Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

jomar

Members
  • Posts

    3,855
  • Joined

Everything posted by jomar

  1. what things would the Democrats do that would make the Republicans feel pain? Universal healthcare? Sensible gun control? regulations to take care of our planet? raising taxes on rich people and corporations? because those are the things that will keep some people divided. things can never get better if people can't even agree on even the most basic issues. who could be against leaving a better planet for our kids? people were divided over whether gay people could get married. how does one person bring people together who fight tooth and nail against issues like these? look at the rhetoric already, Radical Democrats, Socialists. I can't imagine ever this country being united again until the next major tragedy occurs and I mean major. if a school shooting where 20 kids die or a concert where 60 people are killed obviously couldn't do it, any one person can't
  2. Politics are and always have been divisive and it was becoming more divisive as time moved on. However, this is not just a politics thing. If Kasich or Rubio were President now, does anyone think we'd have the divisiveness we do now? Because I don't believe that at all. Whenever Trump is gone from office and (hopefully) someone sane and with character and class takes over, 95% of what we see in this forum will be gone in an instant. A lot of Americans are disgusted, not that a Republican is President, but that a person like Trump is President. He's reprehensible in every way and that stink gets transferred onto those that still support him. At times, it can be hard to ignore that stink and not point it out but ignore it we must for the sake of the PSF.
  3. is this like when Bill Clinton said it depends on what the definition of is is? didn't make any sense back then either. as it stands, saying 'Republicans have not been allowed to participate in the inquiry' is false. the poster is free to change his statement to clarify it to then make it correct but we all know that doesn't happen. he disappears and comes back the next day with the same nonsense. there is no response to clarify what he means, just the same false talking point repeated. rinse and repeat for a weak until eventually another poster says he thinks its just 'trolling', and then you get people whining about being called trolls and how its just a difference of opinion.
  4. there was an example in my post you quoted as an example of something where the truth might be blurry, I believe disinformation is a threat to our democracy, Supermike doesn't believe this is so. since we don't know with absolute certainty whether it is or isn't, we can both hold different views and agree to disagree. that's fine. this would not be an instance where Mike is spreading false info, its just a different opinion
  5. when you say 'it' is not, are you saying that disinformation is not a threat to Democracy?
  6. because a decent percentage of Americans are no longer able to discern what is true. I agree with you if this was 10 years ago, it would have been amusing in some way. this is now a threat to democracy and should start being dealt with more seriously
  7. I agree but I was thinking more from Joe's perspective if he doesn't want bad information being spread on his site.
  8. this happens Joe, and it's ignored. they just come back the next day with the same ridiculous claim. and after a few times of doing this, it would certainly appear as though the poster is intentionally trying to spread bad info.
  9. no and no. these are the times were in I guess, where nothing is true anymore. everything is partisan, everything is 'who knows?' I thought the example being talked about was more than obvious. It is either true that Republicans haven't been allowed in the impeachment inquiry or they have. both can't be true and to say 'who knows' seems lazy. In this case it was shown that, indeed, Republicans have been allowed to participate in the inquiry and anyone saying they aren't is either lying or spreading false information. there is no 'who knows' in that case. you and others who are having a hard time with this seem to think this line of thinking will be used in all circumstances. there are plenty of scenarios where what is true and what is not true is blurry. I am not talking about those scenarios. there are also scenarios where one thing is certainly true and another thing is patently false. Those are the things I'm talking about. and if anyone would like to argue that the patently false thing is true, then lay out your argument and lets hear it. what I have pointed out more than once is that that doesn't happen. the poster will just disappear after asked to clarify his statement, and come back the next day with the same thing, and over and over again
  10. need to start one of these at flex, PPR McLaurin Corey Davis Devante Parker Chris Conley thanks
  11. dude..... I was being sarcastic with the whole Benghazi thing. back to impeachment talk
  12. check it again, its still broken anyway, I always thought the lie was that Hillary told the mom of one of the 4 fallen that it wasn't a terrorist attack. I could be wrong on that as I don't follow right wing talking points that closely, but I did remember the phrase. I think I even saw a bumper sticker with it
  13. I'd love a link to one of these instances. I have no idea if what you're saying is true or not
  14. your sarcasm meter could use some adjustin'. I realize its the age of Trump though so I will forgive you
  15. I ignored nothing. I took my kids trick or treating and spent most of the night drinking bourbon at a neighbors house. And since you are on my ignore list apparently, I don't see your replies. anyway, if truth is not clear, it can be debated. again back to the Rs not allowed in scenario, if the objective truth is not readily determinable, posters on both sides of the debate would post their arguments for what they believe to be the truth. we can all judge who is on the side of the facts. Once again I will say that this is NOT what happens here. there is no debate. someone posts an objectively false talking point and then disappears when corrected or asked for clarification. then he's back the next day with the same objectively false claim. If he has anything to back up his claim or make it more clear, then by all means let us hear it.
  16. perhaps that person could be a little clearer. and if there is confusion, maybe clear it up by posting a response to the correction. thats not what happens, they disappear and come back a day later spouting the same misinformation. for example a poster who says no Republicans have been allowed in, when corrected, could say 'I meant Congressman X, he wasn't allowed in'. they somebody smarter than me could explain why he's not allowed in (at this point anyway). and we all agree who's not allowed in and why and we can all move on. again, that doesn't happen. he's back a day later spreading the same misinformation and it comes across as purposeful. otherwise, why not address the conflicting information and prove the correction wrong? I suggested a warning first, then banning if they continue the behavior. and I use the ignore feature prominently, but other posters quote these people and there it is on my screen. and considering the fact that 40% of the country can't discern facts from propaganda, it can be a serious issue
  17. question for the Trump supporters: Is there any person in the world that if they came out and said 'yeah the President is guilty of holding aid to a foreign country until they investigated his political rival. I was a witness to the whole thing and he should be impeached', they would still respect that person and believe him? anyone they wouldn't immediately call a Never Trumper and he's lying and making the whole thing up because he's Deep State?
  18. only since you asked, you do not have this right. I'm talking about a poster coming in here spreading false info, gets corrected, then comes back the next day spreading the same false info, should be given a warning and then, if they continue to spread false information, be banned. if they can put together an argument that what they said is not objectively false, then I'm all for hearing it, but thats not what happens. they disappear and come back the next day spouting the same nonsense. over and over and over again. if its not purposeful trolling, it sure comes off that way. Joe has said he doesn't want misinformation being spread on his site. if you think people should be able to spread any lie they see fit, this probably isn't the board for you or that poster that does it.
  19. its funny because the post right above yours said that a poster should be able to come in here everyday and claim the sky is green, because it is only our opinion that the sky is blue. and that would NOT be trolling I will use the same example already given: a poster comes in complaining that Republicans have not been allowed to participate in the Impeachment inquiry. this is objectively false and someone smarter than me points out that this is incorrect and provides evidence of this fact. as part of your devils advocate position, you said that maybe a specific Republican maybe wasn't allowed and that makes it partially true. No it doesn't. the statement was that "Republicans" weren't allowed, meaning that if any two (give the benefits of the doubt here for the plural) R were allowed, that statement is false, not partially true. If the poster had said 'Congressman X isn't allowed to participate', then that would be completely true. this is becoming more and more common in the era of Trump. you can take a false statement and make it true just by changing the meaning of the word(s). in the above example, you changed the meaning of "Republicans" to "a specific Republican" to make it somewhat true. well, of course the earth is flat if we change the meaning of the word flat to mean round. but debate has always been based on words having actual meaning, so it makes it hard to have a good conversation with people who are working with a different set of what words mean. If Joe is interested in having good debate, these posters should be given a warning for continuing to spread misinformation and, if they continue, banned. It would get rid of 99% of the stuff Joe wants to get rid of around here but it would take a (additional?) moderator or two who are around all of the time and reading this threads to take action. Posters get frustrated when the same people are in here spreading the same false talking points and then they themselves cross a line sometimes. that doesn't make it right but it could be avoided if the 'trolling' poster was just given a TO Note: this has nothing to do with opinions. while the sky being green is an opinion, its not one that should be taken seriously. unfortunately, what's going on right now with the spread of misinformation is very serious and our democracy might depend on not allowing the spread of it on the internet, even if its just a PSF on a FF website
  20. I agree it crosses a line when you make it about the poster. what I'm talking about is whether repeating objectively false talking points, even after being corrected multiple times,is trolling? (and I mean objectively false, not just maybe, maybe not, who knows?, its just a difference of opinion). it is IMO and these people should be banned after given warnings to stop the spreading of false information.
  21. regarding the bolded, I've seen more than a few people who support our POTUS come in here and repeat objectively false talking points. they are corrected by someone like Maurile or Henry but offer no response to the correction. then the next day they're back in here again repeating the same false talking point, are corrected again, and again they disappear from the thread only to show up again the next day with the same false talking point. rinse and repeat over and over and over again. is this trolling? I'd say yes but these people insist they just have a different viewpoint and are being harassed for it. Even if their viewpoint is objectively false, they still feel entitled to it and to be able to spread those false talking points on this site. and then people argue with them (they can't help themselves I guess) and it all goes downhill and then the PSF gets shut down, which is probably a goal for at least some
  22. the same thing they've been doing. blame it on The Deep State that can't be trusted
×
  • Create New...