80 Replies to “Army Recruiters Shot In Arkansas”

  1. You all do realize that we have an Anon. (7:47) AND an anon (all over the place)?
    I say it’s plain bad manners. You heard the lady. (“Ghost of Che” hasn’t been taken yet, as far as I’m aware.)

  2. I see the trollocracy is out in force tonight. Kate really p’d you useful idiots off, eh? Kewl!
    “O’Reilly’s show inspired the doctor killer but Jon Stewart’s show had -nothing- to do with the “recent Muslim convert” killing the soldiers! Yes! Only NeoCon TV guys can inspire bad things!!!”
    Say it louder, geniuses. If you shriek loudly enough, maybe you will convince us. Use more exclamation marks and bad language, that’ll help too.
    But you know, the “recent Muslim convert” guys are starting to pick up a bit of a body count. My money says they’ll be well ahead of the abortion doctor killers all time collected count real soon now. Already have them beat for this century, I think.

  5. anon – the problem with your assertions is that they are reductionist and mechanical. People aren’t machines, and your assertion that because O’Reilly argues against abortion, THEN, he is responsible, even in part, for Tiller’s murder is sheer nonsense.
    Could you provide proof that the audience of O’Reilly are all ‘knuckle dragging, etc etc’? And that they are heavily predisposed to ‘act’ on his criticisms against abortion? Also, some proof that O’Reilly has a role in the death of the doctor?
    As I said, to link what O’Reilly says against abortion to someone killing an abortionist is a mechanical link. You really need some proof that the connection is there; otherwise, it’s totally ‘all in your mind’.

  6. Horrors! “Murtha Marine” is a homophobe!

    Does that mean he sounds gay?
    BTW, O’Reilly favours abortion on demand, he just draws the line at (very) late-term infanticide. And shouldn’t you guys be discussing this on the Killer Tiller Killer thread?

  7. A Murtha Marine!
    To stupid to respond to. Shouldn’t you be playing video games or something? The grownups are trying to talk.

  8. Momar is basically repeating the same tired feminist rant: No child an unwanted child. No child, no human being, should ever be made to feel unwanted,by being conceived through rape (a near impossibility) incest or born imperfect.

  9. Isn’t this standard procedure for the religion of peace, ambush the victims then surrender rather than standing and fighting. This wasn’t murder it was an act of war by an illegal combatant.
    These servicemen should be afforded the full honors afforded to combat casualties. Their families should be compensated as if they were killed in combat.
    mid island mike

  10. ET:
    Forget about the intended audience, it is mostly irrelevant**. What O’Reilly said is far more dangerous and inflammatory than anything Stewart has ever said. Furthermore, Stewart’s is a comedy show, whereas O’Reilly presumes to host a news show.
    Have you watched the clip of O’Reilly? I’ll fill you in – there is a significant difference in the *mood* (to say the least) between O’Reilly’s angry rhetoric and Stewart’s light-hearted jokes.
    For one thing, I don’t think I’ve heard Stewart call anyone a “baby killer”.
    ** I say mostly irrelevant, because if the programming is a reflection of the audience then we know the audience O’Reilly panders to pretty well.

  12. The issue isn’t whether one murder was better than the other. They are both crimes.
    The issue is that the leftist media has made a celebrity about the baby butcher and the murdered soldier is on page 17 below a ‘cat in tree’ story.
    As a soldier in the SF Bay Area I was often threatened or harassed merely for wearing my uniform. It should be a felony to assault a service member and interfering with military operations, including recruiting, should be considered treason.
    Abortion protestors blocking abortuaries get arrested and fined. Anti-war protestors blocking recruiting stations get…. nothing but press coverage.

  15. The Daily Show comes on after a show that has puppets making prank phone calls.
    Stewart’s show is watched mostly by stoners that are not going to get off the sofa to kill anybody.
    To compare Bill and Jon is the real joke here.

  16. [quote]What O’Reilly said is far more dangerous and inflammatory than anything Stewart has ever said.[/quote]
    Anon,
    You give O’Reily more credit than he deserves{sarc off)
    I thought he handled it very well…although I would have “flashed” the on Air pictures of those people claiming he had power over all the crazies.
    When crazy becomes real.. they need a signal!
    Just messing with your mind

  18. And the practitioners of one of those religions condemned the act of violence, outright. And we all know atheists never kill anyone, not in the single digits or in the tens of millions, in the name of whatever they’ve replaced God with.

  19. Strange… I haven’t seen any reports in the Canadian Big Media outlets on the slaying of the US soldier by the Muslim guy. They all report on the slain abortionist, but won’t touch the slain-soldier story. Strange.

  20. Just what I thought. Majority of you don’t give a damn about what is actually going on in Canada. It’s all about enlightened retoric and blaming the left.

  21. no, anon, you still haven’t answered my questions.
    You haven’t explained your assumption that people are mechanical entities; that they act according to TV programs.
    You haven’t proven your assertion that all people who watch O’Reilly are ‘knuckle draggers’. Your claim that his program is ‘a reflection of the audience’ and is about/for ‘knuckle draggers’ is your opinion. I think your opinion remains your own – unless you can substantiate it.
    Your claim that what O’Reilly said is dangerous and inflammatory also requires proof. After all, this means, that in your worldview, no-one can say anything critical because it would ‘inflame’ others. This requires evidence – just as your view that when no-one says anything critical and just talks ‘comedy’, then no violence could ever occur.
    So, your assertions remain your personal opinions, without validity. As such, I strongly disagree with them – both your view that people are mechanical entities and your view that when people hear only comedy and no strong criticism, that violence would cease.

  22. ET:
    So your opinion, then, is that Stewart’s show is as dangerous as O’Reilly’s? You think that referring to someone as a ‘baby killer’, on a national news show catering to a largely right-wing audience (where one is sure to find the larger proportion of the militant pro-life crowd), is on the same level as making jokes about politicians on a late-night subscriber-based comedy channel?
    Or are you saying you believe the above is just as likely as not, because you don’t have any statistical evidence to the contrary?
    Please spare me the disingenuous demands for absolute proof. It’s nothing but sophistry served up with red herring. It is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

  23. anon- you seem to operate in an irrational manner.
    When I say that your assumption that O’Reilly’s show leads people to violence is invalid, because it asserts that people are mechanical entities – then, this obviously means that I am NOT saying that Stewart’s show ‘is as dangerous as O’Reilly’s’!!!
    My point is that people are not mechanical puppets; they aren’t controlled by any TV show!
    Again, your assertion that the ‘pro-life’ people are militant, while the abortion people are not militant is unsubstantiated. I’m sure you must be aware of the violence of the pro-abortion set.
    Heh – sorry, but a demand for proof for your assertions isn’t a red herring or ‘intellectual dishonesty’. Evidence for assertions is basic empirical and logical science. And don’t be disingenuous; science doesn’t ask for ‘absolute proof’. But I’d like some tiny bit of evidence for your assertions. So far, all we have from you are your words. No proof. None. Just froth.
    You provide absolutely no evidence for your assertions. These include your assertions that O’Reilly’s viewers are ‘knuckle draggers’; that people are mechanical entities who don’t make their own decisions but are puppets of TV shows; that pro-life people are all militant.
    So, provide some evidence for your assertions. Why should anyone accept what you have to say without any evidence? Just because you say it?

  24. Let’s just agree that Tiller was not even remotely in the same league as a doctor who labours to find a cure for cancer and that shooting people is wrong.
    Furthermore, if you say something unsubstantiated, you’ll be called upon. “Protoplasm”? A baby feels pain at eleven weeks in utero. “Knuckle-dragging”? University-educated people drag their knuckles, do they?
    Whatever.

  25. It’s really annoying having to wade thru all the flame wars to find any intelligent comments. Reminds me of IRC days.
    I am saddened by any loss of life, especially when it’s senseless, executed by brainwashed misguided fools. I say fools, because we all have choices to make every day, and for me personally, choosing to convert to jihadist islam is foolish. I find what Tiller did to be reprehensible, just as I find abortion to be so. The real problem is a combination of laziness, and selfish pursuit of pleasure (hedonism). You see, there are various choices for birth control (to fuel the gratification crowd) so there is no need for abortion as a means of birth control. If you don’t want to chance pregnancy, practise birth control ie prevention of insemination. Selfish laziness in failing to do so, is not commendable.
    In today’s “modern” societies, the same old things that brought down previous civilisations are rampant.

  26. “Forget about the intended audience, it is mostly irrelevant**. What O’Reilly said is far more dangerous and inflammatory than anything Stewart has ever said.”
    anon
    And so it follows; O’Reilly must be silenced and Jon stewart promoted because,… anon say’s so.
    Spoken like a Human Rights Courts suck up fascist POS.
    Kiss my ass freak.

  27. Paul, when husband and wife use birth control and it fails, but wife’s health would not allow her to deliver, what should she do? I would abort the baby to save my wife’s life and try again later if her condition improved. Would you kill your wife hoping for the baby to survive?

  28. anon
    “Oh here we go, unsubstantiated personal recollection. I could call bullsh*t on this, but that would kill your point before you even got started, since you could likely NOT provide any evidence to support your assertions. But let’s see where this is going…”
    “Please spare me the disingenuous demands for absolute proof.”
    You know you’re more hysterical and more hatemongering than the people you are accusing of being hatemongering about? The only difference is that you don’t seem bright enough to see the obvious of both your own contradictions or the need not to make yourself look like a dimwit.
    Your point, insofar as you have one, seems to be that Stewart is ok cause he’s funny but O’Reilly is bad cause he isn’t funny and you don’t like his style. I suppose given the style over substance history of the left, I shouldn’t be surprised.
    As for the penchant for violence in the pro-life set, they’ve taken out maybe 3 or 4 doctors in the last 40 years. I’d say they’re more peaceful than the US left who have (through various terrorist groups like the black panthers, weather underground, Ayers et al) have killed a whole lot more than that. So, if the audience is to be vetted for violence before one is allowed the priviledge of voicing an opinion, I’d say the NYT has more reason to be careful with its words than Fox.
    As for abortion doctors, at a death rate like that, their job is almost as hazardous as your average ER nurse and far safer than a factory worker.
    But logic isn’t the left’s strong point.

  29. Murder is wrong under any circumstance and the person responsible should face the full extent of the law. But… I will mourn only for the approx. 60,000 late-term babies (not fetuses, babies) this man snuffed out, becoming a millionaire while doing so. Late-term babies, probably most of them viable. How many of those helpless little faces did he have to look at while finding a way to destroy their lives?? Can you imagine what kind of person performs a job like that? And this guy went to church? Huh??
    Babies that could have been adopted. What a waste.
    I like to imagine all those sweet cherubs looking down from heaven on him right now, as he is facing the pit of hell and getting acquainted with the likes of Hitler and a few choice other villains of history.
    My opinion only and yes I am entitled to it.

  30. Posted by: Aaron at June 2, 2009 3:11 PM
    Oh, please. Tell us THAT isn’t the crux of your stand on “pro choice”. You can’t be that naive, surely. Even for the left, that’s the weakest straw man ever.
    Before dropping that canard, why not dig up some stats to find out how many of these cases actually exist, compared to the hundreds of thousands of babies that are killed for the sake of “inconvenience”. I think you’d find a huge majority of SDA readers wouldn’t take your “what about the mother” bait, and would actually side with their spouses, in this case. It might be tough sledding in the case of aborting a healthy 3rd trimester baby (oops, sorry, “fetus” is the term you’d likely prefer), and I envy nobody who’s ever had to make that decision, as it would haunt one to the end of their life, regardless of the choice.
    Your example has the same credibility as those who rail against seatbelt usage, stating “what if my car went in the water and the seatbelt jammed”. There’s a better chance of getting struck by lightning than falling prey to that scenario. And, for the record, I’m pro-seatbelt usage for myself and my kids, but believe it should be a personal choice, and not mandated by government. Just one of those little Freedom and Liberty peccadilloes I’ve collected in my travels.
    mhb23re
    at gmail d0t calm

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation