Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does anybody actually listen to what this hack has to say? I live in Colorado Springs, and so most of the talk stations syndicate him in the afternoons. But I'm amazed at the absolute onslaught of lies and moral platitudes that fit a brainless conservative narrative, like he's some sort of enlightened visionary slash Reagan cult member. Today, however, when discussing the recent Haouthi takeover in the capital of Yemen, his bombastic, disingenuous vitriol was on full display and I need to try and understand how ANYONE lets it fly like he might actually be right ever.
If you listen to this guy, why? I don't mean that to be an insult framed as a rhetorical question, either. I really want to know, why? Do you not realize how full of lies almost EVERYTHING this guy says is?
And before you smear me and try to assassinate my character and call me a lefty and a liberal or a commie... I'm AS far from liberal as you could be. Liberals are just as bad as conservatives and their pundits lie just as much, they just lie differently. So don't accuse me of that, because you'd be totally wrong. The full spectrum of world opinion does not fall along the right-left divide, and neither do I.
I hope politics is the correct forum to put this in.
If you have any problems with what he states as fact, feel free to outline them.
Okay, so, where to even begin?...
Today, he was exclaiming that the Haouthi rebellion is an "islamonazi" rebellion "financed by the Iranians." While not claiming it outright, he alluded to the idea that the government from which they took power was not interested in affiliating with "islamonazis." He also claimed that the president was weak for not saying anything about how the Iranians "export terrorism" to other countries, such as, in this case, Yemen.
But this is all part of a completely non-nuanced narrative in which all people who claim that Sharia carries any authority (most often it is simply an adaptation to tribal law in stone-age backwaters like Yemen) are basically part of the same camp. This is wrong.
The Haouthi rebellion has not been verified to have any connections to Iran whatsoever. This is not to say that they don't. In my own estimation, they probably do, but that's beside the point, because Iran didn't bomb us on 9/11, despite the RIDICULOUS indictment that the justice department handed down on Ramzy Yousef & Co. implicating bin Laden in '96 that claimed that "Iran, al-Qaida and Hezbollah had formed ties" to fight against a "common enemy." To claim outright that it was an Iranian-financed coup is not only irresponsible, but it's inconsequential. The government they overthrew has ACTUALLY PROVIDED A SAFE-HAVEN FOR AL-QAIDA... you know... the people who BUTCHERED NEW YORK. And there's some work speculating he actually funneled money from the Saudi and Emirati elite to AQAP, although I can't verify that past connections made by journalists I respect, and so won't claim it as fact.
The Iranians also don't export terrorism. They absolutely financed Hezbollah prior to the ending of the occupation of southern Lebanon, and I'll concede that they have given Hamas money, but part of that is the fact that the IDF has basically criminalized or eliminated ANY group other than Hamas that has attempted to oppose both the occupation and the Jewish settlements. After the occupation of southern Lebanon was over, Hezbollah stopped being terrorists (most of whom never were) and started being a propaganda machine that occasionally skirmished with the IDF on the southern border.
This could go on forever. He makes it sound so black and white:
There are "islamonazis" that want to "force the West back into the stone age" (although he never explains WHY they want to do that), and then there are the Western forces of democracy and freedom that stand in between America and Sharia law. Really, Mark? You're a damned fool.
Did you catch the guy from Nigeria calling in today? He very much agreed with Levin and the way he defines the enemy.
That doesn't make anyone right at all, just because they're from Nigeria. He's probably never heard of blowback or all the U.S. interventions or the great reporting on how the overthrow of Qaddafi and the war in Mali strengthened al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb and armed Boko Haram in the first place.
And OF COURSE he agreed. A guy like Mark never would have a smart person on his show who could make a good argument against him, because the would blow his cover. The only people he ever has on who disagree with him are usually drunk liberals that sound like crazies because it fits his broader narrative.
And OF COURSE he agreed. A guy like Mark never would have a smart person on his show who could make a good argument against him, because the would blow his cover. The only people he ever has on who disagree with him are usually drunk liberals that sound like crazies because it fits his broader narrative.
Who is also horrible and wouldn't ACTUALLY argue anything substantial (American support for Israel, ending the wars, etc.) with Levin.Paul has flip-flopped on almost every issue he's ever actually taken a stance on. He even moved to formally declare war against ISIS, which would basically allow the executive branch war-time powers. What that means is an even faster conversion to mega-fascist "war-time" economy. Rand Paul is possibly the greatest threat to liberty in the running for president. And that's coming from a guy who could give you 5,000 reasons that Hilary and Jeb are possibly the most morally deficient scum on planet earth.
That doesn't make anyone right at all, just because they're from Nigeria. He's probably never heard of blowback or all the U.S. interventions or the great reporting on how the overthrow of Qaddafi and the war in Mali strengthened al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb and armed Boko Haram in the first place.
And OF COURSE he agreed. A guy like Mark never would have a smart person on his show who could make a good argument against him, because the would blow his cover. The only people he ever has on who disagree with him are usually drunk liberals that sound like crazies because it fits his broader narrative.
You yourself are coming across the same way that you accuse Mark Levin of being. You could present your points in a calm and reasoned manner without the insults and accusations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
