This guy is fucking great. I find some of his anger issues rather hilarious, as well as his constant bitching at just about everything; including Obama, and Hillary. He will usually reply with obscene or offensive remarks to the viewers that call in, but that is another reason his show owns. I could go on, but what do you think?

Mark Levin is a liar, and he purposefully misrepresents the truth.

When did 630AM change their call letters? They used to be WMAL.

my typo

That guy is a toxic hack. I don't know how anybody could think he was even remotely listenable. And what is with all these right wing ranters with awful radio voices? Maybe he and Laura Ingraham could co-host a show...

Mark Levin is a certifiable nutjob who only wishes that he had half the "talent" of Hannity or Limbaugh. Even if he was halfway sane, how can you listen to that voice for more than a couple of minutes without blood oozing from your ears?

I have to admit, however, that he attracts some of the nuttiest callers.

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mark Levin is a liar, and he purposefully
> misrepresents the truth.


Provide some facts to prove your case!

Rush Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That guy is a toxic hack. I don't know how
> anybody could think he was even remotely
> listenable. And what is with all these right wing
> ranters with awful radio voices? Maybe he and
> Laura Ingraham could co-host a show...


Dude. What are you talking about? Seems like you listen to the two people in question or you would not know the voices. Hum. What do you mean by "toxic hack"? I normally listen to Michael Savage at this time so I'm not up to speed on the Levin show. Details would be helpful.

Mike Sorce Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mark Levin is a certifiable nutjob who only wishes
> that he had half the "talent" of Hannity or
> Limbaugh. Even if he was halfway sane, how can
> you listen to that voice for more than a couple of
> minutes without blood oozing from your ears?
>
> I have to admit, however, that he attracts some of
> the nuttiest callers.

You mean the liberal callers who don't have any facts but try to argue points anyway? If you "listen", you will find that Levin's "talent" is knowing the history of the US and world political systems. He easily shows how stupid some callers are....

Because he only takes calls from liberal idiots who cannot make a clear point. Any time he gets someone half way intelligent on the phone, he calls them an idiot and hangs up on them.

This is how Hannity works as well. If someone is his match as far as the ability to communicate his/her opinion, Hannity will quickly end the call. I have heard this happen way too often. I rarely listen to WMAL anymore.
Sports Talk 980 ROCKS, you have to listen to the Czabe (sp).

Mike Sorce Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mark Levin is a certifiable nutjob who only wishes
> that he had half the "talent" of Hannity or
> Limbaugh. Even if he was halfway sane, how can
> you listen to that voice for more than a couple of
> minutes without blood oozing from your ears?
>
> I have to admit, however, that he attracts some of
> the nuttiest callers.

This from a guy whose User Name is Mike Sorce. Possibly the biggest hack Howard Stern rip off of them all!

Newsweek reported something talk radio, Chris Berry, the RNC, and The Heritage Foundation should be made aware of; when Governor Palin started raising the William Ayers issue in September and October (Radio/TV angle, both Sean Hannity and Bill Kristol suggested to her she do it early on), she jumped the gun and the campaign wasn’t ready for her to go that direction. When she was using the harsh rhetoric on the trail (radio/TV angle, the same rhetoric Hannity, Levin, and Rush had been airing, and were praising her for using it, as documented here on DCRTV at the time), the Secret Service showed, in their own records, “a sharp and disturbing increase in threats to Obama.” Editorial comment; I guess the fairness doctrine needs to be used to insulate these radio bozos from starting a riot or something worse. Hannity, Rush and Levin need to thank God nothing happened, and tone down their rhetoric, name calling, and false associations before a dangerous situation happens. Broadcasting has the word “broad’ in it for a reason (and we aint talking Sarah), and with that should come responsibility for not only what is said, but how it is creatively said. They dodged one this time. (11/6/08)

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Newsweek reported something talk radio, Chris
> Berry, the RNC, and The Heritage Foundation should
> be made aware of; when Governor Palin started
> raising the William Ayers issue in September and
> October (Radio/TV angle, both Sean Hannity and
> Bill Kristol suggested to her she do it early on),
> she jumped the gun and the campaign wasn’t ready
> for her to go that direction. When she was using
> the harsh rhetoric on the trail (radio/TV angle,
> the same rhetoric Hannity, Levin, and Rush had
> been airing, and were praising her for using it,
> as documented here on DCRTV at the time), the
> Secret Service showed, in their own records, “a
> sharp and disturbing increase in threats to
> Obama.” Editorial comment; I guess the fairness
> doctrine needs to be used to insulate these radio
> bozos from starting a riot or something worse.
> Hannity, Rush and Levin need to thank God nothing
> happened, and tone down their rhetoric, name
> calling, and false associations before a dangerous
> situation happens. Broadcasting has the word
> “broad’ in it for a reason (and we aint talking
> Sarah), and with that should come responsibility
> for not only what is said, but how it is
> creatively said. They dodged one this time.
> (11/6/08)


Ah "Fairness Doctrine". So does that mean that CNN ABC CBS and NBC will be forced to put conservatives on their networks?

After all, fair is fair, right.

Yeah, I though so.

You argument is vacuous and without merit.

WMAL Listener Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mike Sorce Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mark Levin is a certifiable nutjob who only
> wishes
> > that he had half the "talent" of Hannity or
> > Limbaugh. Even if he was halfway sane, how can
> > you listen to that voice for more than a couple
> of
> > minutes without blood oozing from your ears?
> >
> > I have to admit, however, that he attracts some
> of
> > the nuttiest callers.
>
> You mean the liberal callers who don't have any
> facts but try to argue points anyway? If you
> "listen", you will find that Levin's "talent" is
> knowing the history of the US and world political
> systems. He easily shows how stupid some callers
> are....

No I mean anyone who calls. Levin over generalizes and blames the worse case scenario on the "liberals". He quotes history and all the impact - bad impact - "the liberals" are responcible for.

Any casual listener would walk away believing "the liberals" have a clubhouse and meetings where we plot to rule the world. And no comments about the clubhouse, we havent had so far - so do not make claim we have one now.

I have never heard anyone call their foes names like Levin. Hillay Rotten Clinton, William BJ Clinton, and Barak terrorist Obama. It is really uncalled for.

Get off the internets Ya Big Dopes!

traffic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> reply with obscene or offensive remarks to the
> viewers that call in

It's a radio talk show you moron...what viewers??

He is a nutjob, and abrasive, but really has a command of the law. It would be interesting if he had callers with a similar command, who could then proceed to often back him down. But it would take some discipline, and a commitment to understanding that not everything he says is wrong or ill advised. That is not the hallmark of most people, who think emotively and assume that they have the correct moral imperative and thus ought to be self-authenticatingly heard.

PresaCanario Wrote:
> Ah "Fairness Doctrine". So does that mean that CNN
> ABC CBS and NBC will be forced to put
> conservatives on their networks?
>
> After all, fair is fair, right.
>
> Yeah, I though so.
>
> You argument is vacuous and without merit.

It is clear you have no understanding of what the fairness doctrine actually means. It does not mean "equeal time," or "balanced talk," "you big dope."

It means, if Mark Levin rants for 40 minutes on "Obama being a Muslim," Obama has the right to say "No, I am a Christian" on those same airwaves.

Fundamental - the fairness doctrine does restrict free speech, and makes for far more bland communication and likely fewer consumer media choices. Media businesses do not want the burdens of investigation and compliance that come with it - especially given that one of the tenets proposed is a two year, rather than eight year, period of license review.

I have always thought Howard Stern - whatever one may think of him - is spot on when he points out what a waste of government time and resource enforcement and monitoring actions by the FCC are. And the Fairness Doctrine (a version of which was instituted in FDR's days with a nascent and tiny media) would be a similar waste of time and Government resource, and should forthwith be discarded. This isn't a partisan view - heck - one would think the ACLU would take this position as well as those on the right. It is one of the least defensible proposals I have seen lately, particularly in a society dedicated to free speech. We have far more important issues before us. Let Levin rant - most can intuit what he is and make the choice to simply spin the dial. Ditto for Hannity and Rush and that crowd.

And one more point re the fairness doctrine. Ok, it likely is not so great that these talk radio guys call people names. But really, so what. Government cannot and should not solve all problems, particularly when it comes to the not so momentous problem of name calling. Of course, some may think differently, but looking at the results of the recent election (and not just at the Presidential level), it doesn't appear that Levin, Rush, Hannity, et. al. did any good, did they? And arguably they could have hurt their cause. Don't legislate what is not needed.

Don't forget this guy with the same name he's a nut from the left

Free TV : Ustream

fairness doctrine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fundamental - the fairness doctrine does restrict
> free speech, and makes for far more bland
> communication and likely fewer consumer media
> choices. Media businesses do not want the
> burdens of investigation and compliance that come
> with it - especially given that one of the tenets
> proposed is a two year, rather than eight year,
> period of license review.
>
It does not "restrict free speech." I am in radio, and I can tell you it does not restrict free speech.

Right now there is no letter to the editor section or corection section for talk radio. The fairness doctrine would allow Obama supporters to say in a 30 second timeframe that he is not a muslim, he is a Christian and goes to a Christian church," after Levin rants for 40 minutes the day before that Obama is a Mulim.

It is no way "equeal time," or "equeal access." Oh, and Levin cant say, "get off the radio, you big dope," to someone who claims Levin has his facts wrong. It will actually make talk radio better, and more refined. Perhaps talk radio hosts will have to do some real research without just relying on their Talking points fax every day, and "Radio ER" calls.

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It is no way "equeal time," or "equeal access."
> Oh, and Levin cant say, "get off the radio, you
> big dope," to someone who claims Levin has his
> facts wrong. It will actually make talk radio
> better, and more refined. Perhaps talk radio
> hosts will have to do some real research without
> just relying on their Talking points fax every
> day, and "Radio ER" calls.

What I really like about hosts like Levin, Hannity, Rush and Chris Plante is the name calling that is a regular part of their schtick. Yep, I get that you don't really care for MSNBC, but does it really make you (Rush) feel good when you call it PMSNBC or MSLSD (Plante)? What about when you (Plante) refer to Barack Obama as Barackus Obamaus like he is a Roman god? Levin was yelling (imagine that!) at some caller the other night trying to get him to admit that he was a socialist as a result of voting for Obama. I know that Team Donkey gets smacked for being elitist and arrogant, but do they believe that all 64 million of us are just sucked into some vortex created by Obama without thinking about what our vote means?

I used to like talk radio...still do, but I'm much pickier about it. There seems to be a specturm of conservative rhetoricians that runs the gamut from Limbaugh as the most tolerable to Hannity, to Plante, to Levin, to Savage, and really, I can't STAND to listen to any of them.

I'm a very conservative guy, but I will not tolerate anyone, including my own side, whose entire rhetorical arsenal consists of straw man arguments, reading the other side's mind, and lumping everyone in together based on the worst possible motives.

'Course, the liberals can be just as bad (e.g. "Bush is a Nazi!"), but neither is acceptable.

The only political talk show hosts I enjoy anymore are Chris Core (before Citadel fired him...STUPID move) and Mark Davis out of Dallas, Texas.

And even Davis is going a bit far for my tastes, but he's still usually reaosnable.

Mark is simply rude to a caller if he has been advised from his screener that the caller is one of the hated liberals. It's so typical; the call starts out with a sneer and ends when Mark hangs up and calls the individual an idiot or something equally complimentary. When Mark does this he looks like a first-class jerk.

Kardinal covered the rest of the flaws with his show very accurately. I quit listening because of the way he treated the people calling into his show.

I used to listen to Michael Savage and love him but I dont think he is on locally anymore. If he is, could somebody post when and where--thanks!

I have XM radio and really like to listen to "doctors radio"; I have gotten burned out on talk radio. I used to listen to various shows, my favorite being Savage, but now I am just burned out on it. I have nothing against talk radio, just personally got tired of it.

Mark is effin awesome. I just wish he was a little nastier to the limousine-liberal hypocrites that call in.

Is Mark Levin a Fairfax County resident?

The issue with the Fairness Doctrine is, who decides what is Fair? Yet another government agency to monitor all radio shows and decide when a 30 second spot is needed to refute some claim? Well, then, the government becomes the "decider" (to borrow from GB). And once the gov becomes the decider then they start issuing regulations, and fines, and repercussions, etc, etc, etc. A slippery slope that could be used by whatever political party was in power.

William Eff Buckley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is Mark Levin a Fairfax County resident?


Nope, Purcellville.

I believe Mike Savage can now be heard talking about his dogs on 730 AM. Don't know what time of day but I believe that station is owned by some folks of a very conservativve nature working out of Vienna. Bought it from Lil' Danny Snyder I think.