Posted on 02/28/2007 7:54:19 AM PST by Al Simmons
Phonies like you need to be exposed as the disruptors you are.
Hey, you know that EV was formerly a paid Alan Keys operative, don't you?
If you wanna make him mad, ask him something about slave reparations.
I kinda think that AK is why EVie is so disruptive and hurtful here. His hero embarrassed himself and compromised conservatives and when FReepers came to realize this they distanced themselves from that whackjob. Thats what hurt EVie and why he has to constantly divide here.
Probably so.
Anyhow, I just find him hilarious.
I'd laugh at him, too, if I thought he was for real. I think he's as phony as a xlinton dollar.
Alan Keyes on Kresta in the Afternoon (Catholic radio)
September 9, 2004
KRESTA: I want to ask you about reparations. I think in the past when asked about reparations you've said, well, we've had reparations, it was called the Civil War and blood was shed. Have you changed your position?
KEYES: Well, no, actually I have written articles and talked about this before, and have always made the same point.
I don't think there can in fact be reparations for the injustice that was done in slavery. I think Lincoln was right, that the judgment about that was in fact involved in the Civil War, his famous second inaugural address that is so beautiful, regarding that the "judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." He presented the Civil War as, in essence, a judgment from God about the evil of slavery. And I think that's correct.
The issue that's involved in true reparations--and when I have written about this, I've put the liberal proposals in quotes because I think what they were doing was a form of extortion, just trying to go to court to get some money out of people's pockets so they could put it in something they controlled, and so forth, and pretend that this was going to be requital for injustice, when in fact injustice can't be requited in that way, by one generation trying to do something about a sin committed by a previous one, when in point of fact that sin has already been requited by the previous generation.
But there was material damage done by slavery--material damage to folks who were at that time enslaved, material damage done that has been passed on as a legacy to their descendants--and that really has never been disputed in American history. Forty acres and a mule, all the way through affirmative action and the Great Society program--all were justified on the basis of this argument, that there is a legacy of material damage that had to be addressed.
KRESTA: Mmm-hmmm. That's right. We have to level the playing field…
KEYES: Yes, all that.
And yet, when you look at what was actually done--especially these government-dominated programs with the welfare and dependency and all that--they made matters worse. The effort that was made under those programs in this socialist fashion, as I and others have argued repeatedly, has actually produced more devastation in the community that was supposed to be benefited by it than--I argued this in my book Masters of the Dream--more devastation than slavery itself. And this is horrific in terms of the family structure, in terms of what has happened to the upbringing of children, in terms of the destruction of the moral foundations of the community.
KRESTA: What do you propose, then?
KEYES: What I have proposed is something that--in the old Roman Empire, when a community has been damaged, either by the fault or neglect of the state, they would remit tribute for a certain period of years so that you didn't have to support the government of the empire through your tribute, and that would give the community time to recover. This is what should have been done all along. You basically look at folks who have been damaged and say, look, we'll relieve you of the burden of paying for the public weal at the national level while you are working to repair the damage that has been done, and that way you're not taking money out of somebody else's pocket, you're giving people a chance to improve their life, but they can only take advantage of that chance if they are working, if they are willing to prepare themselves to invest and do the things that are necessary in order that this would mean something--right?--in terms of the advantage.
The advantage would be that for those who are working, obviously that's going to mean control of some extra income. For those who are even wealthy, it's going to mean they become factors of wealth who can invest, establish financial institutions, do other things that the community needs with less of a burden on the profitability of their enterprises.
Enterprises owned by black folks, without set-aside programs and bureaucracy, would become attractive for investment by other people because there you'd have a better chance of a profit margin because you didn't have the added burden of the tax. And for people who are too poor right now to pay taxes, they would become an attractive labor pool, where, instead of having to pay the gross, you pay the net, and get them to do the same work because you don't have to pay the government that difference.
This would be a program that would energize the community, and it has another benefit for me. I think it would become a demonstration project for what I believe needs to be done for the whole country, which is to get rid of the income tax.
http://www.keyesarchives.com/media/interviews/04_09_09kresta.htm
What he's not "Dr. Keyes" anymore?
More for the very thin book collection: The Wisdumb of "Dr.Keyes" noted winner of errr nothing.
BWAAHHAHAAAAA
You tell me. They're your own words (threat?) directed to 68 grunt. You also flung the pejorative "troll" at him w/absolutely no evidence. In fact, he's been here at FR longer than you have. Is your definition of a troll anyone who disagrees w/you?
Sorry. I failed to put your screen name in my reply up above to EV.
Yum, spam and Keyes, sorta goes together ...
Not a problemo, thankx.
After seeing that post, I tried to find it on Hunter's site, and it wasn't there that I could see. I did, however, find it here, in the FAQs near the bottom of the page: http://www.righttolifeact.org/html/home.html
This appears to be a site dedicated to Hunter's bill, the Right To Life Act of 2005. I don't think I would categorize it as a "pseudo-Christian blog". Maybe I'm wrong.
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.