Rand Paul Responds to Ron: 'Chris Kyle Was a Hero'

[cajuncocoa]

Where did you here that the tweet was not written by RP?

I didn't hear it from anyone; I go on my own instincts. It just didn't sound like him...it didn't add up.

 

[jmdrake]

BOTH Paul's need to issue a statement, together, about this whole Machiavellian fiasco. Now.

Why? This is what I really don't understand. I could be wrong in my analysis. I admit I'm guessing, as have many people today on this. (Ron Paul's account was hacked. Someone else posted it.) That said, if one or both were involved in a bit of a ruse, what's the problem? No laws were broken. Nobody was killed. No false rumors were spread. It's clear that since before Rand got elected to the senate, he made a deliberate decision to distance himself from the most controversial aspects of his dad's foreign policy. If that's what it takes to win, the problem is......? Would I rather the straightfoward approach be taken? Certainly. Is it a dealbreaker for me? No. Maybe I'm just immune to all of this because I saw this back in 2006.

 

[cajuncocoa]

When did he say that the earlier tweet was written by someone else?

See my response to XTreat.

 

[sailingaway]

The problem is manipulation and dishonesty that would call into question who Ron is. I, personally, would think it was utterly vile.

However, I think you have happened on a scenario YOU don't mind which explains to you facts you don't like, so you want it to be true. I see no evidence at all that Ron is going along with something like that however. If he were, his facebook post would been different, don't you think?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Ron's comment, if it really was Ron, may have been inappropriate but Rand's is no less so. To call this warmongering psychopath a "hero" is beyond my understanding. As acptulsa said in one of the early posts of this thread, it would have been infinitely better to have added "...to some".

Adding those two words would have defeated the purpose of making that statement. I'm not defending what he said because I think what Chris Kyle did was despicable. However, I have no place to judge people, so I don't judge others for their opinion of those people. I suggest everyone else here take the same attitude. Don't judge people based on what they say about other people.

You would be surprised how untactful adding "to some" would be to many who DO judge others based on their opinion of someone they hold in high esteem. To them, there is no other option. If you are not with us, you are against us. If you fail to express your full gratitude toward Chris Kyle, people are going to assume you are hiding your disdain because nobody who was talking about such a sensitive issue would withhold their gratitude if they had any. Adding "to some" simply wasn't an option. It would have made it sound like he did not hold the guy in high esteem because he would not be including himself in the "some".

 

[noneedtoaggress]

I think Rand was much more respectful in this case. Ron's statement came off as a little harsh.

I hear metal projectiles tearing into human flesh can feel a bit harsh.

 

[cajuncocoa]

There's nothing wrong with praising members of the military. I don't believe that bashing the members of our military is a requirement for supporting a non interventionist foreign policy. Every person who chooses to serve our country is a hero. It's the politicians in Washington DC who choose to use them for the wrong reasons who are the bad guys.

I'll have to disagree with you here. The people who serve in our military come from the same general population that you and I do. There are good people and bad people. There are psychopaths and heroes. Someone who gloats over killing people and who is eager and anxious to go out and kill more and more and more is not a hero in my book.

 

[erowe1]

Adding those two words would have defeated the purpose of making that statement. I'm not defending what he said because I think what Chris Kyle did was despicable. However, I have no place to judge people, so I don't judge others for their opinion of those people. I suggest everyone else here take the same attitude. Don't judge people based on what they say about other people.

You would be surprised how untactful adding "to some" would be to many who DO judge others based on their opinion of someone they hold in high esteem. To them, there is no other option. If you are not with us, you are against us. If you fail to express your full gratitude toward Chris Kyle, people are going to assume you are hiding your disdain because nobody who was talking about such a sensitive issue would withhold their gratitude if they had any. Adding "to some" simply wasn't an option. It would have made it sound like he did not hold the guy in high esteem because he would not be including himself in the "some".

I agree that adding "to some" would have been bad. But he could have said other things that weren't false.

Of course Rand may actually believe what he said. But I would like him more if he didn't.

 

[XTreat]

You guys can keep kidding yourselves if you want, but Ron wrote that tweet. Everyone that I know that would know has confirmed it. Maybe it's another big conspiracy!

You may pretend he didn't and wait until he issues a statement saying he wrote it, but it will never come and that will allow you to deny it while the whole time he won't feel like he needs to clear this little conspiracy up because it says RON PAUL right at the top.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

but all that is in your head.

I don't think Ron would manipulate people like that. He is known for honesty, directness, and believing people are entitled to straight answers. That someone at C4L might have decided on a pincer move, a horrible idea, is possible, I guess, but I can't see Ron as being in on it.

What difference does it make? If he was "in on it" as you say, then all he would have to do is keep doing what he has always done. So, whether he is "in on it" or not, he is still the same person. Why is it necessary to have some sort of secret agreement between him and Rand?

 

[phill4paul]

(Ron Paul's account was hacked. Someone else posted it.)

Was it? There are so many threads moving so fast I missed that. Confirmation is all I am looking for as far as Ron's tweet. Was it Ron or was it not. I still don't have conclusive proof.

 

[jmdrake]

The problem is manipulation and dishonesty that would call into question who Ron is. I, personally, would think it was utterly vile.

However, I think you have happened on a scenario YOU don't mind which explains to you facts you don't like, so you want it to be true. I see no evidence at all that Ron is going along with something like that however. If he were, his facebook post would been different, don't you think?

1) Facts I don't like? Which "facts" do you think I don't like? I'm taking the facts as I see them. Again watch the video from 2006 I just posted.

2) I wouldn't expect the Facebook to be any different. Why would I? Assume Ron did the original tweet and the FB post. Folks who like what he said initially won't at all be offended by the FB "explanation". Folks who generally support Ron, but were offended by the tweet, will be happy to see the FB post. Those who don't like Ron, and are happy to see Rand distance himself from Ron, will still be happy. It's wins all the way around.

3) Where is the alleged dishonesty on Ron's part? I'm not suggesting Ron didn't believe what he (may) have tweeted. Besides, as I said, Ron might not have had anything to do with it per se.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

It's Machiavellian bullshit. And I'm done with both Rand and Ron if this is a concerted effort. Done.

Drama queen. Seriously, grow up.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

There's nothing wrong with praising members of the military. I don't believe that bashing the members of our military is a requirement for supporting a non interventionist foreign policy. Every person who chooses to serve our country is a hero. It's the politicians in Washington DC who choose to use them for the wrong reasons who are the bad guys.

Thank you. +Rep

 

[sailingaway]

1) Facts I don't like? Which "facts" do you think I don't like? I'm taking the facts as I see them. Again watch the video from 2006 I just posted.

2) I wouldn't expect the Facebook to be any different. Why would I? Assume Ron did the original tweet and the FB post. Folks who like what he said initially won't at all be offended by the FB "explanation". Folks who generally support Ron, but were offended by the tweet, will be happy to see the FB post. Those who don't like Ron, and are happy to see Rand distance himself from Ron, will still be happy. It's wins all the way around.

3) Where is the alleged dishonesty on Ron's part? I'm not suggesting Ron didn't believe what he (may) have tweeted. Besides, as I said, Ron might not have had anything to do with it per se.

I take back the 'facts you don't like' part. I meant it would explain unpopular actions.

However, if Ron was knowingly running a pincer movement that is manipulative. Manipulation is dishonest. I would be disgusted. That would be HIGHLY UN-Ron Paul.

And the people who support him do it because of who he is, at least as much as what he says, and by that I mean his character.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I have no problem at all with Rand distancing himself from a statement like this. It's when he actually starts supporting different policies from Ron is when I get worried.

I agree, but people here are so shallow they just eat up all the drama they can and bicker back and forth as if it really mattered.

 

[dannno]

I can't say I necessarily disagree with Ron's comment. TOTALLY inappropriate though. He wasn't making some grand philosophical statement. It makes him sound like an asshole.

Fine, I'll say it. The world is a much better place without Chris Kyle and it would be better if other people like him died from unfortunate accidents, too. He was a total fucking scumbag, I would love to go fucking piss on his grave. He was a lying, racist douchebag. FUCK CHRIS KYLE. There is zero reason to celebrate his life.

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2012/02/pseudo-courage-of-chris-kyle.html

Chris Kyle is the asshole, not Ron Paul. Ron Paul is being as respectful as possible in addressing a messed up situation. It's like if Hitler died and Ron Paul lived in Germany fighting for the liberty of all Germans, including Jews, and was supposed to tweet something about Hitler's death... You want him to call Hitler a hero or do you just want to say you feel sorry for Hitler's family for their loss and then maybe make some statement to the effect that being a tyrant must take a toll on an individual's psyche and maybe leaders of countries shouldn't be so tyrannical if they want to have a pure conscious?

Also, thanks to Rand Paul for being able to have the stomach to say what he did so that he can help us gain more liberty because unfortunately we need the fucktards who liked what he had to say to vote for him if we ever want to see liberty in our life time.

Also, thanks Ron Paul for continuing to tell the truth in a respectful way.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Full text of OP so you don't have to go to Breitbart:

Congratulations, Rand. You scored another one for the warmongers.

And YES, Liberty Eagle...I. DO. DARE.

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

Those people will never learn...

And Rand kissing their asses ain't gonna do nothing to help them learn, either.

 

[jmdrake]

Was it? There are so many threads moving so fast I missed that. Confirmation is all I am looking for as far as Ron's tweet. Was it Ron or was it not. I still don't have conclusive proof.

You missed what I said right before that. " I admit I'm guessing, as have many people today on this. " The idea that "Ron's account was hacked" or "someone else posted the tweet" are merely examples of other people's guesses.

Assuming that Ron actually posted the tweet, and that Rand posted this in "response" to Breitbart asking Rand about Ron's comments, there are only two possibilities.

1) Ron and Rand really don't see eye to eye and Rand doesn't mind the world knowing it.

2) Rand, at least, is posturing. Ron may be a willing participant in the posturing.

Again, look at the video I posted from 2006. Either Rand agreed with military tribunals because he thought it would be a "problem" if testimony from torture wasn't allowed, or Rand was posturing. If Rand was posturing and didn't actually believe what he was saying, or if he was carefully parsing words to give someone the impression that was "with them" on the military tribunal thing, then that at least opens the possibility of Ron going along with the posturing because Ron didn't bust Rand. He could have said "That's not what you said when we talked about this." He didn't. And yes, I suppose #2 is more acceptable than #1 to me.

 

[sailingaway]

Those people will never learn...

And Rand kissing their asses ain't gonna do nothing to help them learn, either.

I suspect this was a public relations person caught in the fan blades who may not have perfect ideology, trying to just back his or her boss out of the situation. I don't know it, but it all happened very fast.