241 votes

The Ron Paul picture is gone...

I know that the Daily Paul is moving past focusing on Ron Paul's 2012 campaign, but did the Ron Paul picture on the right of the DP really have to get taken down? After all, our movement and this website IS still inspired by the good doctor even if it's no longer mainly about getting him elected. And that's all the picture said: "The Daily Paul is inspired by Ron Paul". Now there is nothing about him, not even a smaller picture. Does anyone else feel the same way?

Nystrom Update: Please see my response in this comment, below. Thank you.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Michael Nystrom's picture

Tim, please read my response below

And tell me if it make you mad.

http://www.dailypaul.com/253522/the-ron-paul-picture-is-gone...

And further, no, Ron Paul did not request me to take it down. If you know a little about Dr. Paul, you would know that he doesn't tell people what to do. He wouldn't be so presumptuous as to tell me what to do with my property.

Sadly, few people, including yourself, seem not to have learned this lesson from Dr. Paul. Nearly everyone on this thread is fixated on his picture, while completely forgetting the message.

Do you remember what Ron Paul has always said? The message is Liberty. He is simply the messenger.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

Hi, Michael,

I read what you wrote. And I do understand what you said (including about May). Still, without making Ron Paul's photo the focal point of this site, I hope you might yet consider a way to somehow keep some image of here in some kind of compromise (what image, how large, or where) that would not compromise on your principles or goals for the site. Ron Paul was for many here what drew them into the liberty movement. And without labeling him a cult figure, he is nonetheless an "icon" of this movement - "a person or thing regarded as a representative symbol of something." And as the photo on another post demonstrates, he also serves as a role model in how to conduct the dialogue. People invested a lot in trying to help him get elected: it wasn't only "all he did for us" but us doing a lot for him, as well (for which he's thanked us). It was a "joint effort" in bringing the liberty movement to the size it is - that if not getting him elected likely did have something to do with the House bill getting passed (and the pressure we'll continue to exert on the Senate). There was a symbiosis there - with a synergistic effect, the whole greater than the sum of its parts. Although we're free agents, now devoting ourselves to a particular effort re the presidential election (such as supporting Johnson) or on the home front, or something in between, as this is where we've all chosen to gather, with Ron Paul having brought us together, and with his certainly remaining an inspiration to us (not just the minority choosing to not make plans for another 58 days), I think it would be unfortunate not to honor that and also not to capitalize on the enthusiasm he continues to inspire. And I'd say that even IF, tomorrow, you turned this into a campaign site for Johnson. While we here have different views on things - not all in lockstep with Ron Paul or each other - what Ron Paul represents is the common thread that does tie us together. If you were to draw a Venn Diagram, he'd be a place where the circles interconnect. I much appreciate the site, but I do hope you'll give it some further thought.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Michael you're missing something crucial.

There is no substitute for Ron Paul. He has been the one consistent messenger for Liberty that we can truly trust and has the integrity to back up what he says. There is no one else. To say that this website (your property) symbolically is no longer inspired by Ron Paul means you no longer recognize or cherish the base foundation by which you built the following of users on this website. I remember watching you tearing about how one man....Dr. Paul was the one who reignited and rekindle hope in the basic fundamental ideas of liberty. He was the water when there was no water to feed the tree of Liberty. I challenge you sir to rethink and reevaluate what is the inspiration for your property now. Yes, the liberty movement is bigger than Ron Paul. But there is a lack of honor when we forget the one man who kept the smallest fire of liberty burning when there was essentially no other. Don't go so far as to forget where you came from. The day the Daily Paul no longer believes it is inspired by the teachings and examples of Ron Paul is the day this property of yours has lost its base, killed its roots, and taken many steps back. Many of us were awakened by Dr. Paul. To remember and honor that which is worthy of such is a beautiful thing. To say that this website was ONLY about getting Dr. Paul elected as president is cheapening the very property you and many other who have participated have built.

-vapaulsupporter

reedr3v's picture

I will tell you: it may have satisfied Tim,

but it continued my anger about how this entire change was handled.

Yes the site is solely your property. Yes those of us who've been with you for years honor your enormous contribution to the cause of Liberty -- a far greater contribution than most of us have been able to muster.

But I am insulted by your lecturing us on libertarian basics after all this time. I am still put off by your decision to unilaterally make a drastic change with zero input from the community -- no chance for us to point out the errors in acting as if we had become a superficial RP cult, no opportunity to question what is to replace the unifying set of principles RP represented, and the honorable, positive good will of his example.

I mightily mind that you and the Mods have so much tolerance for non-libertarians spouting every degraded ideology and bias imaginable in many threads, but have less tolerance for those who are trying to maintain the core principles critical to promoting peace and liberty. I often feel utterly abandoned by the Administration when doing battle against outright attacks on Liberty/Peace/Goodwill here on the DP. Really, don't we get enough of that on most other sites?

Perhaps my push-back seems overly pushy. I am sorry for that if so, but it is meant as constructive criticism. I'm not making threats or demanding a single course of action. I fully recognize I'm a guest here and have always considered it my responsibility to help maintain the site -- as if it were the private parlor of a friend -- against strangers tracking in toxic ideological footprints and bringing in dogs depositing droppings on the rug.

I will be disappointed if the DP is turning into just another forum with no specific mission. Yes I am one of the staunchest promoters of a very big libertarian tent. But the operable word is "libertarian." By that I mean advocacy for Peace and Liberty. The DP had been a refuge from the unceasing wars on P & L outside, a place of support, inspiration, good will. What is to keep it so now? Do you really imagine it will happen magically with no clear vision upheld by the administrators? A cold P.A.U.L. is no vision to replace Dr. Paul and the r3VOLution.

And if my challenges go unanswered I'll still support anything positive remaining from the old DP. Perhaps you have some goal not yet made clear that will continue to make the DP an important and unique site. You've not shared that vision with us yet; I do hope all of my objections turn out to be premature and that you have something wonderful in mind. Or if it's just to be a mosh pit of vying agendas, I hope that will somehow contribute to the unfolding of Liberty in a useful way.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Reed - sorry you feel insulted

If the libertarian lecturing did not sit right with you, please understand that it was not intended for you. It is impossible for me to tailor my message to everyone here. After all, there are over 56,000 registered users, and only one of me.

I am heartened to see that you understand that this is my site, and it is my right to do with it as I see fit. This being the case, it is difficult for me to understand your anger with me. I think a lot of people are angry and sad right now, in a generalized way. That includes me. Things didn't work out the way we wanted or expected them to. For many, it has been a pretty brutal fall.

So I can understand the generalized anger and dissatisfaction among the community now, lashing out at whatever is handy.

But if I were to open this up for comments: "Should I remove the picture of Ron Paul?" this is exactly what would happen anyway. Everyone would scream bloody murder, as they have already done on this thread.

A friend of mine, who is not a Ron Paul supporters (OMG! YOU HAVE A FRIEND WHO IS NOT A RON PAUL SUPPORTER - WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU TRAITOR!!!).

A friend of mine, who is not a Ron Paul supporter, but who is nonetheless a good friend and has listened sympathetically to the trials and tribulations of running this site over the past five years has dubbed me, "The Prisoner of the Daily Paul," constantly buoyed and buffeted by the whims and desires of the crowd here.

It has not been easy. As I said, my mission was to support Dr. Paul's candidacy, and I did that for two cycles, and that mission is complete. There would be no point in me having a discussion about it.

Would Hank Reardon have a discussion about the composition of Reardon Metal? Would Howard Roard design his next building by committee? Did John Galt hold elections in Galt's Gulch (actually, that is a good question).

By that I mean advocacy for Peace and Liberty. The DP had been a refuge from the unceasing wars on P & L outside, a place of support, inspiration, good will. What is to keep it so now?

Thank you, and I hope it continues on in this role. But what will keep it so now is the individuals who make up this community, inspiring one another, even as we do our own things. As for what the future holds - I do not know. But I am not much of a sentimentalist - I would rather plunge boldly into an unknown future than cling to a safe and certain past. Obviously it would be much easier for me to put the picture back up and play the oldies for as long as possible.

The website very well may simply be a mosh pit of vying ideas. We were all united by Ron Paul for president voluntarily, but I don't see any reason we all need to continue to be united going forward. Furthermore, as the recent content on the site shows, I don't think it is even possible. People aren't even united behind his advice of taking over the GOP.

What should I do - ban the people who who were Ron Paul supporters, but don't see the value in that specific course of action for their own lives? I guess I'd have to ban myself, because I'm all set with politics, at least for now.

When I talked to Dr. Paul on the phone in 2008, after the disasterous performance of the Massachusetts delegation, in unanimously voting for John McCain, I told him that so many people were lost, wondering what he would want them to do, and wondering if the 'united front' showing for McCain wasn't the best option. What he said to me was, "What is the point of being united if you don't believe in what you're united behind?"

Those words have always stuck with me. There is no way to unite this heard of cats - not at this point. So I would rather take his other advice - the advice that rings true in my heart, which is: Do what you want.

I believe that is the right course for everyone - 100% accurate and true, without fail. And as I said in my other response, if that means leaving the DP and finding another community, or starting a new one, I encourage people do do that to - not because I want people to leave, but because I want people to be happy and the only way to do that is to take responsibility for their own actions, not beg and plead for someone else to fix things for them.

And if this sounds like a condescending lecture, I am sorry. It is intended as a reminder to me as much as anyone else here. We all need reminders from time to time.

And as far as the future of the site goes, it remains, like life, uncertain.

The site sprung from thin air one day in January 2007. One day it may disappear back into the thin air from whence it came.

Tomorrow never knows.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

Micheal we ARE all united

No matter what, we are all United in the belief of Liberty, no matter how you see we should get there.

We have to be united in some way, and I believe Ron Paul, his message, and the MAN, does a good Job at uniting people.

I see your point of view, I still think you are wrong on this one.

reedr3v's picture

Thank you for communicating with us

today. While you are right, business decisions often cannot be made by committee, it clearly helps to provide good reasons for radical changes in a product many value highly.

I'm sorry my attempt was inadequate to explain how your long silence and subsequent statements seemed inappropriate. I would like to see the community hold together, or perhaps benefit from dispersal if that's the way it goes. Thanks for making the DP a wonderful forum for as long as you have.

rpscallion's picture

If 200 people visit my house every day

they might be invited to put their opinion in as to how I should decorate my living room, however, to demand that input be considered further, or to be insulted if I choose not to utilize that input in my home is over stepping ones bounds.

I see nothing wrong with Mr. Nystrom making his own choice if he chooses to. After all, it is his living room he welcomes us in.

reedr3v's picture

You mis-state my words.

The insult I referred to was lecturing a mature and proven libertarian community on the basic ideas of the philosophy. Yes there are lots of Newbies here too, and I already stated Michael is within his rights. My objection was to the method, my intent is constructive.

If they help pay the rent,

if they helped build the home, should they have input then? Or was their support a gift to Michael himself. Legally it was a gift to Michael, but it seems to me that their support was intended as a gift to a Ron Paul supporting site. Michael has the right, I'm not arguing that, but the living room analogy isn't the best.

rpscallion's picture

If I helped you pay your rent once because

I enjoyed hanging around with you and the crowd in your living room every Saturday, would that allow me to demand you paint your house with my favorite color, or put up a huge Metallica poster on your wall?

The poster

was there from the beginning wasn't it? It had Ron Paul's name on it. No one wants to change the color or the signage...so poor analogy. People came here and helped to build the site because of Ron Paul's name and the principles it stood for.

And again, I'm not arguing that he doesn't have the right.

Don't worry, reedr3v, I'm NOT satisfied either.

And Michael, I would ask if you would put this on the front page, for the benefits of both sides of this so we can get more opinions in the discussion..

__
Formerly Tebowtime195
My blog: http://tebowtime95.wordpress.com
NEWEST BLOG POST: 'The Daily Paul is Inspired by Ron Paul (September 10th, 2012)' - My thoughts on the whole deal with the 'Inspired by Ron Paul' picture being removed from the Daily Pa

Michael Nystrom's picture

Tyler (sorry for calling you Tim)

You have asked me to put this on the front page, and the answer is no. I don't need any more opinions, my mind is already made up.

This fixation on a picture is more evidence to my point. Are we about the man or the message of Liberty? Do we want a cult or a movement?

You said elsewhere that if the picture wasn't going back up, that you'd build your own website to honor Dr. Paul properly, and I fully expect you to do that.

Ron Paul is a man of his word, and if you honor him and are inspired by him, then I expect you to be a man of your word as well.

Please let us know where we can find the new website.

Thank you.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

Will definitely let you know

As soon as I find the best site host and all of that jazz for website creating..

__
Formerly Tebowtime195
My blog: http://tebowtime95.wordpress.com
NEWEST BLOG POST: 'The Daily Paul is Inspired by Ron Paul (September 10th, 2012)' - My thoughts on the whole deal with the 'Inspired by Ron Paul' picture being removed from the Daily Pa

Yes, the message is liberty.

As inspired by Dr. Paul. Which you were all willing to admit up until the other day. Nothing changed in the sense of who inspired the Daily Paul. I still see no justification for the disrespect.

__
Formerly Tebowtime195
My blog: http://tebowtime95.wordpress.com
NEWEST BLOG POST: 'The Daily Paul is Inspired by Ron Paul (September 10th, 2012)' - My thoughts on the whole deal with the 'Inspired by Ron Paul' picture being removed from the Daily Pa

The picture

represents the message. The Ron Paul brand of Republicanism and Libertarianism is the brand that builds coalitions, the standard on which we can agree. The Ron Paul label is a distinction. It clearly explains our positions and is the winning formula for coalition-building. When people refer to themselves as Jeffersonian Republicans, they are not hero worshipping, they are making a distinction. We are Paulian, because the Paulian message is a winning message and a clear identity. People don't want to join a murky, ill-defined, movement.

Exactly the Picture IS the MESSAGE!!

That is exactly what everyone posting here has been saying.

And that is my opinion too, the Picture, symbolises RON PAUL's message, everything here is inspired by Ron Paul.

Taking down referrences to Paul in my opinion, DILUTES the message, WE, 99% of us, KNOW this is about the message and not the Man, that is why we are so upset, The Picture SYMOBLISED the message!

Thats the entire point of what everyone here is saying!

Michael Nystrom's picture

I could not disagree with you more

That may be what people are saying, and this may be what people believe, but this is not true, in my opinion.

The menu is not the meal, the map is not the territory, the messenger is not the message, and if we must shout around here THE PICTURE IS NOT THE MESSAGE!

Curious, does shouting in all caps make something more true? Did my writing in all caps help convince you? No? Maybe next time you might reconsider BEFORE YOU DO IT!

Ron Paul has said it himself a million times: "I am just the messenger." Please see above, the messenger is not the message. A picture of the messenger is not the message.

We are the message. The message is is ephemeral. It can only be kept alive in our thoughts, deeds and actions. Relying on a picture is the lazy man's escape, in my opinion.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

I agree with you

but not on your idea that Ron Paul doesnt symbolise everything we are working for, and I believe his picture here SYMBOLISED that message.

I know it is not about the Man, or the Messanger, I know that!

"We are the message. The message is is ephemeral. It can only be kept alive in our thoughts, deeds and actions. Relying on a picture is the lazy man's escape, in my opinion."

I agree 100% but their in lies to point people are trying to state, Nobody is relying on a picture, people beleive the picture helped symbolise the message, to keep the message on point.

That is all I am saying, having Ron Paul as symbol of Liberty is not a bad thing in my opinion, rather, something we should continue to do.

No caps do no make it any more true, but it can sometimes state my meaning more intently. Sorry if it annoys people, but sometimes that is my writing style. I am not attacking you Micheal, I respect you greatly, I love this site, I just disagree with you on this point.

From what I have

gathered from Michal's message is that he wants the site to be more than about political parties.

My own opinion is that the country is way past building parties, it appears it is sliding into lock down.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

I don't think

that we should build parties either. I do think that we should fight back and expose them. I'm not sure what that has to do with distancing ourselves from Paul or his image, care to explain?

Yes, maybe

I can help you understand. In the beginning of the Daily Paul, all the off topic stuff was on topic, for me it lead to many many rabbits holes that exposed a lot of stuff but it was to taboo to bring up when Ron Paul was running for office.

Michael had to make a tough decision then and pushed many controversial subjects to off topic. This made some people very upset, some left and some stayed. I understood Michael's reasoning then, and I understand his reasoning now.

What Michael is also saying is that we can ALL help in DIFFERENT ways, he has chosen a different path than Dr. Paul and I appreciate his candid honesty.

I see and understand your perspective, I also see and appreciate Michael's, let us journey forward on many paths and meet back here and discuss our successes and failures.

Good luck

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

the stranger's picture

dead on

well said, and accurate

So,

would it be fair to say that the site is distancing itself from Ron Paul's image because the owner wants to go in a different direction than Ron Paul is suggesting? If this is it, I'm greatful for the honesty. It would be fair for people to be aware of this.

Michael Nystrom's picture

So,

I don't want this to develop into a cult of personality, or a religion, where Ron Paul's words are the gospel truth and anything else is blasphemy. If there is anywhere on the internet where that would likely happen, the Daily Paul would be ground zero. Right here, or over at the Ron Paul Forums.

Everyone here supported Ron Paul for president. That much is clear and true.

But what does it mean now to "support Ron Paul?" The campaign is over, unless you're one of the diehard, delusional True Believers.

Not everyone here supports the idea of taking over the GOP as the right and proper course for themselves. That may be the right and proper course for you, and it might be right for many people here, but it is not for everyone.

But Ron Paul has suggested many courses of action to his followers, and the one that rings both right and true for me is, "Do what you want."

Am I going in a different direction than what Ron Paul is suggesting? It depends on which suggestion you're talking about.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

So

I read the post that you linked to as an illustration of diehard, delusional, True Believers. The person was hoping for a miracle. That is natural after many people gave much more than they could afford to a campaign, especially when there was really nothing else that could be done at that point. Some of us saw no gain to be had in switching to Johnson,so there was no reason not to go ahead and hope for the Hail Mary.

But, even if beleiving in miracles is a danger to this movement, I fail to see how a picture encourages this. The image is about a set of shared principles. What is the connection between Ron Paul's picture and believing in miracles? Was the person hoping for the miracle because they had a cultish obsession with the personality of Ron Paul? I didn't read the post that way, I read it as a desperate hope for a last-minute miracle for this country. People are emotional about the death of a country that they love and about the future that they are giving their children.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Ok, so

You are right - that person is hoping for a miracle, and it is understandable. After all of this, it is hard to let go. It reminds me of that Jewel song, You Were Meant For Me, which is so heartbreaking. She broke up with her boyfriend, he's moved out it is over, and yet she clings to the idea that "soon, I know you will see, you were meant for me..."

And so it is with the Ron Paul fantasizers. Any minute now, Ron Paul is going to swoop in and save the day.

So it is not the hoping for the miracle that is the danger - it is the kind of miracle in particular. The 'Ron Paul as Savior' miracle, which was exemplified by that post, and many others. And if it is not this one, then it will be Ron Paul as Texas Governor, 2014. I notice a new thread has popped up about this just today, and in spite of my negative one vote, it is up to +8 already. And if not that, I'm absolutely positive that Ron Paul 2016 ideas will start percolating as soon as the election is over. But before that, we'll have more of what we've seen before - as GJ's VP, as Constitution Party or LP candidate (can we just get those current nominees to step aside, please?). It is ridiculous.

Was the person hoping for the miracle because they had a cultish obsession with the personality of Ron Paul? I didn't read the post that way, I read it as a desperate hope for a last-minute miracle for this country.

So, I guess we have a disagreement of opinion here. I do read it as a cultish obsession that results in those kinds of fantasies.

People are emotional about the death of a country that they love and about the future that they are giving their children.

Agreed, completely. But I'd rather have people take some kind of realistic action to avert that, than trying to hand all responsibility for saving the country over to Ron Paul. The next question becomes - what is that action? And that is an answer that will differ for each individual. There is no 'one size fits all' answer that applies equally to everyone. Understanding that takes a very deep level of thought and understanding, and reaching that level is clouded by the idea that any one single man can save us.

Here is an interesting fact that Ernie Hancock pointed out to me. Look at the history of the images on American silver coins. From the beginning, there were beautiful images of Eagles, and Lady Liberty that stood for symbols of what this country was about. Not men. Men are not symbols, and to turn someone into a symbol is not only unfair to the man, it is unfair to the person interpreting it. Men are human; fallible. Ron Paul famously never put his picture on any of his books while all the other politicians have these huge smiling pictures of themselves. There is an image of that somewhere - can someone please find that for me? But it is because he's about the ideas, not about aggrandizing himself.

But it was in 1930, under FDR, that the Treasury put George Washington on the quarter. And after that, it has been all presidents and politicians that has rippled through our coinage as it has slowly been debased.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.
Michael Nystrom's picture

Awesome

Thank you.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.