• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Dr. Paul barred from speaking at the reconvention

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,353
1
81
A small mind has no room for the thoughts of others. Small-minded persons will therefore go to any length to avoid such thoughts.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,567
3
0
Paul did not win enough states under the rules to guarantee a speaking spot.
His policies are considered by the Republican Party as bringing them less chance for victory if he gets to speak about them at the Convention.

Clearly Paul is not a Repubican anyway. His policies are nothing like Republican policies.

If Paul really wanted to run for President he can do so as an independent.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
I can understand why the OP and his ilk believe in Ron Paul, what I can't understand is the Ron Paul Chuztpah.

Ron Paul may dearly desire a speaking slot the Republican National Convention, but he forgot to earn enough GOP primary votes to have a snowballs chance in hell of deserving. it.

In short, OP, in a country that believes in majority rule, less that 3% is not even close to a majority. Its why Ron Paul forgot to EARN a speaking slot and why OP, your belated cheerleading falls of deaf ears in the GOP for 3 national POTUS elections in a row.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
83
91
not asked to speak =! "barred"

Ron Paul has no right to be a speaker at the convention if the Party doesn't want him to.

I also expect that we won't see Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich in prominent speaking roles.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
not asked to speak =! "barred"
-snip-
I was thinking the same thing.

But the author of that blog is clearly 'radical', I wouldn't expect anything other than -over-the-top verbiage.

I'm sure there's a lot of competition among many factions/politicians etc to get stage time and there are a limited number of slots. I'd be surprised if Paul didn't get some consideration, his followers seem, umm, enthusiastic. Same for Palin etc.

From what I read, there is no animosity between Paul and Romney. I read they, and their families, are quite friendly. The blogger seems to completely ignore that.

In the grand scheme of things this seems so unimportant to me, but then I don't watch much of conventions. IMO, they are now just highly choreographed pageants with nothing of substance actually taking place.

Fern
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
The other big problem with Ron Paul is that he is way too old to run for POTUS.

Ron may be in excellent health but its still a bad gamble.

I supect 2012 is Ron Paul's last hoorah, after all one can't pretend to be a boy wonder Harold Stassen forever.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,990
84
91
That was to be expected though. Clearly he would be outshined by the riveting speech that Romney is going to give. :rolleyes:

Its too bad though. Ron Paul represents a unique faction of the GOP and should be allowed to speak for them.
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,548
649
126
Why would he have been invited? He didn't win enough states but most importantly he's a joke.

Oh and you don't work, you wasted your parent's money.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,379
0
0
I'm not surprised, but I'm unhappy about it. I've already donated to dr Paul's campaign for the purpose of getting him and his supporters there... so now the rnc has attempted to waste dr paul's supporters' money and dr. Paul's time.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/117322.html

Your thoughts?
Romney is pie eyed because most paul supporters are voting obummer even tho the don't like him . But we all HATE romney. I didn't vote in 2008 but in 2012 If there is election I will vote obummer . I have to see what 8 years of this moron does to the country
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,379
0
0
Why would he have been invited? He didn't win enough states but most importantly he's a joke.

Oh and you don't work, you wasted your parent's money.
Yes he did win enouch states . Delegat wise . But the RNC cheated the rnc is also over with and many of its leaders will likely have accidents in the coming months and years
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,379
0
0
From what I read, there is no animosity between Paul and Romney. I read they, and their families, are quite friendly. The blogger seems to completely ignore that.
I don't know about your statement as written . were Pauls endorsement for Romney?
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,567
3
0
The thread title LIES. Paul was not barred from speaking. He was merely not invited to speak. If he had been invited he could have spoken.

Oh, and perhaps he wasn't invited since he resigned from the Republican Party n 1987 to run AGAINST the Republican nominee for president on a third party ticket.

Of course, the reason he might not have been invited is because his supporters have disrupted Republican caucuses across the country with the police having to be called in to restore order.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
At first blush, the thread title appears to be a lie. But if Ron Paul tried to get up on stage and speak, I am sure they would stop him. Not being invited to speak means you are effectively barred from speaking when the only way to speak is to be invited to speak. While they are not quite the same thing, the end result is the same. Barring is an active act, though, and what they really did was a passive act. They did not invite, a passive act, as opposed to barring, which is active.
 

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,116
318
126
At first blush, the thread title appears to be a lie. But if Ron Paul tried to get up on stage and speak, I am sure they would stop him. Not being invited to speak means you are effectively barred from speaking when the only way to speak is to be invited to speak. While they are not quite the same thing, the end result is the same. Barring is an active act, though, and what they really did was a passive act. They did not invite, a passive act, as opposed to barring, which is active.
99.9% of attendees at convention barred from speaking at convention. News!
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,567
3
0
At first blush, the thread title appears to be a lie. But if Ron Paul tried to get up on stage and speak, I am sure they would stop him. Not being invited to speak means you are effectively barred from speaking when the only way to speak is to be invited to speak.
Thread title should read everyone in the U.S. barred from speaking unless invited.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,379
0
0
The thread title LIES. Paul was not barred from speaking. He was merely not invited to speak. If he had been invited he could have spoken.

Oh, and perhaps he wasn't invited since he resigned from the Republican Party n 1987 to run AGAINST the Republican nominee for president on a third party ticket.

Of course, the reason he might not have been invited is because his supporters have disrupted Republican caucuses across the country with the police having to be called in to restore order.
The reason the supporters were disruptive is the RNC refused to follow the rules they put in place . There is alot of proof of this . Show me proof otherwise. Not just bits and pieces . Show a video were pauls supporters were disruptive without the RNC trying to cheat and break its own rules .
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
83
91
I don't know about your statement as written . were Pauls endorsement for Romney?
they're personally friendly (and their families are reportedly close) even if they're distant on politics.

looks like Rand Paul has a speaking slot at the convention.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY