Somethings never change

Is that a Spiderman mask?

Good eye! I didn't even notice that

Thanks man!

And so it would seem.

Yes it would

You might want to look up what AntiFAscist means.

You might want to look up what ANTIFA actually DOES. For a group that calls themselves "antifascist" they sure act like fascists.

What Antifa does and what it purports to be are two different things.

You're referring to a broader meaning of "Fascist."
They refer to the more specific original meaning.

Thugs, hypocrites, idiots who are missing their own point, yes - but if you want to use action rather than mission as definers, there's a whole lot of "-ists" that need revisioning dictionary-wise, basically all of them.

What you appear to describing is very common. Groups assume names, monikers, identifiers, symbols etc that are contrary to their actions. You see this in politics with name of legislation, "The Patriot act", there is nothing "patriotic" about a bill that voids privacy under the guise of fear of terrorist. You also see this with political parties, the Democratic Party for example. Their name obviously means to show they are "Democratic" yet the entire party structure is anything but Democratic. Super delegates run roughshod over the will of Democrat party voters.

So yes, while ANTIFA'S name implies one thing ( a historical reference to the anti-hitler movement in Germany) their actions are anything but anti-fascist.

And a tad bit more civilized than these bored college kids today.

Basic Animal Farm. Bottom line is anything with a membership of 2 or above is on the quick path to losing site of what it stood for.

Vaggybond is here. We are going back to 5th grade the standard is too low in this thread. Time to let the kids play now.

Aww, you are adorable. Here, have a cookie and go find someone you can pretend to be a vet to and cry "Stolen Valor" while getting "MKOs" or whatever that was wrong.

They're not out there killing people like the KKK is, though.

ANTIFA and the KKK are both trash, but it's good to see your minimizing the assaults of one group

And as usual you're glossing over all the murders committed by Republicans in the name of Trump.

Bahahha...show me said murders...

Thanks for proving my point.

If it means setting people's shit on fire and attacking people they don't like for no reason all while hiding behind their masks then that sounds an awful alot like the Ku Klux Klan

Except the KKK targets people according to perceived race (which in their worldview ncludes religion).
The KKK also killed people and burned their houses down.

Antifa has made it quite clear that they hate white people along with any forms of christianity or judaism. They have burnt out many buildings and there were multiple instances in which people died as a result of them either ganging up and attacking people or blocking ambulances. Not sure why you'd want to defend these sick people.

1. They hate who wha and burnt out wot and killed wha where?

2. What utterly stupid silly blockhead of a confounded cretinous glob of fetid spit told you I'm defending them?

Lying is not your strong suit. You should refrain from doing it.

Oh cool, I can do this too.

Now which one of us posts Biden and which posts Stalin?

Tell your moms I said hey Vaggybond. Both of em.

Will do, souldjerr.

Sad you had only one. Parent, that is. Maury hasn't helped find daddy, has he?

Well there is a certain Democrat that did switch sides, in name only. He's Republican now.
His address is 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC. I forget the zip. I'm sure you can find it.

PS: That crowd celebrating his innauguration was yuge. Had some very fine people.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

The only ones wearing KKK hoods these days are Republicans, folks. Governor Kemp of Georgia just reversed a law banning the hoods using the pandemic as an excuse.

Another fine endorsment.

Can't wait for Kemp to run for President. From the way he ran for Govenor and so on, he's right up GOP "the ends justify the crooked means"

According to Gallop, "polling found that 29% of Americans identified as Democrats, 30% identified as Republican, and 39% as Independent. Additionally, polling showed that within Independents, 47% are either "Democrats or Democratic leaners" and 46% are either "Republicans or Republican leaners"

So if ALL registered Democrats and ALL Democrat-leaning Independents voted for Obama, he would have received only 47% of the vote and lost. Ergo, there were Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents who voted for Obama. So yes, Republicans elected Obama, kinda.

The numbers are not fudged, they came straight from Gallup. My interpretation of them can legitimately be questioned.

That is the wonderful thing about numbers. Numbers don't lie, but everybody else does. My interpretation of the numbers are just as valid as anybody else's.

Are you saying that no Republican voted for Obama? We all know that is not true, so, therefore, Republicans did get him elected.

IGNORE THIS BRAZEN TROLL

"Since Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal coalition in the 1930s, the Democratic Party has promoted a social liberal platform."[wikipedia]

wikipedia is not a source

Wikipedia is too a source

no it's not. it's written by any random person who gets their info from elsewhere.

Like the thousands of fact checkers who spent years studying one single topic.

pretty sure if you spent a little time and actually read through the article you'd find the sources (at the bottom), and then you read through wikipedia's sources and tell me if they're trustworthy or not and you can compare it the article itself.

what about vandalism? wikipedia does nothing to stop that.

depends on the article, just check the sources mate wikipedia lists its sources (for the most part), only under certain circumstances is it not trustworthy, but that doesn't make it a good source either

lollll

What's your source for the proposition that modern-day Democrats are the KKK?

i don't need a source because i'm not the one who made a claim

Did you upvote the OP's meme?

that's not making a claim. that's approving of someone else's claim.

Then you clearly support utter bullshit.

I'd like to see a source on Trumps statement please.

Looks like I have been downvoted into oblivion. I guess the libturds are just triggered by the truth lol

orang man good

explain to me how giving money and weapons to people who want us dead is "fixing the economy"

It was Iran’s money. Take off your tin foil hat and do some research.

orang man bad

Tomato tomahto

Do you dispute that the Democratic Party has promoted a social liberal platform since the New Deal in the 1930's?

On what basis

Wikipedia itself says their own website is not a credible source.

"Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. ... Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself."

And the site advises people not to use the pages it contains as sources.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source

Actually I had no intention of beginning a debate about source material. I have learned the material in text books years ago. Apologies for forgetting* professor's name.

*mild sarcasm

You learned it in class, therefore it must be accurate. Interesting analysis given your username

Multi-pass

Unbreakable. touche.

A touch of humility from the purveyors of knowledge at your fingertips. Perhaps issued as a liability disclaimer.

Wikipedia is presumptively accurate, despite those reservations. As a practical matter, it is not riddled with vandalism. And it’s a lot more accurate than content you’re likely to find elsewhere.

If you think something on Wikipedia is wrong, prove it.

Wikipedia: Don't trust what's on Wikipedia

Kylief@g: don't listen to Wikipedia's warnings, listen to whatever's on Wikipedia. Except of course for the warning on Wikipedia not to believe what's on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia will typically give you the same information as an encyclopedia entry on the same topic, except Wikipedia is more up-to-date, comprehensive, and has more articles on more sub-topics.

Still nobody here has provided any sources of their own countering the above claim, attributed to Wikipedia, that the Democratic Party has pursued a socially liberal platform since the New Deal in the 1930s.

Why not?

I guess because it’s more fun to whine about Wikipedia than to actually do the work.

I need not refute any give claim in Wikipedia. Wikipedia it self says not to trust it.

So, if your claim is as so you claim, surely you can produce a source that does not discount itself as not credible?

First paragraph of the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on the Democratic Party says the same about the trajectory of the party over the better part of two centuries in so many words

Great. I never said your claim wasn't accurate.

I said Wikipedia is not a credible source and that is from the Wikipedias own admission.

Stay up with the plot.

i think we are at thread depths.

your rejuvenation beyond the paradoxical nature of the validity logic is weak. a source is a totality; to pick and choose authors and editors and writers and contributors as more or less valid makes research impossible. with that in mind we should be laughing at all the messages in these threads on imgflip. but I guess everyone hopes to feel important.

but also the validity - circling back around - of taking their own warning to not use them with a grain of salt across the board. i mean you are right that really the enforcing goes either way. in short WP may as well be the catholic church for how all its members must be judged the same [similarity]

but i prefer not to believe the fact that any large amorphous organizational source anywhere who questions themselves or affirms themselves [equivalency] is reduced to a pile of rubble. that because we must presume by the equivalency plus similarity arguments that everyone at the source also takes themselves so seriously.

imgflip and the like are clearly the worst with members of every kind and strategies of every sort. so then the search grinds to a halt as it always does. we want the stories of those who were 'really there'. i think this has been run into the ground?

note sarcasm in other comment... a source qualifying [calling into question own reliabilty] is not a reality. if so then a source verifying [touting own claims] would be a reality too. obviously we scoff at the later. but should scoff equally at the former.

Encyclopedia Britannica entry on self: 'source of all knowledge on Earth'. Kidding.

"a source is a totality; to pick and choose authors and editors and writers and contributors as more or less valid makes research impossible"

This only reinforces the validity of not using Wikipedia as a source.

I was not able to reply directly to the below

"note sarcasm in other comment... a source qualifying [calling into question own reliabilty] is not a reality. if so then a source verifying [touting own claims] would be a reality too. obviously we scoff at the later. but should scoff equally at the former."

Your logic is sound, but only to a point. If Wikipedia says you can't trust it's material, and the disclaimer is part of the material, then the disclaimer must also be treated as dubious. However disclaimer is not equal to the other material found in the site. The other material is provided by individuals outside of Wikipedia, while the disclaimer comes from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is telling us, because of the nature of the repository, you cannot trust the claims made in the repository. Surely, you may use the information as a starting point but you should use other sources for verification.

no reason to be literally rhetorical.

I think there is an existential debate that is difficult to encapsulate. it's not easy to specify the nature of traditional versus progressive debate even back in the day. though I trust wikipedia I also never found a good answer as to why the two parties flip flop on many objectives over time.

we may be seeing this again as 'liberals' increasingly embolden themselves within the realities of pandemic rules. a face mask today clearly means and functions under different social properties today.

Maybe, maybe not.

David Duke, grand wizard of the KKK, at Charlottesville: "We are determined to take our country back. We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That's what we believed in. That's why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he's going to take our country back. And that's what we gotta do." Check out the video: https://twitter.com/mykalmphoto/status/896387613157974018?s=20

Yes, and just Tulsi Gabbard did when David Duke endorsed her, Trump denounced him.