Ron Paul Quotes Jesus, Conservatives Outraged

[pcosmar]

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

Well, first off, it was a message to believers.
Secondly, it was not a judgement. It was a statement of fact.. a consequence.

Like saying "step off a cliff and you will fall"

"He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
Rev.13:10

 

[Lightweis]

a lot of positive comments on yahoo. Sweet!

 

[LibertyEagle]

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.

I think you are wrong. I don't think Rand is for preemptive war at all. If he turns out to be, I won't support him either.

 

[sailingaway]

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.

I disagree with that, and think posts like this push people unnecessarily into factions that aren't helpful. I think there are a couple of people on here who come off as pro war and I don't personally consider them true members of the liberty movement, any faction, I think they are using it. There are others who speak of packaging in a wide variety of levels who are not pro war at all, the opposite, and I just disagree with best method, personally, when it comes to the extent of some of that.

 

[jmdrake]

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

Revelation 13:9-10
9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.

10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

Yep. And to anyone who things Jesus wasn't the one speaking in Revelation:


Revelation 1

King James Version (KJV)

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

 

[jmdrake]

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.

So the pragmatic wing that wants to end war by actually electing an antiwar candidate is somehow pro war? The pragmatic wing of this movement is not pro war. It just wants to not push away pro war voters. I don't think at all that Rand is champing at the bit to bomb Iran or any other country.

 

[sailingaway]

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.

I'm not upset with LRC for backing Ron. This being out there I think they are figuring to make it a teachable moment, but the way they are doing it is them, not Ron.

And I think family grief is pretty predictable.

I am not mad at Ron, even if it was him. I am sure his longer facebook post more fully presented his thoughts, and if it even was him, it's about his first week on twitter with its 140 character limit. I've now and then had to restate what I've said here and elsewhere because I spoke imprecisely and it came off wrong. Ron isn't allowed that luxury.

 

[EBounding]

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

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

I stand corrected, thanks.

But is Ron saying though that Kyle reaped what he sowed? Or is he saying that the government reaps consequences like this with policies of aggression?

 

[cajuncocoa]

I stand corrected, thanks.

But is Ron saying though that Kyle reaped what he sowed? Or is he saying that the government reaps consequences like this with policies of aggression?

Perhaps both.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Exactly. I can't stand Lew - he's nothing but an apologist for the worst that libertarianism has to offer. 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.

Disagree. There are libertines, anarcho-communists, Georgists, etc who offer far worse stuff than Lew. Lew is just politically incorrect and seems abrasive to the newly initiated. People new to libertarianism should start with the simpler, gentler stuff and work up to Lew's stuff.

 

[KingNothing]

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

What a dick.

Can't we just be mindful of our language? Saying things that will unnecessarily offend people wins us nothing and changes nothing.

 

[KingNothing]

I think you are wrong. I don't think Rand is for preemptive war at all. If he turns out to be, I won't support him either.

And neither will I.

Why is it that certain groups of people here feel that other groups are totally bereft of principles? Why is it that some groups feel they're the only noble ones here?

 

[Occam's Banana]

What a dick.

Can't we just be mindful of our language? Saying things that will unnecessarily offend people wins us nothing and changes nothing.

Not sure if serious ...

 

[KingNothing]

Not sure if serious ...

Serious. These "libertarian purity tests" are silly.

The only one that matters is votes. If a person is not in a position to vote, their purity does not matter. The divisive nature of LRC is totally unnecessary.

 

[green73]

Not sure if serious ...

Hilariously, I think he is.

 

[Ender]

What a dick.

Can't we just be mindful of our language? Saying things that will unnecessarily offend people wins us nothing and changes nothing.

Uh...... the only dick around here seems to be those who don't know the truth when they hear it.

The OP is right on.

 

[pcosmar]

Serious. These "libertarian purity tests" are silly.

I would largely agree. I think most "purity tests' are dumb.

But there is ONE.

Authoritarianism

Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority as well as the administration of said authority. In politics, an authoritarian government is one in which political authority is concentrated in a small group of politicians

A person is either an authoritarian,, or they are not.
I am not.
I am an Anti-Athouritarian.

 

[KingNothing]

Hilariously, I think he is.

Purity tests are lame. They serve no purpose other than to provide justification for one group of people to wag their fingers at another group of people.

How does a politician vote? That's all you need to know. If someone is not a politician, who the hell cares what they think about a particular issue or the rhetoric used to convey a point? This is pointless division.

 

[supermario21]

And you wonder why Rand has to distance himself from these people to be viable? LRC takes litmus test to a whole new level, and this only risks to divide the movement even further.

 

[The Gold Standard]

And you wonder why Rand has to distance himself from these people to be viable? LRC takes litmus test to a whole new level, and this only risks to divide the movement even further.

If principles aren't your thing, hannity.com is just a click away. They are part of Rand's movement now too.