www.newsbusters.org censors anyone that doesn't share their views!

from right wing slanted site www.newsbusters.org
I thought that I would tell you that I was just banned from their site that always whines about liberal bias. It's funny because they censor anyone that doesn't share their same views! Anyone out in blogville that is for freedom of the press, register your voice and let others know that this Washington DC based organization gets really upset if your criticize the president and they censor comments.

new rhayes Says:August 17, 2006 - 18:21
It is amazing how neocon spinmeisters love to turn words around. I believe that what these terrorists do is despicable!
Taking care of people is a positive value that has been lost in the newly evolved neocon ideology. Neocons call that liberalism!
It used to be that Republicans (Eisenhower and even Nixon) believed in taking care of the people instead of wasting it on wars to only aid their good ole boy friends in the oil field that are making a killing in the stock market and lining their pockets.

rhayes Says:August 17, 2006 - 18:10
Which aspects of Sir Winston Churchill (Conservative) do you find so admirable?
JB, you are rude , but I'll gladly respond in kindness with a cut and paste. Have a nice day!Bush Is No ChurchillOn the first night of the festival of political cross-dressing now taking place at New York's Madison Square Garden, otherwise known as the Republican National Convention, Rudolph Giuliani attemped to favorably associate George W. Bush with Winston Churchill. Such an association would be comical if it did not also qualify as an offense against reason.Any implied association between Churchill and President Bush, based on an honest evaluation of their documented history, behavior and performance, is ludicrous. Winston Churchill took part in the last cavalry charge in British military history. Winston Churchill fought for Queen and Country in the Boer War, was taken prisoner, and escaped from a POW camp. He did not hide behind economic privilege to evade service in a cause he believed in.Winston Churchill worked incredibly long hours, crafted his own speeches, and even helped design landing vessels during WWII. He was a master of the English language. Unlike Bush, he did not spend nearly twenty percent of his tenure as a war leader on vacation.Years in advance, Churchill correctly forecast, within a few days, the date for the beginning of WWI. Unlike Bush, he was never caught off-guard while his nation was savagely attacked.Winston Churchill was one of the most brilliant thinkers of his time – and was never afraid of changing positions once he ascertained that he was on the wrong side of an issue. Churchill wasn't even afraid of changing political parties – beginning his career as a Conservative, then becoming a Liberal, then finally returning to the Conservative Party. Like John Kerry and Bill Clinton, Winston Churchill was a policy wonk who understood that the devil is always in the details.Churchill wasn't perfect, and reflected the mindset of a 19th century British imperialist. In the early-to-mid 1930s, he was an opponent of Indian independance, for instance. Churchill also suffered from chronic depression (he called it "black dog"), and took to self-medicating with alcohol throughout his life – rather than dealing with the underlying dynamics of his depression. I believe that it is fair to speculate on the degree that his depression and alcoholism impacted the effectiveness of his leadership. As mighty as he was, to evoke the familiar British anthem, Land of Hope and Glory, he might have been mightier yet.I consider myself a student of Winston Churchill, and George Bush is no Winston Churchill. Unlike John Kerry, George Bush has never demonstrated anything close to Churchill's powerful, independent, always flexible intellect. George W. Bush has never demonstrated the physical courage of Churchill – again, unlike John Kerry. And President Bush absolutely hasn't demonstrated Churchill's uncanny ability to accurately discern the likely shape of the future – once again, unlike John Kerry, who forecast the chaotic scenario we are watching play out today in Iraq. That is why Kerry insisted that, minus the demonstration of an imminent threat posed by a nation whose borders were then tightly controlled through the existence of no-fly zones to its north and south (and, hence, nothing like the scenario that existed with regard to Nazi Germany from 1936 through 1939), President Bush build the kind of wide coalition that his father had assembled to hold Hussein accountable, and that force only be employed as an absolute last resort.Let me close by documenting one final difference between Churchill and George W. Bush. When France fell in 1940, Churchill formed a coalition government. He created a spirit in Great Britain where there were no Conservatives, no Labor Party members, no Liberals, just Englishmen united against a common enemy. In comparison, George W. Bush used 9/11 as an opportunity to divide America, pursue radical economic and social policies, and exploit the specter of Bin Laden to smear the reputation of Senator Max Cleland, a triple amputee, not to mention any Democrat who sought to oppose his radical policies. Whereas Winston Churchill was truly a force for unity in Britain's hour of need, George Bush has been nothing but a crass political opportunist. Hence, Rudolph Giuliani dishonors Churchill's name by even tangentially linking it with President Bush. Bush is no Churchill. Bush would be lucky to be the man, or the President, his father was. Winston is way out of Dubya's league.Matthew Carnicelli © 2004.

Mean Gene Dr. Love Says:August 17, 2006 - 18:02
Rhayes said: "I don't believe in terrorism but at least they are taking care of their people which any civilized society should do. .."
Are you kidding me!? Terrorism...civilized. Are you smoking crack!? Your statement is akin to praising pimps that provide healthcare to their prostitutes. Or lauding a drug dealer that provides clean needles with each drug deal. I can come up with more analogies if these two aren't vivid enough for you. Get real!
Hezbollah is pure evil. As in EVIL...incapable of doing good regardless of all outward superficial appearances. This terrorist group is preying on Lebanon's civilians. Hezbollah is the reason the IDF razed Southern Lebanon. And now Hezbollah has managed to look like the good guys because of their manipulations and having the image of being there to make things better. Sadly the civilians seem to be falling for it. Hezbollah has victimized the very people they are purporting to help now. Diabolical. EVIL.
--Peace through superior firepower.

florida_chad Says:August 17, 2006 - 16:51
Well where is all the Iraqi oil we went there for?

rhayes Says:August 17, 2006 - 16:49
I don't see any solution. There has always been fighting in the middle east since Babylon. Then religion with two sides believing God was on their side only added fuel to the fire.
We need to stay out of there as Europeans should have stayed out of there during the crusades.
Americans need to know the real reason why we've been so interested in this land filled with black gold. If the government was honest with the people we'd at least have saved american lives and billions of dollars.
florida_chad Says:August 17, 2006 - 16:46
I don't believe in terrorism
Then your are foolish.
Fox news however continually shows what they want to show and often leaves out much information to back their slanted side... so one has to listen to other stations and newspapers to get the full truth.. fox is constantly throwing spin about the war and terrorizing the audience with fear.
Yeah - no other news provider does that. Not the NYT, CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS
reply moderate comments Funny Irrelevant Insightful Troll Abusive/Offensive »
Free Stinker Says:August 17, 2006 - 16:45
fox is constantly throwing spin about the war and terrorizing the audience with fear.
Vicentes Fox?
»
rhayes Says:August 17, 2006 - 16:42
Rahyes- thank your for responding without name calling and closer to the topic. You still didn’t give your opinion about the appropriateness of the NYT focusing on Hezbollah’s humanitarian efforts while ignoring that they use civilians as human shields.
Dee, I apreciate your civility, so I'll respond to you and ignore the usual rude behavior of the Oreilly wannabees that infest this site...
It is wrong about how the Hezbollah have been using civilians as shields. I don't believe in terrorism but at least they are taking care of their people which any civilized society should do. ..the brunt of the article was positive about these terrorists and could appear to people as being one sided and in favor of these "victims"
Fox news however continually shows what they want to show and often leaves out much information to back their slanted side... so one has to listen to other stations and newspapers to get the full truth.. fox is constantly throwing spin about the war and terrorizing the audience with fear.

Dee Bunk Says:August 17, 2006 - 15:57
Rahyes- thank your for responding without name calling and closer to the topic. You still didn’t give your opinion about the appropriateness of the NYT focusing on Hezbollah’s humanitarian efforts while ignoring that they use civilians as human shields.
We can argue for ever in circles about who was wronged first that is why I’d rather stick with the point of the blog. The important thing is what is going on now and how the media is reporting it. So what do you think about them ignoring Hezbollah’s terrorism and they way they hide behind their own civilians?

reply moderate comments Funny Irrelevant Insightful Troll Abusive/Offensive »
Jack Bauer Says:August 17, 2006 - 15:33
LOL RJ -- nailed with one phrase. VIVA the CIA -- if only because they put 100 bullets into Che Guevera.
»
m36b1 Says:August 17, 2006 - 15:18
Two soldiers?.... that was the only reason for Israel's response? You actually believe that? Sunshine, floweres, and gumdrops for Israel from the Arabs before that incident? And as far as "Lawrence of Arabia" and the British "screwing the Arabs" - perhaps you need to go a little further back in your history if you believe that Jewish people never lived there for centuries in the past - where they were "screwed" numerous times. Give us your grand plan to stop the warfare for good over there.

RJ Says:August 17, 2006 - 15:14
His ignorance DOES take your breath away, Jack, but he'll never understand that. Y'see, rhayes wears something popular with many on the left. It's The Impenetrable Cloak Of The Fatuous (vacuous, smug, unconsciously foolish...delusive)

Jack Bauer Says:August 17, 2006 - 15:04
Your ignorance is breathtaking. But then you already demonstrated that with your "plagiarism" jibe.I'll ask you again. Which aspects of Sir Winston Churchill

rhayes Says:August 17, 2006 - 15:00
So what is your opinion about the blog? Do you think it’s appropriate for the media to focus on Hezbollah’s Humanitarian aspects without mentioning their terror tactics or how they use their civilians as human shields?
good question, bunk, instead of the usual "juvenile" behavior of this blog.
It is not appropriate for these terrorists to behave this way but I dont believe it was appropriate for Israel to respond the way they did over two soldiers.
Think about the reasoning for all this hatred and it might stem back from when the state of Israel was founded and how the Arabs have been shafted ever since Lawrence of Arabia befriended them and then they were screwed by the British.

Dee Bunk Says:August 17, 2006 - 13:55
Rayes - do you care about anything that really matters? Why don’t you tell us about your opinion on the blog you are actually on? I’ve read through this thread and can’t find any relevant comment by you. All you seem to like to do is throw the word neocon around in a juvenile way that shows you don’t even know what it means.
So what is your opinion about the blog? Do you think it’s appropriate for the media to focus on Hezbollah’s Humanitarian aspects without mentioning their terror tactics or how they use their civilians as human shields?

Jack Bauer Says:August 17, 2006 - 13:51
plagiarism: the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. Exactly the sentiment MM expressed. What's your problem? VIVA the CIA -- if only because they put 100 bullets into Che Guevera.

ckc1227 Says:August 17, 2006 - 13:47
It's sad, really. 5 years in and the MSM still refuses to report on any progress made in Iraq by our troops; 2 days into the cease-fire, they can't wait to give kudos to the Hezbos "Social Services Network".
I need a shower......
Jack Bauer Says:August 17, 2006 - 13:46
"Winston Churchill was a great man. Bush is no Churchill." Interesting. Churchill was most certainly a Conservative, and most certainly would be called a "neocon" by the name-callers on the left. So as Bush is not really "conservative" on many issues, on that point I'd have to agree. I'd be very interetsed in hearing about which aspects of the greatest man of the 20th Century, you so admire. Incidentally, I was in the newly opened Churchill Museum a week after it opened in January 2004, so no BS. VIVA the CIA -- if only because they put 100 bullets into Che Guevera.

rhayes Says:August 17, 2006 - 13:34
Where did you get this quote about plagiarism,mm? Out of the newly evolved neocon dictionary?
Its funny how this channel has a spin for every word!
Mean Gene Dr. Love Says:August 17, 2006 - 10:55
Unsane, I agree with everything you have said on this subject 100%. As a fellow serviceman (USAF) I think often times we (unfortunately) have a much better understanding of the logistics of wartime operations, including an understanding of the LOAC that is drilled into us so we can play by the "rules" that the terrorists completely ignore.
Violence does not always equal terrorism. It's the square is a rectangle thing. But not all rectangles are squares.
On the subject of beaches: If you ever get the chance Marbella, Spain is awesome. Got to spend a couple days there on vacation while I was stationed in Germany.
BTW: I love your Churchill quote.
--Peace through superior firepower.

Unsane Says:August 17, 2006 - 10:37
I do note that you seem to see no difference between civilian casualties of war and a deliberate act of reprisal against civilians. Actually, consider this difference: in war, we can try all we can to minimize civilian casualties, but they cannot be avoided entirely. In this I am a realist. If you are a nation state, like Iran or some other belligerent, if you want a 100% chance of suffering NO civilian casualties, perhaps you shouldn't tangle with the United States or other nation.
Unsane Says:August 17, 2006 - 10:27
Actually, no. Terrorism is something I would define (and have) as an act of violence by a party (rarely if ever a national actor) in a position of weakness in order to wage a direct attack on society and to achieve a political end. Using this definition, how was the United States and the United Kingdom of the early 1940s in a position of weakness? Or Germany?
Note that the planes that flew to Hamburg and Dresden and other German cities were engaged and dueled with via other German aircraft and ground fire. Terrorists, because they know they cannot win in a battle with an evenly matched force, avoid confrontations with organized military and law enforcement officials and as such attack what are generally considered civilian targets in the most direct way possible. Also note that in the time it took for the planes to reach their targets, there were ample opportunities for civilians to take shelter or seek refuge elsewhere. Did the terrorists give anyone in the World Trade Center (and other targets) the same opportunity?
Think this through.
And considering what I do for a living, being a pacifist would, for me, be a most contradictory stance in life.

Comments

  1. new rhayes Says:
    August 18, 2006 - 00:58
    Unsane, since you are in Korea and though you have been less civil lately making fun of my upbringing when you don't know me or my parents that have passed away I will send you a cut and paste a paragraph of why I despise the neocon party.

    "At the same time, there have been limits in the power of neoconservatives in the Bush administration. The former Secretary of State Colin Powell (as well as the State department as a whole) was largely seen as being an opponent of neoconservative ideas. However, with the resignation of Colin Powell and the promotion of Condoleezza Rice, along with widespread resignations within the State department, the neoconservative point of view within the Bush administration has been solidified. While the neoconservative notion of tough and decisive action has been apparent in U.S. policy toward the Middle East, it has not been seen in U.S. policy toward China and Russia or in the handling of the North Korean nuclear crisis."

    (wikipedia)

    I don't like the way this administration has been plotting the overthrow of Saddam for a very long time long before 911.

    I don't like this new form of neocon colonialism forcing democracy on countries that are not at all ready for it, while wasting our tax money and lives to line the pockets of good ole boys that will only make the Bush dynasty richer.

    I hope this gives you enough reason why I despise this corrupt party

    ReplyDelete
  2. hah newsbuster, they are not for anyone to post on thier site, unless they agree. They are all in one big circlejerk.

    Thanks for exposing thier circlejerk for what it is...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Please Lord, get my ass in gear so that I can focus on the future for our family!