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

[RonRocks]

F Rand! He thinks this guy is a hero? http://www.freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2012/02/pseudo-courage-of-chris-kyle.html

Really? Chris Kyle was a meathead following orders and had an appetite for killing "evil Iraqis" who were "subhuman". Grade A Meathead!

 

[Expatriate]

Why does RP have 2 verified twitter accounts - @RepRonPaul and @RonPaul? Which one does he supposedly run according to Megan Stiles?

There were mean-spirited tweets during the campaign that clearly didn't come from him either.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71113.html
Jon Huntsman laughed off Ron Paul’s mocking tweet, pointedly joking that his rival should have “learned the perils of ghost-written subject matter by now.”

...

The Twitter message in question was a tweet that went out under the @RonPaul Twitter handle earlier this week that read, “@jonhuntsman we found your one Iowa voter, he’s in Linn precinct 5 you might want to call him and say thanks.”

Paul, who denied earlier on Wednesday having posted the tweet himself, told Morgan later that the message was written by his staff in “good humor.”

I agree with Ron on just about everything I've seen or heard him say IN PERSON, but there is clearly a reoccurring issue with staff pretending to be him and saying stupid things which allow the media to gleefully smear him.

Is this, as some here say, an indicator that he is a poor leader as he can't control the people working for him? Possibly, but that does not in any way invalidate the other points he has made.

Is it possible that being pretty much the lone voice of opposition to the corrupt and powerful statist establishment (which uses lies and propaganda to get its way) means that you are setting yourself up to repeatedly have your own staff manipulated into working against you through dishonorable methods? I think it is a distinct possibility.

Regardless of the reason for this, if I were Ron Paul I would make absolutely sure that nobody ever speaks in my name, especially on the internet or in print where it is impossible to tell if it is really him or not. He has probably taken care of this issue in print media since the newsletter debacle, but I think perhaps RP is not very internet-savvy and does not pay attention to or understand the importance of things such as social networking. Can you blame they guy? He didn't exactly grow up with it.

This tweet strikes me as divisive and incendiary, but it does not sound to me like Ron speaking and I'm going to wait until Ron IN PERSON (not "Megan Stiles") confirms it was him before I criticize him in any way.

 

[AuH20]

Kyle was a hero to the men who's lives he saved.

National hero??????? HELL NO.

 

[Original_Intent]

They were both patsies. they were service members. They were not heroes.

I am a Vet, and am not a "Hero".

There s a reason that military suicides are up. and the so called PTSD.

It is called an "attack of conscience".

You are a hero of mine, Pete. And that is flat out serious, and if you don;t like it, tough!

 

[sailingaway]

Why does RP have 2 verified twitter accounts - @RepRonPaul and @RonPaul? Which one does he supposedly run according to Megan Stiles?

There were mean-spirited tweets during the campaign that clearly didn't come from him either.

He never tweeted before he retired. Apparently he took back his account from C4L and they assume he does all the tweets, and maybe he does, but I had heard his own tweets had REP (his initials) on them and this didn't.

His facebook post sounds like him, but this didn't.

His facebook post also has REP on it.

 

[Butchie]

Ho about we keep it on topic and on tweet...

From the man who started us down this road? But, fine, last I'll say on it.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I think you're reading too much into it. I doubt he is speaking in code to libertarians. He probably believes soldiers and even this vicious killer are heroes.

I doubt it. I don't think Rand had a whole lot of choice in his reply. It had to be short, to the point and totally distance himself from the extremely poorly worded tweet sent out from Ron Paul's tweet account.

 

[1836]

...

 

[jmdrake]

Not busting someone after it is done is different. I agree THAT is Ron all over. I'll look at this last video.

--

edit, but that video proves MY point, Ron would tell us. He wouldn't manipulate us.

No it doesn't prove your point. Ron didn't "tell us" until he was specifically asked. He's not above playing some of his cards close to the vest.



Edit: And you're doing what you accused me of doing earlier which is ignoring to twisting facts because the conclusion is too painful for you. If Ron was always as straightforward as you'd like he would have said when he made the endorsement "And I'm only doing this because I have to in order to keep my chairmanship." Instead he waited until there was no longer any risk and until he was specifically asked by a supporter. If he comes out later and says "Yeah, I knew Rand was pretending to go along with the neocons and I decided to go full bore on the educational campaign and we both realized that this dual strategy would help further the cause by simultaneously building up Rand's credibility when he had to distance himself from me and building up the overall movement as I taught people about liberty" will you go "Great! Glad it worked!" or will you go "But...but...but....I feel so betrayed?" Speaking for myself, if the strategy actually works I have no problem with it.

 

[jmdrake]

He never tweeted before he retired. Apparently he took back his account from C4L and they assume he does all the tweets, and maybe he does, but I had heard his own tweets had REP (his initials) on them and this didn't.

His facebook post sounds like him, but this didn't.

His facebook post also has REP on it.

You maybe right. But I bet you a dime to a dollar that Ron doesn't come out and "tell us" if that is the case. Ron doesn't spill his guts on everything like you'd like to believe.

 

[jmdrake]

"He must increase, but I must decrease"

- John 3:30

My thoughts exactly. Notice that not long after that John the Baptist really took the gloves off and ended up losing his head. (I hope that won't be the ending here).

 

[jmdrake]

Except when we weren't:

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

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I can't take much more of this. This place has been overrun by ignorant, short-sighted, oblivious people, many of whom are in desperate need of a better understanding of the history of the 20th century. Society in general is in need of a paradigm shift, but I once thought this forum was a place where a noticeable majority rooted themselves in logically derived principles. I was either utterly mistaken, or we have been overrun, or too many folks have made a single government office their life's obsession.

So disappointing...

 

[jmdrake]

I can't take much more of this. This place has been overrun by ignorant, short-sighted, oblivious people, many of whom are in desperate need of a better understanding of the history of the 20th century. Society in general is in need of a paradigm shift, but I once thought this forum was a place where a noticeable majority rooted themselves in logically derived principles. I was either utterly mistaken, or we have been overrun, or too many folks have made a single government office their life's obsession.

So disappointing...

What's depressing to me is that people think the movement must be monolithic and cannot see the wisdom of a two track strategy or the wisdom of not announcing that strategy to the entire world. "What to you mean General Eisenhower that you set up a ruse to get Hitler to think we were going to storm different beaches? I feel so betrayed!"

 

[A Son of Liberty]

What's depressing to me is that people think the movement must be monolithic and cannot see the wisdom of a two track strategy or the wisdom of not announcing that strategy to the entire world. "What to you mean General Eisenhower that you set up a ruse to get Hitler to think we were going to storm different beaches? I feel so betrayed!"

The problem is, that's really just your "theory". I didn't get the memo that this "two-track" strategy has been approved and rolled out officially. Beyond that, I was rather obviously speaking to the crowd who don't understand the history of American interventionism, or the term "blowback"; not to mention those who seem oblivious to some pretty basic principles of what used to be the "liberty movement".

 

[Tpoints]

I'm not surprised. Nor am I disappointed. I think the Paul's are executing a "pincer movement."

what does that mean?

 

[Anti-Neocon]

what does that mean?

Ron's keeping the purist libertarians, and Rand is bringing in the teo-cons. When it comes 2016, Ron will convince the libertarians to join the teo-cons and support Rand to make an unstoppable coalition (well at least that's the plan).

 

[Tpoints]

Ron's keeping the purist libertarians, and Rand is bringing in the teo-cons. When it comes 2016, Ron will convince the libertarians to join the teo-cons and support Rand to make an unstoppable coalition (well at least that's the plan).

That assumes : 1) rand can win more republicans than neocons 2) rand doesn't lose ron's people even when ron tells them to support him.

Very risky, probably easier to just tell all non-Obama supporters to united against Democrats

 

[Anti-Neocon]

That assumes : 1) rand can win more republicans than neocons 2) rand doesn't lose ron's people even when ron tells them to support him.

Very risky, probably easier to just tell all non-Obama supporters to united against Democrats

Without that happening, winning the presidency is a near impossibility. It's not only assumed; that's the goal of the next 4 years, and it must be the goal if we are to have any chance at success.

 

[jmdrake]

The problem is, that's really just your "theory". I didn't get the memo that this "two-track" strategy has been approved and rolled out officially. Beyond that, I was rather obviously speaking to the crowd who don't understand the history of American interventionism, or the term "blowback"; not to mention those who seem oblivious to some pretty basic principles of what used to be the "liberty movement".

True. But it's a theory I've had since 2010. And little by little evidence is coming forward to confirm it. At some point when events continue to confirm a theory it becomes more probable than not.

Edit: And I don't think anyone doesn't understand the history of interventionism and "blowback". I think some are concerned about other voters who don't understand that misunderstanding Ron's words. Such voters simultaneously need to be educated and need to be reached where they are. If Ron and Rand aren't following a two track strategy, they should.