I have just ordered a gallon of water for Steve Newton to use to wash down his foot. See, we were right. There are right wing extremists who are so pro-life that they will kill to make their point. They are terrorists and deserve to be treated as such.
I first have to admit that I didn't get to wash down his foot, unless DD is suggesting either (a) some bizarre Catholic rite of contrition I've never experienced; or that (b) he wants me to be more hygenic before I put it in my mouth.
Here's a simple response, that should not be difficult for him to comprehend: kiss my ass [and I'm not washing it first].
This is a wonderfully cynical example of Delawaredem's faux outrage, designed to score political debating points and (as always) to stifle political discourse that makes him uncomfortable.
The game that DD and company love to play is this: conflate all political rhetoric with which they disagree with that of truly dangerous, nutcase, violent extremist groups, and then take any--any--violence committed by someone with superficially similar views and use that to vindicate your own particular form of hate speech.
The latest Gallup Poll suggests that 23% of American voters would have abortion illegal in all circumstances; 53% would see it legal with restrictions; and 22% would see it legal under all circumstances. Let's just take the 23% and call it the Pro-life movement. Gee: that would be 65-70 million people.
Since 1993, there have been 17 attempted murders and 8 murders related to anti-abortion fanatics.
Even one death is too many, but this breaks down--assuming no overlap whatever in the perpetrators--to one murder/attempted murder per 2.8 million people who feel that abortion should be outlawed in all circumstances. Or .000000035% of people with superficially similar political views.
My problem with the Department of Homeland Security, many LEOs, and the ilk of Delawaredem is that they consider anti-abortion rhetoric (or any other kind of political rhetoric they disdain) as prima facie evidence of violent intent, even in the absence of other evidence.
This is about the same mentality that, during the early 20th Century, would have found one actually guilty African-American murderer or rapist, and used his guilt to justify the necessity of using lynching to keep the inherently dangerous negro population in line....
Real terrorist groups--or dangerous lone wolves--are the legitimate target of law enforcement, and I have never suggested otherwise.
But tarring everybody with the brush of violent extremism is a scuzzy political tactic that can only work via intimidation.
And it won't work here, DD.