Well said. The investigation was invigorating at frist; but the whole subject is becoming tedious. Time for a new sport.

That was tedious, but revealing. I sure wouldn't want to live in Dan's head.

Question: Why must we try to talk Dan into going to the FBI? All we need do is get them to start an investigation and they will naturally go to him. He says he would welcome that and cooperate.

"If you see something - say something!"

Why couldn't someone with the computer forensics chops to be taken seriously simply do what this guy did: http://tinyurl.com/3bhz3n3 ?

Judge,

Somehow, my first attempt at posting this ended up on the 7/3 episode??? Forgive me for trying again...

Thank you for this website; I cannot get Fox business channel in my locale. I have now watched all of your archived shows and you have dethroned Beck as my favorite male Fox personality (sorry - it is not your fault that you do not have all of Megan Kelly's assets). ;)

Your impressive guest rosters contain just the sort whose views I want to hear and/or answer the important libertarian oriented questions you pose. I like the fast pace and the way you cut off filibusterers with a new question like a SCOTUS justice; but most endearing is the way you are willing to take on the social conservatives. Many are Constitutionally challenged and just itching to get hold of the levers of coercive government to regulate the moral behavior of sovereign individuals, which is just as unconstitutional as the Progressives trying to regulate our economic or social behavior. Having their hypocrisy illustrated by someone of your stature at Fox, just has to be educating some of those who don't understand our constitutional Republic, and lament judicial rulings of unconstitutionality as "thwarting the will of the majority." Please keep up the good work, and hold ALL PC altruists feet to the fire, whether the "Politically Correct" Left or the "Piously Correct" Right.

A couple of quibbles: Keep your panels small. Too many guests in a segment prevents any of them from fully developing their points. And, please don't succumb to the Fox producers' tendency to implement their "Fair & Balanced" mantra to a fault, by insisting on booking a Progressive spin-meister to counterbalance a worthy conservative or libertarian guest, when a Progressive principal won't take the hot seat. I suspect your viewers would much prefer the time be given to a credible guest with something interesting to contribute, rather than having to listen to a knee-jerk defense of the status quo. E.g., this week I would have liked to hear more of what John Bolton had to contribute and a whole lot less of Nancy Skinner's predictable sputtering. :)

Finally, tell Ailes I suggest he swap you with Hannity. Cavuto shouldn't mind the star power and if you had a nightly show in prime-time of the caliber of these initial ones, you might beat Beck at the prize of unseating O'Reilly from his lofty perch (Beck would already be #1 if he were in prime-time, and I find Hannity downright insufferable without Colmes as a foil.). O'Reilly thinks he is a tough interviewer; but he can't hold a candle to your real "NO spin zone." o.0 At the very least, tell Roger to give you a couple of the weekend rerun slots on Fox News, so those of us who do not get the business channel are not deprived of must-see Liberty TV! ◄Dave►

Judge,

Thank you for this website; I cannot get Fox business channel in my locale. I have now watched all of your archived shows and you have dethroned Beck as my favorite male Fox personality (sorry - it is not your fault that you do not have all of Megan Kelly's assets). ;)

Your impressive guest rosters contain just the sort whose views I want to hear and/or answer the important libertarian oriented questions you pose. I like the fast pace and the way you cut off filibusterers with a new question like a SCOTUS justice; but most endearing is the way you are willing to take on the social conservatives. Many are Constitutionally challenged and just itching to get hold of the levers of coercive government to regulate the moral behavior of sovereign individuals, which is just as unconstitutional as the Progressives trying to regulate our economic or social behavior. Having their hypocrisy illustrated by someone of your stature at Fox, just has to be educating some of those who don't understand our constitutional Republic, and lament judicial rulings of unconstitutionality as "thwarting the will of the majority." Please keep up the good work, and hold ALL PC altruists feet to the fire, whether the "Politically Correct" Left or the "Piously Correct" Right.

A couple of quibbles: Keep your panels small. Too many guests in a segment prevents any of them from fully developing their points. And, please don't succumb to the Fox producers' tendency to implement their "Fair & Balanced" mantra to a fault, by insisting on booking a Progressive spin-meister to counterbalance a worthy conservative or libertarian guest, when a Progressive principal won't take the hot seat. I suspect your viewers would much prefer the time be given to a credible guest with something interesting to contribute, rather than having to listen to a knee-jerk defense of the status quo. E.g., this week I would have liked to hear more of what John Bolton had to contribute and a whole lot less of Nancy Skinner's predictable sputtering. :)

Finally, tell Ailes I suggest he swap you with Hannity. Cavuto shouldn't mind the star power and if you had a nightly show in prime-time of the caliber of these initial ones, you might beat Beck at the prize of unseating O'Reilly from his lofty perch (Beck would already be #1 if he were in prime-time, and I find Hannity downright insufferable without Colmes as a foil.). O'Reilly thinks he is a tough interviewer; but he can't hold a candle to your real "NO spin zone." o.0 At the very least, tell Roger to give you a couple of the weekend rerun slots on Fox News, so those of us who do not get the business channel are not deprived of must-see Liberty TV! ◄Dave►

Well, now they are all showing up at once. Use the link to constitution.org on the bottom one. ◄Dave►

Hey, JQ... I have tried four times, with and without tags, to reply to your remarks on smoking in Texas on the other thread. For some inexplicable reason it disappears awaiting moderation by the site administrators. There isn't anything even remotely offensive about it, so I am going to try one more time out here on the main level, because I think you will enjoy Bastiat's treatise:

JQ_Citizen said:

"Don't get me wrong, I understand full well that the local government has the right/ability to create these laws...I just don't think they should exercise it."

Check your premise. The "Law" is simply a collective exercise of the Natural Right of self defense. Any use of the coercive power behind law to do anything that it would be unlawful for an individual to do on his own, is a perversion of law. For an absolutely fascinating treatment of this subject, written 160 years ago by a Frenchman denouncing socialism of all things, read "The Law" by Federick Bastait. The simplicity of his argument is stunning. That it was made with such clarity 160 years ago is mind blowing. That not one in a thousand Americans has ever heard of him is a testament to the efficacy of the Progressive agenda to dumb us down for the past hundred years. ◄Dave►

I tried to submit this post twice, but it disappeared "waiting for moderation" over two hours ago. I'll try one more time without the live link to Bastait's "The Law," which is available at:

http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm

You will have to copy and paste it in your browser.

Argh... that didn't work either. Let me try it a fourth time, without using the blockquote and italics tags:

JQ said: "Don't get me wrong, I understand full well that the local government has the right/ability to create these laws...I just don't think they should exercise it."

Check your premise. The "Law" is simply a collective exercise of the Natural Right of self defense. Any use of the coercive power behind law to do anything that it would be unlawful for an individual to do on his own, is a perversion of law. For an absolutely fascinating treatment of this subject, written 160 years ago by a Frenchman denouncing socialism of all things, read "The Law" by Federick Bastait. The simplicity of his argument is stunning. That it was made with such clarity 160 years ago is mind blowing. That not one in a thousand Americans has ever heard of him is a testament to the efficacy of the Progressive agenda to dumb us down for the past hundred years. ◄Dave►