Ron Paul Quotes Jesus, Conservatives Outraged

[Lucille]

Again...

Ron Paul Quotes Jesus, Conservatives Outraged
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/131829.html


Remember that time Ron Paul used the Golden Rule to explain his foreign policy? Conservatives booed him for that. So who can be surprised that conservatives have been falling all over themselves to condemn Paul for quoting Jesus -in correct context, by the way - to note that the violence wrought by over a decade of nonstop war in America leads to tragedy on the home front?

Every neocon pundit and middle-American red-blooded conservative took a few minutes out from running around shrieking "boo-yah" and polishing his dually F-250, to be outraged that someone dared suggest that a government employee wasn't a holy relic.

The Daily Caller was the first to the show, posting Paul's twitter post without comment and allowing the comment box to quickly fill with outraged Republicans who were dismayed that anyone would not endorse every action of every single taxpayer-funded soldier who ever drew a bead on some dirt-poor 12-year-old child-soldier 10,000 miles away. Others soon piled on.

The most transparent were the conservatives who claimed to be former supporters of Paul who must now go support some more "patriotic" politician: One who doesn't actually question anything the military does.

One member at RonPaulForums.com said "'Live by the sword, die by the sword' is what the dumbest, stupidest, most delusional people around here would say. There's no way that Ron actually said this. Ugh. How said [sic] and pathetic."

That seems to be the general reaction one gets from conservatives about the Golden Rule also.

This is what it comes down to for most conservatives, of course. All that stuff about laissez faire and freedom and free markets has never been more than an act and an affectation which goes right out the window if someone ever criticizes the US Government in a truly trenchant or penetrating manner.

Most of these sunshine patriots who now whine that Ron Paul has lost their support, wouldn't ever have supported Ron Paul in the first place if Obama weren't in office. Had Ron Paul run against a GOP incumbent, most of these timid and prevaricating "opponents" of big government would have condemned Paul for questioning the glorious deeds of "our" Commander-in-Chief. Among conservatives, Ron Paul has only ever had minority support, for in the end, conservatives love government, as exhibited by their latest outrage. They just love it in a slightly different way from the left liberals.

As I've noted before, the Tea Party movement, and most conservatives who pretend to be for small government, only act when there's a Democrat in office. During eight years of Bush shredding the constitution, spending money like there was no tomorrow, and inflating the money supply with his pals at the central bank, no conservative would walk ten feet to protest the federal government. But about five minutes after Obama was sworn in, the Tea Party protests swelled into a huge disingenuous show that will evaporate five minutes after any Republican is sworn into office, assuming the GOP can actually win a national election with one of the out-of-touch never-had-a-real-job rich boys they insist on nominating.

In the end of course, Ron Paul has never been about rallying people to himself. He has been about the message, and the message is about freedom. It is a logical impossibility to be simultaneously pro-freedom and pro-military. Patrick Henry, who called government soldiers "engines of despotism" knew this. Thomas Jefferson knew this. Every true friend of liberty from William Graham Sumner to Murray Rothbard knew this. And Ron Paul knows it. Some of his supporters, still stuck in the mindset of a form of Geezer Conservatism in which "freedom-lovers" bow and scrape before the US Government, denied that Ron Paul could have even agreed with the Twitter post. No such luck for them. The tradition of laissez faire is a tradition against standing armies, and wars, and deference to military "heroics." Conservatives who are troubled by this should probably be honest with themselves and find a candidate more suitable to their views. I hear Newt Gingrich is still taking donations.

All that.

[James Madison]

Dude, the US is the 'Beast from the Earth'...the 'False Prophet'. I've been saying this for a long time. It's becoming more and more obvious.

[LibertyEagle]

In my opinion, there is really no defense for the initial tweet sent out. It was in extremely poor taste given that the guy isn't even in the ground yet and has a family in mourning.

The second tweet made the same point, but was phrased in a way that someone besides true believers might actually hear what was being said.

[Anti Federalist]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mecffj69Wg1qfw2dno1_400.gif

[phill4paul]

In my opinion, there is really no defense for the initial tweet sent out. It was in extremely poor taste given that the guy isn't even in the ground yet and has a family in mourning.

The second tweet made the same point, but was phrased in a way that someone besides true believers might actually hear what was being said.

I thought that earlier posted that RP didn't/couldn't have made this tweet? Isn't that a defense? Which sock puppet are we talking too. You get confusing at times. Just like Rand.

[LibertyEagle]

I thought that earlier posted that RP didn't/couldn't have made this tweet? Isn't that a defense? Which sock puppet are we talking too. You get confusing at times. Just like Rand.

I don't know who sent out the first tweet; nor do you. That is why I focused on what was said in the tweets.

Note: In case you didn't notice it, this article on lew rockwell's site seems to be assuming that the initial tweet was Ron's.

[Anti Federalist]

Cos' like, it needed to be said again...

In the end of course, Ron Paul has never been about rallying people to himself. He has been about the message, and the message is about freedom. It is a logical impossibility to be simultaneously pro-freedom and pro-military. Patrick Henry, who called government soldiers "engines of despotism" knew this. Thomas Jefferson knew this. Every true friend of liberty from William Graham Sumner to Murray Rothbard knew this. And Ron Paul knows it. Some of his supporters, still stuck in the mindset of a form of Geezer Conservatism in which "freedom-lovers" bow and scrape before the US Government, denied that Ron Paul could have even agreed with the Twitter post. No such luck for them. The tradition of laissez faire is a tradition against standing armies, and wars, and deference to military "heroics." Conservatives who are troubled by this should probably be honest with themselves and find a candidate more suitable to their views. I hear Newt Gingrich is still taking donations.

[Sola_Fide]

Great post. Completely hit the nail on the head.

[James Madison]

Great post. Completely hit the nail on the head.

Jesus believed He was a sovereign human being and wouldn't kneel before Caesar. Sounds like He was an 'Anti-Goverment Extremist'. In fact, John the Bapist was, too. And most of the Apostles. They should have 'Submitted to Government'. I guess Judas was the only 'Christian'.

Oh!
Reported.

[angelatc]

In my opinion, there is really no defense for the initial tweet sent out. It was in extremely poor taste given that the guy isn't even in the ground yet and has a family in mourning.

The second tweet made the same point, but was phrased in a way that someone besides true believers might actually hear what was being said.

Exactly. I can't stand Lew - he's nothing but an apologist for the worst that libertarianism has to offer. If Ron Paul needs Lew to write an 11 paragraph blasting America for not understanding Ron's message, then something is wrong with the message....not America.

[COpatriot]

Jesus: Blessed are the peacemakers.

Christians: Shut up you 'merica hatin sissy!

[RickyJ]

Jesus: Blessed are the peacemakers.

Christians: Shut up you 'merica hatin sissy!

Many America "Christians" are going to shocked when Jesus tells them to "depart from me you that work iniquity, for I never knew you."

[PierzStyx]

Exactly. I can't stand Lew - he's nothing but an apologist for the worst that libertarianism has to offer. If Ron Paul needs Lew to write an 11 paragraph blasting America for not understanding Ron's message, then something is wrong with the message....not America.

America is a bloated, blasted heath of bloodshed and whoredoms. The majority of Americans call darkness light and evil good. The problem the message has is that its hard to help the willingly deaf hear or the purposely blind see. As the scriptures testify the wicked take the truth to be hard.

[Butchie]

Again...

Ron Paul Quotes Jesus, Conservatives Outraged
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/131829.html



All that.

This is lousy article full of a bunch of strawmen arguments. So because I think the tweet was in poor taste that makes me a supporter of war? How ignorant.

[Tpoints]

In my opinion, there is really no defense for the initial tweet sent out. It was in extremely poor taste given that the guy isn't even in the ground yet and has a family in mourning.

The second tweet made the same point, but was phrased in a way that someone besides true believers might actually hear what was being said.

I'm sure most people find it poor taste and insensitive, but it's hard to explain away, people don't accidentally think thoughts like that.

[mrsat_98]

Dude, the US is the 'Beast from the Earth'...the 'False Prophet'. I've been saying this for a long time. It's becoming more and more obvious.

http://www.gematrix.org/?word=us+of+america






Jesus believed He was a sovereign human being and wouldn't kneel before Caesar. Sounds like He was an 'Anti-Goverment Extremist'. In fact, John the Bapist was, too. And most of the Apostles. They should have 'Submitted to Government'. I guess Judas was the only 'Christian'.

Oh!
Reported.

[LibertyEagle]

I'm sure most people find it poor taste and insensitive, but it's hard to explain away, people don't accidentally think thoughts like that.

I don't plan to explain it away. But, as far as your comment, "people don't accidentally think thoughts like that" goes, I think you should read the sniper's book.

[jmdrake]

Exactly. I can't stand Lew - he's nothing but an apologist for the worst that libertarianism has to offer. If Ron Paul needs Lew to write an 11 paragraph blasting America for not understanding Ron's message, then something is wrong with the message....not America.

Yeah. Because Jesus was like totally understood by the crowds shouting "Crucify him! Crucify him! Give us Barabas!" /sarcasm

I compare this tweet to Lupe Fiasco's "rap in" protest at that D.C. Obama inauguration party. Yeah Lupe could have just his 5 minute anti-Obama rap, moved on to the next song. Instead he bumped around after the song was over for 30 minutes for the sole purpose of getting thrown off stage so that his message would make it to the top of the news cycle. The strategy worked. Ron Paul got his message to the top of the news cycle as well. And the political ramifications? Rand Paul gets to soak up even more teocon support. I'm not a Calvinist and I don't buy into their view on predestination, but I do see a point to the belief that some messages are only for those already ready to receive them.

[Tpoints]

Yeah. Because Jesus was like totally understood by the crowds shouting "Crucify him! Crucify him! Give us Barabas!" /sarcasm


they read the prophecies too, didn't they?

[jmdrake]

Cos' like, it needed to be said again...

In the end of course, Ron Paul has never been about rallying people to himself. He has been about the message, and the message is about freedom. It is a logical impossibility to be simultaneously pro-freedom and pro-military. Patrick Henry, who called government soldiers "engines of despotism" knew this. Thomas Jefferson knew this. Every true friend of liberty from William Graham Sumner to Murray Rothbard knew this. And Ron Paul knows it. Some of his supporters, still stuck in the mindset of a form of Geezer Conservatism in which "freedom-lovers" bow and scrape before the US Government, denied that Ron Paul could have even agreed with the Twitter post. No such luck for them. The tradition of laissez faire is a tradition against standing armies, and wars, and deference to military "heroics." Conservatives who are troubled by this should probably be honest with themselves and find a candidate more suitable to their views. I hear Newt Gingrich is still taking donations.

Man, are you rep whoring again?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again

[jmdrake]

This is lousy article full of a bunch of strawmen arguments. So because I think the tweet was in poor taste that makes me a supporter of war? How ignorant.

That's not what Lew said. This is the closest quote to what you're trying to say.

The tradition of laissez faire is a tradition against standing armies, and wars, and deference to military "heroics."

You can support standing armies and not support war, or at least not the wars going on now. You could have deference to military "heroics" and not support war. I see this every year at church around memorial day where a pastor that I'm pretty sure doesn't support the current wars has all current and past members of the military stand up and say "Thank you for protecting our freedoms." Yeah I know. It's a nice thing to do. If I was a pastor I'd be tempted to do it too, and to leave out what I'd want to say which is "While I thank you for your service, I pray that our ignorant politicians will quit sending you off to fight in wars that are none of our business". Then again, you may not support wars or standing armies or military heroics, but just be overly concerned about losing the support of republicans who do support those things. In that case cheer up! Rand Paul is making sure he doesn't lose their support.

[Occam's Banana]

That's not what Lew said. This is the closest quote to what you're trying to say.

The tradition of laissez faire is a tradition against standing armies, and wars, and deference to military "heroics."

Actually, that's not what Lew said either (although I'm sure he would agree).

The LRC blog entry being referred to is by Ryan McMaken - not Lew Rockwell.

[dbill27]

There's no way in hell that ron paul had anything to do with that tweet. Doesn't sound like anything he would ever say in a million years. So ya'll can stop trying to justify it. The most insulting part of the tweet was actually the second part about it not having been a good idea to go to a gun range. When has Ron Paul ever said something that snarky and arrogant in his entire life?

[Butchie]

That's not what Lew said. This is the closest quote to what you're trying to say.

The tradition of laissez faire is a tradition against standing armies, and wars, and deference to military "heroics."

You can support standing armies and not support war, or at least not the wars going on now. You could have deference to military "heroics" and not support war. I see this every year at church around memorial day where a pastor that I'm pretty sure doesn't support the current wars has all current and past members of the military stand up and say "Thank you for protecting our freedoms." Yeah I know. It's a nice thing to do. If I was a pastor I'd be tempted to do it too, and to leave out what I'd want to say which is "While I thank you for your service, I pray that our ignorant politicians will quit sending you off to fight in wars that are none of our business". Then again, you may not support wars or standing armies or military heroics, but just be overly concerned about losing the support of republicans who do support those things. In that case cheer up! Rand Paul is making sure he doesn't lose their support.

From the article:

The most transparent were the conservatives who claimed to be former supporters of Paul who must now go support some more "patriotic" politician: One who doesn't actually question anything the military does.

One member at RonPaulForums.com said "'Live by the sword, die by the sword' is what the dumbest, stupidest, most delusional people around here would say. There's no way that Ron actually said this. Ugh. How said [sic] and pathetic."

That seems to be the general reaction one gets from conservatives about the Golden Rule also.

This is what it comes down to for most conservatives, of course. All that stuff about laissez faire and freedom and free markets has never been more than an act and an affectation which goes right out the window if someone ever criticizes the US Government in a truly trenchant or penetrating manner.

Most of these sunshine patriots who now whine that Ron Paul has lost their support, wouldn't ever have supported Ron Paul in the first place if Obama weren't in office.

So yeah, anyone who lost respect for Ron or thought this tweet was a terrible idea is a "sunshine patriot" who never supported Ron in the first place and has to go support a "partiotic" politician who doesn't question the military. The guy who wrote this is just as bad as any demogauge out there.

[qh4dotcom]

One member at RonPaulForums.com said "'Live by the sword, die by the sword' is what the dumbest, stupidest, most delusional people around here would say. There's no way that Ron actually said this. Ugh. How said [sic] and pathetic."

Found it :)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?403433-Ron-Paul-Twitter-Account&p=4856987&viewfull=1#post4856987

[K466]

Thanks to Ryan's post at LRC for helping me understand what Ron Paul's Tweet meant. I guess I do agree with it after all but I might also agree with Liberty Eagle that it was in poor taste at this time and it certainly was poorly worded.


Exactly. I can't stand Lew - he's nothing but an apologist for the worst that libertarianism has to offer. If Ron Paul needs Lew to write an 11 paragraph blasting America for not understanding Ron's message, then something is wrong with the message....not America.

Yeah, it was poorly worded, but note the author was Ryan McMaken not Lew. Also Ron reads Lew everyday so how can you stand him either? I don't see how Lew is not awesome, at least most of the time.


In my opinion, there is really no defense for the initial tweet sent out. It was in extremely poor taste given that the guy isn't even in the ground yet and has a family in mourning.

The second tweet made the same point, but was phrased in a way that someone besides true believers might actually hear what was being said.

[Confederate]

Found it :)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?403433-Ron-Paul-Twitter-Account&p=4856987&viewfull=1#post4856987

Hahaha Danke quoted by Lew?

[pcosmar]

2 Thessalonians 2

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.


people should read the book. They might understand then what Ron understands.

[A Son of Liberty]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to pcosmar again.

Thanks Pete.

[acptulsa]

Hahaha Danke quoted by Lew?

No, Lew's site quoted by Danke.

Here's the original:


"Live by the sword, die by the sword" is what the dumbest, stupidest, most delusional people around here would say. There's no way that Ron actually said this. Ugh. How said and pathetic.

[fisharmor]

Exactly. I can't stand Lew - he's nothing but an apologist for the worst that libertarianism has to offer. If Ron Paul needs Lew to write an 11 paragraph blasting America for not understanding Ron's message, then something is wrong with the message....not America.

If Lew Rockwell needs to put the actual author of his blog posts in bold 42 point type, then there' something wrong with America, not Lew.

[Occam's Banana]

Ron Paul Quotes Jesus, Conservatives Outraged
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/131829.html

Abashed the Devil stood,
And felt how awful goodness is, and saw
Virtue in her shape how lovely; saw, and pined
His loss; but chiefly to find here observed
His lustre visibly impaired; yet seemed
Undaunted.
-- John Milton, Paradise Lost

[KingNothing]

In my opinion, there is really no defense for the initial tweet sent out. It was in extremely poor taste given that the guy isn't even in the ground yet and has a family in mourning.

The second tweet made the same point, but was phrased in a way that someone besides true believers might actually hear what was being said.

This is exactly how I feel. Well said.

[cajuncocoa]

Cos' like, it needed to be said again...

In the end of course, Ron Paul has never been about rallying people to himself. He has been about the message, and the message is about freedom. It is a logical impossibility to be simultaneously pro-freedom and pro-military. Patrick Henry, who called government soldiers "engines of despotism" knew this. Thomas Jefferson knew this. Every true friend of liberty from William Graham Sumner to Murray Rothbard knew this. And Ron Paul knows it. Some of his supporters, still stuck in the mindset of a form of Geezer Conservatism in which "freedom-lovers" bow and scrape before the US Government, denied that Ron Paul could have even agreed with the Twitter post. No such luck for them. The tradition of laissez faire is a tradition against standing armies, and wars, and deference to military "heroics." Conservatives who are troubled by this should probably be honest with themselves and find a candidate more suitable to their views. I hear Newt Gingrich is still taking donations.I was one of those geezers who was originally slapped out of my comfort zone by that first tweet. I had myself convinced that it didn't sound like something Ron would say. I originally saw it as "gloating" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?403433-Ron-Paul-Twitter-Account&p=4855579#post4855579) over Chris Kyle's death. I saw it as correct, but "insensitive in its timing" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?403433-Ron-Paul-Twitter-Account&p=4856020&viewfull=1#post4856020).

But upon further review..... the more I revisited the words of the bastard Chris Kyle, re-read his quotes about how much he enjoyed killing and war, I am now firmly in support of the first tweet...without regard to who really sent it. I hope Ron did. Ron's cut-to-the-chase honesty has always been one of the qualities I love about him.

God bless Ron Paul.

[KingNothing]

I wonder if Ryan McMaken authored the tweet.

[LibertyEagle]

T"While I thank you for your service, I pray that our ignorant politicians will quit sending you off to fight in wars that are none of our business".

I don't think anyone here would have had a problem with the above. Nor do I think it is necessary to call everyone who signs up for the military a hero. That designation is tossed around as much as the word neocon, such that neither one of them has much meaning anymore. It used to really mean something.

[LibertyEagle]

But upon further review..... the more I revisited the words of the bastard Chris Kyle, re-read his quotes about how much he enjoyed killing and war, I am now firmly in support of the first tweet...without regard to who really sent it. I hope Ron did. Ron's cut-to-the-chase honesty has always been one of the qualities I love about him.

God bless Ron Paul.

The problem is that the general public DOES NOT KNOW that Chris Rye talked about loving to kill people.

So, yeah, the Ron Paul fan club may love it, but the majority of other people will misunderstand and it will drive them further from anything people in the liberty movement have to say.

Congratulations. I hope it was worth it.

[pcosmar]

The problem is that the general public DOES NOT KNOW

You could have stopped there.

The "public" will gladly cheer and support Lucifer when he s put on the throne in Jerusalem.

And there are many working to make that happen.

[A Son of Liberty]

You could have stopped there.

The "public" will gladly cheer and support Lucifer when he s put on the throne in Jerusalem.

And there are many working to make that happen.

Too right.

I'm beginning to feel more and more like, for me personally, my approach needs to be considerably less hands-on. Sometimes, when you roll in the slop with the pigs, all you end up is covered in pig shit.

[fisharmor]

So, yeah, the Ron Paul fan club may love it, but the majority of other people will misunderstand and it will drive them further from anything people in the liberty movement have to say.

Here's the main question:
Why does anyone still care what Ron Paul says or thinks?

Your group certainly doesn't care, since you've all jumped on the Rand bandwagon and decided that honesty and principle don't mean as much as they did in the beginning.

Fox News should certainly not care, since they won. Rupert Murdoch got his candidate elected, the neocon elite are happy because they successfully ran another rich great-hair candidate, and the rank-and-file is still champing at the bit to get behind the next plastic great-hair rich boy who doesn't stand for a damned thing they believe in.

So what is it about Ron Paul that people still give a damn what a failed, disgraced, retired presidential candidate thinks?

Could it be because you need us?

Guess what? What we did to Romney, we're going to do to Rand.

Perhaps you should all think real hard about that the next time you decide that being condescending is the way to convince us.

[cajuncocoa]

Here's the main question:
Why does anyone still care what Ron Paul says or thinks?

Your group certainly doesn't care, since you've all jumped on the Rand bandwagon and decided that honesty and principle don't mean as much as they did in the beginning.

Fox News should certainly not care, since they won. Rupert Murdoch got his candidate elected, the neocon elite are happy because they successfully ran another rich great-hair candidate, and the rank-and-file is still champing at the bit to get behind the next plastic great-hair rich boy who doesn't stand for a damned thing they believe in.

So what is it about Ron Paul that people still give a damn what a failed, disgraced, retired presidential candidate thinks?

Could it be because you need us?

Guess what? What we did to Romney, we're going to do to Rand.

Perhaps you should all think real hard about that the next time you decide that being condescending is the way to convince us.People still care what Ron Paul says and/or thinks because he speaks truth, and truth makes them uncomfortable.

The truth that was once heralded here is now the enemy because some are more worried about upsetting those who wouldn't spit on us if we were on fire.


"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" - Galatians 4:16, American King James Version (http://kjv.us/galatians/4.htm)

[sailingaway]

People still care what Ron Paul says and/or thinks because he speaks truth


^^ and they know it. And whether they want to act on it, or are afraid to, they listen. That is also why media is STILL so anxious to discredit him with the incredible spin you are seeing. They know he doesn't have to be in office to be powerful, he just needs people who support him -- or even just listen to him. The facade of 'tunneled choices' built by MSM can't stand exposure to the truth because the truth is so much more convincing.

[Thor]

If Ron Paul needs Lew to write an 11 paragraph blasting America for not understanding Ron's message, then something is wrong with the message....not America.

Right... America has proven over and over again how smart they are with the candidates they nominate and elect. "The sheeple are confused, it must be the message." The message was an accurate statement, no matter the timing. Should we really be surprised by, or mourning, the shooting death of a government sanctioned assassin? He was a hero to the Neocon war machine that was diametrically opposed to the foreign policy view of Ron Paul and people who agree that we should not be policemen to the world. I find nothing wrong with his original tweet, if it was him or someone else sending it out.

[green73]

A New Litmus Test

I think Ron Paul's comment (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/131829.html) about Chris Kyle and living and dying by the sword is a great new litmus test. Those who are outraged by it are not libertarians, are not against the warfare state, are not against the U.S. empire, and are neither friends nor fellow travelers of the liberty movement.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/131840.html

[jmdrake]

From the article:
<snip>

So yeah, anyone who lost respect for Ron or thought this tweet was a terrible idea is a "sunshine patriot" who never supported Ron in the first place and has to go support a "partiotic" politician who doesn't question the military. The guy who wrote this is just as bad as any demogauge out there.

Now you're changing your tune. Earlier you said So because I think the tweet was in poor taste that makes me a supporter of war? The author, who apparently isn't Lew Rockwell, didn't say that. But whoever wrote "Live by the sword, die by the sword' is what the dumbest, stupidest, most delusional people around here would say." really needs to rethink his priorities. If that was you, then yes that goes for you. While I can see the "this is bad timing" argument, there's definitely nothing "dumb" or "stupid" or "delusional" about "Live by the sword, die by the sword" itself. This national has been revelling in war since Reagan bumrushed Grenada.

[PatriotOne]

Could it be because you need us?

Guess what? What we did to Romney, we're going to do to Rand.



So your new meme/goal is going to be "Anyone BUT Paul" in 2016?

[jmdrake]

Here's the main question:
Why does anyone still care what Ron Paul says or thinks?

Your group certainly doesn't care, since you've all jumped on the Rand bandwagon and decided that honesty and principle don't mean as much as they did in the beginning.

Fox News should certainly not care, since they won. Rupert Murdoch got his candidate elected, the neocon elite are happy because they successfully ran another rich great-hair candidate, and the rank-and-file is still champing at the bit to get behind the next plastic great-hair rich boy who doesn't stand for a damned thing they believe in.

So what is it about Ron Paul that people still give a damn what a failed, disgraced, retired presidential candidate thinks?

Could it be because you need us?

Guess what? What we did to Romney, we're going to do to Rand.

Perhaps you should all think real hard about that the next time you decide that being condescending is the way to convince us.

I was with you until the second to the last sentence. "We" are not going to do that to Rand. Some maybe. But Rand will (at least) pull 50% of the Ron Paul supporters. And I think that's what Ron wants. Ron is pushing the educational campaign. Let Rand run the pragmatic side. Lots of movements have a militant wing and a pragmatic wing. Why can't the liberty movement?

[sailingaway]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/131840.html

I don't care. I think sensitivity to his family made the timing of the tweet, as stated bad. I don't care if I'm libertarian or not. I do understand a 77 year old guy tweeting for the first time and trying to get a thought into 140 characters with absolutely no margin given for a few mistakes early on, and I understand his facebook post, and someone who heard him saying something like that awkwardly framing it for him on twitter. But I think the Lew Rockwell site is making its own points, at this point.

[Thor]

I don't care. I think sensitivity to his family made the timing of the tweet, as stated bad.

Yeah, you might ruffle a few feathers in the battle for freedom.

[JoshLowry]

Here's the main question:
Why does anyone still care what Ron Paul says or thinks?

Your group certainly doesn't care, since you've all jumped on the Rand bandwagon and decided that honesty and principle don't mean as much as they did in the beginning.

This is ridiculous.

No one knows where Rand will end up. We certainly didn't in 2009 during his primary. He's been Honey Honey Lemons ever since. I wouldn't say poison yet.

Don't paint everyone with the same broad inaccurate brush.


Perhaps you should all think real hard about that the next time you decide that being condescending is the way to convince us.

I don't know which group you purport to represent, but back atcha.

[EBounding]

The thing is, Jesus never said "if you live by the sword, you die by the sword".

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026&version=KJV


52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.


Jesus said this after one of his disciples cut off the ear of the high priest's servant that was detaining Jesus. He's not being ironic like the original idiom. He told his disciple to put away his sword so scripture could be fulfilled:



53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?


John 18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+18&version=KJV) gives the same account:



10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?


Jesus was fulfilling scripture so we (EVERYONE) no longer would have to "perish with the sword". We no longer have to perish because of Christ's sacrifice and salvation.

I think this context and message is much different than what happened with Chris Kyle.

[fisharmor]

I was with you until the second to the last sentence. "We" are not going to do that to Rand. Some maybe. But Rand will (at least) pull 50% of the Ron Paul supporters. And I think that's what Ron wants. Ron is pushing the educational campaign. Let Rand run the pragmatic side. Lots of movements have a militant wing and a pragmatic wing. Why can't the liberty movement?

Because the pragmatic wing happens to be pro-war, and, oddly enough, the militant wing is not.
You can pull the plausible deniability card now.
Doesn't make it not add up that way.

[fisharmor]

I don't know which group you purport to represent, but back atcha.

The one you guys universally refuse to admit the existence of.

If we've been short with you it's because we're tired of being treated like we're an insignificant portion of this. We certainly didn't start the condescending talk about any of you. We do it to Rand because we have material issues with him that get explained away as something other than what it adds up to be.


And BTW Josh, I have never neg repped someone who loves Rand simply because he held a certain opinion, so thanks, I think I'll call you out for that.

[cajuncocoa]

The thing is, Jesus never said "if you live by the sword, you die by the sword".

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026&version=KJV




Jesus said this after one of his disciples cut off the ear of the high priest's servant that was detaining Jesus. He's not being ironic like the original idiom. He told his disciple to put away his sword so scripture could be fulfilled:





John 18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+18&version=KJV) gives the same account:



Jesus was fulfilling scripture so we (EVERYONE) no longer would have to "perish with the sword". We no longer have to perish because of Christ's sacrifice and salvation.

I think this context and message is much different than what happened with Chris Kyle.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2013:9-10;&version=KJV

[cajuncocoa]

The one you guys universally refuse to admit the existence of.

If we've been short with you it's because we're tired of being treated like we're an insignificant portion of this. We certainly didn't start the condescending talk about any of you. We do it to Rand because we have material issues with him that get explained away as something other than what it adds up to be.
True dat.

[PatriotOne]

This is ridiculous.

He's been Honey Honey Lemons ever since.


In the world of politics, if your going to make lemonade, you got to toss in some lemons :p.

[green73]

I don't care. I think sensitivity to his family made the timing of the tweet, as stated bad. I don't care if I'm libertarian or not. I do understand a 77 year old guy tweeting for the first time and trying to get a thought into 140 characters with absolutely no margin given for a few mistakes early on, and I understand his facebook post, and someone who heard him saying something like that awkwardly framing it for him on twitter. But I think the Lew Rockwell site is making its own points, at this point.

If his family is anything like him I'm sure sensitivity is a foreign concept.

As for LRC, thank God for them at times like this. They backed RP and rightfully so, while so many half-ass libertarian noobs run around like chickens with their heads cut off.

[JoshLowry]

The one you guys universally refuse to admit the existence of.



Patriot Polls.com is the only url I've blocked.

[jdcole]

Yeah. Because Jesus was like totally understood by the crowds shouting "Crucify him! Crucify him! Give us Barabas!" /sarcasm

I compare this tweet to Lupe Fiasco's "rap in" protest at that D.C. Obama inauguration party. Yeah Lupe could have just his 5 minute anti-Obama rap, moved on to the next song. Instead he bumped around after the song was over for 30 minutes for the sole purpose of getting thrown off stage so that his message would make it to the top of the news cycle. The strategy worked. Ron Paul got his message to the top of the news cycle as well. And the political ramifications? Rand Paul gets to soak up even more teocon support. I'm not a Calvinist and I don't buy into their view on predestination, but I do see a point to the belief that some messages are only for those already ready to receive them.

THIS. +rep

[LibertyEagle]

Here's the main question:
Why does anyone still care what Ron Paul says or thinks?

Your group certainly doesn't care, since you've all jumped on the Rand bandwagon and decided that honesty and principle don't mean as much as they did in the beginning.

Pray tell, what is "my group"?


Fox News should certainly not care, since they won. Rupert Murdoch got his candidate elected, the neocon elite are happy because they successfully ran another rich great-hair candidate, and the rank-and-file is still champing at the bit to get behind the next plastic great-hair rich boy who doesn't stand for a damned thing they believe in.

So what is it about Ron Paul that people still give a damn what a failed, disgraced, retired presidential candidate thinks?

I can only speak for myself, but to me, Ron is like the holder of the liberty torch. He is an anchor. I view Rand as one of the implementers. I think we need both types of people and many, many more.


Could it be because you need us?
Who are you claiming to represent?



Guess what? What we did to Romney, we're going to do to Rand.
That sounds like a threat.

So, you are sitting right here and telling us that you are going to do whatever you can to make Rand lose whatever office he is running for? Is that what you are claiming? Because I want to be sure.


Perhaps you should all think real hard about that the next time you decide that being condescending is the way to convince us.
What in hell are you talking about and who do you perceive you are representing?

[pcosmar]

I think this context and message is much different than what happened with Chris Kyle.

Well, first off, it was a message to believers.
Secondly, it was not a judgement. It was a statement of fact.. a consequence.

Like saying "step off a cliff and you will fall"

"He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
Rev.13:10

[Lightweis]

a lot of positive comments on yahoo. Sweet!

[LibertyEagle]

Because the pragmatic wing happens to be pro-war, and, oddly enough, the militant wing is not.
You can pull the plausible deniability card now.
Doesn't make it not add up that way.

I think you are wrong. I don't think Rand is for preemptive war at all. If he turns out to be, I won't support him either.

[sailingaway]

Because the pragmatic wing happens to be pro-war, and, oddly enough, the militant wing is not.
You can pull the plausible deniability card now.
Doesn't make it not add up that way.

I disagree with that, and think posts like this push people unnecessarily into factions that aren't helpful. I think there are a couple of people on here who come off as pro war and I don't personally consider them true members of the liberty movement, any faction, I think they are using it. There are others who speak of packaging in a wide variety of levels who are not pro war at all, the opposite, and I just disagree with best method, personally, when it comes to the extent of some of that.

[jmdrake]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2013:9-10;&version=KJV

Revelation 13:9-10
9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.

10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

Yep. And to anyone who things Jesus wasn't the one speaking in Revelation:


Revelation 1

King James Version (KJV)

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

[jmdrake]

Because the pragmatic wing happens to be pro-war, and, oddly enough, the militant wing is not.
You can pull the plausible deniability card now.
Doesn't make it not add up that way.

So the pragmatic wing that wants to end war by actually electing an antiwar candidate is somehow pro war? :rolleyes: The pragmatic wing of this movement is not pro war. It just wants to not push away pro war voters. I don't think at all that Rand is champing at the bit to bomb Iran or any other country.

[sailingaway]

If his family is anything like him I'm sure sensitivity is a foreign concept.

As for LRC, thank God for them at times like this. They backed RP and rightfully so, while so many half-ass libertarian noobs run around like chickens with their heads cut off.

I'm not upset with LRC for backing Ron. This being out there I think they are figuring to make it a teachable moment, but the way they are doing it is them, not Ron.

And I think family grief is pretty predictable.

I am not mad at Ron, even if it was him. I am sure his longer facebook post more fully presented his thoughts, and if it even was him, it's about his first week on twitter with its 140 character limit. I've now and then had to restate what I've said here and elsewhere because I spoke imprecisely and it came off wrong. Ron isn't allowed that luxury.

[EBounding]

The thing is, Jesus never said "if you live by the sword, you die by the sword".

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2013:9-10;&version=KJV

I stand corrected, thanks.

But is Ron saying though that Kyle reaped what he sowed? Or is he saying that the government reaps consequences like this with policies of aggression?

[cajuncocoa]

I stand corrected, thanks.

But is Ron saying though that Kyle reaped what he sowed? Or is he saying that the government reaps consequences like this with policies of aggression?
Perhaps both.

[heavenlyboy34]

Exactly. I can't stand Lew - he's nothing but an apologist for the worst that libertarianism has to offer. If Ron Paul needs Lew to write an 11 paragraph blasting America for not understanding Ron's message, then something is wrong with the message....not America.
Disagree. There are libertines, anarcho-communists, Georgists, etc who offer far worse stuff than Lew. Lew is just politically incorrect and seems abrasive to the newly initiated. People new to libertarianism should start with the simpler, gentler stuff and work up to Lew's stuff.

[KingNothing]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/131840.html



What a dick.

Can't we just be mindful of our language? Saying things that will unnecessarily offend people wins us nothing and changes nothing.

[KingNothing]

I think you are wrong. I don't think Rand is for preemptive war at all. If he turns out to be, I won't support him either.

And neither will I.

Why is it that certain groups of people here feel that other groups are totally bereft of principles? Why is it that some groups feel they're the only noble ones here?

[Occam's Banana]

What a dick.

Can't we just be mindful of our language? Saying things that will unnecessarily offend people wins us nothing and changes nothing.

Not sure if serious ... :confused:

[KingNothing]

Not sure if serious ... :confused:

Serious. These "libertarian purity tests" are silly.

The only one that matters is votes. If a person is not in a position to vote, their purity does not matter. The divisive nature of LRC is totally unnecessary.

[green73]

Not sure if serious ... :confused:

Hilariously, I think he is.

[Ender]

What a dick.

Can't we just be mindful of our language? Saying things that will unnecessarily offend people wins us nothing and changes nothing.

Uh...... the only dick around here seems to be those who don't know the truth when they hear it.

The OP is right on.

[pcosmar]

Serious. These "libertarian purity tests" are silly.


I would largely agree. I think most "purity tests' are dumb.

But there is ONE.

Authoritarianism

Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority as well as the administration of said authority. In politics, an authoritarian government is one in which political authority is concentrated in a small group of politicians

A person is either an authoritarian,, or they are not.
I am not.
I am an Anti-Athouritarian.

[KingNothing]

Hilariously, I think he is.

Purity tests are lame. They serve no purpose other than to provide justification for one group of people to wag their fingers at another group of people.

How does a politician vote? That's all you need to know. If someone is not a politician, who the hell cares what they think about a particular issue or the rhetoric used to convey a point? This is pointless division.

[supermario21]

And you wonder why Rand has to distance himself from these people to be viable? LRC takes litmus test to a whole new level, and this only risks to divide the movement even further.

[The Gold Standard]

And you wonder why Rand has to distance himself from these people to be viable? LRC takes litmus test to a whole new level, and this only risks to divide the movement even further.

If principles aren't your thing, hannity.com is just a click away. They are part of Rand's movement now too.

[green73]

It's anything but a purity test.

[Occam's Banana]

Hilariously, I think he is.

LOL! Apparently so. SMH. The obliviousness is strong in this one ... :eek:

[Ender]

And you wonder why Rand has to distance himself from these people to be viable? LRC takes litmus test to a whole new level, and this only risks to divide the movement even further.

"These people"?

LRC is probably the top libertarian site on the Internet. Some of the greatest defenders of liberty are featured at LRC, including Ron Paul.

Maybe you should get your head where the sun shines and start educating yourself.

[cajuncocoa]

And you wonder why Rand has to distance himself from these people to be viable? LRC takes litmus test to a whole new level, and this only risks to divide the movement even further.
"These people" of whom you speak are those who got Rand where he is.

[musicmax]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mecffj69Wg1qfw2dno1_400.gif

Wow that's creepy.

Also need to point out that in that scene Kane is applauding his wife despite her utter incompetence as a singer.

[supermario21]

Look, I like Lew, but I'm speaking from a point of trying to bring people into the movement. Like I've said before, I'm not going anywhere. I'm just arguing that there are probably better ways to educate people into the movement, Lew included. Obviously I read a lot from that site and what Ron has said, etc, or else I wouldn't be here. Hannity is a shill, but we're going to need to win over his people eventually to make our viewpoints mainstream in terms of the conservative movement. But if we're trying to be the tent as Ron put it, making some statements like the first tweet (I liked the second) is going to do more to deflate the tent, not make it bigger.

[idiom]

Remember when we could just call em baby killers to their faces?

[cajuncocoa]

Look, I like Lew, but I'm speaking from a point of trying to bring people into the movement. Like I've said before, I'm not going anywhere. I'm just arguing that there are probably better ways to educate people into the movement, Lew included. Obviously I read a lot from that site and what Ron has said, etc, or else I wouldn't be here. Hannity is a shill, but we're going to need to win over his people eventually to make our viewpoints mainstream in terms of the conservative movement. But if we're trying to be the tent as Ron put it, making some statements like the first tweet (I liked the second) is going to do more to deflate the tent, not make it bigger.
Something everyone here who claims to want to bring people into the movement should think about: as you speak the language of one group in order to bring in their people, you may be driving away others who helped to get the movement where it is. And when the new people come in, the movement you were trying to grow may become something that you didn't intend. See: Tea Party.

[FSP-Rebel]

Something everyone here who claims to want to bring people into the movement should think about: as you speak the language of one group in order to bring in their people, you may be driving away others who helped to get the movement where it is. And when the new people come in, the movement you were trying to grow may become something that you didn't intend. See: Tea Party.
As a general rule, life is about adapting, innovating and overcoming. That is what is going on in terms of communication going forward. I've always understood the side that doesn't go for that and there's nothing to be said that will make some go for it. If it's coming down to the fact that, in order to grow the political liberty/conservative movement to take on the establishment blood suckers, the purists decide to part company and do whatever it is that they plan on doing then there's nothing to prevent that from happening. Maybe in a few years we can team back up if our paths collide as I inevitably think they will. And, at that point we'll be bigger and stronger than ever plus have new allies.

[cajuncocoa]

As a general rule, life is about adapting, innovating and overcoming. That is what is going on in terms of communication going forward. I've always understood the side that doesn't go for that and there's nothing to be said that will make some go for it. If it's coming down to the fact that, in order to grow the political liberty/conservative movement to take on the establishment blood suckers, the purists decide to part company and do whatever it is that they plan on doing then there's nothing to prevent that from happening. Maybe in a few years we can team back up if our paths collide as I inevitably think they will. And, at that point we'll be bigger and stronger than ever plus have new allies.
I see it differently. We purists will be here doing what we always have (staying true to our principles) while you will have adapted and innovated, won some elections, and wondered why, after those victories at the ballot box, everything has stayed pretty much the same as it was before.

Bottom line: we're not going to win this through political means. That doesn't mean you have to give up politics if that's what you want to do, but there HAS to be a growing group of principled purists who will draw a line in the sand and refuse to cross it (and will refuse to vote for those who do). The only thing those political types understand is getting elected and re-elected. There will have to be an ever-growing populace who will JUST SAY NO when they even think about putting a toe across that line.

If it is your calling to get those political types set up for election, go for it. But please stop chastising those of us "purists" when we insist on holding their feet to the fire. THAT is what will bring about liberty in our lifetime, if it is meant to be.

[LibertyEagle]

I see it differently. We purists will be here doing what we always have (staying true to our principles) while you will have adapted and innovated, won some elections, and wondered why, after those victories at the ballot box, everything has stayed pretty much the same as it was before.
You aren't a purist. You are a Ron Paul accolade and nothing more. You have put another human being on a pedestal and judged him as perfect and then measure everyone against that. The problem with that is Ron Paul is not perfect; no human being is. Yet, you close your eyes to those imperfections that Klamath and others have pointed out. No one wanted to point out Dr. Paul's imperfections, but those of you who have been setting Ron up as a god and by comparison, claiming that Rand is satan, have caused it.

The fact is that we need both philosophers like Ron and we need implementers like Rand, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash and hopefully, many, many more to come. It seems more than foolish (not to mention, suspect) at this point in time for some to spend so much time trying to destroy one of our own, when the bad guys are on the other side of the field.


Bottom line: we're not going to win this through political means. That doesn't mean you have to give up politics if that's what you want to do, but there HAS to be a growing group of principled purists who will draw a line in the sand and refuse to cross it (and will refuse to vote for those who do). The only thing those political types understand is getting elected and re-elected. There will have to be an ever-growing populace who will JUST SAY NO when they even think about putting a toe across that line.

If it is your calling to get those political types set up for election, go for it. But please stop chastising those of us "purists" when we insist on holding their feet to the fire. THAT is what will bring about liberty in our lifetime, if it is meant to be.

If you are not engaged in political action, who do you think will know of your drawn line, or even care? If you don't participate, do you honestly believe TPTB care about you one iota? No, they do not.

I'm all for not forgetting our principles. I agree that is critical. But, I also understand that we have to break through the propaganda that so many Americans have been infused with. Messaging is critical to achieve that and that messaging is not directed at you; it is directed at those who aren't yet with us.


Ironic truth: if you stand for Ron Paul's principles on the Ron Paul Forum, you may be called a "troll"

False. I have called you out for your trolling behavior, because you have run around here misconstruing Rand's words and flat out lying about him. No one cares that you don't like him. But, you have made it your mission in life to do what you can to turn anyone and everyone against him, by any means possible. And that is the behavior of a troll.

[Butchie]

Now you're changing your tune. Earlier you said So because I think the tweet was in poor taste that makes me a supporter of war? The author, who apparently isn't Lew Rockwell, didn't say that. But whoever wrote "Live by the sword, die by the sword' is what the dumbest, stupidest, most delusional people around here would say." really needs to rethink his priorities. If that was you, then yes that goes for you. While I can see the "this is bad timing" argument, there's definitely nothing "dumb" or "stupid" or "delusional" about "Live by the sword, die by the sword" itself. This national has been revelling in war since Reagan bumrushed Grenada.

The author DID say that as I clearly provided proof for, and I did not ever claim Lew wrote it so not even sure why you said that. This tweet was bad timing, so therefore yes, it was a dumb thing to say, knowing when and how to say something is just as important as what you are saying.

I'm not changing my tune, you are putting words in my mouth much like the author, I am well aware of our nations sick obsession with war and this man is certainly not a person I respect or call a hero, but there is a way to speak to people about these subjects and way not to, regardless of what you think of this Seal he had a family that through no fault of their own are going through a horrible time right now and what Ron said was way out of line, why you can't see that I don't know.

[jmdrake]

The author DID say that as I clearly provided proof for, and I did not ever claim Lew wrote it so not even sure why you said that.


1) No he didn't.

2) I proved your proof isn't.

3) I added the "it isn't Lew Rockwell" part because I got that wrong. I didn't say you did.



This tweet was bad timing, so therefore yes, it was a dumb thing to say, knowing when and how to say something is just as important as what you are saying.


Or maybe it's doing exactly what it was intended to do which is 1) stir up the antiwar debate and 2) toss a "softball" to Rand so that he could endear himself more to teocons. In that case it's brilliant.



I'm not changing my tune, you are putting words in my mouth much like the author


:rolleyes: How can an author that doesn't even know you put words in your mouth? That's silly. All he did was make a shoe. It was up to you to decide that it fit and that you wanted to wear it. Again, as I pointed out, the author talked about a lassie faire tradition that was against A) standing armies B) wars and C) deference to military "heroics." You have decided to ignore A and C and hone in on B and say "The author said I was pro war" when he said no such thing.



, I am well aware of our nations sick obsession with war and this man is certainly not a person I respect or call a hero, but there is a way to speak to people about these subjects and way not to, regardless of what you think of this Seal he had a family that through no fault of their own are going through a horrible time right now and what Ron said was way out of line, why you can't see that I don't know.

That's fine. But again, nobody said that anyone who was against Ron Paul's tweet had to be pro war.

[KingNothing]

Now you're changing your tune. Earlier you said So because I think the tweet was in poor taste that makes me a supporter of war? The author, who apparently isn't Lew Rockwell, didn't say that. But whoever wrote "Live by the sword, die by the sword' is what the dumbest, stupidest, most delusional people around here would say." really needs to rethink his priorities. If that was you, then yes that goes for you. While I can see the "this is bad timing" argument, there's definitely nothing "dumb" or "stupid" or "delusional" about "Live by the sword, die by the sword" itself. This national has been revelling in war since Reagan bumrushed Grenada.


I wrote it. I am not rethinking my priorities, but I did rethink my wording to make my stance more clear. I meant that using the words was silly, not the quote itself. Using the phrase was bombastic and careless and, intentionally or not, it implied that Kyle deserved it. That sort of looseness with language, which I have also been guilty of, leads to nothing good. Ron corrected his mistake by offering more detail in his later facebook post. Had he just used those words originally, none of this would have happened. Likewise, had I been more precise in language, I wouldn't have been quoted on LRC.

And the LRC author did suggest that I'm less liberty-oriented, or less anti-war, than he is. That is the silly and petulant finger-wagging typical of people at LRC.

[Butchie]

1) No he didn't.

2) I proved your proof isn't.

3) I added the "it isn't Lew Rockwell" part because I got that wrong. I didn't say you did.



Or maybe it's doing exactly what it was intended to do which is 1) stir up the antiwar debate and 2) toss a "softball" to Rand so that he could endear himself more to teocons. In that case it's brilliant.


:rolleyes: How can an author that doesn't even know you put words in your mouth? That's silly. All he did was make a shoe. It was up to you to decide that it fit and that you wanted to wear it. Again, as I pointed out, the author talked about a lassie faire tradition that was against A) standing armies B) wars and C) deference to military "heroics." You have decided to ignore A and C and hone in on B and say "The author said I was pro war" when he said no such thing.



That's fine. But again, nobody said that anyone who was against Ron Paul's tweet had to be pro war.

Your first bolded statement: If you actually believe that, well, what can I say. How often do you actually go to your local Republican get togethers, cuz you're living in an alternate reality.

As to the second bolded statement: I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant and that I didn't mean he was literally speaking directly to me specifically, if that's how you debate people there's really no more point in contuining this.

[KingNothing]

You aren't a purist. You are a Ron Paul accolade and nothing more. You have put another human being on a pedestal and judged him as perfect and then measure everyone against that. The problem with that is Ron Paul is not perfect; no human being is. Yet, you close your eyes to those imperfections that Klamath and others have pointed out. No one wanted to point out Dr. Paul's imperfections, but those of you who have been setting Ron up as a god and by comparison, claiming that Rand is satan, have caused it.

The fact is that we need both philosophers like Ron and we need implementers like Rand, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash and hopefully, many, many more to come. It seems more than foolish (not to mention, suspect) at this point in time for some to spend so much time trying to destroy one of our own, when the bad guys are on the other side of the field.



If you are not engaged in political action, who do you think will know of your drawn line, or even care? If you don't participate, do you honestly believe TPTB care about you one iota? No, they do not.

I'm all for not forgetting our principles. I agree that is critical. But, I also understand that we have to break through the propaganda that so many Americans have been infused with. Messaging is critical to achieve that and that messaging is not directed at you; it is directed at those who aren't yet with us.



False. I have called you out for your trolling behavior, because you have run around here misconstruing Rand's words and flat out lying about him. No one cares that you don't like him. But, you have made it your mission in life to do what you can to turn anyone and everyone against him, by any means possible. And that is the behavior of a troll.

This is the best post I've ever read on this forum. I mean that sincerely.

[Antischism]

I have no sympathy for anyone who takes pride in "killing savages" in these bullshit wars. Sometimes I want to say, "Fuck the troops," but then I remember how brainwashed people are and how they feel like the only option they have as a 'career' is to enlist in the military. Of course, I would prefer no one died and I feel sympathy for the family, but I don't find anything wrong at all with what Ron Paul said, nor with the timing.

[familydog]

Wait...conservatives (and Rand Paul) are defending the "honor" of a murderer? Color me shocked.

The only reason to be outraged is that Ron Paul didn't go far enough.

But I guess many people here still cling to the idea that somehow politics will save the world and we must use tact.

[Petar]

Wait...conservatives (and Rand Paul) are defending the "honor" of a murderer? Color me shocked.

The only reason to be outraged is that Ron Paul didn't go far enough.

But I guess many people here still cling to the idea that somehow politics will save the world and we must use tact.

Politics are precisely the exact thing that will either make or break a civilization. It is incredibly lame when people like you pretend that there is any other option.

[cajuncocoa]

Comment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14vDy-KsgXc&lc=rjMgfQ9S2kPJmKtbUXAHgM9F7pQP9vgQ9649OFtSgPI) on a relevant YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14vDy-KsgXc) that deserves to be shared:


Some people interpreted the statement as "he (Kyle) deserved what he got".
I interpreted the statement as "People die as a consequence of war" and "Treating a vet suffering from PTSD by convening an informal session at a shooting range carries serious risks and probably is not a good idea in general"

[familydog]

Politics are precisely the exact thing that will either make or break a civilization. It is incredibly lame when people like you pretend that there is any other option.

Pretend? What an odd word choice. We've been waiting a couple hundred years for politics to "make civilization." Please, tell me how much longer do I need to wait? Otherwise, it isn't me that is pretending.

The only outcome of politics is obscuring blatant acts of murder and other forms of aggression. This whole brouhaha is case and point.

[A Son of Liberty]

You aren't a purist. You are a Ron Paul accolade and nothing more. You have put another human being on a pedestal and judged him as perfect and then measure everyone against that. The problem with that is Ron Paul is not perfect; no human being is. Yet, you close your eyes to those imperfections that Klamath and others have pointed out. No one wanted to point out Dr. Paul's imperfections, but those of you who have been setting Ron up as a god and by comparison, claiming that Rand is satan, have caused it.

The fact is that we need both philosophers like Ron and we need implementers like Rand, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash and hopefully, many, many more to come. It seems more than foolish (not to mention, suspect) at this point in time for some to spend so much time trying to destroy one of our own, when the bad guys are on the other side of the field.



If you are not engaged in political action, who do you think will know of your drawn line, or even care? If you don't participate, do you honestly believe TPTB care about you one iota? No, they do not.

I'm all for not forgetting our principles. I agree that is critical. But, I also understand that we have to break through the propaganda that so many Americans have been infused with. Messaging is critical to achieve that and that messaging is not directed at you; it is directed at those who aren't yet with us.



False. I have called you out for your trolling behavior, because you have run around here misconstruing Rand's words and flat out lying about him. No one cares that you don't like him. But, you have made it your mission in life to do what you can to turn anyone and everyone against him, by any means possible. And that is the behavior of a troll.

This is the biggest load of tripe I've ever read on this site.

No one has called Rand "satan". Folks have pointed out where his rhetoric has stood in direct contradiction to a fundamental principle of the liberty movement - non-interventionism. THIS IS SOMETHING DEARLY IMPORTANT TO SOME OF US; you have gotten the response from us that you have because you dismiss it. We're allowed to express our opinion about this. We're allowed to say that it is utterly out of whack with our principles.

None of us regard Ron as "god". That's idiotic. Ron, however, does get a little bit more benefit of the doubt from us, because of the years he has proven himself. Rand does not have the track record, so our concerns become considerably more amplified.

Honestly. To hell with this stupidity... it isn't even worth trying to explain it to you people...

[heavenlyboy34]

Politics are precisely the exact thing that will either make or break a civilization. It is incredibly lame when people like you pretend that there is any other option.
In what sense? You don't need to have any elected officials whatsoever to have a civilization-and most civilizations haven't done the elections thing. To the extent they have, it's usually just a token gesture the Ruling Class allows us mundanes to placate us for another cycle.

[Number19]

I see it differently. We purists will be here doing what we always have (staying true to our principles) while you will have adapted and innovated, won some elections, and wondered why, after those victories at the ballot box, everything has stayed pretty much the same as it was before.

Bottom line: we're not going to win this through political means. That doesn't mean you have to give up politics if that's what you want to do, but there HAS to be a growing group of principled purists who will draw a line in the sand and refuse to cross it (and will refuse to vote for those who do). The only thing those political types understand is getting elected and re-elected. There will have to be an ever-growing populace who will JUST SAY NO when they even think about putting a toe across that line.

If it is your calling to get those political types set up for election, go for it. But please stop chastising those of us "purists" when we insist on holding their feet to the fire. THAT is what will bring about liberty in our lifetime, if it is meant to be.This is what Republican insiders/elites are scared senseless over. Just how strong has the liberty movement grown? Hillary will be the Democrat candidate in four years. Is there any candidate the Republicans can put up who can defeat her - without the support of the liberty movement? This is why Ron continues to be attacked - an attempt to drive a wedge in the movement. And this is why Rand will be supported by neo-tea partiers like Hannity. But Rand is unlikely to be supported by beltway Republicans and is unlikely to be the Republican candidate. Four years is a long time, but right now I'm saying Hillary will be our next president - and this possibility scares the RNC.

Someone earlier quoted Albert Jay Nock, who also said that social change only occurs during times of extreme duress. By and large, Americans are relatively "happy". We are no where near the stress levels required for a major paradigm shift.

But it is the purists who have the strength of belief to carry the torch for the decades of highs and lows that has been, and will continue to be, necessary.

Stay the course.

[cajuncocoa]

This is the biggest load of tripe I've ever read on this site.

No one has called Rand "satan". Folks have pointed out where his rhetoric has stood in direct contradiction to a fundamental principle of the liberty movement - non-interventionism. THIS IS SOMETHING DEARLY IMPORTANT TO SOME OF US; you have gotten the response from us that you have because you dismiss it. We're allowed to express our opinion about this. We're allowed to say that it is utterly out of whack with our principles.

None of us regard Ron as "god". That's idiotic. Ron, however, does get a little bit more benefit of the doubt from us, because of the years he has proven himself. Rand does not have the track record, so our concerns become considerably more amplified.

Honestly. To hell with this stupidity... it isn't even worth trying to explain it to you people...You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to A Son of Liberty again.

[idiom]

In what sense? You don't need to have any elected officials whatsoever to have a civilization-and most civilizations haven't done the elections thing. To the extent they have, it's usually just a token gesture the Ruling Class allows us mundanes to placate us for another cycle.

You don't need elected officials to have politics.

[Anti Federalist]

Found it :)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?403433-Ron-Paul-Twitter-Account&p=4856987&viewfull=1#post4856987

I should have known...

[Anti Federalist]

America is a bloated, blasted heath of bloodshed and whoredoms. The majority of Americans call darkness light and evil good. The problem the message has is that its hard to help the willingly deaf hear or the purposely blind see. As the scriptures testify the wicked take the truth to be hard.

+rep for the imagery alone.

[LibertyEagle]

This is the biggest load of tripe I've ever read on this site.

No one has called Rand "satan". Folks have pointed out where his rhetoric has stood in direct contradiction to a fundamental principle of the liberty movement - non-interventionism. THIS IS SOMETHING DEARLY IMPORTANT TO SOME OF US; you have gotten the response from us that you have because you dismiss it. We're allowed to express our opinion about this. We're allowed to say that it is utterly out of whack with our principles.

None of us regard Ron as "god". That's idiotic. Ron, however, does get a little bit more benefit of the doubt from us, because of the years he has proven himself. Rand does not have the track record, so our concerns become considerably more amplified.

Honestly. To hell with this stupidity... it isn't even worth trying to explain it to you people...

I don't dismiss anything about Rand. I don't like several of the things he has said. Nor do I particularly like his vote on that one Iran sanction. But, I also do take note of the other sanctions he has voted against, his stand on NDAA and so very many good things. Frankly, he has been working his ass off and whether you admit it or not, he has done a lot to bring down the drawbridges in Republicans minds to start hearing both Ron and Rand. I have seen it myself. I just hope that stupid tweet last night doesn't roll us backwards again.

I understand that you don't think Rand's perfect. He's not. And I totally understand when you call him out for something that you don't agree with. There is not a thing wrong with that, in fact it is necessary. But, that is different than the few who have made it their mission in life to flit from thread to thread making sarcastic comments about Rand, misconstruing his words, and downright lying about him. I have not seen you do that. But, I have, Cajun, and on numerous occasions.

I just want to give Rand a chance and the way things stand now, this forum sometimes comes off like the home of his worst enemies.

[Anti Federalist]

Soooo...has there been any comment from Ron?

Possibly about the message not sent by him and he disagrees with it?

Or has the original message been deleted?

Or are we all in agreement that he made the comment and stands by it?

I haven't been following this all day...

[moostraks]

This is the biggest load of tripe I've ever read on this site.

No one has called Rand "satan". Folks have pointed out where his rhetoric has stood in direct contradiction to a fundamental principle of the liberty movement - non-interventionism. THIS IS SOMETHING DEARLY IMPORTANT TO SOME OF US; you have gotten the response from us that you have because you dismiss it. We're allowed to express our opinion about this. We're allowed to say that it is utterly out of whack with our principles.

None of us regard Ron as "god". That's idiotic. Ron, however, does get a little bit more benefit of the doubt from us, because of the years he has proven himself. Rand does not have the track record, so our concerns become considerably more amplified.

Honestly. To hell with this stupidity... it isn't even worth trying to explain it to you people...

This stuff frustrates me as well. As for not being engaged with political action so TPTB won't care, it seems a long shot no matter what method we are to take at this point. Just because one doesn't play by their rules does not mean one has withdrawn from the playing field. Seems that can only be done through death and even then the state will have the last say on the matter.

[cajuncocoa]

Soooo...has there been any comment from Ron?

Possibly about the message not sent by him and he disagrees with it?

Or has the original message been deleted?

Or are we all in agreement that he made the comment and stands by it?

I haven't been following this all day...Nothing definitive that I've seen, AF. No comment from Ron, and it hadn't been deleted as of a couple of hours ago. I don't think we're in agreement about much (LOL)...I'm still working it out in my own mind to be honest. As of now, I'm of the opinion that the whole tweet was a reference to the shooter's PTSD.

[jmdrake]

Your first bolded statement: If you actually believe that, well, what can I say. How often do you actually go to your local Republican get togethers, cuz you're living in an alternate reality.

:rolleyes: Sorry junior, but I live in the reality where bloggers have been attacking Ron over the comment and saying "Thank God for Rand." You don't know what you are talking about, but that's okay.



As to the second bolded statement: I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant and that I didn't mean he was literally speaking directly to me specifically, if that's how you debate people there's really no more point in contuining this.

I know that you weren't being accurate. And you're right, there isn't any point in continuing it. You want to take offense upon yourself so you can pretend to be a victim that's on you.

[jmdrake]

I wrote it. I am not rethinking my priorities, but I did rethink my wording to make my stance more clear. I meant that using the words was silly, not the quote itself. Using the phrase was bombastic and careless and, intentionally or not, it implied that Kyle deserved it. That sort of looseness with language, which I have also been guilty of, leads to nothing good. Ron corrected his mistake by offering more detail in his later facebook post. Had he just used those words originally, none of this would have happened. Likewise, had I been more precise in language, I wouldn't have been quoted on LRC.


*sight* I stand by this. While I can see the "this is bad timing" argument, there's definitely nothing "dumb" or "stupid" or "delusional" about "Live by the sword, die by the sword" itself.

Would I have used those words at that time? No. But the words are not "dumb" or "stupid" or "delusional", and for you to use this time as an excuse to blindly attack "people around here" is inexcusable. I'm glad you are at least willing to re-think that.



And the LRC author did suggest that I'm less liberty-oriented, or less anti-war, than he is. That is the silly and petulant finger-wagging typical of people at LRC.

So "silly and petulant finger waving" is "typical" when it's not you doing it? Really, you attack Ron and a whole group of his supporters, then you rethink your words, but in your apology you attack someone else? Okay. If that makes you feel better, okay.

[KingNothing]

*sight* I stand by this. While I can see the "this is bad timing" argument, there's definitely nothing "dumb" or "stupid" or "delusional" about "Live by the sword, die by the sword" itself.

Would I have used those words at that time? No. But the words are not "dumb" or "stupid" or "delusional", and for you to use this time as an excuse to blindly attack "people around here" is inexcusable. I'm glad you are at least willing to re-think that.



So "silly and petulant finger waving" is "typical" when it's not you doing it? Really, you attack Ron and a whole group of his supporters, then you rethink your words, but in your apology you attack someone else? Okay. If that makes you feel better, okay.

I did not apologize. I improved my wording, as Ron did.

[jmdrake]

I did not apologize. I improved my wording, as Ron did.

Fine. Then in your "improved wording" you should realize you have no right to complain about someone pointing fingers at you as you pointed fingers at others.

[Anti Federalist]

Nothing definitive that I've seen, AF. No comment from Ron, and it hadn't been deleted as of a couple of hours ago. I don't think we're in agreement about much (LOL)...I'm still working it out in my own mind to be honest. As of now, I'm of the opinion that the whole tweet was a reference to the shooter's PTSD.

So, I guess it's safe to say that he wrote it, since if he had not, it would have been deleted, at the very least.

[sailingaway]

So, I guess it's safe to say that he wrote it, since if he had not, it would have been deleted, at the very least.

I don't know. Backing down isn't a strong suit with that man.

He may have written it. But his thoughts are better expressed in his facebook post. Next time maybe they'll just tweet a link.

[cajuncocoa]

So, I guess it's safe to say that he wrote it, since if he had not, it would have been deleted, at the very least.
That's my guess. I think a lot of people made a mountain out of a molehill over it. According to an article sailing recently posted in another thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?403589-Ron-Paul-Clarifies-%91By-the-Sword%92-Tweet-on-Sniper%92s-Death), it wasn't Ron's intention to insult Kyle.

[LibertyEagle]

That's my guess. I think a lot of people made a mountain out of a molehill over it. According to an article sailing recently posted in another thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?403589-Ron-Paul-Clarifies-%91By-the-Sword%92-Tweet-on-Sniper%92s-Death), it wasn't Ron's intention to insult Kyle.

Unfortunately, that doesn't really matter at this point. The damage has already been done.

[KingNothing]

Fine. Then in your "improved wording" you should realize you have no right to complain about someone pointing fingers at you as you pointed fingers at others.

What good came from the tweet? What purpose does it serve? It was poorly though-out and poorly worded. It shouldn't have happened.

Ultimately it won't matter because its only a tweet. Still, everyone, especially people who can reach millions of people with one click, should be mindful of how their words will be perceived. That's all I'm saying.

[Anti Federalist]

What good came from the tweet? What purpose does it serve? It was poorly though-out and poorly worded. It shouldn't have happened.

Ultimately it won't matter because its only a tweet. Still, everyone, especially people who can reach millions of people with one click, should be mindful of how their words will be perceived. That's all I'm saying.

I was unaware "tweets" served much of any purpose.

The very name denotes useless noise, no?

[Anti Federalist]

Unfortunately, that doesn't really matter at this point. The damage has already been done.

If it's damage caused by telling the truth, then it is damage that needed to be done, AFAIC.

[The Gold Standard]

If it's damage caused by telling the truth, then it is damage that needed to be done, AFAIC.

That's why they are called truth bombs and not truth cookies or something. We need a lot more "damage" like that.

[cajuncocoa]

If it's damage caused by telling the truth, then it is damage that needed to be done, AFAIC.


That's why they are called truth bombs and not truth cookies or something. We need a lot more "damage" like that.
Amen! And +rep to you both!

[Anti Federalist]

That's why they are called truth bombs and not truth cookies or something. We need a lot more "damage" like that.

Truth Comfy Chairs?

Truth Daffidols?

Truth Fuzzy Kitty Slippers?

You're right, it doesn't work, does it?

[A Son of Liberty]

If nothing else, the tweet has certainly opened up a dialogue around here. I think it's safe to say that a lot has been publicly said about interventionism, militarism, what war does to human beings, etc., than might otherwise have been said. Sure, folks like Glenn Beck control the perception, but from what I've heard regarding comments to articles, the tweet has allowed some folks to step forward and agree with the sentiment.

If it exposes the warfare state and ALL of its victims, even in the slightest, it is a good thing. If it causes even one person aspiring to Chris Kyle's life a moment of pause, it will have been worth all the hand-wringing around here.