# Start Here > Ron Paul Forum >  Ron Paul Twitter Account

## supermario21

Is it Ron actually running this? Because this last tweet is pretty offensive...



 Follow

Ron PaulVerified
‏@RonPaul
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

----------


## sailingaway

That is really odd.

The 'lives by the sword dies by the sword' seems very un-Ron-ish, under the circumstances, but the frustration at taking a guy with PTSD to a firing range could be a doctor thing. 

I'm thinking not.

He seems to have some people who insert leftist cultural stuff into his things (read the immigration chapter in Liberty Defined, and I am not talking about the policy position, but they 'they have a better work standard' gratuitous slap in the face stuff') I don't like leftist red meat any more than rightist red meat, and Ron doesn't typically use ANY.  So, I don't know.

----------


## supermario21

> That is really odd.
> 
> The 'lives by the sword dies by the sword' seems very un-Ron-ish, under the circumstances, but the frustration at taking a guy with PTSD to a firing range could be a doctor thing. 
> 
> I'm thinking not.
> 
> He seems to have some people who insert leftist cultural stuff into his things (read the immigration chapter in Liberty Defined, and I am not talking about the policy position, but they 'they have a better work standard' gratuitous slap in the face stuff') I don't like leftist red meat any more than rightist red meat, and Ron doesn't typically use ANY.  So, I don't know.


It just worries me because this guy is regarded highly by most people in this country (those that have heard about him) and having someone like Ron's account cut him down and almost treat the death like a joke does real damage to our movement. I know lots of people don't like Rand because he tries to be overly polished sometimes but it's stuff like this which does more harm than good. If you're going to tweet libertarian red meat, don't do it over a navy SEAL's dead body.

----------


## angelatc

BY all means, let's have this person run RonPaul.com, since he's doing such a bang up job on Facebook and Twitter. 

I think the PTSD line came from here, not Ron Paul himself.

----------


## sailingaway

The left and right are pretty detached from what reactions their red meat inspires on the other side.  And from independents for that matter.

I agree.  Not sure what to do about it.

I think only his supporters are following him now, and I won't retweet that, if you won't...

----------


## NOVALibertarian

If this is indeed Ron behind this tweet (and his facebook posts), I think it's safe to say that his first personal foray into social media hasn't been top-notch.

If it isn't Ron, the person who tweeted this shouldn't be allowed access to the account again.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

You would think that by now Ron would require approval of anything that goes out bearing his name.

----------


## sailingaway

> You would think that by now Ron would require approval of anything that goes out bearing his name.


because he's into central management.

I'll never expect that.  I would prefer he find someone trustworthy before he trusts them, however.

..sigh... If I tweet back my followers will just be curious and check out Ron's tweet.  I hadn't seen it.

----------


## supermario21

The backlash is already all over twitter and the conservative blogosphere. Honestly I'd like to see Rand repudiate the comments, because you know this will get the Rand-haters out in force.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I think only his supporters are following him now, and I won't retweet that, if you won't...


Doesn't appear to be just his supporters based on the comments.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> That is really odd.
> 
> The 'lives by the sword dies by the sword' seems very un-Ron-ish, under the circumstances, but the frustration at taking a guy with PTSD to a firing range could be a doctor thing. 
> 
> I'm thinking not.
> 
> He seems to have some people who insert leftist cultural stuff into his things (read the immigration chapter in Liberty Defined, and I am not talking about the policy position, but they 'they have a better work standard' gratuitous slap in the face stuff') I don't like leftist red meat any more than rightist red meat, and Ron doesn't typically use ANY.  So, I don't know.


"He who lives by the sword dies by the sword" has been a theme at LRC since Kyle's death, and Ron very frequently uses rhetoric that appears on LRC before a statement. It also works in reverse; oftentimes LRC uses rhetoric Ron used in an interview or statement.

----------


## The Gold Standard

I think it's someone Ron trusts (and therefore doesn't keep an eye on) trying to discredit Ron and make Rand the face of the "liberty movement".

----------


## angelatc

> If this is indeed Ron behind this tweet (and his facebook posts), I think it's safe to say that his first personal foray into social media hasn't been top-notch.
> 
> If it isn't Ron, the person who tweeted this shouldn't be allowed access to the account again.


I can almost guarantee you that it isn't Ron.  He never gets involved in these one-of situation discussions.  If he was on a talk show, I think he would immediately switch to a generalization, something like "well I don't know that much about it, but i think the shooter was a veteran with ptsd.  we need to look at our foreign policy and what it is doing to our soldiers. We're losing more of them to suicide than combat."

----------


## sailingaway

> Doesn't appear to be just his supporters based on the comments.


 You mean the guy whose top tweet right now is this one to McCain?

Joshua Treviño ‏@jstrevino

Goodness, this John McCain chap needs to learn to address crazed, murderous, anti-Semitic fanatics with proper decorum. Tut tut, sir.

Yeah, he seems to want to smear Ron.

but I agree Ron should pick someone better.  I'm still up for a chip in to send him a singing messenger bearing resumes.....

----------


## supermario21

Apparently the account onepoliceplazza tweeted the exact same thing before "Ron" did. And that account has now been suspended...this could get ugly.

----------


## sailingaway

> I can almost guarantee you that it isn't Ron.  He never gets involved in these one-of situation discussions.  If he was on a talk show, I think he would immediately switch to a generalization, something like "well I don't know that much about it, but i think the shooter was a veteran with ptsd.  we need to look at our foreign policy and what it is doing to our soldiers. We're losing more of them to suicide than combat."


Yes, that does sound more like Ron.

----------


## itshappening

The guy is a government killer and mass murderer, 160 kills and bragged about it. 

There is nothing wrong with Ron's tweet.  He had it coming.

If that offends people so be it.

----------


## supermario21

Ron Paul is now trending...not good.

----------


## supermario21

Michelle Malkin ‏@michellemalkin
He in infected with malware. RT @TwitchyTeam Disgusting: Ron Paul attacks murder victim, war hero Chris Kyle http://bit.ly/UohsPp 


That could be a defense of him?

----------


## sailingaway

> "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword" has been a theme at LRC since Kyle's death, and Ron very frequently uses rhetoric that appears on LRC before a statement. It also works in reverse; oftentimes LRC uses rhetoric Ron used in an interview or statement.


I do think some from there may be in charge of his media now, which has a reverse issue to some during the campaign. He needs someone who DOESN'T want to gin up excitement by throwing red meat, in the language of 'any' side, but suggest solutions.  In other words, someone like he is himself, to be his voice.

----------


## jmhudak17

> The guy is a government killer and mass murderer, 160 kills and bragged about it. 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with Ron's tweet.  He had it coming.
> 
> If that offends people so be it.



Completely agree.

----------


## sailingaway

> Michelle Malkin ‏@michellemalkin
> He in infected with malware. RT @TwitchyTeam Disgusting: Ron Paul attacks murder victim, war hero Chris Kyle http://bit.ly/UohsPp 
> 
> 
> That could be a defense of him?


I think she will wait and see, not that she loves him but won't want to get involved.  It really DOESN'T sound like him. Twitchy Team on the other hand is trying to stir up trouble

----------


## sailingaway

> Ron Paul is now trending...not good.


Not sure.  If they care that much hopefully his clarification will trend too. Or he will get someone new to handle his account.  Either would be good.

----------


## itshappening

The only problem with Ron Paul "uncensored" is it may hurt Rand's activities but there is nothing wrong with the tweet.

This man was a government killer, he was not a hero.  It exposes how stupid conservatives are that they think he's a hero.

----------


## angelatc

> I think she will wait and see, not that she loves him but won't want to get involved.  It really DOESN'T sound like him. Twitchy Team on the other hand is trying to stir up trouble


Another ghostwriter scandal.  Imagine that!

Why on earth does he have people tweeting things in his name?

----------


## Matt Collins

It wasn't me!

----------


## supermario21

Are all soldiers government killers then? I didn't know that to be non-interventionist you had to hate our troops.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Are all soldiers government killers then? I didn't know that to be non-interventionist you had to hate our troops.


If said soldier killed someone as a member of an occupying/invading force, yes. Wearing a uniform doesn't change the rules.

----------


## sailingaway

If you click into the profiles of those calling Ron out there is a definite similarity of issues on their timelines.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Are all soldiers government killers then? I didn't know that to be non-interventionist you had to hate our troops.


Ancaps tend to use that language. That said, why in the world would Ron's account be wasting a post on this when there's way more crucial things to get trending.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> If you click into the profiles of those calling Ron out there is a definite similarity of issues on their timelines.


They all praise mass murderers like Chris Kyle as heroes?

----------


## sailingaway

I was going to tweet him this thread, but if people feel the need to call soldiers government killers, perhaps I had best not.

----------


## sailingaway

> They all praise mass murderers like Chris Kyle as heroes?


Most, at least, seem to be coming from the angle that because Ron puts US foreign policy and economics above universal support for Israel he is disgusting.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

The bottom line is Ron is ultimately responsible for what goes out under his name and for the record, he or whomever runs his social sites is freaking pathetic at it. Such a waste to have the followers he does and blow air on retarded topics most of the time.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Most, at least, seem to be coming from the angle that because Ron puts US foreign policy and economics above universal support for Israel he is disgusting.


That's their problem, we shouldn't bend to their will. Whoever tweeted this in Ron's name (guess there's a small chance Ron himself tweeted it, however small that is) is correct; if it ruffles feathers, so be it. Perhaps Ron will get some time in an interview to talk about the suicide rate of soldiers coming home from wars.

----------


## sailingaway

Well, at this point it has gotten to the 2d amendment defenders who of all people should adore Ron, and they are just becoming a chorus.

Ron needs someone running his media who is actually THOUGHTFUL about whether they are being true to his voice.

----------


## sailingaway

> The bottom line is Ron is ultimately responsible for what goes out under his name and for the record, he or whomever runs his social sites is freaking pathetic at it. Such a waste to have the followers he does and blow air on retarded topics most of the time.


most of the time?

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> most of the time?


When it happens far too often they stand out and scour the rest.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/131786.html

----------


## sailingaway

I think he himself is very clear and consistent, so consistent that when something is clarified it is obvious either that is what was intended (were he just struggling with 140 characters) or that it is someone else and doesn't reflect his views.  I agree with angelatc on his positions.  It would be nice if the most consistent Congressman I've ever learned of had social media staff who respected and conformed to it, though.

----------


## sailingaway

> http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/131786.html


If Lew his handling his social media, that could be a real problem.

I'm going to send him an email.

----------


## itshappening

> If said soldier killed someone as a member of an occupying/invading force, yes. Wearing a uniform doesn't change the rules.


"just following orders" doesn't excuse him either... That was established at the Nuremberg trials where many Nazi's were hung.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> "just following orders" doesn't excuse him either... That was established at the Nuremberg trials where many Nazi's were hung.


Agreed 100%. Excellent point.

----------


## itshappening

Drudge has linked this now to stir some trouble.  No doubt this will cause a storm..

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> If Lew his handling his social media, that could be a real problem.
> 
> I'm going to send him an email.


Could also just be Ron coming home, as it were. Ron's foreign policy adviser for the past decade is an LRC blogger and contributor, he's had chiefs of staff and legislative directors who were/are also LRC guys. I don't think Lew himself is handling Ron's social media, but it may be an LRC contributor.

----------


## sailingaway

> Could also just be Ron coming home, as it were. Ron's foreign policy adviser for the past decade is an LRC blogger and contributor, he's had chiefs of staff and legislative directors who were/are also LRC guys. I don't think Lew himself is handling Ron's social media, but it may be an LRC contributor.


Not a chance, unless it is so twisted by his first forey into twitter and its 140 character limits that he doesn't get the impacts.  Ron is VERY sympathetic to the soldiers forced into these wars by economics or false promises of what they would be doing, or just because they were too young to evaluate.  His 'let the British send _their_ kids to die, then' to Piers Morgan was heartfelt.

----------


## KingNothing

> You would think that by now Ron would require approval of anything that goes out bearing his name.


You'd think that.  I've no idea how he could be so careless with this.  He KNOWS that words matter.

----------


## jmhudak17

> "just following orders" doesn't excuse him either... That was established at the Nuremberg trials where many Nazi's were hung.


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

----------


## sailingaway

> The backlash is already all over twitter and the conservative blogosphere. Honestly I'd like to see Rand repudiate the comments, because you know this will get the Rand-haters out in force.

----------


## KingNothing

> Could also just be Ron coming home, as it were. Ron's foreign policy adviser for the past decade is an LRC blogger and contributor, he's had chiefs of staff and legislative directors who were/are also LRC guys. I don't think Lew himself is handling Ron's social media, but it may be an LRC contributor.



Um.  No.  "My heart weeps for this young men and women," is what Ron said for our soldiers who bare physical and mental wounds thanks to our senseless foreign policy.  He would never tweet anything like this, personally.

----------


## phill4paul

> Drudge has linked this now to stir some trouble.  No doubt this will cause a storm..


  Intended in IMHO. This was not Ron. If Drudge has already linked this then it is a set up.

----------


## jj-

I follow Ron Paul on facebook and noticed weird posts, of an idiotic quality, and clearly not what Ron would post, I think starting two weeks ago. The new guy managing this social networks is clearly an idiot.

----------


## McChronagle

lew just shared this tweet on his fb

----------


## fr33

Whoever is behind this $#@! needs to pick battles more wisely. I doubt Ron has much security any more and dead mercenaries have a lot of mercenary friends.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Another ghostwriter scandal.  Imagine that!
> 
> Why on earth does he have people tweeting things in his name?


It is what someone in his position is supposed to do.

----------


## KingNothing

> Drudge has linked this now to stir some trouble.  No doubt this will cause a storm..




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

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Um.  No.  "My heart weeps for this young men and women," is what Ron said for our soldiers who bare physical and mental wounds thanks to our senseless foreign policy.  He would never tweet anything like this, personally.


Ron would hardly express sympathy for a thug like Chris Kyle. He'd likely express sorrow for the PTSD suffering soldier who shot him, though.

----------


## July

Well, I have to say I agree with the sentiment though, that idolizing what he did, the way people were at the time, was indefensible. I think in a time of war, you know, you expect solemn regret. The media really disgusted me, the way they were treating war kills as if it were a sport or video game. And it was disturbing to hear people I knew then starting to talk about it with the same emotional detachment that they would talk about a football player. It's not the first time the media has exploited a deceased or emotionally vulnerable solider, and it won't be the last. The whole thing is really sad.

I think it's odd though, for Ron (if that truly was him) to call out a particular person like that rather than the idea/situation itself. I don't think he wrote it.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> lew just shared this tweet on his fb


He shares nearly every blog entry an LRC contributor uploads to LRC.

----------


## Cowlesy

Seriously, a ridiculous tweet for someone to post using Ron's account.  

Which ever one of you posted it (and I am sure you're reading this to see the blowback as we know most of you also lurk the forum), you need to tweet a clarification.

----------


## phill4paul

> Seriously, a ridiculous tweet for someone to post using Ron's account.  
> 
> *Which ever one of you posted it* (and I am sure you're reading this to see the blowback as we know most of you also lurk the forum), you need to tweet a clarification.


  THIS ^^^^^

  I have no doubt that the tweeter is a member of these forums.

----------


## qh4dotcom

> The guy is a government killer and mass murderer, 160 kills and bragged about it. 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with Ron's tweet.  He had it coming.
> 
> If that offends people so be it.


Well said

----------


## LibertyEagle

Oh sheesh, there is no way this came from Ron Paul himself.  It's better not to put anything out on social media, than to have an idiot send out this kind of stuff.

----------


## green73

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


Those are the words of Jesus Christ.

----------


## green73

> He shares nearly every blog entry an LRC contributor uploads to LRC.


Not true at all.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Those are the words of Jesus Christ.


Doug Wead called Jesus a cop out multiple times in his interview with Wenzel. Noticing a trend?

----------


## phill4paul

> Oh sheesh, there is no way this came from Ron Paul himself.  It's better not to put anything out on social media, than to have an idiot send out this kind of stuff.


  We haven't agreed on much of anything lately. This I do agree with.

----------


## seyferjm

True or not, it is a very, very dumb thing to tweet out. It's making headlines on all the "conservative" blog sites right now.I don't think Ron did it, but whoever did needs to step forward.

----------


## green73

> Could also just be Ron coming home, as it were. Ron's foreign policy adviser for the past decade is an LRC blogger and contributor, he's had chiefs of staff and legislative directors who were/are also LRC guys. I don't think Lew himself is handling Ron's social media, but it may be an LRC contributor.


I think it's a kid. No LRC contributor spells it "World Pease".

----------


## July

It's not just this, there's been weird spelling mistakes and typos lately. People are going to start saying Ron is "going senile" or something, and it just makes him look bad....

----------


## jmhudak17

The Washington Times just tweeted this: "Ron #Paul says that the U.S. Navy Iraq War vet deserved to be killed as retribution for his life as a sniper".  Obviously that's not what he said.

----------


## Cowlesy

> It's not just this, there's been weird spelling mistakes and typos lately. People are going to start saying Ron is "going senile" or something, and it just makes him look bad....


Yes, I agree.  The 'Ron Paul media sphere" at times seems extremely poorly managed.  I am sure that may offend some, but it's a necessary criticism.  When things like this go on, a review needs to be completed so that there are controls in place on access and rules as to content to be pushed out.  Even if the tweet's content has merit, its interpretation by a vast swath of the public will provoke a visceral, negative reaction.

Alternatively, if Ron wants to go LewRockwell'style, and just go heavy anti-war, then so be it.  But you'll lose a large part of a growing following, and galvanize your enemies.


EDIT: See Hudak's post above for a visceral reaction from the Washington Times.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> It's not just this, there's been weird spelling mistakes and typos lately. People are going to start saying Ron is "going senile" or something, and it just makes him look bad....


Once again, a classic example of the TMI - one step forward, two steps back routine. Go figure that it's this bat$#@! statement that is trending now. Iconoclasm doesn't work primarily for PR reasons.

----------


## Cowlesy

The Tweet drudge posted, is timestamped 5:05PM 2/4/13.

wtf?

----------


## Carlybee

If it wasn't him I'm sure he will clarify it.  There is some merit to wondering if going to a shooting range is a treatment for ptsd...would depend on severity, etc.  I mean if the guy has hallucinations that he's still in combat..might not be too cool to place him in a shooting situation. Just saying..we don't know all the details.  That being said I have read that Kyle took out women and children when he was a sniper.  Would like to hear the justification for that.  And given that it was done during a trumped up war to begin with makes me want to learn more about it.  I don't consider the Iraq war a war for America's freedom.  Sue me.

----------


## KingNothing

> The Tweet drudge posted, is timestamped 5:05PM 2/4/13.
> 
> wtf?



Illuminati.

Inside job.

Follow the money!

----------


## The Gold Standard

I completely agree with the tweet, but I know Ron Paul wouldn't tweet it, and I know many of his closest colleagues have abandoned his message of liberty for Rand Paul's message and want to break that group away from Ron's original supporters. Now they can use Rand to swat us away and run into the embrace of Kristol and Krauthammer and company.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> The Washington Times just tweeted this: "Ron #Paul says that the U.S. Navy Iraq War vet deserved to be killed as retribution for his life as a sniper".  Obviously that's not what he said.


Funny that the words of Jesus Christ, allegedly the Savior of many of those calling this an outrage, aggravate these "Christian" conservatives. It's telling that they love war and the state as god more than their alleged Savior.

----------


## supermario21

> The Tweet drudge posted, is timestamped 5:05PM 2/4/13.
> 
> wtf?


GMT

----------


## fr33

> The Tweet drudge posted, is timestamped 5:05PM 2/4/13.
> 
> wtf?


Maybe whoever from drudge posted it is overseas.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Yes, I agree.  The 'Ron Paul media sphere" at times seems extremely poorly managed.  I am sure that may offend some, but it's a necessary criticism.  When things like this go on, a review needs to be completed so that there are controls in place on access and rules as to content to be pushed out.  Even if the tweet's content has merit, its interpretation by a vast swath of the public will provoke a visceral, negative reaction.
> 
> Alternatively, if Ron wants to go LewRockwell'style, and just go heavy anti-war, then so be it.  But you'll lose a large part of a growing following, and galvanize your enemies.
> 
> 
> EDIT: See Hudak's post above for a visceral reaction from the Washington Times.


I wholeheartedly agree!!

----------


## KingNothing

> Funny that the words of Jesus Christ, allegedly the Savior of many of those calling this an outrage, aggravate these "Christian" conservatives. It's telling that they love war and the state as god more than their alleged Savior.


You know what the idiot running Ron's twitter account could have said?  Any other line attributed to Jesus.  Anything else.  Absolutely anything would have been better than that line in this instance.  Just pathetic.

----------


## phill4paul

> The Tweet drudge posted, is timestamped 5:05PM 2/4/13.
> 
> wtf?


  There is certainly villainy afoot. To what end?

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> I completely agree with the tweet, but I know Ron Paul wouldn't tweet it, and I know many of his closest colleagues have abandoned his message of liberty for Rand Paul's message and want to break that group away from Ron's original supporters. Now they can use Rand to swat us away and run into the embrace of Kristol and Krauthammer and company.


The liberty message hasn't been abandoned, it's been repackaged for consumption a wider audience. I agree, this statement really puts Ron out on the fringe of the fringe and serves to make Rand look like the breath of fresh air.

----------


## TruthisTreason

This really upset me! Fire the staffer already!

----------


## JulioForPaul

There is just no way Ron Paul actually tweeted this.  But he has to come out NOW and say who controls his twitter account.

----------


## liveandletlive

Ron needs to disavow this tweet or own up/explain himself. this is getting ridiculous.

----------


## Valli6

*Look at the time on the tweet!  
This doesn't get tweeted until 5:05 PM!*

Here on the east coast it's just past 2:00 PM!

Look:
http://twitchy.com/2013/02/04/disgus...mpaign=twitter
or
http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/04/ro...s-by-the-sword

Am I missing something - or is everybody els? (Not a tweeter.)

----------


## The Gold Standard

> The liberty message hasn't been abandoned, it's been repackaged for consumption a wider audience.


Maybe Rand's goal is liberty, but his message is distinctly not about liberty.

----------


## phill4paul

> There is just no way Ron Paul actually tweeted this.  But he has to come out NOW and say who controls his twitter account.


  THIS^^^. NOW.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Maybe Rand's goal is liberty, but his message is distinctly not about liberty.


Yeah it is.

----------


## Cowlesy

> GMT


Ahh that makes sense.  I keep thinking being on the east coast that I am the center of the universe. :P

----------


## sailingaway

I emailed the guy at Lew Rockwell's site who posted it and attached this thread to show it isn't just 'warmongers' who are disgusted at the language, so smile, you MAY be part of exhibit A...

----------


## sailingaway

> Yes, I agree.  *The 'Ron Paul media sphere" at times seems extremely poorly managed.*  I am sure that may offend some, but it's a necessary criticism.  When things like this go on, a review needs to be completed so that there are controls in place on access and rules as to content to be pushed out.  Even if the tweet's content has merit, its interpretation by a vast swath of the public will provoke a visceral, negative reaction.
> 
> Alternatively, if Ron wants to go LewRockwell'style, and just go heavy anti-war, then so be it.  But you'll lose a large part of a growing following, and galvanize your enemies.
> 
> 
> EDIT: See Hudak's post above for a visceral reaction from the Washington Times.


re bolded, I don't think anyone could disagree with you there, and moving from 'too red meat' on the right hand side to 'too red meat' on the left isn't better.  The reason the message, and Ron 'bring people together' is he stays out of playground taunting fights and speaks to deeper issues, with logic and compassion.

--
edit, I forgot to put in my email, so I will here, that Ron's top three donor categories were in the Airforce Army and Navy.  does the author of the Rockwell post think those donors are warmongers?  I'm pretty sure they'd be unhappy with this tweet, as we are.

----------


## phill4paul

Ron Paul needs a rebuttal, and quick, so that it can be countered.

----------


## itshappening

> Once again, a classic example of the TMI - one step forward, two steps back routine. Go figure that it's this bat$#@! statement that is trending now. Iconoclasm doesn't work primarily for PR reasons.


Iconoclasm is what elevated Ron Paul from an obscure congressman to national attention and look, he's still making headlines out of congress.  Name me another former congressman who does ?

Say what you will, RP knows how to get headlines and he knows what he's doing.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> I emailed the guy at Lew Rockwell's site who posted it and attached this thread to show it isn't just 'warmongers' who are disgusted at the language, so smile, you MAY be part of exhibit A...


Help me understand. Chris Kyle confirmed killed over 150 people, some of them women and children. He bragged about it in his book and in national TV interviews, called them savages, and wishes he could have killed more. He even mocked the idea that he would be judged by God for his actions. And we're expressing outrage because something went out under Ron Paul's name quoting the words of Jesus Christ?

Something is seriously awry here, and it's not the quoted words of Jesus Christ.

----------


## Cowlesy

> re bolded, I don't think anyone could disagree with you there, and moving from 'too red meat' on the right hand side to 'too red meat' on the left isn't better.  The reason the message, and Ron 'bring people together' is he stays out of playground taunting fights and speaks to deeper issues, with logic and compassion.


But also, was Ron personally acquainted with the guy?  Has a police report been released that detailed exactly what happened?  It's just very uncharacteristic of him to level some snark (in respect to treating PTSD at a gun range) while holding up the Bible to something that happened this weekend.

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

hXXp://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/02/04/ron-paul-on-murdered-navy-seal-he-pretty-much-deserved-it-n1504825




> *Ron Paul On Murdered Navy Seal: He Pretty Much Deserved It* 
> 
>  
> 
> *Feb 04,  2013 01:50 PM EST*
>      Former Rep. Ron Paul apparently isn't quite ready to leave the  spotlight. Today on his Twitter feed, the failed presidential candidate  decided to opine on the recent murder of Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, who was  helping a fellow soldier recover from PTSD at the time he was killed.
>        Kyle was known as the "deadliest" sniper and holds the record for the  most sniper kills of terrorists in U.S. history. Kyle was a hero and a  family man who dedicated his post-military life to helping soldiers recovering from war.  I spoke to him on the phone a year ago when his best selling book  "American Sniper" came out and he was nothing but a gentleman.              Kyle, 38, had left the Navy in 2009 after four tours of duty in Iraq,  where he earned a reputation as one of the military's most lethal  snipers. But he quickly found a way to maintain contact with his fellow  veterans and pass on what had helped him work through his own struggles.  By late 2011, he filed the paperwork to establish the nonprofit FITCO  Cares, which received its nonprofit status the following spring, said  FITCO director Travis Cox.
> 
>         The work with veterans through FITCO was Kyle's passion, Cox said.
> ...

----------


## Lightweis

Love the comment! Speak the Truth doctor Paul

----------


## sailingaway

> Help me understand. Chris Kyle confirmed killed over 150 people, some of them women and children. He bragged about it in his book and in national TV interviews, called them savages, and wishes he could have killed more. And we're expressing outrage because something went out under Ron Paul's name quoting the words of Jesus Christ?
> 
> Something is seriously awry here, and it's not the quoted words of Jesus Christ.


No, it is red meat. That isn't the issue, and this is a currently sensitive topic about a guy who just died and is considered to be a hero (I don't know him particularly, but do know he was fighting against gun control, and that is how his name was otherwise in the news.) People were already riled up on him and to try to 'score points' by slamming him to no purpose isn't something Ron would do.

I see about a 3% chance that Ron might have written it meaning some complex, much longer statement and didn't realize what the cut to 140 digits version would come across as.  But its immediate posting on Rockwell's site DOES lead me to believe someone there wrote it.  THEY sling red meat, and shouldn't involve Ron in it when they do.

It doesn't matter if you think it is correct or not, it is NOT Ron Paul and it is Ron Paul's account an he should be able to pick his own fights not gratuitously appear to smear someone whose family is currently mourning their death.

----------


## KingNothing

> This really upset me! Fire the staffer already!


Same.  It's pathetic and stupid and should not be tolerated.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> THIS^^^. NOW.


I would hope it is not one of his grandchildren or something. There's been a lot of weird FB posts and someone mentioned that they believe Ron's grandson handles it. A lot of immaturity, grammatical errors, spelling typos, fragments of thoughts, and now this? Hell, he should just delete his accounts if it's going to be this much of a problem. I agree with previous posters as well that Ron Paul might use this shooting as a means to talk about what is never talked about. Veteran suicide rates and the often unseen problems associated with PTSD. But that's about it. All the bull$#@! with the newsletters, which to this day I still have to refute, should have taught him a thing or two about letting other people state their thoughts under your name.

----------


## ican'tvote

This tweet basically translates to 'he had it coming'. Wether or not he did have it coming is besides the point. It's not something Ron would say.
Whoever did this should be ashamed of themselves.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> No, it is red meat. That isn't the issue, and this is a currently sensitive topic about a guy who just died and is considered to be a hero (I don't know him particularly, but do know he was fighting against gun control, and that is how his name was otherwise in the news.) People were already riled up on him and to try to 'score points' by slamming him to no purpose isn't something Ron would do.
> 
> I see about a 3% chance that Ron might have written it meaning some complex, much longer statement and didn't realize what the cut to 140 digits version would come across as.  But its immediate posting on Rockwell's site DOES lead me to believe someone there wrote it.  THEY sling red meat, and shouldn't involve Ron in it when they do.
> 
> It doesn't matter if you think it is correct or not, it is NOT Ron Paul and it is Ron Paul's account an he should be able to pick his own fights not gratuitously smear someone whose family is currently mourning their death.


How do we know Ron didn't express this to the person handling his account? Would many have believed Ron called the conditions in the West Bank a concentration camp if it had only appeared in print, and not in a TV interview?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> This really upset me! Fire the staffer already!


I wonder how many people will get the sarcasm from this post.

----------


## Carlybee

Maybe Jesse Ventura did it

----------


## sailingaway

> hXXp://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/02/04/ron-paul-on-murdered-navy-seal-he-pretty-much-deserved-it-n1504825


putting in two live links after breaking the first one isn't helpful

----------


## sailingaway

> How do we know Ron didn't express this to the person handling his account? Would many have believed Ron called the conditions in the West Bank a concentration camp if it had only appeared in print, and not in a TV interview?


Ron wouldn't have said it like this. If he were to say anything remotely like the live and die by the sword it would have been regretful and likely a comment on someone else's discussion.  He CARES about people.  even if he said something privately, which someone is twisting, he wouldn't say it publicly while a family is mourning.

Ron ALWAYS speaks out against getting into 'the personalities'.

----------


## Lightweis

Not sure why you guys are offended? The man killed 160 people. He deserved it

----------


## KingNothing

> Ron wouldn't have said it like this. If he were to say anything remotely like the live and die by the sword it would have been regretful and likely a comment on someone else's discussion.  He CARES about people.  even if he said something privately, which someone is twisting, he wouldn't say it publicly while a family is mourning.
> 
> Ron ALWAYS speaks out against getting into 'the personalities'.



Exactly.  He cares about ideas, not people.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> This tweet basically translates to 'he had it coming'. Wether or not he did have it coming is besides the point. It's not something Ron would say.
> Whoever did this should be ashamed of themselves.


I would imagine they are proud of themselves. Seems to me that they are purposely trying to tarnish Ron Paul's word. Something of a Judas and I'm not even sure he is aware. (of what this person has been saying under his name)

----------


## Lightweis

And Ron Paul posts his own tweets. Many people know that

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Ron wouldn't have said it like this. If anything it would have been regretful and likely a comment on someone else's discussion.  He CARES about people.


I really doubt Ron would express sympathy for someone like Chris Kyle. Chris Kyle confirmed killed over 150 people, some of them women and children. He bragged about it in his book and in national TV interviews, called them savages, and wishes he could have killed more. He even mocked the idea that he would be judged by God for his actions.

Ron is often a saintly figure, and it is an admirable trait, but I sincerely doubt his affection and sympathy lies with thugs who revel in their killing.

----------


## phill4paul

If this is a marketing ploy it is the worst I have seen. I could see what might be intended.

  1) Get's Ron in media to discuss foreign intervention and PTSD.
  2) Put's to rest the 'newsletter' issue by showing that he doesn't keep tabs on things published under his name.

  If this is the intention then he needs new marketing advisors.

----------


## sailingaway

> How do we know Ron didn't express this to the person handling his account? Would many have believed Ron called the conditions in the West Bank a concentration camp if it had only appeared in print, and not in a TV interview?


He said it about Gaza not the West Bank, I believe, and his words around it also gave more detail and context.  And yeah, with all the words included, I'd believe it.

Look, if Ron said it, he'd come out and tell us what he meant by it (I strongly disbelieve he did, though.)  He doesn't back down.  But I can't see him doing this in this fashion.

----------


## Cowlesy

> And Ron Paul posts his own tweets. Many people know that



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71075.html




> When asked about a message that went out under the @RonPaul Twitter account Tuesday night that read, “@jonhuntsman we found your one Iowa voter, he’s in Linn precint 5 you might want to call him and say thanks,” Paul said in an interview on CNN that he didn’t do it.
> 
> “I didn’t send it. So I don’t even understand. I’m sorry I didn’t catch the whole message there about Jon Huntsman. I haven’t talked about Jon Huntsman in a long time. So I don’t know what’s going on there,” he said.
> 
> When pressed about the fact that the message was sent under his official Twitter handle, Paul said, “I have some help on tweeting,” and continued to dismiss the whole episode as “irrelevant.”
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz2Jxcxm4O4

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> He said it about Gaza not the West Bank, I believe, and his words around it also gave more detail and context.  And yeah, with all the words included, I'd believe it.
> 
> Look, if Ron said it, he'd come out and tell us what he meant by it (I strongly disbelieve he did, though.)  He doesn't back down.  But I can't see him doing this in this fashion.


You are correct, I made a mistake and mentioned the West Bank instead of Gaza.

----------


## tsai3904

> Not sure why you guys are offended? The man killed 160 people. He deserved it


Whether he deserved it or not is not the point.  To say that someone deserved to die right after their death is insensitive and it doesn't help the movement make it any easier to spread the anti-war message.  Ron didn't inspire millions of people to oppose wars by talking like that.

----------


## TruthisTreason

I'm not sure what upsets me more? The insensitive tweet or the people defending it.

----------


## sailingaway

> If this is a marketing ploy it is the worst I have seen. I could see what might be intended.
> 
>   1) Get's Ron in media to discuss foreign intervention and PTSD.
>   2) Put's to rest the 'newsletter' issue by showing that he doesn't keep tabs on things published under his name.
> 
>   If this is the intention then he needs new marketing advisors.


I think the political class, and here I include those who blog and live by its circuses, generally tend into red meat because you have a chorus on the other side saying 'yea!' and it furthers the sturm and drang 'excitement'.  At the expense of the people, imho, who are needlessly divided on emotional and cultural ground and are diverted from the true issues which should unite us to fight them.

Ron 'brings people together' PRECISELY because he DOESN'T stoop to that level.

----------


## acptulsa

> Exactly.  He cares about ideas, not people.


I don't think you said what you meant.  If he doesn't care about people, why is he so motivated by ideas (like liberty) that help people?




> And Ron Paul posts his own tweets. Many people know that


I don't.  And judging by this thread, many others don't as well.

----------


## Lightweis

> Whether he deserved it or not is not the point.  To say that someone deserved to die right after their death is insensitive and it doesn't help the movement make it any easier to spread the anti-war message.  Ron didn't inspire millions of people to oppose wars by talking like that.


Ron Paul speaks the truth. Thats what inspires people

----------


## KingNothing

> I don't think you said what you meant.  If he doesn't care about people, why is he so motivated by ideas (like liberty) that help people?


Well, I should have been more clear.  He makes it a point to disagree with ideas, not people.  He attacks concepts, not individuals.

----------


## acptulsa

> Ron Paul speaks the truth. Thats what inspires people


He does speak the truth.  But it isn't like him to be impolitic, and it sure isn't like him to be insensitive for no concrete reason.




> Well, I should have been more clear.  He makes it a point to disagree with ideas, not people.  He attacks concepts, not individuals.


Ah, now that is much more clear, thank you.  And it further illustrates why this doesn't look like Ron's own work to me.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Well, I should have been more clear.  He makes it a point to disagree with ideas, not people.  He attacks concepts, not individuals.


Ron Paul was attacking the concept of living by the sword.

----------


## KingNothing

> Whether he deserved it or not is not the point.  To say that someone deserved to die right after their death is insensitive and it doesn't help the movement make it any easier to spread the anti-war message.  Ron didn't inspire millions of people to oppose wars by talking like that.


I imagine what Ron would have said is "this is a sad, predictable, consequence of militarism and insufficient medical care given to returning vets"

----------


## LibertyEagle

This tweet was more than foolish.  In fact, it was downright stupid.   Many people who had started listening; I mean REALLY listening, now will slam shut their ears.  I am also concerned that the blowback will impact Rand too.

I hope it was worth it.  Damn.

----------


## tsai3904

> Ron Paul speaks the truth. Thats what inspires people


I agree.  You can speak the truth arrogantly or you can do it with humility like Ron has done for decades.

----------


## KingNothing

> Ron Paul was attacking the concept of living by the sword.


No, he wasn't.  Whoever runs his twitter account was attacking Kyle.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I imagine what Ron would have said is "this is a sad, predictable, consequence of militarism and insufficient medical care given to returning vets"


Yeah, that would have been much, much better.  Too late now.

----------


## sailingaway

> Well, I should have been more clear.  He makes it a point to disagree with ideas, not people.  He attacks concepts, not individuals.


right, and this tweet attacks an individual -- who was just murdered.

I really don't think it was him.

----------


## KingNothing

> This tweet was more than foolish.  In fact, it was downright stupid.   Many people who had started listening; I mean REALLY listening, now will slam shut their ears.  I am also concerned that the blowback will impact Rand too.
> 
> I hope it was worth it.  Damn.



Agreed.  This was abhorrent.  Ron should be embarrassed.

----------


## KingNothing

> right, and this tweet attacks an individual -- who was just murdered.


Yep, and there are people here defending it.

How do you just not go crazy and ban these people?

----------


## sailingaway

> Ron Paul was attacking the concept of living by the sword.


If this is some distant cousin of something Ron actually said, translated by someone who likes red meat, that might possibly be how it started, but it is not how it was tweeted.

----------


## sailingaway

> Yep, and there are people here defending it.
> 
> How do you just not go crazy and ban these people?


For having a different opinion?

As long as they aren't tweeting under Ron's name.....

we don't have to AGREE with it.

--

I literally *believe* that faulty logic is best addressed by good argument, in any event.

----------


## Lightweis

> Yep, and there are people here defending it.
> 
> How do you just not go crazy and ban these people?


I completely agree with Ron Pauls comment. Well said doctor

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Not sure why you guys are offended? The man killed 160 people. He deserved it


Is that how veterans are treated here?  Seriously   You guys are going off the deep end with this crap.  Same trash that would spit on soldiers coming back from Vietnam.  I'm ashamed to call you my countrymen.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> right, and this tweet attacks an individual -- who was just murdered.
> 
> I really don't think it was him.


I disagree. Just as when Ron wasn't "blaming America," or whatever that means, when discussing 9/11 on the debate stage, he wasn't attacking Chris Kyle (although he'd be perfectly justified in doing so) - he was denouncing living by the sword.

----------


## phill4paul

> I completely agree with Ron Pauls comment. Well said doctor


  It was not Ron Paul. Stop it.

----------


## sailingaway

Ron is a veteran.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Yep, and there are people here defending it.
> 
> How do you just not go crazy and ban these people?


Some apparently like their libertarian filet mignon well done and are willing a high price for it. I'll take mine medium with the proper seasoning.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Is that how veterans are treated here?  Seriously   You guys are going off the deep end with this crap.  Same trash that would spit on soldiers coming back from Vietnam.  I'm ashamed to call you my countrymen.


How many of those veterans reveled in their killing, called their sniped targets savages, wished they could have killed more of them, and profited from these views expressed in a book and in national TV interviews?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Yep, and there are people here defending it.
> 
> How do you just not go crazy and ban these people?


Some people would ask the same about you. Peoples' thoughts aren't going to be 100% the same. So be it that some people are defending this tweet. I am not defending the man or the tweet. He was a murderer. Not a hero. He killed for a living. (simply, though he very well was duped into believing it was the honorable thing to do) The tweet was stupid. There was no need to put that out there like that. Ron Paul wouldn't have stated it as was stated.

----------


## sailingaway

> I disagree. Just as when Ron wasn't "blaming America," or whatever that means, when discussing 9/11 on the debate stage, he wasn't attacking Chris Kyle (although he'd be perfectly justified in doing so) - he was denouncing living by the sword.


the 'blame America' was absolutely twisting his words, as the townhall blog above in this thread did.

----------


## sailingaway

> How many of those veterans reveled in their killing, called their sniped targets savages, wished they could have killed more of them, and profited from these views expressed in a book and in national TV interviews?


Ron would NEVER assume ONE PARTICULAR one he didn't know had.

----------


## angelatc

> Well, at this point it has gotten to the 2d amendment defenders who of all people should adore Ron, and they are just becoming a chorus.
> 
> Ron needs someone running his media who is actually THOUGHTFUL about whether they are being true to his voice.


Exactly.  If Ron can provide pithy comments for material, that would be great.  If not, there are an abundance of books and video transcripts to pull original quotes from, and it could always be infused with any of the hundreds of sources that Ron Paul mentions.

Just making stuff up and attributing it to Ron Paul never works out well.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> the 'blame America' was absolutely twisting his words, as the townhall blog above in this thread did.


Just like Ron attacking Chris Kyle is twisting his words.

----------


## phill4paul

Who is on Ron Paul's payroll right now? Anyone? Because they should be fired, all of them, for not already getting out ahead of this by now.

----------


## itshappening

> If this is a marketing ploy it is the worst I have seen. I could see what might be intended.
> 
>   1) Get's Ron in media to discuss foreign intervention and PTSD.
>   2) Put's to rest the 'newsletter' issue by showing that he doesn't keep tabs on things published under his name.
> 
>   If this is the intention then he needs new marketing advisors.


Ron has always been very clever at getting headlines and media attention.  It's no accident he came to prominence. Look at his debate performances, he was even more forthright then  than here. I wouldn't so far as to say this wouldn't be the kind of thing he would say, free from the halls of congress .

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Just like Ron attacking Chris Kyle is twisting his words.


Maybe so. It was still an insensitive, moronic thing to tweet. IDC who wrote it.

----------


## phill4paul

> Just like Ron attacking Chris Kyle is twisting his words.


  When did Ron attack Kyle?

----------


## acptulsa

> It was not Ron Paul. Stop it.


Absolutely.  Stop it or prove it.

We do not suffer gladly attempts to make something which may or may not be a lie true by repeating it _ad naseum._

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> When did Ron attack Kyle?


He didn't, that's what people in this very thread are saying. I'm refuting it.

----------


## phill4paul

> Ron has always been very clever at getting headlines and media attention.  It's no accident he came to prominence. Look at his debate performances, he was even more forthright then  than here. *I wouldn't so far as to say this wouldn't be the kind of thing he would say*, free from the halls of congress .


  I would. So I guess we will just have to disagree.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Who is on Ron Paul's payroll right now? Anyone? Because they should be fired, all of them, for not already getting out ahead of this by now.


I am surprised 'Teh Collinz' hasn't released a statement by now. Maybe I should get to typing one?

----------


## mac_hine

*



			
				"Savage, despicable evil," writes Kyle. "That’s what we were fighting in Iraq…. People ask me all the time, 'How many people have you killed?’... The number is not important to me. I only wish I had killed more. Not for bragging rights, but because I believe the world is a better place without savages out there taking American lives."
			
		

*
Kyle was a mass murdering thug. He got what he deserved.

----------


## Cowlesy

All the World's a Stage.

----------


## sailingaway

... and the blogger replied to my email by pointing out that it is already all over the internet...

and which came first, I honestly don't know...

----------


## KingNothing

Well, one of his staffers reportedly said that Ron has been authoring his own social media comments "since he left office."
Just peachy.

----------


## TruthisTreason

> Who is on Ron Paul's payroll right now? Anyone? Because they should be fired, all of them, for not already getting out ahead of this by now.


Someone better lose a job today, or Ron will lose more than one supporter.

----------


## phill4paul

> He didn't, that's what people in this very thread are saying. I'm refuting it.


  This thread is going fast. Sorry. Glad we agree on that issue.

----------


## sailingaway

> Well, one of his staffers reportedly said that Ron has been authoring his own social media comments "since he left office."
> Just peachy.


If so he would have had some much longer more thoughtful comment and cutting it to 140 letters completely changed it.  It truly doesn't seem like him though, under the circumstances.

----------


## Lightweis

> Well, one of his staffers reportedly said that Ron has been authoring his own social media comments "since he left office."
> Just peachy.


Of course Ron Paul said this. It is the truth

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> What an absolutely disgusting commentary saying veterans reveled in killing.  I wonder what Gunny thinks of these comments.  I never been ashamed to be a member of this forum until today.


This particular veteran reveled in killing. Are you not aware of who this man was? (Not that I am justifying attacking him right after his death)

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> What an absolutely disgusting commentary saying veterans reveled in killing.  I wonder what Gunny thinks of these comments.  I never been ashamed to be a member of this forum until today.


You are extremely dense. For someone who knocks others for not being able to read between lines and read Rand's mind when he's pandering to neocons, you can't do it yourself. The answer to my question is clearly "none, or very, very few of them," so my point is that attacking Chris Kyle is not in any way analogous to attacking all veterans.

----------


## sailingaway

> Someone better lose a job today, or Ron will lose more than one supporter.


that is problematic because I think he doesn't really have that level  of staff yet.  I think they are yet to be on board.  I'm afraid it is going to fester and have to be addressed later.  Blech.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> If so he would have had some much longer more thoughtful comment and cutting it to 140 letters completely changed it.  It truly doesn't seem like him though, under the circumstances.


Especially not when you couple it with the facebook posts. Someone is trolling, adding subtle little immaturities and trying to tarnish his reputation.

----------


## mac_hine

> This particular veteran reveled in killing. Are you not aware of who this man was? (Not that I am justifying attacking him right after his death)





> "Savage, despicable evil," writes Kyle. "That’s what we were fighting in Iraq…. People ask me all the time, 'How many people have you killed?’... The number is not important to me. I only wish I had killed more. Not for bragging rights, but because I believe the world is a better place without savages out there taking American lives."


 The Pseudo-Courage of Chris Kyle http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w245.html

----------


## KingNothing

It was probably Jesse Benton.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Are all soldiers government killers then?


 The ones who work for governments and kill people are.  Let's look at the facts:

1) They work for the government
2) They kill people.

Are you unaware of the definitions of the words you use?  Who, exactly, would be a "government killer" if not those whose work is killing people for the government?




> I didn't know that to be non-interventionist you had to hate our troops.


 People's emotional states will vary.  I personally hate war.  I hate murder.  I hate mass-murderers.  Connect the dots.

----------


## EBounding

I have a hard time believing someone who goes out of his way to give medals to soldiers returning home would say something like this.  I dunno....

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Someone better lose a job today, or Ron will lose more than one supporter.


 Weeding out the chaff.  The tweet is true.  Deal with it.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> It was probably Jesse Benton.


It really wouldn't surprise me if it was. This is exactly the kind of thing he would do.

----------


## phill4paul

> I am surprised 'Teh Collinz' hasn't released a statement by now. Maybe I should get to typing one?


  He did. Post #26




> It wasn't me!

----------


## sailingaway

> Ron has always been very clever at getting headlines and media attention.  It's no accident he came to prominence. Look at his debate performances, he was even more forthright then  than here. I wouldn't so far as to say this wouldn't be the kind of thing he would say, free from the halls of congress .


The man isn't even issuing video for us to make prominent. Other than his straight talk it has been radio silence. He has an entire NATION of internet sites and they are waiting on him.  He isn't using what he has, why would he try to gin up attention like THIS?

----------


## TruthisTreason

And note to Lew Rockwell, this tweet does not speak for everyone, or what we're thinking. No donations from me this year! When a man is murdered I don't think GOOD in any case. I'm anti-death penalty. My father was in the Vietnam War [Navy], do the people defending Ron on this think my dad should have been killed by a missile?

----------


## angelatc

> This particular veteran reveled in killing. Are you not aware of who this man was? (Not that I am justifying attacking him right after his death)



Regardless of how you feel about Kyle, Ron Paul *never* attacks people personally.  I can't imagine him ever criticizing a soldier for following orders, but regardless - he'd be more inclined to criticize the actions, and not the person.

----------


## sailingaway

> I have a hard time believing someone who goes out of his way to give medals to soldiers returning home would say something like this.  I dunno....


bingo.

----------


## No Free Beer

werent peoples twitters hacked?

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2415050,00.asp

----------


## phill4paul

> Weeding out the chaff.  The tweet is true.  Deal with it.


  The tweet is true in that it was broadcast. Was it Ron? That is the question. From everything I know of the man it was not.

----------


## XTreat

I have from a pretty good source that RP recently took over his twitter and FB accounts and these are in fact his own words.

----------


## KingNothing

> And note to Lew Rockwell, this tweet does not speak for everyone, or what we're thinking. No donations from me this year! When a man is murdered I don't think GOOD in any case. I'm anti-death penalty. My father was in the Vietnam War [Navy], do the people defending Ron on this think my dad should have been killed by a missile?



I'm positive that some people here do think that, yes.

----------


## phill4paul

> And note to Lew Rockwell, this tweet does not speak for everyone, or what we're thinking. No donations from me this year! When a man is murdered I don't think GOOD in any case. I'm anti-death penalty. My father was in the Vietnam War [Navy], do the people defending Ron on this think my dad should have been killed by a missile?


  They are not defending Ron. They are defending the message in the tweet. Ron did not write this tweet.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

Ron Paul could have been remembered for this.

 


But now supporters like this will be his legacy.  




> Kyle was a mass murdering thug. He got what he deserved.

----------


## KingNothing

> I have from a pretty good source that RP recently took over his twitter and FB accounts and these are in fact his own words.


This is my fear, too.

Oh well.  Ron isn't perfect.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> I have from a pretty good source that RP recently took over his twitter and FB accounts and these are in fact his own words.


Ron has gone rogue!!

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Regardless of how you feel about Kyle, Ron Paul *never* attacks people personally.  I can't imagine him ever criticizing a soldier for following orders, but regardless - he'd be more inclined to criticize the actions, and not the person.


I agree 100%. I am not defending Chris Kyle or the tweet. Some recent facebook activity and these tweets are obviously the work of an immature troll, a saboteur trying to tarnish his message, or both.

----------


## angelatc

> And note to Lew Rockwell, this tweet does not speak for everyone, or what we're thinking. No donations from me this year! When a man is murdered I don't think GOOD in any case. I'm anti-death penalty. My father was in the Vietnam War [Navy], do the people defending Ron on this think my dad should have been killed by a missile?



This isn't even "Live by the sword, die by the sword."  He wasn't killed in combat.  The guy was gunned down in the back while shooting for sport.  If anything, I think the real Paul might wonder if this is going to be used as a talking point in the arguments used to restrict our gun rights.

The man doesn't have a mean, bitter bone in his body. He is notorious for being oblivious to current events. I will never believe this tweet was Ron's words.

----------


## CaptUSA

Why the hell does anyone mess with Twitter?  Does anyone trust anything they read on it?  I'll be honest that I don't know anything about the site, but all I ever hear about is someone famous getting their account hacked.

----------


## itshappening

> And note to Lew Rockwell, this tweet does not speak for everyone, or what we're thinking. No donations from me this year! When a man is murdered I don't think GOOD in any case. I'm anti-death penalty. My father was in the Vietnam War [Navy], do the people defending Ron on this think my dad should have been killed by a missile?


it's unlikely your dad bragged about his kills like Kyle or sought fame and fortune from his escapades or wish he killed more gooks.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> The Pseudo-Courage of Chris Kyle http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w245.html


 Thank you.  Chris Kyle was a disgusting individual.  Reading Chris Kyle's words is a sickening experience for decent people.

So reading Ron Paul's words is sickening for pro-war freaks.  Of course it is.  Because they're freaks.  They're murderer-worshippers.  They're not creeped out at all by the disgusting pychopathic outrage which is Chris Kyle.  They love him.  Oh only, if only, he had murdered some more savages.  So yes, obviously, they're not going to like someone telling the truth.  They're not going to like anyone whose not a blood-thirsty maniac.  Given.  So what?  We're going to try to appease those freaks?  Forget 'em.  Just tell the truth.

And that's exactly what Dr. Paul is doing.  Telling the truth.  That's what he does.  I stand with Dr. Paul.

----------


## phill4paul

> I have from a pretty good source that RP recently took over his twitter and FB accounts and these are in fact his own words.


  Well, it is settled then. 

  You have as much credibility as teh Collins in my view. Lol.

----------


## mac_hine

> And note to Lew Rockwell, this tweet does not speak for everyone, or what we're thinking. No donations from me this year! When a man is murdered I don't think GOOD in any case. I'm anti-death penalty. My father was in the Vietnam War [Navy], do the people defending Ron on this think my dad should have been killed by a missile?


Kyle gloated over the pile of dead corpses he left in his murderous wake. 

I assume your father is an honorable man and would never do that.

----------


## KingNothing

> it's unlikely your dad bragged about his kills like Kyle or sought fame and fortune from his escapades or wish he killed more gooks.


So it isn't the act of murder itself, it is the manner in which someone speaks of it afterwards?

----------


## TruthisTreason

> it's unlikely your dad bragged about his kills like Kyle or sought fame and fortune from his escapades or wish he killed more gooks.


No, he did not, he never liked to talk about it, but that doesn't change a thing, imo.

----------


## sailingaway

> Ron Paul could have been remembered for this.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> But now supporters like this will be his legacy.


BS.

Why are you constantly trying to make it as bad as possible?

----------


## KingNothing

> Kyle gloated over the pile of dead corpses he left in his murderous wake. 
> 
> I assume your father is an honorable man and would never do that.


I'm sure this matters to the dead people and their families.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> This particular veteran reveled in killing. Are you not aware of who this man was? (Not that I am justifying attacking him right after his death)


You basically are.  Christ he hasn't even been put to rest yet.

----------


## liveandletlive

> Ron Paul could have been remembered for this.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> But now supporters like this will be his legacy.



damage control needed

----------


## phill4paul

> This is my fear, too.
> 
> Oh well.  Ron isn't perfect.


  Ron Paul just called me himself and said that he didn't tweet it. Take my word on it.

----------


## jmdrake

> Funny that the words of Jesus Christ, allegedly the Savior of many of those calling this an outrage, aggravate these "Christian" conservatives. It's telling that they love war and the state as god more than their alleged Savior.


Not at all surprising.

----------


## KingNothing

> BS.
> 
> Why are you constantly trying to make it as bad as possible?


The narrative will without a doubt be that "Ron hates the troops," or something silly like that.  I don't think the "as bad as possible" POV is far from reality.

----------


## TruthisTreason

> They are not defending Ron. They are defending the message in the tweet. Ron did not write this tweet.


 Sorry I have people on Facebook arguing with me that HE DID do the tweet.

----------


## sailingaway

> Ron has gone rogue!!


He may do some, and the facebook stuff lately has been pure economics and labor dept charts, so I believe it, but I suspect he is 'weighing in' when he wants to, not constantly managing it.  

The reason I hold out any possibility of thought that he wrote this is that I remember when I first started twitter and had to constantly edit down what I said, sometimes to the point where it made no sense and I had to start over.

If it is a just learning twitter thing, it is very unfortunate, but I'll wait to see what the truncated thought stood for.  I really doubt it, though, I just can't see him putting this out before the guy's even in the ground, as far as I know.  And he doesn't target individuals caught up in the mess, but the policy makers.

----------


## sailingaway

> Sorry I have people on Facebook arguing with me that HE DID do the tweet.


Did they see him or do they only understand that he for the first time ever is even involved in it?

----------


## sailingaway

*SPECIFICALLY - all Ron's recent tweets/facebook posts that substantively sound like him had REP at the end (his initials.) 

THIS ONE DOES NOT.
*



> Ron PaulVerified ‏@RonPaul
> 
> 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

----------


## KingNothing

Soldiers kill people. That is awful. Our nation has been the aggressor in several wars.  That is also awful.

Young people are conditioned to believe that this is the way it has to be.  Kyle is no different than most young people.  We shouldn't hate him or disparage him.  We should pity him, mourn his untimely death, work to offer better treatment to returning vets, and change the current nationally accepted paradigm of "bomb first, find justification later."

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> *SPECIFICALLY - all Ron's recent tweets/facebook posts that substantively sound like him had REP at the end (his initials.) 
> 
> THIS ONE DOES NOT.
> *


I don't see 'REP' on any of his twitter messages. I'm on his feed right now, and I've seen all of them that go back to November.

----------


## TruthisTreason

> Did they see him or do they only understand that he for the first time ever is even involved in it?


The person claims he recently took over his twitter and facebook accounts. I posted an old link from politico where Ron claims he has help on twitter after the Huntsman debacle.

----------


## KingNothing

> *SPECIFICALLY - all Ron's recent tweets/facebook posts that substantively sound like him had REP at the end (his initials.) 
> 
> THIS ONE DOES NOT.
> *


I'd noticed that as well.

I blame Collins.

----------


## sailingaway

> The narrative will without a doubt be that "Ron hates the troops," or something silly like that.  I don't think the "as bad as possible" POV is far from reality.


He's adding ammunition to heighten the problem.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> do the people defending Ron on this think my dad should have been killed by a missile?


 Why would we think that?  Where would be the logic?  If he was murdering tons of Vietnamese people, then your father is an unfortunate creature, just as Chris Kyle was.  But the tweet does not say that it was good that Kyle was murdered, nor would it necessarily be good if your father had been murdered.  The tweet simply makes the point that extremely violent people, people who devote their entire lives to being violent, should not be shocked if/when violence is in turn brought to bear against _them_.  I hardly think your father would have found it _surprising_ had he been killed while in an active war zone.

The tweet then makes the second point that treating PTSD at a firing range is not a good idea.  This seems like an immanently reasonable position to take.  Do you take the opposite position?  

In short, do you actually disagree with one word of the tweet, or is it in fact totally accurate and you just don't like the fact that Ron has the courage to write and speak the truth?

----------


## phill4paul

> Sorry I have people on Facebook arguing with me that HE DID do the tweet.


  Then ask them to provide proof.  I'd like to hear about it.

----------


## XTreat

You guys can believe or not, but I am telling you that RP now has control of both his Twirtter and FB accounts. This is a recent development and it even makes sense because we have been discussing the posts for the last week or so.





Edit: 1,000 posts!

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> No, he did not, he never liked to talk about it, but that doesn't change a thing, imo.


Yes it does, to a point. I do not know your father's actions in Vietnam. We know Chris Kyle's. He is not a hero. Just as the people who killed innocent villagers, dropped Vietnamese POWs from helicopters or disemboweled them, or whatever the case may be, are not. (Though if I found my friend mutilated the next person I captured may very well have gotten a similar treatment) War is hell. That is what Ron Paul would be pointing out. Chris Kyle is a prime example of what wickedry can be created/developed.

----------


## phill4paul

> The person claims he recently took over his twitter and facebook accounts. I posted an old link from politico where Ron claims he has help on twitter after the Huntsman debacle.


   The person has no provable first hand knowledge that this particular tweet was Ron. 'nuff said.

----------


## sailingaway

> I don't see 'REP' on any of his twitter messages. I'm on his feed right now, and I've seen all of them that go back to November.


Ron Paul ‏@RonPaul

The real story on employment or the lack thereof. R E P http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000 …

https://twitter.com/RonPaul/status/297366676222128129

the account just came alive again and that sounds like him. The rest are administrative stuff 'welcome my friend John Tate to twitter!!' (account included)

Ron may be handling his facebook, typos I can live with.  But this isn't his TONE.  I think he may be starting to get into it, but not the one most on it.

In fact, I would assume the REP in that one were to show that it WAS from him, as the BO for Obama's show when he actually wrote something.

----------


## jmdrake

You know something?  Before we waste any more time arguing over whether this tweet was "right" or "wrong" can't we at least verify that it was Ron?  I remember in the past people trying to defend what Ron or Rand supposedly said only to find out they didn't say it, or if they did that it was taken out of context.

----------


## July

Man, I need a break from this forum.

----------


## phill4paul

> You guys can believe or not, but I am telling you that RP now has control of both his Twirtter and FB accounts. This is a recent development and it even makes sense because we have been discussing the posts for the last week or so.


   I just got off the phone with Ron. He said he didn't do it. Believe it or not.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> You basically are.  Christ he hasn't even been put to rest yet.


I have heard him describe heads exploding and limbs being ripped off with a type of nonchalance and coldness I've only seen in Richard Kuklinski. I apologize if I am not as saddened with his passing as some other people are. What do you want me to say? The man's a cold blooded killer.

----------


## KingNothing

> You know something?  Before we waste any more time arguing over whether this tweet was "right" or "wrong" can't we at least verify that it was Ron?  I remember in the past people trying to defend what Ron or Rand supposedly said only to find out they didn't say it, or if they did that it was taken out of context.


Does it matter if it was Ron or not, or if the tweet was right or wrong?
What matters is that it happened, that it can be viewed as insensitive, and that it will ultimately hurt the movement.  My assumption is that the people who will even learn about it have already made up their minds with respect to Ron, so the effect will be minimal.  Shame that it happened though, because there's a chance we could have won some of them over, eventually.

Regardless of who tweeted it, remember that Ron is just a man.  He isn't perfect.  He won't always express a thought in the most tactful way, and he might not always hold the ideal thought, either.  He may trust people he shouldn't trust.  He may have too much faith in those around him. So be it. None of us are perfect. 

We've got to remember that.  Ron's just a man.  Rand is just a man.  All statesmen, no matter how noble, are still just human.

----------


## sailingaway

> You guys can believe or not, but I am telling you that RP now has control of both his Twirtter and FB accounts. This is a recent development and it even makes sense because we have been discussing the posts for the last week or so.
> 
> 
> Edit: 1,000 posts!


he may have control, but that doesn't mean he doesn't share his password to someone to post stuff when he just doesn't have something he is interested to say. Otherwise why do some posts have his initials REP and others not?

----------


## sailingaway

> Does it matter if it was Ron or not, or if the tweet was right or wrong?
> What matters is that it happened, that it can be viewed as insensitive, and that it will ultimately hurt the movement.  My assumption is that the people who will even learn about it have already made up their minds with respect to Ron, so the effect will be minimal.  Shame that it happened though, because there's a chance we could have won some of them over, eventually.



No, I disagree. A clerical error, a too forward employee, whatever, isn't RON.  Yeah, it will be spun, but for people who care, we can present the truth. That is all you can ever hope to do.  If he did somehow get tangled in the 140 character bit, he can explain it, and we will have that.

Image is important, but not as important as reality.

----------


## TruthisTreason

I have talked to a few of the "high ups" and what I'm hearing isn't good. This was unnecessary. I'm disgusted.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> You are extremely dense. For someone who knocks others for not being able to read between lines and read Rand's mind when he's pandering to neocons, you can't do it yourself. The answer to my question is clearly "none, or very, very few of them," so my point is that attacking Chris Kyle is not in any way analogous to attacking all veterans.


And you're falling for the broken window fallacy in a theater of war.  Snipers like Kyle save the lives of hundreds of our men, but you don't see that, you're not there at the airport when the family of a convey driver is there to great them.  You'd rather cry crocodile tears over terrorist scum that have no problem blowing up hospitals and schools for collateral damage.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You know something?  Before we waste any more time arguing over whether this tweet was "right" or "wrong" can't we at least verify that it was Ron?


 Why?  Would it switch from right to wrong depending who said it?  Would it become more right just because the person saying it was named Ron Paul?

Sorry, truth doesn't work that way.  If it's wrong, it's wrong, regardless of who said it.  And visa versa.  The content of the message determines its truth.  This message was definitely true.  And it takes a definite stand which is driving pro-war freaks crazy.  I find discussing it to not be a waste of time.

----------


## phill4paul

> I have talked to a few of the "high ups" and what I'm hearing isn't good. This was unnecessary. I'm disgusted.


 Do tell. I talked to Ron personally. 

  Care to name names?

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> That's their problem, we shouldn't bend to their will. Whoever tweeted this in Ron's name (guess there's a small chance Ron himself tweeted it, however small that is) is correct; if it ruffles feathers, so be it. Perhaps Ron will get some time in an interview to talk about the suicide rate of soldiers coming home from wars.


Or maybe he will talk about the undeniable war crimes (following orders to kill every male between the ages of 16 and 65) that Kyle admits to in his book.

----------


## liveandletlive

even if Ron blamed this on some careless underling, his excuse wont fly. only way is to apologize it even happened regardless of who did it and admit it was wrong. 

this will all blow over folks, keep your eye on the prize

----------


## jmdrake

> Does it matter if it was Ron or not, or if the tweet was right or wrong?
> What matters is that it happened, that it can be viewed as insensitive, and that it will ultimately hurt the movement.  My assumption is that the people who will even learn about it have already made up their minds with respect to Ron, so the effect will be minimal.  Shame that it happened though, because there's a chance we could have won some of them over, eventually.


It matters because the proper damage control response depends on who actually said it.  If Ron didn't actually tweet this, then I hope that gets confirmed quickly so the "It wasn't Ron" damage control can go forward.  If Ron did, then the "Hey, he was only quoting Jesus" damage control is best.

----------


## liveandletlive

> Or maybe he will talk about the undeniable war crimes (following orders to kill every male between the ages of 16 and 65) that Kyle admits to in his book.


wont matter, the narrative is that all troops are heroes defending freedom and democracy.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I just got off the phone with Ron. He said he didn't do it. Believe it or not.


 We don't believe it, of course.

----------


## Lucille

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/ro...who-lives-by-t

----------


## phill4paul

> We don't believe it, of course.


  Thank goodness some are rational.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Chris Kyle is no hero to me.  That said, I can't imagine Ron Paul gloating over someone's death.  Even if that someone gloated over the death of others.  It's not in  Ron's character to do that.

----------


## KingNothing

> It matters because the proper damage control response depends on who actually said it.  If Ron didn't actually tweet this, then I hope that gets confirmed quickly so the "It wasn't Ron" damage control can go forward.  If Ron did, then the "Hey, he was only quoting Jesus" damage control is best.



I think he should just go into more detail.  That's all he has to do.  A second tweet decrying militarism and asking for better treatment for troops solves everything.

----------


## sailingaway

> even if Ron blamed this on some careless underling, *his excuse wont fly*. only way is to apologize it even happened regardless of who did it and admit it was wrong. 
> 
> this will all blow over folks, keep your eye on the prize


If Ron addresses it he will tell the truth.  It is not an 'excuse' but an explanation, so we, his supporters will understand.

I am not as concerned by the peanut gallary that turns against him regularly.  I'm interested in the people with a brain, who actually want to know who he is, or are open to it.

----------


## jmdrake

> Why?  Would it switch from right to wrong depending who said it?  Would it become more right just because the person saying it was named Ron Paul?
> 
> Sorry, truth doesn't work that way.  If it's wrong, it's wrong, regardless of who said it.  And visa versa.  The content of the message determines its truth.  This message was definitely true.  And it takes a definite stand which is driving pro-war freaks crazy.  I find discussing it to not be a waste of time.


If Ron Paul's tweet said "WTC 7 was obviously a controlled demolition" I'd want to know for certain that *he* tweeted that before defending that position.  Same thing here.

----------


## seyferjm

> Chris Kyle is no hero to me.  That said, I can't imagine Ron Paul gloating over someone's death.  Even if that someone gloated over the death of others.  It's not in  Ron's character to do that.



Exactly.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

This thread is stealing the thunder from general politics, lol.

----------


## TruthisTreason

> Do tell. I talked to Ron personally. 
> 
>   Care to name names?


No because this is serious business. I'll wait and hope Ron has someone competent handle it.

----------


## EBounding

Carol should be the only other person who has access to his twitter account.

----------


## sailingaway

> Carol should be the only other person who has access to his twitter account.


works for me, but we'd have long dry spells, I'm afraid.  This did NOT have his initials though, as some posts on facebook and twitter are starting to have, though.

----------


## XTreat

I can understand why you would not trust an anonymous username, but I told you so. 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/wh...little-more-in




> Former Texas Rep. Ron Paul has been attracting negative attention all day for a tweet he sent Monday morning regarding the death of former Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle at the hands of an Iraq War veteran. But get used to off-the-cuff Twitter activity from the former presidential candidate: Paul, 77, is now running his own Twitter feed, a spokesperson says.
> "He runs it," said Campaign for Liberty communications director Megan Stiles, who is handling Paul's press requests since he retired. She clarified that Paul started handling his own tweets "since he left office."
> "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," Paul tweeted on Monday. Kyle was shot and killed by Eddie Ray Routh, a veteran of the Iraq War who had post-traumatic stress disorder, at a shooting range in Texas.
> The tweet outraged people on Twitter, particularly conservatives. Commentary editor John Podhoretz called it "appalling"; "you really are vile," tweeted Republican strategist Rick Wilson.
> Paul's tweet seemed to prompt the return of the Ron Paul Newsletters Twitter feed, which was active during his presidential campaign and tweets quotes from the controversial newsletters published under his name in past decades that frequently included racist or homophobic passages (Paul and his aides have maintained that he wasn't the author of the newsletters). It had been laying dormant since March.

----------


## sailingaway

> I can understand why you would not trust an anonymous username, but I told you so. 
> 
> http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/wh...little-more-in


except his running it doesn't mean he doesn't let others use his password to fill in when he doesn't have something burning to say. Someone on here a few days back said the new 'REP' tag meant it was from him. This one didn't have that.

compare: https://twitter.com/RonPaul/status/297366676222128129

----------


## XTreat

> except his running it doesn't mean he doesn't let others use his password to fill in when he doesn't have something burning to say. Someone on here a few days back said the new 'REP' tag meant it was from him. This one didn't have that.
> 
> compare: https://twitter.com/RonPaul/status/297366676222128129



She clarified that Paul started handling his own tweets "since he left office."

----------


## sailingaway

> She clarified that Paul started handling his own tweets "since he left office."


how would she know who tweeted today?

Does or does NOT the R E P stand to indicate it is him, himself, as opposed to someone else, as the BO on Obama's twitter account indicates it is him?

https://twitter.com/RonPaul/status/297366676222128129

His recent facebook pages also had REP on them.

However, I do consider an outside chance he was just really editing down a much longer and less accusing tweet and wasn't used to the 140 digits, in which case I want to know what he meant.

----------


## phill4paul

> I can understand why you would not trust an anonymous username, but I told you so. 
> 
> http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/wh...little-more-in


  This leads no credence to this particular discussion.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Another question people ask a lot: Did it bother you killing so many people in Iraq? I tell them, No. And I mean it. The first time you shoot someone, you get a little nervous. You think, can I really shoot this guy? Is it really okay? But after you kill your enemy, you see its okay. You say, Great. You do it again. And again. You do it so the enemy wont kill you or your countrymen. You do it until theres no one left for you to kill. Thats what war is.





> Just because war is hell doesnt mean you cant have a little fun.



Lovely, isn't he? 
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...erican-sniper/

----------


## EBounding

> She clarified that Paul started handling his own tweets "since he left office."


But does that mean only he has access?  To me it sounds like he never tweeted during the campaign, but now he does it personally along with whoever else has access.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> BS.
> 
> Why are you constantly trying to make it as bad as possible?


It's a little more than "bad", it could tarnish Ron's legacy and destroy everything the man built for decades if he's perceived to be spitting on the graves of veterans.  It's especially hurtful given how hard the campaign worked to court the veterans from Iraq, Afghanistan, and others wars.  I recall being in those Veterans for Ron Paul tents speaking with soldiers.  It's really poor taste to dance on the grave of someone just murdered and then see that action defended on this forum.  It's odd I would have to explain something so obvious to you, but maybe you weren't at those Veterans for Paul events.

----------


## XTreat

> This leads no credence to this particular discussion.



His press secretary confirming that he is "handles his own tweets" isn't pertinent?

----------


## hardrightedge

If Ron Paul wrote that tweet, he will never be taken seriously again...If the man died  in combat, I can understand someone saying something like that...but he died at home trying to help lost vets...disgraceful

----------


## acptulsa

> But does that mean only he has access?  To me it sounds like he never tweeted during the campaign, but now he does it personally along with whoever else has access.


How dare you?  Don't you know the Collins Law?  When someone uses font size four, that means you have to take what they say at face value whether it's clear, verifiable, and/or true or not.




> His press secretary confirming that he is "handles his own tweets" isn't pertinent?


Pertinence is one thing, credibility is something else.  'Handling' could mean anything from 'does it all with his very own fingers' to 'no longer has his campaign manager look it over once or twice a month, but looks it over once or twice a month himself'.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> This tweet basically translates to 'he had it coming'. Wether or not he did have it coming is besides the point.


Or it could simply be a statement of fact, with no particular judgement at all. Kyle shot a lot of people, and then he was shot. Nothing more than an observation.




> When did Ron attack Kyle?


It seems to be open to interpretation what the intent of the tweet was. Was the tweet an "attack"? It appears that some people see it that way. Was that the intent? Only the author of the tweet knows.

Did Ron actually write the tweet? That's another question.

----------


## sailingaway

> It's a little more than "bad", it could tarnish Ron's legacy and destroy everything the man built for decades if he's perceived to be spitting on the graves of veterans.  It's especially hurtful given how hard the campaign worked to court the veterans from Iraq, Afghanistan, and others wars.  I recall being in those Veterans for Ron Paul tents speaking with soldiers.  It's really poor taste to dance on the grave of someone just murdered and then see that action defended on this forum.  It's odd I would have to explain something so obvious to you, but maybe you weren't at those Veterans for Paul events.



this is exactly the type of post I mean. You take that tweet, which I agree shouldn't have gone out, and turn it into "spitting on graves" and "dancing on graves" and escalate it to 'tarnishing his legacy and destroying everything the man built for decades' which is ludicrous.

----------


## phill4paul

> His press secretary confirming that he is "handles his own tweets" isn't pertinent?


  It has already been pointed out the difference of "his" usual tweets. Please let me know her views on this particular tweet.

----------


## sailingaway

> Pertinence is one thing, credibility is something else.


It could just mean THEY don't handle them any more.

----------


## phill4paul

> Did Ron actually write the tweet? That's another question.


  That's my ONLY question. I will go from there after receiving confirmation or denial.

----------


## angelatc

> His press secretary confirming that he is "handles his own tweets" isn't pertinent?


That wasn't his personal press secretary.  It's someone from the C4L, an outfit that is probably behind the tweet.

----------


## mac_hine

> It's a little more than "bad", it could tarnish Ron's legacy and destroy everything the man built for decades if he's perceived to be *spitting on the graves of veterans.*  It's especially hurtful given how hard the campaign worked to court the veterans from Iraq, Afghanistan, and others wars.  I recall being in those Veterans for Ron Paul tents speaking with soldiers.  It's really poor taste to *dance on the grave* of someone just murdered and then see that action defended on this forum.  It's odd I would have to explain something so obvious to you, but maybe you weren't at those Veterans for Paul events.


Get over yourself. Ron Paul did neither of those things highlighted in your above post.

Those type of "appeal to emotion" tactics may work on CNN, not here buddy.

----------


## seyferjm

> It has already been pointed out the difference of "his" usual tweets. Please let me know her views on this particular tweet.


So did you actually talk with him about it?

----------


## XTreat

I guess you guys will only believe it was him if he tweets out 

@sailing damn right it was me and I'll tweet it again. 

except then you would argue Ron wouldn't say "damn".

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> That wasn't his personal press secretary.  It's someone from the C4L, an outfit that is probably behind the tweet.


An outfit that has openly and repeatedly tried to purge "fringe" and "radical" elements of the movement, and minimizes foreign policy? I doubt it.

----------


## angelatc

> An outfit that has openly and repeatedly tried to purge "fringe" and "radical" elements of the movement, and minimizes foreign policy? I doubt it.


They're anything but consistent, except when it comes to Tate's form letters.  If Paul said this, he'll own it and clarify it.  If Paul didn't say this, then the C4L is currently trying to figure out how to retract it without damaging their future fundraising efforts.

Someone needs to get fired.

----------


## KingNothing

I'm not sure that I care about this tweet anymore.  In the long run it will not matter.  I wish that Ron would author another tweet that offered more detail, though.

----------


## phill4paul

> They're anything but consistent, except when it comes to Tate's form letters.  If Paul said this, he'll own it and clarify it.  If Paul didn't say this, *then the C4L is currently trying to figure out how to retract it without damaging their future fundraising efforts.*
> 
> Someone needs to get fired.


  THIS^^^^.  May very well be why it has gone on as long as it has without clarification.

----------


## EBounding

I think it's weird he didn't put this one on facebook, but three hours later the Straight Talk article goes up.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> this is exactly the type of post I mean. You take that tweet, which I agree shouldn't have gone out, and turn it into "spitting on graves" and "dancing on graves" and escalate it to 'tarnishing his legacy and destroying everything the man built for decades' which is ludicrous.


You obviously weren't at the those Veterans events so you don't know the kinship the Paul campaign had with the military.

----------


## phill4paul

> So did you actually talk with him about it?


  No. Of course I did not. I was emphasizing the point that you cannot believe everything that is told you from a second hand source on the interwenz.

----------


## phill4paul

> I think it's weird he didn't put this one on facebook, but three hours later the Straight Talk article goes up.


  I'd imagine the straight talk may have been pre-written? And I would imagine Ron has no idea the $#@! storm that is going on while his handlers try to do damage control.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> They're anything but consistent, except when it comes to Tate's form letters.  If Paul said this, he'll own it and clarify it.  If Paul didn't say this, then the C4L is currently trying to figure out how to retract it without damaging their future fundraising efforts.
> 
> Someone needs to get fired.


This is kinda jumping to conclusions, don't you think?

What makes you so sure Ron didn't send it?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Lovely, isn't he?


Here's some more gems from this sicko:

*I loved what I did [killing people, that is].  I still do.  If circumstances were different--if my family didn't need me--I'd be back in a heartbeat.  I'm not lying or exaggerating to say it was fun.  I had the time of my life being a SEAL [killing savages].

~~~

Those Gatlings chewed the --- out of the enemy that night. The Iraqis rolled armor out of the city to get us, but they never got close. It got to the point where the Iraqis realized they were --- and tried to flee.

Big mistake. That just made them easier to see. The planes kept coming, nailing them. They had them zeroed in, and zeroed them out. You’d hear the rounds coming past you in the air—errrrrrrrrr—then you’d hear the echo—erhrhrrhrh, followed closely by secondary explosions and whatever other havoc the bullets caused.

---, I thought to myself, this is great. I --- love this. It’s nerve-wracking and exciting and I --- love it.

~~~

It happens that I love to fight.

~~~

You'd have a violent explosion, a fire, and then no more enemy.  Gotta love it.

~~~

We had contact every time we went out.

We loved it.

~~~

Now, I like war, and I love doing my job, but it rankled me that the Navy wasn’t keeping its word.... In the end, I was all right with being scheduled for another deployment. I still loved war.*

~~~

I haven't even scratched the surface.  This man was a disgrace.

http://www.epubbud.com/read.php?g=2EBZYJTS&p=7

----------


## jmdrake

> This is kinda jumping to conclusions, don't you think?
> 
> What makes you so sure Ron didn't send it?


She said _If Paul said this, he'll own it and clarify it._  I don't think anyone has totally ruled out the possibility that Ron might have said it.  There's an (equal IMO) that Ron didn't but someone else did in his name.

----------


## phill4paul

> This is kinda jumping to conclusions, don't you think?
> 
> What makes you so sure Ron didn't send it?


  Wait a minute..I'd swear you were one of the ones saying you didn't think Ron put this out. Wut?

  Ah, yes.




> Oh sheesh, there is no way this came from Ron Paul himself.  It's better not to put anything out on social media, than to have an idiot send out this kind of stuff.


  Do you even know? Do you work for C$L?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> You obviously weren't at the those Veterans events so you don't know the kinship the Paul campaign had with the military.


And this has what to do with his tweet? Please refrain from the accusations that those who are not deeply saddened by a nonchalant killer being killed as dancing on the graves of military men. I happen to have many people in my family who were killed or wounded severely in different conflicts. My uncle won't even speak on what he's done and is now more religious than the preachers. He didn't come back from Vietnam bragging about people he killed or saying that he only wished he could have killed more. Not then, not now. Chris Kyle is the epitomy of the desensitization and callousness that can be bred into a particularly receptive individual. May God have mercy on his soul.

----------


## angelatc

> This is kinda jumping to conclusions, don't you think?
> 
> What makes you so sure Ron didn't send it?


I wouldn't go so far as to say I am sure.  But I'd bet a little....

I posted earlier that this isn't Ron's style.  He rarely gets involved in current events, he makes it a point to discuss ideas, not personalities and/or people, and he's never rude.

Of course this could be him, but it certainly isn't his normal style.

----------


## phill4paul

//

----------


## cajuncocoa

> And this has what to do with his tweet? Please refrain from the accusations that those who are not deeply saddened by a nonchalant killer being killed as dancing on the graves of military men. I happen to have many people in my family who were killed or wounded severely in different conflicts. My uncle won't even speak on what he's done and is now more religious than the preachers. *He didn't come back from Vietnam bragging about people he killed or saying that he only wished he could have killed more.* Not then, not now. Chris Kyle is the epitomy of the desensitization and callousness that can be bred into a particularly receptive individual. May God have mercy on his soul.


+rep

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Dammit.  I am really good at putting RP concepts into language conservatives understrand.  I'd manage his entire online presence for $50k a year....

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Wait a minute..I'd swear you were one of the ones saying you didn't think Ron put this out. Wut?
> 
>   Ah, yes.


 I think that the consensus forming is that "LibertyEagle" is a multi-user gimmick profile, managed by at least a couple, possibly several, individuals.

----------


## sailingaway

> I guess you guys will only believe it was him if he tweets out 
> 
> @sailing damn right it was me and I'll tweet it again. 
> 
> except then you would argue Ron wouldn't say "damn".



on twitter? No he wouldn't.  He catches himself on language.  At least, once, recently he narrowly refrained from calling an idiotic position 'crap', and changed it to 'stuff' so I would doubt the tweet 

In the unlikely (to me) occurrence that it was him (given the guy seems to have a background I wasn't aware of) I'm sure he'd explain it, but it sure seems nothing like him.

And it doesn't have the REP tag as being from him.

----------


## acptulsa

> Dammit.  I am really good at putting RP concepts into language conservatives understrand.  I'd manage his entire online presence for $50k a year....


You're one of at least a dozen people on this forum who could do a far, far better job than _this._  It's frustrating.

----------


## supermario21

Guys, this is Ron Paul's "47 Percent" comment. Only it will be treated much worse because it involves a veteran who is widely regarded as a hero. Pretty much any Navy SEAL is going to be treated like a hero so get used to it. Also, our movement doesn't have that wide enough mainstream appeal yet for people to rush to the defense of Ron. I don't even think this statement is one you can defend. Instead of attacking the SEAL, why not attack the general military industrial complex which may have indoctrinated the poor soul. Don't say he's a fool and a government killer or any of those negative terms. Ron's 2012 campaign was a very legitimate one which attracted many new voters. Saying stuff like this is a sure way to lose any mainstream appeal you gained.

----------


## phill4paul

> I think that the consensus forming is that "LibertyEagle" is a multi-user gimmick profile, managed by at least a couple, possibly several, individuals.


  Either that or a multi-personality disorder. It is apparent now.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You're one of at least a dozen people on this forum who could do a far, far better job than _this._  It's frustrating.


What are you talking about?  This is great!  The whole internet is talking.  Maybe they'll feature the story on Fox News tonight.  Ron is back at it, dropping truth bombs.  Even if it wasn't personally him, it an important truth bomb to get out, and dropped at the perfect opportune time for maximum effect.

----------


## phill4paul

> Dammit.  I am really good at putting RP concepts into language conservatives understrand.  I'd manage his entire online presence for $50k a year....


  That ain't no  matter. You could. You really, really, could.

----------


## angelatc

> Dammit.  I am really good at putting RP concepts into language conservatives understrand.  I'd manage his entire online presence for $50k a year....


I'd be ok with that.  But on the other hand, if he asked me or some of my brethre  to run those sites, I would expect - hope even -  that ya'll would take him to the woodshed and beat some sense into him.   There's a reason that PR spokespeople make decent money.  It's not a job that any warm body can fill.  It is as much as art as talent.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> *I loved what I did [killing people, that is].  I still do.  If circumstances were different--if my family didn't need me--I'd be back in a heartbeat.  I'm not lying or exaggerating to say it was fun.  I had the time of my life being a SEAL [killing savages].
> 
> ~~~
> 
> Those Gatlings chewed the --- out of the enemy that night. The Iraqis rolled armor out of the city to get us, but they never got close. It got to the point where the Iraqis realized they were --- and tried to flee.
> 
> Big mistake. That just made them easier to see. The planes kept coming, nailing them. They had them zeroed in, and zeroed them out. You’d hear the rounds coming past you in the air—errrrrrrrrr—then you’d hear the echo—erhrhrrhrh, followed closely by secondary explosions and whatever other havoc the bullets caused.
> 
> ---, I thought to myself, this is great. I --- love this. It’s nerve-wracking and exciting and I --- love it.
> ...


It's funny, some here worrying about Ron Paul's legacy.  Glenn Beck probably cried like a baby when he learned that this warmongering $#@!'s chickens came home to roost.  Glenn Beck's audience would be in near complete agreement with the sentiments expressed above as written by Kyle. You know what's going to tarnish Ron's legacy more?  Cozying up to Glenn Beck.  I don't need to spell it out, do I?

----------


## green73

> http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/ro...who-lives-by-t


Now there's a surprise.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Get over yourself. Ron Paul did neither of those things highlighted in your above post.
> 
> Those type of "appeal to emotion" tactics may work on CNN, not here buddy.


Hence why I used the word "perceived".  Reading comprehension 101.  Personally, it doesn't sound like language Ron would use to me.  That being said, I also know his propensity for administrative failings as a man.  I stand by what I said about this possibly damaging the inroads we made with the veterans community, especially if the crowd celebrating Kyle's death run with it.  Anything beyond prayers, well-wishes, or RIP upon someone's untimely death will be interpreted as grandstanding.

----------


## qh4dotcom

Does anyone here think that it's a good idea to hand over the extremely valuable domain RonPaul.com that Ron Paul wanted and let the incompetent staff who control his Twitter and Facebook page manage the site?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...96#post4855396

----------


## kathy88

Dear God: Please let this be a hack. I'll never pick on Teh Collinz again. I was even nice to him today. I'm trying. Love, Kathy88.

----------


## itshappening

> Here's some more gems from this sicko:
> 
> *I loved what I did [killing people, that is].  I still do.  If circumstances were different--if my family didn't need me--I'd be back in a heartbeat.  I'm not lying or exaggerating to say it was fun.  I had the time of my life being a SEAL [killing savages].
> 
> ~~~
> 
> Those Gatlings chewed the --- out of the enemy that night. The Iraqis rolled armor out of the city to get us, but they never got close. It got to the point where the Iraqis realized they were --- and tried to flee.
> 
> Big mistake. That just made them easier to see. The planes kept coming, nailing them. They had them zeroed in, and zeroed them out. Youd hear the rounds coming past you in the airerrrrrrrrrrthen youd hear the echoerhrhrrhrh, followed closely by secondary explosions and whatever other havoc the bullets caused.
> ...


This guy was just awful, most of the people defending him aren't looking past the uniform and are just declaring him a hero because the propaganda during Super Bowl says anyone wearing a uniform is a hero but people in uniform can do very bad things like rape and murder Iraqi's or revel in their kills or make money peddling their escapades.

----------


## sailingaway

> You obviously weren't at the those Veterans events so you don't know the kinship the Paul campaign had with the military.


Ron has great kinship with the military and always has. His top donors in both campaigns were from the Army, Navy and Air force, remember? He has a base in his district.  He is a veteran.  

You are sounding like a concern troll now.

----------


## qh4dotcom

> This guy was just awful, most of the people defending him aren't looking past the uniform and are just declaring him a hero because the propaganda during Super Bowl says anyone wearing a uniform is a hero but people in uniform can do very bad things like rape and murder Iraqi's or revel in their kills or make money peddling their escapades.


Do you have a link to that propaganda?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I think that the consensus forming is that "LibertyEagle" is a multi-user gimmick profile, managed by at least a couple, possibly several, individuals.


Yeah, I think the same person said you were Bill O'Reilly.  lol

----------


## acptulsa

> What are you talking about?


A distinct lack of respect for the dead.  Which is important.  Regardless of whether the Bible verse could be considered an attack or not, and regardless of whether the guy deserved an attack or not, the man has family somewhere, and the last thing they need this soon after the man's demise is such insensitivity.  And this is the main reason I don't think Ron Paul composed and sent this tweet.  He would have more respect for the grieving than that.

The man's relations do not deserve disrespect for being loving relations.  Even if they're of the Hitler family.  It's too soon, it's too blunt, it ain't the doctor's style.

----------


## sailingaway

> Does anyone here think that it's a good idea to hand over the extremely valuable domain RonPaul.com that Ron Paul wanted and let the incompetent staff who control his Twitter and Facebook page manage the site?
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...96#post4855396


are you the one who owns it? Because that is what I am starting to think from these constant harangues about how rather than insist on a good manager someone should keep Ron from owning his own name.  

The guy has a right to the business he built, but the reason RonPaul.ORG is valuable is Ron, since that wasn't the guy's business. Keep this discussion to those threads.

----------


## AuH20

The man's corpse is not even in the ground??????? I have serious reservations that Ron would ever utter any such thing.

----------


## sailingaway

> A distinct lack of respect for the dead.  Which is important.  Regardless of whether the Bible verse could be considered an attack or not, and regardless of whether the guy deserved an attack or not, the man has family somewhere, and the last thing they need this soon after the man's demise is such insensitivity.  And this is the main reason I don't think Ron Paul composed and sent this tweet.  He would have more respect for the grieving than that.
> 
> The man's relations do not deserve disrespect for being loving relations.  Even if they're of the Hitler family.  It's too soon, it's too blunt, it ain't the doctor's style.


That was my reaction, but I didn't know this guy's views on how wonderful war was might actually stir people in the other direction. But even when I can't stand someone I don't jump on their mourning on twitter, for example, because everyone has family and they have feelings to consider.  I don't need to be mean.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Hence why I used the word "perceived".  Reading comprehension 101.  Personally, it doesn't sound like language Ron would use to me.  That being said, I also know his propensity for administrative failings as a man.  I stand by what I said about this possibly damaging the inroads we made with the veterans community, especially if the crowd celebrating Kyle's death run with it.  Anything beyond prayers, well-wishes, or RIP upon someone's untimely death will be interpreted as grandstanding.


For once, I agree with you.  If only Kyle had refrained from grandstanding so much over the casualties of war for which he claimed responsibility.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> *I loved what I did [killing people, that is]. I still do. If circumstances were different--if my family didn't need me--I'd be back in a heartbeat. I'm not lying or exaggerating to say it was fun. I had the time of my life being a SEAL [killing savages].
> 
> ~~~
> 
> Those Gatlings chewed the --- out of the enemy that night. The Iraqis rolled armor out of the city to get us, but they never got close. It got to the point where the Iraqis realized they were --- and tried to flee.
> 
> Big mistake. That just made them easier to see. The planes kept coming, nailing them. They had them zeroed in, and zeroed them out. You’d hear the rounds coming past you in the air—errrrrrrrrr—then you’d hear the echo—erhrhrrhrh, followed closely by secondary explosions and whatever other havoc the bullets caused.
> 
> ---, I thought to myself, this is great. I --- love this. It’s nerve-wracking and exciting and I --- love it.
> ...


I would hope that if someone did a simple search for the word "love" on my autobiography (should I ever have one) it would bring up results referencing wife, children, parents, family in general, things of beauty, knowledge, fun, etc.  As it is, you can see above exactly what Chris Kyle loved the most.  Sad.

----------


## phill4paul

> Ron has great kinship with the military and always has. His top donors in both campaigns were from the Army, Navy and Air force, remember? He has a base in his district.  He is a veteran.  
> 
> You are sounding like a concern troll now.


  It is apparent. At least this is flushing many out.

----------


## sailingaway

> This guy was just awful, most of the people defending him aren't looking past the uniform and are just declaring him a hero because the propaganda during Super Bowl says anyone wearing a uniform is a hero but people in uniform can do very bad things like rape and murder Iraqi's or revel in their kills or make money peddling their escapades.


you seem to change your war views so much it is dizzying sometimes.

----------


## luke19

Someone at Lew Rockwell's site is probably involved, seeing how they had a blog post up about the tweet just six minutes after it came out.

----------


## AuH20

> This guy was just awful, most of the people defending him aren't looking past the uniform and are just declaring him a hero because the propaganda during Super Bowl says anyone wearing a uniform is a hero but people in uniform can do very bad things like rape and murder Iraqi's or revel in their kills or make money peddling their escapades.


There is a time & place for killing. I'm not justifying all of Kyle's actions, but there may come a day when such actions are needed in this land.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Ron has great kinship with the military and always has. His top donors in both campaigns were from the Army, Navy and Air force, remember? He has a base in his district.  He is a veteran.


Thank you captain obvious.  Are you going to post more from his wikipedia page?

----------


## AuH20

> I would hope that if someone did a simple search for the word "love" on my autobiography (should I ever have one) it would bring up results referencing wife, children, parents, family in general, things of beauty, knowledge, fun, etc.  As it is, you can see above exactly what Chris Kyle loved the most.  Sad.


There is a place for these people. Too bad Mr Kyle did not stay around long enough to really do some good.

----------


## jmdrake

> A distinct lack of respect for the dead.  Which is important.  Regardless of whether the Bible verse could be considered an attack or not, and regardless of whether the guy deserved an attack or not, the man has family somewhere, and the last thing they need this soon after the man's demise is such insensitivity.  And this is the main reason I don't think Ron Paul composed and sent this tweet.  He would have more respect for the grieving than that.
> 
> The man's relations do not deserve disrespect for being loving relations.  Even if they're of the Hitler family.  It's too soon, it's too blunt, it ain't the doctor's style.


It's "too soon" to be prognosticating over an unverified tweet.  I can see this argued, and can argue it, either way.  Why entrench ourselves into a position based on partial information?  It's like Rand's "Civil Rights Act" comment.  I told people "Wait until Rand has had a chance to clarify the statement himself."  But *nooooo*.  People went all into spin mode, and when Rand clarified it in a way they didn't like they had egg on their face.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I would hope that if someone did a simple search for the word "love" on my autobiography (should I ever have one) it would bring up results referencing wife, children, parents, family in general, things of beauty, knowledge, fun, etc.  As it is, you can see above exactly what Chris Kyle loved the most.  Sad.


The problem is that one, most Americans don't know all those things the guy did and two, he's not even in the ground.  Respect should at least be shown to his family at this time.

Politics is so very much perception.  This tweet really came out badly and the blowback is not going to be good for the liberty movement.

At this point, I am just hoping a clarification tweet comes out to smooth some of this over.

----------


## angelatc

> you seem to change your war views so much it is dizzying sometimes.



I still think that's a red herring.  Paul never uses the personal attack technique.  Truth or not, it just seems so out of character for Ron Paul to make a statement that insults a dead man.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> A distinct lack of respect for the dead.  Which is important.  Regardless of whether the Bible verse could be considered an attack or not, and regardless of whether the guy deserved an attack or not, the man has family somewhere, and the last thing they need this soon after the man's demise is such insensitivity.  And this is the main reason I don't think Ron Paul composed and sent this tweet.  He would have more respect for the grieving than that.
> 
> The man's relations do not deserve disrespect for being loving relations.  Even if they're of the Hitler family.  It's too soon, it's too blunt, it ain't the doctor's style.


+Rep

----------


## cajuncocoa

The sickening thing about all of this is that all of the warmongers who worship people like Chris Kyle will be more focused on what Ron Paul (may have) said on Twitter rather than on the more despicable words that Kyle himself has said in his own book.

----------


## sailingaway

> It's "too soon" to be prognosticating over an unverified tweet.  I can see this argued, and can argue it, either way.  Why entrench ourselves into a position based on partial information?  It's like Rand's "Civil Rights Act" comment.  I told people "Wait until Rand has had a chance to clarify the statement himself."  But *nooooo*.  People went all into spin mode, and when Rand clarified it in a way they didn't like they had egg on their face.


I go with what angelatc says.  If it is Ron, he will own it and explain it. If it isn't, he may never throw anyone under the bus for it though.  But hopefully he will at least clarify only to consider tweets with his initials, as the labor rept one had, to be actually from him.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> A distinct lack of respect for the dead.  Which is important.


Not all dead deserve respect.  I would spit on Stalin's grave.  Absolutely.  I would tear down his statue.  I would climb Mt Rushmore to spit on Abe Lincoln's head.  If Obama died tomorrow, I would say "good riddance".  Some former New York mayor died the other day, and I say good riddance to him, too.  And yes, good riddance to Chris Kyle.  Good riddance to him.  Now that is me saying it, not Ron Paul's Twitter account.  The facts are:

1) This creature deserves to be attacked.
2) The tweet did not even attack him.  It just stated truth.

As to being too blunt?  If you have a problem with "blunt", this may not be the last time you have a problem with the man named Ron Paul.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> There is a time & place for killing. I'm not justifying all of Kyle's actions, but there may come day when such actions are needed in this land.


And when such actions are needed *in this land*, and someone steps up to the plate, (as I am sure many would) I would applaud them as heroes. I agree that this man's family should be able to mourn in peace and doubt that Ron Paul is the authoer of the tweet.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The sickening thing about all of this is that all of the warmongers who worship people like Chris Kyle will be more focused on what Ron Paul (may have) said on Twitter rather than on the more despicable words that Kyle himself has said in his own book.


THEY DON'T KNOW what Kyle said in his book and the media isn't going to tell them.  So, yeah, this tweet looks horrible!

----------


## AuH20

Hate the war, not the warrior. The path of the warrior should not impugned, and I'm not necessarily talking about the U.S. armed forces being sent on imperial forays.

----------


## acptulsa

> The sickening thing about all of this is that all of the warmongers who worship people like Chris Kyle will be more focused on what Ron Paul (may have) said on Twitter rather than on the more despicable words that Kyle himself has said in his own book.


They will take cover wherever they can.  Just as they have always done.




> I go with what angelatc says.  If it is Ron, he will own it and explain it. If it isn't, he may never throw anyone under the bus for it though.  But hopefully he will at least clarify only to consider tweets with his initials, as the labor rept one had, to be actually from him.


At least.  I, for one, would be happier if the only tweets to appear under his name came himself.  Even if it did reduce their quantity by ninety percent or so.




> Not all dead deserve respect.  I would spit on Stalin's grave.  Absolutely.  I would tear down his statue.  I would climb Mt Rushmore to spit on Abe Lincoln's head.  If Obama died tomorrow, I would say "good riddance".  Some former New York mayor died the other day, and I say good riddance to him, too.  And yes, good riddance to Chris Kyle.  Good riddance to him.  Now that is me saying it, not Ron Paul's Twitter account.  The facts are:
> 
> 1) This creature deserves to be attacked.
> 2) The tweet did not even attack him.  It just stated truth.
> 
> As to being too blunt?  If you have a problem with "blunt", this may not be the last time you have a problem with the man named Ron Paul.


And what have you to say about respect for this man's grieving relatives?  Have they no right to feel their grief?  He is dead.  They are still here, and suffering.  Respect for him is moot right now.  Respect for them is their due as humans.

----------


## green73

> What are you talking about?  This is great!  The whole internet is talking.  Maybe they'll feature the story on Fox News tonight.  Ron is back at it, dropping truth bombs.  Even if it wasn't personally him, it an important truth bomb to get out, and dropped at the perfect opportune time for maximum effect.



You mustn't rock the boat. This could hurt Rand.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> THEY DON'T KNOW what Kyle said in his book and the media isn't going to tell them.  So, yeah, this tweet looks horrible!


Even if they did, it wouldn't matter.  A lot of their crowd agrees that the only good Muslim is a dead one.

----------


## jmdrake

> THEY DON'T KNOW what Kyle said in his book and the media isn't going to tell them.  So, yeah, this tweet looks horrible!


They don't know what he said, or they don't know that what he said was vile?  There's a difference.  I think Kyle played well to the "Kill em all and let God sort em out" and the "Let's turn Iran into a glass parking lot" crowd.

----------


## sailingaway

> Even if they did, it wouldn't matter.  A lot of their crowd agrees that the only good Muslim is a dead one.


Those aren't really going to be our folks, it is the many who don't even get caught up in that stuff who are open to Ron the most.

----------


## sailingaway

> They don't know what he said, or they don't know that what he said was vile?  There's a difference.  I think Kyle played well to the "Kill em all and let God sort em out" and the "Let's turn Iran into a glass parking lot" crowd.


I never even heard of him.  His nickname was vaguely familiar.  Most will just know him as an army sniper who was just murdered at a range because THAT is what has been being played up in the recent gun control debate.

Whatever, it is what it is, and eventually we will likely find out exactly WHAT it is...

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> There is a time & place for killing. I'm not justifying all of Kyle's actions, but there may come a day when such actions are needed in this land.


Heaven help us if that day ever comes to pass.  Everyone in that situation would be thankful to have a skilled marksman backing them up though.

----------


## sailingaway

> Heaven help us if that day ever comes to pass.  Everyone in that situation would be thankful to have a skilled marksman backing them up though.


I think everyone on here is in favor of defending our country with all we've got, in that situation.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Hate the war, not the warrior. The path of the warrior should not impugned, and I'm not necessarily talking about the U.S. armed forces being sent on imperial forays.


I completely agree.  Except in the case of _this particular warrior._ Kyle's thoughts about war and about killing people are well-deserving of any enmity they arouse.

----------


## green73

> Someone at Lew Rockwell's site is probably involved, seeing how they had a blog post up about the tweet just six minutes after it came out.


Utter bull$#@!. Then I suppose the Daily Caller was involved too, as the LRC blog post linked to their article on the tweet.

----------


## sailingaway

> Utter bull$#@!. Then I suppose the Daily Caller was involved too, as the LRC blog post linked to their article on the tweet.


When the guy emailed me back he didn't seem like he was involved, but that was my first conclusion as well. Not as a bad thing, I was just looking for a ghost writer.  From his response I think he just follows Ron on twitter, though.  He seemed like a nice guy.

This all shows (for those of you who aren't on twitter) how much media follow twitter, doesn't it?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> There is a place for these people. Too bad Mr Kyle did not stay around long enough to really do some good.


It seemed like he was trying to in his own way, at least for troubled veterans.  Of course Mr Kyle shouldn't even have to be in that role, but our government uses these guys up and tosses them aside like used chewing gum wrappers.

----------


## phill4paul

> The problem is that one, most Americans don't know all those things the guy did and two, he's not even in the ground.  Respect should at least be shown to his family at this time.
> 
> Politics is so very much perception.  This tweet really came out badly and the blowback is not going to be good for the liberty movement.
> 
> At this point, I am just hoping a clarification tweet comes out to smooth some of this over.


 I'm sure you, teh Collins and C$L are working on that this very moment.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

Four hours later and the tweet is still up, no retraction, no explanation.  So I can conclude one of two things: either Ron Paul did make/authorize this statement, or he is so completely and utterly in the dark that he has no idea what is going on this afternoon.  Either way, it's not good and I have lost some respect for the man.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I have lost some respect for the man.


 And I, if possible, have gained some.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> They don't know what he said, or they don't know that what he said was vile?  There's a difference.  I think Kyle played well to the "Kill em all and let God sort em out" and the "Let's turn Iran into a glass parking lot" crowd.


I doubt most people know anything more than that he was a Navy Seal sniper.

----------


## phill4paul

> Heaven help us if that day ever comes to pass.  Everyone in that situation would be thankful to have a skilled marksman backing them up though.


  IN THIS LAND.  And intimately determinable on which side of the equation.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Hate the war, not the warrior. The path of the warrior should not impugned, and I'm not necessarily talking about the U.S. armed forces being sent on imperial forays.


Well said.  Glad to see someone appreciates martial skills around here.

----------


## phill4paul

> Well said.  Glad to see someone appreciates martial skills around here.


  Kyle was not a warrior. Warrior's are well aware of the path they follow and why they follow it. Kyle was a merc. A gun for hire.

----------


## green73

> When the guy emailed me back he didn't seem like he was involved, but that was my first conclusion as well. Not as a bad thing, I was just looking for a ghost writer.  From his response I think he just follows Ron on twitter, though.  He seemed like a nice guy.
> 
> This all shows (for those of you who aren't on twitter) how much media follow twitter, doesn't it?


I think it was already on Drudge by the time McMaken posted that.

Luke dude, LRC's timestamps are in Central Time btw.

----------


## VictorB

This made the Houston Chronicle front page today: http://www.chron.com/

----------


## phill4paul

> I think it was already on Drudge by the time McMaken posted that.
> 
> Luke dude, LRC's timestamps are in Central Time btw.


  This was a concerted effort on many fronts. To what end? I dunno.

----------


## sailingaway

> This made the Houston Chronicle front page today: http://www.chron.com/


of course it did.  Ron's enemies own the media, don't they?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I completely agree.  Except in the case of _this particular warrior._ Kyle's thoughts about war and about killing people are well-deserving of any enmity they arouse.


Let's put it in context though.  Kyle wasn't sniping people going to a bake sale.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> of course it did.  Ron's enemies own the media, don't they?


So what do you think?  Did he actually say this or is he utterly clueless as to what has taken place today?  

I am leaning towards the belief that he made this statement.  Otherwise I would have to believe that nearly 5 hours have passed, the tweet is being covered all over the media, and not a single person that works with Ron Paul has contacted him and informed him of the situation.  The only way I can accept that is if he was in a coma or on in some remote village without any means of communication.

----------


## pcosmar

> Let's put it in context though.  Kyle wasn't sniping people going to a bake sale.


Nope, He was sniping people defending their own land and neighborhoods against an aggressive invader.
Most at a range that he could not have possibly been able to tell a rifle from a stick.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

What a stupid tweet, let's be honest here.

----------


## squarepusher

It doesn't matter if Ron Paul wrote it or not, same with the newsletters, if it was authorized by him then he needs to be responsible.  Taking responsibility means apologizing if he doesn't agree with it or stating such officially.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Kyle was not a warrior. Warrior's are well aware of the path they follow and why they follow it. Kyle was a merc. A gun for hire.


From everything I know about the man I think he was well aware of his path and role.  I don't have a problem with former military working as mercs.  Some actually do some great work.

----------


## pcosmar

> So what do you think?  Did he actually say this or is he utterly clueless as to what has taken place today?  
> 
> I am leaning towards the belief that he made this statement.  Otherwise I would have to believe that nearly 5 hours have passed, the tweet is being covered all over the media, and not a single person that works with Ron Paul has contacted him and informed him of the situation.  The only way I can accept that is if he was in a coma or on in some remote village without any means of communication.


His next tweet was regarding the "Straight Talk" on the front page. 

What was said was the truth. What else do you expect from Ron Paul. 
If he did not tweet it,, he certainly would not disagree with it.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Kyle was not good people, and nobody around HERE is defending him, so folks here can drop that trope right now.  The point is you could say the _exact_ same thing, maybe even _MORE_ hard-hitting, without driving half of the right into apoplexy.  You don't win in politics by driving everyone away until you are all alone.  You win by bringing people on board through education and/or coalition and then using that influence to convert them to the platform.

The fundamental truth of something is just as important as HOW you tell that truth.  You can't abandon truth and still be principled, obviously, but you can speak the truth in a language that draws rather than repels, IF you want to save America.  If instead you want to destroy it, then go on telling the truth in a way that makes people flee back to their comfortable lies.  

At least when we have the Hitler squads going door to door you can be confident that you offended enough folks to help bring it about though the enhancement of willful ignorance on the part of the rank-n-file.

----------


## Pisces

What makes me think this may not have been Ron's tweet is the comment about treating PTSD at a firing range. I would think that as a physician, Ron would be reluctant to casually speculate about an individual's treatment for a psychiatric illness.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> His next tweet was regarding the "Straight Talk" on the front page. 
> 
> What was said was the truth. What else do you expect from Ron Paul. 
> If he did not tweet it,, he certainly would not disagree with it.


It was in very poor taste and does nothing to help us bring more people into the fold.  If these were his words he is merely pandering to the more radical anti-military segment of his fan base.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> What makes me think this may not have been Ron's tweet is the comment about treating PTSD at a firing range. I would think that as a physician, Ron would be reluctant to casually speculate about an individual's treatment for a psychiatric illness.


I thought the same - 5 hours ago.  But now I have to either believe that these are these words, or that he completely disconnected from any forms of communication with his staff.

----------


## pcosmar

> It was in very poor taste.


Wrong.
The first part was Christ's words.
The second part was a medical opinion. and friggin' common sense.

----------


## qh4dotcom

Bad news:

The RP Twitter controversy has made it to theblaze.com and breitbart.com already

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...per-Chris-Kyle

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...snipers-death/

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Four hours later and the tweet is still up, no retraction, no explanation.  So I can conclude one of two things: either Ron Paul did make/authorize this statement, or he is so completely and utterly in the dark that he has no idea what is going on this afternoon.  Either way, it's not good and I have lost some respect for the man.


I haven't lost respect for him.  I'm not sure if some members of this site ever really respected Ron Paul in the first place.

----------


## Pisces

> I thought the same - 5 hours ago.  But now I have to either believe that these are these words, or that he completely disconnected from any forms of communication with his staff.


Hopefully, we will see a response from him or his staff soon.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Count me in the camp of people who knew nothing about the guy before today.




> Originally Posted by Chris Kyle
> Another question people ask a lot: Did it bother you killing so many people in Iraq? I tell them, No. And I mean it. The first time you shoot someone, you get a little nervous. You think, can I really shoot this guy? Is it really okay? But after you kill your enemy, you see its okay. You say, Great. You do it again. And again. You do it so the enemy wont kill you or your countrymen. You do it until theres no one left for you to kill. Thats what war is.
> 			
> 		
> 
> 
> Lovely, isn't he? 
> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...erican-sniper/


Hmmm... I'd dare say that under any other circumstance, people like this might be classified as sociopaths or psychopaths.




> Hate the war, not the warrior. The path of the warrior should not impugned, and I'm not necessarily talking about the U.S. armed forces being sent on imperial forays.


Many veterans don't take pleasure in war or killing.

----------


## itshappening

> Bad news:
> 
> The RP Twitter controversy has made it to theblaze.com and breitbart.com already
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...per-Chris-Kyle
> 
> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...snipers-death/


These are the same people who wanted war with Iraq and were shilling for it.  

I dont know why anyone would listen to them.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I haven't lost respect for him.  I'm not sure if some members of this site ever really respected Ron Paul in the first place.


I haven't lost respect for him, but I adamantly maintain that this could have been done 1000% better, and that the statement is out of character, having taken things to a personal level (rather than a principled level) that Ron just does not have a record of doing.

----------


## pcosmar

not sure which is more disturbing.
People disturbed that Ron Paul might have said this,,
or the people defending a murderous mercenary.

----------


## AuH20

The timing is horrible. He isn't even buried and Ron supposedly tweets something like this. Secondly, it wasn't like this Eddie Ray Routh character killed Kyle in a duel.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> not sure which is more disturbing.
> People disturbed that Ron Paul might have said this,,
> or the people defending a murderous mercenary.


I don't think anyone on RPF's is defending Kyle.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> not sure which is more disturbing.
> People disturbed that Ron Paul might have said this,,
> or the people defending a murderous mercenary.


Personally I am not defending Chris Kyle.  I just think this comment is in poor taste, just as I thought Bloomberg rushing to the mic to condemn guns within hours of Sandy Hook was in poor taste.  Let the man's family grieve before you need to make comments about the circumstances regarding his death.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I haven't lost respect for him, but I adamantly maintain that this could have been done 1000% better, and that the statement is out of character, having taken things to a personal level (rather than a principled level) that Ron just does not have a record of doing.


I agree with that.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I haven't lost respect for him, but I adamantly maintain that this could have been done 1000% better, and that the statement is out of character, having taken things to a personal level (rather than a principled level) that Ron just does not have a record of doing.


I have lost respect for him because of this, and I think even moreso if it turns out this is another failure of oversight on his part.  That is just inexcusable.

----------


## acptulsa

> not sure which is more disturbing.
> People disturbed that Ron Paul might have said this,,
> or the people defending a murderous mercenary.


In politics, the 'when' and the 'how' can be almost as vital as the 'what'.  And many here are more upset at the when and how than anything else.

----------


## pcosmar

> I don't think anyone on RPF's is defending Kyle.


Oh yes they have been,, 
I have not read this whole thread,, but in several others,, yes.

Sad state of affairs when a murderous bastard like this (I had heard him speak) is considered a "hero".
Friggin' disgusting.

----------


## thehungarian

What an odd situation. His twitter account has never really been used for current events like this, outside of occasional comments on economic or foreign policy news.

----------


## Butchie

> I have lost respect for him because of this, and I think even moreso if it turns out this is another failure of oversight on his part.  That is just inexcusable.


I agree, I'm kinda getting tired of the old excuses that it was one of Ron's staff, I hate to sound like one of the people I used to rail against during the campaign but either he has a dark side we don't know about that get's blamed on his staff, or he is terrible when it comes selecting the people he surrounds himself with.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I have lost respect for him because of this, and I think even moreso if it turns out this is another failure of oversight on his part.  That is just inexcusable.


This isn't the first time I've suspected that you didn't join this site for Ron Paul's sake....I have yet to see any evidence that you *ever* respected Ron Paul.

----------


## Butchie

> Kyle was not good people, and nobody around HERE is defending him, so folks here can drop that trope right now.  The point is you could say the _exact_ same thing, maybe even _MORE_ hard-hitting, without driving half of the right into apoplexy.  You don't win in politics by driving everyone away until you are all alone.  You win by bringing people on board through education and/or coalition and then using that influence to convert them to the platform.
> 
> The fundamental truth of something is just as important as HOW you tell that truth.  You can't abandon truth and still be principled, obviously, but you can speak the truth in a language that draws rather than repels, IF you want to save America.  If instead you want to destroy it, then go on telling the truth in a way that makes people flee back to their comfortable lies.  
> 
> At least when we have the Hitler squads going door to door you can be confident that you offended enough folks to help bring it about though the enhancement of willful ignorance on the part of the rank-n-file.


OH MAN!!!! STANDING OVATION!!!

----------


## phill4paul

> From everything I know about the man I think he was well aware of his path and role.  I don't have a problem with former military working as mercs.  Some actually do some great work.


  If his path was to go to another nation and kill the inhabitants of it, that posed no danger to himself or family or community, then his path was not a warriors path. He was a mercenary. Do not sully what it is that makes a Warrior and that which simply makes a paid butcher.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> This isn't the first time I've suspected that you didn't join this site for Ron Paul's sake....I have yet to see any evidence that you *ever* respected Ron Paul.


Would you care to see the cancelled checks?

Just an FYI, people can support a candidate without believing that they are infallible.  Personally, I agree with Ron Paul ideologically about 95% of the time.  My biggest disagreements with him are on the implementation of policy.  I think he is a fine ideologue but not so great of a politician and legislator.

But honestly, your opinion of my intentions is meaningless as you have already stated that you are working for an opposition party.

----------


## jmdrake

FWIW, here's how I would spin this.  "Dr. Paul's point wasn't directed at Kyle per se, but at the fact that the same war machine that made him calloused about the insurgents he killed, at least one being a woman, apparently turned the vet he was trying to help into someone that could randomly kill a friend.  War is hell and we are creating a generation of hell tortured souls.  It's time for the senseless carnage being carried out needlessly in the name of freedom to end."

----------


## AngryCanadian

> not sure which is more disturbing.
> People disturbed that Ron Paul might have said this,,
> or the people defending a murderous mercenary.


Agreed and whats more he stated that he loves and he was firing at a dead women civilian so are Neocons just fine with that then?

----------


## phill4paul

> The timing is horrible. He isn't even buried and Ron supposedly tweets something like this. Secondly, it wasn't like this Eddie Ray Routh character killed Kyle in a duel.


  Ron did not tweet this. The timing of the tweet is horrible. Almost like it was planned. No, exactly like it was planned.

----------


## phill4paul

> So what do you think?  Did he actually say this or is he utterly clueless as to what has taken place today?  
> 
> I am leaning towards the belief that he made this statement.  Otherwise I would have to believe that nearly 5 hours have passed, the tweet is being covered all over the media, and not a single person that works with Ron Paul has contacted him and informed him of the situation.  The only way I can accept that is if he was in a coma or on in some remote village without any means of communication.


  Or those that he surrounds himself with are purposefully keeping him isolated.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Nope, He was sniping people defending their own land and neighborhoods against an aggressive invader.
> Most at a range that he could not have possibly been able to tell a rifle from a stick.


I didn't know car bombing the Imam Ali Mosque or bombing bus stops frequented by Shias by a Jordanian Sunni national constituted, "defending their own lands and neighborhoods", but okay.

----------


## Danke

> Dear God: Please let this be a hack. I'll never pick on Teh Collinz again. I was even nice to him today. I'm trying. Love, Kathy88.


Has anyone read the posts under kathy88 today?

I think her account has been hacked.

----------


## jmdrake

> I didn't know car bombing the Imam Ali Mosque or bombing bus stops frequented by Shias by a Jordanian Sunni national constituted, "defending their own lands and neighborhoods", but okay.


I'm sure that if things ever go "Red Dawn" here there will be some honorable and some not so honorable acts done by defenders of the once United States of America.

----------


## phill4paul

> I agree, I'm kinda getting tired of the old excuses that it was one of Ron's staff, I hate to sound like one of the people I used to rail against during the campaign but either he has a dark side we don't know about that get's blamed on his staff, or he is terrible when it comes selecting the people he surrounds himself with.


  I'd expect you to be in on this one, Butchie.

----------


## mczerone

> Personally I am not defending Chris Kyle.  I just think this comment is in poor taste, just as I thought Bloomberg rushing to the mic to condemn guns within hours of Sandy Hook was in poor taste.  Let the man's family grieve before you need to make comments about the circumstances regarding his death.


How many people will refrain from using this story to glorify his role in the wars, to "honor this hero", to play the emotions of every red-blooded 'merican to feel that this killing was really personal to them because he was a "warrior", or whatever else just to let the family grieve?

If the philosophy is valid, it should be proclaimed from the rooftops whenever you have a voice. If anything, it should be louder after these tragedies to show that you really mean it, and things like this don't change your mind.

This specific tweet wouldn't meet my standards, but I don't think it lost any potential converts or drove anyone away. I think it was intended to make people think, and toward that end it was rather poorly constructed.

----------


## phill4paul

> I didn't know car bombing the Imam Ali Mosque or bombing bus stops frequented by Shias by a Jordanian Sunni national constituted, "defending their own lands and neighborhoods", but okay.


  It is THEIR's to work out. Not OURS. What part of that don't you understand?

----------


## klamath

I guess it comes down to respect for life, even life that has taken other life. Sadamn was a very evil man yet when he was dragged out in the middle of the night and hung in a disrespectful manner I cringed. When Gadafhi was pulled from a culvert and raped with a knife I cringed even though the guy had killed many. Sometimes life has to be terminated but to me show some respect for life even when you terminate life. The only way this won't reflect badly on Ron  is if his twitter acount was hijacked.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Would you care to see the cancelled checks?
> 
> Just an FYI, people can support a candidate without believing that they are infallible.  Personally, I agree with Ron Paul ideologically about 95% of the time.  My biggest disagreements with him are on the implementation of policy.  I think he is a fine ideologue but not so great of a politician and legislator.
> 
> But honestly, your opinion of my intentions is meaningless as you have already stated that you are working for an opposition party.


That's laughable.... you're not worried about the party for which I attended a meeting last week, are you? (I'm not yet working with them anyway and I probably won't).  

You also know that principles come before ANY party for me, so that's a moot point.  I stand with Ron Paul on principle.  

Even if this tweet came from him, it isn't incorrect....just insensitive in its timing.

----------


## phill4paul

Re-Direct:




> 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


  This ^^^ was not Ron Paul.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

big deal. Its a truthful statement whether or not it was him. It doesn't sound so personalized anyhow

----------


## Brett85

This kind of reminds me of the newsletters.  I think Ron just needs to be more careful about what goes out in his name.  I don't think there's any chance at all he actually wrote this.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I have lost respect for him because of this, and I think even moreso if it turns out this is another failure of oversight on his part.  That is just inexcusable.





> This isn't the first time I've suspected that you didn't join this site for Ron Paul's sake....I have yet to see any evidence that you *ever* respected Ron Paul.




Well, I'll be happy to tell you how I dare.  This IS still the RON Paul forums, and yet the man has very little worthwhile to say about RON.  Maybe if you'd stop reading my post history as you daydream about Rand and start paying attention to others, you'd know that.

----------


## phill4paul

> Well, I'll be happy to tell you how I dare.  This IS still the RON Paul forums, and yet the man has very little worthwhile to say about RON.  Maybe if you'd stop reading my post history as you daydream about Rand and start paying attention to others, you'd know that.


  Ask her which user on her mult-user account neg repped you. Just so you know who you are responding to.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I'm sure that if things ever go "Red Dawn" here there will be some honorable and some not so honorable acts done by defenders of the once United States of America.


I think some here like to romanticize these terrorists into freedom fighters.  It's a bad Rambo III rendition of the enemy.  I'm just interjecting the fact that most of these al-Qaeda elements and affiliates are actually foreign nationals with wholly antagonistic religious beliefs to the countries they operate in.  They are not good guys by any measure of the word.  A couple beheading videos should make that clear.

----------


## phill4paul

> I think some here like to romanticize these terrorists into freedom fighters.  It's a bad Rambo III rendition of the enemy.  I'm just interjecting the fact that most of these al-Qaeda elements and affiliates are actually foreign nationals with wholly antagonistic religious beliefs to the countries they operate in.  They are not good guys by any measure of the word.  A couple beheading videos should make that clear.


  Does your assertions change the fact that it is none of our business?

----------


## jmdrake

> I think some here like to romanticize these terrorists into freedom fighters.  It's a bad Rambo III rendition of the enemy.  I'm just interjecting the fact that most of these al-Qaeda elements and affiliates are actually foreign nationals with wholly antagonistic religious beliefs to the countries they operate in.  They are not good guys by any measure of the word.  A couple beheading videos should make that clear.


You didn't understand a word I wrote did you?  Again _there will be some honorable and some not so honorable acts done by defenders of the once United States of America_.  Consider our own civil war.  There were honorable and dishonorable men on both sides.  And there were some beheadings.

Edit: Please read.  And this wasn't the only beheading in the civil war.  "Bloody" Bill Anderson mutilated enemy troops whenever he got the chance.  This is just the only recorded beheading done by regular troops.

_Civil War  
A Civil war story of the murder of a young boy, Casper Prisler, thought to be a Union Spy by Henry Kuhl and others on Butchers Run, Braxton County, Western Virginian, 1861.
The only recorded Civil War beheading, the Civil War Military trial and subsequent sentencing and hanging of Henry Kuhl and Hamilton Windon
                 "The Beheading of Casper Prisler, an innocent boy or Civil War Spy"


                  Bitmap Image

        T
To purchase click on Smith Publishing Mercantile

The Beheading of Casper Prisler, An Innocent Boy or Civil War Spy is a true account of the untimely death of a young lad caused by the anger and frenzy of a Civil War that divided our nation and set ordinarily good citizens against one another and raised suspicions against any stranger visiting a community.  Along this irregular border that vaguely separated a divided nation and in a portion of a Southern State invaded and controlled by an enemy army, neighbor turned against neighbor, friend against friend, father against son, and brother against brother. Thus the scene was set and vividly painted wherein an ordinary citizen would take such heinous action against another human being on the basis of political and philosophical differences, anger or fear or simple lawlessness that prevailed in this part of United States of America, Butchers Run, Braxton County, Virginia in 1861.
Among the thousands of isolated incidents that occurred during the Civil War, and accounted for in all the books and articles that have been written since, one would think that all stories would have been uncovered and presented to the reader, that there would be no new facts or stories of this period to write about.  So, just imagine how excited I was to uncover the official transcript of the Military Trial of Henry Kuhl and others for the murder or the young lad, and for the first time read the actual truth about a story that I have heard about all my life.  

In 1861 near the beginning of the Civil War a teenage boy, either lost from the Union Army or attempting to return to his home in Ohio, wandered into a farm home in Braxton County, Virginia in search of food.  There, assumed to be a Union soldier and spy, he met an untimely death at the hands of hostile Southern Sympathizers who cut off his head with an ordinary mowing scythe.  The eventual discovery of this heinous crime and the subsequent arrest, military trial, and sentencing of the murderers by the United States Army are disclosed herein.

      This is a sad but fascinating story of a true Western Virginia Civil War event that occurred within two miles of my home, Cedarville, WV and one that has been handed down by relatives and residents of the area since its occurrence.  Of course, various versions have been told in stores and homes of the surrounding community. Now it can no longer be placed in the category of folklore.  The truth and facts are known.  It is a contribution to the Civil War History of central West Virginia. _ 

http://www.lonesomeride.com/civil_war.htm

----------


## Danke

> I guess it comes down to respect for life, even life that has taken other life. Sadamn was a very evil man yet when he was dragged out in the middle of the night and hung in a disrespectful manor I cringed.


Yeah, I was so hoping he'd be hung in a respectful manor...   Like Barbra Streisand's.

----------


## sailingaway

> I think some here like to romanticize these terrorists into freedom fighters.  It's a bad Rambo III rendition of the enemy.  I'm just interjecting the fact that most of these al-Qaeda elements and affiliates are actually foreign nationals with wholly antagonistic religious beliefs to the countries they operate in.  They are not good guys by any measure of the word.  A couple beheading videos should make that clear.


what are you trying to provoke?

----------


## Butchie

> I'd expect you to be in on this one, Butchie.



Huh???? Not sure I follow.

----------


## Brett85

> The guy is a government killer and mass murderer, 160 kills and bragged about it. 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with Ron's tweet.  He had it coming.
> 
> If that offends people so be it.


How can you say something like that and be the same guy who constantly defends Rand's deviations from Ron's foreign policy views?

----------


## sailingaway

> So what do you think?  Did he actually say this or is he utterly clueless as to what has taken place today?  
> 
> I am leaning towards the belief that he made this statement.  Otherwise I would have to believe that nearly 5 hours have passed, the tweet is being covered all over the media, and not a single person that works with Ron Paul has contacted him and informed him of the situation.  The only way I can accept that is if he was in a coma or on in some remote village without any means of communication.


Ron could have gone to a movie, or be on a flight or whatever.  It isn't like he is running a campaign and has staff sitting by and a constant contact with someone.  He is in BETWEEN projects.

----------


## erowe1

If this tweet did go out without Ron's permission, then how could anyone working for him possibly think it would be ok to do that?

I think that it's just as likely that Ron wrote it or approved it as it is that that happened.

It's at least a very understandable sentiment. I don't disagree with the tweet, and I can see myself putting something like that on my Facebook in a careless moment. But it's harder to see someone with the job of representing someone else thinking they can just throw around lines like that without permission.

----------


## sailingaway

> I have lost respect for him because of this, and I think even moreso if it turns out this is another failure of oversight on his part.  That is just inexcusable.


Did you ever like him?

----------


## jmdrake

> So what do you think?  Did he actually say this or is he utterly clueless as to what has taken place today?  
> 
> I am leaning towards the belief that he made this statement.  Otherwise I would have to believe that nearly 5 hours have passed, the tweet is being covered all over the media, and not a single person that works with Ron Paul has contacted him and informed him of the situation.  The only way I can accept that is if he was in a coma or on in some remote village without any means of communication.


Actually this makes me think someone else made the tweet.  Ron has in the past seemed unwilling to "out" people who say "unconventional" things in his name.  (*cough* newsletters *cough*).  If Ron said "I didn't say that" the immediate next question would be "Who did?" which he seems unwilling to answer.  Rand was far more willing to throw people under the bus in his 2006 campaign.

----------


## sailingaway

> Actually this makes me think someone else made the tweet.  Ron has in the past seemed unwilling to "out" people who say "unconventional" things in his name.  (*cough* newsletters *cough*).  If Ron said "I didn't say that" the immediate next question would be "Who did?" which he seems unwilling to answer.  Rand was far more willing to throw people under the bus in his 2006 campaign.



Hopefully he will in the near future at least make it clear that his initials are attached to HIS tweets.

----------


## fr33

I'm so over being worried about this. I hope this is a new beginning of Radical Ron; unchained.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> How can you say something like that and be the same guy who constantly defends Rand's deviations from Ron's foreign policy views?


I wonder if there aren't a LOT of RPF members with multiple accounts.  I think some of them are getting a bit confused.

----------


## pcosmar

> I think some here like to romanticize these terrorists into freedom fighters.  It's a bad Rambo III rendition of the enemy.  I'm just interjecting the fact that most of these al-Qaeda elements and affiliates are actually foreign nationals with wholly antagonistic religious beliefs to the countries they operate in.  They are not good guys by any measure of the word.  A couple beheading videos should make that clear.


*“Well, it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle.”* 


They didn't.
The battle was brought to them, to their home and neighborhood.




http://pcosmar.blogspot.com/2010/04/...ing-their.html

----------


## fr33

The only thing I'm worried about is Ron's safety.

----------


## erowe1

If these are Ron's words, then I'm fully prepared to stand up for his saying this to anyone who criticizes him.

But if somebody who works for him did it without his knowledge, they should be fired.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Well, I'm not gonna wade through a gazillion posts on this, when it still seems undetermined who "tweeted" the comment.

I hope he did...I happen to agree.

It's one thing to do a miserable job, killing men women and children who were doing nothing but trying to defend their homeland against an aggressive and vastly superior invader.

It's entirely another to come home and get rich off a book bragging about your exploits.

It serves another purpose as well: it flushes out all the "wobblies" and "fence sitters" and "compromisers".

+1776 for Radical Ron

----------


## tsai3904

Does anyone think Ron would say this if he were still in office or if he was the President?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> what are you trying to provoke?


Apparently a lot of +Rep since this thread started.  Thanks for asking.

----------


## sailingaway

> Does anyone think Ron would say this if he were still in office or if he was the President?



I don't think he said it now, and on the remote chance he did did would put it down to his never being constrained by 140 characters before.

----------


## sailingaway

> Apparently a lot of +Rep since this thread started.  Thanks for asking.


by trying to make it ever worse by appeals to emotion to drive it so.

----------


## itshappening

> How can you say something like that and be the same guy who constantly defends Rand's deviations from Ron's foreign policy views?


Ron's assertive nature and forthright views brought me to him and how he became well known.  

I will defend that... 

As for Rand, it's a separate issue.  I support his project to appeal to a wider possible audience.  He is after running for president.  Ron is out of office and isn't running for anything so is free to say what he wants.  I believe if Rand is successful he will lessen the killing (and suffering of troops) by refusing to back undeclared wars and close military bases.

----------


## fr33

> Does anyone think Ron would say this if he were still in office or if he was the President?


Nope. Prometheus is unchained.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

So are we ever going to get official word if this was from Ron Paul himself or not?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Does anyone think Ron would say this if he were still in office or if he was the President?


I don't think he ever would.  His twitter probably got hacked.

----------


## tsai3904

> So are we ever going to get official word if this was from Ron Paul himself or not?


I'm sure someone will eventually get a chance to ask him during his next public appearance at the latest.

----------


## erowe1

> I don't think he ever would.  His twitter probably got hacked.


That is possible. Mischief seems easier for me to believe than someone doing this without permission and thinking it was ok.

But if it was mischief, then it was either someone who did their homework, or an actual employee, because the line used is definitely one that reflects someone with their finger on the pulse on the LRC types.

----------


## trey4sports

so whats the deal, yo? Did he say that?

----------


## sailingaway

> so whats the deal, yo? Did he say that?


unknown. It doesn't have his initials as other things he himself has posted do.

----------


## Confederate



----------


## tsai3904

Ron Paul on Facebook:




> 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


http://www.facebook.com/ronpaul/posts/10152285499876686

----------


## acptulsa

> 


Now _that_ sounds like Ron Paul.

----------


## supermario21

Good to see.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

Was it ever revealed who sent out the tweet to Huntsman after Iowa last year?




> We found your one Iowa voter, he's in Linn precinct 5 you might want to call him and say thanks.


https://twitter.com/RonPaul/status/154383017786351616

----------


## sailingaway

much better than that tweet.  THIS one has his initials.

So again, he either didn't write it or was caught in the 140 letter issue as a brand new twitterer.  We still don't know.

----------


## klamath

So did he deny the first one?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> much better than that tweet.  THIS one has his initials.
> 
> So again, he either didn't write it or was caught in the 140 letter issue as a brand new twitterer.  We still don't know.


I agree this statement is much better.  I still would like to find out if he made the original statement or this was a lapse of management skills.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> So did he deny the first one?


It's still up.  Would only take a click of the delete button to remove it.

----------


## Carlybee

> Even if they did, it wouldn't matter.  A lot of their crowd agrees that the only good Muslim is a dead one.


Yep.  We have done a terrible job of painting these wars for what they really are rather than what much of the public thinks they are.  Everytime I hear someone say "Thank you for fighting for our freedom" I want to cringe. More like "thank you for fighting for the MIC and Israel."  For every Chris Kyle who came back and capitalized on being a one man death squad, there are so many others who couldn't even live with what they had become.  What a messed up perception of patriotism.

----------


## sailingaway

> It's still up.  Would only take a click of the delete button to remove it.


If Ron is on twitter it's his first week. I didn't know that in mine. And it is so well known, it hardly matters at this point, he might think.

----------


## sailingaway

> I agree this statement is much better.  I still would like to find out if he made the original statement or this was a lapse of management skills.


You phrase it damned if you do and damned if you don't, whatever.  that seems to be your entire purpose in this thread.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> You phrase it damned if you do and damned if you don't, whatever.  that seems to be your entire purpose in this thread.


I gave him the benefit of the doubt early in the day, but as the hours went by it became problematic. He is a professional, and has a personal brand to protect - so he either needs to manage his staff better, or learn how to use the product he is posting comments on.  So unless the account was hacked and no one on his staff is aware of it (which I find hard to believe) he is at fault for this.

I don't give Ron Paul or anyone a free pass just because I like them.  When they make an error, whether that be in judgement or in their managerial duties they are at fault.

At the end of the day, Ron Paul is ultimately responsible for all that gets attributed to his name.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I gave him the benefit of the doubt early in the day, but as the hours went by it became problematic. He is a professional, and has a personal brand to protect - so he either needs to manage his staff better, or learn how to use the product he is posting comments on.  So unless the account was hacked and no one on his staff is aware of it (which I find hard to believe) he is at fault for this.
> 
> I don't give Ron Paul or anyone a free pass just because I like them.  When they make an error, whether that be in judgement or in their managerial duties they are at fault.
> 
> At the end of the day, Ron Paul is ultimately responsible for all that gets attributed to his name.


Ugh...a "brand".

This isn't selling laundry soap or dog food.

This is life and death, liberty or tyranny.

Now is the time to speak straight, direct and from the heart with conviction and passion.

----------


## sailingaway

> I gave him the benefit of the doubt early in the day, but as the hours went by it became problematic. He is a professional, and has a personal brand to protect - so he either needs to manage his staff better, or learn how to use the product he is posting comments on.  So unless the account was hacked and no one on his staff is aware of it (which I find hard to believe) he is at fault for this.
> 
> I don't give Ron Paul or anyone a free pass just because I like them.  When they make an error, whether that be in judgement or in their managerial duties they are at fault.
> 
> At the end of the day, Ron Paul is ultimately responsible for all that gets attributed to his name.


I recall damning with faint praise not any benefit of the doubt.  I don't recall ever seeing any great enthusiasm from you for Ron. Obviously he is responsible in some sense for what goes under his name, but his twitter use whether alone or with someone is brand new.  It may have some early glitches.  I would like him to have resume's of true believers who have judgment, but I'm speaking as someone who wants him to do well, and expand his influence greatly.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Ugh...a "brand".
> 
> This isn't selling laundry soap or dog food.
> 
> This is life and death, liberty or tyranny.
> 
> Now is the time to speak straight, direct and from the heart with conviction and passion.


Like it or not, Ron Paul is a brand, as is any national figure.

----------


## sailingaway

> Ugh...a "brand".
> 
> This isn't selling laundry soap or dog food.
> 
> This is life and death, liberty or tyranny.
> 
> Now is the time to speak straight, direct and from the heart with conviction and passion.


Have you ever known him to do otherwise?

----------


## tsai3904

> Now is the time to speak straight, direct and from the heart with conviction and passion.


Would you expect or want Ron to have said that if he was still in office?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I recall damning with faint praise not any benefit of the doubt.  I don't recall ever seeing any great enthusiasm from you for Ron.


Well you are the chief cheerleader here, so anything other than grand adulation for the man is perceived by you as "faint praise".  You do have a very strong bias due to your personal awe of the man.

----------


## garyallen59

> I agree, I'm kinda getting tired of the old excuses that it was one of Ron's staff, I hate to sound like one of the people I used to rail against during the campaign but either he has a dark side we don't know about that get's blamed on his staff, or he is terrible when it comes selecting the people he surrounds himself with.

----------


## sailingaway

> Well you are the chief cheerleader here, so anything other than grand adulation for the man is perceived by you as "faint praise".  You do have a very strong bias due to your personal awe of the man.


I adore him.  But for someone who doesn't like him or his style to capitalize on something like this isn't unusual.

----------


## supermario21

h x x p://  twitchy.com/2013/02/04/medal-of-honor-recipient-dakota-meyer-to-ron-paul-have-you-lost-your-mind/

Medal of Honor winner Dakota Meyer chimes in..

----------


## No Free Beer

> Ugh...a "brand".
> 
> This isn't selling laundry soap or dog food.
> 
> This is life and death, liberty or tyranny.
> 
> Now is the time to speak straight, direct and from the heart with conviction and passion.


Normally, I agree with pretty much everything you say.

Here, I don't.

You can be truthful and honest, but if you don't know HOW to say something, you're as good as lost.

This is why Rand is already (politically speaking) more successful than Ron ever was.

Rand has allies in Washington. Ron never had TRUE allies.

I love Ron as an idea, not as a politician.

----------


## Lightweis

Keep it coming doctor paul . Unleash the doctor!!

----------


## erowe1

> h x x p://  twitchy.com/2013/02/04/medal-of-honor-recipient-dakota-meyer-to-ron-paul-have-you-lost-your-mind/
> 
> Medal of Honor winner Dakota Meyer chimes in..


Uhhh.



> A year after the Battle of Ganjgal, after drinking alcohol Meyer attempted to commit suicide, however the Glock that was in his glove compartment of his truck was unloaded; afterward he sought help for post-traumatic stress disorder.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Meyer

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> h x x p://  twitchy.com/2013/02/04/medal-of-honor-recipient-dakota-meyer-to-ron-paul-have-you-lost-your-mind/
> 
> Medal of Honor winner Dakota Meyer chimes in..


Maybe get a pertinent excerpt edited in? I don't really feel like giving their site views.

----------


## sailingaway

> Normally, I agree with pretty much everything you say.
> 
> Here, I don't.
> 
> You can be truthful and honest, but if you don't know HOW to say something, you're as good as lost.
> 
> This is why Rand is already (politically speaking) more successful than Ron ever was.
> 
> Rand has allies in Washington. Ron never had TRUE allies.
> ...


I disagree with you on many fronts, but different people have very different viewpoints on this, I guess.

----------


## sailingaway

> h x x p://  twitchy.com/2013/02/04/medal-of-honor-recipient-dakota-meyer-to-ron-paul-have-you-lost-your-mind/
> 
> Medal of Honor winner Dakota Meyer chimes in..


who?

----------


## supermario21

Dakota Meyer ✔ @Dakota_Meyer

Hey @ronpaul have you lost you mind? That sword protected your freedom. Guess since I live by it I deserve to get murdered as well? #wow


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Meyer

He's a Kentuckian who attempted suicide after coming home, but thankfully he got treatment for PTSD.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Would you expect or want Ron to have said that if he was still in office?


Yes, and he did.

He has a long history of speaking plainly, that some find "embarrassing".

----------


## sailingaway

> Maybe get a pertinent excerpt edited in? I don't really feel like giving their site views.


I'm starting to think it is the old 'trolling for clicks' thing.  Ron still generates interest, doesn't he?

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Dakota Meyer ✔ @Dakota_Meyer
> 
> Hey @ronpaul have you lost you mind? That sword protected your freedom. Guess since I live by it I deserve to get murdered as well? #wow


These people are scum. First of all, where did Ron say he deserved to die? Second, what freedom did the sword protect? All it does is take away freedom these days.

----------


## Lord Xar

well, I seen some headline about this on one of the major news-stations. 

Was this Ron or one of his handlers?

----------


## sailingaway

> Dakota Meyer ✔ @Dakota_Meyer
> 
> Hey @ronpaul have you lost you mind? That sword protected your freedom. Guess since I live by it I deserve to get murdered as well? #wow
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Meyer
> 
> He's a Kentuckian who attempted suicide after coming home, but thankfully he got treatment for PTSD.


well, hopefully someone will tweet him Ron's facebook comment.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> But for someone who doesn't like him or his style to capitalize on something like this isn't unusual.


Which is why he should be extra careful not only with his statements but with his staff.  Ron Paul can go in one of two directions from this point on.  He can be one of the leaders of a growing movement, a respected voice, a learned scholar so to speak and can be remembered when he is gone for greatness and achievement.  Or he can be the next Lyndon LaRouche and have a small, and insane cult following that stands outside of posts offices with bullhorns and pamphlets twice a year.

I hope it is the former and not the latter, but a lot of that depends on Ron's ability to protect his brand.  Errors like today's error are not good.  Repeat this a few dozen times and we are going to be in LaRouche land.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Understood.

See, I have held all along that none of this will be solved politically, and that, quite frankly, political efforts are just kicking the can down the road and making the ultimate reckoning that much worse.

So that is why I hold fast to ideas, and not politicians.




> Normally, I agree with pretty much everything you say.
> 
> Here, I don't.
> 
> You can be truthful and honest, but if you don't know HOW to say something, you're as good as lost.
> 
> This is why Rand is already (politically speaking) more successful than Ron ever was.
> 
> Rand has allies in Washington. Ron never had TRUE allies.
> ...

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

According to Israel Anderson, the FB posts and Twitter posts are Ron's.

https://www.facebook.com/RandPaulFli...94801870533654

----------


## sailingaway

> well, I seen some headline about this on one of the major news-stations. 
> 
> Was this Ron or one of his handlers?


unclear, he has actually tweeted himself this last week, probably the first time ever, and posted some facebook posts but every time he used his initials 'REP' which someone said was how he was going to identify his personal input.  This tweet didn't have those.  

On the other hand there is the outside chance that never having tweeted before the 140 letter limit caused him to unrecognizably edit a sentiment.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> These people are scum. First of all, where did Ron say he deserved to die? Second, what freedom did the sword protect? All it does is take away freedom these days.


$#@!ing right...since all this mess started, all that has happened is an increasingly rapid *loss* of freedom.

The nerve of these people.

----------


## sailingaway

> According to Israel Anderson, the FB posts and Twitter posts are Ron's.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/RandPaulFli...94801870533654


which Paul did he speak to I wonder, and were they speaking of the tweet as well as the facebook post?

If he did post it he hopefully learned some of the problems of twitter short hand. His facebook post was fine.

----------


## sailingaway

> Which is why he should be extra careful not only with his statements but with his staff.  Ron Paul can go in one of two directions from this point on.  He can be one of the leaders of a growing movement, a respected voice, a learned scholar so to speak and can be remembered when he is gone for greatness and achievement.  Or he can be the next Lyndon LaRouche and have a small, and insane cult following that stands outside of posts offices with bullhorns and pamphlets twice a year.
> 
> I hope it is the former and not the latter, but a lot of that depends on Ron's ability to protect his brand.  Errors like today's error are not good.  Repeat this a few dozen times and we are going to be in LaRouche land.


That's a bit of a leap.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> 


As I said in the other (Rand's response) thread, this is exactly what I expect from Ron Paul.   No gloating, no pandering (calling him a "hero")...just condolences and a subtle lesson.  I am going to assume that what preceded this was written by someone other than REP.

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

> which Paul did he speak to I wonder, and were they speaking of the tweet as well as the facebook post?
> 
> If he did post it he hopefully learned some of the problems of twitter short hand. His facebook post was fine.


I'm assuming both, since IA quoted both and attributed it to Ron.




> The tweet: "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
> 
> The FaceBook post: "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." -Ron Paul
> 
> [Just spoke to the Pauls to confirm this was a legit post by Dr. Paul before posting it. It is. ia.]

----------


## jj-

I heard Tom Woods was involved in a new project with Ron Paul. Maybe he is running Ron's twitter?

----------


## jj-

> If this tweet did go out without Ron's permission, then how could anyone working for him possibly think it would be ok to do that?


Ron has always had a knack for hiring morons.

----------


## COpatriot

CNN just showed the "live by the sword" tweet and the vet they had on seemed quite pissed.

----------


## EBounding

Either Ron wrote this or he's falling on the sword for whoever mixed up their twitter account. We may never know, but we have to assume he wrote it and move on.

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm assuming both, since IA quoted both and attributed it to Ron.


but who would 'the Paul's' be, someone who lived with him and knew or someone following the belief that 'he now manages his own account' necessarily means no one else ever posts on it?

----------


## sailingaway

> Either Ron wrote this or he's falling on the sword for whoever mixed up their twitter account. We may never know, but we have to assume he wrote it and move on.


Well, clearly, he isn't clarifying beyond his facebook page.

Honestly, it shows how influential he is that it is getting this much media.

As a smear, of course.  I bet CNN didn't read the facebook post in that coverage.

----------


## mport1

While I don't wish violence on anybody, I can't say I'm in tears over the death of a mass murderer...  Chris Kyle was no hero, in fact, just the opposite.

----------


## Stallheim

> Well, clearly, he isn't clarifying beyond his facebook page.
> 
> Honestly, it shows how influential he is that it is getting this much media.
> 
> As a smear, of course.  I bet CNN didn't read the facebook post in that coverage.


actually a great twitter response would be... "you think this is bad, you should read what he has over on his facebook page!"

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I guess it comes down to respect for life, even life that has taken other life. ... Sometimes life has to be terminated but to me show some respect for life even when you terminate life. ...


Are you talking about Chris Kyle?

----------


## klamath

> Are you talking about Chris Kyle?


I am talking about everybody.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> CNN just showed the "live by the sword" tweet and the vet they had on seemed quite pissed.


How do you like your crow Sailing, medium rare?  Once again I'm proven Cassandra of the forum and insulted for my efforts.

----------


## sailingaway

> How do you like your crow Sailing, medium rare?  Once again I'm proven Cassandra of the forum and insulted for my efforts.


what are you talking about? I never doubted media would sensationalize it just as you were doing, just questioned why a poster in this forum would take the same tack.

----------


## No Free Beer

> While I don't wish violence on anybody, I can't say I'm in tears over the death of a mass murderer...  Chris Kyle was no hero, in fact, just the opposite.


I'm guessing you yourself are not or never have been in the military. Nor do you have someone close to you who has served or is currently serving. I can tell by your comment.

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm guessing you yourself are not or never have been in the military. Nor do you have someone close to you who has served or is currently serving. I can tell by your comment.


I don't think he is speaking of soldiers in general. Unbeknownst to me this one has apparently written books saying killing people was great fun or some such (someone correct me if I'm wrong, I never read his books.)_

----------


## No Free Beer

I hate putting people in groups, but it seems like it's always the anarchists that are the smartasses on the forum.

They always say the most elitist $#@! I have ever read. Yes, you take the cake. Even over a prick like Bill Maher.

The vile things you anarchists are saying is just disgusting.

I know I am going to get slammed for these comments, but frankly, I don't give a rats ass. You have a right to your opinion/views and you have the right to say/type them. 

That doesn't justify your comments. Nor does it help this movement.

----------


## sailingaway

> I hate putting people in groups, but it seems like it's always the anarchists that are the smartasses on the forum.
> 
> They always say the most elitist $#@! I have ever read. Yes, you take the cake. Even over a prick like Bill Maher.
> 
> The vile things you anarchists are saying is just disgusting.
> 
> I know I am going to get slammed for these comments, but frankly, I don't give a rats ass. You have a right to your opinion/views and you have the right to say/type them. 
> 
> That doesn't justify your comments. Nor does it help this movement.


Who is 'you anarchists'? Which views? We are on page 49.

----------


## No Free Beer

> I don't think he is speaking of soldiers in general. Unbeknownst to me this one has apparently written books saying killing people was great fun or some such (someone correct me if I'm wrong, I never read his books.)_


I haven't either. However, before making such rash comments, one must understand this or any other's comments and put them in context.

In his eyes, he maybe thought that his killings were justified and that he was defending his country.

My point is, it's not black and white like many make things out to be.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Who is 'you anarchists'? Which views? We are on page 49.


not you.

----------


## sailingaway

> I haven't either. However, before making such rash comments, one must understand this or any other's comments and put them in context.
> 
> In his eyes, he maybe thought that his killings were justified and that he was defending his country.


people were quoting his books, I was surprised.

But because I think most haven't seen his books I would expect their reaction to be somewhat like yours.

----------


## No Free Beer

To the anarchists, keep your vile comments to yourself.

Because I can guarantee you one thing, when you say/write these things...the big boys in Washington and in the media are listening/reading. You are hurting this movement more than you think you are defending the 1st Amendment.

----------


## fr33

> To the anarchists, keep your vile comments to yourself.
> 
> Because I can guarantee you one thing, when you say/write these things...the big boys in Washington and in the media are listening/reading. You are hurting this movement more than you think you are defending the 1st Amendment.


Go to hell.

----------


## sailingaway

> To the anarchists, keep your vile comments to yourself.
> 
> Because I can guarantee you one thing, when you say/write these things...the big boys in Washington and in the media are listening/reading. You are hurting this movement more than you think you are defending the 1st Amendment.



collectivist posts should be avoided (there is a TOS on this...)

----------


## No Free Beer

> people were quoting his books, I was surprised.
> 
> But because I think most haven't seen his books I would expect their reaction to be somewhat like yours.


I openly admit that I haven't read his book(s). 

From what I have read on this topic, it seems like someone people are just calling him names without reading themselves.

Again, things are not as black and white as they think.

Do I believe Ventura was punched by this man? No. But does that mean I am going to call him names, with regards to his service, and feel better about myself? No.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> what are you talking about? I never doubted media would sensationalize it just as you were doing, just questioned why a poster in this forum would take the same tack.


I stated how this was going to go down and the repercussions to follow.  You said my posts were "BS" and "trolling".

----------


## No Free Beer

> Go to hell.


No thanks.

BTW, you are proving my point.

----------


## pacodever

I agree with Jesus and Ron Paul on this one, but some people would rather hero-worship mass murderers.  I won't spend a second hand-wringing over their contrived outrage and their "'Merica" chants.  These are the same blood thirsty mob who booed RP for suggesting our foreign policy follow the Golden Rule and are CONSTANTLY clamoring for more war without understanding the costs and unintended consequences.  Chris Kyle was just a tool of our violent policies and met a violent end.  Our foreign policy made Chris Kyle into what he was, and unmade him by what the war also created.  Poetic justice? Maybe not, but definitely ironically appropriate.

----------


## sailingaway

> I openly admit that I haven't read his book(s). 
> 
> From what I have read on this topic, it seems like someone people are just calling him names without reading themselves.
> 
> Again, things are not as black and white as they think.
> 
> Do I believe Ventura was punched by this man? No. But does that mean I am going to call him names, with regards to his service, and feel better about myself? No.


I assure you, I am not influenced by who punched Ventura, who can likely handle himself in any event.  I was really put off by what he wrote in his books, as was quoted here. However, I wouldn't have tweeted the tweet myself while his family was grieving.  It doesn't have Ron's initials as his other posts do, but if it was him I suspect he had no idea how far his tweets would travel. He just started this week.  I think it wasn't him, but don't know, and don't know if I will ever know.

----------


## sailingaway

> I stated how this was going to go down and the repercussions to follow.  You said my posts were "BS" and "trolling".


I didn't say it wouldn't be sensationalist, I said the things you were posting to make it more so seemed like concern trolling as they exacerbated any such impact.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> I openly admit that I haven't read his book(s). 
> 
> From what I have read on this topic, it seems like someone people are just calling him names without reading themselves.
> 
> Again, things are not as black and white as they think.
> 
> Do I believe Ventura was punched by this man? No. But does that mean I am going to call him names, with regards to his service, and feel better about myself? No.


Read his writings and watch his interviews. If you aren't outraged by those actions, taken in accord with sniping over 150 people, some of those women and children, I don't know what to tell you.

----------


## No Free Beer

> I didn't say it wouldn't be sensationalist, I said the things you were posting to make it more so seemed like concern trolling as they exacerbated any such impact.


Sailing, I have absolutely NO problem with you. My comments are not directed toward you.

I think you are rational.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Read his writings and watch his interviews. If you aren't outraged by those actions, taken in accord with sniping over 150 people, some of those women and children, I don't know what to tell you.


I will address this when I get home.

----------


## sailingaway

> Read his writings and watch his interviews. If you aren't outraged by those actions, taken in accord with sniping over 150 people, some of those women and children, I don't know what to tell you.


I was kind of taken aback by some of the statements before people posted excerpts, myself.  I still would have respect for his family for the moment, but I understand the dislike, at least.

----------


## mac_hine

> To the anarchists, keep your vile comments to yourself.
> 
> Because I can guarantee you one thing, when you say/write these things...the big boys in Washington and in the media are listening/reading. You are hurting this movement more than you think you are defending the 1st Amendment.


$#@! you

----------


## sailingaway

> Sailing, I have absolutely NO problem with you. My comments are not directed toward you.
> 
> I think you are rational.


My comment was addressed to Bastiat, not to you.

----------


## phill4paul

> I hate putting people in groups, but it seems like it's always the anarchists that are the smartasses on the forum.
> 
> They always say the most elitist $#@! I have ever read. Yes, you take the cake. Even over a prick like Bill Maher.
> 
> The vile things you anarchists are saying is just disgusting.
> 
> I know I am going to get slammed for these comments, but frankly, I don't give a rats ass. You have a right to your opinion/views and you have the right to say/type them. 
> 
> That doesn't justify your comments. Nor does it help this movement.


  I'm not an anarchist and I have no $#@!ing idea what you are on about.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I was kind of taken aback by some of the statements before people posted excerpts, myself.  I still would have respect for his family for the moment, but I understand the dislike, at least.


I think anyone who was not already familiar with him felt the same way. There was a few threads about him a while back when he was doing interviews about his book. I am sure Ron Paul has seen him previously should he have written that tweet. I feel a lot more sympathy for the soldiers coming home who realize what they have done and the lies they were told who can't cope anymore and take their own lives. I hope people see it is not a lack of empathy for the troops. (though I'm sure the MSM is going to chalk that tweet up to that being the case)

----------


## EBounding

The original tweet pretty much says "He got what was coming to him" with no mention of how a sensible foreign policy would have prevented it.  Kyle sounds like a disturbing individual, but I don't see how making a personal statement about his death helps anything. 

Paul isn't campaigning anymore though, so he can say whatever he wants.  But it does make it harder for someone like me to defend his _ideas_ when the people you want to persuade will just dismiss everything you say because he "hates the troops".

----------


## sailingaway

> *The original tweet pretty much says "He got what was coming to him" w*ith no mention of how a sensible foreign policy would have prevented it.  Kyle sounds like a disturbing individual, but I don't see how making a personal statement about his death helps anything. 
> 
> Paul isn't campaigning anymore though, so he can say whatever he wants.  But it does make it harder for someone like me to defend his _ideas_ when the people you want to persuade will just dismiss everything you say because he "hates the troops".


I disagree with the bolded part, but it could easily be taken by people who don't know him or don't like him as saying that.

I suspect IF he wrote it it was his fourth ever tweet, and he had to cut the softer parts.  I'd refer people to his facebook.  But it DIDN'T have his initials.

----------


## pacodever

> *The original tweet pretty much says "He got what was coming to him"* with no mention of how a sensible foreign policy would have prevented it.  Kyle sounds like a disturbing individual, but I don't see how making a personal statement about his death helps anything.


No it doesn't.  I wouldn't even say it was referring to Chris Kyle specifically, but our foreign policy.  Our foreign policy creates violent men who  commit violent acts such as this.  Both men were products of the wars.




> Commonly, the expression is understood to mean, "You can expect to become a victim of whatever means you use to get what you want."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_by...e_by_the_sword

----------


## EBounding

> No it doesn't.  I wouldn't even say it was referring to Chris Kyle specifically, but our foreign policy.  Our foreign policy creates violent men who  commit violent acts such as this.  Both men were products of the wars.


That was my initial thought at first actually.  But that's not how other people (the people we need to persuade) see it.

----------


## Reece

> I hate putting people in groups, but it seems like it's always the anarchists that are the smartasses on the forum.
> 
> They always say the most elitist $#@! I have ever read. Yes, you take the cake. Even over a prick like Bill Maher.
> 
> The vile things you anarchists are saying is just disgusting.
> 
> I know I am going to get slammed for these comments, but frankly, I don't give a rats ass. You have a right to your opinion/views and you have the right to say/type them. 
> 
> That doesn't justify your comments. Nor does it help this movement.


Isnt this technically a vile comment _itself_?

----------


## mport1

> I'm guessing you yourself are not or never have been in the military. Nor do you have someone close to you who has served or is currently serving. I can tell by your comment.


One of my best friends is currently a SEAL...  

Chris Kyle was a mass murderer and does not deserve anybody's respect.  Because he and others put on uniforms that somehow absolves them of their crimes?  Did he think he was "doing the right thing?"  Sure, but again, that doesn't justify his actions.  People need to stop "supporting the troops."  Glorifying their crimes is a big part of the problem.  If people start realizing what they are doing is wrong, maybe the wars and scale of destruction waged by the U.S. government will decrease.

The company he started had the following, absolutely disgusting, motto: "Despite what your momma told you, Violence does solve problems."  

Then, there is also this: Kyle told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly in January 2012 that he viewed his Iraqi victims as savages and didn't think of them as human beings. "They live by putting fear into other people's hearts and civilized people just don't act that way," he said. Kyle also said he had no regrets about the people he shot.

----------


## eleganz

Someone just told me Israel Anderson called RP and he confirmed he wrote it.

I still don't see RP logging onto twitter and writing it though.

----------


## sailingaway

> Someone just told me Israel Anderson called RP and he confirmed he wrote it.
> 
> I still don't see RP logging onto twitter and writing it though.


Israel Anderson's post said he called 'the Pauls' which might have been even someone in Kentucky who might only know Ron was now managing his own account, and C4L no longer was. Regardless of this tweet, I am glad to hear that Ron is going to be managing his own accounts.  There might be a learning curve, but I'd really like to be hearing from Ron directly. Also, Israel's post referred collectively to the later facebook post, which had Ron's initials, and the earlier tweet which didn't.

But he's not used to twitter. In the editing, the first week of using it, I guess he could have been clumsy.  He put REP (his initials) on all the other stuff he posted though.

----------


## No Free Beer

> $#@! you


Case and point.

----------


## fr33

> No thanks.
> 
> BTW, you are proving my point.


You've already admitted that you are uneducated about what you are talking about. And you blame anarchists for something Ron Paul (or possibly his staff) has tweeted. Go to hell. You don't know wtf you are talking about.

----------


## newbitech

So this guy killed 150+ men women and children with a sword?

----------


## The Gold Standard

> So this guy killed 150+ men women and children with a sword?


From over a mile away at times. A true hero.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> So this guy killed 150+ men women and children with a sword?


Please tell me you are joking.. or please clarify your point. I really don't think the means of death affect the phrase, "Live by the sword, die by the sword." By your same logic you would also have to ask whether he was killed by a sword. (Not that the means matter)

----------


## No Free Beer

> One of my best friends is currently a SEAL...  
> 
> Chris Kyle was a mass murderer and does not deserve anybody's respect.  Because he and others put on uniforms that somehow absolves them of their crimes?
> 
> The company he started had the following motto: "Despite what your momma told you, Violence does solve problems."  
> 
> Then, there is also this: Kyle told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly in January 2012 that he viewed his Iraqi victims as savages and didn't think of them as human beings. "They live by putting fear into other people's hearts and civilized people just don't act that way," he said. Kyle also said he had no regrets about the people he shot.


Well, I will then apologize to you for jumping to conclusions on who you know in the military.

However, this does not change my opinion.

Listen, we could sit here and argue whether we should have gone to Iraq in the first place. In fact, I would put money on that you and I agree that we shouldn't have. that being said, he did save A LOT of Marines lives. A lot of people in the military have problems with what he said and that he wrote a book about his experiences. A lot of the military also didn't like the fact that he essentially started his own company. I can understand the frustration in that. However, that wasn't his job, nor was it his to set policy. His job was to execute his orders and to protect his men. He did that. Now, I have read that he killed a boy, but that boy had an RPG. I read that he killed a woman, but that woman had grenades on her with ten Marines surrounding her. Again, you can sit here and make the philosophical argument for why we shouldn't have been there in the first place, but at the end of the day, that was not his job. His job, as previously stated, was to execute his orders and protect his men. He did that. It is not as black and white as _some_ people are making it out to be. 

And for _some_ people to sit on their computers, comfortably, and spew nonsense like they understand the battle field is not only annoying, but irresponsible. 

*THAT* is my point.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> From over a mile away at times. A true hero.


I remember him talking about a guy's arm he shot off like he was ordering a cup of coffee. True heroes don't have remorse.

----------


## No Free Beer

> You've already admitted that you are uneducated about what you are talking about. And you blame anarchists for something Ron Paul (or possibly his staff) has tweeted. Go to hell. You don't know wtf you are talking about.


I never stated that I am uneducated about this subject. I stated that I didn't read his book. Just as you apparently didn't closely read my comment.

I blame anarchists for vile language, b/c since being on the forums, I've noticed an elitist and vile attitude from them. Not all. But A LOT. It is quite annoying. I am guilty, at times, of this too. Almost everyone is. But, to be honest, not the extent of the self-proclaimed anarchists. 

For you to sit here and tell me to "go to hell" says a lot about your character and your immaturity. This is an open forum. You have all the right to say what you believe and what you want, but that doesn't mean that what you say doesn't hurt this movement. In case you are unaware, the major players in Washington and in the media read what we all say. Let me know how far this movement goes when people, like a lot of the anarchists, say things which bring negative attention to this movement.

So again, thank you, but no thank you.

----------


## mport1

> Again, you can sit her and make the philosophical argument for why we shouldn't have been there in the first place, but at the end of the day, that was not his job. His job, as previously stated, was to execute his orders and protect his men. He did that. It is not as black and white as _some_ people are making it out to be...


His job is immoral and he could have quit or stopped obeying orders.  That is what a real hero would do.  People should not make excuses for his crimes just because they have a veil of legitimacy from he being a part of the military.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Well, I will then apologize to you for jumping to conclusions on who you know in the military.
> 
> However, this does not change my opinion.
> 
> Listen, we could still here at argue whether we should have gone to Iraq in the first place. In fact, I would put money on that you and I agree that we shouldn't have. that being said, he did save A LOT of Marines lives. A lot of people in the military have problems with what he said and that he wrote a book about his experiences. A lot of the military also didn't like the fact that he essentially started his own company. I can understand the frustration in that. However, that wasn't his job, nor was it to set policy. His job was to execute his orders and to protect his men. He did that. Now, I have read that he killed a boy, but that boy had an RPG. I read that he killed a woman, but that woman had grenades on her with ten Marines surrounding her. Again, you can sit her and make the philosophical argument for why we shouldn't have been there in the first place, but at the end of the day, that was not his job. His job, as previously stated, was to execute his orders and protect his men. He did that. It is not as black and white as _some_ people are making it out to be. 
> 
> And for _some_ people to sit on their computers, comfortably, and spew nonsense like they understand the battle field is not only annoying, but irresponsible. 
> 
> *THAT* is my point.


A lot of his kills were people coming to the aid of other people he shot. He targeted and shot anyone on the street. I get it. That's war. But don't come home laughing about limbs being blown off and heads exploding. The man was a psychopath. Whether or not the war made him that way is debatable. And because they say this woman had a grenade or this kid had a RPG does not make it so. A lot of decisions were made. And a lot of people died directly because of his decisions. He isn't a hero. Those who are offended or think that stating that is disrespecting our troops have not been paying attention. I remember that SOB going on every news station that would have him speaking about his 'trophies.'

----------


## newbitech

> Please tell me you are joking.. or please clarify your point. I really don't think the means of death affect the phrase, "Live by the sword, die by the sword." By your same logic you would also have to ask whether he was killed by a sword. (Not that the means matter)


Oh so we aren't supposed to take him literally?  Well in that case, I am pissed off at Ron Paul for mocking the guy, cause clearly he lived by the sniper gun but didn't die that way!

----------


## No Free Beer

> His job is immoral and he could have quit or stopped obeying orders.  That is what a real hero would do.  People should not make excuses for his crimes just because they have a veil of legitimacy from he being a part of the military.


Again, with all due respect, you are making this issue much more simple than it truly is.

Now, as I have stated, his rhetoric after the fact may have been inappropriate, but that doesn't change the complexity of the situation.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Funny that the words of Jesus Christ, allegedly the Savior of many of those calling this an outrage, aggravate these "Christian" conservatives. It's telling that they love war and the state as god more than their alleged Savior.


Next thing you know, they'll be booing Golden Rule.

Oh, wait ...

----------


## No Free Beer

> A lot of his kills were people coming to the aid of other people he shot. He targeted and shot anyone on the street. I get it. That's war. But don't come home laughing about limbs being blown off and heads exploding. The man was a psychopath. Whether or not the war made him that way is debatable. And because they say this woman had a grenade or this kid had a RPG does not make it so. A lot of decisions were made. And a lot of people died directly because of his decisions. He isn't a hero. Those who are offended or think that stating that is disrespecting our troops have not been paying attention. I remember that SOB going on every news station that would have him speaking about his 'trophies.'


I can't say I disagree with a lot of what you just stated.

----------


## jj-

> And for _some_ people to sit on their computers, comfortably, and spew nonsense like they understand the battle field is not only annoying, but irresponsible.


That's like saying that it's bad for people to sit on their computers, comfortably, criticizing a thief even if they don't understand what is like to be part of a gang. That's your point? What $#@!ing stupid idiocy.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Oh so we aren't supposed to take him literally?  Well in that case, I am pissed off at Ron Paul for mocking the guy, cause clearly he lived by the sniper gun but didn't die that way!


I'm sure some of the people he shot would have rather him bleed to death after getting his arm shot off from 800 yards. That is besides the point. I really find it hard to believe that you do not know what, 'Live by the sword, die by the sword,' means.

----------


## fr33

> I never stated that I am uneducated about this subject. I stated that I didn't read his book. Just as you apparently didn't closely read my comment.
> 
> I blame anarchists for vile language, b/c since being on the forums, I've noticed an elitist and vile attitude from them. Not all. But A LOT. It is quite annoying. I am guilty, at times, of this too. Almost everyone is. But, to be honest, not the extent of the self-proclaimed anarchists. 
> 
> For you to sit here and tell me to "go to hell" says a lot about your character and your immaturity. This is an open forum. You have all the right to say what you believe and what you want, but that doesn't mean that what you say doesn't hurt this movement. In case you are unaware, the major players in Washington and in the media read what we all say. Let me know how far this movement goes when people, like a lot of the anarchists, say things which bring negative attention to this movement.
> 
> So again, thank you, but no thank you.


If you don't understand that Chris Kyle murdered people who were simply defending their home like you and I would, then you don't understand foreign policy.

----------


## No Free Beer

> That's like saying that it's bad for people to sit on their computers, comfortably, criticizing a thief even if they don't understand what is like to be part of a gang. That's your point? What $#@!ing stupid idiocy.


I think your comment falls under that very category.

----------


## newbitech

> I'm sure some of the people he shot would have rather him bleed to death after getting his arm shot off from 800 yards. That is besides the point. I really find it hard to believe that you do not know what, 'Live by the sword, die by the sword,' means.


who cares what it means, we have a guy here who could clearly sit on the outer banks and pick off those falujah heads one by one with a straw and a wad of paper.  And here Ron Paul is trying to make us think the guy shouldn't be buried next to Elvis, enshrined in the hall of fame, baseball and football, have his dna put in cryogenic stasis, and give his kids 20 million each!

I mean come on RON PAUL, how are you gonna dis a guy who put his life on the line day in and day out protecting twitter for us? huh?

----------


## No Free Beer

> If you don't understand that Chris Kyle murdered people who were simply defending their home like you and I would, then you don't understand foreign policy.


I think you are simplifying the issue. But, lets leave it at that because we could open up a whole can of worms.

I'm not going to debate you on the war in Iraq. I don't think we should have gone, period. But to simplify it and say that they were the good guys and Kyle was the bad guy is over simplifying it. You have your opinion, and I have mine. Lets just leave it at that.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> There is a time & place for killing. I'm not justifying all of Kyle's actions, but there may come a day when such actions are needed in this land.


If so, they'll be needed by the government. And you can bet your ass that there will be people out there every bit as eager and willing to oblige as Kyle was.

To people like Chris Kyle, anyone (such as you and I might be in that "day that may come") who dares to stand up to his war-machine "brothers" are just despicable "savages" deserving of nothing but hatred & death.

What in the world makes you imagine that someone like Kyle would not regard you and me in *exactly* the same way (or that someone like Kyle could ever be on "our side" under such circumstances) is beyond me ...

----------


## phill4paul

> Understood.
> 
> See, I have held all along that none of this will be solved politically, and that, quite frankly, political efforts are just kicking the can down the road and making the ultimate reckoning that much worse.
> 
> So that is why I hold fast to ideas, and not politicians.


  I'm about to throw it in the woods. Or throw it through the window........... Chief went, others stayed. Apropos.

----------


## fr33

> If so, they'll be needed by the government. And you can bet your ass that there will be people out there every bit as eager and willing to oblige as Kyle was.
> 
> To people like Chris Kyle, anyone (such as you and I might be in that "day that may come") who dares to stand up to his war-machine "brothers" are just despicable "savages" deserving of nothing but hatred & death.
> 
> What in the world makes you imagine that someone like Kyle would not regard you and me in *exactly* the same way (or that someone like Kyle could ever be on "our side" under such circumstances) is beyond me ...


Yep. Anybody who thinks the majority of our troops are "fighting for our freedoms" is delusional. Our freedoms are disappearing and the troops aren't lifting a finger. In some cases they are aiding our demise.

----------


## RickyJ

> Is it Ron actually running this? Because this last tweet is pretty offensive...
> 
> 
> 
>  Follow
> 
> Ron PaulVerified
> ‏@RonPaul
> 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


The pro-war folks can have a fit over this, I don't care. Ron Paul speaks the truth and doesn't care what the pro-murder crowd thinks about it. God Bless you Ron Paul!

----------


## supermario21

I'm sorry, but I don't know how anyone can consider those that back the soldiers pro-murder. Take your anger out on the leaders who sent them there/indoctrinated them, not the fighters. That's how we earn credibility as a movement. Because even for those opposed to war, our soldiers are heroes.

----------


## jj-

> I'm sorry, but I don't know how anyone can consider those that back the soldiers pro-murder. Take your anger out on the leaders who sent them there/indoctrinated them, not the fighters. That's how we earn credibility as a movement. Because even for those opposed to war, our soldiers are heroes.


Government is like a religion for you. It can transform things. It can make murder become virtuous. A government approved kill is heroic.

Wake the $#@! up. Killing and stealing are wrong whether they're government approved or not.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> I'm sorry, but I don't know how anyone can consider those that back the soldiers pro-murder. Take your anger out on the leaders who sent them there/indoctrinated them, not the fighters. That's how we earn credibility as a movement. Because even for those opposed to war, our soldiers are heroes.


No one is taking anything out on "our soldiers".

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> I'm sorry, but I don't know how anyone can consider those that back the soldiers pro-murder. Take your anger out on the leaders who sent them there/indoctrinated them, not the fighters. That's how we earn credibility as a movement. Because even for those opposed to war, our soldiers are heroes.


Are the soldiers in the Gestapo and Third Reich heroes? Are the soldiers who rounded up poor and starving people in Russia and China heroes?

----------


## Danke

> Because even for those opposed to war, our soldiers are heroes.

----------


## RickyJ

> Are the soldiers in the Gestapo and Third Reich heroes? Are the soldiers who rounded up poor and starving people in Russia and China heroes?


To some, if they have a uniform on then they must be heroes, that goes for cops too. I guess many don't consider some join the military precisely because they want to kill someone and not go to jail over it. True heroes only kill as a last resort, and they don't need an army to back them up, they mostly work alone.

----------


## mczerone

> To the anarchists, keep your vile comments to yourself.
> 
> Because I can guarantee you one thing, when you say/write these things...the big boys in Washington and in the media are listening/reading. You are hurting this movement more than you think you are defending the 1st Amendment.


To the haters: hate all you want.

Because I can guarantee one thing. When you say/write these things...your own soul is listening/reading. You are hurting yourself more than you think you are growing the movement by keeping it insular.

----------


## fr33

> I'm sorry, but I don't know how anyone can consider those that back the soldiers pro-murder. Take your anger out on the leaders who sent them there/indoctrinated them, not the fighters. That's how we earn credibility as a movement. Because even for those opposed to war, our soldiers are heroes.


They volunteered to participate in fascism. Not only are they sucking off our tax dollars (or debt) they aren't even protecting us. They are making us more unstable and more of a target of terrorism. Our soldiers are leeches. Advise everyone you know not to join the violent gang, because this foreign policy will be our downfall. Participation is consent.

My rights are disappearing and no soldiers are doing anything about it. In fact they are enforcing this stuff.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

But, but...this guy expressed himself in book form after serving in Iraq.  He deserved to be murdered for that.

-The Liberty Movement

----------


## No Free Beer

> To the haters: hate all you want.
> 
> Because I can guarantee one thing. When you say/write these things...your own soul is listening/reading.


This doesn't even make sense, nor does it address adequately what I was addressing.

----------


## phill4paul

> But, but...this guy expressed himself in book form after serving in Iraq.  He deserved to be murdered for that.
> 
> -The Liberty Movement


  "Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori."  Everyone but those within the Liberty Movement.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> But, but...this guy expressed himself in book form after serving in Iraq.  He deserved to be murdered for that.
> 
> -The Liberty Movement


Perhaps try reading the thread. It would help you to not look like an ass when posting.

----------


## mczerone

> I'm sorry, but I don't know how anyone can consider those that back the soldiers pro-murder.


If you support the soldiers, you can ONLY support them watching each others' back as they march home. Anything else is supporting the mission, the murder, for the sake of some socialist/fascist notion of national defense.




> Take your anger out on the leaders who sent them there/indoctrinated them, not the fighters.


Agreed. But there's a wide gulf between being willing to call someone a hero and hating them. This now deceased sniper was conned into thinking he was acting heroically. He was a victim. I have no hate for him, yet I refuse to call him a hero until I see evidence of a truly heroic act regardless of any colors that he or his victims were wearing.




> That's how we earn credibility as a movement. Because even for those opposed to war, our soldiers are heroes.


For 6 years people have been trying to earn credibility and respectability by placating what they think the run-of-the-mill GOP voter wants to see. Stop using that excuse to demonize people to try to grow the movement with people that actually might be receptive to the ideas of liberty. The GOP-voter that you all idealize has already dismissed your message on an emotional level.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Perhaps try reading the thread. It would help you to not look like an ass when posting.


Perhaps you should take your own advise.  There have been posts on this thread declaring, in response to someone asking if all military members should "die by the sword", something about him bragging about his killings in a book.  As though that sets his killing apart from the same thing happening to other soldiers.

(That doesn't include the posts on Daily Paul like that too.)

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I hate putting people in groups, but it seems like it's always the anarchists that are the smartasses on the forum.
> 
> They always say the most elitist $#@! I have ever read. Yes, you take the cake. Even over a prick like Bill Maher.
> 
> The vile things you anarchists are saying is just disgusting.
> 
> I know I am going to get slammed for these comments, but frankly, I don't give a rats ass. You have a right to your opinion/views and you have the right to say/type them. 
> 
> That doesn't justify your comments. Nor does it help this movement.


 I am probably dense, but after reading your post I have no idea which posts you find elitist and disgusting, nor even which you agree or disagree with, having no idea what your own opinions on this Chris Kyle Twitter matter might be.  I also do not know what it has to do with anarchists.  Myself, I generally do not know which posters are anarchists and which are not, and I certainly don't in this thread, and I rather suspect that there is no particular correlation between being anarchist and having a certain opinion on this -- that is, I think there are anarchists with various different opinions on the matter.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Perhaps you should take your own advise.  There have been posts on this thread declaring, in response to someone asking if all military members should "die by the sword", something about him bragging about his killings in a book.  As though that sets his killing apart from the same thing happening to other soldiers.
> 
> (That doesn't include the posts on Daily Paul like that too.)


This man laughed at shooting arms off, at shooting people who were merely trying to grab the body, (presumeably trying to deliver first aid) at heads exploding. GOOD RIDDANCE. Now I haven't been this frank in this thread, but seriously, this man is not a hero. Not even close. There are hundreds if not thousands of veterans who returned from war, saw through the propaganda and could not live with what they had done. I mourn them. Not some arrogant psychopath who locked off a street. (Killing women and kids in the process) Hearing him talk is probably what made the PTSD veteran kill his ass. Did you ever think of that??? Maybe the veteran was tired of hearing about his trophies. Maybe he got tired of the man speaking about shot off limbs and evaporated heads. He probably said the same thing I say, good riddance. But you won't never hear that will you? They are all heroes.  And I come from a military family. I know the sacrifices that are made. I'd suggest you watch, "Born on the Fourth of July." Good movie.

----------


## Expatriate

Which verified Twitter account is supposed to be run by Ron Paul? Is it @RepRonPaul or @RonPaul?

----------


## sailingaway

> Which verified Twitter account is supposed to be run by Ron Paul? Is it @RepRonPaul or @RonPaul?


I don't know. But he did post to @RonPaul once, there is a post with his initials and a labor chart. https://twitter.com/RonPaul/status/297366676222128129

the one today didn't have his initials.

----------


## No Free Beer

> I am probably dense, but after reading your post I have no idea which posts you find elitist and disgusting, nor even which you agree or disagree with, having no idea what your own opinions on this Chris Kyle Twitter matter might be.  I also do not know what it has to do with anarchists.  Myself, I generally do not know which posters are anarchists and which are not, and I certainly don't in this thread, and I rather suspect that there is no particular correlation between being anarchist and having a certain opinion on this -- that is, I think there are anarchists with various different opinions on the matter.



You don't need to dig deep. The anarchists love to show their anarchism. 

In order to find them, just look for the "go to hell" and "$#@! you" comments directed toward me. You can't miss 'em. 

I will admit, I have a big problem with the anarchists who are on this forum. Not everyone, but most. Not because I disagree with their philosophy, but for their elitist attitude/views toward complex issues. 

It started on threads months and months ago, and continues into this one. 

It may have been on the original thread that dealt with this issue and of the Seal sniper. 

Furthermore, I have a big issue with the such strong language from the anarchists claiming that Kyle was a "mass murderer." 

I don't think its that simple, rather I think its much more complex than that.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> If the person who said that was not an anarchist, I apologize, but I believe he/she was. Furthermore, I have a big issue with the such strong language from the anarchists claiming that Kyle was a "mass murderer."


What would you call someone who took great delight in slaughtering the savages that were fighting their occupiers, and whose only regret was that he didn't kill more of them?

----------


## Lightweis

> What would you call someone who took great delight in slaughtering the savages that were fighting their occupiers, and whose only regret was that he didn't kill more of them?



Sounds like a mass murderer to me

----------


## phill4paul

> You don't need to dig deep. The anarchists love to show their anarchism. 
> 
> In order to find them, just look for the "go to hell" and "$#@! you" comments directed toward me. You can't miss 'em. 
> 
> I will admit, I have a big problem with the anarchists who are on this forum. Not everyone, but most. Not because I disagree with their philosophy, but for their elitist attitude/views toward complex issues. 
> 
> It started on threads months and months ago, and continues into this one. 
> 
> It may have been on the original thread that dealt with this issue and of the Seal sniper. There were a few comments from anarchists saying the man was a coward and one even went as far as saying that the man who shot Kyle was a real hero. 
> ...


  I'm not an anarchist and I say Kyle was a mass murderer. Where does that leave us?

----------


## fr33

> You don't need to dig deep. The anarchists love to show their anarchism. 
> 
> In order to find them, just look for the "go to hell" and "$#@! you" comments directed toward me. You can't miss 'em. 
> 
> I will admit, I have a big problem with the anarchists who are on this forum. Not everyone, but most. Not because I disagree with their philosophy, but for their elitist, irrational attitude/views toward complex issues. 
> 
> It started on threads months and months ago, and continues into this one. 
> 
> It may have been on the original thread that dealt with this issue and of the Seal sniper. There were a few comments from anarchists saying the man was a coward and one even went as far as saying that the man who shot Kyle was a real hero. 
> ...


If anarchists are the problem then Ron Paul is an anarchist and we can put this thing to rest because we are only defending him.

Us evil anarchists that want peace and liberty; while people like Chris Kyle, the man Ron Paul posted about, bragged about killing people who would dare to defend their own property.

Iraqis and Afghans have a better understanding of private property than your average American.

Seriously; go to hell and $#@! off. Anarchists here have a higher moral ground than you do.

----------


## phill4paul

> What would you call someone who took great delight in slaughtering the savages that were fighting their occupiers, and whose only regret was that he didn't kill more of them?


  While collecting a pay check? The mafia calls them "hit men."

----------


## sailingaway

Ron spoke that speech but did not put the imagery in, and it makes a big difference to the presentation and implication.

----------


## AuH20

> I'm not an anarchist and I say Kyle was a mass murderer. Where does that leave us?


Mass murderer implies that Kyle was actively seeking to kill others, irrespective of his assigned duty.

----------


## Reece

> You don't need to dig deep. The anarchists love to show their anarchism. 
> 
> In order to find them, just look for the "go to hell" and "$#@! you" comments directed toward me. You can't miss 'em.


To be fair, these were both in response to your comments on anarchists ("They always say the most elitist $#@! I have ever read.", "The vile things you anarchists are saying is just disgusting.", etc.)  It would be much fairer to find a quote before the accusation, rather than after the accusation was made.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Mass murderer implies that Kyle was actively seeking to kill others, irrespective of his assigned duty.


Ok, was his duty to kill every living human being not wearing a U.S. uniform, hostile or not? Because he regretted not accomplishing that.

----------


## AuH20

> Ok, was his duty to kill every living human being not wearing a U.S. uniform, hostile or not? Because he regretted not accomplishing that.


Kyle was a brainwashed idiot too attached to the men he served with. Mass murderer? No.

----------


## fr33

> Mass murderer implies that Kyle was actively seeking to kill others, irrespective of his assigned duty.


How ridiculous. He volunteered knowing exactly what he was getting into and according to his memoirs he has no regrets.

I repeat. We have watched our rights get violated while Kyle and his supporters claimed to be protecting those rights.

----------


## phill4paul

> Mass murderer implies that Kyle was actively seeking to kill others, irrespective of his assigned duty.


  Mass murder (in military contexts, sometimes interchangeable with "mass destruction" or "genocide") is the act of murdering a large number of people, typically at the same time or over a relatively short period of time.[1] According to the FBI, mass murder is defined as four or more murders occurring during a particular event with no cooling-off period between the murders. A mass murder typically occurs in a single location in which a number of victims are killed by an individual or more.[2][3] With exceptions, _many acts of mass murder end with the death of the perpetrator(s), whether by direct suicide or being killed by law enforcement._ <emphasis mine >

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_murder

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I have a big issue with the such strong language from the anarchists claiming that Kyle was a "mass murderer." 
> 
> I don't think its that simple, rather I think its much more complex than that.


 OK, thank you!  Now I understand your position.  So actually, it was probably my own posts that were some of your biggest offenders.  Because I definitely have been adamant that Mr. Chris Kyle was a mass-murderer.

I think it is not complex.  Rather, it is simple.  I think that the rule is: you don't go around murdering other human beings.  When you do.........

That's bad!

Do members of the military break that rule all the time?  Yes they do.  That's bad!  Am I condemning all of them?  The ones who break that rule, yes.  That's a major problem.  A major moral failing.  They ought to stop murdering people.  I understand that people don't like moralizing nowadays, they want it to be "hey, man, do whatever feels right, there's no moral absolutes" but come on, this is taking it to a ridiculous extreme.  A man should not go around murdering people, no matter how much it feels right and fun to him, and no matter how many people celebrate his behavior.  That, to me, is an absolute.  When disobeyed, there will be eternal consequences.

----------


## AuH20

> How ridiculous. He volunteered knowing exactly what he was getting into and according to his memoirs he has no regrets.
> 
> I repeat. We have watched our rights get violated while Kyle and his supporters claimed to be protecting those rights.


Well, that's how they cloak and rationalize their behavior. With that said, I wouldn't consider Kyle a mass murderer. If he wanted to be truly a mass murderer he could have easily tripled that total by deviating from operation protocol.

----------


## fr33

> Ron spoke that speech but did not put the imagery in, and it makes a big difference to the presentation and implication.


Most of the images are just letters and words. The only difference is that the narrator has a stronger voice. The message remains the same.

----------


## sailingaway

> Most of the images are just letters and words. The only difference is that the narrator has a stronger voice. The message remains the same.


No, it shows pictures of American soldiers when it speaks of terrorists etc and the message is changed by the imagery and the angry voice, imho.

----------


## phill4paul

> Well, that's how they cloak and rationalize their behavior. With that said, I wouldn't consider Kyle a mass murderer. If he wanted to be truly a mass murderer he could have easily tripled that total.


  He claimed more. Many. His official total were only "confirmed." He "claimed" 255 souls.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/131829.html

----------


## sailingaway

I know he is trying to help, but I wish he didn't pit Ron against his definition of conservatives. Ron has the most conservative voting record of anyone since they started keeping records.   the old Right would have no problem with Ron.

----------


## phill4paul

I do wonder............. Where the $#@! is Jack Hunter?

  Refining, redefining, herk and jerking.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Kyle was a brainwashed idiot too attached to the men he served with. Mass murderer? No.


Many other mass murderers may just be brainwashed or unfortunate and otherwise good people.  What about some of these teen boys who have shot up their schools over the past couple decades?  Were some of them just messed up because of all the psychotropic drugs they were taking?  Could it have been a horrible mistake?  Might they have been extremely confused, a moment of weakness, and then profoundly regret their actions?  Absolutely.  I can absolutely see that happening.  Mass murder is a tragedy in so many ways.  It is a huge tragedy for the murderer.  What a waste.

Might there be extenuating circumstances in war?  I think the English language has a word for this: Duh.  But murdering people is an extremely serious act.  It is an extremely serious problem.  And I think the fact that people compartmentalize combat killing into something that is "not murder, oh no it's very different than murder, it's in a whole separate box way over here", I think that is a major, major problem that humankind has been paying a very dear price for.  A tragically dear price.

Murder is murder is murder.

*And it's wrong.*

----------


## Danke

> http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/131829.html


"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.""

lol

----------


## The Gold Standard

> "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.""
> 
> lol


That was one of the GOP plants meant to drive the liberty crowd out of here and replace them with bloodthirsty statists.

----------


## fr33

> I know he is trying to help, but I wish he didn't pit Ron against his definition of conservatives. Ron has the most conservative voting record of anyone since they started keeping records.   the old Right would have no problem with Ron.


No he doesn't. Conservatives want to conserve the status quo. Ron has always been a libertarian.

----------


## Danke

> That was one of the GOP plants meant to drive the liberty crowd out of here and replace them with bloodthirsty statists.



Who posted that?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Mass murderer implies that Kyle was actively seeking to kill others, irrespective of his assigned duty.


 No, it implies that he killed many people non-defensively.  That is, he murdered them.  He committed murder, on a massive scale.  Thus the term: mass murder.  Putting on a costume doesn't change morality.  I understand people really, really think it does.  And it really, really bothers them to hear anyone who think it doesn't.  And they really, really want to close their minds to the possibility that maybe war is nothing special, that it doesn't have it's own special moral box where the normal rules don't apply.  Because that's scary.  Because to accept that, to truly accept that, usually means you have to rethink everything.  Heroes become villains, courage becomes filth, and all history is turned on its head.

But there is no special box.  The moral rules are the same everywhere, costumes or no costumes.  War is nothing but one gigantic crime.  

And yes, AuH2O, that means the participants are criminals.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> "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.""
> 
> lol


I can't remember who said that.. was that Kingnothing?

ETA: Can't say I didn't read the thread lol. Post #56 Kingnothing.

----------


## Ender

> http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/131829.html


Outstanding article- pretty much sums up my thoughts.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Who posted that?





> "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.


I was wrong. I thought it was the Bastiat guy. I don't think KingNothing is a plant.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Well, that's how they cloak and rationalize their behavior. With that said, I wouldn't consider Kyle a mass murderer. If he wanted to be truly a mass murderer he could have easily tripled that total by deviating from operation protocol.


Well, he did say that he enjoyed killing.  That is pretty despicable.

----------


## Badger Paul

Is the same Chris Kyle who is being sued by Jesse Ventura for slander?

This isn't Jack Armstrong the All-American Boy we're talking about here or even Audie Murphy. Kyle has said some equally disturbing things about Iraqis, the very people he was supposed to "liberate" , not to mention the fact I think he liked his job a little too much.

I certainly don't celebrate his death but the real tragedy is war does to people like Kyle or this fellow that shot him and friend.

Bottom line, there's just too much violence. It's sickening.

As for how this affects Rand I could hardly care less, since he wasn't the person who "tweeted" anything. It shouldn't affect anything he does and no he's not responsible for his father's statements anymore if it was the other way around. Maybe he can go to his new friend Bill Kristol and beg him to call the neocons off his trail.

----------


## angelatc

> I know he is trying to help, but I wish he didn't pit Ron against his definition of conservatives. Ron has the most conservative voting record of anyone since they started keeping records.   the old Right would have no problem with Ron.


I know he's one of Ron Paul's closest friends, but he's such an ass - I can't stand to read him.  I made the exception, and am sorry I did.




> 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.


Just shut up, Lew.  It is simply delusional to believe that this tweet didn't drive people away.  And it's pretty close to cultish to essentially that Paul is always right while the rest of the world is always wrong.

I have no idea what that tweet was supposed to mean, but if you can only speak in a manner that is so cryptic that only the True Believers (tm) can understand the message, then you're not an effective communicator.

----------


## RickyJ

As far as I am concerned it was very effective communication on Ron's part. I applaud Ron Paul for stating it and standing firmly with the prince of peace, Jesus Christ!

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Originally Posted by sailingaway
> 
> 
> I know he is trying to help, but I wish he  didn't pit Ron against his definition of conservatives. Ron has the most  conservative voting record of anyone since they started keeping  records.   the old Right would have no problem with Ron.
> 
> 
> I know he's one of Ron Paul's closest friends, but he's such an ass - I can't stand to read him.  I made the exception, and am sorry I did.
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, that wasn't Lew.

That was Ryan McMaken.




> http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/131829.html

----------


## unknown

> No, it implies that he killed many people non-defensively.  That is, he murdered them.  He committed murder, on a massive scale.  Thus the term: mass murder.  Putting on a costume doesn't change morality.  I understand people really, really think it does.  And it really, really bothers them to hear anyone who think it doesn't.  And they really, really want to close their minds to the possibility that maybe war is nothing special, that it doesn't have it's own special moral box where the normal rules don't apply.  Because that's scary.  Because to accept that, to truly accept that, usually means you have to rethink everything.  Heroes become villains, courage becomes filth, and all history is turned on its head.
> 
> But there is no special box.  The moral rules are the same everywhere, costumes or no costumes.  War is nothing but one gigantic crime.  
> 
> And yes, AuH2O, that means the participants are criminals.


I really like this post of yours.  I wish I was as articulate.

----------


## angelatc

> I really like this post of yours.  I wish I was as articulate.



I wish Ron Paul was that articulate.   I guess I'm not a True Believer after all, because what i heard him say didn't sound anything like the 20 or so paragraphs HH has produced explaining the nuances.  

Maybe it's like "They Live" and we can't see what he really wrote because we don't have the blinders on, or something.

----------


## parocks

> I do think some from there may be in charge of his media now, which has a reverse issue to some during the campaign. He needs someone who DOESN'T want to gin up excitement by throwing red meat, in the language of 'any' side, but suggest solutions.  In other words, someone like he is himself, to be his voice.


How about Ron Paul?  He should have a lot more free time, and less to do.  He's not running for President, and I think we all understand that he won't be running for President again.  Let's just say that Ron Paul wrote this.  Some people don't like it, so what?  Rand has distanced himself from it a bit.  That's a plus.  Opportunities for Rand to distance himself from the seemingly unpatriotic things that Ron says are good to have.

----------


## kathy88

> How about Ron Paul?  He should have a lot more free time, and less to do.  He's not running for President, and I think we all understand that he won't be running for President again.  Let's just say that Ron Paul wrote this.  Some people don't like it, so what?  Rand has distanced himself from it a bit.  That's a plus.  Opportunities for Rand to distance himself from the seemingly unpatriotic things that Ron says are good to have.


So now that he's retired you're willing to turn him into the crazy loon the media tried to portray him as for the last 6 years? And happy that's a good thing for Rand. Check.

----------


## newbitech

> But, but...this guy expressed himself in book form after serving in Iraq.  He deserved to be murdered for that.
> 
> -The Liberty Movement



but, this guy was no guy, he was a SUPER GUY!  He deserved to live forever!

- Everyone else

----------


## No Free Beer

> If anarchists are the problem then Ron Paul is an anarchist and we can put this thing to rest because we are only defending him.
> 
> Us evil anarchists that want peace and liberty; while people like Chris Kyle, the man Ron Paul posted about, bragged about killing people who would dare to defend their own property.
> 
> Iraqis and Afghans have a better understanding of private property than your average American.
> 
> Seriously; go to hell and $#@! off. Anarchists here have a higher moral ground than you do.


I'm sorry you feel that way, but I feel as though you are not understanding my position.

Example: You bringing up his gloating. I said on numerous occasions his gloating was wrong. Hell, I even mentioned that a lot of people in the military feel that same way

What you are doing, AGAIN, is making this issue much more simple than it truly is. And in my opinion, some anarchists tend to do that.

I've stated my opinion over and over again; About the war; about Kyle's actions; About his words; And about some people's words on here.

There were some vile things said on another post, and original post covering this topic that I will not repeat for the sake of the movement, that disturbed me and caused me to feel so angry. 

Why I pointed my finger at the anarchists is because a lot of the anarchists on this site have a history of oversimplifying complex issues, calling anyone who disagrees, a "statis"t with an elitist tone. Your true colors come out again, when you for the second or third time now have told me to "go to hell."

I find it rather hilarious that you are preaching about morals, while telling me to "go to hell."

Interesting.

----------


## No Free Beer

> OK, thank you!  Now I understand your position.  So actually, it was probably my own posts that were some of your biggest offenders.  Because I definitely have been adamant that Mr. Chris Kyle was a mass-murderer.
> 
> I think it is not complex.  Rather, it is simple.  I think that the rule is: you don't go around murdering other human beings.  When you do.........
> 
> That's bad!
> 
> Do members of the military break that rule all the time?  Yes they do.  That's bad!  Am I condemning all of them?  The ones who break that rule, yes.  That's a major problem.  A major moral failing.  They ought to stop murdering people.  I understand that people don't like moralizing nowadays, they want it to be "hey, man, do whatever feels right, there's no moral absolutes" but come on, this is taking it to a ridiculous extreme.  A man should not go around murdering people, no matter how much it feels right and fun to him, and no matter how many people celebrate his behavior.  That, to me, is an absolute.  When disobeyed, there will be eternal consequences.


I would like to make a rebuttal to this, but I don't have time right now. 

I will return some time later today.

----------


## Conza88

*War-Hero:*

A man who commits atrocities for our side.

— Butler Shaffer

----------


## KingNothing

> "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.""
> 
> lol


HA!

That's awesome!  If anyone on this board deserves to be mentioned on LRC, it's me.

It was a terrible thing to say and Ron should not have said it.  The context was terrible.

----------


## KingNothing

> I'm not an anarchist and I say Kyle was a mass murderer. Where does that leave us?


I'm an anarchist, I think Kyle was a mass murder, I think his death was terrible, and I think Ron's original tweet was tasteless.  Where does that leave me?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

I'm still not understanding why it was *terrible* to say??  

Might it have been a bit poorly timed?  I guess one could make an argument for that, but "terrible"?  Just not seeing it.

The tweet isn't revelling in Kyle's death, as folks like Beck are sure to make it sound.  If anything, I took it to mean that his death, and it's relation to the current social paradigm, was a tragedy.

----------


## KingNothing

> I'm still not understanding why it was *terrible* to say??  
> 
> Might it have been a bit poorly timed?  I guess one could make an argument for that, but "terrible"?  Just not seeing it.
> 
> The tweet isn't revelling in Kyle's death, as folks like Beck are sure to make it sound.  If anything, I took it to mean that his death, and it's relation to the current social paradigm, was a tragedy.


It was a terrible thing to say because it completely lacked tact.  It could have just not been said, or said in the manner in which he later stated it.

That it caused such a negative backlash and was so easily distorted shows that it was, at best, poorly worded.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Meh.  I thought the "live by the sword..." part was pretty tactful.  

Like I said, poorly timed?  Maybe... but "terrible".  I think it's a whole bunch of hyper pro-military types (not saying you - specifically referring to Beck) getting their panties in a wad.  It's their problem with reality, as helmuth_huebener has eloquently pointed out on this topic in another thread (I think), more than it is a problem with what Ron said.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'm still not understanding why it was *terrible* to say??  
> 
> Might it have been a bit poorly timed?  I guess one could make an argument for that, but "terrible"?  Just not seeing it.
> 
> The tweet isn't revelling in Kyle's death, *as folks like Beck are sure to make it sound*.  If anything, I took it to mean that his death, and it's relation to the current social paradigm, was a tragedy.


I, for one, am not worried about how folks like Beck are going to make this sound.   Beck has never understood Ron Paul, Ron's supporters, or our principles.  Beck, Hannity, and Levin worship people like Kyle...they believe Kyle and his ilk are doing God's work on Earth.  It's impossible to get through to people like that.

----------


## FreeHampshire

The Beck-hatred on here is reminiscent of Huffington Post or Daily Kos. Somehow, I also think there's a huge overlap in posters there as well.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Pardon our principles.

lol

----------


## KingNothing

> Meh.  I thought the "live by the sword..." part was pretty tactful.  
> 
> Like I said, poorly timed?  Maybe... but "terrible".  I think it's a whole bunch of hyper pro-military types (not saying you - specifically referring to Beck) getting their panties in a wad.  It's their problem with reality, as helmuth_huebener has eloquently pointed out on this topic in another thread (I think), more than it is a problem with what Ron said.


I understand where you're coming from, but I can't understand what Ron or anyone of us gain by tweeting something that is at best poorly timed and poorly worded.  I agree with Ron's point entirely and had he originally made it with the words he later used, this negative backlash would not be happening.

----------


## KingNothing

> The Beck-hatred on here is reminiscent of Huffington Post or Daily Kos. Somehow, I also think there's a huge overlap in posters there as well.


How is hating Beck a bad thing?  He's either a phony or an emotional whackjob with totally inconsistent views and no principles.

----------


## pcosmar

> Beck, Hannity, and Levin worship people like Kyle...*they believe Kyle and his ilk are doing God's work on Earth.*


They are.. 
Just the wrong god.



> He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple,* proclaiming himself to be God*.

----------


## KingNothing

> I, for one, am not worried about how folks like Beck are going to make this sound.   Beck has never understood Ron Paul, Ron's supporters, or our principles.  Beck, Hannity, and Levin worship people like Kyle...they believe Kyle and his ilk are doing God's work on Earth.  It's impossible to get through to people like that.



We should all be worried about how our words are received.  You know, clarity is an important part of the whole communication thing.  My post that was used in the LRC article, for example, was not clear and caused me to be lumped into the mess of idiots who booed the Golden Rule.  Precision in language matters.  Ron's original tweet was very easily distorted because it was not clear enough.  Could such a thing have happened with his follow-up post?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> The Beck-hatred on here is reminiscent of Huffington Post or Daily Kos. Somehow, I also think there's a huge overlap in posters there as well.


Until you realize how much I also dislike those sites.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> We should all be worried about how our words are received.  You know, clarity is an important part of the whole communication thing.  My post that was used in the LRC article, for example, was not clear and caused me to be lumped into the mess of idiots who booed the Golden Rule.  Precision in language matters.  Ron's original tweet was very easily distorted because it was not clear enough.  Could such a thing have happened with his follow-up post?


I didn't say we shouldn't worry about how clear and precise our language is.  I said I wouldn't worry about how Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity spin it.  No amount of clarifying is going to help them to understand Ron Paul's principles.  They are beholden to a different agenda.

----------


## klamath

Chad Littlefield- the guys  life that was disrespected in this tweet. What changed is RP ALWAYS respected life no matter what then suddenly makes a tweet about  an incident the took *two* lives.

----------


## pcosmar

> Chad Littlefield- the guys  life that was disrespected in this tweet. What changed is RP ALWAYS respected life no matter what then suddenly makes a tweet about  an incident the took *two* lives.


Who is that ignoramus?

There was nothing disrespectful in Christs words. nor in the opinion that turning your back on an armed and disturbed man was unwise.

It was nothing but truth.

Though people have been distorting Christ's words and distorting the truth for so long that people reject both.

----------


## rp08orbust

> OK, thank you!  Now I understand your position.  So actually, it was probably my own posts that were some of your biggest offenders.  Because I definitely have been adamant that Mr. Chris Kyle was a mass-murderer.
> 
> I think it is not complex.  Rather, it is simple.  I think that the rule is: you don't go around murdering other human beings.  When you do.........


I'm an anarchist, but I would object to calling Chris Kyle a murderer unless he killed non-combatants or those engaged in combat specifically to defend private property and civilian lives from the US invasion.  If he only killed Iraqi soldiers defending the Ba'athist regime, then his killings were morally neutral in my eyes, like killing someone in a consensual dual.  It's nearly impossible to engage in state-sponsored warfare without trespassing and destroying private property, so he is almost certainly a criminal to some extent (and definitely a tax-feeder), but he isn't necessarily a murderer.

Does anyone know any details about who he killed?

----------


## supermario21

> I'm an anarchist, but I would object to calling Chris Kyle a murderer unless he killed non-combatants or those engaged in combat specifically to defend private property and civilian lives from the US invasion.  If he only killed Iraqi soldiers defending the Ba'athist regime, then his killings were morally neutral in my eyes, like killing someone in a consensual dual.  It's nearly impossible to engage in state-sponsored warfare without trespassing and destroying private property, so he is almost certainly a criminal to some extent (and definitely a tax-feeder), but he isn't necessarily a murderer.
> 
> Does anyone know any details about who he killed?


I'm pretty sure most if not all the people he killed were the enemy. O'Reilly played an excerpt of his interview and he said the only regret was that he couldn't save more of the innocent townspeople, etc and get more of the bad guys.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Mass murderer implies that Kyle was actively seeking to kill others, 
> irrespective of his assigned duty.


The mafia hit man who kills 300 people over the course of his life is only doing his "assigned duty" too. Doesn't make him any less a murderer. It doesn't matter who tells you to aggressively enter another person's property and kill them even if they don't defend themselves. You're still a murderer because man can make immorality moral.

----------


## supermario21

It's a front page story on yahoo, and the first sentence reads:


In 140 characters, the newly retired congressman reminds us why he — and maybe his son — won't top the GOP presidential ticket

hx x   p://ne ws.yaho o.com/ron-pauls-puzzling-critique-murdered-seal-chris-kyle-072000026.html

----------


## PierzStyx

> I'm pretty sure most if not all the people he killed were the enemy. O'Reilly played an excerpt of his interview and he said the only regret was that he couldn't save more of the innocent townspeople, etc and get more of the bad guys.



"The enemy" being those who started shooting Americans because wr first invaded their nation and killed their fellow countrymen and women.

I'm pretty sure fighting back against the occupying soldiers who have been killing and torturing everyone around you is an act of self and national defense. And being the soldier upholding the invading torturing murdering army makes you the bad guy.

----------


## AuH20

> I'm an anarchist, but I would object to calling Chris Kyle a murderer unless he killed non-combatants or those engaged in combat specifically to defend private property and civilian lives from the US invasion.  If he only killed Iraqi soldiers defending the Ba'athist regime, then his killings were morally neutral in my eyes, like killing someone in a consensual dual.  It's nearly impossible to engage in state-sponsored warfare without trespassing and destroying private property, so he is almost certainly a criminal to some extent (and definitely a tax-feeder), but he isn't necessarily a murderer.
> 
> Does anyone know any details about who he killed?


I agree. I would say Kyle is more guilty of 'patriotic' (in his mind) manslaughter as opposed to wanton homicide.

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm pretty sure most if not all the people he killed were the enemy. O'Reilly played an excerpt of his interview and he said the only regret was that he couldn't save more of the innocent townspeople, etc and get more of the bad guys.


Other people are quoting him as saying he wished he could have killed everyone not in US uniform, and saying he killed women and children, and spoke about it callously.  I don't know the man, so I have no idea. I still wouldn't have sent the tweet as blunt as it was while his family is grieving, but if the other view is true or widely held, he is not your standard soldier who went and just did his job.  But of course the tweet didn't call him a murderer.

----------


## supermario21

> "The enemy" being those who started shooting Americans because wr first invaded their nation and killed their fellow countrymen and women.
> 
> I'm pretty sure fighting back against the occupying soldiers who have been killing and torturing everyone around you is an act of self and national defense. And being the soldier upholding the invading torturing murdering army makes you the bad guy.



Look, I'm not disagreeing you with the "enemy's" right to fight to consider we invaded. But why can't we direct our feelings to the people who started the wars, not the soldiers who we're merely tools of the MIC? We lose a lot of credibility when we attack individual soldiers.

----------


## sailingaway

> The mafia hit man who kills 300 people over the course of his life is only doing his "assigned duty" too. Doesn't make him any less a murderer. It doesn't matter who tells you to aggressively enter another person's property and kill them even if they don't defend themselves. You're still a murderer because man can make immorality moral.


I don't think the mafia and the armed forces are comparable. The armed forces are SUPPOSED to defend this country, and a lot in national guard thought they were going to be back up for hurricanes and such here, not fighting wars of occupation around the world.  My understanding is that this guy reveled in killing people, though, from posts here.  I never heard of him except in the context of the 2d amendment debate going on until now.

----------


## rp08orbust

> "The enemy" being those who started shooting Americans because wr first invaded their nation and killed their fellow countrymen and women.
> 
> I'm pretty sure fighting back against the occupying soldiers who have been killing and torturing everyone around you is an act of self and national defense. And being the soldier upholding the invading torturing murdering army makes you the bad guy.


It's not that simple.  From an anarchist perspective, Saddam's claim of sovereignty over Iraq is no more legitimate than the US's challenge to that same sovereignty.  The war (like all state versus state wars) was a turf contest between two rival criminal organizations.  It's easier to sympathize with native criminals than the invading ones, but at the end of the day, they're all criminals competing for power over property that isn't theirs.  An individual like Chris Kyle caught up in such a gang war can't be called a murderer unless he actually killed civilians.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Wha...?  If a mob hitman kills a rival mob hitman, is he not a murderer?  Murder is the unprovoked taking of another human beings life.  What does the costume have to do with it?

----------


## rp08orbust

> Wha...?  If a mob hitman kills a rival mob hitman, is he not a murderer?  Murder is the unprovoked taking of another human beings life.  What does the costume have to do with it?


Costumes signify that the combatants are knowingly and willingly engaged in a lethal contest.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Costumes signify that the combatants are knowingly and willingly engaged in a lethal contest.


The people defending their homes?

----------


## rp08orbust

> The people defending their homes?


Killing them would be murder.

----------


## Stallheim

> I, for one, am not worried about how folks like Beck are going to make this sound.   Beck has never understood Ron Paul, Ron's supporters, or our principles.  Beck, Hannity, and Levin worship people like Kyle...they believe Kyle and his ilk are doing God's work on Earth.  It's impossible to get through to people like that.


 I have no problem with the tweet. It just doesn't sound like Dr Paul's typical wise tone. This could be great actually. When unthinking warmongers broadcast this assuming it will be reviled by all who hear it, (people who are unable to embrace RP's liberty message anyway) a few more on the fence will prick up their ears, particularly Christians who are growing a bit nervous about how absent the teachings of Jesus are from the national discourse. The danger for strident warmongers now is that there is no automatic acceptance of their position in a lead up to an election to defeat the socialist Democrat. A different batch are listening now and this kind of attention is really good for waking up a few more to our radical message. We want to attract moderates and radicals alike, but the end game no matter who we have attracted initially, is to fully radicalize them with Ron Paul's revolutionary message. Sure, send out careful, coaxing feelers to the timid folk, leaning towards liberty. But make no mistake, the goal is to help them fully embrace the message. 

On a side note I am really not liking all the swearing and name calling. It is not that I accept the opposing position, I flat out reject it. But telling people to F* off and go to hell, sound ignorant and desperate. We have some of the most eloquent writers in the history of economic and political thought that we can draw from and quote in our arguments, this is one of our great advantages since these writings are really seductive and compelling and people feel the truth in their gut. Getting ticked off and swearing is just so low class and underwhelming.

----------


## Stallheim

> They are.. 
> Just the wrong god.


Smooth!

----------


## Stallheim

> Who is that ignoramus?
> 
> There was nothing disrespectful in Christs words. nor in the opinion that turning your back on an armed and disturbed man was unwise.
> 
> It was nothing but truth.
> 
> Though people have been distorting Christ's words and distorting the truth for so long that people reject both.


Preach on brother.
I ordain you RPF pastor for the week at least!

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Killing them would be murder.


If they're defending their homes while wearing a costume?

----------


## Stallheim

> I'm pretty sure most if not all the people he killed were the enemy. O'Reilly played an excerpt of his interview and he said the only regret was that he couldn't save more of the innocent townspeople, etc and get more of the bad guys.


I like that O'Reilly fellow, fair and balanced. No spin. And to top it off he was doing it for the kids. You convinced me.

----------


## rp08orbust

> If they're defending their homes while wearing a costume?


Now that would be stupid.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> If they're defending their homes while wearing a costume?


I see what you did there!

----------


## pcosmar

> Preach on brother.
> I ordain you RPF pastor for the week at least!


I am no Pastor. 
I am course,crude and blunt.  I was a mercenary and thief. By Gods Grace I heard his message and repent of my past.

 I am but one voice on this virtual wind.
Listen to Gods voice,,wherever is comes from.

----------


## Stallheim

> Look, I'm not disagreeing you with the "enemy's" right to fight to consider we invaded. But why can't we direct our feelings to the people who started the wars, not the soldiers who we're merely tools of the MIC? We lose a lot of credibility when we attack individual soldiers.


Or we could do both. And this does not seem to be a discussion about all soldiers, but more about which soldiers where acting like tools and which were apparently stepping up enthusiastically and really enjoying the beastly job. It is actually pretty important for dedicated, idealistic soldiers to see that this clown is not the kind of guy they should be idolizing. The principle characteristic of a just soldier tries not to harm the innocent and when the killing is done he does not indulge in hatred or glorification of slaughter. 

It is another debate, but I will assert that soldiers fighting in a defensive war will find it easier to aspire to this just soldier ideal. This is not to say that many join up under false assumptions, believing that they are making the homeland safer, or helping a defenseless people, but when the reality that they are participating in an unwelcome invasion and that they are in fact the initiators of many violent acts against other human beings, they have only a few choices: regret the crime and try to do better with new found knowledge, compartmentalize and try not to feel, or embrace the slaughter and the new found power over the weak. One of these is noble, one is weak, and one is vile. Not in legal terms of course, but I would say that the last and probably the second examples make the soldier involved an uncontested murderer.

----------


## Stallheim

> Now that would be stupid.


lol. "If they're defending their homes while wearing a costume?" This needs an image!

----------


## klamath

Aw, the iraqi worship gleaned from selectively reading what you want to back up your preconceived ideas.  The people fighting in Iraq were NOT *all* just fighting invaders on their land as I have seen posted about 500 times here. The vast majority of the killing done in Iraq was done by them killing each other. Many of the fighters in Iraq weren't even Iraqi and they were killing by the thousands innocent people to incite a sectarian war which actually happened. The thousands of beheaded bodies floating in the rivers speak of this. The targeted bombing of crowded marketplaces speak of this. The biggist killer in Iraq was a Jordanian. 
Anybody that thinks Iraq was a united solid country have no clue. The British drew the borders that had nothing to do with religion or politics. Much of the oil wealth came from the shia south yet they live in an era not much removed from biblical times as far as wealth. Sadamn killed thousands of marsh Arabs and destroyed their land by intentionally draining their marshland. The Sunni areas received the wealth and Yes I have personally seen this. 
Did a huge chunk of the population appreciate that Sadamn was gone. Yes. Did they wave and smile at American troops. Yes.I have pictures to prove it. Yeaw there is a little more to it than the Iraqis were united in their hate of the invaders. The Kurds freaking loved the Americans. It was the only part of the country American troops could go unarmed for R&R. Do I agree with the Iraqi invasion? Hell no! Do I think the American were  heros there? Hell NO! 
But they sure as hell weren't all patriotic Iraqis fighting the American invaders only, they were fighting each other ruthlessly.

----------


## KerriAnn

Didn't have time to read 635 posts.... so maybe this was already mentioned. 

Did anyone else notice these new tweets and facebook posts from "Ron" end with -REP? Mostly the facebook posts follow this trend. Facebook posts from before February don't have -REP at the end of any that I can find.
I know what REP stands for, but it's weird that it all the sudden appends the posts while it never did before.

----------


## jmdrake

> Didn't have time to read 635 posts.... so maybe this was already mentioned. 
> 
> Did anyone else notice these new tweets and facebook posts from "Ron" end with -REP? Mostly the facebook posts follow this trend. Facebook posts from before February don't have -REP at the end of any that I can find.
> I know what REP stands for, but it's weird that it all the sudden appends the posts while it never did before.


Yeah.  Sailingaway and others have pointed this out.  But unless Ron comes out and says "It wasn't me", the effect in the media will be the same.

----------


## sailingaway

> Didn't have time to read 635 posts.... so maybe this was already mentioned. 
> 
> Did anyone else notice these new tweets and facebook posts from "Ron" end with -REP? Mostly the facebook posts follow this trend. Facebook posts from before February don't have -REP at the end of any that I can find.
> I know what REP stands for, but it's weird that it all the sudden appends the posts while it never did before.


REP is Ron's initials and they are supposed to be on whatever he personally posts, from what I understand, as Obama uses BO for his personal tweets.  It isn't conclusive, but it is there.  and it wasn't on the tweet in question.

----------


## sailingaway

> Yeah.  Sailingaway and others have pointed this out.  But unless Ron comes out and says "It wasn't me", the effect in the media will be the same.



And if he does, would it do much at this point?  The big headlines are always devoted to attacking, and that gets passed around. The clarification is always buried.

----------


## KerriAnn

> Yeah.  Sailingaway and others have pointed this out.  But unless Ron comes out and says "It wasn't me", the effect in the media will be the same.


yes, i know. and it's too bad. and very frustrating.

----------


## acptulsa

> Didn't have time to read 635 posts.... so maybe this was already mentioned. 
> 
> Did anyone else notice these new tweets and facebook posts from "Ron" end with -REP? Mostly the facebook posts follow this trend. Facebook posts from before February don't have -REP at the end of any that I can find.
> I know what REP stands for, but it's weird that it all the sudden appends the posts while it never did before.


It was covered.  It indicates *R*onald *E*arl *P*aul posted the particular tweet personally.  The confusion comes from an announcement that, since retirement, Dr. Paul is 'handling' his tweet account personally.  Whether that means they all come from his own fingers, or that there is no one between him and the tweeter in the 'chain of command' is unclear.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> But unless Ron comes out and says "It wasn't me", the effect in the media will be the same.


Or even if he *does* come out and say "it wasn't me" ...

----------


## KingNothing

> Wha...?  If a mob hitman kills a rival mob hitman, is he not a murderer?  Murder is the unprovoked taking of another human beings life.  What does the costume have to do with it?


It's all in the game.  I generally try to keep these things in the proper contest.  When a willing combatant dies, it seems.... "appropriate" isn't the right word but "slightly less awful" might inch closer towards the point.  Wantonly killing civilians is inexcusable, but killing people who have decided to enter into the game, while still base and repugnant, is something people around the world seem willing to endure.  So I think context matters, at least in how the public perceives the act of killing.  

And I'm not sure if I added anything to the conversation or not with this post.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> It's all in the game.  I generally try to keep these things in the proper contest.  When a willing combatant dies, it seems.... "appropriate" isn't the right word but "slightly less awful" might inch closer towards the point.  Wantonly killing civilians is inexcusable, but killing people who have decided to enter into the game, while still base and repugnant, is something people around the world seem willing to endure.  So I think context matters, at least in how the public perceives the act of killing.  
> 
> And I'm not sure if I added anything to the conversation or not with this post.


Yeah, I understand that.  I guess the point I'm trying to illustrate is that what people or the "public" in general perceive isn't always - often not - in accordance with principle.

----------


## Valli6

FOX about to cover "controversial tweet" with Dakota Meyer (awarded medal of honor).
"coming up" - which could mean any time this afternoon. They also played an excerpt of mark Levin bitching about what Ron Paul would say to all our veterans.

Frankly, I believe we need to point out that non-christians interpreting the words of Jesus Christ as a "slam" is outrageous, religious bigotry! Granted, people have grown accustomed to hearing the phrase as a  line in cartoons or movies, where it _is_ typically used as a way of implying you deserved what you got - but I don't believe that's the correct meaning of the phrase. Non-christians should not feel so comfortable bashing the words of the Jesus Christ. The garbage they're spewing has become extremely offensive, though I suppose I shouldn't be suprised given the way they booed the golden rule!

edit: NOW 2:45 EST

edit: pretty much what you'd expect, though not quite as ugly as I expected. Meyer buys the narrative that it's anti-veteran, against Kyle...he "couldn't believe it" etc, but ended asking that Ron Paul join with others to help veterans find jobs - or something along those lines.

----------


## sailingaway

> FOX about to cover "controversial tweet" with Dakota Meyer (awarded medal of honor).
> "coming up" - which could mean any time this afternoon. They also played an excerpt of mark Levin bitching about what Ron Paul would say to all our veterans.
> 
> Frankly, I believe we need to point out that non-christians interpreting the words of Jesus Christ as a "slam" is outrageous, religious bigotry! Granted, people have grown accustomed to hearing the phrase as a  line in cartoons or movies, where it _is_ typically used as a way of implying you deserved what you got - but I don't believe that's the correct meaning of the phrase. Non-christians should not feel so comfortable bashing the words of the Jesus Christ. The garbage they're spewing has become extremely offensive, though I suppose I shouldn't be suprised given the way they booed the golden rule!
> 
> edit: NOW 2:45 EST
> 
> edit: pretty much what you'd expect, though not quite as ugly as I expected. Meyer buys the narrative that it's anti-veteran, against Kyle...he "couldn't believe it" etc, but ended asking that Ron Paul join with others to help veterans find jobs - or something along those lines.


Ron Paul's record with veterans and soldiers should speak for itself, if anyone cares to actually look it up.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> unless Ron comes out and says "It wasn't me", the effect in the media will be the same.


Anyone who is still getting their thinking points from the MSM isn't going to matter to us anyway.  Seriously.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Ron Paul's record with veterans and soldiers should speak for itself, if anyone cares to actually look it up.


FOX viewers don't care.

That's the problem.

----------


## sailingaway

> FOX viewers don't care.
> 
> That's the problem.


If it becomes relevant we can raise it. They weren't his top THREE donor groups for nothing.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Ron Paul's record with veterans and soldiers should speak for itself, if anyone cares to actually look it up.


Yes, and I sure hope that has not been damaged.

----------


## klamath

> Yes, and I sure hope that has not been damaged.


 Unfortunately as a veteran I am getting a feeling I have been used. Is this how he really feels about veterans when he doesn't have to win an elected office? Does he think I should die by the sword?

----------


## sailingaway

> Unfortunately as a veteran I am getting a feeling I have been used. Is this how he really feels about veterans when he doesn't have to win an elected office? Does he think I should die by the sword?


His facebook post, allowing more than 140 characters, should clear that right up for you.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Unfortunately as a veteran I am getting a feeling I have been used. Is this how he really feels about veterans when he doesn't have to win an elected office? Does he think I should die by the sword?


No, Klamath, you know he doesn't.  Look at all his actions over the last 30 years.  The way he supported the veterans with way more than just words.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Unfortunately as a veteran I am getting a feeling I have been used. Is this how he really feels about veterans when he doesn't have to win an elected office? Does he think I should die by the sword?


Klamath you've been feeling some type of way about Ron Paul for a while now. Please elaborate on why you think he said veterans should die by the sword. Or are you just starting $#@! for the purpose of starting $#@!? You have been following this thread. I really doubt you missed the discussion on this specific soldier.

----------


## erowe1

> Unfortunately as a veteran I am getting a feeling I have been used. Is this how he really feels about veterans when he doesn't have to win an elected office? Does he think I should die by the sword?


You know who thought you should die by the sword? All those politicians that voted to send you and others like you into battle.

----------


## klamath

> No, Klamath, you know he doesn't.  Look at all his actions over the last 30 years.  The way he supported the veterans with way more than just words.


 What I do know is some of his rabid support base has changed his mind about issues, DADT being one. It doesn't take too much browsing around here to realized just how badly veterans are hated, has he come around to their thinking? He has no election to lose now. I don't agree with Rand either that anyone that wears or has worn the uniform is a hero. Heroes in uniform to me are only those the stepped abouve and beyond the call of duty at risk of life to save life whether it is your fellow soldier or someone on the other side. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson,_Jr.

----------


## sailingaway

Veterans are certainly not hated, as a rule, by Ron's base. And he explained his thoughts clearly on his facebook page.

----------


## pacodever

> Unfortunately as a veteran I am getting a feeling I have been used. Is this how he really feels about veterans when he doesn't have to win an elected office? Does he think I should die by the sword?


Well,  we were used dude.  Used by the government in illegal wars,  as instruments of terror against local populations in a gigantic resource grab.  Until you understand that,  you are useless to the movement.  Ron Paul was trying to get us out of these wars.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Unfortunately as a veteran I am getting a feeling I have been used. Is this how he really feels about veterans when he doesn't have to win an elected office? Does he think I should die by the sword?


HUH?  Are you being purposely obtuse?  Or just looking for another excuse to say something negative about Ron?

----------


## pcosmar

> Does he think I should die by the sword?


Do you even have any understanding of what those scriptures are?

If you did you would not even ask that.

----------


## Reece

> Unfortunately as a veteran I am getting a feeling I have been used. Is this how he really feels about veterans when he doesn't have to win an elected office? Does he think I should die by the sword?


He wrote this in 2003, when he had no plan to run for president, and it was highly unlikely he was going to lose his seat:  http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul142.html

And, as others have said, his Facebook post cleared up some possible confusion.

In any case, I don't think "living by the sword" would refer to all veterans.  There is a difference with using a "sword" in your life and living by the sword, I think.  If he meant any veteran, he would have had to include himself, which I highly doubt.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> What I do know is some of his rabid support base has changed his mind about issues, DADT being one. It doesn't take too much browsing around here to realized just how badly veterans are hated, has he come around to their thinking? He has no election to lose now. I don't agree with Rand either that anyone that wears or has worn the uniform is a hero. Heroes in uniform to me are only those the stepped abouve and beyond the call of duty at risk of life to save life whether it is your fellow soldier or someone on the other side. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson,_Jr.


Klamath, don't judge Ron's support base by this forum.  It is not a good indicator anymore.  Ron doesn't hate people who served.  It angers him that they are being used as fodder.  Remember back when he asked, wasn't it Aimee Allen to sing the Universal soldier?  It sounded to me like he wished so many young people would stop signing up to fight these wars that have nothing to do with our national defense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRnYVU4ZVWQ

I also agree with you about what a hero is.  That is how most Americans _used to_ define it.

----------


## pcosmar

> Does he think I should die by the sword?





> Do you even have any understanding of what those scriptures are?
> 
> If you did you would not even ask that.


Yes I -Rep'ed that stupid question. 



> and with that you join the rest in my ignore list.


Fine,, I have no one on mine,, I like to keep track of the irritants on the board.

and yes,, I am a Veteran.


Have you ever even spoken with the man? I have,,
and beside that,, he was repeating Jesus Christ.. Put him on you ignore list as well,, if you haven't already.

----------


## Stallheim

> he was repeating Jesus Christ.. Put him on you ignore list as well,, if you haven't already.


I love this!

----------


## angelatc

> If it becomes relevant we can raise it. They weren't his top THREE donor groups for nothing.


Thanks. I hadn't thought of it, but that makes the tweet even more offensive.  They gave him money to support his message, and in turn he said Jesus apparently thinks they deserve to die violently because they're in the military.

----------


## sailingaway

> Thanks. I hadn't thought of it, but that makes the tweet even more offensive.  They gave him money to support his message, and in turn he said Jesus apparently thinks they deserve to die violently because they're in the military.


Only if you spin what he said to say that, which he would never intend.  And his history shows he would never intend that.  He'd be wishing it upon himself, for one thing.

----------


## angelatc

> Only if you spin what he said to say that, which he would never intend.  And his history shows he would never intend that.  He'd be wishing it upon himself, for one thing.



Well, I don't think I am spinning it.  Or maybe I'm spinning it differently than others are.  But standing alone, the tweet says exactly that.  It isn't like Kyle was killed in combat, where the "...die by the sword" part would make sense.

----------


## KingNothing

> Thanks. I hadn't thought of it, but that makes the tweet even more offensive.  They gave him money to support his message, and in turn he said Jesus apparently thinks they deserve to die violently because they're in the military.


That isn't what Ron intended to say, which is why the tweet was so terrible.  I don't find it offensive, I find it careless and stupid.

----------


## sailingaway

> Well, I don't think I am spinning it.  Or maybe I'm spinning it differently than others are.  But standing alone, the tweet says exactly that.  It isn't like Kyle was killed in combat, where the "...die by the sword" part would make sense.


I don't think it says that. It permits that interpretation, if you want it.  It didn't have Ron's initials, but if it was him, I suspect it was a novice twitter user not used to the 140 character limit.  He'd do better to send links to his longer facebook post that makes clearer his meaning.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> Unfortunately as a veteran I am getting a feeling I have been used. Is this how he really feels about veterans when he doesn't have to win an elected office? Does he think I should die by the sword?


I think Ron Paul is a serious Christian and the most fundamental principle of Christianity is forgiveness.

So, I'll bet that if you've repented to the victims and families of the victims of your crimes and asked them to forgive you or offered to compensate them in some way for the damage you've caused them, that Ron would pray that your victims would respond mercifully rather than retaliating with their own swords.

I think Ron is also a Constitutionalist.  So, I'll bet that if--as part of your making things right with those you've harmed--you dedicated yourself to working toward the restoration of Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution which permits only temporary armies to be raised in extreme circumstances as well as working toward the restoration of the 2nd Amendment to the federal constitution as well as the bills of rights of nearly all the states which prohibit permanent government armies such as the organization that you were part of, then Ron would even more enthusiastically pray that your victims forgive you.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I don't think it says that. It permits that interpretation, if you want it.  It didn't have Ron's initials, but if it was him, *I suspect it was a novice twitter user not used to the 140 character limit. * He'd do better to send links to his longer facebook post that makes clearer his meaning.


I am sorry, but that is a piss poor excuse.  He is a professional with a staff.  The minute he hits that enter button whatever he types goes out to 400,000 people.  If he does not understand how to use the service, then he should be instructed fully on how to do so.

----------


## klamath

> I don't think it says that. It permits that interpretation, if you want it.  It didn't have Ron's initials, but if it was him, I suspect it was a novice twitter user not used to the 140 character limit.  He'd do better to send links to his longer facebook post that makes clearer his meaning.


Why are you having to say this? Why hasn't Ron stepped foward and said "I screwed up with this newfangled twitter thingy It cut off a larger message I was trying to convey."? Is one his gut personal belief and the facebook comment his political statement?

----------


## sailingaway

> I am sorry, but that is a piss poor excuse.  He is a professional with a staff.  The minute he hits that enter button whatever he types goes out to 400,000 people.  If he does not understand how to use the service, then he should be instructed fully on how to do so.


Yeah, but you  didn't like him before this tweet.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Yeah, but you  didn't like him before this tweet.


Why because I don't worship the ground he walks on and try to come up with excuses for his errors?  I endorsed him, donated to him and worked my precinct or him.  I don't "adore" him like you do, but I don't adore any politician.  I save adoration for my wife, kids and grandkids.

----------


## sailingaway

> Why because I don't worship the ground he walks on and try to come up with excuses for his errors?  I endorsed him, donated to him and worked my precinct or him.  I don't "adore" him like you do, but I don't adore any politician.  I save adoration for my wife, kids and grandkids.


Your posts here make that information surprising.

----------


## angelatc

> I don't think it says that. It permits that interpretation, if you want it.  It didn't have Ron's initials, but if it was him, I suspect it was a novice twitter user not used to the 140 character limit.  He'd do better to send links to his longer facebook post that makes clearer his meaning.


I just posted this in a private email. I'm not interested in playing the "what he really meant to say!" game this time.  Even with the best possible spin, the timing on this could not have been any more crass.  I know that the internet isn't actually considered polite society, and will probably actually bring about the end of it, but at this juncture people over the age of 30 know that it's simply rude to speak ill of the recently dead.

We were justifiably pissed that the liberals jumped all over Sandy Hook to push an agenda forward before the damned bodies were cold, but now we have Ron Paul blathering about PTSD while blaming a dead soldier (sailor, maybe?) for getting shot in the back because he took a troubled friend to a shooting range.  

I'm not going to rail on about this, because I don't want to get banned, but this is indefensible to all but the blind loyalists.  I'll be taking my bumper sticker off my car as soon as it warms up enough.  

Hail the message, but the messenger is past his prime.

----------


## pcosmar

> Well, I don't think I am spinning it.  Or maybe I'm spinning it differently than others are.  But standing alone, the tweet says exactly that.  It isn't like Kyle was killed in combat, where the "...die by the sword" part would make sense.


It isn't wishing anything. it is simply a statement, a spiritual principle.

Like Sowing and Reaping. Sow good, and reap good, Sow evil and you will reap evil.. It is what grows from the seed you sow.

Or stating the principle of gravity,, if you walk off a cliff you will fall.
No wishing,, no intent.. simply a statement.

----------


## klamath

> I think Ron Paul is a serious Christian and the most fundamental principle of Christianity is forgiveness.
> 
> So, I'll bet that if you've repented to the victims and families of the victims of your crimes and asked them to forgive you or offered to compensate them in some way for the damage you've caused them, that Ron would pray that your victims would respond mercifully rather than retaliating with their own swords.
> 
> I think Ron is also a Constitutionalist.  So, I'll bet that if--as part of your making things right with those you've harmed--you dedicated yourself to working toward the restoration of Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution which permits only temporary armies to be raised in extreme circumstances as well as working toward the restoration of the 2nd Amendment to the federal constitution as well as the bills of rights of nearly all the states which prohibit permanent government armies such as the organization that you were part of, then Ron would even more enthusiastically pray that your victims forgive you.


Honestly $#@! you. Most of my time in the military was dedicated to saving lives.

----------


## angelatc

> Yeah, but you  didn't like him before this tweet.


OK, maybe I do want to get banned.  Sailing, that's bordering on the sycophantic.  Any time the conversation has to turn to the poster, instead of the post, you've lost objectivity.

----------


## KingNothing

> Yeah, but you  didn't like him before this tweet.


You think that someone with a thousand posts here doesn't like Ron Paul?
What is happening to this forum?

----------


## KingNothing

> I am sorry, but that is a piss poor excuse.  He is a professional with a staff.  The minute he hits that enter button whatever he types goes out to 400,000 people.  If he does not understand how to use the service, then he should be instructed fully on how to do so.


It was careless.  Ron isn't perfect. It's silly to expect perfection from him.  He should be more perfect than this, however.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> Honestly $#@! you. Most of my time in the military was dedicated to saving lives.


So if you weren't "living by the sword", why are you applying Ron's Jesus quotation regarding a statement of fact about those who do (such as Kyle) to yourself?

----------


## angelatc

> It isn't wishing anything. it is simply a statement, a spiritual principle.
> 
> Like Sowing and Reaping. Sow good, and reap good, Sow evil and you will reap evil.. It is what grows from the seed you sow.
> 
> Or stating the principle of gravity,, if you walk off a cliff you will fall.
> No wishing,, no intent.. simply a statement.


You seem to be implying that Jesus believes in Karma.  That's a theory that I've never heard before.  Here I was going under the impression that putting down the sword would earn the reprieve of forgiveness.

In any event, I won't presume to know His will. 

Or maybe you're simply implying that those of us that enjoy a day of shooting at the range need to accept that fact that someone might shoot us in the back while we're there.

In any event, I was of the mindset that God loves all His children.  Kyle is facing the only judgement that matters now.

----------


## klamath

> You seem to be implying that Jesus believes in Karma.  That's a theory that I've never heard before.  Here I was going under the impression that putting down the sword would earn the reprieve of forgiveness.
> 
> In any event, I won't presume to know His will. 
> 
> Or maybe you're simply implying that those of us that enjoy a day of shooting at the range need to accept that fact that someone might shoot us in the back while we're there.
> 
> In any event, I was of the mindset that God loves all His children.  Kyle is facing the only judgement that matters now.


 That is the point, kyle Is there now and in the time of God's judgement we should show respect, forth with the saying before a man was killed. "My God have mercy on your soul".

----------


## CUnknown

This whole thing is really meaningless, the less said about it the better.  Ron is not running for anything anymore.  He can say whatever he wants.  He should have showed more sympathy I guess, but the media is really blowing this out of proportion in an attempt to attack him.  I guess we should be glad they still care enough to smear us.

----------


## angelatc

> This whole thing is really meaningless, the less said about it the better.  Ron is not running for anything anymore.  He can say whatever he wants.  He should have showed more sympathy I guess, but the media is really blowing this out of proportion in an attempt to attack him.  I guess we should be glad they still care enough to smear us.


I take it you're not active in your local GOP.  For those of us that have spent 5 freaking years trying to make in-roads, this was a huge kick in the gut.  Years and years of relationship development, destroyed in 140 characters.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I take it you're not active in your local GOP.  For those of us that have spent 5 freaking years trying to make in-roads, this was a huge kick in the gut.  Years and years of relationship development, destroyed in 140 characters.


Which puts many in a very difficult position.  Does one defend Ron Paul and alienate themselves from their peers or does one distance themselves from him so that the fight for liberty can continue unimpeded?

----------


## angelatc

> Which puts many in a very difficult position.  Does one defend Ron Paul and alienate themselves from their peers or does one distance themselves from him so that the fight for liberty can continue unimpeded?


Ron has repeatedly said he wanted the movement to be about the message and not the man, so there's the answer.

----------


## eleganz

> I take it you're not active in your local GOP.  For those of us that have spent 5 freaking years trying to make in-roads, this was a huge kick in the gut.  Years and years of relationship development, destroyed in 140 characters.


Well good thing it isn't about Ron Paul anymore.  If they want to lynch you for words Ron Paul said then...something is wrong with them.  And if they want to let 140 characters destroy your years of relationship development, maybe there wasn't really a relationship there.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> You seem to be implying that Jesus believes in Karma.  That's a theory that I've never heard before.  Here I was going under the impression that putting down the sword would earn the reprieve of forgiveness.
> 
> In any event, I won't presume to know His will. 
> 
> Or maybe you're simply implying that those of us that enjoy a day of shooting at the range need to accept that fact that someone might shoot us in the back while we're there.
> 
> In any event, I was of the mindset that God loves all His children.  Kyle is facing the only judgement that matters now.


This is where certain interpretations of Christian justice seem to not live up to the high standards of libertarian justice.

Take a monster such as Kyle.  Libertarian justice is focused entirely on compensation and restitution to the victims or the victims' families as far as is possible.  Forgiveness of the criminal is for the victim to give out--not the Creator.  Any punishment doled out has compensation of the victims as its main purpose.  Hence, in Kyle's case, the families of his victims could either forgive him or perhaps enslave him, put him to work, and use the proceeds to help raise all of the children he left fatherless.

Yet some interpretations of Christian justice seem entirely unconcerned with the victims.  The idea that it is for the Creator to either do the forgiving or mete out eternal phyical torture is completely at odds with the libertarian notion of right and wrong.

I'm not saying that that's the only interpretation of Christian justice that's out there.  But its pretty popular.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Why are you having to say this? Why hasn't Ron stepped foward and said "I screwed up with this newfangled twitter thingy It cut off a larger message I was trying to convey."? Is one his gut personal belief and the facebook comment his political statement?


Hey klamath: guess what?  The world does not revolve around you.  

If you wanted to be offended by what was said in that tweet, and ignore 30 years of public life, there isn't anything anyone here can say to make you feel better.  So just go be offended.  

Honestly, I get the Glenn Becks of the world getting their knickers in a twist over this silliness, but so-called Ron Paul supporters?  Get over yourselves... gosh you people and your sacred cows.

----------


## MarcusI

> Thanks. I hadn't thought of it, but that makes the tweet even more offensive.  They gave him money to support his message, and in turn he said Jesus apparently thinks they deserve to die violently because they're in the military.


Actually I don't think one can interpret it this way. Whether or not he (or whoever wrote it) referred the tweet to all veterans (which I don't believe, but could be possible, reading ONLY the tweet) the sentence only says that "he who lives by the sword" "will die by the sword". There is no word, that the person deserves to die. It only "is" this way.

Thats my reading. Maybe I'm wrong. Don't know much about bible interpretation.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> So if you weren't "living by the sword", why are you applying Ron's Jesus quotation regarding a statement of fact about those who do (such as Kyle) to yourself?


Do you want to know why?  It is because the social paradigm presently considers military service nearly a sacred thing, and it seems many have come to regard any non-complimentary comment to be a serious, personal offense.

----------


## angelatc

> This is where certain interpretations of Christian justice seem to not live up to the high standards of libertarian justice.
> 
> Take a monster such as Kyle.  Libertarian justice is focused entirely on compensation and restitution to the victims or the victims' families as far as is possible.  Forgiveness of the criminal is for the victim to give out--not the Creator.  Any punishment doled out has compensation of the victims as its main purpose.  Hence, in Kyle's case, the families of his victims could either forgive him or perhaps enslave him, put him to work, and use the proceeds to help raise all of the children he left fatherless.
> 
> Yet some interpretations of Christian justice seem entirely unconcerned with the victims.  The idea that it is for the Creator to either do the forgiving or mete out eternal phyical torture is completely at odds with the libertarian notion of right and wrong.
> 
> I'm not saying that that's the only interpretation of Christian justice that's out there.  But its pretty popular.



Yeah, apparently my Grandma took me to a much different church than you did.  While it is true that Jesus told us to forgive, vengeance and judgement belonged to God and God alone. 

Ron is a Christian, and a Republican.  I could give a rat's ass what the libertarian philosophy is, because as this debacle has sp succinctly illustrated, libertarianism in practice is crude and repulsive.

Like it or not, the only proper thing to say here, as was pointed out above, is "May God have mercy on his soul."   Calling him a monster, dancing on his grave, and delighting in the notion that he is dead serves absolutely no purpose for good.

----------


## Stallheim

> Why because I don't worship the ground he walks on and try to come up with excuses for his errors?  I endorsed him, donated to him and worked my precinct or him.  I don't "adore" him like you do, but I don't adore any politician.  I save adoration for my wife, kids and grandkids.


Thank you for your service.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> You seem to be implying that Jesus believes in Karma.


Karma is "what goes around comes around".  That's not at all what the verse is about, nor rather obviously what Pete was trying to say.

----------


## angelatc

> Well good thing it isn't about Ron Paul anymore.  If they want to lynch you for words Ron Paul said then...something is wrong with them.  And if they want to let 140 characters destroy your years of relationship development, maybe there wasn't really a relationship there.


There's the ol' libertarian spirit!  We can do no wrong - the rest of the world is at fault.

----------


## cajuncocoa

But maybe Ron wasn't dancing on Kyle's grave.  Maybe his tweet was meant in a general sense about the horrors and blowback of war, not anything related to Chris Kyle specifically.   The part about taking someone with PTSD to a firing range is just common sense.  

Anyway, what difference does it make?  Ron isn't running for anything so he can now be himself.  If he wants to insult someone (or not) he doesn't have to worry about the political consequences any longer.  His supporters who are disappointed in him for saying this (or anything in the past or future) no longer need to spin themselves in a tizzy for fear of a loss of votes.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> There's the ol' libertarian spirit!  We can do no wrong - the rest of the world is at fault.


Yep...the good ol' libertarian spirit isn't feeling the need to apologize to the conservative spirit of endless wars for blood sport.  Deal with it.

----------


## angelatc

> Karma is "what goes around comes around".  That's not at all what the verse is about, nor rather obviously what Pete was trying to say.



Kyle wasn't living the combat life, which to me is the only way the biblical context would make sense.  If Kyle was in Iraw and was shot by an Iraqi, then one could certainly say he died by the sword.

But saying that Jesus thinks he (and his friend) deserved to get shot in the back while at a shooting range for an afternoon of entertainment....that would equate to karma.

The whole point of the parable was to get people to put down the damned sword.  If karma is going to follow us regardless, then what's the point, really?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Kyle wasn't living the combat life, which to me is the only way the biblical context would make sense.  If Kyle was in Iraw and was shot by an Iraqi, then one could certainly say he died by the sword.
> 
> *But saying that Jesus thinks he (and his friend) deserved to get shot in the back while at a shooting range for an afternoon of entertainment....that would equate to karma.*
> 
> The whole point of the parable was to get people to put down the damned sword.  If karma is going to follow us regardless, then what's the point, really?


But what if that's not what Ron meant?  What if he was speaking about the horrors of WAR in general (PTSD), not Kyle specifically?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Kyle wasn't living the combat life, which to me is the only way the biblical context would make sense.  If Kyle was in Iraw and was shot by an Iraqi, then one could certainly say he died by the sword.
> 
> But saying that Jesus thinks he (and his friend) deserved to get shot in the back while at a shooting range for an afternoon of entertainment....that would equate to karma.
> 
> The whole point of the parable was to get people to put down the damned sword.  If karma is going to follow us regardless, then what's the point, really?


HOLY $#@!.  He didn't say, nor does the verse imply, that he DESERVED to get shot.  

$#@!.  You know what?  Go be offended.  Go be mad.  

Good LORD some of you people.

----------


## cajuncocoa

I think the whole thing was more of a statement about PTSD than about Chris Kyle.  My opinion of this continues to evolve, but that's where I am right now.  The 2nd sentence always seemed out of place, but in that context it makes more sense to me.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> There's the ol' libertarian spirit!  We can do no wrong - the rest of the world is at fault.


Guess what?  EVERY person who holds to a particular political ideology has the same attitude.  And those who don't - those who believe in "compromise" - don't really believe in anything at all, other than political power.

The "libertarian spirit" is the non-aggression principle, which is why, though you may not agree with it, obviously is going to do less damage than the rest of the ideologies out there.

----------


## Stallheim

> This is where certain interpretations of Christian justice seem to not live up to the high standards of libertarian justice.
> 
> Take a monster such as Kyle.  Libertarian justice is focused entirely on compensation and restitution to the victims or the victims' families as far as is possible.  Forgiveness of the criminal is for the victim to give out--not the Creator.  Any punishment doled out has compensation of the victims as its main purpose.  Hence, in Kyle's case, the families of his victims could either forgive him or perhaps enslave him, put him to work, and use the proceeds to help raise all of the children he left fatherless.
> 
> Yet some interpretations of Christian justice seem entirely unconcerned with the victims.  The idea that it is for the Creator to either do the forgiving or mete out eternal phyical torture is completely at odds with the libertarian notion of right and wrong.
> 
> I'm not saying that that's the only interpretation of Christian justice that's out there.  But its pretty popular.


 And it is most especially popular with those who struggle to find any rationally compelling defense for someone who publicly gloried in killing. This attitude does terrible harm to heroic soldiers who struggle with balancing the zeal of battle with human compassion. These men have the hardest of all jobs, and they are the ones who keep our freedoms safe. Consider how much careful work of these true heroes, the warriors with restraint, a mouth off attention seeker like this clown does. He should be afforded the same respect in death as any of the 'savages' he gleefully killed and bragged about. 

b

----------


## jcannon98188

> And it is most especially popular with those who struggle to find any rationally compelling defense for someone who publicly gloried in killing. This attitude does terrible harm to heroic soldiers who struggle with balancing the zeal of battle with human compassion. These men have the hardest of all jobs, and they are the ones who keep our freedoms safe. Consider how much careful work of these true heroes, the warriors with restraint, a mouth off attention seeker like this clown does. He should be afforded the same respect in death as any of the 'savages' he gleefully killed and bragged about. 
> 
> b


Except our soldiers are not keeping our freedom's safe. They are endangering it by following the orders of TPTB. We are in danger, more so because of the actions of our Nation in the FP arena. Iraq/Afghan/Iran/Whereever pose no threat to our freedoms.

----------


## July

> Kyle wasn't living the combat life, which to me is the only way the biblical context would make sense.  If Kyle was in Iraw and was shot by an Iraqi, then one could certainly say he died by the sword.
> 
> But saying that Jesus thinks he (and his friend) deserved to get shot in the back while at a shooting range for an afternoon of entertainment....that would equate to karma.
> 
> The whole point of the parable was to get people to put down the damned sword.  If karma is going to follow us regardless, then what's the point, really?


Karma doesn't really apply in a Christian sense of judgment. Karma is a theory of moral cause and effect, but it is not really judgment or getting what you deserve, IMO. It is very much depends on volition and intention. So, a solider forced into combat, or with intention to save lives, etc.. isn't necessarily cultivating negative karma. Those making greedy or poor decisions to use them or send them into an unnecessary conflict, perhaps might. Nor is karma permanent... we don't know if Kyle was in the process of resolving any karma.

That said, I don't interpret the tweet as dancing on his grave, or at least I hope it wasn't meant that way.

----------


## klamath

> Hey klamath: guess what?  The world does not revolve around you.  
> 
> If you wanted to be offended by what was said in that tweet, and ignore 30 years of public life, there isn't anything anyone here can say to make you feel better.  So just go be offended.  
> 
> Honestly, I get the Glenn Becks of the world getting their knickers in a twist over this silliness, but so-called Ron Paul supporters?  Get over yourselves... gosh you people and your sacred cows.


And the world doesn't revolve around Ron Paul so get over it.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

An excellent piece by Jacob Hornsberger:




> The United States had no authority, legal or moral, to attack, invade, and occupy Iraq. No nation has the authority to attack another nation and kill people in the process. The fact that the U.S. government has the most powerful army in history and that Iraq was just a Third World nation makes the situation even worse.
> 
> Since the U.S. government was the aggressor in the war on Iraq, that means that no U.S. soldier had the moral authority to kill even one single Iraqi. Every single soldier who killed an Iraqi or who even participated in the enterprise was guilty of murder in a moral, religious, and spiritual sense.
> 
> How can the murder of another human being not have an enormous psychological impact on the killer, especially when the killer is a normal human being as compared to a sociopathic serial killer? Ultimately, the conscience starts working and eating away at the person’s subconscious mind.
> 
> However, the problem is that the military can never acknowledge the veteran’s feelings of guilt because that would imply that the U.S. government was wrong to send the troops into Iraq. That’s just not going to happen. The government has to continue maintaining its official line — that it was right to invade the country and Iraq was wrong to defend against the invasion.
> 
> How can a person be healed of guilt when he’s being told that he didn’t do anything wrong and that he’s really just suffering from combat stress? Doesn’t relief from guilt require an acknowledgement that the person has done something wrong, as compared to something stressful? Unlike combat stress, doesn’t guilt require confession, repentance, and forgiveness?
> ...


Read the rest here:  http://fff.org/2013/02/05/guilt-not-...-war-veterans/

----------


## klamath

> An excellent piece by Jacob Hornsberger:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the rest here:  http://fff.org/2013/02/05/guilt-not-...-war-veterans/


She was about to kill her own child, she was twisted. Sorry I will *NOT* kill my own children to defend my country.

----------


## July

> I think the whole thing was more of a statement about PTSD than about Chris Kyle.  My opinion of this continues to evolve, but that's where I am right now.  The 2nd sentence always seemed out of place, but in that context it makes more sense to me.


Using violence to heal a condition caused by violence? I suppose that could be looked at as another way of saying, violence begets violence...  I don't know, my opinion continues to change also.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> She was about to kill her own child, she was twisted. Sorry I will *NOT* kill my own children to defend my country.


HE had no business being there.

----------


## parocks

> So now that he's retired you're willing to turn him into the crazy loon the media tried to portray him as for the last 6 years? And happy that's a good thing for Rand. Check.


Well, I'm not tweeting.  I'm not turning Ron Paul into anything.  So, Ron Paul said something, again, that pissed off the same people for the same reasons.  Rand is given, and takes, the opportunity to distance himself from the comments.  I don't see the problem here.

----------


## EBounding

> An excellent piece by Jacob Hornsberger:
> 
> "Ask yourself: What would American men and women do if the United States were attacked, invaded, and occupied by, say, North Korea? "
> 
> Read the rest here:  http://fff.org/2013/02/05/guilt-not-...-war-veterans/



I'll tell you what I wouldn't do.  I sure wouldn't hold a live grenade with my own child in my arms, hoping the aggressors wouldn't dare attack my child.  That's twisted.

----------


## klamath

> I'll tell you what I wouldn't do.  I sure wouldn't hold a live grenade with my own child in my arms, hoping the aggressors wouldn't dare attack my child.  That's twisted.


 With a clear history of tactics that include suicide bombing the immediate reaction would be. " $#@!, She is going to kill herself, her child and the soldiers!" I sure as hell wouldn't have wanted to be in his shoes. I came damned close, and it haunts me to this day.

----------


## angelatc

> Using violence to heal a condition caused by violence? .


So you think a day at the firing range is a day of violence.  Well then, I can certainly see how the tweet makes sense to you.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Unfortunately as a veteran I am getting a feeling I have been used. Is this how he really feels about veterans when he doesn't have to win an elected office? Does he think I should die by the sword?


I know you aren't that ignorant. Did his tweet say "he who lives by the sword _should_ die by the sword"? No?

----------


## July

> So you think a day at the firing range is a day of violence.  Well then, I can certainly see how the tweet makes sense to you.


No, of course not, but I can see how if someone is suffering from some kind of gun related fear or emotional issue...that might not be the first place they would want to be. You wouldn't necessarily take an alcoholic to a bar as a form of therapy. I am just trying to figure how the first sentence relates to the second.

----------


## eleganz

> There's the ol' libertarian spirit!  We can do no wrong - the rest of the world is at fault.


seriously? you are justifying being accused of guilt by association as if its YOUR fault.  I was telling you its not your fault because another man wrote something.  What the hell is 'libertarian spirit, we can do no wrong' about that?

You're being insanely defensive for your position.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> With a clear history of tactics that include suicide bombing the immediate reaction would be. " $#@!, She is going to kill herself, her child and the soldiers!" I sure as hell wouldn't have wanted to be in his shoes. I came damned close, *and it haunts me to this day.*


Do you not see the difference?

----------


## newbitech

its about time this thread gets derailed...

Bring your own bombs, bitches






You! 

Why do they always send the poor! 

Barbarisms by Barbaras
With pointed heels
Victorious victories kneel
For brand new spankin' deals

Marching forward hypocritic and
Hypnotic computers
You depend on our protection
Yet you feed us lies from the tablecloth

La la la la la la ooooooo
Everybody's going to the party have a real good time
Dancing in the desert blowing up the sunshine

Kneeling roses disappearing into
Moses' dry mouth
Breaking into Fort Knox stealing
Our intentions

Hangers sitting dripped in oil
Crying freedom
Handed to obsoletion
Still you feed us lies from the tablecloth

La la la la la la oooooooo
Everybody's going to the party have a real good time
Dancing in the desert blowing up the sunshine

Everybody's going to the party have a real good time
Dancing in the desert blowing up the sunshine

Blast off
It's party time
And we don't live in a fascist nation

Blast off
It's party time
And where the $#@! are you?

Where the $#@! are you?
Where the $#@! are you?

Why don't presidents fight the war?
Why do they always send the poor?

Why don't presidents fight the war?
Why do they always send the poor?
Why do they always send the poor?
Why do they always send the poor?
Why do they always send the poor?

Kneeling roses disappearing into
Moses' dry mouth
Breaking into Fort Knox stealing
Our intentions

Hangers sitting dripped in oil
Crying freedom
Handed to obsoletion, 
Still you feed us lies from the tablecloth

La la la la la la ooooooo
Everybody's going to the party have a real good time
Dancing in the desert blowing up the sunshine

Everybody's going to the party have a real good time
Dancing in the desert blowing up the sun... 

Where the $#@! are you?
Where the $#@! are you?

Why don't presidents fight the war?
Why do they always send the poor?

Why don't presidents fight the war?
Why do they always send the poor?
Why do they always send the poor?
Why do they always send the poor?

Why do they always send the poor?
Why do they always send the poor?
Why do they always send the poor?
They always send the poor
They always send the poor

----------


## newbitech



----------


## newbitech



----------


## newbitech



----------


## PierzStyx

> Look, I'm not disagreeing you with the "enemy's" right to fight to consider we invaded. But why can't we direct our feelings to the people who started the wars, not the soldiers who we're merely tools of the MIC? We lose a lot of credibility when we attack individual soldiers.


Without people willing to kill for them the people who started the wars would be powerless. You can't separate them.

----------


## newbitech

You all know the $#@!ing score
Everybody on the floor! 
Put your hands where I can see them
We're not playing around
One little move
And you're in the ground

We live on our own set of rules
Take everything and everyone down with you
We are a desperate kind
But this is a ruthless time

When I hit rock bottom
I go looking for friends in the filthiest places
Yeah, yeah
I make ends meet cause I'm a bad bad man
When I hit rock bottom, the party has arrived
We won't be taken alive

What if they just shut the lights out
So caught up in your digital world
What happens now?
What if they just shut the lights out
And all the city lights go black
What happens now?
What if they just shut the lights out
So caught up in your digital world
What happens now?
Lights out! 

You all know the $#@!ing score
Everybody on the floor! 

Put your hands where I can see them
We're not $#@!ing around! 
One little move and you're in the ground! 
Lights out!

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Without people willing to kill for them the people who started the wars would be powerless. You can't separate them.


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.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> But maybe Ron wasn't dancing on Kyle's grave.  Maybe his tweet was meant in a general sense about the horrors and blowback of war, not anything related to Chris Kyle specifically.   The part about taking someone with PTSD to a firing range is just common sense.  
> 
> Anyway, what difference does it make?  Ron isn't running for anything so he can now be himself.  If he wants to insult someone (or not) he doesn't have to worry about the political consequences any longer.  His supporters who are disappointed in him for saying this (or anything in the past or future) no longer need to spin themselves in a tizzy for fear of a loss of votes.


Because Ron is what some here seem to be clamoring for, and that is the most important figurehead for the liberty movement.  His words and actions impact how the entire movement is perceived.  It is just a fact.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Because Ron is what some here seem to be clamoring for, and that is the most important figurehead for the liberty movement.  His words and actions impact how the entire movement is perceived.  It is just a fact.



Thank you. This was my whole point. Our words, and more so, Dr. Paul's words CARRY WEIGHT.

Be careful what you say on LIBERTY FORUMS!

Washington and the media heads are reading our words. Carefully. W/ interest.

----------


## Ender

So- has RP admitted to the tweet? 

I don't have time to go through 70+ pages and I have some people to butt heads with.  Knowing if he did or didn't will help my tactics.

----------


## mac_hine

> its about time this thread gets derailed...
> 
>  Bring your own bombs, bitches


I agree and +++++rep for you, newbitech

At this point, I thinks it's safe to say, Ron Paul made it through. The neocon segment of the interwebs had a field day for about 12 hours, and now they're back to bitching about the socialist in charge of the country.

But sadly,  some of us here won't let it rest.

To those of you, I recommend watching this:

----------


## sailingaway

> So- has RP admitted to the tweet? 
> 
> I don't have time to go through 70+ pages and I have some people to butt heads with.  Knowing if he did or didn't will help my tactics.


He hasn't mentioned it. He did post a longer and more Ron sounding facebook post on the topic.

----------


## acptulsa

> So- has RP admitted to the tweet? 
> 
> I don't have time to go through 70+ pages and I have some people to butt heads with.  Knowing if he did or didn't will help my tactics.


This thread is less than a page.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...2%80%99s-Death

----------


## dusman

> Because Ron is what some here seem to be clamoring for, and that is the most important figurehead for the liberty movement.  His words and actions impact how the entire movement is perceived.  It is just a fact.


If that is true, then we should also acknowledge that our very own actions as a movement impacts how we are perceived as well. I'd argue more so, in fact. 

I can think of far more embarrassing moments for ourselves. That being said and knowing many people personally whom don't prescribe to Paul's style of conservatism, I feel like if I'm not making more impact on them than something Ron Paul tweeted, then I'm clearly not doing something right. I'd look at those close to me that are straying further away from the message because of it and wonder... "what_ haven't_ I done here?"

I'm not trying to disagree with you, but I think its more important that we take accountability for our own actions, than worry about Ron Paul's. I think if we could, Ron Paul might fulfill his goal of the message being what is important, not the man.

I am particularly annoyed at the level of attention we are giving this. The insensitivity that any of us may feel from some insignificant tweet pales in comparison to the truly real and deadly disregard those bitching about such nonsense have for human life in general by supporting these wars and creating monsters. 

Frankly, I take this tweet with a grain of salt because I won't be made to feel guilty for not celebrating a great killer. I might be inclined to take the more insensitive perspective on the tweet myself, but why should any of you guys give a $#@!? Arguing if he is a murderer or not is moot. The taking of any life, whether just or not, is something to be angry about... because it means human kind, in all its rationality, intellect, and sophistication could not create another outcome... but death. 

Now, it is us and Ron Paul on the greener side because we are the ones who put our reputation on the line, to support... life. If a tweet makes you doubt that about Ron Paul then you (not you Liberty... I hijacked your post on a tangent) are in the wrong place.

I suppose my point is... what are we doing now?

----------


## Ender

> This thread is less than a page.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...2%80%99s-Death


S0.....did Ron do the tweet? Still unclear.

----------


## sailingaway

> S0.....did Ron do the tweet? Still unclear.


it isn't clear. It may never be.

----------


## MarcusI

> S0.....did Ron do the tweet? Still unclear.


Correct. But by making this statement on facebook and not saying anything about the authorship of this tweet, chances are higher that he actually wrote it himself. Or doesn't want to reveal the fact that it wasn't him. 

Maybe some interview in the near future will reveal more.

----------


## acptulsa

> S0.....did Ron do the tweet? Still unclear.


Looks that way to me.  And even if he didn't, he's standing by it, which is close enough.

----------


## jj-

Murray Rothbard wrote the tweet.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> S0.....did Ron do the tweet? Still unclear.


No, but he's not going to tell you who did. And no, that's not confirmed. And no, it won't be.

----------


## fr33

> So- has RP admitted to the tweet? 
> 
> I don't have time to go through 70+ pages and I have some people to butt heads with.  Knowing if he did or didn't will help my tactics.


Just assume that he did. That's all you can do.

----------


## BlackJack

> It's a front page story on yahoo, and the first sentence reads:
> 
> 
> In 140 characters, the newly retired congressman reminds us why he  and maybe his son  won't top the GOP presidential ticket
> 
> hx x   p://ne ws.yaho o.com/ron-pauls-puzzling-critique-murdered-seal-chris-kyle-072000026.html


And yet the yahoo writer still has Ron's cock in his mouth.

Obviously he gives a $#@! about what he says, which contradicts his implication that Ron Paul is irrelevant to moderate politics.

But it really is pathetic how the propaganda machines bitch over one statement from someone who they claim to not give a crap about but yet no widespread outrage over the fact that Obama has committed heinous crimes against humanity, and continues to do so with no hard blowback.

----------


## sailingaway

> And yet the yahoo writer still has Ron's cock in his mouth.
> 
> Obviously he gives a $#@! about what he says, which contradicts his implication that Ron Paul is irrelevant to moderate politics.
> 
> But it really is pathetic how the propaganda machines bitch over one statement from someone who they claim to not give a crap about but yet no widespread outrage over the fact that Obama has committed heinous crimes against humanity, and continues to do so with no hard blowback.


today's stories were less inflamatory, some were fine, and the hatchet job blogs stood out for what they were.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> S0.....did Ron do the tweet? Still unclear.


The Campaign for Liberty was quoted saying Ron Paul handles all tweets on his Twitter account now.  Ron Paul himself hasn't denied he wrote it.  How much clearer can it be at this point?  You think if someone else wrote it, and Ron Paul was offended by it, he'd let it stand for over 24 hours?  Paul didn't hesitate to say that it wasn't him who sent out the Huntsman tweet after the Iowa caucus a year ago.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I wish Ron Paul was that articulate.   I guess I'm not a True Believer after all, because what i heard him say didn't sound anything like the 20 or so paragraphs HH has produced explaining the nuances.


_Ha!_  Good one.  I got a good hearty laugh when I read this, and said to myself, "Fair enough, Angela.  Fair enough."

I actually have not been trying to translate and interpret Ron Paul's tweet in my posts.  Just been giving my own thoughts.  But since you brought it up, let's take a crack.

He said:

_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._

So what does one get from this?  The most natural reading to me is that the first sentence is implying, basically, "this guy who died had it coming".  This is, of course, why the war-lovers are hating it.  Ron's defenders seem to have mostly taken the tack that that's not actually what it says.  And strictly, it isn't.  But the war-lovers are still human beings just like you and me, with more or less the same social intelligence, able to pick up on social cues.  And I think they have picked up quite correctly on this.  This was not a nice thing to say.

So, I speculatively interpret things this way: Chris Kyle dies.  The slimedia are falling over themselves to fawn over and celebrate him.  Ron Paul knows about or learns about Chris Kyle.  Dr. Paul finds him to be a poor role model.  In fact, he finds him despicable.  And so, he decides to say something about him and his death while it's still a top news item in the news cycle.  And we can all see what he decided to say.  It was:

a) Chris Kyle had it coming, by living a life of violence, and
b) Chris Kyle was acting foolishly, doing something which didn't make sense, at the time of his death.

Neither of which is a very nice thing to say.  No doubt about that.  Part a) I agree with, and part b) I don't know.  Anyway, Dr. Paul determined that this guy did not deserve to have anything nice said about him.  I happen to agree.  Also, that he could make a larger anti-violence/anti-war point and that this would be an opportune time to get attention for it.  I agree with that, as well.

So that is how I see it, trying to be honest and see it unbiased from the perspective of a non-Ron Paul supporter.  This tweet was essentially Ron Paul saying "Hello?  What's going on here, America?  Wake up!  This guy was _not_ a hero!  He was a bad person.  Why are we celebrating him?"

For those who think Ron would never say something not nice, that he doesn't make it personal, do you recall:

"Because he's a fake!"

or how about**:

"chicken-hawk"

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Well good thing it isn't about Ron Paul anymore.  If they want to lynch you for words Ron Paul said then...something is wrong with them.  And if they want to let 140 characters destroy your years of relationship development, maybe there wasn't really a relationship there.


Imagine where they're coming from.  Imagine your father/brother/son was murdered, and a politician tweeted about it, directly naming him, with: "live by the sword, die by the sword."

----------


## MaxPower

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.

----------


## fr33

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.

----------


## wormyguy

I knew about Chris Kyle beforehand due to his rather troubling statements, habit of self-promotion, and sucker-punching (and then running away from!) Jesse Ventura.  I have no great admiration for the man.

That said, one has to choose one's battles, and this one was very poorly-chosen and poorly phrased.  Fact is, like it or not, 95+% of the population would be very offended if they saw that tweet.  Even this forum, which is not only composed solely of Ron Paul supporters but by the most fanatical 1% or so of Ron Paul supporters, is roughly evenly split.  That should tell you something.  It is far more effective to appeal to nationalist/pro-military sentiment by emphasizing the need to keep our soldiers out of harm's way if unnecessary, than to immediately jump into the most controversial(!) aspects of libertarian-anarchist ethics by claiming that all members of an invading army are [potentially] murderers.

As for who wrote the tweet, I don't put much stock in wacko conspiracy theories.  The Facebook and the Twitter have been roughly the same in the style of writing since Jan 29 or so.  Ron Paul can make spelling and grammar errors like the rest of us, especially given that it's just tweets or facebook posts, he's probably not too computer-literate, and he _is_ an old man who may very well suffer from arthritis or shaky hands.  And don't get me wrong; that he is willing to speak his mind even in the face of universal condemnation is precisely why I love the man, but it is usually not the way to get 50%+1 to love the message.

----------


## 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.

----------

