Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-12-21/friday-news-roundup-domestic
President Barack Obama taps Vice President Joe Biden to lead a gun violence task force. House Republicans vow to push a "Plan B" to avert the fiscal cliff. And four State Department officials leave after a damaging report on Benghazi, Libya. A panel of journalists joins Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Steve Roberts
syndicated columnist and journalism professor at The George Washington University.
Susan Davis
chief congressional reporter for USA Today.
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 panel remembered the life and legacy of Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, who died Dec. 17 at age 88. Susan Davis, chief congressional reporter at USA Today, said his role in the U.S. Senate represented a fading era. "Senator Inouye was someone who was probably one of the most powerful people in Washington that you never heard of," Davis said. George Washington University professor Steve Roberts described Inouye as a man of quiet integrity and decency who was trusted by politicians from both sides of the aisle.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
PART TWO
The same thing is true about “hate crime” laws. Mere speech, such as burning a cross on your own property, may be distasteful, but it’s protected. Speech used to intimidate, threaten, and abuse others, used as part of an act which is itself criminal (trespass, for example) is not. Thus, burning a cross on someone else’s property (without their permission, of course) can be punished as a hate crime: it’s a crime motivated by hatred, and motive is very much a part of every crime.
Crying fire in a theater (crowded or not) may be protected speech. Falsely crying fire (especially with the intention of causing a panic) isn’t.
Here endeth the legal lesson.
Francis Baker wrote: "Why is the President not acting by looking into the imports of assault weapons. He can do that with out any legislation, right now"
He is trying to sneak up on the Constitution like it's a wounded animal. When he's close enough he will toss a blanket on it and beat it viciously with a baseball bat.
If were lucky the ATF will pump a couple thousand rounds into it just to be sure.
"Again, Eggie, "ad hominem" can be translated by any first year Latin student or any altar boy worth his surplice. It does mean literally "to the man" and typical of your many, many entries you assault the commenters rather than the predicate of their opinions.......just like you are doing today."
Well, you say you know what ad hominem is, but then demonstrate that you don't. Now, I've asked you before. If there are "many, many entries" where I have made "ad hominem" attacks, you shouldn't have any problem pointing to a few. By the way, two caveats while you do your search ... 1) destroying someone else's argument does not constitute ad hominem, just because you disagree with my view 2) an ad hominem attack occurs when you try to REFUTE someone's view with personal attacks (suggest you see the example in the link).
Happy hunting.
"Nil illegitimi carborundum"
I have a coffee cup with the English translation of that very phrase. I've had it almost 30 years.
Francis Baker on December 21, 2012 @ 2:40 pm wrote: “Why is the President not acting by looking into the imports of assault weapons. He can do that with out any legislation, right now.”
Actually, he can’t. I don’t believe it’s against the law to import such weapons. Semi-automatic assault weapons are legal to import just as they are legal to buy and own. (Witness Lanza’s mother.) Fully automatic weapons are (I think) illegal, and I’m confident imports of those are being investigated and prosecuted.
HonestAbe wrote:
"None of your diatribe proves that killing or harming others is a viable way to resolve any issue."
Unless you live in the real world.
"Might makes WRONG."
Unless you live in the real world.
"I need no signs on my house....or letters on my tires or logos on my shirt or bumper stickers about Smith & Wesson."
A smart-a$$ non-answer answer. The question still remains for someone else to try. Would you place a sign on your house that said, "Gun Free Zone"? If not, why not.
"Those of us who actually served in national defense etc. know more war means more war; violence begets violence.
Our country need cogitation not obliteration.....reason not reloading."
Those of us? I would not try to speak for All of us, HA in respect to any subject.
I'll agree with you partly. Our country needs cogitation, not knee-jerk reaction.
ecgberht on December 21, 2012 @ 2:59 pm "I have a coffee cup with the English translation of that very phrase.
What a coincidence. I have a desk plaque (given to me by my mother) of that phrase in Latin. Only the version I have is slightly different: “Non illigitimes corborundam.” I’ve been told it’s a more colloquial version.
Here endeth the Latin lesson.
I have it tattooed on my face!
Dan D. on December 21, 2012 @ 2:58 pm wrote: “He is trying to sneak up on the Constitution like it's a wounded animal. When he's close enough he will toss a blanket on it and beat it viciously with a baseball bat.”
Really? And your proof for that assertion is . . . .?
I’ll assume, given the topic, and the “caliber” of your other Comments, that you regard any interference with “the right to keep and bear [any] arms” to be a violation of the Second Amendment. Too bad the Supreme Court doesn’t agree. In D.C. v. Heller it expressly said that reasonable gun regulations are constitutional.
Like far too many people (“left” and “right”), you apparently “defend” a Constitution that only exists in your imagination.
Ciao, for now.
Let's kill two birds with one stone.
The only way Congress is going to go against the gun lobby is if they personally feel threatened by the guns.
And with the current impasse in Congress, and the lack of any work getting accomplished, the time is becoming ripe for Americans to march on DC and provide some motivation on two fronts at once.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: "it expressly said that reasonable gun regulations are constitutional"
Yeah I know, reasonable infringements.
After the Obamacare ruling, republicans and libertarian minded people should avoid bringing cases to the supreme court whenever possible. The Roberts court is not to be trusted.
Dan D. on December 21, 2012 @ 9:45 am wrote: “The government needs to have total control over every aspect of our lives.”
Absolutely! It should be able to control what women do with their bodies, and force them to undergo invasive vaginal probes should they dare to disagree. It should tell gays and lesbians to accept third-class status as citizens, and dictate who they can and can’t marry or fall in love with. It should censor any “art” or speech it considers offensive, and it should be able to storm through our houses, papers, and possessions, eavesdrop on our conversations, without the unnecessary bother of search warrants, or even any reason at all. Finally, of course, our President shouldn’t be hampered by tiresome legal concepts like Due Process, Habeas Corpus, or laws that restrict what he can do. In the name of the “Unitary Executive” he should be able to ignore all that whenever he wants - secretly of course.
Too bad Bush the Second isn’t still President. That’s the way he ran the country, while Republi-Cons and the NRA cheered! (But they are certainly trying to “carry the torch” now that he’s gone.)
Dan D. on December 21, 2012 @ 9:45 am wrote: “We as a people should not appear as a threat to the expansion of government as it sees fit. No one should have the right for self defense or defense of personal freedom if there is a risk that innocents might get hurt.”
Too bad no one advocating any of that, otherwise your paranoid rambling might be convincing.
Like a good little NRA parrot, you insist on equating gun control with confiscation. That’s false.
Oh, there may be some individual lunatics on the other side who are your mirror-image, and thus advocate such an extreme position. But last I checked they had no influence on public policy in this area. The same, of course, cannot be said for the NRA.
The tragic irony of all this is that your arguments may just end up bringing about the very thing you fear. If you ever convince the American people that there can be no middle ground, no reasonable gun regulation (which even the Supreme Court said would be constitutional in D.C. v. Heller), and that we must choose between the safety of our children and the Second Amendment, guess which one they’ll choose to sacrifice?
So, if the day ever comes when we have a second Prohibition, when the Second Amendment is not merely repealed but reversed, and all guns are indeed constitutionally banned, remember there was an alternative - one you rejected. All anyone is calling for is limitations on the type of guns (semi-automatic) that can be used, or for limitations on the number of bullets in a clip, or better controls on who can buy and have access to guns. But tell people they can’t even do that, and they’ll reply “to hell with your guns, and to hell with you!”
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
History is replete with examples of the fate of those who refuse to compromise. Who insist it must be all or nothing, and demand everything be their way. Ask the Bourbons of France, the Hohenzollerns of Germany, the Hapsburgs of Austria-Hungary, and the Romanovs of Russia how well that ended up.
You have been warned.
Dan D. on December 21, 2012 @ 3:30 pm wrote: “Yeah I know, reasonable infringements. After the Obamacare ruling, republicans and libertarian minded people should avoid bringing cases to the supreme court whenever possible. The Roberts court is not to be trusted.”
Actually, the degree of what you don’t know is breathtaking, as that display of ignorance demonstrates.
D.C. v. Heller was written by Justice Scalia, who dissented from the “Obamacare ruling”. It was joined in by Justices Alito, Kennedy, and Thomas (who had also dissented in the later case). Finally, Chief Justice Roberts provided the all important fifth vote for an individual right to keep and bear arms, which was the major part of the Heller decision. Surely you have no problem with that! (Or would you have preferred Roberts joined with the four judges who denied there was such an individual right?)
Personally, I wish Heller had followed your advice, and avoided the Supreme Court in that case.
As for Libertarianism, the Constitution does not embrace that philosophy. There is no constitutional right to do whatever one wishes, even in the area of owning or using weapons. But you should know that some of the most “libertarian” of Supreme Court decisions were rendered by “nasty” liberals, and denounced by “good” Republi-Cons. Cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and Lawrence v. Texas, to name just two. And let’s not forget the most “libertarian” of them all, the case that comes closest to embracing that philosophy, and which served as the foundation for the “right to privacy” which Republi-Cons spend so much of their time trying to infringe: Griswold v. Connecticut!
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
You have no idea what you are talking about, and out of that vast pool of ignorance you dare to lecture us on what’s best for this nation, or what the Constitution says. I repeat: you “defend” a Constitution that only exists in your imagination.
Ciao, again, for now.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: "You have no idea what you are talking about" "Like a good little NRA parrot, you insist on equating gun control with confiscation. That’s false"
Lots of words only to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.
Read Feinstein's new assault weapons ban proposal, it is confiscation through no "transfer" language. A confiscation of semi auto handguns, rifles and shotguns. The law would make all privately owned semi autos monetarily worthless, the government would have in effect seized or confiscated the value. The owner in the end will have to destroy the firearm. The "grandfathering" language is a forced registration program.
If Joe Biden doesn't come back with this as his recommendations, I would be shocked.
The Constitution is clearly a "libertarian" document, in both it's words and intent. Libertarianism is not anarchy.
The last show of the year!
At the end of 2012 in Obama's America. The country is angrily divided, the government has expanded it's reach into our personal lives much further than anyone thought possible in such a short period of time. Our second amendment rights under attack. Exploding debt and deficits, an economy on the verge of collapse. An electorate so stupid it believes almost any lie. On and on.
Merry Christmas!
We are not going to have a happy new year.
What is the fiscal cliff really about.
If we put aside the politics and the mud slinging, it's about a difficult decision the country now needs to make.
Not higher taxes OR cut spending. Higher taxes AND cut spending.
Have you looked at the size of the US debt recently?
We'll be hitting 17 trillion soon.
How on earth are we supposed to reduce the debt in any meaningful way, without both measures and more?
The politicians, media, academics, everyone makes it out to be a red/blue thing, a difference of fiscal approach
It’s not.
It's a common sense thing.
We have been running on borrowed time and borrowed money for far too long.
If asked, whether in the last 50 years we've had periods of growth and prosperity in the US, I'm sure the answer would be of course.
Think again.
If I’m a teacher, and I get a raise every few years, but I have racked up a few million in debt, am I prospering?
People think we’re now finally having the difficult discussion about the economy.
We’re not.
But we desperately need to.