Mark Levin book signing - wow

[buckshot24]

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

Are you suggesting that the promised spending cuts for prior tax increase deals resulted in the spending cuts happening? Why make deals where the payoff for making the deal never happens?

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.

So they threatened to directly cause a worldwide financial crisis? Or is it your opinion that the crisis would occur?

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.

The bill itself is radical. Please address that.

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 law itself is batshit crazy. Furthermore it was found partially unconstitutional which basically made it unworkable. Continuing to implement a law that is broken is fucking nuts.

 

[Zaap]

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



How can you not be aware of this?

Great, so you found one so-called conservative at some think-tank who once wrote this. (And later by the way went back on it, saying he was only coming up with an alternative to the Clinton-era healthcare proposals.

It's not a conservative idea nor any part of any real conservative movement.

I'm sure I can dig up where some moonbat at some leftwing "thinktank" (now there's an oxymoron) advocates for all out communism, so does that automatically become the view of all liberals?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Great, so you found one so-called conservative at some think-tank who once wrote this. (And later by the way went back on it, saying he was only coming up with an alternative to the Clinton-era healthcare proposals.

It's not a conservative idea nor any part of any real conservative movement.

I'm sure I can dig up where some moonbat at some leftwing "thinktank" (now there's an oxymoron) advocates for all out communism, so does that automatically become the view of all liberals?

Right... A response to Clinton-Era proposals. They were very forward thinking then considering they outlayed their ideas in 1990.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/1990/pdf/bg777.pdf

We would include a mandate in our proposal–not a mandate on employers, but a mandate on heads of households–to obtain at least a basic package of health insurance for themselves and their families. That would have to include, by federal law, a catastrophic provision in the form of a stop loss for a family’s total health outlays. It would have to include all members of the family, and it might also include certain very specific services, such as preventive care, well baby visits, and other items.

 

[Zaap]

Ahh, okay so you libs have successfully pawned off one of your rotten ideas on conservatives because you found one guy who wrote something along the same lines 23 years ago. Good job!

So now that you've cast it as a "conservative" idea, does this mean we're all onboard to get rid of it because it's a rotten idea and unconstitutional for the federal government to implement?

 

[fskimospy]

Ahh, okay so you libs have successfully pawned off one of your rotten ideas on conservatives because you found one guy who wrote something along the same lines 23 years ago. Good job!

So now that you've cast it as a "conservative" idea, does this mean we're all onboard to get rid of it because it's a rotten idea and unconstitutional for the federal government to implement?

Lol.

Keep digging.

 

[Zaap]

So we can now discard this 'rightwing' idea, or are you dolts still running with it?

 

[werepossum]

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.

Cliffs: Republicans who are not radicalized believe that Republicans should embrace higher taxes (as a compromise for much higher taxes), an unlimited if not abolished debt ceiling to accommodate extra spending (since we've established that taxes must only rise), federal "Climate Change" action, and Obamacare. Ergo Republicans are radicalized because they are not Democrats.

If you begin with the position that your side is always right on every issue then it's pretty easy to see the other side as radicalized for not agreeing with you. Not particularly impressive, but pretty easy.

 

[ivwshane]

Cliffs: Republicans who are not radicalized believe that Republicans should embrace higher taxes (as a compromise for much higher taxes), an unlimited if not abolished debt ceiling to accommodate extra spending (since we've established that taxes must only rise), federal "Climate Change" action, and Obamacare. Ergo Republicans are radicalized because they are not Democrats.

If you begin with the position that your side is always right on every issue then it's pretty easy to see the other side as radicalized for not agreeing with you. Not particularly impressive, but pretty easy.

Except he didn't say that. Another thread, another debate, and another straw man arguement.

I bet if you ask Eskimospy if he thinks spending should ever be cut or if taxes should ever be lowered he would answer "yes". Can you or anyone with any sort of political power on the right say the opposite, that taxes can sometimes be raised and spending should be increased? That used to be the debate when sane people were running the county.

 

[Incorruptible]

Except he didn't say that. Another thread, another debate, and another straw man arguement.

I bet if you ask Eskimospy if he thinks spending should ever be cut or if taxes should ever be lowered he would answer "yes". Can you or anyone with any sort of political power on the right say the opposite, that taxes can sometimes be raised and spending should be increased? That used to be the debate when sane people were running the county.

Cutting spending is the way to fix the economy and not tax hikes. Government is spending far too much money and wastes it on special interests. Allowing people to keep more of their hard earned money would be a better way to stimulate the economy.

 

[thraashman]

Ahh, okay so you libs have successfully pawned off one of your rotten ideas on conservatives because you found one guy who wrote something along the same lines 23 years ago. Good job!

So now that you've cast it as a "conservative" idea, does this mean we're all onboard to get rid of it because it's a rotten idea and unconstitutional for the federal government to implement?

You said something incorrect and stupid. You were proven 100% wrong with absolutely zero variance in that percentage. You doubled down on stupid and were again proven 100% wrong. You've now said a completely new and stupid thing as agree or disagree with the mandate, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is Constitutional. You seriously need to shut your dumbass mouth until you can join reality with (most of) the rest of us and quit saying things that are so easily proven wrong it's funny. To quote The Hangover, "you are literally too stupid to insult".

 

[thraashman]

Cutting spending is the way to fix the economy and not tax hikes. Government is spending far too much money and wastes it on special interests. Allowing people to keep more of their hard earned money would be a better way to stimulate the economy.

But some of those people who are paying near historically low tax rates weren't before and aren't now spending that "hard earned" money. There was a thread a couple weeks ago about how Cisco made record profits on record revenue last year, and laid off 5000 people as a result. Yes, cutting wasteful spending is necessary. But we have to be sure that the spending we cut won't end up destroying the best things about this nation and the things that make us a world leader. And increasing the highest tax brackets won't hurt productivity and in fact won't even affect those top earners ability to spend their money.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Please show another book signing at that bookstore that had a crowd like the one shown in the video. Heck show a book signing in general that is able to gather a crowd like that.

That was a pretty impressive turnout especially considering its not some universally known best seller.

I count around 500. He has 8.5 million listeners and is most certainly known to an even larger group than that. (I've heard his name many times, though I don't recall where.) I'd say that's a pretty piss-poor turnout for a nationally known figure in a major metropolitan area.

Bronycon pulled 8400 in 2013 in Baltimore, and that was $35-75 attendance, with autograph vouchers being an additional $20. I bet more ponied up for those signatures than lined up for Levin's free one.

 

[Zaap]

more idiocy

So like I said, now that you've pawned off one of your stupid ideas on conservatives because you were able to dig up one guy from 23 years ago writing something, are you going to drop the idea or keep pushing for it?

 

[hans030390]

In regards to conservatives becoming more radical over the past 20 years, I'd say it's more like 30 or 40 years. The radical right-wing movement seemed to start gaining some traction a bit before Reagan was elected. Reagan's election and the few years after that showed the largest shift. Radical changes since then have been more evolutionary than revolutionary...in other words, the shift towards radicalism has slowed since the 80s. Now, it would appear there might be another large push towards right-wing radicalism over the past few years, but it remains to be seen whether or not it will gain traction like it did in the late 70s and 80s.

Of course, I'm rather young and haven't paid attention to politics for many years. This is just what I gathered from historical policies and actions from the parties during those times. But that's probably a more accurate way to get information vs. someone's potentially/likely biased, maybe-affected-by-memory-loss recount of their perspective of events during those times.

One thing I'm fairly sure of is that conservatives in the 50s, 60s, and maybe through some of the 70s were more liberal than most Democrats/liberals politicians are today. The shift back towards right-wing radicalism more akin to that seen in the late 1800s and early 1900s has been a fairly slow process with some major shifts at times.

But, more back on topic, anyone who thinks a 200+ year old framework for any sort of organizational entity still applies today in its entirety is delusional and stupid. There are some core ideas that are relevant, but the Constitution as a whole is horribly outdated, inadequate, and has too many band-aids applied to it. Organizational entities that run the world, governments or corporations, need to do a better job sticking with the times so humanity actually progresses towards a better future rather than spinning our wheels in place or going through stupid, preventable positive and negative cycles.

Try running a relatively large business with a 200 year old framework that has had some patches and additions applied to it over the years. The core company values in this framework are likely still relevant, but your business will at least be horribly outdated and inefficient, if not fail outright. I know the government isn't a business, but the organizational size, structures, processes, and powers have enough similarities that the concept still applies. Frameworks need overhauls to fit the evolving world they operate in.

 

[fskimospy]

Cliffs: Republicans who are not radicalized believe that Republicans should embrace higher taxes (as a compromise for much higher taxes),

Straw man.

I said "regardless of what is offered in return", not as a compromise for much higher taxes. This is the essence of the tax pledge that nearly every Republican has signed. This is basic, publicly available information.

an unlimited if not abolished debt ceiling to accommodate extra spending (since we've established that taxes must only rise),

Straw man based on your first lie.

federal "Climate Change" action

I would instead phrase this as "accepting overwhelming scientific evidence and planning accordingly", but your mileage may vary.

and Obamacare.

Straw man. Nothing in any of my posts said they must accept it, I simply said that to deliberately harm your own constituents as a result of your inability to defeat or repeal a law is a radical stance. I welcome an argument that says their constituents are best served by this behavior.

Ergo Republicans are radicalized because they are not Democrats.

Truly an inductive reasoning powerhouse we have here.

If you begin with the position that your side is always right on every issue then it's pretty easy to see the other side as radicalized for not agreeing with you. Not particularly impressive, but pretty easy.

Why do you insist on these ridiculous straw men? Again, as soon as I labeled conservatives that I respected you just labeled them no longer conservatives. (nice No True Scotsman fallacy, btw) Information that threatens what you desperately want to believe is discarded, this is because you are more invested in a culture war against 'proggies' than you are about any particular policy. It's angry, ranting, misinformed uncle at Thanksgiving sort of politics.

 

[werepossum]

Straw man.

I said "regardless of what is offered in return", not as a compromise for much higher taxes. This is the essence of the tax pledge that nearly every Republican has signed. This is basic, publicly available information.

Straw man based on your first lie.

I would instead phrase this as "accepting overwhelming scientific evidence and planning accordingly", but your mileage may vary.

Straw man. Nothing in any of my posts said they must accept it, I simply said that to deliberately harm your own constituents as a result of your inability to defeat or repeal a law is a radical stance. I welcome an argument that says their constituents are best served by this behavior.

Truly an inductive reasoning powerhouse we have here.

Why do you insist on these ridiculous straw men? Again, as soon as I labeled conservatives that I respected you just labeled them no longer conservatives. (nice No True Scotsman fallacy, btw) Information that threatens what you desperately want to believe is discarded, this is because you are more invested in a culture war against 'proggies' than you are about any particular policy. It's angry, ranting, misinformed uncle at Thanksgiving sort of politics.

Actually it's just a recognition that you refuse to admit that any conservative position anywhere has any validity. Only when conservatives agree with progressives do they have any validity in your mind, and the more they agree with progressives the more reasonable they are. Where they do not agree with progressives they are misinformed, radicalized, ignorant or evil. Every time. Every issue. Every thread. Nice job working in four straw man references though. You've certainly moved up on the leader board.

It's always amusing to see you reference "what desperately want to believe" considering that I regularly come down on both sides depending on the issue, whereas you are on one side of EVERY issue no matter how much you have to twist to mentally justify that position. The closest I've ever seen you come to crossing the line is to accept that the left/Democrats are sometimes partially wrong, just not nearly as wrong as are the right/Republicans.

 

[fskimospy]

Actually it's just a recognition that you refuse to admit that any conservative position anywhere has any validity. Only when conservatives agree with progressives do they have any validity in your mind, and the more they agree with progressives the more reasonable they are. Where they do not agree with progressives they are misinformed, radicalized, ignorant or evil. Every time. Every issue. Every thread. Nice job working in four straw man references though. You've certainly moved up on the leader board.

Again, you just invent people's positions for them to hold. Considering I don't agree with progressives on every issue (and progressives don't agree with each other on every issue) this is simply a ridiculous argument for you to make.

It really shows how far off the deep end modern Republicans are when your argument is that I think Milton Friedman is reasonable because he agreed with progressives so much. I mean stop and think about just how insane that is for a minute.

It's always amusing to see you reference "what desperately want to believe" considering that I regularly come down on both sides depending on the issue, whereas you are on one side of EVERY issue no matter how much you have to twist to mentally justify that position. The closest I've ever seen you come to crossing the line is to accept that the left/Democrats are sometimes partially wrong, just not nearly as wrong as are the right/Republicans.

Wow, shocking. As someone who is considerably to the left of the Democrats I agree with them on most issues and when I disagree with them the Republicans are usually worse. This wasn't always the case, but as the Republicans have continued to radicalize it becomes harder and harder to find a single one of their positions that is sane. There are still plenty of issues I agree with conservatives on, just generally not Republicans or self styled 'true conservatives'.

For example I have always supported market based regulation when possible, and cap and trade is a good example. That's a conservative idea. The Democrats originally just wanted to stomp on people with the EPA, which was dumb. As Republicans radicalize further however now our choices are Democrats who mostly support cap and trade, and Republicans that claim that global warming doesn't exist and scientists are part of a conspiracy with the UN to take our freedom.

Rent control. That's a big Democratic initiative in NYC. It's also dumb, as it artificially constrains housing construction and movement of individuals. I'm with the Republicans in NYC on that one and want to eliminate it.

I could list dozens of additional areas, but it won't matter. You need to cling to your narrative. As I've mentioned before, when I refer to your delusions what I'm referring to is not your position on any particular issue, it's your cherished belief in some sort of Worldwide Progressive Conspiracy. You need me to be an unreasonable ideologue who will twist the truth into anything needed to further The Cause because that's what The Enemy does.

 

[werepossum]

Again, you just invent people's positions for them to hold. Considering I don't agree with progressives on every issue (and progressives don't agree with each other on every issue) this is simply a ridiculous argument for you to make.

It really shows how far off the deep end modern Republicans are when your argument is that I think Milton Friedman is reasonable because he agreed with progressives so much. I mean stop and think about just how insane that is for a minute.

Wow, shocking. As someone who is considerably to the left of the Democrats I agree with them on most issues and when I disagree with them the Republicans are usually worse. This wasn't always the case, but as the Republicans have continued to radicalize it becomes harder and harder to find a single one of their positions that is sane. There are still plenty of issues I agree with conservatives on, just generally not Republicans or self styled 'true conservatives'.

For example I have always supported market based regulation when possible, and cap and trade is a good example. That's a conservative idea. The Democrats originally just wanted to stomp on people with the EPA, which was dumb. As Republicans radicalize further however now our choices are Democrats who mostly support cap and trade, and Republicans that claim that global warming doesn't exist and scientists are part of a conspiracy with the UN to take our freedom.

Rent control. That's a big Democratic initiative in NYC. It's also dumb, as it artificially constrains housing construction and movement of individuals. I'm with the Republicans in NYC on that one and want to eliminate it.

I could list dozens of additional areas, but it won't matter. You need to cling to your narrative. As I've mentioned before, when I refer to your delusions what I'm referring to is not your position on any particular issue, it's your cherished belief in some sort of Worldwide Progressive Conspiracy. You need me to be an unreasonable ideologue who will twist the truth into anything needed to further The Cause because that's what The Enemy does.

LOL I don't NEED you to be an unreasonable ideologue who will twist as needed to support the proggie position, I've OBSERVED you being an unreasonable ideologue who will twist as needed to support the proggie position. Big difference.

Rent control I'll give you, but cap and trade is NOT a conservative position at all.

For the record I don't mind you being left of the Democrats. It's a free country and if your politics are socialist, so be it. I only object when you define anyone not at least as far left as the Democrats as unreasonable, ignorant, insane or evil.

 

[fskimospy]

LOL I don't NEED you to be an unreasonable ideologue who will twist as needed to support the proggie position, I've OBSERVED you being an unreasonable ideologue who will twist as needed to support the proggie position. Big difference.

Of course you think that, that's my whole point. You have convinced yourself that it's true because you need it to be true. Of course that's what you believe you've seen.

Again, perfect example. Milton Fucking Friedman is now suspect and someone I chose because he agreed with progressives so much. You ignored that part as usual, but that is simply batshit insane.

Rent control I'll give you, but cap and trade is NOT a conservative position at all.

You better go tell all the Republicans that created the cap and trade system that then. It originated under GHWB as a way to control acid rain. Who knew that they were part of the Progressive Conspiracy all along!?

EDIT: Not to mention that almost every single Republican candidate for president in 2012 had supported cap and trade at one point. Conservatives dropped cap and trade support down the 1984 memory hole when the Evil Progressives got onboard.

For the record I don't mind you being left of the Democrats. It's a free country and if your politics are socialist, so be it. I only object when you define anyone not at least as far left as the Democrats as unreasonable, ignorant, insane or evil.

For the record I don't generally mind your political positions either. I only object when you attempt to twist reality in order to service a culture war you've created in your head.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

lol, my area opened a new AM radio station right after the 2006 elections, and my first experience with Levin (as well as Humpherys and Medved) was angry nasal screaming about libertarians and "false conservatives" being responsible for the Republicans losing the House and Senate. He's a partisan Republican, nothing more. Any self-proclaimed conservative that takes him seriously is being fooled.

 

[buckshot24]

lol, my area opened a new AM radio station right after the 2006 elections, and my first experience with Levin (as well as Humpherys and Medved) was angry nasal screaming about libertarians and "false conservatives" being responsible for the Republicans losing the House and Senate. He's a partisan Republican, nothing more. Any self-proclaimed conservative that takes him seriously is being fooled.

He spends most of his time going after republicans.

 

[nextJin]

What I find hilarious is that somehow Mark Levin is the conservative messiah next in line after Rush and Hannity. The man never even murmored the word "liberty" until after the 2008 elections and was one of the lead men pushing the takeover of the original non-batshit crazy teaparty. It's funny how he is Ron Paul biggest enemies on the conservatives side when in 2010 there was a thread on the RP forums highlighting what they had in common.

Levin had the same stance as Paul 97% of the time, the only policy being different was on the issue of intervention and non-intervention. Because Paul routinely said Israel can take care of themselves (proven through history) Levin slammed him all the time and continues to do so to this day. Levin was born with a Jewish heritage.

So for everyone sucking on this mans balls you should at least give the good Dr a reach around. His latest book is bullshit most all of it Paul has covered several times in his previous books dating back to the 1980's. Levin's only books to cover topics outside his profession (law) was a book on his dogs and post Obama his "liberty" works.

I've listened to Levin since 2008 (moved to DC and got Sirius), and read all of his books. The guy is a complete POS, and he plays conservatives like a fucking violin rivaling one of Beethoven's finest. The only thing I can say about Levin is that his books are not toilet material like most of Becks.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

To be fair anyone that claims a hardcore-libertarian/freeeeeeeedom political view will inevitably overlap with Ron Paul, and not because of any particular ingenuity/originality of the latter. Just develop a series of questions that pose two solutions, "The government" or "The free market", to every political problem and they'll all fall pretty close to each other. Not disagreeing that Levin is a poser, however.

 

[First]

To be fair anyone that claims a hardcore-libertarian/freeeeeeeedom political view will inevitably overlap with Ron Paul, and not because of any particular ingenuity/originality of the latter. Just develop a series of questions that pose two solutions, "The government" or "The free market", to every political problem and they'll all fall pretty close to each other. Not disagreeing that Levin is a poser, however.

Levin, Hannity and Rush are all posers. Sometimes that's what it takes to be hugely successful; the confidence to be a poser. All 3 have confidence in spades, though for no good reason of course. They fool their poor viewers into chowing down and regurgitating that confidence like dog food.

Now independent/conservative commentators like Michael Smerconish or David Frum, I can get behind.

 

[werepossum]

Of course you think that, that's my whole point. You have convinced yourself that it's true because you need it to be true. Of course that's what you believe you've seen.

Again, perfect example. Milton Fucking Friedman is now suspect and someone I chose because he agreed with progressives so much. You ignored that part as usual, but that is simply batshit insane.

You better go tell all the Republicans that created the cap and trade system that then. It originated under GHWB as a way to control acid rain. Who knew that they were part of the Progressive Conspiracy all along!?

EDIT: Not to mention that almost every single Republican candidate for president in 2012 had supported cap and trade at one point. Conservatives dropped cap and trade support down the 1984 memory hole when the Evil Progressives got onboard.

For the record I don't generally mind your political positions either. I only object when you attempt to twist reality in order to service a culture war you've created in your head.

For the record, my statement was:

Well-reasoned conservatives are those who explain to us why the Republican Party must become the Democrat Party. Or they are dead.

I thought it was self-evident that Friedman was in the "dead" category. I will endeavor to be more clear in the future. Had I not placed Friedman in the "dead" category, I would have pointed out that he considered himself a classical liberal, not a conservative. (News flash - not everyone who isn't bat shit crazy is a conservative.) His concept of a negative income tax (assuring everyone a minimum income without work) is certainly not a conservative idea. Nor would his preference of dismantling all government licensing programs be considered conservative. Friedman's closest classification would be libertarian - although given his fiscal conservatism and today's far left Democrat Party, I can see why you'd consider him conservative. I do identify with him - but again, I have a lot of libertarian and liberal positions - so I have no problem counting him as a conservative if you wish. But again, he's in the "dead" category.