Can you folks at least wait until his body is cold before you beat up on him? I don't care whether your opinion of him is right or left - correct or false. At least give him a little honor and at least let others reflect on what he's done. You don't have to like him, but at least give others the chance on the day the man died. (You'd be pitching a fit if a liberal did this to Bush I or II when they pass - or to Cheney or any other conservative - so why is it ok to do this to others?)

Is there any honor and civility left among us - anywhere? About anyone? Anyone from the left or the right?

Thanks for showing me that I shouldn't be wasting any more time on the type of people who would stoop so low in response to the death of another man. I don't like Murtha any more than many folks do - but I'll be hanged before I loose what little civility I have left.

Even Fox News isn't opening up the insult cannons like the many folks on here.

I'm not perfect and sometimes say some pretty stupid things here - but I'm not one to loose my civility towards a man who has just died - in his death news story no less. I wouldn't insult even my most hated politicians in thier death news stories.

And yes - I'm lecturing you who can't hold your tongue for just a moment to allow others to reflect on the good things rather than just focusing on the bad.

Good day folks - I'm done with the 'comment's on here. The low some people are willing to stoop to is just too much for me.

I was wondering how long it would take before people starting slamming a dead man.

His body wasn't even cold yet.

Good job guys. Good job. I'm sorry to see that the notion of any kind of civility has been lost in this country.

I don't agree with many of the things that Murtha did - however I'm not going to slam him in comments on the story about his death. I wouldn't do that to anyone in American Politics - not even those I despise the most.

So even though Bush the senior pushed NAFTA into place and would have continued to do so if he was in office long enough to achieve that goal, it's pretty much only the democrats (Clinton's) fault.

Interesting way of expressing the facts.

I have no doubt that the situation that you describe is very likely the motivation she has to take this step. I don't know what I would do if I were in her shoes. I feel for her - she must be in a living hell.

The problem is that there is no way to entirely eliminate her pictures from the internet. And even if her pictures are eliminated, there are millions more out there. This method won't eliminate her pictures nor anyone elses. (I wish it would - but being realistic, it's not going to work). Even if her motivation is to hurt the people who like child porn, she's only going to hurt the few that get caught with her picture. Again, this approach is not going to eliminate the problem.

The anti-child porn laws out there are already locking this freaks up as quickly as they can find them.

Don't get me wrong - anyone who trades in child porn is scum. Lock 'em up, etc. etc.

Anyone who purchases or even possesses child porn is already breaking significant laws. Using ambulance chasing lawyers to get money from them for this one victim is pretty strange and unsettling to me. The lawyers will make lots of money - she or any charity that she tries to give the money to will probably get dirt.

And where does it then end? Child porn is quite evil, yet any legal precedent won't apply to just evils as bad as child porn. If she is succesfull, could a theft victim then use the same legal precedent to get money from the person who bought his stolen goods from the thief?

In the case of John Wayne Gacy, none of his victims or thier families are after him to make money off the images that were inspired by his insanity and murdering. If they were, that would make the cases similar enough to make it compare.

I agree that no one should profit from his 'art'. Not Gacy, Not those who've acquired his 'art'. Nobody.

in the case of this woman, she shouldn't profit either.

I have no issue working to get her photos pulled out of circulation and destroyed - just like the Gacy 'art'.

It is what you wrote, even if it's not what you meant.

(you're either in the sandbox with us making comments or your not here making comments - and because you wrote it's just liberal progressives in the sandbox - well - there you are.).

And I am just teasing you - in case you think by some odd reason that I'm serious

That can be an interpretation of it yes - however that is not the only interpretation and is not what the dems have been showing it to be.

The exaggurations of the implications however are purely fantasy.

Interesting article.

It's an interesting viewpoint. The writer clearly comes from a conservative point of view which he uses to draw his conclusions with. I don't necessarily agree with his statements, but it is a well written article that he appears to solidly believe in the points he puts to paper.

The point I was making that you apparently missed was that the Republicans have so stirred up the easily led masses with thier interpretation of the facts and with half truths, outright lies and sound bite rhetoric that the dems have to go well above and beyond what any reasonable person would call normal listening to thier constituents and fight an anger born mostly of the rhetoric, hate spewing and half truths from the Republican party rather than being able to 'just listen'.

indep1 -

It's interesting that the major statements about Bush in the comments on this story aren't negative about Bush, yet you're having problems with Bush being mentioned by the Pro-Obama crowd.

Most of the responding to this story is arguing that 'Bush did it' in a what is acutally a positive way. What they are saying is that Bush treated the shoe bomber in the same way that Obama is treating the underwear bomber. aka - the right way (following the constitution, etc.).

Which makes your statement confusing to me. Are you bothered because they are blaming Bush for treating the shoe bomber in what they think is the right way? Or are you bothered because they even mention Bush in relation to anything at all?