I'll have to check Mike Church out, I've never heard of him. I mainly listen to Peter Schiff.Originally Posted by kezt777
Ron is the real McCoy.
If Rand does not win the Republican nomination, he should buck the controlled two party system and run as an Independent for President in 2016 and give Americans a real option to vote for.
We are all born libertarians then something goes really wrong. Despite this truth, most people are still libertarians yet not know it.
Why didn't you call this kool-aid drinking moron out on this outright lie?
...but when the trumpets blew again and the knights charged, the name they cried was "Stannis! Stannis! STANNIS!"
They have an excuse. They are trying to get elected so they are just telling the masses what they want to hear. I agree it's annoying but I understand it. The conservative hatred of RP is what really puzzles me.
I think part of it is that people want to sound like they're tough. Everyone is trying to "one up" the next guy and sound more tough. The funny part is that guess who's the only one who actually served in the military?
Another thing that annoys me is the way they make Ron Paul supporters sound like mindless groupies. I'll vote for anybody who follows the constitution, it just happens that RP is the only one running with a remote shot. I'd vote for Gary Johnson in a heartbeat. Actually I probably will end up voting for him if he runs in the LP.
Walton and Johnson, a very popular conservative show in the South, said this week that they've read Paul's works, but think that the American people will not elect him because he is not a strong speaker. This was the first time I've heard him mention Paul's name. It surprised me that they admitted to reading his books.
Because they work for Clear Channel, who works for Romney, and they got the memo.
Short answer: they're neocons.
At that point I realized that it was futile. Keep in mind that this is the official Mark Levin Forum and that was the official administrator of the forum! That whole forum is full of lies attacking Ron Paul. It's like the administrator of the forum has an obsession with hating Ron Paul. You can't tell me that Mark Levin himself doesn't know about that stuff. Contrast that with the Ron Paul Newsletters from 20 years ago.
There is no struggle. They are not "conservatives" in any libertarian, small-government, or constitutional sense of the term. If foreign policy was their only beef, they would be gung-ho about ending the War on Drugs, instead there is the quote above calling Ron Paul "pot smoking".
When they say they want small government or constitutional government, they are lying to you. Israel is a side issue and you have fallen for it. The neocons would have no difficulty procurring billions for Israel so long as they make some domestic improvements. Ron Paul weighs these matters "on net". So if the DEA is terminated in the same bill that continues Israel's foreign aid, that bill is likely to be signed.
Do you believe it when they say Ron Paul is "too old", "unelectable", etc? Don't fall for the BS. They can't tell you the truth, "We are statists that support big government - we just want our taskmasters running the show."
he is on Sirius Patriot Sirius/XM very early every morning. It's 4am to 7am Mountain Time (my time) if that helps lol. He also does a free video 'Post Show Show' right after the radio show that you can access from his website www.mikechurch.com and he does that mondays tuesdays and fridays usually. You watch him talking live on livestream.com. If you find him on FB it always let's people know and gives the link. I like him. He is huge on the constitution and has made animated movies about it, Spirit of '76, Road to Independence, etc. He has been an ardent Ron Paul supporter for as long as I have listened to him. He and Mark Levin have had a little war not too long back as well. It was hilarious listening to them because Church can get hot under the collar but he backs up everything he says, as far as I have seen, with the constitution. Gee, like someone else we know
I have seen endless comments about RP supporters being bat sh*t crazy and loonies, aliens, etc. I suppose other candidates' supporters might get called that too but no where near the amount I see about RP followers. The other thing I see a lot of is the talk of him being unelectable. I'm not sure who decides these things. Clinton was a naughty boy with questionable morals but he was electable. Reagan was a hollywood star with naughty moments in his past, along with his wife, but he was electable. He was also 'old'. Obama had almost zero experience in any level of govt and he was electable. Ms Clinton was the wife of a former prez but had less than 10 yrs experience as a senator and the whole past stuff with her husband to think about (he would be living back in the WH yet again if she had won),,,, and she was electable. But a man who has time and time again over several decades been elected over and over is not electable.... I don't get it.
Another thing that drives me almost INSANE is remembering back to when Obama was in the election. His followers were crowing about his stage presence, his speaking ability, his mannerisms and ways to capture an audience - and my conservative friends were going BONKERS literally. They could not stand that he was being touted to be a good president because he 'spoke well'. I remember clearly that they droned on about how that is not the measure of a good president. And here we are a few years later and those same friends are telling me that Ron Paul is not a good speaker at all and should not be president. They said he would be an embarrassment because he stumbles and stutters and gets himself off track - but I thought that being a good speaker was not the measure of a good president? I call them out on it and they waffle and ramble and change the subject to Paulbots and nutjobs. *sigh*
I know this is not from 'talk show hosts', but I have been watching an anti-RP facebook group for awhile now and this is a little helping of what you can find on the wall each and every day. I tried to join the group awhile back but I was denied of course.
""there are a million and one reasons to never vote for ron paul but none so important as this....paul would rather live on his knees as a slave than die on his feet as a free American, and that is why he is a danger to this country""
""so my cat just threw up some tin foil and i realized,... i haven't seen the paultard up the street in awhile and the sign is missing from his yard. hhmmmm.... think i need to buy some cat treats.""
""Ron Paul is a communist - muslim/sharia empathizer; why else would Iran and Russia make him their most favored "American Figure”""
""Truth! You want the Truth? You can't handle the truth!! I hate people that hate haters. We're keeping it real here and are far in hate with your lover ronpaul. YOU can be a slave or in a grave. Syonara..."" [my note: apparently that line is borrowed from a talk radio host]
""Don't confuse Ron Paul supporters with the facts, like their liberal friends they'll do nothing but call you names."" [my note: this is always my fave comment, saying that all RP supporters do is call names, after I just read a huge list of names everyone in that group is calling RP supporters lol. Definition of Irony, there]
""Ron Paul insists that terrorism is the fault of the USA and it's policies? Israeli blood will be on Ron Paul's hands and the hands of his radical Soviet thug followers.""
''I REMEMBER BACK WHEN PAGAN RON PAUL RAN AS A LIBERTARIAN - AT LEAST THEN HE WAS BEING HONEST --- HE PUT ALL HIS RANTING RACIST CRAP IN A NEWS LETTER AND GOT NEARLY $1 MILLION DOLLARS IN DONATIONS FOR IT - BUT THEN AGAIN YOU PAULBOTS CAN'T THINK THAT FAR BACK! HAHAHAHAAHA""
blah blah blah. That was just from this week. I can't tolerate reading anymore. But I posted the quotes because I have heard the same stuff from many talk show hosts (the worst Ive heard lately are Bauer and Rose on Sirius Patriot). What I find really amusing though and keeps me going back, is the number of RP supporters who try to go on there and post something but get kicked off. They post some really good responses and questions, but the next thing you know, group moderators come in to say that they got the boot and then everyone cheers. One guy was called names 5 times in a thread, but when he said they were being 'haters', the moderator had a spaz and booted him for name calling. Um.... okay? they are often posting links from various conservative talk show hosts who diss RP (either radio links or transcripts or op ed articles) and then they use that info as ammunition against any RP supporters who manage to stay in the group, but cannot back it up with much of anything. It's annoying but I at least see RP supporters attempting to get in there and say some real truths.
Agreed Ron is more of a genuine conservative than the talking wind-bags on the radio.
Isn't Ron much closer to a (small l) libertarian?
No one here wanted to be the Billionaire.
"Libertarianism is the heart of Conservatism" - Ronald Reagan
Classical Liberals are the true Conservatives."Libertarianism is the heart of Conservatism" - Ronald Reagan
Ron is socially liberal (at least in terms of a small Federal Gov)
The words have been distorted for too many years.
No one here wanted to be the Billionaire.
So Ron Paul is the favorite American figure in iran and Russia? Would like to see the original articles/polls for that.
This. Church is as good as it gets on radio. He regularly has Mises guys on as guests, too.he is on Sirius Patriot Sirius/XM very early every morning. It's 4am to 7am Mountain Time (my time) if that helps lol. He also does a free video 'Post Show Show' right after the radio show that you can access from his website www.mikechurch.com and he does that mondays tuesdays and fridays usually. You watch him talking live on livestream.com. If you find him on FB it always let's people know and gives the link. I like him. He is huge on the constitution and has made animated movies about it, Spirit of '76, Road to Independence, etc. He has been an ardent Ron Paul supporter for as long as I have listened to him. He and Mark Levin have had a little war not too long back as well. It was hilarious listening to them because Church can get hot under the collar but he backs up everything he says, as far as I have seen, with the constitution. Gee, like someone else we know
Follow the broadcasting money?
Here in Austria anybody I talk to who knows a little bit about American election supports Ron Paul.
Here is a website poll vote that knows were everybody is from: http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/
They hate Muslims.
Ron Paul wants peace and sanity.
The media thrives off of fear and turmoil. They need something to talk about every day.
Welcome to the R3VOLUTION!
Ditto, er... I mean RIGHT! Exactly what Adam said. Mike is a strict constitutionalist and an excellent historian. His movies about the founders are very educational. As an added bonus, he has a great Louisianan accent.
If you can't get his show on Sirius/XM, you can get a lot of it on his website.
I love it when he says "Midder Church Midder Church."
I agree. Recent history sure has played hell with that chart. I used to consider myself a conservative; thought I always would, but now, Conservative is just a brand for statist. Statist, who have also managed to co-opt the Liberal brand.Classical Liberals are the true Conservatives.
Ron is socially liberal (at least in terms of a small Federal Gov)
The words have been distorted for too many years.
I think another reason they hate RP is because we haven't got the bill yet for all of our spending. We got a tiny glimpse of the bill in 2008 and that caused many people to realize that RP was not crazy. Just imagine when the dollar collapses, gas and bread will be 10-20 bucks a gallon/loaf. It'll be too expensive to heat your house. Most of your budget will be for food. Then ask someone if they want to attack Iran. You might get your butt kicked for even suggesting it!
Right now all sorts of government programs seem like a good idea, because we don't seem to have to pay for them. Take a poll and see how many people support attacking Iran for example. Let's say it's 30%. Then ask the same question only add that you are going to have $1,000 deducted from your pay when we attack to pay for it. I'll guessing the poll numbers change a little.
I called him and talked to him once on air (and Andrew Wilkow too), both times to talk a little about my Canadian health care system and how the price of things up here, taxes, etc are much higher to pay for it and I don't know if the US is ready for that committment. I felt like I was meeting a movie star during that call
Oh man I agree!!! I mean, I don;t like to see stories on US news about people so badly affected by health care costs and unable to afford treatment, losing their homes, etc. It tugs hard at the heart strings. However, up north of your border, we have the same stories! Why? Because sometimes (or a lot of the time), people have to wait longer for a lot of treatments, surgeries, etc and if they are rendered unable to work during that wait, trouble comes fast. My mom's friend, for example. In her early 60s she needed shoulder surgery on one side and wrist surgery on the other. She tried to keep working during the wait (over TWO YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!), but she couldn't. It was making things worse. She went on disability and it was not enough to pay her meager housing costs (trailer home, low utilities, etc). She ended up having to sell her house and move in with her sister to await surgery. When she finally got it, she was so close to retirement age she found it nearly impossible to get a job. So she went from owning her own home and working full time, to not having a home or a job all because of waiting so long for surgery. We have the same stories, just with a slightly different spin. And all the while, we pay through the nose for this so-called better system. As various provinces move deeper into debt year after year, the costs covered under the 'free' basic health plan drop. They have meetings a lot to determine was is classed as necessary treatment and what isn't. That gets shifted over to *gasp* *shock* the private insurance system (eye, dental, ambulance, prescriptions, etc). Yup we carry both - provincial and private health insurance, and some provinces also charge a low premium (it was $88/month for a family in Alberta until they cut the whole thing a couple years ago, now it's 'free'). But we pay over 35% taxes on our gas -I live in The oil and gas province, and we pay more than anywhere in the United States per gallon. I have oil rigs right near where I live, I can see them, and we have refineries in our province, but we still pay a crazy amount because of taxes and other fun stuff.I think another reason they hate RP is because we haven't got the bill yet for all of our spending. We got a tiny glimpse of the bill in 2008 and that caused many people to realize that RP was not crazy. Just imagine when the dollar collapses, gas and bread will be 10-20 bucks a gallon/loaf. It'll be too expensive to heat your house. Most of your budget will be for food. Then ask someone if they want to attack Iran. You might get your butt kicked for even suggesting it!
Right now all sorts of government programs seem like a good idea, because we don't seem to have to pay for them. Take a poll and see how many people support attacking Iran for example. Let's say it's 30%. Then ask the same question only add that you are going to have $1,000 deducted from your pay when we attack to pay for it. I'll guessing the poll numbers change a little.
That is part of why I have become so interested in US politics over the years. I am very concerned about my american neighbours, not just because what happens down there deeply affects us up here, but because I have friends and family who moved there and it scares me sometimes, wondering what is going to happen to all of us if this garbage is not sorted out. Canada's debt looks miniscule compared to the US but we have 10 times fewer people so do the math. We aren't doing well either, despite news to the contrary. Ron Paul is the only politician I have ever seen in my life who I actually BELIEVE when he speaks. I can't explain it other than he does not posture to the crowd for kicks, he says what he thinks needs to be done even though he knows he will get flack for it, and he seems like a genuinely nice man who cares. I also enjoy when he throws in a bit of humor haha. But seriously, I have never been able to watch politicians without wanting to stick my finger down my throat in a 'gag me' response - until I saw Ron Paul and learned more about him over the past few years. I would like to see him do well - better than he ever has done before - at the very least. I do not hold out much hope for the voters to get him where he needs to be, but I want him to do very well so that maybe, just maybe, his ideas will actually be respected and used in the future. Of course best case scenario would be for him to win this, but I just do not know (due to voters, not him).... so people better start paying attention and listen.
Last edited by kezt777; 02-12-2012 at 11:34 AM. Reason: darn typos lol
Post of the week, IMO.
Rush Limbaugh has been totally unfair with Ron Paul, we should start a movement to get Rush Limbaugh fired, and get someone who supports Ron Paul to get his job.
My sentiments exactly. It's because the military personal's over-whelming support for Dr. Paul makes these talk show hosts look like complete idiots. They're always blabbering on and on about how much they support the troops....they bend-over backwards trying to convey the impression the troops are right in-sync with their "let's get in all the wars we can" attitude, especially Hannity. So Dr Paul's Non-Interventionist foreign policy's popularity with the troops destroys this facade.
Here's a letter I wrote Mark Levin following a call I'd made to his program after he trashed Ron Paul for an hour:
Hello Mark,
I don't normally listen to your radio program after hearing you sporadically some time ago as you've clearly proven you're a tool for the political establishment. However, I happened to catch your Ron Paul rant so I stayed to listen and later call. Like other talk show hosts of your ilk you prefer to seek out Liberal callers to feast upon when you want a debate. Given the inherent ideological flaws and contradictions of Liberalism even the most articulate Liberal's arguments are easily taken apart and rightly so. You'll never allow a well-spoken Libertarian Conservative caller with a dissenting view to engage in any substantive discussion and that was my experience with you this evening after an hour and a half hold, with one cut-off in between.
Your attacks on Ron Paul this evening twisted his positions on foreign policy and the were also personal in nature. I believe you called him a " little cowardly weasel" or similar. You said he insults our troops. That's an interesting point in itself which deserves discussion. Are you that uninformed to not be aware Ron Paul receives more campaign contributions from military service members than all the other GOP candidates combined? Evidently, they're not too offended.
You also parrot the talk show puppet talking points by deliberately trying to blunt any discussion of the role American foreign policy may have played in endangering the American public to terrorist attacks such as occurred on 9/11. Anyone who tries to have a dispassionate discussion of the 9/11 attack by including an examination of the US government's foreign policy is immediately ripped by shrill talk show hosts for "blaming America". Nothing could be further from the truth.
The role of the Federal government is not to police the world, settle every country's squabbles, and provide Universal Military Care to the entire planet. Ron Paul is a firm believer in the constitutional mandate for the Federal government to provide for the defense of AMERICA, not a foreign country/countries Mark Levin happens to think should be defended. On that note Mark, no one is stopping you from donating your money to a country you think needs help or volunteering to fight on their behalf. Ron Paul would be your staunchest supporter of your right to do so as you please in that regard. You're generous with other people's money and brave with other people's blood when it comes to foreign policy.
Meddling in other country's conflicts by our Federal government only creates enemies unnecessarily which endangers the American people's security. This is exactly the opposite of what the constitution intends which is to defend AMERICAN citizens, not put them in jeopardy. Incidently Mark, in case you missed one of the many times Ron Paul has pointed it out; we're BROKE, get it? When the Federal government is already 15 plus Trillion in debt we simply can't continue wasting additional Billions/Trillions butting into other countries problems, making them our problems and creating our own enemies. It's called blow-back and it doesn't have anything to do with whether we were on the right or wrong side of someone else's conflict.
The Federal government's meddling abroad not only endangers the American public's safety and contributes heavily to our debt, the latter also makes it impossible to dismantle the welfare state at home. The hypocrisy of spending Trillions abroad on war and foreign aid gives the Liberals a perfect argument to fight even the most minor domestic spending cuts. In that regard, your attempt to equate Ron Paul's constitutionally sound position on national defense to a Liberal/McGovern anti-war stance is feeble, insulting, and only makes you appear foolish. McGovern's anti-war motives are entirely different from Paul's. A Liberal wouldn't advocate re-deploying our troops from guarding the Pakistan/Afghanistan border to guarding our own Southern border. Nor would a Liberal cut ALL foreign aid as Ron Paul advocates.
As a shill for the status quot hugging Republican Establishment you better wake-up and smell the coffee Mark. The American public is not going to buy the lesser-of-two-evils scam anymore as seen with the McCain fiasco. I'm a life-long Libertarian who voted for Ron Paul back in 1988. In 2000 I decided to go along with the Republican Establishment and again in 2004 to see what they would accomplish. So I held my nose and voted for Bush and you can see how that worked-out. If the Republican Establishment once again nominates one of it's RINO's, it will be their own undoing so don't blame Ron Paul for running third party. By the way, you ridiculed Paul's conservative credentials which is quite ignorant. Ron Paul has the most conservative voting record in Congress since statistics have been kept on that subject dating back to the 1930's.
Furthermore, the Libertarian Conservatives are the wave of the future no matter how hard the Political Establishment pulls your strings Mark, and this is what terrifies all of you. Young people are among Ron Paul's most fervent supporters. Despite the best efforts of the government/media complex to quell discussion of Libertarian ideals the message is getting through thanks in large part to Ron Paul's efforts. It's important to point out Mark, that Ron Paul is only the messenger of Libertarian ideals. When you demean and insult his positions on issues you are actually attacking Libertarian Conservatives. The Republican Establishment welcomes Libertarian-leaning Conservatives into the tent as long as they vote for RINO's. After enduring all the Republican Establishment RINO's: Bush1, Dole, Bush2, and McCain it's time to let the Libertarian Conservatives have their shot.
Sincerely,
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us