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

ReverendHellh0und · Feb 2, 2009

RightinNYC said:
Are you being serious, and implying that Reps/Cons are racists for not supporting a black conservative, or are you just starting an incredibly timely and topical poll to remind us all that Alan Keyes is ****ing insane?

hautey is trying to be the Al Sharpton of the forums these days. His racist implications speak more to his racism than anything he accuses backhandidly conservatives of.

Cold Highway · Feb 2, 2009

Kandahar said:
The same reason most mainstream conservatives don't support Ron Paul, or most mainstream liberals don't support Ralph Nader: Because they're lunatics. Although Keyes is even more insane than either of those two.

What makes Ron Paul a lunatic? Same question for Nader

First Thought · Feb 2, 2009

chevydriver1123 said:
What makes Ron Paul a lunatic? Same question for Nader

They do not want endless wars and socialism?

Kandahar · Feb 3, 2009

chevydriver1123 said:
What makes Ron Paul a lunatic? Same question for Nader

Neither of them understand that the real world is not an abstract concept. The fact that one can *deduce* their position on any given issue (even if one has never heard them speak about the issue at hand) should be a red flag that one is listening to an ideologue with little grasp of reality or any sense of practicality.

Keyes is even scarier than those two. At least with Paul and Nader, I get the impression that they mean well, as extreme as their policies may be. They're at least trying to make the world a better place. The World According to Alan Keyes, on the other hand, would be a very frightening place.

Kandahar · Feb 3, 2009

EgoffTib said:
They do not want endless wars and socialism?

Ralph Nader doesn't support endless socialism? Have you ever heard him open his mouth on any subject? He supports a maximum wage, for Christ's sake.

First Thought · Feb 3, 2009

Kandahar said:
Neither of them understand that the real world is not an abstract concept.

Example?

The fact that one can *deduce* their position on any given issue (even if one has never heard them speak about the issue at hand) should be a red flag that one is listening to an ideologue with little grasp of reality or any sense of practicality.

Many of Ron Paul's ideas are absurdly practical, but please do enlighten me on his policies and his failure to grasp reality.

ARealConservative · Feb 3, 2009

EgoffTib said:
Example?

Many of Ron Paul's ideas are absurdly practical, but please do enlighten me on his policies and his failure to grasp reality.

I want to hear it as well because most of what he expresses involves the federal government only and he is totally hands off in regards to how lower governments would operate.

Kandahar · Feb 3, 2009

EgoffTib said:
Example?

Many of Ron Paul's ideas are absurdly practical, but please do enlighten me on his policies and his failure to grasp reality.

Both Ron Paul and Ralph Nader start with some reasonable ideas, and take them to the most extreme conclusion possible.

For example, Ron Paul believes that American meddling in foreign affairs causes problems for the United States. That's certainly a reasonable enough argument, whether one agrees with it or not. However, his solution is to withdraw US troops from every corner of the earth, withdraw from the United Nations, spurn all alliances, and withdraw from all international agreements and trade pacts. That is NOT a reasonable solution. The world is becoming more globalized, not less, whether Ron Paul likes it or not.

Ralph Nader starts from reasonable premises as well. For example, he thinks that there is too much wealth disparity in this country which causes poverty. That's certainly a reasonable enough argument, whether one agrees with it or not. However, his solution is to institute a maximum wage and institute layer upon layer of corporate regulation and new labor laws. Again, an unreasonable solution to a reasonable problem. Those kind of policies would destroy economic growth and create much MORE poverty, whether Ralph Nader acknowledges it or not.

Alan Keyes doesn't even have reasonable assumptions from which his arguments begin. His arguments begin and end on frightening grounds.

Goobieman · Feb 3, 2009

Kandahar said:
Alan Keyes doesn't even have reasonable assumptions from which his arguments begin. His arguments begin and end on frightening grounds.

Such as...?

ARealConservative · Feb 3, 2009

Kandahar said:
Both Ron Paul and Ralph Nader start with some reasonable ideas, and take them to the most extreme conclusion possible.

For example, Ron Paul believes that American meddling in foreign affairs causes problems for the United States. That's certainly a reasonable enough argument, whether one agrees with it or not. However, his solution is to withdraw US troops from every corner of the earth

Fail. He endorses a powerful Navy, and considering the amount of water in the "4 corners of the earth, what you just wrote is false.

withdraw from the United Nations

Damn right! the UN is a cesspool of corruption.

spurn all alliances

Fail. Ending entangling alliances does not mean we can not have friendly relations.

withdraw from all international agreements and trade pacts

He's all for free trade, not the bs managed trade we see today

Kandahar · Feb 3, 2009

ARealConservative said:
Fail. He endorses a powerful Navy, and considering the amount of water in the "4 corners of the earth, what you just wrote is false.

This would effectively withdraw our troops from everywhere, as a navy has very little real power. This is not the 17th century, as much as Ron Paul might wish it were. Fail.

ARealConservative said:
Damn right! the UN is a cesspool of corruption.

This kind of stupid impracticality is exactly what I am talking about. Would the world really be a better place if the United States was not a party to, say, the World Health Organization? That "cesspool of corruption" is an excellent forum for the world's nations to negotiate with one another.

ARealConservative said:
Fail. Ending entangling alliances does not mean we can not have friendly relations.

No, but ending alliances most certainly means ending alliances. Which is what I wrote. Fail.

ARealConservative said:
He's all for free trade, not the bs managed trade we see today

Again, more stupid impracticality from Ron Paul. You have to take these things one step at a time, and Congress is not about to unilaterally abolish all protectionist laws, as much as we might want them to. And even if they did, the legislatures of OTHER countries are unlikely to unilaterally follow suit. Agreements like NAFTA which reduce trade barriers are absolutely essential to free trade.

Kandahar · Feb 3, 2009

Goobieman said:
Such as...?

Here are a few examples of Keyes' lunacy:

On civil rights:
"It's about time we all faced up to the truth. If we accept the radical homosexual agenda, be it in the military or in marriage or in other areas of our lives, we are utterly destroying the concept of family." - Alan Keyes

On learnin':
"When we, through our educational culture, through the media, through the entertainment culture, give our children the impression that human beings cannot control their passions, we are telling them, in effect, that human beings cannot be trusted with freedom." - Alan Keyes

On globalization:
"I don't think the question is whether China should belong to the World Trade Organization. I believe the question is whether the United States should belong to an organization that violates every constitutional principle." - Alan Keyes

On the virtues of hive-mindedness:
"Our first responsibility is not to ourselves, ... Our first responsibility is to our country and to our God." - Alan Keyes

On his new job as press secretary for God:
"I frankly don't care if you agree with my stand on abortion. I take that stand because no other stand is consistent with decent principles, and no other standard is consistent with the will of God." - Alan Keyes

On furriners takin' our jerrrrrbs:
"We need to get rid of the 16th amendment, and return to the original system that funds government with a variety of tariffs and duties." - Alan Keyes

On censorship:
"It isn't a free speech issue; it's a matter of public decency." - Alan Keyes

Additionally, Keyes is a conspiracy nut who was part of the ridiculous lawsuit questioning Obama's citizenship.

Goobieman · Feb 3, 2009

Kandahar said:
This would effectively withdraw our troops from everywhere, as a navy has very little real power.

THAT depends on a lot of things, not the least of which is the nature of that navy and the opponent in question.

Againast Japan, for instance, the US Navy has a LOT of power.

ARealConservative · Feb 3, 2009

Kandahar said:
This would effectively withdraw our troops from everywhere, as a navy has very little real power. This is not the 17th century, as much as Ron Paul might wish it were. Fail.

Yes, it isn't the 17th century. Our Naval Fleet can actually project a great deal of power without actually occupying foreign lands, unlike in the 17th Century. Fail

This kind of stupid impracticality is exactly what I am talking about. Would the world really be a better place if the United States was not a party to, say, the World Health Organization? That "cesspool of corruption" is an excellent forum for the world's nations to negotiate with one another.

This country would be a better place, which is what the primary concern is and always should be. Your beloved institutions are failing, so it is only you with your head in the sand refusing the see the lack of practicality in your ideas.

No, but ending alliances most certainly means ending alliances. Which is what I wrote. Fail.

Ron Paul speaks of entangling alliances, such as an attack on one is an attack on all. We do not need to end alliances, only entangling alliances. Fail.

Again, more stupid impracticality from Ron Paul. You have to take these things one step at a time, and Congress is not about to unilaterally abolish all protectionist laws, as much as we might want them to. And even if they did, the legislatures of OTHER countries are unlikely to unilaterally follow suit. Agreements like NAFTA which reduce trade barriers are absolutely essential to free trade.

Yes, one step at time. the best first step is to give someone that actually wants true free trade the bully pulpit that is currently giving to the morons that seek protectionism and corporate managed trade. Ron Paul would be a fantastic leap in that regard, even though he is one person and Congress holds most of the power.

Kandahar · Feb 3, 2009

ARealConservative said:
Yes, it isn't the 17th century. Our Naval Fleet can actually project a great deal of power without actually occupying foreign lands, unlike in the 17th Century. Fail

And how exactly would Ron Paul's navy deal with, say, the attacks on 9/11? Last I checked, Afghanistan was landlocked.

ARealConservative said:
This country would be a better place, which is what the primary concern is and always should be. Your beloved institutions are failing, so it is only you with your head in the sand refusing the see the lack of practicality in your ideas.

Please explain how the United States would be a better place without the World Health Organization. What would we gain by withdrawing?

ARealConservative said:
Ron Paul speaks of entangling alliances, such as an attack on one is an attack on all. We do not need to end alliances, only entangling alliances. Fail.

And what exactly is the difference between an alliance and an entangling alliance? Alliances are, by their very nature, entangling.

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?

ARealConservative said:
Yes, one step at time. the best first step is to give someone that actually wants true free trade the bully pulpit that is currently giving to the morons that seek protectionism and corporate managed trade. Ron Paul would be a fantastic leap in that regard, even though he is one person and Congress holds most of the power.

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.

Wessexman · Feb 3, 2009

Kandahar said:
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.

Kandahar · Feb 3, 2009

Wessexman said:
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.

Wessexman · Feb 3, 2009

Kandahar said:
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.

ARealConservative · Feb 3, 2009

Kandahar said:
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......

Ethereal · Feb 3, 2009

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!

Kandahar · Feb 4, 2009

ARealConservative said:
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?

ARealConservative said:
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.

ARealConservative said:
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.

ARealConservative said:
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?

ARealConservative said:
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.

ARealConservative said:
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.

ARealConservative said:
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.

ARealConservative said:
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. :roll:

Kandahar · Feb 4, 2009

Ethereal said:
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.

ARealConservative · Feb 4, 2009

Kandahar said:
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?

Ethereal · Feb 4, 2009

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.

Rodney · Feb 6, 2009

Hatuey said:
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 ?

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

I don't respect you.

Dispenser of Negativity

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

cookies crumble

Enemy Combatant

cookies crumble

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

cookies crumble

Enemy Combatant

Dorset Patriot

Enemy Combatant

Dorset Patriot

cookies crumble

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

cookies crumble