Mark Levin Calls on Republicans to Boycott State of the Union

[Jroc]

I disagree. Ron Paul has always been honest and consistent. You can hate him if you want. That's your call. But he has always been honest and consistent. That cannot be said of Neocons like Levin, Limbaugh, Hannity etc. etc... They fully endorsed Bush's Big Brother Globalism. It was just a 'D' & 'R' issue for them. Their Conservative credentials should be questioned.

First of all who really cares about Ron Paul? you guys are like a friken cult with all that stupidity. He's retired anyway. Ron Paul's foreign policy mirrors ultra liberal American leftist foreign policies

Must mean that about 11% of the GOP is ultra-liberal-left, for Paul got about 11% of the popular vote in the GOP primaries, and about 7% of delegates at the RNC in 2012 and, though he won no primaries, ended up with a PLURALITY of delegates in 4 states:

Louisiana, Iowa, Minnesota and Maine.

And even at the convention, when it was crystal clear that Mitt Romney would be nominated, those 154 delegates stuck by Ron Paul.

Those are the stats. They are not recorded history.

There is not denying that Ron Paul has been a part of YOUR party, not some ultra-leftist thing.

Results of the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep doesn't mater though Ron Paul's isolationist foreign policies are the same as the American leftist. He has his followers. Some are regular people, some are cult followers. His domestic policies are fine with me

 

[paulitician]

First of all who really cares about Ron Paul? you guys are like a friken cult with all that stupidity. He's retired anyway. Ron Paul's foreign policy mirrors ultra liberal American leftist foreign policies

Must mean that about 11% of the GOP is ultra-liberal-left, for Paul got about 11% of the popular vote in the GOP primaries, and about 7% of delegates at the RNC in 2012 and, though he won no primaries, ended up with a PLURALITY of delegates in 4 states:

Louisiana, Iowa, Minnesota and Maine.

And even at the convention, when it was crystal clear that Mitt Romney would be nominated, those 154 delegates stuck by Ron Paul.

Those are the stats. They are not recorded history.

There is not denying that Ron Paul has been a part of YOUR party, not some ultra-leftist thing.

Results of the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep doesn't mater though Ron Paul's isolationist foreign policies are the same as the American leftist. He has his followers. Some are regular people, some are cult followers. His domestic policies are fine with me

Love him or hate him, you'll need his supporters. You will not boot the Communists without them. And like i said before, aggressive Foreign Interventionism is actually a Progressive ideal. Neocons need to read up on the history of Progressivism. The origins of Neoconservatism are rooted in Progressivism.

 

[thanatos144]

Must mean that about 11% of the GOP is ultra-liberal-left, for Paul got about 11% of the popular vote in the GOP primaries, and about 7% of delegates at the RNC in 2012 and, though he won no primaries, ended up with a PLURALITY of delegates in 4 states:

Louisiana, Iowa, Minnesota and Maine.

And even at the convention, when it was crystal clear that Mitt Romney would be nominated, those 154 delegates stuck by Ron Paul.

Those are the stats. They are not recorded history.

There is not denying that Ron Paul has been a part of YOUR party, not some ultra-leftist thing.

Results of the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep doesn't mater though Ron Paul's isolationist foreign policies are the same as the American leftist. He has his followers. Some are regular people, some are cult followers. His domestic policies are fine with me

Love him or hate him, you'll need his supporters. You will not boot the Communists without them. And like i said before, aggressive Foreign Interventionism is actually a Progressive ideal. Neocons need to read up on the history of Progressivism. The origins of Neoconservatism are rooted in Progressivism.

That's where you are wrong we don't need those in the cult of Paul

tapatalk post

 

[paulitician]

Yep doesn't mater though Ron Paul's isolationist foreign policies are the same as the American leftist. He has his followers. Some are regular people, some are cult followers. His domestic policies are fine with me

Love him or hate him, you'll need his supporters. You will not boot the Communists without them. And like i said before, aggressive Foreign Interventionism is actually a Progressive ideal. Neocons need to read up on the history of Progressivism. The origins of Neoconservatism are rooted in Progressivism.

That's where you are wrong we don't need those in the cult of Paul

tapatalk post

Yes you do. Without them, the Communists will hand you Neocons your asses again. Best to make Peace with em. Continuing to piss em off won't help you guys at all. You guys should think about that a bit.

 

[Jroc]

Must mean that about 11% of the GOP is ultra-liberal-left, for Paul got about 11% of the popular vote in the GOP primaries, and about 7% of delegates at the RNC in 2012 and, though he won no primaries, ended up with a PLURALITY of delegates in 4 states:

Louisiana, Iowa, Minnesota and Maine.

And even at the convention, when it was crystal clear that Mitt Romney would be nominated, those 154 delegates stuck by Ron Paul.

Those are the stats. They are not recorded history.

There is not denying that Ron Paul has been a part of YOUR party, not some ultra-leftist thing.

Results of the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep doesn't mater though Ron Paul's isolationist foreign policies are the same as the American leftist. He has his followers. Some are regular people, some are cult followers. His domestic policies are fine with me

Love him or hate him, you'll need his supporters. You will not boot the Communists without them. And like i said before, aggressive Foreign Interventionism is actually a Progressive ideal. Neocons need to read up on the history of Progressivism. The origins of Neoconservatism are rooted in Progressivism.

No need to read up on history, we are in the here and now. Leftist agree with Ron Paul on Foreign policy issues and there is no such thing as a neocon anymore, but you and the leftist agree on that term as well, as a way to smear conservatives you want history? Go to the history room

 

[paulitician]

Yep doesn't mater though Ron Paul's isolationist foreign policies are the same as the American leftist. He has his followers. Some are regular people, some are cult followers. His domestic policies are fine with me

Love him or hate him, you'll need his supporters. You will not boot the Communists without them. And like i said before, aggressive Foreign Interventionism is actually a Progressive ideal. Neocons need to read up on the history of Progressivism. The origins of Neoconservatism are rooted in Progressivism.

No need to read up on history, we are in the here and now. Leftist agree with Ron Paul on Foreign policy issues and there is no such thing as a neocon anymore, but you and the leftist agree on that term as well, as a way to smear conservatives you want history? Go to the history room

Ok, then suffer another Communist beat down. Whatever floats your boat i guess. You should learn from History. Your continued ignorance will not bring you bliss. Bet on that.

 

[Jroc]

Love him or hate him, you'll need his supporters. You will not boot the Communists without them. And like i said before, aggressive Foreign Interventionism is actually a Progressive ideal. Neocons need to read up on the history of Progressivism. The origins of Neoconservatism are rooted in Progressivism.

No need to read up on history, we are in the here and now. Leftist agree with Ron Paul on Foreign policy issues and there is no such thing as a neocon anymore, but you and the leftist agree on that term as well, as a way to smear conservatives you want history? Go to the history room

Ok, then suffer another Communist beat down. Whatever floats your boat i guess. You should learn from History. Your continued ignorance will not bring you bliss. Bet on that.

Your continued idolization of Ron Paul is gonna get you exactly 0..bet on that. Maybe when he dies you can build a shrine to him

 

[IlarMeilyr]

* * * *

Levin, Limbaugh, and Hannity have proven to be a bit disingenuous and hypocritical.

No. THEY have not.

YOU stating your preconceived opinion as a fact does not change anything. YOU are simply wrong again, no matter how often you ignorantly repeat your meaningless and baseless tripe.

They were silent or actually endorsed the same policies when a Republican was in there.

Wrong. I won't address whether or not Hannity and Limbaugh "supported" the shit when W was President,* but Levin (the one I am disputing you on, and I am not inclined to go to bat for the others you are attempting to drag into the discussion) was quite clear about -- and not at all hesitant in voicing -- his OPPOSITION to such things as W's ORIGINAL TARP program.

________________
* To be clear, given your propensity to spew fictional nonsense as though you were stating "facts," I certainly wouldn't take YOUR word for it about Hannity or Rush, either.

 

[Synthaholic]

As to the Obumbler State of the Union Address. Let's summarize it before he reads it off the TOTUS:

OBUMBLER's unstated but actual SOTU THEME: The greatness of all things "me." [Just count how many times he says the word "I" or "my." IT might even top the number of times he says, "err," "uhm," "ahh," or " --- " {i.e, his typical insertion of oddly long pauses between words in a simple sentence}.]

OBUMBLER's PRETEND THEME: How far we have come under his deft leadership BUT considering how much we suck, how much further we must go.

"income inequality" as well, but he's the king of it. What a joke of a president we have. What an embarrassment to this country. Who'd want to set there and listen to that bullshit.

Anyone who is not a racist, or a bigot, or a wingnut, or a teabagger, or a fringer, or an Israel-Firster.

 

[thanatos144]

As to the Obumbler State of the Union Address. Let's summarize it before he reads it off the TOTUS:

OBUMBLER's unstated but actual SOTU THEME: The greatness of all things "me." [Just count how many times he says the word "I" or "my." IT might even top the number of times he says, "err," "uhm," "ahh," or " --- " {i.e, his typical insertion of oddly long pauses between words in a simple sentence}.]

OBUMBLER's PRETEND THEME: How far we have come under his deft leadership BUT considering how much we suck, how much further we must go.

"income inequality" as well, but he's the king of it. What a joke of a president we have. What an embarrassment to this country. Who'd want to set there and listen to that bullshit.

Anyone who is not a racist, or a bigot, or a wingnut, or a teabagger, or a fringer, or an Israel-Firster.

Wow you really are a scumbag. ...

tapatalk post

 

[IlarMeilyr]

As to the Obumbler State of the Union Address. Let's summarize it before he reads it off the TOTUS:

OBUMBLER's unstated but actual SOTU THEME: The greatness of all things "me." [Just count how many times he says the word "I" or "my." IT might even top the number of times he says, "err," "uhm," "ahh," or " --- " {i.e, his typical insertion of oddly long pauses between words in a simple sentence}.]

OBUMBLER's PRETEND THEME: How far we have come under his deft leadership BUT considering how much we suck, how much further we must go.

"income inequality" as well, but he's the king of it. What a joke of a president we have. What an embarrassment to this country. Who'd want to set there and listen to that bullshit.

Anyone who is not a racist, or a bigot, or a wingnut, or a teabagger, or a fringer, or an Israel-Firster.

Entirely wrong. Predictable. In reality, the only ones who want to hear Obumbler read his speech off of the TOTUS are the usual suspects consisting of the suck ass lolberal sycophant idiots and other drooling dipshits.

 

[HenryBHough]

Ah, but He's going to start off by announcing three numbers.

Then in 1/2 hour he's going to announce two more.

One hour more and he'll suddenly announce four more and end.

Then, if you listened carefully, wrote down all the numbers and discovered He had called YOUR social security number you'd win a trillion bucks.

You have to call a 900 number within 30-seconds of the final announcement to win.

Of course the trillion will be paid in cute Obamabucks and subject to federal state and local taxes.

Hey, you might have enough left to buy..........



a new corkscrew!

 

[paulitician]

* * * *

Levin, Limbaugh, and Hannity have proven to be a bit disingenuous and hypocritical.

No. THEY have not.

YOU stating your preconceived opinion as a fact does not change anything. YOU are simply wrong again, no matter how often you ignorantly repeat your meaningless and baseless tripe.

They were silent or actually endorsed the same policies when a Republican was in there.

Wrong. I won't address whether or not Hannity and Limbaugh "supported" the shit when W was President,* but Levin (the one I am disputing you on, and I am not inclined to go to bat for the others you are attempting to drag into the discussion) was quite clear about -- and not at all hesitant in voicing -- his OPPOSITION to such things as W's ORIGINAL TARP program.

________________
* To be clear, given your propensity to spew fictional nonsense as though you were stating "facts," I certainly wouldn't take YOUR word for it about Hannity or Rush, either.

Levin was part of the gang who endorsed just about everything George Bush did. And i only see Obama continuing all of Bush's bad policies. But like i said, i'm willing to give some Neocons another chance. We'll just have to wait till a Republican gets back in there again though. Then we'll see what they're really about. If they've truly turned over a new leaf, we'll find out then. Because only screeching about how much you hate Democrats, proves nothing.

 

[Jroc]

* * * *

Levin, Limbaugh, and Hannity have proven to be a bit disingenuous and hypocritical.

No. THEY have not.

YOU stating your preconceived opinion as a fact does not change anything. YOU are simply wrong again, no matter how often you ignorantly repeat your meaningless and baseless tripe.

They were silent or actually endorsed the same policies when a Republican was in there.

Wrong. I won't address whether or not Hannity and Limbaugh "supported" the shit when W was President,* but Levin (the one I am disputing you on, and I am not inclined to go to bat for the others you are attempting to drag into the discussion) was quite clear about -- and not at all hesitant in voicing -- his OPPOSITION to such things as W's ORIGINAL TARP program.

________________
* To be clear, given your propensity to spew fictional nonsense as though you were stating "facts," I certainly wouldn't take YOUR word for it about Hannity or Rush, either.

Levin was part of the gang who endorsed just about everything George Bush did. And i only see Obama continuing all of Bush's bad policies. But like i said, i'm willing to give some Neocons another chance. We'll just have to wait till a Republican gets back in there again though. Then we'll see what they're really about. If they've truly turned over a new leaf, we'll find out then. Because only screeching about how much you hate Democrats, proves nothing.

You know what? it might be good for you to actually have some kind of link or evidence to prove your assertions ,because all you've done here so far is repeat talking points you've done nothing. no links, no specifics, nothing. Other than supporting the Iraq and Afghanistan war and his tax cuts name any other policies of Bush Levin supported. What would you have done in the aftermath of 9/11? send a peace mission to Afghanistan?

 

[paulitician]

No. THEY have not.

YOU stating your preconceived opinion as a fact does not change anything. YOU are simply wrong again, no matter how often you ignorantly repeat your meaningless and baseless tripe.



Wrong. I won't address whether or not Hannity and Limbaugh "supported" the shit when W was President,* but Levin (the one I am disputing you on, and I am not inclined to go to bat for the others you are attempting to drag into the discussion) was quite clear about -- and not at all hesitant in voicing -- his OPPOSITION to such things as W's ORIGINAL TARP program.

________________
* To be clear, given your propensity to spew fictional nonsense as though you were stating "facts," I certainly wouldn't take YOUR word for it about Hannity or Rush, either.

Levin was part of the gang who endorsed just about everything George Bush did. And i only see Obama continuing all of Bush's bad policies. But like i said, i'm willing to give some Neocons another chance. We'll just have to wait till a Republican gets back in there again though. Then we'll see what they're really about. If they've truly turned over a new leaf, we'll find out then. Because only screeching about how much you hate Democrats, proves nothing.

You know what? it might be good for you to actually have some kind of link or evidence to prove your assertions ,because all you've done here so far is repeat talking points you've done nothing. no links, no specifics, nothing. Other than supporting the Iraq and Afghanistan war and his tax cuts name any other policies of Bush Levin supported. What would you have done in the aftermath of 9/11? send a peace mission to Afghanistan?

He was one of Bush's biggest cheerleaders. Right through all the massive spending, foreign interventions, domestic spying, and so on. Seriously, what has Obama really done so different than Bush? The real test for Neocons regaining my trust will come when a Republican gets back in the White House. Then we'll see what they really stand for. I know they hate Democrats. But why do they hate Democrats? They're not so clear on that. Is it only because they have the power now? Time will tell on that i guess.

 

[Jroc]

Levin was part of the gang who endorsed just about everything George Bush did. And i only see Obama continuing all of Bush's bad policies. But like i said, i'm willing to give some Neocons another chance. We'll just have to wait till a Republican gets back in there again though. Then we'll see what they're really about. If they've truly turned over a new leaf, we'll find out then. Because only screeching about how much you hate Democrats, proves nothing.

You know what? it might be good for you to actually have some kind of link or evidence to prove your assertions ,because all you've done here so far is repeat talking points you've done nothing. no links, no specifics, nothing. Other than supporting the Iraq and Afghanistan war and his tax cuts name any other policies of Bush Levin supported. What would you have done in the aftermath of 9/11? send a peace mission to Afghanistan?

He was one of Bush's biggest cheerleaders. Right through all the massive spending, foreign interventions, domestic spying, and so on. Seriously, what has Obama really done so different than Bush? The real test for Neocons regaining my trust will come when a Republican gets back in the White House. Then we'll see what they really stand for. I know they hate Democrats. But why do they hate Democrats? They're not so clear on that. Is it only because they have the power now? Time will tell on that i guess.

You just keep reposting the same thing. no evidence to back up anything. Why bother? Links? something? so are you just lazy? or you don't have any evidence to back up your claims?

 

[Foxfyre]

No. THEY have not.

YOU stating your preconceived opinion as a fact does not change anything. YOU are simply wrong again, no matter how often you ignorantly repeat your meaningless and baseless tripe.



Wrong. I won't address whether or not Hannity and Limbaugh "supported" the shit when W was President,* but Levin (the one I am disputing you on, and I am not inclined to go to bat for the others you are attempting to drag into the discussion) was quite clear about -- and not at all hesitant in voicing -- his OPPOSITION to such things as W's ORIGINAL TARP program.

________________
* To be clear, given your propensity to spew fictional nonsense as though you were stating "facts," I certainly wouldn't take YOUR word for it about Hannity or Rush, either.

Levin was part of the gang who endorsed just about everything George Bush did. And i only see Obama continuing all of Bush's bad policies. But like i said, i'm willing to give some Neocons another chance. We'll just have to wait till a Republican gets back in there again though. Then we'll see what they're really about. If they've truly turned over a new leaf, we'll find out then. Because only screeching about how much you hate Democrats, proves nothing.

You know what? it might be good for you to actually have some kind of link or evidence to prove your assertions ,because all you've done here so far is repeat talking points you've done nothing. no links, no specifics, nothing. Other than supporting the Iraq and Afghanistan war and his tax cuts name any other policies of Bush Levin supported. What would you have done in the aftermath of 9/11? send a peace mission to Afghanistan?

Bless his heart, he won't give you any links because he can't. Because Levin was definitely not a cheerleader for GWB's liberal agenda. GWB would have been the greatest guy that ever held the presidency if he had just had a D instead of an R after his name. But oh well.

What did Levin think about George W. Bush. He pretty well lays it out here in comparing GWB with Reagan:

. . . .Who said? "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system." Well, those words would never have passed Reagan's lips. It was infamously said by Bush, in defense of his massive spending spree in the last weeks of his presidency. There's nothing conservative about it. But it sums up Bush's lack of confidence in the free market system, and his repeated and excessive use of government intervention in American society.

Bush never claimed to be the conservative Reagan was, nor did he spend his early political career challenging GOP orthodoxy, which, until Reagan won in 1980, was mostly incoherent mush of the Rockefeller-Scranton-Nixon-Ford-Bush/41 kind. George H. W. Bush and other mainstream Republican primary challengers sought to thwart Reagan because, they insisted, his conservatism would be rejected by the voters. Now, Pete insists that as president, Reagan's record, in virtually all respects, is inferior to George W. Bush's, in advancing conservative principles. This is not only counter-intuitive, it is factually defective. As I proceed with this discussion, I believe it will become evident.

Some final prefatory thoughts. I've noticed since President Bush's departure, former staffers strain to rewrite his record, particularly respecting spending and his embrace of big-government. Is not Bush proud of his policies? Is not Bush proud of the steps he believed he needed to take to "save the free market?" Most were not forced compromises but actual policies and actions he affirmatively supported. Why is it necessary to insist that Bush was an enthusiastic conservative when, in fact, he was not? I am not exactly sure how his governing philosophy can be defined, but I don't think it is helpful to his legacy to run from a record which he is proud of. And being defensive about his record is not the same thing as attempting to defend it.

Among the many great things Reagan did included his expansion and strengthening of the Republican Party and the conservative movement, both of which Bush left in a shambles even before he left office. Actually, it wasn't just Bush, but Bush paid precious little attention to either, which helped the Democrats take the House in the 2006 election and led to a complete electoral debacle in 2008.

The point is that aside from the policy details, which I briefly delve into below, a president can be uplifting, visionary, and legacy-setting. Reagan was all that. This is not to make him a larger-than-life figure, but to accurately put in him context with his successors. Reagan was an articulate and constant advocate of conservatism. Bush was not all that articulate in his public statements, period. And it is too bad. In private, he was engaging and well-spoken. But communication skills matter. . . .

https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-levin/ronald-reagan-george-w-bush/10150109191410946

 

[g5000]

This would be great. Too bad most of the spineless Republicans have no guts

“Here's what should happen at the State of the Union speech,” Levin began. “Since these men and women will not use the Constitution to defend this nation, since they will not use the Constitution to confront a lawless president — worse yet, since they are funding his activities with these omnibus bills filled with all kinds of crap — what the Republicans should do is boycott the State of the Union.”

By such a “bold” act, he said, half of the House floor will be empty and it will grab the attention of the American people and the media, “which will attack it, but cannot ignore it.”

“It would be historic, it would be profound, that finally the opposition party demonstrates that it opposes not just the Democrat Party, but the destruction of this republic, but this president and his willing dupes in Congress," he added.

He suggested Republicans present their own State of the Union by, perhaps, joining together on the steps of the Capitol to lay out their case against the president's agenda.

Radio Host Mark Levin Calls on Republicans to Boycott State of Union

I agree. Those Republicans should stand up and say, "We will not tolerate a Democrat using the tools we created in the Patriot Act a decade ago! It was supposed to be for Dubya and Dubya alone to spy on Americans with!"

And then walk out.

 

[thanatos144]

No. THEY have not.

YOU stating your preconceived opinion as a fact does not change anything. YOU are simply wrong again, no matter how often you ignorantly repeat your meaningless and baseless tripe.



Wrong. I won't address whether or not Hannity and Limbaugh "supported" the shit when W was President,* but Levin (the one I am disputing you on, and I am not inclined to go to bat for the others you are attempting to drag into the discussion) was quite clear about -- and not at all hesitant in voicing -- his OPPOSITION to such things as W's ORIGINAL TARP program.

________________
* To be clear, given your propensity to spew fictional nonsense as though you were stating "facts," I certainly wouldn't take YOUR word for it about Hannity or Rush, either.

Levin was part of the gang who endorsed just about everything George Bush did. And i only see Obama continuing all of Bush's bad policies. But like i said, i'm willing to give some Neocons another chance. We'll just have to wait till a Republican gets back in there again though. Then we'll see what they're really about. If they've truly turned over a new leaf, we'll find out then. Because only screeching about how much you hate Democrats, proves nothing.

You know what? it might be good for you to actually have some kind of link or evidence to prove your assertions ,because all you've done here so far is repeat talking points you've done nothing. no links, no specifics, nothing. Other than supporting the Iraq and Afghanistan war and his tax cuts name any other policies of Bush Levin supported. What would you have done in the aftermath of 9/11? send a peace mission to Afghanistan?

He would have smoked a bowl and prayed to Paul to save them.

 

[Mustang]

I've listened to Levin for years.

I enjoy his show for its entertainment value since Levin is essentially a caricature of right-wing zealotry. That and for the fact that Levin essentially serves to undermine the Republican cause.

But make no mistake, Levin is a RW reactionary and a propagandist who routinely makes statements I'm convinced he knows are not true. That's because while Levin is a propagandist, he's not a very good liar, especially for a lawyer. He just can't pull if off all the time.

But his show is fun. He's like an evil Pee Wee Herman.