Chico man charged with using SUV to assault anti-abortion prote...

Judged:

1

vern wrote:

So.. you let this nutjob go on his way, expecting him to return to court? Wow, you have a lot of confidence in the wingnuts you deal with, or maybe your too lazy to book his stupid A** in jail where he belongs. If your willing run someone over in a car because you disagree with their point of view, then you do not need to be out playing with the other children, you need a really long time out.

BOB wrote:

It was just self defense. After reading about how these christians deal with abortion he figured better run him over before he starts shooting.

Fed_up wrote:

Cpter.....Oh......you are such a tipical hatefull liberal. I guess the studies are true! that libers tend to be more depressed and unhappy than normal people. You are just upset because I am right and the liberals were screaming about the right wing! Now when a mentally ill lieral attemps murder, you come to his defence. Please go get on medication!!!

Cpetr13 wrote:

Funny, when Tiller was shot, you PLM'er AH's were all over yourselves saying that what he did doesn't represent your views. But somehow this loon's actions represent all "liberals". Nice double standard, moron.
<quoted text>

Stop the Ignorance wrote:

You know I have to agree that Mr. Haver had a right to be upset that his daughter had to see that offensive picture. But I disagree with the way he went about handling it. I believe if Mr. Canfield had some other type of offensive photograph on his sign like a naked man or a naked woman then the situation would be treated differently. Small children are not able to read. And young children who can read either don't pay attention or don't understand the meaning. If Mr. Canfield was a man of morals, as I am sure he claims to be, he would have his sign in text only. Why does he want to traumatize small children is that his goal? I doubt it. If you want to send a message and not traumatize small children who don't understand, please use your words not offensive graphics. Besides I interpret speech in the first ammendment as words, as in spoken and written. To me photographs don't qualify as speech and should not be protected as such.

Fed_up wrote:

I am against abortion. But to save this Country I may be swayed to allow aborting the mentally ill ones (libeal babies). We need to clean the gene pool of this Country and eliminate liberals. Ok... I am stil against abortion, maybe we can just ship them to France or put them in special school to educate them on their disabilty and not allow them to vote.

Judged:

1

1

Chico Pastor wrote:

While the picture is a bit over the top it is reality, babies are torn to peices to accomidate peoples sexual lifestyles. The reason we dont want kids loking at them is because we know that children are moraly pure and we could all learn from them regardless of left or right winged agendas

Judged:

1

1

Orlander wrote:

Amazing. You see a photo of an aborted baby, and you get angry at the fellow carrying the sign instead of the butchers inside the building who are killing children. Can't let that dirty little secret get out!
As for children being traumatized by the sign, give me a break. Kids today see much worse on TV before breakfast. God bless James Canfield and those like him who work tirelessly to expose the baby-killers in Chico.

vern wrote:

Unless you personally know Mr. Canfield, how do know what he really does in regard to charity work? You, just all the rest like you are making nothing more than guesses, and they are like **** H****s, everybody has one an they all stink. You can't even make a good arguement, you should just listen to the news instead of reading it.
<quoted text>

Judged:

2

Kurt Jorgensen wrote:

Why do most of you use psuedonyms (not counting Joe Sixpack, although that's an odd surname)? If you stand by your opinion, why not be honest with who you are?
Its revealing to see how "tolerant" many liberals are when it comes to people who disagree with them.

Judged:

1

Orlander wrote:

Amazing. You see a photo of an aborted baby, and you get angry at the fellow carrying the sign instead of the butchers inside the building who are killing children. Can't let that dirty little secret get out!
As for children being traumatized by the sign, give me a break. Kids today see much worse on TV before breakfast. God bless James Canfield and those like him who work tirelessly to expose the baby-killers in Chico.

Judged:

1

Hmm wrote:

<quoted text>
Boy, it certainly is great of them to work so hard to press their religious beliefs onto other people to save those clumps of cells! I mean, gee, they could be doing Big Brothers, Big Sisters, fostering children, volunteering at shelters, but no, they'd rather ignore those truly in need.