Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Ron Paul Slams Murdered U.S. Sniper Chris Kyle
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tweetr" data-source="post: 2098403" data-attributes="member: 5183"><p>I am a latecomer to this thread. I read all four pages with interest.</p><p></p><p>I find Ron Paul's tweet simply disgusting. In the interest of full disclosure I am not a Ron Paul for President supporter. As my own views are distinctly libertarian I like his libertarian views, but where I part with the Libertarian party in general and Ron Paul in particular is on defense. Every single time I hear Ron Paul speak on matters of defense I find him to the left of Barack Hussein Obama! (And, on the subject of a strong America, to the left of, oh, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Cesar Chavez, Mikhail "Birth-Mark" Gorbachev, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, and whatever Kim is currently oppressing that place.)</p><p></p><p>This tweet from Ron Paul is completely wrong-headed in the same manner as the anti-gun response to Newtown, CT. The problem with Chris Kyle's murder at a firing range is not the <strong>firing range</strong>. It is the <strong>murder</strong>. The problem with the children's murder by firearms in Newtown is not the <strong>firearms</strong>. It is the <strong>murders</strong>. The solution to Chris Kyle's murder is not to close the firing range to PTSD sufferers or anyone else. The solution to the Newtown murders is not to ban firearms from the rest of us who have done no murder. For that matter, I would attach greater credence to Chris Kyle's opinion on assuaging combat-related PTSD than to Ron Paul's. Furthermore, and disgustingly, Ron Paul disparages military service in toto and the sniper profession in particular. He more than implicitly equates killing in combat to murder, and stops little short of applauding murder as a just comeuppance for one who kills in combat!</p><p></p><p>But at least he apologized, right? No, not at all. That is not the way his apology reads. Let us parse his apology sentence by sentence and each make up his own mind:</p><p></p><p>"As a veteran, I certainly recognize that this weekend’s violence and killing of Chris Kyle were a tragic and sad event."</p><p></p><p>I have three objections to this sentence. First, being a veteran (a) is not required to recognize Chris Kyle's killing as a tragedy and (b) is irrelevant to his apology to Chris Kyle's widow and orphans. Second, placing his veteran status first in his apology tends to shift the focus toward Ron Paul himself in much the same way Obama and Clinton do every time they show up at any function that is not about them! Third, Ron Paul, a former Air Force flight surgeon, is technically a veteran; but placing his veteran status so prominently in what should be only an apology to Chris Kyle's widow tends to inflate his non-combat, non-warrior history when compared to Chris Kyle's. He clearly included that phrase to blunt criticism of himself, which does nothing to assuage the pain he undoubtedly caused Chris Kyle's widow.</p><p></p><p>"My condolences and prayers go out to Mr. Kyle’s family."</p><p></p><p>Too little, too late. This reads very much like standard politician or celebrity boilerplate! It completely lacks the ring of authentic sorrow for the widow and orphans. It certainly, glaringly, lacks the authentic, heartfelt passion of the final two sentences:</p><p></p><p>"Unconstitutional and unnecessary wars have endless unintended consequences."</p><p></p><p>Fine, but what is this doing in an apology for grievously wronging Chris Kyle's widow and orphans? As Terry Miller correctly noted above, it detracts from, rather than adds to, genuine contrition. This sentiment would be fine if given as clarification <em>after</em> the more important business of apologizing to the widow and orphans were complete.</p><p></p><p>"A policy of non-violence, as Christ preached, would have prevented this and similar tragedies." </p><p></p><p>Really? How?! Chris Kyle is to blame for being sent to unconstitutional and unnecessary wars? Chris Kyle, had he lived by a policy of non-violence, would not have been murdered? SoonerP226 above asserts this comment is "aimed at the politcrits who sent the troops in harm's way". I'm afraid a close reading simply does not support this assertion. Whom does Ron Paul name in his original tweet for which he issued this "apology"? I see no name other than Chris Kyle's. He tweeted that Chris Kyle lived by the sword, therefore he died by the sword. The "politcrits" SoonerP226 names do <em>not</em> live by the sword; they send other strong and brave men like Chris Kyle to do it for them so that they may live safely and securely. The "politcrits", furthermore, did not die by the sword; Chris Kyle did. It is giving far too much leeway to Ron Paul to tell us he meant what he did <em>not</em> clearly write in this "apology!" Let Ron Paul speak for himself.</p><p></p><p>Now. If I wrote a tweet and an apology to say precisely what SoonerP226 and Dugby tell us he said, nobody would have the slightest trouble interpreting it as such! It would look something like this:</p><p></p><p>Alternative tweet: "Chris Kyle's tragic murder reminds me of the awful consequences possible when politicians send courageous men to unconstitutional wars!"</p><p></p><p>This would express the same ideas without making it Chris Kyle's fault for treating PTSD at a gun range, nor Chris Kyle's fault for being sent to unconstitutional wars, nor Chris Kyle's just comeuppance for having killed in combat. The difference, of course, is that Ron Paul would seem to hold exactly those views and seems to mean exactly what he said! The alternative tweet likely would require no apology, but I'll next take a crack at an alternative apology for Ron Paul's original tweet:</p><p></p><p>Alternative apology: "I am mortified that my thoughtless tweet gave the impression that I experience anything less than sorrow and horror at Chris Kyle's tragic death. I retract my thoughtless words without reservation and offer my humble apology to Chris Kyle's family. If there is anything I can do to help Mr. Kyle's family in this time of sorrow, I invite them to contact me at [whatever appropriate address]. I promise I will do anything in my power to make this right. I am deeply sorry, Mrs. Kyle, to have added to your grief."</p><p></p><p>You see the difference? The focus is where it should be, not on policy matters. We certainly know that Ron Paul holds the views on policy matters that he expressed in his "apology", but that simply is <strong><em>not</em></strong> the place for political advocacy! See my point?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tweetr, post: 2098403, member: 5183"] I am a latecomer to this thread. I read all four pages with interest. I find Ron Paul's tweet simply disgusting. In the interest of full disclosure I am not a Ron Paul for President supporter. As my own views are distinctly libertarian I like his libertarian views, but where I part with the Libertarian party in general and Ron Paul in particular is on defense. Every single time I hear Ron Paul speak on matters of defense I find him to the left of Barack Hussein Obama! (And, on the subject of a strong America, to the left of, oh, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Cesar Chavez, Mikhail "Birth-Mark" Gorbachev, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, and whatever Kim is currently oppressing that place.) This tweet from Ron Paul is completely wrong-headed in the same manner as the anti-gun response to Newtown, CT. The problem with Chris Kyle's murder at a firing range is not the [B]firing range[/B]. It is the [B]murder[/B]. The problem with the children's murder by firearms in Newtown is not the [B]firearms[/B]. It is the [B]murders[/B]. The solution to Chris Kyle's murder is not to close the firing range to PTSD sufferers or anyone else. The solution to the Newtown murders is not to ban firearms from the rest of us who have done no murder. For that matter, I would attach greater credence to Chris Kyle's opinion on assuaging combat-related PTSD than to Ron Paul's. Furthermore, and disgustingly, Ron Paul disparages military service in toto and the sniper profession in particular. He more than implicitly equates killing in combat to murder, and stops little short of applauding murder as a just comeuppance for one who kills in combat! But at least he apologized, right? No, not at all. That is not the way his apology reads. Let us parse his apology sentence by sentence and each make up his own mind: "As a veteran, I certainly recognize that this weekend’s violence and killing of Chris Kyle were a tragic and sad event." I have three objections to this sentence. First, being a veteran (a) is not required to recognize Chris Kyle's killing as a tragedy and (b) is irrelevant to his apology to Chris Kyle's widow and orphans. Second, placing his veteran status first in his apology tends to shift the focus toward Ron Paul himself in much the same way Obama and Clinton do every time they show up at any function that is not about them! Third, Ron Paul, a former Air Force flight surgeon, is technically a veteran; but placing his veteran status so prominently in what should be only an apology to Chris Kyle's widow tends to inflate his non-combat, non-warrior history when compared to Chris Kyle's. He clearly included that phrase to blunt criticism of himself, which does nothing to assuage the pain he undoubtedly caused Chris Kyle's widow. "My condolences and prayers go out to Mr. Kyle’s family." Too little, too late. This reads very much like standard politician or celebrity boilerplate! It completely lacks the ring of authentic sorrow for the widow and orphans. It certainly, glaringly, lacks the authentic, heartfelt passion of the final two sentences: "Unconstitutional and unnecessary wars have endless unintended consequences." Fine, but what is this doing in an apology for grievously wronging Chris Kyle's widow and orphans? As Terry Miller correctly noted above, it detracts from, rather than adds to, genuine contrition. This sentiment would be fine if given as clarification [I]after[/I] the more important business of apologizing to the widow and orphans were complete. "A policy of non-violence, as Christ preached, would have prevented this and similar tragedies." Really? How?! Chris Kyle is to blame for being sent to unconstitutional and unnecessary wars? Chris Kyle, had he lived by a policy of non-violence, would not have been murdered? SoonerP226 above asserts this comment is "aimed at the politcrits who sent the troops in harm's way". I'm afraid a close reading simply does not support this assertion. Whom does Ron Paul name in his original tweet for which he issued this "apology"? I see no name other than Chris Kyle's. He tweeted that Chris Kyle lived by the sword, therefore he died by the sword. The "politcrits" SoonerP226 names do [I]not[/I] live by the sword; they send other strong and brave men like Chris Kyle to do it for them so that they may live safely and securely. The "politcrits", furthermore, did not die by the sword; Chris Kyle did. It is giving far too much leeway to Ron Paul to tell us he meant what he did [I]not[/I] clearly write in this "apology!" Let Ron Paul speak for himself. Now. If I wrote a tweet and an apology to say precisely what SoonerP226 and Dugby tell us he said, nobody would have the slightest trouble interpreting it as such! It would look something like this: Alternative tweet: "Chris Kyle's tragic murder reminds me of the awful consequences possible when politicians send courageous men to unconstitutional wars!" This would express the same ideas without making it Chris Kyle's fault for treating PTSD at a gun range, nor Chris Kyle's fault for being sent to unconstitutional wars, nor Chris Kyle's just comeuppance for having killed in combat. The difference, of course, is that Ron Paul would seem to hold exactly those views and seems to mean exactly what he said! The alternative tweet likely would require no apology, but I'll next take a crack at an alternative apology for Ron Paul's original tweet: Alternative apology: "I am mortified that my thoughtless tweet gave the impression that I experience anything less than sorrow and horror at Chris Kyle's tragic death. I retract my thoughtless words without reservation and offer my humble apology to Chris Kyle's family. If there is anything I can do to help Mr. Kyle's family in this time of sorrow, I invite them to contact me at [whatever appropriate address]. I promise I will do anything in my power to make this right. I am deeply sorry, Mrs. Kyle, to have added to your grief." You see the difference? The focus is where it should be, not on policy matters. We certainly know that Ron Paul holds the views on policy matters that he expressed in his "apology", but that simply is [B][I]not[/I][/B] the place for political advocacy! See my point? [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Ron Paul Slams Murdered U.S. Sniper Chris Kyle
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
