The Conspiracy of American Political Peril

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Yet this is not about the Obama administration's policies, and people shouldn't feel ashamed of what they are being labeled as by one of the three amigos?

There's definitely some strong wording in there but I honestly don't see it as directed to right-wing or left-wing members in particular. It's really about the left-right bickering in general. Both sides have been guilty of it and now that forum is for both sides.

Most threads which have been moved into that section are critical of the Obama administration policies, and even when the thread has no hatred at all but it is showing what the Obama administration is doing is sent there, and has been labeled as a "disease and a plague" as well as those members who happen to post those threads, and those who agree with what is being said.

That is because Obama is the current president. Obviously there are going to be more threads dissecting him and his policies. So, to use your term 'most threads' in that forum at this time will be directed towards the left. However, I'm actually still seeing quite a few threads targeted to the right being placed in there as well (I can see them in the moved thread log). But logic dictates statistically there are going to be more 'anti-administration' threads in there because ATS always leans towards anti-establishment.

Also, I don't see the term 'plague' or 'virus' being descriptive of every thread in that form. There's actually a lot of good stuff in there. However, due to such thread's propensity to devolve into the madness (even if the OP was genuine and not vitriolic), the threads lately have been taken there by other posters.

What all this really boils down to is that there is now a forum specifically to discuss American partisan issues. I, even as a conservative and one who is no fan of Obama by any means, just don't see the issue with it. It's a new forum. That's really it.

It's the mentality that is the plague that often breaks out in the discussions. It's not saying 'All these threads and posters in this forum are plagues and viruses to ATS and the country and must now be quarantined.' At least, that is not how I am interpreting it.

Can you tell me when did SO make a thread to imply those who were critical of Bush's policies, and making threads posting articles that were critical of Bush was a "disease and a plague"?...

Can you please tell me where he said threads critical of Obama is a disease and a plague? He hasn't. He's saying the divisive partisan rhetoric is the problem. NOT criticism of the administration. In fact, he said such criticism is welcomed and encourage. This is not a 'protect Obama' move. This is a reorganization in order to curb the partisan sniping from BOTH sides.

That's really all I want to contribute to this thread. I don't want to get dragged into any heavy back and forth.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Can you tell me when did SO make a thread to imply those who were critical of Bush's policies, and making threads posting articles that were critical of Bush was a "disease and a plague"?...

This is getting infuriating.

It's not difficult to find...

New Policies for Political Bickering on ATS ## MAKE IT STOP! ## -- 2006
It doesn't take long to peruse the thread and see that we were labeled as "right wing apologists" by many.

The End of Political Baiting and Sniping on ATS (was ALL MEMBERS READ) -- 2005
Same as above.


Same issues, different administration, same response from us.


Use your brain, not your jerking-knee.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I said we should even go further and ban words like right wing or left wing as they only serve as distractions!

I know you weren't seriously proposing this, but I think what needs to happen is that the emotionalism be extracted from the terms instead of banning them. They are valid terms. They mean something real. But when people use them in a hateful and demeaning way, then they become weapons, insults and lose their real meaning.

I disagree
they are never valid terms

How can they be valid terms when their Purpose is to divide the people on non-issues for the sole purpose of making them think they actually have a choice.

As an extreme example
The left supports invading pakistan from the western most side
The right supports invading pakistan from the easternmost side

see, it's the same thing
the end result is still to invade pakistan but the people actually think they have an opinion on the topic and choice
yes it's an extreme example but at least you understand what I mean

these are never valid terms... ever

it's just that some people have been so conditioned in using these words that.... that's who they are now

many people don't really have an opinion
they just know how to argue on a given side

Originally posted by romanmel

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by AshleyD

 

That has been the best argument for this new area that I have seen yet.

Just one question. . . when does the straw in my cell get changed?

You got straw?
And I'm sleeping on concrete...Huh!

I made nice with one of the guards.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Since when are policies being implemented by the Obama administration not Political Breaking news?

They aren't even sent to the Political Breaking News, instead they are sent to another forum.

Is this the case?
I guess one of us didn't understand the opening post properly
can someone correct me?

I guess I think I understand it but can't really put it into words

from my understanding is that partisan threads will be moved to the new forum, wherein a thread that is critical of an Obama policy in breaking political won't necessarily be moved unless there's either alot of partisan bickering in the opening post or article itself and/or too many of the replies are too partisan, which would in fact distract us from the topic itself?

Am I correct mods?

[edit on 13-10-2009 by ModernAcademia]

SO,

Glad to see that your doing something about all this. I have had discussions with friends and family many times about this.

This Left/Right paradigm is destroying people's ability to think rationally and "see" what is really taking place. It is being used to manipulate the "masses". No discussion can ever take place anymore without people labeling or trying to label the other person as liberal or right wing. In so doing, once they have found what they think is the appropriate label for someone it is no longer necessary to listen to what they have to say - why? Because they already know what the other person has to say - and they have on standby all their political talking points to shout them down!

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

The sooner you free yourself of your "loyalty" to your political party the sooner you will see there are no political parties.

That's what I did during the Bush Admin - and now I see clearly. Hope you all can join me.

P.S. - I almost quit coming to ATS because of all the pointless, mindless bickering going on. It was becoming a waste of time.

edit: for clarity


[edit on 13-10-2009 by 2 cents]

It is a good thing that this thread is already in the Political Madness forum or they would have to move it there.

I say just embrace the forum and run with it. Fact is, Skeptic Overlord is an owner of this site and it is his to manage how him and co-owners wish. This is why private property and capitalism are good things, so cut the man a break.

To all my fellow freedom loving folk - quit whining and complaining about the change, beause you are making us look like Obama and the Liberals.


[edit on 13-10-2009 by StinkyFeet]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


did you only read the part you bolded?

just asking

reply to post by ModernAcademia


That is what is happening today. If this holds true, it's a great move. The problem is that important threads with great information can be sabotaged to get them moved.

Originally posted by romanmel

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by AshleyD

 

That has been the best argument for this new area that I have seen yet.

Just one question. . . when does the straw in my cell get changed?

You got straw?
And I'm sleeping on concrete...Huh!

You guys got cells? I'm chained to a post in BTS

Originally posted by AshleyD
..............
Can you please tell me where he said threads critical of Obama is a disease and a plague? He hasn't. He's saying the divisive partisan rhetoric is the problem. NOT criticism of the administration. In fact, he said such criticism is welcomed and encourage. This is not a 'protect Obama' move. This is a reorganization in order to curb the partisan sniping from BOTH sides.
..............

I tried to do that by responding to the post of OpenMindCuriousMind. i excerpted the part where SO mentions Obama, and responded to one of the comments made by OpenMindCuriousMind.

I was given two warnings for that, and of course OpenMindCuriousMind did not get a warning for his post.

Anyway, I said for the most part what I had to say.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Healthcare reform is desperately needed. It's broken. It's prohibitively expensive for small businesses and self-employed. There is no guarantee that if you have it now, it will pay for your bills.

Health-care "reforms" are why the health-care system turned into the mess it did today. Spouting the word "Reform" is parroting meaningless dribble from a campaign slogan.

Our health-care system was not this costly, until government started paying for things. Once that happened, the health-care industry charged the Government as much as they possibly could. Which ultimately raised prices across the board.

You made statements earlier about "lobbyists", running around congress trying to influence the vote. Let me explain something to you Bill....

The company I work for has the largest Health-care lobby in the United States. Do you know what this lobby buys off Congressmen for? Universal Health-care... Why would a health-care company (who apparently stands to loose billions) want that? Because the Health-care industry isn't going to loose any money. In fact universal coverage will make them even more wealthy than they are now.

This health-care bill is Corporatism. Period. Who do you think wrote the bill? Politicians? They don't know crap about medicine. My company wrote a large part of that bill. And they are still working on it. The government isn't all of the sudden going to spring "government hospitals" out of the ground. It's just going to use the existing infrastructure. Meaning, it's going to contract out, and pay the CEO of my company billions, upon billions, upon billions of taxpayer dollars annually, whether or not anyone is sick, injured, or perfectly healthy. This is a fracken scam. And anyone who has the ability to think knows it. The above doesn't even include Pharmaceutical companies.

70% of all the health-care costs in the US are already paid for by the government. SEVENTY PERCENT. But nearly 80% off all net revenue in the health-care industry goes directly into the pocket of a corporate CEO running the companies. And this is what you want more of? And to get it you'll bow to your sponsor and throw any thread that opposes whatever comes out of Keith Olbermann's mouth into the looney bin.

It's not really a shocker. The white house has publicly stated that they where unleashing an army of bloggers to combat opponents of their agenda. And they are lashing out at Journalists who ask questions that may be too hard to answer, or investigate policy. ATS is the largest site of it's kind, so it makes sense that something like this would have happened. Someone threaten to pull Advertising from you? That what happened?

I digress, it's your site, you decide policy here. Who am I to criticize you for choosing to deny ignorance by embracing it. Free speech does not exist on a private forum. We all get that.

Still, I bet when you started this site, you never thought you'd have to bow to your corporate masters did you? My, my, my.........

[edit on 13-10-2009 by aravoth]

[edit on 13-10-2009 by aravoth]

Well, it seems a bit of a slippery slope to me, and I can see how such rules etc can lead to bad things.

I personally can't stand the whole "left vs right" stuff. So I hope it's done well, and not as a means of censorship. Because I know how BTS is used as the ATS trashcan and how moving a thread can kill it etc.

So I hope you'll be moving topics that are based on the "who" rather than the "what" to this new forum only. Because that is IMO the difference between what is acceptable and what is not. If it's the actions and what someone is doing that is being pointed out, I don't think that is bad. But if it's just a smear type thing and all about a "who", then that is what I consider junk.

I don't much talk about politics here, because of the left vs right paradigm people want to argue in etc. So probably won't affect me anyway.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
How can they be valid terms when their Purpose is to divide the people on non-issues for the sole purpose of making them think they actually have a choice.

The purpose comes from the person, not the words. Words are just words. Words don't have a purpose without the intent of the person and other words wrapped around them.

I know some people think that right and left are the same. I am not one of those people. I am not allied with either, but I think they exist. And I think they can be discussed without vitriol. And I also think that the idea that they are the same or don't exist is another form of political correctness. And I don't buy it.

The left exists. The right exists. As ideologies. There are gradient levels of intensity. The farther you go to one side or the other, the closer you get to the "wing". Maybe, at the extreme tip, they become the same, but just as on a color wheel, purple is not green. Black is not white. But they all exist on a wheel that is one unit. We HAVE to to have varying levels of intensity and belief, or else we have nothing to discuss at all. That doesn't mean we have to have hatred and the "team mentality" that says your win is my loss and vice versa.

the end result is still to invade pakistan but the people actually think they have an opinion on the topic and choice
yes it's an extreme example but at least you understand what I mean

I don't understand what you mean. I'm sorry. I don't get how the analogy maps to politics. People have opinions on issues. These opinions differ and usually fall on a political scale to the right or left, up or down. And these issues and opinions can be discussed civilly, with respect and open-mindedness. Not necessarily to change our minds, but to understand others.

many people don't really have an opinion
they just know how to argue on a given side

On that, I completely agree. And it's terribly sad. But that discounts those of us who do have opinions formed from thought. There are people who DO have opinions that fall mostly on the left or right. They have given these issues a lot of thought and have come to their own conclusions about them and I don't feel they should be discounted and told that there's no such thing or that their position on issues isn't valid.

I happen to fall all over the continuum on different issues, so I consider myself "left" and "right". And I think many people do fall on both sides of center if they give it any thought, and maybe that's what you're saying, and if so, I agree. But to say that there's no such thing as "the right wing" or "the left wing" as far as ideology goes, I think is a mistake. More likely, I don't understand what you really mean.

But I'm not sure this thread is the place to hash it out. Then again, maybe it is. Maybe it would be helpful. I guess I'll leave it up to the mods to say.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


This is my last post to this thread. Just wanted to break this down for you since this is what you're referring to:

Since the divisive political atmosphere is a result of this conspiratorial pestilence, all new threads covering american politics should be initiated in the new forum. The only exceptions will be straight-up news stories that cover events in US politics -- example: "Obama cabinet meets over North Korea."

*Underlined for emphasis.

That is saying 'American politics.' Not 'criticism of Obama' like you are interpreting it. 'Obama' was only used within an example of 'straight up news.' He was not the focus.

I now leave this thread in peace.

Lets be completely honest people. The partisanship only truly exists during the campaigns and the promises offered in order to be elected. Once in, it is business as usual. Paying back those who truly helped (bought) them into office. Politics and partisanship is a dog and pony show meant to entertain. And boy DOES it. People are so tired of getting lied to but instead of distancing themselves from the whole process, they let the ego take over and lash out against the "other side".

reply to post by lucentenigma


Have you looked over the older threads concerning President Bush? I've been here long enough to remember the vitriol directed at him, and his supporters, during his tenure in office. Amongst those writers of said vitriol are some of the most vociferous of complainers about this new forum.

Howzabout we give it a chance, hmmm?

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
I tried to do that by responding to the post of OpenMindCuriousMind. i excerpted the part where SO mentions Obama, and responded to one of the comments made by OpenMindCuriousMind.

I was given two warnings for that, and of course OpenMindCuriousMind did not get a warning for his post.

Quite simple. You are so caught up in the us vs them paradigm that rationality is not sinking in. I checked the removed post and his post was fine, your reply was more of the same political BS that initiated this change.

As SO has said, we've had to do this in the past because of the rancor of whatever given party spews that it gets intolerable. As any cogent person can see 90%+ are happy to see this change implemented. THAT should tell you something.

Originally posted by AshleyD
*Underlined for emphasis.

That is saying 'American politics.' Not 'criticism of Obama' like you are interpreting it. 'Obama' was only used within an example of 'straight up news.' He was not the focus.

I now leave this thread in peace.

Straight up news are not supposed to be part of BAN, unless there is a conspiracy in it, as I was explained, and any article which has a conspiracy in it will be critical of the policy being implemented. Hence it will be critical of the Obama administration.

So most straight up news will not be part of BAN, and now threads which are critical of the Obama administration are also not going to be part of BAN, or even BPN.

But let's roll with the wind right?

Thanks for your response btw.