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.

 

Is ATS picking up on MSM talking points?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
[What is the official response to the first post in light of the new policy?

Have you looked at it lately?


Yeah, I just did. I edited my post at exactly the same time you replied.




posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wimbly
It leads people like me to think these rules are actually just excuses for shutting down opinions not shared by certain people on the forums.


Ding ding ding.

Give the man a cigar.

ATS moderators use some convoluted excuses to delete threads and remove signatures.

The most ignorant excuse I have seen was that some text in a sig was "offensive to a group of people".

What group of people was it? You guessed it. The "offended group" was the ATS moderators. Most of the regular members seemed to enjoy the sig in question.

Are the mods here so thin-skinned that they cannot handle any opposing viewpoints?

It would seem so.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Bill, for the record, I like the pizza ads better. Of couse if I had seen it closer to lunch time, it would have helped.
As an fyi, you need to hook up with GoDaddy, even back in 2006 they were paying around 5k a week.



Edit to add, that would be out of the Iowa office, not AZ.

[edit on 10-8-2009 by j2000]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Here is another few of the type I'm talking about Skeptic.






posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wimbly
Here is another few of the type I'm talking about Skeptic.

I'm unclear as to how you feel those news headlines conflict with the spirit of our reaffirmation post?

The only one that may come close is the use of "Political Terrorists," but they put those in quotes, obviously signifying it's someone else's term.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Good than I have a question for you right.

Would it be possible for you to create in the list of subject (UFO, Secret Societis, NWO etc.) forums a new (I named it for example)
"X-FILES" where all banned, censored(in non-censored version) and deleted treads would be deposited after your
moderator-action, but with only one major distinction ... only the main absolute first "creators" idea would be there (the first one on the first page, if it would be possible even with links in www format or pictures that were put there by the author) + with no further quotes by others (other profiles that posted there) + without the creators name (or with it if you like) + with no ability to post, flag or star there by anyone ... simply an article.

It´s meant as an polite question. I apologize if I said something stupid or it was already discussed. A nice day I wish.




[edit on 29/03/09 by Durabys]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I said that because some people that were banned were saying about how and why they were banned.They thought their threads made someone really upset (quotation "that they were saying more truthful infos than others") and that ATS is a CIA-NWO-Secret Societis front
or for dummies a COINTELPRO site.
I think you would be able by the action that I posted previous, to shut up their mounth. Thanks for listening.

[edit on 29/03/09 by Durabys]

[edit on 29/03/09 by Durabys]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


The consistent portrayal of "right wingers" as raging, hysterical nut jobs. If it was a Fox banner presenting the same headlines, only of anti-Bush protesters, I doubt there would be much argument.

EDIT: Also, if you click on the "political terrorist" banner ad, it goes on to make that case. So, I don't see how you can defend the banner. I just saw another one, "Are conservatives coming undone". Seeing a pattern here?

[edit on 10-8-2009 by Wimbly]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I think such reactionary discussions by the alternative news outlets, such as ATS and other conspiracy websites (for lack of a better term), is a fundamental flaw. In other words, the elite do something (USS Liberty, 911, false flag in the ME, financial collapse, health care, etc), and ATS reacts to it, usually negatively. Such behavior is fundamentally flawed, and ATS has painted itself into a corner of a love-hate symbiotic at best, parasitic at worst, relationship with the elite.

ATS might rise above it all if it provided useful alternatives. For example, out of this whole health care issue, the only options are either the government or keeping things status quo. No one has talked about other solutions. Other options include medical tourism with catastrophic insurance for accidents. I know a lot of people who go to Mexico to get their teeth done over the weekend. Other countries, such as India, are famous for heart surgeries.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that many alternative-minded people are falling into the corner of being bitter critics with nothing to offer. IMHO, that results in those ornery old people who become bitter with life, and I certainly don't want to become one of those people.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Durabys
Would it be possible for you to create in the list of subject (UFO, Secret Societis, NWO etc.) forums a new (I named it for example) "X-FILES" where all banned, censored(in non-censored version) and deleted treads would be deposited after your moderator-action,

No. Threads that are removed from public display are removed for a reason. Maintaining a public "garbage bin," for lack of a better name, defeats the purpose of removing the threads.



Originally posted by Wimbly
The consistent portrayal of "right wingers" as raging, hysterical nut jobs.

It's you, and others, that are extending such headlines to the "nut job" or hysterical implications.


Also, if you click on the "political terrorist" banner ad, it goes on to make that case.

And not a completely invalid case... at least from the standpoint of a news op-ed.

The current portrayal of "right-wing" hysterics is not completely inaccurate or without merit... just as current portray of "left-wing" cry-babies and faux racial ultra-sensitivities is not without merit.

While such opinions and mainstream news sensationalism may showcase a degree of bias, the underlying news items are valid and important symptoms of the current terminal political disease infecting the country... and I see no terminology that conflicts with the spirit of our reaffirmation thread... insofar as we've stated what we expect of our members, but not to be extended to the news items our members discuss.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 


Way lame. Nothing about my post above was partisan. Tell me. Is it not true that the majority of the anti-Obama rhetoric threads have the same posters over and over again who accuse Obama as being:

a) the anti-christ

b) muslim

c) having obtained the presidency illegally

Oh yes. It is true. And for those who call them out on such accusations with no proof get lambasted and more than half the time there buddies jump in with talking points from such extreme right wing nutjobs as rush limbaugh and hannity.

Both claim to be christian and conservative, and have yet to show any sign of such values...Same goes for those who spew the same regurgitated rhetoric here.

Nothing about this post is partisan just like nothing about my post above was partisan.

Im not a democrat. Not a liberal. Didnt vote for obama. I just can recognize b.s. when I see it. And im more than happy to call peope out on it...

So, for Skeptic overlord who removed my post, why not give a reason as to how my post above is supposedly partisan the way the banner states? This should be interesting...
, or will this one be removed as well??



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by open_eyeballs
Way lame. Nothing about my post above was partisan.

It was your "nutbags" slur, in context, that prompted the removal of your post under our new reaffirmation guidelines... not the content of your post.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Well then! I actually am impressed with the reply. I expected it to be ignored. For that. I thank you, but my opinion remains...


but I did not realize it was against the rules. I was just going off the fact the label that replaced the post said it was partisan. And therefore my protest... for what it is worth.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I agree it has been invaded...not by any one political party or ideology, but by more of the lazy authors who are trolling for stars and flags. I remember stumbling upon ATS shortly after 9/11 when John Lear was flooding the site with intriguing and thought provoking discussion. I believe that this site still plays a major role in opening up eyes and imaginations, unfortunately now this place has become the "battle zone" for every single topic that appears on the Drudge Report from each political side. Then we see all the talking points come rolling in that are being spun by each MSM network. It gets very old for the people who come here to actually find thought provoking opinion because a certain subject intrigues them. We all get caught up in it from time to time, but a lot of people would rather not put their 2 cents in anymore on certain subjects or share wild ideas because the notorious de-bunkers will hop on and surround a bunch of rude and demeaning adjectives about how they disagree, and here lately the de-bunking gurus are not even posting links to show why they are debunked. This will forever be an issue this site will have to deal with because we all can't get along all the time.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 



It's you, and others, that are extending such headlines to the "nut job" or hysterical implications.


I'm not though, its right there in the title. You see? It says "hysterical" and "right wing rage". Ever tried clicking on the links yourself? Everyone of those banner snap shots I posted makes the argument that these protesters are crazy.

Its no accident that the threads here follow the same talking points as those given on MSNBC and in those banners. Thats one of the problems. MSNBC gets to frame the debates with their biased view. It gets tacitly endorsed by ATS with the banner.

Quick question? Do you even agree that MSNBC has a left wing bias?


And not a completely invalid case... at least from the standpoint of a news op-ed.


Its not an invalid case with you? You see what I'm saying? Suddenly you're making the judgment that its ok to make the case that people at these protesters are political terrorists. You've just admitted that left wing trolling is acceptable, as long as its based on MSNBC's negative spin?


The current portrayal of "right-wing" hysterics is not completely inaccurate or without merit... just as current portray of "left-wing" cry-babies and faux racial ultra-sensitivities is not without merit.


You don't carry banners that make those sorts of claims against the left though. Thats the point. Its one sided. You also sponsor a forum for these cry-babies (your words) in the 9/11 conspiracy forum. Which I'm sure you don't see that way.


insofar as we've stated what we expect of our members, but not to be extended to the news items our members discuss.


I'm sorry, but I'm just not following your logic. Its ok to run banners that troll and attack right wingers/Republicans as terrorists, unamerican, crazy, hysterical or any number of insults as long as MSNBC approved of it first?

Again, this is now about the fact you are running such a biased banner on the main forum page. There are no attacks allowed, except for the ones in your MSNBC banner.




[edit on 10-8-2009 by Wimbly]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I don.t look at or trust tv news, so i only get the truth on the net. Its getting harder 2 find out just what is the truth with out all the crap. this [was] the best place 4 a while. lets get it back.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Wimbly
 


Hi Wimbly, and welcome to ATS.

My advice;
See something on ATS that you don't like or agree with? Don't look at it, click on it, or join the thread. It's no different than watching TV or listening to the radio. Change the channel or move on to something that interests you. Personally, there has been an ad quite prominently displayed lately that features some elf-lady with large breasts that I find distracting. It may even be offensive, depending on someone's outlook about how an elf-lady should be represented. No reason to worry about an MSNBC ad when there are pretty elf-ladies to look at.


My reminder;
SO owns ATS. He and the staff then provide this forum, for free, for all of us to share our opinions in a safe environment. Every so often management has to step in to put out a few fires so the rest of can continue to participate without fear. SO and I went around a few months ago about the points system and how it's no longer displayed with our avatars. The end result? Why was I even bitching about something so trivial when I have the opportunity to take part in some intelligent discussion about the latest crop circle and how they found Obama's REAL Kenyan BC buried under the center ring?

Every so often we just need to take breath, look at the big picture, put things in perspective, and carry on.

Carry on. Peace.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Wimbly
 


I’m not trying to kiss any bottoms here but the use of ATS is a privilege not an entitlement.

Some people have a problem with rules that is why they beefed it up a bit? I’m guessing? I agree there is too much hate lately. When an organization gets as large as this the rules change to the tone of the context.

Our personal opinions to FOX, BBC, CNN or MSNBC, AAP, Twofour or others shouldn’t be an issue. I’m glad a few are reading the ads. Wow.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Thanks for explanation atleast.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join