PDA

View Full Version : One way to improve Freedom Watch.




BoutTreeFiddy
08-15-2010, 06:23 AM
Stop asking so many fucking constitutionally-laced questions. That shit got old real fast.

Okay, so none of the stuff the government does is authorized by the Constitution.

Thanks Freedom Watch for making that very clear.

Now that you have made that point, please remove yourself from the airwaves unless you plan to stop asking such blatantly loaded questions.

Framing every single question around the Constitution is fucking annoying.

Plus, who needs to debate. It's not in Constitution, end of debate.

Okay, okay. We get it already.

Sincerely,

Bout Tree Fiddy

nobody's_hero
08-15-2010, 08:33 AM
Maybe it gets old to us.

Keep in mind that Judge Napolitano is reaching new minds everyday. The U.S. Constitution is not taught in schools, it is not conversed about in the MSM, it is not defended by politicians, it is not the center of D.C. 'debates'. The vast majority of voters do not consider a candidate's constitutional loyalties before casting a vote.

If you want someone who will frame the 'debate' around anything other than the U.S. Constitution, there are plenty of outlets that will offer that.

For those who do care, there's only one Freedom Watch. I'd say it's definitely not over-done.

Agorism
08-15-2010, 08:37 AM
I actually find that part of the show amusing.

james1906
08-15-2010, 08:38 AM
I'd say too much Beck is a problem with the show, not too much Constitution.

libertygrl
08-15-2010, 08:43 AM
Stop asking so many fucking constitutionally-laced questions. That shit got old real fast.

Okay, so none of the stuff the government does is authorized by the Constitution.

Thanks Freedom Watch for making that very clear.

Now that you have made that point, please remove yourself from the airwaves unless you plan to stop asking such blatantly loaded questions.

Framing every single question around the Constitution is fucking annoying.



Maybe to you, but not to me. You can always change the channel and watch Matthews or Hannity if it bugs you so much.

BoutTreeFiddy
08-15-2010, 08:53 AM
Maybe to you, but not to me. You can always change the channel and watch Matthews or Hannity if it bugs you so much.

Don't get me wrong.

I like the selection of people he interviews. He interviewed Thomas Sowell once, and Walter Williams twice. These guys don't get TV time. I was nice to have them on.

But, c'mon now. When interviewing Walter Williams, you don't have to frame the question. And if you do, you already know he'll agree with you.

MRoCkEd
08-15-2010, 08:56 AM
Judge gets way too specific, usually giving the guests the answers as part of his questions, or giving them multiple choice questions. He should save his rants for his monologue portions, and give more time to his guests to answer questions.

BoutTreeFiddy
08-15-2010, 09:05 AM
Judge gets way too specific, usually giving the guests the answers as part of his questions, or giving them multiple choice questions. He should save his rants for his monologue portions, and give more time to his guests to answer questions.

Yes, that's exactly it.

He does that with most of his guests. My question is, why? If they are already liberty oriented, then framing the questions in this way is a little insulting to the guest. If they are leftists, then it's blatantly asking a question you already know the answer to (they don't know and they don't care where the authority comes from).

TastyWheat
08-15-2010, 09:47 AM
I tend to agree with the OP. It gets boring to me so it must be boring to some that are not so liberty-minded. I would appreciate it just as much though, if he stopped swivelling in his chair to talk to the video screen.

messana
08-15-2010, 10:00 AM
Stop asking so many fucking constitutionally-laced questions.

It's best if he ask a congressman that question.

"Where does it say in the Constitution that the government can manage health care?"

"It doesn't"

"So you're not following the document that you swore to uphold to?"


Game over.

payme_rick
08-15-2010, 10:20 AM
I can see it being annoying to us, but I don't think the show is made just for us... That's just speculation on my part, though...

Some of these moderate republicrats out there who have jumped on the tea-party bandwagons are the ones who need to hear people AGREEING on issues involving the constitution etc... Though the questions from the judge may seem to be lay-ups from our point of view, they're probably jaw droppong or at least interesting to the audience we need to reach...

Either way, if you rant as hard as the OP about such a small thing, you probably don't enjoy many things to begin with...

HOLLYWOOD
08-15-2010, 10:58 AM
Judge's show needs to use more Charts/graphics/powerpoints to relate to the viewers. He needs more visuals.

Yeah we covered this before:

"Freedom Watch" Improvement Suggestion Thread.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=254932

TheDriver
08-15-2010, 11:03 AM
Judge gets way too specific, usually giving the guests the answers as part of his questions, or giving them multiple choice questions. He should save his rants for his monologue portions, and give more time to his guests to answer questions.

And take a shot of whiskey and chill-out a little. The show just seems a little rushed all the time. :cool: Go see the Aqua-Buddha or something... :eek:

low preference guy
08-15-2010, 11:53 AM
Judge gets way too specific, usually giving the guests the answers as part of his questions, or giving them multiple choice questions. He should save his rants for his monologue portions, and give more time to his guests to answer questions.

+1

This should be e-mailed to the Judge.

He asks his questions like his guests are little kids.

BoutTreeFiddy
08-15-2010, 12:01 PM
+1

This should be e-mailed to the Judge.

He asks his questions like his guests are little kids.

Exactly my thoughts.

QueenB4Liberty
08-15-2010, 12:02 PM
Judge gets way too specific, usually giving the guests the answers as part of his questions, or giving them multiple choice questions. He should save his rants for his monologue portions, and give more time to his guests to answer questions.


Yeah, one thing I wish he would do is give his guests more air time. Maybe he doesn't have to have quite so many guests per show, they could talk longer, go a little deeper into the issues.

Knightskye
08-15-2010, 01:09 PM
I like when he asks people that. Bill O'Reilly was on the show yesterday. That was interesting.

RM918
08-15-2010, 01:15 PM
It's best if he ask a congressman that question.

"Where does it say in the Constitution that the government can manage health care?"

"It doesn't"

"So you're not following the document that you swore to uphold to?"


Game over.

Except...not game over. That never works, and people treat the question as either something weird or something to be danced around. The people you're arguing with don't care what the Constitution says. They're not going to go, "You're right, it's not in the Constitution! Everything I've ever done is a lie!" It's just words on old paper to them, you need to explain WHY the Constitution says what it does, and why these are good ideas.

Legend1104
08-15-2010, 01:39 PM
I think you guys are being too hard on his show. I noticed that this week he was a lot beter about not cutting people off, and he gave a lot more time. He just needs more shows in a week than one.

MRK
08-15-2010, 03:24 PM
+1

This should be e-mailed to the Judge.

He asks his questions like his guests are little kids.


The softball soundbite-like question intros aren't completely designed just for the interviewee. Rather, the intros are intended for the audience, who after being dominated by Fox's neoconservative media could be considered to have the knowledge of little kids when it comes to paleoconservative ideas.

Further down the road he'll likely ease off this approach and change his frames of reference, but there's a lot of minds that need to be reached first.

Old Ducker
08-15-2010, 03:29 PM
Finally there is a real libertarian who has a popular television program on the MSM.

Let's bitch about it.

//facepalm//

teamrican1
08-15-2010, 03:53 PM
It is a good show, but like all things, can be improved. My suggestions:

- Throw in a little Shelly Roche in a low cut blouse and push up bra from time to time.
- Add the occasional liberty themed human interest segment.

payme_rick
08-15-2010, 04:13 PM
Finally there is a real libertarian who has a popular television program on the MSM.

Let's bitch about it.

//facepalm//

my thoughts exactly...

runningdiz
08-15-2010, 04:39 PM
Finally there is a real libertarian who has a popular television program on the MSM.

Let's bitch about it.

//facepalm//

Stole the words from my mouth. Can we just be thankful we have a show that is a megaphone for what we believe??

The show has been improving. They certainly have been listening to constructive criticism.

RM918
08-15-2010, 08:40 PM
Finally there is a real libertarian who has a popular television program on the MSM.

Let's bitch about it.

//facepalm//

If these are the worst problems we have with him, it speaks highly of his show.

Fredom101
08-15-2010, 08:44 PM
Agree with the op, thumbs down on the constitution monologue. It's obvious this piece of paper didn't, can't, and won't save us. :(

Legend1104
08-15-2010, 08:52 PM
Agree with the op, thumbs down on the constitution monologue. It's obvious this piece of paper didn't, can't, and won't save us. :(

I take reserve in dismissing a document that took a "civil war", over 600,000 dead Americans, and 221 years to fully undermine.

justinc.1089
08-16-2010, 04:52 AM
i take reserve in dismissing a document that took a "civil war", over 600,000 dead americans, and 221 years to fully undermine.

+1776!

justinc.1089
08-16-2010, 05:05 AM
Judge gets way too specific, usually giving the guests the answers as part of his questions, or giving them multiple choice questions. He should save his rants for his monologue portions, and give more time to his guests to answer questions.


He has to make the questions clear and specific so that the audience understands the question.

When you're asking if the Constitution authorizes something, where our rights derive from, if states have the right of nullification, and so on, the typical viewer has a hard time comprehending the question.

Its sad, but true.

Its easy, even for stupid viewers, to follow Hannity saying we MUST get "them" (whoever them happens to be) before "they" get us, and other punchlines like that. And the punchlines don't even last but a few minutes and then its off to talking about celebrities, or trashing the president for taking a cigarette break or playing basketball or something completely irrelevant.

I can understand this need to spell things out for adults EXACTLY like you need to spell things out for kids because I perform for audiences of 5-40 people about 15-300 times daily at my job. People just cannot focus and understand what they're told.

Just the fact that you are here on an internet forum about politics is strong evidence you have a far more effective attention span, focusing ability, a greater comprehension, and probably also a greater intelligence than the average person.

Another note about my job, in our store we have a countdown sign for Christmas that says "Time left remaining until:"
234:11:23:54 "
Christmas.

People walk in, read the time left remaining until, and the number of days, and then ask us what the sign is counting down to. As in, multiple people do this daily. As in, anywhere from 3-20 groups per a 6 hour shift. As in, roughly 5% I would guess of our business.

So obviously, if someone can't even focus enough to finish reading a sign with 5 words on it, they won't follow a question the judge asks a guest unless he spells out what his question means so the viewer understands.

And if he is a good tv host, after the guest answers he would clarify their answer so viewers understand what the guest said too. (He may do that, I haven't watched to see because I don't care that much to be honest lol).

Thats the nature of public speaking and any kind of performing involving public speaking; say something, say it again, and tell them what you already told them.

Matt Collins
08-19-2010, 07:28 AM
I can see it being annoying to us, but I don't think the show is made just for us... That's just speculation on my part, though... It was initially when it was on the web, but it now has to be a bit more consumable for the average TV viewer. Your average liberty movement activist is a bit more plugged in than your average TV viewer.


Judge's show needs to use more Charts/graphics/powerpoints to relate to the viewers. He needs more visuals.
Very true. GB does this well and it's something that tends to be expected these days.


And take a shot of whiskey and chill-out a little. The show just seems a little rushed all the time. :cool: Go see the Aqua-Buddha or something... :eek:Yeah the pacing is a bit off but this has been showing signs of improvement in my opinion. Remember though the Judge is from Jersey ;):p


Finally there is a real libertarian who has a popular television program on the MSM.

Let's bitch about it.

//facepalm//You're right, bitching isn't productive, but constructive criticism can be especially since we are the core audience.


If these are the worst problems we have with him, it speaks highly of his show.I agree


It is a good show, but like all things, can be improved. My suggestions:

- Throw in a little Shelly Roche in a low cut blouse and push up bra from time to time.
- Add the occasional liberty themed human interest segment.
They used to:
YouTube - Pt6 (4/15/09) Freedom Watch Tax Day w Napolitano, Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Lew Rockwell, Shelly Roche (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cvZ4L42T0A&p=6002639403551176&playnext=1&index=7)

00_Pete
08-19-2010, 07:55 AM
Is good show but Mr. Napolitano goes easy on his "fellow" Judges and forgets that laws (passed by Judges) are some of the main responsibles for this mess.

I agree that his "Constitutional questions" are kind of loaded and he should tone them down a little bit but its not THAT bad.