The Liberty Amendments: Restoring The American Republic...by Mark R. Levin


Selene

Recommended Posts

Now, since you you were unwilling to divulge what "further message" I supposedly had in mind, I was left to guess at it. I guessed that it might have been the slavery issue.

If I am wrong, then you can clear things up nicely by stating explicitly what "further message" you were referring to.

You don't like mis-attribution. Nor do I. In all fairness then, I should be told what message I'm being accused of furthering.

FF,

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

I'll try to see what I can do with further emphasis.

I thought I was clear that you had the covert message (which I said I was unaware of so far), not Calhoun. If I wasn't clear, let me say it again with the correct emphasis: "I'm not sure what YOUR message is (I haven't read enough of your stuff to arrive at a conclusion), but I've seen enough to know it's definitely not the wrapper."

Helpfully,

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 246
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[Marketing] I was listening to Mark Levin's show on the way home Friday. A guy called in and mentioned someone (don't remember the name, can't take notes while driving) who was not a signer but a contributor at the constitutional convention. He had an idea about a citizen jury who would have the power to veto supreme court decisions. I thought it was an interesting idea and would have liked to hear more, perhaps the pros and cons from Levin, he being a constitutional expert. Levin hadn't heard of the guy, dismissed the idea as irrelevant and cut the guy off, rather rudely in my opinion. I get the impression Mark is a "not invented here" kind of guy and arrogant doesn't begin to describe him. I think if the idea of a constitutional congress flies he won't be at the forefront. He would piss too many people off. Just my impression, I haven't read his book yet.

Mike,

I'm not a fan of Mark's abrasive manner. But neither am I a fan of Ayn Rand's abrasive manner.

I think these people caught so much crap over time from morons and people of ill-will, they lost their patience.

Not excusing it, but understanding it. And still no fan.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I'm not a fan of FF;s, never having encountered him before , but his statements seem reasonable to a constitutional ignoramus. and I am a fan of yours. And from the face of this thread, you seem uncharacteristically abrasive yourself... just puzzled

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, since you you were unwilling to divulge what "further message" I supposedly had in mind, I was left to guess at it. I guessed that it might have been the slavery issue.

If I am wrong, then you can clear things up nicely by stating explicitly what "further message" you were referring to.

You don't like mis-attribution. Nor do I. In all fairness then, I should be told what message I'm being accused of furthering.

FF,

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

I'll try to see what I can do with further emphasis.

I thought I was clear that you had the covert message (which I said I was unaware of so far), not Calhoun. If I wasn't clear, let me say it again with the correct emphasis: "I'm not sure what YOUR message is (I haven't read enough of your stuff to arrive at a conclusion), but I've seen enough to know it's definitely not the wrapper."

Helpfully,

Michael

Thanks for clearing that up. We now know that that you are certain ("definite") that I am promoting a message other than the "wrapper" but that you are unwilling or unable to produce any evidence for that conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, since you you were unwilling to divulge what "further message" I supposedly had in mind, I was left to guess at it. I guessed that it might have been the slavery issue.

If I am wrong, then you can clear things up nicely by stating explicitly what "further message" you were referring to.

You don't like mis-attribution. Nor do I. In all fairness then, I should be told what message I'm being accused of furthering.

FF,

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

I'll try to see what I can do with further emphasis.

I thought I was clear that you had the covert message (which I said I was unaware of so far), not Calhoun. If I wasn't clear, let me say it again with the correct emphasis: "I'm not sure what YOUR message is (I haven't read enough of your stuff to arrive at a conclusion), but I've seen enough to know it's definitely not the wrapper."

Helpfully,

Michael

Thanks for clearing that up. We now know that that you are certain ("definite") that I am promoting a message other than the "wrapper" but that you are unwilling or unable to produce any evidence for that conclusion.

And we wonder why the marxists kick our asses every election...!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for clearing that up. We now know that that you are certain ("definite") that I am promoting a message other than the "wrapper" but that you are unwilling or unable to produce any evidence for that conclusion.

FF,

Whew!

We're starting to communicate.

But I'm going to insist on precision since this is the identification phase. (I use the identify correctly in order to judge correctly system of epistemology. Others prefer the contrary, or one-upmanship or other standards.)

So, for precision, my meaning is I am not sure what your covert message is right now. (I believe I mentioned that.) Not that I am unwilling or unable to produce this or that or yada yada yada... That means something similar, but quite different.

You are correct in that I am certain you have a covert message.

MIichael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of FF;s, never having encountered him before , but his statements seem reasonable to a constitutional ignoramus. and I am a fan of yours. And from the face of this thread, you seem uncharacteristically abrasive yourself... just puzzled

Carol,

Yeah, I guess I am being a bit abrasive. Whenever I encounter an excessive amount of argument from intimidation, it grates on me.

The way argument from intimidation works in a standard Objectivist understanding is generally public derision and peer pressure. The purpose is to avoid discussing something by shaming a questioner into silence. In other words, the object is not to persuade, but to shut someone up, and, if possible, make them sit down with their tail between their legs.

The way Rand and NB portrayed it was, for example, a college professor telling a student, "Oh? You couldn't possibly be saying xxxx. Nobody who is anybody believes that. My dear sir, Dr. Fumblybee Hortensnoot debunked that for all time 20 years ago. Surely you must know that..." (Group sniggering follows.) I'm going on memory here and taking some liberties, so they didn't say it that way.

But there are other forms of argument from intimidation. I became aware of one during the discussions on global warming. People will dump 50 pounds of academic writing at you during an argument rather than discuss the idea, then treat their opinion as if it were proven. The attempt is to make you feel like a dummy for not being able to read gobs of mind-numbing boring stuff in a short amount of time.

If you dump 50 pounds right back at them, the argument leaves the realm of the idea and becomes credibility snarking. My sources are better than your sources kind of thing (and that includes your mother and her lovers. :smile: ).

Another form is, unfortunately, one Ayn Rand did a lot. She would make a withering statement about a questioner's character for even bringing such a question up.

Namedropping important people you know or have studied is another.

Gobs and gobs of unanswerable or hard to research questions is another.

And on and on. One day it might be interesting to come up with a list of devices.

I have seen FF doing some of this stuff when I skimmed his posts over time, so, with misgiving since this kind of discussion usually is a big fat waste of time, I challenged one of his presuppositions. I did that because he suddenly interested me. He went for discrediting Mark Levin to the detriment of examining Levin's ideas. In other words, the discussion was starting to become about Levin's character. After seeing this kind of pattern 500 bazillioin times over the years, seeing it again added with the constant argument from intimidation, I stepped in.

Now it is what it is.

Apropos, I have been wrong about this one time in the past. I thought Angela (Xray) was like that. I was delighted to be wrong. She has a wonderful firsthand mind, even when we disagree.

MIchael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In claiming that I say one thing yet mean something different, you are essentially accusing me of intellectual dishonesty, which I take to be a serious charge.

If you have no proof, you have no business airing such a charge.

FF,

Horseshit.

You don't want to play that with me.

Besides, I never said your hidden message contradicted your wrapper. It's perfectly possible to mean both at the same time.

I'm beginning to believe you do have comprehension problems.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What good is a covert message if nobody knows what it is?

Brant,

Primates learn mostly by imitation and repetition. We add cognition on top of that, not replace it.

The idea of a covert message is to change the imitation and repetition patterns. If you frame something in a certain way over and over, people will start repeating it. If there is a hidden message in it, later, when an argument based on that message is advanced, people will feel a sense of familiarity and comfort since they are already using similar terms.

That's the purpose.

Rand did a whole number of exposing the covert altruism underlying lots of things people said for that very reason, though I doubt she would have said it in the words I used just now.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, thanks for the reply.

I have seen the argument from intimidation phrase a lot, but did not really know how broad it was. I don't think I have ever seen it work here, though. Maybe OLers just refuse to be intimidated. It just seems like a form of offtopic bullying as you show it.

And yet,does this really fit FF's very first post\? If I saw a book outlined, and recognized its theme as similar to one I already knew of, I might make a post just like his, maybe not worded the same, but pointing out that previous thinkers had already commented, etc. It would be a comment, not an argument. You said that you had skimmed his posts over time, but I read them all (there aren't many) and maybe there is something in the subject matter itself I am not getting. I do not know this area at all and where Adam got the Nazi stuff beats me.

I know of course that if you do not like an author there are subtle ways to show it, but that still does not detract from the actual topic and the author's character is usually not relevant to the work he produces, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet,does this really fit FF's very first post\?

Carol,

Not the first, but certainly the second:

It appears that that Levin simply took Randy Barnet's idea from four years ago and repackaged it for sale to his radio audience.

Perhaps the next Constitutional convention will approve an amendment to abolish involuntary servitude, so that no man or woman is ever subject to the military draft again.

What's that? We already have such an amendment? And the Supreme Court does not enforce it?...

blah blah blah

Mocking and snark before the discussion even gets underway.

Where have I seen that before?

And notice we are still not talking about the substance of Levin's book. That crap works.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, reviewing the thread the contretempts seems to center on nullification and states' rights vs federal hegemony. The problem is that the federal hegemony supposedly has to do with the hegemony of individual rights' doctrine while states' rights has to do with themselves or whatever the statists want on their lower level of statism vs the current operative federal statism. There is no winning the battle for the protection of individual rights on the state as opposed to the federal level. For now you can't get there from here. Make government smaller--start on the federal level and the states will follow. Start on the state level nothing happens except the delegalization of abortion. The feds won't follow the states, the Republic will only disintegrate.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, OK, but since mocking and snark and intimidation do not actually persuade people of anything, how does this help anyone achieve a covert agenda?

Carol,

I'll have to think about this some, but there is one thing I know for sure this destroys. It destroys discussion.

Levin is right in everything I heard him say so far with respect to his book, yet people disgruntled at him, even should they agree with his ideas, try to discredit him. Why?

I think vanity has a lot to do with it, but I am almost certain there are other things I have not uncovered.

And, given my time constraints, I'm not sure I will have time to examine this in enough depth to say and feel reasonably certain of my conclusions. Besides, if you could spend your time studying and analyzing great authors in order to apply that to something you are doing, or studying online snark in order to win some kind of silly vanity competition, which would you prefer? :)

If you watch the Hannity interview near the beginning of the thread, you will see Levin say clearly that his main purpose is to promote discussion of these issues on a large scale. And he is aware that he is not the only voice in this discussion, nor are his arguments the only ones.

Note this well. He is not preaching the One True Way. He is promoting a discussion.

Why did he frame things the way he did? He said his father would have told him if these things are bothering him, get off his ass and do something about them. So that's what he is doing.

The purpose of trying to discredit him is to silence the discussion.

Normally preachers (and not just the religious kind) wedded to an agenda behave like that. They don't want discussion. They don't have much patience for it. They want agreement. Adherence. Consent, voluntary or otherwise.

One of the ways you detect this is the motor driving the rhetoric is when a person gets a chip on his shoulder and dares you to knock it off. It usually starts with, "Are you calling me a liar?" or something like that.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All we can know is what has already happened. Regions join or are conquered by other regions, nations grow, some become empires, they lose territory and shrink, nations reform, regions rise again and...

"all ignorance toboggans into Know\

then trudges up to Ignorance again"

-cummings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And surely argument from intimidation is self defeating anyway. Name dropping and offtopic snark and so on do not address the topic at hand and would not intimidate someone who had a sound argument about it.

Carol,

How is it self-defeating?

The purpose is not to persuade. The purpose is to get people who disagree to sit down and shut up.

This rhetorical tactic works beautifully to that end much of the time.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, reviewing the thread the contretempts seems to center on nullification and states' rights vs federal hegemony. The problem is that the federal hegemony supposedly has to do with the hegemony of individual rights' doctrine while states' rights has to do with themselves or whatever the statists want on their lower level of statism vs the current operative federal statism. There is no winning the battle for the protection of individual rights on the state as opposed to the federal level. For now you can't get there from here. Make government smaller--start on the federal level and the states will follow. Start on the state level nothing happens except the delegalization of abortion. The feds won't follow the states, the Republic will only disintegrate.

--Brant

This sounds like the most pertinent and sensible thing that has been said on the topic so far. Brant, is this really you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now