Mark Levin’s Facebook page has a “reply” to Tom Woods’ arguments concerning the War Powers Act. Predictably, Levin gets his arrogant clock cleaned. He posted this “reply” on his Facebook page where you can troll him heartily:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150115797525946
This was Wood’s original post (his reply to Levin’s reply is at the top of Lew Rockwell today):
Mark Levin trolls himself.
Just for future reference when it’s no longer at the top of LRC, Wood’s reply is here.
I guess I could have taken the extra 5 seconds and linked it in the original post.
Woods is absolutely correct though. Is Levin’s reply even a rebuttal of any point Woods made? All he did was call Woods a propagandist. Levin claims to have supported this Constitutional interpretation on his radio show, but no reference to any point was made available in this Facebook thing. Levin is just too invested in sucking up to the United States military to ever criticize anything they do.
Even saying all of this, I’m not one for getting into “my Founding Fathers’ interpretation is better than yours!” debates. Like how liberals cite Thomas Paine’s support for public schooling as evidence that the Founders were liberals, conservatives citing a religious Founding Father who envisioned a society governed by religious tradition to hold the fabric together, atheists citing deistic or anti-Christian Founding Fathers to prove that this country wasn’t founded as a Christian nation, and even libertarians citing Founding Fathers who were anti-war and totally minarchist. The term “Founding Fathers” wasn’t even coined until the Harding administration, correct? I kind of like this sleight of hand that Woods is playing though because most people don’t realize that he is a through-and-through anarchist, yet a simple Google search could clear that up in minutes.
Anyway, I don’t see the need to be tied down to the people of the past and name-drop them like it automatically wins you debate points. I think these debates are completely misplaced because it doesn’t even ask the fundamental question, “what makes the Constitution or government good and/or necessary?” It just kind of assumes the legitimacy of the Social Contract Theory without ever getting into the nitty-gritty. Debate the merit of the arguments alone without supposing the perfection of people who you were told were saints in public school.
No calls for trolling, please.
Well not trolling per se, but how is that any different than when many on this board joined in discussions on Hannity’s message board or something akin to that? That’s all I’m advocating.
The Southern Avenger has a response:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZFoFZsCAw8
I started messaging that and Woods’s latest response to the Levin fans but Facebook stopped me at the tenth person.
I usually enjoy Southern Avenger. I love how Levin says he doesn’t believe in politicizing the Constitution. What in the serpentine coils of the Sixteen-Headed Hydra does Levin imagine the Constitution is if not politicial?!
This thread disappeared for a while so I started another one. I thought it got deleted or something.
I did see SA’s response. It was pretty good. Most people just don’t bother justifying their claims and call you a wingnut for looking for Constitutional justification.
** shruggs shoulders** I don’t think I ever read that thread, so I haven’t judged its content.