hippiechick wrote: 

Well, that would explain recent polls showing a tilt against abortion in the minds of the American public. Perhaps the endless expanison of abortion rights under Roe, is changing minds? I support a woman's right to abort in the case of her health, rape or incest. It is YOUR SIDE which refuses to seek common ground, ground based on sanity and reason, other than some 'clause' discerned in The Constitution which yields an unenumerated 'right' to women to commit infanticide. It is your side that tap dances like mad, around the terms in use: it's a thing, a lifeform, no, it's not a lifeform...sorry, but genetic analyis would show that of the 49 MILLION abortions performed to date, all were on homo sapiens. Not tadpoles, not 3 pound sacks of sugar. Human beings...

The information? From someone who toils, you think, for Planned Parenthood? Shaky and weak, at best. Of course, in fariness, stories that Dr. Tiller 'aborted' children outside the womb, are equally shaky and weak. Dr. Tiller kept a tight grip on a money making enterprise. What we do know, from Dr. Tiller himself, were his thoughts on late term abortions. *and, BONUS TIME, the expressed thoughts, by Legislative Vote, on late term in the mind of Mr. Obama*

You do have radicals on your side in this issue...those on my side kill with bullets, those on your side with surgical instruments.

 musik_knut wrote: 
I actually disagree with the decision, but I also feel that this should be the deciding factor in her appointment. Since I believe in Obama's decisions, I also believe in his appointments.

 arsenault wrote: 
Then they are left wing nuts and are just as dangerous.

Who are these people that you are referring to, anyway?

 hippiechick wrote: 

hc,
Fine. I accept your inability to discuss, in this case, the next US Supreme Court Justice and her decision in Ricci. I can take away two things: you support legislation from the judiciary and, you support reverse discrimination.


mk

 hippiechick wrote: 
yes on all three.....edit. i would say the last one 'if the blacks or jews owned property or corporate interests..or were financiers' or had jobs..

 arsenault wrote: 
Were they violent? Did they threaten to destroy other people? Do they spew hatred and violence against blacks or Jews?

 musik_knut wrote: 
The information came from a friend of his who works for (I think) Planned Parenthood. I was watching an interview after his death, so I can't really remember such a detail.

I believe in Roe. The Right has lied continuously about this in order to use this issue as a political football.

 hippiechick wrote: 
you are kidding right?  
did you see the wto protests?
 

 musik_knut wrote: 
I so totally disagree with you that I can't even carry on a discussion. It's like we're trying to talk about the same tv show, but we're watching different stations.

 hippiechick wrote: 

And your source for such cases? Dr. Tiller repeatedly refused inquiry into his cases. Again, names could have been redacted. Then Gov. Sibelius and The State Atty, were oh so eager to assist Dr. Tiller's 'silence' on the matter. *of course, money poured from Tiller to Sibelius*.
So, sources? Or is this yet another lie the left uses to keep pushing the bounds of Roe?

 hippiechick wrote: 

hc,
Fair enough. Of course, the insidious assaults on freedoms as pushed by THE LEFT, is another topic. The insidious insistence, as was the case and opinion of Judge Sotomayor, in the Ricci case, that all must be treated even, or punished for the failings of others, is another topic. The insidious lack of judicial restraint in Mass. State Supreme Court on marriage where one of the jurist should have excused herself, a lesbian with an obvious bias, is radical judical review in the minds of many. New Jersey State and Florida State Supreme Courts, rewriting election laws, is radicalism and both Courts were dominated by left leaning jurists. Those are RADICALS in action, without bullets. And, for The People, actions without recourse.

mk

 musik_knut wrote: 
Have you ever read the cases that fell under the category of Dr. Tiller? These are not women who decide one day that they do not want to carry a baby any more. They are very special circumstances such as women with terminal cancer, or an 11 year old who have been raped but waited too long to go to the dr. You want to see these children being brought into the world?

I think that if the emotionality and lies that the right wing perpetrate would be taken out of this issue, we could have a rational discussion.

 musik_knut wrote: 
Aside from the Weathermen, and the Black Panthers, I can't think of anyone that would fit into the category of left wing radical, in the sense that White Supremacists are. You might consider men like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn to be extremely left wing, but not nuts, not gun toting radicals.

There are certain kinds of people that become this way, and the same tendencies do not exist with the left wing. The kind of people who feel cheated, disgruntled and angry tend to hate those that are getting something that they feel entitled to, which is the definition of a nutcase.

 islander wrote: 

His job? To keep, with the able assistance of then Gov. Sibelius and the State Atty, a tight lid on an inquiry into how many late term abortions he performed. The names could have been redacted. If you read up on Dr. Tiller, he was damn determined to execute a child late in development. That is RADICAL, too. Perhaps not to you and others, but to many, yes, that is a radical use of abortion. Dr. Tiller killed more human beings than his killer did. His killer was wrong. And so was Dr. Tiller. One of two doctors in the US willing to perform the ghastly procedure required to end a life late in its development. There are reports he 'aborted' children outside the womb. Radical? Indeed. *of course, then Illinois Senator Obama gave approval to such an act, meaning with Dr. Tiller, three people we know of were willing to express support for such procedures* Radials all? HELL YES.
Life has almost no meaning to many on your side of the aisle. On my side, innocent life must be deemed innocent and not subject to a plethora of reasons for being aborted, many of which have zero to do with the health of the mother. Radicalism is found on both sides. Too bad THE LEFT is blind to their radicals.
49 MILLION dead human beings since Roe. Radical? YES.

 hippiechick wrote: 
the saddest part is there are racist's out there who will worship this bigot as a freakin' hero . "When will we learn how to love ....and forget how to hate " Ozzy - Crazy Train

 

 newwavegurly wrote: 
yeah, that too...strange.

 OmegaConcern wrote: 
I understand your logic, but if you were a lone gunman, what difference is there in reality between a dozen armed guards and a dozen armed guards plus 50% of the patrons.  The outcome will be the same.

 kysmet wrote: 
He apparently didn't actually get into the museum, he was just inside the doorway before the metal detectors, etc.
 
I'm wondering why no one noticed him carrying a rifle as he walked down the street/block to get to the museum. 

how did this guy get a rifle into the museum

Biden Tells Law Enforcement Groups Sotomayor 'Has Your Back'
The comment touches on the hot-button issue of bias in the debate over Sonia Sotomayor, whose confirmation hearings could start as early as July if Democrats have their way.

 

Vice President Joe Biden may have crossed the line when he assured national law enforcement groups Monday that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor "has your back."

The remark quickly stirred criticism in the legal world, since Biden was making a pledge that a fair and objective justice would not necessarily be able to keep.

Biden made the remark at an assembly of eight law enforcement groups after he detailed Sotomayor's tough-on-crime record in the courtroom.

"There's a part of her record that seems to be, up to now, been flying under the radar a bit. And that's her tough stance on criminals and her unyielding commitment to finding justice for the victims of crime," Biden said.

He then repeatedly said, "She gets it," and sought to assure the law enforcement groups that she would be on their side.

"So you all are on the front lines. But as you do your job, know that Judge Sotomayor has your back as well," Biden said. "And throughout this nomination process, I know you'll have her back."

The comment touched on the hot-button issue of bias in the debate over Sotomayor, whose confirmation hearings could start as early as July if Democrats have their way.

John Wesley Hall, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said Biden didn't do himself any favors with that remark, since it's likely to generate more critical questions for Sotomayor during confirmation hearings.

"That (comment) means that she could probably care less about civil liberties and just do whatever law enforcement wants," Hall said.

Hall said Sotomayor probably doesn't sign on to Biden's remark, though.

"My take on it is that he's probably just trying to get law enforcement to support him by saying something just completely off the wall," he said.

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But of course, not firefighters who pass an exam for promotion...