It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Make-Believe Maverick

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 03:08 PM
I want to start off with a disclaimer:

Do not use this as a decision to not vote for someone.

This is mudslinging. It is personal opinions, mixed in with facts, partial truths, and anecdotes.

So, again. This is meaningless. It has nothing to do with policies. It's mudslinging.

Why am I posting this? There has been a lot of meaningless dribble against Obama lately. People just posting up garbage (worse garbage than this I can say honestly).

Sometimes people need to be reminded of the truth and be brought back down to Earth. Anyone can have dirt dug up on them. Anyone can have half truth told about them.

You want to sit here and argue over meaningless garbage? Here's some more for you to have fun with.

Make-Believe Maverick

Like many American POWs, McCain broke down under torture and offered a "confession" to his North Vietnamese captors. Dramesi, in contrast, attempted two daring escapes. For the second he was brutalized for a month with daily torture sessions that nearly killed him. His partner in the escape, Lt. Col. Ed Atterberry, didn't survive the mistreatment. But Dramesi never said a disloyal word, and for his heroism was awarded two Air Force Crosses, one of the service's highest distinctions. McCain would later hail him as "one of the toughest guys I've ever met."

Dramesi, who went on to serve as chief war planner for U.S. Air Forces in Europe and commander of a wing of the Strategic Air Command, was not surprised. "McCain says his life changed while he was in Vietnam, and he is now a different man," Dramesi says today. "But he's still the undisciplined, spoiled brat that he was when he went in."

It goes on and gets worse. You guys want to talk mudslinging, talk about this too then. I won't get in on it. I won't say don't vote for McCain because of this. However, I won't let everyone here pretend like the dirt only lays on one side of the fence.

[edit on 16-10-2008 by Sublime620]

posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 03:18 PM
Why this blatant disregard for the new rules against mudslinging on ATS? I know you're aware of them. So why the blatant rules violation?

I had always found you to be one who was above this.

posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 03:20 PM
reply to post by nyk537

Really, NYK? Seriously? You care about the rules now????

At least some/most of this has validated truth behind it (unlike the current popular Obama smear threads). At least the thread author calls it mudslinging from the start.

What do you want me to do NYK? Just sit back and stay on the defensive while idiots run this board into the ground with anti-Obama propaganda?

posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 03:23 PM
What is that supposed to mean??

When I have not cared about the rules. What threads have I authored with blatant smearing and mudslinging?

And yes, just let the idiots have their fun. The threads are handled appropriately by the mods and everything moves on.

This accomplishes nothing.

posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 03:33 PM
reply to post by nyk537

Really? My fault.

Okay, I guess these threads don't count then:

Obama Palling Around With Terrorists

And no, it doesn't make it any less of mudslinging just because McCain and Palin support the comments.

Obama Born In Kenya? His Grandmother Says Yes

A 15+ page thread based around a quote that no one can even produce!

Obama : "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that

The author begins the thread with this:

Obama is on record now that he wants to redistribute wealth.

And you want me to apologize? I have spent countless hours trying to put an end to mudslinging on this board.

Right there, on the front page of one forum, I found three threads, yes three threads, based off of lies about Obama. At least this article has substance to it.

I went on record to say, "Don't let this change your mind because no matter what it says, it is partisan and irrelevant to policy". But something has to be done around here, and I haven't seen you stick your head out to stop it.


And for the record, I know you posted on at least 1 of the anti-Obama threads and never once did you ask them to stop posting yellow material.

[edit on 16-10-2008 by Sublime620]

posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 03:36 PM
I can't wait for this election to be over before we all lose what dignity we have left after the GFL fiasco.

The truth is that McCain uses his military record and his conduct as a POW in every one of his speeches. Though no one is doubting his service to his country we also should know if he is lying or distorting the truth about it. So this is more an issue of credibility.

Having said that, both candidates distort the truth to sell themselves to the public.
That's what politicians do.

Who ever really knows what lies within their true heart.

edit: Btw nyk, since when is Rolling Stone Magazine yellow journalism?

[edit on 10/16/2008 by schrodingers dog]

posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 03:36 PM
It's not my job to stop it. I know it's ridiculous and those threads are loads of crap. So I ignore them.

Trying to argue with people who create threads like those is like beating your head against the wall. It doesn't accomplish anything.

I'm not asking you to apologize, I just find it odd that you think battling the mudslinging with more mudslinging is going to change anything.

And to attack me personally for not caring about the rules when I have never shown otherwise is out of line.

***And for the record, the one thread I posted on was in regards to an actual comment Obama made, and my posts in that thread were dealing with his tax policies, nothing more. Also notice that once the thread turned personal, I never posted again. It's not my job to police the members here.

[edit on 16-10-2008 by nyk537]

[edit on 16-10-2008 by nyk537]

posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 03:45 PM
reply to post by nyk537

I knew I'd draw fire for this. Trust me I did. I try to stay as impartial as possible, I do.

But, honestly, after months of battling with partisan hacks, I was linked to this and couldn't help myself. Two reason:

1) Apparently it's okay to completely mash Obama's name on this board. It's so bad, it doesn't even matter if there's any truth to it. Not only does the thread stay open, but people (who I thought had better judgment) come in and agree.

2) There is some truth to it. What part of the article is a complete lie? (maybe there is one, I haven't read through it carefully)

John McCain did used to play to the liberal side of politics. I remember because I liked him. He went on the Daily Show and pretty much hammer George Bush. Those accusations are not false.

So, that's my reasoning behind this. Usually I don't participate in this, but at least it's not all completely a lie.

posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 03:49 PM
Listen, I consider us to be friends here at ATS, and I completely agree with you on the state of political topics here.

Having said that, I just don't think there is anything we as members can do about this other than stooping to their level.

I believe a lot of members here are intelligent enough to discern fact from mudslinging, and do so everyday. Sure there are plenty who don't and take this crap hook, line and sinker, but those people can't be reasoned with. They are the type of people who have their minds made up, and no amount factual evidence will change that.

There are things being said about both candidates on this board that are completely out of line and I, much like you, would like nothing more than to never hear from those people again.

All we can really do is stay above it though.

posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 04:02 PM
Woo hoo, you have now brought yourself down to the level of the people you are trying to combat. People post crap about both sides, and it is going to continue long after the election is over I am sure. You have to get over it, there is no way to fight it, either wrongly or rightly. You either ignore the re-re's or you fight and cuss and pull your hair out due to frustration. Take your pick.

posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 04:06 PM
reply to post by sputniksteve

Negative. I didn't, and I listed the two reasons for which I did not:

1) I don't claim this to be something that should make anyone change their vote based on. In fact, the entire purpose of this is to show that character defamation works both ways.

2) This article is not based off of misconceptions, false quotes, spin, or lies. It is, however, an opinion piece, which makes it dangerous to base a vote off of.

You think I didn't consider this before I posted it? No, I know what I am doing.

[edit on 16-10-2008 by Sublime620]

posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 04:08 PM
reply to post by Sublime620

Sublime, I get what you're doing but I'm afraid it's a little above peoples head.

posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 04:16 PM
You bring up a good point that I have thought about but never had the gonads to make an opinion of mine known. READ OPINION.

To become a POW you have to first surrender to the enemy.
If captured, your first directive is to not give any information to the enemy that can be used against the US.
Your final directive is to escape at any given opportunity.

I'm going to hide behind the anonymity of this site and hope I haven't pi##ed too many people off and that my reputation as an all around fun loving guy remains intact, although somewhat tarnished.

I have nothing but respect for Sen. McCain and having lived through the Vietnam war era, am thankful every day that I didn't have to go through what he and his fellow POW's had to endure. I'm sure I wouldn't have lasted a week.

Again, these were just some thoughts that I had listening to Sen. McCain constantly refer to his service. I have never been able to figure out how the horrendous experience he endured qualifies him to be President.

That's all. Be kind.

[edit on 16-10-2008 by zlots331]

posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 04:23 PM
reply to post by Sublime620

Well then in that case please disregard the first part of my post. The last however remains. I have a feeling you and I would disagree on many things politically. However I think we both agree that this election has become a circus and it motivates people to act disgustingly to each other. I am sick of the I-am-better then you attitude of the followers of both sides. I can't stand either to be honest with you, so it is almost twice as bad as just hating McCain or Obama.

I quite looking, quite opening emails, quite talking about it. I am finally relieved, and I hope you get it all off of your chest too.

posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 07:36 PM
reply to post by nyk537

Fair enough. I agree that we are allies, not enemies despite our differences in politics.

reply to post by schrodingers dog

Possibly it is. Not sure my thinking is on such a higher plane that other people can't follow it... I hope. My level of intelligence is so mediocre!

reply to post by zlots331

Great points. Thanks for contributing.

reply to post by sputniksteve

Valid points. I try to not ignore as much as I can, but I am sure I'll end up getting gray hair years earlier because of it.

For Christ's sake, I listen to Rush Limbaugh on the way home. He basically calls everything I stand for to be stupid on a daily basis.

But I learn from it. And though it may cause me to get frustrated enough to make threads like this, overall, I think it's worth it.

I doubt this will stop any mudslinging, but maybe it will help some of the undecideds who read all the other crap to rethink their positions.

posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 01:08 PM
Just glad that this thread proved a multitude of points I expected to convey. Here's why this thread failed:

  • I did not attack McCain. Though the article still exists, the more conservative members on the board were not threatened by it.

  • It's not about Obama. Nothing draws posts like an attack against Obama.

  • While it is an opinion piece, it did not make wild accusations about McCain.

  • It required reading. It didn't have a fantastic title that took one shred of truth (that it barely mentions in the article) and then spun a 3 page lie to attack him.

I'll take this as another page of proof that most people in this country should not be allowed to vote.


Though I do appreciate the people who did contribute, including you NYK.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by Sublime620]

posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 06:26 PM
So a POW with McCain says something... and it's yellow journalism? I guess that evil POW hates America right? Just because he fought for this nation, and unlike McCain, didn't talk, he must hate America. Sad really how bad it is. If this topic had been on Obama there would be a dozen flags and pages to boot. But someone who was tortured along with McCain, knew McCain, says something and its just some evil liberal left wing blast against America.

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:05 AM
reply to post by Sublime620

2) This article is not based off of misconceptions, false quotes, spin, or lies. It is, however, an opinion piece, which makes it dangerous to base a vote off of.

An article written by a far left writer, in a far left magazine. Why is it that you guys think your left wing sources have some kind of extra credibility that Fox news doesn't have? If I were to post a Sean Hannity article, from Fox News, you would be the first one to dismiss it based on that fact.

Anyway, I'd like you to name one democrats (besides Lieberman) that has tried to work across the Isle. McCain is practically the ONLY maverick in congress.

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:36 AM
reply to post by Marcus Calpurnius

McCain? The guy who tried to be a Maverick in previous elections but got shut down? The guy who used to go on the Daily Show with John Stewart and pander to the crowd?

I bet you really like McCain then... didn't you? When he was going on the Daily Show and agreeing with all of us dumb liberals that George Bush was a bad president who made poor choices.

And what are you talking about? Every post in this forum is some neo-conservative blogger who either makes up a quote or an AP article, doesn't source it, and then writes a 4-page smear piece on it. Then it gets put on ATS, and people argue for 40-pages about a quote that doesn't exist.

What part of this article would care to refute? Did you even read it?

[edit on 19-10-2008 by Sublime620]

new topics


log in