Keyes leaves GOP, looks at Constitution Party

HAZLETON, Pa. (AP) — Former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes announced Tuesday night that he has left the GOP and is considering joining the Constitution Party.

Keyes, who also ran as a Republican to challenge Barack Obama's U.S. Senate bid in Illinois in 2004, says he is talking with leaders and rank-and-file members of the Constitution Party.

"They're considering me, I'm considering them," Keyes said in a conference call late Tuesday night. "We have so much in common that I find it hard to believe we won't be able to work out a common basis for working together."

Keyes singled out the nation's present "border issue" as a reason he is leaving the GOP, saying it is a "threat to the sovereignty to the American people."

"There are clear signs that our leaders no longer have an allegiance to the sovereign people of the United States," Keyes said.

"I kind of expected that on the Democrat side. .... And the Republicans are presumed to nominate somebody who is anti-Republican. It puts a lie to the label and puts me in a position where I must question my ability any longer to participate in a party that has departed from its own identity. "

more... (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-04-16-keyes_N.htm)

Here's hoping he can secure the Constitution Party nomination. Down with ClintObamaCain. :nice:

The media doesn't like Keyes because Keyes doesn't hate white folk. Not to mention Keyes is a brilliant public speaker in contrast to the relatively retarded Obama.

The media doesn't like Keyes because Keyes doesn't hate white folk. Not to mention Keyes is a brilliant public speaker in contrast to the relatively retarded Obama.

Take a teleprompter away from Obama, and he gets down to nearly Bush's level of incoherence when actually challenged.

Take a teleprompter away from Obama, and he gets down to nearly Bush's level of incoherence when actually challenged.

Funny, you seem to be the only one I've ever heard with that take!
Few people begrudge Obama his oratory skills.
They are not completely consistent, but this has nothing to do with teleprompters (do you think he has teleprompters in his face to face debates against Hillary?), and in all likelihood much more to do with how much sleep the man has had. Campainging is not easy.
Hillary sounds doddering and weak on some occasions, and strong on others. They're doing more work than most of us will ever know or experience in these months of campaigning.
That's the human view - I'll leave you to your partisan, petty one.

M.

. Down with ClintObamaCain. :nice:

:beer::drink: IF ONLY

Funny, you seem to be the only one I've ever heard with that take!
Few people begrudge Obama his oratory skills.

You take a blinded partisan, petty view and don't see beyond the shallowness of B.H. Obama. Obama is a mere cult of personality.

I take an independent view of things. I am loyal to no political party. My only "partisanship" is that which adheres to my constitutional rights and civil liberties. That is the only human view worthy of consideration and honor. I become rather intolerant when politicians try to oppress me. I become rather intolerant when politicians lie and double-talk me. I become rather intolerant when people piss on me then try to claim it's raining. If you think that's "petty," you need to recalculate your judgment of me and perhaps check yourself.

They are not completely consistent, but this has nothing to do with teleprompters (do you think he has teleprompters in his face to face debates against Hillary?), and in all likelihood much more to do with how much sleep the man has had.

Debates are well-rehearsed and are guided to stick to typical stump speeches, particularly the Democratic debates which are often geared toward narrow special-interest audiences. Get them off their game, and their shallowness and double-talk is exposed.

You take a blinded partisan, petty view and don't see beyond the shallowness of B.H. Obama. Obama is a mere cult of personality.

I take an independent view of things. I am loyal to no political party. My only "partisanship" is that which adheres to my constitutional rights and civil liberties. That is the only human view worthy of consideration and honor. I become rather intolerant when politicians try to oppress me. I become rather intolerant when politicians lie and double-talk me. I become rather intolerant when people piss on me then try to claim it's raining. If you think that's "petty," you need to recalculate your judgment of me and perhaps check yourself.


What a round-about way of avoiding what I was addressing. You made a specific comment about Obama, and now that I've called you on it, you want to make it about all sorts of generalities.

Obama's oratory skills do not belong anywhere near George Bush's. I think you know this, and I think it is painfully obvious that you're trying to ignore that you said this, and that I'm commenting only on this.


Debates are well-rehearsed and are guided to stick to typical stump speeches, particularly the Democratic debates which are often geared toward narrow special-interest audiences. Get them off their game, and their shallowness and double-talk is exposed.

Rehearsal and teleprompters are two separate things.

M.

Pffft ... He rails on about fiscal responsibility the same time he pays himself with his campaign funds while writing bad checks to his creditors .. even his former campaign staffers would not support him today

What a round-about way of avoiding what I was addressing. You made a specific comment about Obama, and now that I've called you on it, you want to make it about all sorts of generalities.


Avoiding nothing. You want to talk about a two-faced phony like Obama who bumbles around when he first claimed to have known nothing about "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright's controversial utterings, then turn around in the supposed teleprompter "speech of the century" and admit he knew about his rantings to try to save his campaign from implosion.

The media can only protect this lightweight fool for so long.

Avoiding nothing. You want to talk about a two-faced phony like Obama who bumbles around when he first claimed to have known nothing about "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright's controversial utterings, then turn around in the supposed teleprompter "speech of the century" and admit he knew about his rantings to try to save his campaign from implosion.

The media can only protect this lightweight fool for so long.

Ok, CCC.
You can make as many claims as you wish of this nature, it all boils down to your opinion, and I'm afraid your opinion is not coming across as very objective.

So, to prove your point, why don't you make a public poll with the following question and options:

How much better of an orator is Barack Obama when compared to our current president, George Bush?

a) Barely better
b) Considerably better
c) Far better
d) They are not in the same league

Then we can get a broad cross section of opinions and see how he is perceived overall regarding his ability to communicate.

Mmm? Sound fair to you?

M.

Please someone tell me what it is that I am missing. What makes you all feel that he would be any different, better than any other?

Please someone tell me what it is that I am missing. What makes you all feel that he would be any different, better than any other?

Hey Simone,

I'm really focusing on trying to get CCC to be more honest in his appraisal of Obama's oratory skills, no more here.

But to answer your question, if you don't hear, see and sense what is different with Obama, I don't think anyone can make you. I particularly think this after talking about Obama with you several times over the past few weeks.

You either see how he is trying to bring integrity to his role, or you don't. You either see how he is trying to bring more dignity to an undignified mess of back-stabbing campaigning, or you don't.
You either see how the way he has led his life is more honorable than his opponent, or you don't.
You either see that he was the only of the candidates to have the right stance on the criminal invasion of Iraq, or you don't.

M.

I think Obama is one hell of an orator, and so was Hitler. That trait alone in no way makes a person qualified to do anything besides talk.

Talk is cheap, and although Obama can speak well and deliver a fantastic speech (much better than Bill Clinton ever could IMO; Bill always seemed like a used car salesman to me), I agree with CC in the opinion that he's still a Johnny come lately liberal upstart who's being protected by the liberal media;for now.

If he wins the nomination, the gloves will come off a bit, but he'll still be their guy for the most part. McCain will be the "bad guy" during the run up to the election. We'll see the worst camera angles and photos available, every slip of the tongue, etc. As for Obama, we'll be presented with a youthful, tough, energetic personality with answer to every problem. It's so predictable.

This reminds me of the Nixon/JFK election in some ways. JFK understood the power of TV, as does Obama, and both have used it to their advantage in a big way

The American media loves to build people up and convince everyone to love them for whatever reason, only to destroy them later. This has been going on for a long time. Recently, Britney Spears (who I can't really stand personally, yet I think she should be left alone and not scrutinized at the level she has been) is a great example. She was the next big thing just a few short years ago. Now they're following her around like vultures as her train seems to be derailing and she comes unglued. There are very likely people who are hoping she dies, just so they can explain to America how and why this tragedy happened. Never underestimate the lure of a good story. To certain journalists, it's an addiction.

They'll do the same to Obama. We'll learn every bad thing he's ever done eventually, regardless of the facts, or the other side of the story. MUch of what we see and hear through the media is completely one sided. They did it to Clinton to some extent, they've done it to Bush and many before them, and Obama isn't immune just because he's popular now. Bush was once popular, and so was Nixon (wildly popular, winning a landslide reelection in 72'). Popularity is a fleeting thing, and professional politicians know this full well.

So yes, Obama can speak, so can Keyes, but anyone who believes that this qualifies anyone to be a good president is only deluding themselves. Being President is an extremely tough and difficult job that requires very unpopular decisions, and I have to wonder about anyone who wants it.

Lincoln had to make choices no one wanted. JFK had to risk a full blown nuclear exchange with the Soviets, banking on the chance that they would back down. He put all of his cards on the table and maintained his poker face, even though he was terrified of the possible outcome. That incident could have turned out far differently than it did had someone else been in charge on either side of the conflict. Lyndon Johnson was destroyed by the Viet Nam war and the consequences of his decisions regarding the execution of that war, and only lived a few years after leaving office.

There will be times when certain, if not most Presidents are forced to make decisions that no one likes, but that's part of the job, and anyone who's thin skinned can never handle it. A good speaker makes a good politician, but not necessarily a good policy or decision maker.

I think Obama is one hell of an orator, and so was Hitler. That trait alone in no way makes a person qualified to do anything besides talk.

Talk is cheap, and although Obama can speak well and deliver a fantastic speech (much better than Bill Clinton ever could), I agree with CCC; he's still a Johnny come lately liberal upstart who's being protected by the liberal media;for now. If he wins the nomination, the gloves will come off a bit, but he'll still be their guy for the most part.

The American media loves to build people up and convince everyone to love them for whatever reason, only to destroy them later. This has been going on for a long time. Recently, Britney Spears (who I can't really stand personally, yet I think she should be left alone and not scrutinized at the level she has been) is a great example. She was the next big thing just a few short years ago. Now they're following her around like vultures as her train is derailing. There are people who are hoping she dies, just so they can explain to America how and why this tragedy happened. Never underestimate the lure of a good story.

They'll do the same to Obama. We'll learn every bad thing he's ever done eventually. They did it to Clinton to some extent, they've done it to Bush and many before them, and Obama isn't immune just because he's popular now. Bush was once popular, and so was Nixon (wildly popular, winning a landslide reelection in 72'). Popularity is a fleeting thing, and professional politicians know this full well.

Thanks Bertrade, all that is true, and noone here is saying being a good orator makes someone anything more than... a good orator.

CCC contended Obama is almost as bad an orator as Bush, that is all.

So actually, on the only point that concerns me in this thread, you disagree with CCC.

M.

Keyes leaves GOP, looks at Constitution Party

HAZLETON, Pa. (AP) — Former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes announced Tuesday night that he has left the GOP and is considering joining the Constitution Party.

Keyes, who also ran as a Republican to challenge Barack Obama's U.S. Senate bid in Illinois in 2004, says he is talking with leaders and rank-and-file members of the Constitution Party.

"They're considering me, I'm considering them," Keyes said in a conference call late Tuesday night. "We have so much in common that I find it hard to believe we won't be able to work out a common basis for working together."

Keyes singled out the nation's present "border issue" as a reason he is leaving the GOP, saying it is a "threat to the sovereignty to the American people."

"There are clear signs that our leaders no longer have an allegiance to the sovereign people of the United States," Keyes said.

"I kind of expected that on the Democrat side. .... And the Republicans are presumed to nominate somebody who is anti-Republican. It puts a lie to the label and puts me in a position where I must question my ability any longer to participate in a party that has departed from its own identity. "

more... (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-04-16-keyes_N.htm)

Here's hoping he can secure the Constitution Party nomination. Down with ClintObamaCain. :nice:

Alan Keyes is one of several million chronically unemployed individuals who, because they have long since given up looking for honest work, distort the official unemployment statistics in the United States.

Keyes has never worked a day in his life, but he's not counted among the jobless, because, well, nobody would hire him in any event.

The basic problem for Keyes is that he persists in his absurd, delusional goal of being a "political leader" while living in a country where political leaders are usually chosen by a majority of voters -- and nobody in his right mind is going to consider voting for a complete nut like Alan Keyes.

In any event, the Constitution Party is probably a good choice for poor Alan, because the Constitution Party is run by sexually repressed, dangerous far-right Christian fundamentalist nutcases and seeks to turn the United States into a theocracy; notwithstanding Keyes' nominal status as an afro-American, it is white male equivalent of the Taliban.

This collection of Christian fundamentalists, gun nuts, anti-abortion zealots, homophobes, immigrant bashers and others who think Tom DeLay is a pinko would seem a good home for Alan. The party has ballot access in many states and is now officially Christian, not just that wimpy “Judeo-Christian.” Its platform now reads, “the foundation of our political position and moving principle of our political activity is our full submission and unshakable faith in our Savior and Redeemer, our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Really, what’s not to like?

Take a teleprompter away from Obama, and he gets down to nearly Bush's level of incoherence when actually challenged.

What are you talking about? One thing Obama is particularly known for is his unique non-reliance on teleprompters.

I thought this thread was about Alan Keyes? :scratch:

Thanx for staying on topic, Guido :nice: At least one person understands this whole "message board" thing...

More about the pathetic Alan Keyes:

On St. Valentine�s day we offer a father-daughter love story, though perhaps not quite the kind that would excite the juices of cupid. Yes, Alan Keyes�much to the surprise of the somnolent Chicago media�has arisen from the political graveyard to haunt us again--with a new episode of homophobia, one involving his daughter.

Keyes became notorious last year. First, after describing Hillary Clinton as a "carpetbagger," he was imported to Illinois by a handful of right-wing Republicans who rejected the Illinois Republican Party�s history of moderation�and success--in winning elections. The radical right wanted a true test: they got it. Keyes lost by 40 points.

Keyes is really not a political figure. He is a political entrepreneur. He takes extremist stands knowing that a tiny fragment of the political community agrees with him and will pay to hear his radical nonsense. Keyes makes a good living being a right-wing nut, certainly a better living than I do. He rakes in the cash by peddling his rightist claptrap and a handful of Republican social-militia types pay well to support him in high style.

But Mighty Alan speaks with a forked and dissembling tongue and, as they used to say in the 1950�s, puts �business before pleasure.�

Keyes' �business� is titillating his tiny segment of right wing nuts with fundamentalist rhetoric. Why Republican leaders imported him to Illinois still mystifies me. It was a political marriage made in hell.

Keyes promptly attracted national attention by sliming the gay daughter of Vice President Cheney. He went to the Republican National Convention, ensconced himself on �Radio Row,� and promptly attacked Ms. Cheney because of her sexuality, calling her a �selfish hedonist.�

Keyes went on to speculate that �[I]f my daughter were a lesbian, I�d look at her and say�� Heaven forefend.

What Keyes did not tell his right-wing supporters and paymasters was that he did have a daughter, and he already knew she was a lesbian. Maya Keyes had �come out� to her parents in high school, and Keyes knew he was telling less than �the truth and full truth� when he trashed Cheney�s daughter and concealed his own identical family situation. Keyes concealed the truth concerning his family (pleasure) because it was obviously "bad for business."

Since Maya Keyes is bad for business with Keyes' right-wing constituency Mr. Keyes has now ended the pleasure of his parenthood. He has thrown Maya out of the house (family values) and cut off her tuition and school money for brown University (Christian charity?) Oh, what a tangled web we weave!!!!! And, oh, Happy Valentine's day.

http://www.politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.html?col=254

Here's some classic idiocy from that idiot Alan Keyes:

U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes told a rally Saturday that incest was “inevitable” for children raised by gay couples because the children might not know both biological parents.

“If we do not know who the mother is, who the father is, without knowing all the brothers and sisters, incest becomes inevitable,” Keyes told the Marquette Park rally held to oppose same-sex marriages.

“Whether they mean it or not, that is what will happen. If you are masked from your knowing your biological parents, you are in danger of encountering brothers and sisters you have no knowledge of.”

The stupidity expressed in Keyes' words boggles the mind.

Too bad he came unglued a few years back. But then he doesn't have an insane racist pastor backing him up, so he would probably never make it.

Too bad he came unglued a few years back. But then he doesn't have an insane racist pastor backing him up, so he would probably never make it.

What do you mean by "a few years back"? Although he seems be drifting ever deeper into insanity, Alan Keyes has been a lunatic for a very long time.

Hey Simone,

I'm really focusing on trying to get CCC to be more honest in his appraisal of Obama's oratory skills, no more here.

But to answer your question, if you don't hear, see and sense what is different with Obama, I don't think anyone can make you. I particularly think this after talking about Obama with you several times over the past few weeks.

You either see how he is trying to bring integrity to his role, or you don't. You either see how he is trying to bring more dignity to an undignified mess of back-stabbing campaigning, or you don't.
You either see how the way he has led his life is more honorable than his opponent, or you don't.
You either see that he was the only of the candidates to have the right stance on the criminal invasion of Iraq, or you don't.

M.


Malcolm, I have really tried. Let's for the minute put aside the fact that I question his judgement and deal with the items you mentioned.

Integrity

1. the quality or state of being complete; unbroken condition; wholeness; entirety
2. the quality or state of being unimpaired; perfect condition; soundness
3. the quality or state of being of sound moral principle; uprightness, honesty, and sincerity

Am I wrong to assume the 3rd definition is the one you are referring to? We can only use a man's words and actions to make assesments. And I am more than a little cynical when it comes to a politician's words.
Can you cite a specific example where this was clearly demonstrated? Not words - actions. By the way I am not doubting that he is for the most part honest and sincere but I'd like a specific example if you could


Dignity

1. the quality of being worthy of esteem or honor; worthiness
2. high repute; honor
3. the degree of worth, repute, or honor
4. a high position, rank, or title
5. loftiness of appearance or manner; stateliness
6. proper pride and self-respect

You will have to help me here. There are many people who behave with dignity. That does not ensure they would make a good president. So why does dignity in conducting a campaign have any bearing?

Honorable

1. worthy of being honored; specif.,
a. of, or having a position of, high rank or worth:
b. noble; illustrious
c. of good reputation; respectable
2. having or showing a sense of right and wrong;
characterized by honesty and integrity; upright
3 bringing honor to the owner or doer
4 doing honor; accompanied with marks of respect an honorable burial

By his opponent do you mean only Hillary?
Again many people are honorable but not presidential material.


These character traits that you mentioned are indeed desirable but I'm looking for more. I have carefully read most of his official campaign website searching for answers. One of his slogans - Change we can believe in ---but i want to know HOW????

If you examine the Hillary website or even the McCain website and compare it to Obama's they all outline about the same general things.

Let me state right up front there is no way I would vote for Hillary. Some of my reasons may not be rational - I don't care -I won't change my mind.

I will gladly admit that I am more biased against the Democratic party but McCain is far too liberal in my opinion so I really did look at Obama.

Slowly my confidence in him has eroded. I still question his judgement in calling Wright his mentor, in including him on his advisory committee when he has verbalized the way he did (sound bite or not Wright said those words). I'm not quite sure what to make of his latest gaffe about Pennsylvanians- I'll overlook his 'confusion' when he wrote his books as to timing of events. I'll ignore the fact that 4 yrs ago he said he would complete his 6yr term and not run for president or vice-president- people can, do and should change their minds about things. I 'm trying to assess what he REALLY meant by typical white woman.


I'd like to believe in CHANGE but for now all I see is the sameoldsameold.

Malcolm, I have really tried. Let's for the minute put aside the fact that I question his judgement and deal with the items you mentioned.

Integrity

1. the quality or state of being complete; unbroken condition; wholeness; entirety
2. the quality or state of being unimpaired; perfect condition; soundness
3. the quality or state of being of sound moral principle; uprightness, honesty, and sincerity

Am I wrong to assume the 3rd definition is the one you are referring to? We can only use a man's words and actions to make assesments. And I am more than a little cynical when it comes to a politician's words.
Can you cite a specific example where this was clearly demonstrated? Not words - actions. By the way I am not doubting that he is for the most part honest and sincere but I'd like a specific example if you could


I'll be happy to give you a number of examples if you can answer me this: why, if you are not doubting he is for the most part honest and sincere, do you need me to show you anything?
You see this goes straight to my point: you probably know as much as I do about Obama, and if you don't see his integrity, why will I be able to show you? You increase my feeling that no matter how much integrity he has, you won't take it into account - here you say you don't doubt he has integrity, and yet you want to play games with me asking me to explain that integrity to you.

So tell me why we have to play this game, and I'll give you your examples.


Dignity

1. the quality of being worthy of esteem or honor; worthiness
2. high repute; honor
3. the degree of worth, repute, or honor
4. a high position, rank, or title
5. loftiness of appearance or manner; stateliness
6. proper pride and self-respect

You will have to help me here. There are many people who behave with dignity. That does not ensure they would make a good president. So why does dignity in conducting a campaign have any bearing?


Noone is saying this alone will ensure a good presidency. In fact noone can give you the magic recipe for a good presidency. If we could, we wouldn't have elections: we'd just find the people who fit the recipe and put them in charge.

I'm dismayed Simone, and this increases my feeling that some sort of game is being played here: that you won't, in a million years, change your idea of the man, but you somehow want to argue about it anyway.

The answer here is obvious - dignity is an important positive facet of character. It should be a prerequisite - an entry level skill - for ANYBODY representing our nation, be it a low-level diplomat or our president. If you cannot conduct your affairs with dignity, you are a disgrace to our nation, and you make us all look bad. Why would we want to elect someone who does that?
If you say: for the same reasons we elected Bush, then you'll score humor points, but really, Simone, why do you need to ask me why dignity is important in someone who represents our nation? Why?

Beyond the mere good representation of our nation, a person who can take the high road even when it is the more difficult road, if it is the more universally beneficial road, is intrinsically more qualified to be our leader than someone who cannot. I'll be disappointed if you ask me why.


Honorable

1. worthy of being honored; specif.,
a. of, or having a position of, high rank or worth:
b. noble; illustrious
c. of good reputation; respectable
2. having or showing a sense of right and wrong;
characterized by honesty and integrity; upright
3 bringing honor to the owner or doer
4 doing honor; accompanied with marks of respect an honorable burial

By his opponent do you mean only Hillary?
Again many people are honorable but not presidential material.


Once again, noone is claiming that on its own, honor is what should land you in the White House. But you go on to say these traits are indeed desirable. So why do you not give Obama the credit he deserves by your own recognition here. He may fall short in some ways: everyone will. There is no perfect candidate out there, unless you want to wait for the second coming of Jesus Christ. But all I hear you do is be negative about Obama when clearly, there is A LOT to like.

And as always, democracy is usually about voting for the lesser evil. For the first time in a long time, the word 'evil' doesn't even apply to one of our candidates. Obama is demonstrably not in politics to play dirty, deceptively and selfishly. When was the last time you saw a candidate reach where he is now without making grabs for the big bucks? Obama's money, he earned through the sales of two books, and his salary as a servant of our nation. He is virtually unique in this respect. Surely, after the corruption we have seen eating our political system from within, and foiling the mechanisms meant to ensure the correct governing of our country, this should bode well to you as it bodes well to MILLIONS of Americans who are recognizing we have a different candidate here, and who are voting for him and donating to his campaign in literally unprecedented numbers.


These character traits that you mentioned are indeed desirable but I'm looking for more. I have carefully read most of his official campaign website searching for answers. One of his slogans - Change we can believe in ---but i want to know HOW????


Maybe you would need to have a three or four hour sit down with the man before you were satisfied. Or maybe you really do need to see Jesus run for president before you endorse...

It is not wrong to want to know how Obama thinks he is going to achieve some of the things he intends to attempt, but he has provided a hell of a lot of information on his site that you just don't seem to be finding. He outlines how he will approach each challenge, and what's more, he calls on Americans to submit their ideas on how to change the systems in crisis. The outlines on his pages are not waffle: they spell out a path, but what's more, there are links at the bottom of the pages to pdf documents for those who want more details.

Once again, I get the distinct notion that you are setting standards deliberately above what Obama or any candidate will provide you with.


If you examine the Hillary website or even the McCain website and compare it to Obama's they all outline about the same general things.

Let me state right up front there is no way I would vote for Hillary. Some of my reasons may not be rational - I don't care -I won't change my mind.


All the more reason for the character of the candidates to be important to you, if you feel they all propose the same general things.


I will gladly admit that I am more biased against the Democratic party but McCain is far too liberal in my opinion so I really did look at Obama.

Slowly my confidence in him has eroded. I still question his judgement in calling Wright his mentor, in including him on his advisory committee when he has verbalized the way he did (sound bite or not Wright said those words). I'm not quite sure what to make of his latest gaffe about Pennsylvanians- I'll overlook his 'confusion' when he wrote his books as to timing of events. I'll ignore the fact that 4 yrs ago he said he would complete his 6yr term and not run for president or vice-president- people can, do and should change their minds about things. I 'm trying to assess what he REALLY meant by typical white woman.


We have discussed Wright. Calling Wright his mentor was, quite simply and really quite obviously, a display of honesty which it seems you don't know how to reward.
Someone being your mentor does not mean you adopt his approaches to life, or his beliefs. It means you recognize that someone has given you their time, and taught you important life lessons. Often those lessons concern what NOT to do, and you would know this if you yourself have had mentor.

Wright said those words, but your desire to dismiss their manipulative soundbite nature speaks volumes. In full context, Wright was being rawly honest in a way which is unpalatable to certain taste buds in mainstream America, but he was expressing certain truthes we all would actually GREATLY benefit from ackowledging, no matter how distasteful our programming makes them to us.
Other words from Wright are downright wrong, and Obama has been clear that he shares our understanding of them as being so.

It is partly the ability to see the good, the bad, and the ugly in American reality that makes Obama one of the most level-headed candidates we have ever been given the opportunity to elect. He may have listening to some of Wright's sermons to thank for that, not only for their content, but for the example of certain types of ugliness Wright himself represents.


I'd like to believe in CHANGE but for now all I see is the sameoldsameold.

All I can say is that you are looking through your eyes and seeing one thing, and I am looking through mine, and seeing another.
I have never voted. I did not even vote against Bush, because I was so jaded about American politics. I regret that I did not vote against Bush. And now I am presented with a candidate who for a multitude of reasons, I actually want to vote FOR.

If you do recognize that Obama possesses integrity, dignity and honor as you seem to here, and if you recognize that he has not led his life nor conducted his affairs in a corrupt manner, and furthermore if you recognize his intellect, his community-building focus and his ability to inspire this country in numbers that boggle the mind considering his relative anonymity AND his ethnic background -- all that should be left as a stumbling block is what he intends to do in the White House.

M.

Simone,

Can you please provide me with a full quote of the 'typical white woman' thing you mention?

Thanks,

M.

In this video clip, Alan Keyes experiences one of his frequent "episodes" on national television, accusing John McCain of supporting the "cultural murder of our young people" because McCain likes Nine Inch Nails.

http://newsroom.mtv.com/2008/03/27/john-mccain-alan-keyes-and-nine-inch-nails-the-whole-sordid-affair/

In this video clip, Alan Keyes experiences one of his frequent "episodes" on national television, accusing John McCain of supporting the "cultural murder of our young people" because McCain likes Nine Inch Nails.

http://newsroom.mtv.com/2008/03/27/john-mccain-alan-keyes-and-nine-inch-nails-the-whole-sordid-affair/

What a complete asshat.

Ok, CCC.
You can make as many claims as you wish of this nature, it all boils down to your opinion, and I'm afraid your opinion is not coming across as very objective.

So, to prove your point, why don't you make a public poll with the following question and options:

How much better of an orator is Barack Obama when compared to our current president, George Bush?

a) Barely better
b) Considerably better
c) Far better
d) They are not in the same league

Then we can get a broad cross section of opinions and see how he is perceived overall regarding his ability to communicate.

Mmm? Sound fair to you?

M.

Hey Simone,

I'm really focusing on trying to get CCC to be more honest in his appraisal of Obama's oratory skills, no more here.

Interesting of all the things to talk about, and you get your panties in a ringer on an opinion on Obama's oratory. That's what I get for responding to Snouter and bringing up perhaps the worst orator in the history of the Presidency. :p

If you want to post a poll, go right ahead. I am not concerned with how other people rate Obama's skills. I am not wont to change my opinion based on public opinion polls and popularity. If I am in minority opinion, so be it. I'm used to being in that roll. My philosophy is that it is better to be right than popular. Popularity is why this country has gotten so corrupted and out of whack, which is why it is important to keep this nation a Republic and not a pure Democracy.

Obama does a fine job of reading from a teleprompter, as in his now infamous speech on race. Compared with a master orator such as Alan Keyes, who doesn't use teleprompters, Obama pales in comparison, especially without his crutch of a teleprompter or his stock speeches.

Everything I opine on is an honest accessment from me. You have your opinions; I have mine. If you cannot handle my honesty, that is your problem. Deal with it.

Alan Keyes is one of several million chronically unemployed individuals who, because they have long since given up looking for honest work, distort the official unemployment statistics in the United States.

Keyes has never worked a day in his life, but he's not counted among the jobless, because, well, nobody would hire him in any event.

The basic problem for Keyes is that he persists in his absurd, delusional goal of being a "political leader" while living in a country where political leaders are usually chosen by a majority of voters -- and nobody in his right mind is going to consider voting for a complete nut like Alan Keyes.

In any event, the Constitution Party is probably a good choice for poor Alan, because the Constitution Party is run by sexually repressed, dangerous far-right Christian fundamentalist nutcases and seeks to turn the United States into a theocracy; notwithstanding Keyes' nominal status as an afro-American, it is white male equivalent of the Taliban.

This collection of Christian fundamentalists, gun nuts, anti-abortion zealots, homophobes, immigrant bashers and others who think Tom DeLay is a pinko would seem a good home for Alan. The party has ballot access in many states and is now officially Christian, not just that wimpy “Judeo-Christian.” Its platform now reads, “the foundation of our political position and moving principle of our political activity is our full submission and unshakable faith in our Savior and Redeemer, our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Really, what’s not to like?


Good summary of why nobody should listen to your pathetic rantings.

Alan Keyes always was a loser,he is a loser and he will continue to be a loser,no matter wht political party he's in.

Alan Keyes always was a loser,he is a loser and he will continue to be a loser,no matter wht political party he's in.

Ah, don't be a buzzkill, TT. You should be happy we're providing an alternative for voters so they won't have to settle for John McCain. :nice:

It's true that the Constitution Party aspires to be the American Taliban. They would impose the Christian equivalent of Sharia Law. Government controlled morality, religion, sexuality, and strict theocratic education. I believe they would require women to dress in some variation of a burkha.

It is the perfect political party for our resident right-wing fundamentalist nutjob: Conservative Christian Crusader.

It's true that the Constitution Party aspires to be the American Taliban. They would impose the Christian equivalent of Sharia Law. Government controlled morality, religion, sexuality, and strict theocratic education. I believe they would require women to dress in some variation of a burkha.

It is the perfect political party for our resident right-wing fundamentalist nutjob: Conservative Christian Crusader.

Perfect summary of why you have no credibility.

Also, personal attack. Typical.

Interesting of all the things to talk about, and you get your panties in a ringer on an opinion on Obama's oratory. That's what I get for responding to Snouter and bringing up perhaps the worst orator in the history of the Presidency. :p

If you want to post a poll, go right ahead. I am not concerned with how other people rate Obama's skills. I am not wont to change my opinion based on public opinion polls and popularity. If I am in minority opinion, so be it. I'm used to being in that roll. My philosophy is that it is better to be right than popular. Popularity is why this country has gotten so corrupted and out of whack, which is why it is important to keep this nation a Republic and not a pure Democracy.

Obama does a fine job of reading from a teleprompter, as in his now infamous speech on race. Compared with a master orator such as Alan Keyes, who doesn't use teleprompters, Obama pales in comparison, especially without his crutch of a teleprompter or his stock speeches.

Everything I opine on is an honest accessment from me. You have your opinions; I have mine. If you cannot handle my honesty, that is your problem. Deal with it.

Feeling Obama is barely a better orator than Bush cannot be an honest assessment from anyone, except perhaps someone with little or no command of the English language, and thus unable to make any distinctions. You, however, speak English.

That's my opinion, as you correctly point out. I think you're full of sh*t. :)

M.

Keyes sounds like a nutjob.

M

Perfect summary of why you have no credibility.

No, it's a perfect summary of the political sect you have aligned yourself with. You have to be hopped up on Jesus juice to view the Constitution Party as anything but a radical 'God's Law' movement that has far more in common with Iranian extremists than the founding fathers of America.

Also, personal attack. Typical.

There's no way to accurately describe you that wouldn't involve a personal attack.

What does Keyes bring to the table Bob Barr as presumed Libertarian candidate does not? Not that either has a snowball's chance in hell, of course, but if I'm going to waste my vote, I think I'd personally prefer to do it on Barr over Keyes.

Keyes sounds like a nutjob.

U.S. Leftist/Progressive/RINO lexicon:
Nutjob (noun): A person who values our Constitutional rights and liberties; advocates smaller, limited government; fights for the civil rights of all regardless of race, sex, or age; values the right of self-defense; values truth and justice and opposes tyranny and oligarchies; and values the right of citizens to control their own finances without government overtaxation and control.

No, it's a perfect summary of the political sect you have aligned yourself with. You have to be hopped up on Jesus juice to view the Constitution Party as anything but a radical 'God's Law' movement that has far more in common with Iranian extremists than the founding fathers of America.

There's no way to accurately describe you that wouldn't involve a personal attack.

Your dishonest portrayal of the Constitution Party is nothing like you described. Having said that, the Constitution Party, like any political party, is a vehicle. Dr. Keyes will not change his views to match any political organization, which is why he is no longer a member of the Republican Party. The true extremist parties are the Democratic and Green Parties. Any party that supports legal and unrestricted abortion is extremist. Any party that supports government paternalism over individualism and freedom is extremist.

People such as yourself are as close-minded and intolerant as your typical Iranian extremist. Your hatred and bile are like that of your typical Iranian extremist.

If you were honest, which you are not, you would have described me as I have described as I described above... "(a) person who values our Constitutional rights and liberties; advocates smaller, limited government; fights for the civil rights of all regardless of race, sex, or age; values the right of self-defense; values truth and justice and opposes tyranny and oligarchies; and values the right of citizens to control their own finances without government overtaxation and control."

An honest description of me doesn't devolve into insults. But then if you didn't insult your opponents, you would have very little to write.

What does Keyes bring to the table Bob Barr as presumed Libertarian candidate does not? Not that either has a snowball's chance in hell, of course, but if I'm going to waste my vote, I think I'd personally prefer to do it on Barr over Keyes.

T'is your right to choose your preference. If your conscience tells you to vote for Bob Barr, then so be it. I would not call such a vote a "wasted vote." A wasted vote is when you defy your conscience and vote for a lesser evil that the two major parties seems bound and determined to give us these days, for those votes will continue to strip us of our rights and give government more control over our lives.

The Constitution Party will have their convention next weekend and we'll see if Keyes gets the nod, or if Keyes will have to run as an independent. And the Libertarians will have their convention next month and we'll see if Barr is their official nominee.

A debate between Keyes and Barr would be much more educational than the circus that will be ClintObama vs McCain. The fix will already be in to keep the Presidential debates between the Democans and Republicrats.

U.S. Leftist/Progressive/RINO lexicon:
Nutjob (noun): A person who values our Constitutional rights and liberties; advocates smaller, limited government; fights for the civil rights of all regardless of race, sex, or age; values the right of self-defense; values truth and justice and opposes tyranny and oligarchies; and values the right of citizens to control their own finances without government overtaxation and control.


Hehe.

Nah... No need to look so far.
Nutjob = nutter, crackpot, unhinged, mental, deranged.

I'm going by the quotes presented to me here in this thread. If these sound bites misrepresent your man, please avail me of the greater context that sheds a different light.

Oh, that's right. You're the guy who feels Obama is barely a step up from Bush in terms of eloquence. Never mind. :)

M.

Keyes sounds like a nutjob.

M

True, but he's a professional nutjob, and makes a good living at it, thanks to people like CCC.

Keys is clearly a nutter who probably will not capture more than 3% of the vote .. perhaps he hopes his "candidacy" will enable him to charge more speaking to far-right religious sects.

and the "constitution party" .. where do they stand ??

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

yes .. we all know how much the constitution mentions Jesus .. LOL

Ah, don't be a buzzkill, TT. You should be happy we're providing an alternative for voters so they won't have to settle for John McCain. :nice:


He won't take any votes away from Mc Cain.

Alan Keyes has lost every election he's been in and he will continue to do so.

Feeling Obama is barely a better orator than Bush cannot be an honest assessment from anyone, except perhaps someone with little or no command of the English language, and thus unable to make any distinctions. You, however, speak English.



Obama is a way better orator than Bush.

Of course,being a better orator than Bush is like shooting fish in a barell.


Keyes sounds like a nutjob.

M

On this we will agree.
What does Keyes bring to the table Bob Barr as presumed Libertarian candidate does not? Not that either has a snowball's chance in hell, of course, but if I'm going to waste my vote, I think I'd personally prefer to do it on Barr over Keyes.

Keyes is evil ,Barr is just less than bright.


Keys is clearly a nutter who probably will not capture more than 3% of the vote



You're giving him more credit then he deserves ,he'll get 1% or less of the vote.

He won't take any votes away from Mc Cain.


This is technically true in that zero votes have been cast for all the candidates, so there are no votes to be "taken away" from McCain, who has not earned them.

The choices for those on part of the political spectrum is to hold ones nose and vote for McCain to keep ClintObama from winning, or vote for a candidate who better reflects their values and not be manipulated into voting for the perennial "lesser of two evils" the two major parties offer.

Alan Keyes has lost every election he's been in and he will continue to do so.

That is a reflection on the majority of voters who choose bondage over freedom; who choose expansion of a bigger, oppressive paternalism government over limited government and individual rights.

Keyes is evil ,Barr is just less than bright.

I disagree with this assessment. Barr's writings on why he decided to leave the GOP and go to the Libertarian Party seem quite sensible to me. Certainly you can disagree with what he says, I see no way you can someone "less than bright" wrote it.

Your dishonest portrayal of the Constitution Party is nothing like you described.

Why do you neglect to mention that the Constitution Party wishes to impose Christian values on the American population through government intervention? How can you blast one party for their 'oppressive paternalization', while backing another that attempts to legislate morality?

I disagree with this assessment. Barr's writings on why he decided to leave the GOP and go to the Libertarian Party seem quite sensible to me. Certainly you can disagree with what he says, I see no way you can someone "less than bright" wrote it.


Well,I am refering to Barr when he was in Congress.

You're right,I don't know about him today and I shouldn't have said that.

Keyes is evil

Would you denounce anyone that endorsed Keyes?

Would you denounce anyone that endorsed Keyes?



"Keyes is evil " is not meant literally but meant as a figure of speech [as I think you already know ,but you've clearly got an hidden agenda of some sort :nonono:].

I wouldn't denounce anyone only because they had a political disagreement with me.

Besdies,I am not the tpoic.

"Keyes is evil " is not meant literally but meant as a figure of speech [as I think you already know ,but you've clearly got an hidden agenda of some sort :nonono:].


Hehe. Yeah, said along side a most literal comment about Barr being less than bright!
Why would you use an exageration for one character, and a euphemism for the other in the same sentence, and expect us to know you meant one but not the other?

One step forwards, and then the same quick step backwards. I might call this dance the TT shuffle.


Besdies,I am not the tpoic.

Your behavior and tactics seem to ensure at every turn that you become the topic.

M

Hehe. Yeah, said along side a most literal comment about Barr being less than bright!
Why would you use an exageration for one character, and a euphemism for the other in the same sentence, and expect us to know you meant one but not the other?


My response is the Walt Whitman quote in my sig.

"Keyes is evil " is not meant literally but meant as a figure of speech [as I think you already know ,but you've clearly got an hidden agenda of some sort :nonono:].

You wouldn't have to worry about my hidden agenda if you had anything resembling a consistent set of principles. You are as shifty and duplicitous as Clinton. You couldn't have picked a more suitable candidate.

You wouldn't have to worry about my hidden agenda if you had anything resembling a consistent set of principles.


You're just pissed because I wouldn't fall for your trap.



You are as shifty and duplicitous as Clinton. You couldn't have picked a more suitable candidate.



You need to grow up.

Sorry, CCC, your man got thumped by a chiropractor...

link to Const Party nominating totals (http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/chuck-baldwin-becomes-the-constitution-party-presidential-nominee/)

Here is the official vote total:

Riekse 4.5
Baldwin 383.8
Ducey 1
Imperato 1
Keyes 125.7

Third Party Watch wishes to congratulate Chuck Baldwin on his nomination and wishes him success in November. Stay tuned to Third Party Watch for additional coverage of the convention.

Sorry, CCC, your man got thumped by a chiropractor...

link to Const Party nominating totals (http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/chuck-baldwin-becomes-the-constitution-party-presidential-nominee/)

Oh well. I was watching a live feed and had to break away half way into it. Started competitive (Keyes had a large vote from my state, California) but Baldwin apparently just had plenty of support within the party as the role call went on.

I'll have to look more closely at Chuck Baldwin. Whoever I vote for, we desperately need an alternative to the coming ClintObamaCain nightmare.

Sorry, CCC, your man got thumped by a chiropractor...



:rofl:

Man,even a chiropractor beats his ass.

Keyes is now the ulitmate LOOSAH.

:rofl:

No, only the voters are losers. America is the ultimate loser. Enjoy your tyranny folks. You've earned it.

No, only the voters are losers. America is the ultimate loser. Enjoy your tyranny folks. You've earned it.

I'm flattered my casual use of the word 'nutjob' has inspired you to honor it in your signature, but you're a little confused about its meaning. Nutjob simply means 'crazy person'. There... isn't that nice and simple?

M.

My response is the Walt Whitman quote in my sig.

The ultimate cop out. You may now run your mouth without any consideration for truth or consistency, and descend into abject hypocrisy with your conscience intact! All this thanks to the magical invocation of a Walt Whitman quote.

Politics is a contact sport, you like to say? How do you expect to compete in it if you are made of flimsy, flopping rubber?

M.

I'm flattered my casual use of the word 'nutjob' has inspired you to honor it in your signature, but you're a little confused about its meaning. Nutjob simply means 'crazy person'. There... isn't that nice and simple?

I'm quite aware of its true meaning, but intellectually and morally bankrupt individuals such as yourself don't understand how to use that phrase accurately. Luckily I'm around to point out your deficiencies.

I'm quite aware of its true meaning, but intellectually and morally bankrupt individuals such as yourself don't understand how to use that phrase accurately. Luckily I'm around to point out your deficiencies.

Yes: thank heavens you are!
Thanks to your valiant signature, balance is maintained in the world.

It is of course unimaginable that you might be according your signature a rather exaggerated role in the scheme of things!

So please, stay and hold up the walls for us! We don't know what we'd do with out you.

:cooldance

As someone who likes you both, you're neither of you morally/intellectually bankrupt. It's sad to see you descend to such insults between each other.

As someone who likes you both, you're neither of you morally/intellectually bankrupt. It's sad to see you descend to such insults between each other.

Hey LTG: I haven't insulted CCC. I called Keyes a nutjob a few posts back, is all.

M.

The ultimate cop out. You may now run your mouth without any consideration for truth or consistency, and descend into abject hypocrisy with your conscience intact! All this thanks to the magical invocation of a Walt Whitman quote.


The day you have as impressive a resume as Walt Whitman is the day I'll take this opinion seriously.:D

To get philosophical about it: We all have duality in us [which is how I interpert the Whitman quote]and that includes you.



Politics is a contact sport, you like to say? How do you expect to compete in it if you are made of flimsy, flopping rubber?


Anyone who knows anything about sports knows that you always have to "bounce" back.:D

That's why Astroturf was made. :shrug:

Keyes leaves GOP, looks at Constitution Party

HAZLETON, Pa. (AP) — Former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes announced Tuesday night that he has left the GOP and is considering joining the Constitution Party.

Keyes, who also ran as a Republican to challenge Barack Obama's U.S. Senate bid in Illinois in 2004, says he is talking with leaders and rank-and-file members of the Constitution Party.

"They're considering me, I'm considering them," Keyes said in a conference call late Tuesday night. "We have so much in common that I find it hard to believe we won't be able to work out a common basis for working together."

Keyes singled out the nation's present "border issue" as a reason he is leaving the GOP, saying it is a "threat to the sovereignty to the American people."

"There are clear signs that our leaders no longer have an allegiance to the sovereign people of the United States," Keyes said.

"I kind of expected that on the Democrat side. .... And the Republicans are presumed to nominate somebody who is anti-Republican. It puts a lie to the label and puts me in a position where I must question my ability any longer to participate in a party that has departed from its own identity. "

more... (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-04-16-keyes_N.htm)

Here's hoping he can secure the Constitution Party nomination. Down with ClintObamaCain. :nice:

When you get rejected by a bunch of rejects, it's really time to get a real job. Apparently, even the morons who run the Constitution Party are smart enough not to accept that nut Alan Keyes:

Who would have thought that, when it comes to candidate recruitment, the tiny Constitution Party maintains higher standards than the Republican Party?

Alan Keyes, who last appeared on a November ballot as the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate from Illinois, wants to mount another race against the man who beat him in 2004: Barack Obama.

So Keyes presented himself as a prospective nominee for the Constitution Party, a small, extremely right-wing group with was founded in 1992 as the U.S. Taxpayers Party and that still operates under a variety of names at the state level. (Among its affiliated parties in the California remnant of the old American Independent Party that was spawned by former Alabama Governor George Wallace's 1968 presidential run, which carried five southern states.)

The Constitution Party 2004 presidential nominee, Michael Peroutka, secured 144,421 votes -- for 0.12 percent of the total. The party secured a significantly larger percentage of the vote -- 25.5 -- when it ran anti-immigration zealot Jim Gilchrist -- in a 2005 special election for an open U.S. House seat in California.

But it generally remains on the margins of political viability.

Keyes promised to change that by putting his relatively big name and considerable -- if sometimes bizarre -- oratorical skills in the party's service.

But the delegates to the party's convention rejected the former Reagan administration ambassador. Baptist preacher and Florida talk-radio host Chuck Baldwin, the party's 2004 vice presidential nominee, secured 383.8 delegate votes (74 percent) to 125.7 delegate votes (24 percent) for Keyes.

Here's an interesting notion: The Constitution Party -- which supports the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment (the one that allows Congress to tax income) and the Seventeenth Amendment (the one that requires the direct election of U.S. Senators) and believes that states should be allowed to secede at will -- took a look at Alan Keyes and found him wanting as a candidate.

But the Republican Party was willing placed Keyes' name on the ballot in its race to retain a Senate seat from Illinois.

And which party are we supposed to take seriously?

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/316121

CCC is a big, steaming pile of hypocrisy. He wants the government out of his life, but supports a party that would be more controlling of the lives of others.

The Constitution Party believes that religion and government, the two most oppressing forces on the planet, should be intertwined.

CCC is a big, steaming pile of hypocrisy. He wants the government out of his life, but supports a party that would be more controlling of the lives of others.

The Constitution Party believes that religion and government, the two most oppressing forces on the planet, should be intertwined.

Further proof Mister E. has zero credibility. I am not a supporter of the Constitution Party. I do not support any party. I support candidates who will honor my rights and liberties. And I do not want "government out of my life," but rather I want government limited as to not oppress people but in a limited form to secure our rights and liberties. I do not want religion and government intertwined as you would like to paint it, but rather I want representative government of the people, by the people, for the people, regardless of religious affiliation and without government oppression of people of faith.

You want to play internet bully and naysay and spin other people's politics. You have the social grace of the bull in the china shop. Why don't you spell out right here right now what do you believe in and who do you support without all the negativity crapola. Naysaying is easy. Articulating vision requires much more.

I am not a supporter of the Constitution Party. I do not support any party. I support candidates who will honor my rights and liberties.

This is such a cop out. If you support a candidate who represents the goals and ideals of a political party, then you have thrown your support in for that party. The candidates become leaders of that party when elected.

Your "articulation" more closely resembles obfuscation or outright dodging. You don't even mention the actual platform of the candidate or party you're talking about -- which is, undeniably, the enforcement of conservative Christian values.

The day you have as impressive a resume as Walt Whitman is the day I'll take this opinion seriously.:D


I don't need to be a celebrated author to know your use of his words is merely a cop out of having a bakcbone.

Of course we all dual in nature - multi-faceted even. It doesn't prevent a lot of us from having principles and integrity.

Socrates, Walt Whitman... which personage are you going to use as a crutch next. The repeated appeal to grand figures of history for personal backup does not bode well for your mental health. I'm not trying to be mean here: somebody has to tell you this.

M.

I don't need to be a celebrated author to know your use of his words is merely a cop out of having a bakcbone.

You've never met me ,nor have you been to medical school ,yet you're giving a diagnosis of my vertebra.:scratch;


Of course we all dual in nature - multi-faceted even. It doesn't prevent a lot of us from having principles and integrity.


What's yer excuse?:shrug:


Socrates, Walt Whitman... which personage are you going to use as a crutch next.


QUOTE POLICE ALERT!

The repeated appeal to grand figures of history for personal backup does not bode well for your mental health.


I guess in your world nobody can quote anybody.:nonono:

I find such a world to be repressive and void of free thinking.:(