Mark Levin slams Ron Paul caller

This is great. I’ve listened to this three times now because I just love hearing Levin tear into Ron Paul fan. In this instance, it’s a Paulbot complaining that Levin will defend Newt but won’t defend Ron Paul.

My favorite part is what Levin said he’d do if his voting choice was between Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. But you’ll have to listen to find out:

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • “If I had to choose between Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, I wish I could cast TWO VOTES for Newt Gingrich!”

    AAAAHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I about peed my pants when he said that! LOL!

    • Anonymous

      Oh my God, here we go with 5000 posts. I wanted Levin, now my computer will lock up just trying to read them all, lol.

      • Hahaha! Here’s a little soundtrack:

        • Anonymous

          Perfect choice, Brian.

      • Paultards will be here any second now.

          [there ya go… figured I’d save the Ronulan cultists a little time].

      • Anonymous

        Oh Maaaan! Not another 5000 posts! My computer can’t take it… and disqus sucks at trying to sift them all.

  • This is a little off topic, but your Levin posts today are actually syncing up perfectly with the time he airs here. He just ran through a very good example of how Obama is manipulating the Congress to run against Congress so he doesn’t have to run on his terrible record…..that little excerpt is gold.

  • Ahhhhhh the sound of reason with the usual Levin flair. Now I can sleep like a baby tonight. Thanks Scoop!

    PS- glad I got on here now, because I know by morning, there will be anywhere from 500- 2000 comments!

    Sweet dreams everyone!

  • Classic!

    Thanks TheRightScoop!

  • Anonymous

    How do we go about doing that if the front runners are not conservative? Please, please Mark call Governor Palin.

    • Anonymous

      If Sarah Palin jumped into the race in say January or February it would be a landslide victory for her this November. Just my 2 cents. I sure love Sarah Palin and think she is the complete package for what this nation needs right now. Miracles can happen, can’t they?

      • Anonymous

        I’m afraid our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will arrive soon and somebody, somebody is going to label Him a Progressive, because he wants to save ALL His children.

        Forgive me, Lord, forgive me, for that comment.

        • are you really equating progressives with God?

          • Anonymous

            I knew it. Someone would take it wrong. “…because he wants to save ALL his children.” is the part you should look at, not the fact that he is the Second Coming or in any way associated with God. (all his children, ie both conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, etc, etc)

            Newt as president, or anybody else as president will have to deal with both sides of the Congress (both sides of the House and both sides of the Senate). Obama, when he thought he had a super majority, pretty much told the Republicans to take a hike. A Republican president had better not do that even if he owns the House AND Senate.

            We need some things done for ALL Americans and it’s going to take a President capable of compromise – not on principle, but on policy – to get things turned around and get our country back on track. We need to find a way to work together.

            For lack of a better word, we need Sarah Paulgingtorumcainmannerry. What do you say, folks? Can we work together?

  • Anonymous

    Levin definitely misquotes Ron Paul. Ron Paul is strong on defense, not militarism around the world. Blow back as a principle has merit. Ron Paul doesn’t believe in national security? Not true. He believes that it is one of the federal government’s core responsibilities. Ron Paul is the most conservative person running, and nobody argued this when he stated it in the debates. Why would Levin say that “Ron Paul” says he isn’t a conservative? Where is he getting “Paul would not protect our borders”? That is the one thing that Paul calls for from the feds. He doesn’t believe in amnesty, but promotes real free trade rather than what we have.

    Levin seems extremely unreasonable here, and anyone who studies Paul’s positions at all would have to recognize his misquotes. Many Paul supporters agree with his platform in general, but not necessarily everything, such as the gold standard.

    • Anonymous

      LISTEN DOUCHE BAG, we don’t care.

      RP needs to be sent to a nursing home and put to sleep.

      • Anonymous

        Thanks for the constructive criticism. That really gives me something to consider as someone who seeks to be enlightened by others when possible. Your eloquent use of linguistic skill is astoundingly poetic.

        • “Your eloquent use of linguistic skill is astoundingly poetic…”

          As is your screen-name! LOL!

          • Slap! OW! Good one! 😀

          • Anonymous

            I used that name for the purpose of making my general positions known. Though some people cannot get past their presumptuous mental blocks about Ron Paul supporters, other may very well appreciate the direct nature of the username.

            • Presumptuous mental blocks about Ron Paul supporters? Whatever impression we have of you guys is your fault. Up until you admit that, you will get nowhere in advancing Ron Paul.

              Geez. Learn how to back your dude.

              Even if he is a crackpot. loll

              • Anonymous

                Once again, I am put into a group and charged with things that I have not done. I don’t vote in polls. I don’t go to events or disrupt other people’s events. Hey, if you can lump everyone who supports the guy into a group and condemn them for whatever you want, it would go along with Patriot Act like mentality which says “if we accuse you of wrong doing, we don’t have to prove it, but can imprison you for life without proof if we want to”.

            • So you meant to have the “69” at the end of “paulbot”?!? Ewwwwww!

              • Anonymous

                I don’t get it.

                • Well, the joke is now dead, but I’ll explain anyways. Your screenname is “paulbot69”. “PAUL BOT”+”69”! That’s as far as I can take the description, but do a quick google search for the number 69, and I GUARANTEE you you will discover the meaning of the joke in the first page of the results!

                • Anonymous

                  Oh. I see.

                • Hahaha! A little dirty humor! Nothing personal (as long as you AREN’T a true Paulbot, always bashing everybody’s candidate)! LOL!

                • Anonymous

                  There doesn’t seem to be any voids in the bashing arena. Ron Paul is putting out negative ads for the first time. I don’t really mind negative ads, if they are true. In today’s world, it is hard to know what the truth is much of the time. It seems to be a part of the media frenzy that takes place around politics.

                • Ron Paul’s been putting out negative ads for a little while.

                • Anonymous

                  Yes. In this election. I didn’t see any in the 08 run.

        • Anonymous

          Thank you Paul-bot. So when Paul loses, will you cry?

          • Anonymous

            I don’t know. My left minded neurological pathways may just negate my logic center and cause a physio-emotional response that manifests itself in loss of salty hydration.

            Does this satisfy your assumptions of my dispositional tendencies.

            • Anonymous

              Wow you are so complex, it surely must mean you are smarter than those that type normally…lol! Paulbotsexact indeed, what a maroon!

              • A maroon? Irony. Pure Irony. Although I am a big fan of the maroon and orange.

                • is that a gig’em bevo comment!?

                • Didn’t know what you were talking about until I looked it up. You are on the right track with college football, but it is the Virginia Tech Hokies that I am speaking of.

                • well, it was an interesting use in the maroon(aggies) and orange(longhorns), there are alot of those in my area that are a mix of both, lol.

            • OH LOOK… the Ronulan is attempting to appear intelligent, so we wont automatically assume he’s as deluded and blank as the rest of the burn outs that make up the Ron Paul cultist movement. He’s coming off as pretentious, but little more. SO… you’ve got 69 at the end of your name. OK… yup. Ron Paul is a cult leader. Rev. Jim Jones/David Koresh/Charlie Manson could do no better.

      • Anonymous

        This explains it better than I. Have fun.

    • Anonymous

      Get off the phone, ya big dope !!

    • get a life….

      • Anonymous

        Do you always make practice of putting people in groups and judging their whole life based on a few comments on a blog? What arbitrary group name do you belong to that others might consider to be a derogatory term? My world is a little bit bigger than that.

        • Don’t spam us…

          • Anonymous

            I would have to research the definition of spam. The only place I have seen it is as an alternative mail box in Yahoo mail. What do you mean by this statement?

            • Anonymous

              Well, actually, it’s really spiced ham made by Hormel. Usually can last 10,000 years (or the half life of a twinkie).

              • Anonymous

                I used to like that stuff. Haven’t had it since I was a kid. Might just have to pick some up, but couldn’t send you any without an address.

                • Anonymous

                  No, no, no. I’m already stocked…right next to the TP, gasoline, and lead.

                • Anonymous

                  You are not a prepper, are you? I only go as far as to load my own rounds, grow my own wheat and grind it by hand. I make my own soap, can my own vegetables and venison, and build wood gas generators in my spare time.

                • Anonymous

                  In this day and age, we must all be preppers, to some extent. To what extent is up to each and every one of us. Personal energy (wind, solar, generator) seem to be a must to keep off the grid. A fine storage room of food, essentials, and excessive amounts of incandescent light bulbs (lol) seems also to be in order for one’s own comfort.

                  So, ya, I guess I would be called something like that. Why, people ask? Because I’m a firm believer in the massive CME’s (coronal mass ejection) that will be coming our way in the next solar maximum (2012).

                • Anonymous

                  I haven’t studied that as of yet. What does a solar mass ejection primary threaten to do? It seems like I have heard of neutron particle bombardment, but I thought that these particles could penetrate the earth. Don’t know much about it, obviously.

                • Anonymous

                  Not to get into too many details (not the time or place), but basically a massive CME would destroy the magnetic field around the earth and this electro-magnetic field is what protects us from the suns radiation. A medium hit would take out all our electronic communications, and you know we can’t get along without our cell phones and computers. So, basically bad juju.

              • I thought Spam came from Spamelopes…

                • Anonymous

                  I used to think it was invented by Monte Python (Spam, spam, spam, spam…)

                • Hahaha!

          • Hey, come now. Don’t tell me you have never had a good serving of spam. You should try it some time. If you don’t like it, just don’t eat anymore.

    • Maxsteele

      I love how you paul bots cookie cut the few beliefs that Paul has that are conservative while completely ignoring the vast majority of positions he has that are not. The reason why they did not argue against his statement is because they were completely stunned into silence. Paul has stated umpteenth times that he is a libertarian and not a conservative, before this election of course. As much as you all do not want to admit gathering the wagons and isolating the USA from the rest of the world did not work in the late 1930’s early 40’s. Did not work in the late 1800’s and definitely cannot work now. As much as you do not want to admit there is evil in this world and there has to be a world power to keep it at bay. Who else is better suited for the job? If we followed Paul’s doctrine the rest of the world would be under communist USSR and how far behind would the USA be? Plus Paul’s myriad of conspiracy theories border on the insane and cannot even be argued because they are so out there.

      • Anonymous

        I try to consider all things of such complexities as world affairs issues garner in the light of simplicity. Therefor while human nature is such that it is entirely predictable, we can apply it in such simplicity as to consider a one on one scenario. Where people use the term “conservative”, many tend to think of conservatism as something that is defined by modern political influence rather than a word with a root definition. To conserve is to use less of. So, to be financially conservative is to spend less. Ron Paul wins his argument there. Concerning foreign policy there are two primary considerations. One is diplomacy, and the other is use of force, which we are heavily engaged in. Good diplomacy recognizes human nature and its innate tendency to go to war, and seeks to avoid war at all costs, because of the loss of life and fortune associated with it. So the more conservative person will rely more heavily on diplomacy rather than use of force. Human nature responds one of two ways when forced to. People will either bow down, or rebel. Fight, or flight. There is no historic example of an aggressor nation surviving long term primarily due to financial destruction. Conservative thinkers seek to secure their nation by preserving peace through diplomacy while maintaining their economic stability through such means as should be referred to as protectionism, rather than isolationism. Isolationism is a term used to tear down a person rather than legitimately debating a subject based on merit rather than rhetoric. True free trade with the world, and respect of other sovereigns in exchange for like behavior is not isolationism, it is diplomatic protectionism.

        I am sorry that you do not see it this way.

        • Maxsteele

          “I try to consider all things of such complexities as world affairs issues garner in the light of simplicity. Therefor while human nature is such that it is entirely predictable, we can apply it in such simplicity as to consider a one on one scenario”
          This quote from your above post makes absolutely no sense but fits perfectly into the remainder of your argument which is just an intellectual, semantical argument of the meaning of the word conservative.
          Which perfectly proves my point about Isolationist, libertarian doctrine. Which is that it, like the theory of communism, deserves to be debated in the intellectual halls of universities and colleges but has very little real world practicality.
          You did not address a single one of my points in your response so you resort to intellectual masturbation to try and obviscate and confuse those that you patronizingly believe are your intellectual inferiors, “I am sorry that you do not see it this way.” How quante and how obviously superior you are to us knuckle dragging conservatives.
          With regards to your point on diplomacy. It is moot because there is not a leader on either side of the fence that would not engage in diplomacy first and foremost before using military strength. If you take Paul’s position it fits exactly into what existed in the world from 1930 to 1940 with the height of which was Chamberlains appeasement of nazi aggression. Evil loves a vacuum and attacks, like cancer, any weakness in it’s host.
          It is too bad that you like your communist, socialist, close relatives do not learn from history.

          • Anonymous

            I thought that I did address your statements about Paul’s conservatism. I thought you brought up the subject of isolationism as well. But I get your point, and its well taken. I would give your great kudos if you can find a video of Paul saying that he wasn’t a conservative. I would just say that since well before the thirties and forties, we have failed on most fronts to combat such threats as “communism” either diplomatically or militarily. War happens when diplomacy fails. We started abandoning our core principles and our founding documents well before the thirties and forties. We got a central bank in 1913, and decided that an income tax to fund servicing the debt that would be created was appropriate as well. We also lost our right to own property in the era that you speak of. As our moral decline ramped up, so did the loss of personal freedom. Then the wars really started.

            Why people think that we did everything right, and it just went bad on its own, is beyond me. You apparently think that the clear answer would have been to go to war much more quickly, and much more often to solve the problems of the world. So be it. I simply believe that there is a better way than war, and I also believe that if we had not turned from our constitutional base and created this nightmare starting after the turn of the century, we could have avoided the 20th century as being a total war century. Many people had the ability to stomp out Hitler before he did what he did. His neighbors just stood by as well. You should consider that both sides of every war is funded by the same banks. Who has the real power to stop war?

            Communism doesn’t work, therefor if you let it play out without supporting it, it will fail on its own. China is the perfect example. We support communism in China. We support the persecution of Christians in China. If we were constitutional protectionists, not isolationists, China would have failed in its communism by now. Instead, we have presidents like Clinton who let them come in and take whatever technology and secrets they want. Remember that? Then we sign so called “free trade” agreements and engage in the WTO who’s purpose seems to be to make poor all industrialized nations while sending it over to China. Many times by force. Look up the situation that recently took place with Gibson Guitars. They were swat teamed by the feds who were enforcing a foreign law that the foreign country the feds were representing explicitly said they had no problem with. They were told that if they moved out of the country, they wouldn’t have these problems.

            We have allowed and enabled China to be what it is today. Child slave labor is what we are supporting by buying the goods that are made by industries that left here because government basically kicked them out. Then we have programs like “cash for clunkers” which was designed to ship raw materials to China. Now we are sending massive amounts of raw wood materials over there to be processed by them, and used by them to build their economy with. We put in natural gas lines on the western coast line paid by the tax payers to supply gas so that it would be cheaper for Americans to get. Then when the lines were put in, they announced that they were going to use them to ship our natural gas to China.

            We have been supporting communism for as long as we have been fighting it. We essentially forced the hand of Japan before they attacked us by placing sanctions on them, just as we are doing in the middle east to other countries that we want war with. There is a clear routine to how we make war. We don’t just sit by the sidelines and then jump in when it is critical.

            Have you ever read about the Gulf of Tonkin incident? Do you realize that it has been declassified that it was fabricated to get us into a war in Vietnam? The founders knew what governments were capable of. They warned of it. Maybe we need to quit buying into every single story they give us, and vote for a change in how we conduct ourselves around the world.

            The middle east is no different. For the last sixty years we have been taking elected officials out of power and installing dictators. We have been funding the same guys with foreign aid. We have been shutting down our energy production while making them filthy rich. We have been stirring up the region into a hornets nest, and when we get attacked by rouge groups, we go in and turn the whole country into a police state, then spend borrowed dollars on rebuilding them perpetually.

            This is an excellent foreign policy.

      • Anonymous

        Spot on Max…well said my friend.

      • Anonymous

        ‘As much as you do not want to admit there is evil in this world and there has to be a world power to keep it at bay. Who else is better suited for the job?’

        …must be you, obviously, since you’re so great at separating the evil from the good (God help us!)

        I’ll be voting for Ron Paul

    • Anonymous

      Shouldn’t you be out spitting on our soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan? Slow day for the “Americas Evil and we cause the problems of the world” movement? Walmart run out of flags to burn early today? Can’t imagine how you find the time to blog with your busy schedule….

      • Anonymous

        Wow. So someone who believes that there is a better foreign policy is a flag burner and hates our troops. Nice. Maybe I should just train myself to believe that we don’t make mistakes so that people will like me better. I don’t want everyone thinking that I am not a consummate flag worshiper. If I don’t personally sign up to kill whoever our government wants, I must burn flags, and spit on troops. They really should just put me on a terror list and imprison me for life. Or maybe just torture me into submission. I need to get rid of that bumper sticker before Homeland Security tags me. I will probably be ok if I don’t fly or go through one of the many check points our military is helping run now.

        Thanks for waking me up to reality.

        • Anonymous

          Didn’t you claim America is the root cause of Islamic terrorism?
          Didn’t you claim that the Iranian’s want a bomb because we infringe on their sovereignty?
          Isn’t your general thesis that America is to blame for the worlds problems?
          Didn’t you proclaim that if we would just retreat from the world and dismantle our military the people of earth would join hands in a global koombaya session? Perhaps pass around some ice cold coca cola’s…..
          Of course I am paraphrasing here but is it so outrageous for me to assume your anti military. You have said as much and like most good hippies I can certainly see you BarBQing a flag or two. Frankly if you look at it from my perspective its really not an outrageous posting……

          Of course I am just jazzing you here brother…. Though I firmly disagree with your stated positions. I am just gassing you a little to ruffle your feathers…..

          • Anonymous

            Its all good. I enjoy a good debate, and would rather not argue with people.

            Just for the record though: No dismantling the military, just bringing them home to protect the country and our borders.

            America contributes to the world’s problem, but is not the only nation causing problems. ( “America is referring to government, and not the people, thought we do keep voting for these guys)

            Don’t retreat from the world, just be involved differently.

            America is not the root cause of Islamic terrorism, but we help their cause for recruitment by occupying their nations.

            It would be natural for Iran to want a bomb, because those who have it get treated differently. All nukes are bad, but we cannot turn back the clock. We should have accepted their offer to allow others to run their nuclear program, and even hold the critical material. In light of the effect of sanctions and their inability to refine oil, this would have bee a proper diplomatic solution that we turned down flat. If we were willing to work with them on these issues, and we allowed them to trade freely, they might not have interest in a nuke and stand down any interest that they might have. When a country such as Iran is doing well economically, their people may very well rebel against guys like AK- majinidad to preserve their good standing and economic prosperity. I don’t believe that our politicians, or the oil companies, want a prosperous and peaceful Iran. We have proved that over the last sixty years by taking out their previous leaders, and helping to squash their movements for a secular and free society.

            At the rate we are going, we should have all of the resources of the middle east wrapped up in ten years or so. I don’t believe that it will be to the benefit of the American people either. I actually fear a dirty bomb being used in the US. That would be all that they need to shut down the bill of rights. It would be one thing if our rights were being preserved, but we are losing them along with our prosperity. Soon we will have neither.

    • Rere1950

      I believe Levin’s problem along with all the others who have a problem with Ron Paul is the fact that Ron believes that we should take care of America first and leave other nations to fight their own battles. Ron believes that Israel is very capable of taking care of itself and that we should stop running to help them. That’s the reason people like Levin would never want Ron Paul for president. I’ve heard Ron say he believes we should protect our borders and our country. We should mind our own business and take care of the USA and it’s citizens.

  • KenInMontana

    Here it is, consider this a blanket warning. Clean up the language, and let’s keep the commentary on an adult level. This is the only warning I am giving, ignore it at the risk of your commenting privileges.

  • Why don’t we just vote for Mark Levin for President and be done with it? He’d be my man any day of the week. Could you imagine a Levin / Obama debate? Levin would defeat the little twirp hands down.

    • Anonymous

      Levin can’t have a discussion for more than 3 minutes without launching into a name-calling and whining tirade. It would be interesting though.

      • You’re just butthurt he hates Ron Paul. I’m sure you’d love Levin if he didn’t put continually put you Paulbots in line.

        • Anonymous

          Nah. He doesn’t put anyone in line. What he does is appeal to the lowest common denominator; the non-thinking, blind-nationalist, prepubescent mindset that establishment Republicans count on. The “grate” one, indeed.

    • Anonymous

      Newt will take Obama apart limb by limb also.

  • Mark Levin is awesome.

  • Anonymous

    Newt supporters – be on guard.
    Ron Paulies are out to get him.
    This happened in NH.
    If Newt comes to your area, be there.

    Pretty nasty stuff. I can see why some people support him, but why he supports these people is beyond me. This is not the first and won’t be the last.

    • Anonymous

      What are you talking about! Newt is nasty! He promise that he will not cheat on his wife and the conservative movement if will give him another chance. He is now a “Reformed Republican” whatever that means! Newt cheated on his wives when they were sick. You can’t get more disgusting than that.

      Hell has frozen over!
      Rush Limbaugh endorses Ron Paul plan

      • Newt is now politicizing his relationship with his wife by making that pledge….Disgusting.

      • Anonymous

        I don’t know that he solidly endorses the whole plan, because even Ron Paul said that militarism would have to be cut out to achieve it. Maybe Rush actually does agree with ending the wars and bringing the troops home, I don’t know. I tend to thing that Paul doesn’t go far enough with cuts to the FDA and some others, but he is just proposing a first year cut.

        Rush makes the comment “why not go back to Clinton era spending levels”. If you want the same amount of government that we had then, you wouldn’t be able to pay for it with today’s dollars. They have devalued to much. We are spending more and more each year just to service the debt, so unless you continue drastic cuts beyond the first year of Paul’s proposed plan, we most likely would not get ahead of the curve fast enough.

      • Anonymous

        I’m sorry. Do I need to tell everyone if I do/don’t support Paul or Newt?
        The article was what they call ‘news’.

        If the Paulies do it to Cain and to Newt, they will do it to Romney, Perry,
        Bachmann, Santorum, Huntsman. If you care about your candidate pick, be on guard. If he/she comes to your town, show up and give them support.
        That is all I was saying because the article was only about Newt and Ron Paul. It wasn’t about Romney. It wasn’t about Perry or anyone else.
        I hope you read it to see how disgusting they can be.

        Apparently Paulies don’t care about innocent until proven guilty. And have you noticed that since Cain dropped out no one is uttering a word about his ‘alleged’
        transgressions. It is almost like it was made up. Gee, who would gain from him dropping out? Not accusing, just wondering.

        Today is the first day I posted on here. I got slammed for ‘news’ on this topic and for the Huffpo article regarding Newt’s book quoting his statements and the article from The Blaze regarding things said by Newt in his own words in videos of him.

        I like to get all the information I can from all sides so that I can make
        an informed opinion. My primary is not until May and I am still window shopping
        for a candidate. They all have flaws. Which has the least flaws? Which has the biggest flaws? Which has flaws I can live with? I am not sure yet.

        Apparently some people who post here have a closed mind. It is their candidate or no candidate and if you don’t agree then you will get an email to let you know what the commenter thinks about your opinion.

        I am just assuming since you are so excited that Rush is finally supporting Ron Paul that you are a Paul supporter. I hope you are not one that shows up at other candidate’s rallies like in the DC article.

        I didn’t watch the youtube. I will take your word for it that Rush is supporting Paul because what Rush, Beck, Hannity, Levin, etc say or who they support is their business and will not influence me and my decision in any way. I check in here every day. Some videos I watch and some I skip. If it is the candidate speaking, I watch. If it is someone speaking their opinion, I sometimes watch.
        But if I do, I consider the fact that it is their opinion. And the next person may have an entirely different opinion … on the same topic.

        P.S. According to Newt’s daughter, Jackie, and his first wife….oh never mind I forgot you already know all the facts. Case closed.

        • Anonymous

          Do not stop posting. Your opinion is important. If someone has a closed mind, it’s not your fault. It’s theirs. We need dialogue, all kinds of dialogue. That’s where we learn and as they say ‘we should never fail to learn how to learn’.

      • Anonymous

        He balanced four years in a row budgets which led to a surplus.

        • Anonymous

          Gingrich Surplus: Same as “Clinton Surplus”. If you debt budget more than you spend, it is a surplus.

          We still went into debt, the politicians just had a talking point by passing more spending to start with than they spent.

  • Maxsteele

    Levin sums up what is going through my mind perfectly. Yes, Paul has some conservative positions but he is not a conservative. Libertarians and Communism are two sides of the same utopian coin. They both completely ignore human instincts and naturay behaviour and think they can create a perfect utopian society that will never and can never exist but look great on paper.

    • I disagree about the libertarianism comparison with communism. Libertarianism and anarchy are confused, but I think libertarianism is meant (at least here) as an adherence to Constitutional governance. If you press self-proclaimed libertarians, you will find that many of them are actually anarchists.

      • i like ur logic agreed their is room for a bit of government but when where so far left on the verge of utilitarianism I feel a good dose of libertarian-ism wud put us back in the middle where we ought to be

      • Anonymous

        Not necessarily anarchists. Minarchists certainly, but not anarchists. The sole purpose of the existence of the state in libertarian philosophy is the protection of individual and property rights and the enforcement of contracts.

      • Libertarianism is not Anarchy so if those “self-proclaimed Libertarians” are actually Anarchists, they don’t know what they’re talking about. Anarchists think they’d be able to do whatever they want and not have to answer to anyone. What they don’t realize is that eventually, they’ll be answering to the ones holding the machine guns.

        Mark Levin loves to say Libertarians are actually Anarchists but that just proves how biased he is.

    • You couldn’t be more wrong. What is a conservative? A conservative is someone that is against the growth of government. What do Libertarians want? Most Libertarians want to drastically shrink government, likely to the equivalent of pre-1900 USA. It seems most Republicans want to minimally shrink government… maybe just get rid of Obamacare and cut some taxes. Because of this, I would argue that Libertarians are MORE conservative than Republicans.

      Social Conservatives are actually in favor of more government, because they want government to regulate and tell people how to live.

  • Maxsteele

    Agreed! But not worse, the same but different. (Does that make sense) LOL

  • Maxsteele

    Agreed, partially. Not worse. The same but different (does that make sense?)

  • Levin was completely correct on why Paul wont win. A real conservative would defend his country not blame it for being attacked by terrorists.

    • rU Paul is a spokesman for al-qaeda

  • correction he didnt blame the american people he blamed policy thats the same think as blaming obama for the crappy condition the economy is in

    • You mean the policy that defeated Communism and kept you safe for decades? Never has isolationism ever worked in a free country. It is disgusting to blame us for insane Muslim extremists making WAR on us.

      • You realize that out “policy” for defeating communism in the middle east was one of the contributing factors to the Taliban coming to power, don’t you? Not to mention it is the same policy that aided Usama Bin Laden decades ago……All in the name of defeating communism.

        In our zeal to defeat communism, there has been so much harm done as a result…Look at Guatemala, for example.

        • So we should have allowed communism to spread across the world to cause misery to us huh? Hey lets all be like Paul and close our eyes and pray bad things never happen to us …….I mean it isn’t like terrorists Hate all non Muslims right?

          • For one thing, there was no way that Communism would have taken root in Afganistan back during the Cold War. The Muslims and the Muja-hadeen (the predecessors of the Taliban) were anti-communist because of the “atheistic” characteristics of the ideology. –Besides, the region is harsh and most invaders tend to leave it. Alexander the Great could not conquer it. The Soviets’ fight there was going to fail considering the incompatibility with the region as well as the people.

            You also have to bear in mind, there were whole nations that chose to become communist (Guatemala is a good example). Should we force them to not follow their choice? How anti-freedom.

            And as for fighting against communism in Guatemala… The so-called “communist” in power there was a democratically elected president. The people of Guatemala WANTED him and his reforms. The CIA took him out through a propaganda and psychological war, and he was eventually forced to resign. —– BECAUSE OF OUR INTERVENTION THERE, the new government (that we supported) became a military dictatorship, and then took it upon itself to commit genocide against the Maya Indians for the next 30 years. —-Is fighting communism worth the lives of 100,000 innocent Maya Indians?

            • Our non intervention caused millions of Jews lives as well. How many would have been alive today if it wasn’t for the Paul like mindset?

              • The Holocaust was not the reason we entered WWII. We stepped in because Japan attacked us, and then Germany declared war on us. That is hardly a parallel case.

                And honestly, what gave you the impression that Paul’s mindset prohibits intervention in the most extreme situations? His position is when it is none of our business that we shouldn’t. WWII was our business. I.e., we were attacked, so war is therefore justified.

                • I didnt say it was the reason we went into WWII. I said it was a something that happened because we said it wasnt out business.

                • So is it our duty to stop genocide?

                • It is our duty to try. It doesnt have to be war but for gods sake to ignore it is evil.

                • I don’t think anyone has suggested that it should be ignored; it shouldn’t be.

            • Anonymous

              I wonder if people are catching things like US support of the Rebels who took over Libya? Or the media reporting that they were Al Qaeda? Then all the reports of the new Muslim power killing off blacks in a genocidal sweep? It seems to me that Israel is not better off for this, or Egypt, or many other things that we have effected in the middle east. I sometimes wonder if we only support Israel financially and in rhetoric.

        • K-Bob

          Every single action you take in life has some consequence that some jerk could claim is terrible. Ron Paul is selling guilt as the basis for policymaking.

          It’s exactly the same crap the global warming alarmists are selling.

          • Hey, all I’m saying is if we had let the region alone before stepping into it, the problem would now be Russia’s. After all, the muja-hadeen and Usama Bin Laden were enemies of the soviets’ first.

            • except The soviet union was our problem. Or perhaps you don’t remember what true communism looks like.

              • No, we made it our problem. We created the picture of the evil-communist boogy man beneath our beds. The Soviets never attacked us.

                • I see……..So the communist never attacked us. Just stole secrets and tried to subvert all free nations……..

                • Hey, we stole their secrets too, So I’d say we’re square.

    • True, blaming the policy is not the same as blaming the people of the nation. Hey, even if our policy is a factor with 9/11, that is not the same as saying that the attacks are justifiable because the murdering of civilians is unjustifiable no matter what.

      But some people have this false dichotomy that we either agree with the blind nationalists here in the U.S., or we agree with Al Queda. — This is a false dilemma. I say both Al Queda and the nationalists in this country are wrong!

      • Anonymous

        I believe that nationalism can take on an ugly persona, but national unity is necessary if only to defend the borders of a union of states so that individual freedoms can be protected.

        I agree that nationalism is reaching levels that could be defined as dangerous in their capacity to emulate that persona which allowed Hitler to take his country down the road that they traveled.

        Where political discourse is supposed to be patriotic, it seems that it is becoming terroristic to those who defend nationalism as the only patriotic position.

        • Are you IV league? Just wondering because of your writing style.

          • Anonymous

            No. I am a small town tradesman with a GED. Human nature intrigues me, therefor I study all things based on the human condition and equation. I am also a Christian, which may very well assist in this understanding more than any other factor. Wisdom is imparted on those who trust in God, and listen to His council. God created liberty, and instilled it in the desires of all mankind.

            Thanks for asking.

  • Go Levin!!

  • Anonymous


  • Anonymous

    This is why I love Mark Levin. Wouldn’t he make an awesome President? Levin – Limbaugh 2012!

    • Anonymous

      Lol, that would be an awful ticket. Don’t get me wrong, I love both of them and I’m glad they are on the air, but I don’t think they would do so good trying to work with the left. There might be a few punches thrown, lol.

  • I posted this on 🙂

  • This is why I don’t understand why opposing viewers call into radio programs. The Ron Paul supporter had several good arguments, and I am sure he could have used him but Levin has complete control of his mike. Its the same for liberal callers. Yeah liberal callers might actually be stupid, but lets not pretend that it was a fair debate that Levin won. Like I said before on the latest Levin post. Ill never understand the infatuation with him. You call Levin “The great one” while calling Ron Paul supporters cult like. You call liberals disrespectful and anti intellectual, meanwhile you listen to Levin call MSNBC MSLSD, and Ron Paul Ru Paul. Lets not forget that Levin doesn’t even have a voice for radio. Regardless of how much you agree with him, Levin’s voice isn’t even pleasant to listen too. At least Beck and Rush have good voices regardless of what they are saying. I just don’t understand the infatuation at all.

    • Exactly. I especially like when a Ron Paul supporter will call and start making Levin look like a fool, Levin will cut them off and hang up on them. He’ll then claim the caller was the one to hang up. Yeah right, as if someone’s going to wait on hold for an hour to put Levin in his place only to hang up and run like a scared little boy. Who does Levin think he’s kidding?

      Another thing, Levin will say the reason the Left calls Conservatives “racists” and “homophobic” is because they can’t stand on the merits of their arguments and have to resort to name-calling. He then goes and does the same thing to Ron Paul by labeling him a racist, a homophobe, and an anti-Semite. How pathetic. What are you afraid of, Mark? Does Ron Paul make too much sense for you to handle?

      Levin, do me a favor and keep disparaging Ron Paul. As they say, there is no such thing as bad publicity, lol.

      • Anonymous

        Yeah, dream on. The caller wasn’t making a fool of Levin and Levin answered the caller’s questions. The call ended when Levin asked the caller a question and the caller refused to answer. The caller only wanted a platform to spew pro-Paul talking points, and he didn’t want to converse. He deserved to be cut off.

    • K-Bob

      I don’t even know why Ron Paul supporters bother with these comments. You clearly sound more at home with the MSNBC, HuffPo, Krugman and Mother Jones sites.

      Ron Paul isn’t conservative, and he won’t win the Republican nomination.

      • Conservatives want to shrink government… which candidate wants to shrink government the most? Ron Paul (cuts $1 Trillion the first year; balances the budget by year 3 while lowering taxes). Which candidates have a record for growing government? Newt, Mitt, and Perry. Obviously, they’re the ones that are NOT conservatives.

        • K-Bob

          Pseudo-Cons like Paul and his followers have been desperately trying to redefine the word “Conservative” in an attempt to disenfranchise actual conservatives.

          They call all the actuals “Neo-cons” and then they trot out a bunch of mashed up, poorly understood Libertarian and Trotskyite themes and claim it’s conservative.

          It’s not working.

      • Anonymous

        how is RP not conservative??

    • Anonymous

      Not true with this call. The caller asked his questions and Levin answered every one of them. Levin asked the caller how Paul voted on issues that Levin pointed out and the caller tried diverting the topic to something more favorable to Paul. That was the only time Levin cut him off, and it’s because the caller wouldn’t answer the question and tried getting in a pro-Ron Paul speech. It’s Levin’s show, so he’s not going to let it veer off into a Ron Paul commercial.

      • Oh oh Earth does Levin know? He cut him off after less than a sentence. And what kind of loaded question was the one about Reagan.

        • The kind that shows Paul’s true nature of not being able to defend the Nation.

        • Anonymous

          Ron Paul abandoned Reagan (and the Republican party) because of his use of the military. Levin let the caller list of bad policies that Newt got behind and then countered with the good policies Newt got behind plus he listed the bad polices that Ron Paul got behind. Levin isn’t supposed to counter the assumptions made by the caller? The mention of Reagan was to point out the fact that Ron Paul is an isolationist that won’t put any stock into our military. It’s fair game. Reagan is a hero to the Republican party and a loser to Ron Paul. I’m glad Levin pointed that out.

          • He voted against defeating the Soviet Union? That is a heck of a reach. Also the question on why Lincoln sucks is easy. There are several, but Habeas Corpus is the big one.

  • I had to listen to this 4 times now and loved it every time…I especially liked the

    How did Ron Paul vote to help Reagan Defeat the Soviet Union?

    Let me tell you about….

    NO NO answer the question…

    uuuuuugh…..Let me tell you about….

    NO NO answer the question…

    uuuuuugh…..Let me tell you about….

    NO…Ron Paul…..

    From there Levin rips the guy a new ______one (you fill in the blank) and the Paulbot discovers he is in the big pool….and forgot his floatievest from the kiddie pool.

    CLASSIC! EPIC! Mark Levin ROCKS!!!

    • Ben Lee

      I’m laughing because of the irony. You don’t realize the script you typed makes Mark Levin look like a spineless, fool scared to death of an opposing opinion. Talking over your debate opponent is not a sign of confidence. Epic, yes. Epic fail.

      • You miss the point entirely….the guy cannot even answer a yes or no question. He is soo consumed with his Ron Paul talking points he is a PaulRobot….and you sound like a person with sour grapes.

  • Anonymous

    If Levin’s definition of conservatism is what a conservative is, well, then I don’t WANT to be a conservative…and I consider myself a conservative. Levin’s arguments have no basis in reality.

    1) Ron Paul doesn’t support the military – False. He doesn’t support militarism, forced democracy by way of bombs, nor putting our troops in harms way when it doesn’t serve the purposes of our national defense. Ron Paul is all about our national defense and has stated that time and again. Levin is in the mold of Henry Kissinger who said “military men are dumb animals to be used to assert foreign policy”.

    2) Mark Levin speaks of liberty, however, he doesn’t have the concept of what liberty is; it is literally freedom from control. Human liberty originate from a single self-evident principle: The individual owns himself/herself. All actions an individual may take stems from that principle. It’s ok if you don’t like what another person does, but you have no right to use government to engineer society to your own whims. That, as Mark says, is statism.

    3) Reagan himself knew and wrote in his own memoirs of his own failings. Reagan was an awesome candidate. I believe Reagan was a great man. I still think he was the greatest president of modern times. However, to lick the man’s boots as infallible, as Levin does, is dishonest at best, deceptive at worst.

    4) If anyone examines the history of Abraham Lincoln honestly they know the man was racist at his core (he believed blacks were socially inferior and should have been repatriated to Africa or colonized to Caribbean islands), and a statist (suspended habeas corpus separate from congress, authorized Sherman’s march to the sea, imprisoned over 13,000 political opponents, intimidate the press and, in some cases, shutdown newspapers, and even deported a congressman who opposed him). Lincoln’s aim was not to end slavery. His aim was to keep the southern states in the union. Lincoln even said so himself in a letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley. Of course, that would require looking it up and actually reading it. There’s no doubt that the great result of the loss of over 600,000 American lives was the end of slavery, but, to give Lincoln credit as that being his primary objective, is completely untrue.

    5) Ron Paul doesn’t believe in national suicide. That’s preposterous. He’s just not looking for dragons to slay. He actually voted to go after bin Laden in Afghanistan. Iraq? Dragons. Libya? Talk about blowback. Kadhaffi is gone, but now the black flag of al qaeda flies. Good call. If Paul believed in national suicide, he wouldn’t be advocating for the dramatic decreases in government spending. If he believed in national suicide, he would not be advocating for safeguards to our liberty. If nothing else, he’s trying to keep us the nation that is the light of liberty for the world. If we sacrifice our liberty under the guise of saving ourselves from those who attack us because “they hate us for our freedom”, please tell me who wins?

    Let’s face it. Mark Levin worked in the Reagan administration and is a Reaganite through and through. Mark just doesn’t like it that Paul criticized Reagan. Plain and simple. Mark would advocate for “national suicide” under a Romney or Gingrich presidency rather than someone who would “put the razor blades and pills away” simply because that man poked holes in Mark’s favorite comic book hero. It shows. Just listen to his show. The proof of this is that the man can’t have an honest disagreement with anyone without acting like a ten year old kid.

    • So true, you actually put into words what I could not.

    • You make we cant to remove my comment from earlier. That summed up more fully what is going on far more than my ramblings could. Props and I wish I could like this several more times.

      • I wish I could like this several more times.

        Ahhh, but that would be voter fraud. XD

    • K-Bob

      You get major points for unintentional comedy.

      Ron Paul 2012!!! Because xenophobia costs less, and studying history is hard!!

  • Levin’s influence is clearly waning- I’m sure all the cheers in the debates for conservative anti-war positions drive all you chickenhawks ABSOLUTELY NUTS!

    • Anonymous

      His influence is not the one waning.

    • Anonymous

      No, because it just shows how nutty Ron Paul’s followers are. Tell me, if he’s so right and so popular, why has he always failed to have any influence ANYWHERE?

      • Tyler Koteskey

        . . . except in Iowa and New Hampshire, where he’s behind the lead by one and two points respectively . . .

        • Anonymous

          He always looks good early on because there are 500 candidates and the anti-Paul vote is spread thin. Paul has a loyal base, but his numbers (in terms of perentages) will drop rapidly when other candidates start dropping out and the anti-Paul vote consolidates. Time will tell.

  • I think the bottom line is, no matter how we look at it, Paul is a SOB on foreign policy. He cites the alleged imposition of a “despot” in Iran as the cause for Islamic terrorism, never mind that the guy we ousted was backed by both Islamists and Socialists angry that the Shah and the previous Shah were working on modernizing the country, educating women, and so on and so forth. Iran in 1953 could easily have been 1979. He seems to take the reflexive anti-American position. Among his followers there is also a strong anti-American, anti-Israel, NWO-believing element. This is very disturbing.

    HOWEVER. Ron Paul at least has a character that lets us know exactly where he stands, and he refuses to budge from those positions once he has made them. I also suspect that he will fulfill his constitutional role if given a declaration of war. In other words, a strong conservative congress would do well to restrain Paul from doing anything stupid to the military. On the other hand, I wouldn’t trust a Congress under Newt or Romney. It’s better for Congress to fight Paul than a committed progressive, especially a progressive who is a smooth talker.

    In the end, none of our candidates truly understand the Russians or Chinese who, I assure you, are our main enemies in the world.

    • One question. What is the one area of control a president has direct and immediate access to?

      • Anonymous

        The armed forces, of course. I think Ricardo is suggesting that Paul could be stopped from impacting our military and what it does. I think he’s wrong. Ron Paul would not utilize our military on those emergency situations where he should.

        • Ben Lee

          Hey guys hate to burst your neocon enthusiasm for more wars, but there is NO MONEY to finance your adventures unless you unleash Bernake and the Fed printing presses and destroy the dollar. Our GDP to debt ratio right now is nearly as high as the 40’s when we were in a World War and the whole country was militarized. But we didn’t go into that war with a sky high GDP to debt ratio!

          • Anonymous

            I’d hate to burst YOUR bubble, but I’m not a neocon, so take your labeling and stick it you know where.

            I do not support forcing democracy anywhere. However, I am very supportive of protecting democracy and removing threats or attacks against it. I am for pro-actively fighting terrorism. I am for protecting our allies, our interests, our oil supply, our trade, and our national security.

            I did not support the military aide to Libya. We have no interests there and the threat from Gaddafi was minimal…unlike Saddam.

            You Ron Paul supporters better wake up and smell the coffee. The majority of our necessities are imported, and we have a LOT of interests that we need to protect around the world. Like it or not, that’s a fact.

  • Anonymous

    RP is on record saying that Social Security is unconstitutional. You could kiss the entire senior citizen vote goodbye.

    RP has very troubling positions. He is posing a threat in Iowa and Paul has yet to suffer the attacks the remainder of the pack has.

    He is 76, the media killed McCain for being 71. WAKE UP PEOPLE.

    • Anonymous

      Ron Paul doesn’t have as much support as it looks like. The anti-Paul vote is being distributed among quite a few other candidates, but as the field narrows Paul will lose ground….a lot of it. He has no chance. He has a solid base that will support him no matter what, but I don’t think he has the ability to draw in voters that are outside of that group.

      • Ben Lee

        You mean like Democrats and Independents who BTW would never vote for Newt Gingrich? It may make you cringe, but people like Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher and Ralph Nader speak very highly of Paul. If you want to beat Obama you need some segment of the Democrats and Independents. With his views on endless overseas wars and the endless drug war, Paul will get obviously more Democrats and Independents than all the other candidates. Newt Gingrich has approval ratings among Democrats in single digits. Sorry, you can’t win the election with only Republican votes.

        • Anonymous

          Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher and Ralph Nader? That’s the endorsement you think that will help Ron Paul? Anyone that listens to the first three will vote for Obama, and no one listens to Ralph Nader except for Paul supporters.

          We do need the Independents, but not the Democrats. The Independents always choose the President because whoever gets them wins. I think you’re dreaming if you believe Independents will mostly vote for Ron Paul. I saw a poll the other day where Independents listed big government as the number one issue in the coming election, and Independents usually go Republican. I don’t know which candidate they will get behind, but I don’t think it will be Obama.

          • Anonymous

            Whoah hold up, you’re saying that Paul isn’t electable because he can’t attract crossover votes. Then you list “big government as the number one issue in the coming election.”

            Have you SEEN Ron Paul’s budget cutting plan? Paul is by far the GOP candidate most principled and committed to actually reducing the size of government, as opposed to only things he or she doesn’t like, as is the case with the other Republican contenders. They’re all for reducing big government when it comes to the tax code, not so much when it comes to their support for restricting civil liberties, continuing military adventurism, and pursuing failed drug policies. You’d have a better argument saying that Ron Paul’s reduction of big government would be TOO conservative for general election voters (I happen to think he’s the only one willing to face long-term reality in that regard but that’s just my opinion).

            Independents (and yes democrats, Obama used republicans in 08) are precisely why Ron Paul has the best chance at the GOP nomination, and no, they don’t just listen to conservative commentators either.

    • Tyler Koteskey

      Not true. He may think Social Security is unconstitutional but that doesn’t mean he’s automatically going to hang seniors out to dry. Look into his positions, stop the blanket assumptions:

  • Anonymous

    Fantastic. Passive isolationism is Ron Paul’s motto. I would like to hear someone ask Ron Paul if he would have let Saddam Hussein succeed in his attempt to overtake Middle Eastern oil. Would he have allowed Hitler to continue his rampage across Europe? After all, those were not attacks against us. I would really love to hear Ron Paul’s response to those questions. I think it might be another deer in the headlights moment like when he said we don’t need the Patriot Act because Oklahoma handled the bombing on their own without it. Newt….”they succeeded”. Priceless.

    • Ben Lee

      I’m sure you know Ron Paul was one of the very few congressmen on both sides who supported Israel’s right to bomb Iraq’s nuclear reactor in the 80’s and said it was none of our business. I’m sure you know the Israeli state was created on the premise of independence and self-reliance. You cannot have independence if you need another country to fight your wars. Israel has by the far the strongest military in the Middle East and over 300 nukes. Please explain to our US soldiers (who BTW overwhelmingly support Ron Paul with donations) why they need to go die in Iran for the state of Israel and also the Saudi monarchy which is dying for the US to bomb Iran.

      I’m sure you support the Patriot Act and DHS and TSA. Police states do tend to be safer. Of course, they tend to arrest people without trials and well, we would never do that here. Oh wait, the new Defense Authorization Bill would allow the government to arrest any American citizens on American soil and hold them indefinitely and without trial or any form of due process – all on the pretense of being an amorphously-defined “enemy combatant” And “anybody” means anybody – a political dissident, a journalist, a protestor – even you. But keep telling yourself that Ron Paul is a nut if it makes you feel safer.

      • Anonymous

        Yes, he supports Israel’s right to defend themselves, but without our help. It’s none of our business.

        We cannot have independence if we rely on other countries to fight our wars? Really? So banding together to defeat a common enemy (that’s a threat to the entire free world) is wrong?

        Israel may have the strongest military in the Middle East, but that’s a far cry from having the capability to destroy Iran’s nuclear programs without our help.

        Our military personel overwhelmingly support Ron Paul? Show the proof.

        I don’t have to explain anything to the members of our military. They join to serve, and they deserve all the respect and gratitude in the world for that. But they do not decide policy and they do not decide where they go or why.

        Yes, I’m for the Patriot Act. You have not lost a single freedom because of it.

        The DHS is a joke. They haven’t accomplished anything I’m aware of to thwart anything at all. It is being used to target conservatives as extremists and threats to national security instead of where the real threat is coming from. They won’t even call Islamist extremism terrorism. This department is being used as a political weapon.

        I’m against the TSA. The system they use is a waste of time. Targeting grandma while they ignore the real threats are eventually going to bite us in the rear. However, I am very much for looking for behavioral warnings or for profiling. If the Muslims don’t like it, too freaking bad. Target the group where the attacks are coming from.

        • Anonymous

          There are a hundred more my friend. Nobody in the media is contesting it. I have family that has served in multiple deployments in Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan. They all say that the wars have nothing to do with protecting the US.

          There are many, many returning vets opposing the wars. They are not hard to find.

          • Anonymous

            Excellent post, let’s not forget that Dr. Paul has more military support than all of the other candidates in the race COMBINED (GOP + Obama).

            Strange that Paul is apparently so anti-military according to some people on this site when in reality, active duty military represent one of the biggest sources of donations behind the Paul campaign.


          • Anonymous

            I don’t contest it. It’s quite understandable why they would vote for Ron Paul because they are the ones being sent all over the world and whose lives are being put at risk. I’d like to see a poll of percentages instead of monetary totals, because that might paint a different story.

            In any case, the President and Congress decide what wars we fight, not the military personel. I totally respect their opinions because they are the backbone of continued freedom, but if we allow them to choose which battles get waged and which ones don’t the President wouldn’t be the commander of the armed forces.

      • The USA has never fought Israel’s wars, unlike many other countries US soldiers have never been called or put into service to fight for Israel. And in Israel we have full sovereignty, as allies we rely on US support and it is very valued. That doesn’t mean you are fighting wars for Israel. The USA fights wars in its own interests, just because you don’t personally see that which is obvious and apparent is no reason to smear Israel, like Ron Paul supporters and Ron Paul himself cannot help but seem to do constantly.

        Sick of these twists and half truths always spurting from RP supporters, sick of dealing with them in general, most especially because there seems to be a real animosity to my country from them EVEN as they pretend Ron Paul is great for Israel so that they can mislead people for whom this is an important issue, to VOTE FOR HIM. It’s truly vile. That’s my opinion, I will double my efforts now to tell people the truth about Ron Paul, and his many supporters who hate Israel, hate American ideals, and think that being Libertarian is the height of conservative thought.

        If Ron Paul was such a great supporter of Israel, you all wouldn’t need to be bending over backwards night and day to justify his frankly ludicrous positions re Israel for the past 30 years. I am particularly impressed by how he votes w/ terrorists like Hamas, and Hezbollah, where he blames America, where he skates the line of 9/11 trutherism.

        BTW I can explain this to you but you will never understand because you don’t see Iran as a threat to the USA, despite the fact that everyone else does. Did it ever occur to you that maybe it is you who is gravely mistaken reading world events? I doubt it. Iran has been killing US soldiers, Iran has been stating for 30+ years that America is a great Satan and chanting in every mosque every Friday “Death to America”. US soldiers are fighting to defend America, frankly I think you RP supporters are insulting ingrates.

        Have a nice day.

  • The Bad News is that Ron Paul could win Iowa. Gingrich has no serious campaign organization to appose the onslaught of Paulbots.

    The Good news is that Ron Paul has no national momentum.

    InTrade this morning:

    Romney 50%
    Gingrich 31%
    Paul 7.7%

    Gingrich is also losing his mo. Just a few days ago Newt was within a few points of Romney. All the baggage is hitting the fan so Levine might find himself in a short line to vote for Newt. Conservative Jews like Levine, Dennis Prager, David Horowitz, Barry Rubin have all read between the lines and are convinced Ron Paul is anti-Semitic. Glenn Beck stopped short of calling Paul an anti-Semite and chose to refer to it as “lack of support for Israel.”

    Here’s what Beck ACTUALLY said:

    Perry/Rubio 2012 because they don’t need no stinkin’ Wicken vote.

    • Ben Lee

      Ah yes, the anti-Semitic card. To be pulled out in order to scare off any criticism of the Progressive, Wilsonian experiment of endless overseas wars. Are the US Navy, US Army and US Air Force filled with anti-Semites because they are the top supporters to Paul’s campaign?
      Are most military veterans anti-Semites when only 33% of them say Afghanistan and Iraq were worth the costs?

      • When a whole bunch of Jews think you’re anti-Semitic it’s time to sit down and do some soul searching. Assuming that Ron Paul has a soul.

        • A whole bunch of African Americans also think the Republican Party is racist…..using your logic, we should consider the possibility that the Republican party is racist….right?

          • A brilliant political analyst like yourself recognize the allusion to the famous axiom: If everybody tells you your drunk, you better sit down.

            I’m sure you see that don’t you?

  • Anonymous

  • Anonymous

    Shouting down a caller without giving him a chance to answer is not the same thing as defeating him in an argument. It doesn’t speak highly for anyone who thought Levin appeared as anything less than childish in this exchange.

    But as to some of Levin’s inane questions, which bill was it exactly that called for defeating the Soviet Union? I’ve looked all around but I couldn’t find the Defeat the Soviet Union Bill proposed in Congress. As to defense spending under Reagan, Paul voted in favor of Star Wars, for instance, so he was strong on building our national defense. So strong that when Paul was endorsed by Reagan for re-election Reagan said, “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.”

    It was Reagan’s militarism that he opposed, the same adventurism in Lebanon that got over 200 marines killed and which Reagan said in his autobiography was his deepest regret. For a refresher, that was when Reagan decided that it was best to stop beating the beehive with a stick in the Middle East because Middle Eastern politics were too irrational. What a naive, kooky foreign policy decision.

    Speaking of the collapse of the Soviet Union, that was an economic collapse brought about because of the Soviets increased military spending, in part due to their 9-year war in…Afghanistan. The graveyard of empires. Sound familiar? Perhaps there was someone in the old USSR that tried to warn them, but he was probably dismissed as an isolationist crackpot by frightened neocons.

    • Mark Levin: Revisionist Historian.

    • KenInMontana

      It was Reagan’s militarism that he opposed, the same adventurism in Lebanon that got over 200 marines killed…

      I’m going to take exception with this mischaracterization of Reagan’s deployment of the Marines to Lebanon. Firstly, I served with many of those Marines, I lost many friends that day in addition to my brother Marines, four young men that I had known since boot camp and I deeply resent your implication that they died as the result of military adventurism. The Marines are our “charter force”, do you know what that means? No? I’ll spell it out for you. The Marine Corps is the United States’ force contribution to UN Peacekeeping forces by treaty, the mission to Lebanon was a UN Peacekeeping mission sent to prevent the Lebanese Civil War from spreading to a wider conflict and engulfing the entire region, which they accomplished by the way. It was not “adventurism” that lead to this tragedy it was keeping our word by honoring the treaty that our nation signed. Many Ron Paul supporters gleefully throw the quotes from Jefferson’s Inaugural and Washington’s Farewell into the teeth of anyone who might question their candidate’s foreign policy, well they have all been paraphrasing and misrepresenting what Washington said. This is what Washington actually said;

      “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.” ~Washington’s Farewell Address

      I would draw your attention to this particular passage, “So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith.”, this has to do with Honor, a concept I believe is not completely foreign to you. This is what Reagan was doing, keeping to our word that had been given, it was not adventurism. As to my own feelings about the UN, I have previously stated them in this forum before, but just for you I will reiterate them for you here and now, I firmly believe that we should fully withdraw from the organization and all relevant treaties, then present the Secretary General with an eviction notice and put those buildings to better use. I have no personal truck with you JA and I will defend to the death your right to speak your mind on issues, after all I took an Oath to that very ideal many years ago and it had no expiration date.

      /Rant Off

      • Pushing the ‘like’ button wasn’t enough.


        • KenInMontana

          Thank You Sir. 🙂

  • Anonymous

    The RINOs can’t stand a true conservative like Ron Paul. All Levin cares about is the GOP and not the USA.

  • That pretty much sums it up.

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul Military Service

    • Ron Paul believes that military service helps the country and is personally rewarding.

    • He served as a USAF flight surgeon in the 60’s.

    • Following his Air Force service, Paul enlisted in the Air National Guard from 1965 to 1968.

    The TRUTH is that the military supports Ron Paul because he is the only candidate that supports them:

    “In this campaign, Paul is getting more donations from people who work for the military than either President Obama or any of the other Republican presidential candidates.”

    • I respect people who serve tremendously, especially in the USA these days since you have a voluntary service.

      I do want to point out that this talking point about Ron Paul getting all the military to support him.. This talking point is based on a fundraising report from 1 quarter of fundraising and based on a total of about 30,000 dollars in donations. But that doesn’t stop every Ron Paul supporter from making it seem like the enitre US armed forces are rushing out to elect Paul. That is not the case.

      • Anonymous

        OK, since you are unsatisfied with just the 1st quarter, let’s look at the 2nd quarter and the 3rd quarter then also. Over 113,000 dollars and the trend seems to continue, but even more so. He not only doubles all his opponent’s combined, he nearly triples them.

        • It’s wonderful he has dedicated supporters, when he loses I hope those particular people will also donate to the winner so Obama will himself lose.

          It can be added to the way more than that number of US service people who will, and have donated to the GOP candidate in every election cycle without Ron Paul! Go USA!

          • NO Paul supporter will support mediocrity. If he does not win, we’ll sit out.

            It is not the fault of Paul or his supporters, in fact it is the fault of the party for proping up such piss poor candidates.

            • Anonymous

              Wow, who is worse? The sorry man who commits a rape, or the self-righteous one who stands by watching and says ‘not my problem, I didn’t do it’. If we have a chance to do (or stop) something, shouldn’t we do it? You can’t say I’m vindicated ’cause I didn’t get what I wanted.

            • Anonymous

              Then you can look at yourself in the mirror knowing that Obama is back in office because of people like you. I support whoever is on the (R) ticket.

  • Jason siejutt

    I’m not saying Ron Paul is the answer but can someone tell me what one of the establishment republicans has done over the last 20 years that has been good for the united states? I think it’s funny that all of you want to continue down the road we are on. Newt is as establishment is they get. Do you think he will get rid of the EPA, department of education, or anyone one of the many government agency’s the feds have no business having.

    • How about defend you?

      • Anonymous

        LOL! Thanks! I totally wasn’t under the impression that I needed to be defended.

        Sorry, the only people I defended in my 7 years in the Army were the Kuwaitis. I didn’t defend the Somalis. I didn’t defend the Bosnians (we actually hurt their ability to defend themselves by denying arms shipments). I didn’t defend anyone in Panama.

  • Jason siejutt

    I’m not saying Ron Paul is the answer but can someone tell me what one of the establishment republicans has done over the last 20 years that has been good for the united states? I think it’s funny that all of you want to continue down the road we are on. Newt is as establishment is they get. Do you think he will get rid of the EPA, department of education, or anyone one of the many government agency’s the feds have no business having.

    • Anonymous

      Reagan tried to eliminate dept of ed but the Senate REPUBS blocked it. Will NEVER happen. President only has so much control.

    • Didn’t Newt Gingrich engineer a conservative comeback, and then push and get a balanced budget through a Dem President?

      Oh yeah, he did. Didn’t Ron Paul feast on 30 billion in earmarks, 157 million just this past year? Sure he did.. but HE DID IT WITH INTEGRITY!!!

      Send more Ron Paul Kool-Aid please, I am running low. thanks!

  • Steven Urcinoli

    To Mr.levin hide your pills, stay away from subway platforms, traffic, buildings with more than 2 floors.
    Because after January 3rd, you’re going to be in a very, very weak emotional state..

  • its a new day and I see the paulbots have come out to spin. Its hard to spin the audio. The caller wouldnt answer the question cause A. He ether didnt know . Or B. didnt like the Idea of Paul being shown as weak on defense. Paul Is a hippie stuck in the sixties thinking all evil done in the world is the USA’s fault.

    • The caller was trying to answer the queesstion, Levin as does Hannity, kept cutting him off. I knew where the caller was trying to go…and so did Levin, which is why he was cut off, Levin has no arguement with someone who follows the law of land strictly. Who could?

  • TRStrunk

    Gingrich isn’t a Conservative. Gingrich isn’t a Liberal. Gingrich isn’t a RINO. What Gingrich is. Is the smartest man in any room he’s standing in. Is a person who has honor and isn’t afraid to admit when he has made a mistake. Gingrich is a Leader who, with his intelligence has made both houses of Congress and the President of the United States cut, cap, and balance the budget while at the same time maintaining the strongest and most powerful military in the world and producing a surplus in funds

  • Steven Urcinoli

    The fact of the matter is we’re broke. We have no money for any of this shit. Wait…let’s build some schools and mosques in Afganistan! Forget about our country, we don’t need it here!

    Let’s send in 100,000 troops to root out 1000 or so terrorists! Forget about the 50 other countries that have terrorists, we’ll get to them when we finish up in the middle east, Wait? We may be bankrupt by then…So what! We have to stay there and straighten those heathens out! We’ll make them use a toilet or else..

    We need those troops in Germany. Who else is going to stoke their economy with money from our troops! And, or course we may need to shoot across the boarder to deal with them Russkies WW2 style!

    Let’s worry about the boarder on Pakistan and Afganistan. God knows, we don’t need any protection between our country and Mexico. Those thousand or so beheadings and killings down there right on our boader don’t affect us. know what, I used to be just like many anti-Ron Paul posters here.
    I used to believe everything FOX news, Levin and the others used to say. It never really sit right with me.

    And Iran getting nukes. We have to stop them!!!! Even though we have no concreate evidence they’re even trying to make them, let alone have em. We’ll destroy that whole country…just in case. Even though, sooner or later regardless they’ll have em and more determined to use them.

    I did much research on Ron Paul and his views.

    It lead me to only one conclusion: Ron Paul is the only one telling the truth.

    About the FED, and just about everything else.

    • Ron Paul is ignorant about the world and hates his own country…Thats obvious to any with a clear head.

      • David,

        You are making claims without backing them, I am prepared to back his real positions with facts not emotional diatribe based on what you heard on Fox or the radio talking heads. If you did just an hour of research, you will find that Paul represents more of your views that you might think.

        “hates his own country’…really? That alone raises some questions about your knowledge on Dr. Paul

        • How else do you explain his wishing to blame every ill in the world at our shoulders?

          • Anonymous

            He does not blame all the world’s problems on America, but he is not so blinded by nationalism to admit that some of the policies of this country have caused a great deal of problems around the world. If Americans would pull their head out of their flags they would realize that we are not perfect. We, like every country on this planet, make mistakes that have negative consequences. Ron Paul is brave enough and clear headed enough to see and admit this.

            If however, you are unable to see that our country is not perfect then I feel very sorry for you. You live in a place not based on reality. History is full of the mistakes this country has made and unfortunately many of those mistakes have far reaching and long lasting reprecussions. America can be great again but not until it realizes that it has problems that need to be fixed. It is like an alcholic who must first admit he has a problem before he can get around to fixing the problem.

            Please do not blinded by the red, white and blue. It is far from the perfect country you seem to think it is.

    • KenInMontana

      Here are some deployment numbers, they are from 2007, that said I don’t think we are going to get into a slugging match with Russia with the less than 55,000 troops that are stationed in Germany.

  • William Patton

    Mr. Levin is a neo-com, fascist, RNC hack, moron and whoever listens to him is too.

    This fool, Levin, cites Reagan’s Central America policy in the 1980s as a success story?

    In El Salvador, the idiots in the Reagan Administration would pay the Salvadorian government $100 million in cash and arms to “fight” the leftist guerillas. When our allies, the Salvation government military, could not find any guerillas to fight, they would rape a bus full of nuns for fun.

    The Salvadorian government would funnel about 5 percent of their U.S. money back to the guerillas could be assured to continue their fight against them, this way the crooks in the Salvadorian government could be assured that the U.S. would send another $100 million check the next year to keep up the “fight.” Why? Most of the money was going into the pockets of government officials. Great investment neo-cons!

    If the government Reagan fought for in El Salvadore was so successful, why do 1 out of every 6 El Salvadorians in the world live in the United States?
    Read a book Levin. Who pays you to be so stupid?

  • grizzlybear71

    The numbers most recently and frequently referenced are relating to the last two quarters, and the total amount is roughly $150,000. Ron Paul got about $107K of that.

    Here is a bar graph depicting the figures:

    You are correct that these figures do not mean all members of the armed forces support Ron Paul, but they are a continuation of a strong pattern that goes back to the 2008 cycle.

  • Jason siejutt

    I’m not saying Ron Paul is the answer but can someone tell me what one of the establishment republicans has done over the last 20 years that has been good for the united states? I think it’s funny that all of you want to continue down the road we are on. Newt is as establishment is they get. Do you think he will get rid of the EPA, department of education, or anyone one of the many government agency’s the feds have no business having.

  • Anonymous

    Levin is a NeoCon hack. Nothing more nothing less

  • Ron Paul is just a cheap liberal.

  • Mark is embelishing himself on Paul’s position with respect to “national defense”. Paul is for a strong national defense. What he has stated over and over is the reduction of militarism, as we are going broke trying to maintain 900 bases in 131 countries to the tune of over 1 trillion a year that we do not have.Furthermore, there is not where writen in the consitution that authorizes us to have military bases in another sovereign nation.

    Mark represents the establishment and the military industrial complex, no matter how many times he denies it, his outword hatred for Paul comes through loud and clear and is a contridiction to his stance against hate speech and name calling.

    Can anyone deny that Dr. Paul has the countries best interest at heart, whether you agree with him or not? Can anyone deny that he votes consistant with his rhetoric?
    Can anyone deny his prediction of the financial and housing bubble or the decline of the dollar? Can anyone deny that he sites credible sources and or historical facts for his aruements?

    Dr. Paul is not a perfect canddiate to be sure, however he is the only one that is not making this campaign about himself, he is the only one speaking plain truth. He is the only one who is not spending much of his time trying to defend himself or defending “flip-floping” posisitions.

    We will never agree 100% on anything, but if you can agree 75% of the time, you generally call that person a friend. Dr. Paul is a friend of the constitition and of the people.

  • If I had to vote between Newt or Ron Paul, I will definitely vote for Newt!!!

  • Furthermore, NO ONE is saying “its the US’s falt” what the contention is, is that our foreign policy ( developed by Woodrow Wilson) of “spreading democracy around the world’ is what is at issue, the manner in which we treat others via our government, is what is at question and not our country as a whole.

  • I’m Jason in Los Angeles, the caller in this clip. I was not calling on behalf of Ron Paul, though I am supporting supporting Paul in the primary since he’s the only constitutional candidate running. I called Levin’s show because he claims to fight big government but continually blasts the only candidate with a record of railing against big government. I understand Levin and other neocon warmongers hate Paul’s foreign policy but that doesn’t change the reality that Paul’s platform here is one of traditional conservative foreign policy.

    Mark Levin says Ron Paul is anti-Israel…but in reality, Paul’s foreign policy is BETTER for Israel. Just ask Netanyahu, who agrees with Paul that our military assistance is no longer necessary in Israel. And Paul was also the only Congressman to defend Israel’s attack on Iraq in the early 80’s. Ron Paul defends Israel’s sovereignty all the time, Levin just fails to talk about that.

    Levin also ignores the fact that Ron Paul was one of very few Republicans who supported Reagan in his first primary race. Instead he focuses on Paul’s disappointment with Reagan when he failed to deliver what he campaigned on. As if criticizing your government makes you less conservative or less patriotic.

    I tried to say all this on the air but Levin was to much of a coward to actually let me defend my positions. He turned the volume down on my call and talked over me. Just thought you guys should hear my side of the conversation.

    • Coward? He gave you plenty of time to speak and explained to you why Ron Paul is nutso.

      Sorry dude, you got schooled by the Great One. And you deserved it. And it doesn’t surprise me that you still don’t understand his point.

      • No, he didn’t. He cut my volume off and didn’t allow 90% of my responses on air. The only people who heard my responses were my coworkers who were sitting next to me while Levin talked over me and turned my volume down.

        • But your whole premise was incorrect in the first place. And still he allowed you to make your point and you kept going and going so he silenced you so he could correct you.

          Get over it. It’s a radio show.

          • My premise was incorrect in the first place? The minute before I called in Levin was defending Newt against accusations of being a RINO. Newt’s record flies in the face of what conservative politics is all about but Levin defends him anyway? I called to discuss this and he turned my volume down, I’d hardly say that’s “allowing me to make my point.” Maybe in the backwards world of the neocon – where black is white and freedom is the patriot act or NDAA – that’s allowing me to make a point.

            • Dude get over the fact that he turned your volume down. Otherwise you sound like a WAH-baby.

              Secondly, even now your premise is wrong. He wasn’t defending Newt from being a RINO. He was defending Newt against attacks that he was a Socialist or Marxist.

              Thirdly, he’s never attacked Ron Paul for being a RINO, just a nutso because of his foreign policy.

              • He calls Paul a nutso on foreign policy but then misstates Paul’s entire policy. Maybe if he actually KNEW Paul’s policy he wouldn’t think its so “nutso.”

              • Will keep my part of the bargain, so no worries.

            • Thanks to you, I know realize Levin is a Facist. –That’s fine. Never liked him anyway.

  • It is extremely unfortunate that people believe America’s military caused the downfall of the Soviet Union because it fails to recognize that Communism does not work. The USSR fell because they followed unsustainable policies, not because we built 30,000 nuclear warheads. Call me a “Paultard,” but I simply read into history and not gobble up the mainstream media. Also, unfortunately for Levin, I was not aware that a conservative means building up military to unprecedented levels. Reagan’s militarism put us in debt (with the war on drugs). Ron Paul has mentioned again and again: He is the most conservative on stage right now. No one follows the Constitution like he does, and no one has more respect than individual liberty, the very core of our revolution, than he does. Fail, Levin.

  • Ron Paul is great, this guy is a pussy…hey levin way to throw out pejoritives and interupt your guest like a angry little polemic

  • Reaganite my ass… is what Reagan said about Ron Paul “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.”
    -Ronald Reagan

  • Ben Lee

    I would ask all the Mark Levin supporters here to at least take the time to look up the real history of US involvement in the Middle East instead of putting your hands over your ears and screaming when a dissenting opinion comes in like Levin does. Don’t have to believe what I say, just Google it.

    Want to know why Iran was radicalized and hates America? Ever hear of Operation Ajax? Look it up. In 1953 the democratically elected Iranian prime minister Mosaddegh was removed from power in a coup organised and carried out by the United States CIA at the request of the British MI6. Why did they do that? Because the British were against Mosaddegh attempting to nationalize their oil industry. Guess who they put in his place? The Shah. The Shah then had a 20 year rein of terror and brutalized the Iranian people leading to the rise of fundamentalist Islam and Ayatollah Khomeini. (Does this sound vaguely familiar? It is, because it’s exactly what we did in Egypt by backing dictator Mubarrek and now the Islamic Brotherhood is taking over).

    After Iran was radicalized you know how we covertly supported in a war with them? Yes, Saddam Hussein. US foreign policy has been schizophrenic in the Middle East for 50 years and it’s time to stop taking one step forward and two steps backwards. Can we all agree it’s never in US interests to financially back a dictator? Can we all agree there is such a thing as blowback? Can we all agree with Reagan who said his biggest mistake was putting troops in Lebanon and not realizing the insanity of Middle East politics?

    • Anonymous

      I have looked that up. I’d suggest you get the truth about what radical Islam is about. Not from the media which is trying to be “politically correct”. I’m sure there were some hard feelings toward the US. The dynamic now goes deeper and is not that simple. Many of these people believe they are commanded by their prophet to either convert everyone to Islam or kill them. That…is why they are dangerous. That is deeply in their belief system.

      • Levin and his minions support the Patriot Act. A bunch of NeoCon racist chickenhawks. The last ditch effort now is to call Paul a Racist, which is
        like throwing a Hail Mary pass.

  • Ron Paul is the only conservative running. Levin is a liar & idiot.

  • Who does the active military support with their donations again?

  • Anonymous

    Levin cuts off his nose to spite his face.
    He would rather vote twice for a big government progressive than once for a strict constitutionalist.
    Why? It seems almost personal. Did RP slight Levin in some way?

    I like Rush, Levin, Beck & Paul.
    But, Levin is misguided to support a progressive.
    And, Beck confuses Ron Paul’s foreign policy with Ron Paul’s attitude towards Islam.

    RP’s policy is STOP FUNDING EVERYBODY: the UN, Islam and, yes, even Israel. The return on net is a blessing for Israel.

    RP’s attitude is skewed by a lifetime of watching government lie to gather more power, thus he is reluctant to believe Islam is a threat.
    Just like in The Boy Who Cried Wolf, “Nobody believes a liar…even when he is telling the truth!”

  • Anonymous

    Mark, you are like a man putting water into the warfare side of the swimming pool, who seems utterly frustrated that the welfare side keeps rising.

    We need to ‘drain the swamp’!

  • Anonymous

    Never heard of Levin til he mentioned Ron Paul…it seems to be a smart tactic these days for small timers to get a little attention by mentioning Ron Paul’s name…

    • Anonymous

      “Small Timers” LMAO. Levin is in all the major markets….he’s been around quite a while.

      • Anonymous

        Like I said…small timer…

        It’s a little bubble of warped reality where guys who sit on their ass and speculate over markets and trading are considered anything other than small…Read the writing on the wall. The days of being a “big player” with the markets are drawing to a close. Get a real job.

        • Anonymous

          Nice try. I was talking about RADIO markets. I have a real job and Ron Paul is a fruit loop.


  • Ron Paul and his deluded cultist followers scare me WAY more than the specter of 4 more years of Obama.

  • Ali

    Jewish talk show host Mark Levin believes it is unpatriotic not to fund Israel with American taxpayer dollars. Surprise. Surprise. Wah. Wah.

    More money for Israel. Wave the Israeli flag.

  • Levin ius a total idiot. Oh now if Ron Paul supporters call in, he doesn’t want to talk to them. Wow talk about selective sensorship. Ron Paul wants to specifically define our military’s mission instead of going to war in every nation on earth with no mission goal in sight.

    • Anonymous

      It’s because Paul supporters are annoying and whiney just like Paul himself. Levin isn’t the only one who is sick of hearing the drooling praises of the old fruit loop.

  • Mark. great video and excellent responses. Continue doing what you do – you are making a difference. Little Tboca

  • y2t_bird

    I’m looking forward to the Great Collapse, the one the Paultards know is coming. When it occurs, we’ll have an opportunity to purge our culture of parasitic war mongers who cannot fathom any idea outside of their dogma. Levin & Ilk represent a vast network of criminals sucking our nation dry with debt based currency and perpetual war.

    To my fellow Paultards: do not waste your breath on these monsters, they are goners. Tell it like it is, but do not let them waste your energy, their minds have been programmed to the point where the slightest acknowledgment of physical impossibilities (9-11), wealth confiscation (The Fed), and mass poisoning (environmental & mental) evokes an emotion filled response that is blind to both logic and history.

    Some you win, some you lose, and some you throw away.

  • Mark Levin can’t be this stupid.

    It is impossible for a person to actually be this stupid and arrogant, but if he spent as much time running his mouth doing actual research, I would forgive such useful idiocy – but this isn’t mere useful idiocy.

    Mark Levin looks to me like an operative, no different than a FoxNews or MSNBC or CNN prestitute.

    And yet I have no trouble believing that millions of Americans eat this shit up with a spoon and ask for seconds. This state of affairs was deliberately engineered and for Precisely this purpose of rendering the electorate politically neutered and continually voting for absolute scoundrels and puppets.

    The worst part is, we have no choice but to somehow educate or or wake up zombies and even if Levin is simply a useful idiot whose grasp of geopolitics, history and economics is paper thin, somehow explain the world to him as well. Good luck though with such monumental arrogance.

    “none are so enslaved as those who MISTAKENLY think themselves to be free” -P. Goethe

    • fucking owned

    • Anonymous

      He’s a constitutional scholar and a practicing constitutional attorney. He’s not stupid. He’s right on about Ron Paul and his drooling cult of supporters.

      • Levin and his minions support the Patriot Act. A bunch of NeoCon chickenhawks. The last ditch effort now is to call Paul a Racist, which is
        like throwing a Hail Mary pass.

        • Anonymous

          I don’t know if Paul is a racist, but I have not heard any connection at all to Mark Levin. That all got stirred up by the mainstream media.  He’s at least a bad editor allow things under his name to go out.  I do know though he’s a fruit loop on foreign policy an no one needs to tell me that because it’s common sense.  The Patriot Act is a means to an end. I haven’t heard about anyone being unduly harrassed by it. I’m not talking to terrorists overseas or anywhere else so I don’t worry about it. I doubt my life is exciting enough for the government to bother with.


  • enjoy the ash bin of history Mark Levin, you ridiculous person.

  • we live in an infantilized logic space now where shouting down one’s opponent is considered the very height of reason and is lovingly administrated by countless experts

    western civilization, we hardly knew ye

  • we live in an infantilized logic space now where shouting down one’s opponent is considered the very height of reason and is lovingly administrated by countless experts

    western civilization, we hardly knew ye

  • I find you to be frighteningly ignorant of the complex reality you inhabit.

  • I find you to be frighteningly ignorant of the complex reality you inhabit.

  • your opposition to Ron Paul stems from a world historical view fed to you through a tube

  • your opposition to Ron Paul stems from a world historical view fed to you through a tube

  • pathetic

    you cannot even tolerate the marketplace of ideas and pretend to be conservative

    woefully ignorant plebs

    he wont protect our country but he has 70+% more donations from active duty troops?

    logic fail lol

  • Mark Levin supports the Patriot Act wholeheartedly. He supports the TSA, Carbon Taxes and NAFTA and GAT. Mark Levin is a self hating jew.

  • David John Meyer

    No more Mark Levin. Lost all respect for him. Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, the lot of them. These guys are not conservatives. They are NEO-CONS. That’s what lost us the elections in 2006 and 2008. Rick Santorum is a NEO-CON fave. Rand Paul is what won in 2010. And Ron Paul started the momentum. Ron Paul or bust in 2012. Former NEO-CON, now the scales are off my eyes. I even read Levin’s book! Too bad he doesn’t really believe most of what he wrote.

  • Anonymous

    Levin does not understand that militarism is big government. When the government spends money on the military they are shrinking the economy. Levin says he is against statism but doesn’t realize that taking money from the productive private sector and spending it on the military hurts our country’s economic security and national security.

  • Anonymous

    Levin does not understand that militarism is big government. When the government spends money on the military they are shrinking the economy. Levin says he is against statism but doesn’t realize that taking money from the productive private sector and spending it on the military hurts our country’s economic security and national security.

  • Anonymous

    Levin does not understand that militarism is big government. When the government spends money on the military they are shrinking the economy. Levin says he is against statism but doesn’t realize that taking money from the productive private sector and spending it on the military hurts our country’s economic security and national security.

  • Anonymous

    Levin does not understand that militarism is big government. When the government spends money on the military they are shrinking the economy. Levin says he is against statism but doesn’t realize that taking money from the productive private sector and spending it on the military hurts our country’s economic security and national security.

  • CliffordMichael

    Lost ALL respect for Levin


    He doesn’t understand the Constitution – he’s a nutcase