• entries
    210
  • comments
    2,879
  • views
    28,814

Rolling in the ditch

william.scherk

305 views

On 4/8/2016 at 8:57 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Mark Levin has been harsh on Drumpf, but at least he's not silly enough to think suicide is the best approach.

If Drumpf is the candidate, after this video, does anyone have any doubt who he will actively support?

Michael

 

On 4/8/2016 at 9:01 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

Barack Obama is the essence of the Endless War machine.

If you don't know what that means, I fear we are too mired in words and I will "lose arguments."

So like a coward, I will tuck tail and run.

I am in terror of being out-worded.

:)

Michael

 

22 hours ago, Peter said:

Thanks, Michael for the Mark Levin podcast. I do not fear a Cruz Presidency. I truly worry about Drumpf. But like Mark Levin I would vote for him if Cruz were not available. I happened to accidentally listen to Levin briefly last night as I drove around 7pm EST. He really blasted “Drumpf surrogates” who were saying if Cruz was against New York values then he was against The NYPD and New York firefighters. Levin methodically laid out the case that the exact opposite was the truth. The biggest liars are Drumpf and his Trumpsters.

Peter  

 

20 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

Exactly.

 

15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here's some food for thought.

 

Granted, the article is by Roger Stone, but he traces the money. Levin, Beck and Erickson are making out pretty good with anti-Drumpf Super PAC funds. 

They're buying massive amounts of Levin's books. About a cool million in royalties for Levin so far. Also, Levin's son in law works for Cruz, but Levin never says that in public.

Beck has David Barton and millions available from a pro-Cruz super PAC that Barton controls.

Erickson got a cool $3 million so far.

That's a lot of money for attacking Drumpf and it's not really advertising fees. At least they're not doing it for free, bless their little hearts.

:)

Michael

 

14 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

Indeed it was.  Phil never actually wrote the line "Sayonara all you cunts". 

The painful history: the first Atlas Shrugged movie came out, and Phil wrote a piece for another site about how to use the movie to spread the word.  We all expressed our opinions of the movie over the following couple weeks, but Phil stayed mum.  Before long he acknowledged that he hadn't gone to see it.  Ellen wrote (I'm doing this from memory, so it may not be perfect): C'mon Phil, money where your mouth is.  To which Phil replied: Up yours, cunt.  This provoked a reaction from the moderating department; whether the post was deleted or merely brought about a stern rebuke, I don’t recall.  But it was a key event leading Phil to shake the dust of OL from his feet.  And it just hasn't been the same around here since!

In a good way.

Ok, I think we're done.  I felt I should counter the suggestion that I'm a practicing Quote Doctor.  I leave that to the truly Valliant.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The Tale of Three Mark Levins:

Let's start with Mark Levin No. 1:

 

Now on to Mark Levin No. 2:

GOP Establishment Money Funding Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Erick Erickson To Attack Drumpf
by Roger Stone
04/08/2016
The Daily Caller

From the article:

 

Now we come to Mark Levin No. 3:

He's really pissed at Roger Stone. And he should be.

But which Mark Levin is the real one? The Mark Levin who claims that putting Hillary in office is the worst thing that could ever happen to America and whoever does this is not a conservative but a fraud (his term), the Mark Levin who makes gobs of money from pro-Cruz connections, including a job in the family (see here in case you missed the link above), which is sleazy but not treason to use a term he likes, or the Mark Levin who is now fine with Hillary over Drumpf? He said openly he is disposed to tell his audience not to vote for Drumpf if he gets the nomination. But he is fully aware this would elect Hillary.

Levin calls Stone Nixonian, which he is, but Stone's article is not. I'm not a fan of a lot of Stone's sleaze. I admit to the entertainment factor as I like gossip just as much as the next person (us primates love to stare at our celebrity monkeys :) ). But I always take Stone's stuff with a heaping helping of salt. 

In this article, I just don't see much here. Stone merely posted information on the Internet that he got from the Internet and commented about it. There was no wiretapping or made-up false rumors or anything like that.

Stone thinks the Cruz money connections taint Levin's integrity. Well Levin has been blasting Drumpf's integrity for quite some time now. There's nothing Nixonian about any of that. It's normal campaign bickering.

But more to the point. I don't think Levin understands yet what he just did to himself. He had a pristine image of someone who can't be bought because he holds his commitment to principles above everything else, especially his love of America. I don't think the article by Stone would have made any impact on that image. It didn't shake mine, although that thing about Levin's son-in-law being a Cruz staffer--and his posture of keeping this hidden until exposed--did a little. But he's human, I thought. He's not his family. Let it go.

Now, because of feeling personally insulted because his money got exposed to the light of day by a smear merchant, Mark Levin wants to trash America in exactly the same terms he cautioned against before. Principles be damned.

He also called Ann Coulter a pretty nasty name while he was at it, and started slinging crap against a bunch of conservative commentators and making veiled threats...

I'm not the only one who is looking at this and shaking my head...

The Mark Levin I used to look up to just lost his luster. It looks like his integrity does have a price after all...

Michael

 

 

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Peter,

I have said many times, and I will say again, if Cruz gets the nomination, I will vote for him in a heartbeat over the Democrat (Clinton or Sanders).

I will do that holding my nose, but I will do it. That's because I have little doubt Cruz will keep the Bush Endless War machine running right along and the blood money pumping to the evil bastards.

But Cruz might chop away at the size of the government a little. And that's the essential difference between him and Kasich or the Democrats. All of them are committed to Endless War, though. They don't say it, they say the contrary, but I have 100% certainty they will do it--even Sanders. 

Unless Cruz gets the nomination, I'm all in for Drumpf.

And, no, no amount of neocon-supporting blah blah blah about Drumpf being a progressive (including that line of crap from Glenn Beck) will change my mind.

Michael

 



0 Comments


Recommended Comments

There are no comments to display.

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...