Difference between revisions of "Talk:Cheryl Sullenger"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Operation Rescue really should fire her. She is an embarassment - I don't question her media ability, but when liberals accuse pro-lifers of being violent, it really doesn't help that one of our most active organisations actually employs a convicted terrorist. I also note that her 'renouncing violence' did not keep her from posting on Operation Rescue's website a list not only of every abortionist in the state, but their addresses, and photographs of them ''and their families'' - effectively declaring "I do not condone violence, but here is a list of targets - if you can't kill them, attack their families and intimidate them that way." Cheryl is such an extremist she is not only an embarassment, but a threat to credability. She is only of value when addrssing people who know nothing of her sordid past. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 20:12, 4 September 2008 (EDT) | Operation Rescue really should fire her. She is an embarassment - I don't question her media ability, but when liberals accuse pro-lifers of being violent, it really doesn't help that one of our most active organisations actually employs a convicted terrorist. I also note that her 'renouncing violence' did not keep her from posting on Operation Rescue's website a list not only of every abortionist in the state, but their addresses, and photographs of them ''and their families'' - effectively declaring "I do not condone violence, but here is a list of targets - if you can't kill them, attack their families and intimidate them that way." Cheryl is such an extremist she is not only an embarassment, but a threat to credability. She is only of value when addrssing people who know nothing of her sordid past. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 20:12, 4 September 2008 (EDT) | ||
| − | Why did someone revert my edit calling Sullenger what she is, a terrorist? She was convicted in a court of law and served time, this is not a point that is in dispute. | + | Why did someone revert my edit calling Sullenger what she is, a terrorist? She was convicted in a court of law and served time, this is not a point that is in dispute. Why is it vandalism to call terrorism terrorism? Also, how many 'vandals' take the time to correct spelling mistakes? |
Pro-life activists do not bomb buildings. Calling her a pro-life activist puts her in the same group with many peaceful, God-fearing activists who want to save the lives of babies. I do not think we should be maligning pro-life activists by associating them with this woman. --[[User:Riot.librarian|Riot.librarian]] 14:09, 30 November 2009 (EST) | Pro-life activists do not bomb buildings. Calling her a pro-life activist puts her in the same group with many peaceful, God-fearing activists who want to save the lives of babies. I do not think we should be maligning pro-life activists by associating them with this woman. --[[User:Riot.librarian|Riot.librarian]] 14:09, 30 November 2009 (EST) | ||
:if you please, show me the court transcripts, and not opinionated websites, which show the prosecuter and judge used those words. If they are there, then I will allow it. But I am going to point out that this is a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black, and there's no one more innocent than an unborn child. So if you're going to refer to Sullenger as a terrorist, than I expect the same label to be applied to every abortion performer and supporter in the country. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:12, 30 November 2009 (EST) | :if you please, show me the court transcripts, and not opinionated websites, which show the prosecuter and judge used those words. If they are there, then I will allow it. But I am going to point out that this is a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black, and there's no one more innocent than an unborn child. So if you're going to refer to Sullenger as a terrorist, than I expect the same label to be applied to every abortion performer and supporter in the country. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:12, 30 November 2009 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 19:13, November 30, 2009
Operation Rescue really should fire her. She is an embarassment - I don't question her media ability, but when liberals accuse pro-lifers of being violent, it really doesn't help that one of our most active organisations actually employs a convicted terrorist. I also note that her 'renouncing violence' did not keep her from posting on Operation Rescue's website a list not only of every abortionist in the state, but their addresses, and photographs of them and their families - effectively declaring "I do not condone violence, but here is a list of targets - if you can't kill them, attack their families and intimidate them that way." Cheryl is such an extremist she is not only an embarassment, but a threat to credability. She is only of value when addrssing people who know nothing of her sordid past. NewCrusader 20:12, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
Why did someone revert my edit calling Sullenger what she is, a terrorist? She was convicted in a court of law and served time, this is not a point that is in dispute. Why is it vandalism to call terrorism terrorism? Also, how many 'vandals' take the time to correct spelling mistakes?
Pro-life activists do not bomb buildings. Calling her a pro-life activist puts her in the same group with many peaceful, God-fearing activists who want to save the lives of babies. I do not think we should be maligning pro-life activists by associating them with this woman. --Riot.librarian 14:09, 30 November 2009 (EST)
- if you please, show me the court transcripts, and not opinionated websites, which show the prosecuter and judge used those words. If they are there, then I will allow it. But I am going to point out that this is a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black, and there's no one more innocent than an unborn child. So if you're going to refer to Sullenger as a terrorist, than I expect the same label to be applied to every abortion performer and supporter in the country. Karajou 14:12, 30 November 2009 (EST)