2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumInteresting to see what gets purged when going through google cache....
I was just googling and found a link to this page for a story that was created back in 2007 right prior to the 2008 election, which was also copied and discussed on this DU page here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4482384
It's interesting that blackvoicenews.com had a link as shown here as recent as just a month ago or so in August as shown by the google cache link here:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MxvTXcoaqacJ:www.blackvoicenews.com/more-sections/commentary/41717-hillary-was-against-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964nwhile-a-republican-and-qgoldwater-girlqn.html+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Google the following keywords to get the page link at the top:
"Hillary was against the civil rights act blackvoicenews.com"
The link at the top is redirected to the top, as it looks to have been recently removed to the site, whereas the cached link goes to the story above reflected in the earlier DU link.
Hmm... I wonder why it was censored. Granted, Robert Novak is a right wing writer, albeit a lot more sane than many of the wingnut writers out on the web, and one should take his content with a grain of salt. But the article does point out how Hillary Clinton supported Barry Goldwater, who stood strong against the Civil Rights Act's passage at that point in history.
The recent act of censorship has me wondering though. Is there efforts to try and whitewash Hillary Clinton's earlier history of political stances not consistent with the message now that somehow she's a better candidate for POC than Bernie Sanders is (or Martin O'Malley for that matter).
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
djean111
(14,255 posts)Lots of stuff has been scrubbed, methinks.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)
FSogol
(47,669 posts)part of some 15+ year political game? You never post any evidence of your ridiculous assertions or respond to calls for it. Do you ever read the nonsense you type?
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)
bigtree
(94,693 posts)...Sanders operating in Washington politics for decades.
Such a bogus line. Sounds like deflection from the obvious entrenchment of Sanders and Clinton in the D.C. political club.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Personally I don't care if the news is coming from RW writers or left, as long as it's factual. People will probably hate me for saying that but facts are facts, period.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)This could hurt......
“You know, today Senator Obama used President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to criticize me. He basically compared himself to our greatest heroes because they gave great speeches.
“President Kennedy was in Congress for 14 years. He was a war hero. He was a man of great accomplishments and readiness to be president. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. led a movement. He was gassed. He was beaten. He was jailed. And he gave a speech that was one of the most beautifully, profoundly important speeches ever written in America, the “I have a dream” speech.
“And then he worked with President Johnson to get the civil rights laws passed, because the dream couldn’t be realized until finally it was legally permissible for people of all colors and backgrounds and races and ethnicities to be accepted as citizens.
“I’m running for president because I believe that there is not a contradiction between experience and change.” http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/civilrights/?_r=0
And then there's this which none of her supporters can seem to answer and just add it as water under the bridge. I can not figure out for the life of me why people think she's the second coming of Elizabeth Warren because she sure as hell isn't. She has REAL issues and her supporters don't question it when they sure as hell should be.
In 1964, Hillary Clinton supported Barry Goldwater's Presidential Campaign. Senator Goldwater created the Republican Southern strategy with his stance against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In 1996, Bernie Sanders was one of only 67 House members to vote against DOMA.
Until a few short months before the Supreme Court ruled DOMA unconstitutional Hillary Clinton supported DOMA which her husband had signed into law.
Bernie Sanders voted against the PATRIOT ACT when it was enacted.
Hillary Clinton voted for the PATRIOT ACT when it was enacted.
So I have a question, who do you trust to appoint potentially 4 Supreme Court Justices as the guardians of your Civil Rights? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/01/1389642/-A-Civil-Rights-Comparison
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... but I think the big difference is that Hartmann makes no bones about it, and is honest and forthright of what he did then, and how that affects or doesn't affect his political viewpoints now. You can really see his values as a person for how he explains his earlier history, and even explains how he goes back and does target range shooting with some of his older friends and extended family back in Michigan, so that he can explain how he doesn't have anything against guns per se, but feels they need to be regulated to control violence, etc.
Sanders, who is on Hartmann's show is also similarly honest and candid about his viewpoints, which is why he's not got a problem appearing on it weekly for the last decade or so. I think Americans of all political stripes can appreciate that straight forwardness that seems rare with politicians these days.
On the other hand, Hillary doesn't talk about those earlier days at all, and as noted on this post, some of those who follow her tend to want to cover earlier articles on their site up, rather than leave them be, and have more current articles explain in more depth what they believe now, who they support (if they do have their support narrowed down now), and how they've evolved to those viewpoints.
When instead we see what seems to be attempts to hide history, and not respond to many questions without "measuring their response", it is hard to tell how honest their campaign is in terms of reaching out to progressives. We've learned from Obama that if one doesn't look at the devil of the details, we'll get back other things in a package that we've not really bargained for. It's hard to tell with many of them when we are or aren't being manipulated, and who's behind that manipulation too.
BTW, according to this page, Goldwater called MLK a "demagogue", which seems a bit inconsistent with what Hillary reflects on MLK now in your comments on her recent speeches here, which seems an interesting juxtaposition too. Haven't found links to verify that though, so take that with a grain of salt too.
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2014/06/barry-goldwater-declares-that-the-1964-civil-rights-act-is-a-dire-threat-to-the-liberties-of-african-americans-and-will-creat.html
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)Hillary was 15 years old in 1963. Liz Warren was 47 when she became a Democrat.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Do you see Republicans panicking that Reagan was really a Democrat?
Clinton was still a Republican at age 17 when she was president of the Young Republicans at Wellesley College.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)Hillary was 15 yrs old. She couldn't even vote.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Are you saying she was incapable of thinking then and not judging that Goldwater's position on civil rights then was wrong, even as a freshman in college as a Republican then when she was 17?
Well, if you are going to make a big deal about Warren being a Republican recently, then it should be noted that Reagan switched parties later, if you are trying to make Warren's age of switching relevant.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)Just like everyone else. 17 is still not old enough to vote.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... or at least perhaps today she could explain her thoughts then and juxtaposition them to what she is now, so we can get a good feeling for what she really felt then and what she feels now, and not what has to be filtered according to what her poll-driven staff will permit her to talk about.
artislife
(9,497 posts)I think Barry Goldwater stuff is bogus.
I came from a mixed household-one parent Dem and on Repub. Oddly, it was the brown parent who was Repub...I think he would be a Libertarian if he were still alive.
But yeah, she had just come from home and was still hadn't found her own voice. So this is silly to bring up this.
Capn Sunshine
(14,378 posts)It's ridiculous to foist this into the conversation. Absolute nonsense.
What about Hillary's support for the Patriot Act? How about Hillary's support for DOMA? How about Hillary's support for DADT? How about Hillary's support for TPP? How about Hillary's support for KXL?
Quit cherry picking! You're candidate supported those! Own it!
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Bernie is a progressive and Hillary admitted she's a moderate.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)together using that old "he's a communist" smear.
That's a hell of a lot worse early political behavior then a 17 year old, woman 'young republican' in 1964.
In 1964 woman weren't treated equal in the political world at all, especially a teenager.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Have fun with that. Liz makes Hillary look like John McCain.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Seems like a common term these days that is used...
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... without some form of substance to back it up.
If you are going to call him/her out, perhaps you might want to have a link to his/her post that supposedly does that. Otherwise, I'll treat that comment the same way I treat similar comments made in the state of Washington on Bernie's travels through there.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)Look who I was responding to. Poster uses links from Gateway pundit.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)Hmm, tough choice for you? I noticed you opted not to call it out.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)A well known white supremacist website.
So you should get down from that high horse before it bucks you off.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)White supremacist sites as sources? Because if you're going to follow me around DU for posting a channel 4 nbc news report but defend other posters for using white supremacist sites, that says a lot about you. Why harass me and let them off the hook? Gateway pundit is a known white supremacist. But its okay because the poster is a Bernie fan?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And you've doubled down on your "concern" about Bernie's vote that his Republican opponent was lying about so in my mind you're no better than he is.
You keep lecturing others about what's acceptable and what's not on DU and I'll keep reminding everyone that you have no right to do so.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)Again, a channel 4 nbc news report is not even in the same category as linking to white supremacist sites. Maybe just in your mind. If YOU weren't such a hypocrite you would follow that person around DU. You're the hypocrite. If you're going to "police" this forum you can't cherry pick who gets policed. THAT is hypocrisy. Either do it to everyone, or do it to no one.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Using your "logic" you're defending that poster while following another around and harrassing them.
I'm not "policing" it.
I'm just holding up a mirror and apparently you don't like the view so you're calling me a hypcrite.
You keep using that word...
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)A Bernie supporter linked to a white supremacist website? If I saw the post you mentioned I would have condemned it. Why aren't you condemning the post I'm referring to? And its not just Gateway, Bernie fans have linked to Ann Coulter, SE Cupp, National Review, and a whole host of RW sites. Have you spoken up? Hold up your own mirror. Its obvious you spend way more time here than I do, yet your silence is your consent. Show me one time you've condemned such posts. Just one.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)If I had posted a right wing smear about a Dem candidate and was complaining I'd be a hypocrite.
I did no such thing.
You did and here you are whinging about someone else linking to a rw website.
That makes you the hypocrite.
One last time:
Anyone who posts a video claiming Bernie supports pedophiles has no credibility when it comes to keeping DU clean.
At all.
None.
Zero.
Zip.
Nada.
So get down, that horse is tired.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)
Btw, notice the person who I was responfing to hasn't even chimed in. Why bother when you are here to defend it. Go ahead, condemn it now. What are you waiting for? My post got hidden, no need to relitigate. That posters post stood, making it visible to the public. Which one represents DU?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Want to keep digging?
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)A smear is a lie. Did Bernie cast those votes or not?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You're going to need a bigger shovel.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids.
Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would assign a national coordinator for AMBER alerts. AMBER alerts is an alert system for missing children, make available additional protections for children and set stricter punishments for sex offenders. Two-time child sex offenders would be subjected to mandatory life sentence. The measure would make it a crime to pander visual illustrations of children as child pornography. It would increase maximum sentences for a number of specified crimes against children. It would also make it a crime to take a trip to foreign countries and engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor. It also would enlarge law enforcement's wiretap and electronic surveillance abilities in investigations of child pornography.
Its from On The Issues. NOT a rightwing site. Just like a channel 4 nbc news report is NOT a rw site. Its in the public domain, no need for a shovel.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You seemed to know all about it when you were so concerned about Tarrant's attack ad.
I'm sure it took you hours to find a smear from 2006 and bring it here so perhaps you should enlighten us.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)Being the whole point of my hidden op was asking that very question and still got no answer. If you read my op I even called bs on the framing of it. So why do YOU think he did? And no, there was no digging. I saw the link posted on social media. Once again: Fail on your part in your assumptions.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You already doubled down on the accusation that he "protected" child molesters but nice try denying it.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)While pushing the meme that white supremacists support Bernie which is popular among certain supporters here and on another website for DUers.
JI7
(93,908 posts)Would describe as sane
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... he's a lot more sane than many of the other wingnuts speaking out these days on the web... He at least tries to get some factual information out there to try and back up his more slanted viewpoints, when others these days make their own facts up.
JI7
(93,908 posts)Even Donald trump
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... when he spoke out against TPA/TPP and also against H-1B visa program.
Granted, he tries to appeal to his base with xenophobic nuance to that stance, that I also can't stand, but at least he starts with being aligned against something that's wrong.
I can see where you are coming from or going and i sure want no part of it.
Btw a lot of trumps crap he was selling was made in china
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and that Trump being in opposition to it (albeit for the wrong reasons, which I stated in my comment) was the right overall position to it. Now, if you are going to try and say that this free trade madness that TPA promotes with bills like TPP that possibly could extend to a Republican presidency and congress is a "good thing", please enlighten me where I'm wrong there!
At least the web site in question at the top had the sense not to censor such an article earlier and keep it from being published. I credit them to looking at articles from those of all stripes, not just liberal persuasion. And as that note said below, perhaps they didn't really "censor" it too, but when articles disappear from a site recently, but from a site redesign, my radar does go up then, especially when the timing appears to be in synch with an important point of campaign season.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Tell me, why are ALL articles from 2008 censored in the same way?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... from being published, which many here would say would be justified to *censor* something from Robert Novak. I was giving the site CREDIT for publishing something like that for its members' viewership and not trying to keep it from being read.
I put my second mention of "censor" in quotes as I am here to note that I was not referring to it in the literal sense, but to note that another explanation might be in order besides specifically censoring it as that term would imply.
Other than that, my only use of the term was in my original post, when it appeared at the time to me to be censored.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... even if he also agrees that TPP/TPA is bad... Is something wrong with that? Or do you believe that TPP/TPA is a good thing. Please explain if that's what you are surprised about! Or did you not know that Trump came out against TPP/TPA and were surprised that some Republicans don't like it too.
FSogol
(47,669 posts)
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)He died a happy man, knowing he was despised by so many liberals.
Coined the phrase "social warfare" when talking about the difference in policies between the Republicans and Democrats concerning social issues.
sheshe2
(98,580 posts)That he died a happy man revealing in his ugliness throughout life.
Me, I would rather go out with a tear and a smile and no bitterness in my heart.
Good to see you Major Hogwash.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Novak was a great example of someone who thoroughly espoused Republican ideals.
He would complain about rich Democrats, yet he couldn't quite explain adequately why he thought they were so evil simply for using the same system of capitalism to obtain wealth, the same way he did.
While bashing liberals for more than 30 years for trying to support better education while he wrote column after column complaining about the teachers' union, the NEA, for the cause of all of the problems in education.
As the rate of more kids dropping out of school rose each year of the Reagan administration, he blamed the teachers' union for why "little Johnny can't read".
He argued against Title IX, giving women equal access to funding for sports.
He railed against colleges becoming more and more integrated.
He sarcastically noted how many more whites were attending historically black colleges, as if that were a bad thing.
He was totally against workers unions of any kind.
He blamed the unions for the rising rates of inflation during the 80s, and claimed they drove the prices of cars too high in this country for the average American to afford.
Yet, he wasn't all that informed about economics, while he defended every single federal budget that Reagan wrote while he was in the White House, creating more deficits with each passing year.
He bellowed that Reagan had the right to have line-item veto ability when the time came to sign those federal budgets into law.
But, just a few years later, he derided President Clinton for claiming that he had that same right.
He was hard to watch when he was on tv because he would act so smarmy when he talked about any issue.
He would fidget in his chair, and used his body language as much as he could to further his commentary on an issue.
He would change the tone of his voice whenever he spoke of liberals.
He would always, always deride liberals and/or Democrats by dropping his speaking voice and talking about us in a lower, slower, quieter, more ominous manner.
As if he were telling some big secret he was finally revealing for the first time on tv that he thought that Democrats were inherently evil because of their positions on so many social issues of the day.
He complained about newly elected Democratic members of Congress for speaking out and proclaimed they should be thrown out of office as soon as the next election were held because he had already judged them for being "idiots".
Especially if that new Democrat had replaced a Republican in a relatively "safe" Republican district.
Novak was a consummate liar.
However, he was very effective about getting out the message for the Republicans because he sounded convincing.
Once he took a position on an issue, he was bullheaded to the point he would never back down from it.
He would deride statistics that supported the Democrats' positions on those issues.
And yet, at the same time like the hypocrite that he was, he would use statistics that favored whatever Republican he was defending for their position on a particular social issue.
He declared that the Democrats were engaged in "social warfare", trying to ruin this country by supporting expensive federal government programs that helped everyone.
He blamed FDR for being the first Democrat who "started the war for socialism" in this country.
He hated FDR.
Yet, FDR was elected President of the United States 4 times.
Not just once.
Not just twice.
Not just three times.
Four times!!
And ever since the Republicans had passed the 22nd amendment, no Republican President would ever be able to claim that in thr future.
Novak hated it whenever Mark Shields would point that out to him.
He was a favorite among the beltway elite in Washington, D.C., and was respected for his views.
Which is somewhat of a contradiction considering he was involved in the Valerie Plame incident, being the one who wrote the column that outed Plame as a CIA officer.
In an attempt to stop the anti-war movement that was criticizing Dubya Bush for starting the Iraq War.
Novak was a throwback to the 50s.
He was also a racist who reveled in his white privilege.
sheshe2
(98,580 posts)I had completely forgotten his outing of Valerie Plame. He should have gone to jail for that.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)First off, the article is still available at the two-article blog where it was originally published:
https://blackpresident.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/goldwater-girl-hillary-was-against/
More about that in a minute. However, your statement that it was "a story that was created back in 2007 right prior to the 2008 election" is a pretty direct falsehood.
Even looking at the Google cache link you provide, the story is headlined:
----
Hillary Was AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964 While a Republican and "Goldwater Girl"
Thursday, 24 January 2008 11:20 0 COMMENTS
-----
What's somewhat interesting there is the that the January 2008 article is a riff on a March 2007 Robert Novak piece which has been found to be factually incorrect:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2007/03/12/novak-falsely-accused-goldwater-girl-clinton-of/138265
Novak falsely accused "Goldwater girl" Clinton of "re-inventing her past" to include MLK as influence
http://mediamatters.org/research/2007/03/13/tucker-repeated-mlk-goldwater-girl-falsehood-ab/138277
Tucker repeated MLK-"Goldwater girl" falsehood about Clinton
So, what we have here is a January 2008 piece which picks up on a ten month old RW hit job. Okay, that's interesting.
But let's take a closer look at your allegation of "censorship" or "scrubbing".
It looks like blackvoicenews.com has undergone a redesign, and it further doesn't appear as if ANY article from 2008 can be directly linked anymore.
Try any search for a January 2008 article from that link, and let me know whether you think it has been likewise "censored". This is a site search on blackvoicenews.com for anything having "January" and "2008" in it:
https://www.google.com/search?q=january+2008+site%3Ablackvoicenews.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
O'Connell Reports New Laws Affecting Education In 2008
www.blackvoicenews.com/.../41655-oconnell-reports-new-laws-affectin...
O'Connell Reports New Laws Affecting Education In 2008.
Thursday, 03 January 2008 07:43 0 COMMENTS · E-mail · Print · PDF · Tweet.
Edison Offers Resolutions for an Energy Efficient 2008
www.blackvoicenews.com/.../41686-edison-offers-resolutions-for-an-en...
Edison Offers Resolutions for an Energy Efficient 2008.
Friday, 18 January 2008 02:55 0 COMMENTS · E-mail · Print · PDF · Tweet. Share this article with a friend.
None of those links to things published on the blackvoicenews.com site work either.
But, instead of either asking the site operator why you can't access the article, or bothering to check whether your conclusion is correct by checking to see whether other articles from that time are accessible, you would rather make an accusation of censorship.
One of two things is possible:
1. You are too simpleminded to bother to check whether your hypothesis is correct by searching for other articles from that time, and thus you would rather make an accusation against people you don't know, or
2. You know full well that the site re-design appears to have cut off direct links to ANY AND ALL old articles from that site.
What is also of passing interest is, as noted, the article is one of two - count 'em two - articles on the blog here whence they came, and which are both still available:
https://blackpresident.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/goldwater-girl-hillary-was-against/
The blog was used for that article, and for one the very next day. The gist of the other article is also that the Clintons are racists.
So, I'm curious to know from you what OTHER articles from 2008 at blackvoicenews.com have NOT been censored, if you are claiming this one has been somehow selected for that treatment.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)As long as they bash Hillary, no problem. Hell, red states has been quoted and linked to right here.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And the meme that its members support Bernie is popular among some DUers.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Now, was it censorship? I don't know, but it appeared that way when trying to click on a google link. I was just remarking that less than a month ago, this article was online and now it wasn't. Now, pardon me not for checking the whole site to see if other articles were also purged. But it seemed curious at the time, and worth noting before the cache was blown away. Perhaps all articles were purged from 2008 simply because that was a time when Hillary Clinton was in a primary battle with Barack Obama, and perhaps there were other articles with similar controversial content, when currently the notion is that POC support Hillary now, though they supported Barack Obama then. That's a speculation on my part, not based on fact, but something to consider as to why a whole segment of articles from 2008 were purged just in the last month.
The article was definitely purged here, and usually sites don't purge old article links without reason to do so.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The degree of denial is outstanding.
The subject line of your post is that it is "interesting" to see what has been "purged".
"Hmm... I wonder why it was censored."
Did you get up from your keyboard while writing the OP, so that some other person had an opportunity to sneak words into your post.
No, you didn't "just say" it was not available.
And then you go on to say other ridiculous crap:
"Perhaps all articles were purged from 2008 simply because that was a time when Hillary Clinton was in a primary battle with Barack Obama, and perhaps there were other articles with similar controversial content, when currently the notion is that POC support Hillary now, though they supported Barack Obama then. That's a speculation on my part, not based on fact, but something to consider as to why a whole segment of articles from 2008..."
You really are resistant to investigating much of anything aren't you. It's not a "segment" from 2008.
Or perhaps you'd like to explain why they "purged" and "censored" articles about Obama's inauguration in 2009:
https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+inaugurated+2009+site%3Ablackvoicenews.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
President Barack Obama's Inauguration Speech
www.blackvoicenews.com/index.php?option=com...2009...
President Barack Obama's Inauguration Speech. Wednesday, 21 January 2009 19:15
0 COMMENTS · E-mail · Print · PDF ...
Inauguration excitement grows as historic event nears
www.blackvoicenews.com/index.php?option=com...2009...
Thursday, 08 January 2009 00:50
0 COMMENTS ... Obama's inauguration speaks to another sea change in American history - the great March on Washington in ...
It is abundantly clear - to anyone interested in looking at things objectively - that the site was re-designed in the last few months:
http://www.screenshots.com/blackvoicenews.com/2015-02-17
They went to the a more updated, scripted format for the site, and there are NO links to prior articles FOR YEARS AND YEARS that are current in relation to the Google cache.
You'd think being called on your bullshit, that you wouldn't invent more bullshit to make up for it. But I obviously mistook you for someone who cares for being factually accurate.
That's a normal thing that happens when someone re-designs their site.
So, please, explain to me why they have "censored" news of Barack Obama's inauguration? He's secretly white, and they are trying to cover it up?
Here's a re-work of your OP:
------
I was scouring mud-slinging Hillary bullshit allegations from the 2008 primary, and thought I would regurgitate them again here. To my dismay, I found that a site that I was going to use for ammunition has been recently re-designed, and I can't find the article I wanted.
So, in order to make up for that, I'm going to pull completely out of my ass an insane conspiracy theory that "they" are censoring the internet by "purging" the bullshit I wanted to use. That way, I can make my ineptitude at using the internet part of a larger anti-Clinton theme.
---
You're welcome.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You can search for articles on that site:
http://www.blackvoicenews.com/?s=obama
As demonstrated by that link, the only articles responsive to a search for "obama" - at all - on that site, are three articles dated:
http://www.blackvoicenews.com/?s=obama
U.S.-China Summit, Obama Can Make History
September 6, 2015
Massive Protests Sweep NYC Condemning No-Indictment Decision over Eric Garner Death
July 19, 2015
Nigerian Americans Grapple with Tragedies in Homeland, Question Lack of U.S. Intervention
July 6, 2015
That's it.
Now, pretty obviously, if the site has been around for a while, and if it covers news of interest to African Americans, you might think they would have noticed that Obama has been around since before July 2015.
So either, they redesigned the site and archived articles aren't available, or they are engaged in some massive conspiracy to conceal the fact that Obama has been president for the last six and a half years.
Clearly, the OP goes with the latter option.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Now, perhaps my term of "censorship" in the OP was overstated. But when something is taken offline it is "censored". Now, what motivates that censorship (or archiving if you want to term it that way) is a question open to debate.
In most sites, if you want to maintain interest of those who come to it, you preserve your historical content. You don't just "remove" it, without some reason for doing so.
Perhaps copyright issues, or something else associated with costs. But usually it is not just to "clean it up", as more content is usually what makes sites valuable for people to visit.
The question is why they removed the earlier content links. And good that you did the research to look for all articles in that category, but pardon me for not having the time to do that kind of drilling down on that site. Now, removing that content/ those links could be for some other reason that neither of us know of, but I also wonder if there were other articles also questioning Hillary Clinton's feelings about POC like that article did from that time period, that perhaps they didn't want on the site now with the campaign now trying to steer people to Hillary Clinton instead of to Barack Obama from Hillary Clinton as likely was the case back in 2007-2008.
Now, if there was an interest in cleaning up a whole set of articles that reflected that mission then, and not just removing that class of articles selectively (where it would be noticed more like I did this article), perhaps just removing all article from that time now was more what they felt appropriate to mollify perhaps the content towards Hillary Clinton now. I don't KNOW that, but that could explain a massive deletion of articles/links from that time too. Usually web sites don't just remove links from their sites and content that they own access to that they've had for many years. It costs them almost nothing to keep those links in content, and it gains them interest from those who would read the site to provide them more of the same information they've provided over the years.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)"but I also wonder if there were other articles also questioning Hillary Clinton's feelings about POC like that article did from that time period, that perhaps they didn't want on the site now with the campaign now trying to steer people to Hillary Clinton instead of to Barack Obama from Hillary Clinton as likely was the case back in 2007-2008."
What "time period" are you fucking talking about?
You can't access any article on the site that is more than three months old.
Barack Obama was inaugurated in January 2009.
I sincerely fucking doubt that after Obama was sworn in as president, that the site would have had ANY articles about the relative merits of Clinton v. Obama in the 2008 primary.
Your, frankly, INSANE bullshit position that this is some kind of "coverup", and the contortions you are willing to go through in order to preserve some nugget of your bullshit, is sincerely breathtaking.
It is quite clear, from the screenshots.com archive, that the site has been re-designed in the last few months, and it is quite clear that you can't search more than a few months back:
---
http://www.blackvoicenews.com/?s=obama
U.S.-China Summit, Obama Can Make History
September 6, 2015
Massive Protests Sweep NYC Condemning No-Indictment Decision over Eric Garner Death
July 19, 2015
Nigerian Americans Grapple with Tragedies in Homeland, Question Lack of U.S. Intervention
July 6, 2015
-----
But, let me understand you correctly. BlackVoiceNews.com has been such a fount of articles that are negative to Hillary, that in order to start "promoting" Hillary, they decided that they would take some eight years of ALL of their content offline, in order to be safe?
Is that what you are seriously proposing?
And you can't see what a facially stupid proposition that is?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)I'm not claiming to KNOW what has happened to their content, but reading another post on their site that I linked to here, it looks like is more likely a case of their deployment of a site upgrade being incomplete and taking longer than what other sites might do (I'm a web developer who gets tasked with such things) to deploy things like archived content than it has in it. I'm sure there could be many technical reasons for that, but if that is the case and within a week or so, they have their archived content back and content seems to reflect what we used to have, then no issues.
I have and have had mostly just QUESTIONS on why this web site behavior happened, and it looks likely to be mostly an upgrade deployment issue that perhaps could have been managed a little better. Nothing against this site in particular. I would have said that with any other site where I got the same kind of caching behavior. That article I was trying to bring up certainly wasn't complimentary to Hillary, which was a copy of Robert Novak's article published elsewhere, and I really just didn't know what other content from that time period existed on that site. Some site messaging would have prevented any speculation from happening.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You accuse them of censorship in your first post.
You don't ask a question, you make an accusation.
But, then we come to the favorite of this line of backing away from stupid accusations:
"I have and have had mostly just QUESTIONS..."
Oh yes, the famous "just asking questions" position.
Bullshit. Accusing people of censorship, whitewashing, scrubbing, and so on, because of YOUR own incuriousness to lift a finger to answer your "questions" is not "just asking questions."
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Now, I see that they are in the middle of a site upgrade, and that might not have been the case. But if it were me managing their site upgrade, I would have had a more accessible explanation for missing content on their site, and most web sites I know of wouldn't have done it that way either. I don't want to beat them up too much on that, as I know also that many things can happen that might cause issues, like agreements with search engine companies or other partners governing implementation/deployment, etc.
It would be also a lie for you to say you know it is not censorship too! We still don't know definitely why this content is missing now, and hopefully will know when they hopefully finish an upgrade to their site restoring their older content then. I'm all for giving them the benefit of the doubt. But I'm not going to accuse you of lying, but that you speculate that it was not intentionally removed, and I will also not try to speculate right now that it was intentionally removed when it would appear that they are going to restore that content later.
Why don't we just back down and stop getting emotional about this. I apologize if my initial speculation was wrong and was harmful to some people. But I also feel that as a web surfer, I'd like to feel more comfortable seeing anomalies like that, that I'm afforded a good explanation for that, to avoid feeling like there's more efforts to distort the messaging that has already been distorted and manipulated way too much.
I lifted more of a finger to find a more definitive answer to the question here that I posted here, that so far you have not but are beating me up for.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)And pictures from the moon landings "LOOK" faked if you don't know much about light, film, cameras or physics.
Do you know the moon landings weren't fake? Were you there on the moon watching?
Were physically present when Obama was born? You have no way of saying you "know" he was born in Hawaii. It could all be an elaborate ruse!
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)I've defended Obama many times here too on that topic. Personally I think if you look at historical records there's less documentation that John McCain was born in a military hospital in the Panama Canal Zone, than there was that Obama, who clearly has a birth certificate in Hawaii. But in both cases, there are far more important issues to be worried about.
Why I should be pursuing these kinds of conspiracy things you accuse me of wanting to do shows you don't know when to stop.
I'm concerned about content I look at that affects this election because I CARE about who runs this country and whether we can rescue the 99% from the clutches of the 1%. When there are incidents of people accusing me of being a "white supremacist" or other similar events in this campaign season, I will have a suspicious eye on many anomalies I find, especially when many things about them don't add up. Why can't you just acknowledge that this incident looked suspicious, and I also accept your criticism that we can't jump to a conclusion that there was censorship involved too given the circumstances. And ultimately when I believe they get their web site fully updated, we can hopefully have a great resource available for us that confirms they aren't censoring anything, which I don't think likely happened either.
I'm going to leave it at that. If you can't accept that, then I can only conclude that you just want to fight someone online, and I'm not in to that.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)
ornotna
(11,575 posts)But this was from Robert Novak, probably not worth the pixels used to create it.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Clinton was a "Goldwater Girl." Their function was to look pretty, perky and all-American. Her activities on behalf of Goldwater are dismissed as youthful hijinks, something fun to do, an adventure undertaken before she developed her real political sensibilities. We don't know otherwise, and I'm sure opposition research would have revealed anything she said or did that left behind any kind of artifact. So we'll never know if she genuinely supported Goldwater and his hard right views, or if she was just doing it as a lark.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and what steered her to Goldwater, etc. Like I noted in another post in this thread, Thom Hartmann, noted liberal talk show host, and one who talks with Bernie Sanders weekly for the last decade, has come out and publicly acknowledged how his father took him on campaign trips for Goldwater when he was young, and how he was more predisposed to what his father was talking about then. He talks about his interaction with his Republican father since then, and you could get a real feeling how both of them were human beings, and what governed their thought processes then.
Someone like Hillary Clinton, who wants to be our leader, at a time where many of our voting public especially feels the need for an honest politician to lead them, when they've felt that they've been shortchanged on the truth and on anyone that really tries to support them at all for so long now, should really find a way to be more open about her younger life and how it affects her now.
I think many of us would accept that people change over time, and that at different points in their lives have different priorities that govern their choices. But the only consistency I see is that Hillary continues to try and avoid talking about her feelings and beliefs then, just as she avoids doing so now. That seems like a personality trait that she has had all of her life, and is one that doesn't engender trust with so many of us that feel that is necessary now, which is a big reason why we support Bernie so much today.
So pardon us when we look a lot from many different sources over her history to try and get a clue what she really thinks and feels about what she would want to do as our leader if we were to elect her. Whether it is she or others as a part of her extended campaign that looks to avoid talking about things, it makes us more frustrated when things seem to be covered up.
There are many young people that are already screwed by heavy college debt (or forthcoming college debt) or a heavily outsourced and underpaid job market, that feel a bit insulted that she "didn't know what she was doing" when she was in high school, when many of them tuning 18 may feel that their level of intelligence and awareness of our societal problems is being casually dismissed by the notion that she shouldn't be judged for what she was doing when she was their age at a time of similar societal upheaval. I didn't ignore the political ramifications of the Woodstock and Vietnam War generation when I was still in high school at the time.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)I've had discussions with journalists in recent conferences on the policies of trying to enforce a paywall too for past articles, as I worked at a web site that hosted shared news content for a lot of newspapers back in 2000 too. Even news sites like the NY Times have a hard time getting subscribers to such content. Web sites with a lot less traditional paid article content have a lot less draw for that sort of thing.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The original two-article attack blog whence the piece came is still available.
It is obvious that one cannot find news of the Obama 2009 inauguration, or anything else previously posted to the blackvoicenews.com site. Making cached links stale is a common effect of site re-designs. Nobody said this site did it to implement a paywall. That may be one reason why people do that, but you are too lazy to contact the site operators and ask, when it is sooo much easier to accuse them of being part of some Hillary "censorship" conspiracy.
Oh, Oh, I know... they re-designed the site, and made years of cache links to old articles stale, just to hide this one attack piece you dredged up from 2008 unavailable to you, personally.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)That is a reasonable speculation, but as I noted, I don't think most people are going to pay for access to older article content from this site.
As I noted before, I was trying to access one article and it seemed suspicious to me to have been removed less than a month ago, when the article itself was 7 years old. Now, as I also note, it might not just have been this article (which I noticed), but other articles too. I don't have time to drill down on this. I'm not a paid journalist to have time to investigate this. I have many other things to do with my life at the moment.
But it would be interesting to hear others' thoughts why a whole history of older articles was removed from this site. If we could find a more definitive reason why they were removed, I'll accept that and move on. But it doesn't really add up to me, for a web site that wants to stay around to arbitrarily remove a big part of its site that would attract viewers that usually doesn't cost relatively more in terms of the site's operations to keep online. Given the switch of what many try to depict as a POC's opinion of supporting Hillary Clinton this election that might not match up with articles on the site in earlier times, when most of them supported Barack Obama in 2008 instead of Clinton then. In that context, it would be good for us to hear another good explanation why content like this is removed, or there will be those of us who will still speculate on perhaps efforts to try and redefine history (or at least "adjusting access" to it). I'd like to think that there's a good explanation for this, and hopefully there is one, but I'm also not just going to ignore this as well without a good explanation either.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)"a whole history of older articles was removed from this site"
Yeah, including the entire fucking presidency of Barack Obama thus far.
They've "censored" the entire first and second fucking terms of the first black president at BlackVoiceNews.com, in order to make sure that nothing negative shows up about his first term Secretary of State.
But, let's step back and take a larger look at what you are accusing the operators of BlackVoiceNews.com of doing.
Unless shown otherwise, you are going to continue to take the position that BlackVoiceNews.com has no editorial integrity, and can be bought off to do anything. At the same time, you want to use an editorial from their site - and an editorial about a factually-inaccurate RW hitjob piece - to prove a point of some kind?
Yeah - a site called BlackVoiceNews.com tossed out most of a decade's worth of articles, in order to avoid someone finding something negative about a white politician. Go with that.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Why don't YOU call them up if you're so "f'ing upset" about these statements and YOU find out why they took away all of this content from the AA community? Huh? I keep asking WHY, but you don't want to answer that question, but continue to try and just to make me out to be some kind of bastard.
WHY would they remove this content that you discovered they removed, not I. If it is so easy to get in contact with them, and that idea already occurred to you, why don't you put all of this to rest and get the real explanation on why all of this content is gone.
Now, if they were not able to stay in business and the web site shut down, then that would seem to be a good explanation. But they are still up, and still providing content. Instead of YOUR IGNORANT, FEAR-MONGERING LUNACY CONSPIRACY THEORY about how I think, why don't YOU try to get the truth that you claim is so easy and not time consuming to do.
Content was removed. That is a FACT, not a conspiracy theory. I strongly believe that it wasn't done for cost reasons and have provided reasons why I don't believe that to be so. Edumacate me why I'm wrong with that assumption. Other than that, I don't see any real reason why they should remove this content. If you don't want conspiracy theories to continue with me or many others here, then why don't you research or even offer your own speculation on what explains why this content is gone.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Because YOU are the one impugning their character and making accusations against them.
No, when you re-launch a re-designed website, you don't "remove" content. It's just not there. Figuring some way to accommodate years of data, instead of just going with the new system, is what takes work.
"why don't you research or even offer your own speculation on what explains why this content is gone."
Bullshit-layered bullshit there, my friend.
It is entirely possible - and initially the case here - to determine that an explanation is bullshit, without actually having another explanation.
For example, you say "The sky is blue because it is a large blue-painted canvas roof."
I say, "That's bullshit, there is no canvas roof in the sky. Spacecraft have traveled through the sky to space."
And you come back with "But you have no explanation of why the sky is blue."
I DON'T NEED an explanation to point out obvious bullshit in yours.
YOU made an accusation against people you don't know.
It's as obvious as the nose on your face that they redesigned and re-launched the site recently. That's why the content is gone.
You were accusing them of hiding this article. I pointed out that since all of their historical content is gone, then (a) it is highly unlikely that was done in order to hide this article, and (b) it is highly unlikely to orphan all of that content for the purpose of hiding that one article.
As a secondary point, if you are trying to make the point that they do things at that site because they are craven shills in the pocket of whomever is buying them off, then attempting to use an article from there to make some kind of point at the same time MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE.
You have accused people you do not know as being some sort of paid off shills, "scrubbing" the internet of content for some political purpose. YOU have the burden of proof, and you have failed miserably.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)You make it sound like you know how a website is upgraded. Do you work in that business? I DO! Content is king. That is why people have web sites. If you lose your content, especially a news site like this one that is one of the longest running news sites for the news they provide. That IS their value!
Sorry, but as a first time visitor to a page on their site it WAS NOT OBVIOUS THAT THEY RELAUNCHED THEIR SITE, as I'd not seen it before. Maybe YOU have seen it, but I hadn't. Your original point that I was seeing you make was that 2008 content was missing, not all of the rest of their historical content.
Now YOU are lying. I never said anyone paid them off and it was another poster that said others were "scrubbing" the internet, not me. The article I posted there was one I found through googling, not a link on their site, but that gives more of an indication than other content visible on their site that the upgrade might still be in progress. I was trying to do that as a GESTURE to you, not trying to continue the flame bait cuss fest that you seem to be obsessively enjoying now that I'm trying to defuse.
I'll admit that I probably was overly suspicious to begin with, largely based on other crap that's been happening with this campaign season. Why don't you also admit that you are the one that's escalating this conversation into something ugly.
I've basically said:
1) Initially without a lot of knowledge what was going on, that the missing article seemed suspiciously like censorship. I will apologize for characterizing that as censorship, when I don't KNOW that to be the case, but am still waiting to see content that I originally tried to find. It looked like initially possibly like censorship, but more information looks for this to be due to missing content on the site for a site upgrade that may or may not be complete, which still isn't clear yet, and what will be there when it is.
2) That I see that the site had been upgraded from a message by you, from their about page, that implied it was already completed. I found another page through googling that this upgrade is in progress sometime this month of September, which to me says that it hasn't been completed yet. THAT was the FUCKING SENSE (to use your vernacular) I was trying to make for you, in an effort to clarify your points more.
3) I said that most web sites like theirs don't arbitrarily remove all content as a permanent state the site should be in, without just shutting the web site down. I stand by that.
4) I say that most sites try to make sure that their content is available before moving to a site upgrade. Issues happen and that doesn't always happen. When this happens though, most sites offer an explanation of what is happening, and when to expect what people come to the site for it will have that content restored. That not being there isn't an indication of anything being "wrong" the way they run the site, just that it leaves questions for those visiting the site, that you perhaps don't want to leave web site visitors with. I stand by that.
5) I say that we still don't know ultimately if some or all of the content not available now will be restored to the newer site. No explanation yet on the site of what will come back yet. But if you can find it great!
6) I wasn't looking to specifically criticize or go after this site. I was coming to find an article with content that this article appeared to have had, that was missing. If I see that content restored later, I'll happily return to it in the future for more information.
Now, is there something else I should say to stop this flood of flame between us? I don't come to DU to participate in those kind of discussions. I have said that the people at this site look like real decent people. What more do you want? I'm not going to do a Cameron act for you.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)"Initially without a lot of knowledge what was going on, that the missing article seemed suspiciously like censorship"
No, you made it really clear that Hillary's evil minions were at work - it is the point of your subject line, and your further commentary.
"I will apologize for characterizing that as censorship, when I don't KNOW that to be the case"
DU has an "edit" feature for posts. Likewise, DU has a "delete post" feature, in the event one is mistaken and withdraws a post, or wants to revise one's remarks more thoroughly.
You have availed yourself of neither of these editorial features. Your accusation stands.
"It looked like initially possibly like censorship"
Bullshit. You said it was censorship. The essence of your OP is that Hillary is scrubbing the internet, and the people who run that site are complicit.
"I was coming to find an article with content that this article appeared to have had, that was missing."
Which content I found in seconds of Googling, as originally posted by the original author on the original blog where it was published and still is.
So, you couldn't seem to find that blog, despite your being crestfallen at not seeing the re-post of it at a site that was recently redesigned, and despite it taking a few seconds to do so.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)The only thing you make clear in your posts is that you want to rag on me. You are NOT clear what you want me to do.
I said it LOOKED like censorship. And I stand by that. Just because someone else has it available doesn't mean there isn't censorship involved. If one article with certain content is removed, perhaps others are too, that might not be available elsewhere. I don't believe in editing what I said because I'm not in to revising history of what I said, unless it is an obvious typo, etc. Now, in the course of this thread I HAVE SAID AGAIN AND AGAIN THAT THIS PROBLEM LOOKS LIKE THE SIDE EFFECT OF A SITE UPGRADE.
This content still isn't available, and I'll wait until I see it there, before I have a solid opinion on what happened. But I see no reason not to believe that it wasn't an issue with the site upgrade. The content upgrade is just not what I normally see in a web site upgrade, and though I don't think that was intentional, it contributed to my initial concerns of a possible effort in censorship. What more do you want me to say?
I've had issues before with search engines or site aggregators. Even someone like google as I noted many years ago, when their google alert mail and web site search behavior seemed suspicious at the time and still to this date seems suspicious. I don't take back my posting of that post for others to see and comment on, even if someone had a reasonable explanation of what happened then.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x39220
I have nothing against that web site. I'm only concerned when I see what looks like it might be removing of content/search engine hits, etc. of information that are important to us at the time. I'm always open to good explanations. But I'm not open to continued mean spirited attacks. This is my last reply.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Is it too hard for you to actually look into ANYTHING before posting crap?
http://www.blackvoicenews.com/about-us/
Established in 1999 by Brown Publishing Company [now BPC Media] blackvoicenews.com is the oldest African-American online news publication on the west coast.
Originally launched as the online version of the California-based advocacy newspaper Black Voice News, the redesigned website was unveiled in 2015 as a platform for creative and concise content that informs + inspires.
----
Missed that, didja?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)I did a little more browsing and found another link that makes it sound like perhaps the site update isn't done yet, even though it was implied in the link you just posted.
http://www.blackvoicenews.com/2015/09/10/now-starring-black-voice-news-2-0/
As the oldest online African-American news website, first launched in 1999, blackvoicenews.com has filled a niche by providing credible content in a world where opinion blogs, websites, and social media posts often misinform many in search of information about and for the Black community. So this month we are re-launching Black Voice News online with original content daily, unique commentaries, and original features in a variety of diverse media formats designed to continue building on the decades of service provided to Southern California and now the rest of the world.
Given that this page was just posted on September 10th, perhaps they've not completed their site upgrade to include their archived content yet. If so, and older data comes back shortly, then no issues any more to speculate on. It's too bad that they weren't able to get the archived content available when they relaunched their site, but not knowing their situation, I'm not going to speculate further on their rationale for the way they are doing things, though perhaps a more lengthy message here or on their twitter feed would help remove any further speculation. Hopefully they can also have a good redirect strategy in their web servers, so that older search engine hits will be directed to the newer location on their site where archived content lives. As a web developer myself, I might have deployed things differently, to make sure I keep my online audience coming to the site, but looking at the site they look like a real decent group of people, so my best of wishes to them in getting their site upgrade completed.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)That statement is not speculation. It is a positive statement that there was an "act of censorship".
Your "speculation" is entirely dedicated to motives for why they engaged in "censorship", "whitewashing", "purging" etc..
Your completely unfounded accusation is stated as fact.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I checked out that site by searching for "obama".
Here's all you get:
http://www.blackvoicenews.com/?s=obama
U.S.-China Summit, Obama Can Make History
September 6, 2015
Massive Protests Sweep NYC Condemning No-Indictment Decision over Eric Garner Death
July 19, 2015
Nigerian Americans Grapple with Tragedies in Homeland, Question Lack of U.S. Intervention
July 6, 2015
Clearly, by only allowing access to the last couple of month's worth of articles, they are trying to cover up the fact that Obama was elected in 2008 and has been president ever since.
you've been great on this thread!