First of all, I would like to say it's good to be back! I'm sure so many of you missed me, and so many more have no idea who I am.
Now for the real topic!
What has happened?!! Where did Huckabee come from?! He was like a UFO, out of no where!
I remember the first time I saw him in an interview in october on CNN, and I thought, "Hey, this guy seems so much more genuine than all those other republicans, but he is such a nobody, he'll never get the nomination."
Now he is kicking butt in Iowa, and Romney better watch his butt in New Hampshire if Huckabee wins Iowa.
I think that America needs a Huckabee. He isn't some New York Senator or Mayor, he isn't some big business man. He is a former preacher and governor from the south, a peoples person. Just look at the stats for his campaign, even Ron Paul has gotten more donations that him (mostly because his supporters are crazies!) But it's his values, his honesty, and his Huckabeeness that is winning over the Iowans. Not his big bucks and hundreds of campaign workers. (Just look at the millions of dollars Romney, The Mayor, Clinton, and Obama have spent!)
How do you guys think a man like Mike Huckabee would do against Hillary? Against Obama? Against Edwards? Let us not forget, even if he beats Romney and the Mayor, he still has to beat the dems!)
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I remember you.....
I don't like Huckabee. Why don't I like him? Because he's a former preacher. Now, I have nothing against preachers on a personal level, but I don't think that this government needs more religious influence in it than it already has.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
I think that Huckabee is a genuine person, but I don't see him as someone who could set aside his religous beliefs to do what is right for the good of the people.
I would just like to say, what is so fundamentally bad for the good of the people about Governor Huckabees religion? Isn't his moral background as a preacher, and his genuine approach in his campaign just proof that he may know exactly what is good for the American people? I think so.
"It's Better To Burn Out Than To Fade Away" -Neil Young
He is good for the people who agree with his beliefs while the others are left in the dark. I don't deny that he is more genuine than the other candidates, I just don't think he would be able to set his religous opinions aside when it comes to making decisions on certain topics such as abortion, homosexual marriage, etc.
This is just my opinion though ... I'm not a big fan of religion in politics.
Seperation of Church and State. Huckabee is a deeply religious person and I believe that that belief is genuine. I believe that he would be unable to put aside his religious convictions and sometimes you have to do that. Further more, it is likely that he will make decisions based completely on Christian faith and that is unfair to non-Chirstians.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
So run as a non-religious candidate! If there was a non-religious candidate that was elected president, the Christians would have to deal with that.
I don't care if the candidate is religious, as long as (s)he knows to keep his/her religion out of the government process. The government is supposed to be secular, and an Evangelical President is hardly going to follow those guidelines.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
It's called checks and balances. There is a Supreme Court and a Senate that would not let the president violate a constitutional ammendment to "MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION..." However, there is nothing in the constitution that says the man can't claim to be a God fearing man or even testify and teach his religion.
"It's called checks and balances. There is a Supreme Court and a Senate that would not let the president violate a constitutional ammendment to "MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION..."
Oh yes, care to tell me how well the checks and balances are working? Not very well, and I can see Hackabee trying to mess them up even more, or even bring the world closer to his imaginary armageddon. (no offense meant to christians, just Huckabee, but I'm sure offense will be taken.)
Very true, the Congress is trying to act like the judicial branch, the judicial branch is trying to act like Congress, and anywhere he goes, people blame President Bush for everything.
The things people blame President Bush for remind me of the way that people (saddly successfully) demonized Senator Joe McCarthy.
Some, in a mental leap that those in at Guiness would like to measure, suggest that McCarthy was, indeed, who everyone says he was: A Blacklisting drunkard who sought to ruin the lives of anyone he could, using 'his' HUAC group to get revenge on people.
They have yet, of course, to explain how a senator was in charge of a house committee, nor do they explain (or seem to remember) that it was the Democrats, not McCarthy, that wanted his list made public. McCarthy kept saying that there are some on the list that may end up NOT being spies or sympathizers, and he didn't want to ruin anyone's lives.
But the Democrats forced him, under direct order, to make public such a list. As Verona has shown. He was right.
How many decades will have to go by before President Bush is shown to be right, and will it have been too late for the history books to care?
Everyone is out of bounds.
Well labeling people Communists like McCarthy did isn't a really good thing Lance, especially when most of them weren't Communists. Sure, McCarthy did some good things, but ruining the reputation of hundreds if not a few thousand people is not something that is looked upon highly.
I don't think he is that, I think that McCarthy was doing what he thought was right, which was wrong. He is in the fault no matter how you cut it. He shouldn't have been listening to HUAC and shouldn't have realeased the names if he thought they might not be "Reds". The senator was in charge before he even started making allegations. McCarthy could have said no, but he didn't. That is where I find most fault in McCarthy. He was a coward and ruined the reputations of people because he didn't want to say no to his party.
Or how many years will it be before we learn the extent of Guantanamo's "secret" prison, or about the abuse supposed terrorist suffered because the administration decided that the Geneva Convention didn't include them? It is a two sided coin.
Wrong. Apart from two people, his entire list (he actually had three lists, but they were compiled into one) was found to be accurate. Each of them was at least a sympathizer to the Communist party. As they decode more of the Verona cables, we're also finding that more and more were actually spies for the soviets. The assumption is that they were all innocent people that McCarthy evilly tried to smear. That assumption is furthered along by the liberals, who supported such spies and sympathizers, such as Alger Hiss.
Exposing truth is not 'ruining' the reputation of someone. In fact, McCarthy is NOT want his list published so as to NOT ruin the reputation of people.
In charge of what? HUAC? A Senator was in charge of a House committee? HA! he was ORDERED by Huac, specifically by the democrats, to publish the list he had. Any reputations ruined of innocent people are the fault of the Democrats, not McCarthy.
Say no to his party? He was a Republican, and the Democrats were demanding, by force of HUAC that he publish the lists.
Right, except we don't abuse prisoners... We lock them up, we guard them, we make sure they don't try and kill themselves, we give them their holy book, we have special places to walk so as to not make the floors squeak during prayer time, we give them access to full medical care and chef-prepared meals. They are fed better than our soldiers. They are treated better than our REGULAR prisoners domestically. If anything, President Bush could be falted for dealing wih them too softly, considering that they were captured on the field of battle trying to kill our soldiers and blow up civilians who assisted us in freeing Afghanistan and Iraq.
If you want to talk about the Geneva Convention, please explain how they are covered. They target civilians, they torture and behead our soldiers and they do not wear a uniform so as to mix in with the local population.
Three of the primary requirements of a soldier to be protected by the Geneva Convention is that they specifically NOT be targeting civilians, they must treat prisoners well and they must have a uniform so as to seperate them from the general population.
They also must have been a nation that signed Geneva, and last time I checked "Militant Islam" wasn't on the list that signed Geneva.
As much as that is theoretically true, the Supreme Court is still conservative and would probably back Huckabee and the congress has been cedeing their duties to the President, such as the right to declare war.
And, like I said, I don't care if Huckabee is religious. I don't care if he testifies and I don't care if he teaches it to his kids. If he tries to teach it to me, I'll take offence and I'd be in the Constitutional Right. I'd also be in the Constitutional Right if he tries to do something that has the sole motivator as his religion and serves no secular purpose. And I think he would do something like that.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
I don't know that I'd call the Supreme Court Conservative.... remember the decision in regards to Eminient Domain.
I would suggest that they are balanced now. The next president has the likely chance to set up the next justice with congressional approval.
As for being religious... I wouldn't expect a religious person to act un-religious or an unreligious person to act religious.
I think because Huckabee's detractors don't want him to be president, they insert alot of religous content where it didn't exist.... they say that he is going to or not going to do things based on their biased view of christians.
President Bush claims to be a Christian and he didn't mandate church attendance. President Clinton claims to be a Christian and didn't require that you memorize scrupture.
Perhaps Conservative is the wrong word, but they are certainly Republican, if only by a smidgen, at the moment, and I think they might back Huckabee in areas of constitution shakiness, just as a democratic court would back a democrat.
I'm not talking about blatant nonsense that couldn't work. President Bush tried to get ID taught in science class. And, whatever your personal beliefs are, ID does not hold up to the definition of science. I'm sure Huckabee would continue that. I'm also sure that he'll continue trying to block same-sex marriage even more by a constitutional amendment which would take the matter out of state hands. And I think that he is wrong on both counts and religiously motivated on both counts. I don't think he wants to force people to attend church.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
I don't think that either side would actually try an amendment to the constitution to define marriage as 1 male and 1 female or to define marriage as '2 adults who consent'
I don't think there is enough support to get enough states on board with that to even try.
As it is, only 1/2 of those who CAN vote do vote, and things seem to be generally split numberwise. (which is why we see a flipping from republican to democrat so often)
one of the advantages to being a Conservative is that you don't seek federal involvement in state issues. As such, I can't see a conservative doing that. Note that President Bush, though a republican, is not a conservative. Huckabee I think has enough respect for history and the Constitution to not try and force a federal involvement in any issues based on his moral stances, though I imagine he would (like anyone) have no real issue opposing federal involvement on an issue based on moral stances.
Despite how some want to seperate religious from moral, the fact remains that for the religious, their faith and theology defines their morality.
I don't think it is nearly as fair to say that just because one is a christian that they would seek federal involvement to try and push christianity on others. I think that is largely a fear tactic used by the anti-christian groups that is close enough to reasonable that most don't consider the implications of such an argument, so they adopt it as their own argument as well.
I counter such an argument this way: "Do YOU, as a nonchristian, wish to force your moral code and belief system on me by government mandate? Why, then, would you say the same of me?"
generally the answer is "No, of course I wouldn't. That is something that christians have a long history of doing, not [their religion]."
that shows the breakdown of such an argument.... the association of Act A to Peoplegroup A due to some history that Person from Peoplegroup A is not a part of.
Huckabee has said to CNN, during the coverage of the New Hampshire Primary, that he wants two constitutional amendments passed. One is to protect the sanctity of life. The other is to make marriage between a man and a woman.
Oh, and I don't think you ever answered me on this. Do you support Civil Unions?
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
If a government needs to be involved in marriage, then I don't have a problem with some equal governmental recognition for the homosexual community.
It is not marriage by definition, but the tax and legal issues that marraige carries ought to be allowed to anyone.
So yeah, civil unions are fine with me.
Well, I think that's a pretty reasonable view.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
That's because I'm not what I am painted to be by some.
Most people aren't.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Telling you about his religion and his faith has nothing to do with the constitution. Now, if he proposed a law that said The United States will follow the religion of Christianity and only Christianity and those who practice other religions will be prosecuted, then yes, he would be in direct violation of the constitution. Read the great document once again. There is nothing stated about the separation of church and state.
No, if he tried to pass laws with religious motivation and a lack of secular purpose, then he would be breaking Constitutional law and I think he will try to do that.
As for the separation of church and state, do some reading. That was clearly the intent of the people who passed the amendment and the Supreme Court has upheld that interpretation.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
I have read the Supreme Court rulings. Just because they ruled a certain way doesn't mean that I have to agree with their interpretation. I believe that the Supreme Court has gotten many things wrong in the past. As far as anyone proposing a law based on moralitiy or religion, isn't that what all laws are based on? What one person feels is right or what someone else feels is wrong? Webster's defines moral as "Of or pertaining to the principles of right and wrong." It's not only the Christian faith that disagrees with homosexual marriages or abortions. There are many people that disagree with these activities based on their own moral code.
It was also the clear intent of the founding fathers. The phrase seperation of church and state was used by Jefferson. I can't find the qutoe, but a quick scan through a similar debate will reveal it. Pecrcivale usees the quote a lot.
And I don't think that all laws are based on a person's morality. I think that there are laws that are based on practicality as well. I think some laws are based on the underlying moral principles that all humans share, such as don't murder or stea. That is not to say, however, that they are based on religion. Every secular code of law has opposed murder. I was given an example of a society that didn't oppose theft, but that failed quickly as a result of it. And even if the laws were based, at least in part, on religion (which I deny), they serve a clear secular purpose to society. Banning same-sex marriage does not.
I don't care if every religion on the planet disagrees with homosexuality. A person's right to exert their moral judgement ends when he infringes upon the rights of others.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Oh come on, every one knows a governor from Arkansas can't win an election for president
Actually if he could be the Republican style of Clinton ( on the campaign trail, not in the bedroom) That would be great. I love this guy. He actually appeals to the Christian right as well. I'm not all that happy with any of the other candidates, as I am a Christian Conservative.
He'll make a good fight
The fact is, Huckabee wont treat abortion or Gay Marriage all that differently than any other Republican. It is the fact that he genuine that makes him the best candidate. I think the fact that the man is religous makes some people un confmortable, but in no way do I believe it is an impedement to his ability to lead this country. If you don't like the way Huckabee would treat abortion and Gay marriage, then you wouldn't like any Republican (aside from Giuliani, but he has changed his colors on those issues atleast for the campaign).
"It's Better To Burn Out Than To Fade Away" -Neil Young
What about Paul? He wants to leave it all to the states.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Ron Paul also wants to leave Iraq, abandon israel and let the world rot, with his head buried in the sand.
That might have worked pre world war i, but not anymore.
There is also this little matter, involving Ron Paul:
http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/ron_paul.php
I'm not going to debate all of this Paul stuff here. My point was that he was, in fact, different from other republicans on those issues.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
There you are correct. lol.
If not for his issues that make him unsupportable in my mind, he is a strong conservative.
However, the more that is uncovered about him, the more the 'racist' charge starts to become more soundly based.
Acceptance of funds and support from Stormfront.
No calls to distance himself from white supremacy groups.
Now this stuff about his newsletter.
Combine that with his (i think) insane idea to withdraw any and all support from other countries and abandon Israel to be destroyed....
eh. no thanks.
I scanned your link and I may be looking into it, but I have a few issues with him that I would always be against (abortion, mainly) and a political view that will bend either way. I think I'll be voting Edwards in the primary.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
I am a Conservative Republican. I am most conservative on fiscal issues and somewhat less conservative on social issues. I have a strong libertarian streak. I actually think abortions should be legal at the State level. Roe was a terrible decision because it ignored the Constitution but States should be able to decide. My biggest issue for the last decade has been illegal immigration. I also want low taxes and small spending and not too much government interference in my freedom. I usually think government is the problem and not the solution.
Huck is a compassionate conservative in the George Bush mode with the biggest difference between him and Bush is that he likes raising taxes. But he is soft on legal immigration and favors big government solutions along with big government spending. He is essentially a religious socialist. Bush is at record lows because he is shunned even by his own conservative base. They are mad at him because of illegal immigration and big spending. I can't imagine Republicans will vote for more of the same and that is what they will get from Huckabee.
I think in the General Election the huckster is the least electable Republican. Most independents who will decide the race are fiscal conservatives and social liberals. Huck is a social conservative and a fiscal liberal which is the opposite. Where is the appeal?
He does have the charisma thing going though and you can never underestimate the stupidity of the American people. We elected Jimmy Carter mostly on the basis of his toothy smile. It was a stupid way to choose a President and it didn't work out very well.
Ugh. Two of my least favorite attributes for American politicians. Religion and socialism do not belong in this country's government.
I don't think I'd go so far as to call him a socialist, but he is definately not a die hard conservative. I'd put him as the more conservative of the three (Rudy, Romney and Huckabee), only 'conservative' in comparison with socialist Hillary or inexperienced socialist Obama.