Posted on 02/14/2005 12:32:30 AM PST by RWR8189
MODERATOR: The war in Iraq. Is it the right war at the right time, and where and how does it end?KEYES: Well, the truth is, the question is raised as if we have a choice. We either fight the war against terror, or the terrorists kill us. We must fight that war by carrying the war to the enemy.
What President Bush did, in going into Iraq, was take a situation where there was a probability that we were going to be attacked with weapons of mass destruction developed by Saddam Hussein, handed off to the terrorist network that he was part of, for he had provided payments, for instance, to Hamas--they work with Al Qaeda in the training camps, and so forth--all of this, he understood.
What probability was there, when he got that information? Was it fifty percent? Forty percent? Thirty percent? Ten? Well, what probability would you like, that there is going to be a chemical or biological attack against Chicago, that a weapon of mass destruction will go off and destroy the Loop?
What G. W. Bush did was what any responsible president would have to do. He acted in order to reduce that probability to zero, because when you're dealing with the situation we face right now, that is the only chance you want the American people to take.
So I think that we had no choice, and we have no choice now but to confront the terrorists where they live, to attack them before they attack us, to disrupt their lines of supply, their financial lines of supply, their training camps, and to make it clear to state sponsors of terrorism--such as Saddam Hussein was--that we are not going to tolerate their activities, and that none of them are going to be left alone.
It has clearly had an effect. Libya has backed off. Syria is talking a better game. Others are taking the lesson of our resolve, and that lesson is, even now, saving Americans from terrible disaster. It was a necessary decision, and that's what counts.
MAGERS: Thank you very much. Mr. Obama?
OBAMA: The fact of the matter is, is that there were no weapons of mass destruction.....
(Keyes / Obama debate #2: http://renewamerica.us/archives/media/debates/04_10_21debate2.htm)
It was also September of 2001 when he wrote about Bush being "the bullet that kills you" - but you know what, Gelato? We've been through this (what feels like) a thousand times. You are definitely not changing my mind about him, and I'm not changing yours - so post away all you want, but frankly, I'm sick of rehashing the same old stuff.
What do you think about the way he is handling the situation with his daughter? What do you think about his remarks regarding Mary Cheney in retrospect, knowing now that there is no question his own daughter had identified herself as a lesbian when he made them?
I could guess, but... : )
Here it comes........here it comes.......wait for it.........wait for it.
Yeah, I know. LOL
Have you seen this one yet?
Thanks for the ping, I must have missed it.
Late to the party on this one, haven't read the thread yet, 500+ replies though must be interesting.
If you want on/off the ping list see my profile page.
When asked by the Chicago CBS affiliate of the issue Alan Keyes remarked, "You're asking me a personal question, right, in terms of what I'd say to a family member. And that has to be governed by my personal conscience, and my personal conscience is shaped by my faith, and my faith is very clear: That homosexual relationships are sinful and wrong, and I will not facilitate my children, whom I love, in going down a path that, according to my faith, leads to a kind of death that's worse than physical death. You don't love somebody if you become the facilitator of the destruction of their spiritual and moral life."
To the Chicago NBC affiliate Alan Keyes said, "I consider the eternal salvation of my children to be the real aim of my parenting, not how they feel today, not how they look today, but whether or not they shall be pleasing and acceptable to God. You can bet I won't betray that truth for the sake of any ambition, any office, any election on the face of this Earth because I promise to you that the hearts of my children are far more important to me than anything I can achieve in this election or anything else the world has to offer me.
latent heterosexuality?
Where's that pic with the bunny and the pancake?
Pardon this correction: it was August 2001 you were thinking of.
That is important to remember, since after September 11th, every statement I've read indicates Keyes supports the President in the War on Terror, and has said it time and again. He has also said that it of necessity includes the war in Iraq.
Some conservatives disagree with him on Iraq. It looks to me that Keyes--or the website, at least--is not afraid of debate and some diversity of opinion. It took me a while to figure it out, myself. I must say Keyes' argument persuaded me, and that's a fact.
What do you think about the way he is handling the situation with his daughter?
That is none of my business, and neither am I am in a position to judge. Gossip is best left for the tabloid media to wallow in.
What do you think about his remarks regarding Mary Cheney in retrospect, knowing now that there is no question his own daughter had identified herself as a lesbian when he made them?
Calling homosexuality "selfish hedonism" is exactly correct, before that interview, during the interview, and after the interview.
Months before, in May 2004, Keyes gave the same definition of homosexuality, and he said what he meant by hedonism:
And I use the word "hedonism," by the way--and some people will think that that's pejorative. It's not. The word "hedonism" comes from the Greek hedone, and it means "pleasure."He says he means "hedonism" as a descriptive, not derogatory term. Then he says selfish hedonism is not confined to homosexuality:And I think that it would be kind of absurd on the face of it for people who advocate same-sex relationships to turn to us and say that those relationships are not about pleasure--the point being that, at one level, that's all they can be about.
The relationship between man and woman can be incidentally about pleasure, but essentially about procreation and family, and things that in fact transcend the immediate gratification of the parties involved. The same-sex relationship is haunted by no such necessities, no such obligations. It is essentially about fulfillment of the passions, the needs, the dreams, the ambitions, the this or that. You can put up any words you want, but at the end of the day, it's just the people that are there. It's about them!
It is not about the future! It is not about the society! It is not about that which at any given moment can transcend the pleasure of the individuals! It's not about that.
Now, wait. I'm walking through all of this, y'all, because I think it's important to remember, though. And that's why I call it the view of sexuality based on hedonism and self-gratification, but you and I both know that this understanding of human sexuality is not confined to same-sex couples.
Whole industries, both in the entertainment media and in the production of all kinds of contraceptive devices and pills and this and that--all based upon, what? All based upon the pursuit of this form of sexual fulfillment, to free oneself from the shadow of procreation, so that it will no longer haunt the relationship, no longer burden the relationship, no longer be there as something which calls one away from the vocation of self-gratification toward a vocation that requires responsibility and self-sacrifice.I listened to that speech during the Massachusetts fiasco. The mainstream media either chose to ignore this speech or failed to do its research.(Alan Keyes, Rally in defense of marriage, May 14, 2004 http://renewamerica.us/archives/speeches/04_05_14boston.htm)
You missed my point. Don't you find it odd that he thought it appropriate to personalize his argument by agreeing to apply his description to Mary Cheney, when it is clear now that he had a lesbian daughter of his own?
My feeling, particularly in light of the fact that his own daughter is a lesbian (something he was apparently unwilling to make public at the time of his interview), is that he should have said something like, "I don't see why you need to personalize it - there are numerous people engaged in that lifestyle - but I stand by my position on the topic."
Not, [Is Mary Cheney a selfish hedonist?] - "Well DUH! Yes, of course she is!"
Does that bug-eyed silliness you routinely engage in ever get tiresome? Just curious...
Condescension when quoting scripture references is always so very impressive.
Alan Keyes is a real Christian; loving your daughter doesn't mean being a pushover. Also, can you explain how this incident is a case of throwing stones from glass houses?
You are assuming exactly what the media assumed, that "hedonism" was meant to be derogatory. It was not.
In the interview, Keyes defined homosexuality as selfish hedonism, exactly as he had done before, in the context of marriage. He is on record explaining that his use of the word "hedonism" was not meant to be a pejorative (look up the word), and was not exclusive to homosexuality.
When asked by the gay reporter if Mary Cheney fit that description of a selfish hedonist, he said, "Of course she is. By definition, of course she is."
Since then, the media has reported it as Keyes "lashing out" at the VEEP's daughter, calling her a "hedonistic sinner," and making a personal attack.
Nonsense.
Some might ask, if the media was wrong, why hasn't Keyes challenged them and laid this issue to rest? I've found numerous examples where he actually has tried. The media just, again, either refuses to report it or is incredibly inept at simple online research.
Search the transcripts of interviews Keyes has done on this subject. Here is one:
EILEEN: I want to ask you this question: this past week, we hosted a program, and you might have heard it, with Steven Bennett, who is a reformed homosexual man. He spoke recently at a church in Oak Park, and that was characterized actually as "hate speech." But you recently made some comments about the issue in regards to Mary Cheney as a "selfish hedonist"--hang on--most conservatives would agree, I think, with me that we love the sinner, we hate the sin. Were your remarks about that too harsh?The above link has an MP3 file of this exchange. The crowd reaction is worth it.KEYES: First of all, this is, again, an area of fabrication by the media. I never raised Mary Cheney's name.
EILEEN: No, I know you don't. I am sorry.
KEYES: I never raised it, never brought her up. She was not on my mind.
EILEEN: That's right.
KEYES: They asked me about gay marriage, and I pointed out that you can't take gay sexual relations, which are essentially self-regarding pursuit of pleasure--that is, "selfish hedonism"--and make it the basis of marriage, since, in principle, marriage is focused on procreation, and procreation involves . . .
[cheering, applause]
--selflessness, responsibility, the ability to commit yourself to which is not about . . .
EILEEN: [talking over] Why'd you take the bait, Alan? Why'd you take the bait?
KEYES: . . . to commit yourself to that which is not about your own pleasure or fulfillment.
JAY: Excuse me.
KEYES: Let me finish, please.
[crowd reacts, cheers]
EILEEN: Let him finish.
JAY: Well, when I let you finish, I'll never get a word in edgewise.
EILEEN: Not true.
KEYES: You asked the question . . .
JAY: I didn't ask it.
KEYES: . . . and before I can finish answering the question, you're interrupting.
Then, the media people raised the question, "Well, Mary Cheney who is well-known and has come out and said she's lesbian--does that mean that she is a selfish hedonist?"
And my response was the only possible response of a person with any integrity. Because I had just said, right, that gay sexual relations involve selfish hedonism, if I had said, "Well, no, it doesn't apply to her," or I had acted as if I was running away from the question, then I give the impression that, if you're the Vice President's daughter, if you're a Republican, if you're somebody that I care about, or whatever, then the truth doesn't apply to you, and I am a hypocritical elitist who wants to apply truth to others, but not to my own.
[applause]
But I'll tell you the truth of it: I am not. The truth is the truth.
I will stand for it in public. I will stand for it in private. I will stand for it because that's where God wants me to stand, and I won't be backed off!
[loud cheering, applause]
And so, at the end of the day . . .
[applause continues]
All I said was . . .
[applause continues]
All I said was is that if she is engaging in such sexual relations, then, by definition, she falls in this category.
And so, it wasn't I. I singled nobody out. I targeted no one. I raised nobody's family--because I don't. It was, once again, the media. The scandal-mongering media. The media that wants profit at the expense of every shred of integrity in American public life, who have been acting according to a conflict of interest. How can they report fair information, when they make money by forcing candidates to buy paid media? When are we going to look at the truth?
http://renewamerica.us/archives/media/interviews/04_10_02wls.htm
Maybe her moral failings are a result of Keyes' failings as a father.
Yeah right, her sins are his fault, I don't think it works that way. How could he possibly condon her nasty lifestyle. He loves her alright, and she is the one who projected her hatred toward her father by living this unatural lifestyle, he would welcome her with open arms if she repented.
She's not a shame nor an embarassment. If she finds a good woman to "bond with" monogomously, or whatever, then more power to her.
Sounds to me like you condon homosexuality and the way you talk your probably one so I will pray for you and her to see the light.
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.