huckabilly...

[Phreak]

Tweetyikes!

i am trying to avoid getting too paranoid over this guy... the iowa caucus is not necessarily representative of the population as a whole. but, the more i learn about this man the more i am frightened of not him, but his agenda.

IMO, this man would seek to blur the line between church and state and build a christian pseudo-theocracy.

i am just putting my hope in the fact that americans (americans other than religious rubes) have learned the lessons from electing a redneck, conservative, right wing christian over the past 8 years and will avoid him like the plague.

[PL456]

TweetRUN MIKE RUN!!!
I happen to like Huckabee. He seems like a straight shooter, answers questions, and doesnt dodge alot like typical politicians. A Baptist minister in the white house sounds great to me.
Also, say what they may, but, people are people. A president is a person that is made up of his experiences, beliefs, and moral judgements. Of course the constitution in the base of making decisions, but the personal aspects of judgements and how they take on issues will invariably be based on their own backgrounds. If you hear anyone say that they will not bring their religious or personal judgements into the decision-making processes, then you are listening to someone who is either a brainless robot, or a liar that is hungrily seeking political power.

[Klash]

Tweet

yikes!

i am trying to avoid getting too paranoid over this guy... the iowa caucus is not necessarily representative of the population as a whole. but, the more i learn about this man the more i am frightened of not him, but his agenda.

IMO, this man would seek to blur the line between church and state and build a christian pseudo-theocracy.

i am just putting my hope in the fact that americans (americans other than religious rubes) have learned the lessons from electing a redneck, conservative, right wing christian over the past 8 years and will avoid him like the plague.

I here ya man but libs are just as scary.

I actually heard Hillary Clinton attempting to insult George Bush by using the term laissez-faire when describing his approach to trade.

The other day during the Iowa caucus' Fox ran a story telling of how when Hillary was a kid she wrote to Nasa, asking what she needed to do to be an astronaut and they responded that women weren't allowed to be astronauts and then she was ridiculed in school about wanting to president because she was a woman. Even though I wouldn't doubt if either one of those never happened but the media is going to play up the black card if Obama wins and the female card if Hillary wins and if their on the same ticket - damn!

So who ever gets the republican nomination is in for a ride, just because they will be the typical white male presidential candidate and IMO, most American's like the underdog story.

[Klash]

Tweet

If you hear anyone say that they will not bring their religious or personal judgements into the decision-making processes, then you are listening to someone who is either a brainless robot, or a liar that is hungrily seeking political power.

I will agree with you on that.

[Phreak]

Tweet

If you hear anyone say that they will not bring their religious or personal judgements into the decision-making processes, then you are listening to someone who is either a brainless robot, or a liar that is hungrily seeking political power.

not necessarily. there are quite a few people in this country who believe in a very clear separation between church and state, which is precisely what the founding fathers intended.

of course their personal beliefs come into play, but the true mark of class and respect is when someone has their own doctrine without trying to force it on others- it's a fundamental part of liberty. this is where my ideals and huckabee's part ways.

(ok, they part in more ways than that, but i believe this is the most important one)

[Phreak]

TweetSummary:
The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don't fight for them ourselves.

by Ron Paul, Dr. January 30, 2006
January 30, 2006
As the Senate prepares to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito this week, our nation once again finds itself bitterly divided over the issue of abortion. It's a sad spectacle, especially considering that our founders never intended for social policy to be decided at the federal level, and certainly not by federal courts. It's equally sad to consider that huge numbers of Americans believe their freedoms hinge on any one individual, Supreme Court justice or not.
Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.
Under the 9th and 10 amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.
The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision- making by states. Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.
Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy? Surely people on both sides of the abortion debate realize that it's far easier to influence government at the state and local level. The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues.
Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don't fight for them ourselves.

[Klash]

Tweet

not necessarily. there are quite a few people in this country who believe in a very clear separation between church and state, which is precisely what the founding fathers intended.

of course their personal beliefs come into play, but the true mark of class and respect is when someone has their own doctrine without trying to force it on others- it's a fundamental part of liberty. this is where my ideals and huckabee's part ways.

(ok, they part in more ways than that, but i believe this is the most important one)

True but the only person like that in this campaign is Ron Paul. All these pragmatist who don't understand the concept of freedom will be guided by their emotions of what they believe is right or wrong.

So I agree with you too.

[Phreak]

Tweet

True but the only person like that in this campaign is Ron Paul. All these pragmatist who don't understand the concept of freedom will be guided by their emotions of what they believe is right or wrong.

So I agree with you too.

absolutely. i don't agree with him on all his views, but i do agree with his refusal to federally mandate ethical issues.

and yes, the libs are just as bad. but, if it comes down to one of the democratic candidates and any of the other GOP candidates, i will vote socialist.

no more right wing fundamentalism. as much as i disagree with the left, the right has had their chance and they have screwed up royally.

whoever wins will have a long, hard road ahead of them to correct the mistakes of the past 8 years.

[Klash]

Tweet

as much as i disagree with the left, the right has had their chance and they have screwed up royally.

I'll second that.

[horsepwr]

TweetI'm not questioning argumentatively, but for information.
What screw ups are attributed directly to the right?

[Phreak]

Tweet

I'm not questioning argumentatively, but for information.
What screw ups are attributed directly to the right?

the war in iraq, which has damaged our international reputation almost to the point of no return (there are numerous infractions here i can expand on)

economic policies that have made the uber rich even richer while sending us into a recession, where people like us will suffer the consequences

i don't know how anyone at this point could not see that the policies of this administration (who represent the right) are to blame for our countries problems. it would follow that the ***** ass democrats are to blame as well, because they are too lame to do anything about it.

i have to go to work, and i am sure i will be challenged for explanations for my statements here. i will answer when i get home.

[T-Man007]

TweetLOL, on that questionaire about who to vote for, Huckabee was like 88% in line with how I feel. Obviously, he's not in line with how you feel but that's the whole issue. America votes for who 'they' feel will best represent 'their' views. This is why politics suck so bad. I have a lot of respect for you as a person, but I'd be willing to bet that if the guy you like got in office I would be disappointed. With 300 million people, there will NEVER be any one man or woman that everyone likes. And, IMO, to go middle of the road doesn't do any good either because both sides will have something to complain about. There are too many different people in this country for there ever to be a 'good' president in the eyes of the entire country. No matter what they accomplish, they will piss off someone. Let's say for example a Republican gets in office and some how creates a way to get the economy booming, the unemployment rate drops to 1/2 a percent, everything economically is awesome....but....he's not for gay marriage. Not matter how great the economy is, people will be pissed because some will feel he has no right to tell people who they can and can't marry. Now, flip side, some Democrat get's in office and fixes all our foreign relationships, lets gays get married then we go into a recession. Everyone that loses their homes, jobs, etc will blame him and call him the worst president ever because the country tanked on his watch.

No matter who is in office, someone will be upset and complain, that's the way it's been for decades and it will always be that way IMO.

I would love for their to be one person that everyone likes, but that would require that this country develop a common personality. That's not going to happen, so we get to have this constant battle between left and right. And, the truth is, neither side is wrong and neither side is right because it's all based on personal belief and feelings.

[horsepwr]

TweetArguably the worst problem of the economy is the housing market. It hits home to so many americans. From the single family home owner to corporate America, and everyone in between. It isn't just numbers on paper. Families are loosing their homes. Financial institutions have went belly up. Houses are loosing dollar value day by day. It is the biggest economic problem. The seed of this economic nightmare was planted in the Bill Clinton era.

[daved150]

Tweetthey all suck! clinton sucked too!!! nafta was one of the biggest fuk up's done!! bush aint helped shyt and the democrats are more worried about getting their hands on more money for "social" programs so they can be assured of that vote in the future. it's all just shades of gray now....i hate gray area's! no damn line! no complete right, no complete wrong....just shades of gray! they all suk!

[Klash]

Tweet

I would love for their to be one person that everyone likes, but that would require that this country develop a common personality. That's not going to happen, so we get to have this constant battle between left and right. And, the truth is, neither side is wrong and neither side is right because it's all based on personal belief and feelings.

It doesn't help that the parties took freedom and ripped it into two halves. Democrats took social freedom (at least by platform) and Republicans took economic freedom.

People don't have to agree on everything - they just have to agree on freedom.

I get what your saying though. Even if freedom was respected there will always be the areas like foreign policy that people just aren't going to agree on.