Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-05-18/friday-news-roundup-domestic
Facebook begins trading this morning in one of history’s largest initial public offerings. President Obama meets with congressional leaders to seek common ground on the looming debt ceiling battle. The FBI launches a criminal investigation into the $3 billion trading loss at J.P. Morgan Chase. The House of Representatives approves the Violence Against Women Act. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney raises $40 million in one month, nearly matching President Obama. And minorities surpass whites in U.S. births for the first time. Michael Scherer of TIME magazine, Laura Meckler of The Wall Street Journal and John Harwood of CNBC and The New York Times join guest host Tom Gjelten for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Michael Scherer
White House correspondent, Time magazine.
Laura Meckler
White House correspondent, The Wall Street Journal.
John Harwood
chief Washington correspondent for CNBC; reporter, The New York Times.
Related Video
The panelists discuss Facebook's initial public offering, which started trading Friday at 11 a.m. CNBC correspondent John Harwood said the offering was four times as large as Google's when it went public eight years ago. He said it was priced aggressively at $38 per share. TIME magazine correspondent Michael Scherer said Facebook is unique compared to other Internet companies because it can sell targeted audience information to its advertisers.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
MarcusTullius on May 18, 2012 @ 12:43 pm wrote: “You should be directing your comment to Andrew Cairns. He is the one who expressed his ‘partisan attitude’ regarding the electoral college. I merely gave him the flip side to his attitude.”
Hogwash! Unlike you, he didn’t ask that the college be abolished this one time, and his reason had nothing to do with partisan advantage. He was expressing frustration that his individual vote really doesn’t matter, since all that matters is how the total vote in his State goes.
Which, of course brings me back to my point. In 2000, because of the Electoral College system (and a partisan and unprincipled Supreme Court decision) the candidate who lost the popular vote won the election. Republi-Cons were fine with that. But this year? Well, if we go by your Comment, the fact that the system may advantage the “other guy” is reason to abolish it.
Personally, I’d favor reforming the system. One advantage of the Electoral College (in theory) is that it requires campaigns in all 50 states (since we in essence have 50 elections, not one). In practice, of course, it now produces the opposite result because increased partisanship has produced “safe” states. One solution might be to change how electoral votes are distributed: instead of “winner takes all”, apportion them in each state - perhaps according to the popular vote in that state. That way campaigning in all the states becomes important again.
On the other hand, living in a “safe state” (whether “blue” or “red”) has this advantage: you don’t have to endure the avalanche of campaign ads!
RobertLongView on May 18, 2012 @ 12:47 pm wrote: “the romantic notion of "1 Man & 1 Woman is of European origins i believe -- was it the English Lord Simpson example?”
Uh, dude, that’s the point I was making. Patsy was the one who claimed romance was an invention of the 20th Century, American, Progressive movement. I pointed out that the Church (the Catholic Church) championed it - in Europe, starting in the Middle Ages.
Read Sex and Reason.
RobertLongView wrote:
" Why do the republicans support Voter ID Laws when there is little voter fraud. It is their tort reform of the health care debate, no? Don't expect change from the R. party they are just too darn conservative. or partisan, eh?"
------------------------------------
If voter fraud is of little consequence, then why are Democrats apoplectic about voters having to produce a photo ID? Voters in states that have the photo ID requirement do not complain. You need a photo ID to cash a check. Why is this simple proof of identification a problem for anyone?
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Teece Bowman wrote:
Let me play this back.....
1)." President Obama met with congressional leaders to seek common ground on the looming debt ceiling battle." Predictable results here....the Republicans are simply not going to cooperative even if it means making the country and the economy suffer. As a matter of fact, they hope that it suffers. See part four below.
-----------
NYC Mavens on Madison Ave know that anything that makes the U.S. look good is to the detriment of Romney in the 2012 Race. Just like Rupert knows that anything negative in the news dept. perpetuates controversy and incites the conservative base... . tabloid pandering i believe it is... .
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"Hogwash! Unlike you, he didn’t ask that the college be abolished this one time, and his reason had nothing to do with partisan advantage. He was expressing frustration that his individual vote really doesn’t matter, since all that matters is how the total vote in his State goes."
---------------------------------
White wash! Poster Andrew Cairns was in favor of the electoral college in 08 when candidate Obama won. Now that POTUS Obama's re-election is in jeopardy, he is against the electoral college. Of course his vote matters. It is still counted. How does he know that POTUS Obama will win the popular vote, but loose the electoral vote when the electoral map favors POTUS Obama?
MarcusTullius on May 18, 2012 @ 12:53 pm wrote: “How exactly do Romney's religious views impact federal law?”
PART ONE
What planet do you live on?
Romney opposes abortion, he’d appoint justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade (as did Reagan and both Bushes). He’s called for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and opposes civil rights for gays. (Do you even listen to this show? Or do you just Comment without bothering to hear what’s being said.)
As for Obama’s “flip-flopping” - he has repeatedly stated that his views changed over time, and that he was struggling with the issue of gay marriage. Changing his position when it provides little in the way of partisan advantage is hardly “flip-flopping”.
On the other hand, when running for Kennedy’s Senate seat, Romney proclaimed himself more “pro-gay” than his opponent. Of course, that was in liberal Massachusetts. Now that he’s running in the uber-conservative national GOP, he opposes gay rights. Mr. Etch-A-Sketch indeed!
Oh, and gay marriage and civil rights are two different things. I support gay marriage, but I don’t believe there is a constitutional right to it. There are good public policy reasons for it (and none against it), and as a matter of justice it should exist, but if you are talking about creating a Federal law imposing it on the nation, I oppose that as much as I oppose a Federal ban on it. Obama clearly shares similar ideas, Romney believes the exact opposite.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
As for Newsweek’s idiotic cover - how is Obama responsible for that? Besides, I’m not concerned if someone hypes him as a “religious icon”. I’m concerned about a candidate who says he’ll take his marching orders from his deity. (In fairness, Romney has never said that, but his views on social issues do seem to be coming from his religious beliefs, and that represents an attempt to impose those beliefs on the nation.)
just like an new engalnd elite -- i gotta read something -- don confuse me... .
well from deep in the woods not far remvoved from the Jim Demint South and the Nikki Carolinas, it was the RED, RED robes of the C. Bishops that the Klan rode against... .
The Virgin Birth goes back to the KJV Bible but birth control raised high on the pedistal... . the church (es) were going to stop the ions of sperm spawning? only a conservative mind can conceive such,
unless it it 1 man & 1 woman = Loving vows. Nothing bonds like a gold band around your... . thru your nose, eh
RobertLongView on May 18, 2012 - 1:00 pm wrote: “The Patriots that wrote the Holy U.S. Constitution did not pay taxes, especially Tea w/o representation Taxes, no?”
What are you babbling about? One of the issues during the debate over the Constitution was the fact that it gave Congress a direct power of taxation. (Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 1). This was controversial, especially since under the Articles of Confederation (which the Constitution was to replace) there was no such power. Congress could only requisition funds from the States, who were (in theory) supposed to tax their citizens to raise the revenue. In practice many States refused to do so, and the Congress was starved for funds. (It’s one reason Washington and his Army had to spend that horrendous winter in Valley Forge: no money for supplies.)
So, the men who wrote the Constitution wanted to be taxed. Remember, despite the ignorance of the Tea Baggers, the saying was “No taxation, without representation. The Revolution wasn’t fought to end taxation. It was fought to gain representation, through self-government.
(And please stop referencing me when you are actually replying to what someone else has said.)
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:' Look who’s talking! Someone who ignores anything that contradicts his conservative world-view, and believes in “fantasy based” politics, rather than “reality based”."
Your describing yourself. Can you give me an example of my “fantasy based” politics"?
I know hate and contempt for this country when I see. I do hold extreme contempt for anyone or any group that wants to throw an elbow in my face to steal what I have earned and steal my freedom, far and away this describes the democrat party in 2012.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"I guess you feel what’s good for the GOP is always good for America."
I'm a libertarian and voted for Ron Paul in the primaries, however I will support the GOP in the general. Obama is just such the hateful democrat I have in mind when I describe the democrat party in 2012.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"While I agree Teece’s rhetoric is inflated, so is yours. I don’t agree with everything he (she?) wrote, but Teece wasn’t expressing “hatred” for America, but for what the Republi-Cons are doing to America"
We know she hates capitalism which is the very backbone of this country. How would you explain her contempt for white people in government in her latest rant? I did not see a separation of democrats or republicans there..
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
" What planet do you live on?"
Romney opposes abortion, he’d appoint justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade (as did Reagan and both Bushes). He’s called for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and opposes civil rights for gays. (Do you even listen to this show? Or do you just Comment without bothering to hear what’s being said.)"
-----------------------------------
Third planet from the sun. I'll wait while you search for a guide to the solar sytem.
Do you rely on the DR Show for factual information? How sad. How have all those Republican appointed justices done in overturning Roe V Wade? It isn't happening. POTUS Obama opposes civil rights for gays. Last month, POTUS Obama's position on gay marriage was the same as Romney's. Now he is a saint. But Newsweek didn't characterize him as a Devil for the last three years. Why not?
yeah, reminds me of MCCain in 2008 when he stopped in the middle of his speech to address the woman from SC and defended Obama's religionionality. They say she voted for Newt in the 2012 Primary because he knows how to walk the talk! oh well, political suicide or not he earned my respect (in the code of the mountain main, anyway.... . faux pas, bow & curtsey, et al... .we have a legend down here and it is that Davy Crockett rode an alligator up the Miss to the D.C.... .They are big reptiles here in the bible belt you know... .
MarcusTullius on May 18, 2012 @ 1:14 pm wrote: “If voter fraud is of little consequence, then why are Democrats apoplectic about voters having to produce a photo ID? Voters in states that have the photo ID requirement do not complain.”
Again, what planet do you live on?
There are numerous reports of people being denied the vote simply because they don’t have the proper ID. They’ve even gone to court over it. That sounds like a “complaint” to me.
Furthermore, the old, the poor, the handicapped often can’t get those ID’s (since in many cases it’s an expensive, cumbersome process). And Republi-Cons have repeatedly opposed attempts to ameliorate these problems (such as by making photo ID’s available at local post offices, rather than force people to go to a distant board of election).
I’ll make you a deal: you can have all the voter ID laws you like, but there must be funds to insure that every valid voter is easily able to get one - including paying for mobile vans that will go to the poor, the elderly, or the homebound and make the ID’s there.
Oh, and study after study shows that the real problem isn’t voter “identity theft” (the only thing ID’s supposedly prevent), but the failure of the Boards of Election to update their records. I can personally attest to the fact that people will still be listed as a voter in one state long after they’ve moved to another. The problem could be solved by linking the databases of each state, so that when a person registers in their new state they are automatically removed from the voter rolls of their old one. But guess which party refuses to consider, and often opposes, any such reform? (Hint: not the Democratic Party.)
Indeed, the lady (Republi-Cons like you) doth protest too much.
puple haze was great then but as i've aged into my blue haze (check out the jazz Hendrix blues music)
it is 3rd Rock from the son... . the swee spot of the broad-broad way... .
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"As for Newsweek’s idiotic cover - how is Obama responsible for that? "
------------------------------
Have you heard any objections from The White House about the cover? If Tina Brown depicted him as a "homophobe," how long before The White House would be falling over themselves condemning Newsweek?
are the Republi-Cons like a shill? i stay away from such, like mama sez
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"There are numerous reports of people being denied the vote simply because they don’t have the proper ID. They’ve even gone to court over it. That sounds like a “complaint” to me.
Furthermore, the old, the poor, the handicapped often can’t get those ID’s (since in many cases it’s an expensive, cumbersome process). And Republi-Cons have repeatedly opposed attempts to ameliorate these problems (such as by making photo ID’s available at local post offices, rather than force people to go to a distant board of election)."
-----------------------------------
Proper ID? Could you link to these reports? Old, poor, handicapped, can't get photo ID's? Since when? Expensive? $26 for taxpayers and $7 for the indigent. How do these downtrodden make it to the polls?
i think the Time cover beat Newsweek's, as long as it is a free mkt of ideas and Madison Ave reins supreme -- they're be no change -- we have become too appathetic -- u know it is my god-given constitutional right to live free and die a Super-Sized Mickey Dee... !
Apathy and gluttony are the same gene
in the pines where the son never shines -- back in the day when a man was a man, we had poll taxes you know, keeps the hooligans and the apathetic away
MarcusTullius on May 18, 2012 @ 1:21 pm wrote: “Poster Andrew Cairns was in favor of the electoral college in 08 when candidate Obama won. Now that POTUS Obama's re-election is in jeopardy, he is against the electoral college. Of course his vote matters. It is still counted.”
Baloney!
Cairns wrote that he had previously supported the Electoral College system. He didn’t say he only supported it in 2008. So unless that’s the first and only Presidential election he ever participated in (and neither of us have any proof of that), he supported it in 2000 and 2004. Remind me. Who won those elections?
And Cairn made no comment about the popular vote vs. the electoral vote nationwide - I did. (Pay attention.) He simply objected that because Texas’ electoral votes will go to the winner in that state, and since Texas is a “red” state (which means Romney will get those votes), while his vote may indeed be “counted” it won’t count!
(In fact, he objected that because of such factors, the election really just depends on a few states. In other words, both "red" Texas and "blue" New York are taken for granted. Hardly a partisan complaint.)
Indeed, from your “logic” he should be an enthusiastic supporter of the Electoral College, since (according to current polling) it favors Obama. Therefore, according to your “reasoning” he is expressing a view counter to his partisan interest. You, of course, are doing the opposite.
Let me just add, that whatever “advantage” Obama may have is meaningless, since it’s based on polling. (Ditto your contradictory claim that his re-election is "in jeopardy".) As the North Carolina vote on gay marriage shows, polling doesn’t matter, only voting does. There will be no voting until Election Day, and that’s a long way away.
Religion is always a big issue in our elections and I do not think it should be, but it is.
I am just shocked that his religion has not become an issue.
They certainly are going after Obama for what he might believe or what he does believe etc.
the tide tuned on the republicans electorial college position after the Supreme CT & Bush v. Gore... . at's my humble opinion
Arkus Duntov on May 18, 2012 @ 1:40 pm wrote: “Can you give me an example of my ‘fantasy based politics’?”
PART ONE
I’m not going to go into the “archives” to search for examples. Anyone familiar with your Comments knows what I’m talking about.
However, your response to Teece is a good example in itself. As I’ve already pointed out, she was complaining about what the Republi-Cons are doing to America, not about America itself. Specifically, that (once again) they are willing to risk a further downgrade in our credit rating, with resulting harm to the nation, rather than cooperate with the President. Remember: they are the ones insisting “It’s my way or the highway.” The Democrats have been willing to consider both budget cuts and tax raises to close the deficit. Republicans are on record rejecting even a 10:1 ratio ($10 in cuts for every $1 in raises). Nope, the only form of “cooperation” they believe in is capitualtion by the Democrats, and they’re willing to wreck the economy to get it. I’d say Teece has good reason to “hate” that. You apparently endorse it.
“I know hate and contempt for this country when I see.”
- So do I. One example is putting partisan interest, and personal advantage, ahead of the good of the nation. The Republi-Cons excel at that.
“I do hold extreme contempt for anyone or any group that wants to throw an elbow in my face to steal what I have earned and steal my freedom, far and away this describes the democrat party in 2012.”
- Really? Democrats want to “steal” your freedom to decide what to do with your own body and life? Democrats want to “steal” your freedom to marry the adult you love? Democrats want to “steal” your money by making you pay for expensive, and invasive, vaginal ultrasound even when there is no medical reason for doing so?
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
You are too busy noting the mote in the Democratic Party’s eye to see the two-by-four sticking out of the Republi-Con’s.
As for the rest of Teece's Comment, what part of “I don’t agree with everything he (she?) wrote. . .” was too hard for you to comprehend?
On the other hand, your original Comment was directed solely to one part of what she wrote, the part where she condemned Republicans for being willing to make America’s economy suffer rather than compromise. You mindlessly condemned that simply because you dislike the rest of what she said. Once again, that makes you similar to her. (In fact, you are mirror images of each other.)
There, I think all of that demonstrates how little “fact based” your politics is.
religion is always important because the religious wish to enforce their belief on you. ie: we must have a victory/healing C. prayer before High School Football games now.
Just how many religous men blessings does it take for a Grid-Iron team to emerge safe and of course victorious. In pro ball Lombardi stated paraphtrased here : "Winning is everything... " sort of like glutony and greed the only reason to play a game is to win, eh? for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction
Winner take all to the victor belong the spolis gets u back to fair & sq one
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"Indeed, from your “logic” he should be an enthusiastic supporter of the Electoral College, since (according to current polling) it favors Obama. Therefore, according to your “reasoning” he is expressing a view counter to his partisan interest. You, of course, are doing the opposite."
------------------------
Because Cairn wrongly assumed that the electoral college favored Romney he is expressing a "view counter to his partisan interest?" Really? Cairn could move to California and end his worries about the power of his liberal vote.
we solved that stealing problem w/ poll taxes because a C. Gentleman would never cheat another gooood Christian... .
Republican shills forget that Reagan once said: "You can't legislate morality." And then delcared war on drugs.
or how about this: an immigrant C. nation that wants to make an immigrant illegal.... . back in the day a man knew his place in society and didn't get too uppity -- else he might be a yanke elite w/ 2 college degrees and a $100 million Venture Capital trust fund for the boys... . and a stay home mom -- life sure is swee if you have a silver spoon shaped receivng orifice spout swee nothing to the big 1% teaters... .
the problem w/ religion is that it presumes that God is 1.) Republican, 2.) Christian, & 3.) financed (American Exceptionalism) Columbus to set sail for The Route to EAst. After all the wise Magi came whence bearing gifts to the savior -- as prophechized in Revelations the last KJV infalliable books... something Obama wisely learned from our "Good" Rev. Wright!
American Exceptionalism as religion -- The West Indies were created so God could provide a Savior Nation for the House of Isiah (Elijah?)... anyway it was not to benefit Ismael's house --- Gee-hodi begat ! b'gorrah