The anti-abortionists have a long history of using terror:
Abortion Clinic Violence
That ain’t what Revtim asked.
That’s certainly reprehensible… but it doesn’t mean that clinics had a right to use that particular federal anti-discrimination statute against anti-abortion protesters who attempted blockades - does it?
That’s because he asked the wrong question. Is it only Muhammad Atta and his immediate friends that makes al qaeda a terrorist organization, or is it the whole history of the organization? Do you deny that the clinic protestors have a long history of using terror?
Actually, the right question might be “does supporting one of the legal issues raised by terrorists mean you are supporting terrorists?” I.e., does the ACLU and many on the SDMB support terrorists because of their positions regarding the Gitmo prisoners?
Maybe we need to agree on what constitutes “supporting terrorists”.
Regards,
Shodan
Gads, but you’re dense.
Sure, they’re a terrorist organization. I’ll say it explicitly. Likewise the KKK, likewise al-Qaida. That doesn’t mean a government may impinge upon their free speech or free assembly rights when opposing them.
They certainly may oppose them, but must do so within a legal and constitutional framework.
Perhaps it’s been a while since you’ve actually read the First Amendment. You might want to check it out now, since there’s an awful lot of stuff in these few short sentences, much of it directly applicable to this case:
Typical disgusting tactics from the NARAL loons. Wish I could say I was surprised, but this is par for the course from the far-left wingnuts. I would say they have damaged their credibility, but you have to have credibility before it can be damaged.
No, of course the Administration was merely interested in seeing that the Constitution is strictly upheld and that no law is used improperly, solely on the basis of upholding the Constitution, and Strict Construction, and…
Or, to take the non-Alice-in-Wonderland tack, Roberts was a participant in an Administration effort to make it more difficult to crack down on protesters blockading clinics, thus helping to deny women seeking abortion their constitutionally protected right to same. Roberts was not promoting violence, just effectively acting to protect behavior that a couple of Supreme Court justices thought represented mob violence or the threat of it.
Hard to put all that into a 30-second ad, but NARAL certainly could have done a better job of it.
Any of those morally outraged at the NARAL ad care to comment on the Spectator’s linking NARAL to the spreading of rumors about Roberts’ sexual orientation? Any evidence to that effect aside from a quote from Mr. Anonymous?
Anybody?
Of course thay do. I thought the right had settled that issue long ago. Surely you can’t be suggesting that now that that slant hurts you it shouldn’t be used? Having created the dialog of the day, you must live with it.
It’s par for the course for all wingnuts.
You know, Metacom, I’m beginning to find you strangely attractive.
As the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign showed, it’s also a political fact of life in Bush’s America. Sticking to strict factualism, and NOT addressing the larger moral issues is the political equivalent of stumbling into a gunfight with your pants bunched arouned your ankles.
Even Mr. Moto admits that they’re a terrorist organization. Thanks to NARAL, there’s now a chance that the american people will come to know that.
It’s been pointed out by others…but since you’re referring to my cite, FUCK YOU for deliberating taking that phrase out of context by not including the rest of the sentence (and the follow up sentence). Dishonest much?
I think you’d feel right at home with NARAL’s (or the Swifties) ad campaign.
Snicker.
Yeah because the purpose of the ad is to edumacate us ignorant folk that there are advocacy groups that use violence and terror. I DID NOT KNOW THAT, THANKS NARAL!!!
It sure couldn’t be designed to throw lies and mud at a SCOTUS candidate.
:smack:
Perhaps I missed it, what with my busy social calendar, but what election did the Swifties win?
Because as I recall, Bush won the election. Are you trying to claim his win to justify their lies? Sounds sorta spotty to me, but to each his own.
Waste
I don’t understand what NARAL’s trying to accomplish. Do they think if they can block Roberts, Bush will appoint a strongly pro-choice judge? Granted that Bush might try for an O’Conner type pragmatist, but he might also appoint someone really extreme–Janice Brown, for instance.
Roberts is going to be confirmed. NARAL needs to learn how to choose their battles.
So you support NARAL’s tactics in this instance?
You say that as if there was ever a chance I wouldn’t describe clinic bombers as such. If you wondered about this at all, you don’t understand me or my politics one bit.
I’m curious about this thanks you’re giving to NARAL, too. You seem to be saying that these tactics that they’ve engaged in as of late, though untruthful and roundly denounced by nearly everybody here, are justifies in some sense because they serve a greater good, in your opinion.
If the ends justify the means, you can justify some pretty disgusting things. NARAL has shown that, and you are defending them.
Yeah, WTF? It makes no sense. The only rational reason is they just want to muddy the waters and hope that some of the shit sticks somewhere.
I asked the right question, because it described exactly what I was curious about. If you felt like making a comment that was not the answer to my question, you shouldn’t have quoted me.