Of course Conservatives never bring that matter up.

Words have consequences, I am all for freedom of speech. However, if your speech gets people killed... you need to be held responsible.

I don't believe in "preventive" censorship. Let these assholes speak, and when someone does something harmful based on their works/words. Then prosecute them.

Well, the Platonists and the Neo-Platonists taught that cognition causae initiation.

They killed Bugs Bunny on TV because people were afraid of showing such violence on the air.

...which one of the rabid right-wing media whores will be the first to denounce Mr. Schaeffer as a turncoat traitor (along the lines of Scott McClellan et al)?

Anyone care to guess?

My money's on Bill "Bloody Hands" O'Reilly.

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Matthew 5:27-28 (KJV)
_________________________________________________________________

So although it's tailored specifically to adultery, it clearly shows that scripturally the thought precedes the action, the temptation precedes the sin, and both are equally wrong, so it raises the question, what if a third party helped place the thought within you, what is their responsibility?

what if a third party helped place the thought within you

Opportunity for a threesome?

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/1/dr_georg...

This was an excellent show.

are these people not amer taliban? a few recant, yes. still, keeping their belief system front and center and not accountable is a concerted effort to make their religions/cults' agenda accessible to a wider audience. imo

Exremism, especially violent, isn't born in a vacuum. Nor does it grow and flourish in a vacuum. It becomes part of a culture or sub-culture, that give it what it needs, especially perspective and language.
Roeder's ex-wife has described how he 'evolved' over a decade, from being an anti-tax/anti-government extremist, to becoming an Old Testament 'eye for an eye' believer, and then fixating on abortion. It's no coincidence that the terms that Roeder regularly used are the same ones you hear day after day from the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Randall Terry and other high-profile 'pro-life' voices (i.e., the conscience decision in the 1980's by pro-life groups to substitute the word 'baby' for 'fetus' as often as possible. Solely for its emotional impact value)..

And when these individuals and groups actually come together, the verbiage can become a frightening din. Witness Terri Schiavo. When, located in one place, for weeks, augmented by media pundits - Fox News/Sean Hannity literally set up shop there - and blogs, the 'Save Terri' groups became a chorus of hatred, slander, distorsions and outright lies, mainly directed towards Michael Schiavo. And when every Court ruled on the facts in favor of Michael, you had the spectacle of one of the most undemocratic examples of political pandering in recent history as the leadership of the Republican party orchestrated its 'war on the Judiciary' (remember those 'Justice Sunday', the 'activist judges' mantra, the threats of legislation stripping courts from being able to hear end of life cases...). And Bill Frist in his Senate office diagnosing Terri from an EDITED videotape. Talk about a rabid and dangerous (to our democracy) political-cultural coalition.

Not every supporter or advocate of these groups, and especially their language, will become a Roeder. But there's something perhaps even more dangerous to our democracy: the language of the pro-life extemists is so extreme, so much a part of anything they say about abortion, that in fact it renders nearly impossible any serious, rational discussion and possible solutions. Obama had it dead right in his Notre Dame speech.

The only way we'll ever come to some kind of resolution or acceptable compromise, is for both sides to step back from the hate-based, deliberately antagonistic, 'cultural warrior' language. And to stop being manipulated by those that engage in it from the heights of their religious and secular pulpits.

'One woman who turned to him was Miriam Kleiman, of northern Virginia. Nine years ago, a routine sonogram revealed her 29-week-old fetus had major brain abnormalities that prevented the baby's heart and lungs from functioning properly.
Doctors told her the baby would die in utero or soon after birth. Kleiman's doctors told her a third trimester abortion was not possible.

Kleiman says she could not bear a two-month death watch. 'There was a baby dying inside of me, and it wasn't if, but when,' she says.

After desperate pleas, she says, a doctor scribbled Tiller's name on a scrap of paper. She and her husband flew to Wichita and drove through a gauntlet of protesters to the fortress-like clinic.
She remembers Tiller and his staff as kind and compassionate. She had the abortion and brought home her baby to be buried.

Kleiman, who now has two sons, says she cried when she heard of Tiller's death while watching her son's soccer game.

'I fear,' she says, 'that other people might not have this option in the future _ to have a medical option that was safe, that was legal and allowed us to say goodbye with dignity.' (AP)

I wonder why it is that few, if any, of the high-profile anti-abortion voices who call abortions "murder" and who want to make abortion illegal and who are willing to send a doctor to prison, get cold feet when it comes to saying out loud that the woman should also get sent to prison.

I bring this up because if a wife contracts with someone to kill her husband, but the killer and the wife are charged with murder.

Could it be that they don't want it framed that way?

So, are you going to stick with your statement @1:41 "far left"

AND

@1:50 "far right"?

Or, are we just supposed to assume that we knew what he meant?

[This thread died over two months ago. No one will be answering you here-Sitemonitor]