Skip to comments.‘Fat *ss’ Michael Savage reignites feud with ‘hysteric’ Mark Levin [AUDIO]
Posted on 01/16/2013 4:27:17 AM PST by servo1969
Conservative talkers Mark the Hysteric Levin and fat ass Michael Savage reignited their longtime feud this week, even though the two share distributors and no longer air during the same time slot.
On Monday, Levin made an appearance on the Fox News Channel and called President Barack Obama the imperial president, leading Savage to label Levin the Hysteric on his show later that evening.
Savage said Levin lazily and uncritically stole the phrase imperial president from liberals of the 1970s.
The imperial presidency was a line used by liberals to describe Nixon, Savage bellowed. And yet, the Hysteric applies it to Obama, as though he invented it. The correct phrase, ladies and gentlemen of the Savage Nation, to describe Obama is government anarchy.
Early in his Tuesday show, Levin responded by alleging Savage possesses afat ass and threatening to devote an hour of his show to railing on the moron, whose real name is Michael Weiner.
You nitwit, Levin said. ['The Imperial Presidency' is] a book by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., which many of us read while you were running around with Allen Ginsberg in Fiji and skinnydipping, or whatever the hell you used to do. Some of us normal people, you know, were reading and writing and doing arithmetic and behaving ourselves. Maybe Ill do a whole hour on that, moron. Maybe Ill do a special a documentary. What do you think of that, Mr. Producer? Little Weiner Nation: The Manchurian Conservative.
Itll be monotonous, Levin continued. The ratings will plummet. But we can do it for an hour. Theres a reason why he follows my show because I kicked his ass all over the country. Oh, hell lie and pretend he didnt, but I kicked his ass all over the country and thats one big fat ass, by the way. Got that, Weiner? Id love to meet this guy one day just to say hello, all 5 feet 2 inches of him, with that snaggle-tooth little Weiner Nation. But with that I digress, and I mean I really digress.
In 2011, the rivalry between the two radio hosts took one of its uglier turns, when Savage offered former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich $1 million to resign from the 2012 presidential race, and Levin countered by offering Savage $100,000 to drop his radio show.
After a brief hiatus from the airwaves last fall, Savage left Talk Radio Network and was picked up by Cumulus, the same company that distributes Levins show, and took on the time slot following Levins, from 9 p.m. to 12 a.m. EST.
Ping the TGO List.
Savage even donated $5000 to ultra liberal governor of California moon beam Jerry Brown.
Savage unfairly bashed Sarah Palin many times
Millions of other things Savage has done and said that shows it is no conservative only putting on an act to make millions and also to ADVANCE socialism
savage was a BERKELY graduate, from san francisco, a long time communist .
And this is what is wrong with the “conservative media”.
We have this little club of personalities that care more about protecting their “turf” than beating the left. They make millions off of us and then attack each other for using some praise they “invented”, that is if they even acknowledge each others existence.
They still act like a bunch of drive-time DJs.
Life’s too short to listen to Savage.
Savage is a nutcase. Levin is a brilliant legal mind who understands the nuances of the constitution.
And he's relentlessly attacked Hannity and Rush, who to their credit, have always ignored him and never once mentioned his name. I think that's what really got Savage pissed off at them.........
Well it looks like Savage is simply is JEALOUS about the sucess of Levin.
Don’t know their past feud.
But this round
Bingo!! I’m getting sick of these guys bashing each other, and now we are doing it on FR with the blame game. Rugged individualism is a strength of conservatives, but is a weakness when it comes to fighting the left.
Admittedly have never listened to savage,but sounds like
he’s also jealous of Mark’s amazing brain.
Mark Levin is one of my heroes. I almost feel guilty
getting so much education for free.
Carry on Mark, and take care of that heart!!
That is precisely why I stopped listening to Weiner. He referred to Rush as being the “golfer” and I forget what he called Hannity.
Also got tired of him talking about some chinese place where he ate and got indigestion.
I've tried to listen to Savage but he just wanders off too much.
Levin is a coward and a fraud. He would have you believe that every 'anchor baby' is a natural born Citizen.
Supreme Court cases that cite natural born Citizen as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term natural born citizen to any other category than those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof.
He's not even trying.
And that is the difference between them. Savage is a Ph.D in some medicinal arts but not an M.D. Levin is a J.D lawyer. There are miles of difference in their educational backgrounds and light years of difference in the life experiences. I prefer to listen to Levin on legal matters and enjoy Savage on matters of general philosophy.
“Levin is right: Savage is a fake liberal/communist.”
I would not go that far.
Savage has been the best at pointing out how Obama is a Marxist/Leninist.
I admit, however, that I am tiring of Savages bloviations and his criticism of other conservative talkers, as well as his self promotion
I think the man has passed his prime.
He seems to have reached “The Peter Principle” .
Dynachrome runs a daily Savage thread here on FR during the broadcast time.
Savage accused fundamentalist Christians of wearing a mental burqua. Not only that, he went on and on and on droning for half an hour.
Got to give him credit on bring up stories no one else will touch.
I almost always miss him, but I love Mark Levin. I guess I’m lucky to have never heard this Savage character (lol there’s a joke in there somewhere if Mark is alluding to Savage being gay). Mark Levin is like Newt for me. I could listen to both of them for *hours*.
Savage’s jealousy of other talk show conservatives gets tiring. He can do plenty to point out the corruption of Bam and Co. without bashing conservatives.
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.