Big Blue Wave's Comments
I'm with you, Suzanne. I think that Scott Roeder should just shut up. Failing that, I think he should just be ignored. I certainly don't think he should be given a platform.
Molly Ivins' First Rule of Holes: 'If you're in one, stop digging.'
Let's face it, Scott Roeder did not get to this point in his life by doing a lot of thinking.
"...lost just about all of your credibility. "
I would say that never had any to begin with. But that's just me...
It wasn't just any group that he was sending stuff to, Suzanne...Army of God...sheeeeesssh
Yes, how did AP get the letter?
The most obvious answer is one of the recipients. And why would a recipient go public with it?
So the murderous nutbars can say: See, we didn't have anything to do with him. He's trying to get the attention of the REAL anti-choicers, who, of course, completely disavow such violence, yadayada. . .
Keep talking, Mr. Roeder and enablers. You too, SUZANNE.
So AP gives Scott Roeder and the Army of God a platform, but no criticism of AP.
Nice consistency, there.
"So the murderous nutbars can say"
Isn't that language supposed to be inflammatory and potentially lethal.
Oh wait. It's okay when you do it.
Keep talking, Mr. Roeder and enablers.
But fern, that could lead to another abortionist being killed, right?
AP is informing the public. It is not celebrating or inciting anything.
We want you to keep talking because it shows what you are. Hateful violence enablers. Then, when the worst of you face domestic terrorism charges, the rest of you will think twice before flapping your yats.
As for 'murderous nutbars', that is simply truth. NINE murders since 1997. From the pro-choice side: ZERO.
Dr. Dawg caught you in a pretty big Freudian slip in the comments here.
Care to comment?
Suzanne, that's the job of reporters. To tell people what is happening and they can make their own conclusions. The question here should be, "Why is this moron allowed to send stuff from jail?"
"Quit while you're ahead."
there's a very telling slip....
KEvron
"So AP gives Scott Roeder and the Army of God a platform, but no criticism of AP."
You seriously don't see the difference between advocating for the murder of doctors and reporting that someone advocated for the murder of doctors? By that standard, even Wikipedia is guilty of "giving a platform" to these whackos. There's nothing to criticize AP for -- It's the media's job to let the rest of us know what the dangerous nuts in our midst are up to.
Let's put it this way: if Zacarias Moussaui, in jail, was sending propaganda to mosques that glorified the 9/11 highjackers & encouraged similar attacks, and CNN found out & reported on it, would that mean CNN was giving him a platform or that they endorsed those views?
[Ceecee said] "Failing that, I think he should just be ignored."
Of course you do. He's one of yours.
Gee JJ says pro-lifers should be ignored, whereas fern hill says we should keep talking.
I wish supporters of legal abortion would make up their mind.
You seriously don't see the difference between advocating for the murder of doctors and reporting that someone advocated for the murder of doctors?
Well *I* do, JJ, but see, I'm not the one saying that denouncing abortion is tantamount to encouraging murder.
Scott Roeder is clearly encouraging murder.
It's the media's job to let the rest of us know what the dangerous nuts in our midst are up to.
Oh I quite agree. But the pro-aborts say that spreading the message of "abortion is murder" encourages violence against abortionists.
Saying "abortion is murder" contributes to violence, but giving a platform to a killer doesn't?
AP is reporting this. Therefore he is giving him a platform.
Therefore he is enabling Scott Roeder and his ilk.
Therefore he is guilty of contributing of fomenting violence.
That would be the logical conclusion.
By that standard, even Wikipedia is guilty of "giving a platform" to these whackos.
But I didn't make up that standard, see. I didn't say that denouncing abortion amounts to contributing to violence against abortionists.
I am simply applying logic.
Let's put it this way: if Zacarias Moussaui, in jail, was sending propaganda to mosques that glorified the 9/11 highjackers & encouraged similar attacks, and CNN found out & reported on it, would that mean CNN was giving him a platform or that they endorsed those views?
Yes, but suppose you said: America has blood on its hands for the violence in the Middle East. Are you responsible for terrorist attacks against America?
Somehow I doubt the left would take responsibility for that.
What I am saying is JJ: denouncing the pro-life movement in toto for the death of George Tiller is stupid; it's a demagogic rhetorical exercise. You can tell by the illogical standards it leads to.
Kevron wrote:
"Quit while you're ahead."
there's a very telling slip....
So you don't want me to encourage him to STOP?
Interesting.
I can put the most negative spin on your statements, too.
The question here should be, "Why is this moron allowed to send stuff from jail?"
An inmate's mail is not news.
At best, this is gossip.
You're kidding right?
First, how exactly is Roeder 'ahead'? That is originally a gambling phrase. Advice to a gambler to quit when he's got more money than he came in with. In other words, when he's won something. In this case, you imply that the murder of the target he had been pointed at is a 'win' and NOW Roeder should shut up.
Second, JJ and I agree. She was mocking ceecee. Of course you anti-choice people want him ignored.
And you have not tried to answer my question. How did AP get the story? Someone had to tip them. Who was it, do you think?
SUZANNE, get a grip. Where did i say anti-choicers should be ignored?
I was pointing out what Ceecee said, that Roeder should be ignored. I don't think Roeder or any anti-choice terrorist should be ignored at all. Quite the contrary.
"Yes, but suppose you said: America has blood on its hands for the violence in the Middle East. Are you responsible for terrorist attacks against America?"
Obviously not, since I'm not involved in the jihadist movement.
You are purposely understating the flavour of anti-choice rhetoric. One can "denounce abortion" without calling a doctor a "murderer, butcher, babykiller, Tiller the Killer" etc. and calling abortion "genocide, holocaust", comparing it to suicide bombing etc.
If you didn't know there was something very wrong with the rhetoric, you wouldn't be understating it.
As for your remarks about AP giving Roeder a platform, they're absurd on their face, and you know it.
An inmate's mail is not news.
It is if it's a Mafia-esque call to whack a doctor.
First, how exactly is Roeder 'ahead'?
Fern, it's sarcasm.
How did AP get the story? Someone had to tip them. Who was it, do you think?
There could be a number of plausible possibilities. But it's not necessarily news.
OK, let me clear up a couple things for those who don't get it. Maybe if I make a comparison between the anti-Vietnam war movement and the pro-life movement, some of you twenty-first century liberals will understand.
When I was a teenager, back in the 1970's (now I'm dating myself), I used to be involved in the anti-war movement--hoping to do my part to end the war in Vietnam. There were some elements in this movement that were very peaceful and nonviolent. There were even segments of the movement where pacifism reigned. There were other segments of the movement that, for whatever reason, were not nearly so nice. They wanted to bring the war home,and were impatient about not getting their way now. These people wanted to use violence to get their way in society.
I was attracted to the nonviolent, pacifistic side of the anti-war movement. Joan Baez was my hero, and favorite singer.
Now as a woman over 50, I am very pro-life. I find that in the pro-life movement, there is a nonviolent majority who reject violence as a way to get what they want, and a small minority that wants to use violence to accomplish their goals. This is just like in the anti-war movement.
Same as I was back then, I am attracted to the nonviolent side of the movement. So as a nonviolent pro-lifer, I'm sure you can understand that I reject the shooting of doctors to end abortion, just as I rejected killing people to end the war in Vietnam.
Have any of you out there protested the war in Vietnam? Were you part of the nonviolent segment of the anti-war movement? How did you feel when some conservative blamed you for every riot that every liberal group ever sponsered?
It wasn't fair, was it? You just wanted peace, right? You just wanted society to do what seemed fair and right to you. Just because someone didn't agree with you, didn't mean that you were a terrorist or a rioter.
See, that's the way it is with the pro-life movement. Just because we view the issue of abortion differently from you, that doesn't mean we're terrorists, or that we support terrorism.
Am I making myself clear here? Do you understand what I'm getting at?
"I'm not the one saying that denouncing abortion is tantamount to encouraging murder."
No one is saying that. I hope you found blowing over that strawman cathartic.
"But the pro-aborts..."
Another straw-stuffed shirt bites the dust. Is anyone else noticing a pattern here?
"That would be the logical conclusion."
No, it wouldn't. JJ astutely pointed out the difference between descriptive documentation and normative endorsement.
"I didn't say that denouncing abortion amounts to contributing to violence against abortionists."
No one has said that. Do learn to read. The criticism that's been levied at anti-choice extremists isn't that they merely "denounce abortion", it's the untenable histrionic rhetoric they employ while doing so. The inability (or deliberate effort) to grasp the difference is quite telling.
I wish supporters of legal abortion would make up their mind.
Would that be that collective hive-mind you keep wanting to point to? Part of your whole "solidarity" weirdness?
Mmm: monolithink.
Maybe you should stop reading Ayn Rand - it really stunts the thinking processes.
That would be the logical conclusion.
Only if you don't know what "logical" actually means.
"What I am saying is JJ: denouncing the pro-life movement in toto for the death of George Tiller is stupid"
How do you get that this article is denouncing the whole anti-abortion movement?
If it's denouncing anything, it's the fact that a terrorist charged with killing a doctor is proselytizing from his jail cell about how killing doctors is justifiable homicide. The article focuses on that topic -- it's only in your paranoid imagination that there's been some equivalence made between Roeder's murder-advocacy mailouts and the entire anti-choice movement.
If I were you, I'd be asking myself why.
Commenting by HaloScan
