Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-07-13/friday-news-roundup-domestic
A panel of journalists joins Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Naftali Bendavid
national correspondent, The Wall Street Journal.
Susan Davis
chief congressional reporter, USA Today.
David Chalian
Washington bureau chief, Yahoo! News.
Friday News Roundup Video
The panel discussed the implications of presumptive Republican candidate Mitt Romney's financial history, including his offshore bank accounts, reluctance to release more tax returns and tenure at Bain Capital. David Chalian, Washington bureau chief for Yahoo! News, said the issue of tax returns will be Romney's "Achilles' heel" in the election. Naftali Bendavid, national correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, said the fact that Romney refuses to release his tax records means that questions will linger. "It's not the ordinary political strategy," Bendavid added.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
"ecgberht wrote:
Part deux:
But, while we're on the subject ...
"During his campaign for the Presidency in 2008, Obama indicated that he would crack down on the use of offshore accounts. He was one of the signatories of the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, legislation put to Congress in 2007 that included a blacklist of 34 jurisdictions which he claimed were used by US citizens to avoid taxes, costing the government nearly US$100 billion a year."
http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.asp...
How's he doin' on that one, mchaun?!
You want to make a point, mchaun? How about attacking the complete cluster-f of a tax code we have in this country that pushes wealthy people from every political bent to move money out of the country. Every Conservative who has suggested a flat tax or a simpler tax has been hammered for it by the left!
July 5, 2012 - 3:24 pm"
How many Straw Men does that make?????
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
mchaun wrote:
"Diane:
I have been around Blacks all of my Life and have found them, in the main, to be decent, hard-working and pious people who make rich and meaningful lives under very trying circumstances.
When they find work, it is often the hardest, dirtiest and poorest paying. And now they have to compete against starving, even more desperate, Mexicans."
--------------------------------------------
Being POTUS may be hard, and occasionally Obama does engage in dirty politics, but to call him "poor' is bizarre. AS POTUS, he is paid $400K a year and has made multi millions from book sales that the liberal media buy but do not read. Did Obama have to compete for his job with Mexicans?
BTW: Do you not count blacks who are half white in your condescending observations?
Sorry Folks. Forgot to prime the Vanity Fair article and Comments.
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-07-05/campaign-spending
I wrote-
"This piece describes a minute portion of the machines that people like Romney use to avoid taxes- a minute portion, but nevertheless, so Byzantine as to be beyond the ability of any ordinary Taxpayer to grasp without the assistance of Legions of Lawyers, Lobbyists, Accountants and Politicians."
Eggbert brought up every point in the Article except for the one I cited and then clumsily attempts to demolish all but the right one.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
"MarcusTullius wrote:
mchaun wrote:
"Diane:
I have been around Blacks all of my Life and have found them, in the main, to be decent, hard-working and pious people who make rich and meaningful lives under very trying circumstances.
When they find work, it is often the hardest, dirtiest and poorest paying. And now they have to compete against starving, even more desperate, Mexicans."
--------------------------------------------
Being POTUS may be hard, and occasionally Obama does engage in dirty politics, but to call him "poor' is bizarre. AS POTUS, he is paid $400K a year and has made multi millions from book sales that the liberal media buy but do not read. Did Obama have to compete for his job with Mexicans?
BTW: Do you not count blacks who are half white in your condescending observations?
July 13, 2012 - 7:06 pm"
What in God's Name are you talking about??
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
mchaun wrote: "What in God's Name are you talking about??"
If I may, I think Marcus is talking about the "permanent victim" status that you have assigned to black people!
partisan politics wrote:
"mchaun wrote: "What in God's Name are you talking about??"
If I may, I think Marcus is talking about the "permanent victim" status that you have assigned to black people!"
--------------------------------------
Give that man a cheroot!
mchaun wrote:
"How many Straw Men does that make?????"
ZERO!!! You still don't understand what the strawman argument is, do you , mchaun. Show me where I misrepresented ANYONE's position and then refuted that misrepresentation! Here's another example:
abigail: "A sweepingly broad decision is not the same thing as a "sloppy decision."
ecgberht: I did not say this was a "sloppy decision". I said a decision against CU would set a sloppy precedent. In other words, it would answer the question in that case, but it wouldn't help at all for future cases.
So you see, mchaun, abigails argument is a strawman fallacy because she misrepresents my statement, and then refutes it.
Here's another one:
abigail: an "anything goes" standard, which I believe you are suggesting, is no standard at all. "
ecgberht: It is not "no standard at all". There are all sorts of "standards" applied to speech. And none of them are modified by CU v FEC.
So abigail's second strawman fallacy is suggesting that I hold an "anything goes" standard. That I hold "no standard at all". That's clearly not the case.
Got it?
Now go back to the posts of mine that you quoted and show me where I misrepresented someone else's argument and then refuted that. THAT'S a strawman.
You should take yourself a freshman course in formal logic and argument. Your local community college will offer one, no doubt.
mchaun wrote:
"Eggbert brought up every point in the Article except for the one I cited and then clumsily attempts to demolish all but the right one. "
McChaun, if this was supposed to be an example of a "strawman" argument, then ... FAIL!
I didn't misrepresent your argument and refute it. That's a strawman. In fact, I didn't address your statements AT ALL! That's because there was no reason to. Instead, I just reduced the article and the source upon which they were based TO DUST. Much more efficient than wasting time on the trivalities you write, don't you think!?
McChaun, I suggest you sign up for that Community College course today!
Lets ask Abigail next time she visits.
(snicker, umph,ummmmmmph, cough, gasp, HAHAHAHA!!!!!)
Sorry.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com