An article you should read. Calling out the R's and D's for being equally stupid.

[LibertyLemming]

It was actually two fell swoops, and neither of them killed as many people as the fire bombing of Dresden. But then that doesn't play into your liberal/racist narrative, does it?

Uh, I try not to justify killing innocent people by saying others did it before/more often/etc.

Besides, you are way the fuck off:

The Bombing of Dresden was an attack on the city of Dresden, the capital of the German state of Saxony, that took place in the final months of the Second World War. In four raids between 13 and 15 February 1945, 722 heavy bombers of the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and 527 of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city.[1] The resulting firestorm destroyed fifteen square miles (39 square kilometres) of the city centre. At least 22,000, at most 25,000 people were killed.

vs.


Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki, with roughly half of the deaths in each city occurring on the first day.

In a US estimate of the total immediate and short term cause of death, 15–20% died from radiation sickness, 20–30% from burns, and 50–60% from other injuries, compounded by illness. In both cities, most of the dead were civilians.


This is where you quit replying to this thread.

There will never be a definitive answer on the total deaths from either bombing. In the case of Dresden, many say the city was full of refugees from the East fleeing the Red Army. The figure ranges from 35,000 to 100,000. The anonymous refugees will always make the total number unknown. Hiroshima has a figure of about 45,000 on the first day of attack and some 15-20,000 or more during the next four months from radiation burns.

However, you conveniently sidestep the more relevant issue, which is why you are so incensed about the deaths of Japanese civilians in WW2, but don't give a damn about German (or other European) deaths. I don't suppose you care about Chinese deaths, either, because they were caused by the poor Japanese instead of the evil Americans.

Of course I care about them. The problem is this isn't a message board for Chinese/Japanese/Etc's politics and I am not a citizen of those nations with a vote. This is a place to discuss US Policy and that is what I was doing. I can post pictures if you'd like of me volunteering time with victims of UXOs in Cambodia and Laos and Vietnam. I decry all murder of innocent people and I am usually against all wars as they are almost always started by some form of greed. I didn't sidestep anything, I just countered his retarded comment that more people died in Dresden, which remains a retarded argument even with your highly inflated numbers.

 

[LibertyLemming]

well, # 2 wouldn't affect you. but i should be paid the same as a man doing the same work if we are employed by the same company. employers don't have the right to discriminate.

the right to reproductive choice only exists if it's federally protected and the states aren't allowed to give lesser constitutional protections than the fed. so, unless one is opposed to reproductive choice, one shouldn't be raising it as a state issue any more than segregation is a state issue.

personhood laws have a particular definition: it's radical religious right legislation declaring zygotes have the rights of citizenship... it's a walk in crazyhood...

cutting taxes for 1% doesn't add jobs.

but paying for infrastructure does...

the lines are only blurred in a very few areas.

Strange how people managed to get abortions before it was made the law of the land. The bottom line is that it is not an enumerated power and therefore it belongs to the States to decide.

not strange at all.. it wasn't politicized by the radical religious right.

and a 'libertarian' should expect it not to be the subject of STATE legislation. if you actually read the line of cases starting with Griswold v CT, into Loving v VA, and going into Roe v Wade, it's clear that the interest of the individual over his/her own affairs takes precedence. it's not the rights of the states that has to be protected, it's the right of the individual. real libertarians used to know that.

there are more 'rights' than what you clain are 'enumerated' because ultimately, the constitution is there to protect the individual, and some yahoo in north dakota doesn't have the right to divest a woman over dominion over her own body. and i'd suggest you look to the caselaw since that is what determines the application of the document.

i find it amazing that a 'libertarian' is ok with women being forced to carry a pregnancy to term.

You musta missed the part where I said that I don't want any law at all. Laws by definition infringe on the rights on people by regulating their actions. After that I made the argument that like it or not the Constitution is the law of the land and doesn't provide for the Federal Government do make these regulations.

I think if women can abort a child however, then men should be able to opt out of parenthood before a child is born and not have to pay child support if the woman carries the child the term. If she can opt out of a child that took 2 people to create than a man should have "equal rights" as you like to say.

 

[g5000]

ah... the daily paul.. .what a shock.

here's the thing, though. saying there is no difference between the two parties is nonsense... especially if you're a real libertarian and not a pretend libertarian

1. the democratic party doesn't care what church you go to and isn't trying to codify church law
2. the judges appointed by democrats support equal pay for equal work
3. the judges appointed by democrats support individual right to make their own reproductive choices
4. democratic legislatures aren't wasting their time with "personhood laws" when what we need are jobs.
that's just a start...
5. democratic courts and legislatures support marriage equality

yes, there are things wrong with both parties... i think most go back to the constant need for money to campaign for re-election. so if we had real electoral finance reform, most of the things that dog both parties would disappear. (p.s. democrats don't appoint judges who believe that corporations are people)

but don't ever kid yourself that there's no difference.

I don't think anyone in this topic is saying there is no difference. There are huge differences. But they are the same in their tyrannical desires to control Americans. They just want to do so using different means. The left is more socialistic, while the right is more militaristic.

Both want a lot more governmental power and intrusion into our lives.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Indeed. I think theyre both militaristic. I always say the democrats are slighty more better on social issues and the repubs on tax issues but both are a far cry from good on either.

 

[Politico]

Dpn't need an article to tell me what I have been saying over and over.