Ron Paul Twitter Account

[BlackJack]

I have to agree with helmuth_hubener. Anyone who thinks Ron doesn't have a mean side must have missed how he treated people like Santorum. Righteous anger is a natural human emotion. Chris Kyle is not worth my pity. If I lived near a man that so callously killed 150 people, I would not trust that man.

Actually close to 300 or maybe even more. 150 confirmed.

But yes I'd not only be afraid, but I'd move away from such a sick man (and make sure to have my own weapon).

[Danke]

Actually close to 300 or maybe even more. 150 confirmed.

But yes I'd not only be afraid, but I'd move away from such a sick man (and make sure to have my own weapon).

With that skill, he could have been an ally. (for the right price?)

[BlackJack]

What I find disturbing was that this man has introduced his son to guns at the ripe age of 2 yrs old. I don't see any valid reason for teaching a kid how to shoot unless for self-defense purposes only, along with strict teachings of weapons and ethics.

And Glennward Becky can lick balls. Remember his pathetic statements about the 9/11 victim's families?

[A Son of Liberty]

You'd better figure out how to, because otherwise you are going to drive away all the military men and women who supported Ron Paul.

I'm hoping you're not suggesting that Ron's tweet is going to drive away the military men and women who supported him as well? Because those folks support Ron because of his position on foreign policy, and this whole affair was by no means a swipe at them, and does nothing to reveal something new about his views.

In fact, it would seem that Rand should be careful with his foreign policy stance if he wants to bring those folks along.

[JohnM]

Having fallen somewhat out of the political loop in the months after the campaign ended, I just heard about this Twitter controversy earlier tonight, and have been sifting this thread since. Whether Ron Paul wrote the Twitter comment or not, I am not offended by it, do not consider it to constitute an act of "gloating" or "dancing on a dead man's grave," and am pleased to see the honorable words of Christ brought forward to denounce militarism. That said, it is clear that the post was highly imprudent as a public statement; it is open to misinterpretation as a vindictive personal attack on a widely-mourned murder victim, and comes across to many as callous and insensitive. This affair is thus on the whole unprofitable to us. However, I also think those suggesting that this Twitter-comment controversy will somehow undo the liberty movement or destroy Ron Paul's legacy are engaged in a bout of hysterical overreaction to what will, in the long run, prove a fairly minor footnote in the history of both.

That (especially, but not only, the words I've put in bold) sums up my position. (And I am assuming that the Tweet was his, though we may never know for certain.)

Personally, I have no problem with what Dr. Paul meant. I am sure that he didn't intend to be callous or to sound callous. But he did. Many people have observed that he has never been good at sound bites. It looks like this is a good example.

I wrote a post a few months ago (here) in which I argued that in many ways Ron Paul is a prophet rather than a politician. I think that this episode confirms that. He didn't apologize, he didn't retract, he didn't put out a press statement to explain, or grant an interview. He just issued a fuller statement on Facebook. No other politician would do that - but Ron Paul isn't really a politician, and he does things his way.

Politically, I think that it was very unfortunate. I understand what Angela and KingNothing etc. are saying. I can understand how upset they are. I find it very sad that Angela is going to remove her Ron Paul bumper sticker. I can understand that she feels that it is going to make it harder for Ron Paul Republicans to advance the cause of liberty within the Republican Party. She is probably right.


HOWEVER . . . I'm hoping that this will soon be forgotten, and the damage will turn out to be minimal.


I'm also hoping that Christians will becoming better at listening to Jesus and following him.

Any maybe even that some non-Christians might start listening to Jesus and following him.

[PierzStyx]

You'd better figure out how to, because otherwise you are going to drive away all the military men and women who supported Ron Paul.

Maybe. Maybe not. I think those who really value the message of liberty will not care one jt about the imperfections of Ron Paul or the aides he gives access to on his Twitter feed. The real supporters will not leave the movement even if one of the messengers makes a verbal faux pas.

[cajuncocoa]

I have to agree with helmuth_hubener. Anyone who thinks Ron doesn't have a mean side must have missed how he treated people like Santorum. Righteous anger is a natural human emotion. Chris Kyle is not worth my pity. If I lived near a man that so callously killed 150 people, I would not trust that man.

An argument could be made to the fact that Santorum provoked Ron's anger. But I get your point, and agree: everyone has emotions, and buttons that can be pushed.

[LibertyEagle]

I'm hoping you're not suggesting that Ron's tweet is going to drive away the military men and women who supported him as well? Because those folks support Ron because of his position on foreign policy, and this whole affair was by no means a swipe at them, and does nothing to reveal something new about his views.

I think it is quite possible that some will be driven away, yes. I hope not. I guess we will see.