PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul Clarifies ‘By the Sword’ Tweet on Sniper’s Death




sailingaway
02-05-2013, 07:49 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/gty_ron_paul_ll_130205_wblog.jpg


Ron Paul is blaming foreign wars for the death of ex-Navy sniper Chris Kyle at a Texas gun range.

Never one to hold his tongue about U.S. military policy, the former congressman and presidential candidate caused a bit of controversy this week by tweeting that ex-Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, who was shot and killed at a gun range in Texas, had lived “by the sword” and died by it.


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

- Ron Paul (@RonPaul) February 4, 2013

Kyle was shot and killed Sunday, allegedly by a 25-year-old Iraq veteran. Kyle was the author of “American Sniper” and, with more than 150 kills, was the deadliest sniper in U.S. history when he left the military in 2009.

After receiving some criticism on Twitter, Paul, 77, later clarified his comment on Facebook, posing Kyle’s death as an unintended consequence of “unconstitutional and unnecessary wars.” On Monday evening, Paul posted the following note:


As a veteran, I certainly recognize that this weekend’s violence and killing of Chris Kyle were a tragic and sad event. My condolences and prayers go out to Mr. Kyle’s family. Unconstitutional and unnecessary wars have endless unintended consequences. A policy of non-violence, as Christ preached, would have prevented this and similar tragedies. -REP

Paul has vocally opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as unwarranted and unconstitutional. In his two recent presidential runs, Paul warned repeatedly of the consequences of America’s wars and global military presence, citing the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as blowback from U.S. foreign intervention.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/ron-paul-clarifies-by-the-sword-tweet-on-snipers-death/

here's WaPo's version: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/ron-paul-on-sniper-chris-kyle-live-by-the-sword-die-by-the-sword/2013/02/05/e7c06c1e-6fdd-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_blog.html

Sola_Fide
02-05-2013, 07:59 PM
In my view, Ron didn't say anything wrong in either statement.

cajuncocoa
02-05-2013, 07:59 PM
Hear this, neocons and RPF hand-wringers: it was not an insult to Kyle. It was a statement about the "unintended consequence of 'unconstitutional and unnecessary wars'”

I wouldn't have cared if he had insulted Kyle, but it's not Ron Paul's style. He keeps it classy, always.

donnay
02-05-2013, 08:46 PM
What Dr. Paul said is truth. Most people can't handle the truth!

LibertyEagle
02-05-2013, 08:52 PM
What source are you quoting in what you posted, SailingAway? It's not the Washington Post source that you cited.

jmdrake
02-05-2013, 08:52 PM
We live in bizzaro world when WaPo does a better job of coming to Ron Paul's defense than some of his "supporters".

jmdrake
02-05-2013, 08:56 PM
Here's one interesting comment.

mm14
7:18 PM CST
Help me, Lord!! I finally agree with Ron Paul. It's downhill from here.

And another.

kommisaroff
5:25 PM CST
It is a very sad story. Violence follows violence, sometimes senselessly, sometims not. Sometimes it follows great violence.
Chris Kyle, the murdered sniper, shot more than 150 people while on sniping duty. By definition, sniping is killing in cold blood for one's cause. This note is not to debate the morality of this subset of warfare. It is to recall one of the most famous sniper mages in American history.
This is Winslow Homer's "Sharpshooter" (1862), a painting as well as a widely-printed engraving from Homer's coverage of the Civil War.
Here are Homer's thoughts on the craft of the sniper, from the Boston Globe (by Sebastian Smee) from Auguist 7, 2010:
"Trained snipers were a new phenomenon in warfare, made possible by rifles fitted with long-tube telescopic sights. Most people at the time considerd them heroes of the war effort. But the idea of delivering death in such a cold-blooded manner horrified Homer.
"In a letter written ih his old age, he wrote: "I looked through one of their rifles once. " The exoperience, he said, "struck me as being as near murder as anything I ever could think of in connection with the army & I always had a horror of that branch of the service." "
It is a very sad story, now as before, Violence follows violence, sometimes senselessly, sometimes not. Sometimres it follows great violence.

One I disagree with in that I don't think Ron was being callous, but it is important to understand how others are perceiving this.

Belleau Wood
8:04 PM CST
Christ preached nonviolence, sure. I'm sure if Christ had Twitter, though, he would preach against callousness and insensitivity towards those in mournin

jmdrake
02-05-2013, 08:57 PM
What source are you quoting in what you posted, SailingAway? It's not the Washington Post source that you cited.

ABC news? http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=18410146&sid=77&cid=77&ts=true

sailingaway
02-05-2013, 09:07 PM
What source are you quoting in what you posted, SailingAway? It's not the Washington Post source that you cited.

abc. Crud forgot the link. I'll get it.

sailingaway
02-05-2013, 09:08 PM
ABC news? http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=18410146&sid=77&cid=77&ts=true

thanks, I'll add it to the OP

-
but that is an odd format I'll see if I can find the one I got it from.

this was my initial source: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/ron-paul-clarifies-by-the-sword-tweet-on-snipers-death/

Michael Landon
02-05-2013, 09:10 PM
The way I read his Tweet was that he thought it was stupid for someone to bring a person suffering from PTSD to a firing range as a way to treat his disorder. Am I reading it wrong?

- ML

RickyJ
02-05-2013, 09:12 PM
The way I read his Tweet was that he thought it was stupid for someone to bring a person suffering from PTSD to a firing range as a way to treat his disorder. Am I reading it wrong?

- ML

No, you read it right. It was stupid, and it ended badly.

sailingaway
02-05-2013, 09:12 PM
The way I read his Tweet was that he thought it was stupid for someone to bring a person suffering from PTSD to a firing range as a way to treat his disorder. Am I reading it wrong?

- ML

It's a Rorschach tweet. Everyone who reads it reads it differently.

donnay
02-05-2013, 09:16 PM
No, you read it right. It was stupid, and it ended badly.

What's weird is that this guy Kyle was helping never saw a day of combat--so I wonder what gave him PTSD? :confused:

CPUd
02-05-2013, 09:29 PM
It's a Rorschach tweet. Everyone who reads it reads it differently.

http://i.imgur.com/htARNHg.jpg

Lucille
02-05-2013, 09:57 PM
Truth stands, even if there be no public support. It is self-sustained.
-Mahatma Gandhi

Brian4Liberty
02-05-2013, 10:02 PM
It's a Rorschach tweet. Everyone who reads it reads it differently.

That's for sure.

cajuncocoa
02-05-2013, 10:18 PM
It's a Rorschach tweet. Everyone who reads it reads it differently.
Upon even further review, that may have been the real intention. It's pretty telling to see what different people take away from it.

pcosmar
02-05-2013, 10:42 PM
It's a Rorschach tweet. Everyone who reads it reads it differently.

Doesn't sound like Rorschach at all.

http://www.deviantart.com/download/199336658/rorschach_by_gamblerart-d3aoh5e.jpg

trey4sports
02-05-2013, 11:11 PM
Truth is treason...

Philhelm
02-05-2013, 11:24 PM
http://i.imgur.com/htARNHg.jpg

Chris Kyle shooting an Iraqi woman's head from over a mile away.

jmdrake
02-06-2013, 06:12 AM
What's weird is that this guy Kyle was helping never saw a day of combat--so I wonder what gave him PTSD? :confused:

Really? Source? :confused: MKULTRA?

jmdrake
02-06-2013, 06:12 AM
Truth stands, even if there be no public support. It is self-sustained.
-Mahatma Gandhi

Great quote! Very fitting.

jmdrake
02-06-2013, 06:20 AM
Comment by "JD".

Truth is treason in an empire of lies. The same war machine that helped Chris Kyle kill without remorse apparently screwed up the head of this vet. Both Kyle and his killer are victims of the military industrial complex. Iraq was a stupid and senseless war. One American dead from it was one too many. And now we have two more and a third that may get lethal injection. Madeline Allbright was asked on 60 Minutes about the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi civilians, mostly children, thanks to crippling sanctions which prevented Iraq from having clean water when we had bombed their water supply during the first Gulf War if the price was worth it. Albright said “Yes. I think the price is worth it.” Well is the death of Chris Kyle worth it?

A Son of Liberty
02-06-2013, 06:22 AM
Comment by "JD".

Truth is treason in an empire of lies. The same war machine that helped Chris Kyle kill without remorse apparently screwed up the head of this vet. Both Kyle and his killer are victims of the military industrial complex. Iraq was a stupid and senseless war. One American dead from it was one too many. And now we have two more and a third that may get lethal injection. Madeline Allbright was asked on 60 Minutes about the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi civilians, mostly children, thanks to crippling sanctions which prevented Iraq from having clean water when we had bombed their water supply during the first Gulf War if the price was worth it. Albright said “Yes. I think the price is worth it.” Well is the death of Chris Kyle worth it?

:thumbs:

Origanalist
02-06-2013, 06:37 AM
It's a Rorschach tweet. Everyone who reads it reads it differently.

Aint that the truth, I can't remember the last time I heard so many different reactions to a simple statement.

V3n
02-06-2013, 07:14 AM
http://i.imgur.com/htARNHg.jpg

Rainbow Dash!

http://ompldr.org/vN29ncA/RainbowDash5.png

(rotate 90 degrees right)

nasaal
02-06-2013, 07:50 AM
Why even clarify? He was absolutely right the first time, and he isn't running for office to where he needs to worry about perception.

CaptLouAlbano
02-06-2013, 08:02 AM
Why even clarify? He was absolutely right the first time, and he isn't running for office to where he needs to worry about perception.

I disagree that he does not need to worry about perception. If his desire is to continue to educate people in the principles he believes in, he would naturally want to have new people listening to him. If others are put off by the statement that he made, they are then less likely to buy his books, go to his seminars, etc in the future. It's basic PR/marketing stuff at work. Now, Paul may not care about that, and is solely looking to concentrate on a specific niche of the political spectrum, and he is of course free to market himself to whichever group he chooses to.

There is also the secondary issue of "guilt by association". There are many elected officials who went out on a limb and vocalized their support for Paul over the last 5 years. I personally, know some people who have determined that they need to keep their distance from Ron moving forward for fear of "what he might say next". For those that are on the front lines in this battle for liberty through political means, we need to be mindful of how the public perceives us. If we are viewed in a negative light, we may very well be hampered in our ability to effect change in the party and in local and state government.

For myself personally, my allegiance is to a set of long held principles. Not to any one man.

nasaal
02-06-2013, 08:07 AM
I disagree that he does not need to worry about perception. If his desire is to continue to educate people in the principles he believes in, he would naturally want to have new people listening to him. If others are put off by the statement that he made, they are then less likely to buy his books, go to his seminars, etc in the future. It's basic PR/marketing stuff at work. Now, Paul may not care about that, and is solely looking to concentrate on a specific niche of the political spectrum, and he is of course free to market himself to whichever group he chooses to.

There is also the secondary issue of "guilt by association". There are many elected officials who went out on a limb and vocalized their support for Paul over the last 5 years. I personally, know some people who have determined that they need to keep their distance from Ron moving forward for fear of "what he might say next". For those that are on the front lines in this battle for liberty through political means, we need to be mindful of how the public perceives us. If we are viewed in a negative light, we may very well be hampered in our ability to effect change in the party and in local and state government.

For myself personally, my allegiance is to a set of long held principles. Not to any one man.

And if there was something wrong with what he said before I would agree with you. But it wasn't in bad taste, and wasn't from a man who tends to be unfeeling.

CaptLouAlbano
02-06-2013, 08:13 AM
And if there was something wrong with what he said before I would agree with you. But it wasn't in bad taste, and wasn't from a man who tends to be unfeeling.

I personally believe that the remarks were in bad taste, not horrible, but not prudent either. The Facebook comments were fine, the Twitter post was poorly timed and poorly written. And, I knew the remarks would add fuel to the fire of those who do not like Paul. We have seen a lot of evidence of that as both commentators and elected officials have come out in opposition to the remarks.

nasaal
02-06-2013, 08:27 AM
I personally believe that the remarks were in bad taste, not horrible, but not prudent either. The Facebook comments were fine, the Twitter post was poorly timed and poorly written. And, I knew the remarks would add fuel to the fire of those who do not like Paul. We have seen a lot of evidence of that as both commentators and elected officials have come out in opposition to the remarks.

Guess we'll just disagree on that one friend.

pcosmar
02-06-2013, 08:30 AM
I personally believe that the remarks were in bad taste,

Wrong.
God's word is never in bad taste.
Only ignorance would think so.

QuickZ06
02-06-2013, 08:33 AM
Aint that the truth, I can't remember the last time I heard so many different reactions to a simple statement.

It has been a while since I have seen a comment taken differently by so many people, even just on here so many took it differently.

July
02-06-2013, 08:36 AM
I personally believe that the remarks were in bad taste, not horrible, but not prudent either. The Facebook comments were fine, the Twitter post was poorly timed and poorly written. And, I knew the remarks would add fuel to the fire of those who do not like Paul. We have seen a lot of evidence of that as both commentators and elected officials have come out in opposition to the remarks.

Well, Rand also didn't agree with this statement, and so far I'm not seeing or hearing much blowback on him for it, and few blaming him for his father's remarks. So I'd say if you really don't agree with the statement, and you are facing heat for it, then maybe take Rand's side for now until it blows over. I do think it will blow over. This is the age of social media, we are so over saturated with sound bytes, quotes travel and go viral fast, and then are forgotten almost as fast.

CaptLouAlbano
02-06-2013, 08:41 AM
Wrong.
God's word is never in bad taste.
Only ignorance would think so.

When Scripture is used without context or proper exegesis for the purpose of promoting one's own agenda, it is a misuse of Scripture.

John Gill gives us a much better sense of the true meaning of Christ's words in Matthew 26:52.

"This is not to be understood of magistrates who bear not the sword in vain, are ministers of God for good, and revengers of evil works; but of private persons that use the sword, and that not in self-defence, but for private revenge; or engage in a quarrel, to which they are not called; and such generally perish, as Peter must have done, had it not been for the interposition of almighty power. Though this seems to be spoken not so much of Peter, and of the danger he exposed himself to, by taking and using the sword, and so to deter him from it, but rather of these his enemies: and as an argument to make and keep Peter easy and quiet, and exercise patience, since, in a little time, God would avenge himself of them; and that the Jews, who now made use of the sword of the Roman soldiers, would perish by the sword of the Romans, as in a few years after the whole nation did."

Essentially, anyone can cherry pick a verse of Scripture and use it for their own purposes. It is wrong when WBC does it, it is wrong when Jeremiah Wright does it, and it is wrong when Ron Paul does it.

pcosmar
02-06-2013, 08:56 AM
When Scripture is used without context or proper exegesis for the purpose of promoting one's own agenda, it is a misuse of Scripture.

Jesus is the Prince of Peace
It is promoting His agenda.

Promoting War is NOT. Idolizing Murder is NOT. Promoting the State or World System is NOT.

jmdrake
02-06-2013, 08:58 AM
In the case of the Iraq war, private persons hijacked the sword of the magistrate for revenge and greed. So the quotes was not misused. Using John Gill exegesis, the killing of Jesus and the killing of the martyrs was all well and good because the government did it.


When Scripture is used without context or proper exegesis for the purpose of promoting one's own agenda, it is a misuse of Scripture.

John Gill gives us a much better sense of the true meaning of Christ's words in Matthew 26:52.

"This is not to be understood of magistrates who bear not the sword in vain, are ministers of God for good, and revengers of evil works; but of private persons that use the sword, and that not in self-defence, but for private revenge; or engage in a quarrel, to which they are not called; and such generally perish, as Peter must have done, had it not been for the interposition of almighty power. Though this seems to be spoken not so much of Peter, and of the danger he exposed himself to, by taking and using the sword, and so to deter him from it, but rather of these his enemies: and as an argument to make and keep Peter easy and quiet, and exercise patience, since, in a little time, God would avenge himself of them; and that the Jews, who now made use of the sword of the Roman soldiers, would perish by the sword of the Romans, as in a few years after the whole nation did."

Essentially, anyone can cherry pick a verse of Scripture and use it for their own purposes. It is wrong when WBC does it, it is wrong when Jeremiah Wright does it, and it is wrong when Ron Paul does it.

Valli6
02-06-2013, 09:11 AM
When Scripture is used without context or proper exegesis for the purpose of promoting one's own agenda, it is a misuse of Scripture.

Essentially, anyone can cherry pick a verse of Scripture and use it for their own purposes. It is wrong when WBC does it, it is wrong when Jeremiah Wright does it, and it is wrong when Ron Paul does it.

Isn't Ron Paul "born-again"?
This suggests to me that scripture IS his life - more so than Austrian economics, libertarianism, or the US Constitution. It's his personal faith in Christ that leads him to support all those other things, not the other way around. Why shouldn't he quote scripture when he witnesses it applying to real life? In America, he should be able to express his religious beliefs without being ostracized by those that reject his faith in Christ.

CaptLouAlbano
02-06-2013, 09:20 AM
Isn't Ron Paul "born-again"?
This suggests to me that scripture IS his life - more so than Austrian economics, libertarianism, or the US Constitution. It's his personal faith in Christ that leads him to support all those other things, not the other way around. Why shouldn't he quote scripture when he witnesses it applying to real life? In America, he should be able to express his religious beliefs without being ostracized by those that reject his faith in Christ.

For one, I believe it to be a misapplication of the verse. Secondly, the timing was poor, the tweet was poorly worded, and the firestorm reaction that was caused by it was expected. Instead of the tweet, he just should have released the Facebook comment. If that was the case no one would be talking about this.

But hey, if you all wish to spin it, defend it, define it, etc that is all well and good. None of this changes the path that most of us were on in our political work. However, I know personally, that I will be backing away from any association with Ron Paul and will be highly unlikely to donate to any organization he has set up in the near future. And I am not alone in my view.

There is much more work to be done out there. Personally, I am looking towards the SC-1 primary, the 2014 SC Senate primary and of course laying groundwork for 2016. The principles move forward with or without any one man as their standard bearer.

pcosmar
02-06-2013, 09:32 AM
and the firestorm reaction that was caused by it was expected.

The reaction was caused by the Pro-War and Pro-Propaganda folks. As Usual.
The same ones that reject most everything Ron Paul has ever stood for.

And also by those bootlickers and Warmongers that Idolized this killer.

PaulConventionWV
02-06-2013, 09:35 AM
Where are all the people now who claimed, "This isn't Ron Paul. It doesn't SOUND like Ron Paul... because I can tell"?

Sure you can, psychic RPers. Sure you can.

cajuncocoa
02-06-2013, 10:07 AM
Where are all the people now who claimed, "This isn't Ron Paul. It doesn't SOUND like Ron Paul... because I can tell"?

Sure you can, psychic RPers. Sure you can.
I'm right here. Before this article was posted yesterday I said I was going through evolving opinions about the tweet. I will admit to originally thinking it didn't sound like him though.

Crystallas
02-06-2013, 10:17 AM
Hear this, neocons and RPF hand-wringers: it was not an insult to Kyle. It was a statement about the "unintended consequence of 'unconstitutional and unnecessary wars'”

I wouldn't have cared if he had insulted Kyle, but it's not Ron Paul's style. He keeps it classy, always.


I think the smarter neo-cons know this. They want to milk the tweet out of context forever to match their anti-conservative agenda. So good luck seeing them ever admit such.

July
02-06-2013, 10:19 AM
Where are all the people now who claimed, "This isn't Ron Paul. It doesn't SOUND like Ron Paul... because I can tell"?

Sure you can, psychic RPers. Sure you can.

Lol, well I admit I was one at first, but I didn't realize Ron was doing his own social media posts at the time. Plus it caught me off guard. Anyway of course I do believe he wrote it now.

angelatc
02-06-2013, 10:31 AM
Wrong.
God's word is never in bad taste.
Only ignorance would think so.

And He also said "Pride goeth before a fall."

God says, quite clearly, that judgement is reserved for Him and only Him. To us, He says, "Judge not..."

That's why the polite thing to say in this situation is absolutely limited to "May God have mercy on his soul." Anything else is the work of evil.

angelatc
02-06-2013, 10:32 AM
Where are all the people now who claimed, "This isn't Ron Paul. It doesn't SOUND like Ron Paul... because I can tell"?

Sure you can, psychic RPers. Sure you can.


I still don't think it sounds like him. Maybe he's getting Alzheimer's. But he's claiming it, so he owns it. I'm not making those claims any more.

It was a despicable thing to say. I'm standing by that, because I'm not a blinding loyal sycophant apologist. Attaching an agenda to the bodies of corpses is a trait that I condemn in the left, and I won't be called a hypocrite for giving Paul a pass if he was doing the same thing.

pcosmar
02-06-2013, 10:37 AM
God says, quite clearly, that judgement is reserved for Him and only Him. To us, He says, "Judge not..."

.

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

There is balance in the book,, but it requires the whole book.

angelatc
02-06-2013, 10:51 AM
What Dr. Paul said is truth. Most people can't handle the truth!

I am not even conceding that point, but there is a huge difference between the truth and being polite and courteous.

Real apology: I am sorry I offended you.

Liberal apology: I am sorry if you were offended.

Libertarian apology; FUCK YOU! You can't handle the truth!

sailingaway
02-06-2013, 10:52 AM
Where are all the people now who claimed, "This isn't Ron Paul. It doesn't SOUND like Ron Paul... because I can tell"?

Sure you can, psychic RPers. Sure you can.

I missed the post where he said it was his?

I always held open the chance it was because it was his first ever week tweeting, so far as I know, and the first post that week that approached 140 characters, indicating he may have had to abreviate a thought more than he would have liked. However, still haven't seen where he definitively said it was him. Has something been posted this morning? It doesn't have his initials like the other truly his posts have.

libertygrl
02-06-2013, 10:55 AM
The reaction was caused by the Pro-War and Pro-Propaganda folks. As Usual.
The same ones that reject most everything Ron Paul has ever stood for.

And also by those bootlickers and Warmongers that Idolized this killer.

AGREE! Whenever there's an opportunity to manipulate words and play upon the emotions/patriotism of the America people, you just know these same groups will ALWAYS take advantage of it in order to maintain support for their criminal enterprise.

angelatc
02-06-2013, 10:56 AM
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
John 7:24

There is balance in the book,, but it requires the whole book.


I understand that you feel righteous in your judgement. That's not in question.

angelatc
02-06-2013, 11:05 AM
I think the smarter neo-cons know this. They want to milk the tweet out of context forever to match their anti-conservative agenda. So good luck seeing them ever admit such.


There was no context. The tweet stood alone for hours and hours.

V3n
02-06-2013, 11:18 AM
concerning 'judge not' - additional context 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."

I don't take it as a commandment "DO NOT JUDGE" more of a suggestion - 'if you do judge, you're going to be judged by those same standards, so best to just not judge at all'.. or another way of saying, be fair when you judge.

I don't think it's saying not to judge, just be sure you're fair about it, then you will be judged fairly.

pcosmar
02-06-2013, 11:26 AM
I understand that you feel righteous in your judgement. That's not in question.

I was only completing the partial and out of context "judge not" that you had posted.

There was no judgement involved.
;)

Aratus
02-06-2013, 11:37 AM
to our older generations it was "soldier's heart" or "shell shock" and/or combat fatigue
before Vietnam's long civil war gave it a new syndrome label, so if half our returning
veterans have degrees of it as well as stress and pain in their lives, the eruption of
emotions that resulted in the total flipping out episode on the firing range is no fluke.
we are seeing three tragedies and not just two that day, hense Dr. Ron Paul's tweet!

FSP-Rebel
02-06-2013, 12:01 PM
I say we just put these stupid twitter threads to bed and move on together. I just hope Ron goes forward using his social media to push for the issues and organizational matters, not random statements that are unneeded and can be taken in the wrong way creating animosity.

Aratus
02-06-2013, 12:04 PM
i just gave some RPF REP to FSP-Rebel becuz it is the right thing to do

parocks
02-06-2013, 02:07 PM
Ron Paul should've learned back in 2007, that there are a lot of people who don't like explanations where people (American Soldiers) who die are at fault or where countries who are attacked are at fault.

People want to see the words "horrible tragedy" and "in our prayers". Not "what a bonehead for bringing a crazy person to a gun place".

And people can scratch all their heads all they want about this, but it's true.

Ron Paul is not big on meaningless sympathy words.

Ender
02-06-2013, 03:57 PM
I still don't think it sounds like him. Maybe he's getting Alzheimer's. But he's claiming it, so he owns it. I'm not making those claims any more.

It was a despicable thing to say. I'm standing by that, because I'm not a blinding loyal sycophant apologist. Attaching an agenda to the bodies of corpses is a trait that I condemn in the left, and I won't be called a hypocrite for giving Paul a pass if he was doing the same thing.

I usually like your posts, angelac, but you are way over the top on this.

The tweet was on-the-nose. We are in illegal wars to fatten the pockets of the elite; there is nothing good about that. Kyle also admitted to liking his job of murdering people who we were attacking- ON THEIR SOIL.

You support that?

So, now we are supposed to go "Boo hoo- poor brave man who hid in a room and shot people from afar- how brave he was!"????

And as far as "Judging" you are doing exactly what you are accusing RP of.

What you sow, so shall ye reap.

Working Poor
02-06-2013, 04:33 PM
I think Ron madr a very righteous statement but you might have to understand righteousness to get it. Don' expect GBs crowd to get it.

CaptLouAlbano
02-06-2013, 05:11 PM
I think Ron madr a very righteous statement but you might have to understand righteousness to get it. Don' expect GBs crowd to get it.

The "us vs. them" thing is really getting silly. Don't you realize that there are people who listen to Beck that voted for Paul? That there are people who have Rush on every day at noon like clockwork that donated to and volunteered for Amash. That there are people out there who don't miss a minute of O'Reilly every night that supported Massie.

Yes, this tweet probably caused a lot of people who were on the fence about Paul to squirm a little. And he likely has caused some people to write him off permanently. Words and actions have consequences. But comments like the one you made are quite frankly elitist, and reminiscent of the stuff you hear from liberals.

A Son of Liberty
02-06-2013, 05:23 PM
I think Ron madr a very righteous statement but you might have to understand righteousness to get it. Don' expect GBs crowd to get it.

I listened to him say today that he wants his kid to grow up to be like Chris Kyle. I nearly threw up. He went on about what a "good man he was", an icon, a hero, "this generation's 'Audie Murphy'". That this was a grave loss for humanity or something...

Listen, Glenn Beck is a person who has acknowledged that the Iraq war was, at a minimum "a mistake". Granting that, it would seem a fairly simple deduction to conclude, then, that every single human being harmed or killed by that war - American or otherwise - is a victim, thrown into an unjust situation through no fault of their own. Those killed are unjustly dead. Kyle REVELLED in his role in this MISTAKE of a war. He never REGRETTED that the people he killed would still be alive if it were not for the "mistake" (of course it was no 'mistake' but rather willful, but for the sake of argument...) made by the US government.

How could you KILL at least 160 human beings without any regret at all, regardless of the circumstances, but particularly given that so few today, including Glenn Beck, regard that war as anything other than a mistake? What kind of person is that? If it were me, I would probably be suicidal. I can't imagine living with the knowledge that I'd taken at least 160 human lives at all, but particularly over a "mistake". Kyle? He DELIGHTED in it. He - to his dying day, apparently - WISHED that he'd "done more", which is obviously means that he wished he'd KILLED more.

ETA: Beck went on and on about Kyle's surviving family, including his two young children. I agree, it is very sad that they will grow up fatherless. On the other hand, Beck seems incapable of conceiving that, but for the mistake of a war which he acknowledges, at least 160 families are without a loved one as well. Perhaps in Glenn Beck's little mind, all of those people were "bad" people. Maybe some were, but I'm sure a fair number of them were "fighting for their country", or their loved ones, or whatever they had in their hearts. I'm sure a fair number of them weren't just blood-thirsty killers bent on taking American lives. I'd love to ask Beck where his concern for those families is. I'd love to understand why the person who took THEIR loved ones from THEM is a hero to Glenn Beck. I'd like for him to explain to THEM why he wants his son to grow up to be like that man.

This is the kind of person Glenn Beck wants his kid to grow up to be.

In my opinion, Ron's tweet was far too generous, given these realities. You people who are "disgusted" with Ron over this need to check your principles. Some things are so important that they mustn't ever be dissembled, lest we appear to give sanction to evil.

I listen to Glenn Beck off and on throughout the day, when I'm in my vehicle. I'm glad to note that he seems to be talking less about God lately. Perhaps he is mad that God didn't give him what he wanted in November. I suspect. Whatever it is, I'm glad. He's a very, VERY poor representative of faithful people. Now, if he would only stop referring to himself as "a libertarian".

jdcole
02-06-2013, 05:53 PM
What's weird is that this guy Kyle was helping never saw a day of combat--so I wonder what gave him PTSD? :confused:

That's the common misconception about PTSD - everybody who isn't fully informed about it assumes that it's only combat related. Lots of veterans who never saw combat have PTSD. For some, it was the rigorous lifestyle that got to them - the military isn't for everybody, and some only find that out after the fact. Things that can contribute are the separation from family and friends that many servicemen encounter, the fact that (for many) the military is the first time they have lived away from home, certain training events (pre-deployment training, different schools like SERE, JWTC, and others), and many other things can contribute to PTSD.

It's a very real thing. Are there those who are faking the funk? Probably. But any serviceman who is diagnosed with PTSD should be taken seriously and get the compassion and help that any person deserves.

kcchiefs6465
02-06-2013, 06:03 PM
That's the common misconception about PTSD - everybody who isn't fully informed about it assumes that it's only combat related. Lots of veterans who never saw combat have PTSD. For some, it was the rigorous lifestyle that got to them - the military isn't for everybody, and some only find that out after the fact. Things that can contribute are the separation from family and friends that many servicemen encounter, the fact that (for many) the military is the first time they have lived away from home, certain training events (pre-deployment training, different schools like SERE, JWTC, and others), and many other things can contribute to PTSD.

It's a very real thing. Are there those who are faking the funk? Probably. But any serviceman who is diagnosed with PTSD should be taken seriously and get the compassion and help that any person deserves.
Of course. One of my teachers in high school had PTSD from serving in Vietnam. (Or whatever they called it back then) A textbook fell on the floor making a large bang and he basically flipped his desk over for cover. I am certain that man saw some things just by the way he handled himself and his quiet demeanor. Very sad what our servicemen and women have to go through. You won't even hear about a lot of tragedies that happened as a result from these illegal, special interest wars. Ron Paul is on the same page as me in that he believes they've been there too long and need to come home.

HigherVision
02-06-2013, 06:17 PM
The "us vs. them" thing is really getting silly. Don't you realize that there are people who listen to Beck that voted for Paul? That there are people who have Rush on every day at noon like clockwork that donated to and volunteered for Amash. That there are people out there who don't miss a minute of O'Reilly every night that supported Massie.

Yes, this tweet probably caused a lot of people who were on the fence about Paul to squirm a little. And he likely has caused some people to write him off permanently. Words and actions have consequences. But comments like the one you made are quite frankly elitist, and reminiscent of the stuff you hear from liberals.

There also people that watch Jon Stewart and MSNBC that voted for Paul. It doesn't mean that that in general are our base. There are liberals who oppose gun control, conservatives who are for abortion, etc. It's more like exceptions to the rule if you ask me. Glenn Beck is still a scumbag.

dannno
02-06-2013, 06:20 PM
A textbook fell on the floor making a large bang and he basically flipped his desk over for cover.


Did anybody try and have fun with that after?

HigherVision
02-06-2013, 06:21 PM
How could you KILL at least 160 human beings without any regret at all, regardless of the circumstances, but particularly given that so few today, including Glenn Beck, regard that war as anything other than a mistake? What kind of person is that? If it were me, I would probably be suicidal. I can't imagine living with the knowledge that I'd taken at least 160 human lives at all, but particularly over a "mistake". Kyle? He DELIGHTED in it. He - to his dying day, apparently - WISHED that he'd "done more", which is obviously means that he wished he'd KILLED more.

ETA: Beck went on and on about Kyle's surviving family, including his two young children. I agree, it is very sad that they will grow up fatherless. On the other hand, Beck seems incapable of conceiving that, but for the mistake of a war which he acknowledges, at least 160 families are without a loved one as well. Perhaps in Glenn Beck's little mind, all of those people were "bad" people. Maybe some were, but I'm sure a fair number of them were "fighting for their country", or their loved ones, or whatever they had in their hearts. I'm sure a fair number of them weren't just blood-thirsty killers bent on taking American lives. I'd love to ask Beck where his concern for those families is. I'd love to understand why the person who took THEIR loved ones from THEM is a hero to Glenn Beck. I'd like for him to explain to THEM why he wants his son to grow up to be like that man.

You're completely right, and what is the difference really between this mentality and that of the Nazis? This is why I take exception when people are like "Oh Rand is just playing the game". It's a disgusting game! The whole reason that we got in this is because we don't want to play that game. I don't want blood on my hands from compromising with killers. There has to be a better way, enough people out there outside of the Glenn Beck camp who we can reach to further build our support base.

kcchiefs6465
02-06-2013, 06:24 PM
Did anybody try and have fun with that after?
Yes they did unfortunatly. I almost smacked a few people for being so damn ignorant. He was one of my favorite teachers.

A Son of Liberty
02-06-2013, 06:25 PM
You're completely right, and what is the difference really between this mentality and that of the Nazis? This is why I take exception when people are like "Oh Rand is just playing the game". It's a disgusting game! The whole reason that we got in this is because we don't want to play that game. I don't want blood on my hands from compromising with killers. There has to be a better way, enough people out there outside of the Glenn Beck camp who we can reach to further build our support base.

I pray that you are right that there has to be enough people out there.

I fear desperately that you are not, that this train is heading inexorably toward a chasm...

Lucille
02-06-2013, 06:28 PM
War is the greatest plague that can affect humanity; it destroys religion, it destroys states, it destroys families. Any scourge is preferable to it.
--Martin Luther

But what a cruel thing is war; to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world...
--Robert E. Lee

BlackJack
02-06-2013, 06:39 PM
I listened to him say today that he wants his kid to grow up to be like Chris Kyle. I nearly threw up. He went on about what a "good man he was", an icon, a hero, "this generation's 'Audie Murphy'". That this was a grave loss for humanity or something...

Listen, Glenn Beck is a person who has acknowledged that the Iraq war was, at a minimum "a mistake". Granting that, it would seem a fairly simple deduction to conclude, then, that every single human being harmed or killed by that war - American or otherwise - is a victim, thrown into an unjust situation through no fault of their own. Those killed are unjustly dead. Kyle REVELLED in his role in this MISTAKE of a war. He never REGRETTED that the people he killed would still be alive if it were not for the "mistake" (of course it was no 'mistake' but rather willful, but for the sake of argument...) made by the US government.

How could you KILL at least 160 human beings without any regret at all, regardless of the circumstances, but particularly given that so few today, including Glenn Beck, regard that war as anything other than a mistake? What kind of person is that? If it were me, I would probably be suicidal. I can't imagine living with the knowledge that I'd taken at least 160 human lives at all, but particularly over a "mistake". Kyle? He DELIGHTED in it. He - to his dying day, apparently - WISHED that he'd "done more", which is obviously means that he wished he'd KILLED more.

ETA: Beck went on and on about Kyle's surviving family, including his two young children. I agree, it is very sad that they will grow up fatherless. On the other hand, Beck seems incapable of conceiving that, but for the mistake of a war which he acknowledges, at least 160 families are without a loved one as well. Perhaps in Glenn Beck's little mind, all of those people were "bad" people. Maybe some were, but I'm sure a fair number of them were "fighting for their country", or their loved ones, or whatever they had in their hearts. I'm sure a fair number of them weren't just blood-thirsty killers bent on taking American lives. I'd love to ask Beck where his concern for those families is. I'd love to understand why the person who took THEIR loved ones from THEM is a hero to Glenn Beck. I'd like for him to explain to THEM why he wants his son to grow up to be like that man.

This is the kind of person Glenn Beck wants his kid to grow up to be.

In my opinion, Ron's tweet was far too generous, given these realities. You people who are "disgusted" with Ron over this need to check your principles. Some things are so important that they mustn't ever be dissembled, lest we appear to give sanction to evil.

I listen to Glenn Beck off and on throughout the day, when I'm in my vehicle. I'm glad to note that he seems to be talking less about God lately. Perhaps he is mad that God didn't give him what he wanted in November. I suspect. Whatever it is, I'm glad. He's a very, VERY poor representative of faithful people. Now, if he would only stop referring to himself as "a libertarian".

Mostly agree here. I heard his unofficial number was 255 kills so by rounding up that number it is fair enough to assume he's probably killed 300 people.

And Glenny Becky is such a tard. I remember last January he had Brad Thor on his show, who's a well known neoconservative thriller writer and they both were criticizing the government's current use of high-tech to spy Americans. Their complaint was they only want the government to spy and police everyone else around the world but not here. Are you serious? You're okay with the government's illegal programs but want to act shell-shocked when they turn these programs on you?

fearthereaperx
02-06-2013, 07:15 PM
If twitter were around on 9/11, Ron Paul would be tweeting and warning about the coming dilution of our civil rights/freedoms. He'd be embroiled in similar controversy for not responding along with the crowd's anger and emotional charge. Ron Paul's wisdom is only offensive if you want it to be.

osan
02-07-2013, 08:26 AM
The negative reactions to his statement are more indicative of the mindsets of the recipients than the sender.

I did not interpret the missive as being directed in any specific way against troops or what they do per se, but as an observation about the results that certain elements of our foreign policy yield.

Glenn Beck went simple on this a couple of days ago. What an ass.

COpatriot
02-07-2013, 10:21 AM
I listened to him say today that he wants his kid to grow up to be like Chris Kyle. I nearly threw up. He went on about what a "good man he was", an icon, a hero, "this generation's 'Audie Murphy'". That this was a grave loss for humanity or something...

Listen, Glenn Beck is a person who has acknowledged that the Iraq war was, at a minimum "a mistake". Granting that, it would seem a fairly simple deduction to conclude, then, that every single human being harmed or killed by that war - American or otherwise - is a victim, thrown into an unjust situation through no fault of their own. Those killed are unjustly dead. Kyle REVELLED in his role in this MISTAKE of a war. He never REGRETTED that the people he killed would still be alive if it were not for the "mistake" (of course it was no 'mistake' but rather willful, but for the sake of argument...) made by the US government.

How could you KILL at least 160 human beings without any regret at all, regardless of the circumstances, but particularly given that so few today, including Glenn Beck, regard that war as anything other than a mistake? What kind of person is that? If it were me, I would probably be suicidal. I can't imagine living with the knowledge that I'd taken at least 160 human lives at all, but particularly over a "mistake". Kyle? He DELIGHTED in it. He - to his dying day, apparently - WISHED that he'd "done more", which is obviously means that he wished he'd KILLED more.

ETA: Beck went on and on about Kyle's surviving family, including his two young children. I agree, it is very sad that they will grow up fatherless. On the other hand, Beck seems incapable of conceiving that, but for the mistake of a war which he acknowledges, at least 160 families are without a loved one as well. Perhaps in Glenn Beck's little mind, all of those people were "bad" people. Maybe some were, but I'm sure a fair number of them were "fighting for their country", or their loved ones, or whatever they had in their hearts. I'm sure a fair number of them weren't just blood-thirsty killers bent on taking American lives. I'd love to ask Beck where his concern for those families is. I'd love to understand why the person who took THEIR loved ones from THEM is a hero to Glenn Beck. I'd like for him to explain to THEM why he wants his son to grow up to be like that man.

This is the kind of person Glenn Beck wants his kid to grow up to be.

In my opinion, Ron's tweet was far too generous, given these realities. You people who are "disgusted" with Ron over this need to check your principles. Some things are so important that they mustn't ever be dissembled, lest we appear to give sanction to evil.

I listen to Glenn Beck off and on throughout the day, when I'm in my vehicle. I'm glad to note that he seems to be talking less about God lately. Perhaps he is mad that God didn't give him what he wanted in November. I suspect. Whatever it is, I'm glad. He's a very, VERY poor representative of faithful people. Now, if he would only stop referring to himself as "a libertarian".

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to A Son of Liberty again.

angelatc
02-07-2013, 11:08 AM
The negative reactions to his statement are more indicative of the mindsets of the recipients than the sender.

I did not interpret the missive as being directed in any specific way against troops or what they do per se, but as an observation about the results that certain elements of our foreign policy yield.

Glenn Beck went simple on this a couple of days ago. What an ass.


You inadvertently nailed the problem when you said "I did not interpret the missive....."

Since when does Ron Paul ever need interpreting? In the past, his messages were only "interpreted" by people who couldn't bear the stone cold truth that accompanies any responsibility. For example, "The CIA said blowback was a major contributing factor in the 9/11 attacks," became "He blames America for 9/11, and "He's a Truther."

Todd
02-07-2013, 11:48 AM
No, you read it right. It was stupid, and it ended badly.

What Ron said was in essence true. Remember that old saying, "Make people laugh when you tell them the truth else they'll kill you"

This was definetlely not the time to be telling people "truth" and nobody was laughing at a funeral. Regardless how you feel about the man. I understand what Ron was saying, but sometimes silence is best. It's all about timing.

Anybody remember Chomsky running his mouth not a day after 9-11 happened saying it was bound to happen?

sailingaway
02-07-2013, 01:50 PM
You inadvertently nailed the problem when you said "I did not interpret the missive....."

Since when does Ron Paul ever need interpreting?

Since when was he confined to 140 characters?

affa
02-07-2013, 03:09 PM
But hey, if you all wish to spin it, defend it, define it, etc that is all well and good. None of this changes the path that most of us were on in our political work. However, I know personally, that I will be backing away from any association with Ron Paul and will be highly unlikely to donate to any organization he has set up in the near future. And I am not alone in my view.


Right... after all this time, this one tweet will make you "back away". Go fly a kite.

angelatc
02-07-2013, 04:03 PM
I usually like your posts, angelac, but you are way over the top on this.

The tweet was on-the-nose. We are in illegal wars to fatten the pockets of the elite; there is nothing good about that. Kyle also admitted to liking his job of murdering people who we were attacking- ON THEIR SOIL. .


I'm over the top? Ron Paul didn't say any of that. That's your interpretation of what you think he probably meant.

angelatc
02-07-2013, 04:03 PM
Since when was he confined to 140 characters?

He wasn't. He chose Twitter - it wasn't forced on him.

angelatc
02-07-2013, 04:06 PM
Right... after all this time, this one tweet will make you "back away". Go fly a kite.

Well, since this is what we call "the thick of it" I don't expect most people here to believe this, but Lou isn't alone. There are a lot of people who are saying the exact same thing.

The message can and should move forward, but once again, tying Paul's name to it is poison.

A Son of Liberty
02-07-2013, 04:11 PM
Tying RON'S name to it has ALWAYS been poison.

If this tweet gave you weak knees, you weren't standing on solid ground to begin with.

cajuncocoa
02-07-2013, 04:19 PM
I've asked a few friends about this tweet over the past couple of days....these are people who hadn't known anything about Chris Kyle before and didn't have a pre-determined negative opinion of Ron Paul, despite not supporting him in either presidential run. I realize this "poll" is completely anecdotal and unscientific; that said, not one person I asked took the tweet as an insult to Kyle. Every one focused on the PTSD part of the tweet and agreed with Ron about it. After I told them more about Chris Kyle, the tweet still didn't spark outrage (but some of Kyle's quotes certainly did!) Most saw the first line as an affirmation of Dr. Paul's antiwar stance.

As I said, not scientific, but it's interesting that people who didn't have a strong opinion about either Ron or Kyle didn't have that same knee-jerk reaction that neocons did.

sailingaway
02-07-2013, 04:20 PM
He wasn't. He chose Twitter - it wasn't forced on him.

He was trying something new. You hold it against him that he didn't wait to tweet until he was perfect at it, assuming it was him. I don't.

sailingaway
02-07-2013, 04:21 PM
The message can and should move forward, but once again, tying Paul's name to it is poison.

The message I want IS Ron's.

cajuncocoa
02-07-2013, 04:23 PM
The message I want IS Ron's.
I owe you a rep.

A Son of Liberty
02-07-2013, 04:30 PM
I owe you a rep.

Covered. ;)

A Son of Liberty
02-07-2013, 04:41 PM
You inadvertently nailed the problem when you said "I did not interpret the missive....."

Since when does Ron Paul ever need interpreting? In the past, his messages were only "interpreted" by people who couldn't bear the stone cold truth that accompanies any responsibility. For example, "The CIA said blowback was a major contributing factor in the 9/11 attacks," became "He blames America for 9/11, and "He's a Truther."


Ron CONSTANTLY needs "interpreting", as your very post points out - people who can't bear the "stone cold truth" are forever misconstruing his words. It is now, and has always been, because they are living in a fantasy land. Regarding blowback and September 11th, he rightly told us that our foreign policy has made us a target; THEY heard him say that he hates America. Similarly, regarding the evils that inevitably follow an unjust war, Ron pointed out... Wait - I want this to stand all by itself:

IF IT HADN'T BEEN FOR AMERICA'S IMPERIALISTIC, IMMORAL WARS OF CHOICE, CHRIS KYLE WOULD STILL BE ALIVE TODAY. LIVE BY THE SWORD, DIE BY THE SWORD. This, by the way, is a fate that Americans have chosen for themselves. So, be very wary in standing against what Ron had to say.

Of course, all the rabid jingoists heard was "OMG, RON PAUL HATEZ TEH TROOPZ!!11!"

Ron's only offense is in expecting too much of the American people. Of course, Ron has always had too high a regard for you people. That is what makes him such a decent man.

affa
02-08-2013, 05:40 PM
Well, since this is what we call "the thick of it" I don't expect most people here to believe this, but Lou isn't alone. There are a lot of people who are saying the exact same thing.


and i call bullshit on the lot of them.

EDITED TO ADD:
every single time Ron Paul speaks, shows his face, or looks at someone funny, someone here is posting about how now they're going to have to walk away from him. bullshit. anyone still here at this point is either in it for the long haul or never was. 140 characters isn't going to suddenly push someone away that wasn't already out the door - especially when we're talking about someone as outspoken as Ron Paul.

Ender
02-08-2013, 07:15 PM
I'm over the top? Ron Paul didn't say any of that. That's your interpretation of what you think he probably meant.

What- are you a kindergartner? You didn't know that we were in illegal wars? That Kyle enjoyed killing?

RP didn't have to say those things because people with any sense already know it.

What he said was TRUTH- painful sometimes but that's why most of us trust Ron Paul.