| Author | Post |
|---|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 1878 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 01:07 am |
|
Palin refuses to label abortion clinic bombers "terrorists"
I was wondering when something like this would come out. Seems that Obama having some kind of contact with Ayers is a mortal sin, but she wouldn't go as far as to label those who would blow up buildings on US soil as "terrorists".
And you guys are so terrified of Obama winning the election, when a lunatic like Palin is (literally) a heartbeat from the presidency if McCain wins.
Oh, but wait - she can see Russia from her house, so that makes it all okay...
Moonbat. 
____________________
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 01:09 am |
|
Aldaron wrote: Palin refuses to label abortion clinic bombers "terrorists"
That's not on!!
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 1878 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 01:14 am |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Palin refuses to label abortion clinic bombers "terrorists"
That's not on!!
You're surprised?
____________________
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 01:22 am |
|
Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Palin refuses to label abortion clinic bombers "terrorists"
That's not on!!
You're surprised?
Yes, of course I am. Because I don't think anyone can split hairs over what a terrorist act is. It is to further an agenda through violence by instilling terror, any agenda.
She's splitting hairs. Sure, the terrorist acts against government may be considered "politically" motivated, she called it "domestic"? huh? But the Abortion Clinic bombings still employ the same tactics so it's still an act of terrorism.
It is terrorism and I don't understand why she didn't just say "yes." Why would that damage her campaign?
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 1878 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 01:27 am |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Palin refuses to label abortion clinic bombers "terrorists"
That's not on!!
You're surprised?
Yes, of course I am. Because I don't think anyone can split hairs over what a terrorist act is. It is to further an agenda through violence by instilling terror, any agenda.
She's splitting hairs. Sure, the terrorist acts against government may be considered "politically" motivated, she called it "domestic"? huh? But the Abortion Clinic bombings still employ the same tactics so it's still an act of terrorism.
It is terrorism and I don't understand why she didn't just say "yes." Why would that damage her campaign?
1) It would damage her campaign because she's there to buy the conservative Christian vote. You figure it out.
2) Why didn't she say "yes"? Again...figure it out.
3) When you've answered both those questions, ask me again why the idea of fundamentalist Christians in positions of power terrifies me...
____________________
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 01:29 am |
|
Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Palin refuses to label abortion clinic bombers "terrorists"
That's not on!!
You're surprised?
Yes, of course I am. Because I don't think anyone can split hairs over what a terrorist act is. It is to further an agenda through violence by instilling terror, any agenda.
She's splitting hairs. Sure, the terrorist acts against government may be considered "politically" motivated, she called it "domestic"? huh? But the Abortion Clinic bombings still employ the same tactics so it's still an act of terrorism.
It is terrorism and I don't understand why she didn't just say "yes." Why would that damage her campaign?
1) It would damage her campaign because she's there to buy the conservative Christian vote. You figure it out.
2) Why didn't she say "yes"? Again...figure it out.
3) When you've answered both those questions, ask me again why the idea of fundamentalist Christians in positions of power terrifies me...
I can't figure it out. It's an act of terrorism and the thought that someone is afraid or cagey about acknowledging that is beyond me.
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 1878 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 01:34 am |
|
1) It would damage her campaign because she's there to buy the conservative Christian vote. You figure it out.
If she said that abortion-clinic bombers are terrorists, she'd piss off a lot of US conservative Christians who tacitly support the destruction of abortion clinics.
2) Why didn't she say "yes"? Again...figure it out.
She - like a lot of the people she was brought in to "buy" - doesn't think that abortion-clinic bombers are terrorists.
3) When you've answered both those questions, ask me again why the idea of fundamentalist Christians in positions of power terrifies me...
A fundamentalist Christian-run theocracy would be no different from the Taliban.
____________________
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 01:37 am |
|
Aldaron wrote: 1) It would damage her campaign because she's there to buy the conservative Christian vote. You figure it out.
If she said that abortion-clinic bombers are terrorists, she'd piss off a lot of US conservative Christians who tacitly support the destruction of abortion clinics. SA: Well, I surely want the end of abortion clinics too so I agree with conservative Christians. But through terrorist attacks? No, that is wrong and I'm sure a great many cc's would agree. 2) Why didn't she say "yes"? Again...figure it out.
She - like a lot of the people she was brought in to "buy" - doesn't think that abortion-clinic bombers are terrorists. SA: Well, you explain to me how it's different? The way I understand terrorism is to employ tactics of violence and instill terror to make a point about something. 3) When you've answered both those questions, ask me again why the idea of fundamentalist Christians in positions of power terrifies me...
A fundamentalist Christian-run theocracy would be no different from the Taliban. SA: I disagree, I am a fundamentalist Christian and I don't support terrorism, the Taliban do.
Last edited on Sat Oct 25th, 2008 01:38 am by Sally-Anne
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 1878 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 01:43 am |
|
Well, I surely want the end of abortion clinics too so I agree with conservative Christians. But through terrorist attacks? No, that is wrong and I'm sure a great many cc's would agree
So explain why Palin refused to label them terrorists?
Well, you explain to me how it's different? The way I understand terrorism is to employ tactics of violence and instill terror to make a point about something.
I don't think it's different. But the Palinist-type Christians do. That's why she refuses to acknowledge the similarity (identicality?) - she doesn't want to piss off her voter base.
I disagree, I am a fundamentalist Christian and I don't support terrorism, the Taliban do.
You don't. However, this incident with Palin amply demonstrates that she (and her voter base) have a double-standard with regard to terrorism. They don't consider the bombing of an abortion clinic to be an act of terrorism. The Taliban don't consider the bombing of a synagogue to be terrorism, either.
But both counts are terrorism. Hence my reason for thinking that a Christian theocracy would be no different from the Taliban.
____________________
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 01:46 am |
|
Aldaron wrote: Well, I surely want the end of abortion clinics too so I agree with conservative Christians. But through terrorist attacks? No, that is wrong and I'm sure a great many cc's would agree
So explain why Palin refused to label them terrorists?
SA: I'm not a mind-reader, I do not know. Maybe she needs schooling in understanding what terrorism is.
Well, you explain to me how it's different? The way I understand terrorism is to employ tactics of violence and instill terror to make a point about something. I don't think it's different. But the Palinist-type Christians do. SA: Well, we'll have to ask them because I don't get it. That's why she refuses to acknowledge the similarity (identicality?) - she doesn't want to piss off her voter base. SA: oh. Well, she would p*** me off by not understanding what terrorism is.
I disagree, I am a fundamentalist Christian and I don't support terrorism, the Taliban do. You don't. However, this incident with Palin amply demonstrates that she (and her voter base) have a double-standard with regard to terrorism. They don't consider the bombing of an abortion clinic to be an act of terrorism. The Taliban don't consider the bombing of a synagogue to be terrorism, either.
But both counts are terrorism. Hence my reason for thinking that a Christian theocracy would be no different from the Taliban. SA: Hang on, that's a bit premature, I don't know why she answered the way she did but I would like to know why. It annoys me that these interviews and things don't go futher into things....
Last edited on Sat Oct 25th, 2008 01:47 am by Sally-Anne
|
manonfire
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue Aug 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2244 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 02:58 am |
|
Aldaron wrote:
Well, I surely want the end of abortion clinics too so I agree with conservative Christians. But through terrorist attacks? No, that is wrong and I'm sure a great many cc's would agree
So explain why Palin refused to label them terrorists?
Well, you explain to me how it's different? The way I understand terrorism is to employ tactics of violence and instill terror to make a point about something.
I don't think it's different. But the Palinist-type Christians do. That's why she refuses to acknowledge the similarity (identicality?) - she doesn't want to piss off her voter base.
I disagree, I am a fundamentalist Christian and I don't support terrorism, the Taliban do.
You don't. However, this incident with Palin amply demonstrates that she (and her voter base) have a double-standard with regard to terrorism. They don't consider the bombing of an abortion clinic to be an act of terrorism. The Taliban don't consider the bombing of a synagogue to be terrorism, either.
But both counts are terrorism. Hence my reason for thinking that a Christian theocracy would be no different from the Taliban.
They don't consider the bombing of an abortion clinic to be an act of terrorism.
Hiram: Stop the lies, Declin.
Doesn't Australia have a atheist/communist chat board you can play on. Why don't you join Icemonkey on that socialist Canadian board?
____________________
Liberals: It's not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so. -President Ronald Reagan
|
ToniLoryn
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Thu Aug 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 03:01 am |
|
manonfire wrote: Aldaron wrote:
Well, I surely want the end of abortion clinics too so I agree with conservative Christians. But through terrorist attacks? No, that is wrong and I'm sure a great many cc's would agree
So explain why Palin refused to label them terrorists?
Well, you explain to me how it's different? The way I understand terrorism is to employ tactics of violence and instill terror to make a point about something.
I don't think it's different. But the Palinist-type Christians do. That's why she refuses to acknowledge the similarity (identicality?) - she doesn't want to piss off her voter base.
I disagree, I am a fundamentalist Christian and I don't support terrorism, the Taliban do.
You don't. However, this incident with Palin amply demonstrates that she (and her voter base) have a double-standard with regard to terrorism. They don't consider the bombing of an abortion clinic to be an act of terrorism. The Taliban don't consider the bombing of a synagogue to be terrorism, either.
But both counts are terrorism. Hence my reason for thinking that a Christian theocracy would be no different from the Taliban.
They don't consider the bombing of an abortion clinic to be an act of terrorism.
Hiram: Stop the lies, Declin.
Doesn't Australia have a atheist/communist chat board you can play on. Why don't you join Icemonkey on that socialist Canadian board? Wouldn't you say Declin is a lesser class than you also? You always talk down to him like you're above him. You continue to illustrate my point over and over again. You're always telling this grown man to go play somewhere. Why are you on a liberal board to begin with?
____________________
----♥♥-♥♥----
---♥♥---♥♥---
---♥♥---♥♥---
---♥♥---♥♥---
----♥♥-♥♥----
-----♥♥♥-----
----♥♥-♥♥----
---♥♥---♥♥---
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 1878 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 03:20 am |
|
They don't consider the bombing of an abortion clinic to be an act of terrorism.
Hiram: Stop the lies, Declin.
Doesn't Australia have a atheist/communist chat board you can play on. Why don't you join Icemonkey on that socialist Canadian board?
Lies? What lies? It was your fucking heroine who refused to call them terrorists, not me.
I don't remember you being shy about posting on TalkBeliefs when it was run by an Australian.
I realise you lose your erectile function when someone disagrees with you, but what can I say? Build a fucking bridge and get over it.
____________________
|
met
Dialogue Facilitator
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 03:24 am |
|
how is a bridge gonna help him with that, ald?
____________________
“Hum tum ek kamre meins band ho, aur chaabi kho jaaye”
-from Bobby
o Dir. Raj Kapoor. 1973. R.K. Films Ltd.
|
NorrinRadd
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue Jul 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1093 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 10:04 am |
|
Aldaron wrote:
Palin refuses to label abortion clinic bombers "terrorists"
I was wondering when something like this would come out. Seems that Obama having some kind of contact with Ayers is a mortal sin, but she wouldn't go as far as to label those who would blow up buildings on US soil as "terrorists".
First of all, your phrasing gives the impression you see a moral equivalence between Obama's relationship with Ayers and Palin's "relationship" with abortuary bombers. Obama didn't just have "some kind of contact" with Ayers, he worked closely with him for years, even knowing his past. The article you cite shows no hint of such a relationship between Palin and any abortuary bomber, nor does it show her expressing endorsement or acceptance of such, it merely shows her disputing the lable of "terrorist."
Second, the author of the article seems to be somewhat of a commentator as well as reporter. The author used the expression "refused to call people...," "Refused" carries an implication stronger than would seem to be merited by her actual quote. The author also opined that at first Palin "circumvented the question" -- not exactly objective reporting of facts.
Now, I'm sure you'll be delighted and apalled to know that my own view aligns with Palin's, and in fact is probably even more (in your view) unhinged: I agree that bombing abortuaries is not necessarily "terrorism," because in many cases, the intent is not to "instill fear," but to destroy the means of killing the unborn. My main moral objection to the practice is that it is impossible to be sure that only property, not people, will be harmed.
____________________
"I reject your reality and substitute my own." -- Mythbuster Adam Savage
"Logic: The art of being wrong with confidence." -- ComputerGear T-Shirt
"Well THAT was a slap and a tickle!" -- William the Bloody
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 1878 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 11:49 am |
|
NorrinRadd wrote: Aldaron wrote:
Palin refuses to label abortion clinic bombers "terrorists"
I was wondering when something like this would come out. Seems that Obama having some kind of contact with Ayers is a mortal sin, but she wouldn't go as far as to label those who would blow up buildings on US soil as "terrorists".
First of all, your phrasing gives the impression you see a moral equivalence between Obama's relationship with Ayers and Palin's "relationship" with abortuary bombers. Obama didn't just have "some kind of contact" with Ayers, he worked closely with him for years, even knowing his past. The article you cite shows no hint of such a relationship between Palin and any abortuary bomber, nor does it show her expressing endorsement or acceptance of such, it merely shows her disputing the lable of "terrorist."
Second, the author of the article seems to be somewhat of a commentator as well as reporter. The author used the expression "refused to call people...," "Refused" carries an implication stronger than would seem to be merited by her actual quote. The author also opined that at first Palin "circumvented the question" -- not exactly objective reporting of facts.
Now, I'm sure you'll be delighted and apalled to know that my own view aligns with Palin's, and in fact is probably even more (in your view) unhinged: I agree that bombing abortuaries is not necessarily "terrorism," because in many cases, the intent is not to "instill fear," but to destroy the means of killing the unborn. My main moral objection to the practice is that it is impossible to be sure that only property, not people, will be harmed.
Ah, Sally-Ann? *points*
This is what I was referring to...
____________________
|
Cajun
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jul 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 909 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 11:51 am |
|
Well, Declin, here's another Christian nutter that agrees with Wayne. 
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 1878 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 12:03 pm |
|
Cajun wrote: Well, Declin, here's another Christian nutter that agrees with Wayne.
Sally-Ann? Yoohoo!
You were asking about which fundamentalist Christians that don't consider blowing up abortion clinics to be an act of terrorism?
Here's a couple of home-grown ones.
And you still wonder why the idea of a Christian theocracy terrifies me? Wayne and Cajun just need their beards and they fit right into the modern American Taliban wannabes...
____________________
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3071 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 06:35 pm |
|
Cajun wrote: Well, Declin, here's another Christian nutter that agrees with Wayne.
And here's another one. ME! (I don't think declin's listening; he seems to be looking frantically for sally-anne for some reason.)
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
J2R
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 263 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 08:28 pm |
|
I would think my agreement with Wayne on the issue would go without saying, but what's the fun in that--
I agree!
|
Current time is 01:02 pm | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ...   |
|
