Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Alan Keyes on Hannity and Colmes LIVE THREAD

Posted on 08/21/2003 6:10:47 PM PDT by VeryUnprogressive

Alan Keyes smoking Alan Colmes over the Alabama Ten Commandments issue! Tune in!


TOPICS: Announcements; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: colmes; debate; hannity; keyes; tencommandments
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 341-345 next last
To: VeryUnprogressive
Just so you know... I like Alan Keyes very much. My word, the man is so articulate. I just love to hear him expound on any subject. He could teach me how to make toast, and I would listen - enraptured at his use of words.
281 posted on 08/22/2003 5:07:01 AM PDT by carton253 (All I need to know about Islam I learned on 9/11/2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TBP
Congress is not allowed under the First Amendment to make any law regarding this one way or another, and without a Federal law on the matter, the Federal courts have no jurisdiction over it. This is simply judicial tyranny.

After three pages of sound and fury, you seem to have been the first to post the full position of Keyes in your Post #255. I recommend others go back and read it.

Keyes is dead-on. This is an issue of Federal judges making law from the bench on a subject which Congress has been specifically prohibited from making law by the First Amendment. Therefore, no decree by a Federal judge on this subject has force of legitimate law behind it, only their own judicial precedent and interpretation via their own constuct.

This is a genuine States Rights matter under the 10th Amendment. Congress has no say in the matter. Unless it is Congress trying to set up a specific Sect as a State Religion neither do Federal judges. This is just a huge power grab by unelected Federal judges. Calling this situation "obeying the law" is no different than having a Federal judge ordering you without trial to a concentration camp and then having everyone in the enforcement chain obey the order because they are "obeying the law". There is no applicable law. It is Judicial Tyranny, pure and simple. They are trying to cloak it in the words of the First Amendment, which says precisely the opposite!

There is no Federal law saying Alabama can't post whatever they wish in their own Courthouse - only Federal Judicial fiat which goes against the very words and meaning of the Constitution. Judge Moore stands on solid Constitutional grounds. The Feds are being exposed, not just in this but in their entire long, miserable train of usurptions in this matter. This entire thing started in 1962 when they threw prayer out of public schools and they have been making law out of the same phony whole cloth ever since.

282 posted on 08/22/2003 5:54:10 AM PDT by Gritty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Those_Crazy_Liberals
Well, yes, actually it does.

That gravitas line didn't work for the Dims in 2000, and it doesn't work now.

283 posted on 08/22/2003 6:24:50 AM PDT by savedbygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
England had forms of pre-trinity Christianity -- the Roman Catholics eradicated it. Rashi script is similar the celtic miniscule used in the illuminated texts. Semitic influences in England may date back to Solomon's times, and the Phoenician
The deposits of tin in the ancient world were usually small and not very plentiful. The Phoenicians discovered the tin deposits of the British Isles through their own exploring and seeking out of new products and markets for them. They kept the knowledge of the Cornish tin mines a closely guarded secret so they could control trade in the metal and charge a high price for it. After the Punic wars, Carthage, the one remaining city of the Phoenicians, became less and less an important economic power. With their well - known efficiency and thoroughness, the Romans counted access to the British tin mines as one of the advantages of conquering the island. Julius Caesar knew of the importance of British tin when he invaded the island in 55 to 54 B.C. After the conquest of Britain during the reign of Claudius, the Romans were in control of most of the world's supply of the metal. Hence, the closely guarded treasure secret of Britain's tin passed hands from the Phoenicians to the Romans.

The fact that tin trade existed is too well attested to need proof. Herodotus as early as 445 BC speaks of the British Isles as the Tin Islands or Cassiterides. Pytheas (352-323 BC) mentions the tin trade, as does also Polybius (circa 160). Diodorus Siculus gives a detailed description of the trade. He tells us that the tin was mined, beaten into squares, and carried to an island called Ictis, joined to the mainland at low tide, which is generally held to be Mount St. Michael in Cornwall, although some have identified it with Falmouth. Thence it was shipped to Morlais, and transported across France on pack horses to Marseilles. From Marseilles it was again shipped to Phoenicia. Innumerable ancient workings in Cornwall still attest the trade, and tin is still mined there today. Lord Avebury and Sir John Evans held the opinion that the trade existed as early as 1500 BC, and Sir Edward Creasy in his History of England writes: "The British mines mainly suppled the glorious adornment of Solomon's Temple". This matter ties in very well with the involvement of Phoenician builders with construction of Solomon's Temple.

(Source: Britain, Phoenicia's Secret Treasure, and its Conversion to Christianity, The Legendary Tin Mines of Cornwall )


284 posted on 08/22/2003 6:35:13 AM PDT by bvw (Xavier Cugat I ain't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Petty remarks come from what kind of people?

Get a grip. When you have lost all sense of humor, you might as well cash it in.

I noticed that the instigator of this thread got the axe. Hmmmmmm.....what does that say about who and what Alan Keyes is all about and who his greatest fans are?

I feel sorry for all of you that pant over the thought of touching the hem of his garment. It's pathetic.

285 posted on 08/22/2003 6:48:19 AM PDT by Southflanknorthpawsis (If you keep beating around the bush, you only get dizzy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
The first part of my last post should have been italicized to show your quote.

Petty remarks come from what kind of people?

286 posted on 08/22/2003 6:49:54 AM PDT by Southflanknorthpawsis (If you keep beating around the bush, you only get dizzy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: Robert_Paulson2
"So you see, it was not a principal for foundation of our national government or even the state of Virginia, but was the postion DEBATED and then REJECTED by the founders present in the Virginia state house, supported by Madison's legal and historical arguments...

Then you also know that in order for a debate to take place there has to be discussion on both sides of the issue.

You also must be aware that Henry was comfortable with ending the church's taxing power in the new government. He did express concern that the people might not meet their obligations to the church.

I wonder what he might think of todays temporal landscape where it is the churches that are not meeting their obligations to the people.

287 posted on 08/22/2003 6:53:16 AM PDT by fightu4it (conquest by immigration and subversion spells the end of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
The Baron is a Archtype. In the sense of Jungian archetypes. One thing the concept-Baron represents is, is an acceptance of a lowered understanding of the world -- an understanding through anthropomorphic metaphor, also a rebellious refusal to understand things or accept the truth of some deep matters be re-casting them in such metaphors. (Casting as used in the second telling of the ten statements in Deutronomy --- "Cast no gods".)

That is, you, yourself, according to me, may have issues you are not dealing with straight up, the way a man should, and that comes out in your recourse to online "multiple personas". I speak from afar, only knowing you from observation over a few years as a regular poster. I am not even saying that there is no good in dealing with issues in this way on your part. Look at James Thurber! Look at many a professional comedian, actor, author -- many times they too deal with such very perosnal issues through means of story-telling and role-playing. There's some creative juice in it.

I'm just putting a proposition before you. Are you all you can be?

288 posted on 08/22/2003 6:55:26 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
I really have to chuckle at your post #279. You are either gullible enough to have bought into the "newbie" claim or you pretended to.

Perhaps your ability to discern is lacking or you like to pretend. Either way, it isn't flattering.

I love the whine about the ad hominem crap. Don't you get it? Keyes does and has turned people off enough to make most of what he says lost on his pompous, know-it-all manner.

If that is what one leads with, the "attitude" tends to take center stage. Thus, criticism of him is justifiably focused on the very thing that he pushes most; that no-one-knows-better-than-I routine. He's too puffed up and for many observers, it's distracting enough to drown out his words.

I realize that you Keyes worshipers cannot understand this because you have this idol fixation. Funny.....he depends on suckers like you to make a living for himself.

289 posted on 08/22/2003 7:15:26 AM PDT by Southflanknorthpawsis (If you keep beating around the bush, you only get dizzy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
This is my last post to you, and my only advice is this....get some more books, because using only Thomas Jefferson as a reference is not a balanced view of anything. It is also not relevant fact when taking his personal letters out of context.
290 posted on 08/22/2003 7:38:51 AM PDT by MarthaNOStewart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
Thanks for the heads up!
291 posted on 08/22/2003 7:46:38 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
I saw an interesting sign the other day. It said, "Hating someone is like drinking poison and waiting for the other person to die."

Exactly. Hatred and anger only hurt you, not the person at whom they are directed. That is why we must forgive, forgive, and forgive. If nothing else, do it because it is in your own self-interest.

292 posted on 08/22/2003 7:49:25 AM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: RLK
You don't need to be a Christian to see the threat to all religions in what this Federal judge is trying to do.

It is as bad to impose Atheism (which the Supreme Court itself has admitted is a religion) on the populace as to impose any Christian or other religion by law. Prohibiting the practice of religions is what totalitarian states do, not free republics like the United Staes of America.

And aren't the Ten Commandments Jewish anyway?
293 posted on 08/22/2003 7:53:43 AM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: Republic
I am sure Barbra Striesand, Robby Reiner, Tommy Hanks, Woody Harrelson, etc would agree with you-in spades.

Exactly the word that their kind would use, too.

294 posted on 08/22/2003 7:55:34 AM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Southflanknorthpawsis
Thus, criticism of him is justifiably focused on the very thing that he pushes most; that no-one-knows-better-than-I routine.

Which he has never said, claimed, or implied, as you know VERY WELL. But go on saying ti anyway. If you repeat something enough, it will become true, right?

295 posted on 08/22/2003 8:05:37 AM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan; Southflanknorthpawsis; Amelia; Scenic Sounds
If you haven't already noticed, it's a gang of ten or so. They show up on every Keyes thread. As to their motivation, your guess is as good as mine. Most of their attacks are ad hominem and content free, which leads me to suspect a personal vendetta of some kind.

Oh yes, because it couldn't possibly be that anyone would have trouble with Alan Keyes' public remarks and divisive nature. It must be personal. < /sarcasm >

I realize how impossible it is for you guys to believe that Keyes could make a mistake, but the truth is, he had most of "us" (BOO!) in his camp at one time or another. I used to like him quite a lot...but, as with John McCain, my opinion of him evolved.

I don't have a "personal vendetta" against McCain, either.

296 posted on 08/22/2003 8:12:41 AM PDT by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet (“I think your life expectancy was about 20 seconds." - Lloyd Keeland, USMC, veteran of Iwo Jima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
Well *I* believed he'd lurked long enough to know about "live threads" and how to post threads, but hadn't picked up on what a "newbie" or a "retread" was, didn't YOU? ;-)

Come to think of it, that's someone's M.O. (think "bait and switch"), and that someone used to work for Keyes.

297 posted on 08/22/2003 8:15:03 AM PDT by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet (“I think your life expectancy was about 20 seconds." - Lloyd Keeland, USMC, veteran of Iwo Jima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
As to their motivation, your guess is as good as mine.

Free Republic's rules prevent me from posting my guess.

298 posted on 08/22/2003 8:32:08 AM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet; Aquinasfan
but the truth is, he had most of "us" (BOO!) in his camp at one time or another.

Well, I know that this may come as a shock to some of you, but I myself was once a Keyes booster of sorts.

However, I really just don't understand what he's talking about in this current matter concerning the Ten Commandments monument. I had thought that he was saying that he recognized the law to be the law, but that he felt that, in the finest American tradition of civil disobedience, he was prepared as a matter of conscience to interfere with the operation of the law and cheerfully accept whatever penalty might result as a consequence. Last night, however, he seemed to be arguing that each of us have a right determine for ourselves what the law is on any particular matter. I'm not sure what that philosophy is, but it doesn't sound very conservative to me.

It's all very frightening, actually. ;-)

299 posted on 08/22/2003 8:34:05 AM PDT by Scenic Sounds (Conservatism never really loses; it simply changes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
I saw an interesting sign the other day. It said, "Hating someone is like drinking poison and waiting for the other person to die." I don't know if it's appropriate to you or not, but it's something to think about when you're feeling wrathful.

--------------------------------

I've thought about it. That's what wimps tell themselves to justify passivity, fear, confusion, and excessive inhibition when they are being abused, deceived, ridiculed, or otherwise wronged. Blandness is not spoken at my house. People get what they earn. A good kick in the behind is necessary corrective action.

300 posted on 08/22/2003 8:57:52 AM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 341-345 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson