Ron Paul Twitter Account

Karma is "what goes around comes around". That's not at all what the verse is about, nor rather obviously what Pete was trying to say.


Kyle wasn't living the combat life, which to me is the only way the biblical context would make sense. If Kyle was in Iraw and was shot by an Iraqi, then one could certainly say he died by the sword.

But saying that Jesus thinks he (and his friend) deserved to get shot in the back while at a shooting range for an afternoon of entertainment....that would equate to karma.

The whole point of the parable was to get people to put down the damned sword. If karma is going to follow us regardless, then what's the point, really?
 
Kyle wasn't living the combat life, which to me is the only way the biblical context would make sense. If Kyle was in Iraw and was shot by an Iraqi, then one could certainly say he died by the sword.

But saying that Jesus thinks he (and his friend) deserved to get shot in the back while at a shooting range for an afternoon of entertainment....that would equate to karma.

The whole point of the parable was to get people to put down the damned sword. If karma is going to follow us regardless, then what's the point, really?
But what if that's not what Ron meant? What if he was speaking about the horrors of WAR in general (PTSD), not Kyle specifically?
 
Kyle wasn't living the combat life, which to me is the only way the biblical context would make sense. If Kyle was in Iraw and was shot by an Iraqi, then one could certainly say he died by the sword.

But saying that Jesus thinks he (and his friend) deserved to get shot in the back while at a shooting range for an afternoon of entertainment....that would equate to karma.

The whole point of the parable was to get people to put down the damned sword. If karma is going to follow us regardless, then what's the point, really?

HOLY SHIT. He didn't say, nor does the verse imply, that he DESERVED to get shot.

Fuck. You know what? Go be offended. Go be mad.

Good LORD some of you people.
 
Capture.jpg


I think the whole thing was more of a statement about PTSD than about Chris Kyle. My opinion of this continues to evolve, but that's where I am right now. The 2nd sentence always seemed out of place, but in that context it makes more sense to me.
 
There's the ol' libertarian spirit! We can do no wrong - the rest of the world is at fault.

Guess what? EVERY person who holds to a particular political ideology has the same attitude. And those who don't - those who believe in "compromise" - don't really believe in anything at all, other than political power.

The "libertarian spirit" is the non-aggression principle, which is why, though you may not agree with it, obviously is going to do less damage than the rest of the ideologies out there.
 
This is where certain interpretations of Christian justice seem to not live up to the high standards of libertarian justice.

Take a monster such as Kyle. Libertarian justice is focused entirely on compensation and restitution to the victims or the victims' families as far as is possible. Forgiveness of the criminal is for the victim to give out--not the Creator. Any punishment doled out has compensation of the victims as its main purpose. Hence, in Kyle's case, the families of his victims could either forgive him or perhaps enslave him, put him to work, and use the proceeds to help raise all of the children he left fatherless.

Yet some interpretations of Christian justice seem entirely unconcerned with the victims. The idea that it is for the Creator to either do the forgiving or mete out eternal phyical torture is completely at odds with the libertarian notion of right and wrong.

I'm not saying that that's the only interpretation of Christian justice that's out there. But its pretty popular.
And it is most especially popular with those who struggle to find any rationally compelling defense for someone who publicly gloried in killing. This attitude does terrible harm to heroic soldiers who struggle with balancing the zeal of battle with human compassion. These men have the hardest of all jobs, and they are the ones who keep our freedoms safe. Consider how much careful work of these true heroes, the warriors with restraint, a mouth off attention seeker like this clown does. He should be afforded the same respect in death as any of the 'savages' he gleefully killed and bragged about.

b
 
And it is most especially popular with those who struggle to find any rationally compelling defense for someone who publicly gloried in killing. This attitude does terrible harm to heroic soldiers who struggle with balancing the zeal of battle with human compassion. These men have the hardest of all jobs, and they are the ones who keep our freedoms safe. Consider how much careful work of these true heroes, the warriors with restraint, a mouth off attention seeker like this clown does. He should be afforded the same respect in death as any of the 'savages' he gleefully killed and bragged about.

b

Except our soldiers are not keeping our freedom's safe. They are endangering it by following the orders of TPTB. We are in danger, more so because of the actions of our Nation in the FP arena. Iraq/Afghan/Iran/Whereever pose no threat to our freedoms.
 
Kyle wasn't living the combat life, which to me is the only way the biblical context would make sense. If Kyle was in Iraw and was shot by an Iraqi, then one could certainly say he died by the sword.

But saying that Jesus thinks he (and his friend) deserved to get shot in the back while at a shooting range for an afternoon of entertainment....that would equate to karma.

The whole point of the parable was to get people to put down the damned sword. If karma is going to follow us regardless, then what's the point, really?

Karma doesn't really apply in a Christian sense of judgment. Karma is a theory of moral cause and effect, but it is not really judgment or getting what you deserve, IMO. It is very much depends on volition and intention. So, a solider forced into combat, or with intention to save lives, etc.. isn't necessarily cultivating negative karma. Those making greedy or poor decisions to use them or send them into an unnecessary conflict, perhaps might. Nor is karma permanent... we don't know if Kyle was in the process of resolving any karma.

That said, I don't interpret the tweet as dancing on his grave, or at least I hope it wasn't meant that way.
 
Last edited:
Hey klamath: guess what? The world does not revolve around you.

If you wanted to be offended by what was said in that tweet, and ignore 30 years of public life, there isn't anything anyone here can say to make you feel better. So just go be offended.

Honestly, I get the Glenn Becks of the world getting their knickers in a twist over this silliness, but so-called Ron Paul supporters? Get over yourselves... gosh you people and your sacred cows.
And the world doesn't revolve around Ron Paul so get over it.
 
An excellent piece by Jacob Hornsberger:

The United States had no authority, legal or moral, to attack, invade, and occupy Iraq. No nation has the authority to attack another nation and kill people in the process. The fact that the U.S. government has the most powerful army in history and that Iraq was just a Third World nation makes the situation even worse.

Since the U.S. government was the aggressor in the war on Iraq, that means that no U.S. soldier had the moral authority to kill even one single Iraqi. Every single soldier who killed an Iraqi or who even participated in the enterprise was guilty of murder in a moral, religious, and spiritual sense.

How can the murder of another human being not have an enormous psychological impact on the killer, especially when the killer is a normal human being as compared to a sociopathic serial killer? Ultimately, the conscience starts working and eating away at the person’s subconscious mind.

However, the problem is that the military can never acknowledge the veteran’s feelings of guilt because that would imply that the U.S. government was wrong to send the troops into Iraq. That’s just not going to happen. The government has to continue maintaining its official line — that it was right to invade the country and Iraq was wrong to defend against the invasion.

How can a person be healed of guilt when he’s being told that he didn’t do anything wrong and that he’s really just suffering from combat stress? Doesn’t relief from guilt require an acknowledgement that the person has done something wrong, as compared to something stressful? Unlike combat stress, doesn’t guilt require confession, repentance, and forgiveness?

Yet, that’s the last thing these guys are encouraged to do. Instead, people thank them for their service in Iraq, reinforcing the image that they they’ve done something right by killing Iraqis. They’re praised for their heroism and courage in battle, notwithstanding the fact that they had no legal, religious, or moral grounds for killing people in Iraq.

Consider the following incident related by Kyle, who was one of the U.S. military’s deadliest snipers. Two weeks after he arrived in Iraq, he encountered a woman with a child who pulled a grenade as she was approached by a group of Marines. Kyle shot her dead. He said, “It was my duty to shoot, and I don’t regret it. My shots saved several Americans, whose lives were clearly worth more than that woman’s twisted soul.”

But who here has the twisted soul? That woman was defending her country from the troops of a brutal foreign regime that had unlawfully invaded and occupied her country and killed countless of her countrymen, perhaps members of her family or friends or acquaintances. Kyle was a soldier who had blindly followed the orders of the president to attack, invade, and occupy a country that had never attacked the United States and was killing people who were resisting his aggression.

Ask yourself: What would American men and women do if the United States were attacked, invaded, and occupied by, say, North Korea? Wouldn’t many Americans defend their country, their families, and their homes from the aggressors? Who would Americans consider the twisted souls in that case — the people who were defending or the North Koreans who had attacked, invaded, and occupied the United States?

Read the rest here: http://fff.org/2013/02/05/guilt-not-ptsd-is-what-afflicts-iraq-war-veterans/
 
Capture.jpg


I think the whole thing was more of a statement about PTSD than about Chris Kyle. My opinion of this continues to evolve, but that's where I am right now. The 2nd sentence always seemed out of place, but in that context it makes more sense to me.

Using violence to heal a condition caused by violence? I suppose that could be looked at as another way of saying, violence begets violence... I don't know, my opinion continues to change also.
 
Last edited:
So now that he's retired you're willing to turn him into the crazy loon the media tried to portray him as for the last 6 years? And happy that's a good thing for Rand. Check.

Well, I'm not tweeting. I'm not turning Ron Paul into anything. So, Ron Paul said something, again, that pissed off the same people for the same reasons. Rand is given, and takes, the opportunity to distance himself from the comments. I don't see the problem here.
 
I'll tell you what I wouldn't do. I sure wouldn't hold a live grenade with my own child in my arms, hoping the aggressors wouldn't dare attack my child. That's twisted.
With a clear history of tactics that include suicide bombing the immediate reaction would be. " Fuck, She is going to kill herself, her child and the soldiers!" I sure as hell wouldn't have wanted to be in his shoes. I came damned close, and it haunts me to this day.
 
Unfortunately as a veteran I am getting a feeling I have been used. Is this how he really feels about veterans when he doesn't have to win an elected office? Does he think I should die by the sword?

I know you aren't that ignorant. Did his tweet say "he who lives by the sword should die by the sword"? No?
 
So you think a day at the firing range is a day of violence. Well then, I can certainly see how the tweet makes sense to you.

No, of course not, but I can see how if someone is suffering from some kind of gun related fear or emotional issue...that might not be the first place they would want to be. You wouldn't necessarily take an alcoholic to a bar as a form of therapy. I am just trying to figure how the first sentence relates to the second.
 
There's the ol' libertarian spirit! We can do no wrong - the rest of the world is at fault.

seriously? you are justifying being accused of guilt by association as if its YOUR fault. I was telling you its not your fault because another man wrote something. What the hell is 'libertarian spirit, we can do no wrong' about that?

You're being insanely defensive for your position.
 
Back
Top