Brian, what about the Northern Alliance? Don't you think that a local Patriot group, NOT created by the U.S Army like the current government was, is a strong weapon for getting the people on our side?

Interesting, Bolo. I would also add that under the United States, the mega-profitable opium trade, which was shut down by the Taliban, is now back online and making people rich, further incentive to fight off the Taliban.

Any more thoughts?

Considering that recent reports estimate they control up to half of Afghanistan, and have surged in strength and effectiveness lately, would you consider it accurate to say that, at least for now, they are "winning" the insurgency? If you have any links concerning the subject, it would be appreciated.

What song's do you guy's have that feature some amazing guitar work? Songs like Got The Life by Korn, Virtually anything done by Steve Ouimette, and Enter Sandman by Metallica. The kind of stuff thats heavy, thick, and ass kicking. The riffs that change what you think a guitar can do.

(In before some vein person tries to seem cultured by saying Smoke On The Water. Holding down 3 frets and hitting a single string isn't amazing, or cool, or even difficult. I'm looking for something impressive here).

This argument is ludicrous because you sir, are a socialist.

That doesnt really answer my question 0_o

I'm writing a thread on another forum, and wanted to know if anyone had a link that could answer my questions;

First off, is FDA testing to see if a new drug is safe MANDATORY? Does a drug company have the option to decline FDA testing and market the drug anyways?

Secondly, if a drug is either not yet approved and still being tested, or if it was DENIED approval by the FDA, can a hospital still legally give that drug to their patients in an attempt to help them?

At 8/1/09 12:37 PM, Ericho wrote: I agree with you on a lot of points but many other countries have histories like that, only far worse or at least not better than we are.

Like I said in the OP; who DIDN'T commit a genocide or two back in the day?

We just need to remember back in those days morals were simply lower and people were

Humanity kinda sucked

I'd also like to hear you point out a particular noteworthy President who was known for being a tyrant or would at least be considered evil by modern standards.
Andrew Jackson, perhaps?

Rotting in hell where he belongs.

At 8/1/09 12:00 PM, adrshepard wrote:

There was no list.

I didn't say "there was a list", I said "I didn't list", meaning the same as "I didn't name". Stop trying to semantically trap me.

In your first paragraph you talk about terrorism and IEDs, both hallmarks of Iraq and Afghanistan. Then you attribute those "to the fact that our horrible, evil, corrupt presidents and other politicians use the U.S military anytime they get into a slight disagreement?" If you aren't referring to Iraq and Afghanistan, then you are saying that insurgent and terrorist attacks in the two countries are unrelated to the conflicts there and are actually retaliation for the policies of past years. That is unlikely.

Actually, all I said (asked, actually), was whether or not the reader believed the anti-US insurgents are simply acting in self-defense from years of bombings by the US. That has nothing to do with whether or not it was a good idea to invade Iraq, because we didn't invade Iraq to go to war with those people, we invaded Iraq to go to war with the then-current government. We invaded to take out a genocidal maniac, as is our right, and now they are trying to kick us out of their country because of years and years of us mistreating them, which may or may not be their right.

IEDs do not cause nearly enough casualties to be considered a "defense." They harass and weaken morale, but do not stop armies. In fact, if insurgents only wish to defend the innocent and end US aggression, IEDs are counter-productive, since they only intensify US operations in the area, which inevitably leads to more destruction and loss of life. Understand that financial and logistical hurdles, rather than casualties, pose the biggest problem for the US military.

Really? Because I could of sworn that Barack Obama is promising to take troops out of Iraq because of how pissed off everyone is over soldiers dying there, and if I'm not mistaken we DIDN'T stay in Vietnam, which again was due to people being pissed off over troops dying.

It seems to me like launching gorilla attacks against troops is actually a GREAT way to kick soldiers out of your country and reclaim it.

Then you know nothing about the forces that drove American expansion and Indian policy over the course of a few hundred years. It's offensive that you should even speak about this critical aspect of American history in such an ignorant way.

Yes, it's ignorant to say that we had a choice in whether or not to slaughter, rob, and imprison Indians. We had no choice but to treat them inhumanely and have no regard for them as human beings. Why, we would have all DIED if we hadn't marched 4,000 Cherokee to death! This country simply wouldn't EXIST if we had given them food and medical care on their march!

A pointless exercise. Even if you had the integrity to acknowledge your distortions, we would only get into a philosophical discussion about morality and justice. You have made your blunt and superficial understanding of these concepts clear, and I see no reason to reach any deeper into the sewer of your beliefs.

The reason is because thusfar every reason you've given has been complete and utter bullshit.

At 8/1/09 02:36 AM, NightMaer wrote:

As for the nuking of Japan, that was completely justified. We needed to get those pesky Japs off our backs to attack Germany, we needed to make an impression on them, the nukes work better than persuasive statements.

Germany had already surrendered.

And if the attacks where soooooooooo justified and necessary, why did we feel the need to lie about how deadly they where?

And if these attacks where so god damn tactically important and necesarry... why was the nuking of Kyoto called of due to the fact that a high ranking military official admired the city? These nuclear attacks COULDN'T have been TOO important if whether or not they where executed was decided by how much Joe MilitaryLeader admired the city.

I could slaughter a diabetic Grizzly Bear.

At 7/31/09 06:59 PM, adrshepard wrote:

Assumption: All US military engagements in recent history have resulted solely from the obstinacy of US leaders.

I assumed every single example I GAVE was an example of that. And they where. Note how I didn't list us, say, Invading Iraq or Afghanistan on that list.

Assumption: IEDs are an instrument of self-defense.

The assumption that it's possible to kill invading troops with IED's to defend your country is an extremely reasonable one. Your apparent assumption that anyone who has ever killed another human with a jury-rigged rocket is automatically a murderer and on the wrong is rather, uh, "interesting", however.

Assumption: The suffering of Indians and Filipinos was entirely avoidable and stemmed solely from general American malevolence.

Yes, I think purposely slaughtering millions of Indians, committing war crimes against the Philippines, and putting Filipino's in concentration camps was entirely avoidable, just like the Holocaust.

Assumption: US leaders deliberately stated that fallout was harmless when they knew with certainty that the opposite was true. I've studied the bombings and the revisionist histories that have followed. I can tell you that scientists believed there was little radioactivity because they didn't find very much after the first atomic tests. They didn't realize that the wind had carried it miles away. Only an investigation after the bombings proved the fallout danger was real.

Right. And I'm sure the CIA had no idea that poisoning people with acid could possibly have some sort of long term side effect, and I'm sure that Kennedy never even FATHOMED that anything could go wrong in the Bay of Pigs.

Saying "we don't have any evidence either way" isn't a good enough reason to drop deadly weapons on human beings.

The rest of your piece is a mess of whining sarcasm and fallacy-ridden declarations.
What in the hell was your purpose in posting this, anyway?

Well then, feel free to list those fallacies.

At 7/30/09 12:42 PM, shini-gami wrote:

where it was clear that the allied forces have the moral high ground.

Yeah.

Except, you know... all the Genocides the allied powers had waged/where waging/would continue to wage.

At 7/30/09 09:14 AM, BillyShakes wrote:

Filipino death tolls range in the 200-300k range both for combatants and civilians killed. Millions is gross overstatement. I'm not justifying it. I just want an accurate picture for debate.

When taking into account malnutrition and disease outbreaks our war caused, there are estimates that go into the 1 million+ range, although there are estimates ranging as low as under 150,000.

-Panama attempted to break from Columbia several times in the 19th century(1832, 1840-41, 1899-1902), nearly actualizing it several times.
-Panama broke from Columbia after Columbia signed over construction to the States. The treaty passed Aug. 12 1903, separation began in November. We did however slow the Columbian governmens troop movements by regulating "neutrality" on panama's railroads.
Do I believe we "turned" panama into a war zone, no. Did we fan the flames, probably.

True. I am guilty of hyperbole. However, as you said, we did fan the flames and helped Panama secede, all so we could steal the Panama Canal area like assholes.

Here is a textbook definition of Irony. To get Americans excited about fighting the Kaiser in WW1 propaganda ran rampant and many newspapers ran articles that Kaiser Wilhelm was slaughtering millions of his own people (if I remember correctly the articles even said in Camps). However, the American public felt spurned because after the war it was widely known to be false. When similar articles came out about Hitler leading up to WW2, people said "Bullshit, I'm not falling for that twice", but that time it was actually true.
Its the same as if the US government were to come out and say Iran is procuring WMD's. We wouldn't care, even if it were true. Because we are pre-disposed to not believe it right now.

The thing is though, we KNEW the camps existed. There where spies, mostly British, purposely getting themselves put IN to concentration camps to gather intell, then escaping and reporting the superiors.

I'm not sure of your problem with Clinton, educate me.

That whole "he bombed the shit out of people" thing.

What is your source for this? Sudan has been in near constant civil war since 1955 (I know there was a lull from 72-82). Clinton stopped trade with Sudan and armed neighboring states to fight rebels. He didn't want to get involved after Somalia. Somalia was a huge platform for republicans to attack Clinton. He tried to step in, a few soldiers died, everyone cried "why?" and after that there was a hands-off policy toward African civil war. Its not right, I don't agree with it. But that's why we didn't step in.

My claim for what? You want a source saying that we did, indeed, bomb the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant which was supplying medicine to hundreds of thousands of people? Just google Al-Shifa, every last result will be about it's bombing.

Uhhh, also, I meant the word "Middle Eastern" to proceed "News Agencies". I trust, like, the AP and Reuters over Al Jazeera and all.

At 7/30/09 03:55 AM, dySWN wrote: Because two wrongs make a right, amirite?

Because you didn't read my post and assumed I was supporting what they're doing, amirite?

Your right, politicians would NEVER attempt to seize authoritarian control.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Hussein, Eastern Asia, The entire continent of Africa, and almost all of South America are urban legends.

So, what's the question? "Would this punk have arrested if he was white"?

Yes. If I, a white man, had broken into my home, then responded to Officers by screaming in their faces, repeatedly, over and over again, that they where "racists" at 12 at fucking night, I too would have been arrested for disorderly conduct.

If any white people DO think this is racist, then test it out; get the police called on you, then respond to the officers by screaming insults at them until they either arrest you or leave.

Like, you know... DESERVES all these Anti-US radicals taking every chance they get to murder every citizen and soldier they can? Like don't you sort of think that every last single terrorist attack against us is less do to a "hatred of freedom", and more due to the fact that our horrible, evil, corrupt presidents and other politicians use the U.S military anytime they get into a slight disagreement? Don't you just think, in the pit of your stomach, that the guys in masks with IED's are only just defending themselves, and our piece of shit leaders (coughBillClintoncough) fucked the world over so bad that they snapped and began taking it out on innocent soldiers who never did anything wrong in their lives, and only want to help their kinsman?

I mean, alright, let's start with the obvious. We all have to admit, we used to be a really horrible country. Like, the whole "waging genocides and killing millions and millions of Native Americans, then killing millions of Filipinos" thing? Not too cool, bro. Oh, and imprisoning people based on their race was just boys being boys back in the 19th century, but I think by the 1940's, doing it was sort of, you know, out of style. And turning Panama into a deadly War-Zone just so you can steal the land and build the Panama Canal? Weak. But hey, who DIDN'T commit a genocide or two back in the day? What's that Britain? Oh, shut up, we remember Ireland and India, you just be quiet and sit back down in that chair.

So anyways, we've established that America, like others, used to view the slaughter of indigenous people to be roughly analogical to skeet shooting. But this is the 21st century, and things have gotten a bit out of hand.

I mean, let's start of in World War 2. The Americans (From here on in, the term "Americans" shall be used to refer to our murderers-in-chief, and the horrible, unspeakable things they did and subsequently kept quiet from the American people who would skin them alive in a heart-beat if they'd found out) knew about the Death Camps, and purposely chose to do NOTHING about them, but found the time to firebomb German Citizens. Nothing TOO horrible, but not exactly Kosher. Get it? Kosher? Millions of dead Jews we chose not to save? GET IT???

Oh, and as for non-Kosher, nuking 2 Japanese cities and justifying it by INSISTING that Nuclear fallout was absolutely harmless and had no negative health effects wasn't too great a thing to do either.

Anyways, now we come to the Vietnam war, where it becomes relatively common to go into small, innocent asian villages and hamlets, murder every single man woman and child for sport, then burn the entire innocent, sleepy little village to the ground. Of course, the leaders just ALLOWED that to happen and attacked/went after/punish anyone who reported on those atrocities, those horrible acts weren't OFFICIAL policy or anything. OFFICIAL policy was JUST to arbitrarily burn the villages down, murdering all it's former inhabitants was just optional. After all, we had Agent Orange to murder and mutilate roughly 1 million South Vietnamese citizens who HADN'T been murdered by rogue U.S commanders.

Alright, so Vietnam was an immoral, disgusting mess, and everyone from Nixon to JFK to the Joint Chiefs of Staff should have been ashamed. But it was all good from then on out, right? I mean sure, selling guns and cocaine to Iran wasn't the best choice. Yeah, putting Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and supporting his Genocide and murder of millions of people was a no-no. Yeah, the number of genocidal mass-murderers we've supported, put into power, or armed is simply staggering. But we MEANT WELL, right? Karma was still looking after us, albeit in a somewhat pissed off manor.

Then Clinton happened. Oh god, why did Clinton happen?

We didn't exactly have the best reputation in the foreign world before the guy came along (That whole "Israel" and " Saddam Hussein being placed in power" era of fuckuppery had taken it's tole), but at least in 1991 we could have made a couple of claims to back up our rep: that we'd never sat around and watched an easily avoidable African Genocide happen without lifting a finger. That we'd never bombed a Sudanese medecine plant, and subsequently killed hundreds of thousands of Sudanese civillians, as an act of revenge on the country for once having Osama Bin Laden inside of it. That after letting African Warlords murder nearly a million Tutsi's, we then went to war with a different warlord for killing 17 Pakistani's, a war which resulted in thousands of dead Somalians. Hell, at least in 1991 we could say that we weren't routinely bombing essentially the ENTIRE Middle East, and that those bombing (and their subsequent spike in approval for Clinton) didn't just HAPPEN to come within days of a presidential scandal.

Alright, so Clinton pissed the world off and killed without remorse, but who cares, Bush fixed all the damage Clinton did, right?

Wait... FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU--

So yes, after all the damage Clinton did, Bush responded by removing the government of Iraq (with no idea how to rebuild it), imprisoning Muslims for having suspicious sounding names, and targeting the largest, free-est, and most respected (as well as COMPLETELY legal, relatively unbiased, and absolutely moral) news agencies, Al Jazeera, and bombing their offices TWICE, murdering their employees, and imprisoning their reporters. With no justification other then "Well, they where existing inside of the middle east".

I mean, yeah, the terrorists are psychotic, and even when dealing with somebody like STALIN, murdering civilians and soldiers to punish politicians is a hell-worthy approach. But let's be honest... isn't the weight of our all troubles pretty much of the soldiers of the murderers and idiots we've allowed to take control of our country?

AT&T just decided to fuck with the website that nearly shut down the NFL, has single-handidly put multiple people in prison, hacked Sarah Palin's email and played a significant role in the 2008 presidential election, and caused the stock value for Apple, a multi-national corporation and media behemoth, to plummet.

This shit will be done by friday.

At 7/24/09 06:01 PM, fli wrote:

Meghan McCain (as in the uber cool daugher of McCain, albiet Republican) said this, not Clinton.
Clinton has way too much scrupels to say anything this bluntaly.

Thats cute, the way you quote part of a sentence to make it look like I was claiming Clinton said this, as opposed to me being in the process of listing the quotes on the page.

**Sorry, liberals.

Does anyone pay attention to this garbage? Every time I pick it up I want to throw up. Seriously, it's like watching a porno of the most ignorant black Obama Cult Member screaming about how anyone who doesn't like Obama's policies is racist, just absolutely fucking the shit out of the typical idiot who tries to explain why Bush's policies where actually literally the exact same as Hitlers, and how the historical figure that bears the most resemblance to Bill Clinton is Jesus Christ. Only without the fuckin'.

I could go into detail, but honestly, I don't bother remembering the trash I read in it. So I'll be much more practical; I'm about to go into my families bathroom, retrieve an issue at random (we have like 50 of the motherfuckers), and detail for you exactly what's contained inside.

Alright, first issue on the top; a picture of Mr. Ted Kennedy, with the title "We're almost there: the long struggle for universal health care". Hey, no big deal; Universal Healthcare Supporters don't HAVE to be liberals, right?

Page 2 and 3; published letters to the editor. Interestingly, every single one is either A) Supporting Bush being imprisoned, B) Talking about how unqualified Sarah Palin was for Vice President (this is the July issue, mind you) or C) Talking about how Sotomayer is completely and utterly perfect for the job. Hey... maybe the conservatives forgot to write this month?

On Page 4, Steve Tuttle explains how the collapse of Crocs stock and the impending end of the entire company is all 100% due to him and his amazing ability to influence U.S consumers; apparantly he wrote an article on how much he hates crocs a few months ago or something. Yes, that's right, it wasn't Maddox, Or Bill Maher, or any other Cult-Leader like social superstars with diehard follower, it was some asshole named "Steve Tuttle". Hmmm... vain and completely full of themselves... it's starting to sound a little liberal here, guys.

Page 13, they discuss how flawless Obama's plans to spend 13 Billion dollars on a train are. Hmmm...

The same page contains a regular column, "Conventional Wisdom/Think Again", which details the recent positives and negatives of a selected group of people. Interestingly, in every single issue, the only people who are complimented and given an 'up' arrow are prominent liberals, and the only people criticized and given a 'down' arrow are Republicans?

Page 17, it discusses how a government plan in response to 9/11 which would have involved assassinated the leaders of Al Quida (and which was never put into effect), was no different whatsoever then Operation Wrath of God, in which Mossad Agents slaughtered dozens of civilians across Europe (some of them brutally and in the presence of their family and loved ones), out of all of which one was confirmed to be a terrorist, and the vast majority merely innocent people. Because Bush not killing anyone is TOTALLY the same as Mossad murdering dozens of innocents. Totally.

Page 21: Their quotes of the month. Amoungst these quotes; "Joe the Plummer is a dumbass", a quote by Hilary Clinton claiming she had a voice in the Obama administration, and a witty, humerouse quote that makes Obama look intelligent and quick thinking. Absent: Any positive quotes from any conservatives whatsoever, or any negative quotes from any liberals. Also on the page are two 'comedy' cartoon strips. The first one is about how Republicans in congress are doing anything possible to "Get" Sotomayer, and another one that's just a list of bad things Cheney has done worded to sound like Harry Potter titles.

Page 26: Article about how good Obama's idea of going to Africa was. I wish he had stayed.

Page 28: They don't like the fact that Republicans are grilling a liberal Supreme Court nominee, so they have a simple solution; remove congresses ability to have a say in the Supreme Court nomination process.

33: A beautiful, heroic, and inspiring painting of Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung riding gallantly on a white stallion. No, I'm fucking serious

Page 36-39: A time line of all of Ted Kennedies personal struggles he's encountered over his life. They forget the parts where he drives drunk and ends somebodies life, and when he attempts to ruin a girls life for going to the police when William Kennedy raped her. Oops, guess they forgot to include those parts.

Page 46: They claim John Keynes to be only a step away from Karl Marx. This is like me claiming that Martin Luther King was only a step away from Satan, or that Jesus Christ was only a step away from David Duke.

Page 49-52: The story Chanequa Campbell, a harvard student who grew up in the Ghetto, who was long rumored do be a drug dealer. She was expelled when 3 associates of hers murdered another associate of hers on campus. All 4 involved happened to be drug dealers. They were in Campbell's dorm building, which only someone who lives in can allow entrance too. Newsweeks take on it? Harvard expelled her because they're racist.

On second though, I change my mind. It seems pretty balanced.

At 7/4/09 04:28 AM, ViolentAJ wrote: The Holocaust was faked.

No it wasn't.

Look into it.

And the Dachau Massacre was... what? An entire group of U.S soldiers where driven past the point of psychopathic rage and ordered/carried out the immediate execution of all SS officers present because...? One of the Nazi's told an unflattering joke about one of the Americans mothers?

At 6/30/09 11:55 PM, TimeLordX wrote:

Uh, I was saying that both are wrong...

Right. And, you know, Molesting young children and blasphemy are also both wrong. However when a priest rapes a little boy, somehow I don't care too much about the second part.

We're discussing death. Bringing up Nazi's doing 'rude' thing like desecrating the bodies of their victims is wildly irrelevant.

No, I'm saying that by the 1940's most folks knew that the eradication of entire ethinc groups was wrong.

And they didn't know that in the 30's, or the 20's, or the 10's, or the 00's, or the 1890's, or any of those decades that countries like America and Britain where happily committing Genocide?

It's called emphasis.

It's stupid.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Jesus was the son of God. MLK was a good man who preached justice and tolerance.

No, I'm comparing your logic to other situations in which your exact same logic, with no variations whatsoever, are shown to be moronic. The fact that your family doesn't support your cause doesn't mean your wrong.

Hitler was a monster by any standard. He was a man who preached hatred and intolerance. His policies resulted in millions of innocent people being rounded up and sent them to their deaths. Germany and his kin have to live with the shame that came with his crimes.

But it's totally fine when the "good guys" do it.

At 6/24/09 11:42 PM, TimeLordX wrote:

WTF does a videogame character have to do with this?!

My god, has it taken you THIS long to realize that I'm mocking you?

At 7/6/09 09:07 AM, Mariousz wrote:

All the atheist here have a big blank in their soul,that's why they hate religion.

I personally believe in God,and i feel him as my father.

Unfortunately, lot's of other little boy's have been feeling the father in their holes, too.

Those abused were, amongst other things, stripped, beaten and raped by nuns, subjected to naked beatings in public, forced into oral sex and even subjected to beatings after failed rape attempts by brothers. Yet another was "tied to a cross and raped whilst others masturbated at the side".[3]

At 6/25/09 12:04 AM, TimeLordX wrote:

Actually, neither is desireable.

What's "desirable" is irrelevant. I'm slightly more concerned with millions of corpses being made, not with with the fact that those corpses where then desecrated.

Uh, no I'm saying they didn't know that what they were doing was wrong.

Right. Germany knew murder was wrong, but no one else did. It's an excusable mistake.

Actually it's because they don't want a repeat of the HOLOCAUST!

And the Jews where arrested for their beliefs because Germany thought they SABOTAGED THEM. Capitalizing the last word doesn't change the sentence, sorry.

Also, his own FAMILY is ashamed of him. His own kin think he's a monster. Hell, a couple fought against him in the war. If that doesn't convince anyone that he's unworthy of ANY admiration I don't know what will.

So if Jesus did have children, as some had theorized, and his grand kids wound up Jewish, that means that Jesus was wrong? If in 60 years MLK's family line has a racist in it, it means MLK was a piece of shit?

Coming from the guy who Slandered dead U.S Servicemen, point blank said that the Malmedy Massacre was the fault of the U.S, lied repeatedly and claimed he had never said that, and then had the audacity to "apologies" if anyone stupidly misinterpreted what he said and thought he was saying the U.S was guilty of the Malmedy Massacre -- which is exactly what he HAD said, I don't really expect too much.

At 6/3/09 03:57 PM, yinyangman wrote: Okay. Read this carefully.
He's cutting $5.2 billion from schools.

OH NO! How ever will my school continue to purchase $5,000 Television sets and multimillion dollar classrooms? Why, we might even have to stop purchasing $30,000 computer labs that only get used a small portion of the school day! Why, we might even have to do what those barbarians at the American Indian Public Charter School in Oakland do, and rely on COMPETENT TEACHERS! DAMN THAT LOW-INCOME SCHOOL AND IT'S POSITION AS VIRTUALLY ONE OF THE BEST PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE ENTIRE NATION BECAUSE IT SLASHED IT'S FUNDING AND REPLACED IT'S HIGH TECH TOYS WITH ACTUAL LEARNING MATERIALS!! DAMN IT TO HELL!

He's eliminating CalWorks and Healthy Families.

Well Gollllllll-Y! Don't mention that to the actual people at CalWorks or California Healthy Families, who still maintain websites, continue to operate, and apparently do not yet realize that they don't exist.

He's cutting on grants.

Thank god.

He's been borrowing a lot more money than we literally need!

Obama does that and he's a liberal hero. Hmm.

He's planning to build more state parks.

THAT. BASTARD.

He's taking away the privileges of Medi-Cal from legal immigrants.

Links?

Worst of all, he's lowering income rates, no matter how hard employees work!

DAMN HIS LAWS REQUIRING COMPANIES TO PAY THEIR EMPLOYEES LESS! I agree that that's a major fuck up of his, along with his mandatory abortion laws and his proposed measures to make sodomizing puppies a mandatory requirement to attend public schools.

At 6/16/09 12:23 AM, TimeLordX wrote: Lettuce-head

Time Chair.

The nazis didn't just kill jews and other "undesireables"- they were worked to death, experimented on and killed in horrible fashion.

Yeah, good think the United States didn't send any groups on Native Americans on massive death marches where they literally died of exhaustion or anything.

Not to mention that products were made from their remains (bones used to make china, fat used to make soap and skin used to make lampshades).

Because using a corpse is TOTALLY worse then MAKING a corpse. And because the United States never used, say, an Indians Scalp, for anything.

Yes, the US and other nations have done terrible things to other people, but by the time the Holocaust came about most of those nations had realized how wrong they were and in some cases took steps to rectify their mistakes.

So it's not evil to commit mass genocide in, say, the 20's, but in the 40's it's off limit?

Even the German people of today realize that the Holocaust was a terrible, terrible event in their nation's history.

And yet, in England, the men who caused untold suffering and horror in Ireland are regarded as heros.

Holocaust deniers are not allowed in Germany. Also, the living relatives of Adolph Hitler realize how horrid he was-none of them have had any kids, apparently a conscious effort on their part to end his bloodline once and for all.

Because nothing say's "I'm nothing like the Nazi's" like sending people to prison for being supporters of a certain undesired ideology.