Ron Paul Quotes Jesus, Conservatives Outraged

[cajuncocoa]

Here's the main question:
Why does anyone still care what Ron Paul says or thinks?

Your group certainly doesn't care, since you've all jumped on the Rand bandwagon and decided that honesty and principle don't mean as much as they did in the beginning.

Fox News should certainly not care, since they won. Rupert Murdoch got his candidate elected, the neocon elite are happy because they successfully ran another rich great-hair candidate, and the rank-and-file is still champing at the bit to get behind the next plastic great-hair rich boy who doesn't stand for a damned thing they believe in.

So what is it about Ron Paul that people still give a damn what a failed, disgraced, retired presidential candidate thinks?

Could it be because you need us?

Guess what? What we did to Romney, we're going to do to Rand.

Perhaps you should all think real hard about that the next time you decide that being condescending is the way to convince us.

People still care what Ron Paul says and/or thinks because he speaks truth, and truth makes them uncomfortable.

The truth that was once heralded here is now the enemy because some are more worried about upsetting those who wouldn't spit on us if we were on fire.


"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" - Galatians 4:16, American King James Version

 

[sailingaway]

People still care what Ron Paul says and/or thinks because he speaks truth

^^ and they know it. And whether they want to act on it, or are afraid to, they listen. That is also why media is STILL so anxious to discredit him with the incredible spin you are seeing. They know he doesn't have to be in office to be powerful, he just needs people who support him -- or even just listen to him. The facade of 'tunneled choices' built by MSM can't stand exposure to the truth because the truth is so much more convincing.

 

[Thor]

If Ron Paul needs Lew to write an 11 paragraph blasting America for not understanding Ron's message, then something is wrong with the message....not America.

Right... America has proven over and over again how smart they are with the candidates they nominate and elect. "The sheeple are confused, it must be the message." The message was an accurate statement, no matter the timing. Should we really be surprised by, or mourning, the shooting death of a government sanctioned assassin? He was a hero to the Neocon war machine that was diametrically opposed to the foreign policy view of Ron Paul and people who agree that we should not be policemen to the world. I find nothing wrong with his original tweet, if it was him or someone else sending it out.

 

[green73]

A New Litmus Test

I think Ron Paul's comment about Chris Kyle and living and dying by the sword is a great new litmus test. Those who are outraged by it are not libertarians, are not against the warfare state, are not against the U.S. empire, and are neither friends nor fellow travelers of the liberty movement.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/131840.html

 

[jmdrake]

From the article:
<snip>

So yeah, anyone who lost respect for Ron or thought this tweet was a terrible idea is a "sunshine patriot" who never supported Ron in the first place and has to go support a "partiotic" politician who doesn't question the military. The guy who wrote this is just as bad as any demogauge out there.

Now you're changing your tune. Earlier you said So because I think the tweet was in poor taste that makes me a supporter of war? The author, who apparently isn't Lew Rockwell, didn't say that. But whoever wrote "Live by the sword, die by the sword' is what the dumbest, stupidest, most delusional people around here would say." really needs to rethink his priorities. If that was you, then yes that goes for you. While I can see the "this is bad timing" argument, there's definitely nothing "dumb" or "stupid" or "delusional" about "Live by the sword, die by the sword" itself. This national has been revelling in war since Reagan bumrushed Grenada.

 

[PatriotOne]

Could it be because you need us?

Guess what? What we did to Romney, we're going to do to Rand.

So your new meme/goal is going to be "Anyone BUT Paul" in 2016?

 

[jmdrake]

Here's the main question:
Why does anyone still care what Ron Paul says or thinks?

Your group certainly doesn't care, since you've all jumped on the Rand bandwagon and decided that honesty and principle don't mean as much as they did in the beginning.

Fox News should certainly not care, since they won. Rupert Murdoch got his candidate elected, the neocon elite are happy because they successfully ran another rich great-hair candidate, and the rank-and-file is still champing at the bit to get behind the next plastic great-hair rich boy who doesn't stand for a damned thing they believe in.

So what is it about Ron Paul that people still give a damn what a failed, disgraced, retired presidential candidate thinks?

Could it be because you need us?

Guess what? What we did to Romney, we're going to do to Rand.

Perhaps you should all think real hard about that the next time you decide that being condescending is the way to convince us.

I was with you until the second to the last sentence. "We" are not going to do that to Rand. Some maybe. But Rand will (at least) pull 50% of the Ron Paul supporters. And I think that's what Ron wants. Ron is pushing the educational campaign. Let Rand run the pragmatic side. Lots of movements have a militant wing and a pragmatic wing. Why can't the liberty movement?

 

[sailingaway]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/131840.html

I don't care. I think sensitivity to his family made the timing of the tweet, as stated bad. I don't care if I'm libertarian or not. I do understand a 77 year old guy tweeting for the first time and trying to get a thought into 140 characters with absolutely no margin given for a few mistakes early on, and I understand his facebook post, and someone who heard him saying something like that awkwardly framing it for him on twitter. But I think the Lew Rockwell site is making its own points, at this point.

 

[Thor]

I don't care. I think sensitivity to his family made the timing of the tweet, as stated bad.

Yeah, you might ruffle a few feathers in the battle for freedom.

 

[JoshLowry]

Here's the main question:
Why does anyone still care what Ron Paul says or thinks?

Your group certainly doesn't care, since you've all jumped on the Rand bandwagon and decided that honesty and principle don't mean as much as they did in the beginning.

This is ridiculous.

No one knows where Rand will end up. We certainly didn't in 2009 during his primary. He's been Honey Honey Lemons ever since. I wouldn't say poison yet.

Don't paint everyone with the same broad inaccurate brush.

Perhaps you should all think real hard about that the next time you decide that being condescending is the way to convince us.

I don't know which group you purport to represent, but back atcha.

 

[EBounding]

The thing is, Jesus never said "if you live by the sword, you die by the sword".

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 26&version=KJV

52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Jesus said this after one of his disciples cut off the ear of the high priest's servant that was detaining Jesus. He's not being ironic like the original idiom. He told his disciple to put away his sword so scripture could be fulfilled:

53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

John 18 gives the same account:

10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

Jesus was fulfilling scripture so we (EVERYONE) no longer would have to "perish with the sword". We no longer have to perish because of Christ's sacrifice and salvation.

I think this context and message is much different than what happened with Chris Kyle.

 

[fisharmor]

I was with you until the second to the last sentence. "We" are not going to do that to Rand. Some maybe. But Rand will (at least) pull 50% of the Ron Paul supporters. And I think that's what Ron wants. Ron is pushing the educational campaign. Let Rand run the pragmatic side. Lots of movements have a militant wing and a pragmatic wing. Why can't the liberty movement?

Because the pragmatic wing happens to be pro-war, and, oddly enough, the militant wing is not.
You can pull the plausible deniability card now.
Doesn't make it not add up that way.

 

[fisharmor]

I don't know which group you purport to represent, but back atcha.

The one you guys universally refuse to admit the existence of.

If we've been short with you it's because we're tired of being treated like we're an insignificant portion of this. We certainly didn't start the condescending talk about any of you. We do it to Rand because we have material issues with him that get explained away as something other than what it adds up to be.


And BTW Josh, I have never neg repped someone who loves Rand simply because he held a certain opinion, so thanks, I think I'll call you out for that.

 

[cajuncocoa]

The thing is, Jesus never said "if you live by the sword, you die by the sword".

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 26&version=KJV




Jesus said this after one of his disciples cut off the ear of the high priest's servant that was detaining Jesus. He's not being ironic like the original idiom. He told his disciple to put away his sword so scripture could be fulfilled:





John 18 gives the same account:



Jesus was fulfilling scripture so we (EVERYONE) no longer would have to "perish with the sword". We no longer have to perish because of Christ's sacrifice and salvation.

I think this context and message is much different than what happened with Chris Kyle.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation 13:9-10;&version=KJV

 

[cajuncocoa]

The one you guys universally refuse to admit the existence of.

If we've been short with you it's because we're tired of being treated like we're an insignificant portion of this. We certainly didn't start the condescending talk about any of you. We do it to Rand because we have material issues with him that get explained away as something other than what it adds up to be.

True dat.

 

[PatriotOne]

This is ridiculous.

He's been Honey Honey Lemons ever since.

In the world of politics, if your going to make lemonade, you got to toss in some lemons .

 

[green73]

I don't care. I think sensitivity to his family made the timing of the tweet, as stated bad. I don't care if I'm libertarian or not. I do understand a 77 year old guy tweeting for the first time and trying to get a thought into 140 characters with absolutely no margin given for a few mistakes early on, and I understand his facebook post, and someone who heard him saying something like that awkwardly framing it for him on twitter. But I think the Lew Rockwell site is making its own points, at this point.

If his family is anything like him I'm sure sensitivity is a foreign concept.

As for LRC, thank God for them at times like this. They backed RP and rightfully so, while so many half-ass libertarian noobs run around like chickens with their heads cut off.

 

[JoshLowry]

The one you guys universally refuse to admit the existence of.

Patriot Polls.com is the only url I've blocked.

 

[jdcole]

Yeah. Because Jesus was like totally understood by the crowds shouting "Crucify him! Crucify him! Give us Barabas!" /sarcasm

I compare this tweet to Lupe Fiasco's "rap in" protest at that D.C. Obama inauguration party. Yeah Lupe could have just his 5 minute anti-Obama rap, moved on to the next song. Instead he bumped around after the song was over for 30 minutes for the sole purpose of getting thrown off stage so that his message would make it to the top of the news cycle. The strategy worked. Ron Paul got his message to the top of the news cycle as well. And the political ramifications? Rand Paul gets to soak up even more teocon support. I'm not a Calvinist and I don't buy into their view on predestination, but I do see a point to the belief that some messages are only for those already ready to receive them.

THIS. +rep

 

[LibertyEagle]

Here's the main question:
Why does anyone still care what Ron Paul says or thinks?

Your group certainly doesn't care, since you've all jumped on the Rand bandwagon and decided that honesty and principle don't mean as much as they did in the beginning.

Pray tell, what is "my group"?

Fox News should certainly not care, since they won. Rupert Murdoch got his candidate elected, the neocon elite are happy because they successfully ran another rich great-hair candidate, and the rank-and-file is still champing at the bit to get behind the next plastic great-hair rich boy who doesn't stand for a damned thing they believe in.

So what is it about Ron Paul that people still give a damn what a failed, disgraced, retired presidential candidate thinks?

I can only speak for myself, but to me, Ron is like the holder of the liberty torch. He is an anchor. I view Rand as one of the implementers. I think we need both types of people and many, many more.

Could it be because you need us?

Who are you claiming to represent?

Guess what? What we did to Romney, we're going to do to Rand.

That sounds like a threat.

So, you are sitting right here and telling us that you are going to do whatever you can to make Rand lose whatever office he is running for? Is that what you are claiming? Because I want to be sure.

Perhaps you should all think real hard about that the next time you decide that being condescending is the way to convince us.

What in hell are you talking about and who do you perceive you are representing?