The Constitution and Freedom

fivepoint

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Sep 28, 2007
1,175
4
IOWA
I always enjoy Judge Andrew Napolitano's thoughts and considerations regarding American history, law, and the constitution. I enjoyed his most recent program entitled "The Constitution and Freedom" which can be found in it's entirety on YouTube (each clip is about 5-6 min. long). It's fairly elementary (to appeal to as wide as an audience as possible), but I think goes into some very important issues which many politicians and individuals in the public no longer seem to concern themselves with. I think the videos cover some important topics....

What are your thoughts on these videos? Do you disagree with any of the Judge's opinions on the issues? Where did he mess up? Where did he get it right? Is this pure right-wing tea party style blabbering? Do the founders matter? Does the constitution matter? Do the ends justify the means?

I think there's a lot to discuss here... thanks for your input and conversation!

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9kM6vWL2QA

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGzFSajvy1g

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A725vBawbw

Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj6PSNwK_u4

Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_bDVpnDceg
 

djellison

macrumors 68020
Feb 2, 2007
2,228
4
Pasadena CA
What are your thoughts on these videos? Do you disagree with any of the Judge's opinions on the issues? Where did he mess up? Where did he get it right? Is this pure right-wing tea party style blabbering? Do the founders matter? Does the constitution matter? Do the ends justify the means?

I think there's a lot to discuss here...
I'll wait for your comments first - bring the pieces of the videos you find most important to the thread as text, and comment as you have asked above. If you want a conversation - start one.

But as SkyBlue has alluded - I'm not expecting you to actually engage in a conversation - just preaching.
 

fivepoint

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Sep 28, 2007
1,175
4
IOWA
A transcript would help. Can't watch vids at work. Are there any transcripts?
Not sure of these are going to be 100% accurate... apparently they are 'automatically created' by a computer program.

Part 1 - Judge Andrew Napolitano on why the Constitution is the greatest political document ever written
"The constitution of the United States of America. Whether it's written limitations on government. And it's written guarantees of human freedom. Is the greatest political document ever written in the history of the world. It is the foundation of the American government. And everyone who works in the government. Takes an oath to preserve. Protect and defend it and creation of the American republic. That's written constitution and guarantees that personal freedom for the individual. Is the greatest development for freedom and history western world. And reason we have a constitution. Here the founders and cool."
" Powerful central government. When we were colonists and the king and the parliament wanted to raise money from us they thought of ingenious ways to do so. One of the ways that raise money list with legislation called the stamp. It required that every document that the colonists -- in their homes the book the bank to. Each mortgage. Even pamphlet poster. To have honesty. Bearing the image of the question. How did the government know that every piece of paper in one's possession -- and image of the king. Insert. The parliament enacted the -- of assistance -- This law authorized British soldiers. To knock on the doors -- any columnists and right themselves permission to enter. They could literally write their own search warrants and then enter the columns homes under the pretext of looking for the stamps. Of course while there -- frequently could help themselves property they could consumer -- They could -- furniture they could even take over. And expel the -- and use the home was their own living quarters for as long as they wished. This act was the last straw. We fought a revolution. We won the revolution. We wrote the constitution. Writing -- That -- steamy summer of 1787."
" Delegates were sent from each of the thirteen colonies. They had a great today. The debate was over and origin. Free -- that James Madison. Thomas Jefferson wells argued that our freedoms come from mark -- After -- Jefferson had just written in the declaration of independence. We'll men are created equal. And aren't out why they're crazy. With certainty in -- this and a woman's. Life. And it teaches that because we are created by god. His image and and because god is perfect. He created human beings it's perfectly. Thus freedom is our first. So our right to live. To think as we wish to -- what we think to publish what -- say to travel to worship or not. Right to defend ourselves from -- even against tyrannical government a right to own and enjoyed property and our right. It's natural to us as the fingers on the hands of -- hands. He opposing argument in Philadelphia. Which was made by the big government crowd -- the Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. Was that our freedoms don't come from humanity they come from the government. These folks argued that without the coverage there can you know. -- city government that gives us and taken away because we have majority rule in this. If the majority voted that there would be for example of free speech. Under this theory freedom of speech would be gone. Fortunately for all of us Jefferson's views prevail and the concept of natural rights rights belonging to a virtual -- He's still in the constitution. And the bill of rights."
" State the reasons for which the federal government. Establish president. Congress and -- system each with a separate. You retain certain rights for. Speaks. Give a little bit of -- To a new central government and the stated just tell -- just brought. The magnificent job. Editor bill of rights because they were wearing -- central government. New capital of these United States might someday do the same thing to. King of England. His parliament -- to the company. Has the system workers and as the government follow the wishes of the street. Has its -- within the confines of the constitution."
" The constitution and the bill of rights were written for two purposes. The first was to establish and define the government. And the second was to keep the government off the people's backs. Without the bill of rights guaranteeing human freedom there would have been no constitution. And that's why everyone in government from the founding of our country until this very day. Takes an oath to uphold the constitution. And human freedom."

Part 2 - Judge Andrew Napolitano breaks down Congress' role under the Constitution
The congress of the United States of America its job -- to -- the federal laws. There are two houses of congress the Senate and the House of Representatives. And if they can agree on the wording of the laws that goes to the president for him to sign into law. -- Vito the job of the congress is to look at the constitution. Follow the constitution. And write the laws of the land."
" After we won our independence from -- the colony set about forming a central government. We never had a central government here rather we had thirteen -- it's one for each of the colonies. The continental congress that have met at Princeton, New Jersey and hired George Washington and gave him money to spend on an -- did not have real authority. And it was quickly disbanded when the British went back to England. The first government we had here was defined -- articles of confederation. The set up a small congress and a one year term rotating presidency. But there was no real central government. The real power still remained in the state governments the states imposed crippling tariffs on goods from out of state. Movement soon began when new central government. After the state sent delegates to Philadelphia to draft a constitution. And after all thirteen Steve's adopted it. Constitutional conventions held in -- state and the new government began to operate first in New York City. Then and Philadelphia. Permanently Washington DC. The framers took great pains to create a unique and limited federal government. Unique in that its powers were precisely defined and separated among three branches. Federal and that it would not interfere with the states. Except to stop those terms. Congress was created with two bodies of representatives. House of Representatives was elected directly by the voters. It was intended to be the airports in the better. Each state has an assigned number of representatives. Proportion to the State's population. The Senate was elected by the legislatures. Of each of the thirteen states and it was to -- the State's voices in the federal. Each state had and still have -- two senators. The senators today are popularly. Even have a constitution begins with the words we the people. In reality it was -- the states. That created the front. Not wanting to give up too much of their power framers were careful to set forth powers that the new government would have. These powers were all given to congress. Since it is the congress' job. It's the president's job is to enforce the laws and the courts were established to interpret. But the real power. In the federal government power to regulate human -- hate the power to write -- Was given by the constitution. To the cops. The constitution gives congress only seventeen specific powers areas of which can write more -- Like keep interstate commerce regular established post offices reason army and in the support -- establish a court system minted -- money. Establish uniform standards for weeks and measures and collect excise taxes. Congress was also told to stay out of the way the State's. Income taxes were from the congress was part time had no offices -- The ninth and tenth amendments to them. Which -- soon it supported the bill of rights made clear that congress was only given the powers enumerated in the constitution. Will remain -- with the streets and."
" But not state that wasteful. The same folks who wrote in the First Amendment that congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Quickly make -- a crime. For anyone to criticize president and members of congress. Soon congress established the Central Bank precursor to the Federal Reserve System. Even though there was no authority in the constitution to do that either. Generations later congress would -- sleep. -- Regularly out of wheat farmer could grow in his own back on his name and some teams regularly. -- persons who work and factories. The prices merchants to charge for -- the strength of water pressure and home showers the amount of lobsters one can fish from the city. And congress with even outlaw movement of certain goods it didn't care for interstate commerce. Even though -- whole purpose was to ensure that interstate commerce was kept regular. The philosopher lord Acton once wrote that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely he was right. Congress does not -- which holes those who love liberty it draws those who love how. We suffer from that today."
" over 200 years of stretching the plain meaning of the words in the constitution. We now have a congress thinks it can write anymore. Regularly in the human activity. Accidentally and no matter what the constitution says. But the constitution was not written in order to enable congress to right every wrong. It was written to define the federal government to limit its behavior to the seventeenth specific. Delegated powers contained in this document. And to leave the remaining power in government to the states. Today the streets of -- pool there."
" This just simply and regular. Commuted them to do the things -- Stunned -- offers them money like -- ride. Bend them to."
" The ever have a congress expects. Protect certain. Stays within the confines of the constitution. Congress writes the laws of the land and as long as it stays within the seventeen powers given to it by the constitution. Our freedoms will be preserved but it's the job of the president and the Supreme Court. To make sure that the laws that congress writes comply with the constitution."
 

fivepoint

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Sep 28, 2007
1,175
4
IOWA
Part 3 - Judge Andrew Napolitano on the president's powers and roles under the Constitution
" Under the constitution the president of the United States. Is the head of the executive branch of the federal government. He's not in charge of the congress and he's not in charge of the federal courts just of the executive branch of the government. That means he has three responsibilities. And the first just to preserve protect and defend the constitution itself. Which guarantees that your liberties and your freedoms remains secure. The second is to enforce the laws that the congress has written and the third is to be the commander in chief of the united states military. Be --"
" The power of the federal government is granted by the constitution to the president of the United States. Is principal job is set forth in the is to preserve protect and defend the constitution itself -- additional jobs -- being the chief law -- federal. The commander in chief of military. The chief foreign diplomat countries' relations with other countries and international organizations. He also points or senior officials in the executive branch -- Old general's. Office and or federal judges and Supreme Court justices. Virtually all of this appointment acquired the consent of the -- the house of purposes. President has the power to sign into law legislation sent him by congress and Howard beat -- Since neither house of congress to act have made -- Except for that sent it alone. -- for -- judicial and executive appointments and treatments. President recently signed. -- only -- that which has passed both houses. If and when he signs -- becomes law moments and features links should. -- can only become both houses of congress vote by two thirds majority of each house to override his feet. If one of the two houses fails 22. Thirds vote right. Legislation is did for the remainder of that section. If you neither some friends north vetoes this -- He comes. Out usage. It has received from its. As the chief protector of."
" The constitution the president is charged with assuring Americans that everyone in the executive branch of the federal government. Which numbers well over three million persons. Uses the power of the government consistent with the constitution. Thus the president is lawfully required that every federal -- Whether from the FBI the CIA -- the IRS for example every member of the military from the lowest private to the highest general. In every bureaucrat. Appointed by him employed as he -- civil servant. Uphold the constitution and -- the federal laws clause of the streets of which. This obligation to ensure compliance with the constitution. The federal laws and everything -- executive branch includes of course the president himself. He cannot pick and choose which laws -- force -- to. Which slows to a war. -- declined to spend money that congress has directed. He cannot disregard -- treaty simply because he disagrees with -- he can however declined to appoint federal officials. And -- frustrate the ability of congress to have the executive branch enforce the laws in a timely. And efficient manner. If the president himself engages and he -- it is arguably -- constitution. And if someone American -- he's injured by his behavior. The injured person sues the press asking a federal judge to prevent further unconstitutional. Behavior on the part of the press. And if that person prevails in court. Single."
" Federal judge has the power under the constitution. To order the president of the United States two seats from his -- be. This has happened countless times and an -- Many presidents of unlawfully disregarded -- of federal judges. Unless and until they have been affirmed by the Supreme Court. From George Washington to Barack Obama virtually every president has enhanced the power of the presidency. Either by asking for more power from congress which the congress has frequently and often unlawful given. Or by doing just whatever he wishes and hope and expected. Delivers powerful."
" Most modern presidents have contended that their principal job is to keep us safe and -- Solutions -- the president's first job is to keep history. -- he keeps us safe tonight for."
" Its job. With the passage of time the president's responsibilities. Of course have changed. The founding fathers and president George Washington could never imagined. The presidential responsibilities -- today. But the constitution has not changed. And the limits on the government have not changed the president's principal job is to assure that all Americans remain free."


Part 4 - Judge Andrew Napolitano breaks down the role of the courts under the Constitution
" The Supreme Court of the United States the highest court in the land. The court of last resort for which there is no further appeal. Its job is not to write the laws or enforce the laws but to interpret them. To examine the constitution of the United States. And the laws of the land. And to decide what they mean."
" The constitution establishes three coequal branches and governor. Executive branch consists of the president and every when he employees and points to enforce the ones. Legislative branch -- congress it's consistent with 535%. Of Americans have elected right. Judicial branch at least understood part of the government. Consists of the approximately 1000 federal judges and nine Supreme Court justice. Their job is to interpret laws that congress has written and to hear challenges to behavior that the president has authorized. Constitution itself -- establishes the Supreme Court. But by giving back court the right to hear appeals. It implicates the existence of -- lower. Hence the first congress in its very first piece of legislation. Enacted the judiciary act 1780. Set -- the federal courts much as we still find. That law divides the country into judicial districts based upon population and geographical distances within the states. For example of Delaware has one judicial. New York has war and California and Texas have -- Each state has at least one district and each district has from five to twenty federal district judges. These are trial judges who wear black robes and work in courtrooms with -- without injuries. Preside over federal trials both criminal and civil if the feds for example charge someone without robbing a federally chartered. -- failing to pay income tax. We're dealing drugs over interstate lines that person would be tried in federal district court in the judicial district. -- The crime occurred. If someone else -- in federal court for libel or slander or theft of trade secrets or patent violations. That lawsuit would be tried any federal district court in the judicial district in which the plaintiff claims he was -- Federal district judges are appointed by the president. And confirmed by the Senate and they have their jobs for life. The judiciary -- also divides the country to thirteen judicial circuits. Each circuit can teams a few dozen districts within a half dozen -- states. Each circuit has about fifteen circuit judges and they hear appeals from decisions of district -- So if someone is convicted for example of -- federal -- In the district court for the district of jurors and wants to -- can -- Would file the appeal in the United States court rules for the third -- which features -- part. File that appeal to Philadelphia. Which is where the judges of the third Circuit Court and she. Three circuit judges hearing -- You can affirm -- conviction -- jury award reverse it won't modify. The basis of an appeal is the contention of mistakes. By juries or district court judges. Circuit judges are also."
" But the Senate and -- life. The highest court in the land the -- of last resort from which there is no appeal is the Supreme Court of the United States. It has nine justices who will sit and work of the Supreme Court building in Washington. Across the street from the congress and a few blocks from the White House. The Supreme Court hears appeals from the circuit courts and from the supreme courts of each of the fifty states. Supreme Court justices are --"
" Confirmed by the Senate. And they search for life."
" How does that case -- before a federal judge. On the courts just look at legislation like health care in the congress and simply declare them unconstitutional. To all three branches of the federal government or co equal part of the courts stop the president or invalidate acts of the congress. The constitution limits the authority of the federal courts to real cases and controversies. Thus if the feds are prosecute you under rubble you can challenge the constitutionality. Of or someone -- you under federal. You can challenge the constitutionality. Of that -- If you -- not personally threatened under federal. In the manner different from the general enforcement. Upon the general public but you're not in a position to challenge and the courts are not in a position to -- Framers did not want judges interfering with the -- Simply because they disagreed with certain things but only when some person would be unique. And unconstitutionally. Harmed by the enforcement -- For 200 years. Except that the principal. That it is the job of judges to say what the law means and what the constitution requires. And we have given to the -- the final."
" The whole purpose of an independent judiciary is to be anti democratic. To assure that rights are upheld and the constitution as enforced. To make sure that a popular majority. Cannot take liberty away from an unpopular minority. That's what in -- animal rights means."
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
Not sure of these are going to be 100% accurate... apparently they are 'automatically created' by a computer program.

Part 1 - Judge Andrew Napolitano on why the Constitution is the greatest political document ever written



Part 2 - Judge Andrew Napolitano breaks down Congress' role under the Constitution
I'll have to wait till later. Some of that isn't making sense. Oh well. You tried.
 

fivepoint

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Sep 28, 2007
1,175
4
IOWA
I'll have to wait till later. Some of that isn't making sense. Oh well. You tried.
Yeah, it looks like the transcripts are pretty poor. That 'computer program' is probably a Microsoft product. ;) Anyway, watch the clips later... they're quite easy to watch at only 5 minutes each, and I found them to be enjoyable.
 

colourfastt

macrumors 6502a
Apr 7, 2009
884
523
Thomas Jefferson: "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living": that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.

Commentary: This is an interesting quote which means that one generation cannot obligate a later generation in any way. This is relevant in terms of great public debts where, by right, the time to pay it off ought to be within the same generation's lifetime which benefited from the loan. The Earth belongs to each generation fully in each's turn and a past generation cannot rightly rule over those presently living.

Thomas Jefferson: To keep our ideas clear when applying them to a multitude, let us suppose a whole generation of men to be born on the same day, to attain mature age on the same day, and to die on the same day, leaving a succeeding generation in the moment of attaining their mature age all together. Let the ripe age be supposed of 21. years, and their period of life 34. years more, that being the average term given by the bills of mortality to persons who have already attained 21. years of age. Each successive generation would, in this way, come on, and go off the stage at a fixed moment, as individuals do now. Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. the 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation. Then no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of it's own existence. (Bolding mine)

Thomas Jefferson: "Let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided by the constitution, so that it may be handed on with periodical repairs from generation to generation to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:42

"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."
(Bolding mine)

Commentary: Since the earth belongs to the living, like debt, government ends with each generation with the subsequent generations forming the types of governments that suit them. As such, the Constitution cannot be considered binding on the generations of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
Thomas Jefferson: "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living": that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.

Commentary: This is an interesting quote which means that one generation cannot obligate a later generation in any way. This is relevant in terms of great public debts where, by right, the time to pay it off ought to be within the same generation's lifetime which benefited from the loan. The Earth belongs to each generation fully in each's turn and a past generation cannot rightly rule over those presently living.

Thomas Jefferson: To keep our ideas clear when applying them to a multitude, let us suppose a whole generation of men to be born on the same day, to attain mature age on the same day, and to die on the same day, leaving a succeeding generation in the moment of attaining their mature age all together. Let the ripe age be supposed of 21. years, and their period of life 34. years more, that being the average term given by the bills of mortality to persons who have already attained 21. years of age. Each successive generation would, in this way, come on, and go off the stage at a fixed moment, as individuals do now. Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. the 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation. Then no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of it's own existence. (Bolding mine)

Thomas Jefferson: "Let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided by the constitution, so that it may be handed on with periodical repairs from generation to generation to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:42

"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."
(Bolding mine)

Commentary: Since the earth belongs to the living, like debt, government ends with each generation with the subsequent generations forming the types of governments that suit them. As such, the Constitution cannot be considered binding on the generations of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries.
Sounds like someone is trying to subvert the constitution.

Honestly, I googled this guy. He's a law analyst for Fox News. Sorry- I'm not even interested in anything he has to say. He's even subbed for Glenn Beck on his show. That's really all I need to know. If anybody really wants to see what this guy is all about, just google "Andrew Napolitano Beck". Whoa- scary.

“Freedom of choice and control over your own body will be lost. More of your hard earned-dollars will be at the disposal and tender mercies of federal bureaucrats. It was not intended to be this way. We elected the government… How did it get so removed, so arrogant? …Evil rarely comes upon us all at once and liberty is rarely lost in one stroke. It happens gradually over the years and decades and even centuries. A little stretch here, a cave-in there. Powers are slowly taken from the states and the people and before you know it, we have one big monster government that recognizes no restraint on its ability to tell us how to live.”

Napolitano told us that he’ll be giving “a public lecture” on Constitutional law on the Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network, on Foxnews.com and on Fox nation. Judging from this little foretaste, it promises to be quite a conflagration. “Many of you have asked what can we do now about the loss of freedom?” Napolitano continued. Then he set upon a litany of suggestions that made me more than a little queasy: “We can vote the bums out of their cushy federal offices, we can persuade the state governments to defy the Feds in areas like health care where the Constitution gives the federal government zero authority. We can ask our state legislatures to threaten to amend the Constitution to abolish the income tax, to return the selection of US senators to state legislatures and to nullify, to nullify! all the laws that Congress has written that are not based on the constitution. But there is one thing we can't do. Just sit back and take it.”
http://www.newshounds.us/2009/11/11/subbing_for_glenn_beck_judge_andrew_napolitano_stops_one_step_short_of_advocating_insurrection.php

Sorry, fivepoint. I can't stomach people who are associated with Fox News or Glenn Beck. It's just more Libertarian/near-anarchist nonsense.
 

fivepoint

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Sep 28, 2007
1,175
4
IOWA
Sounds like someone is trying to subvert the constitution.

Honestly, I googled this guy. He's a law analyst for Fox News. Sorry- I'm not even interested in anything he has to say. He's even subbed for Glenn Beck on his show. That's really all I need to know.



http://www.newshounds.us/2009/11/11/subbing_for_glenn_beck_judge_andrew_napolitano_stops_one_step_short_of_advocating_insurrection.php

Sorry, fivepoint. I can't stomach people who are associated with Fox News or Glenn Beck. It's just more Libertarian/near-anarchist nonsense.
One of my biggest pet peeves on this forum... people so insecure about their own views that they're not even willing to listen to someone speak from the 'other side'... people that refuse to even listen or watch perspectives which do not fit with their worldview.

Personally, I watch Fox News sometimes, but I also watch CNN and MSNBC. I read articles from the Huffington Post and Drudge daily. I read the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal. I guess I'm just a bit more comfortable in my own shoes.

Lee, If I was you, and some of the other posters who wanted to go ad hominem, I'd rethink my approach and actually consider discussing the merits of the argument... actually review the competition's position so you can speak intelligently as to why you agree or disagree.

Or whatever you want... just ignore someone because they're a legal analyst for Fox News. :) Hilarious.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
One of my biggest pet peeves on this forum... people so insecure about their own views that they're not even willing to listen to someone speak from the 'other side'... people that refuse to even listen or watch perspectives which do not fit with their worldview.

Personally, I watch Fox News sometimes. I read articles from the Huffington Post and Drudge daily. I read the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal. I guess I'm just a bit more comfortable in my own shoes.

Lee, If I was you, and some of the other posters who wanted to go ad hominem, I'd rethink my approach and actually consider discussing the merits of the argument... actually review the competition's position so you can speak intelligently as to why you agree or disagree.

Or whatever you want... just ignore someone because they're a legal analyst for Fox News. :) Hilarious.
Oh- I didn't ignore him. I looked him up. There are several pages of links with him and Beck on Fox News. Do I really need to listen to his arguments for Texas' secession, or his speech to an Ohio Tea Party, etc? No- I really don't. It's wingnuttery- and I've heard it all before.

I don't stand around and argue with a the street preacher on the corner either. Do you?
 

fivepoint

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Sep 28, 2007
1,175
4
IOWA
Oh- I didn't ignore him. I looked him up. There are several pages of links with him and Beck on Fox News. Do I really need to listen to his arguments for Texas' secession, or his speech to an Ohio Tea Party, etc? No- I really don't. It's wingnuttery- and I've heard it all before.

I don't stand around and argue with a the street preacher on the corner either. Do you?
Whatever, Lee. Good men can argue about what the right answer is... but when one side simply buries their head in the sand and refuses to listen to the opposition... all you get is uninformed unintellectual bias.

I didn't really expect any less I suppose... just feel bad for you and others... it's hard to learn anything when you aren't even open-minded enough stop reading the same old book, and take a trip to the library once and a while. Really reminds me of the ultra-nutty religious zealots who aren't even open minded enough to analyze alternative. The funny thing is, it's almost impossible to have a real viewpoint when you don't even comprehend the alternatives. All it is is a viewpoint born out of ignorance.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,367
UK
One of my biggest pet peeves on this forum... people so insecure about their own views that they're not even willing to listen to someone speak from the 'other side'... people that refuse to even listen or watch perspectives which do not fit with their worldview.
Personally I just can't be bothered to waste time debunking Fox News for getting it wrong yet again. And for employing such distasteful presenters as Beck they aren't really worth the time.

If you have an individual point from Fox News then I'm more happy to pay attention to it.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
Whatever, Lee. Good men can argue about what the right answer is... but when one side simply buries their head in the sand and refuses to listen to the opposition... all you get is uninformed unintellectual bias.

I didn't really expect any less I suppose... just feel bad for you and others... it's hard to learn anything when you aren't even open-minded enough stop reading the same old book, and take a trip to the library once and a while. Really reminds me of the ultra-nutty religious zealots who aren't even open minded enough to analyze alternative. The funny thing is, it's almost impossible to have a real viewpoint when you don't even comprehend the alternatives. All it is is a viewpoint born out of ignorance.
Here's the thing fivepoint. I've been listening to crap arguments and BS from people like Limbaugh, Beck and Napolitano for very long time. I was listening to Limbaugh all during Clinton. So don't sit there and tell me I won't listen to opposing viewpoints. I have. I just don't feel like listening to them over and over and over, when they never say anything new. I know what their arguments are, I've heard them a million times.

That's not bias, that's just knowing what they have to say already. The Google results for Napolitano were so predictable, it was like deja vu.
 

fivepoint

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Sep 28, 2007
1,175
4
IOWA
Here's the thing fivepoint. I've been listening to crap arguments and BS from people like Limbaugh, Beck and Napolitano for very long time. I was listening to Limbaugh all during Clinton. So don't sit there and tell me I won't listen to opposing viewpoints. I have. I just don't feel like listening to them over and over and over, when they never say anything new. I know what their arguments are, I've heard them a million times.

That's not bias, that's just knowing what they have to say already. The Google results for Napolitano were so predictable, it was like deja vu.
The fact that you just equated Napolitano to Limbaugh proves my point... you don't even know who the guys is... and you've already determined you don't even want to LISTEN to him. Whatever. Enjoy your blinders. :)

I'm anxious to hear from someone who will even take the time to watch the segment. It will be a nice change to have an argument with actual substance. Can't wait!

For the rest of you, feel free to start a thread regarding why you refuse to listen to the words of anyone who contributes to Fox. Otherwise you're simply trolling my thread. Thank you in advance for doing so.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
The fact that you just equated Napolitano to Limbaugh proves my point... you don't even know who the guys is... and you've already determined you don't even want to LISTEN to him. Whatever. Enjoy your blinders. :)

I'm anxious to hear from someone who will even take the time to watch the segment. It will be a nice change to have an argument with actual substance. Can't wait!

For the rest of you, feel free to start a thread regarding why you refuse to listen to the words of anyone who contributes to Fox. Otherwise you're simply trolling my thread. Thank you in advance for doing so.
Fivepoint- I already told you I looked him up. I got a nice summary of his views, then discovered he was also a Beck crony. Kept digging and found out, oh surprise, he's also a Libertarian and Ron Paul pal. Having gotten that far, there really isn't much else I need to know. If you think there is, please post those specific points. Otherwise, you've left us with a lot of broad points and nothing to zero in on. You started broad, and I responded broad. I don't have time to look up every single thing about this guy.
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
Good men can argue about what the right answer is... but when one side simply buries their head in the sand and refuses to listen to the opposition... all you get is uninformed unintellectual bias.
Here's the thing fivepoint. Good men and women HAVE argued about what the right answer is, and they have done it for 200 years. Some of the best legal minds, on both the right and left, have argued and made incredibly reasoned and intelligent decisions on these issues. The US Supreme Court, the lower federal courts, state courts... all are populated by intelligent, educated people who have argued all of these issues.

When I hear someone argue that huge chunks of legal precedent are wrong, it makes me wonder, who is their client. Few lawyers truly believe that they are smarter than 200 years of precedent, but most lawyers will happily argue to change the law on behalf of a client.

Anyway, the right answer is where we are today, not some new interpretation of what the founding fathers had said 200+ years ago.

If you're up for some light reading, go read some Appellete Court decisions. You'd be surprised at how much intelligent thought goes into cases long, long before they reach the Supremes.
 

AppleIntelRock

macrumors 65816
Aug 14, 2006
1,365
0
The United States constitution– while admirable, is the product of Eurocentric glorification just like anything else. It's fairly clear what the intentions of the founding fathers were– the polyarchy is still here today. So with response to the constitution and freedom–*don't get too excited.
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,994
Republic of Ukistan
What a train wreck of a thread. You post links to videos instead of a text, then the text you do post is entirely unreadable, and drivel to boot. Is this the best you can or are willing to do?
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
What a train wreck of a thread. You post links to videos instead of a text, then the text you do post is entirely unreadable, and drivel to boot. Is this the best you can or are willing to do?
I'd be happy to debate specific points, but this is far too broad to even know where to begin.
 

fivepoint

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Sep 28, 2007
1,175
4
IOWA
What a train wreck of a thread. You post links to videos instead of a text, then the text you do post is entirely unreadable, and drivel to boot. Is this the best you can or are willing to do?
What a train wreck of a post. Apparently you don't realize that the reason I linked to the videos, was that I wanted to discuss THE VIDEOS. I posted the transcripts out of courtesy to Lee... Unfortunately they were automated transcripts and the computer did a horrible job of transcribing. Much of what I wanted to discuss was a combination of the text with the imagery, etc. the entire production... so, how about this. Watch the videos and comment, or don't comment at all...