Huff Post refuses to publish anti-flotilla article

the market is unregulated if you consider regulatory capture of the FDA, especially in comparison with the stricter provisions of Health Canada---

but ah, forget it. I'm tired of explaining simple things to you, simple things like the fact that the expose was about Monsanto screwing up and trying to hide it, and not the FDA.

Here, you fetch me the facts for once.

They have commentators on FNC that insult Reagan and his policies all the time.

Juan Williams, Maura Liason and many others question those wars everyday on that network during prime time.

Give me these alleged reports. For the second, make sure they are before the Obama Administration took power. heh heh.

Tallanvor, I find you a hilariously flawed thinker. You deride censorship...now the only thing left that you are clinging onto is the fact that the censorship is based on kowtowing to money instead of political bias. and somehow that's worse. or something. your incessant drive towards defending your tenacious space of "us vs them" is hilarious. if it is a parody, well done! if not, you may find the world an uncomfortable place.

 

hahaha, good luck. If you don't reply, I'll consider it that you've given up. which is more than understandable given your current tenacious position of defending censorship over money/extortion. I guess violating the First Amendment is alright, if you're doing it for pay! we're all just mercenaries after all.

 

The Huffington Post is not committing an illegal act. Neither is Fox News.

we're not even discussing issues of legality here. I actually have no idea where you are trying to go with this.

 

No, it expressly stated it was due to fears of losing advertising money and only specified "dire consequences".

The journalists objectively researched these facts and their findings were concurrent with Health Canada's treatment of the affair, which might explain the following---

so, somehow in your perfectly logical mind, lying to Americans and censuring reports concerning their health and well-being due to financial pressure from advertisers is all good and ethical.

well, have a swell day defaming Huffington for "censuring" someone who just posted through an alternative, rather then firing someone over financial gain.

I also haven't seen much of the evidence behind your scanty circumstantial and non-researched, anecdotal evidence "disproving" the fact that Fox News does the EXACT SAME thing as Huffington. I can bring case after case after case, but I won't bother if you're overwhelmed at finding evidence for merely two simple statements.

Just admit it. If you dislike censorship and partisan wrangling, you should dislike Fox News. You obviously don't unless it is to raise attack points on "liberals". Your partisan bulls*** is wearing quite thin, and has led you to defend fraud, deceit, and what amounts to bribery and censorship. I could probably easily lead you down a path towards defending the violation of fundamental principles of the Constitution, that's how predictable and set your one-sided shtick is. once again, if it's an act, admirable. if not...huh.

 

No, you should know better. You can get sued for anything. Isn't that the key conservative rallying cry about "ambulance chasers"? (See, I can generalize your beliefs too!) Unless libel or defamation are mentioned, do not assume.

Also, is there anywhere where you can allege that what the authors say isn't true?

http://www.psrast.org/bghcpc.htm

The report Health Canada filed is public record. I could search it out for you, but suffice it to say that Monsanto's crap is banned here for very good reason.

What is libelous in the truth?

Are you saying Fox News is simply not reporting the truth because they are scared?

That they are self-censoring because of cowardice?

And somehow that is better than self-censoring based at least on some arbitrary norm of principle?

Shame. Look at the straws you are grasping at.

and still no evidence of the recurring attacks on Reagen or on the Iraq/Afghanistan war before President Obama took power. strange.

 

There are no lies involved here either. Monsanto's product is linked to cancer, period. To try to change that to an euphemism is flat out lying, and may be causing thousands of Americans to lose their lives.

look, I'm not even going to bother explaining civil vs criminal suits and the frivolous things that are thrown out there.

Wake the f**k up. How is bringing to attention the fact, the OBJECTIVELY, MEDICALLY PEER-REVIEWED FACT that Monsanto's crap is linked with cancer...

which is why it is BANNED in every developed country except for America...is a FACT. You can get sued for "defamation" and incur legal costs, but any sensible jury will throw this s*** out.

The fact is, Fox News thought---"hmm, objective reporting that could help save American lives" or "possible legal risk" and took the coward's way out.

 

i'm going to end this pointless argument since it's no longer funny.

 

Northside Storm...I wish I had some rep. to give you for managing to stay on point the entire time and not losing your cool at the intellectual limitations demonstrated on this thread.... kudos sir.
Just READING this thread has almost driven me insane.

 

I dont understand what the big deal is....Journalists for major Newspaper syndicates regularly have stories rejected when it comes to their final publications. This author said he's published over 50 articles with them, but this one got rejected...maybe it just didnt satisfy their editorial standards?

HP is clearly a liberal journal, but they publish pro-Israeli articles regularly so it doesnt seem like they'd object to his on that basis alone.

 

That doesn't even add up to 100!

 

Well your first list includes non-liberals like Maura Lisaon, Shep Smith, Geraldo Rivera, Kristen Powers, and former liberal Pat Caddell, as well as sometimes liberal Juan Williams, so if you have a first time list I'd take that instead of "additional" liberals.

But back on topic.

The article included sloppy reporting, such as the items that Northside pointed out. The article had too much BS and inaccuracies such as the bogus claim that if Hamas laid down their weapons there would be peace. It just isn't accurate, and has been shown to be inaccurate. The real shame should be on the Jerusalem post which did print that BS. I think they turned it down less because of agenda and more because it was full of BS.