It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So now that ATS has sponsored/advertised for an anti-war, pro-liberal movie...

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by WithoutEqual
Please allow me time to respond, before assuming 2 times in a row, that I haven't viewed the trailer, including the 12 min one, or the site.


You are having a confusing morning aren't you? I wasn't talking to you about the trailer, I was asking Commander Keen Kid if he had seen it mate.


I stand by the statement that what David Zeiger does with his money is none of your, my or anyone else's business, I happen to have manners.


I couldn't care less about the Sir No Sir website's political views or bias, it's the movie's exposure of the 35 year coverup of the GI anti war movement that intrigues us, since we are a conspiracy site.


Springer...

[edit on 8-30-2006 by Springer]




posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Will they do the same with a movie showing the other side? After all, Deny Bias, right?

Certainly. But we have not been approached by any "other side" for an opportunity similar to that of the "Sir. No Sir!" DVD.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Certainly. But we have not been approached by any "other side" for an opportunity similar to that of the "Sir. No Sir!" DVD.


I've outlined what we require in this thread... Ultra high quality production value, the TRUTH, a conspiracy angle and fair payment for our ad inventory.

There is no way we are going to promote some crappy looking/sounding DVD of a guy ranting.


We would also prefer really good music like this one has too but that's not required.


Springer...



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   
I've got a videotape of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.

It's an.. err... nature docuentary.

Well actually it's more of a politically motivated extortion/ransom attempt but who's yer liberal daddy, eh?



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
I stand by the statement that what David Zeiger does with his money is none of your, my or anyone else's business, I happen to have manners.



Well put Springer. The man spent his money, worked hard and made a movie that states his own views. What business is it of ours what he does with any profit that he makes? I recently sold my rights in a product for use by handicapped people that I helped develop. I have no plans to donate any of that money to anyone. I worked for it and I earned it. David Zeigler worked to make that movie and he deserves the right to do with any proceeds as he sees fit. If ATS was giving him the advertising space, that would be one thing, but he is paying for the space. I'm sure that if someone approaches ATS with a simular offer and an opposing viewpoint ATS will be happy to sell them advertising space as well.

By the way, Children's Hospital in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania knows that I do donate.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

The man spent his money, worked hard and made a movie that states his own views. What business is it of ours what he does with any profit that he makes?


Exactly... The movie also documents what truly happened and that it has been whitewashed and covered up by the USG for 35+ years. Thus the attraction by ATS to allow it to be advertised here.


Originally posted by JIMC5499
I recently sold my rights in a product for use by handicapped people that I helped develop. I have no plans to donate any of that money to anyone. I worked for it and I earned it.

Good for you!
The fact you put the effort into a product that helps people live better lives IS your donation my man.



Originally posted by JIMC5499I'm sure that if someone approaches ATS with a simular offer and an opposing viewpoint ATS will be happy to sell them advertising space as well.


You can COUNT ON IT.

Springer...

[edit on 8-30-2006 by Springer]



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
You bet your boots! The people who lived through it are the people telling the story, have you even looked at the trailer or are you judging this book by it's cover?


I have looked at the trailer, thank you very much. The "12 minute extended one" at that.

Though, you mean to say that he didn't just interview or put the commentaries of people who agreed with the message he was trying to convey? Honestly, this is a highly volatile and controversial period of time. I find it very hard to believe that everyone that lived through it would have the same or similar line of comments. Don't you?


Originally posted by Springer
Why don't you try something novel, go to the site and see for yourself?
You may learn not only that but any active military personell get a FREE COPY.


But that does nothing to answer his/her question of if veteran's get any of the procedes from the film...


Originally posted by Springer
Exactly... The movie also documents what truly happened and that it has been whitewashed and covered up by the USG for 35+ years. Thus the attraction by ATS to allow it to be advertised here.


The fact that this happened has never been in question. The problem is the blatant bias in this film that WILL reflect negatively on ATS. And it already has, in my opinion. Maybe you're having the confusing day.


Originally posted by WithoutEqual
Oh the sweet sweet smell of bias.


Here! Here!



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Thank you Sauron! I had no idea what this thread was about until your post. For anyone else who is lost, it's about the text at the top of the page that says:
The Movie About Vietnam that is Rocking the Country

It's called Sir! No, Sir!


Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
The truth is though, that ATS has a minority of people who do support what happened in the Vietnam War (and other wars, for that matter).


Show me the Movie!


Nerdling!


I hadn't even clicked on the 'ad' at the top of the page because I've known about this movie for a while now, thanks to one Mr. Dave Rabbit.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   
On a seperate note, I can understand why WithoutEqual would feel as if he or she were being attacked by you, Springer.

I mean, aside from the condescending tone in this post you took, this comment...


Originally posted by Springer
What a pitiful, waste of pixels


Was way out of line. Just because you're one of the owners does not mean that you do not have to abide by the same Terms and Conditions of Use that the rest of us do.



2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.


Also, I find your requirements for a film to be advertised on ATS a bit funny. Here they are again, for posterity...


Originally posted by Springer
Like I said, Ultra high quality production value, conspiracy angle, the truth, and fair payment for the advertising inventory we are giving up to promote it are all we require.


So, if someone from the KKK made a high quality production value film, that presented the truth about how thier organization has been repressed by the government over the years, and they paid ATS generously to advertise it, you would?

EDIT: Bad url! Bad!

[edit on 8/30/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Question, why is it that we are trying to tell the owners what to do, and what to advertise on their site? I mean, it is none of my business to know what, or how much money, they take in for an ad. I would prefer to know that they work hard at trying to have these advertisers feel welcome, that are willing to invest some money into this forum.

In fact, I find it to be quite a compliment that we have had two different advertisers that I have seen put forth an effort. It must mean that our hangout online is growing, and becoming a more worthy area for advertising. Sumo bean bags, and now this.

If there is a film that comes out, revealing a truth, that has some sort of "bias" in favor of conservatives, that was well done, plays to a conspiracy and pays, I'm sure it would be welcome as well. I personally like seeing people wishing to advertise with us. It's a good sign for the site. Not once did I ever think, "omg, this site has taken a side!"

It is just like the 9/11 arguments, that by having advertisements on the site for certain threads, that AboveTopSecret has taken a stance. I disagree with that.

Just my $.02



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by niteboy82
Question, why is it that we are trying to tell the owners what to do, and what to advertise on their site?


When have I been telling them what to do with the site? I merely asked a question about a hypothetical sitaution.


If there is a film that comes out, revealing a truth, that has some sort of "bias" in favor of conservatives, that was well done, plays to a conspiracy and pays, I'm sure it would be welcome as well.


Ah, but other advertisers have had thier ads removed from ATS before. So it is a pick and choose sort of battle. Also, this is more than just an ad. There is an ENTIRE thread devoted to the advertising of this film. Now, doesn't the fact that there is a thread imply an endorsement by ATS?


I personally like seeing people wishing to advertise with us. It's a good sign for the site. Not once did I ever think, "omg, this site has taken a side!"


I enjoy the advertisements on ATS as well, and have none of them blocked. The only ones I don't like are the flashing and noise-making ones, but those are normally dealt with swiftly.

As for ATS taking a side, maybe you didn't on this matter because the side taken is your side. Why would you have to argue with that? How would you feel if it was just a pro-war, conservatively biased ad on the site?



It is just like the 9/11 arguments, that by having advertisements on the site for certain threads, that AboveTopSecret has taken a stance. I disagree with that.


Ah, but before they had the multiple ads for those threads it was just the one. And you know what happened? People started thinking that ATS was biased towards one belief or another, so they put up the others. At least, that's the way I interpreted it, but I am only human.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   
First of all I'm not pro war, and I highly doubt many vets that have actually seen combat do.

Secondly I do have a problem with people that profit off others, for instance, veterans or crime victims, without donating to the cause they supposedly support. For instance people that profit off 9-11 movies and or documentaries. For instance, I think the upcoming documentary "Severe Clear" will be the best thing when it comes to showing civilians what it's like to serve in combat and, see it through the soldiers eyes, BUT the fact that he hasn't stated that some of the proceeds will go to vets has me ticked off. And you can be damn sure I'll will keep my eyes on it, and will be the first to critisize the movie, and Lt. Mike Scotti if he doesn't "remember" those he's profiting from.

As far as the "none of my business" remarks go, I hope y'all remember that line, when campaign contributions are brought up, Bush/Hallibuton connections, or really anything in gereral when it comes to people accepting funds. That line is almost as funny as the one I read in a different thread about someone suggesting ATS sue someone over slander. The Slander Mecca suing someone for slander, I love it. Granted I know y'all won't sue but it is still funny.

As far as the accuracy of the film in concerned after reviewing the site, I'm sorry, but you're pretty damned ignorant if you don't think there's a question of accuracy when his "news" links are blatently liberal, and anti-soldier.

Maybe you can get off your high horse for one minute and review his links Springer, I'll list a few for you.
"The America's Terror On Iraq"
www.albasrah.net...

www.counterpunch.org...

www.truthout.org...

www.worldcantwait.net...

I'll die laughing if you say David Zeiger can be fair and accurate, especially when even a quick glance at his site shows quite ovbiously that he has a political axe to grind and is pushing a liberal message. When y'all decided to promote his, you're promoting his views as well, including those on his site.

I think this imageI posted below on the front page of the site says it all. If this movie is about the Vietnam Veterans, their woes, ect. Then why would this image be there?




posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Niteboys new avatar


But to be serious for a moment I have to say I am a little shocked at some of the posters getting so angry about this.

Saying that one of the reasons that the guys decided to get involved with this movie was motivated by money does not mean that they would or course go along with anyones project simply for money.

I'll be the first to admit Springer is a dirty, dirty hippie. What with all his "be more open minded spider" or "have another tofurita spider" which honestly isn't that bad with the right tequila but I can say that these guys don't just sign off on stuff simply because of money.

Nobody is going to get rich of of this documentary. Michael Moore is a fluke, most documentaries don't really make much compared to what goes into it.

At least they're being honest and willing to exchange in a debate over this. they could have just shut the thread down but they didn't, so say what you want but honesty counts.

As for defending themselves and possibly getting a little heated, well if somebody was questioning your authority about how to run your business you might just get a little peeved too.

Just my two cents.

Spiderj



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by niteboy82
Sumo bean bags, and now this.


Exactly! What I want to know is where are the ads for chaise lounges?


Pardon me being so flip about this, but it's just such a strange concept to me to be so concerned about ATS's advertisements! To try to hold ATS to some standard other than the one they have set for themselves. We don't get to impose the standards here.

I don't even notice the ads, much less take them personally... There's got to be more to it. Or else you guys need to get out more.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiderj
about how to run your business you might just get a little peeved too.


But....but,...I thought this wasn't a business. I thought it was a forum for open, intelligent, and unbiased discussion, that relies on the financial support of the three Amigos.

I'm all conflicted now.

(Nothing personal Spiderj, just borrowed the phrase to set the context for my comment)



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by Spiderj
about how to run your business you might just get a little peeved too.


But....but,...I thought this wasn't a business. I thought it was a forum for open, intelligent, and unbiased discussion, that relies on the financial support of the three Amigos.



Which has been provided FREE OF CHARGE to members at at cost to those that kept it running all of these years. What's the problem with them recouping some of that? That doesn't even take into account the amount of man hours that upper staff has put into the site.

A business decision that little political minds can't seem to get past. "My view isn't there, whaaaa....." Why does there always have to be political bickering involved here?

As always, if you don't like the way ATS is run, there's the "Log Out" button up in the control bar. Feel free to use it.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
So, if someone from the KKK made a high quality production value film, that presented the truth about how thier organization has been repressed by the government over the years, and they paid ATS generously to advertise it, you would?


I hope that they would. I for one would be interested in seeing such a movie as long as it presented the truth. I also wouldn't mind seeing a movie about the history of the KKK presented from the other side, again as long as it presents the truth. The truth about any subject cannot do harm, it is the biased, spin laden, propaganda filled garbage that is presented as the truth that hurts. What is wrong with someone hearing both sides and then making an "informed descision" as what to believe? I'm getting a little tired of special interest groups telling me what to believe. Are they afraid that if we find the truth that we might wake-up and see the manure that they have been pawning off on us for years? When presented with accurate information most people will make the correct descision, but these groups are afraid that our descision won't agree with their views.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   
To those that claim "bias" --- How do you know it's biased? Have you seen the whole film yet? You've judged it before even seeing it. BTW, Truthout and Counterpunch are considered excellent journalism. They report the TRUTH. But obviously the Truth doesn't fit into your conservative views so you're saying it's biased. Why don't you do some research and learn something about the Vietnam War? I remember teachers, nuns, priests and many, many other regular citizens who protested the war, not just "hippies". So much of what went on was not told to the public and there was lots of propaganda for the war. I've talked extensively to the guys that were there, including my ex-husband who was there. It was an extremely controversial war because the facts were kept from the public and as usual, the folks who stick their head in the sand refuse to acknkowledge the horrible truth about what our govt. does sometimes.

Finally, some of the truth comes out and you want to not see it on film, does that even make sense. It's about time we heard from the other side, ya know the one that's not the govt but the actual people who were there?

Most Americans were very much against the war FYI. It was only due to the public outcry that the war ever ended or else we'd still be there. As far as the extravagant anger, well, it just says to me that these folks have a large axe to grind.

The guys who run this site are not morons, if they think it's a film worth seeing, that's good enough for me.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny
But....but,...I thought this wasn't a business. I thought it was a forum for open, intelligent, and unbiased discussion, that relies on the financial support of the three Amigos...Nothing personal Spiderj, just borrowed the phrase to set the context for my comment)


No problemo MrP, I didn't take it personally.

To elaborate on what Intrepid said it is a common misconception that this is somehow a sort of internet commune paradise we're there is no motivation other than truth and a healthy debate.

Unfortunately paradise in an imperfect world can be quite expensive. So at times if you are presented with an opportunity to back something you like and make a little coin that will most likely be poured back right into the board I say no harm.

Of course nobody seemed to have this much of a problem when it comes to discussing the ATS show.

I remember a lot of people pitching themselves for jobs on that one and the massive majority were certainly unconcerned about the concept of the three amigos producing a tv show.

Producer on tv shows, even reality shows make a pretty healthy living if the show gets a good run.

The money generated for the three guys from this documentary is nothing compared to what they could make from the tv show.

I could be wrong but I'm probably not.

Spider



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Which has been provided FREE OF CHARGE to members at at cost to those that kept it running all of these years.


I really wouldn't say "free of charge" as the ads are in fact a form of payment for viewing. If it were truely "free of charge" there would be no ads... It's more like "free* of charge." But why argue semantics?


What's the problem with them recouping some of that? That doesn't even take into account the amount of man hours that upper staff has put into the site.


Nothing at all. As I've already said, I really have no problem with ads. I don't block any of them or anything. Simply, my problem is that ATS claims to be unbiased, yet it openly endorses a blatantly biased product. Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical to you?


Originally posted by forestlady
To those that claim "bias" --- How do you know it's biased? Have you seen the whole film yet? You've judged it before even seeing it.


Well, a trailer for a film is generally made to set the tone and provide some information on the film. The trailers are neck deep in bias. So, judging by the fact that trailers tell about the film, and the trailers are heavily laiden with bias, one can conclude that therefore the film must aslo be heavily biased.


BTW, Truthout and Counterpunch are considered excellent journalism.


By whom? Those who agree with the news and the style in which they report it? Here's how surprising that is to me...


They report the TRUTH. But obviously the Truth doesn't fit into your conservative views so you're saying it's biased.




Source

truth
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.




Source

bias
1. an oblique or diagonal line of direction, esp. across a woven fabric.
2. a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.
3. Statistics. a systematic as opposed to a random distortion of a statistic as a result of sampling procedure.


Click the links for further definitions of the two.

There is nothing wrong with presenting the truth. For example, saying "The sky is blue" is presenting a truth. Now, if I were to say "The sky is blue because God deemed it so" is presenting a truth with bias. That is what those sites do.


Finally, some of the truth comes out and you want to not see it on film, does that even make sense. It's about time we heard from the other side, ya know the one that's not the govt but the actual people who were there?


I never said that I don't want it on film. In fact, I don't believe anyone has. Again, I only want to see the truth without the bias. Do you find it entirely plausible that everyone from that era had these views? Or is it more plausible that the creator of the film only put in commentaries from people who held his views?

EDIT: Oops on the quoting.

[edit on 8/30/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join