first I think the pres. needs to be asked only yes or no questions. second if you pay a recurring tax on something you really don't own it. third I don't care about your sexual orientation and the trigger doesn't care either. the govt has been working for 100 yrs trying to desensitize the American public so they can bring back a new and improved way of slavery. the steam roller is coming but there still is a little time I hope.
I like the show very much as well — judge seems like the only fox personality that is ACTUALLY for what the tea party was about before it was co-opted by the repubs like palin.
2 things I'd fix though:
1) On every one of the judge's questions the first comment that leaps to my mind is: "Objection, your honor – leading the witness" — stop LEADING everyone to the answer you want — just let people give their opinion.
And 2) On this show more than any i've ever seen it seems that the interviews never get into meaty discussions — the segments are too fast — so either he has too many prepared questions or too many segments jammed into each show – but it seems like every time a heated debate is about to go down he has to break or he has to ask another prepared question to another guest — have some "starters" and then let the debate heat up — that's what we want.
I mean how many times do you hear a guest going: "but judge 1 more thing"; "but judge – can i just say 1 thing"? It really sux but the show kicks ass.
I WOULD RATHER WATCH THIS THAN ANY OTHER SHOW ON FOX SO HOPEFULLY THIS BECOMES A WEEK-DAILY SHOW!!
Its time to have Alex Jones on the show. The Judge has been on infowars several times. Beck is no true patriot; he has already proven that in the way he treats 9/11 truthers and victims families. He is merely a bizzaro Jones set up by Murdoch and co. to co opt the tea party moment that was started by Paul supporters.
Judge, Dan Choi is asking the military to respect his behavior choice and it is exactly that instead of the PC agenda that iti is a genetic issue. The military not the congress should be deciding this issue. Otherwise the girl scouts will be dictating to the boy scouts. Organizations have rights as well to exclude things that hurt their identity and mission. Society also has the option and DO NOT have to accept everything a citizen drags home. Read the 'Pink Swastika' from the internet. I will not allow my children to serve under compromised characters weak to control of their sexual behavior. Besides God has ordained it a sin and has taken action against whole nations for their sin. He will do that again as he has been recorded in history to have done – period. No special anything for compromised character.
NAACP requested at the debate start that shirts, buttons and signs with political messages be removed from the auditorium where the debate was being held — how is this consistent with the 1st Amendment with a debate held at a taxpayer funded, public community college?
Two questions asked on note cards, one relating to the above were never asked. A second asked if the candidates supported a phased separation of school and state. http://www.electlex.com/
"The Obama administration will seek a new federal law forcing Internet e-mail, instant-messaging, and other communication providers offering encryption to build in backdoors for law enforcement surveillance, The New York Times reported today."
Of course, the Judge is right that a person's sexual behavior is none of the government's business. Furthermore, I personally think that "don't ask don't tell" is a silly policy. People in the military come from all sorts of different backgrounds, different religions, etc. But somehow, this is the one thing that disrupts "cohesion" among the ranks? Please.
Having said all that, I can't agree with the Judge that "don't ask don't tell" constitutes a violation of the right to free speech. Joining the military is a voluntary decision, and if you decide to join, you agree to abide by their policies, including "don't ask don't tell". If you don't agree with those policies, you probably shouldn't join the military in the first place. Once you do, you surrender your right to unfettered freedom of speech. Period.
Judge, I rest easier knowing you are out there but it is nauseating to listen to the liberal bimbos, if this is really a "freedom watch" get guests that really know what's going on and let the public learn something. Tone down the show, too hyped. Dare to have Alex Jones on.
Carolyn Heldman has a deer in the headlights look every time she appears on the show. as if even she does not believe the liberal blather that she spits out. When she stated that the new 1099 legislation was in place to "keep businesses honest" it was either an incredibly honest insight into the agenda of the left, or an incredible Freudian slip. Either way, it does let us know that the libs do despise successful capitalists and will do whatever is necessary to bring them down and share and put them under government's unpatriotic thumb.
It's occurred to me too that Heldman as well as Nancy Skinner could be parroting some left-wing positions that they only partly agree with. The pundits on CNN's Crossfire did this for years, speaking what were considered to be the dominant left- and right-wing views of the day.
I sure miss the Internet program. It might have been lacking in debate, but so is the TV version, where conservatives effectively get a pass from the Judge and there's never enough time to more fully demolish liberal viewpoints. Plus I'd rather watch the Judge interview sincere, thinking libertarians than robots who mouth Republican and Democrat propaganda.
I couldn't agree more with Barney's comment above. Scott Horton is the warmonger/neocon terminator. Get him on and watch them drop one by one. I also think more time needs to be given to substantive debate. I would love to see a roundtable debate for an entire hour between statists like Skinner and Heldman and staunch liberty proponents like Lew Rockwell and Scott Horton.
I'm fairly confident that the judge does occasionally view comments here, Alex. …or at least has in the past.
As for the criticisms: they are all valid, well intentioned opinions, but the producers on Fox have the last say. I'm sure, as with any TV show, that the Judge has some input, but let's not forget, we're dealing with a corporation that plays a large role in shaping public opinion; and that influence has, in large part, not been to our benefit as a nation.
AntiFed: "I'm fairly confident that the judge does occasionally view comments here, Alex"
What do you base that confidence on, please? And even if the Judge did occasionally read the comments here (which I highly doubt) wouldn't it be a better idea to attempt to reach him in a more direct manner if one is seriously interested in getting a comment to him?
The show is slipping from what is was in the original Freedom Watch days online……I don't agree with the Judge's emphasis on discussing policy. if he's a nightwatchman defending liberty, then that is philosophical in nature, not political. And the show is way too oriented on the tea party and various polls and elections going on. Is it Freedom Watch or Tea Party Watch? Again, defending liberty has to be philosophical because liberty is set on defining consistent principles. He shouldn't be reporting on the Tea Party and the elections, he should be educating the Tea Party and the common electorate.