Showing posts with label Moderator hate speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Moderator hate speech. Show all posts

Saturday, April 21, 2012

HuffPost violates own rules to enable another smear-fest against Andrew Breitbart

.
"The good thing is that he is just gone. Pretty warm were he's at."
--- A sampling of the user and Moderator comments submitted in response to Andrew Breitbart's cause-of-death report, that HuffPost reviewed, approved and decided to publish (even though it's an egregious violation of its policy against celebrating anyone's illness or death).
"We have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to abusive or hateful language or comments... [W]e decided that it was worth the substantial effort and expense to have human pre-moderation on both blogs and news."
--- Arianna Huffington



On Friday, April 20, HuffPost published this story about the coroner's report on the cause of Andrew Breitbart's death on March 1, at age 43:
Excerpt:
The Los Angeles County coroner's office has ruled that conservative blogger and commentator Andrew Breitbart died of heart failure stemming from coronary disease.
As shown in the above screencap, HuffPost announced up front that not a single user comment would appear on the Breitbart thread until and unless it had been reviewed and approved by one of its Moderators:
"Our moderators screen these comments before they are published"

For as Arianna Huffington publicly said over the past few years:
"We have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to abusive or hateful language or comments... [W]e decided that it was worth the substantial effort and expense to have human pre-moderation on both blogs and news."

Given all this, there was zero chance that even one comment would appear on the Breitbart thread that violated HuffPost's polices, which dictate that it does not publish any comments that:
"...celebrate the death, illness... of any person... or (contains) hate speech... or ad hominem attacks of any kind... or speech that is vile... [...]..."

So what kinds of comments do you think HuffPost allowed to appear on the thread devoted to Andrew, one of HuffPost's co-creators? Let's take a look.




HuffPost reviewed, approved and decided to publish one hate-filled, libelous, rule-violating comment against Andrew Breitbart after another

The following are just some examples of what we clipped from the 58 comments that HuffPost had chosen to publish at that time:


Note how many of these users have more than 100 "fans," meaning that HuffPost has been enabling them for a very, very long time (see special report here on how HuffPost enables, protects and emboldens the most egregious violators of its comment policy --- invariably radical leftists). 

Let's start with one of HuffPost's Moderators:
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Darwinita

1246 Fans
Of course it was heart failure. Anyone reading his work knew THAT was coming.

Permalink



Mindy Czech
735 Fans
How can someone without a heart die of heart failure? I find this so surprising.

Permalink


th35
4 Fans
The good thing is that he is just gone.
Pretty warm were he's at.

Permalink
  

Northlite
56 Fans
Heart failure! Right wing Republican! Not a coincidence. Their hearts are cold.

Permalink

newworldman777
898 Fans
Like all Republicans, he lived his in excess, refusing to allow anyone to tell him how he should live and eat...even though what was advised to him about his unhealthy eating and lack of exercise was for his own good. Typical conservative mindset. Now, his family will have to go on without him in life.
Permalink

CharlottesvilleVA
48 Fans
Impossible. One must have a heart in order for it to fail. Sounds like a cover up to me.
Permalink

loganhunter
262 Fans
How is that possible when Conservatives have no hearts?
Permalink




Commentary: The long pattern of HuffPost's assaults on Andrew, and other conservatives who become ill or pass away

Rather than being an isolated incident, this is part of the consistent pattern of HuffPost --- under Arianna Huffington's exclusive leadership --- breaking its rules in order to engage in an effective "jihad" against Andrew. Ironically, only a few years earlier, Arianna relied on Andrew to play a major role in the development of HuffPost, for which he was from then on credited with being one of the site's "co-creators." 

March 2011: Van Jones, a HuffPost front-page blogger, began publicly calling Andrew a "racist."  Arianna said nothing in Andrew's defense, and tacitly affirmed Van Jones' libelous smear, by allowing him to maintain his blogging privileges at HuffPost. 

March 24, 2011: As we documented in this special report, HuffPost kicked Andrew off the front page blogger's row because it claimed he "violate(d) the tenets of debate and civil discourse" by calling Van Jones a "commie punk" in another publication, in reaction to his being falsely called a "racist."  Yet HuffPost continued to allow other front page bloggers who had perpetrated far more serious violations of its policies to remain active.  Example: Roseanne Barr, who several months earlier dressed up as Hitler eating burnt Jewish "people cookies" out of an oven. 

March 1, 2012: In violation of its own policies, HuffPost allowed the thread concerning Andrew's death to be overwhelmed with celebrations of his passing, and ad hominem attacks against him.  An example (from a user whom it has allowed to remain active):
LazyRepubs

The minute after Andrew Breitbart died the world became a better place.
Permalink

March 1, 2012 and beyond: Arianna did not post a single blog article or commentary about her thoughts on Andrew's passing, and his contribution to the development of HuffPost, working out of her home at the time.  She said nothing about the closeness of their relationship, to the point where she would leave her tween daughters entrusted to his care while she ran errands.  Proof here and below: 


Yet as shown here, when Arianna wants to make her voice known on any subject, she will plaster her face all over HuffPost. 

This was not an isolated incident in regards to HuffPost ignoring its own rules to facilitate an outpouring of hatred against a conservative who's ill or just passed.  Examples:
HuffPost approves leftist vultures to spit on Sec. Eagleburger --- on the day of his death

HuffPost approves Moderators, users to vilify, wish death upon ailing Billy Graham

VP Cheney hospitalized; HuffPost approves users to unleash death wishes

Users unleash hatred for, libels against Tony Snow --- on the day he died (HuffPost: "Approved!!!") 



ACTION ITEMS: Do HuffPost's advertisers know what it is using its ad revenue to facilitate?

We'd like to think not, but there's only one way to find out:
  • Contact HuffPost's advertisers --- especially those with whom you already do business.
    Let them know your thoughts on how HuffPost has been using the money they provide it to engage in this persistent pattern of facilitating hate speech against conservatives who are ill or on their death-beds.
  • Send this article to journalists, newspapers and TV networks that you trust --- whether on a local or national basis.
    Ask them to take a look at our documentation, and urge them to do some investigating. As you can see, throughout HUFF-WATCH is an encyclopedic cornucopia of physical evidence that backs up every aspect of every one of our allegations.


.

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

HuffPost smears Sarah Palin (again), enables hate, death wishes against her



“[T]oo many reporters have forgotten that the highest calling of journalists is to ferret out the truth, consequences be damned.”
- Arianna Huffington, July 29, 2008

“[W]e are increasingly seen ... as an Internet newspaper, not positioned ideologically in terms of how we cover the news.”
- Arianna Huffington, May 22, 2009


On May 29, 2011 (Memorial Day Sunday), HuffPost decided to launch yet another one of its assaults on Sarah Palin based on false, incendiary allegations.

This time, HuffPost's assault related to the circumstances under which Palin participated in the Rolling Thunder rally.


And as usual,
HuffPost disregarded its own rules, and instead chose to enable hatred, death wishes and gutter vulgarity to be posted against Palin and her family, in response to the incitement it provided. A sampling of the "comments" that HuffPost reviewed, approved and decided to publish, from its radical leftist Moderators and users:
"Maybe she will develop a yeast infection."

"I've never hoped for a fatal motorcycle crash until now."

"Normally, I am very much in favor of gun control. Sarah Palin is my exception to that. Unfortunat­ely, the crazies shoot the good guys."


"Who takes care of that down syndrome child of hers. It seems like more of a prop."
Above: As HuffPost's latest assault on Sarah Palin occurred over Memorial Day weekend, and in regards to the U.S. military, it's worth remembering: here she was in Kuwait in 2007, visiting with the U.S. military. Do you know why she's been welcomed at our military installations --- and why our soldiers would be 100% justified in keeping Arianna Huffington "outside the wire"? Read "Commentary" at the end of this article.



(1) HuffPost's primary smear: Its claim that Sarah Palin rode with the Rolling Thunder rally on the back of a motorcycle that had a sign on its windshield that asked, "Miss me?"

This was the splash headline that HuffPost published at 12:15pm on May 29, and left up for most of the rest of the day:


The headline led to this story, produced by HuffPost and its news "partner," the AP, which claimed:
"On the windshield of Palin's bike: a likeness of President George W. Bush. Next to it, the words 'Miss Me?'"

Let's take a look at photos of the windshield of that motorcycle, from different angles:


Click to enlarge these pictures. Do you see "a likeness of President George W. Bush [on the windshield]. Next to it, the words 'MISS ME?''" Neither do we. Because it's not there.

Even if you dislike Sarah Palin, do you
really think she'd show up at a Rolling Thunder rally, riding on the back of a Harley with a sign on the front that says, "MISS ME?" (DailyKos, MoveOn, DD, DU and CodePink readers, don't bother responding). Sane people know that the answer is, "Of course not."




(2) HuffPost's second smear: Its claim that the Rolling Thunder organizers' policy was that Palin should not attend their rally --- but that she disregarded their wishes and attended anyway --- when the truth was known more than 24 hours earlier.

In the first version of HuffPost's story, it alleged that Rolling Thunders' organizers told Palin she was not welcome at the rally, and that she should not attend --- but that she did so anyway. That claim led to hundreds of hate-filled comments from HuffPost's moderators and users, such as this one:
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
edrice222
897 Fans
Once again Ms. Palin makes herself look the fool that she is.
To usurp a function that was not hers, and to try overshadow the agenda of the veterans and use them for her own selfish purposes, was totally inappropri­ate and unwise. This will further alienate intelligen­t and decent people.
Permalink


But is it true? Of course not.
Apparently, there was a miscommunication among Rolling Thunder's leadership a few days prior. When Palin expressed interest in attending the rally, its senior leaders formally extended an invitation to her; unfortunately, one of the rally's other principals, unaware of this, was confronted by a reporter, who asked how he felt about Sarah Palin planning on showing up at the rally --- and he reacted angrily.

The truth, however, was being disseminated throughout the blogosphere at 8:15am on May 28 ---
more than 24 hours before HuffPost published its inflammatory headline (at 12:15pm on May 29) --- by Rolling Thunder itself, as first reported by Hot Air, a conservative blog to whom its (official) representatives spoke:
Yes, Palin Was Invited To Rolling Thunder
by Ed Morrisey, Hot Air, May 28, 2011 8:15am

The story traveled quickly through the conservative blogs. NewsBusters had a follow-up expose'
here. So is it really possible that HuffPost's army of "hundreds of editors and reporters" --- which is able to finds stories like a man marrying his dog in Australia, women with "unibrows" in Tajikistan, and other nonsense from obscure corners of the world --- could have missed the truth? That they just forgot to take a look at the conservative blogs, or call Rolling Thunder's communications director, to find out for themselves what the truth was? That it was all an honest mistake? If you believe that, you'll be interested to know that Arianna Huffington is now selling timeshares... on Uranus.

To its credit,
HuffPost did eventually remove the original allegation from the story. What HuffPost didn't do, however, was issue a correction to the story, to reflect what Rolling Thunder itself said, and what conservative blogs were reporting.

What reason could HuffPost have had do do this, except to keep the smear alive (that Palin basically "crashed" the Rolling Thunder rally, despite organizers' objections) --- and thus, continue allowing its Moderators and users to whip others into the hate-frenzy that erupted on the thread?



Even if you want to give HuffPost the benefit of the doubt, and attribute it to an honest accident or oversight, don't --- because as we show in
Section 5, this is not an isolated incident. In fact, this is the second time HuffPost has outright lied about Sarah Palin, and the third time in which it has smeared her in so vile a way that it could only result in whipping radical leftists up into a hate-frenzy, over false allegations against her.




(3) HuffPost confirmed that only comments that it approved would appear on this thread


Right at the top of the Palin - Rolling Thunder
story page, HuffPost helpfully reminded us of the fact that not a single comment appears on its threads until and unless it has been reviewed and approved by one of its Moderators:
"Our moderators screen these comments before they are published"

What types of comments does HuffPost say it will not publish? A sampling:
"We do not allow hate speech, nor do we allow speech that advocates or supports hatred... or sexism... or ad hominem attacks of any kind... or speech that is vile... ... or that advocates or supports hatred or unlawful violence (or) threats of violence or threats to anyone or any group's personal safety..."
--- HuffPost Comment Policy

HuffPost's
Moderators are tasked with enforcing its comment policy, and maintaining the "civil commenting environment" that Arianna has repeatedly lied claimed is the core of the site's responsibilities:
  • "We have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to abusive or hateful language or comments." (3/20/08)
  • "If you're looking for the usual flame-throwing, name-calling, and simplistic attack dog rhetoric ... don't bother coming to the Huffington Post." (5/6/05)

So what kinds of comments do you think HuffPost reviewed, approved and decided to publish from its esteemed Moderators on the Palin thread?

Let's take a look.




(4) A sampling of the comments that
HuffPost enabled its MODERATORS to post, in response to its incitement against Sarah Palin:


HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR

ex-pat
144 Fans
maybe she will develop a yea$t infection.­...
Permalink


HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Auldskul
927 Fans
No one else seems to be having a problem, puppet....­looks like I got two b1tches for the price of one :-)
Permalink




HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR

librldem
391 Fans
OK so where is her 2008 stage-prop and who are that kids real mom and dad? [...]

Permalink


HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR

SpencersMom
1094 Fans
She is not genuine, she is not civil, she is reactionar­y, she is spiteful and vindictive­, she cares nothing for those who do not support her wholeheart­edly, she is erratic, she is intellectu­ally deficient, she stirs up controvers­y to watch the fallout, she craves attention and money above all else. [...]
Permalink



HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR

zendem1
1396 Fans
Shes such a shameless liar. Always has been, always will be.

Permalink



HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR

jcinco
1183 Fans
I wish she would wash her hair, I can smell it from my porch in CO.
Permalink


And, following the Moderators' lead, HuffPost's rank and file USERS apparently
felt confident that it would also ignore its rules, and approve the incendiary hate comments that they began vomiting up. They weren't disappointed. A sampling:

HUFFPOST SUPER USER
stacknef
50 Fans
Ive[sic] never hoped for a fatal motorcycle crash until now...
Permalink


dbsherri
46 Fans
Normally, I am very much in favor of gun control. Sarah Palin is my exception to that. Unfortunat­ely, the crazies shoot the good guys.
Permalink


YahBetcha
48 Fans
Looks like Sarah Stupid is ho'in around for a new husband without Todd's Walmart wedding ring on her finger.

Permalink


Fortuna Victrix12 Fans
Who takes care of that down syndrome child of hers. It seems like more of a prop for her to use than a living being with needs that are paramount.
Permalink


HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paula Goodwin Gibbons
18 Fans
[...] We should start lesbian rumors [about Sarah Palin]. But that would only give lesbian's[sic] a bad name and I wouldn't want to do that. [...]
Permalink
Note: While 256 other comments were being reviewed by HuffPost prior to publication, it decided that this one, calling Sarah Palin a lesbian, was perfectly appropriate:

HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tulsey
725 Fans
"Miss me?" Totally inapropria­te[sic] target aquisition[sic] NRA joke. Just reload.
Permalink


Link blueheronwv
10 Fans
Maybe there'll be a bus crash.
Permalink


That's just a small sampling. Want more? Take a look at the
thread for yourself. We captured more comments that are similar to these, but this will suffice to show the level of depraved hatred and death wishes that HuffPost incited, and enabled to be unleashed against Sarah Palin, over its latest false allegations against her.

Also, note how many Moderators and users have up to or more than 1,000 "fans" --- meaning HuffPost has been enabling them for a very, very long time --- while at the same time, censoring and fast-banning users who attempt to speak out against or complain about them, as documented here, here and here.




(5) Is this the first time HuffPost has outright lied about Sarah Palin, in a way that could only serve to incite radical leftist hate (and death wishes) against her --- which it then violated its own rules, to facilitate?

Nope --- and here's the proof.


Incident 1: HuffPost falsely claimed that Sarah Palin wants those on the No-Fly List to be able to buy guns
:

The reality: Sarah Palin never said or even insinuated that. Period.
Why HuffPost knew, or should have known the story was false/misleading: Sarah Palin isn't mentioned once in either the headline or story excerpt (the original story was published by "ThinkProgress," the Soros-funded leftist attack machine).
This false headline incited a torrent of hate-filled user comments against Gov. Palin, which HuffPost reviewed, approved and decided to publish.


See complete documentation of this incident here.

Incident 2: HuffPost falsely insinuated that Sarah Palin (and
conservatives) incited the shooter in the Tucson massacre in January 2011.

On January 14, 2011, HuffPost began its nonstop coverage
of the Gabby Giffords shooting. We documented in extreme detail the lengths to which HuffPost went to construct a false narrative that implicitly blamed Sarah Palin and conservatives for inciting the shooter --- even though the bulk of the evidence that emerged within hours of the event that pointed in the opposite direction.

We further documented the fact that as this evidence became more widely known in the conservative blogosphere, HuffPost redoubled its efforts to keep its readers from becoming aware of it, while continuing to imply that Sarah Palin was somehow responsible.
See:
These are just several of dozens of incidents in which HuffPost knowingly published
false or egregiously misleading headlines that could only serve to incite hate against Sarah Palin and other conservatives.




Commentary


Why is this all so serious? Because HuffPost is the #1 most-read blog on Earth, a top-ten U.S. “news” site, and has repeatedly claimed to be "nonpartisan" --- a key reason why it has been able to attract advertising from some of the the biggest corporations in the world.

In short, HuffPost is helping to shape public perceptions. And it is deliberately, maliciously creating false, inflammatory perceptions --- and not just about Sarah Palin, or conservatives, or the Tea Party.

Have you ever seen a picture of Arianna Huffington with American soldiers? You haven't, and you probably never will. Why?

Because thanks to HUFF-WATCH, a growing number of our service members have become aware of the fact that HuffPost is now the Western world's largest Internet-based inciter and facilitator of hate against the U.S. military. Specifically, as our extensive documentation shows:
  • HuffPost regularly publishes inflammatory libels against American soldiers, based on falsehoods and without proof, that serve as exactly the kind of provocation that militant Islamists use to justify attacks on them.
  • HuffPost routinely fails/refuses to publish the truth behind these libels as it emerges --- even when its "friends," such as Stephen Colbert, rise to defend our soldiers by establishing the truth.

This is all especially dangerous as HuffPost now has 700,000* unique monthly visitors who originate in Muslim-majority nations --- including 250,000 per month from the world's three primary incubators and exporters of Islamist terror: Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan. (*up from 350,000 six months ago).

So we found it especially ironic that HuffPost would
choose to smear Sarah Palin, once again, on Memorial Day weekend, for something she hadn't done, when she --- unlike Arianna Huffington:
(a) Has a son serving in the U.S. military in the Middle East

(b) Has traveled to visit our soldiers in faraway locations, where she has been consistently greeted with respect and appreciation

(c) Has consistently and enthusiastically spoken in support of our soldiers

May 31 update: Arianna Huffington devotes her "Memorial Day" essay to a discussion of herself, and her honorary degree, and nonsense... but without a single word about our soldiers. None.

Arianna's Memorial Day essay has absolutely no reference to our soldiers, no reference to their sacrifices, and no reference to those who've been killed, who've died to to ensure her ability to maliciously libel them as she does. Like the narcissist she is, her essay was focused almost entirely on (surprise!)... Arianna.

This isn't the first time we've pointed out her stomach-churning hypocrisy in regards to the U.S. military. See:
Want to "give back" to U.S. soldiers, Arianna? Stop libeling and dishonoring them





ACTION ITEMS

Americans of good will can have honest differences of
opinion about Sarah Palin --- just as they do about President Obama. What most Americans find intolerable, however, is (a) outright lying, and (b) inciting hate against others based on false, inflammatory allegations.

If you share our view that HuffPost's actions in regards to this story (and the U.S. military) are outrageous, we urge you to do three things:

(1) Make your voice known to HuffPost's senior management here

(2) Consider writing or calling one or more of HuffPost's top advertisers, to let them know your thoughts on what their ad dollars are enabling --- particularly its incitement of hate against the U.S. military.
An easy way to approach this is to scan our easy-to-use directory and find one or two corporations that you are a customer of, or have stock in.
Your concerns will automatically be given considerably more weight. Also, request a follow-up after they've had a chance to review the evidence; don't let them off the hook, or sweep this under the rug.

(3) Forward the link to this story along to friends and journalists who you think might be interested in learning what HuffPost really is, and does.



Notable Quotables:

When asked directly if the Huffington Post would have a politically left-wing influence on AOL, Huffington responded, “Of course not.”
- Arianna Huffington to the Daily Caller, February 9, 2011,

AOL's acquisition of HuffPost "has allowed us... to continue to change the culture here."
--- Tim Armstrong, Chairman, AOL,
May 14, 2011 (the genius who decided to purchase HuffPost, the Internet's #1 hate site, for $315 million, and make Arianna the President and Editor In Chief of all AOL's "content")

.

Friday, May 27, 2011

HuffPost enables its Moderators to out-vile Ed Schultz re Laura Ingraham

.


"Is it true Laura has a part time job as a night deposit box at a sperm bank?"

"If she admitted she's a lesbian she would be a much happier person"

"I would have called her a C U Next Time."
A sampling of the "comments" we documented that, in violation of its own policy, HuffPost approved and decided to publish --- from its long-term Moderators --- against Laura Ingraham


As you may have heard,
MSNBC's radical leftist flame-thrower Ed Schultz has been taken off the air for a week, following his latest vulgar tirade, in which he called conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham a "slut."

Schultz later apologized, saying, in part, he used
“vile and inappropriate language" --- but said absolutely nothing about his previous obscene, vulgar, threatening rants. After all, they helped elevate him to being a front-page blogger on HuffPost --- why should he?

HuffPost published the
story of Schultz's tirade, and his apology, on its front page. In response, as documented in this special report, the only comments that appeared on the thread were those that HuffPost reviewed, approved and decided to publish:
"Our comments on the news site were originally post-moderated (i.e., objectionable comments were removed only after our moderators were alerted). We eventually decided that it was worth the substantial effort and expense to have human pre-moderation on both blogs and news."
--- Arianna Huffington, July 2008

Right at the top of the Schultz-Ingraham thread, HuffPost helpfully reminded us of the fact that not a single comment appears on its threads until and unless it has been reviewed and approved by one of its Moderators:


What types of comments does HuffPost say it will not publish? A sampling:
"We do not allow hate speech, nor do we allow speech that advocates or supports hatred... or sexism... or ad hominem attacks of any kind... or speech that is vile..."
--- HuffPost Comment Policy

HuffPost's
Moderators are tasked with enforcing its comment policy, and maintaining the "civil commenting environment" that Arianna has repeatedly lied claimed is the core of the site's responsibilities:
  • "We have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to abusive or hateful language or comments." (3/20/08)

  • "If you're looking for the usual flame-throwing, name-calling, and simplistic attack dog rhetoric ... don't bother coming to the Huffington Post." (5/6/05)

So what kinds of comments do you think HuffPost reviewed, approved and decided to publish from its esteemed moderators on the Schultz thread? Let's take a look.




A sampling of the comments that
HuffPost enabled its MODERATORS to post, in reaction to Schultz's suspension from MSNBC:

HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR

Igor13, 1480 Fans
Is it true Laura has a part time job as a night deposit box at a sperm bank?
Permalink


HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
BOBINMO
1498 Fans
Keith Olbermann used to bang the slut.
(reply) HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Igor13
1480 Fans
EVERYBODY used to bang the slut.
Permalink

HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
jlyn
842 Fans
Laura is a crabby beeyotch, and I suspect that if she admitted she's a lesbian she would be a much happier person all the way around. Possibly even turn liberal.
Permalink


(This is the reply that HuffPost reviewed, approved and decided to publish by jlyn to post to another user who objected to this homophobic, ad hominem attack)
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
jlyn
842 Fans
Assho#e yourself. She is NOT married, has NEVER been married, and she adopted those kids. She needs to come out, just like her gay brother did. I'm convinced she would not be as angry as she is, and it would free her to be the liberal she wants to be.
Permalink


HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Igor13
1480 Fans
Had it been me, I would have called her a C U Next Time.
Permalink


HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
bluejoni2525
1894 Fans
That "woman" doesn't deserve respect she is a miserable _rude person !!! I would say he should apologize to all the "loose women" out there for lumping her in with them I'm SURE they are better people than she can ever be !!! !!!
Permalink


HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Igor13
1480 Fans
Having Laura complain about being called a s/ut
is like Arnold complainin­g about paying child support.

Permalink


And that's just a sampling. What makes these "comments" all the more significant are the following facts:
  • Note how many of these Moderators have 800 to 1,800 or more "fans," meaning they've been at HuffPost for a very, very long time. Most have 10,000 - 50,000 or more comments in their archives, and many are allowed to essentially "live" on HuffPost 12 or more hours a day, every day. And if you believe this is the first time HuffPost has allowed them to engage in such vile hate speech, you'll be interested to know that Arianna Huffington is now selling timeshares... on Uranus.
  • If this is what HuffPost enabled its Moderators to post about Ingraham, imagine what it enabled its users to post about her. Here's a hint: Vulgar, vile descriptions of her body orifices, sexual habits, supposed STDs, etc etc etc. Don't believe it? Take a look at the story thread for yourself (before HuffPost sanitizes it --- then denies it allowed anything vulgar to be posted at all).
  • There's only one thing that makes all this vile, stomach-wrenching hate possible: the revenue HuffPost receives from the advertisers it has been able to attract, in part based on its repeated lies claims about its supposed prohibition on hate speech. These advertisers include AT&T, IBM, Delta Airlines, CitiBank, Chase, Home Depot, Hyatt and many others.

If you'd like to make your thoughts known on this matter:
  • Write to HuffPost's senior management here
  • Write to HuffPost's top advertisers here



Notable Quotables:

When asked directly if the Huffington Post would have a politically left-wing influence on AOL, Huffington responded, “Of course not.”
- Arianna Huffington to the Daily Caller, February 9, 2011,

AOL's acquisition of HuffPost "has allowed us... to continue to change the culture here."
--- Tim Armstrong, Chairman, AOL
, May 14, 2011 (the genius who decided to purchase HuffPost, the Internet's #1 hate site, for $315 million, and make Arianna the President and Editor In Chief of all AOL's "content")




Previously:
Special Report: HuffPost MODERATOR: "Hey, let's murder Boehner, the Kochs and others!!!" (HuffPost: "Approved, protected!!!")

For the third time, HuffPost allows murder-threatening Moderator to return, resume threats

Special Report: HuffPost enables, protects MODERATORS to post threats, urgings of violence

HuffPost approves Moderators, users to vilify, wish death upon ailing Billy Graham

HuffPost approves Moderators, users to stand atop corpses from Southern storms to spew political hatred

HuffPost's protection of the most egregious violators of its "policies" --- and its banning of non-violators, on a minute-to-minute basis
.

.