Rating: 
Summary: Thanks to Boortz's book, My hobby is now Politics
Review: Awesome book. It opened my eyes to the socialists of this country and that we need to stray away from the Big Brother's help. The book has the most hilarious and inspiring Commencement Speech in the world. I don't agree with 100% of what he says but that's why I like him... He leaves you on your shoes saying "what's he going to say next?". Rush's radio show can be predictable, but Boortz gives a new blend to talk radio.
For the reviewers who hate the book...
He's a libertarian not a conservative... if you would have read the book you would have found that out.
He also was going to school to be a lawyer where he would of made big bucks, not be a delivery boy his whole life. So apparently he didn't get into talk radio for the money, because when you start out you don't make much at all. So this crap about him being some rich snob is baloney. Sure, he is probably wealthy now, but it's a long road and a lot of work to get there.
You could have found out that information if you read the book also.
Rating: 
Summary: Incredible con's from America's top rated "con"serv
Review: For someone who claims to be sooo intelligent, Neal does nothing in this book but throw out the same mindless garbage about liberals that has been the source for so much of his own personal wealth and gain. (Without it he would still be working his original job as a delivery man - a worthless job I suppose to his greatness) I believe that he would have contributed more to his fellow Americans doing precisely this, and that his views on the wealthy would be vastly different if he was back in his "old" shoes. Amazing how the love of money can completely distort ones entire perspective on life. It is amusing to read however for the less gullible reader.
Rating: 
Summary: His argumentation's fine, Gary, you misunderstand completely
Review: Gary Chapman reviewed this book. These are my comment on his review and the book itself."I am a so called libertarian." Libertarians are "so called"? Seems that you are calling yourself such without basis (see the rest of this review). While not the best book I have ever read, Mr. Boortz does a far better job explaining his views than Mr. Chapman gave him credit. "From the back cover, he stated that 'Liberals view people in terms of their membersip (sic) in groups and Conservatives view people as individuals.'. (sic) If he is really a conservative, then he has already shown that statement is wrong is that statement has already viewed people in groups." Acknowledging that groups exist is logical. Basing liberal "social engineering" upon someone's group membership is not. "He also insisted that he, as a libertarian, operates on logic. However, many of his analysis is simply inaccurate. In the article "Your paycheck: Your employer 'contributes' nothing", he simply completely misunderstood the idea of tax incidence, which is a basic concept in economics." His point, briefly, is that your employer would be paying YOU that money if it were not already nicked by the government. Thus, it comes out of your pocket. This seems easily understandable to me. "Although I never agree with liberal ideas, I think the intellectual rigour of liberalism should deserve more respect than those (sic) of Mr. Boortz. Just read John Rawls' "a theory of justice" and you will know what I mean." Mr. Rawls is a very consistent thinker. And very liberal. He is a great read if you want a liberal view on how to construct a "fair" society. "He also spent a lot of time in saying "poor people"'s (sic) misfortune is perfectly predictable and so does not deserve help. He perhaps should know that using a negative income tax to help the poor to get out of perpetual poverty is justifiable on libertarian ground." This is the most controversial statement of all. Libertarians do NOT believe in the income tax to redistribute wealth. We allow that SOME form of tax (not income) is necessary to provide for common defense and other national concerns, but there is no such thing as a "negative income tax." "In other cases, his ideas are often repetitive. For example, the idea of "less fortunate" has been appeared in the book more than once." His repetition was pointedly made to highlight areas where people have the most serious problems. "Fortunate" implies that it was luck, not hard work and determination, that brought a person success. For the VAST majority of successful people, this simply is not the case: Less than 5% of today's millionaires inherited their money. So where does the rest of the money come from? Hard work. Long hours. Dedication. Boy, that sure sounds like they were "fortunate" to me. "For laymen, Milton Friedman's book 'free to choose' is infinitely better as an introduction of libertarian ideas." I am not familiar with Mr. Friedman's book, so I cannot comment on its worth. But I do know that Mr. Boortz' book is much better than Mr. Chapman would have you believe.
Rating:
Summary: Try Milton Friedman's book instead
Review: I am a so called libertarian. However, I would not recommend this book as this book is simply dreadful. From the back cover, he stated that 'Liberals view people in terms of their membersip in groups and Conservatives view people as individuals.'. If he is really a conservative, then he has already shown that statement is wrong as that statement has already viewed people in groups. He also insisted that he, as a libertarian, operates on logic. However, many of his analysis is simply inaccurate. In the article "Your paycheck: Your employer 'contributes' nothing", he simply completely misunderstood the idea of tax incidence, which is a basic concept in economics. In his whole book, he portrayed liberals as a bunch of mindless people making decisions based on emotion and feelings. Although I never agree with liberal ideas, I think the intellectual rigour of liberalism should deserve more respect than those of Mr. Boortz. Just read John Rawls' "a theory of justice" and you will know what I mean. He also spent a lot of time in saying "poor people"'s misfortune is perfectly predictable and so does not deserve help. He perhaps should know that using a negative income tax to help the poor to get out of perpetual poverty is justifiable on libertarian ground. Many of the arguments in his book are based on one or two quotes made by politicians, or completely unrelated metaphors. In other cases, his ideas are often repetitive. For example, the idea of "less fortunate" has been appeared in the book more than once. Therefore, I would not recommend this book to laymen. If you already have a good idea about different political systems and economics, there is no harm done for you to read his book. For laymen, Milton Friedman's book 'free to choose' is infinitely better as an introduction of libertarian ideas.
Rating:
Summary: He manages his goal
Review: I must say, his goal is to enrage the Loony Liberals who read it, and he does a fine job. The problem with Liberals, as Boortz states it, is that they believe that all groups are entitled to the same thing. The truth of the matter is, as a member of a group you are not entitled to anything. If you get it, it is not because of your group, it is because you earned it. And that is exactly what he talks about. Neal hits on another point in his show and his book: Liberals, if you are intelligent enough to read their campaign platforms, are really Economic Fascists...that's ALL THEY ARE. They don't sound quite as nice sounding people, when they're called that, are they? My only complaint, it needs to be longer, either that or Neal needs to write another.
Rating:
Summary: He manages his goal
Review: I must say, his goal is to enrage the Loony Liberals who read it, and he does a fine job. The problem with Liberals, as Boortz states it, is that they believe that all groups are entitled to the same thing. The truth of the matter is, as a member of a group you are not entitled to anything. If you get it, it is not because of your group, it is because you earned it. And that is exactly what he talks about. Neal hits on another point in his show and his book: Liberals, if you are intelligent enough to read their campaign platforms, are really Economic Fascists...that's ALL THEY ARE. They don't sound quite as nice sounding people, when they're called that, are they? My only complaint, it needs to be longer, either that or Neal needs to write another.
Rating:
Summary: OK, But Superficial
Review: I sometimes enjoy listening to Boortz's show, and he makes some good points in this book, but overall, the book is pretty superficial. Listen to one of his radio monologues instead.
Rating:
Summary: Boortz tells it like it is!!!
Review: I sure am thankful for people like Neal and Rush who attempt to help people like me and you remember what America stands for and what it can be. They do this even in the face of an overwhelmningly liberal media that controls basically everything someone who doesn't listen to talk radio sees and hears.. Even after being labeled as "hate radio" hosts and having the media turn millions of Americans against them, Boortz and Limbaugh continue the fight. And what an important fight it is too!! We can't afford to let control of this country fall into the hands of these liberal politicians who will say and do ANYTHING if they think it'll get them votes. (Just look at John Kerry and his tendency to flip or flop whichever way he thinks will be the most popular at any moment). In this book, Neal Boortz spells it out plain and simple: the liberal agenda and the threat that it poses to America and to our freedom to be an individual and make choices on our own. It's not just an illogical tirade. Neal backs up his claims with concrete examples.. I strongly reccomend this book to anyone, liberal or conservative or in between.
Rating:
Summary: Boortz Nails Them!
Review: Like his radio show, and daily web site (www.boortz.com), Neal nails the truth down that the Liberals hate you to hear.
Among the things he explains, is why there is such a disproportionant majority of Liberal teachers in our Colleges and Universities. He points to the 60's and the Draft Deferrments for college students that kept their grades up during the VietNam War.
By taking the non science courses that were easier, students could keep their grades high and maintain their deferrments. When they got their BA's, and the war was still going, they went on to get their MA's and PHD's-remaining in college as long as possible, until the war ended. Once it was over, there were few jobs available for their Liberal Arts degrees in the 'real world', and the only place open to them was academia as teachers.
I saw this happen with people I knew. One said to me "all my life I've fought the establishment, without much success, but now I'm teaching, and I've got their kids, and their minds are mine"!
His parents had the money to send him to Hofstra (doctors son) where he majored in Political Science. Mine didn't have the bucks and I got my draft notice. I enlisted instead for four years in the Navy. The GI Bill paid for my BS which did have a diverse job market in the real world.
Boortz pulls no punches, and his background as a lawyer, adds to his insight and Libertarian approach.
He teaches how Liberals identify everyone by their 'group membership' and avoid individualism. They talk in terms like the poor 'unfortunates' of society, as opposed to those 'more fortunate' Fortune is defined as an unexpected windfall. This ignores the hard work and sweat of those that make good choices in life. Liberals suggest that those that are 'fortunate' got it by cheating and stealing it from those that are 'less fortunate'.
Neal says most of those that don't make it are victims of themselves, poor life choices, not paying attention-doing homework in school, using drugs, getting pregnant underage.
Later on in life, they wind up looking for Gov't handouts in the form of entitlement programs which are Socialistic redistributation of wealth, by taking the earners tax dollars and giving it to the ne'er do wells to buy votes.
His other book- "The Commencement Speech You Need to Hear" is good too.
Rating: 
Summary: The Mere Musings of a Conservative Trying to Make Money
Review: Right from the beginning it was apparent that this book was compiled largely on the basis of one man's opinion. He contradicted himself quite early by stating that 'Liberals view people in terms of their membership in groups...Conservatives view people as individuals.' Isn't he, a conservative, viewing all liberals on the basis of their membership in a group? Isn't he assigning them all immutable characteristics? Doltish.
| 
