Ron Paul Twitter Account

[The Gold Standard]

S0.....did Ron do the tweet? Still unclear.

No, but he's not going to tell you who did. And no, that's not confirmed. And no, it won't be.

 

[fr33]

So- has RP admitted to the tweet?

I don't have time to go through 70+ pages and I have some people to butt heads with. Knowing if he did or didn't will help my tactics.

Just assume that he did. That's all you can do.

 

[BlackJack]

It's a front page story on yahoo, and the first sentence reads:


In 140 characters, the newly retired congressman reminds us why he — and maybe his son — won't top the GOP presidential ticket

hx x p://ne ws.yaho o.com/ron-pauls-puzzling-critique-murdered-seal-chris-kyle-072000026.html

And yet the yahoo writer still has Ron's cock in his mouth.

Obviously he gives a fuck about what he says, which contradicts his implication that Ron Paul is irrelevant to moderate politics.

But it really is pathetic how the propaganda machines bitch over one statement from someone who they claim to not give a crap about but yet no widespread outrage over the fact that Obama has committed heinous crimes against humanity, and continues to do so with no hard blowback.

 

[sailingaway]

And yet the yahoo writer still has Ron's cock in his mouth.

Obviously he gives a fuck about what he says, which contradicts his implication that Ron Paul is irrelevant to moderate politics.

But it really is pathetic how the propaganda machines bitch over one statement from someone who they claim to not give a crap about but yet no widespread outrage over the fact that Obama has committed heinous crimes against humanity, and continues to do so with no hard blowback.

today's stories were less inflamatory, some were fine, and the hatchet job blogs stood out for what they were.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

S0.....did Ron do the tweet? Still unclear.

The Campaign for Liberty was quoted saying Ron Paul handles all tweets on his Twitter account now. Ron Paul himself hasn't denied he wrote it. How much clearer can it be at this point? You think if someone else wrote it, and Ron Paul was offended by it, he'd let it stand for over 24 hours? Paul didn't hesitate to say that it wasn't him who sent out the Huntsman tweet after the Iowa caucus a year ago.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I wish Ron Paul was that articulate. I guess I'm not a True Believer after all, because what i heard him say didn't sound anything like the 20 or so paragraphs HH has produced explaining the nuances.

Ha! Good one. I got a good hearty laugh when I read this, and said to myself, "Fair enough, Angela. Fair enough."

I actually have not been trying to translate and interpret Ron Paul's tweet in my posts. Just been giving my own thoughts. But since you brought it up, let's take a crack.

He said:

Chris Kyle’s death seems to confirm that ‘he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.’ Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn’t make sense.

So what does one get from this? The most natural reading to me is that the first sentence is implying, basically, "this guy who died had it coming". This is, of course, why the war-lovers are hating it. Ron's defenders seem to have mostly taken the tack that that's not actually what it says. And strictly, it isn't. But the war-lovers are still human beings just like you and me, with more or less the same social intelligence, able to pick up on social cues. And I think they have picked up quite correctly on this. This was not a nice thing to say.

So, I speculatively interpret things this way: Chris Kyle dies. The slimedia are falling over themselves to fawn over and celebrate him. Ron Paul knows about or learns about Chris Kyle. Dr. Paul finds him to be a poor role model. In fact, he finds him despicable. And so, he decides to say something about him and his death while it's still a top news item in the news cycle. And we can all see what he decided to say. It was:

a) Chris Kyle had it coming, by living a life of violence, and
b) Chris Kyle was acting foolishly, doing something which didn't make sense, at the time of his death.

Neither of which is a very nice thing to say. No doubt about that. Part a) I agree with, and part b) I don't know. Anyway, Dr. Paul determined that this guy did not deserve to have anything nice said about him. I happen to agree. Also, that he could make a larger anti-violence/anti-war point and that this would be an opportune time to get attention for it. I agree with that, as well.

So that is how I see it, trying to be honest and see it unbiased from the perspective of a non-Ron Paul supporter. This tweet was essentially Ron Paul saying "Hello? What's going on here, America? Wake up! This guy was not a hero! He was a bad person. Why are we celebrating him?"

For those who think Ron would never say something not nice, that he doesn't make it personal, do you recall:

"Because he's a fake!"

or how about:

"chicken-hawk"

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Well good thing it isn't about Ron Paul anymore. If they want to lynch you for words Ron Paul said then...something is wrong with them. And if they want to let 140 characters destroy your years of relationship development, maybe there wasn't really a relationship there.

Imagine where they're coming from. Imagine your father/brother/son was murdered, and a politician tweeted about it, directly naming him, with: "live by the sword, die by the sword."

 

[MaxPower]

Having fallen somewhat out of the political loop in the months after the campaign ended, I just heard about this Twitter controversy earlier tonight, and have been sifting this thread since. Whether Ron Paul wrote the Twitter comment or not, I am not offended by it, do not consider it to constitute an act of "gloating" or "dancing on a dead man's grave," and am pleased to see the honorable words of Christ brought forward to denounce militarism. That said, it is clear that the post was highly imprudent as a public statement; it is open to misinterpretation as a vindictive personal attack on a widely-mourned murder victim, and comes across to many as callous and insensitive. This affair is thus on the whole unprofitable to us. However, I also think those suggesting that this Twitter-comment controversy will somehow undo the liberty movement or destroy Ron Paul's legacy are engaged in a bout of hysterical overreaction to what will, in the long run, prove a fairly minor footnote in the history of both.

 

[fr33]

I have to agree with helmuth_hubener. Anyone who thinks Ron doesn't have a mean side must have missed how he treated people like Santorum. Righteous anger is a natural human emotion. Chris Kyle is not worth my pity. If I lived near a man that so callously killed 150 people, I would not trust that man.

 

[wormyguy]

I knew about Chris Kyle beforehand due to his rather troubling statements, habit of self-promotion, and sucker-punching (and then running away from!) Jesse Ventura. I have no great admiration for the man.

That said, one has to choose one's battles, and this one was very poorly-chosen and poorly phrased. Fact is, like it or not, 95+% of the population would be very offended if they saw that tweet. Even this forum, which is not only composed solely of Ron Paul supporters but by the most fanatical 1% or so of Ron Paul supporters, is roughly evenly split. That should tell you something. It is far more effective to appeal to nationalist/pro-military sentiment by emphasizing the need to keep our soldiers out of harm's way if unnecessary, than to immediately jump into the most controversial(!) aspects of libertarian-anarchist ethics by claiming that all members of an invading army are [potentially] murderers.

As for who wrote the tweet, I don't put much stock in wacko conspiracy theories. The Facebook and the Twitter have been roughly the same in the style of writing since Jan 29 or so. Ron Paul can make spelling and grammar errors like the rest of us, especially given that it's just tweets or facebook posts, he's probably not too computer-literate, and he is an old man who may very well suffer from arthritis or shaky hands. And don't get me wrong; that he is willing to speak his mind even in the face of universal condemnation is precisely why I love the man, but it is usually not the way to get 50%+1 to love the message.

 

[BlackJack]

I have to agree with helmuth_hubener. Anyone who thinks Ron doesn't have a mean side must have missed how he treated people like Santorum. Righteous anger is a natural human emotion. Chris Kyle is not worth my pity. If I lived near a man that so callously killed 150 people, I would not trust that man.

Actually close to 300 or maybe even more. 150 confirmed.

But yes I'd not only be afraid, but I'd move away from such a sick man (and make sure to have my own weapon).

 

[Danke]

Actually close to 300 or maybe even more. 150 confirmed.

But yes I'd not only be afraid, but I'd move away from such a sick man (and make sure to have my own weapon).

With that skill, he could have been an ally. (for the right price?)

 

[BlackJack]

What I find disturbing was that this man has introduced his son to guns at the ripe age of 2 yrs old. I don't see any valid reason for teaching a kid how to shoot unless for self-defense purposes only, along with strict teachings of weapons and ethics.

And Glennward Becky can lick balls. Remember his pathetic statements about the 9/11 victim's families?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

You'd better figure out how to, because otherwise you are going to drive away all the military men and women who supported Ron Paul.

I'm hoping you're not suggesting that Ron's tweet is going to drive away the military men and women who supported him as well? Because those folks support Ron because of his position on foreign policy, and this whole affair was by no means a swipe at them, and does nothing to reveal something new about his views.

In fact, it would seem that Rand should be careful with his foreign policy stance if he wants to bring those folks along.

 

[JohnM]

Having fallen somewhat out of the political loop in the months after the campaign ended, I just heard about this Twitter controversy earlier tonight, and have been sifting this thread since. Whether Ron Paul wrote the Twitter comment or not, I am not offended by it, do not consider it to constitute an act of "gloating" or "dancing on a dead man's grave," and am pleased to see the honorable words of Christ brought forward to denounce militarism. That said, it is clear that the post was highly imprudent as a public statement; it is open to misinterpretation as a vindictive personal attack on a widely-mourned murder victim, and comes across to many as callous and insensitive. This affair is thus on the whole unprofitable to us. However, I also think those suggesting that this Twitter-comment controversy will somehow undo the liberty movement or destroy Ron Paul's legacy are engaged in a bout of hysterical overreaction to what will, in the long run, prove a fairly minor footnote in the history of both.

That (especially, but not only, the words I've put in bold) sums up my position. (And I am assuming that the Tweet was his, though we may never know for certain.)

Personally, I have no problem with what Dr. Paul meant. I am sure that he didn't intend to be callous or to sound callous. But he did. Many people have observed that he has never been good at sound bites. It looks like this is a good example.

I wrote a post a few months ago (here) in which I argued that in many ways Ron Paul is a prophet rather than a politician. I think that this episode confirms that. He didn't apologize, he didn't retract, he didn't put out a press statement to explain, or grant an interview. He just issued a fuller statement on Facebook. No other politician would do that - but Ron Paul isn't really a politician, and he does things his way.

Politically, I think that it was very unfortunate. I understand what Angela and KingNothing etc. are saying. I can understand how upset they are. I find it very sad that Angela is going to remove her Ron Paul bumper sticker. I can understand that she feels that it is going to make it harder for Ron Paul Republicans to advance the cause of liberty within the Republican Party. She is probably right.


HOWEVER . . . I'm hoping that this will soon be forgotten, and the damage will turn out to be minimal.


I'm also hoping that Christians will becoming better at listening to Jesus and following him.

Any maybe even that some non-Christians might start listening to Jesus and following him.

 

[PierzStyx]

You'd better figure out how to, because otherwise you are going to drive away all the military men and women who supported Ron Paul.

Maybe. Maybe not. I think those who really value the message of liberty will not care one jt about the imperfections of Ron Paul or the aides he gives access to on his Twitter feed. The real supporters will not leave the movement even if one of the messengers makes a verbal faux pas.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I have to agree with helmuth_hubener. Anyone who thinks Ron doesn't have a mean side must have missed how he treated people like Santorum. Righteous anger is a natural human emotion. Chris Kyle is not worth my pity. If I lived near a man that so callously killed 150 people, I would not trust that man.

An argument could be made to the fact that Santorum provoked Ron's anger. But I get your point, and agree: everyone has emotions, and buttons that can be pushed.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'm hoping you're not suggesting that Ron's tweet is going to drive away the military men and women who supported him as well? Because those folks support Ron because of his position on foreign policy, and this whole affair was by no means a swipe at them, and does nothing to reveal something new about his views.

I think it is quite possible that some will be driven away, yes. I hope not. I guess we will see.