Worth a Read?

[bb_bboy]

I saw Andrew P. Napolitano on CSPAN2:BookTV last night. From his brief speech and discussion he appears to have a keen understanding and critical eye for past and emerging policies of the US government that seek to remove or displace individual liberties. Despite working for FOX News, Mr. Napolitano exuded a non-partisan air and proved critical of both past and current administrations. I don't know how the book will read compared to how well he spoke, but I think that it may be interesting to anyone opposed to the possibility of legislated tyranny.

Here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0785260838/qid=1103473350/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-4670594-4955854?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) is the Amazon link. The book is titled Constitutional Chaos : What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws.

[ASsman]

Despite working for FOX News
Hmmm, no I don't think I can disregard that.

[bb_bboy]

Hmmm, no I don't think I can disregard that.

It's good to think that without even knowing anything about (http://www.rense.com/general50/pre.htm) what he has to say. A credit to you, I'm sure.

[ASsman]

Meh, he can say whatever he pleases. But his actions are stronger than his words.

A credit to you, I'm sure.
I'm sure you're sure.


But really "senior judicial analyst with the Fox News Channel".. that really puts a lot of credibility behind his words. Even if I do believe in what he has to say, tool.

[bb_bboy]

Not only is the book an effort completely independent from his work as a judicial analyst for the Fox News Channel, but after listening to him speak you might realize, through limited comprehension, that the issues that he raises are often contradictory to those that you would typically expect to hear from his conservative colleagues. It is narrow minded and ignorant to assume any degree of beleivability either in terms of his depth of knowledge of the subject matter or his analysis of the facts at hand without first hearing anything that he has to say. However, that is the nature of relying soley on associations and stereotypes rather than the collection of facts and varying opinions to form subsequently presumptive and rationally baseless characterizations of individuals. If that is the world to which you resign yourself, then so be it.

[ASsman]

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Really. I never said anything about WHAT he is saying. Im not arguing any of that (nor using stereotypes). You'd know that if you really understood what I've tried to say. Have fun arguing with yourself.

Fact: This thread is not worth a "Read".

Also, speaking of stereotypes. Why don't you go buy another "support our troops" bumper sticker/magnet.

[bb_bboy]

... that really puts a lot of credibility behind his words. Even if I do believe in what he has to say ...

I never said anything about WHAT he is saying.

[FunkyHiFi]

Has Fox always been so partisan? Maybe this guy started there when it wasn't and for all we know he is writing his resignation letter right now. Fox also might be keeping him around to lend their news department an air of credibility to counter all those accusations of being biased.

These days I don't automatically dismiss anything that is seemingly partisan--things are changing so fast I'm not sure who really leans this or that way or what their actual agenda is. And while I tend to believe left-leaning people more than right-wingers, the leftists also have their own set of loudmouthed a-hole extremists pushing their own unrealistic/hurtful agendas that only a tiny minority of Americans share ("Let's throw away those icky books and just tap into the Universal Consciousness using yoga to teach kids about the world!"), so I also listen to what they say with some skepticism.

And quite a few Republicans* are finally coming out & starting to admit they are having problems with what their leader is doing. That tells me right there that there is some truly bad shit going down in the District of Columbia nowadays.

* I figure these are real Republicans, not the neo-cons that want to fuck this country over for their own uses.

[ASsman]

Sorry, let me be more specific. I haven't critized what he has said, only from whose mouth it's coming from. e.g Cheney can tell me the Iraq War is illegal, but I will still not LISTEN to him. That does not mean I won't agree with his position, I will never agree with the person. Again, ACTIONS speak louder and WORDS. So instead of wasting my time on people who do not act on what they seem to believe it, I will read something "worth" reading.

[Rosie Cotton]

That does not mean I won't agree with his position, I will never agree with the person.

If you agree with that person's position, then you have to agree with them. At least on that subject.

*NOTE* I know what you mean, but the wording bothered me.

[ASsman]

It is only HIS position because he is taking it. Not for any other reason. But if you look at it, can you include what he has done and his position.. as the "person". If you include what he has done (his actions etc.) and what he says as one. Then I do not agree with the "person", because he is a hypocrite. So in that sense I do not agree with him. I'm sorry I can be any clearer, I hope you still understand what I'm trying to say.

[Rosie Cotton]

Yeah, I still know what you mean. But there was just something about how you said it that bugged me. Damn semantics.

[bb_bboy]

Sorry, let me be more specific. I haven't critized what he has said, only from whose mouth it's coming from. e.g Cheney can tell me the Iraq War is illegal, but I will still not LISTEN to him. That does not mean I won't agree with his position, I will never agree with the person. Again, ACTIONS speak louder and WORDS. So instead of wasting my time on people who do not act on what they seem to believe it, I will read something "worth" reading.

That's fine, I understand your point of view. However, this man is doing something by trying to spread the word about these issues and I posted the information about the book only because I found his discussion on CSPAN so interesting. I don't want you to like him, I just want you to be privy to the points he raises (you meaning everyone here). That's all.