More Terrorist Rhetoric From Operation Rescue?

[TheEgoist]

Randal Terry threatens violence if health care costs pay for abortion.

Now of course it isn't the case that I, or any person here I'm sure, supports public funding of abortion. Of course, I oppose any public funding of any medical surgery not being performed on a member of the armed services. And my opposition is a peaceful one, not of thinly veiled threats about a specific medical procedure.

When will this loon bin get the terrorist sticker on it that it deserves? Do we have to wait for Terry himself to shoot an abortion doctor?

[Chris.S]

I wonder if they realize that what they say is exactly the same BS that terrorist muslims repeat.

Can't they go to jail for threatening stuff like this, or does it have to be a direct threat to a specific person or people? I guess they could wimp out and say that they meant that God will do the damage, but I'd think any judge worth his salt would see through that kind of lie.

[softwareNerd]

I guess he says things in a way that is ambiguous enough that a court would not deem it to be a threat.

E.g. “Let all those in government be warned: They cannot order people to pay for the murder of babies, and betray God Himself, without horrific consequences.” — Randall Terry

He can claim he's talking about locusts and hurricanes being the "horrific consequences" that God (not he) will unleash.

[Space Patroller]

This is one of those nasty deals where neither side is right:

The government, in violation of the protocols or Roe v Wade is using tax money to fund abortions. Taxation is theift and some persons believe abortion is morally wrong so there is an infringement of porpert and a violation of freedom of conscience. So, at the root, the government is culpable here, is the aggressor and is breaking new ground in the march toward totalitarianism. So it bears half of the blame

On the other sice you have the fanatics. As is pointed out by "I wonder if they realized that they sound like muslim terrorosts?". Probably not. But that should be no surprise. All fanatics are terrorists. Now What would you do if your beliefs were violated in a gross and fundemtal way? Through the 60's and 70's the right used to do glowing images of the US population resisting the Soviet occupation in verious fictional scenarios and terrororism against the Soviiet-installed puppets and beuareaucrats was part of the paln.

I hear folks here talk about stocking up on guns and things so the totalitarian eventuality is being considered.

As to can't something be done in the courts. Alsa. The Alien and Sedition Acts were struck down and nothing has come to replace them and ever since the Chicago 7 trials it's been a free for all

But this is what happens when reason is abandoned as the go-to guy for figuring things out.

As a fottnote to this. I heard on "ReBoortz" on the week of 8 July,a dixcussion between Boortz and a rep from Charter Arms, his firearms dealer, and the subject of Timothy McVey's shit came up and the guy from Charter said "|The government had some crazy stuff in mind and McVey put a stop to that. [things like] training Navy Seals to search houses. but that all ended with that [McVey's action]". This was Boortz and a firearms dealer, not me so take it up with them

[Jake_Ellison]

The government, in violation of the protocols or Roe v Wade is using tax money to fund abortions. Taxation is theift and some persons believe abortion is morally wrong so there is an infringement of porpert and a violation of freedom of conscience. So, at the root, the government is culpable here, is the aggressor and is breaking new ground in the march toward totalitarianism. So it bears half of the blame

Right. If you litter and I murder you for it, you bear half the blame for the whole incident. Excellent understanding of concepts such as responsibility, as always.

Funding abortions is not breaking new ground toward totalitarianism, it is perfectly consistent with funding for other medical operations. Increasing that funding for medical procedures in general is breaking new ground, but simply shifting funding from other procedures to abortion is not.

As a fottnote to this. I heard on "ReBoortz" on the week of 8 July,a dixcussion between Boortz and a rep from Charter Arms, his firearms dealer, and the subject of Timothy McVey's shit came up and the guy from Charter said "|The government had some crazy stuff in mind and McVey put a stop to that. [things like] training Navy Seals to search houses. but that all ended with that [McVey's action]". This was Boortz and a firearms dealer, not me so take it up with them

You already said that McVey's actions were justified, in another thread, so I'll take it up with you, again: stop spreading ridiculous right wing propaganda, while claiming to be an Objectivist.

Edited July 23, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Space Patroller]

Right. If you litter and I murder you for it, you bear half the blame for the whole incident. Excellent understanding of concepts such as responsibility, as always.

Funding abortions is not breaking new ground toward totalitarianism, it is perfectly consistent with funding for other medical operations. Increasing that funding for medical procedures in general is breaking new ground, but simply shifting funding from other procedures to abortion is not.

You already said that McVey's actions were justified, in another thread, so I'll take it up with you, again: stop spreading ridiculous right wing propaganda, while claiming to be an Objectivist.

Zip had broght in new data that severely questioned the main premises from which I was dealing; that WACO was the full and complete cause of McVley's action which was attributed to the findings of the court. It appears to have been a proximate cause, more like an excuse. While the principles still held, he was not acting under those principles, just using them as an excuse to do what he was looking for the first excuse to do.

[RussK]

Randal Terry threatens violence if health care costs pay for abortion.

When will this loon bin get the terrorist sticker on it that it deserves? Do we have to wait for Terry himself to shoot an abortion doctor?

I don't think Terry will ever try and kill anyone. He's the type that's responsible for getting subordinate crazies into an uproar and "violent convulsions." Maybe one day he will get brazen enough and issue a direct threat and then the proper authorities can act against him.

[gags]

Terry worded his thinly veiled threat in such a way that he can claim he's simply warning people of the dire consequences to come. However, his intentions are pretty transparent and I agree with the writer of the article who couldn't believe that the National Press Club would give this wack-job a forum.

[softwareNerd]

This is one of those nasty deals where neither side is right:

The government, in violation of the protocols or Roe v Wade is using tax money to fund abortions. Taxation is theift and some persons believe abortion is morally wrong so there is an infringement of porpert and a violation of freedom of conscience. So, at the root, the government is culpable here, is the aggressor and is breaking new ground in the march toward totalitarianism. So it bears half of the blame

As immoral and wrong as it is for the government to take(and thus health-care decisions), it would be far more immoral of the government to then go on to deny people abortions. What some people happen to think about abortions would not make it less immoral for the government to deny people abortions after taking control of health-care dollars.

To say that "both sides are wrong" is worse than disingenuous, it is the same type moral-equivalent argument that left-wing nut jobs make when defending Islamic militants. Anybody who wishes to perpetrate violence in order to stop an abortion is nowhere near being "half right". If these people were anywhere near being right, they would be protesting taxes, and not abortions. Anyone who defends the in the terms such as you use is obscuring the truth of their evil.

[TheEgoist]

This is precisely why I oppose the Republican led ban on federal funding of stem cell research. The government shouldn't be the country's scientist, but the reason they banned that particular bit of funding was completely religious and should have been lifted for that exact reason.

[softwareNerd]

This is precisely why I oppose the Republican led ban on federal funding of stem cell research. The government shouldn't be the country's scientist, but the reason they banned that particular bit of funding was completely religious and should have been lifted for that exact reason.

And you're right. Any such ban is immoral. By the same logic they use to ask for a ban on government-funded abortion and government-funded stem-cell research, the right-wing nuts can claim that government schools should teach creationism. It would be the same argument and just as evil.

[TheEgoist]

Also you did not address the First Amendment issue of tax dolloars being used to violate the moral view of thsoe whose religious fredoms are protected thereby AS WAS AGREED TO BY THE SUPPORTERS OF ROE V WADE AND ACCEPTED BY THE "PRO-LIFE" SIDE.

As usual, most of your post was rambling and meandering. I'll address this part, since it's the crux of the issue: It is indeed true that it is wrong to have people pay for things with which they do not agree with. This is an argument against taxation as such, however. Anyone can be morally opposed to anything that exists, which is why taxation in an ideal society would indeed by voluntary or non-existent, replaced with some other form of funding or sustaining of defense. Fact is you are inadequately and inconsistently applying an principle of Objectivist politics. Anyone has a gripe against anything. I'm sure there's some whack job in Montana who thinks brain surgeries are evil and it would be against his religion to pay for it. However, you cannot go around arbitrarily cutting programs because of religion either. Why don't these people act on and advocate something worth while, instead of griming on about abortion? Because they themselves would be fine with religiously imposed laws and taxes.