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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
