Comment

Comment by LShieldes on February 13, 2013 at 8:01am

Honor and RP go together like motorcycle gangs and doilies

Comment by Titus Techera on February 13, 2013 at 3:09am

1. I say killing does not require rationalization, not rationality--I actually said human reason is fit to understand the necessity to kill. Whether you are unable or unwilling to look at the difference--you quote correctly, then switch in your answer--it's still there. You embarrass yourself accordingly.

2. Thoreau to the contrary notwithstanding, men are naturally inclined to war as well, not only peace--such that only men of war can enjoy peace, or bring it forth for the enjoyment of others also.

3. Liberty & honor may be different things. Honor among soldiers is the soul of arms. But liberty there is not among soldiers. You're a fool if you think you can play around with the definition of honor; are you even able to understand what men who use it mean by it? Your platitudes about social constructs only suggest you have never paid any attention to what is said & what is meant. Any kid in his first semester of pol.sci can regurgitate the same...

Comment by Alex P. on February 13, 2013 at 12:32am

" 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."

This could be said about many people. It could easily be said that RP rose above the many self serving politicians in washington and stood for liberty.  It all comes down to ones definition of honor. I believe this simple example illustrates that there really are no good guys. The idea of good guys is a social construct to simplify our understanding of the world and our place in it, an over simplification imo. 

Comment by Alex P. on February 13, 2013 at 12:26am

This is a disturbing statement: "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" 

Putting libertarians aside, I hardly know what to say. Killing does not require rationality? It does not require having having good sense and sound judgement (definition)? How can necessity even be deemed without sound judgment? Who is to say what is necessary without proper discernment? Libertarianism does not assume perpetual peace, but I don't see why we should not always work towards peace, you seem to be saying that we should be giving into our basar instincts to kill, a Social Darwinist nihilist thing to say. 

You act as though a real man is one who exhibits classic characteristics of physical masculinity such as dominance both physical and sociological but you neglect scrupulosity. I believe by espousing jingoism you find yourself in an honor system that not only has questionable morality but also likely leads to much hate, a hate that overshadows love for our fellow man. But, as you have already stated, love and peace are for pussy libertarians (yes that is how I understand your statements, tell me if your beliefs are fundamentally different from my simplification).

I will leave you with the words of Henry Thoreau on law, military, judgement and manliness: 

"A common and natural result of an undue respect for law is that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart.  They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined.  Now, what are they?  Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power?  The mass of men serve the State thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies.... In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well.  ~Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience

Comment by JonEdanger on February 12, 2013 at 9:05am

Unless Ted is doing the speech I'll be sleeping.

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. 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• …
• 51
• Next ›
• Page