Hurts Liberty Movement

[1836]

I haven't posted here really in quite a while, but I'm very involved in the GOP like so many of you.

Folks, this tweet thing is a disaster. I heard about it earlier today. It really hurts the liberty movement. If Ron Paul doesn't personally clear this up very soon, it's going to absolutely hurt everyone in the liberty movement and it will hurt Rand, too.

I pray that someone involved with Ron Paul personally is reading this forum and has the good sense to have him clear his name.

By the way... I don't actually think he wrote the tweet. I know for a fact his accounts are not run by him. That's what's so disgusting about this.

Ron Paul is a kindly man who decries all violence and would never praise the death of anyone. I've seen it up close and personal. Ron Paul would say this is sad, and not much else.

This is not a time to panic, this is a time for the big guy to make things right. Please, Ron, go clear this up.

[Butchie]

I haven't posted here really in quite a while, but I'm very involved in the GOP like so many of you.

Folks, this tweet thing is a disaster. I heard about it earlier today. It really hurts the liberty movement. If Ron Paul doesn't personally clear this up very soon, it's going to absolutely hurt everyone in the liberty movement and it will hurt Rand, too.

I pray that someone involved with Ron Paul personally is reading this forum and has the good sense to have him clear his name.

By the way... I don't actually think he wrote the tweet. I know for a fact his accounts are not run by him. That's what's so disgusting about this.

Ron Paul is a kindly man who decries all violence and would never praise the death of anyone. I've seen it up close and personal. Ron Paul would say this is sad, and not much else.

This is not a time to panic, this is a time for the big guy to make things right. Please, Ron, go clear this up.

I agree, we are electing alot of our committe chairs in my district this week, after the election alot of the people at the meetings were looking at us Ron Paulers for advice as to what they could do different, some were listening and our "leader" CJ was in a good spot to get elected this week, I promise that won't happen now, everyone there know's what strong RP supporter my sister and I are, it's not like we can blend in at this point.

[The Gold Standard]

Who was "praising" anyone's death? Did you even read the tweet?

[SpreadOfLiberty]

After further review I am now offfically thoroughly pissed off at the tweet.

Ironically it may only help Rand after his statement, however it hurts all who have described themselves as Ron Paul people. Truth or fiction, it is in bad taste.

[The Gold Standard]

After further review I am now offfically thoroughly pissed off at the tweet.

Ironically it may only help Rand after his statement, however it hurts all who have described themselves as Ron Paul people. Truth or fiction, it is in bad taste.

The whole thing was orchestrated to break Rand away from his father and his nutjob supporters, and it worked. Look at the bright side, you still have Glenn Beck on your side for a while until Rubio wins his heart. Too bad not even Rand can beat a Democrat in the general election without us.

[phill4paul]

The " Liberty Movement" (TM) or the "liberty movement."

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.”

[TheGrinch]

The whole thing was orchestrated to break Rand away from his father and his nutjob supporters, and it worked. Look at the bright side, you still have Glenn Beck on your side for a while until Rubio wins his heart. Too bad not even Rand can beat a Democrat in the general election without us.

Both of you are reading way too much into this.

Paying respect to the deceased and looking for the source of blame are both common responses to death.

Blame the twitter world that gets peoples knee jerk reactions before they get a chance to think it through on what's appropriate.

[squarepusher]

After further review I am now offfically thoroughly pissed off at the tweet.

Ironically it may only help Rand after his statement, however it hurts all who have described themselves as Ron Paul people. Truth or fiction, it is in bad taste.

so Rand Paul has to sell out his dad to promote his career in politics? :(

[SpreadOfLiberty]

so Rand Paul has to sell out his dad to promote his career in politics? :(

It's not Rand's fault. He was stuck in the bad position.

[ninepointfive]

meh

[phill4paul]

It's not Rand's fault. He was stuck in the bad position.

Which position was that?

[TheGrinch]

Some of you need to learn not to sensationalize things like the media. I'm not seeing as much objectivity anymore in forming opinions, it seems to be confirmation bias at work.

[RonRocks]

This is getting ridiculous. The only ones shoveling anger and 'disgust' are the mainline GOP'ers, Neo-Cons and So-con types, read:Santorum and Gingrich supporters. They've always been the most hostile towards us, even more than the left. They idolize goon soldiers who just follow orders and are trigger-happy with labeling others unpatriotic. F'em, there's nothing to apologize for, it was frank, perhaps a bit more so than usual, but I don't find anything offensive or shocking about it. Where is their humanity when they hear the news of children being killed by drones? What, those lives aren't as valuable? They're far more repulsive in their thought process than Ron ever was.

[sailingaway]

Gingrich supporters often like Ron, but only the smart ones. I can't see anyone smart having a major shift of consciousness over this at all. But I do appreciate that the incredible hoopla the MSM is dishing out could make it awkward for people in actually in meetings with other Gop'rs in the next few days. Because they will only believe the spin, and some of it is outrageous.

[SpreadOfLiberty]

Which position was that?

Do I get lumped with "Dr. Loopy" and comments I probably would never say regardless of politics or do I make my own statement and look like I hate my dad?

[NH4RonPaul]

Let the neotards misinterpret In no way was Ron insulting Kyle Did you all read his FaceBook page???

[NH4RonPaul]

Do I get lumped with "Dr. Loopy" and comments I probably would never say regardless of politics or do I make my own statement and look like I hate my dad?

Why are people supporting Rand who said we could bomb Iran?

[sailingaway]

Let the neotards misinterpret In no way was Ron insulting Kyle Did you all read his FaceBook page???

Yes. THAT sounded like Ron. Some thoughts, if it was his tweet, shouldn't be conveyed in 140 letters.

[Anti Federalist]

LOL @ all of this.

I am McMurphy...

[phill4paul]

LOL @ all of this.

I am McMurphy...

This Chief thanks you...................Throw it through the window.

[mczerone]

This tweet didn't do a damn thing to further liberty or to hinder it. The same Paul haters called him a loon for saying it, the same Paul supporters are infighting about it like everything else, and 90% of the public will never hear about it or care either way.

[1836]

I am not overreacting. I am looking at the reaction to this tweet and asking whether it hurts or helps the liberty movement. Quite clearly, it hurts. It drives people who already don't like Ron even further away and it will likely turn off some who might have otherwise been more receptive to the liberty message.

Is that fair? Of course not, but the reasons why people believe the things they do and vote the way they do are often quite, to you and me, simple. Most people simply do not take the time to consider these issues in depth and most people are not looking for nuance. They see something and they paint their own feelings onto it, and that's what this is. It is really inopportune.

No one is going to question my liberty credentials, I'm not trying to bash on anyone for thinking this tweet is fine, I'm just talking about the actual reaction to it.

[Anti Federalist]

This Chief thanks you...................Throw it through the window.

Just make sure the pillow is clean, OK?

[Danke]

I just had a movement. It was very liberating.

[Anti Federalist]

You average, run of the mill conservative hates government and what it is doing, yet worships the enforcers of that same government.

Until the enforcers of unconstitutional and outright wicked actions of government are held equally in contempt, there will be, can not be, any progress forward.



I am not overreacting. I am looking at the reaction to this tweet and asking whether it hurts or helps the liberty movement. Quite clearly, it hurts. It drives people who already don't like Ron even further away and it will likely turn off some who might have otherwise been more receptive to the liberty message.

Is that fair? Of course not, but the reasons why people believe the things they do and vote the way they do are often quite, to you and me, simple. Most people simply do not take the time to consider these issues in depth and most people are not looking for nuance. They see something and they paint their own feelings onto it, and that's what this is. It is really inopportune.

No one is going to question my liberty credentials, I'm not trying to bash on anyone for thinking this tweet is fine, I'm just talking about the actual reaction to it.

[TheGrinch]

I am not overreacting. I am looking at the reaction to this tweet and asking whether it hurts or helps the liberty movement. Quite clearly, it hurts. It drives people who already don't like Ron even further away and it will likely turn off some who might have otherwise been more receptive to the liberty message.

Is that fair? Of course not, but the reasons why people believe the things they do and vote the way they do are often quite, to you and me, simple. Most people simply do not take the time to consider these issues in depth and most people are not looking for nuance. They see something and they paint their own feelings onto it, and that's what this is. It is really inopportune.

No one is going to question my liberty credentials, I'm not trying to bash on anyone for thinking this tweet is fine, I'm just talking about the actual reaction to it.

To be clear, I was not referring to you, I was referring to those posts right around mine where (in countless posts since it happened) people are either reinforcing the perception you spoke of, or are taking the opposite route to trash Rand for doing what you really have to do as a public figure, right or wrong.

I think your post is very fair, and all the more reason why those in here should not feed the smear and divisiveness that the other side has just been waiting for any opportunity for, fair or unfair.

[phill4paul]

Just make sure the pillow is clean, OK?

I can't guarantee it if it is from...say.....danno's apartment.

[TruthisTreason]

I'm really let down by this. And that's after I left it alone for 8 hours. Ron should have apologized for the tweet. While I will continue to fight for liberty, I won't be the same after today when it comes to Ron Paul.

[mczerone]

I am not overreacting. I am looking at the reaction to this tweet and asking whether it hurts or helps the liberty movement. Quite clearly, it hurts.

Claim #1


It drives people who already don't like Ron even further away

Claim #2


and it will likely turn off some who might have otherwise been more receptive to the liberty message.

Claim #3


Could you please provide evidence for these claims?

Claim #1 depends on showing the other two assertions, so can you show that people are "being driven ... further away" - and that they could have been open to the message at some point but for this tweet? And can you show someone who could have been receptive to the message (as opposed to following the man, Ron Paul) who was really turned off by this tweet?

And finally can you show that these two groups outnumber those who (a) saw this tweet and started thinking "hey, this might be right if this guy had the balls to say it right now", and those who (b) agreed with the sentiment of the tweet and then decided to look further into the liberty philosophy?

Only after you give evidence for these claims should you expect anyone to join in your concern.

[Anti Federalist]

I can't guarantee it if it is from...say.....danno's apartment.

LOLOLOLOL

[Danke]

LOLOLOLOL

Not a laughing matter. I hope some federal agency is looking after those young girls. OSHA?

[helmuth_hubener]

Ron Paul wrote this:

"Chris Kyle's death seems to confirm that 'he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.' Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn't make sense."

Now think about this: if I, or anyone, were to post this statement on a thread in RPF, I think it would be lucky to even get a reply. It certainly wouldn't raise any eyebrows. Everyone would read it, say "yeah, that's definitely true," and move on to the next post. In and of itself, this is really not a very shocking thing to say. So take that for what it's worth.

It's only the medium, the fact that in Twitter this statement stands alone, that makes it sound more strident or blunt than it otherwise would.

I am very glad he made this statement. I am sure he won't disavow it. Stirring up trouble isn't always a bad thing. Were you also dismayed when Ron said we should consider the Golden Rule when dealing with evil Islamofascists bent on destroying us? Didn't that make him look "kooky"? Yep, it did. To some. Did it hurt the liberty movement? Not hardly.

[1836]

I'm really let down by this. And that's after I left it alone for 8 hours. Ron should have apologized for the tweet. While I will continue to fight for liberty, I won't be the same after today when it comes to Ron Paul.

I think it needs to be put in context. I highly doubt Ron Paul wrote it. Highly, highly doubt, as in 97-98% certain he did not.

But hey, let's say he did.

What was being referred to is the culture of war, the idea that killing in war is something that is not merely sometimes necessary, but desirable. Ron Paul talked a lot about Just War Theory. Under Just War principles, war is the absolute last resort –*and even then, killing is an undesirable end that is only done if truly necessary. Even then, civilian casualties are to be kept as minimum as possible.

Chris Kyle spoke of killing more as a sniper than any other without remorse as to having done so. That, you could reasonably understand, was a choice of his in terms of attitude.

My personal opinion is that Chris Kyle was a fine soldier who did his duty. He did as he was asked to do, and I would be one to say that this is a good thing. I tend to take a very high view of military men and women personally, rather preferring to focus my disagreement upon the policies that put those men and women into battle in the first place.

I think all of us in the liberty movement would prefer to honor our men and women in uniform but also hope that they recognize the principles of Just War and the misappropriation of power where it exists within our government.

The problem with the tweet, of course, is that death is always a sad thing, and it was insensitive. That is why I strongly believe, more than any other reason, that Ron did not write it.

While I do not know Ron personally, I have had some connections over these years with several of his staffers and confidants, and a consistent theme is his disdain for the taking of any human life, born or unborn, in the streets or in a battlefield. He is a good man who believes in the value of all life.

So it's really a matter of emphasis, but as I said before, the lack of nuance in politics is ultimately what makes saying something like this a bad idea. But I wouldn't think differently of Ron Paul because of it necessarily, if you try to capture what he was thinking of.

[LibertyEagle]

Claim #1

Claim #2

Claim #3
Could you please provide evidence for these claims?

Claim #1 depends on showing the other two assertions, so can you show that people are "being driven ... further away" - and that they could have been open to the message at some point but for this tweet? And can you show someone who could have been receptive to the message (as opposed to following the man, Ron Paul) who was really turned off by this tweet?

And finally can you show that these two groups outnumber those who (a) saw this tweet and started thinking "hey, this might be right if this guy had the balls to say it right now", and those who (b) agreed with the sentiment of the tweet and then decided to look further into the liberty philosophy?

Only after you give evidence for these claims should you expect anyone to join in your concern.

:rolleyes:

It is called... common sense. Sheesh.

Hate it or not, today's political world deals in soundbytes and the one expressed in that initial tweet was horrible. The second one expressed the same sentiment, but was said in a way that people other than the true believers could hear what was being said.

[TruthisTreason]

I've heard people all day trying to defend this snide tweet, and that only puts fuel on my fire.

[1836]

Aa

[Anti Federalist]

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28 KJV)

[1836]

I heard people all day trying to defend this snide tweet, and that only puts fuel on my fire.

Sadly, I can't really disagree with you. I suppose if I weren't someone who has a great sympathy for Ron Paul I would probably be shut to him almost completely because of something like this.

But again, I'm pretty sure he didn't write it. If indeed he did, I confess that I would also be rather disappointed. It's just not the time.

[LibertyEagle]

Now think about this: if I, or anyone, were to post this statement on a thread in RPF, I think it would be lucky to even get a reply. It certainly wouldn't raise any eyebrows. Everyone would read it, say "yeah, that's definitely true," and move on to the next post. In and of itself, this is really not a very shocking thing to say. So take that for what it's worth.

Yes, but that is because a significant portion of the more vocal people on this forum hate the world, don't believe in political action and could care less whether more people can be reached to help reinstate the Constitution. So, I doubt other forum members are shocked much anymore by anything they say. :p

[Anti Federalist]

The problem with the tweet, of course, is that death is always a sad thing, and it was insensitive.

Then, perhaps, Kyle should not have had written a hugely successful book gloating about his "kills".

[1836]

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28 KJV)

Matthew also says

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:1-2 KJV)

[1836]

Then, perhaps, Kyle should not have had written a hugely successful book gloating about his "kills".

Is it not sad any time someone dies? Kyle was killed in senseless violence. Isn't that sad? Shouldn't someone want to be careful about giving his family, his wife and children, space to breathe and grieve without having bad things said about them?

[LibertyEagle]

I've heard people all day trying to defend this snide tweet, and that only puts fuel on my fire.

Yes, but remember that they are not Ron Paul. He is not responsible for them.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I heard people all day trying to defend this snide tweet, and that only puts fuel on my fire.

I'm calling your bluff. You're either trolling or suffering under a bout of Temporary Insanity.

[RickyJ]

I'm really let down by this. And that's after I left it alone for 8 hours. Ron should have apologized for the tweet. While I will continue to fight for liberty, I won't be the same after today when it comes to Ron Paul.

What he said was 100% true. He was quoting Jesus Christ that those take up the sword will perish with the sword. If that doesn't apply to Chris Kyle then I don't know who it does apply to. He also was right that a gun range was not a good place to take someone suffering from PTSD! You see Chris Kyle not only took up the "sword" he reveled in it and sought glory for doing so. And unlike most that serve in a war, he didn't feel bad about having to kill people, he enjoyed it and wish he would have killed more.

[Anti Federalist]

Matthew also says

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:1-2 KJV)

Exactly, couldn't agree more.

Kyle called his "targets" savages, indicating that he clearly had judged them, and, having done so, deemed them worthy of death.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Matthew also says

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:1-2 KJV)

Then thank the heavens I'll never be a mass murderer, then gloat about it by calling my victims 'savages' and wishing I could have killed more of them.

[mczerone]

:rolleyes:

It is called... common sense. Sheesh.

Hate it or not, today's political world deals in soundbytes and the one expressed in that initial tweet was horrible. The second one expressed the same sentiment, but was said in a way that people other than the true believers could hear what was being said.

In things such as statistics, probability, economics, and social psychology "common sense" is typically misguided. That's why people who wish to treat these fields as SCIENCES must seek evidence.

I agree that the second was better that the first, and that the first was less-than-perfect. But I can't imagine one person who would actually take time to learn the liberty message who would be so off-put by a "soundbyte". That's not to say that they don't exist, but the comments to the Daily Caller article show people who already hated Paul and this just reinforced their position, and those who already like Paul who, at worst, said that the message was right, but the time and form wasn't perfect. I didn't see one "I would've looked into the liberty message, but this is just too far out."

So again, where is the evidence? Show me that more people were lost than were gained. I haven't seen evidence for the numbers of either group.

[1836]

Exactly, couldn't agree more.

Kyle called his "targets" savages, indicating that he clearly had judged them, and, having done so, deemed them worthy of death.

And it is not our position to judge him. We know not the contents of his heart. Only God does.

[Anti Federalist]

Is it not sad any time someone dies? Kyle was killed in senseless violence. Isn't that sad? Shouldn't someone want to be careful about giving his family, his wife and children, space to breathe and grieve without having bad things said about them?

Yes, of course, see, the whole problem here is that somehow, a Christian truth and admonishment is somehow considered "insensitive" and "bad".

I find it a cautionary warning, totally appropriate to the time and place.

Hell, most of the Bible would be condemned, and frankly is, for the lack of "sensitivity" contained within.

[Anti Federalist]

And it is not our position to judge him. We know not the contents of his heart. Only God does.

Disagree.

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

[phill4paul]

Yes, but remember that they are not Ron Paul. He is not responsible for them.

Proof? Still waiting.

[TruthisTreason]

I'm calling your bluff. You're either trolling or suffering under a bout of Temporary Insanity.

Right because I couldn't be someone who has spent countless hours defending Ron and fighting for liberty. I couldn't be someone who went to countless events and read every book of Ron's. And I couldn't be someone who gave an entire year of my life helping his son get elected. No, because then it might dawn on a few of you that this was hurtful to our own movement. And of course I should be attacked for not agreeing with some loud people on this forum.

[1836]

In things such as statistics, probability, economics, and social psychology "common sense" is typically misguided. That's why people who wish to treat these fields as SCIENCES must seek evidence.

I agree that the second was better that the first, and that the first was less-than-perfect. But I can't imagine one person who would actually take time to learn the liberty message who would be so off-put by a "soundbyte". That's not to say that they don't exist, but the comments to the Daily Caller article show people who already hated Paul and this just reinforced their position, and those who already like Paul who, at worst, said that the message was right, but the time and form wasn't perfect. I didn't see one "I would've looked into the liberty message, but this is just too far out."

So again, where is the evidence? Show me that more people were lost than were gained. I haven't seen evidence for the numbers of either group.

Where this hurts is in terms of how Ron Paul is perceived, which frankly, was doing pretty well since the primaries. Ron Paul had achieved the status of being a positive reference to some extent within many non-liberty circles, for his consistency and principle.

It is this kind of thing which undoubtedly makes those people less likely to think about Paul, at all or positively, and thus makes them less receptive to the message of liberty.

If you haven't gotten elected to a Republican party position, if you haven't dealt with the public humiliation of being a Ron Paul supporter in 2007 and 2008 in the face of some serious opposition, I would understand, but if you have, then I expect you to understand where I'm coming from, because it's those people who are so hard to reach and so much work has been done and it's easy to throw it away.

[LibertyEagle]

In things such as statistics, probability, economics, and social psychology "common sense" is typically misguided. That's why people who wish to treat these fields as SCIENCES must seek evidence.

I agree that the second was better that the first, and that the first was less-than-perfect. But I can't imagine one person who would actually take time to learn the liberty message who would be so off-put by a "soundbyte". That's not to say that they don't exist, but the comments to the Daily Caller article show people who already hated Paul and this just reinforced their position, and those who already like Paul who, at worst, said that the message was right, but the time and form wasn't perfect. I didn't see one "I would've looked into the liberty message, but this is just too far out."

So again, where is the evidence? Show me that more people were lost than were gained. I haven't seen evidence for the numbers of either group.

I have personally seen people who were starting to be much more open to what Ron Paul was saying. I've seen them start quoting him. The tweet has done damage. Whether you like it or not, people are known by the people they choose to associate with and this tweet is causing people to want to distance themselves from Ron Paul.

[mczerone]

And it is not our position to judge him. We know not the contents of his heart. Only God does.

You misread the scripture.

It is not that we should leave "judging" to god. It very clearly says only that you open yourself up for judgment when you judge others.

[Anti Federalist]

Oh this is all a tempest in a teapot anyways.

This is the "heroin comment" in the debate.

This is getting booed at the "Values Voters" debate.

This is "Ron Paul thinks America deserved 9/11" nonsense.

Been there done that and things just keep right on keeping on.

[1836]

You misread the scripture.

It is not that we should leave "judging" to god. It very clearly says only that you open yourself up for judgment when you judge others.

The hell I misread it, I'm Baptist.

[1836]

Right because I couldn't be someone who has spent countless hours defending Ron and fighting for liberty. I couldn't be someone who went to countless events and read every book of Ron's. And I couldn't be someone who gave an entire year of my life helping his son get elected. No, because then it might dawn on a few of you that this was hurtful to our own movement. And of course I should be attacked for not agreeing with some loud people on this forum.

Truth is Treason,

Tried to PM you to have a further conversation, your inbox is full. FYI

1836

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah, but wouldn't it be nice if we didn't keep having to recover from self-inflicted wounds?

[Anti Federalist]

Truth truly is treason...

[Feeding the Abscess]

Right because I couldn't be someone who has spent countless hours defending Ron and fighting for liberty. I couldn't be someone who went to countless events and read every book of Ron's. And I couldn't be someone who gave an entire year of my life helping his son get elected. No, because then it might dawn on a few of you that this was hurtful to our own movement. And of course I should be attacked for not agreeing with some loud people on this forum.

I never said you haven't campaigned for Ron or spread the message. I was reminding you - in a manner that doesn't air your laundry - that you've said things before that have been incendiary, and for you to become histrionic over a truthful message that Ron tweeted betrays that fact.

[mczerone]

Where this hurts is in terms of how Ron Paul is perceived, which frankly, was doing pretty well since the primaries. Ron Paul had achieved the status of being a positive reference to some extent within many non-liberty circles, for his consistency and principle.

It is this kind of thing which undoubtedly makes those people less likely to think about Paul, at all or positively, and thus makes them less receptive to the message of liberty.

If you haven't gotten elected to a Republican party position, if you haven't dealt with the public humiliation of being a Ron Paul supporter in 2007 and 2008 in the face of some serious opposition, I would understand, but if you have, then I expect you to understand where I'm coming from, because it's those people who are so hard to reach and so much work has been done and it's easy to throw it away.

If we have to pretend that morality isn't important when it comes to war and governance, I'm not interested in winning these people over.

I haven't seen any evidence that the perception of Ron or the liberty message was "doing pretty well" since the primaries, and again, I don't see how someone who is getting "the message" could be so turned away by this biblical quote.

[Matt Collins]

This tweet didn't do a damn thing to further liberty or to hinder it. The same Paul haters called him a loon for saying it, the same Paul supporters are infighting about it like everything else, and 90% of the public will never hear about it or care either way.I would respectfully disagree with you. I have seen many tea party types who were becoming a bit more sympathetic to Ron in recent months get quite upset at this. It's kinda ugly on FB about it right now :(

[1836]

Yeah, but wouldn't it be nice if we didn't keep having to recover from self-inflicted wounds?

Sure would. Much easier to destroy a house than to build one. Takes a long time to build it, when you build it from scratch. Takes seconds to raze it.

[1836]

I would respectfully disagree with you. I have seen many tea party types who were becoming a bit more sympathetic to Ron in recent months get quite upset at this. It's kinda ugly on FB about it right now :(

THE COLLINS HAS SPOKEN.

And clearly, then, I'm on the right side of this. :)

[1836]

If we have to pretend that morality isn't important when it comes to war and governance, I'm not interested in winning these people over.

I haven't seen any evidence that the perception of Ron or the liberty message was "doing pretty well" since the primaries, and again, I don't see how someone who is getting "the message" could be so turned away by this biblical quote.

If you didn't think the liberty message has been doing pretty well, why don't you take a look and see how people react when you say "Ron Paul" now as opposed to one year ago, two years ago, three years ago, etc...

And why don't you see how people are talking about John Boehner and the Congress, how Justin Amash is doing publicly, and Rand Paul for that matter.

The liberty message has been steadily growing, but it is fragile ground that is hard to win and easy to give up.

[mczerone]

I have personally seen people who were starting to be much more open to what Ron Paul was saying. I've seen them start quoting him. The tweet has done damage. Whether you like it or not, people are known by the people they choose to associate with and this tweet is causing people to want to distance themselves from Ron Paul.

Okay, you have anecdotal experience of people starting to "quote" Paul - are you sure that they're totally off the liberty bandwagon less than 24 hours after this hit the news?

And you haven't addressed the possibility that there are more people who have heard this today and decided to look MORE into the liberty message than those who have been dissuaded.

And, out of curiosity, what area were they quoting Ron from? Was it purely about fiscal issues, or was it coming from an understanding of liberty? Would they have voted for Herman Cain anyway because they didn't like Paul's stance on the war on Drugs, or would they have supported Gingrich because they (already) didn't support Paul's foreign policy stance?

[Anti Federalist]

Yeah, but wouldn't it be nice if we didn't keep having to recover from self-inflicted wounds?

Ah, I don't might the cuts and bruises...

That which does not kill you.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-I_UYVstEdW0/TZ5IFYzbR5I/AAAAAAAAFEQ/hEeill3TSIE/s1600/Snatch%2Bboxing.bmp

[1836]

Okay, you have anecdotal experience of people starting to "quote" Paul - are you sure that they're totally off the liberty bandwagon less than 24 hours after this hit the news?

And you haven't addressed the possibility that there are more people who have heard this today and decided to look MORE into the liberty message than those who have been dissuaded.

And, out of curiosity, what area were they quoting Ron from? Was it purely about fiscal issues, or was it coming from an understanding of liberty? Would they have voted for Herman Cain anyway because they didn't like Paul's stance on the war on Drugs, or would they have supported Gingrich because they (already) didn't support Paul's foreign policy stance?

It's anecdotal, but it's true. Ron Paul has become "cool" to Republican conservatives and the talk radio crowd. Honestly, he's "ok" now.

Yes, it's mostly fiscal –*who cares? If they like Ron Paul, they're more receptive to what he has to say, and what the message is all about. It's a matter of getting people to slowly think about things that they may not have thought of.

You can't just say "oh, well so and so wouldn't have gotten it anyway, LOL"

That's what everyone said in 2007 and 2008 and look where it got us. Compare it to 2011 and 2012...

[mczerone]

If you didn't think the liberty message has been doing pretty well, why don't you take a look and see how people react when you say "Ron Paul" now as opposed to one year ago, two years ago, three years ago, etc...

And why don't you see how people are talking about John Boehner and the Congress, how Justin Amash is doing publicly, and Rand Paul for that matter.

The liberty message has been steadily growing, but it is fragile ground that is hard to win and easy to give up.

I've seen polarization, where Paul haters have gotten more numerous and louder, and Paul supporters have gotten slightly more numerous (and not really any louder than 07/08). But I haven't seen average-joe-American starting to study Austrian Economics or libertarian philosophy. We have a growing hardcore base, but we aren't gaining or losing anything in the national dialog.

The liberty message is the most steady ground upon which any of us can stand. We can stand on principle, history, logic, and empathy. We have truth on our side. We don't have to worry about these tweets, as they will merely expose those who are too bloodthirsty to give us the time of day anyway.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

The whole thing was orchestrated to break Rand away from his father and his nutjob supporters, and it worked.

Gotta love the way everything is so much bigger than it is actually is.

[James Madison]

My personal opinion is that Chris Kyle was a fine soldier who did his duty. He did as he was asked to do, and I would be one to say that this is a good thing. I tend to take a very high view of military men and women personally, rather preferring to focus my disagreement upon the policies that put those men and women into battle in the first place.


This is a very frightening statement, to be honest. A 'fine soldier' doesn't do 'as he was asked to do'; he does what the Constitution asks him to do. What honor is there in following orders? Even the most wicked of men follow orders. I tell you this: the man who refuses evil, on Earth, may suffer, but the man who obeys will answer to God.

[mczerone]

It's anecdotal, but it's true. Ron Paul has become "cool" to Republican conservatives and the talk radio crowd. Honestly, he's "ok" now.

Yes, it's mostly fiscal –*who cares? If they like Ron Paul, they're more receptive to what he has to say, and what the message is all about. It's a matter of getting people to slowly think about things that they may not have thought of.

You can't just say "oh, well so and so wouldn't have gotten it anyway, LOL"

That's what everyone said in 2007 and 2008 and look where it got us. Compare it to 2011 and 2012...

Last reply for me tonight, I have an early morning in 5 hours.

The biggest thing I hear about Paul in talk-radio (when I can stand it) and internet fora is "Well, I like his stance on X, but his stance on Y is bat-shiat insane". X and Y vary by different groups, but this tweet wasn't going to grow or lose support among those who already disliked his foreign policy.

I'm saying that someone who is ready to hear the whole message isn't going to be swayed by this tweet - they will seek to understand why Paul (or whoever) said it, and either agree or disagree with it, while expanding their philosophical base to make up their own mind on the issue.

"Everyone" in 07/08 AND 11/12 were about pleasing the "mainstream" GOPer, and neither campaign won them over by moderating the message. The GOPers that I know who were swayed between 07/08 and 11/12 were swayed specifically because of the more "radical" statements that got them thinking and shook their comfort zones, not because we pandered to what we thought they wanted to hear.

[Butchie]

In things such as statistics, probability, economics, and social psychology "common sense" is typically misguided. That's why people who wish to treat these fields as SCIENCES must seek evidence.

I agree that the second was better that the first, and that the first was less-than-perfect. But I can't imagine one person who would actually take time to learn the liberty message who would be so off-put by a "soundbyte". That's not to say that they don't exist, but the comments to the Daily Caller article show people who already hated Paul and this just reinforced their position, and those who already like Paul who, at worst, said that the message was right, but the time and form wasn't perfect. I didn't see one "I would've looked into the liberty message, but this is just too far out."

So again, where is the evidence? Show me that more people were lost than were gained. I haven't seen evidence for the numbers of either group.

I see you live in MI, so perhaps you know we vote for committee memebers this week? You want to see the proof, go to your meeting, if you're not a delegate, come to mine, you'll see all to clear how Ron just threw us all under the bus, I'm curious with some of you, is there anything you have ever disagreed with Ron on? I swear he could strangle a 5yr old child on national TV and some of you would be on here saying how it helps us and Ron was right to do it.

[Occam's Banana]

And it is not our position to judge him.

The hell it isn't! I have never understood claims like this ...

The notion that "it is not our place to judge" never seems to come up when we want to praise someone of whom we approve.

It also never seems to arise when we want to condemn someone with whom we are unsympathetic.

It only ever seems to be trotted out when when we want (for whatever reason) to excuse someone we know to be - or suspect might be - an undeserving scoundrel.


We know not the contents of his heart. Only God does.

Yes, we do know. He wrote a book in which he described them. He did interviews in which he revealed them.

And the contents of his heart turn out to be things that are not at all edifying for decent people to behold ...

[angelatc]

I've heard people all day trying to defend this snide tweet, and that only puts fuel on my fire.

Me too. Some guy on Facebook sent me a 4 paragraph explanation of "what Ron was trying to say," while simultaneously blaming the non-believers for daring it to spin it to mean something else.

The irony totally eluded him.

[parocks]

This is the first I've heard of this. After reading a little online, this is fine. Gives Rand an opportunity to distance himself from Ron - gaining favor with booyah patriots. Allows people to say that it's the unpatriotic nature of Ron Paul's words sometimes that makes them not like Ron Paul. All that's to the good.

[Tpoints]

so Rand Paul has to sell out his dad to promote his career in politics? :(

you sound like that's not a normal thing to do in this business.

[Tpoints]

Me too. Some guy on Facebook sent me a 4 paragraph explanation of "what Ron was trying to say," while simultaneously blaming the non-believers for daring it to spin it to mean something else.

The irony totally eluded him.
cognitive dissonance FTW

[RickyJ]

This is the first I've heard of this. After reading a little online, this is fine. Gives Rand an opportunity to distance himself from Ron - gaining favor with booyah patriots. Allows people to say that it's the unpatriotic nature of Ron Paul's words sometimes that makes them not like Ron Paul. All that's to the good.

Anything to get Rand in there right? Really? How about Rand's son going to Afghanistan to fight, that should help him even more with the neocons. Whatever it takes to get him in there, no matter the costs huh? I think you highly overvalue the office of the president of the USA today. Sacrificing your principles to get the job only means you care about perceived power more than your principles.

The POTUS job today is a figure head job. Obama might get the blame for things that go wrong while he is president, but he is only doing what the people that put him in office want him to do. He knows to do anything else would not only not be wise, but could be very detrimental to his health. If Rand ever became president then he would be in same position Obama, Bush and Clinton were in before him. If he did not live up to the expectations the real people that put him in office had for him then he would not hold the job long. Trying to change a corrupt system from within the system will never work.

[XTreat]

I think it needs to be put in context. I highly doubt Ron Paul wrote it. Highly, highly doubt, as in 97-98% certain he did not.

But hey, let's say he did.

What was being referred to is the culture of war, the idea that killing in war is something that is not merely sometimes necessary, but desirable. Ron Paul talked a lot about Just War Theory. Under Just War principles, war is the absolute last resort –*and even then, killing is an undesirable end that is only done if truly necessary. Even then, civilian casualties are to be kept as minimum as possible.

Chris Kyle spoke of killing more as a sniper than any other without remorse as to having done so. That, you could reasonably understand, was a choice of his in terms of attitude.

My personal opinion is that Chris Kyle was a fine soldier who did his duty. He did as he was asked to do, and I would be one to say that this is a good thing. I tend to take a very high view of military men and women personally, rather preferring to focus my disagreement upon the policies that put those men and women into battle in the first place.

I think all of us in the liberty movement would prefer to honor our men and women in uniform but also hope that they recognize the principles of Just War and the misappropriation of power where it exists within our government.

The problem with the tweet, of course, is that death is always a sad thing, and it was insensitive. That is why I strongly believe, more than any other reason, that Ron did not write it.

While I do not know Ron personally, I have had some connections over these years with several of his staffers and confidants, and a consistent theme is his disdain for the taking of any human life, born or unborn, in the streets or in a battlefield. He is a good man who believes in the value of all life.

So it's really a matter of emphasis, but as I said before, the lack of nuance in politics is ultimately what makes saying something like this a bad idea. But I wouldn't think differently of Ron Paul because of it necessarily, if you try to capture what he was thinking of.


I am wondering how you know that he did not write this? Everyone one I know that would know this type of thing has told me he has had control over his twitter and FB accounts since he left office. Please PM me if you would, I would appreciate it.

[Anti-Neocon]

Anything to get Rand in there right? Really? How about Rand's son going to Afghanistan to fight, that should help him even more with the neocons. Whatever it takes to get him in there, no matter the costs huh? I think you highly overvalue the office of the president of the USA today. Sacrificing your principles to get the job only means you care about perceived power more than your principles.

The POTUS job today is a figure head job. Obama might get the blame for things that go wrong while he is president, but he is only doing what the people that put him in office want him to do. He knows to do anything else would not only not be wise, but could be very detrimental to his health. If Rand ever became president then he would be in same position Obama, Bush and Clinton were in before him. If he did not live up to the expectations the real people that put him in office had for him then he would not hold the job long. Trying to change a corrupt system from within the system will never work.
Yeah, who cares about getting the POTUS job when we can have a liberty forum circle jerk and lose all our remaining freedoms?

[Occam's Banana]

Yeah, who cares about getting the POTUS job when we can have a liberty forum circle jerk and lose all our remaining freedoms?

Apparently, you do. Oh, wait ...

:rolleyes:

[jmdrake]

The whole thing was orchestrated to break Rand away from his father and his [strike]nutjob[/stike] courageous supporters, and it worked. Look at the bright side, you still have Glenn Beck on your side for a while until Rubio wins his heart. Too bad not even Rand can beat a Democrat in the general election without us.

Fixed it for you. :rolleyes: Yes I think there may be some coordination and yes this helps Rand. But it's not "nutjob" to think that these wars do nothing to help win our freedoms and that be heaping praise on those who volunteer to fight them simply encourages more of the same. The Paul's may be taking a two track strategy. If so, that's a good thing. Do you have to be an ass, or can you just let the track that doesn't fit your personality do its thing in peace?

[jmdrake]

Matthew also says

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:1-2 KJV)

So why are you judging then?

[pcosmar]

Matthew also says

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:1-2 KJV)
And also,,
John 7:24
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Christ's words are the truth,, whether you like it or not.
"for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" is not a judgement,, it is a consequence.

and the second was an opinion,
Taking the man to a range, arming him and turning your back to an armed, disturbed individual is unwise.
Stupidity often has consequences.

I don't understand the hand wringing and gnashing of teeth.

[gte811i]

And also,,
John 7:24
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Christ's words are the truth,, whether you like it or not.
"for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" is not a judgement,, it is a consequence.

and the second was an opinion,
Taking the man to a range, arming him and turning your back to an armed, disturbed individual is unwise.
Stupidity often has consequences.

I don't understand the hand wringing and gnashing of teeth.


The hand-wringing is overcompensation from the 70s and the Vietnam War. We went from cries of "baby-killers" to military hero worship. Anyone who puts on a uniform is somehow elevated to some mythical status where they can do no wrong.

IMO what many people do not understand is how very deeply religious and Christian Ron Paul is, and when I say that I mean that my impression is that he tries very hard to follow the words/actions of Christ. He isn't perfect, but his actions speak to me of someone who is a true follower of Christ.

Just think about it, we have a man who has over 150 confirmed kills. Did he do his job? Sure. But it's the old saying of WWJD, would Christ have done what this man did . . . probably not.

If we cannot realize as a society that when you live in violence you beget violence then we are very, very far from gone.