Mark Levin book signing - wow

[First]

LOL Well-reasoned conservatives are those who agree that conservatives are wrong on virtually every issue. Well-reasoned conservatives are those who explain to us why the Republican Party must become the Democrat Party. Or they are dead.

Yup, nothing one-dimensional about that.

The Republican party's ideas are mostly shit as of 2013. It's not really difficult to see why, and it doesn't make them "Democrats" to adopt better ideas or policies. It would just make them right (as in correct, not right-wing). Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see their shitty fringe base is wrong on immigration, wrong on voter ID, wrong on social issues like gay marriage or sex education, etc. Doesn't mean their good ideas (like limited gov't, states rights, 2nd amendment rights, etc.) don't exist.

 

[thraashman]

That Mark's book has all the usual moonbat dipshits scared poopless that their freeloader gravytrain might derail means you KNOW he's on to something good!

We could always be like the people that support the Levin philosophy who refuse to accept many of the good things that government does for us and want to eliminate the government's ability to do those good things but not eliminate those good things and eliminate the ability to pay for those good things. So, freeloaders who are also stupid.

Remember the Tea Party motto, "Keep the government's hands off my medicare!"

 

[soundforbjt]

Yeah like I said, we need more people like you just bitching, whining, complaining- not a single idea good or bad, just more bitching and whining 24/7, and then on top of it bitching and whining about anyone that actually HAS an idea, because you'd rather them just bitch and whine too. That's worked out so well, hasn't it? Bitching and whining will fix everything!

If his "ideas" are so wonderful, why doesn't anybody enact them? Why don't they (his ideas) resonate with the majority of the population instead of just talk radio? Talk is cheap. Anyone can point out the bad in things, it takes a real leader to get the majority behind those ideas, if they're "good ideas" to begin with. All he's doing is preaching/bitching to his choir. Ths same thing you're "whinning" about his detractors doing.

 

[boomerang]

No, I know your posting enough to know that you are impossible to reach. I was pointing out to most people that what you called impressive, was in fact not.

He has the 4th most listened to talk radio show and has written 5 books, at least one of which has spent several weeks atop the best seller list. I'd say he's well known. I've seen crowds far bigger than that before for mediocre celebrities in a much smaller city (Atlanta). I just don't go taking videos of it like it's a big deal because I don't need to masturbate on the internet to feel good about myself.


See above about his celebrity. And while I definitely have my complaints about chunks of what Obama has done, from what I've seen of him and yourself, he supports the Constitution more than you do.

Your username was a good pick. You're thrashing around so much now I'm thinking you might bruise something.

 

[fskimospy]

LOL Well-reasoned conservatives are those who agree that conservatives are wrong on virtually every issue. Well-reasoned conservatives are those who explain to us why the Republican Party must become the Democrat Party. Or they are dead.

Yup, nothing one-dimensional about that.

lol. You have either never read them or have never understood them. Conservatives in America have radicalized over the last 20 years. Now your new plan is to declare that anyone who hasn't radicalized along with them suddenly "agree(s) that conservatives are wrong on virtually every issue". You guys changed, not them. I disagree with most of them on nearly every issue, they just aren't crazy.

I find the current crop of radicalized conservatives to be almost entirely absent of people who are able to construct coherent arguments, they are mostly just a rage flameout combined with a healthy dose of epistemic closure. There's a reason why American conservatism has such a bad name, btw. Hence, my list of well reasoned conservatives tends to be old school conservatives, not the new, radicalized form.

This is what you need however in order to maintain your cartoonish view of the world. Eskimospy hates all conservatives. If he points out conservatives he doesn't hate, then they aren't conservatives anymore. Dissenting thought must not be allowed!

 

[boomerang]

If his "ideas" are so wonderful, why doesn't anybody enact them? Why don't they (his ideas) resonate with the majority of the population instead of just talk radio? Talk is cheap. Anyone can point out the bad in things, it takes a real leader to get the majority behind those ideas, if they're "good ideas" to begin with. All he's doing is preaching/bitching to his choir. Ths same thing you're "whinning" about his detractors doing.

Here's a question for you. When did he propose the ideas this thread is referencing?


As a bit of an aside, for a group that so overwhelmingly supported a man that ran on a platform of "change" I'm seeing some real fear here of change.

 

[fskimospy]

Here's a question for you. When did he propose the ideas this thread is referencing?

As a bit of an aside, for a group that so overwhelmingly supported a man that ran on a platform of "change" I'm seeing some real fear here of change.

Uhmmm, the guy ran on a platform of changes we thought were good. From my understanding of the changes Levin wants in this book, they are hilariously bad.

Supporting change doesn't mean supporting all change, no matter how stupid. How is this hard to understand.

 

[Zaap]

We could always be like the people that support the Levin philosophy who refuse to accept many of the good things that government does for us and want to eliminate the government's ability to do those good things but not eliminate those good things and eliminate the ability to pay for those good things. So, freeloaders who are also stupid.

Remember the Tea Party motto, "Keep the government's hands off my medicare!"

Or you could just stay asleep.

The government doing 'good things' to the tune of spending TRILLIONS beyond its means is not in any way a good thing. That's even if we were to concede that all of the so-called 'good things' it's doing are really things its supposed to be doing, or that are even good uses of the taxpayer's dollars. Only the stupid and/or insane really believe that.

To drones like you (Mark has aptly named your type) ANY and ALL government spending is a good thing. You whine like a baby at the idea that government should be asked to control its spending, like the trillions it takes in in taxes isn't enough money- more money by the way than any other entity in world history has ever had access to- and yet our government blows through that and then trillions more in debt and all you can do is whine that maybe they won't be allowed to keep it up until the bottom completely drops out.

Remember the moonbat motto: "Government can put its hands all over me and anythng it pleases! Tax everyone! Spy on everyone! Spend ALL of our money and make us slaves! Bend over and spread for beloved government and submit to any and everything they dictate!"

 

[Zaap]

If his "ideas" are so wonderful, why doesn't anybody enact them?

So in your worldview, anything that's enacted is a good idea, anything that isn't is a bad idea.

So the government selling guns to drug dealers= good idea.

The government being made to follow its own rules and not spend so much it bankroupts the entire country= bad idea.


And anyway, what are your own 'good ideas' for anything? Oh wait, they couldn't possibly be good ideas unless they've already been enacted so nevermind.

Why don't they (his ideas) resonate with the majority of the population instead of just talk radio?

Ahh, such a genius you are. Once the majority of the population felt that slavery was perfectly okay. Antisemitism was all the rage in Europe last century. Somehow, the idea that these were bad things only resonated with a minority of the public- but hey, let's always have tyranny of the majority- it always leads to such great things!

Talk is cheap.

You certainly prove that, it's all you do. But the difference between you and Levin is: you're not saying anything meaningful.

 

[Atreus21]

No one serious takes Mark Levin seriously. FYI.

I'm a serious man and I take him seriously. It's serious business.

 

[Atreus21]

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see their shitty fringe base is wrong on immigration, wrong on voter ID, wrong on social issues like gay marriage or sex education, etc. Doesn't mean their good ideas (like limited gov't, states rights, 2nd amendment rights, etc.) don't exist.

Well, it apparently takes someone more savvy than me, because I don't see that they're wrong on immigration, voter id, or gay marriage. Sex education... neither side is very appealing.

 

[Atreus21]

lol. You have either never read them or have never understood them. Conservatives in America have radicalized over the last 20 years. Now your new plan is to declare that anyone who hasn't radicalized along with them suddenly "agree(s) that conservatives are wrong on virtually every issue". You guys changed, not them. I disagree with most of them on nearly every issue, they just aren't crazy.

I find the current crop of radicalized conservatives to be almost entirely absent of people who are able to construct coherent arguments, they are mostly just a rage flameout combined with a healthy dose of epistemic closure. There's a reason why American conservatism has such a bad name, btw. Hence, my list of well reasoned conservatives tends to be old school conservatives, not the new, radicalized form.

This is what you need however in order to maintain your cartoonish view of the world. Eskimospy hates all conservatives. If he points out conservatives he doesn't hate, then they aren't conservatives anymore. Dissenting thought must not be allowed!

On what issues have conservatives of the last 20 years become radicalized?

 

[thraashman]

On what issues have conservatives of the last 20 years become radicalized?

Healthcare. The individual mandate was originally a conservative idea, it's now too liberal for the right.
Gun control. Wayne LaPierre of the NRA 15 years ago was pro enhanced universal background checks, now righties fly off the wall against the idea.
Religion. Post 9/11 the right has become more ardently religious and anti muslim.
Foreign policy. Post Bush's war disasters, the right has become more isolationist.
The embracing of birthers by candidates. The attacks on women's rights. The attacks on gay rights by conservative states. The attacks on voting rights that mostly affect minorities.

I could go on, but that's good for starters.

 

[fskimospy]

On what issues have conservatives of the last 20 years become radicalized?

First, you should not take Mark Levin seriously. The guy is a clown.


Secondly, as to areas of radicalization:

Taxation. Never being willing to raise taxes ever for any reason no matter what is offered in return is a radical position.

The debt ceiling. Threatening to cause a worldwide financial crisis in order to settle domestic policy disputes is a radical position.

Staffing of federal agencies. Refusing to staff agencies that are mandated to operate by federal law because of your inability to repeal that law is a radical position.

Climate change. Not only have they rendered responsible action on climate change impossible on a federal level, state level governments are doing things such as preventing science from being used to make estimates on future ocean position for no logical reason. Rampant denialism of objective scientific reality is a radical position.

Obamacare. States are 1.) refusing to accept free medicare insurance for their citizens, manifestly harming them. 2.) states are also refusing to simply provide information to their citizens to help them navigate the new law. Choosing to deliberately harm the financial and physical wellbeing of those you are supposed to represent due to ideological opposition to a law is a radical position.

I could go on for so so long.

 

[Zaap]

Healthcare. The individual mandate was originally a conservative idea, it's now too liberal for the right.

The federal government mandating people buy insurance was never any conservative's idea. You liberals can never own up to your own asinine ideas.

 

[Atreus21]

Healthcare. The individual mandate was originally a conservative idea, it's now too liberal for the right.

And likewise Obama denounced it before he was for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FknJLMc84bo

Gun control. Wayne LaPierre of the NRA 15 years ago was pro enhanced universal background checks, now righties fly off the wall against the idea.

And as has been repeatedly pointed out, lack of background checks are the problem.

Religion. Post 9/11 the right has become more ardently religious and anti muslim.

Some of those on the extremes are as racist as they are paranoid. But those on the left of almost any stripe translate any reasonable attempt to ascribe global terrorism to Islam as xenophobic hysteria.

Foreign policy. Post Bush's war disasters, the right has become more isolationist.

That's not an example of "extreme". That's an example of the pendulum swinging.

The embracing of birthers by candidates.

I'm not sure how many candidates embraced birthers, and we won't agree on what constitutes an "embrace". But to the extent that the idea was given air, I would agree with you.

The attacks on women's rights.

What attacks, and how're they extreme? Abortion? Calling Sandra Fluke a slut when lefties hurl the most virulently sexist insults at women on the right?

The attacks on gay rights by conservative states.

Claiming that marriage should remain largely the way it has been since antiquity is hardly an attack on gay rights.

The attacks on voting rights that mostly affect minorities.

If we're going to be demagogic, I might just as easily say the left is extreme for wanting to maintain their engines of voter fraud.

 

[thraashman]

The federal government mandating people buy insurance was never any conservative's idea. You liberals can never own up to your own asinine ideas.

Excerpt below from "A National Health System for America." by Stuart M. Butler, Director of Domestic Policy Strategies, Heritage Foundation. 1989

"The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_Foundation

Element #1: Every resident of the U.S. must, by law, be enrolled in an adequate health care plan to cover major health care costs.

This requirement would imply a compact between the U.S. government and its citizens: in return for the government's accepting an obligation to devise a market-based system guaranteeing access to care and protecting all families from financial distress due to the cost of an illness, each individual must agree to obtain a minimum level of protection. This means that, while government would take on the obligation to find ways of guaranteeing care for those Americans unable to obtain protection in the market, perhaps because of chronic health problems or lack of income, Americans with sufficient means would no longer be able to be "free riders" on society by avoiding sensible health insurance expenditures and relying on others to pay for care in an emergency or in retirement.

Under this arrangement, all households would be required to protect themselves from major medical costs by purchasing health insurance or enrolling in a prepaid health plan. The degree of financial protection can be debated, but the principle of mandatory family protection is central to a universal health care system in America.

Help would be provided in two ways. First, the tax code would be amended, as Chapter 3 describes, to give tax relief to individual purchasers of health insurance or prepaid plans and to provide tax credits for out-of-pocket expenses. Second, government would aid those who, because of income or medical condition, find the cost of protection to be an unreasonable burden. Such aid could take the form of vouchers for purchasing insurance or state-managed systems as described in Chapter 5.

The requirement to obtain basic insurance would have to be enforced. The easiest way to monitor compliance might be for households to furnish proof of insurance when they file their tax returns. If a family were to cancel its insurance, the insurer would be required to notify the government. If the family did not enroll in another plan before the first insurance coverage lapsed and did not provide evidence of financial problems, a fine might be imposed.

How can you not be aware of this?

 

[buckshot24]

If his "ideas" are so wonderful, why doesn't anybody enact them? Why don't they (his ideas) resonate with the majority of the population instead of just talk radio? Talk is cheap. Anyone can point out the bad in things, it takes a real leader to get the majority behind those ideas, if they're "good ideas" to begin with. All he's doing is preaching/bitching to his choir. Ths same thing you're "whinning" about his detractors doing.

He's only just proposed them, how quickly do you want them enacted or discarded?

 

[Atreus21]

First, you should not take Mark Levin seriously. The guy is a clown.

I take him about as seriously as I take most talking heads.

Secondly, as to areas of radicalization:

Taxation. Never being willing to raise taxes ever for any reason no matter what is offered in return is a radical position.

Whether it's extreme or not, I agree with that position. Considering the fact that the government will borrow the money the need irrespective of tax revenue, I can't see a single good argument for raising taxes by a dime.

The debt ceiling. Threatening to cause a worldwide financial crisis in order to settle domestic policy disputes is a radical position.

I might agree, but this is similar to the first point.

Staffing of federal agencies. Refusing to staff agencies that are mandated to operate by federal law because of your inability to repeal that law is a radical position.

Granted. It sounds remarkably like the reaction to what happened in Wisconsin in 2011 regarding unions conquering the capital because they didn't like what democratically-elected representatives were doing.

Climate change. Not only have they rendered responsible action on climate change impossible on a federal level, state level governments are doing things such as preventing science from being used to make estimates on future ocean position for no logical reason. Rampant denialism of objective scientific reality is a radical position.

That might be true, if it were objective scientific reality, and furthermore if it weren't so polluted by politics.

Obamacare. States are 1.) refusing to accept free medicare insurance for their citizens, manifestly harming them. 2.) states are also refusing to simply provide information to their citizens to help them navigate the new law. Choosing to deliberately harm the financial and physical wellbeing of those you are supposed to represent due to ideological opposition to a law is a radical position.

Obamacare is a radical law. It's not surprising that it's produced radical opposition.

 

[buckshot24]

First, you should not take Mark Levin seriously. The guy is a clown.

We should take you seriously? What have you done?

Secondly, as to areas of radicalization:

Taxation. Never being willing to raise taxes ever for any reason no matter what is offered in return is a radical position

Right, because all those promised spending cuts always materialize, right?

The debt ceiling. Threatening to cause a worldwide financial crisis in order to settle domestic policy disputes is a radical position.

Why isn't the dems partially responsible? Why should the GOP cave at every turn?

Staffing of federal agencies. Refusing to staff agencies that are mandated to operate by federal law because of your inability to repeal that law is a radical position.

Then we need some more radicals.

Climate change. Not only have they rendered responsible action on climate change impossible on a federal level, state level governments are doing things such as preventing science from being used to make estimates on future ocean position for no logical reason. Rampant denialism of objective scientific reality is a radical position.

We won't be able to make a bit of difference if Co2 is causing "climate change". The only thing that is going to impact it is if we plunge into second dark ages where billions of people starve. Doing something for the sake of doing something when it won't do a lick of good is a reasonable position.

Obamacare. States are 1.) refusing to accept free medicare insurance for their citizens, manifestly harming them. 2.) states are also refusing to simply provide information to their citizens to help them navigate the new law. Choosing to deliberately harm the financial and physical wellbeing of those you are supposed to represent due to ideological opposition to a law is a radical position.

Why aren't the Dems responsible for passing the damn thing in the first place? It's a piece of shit and the rest of us have got it all over our shoes. Obamacare was a radical position. Trying to stop it isn't.

 

[thraashman]

And likewise Obama denounced it before he was for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FknJLMc84bo

It's not like it's unknown that the individual mandate was added in an attempt to court conservatives to vote for the healthcare overhaul. This is before it was completely evident that the GOP would rather obstruct everything Obama does at the expense of the American people than let Obama get anything done.

And as has been repeatedly pointed out, lack of background checks are the problem.

I feel if you were trying to make a point you typoed here. As it stands I'd agree with this statement in part. Lack of background checks are part of the problem.

Some of those on the extremes are as racist as they are paranoid. But those on the left of almost any stripe translate any reasonable attempt to ascribe global terrorism to Islam as xenophobic hysteria.

Global terrorism is enacted by many groups. Islamic terrorists are the largest problem America has with terrorism. The right attempts to attribute the whole of Islam as being terrorists.

That's not an example of "extreme". That's an example of the pendulum swinging.

The US has to maintain some form of global presence. We do not need to jump into every conflict. Being for every conflict when your guy is in office (people loved when McCain sang a song about bombing Iran), and hating it when the other team's guy is in office, is being extreme. Or an asshole at least.

I'm not sure how many candidates embraced birthers, and we won't agree on what constitutes an "embrace". But to the extent that the idea was given air, I would agree with you.

Romney embraced public birther number 1 in Donald Trump. Romney also made a crack about no one ever asked to see his birth certificate in an obvious nod to birthers.

What attacks, and how're they extreme? Abortion? Calling Sandra Fluke a slut when lefties hurl the most virulently sexist insults at women on the right?

Attempting to destroy affordable healthcare for women because Planned Parenthood also happens to do abortions, making it near impossible for women to get legal abortions, justifying rape over and over again.

Claiming that marriage should remain largely the way it has been since antiquity is hardly an attack on gay rights.

Trying to claim that marriage has been unchanged when it clearly has changed over and over again just so you can justify attacking something you think is "icky". Your religion does not get to dictate our laws.

If we're going to be demagogic, I might just as easily say the left is extreme for wanting to maintain their engines of voter fraud.

Except that the evidence shows that voter fraud is extremely rare. And that what voter fraud exists is significantly more likely to not be affected by voter id laws. And that statistics show that thousands of times more people will be denied legal voting than will be prevented from illegally voting by id laws (actual statistics show approx 50k:1 on the low side and 250k:1 on the high side). And states like Texas which have a 45% white population gerrymandering to have 61% white majority districts, seems a bit racial to me too.

 

[Atreus21]

It's not like it's unknown that the individual mandate was added in an attempt to court conservatives to vote for the healthcare overhaul. This is before it was completely evident that the GOP would rather obstruct everything Obama does at the expense of the American people than let Obama get anything done.

Considering both Hillary and John Edwards included the individual mandate in their plans for reform during the 2008 campaign, I find it hard to believe that it was never a part of the plan except to throw a bone to the conservatives.

I feel if you were trying to make a point you typoed here. As it stands I'd agree with this statement in part. Lack of background checks are part of the problem.

Correct. The Newtown shooting in particular was done with legally-acquired firearms.

Global terrorism is enacted by many groups. Islamic terrorists are the largest problem America has with terrorism. The right attempts to attribute the whole of Islam as being terrorists.

My experience is different. My experience is that any attempt to equate even radical Islam with terrorism provokes exactly your response: That we just hate Islam.

The US has to maintain some form of global presence. We do not need to jump into every conflict. Being for every conflict when your guy is in office (people loved when McCain sang a song about bombing Iran), and hating it when the other team's guy is in office, is being extreme. Or an asshole at least.

And it's what both parties do.

Attempting to destroy affordable healthcare for women because Planned Parenthood also happens to do abortions, making it near impossible for women to get legal abortions, justifying rape over and over again.

Since when did Planned Parenthood become the cornerstone of "affordable healthcare?"

Trying to claim that marriage has been unchanged when it clearly has changed over and over again just so you can justify attacking something you think is "icky". Your religion does not get to dictate our laws.

I'd love you to point me to a time when marriage writ large constituted something other than a man and a woman.

Except that the evidence shows that voter fraud is extremely rare. And that what voter fraud exists is significantly more likely to not be affected by voter id laws. And that statistics show that thousands of times more people will be denied legal voting than will be prevented from illegally voting by id laws (actual statistics show approx 50k:1 on the low side and 250k:1 on the high side). And states like Texas which have a 45% white population gerrymandering to have 61% white majority districts, seems a bit racial to me too.

Whereas it might just be possible that gerrymandering is done to maximize electoral output of a desired constituency: the exact same things democrats do when they get the chance.

If all you're asking for is a freaking ID, I don't see how that discriminates against anyone.

 

[fskimospy]

Right, because all those promised spending cuts always materialize, right?

You're just proving my point by trying to make excuses.

Why isn't the dems partially responsible? Why should the GOP cave at every turn?

Because the Democrats weren't threatening to cause a worldwide financial crisis unless their demands were met. Attempting to equate taking a hostage with not paying the ransom is just making more excuses.

Then we need some more radicals.

Okay. I would argue that if you think a federal agency shouldn't exist you should pass a law eliminating it. If you cannot pass a law eliminating it, sabotaging the function of government instead is a radical position. If you share it... well... okay.

We won't be able to make a bit of difference if Co2 is causing "climate change". The only thing that is going to impact it is if we plunge into second dark ages where billions of people starve. Doing something for the sake of doing something when it won't do a lick of good is a reasonable position.

This is absurd hyperbole and is simply not in accordance with scientific reality. Furthermore, the modern Republican Party does not simply believe that climate change cannot be effectively addressed, they believe the entire thing to be a lie. This is a willful denial of science in the service of ideology. Super radicalized.

Why aren't the Dems responsible for passing the damn thing in the first place? It's a piece of shit and the rest of us have got it all over our shoes. Obamacare was a radical position. Trying to stop it isn't.

Implementing a health care plan along the lines of legislation both proposed and adopted by the opposition party is simply not a radical position. Regardless of whether or not you believe that it is however, purposefully harming the financial and physical health of your constituents in order to signal opposition to it is simply batshit crazy.

The real problem with the ACA from the Republican perspective is that they went all in to attack Obama, and then the issue got away from them and the crazies took hold.

 

[fskimospy]

If all you're asking for is a freaking ID, I don't see how that discriminates against anyone.

We have a lot of threads on this with a lot of evidence showing exactly how.

 

[First]

I'm a serious man and I take him seriously. It's serious business.

Well, it apparently takes someone more savvy than me, because I don't see that they're wrong on immigration, voter id, or gay marriage. Sex education... neither side is very appealing.

My condolences to you.