Why Is HuffPo Hiding Cheney Comments?

I don't get it, why is the Huffington Post hiding reader comments regarding Dick Cheney?

Over the last few hours, the more than 400 comments appended to the Huffington Post’s news item on the attack in Afghanistan on a base being visited by Vice-President Dick Cheney have been expunged from the site.

Who needs comments when this was an actual post last Thanksgiving. Google cache just in case.

A Thanksgiving Prayer for Dick Cheney's Heart -- and a Few Other Favorite Things (78 comments )

I give thanks O Lord for Dick Cheney's Heart, that brave organ which has done its darn-tootin' best on four separate occasions to do what we can only dream about.

O Lord, give Dick Cheney's Heart, Our Sacred Secret Weapon, the strength to try one more time! For greater love hath no heart than that it lay down its life to rid the planet of its Number One Human Tumor.

A few select comments from just the first of four pages worth.

I didn't know that Dick Cheney had a heart.

The only thing likely to stop Cheney's heart is a stake driven by a 14lb sledge.

That was awe-inspiring.

I think this is hilarious, and I agree with every word.

The author is spot on. Cheney is a tumor upon the human race. Don't you think that people prayed that Hitler would die? Same difference.

Amen.

Comments

[Jeff]

So how will the left try and squirm out of this one? Can't they say they agree and get on with it?

Refer to this post when someone from the left attempts to change the subject.

[seekeronos]

What is not terribly surprising is the sheer abject hatred the left has for this one man.

[Phoenix]

And his boss, Seek.

[Jeff]

Cheney has no fear of the media, and he calls a spade a spade. Obviously the left will hate anyone who doesn't cower to their mighty and supreme power. So they wish the worst on him, even if that means his death. Bush is at least pandering them with illegal immigration...

But the fact remains that treasonous words are nothing to the left... as long as they see something in it for them. I wonder how many members of the let who talk about killing Cheney are actually willing to do it? My guess is more than one. I think that the government should look into the worst comments, and take these idiots to task.

[Hard Right]

They try to say it was satirical. You know, like they did about the Cheney incident.

[TheSpartan]

How is this any different than the seething hatred for Bill Clinton when he was in office?

I find it unfortunate that people had to react that way towards the attack on Cheney, I may despise him but he's still a human being. I don't wanna see him die, I just wanna see him in jail.

I think the reaction from some (though alot of the posters on the huffpo thread were new...curious) does show just how polarizing a figure he is though.

[Andrew]

Who really cares about Dick Cheney? Whether its the 6th heart attack or 6th deferrment that kills him is irrelevant to me. In fact all of you cons are irrelevant these days.

[Legalize]

I just roll my eyes when the radical right begins demanding apologies and condemnation over language that purports to "hate" or "wish harm" upon - in this case - Dick Cheney, when the radical right has been making a living off of such rhetoric for at least 6 years. Are we supposed to take Dan Riehl seriously when he was on CNN standing up for the 1st amendment rights of San Fran radio personalities who wished for the death of Nancy Pelosi. Gimme a break. The disengenuousness and hypocrisy are so boringly transparent.

Tell you guys what, apologize for and condemn every single hateful and violence-loving rhetorical attack perpetrated by the San Fran D.J.s, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh from the last 6 years, and I'll condemn some anonymous posters, whom I do not know, on a blog I do not read.

Cut the whining and be *outraged* over something that actually matters. Like, the GOP fundraisers hanging with terrorists: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002634.php

[Kite]

"I think the reaction from some (though alot of the posters on the huffpo thread were new...curious) does show just how polarizing a figure he is though".

Uhhh, who cares?

I am so sick a tired of this "such a polarizing figure" bull crap. Listen up lefties. People are different and people deserve to be different. People don't have to be the same, and they don't have to get along, and they don't have to turn around and kiss, hug, and make everyone think they are the gee-golly bestest person in the world.

Thats a dream world in which your party has been stuck in since the 60's.

There is no such thing as Utopia. Shang-ri-la does not exist....perhaps in your mind it does, but for us down here not up in the clouds of "harmony and unity" understand the concepts of realism. If you want to keep painting Cheney as an abrasive individual thats fine. I'm abrasive too, and I wont apologize for it.

But you people, who I am reminded are supposed to be the "compassionate" ones, spew forth some of the more hateful, vitriolic, asinine, and divisive rhetoric that I have ever heard in my life. Your ilk has even wished death upon a man whom, last I checked, most if not all of them have never ever EVER sat down and actually spoken with. Aside from dropping a few F-bombs on the senate floor and taking a strong stance against Islamic terrorism and the people who wish to ruin this country what has he done?

Ahmadenijad has called our entire nation "satan" and has desired for another country, Israel, to be completely wiped away. NOT TO MENTION he denies the Holocaust, and YOU still claim that Cheney is the worst man on the planet? I submit to you that he is NOT!

[Diva]

TheSpartan,

So if someone is a polarizing figure then it's okay to wish their death? Trying to rationalize bad behavior is simply as sick as the behavior (wishing someone dead). I do note that you personally don't condone the behavior but as I wrote rationalizing or attempting to rationalize such behavior may appear that you think that there are valid reasons (polarizing figure) to believe that such deplorable behavior is justified.

The behavior of those wishing Cheney dead at the HuffPo and other Far Left blogs simply illustrates that there are many people on the Far Left (and yes there are raging nuts on the Far Right) who act like teenagers who are angry at their parents for grounding them - so the teenager lashes out by screaming "I hate you and wish you were dead". It's not mature, it's hateful, angry and doesn't solve any problem(s).

Legal...no one is asking you to apologize for those who act like idiots on either the left or right. The bottom line is that there are extremes on both sides and that rational individuals should condemn that behavior. Thankfully, the crazed individuals in both political parties are on the fringes for now and lack the power to effect change - no matter how much they yell, get angry and/or pout.

[Legalize]

"Legal...no one is asking you to apologize for those who act like idiots on either the left or right."

With all due respect, yeah they are. That's the point of these threads. And that's the point of righties demanding that "the left" condemn this rhetoric.

"The bottom line is that there are extremes on both sides and that rational individuals should condemn that behavior. Thankfully, the crazed individuals in both political parties are on the fringes for now and lack the power to effect change - no matter how much they yell, get angry and/or pout."

That might be true; but that aint what is being advocated by the usual suspects who feign *outrage* over naughty language they find *offensive.* The simple fact, which you conveniently glossed over and ignored, remains that when anonymous posters on the HuffPo fantasize about Cheney's death, such rhetoric is "outrageous" and demands for condemnation spring forth from the heavens. On the other hand, when Rush, Coulter, and the aforementioned S.F. radio personalities REGULARLY call for the death of Nancy Pelosi, the lynching of Supreme Court Justices, and the general extermination / internment of "liberals" such rhetoric is labeled mere "satire," or just a joke.

[Kite]

Legalize: I listen to talk radio from 8:30 to 6:00 (my work hours) and I'm not going to apologise for the hosts being conservative radio hosts, but I can assure you that none of them have called for the death of Nancy Pelosi.

None. Not one. Well, maybe savage but he comes on later in my town and I dont listen to him.

They do condemn the ideals and practices of liberals. I advocate that part, for you people are trying to bring socialism, communism, and the seriously deranged individuals of your fringe to the center. You people are dangerous. Even more so dangerous than the radical right which you attack daily.

As for the lynching of supreme court justices. Well, when you have liberal judges who try and legislate from the bench and claim the constitution is a living document it's time to pack em up and send em home. This country was based upon the rule of law. The Constitution was made inviolate by it's writers and a judge has no business perversing the law to fit their agenda's. Oh, and Roe Vs. Wade was created under one of those "interpreted" rulings and therefore is an inadequate law.

If you really want to make it the law of the land put it on the ballot and let the people decide. Thats what the fore-fathers would have intended anyways.

Judges are there to enfore the law. Not redesign it. So, as I previously stated, when you have judges who are trying to reshape laws they need to be removed. Immediately.

[templar knight]

Well, actually, Kite, the Founding Fathers neatly inserted a nifty way to change the Constitution, and it is by amendment, and the process is clearly spelled out in the Constitution itself. As for these judges who now write law from the bench, there is also a process for ridding ourselves of them, and it is called impeachment, and several of them should have been impeached and removed over the years. The Legislative Branch never should have allowed these judges to impinge on its Constitutional authority.

[Legalize]

"Legalize: I listen to talk radio from 8:30 to 6:00 (my work hours) and I'm not going to apologise for the hosts being conservative radio hosts, but I can assure you that none of them have called for the death of Nancy Pelosi."

Relevance? I specifically addressed the S.F. D.J.s Riehl defended in his CNN interview with Howard Kurtz. I could care less about conservative hosts blasting "liberal" ideas with which they disagree - which would be why I DIDN'T address that.

"I advocate that part, for you people are trying to bring socialism, communism, and the seriously deranged individuals of your fringe to the center. You people are dangerous. Even more so dangerous than the radical right which you attack daily."

I'm not really interested in your rationalizing your subjective and paranoid views of the "danagers" associated with the allegedly "fringe left" ideas, as a means of justifying the poison your handlers spew to you on a daily basis. We'll see eye to eye there, and of course, that disagreement has nothing to do with this thread or the post you are addressing.

"As for the lynching of supreme court justices. Well, when you have liberal judges who try and legislate from the bench and claim the constitution is a living document it's time to pack em up and send em home."

So, your justification for advocating the hanging of supreme court justices is because of their scholarly interpretation of the consititution? Again, your partisanship and apologism are not justification for Ann Coulter's deranged advocacy of the KILLING of Justice Stevens.

"This country was based upon the rule of law."

Sure is. Remind me again where killing and interning one's political opponents fits within the rule of law.

"The Constitution was made inviolate by it's writers and a judge has no business perversing the law to fit their agenda's. Oh, and Roe Vs. Wade was created under one of those "interpreted" rulings and therefore is an inadequate law.

If you really want to make it the law of the land put it on the ballot and let the people decide. Thats what the fore-fathers would have intended anyways.

Judges are there to enfore the law. Not redesign it. So, as I previously stated, when you have judges who are trying to reshape laws they need to be removed. Immediately."

Again, forgive me for not being terribly interested in the partisan interpretation of the constitution proffered by someone who gets all of his information re the document from Rush Limbaugh, and from someone who has never read and/or understood a supreme court opinion in his/her life. If you want to honestly debate points of consitutional law, believe me, I'll be MORE than happy to where appropriate. For the 3d time, explain to me how having a differing scholarly interpretation of the liberty clause of the 14th amendment rises to the level of being deserving of death, because that's the issue being addressed.

[Kite]

Legalize : I don't have a partisan interpretation of the Constitution. I have read over the constitution to make sure I am familiar with the document that is supposed to be the base of law in this country. I don't have it memorized, but I can get it pulled up to back any claim I have.

Templar : I know about the amendment process. That is a perfectly fine way of amending the constitution. However, the judges do not have the constitutional power to legislate from the bench. That is an impeachable offense and you are right....they should have been removed a long time ago.

Legalize: Not familiar with Coulter's calling for the death of Justice Stevens. If she said it (which im guessing since you say she did) then she was completely out of line on the matter. I meant that Justices who legislate from the bench and overstep their powers need to be removed, not literally hanged. Thats just silly.

[Legalize]

"Legalize : I don't have a partisan interpretation of the Constitution. I have read over the constitution to make sure I am familiar with the document that is supposed to be the base of law in this country. I don't have it memorized, but I can get it pulled up to back any claim I have."

You do have a partisan interpretation; as do I. There's nothing wrong with it. Great, whenever a point of Con Law comes up, find me; we'll debate it.

"Legalize: Not familiar with Coulter's calling for the death of Justice Stevens. If she said it (which im guessing since you say she did) then she was completely out of line on the matter. I meant that Justices who legislate from the bench and overstep their powers need to be removed, not literally hanged. Thats just silly."

Well, I doubt that you haven't heard of it, but as long as you disagree with her, then that's good enough for me.

[TheSpartan]

Aside from dropping a few F-bombs on the senate floor and taking a strong stance against Islamic terrorism and the people who wish to ruin this country what has he done?

Well he did shoot a guy in the face...

Seriously though, I wasn't attempting to make excuses for anyone when I alled him a polorizing figure, nor was I trying to get all hippy dippy on anyone, if you thought that you clearly don't know me. I generally say pretty specifically how I feel on given subjects. I hate Cheney, I think he's a scumbag but I don't wish death upon him. Would I mourn his death? not likely, but that's not the same as wishing it on him.