Anyone who sneers at pro-abortion/Nazi parallels should watch this:

[Gadawg73]

Women in this country are forced to have abortions every day.

And Nazis didn't initially force poles to get abortions. They made it legal and used propaganda to convince poles that it was in THEIR BEST INTERESTS to get abortions.

Just like you progressive nazis do today. Same people, same ideology, different decade.

Jewish doctors in the ghettos aborted Jewish babies because as soon as a poor ghetto dweller was known to be pregnant, she was gassed.

You guys haven't started gassing pregnant ghetto dwellers yet, I suspect you'll start with the old and infirm...but we'll get there. Keep on keeping on!

Name one woman that has ever been forced to have an abortion in America.
You need serious counseling.
Name one. Where is she that was forced with punishment of death to have an abortion.
You dumb ass, when the Nazis took over Poland they had just leveled 3/4s of the damn country back to the stone age through bombing before they would surrender.
And you claim that the Poles, after the Nazis had just killed most of their military, 200,000 civilians in air raids and leveled the entire country in bombing raids "convinced Poles it was in their best interests to have abortions"

You are dumb as a damn brick. They FORCED the women to have them under threat of death.

 

[koshergrl]

Uh, no, they did not. Not initially.

Moron.

 

[koshergrl]

I predict you'll pass out in about 20 minutes. Try not to aspirate on your own vomit, idiot.

 

[Gadawg73]

I predict you'll pass out in about 20 minutes. Try not to aspirate on your own vomit, idiot.

Your predictions are about as good as your knowledge of history.

 

[koshergrl]

Ah, second wind and up for round two, I see.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Nazi Medicine: The Cross and the Star

In the first 10 minutes you will hear every single proposal and argument you have ever heard from progressives who support abortion and euthanasia. It's chilling.

Watch Nazi Medicine / The Cross and the Star: Double Feature Online | Netflix

The Nazi's were not pro-choice. They forced people to have abortions. That's the opposite of pro-choice. That's anti-choice. Do you understand what words mean?

Ohmigod, the Nazis didn't use the same euphemistic name that we do, so there are no parallels!

Spare me.

If you can't see the difference between having a choice and not having one you should consider jumping off a bridge to spare humanity of your stupidity.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Sure it is, you just confirmed it. "It's not murder if it's legal!"

You're wrong, of course.

I'm not wrong if you use the definitions of words as found in the dictionary. But hey, I'm just a guy with a dictionary. You're a crazy person with an agenda and a bunch of emotions, obviously words mean whatever you say they mean.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And changing what you call a baby doesn't change it; it's still a baby.

A fetus isn't a baby any more than a baby is an old man.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Nazi's were not pro-choice. They forced people to have abortions. That's the opposite of pro-choice. That's anti-choice. Do you understand what words mean?

Ohmigod, the Nazis didn't use the same euphemistic name that we do, so there are no parallels!

Spare me.

If you can't see the difference between having a choice and not having one you should consider jumping off a bridge to spare humanity of your stupidity.

If you can't see that your "choice" inevitably leads to no longer having a choice, then you should DEFINITELY jump off that bridge, hopefully before you have a chance to breed.

In fact, you should just start looking around for a bridge on general principles.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And changing what you call a baby doesn't change it; it's still a baby.

A fetus isn't a baby any more than a baby is an old man.

Which is another way of saying, "One age is not another age." No fucking duh, Dick Tracy, but what is that supposed to MEAN in the context of this debate? That you believe that really young people are disposable? I think really stupid people are disposable, but somehow, I think you have a vested interest in averting THOSE abortions.

 

[Cecilie1200]

When the left sends PoohPoo into the game, you know they're forfeiting, and the rest of the team is already in the locker room showers.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Because it's that sort of wishy washiness that screws us over in the end, and allows fascists to step in and take control.

As they have.

Have it your way. I was only trying to encourage a dialogue. We were once a far more united nation, and to our benefit. The growing number of extremists in the U.S. is not a sign of good things, believe me.

We were once a far more united nation? Really? When was that? On what subject, precisely?

We are a nation whose political discourse has always been robust to the point of being alarming to "more civilized" countries. We are a nation which has had fistfights break out in both houses of our Congress, on more than one occasion. We are a nation which has gone to war with itself, not over disparate groups questing for power and control, but over morality and ideals. We may have once had a more universal idea of what constituted right and wrong, but that doesn't mean we've EVER agreed on how to accomplish it.

The WWII generation, frequently referred to as the greatest generation, had many cultural differences, but were also quite united. Sure a war was what partially galvanized that unity, but, and not coincidentally, this country saw an enormous boom of prosperity immediately afterwards.

This country was nearly split apart by polarization leading up to and during the American Civil War. However one feels about the outcome, it was in unity, after the Civil War, that this country made enormous strides in prosperity. This was also not a coincidence.

There have been periods of great unity in this country, and their proximity to periods of prosperity and growth reconcile neatly. That polarization is at an historical high currently is difficult to deny. We can see it in the Senate, and we can see that it is stagnating.

Anyway, I'll wrap up in this thread, as I have nothing more to say. I have devoted a good amount of energy, thought, critical thinking, and research over the past couple of decades to my methods, so if you want to attack my opinions (which I actually haven't really given in this thread, oddly enough), good on ya', but I don't know how that would make me intellectually lazy. Enjoy the rest of the thread. At the beginning I thought it had potential, but I can see it will produce nothing of value at this point. It has degenerated into the usual far left and far right bullshit, with the usual product I'm sure: zero.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Have it your way. I was only trying to encourage a dialogue. We were once a far more united nation, and to our benefit. The growing number of extremists in the U.S. is not a sign of good things, believe me.

We were once a far more united nation? Really? When was that? On what subject, precisely?

We are a nation whose political discourse has always been robust to the point of being alarming to "more civilized" countries. We are a nation which has had fistfights break out in both houses of our Congress, on more than one occasion. We are a nation which has gone to war with itself, not over disparate groups questing for power and control, but over morality and ideals. We may have once had a more universal idea of what constituted right and wrong, but that doesn't mean we've EVER agreed on how to accomplish it.

The WWII generation, frequently referred to as the greatest generation, had many cultural differences, but were also quite united. Sure a war was what partially galvanized that unity, but, and not coincidentally, this country saw an enormous boom of prosperity immediately afterwards.

The war was what PARTIALLY galvanized the unity? You need to stop watching so many movies, hon. The war was the ONLY thing the country could be said to be unified on, and not even really on THAT except past the belief that the United States should come out on top.

This country was nearly split apart by polarization leading up to and during the American Civil War. However one feels about the outcome, it was in unity, after the Civil War, that this country made enormous strides in prosperity. This was also not a coincidence.

If you're really going to try to tout the post-Civil War era as national unity, I'm going to hunt your history teacher down and slap her until her eyes switch sockets. Subduing half the nation by war and starvation and then dragging them along by the scruff of the neck like a whipped dog via federal troops stationed in their states is NOT "national unity" to anyone but a dictator or a lunatic.

There have been periods of great unity in this country, and their proximity to periods of prosperity and growth reconcile neatly. That polarization is at an historical high currently is difficult to deny. We can see it in the Senate, and we can see that it is stagnating.

There has NEVER been "unity" in this country. We have ALWAYS disagreed on what our national goals should be and how they should be accomplished. ALWAYS. The only difference is that before this, no one was ever stupid enough to think that national agreement and hand-holding was achievable OR desirable.

Anyway, I'll wrap up in this thread, as I have nothing more to say. I have devoted a good amount of energy, thought, critical thinking, and research over the past couple of decades to my methods, so if you want to attack my opinions (which I actually haven't really given in this thread, oddly enough), good on ya', but I don't know how that would make me intellectually lazy. Enjoy the rest of the thread. At the beginning I thought it had potential, but I can see it will produce nothing of value at this point. It has degenerated into the usual far left and far right bullshit, with the usual product I'm sure: zero.

I haven't "attacked" anything except your posts, and not even really that.

And saying, "I see something bad over here, so I will just assume something equally bad on the other side, because what really matters is staying perfectly balanced on this fence" is intellectually lazy. You haven't changed that opinion one iota.

And frankly, "you're not instantly agreeing that I'm right and you were mistaken, so the thread has no potential" is not only intellectually lazy, but cowardly. Anyone can tell you that I've actually been quite polite to you, but that doesn't require me to treat nonsense like wisdom, or refrain from disagreeing with it.

See, that would be the "robust political discourse" I mentioned a while back, that we used to value and now fear, presumably because everyone today is a thin-skinned whiner who can't bear to hear that they aren't brilliant.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

We were once a far more united nation? Really? When was that? On what subject, precisely?

We are a nation whose political discourse has always been robust to the point of being alarming to "more civilized" countries. We are a nation which has had fistfights break out in both houses of our Congress, on more than one occasion. We are a nation which has gone to war with itself, not over disparate groups questing for power and control, but over morality and ideals. We may have once had a more universal idea of what constituted right and wrong, but that doesn't mean we've EVER agreed on how to accomplish it.

The WWII generation, frequently referred to as the greatest generation, had many cultural differences, but were also quite united. Sure a war was what partially galvanized that unity, but, and not coincidentally, this country saw an enormous boom of prosperity immediately afterwards.

The war was what PARTIALLY galvanized the unity? You need to stop watching so many movies, hon. The war was the ONLY thing the country could be said to be unified on, and not even really on THAT except past the belief that the United States should come out on top.



If you're really going to try to tout the post-Civil War era as national unity, I'm going to hunt your history teacher down and slap her until her eyes switch sockets. Subduing half the nation by war and starvation and then dragging them along by the scruff of the neck like a whipped dog via federal troops stationed in their states is NOT "national unity" to anyone but a dictator or a lunatic.

There have been periods of great unity in this country, and their proximity to periods of prosperity and growth reconcile neatly. That polarization is at an historical high currently is difficult to deny. We can see it in the Senate, and we can see that it is stagnating.

There has NEVER been "unity" in this country. We have ALWAYS disagreed on what our national goals should be and how they should be accomplished. ALWAYS. The only difference is that before this, no one was ever stupid enough to think that national agreement and hand-holding was achievable OR desirable.

Anyway, I'll wrap up in this thread, as I have nothing more to say. I have devoted a good amount of energy, thought, critical thinking, and research over the past couple of decades to my methods, so if you want to attack my opinions (which I actually haven't really given in this thread, oddly enough), good on ya', but I don't know how that would make me intellectually lazy. Enjoy the rest of the thread. At the beginning I thought it had potential, but I can see it will produce nothing of value at this point. It has degenerated into the usual far left and far right bullshit, with the usual product I'm sure: zero.

I haven't "attacked" anything except your posts, and not even really that.

And saying, "I see something bad over here, so I will just assume something equally bad on the other side, because what really matters is staying perfectly balanced on this fence" is intellectually lazy. You haven't changed that opinion one iota.

And frankly, "you're not instantly agreeing that I'm right and you were mistaken, so the thread has no potential" is not only intellectually lazy, but cowardly. Anyone can tell you that I've actually been quite polite to you, but that doesn't require me to treat nonsense like wisdom, or refrain from disagreeing with it.

See, that would be the "robust political discourse" I mentioned a while back, that we used to value and now fear, presumably because everyone today is a thin-skinned whiner who can't bear to hear that they aren't brilliant.

Wait. You mean I'm not brilliant?

If you think I was accusing you of being rude or that my feelings were hurt, trust me sweetie, nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The WWII generation, frequently referred to as the greatest generation, had many cultural differences, but were also quite united. Sure a war was what partially galvanized that unity, but, and not coincidentally, this country saw an enormous boom of prosperity immediately afterwards.

The war was what PARTIALLY galvanized the unity? You need to stop watching so many movies, hon. The war was the ONLY thing the country could be said to be unified on, and not even really on THAT except past the belief that the United States should come out on top.



If you're really going to try to tout the post-Civil War era as national unity, I'm going to hunt your history teacher down and slap her until her eyes switch sockets. Subduing half the nation by war and starvation and then dragging them along by the scruff of the neck like a whipped dog via federal troops stationed in their states is NOT "national unity" to anyone but a dictator or a lunatic.



There has NEVER been "unity" in this country. We have ALWAYS disagreed on what our national goals should be and how they should be accomplished. ALWAYS. The only difference is that before this, no one was ever stupid enough to think that national agreement and hand-holding was achievable OR desirable.

Anyway, I'll wrap up in this thread, as I have nothing more to say. I have devoted a good amount of energy, thought, critical thinking, and research over the past couple of decades to my methods, so if you want to attack my opinions (which I actually haven't really given in this thread, oddly enough), good on ya', but I don't know how that would make me intellectually lazy. Enjoy the rest of the thread. At the beginning I thought it had potential, but I can see it will produce nothing of value at this point. It has degenerated into the usual far left and far right bullshit, with the usual product I'm sure: zero.

I haven't "attacked" anything except your posts, and not even really that.

And saying, "I see something bad over here, so I will just assume something equally bad on the other side, because what really matters is staying perfectly balanced on this fence" is intellectually lazy. You haven't changed that opinion one iota.

And frankly, "you're not instantly agreeing that I'm right and you were mistaken, so the thread has no potential" is not only intellectually lazy, but cowardly. Anyone can tell you that I've actually been quite polite to you, but that doesn't require me to treat nonsense like wisdom, or refrain from disagreeing with it.

See, that would be the "robust political discourse" I mentioned a while back, that we used to value and now fear, presumably because everyone today is a thin-skinned whiner who can't bear to hear that they aren't brilliant.

Wait. You mean I'm not brilliant?

If you think I was accusing you of being rude or that my feelings were hurt, trust me sweetie, nothing could be further from the truth.

And I quote:

At the beginning I thought it had potential, but I can see it will produce nothing of value at this point. It has degenerated into the usual far left and far right bullshit, with the usual product I'm sure: zero.

By the way, why are you still posting? I thought you "wrapped up this thread".

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

The war was what PARTIALLY galvanized the unity? You need to stop watching so many movies, hon. The war was the ONLY thing the country could be said to be unified on, and not even really on THAT except past the belief that the United States should come out on top.



If you're really going to try to tout the post-Civil War era as national unity, I'm going to hunt your history teacher down and slap her until her eyes switch sockets. Subduing half the nation by war and starvation and then dragging them along by the scruff of the neck like a whipped dog via federal troops stationed in their states is NOT "national unity" to anyone but a dictator or a lunatic.



There has NEVER been "unity" in this country. We have ALWAYS disagreed on what our national goals should be and how they should be accomplished. ALWAYS. The only difference is that before this, no one was ever stupid enough to think that national agreement and hand-holding was achievable OR desirable.



I haven't "attacked" anything except your posts, and not even really that.

And saying, "I see something bad over here, so I will just assume something equally bad on the other side, because what really matters is staying perfectly balanced on this fence" is intellectually lazy. You haven't changed that opinion one iota.

And frankly, "you're not instantly agreeing that I'm right and you were mistaken, so the thread has no potential" is not only intellectually lazy, but cowardly. Anyone can tell you that I've actually been quite polite to you, but that doesn't require me to treat nonsense like wisdom, or refrain from disagreeing with it.

See, that would be the "robust political discourse" I mentioned a while back, that we used to value and now fear, presumably because everyone today is a thin-skinned whiner who can't bear to hear that they aren't brilliant.

Wait. You mean I'm not brilliant?

If you think I was accusing you of being rude or that my feelings were hurt, trust me sweetie, nothing could be further from the truth.

And I quote:

At the beginning I thought it had potential, but I can see it will produce nothing of value at this point. It has degenerated into the usual far left and far right bullshit, with the usual product I'm sure: zero.

By the way, why are you still posting? I thought you "wrapped up this thread".

And my quote means that my feelings were hurt? Interesting.

I'm not posting anything on the subject anymore, am I? So, what else do you know about me you can let me in on. I'm intellectually lazy, cowardly, thin-skinned. Anything else? Or is this the point where I'm supposed to slink away with my tail between my legs? No, it is clear you want to keep interacting with me. I'll play along if you want, but we're certainly not discussing the topic, are we?