OT: Huckabee, Ughh

Page 13 of 13  
J. Clarke wrote:

...
Oh, I wasn't trying to go into the theory of the thing at all, simply pointing out that the effect of having a national army w/o the state militias finished off the already in progress assimilation of the states into an essentially amorphous blob that it is now... :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Maybe they would have, but...just maybe, the worded it exactly as they did with the expectation that at some point, the new republic would have a majority of people who had brains enough to wipe their own tails. Unfortunately...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

The Republic was hardly "new" when the 14th was added. The authors had a specific problem to deal with and I doubt that it ever occurred to them that anybody would come up with some of the interpretations that the courts have applied.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'm really glad to see such civil discourse. I really wanted to speak out but was quite worried that is would generate flames.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I like all of our American history but most of my ineterst is in the War Between the States and the surrounding years. Before that time it wouldn't have really matter much what the federal government did about religon or most other issues. Of course after that time we were no longer "A" united states government but "THE" United States.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
GarageWoodworks wrote:

Regardless of who the candidates are going to be, this election is going to be bad for the country. There isn't a single candidate, Republican or Democrat, that is even worth a glance. They ALL suck. The guy that could lose the election for Republicans. IMHO, this question is not who to vote FOR, but who to vote AGAINST. That is a pretty sad.
To those who want to vote for Ron Paul, he is just the Ross Perot of 2008. Not a chance in hell of winning, but every chance of insuring a Democrat victory.
Wayne
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
NoOne N Particular wrote: <SNIP>

So what? There isn't all that much difference between the Rs and the Ds anymore. Different dogs, same fleas...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

True. Unless Hilary is the Dem candidate. Of all the candidates she is the one that I just cannot stand to look at, or listen to.
I am just thinking that anyone that votes for Ron Paul would be politically far right. They would vote for Paul because the Rep candidate (call him center for the sake of THIS argument) is bad and the Dem candidate (far left) is probably worse. So by voting for Ron Paul they are, for all practical purposes, voting for the very person they want the least.
Wayne
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
NoOne N Particular wrote:

Paul is not remotely "far right". He is a strict Constitutionalist - as *all* political creatures who swear "to defend and uphold the Constitution" ought to be. Most of his arguments - the Iraq war aside - rest on the fact that the Federal government does not have Constitutional permission to do all things it is doing, regardless of how good they might otherwise be. I support Paul because - even though I disagree with him in particular areas - he is the ONLY candidate that has bothered to read and actually understand the Constitution. He would be a breath of fresh air in the Executive branch - assuming he would behave as he promises to - by making the office *smaller*, vetoing the endless parade of swine entrails being passed by the Legislature, eliminating non-Constitutional government agencies (Dept. Of Education for starters) and generally returning power to the States and the individual as the Constitution mandates. You don't have to be Right or Left to support this - just someone who gets what the Framers had in mind in the first place.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<<<<< whole lotta snippin >>>>>

I agree with everything you say except your very first sentence. So if you exclude that first sentence, that just leaves me with two things to say. One - In this day and age, it seems as though your description of Ron Paul is exactly what the "left" would call a card carrying "far right wing" nut case. Heck, I'll bet that even a lot of Republicans think he is a far right-wing nutter.
It really sounds like you and I have very similar political views. I too like a lot of what Ron Paul has to say. And if he had a shot at winning I would most likely vote for him. But at this point he is still not a viable candidate, and so I say again (and this is the second thing I had to say), he doesn't have a chance of winning, but he as every chance of securing a Democrat win.
I don't like either the R's or D's nowadays. As someone said, different dogs, same fleas. Hillary is disgusting to me, but so is McCain. Hussein Obama, Giullani, Huckabee, Romney, etc. are all just bau. They are all just establishment politicians and not one of them will turn this country around. Just the opposite. But those are the only candidates that have any chance of winning. It all comes down to which is the lesser of two evils and by a red hair margin that would be R for me. Voting for Paul will hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats, and that could lead to what I want the least in the Whitehouse.
Wayne
P.S. During one of the early Republican debates the question of Socialized Medicine came up (they called it National Health Care but what's in a name?). Only one other candidate stated that the FEDERAL government did not have the Constitutional authority to do it. Unfortunately, I don't remember if it was Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo, but that seems moot now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

You can really say that with a straight face? You honestly don't believe that a Hillary, Obama, or Edwards would be a bigger disaster to this country's freedoms and underpinnings than a win by Gulianni, Romney, Huckabee, or Thompson?
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

No - they would be different kinds of disasters, but similar in size and scale. All these people believe that the Federal should *do* things - things which it has no enumerated power to do. The Republicans have become the Big Spenders in the last 7 years passing abominations like the drug bills for retirees. It was a Republican - in part - who helped further undermine our right to free expression by passing the McCain-Feingold act. Both Rs and Ds happily cooperated in passing one of the most bloated, useless, ineffective laws ever devised - Sarbanes-Oxley (aka "The Auditor Full Employment Act"). It was the Rs that got their panties in a wad when gay citizens asked to be treated equally before the law. It was a Republican President that decided to use tax money to fund private charities, including religious charities. (Oh how that one is going to come down around the ears of the snakehandling religious right when the Wiccan charities apply for money and a court upholds their request.)
The list is just endless. Neither party respects the Constitution. Neither party is fiscally responsible. Neither party respects civil rights. Both parties want government in the doing "good" business differing only in the details of what "good" actually means. The Democrats are stupid and dangerous, the Republicans are incompetent and dangerous. Take your your pick. They all - with very few exceptions like Ron Paul - make me ill.
I will vote for Paul in the primary and possibly write him in in the general (assuming the Rs aren't smart enough to make them their candidate). It may be a "wasted" vote, but it will not be a malignant one like voting for any of the rest of these people.
P.S. Apart from Ron Paul, there is only one other candidate that appears to even have a shadow of personal integrity - Barak Obama. His ideas are lousy and dangerous, but he has been clear from the beginning what they are, has not wavered or pandered to the polls and stuck to his story. Like I said, it's a bad story, but at least it's honestly told.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thompson is also consistent in his views but not so loud in making them known and McCain has been mostly consistent.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.