Anybody read Capitol Hill Blue today? Anybody still want to "censor" it?

[Zen Democrat]

Because this is the best rant I've read in a long time.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7650.shtml

[mattclearing]

1. If I wanted to read rants on Bush's incompetence, I'd read DU.

Oh, wait...

:D

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. It was a good rant

and some are still and will remain on that horse... I am all against censorship of any type, but I think I have made that clearly over the last few days.

;-)

[jaxx]

3. That was one awesome rant.

People are pissed at dubya making a political speech when he was there to honor the vets.......past and present. He has a way of sticking his foot in his mouth that gags the country.

[Walt Starr]

4. Doug Thompson is to online journalism what Bev Harris is to BBV

:puke:

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. debunk this

and yes taken from another thread I hope the person does not mind...

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

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

Bushies feeling the boss' wrath

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

New York Daily News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Walt Starr]

7. Apples and oranges, dude

CHB embelishes real stories to make you FEEL GOOD.

I'ts yellow journalism at its worst and anybody who falls for it will regret they did one day. Mark my words.

CHB = PURE UNADULTERATED SHIT

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. EVERYBODY embelishes stories EVERYBODY

not only CHB, EVERYBODY... or are you still on this rant because the NYT did not push the propaganda?

By the way, I will call you on it, you are a censor... you have your opinion fine, let OTHERS read and make their own minds, or are you up to protect our precious little and feeble minds?

[Walt Starr]

9. CHB embelishes IDENTICAL to how the Enquirer, The Globe, and

Weekly World News embelishes.

It's PURE U&NADULTERATED SHIT!

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. and the NYT

you have offered no facts here, debunk what I just posted, or bow out...

[Walt Starr]

11. Oh for crying out loud!

Oh brother

:eyes:

Just because CHB says the things you WISH WERE TRUE doesn't mean a thing.

You provided nothing. NOTHING Because legitimate sources report a milder form of what you WISH was going on in the White House and because CHB was pushing pbullshit stories about constant temper tantrums does not mean that one followed the other.

It's unadulterated bullshit. CHB isn't even as serious as stories about friggin' BATBOY!

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. And that is the brilliant answer from the censors

they want to censor but they cannot debunk the fact that unamed sources are standard...

CHB is a rumor site, but should not be banned just becuase some want to protect our feeble minds for our own good...

All they have is oh brother.

Censorship by any other name is still censorship

[Caution]

32. Where did anyone but you mention censorship?

Walt advocated not taking CHB seriously because the author is full of shit. This is very different than advocating censorship.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. We have been going back and forth for the last few days

and yes there is the censorious pull from certain folks, a small but very vocal minority on here.

By the way you were burned by CHB, the country was burned by the NYT, and I don't hear the screams against the NYT.

And I will repeat it, what CHB is, it is a RUMOR site, research the role of RUMORS from the palace during the last days of the Ancien Regime... this is where CHB fits.

They have even retraced a couple of their bad stories, but we have all been burned by bad reporting at one point or another, hence the salt shaker that is required... now if you don't mind, I'd rather get my news from oh the Guardian, they have proven to be more reliable than the US Press... or the BBC, again same problem different day.

[Caution]

43. You don't hear screams against the NYT?

What rock are you living under? Seriously?

You get your news from whereever you like but I'll bet you whatever figure you can come up with that almost every thing you think you know about this administration came at one point or another from a US news source.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

65. 1. Walt Starr has made it VERY clear that he does not want to see....

...CHB used as a source for any reason. That's censorship to me.

2. Walt Starr has said very little about the NYTimes, despite the fact that the NYTimes has been much more instrumental in lending credibility (which no longer exists, IMHO) to the case for war against Iraq.

IMHO, in terms of relative damage caused by the two media outlets, I'd have to say that the NYTimes reaches FAR more people on a daily basis than does CHB.

And just for the record...everything I know about the NeoCons stems from my personal research about each of the treasonous bastards long before they took power in December 2000. That research is continuous and ongoing to this day.

[guruoo]

99. Like they say...

'f**k 'um if they can't take a joke'

[Caution]

12. You aren't the only voice in the wilderness on CHB

I've been burned twice by them on stories I ill-advisedly sent to others regarding the administration. No thanks. About the only less reputable source out there is tomflocco

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. They have to be taken with the same huge grain of salt as

any other source you read these days... but that goes for ALL you read

[Caution]

20. NO it isn't black and white. CHB is at the VERY far end of yellow

journalism. They are awful and using them as a source of anything but entertainment only serves to undermine liberal causes. Should one always read new sources with a grain of salt? Sure, but I'd suggest a grain for the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the LA Times or the Washington Post. For Capitol Hill Blue I'd suggest a diner-sized salt-shaker.

[Walt Starr]

22. CHB, The Globe, Weekly World News, the Enquirer

Same shit, different assholes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. I'd suggetst the salt shaker for ALL of the US Press

but that is me

Let me see

Armstron Williams

Judith Miller

I could go on...

[Caution]

30. Please do go on...

You've given the two obvious ones. Name some others. The US press is still pretty darned good. It's the television and radio media that sucks. There is still great information out there from the press and in fact about 90% of what you see on a daily basis at DU is sourced from a US press report in one way or another. The bloggers only very rarely actually break a story first, generally they only draw conclusions from information that is data-mined from US press sources.

Go ahead and bash the media but to argue that the NYT and CHB have anything remotely in common other than that they both utilize text as their medium is nonsense.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. no it is not nonesense

look this up, you know were we stand insofar as freedom of the press is concered? Look it up, you think we have a free press, I have some choice sea side property in Arizona...

[Caution]

40. I have no idea what you are trying to say here

Unless for some bizarre reason you are claiming that all of our media is vetted and censored by the Bush Administration and if you are saying that than you are too far gone into tinfoil land to even bother arguing with.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. It is vetted and censored by the corporations

we are considered 49 in freedom of the press world wide, behind nations such as ... Latvia...

Look for these books, Project Censored... look this up, "Into the Buzz saw" No we don't have a free press any longer, and if you think we do, then this conversation is obviously over... because to quote walk, we are discussing apples and oranges and they have to do with perception.

[Caution]

53. Wow, do you clearly not understand what free press actually means

I can go out and publish ANYTHING I want. Tomorrow. Would you like a very detailed description of how nuclear weapons work?

Do major corporation determine via a potentially questionable editorial process what mass-media outlets put out? Sure. Does this mean we have lost the freedom of speech? Not even close. You did actually get a chance to read CHB today didn't you? The government didn't censor him did it? The corporation which controls the bandwidth connecting to his site didn't cut him off as a result of his lunacy did it?

Who really needs to wake up and realize that we aren't actually living in a world akin to Orwell's 1984? At a moment's notice I can find pretty much anything I want about any subject just using Google and I can then make printouts and hand them out on any street corner I decide to go to.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. WOW! You do undersatnd what a free press means right

again go read Project Censored (BBV is in there, for example) Then go READ "Into the Buzzsaw" from a reporter who has been there, done that and LOST his career after he got too close to something the FIVE CORPORATIONS in this country did not want covered.

you think Edward R Murrow would be able to cover McCarthy the way he did TODAY? Be honest now...

[Caution]

64. Already have done on both of the above

also yes i do think murrow could cover mccarthy the same way, in fact i think he could do a better job today.

A better question is "do you think edward r murrow would be able to cover McCarthy the way he did had it happened in 1895?"

People want freedom. Freedom has only ever increased over time. Can contrarian examples be given? Sure. But overall things are better now than they were even 30 years ago and worldwide things are getting better every day.

The internet is the penultimate invention regarding freedom of the press. The US government and the corporations out there simply cannot censor the press anymore. Period. If they censor the NYT we go to the guardian, if they censon the guardian we go to another paper, and another and another and another. Today we have instant, immediate access to even total whackjobs like CHB. So yeh please go ahead and tell me we can't find information out. Go ahead and scream about it. The fact is that the people who are interested in finding information can find it easier today than at any other time in history. What's really too bad is that so many Americans just simply don't care to seek it out.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. We then will have to agree to disagree

When McCarthy was around there was a multifaceted control of the media, not five corporations. I doubt Murrow would have been able to get anywhere, and he would have been rathered just as effectively as well Dan Rather. If you want to believe we have a free press you are free to do such. But many outside observers have even noticed how controlled the US Press is.

[Caution]

72. They certainly have noticed how "controlled" the mass media is

there is a huge difference between the mass media and the overall "press"

But sure i'll agree to disagree.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

88. Tell you what...if you publish ANYTHING about how nuclear weapons...

...work, I would expect to see your boardname disappear in very short order, along with the rest of you.

If you really believe that we still have free speech, hammer out a very detailed discussion about how nuclear weapons work, then add a few tidbits on how to make them.

But do Skinner and the rest of us a favor and don't post it to DU.

[Walt Starr]

15. Tom Flocco is a FREEPER!

Disinformation on the highest order!

And Doug Thompson was the DARLING of Freakerland back in '98 and '99!

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. You do remember

Media Matters for America, don't you? Wasn't the person running that site the author of many a screed? Wasn't he part of the Arkansas project? You think people cannot and will not change? I guess we can't trust Media Matters either by this logic.

http://mediamatters.org/

Add this to the banned sites, we cannot trust them, the person in charge wrote so many screeds against Clinton that obviously he is also spreading propaganda... and don't give me a oh brother, or a link to the Clinton stories, or how he was loved by the freepers...

[Walt Starr]

24. And Media Matters demonstrates a level of credibility

unlike CHB.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. No the point

he was a freeper, ban him! That is your scream... you are a censor

Let the flow of information continue, for what you are in favor is CENSORSHIP...

PEOPLE DON'T NEED TO BE PROTECTED FROM THIS! THEY CAN MAKE THEIR OWN FRIGGING MINDS... GOT IT NOW?

[Walt Starr]

36. Oh brother

:eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Expected

[Walt Starr]

42. It's nicer than expressing my true thoughts

:eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. I know Walk, simple stay off the CHB threads if they bother

you so much... it is like the tele, if yuo don't want to watch it change the channel... but asking for censorship, implied or directly, will not go well with some of us.

[Walt Starr]

No! I am on them to make sure people know CHB IS FULL OF SHIT!

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. In your opinion, you are entiltled to it,

but so we are quite clear here, yuo will no longer ask that it is banned will you?

[Walt Starr]

55. Actually, I would like to see it relegated to The Lounge

like all fiction should be.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. Problem is, that is censorhip walt a form of censorship

we agree does not belong in LBN, but it does not belong in the Lounge purely...

[Walt Starr]

59. It's Skinner's site

So he's the one I need to convince. What Skinner says, goes. He's done the same with other sites and with I/P discussions.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[Walt Starr]

67. Oh brother

:eyes:

[Caution]

74. no, that's opinion. And so is your position.

It is most definitely NOT censorship. Of any kind.

[Caution]

37. why don't you go back and read the thread

seriously. Now you are just ranting incoherently, claiming that another poster said something he clearly did not and attacking him on that basis. A standard tactic of those whose argument is lost is to claim a victory on some unrelated point.

Credibility is earned in the media and CHB has not earned the remotest shred. Media Matters has.

Your entire Media Matters thing is a straw man argument. Nowhere did Walt state that his dislike of flocco or CHB was SOLELY based on the fact that they both were once darlings of the wingnut right.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. I am not ranting there is a history here

and yes there are some who want to ban this... and I only rant against those who prefer we don't have these things on the site... aka the censors.

[Caution]

47. Ahh so you are ranting against those who say that CHB and flocco

shouldn't be included in the LBN forum? At the same time that you suggest that CHB is a rumor site? Saying that CHB is unreliable and shouldn't be used to source one's arguments to those who amay or may not be undecided regarding the insanity of the current Republican party has nothing to do with true censorship. Nor does saying that the garbage that flows out of sites like tomflocco or CHB don't belong on DU constitute censorship. The information is still available. Censorship is when the GOVERNMENT stops publication, not when a privately held service such as DU makes it policy to disallow insane ravings of these whackjobs in a single specific forum constitute censorship.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. No I have a problem with those who say they

should not even be posted here... I do agree they don't belong in the LBN but try to post anything with a link to Flocco, go ahead, do it... see the thread either moved to the 9.11 forum, or simply removed... alas that is censorship, is it not?

[Caution]

82. No it isn't

That's policy. The policy enforced by the moderators of a privately owned and operated site. Censorship is the removal of the material at the source. And before you go there this is not just semantics. This is basic Constitutional theory when it comes to the First Amendment. If Skinner decides to move tomflocco's utter and total garbage to the Lounge (which I think he should, flocco's crap has no place in anything remotely resembling intelligent discussion about politics) that is in no way censorship and no matter how hard you try to modify your argument to suggest that it is will make it so.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

50. If you knew the entire history of Walt Starr's rants against CHB, then....

...you would understand the context of this thread. As nadinbrzezinski says, "there is a history here"...one that I'm a bit surprised that you don't seem to know.

I find it interesting that CHB was the first to report MORE THAN A YEAR AGO that Georgie-Porgie has become a bit unbalanced. I find it even more interesting that a number of mainstream media outlets have recently written stories about the same subject.

[Quixote1818]

57. Walt called for CHB to be banned from DU two days ago. nt

[Caution]

83. I'll second his motion.

It's still not censorship. I wish I had been around for that because I would have chimed in. CHB is pure unadulterated bullshit and has no place in a forum for reasonable political discussion.

Now if Walt had said that the FBI should raid CHB, should grab all of his materials and prevented him from ever publishing again. Well that would be censorship.

[Caution]

26. Comparing Media Matters to tomflocco or CHB is ridiculous

Particularly since Media Matters sources their stories and uses the words of wingnuts against them. Seriously, CHB is occasionally entertaining but neyond that it's garbage of the highest order. Tomflocco is just plain nuts.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. No, not by the standard given

the person was a freeper once, that was the standard.

[NYCGirl]

51. Flocco is still a freeper and CHB's Thompson is too. So what's that prove

to you?

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Thomson is a RIGHT WING libertarian

small difference, and you think he will get an invitation to the WH christmas party this year affer that rant? Hell how many in teh HIll will invite him?

[NYCGirl]

61. Very small. He probably doesn't care about the WH Christmas party...

he just wants gullible people to log onto his site.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. So don't log in, DON'T read it

most people don't nmeed others to watch for their precious minds, and that is the point. Censors want to protect the feeble minded, and this run for censorship here is disturbing.

[NYCGirl]

66. I don't — but at least 8 people a day post crap from it here on DU. NT

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. Don't even look at the threads, it is that easy

Like changing a channel... some people will also post from the Enquirer which by the way has a role of building doubt among the base... so what? You don't need to read those threads now do you?

[NYCGirl]

73. One has to read the headings to see if they want to use the "Hide Thread"

feature, right?

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. There you go

and that way you get control of your DU experience and don't have to even deal with the CHB threads

[Walt Starr]

76. Nope, I'll expose the threads for what they are! n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. And what exactly are they?

I mean I can start doing that about every one that had Judith Miller in it... but most peoople were able to make their mind quite fadt. She was reporting trash... most people can make their mind about CHB as well, you don't need to protect our precious minds... we can do that on our own. Last time I checked we are adults... why treat us as CHILDREN? This is exactly what freepers do... you are playing the daddy figure here.

[Walt Starr]

81. They are PURE UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT

just like the crap site they link to.

[Caution]

84. you nailed it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5357081&mesg_id=5357675

like minded :)

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. In yuor view, let OTHERS make up their minds

you are not our daddy

[Walt Starr]

87. Every time I see one of these thread

I will point out that they behaved precisely the same way against Clinton during the late nineties and Freepers gleefully linked to their site just as DUers are now. And every last time, it was PURE UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT

Bush throws temper tantrums and Clinton is a rapist.

That's CHB in a nutshell.

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. Fine and I will call yuo for you desiring censorship

seems we are going to have a wonderful time...

Are we not?

[Walt Starr]

90. Prepoare to dance

Because I will not be done until their bullshit ends up relegated to teh Lounge along with the rest of the fiction.

[nadinbrzezinski]

95. Sure I am expecting you to enforce the Free Republic Rules here

what you agree goes and what you don't does not... how progressive of you

[Walt Starr]

97. Nope, I expect DU rules to be enforced here

and tinfoilhat nuttery such as exhibited by CHB is something that Skinner has altered the rules on recently.

[nadinbrzezinski]

100. Will speak to Skiner, am afraid for National Security letters

are NOT tinfoil nuttery... I know you want to beleive that, but they are not.. hell there may be one agaisnt you right now, and the truth is, they cannot legally tell you... you stil have to refute that by the way

[Walt Starr]

102. Oh brother

:eyes:

[jbnow]

16. This wasn't news

it was opinion. They can embellish all they want.

It would be better if you want to say CHB equals something bad if you used words that were an acronym of CHB like crappy hokey bullshit or corrupt horseshit bunk and so on. It just makes for a better insult.

[Walt Starr]

19. I know it wasn't news

but anything on CHB is pure unadulterated SHIT.

doug Thompson was a HUGE Freeper, just like Bev Harris was.

He';s out to bilk left wingers out of money just like he bilked Freepers out of money over bullshit articles about Clinton being a rapist, including opinion pieces.

[WilliamPitt]

78. Find me a story I embellished.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. IT has another name and it where the author is coming from

and you know it, the editorial board of ANY publication has a slant, some more some less... in the case of the Rant... (which is the editorial page) it is clearly not happy with Bush.... and you know it

Basic readership tells you know what is the general slant of any publication...

Heck maybe it is time to just ban EVERYTHING on this site William, maybe it is time... that way we can protect our precarious minds from any slant, left right or center...

For the record you try to keep the balance (and manage to do such outside of your editorial pages) a balance... but to call an editorial writer on his or her slant is just studpid... and the RANT is the editorial page of that site.

And yes you will wait, or do you want me to bring any of your editorils, whcch have a PROGRESSIVE slant to them, one that I happen to like and agree with?

[WilliamPitt]

110. You said

"EVERYBODY embelishes stories EVERYBODY"

Stand by your words. Slant is one thing. "Embellish" is a nice way of saying "making shit up."

[nadinbrzezinski]

115. Embellish and slant are in my mind the same in many ways will

and EVERYBODY DOES IT, I stand by my words... you KNOW IT that it exists, so I DO STAND BY MY WORDS MISTER.

Now are you also going to defend the NYT and Judith Miller saying apples and oranges?

Look it is easy, you don't want to read these threads don't even open them. Personally I will defend those who want to read the site and even post from it... but defend the US Press? I have made my feelings quite clearly, I don't trust it, the MSM, the alternative news media some more than others, and where Doug happens to be is none of your business, (suffice it to say I use the salt shaker with him)

[WilliamPitt]

131. Well...

Slant:

To present so as to conform to a particular bias or appeal to a certain audience: The story was slanted in favor of the strikers.

Embellish:

To add ornamental or fictitious details to: a fanciful account that embellishes the true story.

They are not at all the same. If you don't want people to call you on this stuff, be more precise with your words. When you say everyone embellishes, you're saying everyone adds fictitious details to their stories. That is not accurate in any way, and as a writer, I won't let that kind of bullshit accusation stand.

If you want to bust your ass defending CHB, it's your dime. But when you start making broad-brush comments about journalists, you're going to hear from me.

[mattclearing]

27. Mainly because of the way CHB writes it.

They include direct quotes, and private situations, things that sound unbelievable or too detailed to be true.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Go back and read some of the WaPo storise

near the end of Watergate... then go and read the exposes after Watergate...

[LibertyorDeath]

49. Hey Walt you don't have a problem with the unvarnished Truth

about that piece of Lying Shit called President do you?

[Walt Starr]

69. No, I have a problem with a gossip web site that makes up lies

to pass off as truth. CHB does precisely that to suck in Liberals by telling them what they WANT TO HEAR rather than telling the truth.

[Richard Steele]

112. That's the best I've seen it stated, Walt! nm

[Nite Owl]

6. That was good

no matter who said it.

[calimary]

17. Here, here.

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

I like this piece VERY much. Took the words straight out of my mouth, he did. I'm just glad SOMEBODY's saying it. I hope this sentiment is fruitful and multiplies - and at this point, I don't care where, I don't care who, I don't care why. It needs to be said. And repeated. PERIOD.

[fooj]

25. Yes. Just take it for what it is.

Peace.

[FreedomAngel82]

18. With me personally

I just read it and keep it in mind. If they were right about something they were right. :)

[Quixote1818]

31. I just sent that to everyone I know. Beautifully written! nt

[DinahMoeHum]

33. "Censor" ??? This rant was an editorial/opinion column. . .not "news"

and CHB was NOT trying to palm it off as straight news.

That said, I still take most everything other than opinion pieces on CHB with a grain of salt. Skepticism is not censorship.

And while it is censorship if I were to try to force someone not to read something EVER, it is clearly not censorship when I recommend that if you want to read it, best consider the source.

Good rant, BTW.


:smoke:

[KansDem]

34. I hope Hell is big enough to hold all the Bush enablers...

All the miserable SOBs who assisted him in his rise to power; the Corporate Media, who lied about Al Gore and John Kerry and never told the truth about GW Bush; the Supreme Court who put politics before country in their infamous Bush v. Gore "decision;" and many, many more.

Bush deserves the deepest hole in Hell, but there should be plenty of room down there for all who enabled him.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

45. I particularly liked these two paragraphs:.....

Bush is much, much more than just a bad president. He is a genuinely evil man, a raving lunatic who cannot face the fact that his insane policies have destroyed a once-great country called America. George Bush’s America is an arrogant bully distrusted by its allies, hated by most of the rest of the world and divided internally by his divisive, duplicitous actions.

I can no longer regard this maniac with journalistic dispassion. I may be a journalist but I’m an American first and, as an American, I cannot stand silent as a truly evil man destroys the country I love.

To the CHB naysayers, say what you will about comments made about Bill Clinton in 1999, the sentiment noted above is finally being echoed by just about everyone in the media today...the mainstream press, the bloggers, the independents, etc. How long have we waited for conservatives like Doug Thompson to get fed up with the NeoCon Junta, and tell it like it really is?

Why is it that anyone crossing over to join the anti-NeoCon forces is looked at with a high degree of suspicion? I recall a young writer by the name of Brock who made his ultra-conservative reputation as a writer for the Arkansas Project. He was treated the exact same way when he finally made his break from the NeoCons. There are other conservatives that have publicly turned away from the NeoCons, but for some DU posters that's not good enough.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who kicks the NeoCons to the curb is one more for our side, and one less for the Darkside.

[geek tragedy]

71. Standards aren't censorship.

Capitol Hill Blue is little more than a fiction site. Fun for rants and entertainment, but not a credible source of news.

[Walt Starr]

79. That's why it belongs in the Lounge

General Discussion should be for serious dicsussion, not debunking bullshit web sites that just make shit up as they go along.

[WilliamPitt]

77. Come on

Are you really going to blur the line between editorials and straight news reports?

Don't.

CHB can editorialize all day long, and that's fine. But when they pass off wishful thinking as hard news, that's just flat bullshit.

I think you know better than to skip this clear distinction.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. Will CHB has the same function as any good rumor news

in the Ancien Regime... nor do they try any longer to pass this as hard news but given how many OTHER news sources have picked up bits and pieces over the last year, either all of it is trash and they have managed to hoodwink the MSM, or there is something there. Exactly what, we shall find after the tell all books come out. '

I will remind you of one story everybody thought was bunk from the Nixon administration, when Kissinger was forced, kind of sort off to get on his knees to pray. When this was first reported people went Com'on, after all Kissinger is a Jew and this is against all principles of faith. We had to wait, not long, for the tell all to tell us it was true. Other rumors were the use and abuse of alcohol by an increasingly delusional president, happens to be that was the case...

I am just saying most of this is rumor and innuendo, but censorship does not fit this site... and I will fight against it. By the way, the Rant is his editorial, has been his editorial and will be his editorial for a while. Most of the CHB threads are the Rant.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

91. Is that anything like the NeoCon wishful thinking that Iraq had WMDs?....

...If the distinction has been blurred between editorials and straight news reports, it was done quite a while ago by the MSM.

[nadinbrzezinski]

93. EXACTLY

but people still read and watch the MSM thinking they will get straight news

[Walt Starr]

94. More like Freeper wishful thinking that Clinton was a proven rapist. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. Which was peddled by ABC as well ast one point

[Walt Starr]

98. You obviously never read Thompson's archives

Loads of fun from the 90s there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

101. I have yet to read some of the crap published during the

90s by the founder of Media Matters... should I discount his aparent change of heart as well since he was part of the Arkansas project? This is a personal issue you have here, clearly

[Walt Starr]

103. He;'s denounced it

Thompson has not.

Big difference.

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. Remind me walt how many MAIN STREAM

media have denounced their coverage of the 1990s?

And don't go with the apples and oranges, it seems this is the heart of your problem... look on the bright side, a freepr is probably wondering what happend to Dough Thomson to make him such a Bush hating Lib'rul?

[Walt Starr]

105. Spewing outright lies vs. reporting are two complketely different things

Reporting tehre are allegations is one thing. Reporting that Clinton raped over 20 women is entirely different.

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. I remember those rumors on CBS

as part of the early efforts... remind me exactly when did they retract it? (It does have a name by the way, trooper gate)

[Walt Starr]

106. Remind me of a single story reported by CHB that turned otu to be true

Not even one has. Never, they are LIARS. Pure ansd simple.

Weekly World News has more credible Batboy stories than CHB has any kind of story.

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. I posted a long list when we started having this discusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


and you are on a personal crusade...

[Walt Starr]

108. I'm calling BULLSHIT!

There is a minor remote resemblance to the bullshit story that CHB put out and you call it an incident of CHB being right.

That's BULLSHIT!

BTW, most of your links don't work and those that do are linking to a single story with the words: "He's like the lion in winter," observed a political friend of Bush. "He's frustrated. He remains quite confident in the decisions he has made. But this is a guy who wanted to do big things in a second term. Given his nature, there's no way he'd be happy about the way things have gone."

Bush usually reserves his celebrated temper for senior aides because he knows they can take it. Lately, however, some junior staffers have also faced the boss' wrath."

That's a far cry from the bullshit story CHB put out.

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. you can call it what you want

now tell me have you looked up FISA yet, or National Security Letter?

[Walt Starr]

113. Oh brother

:eyes:

Here, this will keep you safe

:tinfoilhat:

[nadinbrzezinski]

116. nah your ignorance will keep you safe

not even showing you the links from places you trust like the WaPo convinces you that there is an issue with them. Even if the Director of FBI told you this, you would still believe it is BS since you read about it on CHB, not my fault you are not able to research things on your own.

[Walt Starr]

117. Dude, I've read about it

and my suggestion to you is to step back and check yourself.

I'd also recommedn you look into reading comprehension. Teh bullshit "temper tantrum crap spewed by CHB bears lttle to no resemblance to the single story that was reposted all about the web.

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. and Time and Newsweek

and now even No facts novak....

By the way I don;t need to check myself... I know what they are doing, read Upton Sinclair's "It Can't happen Here."

Now I will give you the same suggestion I have given you before... some people actually enjoy readying CHB, for whatever reason they do... it is their prerogative, it is a free country. You should save yourself from the high blood pressure and the ulcer and just block those threads, they will continue to occur, end of discussion on that... so save your blood pressure.

That is the best kind of advise anybody can give you, not that you will take it mind you, for you are on a personal crusade.

[Walt Starr]

119. Again, you're wrong

The bullshit story spewed on CHB bears little to no resemblance to what is being reported now. And I will continue to inform DUers about the bullshit nature of CHB every time I see their spewing linked to on DU.

[nadinbrzezinski]

120. And I will continue to call you on your attempts at censorship

reaching for the salt shaker when it comes to the US press, ALL OF IT

[Walt Starr]

121. It's not censorship

It's calling a liar a liar. Capital Hill Blue is filled with nothing but LIARS!

[nadinbrzezinski]

122. So you have now moved to just calling them liars

that IS progress Walt... at least you are no longer calling for outright banning as you did a couple days ago, we did not imagine it...

[Walt Starr]

123. That's what they are, it's simpler to just call them what they are

Liars.

[nadinbrzezinski]

124. Fine we have made progress, so you will no longer ask for it to

be banned, I can agree, sort of, with that...

[Walt Starr]

125. Oh no, I'm not stopping that movement

If it has a place at all on DU, it's in the Lounge.

[nadinbrzezinski]

126. Then good luck, because I will continue to opose your

censorious attitude.. why? It does not belong in a progressive site

[Walt Starr]

127. Prepare to dance

because shit belongs in the toilet, and CHB is nothing but shit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

128. so do censors

you might be happier, I ain't shitting you, at a place like Free Republic, where what you don't agree with does not come in. IS THAT WHAT YUO WANT WALT? Be honest here.

[Walt Starr]

129. DU routinely deletes posts, tinfoilhat nuttery, and unadulterated bullshit

Dumping everything from CHB would be no different.

[nadinbrzezinski]

130. CHB has a role, believe it or not, and I keep tellign yuo this

you refuse to even see the other side... theirs is a rumor site spreading the rumors from the palace... that is their chosen role, and in another time that was a very valuable role. They are right there with all the scream sheets, but your issue with it IS PERSONAL so you cannot see it.

By the way a censor is a censor is a censor you are a censor.

[flyarm]

114. i do not believe in censorship of any kind!! other than yelling fire

in a crowded theater falsely!!
if one can be censored..then i could be censored..and i will be damned if i will give up my right to speak without a fight!!
fly

[LeftCoast]

132. Locking

This has become a flame-fest.