Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You and Adolf have this in common. Hitler said non-Aryans weren't persons either. Sick murderer!
I know, after vaporizing two of their cities along with 100 to 200 thousand people, no one in their right mind would give up!That is just a lie.
We did NOT defeat the Japanese with the nuclear bombs, and they had NOTHING at all to do with their surrender.
In fact, we killed more in each conventional bombing of large cities like Tokyo.
We know what caused the Japanese to surrender was the mining of the Sea of Japan, between Japan in China, that cut off all the imports from the mainland.
We know the Japanese were starving to death, because we know they were trying to surrender, through the Russian ambassador, for over a year.
The reality is that we would not let them surrender, until AFTER we had used them to test the 2 bombs we had made, one uranium and one plutonium, so we could see which worked better.
That is just a lie.
We did NOT defeat the Japanese with the nuclear bombs, and they had NOTHING at all to do with their surrender.
In fact, we killed more in each conventional bombing of large cities like Tokyo.
We know what caused the Japanese to surrender was the mining of the Sea of Japan, between Japan in China, that cut off all the imports from the mainland.
We know the Japanese were starving to death, because we know they were trying to surrender, through the Russian ambassador, for over a year.
The reality is that we would not let them surrender, until AFTER we had used them to test the 2 bombs we had made, one uranium and one plutonium, so we could see which worked better.
This is what insanity looks like.Wrong.
Adolf knew he was at least significantly Jewish.
Hitler never believed non-Aryans weren't persons.
For example, over 100,000 members of Hitler's Wehrmacht were Jewish, and unmolested.
What Hitler correctly perceived is that Zionists were traitors since their main allegiance was not to Germany, those above Hitler told him whose property they wanted to confiscate, and since Germany was starving, he had to make choices as to who got fed.
Which is why I don't use the term "Pro-choice". I use the term "Abortion Rights". It would be nice if women didn't have abortions or smoked... but honestly, I don't think it's my place to tell anyone else how to live.
The war on drugs has been an epic failure. Same with laws against prostitution. You can't legislate morality.
Women have control of their bodies. When they choose to have sex they need to understand the chances of creating a child and understand that it may happen. Then they should think about whether having sex, probably bad sex, is worth having to carry a baby for 9 months, having bone loss, bladder and urinary changes (man that sounds just wicked, doesn't it? urinary changes?), etc. If they don't think the sex is worth that, just say NO.Except you are forcing her to carry a fetus for nine months, with all the related health related effects, including bone loss, bladder and urinary changes, etc. Women who WANT babies are happy to endure these things. Women who don't, not so much.
Once again, you prove my case. Not only are you supporting red-flag laws, you're threatening to abuse them just as predicted that gun controllers like you would do.You sound crazy. Ima red flag you!
Ohhh.. Hitler liked Jews, you say... Thanks for clearing that up because somehow I thought that when he called them germs that he didn't think they were human. And then I thought he hated Jews because he murdered millions of them...Wrong.
Adolf knew he was at least significantly Jewish.
Hitler never believed non-Aryans weren't persons.
For example, over 100,000 members of Hitler's Wehrmacht were Jewish, and unmolested.
What Hitler correctly perceived is that Zionists were traitors since their main allegiance was not to Germany, those above Hitler told him whose property they wanted to confiscate, and since Germany was starving, he had to make choices as to who got fed.
You're either amazingly stupid or amazingly dishonest.Sieg Heil Komrade!
Fetuses aren't people.
And giving a fetus more rights than the woman it is inside is taking rights away from the woman.
You'd have to investigate every miscarriage as a potential homicide.
You'd be able to charge women with child abuse for smoking, having a sip of whine, or eating the wrong foods during pregnancy
You people didn't think this through at all.
How does reduced global foliage cause global warming? Start another thread instead of trying to derail this one.I would strike up conversation by asking their thoughts on climate change, and explain my belief that over population by humans is the true driving force behind climate change, due to reduced global foliage caused by clearing land to build human infrastructure.
Nothing amazing about you, you're just another lying fascist.You're either amazingly stupid or amazingly dishonest.
You don't think we should have laws banning abortion? Because that's the morality that JoeB131 is complaining about legislating is abortion. I think it's both. You're both amazingly stupid and dishonest.
You're amazingly stupid. You blindly accept the word of men in robes when they tell you stuff that you can read for yourself that the Constitution objects to what they're telling you.Sieg Heil Komrade!
Tell me another lie, commie.You're amazingly stupid. You blindly accept the word of men in robes when they tell you stuff that you can read for yourself that the Constitution objects to what they're telling you.
And then, in the case of regulating morality, where the men in robes tell you it's within the States' power, and the Constitution agrees with them, you respond with a salute to your Nazi master.
The contradiction just proves that you have never actually studied the Constitution and you only know what you think you know from reading Internet forums.
Here's what the Supreme Court says on legislating morals:
As recently as 1991 the Supreme Court spoke in Barnes v. Glen Theatre of "[t] he traditional police power of the States" as one which "we have upheld [as] a basis for legislation"; this plurality opinion of the Court defined it as "the authority to provide for the public health, safety, and morals."
The Constitution places very little restriction on the States so, according to the 10th Amendment, the States have pretty much whatever power they wish to have other than those explicit restrictions in the Constitution - you know, like not infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the states have police powers since 1827 - that's fairly concurrent to the time of ratification. Police power, in this context, is not the man with badge and a gun; it's the power of the States to pass laws that, as the Court said in 1991 above, provide for the public health, safety, and morals.
You've long since quit trying to debate the points and have reverted to name calling because it's all you have. Defend the claims I have made, Elmer.Tell me another lie, commie.
No, I don't waste my time with blatant liars like you. Most all the conservatives here know me and would tell you that your claims about me are dead wrong. So spew some more bullshit about me, you're making yourself look like a bigger and bigger fool.You've long since quit trying to debate the points and have reverted to name calling because it's all you have. Defend the claims I have made, Elmer.
