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: 6
92
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
US elections have never been primarily about policy. Our elections encompass everything from policy to character. What the moderators are doing here, is attempting to cut out a vital part of our election process.


No we're raising the bar, back to ATS standards. Isn't everyone here displeased and dissing MSM? If so, why balk at seperating ourselves from that mess?




posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
US elections have never been primarily about policy. Our elections encompass everything from policy to character.

My perception of this election season is 2% policy, 98% "character" which encompasses a broad spectrum of unsavory issues that do nothing more than deflect attention away from important issues.




What the moderators are doing here, is attempting to cut out a vital part of our election process.

Vital only to those who desire to sling mod and distract attention away from important policy issues.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


So, you're basically saying that character has nothing to do with policy? That hundreds of years of tradition in the US, are now void because SO said so? I'm sorry, but that just comes across as incredibly arrogant and condescending. I'm interested in policies just as much as you are, but a persons character says a lot about the policies they will support.

I also don't agree that there is such a lack of policy discussion. For instance, talking about McCain's military experience is clearly part of his policies. Just as Obama's 20 year mentorship at a Black theology church, says something about his.

Its your forums, so who am I to tell you what to do. That being said, I think you're making a huge mistake. Getting rid of the mudslinging is one thing, but disregarding discussions of character in general is just perpetuating ignorance.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Dronetek]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Ahem

I like to think of myself as a watcher of humanity. Observe, consider, observe some more, consider some more. Politics, to me, is the last refuge of the child in all of us.

"He's touching me!"
"No, he's touching ME!"
"He touched me first!"
"He's still touching meeeeeee......"
(Yes, this is the same thing I mentioned earlier today in the chat.)

This is a uniquely American phenomenon that recurs every four years. It is a methodology used effectively to confuse, disorient, and recruit the American people to agendas and attitudes that would otherwise be dismissed out of hand. As such, I consider it as amusing to watch, much as someone might glean a smile from watching children playing in a sandbox.

SkepticOverlord, this is your sandbox. I have no stake in it, other than the enjoyment debating here brings me. I pay no fee, and perform no service, and therefore have no say in the operation or activity of ATS. But while my views may not be official or even wanted, I am not one to keep quiet. I tend to speak my mind (hopefully and occasionally with tact) and let the chips fall where they may. So I am posting this, my feelings on this matter.

I have read the links you referenced to the traffic data, and I can understand your frustration at the RNC apparently invading ATS. To be honest, I am frankly a little surprised that you seem surprised. Be aware that the DNC is probably at it as well, perhaps in a less detectable manner.

That said, I believe you are making two errors in judgment. One is allowing these infiltrators to get to you. Two is underestimating the calibre of the members here on both sides of the political football field.

This is a cycle that will happen every four years, and will echo throughout the interims. That is undeniable and unavoidable. Yet, no such attempt to twist ATS will or can succeed without the (hopefully passive) consent of the administration and the membership. The administration has been, in my short time here, exemplary in their dedication to both duty and fairness. The membership is one of the brightest and most knowledgeable I have found. I think I would know, as I have had my own words served up to me on a plate steaming hot with humility more than once.

Such a knowledgeable membership and fair/dedicated staff pose an immutable obstacle to those who would use ATS for their own purpose. Any falsehoods or rumors will be quickly dispelled at the delight of those who are able to set the records straight. After all, that is why we're here, right? to deny ignorance?

But when rules become too tight, it is like tightening a fishing net. Sure, you keep some things in more easily, but you also keep things out. The truth is never in the mind of any one person; but rather, it is in the minds of us all. Only by confronting the issues that appear, as ridiculous as they appear, do we get the full picture of the discussion at hand. Your new rules tighten that net to a strained level and keep a large part of the real picture from coming into play. One cannot deny ignorance if one is isolated from that ignorance.

My apologies to you and the other owners/moderators if offense is taken at this post; I intend none. My apologies to those who live outside the USA at having to deal with the fiasco that is our election process every four years. I do hope that you will see fit to take my words under advisement, however. Some very intelligent members are already leaving, and others are worried about how free their speech really is here (including me). That leaves who, exactly, to carry on the debates in 60 days?

This will pass soon enough, with or without your actions.

As always, my congratulations and gratitude to you and all those who keep this place running.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Dronetek
 


The kind of circular discussion you are instigating right now is exactly what prompted this entire thread.

Did anyone say you couldn't make a thread discussing McCain's military experience? Did anyone say you couldn't make a thread about Obama's work as a community organizer? No.

But people will take those stories and spin them. Do you honestly not understand the difference between discussing character and slinging mud?

It's really not difficult.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   
"Ending the Political Game"

Would the NFL end the Football game?
Would the MLB end the Baseball game?
Would the NBA end the Basketball game?

Politics is a sport, 365 days a year, the political season never ends.

The only reason this did not come up 4 or 8 years ago is the candidate.

Why didn't Algore or John Kerry get the protection Barack Hussein Obama (That is his name) is receiving now? George Bush and John McCain can handle themselves, but what about Obama?

What if the major sports leagues came out with a no cheering or booing policy? The leagues would go under in no time.
There is always extra focus on a sport surrounding the Championship game or series, why should politics be any different?



[edit on 11-9-2008 by RRconservative]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Anyone notice who is in support for this change and who is against it?

I for one am happy. And already had a run in with it by Gools. He helped me and gave me the advice needed to put the topic(On the Oil for Sex Scandal) in the right place.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 



Do you honestly not understand the difference between discussing character and slinging mud?


Thats the problem I've been trying to articulate. The difference between the two is very subjective. I beleive that these new measures will simply silence one point of view, because the majority will always see their mudslinging as legitimate and vice verse.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by intrepid
 


The only reason people feel that Obama is being protected is because there are far more threads attacking Obama than McCain.

I am not sure why, but there are. So, yes, you will see more Obama mudslinging threads closed than McCain, but that only correlates to the number of threads for each candidate.


And I will posit that that is because Obama has been a candidate much longer than Palin has. There are many more Bush-bashing threads than Obama-bashing threads.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   
I've thought about it...I'm fine with it....

Let's move on. ATS is what it is and this will work itself out naturally.

There is nothing I can do but continue to do my part to fight ignorance. I put my faith in ATS to handle the rest.




posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Dronetek
 


Just for you, I compiled a short list of the difference between mudslinging and character discussion:

Character Discussion
Did Palin Abuse Her Office

Obama and the Bilderbergers -PROOF!-

Policy Discussion
Obama Dead Wrong About Drilling

John McCain's Immigration Policy

Mudslinging
Obama The Sexist

Obama sees kids as punishment

Both threads are based around comments taken out of context. They are, in essence, irrelevant to politics. They don't affect policy and should hold no weight in who you will vote for.

So why even bother discussing them?



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
Politics is a sport, 365 days a year...


I disagree. Politics is a form of selecting who is going to govern this country. I don't see politics as a game. I know many people do, with the "my team", "their team", "scores", "winning" and "sports team mentality" and all. But who is going to be in charge of making laws, setting taxes, protecting the Constitution and governing this country is NOT a game. Not to me. It's pretty important stuff and shouldn't be lowered to the status of a game that can be won or lost and everyone goes home nad back to their lives. Lives are at stake. It matters to the whole country who ends up in that house.

Having said that, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of political boards that agree with you completely that it's a game, and even a "free-for-all". But ATS has always been set apart from them as a place where the members look critically at the REAL issues of any subject.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   
You mean we are no longer allowed to voice an opinion on matter pertaining to politics?
Isn't that kinda like censorship?
Isn't that like losing certain freedoms?



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Dronetek
US elections have never been primarily about policy. Our elections encompass everything from policy to character. What the moderators are doing here, is attempting to cut out a vital part of our election process.


No we're raising the bar, back to ATS standards. Isn't everyone here displeased and dissing MSM? If so, why balk at seperating ourselves from that mess?


Rising back to ATS standards huh?

So now we can go back to talking about shape-shifting reptilian aliens from Zeta Reticuli and the grunt grunt “Bush did it” mentality. Glad to know ATS has “raised” it’s standards!

I began reading this site before 9-11 so I've been here longer than most anybody, including you. Back then this was a good site but ATS is now only a shadow of what it was back then. It's really sad to see just how this site has gone downhill over the past 8 years. And despite SO statistics concerning traffic I must say that traffic isn't everything, unless of course that traffic equals your profit! Today really is the final nail in the coffin for this site.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 


Come on man... read the thread. No where does it say anything like that.

It just says: NO MORE MUDSLINGING!!!!

*Edit:

Definition: Mudslinging

the practice of making unscrupulous, malicious attacks against an opponent, as in a political campaign


After reading that definition... why are people upset about this?

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by LiquidMirage
 


Some people do believe in those shape shifting aliens. I don't, but some do. And hey, they may be right.

Me, I am big on Ghosts. Love Ghost Hunters. Love doing my own thing. But to your opinion there should be nothing on the Paranormal because you see it as silly.

As people here have said, they see the politics in America as silly. Should we do away with all politics because they see politics as silly?

And again, am I the only one who notices that its the same type of poster who opposes these new rules?



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 



Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Dronetek
US elections have never been primarily about policy. Our elections encompass everything from policy to character.

My perception of this election season is 2% policy, 98% "character" which encompasses a broad spectrum of unsavory issues that do nothing more than deflect attention away from important issues.


Yes, that is true, but unfortunately that is what the candidates have given us to work with so far, SO. Both sides are guilty. My guess (hope) is that issues will be more agressively discussed after the debates start up. Only a few more weeks.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


I am right there with you on that.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   
OK. I said I was alright with this only moments ago, but then I find things like

This Thread

Explain to me why this was closed for this new policy. This was a thread that was set up to discuss who may have been better VP choices for both candidates. There was no baiting, no mudslinging, nothing. This was closed 1 hour after it was created because...


Though of mild interest, this thread is going nowhere.

In the spirit of the new political thread guidelines, I'm closing it.


I don't get this.

This is the kind of random thread closing I was afraid of. That was a legitimate discussion that now cannot take place.

All of a sudden this smells again.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
So, you're basically saying that character has nothing to do with policy? That hundreds of years of tradition in the US, are now void because SO said so?

No. Only that "character" topics are out of control, and no longer tolerated.



I'm sorry, but that just comes across as incredibly arrogant and condescending.

That's fine. I understand.

Would you like a list of sites where my arrogance isn't a factor and where unchecked character assassination is embraced?




That being said, I think you're making a huge mistake.

The vast majority of relies in this announcement threat would disagree with that statement.



new topics

top topics



 
92
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join