Google News Now Updates to Democratic Underground website as 'news'.

Google News Search ^ | 6 May 2005 | gobucks

[Salvation]

Thanks for that note:

http://www.alexa.com/

[tang-soo]

All the news that's fit to search.

[chudogg]

To be fair, im gonna have to disagree. Democratic Underground does host their own material, while Free Republic doesn't. I always thought that Free Republic should sponsor their own editorials, maybe even make it a competition of some sorts.

[dufekin]

The press doesn't distinguish between news and editorial either. Most newspapers maintain two quasi-independent staffs, one to write the editorial page and another to echo those opinions in the remainder of the paper (okay, and a third to place advertisements throughout the paper and deal with subscriptions, salaries, and such).

I would suggest that Google add a "section" for overt editorials and perspectives; however, there's little difference between opinion and news anymore.

Oh, yeah. If you go to Democratic Underground's web page (do it!), you will note that they have some "news" content, unlike Free Republic, which is merely a discussion board. For example, they have "the top ten conservative idiots of the week" and various other features where you can "learn" that all Republicans are evil; that John F. Kerry will win the 2004 election (although it's already 2005 and he lost the "deeply controversial" contest by "stealing" millions of votes); that we'd all be "better" living in Zimbabwe; and that those "evil conservatives" control even The New York Times.

Granted, you would have to laugh at all of these ravings of "news" if they weren't so uniformly mean-spirited and if millions of Americans didn't actually believe them. Nevertheless, perhaps because of their outright insanity, the staff of Democratic Underground produced only 36 "news stories" in the past 31 days.

Here at Free Republic, we "outsource" our "news" operations to http://www.townhall.com -- which Google News actually uses, and which produced 480 news items in the same period.

[chudogg]

Townhall is affiliated with Free Republic? I always thought them to be somewhat libertarian?

[chudogg]

Did you google in the regular search engine or their News search engine? I googled "Free Republic" into the News search engine and didnt even get any hits.

[dufekin]

Not formally. But you can get, for example, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and any of several dozen other columnists there. Oh, yeah, and dare I forget--Rush Limbaugh is on Google News, too. With these two sources, what need have we of employing independent commentators?

[Dimensio]

Ah, I've not heard the dishonest "Darwin advocated eugenics" creationst lie in awhile. Gore3k was the one who really championed that cause, and he pushed that particular quote also.

Note that Darwin doesn't actually propose a "solution". He just posits what he sees as a potential consequence. In fact, you'll find that if you look further in his writings (which you won't, because you want to retain your excuse for demonizing the man), you'll find that he actually considers solutions like witholding medical care for the "weak" to be evil.

Many creationists use this line to claim that Darwin is promoting genocide. Either they're too stupid or too dishonest to notice that Darwin does not, in any part of that passage, propose a plan of action. He merely lays out what he observes in society and what he sees as the consequence. But logic-devoid creationists can't avoid the fallacy of arguing from the consequences, so they have to attack Darwin based upon his perceptions, even though he's not actually pushing an agenda with them.

PS: I'll give you a hint, Christians are also aware of history of the past century, and of the many "isms" that arose to murder, maims, and enslave billions. They know that while most scientists just want to do science, it is the "Lysenkoist politician types" that will take basically neutral, non tautologous scientific conclusions and twist them in support of vile and insane policies that would destroy the basic freedoms of men.

Thereofore what? We should oppose teaching valid science because some idiots might misuse it and attempt to use it to justify an abhorrent social agenda? I'm sorry, but I'm not so stupid as to think that a logical chain of reasoning.

And I do hope that illogical conclusion is the one that your pushing, because the alternative is that you're accusing a number on the evolution side here of secretly harboring some genocidal agenda, and that would just be paranoid and stupid.

[Dimensio]

From a genetic view, he's correct, isn't he? (disclaimer: i got a c in high school biology!)

An argument can be made that our preservation of all genetic lines through advanced technology has "weakened" the species as a whole on some level.

It is, however, extremely dishonest to claim that Darwin was advocating eugenics. Yes, Darwin made comments that our preserving the "weaker" of our society might be injurious to the species, however he also said that things like witholding the care that preserves said weaker members would itself be "evil". Darwin was laying out what he saw as a consequence of increasing the survival rate of a species through technology; he did not propose any "solution" to this perceived "problem" and only the ignorant or the dishonest attack Darwin on this matter because they can't actually argue against valid science, so they go with appeal to the consequences and a strawman.

[Dimensio]

Look Warty, I quoted Darwin exactly - he said "Inferior Races"

No, no he didn't. The word 'inferior' does not appear anywhere within the text that you quoted from Darwin. I was wondering how you'd derived such an incorrect conclusion about Darwin's meaning, and now I understand: you didn't even read what he wrote. You probably just copied it verbatim out of some creationist website and didn't bother to analyze anything but the website's dishonest conclusions.

Really, you creationists wouldn't look nearly so bad if you didn't lie so blatantly.

[hosepipe]

Surely you jest...
But then LA Slimes and NY Slimes is almost as bad..
DU'ers read them almost as holy writ..

[paul51]

Do you ever read the any of the posts at DU? The more exposure they get at DU, the better for our cause. Kind of like shining a light on.....well, nevermind.

[bikepacker67]

What do you mean by that?

I'm simply providing quotes from Darwin himself - which is why I find the left embracing him ironic (not really, they're full blown racists - as seen by Affirmative Action)

[bikepacker67]

Here ya go JACK:

'At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes. . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla. ... It has often been said ... that man can resist with impunity the greatest diversities of climate and other changes; but this is true only of the civilized races. Man in his wild condition seems to be in this respect almost as susceptible as his nearest allies, the anthropoid apes, which have never yet survived long, when removed from their native country.'

There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Both of these quotes are from Chucky Darwin.

So who's the liar now, eh slick?

[Dimensio]

Both of these quotes are from Chucky Darwin.

Wrong. The second quote comes from Abraham Lincoln.

I can't even find a source that attributes the quote to Darwin; I can't imagine how you got the idea that I'd fall for that.

So who's the liar now, eh slick?

That would be you, apparently.

[Dimensio]

I'm simply providing quotes from Darwin himself

And either a) lying about the meaning (or perhaps simply not knowing the meaning because you didn't even read the quote that you copied and pasted) or b) providing a quote from someone else and dishonestly attributing it to Darwin.

[bikepacker67]

Or...

Maybe you're just a dyed-in-the-wool Darwinist who refuses to admit that your hero had racist tendencies.

[Dimensio]

Maybe you're just a dyed-in-the-wool Darwinist who refuses to admit that your hero had racist tendencies.

So did just about everyone in Darwin's social position, including those who rejected his theory. It has no bearing on the validity of the theory. You are not going to disprove evolution by showing that Darwin had racist beliefs, and you're certainly not going to disprove evolution by dishonestly attributing quotes from other people to Darwin.

Admit your mistake and move on. Stubbornly insisting that you're right even when I've outright demonstrated that you presented a falsehood only makes you look dishonest and stupid.

[bikepacker67]

You really ought to read "The Voyage of the Beagle" where Chucky describes the natives of Tiera del Fuego thusly:

"I could not have believed how wide was the difference between savage and civilized man: it is greater than between a wild and domesticated animal,"

Are you STILL going to stupidly argue that Darwin didn't believe that the Caucasoid was superior to Negroid?

[Psycho_Bunny]

Being a "Beta" immediately implies that it's not crawling the internet as much as it will in the future.

I'll reserve judgment until it's actually working.