"unpsun brought before the FReeper Court for friendly fire incident!"
Alas, I throw myself at the mercy of the court....
Posted on 08/23/2004 11:39:59 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Edited on 08/23/2004 11:47:17 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I'll make this short and sweet (kinda like this is your brain, this is your brain on crack - any questions?).
a) Alan Keyes is an America loving, Constitution loving, Liberty loving, pro-life ultra conservative. We'd be ^damned lucky to have him in the Senate if we could get him there.
b) Barack Obama is an America hating, pro-abortion socialist communist. It'll be a dark day for America if he's elected.
Any questions?
Yup. The anti-Christ spirit taking over the GOP too...
roflmao...
Go thune go...
tommy daschle will be deeply sadenned....
and unemployed till his wife gets him a new day job.
Hear, hear. It takes a good man from across the great pond to see what the blind anti-Christ GOPers in America can't...the obvious.
More "base building".
The Fight in Illinois: Alan Keyes vs. Barack Obama
Phyllis Schlafly
Posted Aug 24, 2004
Alan Keyes has upset the liberal game plan to crown law school lecturer Barack Obama as the new leader of blacks in America. Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton like Obama because he imitates their votes, but Americans like Keyes because he is straightforward about issues we care about. http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4867
And he never has been a carpetbagger like Hilary, and he never has violated the principles of federalism, as has been pointed out.
"unpsun brought before the FReeper Court for friendly fire incident!"
Alas, I throw myself at the mercy of the court....
Ronald Reagan signed a bill that awarded $20,000 in tax dollar reparations to 80,000 Japanese Americans (or their closest living descendants) for spending a couple of years in WWII internment camps.
I guess if Reagan was resurrected today, you wouldn't support him, either?
There are proposals to use tax dollars in reparations for descendants of slaves--slaves who suffered more loss than we could imagine, spending generations living as "property" that could be used, abused, and destroyed at their masters' whim.
There are also threats of lawsuits. Currently, there's a woman and her two brothers suing for $1.4 trillion dollars because their father was a slave. They remember seeing his whip scars before he died. Other suits have sprung up for billions. Many of these suits could prove successful.
As an alternative to this, Keyes has proposed a "tax break" for descendants of slaves. More than a tax break, it exempts them from the "slave tax"--the income tax--before completely abolishing the tax for the rest of us. This would provide an incentive for many to get off of the Great Society and New Deal programs, and into the workforce or self-employment.
Eventually, it would add steam to the movement to abolish the income tax for everyone--which Alan Keyes has said is his ultimate goal.
I think his idea is a good compromise, better than anyone else's solution--including Reagan's.
If you go to www.keyes2004.com and click on the issues link, you'll see those other items where he and I wholeheartedly agree. The other two issues where we're steadfastly opposed are not even mentioned on the site (special tax breaks and mandatory national service). It is not going to sit atop his agenda as Senator. Given that, I see no reason to beat him down just as we need him to rise up for those other issues where we agree. This is, after all, an election season, and we serve no good by defeating the 98% of good we like because we disagree with the other 2%. I will not shoot my toenails off when they only need clipping.
Walter Williams said granting federal land to descendants of slaves could be a solution.
Said Williams:
There's one condition where I might fall prey to the reparations temptation. The federal government owns up to 90 percent of the land in western states such as Alaska, Nevada, New Mexico and California. Turning that land over to blacks, and hence into private hands, might not be a bad idea.That's another idea that would be feasible and fair. Both Williams' and Keyes' suggestions are better and more conservative than reparations in payments such as Reagan signed on to.http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21029
You still consider Walter Williams and Ronald Reagan good conservatives, don't you?
You no longer support Ronald Reagan because of one little issue? That's harsh.
Would you find a problem in his positions on those two points as well as others that have surfaced in the past years if he was a liberal (beyond just being a liberal).
Don't understand the question. I'm not going to vote for a liberal so it doesn't matter what their position on something is.
Question. Is carpetbagging bad? If it is up to the people to vote yes or no, the people have the last word don't they.
I could see if Keyes was being appointed senator, but he was - asked. And now he must still compete for the job.
In the reconstruction days, the people of the south didn't ask for the carpetbaggers. And these Yankees were appointed to positions or took advantage of money making situations - they didn't have to run for elected office.
I don't care were they lived, if they meet the requirements to run for the job, hey bring it on.
And since this guy, Keyes has served America all his life, and served the cause of Life, he meets the requirements, I say go Keyes.
Either way, you the man DIENTEDETIGRE, thanks for your comments and pls keep on keepin on.
What you call "Keyes bashing" is an attempt to inject common sense into a sea of illogic. As the old saying goes, there are exactly two chances of Keyes winning: slim and none - and slim just died on the operating table. The only thing out of control here are some folks here who would rather tilt at windmills than direct their energy toward getting electable candidates, like Bush, elected.
The question is, if a liberal was recruited from out of state to replace obama, would you find an issue, even it was under the same circumstances as Keyes invitation?
If obama proposed the same reparations as Keyes, would you find that acceptable?
Here, you're saying you have nothing against the principle of reparations in the form of governmental payment, so long as they are given equitably and by the entity responsible.
Later, you said if Reagan had proposed this in his campaigns, you would not have supported him.
That's a strange position you take.
Regarding reparations for blacks in the form of a tax break, you are against this because you do not see the federal government as responsible for slavery.
That is a false assumption.
The federal government condoned slavery, sanctioned slavery, and defined blacks as subhuman in its Constitution. (3/5th of a person.)
The federal government bears the responsibility, not just states, for allowing a people to be treated in a way that violated its own principles and laws.
A person is a person, no matter what the government might say.
Can you imagine being someone else's property? Can you imagine the psychological damage that would do to a whole culture? Can you imagine what happens to that culture's psyche to come from ancestors who were stripped of their identity, heritage, family life, and the ability even to own property to pass on to their children?
And another issue: what of the abuse condoned by governments after slavery? Interracial marriage, segregation, discrimination, violation of rights--that's not distantly in our past.
For that matter, slavery isn’t distantly in our past. There are living grandchildren and even children of slaves.
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.