PDA

View Full Version : What Ron Paul didn't say




sailingaway
09-06-2012, 11:21 PM
http://media.washtimes.com/media/community/viewpoint/entry/2012/09/06/wash_times_ron_paul_s640x427.jpg?73b8e21685896c3f2 859310aaa5adb253919b641


TAMPA, September 6, 2012 — There was no big announcement during Ron Paul’s appearance on Jay Leno Tuesday night. On the contrary, Paul’s appearance was somewhat anticlimactic given Mitt Romney’s nomination at the Republican National Convention last week. Of course, he still said what he has been saying for over thirty years in public life: America must stop spending money it doesn’t have, must liquidate its debts and rethink the role of government as cradle-to-grave caregiver and policeman of the world.

Ron Paul has said many memorable things during his two most recent campaigns for president. A debate moderator tried to put him on the spot regarding his position on leaving Iraq, asking contemptuously, “What is your plan to get U.S. troops out of Iraq?” Paul replied without hesitation, “We marched right in there without a plan, we can march right out.”

When asked about Newt Gingrich’s suggestion that the U.S. government explore colonizing the moon, Paul replied, “No, I don’t want to go to the moon, although I’d like to send some politicians up there.”

A few days ago, I posed a question at the end of my story on the Maine delegation fiasco. What were they really so afraid of?
It wasn’t what Ron Paul said that had them so scared. It was what he didn’t say.

At the RNC, it was what he wasn’t allowed to say. It is hard not to assume that the entire war to unseat Paul’s delegates was waged to silence him. There was almost no chance for Paul to win. He came into the convention with eight states. In order to win, he would have had to persuade almost a thousand of Romney’s delegates to change their minds.

But had all of Paul’s delegates been seated, he would have had a chance to try. He would have been entitled to a 15-minute speech for that very purpose. Whether he would have persuaded a single Romney delegate is not important. What is important is that millions of television viewers would have heard that speech, a large percentage of whom have still probably never heard of Ron Paul.

Think for a moment what a problem that would have been for the Romney/RNC cabal. While Romney/Ryan tried to pass themselves off as champions of small government even as they propose to spend more during their first year in office than Obama is spending now, Ron Paul would have talked about his budget that would have cut $1 trillion during his first year in office.

While Paul Ryan was attacking President Obama for cutting Medicare, Ron Paul would present his plan to phase out both Social Security and Medicare while still maintaining benefits for those who paid into the programs.

While Romney beat the war drums against Iran, Ron Paul would talk not only about getting U.S. troops out of the Middle East, but getting out of Germany, Japan, Korea and 100 other countries as well. That may not have played well with the aging neoconservatives, but millions of people watching on television would have heard a completely different Republican platform.

In short, a Ron Paul speech at the RNC would have been about really doing what Republicans claim they stand for but never actually do: reduce the size and influence of the federal government. And it would have appealed not only to Republicans, but Democrats and independents as well, just as Paul’s campaign had during primary season.

This could not be allowed to happen. He could not be allowed to speak.




more at link: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2012/sep/6/what-ron-paul-didnt-say/

eleganz
09-06-2012, 11:29 PM
wow..brilliant...

fr33
09-06-2012, 11:33 PM
Republicans fucked us all. They had the chance to balance the budget and reduce the deficit and recruit enough independents and democrats to win. Instead they chose to be Israel-firsters. Obama beat them to that though.Obama will win.

WarAnonymous
09-06-2012, 11:36 PM
That sir is an AMAZING article, unfortunately I could feel my insides catch on fire as I thought about it more and more. I think shortly I will spontaneously combust.

opal
09-06-2012, 11:41 PM
That does just say it all doesn't it?

dancjm
09-07-2012, 12:20 AM
I do feel that something needs to be done, while the iron is still hot, so to speak.

The media cannot wait for Ron Paul to become less relevant (at least in terms of the MSM narrative), they cannot wait for the election season to be over so they don't have to cover him any more.

While they are still currently forced to report on him and what he is doing, I would suggest we need the kind of exposure we would have got from a speech at the RNC.

We need Ron to be heard by millions of Americans, and we need this desperately.

Why can't Independents and Libertarians get together and hold a convention. I bet they could blow the RNC/DNC numbers out of the water. Sure we don't all agree on everything, but you can be sure we could come together to agree on a platform to challenge the establishment parties.

I am thinking of something similar to what Ron did in 2008 when he formed a coalition with Ralph Nader, the Green Party and others. They agreed on a joint statement about economic policy, foreign policy and civil liberties. That was presented at a press conference. This should be done on a larger scale, you would get republicans (RP Republicans), Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, all coming together on those issues we can agree on.

WarAnonymous
09-07-2012, 12:22 AM
I do feel that something needs to be done, while the iron is still hot, so to speak.

The media cannot wait for Ron Paul to become less relevant (at least in terms of the MSM narrative), they cannot wait for the election season to be over so they don't have to cover him any more.

While they are still currently forced to report on him and what he is doing, I would suggest we need the kind of exposure we would have got from a speech at the RNC.

We need Ron to be heard by millions of Americans, and we need this desperately.

Why can't Independents and Libertarians get together and hold a convention. I bet they could blow the RNC/DNC numbers out of the water. Sure we don't all agree on everything, but you can be sure we could come together to agree on a platform to challenge the establishment parties.

I am thinking of something similar to what Ron did in 2008 when he formed a coalition with Ralph Nader, the Green Party and others. They agreed on a joint statement about economic policy, foreign policy and civil liberties. That was presented at a press conference. This should be done on a larger scale, you would get republicans (RP Republicans), Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, all coming together on those issues we can agree on.

Agree... Unfortunately people won't act and it will all slowly fade away.

dancjm
09-07-2012, 01:04 AM
Agree... Unfortunately people won't act and it will all slowly fade away.

The thing that would hold it back would be GJ wants to be a nominee or RP supporters want Ron to be a nominee etc, who can we choose to "lead us".

Let's have some kind of convention in which we are not interested in selecting a "leader". Let's have some kind of convention that is about ideas, about agreeing on what we all believe in.


The Constitutional Convention (also known as the Philadelphia Convention) took place from May 14 to September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania...Although the Convention was intended to revise the Articles of Confederation, the intention from the outset of many of its proponents, chief among them James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, was to create a new government rather than fix the existing one. The delegates elected George Washington to preside over the Convention. The result of the Convention was the United States Constitution, placing the Convention among the most significant events in the history of the United States.- Wiki

The aim would not so much be to "create new government" but perhaps to create a new party, or address the problems with the existing process. If we could only agree on a basic platform, (no war, less spending, protect civil liberties), and if people came to understand that platform, it would become hard to argue with, making the existing parties redundant as they refuse to deal with the real issues and continue on their blind path to oblivion.

I think everyone taking part could agree to nominate Ron (for example) to preside over a convention, as long as we all agree that the purpose is not selecting a leader but defining what we believe in, what we know to be wrong (with the political system), and how we can fix it. I genuinely believe that something like this, at this time, would attract a lot of people. Especially considering that people would no longer have to feel put off by the prospect of this being "republican" or "democrat" event. Instead it could be viewed simply as American.

I think the results would be astounding, because dedicated democrats and dedicated republicans are the minority. We are the majority. We would easily agree on a platform as described above (The Ayes would have it every time) and being a demonstrable majority, demanding something other than what we are getting, would again be really hard to ignore.

Perhaps it is wishful thinking, and it's just an idea. But something needs to be done I feel.

WarAnonymous
09-07-2012, 01:55 AM
The thing that would hold it back would be GJ wants to be a nominee or RP supporters want Ron to be a nominee etc, who can we choose to "lead us".

Let's have some kind of convention in which we are not interested in selecting a "leader". Let's have some kind of convention that is about ideas, about agreeing on what we all believe in.

- Wiki

The aim would not so much be to "create new government" but perhaps to create a new party, or address the problems with the existing process. If we could only agree on a basic platform, (no war, less spending, protect civil liberties), and if people came to understand that platform, it would become hard to argue with, making the existing parties redundant as they refuse to deal with the real issues and continue on their blind path to oblivion.

I think everyone taking part could agree to nominate Ron (for example) to preside over a convention, as long as we all agree that the purpose is not selecting a leader but defining what we believe in, what we know to be wrong (with the political system), and how we can fix it. I genuinely believe that something like this, at this time, would attract a lot of people. Especially considering that people would no longer have to feel put off by the prospect of this being "republican" or "democrat" event. Instead it could be viewed simply as American.

I think the results would be astounding, because dedicated democrats and dedicated republicans are the minority. We are the majority. We would easily agree on a platform as described above (The Ayes would have it every time) and being a demonstrable majority, demanding something other than what we are getting, would again be really hard to ignore.

Perhaps it is wishful thinking, and it's just an idea. But something needs to be done I feel.

Yeah this is a great idea. Ben Swann is advocating something like this, but he seems to think the right and left will have their own sides. I think for the most part OG-GOP, Libertarians, Constatutionalists, (some)Democrats, Tea Party members are starting to embrace the liberty movement. We all don't agree 100% but the most important aspects we do agree on. I think this is a great idea and I think it should be jump started. It could be powerful and could eventually lead to the rise of a third party. I think we need to use the momentum we have right now and not let this air out and be forgotten. Many people are angry. It's over right now as far as leaders (election) go this is why you are right, focusing on a leader is not important but bringing everyone together is. A third party convention could be huge. I think many "leaders" (and I use that term not to lead the convention) would embrace coming to something like this and really helping it blow up. I don't think that it could be ignored. The platform would be by the people, not by the leaders. In the liberty movement the people ARE THE LEADERS!

kathy88
09-07-2012, 04:08 AM
I practically accosted Tom Mullens at PAUL Fest. I gushed about how great he was and how I read everything he writes. Embarrassed the shit out of him, I think. But I got a picture with him :)

Justinfrom1776
09-07-2012, 04:26 AM
When folks ask why I'm not voting for Willard, after I am done laughing at them, I will direct them to this article.

kill the banks
09-07-2012, 06:24 AM
that was v good and to the point

georgiaboy
09-07-2012, 07:33 AM
bump before I've read it all.

ClydeCoulter
09-07-2012, 09:03 AM
Exactly what we already knew, but, fought for anyway and actually won. We/he did win the nomination speach, but just like inflation tax, it was stolen in secret right in broad daylight.