Why you should be scared of Hucakbee

[Jack_Sparrow]

Quote by: Huckabee ...referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

I agree, it is a falacy to debate somthing taken out of context, when the context matters. He doesnt seem quite so insanely extreme now. It just goes to show what happens if you dont research first like Zeebadee.

[sevendogs]

He will stay in Arkansas. America is full of contrasts in views and promises of hopefuls. We have Monkey Process folks, but we have the best evolutionary scientific theorists in the world.

[Jack]

...referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

This is a comment added by the author of the article, not part of Huck's quote. The statement doesn't articulate the context. He made the statement at a conference on marriage and home, thus the "referring to" comment above. But Huck doesn't specify that in his statement.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Isherwood This is a comment added by the author of the article, not part of Huck's quote. The statement doesn't articulate the context.

In any case, it doesn't sound like a selfless statement. He said it for his "base." That brings me to other worries.

Grandpa h.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Isherwood Chaossaber314, you make good points. The only way I would deny him the opportunity to amend the Constitution to "fit god's standards" is to encourage people not to vote for him. You're correct in saying that the creation of an American theocracy goes against my own beliefs. However, I do believe Huck's intentions go beyond creating a National Day of Prayer. Perhaps I'm wrong. If he gets elected, I truly hope I'm wrong.

Well, I would take a different route and encourage people to get their state legislatures to vote against ratifying the amendment should attempts to get their congressional representatives to vote against the amednment fail.

[Stizzles]

Yep you read that right. He wants to change the constitution and make it to better suit God - an imaginary -invisible supernatural mythological being.

Yes, we should totally be scared of this guy.

Not the ones who will kill you if you disagree with them.

Not the ones that will rape your sister for being alone with her boyfriend.

No, we should be afraid of the Southerner who can only change the Constitution if we want him to.

Yeah, that's rational.

[Maryjane]

Isherwood:

But Huck doesn't specify that in his statement.

Maybe this will help specify his intent?

Having won the Iowa caucus, Mike Huckabee is now a leading candidate for the Republican nomination. The former governor of Arkansas was interviewed by phone on Tuesday by Steven Waldman, Beliefnet's editor-in-chief, and Dan Gilgoff, Beliefnet's politics editor

One of the comments you’ve made that’s getting a lot of discussion in the press is the point you made in the last day or so that we might need to amend the Constitution to have it apply more to God’s standards. Do you want to elaborate on that? In particular the question of people who might hear that and think, “Well, that’s a conversation stopper,” people who might agree with you on policy but feel that the constitution is secular document and should be driven by secular concerns rather than aligning it with God’s word. On Amending the Constitution to Meet God's Standards Well, I probably said it awkwardly, but the point I was trying to make– and I’ve said it better in the past – is that people sometimes say we shouldn’t have a human life amendment or a marriage amendment because the Constitution is far too sacred to change, and my point is, the Constitution was created as a document that could be changed. That’s the genius of it.The Bible, however, was not created to be amended and altered with each passing culture. If we have a definition of marriage, that we don’t change that definition, that we affirm that definition. And that the sanctity of human life is not just a religious issue. It’s an issue that goes to the very heart of our civilization of all people being equal, endowed by their creator with alienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That was the point. The Bible was not written to be amended. The Constitution was. Without amendments to the Constitution, women couldn’t vote, African-Americans wouldn’t be considered people. We have had to historically go back and to clarify, because there’ve been injustices made because the Constitution wasn’t as clear as it needed to be, and that’s the point. Just to follow up on that question, according to that standard, if the Constitution and its amendments are subject to biblical interpretations, doesn’t that mean it would be subject to biblical argument over what the proper interpretation is? And where does that leave, say, nonbelievers or members of other faiths in a proudly pluralistic like our own when amendments to the Constitution are subject to a biblical interpretation? I think that whether someone is a Christian or not, the idea that a human life has dignity and intrinsic worth should be clear enough. I don’t think a person has to be a person of faith to say that once you redefine a human life and say there is a life not worth living, and that we have a right to terminate a human life because of its inconvenience to others in the society. That’s the real issue. That’s the heart of it. It’s not just about being against abortion. It’s really about, Is there is a point at which a human life, because it’s become a burden or inconvenience to others, is an expendable life. And once we’ve made a decision that there is such a time – whether it’s the termination of an unborn child in the womb or whether it’s the termination of an 80-year-old comatose patient -- we’ve already crossed that line. And then the question is, How far and how quickly do we move past that line? And the same thing would be true of marriage. Marriage has historically, as long as there’s been human history, meant a man and a woman in a relationship for life. Once we change that definition, then where does it go from there? Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations. Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic. Do you think that on issues other than marriage and the life of the unborn that the Constitution should be brought into conformity with the Bible, which is what that quote seemed to suggest? No, I was specifically talking about those two issues. Those were the only two issues I spoke about in the speech, and that was the point. I’m not suggesting that we say, “Okay, the Bible says you should tithe, so now in the Constitution we’re going to amend it to say everyone tithes.” Those were the two issues that I felt like are talked about in the political realm. I support both the human rights amendment and a marriage amendment, and the reason that I do is because I think we need to codify in our Constitution that which has been acceptable and accepted view of what life and what marriage means. Frankly, if it weren’t being challenged, it wouldn’t be necessary. But it is being challenged. Now you have states that are passing same-sex marriage laws or civil union laws. And you also have states that not only practice abortion, but if Roe v. Wade is overturned, we haven’t won the battle. All we’ve done is now we’ve created the logic of the Civil War, which says that the right to the human life is geographical, not moral. I think that’s very problematic. That’s why I think that people like Fred Thompson are dead wrong when he says just leave that up to the states. Well, that’s again the logic of the Civil War – that slavery could be okay in Georgia but not okay in Massachusetts. Obviously we’d today say, “Well, that’s nonsense. Slavery is wrong, period.” It can’t be right somewhere and wrong somewhere else. Same with abortion.

The bible doesn't change? Yet he carries a New Testament in his briefcase?


What frightens me is the possibility of control the moral majority will have over my future and that of my loved ones. What gives the government the right to put my family through the mental and financial anguish of keeping me hooked up to life support? Shouldn't I be the one with the final say? I've gone through all the legal channels to designate that responsibility to a trusted family member and now Huckabee wants to take that away?

I'd appreciate it if they stayed the hell out of my womb, my bedroom, away from my deathbed.


beliefnet: Beliefnet Presents: Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee on God's presence, the debates, and Christianity

[Stizzles]

What frightens me is the possibility of control the moral majority will have over my future and that of my loved ones. What gives the government the right to put my family through the mental and financial anguish of keeping me hooked up to life support? Shouldn't I be the one with the final say? I've gone through all the legal channels to designate that responsibility to a trusted family member and now Huckabee wants to take that away? I'd appreciate it if they stayed the hell out of my womb, my bedroom, away from my deathbed.

...but not my wallet, right?

This guy only has as much power as the people of this nation grant him. Stop complaining about theocracy when there's no way the American people would change their system of government.

Even if this joker and his numbskull supporters gets an Amendment through to change something, it can be changed right back. Unless, of course, you're accusing the majority of Americans of secretly wanting to overthrow the current US government.

[Maryjane]

Stizzles:

...but not my wallet, right?

Clarification please?

[Stizzles]

Clarification please?

Well, with the "keep the government out of my bedroom, out of my womb,away from my deathbed, outside my car, no closer than 100 yards away from my pets" talk, you're probably either a liberal or a libertarian. Since liberals overwhelmingly outnumber libertarians, I assume you're a liberal--which means that you probably support wealth transfer and getting rid of "wealth disparity". This, of course, would be incredibly hypocritical for someone who wants to minimize government intervention into peoples' lives.

But I might be wrong. Why don't you tell me?

[Maryjane]

Well, I'm glad I asked for clarification.

But I might be wrong. Why don't you tell me?

Oh..you want an ear full eh?

First off.... I don't know how you got that I was a liberal / libertarian because I want control over my body and my personal life? Doesn't everyone? There is nothing wrong with my morality and I don't want someone dictating their's on me. What is so hard to understand about that? What does "wealth disparity" have to do with not wanting to spend my accumulated assets keeping me alive in a comatose state? I don't want my kids and my family sitting around my death bed. It was hard enough doing it for their dad, that's the last thing I want them to have to do when my time comes. Say good-bye, unplug me, let me go and feel no regret. It's my dying wish.

I've been working since I was 12. I am now 47. I worked two jobs for 8 years.The second job was so we could afford health insurance for our family while my husband built his roofing business. I quit my business and my second job to be a stay at home mom when our youngest son was born. I managed my husband's business out of your home for 6 years until his death 4 years ago. We worked hard for our money, took precautions and invested wisely. In 11 years I will own my own home. I do my own repairs, housework, yard work, and landscaping. My children were publicly educated. As a home owner, my property taxes paid for their education. Their college education comes out of my pocket. My family's health insurance comes out of my pocket as well. I'm not asking you for a dime but I'd lend you a dollar if you needed it.

Just so you know...(since you feel obligated to know)...I license, register, pay property tax & insurance on all three of my vehicles. They are properly maintained and inspected. I don't talk on my phone when driving and I wear my seatbelt. I'll stop on a yellow light to avoid running a red one. My dog is an inside dog. He walks on a leash, in my yard, has been neutered, has all his shots and his license.

The money we earned stays in MY wallet unless I choose to share it. And I do. I donate my time and finances to children's education, sports and non profit charities in my community. I also donate blood on a regular basis.

I'll tell you what my political stance is...None of yours or anyone else's business. Live your life, I'll live mine. Stay the hell out of my business.

[Stizzles]

I'll tell you what my political stance is...None of yours or anyone else's business. Live your life, I'll live mine. Stay the hell out of my business.

Which is fine, except that you're participating on a debate site in a political forum. If you want your political opinions to be unquestioned, then don't jump into a debate about politics.

Just so you know...(since you feel obligated to know)...

What? Where the f**k did I say anything about wanting to know about your automobile bills? Are you nuts?

First off.... I don't know how you got that I was a liberal / libertarian because I want control over my body and my personal life? Doesn't everyone? There is nothing wrong with my morality and I don't want someone dictating their's on me. What is so hard to understand about that? What does "wealth disparity" have to do with not wanting to spend my accumulated assets keeping me alive in a comatose state? I don't want my kids and my family sitting around my death bed. It was hard enough doing it for their dad, that's the last thing I want them to have to do when my time comes. Say good-bye, unplug me, let me go and feel no regret. It's my dying wish.

...which are liberal/libertarian philosophies. I guess that's what made me think you're probably a liberal/libertarian--because you're expressing liberal/libertarian beliefs.

[Maryjane]

Which is fine, except that you're participating on a *debate* site in a *political *forum. If you want your political opinions to be unquestioned, then don't jump into a debate about politics.

The forum in which I was posting did not escape me. If I ever lose my navigational sense, I'll consider asking someone's opinion I respect and doesn't seem to be obsessed with telling people what to do. (a moderator perhaps?) But thank you just the same.

What? Where the f**k did I say anything about wanting to know about your automobile bills? Are you nuts?

Oh please...you make the mistake of assuming I'm trying to get something from you and when I let you know under no uncertain terms you are totally off base , you result to insults? FWIW... I'd be "nuts" if I had leased them... they were paid for in cash.

which are liberal/libertarian philosophies. I guess that's what made me think you're probably a liberal/libertarian--because you're expressing liberal/libertarian beliefs.

Yea, so what? Think more, guess less. You should go back and re-read my first reply. My concerns were how these changes could possibly effect MY life and MY wallet. Totally on topic. In the future, spare me your attitude and personal opinions not subject related.

Now can we stop this juvenile bantering and get back to the OP?

You never answered my question...
You want the government making the decisions for you and your family on your death bed? 75% of Americans don't.

[Stizzles]

The forum in which I was posting did not escape me. If I ever lose my navigational sense, I'll consider asking someone's opinion I respect and doesn't seem to be obsessed with telling people what to do. (a moderator perhaps?) But thank you just the same.

If I can't presume ignorance, I am only left to presume stupidity.

Oh please...you make the mistake of assuming I'm trying to get something from you and when I let you know under no uncertain terms you are totally off base , you result to insults? FWIW... I'd be "nuts" if I had leased them... they were paid for in cash.

You said "since you feel like you have to know" and then proceeded to give me information about your car payments. What makes you think that I know, care about, or have ever even considered thinking about your car payments? It's inane.

Yea, so what? Think more, guess less. You should go back and re-read my first reply. My concerns were how these changes could possibly effect MY life and MY wallet. Totally on topic. In the future, spare me your attitude and personal opinions not subject related. Now can we stop this juvenile bantering and get back to the OP? You never answered my question... You want the government making the decisions for you and your family on your death bed? 75% of Americans don't.

No. I do, however, want the government to stop other people from making decisions for me that are not in my best interest and/or do not represent my expressed wishes. So I do want the government involved, but only to keep me free of interference from others--which might include, say, a spouse with a financial conflict of interest.

[doc303]

Quote by: Chris LINK Yep you read that right. He wants to change the constitution and make it to better suit God - an imaginary -invisible supernatural mythological being. We will be in a theocracy if he wins. How about this little tidbit: LINK Someone vote this guy out already!

I well remember the alarm over JFK's nomination and the resulting fears at his election. "The Pope will run the USA from our White House and we will not be able to do anything aout it !!"

It didn't happen - even the Canadian Whisky PAC was powerless.

The identical checks and balances exist today - these fears are baseless.

[grandpa]

Quote by: doc303 I well remember the alarm over JFK's nomination and the resulting fears at his election. "The Pope will run the USA from our White House and we will not be able to do anything aout it !!"

But, to my knowledge, JFK didn't hint at amending the Constitution to better reflect religious point sof view (in fact, I think the quote in question remains a dead giveaway to Huckabee's view of the Constitution's function).

Grandpa h.

[doc303]

Quote by: grandpa But, to my knowledge, JFK didn't hint at amending the Constitution to better reflect religious point sof view (in fact, I think the quote in question remains a dead giveaway to Huckabee's view of the Constitution's function). Grandpa h.

Who knows what JFK said, Gramps? The media didn't haunt candidates and spin the "news" then as they do today.

Today - no one is without their detractors and must weigh every word. Even then they will be misquoted for a fool's motive.

How do you know who to believe?

[Kakumei]

Quote by: Chris LINK Yep you read that right. He wants to change the constitution and make it to better suit God - an imaginary -invisible supernatural mythological being. We will be in a theocracy if he wins. How about this little tidbit: LINK Someone vote this guy out already!

You also forgot to say hes a hater, and is highly uneducated in the important parts in the economy.