Donald Trump

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Court decided not to take up the Indiana abortion law.  This is a win for pro-choice advocates.  We'll see what happens with Alabama.  

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445719-supreme-court-allows-indiana-law-on-fetal-remains-to-go-into-effect

"But the court declined to take up a challenge to a provision blocking abortions on the basis of sex, race or disability, avoiding a major ruling on abortion for the time being." 

People abort because of the sex of the baby?  That's some messed up shit right there.

Except that they don't.  It's one of the current 'arguments' against abortion, that people are practicing eugenics.  So Indiana passed a dumb ass law, because they are dumb ass Indiana.  The reality is that the vast, vast majority of abortions are about economic considerations.  

Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar. 

Except an abortion is a private decision made by a woman regarding her own body.  When a gun owner goes bad, it affects society at large.  So I would not agree with the characterization.  

No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch. 

Why in the fuck should women give an inch of control over their own internal organs to the state????

There is basically nothing at all in common between the abortion debate and the gun control debate.

Well there you go! You just proved my point. 

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

dignin said:

mcgruff10 said:

Meltdown99 said:

mcgruff10 said:

Meltdown99 said:

mcgruff10 said:

Smellyman said:

mcgruff10 said:

I wonder if our president is taking his own advice:

If American Presidents discussed American atrocities they'd have a lot of 'splainin to do

What part of Pearl Harbor was an America atrocity?

If the US President's want to bring up wrongdoing by other countries towards the US, then the line of other countries that have grievances against the US would be very extensive and the atrocities committed by the US towards other countries far outweigh any atrocities committed against the US.  Why is that so hard for you to see.  By the way, WW2 is over.  Japan is a good friend of the west.  Trump is a fucking idiot for bringing up that attack...

Dissagree but I am definitely not debating this.  I didn’t realize world war 2 was over, thanks for letting me know Capt.  however I am still wondering what part of Pearl Harbor is an American atrocity.  

The original post that started this conversation was referring to atrocities committed by the US towards other countries. In the case of Japan specifically, some might say dropping 2 nuclear bombs on Japan, were atrocities as well.  I am not going to debate it either.  Because there is nothing to debate...

I don't think dropping two nuclear bombs was an atrocity, to me it was the way to end the war against an enemy that wouldn't give up.  I definitely think Japan out atrocitied (word? lol) us during World War 2.  Rape of Nanking, treatment of prisoners of war....etc

You might think differently if it was Japan who had dropped nuclear bombs on two American cities to end the war.

Not to mention the firebombing of Japanese civilians throughout the war. Maybe check out the doc The Fog Of War. 

Are you trying to imply that Japan was innocent in this?  They started world war 2, what did you want the us to do?
I know all about the firebombings and how more people were killed in those bombings than in the nuclear bomb droppings.  Even with all those people dying in the firebombings Japan still didn’t surrender.  

In what way did the Japanese start WW2?

Hitler rushed to get his army ready after he surprisingly heard on the radio about the Pearl Harbour attack? "Hurry up with the jew-hating leaflets" people heard him yell while running into his study to design the swastika. 

Hehe.

Um, they invaded China in the 1930's and then attacked the US at Pearl Harbor.  A lot of scholars argue that the war started here although the official start of World War 2 was on September 1, 1939 with the German invasion of Poland.  At that point Japan had already killed millions.  

Scholars also say, the winning team after WW1 started WW2 by putting Germany in a position where Hitler-labeled nationalism had soil to grow. That was in the 10s.

Check-mate Japan. Now the US started WW2.

Doh...except England and France were the forces behind the Treaty of Versailles, not the Americans.  Wilson wanted the Fourteen Points to be the basis of the treaty.  He was against the War Guilt clause specifically.  Try again.  

Without the punchline "Now the US started WW2.", how would the point of my comment come across as lovingly?

"Check-mate Japan. Now France, and England and a bunch of other countries - including the US - lay a foundation through their peace terms for the possibility of the Germany people to accept authoritarianism which you can see as a thread leading up Germany attacking it's neighbors". 

No need to kill all the fun.

I stand by my comment. Among a bunch of stiffs.

Haha, blaming the US for starting the worst war in history, one which many of our family members were affected by directly, is a real riot.  I can never get enough of you trashing the US while you are on a US website dedicated to a US band.  It's all so much fun.  

I guess you see some point in some way of branding the band in this nationalistic thing of yours.

I see them as Pearl Jam. Not the olympic team of musicians from the USA.

I also do not really care what country the server is where this website is being stored. I also do not have problem with a great band being from the US. Or the five of my five favorite movies. Or a copywriter named Bob I worked with once. But I guess you see it in a different way.

Also, I have not blamed the US for starting WW2. You have a problem understanding text and the different uses of it. Subtext. Sarcasm. Witty-ness. Those kind of things. 

Your family members being affected by WW2 concerns me not in the context of my comment. And should not.

all good. Fridens liljor.

Do you have a few iron crosses in the attic as a thanks for helping transport munitions to the Eastern Front for the Nazis?  That was very helpful, it more efficiently cleared the way for the Einsatzgruppen to do its dirty work.  

Do you have jars of bones from children being burned alive by napalm in Vietnam in yours?

Nope, I had no family involved in Vietnam.  If you had family in Sweden during the war and they did not take up arms against the Nazis, then they were complicit.  

Okey. Why didn't your family take up arms before the US were attacked then? Your wonderful family was complicit until that point I take it?

And I don't see you take up arms in the Saudis war on Jemen - so you are in fact right now complicit behind your screen?

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Court decided not to take up the Indiana abortion law.  This is a win for pro-choice advocates.  We'll see what happens with Alabama.  

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445719-supreme-court-allows-indiana-law-on-fetal-remains-to-go-into-effect

"But the court declined to take up a challenge to a provision blocking abortions on the basis of sex, race or disability, avoiding a major ruling on abortion for the time being." 

People abort because of the sex of the baby?  That's some messed up shit right there.

Except that they don't.  It's one of the current 'arguments' against abortion, that people are practicing eugenics.  So Indiana passed a dumb ass law, because they are dumb ass Indiana.  The reality is that the vast, vast majority of abortions are about economic considerations.  

Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar. 

Except an abortion is a private decision made by a woman regarding her own body.  When a gun owner goes bad, it affects society at large.  So I would not agree with the characterization.  

No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch. 

Why in the fuck should women give an inch of control over their own internal organs to the state????

There is basically nothing at all in common between the abortion debate and the gun control debate.

Well there you go! You just proved my point. 

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Court decided not to take up the Indiana abortion law.  This is a win for pro-choice advocates.  We'll see what happens with Alabama.  

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445719-supreme-court-allows-indiana-law-on-fetal-remains-to-go-into-effect

"But the court declined to take up a challenge to a provision blocking abortions on the basis of sex, race or disability, avoiding a major ruling on abortion for the time being." 

People abort because of the sex of the baby?  That's some messed up shit right there.

Except that they don't.  It's one of the current 'arguments' against abortion, that people are practicing eugenics.  So Indiana passed a dumb ass law, because they are dumb ass Indiana.  The reality is that the vast, vast majority of abortions are about economic considerations.  

Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar. 

Except an abortion is a private decision made by a woman regarding her own body.  When a gun owner goes bad, it affects society at large.  So I would not agree with the characterization.  

No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch. 

Why in the fuck should women give an inch of control over their own internal organs to the state????

There is basically nothing at all in common between the abortion debate and the gun control debate.

Well there you go! You just proved my point. 

You're really trying to argue that control over bodily integrity is the same as the privilege to purchase an inanimate object?

I didn’t say that.  I said the arguments are similar because there is no common ground.  Both sides refuse to give up an inch. 

But just in saying that, you're suggesting someone SHOULD give an inch when it comes to the abortion issue. That is what I'm disagreeing with. That the gun debate has even been brought into it at all is ludicrous. It's a conservative dog whistle tactic.

Yes both sides in each issue should meet somewhere in the middle. Now what the middle is I am not sure. 
Are you saying that you are so pro choice that an abortion can be performed after a woman’s water breaks?