Excuse me? Dad? This is a political forum. I can, and I will, be honest about my observations regarding Alan Keyes. The first thing that happened on this thread when I dared to suggest that President Bush was not obligated to give him a job was - guess what - an insult directed at me by a Keyes supporter. (In other words, you might think about applying some consistency to your remarks.)
I think you are just self-appointed, zealous "defenders" who attack Dr Keyes simply because his analysis and his speeches are a magnitude stronger that anything GWB could deliver; you (and probably DNC as well) just do not want to be compared to Keyes. That is sad. Un-patriotic too.
I think it mild, and it is not from me.
In fact, I don't agree with it.
Now, to return to sweeter things, don't you in fact agree with the position Keyes takes in the column? And isn't it the position of the US Government?
And isn't that more important than our various disagreements?
Best to you, and for America,
Richard F.
I don't understand. The first response to your sugestion was Gelato's, and the only thing that might be (mis)construed as an insult was his characterization of what you said (not of you) as an "extreme exaggeration".
I agree that the SECOND response got personal. I hate that stuff.
But then there's the "applying some consistency to your remarks" remark. Did rdf insult you? He's not responsible for what everyone, or even every Keyester, says to you. How could he be?
Further I saw nobody suggesting that Bush was obligated to give Keyes a job. Is there a Keyester here who thinks he is?
Mind you, it might be pretty prudent to do so, if Keyes would take it, which I doubt. One thing I would consider doing with something that I thought was a loose canon would be to tie it down.
But all this is beside the point. My own personal preference woud be for Keyesters and Shrubonistas (and in this thread it was a Keyester who started the digression) to stick to the topic. Vain dreamer that I am.
I think Gelato nailed it. There is indeed a set of "self-evident" principles which undergird our polity. They are broad enough to encompass a very great deal - excluding bald nihilism on the one hand and any worldview which denies or abrogates the dignity of each human being on the other.
These principles are sufficient to justify our response to terrorism, especially that of Osama Yo' Mama. Whatever our disgreements with Islam itself, we need not go into them to find ample justification for bringing terrorists and their supporters to bay.
Seems to me, anyway.
Dear, you must be new to the Keyes threads: here's the way it works; one of them posts an article written by Keyes and then you and I and a lot of other people read them; we obviously are too dumb to understand what Mr. Keyes is saying, so in short time, THEY show up to tell us just why WE have completely misunderstood what Mr. Keyes has said (AGAIN) and here is what he really said, blah, blah, blah.
And if you don't still don't "get it," you'll get all kinds of condescending remarks about how you're just LOOKING for anything to bash Keyes about, remarks questioning whether or not you're a "true" conservative, and, depdending on how far they're willing to go, they might even imply you're an IMMMORAL conservative because you don't believe EXACTLY what Mr. Keyes says -- since the beginning of time.
It's one of those "who are you going to believe, Keyes or your lying eyes" things. :-)
You obviously have NOT learned your lessons here at FR; Mr. Keyes does no wrong and has never, ever been wrong about anything he may wish to discuss. Ever. And never will be.