17 Responses to “Me on Stossel’s Show”

1. #1 |  Jesse |  May 3rd, 2010 at 3:49 pm

   I think you SHOULD wear a red cape that says, “SuperJournalist”!!

2. #2 |  Elliot |  May 3rd, 2010 at 3:58 pm

   I saw they consigned you to the audience during the panel discussion. Not that that discussion was very constructive, given time constraints.

   But during the time they allotted to you, you did yourself proud.

3. #3 |  Steve Verdon |  May 3rd, 2010 at 4:12 pm

   Cops as highwaymen, its nothing more than state sanctioned theft.

   Where are the retards that talk about private property as theft?

4. #4 |  JS |  May 3rd, 2010 at 4:27 pm

   Jesse “I think you SHOULD wear a red cape that says, “SuperJournalist”!!”

   I agree. Or wait, maybe just “Real Journalist” as opposed to almost the entire pathetic rest of that profession.

5. #5 |  Andrew Williams |  May 3rd, 2010 at 5:31 pm

   Uber-Journalist!

6. #6 |  Howlin' Hobbit |  May 3rd, 2010 at 6:43 pm

   This seems like such a no-brainer for one of those “bi-partisan” things you read so much about in the papers. (Ha!)

   But the problem seems to be two-fold here. One: the liberals, who should be up in arms and in full screech mode, not only don’t watch Fox, but Fox is one of their prime screeching points, brought up — along with Rush, Glenn, etc. — every time somebody has the audacity to disagree with them. Two: the “conservatives” are often the most pro-police-no-matter-what group ever.

   What to do?

7. #7 |  Joe Power |  May 3rd, 2010 at 6:57 pm

   Skip the cape – it clashes with the Lex Luthor look you have going. (grin)

   Has anyone refused to hand over their wad of cash on the theory that it then becomes evidence in a criminal case (obstruction of justice, I’d assume because they aren’t resisting arrest they’re helping their money to do so) and thus must be treated as evidence until the case is tried? I suspect many juries would be sympathetic and return a not guilty verdict. Would the evidence then have to be returned?

   Obviously, we need to attack the ideology underlying this legalized theft. Right now that probably means attacking the most popular expression of preventative law – the civil commitment of sex offenders. Once the public is convinced that it can’t trade liberty for safety on such an emotional issue, convincing it that the trade doesn’t work in the case of asset forfeiture either should be a snap.

8. #8 |  skunky |  May 3rd, 2010 at 7:52 pm

   “of Scott and ME” not “of Scott and I”

9. #9 |  JS |  May 3rd, 2010 at 7:54 pm

   Howlin’ Hobbit “But the problem seems to be two-fold here. One: the liberals, who should be up in arms and in full screech mode, not only don’t watch Fox, but Fox is one of their prime screeching points, brought up — along with Rush, Glenn, etc. — every time somebody has the audacity to disagree with them. Two: the “conservatives” are often the most pro-police-no-matter-what group ever.”

   That’s a really good summing up of the whole thing!

10. #10 |  James D |  May 3rd, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    Congrats Radley … one of my favorite shows right there and glad I’ve finally gotten the Fox Business Network.

    As for “Two: the “conservatives” are often the most pro-police-no-matter-what group ever.” Considering the strength of the police unions and liberals always being pro-union … I think cops generally get ‘big government’ support from both conservatives and liberals.

11. #11 |  Aresen |  May 3rd, 2010 at 9:43 pm

    @ James D.

    Considering the truth of what you say, I have no choice but to uptick you.

    No matter how much it depresses me.

12. #12 |  Judi |  May 3rd, 2010 at 11:43 pm

    Now I know what to get Radley for Christmas!

13. #13 |  dsmallwood |  May 4th, 2010 at 7:56 am

    because i am a phillies fan and because i feel like stealing this thread:
    http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/36929673/ns/sports-baseball/

    tasering a random fan on the field
    you can see the obvious threat

14. #14 |  bobzbob |  May 4th, 2010 at 11:42 am

    “Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity” is a pretty good description of the content of Stossel’s show. At the very least responsible individuals should avoid pseudo-journalists like Stossel who’s name calling destructively lowers the level of debate in this country. In the long term it is very damaging.

15. #15 |  Ron |  May 4th, 2010 at 11:48 am

    Upon inital reading, I thought Radley’s post said he was going to discuss asset forfeiture with “Sandra” Bullock on Stossel’s show.

16. #16 |  Aresen |  May 4th, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    bobzbob | May 4th, 2010 at 11:42 am

    At the very least responsible individuals should avoid pseudo-journalists like Stossel Krugman, Myers and Ames who’s whose name calling destructively lowers the level of debate in this country. In the long term it is very damaging.

    FIFY (Including the grammatical error.)

17. #17 |  birkenfeldt |  May 4th, 2010 at 12:15 pm

    I almost sprayed my mouthful of fine Bavarian wheat beer across the room when I heard the argument “He didn’t get the money from drugs, but he might eventually use it to buy some.” By this logic, the cops could seize the entire United States because the it’s economic power might be used to buy drugs, its soil be used to grow them, etc…
    If I were leading some police department in the US, I don’t think I could resist the temptation to seize your country and declare myself king of it^^

---