Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-02-17/friday-news-roundup-domestic
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., left, reaches out to Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 16, 2012, to celebrate as members of the bi-partisan House and Senate conferees on the payroll tax cut extension signed the compromise agreement.
(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Congressional lawmakers debated mandated coverage of contraceptives in the health care law. Several Democrats walked out of a hearing on the provision in the House of Representatives. Congress moved closer to ending the fight over the payroll tax cut exemption. The House and Senate are expected to vote today on the $143 billion dollar package. With a narrow lead in Michigan, Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum defended his opposition to the auto industry bailout. And more good news on the economy as housing starts rose last month. John Dickerson of Slate.com, Susan Page of USA Today and Jerry Seib of The Wall Street Journal join Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Susan Page
Washington bureau chief for USA Today.
Jerry Seib
Washington bureau chief, The Wall Street Journal.
John Dickerson
chief political correspondent for Slate.com and CBS political analyst and contributor. Author of "On Her Trail: My Mother, Nancy Dickerson, TV News' First Woman Star."
Friday News Roundup Video
The panelists discuss the ongoing debate on mandating health care coverage for contraceptives in relation to religious organizations and employers:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
"prayandr wrote:
Could you and your guests discuss the issue of insider trading in congress and the STOCK act? The Daily Show covered this on Wednesday and it was extremely disturbing.
February 16, 2012 - 11:23 am"
I didn't see that piece, but I did see the CBS 60 Minutes piece which was a bucket of (typically CBS, Post Rather) dirty Yellow Dog Journalism.
They dragged in the Pelosis WHICH WAS NOT, NOT, NOT, INSIDER TRADING"
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Hey there Monte, I always liked that name. You seem to have a special interest in this. I did a fast search and I got the expected "she's guilty" Do you have a link or something. Did the 60 minute piece miss the mark "technically" She has been there a very long time, hard to believe shes clean on this either now or before. She certainly has made it clear shes all in for sleazy politics. What do ya got?
During the debate of the birth control issue for a few weeks on this site, the conservative/libertian posters in general - and "johnandere" in particular - have persistently put forth an illogical argument that the "separation clause" entitles religious groups to defy/fail to comply with civil laws they don't agree with. This is patently untrue; they can work to change the laws and/or challenge their legality in the courts, but they can't disobey them without being subject to the consequences of doing so.
"K2345us" made this point quite succinctly, to which "johnandere" replied "So much for that "church and state" thing, eh k?" - no elaboration is offered, I guess, since any that was wouldn't hold up to scrutiny.
So much for comprehending logic - when the result doesn't support your sensibilities/beliefs - is more like it.
"Michael Pettengill wrote:
The Rep Issa led hearing “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?” is the most blatant example of conservative Republicans defining religious liberty as something that is valid only if it is in agreement with conservative Republican views.
Religious liberty is not allowed in opposition to war.
Religious liberty is not allowed in opposition to capital punishment.
Religious liberty is not allowed for plural marriage.
Religious liberty is not allowed for Catholics supporting worker rights and labor unions as the primary means of social justice in the work place.
In fact, while conservative Republicans demand policy satisfy the Pope on contraception, but conservative Republicans call the Pope's statement of religious duty to oppose war, to promote social justice via labor unions, to promote social justice through government poverty programs, etc to an unacceptable meddling in government policy by religious leaders.
Conservative Republicans are cynically and crassly invoking a religious liberty they, and the Constitution, rejects simply because the Pope and the Catholic church provide a convenient bludgeon to hit Obama and Democrats. This political use of religious is equivalent to using religion to justify slavery.
February 16, 2012 - 6:02 pm"
I'm with you Mike but would just like to add-
The RC Church has been a very powerful force advocating for, indeed complicit in illegal and legal immigration. The reason being, that having forced Latin Americans into breeding themselves into dire poverty, they now want to deal with the inevitable starvation by shipping millions of them into the US.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
"monte wrote:
Hey there Monte, I always liked that name. You seem to have a special interest in this. I did a fast search and I got the expected "she's guilty" Do you have a link or something. Did the 60 minute piece miss the mark "technically" She has been there a very long time, hard to believe shes clean on this either now or before. She certainly has made it clear shes all in for sleazy politics. What do ya got?
February 17, 2012 - 4:42 pm"
I got enough, you ignorant GD Bigot.
As in all big IPO's, the Underwriters dole out Shares to whichever Brokers they please and the Brokers dole out the Shares to whichever Clients they please.
By no stretch of imagination is that Insider Trading!!
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
"Michael Pettengill wrote:
In fact, while conservative Republicans demand policy satisfy the Pope on contraception, but conservative Republicans call the Pope's statement of religious duty to oppose war, to promote social justice via labor unions, to promote social justice through government poverty programs, etc to an unacceptable meddling in government policy by religious leaders.
Conservative Republicans are cynically and crassly invoking a religious liberty they, and the Constitution, rejects simply because the Pope and the Catholic church provide a convenient bludgeon to hit Obama and Democrats. This political use of religious is equivalent to using religion to justify slavery.
February 16, 2012 - 6:02 pm"
During the Bosnian Chaos, I heard a Woman cursing the Muslims for using an abandoned Monastery for a Stable.
Hardly a sin, particularly since our and Her beloved Savior was born in a stable.
But she raged on, rousing her audience to a fever pitch while hinting at suitable revenge for such a terrible affront to her Religion.
The Filth that calls itself a Political Party uses Religion against the Democrats, criticizes the handling of the Military, even though "Politics stops at the Waters edge", for them.
Their perverted desperation to hold onto power strikes at the very heart of our Democracy and divides our people along any dimension that they can divide.
It will take years to heal the divisions that have been inflicted on the American People, a generally tolerant People as such things go.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
donholl wrote:
" This is patently untrue; they can work to change the laws and/or challenge their legality in the courts, but they can't disobey them without being subject to the consequences of doing so."
"no elaboration is offered, I guess, since any that was wouldn't hold up to scrutiny."
donholl, this has nothing to do with "sensibilities and beliefs". It has to do with the Constitution. If the Congress passed a law requiring, or the President declared that, Jewish people had to eat pork, would you argue that "they can't disobey without being subject to the consequences of doing so"?
That's an absurd example. But so is requiring a religious institution to act contrary to the tenets of its faith. In our system of government, the Constitution, including the Amendments, is the Supreme Law of the Land. It is not trumped by whatever Congress decides it can pass, or, in this case, whatever the President declares by fiat, which is all you really have here - an interpretation of law by the Secretary of HHS, not law itself. So, in the end, we will let the courts decide.
How's that for "standing up to scrutiny"?
Kathleen:
Stated "It could not get any more absurd watching five Catholic males I think three were bishops sitting at a table in our nations capitol addressing and deciding what womens reproductive rights are. I am so glad I left the Catholic church"
And the Catholic Church is better.
psouthward@eart... wrote
"As a lifelong Catholic, I am EMBARRASSED by the bishops -- so quick on contraception, so slow on pedophilia! What's wrong with these people?!"
If you are so quick to point the finger about pedophilia in the priesthood. Why don't you include pedophilia in Public Schools? Dozens a week. In LA two at the same Elementary School.
Jefferson summed it up nicely.
“On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
Why liberal democrats don't embrace this is beyond logic, they operate as though their lies and distortions won't come back to haunt them. Our supreme court is about to tip in the direction of the likes of Ruth Ginsburg and like minded justices who view the constitution as a quaint irrelevant document.
"monte wrote:
"It's part of that "living, breathing" Constitution that the left likes to claim can mean anything they want it to mean".
Your a fine debater johnandere. The trouble we have here is we have to start from scratch every week. My knowledge and understanding of the constitution has grown tremendously since I have been involved here and I'm grateful for it."
Me too. I just wish I had more time to read it and understand it better. But you are a great debater. When I have the time, been spending it combating the Liberals on Diana Rehms FB side.
Cheers
Underneath the sign you suggested taping on the window "THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF BIRTH CONTROL Add, in legally, papalily 'imprimatured' 'small" (read MINISCULE) print. "You only have a right to No Choices"
See your local holy man if you have a problem. Get ye to a convent right now, girl. See the red slippers under the confessional curtain. Smell the Holy Incense.
I think Jefferson mean us to be Free from Reverencing anyone dressed in Red Robes, and all their Unfrankensence. Smells great, do it not? Oh, swish, swish. Oh, keep your voices down, in 'reverence' to the noncense. Or you will be garotted in the Jim Crow state of Virginia. Sic Semper Tyranus: Commonwealth of Virginia
Right-to Work example to the deserving poor.
meangreen
Your both way too kind. I bet if a few of the usual suspects on the other side are reading all this their about to burst the seems on the straight jackets. When I first came here I felt out of my league but I thought I could contribute something with a few well placed roadside bombs, that was a lot of fun. It did not take long to figure out that most of the opposition just makes stuff up and occasionally puts some twisted stats next to it. They just want all this big government BS and then seek to force it down every ones throats with complete distortions of the facts. We argue with people who have no rules or limits. I don't want to scare anyone off because we can use some new meat, most that come here wanting to leave a response I am sure expect to be greeted with socialist arms wide open and high fives all around for well said comrad, but instead find us. I wonder how much life the D.R. show has left anyway, Diane is probably getting close to a point were it's just not worth it anymore. Going to have to change my name again, the powers that be are not too tolerant of my modus operandi.
Longfeather wrote:
" You only have a right to No Choices
See your local holy man if you have a problem. Get ye to a convent right now, girl. See the red slippers under the confessional curtain. Smell the Holy Incense. I think Jefferson mean us to be Free from Reverencing anyone dressed in Red Robes, and all their Unfrankensence."
You could not be more wrong, Longfeather. You see Jefferson meant us to have the choice to reverence or not to reverence. Get it? If you want to argue that reverencing is nonsense, have at it. But that is your opinion. Nothing more. Others must be free to choose to reverence - in the way that THEY elect. And as for "you only have a right to No Choices". Utter nonsense. Nothing in the stand of the Catholic church in actuality prohibits its membership from buying, using, and practicing birth control. Nothing in my position on this subject suggests that that little girl has no choice. But I have a choice, and the Church has a choice, not to pay for her choice. Get it?
"Oh, johnandere, oh, oh oh. "Jefferson meant us to have the choice to reverence or not to reverence,' you say? Get on wit yousef. I wish we had the choice to be over this 'reverencing' the bishops and their holy rolli poliness. They are just shivering with 'taking offence.' Why, even the folks on Downton Abbey kind of gets over themselves. But they had had practice in throwing off those 'Roman overlords.' I sure would like to see some of Dame Maggie's season two facial expressions duplicated on the faces of some 'statesmen' of the Republican Party. Why, even sharing the estates of the Archbishops for public happiness would surely be a benign tribute to the yeomen and peons. I just want to know if they pay property taxes for the water and sewerage they consume, or do they get off scott free, on all public access issuew. I honestly don't know. I am not dipping my fingers in that holy water, but I have been known to light a candle, but not a red one. Only the blue and the white. That red light stuff seems to be the origin of all red lighting. Stop, oh, Stop on Red, until you pay for some indulgence. I say let Americans, Stop, look right and left, and then proceed safely. If a bishop crosses the road at the wrong point, why he is taking his chances like everyone else. We just want them to quit jaywalking and endangering all the rest of us. They can do what they want in the privacy of their own living space. If they operate a place open to the public as well a serviced by the public, let them not put up barriers that handicap their employees and free us to discuss issues that are of importance to all of us.
Longfeather states
"If a bishop crosses the road at the wrong point, why he is taking his chances like everyone else. We just want them to quit jaywalking and endangering all the rest of us".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If they break civil or criminial laws, they pay the price if they cross the wrong point just like all of us and what we have been seeing in recent years.
Longeather continues:
"They can do what they want in the privacy of their own living space."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Longeather: Those that have broken criminial and civil laws in the " privacy of their living space" have gone to prison as we have heard and seen in recent years. They guilty recently have been thrown out of the Catholic Church as well. So the Law is working.
Longeather
" If they operate a place open to the public as well a serviced by the public, let them not put up barriers that handicap their employees and free us to discuss issues that are of importance to all of us"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if it goes against their fundemental teachings, adding abortion, transgender surgery, etc which they the church will have to pay.
This is where freedom is destroyed and principles of Founding Fathers as stated in the Constitution are destroyed, Separation of Church and State.
Longfeather wrote:
" If they operate a place open to the public as well a serviced by the public, let them not put up barriers that handicap their employees and free us to discuss issues that are of importance to all of us"
meangreen wrote:
"Even if it goes against their fundemental teachings, adding abortion, transgender surgery, etc which they the church will have to pay.
This is where freedom is destroyed and principles of Founding Fathers as stated in the Constitution are destroyed, Separation of Church and State."
And that's the point. Civil law, like ACA, does not trump the Constitution and the First Amendment.
Longfeather, you like most liberals like to profess choice. But your whole ideology is based on government telling people what they must do. That is anti-choice - including in the case of abortion, where the choice of the unborn to breathe air has been summarily removed. The same is true in the case of the Catholic church. If you had your way, there would BE no church, whether people wanted it or not. After all, you say, " I wish we had the choice to be over this 'reverencing' the bishops and their holy rolli poliness". That's been tried, by the way. It happened in the 30's and 40's. It's known as fascism.
"Jefferson meant us to have the choice to reverence or not to reverence,' you say? Get on wit yousef"
'Get on with myself'?! You pompous ass! The protections of the first amendment aren't something to 'get on wit'. THEY are something to be reverenced - but sadly, something for which you have no respect. I suggest you take up any complaint with Chairman Mao. He'd no doubt be sympathetic to your views.