'The Man' or 'The Message'?

[A Ron Paul Rebel]

I'm strongly in favor of having it be about 'the people'
and 'the message' rather than a Ron Paul event.
Pros include:
more media coverage
larger turnout
more endorsements
other guest speakers (George Carlin
unite around the message (introduce Dr. Paul)


Let's have this be an educated debate and poll.

 

[humanic]

As I said in another thread, the march must be about the message, not the man.

What could be a better testament to Ron Paul's ability to lead and unite this country, and to his viability as a candidate, than for thousands and thousands of people take to the streets to promote the very things he stands for?

What could be a better testament to the legitimacy of the movement of which Ron Paul is the central figure than for us to come out and practice what we preach instead of acting like collectivists, and therefore hypocrites?

What could be a better way to promote his presidency than by showing that, unlike many supporters of other candidates, the supporters of Ron Paul are not a cult of personality, but rather a group of like-minded individuals supporting a candidate who shares their beliefs and values.

 

[Paulitician]

The message but the man definitely helps since he's so honest and principled.

 

[Chibioz]

why not both?

 

[Jeremy]

both

 

[Bold As Love]

Glad to see those two answers above because I was thinking why not both the man AND the message?

 

[Revolution9]

The man who delivered the message.


humanic wants to make a disconnect and I find that suspect., We need our frontman as popular as he can get and this guy is playing honor games designed to marginalise that. I heard what Ron said. I ain't twisting them for my agenda. humanc is ignoring the video and the AJ interview and using RP quotes to back us his agenda of marginalisation. Quite a snaky move IMO.

Best Regards
Randy

 

[humanic]

The man who delivered the message.

humanic wants to make a disconnect and I find that suspect., We need our frontman as popular as he can get and this guy is playing honor games designed to marginalise that. I heard what Ron said. I ain't twisting them for my agenda. humanc is ignoring the video and the AJ interview and using RP quotes to back us his agenda of marginalisation. Quite a snaky move IMO.

Best Regards
Randy

Your constant claim that I try to disconnect the man from the message is dishonest.

I ask: "What could be a better testament to Ron Paul's ability to lead and unite this country, and to his viability as a candidate, than for thousands and thousands of people take to the streets to promote the very things he stands for? What could be a better testament to the legitimacy of the movement of which Ron Paul is the central figure than for us to come out and practice what we preach instead of acting like collectivists, and therefore hypocrites? What could be a better way to promote his presidency than by showing that, unlike many supporters of other candidates, the supporters of Ron Paul are not a cult of personality, but rather a group of like-minded individuals supporting a candidate who shares their beliefs and values."

Revolution9 claims: "humanic wants to make a disconnect" [between the man in the message]

Readers can judge for themselves whether or not your statement is accurate.

 

[pinkmandy]

Everyone needs to hear the message, then they'll love the man as well. I hope the man will be showing up at our march?

 

[Cooter]

id say both. the message has been out there, but why hasnt it had a big march? cause it didnt have a ron paul.

 

[jrich4rpaul]

Anyone who voted "The message" didn't watch the YouTube video. And if they did, they just made up their own meaning behind it...

This is to show our numbers in a way that cannot be altered or ignored

 

[CitizenPlain]

You can't separate the two!

...

 

[pacelli]

With all of the sacrifices that Dr. Paul has made in his life in order to restrain the reaches of tyranny, I think he deserves special recognition. Just let the march happen, I don't think it needs a theme. The march is a free market-- people will be going for different reasons. I like all reasons proposed. I don't think there needs to be an "official" reason for it. That's the campaign's job!

 

[Cooter]

i see what people are saying about its more than just ron paul. the message will be here long after ron paul is gone. im just saying i get the feeling that some wouldnt mind if he wasnt even at the march or even mentioned. i dont agree with at at all. dont ride the guys coat tail to the dance and then tell him you dont want him there.

 

[MrKoffee]

We need to be careful not to make the topic too broad or others may hijack it.

For example if we call it the "March for change in Washington" Obama and his drones may come and hijack the march claiming they are the ones to bring change.

We need to make it clear what the purposes of this march are for and what those who are marching support and Ron Paul should get some credit there.

Maybe we should call it "The March to restore Liberty and the Constitution" and have Ron Paul as a key speaker of course

 

[colecrowe]

*EDIT: BOTH--AND NOBODY IN THE WORLD WOULD EVER BE ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE.

The man. The message is of course more important than the man--BUT he is the brave statesman that has been fighting for us.

He is the only MAN that is about this message anymore.

We could have organized rallies for freedom, etc--but did we and were we doing so before Ron Paul stood up? No!

There is a time and a place for everything. And Ron Paul asked us for our support. If we purposely say: Message is #1 and Ron Paul is #2--then we are sending the message that he is NOT about freedom and the Constitution. But he is--and that is the reason we support him. You will muddy that and send the wrong message if you try to define it one way or the other. And there's no reason for it.

We want to send the message that we are for Ron Paul BECAUSE, AND ONLY BECAUSE, he is for freedom, rule of law, the Constitution, honest government, government of and for the people, and a non-interventionist foreign policy, etc., etc...

THIS IS A FALSE CHOICE. There is, and should not be, a number 1 and number 2. Bring Ron Paul signs, Constitution signs; have Ron Paul speeches, and Constitution speeches--but even better--have signs and speeches that speak of BOTH. Because it about freedom, and Ron Paul--Ron Paul, and freedom.

That is what this event is about. You should have stood up and took the initiative and had people rally around freedom or whatever--but Ron Paul did that, and he being brave and strong and fighting for the presidency--and RIGHT NOW we are having a rally for that, and for him (but we all know it is about 'the message' and about America). It's both, that's all I'm trying to say.

So stop.

 

[thomaseusin]

Both are as important. But RP needs to be the Man at this point in time. The message can be spread later if the Man doesn't get the nomination *gulp*

 

[wgadget]

The Resuscitate the Constitution Rally

 

[humanic]

i see what people are saying about its more than just ron paul. the message will be here long after ron paul is gone. im just saying i get the feeling that some wouldnt mind if he wasnt even at the march or even mentioned. i dont agree with at at all. dont ride the guys coat tail to the dance and then tell him you dont want him there.

My point of view is this:
This march should be centered on the message of liberty, freedom, and the Constitution. Since Ron Paul is the person who has called for this march, and since Ron Paul is the chief representative of its message and the central figure of this movement, and since most of the people that will be there will be Ron Paul supporters, Ron Paul should obviously be the keynote speaker, and the majority of the people there will be there supporting Ron Paul for president along with his message. They will do this naturally and without coercion. I know I will. My reason for focusing on the message is to avoid the division and hypocritical collectivism that will result when individuals at the march exercise their first amendment right to express controversial opinions-- opinions which some feel should not be associated with the Ron Paul campaign-- and others try to censor them to "protect Ron Paul and his campaign."

 

[colecrowe]

why not both?

Thank you. So simple and true. Haven't you noticed that Ron Paul's whole campaign has shown that to just happen. The other campaigns talk only about Obama being charismatic and black, and McCain being a war hero, and on and on. We talk almost always only about the Constitution, Freedom, Free Markets, Sound Money, Bill of Rights, etc.--and oh yeah--that's why Ron Paul has our vote and support.

Have you not noticed that every event has tons of home made signs about freedom and Constitution and founders and taxes, etc. Only a few signs with just Ron Paul's name on them??

Have you not noticed that Ron Paul goes on and on about these things--and bases everything he says and does on them??

Stop trying to figure out if it should be one or the other. It is both. (OF COURSE THE MESSAGE IS MORE IMPORTANT! But if you insist on making sure that everyone knows it's Message #1, Ron Paul 2, then you should have organized an event about the message on your own. Did you? NO! Did you think of organizing an event about freedom and taxes before Ron Paul? Did you actually do anything about it? NO!)

BOTH.