Ron Paul

Ron Paul on Chris Kyle: "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword"

|

Former congressman Ron Paul and eternal Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) may not agree on much, but they both might be reconsidering their social media strategies, or basic skills of persuasion, after their Tweets from today. First, McCain:

So Ahmadinejad wants to be first Iranian in space—wasn't he just there last week? "Iran launches monkey into space" news.yahoo.com/iran-launches-…

— John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) February 4, 2013

After which he tried to tamp down the ensuing outroar:

Re: Iran space tweet—lighten up folks, can't everyone take a joke?

— John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) February 4, 2013

Then Dr. No came in with this bit about the recently murdered Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle:

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

— Ron Paul (@RonPaul) February 4, 2013

I think Jim Antle puts it best:

It sure would be nice to have a GOP foreign policy debate that didn't involve calling foreigners monkeys or insulting dead SEALs.

— Jim Antle (@jimantle) February 4, 2013

My book on John McCain here. Brian Doherty's book on Ron Paul here.

NEXT: NY Gun Laws Face Legal Challenge

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill”

  2. yeah, tell me Ron Paul would have beaten Obama again.

    I like the man as a person, but he’s a terrible politician.

    1. He’s no longer a politician. Probably should drop the Twitter account, though.

    2. You know who else was a terrible politician?

      1. Hindenburg?

        1. He doesn’t get blamed enough for Hitler. So let’s start blaming him here. Maybe it’ll become a meme.

          1. That’s funny, I blame you for Hitler. Why didn’t you stop him, you genocidal maniac?!?

            1. As I explained in my seminal work, It’s Not My Fault: The Hermeneutics of My Blamelessness in 1930s Germany, I was blocked in my attempt to stop him thanks to my parents allowing me to be circumcised at birth, despite not being Jewish, Muslim, or any other group that requires such alterations. This made me unable to be seen in anything resembling undress.

              So my plans to kill him in the sauna came to naught. Besides, I didn’t realize that Warty was there to kill him, too, because his attempt to strangle him looked like sensual massage.

              1. Hey, the German politician I named helped, too.

              2. Mein F?hrer, nicht deinen kleinen Wilhelm brauchen eine Massage auch? *flutters eyelashes*

              3. With Warty; strangulation is sensual massage…

                1. That’s a good point, but when I saw him, I figured I’d better return to my own time.

        2. Plus, his goddamned airship.

          1. Personally, I’d have demanded a renaming. Like the Hitlermobile.

      2. Your mo…all of them?

      3. I know! I know!

        Heddy Lamar!

        1. It’s HEDLEY you idiot!!

    3. I would have voted for him, hence he is a good politician.

      And he wouldnt have done any worse than Romney (as its a binary situation).

  3. McCain must be reading the H@R AM Links comments.

    1. And I must agree with McCain. Lighten up, Welch

  4. I mean, even I know to shut up about these things.

    1. and you ARE a disgusting hairy monkey

  5. Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn’t make sense

    He does have a point.

    1. I must have missed it.

      1. Putting a gun in the hands of somebody who is mentally ill (PTSD is a mental illness) is beyond stupid.

        In this case, it’s especially stupid since commonly associated behavioral symptoms include “anxiety, ruminations, irritability, aggression, suicidality, and impulsivity.”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…..s_disorder

    2. Yes, and if that had been the entire tweet it wouldn’t have been a big deal.

      1. He killed one hundred and twenty five individuals, one at a time.

        If that isn’t living by the sword, I don’t know what is.

        1. He also profited greatly from his memoirs, placing something of a target on his back. You can’t expect to publish a book about how you killed 150 people and not expect any consequences.

          1. He was no White Feather.

          2. So let’s see things that libertarians are suddenly against.

            1. Profit
            2. Defending your comrades

            1. Nope, was pointing out the imprudence of publishing a book bragging about being one of the top killers in the world and the possible consequences that might occur. Have no problem with making a profit or a soldier doing one’s job, just think he wasn’t very wise calling attention to himself.

              1. Especially because an international court could potentially use his book as evidence of war crimes.

                1. Also it made him an especially attractive target for retaliation. Just from the standpoint of PR, his assassination would have been a nice notch for any Islamist to have claimed for his own team.

                  1. That’s what I was saying – and his general lack of wisdom is confirmed by his taking PTSD-inflicted vets to a gun range.

                    1. but that’s the thing – no one expects the unstable person they know to be that unstable. Adam Lanza’s mom didn’t think he was a time bomb waiting for a fuse to be lit. Maybe he thought a firing range would be a good spot to take a fellow troop. The whole “die by the sword…” tweet though is something I expect from Code Pink.

                    2. As someone who grew up with a Father suffering from undiagnosed PTSD I can say this is clearly not always true.

                      There were many nights I jury rigged a noisemaking booby trap on my bedroom door and slept with my baseball bat by my side because I knew he was just that mentally unhinged.

                      Fortunatly I was 24 before he decide to come at me with a knife

                    3. Or Jesus, since He said it first.

                  2. Seriously?

                    We’re really working the conspiracy theory mill overtime. So now you guys think that the person who killed him was doing so on behalf of “islamists”.

                    1. Tulpa, of all the dumbass things you have ever said on here, that’s a ribbon winner.

                2. Which would be a scary thought if international courts were relevant and had any authority in the US.

              2. ‘doing one’s job’? I thought the Nuremberg trials were about that. No doubt Obomber thinks he is just doing his job.

                Either we are going to hold individuals responsible for their own individual actions, or simply accept any rationalization for murder that some lawyer can come up with.

            2. Tulpa also doesnt understand blowback.

              Blowback doesnt mean you deserved it.

              1. I do understand blowback, silly. I’ve been one of the opponents of the WoT all along on this blog.

                Explain how the fuck this killing was blowback.

                1. Explain how the fuck this killing was blowback.

                  I dont.

                  Im saying you dont fucking understand subtle positions.

                  If you do understand blowback, then you can analogize to this.

                  It isnt about dessert.

            3. No, libertarians are against murder, even if you cloak it in the euphemism of “national defense”.

              Ron Paul is completely correct.
              People who don’t agree are either not libertarians, or they are cowards more interested in being P.C. than honest.

              It’s about time the kid gloves come off for people who volunteer to be in the government’s hit squad.

              1. Volunteers like Ron Paul?

                1. Do you really think Ron Paul identified as a libertarian when he was a flight surgeon in the 1960’s?

                  Fucking a, Joe, you are stupid.

          3. Proprietist| 2.4.13 @ 2:44PM |#

            He also profited greatly from his memoirs

            Uh, all the money from the book was donated to charity.

            Try again

            1. Look up Craft International, his police and military training company that was not a non-profit.

        2. So you’re a pacifist. OK.

          The killings that Kyle performed were totally justifiable, even if like me you don’t think we should have been in Iraq. These were people attacking our troops.

          1. A burglar has no right of self-defense against a homeowner.

          2. If our troops had no legal basis to be in Iraq in the first place, is it any different than a cop shooting a homeowner defending themselves from an illegal raid? Should we also defend a cop who published a memoir about how many dogs and children he killed via the war on drugs?

            1. If our troops had no legal basis to be in Iraq in the first place

              this appears to assume facts not in evidence. Congress authorized the use of force; the UN had okayed multiple resolutions and knew what was coming. No formal declaration of war, I grant you, but the ‘illegal’ trope seems more opinion than anything else.

              1. Was there a declaration of war?

                1. I noted the lack of a declaration but what did Congress think an authorization to use force against a specific entity was?

                  1. what did Congress think an authorization to use force against a specific entity was?

                    No fucking clue.

                    But I know it doesnt authorize war.

              2. “Congress authorized the use of force; the UN had okayed multiple resolutions and knew what was coming. No formal declaration of war, I grant you, but the ‘illegal’ trope seems more opinion than anything else.”

                Who the fuck cares who authorized what. Smoking pot is also illegal in many places. In Iran adultery might get you hanged. Fuck the law.
                There is no such thing as a right to invade and murder. Only criminals would give themselves that so-called “right” by making it a law because they have the power to do so.

                From a moral standpoint, what Kyle did was murder and people that are against murder should shed no tear over him.

          3. If you invade my country i have every right to attack you. You would have no right to be there.

            Only if you think it is America’s god given right to invade any place they want and blow the place up, could you justify that the “troops” should meet no armed resistance.

            Supporting troops that are doing immoral things just makes you a nationalist and an apologist for immorality cloaked in a U.S. flag.

    3. He does have a point.

      Under his hat.

  6. Quoting Jesus’ observations is now insulting?

    Garret Garret had it right when he described empire as “A complex of fear and vaunting.”

    1. IIRC, last time Ron Paul quoted Jesus to a GOP crowd (having a foreign policy based on the Golden Rule) they booed him.

      1. As a convert to Christianity, I am often darkly amused by the gaping ignorance of people who grew up in the various sects of the religion to its teachings.

        1. I think most people who are born into a religion don’t give it that much thought. They believe it because their parents do, and that is good enough for them.

    2. So you ARE a pacifist?

      Didn’t we all have a little roundtable on this the other night?

  7. I agree that it’s terrible PR, but Paul had a point. Subjecting someone with PTSD to a series of explosions seems like a bad idea on its face. Jim Antle just buys into the post-9/11 notion that any criticism of anything a soldier, especially if the soldier is Special Forces, is an “Insult” and beyond the pale.

    1. You didn’t get the memo. True conservatives do not criticize anything military, ever. The military is sacred and off limits.

      Just ask that giraffe Anne Coulter.

      1. Criticize?

        That isn’t criticism. That is mocking a man’s death.

        Fuck Ron Paul.

        1. As G.G. said, a complex of fear and vaunting.

        2. That is mocking a man’s death.

          That is a matter of interpretation, because I didn’t see it that way.

          Then again, like I said, even the slightest criticism of anything military is tantamount to blasphemy (a mortal sin) to the average conservative.

          1. How did you see it, sarcasmic?

            1. Not answering for sarcasmic, but I see it as an appropriate quoting of Jesus.

              Was Jesus mocking anyone’s death when he said it?

              1. Matthew 26:50-54 Revised Standard Version
                “…Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him.And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest, and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?But how then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?””

                So you’re saying the RP was claiming that an American sniper was:
                a) The son of God
                b) Without need of human defenses, since he was able to summon legions of angels should he feel the need
                and
                c) Found his death necessary for the outworking of Christian forgiveness/redemption prophecies.

                Because that’s what Jesus was talking about. I mean, ‘live by the sword, die by the sword’ is a pity paraphrase if you’re a pacifist, but keep in mind, this same Jesus told his followers to buy swords. The same night, according to St Luke.

                So the moral of the story is, according to Ron Paul, Jesus wants you dead.

                1. Jesus wants you dead.

                  “The wages of sin is death”

                  Of course, the next clause is much more positive.

                  Also, I think your … caused you to screw something up.

                  I think in the analogy, the sniper was Peter, not Jesus.

                2. I think the statement was intended to have a larger meaning beyond the immediate circumstances of that Thursday night. That is, if you immediately jump to violent solutions to problems, you’re going to be surrounded by violence.

                  1. I think the statement was intended to have a larger meaning beyond the immediate circumstances of that Thursday night.

                    I agree, I also think this is generally true about the statements of Jesus. Many layers. One of my biggest nits is the Parable of Talents and the failure to discuss how it applies to money management, which is the top most layer, so how it gets skipped always confuses me.

                    Amongst other things, you should threaten your stock broker with eternal damnation if he doesnt double your investment in short order. 🙂

                3. Christian pacifists have an explanation for Jesus’ admonition to his disciples to buy swords. If you interpret the Bible this way, it reconciles Jesus’ nonviolent teachings with that one statement:

                  http://gregboyd.blogspot.com/2…..d.html?m=1

        3. Your expletive is quite enlightening. Shows your literacy and ability to read and comprehend what Dr Paul said.
          Hope you and your pals cheer louder at the 2 Minute Hates…

      2. You can call it right-wing political correctness.

        1. That’s probably the most insightful comment I’m going to read today.

    2. No one is angry about the PTSD half of the tweet. It’s the first part that was beyond classless.

      1. So, no one is angry unless you remove all context from it. Great.

        1. Explain how the second part changes the meaning of the first.

    3. Except that PTSD isn’t caused by loud noises and the symptoms can be relieved and the condition treated through socialization.

  8. It sure would be nice to have a GOP foreign policy debate that didn’t involve calling foreigners monkeys or insulting dead SEALs.

    Call me insensitive but how was RP’s tweet insulting?

    1. Uh, because it implies that anyone who serves in the military deserves to be murdered?

      Especially in this case… this was a guy who shot attackers. Not innocent people.

      1. Uh, because it implies that anyone who serves in the military deserves to be murdered?

        Really? I didn’t read it that way.

        1. Remember who you’re talking to, and then stop talking to him, because he’s an idiot.

          1. Oh yeah, I forgot.

        2. OK. What do you think RP was saying.

          1. I’m pretty sure it was something about your mom.

            1. What Epi said.

              1. So you won’t tell us what your interpretation is, but continue to insist that the one everyone else here has stated is wrong.

                Typical glibster.

          2. Did Jesus think anyone who uses a weapon deserves to be murdered? Im pretty sure that is exactly the opposite of what he was saying.

            Idiots dont get subtle positions.

      2. Uh, because it implies that anyone who serves in the military deserves to be murdered?

        Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword (Matthew 26:52, King James Version)

        Mind you this is what Jesus said to a man who was drawing a sword in His defense.

        So you’re telling me that pointing out that Jesus may have had a point is the same as saying the soldiers must die?

        Fuck you!

        1. If Jesus had said this after Peter got sliced open with a sword, the interpretation would have been quite different, no?

          And of course, in the literal sense Jesus was quite wrong; plenty of people have lived by the sword and died of old age.

          1. I’m pretty sure he was also wrong about being the literal son of God, but Christians believe that too.

          2. If Jesus had said this after Peter got sliced open with a sword, the interpretation would have been quite different, no?

            No.

            Because they all new swordbearers who had been cut down at some point. So even though he wasnt addressing a particular dead swordsman at the time, doesnt mean they didnt have the ability to apply it to particular situations.

            1. Lots of people who didn’t bear swords died by the sword, and lots of people who did bear swords died of natural causes. Even in Jesus’ time the statement was gobbledygook from a literal perspective.

              It seems most likely that he was talking about the general atmosphere that is created by sword-type solutions to problems.

              1. It seems most likely that he was talking about the general atmosphere that is created by sword-type solutions to problems.

                Which was basically the meaning Ron Paul used.

              2. It seems most likely that he was talking about the general atmosphere that is created by sword-type solutions to problems.

                I agree.

                Things like PTSD, in fact. And then taking said guy to sword practicing facility.

                Look, we have now connected part 1 to part 2.

                Lets follow it thru:

                Part 1: Use of violence creates an atmosphere of violence that is unhealthy.
                Part 2: Taking an unhealthy, from said atmosphere, person to a gun range creates a situation in which violence occurs.

                1. The problem is your “Part 1” is about 1 person, and your “Part 2” is about an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT person. There’s nothing about his military service that induced another person to shoot him. Unless you’re claiming his military service made ANOTHER PERSON more likely to shoot him at a firing range. It could have been someone with no military service at all there, and they still would have been shot.

                  1. As I said somewhere else, see Tulpa’s comment at 3:32.

                    I think he hits the nail on the head, even if we disagree otherwise.

                    1. Yeah, about 4 up.

                    2. Well if you’re just talking about what idea the quote refers to, then I think that’s an accurate analysis of it’s meaning, yes.


                    3. Well if you’re just talking about what idea the quote refers to, then I think that’s an accurate analysis of it’s meaning, yes.

                      Once you accept that analysis, then your statement of “There’s nothing about his military service that induced another person to shoot him” becomes moot.

                    4. No it doesn’t. Unless you REALLY THINK simply going to the shooting range is you contributing to your own death. Because I could go to the shooting range with someone and be shot by him, and I’ve never been in the military. Would I also be “living and dying by the sword”?

                    5. Sigh, which part of the atmosphere of violence dont you understand?

                      Of course, it could be you getting shot instead of the sniper, but the atmosphere is the same.

                    6. Except the expression has become detached from the biblical context.

                      Computer scientists use it when referring to memory and processor consumption, for pet’s sake. Totally divorced from Jesus’ meaning.

                      In the popular discourse, the expression essentially means “something you use can be used against you” or something like that.

                    7. Does that exclude someone from using the original biblical context?

                    8. Normal use may have it divorced from it’s original meaning, but I’m less likely to believe that’s the case with Paul’s use of it.

          3. *Matt. 26:52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”
            Some would say that this seems to be a strong indictment against war, and place it against certain verses where Jesus seems to advocate fighting.

            We’ll look at those in a moment, but it should first be noted that this verse is in the form of proverbial wisdom, and is therefore not an advocation of pacifism — nor, by reason of its proverbial nature, is it absolute, as is obvious since not every single person who has drawn a sword (or other weapon) has died by the same means.

            Hence there is neither contradiction of nor relevance to other verses cited as contradictory. Moreover, that this is not intended as a statement in pacificism is seen in that the saying also carries an eschatological overtone that may be seen through this parallel, from an Aramiac Targum on Isaiah 50:11 [Albright’s commentary on Matthew, 324]:

            Behold, all you that kindle a fire, that take the sword: go, fall into the fire you have kindled, and fall by sword you have taken.
            Expressed as this is, it has the meaning that “God’s will is being fulfilled and nothing can hinder it.” It has nothing to do with whether or not one actually and literally dies by the sword.*

            http://www.tektonics.org/lp/noswords.html

      3. deserves

        Pulling a Giuliani, confusing a positive statement for a normative one.

        1. You must have been out last week when this was redefined as pulling a Tulpa.

    2. Because Kyle wasn’t killed in a war zone, he was killed trying to help someone with PTSD.

      I can’t speak to the wisdom of dealing with PTSD at a gun range, but apparently Kyle has helped a lot of people with PTSD.

      Also, “live by the sword, die by the sword” is very close to “he got what he deserved” in modern usage.

      1. Fuck modern usage.

        1. No, fuck someone who thinks trying to help someone and gets murdered for it is living and dying by the sword. And anyone who defends that.

          1. It wasnt the trying to help that was living by the sword, it was his life as a sniper.

            And that is accurate.

            And he died the same way, seems pretty accurate to me.

            Its a statement of truth, he lived and died by the sword. The error is those trying to read any more into it than that.

            1. A sniper killed him?

            2. I’ll say the same thing here: what part of him being a military sniper had to do with his death? How was him being shot by someone at a firing range related to his military service? It could have happened to anyone, and would be just as unlikely to happen.

              The “error” is in asserting that his military service somehow is related to his getting shot by someone at a shooting range.

              1. See Tulpa’s post at 3:32.

                It seems most likely that he was talking about the general atmosphere that is created by sword-type solutions to problems.

                1. Which is related to being shot at a firing range how? Are you asserting that going to a firing range makes other people more likely to shoot other people at the firing range? Because any civilian with a gun could have gone there and still could have been shot. I doubt Paul’s point was “people shouldn’t use firing ranges”.

                  1. Ok, I think I’m coming to understand how you look at this.

                    To sum up: both men’s military service brought them into that “atmosphere of violence” (living by the sword), and bring the PTSD man to the range was continuing that “atmosphere”. So it makes some sense that man accompanying the PTSD man on account of their shared military service was the one killed (dying by the sword). Is that an accurate summary of your understanding of his tweet?

                    1. Close enough. Im not sure the range was necessarily continuing it as much as just fucking stupid.

                      I think the PTSD was a creation of the “atmosphere”, and was potentially a time bomb that could have gone off anywhere, although the range seems like a particularly stupid place to take him.

      2. Now tell me what “well-regulated militia” means in modern usage.

        robc is exactly right – fuck modern usage.

        1. Is there something about Paul’s usage of it that didn’t mean he died because he was a sniper? ANYONE at a gun range could have died the same way, and it would be equally unlikely.

          1. And he wasn’t talking about “anyone”.

            He was talking about a man who killed a lot of people, getting a bullet himself.

            Call it karma or call it whatever you want.

            But nationalist army-murder supporters will make excuses for criminals as long as they wear army fatigues.
            Would they care if the Washington snipers got raked over the coal by Ron Paul? Of course not.

            But do your murder in the name of Uncle Sam, and what’s wrong magically becomes what’s right.

            1. Except we weren’t talking about whether he deserved his death, but whether his military experience made a meaningful contribution to his death.

              My point was that his military service wasn’t a factor with getting killed at the range. What about his military service made him more likely to die at the range than I would be?

        2. Arms == arms. “Well-regulated militia” doesn’t control the latter.

          The idea that we should look to 2000 years ago to suss out the meaning of what Paul said this month seems more than a bit strained.

      3. This. I understand (and agree with) Paul’s opposition to the war(s), but nothing about his service there has anything to do with the nature of his death. What does being shot by someone at the the range have to do with that? And how did he deserve that? And wasn’t one of Paul’s reasons for opposing our overseas advetures that our people were (are) dying in pointless wars? The tweet was pointless and inconsiderate.

        1. And how did he deserve that?

          That has nothing to do with anything. Paul wasnt claiming he deserved it, that is the idiot John interpretation.

          1. Perhaps so, there’s nothing in the text to support my assertion. I retract it. The rest of my text stands, though.

            1. The “deserve” interpretation is the only offensive interpretation, so once that is retracted, what is the kerfuffle over? A pointless (although I think there is a point) and inconsiderate tweet?

              Arent they all that?

              1. what is the kerfuffle over?

                The idea that his military service is somehow connected to him being shot at the firing range? That by being a military sniper, he’s somehow at fault for his militarily-unrelated gun death?

                1. he’s somehow at fault

                  Fault implies dessert (sort of, not really, but close enough in this situation). You retracted that.

                  1. How do you tie his military service to getting murdered at a range so that the quote makes even a little bit of sense outside of the context of his deserving to be murdered?

                    1. See above and below, Ive explained it a bunch.

                  2. “Fault” means that he contributed to he cause of his death in some way, which is what the Biblical quote is all about: the way a person lives deciding how they die.

                    1. Atmosphere of violence. I thought you got it. You said you agreed with that analysis.

                    2. I understand the meaning of the quote. What I disputed was the idea that being killed by someone at the firing range was influenced by his military service.

                    3. Someone killing at the range was influenced by his service. The fact that it was him was
                      a) coincidence (well, sorta) and
                      b) “fitting” to the quote.

                      Im sure using the word fitting is going to get John jumping on me to say that Im saying he deserved it.

                      I could have said it was ironic, but Im not Canadian.

                    4. What about a man with military service being killed by someone at the range is more a cause of his own death than some random civilian being killed by someone at the range?

                      That’s my problem with this: the manner of his death was not actually connected to his military service. I could take someone to the range and be shot by him, and it would be just as connected to an atmosphere of violence as this guy’s death.

                    5. This is my big beef with the tweet. You can’t pass judgement until you know why people acted as they did, and we don’t know why the guy shot his host.

                    6. What about a man with military service being killed by someone at the range is more a cause of his own death

                      I thought you agree there was no dessert/fault/cause.

                      I know they arent synonyms, but they are synonyminish.

                      Stop using all those words.

                    7. Except the Biblical quote is ABOUT “living by the sword” being connected to “dying by the sword”. There’s no evidence that his military service made a meaningful contribution to the likelihood of being killed like he was.

                      If you don’t think there was any meaningful connection between the two, how can you possibly think the quote applies here?

  9. The only redeeming feature of Twitter is how easy it makes it for politicians and celebrities to expose their retardation to the world.

    1. Somebody doesn’t know how great pornstars’ twitter feeds can be.

      1. Somebody hasn’t checked his Twitter account in 3 years.

        1. You have an account? You idiot. You can get the good bits without one.

          1. I’m allergic to insipidness, so I can’t. Why do you think I have to avoid Tulpa as much as possible?

            1. I thought that you had to avoid him because of your stupid habit of only wearing sweatpants. Learn some boner control, you ape.

            2. I’m sorry, but in what language is “avoid” a synonym for “bait” and “mock mercilessly”?

              1. I’m sorry, but in what language is “avoid” a synonym for “bait” and “mock mercilessly”?

                Analsperanto.

      2. who would you recommend?

    2. +1 sexting picture of me showing my junk to a teenage girlz (who is actually a 50yr old truck driver)

  10. And why is what McCain said controversial? It’s bad form to mock a leader nobody likes? Or was what he said racist?

    1. I think it’s the racist thing, which is beyond stupid for obvious reasons.

      What RP tweeted is a whole different story…

      1. Even mentioning monkeys when talking about a non-white person is automatically racist, don’t you know.

        1. Iranians are Aryans, so, where is the non-whiteness?

          1. Probably something to do with Aryans not being white.

            I’m talking about pigmentation here, not discredited theories of racial origin.

            1. Tell that to the American Census Bureau.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R…..tes_Census

              “White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as “White” or report entries such as Irish, German, Scottish, Italian, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish.

              The complex nature of American prejudice towards Middle Easterners can’t be reduced to racism is all I’m saying.

              1. So? You show me a picture of Ahmedinajad and ask me what color he is, I’ll say some sort of light brown. That’s all I’m saying in my cheap little joke.

                1. White in the race sense is not about the swarthiness of skin color, or else Italians and Greeks would not make the cut. It’s more about being a Caucasian. Dinnerjacket looks like a white guy to me.

                  1. And most northern Europeans are kind of pinkish.

                    Well, anyway, my point somewhere in there is that the whole discussion is silly, race is a stupid concept and making jokes comparing people to monkeys does not make you worse than Hitler.

                    1. You’re absolutely right. Of all of McCain’s sins his thought crimes are the least to throw a fit over, but if anything ever does lead to his undoing it will be something this silly.

          2. I think he means “non-European”.

            And I bet if you did a poll on the street a large majority of Americans don’t consider Persians to be white.

            1. And also the equation of Aryan with white was a stupid and wrong theory favored by European racists and Nazis. Actual Aryans have always been brown to copper-colored people in South Asia and Persia.

              1. A large part of it was probably to make sure Jesus was classified as white.

            2. I really doubt that, having Persian relatives.

              Have you actually seen one? They look like Italians.

  11. That quote is the first thing that popped into my mind when I heard about that guy getting shot.

    I’m supposed to feel bad that a mass murderer got murdered? Fuck him.

    1. “Mass murderer” seems excessive.

    2. A mass murderer who profited immensely from publishing a book about it. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for army people doing their job well and being a mass murderer was his job. But when you come out and brag about it, you lose my sympathy when it comes back to bite you in the ass.

      1. There is a distinction between “army people doing their job well” and “mass murderers,” P.

        1. Mass Murderer
          1. A person, especially a political or military leader, who is responsible for the deaths of many individuals.
          2.
          a. A person who kills several or numerous victims in a single incident.
          b. A serial killer.

          The kills count as murder because they were pre-meditated actions that resulted in the death of another. If the military invaders were not justified to be in these countries in the first place, the “self-defense” argument does not work any more than it does for a home invader who shot a homeowner for threatening his fellow home invader.

          1. So every soldier who fought in Iraq is guilty of murder because the civilian command fucked up?

            Jeez, man. Get a grip.

            1. Well, I’d be more subtle than that. They were contractually obligated to commit murder or face jail and penalties from the civilian command. Those who re-up in the midst of an illegal war I have less sympathy for.

              1. Proprietist| 2.4.13 @ 3:15PM |#

                Well, I’d be more subtle than that.

                Please, don’t start now

            2. The draft is gone.

              Those who were in Iraq had no reason to be there. They chose to be the moment they chose to volunteer for the armed services. They have no excuse as America hasn’t had a defensive war since…well, i’m sure it is at least well over a century (personally i think only the war of independence was defensive).
              So it’s not as if they had reason to see America’s armed services as a defensive service. It’s been invading places where they don’t belong and killing people since the dawn of time.

              You sign up for that, people in the country you invade have a right to shoot at you. Since there is no self-defense argument, every kill is a murder.

              1. Ron Paul volunteered for the air force in 1963. So he’s a murder facilitator?

      2. Proprietist| 2.4.13 @ 2:50PM |#

        A mass murderer who profited immensely from publishing a book about it.

        Clearly a) you’ve never read the book, and b) don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

        All the profits from the book went to charity.

        1. “Profit” includes the non-monetary profit of being a celebrity, getting paid for media appearances and interviews, etc. He built a monetarily profitable “brand” he could use for the rest of his life.

          1. EEEEEEVIL PROFITEERS!

            yep, it’s getting more and more leftist around here.

          2. He built a monetarily profitable “brand” he could use for the rest of his life

            …the short amount of which he used spending other military veterans recover from stress-related illness.

            You know what? go fuck yourself. Your opinion is noted for future reference. Sanctimonious self-important, morally superior prick. Will try and remember.

            1. Ok, whatever floats your boat. If I was a contract mass killer, even assuming I was operating completely within the grounds of legality and justice, I’d keep my damn mouth shut or at least do my best to maintain anonymity. For my own sake.

              And again, I didn’t say he can’t profit from his experiences and use them for personal benefit. I said he was thoroughly unwise to do so, especially in such an extremely public manner.

              1. You’re about 100words late going and fucking yourself.

                1. Nope, I went and did that before I posted.

                2. And by the way…
                  Craft International, the for-profit training company he built on the back of his national reputation.

            2. “You know what? go fuck yourself. Your opinion is noted for future reference. Sanctimonious self-important, morally superior prick. Will try and remember.”

              His opinion is correct.
              Your ad hominem attack however is completely irrelevant.

    3. crazyfingers| 2.4.13 @ 2:29PM |#

      I’m supposed to feel bad that a mass murderer got murdered? Fuck him

      A person who joins the military and is sent into combat by default is not a *murderer* as what he’s doing is enforced by the Law of the US Govt, of which he is simply its agent.

      As stated above – you’re simply accusing everyone who serves in the armed forces of ‘murder’, which substantially waters-down what the idea of ‘murder’ even means

      next = as stated above, the guy donated all the book’s profits to charity. So shut the fuck up and take your moral superiority to the drycleaners.

      1. A person who joins the military and is sent into combat by default is not a *murderer* as what he’s doing is enforced by the Law of the US Govt, of which he is simply its agent.

        So when the cops send their SWAT teams to brutally enforce illegitimate laws of the US Government and kill victimless criminals (or innocent people) and their families, they deserve a pass because they were acting under the auspices of the law, correct? Should they be venerated as heroes?

        the guy donated all the book’s profits to charity

        I’m sure he donated the highly profitable celebrity brand he built to charity as well, right?

        1. If a person starts shooting at their fellow officers after it’s made clear that they are police officers on official duty, then it’s totally justifiable for an officer to shoot the attacker. Regardless of whether the law they’re enforcing is one that libertarians approve of or not.

          Obviously midnight no-knock raids are another matter since the home occupants may be unaware that the people busting in the door are police officers. But that’s not comparable to the insurgents Kyle was picking off — they were quite well aware of who they were attacking.

          1. Official immunity means no right to self-defense when cops in uniform want to kill, rape, frame or steal with impunity.

            Again, this all goes along with Ron Paul’s standard foreign policy stance. Change the perspective: Chinese invaders raiding American towns to root out insurgents. I guess the Americans trying to defend themselves from illegal foreign invasion have no real right to do so, because the Chinese snipers are murdering Americans in compliance with Chinese law?

            1. Of course the Americans have a right to shoot at the Chinese invaders. Just like the Iraqi insurgents have a right to shoot at/leave bombs for American invaders. But the invaders have a right to shoot back, too. It’s war.

              Nos bombardean, les bombardean, y bueno, ?porque no?

              1. Fucked up Generalissimo Franco’s famous quote.

                Nos bombardean, les bombardeamos, y bien, ?porque no?

              2. No one has the right to resist freedom ie America.

                1. No one has the right to resist worker equality ie Soviet Union. – Soviet Cytotoxic

                  No one has the right to resist God’s morality ie Taliban. – Taliban Cytotoxic

                  1. There is nothing morally superior about freedom compared to forced equality or morality -What Proprietist actually seems to believe.

                    1. Nice try at reading comprehension. Maybe next time. I’m just not under the illusion American military invasions of foreign lands are usually about freedom. Paying lip service to the concept does not make it so.

          2. You would have made a great Nazi supporter.

        2. go fuck yourself. Thank you.

          1. Why don’t you look up his for-profit tactical training company Craft International and stop pretending he had no financial incentive to promote himself as “the most lethal killer in US military history. And then go fuck yourself.

        3. Liberating millions =/= SWAT raids for durgs

          1. He did liberate a hundred or so who thought they were defending themselves from foreign enemy invaders from the drudgery of their pathetic desert-dwelling lives. War is war, and people die, and soldiers have to do their jobs, but you will never convince me that “liberating millions” is anything more than a onesided opinion in the context of Iraq.

            1. you will never convince me that “liberating millions” is anything more than a onesided opinion in the context of Iraq.

              That you have your head up your ass is your flaw not mine.

                1. Was it Glibertarian substantive?

      2. of which he is simply its agent.

        You say agent, I say enabler.

        The problem isn’t serving in the armed forces, the problem is voluntarily joining the armed forces when it is plainly obvious that the use of said armed forces is used for offense almost exclusively.

  12. The only thing that would make Twitter better is if they could somehow make it tweet a person’s thoughts directly rather than waiting for someone’s poor judgment.

    1. Finding myself in agreement with you is disturbing. I might need Warty to beat me for a while so that I don’t feel so wrong.

      1. I don’t see how that could make you feel right.

    2. Given what I’ve seen of twitter, they’re already doing that.

    3. We all have controversial thoughts or abnormal thoughts; there’s nothing wrong with that. But it often takes a monumental lapse in judgement to publicly express some of those thoughts while thinking that there couldn’t possibly be any negative consequences for doing so.

      1. We all have controversial thoughts or abnormal thoughts; there’s nothing wrong with that.

        But what if most of your thoughts are controversial or… abnormal?

        1. But what if most of your thoughts are controversial or… abnormal?

          I’m pretty sure they are…. I just keep them to myself.

        2. Let your freak fly man!

          True story: I had a good friend who I worked with in a steel mill near Toledo. One day, he invited me over for dinner. He gave me directions that got me roughly near his house, and then cryptically said, “you’ll find the rest of the way yourself, I’m sure”.

          So, I get to the end of his directions, and I’m in a pretty built up – as in suburban density – neighborhood. And I’m thinking WTF, and cursing Sprint for their anemic coverage when I see it:

          A flagpole. Flying the Jolly Roger. And I knew where I was going. 🙂

          Apparently his neighbors had been trying to force him to take it down, but the town govt wasn’t cooperative.

        3. But what if most of your thoughts are controversial or… abnormal?

          I get by OK.

          1. By your own measure, SURE

            Everyone else is scared shitless.

      2. Way Of The Crane| 2.4.13 @ 2:39PM |#

        We all have controversial thoughts or abnormal thoughts…

        ….And then there’s *SugarFree*

    4. Isn’t disgracing yourself the whole point of Twitter?

  13. I’ll just come right out and say it: a self-promoting assassin catching a bullet doesn’t get much sympathy from me.

    I’ll save my tears for Jose Guerena.

    1. Assassin?

      Is there no limit to the extent you guys will redefine words to suit your agenda like your leftist pals?

      1. as?sas?sin (-ssn) n.
        1. One who murders by surprise attack, especially one who carries out a plot to kill a prominent person.

        snip?er (snpr) n.
        2. One who shoots at other people from a concealed place.

        Is it really such a stretch?

        1. Absolutely. An assassin is killing a specific person regardless of whether they pose a threat. Assassins are almost always viewed negatively.

          A sniper may or may not be doing a good thing. In this case he was doing a good thing since he was protecting his comrades.

          What PB is doing is a common leftist tactic. Use an emotionally loaded word that’s actually incorrect…. then when you’re called on it, claim the person who called you on it is nitpicking, and it’s roughly similar to a correct word which is not emotionally loaded.

          1. “A sniper may or may not be doing a good thing. In this case he was doing a good thing since he was protecting his comrades.”

            So if a Nazi officer was protecting his comrades, he was doing a good thing, even though he had invaded a country where he doesn’t belong trying to impose his Nazi views on another populace?

            Yes, the comparison seems extreme, but it really depends on whether you’re a cheerleader for invaders or not. The notion that “defending your comrades” is a good thing, regardless of what you and they are actually doing there and whether you have a right to be there, in other words, outside the context of WHY people are actually shooting at you, shows how bereft you really are of a moral compass.

            1. n other words, outside the context of WHY people are actually shooting at you, shows how bereft you really are of a moral compass.

              i.e. in your view everyone who serves in the military for whatever reason is by default a ‘murderer’, and you feel anyone who disagrees is equally morally inferior to you

              i believe we get it now

              waiter, a double-helping of Go Fuck Yourself, please

            2. First off, most German soldiers were not Nazis. They were just young men thrown into combat together. They were probably more loyal to their buddies in the same unit than to their generals or their Fuhrer. So long as they abided by the laws of war I don’t bear any grudge toward them. Obviously, that doesn’t exempt them from being shot or blown up or whatever by our guys — that’s war.

              And if you think volunteering to fight for America is in any way comparable to volunteering for Nazi Germany, you should move to a country that you can love. No point staying in one that you hate.

      2. Dude was a sniper. Even among rank and file Marines who are protected by snipers, there is a bit of discomfort about them. The infantry man who discharges a lot of rounds in the heat of combat at people who he does not see intimately has virtually no similarity to the personal and intimate nature of the sniper kill.

    2. Do you think there’s a moral difference between the soldier pulling the trigger and the soldiers supporting, feeding, supplying, and directing him?

      Because if not, Ron Paul was a military officer from 63 to 68. Do you secretly hope he catches a bullet?

      1. Do you think there’s a moral difference between the soldier pulling the trigger and the soldiers supporting, feeding, supplying, and directing him?

        No there is not. You are all part of the same machine and all part of the deaths that result. What part you play is incidental.

        1. Would you extend that to the citizens who vote for politicians who continue the war and pay for the war with their taxes?

          1. Actions have consequences.

            Yes, people who consciously vote for invasion and war are morally culpable. Not to the same degree, because i have no doubt that most of them are chickenhawks who would never pick up a rifle themselves. But they help politicians go in to war by their support. And the soldiers choose to sign up and follow orders like good little storm troopers regardless of whether a war is right or wrong.

            1. So, you’re basically on the side of the Westboro baptists, only more smug about it

              classy

              1. And you know who else was like the Westboro baptists?

  14. I’m not clear on what Paul meant by the quote, anyway. Does he mean the soldier or something else?

    1. It’s hard to say. My interpretation is that the second sentence about taking a guy with PTSD to the gun range being a bad idea is what he’s getting at.

      There are a variety of behaviors classified as PTSD – and a large number of them involve reacting to unpleasant stimuli impulsively and violently. A gun range, with the sounds, smells and sight of gunfire is going to be creating those unpleasant stimuli.

      The dead SEAL clearly thought taking a guy to the gun range was therapeutic. And that’s fucked up. It’s not therapeutic for most people suffering from PTSD related to gunfire.

      OF course, it’s an imprudent tweet; we don’t know what transpired. Maybe the SEAL provoked the shooting. Maybe the guy who fired the gun just murdered him outright for liking the color purple. We don’t know, and we may never know what happened, so it’s premature to pass judgement.

      But, I just don’t see this as an insult. It’s an observation that is uttered prematurely and thus may or may not be germane.

      1. Ah, scratch my comment then.

        I haven’t read any news on this except that Kyle was killed by a guy at a gun range.

        I think I get it now.

      2. That doesn’t explain the first part of the tweet.

        1. I have no clue what Paul actually meant. Perhaps he was taking a shot at the soldier. But it doesn’t exactly flow well if that’s what he meant. But that’s not proof that he didn’t mean it that way.

          I suppose he could attempt to clarify. He’s not a big one to take back things like this, so if he does, he probably meant something else.

          1. It seems most likely that he was saying two separate things.

            The second thing I would totally agree with, though some people might be irked by it.

            The first thing is totally inappropriate.

            1. It’s fucking twitter. It’s a 140-character -limted message. Why would you put two separate things in one tweet? He was saying that if your treatment for people-trying-to-shoot-you-caused-PTSD is taking someone to a shooting range, you are probably more likely than the average person to die by a gunshot. This is ridiculous manufactured outrage by the military-worshipping GOP establishment.

              1. Sorry, that interpretation doesn’t fit. “Live by the sword, die by the sword,” has a very strong meaning in our culture and your interpretation requires totally ignoring that meaning.

                It’s not like he was quoting an obscure Bible verse with uncertain interpretation.

                And people make two (related) statements in the same twitter message all the time. If it fits in 140 characters there’s no sense in breaking it up.

                1. The overused Bible verses are the ones most often misinterpreted.

          2. I think what Paul was saying was that the SEAL was fucking myopic to take a PTSD sufferer on a “therapeutic” outing to a gun range. That in effect the Sword, i.e. shooting things, was the primary tool in his toolbox.

            Of course, Paul could be completely out to lunch… or he could be seeking to provoke an emotional response. /shrug

            1. I suppose it could be that he’s saying that the military solution to some sort of psychological trauma is to “Get back on that horse, son.”

              1. Suppose? I thought it was obvious.

                The fact that it came from Ron Paul triggered (pun intended) a lot of emotions in some people which therefore turns off most of the intelligence in the brain.

                1. I wouldn’t say it’s obvious, but it seems the more plausible explanation. Let’s not forget that Paul is fairly popular with the military in general. At least, so I’ve heard. If that’s true, he can’t have been making comments like the John Interpretation of these all along, right?

      3. WEll, presumably the goal of therapy for PTSD would be to make it so that those stimuli would provoke less of an extreme reaction. So while it would not be appropriate at the beginning of therapy for PTSD, it seems like it could be an appropriate way to expose them to those stimuli in a relatively controlled environment.

        1. The preferred course of treatment for combat-related PTSD is to place the patient in a pit full of snakes.

    2. I didn’t get the ‘treat PTSD’ part of it. I have to confess, his comment read a little bit like the 2nd amendment.

      Polar bears, being the most awesome bears, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed…

  15. So what I’m taking away from this is that Ron should stop quoting fellow radical anti-imperialist Jesus quite so much and that he should probably fire his intern.

  16. Is there no limit to the extent you guys will redefine words to suit your agenda

    He doesn’t qualify as an assassin?
    Okay, how about “drygulcher”?

    1. No more than a regular soldier ordered to engage in combat with an enemy.

      The difference between snipers and regular infantry is that snipers can count their kills and easily confirm them.

      It’s a difference of degree, but I’m reluctant to call a sniper an ‘assassin’.

      If I were pinned down by enemy fire and couldn’t get my head up, I’d be damned glad for an “assassin” to surgically take out enemy soldiers from a mile removed from the battlefield. Just as happy as I’d be for an airstrike to eliminate superior-strength troops advancing on my position.

    2. He killed people one at a time while receiving payment with money obtained by extortion.

      =-/

      1. So Flight Surgeon Ron Paul was a mass-murdering / assassin enabler? How many pilots did he treat who went on to kill Vietnamese?

        Is it a collective guilt you believe in, or do the doctors, mechanics, and armorers bear no responsibility ?

        1. Treating soldiers = Killing people

          Got it.

          1. War is a team sport.

            1. I agree- with the exception of doctors who treat soldiers who can never return to battle.

          2. And a Flight Surgeon doesn’t typically treat patients. He evaluates flight crew members to make sure they are in peak condition – so they can kill.

            1. “Hunt them down. Do not stop until they are found. You do not know pain, you do not know fear. You will taste man-flesh!”

    3. An assassin is someone who is out to kill a specific person, regardless of whether that person is currently posing a threat to others or not.

      A person who shoots anyone lurking around the perimeter of a base carrying an RPG launcher is not an assassin.

    4. Regardless of his voting record, Ron Paul was a Veteran and a part of the U.S. government. But he went ahead and disrespected a man who took the same oaths served the same government and military.

      The 4 branches of the military are nothing more than organizations designed to kill. Chris Kyle happened to be at the pointed end of that organization but Paul was still part of it.

      The Air Force Paul served in killed far more people than Navy Seals in 1965 and last year. Does Ron Paul mock fighter and bomber pilots when they die in unfortunate circumstances? Since he was part of that organization, should we mock him when he croaks?

      1. I agree with you for the most part here, but I don’t think RP was mocking Kyle, just using his death as an opportunity to make a (very clumsy) statement about the Iraq war and the WoT in general. Not that that absolves him, but I don’t think he’s guilty of mocking Kyle.

        1. but I don’t think RP was mocking Kyle,

          Yes he was. How can you say he wasn’t? Not only does he give the live by the sword bit, he also adds in the jab about treating PTSD at a gun range. What does that have to do with the Iraq war? I hope I outlive Paul, so I can some day piss on his grave.

          1. Read the news release below that I posted. Kyle brought his PTSD friend to the range to help him relax.

            1. Just a horrible tragedy. I seriously doubt the guy who killed him was completely responsible for what he did. It looks like a case of at least some diminished capacity.

            2. Shooting at the range relaxes me. I certainly a tad twitchy when I got home in ’91. I don’t see the correlation.

              I he took to a track and the guy ran him over, would it be different?

              1. I could see how the knee jerk reaction would be that you shouldn’t take someone with PTSD out to a shooting range. Even if, upon further reflection, that might be appropriate at some stage of treatment.

                1. Ron Paul says it is crazy so all those in his cult are obligated to believe the same.

                  1. Who better to treat mental illness than a man who practiced gynecology in the late 60’s?

                    1. Who better to treat mental illness than a man who practiced gynecology in the late 60’s?

                      Apparently an armyman.

                  2. The evidence that we have so far points to treating PTSD at a gun range being a very, very bad idea.

                    Did Mr. Kyle have any training in treating PTSD?

                    1. The one data point of evidence that you have, you mean? For all we know there are hundreds of PTSD sufferers who go to shooting ranges every year without incident.

                      I could believe that in some cases, at some stage of treatment, it might be appropriate. I’m not a PTSD expert, but it seems possible.

                    2. Even if there are hundreds being treated, isn’t the shooting of two people involved in such treatment enough for it to be a bad idea?

                    3. Using the same analytical technique, it is even worse to allow Muslim officers in the Army.

      2. Yeah. There are air force pilots who are responsible for the deaths of thousands. George McGovern flew a ton of bombing missions over Germany. It is a pretty good guess he personally is responsible for the deaths of thousands. Did Paul celebrate McGovern’s death as a deserving one?

        1. Did he celebrate this guys death? No, he didn’t. It was a weird and foolish comment to make, but I don’t see any mocking or celebrating going on.

          1. Yes he did. What else is the comment supposed to mean other than that Kyle got what he deserved?

            There really is nothing, no matter how offensive Paul could say that his supporters won’t defend him over.

            1. I’m not defending him, but I don’t agree that it’s some obvious slam. It’s kind of hard to tell what his point was, frankly.

              1. I don’t see any other point to the tweet. The idea is that if you make your living killing people, you can’t really complain when you someone kills you. That is what it means.

                It would make sense if Kyle had been killed by another sniper in combat. But not like this.

                1. I don’t see any other point to the tweet.

                  That’s because you don’t want to.

                  To me the point was obvious that we shouldn’t be putting the military and military service on a pedestal. You of course have a different opinion.

                  And I am NOT attacking your opinion of the military here. What I am contesting is that you are taking the statement as a personal attack when it wasn’t intended that way.

            2. I don’t know what he intended by it, and neither do you. Perhaps he will explain.

              1. That’s kind of a problem for a politician, no?

                1. Well, good thing he is retired then.

                  1. I keep getting emails about how he wants to become chair of the CFL or whatever.

            3. What else is the comment supposed to mean other than that Kyle got what he deserved?

              It means the exact fucking opposite of that. He was quoting Jesus. Do you think Jesus thinks anyone deserved to be killed?

              You are fucking stupid.

              He meant by it, the exact same thing Jesus did: Put down the weapon.

              1. It means the exact fucking opposite of that. He was quoting Jesus. Do you think Jesus thinks anyone deserved to be killed?

                Ah yes. Jesus is saying there that if you live by the sword, you are going to die by it and therefore you really can’t complain when it happens to you. So yes, in a sense he is saying you do get what you deserve, at least in this life.

                Come on Rob. Don’t let your devotion to Paul turn you into Joe from Lowell. Stop defending the indefensible.

                1. Im defending Jesus.

                  You call that indefensible?

                  Jesus is saying there that if you live by the sword, you are going to die by it and therefore you really can’t complain when it happens to you.

                  No he isnt. You are an idiot John, he is saying nothing of the sort. Look upthread, where Tulpa actually gets it right. Jesus (and Paul) are saying that use of violence creates an atmosphere of more violence.

                  Its not about who deserves it, or who has the right to complain. No one deserves it, and stop complaining.

                  1. Look upthread, where Tulpa actually gets it right. Jesus (and Paul) are saying that use of violence creates an atmosphere of more violence.

                    So when you die as a result of the atmosphere of violence that you helped create, you are not in some sense getting what you deserve?

                    Whatever Rob. Give it up. Even Warty admits there is no defending Paul here.

                    1. you are not in some sense getting what you deserve?

                      No, you are not. No one deserves to be murdered. That is part of Jesus’s point, Im pretty sure.

                      You cant deal with subtlety, just like you claim Paul said the US deserved to be attacked for middling in the middle east. Because you dont understand blowback.

                      IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHO DESERVES WHAT.

                    2. robc,

                      John is locked in here and will never believe that Jesus deserved soldiers deserved to be murdered.

                    3. Right ROb, he was just being subtle. That is just stupid. The phrase means exactly what it says. Paul wasn’t making any big theocratic points here. He was being snarky on twitter.

                  2. Tulpa actually gets it right

                    In my interpretation the verse has nothing to do with a particular person dying by the sword. So if Paul is going by my interpretation, why the hell is he using that verse now?

                    1. So if Paul is going by my interpretation, why the hell is he using that verse now?

                      Becuase the atmosphere of violence showed itself here. YOu dont think PTSD is a result of this atmosphere created?

                  3. Im defending Jesus.

                    Assuming he’s not dead, I think he can take care of himself.

                    1. Assuming he’s not dead,

                      I’d call that an unwarranted assumption actually.

  17. It’s tragic. Much more than that, I can’t say.

  18. Police arrested Eddie Ray Routh, 25, of Lancaster and he was arraigned Saturday evening on two counts of capital murder, according to Sgt. Lonny Haschel of the Texas Department of Public Safety. Routh is being held in the Erath County Jail under a $3 million bond. A friend of Kyle said the suspect was a veteran struggling with posttraumatic stress disorder. Kyle had reportedly taken Routh to the gun range in an effort to help him with his PTSD. Authorities say Routh used a semi-automatic handgun to kill Kyle and his friend.

  19. What PB is doing is a common leftist tactic.

    Unmasked, I am!

    WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!

    1. Look at you, glibing it up. You should be ashamed because I think you should be ashamed and I am very moral and you should be ashamed.

  20. So describing GWB as a chimp or a monkey is aok, but likening Ahmadinejad as one is not. Got it.

  21. To live by the sword and to die by the sword means if you choose to live a life of combat you can’t complain when you die in combat. In this case, the guy didn’t die in combat. If he had been killed on patrol in Afghanistan, Paul’s analogy made sense, even thought it would have been grossly inappropriate.

    But since this guy didn’t die in combat but instead was killed by a nut at a gun range. That is not “dying by the sword” that he lived by. That is being the victim of a senseless tragedy. What Paul is really saying here is that Kyle, because he was a sniper, deserved and could not complain about being murdered by a nut at a gun range.

    It just confirms that Ron Paul, no matter how right he is about some things, is a fucking crapweasel. This guy sees someone murdered and his first thought is “I guess he got what he deserved?” Really? Paul just proved himself to be one step above Bob Menendez in the “crap weasels completely unfit for any sort of power” list. Fuck you Ron.

    1. I also would like to hear again why I should give Paul any benefit of the doubt on the newsletters. Whenever the mask slips it seems to reveal a pretty shitty person.

    2. I don’t think he’s a crapweasel, he just has issues with impulse control and guarding his mouth.

      Assuming we believe his former aide Eric Dondero (yes, I know) the first thing RP said while watching the WTC burn on TV on 9/11 was a lament that now we’d be going to war and our liberties would be curtailed. Which turned out to be a correct prophecy but a totally emotionally tone deaf statement in the context. At that point you should be mostly thinking about the people losing their lives in the attack.

      1. I don’t think he’s a crapweasel, he just has issues with impulse control and guarding his mouth.

        That is only an issue because he thinks absolutely loathsome things. I have lots of unguarded moments. But somehow none of those moments involved making fun of guys who were murdered while helping PTSD victims. Funny that.

        And if Paul could watch 2800 people die on national TV and his first thought be of his sacred cows, he is a fucking sociopath who belonged in politics.

        1. In the big picture, the death of 2800 people is better than losing our liberty. It is a no-brainer. But you don’t say that right as the 2800 people are dying.

          1. Easy for you to say if you are not one of the 2800. Regardless, when a normal person sees 2800 people die in front of them they think “OMG what just happened?” When a sociopathic political fanatic sees it he thinks “what does this mean politically”.

            That story is from Donderoo, so I wouldn’t take it as being true without hearing it elsewhere. But if it is true, Paul is a piece of shit.

          2. In the big picture, 2800 dead from a terrorist attack is better than 10,000s of dead middle easterners, at least to someone who has any objectivity.

            1. Not necessarily true in general. (though I do oppose the WoT)

              We killed way more Japanese, even before the A-bombs, than we lost at Pearl Harbor.

              1. The Fog of War with Robert McNamara was a real eye opener in this respect.

        2. One would think neverending war resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands and the abrupt erosion of the civil liberties of millions might evoke a bigger emotional reaction than the death of 2800 in a terrorist attack.

          9/11 was definitely a tragedy, but what you are rolling up into a “Ron Paul Sacred Cow” is a huge tragedy in its own right.

        3. I don’t know about that same morning, but I was certainly worried about what the US government’s response was going to be pretty quickly after 911. A lot more than I was about being killed by a terrorist.
          And it is possible to think about how horrible a tragedy loads of people getting killed is and at the same time to be concerned about foolish wars and attacks on civil liberties.

          1. A small part of me, which I’m not proud of, was happy that something big was finally happening in the world. The 1990s were, in some sense, boring.

            I can understand where the Brooks and Kristols were coming from with their morbid glee after 9/11.

            1. I know what you mean. I certainly wouldn’t say I was happy about it in any way. But it was exciting in a way. And interesting. In the 90s it did sort of seem like nothing interesting was ever going to happen.

              1. “We’re a generation of men raised by women. We have no great war, no great depression. Our great war is a spiritual battle, and our great depression is our lives.”

                Tyler Durden WAS the late 90s.

              2. There’s a subtle old Chinese curse that goes something like: “May you live in interesting times.”

            2. And you are ripping on Ron Paul about a tweet concerning two shooting deaths?

              1. I didn’t breathe a word of that feeling to anyone at the time, because I was (rightly) guilty about even having it. Twitter didn’t exist of course, but if it had, I certainly wouldn’t tweet it.

                1. After OKC, I said internally, “thats why you dont put your kids in a government day care center.”

                  I didnt tweet it or say it, until now, of course.

    3. I’m no hardcore RP defender myself, but come on. The soldier with the most confirmed kills publishes a book that makes him into a wealthy celebrity, a very shortsighted move that puts a big target on his head for any nutjob or enemy. Soldier takes PTSD nutjobs (harsh, but not inaccurate) to shoot guns for “therapy” and nutjob goes nutjob and shoots him. We’re supposed to feel sorry for his complete lack of wisdom? If he had made wiser decisions, he’d probably still be alive today.

      1. Who says anyone should feel sorry for him? He wasn’t killed by a Islamic. So him writing a book has nothing to do with it.

        I generally feel bad for people who are murdered in senseless acts by crazy people. And even if I didn’t I would like to think I would feel bad enough for their loved ones, i would stay in my hole and shut the hell up.

        Paul is a piece of shit. Just a bad guy. Thank God he never won national office because there is something clearly wrong with him.

        1. What do you mean by those first three sentences?

          1. Just what they say. You can not feel sorry for Kyle without mocking him or thinking he got what he deserved. If you don’t know him, you can not have an opinion or an emotional reaction to his death. And second, Propietist was implying that Kyle, by making himself a celebrity was asking to be killed by some Islamic nut. Well maybe he was. But some Islamic nut is not who killed him. So his writing of the book had nothing to do with his death.

            1. No, I said “any nutjob or enemy”, including delusional ex-soldiers, foreign diplomats looking to try him for war crimes and violent pacifists.

              1. But there is no evidence that his writing of the book had anything to do with this guy killing him. And since when is writing a book mean that you deserve to be murdered?

                1. There is no evidence one way or another. I wasn’t blaming the book for his death. I was pointing out that the book was a piece of a pattern of unwise decision-making that probably contributed to why he was targeted on a gun range by a delusional ex-vet.

                  1. I was pointing out that the book was a piece of a pattern of unwise decision-making that probably contributed to why he was targeted on a gun range by a delusional ex-vet.

                    How do you know it was unwise? Looks like he made some money and had a nice life. Again, there is no evidence the book had anything to do with this. You are just bringing it up as a way to detract from how stupid and offensive Paul’s comments were.

                    1. But they weren’t stupid or offensive to someone who understands the concept of blowback. You make a questionable decision, you should prepare for the real world consequences, regardless of whether you “deserve” them or not.

                  2. I wasn’t blaming the book for his death. I was pointing out that the book was a piece of a pattern of unwise decision-making that probably contributed to why he was targeted on a gun range by a delusional ex-vet.

                    Wow. The interpretation of this tweet is getting seriously convoluted.

            2. You threw Islamic in there ya fuckin twat.

              1. Pay attention Brad. Islamic is who he killed. So, yeah it would make sense that some Islamic might go after him after reading the book. But again, that is not what happened here. So the book has nothing to do with it.

                1. I’m paying attention and yet I still can figure out why you are so obsessed with the “Islamic” part of your argument.

                  1. That is because you are stupid Brad. He killed Islamics, so they are the ones who would likely want to kill him after reading his book. It is pretty simple really.

                    1. I just don’t get how that is even controversial.

    4. To live by the sword and to die by the sword means if you choose to live a life of combat you can’t complain when you die in combat.

      No it doesnt.

      1. Yes it does. What do you think it means?

        1. See above, the 37 other times Ive covered it.

  22. It sure would be nice to have a GOP foreign policy debate that didn’t involve calling foreigners monkeys or insulting dead SEALs

    Oh, but then you’d actually discover the *substance* of their actual mental processes.

    Which would leave you far more horrified, realizing these people are technically ‘running the country’

  23. Look at you, glibing it up. You should be ashamed

    *snuffles, scuffs shoe in dirt*

    1. You know he won’t be satisfied until you look down uncomfortably and avert your gaze while doing that.

      And probably not then…never mind…

  24. That was a very silly comment by Paul. Why did anything need to be said besides “some crazy person killed some people, that sucks”?

    1. Because Paul is an angry bitter guy obsessed with his political sacred cows. How do you take that statement to mean anything but Paul actively roots for the death of anyone who fought in any war Paul objects to?

      What is so special about his SEAL? Everyone else who goes to war is also responsible for deaths at least indirectly. Does Paul have a little smile every time he reads about veteran being murdered? Live by the sword die by the sword you know.

      1. I still see no reason to assume that he got any pleasure out of the news or that his comment was meant to mock they guy or to say he deserved it. Maybe that is the case, but I don’t think you can fairly assume that based on his tweet.

        1. The thing speaks for itself Zeb. What else is the tweet but mocking him? I don’t see any other explanation.

          1. Ive explained it 50 fucking times you fucking weasel.

            Im sure you are still lying about Paul’s blowback comment too.

            1. No you haven’t. You have just breathless said it doesn’t meant that never explained why other than Jesus said it.

              Face it. Paul sucks.

              1. No you haven’t.

                Yes I have. At least 2-3 times in response to you.

          2. As I said, it was silly and stupid to broadcast that to the world. But I don’t think it was mocking. Perhaps he was saying he got what was coming to him (I don’t know either way, but if that was what he was saying, I think he was dead wrong), but that is not the same as mocking. Mocking involves imitation and making fun and I don’t see that there.

    2. Well, RP is obviously very unhappy about our callousness toward the killing of innocent people the WoT in general, so it’s understandable that he’d hear “Iraq War hero murdered” and think it was a good opportunity to push his viewpoint.

      1. I bet Kyle never killed any innocent person. I would imagine every person he ever shot was a combatant who would have gladly killed him. Paul acts like Kyle was out shooting 1st graders, which everything you need to know about Paul’s primitive and idiotic understanding of warfare.

        1. “Paul acts like Kyle was out shooting 1st graders, which everything you need to know about Paul’s primitive and idiotic understanding of warfare.”

          I must have missed that part of Paul’s tweet.

          John’s reaction is a textbook example of how fucked up this country is. He freaks out over a tweet (and I will say that Paul shouldn’t have tweeted it, although I don’t think he intended to mock Kyle or took any pleasure in it) but gives a pass to politicians that (among other things) start and conduct unnecessary wars that leave hundreds of thousands of people dead

          1. right. *this* is why Paul never should have gotten to national office according to John, but peep on those in national office prosecuting these disastrous policies. see also: his support for drone strikes, John’s only objection is that we have the wrong TOP MEN in place.

        2. *I bet Kyle never killed any innocent person. I would imagine every person he ever shot was a combatant who would have gladly killed him.*

          And who had no real reason to resist the invasion of his country by people like Kyle.

          You realize that Kyle admitted that he threw innocent people in prison, and his attitude about it was “F them.” I’m through with believing whatever the US Gov’t, or its agents, tell me.

  25. McCain: Sure, easy hanging curve, no prob.

    Paul: WTF were you thinking? I mean, not just tweeting it, which was monumentally stupid, but even THINKING it? Seriously, dude. Not cool.

    1. R C Dean – bingo.

  26. Let me ask the Paul defenders this. If Barrack Obama was on a visit to Afghanistan and somehow the Taliban managed to drone strike him and someone tweeted “life by the sword die by the sword”, would anyone here not think that was expressing an opinion about the justice of Obama’s death? I can’t see how it could be doing anything else. This is the same thing.

    1. If Ron Paul had tweeted Live By the Sword, Die By the Sword about Osama Bin Laden’s death, would you be arguing that Ron Paul was ‘mocking’ OBL?

      1. yes. That is a great example. That tweet would be a way of saying that OBL got what he deserved. That would be the whole point of it. OBL spent his life killing people and therefore when the SEALS came for him, it was justice.

        Paul is saying exactly the same thing about Kyle that I would be saying about OBL in that tweet.

        1. OK. Now, what if someone said that about Nelson, killed in the battle that was his greatest victory?

          1. When you go to war you take your chances. I have never been a big one on claiming that combat deaths are tragedies in the way something like this is. They are not. Getting killed is a risk everyone signs up for. It sucks. But it is not a tragedy.

            1. Yes, but is it mockery to say of Nelson that “He who lives by the sword, dies by it?”

    2. I can’t really defend him on this. He probably said it off the cuff while talking to someone in his office, and then one of his idiot staffers heard decided it was so profound it needed to be broadcast to the world. Ron Paul was always a little loony and prone to saying dumb shit, and age is not helping him. I also doubt he’s learned how to pick better staffers since the DONDERRROOOOOO days.

      1. If Dondero is his idea of picking talent, my guess is his staff is probably pretty bad. It was just a gross and stupid thing to say.

        Here is the thing, I don’t see why people can’t admit that Paul is right about a lot of things but maybe a bad guy himself. So what? His moral worth has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of his policy positions.

        Why on earth do Libertarians of all people have such a hard time believing that a politician could really kind of suck as a person? Don’t they all suck? Isn’t that what it means to be in politics?

        1. I was going to say something to that effect, but I couldn’t figure out how to phrase it. If the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan was elected and ended the War on Drugs, he would be the best friend to black people since Lincoln. In the same way, Ron Paul could hate all soldiers, but he would still do an enormous amount of good for them by bringing them home.

          Ron is a known kook. There’s no getting around that. He’s usually a nice kook who says things we like, so some people get too attached to him. Even libertarians are still chimpanzees who want to belong to a TEAM, don’t forget that.

        2. Libertarians still view themselves as a political remnant who will be pigeonholed by outrageous comments like these, regardless of whether they’re correct or not.

          Having Paul go Noam Chomsky on the world might not be the worst thing that ever happened, though. There’s no such thing as bad publicity, and giving libertarians an opportunity to blather on and participate in network news would be the best thing if we’re going to continue to grow after our Bush/Barry renaissance.

          Ron is a far more talented bombthrower than he is a politician, so maybe he should just cut loose with as many bombs as possible, Rockwell style.

          1. By that logic Todd Akin did the Republicans a favor. I am not sure I am seeing it.

            1. When Akin quotes Jesus’s views on forcible rape, then we can talk.

              1. At least he didn’t quote Deuteronomy on the subject of rape…. if a woman was raped within a settlement she was to be executed.

        3. I’ve never felt the need to defend him beyond pointing out the hypocrisies of a press who would pile on him over the LA Riots while giving the more odious things said elsewhere at the time like an National Review a free ride when their editors were part of the pile on to stop Ron Paul. Beyond that, he’s a big boy wearing big boy pants. Let him defend himself.

          Besides, I never thought he would have been that great of a president in the day to day administrations of the office though I certainly would have liked to have seen him wield veto power.

          1. Ron Paul would have been Ollie North’s dream boss.

      2. He probably said it off the cuff while talking to someone in his office,

        Which actually makes it worse, if his first reaction to this thing was “Good. Live by the sword, motherfucker. And, oh yeah, I’m a baby-catcher, so I know all about PTSD, and exposure therapy is stupid.”

        1. Like I said, known kook. And yet, somehow, the sanest man to run for president in generations.

      3. There comes a point where claiming that someone else was writing in your name doesn’t hold water any more. He’s already had a couple of mulligans on that count.

        I know people older than RP who text, tweet, go on Facebook, etc (and complain about their arthritis afterward) so don’t say he’s too old to tweet.

    3. Except that Kyle wasn’t killed by a freelancing Islamist terrorist sniper in Fallujah. Connecting dots isn’t as hard as you seem to make it.

  27. Just to throw a fact out there on the whole PTSD treatment thing:

    Exposure therapy. This behavioral therapy technique helps you safely face the very thing that you find frightening, so that you can learn to cope with it effectively. A new approach to exposure therapy uses “virtual reality” programs that allow you to re-enter the setting in which you experienced trauma ? for example, a “Virtual Iraq” program.

    http://www.mayoclinic.com/heal…..-and-drugs

    Brought to you by the quacks and fascists at Mayo Clinic.

    1. Was Mr Kyle a trained therapist, as well as a trained killer?

      1. Apparently.

        The pearl-clutching is strong in this thread.

    2. Neither of us are psychologists. Maybe it does work most of the time. You don’t know that it is quackery. Just because this guy freaked out doesn’t mean others didn’t benefit or this guy wouldn’t have freaked out anyway.

      1. Uh, John, you might want to change the battery on your snarkometer.

        The point I was trying to make is that taking vets to a gun range sounds like “exposure therapy”, which even the Mayo Clinic says is legit.

        Man, if you have to explain it . . . .

        1. My snarkometer is down. Sorry about that.

        2. RC, are you now using “appeal to authority” as a valid argument?

          1. When it’s people taking about their area of expertise, it’s not a fallacy. The fallacy is in assuming that being an authority figure is in itself enough to assume they know what they’re talking about on any given subject.

            1. And when it comes to psychiatry it’s more fallacy than expertise. If we’ve got several examples of “Virtual Iraqs” being set up and a couple hundred test cases and data, I might be persuaded to lean toward expertise.

              But I’d probably have a shit ton of doubt about how accurate such “Virtual Iraqs” were in the first place. For example: do you get to go home to your family after an afternoon on the gun range?

              Then I’d wonder why our military isn’t setting up such realistic “Virtual Iraqs” before sending the troops over there in the first place.

              And of course I’d still question the method in the first place. Do we send molested kids for further molestation so they can get over the stress of the initial molestation? Why should/ shouldn’t the same method be applied to military combat PTSD?

              Calling it an area of expertise does not exclude it from quackery.

  28. Twitter is gay.

    1. ^^^THIS^^^

      +lulz

  29. Could it be that he meant guys who glorify weapons to the point that they go out and provide amateur psychological treatment that centers around firing guns is destined to die by weapons.

    The original quote is a cautionary tale.

    1. He wasn’t free-lancing, here. He was part of some foundation working with vets. So I don’t think he was just hanging out at the VFW looking for guys with the shakes, and taking them out to the range.

      1. First off, source.

        Second off, did Kyle have any training that would make it the slightest bit responsible for him to be doing this?

        1. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/d…..d=18393163

          It appears he just liked to go shooting with people. The whole “he was helping the guy with PTSD” is speculation. There is no indication that the guy who shot him had ever showed any signs of PTSD.

  30. I’m not going to defend him. i will say, however, the media…. particularly FOX, cant wait for Ron to say something stupid…..since its the only coverage they give him.

    1. They probably can’t. But no one makes Paul give them something for them to cover.

  31. Holy. Shit. This comments section has gone full Paultard. Really. You know it’s bad when Tulpa’s the straight man.

    1. He is like some people’s first girlfriend. I don’t care she wound up as a meth whore. She was beautiful. It wasn’t her fault.

      1. It’s not all Paul-love, it’s largely the swarm-the-other-guys phenomenon.

        A lot of the people defending him here would rip RP when he said anything against open borders or gay marriage or abortion.

        1. John and Tulpa — a match made in heaven?

        2. True. If he were as vocal about those three issues you listed as he is about Foreign Policy, I doubt he would have much of a following from tReason.

          1. I’d say that’s accurate. What issues a person emphasize as most important heavily influence the sort of reaction they get. I disagree with him on those issues, but still like him and most of what he says. If he thought some of those other issues were the most important things to focus on (rather than debt and war and government largess) I’d be much less enthusiastic about the man. There’s tradeoffs to every political affiliation, it’s all about what you value most

        3. Eh. I don’t really see a specific “phenomenon” here, just people all having their own takes on this disagreeing with each other. I see people on different sides of the issue who normally agree with each other, but vehemently disagree in this instance.

          To me, it’s just an indication that people can’t be so easily defined by their agreement on certain issues.

          1. I disagree.

            1. No you don’t.

      2. LOL! That’s awesome.

    2. Being RP apologists hasn’t gotten us very far. I dont think Ron tweeted this himself,although he has said some real dumb stuff before. If anything, Ive always thought Ron cared more about Vets than most.

      1. If anything, Ive always thought Ron cared more about Vets than most.

        Yes, that’s something that really baffles me about this. Paul has never came down on military personnel in his attacks on our military engagements. This doesn’t seem like the sort of thing he’d say about a veteran. I’ve heard he’s some famous ex-sniper who killed a bunch of people, maybe Paul has some specific objection to it? That’s the only thing I can think of, aside from your suggestion that Paul didn’t tweet that himself (which seems pretty plausible to me).

        1. Its part of the reason I buy that he is criticizing the “atmosphere of violence” created by the US military actions.

          PTSD being an obvious result of this atmosphere.

          And the sniper being a symbol for American foreign policy.

          1. Ok, I think I’m starting to understand a bit how you see this. Not sure I’ll come to agree with you, but I’m thinking about it a bit more. Thanks for responding to me.

      2. It’s time libertarians moved on from Paul.

  32. Ok, I just figured out how to make a million dollars.

    You set up a service for companies, politicians and other image conscious celebrities (as opposed to the Kim Kardashian types for whom controversy is a good thing) that locks down their twitter feeds so that they cannot post directly to said feeds. Instead the service controls the passwords, then those individuals/organizations get a your app that looks and works just like twitter but the output comes directly to you, where you have a team of individual inspect every post. If they deem it to be not stupid they approve it and it goes out on yout twitter feed, if they don’t it gets blocked and no one else in the world ever knows of your stupidity.

    1. I heard someone suggest that for universities the other day.

    2. I like that. If it is judged stupid, the post is held for 24 hours and you are given a chance to think it over. Sort of a 24 hour waiting period on stupidity.

      1. If it were linked to the Reason comment section, we’d never see from our resident trolls or John again.

        1. Shut up Mary.

          1. My god! That was such a fucking brilliant retort!

            If even 1% of the commentors that you have accused of being Mary actually were, she would have to be much smarter than you to impersonate such varied views and personalities.

            I read the comments here because there are some thoughtful, clever, intelligent, witty, and humorous commentors who make me think, reconsider my opinions, and laugh… you don’t happen to be one of them.

            1. Everyone is Mary until proven otherwise.

            2. By the way, the “E” in the article “El” should be in upper case.

              1. Think e.e. cummings.

    3. That’s basically what PR companies and spokespeople are for.

      The problem is, celebrities and politicians tend to have too much ego to obey them.

  33. The first thing I thought of when I saw the towers go down on 9/11 was “There goes my children’s freedom.” Apparently I’m an evil person.

    1. You’re not evil, at least not for that reason. People are bound to have all sorts of different mental reactions. But hopefully you had enough sense not to say that out loud, at least not immediately.

      1. How long is appropriate to wait?

        5 minutes?
        5 hours?
        5 days?
        5 years?

        1. Have you ever been in a human relationship in your life, robc?

          You develop a feel for these things.

          1. Apparently I’ve been interacting with androids all this time.

    2. I will admit that the first thing I thought when I saw that was actually, “What the FUCK just happened?” Which was followed by a sick feeling in my stomach and confusion.

      Then I started with the jokes…

    3. I thought “fuck, I really need to go to work”.

  34. I understand Lew Rockwell ghostwrote that tweet.

    1. DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!1!!!!

    2. So, the pen is mightier than the sword?

      Or something?

      1. The tweet is mightier than the sword.

        Or, as Sean Connery would say:

        THE PENIS MIGHTIER

    3. Okay, that is funny.

  35. I never thought I’d be defending Ron Paul and John McCain in the same day. Actually I won’t even defend them. I’ll just state neither tweet bothers me. If you enjoy hating either/both of them more, go ahead. Enjoy it.

    1. I’m throwing in my lot with the Biggins on this bunch of meh.

  36. LOL at all the libertarians and faux-libertarians defending as a hero a mass contract killer whose book demonstrated scorn towards soldiers who decided they couldn’t take the pressure of being a contract killer, who (probably defamatorily) claimed to have beaten up Jesse Ventura at a bar for exercising free speech he didn’t like, etc.

    Oh, and by the way, to Gilmore and all those claiming he never profited from being a mass killer because he gave book and reality show proceeds to charity, what do you think his celebrity reputation did for his police and military training business, Craft International? Dude trained SWAT teams for a living. Nothing wrong with that, per se, but don’t pretend like there was no monetary incentive to become a celebrity for his mass killing.

    1. LOL at all the libertarians and faux-libertarians defending as a hero a mass contract killer

      Ron Paul really does make people stupid. No one on this thread has ever claimed this guy to be a “hero” whatever that is. He was just a very good solider. There is no difference morally between him and the biggest REMF imaginable. They are all part of the same machine and all share in the responsibility for the results of that machine for better or worse. This guy just happened to be the one who pulled the trigger. So what?

      And why are you so hung up on his book? So because he wrote a book he somehow had getting shot coming? His writing a book has nothing to do with anything.

      You just fucking retarded on this. Completely and offensively retarded. I don’t care who Kyle was. Unless you can show me that he did something that warranted his murder, Ron Paul and you need to shut the fuck up with the whole “he was asking for it” bullshit.

      1. I did use the term “war hero” in reference to his reputation.

        I certainly think the things he did were good things, even though I disagree with the Iraq War in general. Given that our civilian command was a bunch of moronic douches, I don’t fault our troops for shooting at people who were shooting at them and leaving bombs to blow them up.

      2. His MURDERS warrant nobody crying in his milk over a fucking tweet, dumb ass.

        Had Kyle not worn an army uniform while committing his evil acts, you would not have bothered writing one single letter in condemnation of Ron Paul for saying “he who lives by the sword”.

        So stop hiding behind your excuses, you basically ARE claiming he is a hero. No one ordinary citizen that did what Kyle has done would have brought so many outraged whiny little bitches out of the woodwork to complain about a fucking tweet.

        The reason that there are, is because his murders are not called murders for the mere reason of his working for the government. FAUX-libertarian indeed.

        1. Uh, no. If an ordinary citizen shot a person who was launching RPGs into his friend’s house, I would view that as a perfectly legal and praiseworthy act.

        2. Trident| 2.4.13 @ 5:49PM |#

          His MURDERS warrant nobody crying in his milk over a fucking tweet, dumb ass.

          Had Kyle not worn an army uniform while committing his evil acts…

          Look asshole, at least have the courtesy of getting your fucking details right. He was in the Navy, was a SEAL, and like me wouldn’t ever be caught dead wearing fucking ARPAT, which quite honestly I think can be blamed for more military suicides than PTSD

          And really, if you fail to recognize the gross soul-lessness of your hypocrisy in pretending to ‘moral superiority’ while simultaneously applauding the guy’s *murder* as ‘justified’…. you’re just a fucking dirtass and no one I would ever consider a ‘fellow traveler’ in any political party whatsoever.

          You’re basically pulling the Westboro Baptist move, just without the pathetically-amusing dimension.

        3. What if he had 160 kills in the glorious libertarian uprising against parasites?

          1. The libertarian “uprising” would probably involve outproducing the parasites and watching them starve on an island of government produced paper set on fire for warmth.

        4. Of course he’s a hero, Paultard.

    2. I think he would have done OK in that business without the book. 160 confirmed sniper kills from up to 1.2 mi away speaks for itself.

      1. The people who wanted to hire him, pretty much already knew who he was. When all of the other SEALS refer to you as “the legend”, your security business isn’t going to need much good press.

        Propritest has gone full Paultard on this.

        1. Right, because, I, one of the most vocal cosmotarian critics of Ron Paul on this board, am a Paultard.

          And good press = more demand = higher prices. He certainly has the right to sell his tactical and shooting skills and he has the right to publish a self-serving book to promote his skills. I just disagree that he’s wise to do so when he reportedly had an $80000 price tag on his head.

          Gilmore called me a “sanctimonious self-important, morally superior prick” for claiming accurately that he had monetary incentive to market himself as the most lethal sniper in US military.

          1. I seriously doubt the Iraqi insurgents are in a position to pay that reward when he published the book.

          2. actually, for the record, i called you that because you are being a sanctimonious self-important, morally superior prick

            1. Profiteering off the mass killing of others is immoral and unwise, albeit within his rights to do. Is it not sanctimonous and morally superior to claim that criticizing troops accurately for their purportedly legal actions is beyond the pale?

              1. Profiteering off the mass killing of others is immoral

                Not if those killings were justified (they were) and you believe in profit motive (we do- oh wait sorry I though this was a libertarian site not DailyKos.

                1. We can argue until we are blue in the face as to whether his killings were justified. I believe in the right to profit from just about anything including the unjustified murder of other people, but that doesn’t mean I have to find it morally respectable.

            2. And by the way, when are you going to admit you were wrong about Chris Kyle’s lack of profit incentive and your ad hominems were little more than a personal attack?

              1. Proprietist| 2.4.13 @ 6:15PM |#

                And by the way, when are you going to admit you were wrong about Chris Kyle’s lack of profit incentive …

                How about never, because all of the book’s profits went to charity, as did much of his other labors with wounded veterans…?

                SHB: What else is craft up to these days?

                CK: Craft is also heavily engaged with the state of Texas doing intelligence to help protect our civilians. Besides all the work, we also take lots of the wounded vets on hunting and fishing retreats. That’s our biggest deal. My view is, it is now our duty to serve those that serve us. We want to promote awareness for the vets, and help them out. They are the true heroes of our nation. They have written a blank check up to the value of their life to protect us. This is my main goal in life now.

                Speaking to that notion of serving those that serve us, Mr. Kyle wanted everyone to know that his share of the proceeds from the book are going to the families of his two SEAL brothers who died as a result of the war, Marc Leeand Ryan Job. Any remaining funds will go to other veteran charities.

                For added context, here is an interview Mr. Kyle did with Time:…

                http://www.sniperinfo.com/foru…..quot/page2

                So, please kindly continue to Go Fuck Yourself

                1. Is he donating the $3000 tuition he was charging for a three day tactical training course to charity? A 30 person course every weekend comes out over $4.86M in revenues pre-cost. The fact that his book and reality show appearance direct proceeds all go to charity does not mean that they aren’t functioning to create a celebrity brand he has profitted off of. If you want to insist he didn’t in denial of the facts, be my guest. I don’t know why I need to fuck myself or how stating these facts is in any way sanctimonious.

    3. Here’s a tip Proptard: just write and copy-paste MASS KILLER for your posts. It will save you time. You clearly have nothing else to say.

  37. When Jesus said “Those who live by the sword die by the sword” he said it as a warning. He didn’t say it about someone who had already died, because he had some fucking tact. You could argue that RP had a point, but it was tactless. It is perfectly understandable that people would be offended.

    1. Re: Lapdog83,

      When Jesus said “Those who live by the sword die by the sword” he said it as a warning.

      And all Paul is saying is that the recent slaying of the government’s assassin-for-hire proves the aphorism. Why is that tactless?

      1. Because blaming people for their own murder is always tactless.

      2. Because Paul fails to understand anything about the meaning of that quote and applies it foolishly and senselessly where it doesn’t belong after the murder of a much admired veteran who was working to help other veterans?

        Hey, but otherwise it was libertardian brilliance, or something.

  38. This is also a good example of how you don’t have to be social conservative to alienate and insult over half the country, even if you aren’t offended you can’t argue with the fact that it is an insensitive thing to say.

    1. *with the fact that many people consider it an insensitive thing to say.

  39. There’s only one thing you can say regarding an event like this:

    “I support our troops!”

  40. I am here at Reason.

    And it’s just funny how many politically correct defenders of murderers from aggressive wars there are, that get more upset by a clumsy but honest and morally upright twitter than with any of the many MURDERS Kyle has actually committed. Yeah, Kyle killed a lot of people, but aw shucks he did it for his country and was just following orders. But Ron Paul, that bastard, how DARE he use his 1st amendment right to say that karma is a bitch and murderers get what they deserve.

    Not sure if this place has become flocked with army-worshipping apologists for mass murder (war) that like to hide behind “legalities”, instead of libertarians who have been reading way too much intelligence-degrading beltarian bullshit.
    But once upon a time i actually thought it was only the writers that were more interesting in being politically correct instead of being right.

    1. Reason has it’s fair compliment of conservatives who react to the slightest criticism or insult to the military in a way not unsimilar to how radical Muslims react to criticism of the Prophet Muhammad.

      They are more like their sworn enemy than they realize.

      1. Government is bad, so give it a blank check to wreak havoc on the world. Cops are corrupt twats, while overseas desert cops are true American heroes.

        1. Have fun double-teaming that strawman you two.

          1. Explain how it is a straw man when people like you and Tulpa justify just about anything the military does short of scalping civilians and vindicate government contract killers as heroes (or at least condemn those who don’t vindicate them as such)?

      2. ^^^^^THIS

    2. Paultard alert

    3. But Ron Paul, that bastard, how DARE he use his 1st amendment right to say that karma is a bitch and murderers get what they deserve.

      Freedom of speech is not immunity from criticism. There’s plenty of exercise of 1st amendment rights that deserves to be condemned by all good people.

      No one is going to throw Ron Paul in a jail cell or take his property because of this.

    4. MURDERY MURDER MURDER

      There. Just get it out of your system. And please don’t come back we have too many Paultards and peacenik assholes as is.

      1. We also have too many bloodthirsty cunts. EVERYONE OUT OF THE POOL.

    5. Not sure if this place has become flocked with army-worshipping apologists for mass murder (war) that like to hide behind “legalities”

      no, but a number of us spent time in the military, have family members in, and aren’t comfortable listening to bullshit armchair-analysts pass judgement on the moral character of people who serve for whatever reason

      i might disagree with what you say, but would defend your right to say it to my death

      you, on the other hand, seem perfectly happy to see those you disagree with die if it gives you an opportunity to carp about how they ‘deserved’ it. which is disgusting and reprehensible and deserves to be called what it is = shamelessly grandstanding on a better man’s grave.

  41. Since Ron Paul is no longer a politician, who gives a shit? People tweet oodles of stupid and insensitive stuff every day.

    1. 1. He’s still the most well-known Libertarian in the country.

      2. His son is a Senator with a real shot at the Republican nomination.

      Either way, making statements which only offer the choice of idiot or asshole aren’t helpful.

  42. I think Jim Antle puts it best:

    It sure would be nice to have a GOP foreign policy debate that didn’t involve calling foreigners monkeys or insulting dead SEALs.

    Because using a Christian aphorism to point out the obvious is the same as “insulting” someone… huh, somehow.

    I’ll lose all my hair scratching my head on that one…

    1. The obvious what?

    1. ^^
      “During his service in Iraq, Kyle occasionally functioned as a law enforcement officer of sorts. He was involved in dozens of raids against the homes of suspected ‘insurgents,’ many of whom were arrested on the basis of uncorroborated accusations by anonymous informants.

      He allows that many of the people dragged off in shackles were entirely innocent, but maintains that he wasn’t ever troubled by that fact; he was just doing his ‘duty.'”

    2. The insurgents who fought the American invasion (and the few “allied” troops representing governments that had been bribed or brow-beaten into collaborating in that crime) were sub-human “savages” and “cowards,” according to Kyle.

      “Savage, despicable evil,” writes Kyle. “That’s what we were fighting in Iraq?. People ask me all the time, `How many people have you killed?’… The number is not important to me. I only wish I had killed more. Not for bragging rights, but because I believe the world is a better place without savages out there taking American lives.”

  43. 1. W0hat debate is Jim Antle talking about?
    2. Consider the possibility that random insults toward Ahmadinnerjacket might be tolerated in a civil society without being attributed to all Iranians. When we justifiably refer to Obama as an imbecile, it does not mean we believe that all Americans are imbeciles…does it? And please consider the source to begin with.
    3. As for the Ron Paul stupidity, his many defenders and acolytes here have a lot of mental sorting out to do after his latest public display of mental illness.

  44. This Ron Paul argument basically comes down to the fact that a lot of people here actually support someone who geniunely wants to kill middle eastern folk and is extremely proficient at it.

    Becoming a hero to them, is simple as mindlessly killing the US government’s enemies.

  45. Paul is guilty of nothing actually- except for, perhaps, utilizing the free speech clause which is designed to protect communication that offends even fucking bullet-flinging pansies that come back from serving American interests.

    It never ceases to amaze me how the military fucks the heads up of soldiers. They engage in a job that is designed primarily to defend the American system from assault and its array of constitutional provisions from overthrow while it takes nothing more than a subtle expression to offend many of these so-called warriors.

    If you defend American ideals at the point of weapon and then cannot handle someone’s constitutional right to express something that riles you I’m pretty sure you pulled trigger for the wrong damn reason, buster.

    This warrior worship bullshit needs to stop. Someone needs to throw the American obsession with respecting the military in front of a train, frankly.

    YOU decided to become a Seal. YOU decided to become a grunt. YOU decided to become a sniper. So what? Are you god? Are you a superman? I see absolutely no reason why your vocation deserves anymore respect than any other just because you kill human beings without question over nebulous military vectors no one understands anymore.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.