Opinion of Jfern?

[Ebowed]

Let me say that while I have had a number of disagreements with Jfern, I don't much care for the 'piling on' nature of this thread.

See, this is very true.  This thread has become another avenue for everyone to pick on an unpopular forumite.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Don't you see that the "moderate" Democrats have no spine and don't stand for anything?

Case in point.  Every time I criticize one aspect of the liberal Democratic agenda, I (or any other moderate for that matter) end up with this.

Let's make it clear. Some conservative Democrats have a spine, like Senator Reid. However, far too many just repeat GOP talking points.

[bullmoose88]

I think Jfern goes a bit over the top sometimes, but I think, possibly, that may be one of the responsibilities of being the most vocal liberal on the boards. Certainly, from my perspective, I think he's prone to exaggerations, but thats not a damnable sin.

So, Freedom Fighter (if a bit rude at times)

Though, his attempts to make me flip to the dems make him a horrible person...hmm...

FF.

[J. J.]

He's a liar.

Got any evidence, or are you just mindlessly slandering?

You did say Republicans were stealing watches and that King Fahd was dead long before he really was.

Ah, you forgot that he claimed that in 1933, August came before March.  It was some mindless Catholic bashing.

I also suspect he's faking his background.

[Democratic Hawk]

Don't you see that the "moderate" Democrats have no spine and don't stand for anything?

Case in point.  Every time I criticize one aspect of the liberal Democratic agenda, I (or any other moderate for that matter) end up with this.

Indeed, he does and such comments can be somewhat tiresome I wouldn't say he's a horrible person. He's a Democrat - albeit in my humble opinion, a misguided one

Dave

[MODU]

He's neither.  He can be a real pain in the butt for sure, but I haven't figured out if he's just that partisan or if he's pulling everyone's leg.  But he's on my ignore list, so I don't have to bother reading his messages any more.  HAHAHA

[John Dibble]

I don't like jfern, but I'm going to try to be fair about this and I do hope he'll read this with an open mind.

He's horribly, bitterly partisan, and he has a deep hatred of the other side that I see as very unhealthy, which is also the biggest contributing factor to his poor reputation on this forum. He also seems to have a sense of self-righteousness that oft crosses into arrogance. He's given examples of this in this very thread with statements like "people here hate facts" - he needs to learn that we don't hate facts, we simply disagree on what the facts are - or that "I'm clearly right" - if he was clearly right people here would agree with him more often. He needs to accept the possibility that he might be wrong, as nobody is infallible, but more importantly he needs to accept the possibility that the other side might actually be right. Further, he just needs to plain calm down. Most people on this forum are above average intelligence and are willing to have a calm, rational debate on the issues but his attitude just gets in the way of him being a part of that.  We're all human beings here, so we should at least try to get along.

Now, to his credit I do think he has a strong sense of justice, and that his opinions are honest and that he really does care. He's very passionate about it. In this sense he's a freedom fighter, though I certainly disagree with him on the freedoms he's fighting for. While I do admire that passion he has, I think it's the reason he's got those afformentioned problems - he let's his passion and sense of judgement rule his reason, and thusly he gets very emotional. That's not to say his passion is in itself a bad thing, but he really needs to get it under control and employ it properly, and if he manages to do so could become a respected member here and elsewhere.

I don't think either of these poll options really fit him, but if I have to vote I'll say he's a horribly misguided freedom fighter.

[John Dibble]

He's horribly, bitterly partisan, and he has a deep hatred of the other side that I see as very unhealthy, which is also the biggest contributing factor to his poor reputation on this forum. He also seems to have a sense of self-righteousness that oft crosses into arrogance.

That could be said about anyone here.

Not really - there are plenty of non-partisan people here on all sides who don't hate the other side.

[MODU]

Anyone who doesn't buy into the groupthink of this forum, better be ready to be unfairly and viciously attacked.

It's impossible to have group think on this forum:

a)  you have some very strong democrats vs very strong republicans.  Rarely will the two ever see eye to eye

b)  you also have libertarians which tend to go contrary to when the two dominant parties actually agree on something

c)  you have people like me that take the middle road between the two main groups, except for when we have a key issue which we are extreme on

That's the nice thing about this forum.  I've been to too many places where if you were a liberal, you were nothing, and vice versa.  Here, at least, there is a nice balance of all sides.  Why you want to imply the opposite of that fact is beyond me.

[MODU]

I disagree, not surprisingly, nobody here can be described as 'non-partisan'. There are plenty of people here who attack people simply because they disagree with them.

I'm clearly non-partisan, since I hate the concept of parties in general. 

[J-Mann]

Anyone who doesn't buy into the groupthink of this forum, better be ready to be unfairly and viciously attacked.

There's no groupthink on this forum.  That's an unfair and very general stereotype -- so there are a few members that do think alike and personally attack members who have different views (jfern himself is quite guilty of that).  There are many more members who do not engage in such behavior.

Jfern is a freedom fighter.  I don't agree with much of what he says, but I genuinely think he believes in what he's saying and, at the very least, he's persistent in fighting for his views.  The area in which I most vigorously disagree with jfern is the way he goes about defending his views -- more often than not he's harsh, abrasive and downright nasty to forum members who hold different points of views.  It boils down to what seems like an inability to understand that one man's "facts" are another man's spin. (That's certainly not to say that jfern doesn't get his unfair share of personal attacks.  He's often unfairly turned into a target, as he has been in this thread.)

Yes, he's a freedom fighter, but one who should calm down a bit, especially if he desires the respect that he seems to want (ie: don't call me JFRAUD).  You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.  The other members of this forum are much more likely to treat a dissenting voice better if the dialog occurs through sustained and substantial debate as opposed to, "F*** you, you're an idiot who doesn't care about facts."

[MODU]

There is a big difference between being a Democrat and being a liberal. Many of the Democrats here would not call themselves liberal and, indeed, are anti-liberal. The lopsided polls on many issues fly in the face of your opinion that 'there is a nice balance'.

If thinking that makes you feel better about yourself, go right ahead.  However, your perception of reality is very skewed.  I think you should spend more time actually reading everyones comments, and you will begin to see the flaw in your analysis.

[MODU]

The fact that there are a lot of people who want to ban a number of people simply for having controversial views is evidence that there is, indeed, groupthink on this website.

Ummm . . . no.  The question of banning people is not due to controversial views, but rather for their personal attacks and trolling.  Big difference.

[J-Mann]

The fact that there are a lot of people who want to ban a number of people simply for having controversial views is evidence that there is, indeed, groupthink on this website.

Ummm . . . no.  The question of banning people is not due to controversial views, but rather for their personal attacks and trolling.  Big difference.

That depends on how you define 'trolling'. As soon as someone challenges the groupthink on this site they will very quickly be considered a troll.

That's not groupthink.  Read the book again.  There may be, for instance, a handful of rightwing posters on this board who want to see Opebo or jfern banned for nothing more than the content of their posts.

That's not groupthink because A) most of us don't think similarly, and B) we haven't acted on their suggestions.

[J-Mann]

Fortunately, the decision to ban people is not based on the whims of the majority here.

Who is the majority?  Name them.  I think you're trying to play the victim when there has been no crime.  So a few people don't like jfern and want to ban him.  So?  Even more disagree with his opinions.  What, that's not acceptable?  Groupthink implies that a decision has been made because of the prevailing thought of the majority.  I don't think a majority exists in this case, unless we're talking about people who just disagree with jfern.  Most of his battles are between him and a few members who seek him out -- that's certainly not a majority.  Vocal minority, maybe, but until you come to me with names of all these supposed people who want him gone because his views don't match up with the so-called prevailing whims of the forum, I think you're just trying to make mountains out of molehills.

[MODU]

I would not be surprised if most, if not all, of those who whine about jfern attacking them, have done all they could to provoke him.

It's a two-way street.  It doesn't take long to identify those who are antagonists on either side of the issue.  JFern has done a lot to bring the distain he receives upon himself, and that usually isn't cause by the topic/partisan issue of the moment, but more of the way he addresses others.  To even cast JFern as a victim in this fashion is beyond ignorant.  Again, read the discussions with an open mind, and not a partisan or preconceived opinion.

[skybridge]

It's a shame he's been smeared like this.

[??????????]

It's a shame he's been smeared like this.

He brings it on himself.

[MODU]

The animosity between liberals and conservatives goes back a long way. In my opinion it goes back at least as far Clinton's impeachment.

That is an excuse and/or an attempt at spin.  It has nothing to do with this issue since there are many liberals and conservatives (and others like me) who get along with pretty much everyone regardless of political views.  It's more of an issue on the personal level with the way people address and communicate with others.

[J-Mann]

Posted again so TC can respond -- was the last post on the last page and may not have been seen.

Fortunately, the decision to ban people is not based on the whims of the majority here.

Who is the majority?  Name them.  I think you're trying to play the victim when there has been no crime.  So a few people don't like jfern and want to ban him.  So?  Even more disagree with his opinions.  What, that's not acceptable?  Groupthink implies that a decision has been made because of the prevailing thought of the majority.  I don't think a majority exists in this case, unless we're talking about people who just disagree with jfern.  Most of his battles are between him and a few members who seek him out -- that's certainly not a majority.  Vocal minority, maybe, but until you come to me with names of all these supposed people who want him gone because his views don't match up with the so-called prevailing whims of the forum, I think you're just trying to make mountains out of molehills.

[J. J.]

Posted again so TC can respond -- was the last post on the last page and may not have been seen.

Fortunately, the decision to ban people is not based on the whims of the majority here.

Who is the majority?  Name them.  I think you're trying to play the victim when there has been no crime.  So a few people don't like jfern and want to ban him.  So?  Even more disagree with his opinions.  What, that's not acceptable?  Groupthink implies that a decision has been made because of the prevailing thought of the majority.  I don't think a majority exists in this case, unless we're talking about people who just disagree with jfern.  Most of his battles are between him and a few members who seek him out -- that's certainly not a majority.  Vocal minority, maybe, but until you come to me with names of all these supposed people who want him gone because his views don't match up with the so-called prevailing whims of the forum, I think you're just trying to make mountains out of molehills.

I think I might have seen one (possibly tongue in cheek) call to ban him.  I have not suggested it and do not suggest it.  If it were up to the majority to ban him, I seriously doubt if it would get a majority.  It certainly would not get my vote (even though he has complained when I have defended Democrats on this forum).

As to him bringing it on himself, he does, but usually due to his getting the facts wrong, not because of his political views (as have been commented on by Democratic posters on this thread).

[MODU]

TC,

A perfect example of what we were discussing:

Basically you're pro poll tax.

No, basically, I'm pro interpreting the Constitution rather than amending it the guise of interpretation. I'm not in favor of a poll tax, but I am compelled to recognize that the Constitution does not stop a state from levying one (except in certain limited cases).

Whatever, you support a ing poll tax you elitist.

JFern brings any harsh criticism he receives upon himself.

[??????????]

Posted again so TC can respond -- was the last post on the last page and may not have been seen.

Fortunately, the decision to ban people is not based on the whims of the majority here.

Who is the majority?  Name them.  I think you're trying to play the victim when there has been no crime.  So a few people don't like jfern and want to ban him.  So?  Even more disagree with his opinions.  What, that's not acceptable?  Groupthink implies that a decision has been made because of the prevailing thought of the majority.  I don't think a majority exists in this case, unless we're talking about people who just disagree with jfern.  Most of his battles are between him and a few members who seek him out -- that's certainly not a majority.  Vocal minority, maybe, but until you come to me with names of all these supposed people who want him gone because his views don't match up with the so-called prevailing whims of the forum, I think you're just trying to make mountains out of molehills.

I think I might have seen one (possibly tongue in cheek) call to ban him.  I have not suggested it and do not suggest it.  If it were up to the majority to ban him, I seriously doubt if it would get a majority.  It certainly would not get my vote (even though he has complained when I have defended Democrats on this forum).

As to him bringing it on himself, he does, but usually due to his getting the facts wrong, not because of his political views (as have been commented on by Democratic posters on this thread).

Yes, I don't want JFern banned for sure. I wish he would stay around and a REALLY wish he would get back to debating like he used to. Sure I didn't agree with his views but I liked reading his stuff before. Now it's all one liners about ing poll tax or something stupid about that nonsense scrub list.

[Citizen James]

He's a left wing version of Jake.

Frankly, I find the juvinile behavior of those who toss around the term 'jfraud' apalling.

I never did like the whole french revolution era left/right chart.  Even though Nolan-charts (like the political compass) are better, they still are fairly simplistic.  The reason we have political parties is not because the whole world fits into two or so neat platforms - it's because of game theory.  Elections, unlike life, are pretty much a zero sum game - more than two candidates and you get spoilers.  So you end up with fights of who can build collitions of various issue and interest groups - and a few who go overboard like it was a high school football rivalry.

His positions are at least consistant, if not pragmatic.

If I were to pick a word, I suppose it would be Quioxic.

I wonder what we would label the man of la mancha and his crusade against the dragons windmills.

[??????????]

Frankly, I find the juvinile behavior of those who toss around the term 'jfraud' apalling.

I agree, I also find it juvenile of those who call others Nazis w/out and evidence or even a clue about the person they are name calling.