If you're wondering why @Y.A.G Si Ye Nots has trouble with reading comprehension, just realize he doesn't even understand his own posts! Try to follow his arguments in this thread called "humor" if you can? (it's really quite funny)[laughing]
For instance he said:
Previously, the Democratic Party was the safe spot for racists. That is no longer the case and is supported numerous, numerous ways. (left undefined)
He was asked to provide specifics supporting this and refused.
Then he made this statement:
"You claimed that I contradicted myself when I said that every Trump supporter was stupid. I didn't make that claim. It's a straw man argument. You're wanting me to support something I never said".
...after he did say this:
"Christ, you 'deplorables' truly are a miserably stupid bunch".
Does anyone see any qualifying restrictions in the latter quoted post from the former? Was he describing Trump supporters, or someone else? Who? He didn't say. Hillary in fact called Trump supporters "deplorables" so using logic, one could assume he also meant what she did when she first coined use of the term referring to Trump's supporters. Since he didn't name who exactly the "depolorables" were in that latter quote, what sense in terms of reading comprehension does the denial of his former quoted post make? I don't know, but he sure wrote it! [eyeroll]
Then we have this incomprehensible monument to illiteracy:
@Y.A.G Si Ye Nots said:
"I'm not the one who made the claim that the voting in the Civil Rights Act was a good measure of if current white supremacists aligned more with Democrats or Republicans". Oh no?
However that was after he had offered this:
"Yes, I said that current white supremacists align with the current Republican party far more than the Democratic party" Oh, yes he did!
(it's a direct quote)
...if you're still confused by exactly what he is saying, he offered this for clarification:
"The voting of the Civil Rights Act was based entirely on geography of each congressman, regardless of party".
...he tried to compensate for that bit of intellectual dishonesty with this:
"In other words, your argument about white supremacists aligning more with Dems due to how they voted in the Act is flawed at its very core, since the voting in the Act wasn't done based on party, but rather, geography". *remember this
So, if the argument he was attempting to make was that those opposed to the Civil rights act were more geographically centered than Party based, why did he say what he said about those who opposed it who he now claims mostly reside in the Republican party?
He also said this regarding "White Supremacists who he claimed had simply 'switched parties' not geography:
"What would ever lead you to the conclusion that my argument about where current white supremacists would align is based on geography"? (yes, he really wrote that!) see above reference *remember this.
...after he wrote this:
"since the voting in the Act wasn't done based on party, but rather, geography". (I had to read it twice myself)
...then this
"Southern Democrats who held those racist beliefs saw that their party was changing and their racist/segregationist views were no longer welcomed. What did that result in? It resulted in them flipping from Democrats to Republicans, a party where their racist beliefs were more accepted".
"Those southern Democrats, outraged that their party was going away from the beliefs the southern Democrats held, ended up voting for a Republican (Goldwater). That was the beginning of many of them flipping".
...finally we were serenaded with this skillfully crafted sleight of the tongue:
"The fact that the vote on the Act was based on geography doesn't exclude one of the parties from being more welcoming of racism and opposed to civil rights. For some reason, you fail to understand something that basic".
Has anyone ever seen a person make an argument both for and against his own positions?
(Leftists do it all of the time, he's just one of the more creative ones I've encountered)
Geography or party? Confused? Me too! So what does he mean? What was his point? I don't know, (not sure he does either) but he wrote every word of what I've quoted here and then admonished other posters in the thread who he claimed lacked basic reading comprehension! (oh, yes he did)!!!!!!!!!
Unreal.
For instance he said:
Previously, the Democratic Party was the safe spot for racists. That is no longer the case and is supported numerous, numerous ways. (left undefined)
He was asked to provide specifics supporting this and refused.
Then he made this statement:
"You claimed that I contradicted myself when I said that every Trump supporter was stupid. I didn't make that claim. It's a straw man argument. You're wanting me to support something I never said".
...after he did say this:
"Christ, you 'deplorables' truly are a miserably stupid bunch".
Does anyone see any qualifying restrictions in the latter quoted post from the former? Was he describing Trump supporters, or someone else? Who? He didn't say. Hillary in fact called Trump supporters "deplorables" so using logic, one could assume he also meant what she did when she first coined use of the term referring to Trump's supporters. Since he didn't name who exactly the "depolorables" were in that latter quote, what sense in terms of reading comprehension does the denial of his former quoted post make? I don't know, but he sure wrote it! [eyeroll]
Then we have this incomprehensible monument to illiteracy:
@Y.A.G Si Ye Nots said:
"I'm not the one who made the claim that the voting in the Civil Rights Act was a good measure of if current white supremacists aligned more with Democrats or Republicans". Oh no?
However that was after he had offered this:
"Yes, I said that current white supremacists align with the current Republican party far more than the Democratic party" Oh, yes he did!
(it's a direct quote)...if you're still confused by exactly what he is saying, he offered this for clarification:
"The voting of the Civil Rights Act was based entirely on geography of each congressman, regardless of party".
...he tried to compensate for that bit of intellectual dishonesty with this:
"In other words, your argument about white supremacists aligning more with Dems due to how they voted in the Act is flawed at its very core, since the voting in the Act wasn't done based on party, but rather, geography". *remember this
So, if the argument he was attempting to make was that those opposed to the Civil rights act were more geographically centered than Party based, why did he say what he said about those who opposed it who he now claims mostly reside in the Republican party?
He also said this regarding "White Supremacists who he claimed had simply 'switched parties' not geography:
"What would ever lead you to the conclusion that my argument about where current white supremacists would align is based on geography"? (yes, he really wrote that!) see above reference *remember this.
...after he wrote this:
"since the voting in the Act wasn't done based on party, but rather, geography". (I had to read it twice myself)
...then this
"Southern Democrats who held those racist beliefs saw that their party was changing and their racist/segregationist views were no longer welcomed. What did that result in? It resulted in them flipping from Democrats to Republicans, a party where their racist beliefs were more accepted".
"Those southern Democrats, outraged that their party was going away from the beliefs the southern Democrats held, ended up voting for a Republican (Goldwater). That was the beginning of many of them flipping".
...finally we were serenaded with this skillfully crafted sleight of the tongue:
"The fact that the vote on the Act was based on geography doesn't exclude one of the parties from being more welcoming of racism and opposed to civil rights. For some reason, you fail to understand something that basic".
Has anyone ever seen a person make an argument both for and against his own positions?
(Leftists do it all of the time, he's just one of the more creative ones I've encountered)
Geography or party? Confused? Me too! So what does he mean? What was his point? I don't know, (not sure he does either) but he wrote every word of what I've quoted here and then admonished other posters in the thread who he claimed lacked basic reading comprehension! (oh, yes he did)
!!!!!!!!!Unreal.
Last edited: