Mark Levin to Karl Rove: ‘Get the hell off the stage already, will you pal?’

[m00]

Expect more of this...Conservatives lashing out at other Conservatives for the next 4 years. These last two consecutive losses is going to tear the Republican party in two. A torn R party won't win any more elections.

We've been winning elections?

[m00]

I'm 53 and I believe there will never be another GOP President in my lifetime. The Takers now outnumber the Makers and their numbers will only continue to grow and continue to elect candidates that promiss to give them the most free stuff....and the Democrats are the party to do just that.

The Takers don't outnumber the Makers. That's a myth. You honestly think every Democrat voter is a "taker"?

[Novaheart]

Expect more of this...Conservatives lashing out at other Conservatives for the next 4 years. These last two consecutive losses is going to tear the Republican party in two. A torn R party won't win any more elections.

Three or four viable parties would be that two would form a coalition and actually be representative while having cooperation somewhat built in. Face it, the extreme right has very little in common with the coastal Republicans.

[m00]

That is funny.

The Republicans lost because they just weren't being big enough assholes.

Republicans lost because they thought it was "their turn" and felt they could get away with backing a political-class insider who had no convictions (he wasn't a conservative, that's for sure), ran an awful campaign, and insulted a lot of people both inside the party and out.

It was arrogance.

[m00]

Is it possible that Levin is unaware that Rubio supports "comprehensive immigration reform"? Comprehensive immigration reform is doublespeak for amnesty which intentionally or unintentionally is a defacto open border with Mexico.

It can be. But I also believe our immigration reform needs to be "comprehensive."

We have to seal our borders as a first step. What happens to people already here is almost secondary.

[Arroyo_Doble]

Republicans lost because they thought it was "their turn" and felt they could get away with backing an individual who had no convictions (he wasn't a conservative, that's for sure), ran an awful campaign, and insulted a lot of people both inside the party and out.

It was arrogance.

I disagree. The Republicans who could have given Obama a run wanted nothing to do with this election cycle. I remember saying that Christie was obviously not running when he said (paraphrased), "I am tired of dealing with the crazies."

2012 was a loser for Republicans because they had a revolt within their own party and that revolt was successful. Romney had to appeal to the revolutionaries. Who knows if the next guy will.

Personally, I do not understand why the Levin's and his ilk don't just start their own party if they loathe Republicans so much. They can call it the Tea Party, start running candidates.

[m00]

2012 was a loser for Republicans because they had a revolt within their own party and that revolt was successful. Romney had to appeal to the revolutionaries. Who knows if the next guy will.

If the revolt was successful than Romney wouldn't have been the nominee. The RNC had backed him from the get-go. The RNC was campaigning with him, in violation of the RNC's own electioneering laws, before he had won the nomination. The RNC set up "shadow parties" in states immediately after Romney lost them, with the express purpose of coordinating for Romney's campaign in the general election (again, before Romney was the nominee). The RNC threatened to unseat delegations from states that didn't break for Romney in the primaries.

The revolt was put down.

[Novaheart]

It can be. But I also believe our immigration reform needs to be "comprehensive."

We have to seal our borders as a first step. What happens to people already here is almost secondary.

As Levin pointed out last night: What happens to the illegal in the US now is far from secondary. He simply classified it as the inevitable effects of "chain immigration" , ie the laws which allow naturalized citizens to import exponential numbers of family members. I actually sat down and worked out some numbers: the 12 million illegal aliens in the US right now would mean that in 25 years (not 50 years) they would be 80 million more Americans, who identify as Mexican or some other nationality.

12 million illegals get amnesty
18 million children are born to them in the next five years
18 million children born to the children in the next 15-20 years
24 million relatives imported within 20 years
12 million new illegal aliens to replace replace the illegal workers who are now legal and eligible for welfare
___________________________________________

84 million new residents in the next 25 years
84 million times 100 gallons of water a day
84 million producing 100 gallons of sewage per person per day
84 million generating garbage
84 million consuming fuel and electricity

[m00]

As Levin pointed out last night: What happens to the illegal in the US now is far from secondary.

If we don't close the borders now, then it's an exponential problem. With existing immigrants already in the country, it's only a geometric problem.

If we don't close the borders, what happens to people already in the country is a moot point because there's no way we can deport them faster than they can come in (or come back in).

And by the way, history has demonstrated that removing 12 million undesirables from your territory is not an easy task. You're not realistically going to put 12 million people on rail cars, busses, and trains and ship them off... it's not logistically possible... even if we could identify all of them, and knew where they live. Which we don't. So yes, we are going to need something clever and comprehensive here.

[txradioguy]

That is funny.

The Republicans lost because they just weren't being big enough assholes.

We just don't have it down to a science like you and the rest of the Libtards do.