Disgusting election taints ATS... Stand up and shut up!, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 43 times

reply posted on 3-8-2008 @ 01:46 PM by intrepid

reply to post by LLoyd45

It must take a lot of energy to attempt to silence an opinion by discrediting the messenger. What's the pay off?

Btw, what if someone changes their mind on an issue? That's not a "flip flop", they have more knowledge now. THAT is what ATS is for, not a pulpit.

reply posted on 3-8-2008 @ 02:27 PM by LLoyd45

Originally posted by intrepid
It must take a lot of energy to attempt to silence an opinion by discrediting the messenger. What's the pay off?

Who's trying to silence anyone Intrepid?Is showing where a person is being disingenuous or hypocritical an attempt at discrediting them in your opinion? Is a Thread like "McCain the pathological liar" not a good example of propaganda, and a cheap hit-job like he says he's opposed to?

There is no payoff for me, but I don't appreciate someone claiming they're unbiased, when it's obvious that they're not. Isn't that Denying Ignorance?

Btw, what if someone changes their mind on an issue? That's not a "flip flop", they have more knowledge now. THAT is what ATS is for, not a pulpit.

Changing your mind when new information is presented that significantly changes the outlook is fine. Claiming that something has been your position all along is being disingenuous.

reply posted on 3-8-2008 @ 03:14 PM by mybigunit

reply to post by LLoyd45

Exactly Lloyd Im glad I found this thread so I can help you out here. The fact is on threads like this is the messenger DOES COUNT for he to may have an agenda in a thread like this. Shut up any discussion or anything people dont want to hear about their candidates. Then to find out he does hit jobs like what he is preaching against here so everyone on ATS NO HIT JOBS except for me of course......wow hypocrisy at its finest. Reminds me of something president Bush would do.

[edit on 3-8-2008 by mybigunit]

reply posted on 3-8-2008 @ 03:22 PM by LLoyd45

Originally posted by mybigunit
Exactly Lloyd Im glad I found this thread so I can help you out here. The fact is on threads like this is the messenger DOES COUNT for he to may have an agenda in a thread like this. Shut up any discussion or anything people dont want to hear about their candidates. Then to find out he does hit jobs like what he is preaching against here so everyone on ATS NO HIT JOBS except for me of course......wow hypocrisy at its finest. Reminds me of something president Bush would do.

[edit on 3-8-2008 by mybigunit]

That was my sole purpose MBU, not to discredit anyone. I think everyone is entitle to their opinion, but it's wrong to criticize someone else for the very things you do yourself.

And more on topic, if you disagree with what someone is posting, please express your reasons why, and try to make a positive contribution to the thread rather than start a new thread expressing an offhand criticism of other people's preferred venues of discussion.

[edit on 3-8-2008 by LLoyd45]

reply posted on 3-8-2008 @ 03:38 PM by mybigunit

reply to post by LLoyd45

Correct people who do posts like this have an agenda. So it is up to the ATS people to find out what that agenda is and sometimes that means you have to look at the messenger. Great job and Intrepid says you are deflecting when I actually feel its quite the opposite. Its the OP doing the deflecting here.

reply posted on 3-8-2008 @ 03:38 PM by xmotex

Excellent post KrazyJethro, starred and flagged.

I've become incredibly frustrated with the political debates here on ATS, and the nauseatingly persistent partisan clique tirelessly posting threads like: "Obama is a Secret Communist/Muslim!, Obama Steals Candy From Children!, Obama Uses the Flag as Kleenex!"

Of course some partisans on the other side have responded with their own lame McCain-trashing threads, but it's pretty clear who's producing most of the mud here.

There is little or no debate on the actual issues, and plenty of silly purely symbolic drivel, baseless innuendo, etc...

Until the signal to noise ratio improves, I've dialed back my participation in ATS political discussions.

Sadly, they're mostly a waste of time and effort.

There are some recent arrivals here whose only purpose for posting on ATS seems to be to attack one specific candidate 24/7 with a targeted FUD campaign - almost as if they were being paid to do so.

reply posted on 3-8-2008 @ 03:58 PM by Quazga

Originally posted by LLoyd45

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by LLoyd45

Classic deflection. Both this post and the one above it. Don't care for the topic attack the messenger. What great debates are made of.

I don't see my posts as attempts at deflection. I was pointing out the obvious hypocrisy in Lee Anoma's comment.

Lloyd I think it has something to do with the fact that the hypocrisy of the person, should have nothing to do with the merit or validity of the statement made.

Does a hypocrit dilute the message by being one, yep he sure does to those who don't have the ability to differntiate between the individual and the message, as well as to see how the individual's experience influences the message.

Take for example, the drug addict who says "Don't do drugs, you'll end up like me". Is he a hypocrit? Perhaps. His is message any less valid? Actually in this case, that depends on the state of the drug addict. If they are in dire straits and physically worn, then the message is probably going to be seen as more valid and of merit, than an authority figure who says the same thing.

However, critical thinkers understand the message is what is important. A message should be weighed on its merits not by who said it. And so the attempt to point out the hypocrisy of the author of a post only serves to deride the focus from the merits of the statement.

If I post something worthless, I expect it, not me, to be seen as such. If I then post something of merit, I also expect it, not me, to be seen as such. People often do confuse the messenger with the message, but it is a fault to do so I believe.

[edit on 3-8-2008 by Quazga]

[edit on 3-8-2008 by Quazga]

reply posted on 3-8-2008 @ 04:13 PM by sos37

I'm not reading through three pages of responses, just offering mine to our esteemed OP:

If the Decision 2008 forum causes you such a need for Mylanta then seriously, why bother even coming in here to read? Why take it a step further and complain if you've nothing to add to the discussions? The easiest solution is for you to ignore the this particular forum if you've got a such a problem with it. Of course, that's by far too easy, so that's not what you're going to do eh? Perhaps you support censorship over posting topics on a *gasp* discussion board!!!???

Serious, dude. Isn't there a cable company whose channels you would rather be trying to get cancelled from the lineup instead of trolling on this forum?

reply posted on 3-8-2008 @ 04:30 PM by Kernel Korn

Isn't this precious. The OP has valid points. Discuss REAL issues in a gentlemanly fashion and most agree, as the Kernel does, except for the new conservatives. I guess they prefer wallowing in the slop. Only thing they know. One even says the OP is deflecting. How can the OP deflect? HE'S THE OP. So when will jetx and jj nelson show up and totally deflect this important thread? I need a drink.

[edit on 3-8-2008 by Kernel Korn]

reply posted on 3-8-2008 @ 04:41 PM by Gregarious

And I might ask, does anyone else think that we no longer have any legitmate options in elections? Choose your poison... either the Communist Democratic Party, or the Communist Republican Party. Obamas' communist interactions are well documented, and McCain is well know for being extremely left (Communist) in his 'Republican' views. We don't have any conservative or traditional Americans to vote for. I will not take the side of one or the other, they are both against Americans, ie you and I. Over half the budget is totally unaccounted for-'black-budget'. And which of their family do you think they are giving lucrative contracts to? Not a question of if...but which? The budgets of local, county, state, and Federal government equal 75% of GNP. So guess what are actual tax is? And these anti_American candidates want to RAISE taxes. Lets see, if we raise it 25%, people will have to NOT earn, to just break even. Oh,heck, lets raise it enough so people who work have to pay more than they earn! And now we have the oil and gas scam to account for; America has enough oil, right here, to last us 1,000 years without buying a drop of foreign oil. So what does Congress do? Make it illegal to use ours, and make us pay top dollar to buy it from some third world country which has no concern for the environment. Hey, it worked for manufacturing! We sent most jobs over to China (manufacturing only) and now all their air pollution ends up in California. Maybe we should make it illegal for the wind to carry the pollution over here. I am growing weary of all the lies that are 'politically correct'.
'

reply posted on 3-8-2008 @ 04:54 PM by Battleline

Well if there was ever a doubt that Decision 2008 was about discussing the canadates,this thread shows me Im very wrong.
I have made my share of rude remarks about the canadates witch puts me in the same catagory as the rest of the Trolls,Im better then that,at least I was before I entered into the Abyss of insults and ridacule.
I tried to ignore the foul posters but then the thread all but went away.
I agree with the OP in that I think all he was saying was lets get out of the mud and have civil debate,but some humans just can't do that,they don't feel good unless there feeling good at someone elses expense.
Someone said if you don't like whats posted on Decision 2008 dont come here,Ive had my fill.SEE YA!!

reply posted on 3-8-2008 @ 05:14 PM by jsobecky

reply to post by LLoyd45

Originally posted by LLoyd45

Originally posted by intrepid
Btw, what if someone changes their mind on an issue? That's not a "flip flop", they have more knowledge now. THAT is what ATS is for, not a pulpit.

Changing your mind when new information is presented that significantly changes the outlook is fine. Claiming that something has been your position all along is being disingenuous.

Excellent point, LLoyd45!

It is possible to discuss the issues while remaining civil, but when the candidates spew downright lies, it is hard to maintain the "Tut tut, ahem" attitude.

And it is the candidates we are voting for, after all. If they cannot be truthful before the election, how can we expect them to keep campaign promises when elected?

It is our duty to vet these guys. If their minions do not like it because of what it exposes about their savior, then that's their problem.

reply posted on 3-8-2008 @ 05:21 PM by intrepid

Originally posted by jsobecky
It is our duty to vet these guys. If their minions do not like it because of what it exposes about their savior, then that's their problem.

Really? You seem to complain about it when the shoe is on the other foot though:

Originally posted by jsobecky
This election doesn't begin to compare with the mudslinging that went on in the last two presidential elections. Mudslinging that didn't stop after the election was over. Rarely a day goes by without a Bush-bashing thread popping up on ATS.

reply posted on 3-8-2008 @ 06:00 PM by Riposte

Originally posted by intrepid
It must take a lot of energy to attempt to silence an opinion by discrediting the messenger. What's the pay off?

Do you not realize that that is exactly what the original post in this thread is attempting to do?

reply posted on 3-8-2008 @ 06:03 PM by intrepid

Originally posted by Riposte

Originally posted by intrepid
It must take a lot of energy to attempt to silence an opinion by discrediting the messenger. What's the pay off?

Do you not realize that that is exactly what the original post in this thread is attempting to do?

No, what he's saying is "Let's discuss issues that matter, not 'Obama is not fit because he stole a donut in college' threads."

reply posted on 3-8-2008 @ 06:07 PM by mybigunit

reply to post by intrepid

I think your missing the bigger picture here. You have to look behind the small talk and look at a bigger picture. An agenda. I think your missing it.

reply posted on 3-8-2008 @ 06:11 PM by intrepid

reply to post by mybigunit

A question then. Why do they only do it to the candidate that they hate?

reply posted on 3-8-2008 @ 06:13 PM by Riposte

reply to post by intrepid

From the original post:

"This is what I propose:

Ignore them.

Simple as that which will kill the thread."

So, he's trying to dictate what should and should not be discussed.

In the United States of America, people are allowed to vote based on whatever reason they can invent. They don't need a few clowns that consider themselves intellectual elitists to decide what should and should not be relevant.

Here we have someone trying to steer political discourse in a way that fits his own political agenda, by effectively silencing opinions by "killing" threads.

reply posted on 3-8-2008 @ 06:17 PM by intrepid

Originally posted by Riposte
In the United States of America, people are allowed to vote based on whatever reason they can invent.

You got that right, "whatever reason they can invent". Perfect way to elect a leader.

They don't need a few clowns that consider themselves intellectual elitists to decide what should and should not be relevant.

Do we leave that to the brain dead automatons then? What makes KJ elitist?

Here we have someone trying to steer political discourse in a way that fits his own political agenda, by effectively silencing opinions by "killing" threads.

No, he's saying those topics are tripe. I just happen to agree with him. Waste of time, bandwidth and energy.

reply posted on 3-8-2008 @ 06:26 PM by Riposte

reply to post by intrepid

Fine, then ignore them. It is the people as a whole who decides what is relevant and what isn't, not individuals in power.

You aren't going to be able to, and shouldn't, focus on topics which only YOU think are relevant. Unless you want to want to live under an autocratic government that is.

If people don't want to vote for Obama because he eats donuts, then so be it. That's the will of the people and should be heeded.

If a lot of people want to vote based on donut eating habits, then it's relevant because that's the way democracy works. You're just going to have to accept it.

Trying to force people to avoid the topic is an exercise in futility and if it is taken to its logical conclusion, leads to totalitarianism.

But hey, if you want to vote for totalitarianism, that's your right! That's the beauty of our system.