This could be an interesting Senate race

[El Barto]

Keyes: Obama holds 'slaveholder's' view (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/keyes09.html)

[GWB]

I ran against Alan Keyes in the 2000 primaries. He is an excellent debater and would make an excellent US Senator.

Go Alan /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

I briefly watched him debate that year and was quite impressed.

[nothumb]

Obama is gonna wreck this fool and it ain't close.

I remember reading that Keyes strongly criticized Hillary for moving to New York to run for the Senate. Wonder what he's saying about this? After all, he couldn't win two Senate races in his own state.

The guy has little to no useful experience and is far, far outside the mainstream - although that's getting to be the norm for the Republican Party.

NT

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Keyes: Obama holds 'slaveholder's' view (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/keyes09.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a senate race this year? who knew

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

My impression of Keyes is that he's a 3-issue candidate. Abortion, abortion, and abortion.

This one will be almost as much a stomping as Teddy Kennedy gave to Jack E. Robinson.

[MMMMMM]

"My impression of Keyes is that he's a 3-issue candidate. Abortion, abortion, and abortion"


I guess I missed that part of the debate;-)

[andyfox]

He would make an excellent Senator only if we want to set our watches back to 1789.

He is indeed an excellent debater: thoughtful, articulate, intelligent. All the things you're not. [I am addressing the real GWB; you are far more thoughtful, articulate, and intelligent than he.]

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
He would make an excellent Senator only if we want to set our watches back to 1789.


[/ QUOTE ]

Would that be all bad?

-Zeno

[vulturesrow]

I think Keyes would be an excellent Senator but...the whole carpet bagging thing really leaves bad taste in my mouth. Yes I am a Republican but I also believe in republican (notice the small r) principles and this goes against them. Even though his situation is clearly much different than that of Hillary Clinton, I still dont agree with it. Of course the only reason the Democrats are against it is because they are scared that the golden boy might lose. It will definitely be an interesting race.

Chris

[MMMMMM]

..."only if we want to set our watches back to 1789."

Considering that 20th centrury was the bloodiest century of all--and that the century spawned some of the stupidest philosophies and most pernicious political systems--that might not be a bad idea at all.

Keep the technological advances and for the most return to 1789 ideologically, and the world would probably be a far, far better place.

It would certainly be a freer place.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He would make an excellent Senator only if we want to set our watches back to 1789.


[/ QUOTE ]

Would that be all bad?

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were black and lived in the South, yes. Also if you were a woman things might not be a barrel of laughs either.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
It would certainly be a freer place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slavery was abolished when?

[riverflush]

Keyes just lost a lot of respect within the Libertarian/Federalist community by carpet bagging himself into Calumet City, IL. just to run for U.S. Senate. He's was a vocal critic of Hillary when she pulled the NY Senate move, now he's shown himself to be just as self-promoting as Hill.

Keyes is a smart man, a good debater, and a decent talk-radio host. That said, he's going to get stomped by Obama in this race. It'll be 62%+ for Obama.

Republicans are really struggling in Illinois.

[andyfox]

Or gay. See his comments in poster's link.

[andyfox]

"It would certainly be a freer place."

Not if you're black. Or gay. Or a woman. Or an Indian. Or poor. Or . . .

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
"It would certainly be a freer place."

Not if you're black. Or gay. Or a woman. Or an Indian. Or poor. Or . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

Anything but a rich white land owner.

[Zeno]

I think your points are a given, which is why I put the word all in italics.

Humans progress at an unsteady rate. I suppose an argument could be made that we really haven't progress that much at all, aside from scientific and technological advances, for centuries. But I'll leave that to others if they wish to take that idea up.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Slavery was abolished when?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the U.S. about 1865 (The 13th amendment to the constitution) at least, as a legal institution. The Emancipation Proclamation (EP) (the one issued on Jan 1, 1863) was not binding in the 'North', it applied only to the states or parts of states in rebellion. Since the Civil War was sill ongoing the legality or binding power the EP had is a question for lawyers, I suppose. As a social, political, and cultural statement the EP is very forceful and important.

Slavery is still practice in some parts of the world. And some agencies and organizations are redefining what 'slavery' is or means, thus jacking up the population that is still under this cruel institution. There was an article in a recent (year ago perhaps) National Geographic about this.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Anything but a rich white land owner.

[/ QUOTE ]


Do you hop from one extreme to another? Is this a serious statement?

A little reflection should show you that, if you are not joking, that your statement is not only rather silly, it is not factual and shows a tremendous amount of ignorance.

Whether this is deliberate or not; I cannot tell.

For example:

In 1789 the majority of Indians were not only free but at least semi-automous tribes that fought amongst themselves as much as they fought Europeans. In the Center of the North American continent most tribes were as yet little influenced by European peoples – aside from the accidental introduction (by the Spanish) of the horse that had change some Indian societies, especial the plains people, for the better it would seem from the way the horse was adapted, and diseases had ravaged some tribes at the edges of the continent.


And why only Landowners? What of business people, traders, shopkeepers, craftsmen, small itinerate farmers, settlers, people with small homes etc., and the list can go on. And why only white? There were also freedmen, former slaves, in many parts of the nation, including many in New Orleans and New England. Many blacks fought in the revolutionary war.

Your sterotypical portrayl of people in past ages is misguided, in my opinion.


-Zeno

[andyfox]

On Indians: First, the center of the North American continent was not part of the United States. The leaders of the United States, however, wanted the center (and, in fact, all) of the continent and continued in their expansionist ways until they got what they wanted. The treaties they signed with the Indians were no more than mere scaps of paper to be ignored at will. The Indians were removed further and further west. While the Spanish had always desired to convert the Indians and make them a part of their empire, the English wanted separatism, lest the savages set a bad example.

As for landowners, the framers felt that those who owned the country should govern it. This is one of the reasons why they required slavery: to keep the white lower class from bonding, as it were, with the black lower class.

As for blacks, the fact that not every black was a slave, nor the fact that some fought in the revolution, does not change the fact of slavery. To claim that blacks were freer then than now is ludicrous.

"Anything but a rich white land owner" seems an apt protrayal.

[Taxman]

Thanks, I missed my 3rd grade history class where they went over this stuff. For a minute I thought you had as well.

[Roy Hobbs]

If by "interesting," you mean, "it will be interesting to see whether Obama will be able to break the record for largest landslide in a U.S. Senate race," then yes, I agree.

This guy is a total nutcase...listen to this interview:

http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/DWP_XML/848/2004_08/848_20040809_0935_2776/segment_149034.ram

RH

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]


"It would certainly be a freer place."

Not if you're black. Or gay. Or a woman. Or an Indian. Or poor. Or . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

Those groups today enjoy freedom in the USA and Europe, Andy, but not in too many other places around the world.

I'd even bet that the problem of black slavery is worse today in Africa than it was in America a couple centuries ago (the problem of slaughter of blacks certainly is at least). Now add in the massive slaughters by totalitarian political systems in the 20th century and I don't think it is even close.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

You also forgot about all the people being supressed by The Man. Surely, we're all less free now than any society has ever been, what with Bush and Ashcroft in power.

ANYBODY BUT BU$H IN 2004!!!!1!1!1!!!11!!!!!!

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
!!!!1!1!1!!!11!!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ] LOL /images/graemlins/grin.gif nice ones.

[andyfox]

Since we were talking about Keyes running for the Senate, I took "it" to be the United States. You indeed said "the world" would be a freer place.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The bottom line is, with Obama being such a recognizable figure now, the Illinois GOP could not let him run unopposed after the withdrawal of Ryan (mmmm, 7 of 9 in an orgy - oops, wrong train of thought).

Keyes is recognizable and available. Their hand was forced.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
Those groups today enjoy freedom in the USA and Europe

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought Zeno had said that if things were like they were in the 1780s the world would be more free, thus it doesn't matter if those groups enjoy freedoms today as far as Andy's comment goes.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Those groups today enjoy freedom in the USA and Europe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought Zeno had said that if things were like they were in the 1780s the world would be more free, thus it doesn't matter if those groups enjoy freedoms today as far as Andy's comment goes.

[/ QUOTE ]



Uh...hmmm...(head scratch)...maybe the second part of my sentence (which you left out above) explains the point I was trying to make:

"Those groups today enjoy freedom in the USA and Europe, Andy, but not in too many other places around the world."


Or am I missing the point you are trying to make?

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
As for blacks, the fact that not every black was a slave, nor the fact that some fought in the revolution, does not change the fact of slavery. To claim that blacks were freer then than now is ludicrous.


[/ QUOTE ]

I do not think I made this claim. I was pointing out obvious exceptions to what I interpreted as a very blatant stereotypical post.

[ QUOTE ]
"Anything but a rich white land owner" seems an apt portrayal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Are you saying that rich white landowners in 1789 were the only free people in the young nation? I find this rather hard to believe. I think there is some miscommunication or misunderstanding of each other. Perhaps this is my fault. Rich land owners were certainly a privilege group but others had freedoms also.

Anyway your point on the Indian mess is well made and the majority of the continent was not under American control in 1789. My mistake and blunder.

The Spanish, however, were equaled cruel and oppressive to some Indians in the Southwest. This was part of the reason for the Pueblo revolt of 1680 in what is now New Mexico. The Spanish were forced out and in 1690-91 reconquered the lands from the pueblo Indians. They did modify their stance with most of the tribes after that.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought Zeno had said that if things were like they were in the 1780s the world would be more free

[/ QUOTE ]

Taxman,

This is what I said that started this convoluted mess:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He would make an excellent Senator only if we want to set our watches back to 1789. [ A statement by Andy]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Would that be all bad?

-Zeno

_________________________________________________

From there things get messy and mixed up. I did not mean or imply that the 1780s were a magical place or time in the world or the U.S.


All bad meant to imply that we cannot blatantly state that everything in U.S. is always getting better or progressing at some steady rate. We gain somethings, we perhaps also, lose some things.


I hope this clears things up. I apologise for causing such a mess.

-Zeno

[andyfox]

"Anything but a rich white landowner" is freer today than in 1789. Substitute "almost anyone" for "anything," and I think it's pretty close.

The Black Legend of Spanish cruelty was, of course, exaggerated by the English as part of the ongoing battle between the two countries and their religious differences. However, there was indeed much truth to the legend, as you point out. The Franciscans in New Mexico were, you and I would probably agree, lunatics.

Anyway, my point was that Keyes has one of the great minds of the 18th century.

[Taxman]

lol, I didn't really think you did. I was just being a nit picking ass since everyone else seemed to be doing it to. I mean, that's the best reason to do anything right?

[Taxman]

I agree with your point, I just didn't feel it related to the direction of the conversation before it. Not that it really matters, I was just being nit picky to begin with.

[Zeno]

OK. This all sounds reasonable to me. I am so confused that I will agree to anything at this point. An old marriage tactic I am sure you are well aware of. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, my point was that Keyes has one of the great minds of the 18th century.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are back at the start. A very good place to end all this. I agree.

I have been posting too much and trying to work at home at the same time. Not a good combination.

Time for a shot of Makers Mark. Oh yeah, I agree - those Franciscans were a fanatical bunch.

-Zeno

[jcx]

[ QUOTE ]
Anything but a rich white land owner.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are all sitting here enjoying life and prosperity because those rich white land owners risked everything to throw off the shackles of tyranny and found this nation. There are precious few people today (Of any race) who enjoy wealth and privledge who would risk the same for their convictions. You should be ashamed of yourself for this statement.

God bless these long dead RICH, WHITE landowners.

[The once and future king]

Ok mr rabid rant attack.

Did I at any point criticize those white land owners.

No I didnt.

Please send your written apology to

Ben Nicholas
7 Camelot Court
Penzance
Cornwall
UK.

Thanks in advance.

[nicky g]

I'll attack those rich white land owners. They were interested in freedom for people like themselves (mainly from paying taxes). They weren't interested in freedom or even basic rights for women, blacks or native Americans. That doesn;t strike me as particularly heroic.

[The once and future king]

Are you daring to suggest that the freedoms most enjoy today have in fact had to be won from these rich white men who have had to conceed them to the masses due to the process of mass industrialisation etc etc.

Thats blashpehmy, you tratorious commie dog.

[nicky g]

Yas...

I'll admit I'm being a bit disingenous in picking a fight, as in many respects they were well ahead of their time. In other respects though they did things that were unforgiveable regardless of what time they occurred in.

[nothumb]

Hi jcx,

I certainly owe a debt to those guys, as they are my ancestors and I have, all in all, had it pretty good up to now. I see things getting a little rough if the government cuts any more social services spending (because I get paid largely by private grants and the State of New York) but I really can't complain.

If I was black, a woman, an Indian, extremely poor, or an immigrant, I might see it a little differently though. I agree that the American Revolution was more about freedom for us (landowning slaveholders with influence) than freedom for all.

NT

[MMMMMM]

"I'll attack those rich white land owners. They were interested in freedom for people like themselves (mainly from paying taxes). They weren't interested in freedom or even basic rights for women, blacks or native Americans. That doesn;t strike me as particularly heroic."

Nicky, try to look at it in the context of the times. Racial/gender oppression weren't 'catch phrases' then, nor were they probably even discussed in any country. Religious oppression was an issue then and the Pilgrims were very brave to go to the New World to escape it.

[nicky g]

As I say in many ways they were ahead of their times adn we owe them a debt of gratitude for some of their ideas and practices. But in other respects, there's a difference between a lack of awareness of racial and gender oppression on the one hand, and high-mindedly affirming that all men are created equal while enslaving blacks and wiping out the native population on the other.

[MMMMMM]

I agree, but progress comes in stages, not all at once.

[Taxman]

Never mind the fact that many different religious groups (most notably catholics), were heavily persecuted in the New World.

[MMMMMM]

Not to the extent of religious persecution in the Old World, though, right?

[Taxman]

Not to the extent of say the inquisition, no, but you would be suprised. I'd have to dig up some US history notes if you want a lot of specifics, but there were numerous examples. The main advantage the New World offered in this respect, was that in it's size, it allowed different religious communities to spring up separate from one another. These communities often did not treat outsiders well, but for a long time they did not interact with many. I will grant that most (but not all) religious groups (thopugh not necessarily individuals) could find a place in the New World, which was not really true in many parts of Europe.

[Senor Choppy]

Alan Keyes is a world-class douche bag and a hypocrite. These are Keyes' own words (obviously said before he decided to do the exact same thing Clinton did):

"I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there, so I certainly wouldn't imitate it."

Also, did I mention he's completely insane?

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, but progress comes in stages, not all at once.

[/ QUOTE ]

But according to you and your desire to turn the clock back, this period marks the pinnacle of human social progress and thus there were no further stages.

[ACPlayer]

It would certainly be a freer place.

In America, only if you were a land owning white man. Not if you were black, native american or a woman.

The rest of the world was hardly much freer.

Usual looniness.

[MMMMMM]

Not at all what I wrote.

[MMMMMM]

The 20th century saw the rise of totalitarian superstates that imprisoned, oppressed and slaughtered countless numbers of human beings. That didn't exist before to nearly the same extent or breadth, IMO.

[andyfox]

There were always totalitarian states that brutalized both their own and other entities' peoples. What they didn't have was the technology to kill in such great numbers.

[MMMMMM]

The superstates of the 20th century were bigger and more powerful than any before them, which facilitated mass control of people.

Yes, Andy, technology did play a part but so did the new superstates and so did the very pernicious ideologies of Communism, Fascism, and Nazism. The concept of the Fascist, Nazi, and Communist states was that the individual must be completely suppressed by the state, that the state was the highest good.

The world was, overall, less free in the 20th century than in the 18th, because never before had such a high percentage of the world's population been under the control of totalitarian regimes with absolute power.



ACPlayer, are you really trying to argue with that, or with something else??

Also, let's note that countless white landowners were imprisoned or butchered by these totalitarian staes in the 20th century...so being white was no defense if you lived in the USSR, nor was being yellow safe in Red China.

The number of blacks "not free" in the 18th century pales in comparison to the number of whites "not free" in the 20th century, even accounting for populatyioon growth. Hell, the WHOLE COUNTRY of the USSR and the WHOLE COUNTRY of Red China were not free...I don't see how anyone can argue about this.

Some folks need to look AT THE WHOLE WORLD, not just a narrow segment of it, when comparing freedoms. Not to belittle the problems and sufferings of blacks, but it pales in scope compared to Stalin and Mao murdering tens of millions and essentially enslaving their entire civilian populations.