Jump to content






Photo

Mark Levin Opens his show with Ayn Rand quotes for almost 10 minutes


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,919 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 23 October 2009 - 04:53 PM

I am asking some of you to put this purity of essence concept aside and walk with these folks because they agree with us on the freedom agenda.

Mark Levin has the 3rd or fourth most listened to show. He just read from The New Intellectual and the Monument Builders.

Rush has the number one show.

Beck is either two three or four.

Hannity is also 2,3 or 4.

Now, they have the microphone, with real power. I would say that Mark Levin sounded a monumental shout tonight to advance the "sound" of Ayn's words. He is a fair man, he stated that you do not have to agree with all of "ANN" Rand's positions, but when she gets it right, she gets it dead right.

And then he gave a powerful opening.

Adam
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#2 Las Vegas

Las Vegas

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,243 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Business, computer science, consumer electronics, medical science, lap swimming, weight training, photography, sports, Rand & anyone who makes sense.

    U.S. Army Veteran

Posted 23 October 2009 - 05:01 PM

I am asking some of you to put this purity of essence concept aside and walk with these folks because they agree with us on the freedom agenda.

Mark Levin has the 3rd or fourth most listened to show. He just read from The New Intellectual and the Monument Builders.

Rush has the number one show.

Beck is either two three or four.

Hannity is also 2,3 or 4.

Now, they have the microphone, with real power. I would say that Mark Levin sounded a monumental shout tonight to advance the "sound" of Ayn's words. He is a fair man, he stated that you do not have to agree with all of "ANN" Rand's positions, but when she gets it right, she gets it dead right.

And then he gave a powerful opening.

Adam


I listened to his show. It was good to hear him quote Rand's views on socialism.
Live long & prosper

#3 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,919 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 23 October 2009 - 05:35 PM


I am asking some of you to put this purity of essence concept aside and walk with these folks because they agree with us on the freedom agenda.

Mark Levin has the 3rd or fourth most listened to show. He just read from The New Intellectual and the Monument Builders.

Rush has the number one show.

Beck is either two three or four.

Hannity is also 2,3 or 4.

Now, they have the microphone, with real power. I would say that Mark Levin sounded a monumental shout tonight to advance the "sound" of Ayn's words. He is a fair man, he stated that you do not have to agree with all of "ANN" Rand's positions, but when she gets it right, she gets it dead right.

And then he gave a powerful opening.

Adam


I listened to his show. It was good to hear him quote Rand's views on socialism.


yep - more importantly, the reach of the show which is prime time rush hour on the East coast and it makes Rand "safer" for certain religious conservatives, which, guys and dolls, we fucking need. Home schoolers. Independent "non gender feminist" women's groups - if there are any.

Glad you enjoyed it, he is very passionate and persuasive and brilliant intellectually. He ran for his Pennsylvania school board when he was 19 and got elected.

Adam
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#4 Philip Coates

Philip Coates

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 3,560 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:--Playing Sports (running, basketball, body surfing)
    --Literature and History
    --Art Museums
    --Rock 'n Roll, Classical, Country and Western
    --Epistemology
    --Travel
    --Classic Old Movies

Posted 23 October 2009 - 08:07 PM

It's more likely that a very religious or very marxist person will either convert to or find some affinities with Objectivism, despite diametric opposite views on some issues than it is a person with no firm principles or who doesn't believe in principles.

If you believe in nothing, you are unreachable.

So it's no surprise very religious conservatives are finding aspects to admire right now. On the flip side, has anyone seen the movies of (the very religious) Tyler Perry? Great Movies! If you can get past the God talk (and it isn't that overdone), the values he espouses and the way he portrays them are very good, very moving.

His movies are often about personal responsibility and are inspiring. Like Cosby, he has an impact in the black community but these movies are not just for that community.

And when TP dresses up and drag and plays Madea he is just SIYP funny!

Edited by Philip Coates, 23 October 2009 - 08:10 PM.


#5 jeffrey smith

jeffrey smith

    $$$$$

  • Members
  • 650 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Florida
  • Interests:history, classic literature, classical music and opera, philosophy and religion

Posted 23 October 2009 - 08:51 PM

So it's no surprise very religious conservatives are finding aspects to admire right now. On the flip side, has anyone seen the movies of (the very religious) Tyler Perry? Great Movies! If you can get past the God talk (and it isn't that overdone), the values he espouses and the way he portrays them are very good, very moving.

His movies are often about personal responsibility and are inspiring. Like Cosby, he has an impact in the black community but these movies are not just for that community.

And when TP dresses up and drag and plays Madea he is just SIYP funny!



Which last fact is why some church groups condemned his movies (because he performs in drag, not because it's funny. Although possibly the fact that it's funny also offends them.)

Jeff S.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit.

#6 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,919 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 23 October 2009 - 09:01 PM


So it's no surprise very religious conservatives are finding aspects to admire right now. On the flip side, has anyone seen the movies of (the very religious) Tyler Perry? Great Movies! If you can get past the God talk (and it isn't that overdone), the values he espouses and the way he portrays them are very good, very moving.

His movies are often about personal responsibility and are inspiring. Like Cosby, he has an impact in the black community but these movies are not just for that community.

And when TP dresses up and drag and plays Madea he is just SIYP funny!



Which last fact is why some church groups condemned his movies (because he performs in drag, not because it's funny. Although possibly the fact that it's funny also offends them.)

Jeff S.


"...some church groups..." got a source there Jeff? I do not mind broad brushes when I am painting....but when there is a most statement, my fact checker goes off.

Adam
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#7 jeffrey smith

jeffrey smith

    $$$$$

  • Members
  • 650 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Florida
  • Interests:history, classic literature, classical music and opera, philosophy and religion

Posted 23 October 2009 - 09:42 PM



So it's no surprise very religious conservatives are finding aspects to admire right now. On the flip side, has anyone seen the movies of (the very religious) Tyler Perry? Great Movies! If you can get past the God talk (and it isn't that overdone), the values he espouses and the way he portrays them are very good, very moving.

His movies are often about personal responsibility and are inspiring. Like Cosby, he has an impact in the black community but these movies are not just for that community.

And when TP dresses up and drag and plays Madea he is just SIYP funny!



Which last fact is why some church groups condemned his movies (because he performs in drag, not because it's funny. Although possibly the fact that it's funny also offends them.)

Jeff S.


"...some church groups..." got a source there Jeff? I do not mind broad brushes when I am painting....but when there is a most statement, my fact checker goes off.

Adam


I specifically remember reading about some churches denouncing Madea when the most recent film came out--black churches. But it came as a random blip on the news radar, so I didn't keep track of the references.

Sorry for the vagueness, but that's the best info I can supply. (And please note I said "some" not "most".)

Jeff S.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit.

#8 Ted Keer

Ted Keer

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 3,084 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 23 October 2009 - 10:54 PM




So it's no surprise very religious conservatives are finding aspects to admire right now. On the flip side, has anyone seen the movies of (the very religious) Tyler Perry? Great Movies! If you can get past the God talk (and it isn't that overdone), the values he espouses and the way he portrays them are very good, very moving.

His movies are often about personal responsibility and are inspiring. Like Cosby, he has an impact in the black community but these movies are not just for that community.

And when TP dresses up and drag and plays Madea he is just SIYP funny!



Which last fact is why some church groups condemned his movies (because he performs in drag, not because it's funny. Although possibly the fact that it's funny also offends them.)

Jeff S.


"...some church groups..." got a source there Jeff? I do not mind broad brushes when I am painting....but when there is a most statement, my fact checker goes off.

Adam


I specifically remember reading about some churches denouncing Madea when the most recent film came out--black churches. But it came as a random blip on the news radar, so I didn't keep track of the references.

Sorry for the vagueness, but that's the best info I can supply. (And please note I said "some" not "most".)

Jeff S.


I have heard the same "rumor" and from real life black christian folk. I didn't ask for names. Leviticus condemns cross dressing, doesn't it?



Confession is always weakness. The grave soul keeps its own secrets, and takes its own punishment in silence.

#9 Jerry Biggers

Jerry Biggers

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,347 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland
  • Interests:Interested in Objectivism and libertarianism since the mid-1960's.; Other philosophy, science, history, Siamese (and other) cats. .

Posted 23 October 2009 - 11:30 PM

It's more likely that a very religious or very marxist person will either convert to or find some affinities with Objectivism, despite diametric opposite views on some issues than it is a person with no firm principles or who doesn't believe in principles.

If you believe in nothing, you are unreachable.

So it's no surprise very religious conservatives are finding aspects to admire right now.

To the extent that a "very religious or very Marxist person" is extremely dissatisfied with his faith - and to the extent that they are searching for a replacement ideology that also presents a system or comprehensive world view - they may be somewhat attracted to aspects of Objectivism. But they will most likely lose their interest when they come up against one of Rand's core beliefs that they cannot tolerate. For a Marxist, that would be individualism and laissez faire capitalism. For a religious conservative, Rand's atheism and her support of a woman's right to choose an abortion will cause them to abandon Objectivism. Additionally, National Review conservatives have also criticized Rand for being a system-builder, claiming that comprehensive systems that "explain everything" (ignoring that this line of criticism could also be applied to some Christian philosophies) ultimately become intolerant of dissent and degenerate into advocating a totalitarian state.

Remember that the most hostile criticism of Rand has come from the religious conservatives that dominate National Review. In addition to Buckley commissioning and publishing Whittaker Chambers' virulent attack on Atlas Shrugged,in 1957, NR has seen fit to reprint that same article for their 25th and 50th Annversary editions.

The "neo-conservative" Weekly Standard has occasionally printed brief disparaging remarks about Rand. I don't think that they have (yet) published a whole article or book review attacking Rand, but sooner or later, they will get around to it. There is too much disagreement on essentials between Rand and the neo-cons' "patron saint," Irving Kristol.

I have read that the other main conservative journal (and, ironically, one that had printed a few of Rand's articles many decades ago), Human Events, had some very unfavorable things to say about Rand on the occasion of her centennial.

For the above reasons, religious conservatives will ultimately drop Ayn Rand, particularly when they see that their attempts to "pick and choose" certain parts of Rand's views will not get many converts from Objectivism. Of course, what will disturb them even more is finding out that advocating young conservatives to read Rand will lead to some of them abandoning religion.

Watch what happens when a significant amount of Rush's "ditto heads" start complaining to him that his recommendation to read Rand has led to their kids dropping their religious faith. The identical problem will ultimately impact Mark Levine, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity.

As for Marxists, Rand lived and was famous during the time (1940-1970s) that many communists left the party. Many went to work for National Review (damn near their whole editorial staff!) or other conservative journals or organizations. I cannot think of even one prominent ex-communist who chose to stand up publicly for Ayn Rand or who embraced her system. I think that says something about the appeal of Objectivism to disaffected Marxists.

#10 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,919 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 23 October 2009 - 11:51 PM


It's more likely that a very religious or very marxist person will either convert to or find some affinities with Objectivism, despite diametric opposite views on some issues than it is a person with no firm principles or who doesn't believe in principles.

If you believe in nothing, you are unreachable.

So it's no surprise very religious conservatives are finding aspects to admire right now.

To the extent that a "very religious or very Marxist person" is extremely dissatisfied with his faith - and to the extent that they are searching for a replacement ideology that also presents a system or comprehensive world view - they may be somewhat attracted to aspects of Objectivism. But they will most likely lose their interest when they come up against one of Rand's core beliefs that they cannot tolerate. For a Marxist, that would be individualism and laissez faire capitalism. For a religious conservative, Rand's atheism and her support of a woman's right to choose an abortion will cause them to abandon Objectivism. Additionally, National Review conservatives have also criticized Rand for being a system-builder, claiming that comprehensive systems that "explain everything" (ignoring that this line of criticism could also be applied to some Christian philosophies) ultimately become intolerant of dissent and degenerate into advocating a totalitarian state.

Remember that the most hostile criticism of Rand has come from the religious conservatives that dominate National Review. In addition to Buckley commissioning and publishing Whittaker Chambers' virulent attack on Atlas Shrugged,in 1957, NR has seen fit to reprint that same article for their 25th and 50th Annversary editions.

The "neo-conservative" Weekly Standard has occasionally printed brief disparaging remarks about Rand. I don't think that they have (yet) published a whole article or book review attacking Rand, but sooner or later, they will get around to it. There is too much disagreement on essentials between Rand and the neo-cons' "patron saint," Irving Kristol.

I have read that the other main conservative journal (and, ironically, one that had printed a few of Rand's articles many decades ago), Human Events, had some very unfavorable things to say about Rand on the occasion of her centennial.

For the above reasons, religious conservatives will ultimately drop Ayn Rand, particularly when they see that their attempts to "pick and choose" certain parts of Rand's views will not get many converts from Objectivism. Of course, what will disturb them even more is finding out that advocating young conservatives to read Rand will lead to some of them abandoning religion.

Watch what happens when a significant amount of Rush's "ditto heads" start complaining to him that his recommendation to read Rand has led to their kids dropping their religious faith. The identical problem will ultimately impact Mark Levine, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity.

As for Marxists, Rand lived and was famous during the time (1940-1970s) that many communists left the party. Many went to work for National Review (damn near their whole editorial staff!) or other conservative journals or organizations. I cannot think of even one prominent ex-communist who chose to stand up publicly for Ayn Rand or who embraced her system. I think that says something about the appeal of Objectivism to disaffected Marxists.


Just to ask a clarifying question. Are you arguing that there is a Rand "bible" and there can be no improvement or enhancement or change in her positions? I am not sure Ayn would have the same positions on some issues as she did then.

It is not her positions or her statements that survives and breaths, it is her originating assumptions and foundation truths that carry forward.

Adam
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#11 Jerry Biggers

Jerry Biggers

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,347 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland
  • Interests:Interested in Objectivism and libertarianism since the mid-1960's.; Other philosophy, science, history, Siamese (and other) cats. .

Posted 24 October 2009 - 09:22 AM



It's more likely that a very religious or very marxist person will either convert to or find some affinities with Objectivism, despite diametric opposite views on some issues than it is a person with no firm principles or who doesn't believe in principles.

If you believe in nothing, you are unreachable.

So it's no surprise very religious conservatives are finding aspects to admire right now.

To the extent that a "very religious or very Marxist person" is extremely dissatisfied with his faith - and to the extent that they are searching for a replacement ideology that also presents a system or comprehensive world view - they may be somewhat attracted to aspects of Objectivism. But they will most likely lose their interest when they come up against one of Rand's core beliefs that they cannot tolerate. For a Marxist, that would be individualism and laissez faire capitalism. For a religious conservative, Rand's atheism and her support of a woman's right to choose an abortion will cause them to abandon Objectivism. Additionally, National Review conservatives have also criticized Rand for being a system-builder, claiming that comprehensive systems that "explain everything" (ignoring that this line of criticism could also be applied to some Christian philosophies) ultimately become intolerant of dissent and degenerate into advocating a totalitarian state.

Remember that the most hostile criticism of Rand has come from the religious conservatives that dominate National Review. In addition to Buckley commissioning and publishing Whittaker Chambers' virulent attack on Atlas Shrugged,in 1957, NR has seen fit to reprint that same article for their 25th and 50th Annversary editions.

The "neo-conservative" Weekly Standard has occasionally printed brief disparaging remarks about Rand. I don't think that they have (yet) published a whole article or book review attacking Rand, but sooner or later, they will get around to it. There is too much disagreement on essentials between Rand and the neo-cons' "patron saint," Irving Kristol.

I have read that the other main conservative journal (and, ironically, one that had printed a few of Rand's articles many decades ago), Human Events, had some very unfavorable things to say about Rand on the occasion of her centennial.

For the above reasons, religious conservatives will ultimately drop Ayn Rand, particularly when they see that their attempts to "pick and choose" certain parts of Rand's views will not get many converts from Objectivism. Of course, what will disturb them even more is finding out that advocating young conservatives to read Rand will lead to some of them abandoning religion.

Watch what happens when a significant amount of Rush's "ditto heads" start complaining to him that his recommendation to read Rand has led to their kids dropping their religious faith. The identical problem will ultimately impact Mark Levine, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity.

As for Marxists, Rand lived and was famous during the time (1940-1970s) that many communists left the party. Many went to work for National Review (damn near their whole editorial staff!) or other conservative journals or organizations. I cannot think of even one prominent ex-communist who chose to stand up publicly for Ayn Rand or who embraced her system. I think that says something about the appeal of Objectivism to disaffected Marxists.


Just to ask a clarifying question. Are you arguing that there is a Rand "bible" and there can be no improvement or enhancement or change in her positions? I am not sure Ayn would have the same positions on some issues as she did then.

It is not her positions or her statements that survives and breaths, it is her originating assumptions and foundation truths that carry forward.

Adam

Adam,
Where, in my post above, did I say anything related to a Rand "bible?" I was referring to how religious conservatives and Marxists responded to Rand and Objectivism, in the past, present and future. I did not say anything about how Objectivists have, are, or will respond to conservatives.

But to answer your question: No, I believe in the concept of an "open Objectivism" - although I don't particularly like that term). I don't buy Peikoff's view that Objectivism is a "closed" system.

#12 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,919 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 24 October 2009 - 09:40 AM

Understood.

I agree with you about the "open" system and I also do not like the term.

Adam
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#13 Philip Coates

Philip Coates

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 3,560 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:--Playing Sports (running, basketball, body surfing)
    --Literature and History
    --Art Museums
    --Rock 'n Roll, Classical, Country and Western
    --Epistemology
    --Travel
    --Classic Old Movies

Posted 24 October 2009 - 10:18 AM

Jerry, re your post #9, I agree that those who are firmly anti-Rand on ideological grounds (especially groups or magazines organized specifically around those principles) are likely to stay firmly anti-Rand, but I was talking about individuals. Certainly not the majority of them. More importantly, I was comparing the likelihood of a person who has a strong ideology becoming an Oist or sympathetic to Rand to someone who has no principles, doesn't believe in principles.

I can't count the number of times I've heard someone say "I was a devout Christian or a flaming socialist. Then I read Rand." As compared to those who say I was a total non-thinker, subjectivist, nihilist, [or] didn't believe man's mind can know reality or ethics, then I became an Objectivist."

If someone thinks in principles, rules, values then you can swap out those principles, but you can't insert them upon a base of jello or sand. Entirely alien psychoepistemology.

Put it another way: the first category of 'principled people' can often find a flaw in their structure of beliefs and then be led to question and reject and seek a replacement (not necessarily Objectivism as in the case of the neocons, those disillusioned by Stalin, etc. - especially before Oism was fully developed, taught, known.) But the second category -- skeptics, pragmatists, and non-believers in principles -- if even they adhere to anything, when they find a flaw are more likely to simply shrug and say that's okay, there are flaws in everything.

Edited by Philip Coates, 24 October 2009 - 10:26 AM.


#14 Ted Keer

Ted Keer

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 3,084 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 24 October 2009 - 10:57 AM

What was the date of this broadcast? Is it available on line as a podcast at his site? Is there a transcript? A clip at youtube?



Confession is always weakness. The grave soul keeps its own secrets, and takes its own punishment in silence.

#15 Robert Campbell

Robert Campbell

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 3,582 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:psychological theory, self-esteem, classical music, jazz, blues, music history

Posted 24 October 2009 - 11:01 AM

Mark Levin reading from "The Monument Builders"?

More power to him!

Robert Campbell

#16 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,919 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 24 October 2009 - 11:18 AM

What was the date of this broadcast? Is it available on line as a podcast at his site? Is there a transcript? A clip at youtube?


Friday 23rd of October and I do not know about the podcast - http://marklevinshow.com/home.asp

Here is his website.

Adam
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#17 Chris Grieb

Chris Grieb

    Mr.

  • Members
  • 4,327 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington DC
  • Interests:History of Objectivism, American & World history, movies

Posted 24 October 2009 - 11:57 AM

I am asking some of you to put this purity of essence concept aside and walk with these folks because they agree with us on the freedom agenda.

Mark Levin has the 3rd or fourth most listened to show. He just read from The New Intellectual and the Monument Builders.

Rush has the number one show.

Beck is either two three or four.

Hannity is also 2,3 or 4.

Now, they have the microphone, with real power. I would say that Mark Levin sounded a monumental shout tonight to advance the "sound" of Ayn's words. He is a fair man, he stated that you do not have to agree with all of "ANN" Rand's positions, but when she gets it right, she gets it dead right.

And then he gave a powerful opening.

Adam

Adam; I am getting tired of people who know better not learning or having learned mis-pronounce Miss Rand's first name.

I think with some people is it a deliberate act of disrespect. For anyone Miss Rand's first name rhymes with "mine".

If Mr Levine really admires her he should pronounce her name right.


Edited by Chris Grieb, 24 October 2009 - 11:59 AM.


#18 Bill P

Bill P

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,688 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Shanghai, China
  • Interests:Chess, reading, philosophical discussions, grandchildren

Posted 24 October 2009 - 12:07 PM

What was the date of this broadcast? Is it available on line as a podcast at his site? Is there a transcript? A clip at youtube?


One easy way to get the podcast is through iTunes. Inside iTunes, go to the Store and search for Mark Levin.

Bill P

#19 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,919 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 24 October 2009 - 12:17 PM


I am asking some of you to put this purity of essence concept aside and walk with these folks because they agree with us on the freedom agenda.

Mark Levin has the 3rd or fourth most listened to show. He just read from The New Intellectual and the Monument Builders.

Rush has the number one show.

Beck is either two three or four.

Hannity is also 2,3 or 4.

Now, they have the microphone, with real power. I would say that Mark Levin sounded a monumental shout tonight to advance the "sound" of Ayn's words. He is a fair man, he stated that you do not have to agree with all of "ANN" Rand's positions, but when she gets it right, she gets it dead right.

And then he gave a powerful opening.

Adam

Adam; I am getting tired of people who know better not learning or having learned mis-pronounce Miss Rand's first name.

I think with some people is it a deliberate act of disrespect. For anyone Miss Rand's first name rhymes with "mine".

If Mr Levine really admires her he should pronounce her name right.


Agreed and I have an email to his producer - I expect to here him correct it - as he is a stickler for proper credit to the person whose quotes or ideas he talks about.

Adam
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#20 Ted Keer

Ted Keer

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 3,084 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 24 October 2009 - 12:33 PM

This link will take you directly to the podcast.

Edited by Ted Keer, 24 October 2009 - 12:34 PM.




Confession is always weakness. The grave soul keeps its own secrets, and takes its own punishment in silence.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users