Replies

It certainly puts him in more of the limelight than Alan Keyes. And for almost his entire life.

But that doesn't exactly make your point, does it?

Now, I'm not an expert on logic. I know enough to realize there is a lot I don't know. However, when I observe that Keyes has been politically active since before Bush was ever in the limelight, you said he ran for Congress in 1977. Was Keyes using Bush when he stood up for Jean Kilpatrick and liberty in America at the U.N.? Was Keyes using Bush when he ran for the Senate in Maryland twice? When he ran for President (twice)? When he has consistently and persistently spoke out for the unborn? The answer to all questions is obviously no. Bush had nothing to do with any of those decisions, and I think you know that. Yes, Bush also ran for President in 2000, but that had no bearing, as far as I can tell or you can prove, on Keyes' decision to run. So why are you trying to change the subject? That isn't one of your strongest points. Just so I'm clear: You do have some valid points. Presentation and perception are significant portions of politics. And, like you deem Keyes, I'm certain you would consider me a political failure because I have not achieved the level of political success that Bush has, OR because I have not been able to effectively present my arguments in a way that convinces you of what I believe. That is the way things go.

That said, I'm going to offer you some unsolicited constructive criticism. Contrary to what you may think, this is NOT a personal attack. You may, of course, disregard it for whatever reason you deem appropriate, but I've noticed a pattern, which until now I have not been able to identify.

You are consistently guilty of committing fallacies in logic. More often than not, I've observed you change the subject. You do this by either 1. Attacking the person, 2. considering Style over Substance, or 3. Appeal to (dubious) authority (such as when authorities or "experts" disagree). There are a host of others, as well, but to help in this matter, I recommend a wonderful text that you can find at http://www.atomicdog.com. It is called Introduction to Logic: Evaluating Arguments. It is a good book, and the online version is terrific (Multimedia rocks). Whether or not you agree with my assessment of your arguments, you should consider this book. At the least, it will, perhaps, help you to answer my objections to your opinions, because my understanding of the content of that book, regardless of how flawed you may think it is, is the basis of most of my analyses.

Because I understand how sensitive people can get when they are criticized (no matter the spirit in which it was offered), please feel free to lay one on me. I've got thick skin, so please don't hold back. Then, if you wish, we can get back on topic.

Gee, do you plan to test me after I do all that? You see, there's your and Keyes' problem right there. You talk it to death, and then insinuate that the person you're "discussing" something with needs to be "educated" because they aren't capable of understanding the English language -- or what Keyes means.

And no, Keyes wasn't "using" Bush back then, which makes my point. Nobody knew who he was back then. He was just another government worker. He may have been active in politics, like most of always have been, but lately, the only time he makes the news is when he criticizes Bush.

One of your problems is that you assume this is a debating society, with people scoring points. It's not; it's politics; rough and tumble, you know? You simply cannot LOGICALLY win.

As for your opinion of me and the "requirements" you set forth for my edification, you may think I'm obtuse; you may well think I'm a "lightweight;" you may think I'm not a "real conservative;" but, as I have said numerous times before, I'm happy in the company I'm in -- and I'm happy that most of us share the same opinions, goals, and reasonableness and acceptance of things that go on in the real world and willingness to work to better this country; I'm especially happy about how the majority of folks around here feel about Bush and Keyes. We're working FOR something, not against everything.

Your ideas are just that -- ideas -- and you've never been required to put them into action, since Keyes has never had an elected office. I can see how, sitting on the sidelines, it might be easier to just pontificate on "how it should be done." Those who actually get elected by a majority of people and take office have to live in the real world.

I'll quote again what somebody said about Keyes people:

"And, obediently, his army follows, tearing down instead of building up, dividing instead of joining forces, evidently delighting in being purer-than-thou rather than in actually moving the ball forward and doing something to roll back the culture of death."

Since by now it should be quite obvious to you that I do not like Alan Keyes, nor his tactics, and since it's obvious from your last post to me that you consider me incapable of carrying on an "intelligent" debate -- and since, regardless of what anyone may think, Alan Keyes is irrelevant -- let's just agree NOT to discuss this anymore.

BTW, I'm not so dumb that I don't realize that you weren't able to quote one time when either George W. Bush or the RNC has spoken ill of Alan Keyes. Too bad the same can't be said of Alan Keyes.

Let's just give it a rest; you can comfort yourself knowing you've enlightened me, however "unsubstantive" I may be.