Right on, Mr. Keyes!

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqkMfToY9Pk[/youtube]

I had never heard Keyes talk on Obama, and when I finally did just now, it turns out his views are exactly the same as mine. Frankly, Mr. Keyes' accuracy shames conservatives who have allowed themselves to drowsily slide Left since Obama's inauguration.

Obama's a puppet. McCain's a puppet. Bush was a puppet. The Democrats and the Republicans are both corporate parties.

The way things are going, we're on our way to a hyperinflationary depression. The Federal Reserve is popping out much more artificial credit and funny money, foreign nations are losing confidence in the dollar, and now apparently Obama wants to buy up everyone's mortgage debt?

Well, I guess that means soon we'll have to carry wheelbarrows of money to the grocery store. The dollar will be destroyed, and the middle class will be eliminated. The only way we know how to fix hyperinflation is to replace the currency. What will be the new currency? Your guess is as good as mine.

Wasn't this the same right-wing lunatic that Michael Moore endorsed just because he had the stones to jump into a mosh-pit? (I'm using Michael Moore's denotion of him being a right-wing loony)

Actually, on reflection, I realise that he is a loony. And possibly jealous. It's pathetic when one side or another attacks other people, especially on grounds of citizenship that sound extremely spurious. Not to mention his homophobic comments, though I am guessing that it is the citizenship issue that is being debated here, right, Ragtime?

I believe the U.S. will survive Barak Obama. We survived the Civil War, didn't we?

ruveyn

I think that everyone would be better off today if the Southern states had simply been successful in separating from the USA.

"Obama is a radical communist"

Wow, the video failed in the first sentence.

I hate to say it but I have to agree with Michael Medved on Keyes; he's off the tinfoil hat/black helicopter side of things.

He's the same guy who was rallying people at the steps of the Supreme Court to try to challenge Obama's presidency by trying to prove that he wasn't a U.S. citizen all his life. Even in the long shot that it were true, that's a problem that's taken care of before a person even ends up in the primaries and if that many people dropped the ball along the way that he even got as far as being voted in as president - tough s---.

Its not always useless though. Nancy Pelosi's almost daily long-winded anti republican rants in congress were usually the tip off point for congressional nap-time. The people at HoMedic have been thinking quite seriously about adding her to their dial; ocean waves pounding the shore, heartbeat, rain forest, underwater scene, country creek and pasture, Nancy Pelosi.

Well, you know what? Mr. Keyes ran for the Senate from Illinois, and he was not a citizen of Illinois. If he had won, then his senatorship would have been illegitimate. Mr. Keyes had no more attachment to Illinois than Fidel Castro.

Sending politicians all over the place based on what states or districts they can take is pretty common practice though. I just disagree with the guy's way of thinking though, and I can see why Michael Moore would like him - Keys is what Moore would probably like to convince the world that the entire party is.

Actually, I wonder if Keyes had won instead of Bush in 2000, whether our country would be in the mess it is now?

He says some sensible things about the government spending too much, which, if this had been applied for the past eight years when the Republicans held power, well, a lot of people would have been suffering, but at least we wouldn't be so badly in hock to China.

One thing that troubles me about the Republican stance on abortion--they want the government to force women to bring every fetus to term, but, they absolutely do not want to government to support the mothers and children after the birth. They would just as soon let them starve in the gutter.

It just seems horribly unChristian.

Its a situation where they want to promote life but at the same time want as few people taking handouts as possible - good values on their own but single unwed mothers in poverty are the people who fall into that zone where those two values butt up against each other and create a conflict. I have known some girls who were in that position, if people do show initiative to help themselves they do often enough get noticed for it but we're in a position in our society where to make everything painless for everyone is almost impossible. I personally don't know what the right answer is, I'm not sure anyone does aside from to do the best one can to authentically (not just say it) allow upward mobility for people in those situations.

Well, I think that if you really are Christian, then you should welcome the government redistributing your wealth to the poor and needy.

"Give unto Caesar what is Caesar, and unto God what is God's."

Why should you be so greedy about your earthly possessions, anyway? God will soon be whisking his believers away in the Great Rapture. What are you going to do with your stuff after that happens? Nothing. So, you might as well just give it all away to the poor. Let them have it.

I'm personally quite skeptical of the concept that we're in anything like end-times, as in I really think the concept that we'll see it in 2012 or 2048 is all in our heads - it may indeed never come.

As for the reason why people would want capitalism - ie hanging on to their stuff, its an acknowledgement of how the human mind and human being work in the real world, not in the realm of 'I wish'. Its an acknowledgement that if you want a world that will prosper it has to be one where people can not only achieve to the nth degree but have rights to their property, in earlier tribal societies innovations or great building didn't happen until they settled in to such societies because without the right to property if you break your back building something and it gets taken away from you - there goes your incentive to put such passion into building it in the first place. Now, that's the base level all-or-nothing of it, which I know your discussing just taking a certain amount from the rich and giving a certain amount from the poor.

My own personal opinion - its far better to enable the poor in the ways that the Washington DC school system was trying to before it got shut down effectively by union lobbyists. Kids in the inner city should have their right to safety, to be able to get good grades, get a quality education, and do so without getting the snot beat out of em by those more ambitious in alternate ways for being sell-outs. Just like the parents living in poverty shouldn't have to work two jobs to send their child to a better school and college. Now its these particular people that I'd like to see helped more, like poor parents then who do work two or three jobs, who would clearly be qualified for something of better income if they'd had the opportunity - I'd love to see something set in place to very specifically reach out to them.

And now that brings us to people that we all know exists - don't know, don't care, hate society, would rather deal drugs or get a fix than work (and with the drug issue - big difference between the people who don't care and the people who are just that hooked - I'm not saying its all the same). Giving handouts turns people absolutely rotten. I'm sure you've even seen where upper-middle class kids who's parents are doctors, lawyers, etc., where their parents gave them everything turn into magnificent f--- ups, I've seen it all my life and when you do have people on the system who just want to sit on their hands and complain about everything they aren't given - same effect. In the times of the founding fathers of the Constitution they absolutely refused any form of socialism or well fare state ideology for the very reason that Britain was already trying it (yes, late 18th century) and they were seeing this exact same effect for their very own eyes.

So yes, if human nature wasn't what it was and if nature didn't absolutely dominate nurture in this direction - I'd be 100% with you, I'd be fore distributing the wealth. However, based on what we are its not only impractical but highly detrimental. This is a case I believe where you can wish in one hand, do something else in another, and see which hand fills up faster. We won't change because we're still tacked down to genetics that work nothing like a society and everything like a clan-living cave man.

But, the Christian mind is non-materialistic.

Certainly Christianity can exist in any type of political or economic system. Christians should be willing to sell all that they have to give the money to the poor. But, American Christians simply aren't.

And at least Castro, in theory, could have played for the Irish in soccer. Whoops, sorry, that was Che Guevara...