allen keyes is such a nut

[villager]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Hmmmm, none that I can think of. Apparently Obama would be the first from Illinois

Carol Moseley Braun was also an IL senator.

Interestingly, AP misreported during the DNC that there had never been a black senator, and it was repeated by many news sources, although there was a black senator in IL as recently as 1998. I admit I myself was taken in by this reporting, and repeated that "fact" at least once while chatting about Obama's speech with friends.

As Jon Stewert said of our media, they are like masterbating monkeys.

 

[StageLeft]

There is a guy named ALLEN KEYES? LMAO!

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Mill

They got you too? I mean -- in reference to you being so partisan now Tony. I mean hey, I can't say I agree with Keyes here, but it isn't as if his idea doesn't have some historical precedence, and after all, reparations are still an issue to some. I sorely wish we didn't have to make everything so partisan in this forum. What that ATOT regular said to you is beyond nutcase to me, and kudos to you for not revealing the coward's name simply because you have integrity. Honestly though, I'm surprised you've gotten to the point of expecting what reactions there would be in case just the PARTY was reversed in the scenario about what Keyes said. This forum can't be good for us I don't guess. To be blunt: I've found it has a very negative impact on my political beliefs(i.e. I get disgusted with the entire political process).

I'm not sure what was particularly partisan about what I said - it seems clear to me that Alan Keyes is trying, in a shameless and rather embarrassing fashion, to garner black votes by suggesting what sounds like a liberal's program (the reparations). I see it as him selling out his "conservatism" for votes, the same way he sold out his "moral" opposition to carpetbagging to accept the Republican senate nomination in the first place. As I said originally, I firmly believe that if, say, Obama had proposed this, Republicans would make him a laughingstock for his efforts.

I think the reason I keep returning here is that I enjoy the debate, and it forces me to keep better-informed about the political process in the campaign season of what I regard as the most important election in many, many years. OTOH, I have recently been a little disappointed in the quality of some of my posts, as I feel as though I've been co-opted by sinking to the level of certain other posters here. There are still plenty of very bright folks here on both sides of the aisle, however, and if anything that has helped me stay optimistic and feel positive about the American democratic process.

I said partisan, because how you phrased your statement about Keyes seemed that way to me. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seemed you believe the Reps only would support this because Keyes is one of them. This might be true. I see that your posts have become decidely more slanted toward one side, regardless of your belief in Kerry. That's all. Carry on!

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Mill

I said partisan, because how you phrased your statement about Keyes seemed that way to me. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seemed you believe the Reps only would support this because Keyes is one of them. This might be true. I see that your posts have become decidely more slanted toward one side, regardless of your belief in Kerry. That's all. Carry on!

I've never pretended not to have a bias - I just think I have a reasonable ability to think critically about both sides of the issues. I suspect part of the reason my partisan bias has been more obvious lately is that the Karl Rove school of dirty tricks has succeeded in turning the debate on the upcoming election from the issues (where I am quite capable of seeing the pros and cons of both sides) to the whole SBVT/Vietnam debate, which makes my blood boil.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: alchemize
Well, apparently he's found something that caught the interest of the press

Can anyone name Barrack Obama's positions on anything?

I know I can't. I am not from Illinois, and the first time I ever heard of him was this spring, when Jack Ryan had the temerity to hire a guy to follow him around and take note of his every action. I was very impressed with his speech at the DNC, and I am equally impressed with his stellar educational background, especially in the context of his modest upbringing. As for his specific positions, I can almost always at least deal with a generically liberal platform, and I certainly haven't heard of any show-stoppers in terms of his views.

Alan Keyes, on the other hand, has always struck me as a fundamentalist, opportunist wacko with whom I have essentially nothing in common - his vision of America sounds like a Christian version of the Taliban to me. From what I can see, his present run is entirely directed toward personal gain, and the new reparations plan is, like his carpetbagging, a complete reversal of principles, for what seems like a mercenary reason. If I were an Illinois voter, it'd be ABK (Anyone But Keyes) for me.

Being from Illinois, I still can't tell you what he stands for on much either. Visiting his website, he declares a few vague positions on Economy, Education, Health Care, and Jobs. He hasn't really said anything to totally turn me off yet...

I'm sorry, Obama - would you care to state a position on say..........Iraq? Terrorism? Foreign Policy? Heck, present yourself as a moderate and I might vote for you! Not that keyes has a snowball's chance in hell

As an aside, I did notice that Illinois is exempt from the new rules on overtime - all kinds of wacky legislation going on out here Of course, the good governor has decided that we don't have a right to defend our homes.. I haven't seen how Obama positions himself on that one just yet (hmm worthy of it's own thread?).

So Don_Vito - I haven't heard you comment on the Tribune's actions against Ryan yet - come on, I know you are dying to give your opinion on that

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: alchemize

So Don_Vito - I haven't heard you comment on the Tribune's actions against Ryan yet - come on, I know you are dying to give your opinion on that

I don't know much about it. I gather someone (and it sounds like you're implying it was the Tribune) dug into his divorce case and found allegations of public sex acts and efforts to pressure his wife to have public sex. I personally don't care if he did this stuff, or appreciate these kinds of tactics to discredit a candidate, though it is problematic for a politician, in that it could be grist for blackmail later in life.

I did think Ryan was a colossal dick for subsidizing a full-time surveillance of Obama, who took it remarkably cheerfully - I would have, within about 3 days, turned into Peter Finch in "Network": "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore!" That alone prevents me feeling any sympathy for Ryan under the circumstances.

What I want to know is, wasn't there another Republican candidate in the primaries who the party could have offered the seat to, rather than inviting Alan Keyes to carpetbag? It seems to me it's kind of insulting to the Republicans of Illinois to bring in a two-time loser from Maryland under the auspices he is likelier to win than any native Republican.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Mill

I said partisan, because how you phrased your statement about Keyes seemed that way to me. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seemed you believe the Reps only would support this because Keyes is one of them. This might be true. I see that your posts have become decidely more slanted toward one side, regardless of your belief in Kerry. That's all. Carry on!

I've never pretended not to have a bias - I just think I have a reasonable ability to think critically about both sides of the issues. I suspect part of the reason my partisan bias has been more obvious lately is that the Karl Rove school of dirty tricks has succeeded in turning the debate on the upcoming election from the issues (where I am quite capable of seeing the pros and cons of both sides) to the whole SBVT/Vietnam debate, which makes my blood boil.

Well to be fair, it is to be expected when a candidate talks more about his military service than attempting to defend or brag about their congressional record. I'm not going to defend smear campaigns, but any proof the SBVT stuff is coming from Karl Rove? I can understand how one could make such an assumption, but is there any actual proof? I don't like the neocons infesting Bush's campaign and cabinet, but I also dislike how Kerry has yet to defend or talk about his record. To me the SBVT stuff is quite absurd, and is on-par with the Moveon nonsense about Bush and Hitler. I disregard both groups as silly, extremely-biased, and lacking of all objectivity. Therefore I don't pay attention to them and ignore them.

I can understand your feelings on why you've become more partisan, but that seems more emotional than logical to me, which is what I hoped my original post had conveyed.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Mill

I said partisan, because how you phrased your statement about Keyes seemed that way to me. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seemed you believe the Reps only would support this because Keyes is one of them. This might be true. I see that your posts have become decidely more slanted toward one side, regardless of your belief in Kerry. That's all. Carry on!

I've never pretended not to have a bias - I just think I have a reasonable ability to think critically about both sides of the issues. I suspect part of the reason my partisan bias has been more obvious lately is that the Karl Rove school of dirty tricks has succeeded in turning the debate on the upcoming election from the issues (where I am quite capable of seeing the pros and cons of both sides) to the whole SBVT/Vietnam debate, which makes my blood boil.

I can appreciate where you are coming from Don. Ever since Bush announced his candidacy for the office of President in 1999, I've been bombarded by the same school of "dirty tricks" from your side of the political spectrum: "Bush is a retard", "Bush is a puppet", "Bush is a Nazi fascist", "Bush stole the election", and of course "Bush was awol".

You'll pardon me, however, that even if I do appreciate the suffering you may be experiencing because your golden boy is experiencing some grief regarding the central theme of his campaign (his service in Vietnam: "John Kerry, reporting for duty"), that I really won't be breaking out the violins for you. Kerry has made this a central "issue", and now it's being debated by those who have opinions. However, these attacks are nothing compared to what Bush has had to endure the past 4-5 years.

If this "attack" against Kerry boils your blood so, perhaps you might do your health some good and not be so personally invested in your candidate of choice. I prefer Bush as President over Kerry, but regardless of who wins, at the end of the day its only politics and I'm not mentally ill to the point that I would believe that either candidate will bring about the destruction of modern civilization--as some other overly dramatic morons, here and elsewhere, believe.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Mill

I said partisan, because how you phrased your statement about Keyes seemed that way to me. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seemed you believe the Reps only would support this because Keyes is one of them. This might be true. I see that your posts have become decidely more slanted toward one side, regardless of your belief in Kerry. That's all. Carry on!

I've never pretended not to have a bias - I just think I have a reasonable ability to think critically about both sides of the issues. I suspect part of the reason my partisan bias has been more obvious lately is that the Karl Rove school of dirty tricks has succeeded in turning the debate on the upcoming election from the issues (where I am quite capable of seeing the pros and cons of both sides) to the whole SBVT/Vietnam debate, which makes my blood boil.

I can appreciate where you are coming from Don. Ever since Bush announced his candidacy for the office of President in 1999, I've been bombarded by the same school of "dirty tricks" from your side of the political spectrum: "Bush is a retard", "Bush is a puppet", "Bush is a Nazi fascist", "Bush stole the election", and of course "Bush was awol".

You'll pardon me, however, that even if I do appreciate the suffering you may be experiencing because your golden boy is experiencing some grief regarding the central theme of his campaign (his service in Vietnam: "John Kerry, reporting for duty"), that I really won't be breaking out the violins for you. Kerry has made this a central "issue", and now it's being debated by those who have opinions. However, these attacks are nothing compared to what Bush has had to endure the past 4-5 years.

If this "attack" against Kerry boils your blood so, perhaps you might do your health some good and not be so personally invested in your candidate of choice. I prefer Bush as President over Kerry, but regardless of who wins, at the end of the day its only politics and I'm not mentally ill to the point that I would believe that either candidate will bring about the destruction of modern civilization--as some other overly dramatic morons, here and elsewhere, believe.

Modern civilization? You should ask Gandhi about that.