DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Terroist Attack On Planned Parenthood Center in Colorado

i have tons of other links that prove it.

but you're the guy that dismisses everything. you're a fraud.

Tulsa, it didn't read as a joke, and then the fact that we got GOP candidates running with it says everything.

FH, i'm good man. other than sporadic post, i'm not gonna bother.

i never seen so many closed minded people in my life congregate in one spot.

and thats terrorism bro. straight up. y'all so quick to call it out with a muslim dude, this is clear cut as it gets, but people wanna hesitate cause it's a white dude.

I just stated what was known about the guy at the time. The guy is a rather unkempt transsexual if he is one.

jc

Since I see Cruz's name brought up quite a bit...I dont know if he would make a good president or not..couldn't do any worse then what's in there currently.

But I do think he would be an excellent Supreme Court Justice.

JMHO

It's all fun and games till someone loses an eye!

I like the things Eric has to say and find his posts to be much less hysterical than yours.

Eric is wise.

For clarification, I had the police scanner traffic on during the shooting and they had to be careful because they knew there were still other people in the building. But once they cornered him, the police were shooting through the walls trying to take him out. Also, even as he surrendered, they had to stall for a minute to move a couple of officers out of the way of the snipers, who were told over the radio if there was any sign of an IED or if he dropped his hands, the snipers were to take a kill shot.

The Left's Response to Planned Parenthood Shooting Is Outrageous

The murderous rampage at a Colorado Springs, Colorado, Planned Parenthood clinic had barely ended before the Left began using it to try to shut down the abortion debate.

The shooting was an act of terrorism directed against women’s “health-care services,” and incited by the inflammatory rhetoric around video exposés of Planned Parenthood. The triple murder had been nearly inevitable given, in the words of Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, the “toxic” environment created by “hateful rhetoric.”

Never mind that the shooter, Robert Dear, apparently had no connection to the Republican Party or the pro-life movement, or to much of anyone, if initial reports are to be believed. He was a loner who avoided eye contact and dispensed paranoid advice to neighbors on how to avoid detection by the government.

It is possible that Dear decided to shoot up a clinic to make a point, in which case his crime was an act of terrorism. It also is possible that, clearly disturbed, he committed a random act of violence. Or it might be something in between. According to initial reports, he told police after he surrendered “no more baby parts,” but also rambled incoherently. The police haven’t yet determined a motive.

Regardless, the rush to apportion blame as widely and carelessly as possible is on. As James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal points out, when Islamic terrorists strike, we get immediate assurances of the peaceableness of Islam. When an oddball drifter attacks a Planned Parenthood clinic, we hear about the collective guilt of pro-lifers.

Their alleged offense is to take exception to Planned Parenthood as the nation’s foremost provider of abortions, and to recoil in horror at its gruesome practices exposed in Center for Medical Progress videos. No matter what rules the Left hopes to impose on the debate, dismembering unborn children and selling off their body parts is inherently controversial. So is abortion.

Planned Parenthood likes to describe itself in the most anodyne terms as providing “health-care services” to women. But no one would care about the work of Planned Parenthood if all it did was provide routine exams and birth control.

In the wake of Colorado Springs, it hopes to delegitimize its critics. But a broad-based movement shouldn’t be tarred by the crimes of one individual (or the excesses of a tiny fringe). In the prelude to the Civil War, there wasn’t any doubt about the motives of John Brown, a domestic terrorist committed to fighting slavery. His raid at Harpers Ferry didn’t silence abolitionists, although Southern partisans used it to galvanize opinion against them. (One Southern newspaper thundered afterward, “We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the South who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing.”)

When the Weathermen were setting off bombs in the early 1970s, no one said to stop criticizing the Vietnam War. When the Black Panthers were shooting it out with cops, no one said to stop advocating for black rights. When Puerto Rican separatists waged a campaign of terror, no one said that vigorous advocacy of Puerto Rican independence should be off-limits.

Today, most acts of domestic terrorism are committed by radical environmentalists, albeit they typically only involve property damage. Does this mean that we need to tone down the rhetoric about climate change and the allegedly catastrophic threat it represents to the future of humanity? If so, someone needs to get word to John Kerry and Barack Obama in Paris immediately.

The pro-life movement is overwhelmingly peaceful and prayerful, and seeks a more just society where all are welcomed into life. Robert Dear, who wantonly took three lives and wounded nine others, is the antithesis of all that it stands for. Neither his atrocity nor the smears of the Left should hinder its work. The debate over abortion will — and must — go on.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...ous_128895.html

Another side to the story. I see this on social media every day. People I used to work with, went to high school with-it seems like they are taking every thing that happens and everything that all the kook sites say way too serious.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...1973_story.html


Antiabortion rhetoric unwittingly unleashes the unhinged



Though we do not know everything about Robert Lewis Dear, the alleged killer in the Colorado Planned Parenthood shooting, it’s probably safe to say he’s not a transgender liberal.
Ted Cruz, however, isn’t so sure. “The media promptly wants to blame him on the pro-life movement when at this point there’s very little evidence to indicate that,” the Republican presidential candidate said in Iowa on Sunday afternoon.
Um, but what about the law enforcement official telling The Washington Post and others that Dear (who distributed anti-Obama pamphlets, according to a neighbor) explained the shooting by saying “no more baby parts”?
“It’s also been reported that he was registered as an independent and a woman and transgendered leftist activist,” Cruz countered, apparently referring to a voter list identifying him as female. “If that’s what he is, I don’t think it’s fair to blame on the rhetoric on the left. This is a murderer.”
In one sense, I agree with Cruz. The antiabortion movement did not kill those three people in Colorado Springs. The one responsible is the deranged gunman himself. But it’s a different matter to ask whether the often-violent imagery used by conservative leaders on abortion is unwittingly giving the unhinged some perverse sense of justification to contemplate the unspeakable.
Just days before the shooting, Cruz trumpeted an endorsement from an antiabortion activist who once called killing an abortion doctor a “justifiable defensive action” and who leads a group, Operation Rescue, where a colleague did prison time for a conspiracy to bomb an abortion clinic.
The activist whose endorsement Cruz celebrated, Troy Newman, is also on the board of the Center for Medical Progress, which made the surreptitious Planned Parenthood videos that prompted Cruz and many other conservatives to accuse the organization of selling “baby parts” — the phrase Dear allegedly used. The videos, including footage from a Planned Parenthood in Denver, not far from Colorado Springs, were followed by a wave of threats and smaller attacks on the organization’s facilities.
There will always be the irrational and the unstable. But when political leaders turn disagreements into all-out war, demonize opponents as enemies and accuse those on the other side of being subhuman killers, the unbalanced can hear messages that were never intended.
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who has flirted with the idea of using federal troops to block access to abortion, dismissed the Supreme Court’s authority and said that we should “protect children instead of rip up their body parts and sell them like they’re parts to a Buick.”
Rival Carly Fiorina said, incorrectly, that the Planned Parenthood videos showed “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.’ ”
Chris Christie talked of “the systematic murder of children in the womb to preserve their body parts,” while Marco Rubio asked on Twitter: “Where is all the outrage over the planned parenthood dead babies?”
Leading conservative commentators Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have likened Planned Parenthood practices to those of the Nazis, and Emily’s List, an abortion rights political group, has tracked violent or apocalyptic images served up by presidential candidates: Rand Paul said he doesn’t think “civilization can long endure” with abortion rights; Ben Carson likened those who have abortions to slave owners; Huckabee talked about the “holocaust” of abortion and compared the morality of Planned Parenthood to that of the Islamic State; and Rubio spoke of people being “pushed into abortions so that those tissues can be harvested and sold for a profit.”
After the Colorado shooting, Donald Trump condemned the killing but, asked by NBC’s Chuck Todd if he could “understand why people might react this way” to the Planned Parenthood videos, replied: “Well, there’s tremendous — there’s tremendous dislike, I can say that.”
And of course there’s Cruz, who said Planned Parenthood committed “multiple felonies” and who recently signed a letter with other GOP lawmakers saying (falsely) that Margaret Sanger, a founder of the group that became Planned Parenthood, sought the “extermination” of black people.
Newman, the Operation Rescue official whose endorsement Cruz touted, has called women who have abortions “murderesses.” He said societal responsibility “rightly involves executing convicted murderers, including abortionists, for their crimes in order to expunge bloodguilt from the land.” Australia, calling Newman a risk to the community, revoked his visa to visit the country this fall.
Newman and his organization say they are peaceful and law-abiding. That may be so. But in an environment where such a man and message are embraced by a top-tier presidential candidate, we shouldn’t be surprised if people with a few screws loose get other ideas.

Oh no, not links. Is the close minded one the one who dismisses links that others post? You seem to do it quite a bit. I think the word you might be looking for is 'hypocrite'.

You're also wrong about the new 'terrorism' definition. We've been referring to radical islamists simply as terrorists for years. It seems to me that libs are seeking to water down what a terrorist might be, as to lessen the impact of the word. This wouldn't be the first time they've stooped to euphemisms to lessen impact, just like 'undocumented persons'. Keep posting from whatever dictionary all you please, though.

The shooter in Colorado still appears to be a nut job who picked a time to shoot up PP, where the terrorists have dedicated their lives to killing those that don't share the religious and political goals.

Very emotional subject this abortion thingy is.

A women's right to her own body vs the Human Slaughter houses.

A woman has complete say over her body, even to the point of killing part of it yet suicide remains illegal for her. If she goes to the Doctor demanding he remove her left hand, they will find her mentally ill.

Even though many support women's rights, how can we just sit back silently while a children's Auschwitz operates down the street? Recently we find they have stepped it up a notch by harvesting the body parts and organs of those little ones. Where does it end? Possibly they make an elixir from those parts that you drink and live 10 years longer?

Tough questions that divide America at it's core. They are a matter of life and death for the kids.

No wonder the fighting and rhetoric and taking up of sides. No wonder the Lunatic Fringe is drawn into it like a moth to the flame.

Wars were started over less.
God help us.

What color do we need to post in for you so you'll get it's a joke?

So how are we going to keep unkempt, transsexual, entitled college student, obummer voting, mentally ill, refugee terrorists from getting powerful weapons?

Put the label, "liberal version" on them.

IMO, I am appalled at some folks who have never been in a situation to know what they would do with their own bodies when faced with certain pregnancy issues. Some people can never become pregnant, will never be pregnant, have no clue and feel free to pass judgement on others who can, have been and do have a clue of the horror. And yes, I am speaking of some men who pass judgement. Sorry guys

I am not a supporter of abortion in general. However, I am absolutely against forcing a woman to carry a child conceived as a result of rape or incest or in situations where her life/body could be in jeopardy. What a demeaning, horrific and unnatural thing to force upon a woman.

but when i say that, i get jumped by everybody.

Many of us are willing to discuss things like the life of the Mother, rape and incest. Some things are Medical issues after all. But what is going on today is Barbaric.

Not me.

I think you should take the personal responsibility to stay out of gun stores.

Are there non-powerful weapons?

stop. i already called you out on your hypocrisy. you're only pro-birth, not pro-life, because you and others prove over and over again you could care less what happens to babies after birth.

So you kill them because their life might be hard? Or perhaps it is your life that may be harder?

Really?

Are you going to leave me with a perfect opportunity like that?

Sure, why not? I'd like to read your separation of weapons. I'd like to know your ideas on how to pick the nut jobs out from the non-nut jobs. I don't see how you can, other than ban everyone from having weapons, and then only the government would have them.

You still have to have federal firearm licenses to purchase or possess (legally) automatic weapons. Those are the real powerful personal weapons.

Quite honestly, when I was presented in my martial arts class a boken and a katana, I was asked which one was more dangerous. In case you don't know, a boken is a hardwood sword styled after a katana. I pose the same question to you. Which one is more dangerous?

i dunno what a boken is.

but i doubt your fast enough to smack bullets with it.

I think some compromise from both sides is in order. When you use the murder/slaughter houses rhetoric, what stage of pregnancy are you talking about? To me, the idea of human life beginning at conception does not make any sense. That leads to bizarre viewpoints like being against embryonic stem cell research and against abortion even in cases of rape/incest. How is a smattering of cells with no concept of self-awareness, ability to feel pain, no beating heart, or functioning brain at all a human being?

On the other hand, late-term abortion and especially partial birth abortion is pretty abominable. I think a reasonable compromise would be something as simple as allowing abortions early on and denying them later. The cutoff point would be heartbeat and functioning brain or something similar. Of course, neither side likes that solution. Ahh well, politics as usual.

edit: Those are just some thoughts on abortion in general. That has nothing to do with my views of the shooter, who I put in the same category as the Paris attackers or the kids who shoot up schools. That is, the lowest of the low.

Never said I was. I did say that a boken is a hardwood sword in the shape of a katana. Which one is more dangerous, a boken or a katana?

from my combatives training in the military, the only point i can imagine you making is the standard "it's not what the tool is, but who is welding it." which is still crap when it comes to guns.

but technically, the bokken COULD be more dangerous simply because it's wooden, the injuries aren't as obvious.

Please don't apologize for that statement. IMHO, the truth should never require an apologetic delivery.

Agree Clem, however, I know the sensitivity of some on this board. Being a woman, I am definitely outnumberd.

Not always, didnt you see people in the Army who couldnt hit the broad side of a barn 15 yards out with a sidearm?

And yes it is weapon dependent..understand using auto fire as a suppressing technique.

But how many do we have where policeman who the general public believe are weapon proficient...Shoot off 60 to hundreds of rounds and couldnt hit jack crap they was aiming for?? The numbers I used are arbitrary but main point is they squeezed off A LOT and didnt hit their target.

So I get his response..get yours to I'm just sayin

You have the right answer, but the wrong reason. It's the boken. Because it's wood, most people see it as innocuous, and not as a dangerous weapon. Both can kill, and very easily. The true difference is in how it's handled. In the hands of someone that thinks it's just a toy, it can kill unintentionally, just like a gun in a child's hand.

Weapons are all devices for killing. Some are more efficient than others. No one will ever be able to keep weapons out of the hands of someone who's mind is set on killing. They will find a way. The more efficient weapons just make the body count higher. As those more efficient weapons are already in the world, there is really no way to get rid of them all. Not to mention, a talented gunsmith can always make one.

Yea, my comments on abortion have nothing to do with the shooter nutjob either. Lock the Hairball up.

So we are gonna compromise on Human life now, hmmm, this is gonna be hard for me.

You wish to make it a complicated subject of when does life begin and all but I am not smart enough to know.

What I do know is if I were a woman who just got raped, I would call the cops, go to the hospital and take my RU486 pill so I don't have the guys kid.

Vv

You really don't know. Until you are faced with it, you will NEVER know. Never. Unless there is something incredibly miraculous about you that allows you to bear children, you will NEVER know.

I'm a different bird I guess..and according to some on this board am a extreme right wing radical..Woman wants to abort..abort away..but that partial birth abortion I got to see performed 'live' on a family friend.

Not no but hell no a thousand times over and there is nothing short of if its needed to save the womans life then do it.

But for the I'll use this term loosely..women who waits that long and kills it because she doesnt want it..well you and the Dr who performed it..I pray there is a hell and you get to be a late stage pregnancy and have that procedure done to u over and over u sick f...

Only 1% of abortions are performed after 21 weeks and only 3 doctors in the United States offer them. The others have been killed by Pro-Lifers. Honestly, you've probably posted more about PBA's than there have been performed during the same time period. You're not alone in thinking that it's a pretty immoral act and it shows in the usage.

I've always hated this line of thinking. I have been faced with this decision, and I am unable to bear children.

The stupid damn doctor tried to convince my wife that she wasn't pregnant, and the object in her was a tumor. He insisted she get a D and C, which is a nicer term for an abortion. He even scheduled her for the procedure. This stupid doctor didn't even give her a blood test or check to see if she was pregnant, and she didn't show as pregnant with a pee test. That tumor, my son, is now 16 years old. Luckily, I insisted on a sonogram, and we saw him waving at us. I fired the doctor immediately.

Yes, that decision is absolute anguish and I'd never wish it on anyone. My son, on the other hand, is one of the best souls I've ever known in my life. I can't even tell you if I raised him right or if he was just born that way. Yes, it might be hard, but I would say that life if usually the correct decision.

You know she was talking about bearing a child after rape, right?

Yea, never been pregnant, not yet anyway.

And by the way, Clem was right, never apologize for giving an opinion.

I don't know the % performed it was in Florida if memory serves me correct..I was to busy throwing up and being pissed to remember exactly..and it was back in 2007ish maybe 05.

And Highly doubt the % of them performed or 3 or 4 times I mentioned makes my argument or belief on the subject any less relevant..and since i read the right and their abortion views was being discussed..I gave my view from where some on this board call radical right wing extremest that is for a womans right to abort which obviously isnt in the norm with what some have labeled myself as being politically aligned with.

And don't care of it is .0000000001% if that number references the amount who did it for reasons other then life saving reasons well then I hope they have happen what i said hope happens.

I'd personally have no problems with that at all. Would probably force a lot of people to get an eval that would not normally get one and help them out

But how you going to be able to define who is mentally ill and should be forced an eval?? Man from what ive read there wasnt any signs of some of the dirty bastards that went on killing sprees.

Maybe the government should do a better job of keeping track of loonies and make the info available country wide..Their record keeping and sharing it with states is shoddy at best..intentional at worst.

They need to do a better job of enforcing the already numerous laws on the books. And getting the info available for the folks who run the nics checks.