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.

 

A Call To Action: Ending The Political Game on ATS

page: 14
92
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   
on this issue alone id vote SO for president


i applaude the stand being taken and hope ATS can return to some normalicy now


well as normal as we all can get anyway ...


[edit on 11-9-2008 by Demandred]




posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Yay for this move! May I recommend that everyone go back and reread the actual rules? I've quoted only a selection that seem to have been overlooked by many people replying to this thread:


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
This is a call to all who are now or were once concerned with the state of political affairs in the United States. Take a stand with us, here, and now.


Count me in



Clearly-defiend new rules for political discussion...

New Threads About Any Candidate for the 2008 U.S. elections (national or regional) must be started in the Decision 2008 forum.


What, you mean it's not breaking news that Palin comes from small-town Alaska? Or that Barack's middle name is Hussein? (heavy sarcasm intended here, btw)


New Political News Threads intended for the Breaking Political News forum cannot be based on blogs, YouTube videos, or any other content considered "user-generated" from any source.


This was already true, if not widely enforced. Blogs, opeds, etc are not, have not been, and will not be news stories. They don't belong in "breaking alt news" and they don't belong in "breaking political news". If they are not baseless innuendo and gossip-mongering, perhaps they could be thoughtfully discussed in an analysis of an issue in the Decision 2008 or Bully Pulpit forums?


No Innuendo or Rumor Threads regarding the candidates for the 2008 election will be allowed from this point forward in any of the ATS forums.


Doh.


New Political Threads Must Be Fact-Based and initiated with an examination, analysis, or sober coverage of a candidate's or party's stated platform issue, either via official platform statements or recent interviews.


This may be the only way to address what has become a major problem. It's too bad it has to come to this, and even worse that this leaves us so little to discuss. Maybe ATS posters will actually have to do some research and bring some actual issues to the table this season.


Examination of Popularized Rumor and Innuendo: Many of these topics that become popular within the mainstream media deserve critical analysis devoid of divisive rhetoric. Discussion of these topics that become popular and occupy significant media attention will be encouraged within the limited-access Bully Pulpit forum for the purposes of understanding the truth behind the claims.


That's right, the Bully Pulpit will continue to exist, with strong rules for respectful discussion of the genuine problems related to political discourse in America and elsewhere today. Maybe I'll apply for my membership today; it'd be great if everyone interested in real discussion of real problems did too. This, I imagine, will be the place to ask whether and how the campaigns are manipulating images to fool the populace into voting one way or the other.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Originally posted by americandingbat
Yay for this move! May I recommend that everyone go back and reread the actual rules? I've quoted only a selection that seem to have been overlooked by many people replying to this thread:


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
This is a call to all who are now or were once concerned with the state of political affairs in the United States. Take a stand with us, here, and now.


Count me in



Clearly-defiend new rules for political discussion...

New Threads About Any Candidate for the 2008 U.S. elections (national or regional) must be started in the Decision 2008 forum.


What, you mean it's not breaking news that Palin comes from small-town Alaska? Or that Barack's middle name is Hussein? (heavy sarcasm intended here, btw)


New Political News Threads intended for the Breaking Political News forum cannot be based on blogs, YouTube videos, or any other content considered "user-generated" from any source.


This was already true, if not widely enforced. Blogs, opeds, etc are not, have not been, and will not be news stories. They don't belong in "breaking alt news" and they don't belong in "breaking political news". If they are not baseless innuendo and gossip-mongering, perhaps they could be thoughtfully discussed in an analysis of an issue in the Decision 2008 or Bully Pulpit forums?


No Innuendo or Rumor Threads regarding the candidates for the 2008 election will be allowed from this point forward in any of the ATS forums.


Doh.


New Political Threads Must Be Fact-Based and initiated with an examination, analysis, or sober coverage of a candidate's or party's stated platform issue, either via official platform statements or recent interviews.


This may be the only way to address what has become a major problem. It's too bad it has to come to this, and even worse that this leaves us so little to discuss. Maybe ATS posters will actually have to do some research and bring some actual issues to the table this season.


Examination of Popularized Rumor and Innuendo: Many of these topics that become popular within the mainstream media deserve critical analysis devoid of divisive rhetoric. Discussion of these topics that become popular and occupy significant media attention will be encouraged within the limited-access Bully Pulpit forum for the purposes of understanding the truth behind the claims.


That's right, the Bully Pulpit will continue to exist, with strong rules for respectful discussion of the genuine problems related to political discourse in America and elsewhere today. Maybe I'll apply for my membership today; it'd be great if everyone interested in real discussion of real problems did too. This, I imagine, will be the place to ask whether and how the campaigns are manipulating images to fool the populace into voting one way or the other.

EDIT to add: It might also be a good idea, considering how overwhelmed the mods must be on the first day of the new rules, to save any threads that you started that you think were unfairly deleted, make sure they are within the new rules, and then repost them in a couple days when things have settled out a little. Given how much material has to be gone through, I imagine some things that should go will be missed today, and some things that are borderline might be taken out. In a couple days the pressure may be down, the boundaries will be more clear, and the mods might be available to run "iffy" posts by...


[edit on 9/11/08 by americandingbat]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Double posted, sorry.

Mods please delete.

More lines so the forum will accept it.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   
I recognize the STOP THE MADNESS movement here, but i just was looking at some threads, some were about something Keith Olbermann said yesterday, i guess, and MIRTHFUL ME had closed them just because...

Now, are we allowed to talk about anyone or anything political anymore?

There was NO bickering on that thread, it was just simply closed because the discussion was about Keith saying that Bush allowed 9/11 to happen, which to most people its the honest truth.

Should i come here now and be afraid to express an opinion?

Should posting and threads be one sided and everyone in agreement now?

I'm not understanding this very well and i need it cleared up. Why not just do away with ABOVE TOP SECRET and just have BTS???

I think the closing of the Keith Olbermann thread was a bit over the top.

One thing is to fabricate lies, trash politicos, etc, and another is a discussion about a show.

Has the government got ATS by the horns now?

Sorry but i just had to comment.

Whatever.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by dgtempe
 


What some people call political debate others call mudslinging.

I'm with you on this one dgtempe!

I'm so confused and disappointed with this call. I'm wondering myself if someone from the government made a nice little phone call to ATS on this one.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by dgtempe
 


Exactly what I was just saying.

Those rules are contrairy to what ATS has always stood for.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
I'm wondering myself if someone from the government made a nice little phone call to ATS on this one.


Im not sure I would go that far. But it is starting to sound like they bit off more than they could chew. The way I see it, is, by telling people they can not discuss certin topics... it's the same as giving up.

Darn shame

[edit on 11-9-2008 by mrsdudara]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by dgtempe
 


Yeah I think I will need to understand what I am allowed to discuss too...

Not following really.

Keith Olbermann gave one of his special comments saying that the Bush admin allowed 9/11 to happen and profited from the aftermath.

That is the first time a mainstream media personality has voiced in a serious manner that 9/11 was allowed to happen in order to further the agenda of the current administration.

I can't think of a more appropriate topic for the 9/11 conspiracy forum which is where I placed the thread.

So what say you Ceasar



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   
I have zero problem with the new guidelines. It will be a breath of fresh air to not feel like an Obama supporter, because the truth is that i'm NOT an Obama supporter. I've just spent so much time over the past couple of months defending the guy that I feel like i'm half a step from voting for him and I don't even know why.

I'm looking forward to engaging once more in constructive debate like I did back when Ron Paul was still running. I look forward to not wanting to throw my laptop out of the window. I look forward to feeling like a human being again.

I've been dragged into this political mud pit and i'm not even sure how I got there. I think the guidelines must be designed to save people like me. I'm sorry if anyone thinks they're biased in any way but as a "No Party Affiliation" voter, i've been offended by posts on all sides of political opinion.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


That would be the perfect place to post it! I hope Skipper1975 does so.

Anyways, still
my butt off that the ONLY ones who have a problem with the new rules are all the same type. Heck, one of them is the one who set me off with the muk muk and secret towelhead post. Gee, not being allowed to sling rasicm? How dare ATS stop that!

to SO and whoever else it is running these new rules.

Actually just looked, and it was posted there, but was locked! Why? It wasn't in Decision 2008, and was totally in the right place! Why oh why would it be locked? www.abovetopsecret.com...
I thought it only applied to the Decision 2008 forum, that a topic had to be about the candidates and their platform. A discussion on the 9/11 attacks being locked because.... why?
Not arguing, just want to know WHY it was locked even though it wasn't in the Decision 2008 forum and was totally on topic with where it was posted.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Krieger]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Im obviously not understanding the rules here.
Is selectively quoting a candidate so as to create a false impression of that candidates own words considered acceptable? Because that would seem to me to fall into the same category as rumors and innuendo.
Or can we only and must we give full context to all quotes?
What about our opinions of candidates latforms? Can we use third source articles in order to support our opinions of candidates planks or not?



[edit on 9/11/2008 by Shazam The Unbowed]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed
 


Oh Noes! How dare we not say, take one line "Lipstick on a pig" and say Obama was attacking Palin! When the whole speech was about McCain's change plan.

So yes, I think if you quote someone's speech, you need to include the WHOLE speech. Or... We could take "Hate America" from a McCain speech and say he hates America. When the whole speech was talking about how Osama and his ilk hate America and he will devote 200billion to catching Osama. Then we could discuss if it was finacially good to devote 200billion to catching Osama or if there was another way to catch him.

Makes sense to quote the whole speech, and not just a few words or one sentence as to keep things like "McCain says he hates America!" or "Obama calls Palin a Pig!" from happening.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Krieger]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Thanks MODS

I came to this site out of curiosity and found some very interesting issues discussed by some truly enlightened people. But then I started reviewing the recent posts section and some of the headers were just so unbelievable that I had to check them out. (listen for that giant sucking sound here) I could not comprehend how a few posters could start so many threads in one day that were nothing but pure and simple baiting, with no aim to listen to an opposing viewpoint. OK, I told myself, just like the radio and TV, there is an off switch but I couldn't turn away. I finally found myself making a complaint to the MODs because, being fairly new, I had recently read and agreed to the terms and conditions regarding proper behavior and was confused by what I was seeing.
WOW, what power I must possess. Today I get the message that we're trying to round this rodeo back up.
I had even stooped to the point where I politely responded to the one poster that had me under their evil spell that they probably were suffering from profound solipsism. I realized that I would probably get "spanked" for responding directly to the poster (I did, but I had it coming even though I thought I was being polite about it).
The definition of solipsism (below) is something I was seeing in the threads that the MODs are now addressing. Basically, the only opinion that matters is my opinion. I am right only because you are wrong.

www.merriam-webster.com...


: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also : extreme egocentrism


dictionary.reference.com...


1. Philosophy. the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist. 2. extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption.


So lets keep an open mind (but not so open your brains fall out) and respect all ye who enter here.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Sorry about double dipping but I wanted to share something horrible that came from my dubious involvement in the political arena on ATS.

Last night I caught myself switching back and forth between cousin Keith on MSNBC and uncle Bill on Fox. I would strongly recommend only watching one at a time.

I was soon curled up in the fetal position with my head buried under a pillow, drooling like a fool, muttering "Please make it stop, please make it stop.."




posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Hmm, this thread reminds me of so many of the mudslinging threads.

A bunch of people going in circles, arguing about nothing. Meanwhile, patting each other on the back about it.

Look, there's nothing to argue about. Just sit back, relax, and keep posting. If you get censored for something you think isn't fair, then whine about it.

Honestly, this is quite a showing of immaturity.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 
Would two warns 'qualify' me as being able to ask what is going on?

I'm all for ATS, its policies, politeness, and i'm a proud member- I dont think asking questions is any show of inmaturity at all.

Just venting and wanting to know some things.




posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


Immaturity is when you keep putting your 2cents in trying to quiet people who have a desire to get their questions answered by the mods.

If people voicing their opinion reminds you of mudslinging or bothers you just go elsewhere.

Let them voice their opinion to the mods and the mods will answer them when they have time.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:33 PM
link   
OK, This post is going to offend the "moderators" again.
That's why some moderator was so upset last time, they decided to give me -15000 points


That's fine, I wear it as a badge of honor.

Bill, skeptic, whatever, I know your intentions are good. How could I fault you for that. Now here's where I bruise somebody's ego, so I'll try to be gentle.

We are adults. We can take it. We don't need your "protection". In fact, we are better off without it. Really.
But thanks anyway. And thanks for keeping the servers running. I think that's all you need to do.

Best regards,
-Ats4Dummies



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   
I don't understand

I'm receiving U2Us from Admin about political threads


Yet when I come to the forum I see that anti-Palin threads .. recently instigated ones ... are being permitted. These threads can't even justify their bandwidth and are simpy Palin-bashing on the flimsiest of pretexts

So what gives ?

Anti-Palin threads are oK are they ?

Will Admin be sending us U2Us stating this ?



new topics

top topics



 
92
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join