He has a tendency to do that. Trash someone and not return to stand his ground. He's been on the Mark Levin thread, trashing him, too. For an attorney and retired 0-6 (check out his page) something seems to be lacking.
Some things are too obvious to engage in a meaningless discussion that merely repeats and restates one's position in a futile attempt to coerce agreement. The original comment is out there. Agree, disagree, ignore it or raise something worth discussing, otherwise it stands on its on.
Regarding Mark Levin, I've said all I plan to say about him. My opinions could not be more clear. They are conclusions not critiques of specific comments or positions. Not every overarching conclusion warrants oral dissertation-like validation or verification. Opinions by their very nature are generalized impressions from inputs that are evaluated as a whole rather than in microscopic detail.