Posted by methusla (anonymous) on June 9, 2009 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, I guess you need to subscribe to the New York Times !

Posted by demoseb (anonymous) on June 9, 2009 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No need to remove. I am not offended. I would never subscribe to the New York Times, it is going broke peddling nothing but bias. It is a shame, great newspaper with great history.

Thanks for publishing and thanks for catching my error and correcting. Squeaky did in fact try to assassinate Gerald Ford not Ronald Reagan. Again thanks for publishing.

Dennis Mosebey

Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on June 9, 2009 at 7:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I guess that "bias" peddled by The Times is the reason the newspaper has one of the largest circulations in the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_new...

Posted by history_nerd (anonymous) on June 9, 2009 at 8:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's morally wrong to give your opinion?

Posted by history_nerd (anonymous) on June 9, 2009 at 8:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, wait. It's just morally wrong to give an opinion Mr. Mosebey disagrees with. Carry on!

Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on June 9, 2009 at 8:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If someone doesn't like what Mr. Kelley has to say, they have the right not to read his columns.

Posted by history_nerd (anonymous) on June 9, 2009 at 8:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree. Also, I think some people don't really understand what an Editorial page is.

Posted by demoseb (anonymous) on June 9, 2009 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Allow me to be perfectly clear.

1.I know what an editorial page is. I also know that when they have a constant slant to them rather than presenting balance it is abuse of said page without equal time and frequently equal time is not given. I have written numerous rebuttals before to differnt things never published. I really wish some other folks would rebut Mr. Kelly, as I know the paper cannot publish mine all the time. I do not expect them to do so. I feel a strong obligation as one of the generation who through just standing by frittered away the gift of the Greatest Generation. It was my generation that slowly allowed a Socialst state to take over the USA. I started way too late to rerefute the views of some liberals.
2.It is not morally wrong to have an opinion, it is morally wrong to condemn a group of people because they have opposing views as inciting someone to murder someone else.
3.It is tough not to read Mr. Kelly's column when it is the only paper in town and takes up so much space on a regular basis.
4.It is good the NY times has the largest circulation in the US, cause it is losing about 10,000 readers a day because no one believes in what it publishes anymore. They will be the next ones asking for a bailout and they will get it.
5. I appreciate all comment--even negative ones. At least someone read the article. My goal was accomplished.
6. I notice that no one refutes the basic premise of the article, at least so far. It is good Mr. Kelly has friends. Everyone should have friends.

Dennis Mosebey

Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on June 9, 2009 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"2.It is not morally wrong to have an opinion, it is morally wrong to condemn a group of people."

FOX News?

"4.It is good the NY times has the largest circulation in the US, cause it is losing about 10,000 readers a day because no one believes in what it publishes anymore. They will be the next ones asking for a bailout and they will get it."

Correction. Circulation is decreasing for all newspapers because online media is increasing due to it being up to date and it does not involve the use of paper. Good journalism will survive and evolve into online only.

Posted by history_nerd (anonymous) on June 9, 2009 at 9:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As a moderate, I find Kelley's opinions to be pretty middle of the road most of the time. Unfortunately, to quite a few Emporians on these forums, having a moderate opinion, or even an unrelenting opinion means you're a dirty Kool-Aid drinking liberal hippie. Or so I'm told.

But Mr. Mosebey, you're kidding yourself if you deny that the extremist pro-life movement that commit acts of terrorism on American soil exists. I believe THOSE are the people Patrick Kelley was referring to.

Posted by demoseb (anonymous) on June 9, 2009 at 11:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There are all types of extremists out there. Tim McVeigh was one. David Koresh was one. Never said there were not extemists. I even consider George Tiller one. So let's see, 60000 abortions. Conservatively I have heard it said 10000 later term. Let us say that number is a factor of 100 too high, leaving 100 actual late terms. Now even Roe V Wade understood, extreme medical circumstances only--since you can't see his records and I cannot either, we have to take his word for it that all of them were extreme medical circumstances. Talk about Kool aid? But the real issue with Roe V Wade aside from my personal views is that the Supreme Court should have refused to hear the case and kicked it back to the Congress to decide if the decision belonged at the Federal or State Level. Instead they decided that some of my tax dollars have to go to supporting something I do not believe in. If it truly is as good a solution as proponents say, then it would have passed the muster of public debate and scrutiny.Proponets call it Pro Choice, well at least be proud of your stance if you endorse it and call it Pro Abortion. I do not care for Fred Phelps either, he is an extremist. He is protected but he is an extremist. So no I do not endorse the premise that there is an anti abortion terrorist movement in the US. Sorry your premise is flawed. But no matter I heard a commentator say just yesterday that Obama is beyond the world, he is like kind of God looking down on the world. And tonight another abortion doctor was on stating what a hero George was. Okay, but I prefer heroes like Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Monroe, Madison more than George Tiller. To each his or her own.

Dennis

Posted by demoseb (anonymous) on June 9, 2009 at 11:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh one more thing, Fox News does not hold a candle to Keith Olbermann and Rachael Maddow when it comes to condeming groups of people. MSNBC is one of the primer offenders in that regard. At least Fox does have some other views, tough to consider a guy like Marc Lamont Hill anything but to left of center and Ellis Hennican certainly is no Rush Limbaugh. Fox must be doing something right since they are beating the pants off everyone else.

I don't buy the argument on why the Times is losing readers either. I have not cancelled by Gazette subscription due to recession or the Internet, have you? Nice excuse, looks good. Fact is most Americans know when a newspaper has become the official paper of the Democratic Party.

Posted by history_nerd (anonymous) on June 10, 2009 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Tiller only performed about 250 late term abortions a year, and those were because of deformities where the baby wouldn't survive, or the mother's life was in jeopardy.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 10, 2009 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, that is what we are told, even though that is not always the case, even cases where Tiller has been caught in a lie.

http://www.abortionessay.com/files/Tille...
or
http://www.dr-tiller.com/dreaded-complic...

Baby Sarah Brown was born alive & lived to the age of 5, even though Tiller claims no baby has ever been born alive under his care. A former employee states she was required to falsify medical records...

http://www.dr-tiller.com/elective.htm

From a speech given by George R. Tiller at the National Abortion Federation Annual Meeting on April 2-4, 1995 in New Orleans, LA

"We have some experience with late terminations: about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks and something like 800 fetal anomalies between 26 and 36 weeks in the past 5 years."

I have somewhat of a problem trusting stats he gives out when much evidence points to the contrary.
But, enough about Tiller. Regardless of the man murdering him was wrong, wrong, wrong and a terrible thing.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 10, 2009 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This came from MSNBC itself so maybe those who disagree with it will at least read it.

Ohio State University study (2009) finds that conservatives are more open-minded in reading opposing points of view than liberals:

http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread...

"It appears that people with these characteristics (conservative) are more confident in their views and so they're more inclined to at least take a quick look at the counterarguments," Knobloch-Westerwick noted.

Among the political blog readers, a similar trend emerged in which "liberals read almost exclusively liberal blogs, but conservatives tend to read both," Davis said."

--------------------------------------------

Now it makes sense why so many liberals hate, for example, O'Reilly - even though I've seen him often criticize Bush & praise Obama, for example, and he very often puts both sides on to give their points of view. Because no view other than their own is tolerated or considered. So even giving the opposition view anywhere even close to equal time is being too "biased", I guess.......

Let's see....isn't that one of the things conservatives get blamed the most for..... being too closed-minded?

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on June 10, 2009 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry to correct you Dennis, but it is true. Newspaper circulation is decreasing because readers prefer to receive information via the internet. This is true, especially in cities. For one, we who live in major urban areas are constantly on the go, and our data is received from our iphones, ipods, blackberries, MP3s, radios, etc. during our commute (train, subway, bus, freeway, etc.) and throughout the day because we want up to the minute current information not that which is dated upon paper. Also, we are environmentalists. We see it as a waste for news to be printed upon paper, an unfortunate and outmoded carbon footprint.

Most media outlets are evolving, finding new ways to generate revenue (advertising) while punching out the news via the internet.

Eventually, as technology continues to generate more users, small towns like Emporia will also see circulation decline among its local newspaper.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 10, 2009 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This link is from MSNBC itself so maybe liberals who disagree with it will at least read it if it was printed there.......

Ohio State University study (2009) finds that conservatives are more open-minded in reading opposing points of view than liberals:

http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread...

"It appears that people with these characteristics (conservative) are more confident in their views and so they're more inclined to at least take a quick look at the counterarguments," Knobloch-Westerwick noted.

Among the political blog readers, a similar trend emerged in which "liberals read almost exclusively liberal blogs, but conservatives tend to read both," Davis said."

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 10, 2009 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oops, sorry - meant to repost on another thread. My apologies.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 10, 2009 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Does anyone else see a problem with sundance's post? Are all people in major urban areas really exactly the same in those ways? Wasn't this the same poster that claimed all people from red states are a certain way? Stereotype much?

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 10, 2009 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

See above on "open-mindedness"............ classic example..... LOL

Posted by shadou (anonymous) on June 10, 2009 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Mosebey:

Here's an "opinion" rather different from yours. I would be more inclined to go with Mr. Neiwert's version.

http://www.amazon.com/Eliminationists-Ha...

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 10, 2009 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And there are hundreds more books out there similar. And there are hundreds more with just the opposite view. Which I am more inclined to go with the latter's versions. Sure am glad the military which so many liberals hate enable us to live in a country where they can freely print and believe in whatever book they want.

Posted by history_nerd (anonymous) on June 10, 2009 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Who says liberals hate the military?

Posted by demoseb (anonymous) on June 10, 2009 at 10:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

history_nerd, you cannot know the 250 or the reasons are accurate, since you could not have seen his records, could you? So you can take his word for it if you want, I choose not to. Publishing it as a fact is hardly accurate.

Open Eyes, thanks for the MSNBC quote--exception vice rule though. Even a blind pig finds an acorn, hope Immelt does not find out who posted it on MSNBC.

Sundance Kid, sorry old chap but I think the guy in the white hat really was out there and got you. So I trust you did your own scientific survey and have details to prove this contention, or is it just something you read on a liberal blog. But no matter, I find it interesting that out of the whole article your main concern is my comment on the Times. Obviously you missed the point. Remember, Butch did all the thinking Sundance, you were just good with the gun.

I have no problem with anyone going with anyone else's opinion, just don't accuse me of causing Tiller's murder. I have never told anyone to bomb a clinic, in fact I am ashamed to admit I never even went down to picket Tiller. I should have. Shame on me. There are still people who believe Kennedy was killed by the CIA, that multiple shooters were in the Plaza and that the Masons have all the Templar treasure. Conspiracy theories are a part of the American psyche.

Some liberals do hate the military, but I would not demonize all liberals to that category. Like let's see Harry Reid, "This war is lost." Now I think Harry is somewhat liberal right? Do I believe all liberals are like him? Nope my cousin is not, Colmes is not,

Okay I think that summarizes all my rebuttals to the opposing camp for today. I thank all those folks who replied with good hard points on the other side as well. The dialog is what is important. Well done to you all.

Remember Sundance, watch out for the guy in the white hat, if he is out there, stay in the building. Dennis Mosebey

Posted by demoseb (anonymous) on June 10, 2009 at 11:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And Sundance also remember by your own admission, Let Butch do the thinking, that is what he is good at. Great Movie. One of my all time favorites. Like the moniker.Dennis

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 10, 2009 at 11:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

history_nerd and demoseb, I said which so many hate - I never implied that all liberals hate the military, or that even the majority do. There are liberals that freqent this board with proud military service both of themselves and their families. I was referring to, in addition to those pointed out above, instances like in Berkeley where they tried to ban military recruitment, or universities that ban military recruiting on campus. You can't tell me that those are conservatives. I think if you took all those in this country that are extremely anti-military I think you would find many more in the liberal camp than the conservative. I realize I am making very broad and general assumptions here, but even within the military itself the tnedency is overwhelmingly towards the right: A poll in 2006 found that "Liberals within the military are still a rare breed, with less than 10 percent of respondents describing themselves that way. "

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_m...

As for the 250/year number cited, as I posted earlier, perhaps some have overlooked that, Tiller HIMSELF said in a speech in 1995:

"We have some experience with late terminations: about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks and something like 800 fetal anomalies between 26 and 36 weeks in the past 5 years."

Now, Tiller just said HIMSELF 10,000 in 5 years 6 months or later - that is late-term. 2,000/year. And only 800 of those were fetal anomalies. So Tiller himself refutes history_nerds claim. Long ago.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 11, 2009 at 12:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Opinion books that disagree with this editorial - there's a million of them. I just finished watching "Defiance", based on a true story during the Holocaust. Reminds me of another "opinion piece' that many people were more inclined to go with. Mein Kampf. I also read the lengthy review of the book "countering opinion" linked above, and although it is aimed at the right, I could have pretty much said many or most of the exact same things about the left in it - but that was not the author's particular point of view. However, the reviewer did say: "Neiwert has some tough words for liberals, who are, in his estimation, making a bad situation worse:

For all its logic and love of science, a consistent flaw weighs down modern liberalism: an overweening belief in its own moral superiority. (Not, of course, that conservatives are any better in this regard; factoring in the religious Right and the "moral values" vote, they are objectively worse.) This tendency becomes especially noticeable in urban liberal societies, which for all their enlightenment and love of tolerance are maddeningly and disturbingly intolerant of the "ignorance" of their rural counterparts....

If we want to look at all those red counties and come to terms with the reasons the people there think and vote the way they do, it's important to come to terms with our own prejudices, our own willingness to treat our fellow Americans--the ones who are not like us--with contempt and disrespect...."

-------------------------------------
Hmmm..... even with statements like that, he can't overcome his own bias.... everytime I'm reminded of the "ignorance" of rural counterparts, I have to wonder why those making statements like those continually ignore studies that show 1) Rural students consistenly score better in tests than their urban counterparts, or 2) Studies done comparing education levels, such as

http://www.twoorthree.net/2008/09/how-co...

which, pretty much like every study I've seen of its like, can be skewed or twisted to benefit either side depending on however you want to spin it. Does anyone really have enough sense to claim that they are "smarter" than any other group in general, without their own ignorance & stereotyping showing thru? (Don't remind me of Sotamayor's claims......)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 11, 2009 at 12:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry for the long posts, but lots of rambling thoughts tonight - but finally:

My take on moseby's editorial overall is that he is simply asking for the same thing many of us have asked for over and over. Some balance on the Gazette editorial page. I certainly do not want Patrick Kelley's voice silenced, but I would like to see opposing viewpoints presented more often than they have been. Mr Moseby claims he has written numerous rebuttals rhave not been published. But yet it seems every time Gary Lukert gets one of his weekend passes from the insane asylum and goes off on some idiotic 25-level IQ rant about Republicans he gets a slot. Why is that? Wouldn't his editorials be more at home in the Sunday funnies section? But then the study above pretty much answers that, liberal "open-mindedness" means brooking no other point of view. Again, that is obviously why so many dislike O'Reilly, because even though as a fairly regular viewer I see him often criticize Bush and often praise Obama (as well as give Bush credit where he deserves and criticize Obama in like fashion) - simply allowing a differing point of view just simply isn't part of the "open-minded" mindset. I guess it's up to the bloggers to point out the frequent inaccuracies and distortions which are found in so many Kelley editorials. Except we're not getting paid by the Gazette for it. Bummer.

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on June 11, 2009 at 7:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Partial birth abortion is where an infant is partially born and then a metal rod is stuck through the childs soft skull and the brains are vaccumed out. Isn't that a pretty picture? If you believe that these children are in fact children at this point, even though they haven't had a chance to fill their lungs with oxygen, then you have a moral obligation to try to stop it. Dr. Tiller should be thankful that he had a chance to live the long life that he did. The thousands of children that he murdered certainly did not.

I find it amusing that liberals are okay with murdering babies but by god, you had better not subject a terrorist to waterboarding!!!

I'm confident that if there is a hell, Dr. Tiller has checked in.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 11, 2009 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Reading thru the info on the link to the book on Hate speech posted above by shadou, I was reminded of another figure in history who was actually banned from the BBC for awhile because of his inflamatory radical hate-mongering speech.

Winston Churchill.

Basically, these days, hate speech is defined as anything said by those not in power. Just as being partisan, not working together or offering solutions, and being the "Party of NO" - is always simply going to be whatever party is not in power. If all the lemmings are jumping off the cliff, those lemmings who band together and refuse are just being obstinate and not offering solutions - a bunch of "No" lemmings...... they need to get with the program and jump..... after all..... majority rules........ LOL

Posted by demoseb (anonymous) on June 11, 2009 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tiller himself said. Ok, So it really is not a fact but rather heresay. Heresay leaves the choice up to the hearing person so I have no problem if you believe Tiller. Actually the number he admits too is incredibly higher than my overly conservative benefit of the doubt I gave him which makes it even worse to me.

Thanks Open Eyes you got the point exactly. I did not even ask for Kelley to apologize, just wanted to let him and everyone else know that Roeder DOES NOT represent us.

Hey I never knew that about Churchill. I always thought it was terrible how he saved them in the war then right after it was over they put someone else in. Thanks for that tidbit. Again I thank all those who have written in my support and all those who offer opposing views. All for today. Dennis Mosebey

Posted by God (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If you believe fetuses have souls, why would God allow abortions to take place? People like under_score probably think the shooter was only doing God's work because "God works in mysterious ways". A lot of people believe they are doing what God wants yet they have no proof to back-up their claims. Tiller went to church, so one would assume he felt God accepted his occupation. When people say they are doing what God wants, they are really basing that off of their own beliefs or the beliefs of the men who wrote the passages in the Bible. These aren't God's beliefs, but rather the interpretations of man. This is why religion is a bad idea; it allows for too much interpretation. In other words, you can twist scripture to fit your individual point of view. If there is a God (in the Christian sense) I think it's time he comes down and clears some things up. If you consider the Bible to be an operating manual to base your life on, wouldn't you say it's a bit out-dated? Do you really think the How-To books written by authors today will still hold true in 2000 years?

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I suppose my mentioning the possibility of hell opened the door for idiot to come on and once again bash Christians.

I never said anything about a fetus. I was talking specifically about partially delivering a baby and driving a rod in the soft part of the skull so that the brains could be sucked out.

The murderer of Tiller should be brought to justice according to our laws. The law aside, Tiller has gotten what he deserved. I mean, the guy killed babies for crying out loud, how much more sick can you get?

I suppose it is a philisophical issue but I'll trade the life of one person who kills babies for the life hundreds or possibly thousands of babies any day of the week.

Please tell me you have something more intelligent to say than: God sucks, blah blah blah, the Bible is fake, blah blah blah, etc. Please tell me that I have not wasted my time responding and that you have something better than a copy and paste section of the Atheist handbook for belittling Christians.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

username God all this has been covered. Go back and read it if you want to. Otherwise stop repeating the same questions over and over again. I know why you don't believe and you don't. I've been where you are but you have never been where I am.

"I'm not afraid of anything in this world
There's nothing you can throw at me that I haven't already heard"
Bono

Posted by God (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

under_score, You believe Christian law takes precedent over our Nation's law then, right? Are all crimes ok if they are done in the name of God and support your religious beliefs? Do all religions count or only yours? How do you know yours is right? The terrorists on 9-11 probably thought their God approved, so do you see how religious beliefs aren’t based on fact and shouldn’t be acted upon. It’s probably best if we follow the laws we humans have created. If we did that, there would be no killings in the name of God.

seriouslyfolks, Where exactly have you been? Did God literally tell you to follow the Bible? Or perhaps you just believe what other humans tell you to believe. I don't believe everything I’m told, do you?

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've been writing on the most popular band that no one has ever heard of in the world! That's where I have been!

Logjam rules!
Long live Chaps!

Seriously R. Folks

Grace and Peace to all

and humor of course

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

God, if indeed that is your real name, where did I say that I was a Christian? You don't have to be a Christian to believe that killing babies in wrong do you?

I'm sorry, I just don't believe in killing babies like you do.

It's funny that back in the 60's you were probably hanging out at an airport with your friends waiting for heroes to come home so you could call them baby killers but now you call acutal baby killers heroes.

What a complex thing the liberal mind is.

I will now leave you with an almost quote from Chris Rock: "I'm not saying I would have killed the [man], but I understand!"

Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's not a baby, it's a fetus.

If it's not your body, it's none of your business.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The murderer of Tiller should be brought to justice according to our laws. The law aside, Tiller has gotten what he deserved. I mean, the guy killed babies for crying out loud, how much more sick can you get?

I suppose it is a philisophical issue but I'll trade the life of one person who kills babies for the life hundreds or possibly thousands of babies any day of the week."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This right here is a problem, you saying Tiller "got what he deserved" is just on many, many levels. You have no right to judge a man that has broken no law save your morality. If your religious then god will judge him right? If your not then by your logic I guess anyone providing abortion in the 1st or 2nd trimesters is killing babies and should "get what they deserve" right? I swear, if people were as concerned with with impoverished children as they were with abortion we would be in a lot better place.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dog-Spelled-Backwards, would I also have a valid point if I said lack of religion is a bad idea; it allows for too much interpretation? In other words, men can make up their own laws and twist them to fit their individual point of view? How in the world could anyone get around this or arrive at some law or tenet that cannot be voted down or changed by whoever has the power at that particular time? Could it be by a set of basic laws or tenets that is above and out of reach or change by mere man?

Are all crimes ok if they are done in the name of man and support whatever laws they pass at the time? Do all man-made laws count or only yours? How do you know yours is right? The Nazis during the Holocaust thought their laws and leader (man) approved, so do you see how man-made beliefs aren’t based on fact and shouldn’t be acted upon. It’s probably best if we follow the laws NOT created by humans, (because we can, have, and do create any law we want and call it just).
If we did that, there would be no killings in the name of God....... (Right. They would just be replaced by killings in the name of the leader, humanity, righteousness, nationality, or whatever other people chose to justify the ends - after all, they can then make whatever law they want to justify whatever they want to do. And it would be "just and legal".

Don't complain to me. Those were pretty much your words....

And the child that lived thru the abortion attempt to the age of 5, the lady that survived the late-term abortion 31 years ago...... what are they? Still just fetuses?

As for Tiller getting what he deserved..... not my place to judge the derservedness of what happened to him. Regardless of what he did, he did not derserve to be murdered. I think what he did was terrible but I wish compassion on his soul.......

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sundancekid, at what point is it a baby then? There are some reports that if the "fetus" happens to miraculously survive the abortion, not sure how that happens, that it is still killed. I guess it is a fetus until it is wanted by the mother?

I agree with you on the second point. Since neither Tiller nor Roeder are part of my or anyone else's body we should dismiss Tiller's killing and set Roeder free immediately! It is none of our business what happened between the two of them. Excellent point!

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy, first off, I've really grown to dislike you. I don't care for your moniker either. I really don't have the energy to get into it with you cause I know you can drag it on forever. Let's just leave it at I'm right and you're wrong.

Have a good weekend!

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you think abortion is killing a human, quit having abortions. If you think abortions are a good form of birth control, I hope you bleed to death the next time you have one. If you think killing a medical doctor is an effective way of dealing with this issue, I hope you need a medical doctor everyday for the rest of your long miserable life.

Posted by God (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 4:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes, You said, "It’s probably best if we follow the laws NOT created by humans".
Animals don't follow human laws and they kill each other and even their own offspring all the time. Why did God design them like this? For his amusement or just to confuse us? Animals have to eat each other to survive. Why did God make creatures (including man) that have to kill to survive? If he’s so powerful, why can’t he just make it so we don’t need to eat at all? I bet the starving kids around the world would sure appreciate it. Probably God’s plan for the kids to starve though, right?

Posted by God (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Notice how the Gazette disabled comments on the Sunday Sermon? http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/2009/...
I wonder why? The author can print their beliefs, but I can't add mine?

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dog-Spelled-Backwards, you have all the answers. If humans are so much better, and there's no God, how come we haven't perfected ourselves yet? Those questions have been asked since the beginning of recorded history, WHY about pretty much everything. Why, if a nucleus is the size of a basketball, is an electron spinning in circles around it at a distance of roughly 20 miles? What's in between? Are you sure there's nothing? Why or why not? Figure it all out and let me know if/when you do. If its your plan to kill an unborn baby, do you do it for amusement or just to confuse others? When I create a painting, do I need to explain to the painting why I made the grass blue and the sky green? I might have some very good reasons, some excellent reasons, but given the canvas is quite a bit less intelligent than me (even though it thinks in its 2-dimensional world it knows everything there is to know) - would it even understand if I explained it?
Basically, I don't have the answer to any one of your questions. Nor does anyone. And WITH or WITHOUT a God.... neither do you..... join the club......
You might try reading the "Conversations With God" series..... lots of mainstream Christians disagree with it, so you might like it. Not saying I believe it one way or the other but it might give some answers you could ponder on, just a suggestion....

Posted by demoseb (anonymous) on June 13, 2009 at 12:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

First, God does not allow bad things to happen, God gave us free will which means we all get to choose. God is not in the business of unscrewing up things we screw up as human beings. He could but that is not what it is about. He gave Adam and Eve everything they needed to be content and asked only one thing that they not eat the fruit of the tree in the center of the garden. From then on it was really up to them to make it work, but they failed and we humans have been failing ever since, but God in fact did intervene, in the most special way, he sent His Son to redeem us and teach us how to be happy again. But it is still up to us.

Now this debate as to when life starts, when it is a baby or a fetus. Well the problem is there is no scientific proof one way or the other BUT my profession of nuclear power teaches me that when there is doubt you always fail in the safe direction. So if I choose to believe life begins at conception then I know on that final day when God holds me accountable I know on that score I have done the right thing. If I go the other way, in my view I am taking a great risk. Eternity is a long time to be in a place that is very undesirable. But I remind everyone the Declaration of Independence states, "certain unalienable rights that among these are LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I do not believe the Founding Fathers casually put that word LIFE first. They put it there because without that right, the other two do not really count right? I mean they are meaningless. Laws are made by man so people can live together somewhat peacefully, but laws are not the same thing as morals. Morals come uniquely from within. Generally good morals will lead to good laws, but that is NOT always true. So while it was legal to do in Kansas what Tiller did, it defies the higher moral authority and conscience that we are also obligated to consider using the free will God gave us. That is why, "it was legal in Kansas" holds no weight with me. I have to use every peaceable means I can to get the law made by man back in line with the moral law that is the ultimate. I may fail but God expects me to try. I leave you with the final summation in the movie The Verdict where Paul Newman admonishes the jury to not confuse the law with justice. He tells them that they have been told what the law says but they have an opportunity to mete out justice. Ultimately the jury finds for Paul's client. This was after the defense had gotten the only piece of hard evidence thrown out on a technicality. I urge you to watch that movie, it is powerful and it demonstrates very clearly the fundamentals I am talking about here.

Posted by God (anonymous) on June 15, 2009 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes, We haven’t “perfected” ourselves because we haven’t found the real answers to the ultimate question yet. Too many people are killed in the name of religion because they think their beliefs are better than the next group and that is why we all need to get on the same page and search for real answers.
You have to admit, though, most civilized peoples HAVE come a long way in 2000 years. No slavery, no sacrifices to the “gods”, no plundering towns, etc… you get the picture. Give it a little more time and it’ll only get better.

demoseb, You say, "God is not in the business of unscrewing up things we screw up as human beings." Wasn't that what the great flood was all about? 40 days and nights of rain to kill off the sinful and unfaithful?

A "higher moral authority"? Who's authority? God, Allah, Buddah, etc...? That is the problem; you aren't basing your beliefs of right and wrong on anything tangible. You said, "That is why, "it was legal in Kansas" holds no weight with me." This is the kind of attitude that allows people to be killed. (Tiller, 9-11 victums, etc) If you don’t care what is and isn’t illegal in Kansas, you are a very dangerous person.

I think it's best if we all just follow the laws we, as a society, created and voted into action. This way, no matter what your religion is, you have an equal say in what is right and wrong. By being part of our nation and voting on such things, however, means that you have to be willing to follow the laws even if you disagree. So if you don't care what is and isn't "legal in Kansas", perhaps you should go to some lawless country where you can do whatever your little cult wants. (just don’t come back and fly a plane into the side of my house)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 15, 2009 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If we haven't found the real answers to all the ultimate questions than it seems we cannot eliminate that much from the realm of possibility. But you seem to claim to be able to. When you ask all your "why" questions, you don't know the real answer, just as I don't, but you seem to be confident in what you can eliminate. Maybe they are all searching for the real answers just as much as you - sometimes the best way to find the answer is to have alot of different pages searching at once, because if everyone on the "same page" turns out to be a dead end.....???? who knows, now I'm just idly rambling again... :)
Slavery is still alive & well in parts of the world, despots still rule, in some ways yes we have come a long ways, in some ways I'm not so sure. The next time a nuke goes off I'll probably lean more towards the latter....:(

I think you're right - that's what the flood was about in a way. But He also said it would never be repeated.

I think its best also that we follow the laws - Jesus said so also.... as for little "cults"...... I assume you're referring to, for example, when gay marriage got voted down in California? Maybe they should all go to some lawless country, where they can do whatever their little cult wants, right? (Just don't come back and stomp on a cross you rip from my 80-year-old grandmothers hands.......)
I've recently watched both "Defiance" & "Valkyrie"....... I've also seen quite a bit of damage done in the name of no religion....... my point is.... instead of constantly blaming religion or non-religion for alot of the worlds ills, what we all should really blame is.....human nature. There's been just as much good done in the world in the name of religious morals & values as not. Same for non-religious..... so every time you pick on and blame religion, why don't you also give an atheist example? They're just as plentiful, shouldn't be hard to do.....

Posted by God (anonymous) on June 15, 2009 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes, No, I'm not confident we should eliminate the concept behind religions. I'm suggesting we eliminate the attitude religious people often have in that they KNOW without a doubt their beliefs are correct and if you don't agree with them, it's blasphemy. Having "faith" is the excuse for not having a solid evidence to support their beliefs. All I'm asking is that people don't have blind faith. If you can't prove something, you shouldn't force it upon others or act upon your beliefs in a manner that affects other people.

Yes, without religion we'd still have disagreements due to human nature, but people would have less to fight over if they didn't have such firm opposing religious beliefs. When you believe a "high power" wants you to do something, you can use that as an excuse for anything you do because God is infallible. It's this attitude that leads to problems. “How dare anyone question God will! For that, you deserve to die. “ or “We shouldn’t abort fetuses because God says so.” Isn't that how it goes? Again, too many people use their beliefs in ways that affect others who may not even believe the same thing they do.

When it comes to religion, everyone thinks their views are best and therefore nobody wins. I may have more questions than answers, but at least I'm asking the questions and not blindly following what I've been told to believe in.

Posted by giggles (anonymous) on June 15, 2009 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My stance is that it is all between you and your God. Period. No one else will ever know what is best for you other than your God, and likewise you will know how it is best for you to serve God.
Using the tenements of your particular religion, or the so called absolutes they try to give you is no excuse especially to God. I don't think any God is going to excuse blatent disreguard for what you know you should and should not do.
Putting a name on your religion, and having special rules does not substitute the role you know you should have.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 15, 2009 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dog-spelled-backwards, I think we agree from both sides quite a bit. I think religious belief should not be nor was ever intended to chide those who do not agree with you, at least not in the way I practice Christianity. I think much of religion gets misused and mis-practiced. And give it a bad name. So I'm with you on that. But I also don't agree with the attitude of those on the opposing side who "KNOW" without a doubt their beliefs (or lack of) are correct and if you don't believe as they do you're a religious nut. They don't have an answer to St. Thomas Aquinas 5 Postulates, but they seem to overlook that regularly when having "the answers" to so much.
Without religion...... I think we'd find other things to use as an excuse. I'm guessing.... if you eliminated all religion from history, yes, you would have eliminated all the wrongs done in the name of religion. But I'll bet my last $$ the number of wrongs done NOT in the name of religion would have skyrocketed.
I also do not assume, to use abortion as an example, that everyone that is pro-life has that view because of their religious views. Could there be atheists that are pro-life? We have a claimed Christian president that is pro-choice. Granted, those groups are probably going to fall more on one side of the fence than the other, but not always....
As for me personally, that's one reason FOR my belief - I'm asking the questions......

Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on June 15, 2009 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

under_score

If it's not your body, it's none of your business. Why is it the religious freaks feel the need to stick their noses where they don't belong?

Go be a good Christian and mind your own business.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 15, 2009 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Look around. There are a ton of laws against things that "are not your body", and therefore "shouldn't be anyone else's business". Drug use for one. But I presume you are for legalizing all drug use. Just making an assumption based on your beliefs.

If I murder someone else, it's not my body, so none of my business. But someone else is harmed. The person I killed. It all comes down to you don't consider a fetus, ESPECIALLY in the late stages of pregnancy, a person. Even though a ceasarian could at any time deliver a healthy individual. Others do. I'll bet the baby would like to tell some to be good Atheists and mind their own business. Oh, I forgot, there are some alive today who HAVE survived late term abortions. So they've already said it. Listen.

I'm not talking cases where the mothers life is in danger or the fetus has problems, or incest or rape. Which, as the stats prove, is a much smaller percent than many would like to claim. I'm talking cases where Tiller got away with reasons as trivial as "I didn't want to miss rock concerts"....

Posted by Jenniferrr (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 1:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd like to see some of you just try to imagine yourself in a position where abortion crosses your mind. Just try it. Just try to imagine what that would feel like; like it were a very real option or possibility. You would absolutely crumble! You might even turn on your so called beliefs! If you think it is so easy, why don't you think again! Try it and you will see it is not exactly a walk in the park! That has got to be one of the hardest and gut wrenching decisions a woman would ever have to make! And by the way, he never went looking for the women he helped. Yes, I said helped. He had one ad in the yellow pages - THAT IS IT. No TV, radio, newspaper, magazines, nothing. Women went to him for help. Period.

Posted by create (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 7:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes, you make an interesting point here: "It’s probably best if we follow the laws NOT created by humans, (because we can, have, and do create any law we want and call it just).
If we did that, there would be no killings in the name of God....... (Right. They would just be replaced by killings in the name of the leader, humanity, righteousness, nationality, or whatever other people chose to justify the ends - ..."

Enola Gay?

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

First....any genuine right-to-life advocate would have to be horrified at the killing of Doctor Tiller to be considered a genuine right-to-life advocate. You can not believe in right-to-life and then apply exceptions like people who do things you don't agree with....or people who commit crimes that allow capitol punishment. Life is life....no matter how abhorrent you might believe it to be.

I readily accept that most anti-abortion people were horrified at the death of Doctor Tiller.....a man who was incidentally providing a legal service for which he was murdered But there were a handful of so called right-to-life advocates that so demonized Tiller....(and I believe Bill O'Riley was one of them)....that they created an atmosphere whereby the apperance of an assassin was virtually certain. And as such, I believe they share in the blame for his murder.

under_score.....The above post purposefully never mentioned God or Christians so you could not use that as a reason for the reapperance of another "idiot" on this thread. Not surprised to see you are still relying on the same old tired tactics to try and make your point....keep up the "good" work..

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What kind of atmosphere are the anti-religion people creating with their speech? Is it OK because "organized religion" isn't popular?

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

biscuitboy,

Good job, I knew you could post something intelligent without bashing christians! Congratulations to both of us, you for doing it and me prompting you to do it.

There is one philosophy that says killing in any form for any reason is wrong. As a purely hypothetical example: A person following this philosophy would believe it would be wrong to kill even a murderer (assuming no other options) even if they new he was going to murder an additional 20 people.

Another philosophy is that killing is okay if the math works out. An example here is that it would be okay to kill even a perfectly innocent person if in return another 20 people would be saved. Hence, the trading of one innocent life to save 20.

As the ratio of people saved per people killed goes down the justification gets harder. As the perceived innocence level of the killed vice the save fluxuates, so does the justification factor.

This is all just philosophy but when taken to heart if becomes principle in some cases. All I'm saying is that I can understand where someone may feel that they did a good thing by eliminating someone like Tiller.

I like to play Devils Advocate.

sundancekid, I believe I already refuted your tired argument of "not your body, not your business". If this were the case it would be none of our business that Roeder's body killed Tiller's body and none of us would be talking about it.

People who believe that life starts in the womb, and not everyone who believes that is religious, can justifyably call an abortion murder. In our country, we put murderers in jail and sometimes execute them. Of course, in the absence of a law, such as in this instance, people will sometime take matters into their own hands.

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

create, the atom bomb actually saved American lives. In war, that is all we should be concerned with.

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

When Cain killed Abel, God didn't exicute Cain. It is not O.K. to kill.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The potus fires people from private companies.
The federal government owns over 50% of some of the big three.
The potus is trying to scare people into thinking that we need socialized medicine now.
People are screaming from the roof tops to get rid of organized religion.
Very few people want to talk about Logjam the greatest rock band ever in the world.
Where do you think this road will take us? Can you think of any other countries that have gone down this road? How did it workout for them?

Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The potus fires people from private companies."

-- Wrong. These are the overpaid executives who ran the companies into the ground in the first place. President Obama, as much as you would like to point fingers at him, did not fire these overpaid CEOs. Either they stepped down or it was a mutual agreement.

"The federal government owns over 50% of some of the big three."

-- True. And, had the government not bailed the auto manufacturers out they would be closed down by now and hunndreds of thousands more would be unemployed and then you would be complaining that President Obama and Congress had done nothing. Republicans have always complained that Democrats are not business-friendly. Well, that's no longer a valid statement. The Democrats are bailing out these major employers. As for the financial industry, Democrats are working to reinstitutate regulations so that we the consumers can not be ripped off, again. So, let's just say this lesson in "the importance of industry regulations" is over.

"The potus is trying to scare people into thinking that we need socialized medicine now."

-- Must you use fear tactics like the word "socialism"? It's obscuring the intellectual conversation. President Obama has said it clearly, if you have health care, you don't need to sign up for the new health care options. Prevention is less costly than treatment, which is already being paid with tax dollars. So, let's be humanitarians about this and make certain everyone has accessible health care. Seriously? You want to call this proposal "socialism"? Okay, then what do you call trash collection, the postal service, roads and highways maintenance, libraries, police and safety, fire departments? Healthcare is just as much a necessity as these, is it not?

"People are screaming from the roof tops to get rid of organized religion."

-- No, we are asking for the separation of church and state to be preserved. Churches should not dicate public policy (hello, remember the tax-exempt status?), otherwise we dangerously transition from democracy to theocracy. Why is that so difficult for some to understand?

"Very few people want to talk about Logjam the greatest rock band ever in the world."

-- I've never heard of Logjam.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZXLcPWKQ...

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sundance

I respect your views but am saddened by the fact that you have never heard of Logjam. There will be a scratch n' sniff book chronicling the chronicles of this great band coming out when technology catches up to their AWESOMENESS. As was suggested by a fellow Emporia Gazette online forum poster person(crack), included will be the recipe for turkey legs that inspired that now infamous song.As soon as Crack n' Sacks Turkey Leg Shack opens up you will be able to hear Logjam if you buy a kids meal as they will include a cassette single(in Dolby) of a Logjam tune in every one.

Seriously R. Folks
arthur of the future best selling biographically written novel about the life and times and music and career of the greatest ROCK band ever in the world............... Logjam!
(not available online)
Now with illustrations and scratch n' sniff!

Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hold on. Rewind. I want to revisit that statement from seriouslyfolks.

"People are screaming from the roof tops to get rid of organized religion."

Why on Earth would you or anyone else think that?

I attend church, but I don't feel my relgious beliefs need to be shared with anyone else. Furthermore, I don't want my church to influence public policy because I'm certain your religious beliefs differ in some ways. Vice versa. We are a nation of many religions, and many persons who do not subscribe to religion. With religion having the ability to work up one's emotions, and with so many religious interpretations and beliefs, wouldn't you agree that the church and state should not mix?

On a sidenote, I don't refer to myself as religious, I refer to myself as spiritual. Additionally, if I were approached on the street and asked about my religious beliefs, I might indicate to which faith I belong, but I would certainly state that my religious beliefs are personal, a conversation that I only have with my pastor and/or with God.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"With religion having the ability to work up one's emotions, and with so many religious interpretations and beliefs, wouldn't you agree that the church and state should not mix?"

Yes

The problem is that it is part of my belief to share it, I don't believe in using the government as a tool to transform society into my idea of heaven but people don't seem to be smart enough to recognize the difference between me and the ones that do want to use the government. The time is coming when religious freedom will be threatened, that is my prediction.

As far as abortion goes, as it has been pointed out, being pro life is not just a religious thing. There are a lot of people who see it as murder and no one that I know of is for legalizing murder. Murder is the ultimate anti choice action, it takes away 100% of a persons future choices.

Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Okay. But, for so long as you continue to "share" your religious beliefs with those who do not want to hear it, then you will continue to ruffle feathers. While you believe that you are doing a kind thing, those of different denominations/faiths are hearing "my God is better than your God." And, don't let me get started with athiests. They don't care that you subcribe to religion, but they certainly do not want to be preached to... In fact, as soon as you start in, you've lost the attention of your audience.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

True that sundance.
I am aware that people will not see the message I share as a kind thing. I want to do it in a loving way but their are always a lot of toes and I've got big feet. lol
Thanks for the input.

Seriously R. Folks

Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The time is coming when religious freedom will be threatened, that is my prediction."

The only thing you have to worry about is whether people will continue to embrace religion or push it aside. If "religious nuts" (sorry, only term I can think of) continue to shove their beliefs onto those who do not want to listen, if they do not change their tone, and if they fail to embrace diversity and preach tolerance, then and only then will they lose numbers.

But, as far as religious freedom goes, that will never be lost in this nation.

Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And, if someone is atheist, can't that be okay? Just because someone does not subscribe to religion doesn't mean he/she is a bad person, in fact, he/she could turn out to be the most giving, charitable and friendly person you could ever meet. Why offend them and chance losing a new friend by "sharing" your religious beliefs with them?

This is not me reprimanding you, believe me. I just want to share a new point of view.

Posted by create (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 5:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes, this is not the place, but there are many more opinions than one on "ending the war" via Hiroshima, but thanks for the comeback.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 1:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Create, I think you were referring to under_score's reply about Hiroshima, not mine.

"The potus fires people from private companies" - false

WRONG

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/ob...

"Wagoner said in a statement early Monday that he was asked to "step aside" during a meeting with Obama administration officials on Friday, and he consented."

You can call it asked to step aside, step down, fired, axed, moving in a new direction, mutual agreement, whatever - same result. Potus getting involved in who is running a company.

Let's see.... public outcry about Freddie Mac.... Freddie Mac exec commits suicide...... who gets to share blame here? Obama? Olbermann? O'Reilly? Limbaugh? Every citizen that was outraged? Barney Frank? Let's convict them all!!!
I've seen alot of hatred by the left and demonization directed at Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, etc..... if anything happens to any of them, I am sure according to those here I have a pretty rock-solid case for rounding up quite a few people (in the millions, likely) as accessory to murder, inciting hatred, etc....

For me - I respect people's rights to have healthy debate both ways regarding abortion. What made Tiller's case so special is that he dealt with so much late-term abortion. I will not argue with reasons of mother's health in immediate danger, baby's health in danger, rape or incest. What made his case special was the flimsy excuses he was accepting to justify it, which was NOT legal. And, despite "legally" getting away with it, you cannot tell me that a woman killing a baby "because she wanted to attend rock concerts" was in any way one of the above reasons. Or next time I get a hangnail I'm heading to the emergency room and pleading my case - the mental strain is gonna kill me, (thus my life is in immediate danger).
Sorry, it doesn't justify his killing (NOthing does) - but I refuse to elevate him to sainthood or back off criticism of him just because abortion is popular with half the population. From what I've seen & read it looks like the trial was a miscarriage of justice itself. Or late-term abortion would be more appropriate.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 1:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BTW - I thought Spinal Tap was the greatest band ever????

;-)

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

open-eyes....

Hi again! I of course can not prove this but considering the level of scrutiny doctor tiller operated under I would think it very unlikely that he would do a late term abortion just so the mother wouldn't have to miss a rock concert. If you can document this I will withdraw my objection...if you can't document it then it would appear to me to be another of those statements primarily designed do demonize rather than enlighten.

Other than for cases of rape and incest, I personally consider any abortion done stricly for birth control to be disgusting.....and would call late term abortions just for that reason abhorrent and criminal. But considering all he had to lose.....up to and including his life.....I would have to see some pretty good evidence to convince me that he would have risked that for such a shallow reason. That, for me, is part of the demonization.

I agree with you totally on Spinal Tap though......they rocked!

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Spinal Tap ....................... PUHLEEZ! Their all bass song "Big Bottom" was their failed attempt at trying to recreate the sound of the "Electric Jug". It's a great song, don't get me wrong, but to get that sound the rhythm and lead guitar players had to play bass along with Derek Small thus losing all the high end in the song. Logjam on the other hand had all the frequency ranges and then some covered at all times, once Bob Schmitz joined the band anyway. "Big Bottom" was supposed to sound like early seventies Logjam but ended up sounding more like a negative version of The Ax Men. Spinal Tap is made up anyway.

Logjam Rules , Spinal Tap Drools

Seriously R. Folks

ps
Spinal Tap never inspired a fried turkey leg fast food chain.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Dr. Paul McHugh is a Professor of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. McHugh was hired by the then-Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline to review some of Tiller's records. McHugh said the records show Tiller performed abortions for trivial reasons. One woman even said she was having a late-term abortion because she wanted to go to a rock concert."

Excerpt from Dr. McHugh's interview in Lenexa, Kansas on June 11, 2007.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mviFMpy_s...

http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/...

Here's the full 44-minute interview

http://www.operationrescue.org/noblog/wh...

Spinal Tap was AWESOME!!!!! Come'on, seriouslyfolks, you have to recognize the genius.....

Personally, for me, there's nothing that can compare with a BOSTON guitar......... don't argue with me on this one, just accept I am totally non-debatable on this. To each their own but you cannot change my mind on this point. ;-)

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

open-eyes.....

you are of course free to accept as truth what you will...as I am free to reject the same data as doubtful. Attorney General Phil Kline was hardly a man without an agenda. He was elected to that office...and then spent millions of taxpayer dollars....with one goal in mind. That goal was to shut tiller down and hopefully send him to prison. His excesses in that quest was the reason the voters turned him out to pasture at their very next opportunity.

because of that, I would view the the review of tiller's records by anybody hired by him as very suspect. And just because some body told the reviewer (that was obviously part of a vendetta) they had been given a late term abortion just so they could go to a rock concert does not make it true.

I stand befrore you today to testify that I played drums for Logjam part-time back in their early garageband years....in deference of course to their later garageband years which encompassed the rest of their career. I swear it's true but I doubt that many of you are going to believe me on this.

Neverteheless...that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Now you prove me wrong.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes
I won't argue with you that Boston is a great band as it appears you have "more than a feelin'" for them.:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcsVPis1i...

biscuitboy
You let it slip. I know who you are now. Don't worry I won't tell anyone. You really tore it up on those drums at the "Mudbug 3rd annual town bicentennial". My auntie recorded the event for posterity sake, she was a court stenographer before joining the boys on the road, but I don't have to tell you that biscuitboy.............. wink wink, nudge nudge.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe your argument is with the credibility of the reviewer, not with Kline. Unless I am also allowed to throw out any and all evidence reviewed by someone who was pro-Tiller? Does the opposing side also "have an agenda"? Or is it just the side one does not agree with that always "has the agenda", and therefore nothing they put forth can be believed?

Paul R. McHugh was educated at Harvard College and Harvard Medical School with further training at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, the Institute of Psychiatry, University of London, and the Division of Neuropsychiatry at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. After his training he was eventually and successfully professor of psychiatry at Cornell University School of Medicine, Clinical Director and Director of Residency Education at the New York Hospital, Westchester Division, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at the Oregon Hills Scien — Service — Science Center, rather. He was Henry Phipps Professor and Director of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Psychiatrist-In-Chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital from 1975 to 2001. The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine named him University Distinguished Service Professor in 1998. Dr. McHugh was elected to the Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences in 1992.

Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine named h im Distinguished Service Professor in 1998, and elected to the Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences in 1992.

So..... if someone on the pro-abortion side had a pedigree like that, would you "suspect" them? I've also shown links to earlier instances where Tiller has been caught in outright lies....... so I think I know who I will tend to believe in this case......

I played air-guitar to Boston once in my living room.... and did a fabulous job, never missed a lick...... the non-existent crowd went wild...... true story......... but, I had an agenda, so I guess nobody will believe me....... ;-)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't EVEN get me started on whether or not the voters always get it right....... ;-)

"All I want is to have my Peace Of Mind............ YEAH!!!!"

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Impressive looking credentials....but I believe my argument is every bit as much with kline as with his reviewer.....considering klines expessed agenda to get tiller....it is doubtful he would hire a reviewer that was not going to review his way. Yes, both sides did have an agenda....but one of them came to a screetching halt a couple of sundays ago in wichita....which is why we are now debating the tactics used by the other side. Had it been klines side that halted the same way we would have then been debating tillers tactics.

As for impressive credentials.....I could list a bunch of credentials that I could claim that would make my life look much more impressive and important than reality has ever shown it to be. That's why virtually nobody would ever hire a new employee based strictly on their resume.

Oh....Yes....Auntie Folks.....remember her well.....but that's a story for another time.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, we can all look at the same credentials and come to different opinions, I guess..... I suppose I could say that list would mean nothing to me, (John Hopkins Distinguished, National Academy of Science & all) and someone who agreed with me I could argue that the fact that they were an experienced tarot card reader was just as valid, because if you had ignored the fact that that was the only thing on their resume and actually sat down and interviewed them I'm sure you would have been just as impressed as I was.........
So I guess we also have to discredit every person hired by those who have the complete opposite agenda. Let's be fair. Their credentials might be just as impressive (and therefor just as meaningless). I guess.

I think I just realized how much more impressive Palin's credentials have suddenly become, and how much less impressive Obama's were during the campaign. Since it's all about the agenda and which side I'm looking from :)

Now it all makes sense :)

Now I know why I can't win any lawsuits - darn, I'm always hiring a lawyer who argues for the OTHER side.....dang.... well, my degree was never in law, and it shows.........

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But the reality open-eyes is that we are both doing the same thing and accussing the other of being blind. You are no more willing to accept the possibility that McHugh's reviewing might have been at least a little biased by his previously held beliefs than I am willing to accept that kline would have ever hired the man if he wasn't already certain of what he was going to get from the deal. Do you really believe he would have ever gotten the job if kline hadn't already known what the outcome would be.

And then to use unnamed "women" who claimed to get late term abortions for reasons almost as trivial as having nothing else to do that afternoon from a doctor that would be breaking the law by doing so....attributes to tiller a level of insanity and evil that was not evident to the people that knew and lived around him. And I believe such unsubstantiated claims....(unnamed and undocumented) by this highly credentialed researcher was exactly the kind of demonization that led to the assassination of tiller.....and was largely responisble for said murder. JMO

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 11:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm willing to accept that - as long as you are also willing to accept the fact that those appointed to defend Tiller might have been at least a little biased by their previously held beliefs. Do you really believe they would have ever been hired to defend Tiller if they hadn't already known the outcome?

So, what I am being told is, it seems, if we hear of improprieties or possible illegal activity going on, we can only hire or appoint people to look into it that hold the exact opposite view? Is that what has happened in all the Democratic-led investigations into Bush activities that they didn't like in the last 3 years? (Ooops, here I should have said into activities that they DID like....... apparently....)

Ok, here's a "named" person.

Luhra (Tivis) Warren, a former Tiller employee, wrote the following:

"I was required to falsify the medical records. But not just that, related to that, I was required to lie to the women over the phone. And the way he'd explain it to me was, without coming right out and saying it, these are really third trimester abortions, but we're going to tell them they're only in the second trimester. They would say, well, I've already had a sonogram, and my bpd was 7.8 or 8.3 or whatever. He said, when they tell you that, don't turn them away as being too far along. Tell them to come in, and we'll do our own sonogram, and it will show they're not that far along. Tell them that sonogram reading is an art, not a science. He explained to me that the bpd is a measurement of the angle of the baby's head, where at that angle, the baby's head is roughly egg-shaped. The usual way that you measure the bpd is from the top of the egg to the bottom of the egg, which is at the widest point. But we measure it from side to side, at the narrowest point." from Celebrate Life Sept/Oct 1994 "Where is the Real Violence?"

I've seen a ton of "demonization" over the last 8 years. To suddenly cry foul now rings really, really hollow.....

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on June 18, 2009 at 7:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think I'm crying foul now because tiller was shot and killed! Without that event occurring it is doubtful we would even be discussing this at this time.....instead we would still each be trying to prove that the other sides politics are more bad than our sides.

I expect people who represent a certain agenda to be biased in their representation. But many of these acts alluded to by kline et al....and loudly proclaimed by Bill O'Riley and others ....were down right illegal. If the prove of their occurences is there...and strong....and believeable.....why wasn't tiller in prison two sundays ago rather than attending church. Especially since attorney general klines expressed reason for existence was to bring tiller to his knees.

The fact that he wasn't in prison tells me this great evidence that was thrown out to the public as irrefutable fact.....was in fact at best not court worthy....and at worst bull dung. And if that is indeed the case.....then releasing all this bull dung to the world was indeed the demonization that caused a man who was never convicted of any of this so-called illegal activity to be murdered.

Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on June 18, 2009 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

moved to a forum:

http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/ope...