Alan Keyes Is Making Sense - Tonights Show! - What constitutes evil in light of 9/11?

PMSNBC ^ | 01/22/02 | Guest Appearance: Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family

[CounterCounterCulture]

I'll have to tape it and watch it later (just like last night because I went down to see the California GOP Gubernatorial debate)

Should be an interesting forum on the death penalty tonight.

[torn]

I never got the impression that Alan was anything but cordial to the guests. He DID use them, but she had nothing new to say and we all knew what she was going to say next. Alan was just being frugal with his time. Also, I watch the show to hear Alan's insights and thoughts not a bunch of regular Jeans and Joes, I've got plenty of them at work. If he uses them as a springboard so what.

[boltfromblue]

I agree with you re Alan's use of time. I was so impressed with his ability to pick up the pace of interchange with his first guest on his first show, a legal authority on military tribunals, WITHOUT speaking until he had finished a thought or stated a 'fact' at which point, as in O'Reilly, he gives his POV and/or follow question re the guest's statement.
Why let a disagreed-with statement slide, inferring acceptance, until one has to remember 5 points as the guest goes on with more debatable remarks, then answer them out-of order and we not know which response includes which statement by guest? Isn't that how some lies and inaccuracies get by even O'Reilly?

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

If he uses them as a springboard so what.

People who like him (and his style) were cheering, no doubt. I don't happen to care for watching someone ask a regular "Jean" or "Joe" a question without actually listening to their answer. If they're there, listen to them. Or at least let the audience listen to them.

[boltfromblue]

These things surely need to be heard commonly everywhere. This week I was at a poetry reading in CA where a young Korean? man read a poem on 9/11 and violence. The women I saw, not me!, moaned when he labeled women who abort as murderers. He inspires me to write my own, which I have told him.

[torn]

I could be wrong but it looks like this portion of the show is designed for Alan to lead a discussion in a short timeframe. He did let them talk and express views. He did not let them run unchecked. I can see where it could be upsetting if someone championing your viewpoint gets cut off, but the English teacher was sitting on his hands and the young lady was about to provide the same old arguments, after tipping her hand Alan ran with it. Listen, it ain't perfect but its a lot better than most of the programs out there.

[torn]

I agree, that is a comon debate tactic used on TV to run out the clock. He must interject when an assailable comment is made, or they will talk through the entire segment making a series of questionable or false statements. Talk about a no spin zone!

[Aquinasfan]

. He must interject when an assailable comment is made, or they will talk through the entire segment making a series of questionable or false statements.

Absolutely.

[bvw]

Sekulow's whole arguiment was only case law history -- case law tends to degrade over time as snippets of legal reasonings are cut and pasted hither and yon. You've got to re-mark to fundamentals now and again. Keyes points and arguments are based on fundamentals -- the root of both law and common law.

You may have found Sekulow persuasive, I didn't.