Comment

Comment by LShieldes on February 12, 2013 at 8:23am

Ted Nugent is going to be at the SOTU tonight. If I get out of my test in time, I will be sure to turn the channel to the Westminster dog show.

Comment by Titus Techera on February 11, 2013 at 2:54am

All warriors are career killers. All nations need them, or else they are defenseless. Libertarians are cowards who cannot confront the basic need to kill. Killing does not require rationalization--just recognition of necessity, for which man's reason is fit; it's libertarianism that requires dubious rationalizations, assuming as it does perpetual peace.

Chris Kyle killed in America's cause & obeyed orders--soldiers have limits on action even in the act of killing--there are laws & a chain of command. This guy did not go insane; he fought for America & then went on to live life in the way Americans do, & have done for long. He was a man in the emphatic sense, a real man. He knew both war & peace, & retained his mental sanity in face of both. The fact is immediately recognizable. His race is itself proof of the humanity in man, because they defend it. I read somewhere that when many lack honor, there will be a few who arise & by their great honor compensate the faults of the many. Chris Kyle was one of them, & so is called a hero.

Americans just do not go around slaughtering in the grand tradition of empires. Even the British empire was built on conquest piled on conquest. Americans are unusually restrained; & uninterested in other countries. That America can even muster an army; or that American arms survive the demilitarization following each war is owed to men who know were almost as well as they know their home.

Comment by The Tactical Gentleman on February 11, 2013 at 2:06am

Chris Kyle, The "Devil of Ramadi", who served this nation with an exemplary record, should be remembered as a hero. He made it his mission to keep other service members safe in combat zones.

Yes he took between 160 (confirmed) and 255 (reported) lives, but those individuals made a decision to wage war against us, as our service members did when they signed up for the military.

War is hell. Chris went on 4 tours of duty in Iraq, receiving 2 purple hearts in the process. He then retired to spend more time with his family. Anyone who experienced what he did would have some internal struggles, but Chris did not let any demons he had stop him.

He did amazing work with FITCO Cares Foundation to help veterans, and dedicated time to bring troubled veterans out for a day of camaraderie and shooting (Which IMO is therapeutic). He went out of his way to help others, and he paid the ultimate price for that generosity by a troubled man that “Sold his soul for a new truck”.

People are far to quick to judge others, and say foolish and disrespectful things. When you include something like twitter, I think of an old Welsh proverb: “it is easy to be brave behind castle walls”. As for Senator Ron Paul, I am disappointed. Even though he served in the military (non-combat role) it does not make it right for him to make such a statement.

I would imagine that the Finns did not criticize or disrespect Simo Hayha "White Death" after World War II (505 confirmed kills), or after his passing in 2002.

Comment by Jack Bauer on February 11, 2013 at 1:47am

Small words from a small man.  Chris Kyle did more to defend freedom than Ron Paul ever will.  I'll never support a man who believes there are "no good guys" ... no matter his fiscal policies.

Ron Paul is a horse's ass ... no better than Westboro "Baptist Church" as far as I'm concerned.

JB

Comment by Alex P. on February 11, 2013 at 1:16am

I did read that he wrote, have been thinking about it today:

“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.”

I'm really not sure what the point of that comment was. I do not find any real fault with the statement on it's own but it was obviously a rash thing to say. The fact that it is a somewhat self evident makes one question why he said it in the first place, which leads people to think he implies some sort of contempt. After all, he could have made his original statement closer to his follow up: that such a death is an unfortunate and unintended consequence of wars that are not even necessary and of questionable constitutionality. 

I think he finds Kyle at fault for something and this is reflected in his original comment. Perhaps he believes Kyle is at fault for being a self-righteous and over-zealous career killer, having taken the lives of some 160 men. Whether that is Paul's qualm with him or not, I certainly believe he is guilty, on some level, for the acts he committed. Also note, that I do not know a lot about Kyle but to have rationalized killing 160 men he must have been self-righteous and to have been so succestul at killing, as the numbers indicate, it is possibly he was over-zealous (so yes, the over zealous part I am could be off on). 

Now I know that a lot of you will say that those 160 men had to die for the sake of our national security, I of course disagree with that. One has to understand the many resulting ramifications of any foreign involvement and that there really are no good guys, particularly when it comes to war. 

Comment by Titus Techera on February 10, 2013 at 1:37pm

Did you read that remark on twitter, to do with live by the sword, die by the sword? Defensive war is living by the sword, too. It takes an idiot to say that about the man who got killed; it takes a greater idiot to blame the death--'unintended consequences' is the phrase--on whatever war he finds unconstitutional, by way of apologizing for his previous idiocy. The death is not on the president, or the Congress. Constitutional wars also lead to deaths of various kinds.

Comment by Alex P. on February 10, 2013 at 1:22pm

Well I hope that we do have more like RP in the future, I know that would scare many of you. I don't agree with all his ideas but he speaks much truth imo. Native son was certainly mischaracterizing him. I do not know what you mean by this statement "Not to mention that he's contradicting himself, because he does accept the military for defense--defensive war is just as much war as the other kind..." Yes defensive war is still war, but RP does not disagree with that as far as I know. 

Comment by Titus Techera on February 10, 2013 at 6:00am

Treasure him, folks, he's a rarity.

As for Ron Paul's understanding of the constitution, he's not exactly James Madison in drag, whatever his fans think.

& his recent idiotic statements show an inability to deal with American politics. What he did is called spitting on graves; humiliating the dead. Not to mention that he's contradicting himself, because he does accept the military for defense--defensive war is just as much war as the other kind...

Comment by LShieldes on February 10, 2013 at 3:06am

And we have a new Ron Paul supporter

Comment by Alex P. on February 9, 2013 at 10:46pm

I don't know why you have that niggling suspicion. I see no evidence of any of that. I believe he is trying to get his message out about libertarian freedom, constitutionalism and proper financial management of the gov't even if it doesn't mean becoming president in the end; many people have heard his message. All that aside, he is not running for president anymore so I don't see what you are referring to in regard to his "continual presidential ambitions."

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• …
• 52
• Next ›
• Page