Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-09-14/friday-news-roundup-domestic
The Federal Reserve announced a new, open-ended round of bond buying to stimulate economic growth. President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney sparred over the Obama administration's handling of the attacks in Libya and Egypt. And vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan returned to the House to vote on a six-month, stopgap spending bill to keep the government operating. Jonathan Allen of Politico, Jackie Calmes of The New York Times and Michael Scherer of TIME magazine join Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Jonathan Allen
congressional reporter for Politico.
Jackie Calmes
national correspondent for The New York Times.
Michael Scherer
White House correspondent for Time magazine.
Friday News Roundup Video
The panel discussed the significance of the Federal Reserve's announcement Thursday of a new open-ended mortgage bond-buying program. Time magazine's Michael Scherer said the action represents a huge shift for the Fed. "They're basically saying we're going to go as far as we need to go to make sure the economy recovers," Scherer said. Jackie Calmes, national correspondent for The New York Times, said it's important to note the Fed didn't mark an end to the program. Jonathan Allen, congressional reporter for Politico, said the program won't affect the unemployment rate.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Please do not flag any posts as offensive, a truly offensive post always works against the author. As liberal as this show is, it does afford us the opportunity for vigorous debate without a screener or overly sensitive moderator. I have had posts I put some work into or thought made good points only to be removed because some doofus couldn't handle the truth, if we start flagging this can get out of control real fast.
pp wrote:
"Please do not flag any posts as offensive, a truly offensive post always works against the author. As liberal as this show is, it does afford us the opportunity for vigorous debate without a screener or overly sensitive moderator. I have had posts I put some work into or thought made good points only to be removed because some doofus couldn't handle the truth, if we start flagging this can get out of control real fast."
I have reported as offensive maybe two or three times. For discussion content I would never do that, pp. Nor for posts from people like Pancake or Kathleen or others who say goofy stuff about Bush, the Koch brothers, wild conspiracy theories, I have no problem with. "You're stupid", "you're wrong", "you're this, you're that", if it makes you feel better have at it. I blasted one poster (a former poster as far as I can tell and now I can't remember his ID) over a period of months for calling me a racist, forced him to back up his accusation which he couldn't do, but never reported as offensive. But direct personal vile attacks against me like the following:
"you slimy, lying, deranged, weaselly, cockchafer"
are going to be reported. There's no place for that language. It only comes out when the poster has nothing of substance to say, or knows he is dead wrong, and can't back up his statements.
On Diane Rehm's Domestic Friday News Roundup, Diane made the outrageous and irresponsible claim that an American's video was directly responsible for the four tragic deaths in Libya...
Perhaps SHE should be detained for having made such an outrageous and unsubstantiated claim when the emerging details point to a very different, premeditated, scripted scenario.
"Journalists" of every ilk need to start being held responsible for the sway they wield.
That American was detained for "questioning" and while Diane's wildly subjective comments were not directly responsible, is it not as outrageous for me to assert they were?
You have a powerful voice, Ms Rehm. Would you be willing to have your civil liberties trifled, as that American citizen has, for having used it?
I look with anticipation for the return of responsible broadcast journalism.
We are listening.
Riley1 on September 15, 2012 @ 2:27 am asked: “Didn't this Pastor Terry violate the constitution with the denigration of Muhammad”
No. The Constitution (particularly the First Amendment) only binds the government. It can’t discriminate on the basis of religion, nor denigrate any faith. But we as individuals have the right to do so (even if we shouldn’t). It’s called freedom of speech.
As for Romney’s war mongering, that has more to do with geopolitics (and electoral politics, of course) than religion. If Belgium “got the bomb”, and was declaring Denmark had no right to exist, while sponsoring terrorist groups to promote the “Belgium faith”, I would expect our government (through NATO) to oppose that too.
(I’m not saying I support Romney’s saber rattling. That’s another issue.)
Also, I don’t believe the First Amendment applies to that situation. Generally speaking, the Supreme Court has taken a “hands off” position when it comes to exercise of the War Power.
On the other hand, just because it’s legal for a private person to insult Islam (or any faith), doesn’t make it right. The answer, though, is to condemn those who do that. Which I whole-heartedly do.
mchaun on September 15, 2012 @ 1:58 pm wrote: “G_d forbid I should offend you . . . his first identity claim was that he was an Israeli Jew Businessman. . . . but the Supremes have recognized, ‘Fighting Words’, which I suppose meant speech so offensive that a listener might lose control.”
No offense taken.
Yes, that was “Bacile’s” first identity claim. But we now know his real name (which I don’t use because I prefer to highlight what a fraud this guy is). We also know he’s a Coptic Christian from Egypt (which is where most Coptic’s are or come from). Which is probably where he’d be sent, if he is deportable, and was deported. (Unless he’s a naturalized citizen, then he may not be deportable. I claim no expertise in Immigration law.)
As for the “Fighting Words” doctrine, that went out the window along with the “Heckler’s Veto”. (The idea that because a speech might lead to violent protest we can censor the speech. The Supreme Court has rejected that idea. That’s why I place such emphasis on whether “Bacile” intended his movie to provoke riots. Then it would lose First Amendment protection.)
By the way, even the “crying fire” view has been modified, or rejected. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969) sort of modified/limited/overruled the Schenck case. But that’s going into very deep Constitutional Law territory, and I’m not trying to deliver a seminar on First Amendment rights!
"ecgberht wrote:
I blasted one poster (a former poster as far as I can tell and now I can't remember his ID) over a period of months for calling me a racist, forced him to back up his accusation which he couldn't do, but never reported as offensive.
September 16, 2012 - 10:50 am"
Whatsa matter eggie, dementia creeping up on you?? It was Grady Lee Howard.
Here's a couple of nice ones, wish eggie would explain.
"ecgberht wrote:
...
No one has picked up on it because it is all in your mind. NO ONE mentioned race except you and Schteve Robertsch.
...
August 31, 2012 - 2:07 pm"
"ecgberht wrote:
Marcus,
I don't know why you would waste your time discussing Totenburg. She's a liberal hack. Sometime I'll post the exchange I had with her during the Alito hearings years ago. She's even to the left of Steve Inski. (the misspelling is intentional).
October 28, 2011 - 11:07 pm"
ecgberht wrote:
...
Frankly, I think you oppose him because he's ( Russell Pearce) a Mormon. Go ahead, deny it. Religious bigotry is as bad as racial bigotry.
Feels nice, doesn't it?
April 24, 2012 - 1:55 pm
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
romney_p on September 15, 2012 @ 3:25 pm wrote: “I am absolutely disgusted by Diane's suggestions that first amendment rights of everyone need to be restrained so that the free speech of whackjob within the US don't offend whackjobs in the muslim world.”
I don’t believe that’s what she intended to suggest, and she’d be wrong if it was. However, you are wrong about the “crying fire” scenario, for reasons I’ve already explained. It’s perfectly okay to do so if there’s a fire. Doing it falsely with the intention of causing a panic isn’t protected.
The same principle applies to this disgusting film. If the intention was merely to mock a religion, it’s protected speech. If the intention was to provoke riots, it may not be.
ecgberht on September 16, 2012 @ 12:29 am wrote: “Oh, and the last comment gets you flagged as offensive.”
Better sit down for this one: I agree with you about the last part of his Comment. It was offensive.
However, I’m not sure I agree with the whole “flagging” option. Again, the answer to bad speech is more speech, not censorship. We’re all adults here, and should be able to “take it” (sticks and stones, etc.).
P.S. - As to the substance of the dispute between you, I have nothing to say. So don’t ask, because I won’t tell!
;-)
partisan politics on September 16, 2012 @ 8:53 am wrote: “Please do not flag any posts as offensive, a truly offensive post always works against the author. As liberal as this show is, it does afford us the opportunity for vigorous debate without a screener or overly sensitive moderator. I have had posts I put some work into or thought made good points only to be removed because some doofus couldn't handle the truth, if we start flagging this can get out of control real fast.”
That was so well said, it deserves repetition.
Well done!
Stoopid on September 16, 2012 @ 2:20 pm wrote: “On Diane Rehm's Domestic Friday News Roundup, Diane made the outrageous and irresponsible claim that an American's video was directly responsible for the four tragic deaths in Libya...”
Excuse me, but I don’t believe she made any such claim. Care to back up your words by quoting her (so we can see what you think constitutes such a claim, instead of having to guess)?
Meanwhile, only a “stoopid” person would deny that the video directly lead to the rioting (though it appears the attack in Libya was an example of terrorists taking advantage of the situation, and not actually reacting to the video).
And why should “journalists” be the only ones “held responsible” for the effects of their words? Aren’t you contradicting yourself? Shouldn’t Mr. “Bacile” also be “held responsible” then?
No, sir, you may be “hearing”, but you clearly aren’t “listening” (let alone thinking).
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
ecgberht on September 16, 2012 @ 12:29 am wrote: “Oh, and the last comment gets you flagged as offensive.”
Better sit down for this one: I agree with you about the last part of his Comment. It was offensive.
However, I’m not sure I agree with the whole “flagging” option. Again, the answer to bad speech is more speech, not censorship. We’re all adults here, and should be able to “take it” (sticks and stones, etc.).
P.S. - As to the substance of the dispute between you, I have nothing to say. So don’t ask, because I won’t tell!
;-)
September 16, 2012 - 4:24 pm
Glad you're keeping a close eye on me, shrudlu, but too bad you missed the rather odd names eggie gave to Inskeep and Steve Roberts.
Since you seem to be kindred spirits, perhaps he'll tell you what he meant.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
"Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
P.S. - As to the substance of the dispute between you, I have nothing to say. So don’t ask, because I won’t tell!
;-)
September 16, 2012 - 4:24 pm"
I'm also glad "the substance of the dispute between (us)" amuses you.
However, the Master Slayer of Straw Men continues to avoid the ugliest part of his claim. He wrote:
"After d**king around for two months, Mr. Obama authorized sending in 30,000. He kept the number low in an attempt to appease the left and deferred approval until the fighting season was over."
Do you consider that statement and its attendant implications for our Troops safety and the President's character OK??
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
mcchaun wrote:
"Glad you're keeping a close eye on me, shrudlu, but too bad you missed the rather odd names eggie gave to Inskeep and Steve Roberts."
mcchaun has a difficult time processing situations in terms of relative equivalence.
mchaun on September 16, 2012 @ 4:51 pm wrote: “Glad you're keeping a close eye on me, shrudlu, but too bad you missed the rather odd names eggie gave to Inskeep and Steve Roberts. Since you seem to be kindred spirits, perhaps he'll tell you what he meant.”
Sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t single you out for special attention.
And I’m well aware of eggie’s childish penchant for misspelling names. Far from being “kindred spirits”, I have frequently chastised him for referring to me as “Strudel” - returning the compliment by referring to him as “eggie” (as you did), or as egghead.
But two wrongs don’t make a right, and the language you employed in attacking him (“slimy, lying, deranged, weaselly, cockchafer”) is far worse than his sophomoric behavior.
P.S. - You put an extra “u” in my last name.
P.P.S. - And while I appreciate the flattery involved, you really don't have to quote everything I wrote in a Comment. Just a brief selection sufficient to get the gist.
mchaun wrote on September 16, 2012 @ 5:09 pm: “I'm also glad ‘the substance of the dispute between (us)’ amuses you. . . . Do you consider that statement and its attendant implications for our Troops safety and the President's character OK??”
Nice try, but I meant what I said. I have no opinion to offer on that topic. (A rarity for me, but it sometimes happens.)
ecgberht on September 16, 2012 @ 10:41 pm wrote: “mcchaun has a difficult time processing situations in terms of relative equivalence.”
I know I’m going to regret saying this, but: Pot meet kettle.
Strudel
"the language you employed in attacking him (“slimy, lying, deranged, weaselly, cockchafer”) is far worse than his sophomoric behavior".
But then he wrote ...
"ecgberht on September 16, 2012 @ 10:41 pm wrote: “mcchaun has a difficult time processing situations in terms of relative equivalence.”
I know I’m going to regret saying this, but: Pot meet kettle".
So which is it? You admit yourself the two are nowhere equivalent!
Suggest you look back at the origin of "Strudel", then the origin of names such as "teabagger" and "Republi-Con" on this mb if you are interested in sophomoric behavior and "who started it".
As for the Strudel moniker, I've always thought of it as a "pet name" (since the real one is hard to spell - and yes, I do know the origin), not a put down. I don't know why you are offended.
ecgberht on September 17, 2012 @ 9:37 am wrote: “So which is it? You admit yourself the two are nowhere equivalent! Suggest you look back at the origin of ‘Strudel’, then the origin of names such as ‘teabagger’ and ‘Republi-Con’ on this mb if you are interested in sophomoric behavior and ‘who started it’. As for the Strudel moniker, I've always thought of it as a ‘pet name’ (since the real one is hard to spell - and yes, I do know the origin), not a put down. I don't know why you are offended.”
Thanks for proving my point.
Yes, mcchaun’s behavior in this case is worse than yours (which is why although I don’t agree with flagging as a general rule, I agreed that his conduct came close to justifying it). However, “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”. You are hardly in a position to express “moral outrage” over him. It’s like asking who’s worse: Hitler or Stalin. The latter may have killed more people, but they’re both still murderous tyrants.
And your comparison of your childish use of the name “Strudel” (and the other examples mcchaun referenced) with my use of those other terms further demonstrates the point. You engage in such conduct as a personal attack and demeaning of your target. I’m simply making a remark about a political group, not an attack on every member personally.
Besides, the Teabaggers created that term for themselves originally. They only began objecting when they learned what it was slang for. And “Republi-Con” is simply short for “Republican-Conservative” - a term I use to distinguish the historical Republican Party (the true “party of Lincoln”) from what it has morphed into: a party where neither Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, or Eisenhower would have a prayer of getting the nomination (and probably not Goldwater or Reagan either).
I’ve repeated this often enough that you have no basis for claiming ignorance.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
On the other hand, your “excuse” (spelling) is too pathetic for words. Ever hear of “cut and paste”? How do you think I quote the relevant parts of the Comments I’m replying to (including the date and time)? I don’t type it from scratch!
Sorry, egghead, but it’s obviously a put down, and one as childish as the second word in this sentence. But turnabout is fair play, so I feel no shame in stooping to your level.
As for offense? None at all. One doesn’t take offense when a child throws a temper tantrum. One simply walks away. By all means, continue acting like a spoiled brat - it only helps discredit what you write.
P.S. - And lest you remark that I must be upset to go on so long, let me remind you that brevity is not my forté.
Strudel (and I mean that in a good way - as in "my widdle Strudel") wrote:
"You are hardly in a position to express “moral outrage” over him."
Yeah. I am. This is not the difference between "Hitler" and "Stalin" (btw, in my experience, one invokes Hitler when one has no argument to make!)
Show me where I have ever posted ANYTHING anywhere near this:
"you slimy, lying, deranged, weaselly, cockchafer"?
"I’ve repeated this often enough that you have no basis for claiming ignorance."
I've never claimed ignorance. I've claimed complete lack of credibility for your explanation. Both these terms are derogatory and you've admitted that you use them to "tweak" the political right. Speaking of childish ....
By the way, what you classify as "lack of brevity", I classify as a profound waste of my time.
Your wrong. Hate speech is hate speech. Intolerance is intolerance. Remember the rights of all religious faiths to exist. Look just because you can say whatever you want, does not give the right to denigrate some ones religion. This is a violation of freedom of religion a universal right. So what you are basically saying is that freedom of speech trumps freedom of religion. In this country instead of embracing diversity, we disdain it.
The biggest thing for me in Romney's comments about the 47% is that 47% of the folks who work in this country do not make enough money to even pay federal income tax. Folks who do not work are not included in the statistic.
Instead the media has ignored this side of the issue and has instead conflated entitlement programs with the working poor.
mchaun wrote:
ecgberht wrote:
"Acording to Egbert Alzheimer school of mathematics, 60,000=80,000=40,000. "
McChrystal made multiple requests, essentially begging Obama for troops.
Obama waited for the end of the fighting season, leaving the in country
troops to twist, then low-balled him for political reasons"
As usual, your EOD warped mind clings to the irrelevant which is not my
main concern.
I will point out, however, that each of his "multiple requests"
escalated the number by 10,000, which is well known by the Israelis and
our State Dept to guarantee failure. And where was the President to get
80,000 or 60,000 or 40,000 or even 30,000 deployable Troops?
"Obama waited for the end of the fighting season, leaving the in country
troops to twist, then low-balled him for political reasons"
To come to the real point, do you care to back that up, you _____, ______,
_________, ________??
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
September 15, 2012 - 1:44 pm