A tour of the frothing at the mouth, head-spinning, spittle-flecked wingnut hate machine.
Created for TheZoo by Paul Jamiol
All cartoons are posted with the artists’ express permission to TPZoo.
Paul Jamiol, Jamiol’s World
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
TheZoo 
paul, spot on!
I was wondering where you’d been!
I guess you have a life outside of politcal cartoons!
Good to see you again.
I trust all is well with you and yours.
Hey 5th, I’ve been around but this is June…graduations and cookouts and beer and burgers…life is good!
Make that May/June and toss in an occasional MC ride.
Make sure you read my link post — it’s a doozy! 😐
So, if the anti-abortion crowd that called Tiller “the baby killer” are responsible for his death is the anti-Iraq war crowd that says Americans are at war with Islam or that we just want to kill brown people responsibe for the death of the Army Private in Arkansas?
I think you know that’s a ridiculous comparison, HB.
We were and are against the war because it was based on a lie and caused senseless death on both sides — that’s not an incitement to murder anyone.
Zooey,
Then you are not part of the “Americans are at war with Islam or that we just want to kill brown people” crowd, are you?
HB, if you can’t tell the difference between those of us who are against the war in Iraq, and the “Tiller the Killer,” “If you don’t stop him, you have blood on your hands” crowd, then I feel sorry for you.
I know you’re against abortion, but I wouldn’t even dream that you’re one of those sick fucks.
I have been strongly, vociferously against the war in Iraq since the first moment I heard of it because I knew Bush was sending our troops there for his own reasons — not national security reasons — but I have NEVER called for the death of a service member because they fought that war, and neither has anyone I know.
If you can drop the sarcastic attitude and get to your fucking point, then maybe we can have a discussion. If not, I’m done.
Then you are not part of the “Americans are at war with Islam or that we just want to kill brown people” crowd, are you?
Huh… I thought America was at war with ‘terror’ and extremism, not with a religion.
I read an interesting article yesterday written by Dan Mathewson who is Assistant Professor of Religion at Wofford College where he teaches about contemporary expressions of religious faith. The article is called:
Muslims Murder, Christians Don’t: What Went Missing in Analysis of Tiller’s Executioner
It was an interesting read. He compares the media coverage of the Tiller murder with that of the Army Private in Arkansas. He ends with this:
This disparity hasn’t escaped the notice of everyone..
Zooey,
My question was pretty straight forward. I am not asking if YOU or anyone in particular to this site are responsible. Just as you know I am not a sick fuck like Roeder, I know the folks here are not the type to incite murder of our troops.
But you know as well as I do that there are individuals/groups in the media and on the ‘net that have stoked the fires saying that we just want to kill brown people or that we are at war with Islam.
My question is; do you hold them to the same standard? No sarcasim included.
That argument is a false argument, HB, also known as a strawman. You know it.
Saying “we just want to kill brown people or that we are at war with Islam” does not advocate the killing of either.
nwmuse,
I will read the rest of Mathewson article in a bit. Thanks for the link. One thing I would like to say;
Roeder’s “Christianity” was a factor, no doubt. But there are also many non-Christians that are against abortion.
Muhammad “Islam” was the factor in his killing of the Private.
Both religions are in quotes as I do not believe either of the individuals acted within the dominant belief of the faith they claim to represent.
Seems to me one was upset the ‘killing’ of fetuses and was an ‘extremist’ in his religious views, extreme enough to plot to commit murder in a church filled with people all in the name of his cause, and the other was upset at the United States for killing Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan and seemed extreme in his religious views as well, extreme enough to shoot two soldiers he didn’t even know standing outside a building. Both to me would see to be extreme enough to also be a bit nuts.
My question is why they would charge one with “terrorist” acts, and not the other. They both put the lives of others in danger. Poederst plotted and planned this murder out beforehand, and it wasn’t the only action he had taken (just the first murder). And, he still doesn’t think he did anything wrong – in fact, he probably thinks of himself as a hero for the cause. What makes him any different than any other “terrorist”?
What if someone in that church had tried to take that gun away from Scott Roeder and it had gone off killing other innocent bystanders? Perhaps a young child.. Then would the “Right” have felt worse about what happened?
The killings for both instances were extreme acts extenuating from their religious views and the high level of emotions they felt surrounding things they felt strongly about – abortion, and the wars and the killings of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Just being Muslim doesn’t make you a terrorist or a murderer. Just being a Christian and against abortion doesn’t make you a terrorist or a murderer either. It’s how far you take it and the choice you make for your cause that makes you a terrorist. And/or how unbalanced you are… Do you think the people in that church didn’t feel terror watching that man being shot dead before their eyes? Do you think other doctors around the country who perform legal abortions under our laws (and their families) don’t feel terror and threatened?
It IS terrorism. Domestic terrorism. Just because one is a Muslim, and one is a Christian doesn’t mean squat to me.
What is false about it? Person(s)”A” says “Abortion is wrong. Someone needs to stop Dr. Tiller.” When Person “B” kills him, Person “A” is said to be responsible. After all, they incited violence against him, right?
So, If Person “C” says “America is at war with Islam. America does not care if it kills brown people.” and Person “D” kills a representative of the U.S. government on the premise that we are indiscriminately killing brown Muslims, is Person “C” not responsible for the killing as well? After all, they incited it.
Just who is Person “C” supposed to be in this scenario?
Is person “A” supposed to be Bill O’Reilly? The language he used when he went after Dr. Tiller in 28 of his shows was very inflammatory. Yes, I think he has some responsibility when he uses his microphone to inflame people and someone decides to act on it. It isn’t clear if Roeder acted because of anything O’Reilly said, but he said some horrible things. Roeder is responsible for the killing. He is the one who chose to act, but words do have consequences, and people who have a public forum – a microphone/camera with a huge audience – have a responsibility to use it wisely. I know O’Reilly is about entertainment and ratings, but people like O’Reilly and Limbaugh can say what they need to say without using such hateful, inflammatory language. They shouldn’t be targeting individuals directly, or using language that could very easily incite violence in people who hang on their every word. That is totally irresponsible.
HB’s argument:
This apple has a lovely green skin, it’s firm flesh is juicy and tart. This orange has a lovely orange skin, it’s soft flesh is juicy and tart.
OMG! Apples and oranges are BOTH juicy and tart! They must be exactly the same thing!
ok, Zooey (and you tell me not to be sarcastic),
This fruit called an apple has a lovely green skin, it’s firm flesh is juicy and tart. This fruit called an orange has a lovely orange skin, it’s soft flesh is juicy and tart.
OMG! Apples and oranges are BOTH juicy and tart! But I don’t like the texture of the orange, so it can’t be a fruit.
An extremest kills an abortion doctor so the people that have made inflammatory remarks againt the abortion doctor are also to blame.
An extremest kills a soldier, a symbol and representative of the government, so the people that have made inflammatory remarks against the soldiers and the actions of the government are NOT to blame.
A simple “No” would have worked.
My point: Mr. Muhammad and Mr. Roeder are responsible for their actions, not the media, Bill O’, Immam Whoever, The Bible, or the Quran. You just won’t hold the one fanning the flames to the same standard.
They are not the same thing, HB. You are being willfully obtuse.
You’re always so concerned with everything be balanced and/or equal, and things are rarely that way.
When people like me protest against going to war in Iraq, we are not protesting against the soldiers. We are protesting against the policies of our government.
When people like Bill O’Reilly scream and rail against Dr Tiller personally for 35 years (4 years for O’Reilly), and literally call for his death — that’s incitement to murder.
NOT THE SAME.
Yes, Muhammad and Roeder are responsible for their actions. But in the case of Roeder, there is a larger societal responsibility.
That’s as clear as I can make it, HB. I have other things to do.
BTW, when making a logical argument such as my apple & orange example, you have to use the things given. You not liking the texture of the orange is not in the domain.