http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2013/01/23/california-dreamin-open-line Comments On: California dreamin' open line by David Ramsey en-us Copyright 2013 Arkansas Times. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Arkansas Times readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Arkansas Times. robert@arktimes.com (Arkansas Times Webmaster) Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:00:01 -0500 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:00:00 -0500 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
I am so sick and tired of your ridiculous ability to fit two completely different ideas into a head the size and consistency of, a baking pumpkin!

You people will kill and murder doctors and anyone who is pro choice to protect, in YOUR words, the "unborn (and by this word unhuman)" from being "murdered," while your ilk arm as many in this country as you can, so they can "protect" themselves by murdering anyone who gets in their way, AND once they do, you'll try and strap them to a gurney and execute/murder them, IF you can! The reasoning ability you people have is at best--at BEST, mentally stooped and decrepit.

Find an Ozark cliff and jump. Just jump! But before you do, set fire to your housetrailer so we can clean up the neighborhood! GOD!
____________________
Scott Klusendorf responded to this kind of thinking by stating:

On July 11, 2000, a knife-wielding man attacked Vancouver (BC) abortionist Garson Romalis in a downtown clinic. Abortion advocacy groups seized on his brush with death to score cheap political points against their opponents, notably Canadian Alliance Party leader Stockwell Day, who opposes abortion.22

Day was quick to condemn the attack against Romalis as “outrageous and untenable,” but that did not satisfy local abortion advocates. Marilyn Wilson, president of the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League, said Day had “indirectly sanctioned” the violence against Romalis with his extremist rhetoric.

Why was Mr. Day responsible for the attack? It’s really quite simple: He disagrees with Ms. Wilson on abortion and has said publicly that elective abortion is the unjust killing of an innocent human being. “Day is going to try and deny that he would support any violence,” she said in a press release, “but his rhetoric does incite other people who share his beliefs against abortion to violence.” She then called Day a “fanatic” for “the amount of anti-choice, extremist rhetoric that’s out there.”

Bear in mind that to Ms. Wilson, “fanatic” and “extremist” mean anyone who deviates in the slightest from her own position, which is that abortion should be legal for any reason whatsoever during all nine months of pregnancy. If you say that elective abortion takes the life of a defenseless child, as Day believes it does, your irresponsible rhetoric will cost an abortionist his life.

Ms. Wilson is using scaremongering tactics to poison the public debate over abortion. Her statements are intellectually dishonest for at least four reasons. First, let’s assume that pro-life rhetoric does in fact lead to acts of violence against abortionists (though there is no good reason to suppose that this is so). Would this in anyway refute the pro-life argument that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of an innocent human being? Keep in mind that pro-life advocates do not merely state their case; they buttress it with scientific and philosophic reasoning. If Ms. Wilson thinks we are wrong about the humanity of the unborn and the inhumanity of abortion, she should patiently explain why our arguments are mistaken and why fetuses should be disqualified from membership in the human community. But instead of refuting the pro-life view, she attempts to silence it with personal attacks.

Second, it is blatantly unfair of Ms. Wilson to demonize pro-life advocates for espousing their sincerely held beliefs. Let’s assume that I’m an animal rights activist opposed to the sale of fur. If a deranged environmentalist firebombs a local clothing store, am I responsible? More to the point, is Ms. Wilson responsible if, upon reading her press release, a pro-abortion activist shoots Stockwell Day for the purpose of saving the community from such an awful extremist? (In a press release one day prior to the stabbing, Wilson accused Mr. Day of favoring “state-sanctioned violence against women by forcing them to bear children they may not want.”23) If she is serious that merely disagreeing with her on abortion is itself an incitement to violence, then let’s not fool around: Ms. Wilson should lead the charge to ban all pro-life speech. (Actually, she would like that, but lacks the courage to say so publicly.)

Third, it does not follow that because a lone extremist stabs an abortionist, the pro-life cause itself is unjust. Dr. Martin Luther King, for example, used strong language to condemn the evil of racism during the 1960s. In response to his peaceful but confrontational tactics, racists unjustly blamed him for the violent unrest that sometimes followed his public demonstrations. Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago argued that if Dr. King would stop exposing racial injustice, black people would be less likely to riot.24 The Mayor’s remarks, like those of Ms. Wilson, were an outrage. Are we to believe that a handful of rioters made Dr. King’s crusade for civil rights entirely unjust?

In his Letter from the Birmingham Jail, King rebuts this dishonest attempt to change the subject:

In your statement you asserted that our actions, though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence….[I]t is immoral to urge an individual to withdraw his efforts to gain…basic constitutional rights because the quest precipitates violence….Non-violent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such a creative tension that a community…is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to dramatize the issue so it can be no longer ignored.
Posted by SalineRepublican]]> Fri, 10 May 2013 09:50:51 -0500 Arkansas Times
I pointed out in an earlier post my postion concerning what range of possible homicide charges could be brought upon someone who takes the life of an unborn child and you will have to refer to that because I am not trained as a lawyer and can't get more specific than that. If I do find some more material on this issue and develop my views further then I will be glad to get back to you. Thank you for discussing this issue in a respectful way. I do consider Max Brantley and many of his liberal friends on this blog to be excellent representatives of the liberal view and I respect them for their educational studies as well.

Again I come back to this issue of when life begins. Recently I have enjoyed watching the series "The Abolitionists" on PBS and I noticed that the key leaders in this movement were Christians. I read this piece below by Al Mohler that mentions the abolition movement:

As a philosopher, Beckwith takes both words and arguments with deadly seriousness. Thus, he recognizes the inherent contradiction that marks the position held by millions of Americans. They argue that abortion is morally wrong, and recognize that it is the taking of innocent human life. At the same time, they argue that it would be wrong to impose this moral principle upon women and defend a legal right to abortion as the most appropriate public policy. Insightfully, Beckwith raises the issue of slavery, demonstrating conclusively that the application of this same argument to the question of slavery would never have led to abolition. Beckwith argues that Americans would react in anger to a politician who said, “I am personally opposed to owning a slave and torturing my spouse, but it would be wrong for me to try to force my personal beliefs on someone who felt it consistent with his deeply held beliefs to engage in such behaviors.” This politician would be considered “a moral monster,” Beckwith argues–yet this very pattern of argument is precisely what millions of Americans propose as their own highly moral position.

The pro-life movement had better get back to contending for the inherent humanity and dignity of the fetus, Beckwith argues, or the argument against abortion will be lost. Americans must be shown that “if fetuses are human persons, one cannot be pro-choice on abortion, just as one cannot be pro-choice on slavery and at the same time maintain that slaves are human persons.”
http://thedailyhatch.org/2013/01/25/taking…
Posted by SalineRepublican]]> Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:36:36 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by the outlier]]> Fri, 25 Jan 2013 08:45:51 -0600 Arkansas Times
I wrote about you today and have posted a fuller response. http://thedailyhatch.org/2013/01/25/taking…
Posted by SalineRepublican]]> Fri, 25 Jan 2013 08:24:40 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Doigotta]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:12:04 -0600 Arkansas Times

“Every study on crime and or firearms proves time and time again, that 99.99999% of American gun owners do not commit crimes or use our firearms in any dangerous or improper way.”
Ted Nugent
Posted by Zatharus]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 09:53:36 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by SalineRepublican]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 08:51:01 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Vanessa]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 08:43:33 -0600 Arkansas Times
Saline, abortion has been with us forever. Ancient herbalists and healers knew how to induce it. A good novel that addresses the issue is "The Cider House Rules". It's about an old abortionist who also runs an orphanage. He believed in choice. He performed abortions because he wanted it done right and safely. He also provided a place where a woman could safely have their baby and put it up for adoption. If you have your way, women will start dying again or be maimed for life.

I've never had to make the "choice", but I can imagine lots of cases where I would choose to abort. In some of those cases, abortion is the ONLY moral choice. Nothing is "God's will". Xtianists say everything bad that happens to them is God's will. Not a god worthy of worship in my view.

I'm continually amazed at people like you who insert yourself into this most personal of decisions. You really should find another "cause". There are plenty of them where you could actually improve the world. Getting behind easy access to birth control would be a start. People have been screwing forever, too, Saline. That's not likely to stop anytime soon.

You are very wobbly in your answer. You don't live in a black and white world, Saline.
Posted by the outlier]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:58:37 -0600 Arkansas Times
Some say when liberals are outlawed, only outlaws will be liberals. I say liberals are ALREADY outlaws so let's lock and load and rid the country of them. If you are not conservative, you are not an American.
Posted by I_AM_THE_NRA]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:43:49 -0600 Arkansas Times Something like the republican controlled congress and republican president who, after taking office, were just giddy over all the spending they could do. They don't do things by half measure either. Every spending bill that was proposed and passed by the congress was signed by the president.

It's refreshing to see that logic, reason, rational thought with a healthy dose of solving problems critical to the country is in the same place it's always been when these folks are involved. It's in the backyard, buried under the tool shed. Don't need those things to run a country! Heck, let's just keep hiking those adrenaline levels up to where extreme is the norm. That other stuff is boring and not just a little confusing. So the major takeaway is that consistency and rightness are king. Deviation could mean eternal damnation.
Posted by mrprincipal07]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:39:01 -0600 Arkansas Times Now, you tell me. Since you believe abortion is murder should the criminal charge be first degree murder for the mother and the attending physician? If you can't say that, then you don't believe it is murder. You can't have it both ways.

I posed this question to you a couple of nights ago, but I guess you missed it.
_____________
1. The criminal charge for homicide is varied in our criminal code and very few charges require the death penalty.
2. We must be consistent in our laws and an abortion is a homicide or a taking of an innocent human life.
3. Currently there are many legal terms applied to each level of homicide and I am not a lawyer that is capable of determining which level each abortion should fall under but I will say that the third trimester should be considered for the death penalty (of course there are some medical exceptions).

Let me explain some. People now get the death penalty in some cases for purposely killing an unborn baby in acts of violence. In 28 states there are laws on the books that place fetal death under homicide statutes and this is the case in the liberal state of California too. Some other states say that pregnant women involved in drug use can be prosecuted on child endangerment charges.

We have to keep the main issue before us and that is we all support stiff punishments for homicide and we do need want those prosecuted that take innocent human lives and now we must look at the unborn child and decide if he or she are human. ISN'T THAT KEY ISSUE? Once we determine when in the 9 month period to provide legal protection then we should determine what punishments the doctors should face.

IF I WAS A LAWYER THEN I COULD ANSWER MORE FULLY, BUT I DID SPEND TIME LAST NIGHT AND THIS MORNING PUTTING THIS BETTER AND THIS IS THE BEST I COULD DO. Thank you Outlier for your question and again thank you to all the liberals on this blog who were willing to answer my tough question "When should we provide legal protection to the unborn child, 3mo, 6mo, etc?" ARE THERE ANY MORE WILLING TO ANSWER?http://thedailyhatch.org/2013/01/24/taking…
Posted by SalineRepublican]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:34:02 -0600 Arkansas Times
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Sec-of-State-…
Posted by eLwood]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 01:44:05 -0600 Arkansas Times he "wished she would have prevailed in 2008." She smiled and congratulated him on being elected.
Posted by eLwood]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 01:40:59 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by radical centrist]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 01:12:53 -0600 Arkansas Times
Saline, I come in peace, arms out, palms up. Just recommending a book to you if you want to find out a little more about Sagan's view of science and religion. Not trying to convert you, not even trying to inject doubt. I know that I couldn't do that even if I wanted to, and I don't. Sagan was truly a gentle soul and he's the ideal who a lot of us atheists, agnostics and general nonbelievers wish to emulate. It might help you to understand us a little better.

The book is: The Varieties Of Scientific Experience: A Personal View Of The Search For God

It's a collection of some of Sagan's lectures and writings related to this subject. It was compiled and edited by his widow, Ann Druyan, after his death.
Posted by Olphart]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:59:29 -0600 Arkansas Times
I am impressed (not in a good way) with your use of the words "shrill, raving and almost hysterical" to describe Secretary Clinton. In my younger days I would call you a misogynist pig for using language like that.
Posted by the outlier]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:58:09 -0600 Arkansas Times
But back when Esquire was cool, I did read Secrets of the Little Blue Box, which changed the world. That article was instrumental in the formation of Apple, Inc.

During this week's inauguration, I've been reminiscing about John Sculley's visit to Little Rock twenty years ago last month for Bill's economic conference the month before his inauguration. This was after Sculley had fired Steve Jobs from Apple.

I spent a couple of days with Sculley at the "Interim White House" on Main Street, had some good times, went down to the Old Statehouse to watch Mack McLarty's appointment as W.H. Chief of Staff, wished Mack good luck.

Sculley was totally seduced by the Clintons, he had that crazy deer-stuck-in-the-headlights glaze in his eyes. Later, he famously sat next to Hillary during Bill's first State of the Union address. But, somehow during his visit to Little Rock, he got assigned to some crazy project to overhaul the education system in New York, and he got obsessed with spending all of his time on that instead of his CEO duties at Apple, and the Apple board fired him. Eventually, Steve Jobs returned, and the rest is history.

I still have Sculley's handwritten phone number from 1992, but it probably doesn't work now.
Posted by radical centrist]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:41:09 -0600 Arkansas Times
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Beng…

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Beng…

Pierce is on fire today. There is much at which to take offense.

Pierce, a Catholic, lambasts Catholic and sometime exorcist, Bobby Jindal, for the cuts he is making---this time to shelters for abused women.

"Hard on his decisions to crush the poor people in his state by raising the sales tax, and by eliminating hospice-care for Medicare patients, Jindal also has decided that Louisiana spends far too much helping women escape from their abusers."

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bobb…

And he calls what is going on in Virginia what it is---Jim Crow bullshit.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Raci…
Posted by the outlier]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:04:26 -0600 Arkansas Times
But - as I suggested earlier - the public Benghazi hearings weren't likely to get anywhere near the ground truth anyway.
Posted by radical centrist]]> Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:30:05 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by SalineRepublican]]> Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:22:56 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by NeverVoteRepublican]]> Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:21:20 -0600 Arkansas Times
Senator Durbin's presentation is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7rPoRk-ShE
Posted by NeverVoteRepublican]]> Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:19:13 -0600 Arkansas Times http://thedailyhatch.org/2011/05/19/atheis…
Posted by SalineRepublican]]> Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:14:33 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by the outlier]]> Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:14:11 -0600 Arkansas Times