Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Let's end the yellow journalism posts right now

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Exactly. The sad part is, a few weaker minded people will change their vote based off of it. I saw someone get their vote changed on Obama due to his supposed "oil connection" (I think it was the oil thing?). That happened on this very forum! The guy said, "Guess I'm not going to vote for Obama", or something along those lines.




posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 



Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Funny, I thought you two were the ones who attacked me. I never mentioned names. All I am doing is defending myself against your attacks of me "stalking" her (talk about flattering one's self).

You certainly were stalking her. You've done it in other threads, too. If that's what you call "attacking", then it just exposes another of your twisted tactics. Now you want to be considered a victim.:shk:



Originally posted by Sublime620
This topic is not about her, you, or me, it's about yellow journalism.

Never was about me. You tried to make it about her, then tried to deny it. You fooled nobody. At least man up to what you did.


Originally posted by Sublime620
Don't like it?

How could I not like watching you squirm?



Originally posted by Sublime620
Leave.

Nah, I'm just getting started.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
with election fraud in both 2000 and 2004 elections, the idea that "the people" will be picking the next president is laughable, but entertaining for a few minutes. the electronic vote tabulators and the people that program them, will be doing the electing. of course, the vote will be close, no matter who wins, to project an aura of authenticity. and voters will be satisfied that they actually played a roll in who gets into office. now..please return to your powerlessness rantings about how this country is going to the dogs. i know i have...



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
How could I not like watching you squirm?




I don't know what world you're living in. Seems like the only ones squirming are you two, and flipping out over the fact I showed McCain's closet to be just as skeleton-ridden as Obamas.

But you don't want to discuss that now. You only want to discuss me. Nice try. Your methods of attacking your opponents are cheap, and really quite pointless.

In the name of keeping this thread open, I will no longer respond to any meaningless personal threats or attacks by you or her. If this thread continues on the child-like course it's on, the mods will close it (which I'm sure is your end goal).

So post something up that's real, or talk to yourself, doesn't bother me either way. You're still alright in my book.


[edit on 25-4-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


Well all I can say there is a reason why I am a Monarchist.. One king, to rule One nation, to rule One people, no bitching allowed.

Political squandering is destructive for society, already we as a democracy are completely disenchanted by the entire process ..

Anyways, the mud slinging won't stop, and it shouldn't .. it would be un American if it did you know..

And I will continue to ignore it, I will continue to not vote (voted for Bush and that turned out just peachy) and I will continue hating our political system.

In fact..

The only thing I HAVE concluded from all of this is not is Obama bad, is McCain bad...

It's to stay away from wacky protestant churches.. and their pastors.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
Seems like the only ones squirming are you two, and flipping out over the fact I showed McCain's closet to be just as skeleton-ridden as Obamas.


You SERIOUSLY need to get over yourself. :shk:

THIS THREAD is one that I posted about McCain and his 'Keating' connection. My conclusion was that this should have killed his senate career. AND I posted a thread that exposed his Peabody Oil connections as well.


Originally posted by Sublime620
Your methods of attacking your opponents are cheap, and really quite pointless.

Speak for yourself.


Originally posted by Sublime620
I am not stalking anyone.

Yes you are. And you have a HISTORY of doing this.


It just proves my point.

In your dreams stalker-boy.



Originally posted by Zeptepi
I am still somewhat confused about the topic of this thread. Is it something to do with Free speech here at ATS?

COMPLETELY!

Actually, it has to do with TWO things.

1 - Free speech by ATSers to post information to discuss. (which Sublime seems to want to take away and only allow what he considers 'important' ... aka - not against Obama
)

2 - Now it seems ATSers can make threads about particular other ATSers and pretend that it's not about them.


Wonder if I could now make a thread about Sublime and call it - ATSers who want to take away free speech rights ... and then use all of Sublimes posts ... being oh so careful to not use his name ... but making sure that everyone knows they all came from just one ATSer.


AND FOR THE RECORD - yes, I hit the alert button. You betchya.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Yellow journalism sells. That's why papers like "The National Inquirer," "The Sun" and "The Daily Mail" do so well. Gossip and mudslinging are just more interesting and fun to a lot of people than a dull debate on issues.

ATS thrives on yellow journalism, a.k.a. "alternative" news, though I wouldn't have it differently.

I thought "Above Politics" would be more serious and issues-oriented, but have been disappointed in the lack of response to many of the more substantial threads. Even here personalities and human weaknesses are more popular. I don't see as many threads in favor of political figures as I do against them, Ron Paul's supporters being the exception.

I opened a thread on Obama several months ago, asking not just for praise but for some discussion of his strong points as well as his weaknesses. Everything I'd seen before had been negative. My thread got very few responses, and half of those had nothing good to say about him.

The juicy stuff sells the best, and I am guilty too of enjoying it sometimes.

[edit on 25-4-2008 by Sestias]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 
Fair point - but I can see where they got confused saying "son of cain" is pretty much what I was saying.

Good info tho

Thnx



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 

hhmmmm

Sublime never directly named or attacked FF.

My view is that he looked at FF threads, because that was the easiest way to make his point.

That doesn't make it an attack.

Far from it - personally, I'd be flattered if someone looked up my posts in order to make a point against and try and refute them.

If I was the source of knowledge - even from the other side - that he chose, I'd consider it an honour.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Ahem

Kindly stay ON topic and not on each other. If you have issues or concerns about another member etc. kindly fill out a comment/complaint that will allow the staff as a whole to review the issue at hand.

Thanks



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


mm ya, they just thought since it was spelled the same, it meant the same thing ro something.. not taking into account language barriers. Like Sale to Americans and Sale to the French (or Cul de Sac) are completely different things.

Or the same.

Perhaps its irony, I don't know.

As for stalkers, and all you feisty ATS'ers (FlyersFan) can't we all just get along?

FF -- Regardless if he was talking to you, about you, or what ever, his point on yellow journalism is well placed.

Yall make me need another martini..

[edit on 4/25/2008 by Rockpuck]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Sublime620
 


Well all I can say there is a reason why I am a Monarchist.. One king, to rule One nation, to rule One people, no bitching allowed.



I'm curious as to why you think this is a good thing.

No offense - I live in a consitutional monarcy, and it ain't that great.


Or did you want an absolute monarchy?

I say this with an open mind - what are you advocating?




posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 

Yes, Rockpuck, what did you mean by that?
huh?

Let us probe deep into your brain and see what develops.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by dgtempe
 




(mumbles)

It was a fair question, wasn't it?



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Aigh, I have no worries to admit my political ideologies..

/rant on

Though, it could be a thread in its own, and it could take years to fully understand my complex thinking, my diabolical way of dealing with situations, and my abrupt almost cruel method of efficiency and order...

Actually I can sum it up reaallly fast.

People are stupid, and when it comes down to it, to damn ignorant to govern themselves, and thus, need someone to hold their hand.

And I am not saying "mm not quite getting it" stupid.. I am saying "A deerrrr.. what the country to the north of the US? ... wait.. which way is north? That's east right? If I look to my left, thats north right? .. I think its Alaska."

And yes, budski, I support a complete totalitarian absolute Monarchy. No parliament, no representation of the people, no public opinion, no nothing. Just your Monarch.

And I expect the Monarch to be the rule and law of the land.

It worked for 10k years plus. A Monarch was the symbol of the nation that we worked not only around, but for, lived and died by them. Only in 1600's and 1700's did that change...

And look where we are now.

Bitch about politics, bitch about your candidates, bitch about evil neocons and joos, and secret societies and wars that have no meaning, corruption, money lost, money stolen, bad economics and a population that has the general intelligence of a two year old with downsyndrom.

*gets another martini*

In the end we had a Republic. We destroyed it in under a hundred years. Congrats. We had a representative democracy. We destroyed that with the Two party system. We had an opinion of political matters.... we destroyed that when we destroyed the Republic, set in stone the Two party system and started letting cable news channels tell us how to think!

WE LIVE IN AN UNOFFICIAL MONARCHY ANYWAYS.

No one cares, half the population votes, even though voter fraud is obvious. The only candidates are those worth tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, captains of industry, leaders of the world, what the # is the difference from what we supposedly "escaped" from to begin with?

It's still some rich ass bastard sitting on a cushion as his minions run around telling us it's all ok, pay no attention to the actions behind the screens, let us offer you a diversion, don't miss American idol now!

The power still rest within an elite oligarchy, there are still hereditary lines of power, there are still wars with no meaning, there are still funds being taken from the people and used to propagate more corruption and pay off more federal representatives and contractors and insiders and globalist. We still have wars for resources, for money, for power, for ideologies masqueraded by innocent conquest for justice and righteousness. We still have ignorant sob's ruling us that are so far detached from reality they probably couldn't tell you what day of the week it is.

The ONLY difference is.. all this corruption, under a Monarch, we can unite under and be corrupt together, under a Democracy we are fragmented, lost, confused, utterly ignorant of the situation so long as we cast our electronic vote and trust some head of a corporation he won't change it on us..

Screw it.

I don't want a dictatorship in disguise, just give me the real damn thing. Least I will know where I stand in the scheme of things.

/rant off.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Fair enough.

I'll come back to you on that one.





posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


And one more thing.. PEOPLE LIKE BEING RULED.. they don't like making major decisions, so long as the world doesn't touch them, so long as they believe in their little pocket of existence nothing can harm them, they don't give a damn what the man up top says. Why do you think half the population in America doesn't vote? Not only are they so far detached from politics that even if they DO vote they can't tell you who the Vice President is, or was, or hell what the President stands for. Do you know how many voters vote for who "sounds" the best or who "looks" the best? And its not new! Kennedy beat Nixon ONLY because of a televised debate which went to Kennedy's favor because he looked better. People just want an assurance that someone, somewhere, will be looking after their minuscule unimportant lives..

The entire notion of Democracy and Republics.. it was not to end tyranny, it was not designed to displace the oligarchies.. it was a clever scheme for the Somewhat-haves (middle class) to over throw the Haves (elite) and become the Haves them selves..

A change in actors, put on different costumes, same damn play.

Damnit Budski ya got me all riled up now..



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 




I might not agree with you, but I can't fault your passion for the subject, even if it was in the guise of a tantrum


Nice posts



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Fine don't agree with me..

Democracy is a mockery, and in good time, maybe not in my life time, it will fail and this horrific experiment will go with it.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Good points you make.

I think this election might be a good one for you to jump into. I hope neither candidate can fail as epically and as hard as Bush has. Though McCain will keep us in Iraq (which will probably keep the economy in the dumps), at least he won't torture, and I'm sure he would be much more forthright and honest.

Perhaps the 2008 elections and '09 switch are just what you need?





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join