Humor

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

OK fair enough. Im at work now on my phone and I don't have time to refute your subterfuge line by line. You make statements with no attribution...form opinions or definitions unto yourself, rewrite history and redefine terms to fit your arguments while accusing others of lacking basic reading comprehension.

Fair enough. So I've asked you several questions you have avoided.

Why?

Want an example? I asked you to explain how Democrats who reject racial discrimination also support racial discrimination through race based hiring quotas and/ or racial set asides? Now you claim to have an "elite" education, and have taken license to criticize those who you believe do not engage you or recognize your cleverly deceitful propositions.

So here is a direct question for you to answer and ubdo the charges of lack of reading comprehension or logical explanation of facts that you so easily appendage to others.

So explain this? How can Democrats simultaneously reject racial discrimination in hiring by racially discriminating?

(This by the way FYI was one of the major reasons I decided to stop supporting Democrats, and I'm Black! The party is simply a mass of internal contradictions which you exemplify)

I have no problem answering any of your questions. The problem is that you ask so many, I respond accordingly, then you don't refute or admit you were wrong with any of them and resort to trying a different tactic. So before I waste any more time answering your other questions, lets go back to what I have responded to you about so far.

Lets start with the Civil Rights Act. You (and presumably your source Dinesh) claimed that the voting in that clearly showed how Democrats were the racists trying to stop the Act while the Republicans were the ones fighting for it. I corrected you and told you that the vote wasn't based on party alignments or beliefs, but rather, geography of where each congressman was from. You again referenced the Act/Jim Crow laws as your argument. I then showed you the exact numbers which showed, without a doubt, that the only determining factor on how each congressman voted was based on geography and not party.

Based on what you now know from that information, I'd like you to explain how your first comment (about the voting on the Act) was accurate.

 

[atlkvb]

I have no problem answering any of your questions. The problem is that you ask so many, I respond accordingly, then you don't refute or admit you were wrong with any of them and resort to trying a different tactic. So before I waste any more time answering your other questions, lets go back to what I have responded to you about so far.

Lets start with the Civil Rights Act. You (and presumably your source Dinesh) claimed that the voting in that clearly showed how Democrats were the racists trying to stop the Act while the Republicans were the ones fighting for it. I corrected you and told you that the vote wasn't based on party alignments or beliefs, but rather, geography of where each congressman was from. You again referenced the Act/Jim Crow laws as your argument. I then showed you the exact numbers which showed, without a doubt, that the only determining factor on how each congressman voted was based on geography and not party.

Based on what you now know from that information, I'd like you to explain how your first comment (about the voting on the Act) was accurate.

OK fair enough. I referenced party affilliation in those votes because that's the nomenclature you chose to characterise Republicans who supported Trump. You said the "racists" of the segreationalist South swtiched "parties" not geography. You said the current Republican party appartus in general was where White Supremacists resided. You didn't specify they were located only in the South. Now you're trying to argue that your positions weren't based on party but simply where the White Supremacists resided geographically?

So what is your argument? Is it party based or geographically based in terms of where the Republican White Supremacists who support Trump can be sourced?

If you could clarify your relative arguments designed only to fit your pejorative statements maybe we can determine accurately what is the source of the defcient reading comprehension you bemoan?

BTW, this is NOT an answer to the direct question I've asked you now 3 times about race based hiring supported by Democrats who oppose race based discrimination.

If you don't want to answer the question just say that, instead of engaging in the subterfuge you apparently have mastered when you don't wish to be exposed as the duplicitous intellectual fraud you are so well practiced hiding.

 

[atlkvb]

He isn't. I don't think you will have any luck trying to wise him up, but, good luck anyway. I now have him on ignore. He actually thought PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance) covered natural disasters such as flooding. I really can't understand how anyone his age could make it all the way through life, surely having a mortgage at some point or knowing someone who had a mortgage, and not know anything about PMI and flood hazard insurance.

I can't understand how someone makes it to adulthood and still cant figure out what race they are? BTW, if you have me on "ignore" why do you feel the need to inform everyone else of it? They don't know that, they can certainly read my posts which ostensibly you cannot/do not read because you ignore them. So if you're ignoring my posts for yourself why do you have to tell everyone else who has chosen not to ignore me?

That's like saying you're both Black and White? Who knew that before you volunteered that bit of intellectual dishonesty?

 

[atlkvb]

I then showed you the exact numbers which showed, without a doubt, that the only determining factor on how each congressman voted was based on geography and not party

Why did you use "party" to define them and in fact illustrate where they both came from and currently reside? You didn't say "White supremacists who support Trump live in the South". You said "White Supremacists who support Trump switched to the Republican party".

Are there no "White racist supremacists" who support Trump and reside in the North or are they only found in the South?

While you avoid that answer, why don't you add to your artful dodge of the question by outlining specifically what Supremacist policy(policies) they either promote or advocate? This is another question I have asked that you have cleverly avoided or at least refused to answer.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

OK fair enough. I referenced party affilliation in those votes because that's the nomenclature you chose to characterise Republicans who supported Trump. You said the "racists" of the segreationalist South swtiched "parties" not geography. You said the current Republican party appartus in general was where White Supremacists resided. Now you're trying to argue that that your positions weren't based on party but simply where the White Supremacists resided?
.

I am not sure you are able to follow a basic discussion. 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. You were the one who said that, and I refuted that argument by showing how flawed it was.

Yes, I said that current white supremacists align with the current Republican party far more than the Democratic party. You attempted to refute that by saying that Democrats were the ones who fought against the Civil Rights Act, so according to you, white supremacists would align better with Democrats. I explained how your argument was flawed . The voting of the Civil Rights Act was based entirely on geography of each congressman, regardless of party. In fact, northern Democrats voted in favor of the Act at a higher percentage than northern Republicans. Southern Democrats voted in favor of the Act at a higher percentage than southern Republicans. When you look at the numbers, you will see that there was really no difference in how southern Dems voted vs. southern Repubs or how northern Dems voted vs. northern Repubs. That shows that the voting wasn't done on party, but rather, based on geography. In other words, you 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.

So what is your argument? Is it party based or geographically based in terms of where the Republican White Supremacists who support Trump can be sourced?

What would ever lead you to the conclusion that my argument about where current white supremacists would align is based on geography? YOU were the one who made a flawed argument regarding the Act. I showed you that the voting in the Act was based simply on geography.

At the time, those voting against the Act were almost entirely in the south regardless of party. Those voting for the Act were almost entirely in the north regardless of party. At the time, racism was far more prevalent, politically, in the south than the north regardless of party affiliation. It didn't matter if you were Democrat or Republican, a politician in that era in the south would be labeled a racist today. Southern Democrats also fit that mold in that era. That is why southern Democrats overwhelmingly voted against the Act. So what happened? The northern Democrats conquered not only the vote, but they also took control of the party. 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. This is further supported by the number of southern Democrats who voted for Goldwater (Republican) due to Lyndon Johnson's (Democrat) pushing to get the Act approved. 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.

Look at the biggest/most well known racists in politics from that era until now. Lets list them: Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd, David Duke, Jessie Helms.

Initially, the Democrats had a stranglehold on the south. However, desegregation started to kick in, championed by leaders on both sides, and it led to the dixiecrats (southern Dems) starting their own party called the States Rights Democratic Party. These dixiecrats wanted nothing to do with desegregation, so they splintered from the Democrats. In fact, they nominated Strom Thurmond (we will get back to him) as their presidential candidate. They got blown away, and the party ended up imploding. Most went back to the Democratic party and stayed there until the Civil Rights Act (Lyndon Johnson/Goldwater situation). As I mentioned, the southern Democrats wanted nothing to do with desegregation and equal rights, so they left for good this time.

Thurmond (remember him?), a racist dixiecrat, jumped to the Republican side. He then was free to carry on his racist beliefs until his death. Helms? He did the exact same thing. He jumped from being a racist dixiecrat to the Republicans when he realized his views wouldn't be accepted in the party. David Duke, a former Democrat, did the same exact thing decades later. Robert Byrd never jumped to the Republicans. He did, however, unlike Thurmond and Helms had to do to become a Republican, disavowed his previous beliefs. In fact, in an interview, Byrd admitted to having to drop his segregationist views because he realized he would never succeed nationally in the Democratic party with those views.

So out of the four biggest/most well known racists in national politics since then, three of the four jumped from Democrats to Republicans and the fourth disavowed his racist beliefs in order to fit in with Democrats nationally.

You simply don't have an understanding of political history as it relates to this. That was obvious with your very first attempt arguing that Democrats were the ones who voted against the Act.

It is why people like Dinesh are so dangerous. He is able to present a professional piece of propaganda, manipulate information, give half-truths, and mislead those people who don't have the intelligence to know any better. It is no wonder that he has used your same exact argument in his most recent movie.

Now, I am happy to continue discussing this issue (your flawed claim that the Act voting proves Democrats are the racists). I suggest you acknowledging that your argument was flawed and are wrong on this individual topic, because I can continue to show other southern Democrats (dixiecrats) who jumped to the Republican side where their racism was more accepted.

If you can accept that, I will answer your next question related to affirmative action.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Why did you use "party" to define them and in fact illustrate where they both came from and currently reside? You didn't say "White supremacists who support Trump live in the South". You said "White Supremacists who support Trump switched to the Republican party".

What post number is that quote found in? The overwhelming number of white supremacists, regardless of where they live, supported Trump over any other major candidate from either side. Again, that isn't something most people would argue against. Hell, the official KKK endorsement went to Trump, as did many other hate-group support.

But, again, what number post in that?

While you avoid that answer, why don't you add to your artful dodge of the question by outlining specifically what Supremacist policy(policies) they either promote or advocate? This is another question I have asked that you have cleverly avoided or at least refused to answer.

And you will have to wait until you either 1) accept and acknowledge your flaw regarding the voting in the Civil Rights Act 2) refute what I said about it so that we can keep discussing it.

If you're ready to move on and accept your flaw in that discussion, we can move on to your next question about affirmative action . . . then, after that, I am more than happy to discuss your latest question (specifying white supremacist policies).

 

[CpEER]

I didn’t even have to unignore to know who you were arguing with. It’s exhausting. He thinks he’s making intelligent points too which makes it doubly maddening. He will beat you into submission with his endless hypotheticals and ridiculous questions and then claim victory at 4am when you don’t respond to his bullshit.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

I didn’t even have to unignore to know who you were arguing with. It’s exhausting. He thinks he’s making intelligent points too which makes it doubly maddening. He will beat you into submission with his endless hypotheticals and ridiculous questions and then claim victory at 4am when you don’t respond to his bullshit.

Clearly you’ve never argued with Rifle. Two people that will never quit have just entered into a dual. Grab some Cheetos, start rubbing down your manhood, and enjoy the show.

 

[CpEER]

Clearly you’ve never argued with Rifle. Two people that will never quit have just entered into a dual. Grab some Cheetos, start rubbing down your manhood, and enjoy the show.

Haha! Is this the same Rifle that is/was a Marshall fan from years ago? Holy shit, if so.

 

[atlkvb]

The overwhelming number of white supremacists, regardless of where they live,

Regardless of where they live who are the "White supremacists" that support Trump? since you refuse to give names tell me what policies they (and Trump) are promoting and or have passed that institute their "White Supremacist" beliefs? Otherwise, what makes them "Supremacists"?

(This is another question you have refused to answer. I said you can't just say it, list some policy behind the statement to justify it)

 

[atlkvb]

I have no problem answering any of your questions

Why not try answering just one then?

 

[Shirley Knott]

I didn’t even have to unignore to know who you were arguing with. It’s exhausting. He thinks he’s making intelligent points too which makes it doubly maddening. He will beat you into submission with his endless hypotheticals and ridiculous questions and then claim victory at 4am when you don’t respond to his bullshit.

Kkkunty is like that.....

 

[atlkvb]

FWIW.... @Y.A.G Si Ye Nots

if you would be so kind, please elucidate for us what makes Trump supporters deplorable? Give examples.

And your examples were?.......

using your well financed education, why don't you Google who the original White segregationists of the Confederate South were? What party did they belong to?

In all fairness to you, you did break down the numbers here but your insinuation that all the Republicans who are White Supremacists had simply "switched parties" was not among the stats you cited. Only Jessie Helms and Strom Thurmond were mentioned as "switchers". You ignored Robert Byrd, J. William FullBright (Senators) and Lester Maddox and George Wallce (Governors who never switched parties and were blatant racists and White Supremacists)

Who were the primary Slave masters that fought emancipation of Black people right up until the 1965 Civil rights act?

You claimed they were only Republicans who "switched parties" (initially) then when trying to prove your argument you had to admit there were plenty of Democrats who also fit your definition.

Who owned Slaves in the South and which party went to War with the South to end it?

This is simply history. Lincoln fought BOTH Republicans and Democrats over this. It didn't matter what "geography" they resided in. (as your numbers showed)

How about looking at the white supremacists in Charlottesville, many of whom were sporting MAGA and Trump gear. Then, check out what the KKK's official voting support went to. Check out the demographics of his support in the presidential election.

Here again, you provided no policy or actual proposals to back this claim when asked "what made them White Supremacists"? You mentioned "demographics" but cited none.

Anyone with any knowledge of American political history will agree that Republicans and Democrats have flipped on civil rights stances since the slave days.

In fact it was pointed out to you that a vast majority of the Southern resistance to the Civil rights legislation was among Democrats. True enough you provided numbers showing opposition to it on both sides, so if both sides were opposed, why did you say one side "switched" from one party in opposition to it to the other side? Who "switched"?

So of course it can be argued, but where's your proof of this "flip"? You've been asked what specific policies these so named party switchers previously advocated and "switched" to? Your answer was?......

Hell, you've avoided the statistics about the Civil Rights Act voting demographics like the plague after I pointed out that the vote wasn't centered around party, but rather, geography.

Your numbers showed opposition to it in BOTH the North and South. So where was the specific geographical opposition you keep mentioning if the opposition was located equally in the North and South? Again, who switched "parties" in opposition to it? Your numbers showed just as much opposition in both parties as support, and in fact more support for it in the Republican party, which is precisely the opposite of what you're arguing in terms of Republicans who were once Democrats but "switched" to the party of White Supremacists! You're arguing out of both sides of your ignorant mouth.

Does that mean the slave days started the flip on Civil Rights stances of the parties? No, it means that since the slave days, there has been a flip on the stances.

Here again, you've provided no policy proposals backing this statement. So what were the policies advocated by the Republicans that racists Democrats "switched" to?

Out of 145 House northern Democratic votes, 141 northern Dems supported it while only 4 were against it. Out of 103 House southern Democratic votes, 11 supported it while 92 were against it.

So among those Southern Democrats who opposed it, how many of them "switched" to the Republican party? (this is the heart of your argument) Where are your numbers backing that statement?

regardless of party, it was extremely unpopular in the south. In total, only 6% of southern members of Congress, regardless of party, supported the Act.

True. So again, why did you single out only Republicans? That's "party" not "geography" as you're now arguing when you first insinuated all the racist opposition "switched" to the Republican party.

So your claim that these politicians jumped from Dems to Repubs due to Democrats promoting segregation is as absurd as your claim about the Civil Rights Voting Act.

This is your argument! YOU said that "White racist Supremacists simply switched parties"! Now you are trying to say that was my erroneous argument? You make an argument, then blame your opponent for your specious argument? Nice kay:

Learn reading comprehension, stop with the straw man arguments, and then maybe (I ) edit: YOU will be educated some more.

(Fixed that last one for 'ya)

 

[CpEER]

On the OT board, I've found that the OP is long forgotten by the time you get to page 2. You're on page 3.

twitbot82 is a scourge on the ot board.

 

[atlkvb]

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

No, you've simply suggested the parties have since switched positions on it. Yet, after repeatedly being asked for specific legislation backing that claim as a reason for them to "switch" parties, you've been more silent than a burglar caught red handed.

 

[atlkvb]

Haha! Is this the same Rifle that is/was a Marshall fan from years ago? Holy shit, if so.

I don't know who this "Rifle" Dude is you all are mentioning, all I can see is he is typical of most of you Leftists who avoid answering direct questions, can't defend your emotion based statements, have an aversion to facts, and argue illogically out of both sides of your ill informed mouths.

You guys must all be members of the same talking points club.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

No, you've simply suggested the parties have since switched positions on it. Yet, after repeatedly being asked for specific legislation backing that claim as a reason for them to "switch" parties, you've been more silent than a burglar caught red handed.

I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand, Tom. I am not ignoring any of your questions. I will answer all of them. What I won't do is jump from one question to another, prove your claim wrong, then have you jump yet to another one.

You claimed that the Democrats was the party of racism. In defending that claim, you argued that it was the Dems who voted against the Civil Rights Act. I showed why your argument is fundamentally flawed. Are you going to accept and concede that so we can move on to your other flawed arguments? If not, please present a logical and rational argument against what I stated.

Only after you do one of those things will we eventually move on to your next question.

 

[atlkvb]

What would ever lead you to the conclusion that my argument about where current white supremacists would align is based on geography?

This:

I corrected you and told you that the vote wasn't based on party alignments or beliefs, but rather, geography of where each congressman was from

Do you have trouble reading what you write to yourself or are you so busy "spinning" your erroneous arguments that you have trouble with reading comprehension of your own words?

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

This:



Do you have trouble reading what you write to yourself or are you so busy "spinning" your erroneous arguments that you have trouble with reading comprehension of your own words?

Yes, moron. That was over 50 years ago. I'd give you an example of "current," like I stated, but we know you get "example" and "definition" confused.

Now, are you going to concede that your Civil Rights Act argument was inherently flawed?

 

[atlkvb]

You claimed that the Democrats was the party of racism. In defending that claim, you argued that it was the Dems who voted against the Civil Rights Act. I showed why your argument is fundamentally flawed. Are you going to accept and concede that so we can move on to your other flawed arguments? If not, please present a logical and rational argument against what I stated.

You showed me nothing except that your argument is a double edged lie. On one hand you argue the "White Supremacists" opposed to the Civil Rights Act simply "switched" parties and now reside in the Republican party...yet on the other hand you claim opposition to the Civil Rights Act was based strictly on where opponents lived geographically. (ie: South)

When it was pointed out to you Southern Democrats who never had "switched" parties were indeed among the most vocal opponents to the Civil Rights Act, you tried to change the parameters of your argument to include all regions and all parties in opposition. No "switchers" mentioned. So now you want me to admit you proved a point you never made in order to avoid an answer to direct questions from me you up to this point you STILL refuse to answer?

Are you refusing to answer because you won't or because you can't? The only thing you "proved" is what a coward you are fighting. Make a charge, run away when asked to defend it. Run along coward.....

 

[countryroads89]

Clearly you’ve never argued with Rifle. Two people that will never quit have just entered into a dual. Grab some Cheetos, start rubbing down your manhood, and enjoy the show.

You talk about touching yourself more than anyone I know.

 

[atlkvb]

Yes, moron. That was over 50 years ago. I'd give you an example of "current," like I stated, but we know you get "example" and "definition" confused.

Now, are you going to concede that your Civil Rights Act argument was inherently flawed?

No because your "Civil rights" charge against Republicans is wrong and fatally flawed. Are you going to admit you lied about that? What are the policies the Republicans who had "switched" parties as you claim and are now White Supremacists oppose regarding "Civil rights"? What policies do the Democrats support that Republican "White supremacists" who switched parties oppose?

 

[dave]

You talk about touching yourself more than anyone I know.

Keeping score?

 

[atlkvb]

I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand, Tom. I am not ignoring any of your questions. I will answer all of them. What I won't do is jump from one question to another, prove your claim wrong, then have you jump yet to another one.

You claimed that the Democrats was the party of racism. In defending that claim, you argued that it was the Dems who voted against the Civil Rights Act. I showed why your argument is fundamentally flawed. Are you going to accept and concede that so we can move on to your other flawed arguments? If not, please present a logical and rational argument against what I stated.

Only after you do one of those things will we eventually move on to your next question.

I said Democrats opposed racial integration (they did) I said Democrats support race based hiring (they do) I asked you for specific policies so called Republican "White Supremacists" advocate and 'switched parties' for? (you won't answer)

What's so hard about where this debate stands?

 

[atlkvb]

I am not ignoring any of your questions.

You keep complaining about the number of questions I've asked, but that number is only a direct result of the number you've refused to answer. The more you've refused, the more I've asked.

Is this statement true or a lie?

If it's true, where are your answers?

If it's a lie, just go back and pick a question you have answered.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

You talk about touching yourself more than anyone I know.

Turn you on?

I talk about it less than I do it.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

You showed me nothing except that your argument is a double edged lie. On one hand you argue the "White Supremacists" opposed to the Civil Rights Act simply "switched" parties and now reside in the Republican party...yet on the other hand you claim opposition to the Civil Rights Act was based strictly on where opponents lived geographically. (ie: South)

The thing that is really comical is that you think you are correct in not only what you're arguing, but the reasons you're giving for your argument.

You simply cannot follow a rational argument and continue to make the same flawed logic errors.

First, I didn't claim that white supremacists who opposed the Act switched and now reside in the Republican party. Most, if not all, of the congressmen who opposed the Act are now dead, so there is no way I would say they now reside in the Republican party.

My argument was that since the slave days, Democrats and Republicans have flipped on many issues, most of all, civil rights. You used the voting results of the Act as a way to refute my statement. I then explained that voting on the Act had nothing to do with party, but rather, geography. There is simply no way to argue otherwise based on the facts. The fact that you tried arguing otherwise shows just how ignorant you are on this topic.

Now, the Democrats who did oppose the Act were almost exclusively dixiecrats (southern Democrats). After seeing how their colleagues from the north voted, they realized they were outcasts in their party who were no longer accepted. Some tried forming their own party which didn't work. Some of those then flipped to the more welcoming party of their bigotry.

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.

And as I have mentioned a million times, I have no problem answering any of your questions as long as you show the intelligence enough to realize and acknowledge that your argument about Republicans voting for the Act and Democrats being opposed to it is fundamentally flawed.

 

[WVU82]

 

[atlkvb]

You simply cannot follow a rational argument and continue to make the same flawed logic errors

That's cool...you're entitled to set the parameters of your own discussion, but you aren't entitled to non-participation or refusal to engage in it. So for the purposes of the record and other OT members who maybe didn't follow the entire thread... here's a list of questions or at least your refusal to answer them:

Y.A.G Si Ye Nots said: "you deplorables truly are a miserably stupid bunch".

atlkvb asked the following questions (note: some were asked more than once)

• post #65: If this is true (and I assume everything you Leftists say is true) then why'd you guys vote for a loser? I mean how stupid was that?
• post #78: Well you stated Trump supporters are "deplorable" and "stupid". You say that, yet you can't explain how if it's true they defeated your ideas and your candidate?
• post #82: Why don't you start by explaining how stupid people voted for a candidate who was the smartest woman in the world? Why did they do that? What suddenly made that a "smart vote"?
  
• post #99: explain to me how Democrats support race based hiring through affirmative action? If it's wrong to discriminate by race, why does the party support hiring by race and thus supports the exact discrimination they ostensibly oppose?
• post #104: YOU made the statement that Trump's supporters were "stupid" and "deplorable". You were asked specifically what about them made them either or both?
• post #104 (cont) Please post the statistics which indicated Republican support for, or pursuit of the KKK vote? What policies did Republicans advocate that were by design "White Supremacist"? You can't just say it, back it up with specific policy legislation.
• post #104 (cont) Who's more stupid. Maxine Waters, or the Democrat constituents who voted for her?
• post #117: (second time) So explain this? How can Democrats simultaneously reject racial discrimination in hiring by racially discriminating?
• post #118: I voted Trump based on his policies. With that in mind, can you tell me how that vote was "deplorable" judging his policy proposals against the actual results to date?
• post #118 (cont) : What were the mistakes of our votes for Trump based on the actual results to date of his policies and what did/do Democrats offer as superior more intellectually acceptable alternatives? Any examples you could provide to prove superior Democrat policy initiatives to Trump's current policy objectives and results would be appreciated.
• post #124: You didn't say "White supremacists who support Trump live in the South". You said "White Supremacists who support Trump switched to the Republican party". Are there no "White racist supremacists" who support Trump and reside in the North or are they only found in the South?
• post #124 (cont) While you avoid that answer, why don't you add to your artful dodge of the question by outlining specifically what Supremacist policy(policies) they either promote or advocate?(3rd time asked)
• post #130: (4th time) Who are the "White supremacists" that support Trump? since you refuse to give names tell me what policies they (and Trump) are promoting and or have passed that institute their "White Supremacist" beliefs? Otherwise, what makes them "Supremacists"?
• post #133: So among those Southern Democrats who opposed it, (Civil rights Act) how many of them "switched" to the Republican party? (this is the heart of your argument) Where are your numbers backing that statement?
• post #142: What are the policies the Republicans who had "switched" parties as you claim and are now White Supremacists oppose regarding "Civil rights"? What policies do the Democrats support that Republican "White supremacists" who switched parties oppose?(2nd time)

...and finally after all of those "unanswered" questions, he closes off the debate with this gem in post #147:
Y.A. G Si Ye Nots said "And as I have mentioned a million times, I have no problem answering any of your questions"

 

[TarHeelEer]

If you promised a bunch of 8th graders that you would get them an extra hour of recess, no more homework, and a room free of teachers they are allowed to make out in, you'd win the student council election even though it's clear you wouldn't be the brightest middle schooler campaigning.

Irony

 

[atlkvb]

Irony

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pretty much promises the same "free lunch" to Leftists and she's described as the ''future face of the Democrat party'!

Ironic indeed.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Irony

Bernie!! Bernie!! Bernie!!

The Democrat platform is just short of votes for cash.

 

[bornaneer]

No, in fact, I was saying just the opposite of that. This is a perfect example of a deplorable - somebody who lacks basic reading comprehension. I said "since" the slave days. You underlined that as if it somehow meant that was when the switch happened.

Let me dumb it down for you:

Pretend you are 15 years old. You haven't seen Fat Aunt Judy since you were 7 years old. She sees you at a family reunion (or "orgy," as you West Virginians call them) and says "Hey, dumbass, you sure have gotten bigger since the last time that I saw you." You respond with "Yeah, I have grown 2' and gained 140 lbs. since then."

Does her use of "since" mean that you immediately became noticeably bigger when you were 7 years old, the last time that she saw you? No, it means that during that span (from her last time of seeing you at age 7 to the next time she saw you at age 15), you have gotten bigger. Does your use of "since" mean you immediately changed? No, it means that you have changed since that time, not having held that change starting at that time.

Let me dumb it down for you again:

Pretend you and your wife are having marital problems. You aren't happy with your sex life. You complain incessantly about how she will never fornicate with you. Finally, one day, she has enough. She says "Yes, I used to like making love to you. But you have gained 100 lbs. since our wedding, and I am turned-off by you now."

Does her use of "since" mean that she was turned-off by you on your wedding date? No, clearly, it means that during that time period (wedding date to now), you have gained weight and she has subsequently grown to find you unappealing.

Now, lets review my statement that you monumentally bombed:

"Republicans and Democrats have flipped on civil rights stances since the slave days."

Does that mean the slave days started the flip on Civil Rights stances of the parties? No, it means that since the slave days, there has been a flip on the stances.

Again, this is perfect example of a deplorable. But lets look a little more at your post.




You called me a "fukin idiot." Besides proving that you have the reading comprehension skills of a slow fifth grader, you also used "1960's" instead of the correct "1960s" with no apostrophe. You also used "your" when you should have used "you're." You also used "hero's" when you should have used "heroes."

When you show a lack of basic reading comprehension, a lack of logic, and a lack of elementary English, you shouldn't call anyone "idiot," idiot.

The fact that Tom liked your comically illogical post shows just how dumb he is, too.

Wow.......OK.....you win the grammar prize. But......let me help you out......The Democrat Party is the racist party.....always was and STILL is.....and....You're still a fukin idiot.

 

[countryroads89]

Wow.......OK.....you win the grammar prize. But......let me help you out......The Democrat Party is the racist party.....always was and STILL is.....and....You're still a fukin idiot.

You know better than this. The Republicans are the ones fighting to keep the Confederate statues up. The Republicans are the ones whining about black NFL players taking a knee. Every single racist and Nazi currently running for US Congress is a Republican.

 

[bornaneer]

You know better than this. The Republicans are the ones fighting to keep the Confederate statues up. The Republicans are the ones whining about black NFL players taking a knee. Every single racist and Nazi currently running for US Congress is a Republican.

That is racist? And to say every single racist currently running for US Congress is a Republican is laughable.

 

[atlkvb]

You know better than this. The Republicans are the ones fighting to keep the Confederate statues up. The Republicans are the ones whining about black NFL players taking a knee. Every single racist and Nazi currently running for US Congress is a Republican.

But only one party has a co- chair who thinks all White people are Devils. Democrat Keith Ellison, Black Muslim extraordinaire.

 

[atlkvb]

That is racist? And to say every single racist currently running for US Congress is a Republican is laughable.

Notice how no one was named? Not a single one of 'em!

 

[atlkvb]

That is racist? And to say every single racist currently running for US Congress is a Republican is laughable.

"Racist" is anything Leftists say it is. Being loyal to America is racist. So is being White & Christian.

 

[WVU82]

 

[WVU82]

....