Yesterday, Dana The Devil whined like a little girl that "HuffPo caved to the Liberals."
Yesterday AOL/Huffington Post spokesman said Andrew Breitbart’s characterization of admitted Marxist and 9-11 truther Van Jones as a “commie punk” was too egregious a statement for them to continue an association with Breitbart.
Last anyone’s checked, Barr still remains as a contributor to the AOL/Huffington Post. I’m certain that after we point this out to them they will just as swiftly issue a statement detailing their disassociation with Barr as commitment to their consistency of not featuring writers who engage in “ad hominem attacks.”
Their false accusations have been thoroughly debunked, thus it seems individuals like Van Jones and Color of Change simply have a vendetta against Breitbart — and now shame due to their failed, prejudice-fueled maneuver to silence him. Huffington Post refused to acquiesce.
*UPDATE: The Huffington Post caved to Marxist bullying.
Loesch crony Alexander Marlow is heralding a "no ad hominem attacks" rule for The Huffington Post. Of course, Big Journalism's lying out their ass.
Thank goodness that HuffPo won't allow mass racist and distorter Andrew Breitbart to reign terror anymore.
Later in the day, HuffPo caved to Color of Change pressure to blacklist Breitbart. Color of Change is famous for leading an advertising boycott against Glenn Beck’s show and took credit for Breitbart’s ouster from ABC News’s election night coverage. HuffPo SVP Mario Ruiz issued the following statement; pay attention to their specific reasoning, emphasis mine:
So Breitbart is no longer allowed to publish on the front page of HuffPo because he made an ad hominem attack? By this logic, the same standard will be applied to all AOL/HuffPo writers going forward. If Breitbart is being thrown under the bus for making ad hominem remarks off the site, then that means… no other AOL/HuffPo bloggers can make them either.We’ve never seen the Huffington Post make an effort like this to suppress the speech of any of their other (mostly left-wing) personalities. The hypocrisy is laughably obvious, and it was left-of-center bloggers Mickey Kaus of the Daily Caller, Alex Pareene of Salon, and Dave Weigel of Slate who were quickest to point it out. Pareene sums it up this way:
Photo: Heeb Magazine
I bet Loesch will tell even more lies.
UPDATE: Dana Loesch just posted that "Dissent is Unpatriotic" in regards to Obama. Dissent IS patriotic, no matter who's in office. I bet you she would think that ANY dissent against Bush or Palin would be unpatriotic, when any dissent of a Democrat was patriotic. Hypocrite?!
Will dissent become patriotic again if Obama loses reelection in 2012?