be arguing on behalf of torture and war crimes somewhere?
You’ve been so eloquent in the defense of war crimes and torture (even while being completely evil) you’d think you could get a job as Republican Cheney or Republican John Yoo’s press agent.
Unscientific* right winger “Frank ‘Taliban Home Schooled’ DiSalle” asserts definitively, “I don’t see how you can deny the inevitability of childbirth as an outcome of pregnancy.”
If only all of the women I’ve known who had miscarriages understand “Frank’s” rules for women and childbirth!
Welcome to the right winger’s world where they demand that their ignorance be codified into law even when it’s refuted by reality over and over and over again.
Hey, “Frank”, tell us again how the Sun only shines 12 hours a day!
* unscientific? anti-scientific?
J.G.Thayer: “Someone better not tell “Newsie” about the whole Jesusland thing from 2004 or so…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusland_map”
More proof that you can’t even identify a joke when you see it.
You truly are retarded. There is some part of your brain that just does not function as it should.
Frank: “I don’t see how you can deny the inevitability of childbirth as an outcome of pregnancy.”
Did you know that when a woman becomes pregnant her immune system is suppressed. If this didn’t happen, her body would identify the fetus as an invading organism and kill it.
In fact, according to some of the evidence, most pregnancies do not end in childbirth. Studies show that 30% to 50% of fertilized eggs are lost before implantation can take hold. and another 15% to 20% of the rest don’t make it to term either.
It seems abortion is the most ‘natural’ outcome of pregnancy.
CS Did you know that when a woman becomes pregnant her immune system is suppressed. If this didn’t happen, her body would identify the fetus as an invading organism and kill it.
a) I did know this ; and b) I would imagine that that would be an indicator that the body is automatically preparing for a full term pregnancy.
All you are saying is that there are lots of spontaneous abortions.
These differ from discretionary, voluntary abortions in that they are , well … spontaneous.
So while there can be spontaneous abortions, clearly, by definition, the usual outcome for a pregnancy can not be a voluntary, discretionary abortion.
That would be like saying that an “expected outcome” of driving is that a car goes off the road, and runs over someone walking down the street, when in fact, the driver has not lost control of the car.
Strowbridge, “Newsie” doesn’t MAKE jokes. “Newsie” IS a joke.
And, “Newsie,” it appears that “rules are for other people” is the first rule of the Obama administration. Tax rules, for one. Bankruptcy rules, for another. Employment contract rules, for yet another.
I better be careful, because Obama’s now talking about an “internet czar” to stand beside the legion of other unelected, unapproved “czars” he’s handing over hefty amounts of power to…
Oh, and I don’t need to defend whatever you wanna call “torture” or whatnot — Obama’s quietly continuing most of them anyway. You’re wasting your time going after me, for saying that such things are necessary — I’ve apparently won that argument. Take it up with the guy who’s got the power to end them, and isn’t.
You might recognize him. He’s the guy who promised you he’d end all of them in exchange for your votes last November, and you idiots believed him.
J.
Well, Jay (Tea), I’ll tell you one thing. It’s refreshing to see that you stand so adamantly by your position to hurt people for no reason. Frank keeps trying to squirm out of thinking about the results of his political beliefs. You on the other hand just plain don’t care.
Wait, that’s not refreshing. What’s that other word? Oh, right, “disturbing”.
You might recognize him. He’s the guy who promised you he’d end all of them in exchange for your votes last November, and you idiots believed him.
Well, better than McCain who would have INCREASED the torture.
You want me to say that Obama’s wrong fine I’ll say it.
Obama is wrong and should stop torture by American troops NOW. Those who green lit this policy should also be charged for war crimes.
There, I have stood by my position, and you still have blood on your hands. Happy?
In a thread about right wing terrorists, right wing extremist “Jay Tea” is now bragging about his torture advocacy.
“Oh, and I don’t need to defend whatever you wanna call “torture” … I’ve apparently won that argument.”
Not that you care, but torturing the enemy means that you endanger American troops.
When you torture the enemy it gives the enemy reason to torture our American soldiers.
Obama dropped the Republican torture programs.
His failure is in not pushing investigations and prosecutions of the clear evidence of Republican war crimes.
But you’ve excused war crimes, as well, “Jay Tea”.
And that further endangers American troops.
But the truth is that chickenhawk right wingers that have never and would never serve are the first to recklessly endanger American troops.
It’s shameful.
Not that you care, but torturing the enemy means that you endanger American troops.
When you torture the enemy it gives the enemy reason to torture our American soldiers.
Because they wouldn’t if we didn’t “torture” first? That they need us to give them a “reason?”
You’re making the same mistake that I am here — presuming that you’re dealing with people who think rationally, like I do.
“Abdul, we captured an American soldier. What shall we do with him?”
“Well, Omar, I was going to say that we honor the Geneva Conventions, let the Red Cross know he’s alive and well, and treat him humanely, but I’m still mad that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded, so cut off his head.”
They don’t NEED excuses to act the way they are. They’ll say they do, but pretty much whatever we do, they’ll find some way to blame us for their own inhumanity.
You’re just pandering and enabling them. But that’s what you do best, isn’t it?
No, you are eager to absolve them of any responsibility for their acts, and find a way to blame the victims. After all, they’re not really responsible for what they do. They’re just poor, ignorant savages who can’t help themselves.
All I ask is that you treat them the same way you treat your fellow Americans who disagree with you politically. Is that too much to ask?
J.
J.G.Thayer: “Strowbridge, ‘Newsie’ doesn’t MAKE jokes. ‘Newsie’ IS a joke.”
And what the fuck does that have to do with Jesusland, which you brought up, fucktard?
“Oh, and I don’t need to defend whatever you wanna call ‘torture’ or whatnot — ”
We don’t call waterboarding torture. The law you quoted calls it torture. Now instead of defending your indefensible position, you are shouting, ‘LOOK OVER THERE!’ and claiming Obama is continuing to torture people.
Of course, you have no real evidence of this claim. But that never stopped you before.
“Jay Tea” is a Classic Right Winger.
“Jay Tea”, when right wingers say that they will use the tactics and strategies of the enemy to defeat the enemy, and the enemy is “terrorists”, than what the right wingers are saying is that they’ve intentionally become the terrorists.
And “Jay Tea”, when you say that “[terrorists will] find some way to blame us for their own inhumanity”, what you really mean is that you are blaming them for your inhumanity.
That’s an evil path you are on, “Jay Tea”.
You are responsible for your own actions and advocacies, “Jay Tea”.
You’ve degenerated to the point where you willfully and knowingly protect right wing terrorists, you support torture, and you even excuse war crimes, “Jay Tea”.
To repeat.
You’ve become a cheer leader for terrorists, torturers, and war criminals, “Jay Tea”.
On the other hand, because I firmly support a stand against the use of terrorism, when I read right wingers like yourself give verbal cover to terrorists and torturers and war criminals, I wonder just how insane and vicious and dangerous you really are.
In a way, “Jay Tea”, you are just as responsible for right wing terrorism in America as al Qaeda propagandists (that have others do their evil deeds around the world) are.
You are the equivalent of an al Qaeda ‘communications’ officer.
Which is why you protect so fiercely the free speech of genocidal militants.
By the way, “Jay Tea”, did you ever get that wish of yours, the wish to have “Nazi”’s march through your neighborhood?
Boy, most people would have sprained their bloviating tendon cranking all that out. Fortunately, “Newsie” has spent years exercising and toughening up his bloviating skills, and can spend hours and hours spouting his gibberish without risk of debilitating injury.
Someone let me know when “Newsie” says something of substance, and not just the same old same old, which all boil down to “you’re the worst human being ever on the face of the earth for daring to say things I don’t like!”
It’s almost a privilege, to have “Newsie” promote me above those who actually commit atrocities. To know that he considers me far, far worse than those who commit genocide, who torture and kill the innocent, who deliberately strive to brutally oppress people, who preside over reigns of terror… it’s quite heady, actually.
I might have to go lie down. The honor he does me positively gives me the vapors.
J.
Right winger “Jay Tea”: “It’s almost a privilege, to have “Newsie” promote me above those who actually commit atrocities.”
It’s always interesting to read what you are proud of “Jay Tea”.
Have you ever considered that your advocacy of torture is terrorism on a personal level?
Torture is terrorism, “Jay Tea”. It’s the deliberate, calculated use of fear to produce a specific outcome.
Historically torture has been used to coerce false confessions.
Torture has also been used by governments to terrorize both foreign and domestic populations.
Torture is a political terrorist weapon for the governments that wield it.
And you are an advocate of torture, “Jay Tea”.
You might recognize him. He’s the guy who promised you he’d end all of them in exchange for your votes last November, and you idiots believed him.
But remember kids, Jay Tea is not a Republican, never listens to Rush and doesn’t care for Fox News.
J.G.Thayer: “I might have to go lie down. The honor he does me positively gives me the vapors.”
You are the one who is elevating you above the perpetrators of torture when you decide to only respond to attacks against you and not our actual points.
Now, do you care to discuss Jesusland, which you brought up?
How about the legal definition of torture, which you brought up?
How about the uses of torture that you claim are continuing under Obama, which you brought up?
Or are you instead going to make the debate all about you, and then whine like a little baby that you are the center of attention?
You’re making the same mistake that I am here — presuming that you’re dealing with people who think rationally, like I do.
If we’ve learned ANYTHING from the Cold War (which it sounds like we haven’t), it’s that assuming the enemy is irrational leads to irrational actions.
They’ll say they do, but pretty much whatever we do, they’ll find some way to blame us for their own inhumanity.
Oh my God! They’re Arabic Jay Teas!
No, you are eager to absolve them of any responsibility for their acts, and find a way to blame the victims.
Just like how you’re acting as an apologist for the torture enablers?
Jay Tea, desire for vengeance is natural and perfectly normal, but it is not appropriate for a civilized society, as it is one of our basest and inhumane emotions. What’s worse is that you actually want the government to do it for you on MY dime. Why should I pay for your hedonistic desires? Why should anyone?