An Educated Alienated Loner

Is anyone surprised that Robert Lewis Dear, Jr is described by those who came into occasional contact with him as a reclusive loner ? He lived in a dilapidated trailer off the beaten path. His only political activity reported so far consists of once handing an anti-Obama pamphlet to a neighbor who had stopped by his trailer.

His ex-wife says he has a college degree and used to be an art dealer of some sort. He did not seem particularly religious or political. When they split up, she said she had no problem with Dear having custody of their 12 year old son and raising him. (She remarried and said she only saw Dear a handful of times since they split in 2000.)

Dear moved to Colorado from North Carolina in the last year or two and bought a piece of land in Hartsel, CO, which is in Park County, about 45 minutes from Colorado Springs. He lived in a trailer with a woman and two dogs.

He has no significant criminal history and none in the past decade. In North Carolina he lived in a cabin in the woods on Black Mountain near Asheville, NC that had no electricity or running water. Until his divorce in 2000, he lived in South Carolina. He grew up in Lexington, KY.

His neighbors, who barely had any contact with him, describe him as an unkempt reclusive malcontent who never appeared threatening (despite being 6'4" tall) and didn't express political opinions.

Most abortion clinic violence has occurred through bombings, not shootings. One exception was John Salvi in Mass. He killed himself in prison in 1996. [More...]

What was Dear's motivation? Even though no one knows as of now, that hasn't stopped every activist group from claiming to be his victim. The gun control crowd harps on his use of a gun. The Attorney General has already declared he was at war with women. Pro-choice activists say he was motivated by hatred of abortion.

Whatever his motivation, he slipped through the cracks. America is so worried about ISIS, it pays scant attention to the problem of the lone and looney wolves at home.

< Shami Witness Update: India Wants to Add More Charges | Monday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'm planting these murders... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by desertswine on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 06:03:36 PM EST
    at the feet of the Republican Party.

    Are they also responsible (none / 0) (#63)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 03:44:22 PM EST
    for the Discovery Channel shooter that thought Discovery Channel shows did not do enough to hype global warming?

    Or the Family Research Council shooter?


    Yeah, Same Thing... (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 04:06:51 PM EST
    ...spot on man, like always.  

    Not mentioning GW is exactly like lying about aborted live fetuses and baby parts.


    Just say it (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by smott on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 06:39:31 PM EST
    Educated , alienated, loner TERRORIST.

    All true.

    What's good for the goose... (1.00 / 2) (#70)
    by thomas rogan on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 05:37:36 PM EST
    As long as President Obama also names his good friend Bill Ayers as a terrorist.
    As far as this fellow goes, though, it is not fully yet if he had a political agenda or was rambling in a psychotic way.  If there was a political agenda, then of course he is a terrorist.
    Of course, by the reasoning of people on this thread the Palestine Liberation Organization practiced hate speech and induced murder because Sirhan Sirhan assassinated Bobby Kennedy because of Bobby's support of Israel.  That is a fact not often taught in schools anymore.  

    Stop the presses (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 06:06:09 PM EST
    As long as President Obama also names his good friend Bill Ayers as a terrorist.

    Whoa, I must have missed Ayers shooting people.  When and where did that happen?


    Ayers (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 06:12:37 PM EST
    Is one of a series of receptors in susceptible individuals for the ODS virus.  Others are the Benghazi receptor, the Mooslum receptor, Rev Wright receptor,  the Socialist receptor, et al.  

    How could you have omitted (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 08:49:33 PM EST
    Tony Rezko?

    The Tony Rezko scandal never got traction ... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 09:10:53 PM EST
    ... within the crackpot community, even though it was one that actually had a basis in fact. They evidently prefer fiction and fantasy. That said, Rezko's role as an equal-opportunity operative -- in his heyday, he raised money for both Democrats and Republicans -- speaks more to the generally corrupt nature of Illinois politics, than it does to any particular moral failing on Barack Obama's part. Rezko was released from prison in July of this year, and is presently residing in a halfway house in the Chicago area.

    So, Hope and Change (none / 0) (#80)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Dec 01, 2015 at 06:20:47 AM EST
    speaks more to the generally corrupt nature of Illinois politics, than it does to any particular moral failing on Barack Obama's part.

    Was really just a sales pitch, Obama was just politics as usual.

    If the corrupt Rezko real estate deal got the attention of say, Bridgegate, there would have been traction


    The Rezko real estate deal got (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 01, 2015 at 08:29:54 AM EST
    quite a bit of play in the media and here on this blog.

    It is obvious why the closing of George Washington Bridge got more play than a real estate deal. One was a private transaction and one was a very public event which affected thousands of people during a four day period.

    Local officials, emergency services, and the public were not notified of the lane closures and posed an actual threat to public safety. Calls regarding the public safety issues were ignored and emails from Christie's employees showed actual glee about the mayhem that they were intentially causing.

    Kelly asked, "Is it wrong that I am smiling?"  Wildstein replied, "No.

    Like Rezko didn't get the attention (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 01, 2015 at 03:08:59 PM EST
    of every cockamamie right wing talk radio show and Fox commentary for months on end..

    There was no there there -- as much as planet wingnut wanted there to be one.

    And the same thing is going to happen with your cherished email investigation, and pathetically, with your "the science isn't settled" delusions concerning the effects of greenhouse gases.


    It deserved (none / 0) (#98)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 06:23:23 AM EST
    The eye of the national media, which it never received.

    The FBI will do a thorough and honest investigation, but I doubt that if they recommend prosecution , the Justice Department will decline anyway.
    They wanted much stronger charges against Petraeus, but Justice deferred.

    Excellent new documentary came out, premiered in Paris this week, regarding the end of the world global warming fraud.

    The film is the first climate documentary to profile scientists who have reversed their views from supporting the so-called "consensus" position to a conversion to skepticism. The film also profiles politically left scientists who have now declared themselves skeptics of man-made global warming and United Nations scientists who have now turned against the UN for "distorting" climate science.


    I'm sure you must have misspoke again (none / 0) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 08:05:59 AM EST
    A simple Google search will show that Obama's relationship with Rezko as well as the real estate deal did receive quite a bit of national  attention. Numerous articles were written in the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Boston Globe, The Chicago Tribune, BBC,  The Guardian and CNN, Fox News and all the national stations covered the story.

    The fact that you may not remember the coverage does not mean it did not exist.


    It was (none / 0) (#100)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 04:55:40 PM EST
    A shrug


    Please check out the coverage on the Governor of New Jersey

    Not numerous, multiple articles DAILY, for months.

    As opposed to a Presidential contender

    But we have different scoresheets I guess.

    But that is precisely the reason that Fox News was created and has flourished, they cover the stories that were once buried by the liberal press.
    And eventually, when they cannot turn away , now the rest of the media will eventually cover subjects like Rezko, but never to the extent of a Republican Governor in New Jersey


    Nah, It wasn't a shrug (none / 0) (#101)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 05:52:18 PM EST
    It was a definitive statement. Your original comment stated that the relationship between Obama and Rezko never received national attention. Since that statement took mere seconds to disproved,  you decided to change the definition of numerous and move the  goal posts. You might think that regurgitating tired erroneous conservative talking points distracts from the fact that your original comment was not factual but it really doesn't.

    Anything new lately on the (none / 0) (#102)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 05:59:51 PM EST
    "who really killed Vince Foster" front, Trevor?

    I figured you would know if anyone would.


    ... for criminal activities which had nothing at all to do with his relationship to Barack Obama, who for his part did nothing wrong. Rezko's legal issues received extensive national coverage at the time, due to that relationship. The scandal lost traction when it became clear that Obama was not responsible for Rezko's sins.

    Okay, so Obama had close interaction with Rezko over the early course of his political career in Chicago, including an apparent sweetheart deal for his family's house which he and his wife otherwise could not have afforded at the time. In fact, Rezko was one of the very first to identify Obama as a promising up-and-comer, and served for a time as his mentor.

    So what! Given that Rezko was a major player in both city and state politics at the time, that particular revelation is hardly surprising, and is certainly not worthy of the feigned outrage you're showing here. It's no more relevant than Hillary Clinton's own professional relationship with Webster Hubbell during her tenure at Rose Law Firm in Little Rock.

    I daresay we've almost all known and interacted with certain people during our respective lives, who we later learned to our chagrin were bad actors in one form or another. And I hardly think that you'd appreciate it, were others to similarly hold you to account for the unethical and / or illegal behavior in which your own acquaintances might have engaged.

    Please lose the double standard.


    No (none / 0) (#97)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 06:16:20 AM EST
    The Obama's financially benefited from their relationship with Rezko, and with him being the up and coming local politician, it was a wise choice for Rezko at that time.
    It was given short shrift nationally, especially with Obama being a Presidential contender

    No more short shrift (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 06:11:21 PM EST
    than Bush's ties to Enron were given short shrift

    Of course, you don't think so. Funny how that works.


    Ted Cruz "doesn't see Abortion Link (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 12:56:43 AM EST
    in Shooting at Planned Parenthood.

    When a reporter told Cruz that the suspect reportedly said "no more baby parts" upon his arrest--echoing Republican rhetoric after undercover videos this summer showed Planned Parenthood officials discussing the cost of fetal tissue for medical research--Cruz responded: "Well, it's also reported that he was registered as an independent and as a woman and a transgendered leftist activist, if that's what he is."

    Hate thy Neighbor, eh Ted?

    shunning (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by leap on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 05:14:15 PM EST
    Howse about shunning JimAsKnownAsPeanutPoop&Jelly? Why bother responding to his trolling? Let him talk to his hand. It might not argue with him. It might even please him.

    "stochastic terrorism" (4.86 / 7) (#12)
    by leap on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 12:15:21 PM EST
    Here's an excellent explanation of what this event really is. And another example of stochastic terrrorism was Radio Rwanda abetting the Tutsi genocide in the 1990s. There are more examples, for sure, but I'm not going to go Godwin... Ooops!

    I'll post the relevant quote from your cite: (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 12:48:26 PM EST
    "Stochastic terrorism is the use of mass communications to incite random actors to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable. In short, remote-control murder by lone wolf."

    thank you for posting that (none / 0) (#25)
    by leap on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 03:39:02 PM EST
    Guess I should have done that along with the link, instead of leaving it in arcane language ('stochastic").

    For another example, see the nearby thread (none / 0) (#14)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 12:54:47 PM EST
    on Shami Witness.

    Never appeared threatening? (4.83 / 6) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 06:23:50 AM EST
    "police records show a history of arrests for domestic violence, animal cruelty and being a peeping tom"

    Plus he is 6' 4". (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 10:32:31 AM EST
    2 members of my immediate family meet that criterion.

    Listing him as educated may be a stretch also (none / 0) (#89)
    by CoralGables on Tue Dec 01, 2015 at 03:58:11 PM EST
    Although he told one of his 3 wives that he graduated from college, thus far all they have found is half a year at Kentucky and one year at Louisville with no mention if he completed anything in his short time enrolled at those 2 schools.

    The mere fact that the ex-wife didn't know where he graduated from college should haven been the red flag that she had been conned by him.


    Motivation (4.83 / 6) (#4)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 09:04:28 AM EST
    Whatever his motivation, he slipped through the cracks. America is so worried about ISIS, it pays scant attention to the problem of the lone and looney wolves at home.

    It is an easy way out for politicians who are clueless about how to deal with problems at home to create even more dangerous situations abroad, and then pretend to be engaged in solving them.

    Regarding Dear's motivation:
    What he is reported to have said about his rationale, "no more body parts", sounds like an echo of what Carly Florina put out there during the "debates".

    If anyone is yelling, "fire" in a crowded theatre, it is she - using inflamed rhetoric about Planned Parenthood allegedly selling aborted babies and their body parts. and setting off and psychically enabling unstable freaks who have unfettered access to guns.

    Creating a poisonous atmosphere (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by christinep on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 10:43:46 AM EST
    lentinel: Your paragraphs about inflaming a crowd, etc., are quite relevant here, imo.  In a known heated environment--which may have existed in the known very fundamentalist atmosphere of Colorado Springs--groups that deliberately distribute, repeat, promote misleading information of an obvious inflammatory nature (see, the alleged statements of Fiorina et al) bear a special responsibility. An ethical and personal responsibility.

    The situation in Colorado Springs could reasonably have been said to be near powder-keg in terms of emotional political issues.  Apart from the demographics of the area, which includes the fundamentalist, politically-active Focus on the Family and which is considered a bastion for the advocacy of guns in every dimension, Colorado Springs has always been regarded as politically extremely conservative. The complicating positional factor that may show up here is that one police officer is dead and that five police officers are injured ... the fact that the slain enforcement officer was nationally regarded in the ice-skating world and that this husband & father of two served as co-pastor at an area church almost ensures that a genuine focus on the manner of this crime will happen.

    Two things: (1) On another thread yesterday, I noted an interesting factoid in that Mr. Dear saw fit to register to vote after moving to Colorado.  While registering doesn't preclude misfits or people with mental disabilities, I'm guessing that the real recluses don't take the trouble to register to vote.  Just a guess.  (2) Reports are that he used an AK47 and other reports from his neighbors in North Carolina describe an angry man from whom a few even shielded their children.

    "Poisonous atmosphere" as suggested this morning on ABC by the head of Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood to Martha Raddatz is what existed.  A poisonous atmosphere plus unlimited guns plus edgy, angry person(s) do not mix well ... to say the least.


    According to WaPo (4.75 / 4) (#3)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 08:58:11 AM EST
    COLORADO SPRINGS -- The gunman suspected of storming a Planned Parenthood clinic and killing a police officer and two others used the phrase "no more baby parts'' to explain his actions, according to a law enforcement official, a comment likely to further inflame the heated rhetoric surrounding abortion.

    That he killed a cop, not "baby killers" (4.75 / 4) (#16)
    by Towanda on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 02:01:03 PM EST
    or those terrible wimmen who use Planned Parenthood -- often, as with at least some interviewed there, for tests and checkups for successful pregnancies -- is considerably changing coverage that I see, compared to that on previous attacks on clinics and away from clinics to kill "abortion providers" at home, at church, etc.

    That it apparently never occurred to law enforcement and other public officials that this was bound to happen -- or that they could foresee it but lacked the guts to say so and provide real protection (not the usual sort; as a clinic defender, I can attest that cops on the scene can act to encourage clinic attackers) -- is stunning to me.

    I await identifications to come tomorrow of the others killed at the clinic -- as we know that they were not staff there -- may bring more amazing revelations to law enforcement, other officials, and media. One may be another male, as a patient there for a pregnancy checkup still has not heard from the father of their future child, who had accompanied her to the clinic. (Perhaps those in the waiting area did not get to the clinic's safe room.) It was fine to kill male "abortion providers," as well as wimmen who would be "baby killers" -- but that prospective fathers and cops could be killed is different, it seems.


    We should wait (none / 0) (#22)
    by Palli on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 03:16:44 PM EST
    for the medical reports to conclude who killed who.

    Clarification please (none / 0) (#24)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 03:27:02 PM EST
    We should wait for the medical reports to conclude who killed who.

    Are you suggesting that the two non-police victims were shot by police?

    Doesn't matter, death arising from the commission of a crime is murder.


    No details from LE (none / 0) (#27)
    by Palli on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 03:59:05 PM EST
    on the 3 deaths, in fact. No location where victims were found, time of death, age of victim, etc....nothing yet.
    We know these names from the families.
    Any details we are receiving are from witnesses, patients or staff of the PP Women's Clinic.

    This is the most complete source publically available now.


    May I be the first to say (none / 0) (#28)
    by CoralGables on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 04:09:08 PM EST
    your link isn't very informative

    of course not, all this just got out @12:33pmMT (none / 0) (#31)
    by Palli on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 04:52:09 PM EST
    I'm not the investigative journalist, give it time
    About Ke'rre  http://tinyurl.com/qjtjznv

    His link is even LESS informative (none / 0) (#32)
    by sj on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 05:21:06 PM EST
    for those of who detest, and will never click on, a tinyurl link.

    The same amount of lack of info either way (none / 0) (#37)
    by CoralGables on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 08:28:11 PM EST
    because the original tiny link posted is a dead link.

    One of the dead is Jennifer Markovsky, ... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 03:45:50 PM EST
    You are opting to entirely ignore (none / 0) (#40)
    by Towanda on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 10:18:18 PM EST
    my point.



    Still waiting (none / 0) (#94)
    by Towanda on Tue Dec 01, 2015 at 08:07:36 PM EST
    now that you must have figured out who killed who, so you no longer are distracted by the obvious:

    You replied to my post but ignored its point.

    You now can focus to address the point raised.


    Autopsies have been completed (none / 0) (#104)
    by Palli on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 05:52:12 AM EST
    but the only public information released has been "all three died of gunshot wounds".

    When you say that a fairly predictable (none / 0) (#23)
    by christinep on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 03:23:31 PM EST
    outcome "apparently never occurred" to officials before that a volatile situation could lead to this killing result, it brings to mind the aphorism about people not seeing what they don't want to see and not hearing what they don't want to hear. Or, we can also recall the caution relating to what happened in Europe in terms of the Holocaust ... (paraphrasing) "first, they came to get the Jews ... then, they came for the Poles ... then for my neighbors ... then for me."

    Towanda: In many ways, the Colorado Springs shooting multiplies the questions and factors presented at the seeming series of mass shootings. Convergence?


    Regardless of his motivation, he did use a gun (4.67 / 3) (#8)
    by parse on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 10:44:29 AM EST
    What was Dear's motivation? Even though no one knows as of now, that hasn't stopped every activist group from claiming to be his victim. The gun control crowd harps on his use of a gun. The Attorney General has already declared he was at war with women. Pro-choice activists say he was motivated by hatred of abortion.

    His motivation isn't relevant to the discussion of what the use of his gun suggests in terms of any public policy decisions one might make related to his attack, so it's not clear why you would include that in your list of people making claims about the incident before the facts necessary to make sense of it are available.

    I don't know if he was at war with women or whether he hated abortion, but I'm confident that the availability of firearms faciliated his actions. Nothing I learn later about his motivation is likely to change that conviction.

    Art dealer? (4.50 / 2) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 06:39:23 AM EST
    "he lived off selling prints of his uncle's paintings of Southern plantations"

    More from the ex-wife (4.50 / 2) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 09:29:06 AM EST
    She acknowledged on Saturday that she had once called the police about him but declined to talk about it. A police incident report shows that in 1997 she told the police that he had locked her out of her home, and had "hit her and pushed her out the window" when she tried to climb in. He also shoved her to the ground. The report said she did not want to file any charges, but simply "wanted something on record of this incident occurring."
    The younger Mr. Dear was raised in the Baptist church, Ms. Ross said. He was religious but not a regular churchgoer, not one to harp on his faith. "He believed wholeheartedly in the Bible. That's what he always said, he read it cover to cover to cover," she said. But he wasn't fixated on it, she added.

    He was generally conservative, but not obsessed with politics. ....He believed that abortion was wrong, but it was not something that he spoke about compulsively. "It was never really a topic of discussion," Ms. Ross said. He did not have many close friends.

    the current girlfriend (none / 0) (#9)
    by christinep on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 10:49:18 AM EST
    I'll be curious about information from the current girlfriend who lived in the trailer with him in Colorado.

    Not political...not a terrorist... (none / 0) (#10)
    by shoephone on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 11:34:01 AM EST
    ...no criminal history...


    The Denver Post (none / 0) (#11)
    by christinep on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 11:49:17 AM EST
    shoephone: The Denver Post has a number of reports today.  One front-page report deals fairly openly with the political implications ...quotes and actions from several groups are relevant.

    Yep, this is much more than the predictable default of "loner, loser, mentally sick" perpetrator that usually follows. The ABC This Week program opened with a full discussion and update on the Colorado Springs shooting ... the current mayor (and onetime CO AG) John Suthers acknowledged therein that Planned Parenthood was the target. Chuck Todd (even) had a segment concluding Meet the Press this am that began with the question about whether we can all handle the volatile mix of guns and abortion that the Colorado Springs event may represent.


    The repsonses (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by shoephone on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 02:36:12 PM EST
    are notable for the following:

    Almost every single politician--including Obama--made statements against the violence, someone having a gun who shouldn't (ie., he's not a terrorist, he's just a crazy loner) and praised "first responders." None of them--including the president--expressed any support for Planned Parenthood, or made mention of the lie-fueled political and media attacks against the organization. The ONLY one who said anything in support for Planned Parenthood, and specifically mentioned the onslaught of political and media attacks against PP was State Sen. Lucia Guzman. A Democrat.

    NARAL and the NAF made the only really meaningful statements, IMO.

    If a police officer hadn't also been killed, these murders would not have gotten nearly as much media attention. Neither politicians nor anti-abortion organizations would have issued statements condemning the violence.


    An addition (none / 0) (#20)
    by christinep on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 03:04:41 PM EST
    One of the first national responses by a political personage was (paraphrasing) "today and always, planned parenthood" on twitter from Hillary Clinton.

    BTW, the Colorado individual to whom you refer is a longtime, exceptional community activist Thank goodness for Lucia, who is truly a model of active compassion.

    BTW#2, I've also been emphasizing your last paragraph. That difference may make a progressive difference in the long term by shaking up common assumptions in certain communities.


    Regardless of how we as individuals ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 01:24:53 PM EST
    ... might feel personally about abortion, the law guarantees a woman's right to reproductive freedom of choice, which includes the right to abort her pregnancy by a safe and legal means should she feel so inclined.

    And yet somehow, we're allowing an otherwise undue risk of bodily harm and even loss of life to be incurred by those women who choose to abort a pregnancy, and by medical personnel who facilitate the availability of the abortion procedure, which is occurring with an intolerable frequency at the violent hands of outside agitators and extremists.

    The right to free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution does not also include a right to resort to intimidation, as a means to obtaining one's desired objectives and results. Any arguments offered to the contrary are not based upon bedrock constitutional principle, but are instead motivated by the immediate expediency of a given moment.

    For what good is a law, really, if it serves to render our society collectively impotent and powerless to act in the face of a clear and present threat to the health, safety, and well being of either its individual members or entire classes of people, as that threat is posed by a specific and identifiable individual and / or faction?

    How does it benefit either the injured or the deceased to apply that law ex post facto, once the violent deed is done and people have been maimed and / or killed as a result?

    Therefore, at what point should the law be able to hold to account those individuals and groups on the political right -- or left, as the case may be -- for their incendiary, volatile and hatemongering rhetoric to that effect?

    (France, which actually has laws specifically addressing the use of hate speech, has also been grappling with the same question, both in the wake of last January's violent attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine and a kosher market in Paris which left 17 people dead, and this month's terrorist attacks which killed 130.)

    We shouldn't be willing to wait until pro-choice individuals finally feel compelled to defend themselves, by responding in kind to the bodily threats and actual acts of violence presently being visited upon them by the political right, before finally acting to stop this insanity.


    what do you propose? (none / 0) (#17)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 02:29:27 PM EST
    We could consider laws that say

    so-and-so deserves to die
    such-and-such group deserves to be killed
    so-and-so is a murderous parasite on society
    Bankers and J**s are murderous parasites on society

    Of course, there are SCOTUS rulings which seem to make it unconstitutional to make saying such things illegal.

    At least, I think that there are, on the claim that such statements (or the broader ones) are not sufficiently close to the commission of a crime.

    Jews and Christians believe in at least at times the suppression of false religions . . .  although I believe in very broad free speech, allowing a substantial part of what is considered child porn or voyeurism . . . .

    I think it is right and ok to suppress the promotion of certain "false religions" when such "false religions" include within them the instruction or encouragement to kill various persons or groups of people.  There is Naziism, neo-Naziism, Islam and there is Romans 1 which says that those who practice homosexuality and some other things are worthy of death . . .

    Basically, there is "freedom of religion" but I think that freedom of religion needs to be limited  when the religion in question substantially encourages killing people.  We "got" freedom of religion because God and people of moral conscience stood up for others to disagree with society about relatively minor things . . . but a religion that teaches that certain groups should be killed or are parasites on society and you can figure what to do . . .

    I think that is a religion whose freedom God won't stand up for and society has no obligation to tolerate it.

    But the Supreme court would never in 100 years buy my position . . . I think . . .  You do agree that  SC precedents would have to be overturned to establish the criminalization you desire?


    For what it's worth (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 03:45:08 PM EST
    Ted Cruz recently appeared on stage with a so-called christian that advocates killing homosexuals. So who gets to decide which religions to 'limit'? Personally, I'm an atheist and find all religions to be somewhat dangerous to peace and harmony. I think they are a blight on this planet. However, since I don't get my way, I support the Constitution's right of religious freedom along with my freedom FROM religion.

    ... suppressing religious freedom. Rather, we need to develop ways to encourage more responsible speech. One such way would be to hold people who use hate speech to account for the consequences of what they say.

    It's not pro-choice people who are inflicting violence upon the political right, but vice versa. Nobody should ever have to risk life and limb in order to exercise their rights under the law. Those who seek to incite others into acts of intimidation or violence against women and health care providers need to be held liable for those acts as they occur.

    And that doesn't necessarily have to be accomplished through the courts. We need a news media that can both facilitate an honest reporting of facts and broker a vigorous but respectful public dialogue. What we don't need is further  encouragement of political food fights as a vicarious form of public entertainment, as CNN did last Friday by giving the hatemongering Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) a public forum for his flamethrowing rhetoric regarding Planned Parenthood.



    well (none / 0) (#38)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 08:48:05 PM EST
    I thought there were Supreme court precedents that said we had to tolerate some hurtful speech unless it was creating an imminent threat against a person or persons.  You are a lawyer and may know better than I.

    I somewhat think that Fiorina badly misrepresented one or more videos and by so doing, she encouraged a climate in which a guy could think he was doing God or the country a service by killing some PP people.

    Was it just Fiorina's words or were they combined with someone else's  . . .  I don't know; I don't keep track.

    If you or I lie about a person, then, those lies may be the basis on which others with extremist or violent tendencies "take action" by shooting someone up.

    "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
    --random source in Arabic, translated into English

     "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."--more from an unknown random Arabic source . . .

    but yeah, occasionally the Christians do it also . . .  they just have fewer verses for it . . .


    I am not a lawyer. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 01:44:04 AM EST
    But I have extensive experience in writing law as a former longtime senior legislative staff member, including several years as chief clerk for the State Senate Judiciary Committee. Personally, I believe that civil measures can be undertaken to discourage hate speech, by holding those who engage in it liable for any damages directly attributable to their words and media product.

    For example, Mr. Dear allegedly made comments to the authorities immediately following his apprehension regarding "no more baby parts." One does not need a vivid imagination to surmise who might've put such thoughts into his head, and how they did it.

    Given that such "information" about Planned Parenthood's alleged sale of aborted fetal tissue has since been exposed and discredited as a wholly false political contrivance, and was further disseminated by its proponents with an obvious intent to incite public outrage and hatred toward that agency, why shouldn't the organization which deliberately manufactured and peddled that bullschitt be held liable in civil court -- at least in part -- for the resultant carnage last Friday at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs?



    Sympathetic though I am (none / 0) (#47)
    by Peter G on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 10:41:13 AM EST
    to where you're coming from, Donald, your suggestions for legislation seem to me to be pretty clearly unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

    As for the operation that profuced (none / 0) (#51)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 12:08:42 PM EST
    and edited and distributed the film: Any chance for using an old-style defamation action?

    Or--with public officials widely publicizing and/or distributing information via video that directly accuses named individuals <Planned Parenthood personnel in clear locations> of violating legal prohibitions against selling/profiting from the sale of fetal body parts, would something akin to the classic Supreme Court decision in New York Times v Sullivan be applicable?

    If the video's allegations evidence "reckless disregard" as to the truth and, in so doing, libel Planned Parenthood staff and operation, that avenue might well be open.

    What say you Peter?  


    well, yes, it is defamation (none / 0) (#78)
    by Peter G on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 09:19:39 PM EST
    but civil litigation is a minefield. A lawsuit would offer the defendants many opportunities to harass and deplete the funds of the plaintiffs. Not remotely worth it, I would guess.

    I'm aware of that. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    That's why I would shy away from outright criminalization, as is the case in France, and prefer to use civil court as a means to hold people accountable when their incendiary rhetoric incites others to mayhem and violence against a third party, particularly when such rhetoric invokes the use of outright falsehoods. I'm also under no illusion that the burden of proof upon the plaintiff should be substantial.

    There's likely a direct correlation between last Friday's violence in Colorado Springs and the elaborate media hoax ginned up by the right-wing group Center for Medical Progress, whose leaders have long been trying to discredit and defund Planned Parenthood.

    Given the well-documented history of prior acts of violence committed against abortion providers in our country, any claim to the effect that those who manufactured these heavily doctored videos were wholly unaware of the potential inflammatory nature of their phony insinuations against Planned Parenthood is at best disingenuous, if not entirely laughable.

    How do we hold the folks at the Center for Medical Progress liable -- and perhaps also further, those members of Congress who willingly went along with its ruse, even after the videos' authenticity had been thoroughly debunked -- for the clearly intended provocative nature of their acts, for which three otherwise innocent people have now apparently been killed as a direct result?

    Speaking for myself only, the notion that we should have to continue to tolerate such intended acts of intimidation in the name of free speech is in my honest opinion an abuse of the First Amendment, rather than a defense.

    I believe that political rhetoric should no longer be considered free speech when it leads to physical harm and death. Anti-choice proponents should not be allowed to hide with impunity behind the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, while others perpetrate such outrages on their behalf.

    There has to be something that decent people can do to put a stop to this ongoing violence against women and health care providers, short of doing the NRA's bidding and taking up arms ourselves to protect them.

    We should not be passive observers to both the plight of women who seek to exercise their right to reproductive freedom of choice, and the potential fate being courted daily by those who would facilitate that right, in the face of such a clear and obvious threat to their personal safety and well being.



    The First Amendment also limits the courts (none / 0) (#85)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 01, 2015 at 12:34:01 PM EST
    in enforcing civil liabilities, thanks to the Supreme Court's decision in N.Y. Times v. Sullivan (1964), mentioned by Christine above, and related cases. The impact of the First Amendment is not limited to restricting the scope of criminal laws.

    Then in this case, envelopes must be pushed. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 01, 2015 at 07:44:31 PM EST
    "If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass -- a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience -- by experience."
    - Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist, chapter 51, p. 489 (1970 ed.)

    Otherwise, we might just as well huddle together as a frightened herd, quivering in uncertainty and fear, while our adversaries casually choose the next time to strike us without ever having to worry about what we might do in response.

    Supreme Court cases are meant to guide us in the law. They should not necessarily be held so sacrosanct as to reduce us collectively to a catatonic state, paralyzed into inaction with respect to a First Amendment that was ostensibly crafted to protect us.

    Meanwhile, our adversaries operate freely and with an impunity that's irrespective of any legal, ethical or moral boundaries -- and we're obliged to respect that because of the U.S. Supreme Court's 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan?

    (It's further my understanding that the standards for malice and libel as prescribed by SCOTUS in Sullivan, pertained to the alleged defamation of public officials by news organizations -- in that particular instance, the Montgomery, AL Commissioner of Public Safety by New York's "paper of record" -- and not necessarily to the public defamation of private individuals / corporations by the same. There may be some wiggle room here, per the recent cases Sherrod v. Breitbart and Cayetano v. Pacific Resource Partnership.)

    Personally, I'm no longer interested in entertaining excuses as to why we can't or shouldn't do something in response to what just happened. So in that regard, I really have to disagree with your advice about not resorting to civil and legislative action in response to what has just occurred.

    The good folks at Planned Parenthood are clearly being buffeted by a sustained assault from the GOP right, one which has since transcended politics and entered the realm of physical attacks. Are you seriously advocating that they should just stand down legally, and instead gird themselves as best they can for another forthcoming round of body blows?

    Speaking for myself only, I couldn't possibly think of a more impotent and demoralizing position for any organization's leadership to adopt, particularly in light of such a potent threat to their very existence. Were I their employee or subcontractor, I'd sever all my ties with them immediately at any such exhibition of spineless wimpitude.

    And were I Cecile Richards and that was my chief counsel's advice to me, I'd seriously have to reconsider that person's present fitness for that position, given his or her passivity in the face of aggression. Why should Planned Parenthood -- and we, by that measure -- not respond in both courtrooms and state legislatures with every available means at our disposal? The best defense can be a good offense.

    Let's please consider the sad and present plight of six young children in Colorado Springs, who through no fault of their own just lost a beloved parent to a place and time of someone else's choosing.

    And let's please also consider that this tragedy is due in no small part to an amoral bunch of self-absorbed GOP ideologues, who deliberately wielded their poisonous rhetoric and irresponsible falsehoods to devastating effect by playing upon the fears of an emotionally unbalanced loner, who then felt compelled to act on behalf of that demagogy.

    Again, speaking for myself only as a progressive liberal, this cannot be allowed to stand. While Colorado Springs is not necessarily the ground upon which I'd have otherwise chosen for confrontation, had that decision been left to me, nevertheless that confrontation has now been thrust upon us.

    Therefore, we have both a moral and ethical obligation to address this challenge forthrightly, vigorously and decisively. Rather than allow the GOP right to seize upon last Friday's tragic events in Colorado Springs for their own advantage, we need to instead chain that tragedy to them like so many lead anchors. They must be made to pay a real price for what happened.

    I apologize for the political speech / rant here. But gawdammit, I am sick to death of listening to my fellow Democrats talk and talk about such matters as though they're somehow important to us, only to then fail to act with the courage of our stated convictions at moments of truth. Are we to be the party of the feckless and ingratiating, or the party of the steadfast and resolute?

    The gauntlet has been thrown down at our feet by the GOP right. What's the point of our claims to be people of principle, if our initial impulse is to somehow shirk our duty to uphold that principle when times such as these demand that we stand fast in its defense? If we don't act in our own defense now, then when will we ever act on behalf of anything -- save, perhaps, for offering to pay for the ropes with which they're to hang us?



    The First Amendment is even-handed (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 01, 2015 at 09:45:59 PM EST
    Are you seriously advocating that they should just stand down legally, and instead gird themselves as best they can for another forthcoming round of body blows?

    No, Donald, I never said that. I said that trying to use the law to limit our adversaries' freedom of speech -- even hateful and provocative speech, including falsehoods -- will not prevent illegal, violent action by those who are so inclined. I am grateful, not frustrated, that any attempt to do so would be unconstitutional, thanks to almost a century of advocacy by the ACLU and other principled civil libertarians on behalf of offensive speakers of every ilk. Nor do I trust the government not to abuse such laws, were they passed, to penalize, restrict, and muzzle progressive advocacy. For example ... don't protest police abuse, because such protests will lead a few idiots to attack police. Don't give angry speeches about the horrors of the Vietnam War, because that might lead to the Weather Underground bombing government buildings. Etc.

    Question (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 02:49:34 PM EST
    lentinel wrote:

    If anyone is yelling, "fire" in a crowded theatre, it is she - using inflamed rhetoric about Planned Parenthood allegedly selling aborted babies and their body parts. and setting off and psychically enabling unstable freaks who have unfettered access to guns.

    christinep wrote:

    "The situation in Colorado Springs could reasonably have been said to be near powder-keg in terms of emotional political issues."

    Donald writes:

    We shouldn't be willing to wait until pro-choice individuals finally feel compelled to defend themselves, by responding in kind to the bodily threats and actual acts of violence presently being visited upon them by the political right, before finally acting to stop this insanity.

    Will someone please explain to me the difference?

    ... rather than for prospective opportunities for flamethrowing?

    Donald, what you wrote is plain (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 05:55:21 PM EST
    I can just see some of the land owners I knew in my youth saying the same thing...

    "We shouldn't be willing to wait until some of our women folks have defend to themselves,  before finally acting to stop this insanity called integration."

    Both of you are inviting violence.

    Now maybe you didn't mean to. And maybe no one who reads this blog will take the implied permission.

    But that is exactly what it is.


    I thought he was inviting gun control (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 06:35:40 PM EST
    Before pro choice advocates feel the need to resort to taking the law into their own hands.

    I thought his words were clear, but then, I am not looking to troll....


    Molly B, I agree (1.00 / 2) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 11:51:32 AM EST
    you aren't looking for a reason to attack others.

    But that's just you. You can't speak for all the
    nuts in the world.


    But you're responding to one (none / 0) (#39)
    by shoephone on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 08:48:21 PM EST
    named Jim. It's a complete waste of time trying to have an intelligent conversation with him.

    What's plain is that you've never (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 10:40:12 AM EST
    once commented on the implied suggestion by many on your side of the aisle that pro-life activists take matters into their own hands..

    As a matter of fact, you were one of those spreading the false rumor that PP was selling baby parts. As anyone who consults the archive can read for themselves.


    jondee You should read this (1.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 11:43:40 AM EST
    The Planned Parenthood abortion business has announced it will stop accepting financial payments for the body parts from aborted babies.
    The abortion giant has been exposed in a series of undercover videos discussing how it sells aborted babies and their body parts for profit and breaks multiple federal laws to do so.

    But today, according to the Wall St. Journal, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards announced in a letter to the National Institutes of Health that planned Parenthood will stop accepting "reimbursement" from the sales of aborted fetal body parts. Attacking the pro-life group that exposed her, Richards says the move is designed to take away the "smokescreen" of the "extremists" behind the Center for Medical Progress videos.


    As I have posted time and time again I am pro choice. That assumes compliance with the various laws.

    reimbursement - to make repayment to for expense or loss incurred:
    The insurance company reimbursed him for his losses in the fire.
    to pay back; refund; repay.

    If you accept reimbursement for something that you have provided to someone else that is not "selling" in the strict definition of the word.

    But the question becomes, how did PPH establish the cost incurred?

    And then we have this.

    Nucatola admits that Planned Parenthood charges per-specimen for baby body parts, uses illegal partial-birth abortion procedures in order to get salable parts, and is aware of their own liability for doing so and takes steps to cover it up.


    Now, my past comments were always of the "let's wait and see." I think we have seen.

    You don't have to agree with what PPH has done to be pro choice.


    You (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 12:57:11 PM EST
    are going to the source of the same false information. However I know that will surprise none of us around here.

    Face it. The guy that murdered all those people at the PP clinic was quoting the GOP verbatim. Even Huckabee admits it's a disaster for the GOP.


    So, the Wall Street Journal lied. (1.00 / 2) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 01:05:29 PM EST
    Okie Dokie.

    Look, the various videos show people saying what they said. You can't edit words into peoples' mouths.

     BTW - There is a link into one of my links that will take you to the whole two hour video.

    Could I suggest a good merlot to watch it with?? You know, like the wine being enjoyed at the expense account lunch by the participants..........


    You can't edit words into someone's (none / 0) (#60)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 02:10:42 PM EST
    mouth, but you can edit words out of what someone has said, and thereby change the meaning of them.  That's what the makers of the video did - they edited out the parts of the dialogue that didn't suit their agenda.

    jim, that version of the video was so edited and (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 01:01:06 PM EST
    manipulated that it cannot be taken at face value.  I mean, these are the same people who inserted stock footage in the video to make it more dramatic; there's just no way to know from the edited video whether anything that was said on camera was said in the context in which the video placed it.

    If you care to watch the unedited video, you can hear for yourself all of what Nucatola says, much of which changes the conclusions the edited version wants you to reach.  Pretty sure there's no chance you will, because if you did, you'd have to back off the ridiculous accusations and assertions you're making.

    Perhaps you can at least read this, and stop pushing lies.

    Or, more likely, not.

    Here's a little bit to ponder:

    At one point in the unedited video (which was also released by the group), Nucatola says: "Affiliates are not looking to make money by doing this. They're looking to serve their patients and just make it not impact their bottom line."

    Nucatola also says, "No one's going to see this as a money making thing." And at another point, she says, "Our goal, like I said, is to give patients the option without impacting our bottom line. The messaging is this should not be seen as a new revenue stream, because that's not what it is."


    In the edited video, Nucatola says the cost for fetal tissue specimens was between $30 and $100, "depending on the facility and what's involved." She defined "specimen" as, "one case. One patient."


    The full video shows that after Nucatola mentions the $30 to $100, she describes how those amounts would be reimbursement for expenses related to handling and transportation of the tissues. Nucatola talks about "space issues" and whether shipping would be involved.

    Jim is not interested in facts. (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 01:15:24 PM EST
    You know this. We all know this. Jim's game is to peddle blatant lies, again, and again, and again. He spends his life on a left-leaning blog peddling right-wing lies. He has no home life. He spends his life here. And the blog owner lets him get away with it because he sends her money and gifts.

    This cartoon exemplifies the idiocy we are up against.


    And the irony (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 01:17:00 PM EST
    is he falls for the lies just like the guy that murdered the people at the PP clinic did but yet can't understand the connection.

    anne, I wrote that there were no sales (1.00 / 2) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 01:25:31 PM EST
    Nucatola says: "Affiliates are not looking to make money by doing this. They're looking to serve their patients and just make it not impact their bottom line."

    Say what??

    not impact their bottom line.

    Uh, no. If you are providing a service then doing that service impacts the bottom line. According to Richards what we have here is reimbursements.

    You know, like a bud bringing you a cuppa coffee from Starbucks in the lobby you reimburse her. The issue is, how appropriate is the reimbursement. If she spent $3.00 and you give her a $20 and say, "Keep the change," that raises questions.

    Nucatola also says, "No one's going to see this as a money making thing." And at another point, she says, "Our goal, like I said, is to give patients the option without impacting our bottom line. The messaging is this should not be seen as a new revenue stream, because that's not what it is."

    If it is not a new revenue stream, what is it? An old revenue stream? If so, why the disclaimer?

    anne, it is obvious that they were harvesting parts and were being reimbursed. They do not deny that.

    Was it appropriate? Maybe. Maybe not. Expense account lunches with wine? Definitely not.

    BTW - If you ignore the lie that jondee spewed and go back and read my comments you will see that my position was "let's wait and see." I have retracted nothing.


    I'm sure you're familiar with the (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 02:26:54 PM EST
    phrase/term "revenue neutral," are you not?  Well, that's what something is when the costs of collection, preservation and shipping are offset by a reimbursement.

    More from the article:

    We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit. Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women's Hospital's "biorepository," told us that "there's no way there's a profit at that price." She continued in an email:

       Sawyer, July 20: In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.

    And here:

    Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute's Office of Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that "$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue." In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have "no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit."

    Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University's National Biomarkers Development Alliance and a former director of biorepositories and biospecimen research at the National Cancer Institute, agreed that this was "a modest price tag for cost recovery." Compton told us in an email: " `Profit' is out of the question, in my mind. I would say that whoever opined about `profit' knows very little about the effort and expense involved in providing human biospecimens for research purposes."

    I know your use of the word "harvesting" is designed to make the collection of fetal tissue into something horrific and evil, but the fact remains that if the patient having a legal procedure gave her permission and agreed to donate the tissue, there's nothing wrong with that.  There's been no suggestion, or evidence, that the collection was done without the knowledge or permission of the patient.

    When all is said and done, jim, as long as these anti-choice zealots continue to ignore the needs of living women and the babies many of them bear because the zealots are determined to take their choices away from them, their fervent pleas to "choose life" will ring hollow.


    no anne, harvesting is harvesting and as (1.00 / 3) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 04:09:51 PM EST
    someone who grew up on a farm I understand what it means.

    As I noted, I accepted the "reimbursement" nonsense for what it is. A parsing of words.

    And as I have noted, I am pro choice. But that doesn't mean I am blind.

    I see people having expense account lunches and talking about revenue streams.

    That may be legal but it doesn't fit the meme of dedicated people working to help the poor woman who needs an abortion.

    It smells like a career and money.

    And that means that amidst all of that there is a real slippery slope that may, and may have, caused some of your heroes and heroines to cross the line.

    This all came up when jondee, who could not refute my point that Donald had said the same thing as some of the landowners I knew as youngster. So he decided to spew and try and reframe.

    anne, the differences between us are many. But at least I acknowledge the problems of the Far Right. You just keep merrily carrying the water of the Left.

    I think the reason is this. I have seen evil up close and personal. You, and I think most others here, have only read about it or seen it on TV or in the movies. That like of real experience clouds your vision and keeps you from understanding that evil is on both sides.


    acknowledge the problems of the far-right (none / 0) (#86)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 01, 2015 at 12:40:56 PM EST
    more like embody the problems of the far-right.

    The lies are all yours, Jim (none / 0) (#59)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 01:29:33 PM EST
    Don't you have a wife at home? Why do you spend all your time spewing right-wing lies on a left-leaning blog instead of spending time with your wife?

    shoephone, your hatred is (1.00 / 3) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 04:13:20 PM EST
    just so out front and obvious. I'll try to make you feel better.

    I'll tell you how much I enjoyed the Seattle area and how much money I made when we sold our home and left the Emerald City.


    No one cares, Jim (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 09:03:51 PM EST
    The Emerald City is whole lot better off without you to stink up the place.

    The only thing I'm pointing out is that you lie repeatedly in every, single comment you post. And everyone here knows that. In case you hadn't noticed, pretty much everyone here (except for the other few trolls) also points it out, and corrects your falsehoods. It's the reason that your responses always begin with "et al." There are too many commenters that are onto you and your nonsense, and too many to name that challenge you. Hence, your silly "et al" response.

    You take up more bandwidth on the blog than anyone. Your posts are a waste of space. Just pointing out the obvious.


    Not only do they count (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 01, 2015 at 12:30:13 PM EST
    on churning up and inflaming the Dears of the world, they want to make it as easy as possible for them to procure guns and ammo..

    shoephone, jondee and Howdy (1.00 / 6) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 01, 2015 at 07:55:28 PM EST
    You make things up and when called on it you show great anger

    I challenge you to prove where I have lied about anything.

    And before you start dancing around the kettle I'll give that I was wrong about RFK's killer.

    As for Seattle, it was nice. I never met an a$$hole the whole time I was there. But then I didn't meet you.


    Enjoy, children.


    "A$$hole"? (none / 0) (#93)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 01, 2015 at 08:02:40 PM EST
    Why don't you first take a gander in your mirror, Jim, then reach for that roll of bathroom tissue next to the loo and clean up your own act?



    Yes everybody's always making (none / 0) (#95)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 01, 2015 at 08:25:28 PM EST
    things up about you and what you say.

    Lonely is the life of the solitary prophet.

    Poor boy, you're just trying to educate people, not to antagonize anyone.


    Proud of yourself, Jim? (none / 0) (#71)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 05:43:13 PM EST
    Doing your part to inflame the Robert Dears of the world?

    Nice job.


    Want to hear his thoughts (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 06:02:27 PM EST
    When fetal tissue research saves his sorry ass.

    Some people they should (none / 0) (#83)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 01, 2015 at 12:27:23 PM EST
    skip over.

    2 other victims (none / 0) (#21)
    by Palli on Sun Nov 29, 2015 at 03:12:21 PM EST
    Finallt, the names of the two other victims have been released by the families: Ke'Arre Stewart a black man, married with 2 young children & Jennifer Markovsky. Information about her is http://tinyurl.com/qfqzgvy

    Apparently (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 09:47:07 AM EST
    Carly Fiorina is screaming like a stuck pig over this and whining about the media.

    Probably has something to do with (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 09:55:22 AM EST
    the fork that's been stuck in her: she's done.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 10:35:20 AM EST
    that's what I think too.

    She was done before (none / 0) (#62)
    by smott on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 03:42:58 PM EST
    But fair to discuss this event in terms of Fiorina- inspired murder.

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 04:20:19 PM EST
    she was never going to be the nominee however it totally killed any chances she had as a VP.

    Guess... (5.00 / 7) (#48)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 11:20:00 AM EST
    ...those lies she's been spewing about PP and baby parts is giving her a guilty conscious about the folks that were killed at a PP over baby parts.

    Funny, right, Carly Fiorina having a conscious.  Same thing as above, but instead of conscious, use her personal ambition.

    Jeez Carly, how could anyone possibly get worked up over PP & baby parts with lies like this:

    "Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says, 'We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.' "

    And even after it was pointed out to be a lie, Carly didn't back off a bit because it was beneficial to her personal ambitions.

    Want to kill Planned Parenthood Carly ?  
    Become their CEO.


    To wit, the editorial board of (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 30, 2015 at 09:24:37 PM EST
    ... the Sacramento Bee sums it up quite nicely today:

    "It was terrifying. It was tragic. And it was a kind of 'domestic terrorism,' as Planned Parenthood officials have asserted. But no one with a straight face can call it a surprise.


    "David Daleiden and the ideologues who underwrote him and the politicians who egged him on and exploited his propaganda knew what their distortion and venom might do to the least stable in their cohort. They never once paused or considered the potential consequences of their actions.


    "'This isn't normal,' President Barack Obama said in the aftermath of Colorado Springs, and it isn't. What happened Friday is the product of a nation addicted to guns and of supposedly pro-life leaders who, this summer, lost either their voice or their moral compass. A 57-year-old drifter named Robert L. Dear Jr. may have pulled the trigger, but, if convicted, he won't be the only one with blood on his hands." (Emphasis is mine.)



    Great quotes all (none / 0) (#82)
    by smott on Tue Dec 01, 2015 at 08:45:44 AM EST
    But I would take issue with Obama re it not being normal.

    It's completely normal.

    In fact, it's literally daily in the U.S., correct? We're averaging about 1 mass gun  killing per day.

    It is so normal it might as well be our signature, how the rest of the world identifies us.  Sadly.


    I would disagree. It's not normal. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 01, 2015 at 07:58:20 PM EST
    While multiple shootings on a daily basis may well be the present rule in our country rather than the exception, such occurrences are most assuredly not in the realm of normal behavior -- at least, not per anyone with a properly functioning moral compass.