O'Reilly stays classy, on the attack against Tiller
June 08, 2009 8:43 pm ET
From Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
-
On Reliable Sources, Kurtz and Shister take on Kilmeade's "special debriefings" of Muslim officers
3 hours and 37 minutes ago -
-
Gail Shister: Limbaugh interview is "Fox saying directly to the White House, 'Eff you!' "
4 hours and 45 minutes ago -
-
-
Misleading talking point that Owens "ran against the health care bill" spreads from right-wing blogs to Fox
November 07, 2009 12:06 pm ET
-
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
by Karl Frisch - November 06, 2009 -
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
by Greg Lewis - November 06, 2009 -
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
by Eric Boehlert - November 03, 2009
|
|
||
Connect & Share
© 2009 Media Matters for America. All rights reserved.
  |
||
Do his viewers enjoy being talked down to like that? What a Megalomaniac.
And wouldn't it be good to know what Dr Paul McHugh of John Hopkins thinks, he was the first independent person to review Tillers records....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mviFMpy_sBU
These fall into the category of things you will never learn from MMFA or any other left wing organization.
Tiller didn't "kill" any babies. Stop it. You like look an idiot.
Come on lets see your proof.
Please provide proof that he killed a baby. As usual you show nothing but your terrorist teabagging opinion.
As people keep telling you, Kansas law stated that 2 doctors had to concur before they could do the procedure.
Also, he was cleared of all wrong doing in a court of law.
That's my proof. The law. And the results of his court case.
What you're providing is NOT proof, but the opinion of a doctor, who is a psychiatrist.
Now you classify an respected Doctor from John Hopkins University Hospital, a department head at that, 25 years at the hospital as "Some random guy"
Talk about brainwashed.
The retired doctor who previously had an administrative role at a hospital and who didn't interview a single woman is a random guy. They could have chosen any one of likely tens of thousands of psychiatrists across the nation, most of whom would have more recent and relevant clinical practice than this guy.
Top that off with the fact that any reputable psychiatrist won't try to make a diagnosis or a conclusion like he did simply by reading the notes of another doctor, and you are, again, 0 for infinity.
The killing of a soldier should get coverage. It did. But since it's not anywhere close to the unique murder that Dr Tiller's murder was, it isn't going to get the same amount of coverage.
It's not my opinion that the random killing of soldiers is not big news. It's fact. The more unique and horrific the murder, the more news coverage it gets.
It's not evidence of my values. It's evidence of reality, something you apparently have little familarity with.
I guess this never happens either...http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/DEabortiongraphic.html
Your brain could be washed in a thimble.
Why do you disrespect our justice system and disregard an acquittal of Dr Tiller?
Never mind the rabble, Luvlulu, because their bias is too ingrained, and they are also of the same ilk as the man who would be so hypocritical as to murder to stop a "murder." ...forgetting, of course, the fact that abortion is still L-E-G-A-L in the U.S.A. This is America, people. you don't like the law, elect someone who'll change it...
Oh wait, WE DID! NOT!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
seeing the number of comments of this, abortion gets more attention than almost all the others combined.
I was not saying that the doctor was inept.
Now, you, you are inept.
This is coming for a teabagging hick he spends her life defending Faux and O'Racist. You are a useless human....and I use the term "human" very loosely.
If you want to argue that not knowing the name of the establishment is irrelevant to your point, do so. Don't claim that you made the same typing error over and over again when you never got the name right at all. That comes off as hard to believe, to say the least.
Two can play at that game, Iggy. You can't be taken seriously because you post nothing serious.
That's different from getting the name Johns Hopkins wrong when you're trying to use it as an illogical bludgeon to confer respect to a psychiatrist who has no ethical business trying to second guess via incomplete notes a doctor whose work he has never seen.
FairLiberal must be ecstatic all the time then, because he sure is ignorant.
Murders like Dr Tiller get a ton of attention. Shooting someone in a church gets attention. Shooting someone who is getting ready to usher at that church gets attention. Shooting someone who ran one of only 3 late-term abortion clinics in the USA is unique. Shooting someone who just was acquitted about a month earlier of charges related to that abortion clinic is attention-getting. Shooting someone who has been attacked many times before is attention-getting. Abortion and abortion protesting is a huge deal in the USA.
It was a big story.
Let's look at the other story. A man angry with the US Military went to a recruiting center and shot two people, killing one. They were two random soldiers, so they were not attacked for the individuals they were, unlike the shooting of Dr Tiller, who was clearly attacked for the person he was. They were attacked because they were in the military. We don't have massive problems throughout our nation with people attacking military personnel and protesting outside recruiting centers for the past 4 decades. They just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Compare that to the planned murder of a specific man, followed him to his church by a man who has been known to be an abortion clinic vandal in the past, and who has served two terms in jail for his violent ways!
They are not on the same level of interest. What a dishonest and disgusting twerp you are.
I don't understand why some people are flustered by these well-known facts.
I live in a town where there are at least 2 or 3 murders a month and many more shootings, I don't expect to see them covered on the nation news, but at the same time last night Dateline did a story on a man that is near where I live because he killed his neighbors over a property line dispute. So to reiterate the fact, not all murder is equal in the eyes of the news.
However, to someone as ignorant as you, I guess it appears that way.
Do you agree with that , perhaps you also feel it is no big deal. Chime in, let the world know what you think.
The Muslim Terrorist is also an UltraConservative. Isn't that what Religious fanatics are known for, their conservative views.
Seems to me that Irans leadership is Conservative..clinging to their religious beliefs and demanding that everyone else follw along.
Are you saying a Radical Muslim is a liberal? If so, all I can say is WOW....
Just because he killed two servicemen doesn't make him a liberal. Those days of pointing the crooked finger of guilt are over and that is why Cons quit buying mirrors.
. A Conservative is a Conservative. We have our own problems on the far left side..but these two killers are yours. Deny it if you wish but your explanation must be accurate.
A little off topic but what I find a little hypocritical of the Right is that on their major TV station Fox News, Greta Van whatever had or still has a one hour evening show...While the war in Iraq was at its fiercest, many troops dying, she was devoting most of her show to some girl who dissappeared in Aruba or wherever. Did Greta ever read a list of soldiers killed that day..NOPE. But the blond girl from the South was the focal point of an hour long show.
Fairness, your attempt to frame this post in your favor is futile because it is dishonest.
You are a veritable fountain of rhetorical incompetence.
That being the case, you must be the happiest person on the planet.
Some digging on Mr McHugh.
"If you found the clergy sex abuse scandal shocking, prepare for another jolt: the Catholic bishops are getting their "expert" advice on pedophilia from people who have covered up or even defended sex between men and children.
The bishops recently chose Dr. Paul McHugh, former chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at John Hopkins University School of Medicine, as chief behavioral scientist for their new clergy sex crimes review board. Yet Dr. McHugh once said Johns Hopkins' Sexual Disorders Clinic, which treats molesters, was justified in concealing multiple incidents of child rape and fondling to police, despite a state law requiring staffers to report them.
"We did what we thought was appropriate," said Dr. McHugh, then director of Hopkins' Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, which oversaw the sex clinic. He agreed with his subordinate, clinic head Fred Berlin, who broke the then-new child sexual abuse law on the grounds that it might keep child molesters from seeking treatment."
Kansas law prohibits aborting viable fetuses, which is generally midway through the second trimester, unless *two doctors* certify that continuing the pregnancy would cause the woman "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."[28] Tiller went on trial in March 2009, charged with 19 misdemeanors for allegedly consulting a second physician in late-term abortion cases who was not truly "independent" as required by Kansas state law.[29][30]
[...]
On March 27, 2009, Tiller was found *not guilty* of all 19 misdemeanor charges stemming from some abortions he performed at his Wichita clinic in 2003.
They threw the case, OJ's jury could not have done a better job.
I thought you were an idiot before, but I'm certain of it now.
I'm sure Sebellus was making big bucks off of this. You're getting increasing ridiculous.
You should change your name to LieFairlyLiberally. Now that makes sense.
Lets see some evidence of what you say; you show nothing but your opinion.
Come on lets see your proof.
Sebelius does not have the power to dump a DA or to influence a jury. Kline was dumped by the voters of Kansas.
Don't you mean the biased, retired, old man years from having any clinical experience who violated medical policies that demand that psychiatrists not try to evaluate a patient's mental health solely upon the notes taken by another doctor?
Don't you mean the random guy who had no association with any of the patients? Don't you mean the guy who was hired by a clearly biased attorney general trying to throw a ton of mud, hoping some stuck to anyone in the vicinity, including Gov Sebelius, purely for political reasons?
You are outclassed and well out of your league in this argument, FairLiberal.
It is your side that tried to put the fix in. It is the liberals who honored reality and the truth. All the right had was a slip of the tongue by the second doctor.
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hmn/W99/profile.html
When your only argument is non sequitur, FL, it is best to stop arguing. You are the poster child for logical fallacies.
Yet another appeal to authority. You're just racking up the failures.
And the first sentence makes perfect logical sense. If a state hires someone to perform an unethical act, the fact that the person was hired by the state does not make the act ethical. I'm sorry your comprehension level is so low that was hard for you to understand. Let me see if I can express it on your level:
"If big state make man do bad thing, thing not become good."
I hope that's better for you, it may still be too advanced for your reading level.
In the future, I'll type more slowly so you can understand the post better.
You don't post rationally, so I really had no idea what you "ment." Anyway, your typos are the most intelligent part of your posts. You really shouldn't try to disown them.
Go ahead, you'll probably get that wrong, too. Although if I wanted to put your fist anywhere, I would have to work hard to dislodge your thumb from your ass first.
Interesting, considering that abortions in Kansas declined during her tenure.
You sound like a nut. Sebelius fixed the trial against a man who contributed less than 1% of her political contributions over 12 years? This is your evidence. Please show us the link that proves this. Or we will assume you are a nutjob.
And, I notice you still refuse to call these anti-choice killers "terrorists". Says alot about you.
And the voters dumped the DA (actually the AG) and his successor self destructed, then she picked her guy. is that correct enough for you.
And the most telling comment this guy made is this. Dr McHugh lies by saying that, since for for all women, being pregnant and having a young child is a deterent to suicide, that therefore suicide wouldn't be a big issue for the very limited sampling of women who chose to have late-term abortions. Women who are in a state where they would consider a late-term abortion, and then not only consider it, but go through with it at a cost of $5000, are clearly not equivalent to the average pregnant woman or mother of a young child. Comparing them, and then suggesting that women denied the opportunity to have a late-term abortion under such circumstances would not be under a much greater risk of suicide, is ignorant to the extreme! The doctor has no credibility in discussing this issue.
And guess what? He was denied the right to testify at the trial. His 'testimony' was irrelevant and immaterial! And you want us to give it plenty of weight. How surprising.
http://www.newshounds.us/2009/06/05/bill_oreilly_smears_dr_tiller_as_dr_killer_and_women_who_have_late_term_abortions.php
As part of a witch hunt against Dr. Tiller by rabid anti-abortion Kansas Attorney General Phil Kline, McHugh was commissioned to review medical records for possible infractions of the law. The next Attorney General, Paul Morrison ended the investigation, in June 2007, with no charges filed. After McHugh released his videotape, Morrison threatened McHugh with legal action if he didn’t cease and desist talking about the case. Morrison (who didn’t believe McHugh) stated that Tiller’s “clinic provides high-quality medical care and complies with state law.†None of this was acknowledged by Bill O’Reilly who continues to wage war against Dr. Tiller and women who have late term abortions. But calling George Tiller, “Dr. Killer†– stay classy, Bill!
Now, you, on the other hand, after I debunk what you said in one of your first posts, say NOTHING in a direct reply to my post that tore you a new one.
However, I, when replying to your unfair smear about my comment about the differences between the news coverage of the targeted, premeditated murder of Dr Tiller and the death of one random soldier who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, fully addressed your points.
Imagine that - I did exactly what I was supposed to do in a debate setting, and you threw out a baseless smear.
I'll tell you again. You're outclassed, and should just call it a night, you tool.
She's also right that you should have called it a night. Hell, you should have called it a year, that's how wrong you are.
She explained her view quite well. If you disagree, fine, but it's not something that you can use as a shield to deflect what she says.
Actually, you would be the one trivializing his death by using the media coverage of it as a cheap stunt to keep from discussing the madness of your fearless leader Bill O'Reilly.
And I believe that's the sole reason that the soldier's death has been brought up, to distract from the terrorist who killed Dr Tiller. There's clear evidence that Dr Tiller's murderer stalked the man, chose to kill him at his church of all places for maximum offensiveness, and had a history of criminal behavior regarding abortion clinics.
Ironically, this is what left-wing lunatics used to call soldiers who fought in wars they disagree with. No, the right owns the lunatic fringe and the "baby killer" mantra.
Note in particular how he disclaims his comments as being based on woefully incomplete data. Yet these are the "facts" O'Reilly has been running with for two years, with no such disclaimer.
DR. MC HUGH: Yes, well they — Remember most important, Megan, to appreciate is that these records that I was shown were very inadequate psychiatric records. Okay? They were not thorough, detailed, pages-long understandings of the biographies, backgrounds, states of mind, and particular directions that these young women were suffering from. There was no clear work of — in those records — that would be construed as capable of giving you a full picture of the mental condition of these women. They highlighted certain kinds of things, which, out of context, were hard of course to appreciate, but were sometimes of a most trivial sort, from saying that, “I won’t be able to go to concerts,†or “I won’t be able to take part in sports,†to more serious ones, such as, “I don’t want to give my child up for adoption.†But at no time could you see and understand the future of these individuals and in what way they should be seen as full people, people capable of being helped in this situation. Rather, they were highlighted for certain kinds of, well, preoccupations and concerns. Some of them would be construed as trivial and others would be construed as serious. A trivial one would not being able to go to a rock concert. A more serious one would be to say, “I am going to be worried about the life of this child later on in life. But notice, I could pick out only bits and pieces of this. This is not a — none of them represented a full psychiatric history.
transcript
Yeah, I though it would be good to know what other OPINIONS Dr. McHugh has, and look what I found.
McHugh…is the man whose report to the court in one case stated that a defendant’s harassing phone calls were not obscene - including the call that detailed a fantasy of a 4-year-old sex slave locked in a dog cage and fed human waste. At least eight men have been convicted of sexually abusing Maryland children while under treatment at the “sex disorders†clinic McHugh runs at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine - abuse the doctors did not report, citing client confidentiality. When Maryland law was changed to require that doctors report child molestation, the clinic fought it and advised patients on how to get around the law. The memo to patients suggested that molesters report their pedophilic activities to their lawyers, who could in turn tell staff; attorney-client privilege would then protect the molesters from being reported. This memo was fully approved by the boss - Dr. Paul McHugh…†http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/09/20/ED175849.DTL
Dr. Paul McHugh, once said Johns Hopkins' Sexual Disorders Clinic, which treats molesters, was justified in concealing multiple incidents of child rape and fondling to police, despite a state law requiring staffers to report them.
"We did what we thought was appropriate," said Dr. McHugh, then director of Hopkins' Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, which oversaw the sex clinic. He agreed with his subordinate, clinic head Fred Berlin, who broke the then-new child sexual abuse law on the grounds that it might keep child molesters from seeking treatment.
Yeah, I really give a rat's a** what Dr. McHugh's OPINION is on ANY subject!!!!!
Just remember, Bill, once a woman is dead, she can't hear you fantasize about molesting her with a falafel.
Whereas your approach to the truth appears to be "completely make things up."
P.S.
Compare that to the everyday killing of average soldiers at a recruiting location, and you are comparing apples and bookcases.
Here it is...http://mediamatters.org/research/200906040005
Ah a statement you can all be proud of. Congrats
The man was performing legal and necessary medical procedures for women. That's it.
What's so head in the sand about it? Nothing... Only to crazy folks like yourself who probably think he deserved to die, or it seems like you don't mind so much that a man was gunned down in his church for no reason.
I must admit I care more about the soldier who was murdered than Tiller, unlike some here who just consider the soldiers death an everyday event.
Variation 1123 of "some people say"...
Lets see what your variation is.
Or is it "everyday killing"? Are you disputing that there are killings everyday?
I think when you dissect your argument you will see that it is not clear what your beef is.
Other than you think the soldier's murder should get more coverage than the doctor who was murdered because he performed abortions. You can believe that all you want - it just isn't true.
The murder of one of 3 doctors performing these services that had been previsouly attacked multiple times by the terrorist group Operation Rescue is as big a story in and of itself. When you add in the fact that there are many who are trying to justify or add credence to the belief that this man was a "killer" so therefore got what he had coming to him this is a BIG story. That's the facts of life.
If there were not people like you and Bill O'Reilly running around saying he was a "killer" running a "death mill" and that anyone who did not stop him had "blood on his hands" .Or that the governor fixed an election and created a sex scandal to fix the court case against him (a special kind of crazy that you and Operation Rescue have added into the mix) than it may not be a bigger story. So it is actually your madness that makes it the bigger story. Perhaps your anger should be directed inward.
Necessary, debatable.
So, if you think it is debatable, you have lost the debate.
The way wingnuts argue is, they say "A." After being shown objective proof that A is false, they try to deflect the argument to "B," which is also proven to be false. After a few minutes, they show up in another section of the same thread, again arguing "A."
Rinse, repeat.
Iggy, You whine like a wingnut, are incapable of logical argument, and your posts are big stinking wingnut eggs. The conclusion to the syllogism is left as an exercise for the reader.
Unless the tactics used are directly out of the wingnut playbook, and the disagreements aren't coherent.
OK, here's one I can hit out of the park. If they don't know, and may never know, why do they keep claiming without a doubt that his actions weren't ethical?
There were a couple of people killed in my community over the weekend. Depending on where you live, you likely had a few killed too. Did any of those murders become national news? Nope. Why not? Because the everyday random murder of everyday people is not national news. The murder of a soldier is more unique, so it gets some coverage. The premeditated murder of a unique medical provider, a man who has ben attacked multiple times before, a man who was targeted and followed to his church (not just followed any old place, followed to his CHURCH), is much more newsworthy and is going to garner more publicity.
Saying that there's a huge difference between those two events is not inane. It's reality. Dog bites man is not news. Man bites dog is news.
straw man
ad hominem
appeal to authority
hasty generalization
appeal to emotion
personal attack
spotlight
Are you trying to be the first on the thread to collect the whole set?
overused "straw man"
made a hasty generalization
used personel attacks
knee jerked without knowing what the heck you are talking about.
nice mornings work.
You have provided no proof that the term "straw man" has been overused, because you have provided nothing to show that you actually know what a straw man is. In fact, when Capt Foster accused FL of using a straw man, I specifically said the argument wasn't a straw man. Maybe using the term correctly is "overusing" it for you.
You have also not shown any "hasty generalization" (agai a logical term with a precise meaning that you do not seem to know) that has been made, nor have you proven the existence of "personel (sic) attacks" (I must have said something about an employee somewhere).
You have also projected your ignorance upon me, by saying I have "knee-jerked," again without providing a single example. As for "not knowing what you are talking about, let's just say you're projecting harder than a twenty-screen Cineplex.
I would also compliment you on your morning's work, but being willfully ignorant is not work (oversoming ignorance is work, and so far your posts are of the extremely lazy sort), and you seem to exhibit ignorance effortlessly.
And it isn't an "attack" if it can be shown to be correct.
You probably think a thesaurus is a type of dinosaur.
And I have shown something, Iggy. I've shown that you haven't a clue.
Dr. Tiller's killer says more violence is coming: Scott Roeder calls the AP to issue more threats
Scott Roeder called The Associated Press from the Sedgwick County jail, where he's being held on charges of first-degree murder and aggravated assault in the shooting of Dr. George Tiller one week ago.
"I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal," Roeder said.
Incredible.
Guess what I do for a living? I protect soldiers. So F*** OFF!
Hence forth, you are just a dishonest child looking for attention. So I will be here to correct your childish behavior because you never have anything important to say. You would think that every now and then, you would use thinking as an apparatus or tool to prove ones' point.
Because, that's who you're holding up as some sort of example. He already agrees with you, so it's not a big stretch for him to "agree" that what Tiller was doing was bad, even though, it wasn't.
Read it again. Age 10?
You are really unbelievable.
douche
Maybe the next time you pipe up on an abortion thread, someone will ask why your opinion should be taken seriously, since you seem to believe that 10-year old girls should be forced to give birth. What the hell is wrong with you?
I took your bait and went to your little link you offered at that cjonline.com
Here is an excerpt from that article that you would like for us to consider as proof...
"These records were very thin," said McHugh, a member of President Bush's council on bioethics. "This is an inadequate psychiatric evaluation. It is an inadequate psychiatric judgment."
Considering that it is becoming quite apparent that just about everyone that was/is linked to the Bush/Cheney regime is not much considered trust-worthy or has any credibility as it pertains to the truth!
Bush certainly proved himself a person that hated science. It is not very likely that a legitimate unsoiled scientist was going to be given a position on a board on bioethics that was not in some way owned and operated by a Bush zealot.
Also, I have read all the posts here... and I have to ask... why do you even bother coming in here wasting our time with your useless right-wing talking points?
TRUTH and OPINIONS ACCEPT...(but you better be prepared to back them). In the fine print it reads, "Idiots won't understand the sign on the door so debate them until their debate turns stupid. Then just play along and try not to hurt their feelings". OR, they will report you to the FoxPolice.
LiesFairlyLiberally isn't debating..this is his form of porno.
WOW.
And yet despite all that, Tiller was found not guilty in a court of law of what McHugh is accusing him of. But you win, because he's dead. Enjoy it.
Also, I know a guy who can teach you how to use question marks if you ask nicely.
Women.
Great point about helping the undecided/casual reader.
Um.... the school is not the question the good doctor is!
Nice straw man argument thou...
You know, fairliberal, no matter how many times Bill O calls Tiller a "baby killer" he's expressing his opinion. You may share that view but it's still just an opinion. Operation Rescue and the execrable Randall Terry also are only opining; they may try to sound authoritative but it's not a fact that life begins at conception.
They like to say it because it allows them to treat women like second class citizens who should be made to endure the consequences of sex.
Terry should be accompanied by tape of his act in Florida during the Schiavo affair. Given how his opinion turned out there, why do you think he's right here?
If you, fairliberal, were quoting an objective third party, you might be able to claim some superior knowledge but quoting an "expert witness" like Dr McHugh in this case doesn't qualify.
Sorry, keep trying.
After reading all the intelligent replies to FL I wonder at what point does one decide "Do not throw pearls on swine"
Williams says that late term abortions in Kansas were legal, and O'Reilly says that they aren't legal in about 30 states. So what? Since when does it matter if it's illegal on one state if it's legal in the state Tiller was doing them in?
And he wants to claim the high ground here? Liars don't get to claim the high ground, O'Reilly. Disingenuous people don't get to either.
You are just ADORABLE.
That's fact.
People who can't understand the difference between fact and opinion shouldn't comment on sites like this, but if you are so ignorant that you don't know the difference between fact and opinion, then you're probably also too ignorant to know what a fool you are making of yourself!
I didn't disrespect the soldiers in the least. But the soldier that was killed and the other one who was injured in Arkansas outside a recruiting center were attacked randomly. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. We don't have massive problems with people protesting the military. We don't have a country massively split between supporting the troops and being pacifists against the military, do we?
These are some of the facts that make the differing amounts of network news coverage between the two murders clearly understandable. There's no opinion there.
When the murders happened, the history of the shooter was not known. When the murder of Dr Tiller happened, the history of that shooter was known.
All the facts combined explains perfectly why one story got lots more coverage by the media.
And the biases (opinions) of those on the right explain why they are so anxious to minimize the coverage of Dr Tiller's murder and maximize the coverage of the shooting of the two soldiers.
This argument does your side no good. It is your side who has disreputable opinions and limited use of the facts on their side.
OK, you've used that fallacy before. It's called "spotlight" or "spotlighting," and is not logical.
Fixed.
SIGN THIS PETITION SO MAYBE WE CAN GET RID OF THIS PROPAGANDA ARTIST!
i figured it would easier to click on it than have to copy and paste the url. :))
To some conservatives, aborting fetuses when the mother's life is in danger is barbaric, but killing/torturing people who kill/torture people to show that killing/torturing people is wrong is heroic.
Please quote someone who said that. It sounds like liberal fiction to me. It certainly was not said by me or anyone else that I know of. So please enlighten me , maybe post a link to the statement.
Thank you for avoiding the bit on torture and capital punishment. And for your continued barbaric attack on grammar and punctuation.
Classic example of a straw man argument.
I see no connection between the morality of torture and the fact that some women or families don't want to bring a life into the world that wouldn't have a chance.
Apparently, O'Reilly does.