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 a”fat 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 I’ll do a whole hour on that, moron. Maybe I’ll do a special — a documentary. What do you think of that, Mr. Producer? Little ‘Weiner Nation’: The Manchurian Conservative.”
“It’ll be monotonous,” Levin continued. “The ratings will plummet. But we can do it for an hour. There’s a reason why he follows my show — because I kicked his ass all over the country. Oh, he’ll lie and pretend he didn’t, but I kicked his ass all over the country — and that’s one big fat ass, by the way. Got that, Weiner? I’d 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 Levin’s show, and took on the time slot following Levin’s, from 9 p.m. to 12 a.m. EST.
He’s also referred to Hannity as “the leprechaun”.
No that is the Nickname he created for Bill O’reily.
A few years ago, I was listening when Savage interviewed Jerry Falwell. Savage absolutely flayed Falwell over his statement that Jesus Christ is the only way to God.
That's debatable....and who does "his" work originate from?
I remember seeing your posts on that thread, so I suppose I was one of the "bashers" who found interesting Breitbart's 20 minute radio interview, in which he detailed Beck's ethical issues. Just to set the record straight....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2978425/posts?page=1
I’ve heard that homo communist savage talk against big oil, against capitalism but never for freedom or limiting government. yet it still fools its listeners.
It even talked about gun control when the viginia tech shooting happened. that’s the last time i listened to that creep couldn’t take any more of its act and fake bs that advances socialism
He's not even trying”
Yeah that's ONE example out of thousands that prove this savage is putting on an act. it is no conservative but a socialist/statist. only a statist/communist would be for Obama issuing executive orders. and i’ve had MANY freepers and other idiots tell me off for suggestion their savage is a liberal. Savage fools them , is using his listeners to earn millions by faking an act .
See it knows ( who doesn't ) that conservatives and Americans are for the 2nd amendment . so it is not stupid . BUT it slipped up because it doesn't really believe in limited government nor in freeedom nor in individual rights as it is a liberal/communist .so that is why savage is for his beloved dictator Obama issuing executive orders to ban our freedom and rights to play video games .And like the news media they all want to empower government and use a statistically nonexistent even like these mass shootings ( what less than 100 get killed in mass shootings per year) but 2.5 million criminals invade homes per year , 300,000 women get raped each year in the U.S. etc. , 50 incidents per year where lighting kills Americans so lighting kills more real than mass shootings which only a handful a year. and there were no mass shootings in the 1800’s etc. so the media is what causes these flukes and the news media which makes it seem like the event and threat of the century.
GraceG,
When I heard him use it, I thought he was referring to Hannity, but what you say makes more sense. Sorry for the mix-up.
I think he called Hannity “the leprechaun?”
Savage is ugly angry, Levin is very angry, and Rush isn’t very funny any more. At least his demeanor is still good. I used to listen to so much talk radio. Almost never anymore.
Repeat, repeat, repeat, it gets so old. Perhaps there are those who need the same insights and applications repeated continually. I am not one of them.
rush was a trip in the early days. All the parody songs. The ones using Beatle music were hysterical. I really liked “In a Yugo” a parody of an old Mac Davis song “in the ghetto”
He would do better by putting more humor in it than he did. I can only hear him on occasion now.
Blessings, bobo
Publicity stunt!
It’s all about ratings.
Wrong. You have misread the Courts opinion. The Court left no doubt about who were the natural born Citizens.
: 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.
FR needs to have a like button.
Legal scholars and studiers of the founding of our country and the framers of our Constitution reference this book as a core, contemporaneously written legal reference book, The Law of Nations, used by the framers of our Constitution. It was written in 1758 and was used as a college text book in America from c1770 on. Ben Franklin received three copies of the French edition from the editor Dumas in 1775 for use by Franklin and the Continental Congress.
Quote of section #212, Chapter 19, Book 1, Law of Nations, by Vattel, written in 1758:
"§ 212. Citizens and natives.
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 the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. "
Here is a link to the original in French. You read it and then try and tell me the Founding Fathers got it wrong.
Your hero, Mark Levin isn't the Constitutional scholar he thinks he is.
I remember a caller asking him (Levin) about the Law of Nations and he basically called the guy a dummy and hung up on him. Like I said earlier, Mark Levin is a coward.
Crickets.......
LOL...I believe you nailed it.
I believe that other host was Savage.
* The founding fathers weren’t citing Vattel, or else they would have used any of several different terms used to translate Vattel into English (”natives,” where “les indigens” would have connoted a primitive people), or left “les naturels” as a term of art, as Franklin’s copies did.
* Vattel writes several things which are contrary to the founding fathers’ concepts of natural law. In fact, Vattel’s work, as a whole, would have been an excellent rebuttal to the Declaration of Independence.
* Vattel failed to consider what became commonplace in the US immediately: immigrants from different nationalities. Under Vattel’s definitions, such a person would be defined as having no homeland. Such a situation would be considered abominable by the Natural Law authors the founding fathers do cite.
* You insist Vattel was commonly taught in US universities at the time of the founding. Which ones? There were precious few. Or is this based, as I have seen several NBC activists do, on misreading Marshall’s assertion that “When we avert to the course of reading generally pursued by American statesmen in early life, we must suppose that the founders of the Constitution were intimately acquainted with those wise and learned men, whose treaties on the law of nature and nations have guided public opinion on the subject of obligation and contract”? Given the relative newness of Vattel’s work, this almost certainly refers, instead, to Locke, Montesquieu, Coke, Blackstone, Aquinas, and Hobbs. Indeed, these authors are all directly cited, unlike Vattel. Any echo of Vattel probably comes from his intellectual sire, Wolff. Keep in mind that when Franklin gushes to Vattel’s editor, he is receiving a gift from as a diplomat.
Oh, dear. You haven’t actually ever read Vattel, have you? Your link is to a NBC activist selectively citing one section.
Perhaps if you actually read Vattel, you’d realize that he draws three classes of people, citizens, temporary inhabitants, and permanent inhabitants, who he calls a lesser type of citizen. This would set the alarm bells off that Vattel is alien to our notion of citizenry.
You see, when we grant citizenship, we call that “naturalization.” This is in contrast to someone who is “natural-born.” Which category is the person who is born of immigrants? If he is not natural-born, he must be naturalized; but when does that happen? See, Vattel has no concept of “naturalized.” To him, a permanent resident is always, literally, a second-class citizen. He may never become a “naturel.” Hence, why I wrote that under Vattel, children of immigrants are never incorporated into society (and why the confederates loved him).
See, in Vattel’s France, a non-citizen inhabitant was not typical of what an immigrants is to America. They were passers-through, such as Gypsies, or diplomats, or migrant laborers (like Freemasons), or religious order members; they were aliens, not immigrants. Hence, it would be frivolous to say this Gypsi tribesmen is French, while his parents are Austrians, and his brother, Swiss.
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.