Slashdot Mirror

Unfortunately, I think you have this backwards.

http://newmediajournal.us/indx...

But at the same time I'm sure Wal-Mart has to have more than 50 full-time employees nation wide. So they have to offer insurance. The part I'm not sure about is if they only have to offer insurance to the full-time employees or not. If they don't have to offer part-time employees insurance they will just push them off to the state ACA exchanges which is fine since that is what they are for & said employees will still have medical coverage, even on their poverty wages.

I still will only be shopping there as a last resort however.

A Greenwich Village couple, affiliated with the Occupy Wall Street movement, was arrested yesterday for allegedly having a cache of weapons and bomb making materials in their apartment. A detective discovered a plastic container with seven grams of a white chemical powder called HMTD, which is so powerful, cops evacuated several nearby buildings. http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/7929

No, they don't. Both cover a range of article and don't attempt to link each article they post back to a single issue.

Move the goalposts much? First, you said this was about opinion. Then you said it was about a single point of view. NOW you say it is about single "issue." Are you done changing your mind about what this is about?

And it's not true anyway: New Media Journal has tons of articles that have nothing to do with Muslims, despite your assertion. You obviously know almost nothing about the web site, and have never really looked at its home page.

They also at least make some sort of attempt at non-bias.

That is absolutely false. The Nation and National Review are self-described journals of opinion that are biased toward specific ideologies.

I asked for a statement from google, not an email allegedly from google printed on a kook site.

Ah, so WND is not to be trusted when they quote an actual email -- you contend therefore that they are intentionally deceiving the public -- and I should take your word for this, which has already been proven to be unreliable, since you know next-to-nothing about New Media Journal, The Nation, or National Review, and make false assertions about each?

WND may not be reliable, but they don't intentionally make things up, either. And surely if a very popular site like WND had made this up, especially since it was posted on Slashdot, Google would have responded, denying it. And this isn't the first time this has come up; it's long been known that Google censors "hate speech" on their News site.

So go ahead and pretend this is about the "fact" that every article on the site is about how Muslims are bad, ignoring the actual fact that they were banned for what Google calls "hate speech," so you can feel better about supporting the decision to censor.

Well the editor, Frank Salvato, seems to be a content thief. The flying pig logo he uses on his "The Fifth Column", looks awful familiar to me.

But maybe Salvato is just a dupe and got the graphic from the talentless - Propagandizing PhotoHacktress - thieving - disrespecter of a Navy Corpsman, Linda Eddy, who has No Shame, and is listed as a contributor on the site.

(yeah, it's personsal, i was a lotterywinner_and_conscriptDoc)

Well the editor, Frank Salvato, seems to be a content thief. The flying pig logo he uses on his "The Fifth Column", looks awful familiar to me.

But maybe Salvato is just a dupe and got the graphic from the talentless - Propagandizing PhotoHacktress - thieving - disrespecter of a Navy Corpsman, Linda Eddy, who has No Shame, and is listed as a contributor on the site.

(yeah, it's personsal, i was a lotterywinner_and_conscriptDoc)

Before you call him a Racist nazzi, you may want to know Amil Imani, author of what is probably the most brutal of the above mentioned articles is also Iranian born.

+1 (after reading parts of http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/peck/05102006. htm). Clearly hate speech to me.

Not a Freedom of Speech issue.

I may not agree with your politics, but you are correct. This is not a freedom of speech issue. Much like the left whines about freedom of speech anytime something doesn't go their way, the right has the same type of people.

The proper conservative response is to inform people, and use a different search engine. Google's bias is clear, they've donated hand over foot to democratic candidates and submit to the whims of communist China. In the end, it's obvious their employees lean twards socalist viewpoints. That is fine, just use another search engine.

1) They're still saying it.

yep.

2) Google search engine is still linking to them.

Yep, just not through the 'news' section.

3) They've been kicked from a news site because they're not news sites, but hate sites.

Well, the front page of their website looks like a news website to me. Are they biased? Sure. So is the New York Times. The articles Google complained about were opinion articles.

So Google won't link to the newmediajournal.us as a news website, but they will link to socialist worker.org?

He did not spare anyone; even 9 year old girls were not immune to his sexual wrath. Worshiping a sex-maniac and a child molester? I think NOT.

Is it really tacky of me to smile at the nightly scenes on TV showing Arab, Afghani and Pakistani Muslims bombing mosques and killing their Muslim brothers, sisters and children at a brisk pace because that's all they know how to do?