Ron Paul

[TMF]

I voted for Paul in the primary although there are many policies I don't agree with, but that is true of any candidate. So there is a degree of support for Paul in terms of his ideals. However, his comments being separate from that show an insensitive, disrespectful and vindictive personality trait. It is clear what his intentions were with that comment. If there is any doubt, that last line should remove such doubt; where he says that it doesn't make sense to treat PTSD on the range. Pretty much saying the guy is a dummy while somehow connecting his service record in Iraq and Afghanistan to his demise (re: "live by the sword, die by the sword").

It isn't the fault of our servicemen where they are sent or the missions they are expected to conduct. That is up to our leadership in Washington. His comments make it clear that he is projecting his disdain for those in Washington responsible for perpetrating the war onto my fellow veterans who have ZERO control over where they are sent or what they are tasked to do.

For these reasons I hope that Ron Paul slips and falls into a feces filled toilet and drowns on excrement, so that his corpse may be one with what Ron Paul's memory will be. A pile of human sh**.

[Guest PapaB]

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

 

 

Leroy, I'm not sure we're in disagreement. As far as Rove goes, he's indicitive of the problem with the R party and will never be part of the solution. I don't think he even understands the conservative point of view or that the republican party no longer shares it.

 

As to your comments on war, I don't disagree there either. Ron Pauls comments on isolationism aren't just about war though. He has said we need to shut down all our military bases outside of U.S. borders. Those are the bases that are in the best position to defend Americans overseas. If we shut them down we make our citizens more vulnerable. That's why I spoke of our embassies and of civilians that live, work and visit in foreign countries. There are some military bases that could be closed and others that could be reduced without compromising the safety of Americans abroad but closing all of them would be dangerous and, I believe, foolish. I think he's just plain wrong to believe that, if we withdraw from places outside our borders, other groups will no longer have a problem with us. Radical Islamists will continue to come after us as they did on 9/11/01 and if he thinks he can stop them all, he's wrong.

Edited February 7, 2013 by PapaB

[Guest Lester Weevils]

If there is any doubt, that last line should remove such doubt; where he says that it doesn't make sense to treat PTSD on the range. Pretty much saying the guy is a dummy while somehow connecting his service record in Iraq and Afghanistan to his demise (re: "live by the sword, die by the sword").

Hi TMF

 

You may be correct but OTOH the fella offering that opinion is a physician who served as an air force flight surgeon. The statement doesn't contain emotionally laden words and could as easily be a medical opinion. Right or wrong, another issue.

 

My old marine bud who came home from vietnam with PTSD-- I don't think they had thunk up that name back then, but it was an adventure of taking your life into your hands just riding in his car with him driving, the first year or two. I don't think I would have wanted to go shooting with him till he settled down. Not saying anything bad about the fella, and it wasn't his fault uncle sam sent him to nam and screwed up his noggin. Nontheless, my friend acted rather un-predictable for awhile after coming home.

[TMF]

Hi TMF

You may be correct but OTOH the fella offering that opinion is a physician who served as an air force flight surgeon. The statement doesn't contain emotionally laden words and could as easily be a medical opinion. Right or wrong, another issue.

My old marine bud who came home from vietnam with PTSD-- I don't think they had thunk up that name back then, but it was an adventure of taking your life into your hands just riding in his car with him driving, the first year or two. I don't think I would have wanted to go shooting with him till he settled down. Not saying anything bad about the fella, and it wasn't his fault uncle sam sent him to nam and screwed up his noggin. Nontheless, my friend acted rather un-predictable for awhile after coming home.

PTSD is a very broad term label and doesn't absolutely define someone as unstable. I have a good buddy who has issues related to service after seeing some good friends of his get killed in a pretty horrible way. That doesn't mean he's waking up choking his wife or digging foxholes in his front yard. That is a Hollywood representation meant to inspire dramatics.

One other thing, Kyle wasn't "treating" anyone as a medical provider. This was a support group type thing. And I think that making the broad assumption that a person who suffers PTSD can't be on a rifle range is just redonkulous. Plenty of folks with it continue to function just fine, everyday carrying machine guns and grenades. Ron Paul is just being an idiot while at the same time insulting a man for serving his country. Edited February 7, 2013 by TMF

[Guest Lester Weevils]

PTSD is a very broad term label and doesn't absolutely define someone as unstable. I have a good buddy who has issues related to service after seeing some good friends of his get killed in a pretty horrible way. That doesn't mean he's waking up choking his wife or digging foxholes in his front yard. That is a Hollywood representation meant to inspire dramatics.

One other thing, Kyle wasn't "treating" anyone as a medical provider. This was a support group type thing. And I think that making the broad assumption that a person who suffers PTSD can't be on a rifle range is just redonkulous. Plenty of folks with it continue to function just fine, everyday carrying machine guns and grenades. Ron Paul is just being an idiot while at the same time insulting a man for serving his country.

 

Thanks TMF. Am sure you know a lot more about it than I ever will. Read that back in WWI and WWII it was called "shell shock" and only the ones who broke down dysfunctional were so diagnosed, though war tended to damage the victors pretty bad. One uncle was a WWII europe vet. His whole life he was solid as a rock and never acted weird or talked strange, but he lived into his 90's and had routine bad war nightmares his whole life all the way to the end. I didn't know that til at his funeral my aunt told me about it. Paul, from the time he served, might consider PTSD = shell shock (nonfunctional breakdown). Dunno.

[TMF]

Thanks TMF. Am sure you know a lot more about it than I ever will. Read that back in WWI and WWII it was called "shell shock" and only the ones who broke down dysfunctional were so diagnosed, though war tended to damage the victors pretty bad. One uncle was a WWII europe vet. His whole life he was solid as a rock and never acted weird or talked strange, but he lived into his 90's and had routine bad war nightmares his whole life all the way to the end. I didn't know that til at his funeral my aunt told me about it. Paul, from the time he served, might consider PTSD = shell shock (nonfunctional breakdown). Dunno.

Well PTSD isn't specific to combat. Anyone who has suffered a traumatic event could suffer from it; some examples being a near death experience, violent assault, rape or or encounter with Bronies. With that come different levels and symptoms. I think some of the stuff that was seen in WWI was probably the most severe and common. Folks living under constant bombardment, all day everyday, with death being more of a certainty than surviving. That kinda psychological mind screw would drive anyone crazy over enough time. Nowadays we don't see sustained combat which last weeks at a time with astronomical casualties, and death is more of a possibility than a certainty. Still, seeing some of the awful things one sees in war, and having to do some pretty awful things to other humans can be an emotional event; especially through the eyes of an 18 year old. I think it would be abnormal for something like that NOT to affect a young person. But the manner in which most folks who get their understanding of war and its effects in drive-by fashion, such as on the news or in a movie should take into account that there may be more to it than a black and white situation, such as "that guy has PTSD so he sees dead people and has nightmares". That's where Ron Paul gathered his info for his ignorant statement, but making light of it with his comment is so disrespectful on so many levels. Kyle was trying to do something good and was killed. There is no excuse for attacking him. He should be honored and remembered as a patriot, not disrespected.

[mav]

I don't really follow Ron Paul all that much anymore since he is no longer in office, but I heard him this morning on the Mike Church show.  One of the questions Church asked was on this issue.  I will admit that I thought Paul's original tweet was rather stupid and insensitive.  Based on what I heard this morning, I will retract some of my earlier comments regarding Paul's tweet.

 

Anyone who has ever listened to Paul knows he believes that the federal government has been engaging in imperialism for decades, and that we would be much better off if our country minded its own business.  This is classic Paul 101.  In this situation, Paul's tweet was not refering to the individual, Chris Kyle.  The "living by the sword" refered to government's imperialism.  The "dying by the sword" is obviously referring to the death of the individuals.  His contention was that if government wasn't engaging in all of these wars (living by the sword), that we would probably not have PSTD and tragedies like this one would not occur (dying by the sword).  He has stated this message pretty much all throughout his political career.

 

While I still regard Paul's comments as stupid and insensitive, primarily because he did not explain himself properly, which is also classic Paul, they are consistent with his views.  I do not believe there was any malevolence in his tweet.  Since Paul is pretty much off the radar now, and you dont hear much from him, I figured I would share this with you guys.  I thought some of you might like to know.

[Guest RedLights&Sirens]

I never bought in to this Twitter garbage and refuse to ever go back to Facebook. Now, Im not trying to defend or bash its users but can we be sure that celebrity and plotical users are who they say they are? Do we know for a fact this is his opinion? Unless someone gets on national television and says it, its a grain of salt to me.

“The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their validity.”  -Abraham Lincoln

[GoneBallistic]

“The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their validity.”  -Abraham Lincoln

:rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  I remember him saying that...

[Guest RedLights&Sirens]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: I remember him saying that...

I was there!!! I got his autograph

[Guest liveload]

Ron and Rand Paul are controlled opposition. Just like the "gun rights debate", it's just meant to get certain demographics riled up for political football purposes. They don't have to mess with a single gun to bring a population to its knees, bend it to their will, and have it serve their agenda no matter who is "in office". There is no way a truly revolutionary leader could ever penetrate the establishment. Just look at the true history of South America in the past 40 years to get a pretty good idea, because the real leaders of America won't be in Washington, they'll be in the streets.

 

The only way to fight this is to stay informed, know real history and the Law of the Land (Constitution and Bill of Rights) as a population. Much to the Neo-liberals chagrin, places like Venezuela are near impenetrable due to the level of civic involvment of the people. The Constitution of Venezuela is still one of the bestselling books in the country. Overthrowing Chavez with the CIA and Wall Street elites in 2002 failed spectacularly after only 72 hours because of the ordinary people who took to the streets en masse, demanding the return of their elected president. There are many excellent bits of history which the American people are purposely herded away from by using all too familiar labels like kook, conspiracy theorist, anti-semite, racist, communist, etc, etc. Anything to scare you away from the truth. 

 

As we saw in Venezuela and a few other places, their nightmare scenario is an informed and educated proletariat who has had enough of their crap. No amount of guns frighten those in power. It's the truth that scares them.