NationStates Jolt Archive

Personally, I would run into Congress and plead for immediate impeachment on the grounds of accidental election and then proceed to egg the White House.

I'd laugh.

I'd hope Stephen Colbert was his Vice President.

I'd laugh.
I'd join you... We'll laugh.

Feel completely and utterly justified in mocking the citizens of the USA. And get nightmares, knowing he has nukes.

I doubt he'll wind up with the nomination but even so, we've had religious leaders before. Huckabee's probably no more so than Jimmy Carter is/was.

Experience that feeling you get when you're not the least bit surprised.

I doubt he'll wind up with the nomination but even so, we've had religious leaders before. Huckabee's probably no more so than Jimmy Carter is/was.

Yay-ah, I don't know about that. Carter was religious, but he didn't preach. Huckabee is a Baptist preacher--and a "leader" of the mass-church evangelical revolution.

Experience that feeling you get when you're not the least bit surprised.

Ugh.

Find out who he is.

Complain. I don't have the means to do anything else.

Yay-ah, I don't know about that. Carter was religious, but he didn't preach. Huckabee is a Baptist preacher--and a "leader" of the mass-church evangelical revolution.

Have the baptists ever denied anyone ordination, who wanted it? :p Basically anyone who attends more than twice a year is a deacon, if I'm not mistaken. ;) Anyway, he's not my first choice, but I still haven't heard any sort of extremism from him and would vote for him if I had to.

Personally, I would run into Congress and plead for immediate impeachment on the grounds of accidental election and then proceed to egg the White House.

Well, see, normally I'd say something like "flee the country" but seeing as by that point I'll already be in Navy, I wouldn't be able to.

I'd simply cry in my bunk on whatever ship I'm on as we set sail for the shores of Iran...

I'd laugh at the Americans then think to myself: at least it wasn't Romney

Anyway, he's not my first choice, but I still haven't heard any sort of extremism from him and would vote for him if I had to.

That's exactly the problem - he is not even the worst of the candidates.
Relatively he is not so bad...

How many citizens does the USA have ? Why can they find noone better ?

I'd laugh, I'd cry, I'd loose 10 pounds..... No not really.

Thank god it wasn't Obama.

How many citizens does the USA have ? Why can they find noone better ?
300 million+

That's exactly the problem - he is not even the worst of the candidates.
Relatively he is not so bad...

How many citizens does the USA have ? Why can they find noone better ?

We can. The problem is that all of the good ones never get any real airtime and those that do are simply trying to preserve the power structure in place. The people who are running for the sake of helping their country just aren't getting the press they need. With the manipulation of the press comes manipulation of public opinion, and we're being manipulated like the strings of the world's best guitar player's guitar.

I would probably behave oddly. *nod*

I would probably behave oddly. *nod*
Oddly for you, or for someone else?

Like, dress in a suit or just mud?

Oddly for you, or for someone else?

Like, dress in a suit or just mud?

Oddly for me would be perfectly normal for anybody else. Which I do sometimes so the people I know will wonder why I'm behaving so oddly. Then when I start behaving normally, the people I don't know will wonder why I'm behaving so oddly. :)

In the case of President Huckabee, I will probably send him twist ties. Every week, a thousand twist ties in a box. That should get me on the Federal Watch List(if I'm not already there). Maybe even a visit from Secret Service. But what can they do? There's nothing illegal about sending someone twist ties. :)

Get a job with Citizenship and Immigration Canada. I imagine they're going to be rather busy.

I would give serious consideration for leaving this country.
Huckabee is a RELIGIOUS leader.

If you ask me, he shouldnt even be allowed to run, unless he renounces this.

In this country, we have a clear, but ever trod upon, separation of church and state.
This means that one, may not harm, or interfere with the other.

Religious leaders cannot be trusted to make policy equally for all citizens. The potential for bias is too great.

Shake my head in disgust as I realize that this country just voted in another "Bush", another NeoCon.

Then I'll go help the Libertarian Party with their '10 plans.

Personally, I would run into Congress and plead for immediate impeachment on the grounds of accidental election and then proceed to egg the White House.
Cheer that it wasn't one of the Democratic incompetents. Then start a letter writing campaign to make sure he doesn't forget his campaign promise to abolish the IRS and institute the FairTax. Certainly the FairTax issue is why he would be elected over anyone else.

Cheer that it wasn't one of the Democratic incompetents. Then start a letter writing campaign to make sure he doesn't forget his campaign promise to abolish the IRS and institute the FairTax. Certainly the FairTax issue is why he would be elected over anyone else.

I have a feeling that he's only using the Fair Tax as a way to get votes, I doubt he's going to follow through on it.

Fuckabee isn't nearly as bad as Shitt Romney

I'd get on a plane to the US, get my boyfriend, and get him out of there before he winds up in a camp.

I'd desperately try to laugh. Because otherwise, I would surely cry. I'm talking tears streaming down my face, wracking sobs here.

I have a feeling that he's only using the Fair Tax as a way to get votes, I doubt he's going to follow through on it.
Because the news coverage has degenerated into the typical "who's ahead in the polls" nonsense, I doubt we'll hear much more than PR crap from the candidates until the party nominations.

I think the Republican party could sweep the elections, if they would adopt the FairTax as a plank in the platform, then sell it as a great alternative to the IRS.

After all, haven't the polls shown that "change" is more important than "experience"?

I doubt he'll wind up with the nomination but even so, we've had religious leaders before. Huckabee's probably no more so than Jimmy Carter is/was.

That's my greatest fear about Huckabee, that he'll end up like Jimmy Carter. Though apart from that, he doesn't seem like he'll be a bad president.

pray, of course!

=^^=
.../\...

Have the baptists ever denied anyone ordination, who wanted it? :p Basically anyone who attends more than twice a year is a deacon, if I'm not mistaken. ;) Anyway, he's not my first choice, but I still haven't heard any sort of extremism from him and would vote for him if I had to.
that's not true. You have baptists confused with someone else.

That's exactly the problem - he is not even the worst of the candidates.
Relatively he is not so bad...

How many citizens does the USA have ? Why can they find noone better ?

We've got a population of about 6 million, where fewer than 40% vote. And better is relative term, we're talking about the mid-west and southern states, people.

That's my greatest fear about Huckabee, that he'll end up like Jimmy Carter. Though apart from that, he doesn't seem like he'll be a bad president.

I think I might have said this before, I don't think that Jimmy Carter imposed his religion. I think that Huckabee's religious convictions would require preaching to the US. I also don't want another Bible-quoting, "God Bless America" - rhetoric-ing president.

We've got a population of about 6 million

whuh?

To the people that fear the idea that Huckabee is a member of the clergy becoming president, President Garfield was the first member of the clergy to become President.

I would celebrate. He's better than any of the others, has a good track record, is willing to get stuck in, and doesn't convey that corporate revulsion you get whenever you see either Obama or Clinton.

Go Huckabee!!!

Cheer. And feel sorry for Iran. Oh, no wait, I wouldn't feel sorry for them.

Huckabee is a Baptist preacher-#1 isnt he a former Minister(Preacher). ?
He was a Preacher, and when he left that career to go into politics.
He has been a Governor for longer that he was a preacher.

#2 Should be amend the Constitution to forbid preacher to run for office?

I think that Huckabee's religious convictions would require preaching to the US.Yes.. he would make it mandatory to convert to Christianism (just like he did when he was elected Governor of Arkansas.) [/casm

If you ask me, he shouldnt even be allowed to run.So, lets amend the Constitution: No preacher can run for office.

:D

I'd feel sorry for Americans: the man's a dangerous nut.

Cheer. And feel sorry for Iran. And get nightmares, knowing he has nukes.You think Huckleberry is more likely to nuke Iran than Bush or McCain?

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu..V74BHkTYAzFZXNyoA?p=john+mccain+bomb+iran

Personally, I would run into Congress and plead for immediate impeachment on the grounds of accidental election and then proceed to egg the White House.

I'd laugh.

I'd join you... We'll laugh.

Feel completely and utterly justified in mocking the citizens of the USA. And get nightmares, knowing he has nukes.

Complain. I don't have the means to do anything else.

Get a job with Citizenship and Immigration Canada. I imagine they're going to be rather busy.

I would give serious consideration for leaving this country.
Huckabee is a RELIGIOUS leader.

If you ask me, he shouldnt even be allowed to run, unless he renounces this.

In this country, we have a clear, but ever trod upon, separation of church and state.
This means that one, may not harm, or interfere with the other.

Religious leaders cannot be trusted to make policy equally for all citizens. The potential for bias is too great.

OK, which are you people bigoted against: Huckabee; the Republican Party in general; or all conservatives and religious people?

That's exactly the problem - he is not even the worst of the candidates.
Relatively he is not so bad...

How many citizens does the USA have ? Why can they find noone better ?

See the next quote:
We can. The problem is that all of the good ones never get any real airtime and those that do are simply trying to preserve the power structure in place. The people who are running for the sake of helping their country just aren't getting the press they need. With the manipulation of the press comes manipulation of public opinion, and we're being manipulated like the strings of the world's best guitar player's guitar.

QFT.

Oddly for you, or for someone else?

Like, dress in a suit or just mud?

(*gouges eyes out at mental image of Lunatic Goofballs naked and muddy*)

I would celebrate.
If he lost.

He's better than any of the others,
At forcing his religion down everybody else's throats, regardless of they like it or not.

has a good track record,
Of forcing his religion down everybody else's throats, regardless of they like it or not. Or at least trying to.

is willing to get stuck in,
Just as long as it's a woman. Because getting stuck in to another guy is sinful, of course.

and doesn't convey that corporate revulsion you get whenever you see either Obama or Clinton.
Instead opting for the kind of religious revulsion of someone who still thinks god created the world in seven days, and insists that because someone wrote it in a book, it's clearly an alternative to evolution.

Go Huckabee!!!
To the dustbin of failed presidential bids, where he belongs.

OK, which are you people bigoted against: Huckabee; the Republican Party in general; or all conservatives and religious people?

'Bigotry' is an irrational hatred or prejudice. There's nothing irrational about disliking homophobic, anti-science theocrats like Huckabee.

Anyway, he's not my first choice, but I still haven't heard any sort of extremism from him and would vote for him if I had to.

How about AIDS patients should be isolated like lepers? http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jB892tzOUc1w708xuk49pzfZ3yyQD8TE6AB00

I would give serious consideration for leaving this country.
Huckabee is a RELIGIOUS leader.

If you ask me, he shouldnt even be allowed to run, unless he renounces this.

In this country, we have a clear, but ever trod upon, separation of church and state.
This means that one, may not harm, or interfere with the other.

Religious leaders cannot be trusted to make policy equally for all citizens. The potential for bias is too great.

Yes, and you are treading upon it by saying that no religious person should be allowed to run for public office. There is nothing wrong with religious people holding public office, per se.

Religious people in public office =/= violation of separation of church and state.

Religious leaders cannot be trusted to make policy equally for all citizens. The potential for bias is too great.

This is an unfair, inaccurate generalization. I'd say YOUR potential for bias is too great.

If you ask me, he shouldnt even be allowed to run, unless he renounces this.

See my reply below to OceanDrive2; what you're saying here is discrimination against religious people, and therefore unconstitutional.

I would celebrate. He's better than any of the others, has a good track record, is willing to get stuck in, and doesn't convey that corporate revulsion you get whenever you see either Obama or Clinton.

Go Huckabee!!!

Ditto here.

#1 isnt he a former Minister(Preacher). ?
He was a Preacher, and when he left that career to go into politics.
He has been a Governor for longer that he was a preacher.

#2 Should be amend the Constitution to forbid preacher to run for office?

NO. Forbidding preachers to run for public office is religious discrimination, and therefore violates the 1st Amendment.

Yes.. he would make it mandatory to convert to Christianism (just like he did when he was elected Governor of Arkansas.) [/casm

I hope you're being sarcastic.

So, lets amend the Constitution: No preacher can run for office.

:D

As I said before, that's religious discrimination, and therefore unconstitutional.

As I understand it Huckabee is like Bush, except more religious and a better public speaker(at least I hope so, Huckabee-isms just doesn't sound right). So I'd tease all the Americans I encounter on the interwebs. And that's about it.

'Bigotry' is an irrational hatred or prejudice. There's nothing irrational about disliking homophobic, anti-science theocrats like Huckabee.

Nor is it prejudiced, incidentally. Hatred, maybe.

'Bigotry' is an irrational hatred or prejudice. There's nothing irrational about disliking homophobic, anti-science theocrats like Huckabee.

Wrong; it is irrational (and morally wrong) to be bigoted against people just because they happen to be religious.

Wrong; it is irrational (and morally wrong) to be bigoted against people just because they happen to be religious.

Pathetic. Try reading my post again:

'Bigotry' is an irrational hatred or prejudice. There's nothing irrational about disliking homophobic, anti-science theocrats like Huckabee.

Now, tell me where I said it was reasonable to dislike him for being religious rather than for being "homophobic", "anti-science" and a "theocrat". Unless you're saying that those three qualities are inseparable from being religious then you're talking nonsense.

I don't thik he would be any worse than george the first who claimed that atheists should not be considered US citizens or stem cell blocking george the II.
I don't plan on voting for him, just don't think it would be any worse.



NO. Forbidding preachers to run for public office is religious discrimination, and therefore violates the 1st Amendment.

since he is a former preacher I see your point and support it, but if he was an active preacher I think seperation of church and state would apply.

Pathetic. Try reading my post again:



Now, tell me where I said it was reasonable to dislike him for being religious rather than for being "homophobic", "anti-science" and a "theocrat". Unless you're saying that those three qualities are inseparable from being religious then you're talking nonsense.

It is a matter of opinion, and I disagree with you; it IS irrational to hate a man just because he finds homosexuality to be morally wrong, or because he believes the Bible literally.

it IS irrational to hate a man just because he finds homosexuality to be morally wrong,

How is that "irrational"?

Believing homosexuality to be morally wrong is itself a moral wrong; it is founded on a bigoted conception of homosexuality, typically accompanied by an unthinking acceptance of doctrine without any serious consideration of its morality. I can reasonably expect better of human beings--plenty of people have overcome homophobia through reason and empathy--so hating him for his participation in bigotry is perfect rational.

or because he believes the Bible literally.

I don't "hate" anyone for believing the Bible literally. I just think it's incredibly stupid.

It is a matter of opinion, and I disagree with you; it IS irrational to hate a man just because he finds homosexuality to be morally wrong, or because he believes the Bible literally.

"homophobic", which is what was said, if a far cry from simply finding homosexuality "morally wrong". People can believe in the bible literally without being anti-science. They do it every day with technologies. When you start trying to destroy science for the sake of your religion, that is anti-science.




imo.

That's exactly the problem - he is not even the worst of the candidates.
Relatively he is not so bad...

How many citizens does the USA have ? Why can they find noone better ?

Yes, there are better, but every time that someone better arises, the either call him(her) and their supporters over zealous fanatics or they give him(her) a cabinet underling job under a crappy president guaranteeing no one will ever want to vote for them because they are associated with crappy ass presidents.

This is why an Ohioan may never be president again.

I'd continue my plans to conquer the world when magic returns and firearms are rendered useless!

I'd defeat my enemies with fireballs from my eyes and lightning bolts from my ass!

C'mon Lightning Bolts! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA7i9XoeOu4)

It is a matter of opinion, and I disagree with you; it IS irrational to hate a man just because he finds homosexuality to be morally wrong,

He thinks homosexuals should be second class citizens and he wants to be in a position of power? Of course it's reasonable to dislike him for it, it'd be stupid not to. Wouldn't it be reasonable to hate a racist who wanted to become president and reintroduce segregation?

or because he believes the Bible literally.

When it means rejecting all of modern science, yes. An idiot like that shouldn't be in charge of a kindergarten, let alone a nuclear-armed superpower.

EDIT: And what's all this talk about "hatred"? I said he was a nut and that I disliked him for his positions. Please stop trying to twist my words.

We've got a population of about 6 million, where fewer than 40% vote. And better is relative term, we're talking about the mid-west and southern states, people.

Who's "we"? The way I read your post, it implies that the US had had a massive emigration problem ever since I last checked the figures. Which, you know, I'd understand and support, but must have missed.

Yay-ah, I don't know about that. Carter was religious, but he didn't preach. Huckabee is a Baptist preacher--and a "leader" of the mass-church evangelical revolution.

You realize Carter's a minister, yes?

I would probably behave oddly. *nod*

And this would be different, how? :D

I would probably mutter, "Good for him!", and go on with my life. Same goes for McCain or Romney or Obama or Clinton for that matter.

Although I like LG's idea of mailing twist ties. Do you have a good supplier?

Personally, I would run into Congress and plead for immediate impeachment on the grounds of accidental election and then proceed to egg the White House.

not extreme enough, we need to build an army using Bill Gate's money and connections to over through the government and protect the lives of this tiny planet.

down with big o pressers, up with big money!

'Bigotry' is an irrational hatred or prejudice. There's nothing irrational about disliking homophobic, anti-science theocrats like Huckabee.

The fact that you call him a theocrat conveys your prejudice. A religious candidate does not a theocrat make.

I sure would like to see something a little more substantiative about why the theophobic among us think Mr. Huckabee would "force religion down our throats". Or even why he thinks that homosexuals are second class citizens -- implying they don't deserve any, or all of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

Or do attacks on people of the Christian faith have a different standard of proof than in other issues?

What will it be? Rhetoric or rational discussion?

The fact that you call him a theocrat conveys your prejudice. A religious candidate does not a theocrat make.

Why do you assume the term comes from prejudice?

The fact that you call him a theocrat conveys your prejudice. A religious candidate does not a theocrat make.

Wow, another feeble strawman. It may surprise you to know that, just as it's possible to be religious without being a homophobe or an anti-science troglodyte, it's possible to be religious without being a theocrat. Take a moment to digest this idea.

Now, to focus purely on education, Huckabee wants to put Judeo-Christian icons in school rooms and teach Creationism on a par with Evolution. This makes him a theocrat.

I sure would like to see something a little more substantiative about why the theophobic among us think Mr. Huckabee would "force religion down our throats".

Theophobic? What a crass neologism. To give just one example, he wants to teach Creationism on a par with Evolution in schools.

Or even why he thinks that homosexuals are second class citizens -- implying they don't deserve any, or all of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

I can't say for sure why he regards homosexuals as second-class citizens, but I'd guess it's a combination of religious bigotry and insecurity in his own sexuality.

Or do attacks on people of the Christian faith have a different standard of proof than in other issues?

What will it be? Rhetoric or rational discussion?

Irony much?

And this would be different, how? :D

I didn't say I'd do anything different. :p

Why do you assume the term comes from prejudice?

In my opinion, it's the lack of evidence that Huckabee ever tried to create a theocracy.

That's exactly the problem - he is not even the worst of the candidates.
Relatively he is not so bad...

How many citizens does the USA have ? Why can they find noone better ?

Because anyone who's better, knows better than to want to be President.

Because anyone who's better, knows better than to want to be President.Or they don't have enough money.

Wow, another feeble strawman. It may surprise you to know that, just as it's possible to be religious without being a homophobe or an anti-science troglodyte, it's possible to be religious without being a theocrat. Take a moment to digest this idea.

Now, to focus purely on education, Huckabee wants to put Judeo-Christian icons in school rooms and teach Creationism on a par with Evolution. This makes him a theocrat.

the·o·crat [thee-uh-krat] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who rules, governs as a representative of God or a deity, or is a member of the ruling group in a theocracy, as a divine king or a high priest.

Now that we got that bit cleared up, let's examine what you said. Your focus "purely on education" implies that there are no other examples of how Huckabee is a theocrat. Now, since I've just taught you what it means to be a theocrat, does it look like Huckabee wants to overthrow the consitution in favor of the Bible? Make himself high priest of the USA? Outlaw atheism and all other religious beliefs? Make Christians the only voting members of the USA? No. Relatively mild educational reforms (evolution isn't even being outlawed). In the US, where compromise is vital for us to remain functioning, Huckabee appears to be suggesting such an educational compromise between furious conservative Christians and the other members of society who accept evolution. Theocrat my ass.

Oh yeah, give me some sources for your rather feeble evidence.

Theophobic? What a crass neologism. To give just one example, he wants to teach Creationism on a par with Evolution in schools.

Evidence of any action on his part, while Governor? Do opinions need to be homogeneous?


I can't say for sure why he regards homosexuals as second-class citizens, but I'd guess it's a combination of religious bigotry and insecurity in his own sexuality.

Again, I'll settle for any evidence that he treats or advocates treatment of homosexuals as 'second class' citizens, meaning they are disqualified from rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

the·o·crat [thee-uh-krat] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who rules, governs as a representative of God or a deity, or is a member of the ruling group in a theocracy, as a divine king or a high priest.

It can also be used to describe someone who opposes the separation of church and state and wants to make laws based on religion, this sounds like Huckabee to me.

Now that we got that bit cleared up, let's examine what you said. Your focus "purely on education" implies that there are no other examples of how Huckabee is a theocrat.

That's a strange interpretation; normally when someone says 'to focus purely on' they mean 'there are plenty of other examples, but let's stick to this one to save time and space'.

Now, since I've just taught you what it means to be a theocrat, does it look like Huckabee wants to overthrow the consitution in favor of the Bible? Make himself high priest of the USA? Outlaw atheism and all other religious beliefs? Make Christians the only voting members of the USA?

He wants to break down the separation of church and state which is at the heart of the US constitution, no?

No. Relatively mild educational reforms (evolution isn't even being outlawed). In the US, where compromise is vital for us to remain functioning, Huckabee appears to be suggesting such an educational compromise between furious conservative Christians and the other members of society who accept evolution. Theocrat my ass.

Oh yeah, give me some sources for your rather feeble evidence.

Relatively mild? He wants to elevate bronze-age myth to the same level as strongly evidenced scientific theory! This is theocratic.

And just plug 'Huckabee teaching evolution' into Google and you should find some sources.

What would you do if Huckabee was elected President of the United States?
Remove my Darwin fish from my car. If Hick get's elected that would probably be the final blow to separation of church and state.
IMO he'll win the election. He has the look. Evangelistic, right-wing religious people hold a slight majority in the U.S. They're about 80% here in Ohio. (80% voted to keep homosexual marrige illegal anyway, primarily a religious issue)However Edwards may take Ohio if he gets that far as we've a large percentage of uninsured, unemployed, low-paid workers here.

Evidence of any action on his part, while Governor? Do opinions need to be homogeneous?

He's publicly stated his support for teaching Creationism.

Opinions don't have to be homogeneous, but they shouldn't be in denial of reality...

Again, I'll settle for any evidence that he treats or advocates treatment of homosexuals as 'second class' citizens, meaning they are disqualified from rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

The right to marry is generally held to be a fundamental right in American law (see Loving v Virginia) and he opposes gay marriage.

last thing I could find on it was from back in may and it goes aginst the idea that huckabee is out to create a theocracy.

Huckabee said he has no problem with teaching evolution as a theory in the public schools and he doesn't expect schools to teach creationism.


but since the claim was that he wants non-science on the same level and science:
"We shouldn't indoctrinate kids in school," he said. "I wouldn't want them teaching creationism as if it's the only thing that they should teach."
seems to point that, yes, he does want creationism in the science class...

ABC (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3140255)

Life as usual, better than much of the crap coming from the GOP.

I sure would like to see something a little more substantiative about why the theophobic among us think Mr. Huckabee would "force religion down our throats". Or even why he thinks that homosexuals are second class citizens -- implying they don't deserve any, or all of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

Or do attacks on people of the Christian faith have a different standard of proof than in other issues?

What will it be? Rhetoric or rational discussion?

He is an ardent Creationist. Well known in DC in fact.

He also stated in the mid 90s that hiv suffers needed to be isolated in order to allow the disease to die out. There was a thread about it but search is taking way too long for me(probably my connection).

He is a theocrat as shown by his letting go of a convicted killer who had found God.

I hope he does get the nod as it will guarntee a demo or third party President.

It can also be used to describe someone who opposes the separation of church and state and wants to make laws based on religion, this sounds like Huckabee to me.

Unless the pope or Westboro actively assumes political power with Huckabee, I'd say church and state remain actively separated. Religious opinions hardly constitute a "church". And just so you know, the President doesn't actually have power to make laws.


That's a strange interpretation; normally when someone says 'to focus purely on' they mean 'there are plenty of other examples, but let's stick to this one to save time and space'.

You have yet to give me more examples. Let's forget about time and space. I want to here more about how Huckabee's going to overthrow freedom.


He wants to break down the separation of church and state which is at the heart of the US constitution, no?



Relatively mild? He wants to elevate bronze-age myth to the same level as strongly evidenced scientific theory! This is theocratic.

And just plug 'Huckabee teaching evolution' into Google and you should find some sources.

Bronze-age myth to you, story of God's wonders to someone else. A strongly evidenced scientific theory to you, a bunch of bullshit to someone else. A difference of viewpoints and perspectives.

And what he is saying is not remotely theocratic. Read the definition one more time. Once again, I want to see how he's an actual theocrat, not just how he wants to elevate his and his constituents personal views to equal importance as your own personal views in the educational system. And also, just so you know, the President also doesn't have power over the educational system, which is controlled by the states.

A strongly evidenced scientific theory to you, a bunch of bullshit to someone else.

Considering that evolution can be watched in action, I fail to see how anyone can see that it's bullshit unless they're psychologically impaired, or just seriously deluded.

Considering that evolution can be watched in action, I fail to see how anyone can see that it's bullshit unless they're psychologically impaired, or just seriously deluded.

Seriously deluded, maybe. Ignorant, probably. Uneducated, more than likely. But it's still their viewpoint and the first amendment grants them the right to hold it.

So I'd tease all the Americans I encounter on the interwebs. And that's about it.

...I'd much rather be pitied than laughed at if Huckabee wins. Seeing as how I've been warning everyone I meet not to vote for the bastard.

Honestly. What are his chances of winning the nomination, let alone the election?

Seriously deluded, maybe. Ignorant, probably. Uneducated, more than likely. But it's still their viewpoint and the first amendment grants them the right to hold it.
And everyone else's right to mock them vigorously for holding it. The first amendment, however, does not allow creationists to have their ideas taught in science classes.
...I'd much rather be pitied than laughed at if Huckabee wins. Seeing as how I've been warning everyone I meet not to vote for the bastard.
I'll pity you once I'm done poking fun at your inability to pick a good leader.

Though I can't talk, our leader didn't have a bank account when he was minister for finance.

Honestly. What are his chances of winning the nomination, let alone the election?

I don't know, but Bush won, so anyone can.

I'll pity you once I'm done poking fun at your inability to pick a good leader.

Though I can't talk, our leader didn't have a bank account when he was minister for finance.

Not MY inability. I have no sway over who gets nominated, let alone how Joe Six-Pack AK-74 votes.

...And this Minister of Finance you speak of makes me giggle. Tell me more.

I don't know, but Bush won, so anyone can.

Ugh...Oh GOD! We're BONED!

That's it! Game over man! GAME OVER!

And everyone else's right to mock them vigorously for holding it. The first amendment, however, does not allow creationists to have their ideas taught in science classes.

True for the first part, for the second part, that's subject to interpretation. And allowing it to be taught in school doesn't make the US a theocracy, unless all other points of view were outlawed from the school system and society as a whole. Which doesn't appear to be happening.

True for the first part, for the second part, that's subject to interpretation.

No, it's really not. There's no interpretation needed. Creationism is not science, so it has no place in a science classroom.

No part of that is subject to interpretation in the slightest.

Not MY inability. I have no sway over who gets nominated, let alone how Joe Six-Pack AK-74 votes.
Well you as in Americans in general.

...And this Minister of Finance you speak of makes me giggle. Tell me more.
He's actually Taoiseach now, which is basically the prime minister. A bunch of his 'friends' gave him a few thousand pounds each when he was getting divorced.



Ugh...Oh GOD! We're BONED!

That's it! Game over man! GAME OVER!
Nuke it America from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
True for the first part, for the second part, that's subject to interpretation. And allowing it to be taught in school doesn't make the US a theocracy, unless all other points of view were outlawed from the school system and society as a whole. Which doesn't appear to be happening.
Not subject to interpretation at all. Not even a little bit. I'm no constitutional scholar, but even I can tell you that the first amendment has absolutely nothing to do with education. No religious group has the right to have their ideas taught in public schools in America. No group of any kind, in fact.

Not subject to interpretation at all. Not even a little bit. I'm no constitutional scholar, but even I can tell you that the first amendment has absolutely nothing to do with education. No religious group has the right to have their ideas taught in public schools in America. No group of any kind, in fact.
In fact (and I know you were implying this, I'm just putting an exclamation point on it), the Constitution forbids religious teachings (like creationism, not the teaching of religion in the scholarly sense). Making creationism 'non-denominational' is a bullshit side step that everyone sees through.

Complain. I don't have the means to do anything else.

I suppose but I do like the answer of whoever said plead to congress to impeach im unless of course he defeats Hillary in which case we're stuck. Unless he somehow he dies or is unable to fufill presidential duties and hopefully good VP will take over.

Well you as in Americans in general.

I was just splitting hairs.

He's actually Taoiseach now, which is basically the prime minister. A bunch of his 'friends' gave him a few thousand pounds each when he was getting divorced.

I don't know if that's funny or sad.

Nuke it America from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Look, you don't have that kind of authority. You're just a grunt...no offense.

Total honesty, here:

I would leave the country.

If Huckabee was elected, there would be two possibilities.

One, a majority of the American public--or a majority of our elected representatives--actually voted him in charge. In that case, I would fear for my life and the lives of my family, and I would leave the country before it was too late. I would do my damndest to convince all the people I care about to leave the country immediately. I am not being hyperbolic about this.

Two, the election was rigged (again). In that case I would no longer be able to believe in the government of this country, nor would I be willing to follow the laws, so I would move to another country where I could be a good citizen in good conscience.

Some of you on this thread have made good points, so thank you for sharing your views in a manner that can be intelligently understood. Others however, just typical. I find it disheartening that if your candidate doesn't get elected some of you plan to bitch and cause havok. Congratualtions, you've completely missed the point of voting. One wins, the others lose. If he gets voted in, do you really want to turn our streets into what Kenya is right now? Americans seem to have lost their balls and the rest of the world wants the US on puppet strings. Screw the UN, the EU, and any left wing scum who claims to be tolerant, you're really showing your true colors here. You're nothing more than a new age Stalin, except without thinking straight or actually knowing what your support.

I would give serious consideration for leaving this country.
Huckabee is a RELIGIOUS leader.

If you ask me, he shouldnt even be allowed to run, unless he renounces this.

In this country, we have a clear, but ever trod upon, separation of church and state.
This means that one, may not harm, or interfere with the other.

Religious leaders cannot be trusted to make policy equally for all citizens. The potential for bias is too great.

The same would apply for an atheist leader.

The same would apply for an atheist leader.
I don't know about that.

Our government is secular. I don't see any reason why an atheist leader would necessarily have trouble upholding the secular laws and performing as a secular representative of the people. However, a religious leader (note: not the same as a leader who happens to be religious in his private life!) will BY DEFINITION be unable to function as a secular leader.

One, a majority of the American public--or a majority of our elected representatives--actually voted him in charge. In that case, I would fear for my life and the lives of my family, and I would leave the country before it was too late. I would do my damndest to convince all the people I care about to leave the country immediately. I am not being hyperbolic about this.


What exactly do you think will happen if Huckabee gets elected that would immediately affect you to the extent of causing actual anxiety and fear for your safety?


Two, the election was rigged (again). In that case I would no longer be able to believe in the government of this country, nor would I be willing to follow the laws, so I would move to another country where I could be a good citizen in good conscience.

Surely it's more noble, if you really cared about your country, to stay and protest. Although, you may not really care about the USA.

I don't know about that.

Our government is secular. I don't see any reason why an atheist leader would necessarily have trouble upholding the secular laws and performing as a secular representative of the people. However, a religious leader (note: not the same as a leader who happens to be religious in his private life!) will BY DEFINITION be unable to function as a secular leader.

Everyone is biased in some way, get an atheist in there and he could and probably would make policies that were bigoted against christians to "get even".

Total honesty, here:

I would leave the country.

If Huckabee was elected, there would be two possibilities.

One, a majority of the American public--or a majority of our elected representatives--actually voted him in charge. In that case, I would fear for my life and the lives of my family, and I would leave the country before it was too late. I would do my damndest to convince all the people I care about to leave the country immediately. I am not being hyperbolic about this.

Two, the election was rigged (again). In that case I would no longer be able to believe in the government of this country, nor would I be willing to follow the laws, so I would move to another country where I could be a good citizen in good conscience.

That's absurd paranoia. Why would you fear for your life or the lives of your family? You're not making any sense here. :confused:

Or do you just hate religious people?

Everyone is biased in some way, get an atheist in there and he could and probably would make policies that were bigoted against christians to "get even".

QFT.

What exactly do you think will happen if Huckabee gets elected that would immediately affect you to the extent of causing actual anxiety and fear for your safety?

That's what I'm wondering. I think she's just either:
1. Being paranoid, or...
2. Prejudiced against religious people

And I hope it's #1, and not #2.

He thinks homosexuals should be second class citizens and he wants to be in a position of power? Of course it's reasonable to dislike him for it, it'd be stupid not to. Wouldn't it be reasonable to hate a racist who wanted to become president and reintroduce segregation?

I don't believe it's reasonable to hate anybody. Not vote for them, yes. Not like their opinions or their stances on issues, yes. But hate the MAN HIMSELF? Sorry; that's just unreasonable.

And just because I am religious does NOT mean I hate gay PEOPLE. I don't hate gay PEOPLE, nor do I believe in killing, torturing, denying human rights to, or discriminating against them for being gay, but I DO believe that their sexual practices are morally wrong. And that is NO reason for anybody to hate ME, either.

When it means rejecting all of modern science, yes. An idiot like that shouldn't be in charge of a kindergarten, let alone a nuclear-armed superpower.

I don't reject science; I merely reject the THEORY (defined as "lie") of evolution.

How is that "irrational"?

Believing homosexuality to be morally wrong is itself a moral wrong; it is founded on a bigoted conception of homosexuality, typically accompanied by an unthinking acceptance of doctrine without any serious consideration of its morality. I can reasonably expect better of human beings--plenty of people have overcome homophobia through reason and empathy--so hating him for his participation in bigotry is perfect rational.

It is irrational because you hate the MAN HIMSELF, and it stands to reason that you would deny him any human rights that you would otherwise grant him because he believes homosexuality is morally wrong.

It is morally wrong to deny people rights on the grounds that they believe homosexuality is morally wrong.

You wanna hate his bigotry? Fine. Hate his positions on the issues? Fine. But hate HIM? I consider THAT to be morally wrong.

I sure would like to see something a little more substantiative about why the theophobic among us think Mr. Huckabee would "force religion down our throats". Or even why he thinks that homosexuals are second class citizens -- implying they don't deserve any, or all of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

Or do attacks on people of the Christian faith have a different standard of proof than in other issues?

What will it be? Rhetoric or rational discussion?
Let's explore this, shall we?

Mike Huckabee is strongly opposed to abortion, including in cases of rape or incest.

Huckabee believes that neither the federal government nor state governments should recognize same-sex marriages.

Huckabee has said that embyronic stem cell research creates life only to end a life.[4] He applauded President George W. Bush’s veto of legislation meant to loosen federal funding for embryonic stem cell research in June 2007, saying that the bill was wrong on moral grounds

He supports...the displaying of the Ten Commandments in schools

"I think that students also should be given exposure to the theories not only of evolution but to the basis of those who believe in creationism."

"the Jews have a God-given right to reclaim land given to their ancestors and taken away from them."

"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 feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk"

All with full sources in Wikipedia. Is that substanisive enough?

Some of you on this thread have made good points, so thank you for sharing your views in a manner that can be intelligently understood. Others however, just typical. I find it disheartening that if your candidate doesn't get elected some of you plan to bitch and cause havok. Congratualtions, you've completely missed the point of voting. One wins, the others lose. If he gets voted in, do you really want to turn our streets into what Kenya is right now? Americans seem to have lost their balls and the rest of the world wants the US on puppet strings. Screw the UN, the EU, and any left wing scum who claims to be tolerant, you're really showing your true colors here. You're nothing more than a new age Stalin, except without thinking straight or actually knowing what your support.
I like this guy. Bitching when your preferred candidate doesn't get elected = you are like a new age Stalin. I do hope he sticks around. And learns2paragraph.
I don't reject science; I merely reject the THEORY (defined as "lie") of evolution.
How irrational of you.

I'd cry. Partly from sadness and partly from laughing at the stupidity of the American people for electing such a tool.

I'd feel angry at first until I realized that "Hey, at least it wasn't Clinton"

I doubt he'll wind up with the nomination but even so, we've had religious leaders before. Huckabee's probably no more so than Jimmy Carter is/was.

Are you nuts?!!

Huckabee used to be a minister and he decided to quit because it wasn't religious enough for him. He said that he got into religion because he imagined himself the captain of a dreadnought sailing Christians into battle. When he learned (as the Bible could have told him) that it was like being the shepherd of a flock of sheep, he quit to go into politics.

You think there's grounds for comparison between the guy who founded Habitats for Humanity and the guy who quit the ministry because it wasn't violent enough?

Well it depends on what I have planned that day.

I like this guy. Bitching when your preferred candidate doesn't get elected = you are like a new age Stalin. I do hope he sticks around. And learns2paragraph. lol, sorry about that. Someday I might learn. :p

I'd be miffed at my fellow citizens.

Thank god he's not got a chance.

Whine about it on the internet. Like everyone else will. There we go.

It is irrational because you hate the MAN HIMSELF,

Yes, I do.

and it stands to reason that you would deny him any human rights that you would otherwise grant him

No, it doesn't.

I hate many people. I wouldn't deny any of them human rights.

It is morally wrong to deny people rights on the grounds that they believe homosexuality is morally wrong.

I agree. Good thing I wasn't advocating that.

You wanna hate his bigotry? Fine. Hate his positions on the issues? Fine. But hate HIM? I consider THAT to be morally wrong.

That depends entirely on whether we can differentiate his bigotry and his positions from him: that is, whether we can legitimately hold him accountable for them.

I already explained why I think we can.

I'd think, well, its better than Guliani, and at least he cant be worse than bush... I severely doubt he's gonna be elected though. If anyone it's gonna be Obama or Romney.

The same would apply for an atheist leader.
Not really.
I don't know about that.

Our government is secular. I don't see any reason why an atheist leader would necessarily have trouble upholding the secular laws and performing as a secular representative of the people. However, a religious leader (note: not the same as a leader who happens to be religious in his private life!) will BY DEFINITION be unable to function as a secular leader.
Yes, well since Huckabee isn't a relgious leader any more, and his full-time job will be being president, there we go, that's that sorted.


I personally couldn't give two shits about what religion people are if they're in charge, as long as they're not particularly outspoken about it. Using "I am (not) Christian" (or whatever) as a prop is wrong. Simply being (not) Christian (or whatever) isn't.

We've got a population of about 6 million, where fewer than 40% vote. And better is relative term, we're talking about the mid-west and southern states, people.

First of all, 6 million? Try 300 million. Second of all, you trashing on the midwest? What, you think youre better because youre from some fucking coast or something?

Whine about it on the internet. Like everyone else will. There we go.

Post, Thread, Internet to you, Sir.

Geez, people, your acting like he's Hitler and Ghengis Khan blended into one. He's a guy who was a preacher who wants to be president. He won't (and can't) turn the country into a Christian Iran. We'll all bitch and whine about how bad he'll be, but our lives will most likely be pretty much the same as it was before.

I'de be just fine with that. Huckabee is not perfect, but i believe he's the best choice for president. For a democrat, Ombama's not half bad, and i wouldn't be real upset if he became president. If Hilary Clinton became president though, then I'de mourn for a doomed America.

I don't believe it's reasonable to hate anybody. Not vote for them, yes. Not like their opinions or their stances on issues, yes. But hate the MAN HIMSELF? Sorry; that's just unreasonable.

And just because I am religious does NOT mean I hate gay PEOPLE. I don't hate gay PEOPLE, nor do I believe in killing, torturing, denying human rights to, or discriminating against them for being gay, but I DO believe that their sexual practices are morally wrong. And that is NO reason for anybody to hate ME, either.


Well if you act properly and keep your opinions to yourself then there is no reason to dislike you. Once you start spouting morality, then you get what you deserve.

I don't reject science; I merely reject the THEORY (defined as "lie") of evolution.

*sigh* Yet another one who doesn't understand what theory means.

I'de be just fine with that. Huckabee is not perfect, but i believe he's the best choice for president. For a democrat, Ombama's not half bad, and i wouldn't be real upset if he became president. If Hilary Clinton became president though, then I'de mourn for a doomed America.

Practice your ABCs now.

Anybody
But
Clinton

Buy a sniper rifle.
Learn how to use it effectively.
Buy a plane/train ticket to DC.
Rent a hotel near the White House or along the Inauguration Parade route for several weeks starting during early December.
And so on...

Grounds for comparison between one of the worst presidents in US history and Mike Huckabee? Let me think about that....Yes!

Carter? One of the worst? Hardly. He was mediocre at best. At least he went on to do good things as the elder statesman.

The current idiot will not....

You think there's grounds for comparison between the guy who founded Habitats for Humanity and the guy who quit the ministry because it wasn't violent enough?
Grounds for comparison between one of the worst presidents in US history and Mike Huckabee? Let me think about that....Yes!

Grounds for comparison between one of the worst presidents in US history and Mike Huckabee? Let me think about that....Yes!

Yeah. How dare he get the Camp David Accords passed?! Bastard! :mad:

Yes.. he would make it mandatory to convert to Christianism (just like he did when he was elected Governor of Arkansas.) [/casm

Wait, what?

I might conceivably consider moving to Canada. Especially since I'd have other reasons to do so.

Wait, what?

Didn't you know? When he was Governor, he made it illegal to worship any God but the Christian God. He burnt down all the Mosques, Synagogues, and Arby's. He made it illegal to work on sundays, and made church attendance manditory. He also burnt all the Athiests at the stake. Which explains the recent rope and wood shortages.

Didn't you know? When he was Governor, he made it illegal to worship any God but the Christian God. He burnt down all the Mosques, Synagogues, and Arby's. He made it illegal to work on sundays, and made church attendance manditory. He also burnt all the Athiests at the stake. Which explains the recent rope and wood shortages.Where is your evidence to the claims you make.

Didn't you know? When he was Governor, he made it illegal to worship any God but the Christian God. He burnt down all the Mosques, Synagogues, and Arby's. He made it illegal to work on sundays, and made church attendance manditory. He also burnt all the Athiests at the stake. Which explains the recent rope and wood shortages.

Ah, I see.

Where is your evidence to the claims you make.

He got it from a place in... Lancre, I believe. Can't miss it, the sun doesn't shine there.

If Huckabee was Elected? I'd Laugh my ASS off.

the Dems would've again failed to put their man into office WHILE the political deck was stacked in their favor!

That's exactly the problem - he is not even the worst of the candidates.
Relatively he is not so bad...

How many citizens does the USA have ? Why can they find noone better ?because everyone is focused on TWO political parties. totally ignoring any and all independants.

I would give serious consideration for leaving this country.
Huckabee is a RELIGIOUS leader.

If you ask me, he shouldnt even be allowed to run, unless he renounces this.

In this country, we have a clear, but ever trod upon, separation of church and state.
This means that one, may not harm, or interfere with the other.

Religious leaders cannot be trusted to make policy equally for all citizens. The potential for bias is too great.

#1 isnt he a former Minister(Preacher). ?
He was a Preacher, and when he left that career to go into politics.
He has been a Governor for longer that he was a preacher.

#2 Should be amend the Constitution to forbid preacher to run for office?

you all call for seperation of Church and State yet want a RELIGOUS TEST applied to all those who want to hold office?

rather contradictory isn't it?

Seperation of Church and State works both ways. the Church cannot dictate Government actions and the Goverment cannot shut the church up.

however it seems like more and more people are for the Government Shutting up the Church which is also a violation of the Seperation of Church and state.

You all do know what context President Jefferson used that phrase for right?

#2 Should be amend the Constitution to forbid preacher to run for office?

Most definitely not. That is decidedly a religious test for office.

Where is your evidence to the claims you make.http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/Irony2.jpg

I'd celebrate. Failure to do so would result in Chuck Norris kicking the shit out of you.

I'd celebrate. Failure to do so would result in Chuck Norris kicking the shit out of you.I'd be willing to risk it.

Complain. I don't have the means to do anything else.

Same here. I've already had eight years of practice, so I'm getting to be pretty good at it.

Personally, I would run into Congress and plead for immediate impeachment on the grounds of accidental election and then proceed to egg the White House.

Not bad, not bad.
I don't really want to incriminate myself too much by saying what i'm actually liable to do.
Rest assured i wouldn't be comfortable with it.

Probably live my life like I always have.
Vicariously.

Whatever tiny little pockets of hope I had left for the United States in some dark corners of my brain would be dragged out into the street by the other despairing parts of my brain, kicked into the gutter and beaten to a pulp with various sharp or blunt implements, being left to die slowly in pools of their own blood. People would spit on them as they walked past.

Probably live my life like I always have.
Vicariously.

But I've been living vicariously through you. What does that make me?

But I've been living vicariously through you. What does that make me?

http://futurama.overt-ops.com/images/thumb/d/d6/Brain_Slugs.jpg/180px-Brain_Slugs.jpg
?

But I've been living vicariously through you. What does that make me?
I'd think if you lived vicariously through someone living vicariously, you are someone who, indeed, is living their dream.

I'd think if you lived vicariously through someone living vicariously, you are someone who, indeed, is living their dream.

The really funny thing is that I am living vicariously through this online persona I've created for myself, who in turn lives vicariously through the vicarious life of someone else (and that persona also lives vicariously). I think my physical body and mind actually stopped existing several steps earlier.

Total honesty, here:

I would leave the country.

If Huckabee was elected, there would be two possibilities.

One, a majority of the American public--or a majority of our elected representatives--actually voted him in charge. In that case, I would fear for my life and the lives of my family, and I would leave the country before it was too late. I would do my damndest to convince all the people I care about to leave the country immediately. I am not being hyperbolic about this.

Two, the election was rigged (again). In that case I would no longer be able to believe in the government of this country, nor would I be willing to follow the laws, so I would move to another country where I could be a good citizen in good conscience.:D

sooo.. hmm.. so many questions.. but lets start with this one:

I would do my damndest to convince all the people I care about to leave the country immediately. I am not being hyperbolic about this.
What would you tell them to convince them?

If Hilary Clinton became president though, then I'de mourn for a doomed America.LOL.. you all are so funny. :D

I know you are all kidding, you cant be all be so stupid.

Probably live my life like I always have.same here.

Hillary? Obama? Huckleberry? I am not going to lose any sleep over it.

Wait, what?thou shall read between the lines.. thou shall read the hidden words my friend.

I'd ask some 'merican friends whether they want to GTFO and if yes, ask my parents whether they can take American refugees.

Personally, I would run into Congress and plead for immediate impeachment on the grounds of accidental election and then proceed to egg the White House.

For which you'd promptly get arrested. If not for disturbing a congressional session, then for vandalism or criminal mischief for egging the White House.

I'd get on a plane to the US, get my boyfriend, and get him out of there before he winds up in a camp.

What, like band camp? 4-H camp?

I would shoot this defiant "Huckabee" with my eye lasers for daring to defy me!

Well if you act properly and keep your opinions to yourself then there is no reason to dislike you. Once you start spouting morality, then you get what you deserve.

Oh, so in other words, only politically correct opinions and speech will be tolerated? :mad:

Sorry, just because I'm not politically correct doesn't mean I don't deserve the same respect you would give to those who ARE politically correct. And I DO insist on being shown the same respect. :mad:

Your statement is an unfair, biased double standard. And I will NOT abide by it. And I expect to be shown the same respect you want to be shown.

Once you start spouting morality, then you get what you deserve

Wrong. Just because I start spouting morality does NOT mean I deserve to be ostracized/vilified/whatever. There is nothing wrong with morality.

Once again, I expect you to respect me and my right to an opinion different from yours, and my choice to exercise that right, as much as you would want from me.

faint

Oh, so in other words, only politically correct opinions and speech will be tolerated? :mad:


Did I mention politically correct? You can spout off all you want. Just don't whine when people tell you that you are full of it when you start spouting morality or lack there of....

Sorry, just because I'm not politically correct doesn't mean I don't deserve the same respect you would give to those who ARE politically correct. And I DO insist on being shown the same respect. :mad:


There are opinions and there is simply being an ass. It's one thing to live by a "moral" code and it's another to expect others to live by it.

Your statement is an unfair, biased double standard. And I will NOT abide by it. And I expect to be shown the same respect you want to be shown.

Respect is earned; it is not given.

Wrong. Just because I start spouting morality does NOT mean I deserve to be ostracized/vilified/whatever. There is nothing wrong with morality.

Again, nothing wrong with living by a "moral" code. It's wrong when you expect others to live by your "moral" code.

Once again, I expect you to respect me and my right to an opinion different from yours, and my choice to exercise that right, as much as you would want from me.

Why would I have to respect you? I don't know you. I think you are mixing up being polite with respect.

Oh, so in other words, only politically correct opinions and speech will be tolerated? :mad:

Sorry, just because I'm not politically correct doesn't mean I don't deserve the same respect you would give to those who ARE politically correct. And I DO insist on being shown the same respect. :mad:

Your statement is an unfair, biased double standard. And I will NOT abide by it. And I expect to be shown the same respect you want to be shown.

Wrong. Just because I start spouting morality does NOT mean I deserve to be ostracized/vilified/whatever. There is nothing wrong with morality.

Once again, I expect you to respect me and my right to an opinion different from yours, and my choice to exercise that right, as much as you would want from me.
Demanding Respect in such a pompous way is not-a-good-idea.. specially at NSG.

Some veterans here -with thousands of posts- would never demand Respect in such an arrogant way.
respect? you have to earn it.
yes, You do have a right to disagree with him (we all have a right to disagree) , but we dont give any style points for theatrical demands.

Meh. As mlong as he doesn't turn out to be Dubya in disquise, I don't give a rat's ass. I would prefer if it were Obama or edwards, but as long as he don't call me up for a draft, I'm fine with it.

..keep your opinions to yourself then there is no reason to dislike you.
You dint get the memo?

freedom of speech.

I have it.
You have it.
He has it.

You dint get the memo?

freedom of speech.

I have it.
You have it.
He has it.

Respect me you bastard!

;)

Respect me you bastard!

;)you know its not going to happen :D

What, like band camp? 4-H camp?

Like some bullshit "de-gaying" camp.

He's publicly stated his support for teaching Creationism.

Opinions don't have to be homogeneous, but they shouldn't be in denial of reality...



The right to marry is generally held to be a fundamental right in American law (see Loving v Virginia) and he opposes gay marriage.
I would suspect there are many politicians that believe in Creation. Did Huckabee ever do anything legislatively to force this belief?

Without looking it up, i.e. give me a link next time, I do concede that men and women have the right to marry each other in opposite sex marriages.

Homosexual men and women have the exact same constitutional rights to marry, should they choose. That doesn't imply that same-sex marriages are legal, only that homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals.

He is a theocrat as shown by his letting go of a convicted killer who had found God.

I hope he does get the nod as it will guarntee a demo or third party President.
If every elected executive was judged by their pardons, well we might be able to differentiate the compassionate from the corrupt. It might be nice to read more about the pardon, however. There have been so many...

Don't misunderstand me, Huckabee isn't the kind of Republican I'd like to see in office. He looks like a fiscal GWB and a lot like Jimmy Carter when it comes to foreign policy. Neither of which is needed. I just don't see his Christian beliefs as any sort of problem. He has yet to decisively promote his beliefs through legislation and is much less likely as President than he ever was as governor.

Personally, I would run into Congress and plead for immediate impeachment on the grounds of accidental election and then proceed to egg the White House.

I'd bloody leave the country..Ohh wait I don't live there.

:D

sooo.. hmm.. so many questions.. but lets start with this one:


What would you tell them to convince them?

Well, my partner would already know why we needed to leave, it would just be a matter of convincing him to pack. My parents would also know why they should leave, but they just renovated their house so I'd have to convince them it would be okay to leave it behind. Some of my friends would need to have the danger explained to them, but most are politically tuned in and I'd just have to convince them that Canada would be the place to go otherwise they'd probably head to some random corners of the world and it would cost a fortune to visit.

I would suspect there are many politicians that believe in Creation. Did Huckabee ever do anything legislatively to force this belief?

Without looking it up, i.e. give me a link next time, I do concede that men and women have the right to marry each other in opposite sex marriages.

Homosexual men and women have the exact same constitutional rights to marry, should they choose. That doesn't imply that same-sex marriages are legal, only that homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals.

Heterosexuals have the right to marry the man or woman they're in love with.

That's all we're asking for.

Like some bullshit "de-gaying" camp.

Imagine the curriculum! :eek:

Imagine the curriculum! :eek:

I don't have to imagine: http://www.alternet.org/story/71460/

WHEN Mike Huckabee becomes the next President of the United States of America, I will celebrate!!

GO MIKE HUCKABEE!! YOU'VE GOT MY VOTE!!

MIKE HUCKABEE FOR PRESIDENT!!!!

Homosexual men and women have the exact same constitutional rights to marry, should they choose. That doesn't imply that same-sex marriages are legal, only that homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals.

You honestly think that contiuned gender discrimination with no other goal than to deny same-sex couples the ability to marry is a good argument against same-sex marriage?

You honestly think that contiuned gender discrimination with no other goal than to deny same-sex couples the ability to marry is a good argument against same-sex marriage?
Hey, it was a great argument back when everybody only had the right to marry a person of their own race! It was perfectly sound to argue that black people have the same marriage rights as white people: the right to marry their own kind!

Oh. Wait. It wasn't. And the Supreme Court specifically said as much, decades ago.

It's almost as though those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it while the rest of us point and laugh at them.

Hey, it was a great argument back when everybody only had the right to marry a person of their own race! It was perfectly sound to argue that black people have the same marriage rights as white people: the right to marry their own kind!

Oh. Wait. It wasn't. And the Supreme Court specifically said as much, decades ago.

It's almost as though those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it while the rest of us point and laugh at them.

I was trying to avoid using that argument....as it just leads to the slippery-slope bullshit claim...

Experience that feeling you get when you're not the least bit surprised.

Oh, that feeling you get after Huckabee wins a second term?

I would cry rather a lot.

I would then have to debate whether to give up and move out of the country or stay and fight for real change. I don't know which I would decide. Either way, though, I'd be praying that we'd have a strong Democratic majority in Congress to keep Huckabee from being able to trash the country too badly.

Ugh...Oh GOD! We're BONED!

That's it! Game over man! GAME OVER!

Thread winner lulz :p

Whatever tiny little pockets of hope I had left for the United States in some dark corners of my brain would be dragged out into the street by the other despairing parts of my brain, kicked into the gutter and beaten to a pulp with various sharp or blunt implements, being left to die slowly in pools of their own blood. People would spit on them as they walked past.

that was deep *nods*

Heterosexuals have the right to marry the man or woman they're in love with.

That's all we're asking for.

i support that request, unfortunatly i have no political power in the middle east :(

WHEN Mike Huckabee becomes the next President of the United States of America, I will celebrate!!

GO MIKE HUCKABEE!! YOU'VE GOT MY VOTE!!

MIKE HUCKABEE FOR PRESIDENT!!!!

And here we see the type of well-argued, issues-based voter that follows Huckabee.

i support that request, unfortunatly i have no political power in the middle east :(

The middle east is slightly different. There it's more of a "please don't kill us for our sexual orientation" thing.

And here we see the type of well-argued, issues-based voter that follows Huckabee.

considering the question asked? it's on par with most of the responses so far.

I'd join you... We'll laugh.
I laughed just reading the thread title.

President Huckabee would be hilarious.

And here we see the type of well-argued, issues-based voter that follows Huckabee.
Given Huckabee's performance in the race so far, I can't imagine why ANYONE supports him at all. He's been unrelentingly awful.

It's not even like the social conservatives don't have other options. Romney and Thompson are both still credible candidates (though I can understand why some conservatives would fear Thompson's federalism).

Given Huckabee's performance in the race so far, I can't imagine why ANYONE supports him at all. He's been unrelentingly awful.

It's not even like the social conservatives don't have other options. Romney and Thompson are both still credible candidates .:rolleyes: Yeah Romney and Thompson are Pro Gay, anti Creationism, Pro Abortion, and do not blindly support Bush crusade against the "M.E. brown skins". [/mass sarcasm]

He's hardly the most odious of the candidates. At least he's practical on immigration.

Personally, I would run into Congress and plead for immediate impeachment on the grounds of accidental election and then proceed to egg the White House.

I might be forced into voting for him if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination. At least he isn't Rudy McRomney. Fred Thompson is about as relevant as a typewriter at a blogger's convention. Ron Paul (who I'd prefer) doesn't have support because the media marginalizes him (Fox recently excluded him from another debate).

Edit: People say "Impeach Bush...Impeach Bush"... Do you guys really want Dick Cheney as President?

I would cringe. Just as I would cringe at any of the other likely choices we have.

It's exceedingly sad when I'd rather have Bush for four more years than any of these brain-dead turds.

You honestly think that contiuned gender discrimination with no other goal than to deny same-sex couples the ability to marry is a good argument against same-sex marriage?
No, only that homosexuals have the same, exact rights as heterosexuals when it comes to marriage.

I don't particularly care who marries who. Marriage has already been so trivialized by the heterosexual Hollywood crowd, that it really means very little.

Imagine the curriculum! :eek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh6r1p3yHrI ?

I would cringe. Just as I would cringe at any of the other likely choices we have.

It's exceedingly sad when I'd rather have Bush for four more years than any of these brain-dead turds.

More Bush? *cringes*

That's exactly the problem - he is not even the worst of the candidates.
Relatively he is not so bad...

How many citizens does the USA have ? Why can they find noone better ?

Wikipedia says we have 303,133,000 people.
There are some good candidates - and we'd probably have more, higher-quality candidates if the majority of US citizens had intelligence.:headbang:
Instead we have what the media and the ruling elite give us, aided by those without intelligence.

As for what I would do if Huckabee were elected - I would probably have to continue plotting my escape, though I must say it could be much worse than him.:rolleyes:

The right to marry is generally held to be a fundamental right in American law (see Loving v Virginia) and he opposes gay marriage.
You can get around that by defining marriage as necessarily heterosexual. That's an easy one.

Yeah Romney and Thompson are Pro Gay, anti Creationism, Pro Abortion, and do not blindly support Bush crusade against the "M.E. brown skins". :rolleyes:
Thompson pro-abortion? He wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and leave abortion in the hands of state legislatures.

I would find the nearest body of water, and then promptly drive my car into it.

Edit: People say "Impeach Bush...Impeach Bush"... Do you guys really want Dick Cheney as President?

Impeach =/= removed from office

You can get around that by defining marriage as necessarily heterosexual. That's an easy one.

Like Bottle pointed out, they already tried something like that with intermarriage and it didn't fly.

Get serious about emigration.

cry into my cornflakes

Like Bottle pointed out, they already tried something like that with intermarriage and it didn't fly.
What that was was an attempt to point out that everyone already had the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. That doesn't work because, individually, not everyone has the right to marry Steve.

However, if you enter into the law a definition of the term "marriage" that requires the union be heterosexual, then Bill can be allowed to marry Steve all he wants, but he can't actually do it because it's nonsensical.

Everybody already had the right to marry someone of the same race but Bill could not marry Sue if he was black and she was white. Did that restriction make any more or less sense than the opposite-gender rule?

I'd leave the countr- oh, wait, that was my plan already.

In that case I would no longer be able to believe in the government of this country,

You've actually been able to believe in the government of this country longer than you believed in Santa?

And just because I am religious does NOT mean I hate gay PEOPLE. I don't hate gay PEOPLE, nor do I believe in killing, torturing, denying human rights to, or discriminating against them for being gay, but I DO believe that their sexual practices are morally wrong. And that is NO reason for anybody to hate ME, either.

So you're saying that you favor gay marriage?

Buy a sniper rifle.
Learn how to use it effectively.
Buy a plane/train ticket to DC.
Rent a hotel near the White House or along the Inauguration Parade route for several weeks starting during early December.
And so on...


Um, I'm not sure at what stage candidates get assigned secret service agents, but that sound you hear might be a battering ram knocking your door down so they can arrest you for a threat on his life . . .

Where is your evidence to the claims you make.

Re-calibrate your sarcasm detector.

I would cry, and then I would see about moving to Britain.

I'm starting to enjoy addressing major geopolitical issues with one liners.

thou shall read between the lines.. thou shall read the hidden words my friend.

I don't want to read the hidden words, if I don't see them they can't eat me . . .
fnord

What that was was an attempt to point out that everyone already had the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. That doesn't work because, individually, not everyone has the right to marry Steve.

Of course, if they could that would make Steve a bigamist.

Ah yes, the issue over denying the simple right of marriage over religious grounds, how lovely.

I would shoot this defiant "Huckabee" with my eye lasers for daring to defy me!

Could you please stop that? Honestly, that and the other line you said was only mildly funny the first time you said it, but it stopped being funny after that.

Like some bullshit "de-gaying" camp.

Is this something he did when he was governor of Arkansas? Is this something he said he'd do if he became president? Or are you pulling this out of thin air?

Did I mention politically correct? You can spout off all you want. Just don't whine when people tell you that you are full of it when you start spouting morality or lack there of....

You don't HAVE to "mention" the actual phrase "politically correct".

There are opinions and there is simply being an ass. It's one thing to live by a "moral" code and it's another to expect others to live by it.

So, in other words, if my opinion is not politically correct, it doesn't count as an "opinion", but as "bigotry" or "being an ass"? :mad:

Respect is earned; it is not given.

All right then, what do I have to do to "earn" this respect? (And it had better not include anything to the effect that I have to change my opinions to match yours, or you will get no respect from me either. If I have to change my opinions to match yours in order to "earn" your respect, then you are not worthy of respect).

Why would I have to respect you? I don't know you. I think you are mixing up being polite with respect.

You're not even being polite, telling me I have to change my opinions!

Demanding Respect in such a pompous way is not-a-good-idea.. specially at NSG.

Some veterans here -with thousands of posts- would never demand Respect in such an arrogant way.
respect? you have to earn it.
yes, You do have a right to disagree with him (we all have a right to disagree) , but we dont give any style points for theatrical demands.

Once again, how do I go about earning it? (And it had better not include anything to the effect that I have to change my opinions to match yours, or you will get no respect from me either. If I have to change my opinions to match yours in order to "earn" your respect, then you are not worthy of respect.)

So you're saying that you favor gay marriage?

NO, I am NOT in favor of gay marriage. I am of the opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman, not two men or two women.

I was simply saying that they should not be killed or imprisoned for being gay. Or discriminated against in hiring/firing/promotion/demotion/pay raises/pay cuts.

Marriage has already been so trivialized by the heterosexual Hollywood crowd, that it really means very little.

QFT. Another reason to hate Hollywood in general.

how do I go about earning it?You cant expect me to teach you everything I know in one post.

I can only give you a couple tips.

# Dont repeatedly demand the same thing (respect or whatever) in a rapid fire way (repeatedly). This is no Kindergarten, the crying babies do not get the milk faster.

# If you are going to re-demand the same thing -on the next page- .. at least it should be for a different offense/Poster.

# Dont expect -you are going- to get what you want. Most of the time you wont, unless you are a veteran Master Debater :D

# instead of cry-ing off how much his post hurts your feelings.. reaffirm yourself and repost the statement he wants to shut-down.. Let if be clear that your Freedom-of-Speech is pretty much indestructible. (unless its a mod issue of course)

I don't particularly care who marries who. Marriage has already been so trivialized by the heterosexual Hollywood crowd, that it really means very little.

You may be on to something.

"Wait Brad and Jennifer got divorced?!?!?!?! BITCH I WANT A DIVORCE!"

Hmmm let's look at some marriages:

James and Gloria Stewart 45 years.
Kevin Kline and Phoebe Cates 18 years
Paul Newman and Joanne woodward 49 years.
Alfred Hitchcock and Alma Reveille 54 years.
Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson 19 years
Rosalind Russell and Fredrick Brisson 35 years
Morgan Freeman and Myrna Colley-Lee 24 years

There are more but those are the ones at the top of my head.

Hollywood divorce rates are probably no different then anywhere else.

Is this something he did when he was governor of Arkansas? Is this something he said he'd do if he became president? Or are you pulling this out of thin air?

The word 'hyperbole' is thrown around a lot these days..

But apparently not enough for you to recognize one when you see it.

I'd lobby for impeachment on the grounds that he has a stupid name.

I'd elect a Canadian government that would put up a wall on OUR border so that you guys can't get in when your country goes to hell. :)

Laugh at you poor people for living in a country that elected a man like that, then cry because we've elected Tony Blair, and will probably elect David Cameron, and because Huckabee's foreign policy will, in all likelihood, force the UK into closer ties with Europe.

You've actually been able to believe in the government of this country longer than you believed in Santa?
I think the American government is fundamentally pretty cool, because it's basically designed in such a way as to allow actual human beings to run things without their humanity stopping them. The upside is that we have human rule. The downside is that we have human rule.

Humans can be shitty to one another. Humans can be petty, corrupt, dishonest, and otherwise yucky. Our system of government makes it possible for business to function as usual while all that is part of the process. Checks and balances exist--nominally--to make sure that human flaws aren't able to pull the whole government down around our ears.

The problem right now is that those checks and balances are being removed. Without those checks and balances, and without the structure that makes the game possible, there's nothing to distinguish the US government from any other corrupt dictatorship.

NO, I am NOT in favor of gay marriage. I am of the opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman, not two men or two women.

I was simply saying that they should not be killed or imprisoned for being gay. Or discriminated against in hiring/firing/promotion/demotion/pay raises/pay cuts.
So you don't think gay people should be discriminated against, except when you think they should be discriminated against?

*sighs*

I was unaware that utter hyperbole was the order of the day now in the States as far as Huckabee goes.

"OH NOES, HE WON'T LET GAYS MARRY, NEXT COME THE GAS CHAMBERS!"
"LET'S FLEE THE COUNTRY BEFORE HE IMPOSES HIS VALUES ON EVERYTHING!"
"HE'S LIKE GHENGIS KHAN, BUT MAYBE WORSE, A BIT!"

Don't be ridiculous, please. Yes, he was a Baptist Minister and all of that. I don't think that suddenly makes him into some kind of evil being of pure Christian horror, who's going to utterly destroy America.

I can more imagine him being one of those slightly mediocre, one-issue presidents, who gets tied down with, say, Gay Marriage or whatever, and lets everyone get on with their lives as far as everything else goes.

NO, I am NOT in favor of gay marriage. I am of the opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman, not two men or two women.

I was simply saying that they should not be killed or imprisoned for being gay. Or discriminated against in hiring/firing/promotion/demotion/pay raises/pay cuts.

Huckabee is opposed to even that much.

If Huckabee were elected, I'd renew my campaign to have Maine seceed and join Canada.

Don't be ridiculous, please. Yes, he was a Baptist Minister and all of that. I don't think that suddenly makes him into some kind of evil being of pure Christian horror, who's going to utterly destroy America.

Nice straw man.

The fact that Huckabee was a Baptist Minister has nothing to do with my personal concerns about him. If you bother to read many of the other responses on this thread, you'll learn about some of the many reasons why I (and others) have grave concerns about a Huckabee presidency.

NO, I am NOT in favor of gay marriage. I am of the opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman, not two men or two women.

I was simply saying that they should not be killed or imprisoned for being gay. Or discriminated against in hiring/firing/promotion/demotion/pay raises/pay cuts.

Y'see, Arthur, therein lies the real issue. Marriage IS linked to certain legal rights in the USA. Gays are discriminated against, barred from those legal rights, which include rights in divorce settlements, rights to authorize medical treatment, rights in inheritance, etc. The system, as it is, gives more rights to a spouse in a total sham marriage than it does to a strong, committed gay couple, which is just retarded. If there was a legal alternative to Marriage that provided identical rights, then this probably would not be an issue. Or, if Marriage was considered social and religious only, and stripped of all its legalities, this would not be an issue. Otherwise, yes, enforcing your opinion on people, in this case, discriminates against them.

The problem right now is that those checks and balances are being removed. Without those checks and balances, and without the structure that makes the game possible, there's nothing to distinguish the US government from any other corrupt dictatorship.Actually, the US government is a lot less checked than in other democracies, seeing as the government (in the sense of the head of government {who is incedentally fused with the position of head of state in the US}and their cabinet) is handed directly to one party, and not subject to reflecting the actual popular vote.

Actually, the US government is a lot less checked than in other democracies, seeing as the government (in the sense of the head of government {who is incedentally fused with the position of head of state in the US}and their cabinet) is handed directly to one party, and not subject to reflecting the actual popular vote.
Oy. It would take a very long post for me to address this, and I honestly don't feel like it right now.

I'll just say that I don't agree with your assessment, and I also don't think the relative degree of "checkedness" in our government is relevant to the point I was making in the first place. But I'd rather not hijack onto this huge tangent.

Oy. It would take a very long post for me to address this, and I honestly don't feel like it right now.

I'll just say that I don't agree with your assessment, and I also don't think the relative degree of "checkedness" in our government is relevant to the point I was making in the first place. But I'd rather not hijack onto this huge tangent.I'd love to hear why you disagree though. Should you get around to it eventually, please TG me a link to the post :)

I would probably say: americans and then nod my head while making a sound meaning that Im disappointed and a tiny bit suprised but not very. And then I would get on with doing nothing but adding useless comments in threads on this forum.

I would become an America Hater (tm).

Actually, the US government is a lot less checked than in other democracies, seeing as the government (in the sense of the head of government {who is incedentally fused with the position of head of state in the US}and their cabinet) is handed directly to one party, and not subject to reflecting the actual popular vote.

There is a real reason why we do it this way, and it is not what most people think. Recall the conditions of the founding: 13 very disparate regions, some weak, some powerful. No "center". (and Vermont waiting in the wings). Contrast this to the classic European nation: England was politically, socially, and economically centered on London, France on Paris, etc.

If a nation is strongly centered, a straight popular vote presents no real problems. But, if the nation is broken into very diverse regions, then a straight popular vote gives the smaller regions no real say. Worse, it promotes increased regionalism!

How so, you ask? Consider this: In the Electoral College system, ANY victory in a state gives you that state. In any presidential election, 49.9% of the people in Texas, California, and New York don't count. Therefore, if a candidate is already strongly leading in that state, further effort in that state is wasted. Instead, the candidate moves on to "battleground" states.

Contrast this with a straight popular vote: A candidate might think, wow, I have 65% of Texas, and 50% of Michigan. But I know that it will be far easier for me to pick up another 5 million people in Texas, because my policies appeal to Texans, so I will concentrate on Texas. Thus, the candidate will reach for 100% of Texas, at the cost of popularity elsewhere.

This would mean that a candidate with a very strong regional appeal could exploit that! A candidate whose policies were extremely favorable to the northeast but damaging to the southwest would not care, and still win- any move that gained you a million Northeasterners but cost 900,000 Southwesterners would be a good one!

The Electoral College system works agains this. By making 49.9% of every state irrelevant, the incentive is to spread the love. Now, the move that gains 1,000,000 in the northeast but costs 900,000 in the southwest is NOT good, if you are already stronger in the northeast! In fact, now it is a stupid move! And there is another factor- Electoral College Votes are NOT in direct proportion to population. They give added weight to the smaller states, by design. Yes, a Vermonter's vote, in a presidential election, means more than a Californian's!

So now, we have a situation in which:

A) The larger states are the most important, of course, but it is pointless to focus too much on them.

This works against regionalistic politics.

and

B) The smaller states give a candidate a better "per capita" return.

This gives the smaller states an edge, more of a say, so they don't become marginalized, and don't get tempted to quit the United States.

So there is a method to the madness. This is an exact mirror of the compromise in the design of Congress, with the two houses, the House giving power to the larger states, and the Senate countering that by giving more per capita power to the smaller ones. And it was absolutely essential in getting the weaker states to agree to the Constitution.

There is a real reason why we do it this way, and it is not what most people think. Recall the conditions of the founding: 13 very disparate regions, some weak, some powerful. No "center". (and Vermont waiting in the wings). Contrast this to the classic European nation: England was politically, socially, and economically centered on London, France on Paris, etc.What about Germany, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Austria? They're not classical European nations, but they are Western democracies.

If a nation is strongly centered, a straight popular vote presents no real problems. But, if the nation is broken into very diverse regions, then a straight popular vote gives the smaller regions no real say. Worse, it promotes increased regionalism!I would argue that the US is far more centered than any other Western democracy save perhaps France. Seriously, the UK has plenty of regionalism of its own. Germany has Bavaria for Christ's sake! Texas is neither the largest state by territory, nor does it have its own conservative party on a national level.

Also, the only country I can think of in Europe that actually has a popular vote is France. Germany does not have a popular vote for Chancellor. In Europe, you don't vote for the wo/man, you vote for the party. The party members that got elected THEN vote for the wo/man

How so, you ask? Consider this: In the Electoral College system, ANY victory in a state gives you that state. In any presidential election, 49.9% of the people in Texas, California, and New York don't count. Therefore, if a candidate is already strongly leading in that state, further effort in that state is wasted. Instead, the candidate moves on to "battleground" states.Well, yeah, that's the crap electoral college, even less representative than having a parliamentary election and then letting them vote for the head of government and state. Not to mention that the ENTIRE government will be handed to the party that wins the electoral vote, regardless of popular vote.

Contrast this with a straight popular vote: A candidate might think, wow, I have 65% of Texas, and 50% of Michigan. But I know that it will be far easier for me to pick up another 5 million people in Texas, because my policies appeal to Texans, so I will concentrate on Texas. Thus, the candidate will reach for 100% of Texas, at the cost of popularity elsewhere.Great. Due to the electoral college, the president of Texas is now the President of the United States.

This would mean that a candidate with a very strong regional appeal could exploit that! A candidate whose policies were extremely favorable to the northeast but damaging to the southwest would not care, and still win- any move that gained you a million Northeasterners but cost 900,000 Southwesterners would be a good one! Um... not really. I'll go into it at the bottom.

The Electoral College system works agains this. By making 49.9% of every state irrelevant, the incentive is to spread the love. Now, the move that gains 1,000,000 in the northeast but costs 900,000 in the southwest is NOT good, if you are already stronger in the northeast! In fact, now it is a stupid move! And there is another factor- Electoral College Votes are NOT in direct proportion to population. They give added weight to the smaller states, by design. Yes, a Vermonter's vote, in a presidential election, means more than a Californian's!Exactly. You can safely carry the electoral vote by concentrating on the large states, easily bypassing plenty of people. If anything, the electoral college PROMOTES regionalism, not the other way around.

So now, we have a situation in which:

A) The larger states are the most important, of course, but it is pointless to focus too much on them.

This works against regionalistic politics.

and

B) The smaller states give a candidate a better "per capita" return.

This gives the smaller states an edge, more of a say, so they don't become marginalized, and don't get tempted to quit the United States. That's what you have the second chamber of parliament/congress for, so that small state's don't get trumped by larger ones. But not on a national level.

So there is a method to the madness. This is an exact mirror of the compromise in the design of Congress, with the two houses, the House giving power to the larger states, and the Senate countering that by giving more per capita power to the smaller ones. And it was absolutely essential in getting the weaker states to agree to the Constitution.Indeed. Now that we have the Constitution, can we scrap the dimwittery that is the electoral college as we did slavery?

What about Germany, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Austria? They're not classical European nations, but they are Western democracies.
?



Germany and Italy: Unified, partially by force, long after the US, so not a model the founders could have considered. Others: Highly centralized. If they weren't, those tiny little regions would have merged long ago.


I would argue that the US is far more centered than any other Western democracy save perhaps France.

You could argue it. Not well, though.

Seriously, the UK has plenty of regionalism of its own. .
I said England, for a reason. The UK is essentially a smallish federation in which England is by far the dominant partner, and England is London-Centric. It would by like the US, if the US consisted of New York, Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, and Delaware, with the capital in New York City. UK regionalism is only a reaction to English dominance.

Texas is neither the largest state by territory, nor does it have its own conservative party on a national level..

??? Land area is relevant to the discussion why???


You can safely carry the electoral vote by concentrating on the large states, easily bypassing plenty of people. If anything, the electoral college PROMOTES regionalism, not the other way around...

100% backwards. Reread my entire post. You CAN'T concentrate on the large states, because picking up the 50th percentile Vermonter counts for more than picking up the 51st through 100th percentile Texans. With the college, your efforts at gaining MORE in a state in which you already have a commanding lead are WASTED, so you move on. That is ANTI-regionalism. Yes, Texans still has MORE vote, but the system ensures that 1) per capita, Vermont's vote is stronger, and 2) promoting regionalism, sacrificing the votes of 9 in one region to pick up 10 in another, is stupid, if you are already strong in the second region.

Check the inglorious history of Spain's regional parties.

NO, I am NOT in favor of gay marriage. I am of the opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman, not two men or two women.

So you DO favor denying them basic human rights. Thanks for clearing that up.

I do not oppose multiple people wanting to get married (Polygamy) or underage people who want to get married.. or Gays who want to get married.

Puritan laws are retarded.. but I do not consider it an important issue.
.
NO, I am NOT in favor of gay marriage. I am of the opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman, not two men or two women.

I was simply saying that they should not be killed or imprisoned for being gay. Or discriminated against in hiring/firing/promotion/demotion/pay raises/pay cuts.So you DO favor denying them basic human rights. Thanks for clearing that up.:confused:

...
This is what I am talking about.
This is what turns me away from the Gay-marriage-is-a-basic-human-right.. and the will-someone-think-of-the-Whales crowd.

Nice straw man.

The fact that Huckabee was a Baptist Minister has nothing to do with my personal concerns about him. If you bother to read many of the other responses on this thread, you'll learn about some of the many reasons why I (and others) have grave concerns about a Huckabee presidency.
Aye, it appears to be "HE'LL BREAK DOWN THE BARRIERS BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE", or "HE HATES GAYS" instead.

I don't think he'll have the power to break the barriers down between church and state, because of Democrat control of the House of Representatives.

And as to "he believes that homosexuality is morally wrong" - who cares?

It's not like he can really do much with that prejudice of his, because of the outcry from people like the ACLU.

George Bush can get away with Gitmo because of the Onoz Terrorists element of it. Persecution against homosexuals doesn't really have any defence of any kind, so it won't happen. There we go.

Last time I checked some silly US document did refer to "the pursuit of happiness" when discussing basic human rights.

It probably wasn't an important piece of paper though.
Yes, exactly. It's not an important piece of paper any more. There we go.

This is what I am talking about.
This is what turns me away from the Gay-marriage-is-a-basic-human-right.. and the will-someone-think-of-the-Whales crowd.

Last time I checked some silly US document did refer to "the pursuit of happiness" when discussing basic human rights.

It probably wasn't an important piece of paper though.

Hey, I fully support Huckabee and I hope he does win. He is a godly man and I think he will do a lot of good for this nation. Plus, he plays bass, and Chuck Norris supports him. He never ran the attack add, which could be taken one of two ways.
1. It was all planned to make him look better in the end
2. (THIS IS THE ONE I BELIEVE) The man has a conscience and God is in his life helping him discern right from wrong.

The way I see it, even if you dont believe in faith and claim Atheism, do you really want a president who is immoral as well? I believe even bad people want someone they can trust, and who better than a fully devout christian man?

STEPHEN COLBERT is thinking about being his running mate from what i've seen on the show and stuff. If he's at all serious, then this could be an interesting race... I hoped Colbert would have made it onto the South Carolina ballot.

Yes, exactly. It's not an important piece of paper any more. There we go.

Would be refreshing if a presidential candidate just admitted he (or she) believes its only use is toiletpaper.

The way I see it, even if you dont believe in faith and claim Atheism, do you really want a president who is immoral as well?

Actually I would prefer a decent candidate.

You CAN'T concentrate on the large states,

If I remember right, cant a person win if they get the college of the 11 biggest (read most populated since that is how a state gets its college votes) states?


wouldn't it cause less regionalism if they had to worry about the amount of people rather than the majority needed for the college?

So, in other words, if my opinion is not politically correct, it doesn't count as an "opinion", but as "bigotry" or "being an ass"? :mad:


No, it's that your opinion is that of a bigoted ass.

Would be refreshing if a presidential candidate just admitted he (or she) believes its only use is toiletpaper.
Quite.

"Lawyers nowadays can argue either side of any disagreement on what the constitution means, so bugger the whole thing" would be quite nice.

thou shall read between the lines.. thou shall read the hidden words my friend.

I missed the joke at first, but when I saw TSI's, I got it.

Hey, I fully support Huckabee and I hope he does win. He is a godly man and I think he will do a lot of good for this nation. Plus, he plays bass, and Chuck Norris supports him. He never ran the attack add, which could be taken one of two ways.
1. It was all planned to make him look better in the end
2. (THIS IS THE ONE I BELIEVE) The man has a conscience and God is in his life helping him discern right from wrong.

The way I see it, even if you dont believe in faith and claim Atheism, do you really want a president who is immoral as well? I believe even bad people want someone they can trust, and who better than a fully devout christian man?

STEPHEN COLBERT is thinking about being his running mate from what i've seen on the show and stuff. If he's at all serious, then this could be an interesting race... I hoped Colbert would have made it onto the South Carolina ballot.

1) Claiming that religion is the only source of morality... Fail.
2) Claiming that just because he says God (if he/she/it/they exist(s)) guides him means he/she/it they do/does (if he/she/it/they exist(s))... Fail
3) Stephen Colbert is a satirist, so, unless he said it off the air, I would have to doubt that's actually the case.


EDIT: In response to the OP, I am not a supporter of Huckabee; however, I'd have to wait to see how he actually acts as a President before doing anything

1) Claiming that religion is the only source of morality... Fail.
2) Claiming that just because he says God (if he/she/it/they exist(s)) guides him means he/she/it they do/does (if he/she/it/they exist(s))... Fail
3) Stephen Colbert is a satirist, so, unless he said it off the air, I would have to doubt that's actually the case.

And he's a politician running for president, so the chances of him NOT running an attack ad is slim and none.

And he's a politician running for president, so the chances of him NOT running an attack ad is slim and none.

Well, the fact that he told everyone he made one and showed it is enough to discredit that.

He showed it, IIRC, just not in a commercial

1) Claiming that religion is the only source of morality...I believe religion is NOT the only source of morality.
.

2) Claiming that just because he says God (if he/she/it/they exist(s)) guides him means he/she/it they do/does (if he/she/it/they exist(s))... FailNo. My absence of faith does NOT make me Fail.. (and viceversa)
.

3) Stephen Colbert is a satirist, so, unless he said it off the air, ...he said it(I am willing to be your vicepresident) on the air .. but he was not serious(he never is) it was just a polite way to give token support to a Candidate who did not have a snowball shot in hell (at that point Huckleberry had a 2 % GOP nationwide support, today.. he is the fronrunner)

Talking about TV prime time.. did you guys see him @ David Letterman and @ Jay Leno?
Huckleberry talks straight, is very smart.. and talks about God/faith less often than Bush and Romney.

Question: What would you do if Mike Huckabee were elected President of the United States?

Answer: Cringe at the thought of having to listen to left wing idiots complaining and whingeing for at least the next four years

Be rather apathetic since the world is fucked no matter who is president.