Levin's Debating Skills

zappasguitar

zappasguitar

Well-known member
After suffering embarrassment at the hands of a Liberal caller while on the air, crybaby Rightie Mark Levin does just what so many JPP Righties do...he becomes enraged, refuses to admit his mistake and then resorts to taunts and derision.

FINALLY...we know who it was who taught most of the JPP Righties their "debating" skills.


Enraged radio host Mark Levin hangs up on atheist guest: ‘You have no tolerance!’


Conservative radio host Mark Levin became enraged on Monday and hung up on an atheist caller who had suggested that presidential candidates should not haves to believe in God.

During a radio segment flagged by The Right Scoop, a caller said that he was disappointed that Levin continued to “perpetuate the myth” that religious faith was a prerequisite for being a good leader.

“Oh, I forgot, I’m not supposed to mention faith or God,” Levin interrupted sarcastically. “I’ve decided to bring it up because I’m sick and tired of us being told, ‘Just tax cuts, don’t bring up that other stuff. Oh, my God! Don’t bring up God! For God sakes!’ Right? You got it?”

“To narrow down your desires, your qualifications for the next president, to list among them a professed faith, a religious faith, is ridiculous,” the caller noted. “I don’t want a religious president, no.”

“So, you’re an atheist, right?” Levin asked. “Okay, great. Can I help you out, pal? This world wasn’t created by atheists. Meaning, this country was not created by atheists.”

“The great thing about our Constitution and the great thing about the Judeo-Christian belief system is its tolerance,” he continued. “You see, you have almost no tolerance for my viewpoint. This is the thing that really angers you! On the other hand, if you’re an atheist, I could care less.”

“First of all, Mark, it’s ‘couldn’t care less,’” the caller observed.

“Actually, it is could care less,” Levin shot back. “You know, you’re an ass. I’ve had about enough of you. You’re a real punk. You know that? You have contributed nothing to this program in ten minutes. Zero. And you’re not that smart.”

“The problem that some of you atheists have is you’re intolerant. You’re intolerant. And you’re a punk. So, get lost. Get out of here.”

At that point, Levin disconnected the caller, and concluded that the segment had been a “waste of time.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/...gs-up-on-atheist-guest-you-have-no-tolerance/
 
ZappasGuitar said:
After suffering embarrassment at the hands of a Liberal caller while on the air, crybaby Rightie Mark Levin does just what so many JPP Righties do...he becomes enraged, refuses to admit his mistake and then resorts to taunts and derision.

FINALLY...we know who it was who taught most of the JPP Righties their "debating" skills.


Enraged radio host Mark Levin hangs up on atheist guest: ‘You have no tolerance!’


Conservative radio host Mark Levin became enraged on Monday and hung up on an atheist caller who had suggested that presidential candidates should not haves to believe in God.

During a radio segment flagged by The Right Scoop, a caller said that he was disappointed that Levin continued to “perpetuate the myth” that religious faith was a prerequisite for being a good leader.

“Oh, I forgot, I’m not supposed to mention faith or God,” Levin interrupted sarcastically. “I’ve decided to bring it up because I’m sick and tired of us being told, ‘Just tax cuts, don’t bring up that other stuff. Oh, my God! Don’t bring up God! For God sakes!’ Right? You got it?”

“To narrow down your desires, your qualifications for the next president, to list among them a professed faith, a religious faith, is ridiculous,” the caller noted. “I don’t want a religious president, no.”

“So, you’re an atheist, right?” Levin asked. “Okay, great. Can I help you out, pal? This world wasn’t created by atheists. Meaning, this country was not created by atheists.”

“The great thing about our Constitution and the great thing about the Judeo-Christian belief system is its tolerance,” he continued. “You see, you have almost no tolerance for my viewpoint. This is the thing that really angers you! On the other hand, if you’re an atheist, I could care less.”

“First of all, Mark, it’s ‘couldn’t care less,’” the caller observed.

“Actually, it is could care less,” Levin shot back. “You know, you’re an ass. I’ve had about enough of you. You’re a real punk. You know that? You have contributed nothing to this program in ten minutes. Zero. And you’re not that smart.”

“The problem that some of you atheists have is you’re intolerant. You’re intolerant. And you’re a punk. So, get lost. Get out of here.”

At that point, Levin disconnected the caller, and concluded that the segment had been a “waste of time.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/...gs-up-on-atheist-guest-you-have-no-tolerance/
Click to expand...

Whats you point ?.....what makes you think Levin was embarrassed or enraged ? His demeanor is always like that....thats who he is on radio...

LIberals do just what he says.....claim the others side is intolerant while being intolerant themselves....its a daily thing right here....

'could care less' ?....,The phrase implies you are being sarcastic......and to point it out as being wrong or invalid by someone is being intolerant in itself....like the pinheads do
here when bringing up typo's or a mis-spelling or a missing word in an otherwise valid post....intolerance, and playing 'gotcha'....
 
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou said:
Levin is a total jerkoff and only plays at being a constitutionalist
Click to expand...

If Levin thinks that religious faith was a prerequisite for being a good leader, its his opinion....no more or less invalid than anyone else's...

and certainly its IS NOT a prerequisite for any political office....nor should it be....but its obvious that everyone running for office brings his faith
up as a believer in almost every case....

I don't listen to the guy and don't like him on a personal level....but then.......................................I have tolerance.
 
Right said:
He hung up after giving the guy about 7 minutes Zippy. Seems pretty tolerant to me.
Click to expand...

This is a typical strawman presentation that is the mo of most of zippy's rants .... crap that he gets from his far left opinion websites that he totally believes in....

yet he ridicules valid news links because he don't agree with the facts presented by them.
 
NOVA said:
If Levin thinks that religious faith was a prerequisite for being a good leader, its his opinion....no more or less invalid than anyone else's...

and certainly its IS NOT a prerequisite for any political office....nor should it be....but its obvious that everyone running for office brings his faith
up as a believer in almost every case....

I don't listen to the guy and don't like him on a personal level....but then.......................................I have tolerance.
Click to expand...

I tried to listen to him for about 3 days. I had to quit when it became obvious that his points about the constitution sounded like a liberals. that despite evidence to the contrary, something means something else entirely.
 
NOVA said:
If Levin thinks that religious faith was a prerequisite for being a good leader, its his opinion....no more or less invalid than anyone else's...

and certainly its IS NOT a prerequisite for any political office....nor should it be....but its obvious that everyone running for office brings his faith
up as a believer in almost every case....

I don't listen to the guy and don't like him on a personal level....but then.......................................I have tolerance.
Click to expand...


So it is intolerant to disagree or challenge the importance of faith in a leader? It's just another right wing crybaby whining about imagined persecution.
 
NOVA said:
Whats you point ?.....what makes you think Levin was embarrassed or enraged ? His demeanor is always like that....thats who he is on radio...

LIberals do just what he says.....claim the others side is intolerant while being intolerant themselves....its a daily thing right here....

'could care less' ?....,The phrase implies you are being sarcastic......and to point it out as being wrong or invalid by someone is being intolerant in itself....like the pinheads do
here when bringing up typo's or a mis-spelling or a missing word in an otherwise valid post....intolerance, and playing 'gotcha'....
Click to expand...


Wrong, wrong, wrong...but is anybody REALLY surprised?

Using the phrase "Could care less" implies you DON'T KNOW what the correct phrase is.

Levin wasn't being "sarcastic" he was WRONG!

And in typical "know-it-all" Rightie fashion, he refuses to admit as much when his stupidity is pointed out to him.
 
Which is correct: I could care less or I couldn't care less?

The expression I could not care less originally meant 'it would be impossible for me to care less than I do because I do not care at all'. It was originally a British saying and came to the US in the 1950s. It is senseless to transform it into the now-common I could care less. If you could care less, that means you care at least a little. The original is quite sarcastic and the other form is clearly nonsense. The inverted form I could care less was coined in the US and is found only here, recorded in print by 1966. The question is, something caused the negative to vanish even while the original form of the expression was still very much in vogue and available for comparison - so what was it? There are other American English expressions that have a similar sarcastic inversion of an apparent sense, such as Tell me about it!, which usually means 'Don't tell me about it, because I know all about it already'. The Yiddish I should be so lucky!, in which the real sense is often 'I have no hope of being so lucky', has a similar stress pattern with the same sarcastic inversion of meaning as does I could care less.

http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/g09.html

Levin was right.
 
:rofl2:

Those investigative liberal basement dwellers of Rawstory, that watch Fox News and listen to conservative radio shows have really outdone themselves. They have another hot scoop, caught a conservative talk radio host not using the proper format. Meanwhile, Obama is planning another 57 state tour this summer, once he can figure out how to spell RESPECT.
 
Right said:
Which is correct: I could care less or I couldn't care less?

The expression I could not care less originally meant 'it would be impossible for me to care less than I do because I do not care at all'. It was originally a British saying and came to the US in the 1950s. It is senseless to transform it into the now-common I could care less. If you could care less, that means you care at least a little. The original is quite sarcastic and the other form is clearly nonsense. The inverted form I could care less was coined in the US and is found only here, recorded in print by 1966. The question is, something caused the negative to vanish even while the original form of the expression was still very much in vogue and available for comparison - so what was it? There are other American English expressions that have a similar sarcastic inversion of an apparent sense, such as Tell me about it!, which usually means 'Don't tell me about it, because I know all about it already'. The Yiddish I should be so lucky!, in which the real sense is often 'I have no hope of being so lucky', has a similar stress pattern with the same sarcastic inversion of meaning as does I could care less.

http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/g09.html

Levin was right.
Click to expand...


"It is senseless to transform it into the now-common I could care less. If you could care less, that means you care at least a little. The original is quite sarcastic and the other form is clearly nonsense. The inverted form I could care less was coined in the US and is found only here, recorded in print by 1966."

WOW...so some ignorant American got it wrong and DY pretends that justifies it's continued use.

Even though the very information he posted says I was RIGHT.

The ORIGINAL was sarcasm and the inverted form is clearly nonsense.

Levin is an idiot...just like Dumb Monkee/Wrong.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
So it is intolerant to disagree or challenge the importance of faith in a leader? It's just another right wing crybaby whining about imagined persecution.
Click to expand...

to disagree or challenge his opinion is one thing but you have to also recognize his opinion is just as valid as the person disagreeing with him....thats the nature of opinions....as your

opinion that it is persecution....that is an opinion bordering on an outright lie in my opinion.... his "imagined" outrage isn't imagined at all, its his shtick...its his public radio persona.......

which in fact, I don't like, therefore, I ignore him....
 
ZappasGuitar said:
"It is senseless to transform it into the now-common I could care less. If you could care less, that means you care at least a little. The original is quite sarcastic and the other form is clearly nonsense. The inverted form I could care less was coined in the US and is found only here, recorded in print by 1966."

WOW...so some ignorant American got it wrong and DY pretends that justifies it's continued use.

Even though the very information he posted says I was RIGHT.

The ORIGINAL was sarcasm and the inverted form is clearly nonsense.

Levin is an idiot...just like Dumb Monkee/Wrong.
Click to expand...


You just figure to ignore the rest....?

"There are other American English expressions that have a similar sarcastic inversion of an apparent sense, such as Tell me about it!, which usually means 'Don't tell me about it, because I know all about it already'. The Yiddish I should be so lucky!, in which the real sense is often 'I have no hope of being so lucky', has a similar stress pattern with the same sarcastic inversion of meaning as does I could care less."

Or don't you understand the rest ?
 
NOVA said:
You just figure to ignore the rest....?

"There are other American English expressions that have a similar sarcastic inversion of an apparent sense, such as Tell me about it!, which usually means 'Don't tell me about it, because I know all about it already'. The Yiddish I should be so lucky!, in which the real sense is often 'I have no hope of being so lucky', has a similar stress pattern with the same sarcastic inversion of meaning as does I could care less."

Or don't you understand the rest ?
Click to expand...

Zippy likes to pick and choose parts of paragraphs to defend his incorrect views. :rofl2:
 
NOVA said:
You just figure to ignore the rest....?

"There are other American English expressions that have a similar sarcastic inversion of an apparent sense, such as Tell me about it!, which usually means 'Don't tell me about it, because I know all about it already'. The Yiddish I should be so lucky!, in which the real sense is often 'I have no hope of being so lucky', has a similar stress pattern with the same sarcastic inversion of meaning as does I could care less."

Or don't you understand the rest ?
Click to expand...


I figure to ignore the parts that have nothing to do with the phrase we are discussing.

You know...just like you conveniently ignored...

ZappasGuitar said:
"It is senseless to transform it into the now-common I could care less. If you could care less, that means you care at least a little. The original is quite sarcastic and the other form is clearly nonsense.
Click to expand...

...that refutes DY's claim

The definition DY cited states clearly right in the first sentence it is the ORIGINAL "couldn't care less" that is sarcastic and the other form, "could care less", is clearly NONSENSE.

A fact you ignorant Righties conveniently ignore.

Two ignorant Righties Schooled yet again by Zappa!
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Preposterous!

But let's hear it for DY's latest attempt at evading the truth!
Click to expand...

Perhaps one of the best ways to improve your reading ability is to learn to read paragraphs effectively. Many experts believe the paragraph, not the sentence, is the basic unit of thought of a selection. If one can quickly grasp the meaning of each of these though units while reading, then comprehension will be heightened.
Click to expand...
https://academic.cuesta.edu/acasupp/as/307.HTM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top