It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No, the KKK has never ever been a leftist organization. Stop this lie.

page: 5
90
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: TinfoilTP



Tell a lie big enough and loud enough, propaganda now used by the Left when they claim to be pure of racism.


She's just standing up for Margaret Sagner's freedom of speech.
Like you guys and the Nazis last week.


You know that's weak.

You don't have to admire someones vision to defend someones free speech. Like we were doing with the Nazis last week. F*** their vision, but they can speak.


You know what's really weak?

Using fake Margaret Sanger quotes.
And fake pictures insinuating Bill & Hillary do black face.
And posting pictures of Robert Byrd who denounced his former life taking responsibility for his previous indiscretions.

But you don't wanna call that out of course...
Yeah tell me what's weak again.


Well, you're making the claim that its all fake, so show me.




posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
I bet all the racially motivated laws that the KKK supported and "used" were passed by Democrats.

Not really relevant. Democrats weren't always liberal. Republicans weren't always conservative.


edit on 9-9-2017 by Dudemo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: Wardaddy454

What ideology do you think the KKK and Neo-Nazis lean?

Left or right?


Depends. David Duke really liked Keith Ellison for some reason.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: RomeByFire


This photo has been debunked lol


Jesus.... to think I gave Tinfoil the benefit of the doubt but more lies.

This is the one right?


Pastor Mark Burns, a prominent surrogate of Donald Trump, apologized on Tuesday after retweeting a digitally manipulated image of Hillary Clinton in blackface, only the latest in a series of tweets shared from his account accusing the Democratic nominee of pandering to black voters.

CNN's Alisyn Camerota prefaced her question with Burns by remarking, "This is allegedly, it claimed to be of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton in black face. This is not true. This has been disproven and debunked time and again. This has surfaced in previous presidential races. So why share it?"

www.politico.com...

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Liar lair pants on fire.



Politico debunked it? I guess they would since they donated to her.

docquery.fec.gov...

ETA: since the link doesn't seem to work with ATS


files.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 9-9-2017 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Are you denying the Hillary Blackface photo is fake? Please clarify your position on this for me since you're implying Politico is biased and holds no merit.

Here's another source:
www.latimes.com...

Here's ATS as a source:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Are you denying the Hillary Blackface photo is fake? Please clarify your position on this for me since you're implying Politico is biased and holds no merit.

Here's another source:
www.latimes.com...

Here's ATS as a source:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please.


LA Times just following the lead, and your ATS thread just points to Snopes, a known fake news peddler. And aren't they under investigation for fraud and corruption?



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

That photo has been debunked Wardaddy. Neither of those individuals are Bill or Hillary Clinton. Walk away now. You're not doing Tinfoil any justice.






posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: Wardaddy454

That photo has been debunked Wardaddy. Neither of those individuals are Bill or Hillary Clinton. Walk away now. You're not doing Tinfoil any justice.





No, it hasn't. You post left leaning, and donating, sources to back up your claim. That is not proof of anything other than your sources protecting their investment.
The fact that you're telling me to "walk away" is telling.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: Wardaddy454

That photo has been debunked Wardaddy. Neither of those individuals are Bill or Hillary Clinton. Walk away now. You're not doing Tinfoil any justice.





No, it hasn't. You post left leaning, and donating, sources to back up your claim. That is not proof of anything other than your sources protecting their investment.
The fact that you're telling me to "walk away" is telling.


Politco, Snopes and the LA Times are a lot more respectable than just about any of the alt-right sources I can imagine you scarfing down on a daily basis.
edit on 9-9-2017 by Dudemo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: Wardaddy454

That photo has been debunked Wardaddy. Neither of those individuals are Bill or Hillary Clinton. Walk away now. You're not doing Tinfoil any justice.





No, it hasn't. You post left leaning, and donating, sources to back up your claim. That is not proof of anything other than your sources protecting their investment.
The fact that you're telling me to "walk away" is telling.


Politco and Snopes are a lot more respectable than just about any of the alt-right sources I can imagine you scarfing down on a daily basis.


In your opinion, of course.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454


No, it hasn't


I've provided sources. It's been concluded as being false by various media outlets, newspapers. What have you done to prove it's authenticity? What sources do you have to prove those individuals in that photo are indeed Hillary and Bill Clinton? The answer is nothing.

Logical Fallacy, proving Non-Existence:


Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place of providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

www.logicallyfallacious.com...

Put up or move on.




posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: Wardaddy454

That photo has been debunked Wardaddy. Neither of those individuals are Bill or Hillary Clinton. Walk away now. You're not doing Tinfoil any justice.





No, it hasn't. You post left leaning, and donating, sources to back up your claim. That is not proof of anything other than your sources protecting their investment.
The fact that you're telling me to "walk away" is telling.


Politco and Snopes are a lot more respectable than just about any of the alt-right sources I can imagine you scarfing down on a daily basis.


In your opinion, of course.


Considering that I'm the one imagining what you actually read, I think that's safe to say.

Go ahead. Throw some real sources out there. Politico and the LA times are not "fake news." And just about everything I've seen on Snopes is legit, despite the fact that right wingers apparently agree it's all nonsense, in the same way they tend to agree Jennifer Lawrence said things she never said and any number of other nonsensical BS narratives.


edit on 9-9-2017 by Dudemo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   
It doesn't even look like Bill and Hillary. I mean, Jesus wept, is it not pretty disgusting to dig up a picture of some racists doing blackface and then to insist it's two people it's simply not?

Her eyes are the wrong colour for Heaven's sake.

This is some kkk defending nonsense with this attempted deflection. I'd expect this on Stormfront.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: Wardaddy454


No, it hasn't


I've provided sources. It's been concluded as being false by various media outlets, newspapers. What have you done to prove it's authenticity? What sources do you have to prove those individuals in that photo are indeed Hillary and Bill Clinton? The answer is nothing.

Logical Fallacy, proving Non-Existence:


Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place of providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

www.logicallyfallacious.com...

Put up or move on.



Hmm.

I like Appeal to Common Belief



When the claim that most or many people in general or of a particular group accept a belief as true is presented as evidence for the claim. Accepting another person’s belief, or many people’s beliefs, without demanding evidence as to why that person accepts the belief, is lazy thinking and a dangerous way to accept information.


www.logicallyfallacious.com...

Also, you're shifting the burden of proof.

Perhaps you should move on?

Nah, don't answer. I want to watch Football now.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: Wardaddy454

That photo has been debunked Wardaddy. Neither of those individuals are Bill or Hillary Clinton. Walk away now. You're not doing Tinfoil any justice.





No, it hasn't. You post left leaning, and donating, sources to back up your claim. That is not proof of anything other than your sources protecting their investment.
The fact that you're telling me to "walk away" is telling.


Politco and Snopes are a lot more respectable than just about any of the alt-right sources I can imagine you scarfing down on a daily basis.


In your opinion, of course.


Considering that I'm the one imagining what you actually read, I think that's safe to say.

Go ahead. Throw some real sources out there. Politico and the LA times are not "fake news." And just about everything I've seen on Snopes is legit, despite the fact that right wingers apparently agree it's all nonsense, in the same way they tend to agree Jennifer Lawrence said things she never said and any number of other nonsensical BS narratives.



Why should I give you anything when you attack me via my reading ability? That automatically destroys your credibility in a debate.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s.


So they were obviously anti-Republican !!

source




posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454


you're shifting the burden of proof.


I'm not the one implying those individuals in that picture are Hillary and Bill Clinton.

I'm not the one denying that it's not them.

I've provided sources.

You haven't provided anything to counter those sources or to prove those individuals are Bill and Hillary.

Put up or move on. What proof do you have that it is indeed them?



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian

But weren't these guys Democrats? Most of them were yes. It's important however to understand that the Democratic party of the past and the Democratic party of today differs significantly.


I think the significance of pointing out the dark parts of the Democratic party history is a reponce to the current obsession within some left wing groups to destroy and/or remove cultural icons because they to once had a dark past.

In this atmosphere it's irrelevant that the Democratic party of today has changed significantly from the party that imbrased the likes of the KKK. Just as it is irrelevant that the current celebration of Columbus has to do with pride in Italian heritage despite the man's miss deads.

It's hypocritical to ask for the removal of Columbus because the historical facts surroundings Columbus may offend someone; while not doing the same with the Democratic party because it's past may offend someone.
edit on 9-9-2017 by DanDanDat because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s.


So they were obviously anti-Republican !!

source





Yep, and republicans used to love them some big government. Didn't even pretend to want small government like they do now.

The democrats of the 1870s? They liked conservative things, like small government.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: xuenchen

Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s.


So they were obviously anti-Republican !!

source





Yep, and republicans used to love them some big government. Didn't even pretend to want small government like they do now.

The democrats of the 1870s? They liked conservative things, like small government.


Yeah, those Democrats back then were sooo for small government.

So much in fact they started their own government called the Confederacy.




new topics

top topics



 
90
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join