When did ATS become the new Neo-Con hangout?

Originally posted by retzius
Hello there.

I have noticed a strange change in ATS over the last few weeks..

When did ATS become the new Neo-Con hangout?

Ret

I wondered that myself. It was more like a we hate Obama site. I'm from the UK and the bias on ATS (compared to UK TV US election coverage) was just so way way out there I was wondering what on earth was going on.

reply to post by malcr


Excuse me, but since when did you people ever even think this was a liberal or neo-liberal forum? It's not, never was, never will. Here at ATS ALL parties are questioned, whether republican or democrat. Did you people all of a sudden forget all the republican bashing that went on during Bush's term? Where were you people to say "Since when did this site become a neo-liberal hang out?" Oh right, you weren't!

Don't you or anyone like you dare to forget what this site is about and has been about. This site has always been about finding the truth and denying ignorance. Not a Pro-Obama site. If you want to hear that same kind of drivel, then by all means, go to a mainstream liberal media site to hear what you WANT to hear, or if you're a republican, then go to a mainstream republican media site if that's what you WANT to hear, as opposed to what you NEED to hear. ATS is neutral ground and here everyone is questioned equally. Don't like it? by all means, walk out the door.



[edit on 14-11-2008 by Question]

reply to post by Question


I think what he is saying is, before, Bush was questioned because he was in office. Now, it seems there is an entire group who have shown up simply to deface Obama, even before he took office and before he has done anything.

It's no longer about questioning policy, this will be 4-8 years of questioning EVERYTHING.

reply to post by Irish M1ck


Irish M. look, I understand that position. However, I can make you a bet that Bush faced the same garbage before he got into office as well, I am simply pointing out people's hypocricy. Heck I remember seeing in the news activists shouting the same "Bush is the anti-christ" slogans on the motorcade in 2000 on his way to take the oath of office. Same situation, he wasn't on the job for one day and all of a sudden the same vile vitriol was spewed, only by the opposing party. Did he get a pass? heck no!

So now all of a sudden Obama is "hands off" when Bush received the same treatment in 2000 before he entered office? No, I'm sorry, no excuses.

On another note, Why shouldn't Obama be criticized? Whether he's in office or has yet to get into office is IRRELEVANT. Many MANY posters here have pointed out to policies and executive orders that Obama plans to install once he gets into power. Scary ones at that, and you want us to take a "wait and see" approach? Are you insane???? By then it will be TOO LATE! What don't you people get? We have to bring these things up NOW so that people get informed and it doesn't bite them in the ass when its too late and they can't do anything about it!

Sorry, but no, we can't "wait and see" Obama has already made it clear what he intends to do to this country, and we can't wait until he gets into office. It has to be brought to attention NOW, the warnings have to be given NOW! If you wish to drink up the diatribe and wait when its too late, that's your perogative. But ATS beutrality can't and shouldn't be compromised just because Obama got elected. So if the neo-liberals here (as well as neo-cons, here we question equally) don't like what is being said about their party, then by all means LEAVE!

Originally posted by Question
Did you people all of a sudden forget all the republican bashing that went on during Bush's term? Where were you people to say "Since when did this site become a neo-liberal hang out?" Oh right, you weren't!

Well, with Bush having the least, or near least popular rating in history, you can't say that we weren't far off now can you.

It might be safe to say it was properly directed criticism

Peace


[edit on 14-11-2008 by HIFIGUY]

Originally posted by Question
However, I can make you a bet that Bush faced the same garbage before he got into office as well

If your refer to his win back in 2000 considering the race between Gore and him were a mere 1800 votes, where his brother was governor of the state and where his cousin was involved in the ballot counting, further considering the stunt fox news pulled off that very night, I wouldnt blame folks for they way they felt.

Obama won by a clear margin of victory and after 8years of cr*p from this administration and the nationalistic (godless america hating libs against war folk) populous who had been dominating this nation I find these little posts at most hypocritical and misguided.

Heck I remember seeing in the news activists shouting the same "Bush is the anti-christ" slogans on the motorcade in 2000 on his way to take the oath of office. Same situation, he wasn't on the job for one day and all of a sudden the same vile vitriol was spewed, only by the opposing party.

Yes, so did clinton, reagan etc. That doesnt mean folks shouldnt confront it.

Did he get a pass? heck no!

What are you implying Obama is getting pass? What do you think this thread is for? Have you seen the BS threads being posted over the last few months? Not even Bush got that much in his entire presidency.

So now all of a sudden Obama is "hands off"

I really need to wonder why is it that these smears when confronted is automatically assumed to you as giving the man a pass, yet here you are arguing in bushes favour for the very same thing. Isnt this rather contradictory?

Any smear needs to be countered, be your right or left of the political spectrum. The excuse "it goes both ways" to justify these smears doesnt fly, even when it benefits your personal feelings on the matter.

On another note, Why shouldn't Obama be criticized?

Damn straight why shouldnt he? And why shouldnt folk who post these outright lies and propaganda be confronted? Better yet why dont people spend better their time criticizing his policies instead of what you heard on your politically slanted blogs and news outlets.

Whether he's in office or has yet to get into office is IRRELEVANT.

Really? So accusing the man of something he is yet to ever commit well before he is even inaugerated is good enough to you? And yet again your defending bush over the very thing your now calling irrelevant.

Many MANY posters here have pointed out to policies and executive orders that Obama plans to install once he gets into power. Scary ones at that, and you want us to take a "wait and see" approach?

Look back at these threads and tell me howmany of them involve the policies his going to install. Better yet why dont you take a look and see which of the very small fraction of threads about his policies are either accurate or misleading.

The vast majority of these threads have nothing to do with his policies and everything to do with this partisan slanted speculative BS.

By then it will be TOO LATE!

Its already too late because some folk here were too blinded by partisanship to get Bush charged for his crimes and the lies over the years.

Where do you come on its "going" to be too late?

[edit on 14-11-2008 by southern_Guardian]

reply to post by southern_Guardian


I think he's talking about HERE at ATS.
Was ATS a web-site in 2000?
Anyway, I've seen LOTS of threads against Bush since I've been here and it doesn't really bother me, since I know a little about him. I don't trust many politicians.
I haven't even kept up with a lot of Obama threads, unless it was something that piqued my interest, so I haven't seen many 'lies' about him.
The only Obama antichrist thread I looked at was about the Hebrew and Greek translations and I thought it was interesting!

Originally posted by Clearskies
I think he's talking about HERE at ATS.

Why on earth are you refering to this small little part to his arguement? My arguement applies to BOTH in and outside this forum in the past. Are you denying that talk of these smears were nonexistent during Bush along with this forum because your really not helping the man in his arguement.

Was ATS a web-site in 2000?

ATS was founded in 1998 and I think it be pritty clear my arguement was not restricted to this forum. Where you got this idea from I dont know.

Anyway, I've seen LOTS of threads against Bush since I've been here

Oh you noticed? Tell me where have you been under this administration for the last 8years?

so I haven't seen many 'lies' about him.

Yes ofcourse you havent because in your mind its not. You believe what you want to believe and Ill continue to argue the facts.

The only Obama antichrist thread I looked at was about the Hebrew and Greek translations and I thought it was interesting!

Yes you'v only seen one thread, theres a world beyond your square and as to what you believe and what you choose to see.

[edit on 14-11-2008 by southern_Guardian]

Originally posted by southern_Guardian

Originally posted by Clearskies
I think he's talking about HERE at ATS.

Why on earth are you refering to this small little part to his arguement? My arguement applies to BOTH in and outside this forum in the past. Are you denying that talk of these smears were nonexistent during Bush along with this forum because your really not helping the man in his arguement.

I don't know if you made it apparent that you were posting about all the internet or news, were you???
Because I don't think there's been an increase in anti-Obama news in general on the internet and CERTAINLY not on mainstream news, since he's won, more than any previous president. Right???? I don't know what you're saying, there.

Was ATS a web-site in 2000?

ATS was founded in 1998 and I think it be pritty clear my arguement was not restricted to this forum. Where you got this idea from I dont know.

I thought this thread was about ATS.

Anyway, I've seen LOTS of threads against Bush since I've been here

Oh you noticed? Tell me where have you been under this administration for the last 8years?

under? Like I work for it?
I've been reading and posting about the Patriot act 1 and 2, 9-11, The Franklin cover-up scandal, (Mostly republicans and the Bushs involved there), Crack-down at the RNC, (Republican National Convention), Bohemian Grove, illuminati, LOTS more.
Mostly, since there was already a steady flow of threads about these, I just posted on them and I made a few of my own.
Before that, I was activated by Waco, Ruby Ridge, (I have a signed copy of Randy Weavers book!), The New World Order, Black helicopters etc......under Clinton

so I haven't seen many 'lies' about him.

Yes ofcourse you havent because in your mind its not. You believe what you want to believe and Ill continue to argue the facts.

What I said was that I didn't keep up with ones that sounded stupid (IMO),, messiah, reptilian, etc....
I did see one that was de-bunked yesterday about where Obama 'said' that he burned the flag, etc....I said I didn't think it was true.
The antichrist one was just someone translating words, I only read the first page and I didn't see the OP saying it was true, I don't believe he is a (capital A) Antichrist.

The only Obama antichrist thread I looked at was about the Hebrew and Greek translations and I thought it was interesting!

Yes you'v only seen one thread, theres a world beyond your square and as to what you believe and what you choose to see.

[edit on 14-11-2008 by southern_Guardian]

You presume too much about me.



[edit on 16-11-2008 by Clearskies]

Originally posted by Odette
ATS should accomodate everybody's interests...not just yours! Ignore the threads you are not interested in...easy as that.

Odette, I do ignore threads that I'm not interested in, but it's the posters who go to every thread and post that Obama is the antichrist and that Jesus is the way that makes it hard to ignore. There are government conspiracy threads, and religious threads and I ignore them. I want to read about time travelling space alien goosesteppers from the north pole, and when I go to a thread that sounds like it might be interesting, I find rants about Jesus or Obama, neither one of who seems to be a space alien, time traveller, goosestepper, or inner earth dweller. It does get tiring.

The Obama anti-christ stuff bothers me. Here's a man that to my knowlege has never killed any person - he's never started a war, all I know is that he's tried to help the black community where he lived, he pitched in to help out the victims of Katrina, and I know someone that knows his wife and has said that she is one of the sweetest most down to earth people you'd ever meet.

So it seems to me morally wrong to be calling an innocent 'anti-christ.'

At some point in the future, if he throws us into a needless war, causes people to starve and die, or whatever, then....then I can understand it.

But I just do not find it acceptable to call a man that I only know of as innocent - like him or not - something this vile. I mean, that is a the arch-vile charge, isn't it? That's a charge that, if someone really THOUGHT THAT, should be compelling reason that the person should be neutralized.
That's really horrid stuff there then, isn't it?

had to laugh when i read this

OBAMA, CHENEY, BUSH RELATED

www.nypost.com...

looks like they will all be dancing round the owl this summer

reply to post by hadriana


The term "Anti-Christ" has been thrown around in history against anyone who people wanted to label as enemies of the Church. It's not different that the Salem Witch trials, where neighbors who had a grudge against one another could label their neighbor as a witch, and that was the end of them.

Back then it was pointing at someone and calling them a witch, to get them into trouble, today it's "terrorist" or "anti-Christ."

This website should not allow moderators from virginia d.c. and maryland. It is obvious who is running the show now on here.

Originally posted by martrax40

OBAMA, CHENEY, BUSH RELATED

And Obama is a communist. Calling him an alien is just a Marxist Strawman Tactic to distract from this crucial Fact; realpoliticking, as it were.

reply to post by DJMessiah


Sure, but people fear Antichrist just like they fear witch, and it often leads to murder. IE google: nigeria child witches.

TThere's no need to question the patois; both obviously can incite murder.