What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

TRUMP TO INFINITY AND BEYOND HQ - The Great and Positive Place (7 Viewers)

Max Power said:
It was signed off as accurate before caught by a watcher. The hand recount looks worse than the machines.
This had to be pretty disappointing.  You got pretty excited about the Fraud they had finally caught!  

The hand count will probably be a little worse for accuracy than the machine count, but it will catch any huge errors (if there was any).

 
GordonGekko said:
Gr00vus said:
@FBG Moderator is it o.k. to post lies like this on the board? Just checking for future reference.


You sure you want to play this game?  Trying to force the 4-5 conservative minded who actually post regularly to play the "Use the Report Button" game?

But hey, once you cancel Toupee, and then you go after me, then Max Power, and Norville Barnes, you'll finally be most of the way to silencing everyone with the crime of having a different political opinion than you.
This is the part that makes me so sad.

If someone claimed that 2+2=5 and everyone else corrected them that 2+2=4, would then the individual claim people are trying to silence him for the crime of having a different opinion of everyone else?

So sad

 
Rich Conway said:
If all of the following are true:
- The posts are intentionally inflammatory
- The posts are verifiable untrue
- The poster provides no evidence of the claim

Yes, the poster should be suspended.  I'm unclear why that would be controversial.
I agree with this.  There is a difference in speaking as fact and as opinion:

  • I believe the earth is flat (opinion)
  • The earth is flat (fact)
Expressing opinion is fine.  Expressing opinion as facts is not fine.

:2cents:

 
This is the part that makes me so sad.

If someone claimed that 2+2=5 and everyone else corrected them that 2+2=4, would then the individual claim people are trying to silence him for the crime of having a different opinion of everyone else?

So sad
Ugh these comparisons are so tedious and ridiculous.

What if that person was, say 4? And didn't know that 2+2=4?  What if he was mentally slow?  Bad at math?   

The point is that to ban someone because they don't agree with you is wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG....You wanna argue that they are wrong, of course----go for it.  But to ban them for something.....that's just way off. 

The flat earth is the best comparison by far.   How about the folks that think the moon landing was faked?  Or those that feel aliens exist?  Or those that believe there is no God?  The list goes on and on.  Where do we stop suppressing others opinions because they don't mesh with your own?

 
Ugh these comparisons are so tedious and ridiculous.

What if that person was, say 4? And didn't know that 2+2=4?  What if he was mentally slow?  Bad at math?   

The point is that to ban someone because they don't agree with you is wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG....You wanna argue that they are wrong, of course----go for it.  But to ban them for something.....that's just way off. 

The flat earth is the best comparison by far.   How about the folks that think the moon landing was faked?  Or those that feel aliens exist?  Or those that believe there is no God?  The list goes on and on.  Where do we stop suppressing others opinions because they don't mesh with your own?
Just Stop!  Stop throwing softballs at us!  You don't know how hard it was to resist.

 
Rich Conway said:
I'd suggest if someone posts something that is intentionally inflammatory, untrue, and provides no evidence to back it up, the post should be deleted and/or the poster given a timeout.  I don't think "the Earth is flat" rises to the level of inflammatory, as it would more likely be seen as unserious and a joke.  If someone repeated it multiple times, then yes, the poster should be given a timeout as it would clearly be trolling.


http://cbldf.org/2011/06/40-years-on-one-mans-vulgarity-is-still-anothers-lyric/

"....the Supreme Court’s decision on Cohen v. California — a decision that still shapes how the First Amendment is interpreted and protected today.

....which centered on one man’s First Amendment right to protest the Vietnam War by wearing a jacket bearing the words “F**k the Draft.” In 1968, Paul Robert Cohen was arrested in California for disturbing the peace by offensive conduct. Cohen’s conviction was ultimately overturned by a majority decision in the Supreme Court.....

The Court’s 5-4 ruling in Cohen v. California cleared a wider field for freedom of speech in several ways. It limited the fighting-words doctrine, rejected application of the obscenity doctrine to profanity, emphasized that offensive speech deserves protection and warned against the prospect that the government could ban words to discriminate against unpopular views.

As Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote in his majority opinion, “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric,” reinforcing the idea that even unpopular speech is protected by the First Amendment...."

 
Ugh these comparisons are so tedious and ridiculous.

What if that person was, say 4? And didn't know that 2+2=4?  What if he was mentally slow?  Bad at math?   

The point is that to ban someone because they don't agree with you is wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG....You wanna argue that they are wrong, of course----go for it.  But to ban them for something.....that's just way off. 

The flat earth is the best comparison by far.   How about the folks that think the moon landing was faked?  Or those that feel aliens exist?  Or those that believe there is no God?  The list goes on and on.  Where do we stop suppressing others opinions because they don't mesh with your own?
You seem to use the terms "ban" and "temporarily suspend" interchangeably, when they aren't the same.

Beyond that, my contention regarding suspension was more about being intentionally inflammatory than just being factually wrong.

 
You seem to use the terms "ban" and "temporarily suspend" interchangeably, when they aren't the same.

Beyond that, my contention regarding suspension was more about being intentionally inflammatory than just being factually wrong.
I know the difference.  And neither is acceptable. 

And OK.    Thanks for clarifying your opinion.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ugh these comparisons are so tedious and ridiculous.

What if that person was, say 4? And didn't know that 2+2=4?  What if he was mentally slow?  Bad at math?   

The point is that to ban someone because they don't agree with you is wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG....You wanna argue that they are wrong, of course----go for it.  But to ban them for something.....that's just way off. 

The flat earth is the best comparison by far.   How about the folks that think the moon landing was faked?  Or those that feel aliens exist?  Or those that believe there is no God?  The list goes on and on.  Where do we stop suppressing others opinions because they don't mesh with your own?
Instead of looking at it from the perspective of the guest, why not look at it from the perspective of the host?

"Where do we stop allowing guests to say whatever they want without consequence?"

Or, better yet, "Why shouldn't a free society allow hosts to decide which guests are welcome?"

 
Instead of looking at it from the perspective of the guest, why not look at it from the perspective of the host?

"Where do we stop allowing guests to say whatever they want without consequence?"

Or, better yet, "Why shouldn't a free society allow hosts to decide which guests are welcome?"
Because I don't want to think of it from that angle.   I like to think of it from my angle    

If you don't mind that is.

 
James Daulton said:
... barely any insignificant, fraud. ...


There is no such thing as an insignificant vote nor such thing as insignificant fraud when it comes to voting.  This issue runs deeper than just this election and further than just Donald J Trump.

****

https://time.com/3423102/people-died-so-i-could-vote/

"People Died So I Could Vote

By Jocelyn Y. Stewart

September 23, 2014 4:45 PM EDT

When we were growing up in South Los Angeles, my siblings and I often heard my dad’s impromptu sermons about matters of importance: the value of education, the perils of purchasing on credit, the virtue of hard work, and the dire necessity of voting.

“People died so we could vote,” he’d say.

As a very young kid, I imagined the dying as a scene from a Western movie: good guys vs. bad guys and bodies strewn across a grassy battlefield. In the end the good guys walked away, alive and free to vote. My imaginary battle scene was historically inaccurate, but I came to learn the element of peril was real. And we weren’t talking about faraway countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, but the U.S.A., in the not very distant past.

I came to learn how perilous it had been for black people to vote in the South, especially in the era prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. People of color didn’t return from the poll wearing a splashy red, white and blue “I voted” sticker the way we might now. People of color often weren’t allowed to vote, and if they persisted, and tried organizing others to exercise their rights as Americans, they were often beaten, sometimes killed, for their efforts.

Hence my dad’s “you gotta vote” speeches. At the core of my dad’s fidelity to the ballot was an appreciation for the sacrifices made by everyday people that allowed African Americans—and other people of color—to obtain it.

In the 1950s, when my parents were kids, the NAACP began an effort to register voters in the small rural Louisiana town where they lived. Local African-American residents, like my mother’s father and the father of her friend Curtis Spears Jr., became members and participated in the effort.

One day Curtis’s father returned from town beaten and bloodied. The assault had come at the hands of the town marshal, who later explained it as a case of “mistaken identity.” Not long afterward, the loan on the family’s farm was recalled by the local lending institution. The family was forced to become sharecroppers—a plummet in status and fortune—all because of their desire to vote.

My mother remembers her mother and others memorizing the Preamble to the Constitution and various historical facts before heading to the polls to face questions from a poll worker. But preparation didn’t always help, my dad added.

“They’d ask you: ‘How many bubbles in a bar of soap?” he said.

Any answer was wrong if the poll worker wanted it to be and the bid to vote ended there. Today my parents are avid voters, going to the polls for races that feature only city councilmembers and candidates for sheriff, in addition to the ones for president. They vote with a sense of duty and commitment that might be hard for non-voters to understand.

History explains it.

Our democracy demanded a double portion of faith from older African Americans. It required them to believe in the rights accorded to citizens of this nation, even as the nation denied these same rights to people of color. It required them to march, sit-in, stand up, face police dogs and water hoses until America was forced to do as Martin Luther King, Jr. said: “Rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’”

The true price of the ballot was reinforced many years later, in the mid 1990s, when I met my friend Frank Godden.

At his home near USC, where he was mostly housebound and later blind, Frank, then in his 80s, loved talking about all he’d witnessed in his almost a century of living. He had the longest political memory of anyone I’d ever met. He was a World War II veteran, a graduate of Tuskegee Institute and a businessman who’d helped develop a resort community in northern Los Angeles County open to African Americans during segregation when other places of recreation were closed to them.

As a small boy growing up in Live Oak, Florida, he remembered his father telling him: “When you finish school I want you to leave Live Oak, leave the South. You spend too much time trying to be accepted as a citizen.”

The admonition to leave the South baffled him. Frank had eight brothers and sisters, a dog named Scout, a horse named Fannie, and plenty of friends. Life was good, as far as he could see—until the issue of black people voting arose in the early 1920s.

The voting efforts in Live Oak were part of a larger campaign by African Americans in Florida to use the ballot as a means of defeating Jim Crow laws that segregated nearly every part of Southern life, I later learned by reading Emancipation Betrayed: The Hidden History of Black Organizing and White Violence in Florida from Reconstruction to the Bloody Election of 1920. This was a time when black men were beaten, black women arrested, and white supporters threatened — all to thwart black voting.

In Live Oak, the town’s black leaders decided to run a candidate for office. They gathered on the porch of the Godden home one Sunday and nominated Frank’s father to run for postmaster. The family was well-known in the Live Oak community — Frank’s father was a livestock farmer and a minister; his mother was a principal at the town’s colored elementary school and a music teacher.

Rev. Godden was elected and, the way Frank remembered it, that vote on the porch was the beginning of the end.

Frank’s father received threats, including a letter that he carried in his wallet. Then one night a carload full of men drove to the Godden house. A man jumped out and lobbed a firebomb that landed on the porch of the home and exploded, leaving a crater that extended into the living room of the home.

Anxious about the possibility of violence, Frank’s parents had sent the children to their grandparents’ house for the evening. So thankfully, nobody was hurt.

As a very old man, Frank still remembered the fear his 11-year-old self felt upon returning home and staring into the hole left by the bomb. That day, the family packed up their lives and left Live Oak forever, on a train headed to New Orleans.

“We couldn’t let anybody know we were leaving,” Frank recalled. “We couldn’t even say goodbye to our friends.”

To be American is to appreciate and acknowledge those who died so we could vote, who faced bombs and beatings, and lost farms—and voted anyway. They are owed a debt, payable in the currency of participation in the democratic process.

When I turned 18, my father walked with me, a newly minted voter, to the polling place at the school down the street from our house. My first vote was important enough he felt he had to share it with me. Like my parents, I now consider myself a regular voter. This is not to say that I never miss; I have. But I believe, like they do, that my vote matters.

I’ve heard my father’s words flowing from my mouth when I talk to younger people about voting: people died so we could vote. Now they are my words. Now I understand the battlefield and the soldiers.

In 2000, I traveled to Greenwood, Mississippi, with Endesha Ida Mae Holland, a foot soldier in the Civil Rights movement who had just published a memoir about her life in the Mississippi Delta. She had received an invitation to speak at a literary conference at the University of Mississippi at Oxford (better known by its nickname Ole Miss). This was a place black people could only dream of attending when she was growing up. I accompanied Holland, who had since become a professor at USC and a Pulitzer-prize-nominated playwright, to write a Los Angeles Times magazine profile.

She showed me where she’d once seen the battered body of Emmett Till, an African-American teen who had been killed for reportedly flirting with a white woman, and where she had marched. She showed me where the house she grew up used to be. It had been firebombed because she joined civil rights workers in registering people to vote. Holland’s mother had been afraid that her daughter was stirring up trouble and was opposed to her civil rights activity; she didn’t want to vote. When the house was bombed, Holland’s disabled mother was seriously injured. In our conversations, Holland told me how, at the hospital, not long before she died, her mother whispered to her: “Tote me to vote, gal.”

Voting stories have been to me like family heirlooms; they make it impossible for me to take voting lightly. For Frank, the bombing robbed him of the world as he knew it. It might have stripped him too of his faith in democracy. Instead, Frank became fervent about voting, community involvement, collective action—from the neighborhood block club, to the college alumni association, to his political party. He remained a believer in the democratic process. He followed politics like others follow sports.

In 2008, at the age of 97, Frank did something his parents never did: he casted a vote for an African American to hold the nation’s highest office, then he’d witnessed Barack Obama’s election. Listening to the inauguration, Frank cried tears that carried the weight of generations."

 
There is no such thing as an insignificant vote nor such thing as insignificant fraud when it comes to voting.  This issue runs deeper than just this election and further than just Donald J Trump.
So I ask again. Where is your insistence on investigations in other Trump won states?  If fair is the metric as is the need to root out any fraud no matter how insignificant, as you point out, we should have 50 deep exhaustive dives going on. I don’t see you, or anyone else, calling for that.  

And please can I make a suggestion, IF you do reply (which so far has not been the case when I asked this if multiple people here) please TL;DR it for me. The 17 paragraph replies suck to read on my phone.  Thx.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Instead of looking at it from the perspective of the guest, why not look at it from the perspective of the host?

"Where do we stop allowing guests to say whatever they want without consequence?"

Or, better yet, "Why shouldn't a free society allow hosts to decide which guests are welcome?"
Because I don't want to think of it from that angle.   I like to think of it from my angle    
I appreciate the honesty. In my opinion, it's essentially the pro-Yelper/anti-freedom argument: private businesses should be subjected to the desires of the vocal minority.

 
This is the part that makes me so sad.

If someone claimed that 2+2=5 and everyone else corrected them that 2+2=4, would then the individual claim people are trying to silence him for the crime of having a different opinion of everyone else?

So sad




“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
― George Orwell

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
― George Washington

“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”
― Benjamin Franklin, Silence Dogood

“It is the rare fortune of these days that one may think what one likes and say what one thinks.”
― Tacitus, Histories of Tacitus

“Most people do not really want others to have freedom of speech, they just want others to be given the freedom to say want they want to hear.”
― Mokokoma Mokhonoana

 
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
― George Orwell

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
― George Washington

“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”
― Benjamin Franklin, Silence Dogood

“It is the rare fortune of these days that one may think what one likes and say what one thinks.”
― Tacitus, Histories of Tacitus

“Most people do not really want others to have freedom of speech, they just want others to be given the freedom to say want they want to hear.”
― Mokokoma Mokhonoana
“Brevity is the soul of wit.”

— Word writing guy

 
As far as I am concerned, November 2020 has been the worst month of President Trump's presidency. This nation is in the midst of an emergency. Several states such as Wisconsin and New Mexico are at or close to 100% ICU occupancy. Millions of people are in dire need of economic help. Congress is hamstrung, unable to take any action. And from everything I can see, President Trump has abdicated his responsibility. He refuses to lead and refuses to cooperate with the incoming administration. He is behaving like a petulant child and while he can do that for as long he likes as a private citizen, we need him now. People are going to suffer, and some are going to die due to this man's inaction and none of it will have been necessary. This is the most shameful time I can ever remember for a White House.

 
Please don’t read any tone into this, I’m actually asking sincerely, and with no malice. What is “enough”? Right now, the trump team is 1-27, and the judges have ruled on and dismissed most everything.  Out of necessity, this has to happen quickly, since certifications are happening very soon. Hence, we already had an IG investigation concluded, and all these court motions done. Basically, we are just about at the point that the election was proven to be fair, and the argumentation concluded. I’m curious, is there anything that would convince you all? 

 
  • Sad
Reactions: JAA
As far as I am concerned, November 2020 has been the worst month of President Trump's presidency. This nation is in the midst of an emergency. Several states such as Wisconsin and New Mexico are at or close to 100% ICU occupancy. Millions of people are in dire need of economic help. Congress is hamstrung, unable to take any action. And from everything I can see, President Trump has abdicated his responsibility. He refuses to lead and refuses to cooperate with the incoming administration. He is behaving like a petulant child and while he can do that for as long he likes as a private citizen, we need him now. People are going to suffer, and some are going to die due to this man's inaction and none of it will have been necessary. This is the most shameful time I can ever remember for a White House.
Sometimes one has to down the ladder to go up. Bannon will be getting his scalps soon.  Krakens will be released.  Blue Horseshoe loves Anicott Steel. Q has spoken.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Laughing
Reactions: JAA
As far as I am concerned, November 2020 has been the worst month of President Trump's presidency. This nation is in the midst of an emergency. Several states such as Wisconsin and New Mexico are at or close to 100% ICU occupancy. Millions of people are in dire need of economic help. Congress is hamstrung, unable to take any action. And from everything I can see, President Trump has abdicated his responsibility. He refuses to lead and refuses to cooperate with the incoming administration. He is behaving like a petulant child and while he can do that for as long he likes as a private citizen, we need him now. People are going to suffer, and some are going to die due to this man's inaction and none of it will have been necessary. This is the most shameful time I can ever remember for a White House.
No doubt. Stay tuned sadly, but going to put him below Buchanon at this rate right?

 
So I ask again. Where is your instance on investigations in other Trump won states?  If fair is the metric as is the need to root out any fraud no matter how insignificant, as you point out, we should have 50 deep exhaustive dives going on. I don’t see you, or anyone else, calling for that.  

And please can I make a suggestion, IF you do reply (which so far has not been the case when I asked this if multiple people here) please TL;DR it for me. The 17 paragraph replies suck to read on my phone.  Thx.  


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrelevant_conclusion

"An irrelevant conclusion,[1] also known as ignoratio elenchi (Latin for ''ignoring refutation'') or missing the point, is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid and sound, but (whose conclusion) fails to address the issue in question. It falls into the broad class of relevance fallacies.[2]

...The nature of the fallacy, then, consists in substituting for a certain issue another which is more or less closely related to it, and arguing the substituted issue. The fallacy does not take into account whether the arguments do or do not really support the substituted issue, it only calls attention to the fact that they do not constitute a proof of the original one… It is a particularly prevalent and subtle fallacy and it assumes a great variety of forms. But whenever it occurs and whatever form it takes, it is brought about by an assumption that leads the person guilty of it to substitute for a definite subject of inquiry another which is in close relation with it."

 
As far as I am concerned, November 2020 has been the worst month of President Trump's presidency. This nation is in the midst of an emergency. Several states such as Wisconsin and New Mexico are at or close to 100% ICU occupancy. Millions of people are in dire need of economic help. Congress is hamstrung, unable to take any action. And from everything I can see, President Trump has abdicated his responsibility. He refuses to lead and refuses to cooperate with the incoming administration. He is behaving like a petulant child and while he can do that for as long he likes as a private citizen, we need him now. People are going to suffer, and some are going to die due to this man's inaction and none of it will have been necessary. This is the most shameful time I can ever remember for a White House.
This. I’ve felt pretty embarrassed for both parties over the course of my life, but this is the most pathetic thing I’ve ever seen. Hopefully our citizens remember this the next time an unqualified person runs for any kind of important office. 

 
  • Love
Reactions: JAA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrelevant_conclusion

"An irrelevant conclusion,[1] also known as ignoratio elenchi (Latin for ''ignoring refutation'') or missing the point, is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid and sound, but (whose conclusion) fails to address the issue in question. It falls into the broad class of relevance fallacies.[2]

...The nature of the fallacy, then, consists in substituting for a certain issue another which is more or less closely related to it, and arguing the substituted issue. The fallacy does not take into account whether the arguments do or do not really support the substituted issue, it only calls attention to the fact that they do not constitute a proof of the original one… It is a particularly prevalent and subtle fallacy and it assumes a great variety of forms. But whenever it occurs and whatever form it takes, it is brought about by an assumption that leads the person guilty of it to substitute for a definite subject of inquiry another which is in close relation with it."
You know it would be much easier and far more intellectually honest if you just said “I want my team to win”. There’s nothing wrong with that and certainly yours or anyone else’s right to feel that way. But to try and tap dance around all the obvious hypocrisies here to justify a position is blatantly obvious.  No amount of quotes or links is going to help you hide behind it.  

 
  • Love
Reactions: JAA
You know it would be much easier and far more intellectually honest if you just said “I want my team to win”. There’s nothing wrong with that and certainly yours or anyone else’s right to feel that way. But to try and tap dance around all the obvious hypocrisies here to justify a position is blatantly obvious.  No amount of quotes or links is going to help you hide behind it.  


You attempted to carpet bomb me with logical fallacies and reframe the narrative. I understand the strategy in principle, it's just that it was disingenuous.

When you decide to come at me with a fair question, I'll give you a fair answer.

“He had the air of someone who imagines he can negotiate with gravity.”
― Christina McDonald, The Night Olivia Fell

 
You attempted to carpet bomb me with logical fallacies and reframe the narrative. I understand the strategy in principle, it's just that it was disingenuous.

When you decide to come at me with a fair question, I'll give you a fair answer.

“He had the air of someone who imagines he can negotiate with gravity.”
― Christina McDonald, The Night Olivia Fell
It’s not a logical fallacy at all.  If you care about fraud and “There is no such thing as an insignificant vote nor such thing as insignificant fraud when it comes to voting.” then it matters everywhere. You said it so stand behind it.  I’m sorry you think me taking you seriously with the words you actually use as disingenuous.  

 
It’s not a logical fallacy at all.  If you care about fraud and “There is no such thing as an insignificant vote nor such thing as insignificant fraud when it comes to voting.” then it matters everywhere. You said it so stand behind it.  I’m sorry you think me taking you seriously with the words you actually use as disingenuous.  


“I could deny it if I liked. I could deny anything if I liked.”
― Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top