15 votes

Mark Levin compares Ron Paul followers to Marxists

On his radio show Mark Levin compares Ron Paul followers to Marxists. He completely marginalizes Ron Paul followers. The media is shifting from an ignore them to attack them mode.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

As always, I have only ONE thing to say to Levin:

Get off the phone, you big dope!


(I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken)

It's an honor to be called a name by Mark!

It's because he cares! He has always mentioned Ron Paul or somethings about environmental wackos or a few issues foreign differences but I'm not offended or turned away.
(notice the fair mention of Rand)
We are all invited to his round table, until you are repetive and boring, and then it's ... GET OUT'A HERE! with that mafioso twang ... cracks me up!
(and he usually mutters ... another marxist! every show)
Me ... I don't do like or dislike ... I listen.
It's abject arrogant ignorance of facism and the bribes and no mind of the nothingness ... just creepiness that sometimes I'm in disbelieve ...
Mark Levin Keep on do your thing! Thankyou!
For years, Mark has filled me with passsion and an investigative honesty and I love his names for things. He's hilarious and his theme song is a passionate, edited version of "Independence Day" by Martina McBride with an extended intro. (vedio 1 min 24 sec)

Think for yourself and question authority is my motto.

I've been listening to Rush Limbaugh for at least 30 years and think of him as my brother.

Now General Electric's holdings of main stream media ...
that's the propaganda grinder.

Both of these gentlemen work long hours and are so passionate, they have no agenda other than they deserve the right to say no. Anyway, he's on our side with limited government and not too pushy on foriegn issues.

Well, bye, gotta change the channel, KPFK has been catching my ear lately. Gary Null is on the front lines.

And never forget, “Humans, despite our artistic pretensions, our sophistication and many accomplishments, owe the fact of our existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains.”

Too funny

Better a Marxist then a Socialist lol


With that rant, might as well open up a church

for his flock. He could get some nice tax breaks.
It's always ironic when speaking out and trying to educate people is seen as heresy.

Koolaid is everywhere. That's part of an open society. Lol. Deal with it.

That's it!

In my nearly 4 years here, I have to hear you guys are Marxists from Levin?

I'm outta' here!

And, in true a hole fashion, I'm taking the r3VOLution with me.

I'm sorry it had fall apart this way.

Defend Liberty!

Quite the rant from Levin

Sounds like we are getting up underneath his gizzard. LOL

Marxist Levin aka "The Great Con"

That is about the most absurd example of newspeak I have heard yet. Supporters of Dr. Paul are about as anti-marxist as there can be. Such a comparison is even doubly absurd coming from Marxist Levin.

Mark Levin is no small government libertarian conservative. Mark Levin (aka “The Great Con”) is just another big government statist cloaking himself in pseudo constitutional clothing. Expose his misled Markist followers to the light of reason, Constitution and the benefits of a society based on the philosophy of liberty.

Mark Levin would never debate with anyone outside of his little call-in radio charade. If you have listened to him with anyone that calls him out, Levin simply resorts to interrupting, shouting over the caller, name-calling, threats to “slap them around” or some such, and simply hanging up. It is easy to expose the intellectual fallacies of the statists, so why resort to unintellectual childish antics. It matters not if he is correct on some issues, his childish antics are purely for ratings and entertainment value, but they do nothing to help spread liberty.

I would love to go one-on-one with Mark Levin on the Constitution or any issue; but despite his “tough” talk Mark Levin is a complete and total coward. Levin would never risk debating little old me, let alone an intellectual titan such as Thomas Woods. Levin will coward out of his bluff challenging Thomas Woods to a debate. A hypocritical coward as Mark Levin would never avail himself to an open debate where his fake antics and false “small government” positions would crumble, and expose him for the intellectual hypocritical fool that he is.

Perhaps Mark Levin resorts to the juvenile name-calling, shouting and hanging up as a Napoleonic complex means of compensating for having the physical stature of a bald dwarf combined with the voice of a whiny eight year old with a stuffed nose.

It is all a shame because Levin does have the potential for intellectual capacity. If Levin could become brave enough to apply intellect rather than resort to Jerry Springer show juvenile antics for ratings; and develop the courage to open his mind to seeking consistent and principled application of liberty and the role of government, Mark Levin has the capacity to be a great ally to liberty, or even a great leader. But alas, Mark Levin seems content choosing instead to remain a coward.

Mark (Marx) Levin Exposed:
Mark-ist Levin’s statism: http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/04/21/mark-levins-statism/

Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl

He is closer to a Marxist.....

than we are. It is a case of projection: he likes war-like statists, that is a Marxist.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15


Notice how he doesn't appeal to right and wrong, he only appeals to the majority -- argumentum ad populum.

Who is Mark Levin?

I have never heard of him before this post.
(he seems very lonely and wishes he was somebody)

Ron Paul 2012

Non distributio medium

It may be that many of us are indeed being too hard on poor Mark Levin. He is, after all, a neocon right-wing radio blabbermouth, not an economist, not a historian, and not a logician,

I believe that his mistake confusing us with Marxists (???) probably stems from the fact that Ron Paul has been a critic of the more egregious military and civil liberties outrages of the US government, and so have some)Marxists.

Levin's line of reasoning here might be something like: Marxists disagree with US foreign policy, Ron Paul supporters disagree with US foreign policy, therefore Marxists are Ron Paul supporters...

Hey Mark L. Heres one for you. All dogs are mortal, Socrates was mortal, therefore Socrates was a dog.

Go back to school, and repeat your courses in logic and rhetoric! On the other hand, it seems, especially in light of your recent debate with Dr. Tom Woods of the Mises Institute, that your years of "schooling" haven't really done that much for you...

David K. Meller

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is not to be attacked successfully, it is to be defended badly". F. Bastiat

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, finally they attack you, and then you win"! Mohandas Gandhi

Is there a link to that

Is there a link to that debate? I'd like to see that one.

He starts with name calling ...

... then proceeds to make up his "facts" as he goes along - let's see now, there are only 14 of us? Well then, we are gaining, because back during the Republican Presidential debates Hannity claimed that the internet vote was swamped by RP spammers, "... all 12 of them [hahaha]".

Would love to see a debate between this lame excuse and Ron Paul. Of course he would probably do what he has always done, while he tries to paint the TRUE American Patriot, the TRUE Champion of the Constitution, and his supporters, not "followers" as he calls us, but supporters, as being out of control, shouting and screaming ... Oh, that was my point - Levin is always shouting and screaming, (his favorite scream is "you big dummy!!!!!!") while he accuses us of this, and uses it as a basis to condemn the foremost citizen champions of Liberty.

Are we in stage 2 (ridicule) or 3 (fight)?

We will win unless we quit, because we have chosen the side of Truth and use Reason to serve Justice.

I am happy to be an outlying

I am happy to be an outlying self centered true believing asshole.

I would hate to be a mindless bleating heart sheep like all the rest of the people, caught in a neverending hamster wheel, being half awake, half alive, but never really living, knowing, feeling anything but the master's whip across my back.

These are the people who exhibit true herd mentality, because they continue to live their lives like everybody else, even at the expense of their own happiness and well being, because they think they owe something to somebody for some sick inexplicable reason.

For the record, I don't "follow" Ron Paul.. we just happen to be on the same path, and he just happened to start on that path first.

So here's to being an outlier!

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go raise my glass with P!nk and her dirty little freaks.

"Normal people suck!" -Techno

I sincerely hope, for the

I sincerely hope, for the sake of all of us, that those who share some, any, or most of Ron Paul's views are not "his followers". In fact, I would go so far as to say that having followers or being a follower would be fundamentally incompatible with Ron Paul's philosophy. It certainly is with mine.

Levin is starting to feel the

Levin is starting to feel the heat...

"Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth." -George Washington


I do agree with the assessment of hard core Ron Paulers... we could temper our enthusiasm a bit...

But his response is typical of a pathological liar. They grasp for any truth to leverage themselves back into credibility.

The fact that he supports Barry's new War is the thing to focus on. That is unforgivable.

I'm seeing a pattern now.

It appears to me that there is one-two strategy by the Republican establishment developing:

(a) Hardcore Neo-cons: Go after Ron Paul in attack mode, and go after Ron Paul's supporters in particular.

Make sure and preemptively use the "anti-semite" Race Card in all angry rants against Paulites, in much the same fashion that liberal Democrats use the "anti-black and Mexican" Race Card preemptively against the Tea Party Right.

(b) Mainstream conservatives: Triangulate and say softly critical things bout Ron Paul, stating that "a lot of his ideas are great, I love his views on the economy, but I think his foreign policy is nuts".

Make sure and use the word "crazy", "nuts", or reference his age in as subtle a way as possible.

Liberal critics in blogs and editorials on the Web will occasionally echo this in rants, essentially dubbing him "crazy old Paul".

Support the Constitution of the United States

I agree with Levin on one point -- well maybe two

Ron Paul followers are annoying, hahahaha. We are, where it, enjoy it, parade it -- we are flat out annoying; hell we find each other annoying here on the DP, smile. I know I'm annoying and I've been a Ron Paul fan since '88.

The other aspect I agree with him on and I've tried hard to steer RPers away from is this "Harkening" back to "freer" times or the "the Founder's said" type thinking.

The Founder's were EITHER Slave Owners, Slave Profiteers, or Not Serious about ending slavery.

Lincoln was the only politician with the gumption to push the issue to a head (for whatever reason).

RPers are on the "wrongside" of the Lincoln debate; not that we should applaud the economic and human toll that war took -- the immaturity lies in the singular argument that either Lincoln was solely responsible or that Lincoln had a plan on 600K people dying. The one thing never argued (seemingly only by me) is that the south could of said, "only 8% of us super-wealthy individuals own slaves -- "let's stop aligning with British House of Rothschilds and France House of Rothschilds; let's stop aligning with British and France war-colonial machines (with the obvious and stated desire to see slavery pushed into the western states)." Something like that could of been said, but wasn't -- only "us 8% have decided to put the 92% of the south in financial and mortal combat -- so we can keep our 'position' and 'authority"

Anyway -- On these two greater points I agree with Levin.

He is a "tool" of grand proportions and the nasal-whiny voice is grating to the nervous system; regardless of what he says, but I do believe that he is sincere in his beliefs -- one of the few shock-jocks who is consistent in his views and not "only" about ratings (paying the bills). What he says on the air is consistent with a neocon of the Reagan era.

RPers are on the *factual* side of the Lincoln debate.

This due, in large part, to the fact that Ron Paul fans read Lew Rockwell and Tom DiLorenzo. That puts them on the fast track.

I agree with you regarding the "600K genocide" argument, but that's just exaggeration...hyperbole. Hyperbole is one of our problems. But the statistic is at least supported by war dead, and one cannot honestly make the argument with a straight face that genocidal pillage was not a tactic in the Union Army's advance in places like Georgia, let's say. The same Army went on after the war to employ similar tactics against the Plains Indians of the West.

Regarding your statement "Lincoln was the only politician with the gumption to push the issue to a head (for whatever reason)", it doesn't gibe with his reasons for starting the war---only with the sugar-coated public school image of Lincoln.

Support the Constitution of the United States

KevTuma: Actually DiLorenzo is not "factual"

He exagerated and distorted the truth in many areas of his work.

I've argued this before (successfully) on DP and would rather not do it here.

I don't care why Lincoln brought about an end to Infanticide, Mass Rape and Sodomy, and the selling / trading of human souls.

France and England had standing armies in Mexico and Canada ready to invade to aid the South.

The South (upper 8% anyway) made huge debt-arrangements with the Rothschilds of England and France to subsidized their failing model -- France and England wanted slavery to expand into the western territories.

This subsidization was going on long before the Civil War.

The South was so in debt they did not have enough money to wage a long war -- Lincoln thought it would be a short skirmish, it should of been.

Bank of France and England both subsidized and "armed" the South
---Or does the out-right backing by France and England suggest free-market interests.

The Banking House of England and France wanted Slavery to expand.
---They could either make a huge some of money in open civil-war
---Or they could make a rediculous some of money subsidizing and expanding slavery.
---Either way they got rich.

DiLorenzo left that and a WHOLE LOT MORE out of his "analysis"

One man cannot start a civil war -- It takes two-sides to fight it.

Lincoln's "greenback" could of broke the back of the bankers -- like Kennedy it was the reason they executed him.

DiLorenzo is full of Shist and it's "un-necessary" sensationalism to prove free-enterprise theory -- we do not need to "harken" back.

There were many flaws in Lincoln's decision tree, but given the circumstances I think most of them were correct.

If France and England aided the South and gained land-hold in America it would of been impossible to route them out -- not for a long time. Within the lives of our grandparents another American WAr would of broke out to do so.

The fact of the matter is the Banks of England and France retreated once they saw union victory was fact and the cost of prolonging the war and finding alternative trading partners for vital commodities was too too high. Just know that they were so serious, they had standing armies on our borders.

OMG. OMG OCTO. You just

OMG. OMG OCTO. You just reminded me that other countries were getting ready to come here to get involved in our "civil" war. OMG. Only now WE get involved with BOMBS, in other countries, so if any uprising happens HERE, again, they sure have good reason to rush in to the U.S. and destroy our country.


The truth is annoying when

The truth is annoying when you've accepted lies all your life. It's difficult for most people to admit they've been wrong.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan


inherited slaves at age 10 after his father died. ie. he was slave owner by circumstance. He wanted to end the practice from what I have read. I would have a hard time believing Washington mistreated his slaves.

Levin hammers the Founders because whomever controls the past...controls the future. Levin is no friend of America imo.

Besides Levin is an ant compared to those men and he knows it. Could you imagine Levin with slaves? ;)


Donvino: Physical Slavery is far far far worse than Debt


I can lead a minimalist lifestyle and be debt-free and be perfectly happy. I can live an abundant lifestyle and be debt-free and be perfectly happy, in America today.

Yes Yes - I know they can destroy the value of my dollar and yes that's horrible. But as long as everyone elses dollar is destroyed and I avoid nominal debt and learn to navigate (buy silver - gold - commodities) I can grow wealthy in this economy.

No - I do not like (not one bit) Corporatism.

But my African and Indian ancestors could not -- nor could any female ancestor of yours; they had no vote and were financially enslaved to their men.

Most white men could not vote during the Founder's Reign.

To try and say that Washington was a "good" slave owner is ABSURD.

Levin does not own slaves.

I'm NO fan of Levin mind you nor am I a fan of Corporatism; but "we" (Africans and Indians) are freer today with more opportunity then during Mass Genocide, Land Theft, Broken Treaties, Fugitive Slave Laws, Transatlantic Slave Ships, and Human Cattle Drives (Reservationism).

During Capitalism the above happened.

Capitalism is a Fuedalist / Nationalist Model

Corporatism puts the "horror" on other Nations; which is bad, but the "horror" is so spread out it's more of an existence tax then out-and-out Chattle Slavery.

Nationalism leads to Fascism
---Capitalism to Corporatism
---Socialism to Nazism

You cannot keep-by-force a nationalistic model; it must either contract towards liberty (ubber-wealthy give up more and more power) or it must expand towards the most contemptible foreign-based tyranny.

Mises model of Consumer-Sovereignty will 100% lead toward an Individualist Society where we have the highest freedoms, a level of freedom un-dreamed of.

We don't have a word yet for what comes after Fascism -- because in the beginning, especially the Corporatist model of it and less the civil war outbreaks (opportunism) the "horror" is far more manageable. But in the long-run it turns into what we have today and when there are no more people to spread Level 1 and Level 2 fascism "existence tax" over what comes after I do not want to imagine.

There was no "good" Founding Father -- Lincoln was the only one who had the cajones to bring barbarism to an end; then the "wealthy" realized that they needed to turn globally, that American people would no longer tolerate one group dominating another physically -- or at least not that particular model (Chattle slavery). Reservationism and Broken Treaties when on for a bit longer though, didn't it; then of course we had "prison slavery" (the new and improved). Regardless, the Indian population stabalized and African-American population flourished -- those of us who chose for ourselves and our children to build entrepreneurial opportunity have done really well for ourselves.

Those who chose to sit and bitch and moan have not.

Freedom is won in Consumer-Will and fulfilling that will (innovation) and not the Ballot-Box and not by-way of Bribery(Lobbying).

A little Blitching (blog bitching) is okay, hahahahaha.

I want Mises Dream (Consumer-Sovereignty) to come true and to get their historical-analysis is un-necessary and only leads to name calling (distancing).

It's still slavery.

Physical slavery isn't as bad as debt slavery?

Even if you gave up every modern convienience and dropped off the grid completely, you'd still be a slave. Why? You'd be giving up many if not most of the benefits of modern society, including the most beneficial to humankind, the division of labor. You'd have to work harder for everything you'd have than you would have to otherwise simply to give yourself the impression that you were somehow free.

Where could you build a permanant dwelling within the territory claimed by 'government' with modern facilities...running water, heat, electricity, communications...without having to pay 'government' for the priviledge of staying there and maintaining possession of that dwelling and the land upon which it sat? Where could you legally grow, harvest, and hunt for your own food without permission from 'government'? Where could you manufacture or produce a good or service for sale to others without 'government' making a claim on a portion of your labor or productivity?

To be certain, you can reduce the amount that 'government' steals from you, possibly to 0, by living under the radar or off the grid. But that won't stop them from making claims on you. And it most certainly reduce the amount of labor you must expend to do so. And if you're forced to labor, you're a slave.

None: Debt Slavery is "bad"

No doubt.

We should not tolerate it.

But I have 5 businesses I run -- I can write books and get them published -- My daughter (a woman) can go to college and find gainful employment.

I can "argue" with you from a comfy chair while eating a burrito.

To say we are "more" enslaved or even remotely "near" the kind of Slavery, Land Theft, Mass Rape-Sodomy-Genocide, and Reservationism that my relatives went through MUST by definition mean that you are either a wealthy white person or you imagination is limited?

---We are in agreement (1000%)

But it is irrational to say living in America (where all Africans would love to come -- if they had the opportunity) today is the same as living in America 100 to 200 years ago.

It was only AWESOME back then if you were a wealthy white man and you could vote-bribe-steal with the best of them.

Now you could say that if the Founding Father's had "back-bone" and gave up their power / authority (freed their "children") then YES we'd know a level of freedom today un-imagineable.

But it is irresponsible to "harken" back to "freer" times unless you were in the upper 8% - you were a WASP (specifically) - and you were a man.

I think there's plenty we'd agree on.

Firstly, I think that there's only one race...Human. I think that to see people in terms other than as individuals is to start back down a dark, illogical, backwards path. I don't see people as 'white', 'black', 'brown', 'red', or any other color anymore. Too many wrongs, too many atrocities, too much pain and suffering has been caused over the ages because 'they' aren't like 'us'. Consequently, I've decided that I no longer want to propogate that evil, collectivism, into the future. Be the change you want to see in the world and all.

As for the grand plantation we find ourselves all on, it's pretty cushy. I'd ask you not to be offended, as I certainly don't say this to minimize the suffering that any of your ancestors endured. And to be certain, if they were what most people think of when the word slave is used, they endured much. I simply say that we're all on this plantation because it is, in fact, what it is. Granted, there is a much greater degree of liberty allowed on the plantation known as 'The United States of America' than on others, but, we are all nonetheless still enslaved. Simply because you're allowed to choose your livelyhood to some degree doesn't mean you're free. Because you're allowed to send your children to school, or what school to send them to, that doens't mean that you're free either. I suspect you know this already.

Allow me to further illustrate. For example, what if you wanted to grow hemp? Would you be allowed to do so? Are you 'free' to do so? How about school for your daughter? What if you disagree with what the local 'public' school teaches? Are you 'free' to not fund that school, and take your business elsewhere? Are are you required to pay for it anyway?

How free do you believe you are if you're not even free to say no without being penalized?

None: There is a lot we agree on (no doubt)

When I'm made the slavery connection I was not trying to argue from a position of "greatest sufferer" -- What I was saying, and it is pretty clear, that we should not "harken" back to a "freer" period or suggest people (all people) were freer then. It's an absurd comparison, it is rude, and un-sympathetic.

We are without a doubt (all of us) freer today then back then.

For this fact:

Capitalism (Marx coined it and defined it) leads into some type of Fascism (Corporatism in our case).

Otherly stated -- A Pro-Nationalist model grows into a Pro-Globalist model.

UNLESS -- We change courses and head toward economic and poltical indivdiualism; under such a system EVERYONE is free. Determining who the individual because of grave importance, it must be the largest category all humans rally under. The Consumer is thus the individual, logically.

Here's another way to look at it. Would you want someone from the future to look back and say "people were freer back then" -- would you want them to lessen your experience or worse fall short of the reality and thus stumble back into it? Of course not -- these are OUR brothers and sisters we are talking about our grandchildren and great grandchildren.

No no no. You cannot compare Chattel Slavery and Present Day America. It was a Cultural Hollocaust -- Mass Rape -- Mass Family Dislocation -- Forced Assimilation (etc etc).

For those of us who are smart and adaptive (regardless of race) we can adapt and innovate like no ones business -- in fact as a black-indian-irishmen I can start a business in 5 days with $800. I can own land. I can travel freely. I can homeschool my child (I did actually). I can send "her" off to college. I can protect her, even to the point of murder, without much fear of persecution.

Now where did all the nationalized horror go -- This is where things are "bad" -- why we need to fight. The "horror" has been offshored and what we are left with is "decreasing" liberties, but not toward out-and-out slavery but towards partial inservitude. Could that lead back Chattel slavery -- no I don't think so. We are on a "global" trend.

A free-market society is a Global Economic Model -- In such a free-society we do not use "force" but "marketing" (intelligent persuasion) to bend people to our demands, if they refuse then we take that as our cue to try from a different angle.

If ONE big country were to turn free-market then all countries would rapidly follow suit - otherwise they would not be able to keep up with the innovation.

We do not want to turn-back (harken back) in our thinking, because to re-force the Constitution into play is to turn back towards a less-free time and give the vote to a minority, to give reason-logic over to a minority -- that's why there was slavery.

The mistake was thinking "we need to expand the vote" -- thining the Voter was the Individual -- Big Error, but the expansionary global economy is right -- it is part of evolution. Un-less nationalism like Cuba or N. Korea seems like fun?