CHB and other sources and Censorship

in the recent past I have noticed an increased number of threads asking that some sources be censored at DU...

The arguments made range from they are full of lies, to we need to protect the weak minded from the crap they espouse... Now I ask what is the agenda of those who seek to censor and do they really think we can't make our own mind?

There is more to this, but let me explain in cliff notes something that these sites are... in modern times, in very repressive societies, it is called a micro climate. These sites are saying what the Mainstream in society does not dare say. They are, in many ways, a barometer of things to come. Yes, some like Flocco.com are funny, hell they are good sources of material for fiction writers, (as well as the crime page in the paper). But they fulfill a function. Now we have several of the tabloids, (two in fact) who have published that the Presnit is hitting the sauce, and Issikof in Newsweek told us Bush has a problem controlling his temper.

Well reality is folks that these rumor sites, and many blocs are rumor sites, are the place where many of the more disturbing news from the palace are first discussed. This is not unlike the Ancien Regime, or the USSR... you get the mood of the country in alternate news (or not so news) and political jokes... some of the old stand byes from the USSR have even resurfaced in the US... which some of us have found to be rather funny.

Now as to censorship, you may want to protect people, but asking for censorship, which is exactly what you are dong, you are not that different from the other side. So some people believe all they read at Prisonplanet.com, and some believe all that was published in the Enquirer and some still believe Hussein had a weapons program in Iraq, (Judith Miller and NYT)... why put them in the same line? To prove a point... today you should be skeptical of any source, regardless of how trustworthy it was in the past, for all our media is compromised, nothing more compromised than the MSM...

And yes I ask all of you, stop with the censorship threads...

No point in censorship. As long as these Globe/Enquirer/CHB posts aren't listed as facts or credible sources I don't mind reading them, sometimes speculation is fun. As a reliable source they are no better than Rush or Drudge or O'Lielly.

Hell at times I wonder if the NYT belongs there, but that is another story.

;-)

It's just not LBN worthy. Garbage, basically.

It's not censorship, it's discretion and judgement.

a minority mind yuo, but there is a threat RIGHT NOW asking for it.

promoting censorship. He wasn't asking the admins to ban CHB posts. I read it as DA asking people to voluntarily not post them. That is a far, far cry from censorship.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's a matter of categorization.

No one should censor an article from Capitol Hill Blue. But I don't think articles from CHB should appear in LBN when they cite no credible sources. Which is pretty much all the time.

I think they should go in "Editorials and Other Articles" or GD.

repetitive answers

repetitive answers

repetitive answers

repetitive answers

:evilgrin:

Back when he was a rock-rib, rather rabid republican. He knows a shitload of people on the Hill (he used to be a staffer for a GOP congressman from somewhere out west, New Mexico, or somewhere). He has stayed in touch with his fellow staffers, who have, over the last twenty or so years, moved up the food chain.

I think, years from now, we will find out that a lot of what he has reported on is grounded in fact. He was very opinionated when I met him, but not rude. For whatever that is worth....

I think you're right--we probably will find out his reports were grounded in fact (at least for the most part). And given what you've just told me, it makes sense that he wouldn't "cite" sources since much of the information he receives is probably just word-of-mouth. So in a sense, he IS the primary source, but that doesn't cut it in a MSM context, especially since he often editorializes.

So no sources + editorial tone = no "newsworthy" credibility.

But don't get me wrong, I still enjoy reading his stuff.

...the odds are good that everyone working in the nuthouse, er, I mean the White House, will write a book that will feature the Monkey's outbursts in all their perverse glory. Likely, they will be a selling point.

Remember Nixon, snarling at staffers, getting drunk, crying, ordering Henry to kneel down and pray with him??? All that came out tout suite after he was chased off to oblivion, in books that made the Best Seller lists!

just curious

and I am pointing out how wrong that is on a progresive site

Most of us agree CHB does not in LBN belong... at times I wonder if the NYT does... but yuor mileage may vary

I saw Steve Roberts on Howie's show today.

he really really HATES Judy Miller


she was his editor, and said she was horrible, totally unsuited for being one.

he said she was very much resented/disliked (paraphrase) by most at the TImes

Mocking bird... my tinfoil and that of the Congress critters who researched that one are tight, thank you

;-)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html
"Do not quote or link to "conspiracy theory" websites, except in our September 11 forum, which is the only forum on Democratic Underground where we permit members to debate highly speculative conspiracy theories. A reasonable person should be able to identify a conspiracy theory website without much difficulty."


I think the argument is that CHB needs to be added to the list of conspiracy theory websites.

It is not censorship to say "don't post bullshit conspiracy theories" here.People can still go to those websites if they want to. Censorship is about restricting access to information, would it be censorship to prevent people from posting "BUSH RULEZ, DEMS SUX" on this board?

it is more of a rumor mill, filling a role that is very different from Prisonplanet... and by the way, I suspect 20 years from now we will find out that much of what he has reported was true... it took that long for us to learn the extent of the breakdown in the Nixon WH. Now how much will be true and how much will be fiction will be for historians to deduce, assuming HD are not destroyed

theory to me. CHB also printed stories about Bill Clinton's "sexual violence toward women". Will we find out thats true in 20 years too?

FISA expansion of,

National Security Letters

You will be able to find articles on both of these items in the WaPo and read them... after you do that, re-read his story. I am serious there...

In fact here you go

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=15543&c=262

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/national_security_letters.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501366.html

And this is just the top of the google search

:eyes:
:D

If you want to believe silliness that's your business.

and yuo are also calling the ACLU silly?

Ok...

Fine.. I see those two are also conspiracy sites

I'm calling 20000 names long enemies lists, Bush's crazy medicated ranting, WH staff acting like drug dealers by using disposable cell phones and bill Clinton's sexual violence against women silliness.

That is what CHB prints.

sort of verified by the MSM, including News Week and WaPo... see this is the problem, he... and the rest of what you read, need to be taken with a grain of salt... but asking for them to be censored because you think they are full of shit is just what censors do... to protect the weak minded

People can make their own minds, and these constant calls for censorship are maddening... and after readying the accounts of how the Nixon WH fell apart during Watergate and we had enemy's lists, why is this so out of the realm of possibility today? THINK about it, you think it cannot happen here AGAIN? It already did with Nixon, why not again? Oh and by the way, I gave you the links to the National Security Letters, did you bother readying them? That use is wholly unprecedented in US History... and under US Law.

It is easy you think it is full of shit, don't read it.

for no apparant reason....

but I have a sneaky suspicion that when historians finally look at the historical record, they will be shocked by who exactly was issued those letters which have increased in their use by ORDERS of MAGNITUDE and are UNPRECEDENTED in their use against US Citizens... and as usual will be a part of the record usually not taught to our kids, because it could not happen here... the fact Nixon had enemies lists is not taught for the most part still

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

expansion of FISA (to now cover US Citizens) Letters of National Security that go through a FISA court are you actually missing?

I did not make this up, READ the USPA, read the LEAKED USPA II and read the links I gave you to the WaPO and others. Don't take my word for it, but READ, get educated... you are quite on purpose, even when presented with the evidence, willing to concede that this is unprecedented. Don't take my word for it, listen to the ACLU for christ sake, or are they paranoid too?

"listen to the ACLU "
That would be the ACLU that CHB regularly attacks. Ho-kay.

Letters of National Seucrity, here you go again, maybe this time you will read it

Challenge to the "National Security Letter" Authority
NEW! Redacted documents released by the ACLU March 7, 2005 (pdf)
Letter from the Department of Justice (5/27/04) | Letter from the ACLU (5/25/04) | Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief | Declaration | FBI Declaration | Plaintiffs' Reply | Declaration of Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director

In April 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union and an anonymous Internet Service Provider (ISP) filed a lawsuit challenging the FBI's authority to issue "National Security Letters" (NSLs) ordering certain kinds of businesses to turn over sensitive customer records. Before the Patriot Act, the FBI could use NSLs to obtain records concerning suspected terrorists and spies. The Patriot Act amended the law to allow the use of NSLs to obtain information about anyone at all.

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=15543&c=262

Here from the WaPO

The FBI's Secret Scrutiny
In Hunt for Terrorists, Bureau Examines Records of Ordinary Americans

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 6, 2005; Page A01

The FBI came calling in Windsor, Conn., this summer with a document marked for delivery by hand. On Matianuk Avenue, across from the tennis courts, two special agents found their man. They gave George Christian the letter, which warned him to tell no one, ever, what it said.

Under the shield and stars of the FBI crest, the letter directed Christian to surrender "all subscriber information, billing information and access logs of any person" who used a specific computer at a library branch some distance away. Christian, who manages digital records for three dozen Connecticut libraries, said in an affidavit that he configures his system for privacy. But the vendors of the software he operates said their databases can reveal the Web sites that visitors browse, the e-mail accounts they open and the books they borrow.

FOR YOUR INFORMATION
Patriot Act Primer
The USA PATRIOT Act, approved overwhelmingly by Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, greatly expanded the government's power to monitor, search, detain or deport suspects in terrorism-related investigations.
LIVE DISCUSSION, NOV. 7, 2 P.M. ET
The FBI's Secret Scrutiny
Washington Post staff writer Barton Gellman discusses his report on "national security letters," or NSLs, an FBI tool to force companies to give the bureau private information about their customers--and keep the request secret.
Homeland Security

* GOP Leaders Urge Probe in Prisons Leak
* Security Plans Often Overdue
* List of Foiled Plots Puzzling to Some
* Bush Adviser Acknowledges Lack of Preparation for Katrina
* Va. Federal Prosecutor Picked for Justice Post

More Stories
Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.

* Thunder in the House
* Rumors unplugged | flevour.net
* Thunder in the House


Full List of Blogs (433 links) »

Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web

Christian refused to hand over those records, and his employer, Library Connection Inc., filed suit for the right to protest the FBI demand in public. The Washington Post established their identities -- still under seal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit -- by comparing unsealed portions of the file with public records and information gleaned from people who had no knowledge of the FBI demand.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501366.html

Or they also weariing tight tinfoil too?

So I guess by your source, I ought to disregard anything the ACLU says (snicker)....

letter of National Security... I said it is possible he got one, given the record we have on this

REGULAR AMERICANS are now under surveillance,

And I am not vouching for his credibity but for the right of whoever wants to post the articles to post them, aka against the censorship you would love to see...

Censor you are, and even when shown the evidence you try to wiggle out of the fact that yuo want to censor.

"I am not vouching for his credibity"
Uh-HUH.

yuo are the one who wants to ban them, not me

regularly at Free Republic, you are the one who wants to ban things not me... maybe truly you would love to be able to censor things like THEY DO?

You're the one that wants to trot out right wing horseshit as a valid source and says the New York Times are liars.

and DO YOU WANT TO BAN what you don't agree with? Who is the one who wants to censor? NOT ME buddy

Should we continue to keep discussing Judy Miller's articles once we know what a liar she is? Or shall we just toss 'em all out and move on?

this particular source after being burned or are you going to ask for it to be banned too? Same standard applies you know.

as much as any other source, you are the one wiht the problem of not being skeptical of certain soruces becasue they are mainstream... and you want to ban others you don't like

Perhaps that's why you're having such a problem figuring out the difference between a real newspaper and a lying right wing loony with a website....

the Obeserver, US MSM is Corporate news, with a cetain RIGHT WING SLANT... but if you want to continue to trust them, be my guest. By the way where do yuo think we are regarding freedom of the press?

Wow.

severely and if you cannot see that I can't help you

So you don't trust the mainstream media....but you DO trust a lying right wing loony with a not very believable website?

just that if people want to post they can and should, you are the one who wants to ban it, remember?

What I said is that some of his stories seem to have gotten some confirmation from the sources YOU TRUST, such as Newsweek and michael Issikof

And if not, why not?

or not are you having a problem comprehending?

though nice attempt counselor

but his crap should still be peddled?

This is like saying that we ought to let the druggist sell arsenic in among the aspirin to avoid "authoritarian censorship"....

you got it, you have to be SKEPTICAL of everything you read

What just because it is printed by a main Stream paper it is trustworthy> the debacle with Judith Miller should have taught you this... and if you did not learn that lesson that is YOUR PROBLEM... so by your logic, we should not allow ALL media sources. ALL OF THEM, because we cannot let in what is not trustworthy. You really sure you want to go down that road?

about everything but CHB, according to you.

"by your logic, we should not allow ALL media sources"
And by yours we should let the druiggist mix arsenic in among the aspirins....

fine, do whatever you want to do, even advocate censorship, that is what you are doing.

Not very well mind you... by the way.

and you can continue whaterver the hell you're doing...

you don't like, by the way, stealing from the same thread, refute this... the original poster and I would love to see you refute this since you couold not refute the Katrina NewsWeek story written by Issikof (Oh and Kudos to Oblivious, comes from post 99)



He is saying the same thing many other mainstream sources are saying, and obviously none of them reveal their sources or they would dry up. This attack against CHB seems more worthy of a Rove-commissioned attack team.

In the NY Daily news report, not one source is actually given, except as follows: his associates...a political friend...a source with close ties to the White House...Presidential advisers and friends...these sources...one Bush insider...a sympathetic official. Yet look at how many news organisations and respected blogs picked up the story and printed it in full or made it part of their editorials/columns/interviews/blogs. They know very well that these sources names cannot be printed or they will lose their jobs. So why is CHB being attacked on DU and not all the other organisations that do the same thing? Strange.

Bushies feeling the boss' wrath

Prez's anger growing in hard times - pals
BY THOMAS M. DEFRANK

New York Daily News

WASHINGTON - Facing the darkest days of his presidency, President Bush is frustrated, sometimes angry and even bitter, his associates say.

..."This is not some manager at McDonald's chewing out the help," said a source with close ties to the White House when told about these outbursts. "This is the president of the United States, and it's not a pleasant sight."

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/358714p-305660c....

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2005/Oct/20051026News015...

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politic...

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005%5C10...

http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=145...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20051025/cm_huffpost/0...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173395,00.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/...

http://moneycentral.groups.msn.com/politicsandthemarket...

http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/124

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/article.aspx?id=1174

http://michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=4628

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=r...

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1027-21.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/10/24/bush-associate...

http://michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=4628

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9749968 /

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9813205/#storyContinued

Will we find out in 20 years that Move On lied about Chimpy's Social Security swindle? That was what CHB was trying to peddle this spring....

and can people make their own minds or is this your personal crusade?

By the way they have done something the NYT has not done, retracted some of their stories.

Anyhow, interesting that you cannot just do the following, you don't like the CHB threads, DON'T READ THEM... simple, ain't it?

But you are LEFT WING AUTHORITARIAN who likes censorship, like it or not. You are the one advocating for it.

Oh and don't say it again, that I am pouting, for you cannot defend your possition... and did you see me defending them about SS, no... but you are fixated on it.

"can people make their own minds "
You sure seem to howl like a banshee whenever anybody puts up any information about what a cesspool CHB is that might help them make up their minds.

"But you are LEFT WING AUTHORITARIAN who likes censorship"
Yeah, I don't see any reason to clog up a progressive forum with right wing horseshit. Nor do I give a shit what's "authoritarian" or not.

thanks for playing

Now for your brilliant answer, pouting.

is a censor?

Hahahahahaha.....

you know it is horseshit, don't read it... others will not agree with you... but I am not telling you to stop posting your articles, and all people are asking you is to get off your holier than though... by the way on freeperland, the NYT is horseshit, liberal horseshit no less... and they still let it in...

my advise is don't read the threads, but get off the censorious attitutde.. that is very authoritarian and does not this place suit.

By the way the beauty of this country is that yes, virginia, I may disagree vehememtly with you, but I will defend your right to say it... but you are not willing to do that, you want to censor it.

"by the way on freeperland, the NYT is horseshit"
Funny, that's what YOU were saying elsewhere too....

"that is very authoritarian and does not this place suit. "
Bull shit. This isn't libertarian loonyland, but Democratic Underground. I don't give a flying fuck what is "authoritarian" or not.

"By the way the beauty of this country is that yes, virginia, I may disagree vehememtly with you, but I will defend your right to say it..."
Actually, it's "Yes Virginia there is a Santy Claus." The quote you butchered is from Voltaire. Here in this country there's no reason to let some shit head yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre or peddle untruths as fact.

don't give a crap?

Thanks for the post count, but why are you still engaged? What is this for you? For me it is fighting censors, but what is this for you?

And no I don't trust the NYT, judith Miller may come to mind...

Especially when you actually point out that the freepers are saying what you are saying.

by the way, Dough Thomsin is a right wing libertarian but you are a left wing authoritarina, look it up... I don't know what is worst... but you are not a Dmeocrat... you'd love to put them out of circulation..

Pout louder.

Libertarians come in two flavors, left and right, not that you knew that...

And authoritarians come also in two flavors, right AND left, imagine that

I really don't give a flying fuck. Libertarianism is sophistry in defense of selfish ignorance.

censor, but you cannot still justify your need to censor

Been there, done that.

who wants to engage in pretty authoritarian behavior, aka censorship, not me... so keep laughing... you are the one behaving like a freeper.

"you are the one behaving like a freeper"
Says the person saying exactly what she reported the freepers were saying....it doesn't get much funnier than that.

I will continue to point out you are at heart a friend of censorship. Oh and I forgot a thread disruptor...

I'm all for authoritarian laws against polluters and the like....piss on libertarian horseshit. And there's no reason to let people spread known horseshit in the forums.

making sure this is CRYSTAL CLEAR

put it in its own forum like it is now.

So you also don't want to see treads leading to Buchanan, TBR and other Right Wing sources because you are such a progresive that your beautiful mind should never be exposed to it? My how freeperish of you.

with critical thought?

Please show us one of these threads endorsing Pat Buchanan....


"your beautiful mind should never be exposed to it?"
You know, Nadine, most people don't have to stick what comes out of the dog's ass into their mouth to discover it's not candy....

and are willign to read from MULTIPLE sources even the Right, you are the one with the problem and censorious mind, not me

There's a difference between "free" and "credulous and gullible"....

thinkers make their own minds? Or are you trying to protect feeble minds? And this is what this is all about...

There's no reason to let horseshit be posted as if it WERE fact....

Not everyone who sees a source they have not seen before realizes its provenance ....and there's no reason to let crap from utterly worthless and dishonest sites like Doug Thompson's be posted as if it had an imprimatur ....

after all even a broken clock can tell the correct time twice a day... and even thomson may get it right... even in your eyes maybe some day.

But it is you who is all for censorship, not me...me free flow of ideas, you censorship so we can protect them feeble minds. I am sorry, but I am not for protecting feeble minds.. you are.

"me free flow of ideas"
No, you free flow of words with almost nothing that could actually be described as "ideas"....

"I am not for protecting feeble minds"
(snicker)

so it is not a broken clock again why are you even arguing FOR CENSORSHIP?

how brilliant of you, why not just simply walk away when you perceive to be ahead?

So nobody needs your help to protect them from lies.

Sure people have different opinions about what is and what isn't a lie - but we don't all have to conform to you opinion on those matters do we?

that is the logic of the censor at work here.. purely

There's no reason to clog the discussion boards with fringe gibberish...especially utterly unreliable fringe gibberish.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

CHB is a shit-rag. However, I will not personally push for banning it. I enjoy making fun of it (as well as Wayne Madsen's crap) too much.

Over the past week, I've seen a bunch of nonsensical and dishonest gibberish trotted out on this board as "fact"...including Pastor Grant Swank, Reason magazine and the like .....

I have no idea what is the official list of DU's non-approved conspiracy websites. Is there a list somewhere?

What I got into a tiff about over a thread lambasting CHB was that the thread was using a CLINTON sex headline that was painful to re-LIVE, not that the CHB old story was not TRUE.

Aside from the taboo on wingnut sources, a softer taboo is on --gasp--GOSSIP! When Kitty KELLEY's book on the BFEE was new, there was a strong attack on her as being MERELY a GOSSIP purveyor. I wish flunkies like Tweety and G.E.RUSSERT had as high standards when they presume to call themselves journalists. I'm tired of looking up the dictionary definition of "gossip" --I did that so many times back then--- but it has nothing to do with UNTRUTH. It has to do with something very intimate that is often painfully personal to disclose.

The wingnut gossipers at the NY Post---Old-Cindy-ADAMS and Richard JOHNSON frequently have tidbits about all stripes of political peep weeks or months before it's admitted as true.

I enjoy reading some of the articles that are posted from CHB, The Inquirer, and the Globe. I believe I am as capable of making up my own mind as to the truth and accuracy of the stories as the people who want to censor them.

for all of you who hate this as a source, DON'T read it, DON'T open the threads, ignore it... it is easy, like changing the channel on the tele

I was just calling bullshit. \

I had just finished reading three threads at random. The first sourced to CHB, the second to the enquirer and the third the Globe. I was waiting for the weekly world news expose on Bat Boy's run for the Repug nomination in 2008.

People can eel free to post what they feel like. I have never had a problem with that. However, I reserve the right to call bullshit once and a while.

as long as nobody advocates bans

He is saying the same thing many other mainstream sources are saying, and obviously none of them reveal their sources or they would dry up. This attack against CHB seems more worthy of a Rove-commissioned attack team.

In the NY Daily news report, not one source is actually given, except as follows: his associates...a political friend...a source with close ties to the White House...Presidential advisers and friends...these sources...one Bush insider...a sympathetic official. Yet look at how many news organisations and respected blogs picked up the story and printed it in full or made it part of their editorials/columns/interviews/blogs. They know very well that these sources names cannot be printed or they will lose their jobs. So why is CHB being attacked on DU and not all the other organisations that do the same thing? Strange.

Bushies feeling the boss' wrath

Prez's anger growing in hard times - pals
BY THOMAS M. DEFRANK

New York Daily News

WASHINGTON - Facing the darkest days of his presidency, President Bush is frustrated, sometimes angry and even bitter, his associates say.

..."This is not some manager at McDonald's chewing out the help," said a source with close ties to the White House when told about these outbursts. "This is the president of the United States, and it's not a pleasant sight."

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/358714p-305660c.html

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2005/Oct/20051026News015.asp

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/12990102.htm

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005%5C10%5C25%5Cstory_25-10-2005_pg1_7

http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=145951&cat=World

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20051025/cm_huffpost/009492

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173395,00.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17068345%255E28737,00.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17068345%255E28737,00.html

http://moneycentral.groups.msn.com/politicsandthemarkets/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=163210&LastModified=4675544953495436598

http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/124

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/article.aspx?id=1174

http://michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=4628

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/10/25/build/nation/75-bush-mood.inc

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1027-21.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/10/24/bush-associates-say-he_n_9418.html

http://michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=4628

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9749968/

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9813205/#storyContinued

Bravo. :applause:

the censors are doing this for whatever agenda they have. I am skeptical of all sources... but will continue to read them, hell even in some cookn sites you find some interesting information at times (prisonplanet comes to mind with this)

I tend to cite the Katrina Issikof story, but boy you did an amazing job there

This censorship of posts and now websites have left some DUers with absolute power to destroy ideas, and it corrupts absolutely.

The censorship of websites will do the same.

I could see requiring a warning whenever used, whiting out the text to be seen only if highlighted by the end user, but this idea that only some people may know what was said destroys us.

part of this thread a discusion... it was not...

We need access to all ideas, people are adults and they can make their own minds on the issues. Read widely, and come to your conclusions...

Hell I will admit it, even Buchannan makes points I agree with from time to time, for example (foreign affairs) even if I know me and Pat could not share the same room.

To figure out what is lies from truth?

What looks like a legit story and what looks not so legit.

If you censor you are no better than faux who limits what news and not news people get to hear.Faux has such a rabid right bias because they censor ANYTHING that goes against their agenda.And scapegoat certain kinds of questions.

In reality we NEED paranoids we need to be3 questioning we need to hope for the best and expect the worse and make up our own minds considering all the information we can.

And scapegoating and censoring certain people or questions that fall into the spectrum of general left and father left does NOT help the case for us being for freedom or democracy and for the kind of knowledgeable questioning population that is required to maintain freedom and democracy from some very entrenched belief systems that foster some very nasty thugs in suits that are IMHO tyrannical.

Are DUers stupid and unable to think and ask questions or NOT? Can you trust your fellow Duers with information and the mess of freedom or not?Is certain factions of Du too scared of other people(the mythic moderates or some other peers) screaming "conspiracy" to see one occurring right under their noses?

Flamefest