The Truth Shall Set You Free...Or in This Case Get You Fired

That would be something if Current hired him. I don't think they have a judicial analyst right now.

He must of found the last molecule he had left of self respect.....he found his courage like the lion.

you nailed it

I picture walking by a mirror and actually seeing himself....I know if I was say, Rush L.....I would take every mirror in the house down cause I wouldn't be able to stand the site of myself. But then again psychopaths don't feel shame, do they? Hmmmmm.....

When we were young and idealistic, none of us looked in the mirror and said I want to be Karl rove, or Rush Limbaugh. We wanted to be super heroes, not two faced schlubs.

lol, lmao......touche

I'm sure my rights don't come from George Bush or Barack Obama.

Don't let bias shut down listening to and reflecting on what is said. . . the point is, is it so. . . or not?

They don't come from anywhere, they're an idea. A legal concept.

They exist only as long as the Supreme Court enforces them and even then, only to the extent that people believe in them.

I'm not letting bias shut me down. If he actually has something interesting to say, I'd be willing to hear it.

But I'm letting y'all do that filtering for me because I find it highly unlikely that's the case.

I don't have the time or the energy to listen to every right-wing blowhard on the off chance they're actually not talking bullshit for once.

Wow. . . so you're sucked into the vortex of a more grandiose universe and haven't the time to listen to mere mortals?

No, I don't have time to listen to every moron on the air on the off chance that some small fraction of what they're saying is both new and interesting.

The fact that no one's even attempted to summarize what he's said certainly isn't encouraging me to go watch it either.

Summary: Truth.

Let me preface this by saying I think of you as quite a smart person and this isn't meant to be personal; . . but we should filter a commentary and think for you? . . that is your loss my friend.
I think that for one, who in their bio say that their "opinions are open and flexible," the attitude you seemingly are portraying (purposely or not) is elitist to the core. . . and surprisingly, some of the great questions posed by "morons" are the most complex to answer. . . just another of life's infinite mysteries . . . just as some who think themselves so highly minded that they are no earthly good.
Surely you're not among such narcissist intelligentsia. . . or are you?

Jesus Christ, why is everything so dramatic with you?

I guess your friends never ask you for movie advice if this is how you respond to such a basic question.

How hard is it to say "it's about fractional reserve banking" or something?

Ke-rhist 'o mighty, Salidin, slow down and smell the roses. . . you start off with snarky disdain about Napolitano and then ask for a review? . . click on the link and give a listen, if then you think its crap. . .THEN - say so, but don't sniff your nose in disdain because we know that giving you a condensed version leaves half the meal on the table. . . jeez!

Ok, I watched it and, as I expected, it was just a waste of time.

For the most part, it's just propaganda about the Founders and vague, anti-government rhetoric.

Pretty much everything he said, besides the part about abuses of modern government, was either exaggerated or untrue.

Hell, you think this stuff is new? Ever heard of the Whiskey or Shay rebellions? How about the Alien or Sedition acts?

The new government didn't give anyone much a right to anything. And the Constitution's bill of rights wouldn't come to apply to states until after the Civil War. Which means you had the right to do whatever the fuck your state told you to do, and believe me, plenty of them didn't give a shit about freedom. And that's totally setting aside the issue of slavery.

It's funny that this guy should rant on and on about how "noble" our "revolution" was, because guess what happened to all those countries who didn't fight the king? What happened to Canada, Australia, and all the other British territories? Oh yeah, their freedoms were maintained and they bargained for independence later. So much for that.

It wasn't even really a revolution, it was a fight for independence, as the government that we had before it was the same one we had afterwards. So the whole thing, ironically, was a fight for status quo. Americans weren't fighting for a brave new world, they were terrified that their old way of life was at an end and that the British would start actually paying attention to them. It's a lot less noble when you see it in that light.

America has, and always will be, a work in progress. People who look back at our founding for anything other than inspiration haven't fucking studied the history of the period. Because the early United States was irrelevant and hypocritical. It was only by reinventing itself again and again that it finally achieved relevance in the modern world as a bastion for freedom and industry. And even then, it's only really been on top in that regard for a few decades at a time before sliding back into old bad habits.

http://you.re

Okay. . . though I do not agree with your analogous diatribe, at least you're consistent in your disdain for man's attempt at self governance. . . although I must concur that I'm not at all dazzled by the results of statism's purpose either.

I don't disdain self-governance, and I'm not sure what's "analogous" about my "diatribe," nor what part you supposedly concur with.

Put bluntly, I don't know what you meant to say with that post, but you sure as hell didn't say it.

That's okay, from the get go, I've yet to establish just what it is you've said that actually was more than a negative analogy on persons and events of American 'history'. . . my point is that when looking at the big picture, almost from the start, the purpose and intent of our Constitution has been so subverted from it's pure and brilliant simplicity, to the now chaotic near total statist tyranny that currently masquerades as a democratic republic, that it is not even a shadow of the original dream of our forefathers. . . I'm not faulting the tenets of the Constitution, but the subverted applications of them. . . hence, I too am disillusioned with the attempted illusion to portray our current government as a constitutionally guided republic.

Take a look at the comment left on that link you gave us... LOL

Which one?

all of em...

Great idea, get rid of that blowhard Olberman and put the Judge in.

And yeah. . .the ratings would go up!

cuz current is the left wing version of what fox is to the right, so truth isnt so important.

like say removing comments that are based in personal attacks, while leaving comments based in attacking ethnic groups up.as if the ethnic groups arent comprised of millions of the individual people that arent supposed to be personaly attacked.

truth has no home in our society.

. . .well one could hope some truth finds it's way to current.tv on occasion. . . I mean, shit, miracles do happen once in a while. . . or so they say. . . LOL

maybe its the late hour, or a crippling case of cynicism, but it seems to me the truth (which is allusive at best) exists for profit based media to distill into a marketable product.thus stripping the truth down into fractured elements of it to be distributed.
it seems the only way to get what is actualy the truth, whole truth or anything close to the truth, is to quite ones job and dedicate all their time to watching all the media outlets to piece together the facts they all share.
and even then its still a matter of personal deductive reasoning more that actual knowledge of truth.

so sad that we grew up in a day when journalists used to compete by seeing who could expose the truth first.now we have an entire generation, and future generations who will never know what that is like.just whores looking for shares of a demographic

The Judge was the highest rated show on Fox Business.

I am a cynic myself. But the truth is the truth, whether it gets good ratings or not. I agree with you about the media.

right.
and the truth is cutting payroll taxes are right up the republicans alley, and the democrats alley, as no one (certainly not the working class) like paying taxes.
and while democratic leadership may use the payrol tax cut as a nargaining chip to give the republicans something to accept for other tax cuts they other wise wouldnt accept.
current will report the left got a win by beating the republicans into accepting it.
fox will tell the tale of the left not offering tax cuts but republicans demanding it.
and every shade in between.
making the truth only known to those who have a rediculous amount of time to dedicate to media viewing.

the truth is diced up and distributed in different portions for different markets, with no comprehensive truth existing anymore.

shit if baby jessica fell down a well today
fox would report big government failed as expected to cover the wells they built causing this problem.
while the left would claim republican refusal to fund government projects results in our collapsing infrastructure as shown by this poor baby being down this will she should have never had access too.
while anderson cooper evangelizes getting tearfull emotionaly manipulative material that has nothing to do with anything.
and nancy grace yells at every adult within a given radius of baby jessica.
this isnt truth.it is exploitation

Payroll tax? It was Social Security when I started working at fourteen, you'd get it all back, your retirement. Now it's a payroll tax thirty years later. At least they finally admited it was a tax.

i believe they are talking about the actual federal government taxes that come out of paychecks, not social security.but hey if im wrong, just another example of how the truth is more and more allusive

That's the plan - - fabricate lies (liberally embellished with false promises) and opiate the masses with assurances of governments altruism - - as they plunder the country and smother free enterprise with over-regulation and mandated controls.
- And many people think they're free?

Look on your paycheck, FICA, used to be Social security, now it's a payroll tax. Of course it's a federal tax. I knew that the first paycheck I got that took it out.

see now you are getting nailed from the other side.
of course government altruism is an oxymoron.shit our entire constitution has a narrative that holds government in contempt as a neccesary evil.

the thing we are missing in the comprehensive truth, is while government is inherenty tyranical by nature (as rulers), democracy puts the government in the service of the people in accordance with the will of the people.not dictating down to us, but serving us.

over regulation by government can certainly stiffle progress.but at the same time this view that government regulation is a third party is also false.as it is our collective will.or at least is supposed to be our collective will, which we seem to have abdocated in recent generations.

we are as free as we demand.no more no less.

What do you think Obama is talking about? He's cut FICA two years in a row. You thought it was going broke, now it is going twice as fast. FICA is Social Security.

Oh, but govt regulation is a 3rd party, and it really should be recognized as such. . . think about it for a while.

Regulations are formulated through a host of "oversight" agency's that set their own agenda as they interpret legislative rulings. . . for crying out loud, they have their own police forces, god forbid. . . surely you recognize their impact touches the very fabric of ours lives, from light bulbs to water pressure to how much you must pay in tax licenses to drive and own a car, build an addition on your home, or hell for that matter, try to build a got damned playhouse for your kid, without being fined. . . controlling everything you do, such as shutting down and arresting a Quaker farmer for selling non-homogenized milk interstate, produced for the benefit of customers eagerly willing to pay for it's natural goodness. . . I say bullshit on agency bureaucrats, they themselves are unregulated, unaccountable, out of control and are recklessly stepping on the neck of free enterprise and citizens who exercise it.

. . . Tyranny by regulation!

right, a third party, but the nature of that third party should be in question.not the absolute perspective that it is a benevolent or malevolent party.
any and all flaws of our democratic government are the flaws of us being shown to us, as the government is expressing our will.

if arresting the quakers for the milk they produce represents a mistake on governments part, that means we have to adress those who are representing us in this regard.if we do not the tyrany is the product of our indifference towards it.

the government regulates according to our will.making government regulation actualy our own regulation.this is the part we leave out that makes a democratic government different than your monarchy or despots.in those cases it is straight up tyrany when government imposes its will.but in our case the third party that government is, has no independant will.it is our will.

it is like tha walmart debacle.
every place walmart builds a store, the towns flip out and blame them for killing the local economy.

but whos decision was it to place the store there to begin with?
did the people themselves not allow this to happen?
where were they when walmart was seeking approval from the local regents?

who are the people who shopped at walmart as opposed to the stores they had previously been shopping at?
would walmart be able to do anything if not funded directly by those who are complaining about the after effects of that funding?

we abdocate our personal responsaibilities, then are pissed when our needs arent met.
we are a society that promotes the virtue of the individual, and serving the individual.then we get pissed when individuals served themselves while we do not make the effort ourselves?

dont shop at walmart if you dont want them crushing your local economy, support your local economy.it is up to you and no one else.

if the gov pisses you off, fight with it.but dont sit back at let them do what they want, and be surprised your needs arent being met.

In fact, regulatory agencies most definitely should be in question, as they've become self directed ruling entities, with little or no oversight. . . becoming in essence just another vehicle which imposes the will of what ever faction that has employed their "vested" interest.
. . . and actually government, in and of its own - doesn't regulate according to the will of the people, but to the will of its various and peculiar special interests. . . taking from one faction in favor of another. . . in the name of regulatory authority.

In a sense we both agree in principal, but differ to cause and effect. . . and yes virtue, when practiced, yields the fruit of its aspirations, whether strong or weak of will, or of good or bad moral character, it does indeed seem to define a near absolute: . . that until every elected official is actually legally held accountable, (which they aren't [although they should be] - and I don't give a damn what their political 'persuasion' may be) to be praised or prosecuted, or whether in dignity or shame in representing or violating the peoples trust. . . and justly rewarded or penalized according to their deeds. . . then yes, we do in fact get the government we deserve.

btw - I just read a study recently, I'll copy the link and send it to you when I locate it, but the gist of the report was that there is in fact no substantial evidence that companies such as WalMart et al have affirmed detrimental effects on local businesses or economies. . . just saying (it all depends who's doing the research report). . . yeah?

Or any of the American media for that matter.