daz28

You need a better link than their top spokesman Lindbergh? A guy who literally was given The Commander Cross of the Order of the German Eagle by Hilter, personally pinned by Goring a few weeks before Kristallnacht. Do you think it's any surprise that after CL gave the speech I quoted before, that it's when AF was the most popular it ever was? If there were any non-Nazis in that group, they CERTAINLY would have left it after hearing that, and seeing what was happening to Jews in Germany. Some of those "good people" were AT BEST Nazi simps. So we have 850k in America First, 25k in the Bund, which is $875k ACTUAL MEMBERS of Nazi movements. I imagine they had a few friends, who weren't actual card-carrying members, which would take us easily over 1M.

AF: "Seeking to brand itself as a mainstream organization, America First struggled with the problem of anti-Semitism of some of its leaders and many of its members", according to the historian Dunn.[6] The group had some Jewish members at the outset: Sears heir and philanthropist Lessing J. Rosenwald was on the national committee; former California congresswoman Florence Prag Kahn was a member; and the first publicity director for the New York chapter was Jewish.[6] However, the automotive pioneer and infamous anti-Semite Henry Ford had joined the national committee at the same time as Rosenwald, which soon led to Rosenwald resigning.[35] In response, America First removed Ford from the national committee and also removed from it Avery Brundage, whose actions at the 1936 Berlin Olympics were associated with anti-Semitism.[6] Attempts by America First to recruit other Jewish people to the national committee found no takers.[35] As Dunn writes, "the problem of anti-Semitism remained; some chapter leaders spewed anti-Semitic accusations, while others invited anti-Semitic speakers to address their members."[6] America First tried to keep some distance between itself and the popular radio priest and fascist sympathizer Father Coughlin.[36] AF: Lindbergh was not the only person advocating for American isolationism based on notions of white supremacy, nor was he unique in suggesting that Jews were the single group most interested in involving the United States in the war in Europe. Anti-Semitic radio preacher Charles Coughlin embraced Lindbergh’s message, and Lindbergh’s public statements would serve as a prime impetus for the creation of the America First Committee in 1940. The group, which boasted a membership of 800,000, opposed American aid to the Allies and counted Lindbergh as its most prominent spokesperson. AF: The collapse of the German-American Bund was not the end of the pro-Nazi movement in the United States. The America First Committee, whose spokesperson was Charles Lindbergh, was founded in 1940 to support American isolation and Nazi appeasement. Lindbergh crossed the country to hold rallies that blamed Roosevelt and American Jews for pushing the country closer to war. The America First Committee dissolved once the United States entered World War II. Lindbergh poured particular ire on the Jews. “Jewish groups in this country,” he told the crowd, should realize that in the event of war “they will be among the first to feel its consequences.” Individual Jews, he concluded, presented a unique danger to the United States because of their “large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our Government.” Despite the alleged machinations of these groups, Lindberg reserved hope that they might cease their efforts to push the U.S. toward war. If that could be managed, he said, “I believe there will be little danger of our involvement.” Lindbergh’s address that night created a huge national controversy. It was covered on Page 2 of the New York Times and in most of the country’s major papers. Letters poured into newsrooms and America First headquarters both supporting and denouncing Lucky Lindy. The Bund reference was to show Doc that not only had Hitler used make Germany great again, but that it even spread over here into make Germany and America great again. The fact that the Bund only had 25,000 dues paying members doesn't mean that many others followed or supported them.

That's what I said, he will be able to win on border and economy hands down, but they will be gross exaggerations, and anecdotal nonsense. What he won't do is answer a single question that he is asked. He tried to lie his way through Kaitlin Collins, and he got absolutely wrecked. He will probably use that he can't talk about his trials considerably as well. That's the gift that keeps on giving for him.

It tells me that "there are, I assume, some good people, too". Just like America First might have had some good people, but that didn't stop the Nazi ones from driving all the Jews from their ranks and memberships. That was Henry Ford's job. If they had listened to these don't attack Hitler clowns, right now we'd be buying our oil from the 3rd Reich. Oh look, here's an American Nazi blending the slogans. LOL German-American Bund leader Fritz Kuhn promises to make Germany and America great once more at a rally at Irving Park and Narragansett on June 18, 1939.

He won't answer one single question, and he'll lie about every single thing, except the border and economy, which he will greatly embellish.

I was just mocking his misogyny. Maybe Mr. Butker can give the ladies a few tips on how they should like their drinks.

I already know both sides were asking twitter to selectively remove things, and that's wrong. It becomes a real problem if they try to legislate what can be posted, instead of politely asking. The difference between the two is a mountain and a mole hill here though. Silencing the opposition from presenting facts in Congress is 100x worse.

I'm not a fan of big government, but it's a fact that citizens have many times been needed to be protected to be considered equal. Can't say that there's been many times, if any, that the government was needed to protect the Christian faith. That's just the QGP rallying fear votes, which they're great at.

Still better than censoring factual speech on the floor of the House that criticizes the private citizen king, but let's talk about what the CIA may or may not have done. Remember when trump's CIA director destroyed the video evidence of torture, that got her the job??

You may not be aware of what the history of America first was, but it was a group of 1 million American Nazis, that were mimicking Hitler's Germany first platform. Also, Hitler's campaign slogan was Make Germany great again. I'm sure a lot of people aren't aware of these things, and that why they don't understand why some people are opposed to them. Just a heads up.

The rule that took an hour to come up with was, wait for this: House members may not criticize the king. I'm not kidding either. Even though everything stated was factual. As McGovern continued through Trump’s legal woes, Rep. Erin Houchin (R-Ind.) grew impatient. “Take down his words,” she said. “Mr. Speaker, I demand that his words be taken down.” “The gentleman from Massachusetts will now be seated,” Carl ordered McGovern. The House then came to an abrupt pause as the House parliamentarian, staff and Carl figured out whether McGovern’s words broke any rules that would merit having them struck from the record. Clerks rifled through a transcript of McGovern’s remarks as members of the Rules Committee crowded around the Democratic and Republican work stations. McGovern, meanwhile, leaned back in his chair sporting a large smirk. Across the chamber, Houchin leaned forward in her chair and covered herself with a large white shawl. A little over an hour later, Carl returned to the rostrum. “The chair is prepared to rule,” he said, in a slow Southern drawl. He would be striking down McGovern’s words. The Democrat stared back at him with his hands in the air, then rolled his eyes at the decision. Carl cited the archaic House rule McGovern had referenced earlier that prohibits House members from criticizing the king. Carl argued that, per that rule, House members in the chamber can’t accuse a presidential nominee of engaging in illegal activities — even if that nominee has been legally charged. “This is warranted even though a candidate may not have officially obtained the party’s nomination once there’s no reasonable dispute that the candidate will receive the nomination,” Carl said. The Republican added that while the House rules allow for criticism of a candidate’s official positions, “it is a breach of order to refer to a candidate in terms [that are] personally offensive.” McGovern, thus, was blocked from speaking on the House floor for the rest of the day.

You're a little confused about the definitions of religion, platform, and state, but alternative facts are fine in the bubble.

I mean at least this time you actually posted the same spam post in the sh!+ post thread. It's amazing your comrades give you a free pass. Heck, I bet they wouldn't care if you shot a guy on 5th Avenue.

I don't know, maybe ask the party who consists almost completely of the same religious group, and has massive PACS and lobbies to legislate accordingly with their religious beliefs???

Yes, but is it socially acceptable for a "lady" to sip them neat? We already know that's how men should drink them, apparently.

Thanks for describing conservatism to a T. Edith Bunker had it good(watching cartoons and playing video games), and Alice Hyatt should have married a safer trucker, or found some other guy to be dependent upon, then she wouldn't have had to be bullied by Al Sharples, right? Conservative revisionist history is always so spot on. LOL

Yeah, women were shaping a world, in which they were fighting for equality? You don't think lots of women were stuck in bad situations, because being a single mother with no education was a really bad prospect? Ever watch 'Alice' or 'All in the Family', because I lived through it personally and around it? My mind is open, and it allows me to see and understand these things. Either you didn't live it, or your eyes are/were wide shut.

Were the rules followed? The procedural complaints will be ignored. Carl said that McGovern had “accused the presumed nominee for the office of president of engaging in illegal activities,” describing the words as “offensive” and stating that a presumptive nominee of a party is subject to the same rules of decorum as those that apply to a sitting president — a bold claim considering how often Republicans themselves accuse President Joe Biden of committing crimes. McGovern’s statement was not a slanderous accusation of criminality, but rather an acknowledgment of the various existing legal proceedings against the former president. Ahead of Carl’s ruling, McGovern raised several points of inquiry before the floor, asking if it was “correct that members can mention the trial, call it a sham, and question the integrity of the judge, but a reference to the mere existence of that same trial without any characterization, that’s out of order?” Carl refused to provide a response.

We've already covered that hours ago, so instead of going back to the question that I have already answered yes, could you please answer mine? I'll add another one, has your opinion of how classified documents cases are handled changed since Hillary's servergate??

So disseminating stolen classified documents is fine, and shouldn't be a crime? Remember, we can look back on your opinion of Hillary's server.

So you'd only charge someone AFTER they were caught disseminating the stolen classified documents? Am I getting this down right???

Costello is a complete clown: 'Jeez!' Costello said in the witness box, at a normal volume − but with an exasperated tone − after a sustained objection. "Sorry?" "I'm sorry?" Merchan said heatedly to Costello. Costello then said "strike it," seeming to refer to striking his own testimony from the court record. Costello continued testifying, and then he dramatically sighed after another objection was sustained. Merchan then excused the jurors from the courtroom and said to Costello: "I want to discuss proper decorum in my courtroom." Costello said when jurors left. "Right," Costello responded. "If you don't like my ruling, you don't say, 'Jeez!'" Merchan continued. He reminded Costello, who is a veteran lawyer, that Costello also isn't permitted to say, "Strike it," because Merchan is the only one in the courtroom with the power to strike testimony. Merchan also made reference to Costello rolling his eyes. "Do you understand that?" Merchan asked Costello, who was sitting within six feet of the judge, in the witness box to the judge's left. Merchan then said to Costello in an inflamed tone: "Are you staring me down right now?" "Clear the courtroom, please. Clear the courtroom," the judge then ordered. Court security officers then forced all reporters to leave the courtroom.

Here's the censorship THEY were so worried about. She wasn't allowed to speak the rest of the day. They'll probably be ecstatic, because it's a dem, and hypocrisy doesn't exist in the bubble.

Yeah no difference between an attorney-judge at a hearing, and an unruly witness trying to strike testimony from his witness stand during a trial. LOL

Joe Biden was made for bad lip reading.