Free for All: 04/02/15

What’s on your mind?

33 Responses to “Free for All: 04/02/15”

  1. For those who thought Thomas Roberts was pretty “down the middle” in his reporting.

    As I said before, you are delusional!

    https://thecablegame.wordpress.com/2015/03/31/thomas-roberts-invokes-the-name-of-god-yes-lean-forward-lives-on/

  2. So…Jake Tapper presents as his opening how “happy” the people in Iran are becausethey are taking “selfies” with Obama on TV.
    Boy, that makes me feel good about the deal with Iran.

    Why do reporters do that? Those people who are tweeting crap in Iran have no say about anything. Their elections are fixed, you are not going to have demonstrations in the street if they are happy or unhappy. So let’s not present a “happy” face about the Iranians. Let’s hear about “our” country, how our leaders, and think tank people feel about this deal, both pro and con.

  3. To Andy: you like Abby Huntsman? Well, here is her take on today’s Iran deal. Obama days there is nothing political about this! Shouldn’t we just believe him? (liar, liar, pants on fire, how many times?)

    So smart, so insightful ! We want more!

    http://therightscoop.com/brilliant-question-by-msnbcs-abby-huntsman-shouldnt-we-just-take-obamas-word-for-it/

  4. savefarris Says:

    #HandsUpDontNuke

  5. imnotblue Says:

    If you like your Iranian deal, you can keep your Iranian deal.

  6. savefarris Says:

    According to MMFA and Oliver Willis, one of Hillary’s greatest accomplishments as SoS is tightening the sanctions on Iran that Obama just agreed to junk.

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/29/george-will-pretends-hillary-clinton-has-no-ach/203078

  7. Anyone else think Governor Mike Spence is running for President and this largely explains why he took such a hard line the last week?

    He needs those Evangelicals votes (specially in Iowa) just like Ted Cruz who selected conservative Christian Liberty University to announce his candidacy.

    Perhaps I am in the minority. But I was a bit taken aback by his lack of much of conciliatory tone during most of his public appearances. He really dug in his heals to defend a new law that clearly needed amending.

    Why do that unless you have a goal to run for higher office and if pandering to the religious right is what it takes, so be it.

    I suppose there is also the chance he was showing genuinely held feelings. It just didn’t strike me that way.

    Oh well. Perhaps he can now move on and the RNC can shift its focus to determining how to deal with the GOP unannounced candidates who openly supported the Indiana governor’s unpopular stance.

  8. Can ICN send email notifications when someone replies to your comment — similar to Disqus?

    I think I was once told the answer is yes. But I’ve never been able to get it to work to any email address other than to my Gmail account, which I only check about once a week.

    P.S.
    I do get email notifications to mtas22@sbcglobal.net when Spud posts a new column/article. So at least I have that working for me.

  9. savefarris Says:

    How “unpopular” was it really?

    I get the media think that Pence is worse than Todd Akin’s and Sarah Palin’s love child, but the gofundme thing proves that there is a LOT of the “silent majority” still left in this country.

  10. erich500 Says:

    I think Pence’s disastrous performances when asked about the issue, especially with Stephanpoulous, tends to undercut the argument that this was for his presidential aspirations. He seemed totally unprepared for the questions.

    As to its unpopularity: I’m not so sure it’s as unpopular as one might think if one only watched news coverage. Polls appear to show some mixed views on it although, as we know, how the question is worded makes a great deal of difference as to people’s views. It’s certainly unpopular among the media and elites.

    If this issue is presented as a modern incarnation of Jim Crow laws – as the risible Jeffrey Toobin has described it – then it obviously loses. But if it’s presented as an attempt to protect some religious liberty in the public square it may be just another left vs. right split with neither side benefiting.

  11. Jeffrey Toobin is a tool. Always has been, always will be!
    His arguing against Jonathan a Turley the other night on CNN shows his weakness in legal arguing. Normally he “fights” against Sunny Hostin. Not comparable to Turley either!

  12. erich500 Says:

    Toobin is awful not necessarily because I disagree with him (admittedly that’s part of it) but because he simply doesn’t do his homework. He makes so many mistakes, gets his law wrong, his facts wrong that it’s embarrassing.

  13. Couldn’t all this outrage (some of it fake on both sides) be avoided if states would simply add a clause forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation?

    Certainly no pizza parlor or florist would think twice about discriminating against an interracial couple or a Muslim couple without consequences such as lost business.

    Isn’t it just a matter of time before almost all businesses feel the same way about LGBT people?

    Resistance to change can be difficult to overcome. But it’s a new world out there.

  14. erich500 Says:

    Even if anti-discrimination laws were extended to protect sexual orientation we still have the problem of how much they can curtail religious freedom in doing so.

    Serving a g*y customer a pizza – something that should be required – is not the same as having to perform a sort of expressive behavior that the person believes violates his religious views. After all, there is a major distinction between serving a g*y couple at a pizzeria and, let’s say, a photographer who is required to participate in a same-sex marriage and reception and record the events, set up photo settings, et cetera. The latter is clearly more involved and I can see, even if I disagree, how a person can believe that that violates his beliefs.

    Maybe we want to require both. But we’re not having any discussion as to whether there are or should be protections for religious believers when it comes to discrimination.

    Resistance to change isn’t the issue; it’s whether we can use the state to coerce – under penalty of law – that change. Are there any limits?

  15. erich500 Says:

    The state that can coerce people into embracing my “new world” today can be used to coerce me into believing another person’s “new world” tomorrow.

    We can’t assume that the power will always be used to do “good” things; it can be used to do things that we won’t like.

    So, how do we prevent this?

    The attitude by the one side is, “Who cares?! We’re right and they’re wrong and this other stuff is meaningless.”

    But it’s not. Drawing lines and making distinctions and trying to find balance is what living in a pluralistic diverse society is all about.

  16. Religious freedom laws were first introduced as a shield against government passing laws that infringed on someone’s religious freedom. Most states that passed these laws (and the Federal law) made sure they could only be used against the government, not individual citizens and many states also had had antidiscrimination laws that protected the LBGT community.

    Indiana and Arkansas religious freedom laws were different in that they allowed citizens to use them against citizens as well as government. They also don’t have LGBT anti discrimination laws.

    In the end most of these LGBT discrimination laws will be overturned in the months after the SCOTUS legalizes g*y marriage this summer. It will take another year or two for the country to fall in line completely but the die is cast.

  17. erich500 Says:

    “Indiana and Arkansas religious freedom laws were different in that they allowed citizens to use them against citizens as well as government. ”

    These state laws are nearly identical to the federal RFRA that was passed in 1993. And the courts have argued that the law protects the religious rights of people whether the action be asked is done by the government or by private citizens.

    This isn’t about serving a g*y person in a restaurant; this is about forcing them to participate in activity that violates their deeply held religious beliefs. Serving pizza is not the issue.

    No court is going to overturn the RFRAs. They are fully constitutional.

  18. erich500 Says:

    Just a correction: Fritz was correct that the Indiana and Arkansas RFSA’s explicitly included the right to use a religious exemption claim against citizens as well as the state.

    The federal RFSA does not explicitly allow that but my understanding is that the courts – not in all cases admittedly – have extended the protection to claims made by citizens.

  19. “The federal RFSA does not explicitly allow that but my understanding is that the courts – not in all cases admittedly – have extended the protection to claims made by citizens.”

    ^^I’m not sure exactly what you mean Erich. My understanding of the federal law is that it is the same as most state laws. I didn’t say (or mean to say) that the federal law didn’t extend the protection to claims made BY citizens but rather extended the protection TO citizens by claims made by the government and not other citizens or corporations.

    The difference is that the federal law’s religious exemption could only be used by a citizen or corporation to defend against perceived religious discrimination by a government and not another citizen or corporation. It’s a shield and not a sword. At least that’s what I see and read although I’m no lawyer so who knows. Sorry that sounds confusing even to me and I wrote it.

    In reality anyone in a business can refuse to do work for anyone; with the exception of businesses like restaurants or hotels who fall into a somewhat different category. For example all a cake maker or photographer has to do is say I’m booked up at the moment or any other good excuse. Using a ‘religious exemption’ as a reason not to do the work is just asking for a confrontation.

  20. This comment from a cable news pundit (noted by NewsBusters) resonated with me:

    “You can balance religious freedom with protections for minorities – including LGBT people. The State of Texas has done it; the State of Missouri has done it. There are models for doing it. Indiana should have just taken a page out of their book. This shouldn’t have been that difficult to fix. Apparently they came up short.”

  21. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said Tuesday on Newsmax TV’s “America’s Forum.”

    “The statute itself is fine, it’s the absence of a corollary statute that says that you can’t discriminate based on sexual preference or national origin, or race or gender and sexual preference (that) is left out,”

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Alan-Dershowitz-Mike-Pence-Indiana-religious-freedom/2015/03/31/id/635544/#ixzz3WJBiZHM4

  22. My recent post…
    “I’ve never been able to get ICN email notifications (of replies to my posts) to work with any email address other than to my Gmail account, which I only check about once a week.”

    Solved it.

    All I had to do was delete my Gmail account as my primary account for Google+ and replace it with my personal account with a @sbcglobal.net domain name. (Well, duh.)

    Now ICN email notifications will appear in my Microsoft Outlook Inbox (for my laptop) instead of on the web. Yay!

    P.S.
    I changed my username from “Michael T” to “Michael Bennett” where my surname is an alias for privacy reasons.

  23. “The statute itself is fine, it’s the absence of a corollary statute that says that you can’t discriminate based on sexual preference or national origin, or race or gender and sexual preference (that) is left out,”

    ^^Dershowitz words it perfectly. If Republicans wanted to have a religious freedom law that didn’t discriminate they easily could have done so. They didn’t and it blew up in their faces.

  24. Maybe it is just me, but for all of the spectacle of articles about CNN running taped programming that is non-news related, have I missed the same criticism of FNC for running Killing Jesus last night? I don’t mind either network doing these things if that is their decision, but I find it weird that I have seen little coverage of FNC showing a movie with the same outrage of CNN showing (somewhat topical) documentaries and feature programming.

  25. “I missed the same criticism of FNC for running Killing Jesus last night?”
    ^^No point as far as I can see. People are upset about CNN/HLN leaving cable news behind. FNC fans are OK with FNC doing the occasional doc as long as the subject matter fits their ideological profile. And besides this is Billo’s project. They would never hear the end of it if they refused to broadcast his documentary.

  26. How is CNN leaving cable news behind? They still have many, many hours of live news coverage. I have no problem with FNC showing the film (I watched it), but I just think that they shouldn’t criticize when they are doing basically the same thing. I see they are showing Strange Inheritance tonight in the spot where Huckabee used to be.

  27. Gary: you DO know it is Easter weekend right? Many stations, not just cable news change their programming on a holiday weekend. Also, it is the Final 4 and they have to figure out what can compete with that.

    But, specifically, CNN is doing much more non-news programming than FOX. But, complain away, I hope it makes you FEEL better. ‘Cause Libs are all about how you “feel” about thing. He** and be dam*ef the facts.

  28. Woah, woah, woah Pam. Calm down. First of all, I am not a liberal and I do know that it is Easter. I chose to make a comment asking about the choice of FNC to show a movie and now I am a liberal? For the record, I watch all cable news channels (enjoy Bret Baier, Jake Tapper, and Brooke Baldwin most). I just thought that the fact that FNC chose to air a movie might draw the ire of some in the media. Guess my suggestion that it might is what drew the swords.

  29. “I chose to make a comment asking about the choice of FNC to show a movie and now I am a liberal?”

    ^^Welcome to ICN2.0 Gary. You’ll get use to being attacked for any perceived anti-FNC bias (real or imagined – it doesn’t matter) pretty quickly here.🙂

  30. Next Politifact: is Scott Walker REALLY allergic to dogs?

  31. “http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/apr/03/scott-walker/gov-scott-walker-says-he-bought-sweater-1-kohls/”

    ^^Well there you go. Walker’s an expert on the economy because he bought a sweater for a dollar at Kohl’s. And being a eagle scout giving him the capability to be commander and chief. If he ever travelled outside the US on vacation he’ll have covered foreign affairs; so he’ll have all his qualification bases to be POTUS covered.🙂

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: