Posted on 09/13/2004 12:13:40 PM PDT by 1smallVoice
I have heard Alan Keyes called a carpetbagger because he is from Maryland. But I have not heard Obama called a carpet bagger and this confuses me. Obama was not born in Illinois, he was born in Hawaii. I bet Alan Keyes was born closer to Illinois.
Obama's mother was a white woman from Kansas, his father was African, Keyes' roots lie in slaves brought here from Africa, sold into slavery by Obama's ancestors, yet Obama better represents Illinois blacks.
Obama was raised a Muslim like his father and his step father who moved him it Indonesia where he was raised as a Muslim. Keyes is a Catholic. Obama claims to be Christian, a member of the United Church of Christ, check it out, they are not Baptists.
Obama went to school on the East Coast and returned to Illinois to begin his political career in Chicago in the 1990's. He is a teacher. He worked to get Bill Clinton elected. They say Illinois is a liberal state and Kerry will win here.
I do not know but from where I sit Obama is the carpetbagger, not Alan Keyes.
Obama is not a muslim. He's a unitarian--or something reasonably close.
Nobody else stepped up to the plate. So why don't you do us a favor and support the Conservative Republican running for the office instead of bashing him. How does bashing Dr. Keyes help defeat the democrat?
You, Mr. Webb, are committig the fallacy known as argument from age. If your best shot is that you've been on FR longer than Awestruck, then you are losing the argument.
BTW, I wouldn't be so quick to assume Awestruck is male.
Unitarianism is not a religeon.....it's a liberal 527 group.
If he's not going to help himself win the election, why on Earth should I waste my time and effort on him?
I tried to give up drinking for a friend of mine. He died of alcohol poisoning.
How does bashing Dr. Keyes help defeat the democrat?
It's feedback--namely, telling him that he's losing.
What he does with that feedback is his problem.
Keyes is so convinced of his utter rightness that he needs a harsh dose of reality--and even that doesn't seem to penetrate.
Your argument is not with me.
Over half the posters on this thread arguing for Keyes think he's a "stealth" Muslim.
Why? Because he received 100% of the "vote"? You're comparing apples and oranges, tame.
You don't get out much, do you. The reason I say that is that this vanity is probably the biggest case of "I don't know what the heck I am talking about" that I have seen in some time.
First, I would look up what the actual definition of "Carpetbagging" (An outsider, especially a politician, who presumptuously seeks a position or success in a new locality) is, and then re-examine your idea.
Now, considering the above definition, one can only conclude that there is only one carpetbagger in this race. Deal with it.
Apples and oranges implies a difference. There is no differnce. Whether it's a candidate n the U.S., or a madman in Iraq, the point is very simple: Just because a majority votes you in, does not make you well qualified. Truth is not determined by majority vote.
Yes, there is a difference. People in Illinois have a choice. People in Iraq did not. Obviously, Obama represents the viewpoint of more people in Illinois than Alan Keyes does. (I'm not saying that's GOOD, but it's quite clearly true.) Your argument with Poohbah's point is silly.
Even if he were, that wouldn't technically disqualify him for office, although, given the behavior of many of the leaders in the Muslim community, it might give a voter pause. His public policies should be sufficient to discredit him as a just candidate. Obama actually claims to be Christian; given the beliefs he's espoused, they seem to be in line with unitarianism--"all paths lead to God" and all of that. That, of course would be sacrelidge to a Muslim, but official doctrine of a unitarian.
That has noting whatever to do with the point I made. You might want to go back and read it again.
Your argument with Poohbah's point is silly.
No, it's true. Just because a majority votes someone in, that does not mean that the person is the best for the job. Do you agree with that sentence? If yes, then why argue with me? If no, then I can't help you.
BTW, people in Iraq DID have a choice. They could vote against Saddam and face the consequences. "I'm not saying that's [a] GOOD [choice], but it's quite clearly true."
Good posting.
God help us all if that's true.
Depends on the subject.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm glad someone else has said it too.
"Argument from age?" I signed on in 1998. Goodie D signed on 2001. If he has an older name I would love to know what it was.
I'm losing the arguement? 2001 minus 1998 equals three. Is math not universal?
Oh...and not only have I been around longer than either of you...I'm smarter and better looking too. :)
Yes, you're losing the argument regarding Obama because you've retreated to "who's been here the longest" (as if the oldest poster would be the most correct just based on their sign-up date).
As for being right or wrong time on FR has nothing to do with. If you had been here longer than me I would still tell you...I'm right. You are wrong. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.