Honey Badger don't give a shit about anything National Review says anymore, and wishes people would quite posting NR links here.
Posted on 11/28/2016 8:14:22 PM PST by MtnClimber
The verbal niceties showered upon Fidel Castro since his death have been disgusting, to say the least. President Obama offered a milquetoast response to Castro. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau went a step further and praised the murderous tyrant following his death, calling him a “remarkable leader.”
Mark Levin, on his radio show Monday night, had a much different tone: “This is a horrific, evil, demonic human being. A genocidal maniac. In a small country, killing tens of thousands of people, torturing, imprisoning, and breaking up families. People trying to flee his island nation murdered on the high seas … he was a drug runner with that stupid little brother of his, Raul … here’s a guy who banned Christmas and almost started a nuclear war!”
What’s the reason for the praise from the Left? Well, said Levin, “the Left loves dictatorships.”
Listen to the full clip here:
- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/11/levin-the-lefts-love-for-evil-demonic-tyrant-castro-is-despicable#sthash.4lK4MeRj.dpuf
Turncoat creep. Blamed patriots for Soros sponsored violence in Chicago. Unpardonable.
I do not understand what you are referring to or the parties you say are responsible.
> After the nomination it was, of course, a different story but even then there is a difference between criticism of policy positions and support of Hillary and certainly room to criticize policy positions without being a (gasp) “Never Trumper.”
I agree. Levin stated his support of Trump over Hillary well before the election, and in plenty of time to get that word out to his listeners. He couldn’t be expected to switch to Trump’s views, though, on matters on which they differ (and doing so would merely have discredited him with the persons whom he did have a possibility to influence — not the pro-Trumpers, of course, but persons skeptical about Trump but more hostile toward Hillary). All Trump needed was the vote of those persons, not their full approval.
If you are saying the Trump rally violence was really supported by Soros, then yes, I agree.
>> He opposed Trump before the nomination
And after. Levin was not only demonic on Trump, he was hostile to Trump’s supporters. I endured his BS for months, and grew tired of it.
I was an avid Levin listener within 50 miles of Ground Zero. Levin came into my home, into my car. But in spite of my 10 year investment, he’s proved himself to be a waste of precious airtime, 770 AM, New York, 6-9 PM. Rush @ noon, Hannity @ 3 PM, then the radio gets turned off @ 6 PM.
Indeed, you made the promise to support Trump should he win the Primary, but you now marginalize your FRiends’ enthusiasm with the cautionary concern that we’re not, for example, collaborating on the Trump Republic — and while continuing to set yourself apart from the Trump supporters. You’re certainly not obliged to be a cheerleader, but each and every criticism against our movement at this moment is a form of aid to the Left.
You’re an intelligent, thoughtful person. I enjoy your rhetoric. But the timing of your contrary opinion seems counterproductive to the insurmountable obstacles and battles we’re fighting. What am I missing?
They are envious..It’s what they want to do to people..
I don't recall what Levin said, but I criticized Cruz on this forum for indirectly trying to put the blame on Trump ("Earlier today over thirty people were arrested at one rally. And then tonight as violence broke out the rally was canceled altogether. Now, the responsibility for that lies with protesters who took violence into their own hands. But in any campaign responsibility starts at the top." [Cruz, Breitbart story] Though I'd favored Cruz over Trump, that in my opinion was the low point in Cruz's campaign.
Still, Trump's conduct toward his primary opponents was outrageous in many respects. If most of the Republicans who opposed him in the primaries had considered those offenses "unpardonable", though, Trump wouldn't have won the election. Be thankful that they aren't that vengeful, and can put the good of the country over personal animosity.
Levin supported Trump in the election, just not in the primaries. He is watchful for conservative positions just like I am. Trump has been all over the political spectrum, but I think pressure can keep him on track.
....and don’t forget the Himmler of the Castro regime: Che “Line-em-up-against-the-wall” Guevara.
Perfunctory support at best to salvage his influence and ratings.
I am amazed how this thread turned against
Mark Levin when the topic was Fidel Castro. Communist rant.
It’s relevant.
> You’re certainly not obliged to be a cheerleader, but each and every criticism against our movement at this moment is a form of aid to the Left
At this moment? He just won the election. If we can’t criticize anything about him now, when can we? After the end of his second term? (But then we’ll need to protect his legacy, and use it to maintain his gains.)
There’s nothing wrong with some judicious criticism from time to time. It adds credibility to support when it’s given in other areas. (And as others have pointed out, it may let him know in which direction at least some of his supporters wish him to go.) No political leader — no human being — is perfect, and I place no credibility in propagandists who act as if they are.
Let’s save our simplistic appeals to the low information voters for the elections, and in the meantime try to have some intelligent discussion.
Honey Badger don't give a shit about anything National Review says anymore, and wishes people would quite posting NR links here.
Good post!
The COM-Left are naked communists, pro-dictator, and revolting people urging revolutionary overthrow of our Constitutional republic.
And they own academia and the chairs of the MSM.
Intelligent discourse is not defined nor realized through arbitrary criticism. Save it for mid January.
Well, I’m not in favor of “arbitrary” criticism either, any time.
The point of it all. Either you are committed to the man or you are committed to the principle. Either you are a conservative on Free Republic or you have surrendered your power of discernment to Trump Republic.
These are not arcane generalities, when Donald Trump reneges on his explicit and often repeated campaign promise to drain the swamp and assign a special prosecutor of Hillary Clinton's alleged crimes, you must choose between loyalty to the man or commitment to the rule of law. On this matter of principle it's not a question of aligning myself with my FRiends, it is a question of a lifelong commitment to the rule of law and a revulsion of cronyism and corruption-the very issues this whole campaign was grounded upon.
Similarly, if (repeat: "if") Donald Trump is reversing his position on waterboarding, climate change, building the wall, or repealing healthcare these are matters which beg for analysis on a conservative forum. Some of these issues might be more important than others but we should be able to identify them and express our opinions concerning them without being accused of somehow mounting a criticism of "our movement" or, even worse, rendering some "form of a aid to the Left."
This is why I say we are conservative Free Republic rather than Trump Republic. If Trump reneges on his campaign promises which secured our support as conservatives, we must decide whether what is left of his promises are so important that we must swallow the flip-flops. We must consider whether we can believe him concerning the rest of his promises.
These are not problems caused by the messenger they are problems caused by Donald Trump himself. If he cannot properly articulate his position on prosecuting Hillary Clinton, for example, are 300 million people supposed to wait mute and in suspense about whether corruption in Washington is going to be addressed, about whether the swamp is really going to be drained? If Donald Trump is not going to govern as he campaigned, we conservatives have a whole new fight on our hands and we certainly must question whether we have any "movement" that deserves the name, "conservative."
Believe me I am fully aware of the traps and snares that await President Donald Trump and I also understand the more Donald Trump adheres to his campaign promises, the more fierce the forces aligned against him will be. Trump deserves our support when he governs as a conservative and he deserves our good faith criticism when he does not. Trump is not above the law, not above being called before the bar of public opinion, any more than is Hillary Clinton. He is entitled to the presumption of good intentions and he is entitled to our support as our default position.
Yet we bitch about the uni-party establishment even as we censor ourselves, we deny our very reason for existence if we forsake principle for the man. It's not Jeremiah but the sinners who should be called to account, it is not the messenger who is the problem.
I support Trump and will continue to do so under the presumptions that I have outlined above which I think are generous. As I've said many times, I also intend to preserve my self-respect.
I’m going to donate to the “Make A Political Wish Foundation” and Kissinger/Soros are in it.
Kissinger betrayed So. Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.
George Soros betrayed his fellow Jews, Hungarians, and the US and the free world.
I’d actually wish that Soros lived to 125 as a paralyzed smuck who can think, see and hear, but not speak or write.
That would be worst than death to this very evil man, but what goes round, comes round, comrade!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.