That is going too far, and you know it. All Sperm are Sacred and it is God's will their message of life be spread far and wide and as often as possible. It is in the Bible.

So is stoning - so what's your point?!?

It is a riff on a Monty Python bit, Zora. A pretty good one, too. Not as good as Spam or The Spanish Inquisition or, certainly, "The Dead Parrot Sketch," but still pretty good. ;)

Or "The Lumberjack Song." I don't know how I left that out, but I did. Sorry.

Next MSNBC wasn't being serious- he/she was being sarcastic and was referring to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

Tim Brott I must tip my hat to you; you not only beat me to the punch, you did so in such a way as to be more blunt than I could've put it. Bravo (or Brava, whichever is appropriate)!

but don't step on other's freedom to make their own choice.

Or occupy someone else's property. Or interfere with others making an honest living. Or stop others from using public roadways. Or...

Seems silly to ridicule someone for giving up something of their own in protest and support those who "take" from others in protest.

So, I'm in agreement with you...I think?

I'm under the assumption you're talking about the Occupy protests, and how they're occupying public space, that they are entitled to by paying taxes, yes?
I'm also under the impression, since you are opposed to the protest, you are for corruption in politics and having politicians purchased by corporations?

Did it seem silly to you for African American's to stand in streets to oppose not having equal rights as well? Occupy wants an equal voice, not influenced by the dollar bill.

ludwigtr, you are incorrect in your assumptions and impressions. Notice I was specific in my comment. I'm against someone taking over someone else's property. I am against you or someone else blocking a public space for which I also pay taxes and not allowing me to use it as well.

Just because I am against one's tactics does not make me against one's message as well. This is really simple logic, surprised you missed it.

Finally, are you equating the Occupy movement with the protest of African American's for equal rights? Wow.

I am not equating them, I'm trying to find a baseline to where it is acceptable for you to be slightly inconvenienced, and for which rights.
Have you tried to use any of the occupy parks? I will put money on the fact that you still can, and that you would be accepted there, to do whatever you may want in that public space.

This is why I phrased them as questions.

What tactics do you propose are put in place to accomplish this goal of theirs, since we were not talking about occupy previously, but are now.

Camping out at a park with permanent structures (i.e. tents, libraries, etc..) means I can't use that space. Generally public space is fluid and not tied up for hours, days, weeks, months, etc. But that was not even what I was referring to, I was talking about bridges, roadways, ports, etc.

The tactics I would propose is voting. If it truly is the 99%, then one election should quickly turn everything around.

Most of "the occupiers" are very capable of defending their actions. Rest assured than any popular movement gathers some undesirables-that is a "drawback" to being popular in a free country.

Notice how the right wing media types spend a lot of time casting occupiers as dregs of society but very little time actually talking to them. Imagine FOX trying to debate one of the many degreed occupiers! That would be fun to watch.

@paul I've seen a few of them try, and either they get shut down within two questions, or the only response to the fox interviewer is "fox news lies". Which I love personally. It gives them very little to spin and turn into something negative.

@rob, I'm not sure what you intend on doing in that space, whether it be read a book, talk on the phone, or whatever, but even You will still be welcome there to do whatever you want, just walk in and do it. I promise. These people are very good people for the most part, they're all for equal rights. If you want a whole park to yourself, tough, it's a matter of supply and demand, something conservatives should be well familiar with.

As to the bridge, is it fair to assume you're talking about the Brooklyn bridge? The one that thousands of OWS protesters were led onto by a police led protest march, and then 700 subsequently arrested? Or the time they went back in opposition to that initial police led protest. I don't know if you're familiar with protest marches, it appears as though you're not. Typically, you plan these things out, you inform police, the police then set up down a public street awaiting the arrival of the marchers, they temporarily close off the street, get the protesters through, and then reopen the street. Keeps the flow moving, albeit slow, but moving. In this case, they led them onto a bridge that had to be shut down, and subsequently arrested them, instead of leading them onto the walkway.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't agree with everything OWS does, nor do I agree with everything Unions do...hell, I don't even agree with everything I do on a given day. Sometimes there are just things that need to be done, and sometimes there are things that I wish would have been done differently. But I agree with what they're trying to do, and they need to get their voice out there and be heard, something the media isn't helping them do, so they have to come up with their own legal means to do so, and they are.

Well, thank you - and thanks to Rachel research staff - amazing finds.

Luv Jay - and his cat.

I wish they would put as much effort into stopping the pedophile priests from child abuse as they would trying to limit the personal rights and freedom of women.

Well put, lib50.

If you are protesting something, particularly abortions, then you work the political system. His symbolic act is of no consequence and ludicrous because it does nothing to further his cause. No one cares about his sacrifice, nor does his message reach a large audience. An internet audience is hardly noticed.

Mike, tell that to Egypt.

Mike, maybe I'm mightily confused, but you do get it, don't you, that it's not Jay Smooth who is "protesting" abortion? And you get it that he's not protesting the "protestors" either? That he's mocking them? When you say "his symbolic act" and "his sacrifice", it makes me think maybe you don't and that would stun me rigid.

Are you invoking the Twinkies defense for right-wing zealotry?

Because your folly here is assuming the minority who tout such acts want to compromise. I, like you, want to believe that the majority of those on the right wing want America's best interest to be at hand. I, like you, want to believe that there is common ground to be had- and do not mistake me here, in many, many instances there is common ground to be had. But when it comes to the extremes (whether they be left or right) there is no common ground. When you have a public media source that caters to the extremes and minimizes the rest then all you have and will have is disagreement. Your ideas were spurned not because all social conservatives disagree, but because the ones who do are the ones who hold the power.

To be fair to them, it was a half hearted attempt to mock them, but I actually was putting effort into finding common ground.
If sacrificing a loved sibling is OK in the eyes of god, then someone who has an "abortion" should, in the eyes of god, be able to "sacrifice" that child for the greater good, if they believe they cannot reasonably care for it, or whatever your argument may be.
What bothers me the most is the people who take the Bible so literally where it benefits them, yet choose to ignore other parts of the Bible that don't fit their perfect little scenario. If you're going to take it literally, take all of it literally. If you're going to take it as more of a guideline for a way to live your life, then be willing and able to compromise on it, and see another perspective.
I have no qualm with religion, what I do have a problem with are inconsistent morals.