PDA

View Full Version : Mike Church - Defends Paul, Gold Standard (and a new Con Con)




Lucille
12-20-2008, 10:44 AM
Walter Block & I Refute Franklin DelanObama (http://www.mikechurch.com/joomla/surf-reports/walter-block-&-i-refute-franklin-delanobama.html)


Walter: So your point is roughly correct. I would say that in the good old days, in the 1800s and the 1900s, we didn’t have public education which ruined the minds of the people. And people appreciated the gold standard much more. Now, Ron Paul has been talking about the gold standard until he’s ready to burst. And you know, nobody was listening to him, and the people on Fox and, you know, ABC and NBC were dismissing him.

Mike: But you notice now, Walter, that Ron Paul is a favorite of Neil Cavuto. He’s a favorite of John Roberts in the morning on CNN. He’s a favorite now on CNBC. Peter Schiff is also a favorite now. And people are going – I’ve even read some conservatives that were just doing cartwheels over why is Ron Paul even on the stage with our great guys like Fred Thompson and what have you, now saying we’re sorry, yeah, Ron Paul kind of called all this. He doesn’t seem like such a kook now, does he.

Walter: No, he – well, he never seemed like a kook to me.

Mike: Well, he didn’t seem like a kook to me, either, once I got religion, once I found Hayek and Mises. I totally, when I began to study this stuff, came around. That was my enlightenment, Walter, was reading “The Road to Serfdom” twice from cover to cover and going, like, wow, never thought of it like that. What an – and I’ve encouraged my listeners. You want to read a book and try to understand this, that’s a great place to start. It’s not long. Hayek wrote in ultimately understandable terms so everybody could understand it. And it’s just brilliance. And he witnessed it in Germany. He saw it happen. So it’s basically an account of what happened to Nazi Germany. But I didn’t mean to interrupt you. Your answer, your take on the question I asked about the currency....

He was also saying the other day he supported a new Con Con, because there was no way the Socialists would get enough states to go along with their madness. I wasn't able to listen to the whole thing and haven't found anything on his site about it yet.

Pete
12-20-2008, 11:35 AM
Excellent! Thanks for posting! :)

Lucille
12-20-2008, 11:44 AM
Welcome!

Church was great to Paul during the primaries. Paul was taking such a beating by the righty talk show hosts, and the day Church had him on, you could hear the apprehensiveness (bracing for more abuse) in his voice. Church said, "Dr. Paul, I am a fan." I think I was as relieved as Ron was.

I hope all RPRs will support him like he supported our man. We listen to him on Sirius.

Matt Collins
12-24-2008, 11:34 PM
He was also saying the other day he supported a new Con Con, because there was no way the Socialists would get enough states to go along with their madness. I wasn't able to listen to the whole thing and haven't found anything on his site about it yet.
I heard him for the first time today while driving around the country and he was GREAT! I agreed with every single word he said. But I still wouldn't risk a Con Con even though he thinks it would be ok....

Aratus
12-25-2008, 11:19 AM
con con could go either way! in all sincerity!

lodge939
12-25-2008, 12:58 PM
I can't wait til Glenn Beck's show starts. Fox has a huge audience and Glenn is gonna have Peter Schiff on all the time pounding free markets into their heads.

Eric21ND
12-25-2008, 03:39 PM
Who are the conservative writers saying sorry now? I haven't heard of any, really. Except maybe Neil Cavuto.

beerista
12-25-2008, 04:39 PM
con con could go either way! in all sincerity!

You're absolutely right. It could go STATIST or it could go REALLY STATIST.
Or possibly it could go RIGHT statist or it could go LEFT statist.
The one way it can't go is well.

A Constitutional Convention is a very ba idea. We got (fairly) lucky once. There are no Washington's left, besides the good Doctor. Hell, even Hamilton looks good by the standards of what we have available to us today. Worse than that, the people don't want or understand freedom. Can anyone look at our total votes in the primary and tell me that they think we've got a shot to improve the current Constitution?

At best, we may get wildly lucky and after it's all said and done they'll ignore the new, worse Constitution just as much as they ignore the current one. But I don't see any reason to risk it.

[Not criticizing you or your comment, Aratus. Just piggy-backing on your comment to make my point to those who think this could all turn out shiny and happy.]

lodge939
12-25-2008, 04:53 PM
Just out of interest, how would you improve it? I'd like a balanced budget amendment and an amendment stating it is unlawful for the Feds to buy stock in private companies (or do we already have that, but in less explicit wording?)

Matt Collins
04-28-2010, 08:09 PM
YouTube - SA@TAC - Mike Church's "The Spirit of '76" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-rz7mu-GaQ&feature=player_embedded)

NightOwl
05-15-2010, 12:08 AM
You're absolutely right. It could go STATIST or it could go REALLY STATIST.
Or possibly it could go RIGHT statist or it could go LEFT statist.
The one way it can't go is well.

A Constitutional Convention is a very ba idea.

Just curious: what do you think would happen? You think we'd wind up with a government of unlimited powers, that does whatever it wants without constitutional constraint, that has general legislative power, in which the executive branch can just lock people up and can take us to war, in which a Federal Reserve destroys our money and gives us the business cycle, in which the states are ignored and trampled on, and in which wild spending drives us to bankruptcy?

Right -- that would be terrible!