I </3 Huckabee

[Mitch]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071205/D8TAUN3O4.html

what a jackass. "i want you all to know that i am deeply religious. i will pander to anyone who loves god. god is so cool and i think god is just the bee's knees! i am super-highly religious and i don't care who knows it! AMEN! CAN I GET A WITNESS-AH?"

- do you believe that evolution is a crock of shit?

"yes i do."

- so then you think creationism should be taught in schools?

"wait wait...we're focusing on my religion WAY too much!"

look, if you play the "i'm an ultra-conservative christian" card, you simply aren't allowed to also play the "my religious convictions aren't the issue" card.

[Hooby]

Did you just say Jude Law sucks?

Edit: ohh yes, and of course Mike Huckabee is a moron...had you expected more?

[Mitch]

Did you just say Jude Law sucks?

Edit: ohh yes, and of course Mike Huckabee is a moron...had you expected more?

jude law is alright.

[Summersun33]

look, if you play the "i'm an ultra-conservative christian" card, you simply aren't allowed to also play the "my religious convictions aren't the issue" card.

would you go easier on him if he demanded that every student is required to only study his beliefs?

i doubt it.

[Jason]

I refer you all to this latest news about huckabee:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/05/huckabee.dumond/index.html?iref=newssearch

[Mitch]

i've recently (within the last few years) come to believe that the death penalty is wrong. i believe that serving life in prison is one of the worst, if not THE worst punishment one can ever endure.

that being said, who paroles rapists? seriously. people who commit capital offenses seem to be getting off easier and easier because the futile and failing "War on Drugs" is overcrowding our prisons.

absurd.

also,


would you go easier on him if he demanded that every student is required to only study his beliefs?

i doubt it.

i'm not trying to be mean, and this is probably me being stupid, but i don't understand this. i mean that in the literal sense, can you break it down for me? honestly not being a smart ass.

here's how i interpret it: would i go easier on him if huckabee demanded everyone be a conservative christian? if that's what you mean, then i would call him a fascist.

i interpret his actions as playing both sides of the field: he wants to appear ultra-conservative and religious to appeal to the christian fundamentalists in the country, but doesn't want his religion to be an issue for the greater, moderate majority of america.

you literally can't do that. i'm not saying "not allowed," i'm jsut saying it won't work. you can't say "jesus christ forever and ever amen, i believe that this is a christian nation and god is great, etc etc etc" and then turn to the next reporter and say "my religion is not an issue here."

if you make it an issue, it IS an issue. for example, rudi guiliani could not say, "i believe that abortion is immoral, but it should be left up to the states," and then turn around and say, "abortion is not an issue that you should be asking me about."

[Will]

"I guess he's not..."

I had to double take Mitch, becuse I swear that said 'I guess he's hot...'

I only double took because everything started to make more sense.

[Mitch]

"I guess he's not..."

I had to double take Mitch, becuse I swear that said 'I guess he's hot...'

I only double took because everything started to make more sense.

hey was that a...oh ho ho another gay joke. clever. ;)

[Summersun33]

i'm not trying to be mean, and this is probably me being stupid, but i don't understand this. i mean that in the literal sense, can you break it down for me? honestly not being a smart ass.


i'm sure you're not trying to be mean, i've mastered mitch-speak

;)

i just think it's unfair to criticize a guy for saying he would keep his views out of schools. i bet you would trash him ANY way he would answer that question about the teaching of creationism in schools...

[LetsGoMountaineers]

"That's an irrelevant question to ask me - I'm happy to answer what I believe, but what I believe is not what's going to be taught in 50 different states," Huckabee said. "Education is a state function. The more state it is, and the less federal it is, the better off we are."

I applaud Huckabee. The press has gotten out of control. They know damn well that it's a rediculous question to ask, but they do it anyways.

I'm not sure if it is or isn't because I attended 12 years of Catholic school, but shouldn't public schools OFFER an OPTIONAL course on creationism or some sort of theological based elective? Then again, here's the gist of it: God made the sun and the moon and the sky and the mountains and man and animals and the ocean and pumpkin pie and then he rested, in some particular order. Creationism in a nutshell.

For the record, both my grade school and high school taught evolution in biology/science based classes in a scientific manner. Again, who has two thumbs, went to 12 years of Catholic school and was told that it's a sin to :wank: ? That's right. THIS GUY. Guess who goes to confession 4 times a day. Haaaaaaaaaaaah just kidding.

It's my understanding that most public schools don't offer religious courses... I think they should be optional electives... if the kid wants to take it, let him take it.

[brenan]

I'm not sure if it is or isn't because I attended 12 years of Catholic school, but shouldn't public schools OFFER an OPTIONAL course on creationism or some sort of theological based elective?

It's my understanding that most public schools don't offer religious courses... I think they should be optional electives... if the kid wants to take it, let him take it.

No. Religion shouldn't be taught in public schools. If you want to spend the $$ and go to a private school and learn about religion, more power to you.

But kids need more actual learning, more economics, and more political education. If my tax money is going to teach kids. I want kids to learn about politics, the political systems, how democracy only works if people participate. I want kids to learn how to manage money, learn principles of saving, how to take out loans, sound ideas on interest, financing, budgeting, etc. I want kids to be math experts, to be skilled writers. I'd like my money to be put towards helping our population become more literate and mathematically, logically, politically, and economically sound, at least in education.

IMO, those things are far more important than learning about religion. If you want to study religion, go to a faith-based private school.

[Will]

No. Religion shouldn't be taught in public schools. If you want to spend the $$ and go to a private school and learn about religion, more power to you.

But kids need more actual learning, more economics, and more political education. If my tax money is going to teach kids. I want kids to learn about politics, the political systems, how democracy only works if people participate. I want kids to learn how to manage money, learn principles of saving, how to take out loans, sound ideas on interest, financing, budgeting, etc. I want kids to be math experts, to be skilled writers. I'd like my money to be put towards helping our population become more literate and mathematically, logically, politically, and economically sound, at least in education.

IMO, those things are far more important than learning about religion. If you want to study religion, go to a faith-based private school.


All these ideas are linked.

To not teach religion is foolish. By teaching people about religions (Christianity, Islam, Jewdaism etc etc etc) you teach them to understand and tolerate.

If you don't teach children about religion, they learn about it through the media or other external sources.

Which would you rather, children learn about religion from an educated teacher, or a sensationalist news channel?

Teaching religion isn't forcing religion on kids, it's educating them on what those around them believe, about what those around them believe, it is just as important as teaching them about science, especially in today's climate. Not every kid is going to use complex science in life, but every person is going to bare witness to complex religious issues.

[brenan]

All these ideas are linked.

To not teach religion is foolish. By teaching people about religions (Christianity, Islam, Jewdaism etc etc etc) you teach them to understand and tolerate.

If you don't teach children about religion, they learn about it through the media or other external sources.

Which would you rather, children learn about religion from an educated teacher, or a sensationalist news channel?

Teaching religion isn't forcing religion on kids, it's educating them on what those around them believe, about what those around them believe, it is just as important as teaching them about science, especially in today's climate. Not every kid is going to use complex science in life, but every person is going to bare witness to complex religious issues.

Maybe it's cause I'm from California and the cali public school system is a little different ...

but I learned about a great deal of different religions in my history classes. IMO history provides ample area for discussion on what people believe / believed. if people were more interested in learning the essentials of that religion, it was recommended that they find a local church, synagog, cult meeting, etc etc. learn about religion from those of that religion. you don't go to a mormon church to learn about what catholics believe, and you don't go a catholic church to learn about what jews believe, etc.

In the same way, it's better to keep religious teaching out of public schools....unless we decide to hire teachers who's education is on that religion and teaching that religion.

I argue that science classes should be elective and have a more complete fiscal-political education. Things that actually matter in real world experiences. I wasted 3 years taking chemistry/physics/biology because it was a requirement to graduate high school. I design websites. I will never need to know all that shit.

I completely disagree that "By teaching people about religions you teach them to understand and tolerate."

Understanding and tolerance were qualities I saw in my parents, friends, teachers, and many people around me. I also saw intolerance, racism, bigotry, discrimination, etc. But I saw what was right and what was disturbing. I knew about these attributes long before I learned or could comprehend my religion or other's religion. -- what i'm trying to say is that these are attributes you decide to have, and should be taught about as a survival skill.

If you meant that by teaching people about other religions, we might be able to magically remove years of environmental learning that racism/discrimination/intolerance are acceptable and status quo... I don't think it's that simple and you're trying to tie their intolerance to their lack of religious education, which tolerance should and at least was taught at an elementary school level to small kids.

Maybe this isn't taught anymore and that's why there are so many nasty rotten kids running around. (chavs?)

[LetsGoMountaineers]

IMO, those things are far more important than learning about religion. If you want to study religion, go to a faith-based private school.

Private school is expensive. In fact, my parents paid more for my high school education than they did for my college education. There have to millions of students out there who can't afford to go to a private school. I think it's wrong to deny them an optional, elective class similar to home-ec, shop, an extra spanish class, an optional business class (a complete waste of time, IMO, having a BS and MS in Business Admin... it's too broad to be covered adequately in one semester) and the like. Students should have the right to choose what their 8th period of the day will consist of. That choice should include religion or theology.

[brenan]

Private school is expensive. In fact, my parents paid more for my high school education than they did for my college education. There have to millions of students out there who can't afford to go to a private school. I think it's wrong to deny them an optional, elective class similar to home-ec, shop, an extra spanish class, an optional business class (a complete waste of time, IMO, having a BS and MS in Business Admin... it's too broad to be covered adequately in one semester) and the like. Students should have the right to choose what their 8th period of the day will consist of. That choice should include religion or theology.

I guess part of it is that the current public school system is not based on learning, but multiple choice test scores and how well you can fill in bubbles.

The entire school system needs to be reorganized, but there's so much dogma and educators that follow the dogma that it won't happen.

I agree that high school age kids should be able to pick how they want to take their studies and the current offerings in high schools are completely shit, but the inclusion of religion classes would have to come from demand, not forcing districts to hire religion teachers. At my high school we had a german class for 1 year, but there wasn't enough demand for it the next year so the teacher was moved to a different school (can't blame the kids, we live next to mexico....). In the same way, elective classes could be offered for religion(s) or just an overview Religion class.

But i think there's a ton of more important classes that should be required (as i mentioned above).

I think the other issue is that as a society there's an opinion that teaching religion in publics schools can't be unbiased and presented in a informative way, as we don't want people to indoctrinate our kids with anything. Obviously by the time you're 17 or 18 you should be less susceptible to be zombified into a scientologist like tom cruise but there's still a huge issue over the social concept of propaganda and how many see teaching religion.

but my opinion still stand that if you really want to learn about a religion, go talk to the experts of that particular religion. No doubt they'd be more than willing to talk your ear off in hopes that you'll convert and throw away your evil ways. But really, you're just there to be taught tolerance and understanding, right?

[Mitch]

you should learn about religion in a public school.

you learn WHAT christianity, islam, buddhism, etc ARE.

teaching about religion needs to be secular-based - completely objective. that hardly ever happens, but trying to say teaching about religion in public school should not be allowed is like saying you should only learn about abstinence.

kids are going to find out anyway, so you should learn from a reliable source.

sorry, learning about different religions from your family, the media, or a religious institution is absolutely insane. points of view on different religions from a private school, whether that school be a catholic school, a jewish school, or a muslim school, are absolutely more likely to be skewed than at a public school.

[The Flicker Fade]

"That's an irrelevant question to ask me - I'm happy to answer what I believe, but what I believe is not what's going to be taught in 50 different states," Huckabee said. "Education is a state function. The more state it is, and the less federal it is, the better off we are."

I applaud Huckabee. The press has gotten out of control. They know damn well that it's a rediculous question to ask, but they do it anyways.

I'm not sure if it is or isn't because I attended 12 years of Catholic school, but shouldn't public schools OFFER an OPTIONAL course on creationism or some sort of theological based elective? Then again, here's the gist of it: God made the sun and the moon and the sky and the mountains and man and animals and the ocean and pumpkin pie and then he rested, in some particular order. Creationism in a nutshell.

For the record, both my grade school and high school taught evolution in biology/science based classes in a scientific manner. Again, who has two thumbs, went to 12 years of Catholic school and was told that it's a sin to :wank: ? That's right. THIS GUY. Guess who goes to confession 4 times a day. Haaaaaaaaaaaah just kidding.

It's my understanding that most public schools don't offer religious courses... I think they should be optional electives... if the kid wants to take it, let him take it.

Why stop there, then? Why not offer classes on Astrology? Phrenology? Alchemy? The exact forumla for transmuting lead to gold isn't so hard to memorize, let's just hope there's no lab section!

I don't know about you guys, but I learned all about religions in high school. From the "major five," to less global ones such as Taoism and Zoroastrianism, to modern religions like B'hai, to extinct belief systems like what we refer to as "Ancient Greek mythology." I can tell you all about what they believe, and I can even rattle off a whole bunch of different Native American tales on how the world was created, to boot. Maybe it's because I went to public school, or maybe it's because I'm from New York, or maybe it's because I was in honors classes. But are you so sure you don't know more about religions from high school than you think? Maybe you just don't remember that high school is the place you learned it.

Creationism, or anything like it, should not ever have its own class. A general elective theology class covering the idea of faith in general is a different matter. However, I'm not so sure it would be popular, seeing as teenagers are less open to exploring different ideas at that time in their life- with limited exposure to the world, they're more likely to believe whatever their parents have told them to. They also need concrete information about the world, and concrete facts, with everything else in their life changing. That's the job of high school. Some things are better off reserved for college (and yes, I know not everyone goes to college, but in that case all you need from high school is the basics to survive in the world, and theology is not).

I've taken theology classes, and I do see the merit. I really don't think they belong in high school, and a theology class with a scope as narrow as Creationism only doesn't belong anywhere.

[Mitch]

i can't give you reputation...i must have done so recently.

[LetsGoMountaineers]

but my opinion still stand that if you really want to learn about a religion, go talk to the experts of that particular religion. No doubt they'd be more than willing to talk your ear off in hopes that you'll convert and throw away your evil ways. But really, you're just there to be taught tolerance and understanding, right?

I think we're possibly arguing the same point... now grant it, I just strolled in from a night at the bar after 12 hours in the studio, so my mind is shot, BUT... I didn't mean to imply that a Catholic or Jewish or Muslim education should be taught by the public schools. I basically meant a general, all encompassing theology class... explaining what religion is.

And for the record, I agree with your statement wholeheartedly. If you REALLY want to learn about religion, by all means, ackquire (drunken spelling) a sponsor of that particular religion and educate yourself properly. But I think the basic theological course is a tool that could possibly open the door to religion, for those who are interested.

Now, all of that being said... 12 years of Catholic school and as soon as I got to college I stopped going to church. Not necessarily because I don't believe in the Catholic religion... I believe in God and SPIRITUALITY and Heaven and Hell, but I'm not sure (still, 6 years later) how I feel about RELIGION. HOWEVER, I do know that - in the future - if I have kids, I'll send them to a private Catholic school because I believe - from my own experiences - it instills you with a very strong sense of morals and toleration/discipline, which is extremely valuable and lacking in today's day and age.

Anyways, I won't be voting for Huckabee.

[Punkadelica]

drink more...

[Intoxicated Ricochet]

Well, my problem with Huckabee is as follows:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071208/ap_on_el_pr/huckabee_aids

He said this in 1992 and I don't think he's radically shifted his views about this. Because it's 2007, oppressive tendencies and policies get refigured to seem less abrasive, but still enticing to a certain sect of potential voters. Subtlety is the recourse that past oppressors have today, its the medium through which past oppressive policies can be perpetuated and made to appear safe even as American society becomes more accepting and aware (at least I'd like to think that's happening).

"Not only is the illness figured as a 'gay disease', but throughout the media's hysterical and homophobic response to the illness there is a tactical construction of a continuity between the 'polluted status' of the homosexual....Since sex among men constitutes bodily permeabilities unsanctioned by the hegemonic order, male homosexuality would, with such a hegemonic point of view, constitute a site of danger, and pollution, prior to and regardless of the cultural presence of AIDS."

--Judith Butler from "Gender Trouble"

[APlaneTookOff]

Well, my problem with Huckabee is as followsThere are no problems (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304096,00.html) with Mike Huckabee.

[Mitch]

haha.

yeah, well, chuck norris endorsed bowflex, too. do YOU have a bowflex?

thought not.

[raidenman]

haha.

yeah, well, chuck norris endorsed bowflex, too. do YOU have a bowflex?

thought not.
I didn't have one...then Chuck Norris kicked down my grandmother's door and called me a lilly livered bitch from her phone...now I own three...'

Careful Mitch, it could happen to you!

[Mitch]

I didn't have one...then Chuck Norris kicked down my grandmother's door and called me a lilly livered bitch from her phone...now I own three...'

Careful Mitch, it could happen to you!

pssssffffh. i exercise like a REAL man. by going out on fridays and playing touch football. other than that, i count eating junk food exercise because i have to move my arms to do it. and wings are like, extra work out. so much work for so little meat...but scrumptious.

[jacobvandy]

so much work for so little meat...but scrumptious.

it's true!

[APlaneTookOff]

haha.

yeah, well, chuck norris endorsed bowflex, too. do YOU have a bowflex?

thought not.haha dude! there was one in the paper for $500 over the summer, i really really wanted to get it. my sister and i were gonna go halves on it.

but it was NOT cause of norris.

[Mitch]

now this guy is starting to get creepy. http://www.ardemgaz.com/prev/jonesboro/afhuckabee08.asp

fuckin' psycho.

people worried about kennedy taking orders from the vatican...this guy is an ordained minister. a vote for him is a vote against separation of church and state. crazy bastard.

[Summersun33]

a vote for him is a vote against separation of church and state. crazy bastard.

... and if you vote for obama, oprah is going to throw in a humpback whale!

you get a humpback whale... YOU get a humpback whale! Everybody gets a hummmpppbbback whale!

[jacobvandy]

oooh! a humpback whale of my very own? i will name him fred.

[raidenman]

oooh! a humpback whale of my very own? i will name him fred.
I shall name mine Sam, and he shall kick Fred's ass...er....dorsal fin?

What say you to THAT Mr. Vandy? Eh? Eh?

[Mitch]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071211/D8TF4J080.html

notice at the end of the article, huckabee says "i don't run from it, i don't recant it."

ok, fine. own up to the fact that you said it, bravo. don't RECANT? WHAT?

monster. i hope he gets the nomination for the republicans because he will be SO easy to dominate. dems will win, no doubt.

[jacobvandy]

I shall name mine Sam, and he shall kick Fred's ass...er....dorsal fin?

What say you to THAT Mr. Vandy? Eh? Eh?

so's your face.

[Mitch]

so's your face.

that's what she said.

PWN.:ninja:

[jacobvandy]

that's what she said.

PWN.:ninja:

so's your face.

[Mitch]

so's your face.

it always makes sense.

[raidenman]

so's your face.
How did I not see that coming...left myself open to the so's your face...

My retort, of course, must resort to something even more drastic...

Your mother, Trebeck.

Get well soon, Alex.

Back on topic...yeah, Huckabee...no...

[JeremyIQ]

i don't have time to read this whole thread on huckabee, but this guy is definitely the scariest candidate in either party -- even more scary than Hillary when she lets her testicles hang loose

he's the worst of both worlds: fiscally liberal and socially conservative.

my theory is he probably does have some legitimate support in Iowa, but who the fuck cares - IT"S IOWA! and the media has taken this support and blown it out of proportion to increase his polling in other states, and thus begin to pave the way for him to get the nomination and be an easy slaughter for the dems, unless Hillary and her balls get the nomination

on a different note, those polls shouldn't count for shit because all they do is call registered voters with landlines. who the fuck uses a landline these days? not to mention that millions of americans are registered on the national "do not call list"

it'd be interesting if they banned polling and people began to think for themselves. this shit is beginning to remind me of a junior high class officer election where everyone just wants to vote for the winner

[Mitch]

chuck norris is bigger than jesus (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23980)

[Mitch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xn7uSHtkuA

"what really matters isn't politics...it's jesus. so screw you muslims, jews, and especially you mormons. or should i say, godless heathens? looking at you romney!"

mike huckabee didn't say that second part, but dismissing everything in favor of one's personal religious views is probably one of the most frightening things someone running for the highest office in the nation can do.

[Intoxicated Ricochet]

Did you honestly expect him to do it differently? I don't think you can infer broad dismissal of other faiths from that one ad.

[Summersun33]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xn7uSHtkuA

"what really matters isn't politics...it's jesus. so screw you muslims, jews, and especially you mormons. or should i say, godless heathens? looking at you romney!"

mike huckabee didn't say that second part, but dismissing everything in favor of one's personal religious views is probably one of the most frightening things someone running for the highest office in the nation can do.

well you probably shouldn't put it in quotes then...

[Jason]

Anyone see the new Huckabee ad, the one where he copied Ron Paul's ad, sans the mysterious image of the cross. Anyway Ron Paul made a great remark today concerning this ad in regards to the cross image:

'When fascism comes it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross'.

Here's the youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrkltetQ0x4

[Mitch]

well you probably shouldn't put it in quotes then...

i did that so it wouldn't be mis-construed as my own personal opinion.

another way to refer to it is "lampooning" or "satire." kind of like a political cartoon where the little thought bubble above a candidates head says something. i was taking his words to the extreme to show how insulted i was.

[Mitch]

reason #4,524 not to vote for huckabee:

he's not just a religious nut, he's crazy in other ways, too! (http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/huckabees_muzzle_control_probl.html)

well now that he has the crazy evangelicals in his pocket, he's going after the nra and hunter's votes!

[Intoxicated Ricochet]

I'm a gun enthusiast and I hunt pheasant, among other things, and think your blanket assumption that we're all rednecks is fucking insulting. Check yourself. That doesn't connote someone as being crazy, please exit your bubble.

[Mitch]

you're right. i apologize.

i am from a family of hunters (of pheasant, turkey, deer, squirrel) as well and i have no problem with either hunting or guns (for more gun control, though).

my problem is with the shameless pandering of this dick and his obvious lack of concern for safety.

my point was that now that he has the christian fundamentalists behind him, he's going after the rest of the usually-conservative-voting niches. think he'll be driving some kids to soccer practice in a minivan next? maybe attending a couple of nascar races?

and i don't want to hear arguments from anyone that "maybe the press shouldn't have been there" because that's obviously the point of him hunting in iowa. so the press can see him.

edit: i removed the "them there" type of language from my other post. again, sorry.

[Intoxicated Ricochet]

What's your point? Every politician engages in this kind of PR behavior. They're politicians, it's what they do.

[Mitch]

What's your point? Every politician engages in this kind of PR behavior. They're politicians, it's what they do.

i know. i lamented both sides doing it in a post either in this thread or another political thread.

but i dislike huckabee more than anyone else so i'm calling him on it. oh, and he almost shot some people. fred thompson can cater to elderly women and hillary can pretend she likes being among normal people, but this guy almost shot some people while pretending to be like people he's not in an attempt to garner their votes.

[APlaneTookOff]

he didn't almost shoot some people. where did you get that article from?

when i read about huckabee hunting, the article didn't exactly have an air about it where the journalist feared for his life, and it was passed off as the joke it was when he held up a dead pheasant and said "don't get in my way". it was a joke.

whereas this article portrays him as reckless and uses the "don't get in my way" quote as some kind of Terminator doom-mongering closing line. the journalist wanted to spin it negatively.

[Mitch]

he didn't almost shoot some people. where did you get that article from?

when i read about huckabee hunting, the article didn't exactly have an air about it where the journalist feared for his life, and it was passed off as the joke it was when he held up a dead pheasant and said "don't get in my way". it was a joke.

whereas this article portrays him as reckless and uses the "don't get in my way" quote as some kind of Terminator doom-mongering closing line. the journalist wanted to spin it negatively.

fair enough.

huckabee is still a douche.

[Summersun33]

huckabee is still a douche.

with all due respect mitch (as always ;) ), could you please explain your reason(s) for coming to that conclusion about him?

look, i haven't made up my mind about anyone yet. it's too early and their messages all sound the same right now. i just want to know why you hate the guy so much. do you hate christians? do you oppose the second amendment?

if you despise him based on his religion, i am a little confused...
i have never understood why democrats are allowed to carry bibles and go to church, but anyone on the right who does that is a religious fanatic.

huckabee has essentially said (in the article on page 1 of this thread) he doesn't want to force his beliefs on the education system, but you still find a way to trash that viewpoint.


"I'm happy to answer what I believe, but what I believe is not what's going to be taught in 50 different states. Education is a state function. The more state it is, and the less federal it is, the better off we are."

how is that soooo radical?

[jacobvandy]

i couldn't care less that he's religious, but when he puts out a campaign ad saying "let's all celebrate the birth of christ," i say PFFT.

CHURCH |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| STATE

damit.

[Summersun33]

are you worried that if huckabee is elected president, he is going to show up at your house with a gun and make you celebrate christmas?

[jacobvandy]

i did/do celebrate christmas, thanks. even if it does have everything to do with lights and trees and presents and family and nothing to do with jesus... but he's obviously touting his religion to garner support. :thdown:

and if you're thinking "oh, it was just a nice thing to do," where was that commercial last year, when he wasn't running for president?

[Intoxicated Ricochet]

Have we ever had an ordained minister as President in the last 35 years? He's a Baptist minister.. a member of any sort of clergy in high public office irks me a bit. And on top of that he has alluded to divine forces as being responsible for some of his political gains, and has used religious doctrine as a tool of bigotry and through his comments about women he's not afraid to show everyone what a patriarchal cunt he is. And I rarely take the time to hate on politicians hardcore, but everything about seems horrid. More right-wing of a candidate than I can remember in the last 10 years.

[Summersun33]

i'm going to take a step back. i don't :heart: huckabee and he doesn't have my support at this time.
i just think calling huckabee a "douche" and making up fake quotes is equally counterproductive as sophomoric jabs at hillary or obama.

[Mitch]

i'm going to take a step back. i don't :heart: huckabee and he doesn't have my support at this time.
i just think calling huckabee a "douche" and making up fake quotes is equally counterproductive as sophomoric jabs at hillary or obama.

which i would be happy to do if i were paying attention to their campaigns. i'm for edwards because A) i agree with his social positions, and B) he's the most electable. shallow? yes. anyone better? no, not for me.

your original question was answered above.

you DON'T elect religious leaders to SECULAR positions.

yes, his religiosity does bother me. i don't care if he wants to sing with a baptist choir like edwards or obama, or if he says he reads the bible every day like romney. i care that he cannot separate himself from his religion. he's gone beyond mere pandering on the religious front.

when you are the president of the united states, you don't answer to any god. you answer your people. god has no place in decision making at that high of a level. you keep your religion private, you do not go about spouting off how jesus christ is the one true savior at your fucking campaign promotions.

i don't care if our president is muslim, jewish, christian, or a fucking voodoo shaman. what they better be when they make decisions that affect our entire country is a damn atheist. they don't have a right to be anything but.

[Summersun33]

what they better be when they make decisions that affect our entire country is a damn atheist. they don't have a right to be anything but.

this country wouldn't exist if it was founded on this belief.

[jacobvandy]

pshaw.

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html
http://skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id9.html

just some light googling, you can dig some more if you'd like.

[Luke]

what they better be when they make decisions that affect our entire country is a damn atheist. they don't have a right to be anything but.

I'd prefer agnostic, but I agree.

Probably what scares me the most about Huckabee is the fact that I liked him the first time I heard him in a debate. I even verbally acknowledged the fact that I liked him. I fell for him because he's such a damn good speaker. It's like how so many Republicans liked Obama when he spoke three years ago. Only, Huckabee leans further to the right than Obama does to the left. A lot of people (especially moderates) rely heavily on debates and speeches to make their decision, and Huckabee has the advantage with those people. Combine them with the evangelicals (who are always willing to be pawns), and he's got a potentially strong support base. I really don't like the guy now that I know who he really is (the biggest "take this nation back for Christ" neo-con that I've ever seen run), but it wouldn't surprise me at all to see him beat out most or all of the Republican frontrunners, simply because a lot of people don't care to look beyond what candidates say themselves.

Another thing I can see coming from his candidacy are plenty of comparisons to Gomer Pyle.

[Summersun33]

pshaw.

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html
http://skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id9.html

just some light googling, you can dig some more if you'd like.

i wasn't saying this country was founded on christian values. i was saying this country wouldn't be what it is today if every leader was required to be a "damn atheist" as previously mentioned.

[jacobvandy]

well, maybe if you provided some support for your argument, it'd be easier to understand what it was. ;)

[Summersun33]

well, maybe if you provided some support for your argument, it'd be easier to understand what it was. ;)

sorry, not all of us are talented as you are with the google and the internet machine.

;)

[Mitch]

i wasn't saying this country was founded on christian values. i was saying this country wouldn't be what it is today if every leader was required to be a "damn atheist" as previously mentioned.

fine. agnostic.

the christian god is not the god of this nation. our leaders have no right to consult any deity in their decision making. they owe that to this country which is made up of many creeds.

also, this objectively proves my point. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071230/ap_po/huckabee_religion)

so he's not only a psycho-christian bent on destroying our country's core values, but he's also a misogynist.

here is basically what he said: "jesus is numero uno and if i had my way, everyone would be a christian because as a christian, i believe that my god is the one true god and by stating this declare myself diametrically opposed to and intolerant of all other viewpoints on religion. also, women belong in the kitchen and behind the man, out of sight and out of mind."

yes. he did not say those things literally, to my knowledge, but his stances for all intents and purposes basically describe exactly what i put into quotes.

and yes, i do criticize democratic candidates, but i believe a vote for huckabee is irresponsible and unethical rather than a mere difference of opinion over healthcare, gun control, and education. our nation is founded on a system in which everyone has a say, especially in religion. to say that you're going to "take this nation back for christ" is tantamount to saying you want to gut the constitution.

at least he had the balls to say he was going to destroy our liberties one by one instead of going behind our backs like some other recent president who shall remain unnamed but may or may not be sitting in office plotting the next move to save his legacy from ruin at this very moment :ninja:

[RobDMB]

Huckabee has made a fool of himself in several ways.

The whole calling on christianity to get you elected is really short-sighted. Of course that may not be much worse than trying to get the "black vote" by other candidates... but I digress.

If it were up to me, I'd say screw professional politicians and get REAL people who know what REAL life is about so we the people can REALLY be represented. Politics in general in this country have gone to shit with all the money, lobbying, special interest groups, and under the table deals. I don't feel like any of the presidential candidates really care about what effects our day-to-day life. They just want the power and recognition that goes with office. Huckabee just wears his jackass on his sleeve out there where everyone can see it. If he gets elected, we should all be ashamed.

Mitch, I'd say that if your comment on Jesus being "numero uno" is based on the article you referenced you may have put a couple words in Huckabees mouth. Yes he says "take the nation back for Christ", but he didn't SAY that he is opposed and intolerant of any other view point, that might be a bit far. Although, if you're referencing his track record and not just the article you may have a point.

[Luke]

Huckabee: So, I made a really mean ad about Romney. But I had a change of heart, because I'm such a nice guy; it would be wrong of me to put this ad out. But, I want to show it to the media so they can all see what a mean ad it was, and how I'm so nice for pulling it. (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2007/12/huckabee_feints_or_does_he_pul.html) I promise I'm not doing this because you'll all talk about it for the next week or so, and give the ad plenty of free air time. I'm way too nice of a guy for that.

[APlaneTookOff]

okay, i turn on the news and i see mike huckabee talking. behind him is Chuck freaking Norris. now it bothers me any time i see him on screen and Conan O Brian hasn't pulled the Walker: Texas Ranger Lever, but whatever.

anyways, mike proceeds to thank his wife who will "make a great first lady" someday. apparently. the camera pans to her. i catch a glimpse. i gasp. SHE LOOKS LIKE MIKE HUCKABEE IN DRAG. :deadpan:

mike huckabee married his sister.

[Intoxicated Ricochet]

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/homepage/1-2-07d.jpg

[Hooby]

okay, i turn on the news and i see mike huckabee talking. behind him is Chuck freaking Norris. now it bothers me any time i see him on screen and Conan O Brian hasn't pulled the Walker: Texas Ranger Lever, but whatever.

As I said in the Obama thread.....

I just heard Tom Brokaw say, and I quote:

"And there's Mike Huckabee, with Chuck Norris standing behind him who is, of course, his defense against illegal immigration"

I'm starting a campaign to bring Brokaw back....let him and Brian Williams tag-team the crap out of America.

[APlaneTookOff]

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/homepage/1-2-07d.jpgAll those awful photo collections of Hillary Clinton are nothing compared to a single photograph of this "girl".

[The Flicker Fade]

From MSNBC:


In interviews as they entered the caucuses, more than half of all the Republicans said they were either born-again or evangelical Christians, and they liked Huckabee more than any of his rivals. Romney led handily among the balance of the Iowa Republican voters, according to the survey.

I firmly believe he is not a viable candidate and will not eventually be receiving the nomination. However, I will admit that I am more concerned about him than I would like, because the Republicans don't have any obvious stand-out candidates this year to challenge him, and because the Democrats will likely be running an unconventional candidate.

And I really don't want to live in a world where someone like this can get so far in the race for President. I really don't want to know that about people. :sigh:

[Jason]

The Good Doctor came in fifth and was within a few votes of 3rd. I'm quite satisfied with the result... the most telling information however was the fact that in the Republican Race, individuals who identified themselves as an Independents overwhelmingly supported Ron Paul, and to an even greater degree, individually who are dissatisfied with Bush overwhelmingly supported the Good Doctor. I expect a top three, possibly top two in NH.

[Intoxicated Ricochet]

Huckabee = no foreign policy experience. All he has is the religious vote.

[Hooby]

Huckabee = no foreign policy experience. All he has is the religious vote.

Ask yourself.... "does this statement bear resemblance to a statement that could've been made 8 years ago?"

I know, the world has changed, we're a different nation (as well we should be).....however, that doesn't mean that the nation can't double back between now and November.

I love this country. But we're fucking stupid.

[should_be_working]

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/homepage/1-2-07d.jpg

haha, at first i thought that was hillary - however slightly more "plump"

[Mitch]

i hope huckabee does get the republican nod.

poor people, republicans included, will NEVER vote for him. he wants a fair tax that will raise prices on ALL consumer goods, including food and clothing.

therefore, the things that the poor cannot afford now will be even more expensive. it's economic suicide unless you're a rich fat-cat.

[Intoxicated Ricochet]

Ask yourself.... "does this statement bear resemblance to a statement that could've been made 8 years ago?"

I know, the world has changed, we're a different nation (as well we should be).....however, that doesn't mean that the nation can't double back between now and November.

I love this country. But we're fucking stupid.

Huckabee is going to continue to divide the social vs. fiscal conservatives group that Reagan managed to balance in the 80's. The business community doesn't really appreciate him. Outside of evangelicals he doesn't really have much to stand on. I don't think he's a viable candidate, either for their party or an election in general.

[Mitch]

Huckabee is going to continue to divide the social vs. fiscal conservatives group that Reagan managed to balance in the 80's. The business community doesn't really appreciate him. Outside of evangelicals he doesn't really have much to stand on. I don't think he's a viable candidate, either for their party or an election in general.

exactly.

but as i said above, when it comes to the economically disadvantaged, your morals take a backseat, always. there's no such thing as a poor or economically disadvantaged republican who supports most GOP fiscal ideas, i.e. small government.

all of the republicans are trying to win the rich republicans' purses while winning the moral republicans' ethics. you can't have both. this country is tired...they want a uniter who will actually be a uniter, unlike the current administration.

edwards and obama both can bridge that gap. hillary is the most conservative of the democrats, but she is such a polarizing figure that she stands next to no chance in the general election. edwards is a centrist in action while obama is a centrist in theory.

we'll see who comes out on top, but a republican defeat is guaranteed this year.

[Mitch]

The Good Doctor came in fifth and was within a few votes of 3rd. I'm quite satisfied with the result... the most telling information however was the fact that in the Republican Race, individuals who identified themselves as an Independents overwhelmingly supported Ron Paul, and to an even greater degree, individually who are dissatisfied with Bush overwhelmingly supported the Good Doctor. I expect a top three, possibly top two in NH.

i respect ron paul, but he has no chance at all.

the only reason he beat guiliani is because guiliani didn't caucus at all in the north. he's been in the south drumming up support, because he knows that if he gets the nomination that northern republicans would be in the bag, but it's the southerners he has to prove himself to.

like i said, i respect ron paul's gumption (although as a social democrat, i don't support him trying to destroy the infrastructure that supports our disadvantaged citizens), but you can't seriously believe that this man stands even a slim chance of even being considered at all. not even as a vice presidential candidate.

but that actually wouldn't be a bad idea. i don't think any republican would do it, but ron paul would get them some of that 18-25 voting niche that republicans can never seem to drum up.

[APlaneTookOff]

all the democrats are centrists in theory. in reality they are almost as far left as that lunatic dennis kucinich.

[raidenman]

i hope huckabee does get the republican nod.

poor people, republicans included, will NEVER vote for him. he wants a fair tax that will raise prices on ALL consumer goods, including food and clothing.

therefore, the things that the poor cannot afford now will be even more expensive. it's economic suicide unless you're a rich fat-cat.
That's not a fair representation of the fair tax at all...


What is the FairTax plan?

The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 1025) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

The FairTax:

* Enables workers to keep their entire paycheck
* Enables retirees to keep their entire pension
* Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
* Allows American products to compete fairly
* Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
* Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
* Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
* Abolishes the IRS

In principle, it's not a bad idea. It's not as you said economic suicide...

I don't personally think this is the way to go. I think we should simplify the tax code, and if we really want to help the poorest among us, we should expand the earned income credit and we should make college tuition fully tax deductible for those making up to a certain amount.

[raidenman]

all the democrats are centrists in theory. in reality they are almost as far left as that lunatic dennis kucinich.
And that's not fair either. I may be registering as a democrat, and I'm about as middle of the road politically as you can get...

[APlaneTookOff]

And that's not fair either. I may be registering as a democrat, and I'm about as middle of the road politically as you can get...no no.. all the *candidates*

[raidenman]

no no.. all the *candidates*
Makes more sense...

[XHendrix24]

all the democrats are centrists in theory. in reality they are almost as far left as that lunatic dennis kucinich.

Really? I mean, compared to the way things have been going for the past 8 years their policies could be considered fairly leftist, but in the grand scheme of things (aka including places that AREN'T the US), even the most liberal ideas of the main democratic candidates aren't that far off from moderate.

[Summersun33]

at least he had the balls to say he was going to destroy our liberties one by one instead of going behind our backs like some other recent president who shall remain unnamed but may or may not be sitting in office plotting the next move to save his legacy from ruin at this very moment :ninja:

i really don't get this mentality.

many liberals act like huckabee would be a maniacal dictator forcing everybody to convert to christianity. there is a congress, remember... a democratic congress (whose approval ratings are even lower than bush). also, if bush is so stupid, how is he capable of "sneaking around behind our backs"?

i am by no means a fan of bush, but i have to laugh at the rhetoric sometimes...

[Mitch]

i really don't get this mentality.

many liberals act like huckabee would be a maniacal dictator forcing everybody to convert to christianity. there is a congress, remember... a democratic congress (whose approval ratings are even lower than bush). also, if bush is so stupid, how is he capable of "sneaking around behind our backs"?

i am by no means a fan of bush, but i have to laugh at the rhetoric sometimes...

well, when he says he stands by the statement that he will "take this nation back for christ" i believe that the bolded statement above definitely would apply. i don't actually feat that he would do it, but that's not the point.

and i meant that bush took away or attempted to take away many of our civil liberties by lying to us about a great many things (see: EVERYTHING TERRORISM RELATED)

[Summersun33]

well, when he says he stands by the statement that he will "take this nation back for christ" i believe that the bolded statement above definitely would apply. i don't actually feat that he would do it, but that's not the point.

and i meant that bush took away or attempted to take away many of our civil liberties by lying to us about a great many things (see: EVERYTHING TERRORISM RELATED)

i don't think you have to worry about him forcing you to go to church, mitch. ;)

second, what did bush lie about? i am not even being a sarcastic dick, i seriously want to know. because i hear that line a lot from my liberal friends, but examples never follow that statement.

[raidenman]

i don't think you have to worry about him forcing you to go to church, mitch. ;)

second, what did bush lie about? i am not even being a sarcastic dick, i seriously want to know. because i hear that line a lot from my liberal friends, but examples never follow that statement.
Intelligence on Iraq, specifically that he knew there were no weapons there, and yet he went in anyways.

[Mitch]

Intelligence on Iraq, specifically that he knew there were no weapons there, and yet he went in anyways.

this is it. and it's currently FACT.

anyhoo...the more i see huckabee on tv and hear what he is saying...he's legitimately fucking psycho.

[lighter_boots]

this is it. and it's currently FACT.

anyhoo...the more i see huckabee on tv and hear what he is saying...he's legitimately fucking psycho.

EVERY leader in the free world KNEW that Iraq had WMD in the '90's. FACT. Suffers from your revisionist "history" but do any search re: statements from the Clinton administration and you are FACTUALLY proven WRONG.

Iraq had WMD in Gulf War I and NEVER showed the world that they destroyed them. Without this evidence and the obfuscation by Hussein, there was no choice but to believe he had them. He fucking used them in the Iran/Iraq war.

Wake up and take off the blinders of the post 2003 historical revisionists. Read some official US government positions form the '90's and the Clinton policy supporting "regime change in Iraq" circa 1998.

When you have no historical knowledge/context, every day is a new day where events happen for the first time ever ie. the US news media.

[lighter_boots]

Well, here's a link to a full article which includes a utube video of Bill Clinton justifying his air strikes on Iraq.

Watch the video Mitch and see who the word "liar" applies to........... pot..kettle...black.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/bill-clinton-claims-he-opposed-iraq-war

WATCH THE VIDEO OF CLINTON. And read the article. Liar and Iraq revisionist liberals/Clintons can't hide form their past.

[brenan]

EVERY leader in the free world KNEW that Iraq had WMD in the '90's. He fucking used them in the Iran/Iraq war..

They didn't invade the first time because they knew it'd be the fucking quagmire that is today, despite direct knowledge of, and use of chemical weapons in the iran/iraq war, despite having the entire UN with them for the Gulf War.

hmmmmmmm

and to be honest, it has more to do with the "he's gonna use them if we don't take invade now!!!!!" rehtoric, than the "he has wmds".

a + b = congress gungho for war.

without a, b sounds foolish.

when they found no WMDs, when we found that information had been fabricated, when we found that they said ANYTHING just to go to war, that made Bush a liar. He lied and lied and lied more, to go to war.

fat cats rejoice, this war is about oil and power.

[lighter_boots]

They didn't invade the first time because they knew it'd be the fucking quagmire that is today, despite direct knowledge of, and use of chemical weapons in the iran/iraq war, despite having the entire UN with them for the Gulf War.

hmmmmmmm

and to be honest, it has more to do with the "he's gonna use them if we don't take invade now!!!!!" rehtoric, than the "he has wmds".

a + b = congress gungho for war.

without a, b sounds foolish.

when they found no WMDs, when we found that information had been fabricated, when we found that they said ANYTHING just to go to war, that made Bush a liar. He lied and lied and lied more, to go to war.

fat cats rejoice, this war is about oil and power.

Little dynamic shift occurred 9 fucking 11. That made the big talk big cruise missile policy of the '90's obsolete. We could no longer sit back. No 9/11 no Gulf War II. That's a fact. There were no lies, but you sit back and wonder why with the top democrat knee deep in her husbands policy (again the youtube video) and she voted for the war.

There is no desire for compromise from liberals. They live and breathe with hatred, these are the people supporting the democratic candidates......... "W" is a good decent man. If you can't see that you aren't part of the "there are no red states or blue states" stump speech OB is trumpeting.

Continuous use of words like "liar" are reason's why the left is so marginalized in this country.

Yeah, try to have a job or a life in this country without oil. Give up oil, don't invest in a stock. watch TV, or use the internet if you don't support "fat cats".

[APlaneTookOff]

They didn't invade the first time because they knew it'd be the fucking quagmire that is todaythat's the rosy cliffs notes version. they didn't invade the first time because they were deterred by massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. fear of the challenges of occupying the country was obviously a factor but nowhere near THE factor.

and it's not a quagmire today, it is ridiculously fluid. i haven't even been able to get accurate statistics / numbers since October because nobody's really paying attention any longer since all the bad news went away.

[lighter_boots]

a + b = congress gungho for war.

without a, b sounds foolish.

when they found no WMDs, when we found that information had been fabricated, when we found that they said ANYTHING just to go to war,
.

The US had been in a shooting war with Iraq for OVER 10 YEARS! There was no rush. Our policy of containment had failed. "W" said exactly what Willy said in the youtube speech. "W" just decided to finally take decisive action.

[Mitch]

Little dynamic shift occurred 9 fucking 11. That made the big talk big cruise missile policy of the '90's obsolete. We could no longer sit back. No 9/11 no Gulf War II. That's a fact. There were no lies, but you sit back and wonder why with the top democrat knee deep in her husbands policy (again the youtube video) and she voted for the war.

There is no desire for compromise from liberals. They live and breathe with hatred, these are the people supporting the democratic candidates......... "W" is a good decent man. If you can't see that you aren't part of the "there are no red states or blue states" stump speech OB is trumpeting.

Continuous use of words like "liar" are reason's why the left is so marginalized in this country.

Yeah, try to have a job or a life in this country without oil. Give up oil, don't invest in a stock. watch TV, or use the internet if you don't support "fat cats".

sorry, i was going to read this, but since we were talking about IRAQ and you mentioned 9/11, i automatically disregarded the rest of your post. the two are in no way related so i'm sure your three or four paragraphs are simply re-spouting what i've been hearing from every conservative pundit defending this pointless war for the past several years.

[lighter_boots]

sorry, i was going to read this, but since we were talking about IRAQ and you mentioned 9/11, i automatically disregarded the rest of your post. the two are in no way related so i'm sure your three or four paragraphs are simply re-spouting what i've been hearing from every conservative pundit defending this pointless war for the past several years.

Well, seeing as how it's the seed change in how the United States executes its foreign policy, it's a factor. Since it's this Commander in Chief who has the Constitutional duty to protect the country, it's THE reason for shifting from the "containment" policy.

Again, Clinton said the exact same things as Bush. Were there no 9/11, we'd have let the "quagmire" of the 10+ year war with Iraq continue....... and they would have become even more dangerous (as David Kay reported in his report).

But you can live in the little fantasy land where honest men are "liars" and "betrayed us" and blah, blah, blah..........

[Intoxicated Ricochet]

Sorta drunk, but I'll try:

How is "W" being a good decent man in any way related to the Iraq war? You're vomiting again. He made lots of blunders, or rather, the people who he appointed to help him did until Petraeus came along recently and the Sunni's started partaking in the political process and now we end up with the uneasy, miraculous lull in the violence. I really hope it lasts.

Furthermore, the pre-war intelligence was fixed around the policy. Not necessarily lying. That's not really revisionism. It really shouldn't be that shocking, it's been done before. Every major intelligence service in the world believed there was WMD in some form in Iraq, but there were doubts everywhere. Any credible independent IR person will tell you they weren't satisfied with there being a credible/discernible presence of stockpiles that could fuck things up in the run-up to 2003. Bit of a cock-up, in hindsight if I was going into Iraq I would've prioritized other justifications for it. But I honestly don't give a fuck about how it happened, it did, now we move on. And the Democrats aren't going to pull out if there's tasks that still need to be completed, that's what they don't want you to know.

[Mitch]

Well, seeing as how it's the seed change in how the United States executes its foreign policy, it's a factor. Since it's this Commander in Chief who has the Constitutional duty to protect the country, it's THE reason for shifting from the "containment" policy.

Again, Clinton said the exact same things as Bush. Were there no 9/11, we'd have let the "quagmire" of the 10+ year war with Iraq continue....... and they would have become even more dangerous (as David Kay reported in his report).

But you can live in the little fantasy land where honest men are "liars" and "betrayed us" and blah, blah, blah..........

oh my god, this is like arguing with the physical manifestation of every conservative cliche EVER. i'm done.

[lighter_boots]

Sorta drunk, but I'll try:

How is "W" being a good decent man in any way related to the Iraq war? You're vomiting again. He made lots of blunders, or rather, the people who he appointed to help him did until Petraeus came along recently and the Sunni's started partaking in the political process and now we end up with the uneasy, miraculous lull in the violence. I really hope it lasts.

Furthermore, the pre-war intelligence was fixed around the policy. Not necessarily lying. That's not really revisionism. It really shouldn't be that shocking, it's been done before. Every major intelligence service in the world believed there was WMD in some form in Iraq, but there were doubts everywhere. Any credible independent IR person will tell you they weren't satisfied with there being a credible/discernible presence of stockpiles that could fuck things up in the run-up to 2003. Bit of a cock-up, in hindsight if I was going into Iraq I would've prioritized other justifications for it. But I honestly don't give a fuck about how it happened, it did, now we move on. And the Democrats aren't going to pull out if there's tasks that still need to be completed, that's what they don't want you to know.

Read this Mitch, I can wrap my mind around this as every war the US has undertaken involved massive blunders and mistakes. Pick up a historical article maybe: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/bill-clinton-claims-he-opposed-iraq-war

either way, putting your fingers in your ears and screaming NANANANANANANANAN!!! won't change the facts.

[lighter_boots]

oh my god, this is like arguing with the physical manifestation of every conservative cliche EVER. i'm done.

What's cliche' to you is the reason things were done by those in power. I hear those who disagreed, but the consistent reasons given as to WHY this 10+ year war was taken back to the ground are fact.

[APlaneTookOff]

And the Democrats aren't going to pull out if there's tasks that still need to be completed, that's what they don't want you to know.Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

...and the old boss, same as the old boss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox).

..........and the old boss (http://www.jcpa.org/jl/jl402.htm), same as the old boss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush#Gulf_War).

[Hooby]

Well, seeing as how it's the seed change in how the United States executes its foreign policy, it's a factor. Since it's this Commander in Chief who has the Constitutional duty to protect the country, it's THE reason for shifting from the "containment" policy.

Again, Clinton said the exact same things as Bush. Were there no 9/11, we'd have let the "quagmire" of the 10+ year war with Iraq continue....... and they would have become even more dangerous (as David Kay reported in his report).

But you can live in the little fantasy land where honest men are "liars" and "betrayed us" and blah, blah, blah..........

Ok, what the hell is your real name? I've decided that I don't really like responding to people by their board names. It's just weird.


With that said, come on now. You can't seriously believe that these people, in the age we live in, are "honest". You seem like a decent guy, nameless man. In fact, in the real world, I'd be more than glad to hang out.

But you are living in a warped illusion if you think that these people, man or woman, are being straight-forward with you in relation to Iraq or 9/11, or most anything that they really want to get done. Goes for both sides. A lot of these people aren't even honest with their selves , let alone their lives in relation to politics.

[Mitch]

what's great about the boards is anonymity. i'm 99% sure i'd get along famously with everybody on this board, no exceptions, because people don't talk about this stuff on a daily basis in normal conversation.

that being said, i'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and say "NANANANANANANA" until this conversation winds back into the election thread again (with full realization that this digression is because of an off-hand comment i made about bush).

[Summersun33]

ok, i finally got to see the you tube video of huckabee on leno the other night.
he was engaging, he didn't come off like a evangelical wacko, and he answered jay's questions.
i think the character assassinations huckabee endures are completely unwarranted.
just as i like obama and think he is an honest, endearing man... i believe the same goes for huckabee.

[Intoxicated Ricochet]

I don't doubt his honesty at all. He's a very fortright guy with his beliefs and policies which I wholly disagree with and which have historically bordered on hatred. And he's not an apologist either. Makes it easier to stay well clear of him.

[Mitch]

i'm so very glad he's honest.

the character assassination isn't unwarranted. i mean, if you're a fucking psycho then he's a jolly good pick. however, if you're at all normal, he's completely crazy and unelectable.

of course he's not going to go crazy-evangelical on leno. do you think crazy evangelicals WATCH leno? of course not. he has to pretend he's not a whack-job for the every-americans who watch late night tv.

you're right: he's honest. he's a very honest man. unfortunately, his belief system is FUBAR. i'm glad he loves jesus, but he needs to keep that "we're going to make this a christian nation" bullshit to himself. no one wants a christian nation. well, crazy, intolerant, christian evangelical fundamentalists might.

[lighter_boots]

"we're going to make this a christian nation" bullshit to himself. no one wants a christian nation.

82% of the US population identifies with a Christian faith. So "we" are one already. "We" have a Christian President, yet have the most freedom of religion in the world.

The 10 commandments and the New Testament are formative references in the creation of our laws.

Just asking you to acknowledge the facts.

[Mitch]

82% of the US population identifies with a Christian faith. So "we" are one already. "We" have a Christian President, yet have the most freedom of religion in the world.

The 10 commandments and the New Testament are formative references in the creation of our laws.

Just asking you to acknowledge the facts.

um...this is a secular nation.

so...no "we" are not a christian nation. lots of people are christians...we're not a christian nation, sorry. i acknowledge the religious faith of our citizens, but to suggest that we're a christian nation is not only insulting, but frightening.

[lighter_boots]

um...this is a secular nation.

so...no "we" are not a christian nation. lots of people are christians...we're not a christian nation, sorry. i acknowledge the religious faith of our citizens, but to suggest that we're a christian nation is not only insulting, but frightening.

Frightening? Ignoring that the moral foundation of our society, which is Christian-based, doesn't influence our policies is frighteningly obtuse.

The Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion is not freedom from religion. And the morals upon which our governmental policies were founded were made by men who too their (and take their) moral foundation from Christianity.

Despite all of this history, and all of the that freedom, you are still scared?:confused:

[Intoxicated Ricochet]

I don't deny all of that, but without getting into a giant theological discussion, there's a big difference between the Christianity of the late 1700's and the new "born again" Evangelism that's deeply embedded in certain political spheres in America today. It becomes a problem when certain politicians are virulent in their religious convictions and try to use secular government for religious things. They're the people who are distorting "founded on Christian principles" into something entirely different, as if that history alone is a carte blanche for intolerance and things like "intelligent design."

[lighter_boots]

I don't deny all of that, but without getting into a giant theological discussion, there's a big difference between the Christianity of the late 1700's and the new "born again" Evangelism that's deeply embedded in certain political spheres in America today. It becomes a problem when certain politicians are virulent in their religious convictions and try to use secular government for religious things. They're the people who are distorting "founded on Christian principles" into something entirely different, as if that history alone is a carte blanche for intolerance and things like "intelligent design."

I don't see what you are referring to. We have an admitted born again Christian in the White House and there is no theme of religious intolerance coming from him. Jeez, it's the culture of liberal intolerance that make saying "Merry Christmas" politically incorrect.

Where is this crazy evangelism coming from? The most popular TV preacher is Joel Osteen, the most tolerant guy you'll find. Ever hear him?

[Mitch]

I don't see what you are referring to. We have an admitted born again Christian in the White House and there is no theme of religious intolerance coming from him. Jeez, it's the culture of liberal intolerance that make saying "Merry Christmas" politically incorrect.

Where is this crazy evangelism coming from? The most popular TV preacher is Joel Osteen, the most tolerant guy you'll find. Ever hear him?

you. are. crazy.

[Intoxicated Ricochet]

Your remark about "liberal intolerance" isn't relevant to the reality that over the last couple of years there has been a marked blurring between religion and government. Look at Jesus Camp. Look at the gay marriage issue. Sex education restrictions. Look at major evangelical organizations who are engaged extensively in huge $$ exchange in political campaigns. Political strategists all freaking out to stir up a "religious base" expecting and receiving kickbacks and endorsements. When Huckabee goes off and claims that feminists and homosexuals are a threat to society and should be quarantined, I don't call that tolerance. There is a general narcissism among these people that because I don't subscribe to their notion of what God is that I'm somehow inferior than them, or because I like to fuck and I'm not married, or because someone doesn't think so ignorantly in terms of 1. God 2. Family 3. Country.. it's condescending. When you have a President that's all cozy with Jerry Falwell who is attributing natural disasters as being the retribution of God... I'm sorry, how can you not see what I'm talking about? When a certain religious code is used as the basis for creating a societal norm/governmental policy, you have a problem. Religion has always had a place in political discourse in some form, but it shouldn't be exaggerated and brought to the forefront as the primary tool for formulating policy.

[Summersun33]

i mean, if you're a fucking psycho then he's a jolly good pick. however, if you're at all normal, he's completely crazy and unelectable.


i just wanted to make sure i got this right... any person who thinks mike huckabee might do a good job as the president of the united states is a "fucking psycho?"

it is ironic how the people who preach tolerance the most are the least tolerant when someone thinks differently than them.

[lighter_boots]

Your remark about "liberal intolerance" isn't relevant to the reality that over the last couple of years there has been a marked blurring between religion and government. Look at Jesus Camp. Look at the gay marriage issue. Sex education restrictions. Look at major evangelical organizations who are engaged extensively in huge $$ exchange in political campaigns. Political strategists all freaking out to stir up a "religious base" expecting and receiving kickbacks and endorsements. When Huckabee goes off and claims that feminists and homosexuals are a threat to society and should be quarantined, I don't call that tolerance. There is a general narcissism among these people that because I don't subscribe to their notion of what God is that I'm somehow inferior than them, or because I like to fuck and I'm not married, or because someone doesn't think so ignorantly in terms of 1. God 2. Family 3. Country.. it's condescending. When you have a President that's all cozy with Jerry Falwell who is attributing natural disasters as being the retribution of God... I'm sorry, how can you not see what I'm talking about? When a certain religious code is used as the basis for creating a societal norm/governmental policy, you have a problem. Religion has always had a place in political discourse in some form, but it shouldn't be exaggerated and brought to the forefront as the primary tool for formulating policy.

What you are referring to here is the push away from traditional American values (to borrow a phrase) all of your examples represent trying to change the "norm". So the way "you" think is new, trying to change what has "always" been. The resistance you refer to is that to change, not trying to impose new religious dogma on "you".

The pledge of allegiance used to be allowed in school "one nation under God". prayer in school. "in God we trust". the congressional chaplain. These are all long-held traditions in this country, not some freaky new zealous Christian push. When "you" try to take them away "you" see the resistance that your post refers to.

[Mitch]

i just wanted to make sure i got this right... any person who thinks mike huckabee might do a good job as the president of the united states is a "fucking psycho?"

it is ironic how the people who preach tolerance the most are the least tolerant when someone thinks differently than them.

when a candidate says he is going to "take this nation back for christ," and you vote for him, yes. you are indeed a psycho. i'm not intolerant, i'm scared of people actually voting for a psycho like him.

i'd like to say i have more faith in the american public, but i don't.

[Intoxicated Ricochet]

So, let me just make sure this is what you're saying: that what I and other people perceive as an intrusion of religion in government is really just a justified reaction by religious people to a vague, sweeping liberal attack against things like the pledge of allegiance, the word God and Christmas? Way to blame it all on "liberals" again, something that seems to be inherent in just about every single post you make here. Those little "liberal" attacks as you would classify it are hardly indicative of some push away from values. What are values? This is the kind of veiled language that makes everything so screwed up. Values change, what used to be held as absolute is eventually deconstructed, broken down. Truths emerge. And if you're someone who is basing your life solely around sacred scripture, more than ever you're going to feel an encroachment, more people view your deeply religious way of life as archaic, you become angered, and so you take proactive steps to mitigate this. This is the 21st century.

And you still haven't addressed any of the points I made, the level of political friction that's increased over a myriad of issues because of objections from hardcore religious people with connections. Liberals aren't tearing down American values, this is such bland rhetoric, I'm tired of it. Religious zealots are encroaching upon the government, and they're determined to succeed. They openly admit this. Politicians openly support them. These people are in the government and are looking to cater to their special interest. Really man, read what you're saying. Evangelism has grown this decade, it's a real, viable force and elements of it have an admitted, concerted political agenda that is very right-wing and, in my opinion, very damaging to the Constitution.

[lighter_boots]

So, let me just make sure this is what you're saying: that what I and other people perceive as an intrusion of religion in government is really just a justified reaction by religious people to a vague, sweeping liberal attack against things like the pledge of allegiance, the word God and Christmas? Way to blame it all on "liberals" again, something that seems to be inherent in just about every single post you make here. Those little "liberal" attacks as you would classify it are hardly indicative of some push away from values. What are values? This is the kind of veiled language that makes everything so screwed up. Values change, what used to be held as absolute is eventually deconstructed, broken down. Truths emerge. And if you're someone who is basing your life solely around sacred scripture, more than ever you're going to feel an encroachment, more people view your deeply religious way of life as archaic, you become angered, and so you take proactive steps to mitigate this. This is the 21st century.

And you still haven't addressed any of the points I made, the level of political friction that's increased over a myriad of issues because of objections from hardcore religious people with connections. Liberals aren't tearing down American values, this is such bland rhetoric, I'm tired of it. Religious zealots are encroaching upon the government, and they're determined to succeed. They openly admit this. Politicians openly support them. These people are in the government and are looking to cater to their special interest. Really man, read what you're saying. Evangelism has grown this decade, it's a real, viable force and elements of it have an admitted, concerted political agenda that is very right-wing and, in my opinion, very damaging to the Constitution.

How? How is this true? Where is this true?

The very moral principals of this country are founded in Christian theology.

This fear of Evangelism is just as bombastic as any sweeping use of the word liberal in my vernacular.

While I'm not evangelical or dogmatic in the religious sense I believe that the basic moral tenants never go out of style, they're universal.

Back to my original point, 82% of our country is Christian. People generally get their moral bearing from these beliefs. Therefore it's a part of the fabric of our culture and our government.

[Mitch]

How? How is this true? Where is this true?

The very moral principals of this country are founded in Christian theology.

This fear of Evangelism is just as bombastic as any sweeping use of the word liberal in my vernacular.

as much as we disagree on here, do you think that my statement a while ago that we'd all get along in real life is valid? i still think it is.

[APlaneTookOff]

as much as we disagree on here, do you think that my statement a while ago that we'd all get along in real life is valid? i still think it is./does that 'butterfly' dance while laughing about the Steelers loss :D

[lighter_boots]

as much as we disagree on here, do you think that my statement a while ago that we'd all get along in real life is valid? i still think it is.


Of course I think it is.:thup: You've proved repeatedly that you have a great sense of humor for one and you have an admirable taste in music. That'd keep us off the topics of politics and culture in a conversation for a long time. No worries.

[Matthew]

How? How is this true? Where is this true?

The very moral principals of this country are founded in Christian theology.

This fear of Evangelism is just as bombastic as any sweeping use of the word liberal in my vernacular.

While I'm not evangelical or dogmatic in the religious sense I believe that the basic moral tenants never go out of style, they're universal.

Back to my original point, 82% of our country is Christian. People generally get their moral bearing from these beliefs. Therefore it's a part of the fabric of our culture and our government.

do you know that in the entire new testament of the bible, the word "christian" is written exactly 3 times? the word "believer," on the other hand, is written more than 80 times just in the book of Acts. biblically speaking, the romans didn't go out of their way to martyr "christians." they went out of their way to martyr "believers" who had been baptised in the name of christ. seriously. they put people in two groups: those who had been baptised, and those who had not. baptism used to be a very serious symbol of faith. the lukewarm "christians" who hadn't been baptised were not killed. the passionate "believers" who had been baptised were killed. the the reason i bring this up is because the word "christian" had absolutely no meaning over 2000 years ago, just like it has absolutely no meaning today. it's a hollow and vague classification. these days, it's a cop out for people who are afraid to identify with anything other than the "norm."

do you really think that 82% of the people in this country believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins? do you really think that 82% of the people in this country have a true conviction of faith? i think a good portion of that 82% are more full of shit than full of faith in God. point is, people "generally get their moral bearing" from whatever is in their immediate environment. christianity shares a moral compass with many belief systems, and most sane human beings wouldn't disagree that we should be decent to one another. christ's message of love is an important one to believers who take their faith seriously, but "morality" is not the issue for followers of christ. christ's death on the cross for the sin of humanity is the real issue for followers of christ. and, since i already established that it's asinine to believe that 82% of the country truthfully follows christ, we might as well adopt ghandi's principles for living, or martin luther king jr's. like christ, these were men who believed that humans should treat other humans with love, respect, and equality. like christ, they were martyred. the difference is that christ died so that humanity might be saved from itself. christ died for the sin of everyone. since we know that 82% of the country does not really believe this, or doesn't care enough to decide one way or the other, then what's the purpose of letting it infiltrate government?

i'll tell you what's really wrong here: "conservative values" have been absorbed by so-called "christian values." however, christianity (at its core), is not conservative. christianity (at its core), is not democratic. followers of christ are called to bow at his feet. he is the king of kings. there is no king in a democracy. followers of christ are called to put others before themselves. democracy focuses on the power of the individual. conservatism places a large amount of emphasis on "what's mine is mine." how dare the government tax me?! how dare the government help others with my hard-earned money?! etc. that is in direct opposition to christ's message. "conservative christianity" is a clusterfuck of misunderstanding. they miss the ballpark socially, because christ called people to love, not to condemn. they miss the ballpark economically, because christ called people to assist the less fortunate using all spiritual, emotional, and financial means. this country is completely fucking stuck on the notion that christ was a member of the good ole boy's club. christ was a radical cat, and our concept of "christian values" are not radical in the least. christ was a revolutionary. americans, by nature, are tame with respect to the institutions that surround them. christ was literally and figuratively flipping over tables. americans are still stuck on gay marriage. yes, so-called "christian values" are a part of the fabric of our culture and government, but that doesn't make it right, nor does it even mean that modern "christian values" are truly representative of the nature of christ.

it's all bullshit designed to keep americans buying into a very specific social and political agenda. none of it has anything to do with faith or belief...AT ALL.

[lighter_boots]

do you know that in the entire new testament of the bible, the word "christian" is written exactly 3 times? the word "believer," on the other hand, is written more than 80 times just in the book of Acts. biblically speaking, the romans didn't go out of their way to martyr "christians." they went out of their way to martyr "believers" who had been baptised in the name of christ. seriously. they put people in two groups: those who had been baptised, and those who had not. baptism used to be a very serious symbol of faith. the lukewarm "christians" who hadn't been baptised were not killed. the passionate "believers" who had been baptised were killed. the the reason i bring this up is because the word "christian" had absolutely no meaning over 2000 years ago, just like it has absolutely no meaning today. it's a hollow and vague classification. these days, it's a cop out for people who are afraid to identify with anything other than the "norm."

do you really think that 82% of the people in this country believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins? do you really think that 82% of the people in this country have a true conviction of faith? i think a good portion of that 82% are more full of shit than full of faith in God. point is, people "generally get their moral bearing" from whatever is in their immediate environment. christianity shares a moral compass with many belief systems, and most sane human beings wouldn't disagree that we should be decent to one another. christ's message of love is an important one to believers who take their faith seriously, but "morality" is not the issue for followers of christ. christ's death on the cross for the sin of humanity is the real issue for followers of christ. and, since i already established that it's asinine to believe that 82% of the country truthfully follows christ, we might as well adopt ghandi's principles for living, or martin luther king jr's. like christ, these were men who believed that humans should treat other humans with love, respect, and equality. like christ, they were martyred. the difference is that christ died so that humanity might be saved from itself. christ died for the sin of everyone. since we know that 82% of the country does not really believe this, or doesn't care enough to decide one way or the other, then what's the purpose of letting it infiltrate government?

i'll tell you what's really wrong here: "conservative values" have been absorbed by so-called "christian values." however, christianity (at its core), is not conservative. christianity (at its core), is not democratic. followers of christ are called to bow at his feet. he is the king of kings. there is no king in a democracy. followers of christ are called to put others before themselves. democracy focuses on the power of the individual. conservatism places a large amount of emphasis on "what's mine is mine." how dare the government tax me?! how dare the government help others with my hard-earned money?! etc. that is in direct opposition to christ's message. "conservative christianity" is a clusterfuck of misunderstanding. they miss the ballpark socially, because christ called people to love, not to condemn. they miss the ballpark economically, because christ called people to assist the less fortunate using all spiritual, emotional, and financial means. this country is completely fucking stuck on the notion that christ was a member of the good ole boy's club. christ was a radical cat, and our concept of "christian values" are not radical in the least. christ was a revolutionary. americans, by nature, are tame with respect to the institutions that surround them. christ was literally and figuratively flipping over tables. americans are still stuck on gay marriage. yes, so-called "christian values" are a part of the fabric of our culture and government, but that doesn't make it right, nor does it even mean that modern "christian values" are truly representative of the nature of christ.

it's all bullshit designed to keep americans buying into a very specific social and political agenda. none of it has anything to do with faith or belief...AT ALL.

I appreciate what you're written (minus the cursing and anger). But the core principals upon which the US is founded are Christian/Biblically based. Just because others share some similar values doesn't make one side wrong. Despite the similarities, the US is the one who has embodied them most wholly.

So, basic 10 commandment stuff is at the heart of our law. Christian morals are how our society runs. "We" are have embodied these most successfully. You can't discount how individual's beliefs influence public policy

If you are angered by this fact, well, you feel that you know better than what has brought such success in this country. Yeah, MLK was Christian and used these values as the core of his teachings too. The appeal to these morals is what has brought so much support for Africa from this government in the 21st century. It's why you saw so much support coming from churches to help the people of New Orleans.

My point is not that we all need to believe in Christian theology or that 82% of us even do wholly. What I'm pointing out is the source of our moral foundation is Christian. One's morals come from somewhere, you don't just invent them on your own. That moral foundation has built this country. To argue for change from that is to argue for something that has not existed in this successful country.

That's all for now.

[Mitch]

this country wasn't founded on christianity - it was founded on humanism. believe it or not, almost EVERY major religion shares the EXACT same tenants, minus the minutia of which god/gods to pray to. and all of these beliefs are in line with humanism.

and most of the founding fathers (most of the interesting/important ones, anyhow) were humanists. obviously they couldn't say they weren't christians, or at least not christians in the way that they would use the bible or something as the basis of our legal code.

hell, if one were to use the bible as a legal code it would be unethical, irresponsible, and YES - evil. biblical law codes were horrendously inhumane and...just objectively wrong. sure, a lot of things were good, too. for example, punishing a rapist is a good idea. fining a rapist and stoning the rapee is objectively wrong. the bible is a great story book. it's a bad basis for law.

anyhow, read the book Jefferson's Declaration of Independence: Origins, Philosophy, & Theology by Allen Jayne and Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution by Forrest McDonald. they're chock-a-block full of all those facts you keep telling me to use. specifically, primary documents which i <3 because they (i.e., jefferson et al) say mitch is right.

humanism, not christianity, is the basis for this country. that's why it's one nation "under god," not "jesus, christ, messiah, etc." endowed by their "Creator." hell, that one's not even christian-sounding at all! it could be vishnu or the flying spaghetti monster for all the founding fathers cared.

sorry, the fact that most of the people in this country say their christians (see: "say," not "are") has no bearing on the foundations of this country which are strictly, AND PURPOSEFULLY NOT CHRISTIAN, but rather HUMANISTIC.

humanism is kind of like christianity, except without all of the cannibalistic activity (looking at you catholics!)* and weird rituals. just logic and ethics.


note: the bolded and italicized statements are not meant to be confrontational or sarcastic, but merely to point out the "point" of my long post. if you wish for explanation refer to the non-bolded parts.

*as an ex-catholic who is emotionally scarred by that ridiculous and foolish subset of christianity, i reserve the right to mock the religion as much as i please. if this offends you...too bad. you should have gone to the same church/schools that i went to growing up...then you'd see why catholicism is bullshit. of all religions in the world, it is probably the most hypocritical in regards to the basic tenants of christianity.

[tonyrox]

*as an ex-catholic who is emotionally scarred by that ridiculous and foolish subset of christianity, i reserve the right to mock the religion as much as i please. if this offends you...too bad. you should have gone to the same church/schools that i went to growing up...then you'd see why catholicism is bullshit. of all religions in the world, it is probably the most hypocritical in regards to the basic tenants of christianity.

So because you went to a fucked up Catholic school, Catholicism is bullshit? I got picked on by black kids in high school... and so with your logic, I should be racist toward all blacks for the rest of my life because of it? That's ignorance.

I'm not going to get into a religious debate, believe me, and I'm not going to try and say Catholicism is perfect, as I realize it's totally not, but to justify slamming an entire religion because of an experience you had with a small portion of it is absurd. And you may counter that you hate it because of the more widespread, general arguments people have against Catholicism (the molestation scandals, the homophobia, etc.), but that's not what I'm taking issue with here.

[lighter_boots]

this country wasn't founded on christianity - it was founded on humanism. believe it or not, almost EVERY major religion shares the EXACT same tenants, minus the minutia of which god/gods to pray to. and all of these beliefs are in line with humanism.

and most of the founding fathers (most of the interesting/important ones, anyhow) were humanists. obviously they couldn't say they weren't christians, or at least not christians in the way that they would use the bible or something as the basis of our legal code.

hell, if one were to use the bible as a legal code it would be unethical, irresponsible, and YES - evil. biblical law codes were horrendously inhumane and...just objectively wrong. sure, a lot of things were good, too. for example, punishing a rapist is a good idea. fining a rapist and stoning the rapee is objectively wrong. the bible is a great story book. it's a bad basis for law.

anyhow, read the book Jefferson's Declaration of Independence: Origins, Philosophy, & Theology by Allen Jayne and Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution by Forrest McDonald. they're chock-a-block full of all those facts you keep telling me to use. specifically, primary documents which i <3 because they (i.e., jefferson et al) say mitch is right.

humanism, not christianity, is the basis for this country. that's why it's one nation "under god," not "jesus, christ, messiah, etc." endowed by their "Creator." hell, that one's not even christian-sounding at all! it could be vishnu or the flying spaghetti monster for all the founding fathers cared.

sorry, the fact that most of the people in this country say their christians (see: "say," not "are") has no bearing on the foundations of this country which are strictly, AND PURPOSEFULLY NOT CHRISTIAN, but rather HUMANISTIC.

humanism is kind of like christianity, except without all of the cannibalistic activity (looking at you catholics!)* and weird rituals. just logic and ethics.


note: the bolded and italicized statements are not meant to be confrontational or sarcastic, but merely to point out the "point" of my long post. if you wish for explanation refer to the non-bolded parts.

*as an ex-catholic who is emotionally scarred by that ridiculous and foolish subset of christianity, i reserve the right to mock the religion as much as i please. if this offends you...too bad. you should have gone to the same church/schools that i went to growing up...then you'd see why catholicism is bullshit. of all religions in the world, it is probably the most hypocritical in regards to the basic tenants of christianity.

82% of American's aren't "humanist". Those NFL players praying during and after the game aren't praying to "human". Did you see the South Park about "Science" replacing "God"?


Man can eff up God/Christ's message I agree for sure. Again, I'm discussing core principals not religious dogma.

p.s. Jefferson had almost nothing to do with the Constitution (he was against a strong federal system), he was too busy spending all of the money generated by his slaves (nice humanist).:(

Outside of Jefferson, I'd argue that every US President has been a Christian, went to church, and used his relationship with God to influence his decisions (remember Reverend Jackson counseling Clinton during his trials and pain he generated in his marriage?).

[Mitch]

So because you went to a fucked up Catholic school, Catholicism is bullshit? I got picked on by black kids in high school... and so with your logic, I should be racist toward all blacks for the rest of my life because of it? That's ignorance.

I'm not going to get into a religious debate, believe me, and I'm not going to try and say Catholicism is perfect, as I realize it's totally not, but to justify slamming an entire religion because of an experience you had with a small portion of it is absurd. And you may counter that you hate it because of the more widespread, general arguments people have against Catholicism (the molestation scandals, the homophobia, etc.), but that's not what I'm taking issue with here.

first part of your argument: fair enough. i admit it's a weakness of mine. i honestly think that i have an anxiety disorder specifically due to my experiences with the catholic church. i'm biased for that, and it's my burden. i hate the catholic church, not catholics. sorry if you don't like that, but i don't allow it to influence my everyday interactions because, as i said, i don't have a problem with catholics, just the catholic religion.

the part i bolded above is pretty much my real justification for my irrational and intense disdain. i'm justified in my dislike of the catholic church.

[Hooby]

I appreciate what you're written (minus the cursing and anger). But the core principals upon which the US is founded are Christian/Biblically based. Just because others share some similar values doesn't make one side wrong. Despite the similarities, the US is the one who has embodied them most wholly.

So, basic 10 commandment stuff is at the heart of our law. Christian morals are how our society runs. "We" are have embodied these most successfully. You can't discount how individual's beliefs influence public policy.

Well you're PARTIALLY correct.

"Basic 10 commandment stuff" is at the heart of our law. But so are the moral codes set about by nearly every religion out there. I will agree that the principles listed in the Constitution were, in essence defined by the Christianity of the nation at the time....

However, they certainly are not now. You've watched the coverage of the Caucuses....If there's anything this nation has been defined by over the last 50-100 years, it's not the Christianity of the nation, it's our freedom and right to change. We've obviously had major hurdles, but we leap over them....sometimes painfully, but we always seem to work through them.

Just because our nation may be founded on a moral code based on Christianity, and just because a majority of it's citizens are Christian....that does NOT make us a Christian nation. What we may have been at the time the Constitution was ratified was a Christian nation, but it was not the framers' intention to keep it that way. They wanted a free nation. With free ideals.

Plus, when one says Christianity it can mean a lot of different things. You could be talking about the humanistic ideas and principles of free will, or you could be talking about the crazy fucker down the street who thinks that "God is coming tomorrow to kill all the Jews, Afro-Americans, and Gays".

You both (Mitch & lighter_boots) never find a middle ground. It's either one or the other. Sometimes you speak rationally, but you never want to see the other person's side.

Mitch, the country was founded on Christianity....at least some of it's basic ideals. It was NOT however, at any time, a Christian Nation. There's a stark difference there, and I assume that you two are smart enough to figure those differences out. Though as a P.S., I will mention that though Jefferson wasn't directly involved with the framing, James Madison (the "Father of the Constitution") was Jefferson's protege of sorts.

lighter_boots, you have to understand that just because this nation may have a large majority of Christians in it, that doesn't make this a Christian nation.....it never was. Even your numbers are entirely correct. In 1990, 86.2% of all Americans identified themselves as Christian. In 2001 the number had dropped to 76.5%....Now then....I highly doubt that number wouldn't decrease at all, let alone go UP by 6 percentage points. As I said before, you seem like a nice guy, but this nation was built on freedom, not religious belief or dis-belief.

People like you and Mitch make it incredibly hard to be part of anything anymore. I no longer want to call myself liberal, because then I'll have people making sweeping generalizations like:

Jeez, it's the culture of liberal intolerance that make saying "Merry Christmas" politically incorrect.
And Mitch has made plenty of remarks along the way that have been just as sweeping concerning conservatives.

Pezzonovante had a nice rebuttal to your previous comment lighter_boots, and it made sense.

You're kind of going back and forth. I understand where you're coming from in the sense that people shouldn't generalize when it comes to Evangelicals, because all they technically are is "born again". That's why I don't get scared of groups, I get scared of particular people. But you have to admit that there are people within the Evangelical sect that wish to push along a severely socially conservative doctrine that I can say, even with my fairly limited knowledge of the life of Christ, goes against not only His ideals but also the ideas set forth within the Constitution.

This nation itself pushes forward. It does not row back upstream.

The framers knew that things were going to have to be changed at some point, so they left room. And despite what some social conservatives are so willing to spout off, social change within people does not mean that all liberals are going to want to make it legal to marry a dog, or a field mouse.

Homosexuality was going on long before the Constitution was ratified and certainly before Christ was even born.

Tolerance means tolerance.....freedom means freedom. GLBT people get (or they should anyhow) the same rights as Evangelicals.

[Punkadelica]

As with most political and religious discussions, there is an appropriate George Carlin quote for this one:

Here is my problem with the ten commandments- why exactly are there 10?

You simply do not need ten. The list of ten commandments was artificially and deliberately inflated to get it up to ten. Here's what happened:

About 5,000 years ago a bunch of religious and political hustlers got together to try to figure out how to control people and keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told, so they announced that God had given them some commandments, up on a mountain, when no one was around.

Well let me ask you this- when they were making this shit up, why did they pick 10? Why not 9 or 11? I'll tell you why- because 10 sound official. Ten sounds important! Ten is the basis for the decimal system, it's a decade, it's a psychologically satisfying number (the top ten, the ten most wanted, the ten best dressed). So having ten commandments was really a marketing decision! It is clearly a bullshit list. It's a political document artificially inflated to sell better. I will now show you how you can reduce the number of commandments and come up with a list that's a little more workable and logical. I am going to use the Roman Catholic version because those were the ones I was taught as a little boy.

Let's start with the first three:

I AM THE LORD THY GOD THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME

THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN

THOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH

Right off the bat the first three are pure bullshit. Sabbath day? Lord's name? strange gods? Spooky language! Designed to scare and control primitive people. In no way does superstitious nonsense like this apply to the lives of intelligent civilized humans in the 21st century. So now we're down to 7. Next:

HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER

Obedience, respect for authority. Just another name for controlling people. The truth is that obedience and respect shouldn't be automatic. They should be earned and based on the parent's performance. Some parents deserve respect, but most of them don't, period. You're down to six.

Now in the interest of logic, something religion is very uncomfortable with, we're going to jump around the list a little bit.

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS

Stealing and lying. Well actually, these two both prohibit the same kind of behavior- dishonesty. So you don't really need two you combine them and call the commandment "thou shalt not be dishonest". And suddenly you're down to 5.

And as long as we're combining I have two others that belong together:

THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTRY

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE

Once again, these two prohibit the same type of behavior. In this case it is marital infidelity. The difference is- coveting takes place in the mind. But I don't think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else's wife because what is a guy gonna think about when he's waxing his carrot? But, marital infidelity is a good idea so we're gonna keep this one and call it "thou shalt not be unfaithful". And suddenly we're down to four.

But when you think about it, honesty and infidelity are really part of the same overall value so, in truth, you could combine the two honesty commandments with the two fidelity commandments and give them simpler language, positive language instead of negative language and call the whole thing "thou shalt always be honest and faithful" and we're down to 3.

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR"S GOODS

This one is just plain fuckin' stupid. Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going! Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "o come o ye faithful", and you want one too! Coveting creates jobs, so leave it alone. You throw out coveting and you're down to 2 now- the big honesty and fidelity commandment and the one we haven't talked about yet:

THOU SHALT NOT KILL

Murder. But when you think about it, religion has never really had a big problem with murder. More people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason. All you have to do is look at Northern Ireland, Cashmire, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the World Trade Center to see how seriously the religious folks take thou shalt not kill. The more devout they are, the more they see murder as being negotiable. It depends on who's doin the killin' and who's gettin' killed. So, with all of this in mind, I give you my revised list of the two commandments:

Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie.

&

Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course they pray to a different invisible man than you.

Two is all you need; Moses could have carried them down the hill in his fuckin' pocket. I wouldn't mind those folks in Alabama posting them on the courthouse wall, as long as they provided one additional commandment:

Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.

[Mitch]

Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.

i <3 george carlin.

and this is the big truth. as much good as religion does in this world, it does infinitely more harm. if people could just keep all of their faith to themselves or confined in whatever buildings t hey choose to worship in, the world would be a better place.

and btdubs, i haven't made that many sweeping generalizations.

most of mine haven't come around yet! all hypotheticals. for example, i basically implied that people who vote for huckabee are either a) crazy because they believe in him, or b) sheep because they have no other choice. the election hasn't occurred yet! no voting. so, therefore, that is a hypothetical sweeping generalization.

and i justified my dislike of the catholic church. i disagree with that particular subset of christian theology, not the people who adhere to it (unless one or another does something that pisses me off). either way, it's not sweeping. i have one specific target.

:ninja: :badger:

[Matthew]

I appreciate what you're written (minus the cursing and anger). But the core principals upon which the US is founded are Christian/Biblically based. Just because others share some similar values doesn't make one side wrong. Despite the similarities, the US is the one who has embodied them most wholly.

So, basic 10 commandment stuff is at the heart of our law. Christian morals are how our society runs. "We" are have embodied these most successfully. You can't discount how individual's beliefs influence public policy

If you are angered by this fact, well, you feel that you know better than what has brought such success in this country. Yeah, MLK was Christian and used these values as the core of his teachings too. The appeal to these morals is what has brought so much support for Africa from this government in the 21st century. It's why you saw so much support coming from churches to help the people of New Orleans.

My point is not that we all need to believe in Christian theology or that 82% of us even do wholly. What I'm pointing out is the source of our moral foundation is Christian. One's morals come from somewhere, you don't just invent them on your own. That moral foundation has built this country. To argue for change from that is to argue for something that has not existed in this successful country.

That's all for now.

:lol:

"basic 10 commandments stuff" is hardly the heart of our law. let me whittle this down all pointy-style for you so you can grasp it completely: it's not against the law to worship a non-christian god. it's not against the law to take god's name in vain. it's not against the law to break the sabbath. it's not against the law to disobey your parents. it's not against the law to lie (unless one is in a court of law). it's not against the law to want what other people have. it's not against the law to lust after other people's spouses. it's not even against the law to sleep with other people's spouses (as fucking horrible as that may be). it is, however, against the law to steal. and it is also against the law to kill. that's 2 outta 10. if america is supposed to be a "christian nation," we sure are doing a bang up job of it. :rolleyes:

but none of this matters, because you missed my point almost entirely. i don't much care about whether or not our society was founded on christian principles. what i do care about is the politicizing of faith in order to achieve a social agenda, which is precisely what you are doing with your conservative bias. screw the 10 commandments. they don't matter. if ya wanna have a discussion about christian belief, then here's some scripture for ya, straight outta matthew 22: christ said, "love the lord your god with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. this is the first and greatest commandment. and the second is like it: love your neighbor as yourself. all the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments." christ had a message of love. but what do i see from cats like mike huckabee? i see social conservatism masquerading as christianity. he openly condemns homosexuality and feminism. he doesn't, however, do or say anything to indicate that, as a baptist minister, he reaches out to these people in love.

my point has always been that christianity is not a conservative faith. it's one based in forgiveness and love. but there's a huge handful of socially conservative platforms that "christian" candidates constantly trumpet, and the vast majority of them are not in line with the message of christ. the death penalty doesn't speak to christ's call to forgiveness, if ya ask me. the utter condemnation of homosexuality doesn't speak to christ's call to love one's neighbor as oneself in spite of the sin that exists in either person's life. you're living in a fantasy world if you believe that so-called "christian morals" are the sole basis for "what has brought so much support for Africa from this government in the 21st century." you're in an even greater state of disillusion if you believe, likewise, that so-called "christian morals" are "why you saw so much support coming from churches to help the people of New Orleans." there are many decent non-christian individuals and organizations out there aiding these efforts. there are many incredible inter-denominational and inter-faith collaborations between individuals and organizations to better the state of crisis all over the world. it's asinine to believe that lukewarm american christian beliefs are at the epicenter of human decency.

and bear in mind, this is all coming from a 20-year old american christian male who is registered as an independent in the state of california. i just happen to be one who is completely disenchanted by the politicizing of faith in this country. christ did not come to legislate. he came to love. likewise, i try to follow his example by loving people. in terms of my politics, i don't vote for idiots like mike huckabee who use their faith to bolster support from a percentage of the population. and this applies to both parties. i find hillary clinton's weak claims to ownership of a faith in god on the campaign trail to be extremely unbecoming and exceptionally deplorable. barack obama has also politicized his faith on the campaign trail, but he at least manages to do so with sincerity. and though i vigorously support him, i still don't approve of the action, necessarily. a personal relationship with god is exactly what it sounds like: personal. using that to garner votes is not something i'm a fan of.

but it's the nature of the game, and while it's not the primary reason, i do support barack obama because he appears to bullshit about his faith the least. he appears to be a decent, honest man who understands that a personal faith in god doesn't give him the right to legislate in the name of god. god is infallible, but man is fallible. the laws of god are infallible, but the laws of man are fallible. the laws of god are unchanging, but the laws of man are in constant flux. things change here on earth. things change here in america. and it's not "christian morals" that have gotten this country to where it is. it's just plain human decency. i'd definitely argue that this country was not founded on the love that christ had for the world. my evidence: slavery. it's kind of hard to argue the morality there. the founding fathers didn't appear to understand what "christian morals" really are, just as people like george w. bush, jerry falwell, mike huckabee, etc. don't appear to understand what "christian morals" really are. they're skewed understanding of "christian morals" (and make no mistake, this country was founded on a skewed understanding of christian morals) has impeded progress, in my opinion.

freedom, as abstract a concept as it is, is what defines our society. that is all.

[lighter_boots]

You both (Mitch & lighter_boots) never find a middle ground. It's either one or the other. Sometimes you speak rationally, but you never want to see the other person's side.

Mitch, the country was founded on Christianity....at least some of it's basic ideals. It was NOT however, at any time, a Christian Nation. There's a stark difference there, and I assume that you two are smart enough to figure those differences out. Though as a P.S., I will mention that though Jefferson wasn't directly involved with the framing, James Madison (the "Father of the Constitution") was Jefferson's protege of sorts.

.


If you don't think that I reach for a middle ground then you haven't read all of my posts. I push back from an opposite point of view frequently but that's and old assertion and I'll leave it lie. I always try to find a middle ground once the haymaker punches have been thrown.

The fathers of our constitution were Hamilton and Jay in my book. Jefferson did not want our federal system (I reiterate). Another Jefferson protege' Burr murdered Hamilton (who did bear some responsibility). But yes, Hamilton as the most prolific writer of our framers did borrow from many sources and he was very well read.

My whole reason for bringing this (Christian foundation) up was because this thread had mentioned how awful and unreasonable Huckabee's Christan nation comments were (something like that). I wanted to say that this country has been deeply influenced by Christianity in its many forms, so it's not very controversial to speak about them. And given how I would say greater than 80% of the federally elected officials in the history of the US were Christian, denying that their faith didn't influence how they governed is ignoring a pretty obvious conclusion. Of course there are other influences and the influences change every day, but there's no denying (in general) where we came from (as you expressed in your last post so well).

John, btw

[Mitch]

Asked whether the American commanders on the scene were right in not attacking the Iranian boats, Mr Huckabee said he backed their decisions, before warning Iran:
Be prepared, first, to put your sights on the American vessel. And then be prepared that the next thing you see will be the gates of Hell, because that is exactly what you will see after that.

...

please america...i'm begging you. have we learned nothing in the past eight years? nothing at all?

[APlaneTookOff]

But those Iranian boats needed killin'.

+1 for Mike Huckabee

I heard Fred Thompson "acted the fool" on him last night though.

[Mitch]

But those Iranian boats needed killin'.

+1 for Mike Huckabee

I heard Fred Thompson "acted the fool" on him last night though.

thompson can't do anything but "act the fool." he's a jackass.

[Intoxicated Ricochet]

I really don't know how they didn't get shot up. The US Navy must have immense patience. They were about to get lulz Phalanxed!!11

Everyone forgets about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis

[lighter_boots]

As with most political and religious discussions, there is an appropriate George Carlin quote for this one:

Here is my problem with the ten commandments- why exactly are there 10?




Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.

I'll respond below in the context that I've been "arguing" here. That's how the 10 commandments have been embodied in US law and tradition. Below is the commandment you listed with my little reference to how it was/is used in our law/tradition.

Your point was to debate the actual validity of 10 commandments. I'm not doing that, I'm just talking about their influence on "US".


I AM THE LORD THY GOD THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME

"In God we Trust" on every federal reserve note and coin.

THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN

"Couldn't sat God (damnit, ect. in the media until very recently)

THOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH

"Blue Laws" were in force throughout the US until at least the '80's where most businesses were closed on Sundays. They still are in parts of the south.

HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER

Obvious


THOU SHALT NOT STEAL

Obvious

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS

Obvious

THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTRY

Against the law, well, it's still illegal in the US military

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE

Same as above

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR"S GOODS

Obvious

THOU SHALT NOT KILL

Obvious

[APlaneTookOff]

thompson can't do anything but "act the fool." he's a jackass.Dude, you like John Edwards.

Then earlier in this thread you nearly vomited when Joel Olsteen's name was mentioned. And rightfully so, but can you tell me a single difference between the two?

[lighter_boots]

Then earlier in this thread you nearly vomited when Joel Olsteen's name was mentioned. And rightfully so, but can you tell me a single difference between the two?

Yeah Mitch, what's your beef with Osteen. :iconpeace

[Mitch]

Dude, you like John Edwards.

Then earlier in this thread you nearly vomited when Joel Olsteen's name was mentioned. And rightfully so, but can you tell me a single difference between the two?

not sure what you mean

edit: edwards isn't a televangelist. something about televangelists creep me out. joel osteen, as a televangelist, fits into that broad category of "douche-bag" simply by way of his profession.

the bible preaches humbleness about one's faith, and admonishes followers to worship in private, never in public. as such, televangelists are the ultimate hypocrites (in today's understanding of the word, not the biblical one).

[APlaneTookOff]

not sure what you mean

edit: edwards isn't a televangelist. something about televangelists creep me out. joel osteen, as a televangelist, fits into that broad category of "douche-bag" simply by way of his profession.That's exactly my point. Edwards isn't a genuine person, he's a scam artist. In 2004 he was telling all these bullshit sob stories about how in one of the two Americas, there's a 10 year old girl who can't afford food or a winter coat, and how outsourcing even ruined his life because when he was a kid he'd go to restaurants with his dad, the diner would turn him and his family away because the mills were closing or some shit. Completely unbelievable misery crap that doesn't pass the BS test.

He built his 9 billion square foot mansion after making his living suing doctors and hospitals, telling the same kinds of swindler's junk stories to juries. He thinks that if he has perfect $1200 hair and a lawyer's wry smile he can become president. I look at televangelists and John Edwards and all I see is a difference in the denomination or something.

[Mitch]

That's exactly my point. Edwards isn't a genuine person, he's a scam artist. In 2004 he was telling all these bullshit sob stories about how in one of the two Americas, there's a 10 year old girl who can't afford food or a winter coat, and how outsourcing even ruined his life because when he was a kid he'd go to restaurants with his dad, the diner would turn him and his family away because the mills were closing or some shit. Completely unbelievable misery crap that doesn't pass the BS test.

He built his 9 billion square foot mansion after making his living suing doctors and hospitals, telling the same kinds of swindler's junk stories to juries. He thinks that if he has perfect $1200 hair and a lawyer's wry smile he can become president. I look at televangelists and John Edwards and all I see is a difference in the denomination or something.

i defy you to name even ONE politician who isn't a scam artist.

i know that you can't because every single politician's job is to seem like an "every american" when, in fact, they are not.

so...point not taken.

[APlaneTookOff]

i defy you to name even ONE politician who isn't a scam artist.

i know that you can't because every single politician's job is to seem like an "every american" when, in fact, they are not.

so...point not taken.Joe Lieberman. My local congressman. Guiliani as mayor. Maybe Elizabeth Dole. Maybe John McCain. Who knows.

Point is, Edwards was a scam artist BEFORE he got into politics. He sued doctors for delivering babies with birth defects for Chrissakes, arguing that it was somehow their fault. I'm fairly certain one of the 19 additions on his mansion, or the airwalk, was paid for because someone spilled coffee on themselves and scalded their balls.

He's a cartoonish figure. The worst of the worst, IMO. Near perfect DNA match with a televangelist.

[Intoxicated Ricochet]

I'd say politicians are more actors than scam artists. The reality is that Edwards has more than proven what a schmuck he is, and the last we thing we need is another lawyer.. so using some sort of umbrella theory that all politicians are equally bad in order to absolve him doesn't really work.

[lighter_boots]

n joel osteen, as a televangelist, fits into that broad category of "douche-bag" simply by way of his profession.

the bible preaches humbleness about one's faith, and admonishes followers to worship in private, never in public. as such, televangelists are the ultimate hypocrites (in today's understanding of the word, not the biblical one).


You've never watched the guy and judge him anyway? Way to go!

I see him maybe once a month, but the guy is very low key, more like a seminar on success than an evangelist.

He doesn't fit the "give me your money" mold either. He sells stuff (like books) and charges a few bucks to see him in person as I understand it.

That's why I point him out as a pretty tolerant person, unlike yourself:angel:

[APlaneTookOff]

I'm sorry but I am completely intolerant of Olsteen.

The only thing an enormous arena, dozens of jumbotrons and 6 terawatts of electricity should be used for is U2's ZooTV tour, with Bono on-stage satirizing Joel's ilk as Mr Macphisto. Not one guy preacher who wears more makeup 24 hours a day than all the women I've ever dated.

And John Edwards

[Mitch]

You've never watched the guy and judge him anyway? Way to go!

I see him maybe once a month, but the guy is very low key, more like a seminar on success than an evangelist.

He doesn't fit the "give me your money" mold either. He sells stuff (like books) and charges a few bucks to see him in person as I understand it.

That's why I point him out as a pretty tolerant person, unlike yourself:angel:

just like you constantly criticize democrats? how many of them have you actually met, spoken to, lived with?

oh are you good friends with him? he's completely tolerant of everyone? i'm sure he's nothing like those evangelicals who say the only way to have a fulfilled life and afterlife is to accept jesus, right? i'm sure he doesn't actually mock people who don't. surely he just "pities" them, which is infinitely worse and much more disgusting.

also,


Guiliani as mayor, Maybe John McCain

HAHAHAHA. nice, that was funny.

but my question was mostly rhetorical. the actual answer is there is no such thing as a pure, genuine, honest politician. to even entertain that idea is to fool yourself.

[ImaDude]

I hope Edwards isn't VP on any ticket come November

[lighter_boots]

Now, how do I edit that "pillar of the community" title??:angel: :angel:

[APlaneTookOff]

HAHAHAHA. nice, that was funny.why?

[Mitch]

why?

you're seriously trying to argue that guiliani and mccain are genuine people?

if "taking a different stand on pretty much everything depending on which interest group you speak to" is classified as genuine, then i guess you're absolutely right.

[Summersun33]

guiliani is one of the few politicians in recent memory that has actually done most of what he said he was going to do...

[APlaneTookOff]

you're seriously trying to argue that guiliani and mccain are genuine people?

if "taking a different stand on pretty much everything depending on which interest group you speak to" is classified as genuine, then i guess you're absolutely right.yes? why the hell not?

look, nobody who fucking knows a camera is in front of them is going to be a genuine person. that is human nature. but given that fact, it is one of the most important reasons i like president bush.

most people look at his prepared speeches and watch him fumble over words and want to murder him, whereas i'll gloss over that and let it slide, then i'll watch him in candid moments and say "holy shit, this guy is awesome." i seriously wish he still drank cause i would punch out secret service agents, kidnap him, and take him to a bar. and i said it before and i'll say it now, the reason i would jump in front of a fucking tank shell for the guy is because he stood on the rubble of the world trade center and ad-libbed one of the greatest speeches in the history of the universe. the universe, mitch. everything.

and he does the same thing time and time again. he'll fuck everything up when he's prepared to do well, and he'll nail shit he's unprepared for. it's weird. it's almost exactly how a lot of people are.

and i've met two people who have met dick cheney. and they say he is a solid person. whereas.. most people will say "dick cheney?", laugh, and make a shotgun pellet joke. why? because of cameras and spin. we're supposed to hate dick cheney. why? because we're supposed to. why? well, it's the cause. don't ask questions.

so back to guiliani and mccain. i saw mccain on conan o brien and he made a joke about how the aforementioned dick cheney's heart might give out. a fucking democrat would poll 30,000 people before they prepared that joke, and wrote it, and re-wrote it, and then re-wrote it again, before actually delivering it and messing it the fuck up. see: john kerry "if you don't work hard, you get stuck in iraq." - and possibly every joke someone with a (d) by their name has ever made.

guiliani gives me vibes similar to mccain and bush. they all seem like good people. and if they were my boss i might actually show up for work and do my job for them. you can't actually let the fucking ungenuine politicians swindle you, you have to use your noggin and see through that crap. and then - make your decision based on that.

/end rant. i think we were talking about how fred thompson and john edwards were pieces of shit. let's continue. :rock:

[Mitch]

i'll agree that i don't think george bush himself is a bad person. i think it might have been nancy pelosi's daughter who followed him around during the 2000 election and made a documentary with his blessings. he was very real, very honest. i like the guy.

i don't like his administration. i disagree with just about every single thing that has come out of the bush presidency with the exception of the war in afghanistan, which they abandoned before it was finished.

and he gave the best speech in the universe? you were probably riding an emotional high and are nostalgic for that moment (sort of the same way i always include 3eb's s/t in my top five albums of all time even though it doesn't belong there).

edit: you mean this?


President Bush: Thank you all. I want you all to know -- it [bullhorn] can't go any louder -- I want you all to know that America today, America today is on bended knee, in prayer for the people whose lives were lost here, for the workers who work here, for the families who mourn. The nation stands with the good people of New York City and New Jersey and Connecticut as we mourn the loss of thousands of our citizens

Rescue Worker: I can't hear you!

President Bush: I can hear you! I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people -- and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!

Rescue Workers: [Chanting] U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!

President Bush: The nation -- The nation sends its love and compassion --

Rescue Worker: God bless America!

President Bush: -- to everybody who is here. Thank you for your hard work. Thank you for makin' the nation proud, and may God bless America.

Rescue Workers: [Chanting] U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!


you actually include that as one of the greatest speeches in the universe?

...

definitely nostalgia for the moment. i'm not saying it's a bad speech or that it isn't an emotional speech...it just certainly doesn't compare with the gettsyburg address, the "i have a dream" speech, or pretty much anything FDR ever said.

[APlaneTookOff]

and he gave the best speech in the universe? you were probably riding an emotional high and are nostalgic for that momentYeah.

Drunk too.

Last night... not after 9/11. ;)

[Mitch]

Yeah.

Drunk too.

Last night... not after 9/11. ;)

oh, i thought you meant the bullhorn speech.

congrats on the pats win, too, btdubs.

[The Flicker Fade]

edit: you mean this?

Yeah. You know what, it may have been simple, but it was one of those moments. One of those all-time great moments in history. I will never forget where I was when the President stood at Ground Zero and this moment


Rescue Worker: I can't hear you!

President Bush: I can hear you! I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people -- and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!

Rescue Workers: [Chanting] U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!

...happened. It gave me chills. That line, that one impassioned line, was exactly what we all needed at that moment. It may be hard to remember now, but Bush did an amazingly superb job of handling our nation's fragile psyche in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Hell, over 80% of Americans approved of the job he was doing as President at the time.


That line, and his "we will not tire, we will not waver, we will not falter, we will not fail" speech. That is what I will always remember most about President Bush's oration. Not a multitude of mispronounced words or sentences with missing words or malapropisms that create unintentionally funny meanings. Those.

[lighter_boots]

i'll agree that i don't think george bush himself is a bad person. i think it might have been nancy pelosi's daughter who followed him around during the 2000 election and made a documentary with his blessings. he was very real, very honest. i like the guy.
...

definitely nostalgia for the moment. i'm not saying it's a bad speech or that it isn't an emotional speech...it just certainly doesn't compare with the gettsyburg address, the "i have a dream" speech, or pretty much anything FDR ever said.

Mitch, this is probably the best thing I've ever read from you. You all have given me a tear-in-the -eye with these past 4 posts. Thank you.

I differ from some of your lot on the policy side of the Bush administration (which we all know I agree with). But it's the character of the man that I respect. Seeing him speak and tear up again when visiting Israel this week reminded me of that. It's his emotion that comes out at these times, like when he speaks of lives of servicemen lost. Like his 2004 convention speech which was full of emotion.......... he teared up. But "a plane-took-off" said it best.

In reference to the ones you all referred to. That NYC quote, so simple, so perfect. That speech to the joint houses of congress post 9/11. And never forget the best physical act of any President in recent US history. How he grooved a strike from the mound in Yankee Stadium to open the 2001 World Series.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaoryQ0oLh8 That was awesome!

Well, back to our political stances........... but thanks guys:thup:

[APlaneTookOff]

And never forget the best physical act of any President in recent US history. How he grooved a strike from the mound in Yankee Stadium to open the 2001 AL playoffs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaoryQ0oLh8 That was awesome!

Well, back to our political stances........... but thanks guys:thup:Oh man, I forgot about that! :rock:

[lighter_boots]

oh, i thought you meant the bullhorn speech.

congrats on the pats win, too, btdubs.

Yeah, he meant the bullhorn speech (The-Flicker-Fade summed it up very well). Drunk apparently was last night.

[Mitch]

Yeah. You know what, it may have been simple, but it was one of those moments. One of those all-time great moments in history. I will never forget where I was when the President stood at Ground Zero and this moment



...happened. It gave me chills. That line, that one impassioned line, was exactly what we all needed at that moment. It may be hard to remember now, but Bush did an amazingly superb job of handling our nation's fragile psyche in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Hell, over 80% of Americans approved of the job he was doing as President at the time.


That line, and his "we will not tire, we will not waver, we will not falter, we will not fail" speech. That is what I will always remember most about President Bush's oration. Not a multitude of mispronounced words or sentences with missing words or malapropisms that create unintentionally funny meanings. Those.

i specifically said that it was an emotional speech.

it's just simply not "one of the best speeches in the universe." it just isn't. it's less emotional than a speech given by any coach at a super bowl.

it was what the nation needed to hear. but it wasn't "great." the moment made the words powerful, not the other way around. great speeches are powerful in themselves, not necessarily by the circumstances.

[lighter_boots]

i specifically said that it was an emotional speech.

it's just simply not "one of the best speeches in the universe." it just isn't. it's less emotional than a speech given by any coach at a super bowl.

it was what the nation needed to hear. but it wasn't "great." the moment made the words powerful, not the other way around. great speeches are powerful in themselves, not necessarily by the circumstances.


Really? Name a famous speech NOT surrounding an emotionally charged event.

MLK- Uh, very emotional equal rights/religious
OB- "Change";) and religious;)
FDR- Depression and WWII
Churchill- WWII
Reagan- Berlin Wall, Cold War

Circumstance makes the man/speech.

I'm sure that you can name one, but the emotion level of those watching the speech is an integral part of a memorable speech.

[lighter_boots]

Here's the "ground zero" "speech":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4BkzuV0LYE&NR=1

[brenan]

To be honest, GWB hasn't said anything hugely memorable to me (yet??).

Clinton has both, "I didn't inhale" and "I did not have sex" quotes that millions of people can pull out of a hat.

Bush's speeches are fluffy and nice but he's terrible at public speaking.

[Mitch]

Really? Name a famous speech NOT surrounding an emotionally charged event.

MLK- Uh, very emotional equal rights/religious
OB- "Change";) and religious;)
FDR- Depression and WWII
Churchill- WWII
Reagan- Berlin Wall, Cold War

Circumstance makes the man/speech.

I'm sure that you can name one, but the emotion level of those watching the speech is an integral part of a memorable speech.

yeah, but those were speeches. saying "we're 'gon get 'em!" doesn't count as a "speech." it was a comment, at most. an emotional comment, but that's it.

[Summersun33]

yeah, but those were speeches. saying "we're 'gon get 'em!" doesn't count as a "speech." it was a comment, at most. an emotional comment, but that's it.

:confused:

[Mitch]

:confused:

here's what i'm getting at: including bush's emotional bullhorn comment at ground zero as, and i quote, "one of the best speeches in the universe" is absurd.

i'm not saying it was a bad speech. i'm not saying that it was unimportant. i'm not saying that it wasn't emotional.

i'm just saying that when you compare it to the greatest speeches "in the universe" it doesn't even register as a blip on the radar.

that's my point. we can move on now.

which thread is this? oh right. huckabee sucks.

[lighter_boots]

Since we're getting off topic, can I ask what happened to TVCY yesterday? I couldn't get to the home page all day. Did this happen to anyone else or was I on super secret ban?:uhoh: :drool:

[APlaneTookOff]

here's what i'm getting at: including bush's emotional bullhorn comment at ground zero as, and i quote, "one of the best speeches in the universe" is absurd.

i'm not saying it was a bad speech. i'm not saying that it was unimportant. i'm not saying that it wasn't emotional.

i'm just saying that when you compare it to the greatest speeches "in the universe" it doesn't even register as a blip on the radar.

that's my point. we can move on now.

which thread is this? oh right. huckabee sucks.I've had some beers again and you are flat out wrong.

:lol: :badger:

[Punkadelica]

Since we're getting off topic, can I ask what happened to TVCY yesterday? I couldn't get to the home page all day. Did this happen to anyone else or was I on super secret ban?:uhoh: :drool:

*crosses his fingers*

:o

Also, yeah, I suppose the Ground Zero speech was probably Bush's high point as president as he somehow managed to fuck it all up after that. Even so, it's pretty much what any other President would have said (minus the lame "I can hear you" ad-lib).

[APlaneTookOff]

Even so, it's pretty much what any other President would have said (minus the lame "I can hear you" ad-lib).Pffffft. BS.

Best moment in American history.

[The Flicker Fade]

great speeches are powerful in themselves, not necessarily by the circumstances.

I disagree 100%. A speech is nothing without the context in which it is given.


And those two, they will be remembered forever in the history of our country. They are the greatest to be delivered in our lifetime to date. In part because of the circumstances? Of course. How many of us associate Pearl Harbor with "a day that will live in infamy?" Does that line have anything about it to make it intrinsically better than Bush's bullhorn speech? No. It just fit. It resonated throughout America, and deeply affected everyone. And that's the test of greatness.

[Mitch]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080114/D8U5AF180.html

this is exactly why there is separation of church and state. it's pretty fucked up to stump at a fucking church.

i don't care that he was there "to preach." he wouldn't be there at all if he weren't running for president. i know the dems are doing this as well, and it's all pretty disgusting if you ask me. but at least other candidates, republican and democrat for the most part, weren't so audacious as to preach. they were part of the congregation, not actually speaking at the pulpit.

and shame on those churches, as well. letting a candidate speak at your pulpit is tantamount to saying," god supports this candidate."

it's brainwashing at its worst. absurd, disgusting, and abusive of the american public.

[APlaneTookOff]

you really hate religion, don't you? :rock:

[Mitch]

you really hate religion, don't you? :rock:

no, i just think it has no place in our government.

i know that the majority of people in this country are christian. however, those people aren't even the same type of christians. the rest of the 25+% aren't christian at all. some of those don't believe in any god.

the point is, religion is so varied in this country that the only solution is to make religion as non-issue in government. i don't care if our president is christian, muslim, athiest or voodoo. i really don't. i have a problem with someone making that their image.

it sickens me. i don't hate religion. i don't hate religious people. i hate candidates trying to win peoples' votes by claiming to be god's candidate. it's just plain wrong.

[lighter_boots]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080114/D8U5AF180.html

this is exactly why there is separation of church and state. it's pretty fucked up to stump at a fucking church.

i don't care that he was there "to preach." he wouldn't be there at all if he weren't running for president. i know the dems are doing this as well, and it's all pretty disgusting if you ask me. but at least other candidates, republican and democrat for the most part, weren't so audacious as to preach. they were part of the congregation, not actually speaking at the pulpit.

and shame on those churches, as well. letting a candidate speak at your pulpit is tantamount to saying," god supports this candidate."

it's brainwashing at its worst. absurd, disgusting, and abusive of the american public.

You must really hate OB and Clinton and Al Gore, et. al. given all the churches they regularly speak to. They do it on a weekly basis!!

[Mitch]

You must really hate OB and Clinton and Al Gore, et. al. given all the churches they regularly speak to. They do it on a weekly basis!!

anyone that uses a place of worship as a platform for politics should be ashamed.

edit: this (http://in.news.yahoo.com/reuters_ids_new/20080115/r_t_rtrs_wl_us/twl-israel-back-of-the-bus-rule-sparks-r-d4a870c_1.html) highlights some of the problems i have with religion. how fucking absurd is this segregation? the orthodox sect is a FUCKING MINORITY! you don't let a minority enforce segregation based on gender! you tell them to shut the fuck up!

why the hell does god care what pants you wear? this is explicitly the reason why religion and politics should NEVER MIX. i can say unequivocally that if there is a god, what pants women wear is not an issue with him or her or them.

people NEED to keep their religion to THEMSELVES and their fellow followers and NEVER let it affect how they interact with other people. EVER. and that goes double, triple, and quadruple for politics. if religious people can't agree on what clothes to wear, how to pray, to whom to pray, or how to get into the afterlife, they sure as hell can't agree on MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THINGS. the solution? keep your religion out of your politics. period.

edit: just for clarification, this isn't about orthodox judaism or the middle east. this is merely being used as an example of the STUPID things religions dictate. equally stupid: anti-feminism in political islam, etc etc. simply an example that caught my eye that proves my point, nothing more.

[Rey]

i defy you to name even ONE politician who isn't a scam artist.

i know that you can't because every single politician's job is to seem like an "every american" when, in fact, they are not.

so...point not taken.

Ron Paul.

[Mitch]

Ron Paul.

fair enough. i must say i don't agree with libertarian ideals, but at least he's honest.

[lighter_boots]

anyone that uses a place of worship as a platform for politics should be ashamed.

edit: this (http://in.news.yahoo.com/reuters_ids_new/20080115/r_t_rtrs_wl_us/twl-israel-back-of-the-bus-rule-sparks-r-d4a870c_1.html) highlights some of the problems i have with religion. how fucking absurd is this segregation? the orthodox sect is a FUCKING MINORITY! you don't let a minority enforce segregation based on gender! you tell them to shut the fuck up!

why the hell does god care what pants you wear? this is explicitly the reason why religion and politics should NEVER MIX. i can say unequivocally that if there is a god, what pants women wear is not an issue with him or her or them.

people NEED to keep their religion to THEMSELVES and their fellow followers and NEVER let it affect how they interact with other people. EVER. and that goes double, triple, and quadruple for politics. if religious people can't agree on what clothes to wear, how to pray, to whom to pray, or how to get into the afterlife, they sure as hell can't agree on MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THINGS. the solution? keep your religion out of your politics. period.

edit: just for clarification, this isn't about orthodox judaism or the middle east. this is merely being used as an example of the STUPID things religions dictate. equally stupid: anti-feminism in political islam, etc etc. simply an example that caught my eye that proves my point, nothing more.

Dude, back away from the religious bigotry. Don't you risk becoming that which you mock by using someone's faith as an excuse to denigrate them?

Again. Those who use their religion as their moral foundation make political decisions based on this relationship with their God. This is such a big part of where this country has come from and is going, I can't see why you don't see it. I get it...... you derive your sense of moral purpose from elsewhere. Just understand that you are in the small minority compared to the vast majority of the political leaders that have shaped this country.

[Punkadelica]

Dude, back away from the religious bigotry. Don't you risk becoming that which you mock by using someone's faith as an excuse to denigrate them?

Again. Those who use their religion as their moral foundation make political decisions based on this relationship with their God. This is such a big part of where this country has come from and is going, I can't see why you don't see it. I get it...... you derive your sense of moral purpose from elsewhere. Just understand that you are in the small minority compared to the vast majority of the political leaders that have shaped this country.

There's a difference between allowing religion to shape your personal morals, ethics, and general outlook on humanity and using a government elected position to force a specific religious agenda on others. Also, while I know Christians aren't allowed to pick and choose exactly when in life "God" should be included (since he really should be involved in all parts of a Christian's life), there is a way for elected officials to apply the basic moral foundations of a religion to what they do without being obtrusive about it. And I mean "morals", not "religious issues." No doubt you approach a gray area here, but I think there are plenty of examples where religious issues have in the past been passed off as moral issues, such as the current debate over gay marriage. And while this may conflict with their own personal religious beliefs, as elected leaders they need to be able to step back and see the big picture.

You were arguing earlier that we were founded as a Christian nation. I agree that historically Christianity has influenced our national policies more than any other, but again that's just historical. We're a country of many faiths and our leaders should govern us as such.

[Mitch]

arguing for separation of church and state isn't religious bigotry, no matter how much you want to pigeon-hole me as a hippie, pinko liberal.

i'm simply arguing that people shouldn't elect leaders based on their religion, and leaders shouldn't use religion to try to get people to vote for them.

we are a country of many religions, many beliefs. we are owed not to have someone else's religion be the basis of their decisions. if you cannot separate yourself from your faith when making decisions for a whole country composed of people of different religions, then you probably shouldn't be making those decisions.

[Intoxicated Ricochet]

Quotes aren't working for some reason, anyway:

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family. --Huck

[sst2]

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family. --Huck

That's terrifying.

[Mitch]

Quotes aren't working for some reason, anyway:

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family. --Huck

haha. for a second, i was like, "huck finn?"

yeah, that is terrifying. you can't take stuff like that our of context...it's terrifying no matter what context it's in, unless it's prefaced with something like, "hey guys, it's not like i said..."

so yeah. this guy is obviously crazy and is now admitting to trying to tear down our constitution and institute some sort of state religion.

[lighter_boots]

That's terrifying.


Terrifying? Won't happen why be 'terrified'? I don't think that a great portion of the black population in this country (who get campaigned to regularly from their pulpits) would agree with you.

Terrifying? Having someone want to murder you and run your office into a population center (my circumstance). Rape? Murder? Those are terrifying.

I don't know the context of that quote, but come on, it isn't anywhere near possible.

The new Louisiana governor (formerly Hindu) relies deeply on his Catholic faith:

New Louisiana Governor's Conversion Reflects Fluid Nature of Hinduism

By Robert Travis Scott

2008 Religion News Service

CHANDIGARH, India -- When Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal converted to Catholicism during high school and college, he took a momentous step away from his inherited faith of Hinduism, the prevalent religion of his parents' generation and Indian homeland.................

http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/01/new-louisiana-governors-conver.php

The French are talking about the issue of faith too:

Sarkozy sparks French debate over God and faith
Reuters
Reuters - Friday, January 18

PARIS - President Nicolas Sarkozy's increasingly frequent and positive references to God and faith have drawn fire from critics who accuse him of violating France's separation of church and state.

Sarkozy, a taboo-breaker whose whirlwind love life has distracted the media for weeks, broke with traditional presidential reserve about religion to stress France's Christian roots in a speech in a Rome basilica just before Christmas.

In Riyadh on Monday, he hailed Islam as "one of the greatest and most beautiful civilisations the world has known" and described his Saudi hosts as rulers who "appeal to the basic values of Islam to combat the fundamentalism that negates them".

His praise for a kingdom that enforces and propagates a strict version of Islam, during a visit aimed at securing lucrative export contracts, was the last straw for his critics.

"This is not respect for the separation of church and state," Socialist opposition leader Francois Hollande said.

"This is an ideological stand that makes religion into an instrument to promote French products civilian nuclear plants for Muslim countries," he said. "Mixing religion and foreign policy is illogical and wrong."

Jean-Louis Debre, a leading Gaullist who is now head of the Constitutional Council, indirectly chided Sarkozy by saying the 1905 law separating church and state was a good one and that it was "opportune to make sure its balance is not upset".

FAITH EQUALS HOPE FOR SARKOZY

At issue is Sarkozy's break with a French tradition that sees faith strictly as a private affair. This began with the 1905 law and grew into a kind of political correctness that made bringing religion into public affairs a major taboo.............................

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080117/twl-uk-france-religion-bd5ae06.html

[Intoxicated Ricochet]

I find any Constitutional modification that remotely resembles what Huckabee described to be terrifying. How are the French relevant to the US election? The other article you posted is related to the manifestation of one guy's chosen faith... there's no mention of radical, proactive desire to change the founding political document of our nation to better resemble a certain religious code. Two very different situations. It would never happen, I agree, Huck must have missed the class where they talk about a whole Congress that needs to approve any proposed Constitutional ammendments. But his sentiment is so radical and absurd that it's still inexcusable, and serves as yet another example of zealots who want to filter all of their politics through a sole religious lens.

[Mitch]

it's terrifying because those are his "ideas."

if a presidential candidate ran on a platform of vigilante justice against illegal immigrants, that would be terrifying. of course it would never happen, even if a small but vocal crazy minority of the country supported it.

oh well, what do you know. that's a perfect analogy.

mike huckabee is crazy. period.

[sst2]

Terrifying? Won't happen why be 'terrified'?

An American presidential candidate honestly (because say what you will about Huckabee, the guy isn’t lying) vowing to crusade for his own personal beliefs against the Constitution, against the foundation of America is alarming. While Americans may not agree with Bush’s liberal interpretation of the Constitution or fully support Ron Paul’s Constitutional inflexibility, we can handle them because they are discussing what’s good for AMERICA. I want political decisions made in favor of AMERICA, not Jesus, Moses, Krishna, Mohammed, Buddha, Guru Nanak, and certainly not Mike Huckabee. This isn’t even about separation of church and state. This about a viable candidate and governor promising to elevate his personal beliefs above the concerns and needs of the American people.


I don't think that a great portion of the black population in this country (who get campaigned to regularly from their pulpits) would agree with you.

So? A great portion of white people wouldn’t agree with us... the same way the majority of black (and white!) people will see the merit in what we’re saying. Let’s take that a step further. In a survey of 10 million Americans asked whether or not they would like to see the Constitution amended to fit someone else’s religious ideals, do you really think the response would be affirmative?


Terrifying? Having someone want to murder you and run your office into a population center (my circumstance). Rape? Murder? Those are terrifying.

No, it would be terrifying if there were no laws to counteract rape or murder. It would be terrifying if we didn’t know what the laws against rape and murder would become. It would be terrifying if our police deparments had any agenda other than our personal and public safety. The Constitution is our guide, not an executive trinket to adorn the throne of whichever president decides to play pope.


I don't know the context of that quote, but come on, it isn't anywhere near possible.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/huckabee_the_constitution_should_be_amended_to_con form_to_the_word_of_god/

Huckabee’s potential success isn’t the issue. But do remember that 3 Supreme Court justice positions are up for grabs, chosen by America’s Next Top Model President, and that ain’t no bull.


As for the rest of your post, what on earth does Bobby Jindal have to do with anything? And France? Are you suggesting we model America after a nation with the international prestige of a bon-bon?

[Wide-eyed & blind]

I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God.

Oh. Really? :deadpan:


An American presidential candidate honestly (because say what you will about Huckabee, the guy isn’t lying) vowing to crusade for his own personal beliefs against the Constitution, against the foundation of America is alarming.

Ding-ding-ding!! :idea:


Inarguable.


lighter_boots, would you feel the same way and feel it as strongly if Huckabee practiced Islam or Judaism or Hinduism and was saying all these same things?


edit: Maybe that isn't the most relevant of questions, since your assertion that America was founded on Christian values that have been entrenched in our affairs for a long time is the crux of your argument. Whatev.

[APlaneTookOff]

mike huckabee is crazy. period.i'm all kinds of behind you on this.

still don't think that if you support huckabee you're psycho. but i'm getting there whenever mikey opens his gobb.

[Mitch]

i'm all kinds of behind you on this.

still don't think that if you support huckabee you're psycho. but i'm getting there whenever mikey opens his gobb.

they aren't necessarily psycho, but anyone that votes for a man who is vowing a religious crusade against our constitution seriously needs to re-evaluate their reasons.

btdubs, apparently thompson is upset that the soviet union is still helping iran. people who vote for thompson are definitely psycho.

[APlaneTookOff]

btdubs, apparently thompson is upset that the soviet union is still helping iran. people who vote for thompson are definitely psycho.:wet: i finally got what btdubs means. do you have any Buffalo Wild Wings near you? apparently kids in the midwest call them "BDub3's" or something. And I said "wtf there aren't even three W's" and my friend said they just go with it.

So btdubs: John Edwards made the same mistake in 2004, calling Russia "The Soviet Union". I'm pretty certain politicians born between 1920 and 1960 all still harbor a little animosity towards the Russians.

[Mitch]

:wet: i finally got what btdubs means. do you have any Buffalo Wild Wings near you? apparently kids in the midwest call them "BDub3's" or something. And I said "wtf there aren't even three W's" and my friend said they just go with it.

So btdubs: John Edwards made the same mistake in 2004, calling Russia "The Soviet Union". I'm pretty certain politicians born between 1920 and 1960 all still harbor a little animosity towards the Russians.

those crazy ruskies! still ruining our politics. although i might say that edwards and thompson might not be so far off the mark, what with neo-tsar putin in power.

on another note, i picked up "btdubs" from one of my dorky friends two years ago and now it's a regular part of my lexicon. i'm a giant dork.

edit: and no to the buffalo wild wings, but i've heard they rock.

[Summersun33]

So btdubs: John Edwards made the same mistake in 2004, calling Russia "The Soviet Union".

but he wears a blue tie, so let's all give him a free pass, mkay?

[Mitch]

http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/edwards.jpg

he's a communist in disguise! you'd expect him to have a blue tie because liberals are blue, but he's wearing red because he's a communist!

::snort:: loser didn't get the uniform memo, apparently.

[Summersun33]

god i love that hair.

[Mitch]

god i love that hair.

i'd pay at least $400 for that 'do.

[APlaneTookOff]

in other news, mike huckabee ate squirrel meat fried in a popcorn maker.

his words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2_SKDrv0zE

[lighter_boots]

OB campaigning at another church in Atlanta today. Waiting for the venom form Mitch":angry: "

[Mitch]

you know, this has nothing to do with the above comment, but my girlfriend and i were discussing super-interesting.

apparently, there was some mike huckabee thing in south carolina where he ranted and raved about how the federal government has no right to tell them what flag they can fly over their state buildings.

i find it quite interesting that the government can't tell you what flag you can have on your state-house, but it can tell a woman what to do or not do with her body and can tell people who they can or cannot marry.

i think that shows that someone has some pretty fucked-up priorities. but hey, if displaying the flag of enemy combatants above a state's government buildings is that important to huckabee, then i think he should totally pursue that.

edit: it's one thing to oppose abortion. i understand, though i do not agree with, people who oppose abortion for whatever reason. opposing same sex marriage is just plain ignorant and bigoted. FACT. sorry, but it is. and that's not a dig at huckabee, but on both sides of the aisle.

[lighter_boots]

i find it quite interesting that the government can't tell you what flag you can have on your state-house, but it can tell a woman what to do or not do with her body and can tell people who they can or cannot marry.

i think that shows that someone has some pretty fucked-up priorities. but hey, if displaying the flag of enemy combatants above a state's government buildings is that important to huckabee, then i think he should totally pursue that.

edit: it's one thing to oppose abortion. i understand, though i do not agree with, people who oppose abortion for whatever reason. opposing same sex marriage is just plain ignorant and bigoted. FACT. sorry, but it is. and that's not a dig at huckabee, but on both sides of the aisle.

Since we're so involved in "facts" lets give these: gay people can get married. Marry all day long, in churches:uhoh: no less. It's such a non-issue to most people in this country. Our tradition is that a marriage is between a man and a woman and a vast majority feel this way. In your northeast liberal world this may be shocking, but that's the USA's overall belief and tradition.

Now you want FEDERAL SANCTIONING OF GAY MARRIAGE. That is a vast departure from tradition in this country. You are in a minority here and to call it 'bigotry' helps to diminish where real bigotry does occur.

With abortion it's the same thing. See you have anti-abortion folks and pro-choice folks. You don't have pro-abortion people (well except for me certain cases). In fact abortions are declining in this country. What many object to (and President Bush has represented) is no federal funding of abortion.

Same as stem cell research....... Do all the stem cell research you want, just don't ask the federal government to FUND it.

Sense a pattern here? You want the federal government to sanction and advocate things it was never created to do.

[Intoxicated Ricochet]

And a vast majority of people in America believed black people were third-class citizens and it was tradition to keep them oppressed and segregated. So let's NOT be progressive at all, because, surely, oppressing homosexuals and abortion is a mainstream, deeply embedded American tradition that shouldn't be done away with.

[lighter_boots]

And a vast majority of people in America believed black people were third-class citizens and it was tradition to keep them oppressed and segregated. So let's NOT be progressive at all, because, surely, oppressing homosexuals and abortion is a mainstream, deeply embedded American tradition that shouldn't be done away with.

This is such a bullshit canard. It demeans those victims of racism to equate the two. How dare you make the comparison to those who suffered slavery and segregation to people who practice different interpersonal relationships. It's no where near the same.

Gay people can marry. Men and women can marry. The only difference is federal sanctioning.

Yeah I'm pissed because of that leg-whip not called against New England so I'm a bit more chippy right now. But this is such a minor issue in this country, right up there with flag burning in terms of a national priority.

Chargers: 12
Ref's: 7
NE: 7

[Intoxicated Ricochet]

Oppression is oppression. Go talk to some gay people before you make an assumption that a history of discrimination and exclusion is less valid than US race issues. Oppression has a universality to it, the only thing that changes is the mechanisms and the ways in which its enacted against a group of people. As someone who is queer, I believe I have the full reign of being able to make that statement. You say it should be a minor issue, and it should be a minor issue, but unfortunately this decade it hasn't been because it's been twisted by the right in the interests of political gain. So please, do not attack me for my statement when you're sitting there high and mighty and speaking of heteronormativity like it's a good thing that should just be quietly accepted. This has nothing to do with a "NORTHEAST LIBERAL WORLD." Unfortunately I don't think you're ever going to stop thinking in those terms because as the days go by, your gross ignorance is all the more apparent.

[lighter_boots]

Oppression is oppression. Go talk to some gay people before you make an assumption that a history of discrimination and exclusion is less valid than US race issues. Oppression has a universality to it, the only thing that changes is the mechanisms and the ways in which its enacted against a group of people. As someone who is queer, I believe I have the full reign of being able to make that statement. You say it should be a minor issue, and it should be a minor issue, but unfortunately this decade it hasn't been because it's been twisted by the right in the interests of political gain. So please, do not attack me for my statement when you're sitting there high and mighty and speaking of heteronormativity like it's a good thing that should just be quietly accepted. This has nothing to do with a "NORTHEAST LIBERAL WORLD." Unfortunately I don't think you're ever going to stop thinking in those terms because as the days go by, your gross ignorance is all the more apparent.

What may be shocking to you is that I'm not opposed to gay marriage.


What I am opposed to is shoving it down the throats of our electorate from a minority view of courts. Pass laws on a state by state basis. Just take note of the fact that you can marry just like any other US citizen in many churches in the land. You can set up legal documents to give a partner many of the same rights as a spouse. What you seem to want is ultimate acceptance by a society which takes time, when it's really a legal issue which should be addressed at the level of those who make the laws, not the courts. And by trying to cram it down our throats or trying to equate it to a civil rights struggle, you really turn off folks like me that aren't opposed to the notion in general.

[Intoxicated Ricochet]

You still have swathes of states that have kept things at a domestic partnership level that excludes hundreds upon hundreds of rights that people in federally-recognized marriages/civil unions possess. So I don't get where you're trying to say that it's not a legitimate legislative issue and it's more about changing people's attitudes.. because I think it's the other way around. There are marriage and civil union BANS in effect in many states. Where are you getting your shit from? It is being directed at people who make the laws. You have people running on platforms of direct exclusion by wanting to define marriage as being solely between a man and a woman. Sorry if you're turned off. If you're not irritating some people in the process, you're never going to get anywhere.

[lighter_boots]

You still have swathes of states that have kept things at a domestic partnership level that excludes hundreds upon hundreds of rights that people in federally-recognized marriages/civil unions possess. So I don't get where you're trying to say that it's not a legitimate legislative issue and it's more about changing people's attitudes.. because I think it's the other way around. There are marriage and civil union BANS in effect in many states. Where are you getting your shit from?

Perhaps part of it is that people like you and Mitch get all pissy towards people who might otherwise support you if you just tried to get laws changed without acting so high and mighty.

You can get married (in a ceremony performed in a church or anywhere) and have the relationship you want anywhere in this country, it's just a matter of sanctioning that you want (which is where the bans come from). You can achieve many of the same rights via legal documents that 'legally' married people have (less the BS divorce laws).

It's like most things. It's not what you're asking for or saying at times, it's how you ask for it or say it that makes all of the difference.

[Intoxicated Ricochet]

My aggressiveness stems from the way you articulate yourself, you appear pretty ambivalent, and while you don't outright oppose marriage, you complicitly accept pervasive attitudes against it and prefer to gloss over the credible resistance others have toward it and try to belittle a movement aimed at achieving an equality which you wrongly think already exists. Groveling eloquently at the feet of people who have no interest in ever changing the status quo doesn't always work. I certainly agree that tact and compromise and some back-door dealing is necessary to get a piece of the pie, but with this issue in particular it goes beyond that. Some states just aren't going to budge. I'm about to head out, but I will come back to this later. It's obvious you have little conception of LGBT rights/issues and of rights that are still being denied in various parts of the country. When I get back I will definitely clarify.

[Summersun33]

i find it quite interesting that the government can't tell you what flag you can have on your state-house, but it can tell a woman what to do or not do with her body and can tell people who they can or cannot marry.


that statement makes no sense. government can't tell a woman what to do or not to do with her body. also, getting married to whoever you want has never been a right. try marrying your sister (hypothetically, not you in particular mitch :cheeky: )... won't happen.

it's the same with a driver's license. it's not a right. most people who claim they know their "rights" actually don't.

[Mitch]

that statement makes no sense. government can't tell a woman what to do or not to do with her body. also, getting married to whoever you want has never been a right. try marrying your sister (hypothetically, not you in particular mitch :cheeky: )... won't happen.

it's the same with a driver's license. it's not a right. most people who claim they know their "rights" actually don't.

so two guys or two girls getting married is the same as marrying your sister. i see how your thinking is completely logical and mine is not.

and boots...wow. you continue to amaze me with your amazing and unconditional support of every single conservative stereotype in the this country's history. congratulations.

from now on, when i see you respond to one of my posts, i'll simply put my rush limbaugh mix-tape on and i'm sure i'll get similar if not verbatim responses.

edit: nevermind. i originally had posted something under this edit that was not mean-spirited, but i feel that i could not properly articulate how much your statements above were so mind-blowingly absurd to me. i will boil it down to this: wow. what mind-blowingly absurd responses those were.

[Summersun33]

so two guys or two girls getting married is the same as marrying your sister. i see how your thinking is completely logical and mine is not.


i'm not saying it is the same. i am saying that marrying whoever you want and having it recognized is not necessarily a right.

also, you dodged the women's rights issue about abortion. tell me how the government tells a woman what she can or can't do to her body.

and for the record, am i the "hateful, holier-than-thou" one? (in the original edit)

[Mitch]

i'm not saying it is the same. i am saying that marrying whoever you want and having it recognized is not necessarily a right.

also, you dodged the women's rights issue about abortion. tell me how the government tells a woman what she can or can't do to her body.

and for the record, am i the "hateful, holier-than-thou" one? (in the original edit)

no. and i said it was a hateful, holier-than-thou attitude. much like mine ;)

in regards to your abortion question, i wasn't dodging. i just didn't read your entire post after the sister line. abortion is currently legal, but i was referring to things huckabee wants the federal government to do.

here's huckabee logic:

1) the government CANNOT tell a state to not fly the flag of an enemy nation
2) the government CAN tell a citizen which medical and personal decisions to make
3) the government CAN tell you whom to marry

sorry, but that is factually disorganized and fucked-up logic. that is just disgusting and it shows a complete disregard for a citizen's personal rights.

[lighter_boots]

edit: nevermind. i originally had posted something under this edit that was not mean-spirited, but i feel that i could not properly articulate how much your statements above were so mind-blowingly absurd to me. i will boil it down to this: wow. what mind-blowingly absurd responses those were.

I know, Rush and me, we both say "I'm not opposed to gay marriage". That was a pretty hard core conservative statement I made.:rolleyes:

[Mitch]

you are the last person on these boards who should be using the roll-eyes icon after all of the posts you made.

[lighter_boots]

you are the last person on these boards who should be using the roll-eyes icon after all of the posts you made.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :drool:

[Mitch]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :drool:

i just can't believe that you say homosexual unions are a "non-issue" and then justified it with "it's a departure from tradition."

you also said that the denial of basic rights to homosexuals is not bigotry and demeans the true meaning of bigotry.

you should honestly be ashamed of such stupid, illogical statements. it is plainly bigotry and justifying that bigotry with "departure from tradition is bad" logic is tantamount to you saying that we should still have segregation.

hell, let's make it more relevant. if you're saying that two people of the same sex shouldn't be able to get married and have the same rights as all married couples you, boots, obviously do not support interracial marriage. if you're saying that departure from tradition is a factor, then you're probably racist.

obviously, you say you support same-sex marriage (so i believe your arguments are only meant to antagonize me, which i choose to believe because of your stupid and bigoted reasoning), and i know that you are not a racist. but if you take your arguments to the logical conclusion, my paragraph above this one is absolutely true by your reasoning.

[lighter_boots]

i just can't believe that you say homosexual unions are a "non-issue" and then justified it with "it's a departure from tradition."

you also said that the denial of basic rights to homosexuals is not bigotry and demeans the true meaning of bigotry.

you should honestly be ashamed of such stupid, illogical statements. it is plainly bigotry and justifying that bigotry with "departure from tradition is bad" logic is tantamount to you saying that we should still have segregation.

hell, let's make it more relevant. if you're saying that two people of the same sex shouldn't be able to get married and have the same rights as all married couples you, boots, obviously do not support interracial marriage. if you're saying that departure from tradition is a factor, then you're probably racist.

obviously, you say you support same-sex marriage (so i believe your arguments are only meant to antagonize me, which i choose to believe because of your stupid and bigoted reasoning), and i know that you are not a racist. but if you take your arguments to the logical conclusion, my paragraph above this one is absolutely true by your reasoning.

Mitch, you must be really pissed that today we celebrate Martin Luther King! I mean a FEDERAL HOLIDAY to honor a BAPTIST PASTOR, what next?! That mean old MLK and his Christian ideas, TERRIFYING:lol: :lol: :badger: :bigcry: :rolleyes

[lighter_boots]

i just can't believe that you say homosexual unions are a "non-issue" and then justified it with "it's a departure from tradition."

you also said that the denial of basic rights to homosexuals is not bigotry and demeans the true meaning of bigotry.

you should honestly be ashamed of such stupid, illogical statements. it is plainly bigotry and justifying that bigotry with "departure from tradition is bad" logic is tantamount to you saying that we should still have segregation.

hell, let's make it more relevant. if you're saying that two people of the same sex shouldn't be able to get married and have the same rights as all married couples you, boots, obviously do not support interracial marriage. if you're saying that departure from tradition is a factor, then you're probably racist.

obviously, you say you support same-sex marriage (so i believe your arguments are only meant to antagonize me, which i choose to believe because of your stupid and bigoted reasoning), and i know that you are not a racist. but if you take your arguments to the logical conclusion, my paragraph above this one is absolutely true by your reasoning.

Mitch, you must be really pissed that today we celebrate Martin Luther King! I mean a FEDERAL HOLIDAY to honor a BAPTIST PASTOR, what next?! Constitutional recognition of Baptism?! That mean old MLK and his Christian ideas, TERRIFYING:lol: :badger: :bigcry: :rolleyes:

And I don't care enough to keep arguing this gay marriage issue. I just am dismayed by how often you break out your hate stick and beat up on decent people. Me? I only beat up on not decent people;). And if you think that I exactly mirror the ideas Rush Limbaugh espouses, either you don't listen to Rush, don't read my posts, or both. I do listen to him so I speak from knowledge Fact! (as you loooooooooooove to say).

[Mitch]

i'm at a loss.

[raidenman]

Me too...

[raidenman]

Mitch, you must be really pissed that today we celebrate Martin Luther King! I mean a FEDERAL HOLIDAY to honor a BAPTIST PASTOR, what next?! Constitutional recognition of Baptism?! That mean old MLK and his Christian ideas, TERRIFYING:lol: :badger: :bigcry: :rolleyes:

Alright, I'm going to take a whack at this...

Tell me you're not naive enough...no wait, I know you're being sarcastic, so I'm just going to move on from that...

How can you even...I mean really...

Maybe I'm not taking a whack at this...

[Mitch]

boots, i was taking an argument you made to a logical conclusion. you said marrying gays is a departure from tradition, so i made a satirical claim by your logic saying that if departure from tradition is bad, why is interracial marrying legal?

that is called a logical conclusion based on YOUR argument.

you said i hate martin luther king day because i believe religion and politics do not mix.

that is NOT a logical conclusion based on MY arguments.

it is asinine, offensive, and abso-fucking-lutely absurd.

[lighter_boots]

boots, i was taking an argument you made to a logical conclusion. you said marrying gays is a departure from tradition, so i made a satirical claim by your logic saying that if departure from tradition is bad, why is interracial marrying legal?

that is called a logical conclusion based on YOUR argument.

you said i hate martin luther king day because i believe religion and politics do not mix.

that is NOT a logical conclusion based on MY arguments.

it is asinine, offensive, and abso-fucking-lutely absurd.

Mitch,

I wasn't trying to copy your logic I was just remembering how in this thread (and others) you seem to be offended by anyone who does anything based on their Christian beliefs. Faced with a whole day, sponsored by the State no less, honoring a man who took his strength and conviction from his faith in Jesus and God. I just wanted to check that your head hadn't exploded today. That's all, just lookin' out for you buddy:angel: .

I stopped following your extrapolation of my muddled position on marriage about a nanosecond before I finished reading it. But given my statement about it being between a man and a woman (before I flip-flopped and said how I REALLY feel about not being opposed to gay marriage) well, I don't know how you get to me opposing interracial marriage. But I just don't care.:dead:

Then there's the Rush accusation you made, but I like the guy, so disregard.

Hey that last line "asinine, offensive, and absol.........." were you trying to sound like Kramer's lawyer from Seinfeld? Spot on!:thup:

[Mitch]

you're unbelievable.

and not in the EMF "Ohhhhh!" way.

[Mitch]

not huckabee related, but that jackass fred thompson finally dropped out.

ohh nooo! who will all of the elderly republican women vote for now?!

john mccain's old ass could beat the shit out of fred thompson's old ass any day.

[lighter_boots]

Ugh, Huckabee:thdown: Watching the debate he said "Thomas Jefferson was right Alexander Hamilton was wrong":mad:

I just read the Chernow biography "Alexander Hamilton". Jefferson was anything but "right". That slave owning anti-constitution a-hole wasn't right. He helped sew the seeds of the civil war and it sounds as if Huckster would have followed his flawed logic.

I highly recommend that very well researched book.:idea:

[Mitch]

when do you think he'll drop out?

guliani dropped out and endorsed mccain...so we're basically down to two.

[lighter_boots]

when do you think he'll drop out?

guliani dropped out and endorsed mccain...so we're basically down to two.

Conventional wisdom has him in through Tuesday, to keep all the religious nut jobs;) from voting for Romney.:D Thus he's helping McCain.

[Mitch]

Conventional wisdom has him in through Tuesday, to keep all the religious nut jobs;) from voting for Romney.:D Thus he's helping McCain.

good enough for me.

[sst2]

This guy is hilarious! Sorry if this has been posted before, but the sheer irony of Pastor Huckabee saying of his rivals, ""If I were some of these guys, I'd have to be sitting in a warm tub of water with razor blades." :wet: http://www.breitbart.tv/html/6554.html


Also... Huckabee girl: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7xgtAWfSWM

[Mitch]

This guy is hilarious! Sorry if this has been posted before, but the sheer irony of Pastor Huckabee saying of his rivals, ""If I were some of these guys, I'd have to be sitting in a warm tub of water with razor blades." :wet: http://www.breitbart.tv/html/6554.html


Also... Huckabee girl: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7xgtAWfSWM

HAHAHA



mike huckabee you speak the truth/
men and dinosaurs under the same roof/
it doesn't matter to me that you went to fake college/
because we all know that the bible is the one true source of knowledge!/

refrain:
ridin' on a dinosaur, you and me/
every day is like christmas with mike huckabee/
you say that god hates gays/
and made the whole universe in seven days


genius.

i love the quotes from him they put in...like the gay-bashing quote from 1992. isn't that the same year he said all people with aids should be quarantined? what a nut job.

soo...he's a christian but says the other candidates should commit suicide because they spent money? jesus...what kind of people vote for this weirdo?

and what does he mean "barely ahead?" does he mean "i'm statistically eliminated?"

besides, GWB endorsed mccain, which basically says "toe the line or else."

here are some more reasons why huckabee is not only a bad candidate, but a bad person"


"I didn't get into politics because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives...I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ." translation: if you're not christian, you're not american, or shouldn't be,


If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague. note: this is nearly a decade after it was proved aids could not be spread by casual contact.


There's never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived. yes, the institution of "marriage" is being destroyed and therefore our society, right? hm. and massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country. translation: sometimes i say thing just to hear myself talk, because if i knew what i was actually saying, i'd be so ashamed of myself that i'd have to retire from the public spotlight.


Q: Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children?
A: Unfortunately, so much of this argument has been framed about what the same-sex couple wants. But the real question needs to be child-focused, not couple-focused. And that's true whether the couple is same-sex or whether they're heterosexual. In our state, as in most, the criteria for adoption is always what's in the best interest of the child.
Q: So is it in the best interest of the child to have gay parents?
A: I'm not sure that we have a positive answer to that. And until we absolutely could say it, then I'm always hesitant to change those institutions.
Q: Do you believe that you're born gay or you choose to be gay?
A: I don't honestly know. But the point is, people are who they want to be, and we should respect them for that. But when they want to change the institutions that've governed our society for all the years of recorded human history, then that's a serious change of culture that we don't just make readily or hurriedly. so you don't admit you know anything about homosexuality and even that there is nothing wrong with being gay (despite your hypocritical responses to the contrary), but they should be denied equal rights just to be safe?

i've come to the conclusion that republican voters are voting for this man simply to spite mccain. i have to believe that, because if people are actually voting for huckabee because than they believe in his ideals...then there is something seriously wrong with this country, because no sane or ethical person could ever agree with this psycho.

[Summersun33]

nice thesis mitch, but i think you're preaching to the choir. i don't know anyone on this board who loves huckabee. also, weren't you bitching about people talking shit about hillary and calling her names in another thread?

[Mitch]

nice thesis mitch, but i think you're preaching to the choir. i don't know anyone on this board who loves huckabee. also, weren't you bitching about people talking shit about hillary and calling her names in another thread?

i'm an equal opportunity hater. i take potshots at kuchinich and gravel, too.

but really, i'm just bewildered by how many states this guy is winning. i know he's not going to win, but the very fact that people are voting for him scares me.

[sst2]

i'm an equal opportunity hater. i take potshots at kuchinich and gravel, too.

but really, i'm just bewildered by how many states this guy is winning. i know he's not going to win, but the very fact that people are voting for him scares me.

My only worry would be if McCain took him as running mate... but then again, it might give Obama a leg up in the general election (if they were running against Barack). Those quotes are hilarious, though! I want to make a book of all the amazing things Mike Huckabee has said. He's actually a really interesting guy, what with squirrels in popcorn makers and razorblades in warm bath water.

Oh, and Mike Huckabee is demanding a recount in Washington State. See, "liberal Democrats" aren't the only ones!


E-mail the chairman of the Washington State Republican Party, Mr. Luke Esser, at Luke@WSRP.org and demand that all votes in Washington State be counted!

[APlaneTookOff]

i'm an equal opportunity hater. i take potshots at kuchinich and gravel, too.

but really, i'm just bewildered by how many states this guy is winning. i know he's not going to win, but the very fact that people are voting for him scares me.it should scare the living shit out of all of us, IMO.

[sst2]

Mike Huckabee on Democrats:

"We've had a Congress that's spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop."

"Whether we need to send somebody to Mars, I don't know. But I'll tell you what, if we do, I've got a few suggestions, and maybe Hillary could be on the first rocket."

Bill Clinton's response:
http://garlinggauge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/storieshuckabeeclinton2.jpg

[ImaDude]

huckabee can be witty at times, that's about all he's got going for him

[Mitch]

i know it's jerky to kick someone when their down (because the huckster is pretty much out), but here's a policy he would surely approve of! http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080215/D8UR2FM00.html

for those of you who don't know, the huckster claimed if he could detain everyone with HIV or AIDS and separate them from the general population, he would, even though by 1992 it was proven that casual contact does not spread the disease.

he was asked about this during the campaign and refused to recant or apologize.

[Mitch]

http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=119078&article=3314257

MWHAHAHA. go huckster!?

[Summersun33]

i don't think i hate castro or putin as much as you hate huckabee...

[APlaneTookOff]

i'm worried, what the F is he going to do once he's off this whole campaign thing? :confused: is he gonna enter the private sector? start a re-education camp for confused bi-curious eight year olds like on that episode of South Park?

[lighter_boots]

i just can't believe that you say homosexual unions are a "non-issue" and then justified it with "it's a departure from tradition."

you also said that the denial of basic rights to homosexuals is not bigotry and demeans the true meaning of bigotry.

you should honestly be ashamed of such stupid, illogical statements. it is plainly bigotry and justifying that bigotry with "departure from tradition is bad" logic is tantamount to you saying that we should still have segregation.

hell, let's make it more relevant. if you're saying that two people of the same sex shouldn't be able to get married and have the same rights as all married couples you, boots, obviously do not support interracial marriage. if you're saying that departure from tradition is a factor, then you're probably racist.

obviously, you say you support same-sex marriage (so i believe your arguments are only meant to antagonize me, which i choose to believe because of your stupid and bigoted reasoning), and i know that you are not a racist. but if you take your arguments to the logical conclusion, my paragraph above this one is absolutely true by your reasoning.

Obama on Gay Marriage and invokes scripture (http://www.queerty.com/barack-obama-talks-gay-marriage-with-cbn-20071119/[url)

"Well, we don’t meaning gays and lesbians equal rights, but not special rights. “Well, the fact is that right now many gay couples, for example, can’t visit each other in the hospital. And when I sit down and read scripture, I think, “How would Jesus feel about somebody not being able to visit somebody they love when they’re sick?” I conclude that that is something that is important. Certainly as a public official, it’s important for me to make sure that those basic rights, that basic equality is available. On these issues, I think we can disagree respectfully…My hope is - I understand there are gonna be some people who can’t vote for me because of a couple of these positions. I just want them to know that there are not issues that I take lightly…" Barak Obama.

Obama opposes Gay marriage (http://after-words.org/grim/mtarchives/2004/09/Sep242301.shtml[url)

Please discuss.................

Nicole Ziegler Dizon
Associated Press Writer
Published September 24, 2004, 3:23 PM CDT

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate. Barack Obama said Friday that his Christian beliefs dictate that marriage should be between a man and a woman, although he supports civil unions that give legal rights to gay and lesbian couples

Republican candidate Alan Keyes accused Obama of trying to have it both ways on the issue. "I think what we are seeing on this issue is deceit,'' said Keyes, who has made his opposition to gay marriage a cornerstone of his campaign. "He is deceiving the voters.''

Throughout the campaign, Obama has said that he opposes gay marriage but is in favor of civil unions. During a taping of WBBM-AM's "At Issue,'' he was asked his personal views on gay marriage. "I'm a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman,'' Obama said. But the Democratic state senator added that he does not understand people who say gay marriage somehow threatens the sanctity of marriage as an institution.

[Mitch]

my position on gay marriage is that no one should be "married" in the eyes of the state.

only religious institutions should issue "marriages." matrimony is a relgious concept, whereas union in the eyes of the state is secular.

jesus, vishnu, and yoda don't give a shit how you file your taxes. the government does.

straight or gay - you get a civil union in the eyes of the state. you want to get married? go to church, temple, or dagobah.

sorry...needed to balance out the yoda thing.

not to put words in his mouth, but i'm pretty sure that if hucklebee had his way, he'd lock the gays up in his concentration camps for aids victims.

also, obama never vowed to create a theocracy. hell, if huckleberry had his way, he'd make this country more like iran.

[brenan]

hey, uh wouldn't it be better to put that in one of the Obama threads instead of the Huckabee thread?

I mean, it's easy to cross reference different threads.... :uhoh: okay so it's not as easy as clicking reply. but still...

[lighter_boots]

hey, uh wouldn't it be better to put that in one of the Obama threads instead of the Huckabee thread?

I mean, it's easy to cross reference different threads.... :uhoh: okay so it's not as easy as clicking reply. but still...

This thread was religious in nature, so putting it here after all the gay marriage and God talk was appropriate IMO.

I just want to let sit the irony of mitch not bashing Obama for the exact thing he's bashed Bush for for years (using his faith in Jesus and God to influence his moral beliefs):cry:

[ImaDude]

my position on gay marriage is that no one should be "married" in the eyes of the state.

only religious institutions should issue "marriages." matrimony is a relgious concept, whereas union in the eyes of the state is secular.

jesus, vishnu, and yoda don't give a shit how you file your taxes. the government does.

straight or gay - you get a civil union in the eyes of the state. you want to get married? go to church, temple, or dagobah.

bingo