Is anyone else implementing a "zero tolerance" policy for NewsMax and the like?

[ButterflyBlood]

I am. It's pretty simple, post any article from NewsMax or any other similar right wing shithole site even once, you're ignored. Period, no exceptions. I wish DU would actually start enforcing its ban on such articles implemented during the 2004 campaign including possibly an automatic tombstone to anyone, but if it won't we'll have to do things ourselves.

So post here if you agree with me. Post any links to right wing garbage sites even once, you are ignored forever. The end.

[Hepburn]

1. Depends on how the reference to the RW lying POS is done.

If it is posted to debunk and prove that it is what it is, to wit, a lying POS RW rag, then I have no problem. If shit like this is used to attack a Dem or progressive, then IMO the poster using this should be tombstoned.

JMHO

[ButterflyBlood]

2. The latter is how it's being used here lately

There have been several postings of NewsMax articles claiming Obama was seen personally attending one of Wright's more controversial sermons with the posters citing this as a legitimate source.

[sorrybushisfromtexas]

4. Ignore

I already have done four, in a way it is quite refreshing. I am pro Obama if he wins and pro Hillary if she wins.
I thought that was what being a Democrat was about.

[Hepburn]

6. Like I said....

...if RW smear-shit is being posted as THE truth and to harm a Dem or progressive, then IMO the person doing so does NOT belong on the DU.

If someone uses the site to evidence the slime and lies of the RW, that is one thing...but to use it against ANY Dem or progression...no way. As much as I hate Hillary Clinton, I would NEVER stoop so low as to use RW bullshit against her. All Dems and progressives should have enough self-pride and morals to stay the hell away from lying bullshit like that.

JMHO

[Horse with no Name]

12. I've seen obamites drag it here as well

as well as other "questionable" sources to prove whatever the fuck they needed to prove at whatever given time.

There needs to be a moratorium on this crap.
From both sides because NEITHER side is exempt from this.

Just curious...do you ignore the supporters of your candidate when they do this or just Hillary's supporters?

[sorrybushisfromtexas]

15. first of all I am a Democrat who is for Obama

I am not an Obamite. I think Hillary would be a good choice for our candidate if Barack does not win.

I am against all slimeing.

[Metric System]

3. I wish Obama supporters held such strong convictions when articles by Peggy Noonan, Andrew Sullivan,

Robert Novak, and a bunch of other RW crap were being posted here. How did the Obama supporters deflect criticism for posting that RW crap? Oh yeah, they argued that even a broken clock can be right twice a day.

[Hepburn]

8. I agree....

...anyone posting smear-shit from a RW POS source...they need to be tombstoned.

Dems need to understand that the RW is NOT our friend and NEVER will be our friend. They wish to have us at each other's throats so the USA can say, "Hello, Prez John McCain."

IMO...tombstone if the article/source is being used as an attack. It is plain wrong. A discussion of the RW BS to debunk is one thing...to use it to cause harm? Fuck that shit.

JMHO

[emilyg]

14. Yep.

I for one like all news sources.

[cali]

5. I've always had a zero policy tolerance toward right wing links

to bolster my argument. I've never done it. I won't ever do it.

[anigbrowl]

7. If Newsmax is the source, I agree, but...

I see no reason not to quote them, Worldnutdaily, and whoever else if you are making a point about how the media treats a particular issue. Of course by 'making a point' I mean a real point rather than a troll pretending to be a point. For example, it might be ligitimate to cite some RW source in order to constrast it with mainstream coverage or suchlike. I take a quick look around 8 or 10 right-wing news sites and blogs every couple of days, just to keep abreast of where their heads are at.

But that's very different from using them as a legitimate source or as an excuse to post garbage.

[Beregond2]

9. Ban?

I think "automatic" is a bit harsh. I, for example, didn't even know Newsmax was a right-wing outlet until the past few days. I might easily have posted a link to some innocuous article from them.

[DJ13]

10. I will never support zero tolerance of any kind

If we dont understand what our enemies are thinking we'll never be able to beat them.

I dont get upset with posts from right wing sources, I read them when posted here then Im free to ridicule the poster who believed their propoganda enough to link it.

But read it I do.

That way I dont remain blinded to the silly notions the Republicans put out, notions that DO influence the less politically savvy whether we want to admit it or not.

Censorship blinds us as a party, and we've been blindsided before by those same right wing sources, as in 2000 and 2004.

[snooper2]

11. even the freeptards at FreeRepublic

say crap about Newsmax...it's the National Enquirer of Conservatives...

And then fuckers post that shit at DU...

Yep, ignore them all...

[tabasco]

13. I've decided not to ignore anyone.

It will be fun to see all the sockpuppets and trolls wail and disappear when Obama gets nominated.

It is interesting how Newsmax, Wall Street Journal, and National Review have become favorite sources for the Hillary supporters.

[Blue-Jay]

16. I don't ignore them.

I just mentally throw them in the "troll file".

[ButterflyBlood]

18. I used to do that

But it's become too difficult to keep track of them all.

[endarkenment]

17. I alert the pos. If I put them on ignore they continue to post un-molested.

[Scurrilous]

19. K & R

:thumbsup: