tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post3350015541516516595..comments2023-09-13T11:06:15.170-04:00Comments on Alan Keyes is LOYAL TO LIBERTY: The 80/20 fallacy ignores the intrinsic value of oneAlan Keyeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00205437413964197871noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-73031267467205231782009-09-24T11:24:10.688-04:002009-09-24T11:24:10.688-04:00Bottom line... the lesser of two evils is still ev...Bottom line... the lesser of two evils is still evil.<br /><br />Just what, exactly, are conservatives trying to conserve? <br /><br />Doing the same thing (voting for the same party) over and over again and expecting a different result is one definition of insanity. (Rather cliche' isn't it? But true none the less.)Dawg_emhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03431372202391934379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-73133800827032796182009-09-22T16:11:29.436-04:002009-09-22T16:11:29.436-04:00I say "principled" because I do not dist...I say "principled" because I do not distinguish between "principled" and "unprincipled" arguments, only between those which reflect reality and those which do not. All men call their ideas "principles", as though that exempted them from the requirement of dealing with reality.<br /><br />In general, I value the principled conservative because the ideas that conservatives choose to elevate as "principles" are time tested solutions to historical problems. Thus the "principles" of a conservative are likely to reflect a practical approach to reality, while the "principles" of progressives uniformly demand absolute ignorance of reality. But I do not much care about the particular status you assign those ideas which you take as principles, it is enough that those ideas reflect reality and you allow them to guide your actions.<br /><br />When I do see a "principle" being elevated to support an argument that could be much better advanced with other pertinent facts, despite their lack of whatever qualities mark out "principles", I am prone to become annoyed with the apparent limitations of "principles". I am an utter pragmatist, if I rationally thought that sacrificing a child could really ensure the safety of others, I'd seriously consider it unless I had some alternative that secured the same good at a lower cost. If a despot could be trusted to govern wisely and well, I'd give him my full support. And I'm never one to turn down a free lunch.<br /><br />But in real life, you cannot buy safety from those who demand the blood of children as their price, despots are absolutely corrupt, and there is no free lunch (nobody knows this better than someone who's always ready to eat one). I care not a whit for "principles", communists and fascists have them as well, and the main difference between yours and theirs is that yours are based on experience with reality and theirs are based on wishful thinking.<br /><br />So, forgive me or not, I will continue to regard reality as the supreme arbiter of which ideas have value and which are worthless. The passion and sincerity of your principles means something, I'm sure, but it doesn't predict which ideas are practical.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-58124982327751932002009-09-22T01:13:28.690-04:002009-09-22T01:13:28.690-04:00I went to answers.com and typed in fema camps. I w...I went to answers.com and typed in fema camps. I was SURPRISED at what came up; especially on YouTube! What in the world is going on? Sounds like someone has been planning this all along. Just one more reason why I think we should just vote EVERYONE out of office and put in some newbies come 2010! GOD save us from these cruel and sneaky people!gilbertabretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11021337304973752919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-85117340760414717062009-09-21T11:48:32.231-04:002009-09-21T11:48:32.231-04:00"What are these FEMA camps for?" (texan_..."What are these FEMA camps for?" (texan_4_keyes)<br /><br />Insurgents.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16788247164660520275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-19005421709338584842009-09-21T01:17:16.847-04:002009-09-21T01:17:16.847-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.a_random_texanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07222330418326146572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-51579358224024241182009-09-20T14:12:59.488-04:002009-09-20T14:12:59.488-04:00I see a danger in resorting to the "principle...I see a danger in resorting to the "principled" argument too soon. After all, what proof have we seen that those who offer prosperity without principles are any less fraudulent than the outright communists of the far left?<br /><br />You put the term "principled" in quotes for a specific reason, no? Namely because "principled", or resorting to the argument is itself not principled, at least on the surface. I see your point but don't quite understand it. You see, Chiu, principled conservatism is a real, viable force in and of itself. It does not matter what the so-called "Republican Party" is saying or doing; what matters most is what those who really adhere to its principles are saying and doing. Namely principled conservative individuals like myself.Terry Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00166609562028309038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-20394858376717327032009-09-20T03:43:47.459-04:002009-09-20T03:43:47.459-04:00I see a danger in resorting to the "principle...I see a danger in resorting to the "principled" argument too soon. After all, what proof have we seen that those who offer prosperity without principles are any less fraudulent than the outright communists of the far left?<br /><br />We have seen none, and there is none. Quite the opposite, the fate of all societies which attempt to have wealth without morality is one of history's most obvious lessons. Where material 'means' become the ends of a people, the tendency is for all individuals to seek to consume more wealth than they produce. Once this pattern becomes entrenched, the civilization is doomed.<br /><br />Morality, the tested pattern of values which tells us what is right and what is wrong, may well have been instantiated by divine revelation. But what matters to us is that the pattern of society which morality recommends to us is the only one in which all the various labor necessary to the continuation of society is fostered, while those activities which are detrimental to society are held in check.<br /><br />When considering the devil's bargain, it is well to remember that he was a liar from the beginning. The offer of 80% you find agreeable is not to be rejected just because the 20% you're asked to sacrifice is so precious to you, but because the offer is insincere. The Manson's aren't going to honor their agreement to be satisfied with your children, they only make the offer to paralyze your thinking so that you won't devise some means of actually resisting them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-27766133177214657942009-09-20T01:53:22.719-04:002009-09-20T01:53:22.719-04:00God bless you Dr. Keyes!! Brilliant article.
This...God bless you Dr. Keyes!! Brilliant article.<br /><br />This column was one of the best you’ve wrote. After reading it I tried to sum it up with a phrase, Conservatism is an ideology that satisfies the blood and socialism satisfies the skin, lol, if that makes any sense, or in other words……<br /><br />yes the socialist/communist ideology definitely appeals to the physical, material and worldly practical part of the human creature while simultaneously disregarding the immaterial, spiritual essence of man. We were created as rational animals, and the Divine engineering of our nature demands the proper disposition of our spiritual and physical characteristics. The spiritual essence of the human creature, which is the immortal essence we share with the Almighty, must govern the lower material essence of man. Jacob was greater than Esau, the agent is greater than the patient, the effect is greater than the cause, the immaterial is greater than the material. <br /><br /><br />The “ life of the flesh is in the blood” and the blood is the one mysterious substance in the human creature which unites the spiritual with the physical. So although conservatism is only a poor, decrepit shadow of the soon to come Kingdom of God (which will satisfy with eternal bliss the whole man) , it can, when practiced within the context of the Eternal law, indeed satisfy our blood. Whereas the socialist ideology seeks to construct a materialistic utopian state that can only satisfy the lower essence of man by appealing to his physical and animal needs, providing him security on the altar of liberty, and equality on the altar of dignity. Satan has entered into the hearts of those who push this system of governance that exchanges the truth for a lie, or the Incarnate Word for 30 pieces of silver.<br /><br />Conservatism is a fruit born from a group of individuals who share a common fear of God. Children of light who’s free will’s are governed by their intellect (spirit) and its internal law which is conscience. Contrarily the socialist ideology is a fruit born from a group of people who fear physical death. Children of darkness who free will’s are enslaved by the flesh , the world and the Devil. <br /><br />I apologize for the length, and the madness. God bless you allAngelopeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10320525458609812929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-32021688487234297802009-09-19T22:26:58.472-04:002009-09-19T22:26:58.472-04:001st Folks need to rightly define who they are, wha...1st Folks need to rightly define who they are, what they believe, what they stand for, what are the things that matter most to them and of course the country. <br />2nd find the candidate who exemplifies the ideals that you identify with.<br />When you do that I think you find the right candidate for you. To me it’s not about party, but I understand one is likely to find the candidate who most closely reflects ones ideas in a particular political party.<br />I’ll tell you this, there is a freedom of conscience when you vote for the person who is best for the country and matches your particular philosophy. I hated to see Mr. Obama win. I don’t think we would have been thrilled with Jon McCain either.<br />No, clearly in my eyes Alan is and was the best candidate for the job. I have to say when it comes to oratory skills I do focus on that. One of the many things I admire about Alan is his speaking ability. It is a quality that is so desperately needed and in such short supply these days. But then Alan has been saying the same things for years and years so he should be good at it. That is a reaffirmation that the truth never changes. <br />Alan said it during an interview with Janet Folger a while back, something to the effect that the wrong candidate from either party can lead us directly to hell, one may get us there a little quicker than the other but the destination is still the same.<br />In a football analogy its basic blocking and tackling, you can’t win without these basic building blocks. Our political situation is the same; we need to get back to our First Principals found in the beginning of the Declaration.<br />Thanks Alan.<br />ChrisAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13728855745814970952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-82119236853457685032009-09-19T18:49:36.819-04:002009-09-19T18:49:36.819-04:00The problem is systemic. More accurately, the sys...The problem is systemic. More accurately, the systematic undermining of our election process has led to a prolonged dysthymia among conservatives. Rather than vote for McCain, Bush, Dole or the elder Bush, many just sit out the election. Fewer and fewer are willing to hold their noses and pull the lever. If McCain had won, would anything be different? We'd still be accused of being a pack of racists and of being just an angry mob, but we'd still have illegal amnesty, socialized health care and a weak foreign policy. We'd still have no movement on prolife issues and crummy Supreme Court nominees. In the end, the electioneering guarantees us social entropy. Bush was slower to drag us into the financial and social collapse we're facing, but the direction was the same. The Republicans are willing to be the tortoise to the Democrats' hare as we unravel into a third world country so long as they can be assured of a place at the trough.WingletDriverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04007296783840122255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-48201751938378598172009-09-19T17:52:10.518-04:002009-09-19T17:52:10.518-04:00So to expand the fallacy, only about 62% of eligib...So to expand the fallacy, only about 62% of eligible voters actually voted in 2008. So that must mean there are roughly 81 million eligible voters who refused to follow the 'Judas Goat'. To be able to tap into that along with the roughly 20% who actually vote based on ideology would be awesome. <br /><br />It seems these days that only a small percentage, on either side, actually vote on ideology, while most likely the 80% is focused on things like appearance, oratory skills, charisma, sex, race, trivia, or what college was attended.<br /><br />With varying levels of morality, education, time, understanding, etc... across the nation, it seems that it would be impossible to achieve 'one' out of so many variables. The one thing that we can probably all agree on is the U.S. Constitution, and thus, to agree to support those who seek to follow its tenants, to the letter, on every issue.<br /><br />What percent of eligible voters voted in the 2008 presidential election?<br /><br />A: If the Voting Eligible Population was 212,720,027 and there were 131,256,905 valid ballots counted (finally tally), then 61.7% of eligible voters voted in the 2008 Election. <br /><br />http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percent_of_eligible_voters_voted_in_the_2008_presidential_electionAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com