Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have never agreed with something stated on Fox more than what has been stated by this man

I think this was broadcast sometime last year. Freedom Watch will still be on the air until ~Feb. 20, and the Judge will still be a contributor.

Keep in mind that favoring small government means you're a bad person, at least as far as the vocal Dakka OT is concerned.

He wasn't fired per se, but had his show taken away. He is still to be a guest contributor and employed by Fox.

The whole prime time line up is getting reworked due to low ratings. FBN (like every cable channel) exists to make money, low rating shows don't stay as a result.

The latest numbers available, from June 2009, showed FBN with an average of 21,000 viewers between 5 a.m. and 9 p.m., still under the Nielsen threshold, and less than 10% of CNBC's 232,000 for the same time span. At this point, FBN was available in about 49 million U.S. homes.

Another article on the ratings:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/is-fbns-new-weekend-show-freedom-watch-really-1-not-yet/

Eh, who cares. Spring season starts up soon for baseball, right?

biccat wrote:
Keep in mind that favoring small government means you're a bad person, at least as far as the vocal Dakka OT is concerned.

Its more that we're all wondering what "small government" is*.





*This isn't true, it means "government I don't like".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Johnny-Crass wrote:
I have never agreed with something stated on Fox more than what has been stated by this man

Everything before about minute 2 is totally true.

And I say this as someone who is paid to tell other people how to manipulate common people.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Keep in mind that favoring small government means you're a bad person, at least as far as the vocal Dakka OT is concerned.

Its more that we're all wondering what "small government" is*.

*This isn't true, it means "government I don't like".

If you can't trust your ill-informed opinions, who can you trust?

biccat wrote:
If you can't trust your ill-informed opinions, who can you trust?

I suppose I should have included a "generally" in there.

But please, tell me what "small government" means.

My nominal appraisal is that its similar to "Dude, you're getting a Dell!"

daedalus wrote:Eh, who cares. Spring season starts up soon for baseball, right?

The first players (Pitchers and Catchers for the Mariners and A's) reported on Sunday (the 12th)! And, only 16 days until the first game!

biccat wrote:

Keep in mind that favoring small government means you're a bad person, at least as far as the vocal Dakka OT is concerned.

Stop attempting to speak for large groups of people you don't really know, your not very good at it...

Grakmar wrote:

daedalus wrote:Eh, who cares. Spring season starts up soon for baseball, right?

The first players (Pitchers and Catchers for the Mariners and A's) reported on Sunday (the 12th)! And, only 16 days until the first game!

I imagine Freedom Watch had more viewers than baseball does. Unless we are counting little league games, of course.

Small Government is when the politicians of today, are replaced with smaller, twin midget versions of themselves, tomorrow.

CT GAMER wrote:

biccat wrote:

Keep in mind that favoring small government means you're a bad person, at least as far as the vocal Dakka OT is concerned.

Stop attempting to speak for large groups of people you don't really know, your not very good at it...

I'm speaking from personal experience.

Stop trying to be insulting, you're not very good at it.

dogma wrote:I suppose I should have included a "generally" in there.

But please, tell me what "small government" means.

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition

biccat wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

biccat wrote:

Keep in mind that favoring small government means you're a bad person, at least as far as the vocal Dakka OT is concerned.

Stop attempting to speak for large groups of people you don't really know, your not very good at it...

I'm speaking from personal experience.

Stop trying to be insulting, you're not very good at it.

I was also speaking from personal experience: your previous posts in numerous threads are full of sweeping generalizations that have no basis in fact.

And I wasnt insulting you, but making an observation based upon suffering through said previous posts.

if and when i decide to insult you it will be readily obvious...

ladies, ladies, play nice now.

And by that I mean...continue!

biccat wrote:
I'm speaking from personal experience.

Have you considered the possibility that you, personally, simply make very poor political arguments?

Also, I've never seen anyone call you a terrible person. Sure, I, among others, mock and deride your opinions about politics, but that's different. It isn't personal, so much as the result of consistently poor argumentation on your part.

biccat wrote:

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition

So, "small government" is equivalent to constitutionalism?

What kind of constitutionalism? The kind that embraces all the amendments, or the kind that only embraces the ones you like?

In either case, I'm still not seeing how "small government" is anything more than a slogan.

KingCracker wrote:Small Government is when the politicians of today, are replaced with smaller, twin midget versions of themselves, tomorrow.

This is genius. Sign me up for this definition of small government.

CT GAMER wrote:I was also speaking from personal experience: your previous posts in numerous threads are full of sweeping generalizations that have no basis in fact.

So your last post was off-topic in addition to a poor attempt at trolling? Clever.

CT GAMER wrote:if and when i decide to insult you it will be readily obvious...

I'll just go ahead and assume you're being factual and that you've never tried to do so before. If for no other reason than I find the thought entertaining.

Out of mild curiosity, rather than attacking me personally, could you care to refute the assertion I made in the post you originally quoted?

I wonder if any of the viewers out there in TV land can pick out what type of logical fallacy you're engaging in. If only there were a poster who loved to point these things out...

dogma wrote:Have you considered the possibility that you, personally, simply make very poor political arguments?

Considered, but disregarded.

dogma wrote:Also, I've never seen anyone call you a terrible person. Sure, I, among others, mock and deride your opinions about politics, but that's different. It isn't personal, so much as the result of consistently poor argumentation on your part.

I am curious if your record here on Dakka would reflect that.

However, I'm not interested in engaging you on this, because as we've seen before, your definition of argument ultimately boils down to semantics and/or nihilism. Suffice to say, Napolitano's argument is clear.

biccat wrote:
I wonder if any of the viewers out there in TV land can pick out what type of logical fallacy you're engaging in. If only there were a poster who loved to point these things out...

You're under the impression that ad hominem is necessarily fallacious, this has been established many times, and is, as it has always been, a poor impression to be under. Especially considering that, strictly speaking, the original claim that you made, which CT GAMER objected to, was also ad hominem.

Whats way more important is that, every time I hear or see the name Napolitano I think of Italian ice cream. Mmmm...ice cream or a nice sherbet would go well right about now.

biccat wrote:
Considered, but disregarded.

Yes, ignorance has a way of reinforcing itself.

biccat wrote:
I am curious if your record here on Dakka would reflect that.

You're free to investigate.

biccat wrote:
However, I'm not interested in engaging you on this, because as we've seen before, your definition of argument ultimately boils down to semantics and/or nihilism.

Then why are you engaging me on this?

And that isn't really my definition of argument, or any definition of argument, those are position from which one can argue. Such a basic misunderstanding of argument explains a great deal.

I'm also not a nihilist (in the colloquial sense), I have, several times, explained what I do and do not care about. That being said, it is common for people who encounter others that do not care about similar things to consider their opposite to be a nihilist, primarily due to a lack of ability or willingness to understand.

I am an existential nihilist, but that's a very different thing from colloquial nihilism. Of course, if you're using nihilism in the broadest sense, you're basically just saying that you don't like to consider dissenting opinions.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Considered, but disregarded.

Yes, ignorance has a way of reinforcing itself.

Clearly.

dogma wrote:You're free to investigate.

Well, I sent a PM to a mod or two, lets see what falls out.

dogma wrote:Then why are you engaging me on this?

I'm not. See? Also, poor wording during a rewrite on that last sentence.

dogma wrote:I'm also not a nihilist ... I am an existential nihilist

A grey cat is, even in the face of protestations to the contrary, still a cat.

A grey cat is, even in the face of protestations to the contrary, still a cat.

Or, an old guy who was and still may be, cool.

biccat wrote:
I'm not. See? Also, poor wording during a rewrite on that last sentence.

You did, and are. See?

But, as regards the last sentence, because I didn't use a contraction?

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:I'm also not a nihilist ... I am an existential nihilist

A grey cat is, even in the face of protestations to the contrary, still a cat.

And words mean different things when used colloquially, and when used technically. Good of you to cut that distinction out, though.

Still no ice cream. I have girl scout cookies though. it will have to do.

CT GAMER wrote:

biccat wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

biccat wrote:

Keep in mind that favoring small government means you're a bad person, at least as far as the vocal Dakka OT is concerned.

Stop attempting to speak for large groups of people you don't really know, your not very good at it...

I'm speaking from personal experience.

Stop trying to be insulting, you're not very good at it.

I was also speaking from personal experience: your previous posts in numerous threads are full of sweeping generalizations that have no basis in fact.

And I wasnt insulting you, but making an observation based upon suffering through said previous posts.

if and when i decide to insult you it will be readily obvious...

Try 'ignore'. Works great. And unless you guys are respondinging to him, I'm free from reading him.

dogma wrote:

Also, I've never seen anyone call you a terrible person. Sure, I, among others, mock and deride your opinions about politics, but that's different. It isn't personal, so much as the result of consistently poor argumentation on your part.

Wait until he starts insulting your children(well, if you had any!)!


Edit:
Epic quote fail.....

alarmingrick wrote:

Try 'ignore'. Works great. And unless you guys are respondinging to him, I'm free from reading him.

Sorry to have subjected you...

Is small government not the idea that the government shouldn't be allowed/able to interfere in anything?

purplefood wrote:Is small government not the idea that the government shouldn't be allowed/able to interfere in anything?

To some extent, you also get into trouble with what should or shouldn't be interfered with. It is more a rhetorical code word than anything that can be objectively pinned down.

Ahtman wrote:

purplefood wrote:Is small government not the idea that the government shouldn't be allowed/able to interfere in anything?

To some extent, you also get into trouble with what should or shouldn't be interfered with. It is more a rhetorical code word than anything that can be objectively pinned down.

Fair enough...