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

a reply to: Gryphon66

Skin again...pathetic.
The INDUSTRIAL revolution wasn't IN africa so they started HERE instead.
The most OLD money is WHITE so,BY deductive reasoning WE ARE all screwed AND YOUR selfish butt lacks the vision to see it,because of your Poli-faith and OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD.
Problem analyzed and solved.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Problem is your team riots for additonal roghts for specific groups

Again, who's my team?

while persecuting straight white males.

How are they being persecuted?

And then act like abyone isngoing to listen to listen to you. Naturally, they wont.

Why would I give a damn?

So when they dont you goosestep like little little btownshirts to make them, openly defend multinational corporations censoring frwaking cyberspace, and so on.

You're continue to go off the rails. Try to focus and make reasonable, logical statements. Drama-ridden hyperbole makes for a weak argument.

If thats what "social justice" is then its a cancer, just like the nazis were in germany. Go watch some ww2 documentaries tonsee what had tonhappen there to stop it. See the cities turned to rubble.

More drama.

All everyone needs is libertarianism. But thats not divisive enough for the culture of partisan hackery.

Indeed. Look what it's doing to you.

Now can you actually address the questions I have asked and try to stay on track?

Your nonsensical rants are quite boring and a waste of time.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The sjw agenda trolled them back into the limelight, not the other way around. And their numbers nationally hardly compare perhaps even to just the sjw supremacists on college campuses in california alone, their natinwide persecutions per year probably dont add up to one choice week of sjw persecutions the past year, sjw the democrat party platform while neonazis are some fringe nobidy likes. And you want me to lose sleep over them? SERIOUSLY? Neonazis some annoyingnjerks that a couple times a year that might manage to get a couple hundred people togemanaget once for a rally and maybe someone might notice. At least tjats how it was for about 20 years preSJW.

Sjws full scale national movement tearing the fabric of our civilization apart to the point of bordrrline civilwar. And the crazy part is the sjws had all the rights by the timw they went molten lava. Yet they dont march against thwbar on drugs while screaming theyre all about the minority communities and rights and stuff.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Gryphon66

The sjw agenda trolled them back into the limelight, not the other way around. And their numbers nationally hardly compare perhaps even to just the sjw supremacists on college campuses in california alone, their natinwide persecutions per year probably dont add up to one choice week of sjw persecutions the past year, sjw the democrat party platform while neonazis are some fringe nobidy likes. And you want me to lose sleep over them? SERIOUSLY? Neonazis some annoyingnjerks that a couple times a yeat that mightmange tonget a couple hundred people together at ince for a rally and maybe someine might notice. Sjws full scale national movement tearing the fabric of our civilization apart to the point of bordrrline civilwar. And the crazy part is the sjws had all the rights by the timw they went molten lava. Yet they dont march against thwbar on drugs while screaming theyre all about the minority communities and rights and stuff.

I see you're only a proponent of "personal responsibility" until you need to blame someone for something. You're stuck on a few phrases, but I have to say, the great "SJW" hordes that your posts obsess over are really the most ridiculous.

I defy you to define "SJW" in any terms other than "everything I don't agree with."

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.

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.

You have to be kidding here.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Im on a crappy touchscreen interface, so cant perform as usual, but ibhave many detailed threads on various aspects of their ordeal and several open up with my specific defition.

In short, its all about the indentity politics with these people. Which naturally fomebts rabid bigotry. Its why the hitler did it. And the obama.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Gryphon66

Im on a crappy touchscreen interface, so cant perform as usual, but ibhave many detailed threads on various aspects of their ordeal and several open up with my specific defition.

In short, its all about the indentity politics with these people. Which naturally fomebts rabid bigotry. Its why the hitler did it. And the obama.

Right right ... you always want to drive traffic toward "your threads."

Fine. Define "identity politics" then. You use these terms all the time, yet, you can't define them succinctly?

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.

Interestingly ...

Trump's Battle Over LGBT Discrimination Is Just Beginning - The Atlantic

LGBT issues have been all over the news this week. On Wednesday, President Trump announced a ban on transgender Americans serving in the military. That evening, the Department of Justice made another significant move in the fight over LGBT rights, albeit with less flash than a tweet storm: It filed an amicus brief in a major case, Zarda v. Altitude Express, arguing that it’s not illegal to fire an employee based on his or her sexual orientation under federal law.

LGBT advocates were quick to decry the DOJ’s position as bigotry. But there’s a deeper context here: The brief was a throw-down in nuanced fight about the nature of the administrative state. During the Obama years, federal agencies slowly began expanding their interpretation of sex discrimination, which is prohibited by a number of civil-rights laws. The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, the independent agency focused on workplace discrimination, arguably pushed the definition of sex discrimination further than any other regulatory body. In 2015, the EEOC ruled that Title VII, the civil-rights statute that protects workers, covers bias based on sexual orientation; it took a similar position in Zarda. Critics argued that this interpretation reads something into the law that isn’t there and accused the Obama administration of enforcing its political agenda through executive fiat. In effect, that’s exactly what Trump’s DOJ argued in its brief.

So yeah, keep telling us how there are no issues with EQUAL RIGHTS in this country.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I go beyond the call of duty breaking stuff down in detail, yes so ibdont have to repeat myself on complex subjects 5000 times per year on each topic. For partisans its a waste of time anyways. But people that actually want to learn stuff and all that i suspext they appreciate it.

I swear you guys make this point as if im trying to get your to buy my mens vitality pills or something.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Gryphon66

I go beyond the call of duty breaking stuff down in detail, yes so ibdont have to repeat myself on complex subjects 5000 times per year on each topic. For partisans its a waste of time anyways. But people that actually want to learn stuff and all that i suspext they appreciate it.

I swear you guys make this point as if im trying to get your to buy my mens vitality pills or something.

Yes, you've established you're a legend in your own mind several times.

It's not a complex subject, I don't need all your subjective theorizing on the subject ... can you define your terms - SJW, identity politics, etc. or not?

One sentence each.

If not, I submit that these terms you parrot from "right-wing" media and entertainers are merely shibboleths.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Transgenders getting free sugergies while on active duty, is but one example of the complexity of the trans peopke getting special treatmebt like no other before them. But go ahead and demogogue the scene here witht them. Them, the democrats sacrificial lamb. If only so much emotion wasnt involved for them that they could actually see it i truly pity them for how the dems radicalized them into the limelight to troll the reps with. Sickening.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Perhaps the most even-handed, fact-based post thus far.

Bravo.

Between imbecilic one-liners and outright dopery I occasionally say something relevant. Don't get used to it.

Did you notice it wasn't addressed?

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Gryphon66

Transgenders getting free sugergies while on active duty, is but one example of the complexity of the trans peopke getting special treatmebt like no other before them. But go ahead and demogogue the scene here witht them. Them, the democrats sacrificial lamb. If only so much emotion wasnt involved for them that they could actually see it i truly pity them for how the dems radicalized them into the limelight to troll the reps with. Sickening.

Are you saying that the military does not cover surgeries that are needed for our fighting personnel?

Forget the fact that Trans folks in the military was NOT THE FOCUS of what your'e responding to, but the INTENTIONAL dismantling by the Trump Admisstration of the few protections that LGBT folks had ... which, at best, only applied to Federal jobs.

As to the rest of the blatta blatta ... you really can't hold off the mindless hyperbole for more than a few sentences in your posts, can you?

Walks like a "right-winger" squawks like one ... /shrug

Apologies for my low quality tonight. This touchscreen is typo prone, and for some reason this specimen when i try to backspace and edit text i already typed it often goes totally wild im talking merging words argh its hard to even explain.

a reply to: Gryphon66

No battle ,the military isn't a petri dish.
Churches need to be crafted to marry gays written in their own faith instead of attempting to use traditional Christian faiths that hold scripture defaming it so...(They on teach ONLY know,what 3 BOOKS anyway out of 50 ,unless YOU trust Rome,I don't at all) NO more religious assaults.
BATHROOM to plumbing confirmation and I don't HATE anyone gay.
I am too misanthropic for it.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Indeed ... by anyone.

Spot on though, nonetheless.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Teddy Roosevelt.

I wanted to answer, but then I thought if I didn't some people might look it up, like me, and learn about Republican Progressives.

Dwight Eisenhower was the last classical Republican President.