reply to post by Skyfloating
As much as I love the political discussion here, I have to say I wouldn't mind either at this point.
Of course, this was never an issue before we made the decision to combine PTS with ATS. For some reason we never had this problem then.
A Call To Action: Ending The Political Game on ATS, page 4
privacy
reply posted on 11-9-2008 @ 10:27 AM by Sublime620
reply to post by Skyfloating
Don't let him bait you into saying that.
He is complaining because people can't gossip on political boards anymore. That's no reason to close the politics board. Can he not focus on policy, and not dirt? What is so hard about that?
If ATS were to make a political gossip board, where it was known that topics inside are gossip and nothing else, that would be fine. He can talk about whether Obama had a sex change at 8, or whether he's black, or Satan for all I care.
But that's not politics. Don't let him muddy the waters. There's a difference between politics and gossip/mudslinging.
Don't let him bait you into saying that.
He is complaining because people can't gossip on political boards anymore. That's no reason to close the politics board. Can he not focus on policy, and not dirt? What is so hard about that?
If ATS were to make a political gossip board, where it was known that topics inside are gossip and nothing else, that would be fine. He can talk about whether Obama had a sex change at 8, or whether he's black, or Satan for all I care.
But that's not politics. Don't let him muddy the waters. There's a difference between politics and gossip/mudslinging.
reply posted on 11-9-2008 @ 10:29 AM by nyk537
reply to post by Sublime620
We have never had issues on this board Sublime620, but I don't appreciate you talking about me like that when I'm obviously following this thread. If you want to talk to me, talk to me.
And I don't know if you follow my posts or not, but I don't participate in that kind of garbage anyway. The problem here is, even with the rules set down by SO, it's still far too subjective.
I'm not advocating talking about sex changes or Satan or any of that crap. There is a point though, when things go too far.
We have never had issues on this board Sublime620, but I don't appreciate you talking about me like that when I'm obviously following this thread. If you want to talk to me, talk to me.
And I don't know if you follow my posts or not, but I don't participate in that kind of garbage anyway. The problem here is, even with the rules set down by SO, it's still far too subjective.
I'm not advocating talking about sex changes or Satan or any of that crap. There is a point though, when things go too far.
reply posted on 11-9-2008 @ 10:34 AM by Dronetek
reply to post by Sublime620
You see, that's your opinion. Some people might be interested in what is pushing this "messiah" image and most of us find it disturbing. Its your opinion that Obama is not connected to it in anyway. How can you not see that is a partisan opinion?
When Bush was running in 2004 I was a lurker on these forums. I seem to remember all kinds of discussion about ANYTHING Bush or people around him said about religion. I remember a huge thread after that picture of bush with a halo around his head came out.
reply to post by neformore
Read the thread. Its full of people relived that these "neocons" and Republicans wont be able to disrupt discussion. If you were trying to make it non-partisan, you obviously failed.
[edit on 11-9-2008 by Dronetek]
In addition to Skyfloating's response, threads like that get closed because they are completely irrelevant. Obama does not control what people say. Why people are joking that he's like Jesus is easily explained, but it's not necessary.
It has nothing to do with Obama, it has nothing to do with this election, and it has no business being discussed along side real politics. It's about as important as what you'll watch on E! News.
You see, that's your opinion. Some people might be interested in what is pushing this "messiah" image and most of us find it disturbing. Its your opinion that Obama is not connected to it in anyway. How can you not see that is a partisan opinion?
When Bush was running in 2004 I was a lurker on these forums. I seem to remember all kinds of discussion about ANYTHING Bush or people around him said about religion. I remember a huge thread after that picture of bush with a halo around his head came out.
reply to post by neformore
It would be helpful, if you took the political tinted glasses off for a moment, and actually read what SO said in his opening post.
Read the thread. Its full of people relived that these "neocons" and Republicans wont be able to disrupt discussion. If you were trying to make it non-partisan, you obviously failed.
[edit on 11-9-2008 by Dronetek]
reply posted on 11-9-2008 @ 10:42 AM by Sublime620
reply to post by neformore
Do I think Obama is secretly trying to have people consider him to be like Jesus? I don't think I need to answer that.
It's a joke. For instance, watch the Daily Show - Jon Stewart does it all the time, but he's joking! And no, I don't think Obama asked Stewart to make those jokes.
Also, I wasn't here in '04, but I imagine Kerry got it pretty bad. Swift boat anyone? Flip flopping?
I think ATS is trying to update their standards on political discussion about ALL candidates. Not just liberal ones.
reply to post by FlyersFan
I'm not SO, but I can't see why he wouldn't want that. It adds positive discussion to the boards. While it may not be entirely relevant, the purpose behind the thread has poor intentions. I hope that's the biggest goal of this policy, not removing threads that are bad for candidates, but removing threads that have no positive intentions and spreading of lies.
[edit on 11-9-2008 by Sublime620]
Its your opinion that Obama is not connected to it in anyway. How can you not see that is a partisan opinion?
Do I think Obama is secretly trying to have people consider him to be like Jesus? I don't think I need to answer that.
It's a joke. For instance, watch the Daily Show - Jon Stewart does it all the time, but he's joking! And no, I don't think Obama asked Stewart to make those jokes.
Also, I wasn't here in '04, but I imagine Kerry got it pretty bad. Swift boat anyone? Flip flopping?
I think ATS is trying to update their standards on political discussion about ALL candidates. Not just liberal ones.
reply to post by FlyersFan
I'm not SO, but I can't see why he wouldn't want that. It adds positive discussion to the boards. While it may not be entirely relevant, the purpose behind the thread has poor intentions. I hope that's the biggest goal of this policy, not removing threads that are bad for candidates, but removing threads that have no positive intentions and spreading of lies.
[edit on 11-9-2008 by Sublime620]
reply posted on 11-9-2008 @ 10:46 AM by jsobecky
reply to post by Sublime620
In fairness, I can remember hundreds of times where Bush was mocked because he choked on a pretzel, or because of the way he pronounced certain words such as nuclear, or was called a chimp or worse. Those are not criticisms of his policies; those are downright insults.
On topic, I really want to do research on the allegation that the RNC has been trolling ATS. Lay out all the proof and discuss it in a separate thread.
Pardon my skepticism, but I honestly don't think ATS is of much interest to either the RNC or DNC operatives. There are hundreds of strictly political sites on the internet where they would and do operate. Why choose ATS?
Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by RRconservative
This is exactly what I consider to be political baiting. It has no basis at all.
Bush wasn't criticized for what he wore, or how patriotic he is, or whether when he scratched his face it looked like the middle finger.
In fairness, I can remember hundreds of times where Bush was mocked because he choked on a pretzel, or because of the way he pronounced certain words such as nuclear, or was called a chimp or worse. Those are not criticisms of his policies; those are downright insults.
On topic, I really want to do research on the allegation that the RNC has been trolling ATS. Lay out all the proof and discuss it in a separate thread.
Pardon my skepticism, but I honestly don't think ATS is of much interest to either the RNC or DNC operatives. There are hundreds of strictly political sites on the internet where they would and do operate. Why choose ATS?
reply posted on 11-9-2008 @ 10:47 AM by Sublime620
reply to post by nyk537
Not trying to attack you personally. I was just categorizing the threads that I assume will be closed.
Do you enjoy spending time on threads that don't discuss policy? Threads of which the only purpose is character assassination?
If not, I don't think this will affect you negatively in any way.
[edit on 11-9-2008 by Sublime620]
Not trying to attack you personally. I was just categorizing the threads that I assume will be closed.
Do you enjoy spending time on threads that don't discuss policy? Threads of which the only purpose is character assassination?
If not, I don't think this will affect you negatively in any way.
[edit on 11-9-2008 by Sublime620]
