Chicagoland FReepers ay Keyes/Bush Kickoff Picnic
Posted on 09/02/2004 1:57:29 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
yes. and for an alan supporter, you just made a pretty gracious admission.
Daniel's sense of polity and propriety actually came to mind with me regarding ALAN and his need to emulate wisdom towards party leadership last election. I thought it would be fruitless to bring it up again. Very smart guy, Daniel.
The truth is, there is NOT more than a very very few republicans, who would not get at least a tiny "evil republican" grin out of alan winning in illinois, especially since it is a longshot senate seat in Mayor Daley's breadbasket.
thanks for bringing up the Daniel example
Nonsense, and I resent your implication.
I can disagree with Keyes and not support Obama. I am not an Illinois voter, and so I'm not faced with having to support an untrustworthy Republican in the face of a Democrat alternative.
That leaves my conscience clear. Keyes is a flip-flopper, and I have no problem with calling him on it.
versus the homosexual model of (snicker) marriage?
the best one is the natural law/reality argument. it is to date, irrefutable. 'plumbing'
that's it. 'light bulb' and 'light bulb socket'
'if it don't fit, you WANT to quit... ' comes to mind. the "sin" and "sinner" hellfire may or may not be true in the eyes and minds of some. but if the parts don't line up, what's the use in rubbing two light bulbs together?
folks can do their same sex stuff all they want. he11, they can do homosex, animasex or monosex. Virtually, everybody alive has done the monosex thing at one time or another... but the problem is 'the glove just don't fit'...
natural law. plugs and sockets. 'the best way is the way that fits the best...' God can deal with the sin, the sinner, the morals or morality, the abomination or not. That moralistic stuff, though it may be right, at times confuses, angers or terrorises people, resulting in rebellion and further confusions... but will NEVER change behavior.
"if it don't fit" works as the irrefutable selling point (not an argument), for the same reason 'microwave' ovens are in almost every household, and office in america... it fits the need and it works the best for what it is designed.
Some folks say "Do it God's way or else." and make enemies of everyone who doesn't agree with their list of dos and don'ts.
But wisdom says "Do it the right way because it works, and is usually a LOT more fun." (and the fact is that is WHY God designed it that way to begin with.)
We need to let those who don't get it, find out in their own way, what will work and what does not... and with most of us, in some area or another... this takes a lifetime. The proof of that is that: the day you stop sinning, is never before the day you go to the morgue.
as far as defending marriage from gays?
We need to defend it from ourselves first. Christians of all strypes and denominations have dishonored traditional marriage at a rate of higher than fifty percent across the board. WE do more damage to marriage by covenant breaking and moral failures at fifty percent of the professing Christian population than do gays at 1.5 percent (even most of those gays dont really want to be legally married.)
Gay marriage is a JOKE and we all need to stop fearing their demands... a GAY person with another GAY person cannot possibly EVER be married... which drives them nuts. BECAUSE their plumbing is not right. Every really married couple KNOWS this...
as a result, no marriage amendment, will ever make REALITY of their desire to be normal, in their plumbing department, unless they opt for self mutilation. This too is but an admission that their glove is not fitting.
Gay marriages are a trendy thing, soon to pass in the next trendy wind. It's just not possible for their IMAGINED world to become the REAL one... marriage licenses cannot create an actual alternate reality.
Putting two lightbulbs in the same box will never make them a lamp. You can even put a label on that box that calls them a lamp. But you won't get a foot candle's worth of light out of them. Whether the government tells you they are lamp or not, you will still stub your toe on the couch... if you don't get a lamp and bulb plugged together properly.
imo it is the best 'defense of marriage' there is. REALITY.
Unfortunately, Keyes articulates a position that's closer to the Constitution Party, rather than, at least in my cousin's case, the average Chicago 'burb Republican voter (which is moderate to conservate, but fiscal conservative). He's only going to attract social and religious conservatives, but in order to win an election, he has to appeal to more than that. And, unfortunately for Keyes, he has a white-hot personality, and, in this election and in this state, it does not appeal to a broader cross-section of voters. The "outsider" aspect was bad enough. Acting like a flame thrower to get free publicity, rather than paid advertising (where he could control the message, rather than the media covering him controlling the message) has acted to his detriment--and Keyes himself has acted to his own detriment.
The Illinois GOP was in bad bad shape prior to Alan Keyes appearing on the scene, what with the Ryan scandals (George and Jack). Watching them implode this way is like a train wreck: you know it's coming buy you just can't turn away.
You have a position - that's for sure.
If I had as little as you, I'd be stingy with it too.
So you just ran out then, right?
Missionary...
This topic is not my area of expertise. But cincinati asked a serious question which is rarely answered.
I suspect a good answer would be that men and women are different emotionally, not just in plumbing. The family is the first level of government. The parents govern the children. In past times the extended family governed the clan. They are the first line of social control, before the "village" steps in.
Within that "family" the woman has a civilizing influence on the man. The man is inherently aggressive, which can be turned into protector or destroyer. The woman controls the man emotionally so that the aggessive desires of the man are harnessed for the benefit of the family and society. '
In a single sex family of men, they are aggressive, no matter how much they try to be feminine. In a single sex family of women, they are dependent. When they don't have a man to depend on, they depend on government and a government leader to empathize with them and provide, not just the financial support, but the emotional attachment.
In short, men and women are different. Vive la differance.
/sorry for my french/
You may imply whatever you like about me, sir. I care not.
I would prefer that you address the substance of my post, but understand if you would rather make veiled comments about me.
I will do my best to resist the temptation to damn them and only drive them further into the pit of the lost.
I think these approaches are more productive and therefore, since my goal is to change hearts, find this far more desirable than the paths Keyes chooses.
As demonstrated by your post(s), the irony is that the stubbornly anti-Keyes folks are as piously self-righteous as they *claim* Keyes to be.
You insist Keyes is going about it "the wrong way", whereas you are the only ones in the right.
If a homosexual were to ask you "Is homosexuality immoral?" would you answer truthfully ("Yes") or would you duck the question or even lie to not "offend" him? If you choose the former, you're choosing exactly what Keyes is. If you choose the latter, why would a word you type be trustworthy?
Implying that Keyes, or any of us who agrees with him, is "damning" people indicates you need to study Matthew 7:1-5 until you actually understand it.
The substance of your remarks seems to be that Keyes is a 'flip-flopper' on the reparations issue, and on the carpet-bagging issue.
I think his reparations notion is unwise, but I think the 'carpet-bagger' matter is trifling, in the overall context of the Illinois election.
Do you really think that socialist Obama BETTER represents the true interests of Illinoisans?
I only wish that I could vote for a politician who holds only one or two infelicitous positions on public matters.
It seems to me that you have barricaded yourself into an anti-Keyes position because of the man's irascible take-no-prisoners attitude towards government social engineering.
I find his clarity refreshing, even if his manner is off-putting.
Thanks for your post. I too simply submit that it is a matter of self-evident truth, of a very obvious observation.
HERE'S WHAT SOMEONE POSTED IN THE IL LEADER FORUM:
Quote: Originally posted by G & T on 31 August 2004
Marriage is a spiritual union, a sacrament, between man, woman and God. Marriage has many other social, health, religious and financial purposes besides rearing children. In marriage vows of fidelity and companionship are exhanged before God. Children are secondary to the primary relationship of marriage.
AND SOMEONE RESPONDED:
Quote: Originally posted by JCJanko on 31 August 2004
Why is it only between man and woman? Why in the world couldn't two men do the same?
MY RESPONSE:
Because it is not. That is like saying, "Why can't this rusty nail be a flower?" It is simply not.
Marriage is a living metaphor for the relationship between Christ and His Bride, his collective church. See Ephesians 5:25-33. Christ is the masculine husband; the bride is feminine.
Men are men; women are women. Marriage is a marriage, which is between a man and a woman. A rusty nail is a rusty nail. A flower is a flower.
Thomas Jefferson referred to "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God." They have always been the same and will continue to be. It is utterly self-evident that a man and a woman may marry and yes, this living metaphor bearing the eternal, mysterious themes of masculine and feminine genders, is one which bears fruit, according to the laws of nature and nature's God.
Even plants do not bear fruit, if there is no male/female combination.
BTW, my Bible study is just fine and I don't need your comments when you know nothing of my spiritual commitment, whatsoever.
May I suggest to you that you remember the most important instruction from Jesus; love one another.
I would gladly tell a homosexual that his/her lifestyle is immoral, but I would speak in a manner that invited the person to think of God and pray; not try to change him/her by name calling.
Yours and Keyes' position seem to be essentially the same. Marriage is more than mere procreation. However, bearing fruit, that is bearing and educating children is inseparable from the other end of marriage, namely the mutual love and support of the spouses.
Perhaps, it is only that some do not like Keyes' articulation of the meaning of marriage.
The best solution is to cut off the courts, beginning with the federal courts. They are drunk with power.
Gay marriage is a JOKE and we all need to stop fearing their demands... a GAY person with another GAY person cannot possibly EVER be married... which drives them nuts. BECAUSE their plumbing is not right. Every really married couple KNOWS this...
You were right. Gay marriage was a joke. Now it is being taken seriously. Licenses are issued in Massachusetts. That I do not take lightly.
That moralistic stuff, though it may be right, at times confuses, angers or terrorises people, resulting in rebellion and further confusions... but will NEVER change behavior.
Here you go awry. Law does make a difference. If the law says marriage is whatever anyone wants it to be, it teaches confusion. (Of course, the law doesn't really say that, even in Massachusetts: only the dictates of an absurd bench of tyrants posing as judges.)
Do you really think that socialist Obama BETTER represents the true interests of Illinoisans?
I do, actually. But that's saying something about my opinion of the majority of Illinosians than anything else.
I don't trust politicians who change their stripes when it suits them. I don't trust Keyes anymore. I don't trust him not to change his mind on the things I still agree with. Anyone so mercenary as to flip-flop on reparations could change his mind on other subjects.
I have to ask what exactly is it about Obama that would make him good for Illinois? The more I read, the more information I put together, the more I am firm in my belief that he is not fit to run for any public office.
C'mon, let's start behaving like adults, not blind, fawning adoring children. It is important to bring reality to this candidate and not idolize him. We have to be honest, fair, and objective. At least, that is my hope for the voters of the State of Illinois.
Barack Obama's keynote speech at the DNC was just a Clinton redux.
We as citizens are not being served well by this blind devotion (Mark Brown has compared him to Lincoln; The Reader to Jesus Christ) to Obama, who should be scrutinized just like any politician.
Who is Barack Obama? Well first of all, for a long time, he went by the name "Barry". He is an intelligent University of Chicago professor, which is not to be sneezed at, and a lawyer who serves Hyde Park and the Gold Coast in Springfield (in the 2002 election, half of his votes came from three wards -- those representing the Gold Coast, Hyde Park, and South Shore). This, along with the fact that he was born and raised in Hawaii and Indonesia -- make his stump speech line about being "from the South Side of Chicago" not a lie, exactly, but a little misleading. And makes the people who call Dr. Keyes a "carpetbagger" look like fools. If you grew up in Indonesia and tout yourself as a native of the South Side of Chicago, who's flip flopping and who is really the carpetbagger?
Mr. Obama's record in the state legislature is spotty and has raised certain questions about his supposed idealism.
http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=BS030017&PHPSESSID=a7090747d72cb8e1f5238fb867de2bb4
Most notoriously, he raised displeasure with portions of the gay and lesbian community when he co-sponsored Senate Bill 101 (SB101) -- which added the phrase "sexual orientation" to a civil rights act -- but failed to do much lobbying for it personally, and didn't reach out to the black caucus for their support. Some said he was tippy-toeing around the issue to avoid confronting some powerful black church groups that opposed the change; this was while representing mainly Hyde Park and surrounding areas and the Gold Coast.
Later, there was the issue of a parity pay bill for Illinois homemakers, HB4176. This bill was the result of years of hard work by a large, low-income union, which had expended enormous resources pushing and lobbying the bill. The union had thrown rabid support behind Obama in the primaries, spending the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of dollars in manhours to get him the nomination. Many of these workers were women, many elderly, who spent weeks out in the freezing Chicago winters registering voters and attending rallies. When the bill reached Mr. Obama's committee for a vote, he tried to transfer it to another committee to avoid having to cast a vote himself. Why? Perhaps he feared angering a rival union which was slightly smaller but had more political muscle.
Not exactly a profile in courage.
Then there is the behavior of his campaign during the primary, which could be considered by some as less than admirable.
Lynn Sweet of the Sun-Times, an admirer of Obama, pointed out the needless and suspicious secrecy of his campaign, especially its fundraising arm. His chief media advisor, David Axelrod, was an advisor to the Clinton campaign who had railed against the politics of personal destruction in the 1990s. Axelrod was also once a columnist for the Tribune and an advisor to Mayor Daley.
Last month, the Tribune finally admitted that it was Axelrod and the Obama campaign that brought pressure on the press to demand the unsealing of M. Blair Hull divorce records, which had had their contents leaked to media outlets by the Obama campaign even earlier. The Obama campaign also helped orchestrate a demonstration by women's groups demanding Hull's withdrawal from the race. Coincidentally, this was the same weekend Obama's first commercials hit the airwaves. Interestingly (or maybe not), the same exact thing happened to another of his rivals--Jack Ryan. Certainly gives one pause.
Then there was the DLC incident. The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) is a centrist group of Democrats reviled by progressives, who feel it is "republicanizing" the party. Bill Clinton was a DLC Democrat and was integral in early in his political career in shaping its philosophy; Clinton was one of the first national DLC Democrats. African American Democratic leaders are especially likely to be hostile to the DLC -- so much so that the Rev. Jesse Jackson once referred to it as the "Democratic Legacy of the Confederacy." While jockeying for notoriety within the party, Obama made himself known to the DLC and allowed himself to be listed on their list of "100 To Watch"; when the on-line Black Commentator condemned the move and pointed out that his association with the DLC was utterly anathema to his progressive public face, Mr. Obama was recalcitrant and asked the DLC to remove his name from a DLC directory, a directory which he said "implies membership," and is often used by lobbyists to see where to spread money.
Yet after the primaries, when Mr. Obama was selling himself downstate as a "moderate" (HA!), he repeatedly insisted his "signature legislation" -- the eight to 10 pieces of legislation he highlighted in his campaign literature -- he had passed with bi-partisan support. Yet of these 10 pieces of legislation, he passed eight between the time he set up his Senate Exploratory Committee in April of 2003 to his official announcement of candidacy in August; before that, he has no significant legislation passed under his name, especially when the state government was conrolled by a slim Republican majority.
To wit:
• Clean Air Act, passed February 2004
• KidCare Expansion, passed August 2003
• Ethics Bill (SB 702--Chief Sponsor Susan Garrett), passed June 2003
• Videotaped Interrogations, passed August 2003
• Earned Income Tax Credit, passed August 2003
• Country of Origin Labelling, passed in July 2003
• Tuition Limit Increase, enacted January 2004; passed previous summer.
Then there is the Death Penalty Moratorium (S233, HR1038), BTW an ACLU cause, a piece of legislation that by no means can be attributed to any one legislator; remember, the Governor gave this executive order in 2000.
The point is simply that Mr. Obama is no different from the leftiest leftist Democratic politicians (aka Billary and SKERRY), that I can see, in terms of record and policy -- rather he is a talented speaker, certainly passionate, a handsome face, and a shrewd, even ruthless and slick politician with a great desire to win; but he has had trouble maintaining his ideals while serving Hyde Park and the Gold Coast in a relatively anonymous office. When he has to balance the entire state of Illinois, he may have even more trouble.
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=7592
Then there is the conspicuous vacuum on illegal aliens. The fact of the matter is, illegal immigration, especially illegal immigration from Mexico, is hurting Black Americans. If Democratic candidates ever getting around to speaking the truth, they will have to tell Black voters that illegal immigration is taking jobs away from Black Americans, cutting into resources available for welfare, and restructuring public schools and many urban areas. In short, the votes of Latinos are brought by the Democrats at the expense of Black America.
As the Democrat's ''multicultural'' candidate, Barack Obama has little to say about this multicultural issue. You can read his position papers and look at his website and find no recognition that illegal immigration from Mexico is hurting Black Americans. One has to wonder what kind of immigration policy Obama will vote for if he ever becomes a U. S. Senator. One has to wonder even more why Black Americans continue to vote Democratic, when the Democrats are not looking out for their interests.
The Obama campaign has been silent too long on the issue of illegal immigration and its impact on Black Americans in Illinois. Nor have other prominent Democrats like Mayor Daley of Chicago, or Jesse Jackson and his son spoken out about the impact of this issue. Black Americans like basketball player Michael Jordan, who gave $10,000, also contribute money to the Obama campaign without questioning Obama's stand on illegal immigration.
Then there is the issue of Illinois voters and their 2nd Amendment Rights. The Illinois State Rifle Association recently published a warning to voters about Obama and his position on the 2nd Amendment. The ISRA warned the state's 1.5 million law-abiding firearm owners not to be taken in by Barack Obama's recent claims of support for the 2nd Amendment published in downstate newspapers. It turns out that Obama has a well- established history of hostility toward hunters, sportsmen, and other law-abiding firearm owners.
This man is supposedly a Constitutional Lawyer who would take an oath to defend our Constitution, but it seems to me that he is not behaving as though he has know knowledge of and doesn't understand what’s in it!!!
The final and perhaps the most astounding point of interest is that Barack Obama voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2000, HR 2175. "Allowing certain unwanted babies whose mothers were induced into labor early in the child's development to be born, and then leaving those babies on a shelf in a hospital soiled utility room was a practice of infanticide," said former Senator Patrick O'Malley (R-Palos Park).
O'Malley said that Obama is a well-educated Harvard Law School graduate and has no excuse for not defending innocent persons such as babies who have just been born alive.
"Barack Obama is a constitutional lawyer," O'Malley said today. "He is on the wrong side of Dred Scott on this one. The legislation I introduced would have protected infants who are born alive with a beating heart and breathing lungs. He was opposed to protecting those babies."
This shocking revelation should clearly illustrate that Obama is no "moderate". Voting against that bill is extreme, even for supporters of abortion in general.
But perhaps these arguments are not enough for you to back up my very reasonable point that Mr. Obama is, in fact, a human being who should be taken to task. So then you should ask yourself: Why do you adore him so much, specifically? What is unique to his ideas that you don't find anywhere else? And what did you know about him outside of his own campaign rhetoric -- that's called "spin" in somebody else's campaign?
Am I saying he is a ‘bad man’? Well not exactly. But I have not heard a single valid reason why this guy should be compared to Lincoln. It is my nature to resist deification; this is just a man. People are already assuming this guy will be the first black president because he was able to pass a few pieces of legislation the summer before he ran for senate which is ridiculous.
This guy is human. He has faults, and ultimately, is little more than a politician -- I say that because I'm looking at his record; what he has actually done, as well as what he has proposed for the future. So go ahead; I'm willing to hear more arguments as to why this man is perfect and the greatest hope for America since Franklin Delano Roosevelt ...except I'd like to hear about something other than his youth, attractiveness and good speaking voice. Adoration is laziness, and laziness can never serve us as voters and citizens.
As responsible voters who care about Illinois, we must take a look at our candidates and who they really are and what they stand for, not the image or the campaign rhetoric.
As far as the Constitution is concerned, and Constitutional issues for the State of Illinois Senate seat, and for that matter this country, I would much rather have someone who defends that document and understands what’s in it, rather than someone who finds excuses not to. And that man is Dr. Alan Keyes, NOT Barack Obama.
Chicagoland FReepers ay Keyes/Bush Kickoff Picnic
Awesome pic!
Wish I could have joined you.
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.