Alan Keyes Makes Sense

So, if I read it, you'll send me $50?

I don't want to stifle free speech. I believe Dr. Laura has just as much right to spew her ignorant rhetoric as those who disagree with her. Like I've said all thread, and you've conveniently ignored, I only see a problem (as does the Constitution) when the government gets involved.

While you want to ignorantly label me as a closed-minded liberal, I'll go ahead and bask in the fact that you are completely wrong. In fact, in the past year, my views about gun control have <B>almost</b> made a complete 180 degree turn. There goes your idiotic closed-minded liberal theory as you think it <B>applies to me</B>.

I know you claim yourself as a liberal, yet I group you in the same section as people like RichRocket because both of you have a tendency to ignore what other people say despite what they've posted. I've posted many times that I've listened to both Dr. Laura and Alan Keyes, yet you just want to assume that I refuse to because I'm a liberal who wants to stifle free speech.

You're wrong.

 

Read the book, and you get 50 bucks. I actually pay up on my bets... But I'll need proof.

I have the book. I'll ask you what a paragraph/line is in the book, and you can respond with the text.

That won't ensure that you're actually reading the book, but it will ensure that you have it (a necessary prerequisite to reading it)...

email will suffice for that battle. I'm guessing you'll forgo that one too? Hell, it's only 50 bucks... And you don't even need to take the challenge. After all, I'm just a right-wing nut...

 

I'll take that challenge, then. I may be a closed minded liberal, but I'm a capitalist nonetheless.

 

Email me when you get the book. I'd advise actually reading it first...

If you can complete the test, I will hand you $50. Guaranteed.

In short, I will pay you $50 to read a book

 

If I knew being a close-minded liberal paid that well, I would've posted more often.

 

I'm not gonna pay everyone $50 to read a book, Puedlfor.

Only the most incorrigible.

 

Do we need to get into this again? Sure, she may have changed, I hope she has, but I know what I heard.

I don't recall the substance abuse thing. Now, who's got the listening/reading wrong.

 

You didn't answer my questions, so I'll ask again.

<b>Ever the Koran? Interested in reading some books on Buddhism or how evil Israel is? Since you are taking shots at the left, ever listen to NPR, hang out at a Sierra Club meeting, check out Democracy Now on Pacifica?</b>

<font size=1>(I'm not paying anybody ANYTHING!)</font>

I don't care if it is a best seller. I don't want to be bored off my ass! I'm not afraid of being challenged by another point of view. I'm afraid of falling asleep reading something I could care less about, hitting my head on the coffee table and having to go to the hospital.

There are plenty of liberal books on nearly the same subject with the opposite point of view and I don't like them either. It just isn't my taste in reading.

I'm so terribly sorry for making you think I'm "sucker-up who...won't even bother to finish." I'm devastated you feel that way.

 

Uh...you sure are good at misreading/understanding. My post had nothing to do with you specifically. It was a general statement of the phenomenon in our society, etc...mostly, it was just a joke. Funny how the other 10 people who used the word in this thread didn't get offended.

treeman,

Why is it that if people will not read this one book you like, they are closed minded?

 

I can't believe the absurdity of this line hasn't been picked up on yet...

Of course Keyes has the right to say it. That isn't in question, is it? But it makes your argument sound soooo much better to harp on what he has the right to say when that, in truth, isn't even in question.

But we'er all "pro-homosexual?" I don't even know what that means. If it means that rm95, myself, outlaw, and jeff believe that homosexuals should be accorded the same rights as every other citizen... then of course we are.

But are you meaning to imply that we're somehow out to eliminate the straight lifestyle? Jeff's married, I'm engaged, and I believe RM95 is as well. Outlaw is... well, gay... but I don't think I've seen him on the 6 o'clock news lately for giving anal beads to unsuspecting 6 year olds.

So, what do you mean by "pro-homosexual?" If you meant "pro-gay equality..." then why didn't you word it as such? If you meant the other, why don't you explain it more clearly?

 

I guess it didn't make the news in Boston...

 

Very very funny stuff -- nicely put.

This whole thread has been kind of a drag to read - watching BBS members slamming each other over politics and what they perceive each other's beliefs to be.

I think most people on this message board are more well-read, articulate, and tolerant than we give each other credit for. Most people are willing to consider other views. However, to consider other views, we need to know the facts behind those views.

These facts are often distorted enough by the media that it's difficult to ascertain what the truth is. So what do we do? The easiest thing to do is evaluate the information based on our belief system and then accept or reject what we hear. One level up from that (but much more difficult) is to accept the parts of the information that we hear, filter it, and accept the parts that seem accurate.

Unfortunately, most people won't even go that far and generally search for sources of news that we agree with. Two examples of this would be QatarRocket quoting a middle-east news agency, and BigotRocket (fictional bbs member) quoting davidduke.com.

These factors make it difficult to impossible to convince someone that your position on politics or religion is correct. Religion is actually the best example of this because the facts can be unknowable or are based on faith. For example, my position on abortion:

1. I believe that man has a soul.
2. I believe that babies(or fetuses, if you like) gain their souls at conception.
3. This makes them no different from any other human - they have the same potential and right to life that anyone else has. Therefore abortion must be wrong - at any stage of development. My logic is unassailable - but if you don't believe in my first two points, it's also baseless.

See why getting into arguments over religion (and by extension, politics) is silly? If you can't win by convincing the other side, there is no point in getting worked up about it. Civil discussion will take us a lot farther and get your points across better than flames, which these threads always seem to degenerate into. Give your fellow posters more credit - and we'll all be better for it.

 

Don't forget my cut of that 50!

 

Is there a difference between "pro-homosexual positions" and "amateur-homosexual positions?" Outlaw, can you explain?

On second thought, scratch that. Don't say ANYTHING.

 

Treeman, said: I am a liberal who is being forced into a corner

So I assume you vote for democrats or greens for president, governor, senator, congress and local elections. Are against the US blocking international treaties on landmines, global warming and an international criminal court. Are for a progressive income tax. Opposed Bush's massive tax break to the wealthy which has caused a deficit. Want to reduce our obscene military budget and use the surplus to educate our own and children around the world so we don't have to fight wars nearly evey year. Want national health care, an increase in the minimum wage. Believe that we need labor law reform so that people can join unions and get higher wages without being fired. Are for public financing of elections. Wish to forgive third world debt. etc. etc,


Somehow I doubt it, but correct me if you actually support the above positions.

If you are so concerned about free speech I suggest you join the ACLU, which has defended not only speech on the left but the speech of Nazis to march in Skokie Ill, where many Holocoaust survivors live, and the right of corporate funded conservative college newspapers to print racist and other despicable speech.

 

glynch:

Just for the record, and to clear things up:

I vote for the candidate I like. I don't care if he is a Dem, Repub, Green, Libertarian, etc. If I like his/her policies then I will vote for him.

I am against us blocking treaties on landmines, I am not convinced about global warming and see the Kyoto Protocol as a sham unless everyone ratifies it (I'm actually inclined to think we're approaching a cooling - see http://www.john-daly.com/#Antarctic, http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1752000/1752999.stm), and I do not oppose an international criminal court - as long as it's not a sham.

I support a progressive income tax.

I opposed (and still am opposed to) Bush's tax cut, as it can only create a deficit and force us to reduce spending.

I want the military to get whatever it needs, so I'd raise that one. I'd also raise educational spending, as well as most other forms of spending. I would, however eliminate the NEA. But for the most part, spending hikes across the board.

National health care - yes, as long as it doesn't inflame unnecessary health care costs and promote an inefficient beaurocracy. Hike in the minimum wage - yes.

Labor reform - yes, to the extent that it doesn't start putting companies out of business (that would profit no one).

Public financing of elections - God, yes. Do you think I am happy with anyone being able to buy our leaders?

Forgive third world debt - for the most part, yes. Especially when it serves our national security interests (which would be most cases).

But the ACLU makes me want to puke. Yes, they defend first amendment rights (and more power to 'em on that), but they've taken multiculturalism to such an extreme... They will defend anyone's right to do anything.

I am for the most part a liberal, glynch. Am I a 'down the line, support any liberal cause' liberal? No. I'm obviously too hawkish for anyone to consider me as that... Apparently, you can't be a liberal hawk in today's society, is that it?

The vast majority of the nation's people are not ultra-liberals (those who support every liberal cause). Most people are in between.