Ron Paul Quotes Jesus, Conservatives Outraged

[green73]

It's anything but a purity test.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Hilariously, I think he is.

LOL! Apparently so. SMH. The obliviousness is strong in this one ...

 

[Ender]

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.

"These people"?

LRC is probably the top libertarian site on the Internet. Some of the greatest defenders of liberty are featured at LRC, including Ron Paul.

Maybe you should get your head where the sun shines and start educating yourself.

 

[cajuncocoa]

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.

"These people" of whom you speak are those who got Rand where he is.

 

[musicmax]

Wow that's creepy.

Also need to point out that in that scene Kane is applauding his wife despite her utter incompetence as a singer.

 

[supermario21]

Look, I like Lew, but I'm speaking from a point of trying to bring people into the movement. Like I've said before, I'm not going anywhere. I'm just arguing that there are probably better ways to educate people into the movement, Lew included. Obviously I read a lot from that site and what Ron has said, etc, or else I wouldn't be here. Hannity is a shill, but we're going to need to win over his people eventually to make our viewpoints mainstream in terms of the conservative movement. But if we're trying to be the tent as Ron put it, making some statements like the first tweet (I liked the second) is going to do more to deflate the tent, not make it bigger.

 

[idiom]

Remember when we could just call em baby killers to their faces?

 

[cajuncocoa]

Look, I like Lew, but I'm speaking from a point of trying to bring people into the movement. Like I've said before, I'm not going anywhere. I'm just arguing that there are probably better ways to educate people into the movement, Lew included. Obviously I read a lot from that site and what Ron has said, etc, or else I wouldn't be here. Hannity is a shill, but we're going to need to win over his people eventually to make our viewpoints mainstream in terms of the conservative movement. But if we're trying to be the tent as Ron put it, making some statements like the first tweet (I liked the second) is going to do more to deflate the tent, not make it bigger.

Something everyone here who claims to want to bring people into the movement should think about: as you speak the language of one group in order to bring in their people, you may be driving away others who helped to get the movement where it is. And when the new people come in, the movement you were trying to grow may become something that you didn't intend. See: Tea Party.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Something everyone here who claims to want to bring people into the movement should think about: as you speak the language of one group in order to bring in their people, you may be driving away others who helped to get the movement where it is. And when the new people come in, the movement you were trying to grow may become something that you didn't intend. See: Tea Party.

As a general rule, life is about adapting, innovating and overcoming. That is what is going on in terms of communication going forward. I've always understood the side that doesn't go for that and there's nothing to be said that will make some go for it. If it's coming down to the fact that, in order to grow the political liberty/conservative movement to take on the establishment blood suckers, the purists decide to part company and do whatever it is that they plan on doing then there's nothing to prevent that from happening. Maybe in a few years we can team back up if our paths collide as I inevitably think they will. And, at that point we'll be bigger and stronger than ever plus have new allies.

 

[cajuncocoa]

As a general rule, life is about adapting, innovating and overcoming. That is what is going on in terms of communication going forward. I've always understood the side that doesn't go for that and there's nothing to be said that will make some go for it. If it's coming down to the fact that, in order to grow the political liberty/conservative movement to take on the establishment blood suckers, the purists decide to part company and do whatever it is that they plan on doing then there's nothing to prevent that from happening. Maybe in a few years we can team back up if our paths collide as I inevitably think they will. And, at that point we'll be bigger and stronger than ever plus have new allies.

I see it differently. We purists will be here doing what we always have (staying true to our principles) while you will have adapted and innovated, won some elections, and wondered why, after those victories at the ballot box, everything has stayed pretty much the same as it was before.

Bottom line: we're not going to win this through political means. That doesn't mean you have to give up politics if that's what you want to do, but there HAS to be a growing group of principled purists who will draw a line in the sand and refuse to cross it (and will refuse to vote for those who do). The only thing those political types understand is getting elected and re-elected. There will have to be an ever-growing populace who will JUST SAY NO when they even think about putting a toe across that line.

If it is your calling to get those political types set up for election, go for it. But please stop chastising those of us "purists" when we insist on holding their feet to the fire. THAT is what will bring about liberty in our lifetime, if it is meant to be.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I see it differently. We purists will be here doing what we always have (staying true to our principles) while you will have adapted and innovated, won some elections, and wondered why, after those victories at the ballot box, everything has stayed pretty much the same as it was before.

You aren't a purist. You are a Ron Paul accolade and nothing more. You have put another human being on a pedestal and judged him as perfect and then measure everyone against that. The problem with that is Ron Paul is not perfect; no human being is. Yet, you close your eyes to those imperfections that Klamath and others have pointed out. No one wanted to point out Dr. Paul's imperfections, but those of you who have been setting Ron up as a god and by comparison, claiming that Rand is satan, have caused it.

The fact is that we need both philosophers like Ron and we need implementers like Rand, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash and hopefully, many, many more to come. It seems more than foolish (not to mention, suspect) at this point in time for some to spend so much time trying to destroy one of our own, when the bad guys are on the other side of the field.

Bottom line: we're not going to win this through political means. That doesn't mean you have to give up politics if that's what you want to do, but there HAS to be a growing group of principled purists who will draw a line in the sand and refuse to cross it (and will refuse to vote for those who do). The only thing those political types understand is getting elected and re-elected. There will have to be an ever-growing populace who will JUST SAY NO when they even think about putting a toe across that line.

If it is your calling to get those political types set up for election, go for it. But please stop chastising those of us "purists" when we insist on holding their feet to the fire. THAT is what will bring about liberty in our lifetime, if it is meant to be.

If you are not engaged in political action, who do you think will know of your drawn line, or even care? If you don't participate, do you honestly believe TPTB care about you one iota? No, they do not.

I'm all for not forgetting our principles. I agree that is critical. But, I also understand that we have to break through the propaganda that so many Americans have been infused with. Messaging is critical to achieve that and that messaging is not directed at you; it is directed at those who aren't yet with us.

Ironic truth: if you stand for Ron Paul's principles on the Ron Paul Forum, you may be called a "troll"

False. I have called you out for your trolling behavior, because you have run around here misconstruing Rand's words and flat out lying about him. No one cares that you don't like him. But, you have made it your mission in life to do what you can to turn anyone and everyone against him, by any means possible. And that is the behavior of a troll.

 

[Butchie]

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.

The author DID say that as I clearly provided proof for, and I did not ever claim Lew wrote it so not even sure why you said that. This tweet was bad timing, so therefore yes, it was a dumb thing to say, knowing when and how to say something is just as important as what you are saying.

I'm not changing my tune, you are putting words in my mouth much like the author, I am well aware of our nations sick obsession with war and this man is certainly not a person I respect or call a hero, but there is a way to speak to people about these subjects and way not to, regardless of what you think of this Seal he had a family that through no fault of their own are going through a horrible time right now and what Ron said was way out of line, why you can't see that I don't know.

 

[jmdrake]

The author DID say that as I clearly provided proof for, and I did not ever claim Lew wrote it so not even sure why you said that.

1) No he didn't.

2) I proved your proof isn't.

3) I added the "it isn't Lew Rockwell" part because I got that wrong. I didn't say you did.

This tweet was bad timing, so therefore yes, it was a dumb thing to say, knowing when and how to say something is just as important as what you are saying.

Or maybe it's doing exactly what it was intended to do which is 1) stir up the antiwar debate and 2) toss a "softball" to Rand so that he could endear himself more to teocons. In that case it's brilliant.

I'm not changing my tune, you are putting words in my mouth much like the author

How can an author that doesn't even know you put words in your mouth? That's silly. All he did was make a shoe. It was up to you to decide that it fit and that you wanted to wear it. Again, as I pointed out, the author talked about a lassie faire tradition that was against A) standing armies B) wars and C) deference to military "heroics." You have decided to ignore A and C and hone in on B and say "The author said I was pro war" when he said no such thing.

, I am well aware of our nations sick obsession with war and this man is certainly not a person I respect or call a hero, but there is a way to speak to people about these subjects and way not to, regardless of what you think of this Seal he had a family that through no fault of their own are going through a horrible time right now and what Ron said was way out of line, why you can't see that I don't know.

That's fine. But again, nobody said that anyone who was against Ron Paul's tweet had to be pro war.

 

[KingNothing]

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.

I wrote it. I am not rethinking my priorities, but I did rethink my wording to make my stance more clear. I meant that using the words was silly, not the quote itself. Using the phrase was bombastic and careless and, intentionally or not, it implied that Kyle deserved it. That sort of looseness with language, which I have also been guilty of, leads to nothing good. Ron corrected his mistake by offering more detail in his later facebook post. Had he just used those words originally, none of this would have happened. Likewise, had I been more precise in language, I wouldn't have been quoted on LRC.

And the LRC author did suggest that I'm less liberty-oriented, or less anti-war, than he is. That is the silly and petulant finger-wagging typical of people at LRC.

 

[Butchie]

1) No he didn't.

2) I proved your proof isn't.

3) I added the "it isn't Lew Rockwell" part because I got that wrong. I didn't say you did.



Or maybe it's doing exactly what it was intended to do which is 1) stir up the antiwar debate and 2) toss a "softball" to Rand so that he could endear himself more to teocons. In that case it's brilliant.


How can an author that doesn't even know you put words in your mouth? That's silly. All he did was make a shoe. It was up to you to decide that it fit and that you wanted to wear it. Again, as I pointed out, the author talked about a lassie faire tradition that was against A) standing armies B) wars and C) deference to military "heroics." You have decided to ignore A and C and hone in on B and say "The author said I was pro war" when he said no such thing.



That's fine. But again, nobody said that anyone who was against Ron Paul's tweet had to be pro war.

Your first bolded statement: If you actually believe that, well, what can I say. How often do you actually go to your local Republican get togethers, cuz you're living in an alternate reality.

As to the second bolded statement: I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant and that I didn't mean he was literally speaking directly to me specifically, if that's how you debate people there's really no more point in contuining this.

 

[KingNothing]

You aren't a purist. You are a Ron Paul accolade and nothing more. You have put another human being on a pedestal and judged him as perfect and then measure everyone against that. The problem with that is Ron Paul is not perfect; no human being is. Yet, you close your eyes to those imperfections that Klamath and others have pointed out. No one wanted to point out Dr. Paul's imperfections, but those of you who have been setting Ron up as a god and by comparison, claiming that Rand is satan, have caused it.

The fact is that we need both philosophers like Ron and we need implementers like Rand, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash and hopefully, many, many more to come. It seems more than foolish (not to mention, suspect) at this point in time for some to spend so much time trying to destroy one of our own, when the bad guys are on the other side of the field.



If you are not engaged in political action, who do you think will know of your drawn line, or even care? If you don't participate, do you honestly believe TPTB care about you one iota? No, they do not.

I'm all for not forgetting our principles. I agree that is critical. But, I also understand that we have to break through the propaganda that so many Americans have been infused with. Messaging is critical to achieve that and that messaging is not directed at you; it is directed at those who aren't yet with us.



False. I have called you out for your trolling behavior, because you have run around here misconstruing Rand's words and flat out lying about him. No one cares that you don't like him. But, you have made it your mission in life to do what you can to turn anyone and everyone against him, by any means possible. And that is the behavior of a troll.

This is the best post I've ever read on this forum. I mean that sincerely.

 

[Antischism]

I have no sympathy for anyone who takes pride in "killing savages" in these bullshit wars. Sometimes I want to say, "Fuck the troops," but then I remember how brainwashed people are and how they feel like the only option they have as a 'career' is to enlist in the military. Of course, I would prefer no one died and I feel sympathy for the family, but I don't find anything wrong at all with what Ron Paul said, nor with the timing.

 

[familydog]

Wait...conservatives (and Rand Paul) are defending the "honor" of a murderer? Color me shocked.

The only reason to be outraged is that Ron Paul didn't go far enough.

But I guess many people here still cling to the idea that somehow politics will save the world and we must use tact.

 

[Petar]

Wait...conservatives (and Rand Paul) are defending the "honor" of a murderer? Color me shocked.

The only reason to be outraged is that Ron Paul didn't go far enough.

But I guess many people here still cling to the idea that somehow politics will save the world and we must use tact.

Politics are precisely the exact thing that will either make or break a civilization. It is incredibly lame when people like you pretend that there is any other option.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Comment on a relevant YouTube video that deserves to be shared:

Some people interpreted the statement as "he (Kyle) deserved what he got".
I interpreted the statement as "People die as a consequence of war" and "Treating a vet suffering from PTSD by convening an informal session at a shooting range carries serious risks and probably is not a good idea in general"