Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 55

Thread: Why can't Republicans or Conservatives get behind Alan Keyes?

  1. #41
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    04-04-14 @ 01:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,233

    Re: Why can't Republicans or Conservatives get behind Alan Keyes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Neither of them understand that the real world is not an abstract concept.
    Coming from a liberal that is interesting. "The world is an abstract concept" could be liberalism's motto.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  2. #42
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 06:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Why can't Republicans or Conservatives get behind Alan Keyes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Coming from a liberal that is interesting. "The world is an abstract concept" could be liberalism's motto.
    If you had actually read any of my posts instead of just looking at "Political Lean" and deciding "Liberal bad! I make fire!" then you might have noticed that my posts are rarely ideological and uncompromising, other than on civil rights issues. I usually support practical measures to implement policies. I'd much rather have a leader with good ideas that actually get implemented, instead of a leader with utopian ideas that die in committee.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #43
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    04-04-14 @ 01:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,233

    Re: Why can't Republicans or Conservatives get behind Alan Keyes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    If you had actually read any of my posts instead of just looking at "Political Lean" and deciding "Liberal bad! I make fire!" then you might have noticed that my posts are rarely ideological and uncompromising, other than on civil rights issues. I usually support practical measures to implement policies. I'd much rather have a leader with good ideas that actually get implemented, instead of a leader with utopian ideas that die in committee.
    I have read your posts and I certainly consider you someone who is fine with rationalist schemes in politics from what I recall.

    And civil rights issues are still poltical issues.

    To me you seem far more the rationalist than Paul or Keyes.
    Last edited by Wessexman; 02-03-09 at 05:21 PM.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  4. #44
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    13,790

    Re: Why can't Republicans or Conservatives get behind Alan Keyes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    And how exactly would Ron Paul's navy deal with, say, the attacks on 9/11? Last I checked, Afghanistan was landlocked.
    wow.. Do you think we marched troops thousands of miles to reach Afghanistan, all over land? In the case of a land invasion, we use our Naval and Air Force for quick forward deployment as much as possible. And considering we didn't immediately attack Afghanistan (nearly a month later), having troops in Germany or Turkey (or the other 130+ countries we occupy) for 40 years prior wasn't necessary for such forward deployment anyway. Got any relevant examples?

    Please explain how the United States would be a better place without the World Health Organization. What would we gain by withdrawing?
    We would gain financial strength by not wasting our treasure and bankrupting our nation as we have been doing. How about you explain how we are being helped and why if it is so important why the private sector couldn't accommodate your views.

    And what exactly is the difference between an alliance and an entangling alliance? Alliances are, by their very nature, entangling.
    An alliance is simply a formal agreement between two or more parties. An example of an entangling alliance is what I already provided - an agreement where an attack against one nation is an attack against the other nation entangling us in a war we normally wouldn't join. A good example would be when the idiot in Georgia decided to start atrocities with Russia. Although we had alliances with Georgia, we did not have entangling alliances, such as what we have with actual NATO states.

    Do you wish to abandon Eastern Europe to the Russians, and Israel to the Arabs? Do you wish to abandon Mexico and Colombia to revolutionary movements? How would these things make the United States a better place?
    do you wish to risk your life on any of these things? As for Mexico, giving it's proximity, that is a considerably different question to pose then what is happening in distant lands. You can start some foreign legion, although I suspect you have no desire to risk your own precious life to "save" Eastern Europe from those scary Ruskies.


    This is ridiculous. Having the "bully pulpit" does not bring about the desired change if you're an uncompromising demagogue who refuses to negotiate with Congress. In fact, it produces a backlash more often than not.
    Uncompromising demagogue? Ron Paul has stated he would not fight to end domestic entitlements but would put adjust foreign policy first as a way to get our fiscal house back in order. He works within the system more then you give him credit for. A common complaint is how he does actually sends pork requests to the appropriate channels so he does things his constituents want even if he disagrees with them. Reasonable people call this compromise......

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Why can't Republicans or Conservatives get behind Alan Keyes?

    Ron Paul's supporters don't get angry or offended when someone calls him a lunatic because they have some special affection for the man, it's because Ron Paul is representative of their ideals and values in government, and when you call him a lunatic or crazy or whatever you are in essence calling anyone who supports him a naive loon. That's why we take offense at such things. I wouldn't mind it so much if people actually provided some sort of substance or depth instead of just engaging purely in character assassination. For instance:

    Instead of just saying, "Ron Paul is crazy! He's a lunatic!" try saying "Ron Paul's policy of ____________ is crazy because ____________. Man, what a lunatic."

    At least I can adress something besides an ad hom. I don't go around calling Obama a liar unless I qualify it with some relevant information. For instance:

    Instead of saying, "Barack Obama is a liar and a hypocrite!" I say, "Barack Obama flip-flopped on campaign financing, the FISA bill, and now lobbyists. Not only that, but he spent 100 million of the tax payer's dollars on his coronation...err...I mean his confirmation during these rough economic times. He's a liar and a hypocrite!"

    See? Now you know how to make relevant and meaningful statements. This will be useful for future participation in forum discussions. Now, go practice this new technique until you feel comfortable enough to post something worth reading. I believe in you!

  6. #46
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 06:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Why can't Republicans or Conservatives get behind Alan Keyes?

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative View Post
    wow.. Do you think we marched troops thousands of miles to reach Afghanistan, all over land? In the case of a land invasion, we use our Naval and Air Force for quick forward deployment as much as possible. And considering we didn't immediately attack Afghanistan (nearly a month later), having troops in Germany or Turkey (or the other 130+ countries we occupy) for 40 years prior wasn't necessary for such forward deployment anyway. Got any relevant examples?
    So the navy can get troops to where they need to go. But the navy is not actually doing the fighting. So I'll repeat the question: How would Ron Paul's navy deal with the 9/11 attacks?

    He wants to withdraw from every country in the world. Don't you think that might have a negative effect on our ability to gather intelligence about future security threats?

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative
    We would gain financial strength by not wasting our treasure and bankrupting our nation as we have been doing.
    That is ridiculous. The US dues to the entire UN are only a few hundred million a year, and even less for the WHO. That's chump change by government standards.

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative
    How about you explain how we are being helped and why if it is so important why the private sector couldn't accommodate your views.
    Because "the private sector" has no profit motive to, say, eradicate polio in Nigeria...until someone with polio gets on a plane to New York City. And even if it did, the effort would have no coordination. It takes an international effort to coordinate things like that.

    The World Health Organization is an enormous achievement. It helps mitigate international health threats and helps prevent them from spreading across borders.

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative
    An alliance is simply a formal agreement between two or more parties. An example of an entangling alliance is what I already provided - an agreement where an attack against one nation is an attack against the other nation entangling us in a war we normally wouldn't join. A good example would be when the idiot in Georgia decided to start atrocities with Russia. Although we had alliances with Georgia, we did not have entangling alliances, such as what we have with actual NATO states.
    So you're saying we should withdraw from NATO? I'm curious...are there any situations in which you would support defending our allies if we ourselves were not directly attacked? If, say, Germany decided to march into Prague, would that qualify? Or would we need to wait for them to invade Washington?

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative
    do you wish to risk your life on any of these things? As for Mexico, giving it's proximity, that is a considerably different question to pose then what is happening in distant lands. You can start some foreign legion, although I suspect you have no desire to risk your own precious life to "save" Eastern Europe from those scary Ruskies.
    Nope, I don't. But that's not what we're talking about. Our mere presence in Eastern Europe is a credible deterrent.

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative
    Uncompromising demagogue? Ron Paul has stated he would not fight to end domestic entitlements but would put adjust foreign policy first as a way to get our fiscal house back in order.
    Ron Paul rails against domestic entitlements at every opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative
    He works within the system more then you give him credit for.
    He has been on the dissenting side of more 434-1 votes than anyone else in the history of the House of Representatives.

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative
    A common complaint is how he does actually sends pork requests to the appropriate channels so he does things his constituents want even if he disagrees with them. Reasonable people call this compromise......
    Or hypocrisy. I'm sure all those other congressmen who stuff themselves with pork feel just terrible about it...they're just doing what their constituents want.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  7. #47
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 06:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Why can't Republicans or Conservatives get behind Alan Keyes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Instead of just saying, "Ron Paul is crazy! He's a lunatic!" try saying "Ron Paul's policy of ____________ is crazy because ____________. Man, what a lunatic."
    Ron Paul's policy of withdrawing from the United Nations is crazy because then the world will have no common forum to address international concerns and/or take coordinated action. Man, what a lunatic.

    Ron Paul's policy of withdrawing from all trade agreements is crazy because anyone with a grasp on reality recognizes that those things REDUCE trade barriers, and the perfect policy is the enemy of the good policy. Man, what a lunatic.

    Ron Paul's policy of slashing medical care spending is crazy because our patchwork system of private coverage is falling apart, it produces horrendous disincentives for workers to move into a more productive field or go back to school, millions of people have no health coverage, and the United States has the lowest life expectancy and highest infant mortality of any developed nation. Man, what a lunatic.

    Ron Paul's policy of reverting to the gold standard is crazy because far from being a stable source of value, gold prices are extremely volatile. This would cause wild swings in our economy from year to year. Man, what a lunatic.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 02-04-09 at 08:24 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #48
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    13,790

    Re: Why can't Republicans or Conservatives get behind Alan Keyes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    So the navy can get troops to where they need to go. But the navy is not actually doing the fighting. So I'll repeat the question: How would Ron Paul's navy deal with the 9/11 attacks?
    Ron Paul isn't ending other branches of the military, only from having standing armies on foreign lands, so your question makes no sense.

    You seem to have no ability to understand his positions, so we will go through them one by one until you get it. Then we can move on to your other erroneous comments.

    So you understand this one yet or not?

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Why can't Republicans or Conservatives get behind Alan Keyes?

    Kandahar! Very much appreciated. Now we can have a meaningful and constructive dialogue.

    withdrawing from the United Nations is crazy because then the world will have no common forum to address international concerns and/or take coordinated action.
    Countries will act in their own rational self-interest regardless of international governance. If there is a pressing problem facing multiple countries or the world entire, action will be taken with or without the existence of the UN. Countries can and will convene with one another if and only if it's in their interest to do so. The UN does not possess some sort of magical powers that allows countries to communicate and coordinate with one another. You're ascribing far more relevance to the UN framework than is necessary.

    Ron Paul's policy of withdrawing from all trade agreements is crazy because anyone with a grasp on reality recognizes that those things REDUCE trade barriers, and the perfect policy is the enemy of the good policy. Man, what a lunatic.
    Managed trade reduces trade barriers? Oh, you mean like how your house gets colder when you turn up the heat?

    Managed trade allows for abuse and cronyism on an international scale. Instead of applying free-market economics across borders (which is a meaningless distinction) managed trade allows for powerful special interest groups to edge out competition and enact favorable regulations on their behalf. International governance is no different than domestic governance. It permits corporate favoritism and eliminates competition from the market. You have to be living in a dream-world to think those organizations reduce trade barriers; they ARE by their very definition trade barriers.

    Ron Paul's policy of slashing medical care spending is crazy because our patchwork system of private coverage is falling apart, it produces horrendous disincentives for workers to move into a more productive field or go back to school, millions of people have no health coverage, and the United States has the lowest life expectancy and highest infant mortality of any developed nation. Man, what a lunatic.
    Oh, really? "Slashing" you say? I wonder if that's merely hyperbole on your part or an accurate portrayal of Ron Paul's position. Let's find out, shall we?

    YouTube - You Choose '08 Spotlight: Ron Paul on Healthcare

    What did he say again? Transitional period? Tide people over? I'M NOT FOR CUTTING OR SLASHING THEM?

    Wow! Fancy that!

    Ron Paul's policy of reverting to the gold standard is crazy because far from being a stable source of value, gold prices are extremely volatile. This would cause wild swings in our economy from year to year. Man, what a lunatic.
    Of course, look at how our economy is currently performing under the FIAT monetary system; solid as a rock! Inflating currency, spending money we don't have, creating giant asset bubbles that explode in our faces, increasing the size of the Federal government, it's a veritable paradise this FIAT system.

    Anyway, debating divergent monetary systems would require its own thread. It's far too complex to simply banter back and forth over.

  10. #50
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nashville/Little Mexico Tennessee
    Last Seen
    06-02-09 @ 10:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    523

    Re: Why can't Republicans or Conservatives get behind Alan Keyes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Education :



    Patriotism :



    Work Resume :







    Political Stances :







    So Keyes is clearly not a liberal. He's a Conservative. So why can't he get the support of other conservatives? Is it because he doesn't know how Washington works? His experience? Why can't a clear as day conservative(pun intended) get the support of his fellow conservatives and Republicans? Is it because the majority of Republican voters would not vote for him? And if they won't vote him why is it? Is it because he's not conservative enough? Experienced enough? Discuss.
    Ethics and morality. Is it possible he is just to much of both, and not enough plain scumbag politician ?

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •