Unfortunetely, he is saying goodbye (as host) to the cable network..........
His show (Freedom Watch) is being cancelled by Fox !
Many think it is the best "libertarian commentary" on TV.
Did he step on too many wingtips of the suits at Fox corporate?
Is this the 1st of many changes at Fox; moving to the center so Murdoch appears to be less threatening to the establishment? A way to avoid agressive prosecution (phone hacking scandal)?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOaCe...85FOAAAAAAAJAA
- Whirlaway
- 02-13-2012, 10:01 AM
- TheDaliLama
- 02-13-2012, 11:16 AM
He is still employed by FOX.
Only the show was cancelled.
Only the show was cancelled.
- CuteOldGuy
- 02-13-2012, 02:34 PM
Wow. I don't have cable and rarely watch TV. I wish I'd known about him earlier. I dismissed him as another Fox cookie-cutter conservative. Guess I was wrong, at least in that clip, he was 100% right. Thanks, WW!
- Whirlaway
- 02-13-2012, 03:29 PM
That clip is standard Judge Nepolitano ............rock solid constitutional conservative.
- CuteOldGuy
- 02-13-2012, 04:03 PM
Duplicate post. Sorry.
- CuteOldGuy
- 02-13-2012, 04:06 PM
He sounded more Libertarian to me, but then any philosophy that takes the Constitution seriously will be Libertarian.
WW, he seems to be saying what I have been saying, is that there is almost no significant difference between Mitt Romney and President Obama. Do you agree with him on that? He also seemed to think that Santorum or Gingrich would be more of the same. Do you agree with that? He also said the reason that Ron Paul is unelectable is because the media have told us that he is unelectable. Do you agree with that? Because if you agree with Napalitano, you agree with me, for the most part.
WW, he seems to be saying what I have been saying, is that there is almost no significant difference between Mitt Romney and President Obama. Do you agree with him on that? He also seemed to think that Santorum or Gingrich would be more of the same. Do you agree with that? He also said the reason that Ron Paul is unelectable is because the media have told us that he is unelectable. Do you agree with that? Because if you agree with Napalitano, you agree with me, for the most part.
- Whirlaway
- 02-13-2012, 05:59 PM
In many ways I agree, but my approach is go move the Republican party to Constitutional government. I financially support libertarian candidates on the state and local level, but when national elections are on the line, defeating the Socialist Democrats is imperative. I'll take incrementalism.
- Rakhir
- 02-13-2012, 06:32 PM
A better description of the judge is Original Constructionist.
- CuteOldGuy
- 02-13-2012, 06:57 PM
So how's that incrementalism working for you?
- Whirlaway
- 02-13-2012, 07:19 PM
How is your approach working out?
I think there is a greater probability that the Republicans will succeed with my incretalism, than any of your candidates getting enough national power to effect structural change.
I think there is a greater probability that the Republicans will succeed with my incretalism, than any of your candidates getting enough national power to effect structural change.
- CuteOldGuy
- 02-13-2012, 09:58 PM
Any history in support of that? Every President since FDR has led us toward totalitarianism, some more slowly than others, but always the same direction.
When a train is heading over a cliff, slowing down won't help. You have to stop the damn train, and turn it around. Romney, Santorum, Gingrich will all head us in the same direction. I'm voting for stopping the damn train.
When a train is heading over a cliff, slowing down won't help. You have to stop the damn train, and turn it around. Romney, Santorum, Gingrich will all head us in the same direction. I'm voting for stopping the damn train.
- CuteOldGuy
- 02-13-2012, 11:10 PM
Listen to Ron Paul on the neocons. Try not to pay any attention to the pictures, this speech is from around 2004.
Incrementalism will not work, because the Republicans do not believe in it. They believe in obtaining and maintaining power. Nothing else.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4KBq...&feature=share
Incrementalism will not work, because the Republicans do not believe in it. They believe in obtaining and maintaining power. Nothing else.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4KBq...&feature=share
- Whirlaway
- 02-14-2012, 06:45 AM
Your own approach isn't working out very well either. And history says so.
At least Ron Paul had the common sense to abandon the Lib Party and jump over to the Republiicans. He understands that to affect change, you have to have a seat at the table.
Look at the support he is getting by being able to participate in the debates. His ideas are more popular now than ever.
By definition, Ron Paul is making incremental changes within the Republican Party. His voice (influence) is bigger today than before (when he was a realtively unknown Lib. Party memeber in Congress). And he will have delegates at the Convention who will write the platform of the party.
The very fact that they agreed to his demand to audit the feds is one step in the right direction ! A small step but a good step. Each small step builds more and more movement in the right direction. All from within!
At least Ron Paul had the common sense to abandon the Lib Party and jump over to the Republiicans. He understands that to affect change, you have to have a seat at the table.
Look at the support he is getting by being able to participate in the debates. His ideas are more popular now than ever.
By definition, Ron Paul is making incremental changes within the Republican Party. His voice (influence) is bigger today than before (when he was a realtively unknown Lib. Party memeber in Congress). And he will have delegates at the Convention who will write the platform of the party.
The very fact that they agreed to his demand to audit the feds is one step in the right direction ! A small step but a good step. Each small step builds more and more movement in the right direction. All from within!