Disgraced Faux Judge “Spank me hard Daddy” Napolitano, Bobby? He’s the best you can do?
Wow, you’re really scraping the barrel.
A reminder….
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-judge-andrew-napolitano-faces-second-sexual-assault-lawsuit

What nonsense. Wishful thinking propaganda by America hating, democracy hating, Biden hating idiots and criminals. Good job bob.

EDIT- The outrage is out there, friendo. The UN is calling out war crimes. Many western nations are too. Many Americans are too. I have for decades.

Recently reports and evidence have proven Israel knew Hamas was planning the attack over a year before it happened, they apparently had the entire 40 page plan in hand, and was getting their own intelligence saying they were implementing the exact plan they knew about in the weeks and months leading up to the attack, the exact plan they implemented on Oct 7. Netanyahu’s administration decided to take no action at all, seemingly allowing the attack as a pretext to a war they wanted.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/30/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-attack-intelligence.html

Friendly reminder, most Palestinians are pure Semites, direct descendants of ancient civilizations that spoke the Semitic language like Babylonians, Phoenicians, Cannanites, Assyrians, Akkadians, Arabs, and Hebrews… most Jewish Israelis are not even partly Semitic they are Europeans…so technically supporting Israel against Palestine is anti-Semitic, not the other way around like the official narrative claims.

Lol. Nice.

Don't forget, they stormed into closed door hearings live streaming the whole thing, even though electronic devices are 100% not allowed in such hearings by law to maintain state secrets, protect witnesses, and even to protect the president from baseless or unproven accusations becoming public. Closed door hearings are like classified information, and the Republicans just tried to broadcast them to the world.

Hilariously, hypocritically, the thing they're so faux outraged about today is the rules Republicans enacted so they could make it easier to impeach Clintons....

https://crooksandliars.com/2019/10/karma-republicans-clinton-rules-apply

Just a taste.....
Andrew Napolitano reminded Fox and Friends viewers...that Republicans wrote the rules on impeachment proceedings during the Bill Clinton years. Uh oh.

Because I'm assuming that one of the parties to the conversation didn't just write a transcript of the conversation from memory and give it to someone else, to later be leaked.

I just happened to come across an interesting theory that is plausible(The Brits did it). From the Judge who has railed againt the unconstitutional NSA spying, so I don't think you can chalk this up to pure FOX news bullshit. In fact they took him off the air indefinitely for expressing his opinion. All of Comey's statements would still be truthful as well.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/16/andrew-napolitano-did-obama-spy-on-trump.html

Of course, just as I give little creedence to unsourced assertions that "The Russians did it" during the last administration, this will stay an interesting theory until the anonymous sources can deliver evidence.

Let's see, Judge Andrew Napolitano is a Judge who went to law school. He doesn't have a degree in history, he hasn't presented a book with citations or even notes. Nothing tangible about this, it's not supported by any facts whatsoever, I suggest he write an essay at least that can be backed up.

This is the problem with a lot of academia, anyone can claim anything for history because it's a soft science. You should be forced to demonstrate your findings with evidence, none of which is presented here. So it's just hard to take seriously.

I'd love to see an essay written on this subject, and references to the evidence on which this idea comes from. So far though I've only seen stuff that's ethereal.

Also maybe it's just me but why is this being brought up again? If you want to take down Lincoln whatever you can do this to every president, they're world leaders who make hundreds of decisions. To me though this is most likely about racists trying to show that the country isn't that racist and the real baddies are those who stopped the racists.

Specifically this new challenge to the Civil War reminds me of a book that came out awhile ago arguing that the Palestinians aren't actually from Palestine, so they don't belong there. There's no issue, they don't belong so the Jews are doing nothing wrong occupying their land and keeping them in a giant open air prison. This book was praised in the media for obvious reasons that Israel is one of our close allies. It didn't take long though before it was destroyed academically by some intelligent people. It has largely been forgotten because it's a waste of fucking paper.

This in my opinion is a waste of breath and time, please prove me wrong.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/TDS-Judge-Andrew-Napolitano-Discusses-Slavery-with-Jon

TDS: Judge Andrew Napolitano Discusses Slavery with Jon has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach.

Andrew Napolitano agrees that Lincoln did not engage in war to end slavery but to bring back the seceding confederacy, as the clip Stewart clip shows. He also shows a clip, presented without context of Napolitano talking about the war being unnecessary to free the slaves. That is addressing those many who believe the war was fought to free the slaves. Napolitano in the original interview is addressing both camps: those who think the war was about slavery and those who think it was about tariffs or something else to indicate either way, it was unnecessary. Watch Napolitano's statements on Lincoln in full, not taken with zero context like Stewart does, and you will see that even if he thinks the war was about something other than slavery, he says that. Even if it had been about slavery as many people, namely Lincoln fans, and even historian have argued, even still, it was an unnecessary "murderous" war. There is no contradiction there. If you think it was about slavery, then still it was the wrong approach to it. And more likely it was not even about slavery. So his comments are meant for someone who thinks it was about slavery. Stewart just edited out the context, as he typically does. The context being that he is addressing the persistent idea that the war for Lincoln was or became about slavery.

Maybe it needs more simplification. Napolitano's point:

Some believe the civil war was necessary to liberate slaves. But if Lincoln had wanted to free the slaves, there were a number of options to pursue. Instead, he 'set out on the most murderous war in American history'. Because the intention was not to free the slaves to begin with.

What about that makes no sense? If anything, the "debate" on this point is what "makes no sense."

BTW, among those who believe the war was not about taxes is Jon Stewart.

Delaware is considered a northern state. Maybe not by you but by others.
And when I lived in Maryland, everyone there seemed to consider it a northern state too. But ok, you don't consider it a northern state. Cool.
(Ask anyone in Boston if he is a "Yankee" and see how that goes!)

But what's your point now? You agree that the Civil War was a "War to preserve the Union, not a Lincoln crusade to end slavery". That's why he did not invade or interfere with the border states. They did not secede. So how is this relevant to the original point about Jon Stewart thinking otherwise and going off on Andrew Napolitano about it? And are you now trying to claim that the north was acting in "self-defense" because of southern attacks on federal forts?


"In 1862, the General Assembly replied to Lincoln's compensated emancipation offer with a resolution stating that, "when the people of Delaware desire to abolish slavery within her borders, they will do so in their own way, having due regard to strict equity." And they furthermore notified the administration that they regarded "any interference from without" as "improper," and a thing to be "harshly repelled.""

The proposal was never put to a vote. It was not tried in other states. And it was not addressed directly to the slave owners but to politicians in the Assembly. No effort was put into it.

Among the tactics employed by the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Danes, and others were slave rebellions, abolitionist campaigns to gain public support for emancipation, election of anti-slavery politicians, encouragement and assistance of runaway slaves, raising private funds to purchase the freedom of slaves, and the use of tax dollars to buy the freedom of slaves.

The most charitable thing I could say is that Lincoln tried but failed to come up with and implement any other way to end slavery but to engage in 'bloodshed and violence' (putting aside that he claimed to not care to end slavery except as a way to get one over on the South).

Still, that only says something about his competency, his "political genius" as some say (or lack of it), but not about whether there were other options available that could have worked without the 620,000 dead and 800,000+ more maimed-or-disfigured-for-life.

Of course, there is no empirical way to 'prove' or 'disprove' that any more than there is any empirical way to 'prove' or 'disprove' that, without two nukes, Japan would have lost the war, or that without the Korean war, the Communists would have taken over the world, or that without the Iraq invasion, Saddam would not have built "weapons of mass destruction" to unleash on the world.

What if 'peaceful secession' would have neutered the federal enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act (which Lincoln strongly supported), creating a flood of runaway slaves that could not have been stopped and would have broken the back of the slave system'?

The Soviet Union collapsed on its own without the US and its allies going into a bloody war against it. Maybe if the US had started a third world war with the USSR, it would have collapsed sooner. But it certainly would not have been worth the 'blood and violence'. And it is far from certain that the 5 years of Civil War accelerated the end of slavery, while it has certainly served to bolster and continue the decades of segregation, discrimination, and abuse that followed.

The first Republican president seems to have set a precedent for later Republican neocons. When faced with a problem ---> go to war.

I only ask this of those who insist that Lincoln went to war to "free the slaves" (which is what Stewart and Wilmore suggest in the video). Obviously if you dismiss that as nonsense, then sure, the answer is obvious, because he didn't care to, he just wanted to preserve the union. So, where's the contradiction?


"War to preserve the Union, not a Lincoln crusade to end slavery."

Again, I understand what you are saying, I only mention the freeing of the slaves for those (like Jon Stewart and Larry Wilmore apparently) who insist that the war was about "freeing the slaves."

Tom Woods would agree with this. In fact, he's written about it: that the Civil War was a "War to preserve the Union, not a Lincoln crusade to end slavery."

You obviously haven't read him.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, Tom Woods, Ron Paul, and many libertarians agree that it was (in your own words) a "War to preserve the Union, not a Lincoln crusade to end slavery". Get it? There is no disagreement there. Get it?

The issue of buying the slaves' freedom is only for those who say that the war was "necessary" to free the slaves. But it was not and it was not the main reason the war was fought. Get it?

So, about this you are in fact in agreement with Tom Woods and Andrew Napolitano and you are in disagreement with Jon Stewart. Get it?

"Whether or not Lincoln could have bought all the slaves is entirely irrelevant."

Irrelevant to what? Jon Stewart's comment?

"That is not why the Civil War was fought."

And?

"Buying the slaves wasn't an option."

It was not an option because that would not have prevented confederate secession. As you say, Lincoln did not care about freeing the slaves only about preserving the union no matter how many were killed or maimed in the process. It is totally relevant to Judge Andrew Napolitano saying that if Lincoln had wanted to free the slaves, the Civil War would have been unnecessary. But as you say (and he would agree), freeing the slaves were not Lincoln's concern.

So you are right, totally correct. For someone who did not want the South to secede and for whom it did not matter if the slaves were freed or not (in his own words), as long as the South would keep paying its tariffs, paying to free the slaves and avoiding bloodshed was not an option. Avoiding bloodshed was not his primary concern. Preventing secession was.

From his first inaugural:
"[T]here needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it is forced upon the national authority."

Basically, obey the "national authority" or suffer bloodshed and violence.

Which they did.

While the "bloodshed and violence" were unnecessary to free the slaves, had that been the goal, at least it would have been a worthy goal even if the means were monstrous. But "bloodshed and violence" to "preserve the union" or to collect taxes, that's beyond the pale.

This is a really weird juxtaposition -- Andrew Napolitano engaging in one of his usual right-wing fearmongering rants about the evils of "government", played over protesters getting the shit beaten out of them for protesting...spending cuts to government programs.

This is the kind of video blankfist would post, and then leave me a personal comment saying something about how this video demonstrates that all of my political beliefs are wrong, when all it really demonstrates is the level of cognitive dissonance inherent in the entire conservative worldview.

If you let the concept of cutting government budgets get conflated with the idea of protecting your rights as an individual, then your perceptions have become so skewed you're no longer able to make rational sense out of the world you live in.

But then, I guess modern conservatives don't really believe in individual rights anymore. Not really.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Freedom Watch, Fox, Business, Napolitano, Politics, Obama, Judge Napolitano' to 'Freedom Watch, Fox, Business, Politics, Obama, Judge Andrew Napolitano' - edited by xxovercastxx

I don't like his ideology either, but railing against the majority is often completely moral. At various points in our history, the majority of people were in favor of:

Slavery
Jim Crow
Restriction of women's rights including voting and property ownership
Forbidding the teaching of evolution in schools

The guy is right that a main function of the judicial branch is to protect minorities against the majority. Individual rights are protection of rights against both the gov't AND other people.

Because judges are typically not elected, or at least elected as often, there was an intent to keep judges to be more independent from the masses.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

But, as a judge isn't he a willing servant of that which he rails against?
I thought there was some sort of rule that you had to be smart to be a judge? Oh... Right, I forgot Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts who seem to believe corporations are people and bribing judges should be legal (yeah, I'm not kidding, sadly).
I honestly can't even watch this guy, I'm afraid I'll put my fist through my screen. If what I said is covered in the video, my apologies.

>> ^Yogi:

Can we get this shit straight yet? It's Jon Stewart. J-O-N

What kind of name is "J-O-N"? I've changed it to "John"... I mean.. "Jon".

Good discussion.

Part 3: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-27-2011/exclusive---andrew-napolitano-extended-interview-pt--3