FANDOM


Reality is not your strong suit huh?

Easily the most unrealistic ATL on this website...

What. . . The. . . Heck? How did the FBI do that? Thanks, TimeMaster Talk Main Contribs

I agree with the above. Besides the US military is something like 70% self-identified conservative or republican these days, and even the die-hard liberals in the service wouldn't back this. Can you say "coup"?

Alien Space Bats did it the end. Benkarnell 20:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not just change the name to Right Wing Paranoia? Red guy ~2 19:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow just wow. I thought I saw some bad TLs written by crazy right wing nutjobs, but this is ridiculous. I mean there is no basis in reality for Obama's actions in this TL. The author of this TL is completely cut off from reality. Mitro 03:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the details of the Constitution of the United States, but I must assume forbidding the activities of a well-established, democratic party is clearly unconstitutional. Even if you hate a particular party or the political opposition as a whole, banning them is not the answer, even how much you'd want so. Banning them will initiate a underground movement and increased support for it. That is what in the end resulted in the collapse of the Communist dictatorship in countries such as Poland (Solidarity) and Czechoslovakia.
Maybe a little off-topic, but why do people in the U.S. who oppose Obama call him a socialist? Do they even know what Socialism is? If you compare him to European parties, he would clearly lay on the political right (most precisely in the Liberalist parties). Those who call him a Socialist really should try looking at the Socialist parties in Norway and Denmark - they would change their minds. Similarily, it is strange that the Left in Europe admire him because he is a Leftist in their eyes - even if he clearly is right-wing when comparing him to European politics. The fact is that the U.S. has NO major leftist party - despite their various degree of differences on social issues, foreign policy, taxation etc., both the Democrats and the Republicans basically support market liberalism, and thus do not qualify to be a Socialist party. Socialist Party USA, however, is a socialist party. And as far as I know, Obama support market liberalism, even if he also support more regulations.
Regards,
Realismadder 13:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
You thinks thats bad, look up the quotes made by author L. Neil Smith where he states because of Obama the US will end up like Cambodia under Pol Pot. Mitro 14:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Never heard of him, but that is simply brainless - just as stupid as the allegation that Obama is a terrorist. What does he base that on? Does he have any evidence that we do not know about? - Realismadder 14:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately most US citizens are not well traveled or even well read, especially when it comes to history and politics. I once dated a lovely woman who had a degree in mathematics and worked as an accountant but couldn't find Italy on an unlabled map of Europe. Of course she did grow up in Texas.
We have also been conditioned by decades of Cold War propaganda to react negatively to anything that even smells "leftist".
Athos3 16:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
In defense of Americans I have run into Europeans who are bad at geography as well.
Interesting that you point out Cold War propaganda. I wonder if in a world where the Nazis won WWII, would the US be more leftist due to propaganda against the Third Reich? Mitro 12:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I swear this ATL sucks.T its Author, the list below.

  1. Obama would never do this.Maybe Rush Limbaugh would, but Barack would never.
  2. Only a commie would attempt to do anything like this.
  3. Are you from some over-republican-rush-worshipping-leftism-hating-deep-south-family?If not,gummi bears are chewing on your brain.
  4. As said before, reality is not your strong suit, eh?
  5. Are you sarah Palin, author of Althist?
  6. Do you have any evidence besides Glenn,Rush,and Ron Paul?!
  7. Can you find:
  • Germany
  • Italy
  • Ukraine
  • & Portugal
    on an unlabled map of Europe?If so, you are minimally phyco.If not, go jump off a cliff.

One word, just one word, nuts, absolutely nuts. But hey, its not like the internet doesn't got crazier stuff on it Bobalugee1940 12:18, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Impeach Him?

Since what the President is saying in his speach is clearly unconstitutional and illegal wouldn't the Congress simply impeach him and remove him from office?

Oh sorry the FBI starts killing everybody, because that's what they do.

Athos3 02:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No,no, Congress would throw Obama out of office if he actually was convinced by Alien Space Bats to be berserk enough to do this...

I laughed.

This is so absurd that I love it. Keep up the good work.Oerwinde 10:28, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

this should win the award for "most hilarious piece of bull on Alt History Wiki" then its create should be tried for crimes of high stupidity and silliness. --HAD 13:58, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Alright HAD that was unecessary, cut it out. Never mind, I forgot what TL this was. Mitro 14:07, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

The reason why we have a loyal American army and a loyal FBI is because they have faith in the US Constitution... even if Obama grew up to be a socialist and somehow got elected, if he did this he would thrown out.


Sorry, but it'll take years of corruption to change the FBI into an evil secret police.Kagemoto vi Brooklyn 01:36, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Delete Maybe?

This TL has been expanded AT ALL and isn't one of the reasons an article can be deleted is if the author shows no interest in expanding them?

There were a couple of new pages added to the world a couple months ago, so I don't think that's entirely true. And I do not believe we have a policy of deleting ATLs just for being really stupid. Benkarnell 03:51, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah we never delete TLs just because no one likes them or because they are offensive. It would set a horrible precedent if we did. Furthermore we never delete TLs because no one works on them anymore (some of our FEATURED TLs fall under that category), we only do that if the TL is only one article and that article has very little to no text. Mitro 14:13, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

My god, man. You've successfully made the worst AH TL I've ever seen. I would give a long lecture on why it is so implausible, but I think that you're beyond help.

American Geography

Sigh, sometimes it fells like most of us Americans can be complete idiots, except when talking about America or Football. (American Football, not Soccer). Even our name for Football is an idiotic idea, as there is no (or little) foot to ball ratio. And to further prove my point, I'm to post some maps of "America's view of the world"

Eastward Expansion 22:06, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Please don't get offended!Eastward Expansion 22:14, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

What about this one?

File:Animondos.png

Fedelede 22:47, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Strange

I was going to say "Curious," but that would mean I'm looking for meaning here. Actually, this guy posted over a two-day period and then disappeared. By the time that this was noticed, nothing was left but to take pot-shots at the guy and his attempt at political commentary.

I am not surprized at the support for President Obama on the talk page, though I wonder how many people would be so quick as to discard the notion of the claim of "socialism" after three years in office. Probably about as many. I hardly think that the remarks by some assuming that right-wingers might try this but not someone on the left would last with the politically charged NC/NC attitudes of this wiki these days. But then, it stayed over time, with the "deletion" idea out of the question since it has some content. The politically charged bantor here walks the line with the NC/NC policy, but everyone seemed on the same page, so it's cool. SouthWriter (talk) 02:10, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

I agree, everything went downhill after Realismadder posted "Maybe a little off-topic" because that's when they started talking about other political things. This is a rather stupid ASB timeline, but posting those "American Geography maps" and whatnot was utterly unnecessary. It would be too late to enact any punishments, but I did delete those offensive maps.

What made you bring this old topic up, unless to advocate for stricter NC/NC policies? LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:22, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was doing the opposite, Lurker. Deletion of offensive material is not the goal, and "punishment" (temporary to permanent bans) is only after discussion and consultation. The goal is civil discourse, not censorship. Ideally, we need to stay on-topic to allow for better articles overall.

The policy was put into place in February of 2010, so this page was not under any such guidelines at the time. The first real test of how it was to be used, in fact, seems to be at my expense. I deleted some politically charged remarks after notifying the offending editors. When I did this, though, it drew criticism from Mitro (top "Brass" at the time). Being a new Lieutenant at the time, having chosen the responsibility at the time because of my background, I was hoping to keep flame wars from beginning on the talk pages. Deletion, I was told, was not the preferred way to deal with such a thing.

It became ironic, then, when you put the "Delete" template on my blog. That blog was created to attempt to keep such an "off-topic" discussion from running for pages. The fact that the policy itself was only five months old at the time made it a test case, of sorts, and it showed that a single word was not enough from Mitro. If he had set up some sort of dialogue, I am sure that the blog would have been closed to further discussion at that point. When it was accidently brought back up, deletion was really not the solution, though it worked to bring the issue of the policy back to our attention.

Those maps were editorial cartoons meant mostly to poke fun at ourselves rather than to offend. Of course, the butt of the joke would be the regular guy on the street that tends to accept stereotypical nationalism (pride and patriotism to the point of bigotry). They apparently did not offend anyone, for here it is almost three years later and I was the first one to come upon the talk page since then. SouthWriter (talk) 15:53, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on this page was anything but "civil discourse" since it fell into pure insults. Attempting to connect the NC/NC policy to this is only making the ban on it look justified since this is apparently what happens when political discussion is allowed. I know that the users on this wiki can be much more civil when discussing such things than this, but bringing this up helps your argument in no way. It would have been a better idea for you to bring up an example of a civil, polite political discourse that occured previously on this wiki, and use that in your arguments.

Those maps' sole existance was to mock people, and material designed for the sole purpose to mock people, with no relation to alternative history, even if it is just offensive to " the regular guy on the street that tends to accept stereotypical nationalism", has no place on this wiki. I don't see what any other solution other than deletion could exist or is even needed. If it is offensive, starting flame wars, or off topic, it doesn't have a place here, and if it does come here, it should be removed. LurkerLordB (Talk) 20:54, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this page was not civil discourse. You are exactly right this kind of thing is what undoubtedly led Ben to post the policy in the first place. I am presently in contact with Ben to get a feel for his original intent. What I meant above was that catching this sort of thing before it gets carried away seems to be the point of the policy, not the deletion of such material.

I was not intentionally bringing this page up for discussion, but rather pointing out that it would not be accepted under present conditions. My original post above was some passing thoughts concerning talk about a random article. Editorial cartoons exist not to mock people but to make them think. I had seen one of those cartoons posted by a friend on facebook. The fact that they were posted in connection with an alternate history that somewhat followed the political beliefs of those stereotypical nationalists made them suitable in this case. Unless someone states that they are offended, I see no reason to summarily remove the material. Public display material deemed offensive, though, should be removed after notice is given. "Off-topic" is not a reason for removal, however. SouthWriter (talk) 20:08, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.