Planned Parenthood donation

Originally posted by generalissimo
Thats not relevant, I couldn't care less about how they represent Islam.

The fact is that they DO carry out attacks in the name of Islam and they did successfully brainwash a handful of people to join their club of fanatics.

So what? So what if they do something "in the name of Islam"? What effect does that have on Islam. Doesn't the fact that the entire bulk of mainstream Islam rejects their delusion and criminality mean that their clain to do it "in the name of Islam" is a meaningless sham?

Originally posted by FMF
So what? So what if they do something "in the name of Islam"? What effect does that have on Islam. Doesn't the fact that the entire bulk of mainstream Islam rejects their delusion and criminality mean that their clain to do it "in the name of Islam" is a meaningless sham?

That doesn't make them equals to the US army.

Just because the majority of muslims reject them, doesn't make them less of a danger.

Originally posted by FMF
He didn't even know. You'd never have let him get away with it if it were your hobby horse. But Hiroshima is your "on-topic" hobby horse tonight. What a twat you are, when all is said and done.

Point of order.

I DID know that of the five beaches hit on D-Day, one was hit by a Canadian Division. In fact, it just so happens that I know a heck of a lot about World War II history. WWII history has been a minor obsession of mine since the War and Remembrance mini-series ran on ABC in 1988 when I was in 6th grade. I've probably read about 40 full length books on WWII history (including War and Remembrance about 20 times). In college, I took a course entitled "The Nuremberg Trials."

5 Divisions hit the Normandy beaches on June 6, 1944. That is not the extent of the Overlord operation. Those were the first five divisions of many, many more!

Saying that Canada was responsible for 1/5 of Overlord because they hit one of 5 beaches on the first day is like saying that (and I'm really trying for a European sports analogy here, so please bear with me) a football player is league MVP because he scored the winning goal in the first game of the season.

This argument is about whether the following statement of mine is accurate:

Overlord was primarily a US-British operation

(And, yes, if you go back and look at the post you initially attacked me for (on the "invitation gone missing" thread), my statement referenced Overlord, not just D-Day itself)

It is so plainly accurate that by arguing against it, all you do is hurt your own credibility.

If you like, we can put it to the test.

Everyone that has been reading this thread has seen my argument, has seen your argument and, most importantly, has access to Google or a similar search engine.

Of all the people reading this thread: How many of you think that my statement was accurate and how many think that FMF is correct?

Originally posted by sh76
Point of order.

I DID know that of the five beaches hit on D-Day, one was hit by a Canadian Division. In fact, it just so happens that I know a heck of a lot about World War II history. WWII history has been a minor obsession of mine since the War and Remembrance mini-series ran on ABC in 1988 when I was in 6th grade. I've probably read about 40 full length ...[text shortened]... w many of you think that my statement was accurate and how many think that FMF is correct?

Of all the people reading this thread: How many of you think that my statement was accurate and how many think that FMF is correct?

I believe your statement is accurate, and FMF is wrong.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
a demonstration would have been sufficient for what?A surrender?Why would Japan surrender from a "demonstration" when they would not surrender when it was actually used on them? That logic makes no sense.Also,your claim that it was done more for a statement than out of necessity is false.Thats that revisionist history crap.Truman wanted to end the wa ...[text shortened]... process. He chose plan(B),which cost no americans their lives and ended the war much quicker.

The kind of demonstration I was thinking of, was taking out what was left of their navy. Another way could be to back away from one of the many islands and let them re-occupy it. Then nuke the hell out of it. My guess is there was a lot of confusion between the two nukes and somehow there was a paralysis by analysis. Japs are extremely intelligent people and would have come to a logical conclusion after a demonstration or two. Could have let them think we had a couple hundred of such bombs and let them mull over it a bit. It is naive to think we blew the hell out of civilians for any reason other than the effect it had on the Japanese public and the rest of the world. Also given the fact that the good old USofA let the Japs bomb pearl harbor, I doubt if body count mattered much to the pres. War was about over and now the United Nations has a fresh start.

Originally posted by PBE6
I don't think you read my post very carefully. I didn't state that a fetus is a person, I said "after birth there is definitely a person". I can't think of any situations in which a baby would not be considered a person under the law, unless it were stillborn or possibly brain dead at birth (can anyone confirm the legal status of a brain dead fetus?). Maybe ...[text shortened]... viability of the fetus was a reasonable compromise.)

The point you make is not without merit.

However, you fail to be persuasive because (1) logic does NOT dictate law; and (2) procedural due process rights are rather a different color horse than substantive due process matters.

Laws must have a rational reason for their existence. That lies at the heart of the separation of church from state. We do not codify religious belief -- to do so is, per se, unconstitutional.

Absent a rational, substantive purpose, laws are void ab initio. I am saying government has no rational, substantive purpose in the abortion decision.

That is not to say that medical professionals lack the discretion to refuse to perform an abortion when it is not medically indicated -- for example, if the fetus was viable, could live independently of the mother's body, and its birth or surgical removal by C section would not threaten the life of the mother. I think government should respect the medical judgments of those who make such decisions in concert with their patient.

We may be a government of laws, but that does not mean everything must be the subject of a law. Our constitution is based on the opposite theory from that of monarchy -- here the people are sovereign, and the government has limited power, the rest being reserved to the people. I think abortion is one of those things that can be worked out quite well by individuals, their doctors, their families, and anyone else, such as clergy, they desire to involve in the decision.

I think the decision in Roe was a poorly drafted political compromise -- a bandaid solution. I'd go well beyond it to face the issue squarely. That is something this society doesn't really do about anything, it seems to me.

Originally posted by joe beyser
The kind of demonstration I was thinking of, was taking out what was left of their navy. Another way could be to back away from one of the many islands and let them re-occupy it. Then nuke the hell out of it. My guess is there was a lot of confusion between the two nukes and somehow there was a paralysis by analysis. Japs are extremely intelligent people ...[text shortened]... ount mattered much to the pres. War was about over and now the United Nations has a fresh start.

well now you are talking of two seperate presidents.So...FDR allowed 5 battleships to be destroyed. Most of the planes knocked out of commission and 2400 dead.You say he allowed this.Then Truman was equally as cold towards american life as well and a large body count would not matter to him in a assault on the japan main land. "The bomb(s)" were done for affect.Send a message to the world type of thing. With all due respect your either reading way too much David Icke or smoking a little too much herb.You need to get w/ reality and stop paying attention to conspiracy theories and revisionist history

Originally posted by utherpendragon
well now you are talking of two seperate presidents.So...FDR allowed 5 battleships to be destroyed. Most of the planes knocked out of commission and 2400 dead.You say he allowed this.Then Truman was equally as cold towards american life as well and a large body count would not matter to him in a assault on the japan main land. "The bomb(s)" were done ...[text shortened]... eed to get w/ reality and stop paying attention to conspiracy theories and revisionist history

I have never smoked "herb" as you call it. If you have noticed on this debate site, when someone gives information and a source for their position, it all boils down to the veracity of the source. All anyone can do is look at things that makes most sense to them. There is some released classified documentation from the govt. to support what you call conspiracy theory. It it bogus? I don't know. I do know a lot of the history I was taught in school was wrong. Either that or what I learned in college was wrong as it wasn't the same. Who you choose to believe is up to you and who I believe is up to me. We can still get along and discuss things cant we?

Originally posted by joe beyser
I have never smoked "herb" as you call it. If you have noticed on this debate site, when someone gives information and a source for their position, it all boils down to the veracity of the source. All anyone can do is look at things that makes most sense to them. There is some released classified documentation from the govt. to support what you call consp ...[text shortened]... up to you and who I believe is up to me. We can still get along and discuss things cant we?

ofcourse we can get along and discuss things.Ok,first,I dont recall you stating a source and it would be nice to know.All though Ive read numerous books and watched "docu-movies" on that angle you descirbe. As well as ones that have "evidence" the moon landing was faked.9/11 was an inside job.Oklahoma city was actually done by the ATF,not McViegh,etc,etc etc. I find it all ludicrous. Its the attempt to rewrite history and tarnish the good ol U.S of A
I agree most of what is taught in school is bogus.Study more on your own,be well read.Historians like,Karnow,Shirer,Ambrose,all have good stuff for example.
Truman agonized over using the bomb and in the end as commander/chief of the military he did the right thing.No way in hell did FDR allow Pearlharbor to happen. Being in denial that it could happen is more like it.