Ron Paul

[45guy]

I have not seen this mentioned here.  Just wondering what the Ron Paul fans thought of his comments on twitter about Chris Kyle.

 

 

Ron Paul✔@RonPaul

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

[StumpyBeagle]

I think it sucks. Making that comment about a man that has spent his life in service to the USA saving an unknown amount of  lives of servicemen in Iraq, then to come back and continue to help our troops on a one on one basis is beyond the comments from a politician. Ron Paul is not worthy of holding the urine bucket while Chris Kyle re-leaves himself in my opinion. As far as the "Treating PTSD" statement, Kyle wasn't an idiot. He thought the man was ready for the range. You can't always see the evil in a mans heart.

[enfield]

The Ron Paul fans are noticeably quiet now.

[pitt2magic]

I am glad to see that so many people are giving him Hell about it.   He wrote a pathetic attempt at backtracking on his Facebook page yesterday.   His comment was disgusting.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I don't see much "mean and nasty" in the exact words in the short tweet. If Paul were to write more words on the topic maybe it would get offensive, depending on what additional he would have written.

 

For a long time I've taken the adage, "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword" as fairly true as an expression of "occupational hazard". A fella who paints for a living with volatile paints, the old-fashioned "no respirator" way, is probably gonna end up missing a few brain cells and maybe liver damage later in life. A fella who plays football for a living is probably gonna have more than his share of aches and pains, trick knees and bum shoulders. A fella who sits on his butt in front of a puter for years is likely to get dry eye, repetitive stress injuries and might get sick from lack of exercise. A fella who is a counsellor for years, is fairly likely to be depressed and unhappy. Race car drivers run a fair risk of being in bad wrecks. If you make a living shooting people, well... Whatever you do, will probably take its toll in time.

[Guest sL1k]

I think it sucks. Making that comment about a man that has spent his life in service to the USA saving an unknown amount of lives of servicemen in Iraq, then to come back and continue to help our troops on a one on one basis is beyond the comments from a politician. Ron Paul is not worthy of holding the urine bucket while Chris Kyle re-leaves himself in my opinion. As far as the "Treating PTSD" statement, Kyle wasn't an idiot. He thought the man was ready for the range. You can't always see the evil in a mans heart.

+1000

I WISH I could be the patriot that Chris was.

Spilled blood for our country.

He writes a book he did not want to write (only writes it because of fear of the people he served with would not be done justice) gives the proceeds of that book to help veterans, volunteers the majority of his time to them.

Punches Jesse Ventura.

Ron may speak eloquently and passionately about our constitution but he should take a pause and think before exercising his first amendment right about a patriot.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

A punch Jesse Ventura most definitely deserved.

[TSprint1]

A punch that Ron Paul most definitely deserves.

[kieefer]

Ron is old news and washed up, so now the MSM want to pay attention to him?  :puke:

 

Rand is the one to watch, his comments were much more respectful.

[mav]

The Ron Paul fans are noticeably quiet now.

 

Why respond?  I view the purpose of this thread as nothing more than taking a cheap shot at Paul supporters.  Okay, Paul said something that was very insensitive, and in my opinion, dumb.  Do I agree with him?  Absolutely not.  However, I still support, not so much the man, but his ideas.  I still stand on the belief that Paul's ideas for fixing the mess in this country were by far and away the best of any of those running during the 2012 primaries.

 

While I very seldom agree with kieefer, he is correct in stating that Paul is no longer a factor in the political arena.  I will add that the only reason this is even hitting the news is because independent constitutionally-minded thinkers and the Tea Party are being attacked by Rove and his ilk.  Instead of a having a debate of ideas, the Rovians are engaging in the tactics of the left by focusing on a stupid little comment and try to make a big deal of it. 

 

Expect a lot more of this type of petty crap to come over the next two years.  Instead of being attacked solely by the left, fiscal and/or social conservative Republicans, constitutionalists, libertarians, etc... are going to have to endure it from the neocons and the establishment.

Edited February 6, 2013 by mav

[GoneBallistic]

Disgusting. The fact that Mr. Kyle served in Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with his death. That was a very ignorant comment on Mr. Paul's part. Very disrespectful to a great American patriot.

[enfield]

Cool!  Now I'm not only a racist and homophobe, but a Tea Partier and a Rovian.  I love it!  I wanna be a Klingon next.

 

Ron Paul's ideas never were mainstream, and that alone doesn't make him right.  He's an anarchist at heart, like all Libertarians who've thought through their position.

 

His tweet was just a little glimpse of what's behind his mask.

[leroy]

What Ron Paul thinks is a personal matter that he should have kept quiet about in a perfect world.  Like kieffer and mav; i believe that this is nothin more but a cheap shot attack on the "Ron Paul" faction of the electorate and the Tea Party.  What we or anyone else thinks about the Chris Kyle tragedy is just that; a bunch of thoughts; that most folks, includin me should keep to themselves.  I say its political chicanery to besmirch and smear this old man and, by implication, to besmirch and smear his ideals; which, at heart, are isolationist, and very popular among the Tea Party faction (...me included...). 

 

Remember this, America was an isolationist country up until 1898.  We need to quit meddling in other people's business, and tend our own.  If we did more of that; men like Chris Kyle and other veterans would not have to risk their lives, bleed, and die for the likes of foreigners who hate us and our ideals.  Could it be that we are doin the wrong thing by meddlin in everybody else's business?  Its a very interesting thought.

 

leroy

[Guest PapaB]

What Ron Paul thinks is a personal matter that he should have kept quiet about in a perfect world.  Like kieffer and mav; i believe that this is nothin more but a cheap shot attack on the "Ron Paul" faction of the electorate and the Tea Party.  What we or anyone else thinks about the Chris Kyle tragedy is just that; a bunch of thoughts; that most folks, includin me should keep to themselves.  I say its political chicanery to besmirch and smear this old man and, by implication, to besmirch and smear his ideals; which, at heart, are isolationist, and very popular among the Tea Party faction (...me included...). 

 

 

 

Remember this, America was an isolationist country up until 1898.  We need to quit meddling in other people's business, and tend our own.  If we did more of that; men like Chris Kyle and other veterans would not have to risk their lives, bleed, and die for the likes of foreigners who hate us and our ideals.  Could it be that we are doin the wrong thing by meddlin in everybody else's business?  Its a very interesting thought.

 

leroy

 

 

IMHO you combine things that are, and should remain, seperate. The "Ron Paul faction" and the "Tea Party faction", as you refer to them, are 2 distinct groups. I myself, and many people I know, are strong supporters of the Tea Party but not Ron Paul. While I agree with some of his beliefs, I think he has others that are dangerous to this country. I consider him a true patriot who is, at times, misguided.

 

America was also an isolationist country after WWI and many historians agree that isolationist policies led to Pearl Harbor. The enemy mistook isolationism for weakness and unwillingness to fight. Not meddling in the affairs of other countries isn't the same as isolationism. A major purpose of embassies is to promote the interests of businesses in foreign countries along with protecting citizens that live, work or visit abroad. Ron Paul's isolationist policies would lead to more embassy attacks and danger for americans abroad while doing nothing to diminish our enemies desire to attack us. They don't hate us just because of where we're located in the world. They hate us because of our culture, our beliefs and the respect we've garnered. Isolationism won't work any better than Neville Chamberlain's attempt at the appeasement of Hitler did when trying to stay isolated in the late 1930's. Historians are convinced that Chamberlain's trying to avoid conflict is what emboldened Hitler to become more agressive, bringing about WW2. We can keep our nose out of other countries business while still maintaining a presence to achieve "peace through strength" as Ronald Reagan referred to it.

Edited February 6, 2013 by PapaB

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Though there may have been disapproval of Kyle intended by Paul's comments, there just isn't enough in the tweet to assume such, IMO. Not claiming he was smart to make the tweet.

 

Maybe I'm the only one who equates "live by the sword" with occupational hazard, or the universe seeming to return in-kind, but I've thought in that fashion for years. When I met an old miner with black lung, and thought "live by the sword, die by the sword" it wasn't any disrespect or disapproval of the miner. Just a recognition that his living was also the cause of his dying. I freely admit thinking "live by the sword" after hearing of Kyle's death, but it wasn't a mean and nasty thought about Kyle. Just that's the way the universe seems to work at least sometimes.

 

So I don't have any way of knowing whether Paul had anything mean and nasty in mind by saying what he said. But he would have been smarter to keep his mouth shut.

[leroy]

Papa:_____________

 

I agree with the opinion that the "ron paul" faction and the 'tea party" faction are (...in most cases...) two different factions.  You and i know that and can agree on it; but look at it from the karl rove goofy perspective: "...they are all the same ignorant rustics...".  That's what i think is goin on with the "tweet" thing.  They are tryin to besmirch and smear all factions that oppose them.  They aint worried about separating them; they dont like either one of 'em.

 

RE:  Isolationism..  Ive come to believe that continuous foreign war against some "implacable enemy" is a bad foreign policy decision; and that it is ethically indefensible.

 

There is no nation on the face of the earth that is more powerful, more feared, nor more aggressive than the United States (...when we take the notion...).  The main problem with foreign war is that, for the most part, it is unnecessary and does great internal damage to this country and it's citizenry. 

 

Take a look at the broken lives, maimed bodies (...both body and spirit...), orphaned children, and widowed wives that this "war on terror" has wrought.  All for a war that wuz won in about six weeks.  I can support the six week war; i just cannot ethically support a continuous war against an "implackable enemy.".  Could it be that we are sacrificing our fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, and children in endless foreign wars to feather the nest of various special interest groups?  This is, indeed, a sobering and thought provoking question.  I would recommend that anyone who thinks about these things read this little book: "War is a Racket" by Smedley Butler.  The examples are a bit dated, but the message conveyed is, indeed, sobering. 

 

For what it's worth, i didnt come to this conclusion hastily; nor did i want to believe it could be true.  It is antithetical to most folks (...mine included...) deeply held ethical and political beliefs; and is an affront to the principles on which this country was founded.  I have come to believe that while we are fortunate to live in the greatest country on the face of the earth, founded by the greatest set of founding beliefs and documents; we have raised up a morally bankrupt, ethically decrepit bunch of elitist politicians (...for the most part...) to lead us and make these world shaking decisions; many of which are both wrong and by design are made with an eye toward lining someone's pockets. As Butler said:  "...War is reckoned in dollars and paid for in blood...".

 

Dont be dragged off into the brier patch by those who say that "strategic interests" and "dangerous factions" are about to finish this nation off; and that we need to continue with this foreign intervention to ward off these "grievous dangers".  The swiss have been mindin their business for centuries.  No one has successfully threatened them.

 

I fully realize that this opinion may be a "minority opinion"; but it needs to be carefully though about by every american citizen.

 

leroy

Edited February 6, 2013 by leroy

[GoneBallistic]

The main problem with modern war (and by modern I mean from Vietnam till the present) is that we are trying to fight with our hands tied behind our backs. I have been in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have seen this first hand. The war could have been over with in a year or two easily if we had just went in there and fought the war like wars should be fought. Instead we practically had to get congressional approval to kill a terrorist.

 

Those who say we have no business in the Middle East have obviously forgotton 9/11 and who perpetrated it. The Taliban and Al Qaeda should have been totally wiped out long ago. Yes, there would have been civilian casualties, but then when you look at it, 9/11 was mostly civilian casualties ON PURPOSE! Just something to think about before you start condemning the war and the troops who give blood, sweat, tears, limbs, and sometimes their own life to defend you.

[45guy]

Chris Kyle did not start these wars. He was there because of his love for his country. Debating the merits of the wars is one thing but those that serve and have served are not the problem. Ron should have tipped his hat for a great American instead of trying to make a political point.

Protecting Americas interest is a global job. Never in our history has what is happening in other parts of the world had as much affect on the U.S. as it does now. Commerce is world wide now more than ever. One could argue to much, but the facts are protecting our interest no longer and probably never will stop at our borders again. We can debate why this is and try reverse some of the need to do business with other countries but we are a long way from that happening.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Yep, Swedes should open military bases all over the world to protect Swedish interests, because the world is such a small place. Not to mention Lichtenstein, Liberia, Borneo. Soviets and Chinese obviously need military bases all over the world to protect their interests. :)

Edited February 6, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[leroy]

....

 

Those who say we have no business in the Middle East have obviously forgotton 9/11 and who perpetrated it. The Taliban and Al Qaeda should have been totally wiped out long ago. Yes, there would have been civilian casualties, but then when you look at it, 9/11 was mostly civilian casualties ON PURPOSE! Just something to think about before you start condemning the war and the troops who give blood, sweat, tears, limbs, and sometimes their own life to defend you. ..

 

Gone:___________

 

I didnt forget a dammed thing; and I dont remember condemning the war, nor condemning the troops. I'm gonna be uncharacteristically reasonable about this and presume that you simply didn't completely understand the post.  Thinking about and adopting isolationist political views doesn't equal vilifying the people who serve in the military; nor does it mean that we shouldn't take punitive actions against those guilty of doing wrong things.  George Washington was an isolationist. 

 

I did say that i think this "implacable enemy" thing needs a good lookin at.  Smedley Butler was the equivalent of a 3 time Medal of Honor winner and a life long Marine.  He was in line to be the Commandant of the Marine Corps; but politicians lined up against his nomination for voicing the very issues we are talkin about here.  They couldn't question his personal bravery nor his patriotism, so they did him in thru political intrigue. 

 

There is a difference between demonstrating bravery and heroism while fighting for your country and questioning the motives of certain of those in power who set policy for this country.  The bravery-heroism-patriotism thing aint necessarily locked together in the "my country, right or wrong thing"; and those who might have questions about the exact "why" of doin things aint necessarily the enemy.  In WW2, there were plenty of german heroes; we can quibble about the virtue of the political policies and goals of what they were fighting for.  That's what is being said here.

 

No one has "...condemmed the troops...." as you have said.  Someone has questioned what we as a nation are doing.  I think that is a fair question.  I say more and more folks ought to be (...and, in fact, are...) wonderin about it.

 

leroy

[mav]

Cool!  Now I'm not only a racist and homophobe, but a Tea Partier and a Rovian.  I love it!  I wanna be a Klingon next.

 

Ron Paul's ideas never were mainstream, and that alone doesn't make him right.  He's an anarchist at heart, like all Libertarians who've thought through their position.

 

His tweet was just a little glimpse of what's behind his mask.

 

Hmmm.  Maybe your reading comprehension is different than mine.  I have read nothing in these posts that tried to portray you as a Tea Partier or Rovian, so I really have no idea what you are talking about.

 

As far as Paul's ideas not being mainstream, whoever said they were?  As far I am concerned, the "mainstream" line of thinking is the reason we are > $16T in debt (over > $120T in unfunded liabilities), and currently engaged in conflicts in over 70 different countries.

 

All Libertarians are anarchists at heart?  I guess that could be true if you were so strict with your definition of libertarianism that you rejected those who hold some views that differ with libertarianism, but yet still classified themselves to be Libertarians.  I personally know of no one who rigidly holds to all of the tenets of libertarianism, and that includes Ron Paul.   

[GoneBallistic]

Gone:___________

 

I didnt forget a dammed thing; and I dont remember condemning the war, nor condemning the troops.

Leroy,

 

First, If my post had been directed at you, I would have quoted you. If you didn't forget a dammed thing, condemn the war or the troops, then that post was in no way directed to you.

 

Second, a lot of people have and do condemn the war and the troops. Nowhere in my post did I say that you did. However, Mr. Paul's statement was very disrespectful and indifferent, almost smug. That's more or less the type of stuff I was going after. Before this issue, I never had a problem with Ron Paul. I am also a Constitutionalist. I'm not trying to cheap shot anyone. Just giving my two cents as a veteran and an American citizen.

Edited February 7, 2013 by GoneBallistic

[leroy]

Gone:__________

 

RE: This:

Leroy,

 

....First, If my post had been directed at you, I would have quoted you.
If you didn't forget a dammed thing, condemn the war or the troops, then
that post was in no way directed to you. ....

 

....Second, a lot of people have and do condemn the war and the troops. Nowhere in my post did I say that you did. ...

 

 

Glad to hear it.  Many believe that whatever the "conventional wisdom" is the gospel; and equate unquestioning loyalty to country and by extensions; that country's diplomatic actions; including any wars, as a quality necessary for being a "patriotic" citizen of that country. Said another way: "...My country right or wrong...". I dont believe that nor do i believe that anyone else should either.  That is exactly why i picked your post out as unkind.  It appears that i wuz wrong; and for that i apologize.

 

Many have tried to link honest and sometimes discomforting discussion about the political motives regarding war to  "...condemning the war and the troops..." to provide cover for their disgraceful motives; and to besmirch the motives of and question the integrity and patriotism of their adversaries.   That is demagoguery pure and simple; and i get stirred up about it.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

By the way, i dont forget a dammed thing.  Its both a blessing and a curse.  I remember George Bush sayin he wouldnt turn Iraq into Vietnam.  He did; and the dammed politicians and the senior command of the military helped him do it.

 

leroy

 

Edited February 7, 2013 by leroy

[GoneBallistic]

Gone:__________

 

RE: This:

 

 

Glad to hear it.  Many believe that whatever the "conventional wisdom" is the gospel; and equate unquestioning loyalty to country and by extensions; that country's diplomatic actions; including any wars, as a quality necessary for being a "patriotic" citizen of that country. Said another way: "...My country right or wrong...". I dont believe that nor do i believe that anyone else should either.  That is exactly why i picked your post out as unkind.

 

Many have tried to link honest and sometimes discomforting discussion about the political motives regarding war to  "...condemning the war and the troops..." to provide cover for their disgraceful motives; and to besmirch the motives of and question the integrity and patriotism of their adversaries.   That is demagoguery pure and simple; and i get stirred up about it.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I take absolutely nothing from any part of the government at face value. There's a lot of hidden motives everywhere, some not hidden at all. I think that we are both trying to say the same things, we just have different ways of saying them. I apologize for the misunderstanding as well. I'm glad we could resolve this like grown, reasonable men. :usa:

[leroy]

I take absolutely nothing from any part of the government at face value. There's a lot of hidden motives everywhere, some not hidden at all. I think that we are both trying to say the same things, we just have different ways of saying them. I apologize for the misunderstanding as well. I'm glad we could resolve this like grown, reasonable men. :usa:

Amen brother!

 

Keep up the good work.

leroy