Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Judge Napolitano Demonstrates How To Get Fired By Fox In Under 5 Minutes

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 13, 2012, 6:33 a.m. EST by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Judge Napolitano Demonstrates How To Get Fired By Fox In Under 5 Minutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOaCemmsnNk

58 Comments

58 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by reckoning (53) 2 years ago

Judge Napolitano will be missed..hope he comes back in another program

[-] 3 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

What if Fox News weren't "Fair and Balanced" as it claims to be? What if many of Fox News political icons were exposed to scrutiny by one of Fox News' own? What if Judge Napolitano raised many of same questions and concerns that OWS has raised? What if Judge Napolitano were to make a guest appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart? What if Judge Napolitano were fired for questioning the Fox dogma?

[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Wow, that has to be the most interesting thing I have ever watched on FOX News. Napolitano was always an interesting character. Maybe he will find an organization that is less reprehensible.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

fox news reporters seem like shallow stuffed shirts

ofcourse, that's just a passing glance impression

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Thanks for this post. Refreshing as hell to see so many in positions of the media speaking out in spite of their employers interests.

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

"so many"?!?

Please enlighten me as to the rest you refer...

[-] 1 points by go99ers (31) 2 years ago

And the truth .... shall get you fired?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I posted poly wanna cracker when I got banned from "A Way with Words" forum

Public Enemy - Pollywanacraka

[-] 1 points by jomojo (562) 2 years ago

What if cultural warfare won.

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

FAVORITE TO FIRED IN FIVE MINUTES ON FOX :: BUZZING TO BANNED IN FIVE DAYS ON REDDIT

(1) SOME SAY this broadcast is how Judge Napolitano went from favorite to fired in 5 minutes on Fox:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOaCemmsnNk

(2) WE KNOW posting the Truth is how Semantic Webber went from buzzing to banned in 5 days on Reddit:


NO MORE LEFT. NO MORE RIGHT. TIME TO UNITE. STAND AND FIGHT!

IronBoltBruce via VVV PR ( http://veritasvirtualvengeance.com | @vvvpr )

Tag: #newscorp, #fox, #judgenapolitano, #reddit #politics, #ows, #corporate #fascism, #worldwarweb, #vvvpr

Key: news corp, fox, judge napolitano, reddit politics, ows, corporate fascism, world war web, vvv pr

Related post:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/judge-napolitano-favorite-to-fired-in-5-minutes-on/

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

http://nation.foxnews.com/judge-napolitano/2012/02/11/judge-napolitano-will-go

Napolitano's show was cancelled due to low ratings along with another "financial" show on Fox. He is still a contributor to Fox.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

nice set up

these rolling "what if" patterns can lead to train crashes or reality short circuit due to hitches in a causality chain

the frame of the message worked well

Emilie Autumn - What if; lyrics~

.

fox fired him ?

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

good riddance to this ron paul loon


Nader gave us the Iraq war – deregulation – halliburton - alito - roberts etc etc etc etc
Just think of the fun America will have if you vote for another third party candidate!
President Bain Romney ! ……… and more scalia clones like thomas

You gotta believe –
………….the only ones who don’t want you to vote Democratic-
…………………………………………………………………….are the tea potty !

You remember “George-yellowcake”.
You remember “ Dick-Iam not a crook”.
You remember “Ronnie-I don’t remember my treasonous acts”.
Now we have “Ron-I don’t remember my disgusting newletters”.

@--> A 1992 passage from the Ron Paul Political Report about the Los Angeles riots read, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” Another Paul newsletter asserted that people with AIDS should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva”;

@--> In 1990 one of Ron Paul’s publications criticized Ronald Reagan for having gone along with the creation of the federal holiday honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which it called “Hate Whitey Day.”

@--> Ron Paul’s newsletter called Barbara Jordan, the African-American Texas congresswoman, a “half-educated victimologist” and said of crime in Washington, D.C., “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

@--> ”If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992

@--> "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992

@--> "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992

@--> Ron Paul’s newsletter was listed by a neo-Nazi group called Heritage Front, as recommended reading. { you gotta believe the doctor }

@--> The September 1994 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report states that “those who don’t commit sodomy, who don’t get blood a transfusion, and who don’t swap needles, are virtually assured of not getting AIDS unless they are deliberately infected by a malicious gay.”

@--> In the April 1993 Ron Paul Survival Report, the author states, “Whether [the 1993 World Trade Center bombing] was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.”

@--> Ron Paul SIGNED 1993 appeal for funds letter: "Israeli lobby plays Congress like a cheap harmonica," warned of a "race war" and said there was a gay-led cover up of AIDS. The letter suggests, that new $100 bills distributed by the Treasury and ostensibly aimed at tracking drug money were instead aimed at keeping track of all citizens. "I held the ugly new bills in my hands," the letter says. "I can tell you -- they made my skin crawl!" Then "my training as a physician helps me see through" what he calls the "federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS." The letter warns of a "coming race war in our big cities"

@--> Ron Paul December 2, 2011 Ron Paul Believes that Corporate Lobbying = Liberty: “I Take The Position That You Should Never Restrict Lobbying…”
About Citizens United - "It's corporations' money, they can do whatever they want with it."


And I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that deregulating-Ron would not want

a regulating Food and Drug Administration to ensure the safety of your food or meds
[ if you are poisoned, you or your estate can sue ],
or
a regulating Environmental Protection Agency
[ if your land is poisoned by a fracker – move ],
or
a regulating Federal Aviation Administration
[ if you are a scardy cat, take the train ],
or
a regulating Nuclear Regulatory Commission
[ ? ],
or
a regulating National Transportation and Safety Board
[ you know how to safety and crash test your car, don’t you? ],
or
a regulating Securities and Exchange Commission
[ you always pick honest corporate leaders, right ? ]
or
a nuclear bomb free Iran [ don’t all maniacs need one ? ]
or
a democratic ally in the middle east - like Israel
[ "Israeli lobby plays Congress like a cheap harmonica" – RP ]


Four years ago, Ron Paul generated controversy by not repudiating the endorsement of the neo-Nazi group Stormfront, This time, they seem proud about getting the support of a Nebraska Pastor who has made some revealing comments:
Ron Paul’s Iowa chairman, Drew Ivers, recently touted the endorsement of Rev. Phillip G. Kayser,
praising “the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs.” Kayser’s views on homosexuality go way beyond the bounds of typical anti-gay evangelical politics and into the violent fringe - Kayser recently authored a paper arguing for
criminalizing homosexuality and advocated imposing the death penalty
against offenders based on his reading of Biblical law: “As we have seen, while many homosexuals would be executed, the threat of capital punishment can be restorative.”
Has Ron Paul repudiated this endorsement?

My guess is that just like
Ron Paul tried to shove the
Ron Paul Newsletters under the carpet,
Ron Paul will try to shove his
Ron Paul endorser there too

It is fascinating how, despite the fact that fox hates Ron Paul, he uses the same tactics of deceit and obfuscation.


Please note – I’m not saying Ron is 100% nuts – just 99.4% pure


.................................................................
just a tiny fun fact - do you know who Ron named his senator son after?

google the libertarian queen’s name together with the name “William Hickman”


[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

I seek "Freedom From Ignorance".

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

a nuclear bomb free Iran [ don’t all maniacs need one ? ]

only the US is allowed to destroy the human world 7 times over

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

Paul's a funny guy, some of his views like open borders, no foreign wars, appeal to the left, other things like smaller government appeal to the right. But in the end he could never be president.

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

I'll be voting for Ron Paul this year, even if I have to write him in again, like I did in 2008.

[-] -1 points by shooz (26742) 2 years ago

In spite of all the evidence against him.

Please, do write him in.

[-] 2 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Who are you voting for? (If the election were right now, today, among those that are "in the race"?)

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

shooz: It is not much of a discussion if you refuse to answer my question(s).

[-] -1 points by shooz (26742) 2 years ago

Actually, it's been you refusing to clearly answer questions all along.

Let alone admit certain truths about your candidate of choice.

Why would you vote for a candidate that supports and is supported by bigotry?

[-] 2 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

I cannot answer a question that is "leading".

However, if you were to ask me a simple question such as: "Why are you voting for Ron Paul"? I could then answer you.

Back to my question: If the election was today, who will you be voting for?

[-] -1 points by shooz (26742) 2 years ago

Why support a proven bigot isn't leading at all.

It's incredibly valid.

So once again, you refuse to answer.

[-] 2 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Your question is leading because you have not been able to first get me to agree that he is a "bigot". You are attempting to "lead me" to that belief.

However, I do not believe that. At least not yet. I am listening to and you have not given me enough reason or evidence.

I looked up the definition of the word "bigot" and here it is:

"a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."

This definition does not fit the profile of Ron Paul. Why? Because Ron Paul is a long-time defender of The Constitution of the United States of America. He is a more proven defender of that document for Liberty than anyone else "on stage" or even the current president.

And because I believe that, I then believe your accusation that "Ron Paul is a proven bigot" to be false. Your statement does not have merit.

I am an attorney. What do you do for work?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

and your name?

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

I'll give you my first name: Thomas

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

if one claims to be a lawyer, I want some identification

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

I will only be giving you my first name. I have been posting what might be construed as "advice" on this forum. My identity will remain as "Thomas".

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

if everyone voted publicly everyone would be able to verify it

[-] -1 points by shooz (26742) 2 years ago

As I said, the proof of his bigotry has been posted in the forum numerous times. I no longer have any doubt of it's validity, and no longer feel the need to re-post it..

It's your loss, not to know these things, not mine.

I'm retired and work for my disabled wife.

[-] 2 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

I have read the things that try to paint Ron Paul as a racist. I have heard Ron Paul speak many times, and he has never spoken words like that. Therefore, those words are "someone else's words", not his. Therefore, it is not "proof". Your evidence is invalid.

You are basing your entire perspective on the words of someone else. Maybe you should seek "the words" directly from the source. Please watch this speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FobnAnrFG3c

These are his words and I look forward to hearing what you think of them.

[-] -1 points by shooz (26742) 2 years ago

I'm sorry, but I read the newsletters back in the day, and I've listened to the way he speaks of certain things, as well as the things he doesn't speak of.

If he is anything at all-----------------------He's 100% pure career politician. Of that, I have no doubt.

It's his followers, that believe he's not.

That's reason enough for my suspicions.

[-] 1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

When I was younger, I didn't like the idea of "career politicians" either.

I've since changed that perspective.

I now embrace the idea of a "career politician" because "we the people" then have a long record of how the politician has actually voted - instead of just having "their words".

I am very tired of hearing a candidate's promises and then see them get into office and do the exact opposite.

[-] 0 points by shooz (26742) 2 years ago

I have many reservations about the calls for term limits too.

I do however find voting records to be misleading, for that very reason, as they are often used as pawns, in a much bigger game.

It's the game that politicians and their benefactors play

[-] -1 points by shooz (26742) 2 years ago

That's between me and the ballot box, although I've made it very clear that it won't be a candidate with (R), anywhere near his name.

I would urge you to do the same.

[-] 1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Why the secrecy?

I want to see you express your conviction for the principles that matter to you. I only seek the truth.

[-] -1 points by shooz (26742) 2 years ago

You have yet to seek or admit any of the truths about your chosen candidate, in fact you constantly shill for him.

Why is that?

You speak little truth about his chosen party either.

Why is that?

I have right to ballot box privacy, and I invoke it here.

Why do you have a problem with my right to privacy?

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Again, your questions are "leading". If you were an attorney in court, trying to make your case, none of your questions would be valid because the judge would continue to support the objections of attempting "leading questions". None of your questions would go down "on the record".

How familiar are you with the Process of Law in the United States of America?

[-] 0 points by shooz (26742) 2 years ago

I'm not an attorney, and this is no court, yet the evidence against MR. P has been posted here for months on end.

It's your loss for ignoring it, not mine.

Your new attempt to change the subject, is duly noted.

Asking you for an explanation about why you think the way you do is valid.

[-] 2 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

This "loss" you speak of is going to be the "loss of the U.S. Constitution" unless we put people in power to protect it.

Maybe I am speaking to someone who does not appreciate or is even educated about the Constitution of the United States.

And if that is the case with you, I can now see how our conversation "makes perfect sense".

[-] -1 points by shooz (26742) 2 years ago

The Constitution was gone when a drunken judge first accepted corporations as people.

Returning to the 18th century will not cure it.

[-] 1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

I am not in support of Corporations having "person-hood" status.

You and I can agree on that, 100%.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26742) 2 years ago

Yes indeed, we do.

There are some tenents of libertarianism I am in 100% agreement with.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

that is not necessary

it is the subject that needs to be discussed not the person

one could ask ask questions about the subject to find the answer

[-] 0 points by shooz (26742) 2 years ago

The witness is being evasive Your Honor.

His claims for the validity of the candidate are unfounded, and were dealt with earlier in the hearings.....

I am merely trying to ascertain why he ignored the courts evidence and continues to shill for the candidate.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

because Ron Paul is the only one suggesting that the military is wrong in attaching other countries

it is that subject that is being discredit with the man

no other candidate nor the president will even discuss it

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Beg to differ. Ever hear of questioning a hostile witness?

[-] 1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

You "beg to differ" on exactly which statement that I made?

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

The obvious one the one I commented on:

Again, your questions are "leading". If you were an attorney in court, trying to make your case, none of your questions would be valid because the judge would continue to support the objections of attempting "leading questions". None of your questions would go down "on the record".

How familiar are you with the Process of Law in the United States of America?

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Please articulate. I made more than one statement.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Your Honor the witness is being evasive.

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Please articulate.

A discussion will go further when those involved do not need to repeat themselves.

[-] -1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Ron Paul is a closet Nazi.

[-] 2 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

Just for the record, I am personally neither for nor against Ron Paul. But that's irrelevant, because he will not be allowed to win. Here is why:

http://amerikanreich.com/2012/01/04/american-elections-false-choices-hiding-other-false-choices/

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I can't believe they would air that. How would it get past their programing director? I can believe they would fire him for it!! But air it????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOaCemmsnNk

Fox News self censor slips?????????

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Wow that actually went on the air????????????? Fux spews??????