Mark Levin Calls on Republicans to Boycott State of the Union

[Synthaholic]

Your an idiot

Yet, you're the one who can't correctly spell/use the word 'you're'.


Retard.

The clown appears...they let you out for a family visit again?

At least you got through a sentence without any spelling errors.

 

[Mustang]

**** Levin.

He's a whiney asshole.

I've listened to his show for years. I must say that he really laps up the praise of his listeners. But I never truly appreciated the significance of that fact until I saw him on C-SPAN's Book TV recently. When a couple of callers kind of raked him over the coals, he really looked rattled.

It was way back in the day but you may still be able to find it on YouTube. Rush was on a talk show that had a webcam (it took took a shot of the guest something like every 3 seconds). The guy interviewing him did the 6-10 PM evening call in show at an affiliate that just signed Rush; sounds kind of like what you're describing except it wasn't a book Rush was pushing, it was his show which had just came on the scene I guess. Again this was early in his career so new affiliates got some special attention and apparently this was a big city--may have been Houston or New Orleans.

Anyway, some callers called in and began basically berating the guy. With his right hand, he began pointing with his index finger. Not at the camera and not at the microphone but at the base of the mike itself. It looked like a nervous twitch of some sort. Finally, the local guy hosting the show asked him what he was doing. Rush said that he had a habit of turning down the caller when he wanted to make a point and was trying to do that while being a guest on the show.

A lot of those guys live in a bubble. Unlike politicians who have to learn to stand and take the heat, these hosts aren't used to it and can't handle it. They're tough guys behind a mic in a studio. But even when someone calls in and challenges them, they can't handle it if they're not in control which is what happened when Levin was a guest and couldn't just shut down the call himself.

 

[Jroc]

I've listened to his show for years. I must say that he really laps up the praise of his listeners. But I never truly appreciated the significance of that fact until I saw him on C-SPAN's Book TV recently. When a couple of callers kind of raked him over the coals, he really looked rattled.

It was way back in the day but you may still be able to find it on YouTube. Rush was on a talk show that had a webcam (it took took a shot of the guest something like every 3 seconds). The guy interviewing him did the 6-10 PM evening call in show at an affiliate that just signed Rush; sounds kind of like what you're describing except it wasn't a book Rush was pushing, it was his show which had just came on the scene I guess. Again this was early in his career so new affiliates got some special attention and apparently this was a big city--may have been Houston or New Orleans.

Anyway, some callers called in and began basically berating the guy. With his right hand, he began pointing with his index finger. Not at the camera and not at the microphone but at the base of the mike itself. It looked like a nervous twitch of some sort. Finally, the local guy hosting the show asked him what he was doing. Rush said that he had a habit of turning down the caller when he wanted to make a point and was trying to do that while being a guest on the show.

A lot of those guys live in a bubble. Unlike politicians who have to learn to stand and take the heat, these hosts aren't used to it and can't handle it. They're tough guys behind a mic in a studio. But even when someone calls in and challenges them, they can't handle it if they're not in control which is what happened when Levin was a guest and couldn't just shut down the call himself.

Please.... Levin will take apart any of you pea brained, liberal, clones

 

[paulitician]

Levin's ok. He despises Communists. I'm with him on that. But i'm not a loyal follower. His followers don't realize that he's been part of the Neocon/Progressive Globalist cabal for many years. He's an insider and a Lawyer. He's been part of the problem. So i wouldn't trust him so much. And he is wrong on this one. It will not help the cause. The Communists are already on their way out. The People don't want em anymore. So it would be wise to stay calm & cool. It's time to sit back and enjoy watching their fall. Stunts like this just aren't necessary.

 

[Foxfyre]

Levin's ok. He despises Communists. I'm with him on that. But i'm not a loyal follower. His followers don't realize that he's been part of the Neocon/Progressive Globalist cabal for many years. He's an insider and a Lawyer. He's been part of the problem. So i wouldn't trust him so much. And he is wrong on this one. It will not help the cause. The Communists are already on their way out. The People don't want em anymore. So it would be wise to stay calm & cool. It's time to sit back and enjoy watching their fall. Stunts like this just aren't necessary.

Mark Levin a neocon? I don't think so. He is not an isolationist like Ron Paul and has been very critical of some of Ron Paul's rhetoric most especially on foreign policy--as many of us are--but a neocon. Nope. He is definitely not into nation building. "Neocon" is the label the paulbots have attached to him in resentment for him presuming to criticize their hero. Huckabee fans got angry with him too because he criticized something Huckabee said. And he has pretty much taken on all the big guns at some time or other.

Like every other conservative on the national scene, I find many areas of agreement with Levin, and he has taught me much. And I find some areas of disagreement with Levin--such as his suggestion to boycott the SOTU. I don't think he thought that through thoroughly when he suggested it.

But anybody who wants a better understanding of the Supreme Court will benefit from reading his little book Men in Black. I am currently reading his newest work The Liberty Amendments and it is brilliant.

I would like a world in which somebody isn't thoroughly trashed and demonized because he gets something wrong and/or says something badly. Too many use that occasional mistake or error in judgment as an excuse to demonize everything about a person.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Is it boycotting if you don't watch because you really don't give a shit about what a turd might rant about?

Low ratings is good...Sends a bit of a message

That Americans are politically stupid?

Well, quite a few ARE liberals. So, sure.

 

[thanatos144]

Levin's ok. He despises Communists. I'm with him on that. But i'm not a loyal follower. His followers don't realize that he's been part of the Neocon/Progressive Globalist cabal for many years. He's an insider and a Lawyer. He's been part of the problem. So i wouldn't trust him so much. And he is wrong on this one. It will not help the cause. The Communists are already on their way out. The People don't want em anymore. So it would be wise to stay calm & cool. It's time to sit back and enjoy watching their fall. Stunts like this just aren't necessary.

You do know that because a person is a constitutional conservative and not a LIBERTARIAN that he isn't a progressive right? Tell me you are not that far gone

 

[Jroc]

Levin's ok. He despises Communists. I'm with him on that. But i'm not a loyal follower. His followers don't realize that he's been part of the Neocon/Progressive Globalist cabal for many years. He's an insider and a Lawyer. He's been part of the problem. So i wouldn't trust him so much. And he is wrong on this one. It will not help the cause. The Communists are already on their way out. The People don't want em anymore. So it would be wise to stay calm & cool. It's time to sit back and enjoy watching their fall. Stunts like this just aren't necessary.

You have no idea what you're talking about..Listen to him and get back to me you. Just posted some talking points "He's a lawyer" Yeah a constitutional originalist you have a problem with that?

 

[Statistikhengst]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I'm late to the party here.

Thanks for posting the thread, [MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION]. And thanks for the invite to comment.

IMO, it is a bad idea, but not for partisan reasons as you may think. I would say the same thing were we to have a Republican President right now.

Mark Levin may think it's a good idea, but Mark Levin does not have the responsibility of shepherding legislation through congress. Congresspeople do.

A half-empty chamber for any SOTU would only enforce the notion that the opposition party is having a temper tantrum, has taken it's ball and gone home.

For good or for bad, a televised SOTU is now almost mandatory. The United States Constitution says the following:

Article II, Section III:

The President "shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."


There is nothing in the Constitution that says it must be once a year or even in January. A number of US Presidents sent in the SOTU per letter, which was then read in the Congress.

But today, anything other than a televised/internetted SOTU would be nothing short of a scandal. Were President Obama to do the SOTU in any other way, or not at all, Right Wingers would be screaming from the rafters that he is somehow unpatriotic. And yet, the Constitution does not mandate an SOTU a.) in January of every year, b.) once a year or c.) that it be televised or transmitted to the public at large in any way at all.

Having the opposition party take it's ball home just because it disagrees with the POTUS would only make the opposition party look cheap. End of line.

And Mark Levin says lots of the stuff that is simply not the truth. The Constitution does not mandate that the Congress give an SOTU, Levin is somewhat delusional about this. I wonder if he has ever read the Constitution.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I'm late to the party here.

Thanks for posting the thread, [MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION]. And thanks for the invite to comment.

IMO, it is a bad idea, but not for partisan reasons as you may think. I would say the same thing were we to have a Republican President right now.

Mark Levin may think it's a good idea, but Mark Levin does not have the responsibility of shepherding legislation through congress. Congresspeople do.

A half-empty chamber for any SOTU would only enforce the notion that the opposition party is having a temper tantrum, has taken it's ball and gone home.

For good or for bad, a televised SOTU is now almost mandatory. The United States Constitution says the following:

Article II, Section III:

The President "shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."


There is nothing in the Constitution that says it must be once a year or even in January. A number of US Presidents sent in the SOTU per letter, which was then read in the Congress.

But today, anything other than a televised/internetted SOTU would be nothing short of a scandal. Were President Obama to do the SOTU in any other way, or not at all, Right Wingers would be screaming from the rafters that he is somehow unpatriotic. And yet, the Constitution does not mandate an SOTU a.) in January of every year, b.) once a year or c.) that it be televised or transmitted to the public at large in any way at all.

Having the opposition party take it's ball home just because it disagrees with the POTUS would only make the opposition party look cheap. End of line.

And Mark Levin says lots of the stuff that is simply not the truth. The Constitution does not mandate that the Congress give an SOTU, Levin is somewhat delusional about this. I wonder if he has ever read the Constitution.

I imagine Mark Levin has forgotten more about what he knows about the Constitution than any of us ever collectively knew and he still knows a hell of lot more about it than any of us collectively know.

He did not say that the Constitution mandates that the Congress give an SOTU. But a SOTU is scheduled for 2014 and he did suggest that the GOP should boycott it to demonstrate their objection to the lawlessness of this President. The fact that the Constitution leaves the rules about when and how the SOTU will be delivered is immaterial and non sequitur. The SOTU will be given in 2014 and is on the calendar.

Woodrow Wilson is credited with starting the tradition of delivering the address directly to Congress early in the year and by the time the radio became popular, Presidents were routinely using the SOTU to push their administative agendas. It became part of the cultural routine. Prior to Wilson, I believe the form of the SOTU was delivered to Congress mostly as a written report.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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



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

Well, I'm late to the party here.

Thanks for posting the thread, [MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION]. And thanks for the invite to comment.

IMO, it is a bad idea, but not for partisan reasons as you may think. I would say the same thing were we to have a Republican President right now.

Mark Levin may think it's a good idea, but Mark Levin does not have the responsibility of shepherding legislation through congress. Congresspeople do.

A half-empty chamber for any SOTU would only enforce the notion that the opposition party is having a temper tantrum, has taken it's ball and gone home.

For good or for bad, a televised SOTU is now almost mandatory. The United States Constitution says the following:

Article II, Section III:

The President "shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."


There is nothing in the Constitution that says it must be once a year or even in January. A number of US Presidents sent in the SOTU per letter, which was then read in the Congress.

But today, anything other than a televised/internetted SOTU would be nothing short of a scandal. Were President Obama to do the SOTU in any other way, or not at all, Right Wingers would be screaming from the rafters that he is somehow unpatriotic. And yet, the Constitution does not mandate an SOTU a.) in January of every year, b.) once a year or c.) that it be televised or transmitted to the public at large in any way at all.

Having the opposition party take it's ball home just because it disagrees with the POTUS would only make the opposition party look cheap. End of line.

And Mark Levin says lots of the stuff that is simply not the truth. The Constitution does not mandate that the Congress give an SOTU, Levin is somewhat delusional about this. I wonder if he has ever read the Constitution.

I imagine Mark Levin has forgotten more about what he knows about the Constitution than any of us ever collectively knew and he still knows a hell of lot more about it than any of us collectively know.

He did not say that the Constitution mandates that the Congress give an SOTU. But a SOTU is scheduled for 2014 and he did suggest that the GOP should boycott it to demonstrate their objection to the lawlessness of this President. The fact that the Constitution leaves the rules about when and how the SOTU will be delivered is immaterial and non sequitur. The SOTU will be given in 2014 and is on the calendar.

Woodrow Wilson is credited with starting the tradition of delivering the address directly to Congress early in the year and by the time the radio became popular, Presidents were routinely using the SOTU to push their administative agendas. It became part of the cultural routine. Prior to Wilson, I believe the form of the SOTU was delivered to Congress mostly as a written report.

You can imagine that, but it don't make it so, at least in my case. Put me up against Mark Levin on a talk show any day of the week. I would be delighted to dismantle him in about 15 minutes time.

I never said that he said that the Constitution mandates as SOTU in January. I merely pointed out that the Constitution does not do this, only to add information to the flow, here.

Your comments about Wilson - spot-on. About written SOTU's before - also quite correct.

 

[1776]

I think it is a dumb move like shutting down the goobermint since the media will twist it against the GOP.

Just show up and never applaud him works just fine.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ha!

Mark Levin calling for a GOP boycott of the state of the union, and his fairweather friend Sean Hannity is going as a personal guest of crazy Louie Gohmert.

So much for Levin's juice.

 

[1776]

Obama doesn't need public sympathy after the GOP pulls a stunt.

Just let him dig his own hole with his big mouth and teleprompter.

Most Americans realize he is a lying sack of shit.

 

[Synthaholic]

Obama doesn't need public sympathy after the GOP pulls a stunt.

Just let him dig his own hole with his big mouth and teleprompter.

Most Americans realize he is a lying sack of shit.

Most Americans voted for him as President, and support him.

 

[HenryBHough]

Most Americans voted for him as President, and support him.

And, in their regret, are trying with all their might to get His bumper stickers off their asses.

 

[Synthaholic]

Most Americans voted for him as President, and support him.

And, in their regret, are trying with all their might to get His bumper stickers off their asses.

Only in your dreams.

 

[HenryBHough]

Only in your dreams.

Please don't project your erotic dreams onto others.

 

[Synthaholic]

Only in your dreams.

Please don't project your erotic dreams onto others.

If you think Obama supporters are having the slightest regret, that's your erotic dream, not mine, pal.

Now run along and listen to Huckabee talk about vaginas. Go on . . .

 

[HenryBHough]

If you think Obama supporters are having the slightest regret, that's your erotic dream, not mine, pal.

Now run along and listen to Huckabee talk about vaginas. Go on . . .

You seem to have a sexual fixation which not only damages your ability to relate to others but could have clinical implications. You really ought to have that looked at.