Posted on 02/14/2005 12:32:30 AM PST by RWR8189
Call it what you like, it is not my concern to discern other's motives for twisting and lying about what Keyes has said. I simply like to refute that dishonesty.
Why would Alan use her during his campaign with colors on (photos were displayed here when this first came up last fall) and then suddenly decide to cut her off?
I don't know. You characterize it as using her. I don't know if it was or not. This is what he said about his daughter in respect to body surfing in a previous campaign, FWIW:
MANCOW: You said a lot of stuff that nobody else said and won't say. Basic things, commonsense things.KEYES: Well, I try.
MANCOW: And then you crowd surfed. Remember that?
KEYES: Oh, yes, indeed. I certainly do. I can thank my daughter for that. I'd thank her every day. I thank God for my daughter, but then I thank my daughter for the fact that she was the one, she was the only voice who piped up, "Dad, do it, Dad!"
See, everybody else was against it, and my daughter was for it, and anybody who has a daughter knows who won that one.
... To completely shut one out is going too far. There are many sins. How and where do you draw the line between what you let pass and where you draw a line in the sand.
Firt of all it's a family matter and I have no interest in judging how another man treats his wife or children unless he's abusing them.
The reason I have not posted one word about this is that I don't know the truth of it. She has obviously taken on the role of an activist with an agenda and her's is the only side of the story we have here.
If the situation is as simple and uncomplicated, without any precedent of family in-fighting between Alan and his daughter, as you and she portray it then I would agree that it sounds very harsh.
I am not a father I am not a Christian and I am not a moralist but if I did have children I would set boundaries for their behavior. I would state rules and consequences and I would follow through. Outright defiance would not be tolerated.
There is no love or compassion in ignoring willfully destructive behavior like that. To forgo the consequences you have set for your children is to abandon parental responsibility. There is zero love in that. If your child is past the age where you can rightfully exercise authority over them then they no longer have a right to live with you or expect sustenance from you.
Insisting that your parents provide you with security, shelter and sustenance while exercising you own adult free-will to engage in self-destructive behavior, or behavior that is antithetical to the standards of morality and ethics that they set for their own household, is to ask your parents to participate in it. That is the ethical maturity of a five yr. old.
A'yup. No one in their right mind would call you a conservative.
Scripture admonishes us to be as wise as serpents, and as innocent as doves. A young George Washington warned British General Braddock about the foolishness of European style maneuvers in the Appalachian wilderness during the French and Indian War. Braddock didn't listen, and his forces were successfully ambushed near present day Pittsburgh. Keyes, the academic, should pay more heed to those who are familiar with practical politics.
I believe if you read my thoughts regarding this, I've never supported him financing her behavior. It's his house, his right to pay for education, his right to tell her to go it on her own with regard to how she finds shelter, food and education. I have expressed concern about not speaking to her.
an Open line to counsel, not preach, to encourage and not judge is going to be necessary. Sometimes these situations are not all or nothing propositions. He must be careful to not entirely shut her out but always have some sort of open door to allow re-entry.
I think it's a tad pedantic to give such cautionary tips. I thing we all know "not speaking to her" is pretty much the colloquial way of saying "she can talk to me any time she likes, but she knows what the subject will be, and how it will turn out if we're going speak of anything else ever again."
A friend and I often joke when this occurs. It falls under the class of "that's different" when it applies to us.
According to the Catachism of Keyes religious tradition, that wouldn't have mattered anyway, but there is a VERY big difference between going to him and saying "Daddy, I'm a lesbian" and saying "Daddy, I'm a Queer."
What did Keyes say about Cheney's daughter? I want a direct quote not your paraphrasing and parsing. If you don't supply the full quote in context we'll know that it is you who are "throwing up dust."
I've always said "nothing is so black or white you can't make it gray by spinning it hard enough."
Lol, live in Los Angeles, can't get away from it. The studios are full of them. we have 1.5% of the 2% living here.
Nothing ever changes with these anti-Keyes folks. They relish hating him. It's sad but will be answered for later.
Raise your children as you wish, Keyes may do the same, and I will make no judgement on either of you.
No baseball bats or bullwhips though. ; )
You're making too much sense. Who the heck let you in here?
I can't understand some of this gassing about what Keyes said about Mary Cheney. He said on stage he would tell her X, and if his own daughter were doing the same thing he would tell her X. Now if you read what Maya Keyes said she was told when her dad confronted her, it was X.
The only thing that can give these people any justification for throwing rocks at Keyes is to falsely claim it is confirmed he knew about his own daughter when he made is comments about Cheney's daughter.
I'm beginning to think I may have been on to something with my Mac vs. PC comment earlier. This seems to be more about confirming personal choices in judging the morality of homosexuality than anything else.
The last thing an otherwise moral person who has decided to approve of homosexuality wants to run into is another moral person who says they are selling out for approving it.
David was ready to rip the head off the wicked guy Nathan was describing until he found out it was himself. Most of us don't have a Nathan looking us in the face, so we continue to posture like we'd still rip the wicked guy's head off long after we know it's us because no one can prove we know it's us. It's all about saving face.
They're a mirror version of the "Bushco" George Bush haters. Amazing!
You are such a Keyes sycophant. You take everything Keyes says and try to convince the gullible that Keyes didn't say what he actually said.
Keyes isn't in favor of reparations. No, he just wants people who were never slaves to get tax breaks because some blacks, over 150 years ago, were slaves.
And, even though we heard Keyes call Mary Cheney a "selfish hedonist," you'll tell us he never said it.
Sell that to somebody else.
Absolutely. How else are you going to find grown men who are as fussy as little girls about their appearance.
I agree. All the criticsizim I've seen so far has been looking for a problem to have.
Those aren't rocks they're nerf balls. So what if he knew about his daughter then? He was directly asked about Dick Cheney's daughter and asked nothing about his. The essence of the question was "is homosexuality a sin?" The questioner made Lynn Cheney the example. He answered it directly and, for a Bible believing Christian, truthfully.
The way the left acts (and surprisingly so do a lot of self-styled conservatives) you would think Alan Keyes wrote the Scriptures in question.
It's kind of like this:
Q - Is murder a sin?
A - Yes.
Q - Does that make Ted Bundy a sinner?
A - Yes.
"You bigot! who are you to judge Ted Bundy? How intolerant of you! You're a name-caller!"
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.