Is HuffingtonPost a joke site or what?

[Denny Crane]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/13/senate-democrats-nominees_n_2867453.html

Senate Democrats Discuss How To Counter GOP Nominee Obstruction

-- Read the article, then read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George...f_stalled.2C_blocked_or_filibustered_nominees

 

[huevonkiller]

Yes, it is a joke site.

Lots of left-wingers support dictators in others countries too.

 

[barfo]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/13/senate-democrats-nominees_n_2867453.html

Senate Democrats Discuss How To Counter GOP Nominee Obstruction

-- Read the article, then read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George...f_stalled.2C_blocked_or_filibustered_nominees

No idea what your problem with that story is. Democrats were discussing how to deal with GOP obstruction, HuffPost reported on that. Why is that a joke? Should they just not report the news if the news involves politicians who might be a bit hypocritical?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

No idea what your problem with that story is. Democrats were discussing how to deal with GOP obstruction, HuffPost reported on that. Why is that a joke? Should they just not report the news if the news involves politicians who might be a bit hypocritical?

barfo

Apparently, left wingers need their news skewed so they forget about their own hypocrisy on the issues.

Thanks for clarifying it for me.

 

[julius]

Apparently, left wingers need their news skewed so they forget about their own hypocrisy on the issues.

Thanks for clarifying it for me.

have you ever watched Fox News for more than a second?

 

[Denny Crane]

have you ever watched Fox News for more than a second?

Here's a Fox News report on republicans blocking an Obama nominee:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/0...ter-to-block-vote-on-president-obama-nominee/

 

[julius]

Here's a Fox News report on republicans blocking an Obama nominee:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/0...ter-to-block-vote-on-president-obama-nominee/

You can't be serious in thinking that Fox news doesn't present a bias, and that conservatives are just as guilty as liberals (in as much as those who watch MSNBC) in wanting their news presented in a bias they agree with.

 

[Denny Crane]

You can't be serious in thinking that Fox news doesn't present a bias, and that conservatives are just as guilty as liberals (in as much as those who watch MSNBC) in wanting their news presented in a bias they agree with.

Sure Fox is biased. But they at least publish stories like this:

http://politics.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=23888&content=56147246&pageNum=-1

Since HuffPost doesn't, they must be a joke. Like I said.

 

[bluefrog]

Sure Fox is biased. But they at least publish stories like this:

http://politics.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=23888&content=56147246&pageNum=-1

Since HuffPost doesn't, they must be a joke. Like I said.

It's interesting that you will tolerate right-wing bias but are quick to dismiss any left-wing bias.

 

[HailBlazers]

Round and Round we go, where it stops nobody knows

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

HuffPo is a joke for other reasons, Denny. But just keep "taking it to the man" like it's some media empire that all lefties worship.

 

[Rhal]

Huffington post, just like every other news site/network in the US has an agenda they are pushing. They are all biased to a degree and will under report/over report stories, and in some cases straight up lie, based on other things then if it's an important story that the masses should know.
I have no love for the way news media has reworked itself into becoming opinion and agenda based but I hold a special hatred for both MSNBC and Fox for going to great lengths to not only spout their point but to discredit the other views on the situation. Fox is much
Worse then MSNBC but neither place should you take what they say as fact before researching it yourself.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't have any criticism of MSNBC because they're not a news channel. They show hour after hour of opinionated host and guests. Since they're not pretending to be news, why should I complain?

I recognize the difference between a Bill O'Reilly, who is also such a host, and Shepard Smith, who is a news anchor.

HuffPost advertises itself as "breaking news."

 

[huevonkiller]

Fox News invites lots of pro-drug freedom loving people so they're still better than the huffington post.

Their main opinion guys suck, but I never watch them.

 

[MARIS61]

HuffPost advertises itself as "breaking news."

Nobody takes that seriously, any more than anyone believes Fox news is fair and balanced.

Nobody who's honest to themselves anyway.

 

[MARIS61]

I don't believe there is any such thing as an unbiased and accurate media outlet of any kind, anywhere in the world. 99% of all media in the world exists for proganda purposes, and "news" is their weapon.

There are only 6 reliably accurate news sources. Your six senses; sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch, and common.

 

[julius]

btw, does anyone (on the left) actually take huffington seriously? I know it's easy to say stuff like that (that they do), but really, it's almost like it's a talking point to point it out (that and the evil doers at NBC), without any actual proof to back it up.

say it enough times and I guess it's true.

 

[barfo]

Apparently, left wingers need their news skewed so they forget about their own hypocrisy on the issues.

Thanks for clarifying it for me.

You aren't making any sense. Are you saying that HuffPo should have reported obstruction of Bush appointees this year? Do you know what "news" means? It doesn't mean "shit that happened years ago".

Sounds like you don't like the news so you are blaming the messenger.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

You aren't making any sense. Are you saying that HuffPo should have reported obstruction of Bush appointees this year? Do you know what "news" means? It doesn't mean "shit that happened years ago".

Sounds like you don't like the news so you are blaming the messenger.

barfo

Yep. I think accurate news would be "this is a tactic employed by both parties against presidents of the opposite party."

While Democrats can get their panties in a bunch about it now, they happily obstructed in the past. The common sense conclusion is that they'd want to in the future when there's another republican president.

The information is important.

 

[RR7]

Yep. I think accurate news would be "this is a tactic employed by both parties against presidents of the opposite party."

While Democrats can get their panties in a bunch about it now, they happily obstructed in the past. The common sense conclusion is that they'd want to in the future when there's another republican president.

The information is important.

When Democrats happily obstructed in the past, did the news you prefer mention that Republicans had also previously done it, or did it just report what was happening at the time?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Round and Round we go, where it stops nobody knows

I think the point Denny was making is that while all media outlets are slanted one way ot another, some like the Huffington Post make no effort at any time to be "balanced".

 

[Denny Crane]

When Democrats happily obstructed in the past, did the news you prefer mention that Republicans had also previously done it, or did it just report what was happening at the time?

Yes, the news I prefer mentioned it.

In fact, there was a similar situation very recently where Democrats wanted to do away with the 60 vote cloture requirement, effectively requiring all votes be simple 50+ variety. And effectively doing away with the filibuster that both parties have used for decades when in the minority. And it was covered as such - both parties used it for decades.

 

[RR7]

I guess I'm unsure what that mention would add to the article, but whatever. I also never go to huffington post, so don't really care what they write.

 

[Denny Crane]

I guess I'm unsure what that mention would add to the article, but whatever. I also never go to huffington post, so don't really care what they write.

That obstructing opposing presidents' nominations is a long established practice and whatever the Democrats decide to do to change it would affect both parties. Instead, it's painted as something only republicans do and the rules have to be changed because only of their (mis)use of the rules.

There's actually a new word in the lexicon for what Democrats did in the past. It's called "Borking" a nominee. That's because they severely torpedoed Bork's nomination to the supreme court way back when. If you're interested, you might look into what happened to John Tower during the Reagan years (that's 30+ years ago).

And I'm not blaming democrats for this. They took part, republicans took part. Obama's appointed recess appointments, so did W.

I've also posted before that I think Obama should get his appointees approved.

Though I applaud Rand Paul's talking filibuster to get clarification about the use of drones against US citizens on US soil without due process. That wasn't a torpedo of the nominee as much as a delay to make a point.

 

[RR7]

I'm not saying it hasn't happened before. In fact, the forgetting what happened 4 years ago is why I have such a disdain for politics, and political discussion. Both sides act like something happening to them is the first time it ever happened. I just don't see the benefit to that article if they said what changes now will affect both sides. That's common sense, no? That a rule applies for all. Doesn't seem like it would have added anything to the article, and it seems like you're picking nits for the sake of it.
I'd suggest avoiding MSNBC and Huffington Post if they bother you so much. Seems an odd way to live one's life. Obsessing over something you don't like. But to each their own.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm not saying it hasn't happened before. In fact, the forgetting what happened 4 years ago is why I have such a disdain for politics, and political discussion. Both sides act like something happening to them is the first time it ever happened. I just don't see the benefit to that article if they said what changes now will affect both sides. That's common sense, no? That a rule applies for all. Doesn't seem like it would have added anything to the article, and it seems like you're picking nits for the sake of it.
I'd suggest avoiding MSNBC and Huffington Post if they bother you so much. Seems an odd way to live one's life. Obsessing over something you don't like. But to each their own.

I'd like HuffPost to be better is all. They aggregate a lot of content like this along with what should be really good stuff (like Robert Reich's blog posts).

Crap like this makes Fox News "not a news source" according to the president.

 

[barfo]

I'd like HuffPost to be better is all. They aggregate a lot of content like this along with what should be really good stuff (like Robert Reich's blog posts).

Crap like this makes Fox News "not a news source" according to the president.

You should buy HuffPo and turn it into a better organization. HuffPoTwo!

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

You should buy HuffPo and turn it into a better organization. HuffPoTwo!

barfo

I think I'd rather call it HuffPoo's chili, compete with barfo's chili (tastes as good coming up as it did going down!), and have the government mandate everyone buy it.

 

[PapaG]

btw, does anyone (on the left) actually take huffington seriously? I know it's easy to say stuff like that (that they do), but really, it's almost like it's a talking point to point it out (that and the evil doers at NBC), without any actual proof to back it up.

say it enough times and I guess it's true.

You just crushed poor barfo and his entire news gathering process.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

anyone who thinks the "news" is the "truth" is a clueless fucking idiot

my advice is to try and read/learn about both sides of the argument/issue, and make up your own mind