Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
Journalist Who Exposes U.N. Corruption Vanishes From Google
foxnews.com — How big do you have to be to earn the wrath of the United Nations and Internet giant Google? If you're journalist Matthew Lee, all it takes are some critical articles about the UN. Lee is the editor-in-chief and pretty much the only reporter for Inner City Press, a pint-sized Internet news operation that's earned the wrath of liberal fascists...
Ridgeliner7- 1231 diggs
- digg it
- diggboss, on 02/19/2008, -14/+67do no evil ?
- UtubReptilian, on 02/19/2008, -13/+16Too late for the UN, US, and FOX News. Their supposed news have lost all credibility. This is proof that they want to get us all sick - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcjzdoiL0j4
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/19/2008, -9/+9I grew up on a farm and I have seen the effect of the hormones on cows. It literally kills them; they only live half as long.
- MWeather, on 02/19/2008, -6/+14In other words it only takes half as long for them to reach slaughtering weight.
- xptoast, on 02/19/2008, -6/+6No he means it reeks havoc on their systems for more milk.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/19/2008, -2/+4Why is toast getting dugg down? weather - the hormones we are refering to are for milk production. They shoot the cows do double the poundage of milk, but, like toast said, it reeks havoc on them. This hormone then goes right into the milk, and can not be good for humans. I only buy hormone free milk.
- MWeather, on 02/19/2008, -6/+14In other words it only takes half as long for them to reach slaughtering weight.
- xptoast, on 02/19/2008, -15/+5Be ready. The time is coming for the awakening of the people of the United States.
- Tyr7BE, on 02/19/2008, -5/+12No, it isn't.
- xptoast, on 02/19/2008, -8/+5Do you know the future? I don't. The time is coming no matter what you want to think. We either stop the bad things from happening or the awakening comes to late. Either way the awakening comes. Think far?
- norman619, on 02/19/2008, -7/+4@xptoast:
You're funny and a bit naive. :-) - xptoast, on 02/19/2008, -5/+3@norman
Do you even know what naive means? Do you understand simple logic?
- g30ph, on 02/19/2008, -1/+13The US keeps hitting the snooze button. It's already 12:30 in the afternoon and we were supposed to wake up at 7:30 AM.
- djbon2112, on 02/19/2008, -5/+4Na, they woke up for awhile, maybe an hour or so, but then fell back to sleep.
- Tyr7BE, on 02/19/2008, -5/+12No, it isn't.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/19/2008, -9/+9I grew up on a farm and I have seen the effect of the hormones on cows. It literally kills them; they only live half as long.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/19/2008, -7/+11Check out this video of UN Council president, Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba of Mexico, rejecting a speech as "inadmissible" and bans it from ever being delivered again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhWgZu6tcZU - sjl127, on 02/19/2008, -21/+10Welcome to the beginning of the NWO.
- xptoast, on 02/19/2008, -17/+6This should not be dugg down.
- g30ph, on 02/19/2008, -9/+8If you explain facts to people they may listen. If you tell them those facts add up to a conspiracy theory, they stop listening. You have to treat people like babies. If you use big scary words they stick their fingers in their ears and covers their eyes.
- xptoast, on 02/19/2008, -9/+4Yes. That is quite sad. I thank you for understanding.
- mightydavefish, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1SHOULDN'T be dugg down, yes.
But the rightards are buring any rational thought as fast as it appears.
- g30ph, on 02/19/2008, -9/+8If you explain facts to people they may listen. If you tell them those facts add up to a conspiracy theory, they stop listening. You have to treat people like babies. If you use big scary words they stick their fingers in their ears and covers their eyes.
- norman619, on 02/19/2008, -10/+7Ah yes becuase the old world order has done such a great job....
- bphicke, on 02/19/2008, -7/+6There should not be a global government period.
- spawnfree, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3well they would have had an easier time if not for private corporate and banking interests deliberately pushing against them.
- xptoast, on 02/19/2008, -17/+6This should not be dugg down.
- ufia, on 02/19/2008, -7/+21I can google that dude's name and his news just fine. Maybe the reason his titles does not hit the Google News front page is because his writing is mediocre? Foaming at the mouth bloggers pulling stunts for attention is getting old real quick, there comes a time when people get tired of hearing you lamenting.
- COINTELPROAgent, on 02/19/2008, -7/+10RTFA, they dropped him from the news section.
- Tiak, on 02/19/2008, -1/+15Interestingly enough, they have no problem listing stories about how they dropped him.
- COINTELPROAgent, on 02/19/2008, -7/+10RTFA, they dropped him from the news section.
- FreakyT, on 02/19/2008, -2/+14I sure do hate those liberal fascists.
- TheAkolyte, on 02/19/2008, -8/+16Damn them and their imposing freedoms!
- temjrpgh, on 02/19/2008, -3/+6What concerns me about the willingness to concede to censorship is what they received in return. Google, being a company, is in business to make money. Google most likely cut a business deal with China, and perhaps with the UN or it's members in exchange for their bidding. Very frightening. Google will probably ask for the benefit of the doubt, as if they, as a company, will resist the temptations that has infected every other large company that has ever existed. I predict some mamby pamby excuse or legalese from Google to defend themselves. Sigh.....Google.....so soon?
- Swift2, on 02/19/2008, -3/+6Look, the Google News page ranks zillions of news sources. To be dropped from the News pages for consideration just means they have hundreds of other sources that are better, many of them equally right-wing, if you read Google News about any number of stories. Google's editors made a news judgment that this guy didn't belong on their News pages. Looking just at his truly crappy front page, they might have a point; but google "United Nations world government," and you'll find a ton of right-wing references, and left as well, and that's the way it should be.
- Tiak, on 02/19/2008, -5/+16Dude... Why is everyone trusting Fox News' alarmism all of the sudden?... Along with "don't be evil" in their little list of mottos is something along the lines of "trust in the wisdom of crowds". Many people reported the stories as being crappy, and Google automatically removed them from news.google.com. The site is still indexed on Google's regular search engine...
An "online newspaper" with a single reporter is called a "blog" these days... Those probably don't belong specifically in the news search.- RecklessProcess, on 02/19/2008, -3/+3Dude! Why not read the story before going off. The site has a staff of over a dozen reporters... That is hardly a single reporter.
- gandhii, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1The story has been reported by many more than just Fox News.. And the facts seem to check out. It appears that Fox's story of it is from a feed.
- kesam, on 02/19/2008, -6/+5Unfortunately, google censorship and trickery isn't anything new. I remember back a year or two ago, when some Alex Jones movies and other conspiracy films were edging in on google video top ten. Then they would suddenly get their view count reset. You could actually see it first hand, one day it was 5th place on the top ten, the next day the view count was less than 10.000. You may not agree with these films, but censoring them doesn't inspire a lot of trust in google's integrity.
- Nanobe, on 02/19/2008, -2/+6I think you mean "don't be evil". If you're going to criticize them for not following their motto, at least quote it correctly.
- cornflakepirate, on 02/19/2008, -2/+6Ermmm... I think Google dropped them because they aren't a particularly legit news site.
- UtubReptilian, on 02/19/2008, -13/+16Too late for the UN, US, and FOX News. Their supposed news have lost all credibility. This is proof that they want to get us all sick - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcjzdoiL0j4
- FritzKatz, on 02/19/2008, -14/+53The Soviets would just alter all the photographs and reprint the history books when they wanted to wipe a person's memory out.
- krasotkin, on 02/19/2008, -10/+3That's more like something you'll read in Orwell's 1984 than what actually happened in the Soviets (think millions of textbooks and how much roubles reprinting those would be spent :-), I suppose Stalin's -- no person, no problem -- is a much cheaper approach... spend the man. As for those who might remember, well, memory quickly falters when facing fear...
- Bobski, on 02/19/2008, -0/+11You don't get out much do you? The erasure from history, including photographs, is now well documented.
- MWeather, on 02/19/2008, -1/+9Really? Find a picture of Trotsky with Stalin. I'll show you the same picture from Russian history books that has Trotsky removed.
- ByteGuerilla, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3Lenin. Trotsky with Lenin. Stalin removed Trotsky from the photos and put himself in there to make the people think he was a close friend of their late leader.
- sovietamerica, on 02/19/2008, -4/+4so you're saying Soviets had photoshop then?
- ByteGuerilla, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1You're saying Adobe invented photomanipulation?
- MWeather, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_ ...
- ByteGuerilla, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Yup, quite right. Link contains examples of Trotsky and Kamenev being removed from photos with Lenin in.
There's also a rather famous one of Lenin and Trotsky in a garden on chairs. Stalin had Trotsky removed from the photo and himself added in. This was in the run-up to the Politburo selecting a new General Secretary of the Communist Party. Stalin's rivals for the position were Kamenev, Zinoviev, and Trotsky. What Stalin had going for him was that he was not Jewish, and the Party didn't like Jews. Kamenev and Trotsky were close friends of Lenin though (Trotsky especially so), and Zinoviev was a well-known and well-favoured Party member. Stalin went to great lengths to make them unfavourable in the eyes of the selectors by having these photos doctored, and even told Trotsky the wrong date for Lenin's state funeral, so that it would look like Trotsky did not care about Lenin.
- ByteGuerilla, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Yup, quite right. Link contains examples of Trotsky and Kamenev being removed from photos with Lenin in.
- ByteGuerilla, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3Lenin. Trotsky with Lenin. Stalin removed Trotsky from the photos and put himself in there to make the people think he was a close friend of their late leader.
- DucoNihilum, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3They would do no such thing! They just.... correct.... information. After all, the corrections are made by the ministry of truth, not the ministry of lies!
- dalooo, on 02/19/2008, -1/+6Should this really come as a suprise, I think it was bound to happen. Not that Im a conspiracy theorist. Google's basically owned by Sequoia and Sequoia is owned the military industrial complex. It's probably just a matter of time before there's more censorship on the net.
It's weird how most people think they have control of their lives and everything's controlled by a few elitist pulling the strings in the background, dictacting our lives. - sovietamerica, on 02/19/2008, -3/+2It's easier to brainwash Americans. In US, the people mindlessly believe anything the government tells them, so no one needs to be "killed" or have his "memory erased." It's good when your people are stupid.
- gandhii, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1You are a fool. We all are being tooled.
- RajAtWork, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1the problem is that Google now getting to have similar powers _globally_.
- krasotkin, on 02/19/2008, -10/+3That's more like something you'll read in Orwell's 1984 than what actually happened in the Soviets (think millions of textbooks and how much roubles reprinting those would be spent :-), I suppose Stalin's -- no person, no problem -- is a much cheaper approach... spend the man. As for those who might remember, well, memory quickly falters when facing fear...
- LEL2007, on 02/19/2008, -34/+30Google's a Kalifornia Liberal company.
- jbella, on 02/19/2008, -1/+5What is spelling California with a 'K' supposed to signify?
- neocognitism, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2I think it's a KKK --> nazis --> fascism reference, in that semantic order. I hear other similar far-right wingnuts call it the People's Republic of California. That gets the whole Stalin / Fascist / Communism angle. It makes these people mad to enforce one's own individual rights, when they were so used to trampling over everyone else's rights and getting away with it.
- jbella, on 02/19/2008, -1/+5What is spelling California with a 'K' supposed to signify?
- QuantumBios, on 02/19/2008, -7/+22http://www.innercitypress.org/
- pintomp3, on 02/19/2008, -3/+15OMG, how did you find it? fox news said it was vanished! it looks like you had to go back and pull up the 1995 version of the page.
- sequalls, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2No,
innercitypress.com
- kc8ukw, on 02/19/2008, -11/+27If you'd like, you can contact the Google Press Team: http://www.google.com/support/contact/bin/request. ...
- magnoliasouth, on 02/19/2008, -6/+12Actually this is an incorrect link. The proper link, is this one:
http://www.google.com/support/News/bin/request.py? ...
The link you provided is not for complaints and those will likely never be read.
- magnoliasouth, on 02/19/2008, -6/+12Actually this is an incorrect link. The proper link, is this one:
- ncsumetalhead, on 02/19/2008, -40/+95and we all wonder why Ron Paul wants us out of the UN.
everybody knows it's corrupt.
nobody wants to come to terms with it.
it's pathetic- MWeather, on 02/19/2008, -7/+16You know what else is corrupt? All governmental organizations. Let's abolish them all!
- xptoast, on 02/19/2008, -0/+5Yes but this government is our problem. It is ours to fix as it is what we live under. To fix other governments is foolish. It is similar to what the bible says about fixing other people.
Matthew 7:5
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.- lukeev, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1o great now we have bible stories
- Peetweefish, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3Your comment can be taken two ways: as a serious anarchist retard's chant, or sarcasm. Even if your comment is sarcastic, it excepts the inevitability of corruption, which is true to some extent. However, corruption needs to be bled out of any system in order for it to prevail as a governing body. The UN is taking no action towards fixing its deeply rooted corruption and probably is not worth being a part of since the system is broken.
- lukeev, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Erm... "as a serious anarchist retard's chant" - what??? You're clearly an idiot, government by its very nature IS corrupt, that's what it is, a giant mafioso organization that legally sanctions the use of violence against its own population. Don't get all uppity about anarchists, especially when you have no idea what you're talking about.
- phazon88, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2I completely agree we need to get rid of all these organisations.
- xptoast, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1You will always have a government because a group must govern the populous for safety, however the current administrations are not doing it for safety. They are doing it for control and superiority. The current systems need revamped or restarted.
- lukeev, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1We do not 'need' government. Please read the literature on the subject. Or check out something like freedomain radio.
- xptoast, on 02/19/2008, -0/+5Yes but this government is our problem. It is ours to fix as it is what we live under. To fix other governments is foolish. It is similar to what the bible says about fixing other people.
- xptoast, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4People do but the government doesn't. There is a difference. We no longer are "the people". We are now prisoners of our own government we live under. Vote? Yea for cheats and liars and those that give promises of that in which they cannot possibly do without hurting you.
"Sure I can give everyone a porche" (What they don't know is he is going to jack taxes or make it mandatory to sell your kidney for it.) They make promises they keep but hurt you with or they don't keep the promise.- Peetweefish, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1How do you people remember to breathe? Take the good with the bad. No political system is perfect and thus must evolve in order to strive towards the unattainable, perfect governmental system. Our government has its flaws but is constantly evolving towards a more complete form of rule which is why it has not collapsed on itself in the existence in this country.
Corruption becomes a problems when governments and groups decide that it is ok, stop adjusting and routing out corruption, and stagnate. This is what the UN is doing and the point is that because it is a grouping of many governments. The body that governs the proceedings of the collection of UN nations is broken, and thus America should not take part in it (at least according to Ron Paul).- xptoast, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2More complete rule is tyrany. Fail.
- Peetweefish, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1How do you people remember to breathe? Take the good with the bad. No political system is perfect and thus must evolve in order to strive towards the unattainable, perfect governmental system. Our government has its flaws but is constantly evolving towards a more complete form of rule which is why it has not collapsed on itself in the existence in this country.
- neocognitism, on 02/19/2008, -6/+3I don't want us out of the U.N. at all. It is a voice of the people, and is one of the few forces holding back the fascist Bush administration from doing anything it wants to anyone it wants, without my acquiescence.
- fromonesource, on 02/19/2008, -1/+5what people? do you have a voice in the UN? does anyone you know have a voice in the UN? it is the voice of global elites, not the collective population whom the elites believe they own.
- neocognitism, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1bilderberg is global elites. The UN is full of people exactly like our Attorney General: put up by the executive, and voted on by the legislative.
- fromonesource, on 02/19/2008, -1/+5what people? do you have a voice in the UN? does anyone you know have a voice in the UN? it is the voice of global elites, not the collective population whom the elites believe they own.
- phazon88, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3David Rockefeller is responsible for the United Nations and that's all I have to say on the matter.
- MWeather, on 02/19/2008, -7/+16You know what else is corrupt? All governmental organizations. Let's abolish them all!
- JimmySpaza, on 02/19/2008, -43/+36Why should anyone be surprised? Google helped the Communist Beijing government track down and persecute Chinese bloggers who were critical of their country.
Furthermore, Google helps the Chinese government censor their citizens' access to the internet, preventing access to anti-Communist websites and information.
So much for their pathetic motto of first doing no evil. Money seems to be all that Google cares about.- alainb, on 02/19/2008, -7/+26i think you got that confused with yahoo, dude.
Google hasn't been involved with the chinese blogger thing. They did launch their own censored version of google. They don't help prevent access since the results are already censored. Google's position that exposure to their tools, and superior search algorithm that could potentially surface pro-democratic information despite key-word black-lists can help the Chinese. - fr0ng, on 02/19/2008, -4/+6Ethnocentrism. Look it up.
- GalacticXenu, on 02/19/2008, -2/+5The cry of the college-aged liberal! "Fascism and totalitarianism--left wing totalitarianism, that is--is OK with me because who are you to judge their culture? Rape's swell and murder's OK if their culture says it is!" Meanwhile, you'd be ***** as hell and fighting for your life if you were dropped in one of those countries and deemed an enemy to society and the state.
The fact that so many far-left wingers make such petty apologies for totalitarian nations should clue you in on where they want to take their nation.
- GalacticXenu, on 02/19/2008, -2/+5The cry of the college-aged liberal! "Fascism and totalitarianism--left wing totalitarianism, that is--is OK with me because who are you to judge their culture? Rape's swell and murder's OK if their culture says it is!" Meanwhile, you'd be ***** as hell and fighting for your life if you were dropped in one of those countries and deemed an enemy to society and the state.
- minoss, on 02/19/2008, -2/+16Google is simply playing by the rules if they want access to China.
- MWeather, on 02/19/2008, -6/+2Exactly, just like IBM was playing by the rules to do business in Germany. Somebody had to do the math on who goes to jail, who gets deported, who goes to work camps and who goes to death camps.
- GalacticXenu, on 02/19/2008, -4/+5Hey fatty, Google hasn't helped the Chinese arrest anyone AFIAK, only Yahoo did that. Instead of being a knee-jerk overweight kid get some perspective and pay attention before you "raise the fist" and take to the streets shouting slogans and spray-painting anarchy signs everywhere.
- MWeather, on 02/20/2008, -1/+2"Google hasn't helped the Chinese arrest anyone AFIAK."
Yeah, I'm sure the Chinese are letting Google ignore requests for information.
- MWeather, on 02/20/2008, -1/+2"Google hasn't helped the Chinese arrest anyone AFIAK."
- GalacticXenu, on 02/19/2008, -4/+5Hey fatty, Google hasn't helped the Chinese arrest anyone AFIAK, only Yahoo did that. Instead of being a knee-jerk overweight kid get some perspective and pay attention before you "raise the fist" and take to the streets shouting slogans and spray-painting anarchy signs everywhere.
- MWeather, on 02/19/2008, -6/+2Exactly, just like IBM was playing by the rules to do business in Germany. Somebody had to do the math on who goes to jail, who gets deported, who goes to work camps and who goes to death camps.
- orangetiki, on 02/19/2008, -5/+4Word. FCUK Google
- alainb, on 02/19/2008, -7/+26i think you got that confused with yahoo, dude.
- neocognitism, on 02/19/2008, -21/+59liberal fascism. Would someone try and define that for me?
- LEL2007, on 02/19/2008, -38/+31I don't know that I can define it, but I see Liberal Fascism in action when laws & taxes are imposed to discourage behavior not approved by the "It's for your own good" crowd who often use the explanation "it's for the children". Excellent examples of liberal fascism are : 1) anti smoking regulations and taxes, 2) banning fat people from restaurants. 3) front & back door efforts to ban hand guns. 4) the "greenies". 4) Tax "rebates" to those that don't pay tax. 5) the Global Warming Scam. 5) teaching "gay life style" in grade school.
- neocognitism, on 02/19/2008, -16/+15it's still nothing to do with "fascism" though. Look up fascism and you'll see why. Perhaps you're trying to say "liberal agenda."
- AzBats, on 02/19/2008, -10/+8I think he needs to go look up the word liberal, as in, broad, as in, including others to the party, as in, listening to the whole group, as in, not fascist.
At least LEL2007 acknowledges that 'liberals' don't want him to die of throat cancer from second-hand smoke inhalation and stopping him from being a drain on the Healthcare system in the meantime and want to fund healthcare via the stupidity of others i.e. increase in tobacco taxes.- MaynardJK, on 02/19/2008, -7/+5***** you and everyone like you. I will kill myself however I want to. If you don't want to go down with me then stand somewhere else when I am smoking.
- MWeather, on 02/19/2008, -3/+1"At least LEL2007 acknowledges that 'liberals' don't want him to die of throat cancer from second-hand smoke inhalation"
No, if that's what they wanted they'd ban smoking. What they want is for you to go off by yourself and give yourself throat cancer. Because legislation and enforcement costs is much easier than just going to an establishment that isn't filled with smoke. - LEL2007, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1Yes, the Rainbow coalition, I remember. MN and other states won suits against tobacco Co's, supposedly money to be used to compensate state cost of medical care, tobacco tax in MN is to off-set states medical costs for tobacco related illness. I've never received any of these "medical benefits" nor have I asked for any. I appreciate liberals concern for my health, liberals are always concerned about affairs not there own (it's that "feelings" thing). Guess that's why they want to save fat people too. I don't want government making decisions for me. Do you?
- neocognitism, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1@LEL2007
>I don't want government making decisions for me. Do you?
So, how does the Bush admin rate on your scale on this point?
- DucoNihilum, on 02/19/2008, -6/+3Leftists can't be fascist at all, look at the great Soviet Union and how wonderful they were to their people!
- neocognitism, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2I understand the meaning of what you're trying to say, and in this instance I'm not disagreeing. My point is nothing more than you and a lot of others are misusing the word "fascism." Look it up!
- LEL2007, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2Well, perhaps I stretched a bit. But consider the tactics of Carrie Nation. Herself and her little army destroyed private property they didn't approve of. The PETA and GREEN squads perform in a similar manor.
- neocognitism, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1What about the Bush administration using eminent domain for new energy corridors?
Also, private property doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it. Why is it a virtue to have the right to destroy?
- neocognitism, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1What about the Bush administration using eminent domain for new energy corridors?
- Poovey, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
- AzBats, on 02/19/2008, -10/+8I think he needs to go look up the word liberal, as in, broad, as in, including others to the party, as in, listening to the whole group, as in, not fascist.
- Wargalas, on 02/19/2008, -4/+6Gun control.
- CannibalTom, on 02/19/2008, -6/+12Global Warming is not a scam.
- Atomike, on 02/19/2008, -12/+9CannibalTom - He probably meant man-made global warming. Which IS a scam. If folks haven't figured that out by now, they're too dumb to breathe.
- bphicke, on 02/19/2008, -3/+2http://digg.com/environment/Reason_Magazine_Global ...
Educate yourself before submitting to a flat earth mentality.- LEL2007, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2As of 1998 GW has stabilized and will most likely reduce as the pendulum swings. It's the SUN cycles, certainly not Carbon Dioxide. Get off the Algore band wagon, look beyond Hollywood, and follow the money. GW is a scam, the success of which will lead to US tax being paid to UN, extra "green" taxes to US and more. Check-out the Chicago Carbon Credits Exchange and see how so much money is vested in GW we've got the GW problem regardless of fact.
- LEL2007, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2Whoops, sorry bphicke, I responded wrong guy.
- LEL2007, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2As of 1998 GW has stabilized and will most likely reduce as the pendulum swings. It's the SUN cycles, certainly not Carbon Dioxide. Get off the Algore band wagon, look beyond Hollywood, and follow the money. GW is a scam, the success of which will lead to US tax being paid to UN, extra "green" taxes to US and more. Check-out the Chicago Carbon Credits Exchange and see how so much money is vested in GW we've got the GW problem regardless of fact.
- soperja, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1Yeah, you're right. Let's disregard the IPCC and their years of study, let's disregard the UNIVERSAL CONSENSUS OF CLIMATOLOGISTS. It's all a giant global conspiracy by scientists who want the US to pay more taxes, that's what it is! And you call liberals conspiracy theorists. What a load of BS.
- technogenius, on 02/19/2008, -3/+5Anti smoking regulation benefits the majority of society--who are non-smokers
- LEL2007, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2How does establishing a smoking area harm non-smokers? When smokers are restricted to out side areas which may not be enclosed - how does this benifit non-smokers?
- FoghornLeghorn, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3You don't understand how asking smoker's to smoke outside benefits non-smokers? Is that a serious question, or rhetorical?
- goffy59, on 02/19/2008, -1/+5Blocked for being an idiot. Get that Tin Foil hat off your head.
- LEL2007, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2would that be for my own good?
"For Your Own Good: The Anti-Smoking Crusade and the Tyranny of Public Health" - by Jacob Sullum
- LEL2007, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2would that be for my own good?
- neocognitism, on 02/19/2008, -16/+15it's still nothing to do with "fascism" though. Look up fascism and you'll see why. Perhaps you're trying to say "liberal agenda."
- IowaMan, on 02/19/2008, -22/+34"Liberal Fascism": a publishing stunt by a mid-IQ wannabe-writer to try to put NRO back on the political-conversation map.
- insomniac8400, on 02/19/2008, -13/+16Basically fascism that people allow to happen because they think it's good.
- JigoroKano, on 02/19/2008, -3/+10That description already applies to most of the ordinary fascism.
- insomniac8400, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2Well there is a difference in that in one case people want the government control so they allow the government to control them, and in the other the government controls them and people may or may not agree. Slight difference, but not by much as the end result is the same.
- BESTenemy, on 02/19/2008, -4/+2Fascism is nationalism that extends beyond borders of the nation convinced in its superiority to the rest of the world. Agressive patriotism.
- rexbron, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1No, that is jingoism.
- JigoroKano, on 02/19/2008, -3/+10That description already applies to most of the ordinary fascism.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/19/2008, -20/+17Someone just wrote a book on it.
In this provocative and well-researched book, Goldberg probes modern liberalism's spooky origins in early 20th-century fascist politics. With chapter titles such as Adolf Hitler: Man of the Left and Brave New Village: Hillary Clinton and the Meaning of Liberal Fascism—Goldberg argues that fascism has always been a phenomenon of the left. This is Goldberg's first book, and he wisely curbs his wry National Review style. Goldberg's study of the conceptual overlap between fascism and ideas emanating from the environmental movement, Hollywood, the Democratic Party and what he calls other left-wing organs is shocking and hilarious. He lays low such lights of liberal history as Margaret Sanger, apparently a radical eugenicist, and JFK, whose cult of personality, according to Goldberg, reeks of fascist political theater. Much of this will be music to conservatives' ears, but other readers may be stopped cold by the parallels Goldberg draws between Nazi Germany and the New Deal. The book's tone suffers as it oscillates between revisionist historical analyses and the application of fascist themes to American popular culture; nonetheless, the controversial arc Goldberg draws from Mussolini to The Matrix is well-researched, seriously argued—and funny.
http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mus ...- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/19/2008, -14/+10Also, check some Nazi Brownshirts using violence to shut down free speech and physically attacking people who don't agree with them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuNXmy0e5fc
Oops, my bad. Those are modern liberals from last year in America.- MWeather, on 02/19/2008, -5/+8I hate people who use violence to shut down free speech. It's getting so you can't yell "All you niggers go back to Africa" in Compton without being accosted.
- LEL2007, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2I wouldn't yell something like that, nor would I agree with you, but I had to laugh after reading your statement. You are sooo politically incorrect!
- MWeather, on 02/19/2008, -5/+8I hate people who use violence to shut down free speech. It's getting so you can't yell "All you niggers go back to Africa" in Compton without being accosted.
- neocognitism, on 02/19/2008, -10/+11Yeah. I read the reviews of that book. Except for the wingnuts they all panned it. Oh, and I had to go to the "parody" section of Amazon to find the book.
You need to look up the definition of "fascism." The term "liberal fascism" makes no sense, it's like say -1 +1. You get zero. Nothing. - pintomp3, on 02/19/2008, -2/+12the author of that book was on the daily show, hilarious and sad at the same time
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?vide ...- jezsik, on 02/19/2008, -3/+8Whoa! THAT guy? That interview was surrealistic, brutal, fun watching Jon Steward pick apart that poor sap's arguments (I wish I could see the outtakes). Thanks for the link!
- Suzilla, on 02/19/2008, -1/+10Jon Stewart interviewed Mr. Goldberg. Now THAT was funny.
- Barbosa, on 02/19/2008, -3/+9Man. Every time you guys open your paranoid mouths you shoot yourselves in the foot, provide ammunition for your detractors and shrink your already tiny cohort all in one fell swoop. Us "Liberal Fascists" could not do a better job than you already do to prove that your ideology is terminally flawed.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/19/2008, -14/+10Also, check some Nazi Brownshirts using violence to shut down free speech and physically attacking people who don't agree with them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuNXmy0e5fc
- lettruthout, on 02/19/2008, -12/+16@ LEL2007
...imposed to discourage behavior not approved by the "It's for your own good" crowd who often use the explanation "it's for the children"..
Like the war on drugs? How about the invasion of Iraq - killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi for their own good, right? These are examples of liberal fascism? - geoffg, on 02/19/2008, -15/+8Fascism was born from Socialism...it's called history look it up. The paradigm of fascism on the right and socialism on the left is a construct of the left, a more accurate paradigm is anarchy on the right with communism on the left and everyone else shades in-between.
- Chassit, on 02/19/2008, -3/+8Mussolini's policies were anything but socialist or liberal. Go read a history book.
- MWeather, on 02/19/2008, -4/+3What about Hitler's National Socialism?
- soperja, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3Hitler's Socialism was about as authentic as Bush's conservatism.
- soperja, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Hitler's Socialism was about as authentic as Bush's Conservatism.
- Chassit, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1National Socialism (Nazism) is not fascism, it is national socialism...
- Bobski, on 02/19/2008, -4/+3So who said anything about Mussolini? Oh, yeah, you did in a poor attempt at snobbery.
- Chassit, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3Go read a history book you imbecile!
- MWeather, on 02/19/2008, -4/+3What about Hitler's National Socialism?
- CannibalTom, on 02/19/2008, -3/+7Fascism and Socialism are polar opposites.
- Bobski, on 02/19/2008, -5/+4They are hardly mutually exclusive. It is quite possible for a Fascist government to force Socialism on its people.
- neocognitism, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3Sure, but that's like saying Sauron would decide to bring peace and prosperity to Middle Earth after killing Frodo and getting the One Ring
- Bobski, on 02/19/2008, -5/+4They are hardly mutually exclusive. It is quite possible for a Fascist government to force Socialism on its people.
- pintomp3, on 02/19/2008, -2/+12“Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power”. Benito Mussolini
- Tiak, on 02/19/2008, -1/+8Fascism might have been "born from" Socialism, in the sense that it was a reaction to Socialism, but this doesn't mean they were one system. Mussolini's government was not socialistic. Governments, like Stalins have fused the restrictive authoritarian rule of fascism with the general managed economy precepts of socialism, but this was not how it started out.
Now, more to the point, the one-dimensional political spectrum always has been silly, but people's position on one axis of the two-dimensional spectrum does tend to have relation to their position on the other. It was not invented by liberals that as people get more fiscally conservative in the modern political climate, they also tend to respect authority more, and care about civil rights less. There are only a few outliers that have traits outside the expected.
See: politicalcompass.org - jezsik, on 02/19/2008, -2/+5Anarchy on the RIGHT? Liberalism is about removing restrictions while anarchy is about no restrictions (no laws). How can you possibly put anarchy anywhere but on the left?
- Orion682, on 02/19/2008, -3/+3Wow, way to know nothing about political theory. Care to define how anarchy is supposed to be the opposite of communism?
- slvrbullet87, on 02/19/2008, -3/+2Communism is run by a strict government with lots of regulations to assure that everybody gets an equal share of the pie, anarchy is the lack or all regulations meaning you can do what ever you want with the pie as long as you are willing to fight others for it.
- Orion682, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Ah, but that's not the opposite. They are indeed very opposing theories, but fascism is much more in line with being in opposition to anarchy than communism is.
- slvrbullet87, on 02/19/2008, -3/+2Communism is run by a strict government with lots of regulations to assure that everybody gets an equal share of the pie, anarchy is the lack or all regulations meaning you can do what ever you want with the pie as long as you are willing to fight others for it.
- Chassit, on 02/19/2008, -3/+8Mussolini's policies were anything but socialist or liberal. Go read a history book.
- skyshock1, on 02/19/2008, -5/+16Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole.
Notice this is the polar opposite of Libertarianism (a branch of conservatism) in US politics. So yes, Fascism and the Liberal agenda of creating and encouraging dependence on the Federal Government are very closely related - one could argue to the point where the phrase Liberal Fascism is almost redundant.- Tiak, on 02/19/2008, -1/+8Soo... As Bush obviously considers concerns of the state superior to the interests of the individuals (i.e. civil liberties) Bush is a liberal?... -.-
Libertarianism is a conservative movement, and libertarianism is the polar opposite of fascism, this does not logically say anything about liberalism.
Neoconservativism is a much larger conservative movement, currently representing a large portion of the Republican Party, and neoconservativism is most definitely not the opposite of fascism... This also says nothing about liberalism.- serif69, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4There are many axes to the political spectrum. I'll stick with political (scope of and dependence on government) and social (willingness to accept social change) for this argument, because "liberal fascist" combines these two axes. Bush is politically liberal and socially conservative. The "neocons" fit this description. Liberalism in America is effectively on the liberal side of both axes: politically liberal and socially liberal. It's not the extreme of "liberal fascist", but it is close. Libertarians are generally almost the opposite of "neocons": politically conservative and socially liberal. You'll notice that both major political parties in America are politically liberal. They both want more power for and reliance on the government. For the sake of this argument, where they differ is on social issues.
- skyshock1, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4"As Bush obviously considers concerns of the state superior to the interests of the individuals (i.e. civil liberties) Bush is a liberal?... -.- "
Yes. Bush by no means under any circumstances should be considered a conservative. He's quite possible the furthest thing from conservatism.- dvdrtrgn, on 02/19/2008, -3/+2Umm, wasn't he was elected by moosh-head Repuglicans?
- freebird, on 02/19/2008, -2/+0Sometimes one must choose between the lesser of the two evils so lets not forget who Bush was running against.
Also all Republicans are not Conservatives i.e. McCain, The entire Bush family, Guiliani, Bloomberg (these are red dog republicans = liberal light)
- RecklessProcess, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1Yes Bush is liberal. Look at no child left behind where he doubled the education budget, Or look at the prescription drug entitlements for the elderly. (I am thankful because my 87 year old mother needs the help buying her meds.) A conservative would not do these things.
- JeffD, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2"So yes, Fascism and the Liberal agenda of creating and encouraging dependence on the Federal Government are very closely related"
Huh? Do you even know what the word liberal (in the political sense) actually means?
Wikipedia seems to reflect what I was taught in my political science classes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal). To steal a choice quite from that arcticle (for people to lazy to follow a link, like I often am):
"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.[2] All liberals — as well as some adherents of other political ideologies — support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.[3]"
Edit: Oops, I meant to reply to skyshock1, up one level in this thread.- skyshock1, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity"
HA! Don't make me laugh!
Modern liberalism in the US today emphasizes GROUP rights and completely ignores the rights of the individual. Group membership. The individual is nothing without the group. It takes a village. The Gay movement. The Women's movement. The NAACP. The AARP. The labor unions. These are all groups that ignore the individual and are heavily influenced by modern liberalism. Collective mobs seeking to extort money and property by exploitation of the government's authorized use of force to steal property via taxation from the individual and distribute to these collective groups. The societal parasites that accept this money and endorse this continuing distribution of wealth are those that endorse Liberal candidates for office. And the Liberal candidates will HAPPILY pander to and exploit these groups in order to keep power in office.
"limitations on the power of governments"
Okay everyone knows the liberal agenda involves strengthening and growing the federal government while marginalizing private industry. So that line is just flat out *****.
"The free exchange of ideas"
Unless it's an exchange of ideas that doesn't fit the Liberal agenda. As soon as someone questions something like gay marriage, global warming, or the motives of civil rights chumps like Al Sharpton; OH NO, YOU CAN'T SAY THAT!!!
This isn't to say the classical definition of liberalism isn't different, but the modern liberal of today in the US has very little to do with the definition that someone wrote in that Wikipedia entry.
- skyshock1, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity"
- Tiak, on 02/19/2008, -1/+8Soo... As Bush obviously considers concerns of the state superior to the interests of the individuals (i.e. civil liberties) Bush is a liberal?... -.-
- SaperKain, on 02/19/2008, -5/+8Oxymoron.
- CannibalTom, on 02/19/2008, -4/+7Google define:liberal
US media has whitewashed the meaning of the word liberal. - tomek77, on 02/19/2008, -6/+5Fascism = bad, so liberal fascism = bad liberals ;) /sarcasm (of course the ones shouting fascism, are the actual fascists - look up the definition of fascism to find who´s who)
- Antixian, on 02/19/2008, -6/+2yea it's like it's so crescent fresh, ok so you're so crescent...it's like, you're crescent fresh when you....
rip sifl and olly. - JointVenture, on 02/19/2008, -4/+3You're ALL wrong, the term LIBERAL FASCISM was created by H G Wells.
"During the 1930s H.G. Wells's theory of revolutionary praxis centered around a concept of 'liberal fascism' whereby the Wellsian 'liberal' utopia would be achieved by an authoritarian elite" -end quote
Talk about "uneducated", just look at the post above. - RecklessProcess, on 02/19/2008, -8/+3Try Berkley Versus the Marines. Or Micheal Bloomberg outlawing smoking on the island of Manhattan. How about how children are forced to observe gay men stroking each other in gay parades on public roads in San Fran because liberals force their beliefs on those around them without any hesitation. Looks like fascism to me.
- jgzman, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4Forced to watch parades? How? Or do you simply mean that the parades are allowed to happen, and children might choose to watch?
Having parades (of any kind whatever) on public roads is not forcing beliefs on anyone. It is exercise of Constitutional rights. - neocognitism, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4Look, I know what you're trying to say, but that just doesn't fit even a loose definition of fascism. I think you should stick with "liberal agenda."
- jgzman, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4Forced to watch parades? How? Or do you simply mean that the parades are allowed to happen, and children might choose to watch?
- MikeFallopian, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2Jonah Goldberg would explain it to you, but he's still nursing his wounds from the Daily Show interview.
- Himself, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1= redundant
- LEL2007, on 02/19/2008, -38/+31I don't know that I can define it, but I see Liberal Fascism in action when laws & taxes are imposed to discourage behavior not approved by the "It's for your own good" crowd who often use the explanation "it's for the children". Excellent examples of liberal fascism are : 1) anti smoking regulations and taxes, 2) banning fat people from restaurants. 3) front & back door efforts to ban hand guns. 4) the "greenies". 4) Tax "rebates" to those that don't pay tax. 5) the Global Warming Scam. 5) teaching "gay life style" in grade school.
- demicritter, on 02/19/2008, -24/+2Phook Google.
- ratnacage, on 02/19/2008, -3/+4***** that, google rocks
- neognostic, on 02/19/2008, -24/+11I don't see where politics comes into this issue, this is a corporation flexing it's muscles. Shame on them, but blaming liberals for this is ridiculous.
- dan222555, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3Liberals have historically been ultra-supportive of the UN despite it's obvious inability to accomplish anything worthwhile and it's corrupt practices. So it's logical to assume that if someone wanted to silence a journalist who was criticizing the UN there's a pretty good chance that person's a liberal.
- tomek77, on 02/20/2008, -1/+0There´s also a good chance it was a computer algorithm, you right-wing nutcase! (signed: a libertarian)
- dan222555, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3Liberals have historically been ultra-supportive of the UN despite it's obvious inability to accomplish anything worthwhile and it's corrupt practices. So it's logical to assume that if someone wanted to silence a journalist who was criticizing the UN there's a pretty good chance that person's a liberal.
- sequalls, on 02/19/2008, -32/+24My definition of Liberal fascism is the new liberalism that says one must promote absolute freedom and claim no bias and yet one will be forced to accept all things that we deem to be for the "good of humankind" and if you don't accept these ideas we will use all power available to us through governments, international organizations, charitable organizations, and as in this case for-profit corporations to shut you up and marginalize you in every way possible .
Of course it is a lie because the new liberal fascist's do have a bias, and their presuppositions are based on Scientific Naturalism and Secular Humanism. This is the worst kind of totalitarianism that claims to be selfless while forcing their personal desires on all and taking money by force (taxes) to support corrupt Godless institutions. It is a slight of hand with historic significance.- AzBats, on 02/19/2008, -13/+5but if God doesn't exist anyway then perhaps supporting humanity is a good thing...
- xptoast, on 02/19/2008, -4/+4If God does not exist prove to me where did you come from? If you say evolution then you fail. All things are composed of energy.(matter, light, etc.) The question is where did the energy come from in the first place? Answer?
- urnrg, on 02/19/2008, -4/+5Did somebody call for the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
- xptoast, on 02/19/2008, -4/+4NO
- urnrg, on 02/19/2008, -3/+3My mistake. Noodle out.
- kingmanic, on 02/19/2008, -3/+4Sciences: Big bang -> formation of sol -> formation of planet -> simple self replicating organic molecules -> self replicating RNA -> self replicating cell -> multi-cellular organism -> invertebrates -> vertebrates -> lung fish -> Shrew liek creature -> ape -> something resembling a man -> Man
Christianity: ? -> God -> ? -> A man -> A woman -> apple -> ? -> ? -> ? -> Noah -> ? -> Moses -> ?-> Jesus -> xpToast
I think you lack the cognitive ability to even ponder this question. You say evolution = fail but it apparent you don't know anything about the theory. Feel free to post what you think you know and We'll feel free ridiculing you in the preposterous straw man distortion of the evolutionary model you undoubtedly say you don't believe.You are also unlikely to be able to really look into what the big bang is theorized to be and how there was no "before". And despite the big band being theoretical and the best answer we have thus far but far from a certainty, it still has more observational data then "God". You are one of the "god of the Gaps" types. Your god shrinks daily.- xptoast, on 02/19/2008, -2/+5lol. Your funny. You understand the concept of the big bang? There had to be energy present to have a big bang. I asked a simple question and you failed to address it. Energy..Where did energy come from. You know that stuff the big bang was supposedly of.
- kingmanic, on 02/19/2008, -4/+2Like i said god of the gaps. The energy was theoretically in the form of a singularity. According to string theory it was the intersection even of two 5 dimensional planes in a 13 dimensional universe. There is some evidence of this. Before has no meaning as time is something that exists only within this universe. We don't have enough data to say for sure, we don't' have enough data to validate string theory. My assertion still holds true, we have more data on the theoretical big bang then we do of god. So i say "we're not sure, but evidence says the big bang was a event where one multi dimensional plane started intersecting with another creating time and space" you say "it's god". I have more data then you.
- jbella, on 02/19/2008, -3/+2@xptoast...
Seems to me like you have the same problem.. if you say God supplied the energy, then where did God get the energy? What energy made God? Of course you will say, "God is omnipotent and therefore always existed." But that is an even bigger cop out because it's a non-explanation that you just take on faith. Science can't compete with superstition because they dont play by the same rules. - xptoast, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3Every single object that you describe must have a beginning according to science. Therefore you still lose.
- dougintexas, on 02/19/2008, -5/+2The burden of proof is on you since it's you who's making the claim that something exists (ie, god/sky fairy). You can provide no evidence for your beliefs beyond a self referential (and hideously out-dated), highly suspect canon of political/religious horse poo known as a bible and your own subjective revelation of faith. I'll take science with it's logically consistent, reality-based theorys and empirical evidence any day over the crap you seem to find solace in. The fact that you think the arguments you make, which only move the locus of origin to an even more fantastical premise than the big bang, proves the error and failure of your arguments.
- xptoast, on 02/20/2008, -2/+2The concepts of the bible will outlive you or I as they are relevant to all life on this earth. The concepts and thoughts presented will bring more prosperity and respect respectively to all humans alike if used properly. It doesn't matter to you because currently you are as a child running around with their fingers in their ears saying I cant hear you, when the truth is being stated easily and clearly before you. You just don't wish to admit that there is something that is bigger than you. You want all things to bow down in front of you as you have the power of science/observation. Guess what science and its observations is just that. It is an effect of what is real. That would be the creator of all energy/matter/time. I am not better than you but I do feel sorry for you in that you cant see simple truths. Evolution is not a simple truth and neither is the big bang. Those two things are in fact the largest guesses you can have so far. As to having a point where the big bang came from...well Holy crap, you couldn't come up with a more lame excuse for not knowing. They say they don't know and that its irrelevant even though it isn't because that is the proof that shows that science cant and never will prove that in which cant be proved. Science wants to explain a finite beginning where there is an infinite beginning, because all things must before the previous in science at least. In belief in God you have the answer. I have more but this is beginning to look like a dang book.
- dougintexas, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1"I have more but this is beginning to look like a dang book."
Well, Zeus forbid you should associate yourself with anything like a "book"!
Seriously, try logic.
With the mental gymnastics you've demonstrated here you should find it within your capabilities.
I don't doubt that the bible will out live "I" or you. So will evolutionary theory. How exactly does this prove your point? I'm definitely not a child and there are no fingers stuck in my ears. However, if you can't perceive the logic of the world in front of you, you might want to turn the organ music down. As far as anyone bowing down to me...ehhh...no. I'd be happy just to see humanity stand up for itself and respect the HUMAN dignity that we all have -- something religion gives perpetual lip service to but invariably fails to live up to. You're argument regarding "scienc and observation" being "just that": I can only wonder what sense organs you use to build your paradigm of the world. I am utterly amused that you can say that reality is an "effect" (I think you meant "Affect", look it up) of what's real. Bet that keeps you warm at night. You're right however about the beginning being infinite--but not to the effect (here this word is the right one) you believe. The hypothesis is that the singularity, prior to the big bang, was infinitely small. Does it make sense? No. But then again it makes no less sense than your closely held delusion. At least we have some evidence for the big bang...your creator myth? Well, to borrow your phrase, "Holy Crap!". Good luck!
- urnrg, on 02/19/2008, -4/+5Did somebody call for the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
- xptoast, on 02/19/2008, -4/+4If God does not exist prove to me where did you come from? If you say evolution then you fail. All things are composed of energy.(matter, light, etc.) The question is where did the energy come from in the first place? Answer?
- MWeather, on 02/19/2008, -3/+3"is the new liberalism that says one must promote absolute freedom and claim no bias and yet one will be forced to accept all things that we deem to be for the "good of humankind" and if you don't accept these ideas we will use all power available to us through governments, international organizations, charitable organizations, and as in this case for-profit corporations to shut you up and marginalize you in every way possible ."
So you're saying they're no different from conservatives? - dougintexas, on 02/19/2008, -3/+3Yeah...cuz those "Godly" religious countrys/systems are so much more benevolent (Iran or the Taliban anyone?)
I think you need to get a larger tin foil hat. The one you're wearing is affecting you ability to think.- sequalls, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Are you saying that Iran is a liberal nation or that the Taliban espoused liberalism?
- dougintexas, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1No, of course not. I'm being facetious and hyperbolic -- I'd assumed that would be obvious. The argument you made is that liberalism fails because it's "Godless". I'm countering that argument (poorly I suppose) by pointing out that "Godly" (IE, Religious) systems are not, by definition, benevolent.
- enri, on 02/19/2008, -3/+4So all of that is OK as long as it is for institutions of God? I am not claiming you are wrong, but I think you are misguided.
- sequalls, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2No it is not OK to force one's viewpoint, especially in institutions of God, God gives us freedom to choose our course. What I am saying is that the liberals who operate in this way exclude God from their institutions of power, and that is of course part of the plan. Many of these people consider themselves to be Christians but they don't understand how they are participating in activity that leads people away from God.
I mention God because God is the source of all that is good. If I am forced to participate in Godless power structures that is the worst kind of fascism.
- sequalls, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2No it is not OK to force one's viewpoint, especially in institutions of God, God gives us freedom to choose our course. What I am saying is that the liberals who operate in this way exclude God from their institutions of power, and that is of course part of the plan. Many of these people consider themselves to be Christians but they don't understand how they are participating in activity that leads people away from God.
- AzBats, on 02/19/2008, -13/+5but if God doesn't exist anyway then perhaps supporting humanity is a good thing...
- ramo13, on 02/19/2008, -18/+7I'm ashamed of using google now....
but its so good, i dont want to use ask
so simple, i dont want to use yahoo
so not-microsoft, i dont want to use msn- Tiak, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Google as a general search engine hasn't shown anything negative, they delisted the dude from Google News (news.google.com) because people reported his stories as being inaccurate...
- InfamousAtheist, on 02/19/2008, -13/+4I'm saddened and disappointed by this news, if it ultimately turns out that Google caved to the UNDP or any other organization attempting to silence a legitimate news source.
I naturally have to question the source though - we're talking about FOX News here. Are there other sources reporting the same story?
Doesn't Google have a responsibility to be more transparent about where the complaint came from? I fail to see how they can continue to hide such information and continue to be perceived as a bias-free gatekeeper to the news.
I would really like to have more details about this before judging Google...- xptoast, on 02/19/2008, -3/+2If this guy can bring to light the story of Google's corruption then I assume he will be killed. This guy is going to be killed in an "accident" soon I assume.
- dan222555, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2"I naturally have to question the source though - we're talking about FOX News here."
I'm sure if rawstory.com, crooksandliars.com, or dailykos.com were reporting it you wouldn't question it....- InfamousAtheist, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1Um, I'd check their sources before making up my mind.
I don't blindly accept what I see on TV or read on the internet at fact. FOX News serves its own agenda with biased and false stories regularly, as do many other news orgs like CNN, rawstory, etc. Are you saying I should act like the rest of the sheeple and accept their statements as fact without question?- dan222555, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Examples of those "false stories" please.
And don't try and tell me if this was in a rawstory article you'd post "I naturally have to question the source though - we're talking about rawstory.com here." I don't care what you claim, it just wouldn't happen.
- dan222555, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Examples of those "false stories" please.
- tomek77, on 02/20/2008, -1/+0I am a conservative and yet I´ve seen Fox spewing blatant lies countless times (it´s just unbelievable). I´ve never noticed something inaccurate on 2 of the left-wing sites you mentioned (I didn´t know the third one), even though as a conservative I don´t always agree with their analysis.
- dan222555, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1"I am a conservative and yet I´ve seen Fox spewing blatant lies countless times (it´s just unbelievable)."
Proof?
And bias is more than inaccuracy.
- dan222555, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1"I am a conservative and yet I´ve seen Fox spewing blatant lies countless times (it´s just unbelievable)."
- InfamousAtheist, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1Um, I'd check their sources before making up my mind.
- alainb, on 02/19/2008, -24/+43Most likely its just the search algorithm doing its thing. Just because someone's search results gets bumped down doesn't mean that their OMG GOOGLE CONSPIRCY!!!
geez, has anyone even did a google search on this guy? Plenty of results came up.
/buried for inaccurate. I get plenty of google results about this guy and his work.- d3lta, on 02/19/2008, -9/+21RTFA... His news website no longer appears in Google News
- AzBats, on 02/19/2008, -4/+13I thought the right-wing was all about letting the private companies do whatever they want and in this case it's probably the Google News bot adjustment - not just his site but many others probably got dropped off or added even. If this site's breaking news is actually news worthy then other places will reference it and get onto Google News anyway.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/19/2008, -5/+9Free market types DO believe that individuals have a right of association/disassociation (which is one of the foundations of capitalism), so google CAN drop or exclude anyone they want from google search results. But it also means that individuals can use their freedom of speech to inform others (as is happening here) so they can make the choice to dissociate from google (as I have already done) if they so choose.
- Tiak, on 02/19/2008, -4/+5And again, there is no reason this is a Google conspiracy... Google does have a responsibility to prune their news sources... This includes removing "news sources" written entirely by a single person (AKA blogs), and news sources that people report as having inaccurate stories (i.e. what the letter said). There is no reason Google themselves should waste time fact-checking the stories themselves if their customers want to clear them off their results.
- AMSRay, on 02/19/2008, -4/+3So you're saying one complaint letter is adequate for being removed from Google News?
- jeo77, on 02/19/2008, -3/+4But like alainb said, that doesn't mean he's necessarily being censored. "its just the search algorithm doing its thing".
Makes sense, I don't see why Google would bother choosing this to censor over the millions of other things they could force their power down upon. I don't see this being worth censoring to them anyways. I've got to say though, although this extreme paranoia is bad...on occasion, it's hilarious. Watching everyone think Google's going to steal all of our freedoms from us because of something like this.- tomek77, on 02/20/2008, -0/+0Makes a perfect propaganda story for the nutjobs at Fox though! It´s ok their audience probably doesn´t know google.. or the internet ;)
- AzBats, on 02/19/2008, -4/+13I thought the right-wing was all about letting the private companies do whatever they want and in this case it's probably the Google News bot adjustment - not just his site but many others probably got dropped off or added even. If this site's breaking news is actually news worthy then other places will reference it and get onto Google News anyway.
- gamathers, on 02/19/2008, -3/+8I don't think the search algorithm sent the email saying they would no longer be in Google News.
- screwit, on 02/20/2008, -2/+2Read the freaking article and remove your stupid comment
- cardwell1972, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Read the article ya tool.
- d3lta, on 02/19/2008, -9/+21RTFA... His news website no longer appears in Google News
- d3lta, on 02/19/2008, -15/+9If you digg this article, don't bother applying for a job, their algorithm will automatically reject you... hehe I buried, please ***** pick me!
- octuber, on 02/19/2008, -14/+8they are not fascist or leftist, let's call it like it is Communist, no more google for me,and if you want call me rightist or conservative but for all I care lets stop giving money to the UN. after all it only serve dictators like Castro, Chavez and the one I can't pronounce from Iran come to our country to talk garbage against our President whom ever it is at the given moment
- waspbr, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3By your logic we should stop giving money to the US government all together.
- RecklessProcess, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Exactly! www.FairTax.org
- waspbr, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3By your logic we should stop giving money to the US government all together.
- magnoliasouth, on 02/19/2008, -9/+17Another important question, which wasn't raised in this article, is what process does Google use to "review" a site as Google has claimed? Google said, "When we reviewed your site we've found that we can no longer include it in Google News." Okay so who reviewed the site and who found that it could no longer be included? What reason was there to NOT include the site? Google also later said, "We acknowledged our misunderstanding ..." Misunderstanding? How exactly did they misunderstand? It's either news or it isn't. You can't misunderstand whether or not it's news.
I don't always agree with Google's politics, but I have always enjoyed their services. This greatly disturbs me that Google would be so blasé about this. It is obvious that Google needs to review their own review process, and perhaps boot out a few people who obviously fell very short.- bamapachyderm, on 02/19/2008, -4/+5Google News is a farking joke. They've kicked a whole lot of legitimate sites off Google News because people don't like their agenda. It isn't just the UN or UN apologists; it's all kinds of closed-minded asshats complaining about "hate speech" (which is probably what Google said about this guy's site). Meanwhile, they carry other "news" sources that are basically Saddam/Baathist propaganda sites. If you're anti-terrorism, though...forget it. It doesn't even matter if you're doing original reporting, because it "offends" fascist assholes. (And no, I'm not talking about LGF.)
- Tiak, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1source?...
- tomek77, on 02/20/2008, -0/+0Hmm sounds like Fox propaganda... Insult, check! Baseless statement without citing sources, check (please cite the source that says they removed legitimate sites, and define "legitimate")! derogatory terms instead of reasoning, check! War-drums, check!
Congratulation bamap... you´ve won the Fox Fascist Award of the Month!
PS: signed - a conservative republican (just so you don´t think it´s a liberal conspiracy that makes you look stupid)
- Tiak, on 02/19/2008, -0/+5...Google's processes seem fine to me... LOOK at the site in question... I know 12 year-olds who could crate more credible looking news sites... Delisting one person posting alarmist stories (with some truth mixed it) from a news aggregator makes sense... They also don't have the American Inquirer listed.
- skinturtle, on 02/19/2008, -0/+0I know 12 year olds who can spell "create" better than you.
- bamapachyderm, on 02/19/2008, -4/+5Google News is a farking joke. They've kicked a whole lot of legitimate sites off Google News because people don't like their agenda. It isn't just the UN or UN apologists; it's all kinds of closed-minded asshats complaining about "hate speech" (which is probably what Google said about this guy's site). Meanwhile, they carry other "news" sources that are basically Saddam/Baathist propaganda sites. If you're anti-terrorism, though...forget it. It doesn't even matter if you're doing original reporting, because it "offends" fascist assholes. (And no, I'm not talking about LGF.)
- zplot, on 02/19/2008, -12/+7This is really sad. Google pushed internet openness so much, maintaining neutrality in its search results and letting the world balance out the content. The UN was supposed to function in a somewhat similar fassion, allowing the balance of global involvement to resolve issues.
I knew that the UN has many flaws in its current state, including corruption issues that need some serious fixing. However, it is unfortunate that Google allowed for the corrupt aspects of the UN to affect Google's process and ultimately interfere with objectivity on the internet.- bamapachyderm, on 02/19/2008, -2/+7Google News doesn't maintain neutrality at all. Regular web search? Maybe so, but NOT Google News.
- Tiak, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2Please tell me a REPUTABLE news source that they de-listed, or even a disreputable source that harps their agenda that they still feature...
- bamapachyderm, on 02/19/2008, -2/+7Google News doesn't maintain neutrality at all. Regular web search? Maybe so, but NOT Google News.
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 02/19/2008, -15/+7If you like sipping champagne in multi-million dollar flats looking over various cities while the people you represent starve, join the UN!! Plus you'll get a shot at siphoning off millions to your children, then you can get angry and attack people when the claim corruption.
- Pixelante, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2You can also rape a lot of them and nobody will ever prosecute you. Why, the first thing Blue Helmets set up wherever they go is a child prostitution trade.
- futureisours, on 02/19/2008, -6/+9Vanished from Google? So this is as bad as vanishing from real life? How?
- wowmacnut, on 02/19/2008, -28/+72From FoxNews, so I don't believe it ...
- Bobski, on 02/19/2008, -19/+15Typical liberal crap. Don't like the story? Shoot the messenger.
- CannibalTom, on 02/19/2008, -6/+6ORLY?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
FoxNews is very liberal then right?- dan222555, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1If it's in a propaganda video on YouTube then it must be true!
- jezsik, on 02/19/2008, -3/+13Nope, it's more like "Don't trust the messenger? Doubt the story!"
- Barbosa, on 02/19/2008, -3/+4***** the messenger, in this case all you need to do is RTFA and you'll see that this story is slanted and has no legs outside of the tinfoil set.
- MyNameIsJoe, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Well Fox news has done some very bad reporting in the past and this seems like no exception. I had to stop reading the article because most of what it was reporting was speculation. The job of a reporter is report facts, not speculation about what the facts might be.
- CannibalTom, on 02/19/2008, -6/+6ORLY?
- dan222555, on 02/19/2008, -1/+5But you'd believe if it were on rawstory.com, crooksandliars.com, or dailykos.com wouldn't you?
- JeffD, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2In my experience those are more trustworthy sources than Fox News. Had this arcticle came from a more trustworthy source, after clicking through to innercitypress.org I would have realized that the site comes from a blatantly biased viewpoint which focuses almost entirely on negative and slanted news about the UN. Their articles may be partially or even completely true, but the source of those articles is as obviously biased as press releases taken directly off of the UN's web site would be. Neither should be treated as a legitimate news source.
- dan222555, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2"In my experience those are more trustworthy sources than Fox News."
Of course they are, because like most people here on Digg.com, you've got the blinders on and you're chugging the Kool-Aid.- JeffD, on 02/20/2008, -2/+2Did I say I trust them fully? No, only that they are more trustworthy that Fox News. I've only been to those sites after following links from Digg so maybe they are spewing lies and I'm just not aware of them, but I have seen many cases of Fox News lying outright and failing to fact check countless absurd claims.
If you know of cases where the sites you mentioned printed lies please point me to them (as well as some sort of proof or reasoning as to why you think they are misleading us). I'll gladly add them to my list of sources which should be considered as unreliable. - dan222555, on 02/20/2008, -1/+2This isn't about just "lies". We're talking about bias....like spin in how a story's written, the reporter taking a side, what stories the news organization chooses to publish, how they portray certain people and groups. It's not as straightforward as "lies". Not even the places I mentioned are stupid enough to knowingly publish "lies". There's more to media bias than just telling the truth. A story could be entirely truthful but still be riddled with bias. I would have hoped you people would have realized that by now.
BTW if you have all these cases where FNC "lied" and you have proof, please produce the lie and the proof that they knowingly published or broadcast the lie.
- JeffD, on 02/20/2008, -2/+2Did I say I trust them fully? No, only that they are more trustworthy that Fox News. I've only been to those sites after following links from Digg so maybe they are spewing lies and I'm just not aware of them, but I have seen many cases of Fox News lying outright and failing to fact check countless absurd claims.
- dan222555, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2"In my experience those are more trustworthy sources than Fox News."
- JeffD, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2In my experience those are more trustworthy sources than Fox News. Had this arcticle came from a more trustworthy source, after clicking through to innercitypress.org I would have realized that the site comes from a blatantly biased viewpoint which focuses almost entirely on negative and slanted news about the UN. Their articles may be partially or even completely true, but the source of those articles is as obviously biased as press releases taken directly off of the UN's web site would be. Neither should be treated as a legitimate news source.
- Bobski, on 02/19/2008, -19/+15Typical liberal crap. Don't like the story? Shoot the messenger.
- nblsavage, on 02/19/2008, -15/+43Please, the guy probably tried to game Google and they smacked him for it. If Google was determined to wipe out right-wing sites they'd start with LGF.
- 2Wrongs, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2This is not what the article says. Google doesn't consider news organizations with 2 people legitimate.
- daxsymbiont, on 02/19/2008, -20/+26most of the UN haters are extremist US nationalists that just hate any authority that is not the US.
no doubt they love Bush.- pintomp3, on 02/19/2008, -2/+5hence the likes of john bolton and PNAC.
- MaynardJK, on 02/19/2008, -3/+5***** Bush and ***** the UN
- Tiak, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1I suppose this is an experiment to prove him wrong?... Well played.
- spyd3rweb, on 02/19/2008, -3/+5Hating any authority that is not the US, and has power over the US is essential to having national sovereignty, and respect of the Constitution.
- BlakeEM, on 02/19/2008, -5/+3Most people I know hate the UN and all of them despise Bush. I hate the UN because they butt in and try to make laws/taxes that we never vote on. This is why I hate the UN. I mean ***** China was on the board for human rights. How do you get anything done when dictatorships and communist countries have so much of a say and veto rights?
- waspbr, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2dude, communism is an economic system, attributing it as being evil is just part of the coldwar propaganda psycho-bable
- LesTesmel, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1...and China does have a stellar human rights record, so...
- waspbr, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1You are missing the point again, china doesn't have questionable human rights because it is communist, there are many other capitalist countries out there with questionable human rights, UAE is on for example. It is very likely that human rights weren't respected even before China became Communist.
- LesTesmel, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1...and China does have a stellar human rights record, so...
- nirav72, on 02/19/2008, -0/+5While I'm not a UN supporter. I'm still curious to know what laws have the UN passed that has affected you directly? You want to back up your claim?
- slvrbullet87, on 02/19/2008, -3/+3Law of the sea treaties. Granted nobody owns international waters, but if the new one passes groups that mess with american shipping would be tried before a UN council instead of the US being able to deal with it how we see fit.
- JeffD, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4You don't see the logic in an international body having jurisdiction over international territory? No one could force the US to accept such a treaty if you chose not to, but if the rest of the world does accept it you shouldn't expect other countries to extradite people who have committed crimes under international jurisdiction to the United States for trial rather than trying them in an international court.
That said, if they set foot on American soil, or are caught by the US while still in international waters it should (and would) be up to you how they are tried.
- JeffD, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4You don't see the logic in an international body having jurisdiction over international territory? No one could force the US to accept such a treaty if you chose not to, but if the rest of the world does accept it you shouldn't expect other countries to extradite people who have committed crimes under international jurisdiction to the United States for trial rather than trying them in an international court.
- slvrbullet87, on 02/19/2008, -3/+3Law of the sea treaties. Granted nobody owns international waters, but if the new one passes groups that mess with american shipping would be tried before a UN council instead of the US being able to deal with it how we see fit.
- waspbr, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2dude, communism is an economic system, attributing it as being evil is just part of the coldwar propaganda psycho-bable
- Draxius, on 02/19/2008, -4/+5Well, this UN hater just doesn't like centralized power. I am not sure how anyone can at this point....
- tsotha, on 02/20/2008, -1/+0So there's no reason to listen to those pesky dissenting opinions, eh? Dissent is so patriotic... unless the dissenter disagrees with you. Then ***** 'im. Yes, I'm gonna so enjoy having the "liberals" in charge agian.
- oxphantomxo, on 02/19/2008, -17/+37I just Googled innercitypress and found it buried, inaccurate.
- wonboodoo, on 02/19/2008, -3/+6Read the article. Google News not Google Search.
- tomek77, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3It shows on google news too
Hmm Fascist propaganda is a bit tougher on the internets, right? :)- oxphantomxo, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Googled both
- dan222555, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2The article clearly says nothing from the guy's website posted after Feb. 12 shows up on Google News. I can't find anything dated after Feb. 12 on a Google News search. Can you?
- JeffD, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1I can't find anything from my blog either. Would it help if I got a few friends to write a few token articles about puppies and kittens to mix in with my biased rants on the UN and then started calling myself a newspaper?
- oxphantomxo, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=ca&q=I ...
- dan222555, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2There's nothing on there from the guy's site after Feb. 12....so nice try, but you still don't seem to get it.
- sequalls, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Wrong. The innercitypress showing up on Google is innercitypress.org.
The one in the story is: http://www.innercitypress.com/
- tomek77, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3It shows on google news too
- sequalls, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1Wrong. The innercitypress showing up on Google is innercitypress.org.
The one in the story is: http://www.innercitypress.com/
- wonboodoo, on 02/19/2008, -3/+6Read the article. Google News not Google Search.
- jabberwolf, on 02/19/2008, -12/+7Google, the same people that posted inaccurate information about Israel settlements but insisted on keeping it up, and refusing to correct it. And I quote i'ts "not our fight" from google.
Seems like Google does seem to pick and choose which fights to side behind. This is censorship and yellow journalism at it's most evil and it's name is GOOGLE !- Tiak, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Oh, please... Google had no means of confirming either side of that story... The Israelis could've just as well been wrong about the previous status of the area, and the poster got his information from an outside source.
Allowing one comment amongst several others telling different stories on Google Earth has nothing to do with deciding that some guy's anti-UN blog isn't news.
- Tiak, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Oh, please... Google had no means of confirming either side of that story... The Israelis could've just as well been wrong about the previous status of the area, and the poster got his information from an outside source.
- DeFex, on 02/19/2008, -20/+58Fox news. inaccurate.
- yfguitarist, on 02/19/2008, -10/+4How about we try not to cover our ears whenever we see something that compromises our beliefs?
- tomek77, on 02/19/2008, -3/+8How about we stop listening after being lied to, times and times again
- dougintexas, on 02/19/2008, -3/+4Really...especially when compromising your intellect is SO much easier and less painful! /snark
Seriously, why does seem that anytime these right-wing, blowhards go off on some supposed "liberul" delusion, they're nearly always guilty of doing EXACTLY what they're criticizing?- yfguitarist, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3Why is it that liberals think they're superior to conservatives? The same criticism can be directed at the left-wing. If you want only believe something is worth acknowledging if it comes from a liberal source, be my guest.
- dougintexas, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1If pointing out your exhibited bias here and blatant use of a straw man argument makes me superior (it does), then fine... you're inferior. But that's no surprise, really; the cluster ***** that is your boy Shrub and his administration only goes to prove my case.
- yfguitarist, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3Why is it that liberals think they're superior to conservatives? The same criticism can be directed at the left-wing. If you want only believe something is worth acknowledging if it comes from a liberal source, be my guest.
- dan222555, on 02/19/2008, -3/+4You people are hypocrites. You trust stories from rawstory.com, crooksandliars.com, dailykos.com, huffingtonpost.com, and treat them like Gospel. Every one of those websites is 100x more biased and 100x more illegitimate than Fox News.
- dougintexas, on 02/19/2008, -3/+2At least THOSE outlets admit their bias. Faux Noise....not so much. "Fair and Balanced" my ass.
- dan222555, on 02/19/2008, -2/+5Please...the far-left loons around here will be quick to tell you how unbiased rawstory.com is. And they'll say it with a straight face too.
- dougintexas, on 02/19/2008, -4/+1I don't give a ***** what the "loons" say. As is typical of the right's defenders, you miss the point. At least those sites don't feed us ***** and then try to tell us it's steak. Fox is biased, way biased, and thanks to Mr. Murdoch's rabid right-wing vehemence and vast wealth, it has a MUCH larger audience than any of the outlets you mention. And seriously, the right has the market on whacked out loons far more than those on the left...just look at Huckleby and Darth Cheney. I'd say you guys got that one down.
- dan222555, on 02/19/2008, -2/+4Where on rawstory.com do they state they're presenting biased left wing news?
The only reason you think FNC is "way biased" is because the only other "news" you've ever seen has been left-wing biased. So then a news organization comes along that actually acknowledges that there are two sides of the political spectrum and they can both be presented in balance in a newscast and you're shocked and screaming "right wing bias!". - dougintexas, on 02/20/2008, -4/+1There you go again. Oh sure, you know what I watch, you know what I read. You don't have a clue what I read, buddy. All you have are your pathetic, sad defenses of a philosophy that is utterly bankrupt..oh wait, bankrupt us is what you and your group of Rove sycophants have done to this country. You can't even respond to the fact that your original argument fails. How sad. Incidentally, if you can't tell by looking at the front page at Rawstory.com what it's perspective on politics is, no amount of me explaning it to you will enlighten you. Of course, that's no surprise...you guy's are nothing if not impervious to enlightening insight.
- dan222555, on 02/20/2008, -1/+3"if you can't tell by looking at the front page at Rawstory.com what it's perspective on politics is, no amount of me explaning it to you will enlighten you."
That's the point isn't it? They're not "admitting" it, it's just overtly obvious---100x more than Fox News. They still present everything they write as if it were unbiased journalism. And many diggers take it as such, which is why stories from rawstory and sites like it are so popular on digg and no one even dares to "question to source" as so many people do when a Fox News story is posted. - dougintexas, on 02/20/2008, -2/+1"And many diggers take it as such," whaaaa whaaa whaaa, "look mommy at what the other boys are doing!!!!" Really? That's your reason? You can't think for yourself? I'll bet you wear all the right logo's too. I thought all you conservatives were all about self-reliance and Ayn Rand supermen. Maybe the reason so many diggers point to Rawstory is because they see the hypocrisy and calumny of the main stream media -- those corporate whores who manipulate sheep such as yourself to get out to the mall and buy, buy, buy. It's called "reality." Not that your gang of Brownshirt thugs would care about something as trivial as reality. You can't accept reality so you brush it off as biased reporting. You accuse "diggers" of paying attention to biased sources. J'accuse. You pathetically cling to some thin thread logic regarding the "biased" nature of Rawstory when the fact is you can't see what's staring you right in the face regarding their political stance. No wonder you can't see the bias in Fox. Maybe you're ignorant or just need to put down the koolaid.
- dan222555, on 02/20/2008, -1/+2You're just proving my point with a response like that.
- dougintexas, on 02/20/2008, -2/+1As far as I can see you have no point. Sucks to be you.
- dan222555, on 02/20/2008, -1/+2The point is at a level above your comprehension, so it's no surprise you can't see it.
- dougintexas, on 02/20/2008, -2/+1You're right. I don't get your point. Of course, then again, for anyone to "get" your point you'd need to demonstrate an ability to form an argument based on something other than your right-wing, close-minded little delusions. You'd have to think for yourself. Now THAT really is a level beyond your reach.
- dan222555, on 02/20/2008, -1/+2Oh that's amusing. My argument has nothing to do with "right wing delusions". It has to with facts. Fact: people on digg are quick to question the validity of something posted from Fox News yet they never ever dare to question the validity of something posted from sources that are much much more left wing biased than Fox News is right wing biased. Fact: a ton of people on digg think rawstory and such sites are unbiased.
Meanwhile let's take a look at your level of discourse in attempting (though not really) to counter that point:
"oh wait, bankrupt us is what you and your group of Rove sycophants have done to this country."
"just look at Huckleby and Darth Cheney."
"I'll bet you wear all the right logo's too. I thought all you conservatives were all about self-reliance and Ayn Rand supermen."
"those corporate whores who manipulate sheep such as yourself to get out to the mall and buy, buy, buy."
"your gang of Brownshirt thugs"
Childishly amusing, but irrelevant to the argument. In fact, you know what I would classify those as? Left-wing delusions. Imagine that. - dougintexas, on 02/20/2008, -2/+1You know the facts!?!....oh Bonzo Boy....you kill me! Good luck with your "facts" in November when you get your political ass handed to you on a hanging chad.
- dan222555, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2You continue to avoid the actual argument by resorting to irrelevant childish attacks on a certain political ideology. And yet according to you I'm the one operating based on idealogical delusions. How ironic.
- dougintexas, on 02/21/2008, -2/+1....aaaaannnd........we're outta here (see ya 'round the digg Bonzo Boy!)! :-)
- dan222555, on 02/19/2008, -2/+5Please...the far-left loons around here will be quick to tell you how unbiased rawstory.com is. And they'll say it with a straight face too.
- dougintexas, on 02/19/2008, -3/+2At least THOSE outlets admit their bias. Faux Noise....not so much. "Fair and Balanced" my ass.
- yfguitarist, on 02/19/2008, -10/+4How about we try not to cover our ears whenever we see something that compromises our beliefs?
- nuttystool, on 02/19/2008, -8/+3hmm
- adioz, on 02/19/2008, -16/+3digg this up!
ppl gotta read dis. - exgiexpcv, on 02/19/2008, -14/+30" . . . Liberal fascists"?! Oh, wait, Faux noose. Never mind.
- Draxius, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3Modern FDR liberals are most definitely fascists (read the definition) whether you think it is righteous or not.
- dogfood, on 02/19/2008, -5/+26It's not like he's being removed from Google. They're just not indexing him in the news section because "his writing is clunky, his methods unorthodox (and often highly annoying) and his news judgment sometimes more than a little off the mark."
- tsotha, on 02/20/2008, -0/+0Sigh. Yet another bogus Digg summary. Deleting from the search engine would be outrageous. From the news aggregation? Not so much.
- cardwell1972, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1You guys are such tools!!!!!! This is obviously considered a respected news organization and should be included in google news. Its true they have the right to include who they want, but I don't really want google's version of the world only. DO YOU?
- fredgarvin1138, on 02/19/2008, -6/+27Wait, what?
I just did a Google news search and Inner City Press still shows up in the results...- shark72, on 02/19/2008, -5/+4That's because his articles are no longer included in GOOGLE NEWS. Not the Google search engine! This is a very important distinction that many people have missed.
- Barbosa, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3"I just did a Google NEWS search and Inner City Press still shows up in the results..."
Slow down and read the comment Shark72. - Tiak, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3*ahem* His comment was as "I just did a Google news search..."
- Barbosa, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3"I just did a Google NEWS search and Inner City Press still shows up in the results..."
- shark72, on 02/19/2008, -5/+4That's because his articles are no longer included in GOOGLE NEWS. Not the Google search engine! This is a very important distinction that many people have missed.
- thinman1189, on 02/19/2008, -11/+27Wow, how the hell did this get to the front page? Buried as being total *****. I couldn't make this ***** up if I wrote for a soap opera.
- BingoPower, on 02/19/2008, -6/+8Sorry, I cannot digg a dude with a beard like that.
- insanebrain, on 02/19/2008, -8/+3See no evil, see no Google.
- Serphyas, on 02/19/2008, -15/+40Did Diggers seriously let a Fox News piece get to the front page, let alone an inaccurate and biased one? Now I've seen everything.
- pintomp3, on 02/19/2008, -0/+8their hate for the UN outweighs their hate for trash journalism.
- Tiak, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1Wait... So UN hate > FoxNews hate+Google love?... Seriously?
- uncouthyouth, on 02/19/2008, -2/+6You ask that as though "Fox News piece" wasn't a synonym for "inaccurate and biased".
- tomek77, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3Course not, they´re "fair and balanced" /sarcasm
- jonnyboy1544, on 02/19/2008, -4/+2Eat *****
- pintomp3, on 02/19/2008, -0/+8their hate for the UN outweighs their hate for trash journalism.
- strum40, on 02/19/2008, -8/+9The Government Accountability Project http://www.whistleblower.org/content/press_detail. ... also covers this story. I don't like Fox News at all but sometimes you do hear about legit stuff you won't hear about elsewhere.
- TygerKrash, on 02/19/2008, -0/+0broken link
- Sippi, on 02/19/2008, -3/+6As for the formal complaint that Inner City Press isn't a news source because it only has one employ and a dozen volunteers. Then pay all the volunteers $1 a year in salary and that will make them a full-time employee of Inner City Press.
Steve Jobs does it with Apple, why can't they?- 99Casimir, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3Apple isn't a news source.
- wonboodoo, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Minimum wage, workers disability insurance, income tax withholding and reporting ... etc. Who wants to deal with all that crap?
- SemiSarcastic, on 02/19/2008, -2/+7I'd be more fearful if he himself disappeared after that. It's not like his website was shut down.
- pintomp3, on 02/19/2008, -9/+9liberal fascist is an oxy moron.
- usingpond, on 02/19/2008, -6/+5Thank you for this Fox News update on real events happening in the real world.
- spyd3rweb, on 02/19/2008, -5/+3Yes first Fox News story ever that is worth a damn.
- Barbosa, on 02/19/2008, -1/+15FTA: "Though his writing is clunky, his methods unorthodox (and often highly annoying) and *his news judgment sometimes more than a little off the mark*, Lee has hit his share of bull's-eyes and became an outlet for whistleblowers inside the U.N."
You cannot have judgment that is "more than a little off the mark" and expect to be taken seriously. If he truly was a friend of the whistleblower he would be careful not to be off the mark more often than not. You guys can't just push agenda driven ***** through, it must be at least be factual to make an impact outside of your own small audience. Try again please. - tomek77, on 02/19/2008, -10/+21Wake up people. The source of this is FOX NEWS. It´s not like they have a history if making up lies out of thin air...
- ncc74656m, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3Oh god! My world is coming down around me! Faux lies!!! NO!!!!!!!!!11!!!1
- loopist, on 02/19/2008, -8/+4Google before: "Do no evil"
Now: "Don't be too evil as long as we can make a lot of money and get into China...." - VinceNoir, on 02/19/2008, -7/+25Hah! Hahaha! Hohohoho!!! HO HO HO HO!!!! Hee hee hee hee hee hee!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! "liberal fascists"? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!!! Oh stop!!!! It hurts!!!!
- NorthStateGonzo, on 02/19/2008, -4/+1Question: What ever happened to that Google Engineer that disappeared off San Francisco Bay about a year ago.. supposedly he was out at the Farlon Islands..
- nirav72, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1I think he was a microsoft researcher who's sail boat disappeared , not a google engineer
- OneLess, on 02/19/2008, -4/+5300 diggs and it's on the front page?! INDIGNANT OUTRAGE!
- TygerKrash, on 02/19/2008, -9/+24Fox. Buried.
- SpencerMc, on 02