Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny trashed by a conservative

[amrchaos]

Question


Is not Jonah Goldberg an outspoken (American)Libertarian, and Mark Levin an outspoken Ultra-Conservative? They are having a fight?


Is this not akin to a Communist(Castro) and a Liberal(Obama) criticizing each other?


PS--to Jillian

Mark Levin is a good Debate. Of course, there are times when he is "over emphasizing" an event or a path of action he would take regarding a situation that, at times, does not reflect a very balanced person.

I would say that M. Levin is about a baby step above Mark Malloy on the "Is he rational?" scale. I think you Lefties know where Mark Malloy is on the "Is he rational?" scale.

 

[Liability]

Question


Is not Jonah Goldberg an outspoken (American)Libertarian, and Mark Levin an outspoken Ultra-Conservative? They are having a fight?


Is this not akin to a Communist(Castro) and a Liberal(Obama) criticizing each other?


PS--to Jillian

Mark Levin is a good Debate. Of course, there are times when he is "over emphasizing" an event or a path of action he would take regarding a situation that, at times, does not reflect a very balanced person.

I would say that M. Levin is about a baby step above Mark Malloy on the "Is he rational?" scale. I think you Lefties know where Mark Malloy is on the "Is he rational?" scale.

NOTE To Armchair:

Mark Levin is not a Debate.

No person is a Debate.

Mark is a very good debater, however.

When providing a modicum of entertainment on his otherwise highly informative and thoughtful Radio Show, Mr. Levin does occasionally lapse into a seemingly irrational persona. (That's why they call it a "rant.")

But you are confusing an entertaining side-bar with the substance of the man and his message. This is a very silly thing you do.

 

[jillian]

Jilli:

You are hopelessly delusional. Levin would hand your liberal ass to you in a sack.

Reality is entirely on his side, not yours at all.

Levin actually has the great respect of actual lawyers and judges who aren't blinded by stupid liberal ideology. You are merely making shit up, AS I said.

His "game" is fidelity to the actual precepts and principles of the Constitution. These are some of the concepts that confuse you libbies -- obviously.

in his milleau of whining, shouting, distortion of what the constitution says? perhaps. but i wouldn't participate in that world.

in my world? where you get up in front of the bench? give law? give fact? i'd do very well... same as i always did very well.

 

[Nonelitist]

Jilli:

You are hopelessly delusional. Levin would hand your liberal ass to you in a sack.

Reality is entirely on his side, not yours at all.

Levin actually has the great respect of actual lawyers and judges who aren't blinded by stupid liberal ideology. You are merely making shit up, AS I said.

His "game" is fidelity to the actual precepts and principles of the Constitution. These are some of the concepts that confuse you libbies -- obviously.

in his milleau of whining, shouting, distortion of what the constitution says? perhaps. but i wouldn't participate in that world.

in my world? where you get up in front of the bench? give law? give fact? i'd do very well... same as i always did very well.

Some examples of his "distortions" would make you sound less ignorant and partisan.

 

[Liability]

Jilli:

You are hopelessly delusional. Levin would hand your liberal ass to you in a sack.

Reality is entirely on his side, not yours at all.

Levin actually has the great respect of actual lawyers and judges who aren't blinded by stupid liberal ideology. You are merely making shit up, AS I said.

His "game" is fidelity to the actual precepts and principles of the Constitution. These are some of the concepts that confuse you libbies -- obviously.

in his milleau of whining, shouting, distortion of what the constitution says? perhaps. but i wouldn't participate in that world.

in my world? where you get up in front of the bench? give law? give fact? i'd do very well... same as i always did very well.

You COULDN'T succeed in that part of Mark Levin's world where he has achieved singular success.

He HAS, however, succeeded in the world of law. So holding yourself out as the sole expert in the field is quite silly of you, Jilli.

And I am so pleased that you do well in the legal realm. But, big deal. Lots of people do that on a daily basis.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Levin is a whiney, annoying little douchebag.

Great counter argument! You really showed them!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

well, almost. lol..

it's cute.. the tea party's very own judge judy.

Typically arrogant and condescending pablum from leftist lawyers doesn't transform your erroneous Constitutional analysis into "truth."

You couldn't hold a candle to Mark Levin in an honest debate. And when he's not engaged in entertaining folks on his radio show, Levin can handle actual legal analysis and debate. Judging him on the basis of a radio show is absurd.

But that's all you guys have, so feel free to go ahead and "cling" to it.

i've done fairly well in my time. i suspect i'd do fairly well with levin, too, given that he doesn't have much reality on his side.

like i said. people like you may think you have a voice in levin, but it isn't one that would get much respect among lawyers and judges... the people who know what his game is.

Now you can speak for judges and lawyers?

What is "his game" that you speak of?

 

[jillian]

You COULDN'T succeed in that part of Mark Levin's world where he has achieved singular success.

He HAS, however, succeeded in the world of law. So holding yourself out as the sole expert in the field is quite silly of you, Jilli.

And I am so pleased that you do well in the legal realm. But, big deal. Lots of people do that on a daily basis.

it's easy to succeed by yelling to people who already agree with you.

difficult is having a current sitting USSC justice lift your amicus brief to do a decision.

i don't profess to be an EXPERT at all. my point was that lawyers and judges don't think much of levin and the rest of his ilk which perverts the constitution and makes people who know nothing about law think they "KNOW WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS".

I know that such misinformation and disinformation as he imparts are dangerous and stupid.

is it difficult to succeed in levin's world? depends... rushbo did it and he's a nasty little liar.

if you want to actually know something about constitutional law, you'd do better to read jonathan turley. he at least knows what he's talking about.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You COULDN'T succeed in that part of Mark Levin's world where he has achieved singular success.

He HAS, however, succeeded in the world of law. So holding yourself out as the sole expert in the field is quite silly of you, Jilli.

And I am so pleased that you do well in the legal realm. But, big deal. Lots of people do that on a daily basis.

it's easy to succeed by yelling to people who already agree with you.

difficult is having a current sitting USSC justice lift your amicus brief to do a decision.

i don't profess to be an EXPERT at all. my point was that lawyers and judges don't think much of levin and the rest of his ilk which perverts the constitution and makes people who know nothing about law think they "KNOW WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS".

I know that such misinformation and disinformation as he imparts are dangerous and stupid.

is it difficult to succeed in levin's world? depends... rushbo did it and he's a nasty little liar.

if you want to actually know something about constitutional law, you'd do better to read jonathan turley. he at least knows what he's talking about.

You failed to show evidence of Levin's alleged perversion of the Constitution.

 

[Liability]

Jilli:

You are hopelessly delusional. Levin would hand your liberal ass to you in a sack.

Reality is entirely on his side, not yours at all.

Levin actually has the great respect of actual lawyers and judges who aren't blinded by stupid liberal ideology. You are merely making shit up, AS I said.

His "game" is fidelity to the actual precepts and principles of the Constitution. These are some of the concepts that confuse you libbies -- obviously.

in his milleau of whining, shouting, distortion of what the constitution says? perhaps. but i wouldn't participate in that world.

in my world? where you get up in front of the bench? give law? give fact? i'd do very well... same as i always did very well.

Some examples of his "distortions" would make you sound less ignorant and partisan.

Quite true!

Let me be blunt. (I know, that would be soooo very out of character for me . . . . )
I will make the definitive statement. Jilli is talking bullshit. She will not be able to point to so much as even ONE example of Mark Levin uttering ANY "distortion" of the Constitution. I say that with complete confidence because it simply hasn't happened.

Disagreeing with the Men in Black as he has called the jurists on the SCOTUS bench is not the same thing as "distorting" the Constitution. The Constitutional analyzes BY those SCOTUS judges relative to the cases to which Levin most profoundly objects constitute the real "distortions."

 

[johnrocks]

I gotta give Levin's book some serious reconsideration if the Manhattan Institute has a problem with him.

 

[Foxfyre]

Does anybody have a source where Ross Douthat has ever complimented or supported Levin? I can't find one. It is not unlike Douthat to criticize those for their presentation of things that he (Douthat) supports.

Ross Douthat is young, impressionable, and perhaps a rising star on the journalism scene. Levin has never claimed to be a journalist and writes in his own unique style which, as Douthat legitimately mentions, makes him a target for some of the snobbish elite.

But Douthat himself is an interesting 'conservative'. As was obvious in that article, he seems to be a strong pro-AGW advocate and will no doubt condemn any skeptic when it comes to global warming.

He also has had absolutely nothing good to say about the Tea Parties, the Tax Protest groups, or the 9/12ers. And his discussion on healthcare reform were at least strange. He seemed to profess conservatism while not quite getting down to criticizing much less condeming the healthcare legislation as passed.

In fact, though he often prefaces his remarks as being sympathetic to some points made, he comes across as a non-combative moderate liberal far more than a conservative.

 

[Liability]

You COULDN'T succeed in that part of Mark Levin's world where he has achieved singular success.

He HAS, however, succeeded in the world of law. So holding yourself out as the sole expert in the field is quite silly of you, Jilli.

And I am so pleased that you do well in the legal realm. But, big deal. Lots of people do that on a daily basis.

it's easy to succeed by yelling to people who already agree with you.

Obviously that is flatly untrue, Jilli. First off, Mark Levin doesn't DO that. Secondly, he is a stand-out success in a very difficult field. If all it took to be such a star in his realm were the trite shit you make false accusations about, anybody could do it. Even Al Franken. And we KNOW he was a flop as was his radio "network."

difficult is having a current sitting USSC justice lift your amicus brief to do a decision.

And Mark Levin and Landmark Legal have filed several suits and filed amici briefs, too. His have been brilliant. Did you have an actual point by any chance?

i don't profess to be an EXPERT at all.

Whew. What a relief.

my point was that lawyers and judges don't think much of levin and the rest of his ilk which perverts the constitution and makes people who know nothing about law think they "KNOW WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS".

You really should refrain from PRETENDING to speak for judges and lawyers. You are again just making bullshit up -- as I have previously noted. And Mr. Levin is not the one who has EVER perverted the Constitution. The same cannot be accurately said of many Supreme Court jurists, sadly.

I know that such misinformation and disinformation as he imparts are dangerous and stupid.

Except, I know you are again talking out of your derriere. You couldn't point to even one example, dumplin'.

is it difficult to succeed in levin's world? depends... rushbo did it and he's a nasty little liar.

Well, Jilli, you just pointed to TWO of the top three or four major radio talents in the industry in terms of garnering large audiences. Evidently, it isn't all that easy at all. And your bogus CLAIM that Rush is a "liar" is unsupported, of course.

EDIT: as to this point, consider this: http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/05/geek-at-dance-vs-mark-levin.html

if you want to actually know something about constitutional law, you'd do better to read jonathan turley. he at least knows what he's talking about.

You'd do better to open your mind up to what the Constitution actually says and what it meant -- not just in the context of the time of the Framers, but within the purview of the knowledge of the Founders and Framers. Turley is an expert. He is not the sole Expert. And Mark Levin's legal analysis is sharper, more accurate and more honestly based than almost any of the legal idols of the left.

You like Turley because you HAPPEN to agree on a political basis with some of the things he subscribes to. That doesn't make him a valid Constitutional Scholar. Being a favorite of Olbermann and Maddow, in fact, only serves to show that he is a partisan, not necessarily a true Constitutional scholar.

 

[Liability]

Fuck you, I don't care what you think, he's a whiney douchebag.

Sit on it and spin like a top you anal fissure.

You are the whiney douche bag.

Oh, and stop being such a sissy, you asstard. You DO care what I think. I made you cry.

Mark Levin is a million times the human being you will ever be.

You are just a turd.

Why don't you run along now back to Hannity's and suck him off also.

I leave homo-perversion to douche rags like you Mr. Queen.

 

[The T]

I'll trust someone with a lot more experience and intelligence, and someone who DOES back things up with substance.

It is quite apparent that you don't know mark's experience. And belive me his resume is quite impressive in matters of law. Tell me? Do you know what administration he worked for?

And maybe the answer to that question will tell you scads of where he stands. And it will in turn unmask those of you whom demean him. I kinda doubt that you have sat and listened to him for any real amount of time.

 

[AquaAthena]

Wednesday, April 21, 2010
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Liberty and Tyranny and Epistemic Closure [Jim Manzi]

Jonah notes Ross Douthat’s very interesting post, in which Ross had this to say:

Conservative domestic policy would be in better shape if conservative magazines and conservative columnists were more willing to call out Republican politicians (and, to a lesser extent, conservative entertainers) for offering bromides instead of substance, and for pandering instead of grappling with real policy questions.

I thought some about this over the past few days, and took this as a direct challenge.

Here goes.

I started to read Mark Levin’s massive bestseller Liberty and Tyranny a number of months ago as debate swirled around it. I wasn’t expecting a PhD thesis (and in fact had hoped to write a post supporting the book as a well-reasoned case for certain principles that upset academics just because it didn’t employ a bunch of pseudo-intellectual tropes). But when I waded into the first couple of chapters, I found that — while I had a lot of sympathy for many of its basic points — it seemed to all but ignore the most obvious counter-arguments that could be raised to any of its assertions. This sounds to me like a pretty good plain English meaning of epistemic closure. The problem with this, of course, is that unwillingness to confront the strongest evidence or arguments contrary to our own beliefs normally means we fail to learn quickly, and therefore persist in correctable error.

I’m not expert on many topics the book addresses, so I flipped to its treatment of a subject that I’ve spent some time studying — global warming — in order to see how it treated a controversy in which I’m at least familiar with the various viewpoints and some of the technical detail.

It was awful.

Whole article...

James Manzi is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

I thought it was a great read.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wednesday, April 21, 2010
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Liberty and Tyranny and Epistemic Closure [Jim Manzi]

Jonah notes Ross Douthat’s very interesting post, in which Ross had this to say:

Conservative domestic policy would be in better shape if conservative magazines and conservative columnists were more willing to call out Republican politicians (and, to a lesser extent, conservative entertainers) for offering bromides instead of substance, and for pandering instead of grappling with real policy questions.

I thought some about this over the past few days, and took this as a direct challenge.

Here goes.

I started to read Mark Levin’s massive bestseller Liberty and Tyranny a number of months ago as debate swirled around it. I wasn’t expecting a PhD thesis (and in fact had hoped to write a post supporting the book as a well-reasoned case for certain principles that upset academics just because it didn’t employ a bunch of pseudo-intellectual tropes). But when I waded into the first couple of chapters, I found that — while I had a lot of sympathy for many of its basic points — it seemed to all but ignore the most obvious counter-arguments that could be raised to any of its assertions. This sounds to me like a pretty good plain English meaning of epistemic closure. The problem with this, of course, is that unwillingness to confront the strongest evidence or arguments contrary to our own beliefs normally means we fail to learn quickly, and therefore persist in correctable error.

I’m not expert on many topics the book addresses, so I flipped to its treatment of a subject that I’ve spent some time studying — global warming — in order to see how it treated a controversy in which I’m at least familiar with the various viewpoints and some of the technical detail.

It was awful.

Whole article...

James Manzi is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

I thought it was a great read.

What? Levin's book or Douthat's critique of it?

 

[AquaAthena]

Wednesday, April 21, 2010
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Liberty and Tyranny and Epistemic Closure [Jim Manzi]

Jonah notes Ross Douthat’s very interesting post, in which Ross had this to say:

Conservative domestic policy would be in better shape if conservative magazines and conservative columnists were more willing to call out Republican politicians (and, to a lesser extent, conservative entertainers) for offering bromides instead of substance, and for pandering instead of grappling with real policy questions.

I thought some about this over the past few days, and took this as a direct challenge.

Here goes.

I started to read Mark Levin’s massive bestseller Liberty and Tyranny a number of months ago as debate swirled around it. I wasn’t expecting a PhD thesis (and in fact had hoped to write a post supporting the book as a well-reasoned case for certain principles that upset academics just because it didn’t employ a bunch of pseudo-intellectual tropes). But when I waded into the first couple of chapters, I found that — while I had a lot of sympathy for many of its basic points — it seemed to all but ignore the most obvious counter-arguments that could be raised to any of its assertions. This sounds to me like a pretty good plain English meaning of epistemic closure. The problem with this, of course, is that unwillingness to confront the strongest evidence or arguments contrary to our own beliefs normally means we fail to learn quickly, and therefore persist in correctable error.

I’m not expert on many topics the book addresses, so I flipped to its treatment of a subject that I’ve spent some time studying — global warming — in order to see how it treated a controversy in which I’m at least familiar with the various viewpoints and some of the technical detail.

It was awful.

Whole article...

James Manzi is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

I thought it was a great read.

What? Levin's book or Douthat's critique of it?

Oh, sorry. I meant Levins' book.

 

[Foxfyre]

I thought it was a great read.

What? Levin's book or Douthat's critique of it?

Oh, sorry. I meant Levins' book.

Oh good. LOL. For a minute there I thought you had gone over to the dark side.

You're right. It is a great read. Better I think than his Men in Black which was more difficult reading but I'm glad I have it.

 

[AquaAthena]

What? Levin's book or Douthat's critique of it?

Oh, sorry. I meant Levins' book.

Oh good. LOL. For a minute there I thought you had gone over to the dark side.

You're right. It is a great read. Better I think than his Men in Black which was more difficult reading but I'm glad I have it.

Not in a hundred fucking years.....