Trial to Begin in Abortion-Doctor Killing

Hatuey · Jan 11, 2010

Coronado said:
Not to go off on a tangent, but that's a damn good reason to get the state out of the education business. You don't like what your school teaches? Go somewhere else.

Glad to see your supporting the Theocratic State of Kansas teaching religious science and using it to support the Pauligan view on education.

Hatuey · Jan 11, 2010

Dav said:
Ain't it funny how the ideology that preaches tolerance and acceptance can be so bigoted and intolerant towards those who do not agree with them?

Son, there is difference between intolerance, bigotry and mockery. Nobody here actually cares what Kansas does. We actually enjoy that they are so backwards so we have somebody in the lower 49 to make fun of. :2wave:

danarhea · Jan 11, 2010

Hatuey said:
Glad to see your supporting the Theocratic State of Kansas teaching science and using it to support the Pauligan view on education.

Actually, that is not Ron Paul's view on education. He position is a Constitutional one. Education is not the Federal government's business, unless the Constitution is violated. Otherwise, if a state wants an idiotic science program, then they can have an idiotic science program. People can move elsewhere if they don't like being taught that Jesus rode a dinosaur. Unfortunately for Kansas, that doesn't leave much of a gene pool for them. LOL.

Jerry · Jan 11, 2010

Dav said:
Ain't it funny how the ideology that preaches tolerance and acceptance can be so bigoted and intolerant towards those who do not agree with them?

I know, Atheists can be such hypocrites.

Coronado · Jan 11, 2010

Hatuey said:
Glad to see your supporting the Theocratic State of Kansas teaching religious science and using it to support the Pauligan view on education.

Another thing you probably ought to learn is the difference between clarification and advocacy.

Hatuey · Jan 11, 2010

Coronado said:
Another thing you probably ought to learn is the difference between clarification and advocacy.

Still trying to escape your bull**** attempt to paint your state for what it isn't? Glad to know. :2wave: . When Kansas isn't teaching that there is supernatural explanations for scientific occurrences, give me a call. Until then :

Hatuey · Jan 11, 2010

danarhea said:
Actually, that is not Ron Paul's view on education. He position is a Constitutional one. Education is not the Federal government's business, unless the Constitution is violated. Otherwise, if a state wants an idiotic science program, then they can have an idiotic science program. People can move elsewhere if they don't like being taught that Jesus rode a dinosaur. Unfortunately for Kansas, that doesn't leave much of a gene pool for them. LOL.

That is the cop-out of everyone who is too ***** to simply say they don't want evolution being taught in schools. It is because of positions like that and people like Paul that we have states like Kansas.

Coronado · Jan 11, 2010

Hatuey said:
Still trying to escape your bull**** attempt to paint your state for what it isn't? Glad to know. :2wave: .

The only bull**** being peddled here is that from your corner. I'm sorry the facts don't suit your preconceived notions.

Hatuey said:
When Kansas isn't teaching that there is supernatural explanations for scientific occurrences, give me a call. Until then :

I think you would like Kansas. There's a naturally occurring plant there called "ditchweed." Google it.

Hatuey · Jan 11, 2010

Coronado said:
The only bull**** being peddled here is that from your corner.

So Kansas does not allow supernatural explanations for things which can be proven scientifically? It doesn't allow people to teach creationism? Yeah. Mkay. You're arguing just to argue now.

Coronado · Jan 11, 2010

Hatuey said:
So Kansas does not allow supernatural explanations for things which can be proven scientifically? It doesn't allow people to teach creationism? Yeah. Mkay. You're arguing just to argue now.

It allows the individual USD's to teach whatever they want in that regard. In other words, it allows for more local control in curriculum.

Hatuey · Jan 11, 2010

Coronado said:
It allows the individual USD's to teach whatever they want in that regard. In other words, it allows for more local control in curriculum.

And that shows the backwardness of the state. No standards of education. It is 'whatever they want'. This silly cop-out of local control over education is a smoke screen for the true intent of the religious fringe that lives in Kansas. To teach kids religion and paint it as science. If you do not like it that is fine. I have no problem with my home state(California) being painted as a godless state where kids are taught science instead of religion. I am fine with that. Hippies who love trees? Fine with that. People who love money and are in love with plastic surgery? I'm fine with that. Why you are not fine with your state being painted as a backwards state where people are more interested in preaching than teaching is beyond me.

Coronado · Jan 11, 2010

Hatuey said:
And that shows the backwardness of the state. No standards of education. It is 'whatever they want'. This silly cop-out of local control over education is a smoke screen for the true intent of the religious fringe that lives in Kansas. To teach kids religion and paint it as science. If you do not like it that is fine. I have no problem with my home state(California) being painted as a godless state where kids are taught science instead of religion. I am fine with that. Hippies who love trees? Fine with that. People who love money and are in love with plastic surgery? I'm fine with that. Why you are not fine with your state being painted as a backwards state where people are more interested in preaching than teaching is beyond me.

Each school district has it's own standard. Is this too hard for you to understand, or do you feel more comfortable with the stereotypes you've been fed by your television?

Either way, I've engaged your weak attempts at argument long enough. Go be irrational with someone else.

Hatuey · Jan 11, 2010

Coronado said:
Each school district has it's own standard. Is this too hard for you to understand, or do you feel more comfortable with the stereotypes you've been fed by your television?

And I support all kids being taught that there is no such thing as competing supernatural explanations for events which can be explained through science. Specially not in science class. If you think that is irrational then you are nothing more than a supporter of religious indoctrination.

Coronado · Jan 11, 2010

Hatuey said:
And I support all kids being taught that there is no such thing as competing supernatural explanations for events which can be explained through science. Specially not in science class. If you think that is irrational then you are nothing more than a supporter of religious indoctrination.

Any more unfounded assumptions you care to make about me? The night is still young.

Kandahar · Jan 11, 2010

jamesrage said:
SO by logic any murderer and gang banger should be charged as terrorist.

Do most murderers and gangbangers kill people to advance a political cause and/or intimidate their political opponents? No.

jamesrage · Jan 11, 2010

Kandahar said:
Do most murderers and gangbangers kill people to advance a political cause and/or intimidate their political opponents? No.

I wasn't aware thats what Scott Roeder did.Do you have any evidence that it was politically motivate and not because he though child serial killers were despicable human beings?
danarhea's logic was that since people were scared then that makes him a terrorist.Gangbangers would fit that description since what they do terrorizes the communities they live in.

Captain America · Jan 11, 2010

jamesrage said:
Since I applaud the man for taking out a baby serial killer I hope he gets the most lenient sentence possible assuming that is why he performed a late term abortion on a late term abortion provider.

The act of killing one person is not a act of terrorism. Heck if he went around just killing abortion doctors he still would not be a terrorist, he would be just a serial killer ironically taking out serial killers. If he blew up abortion clinics then yeah that would be a terrorist act.

I am sure many abortionist and closet abortionist will harp on me for making my comments but **** them. If this guy killer someone they viewed to be no different than Jeffery Dhamer or Charles Manson they would not be condemning Scott Roeder. Nor would the cowards who consider themselves to be anti-abortion(not the phonies who say they think abortion is morally wrong but not morally wrong enough to want it illegal, but those are actually opposed to abortion) but are worried about the abortionist (yes the same people who have no problem with babies being killed) painting anti-abortionist as loons.

I wanna have your baby. :mrgreen:

Some fear abortion ruling could spur violence - Crime & courts- msnbc.com

jamesrage · Jan 11, 2010

Captain America said:
I wanna have your baby. :mrgreen:

I am not sure that is possible unless your wife has yet to have Menopause or you can find one those mad scientist that can turn one of your sperm cells into a egg and you agree to pay for a surrogate. :mrgreen:

Some fear abortion ruling could spur violence - Crime & courts- msnbc.com

So we should base court rulings on fear? I seriously doubt that he will get anything less that 1st degree murder, unless all the jury members and judge are actually(not the phony bull **** of" I'm against abortion but I think it should be the woman's choice" that phonies like to spew) anti-abortion.

Captain America · Jan 11, 2010

jamesrage said:
So we should base court rulings on fear?

Not in my America.

Did you read the article?

jamesrage · Jan 11, 2010

Captain America said:
Not in my America.

Did you read the article?

The article seems to be pushing the idea that somehow we should make rulings out of fear instead the facts of the case. I do think it is idiotic that they need more than 250 witnesses to convict a man who already says he killed Tiller the baby killer. I would live the idea if Scott Roeder got off due to justifiable homicide. But I know that has the same chance of Tom Tancredo or Sheriff Joe Arpaio being president of the United states or media matters blowing a liberal talk show host's words out of proportion or Scarecrow Akhbar admitting that Obama was born in the USA.

Captain America · Jan 11, 2010

jamesrage said:
The article seems to be pushing the idea that somehow we should make rulings out of fear instead the facts of the case. I do think it is idiotic that they need more than 250 witnesses to convict a man who already says he killed Tiller the baby killer. I would live the idea if Scott Roeder got off due to justifiable homicide. But I know that has the same chance of Tom Tancredo or Sheriff Joe Arpaio being president of the United states or media matters blowing a liberal talk show host's words out of proportion.

I didn't see it like that. I thought it pointed out several slippery slope arguments from the opposition that one could intrepret as desperate and hyper-paranoid, for sure. But I don't think it worked.

We all know the guy's gonna fry. And, none of us here think he should walk the streets again. But I do think he should be allowed to present his defense from the aspect that, in his mind, he was merely performing a pre-emptive strike that would save countless babies from being sucked out of their mother's womb in tiny pieces.

Then, let justice take it's course and let the cards fall where they may.

I don't think guy should be "martyred" in societie's eye's though. As much as I love the babies, what he did ain't right either.

jamesrage · Jan 11, 2010

Captain America said:
I didn't see it like that. I thought it pointed out several slippery slope arguments from the opposition that one could intrepret as desperate and hyper-paranoid, for sure. But I don't think it worked.

All I saw was fear mongering by abortionist scum, But I suppose those things you mentioned do apply to the abortionist as being being hyper-paranoid and desperate.

Some fear abortion ruling could spur violence - Crime & courts- msnbc.com
"Will the judge's decision embolden militant anti-abortion activists and lead to open season on abortion providers? "

snip..

""This judge has basically announced a death sentence for all of us who help women," he said. "That is the effect of the ruling. This is an outrage.""

snip...

"The damage is done: The judge has agreed to give him a platform," Hern said. "It is an act of incomprehensible stupidity on the part of the judge,

We all know the guy's gonna fry.

He will probably get life but not the death penalty.

And, none of us here think he should walk the streets again.

I think he should be freed and given a medal.

But I do think he should be allowed to present his defense from the aspect that, in his mind, he was merely performing a pre-emotive strike that would save countless babies from being sucked out of their mother's womb in tiny pieces.

If would be nice if it worked.

I don't think guy should be "martyred" in societie's eye's though. As much as I love the babies, what he did ain't right either.

I believe what he did was right.Because of Scott Roeder Tiller the baby killer baby serial killing days are over. I happen to believe that those who kill children deserve the worst kind of punishment possible.Preferably Tiller the baby serial killer should have been punished the legal route. But considering this country could care less about you if you have yet to leave the womb you sometimes you have to take what you can get.

drz-400 · Jan 11, 2010

A possible description of terrorism:

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."

The murder of Dr. Tiller was the final of several criminal acts against him and his clinic.

"In 1993, an abortion opponent shot Dr. Tiller in both arms. His clinic was bombed and repeatedly vandalized."

It would be no surprise if the court found his murder was also linked to his stance on late-term abortions.

Knowing this, his murder was obviously meant to send a political message to the pro-abortion, or at least those who support late-term abortions. This key observation is what could allow it to be called an act of terrorism.

"Mr. Roeder has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder. But in phone calls from jail, he has told news organizations that he killed Dr. Tiller -- an act he said was justified to protect unborn children."

The fact that the accused Scott Roeder is willing to justify the murder as an act of self-defense towards an unborn child only further concretes his alleged actions as an act of terrorism under the presented definition.

danarhea · Jan 11, 2010

Dav said:
Ain't it funny how the ideology that preaches tolerance and acceptance can be so bigoted and intolerant towards those who do not agree with them?

Ain't it funny how somebody can pull a statement out of his butt, and believe he is convincing?

And, for your information, I am not that tolerant or accepting of anyone who wants to make it the law to teach children in science class that people used to have conversations with talking snakes, or that Jesus might have ridden a dinosaur, which is pretty much what creationism is about.
.

jamesrage · Jan 11, 2010

drz-400 said:
A possible description of terrorism:

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."

There is no evidence that Tiller did this for political motivations.

The murder of Dr. Tiller was the final of several criminal acts against him and his clinic.

"In 1993, an abortion opponent shot Dr. Tiller in both arms. His clinic was bombed and repeatedly vandalized."

As far as we know none of those are of Scott Roeder's doing.

It would be no surprise if the court found his murder was also linked to his stance on late-term abortions.

Does not prove political motivation.All it proves is that he killed Tiller the baby serial killer for being a despicable human being.

Knowing this, his murder was obviously meant to send a political message to the pro-abortion, or at least those who support late-term abortions. This key observation is what could allow it to be called an act of terrorism.

Is there any evidence that Scott Roeder wanted to send a political message, to cause abortionist to hide in fear or any other claim?

"Mr. Roeder has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder. But in phone calls from jail, he has told news organizations that he killed Dr. Tiller -- an act he said was justified to protect unborn children."

Justifiable homicide and murder are not terrorism.

The fact that the accused Scott Roeder is willing to justify the murder as an act of self-defense towards an unborn child only further concretes his alleged actions as an act of terrorism under the presented definition.

No it doesn't. All it proves is that he believes Tiller is a scumbag.

Trial to Begin in Abortion-Doctor Killing

Rule of Two

Rule of Two

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Voluntary Resignation

Rule of Two

Rule of Two

Voluntary Resignation

Rule of Two

Voluntary Resignation

Rule of Two

Voluntary Resignation

Rule of Two

Voluntary Resignation

Enemy Combatant

Jedi Master

Jedi Master

Jedi Master

Slayer of the DP Newsbot