The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left

a reply to: MotherMayEye


It's cool Mother, I would have been surprised if you didn't know it was Teddy Roosevelt. Knowing your history allows you to better understand your present.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Indeed ... by anyone.

Spot on though, nonetheless.

Where would Teddy Bull Moose fall on today's current political spectrum? What causes and platforms would he find affinity with?

Quick graphic ... if you'd like to read what Republicans used to be ...

1956 Republican Platform

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Those federal laws don't include protection for sexual orientation or gender identity.

Citation please. I thought it went without saying everyone was covered.

Link

They are not covered. You can be fired for being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and straight.

Your wong the seventh circuit said they are covered under title 7 laws. Unless the supreme court overturns it which they won't that's the law. See Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, Kimberly Hively, the plaintiff was fired from her job as an instructor after she was seen kissing her then-girlfriend in the parking lot. The line between a gender nonconformity claim and one based on sexual orientation does not exist.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Indeed ... by anyone.

Spot on though, nonetheless.

Where would Teddy Bull Moose fall on today's current political spectrum? What causes and platforms would he find affinity with?

That's a good one. I'd probably guess some fusion of the Greens/Libertarians?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yeah new trans recruits as a signing bonus get a $50k surgery that could take 3 years to fully eecover from. Yeah that makes sense.

Get a grip. Or like i said keep demogoguing it.

Whatever it takes tonscore them virtue signalling points. Since most partisans are totally cool with hundreds ofnthousands getting massacred (ie hillarys syria disaster), im increasingly certain most partisans have deep sociopathic tendencies. Meaning im not even buying that half the liberals whom arent trans evwn actually care about them. Its just the partyplatform and RUN IT nevermind if HOW we run it hurts them in the long run. Clearly it alreadtly is thw way obama set it up to where rational outsiders would object so then the dems could smear everyone for it. Hey i know lets urge the trans people with all their problems to be conpelled to have to conquer say the military, huckster them in with free surgeries, which will piss people off, naturally, so who cares if people that didnt have an opinion on them before come to get sick of it and end up notnliking them becuase hell yeah this is primw demogogue paydirt and then whomever tries to chenge it well get to SMEAR them as being monsters.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

More hyperbole.

Bored again. Good luck with your touch screen.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
That's a good one. I'd probably guess some fusion of the Greens/Libertarians?

Likelier possibility than the Republican Party.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Gryphon66
That's a good one. I'd probably guess some fusion of the Greens/Libertarians?

Likelier possibility than the Republican Party.

Yeah, I don't think the "Trust Buster" would hold with mega-corporatism ... if nothing else.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Ron Paul endorsed Jill last year.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Those federal laws don't include protection for sexual orientation or gender identity.

Citation please. I thought it went without saying everyone was covered.

Link

They are not covered. You can be fired for being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and straight.

Your wong the seventh circuit said they are covered under title 7 laws. Unless the supreme court overturns it which they won't that's the law.

The bolded part has to happen before it becomes federal law.

So, I am not wrong. But it does appear poised to become law.

a reply to: Gryphon66


The DEMOCRATIC side1956:

www.presidency.ucsb.edu...
Sounds like REPUBLICANS too...

The Trump DOJ is actively fighting against the interpretations of Title VII that gave SOME protection to LGBT.

And Trump is stacking the Court.

But sure ... everyone in America is protected ... except those poor, poor Straight White Men that hold every office, lead most corporations and banks, etc.

#onlyinAmerica

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Yeah, I don't think the "Trust Buster" would hold with mega-corporatism ... if nothing else.

No, or lobbyists. He couldn't stand them.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Ron Paul endorsed Jill last year.

Good point, he was obviously just as disgusted with the two major parties as I was.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: Spider879

Because he cites actual sources for his facts and evidence.

Because he he uses logic and reason.

Do you distrust him just because he is Indian?

Because he is Indian??? No!!. because he is a lying POS, I have similar contempt for Clarke, Omarose , pastor Manning and others..and it's not because they are necessarily conservative.

a reply to: xuenchen

xuenchen, youre smart. I often feel as though some of your threads and commentary are simply social experimental surveys. I often think you dont even agree with what you post.

I guess that makes you a good host to the resident cons3rvative popuation, as their propensity to star and flag pro right, pro trump, anti liberal threads is seemingly higher than the amount of stars God himself would receive for saying "I care about all of you" on ATS itself.


As an aside, does it make all conservatives, nazi sympathizers, because the Bush dynasty was involved with financing Hitler's rise, and happened to also be in power when 9/11 happened, and the US subsequently invaded Iraq under false pretenses?

Oopsies! Sorry we killed thousands of innocents!

Oopsies!

Oh North Korea is suddenly an imminent threat?

Obviously we need more War, RIGHT??

Oopsies!

a reply to: Gryphon66

Right wingers criticize sjw mania bs.

Therefore everyone whom criticizes sjw mania bs are right wingers.

Got it!

Partisansnip logic is the bestest in fallaciousest!



The ultimate irony in responding to a critique against overkill trans policy, trans issues whole mantra built upon nonBINARY, u display pure social binary perspective logic as the core of your perception.

More evidence the liberal pro trans virtue signalling is a fraud. Or is it? For whats its worth, pretty much all the rest of your buddies around here not least of which the resident openly liberal trans folks pretty much all do the same thing even to the degree of seemingly every single post dripping with this BINARY mentality.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: xuenchen

Did your spell check somehow change it to famous author, when you meant to type convicted felon?

Oh yeah he's a real live criminal alright.

He was set-up by Obama in retaliation.



On January 24, 2014, D'Souza was arraigned in a Manhattan federal court over the campaign finance law allegations. In May 2014, D'Souza pleaded guilty to one felony count of making illegal contributions in the names of others.

D'Souza's attorney had argued his client "did not act with any corrupt or criminal intent whatsoever" and described the incident as "at most...an act of misguided friendship". D'Souza, his co-producers and some of his supporters alleged that the indictment was politically motivated retribution for the success of his 2012 movie 2016: Obama's America.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: xuenchen

Did your spell check somehow change it to famous author, when you meant to type convicted felon?

Oh yeah he's a real live criminal alright.

He was set-up by Obama in retaliation.

On January 24, 2014, D'Souza was arraigned in a Manhattan federal court over the campaign finance law allegations. In May 2014, D'Souza pleaded guilty to one felony count of making illegal contributions in the names of others.

D'Souza's attorney had argued his client "did not act with any corrupt or criminal intent whatsoever" and described the incident as "at most...an act of misguided friendship". D'Souza, his co-producers and some of his supporters alleged that the indictment was politically motivated retribution for the success of his 2012 movie 2016: Obama's America.

Also from wiki

In May, United States District Judge Richard M. Berman rejected that contention, stating, "The court concludes the defendant has respectfully submitted no evidence he was selectively prosecuted."

Sounds like he has a track record with alternative facts.