Yet you are applying a religious test of your own. Because Huckabee is an
open person of faith, you are indicating that he is unworthy of holding
office and are projecting upon the citizens of Iowa that the only reason
they are choosing him is because of religion.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Maybe not the ONLY reason, but religion is definitely a HUGE considertation
This Schneider dude summed things up nicely: (From CNN web page):
----If Huckabee is to win the nomination, CNN senior political analyst Bill
Schneider said he has to broaden his appeal beyond the religious base that
fueled his Iowa win.
---"He has to appeal to the non-evangelical Republican voters, to those who
do not put religion in first place," Schneider said.
Reminds me of: <
Huckabee isn't my top pick, but looking at the other side's alternatives,
he is head and shoulders above that.
In general, winning Iowa doesn't really mean that candidate is going to
win the nomination.
What I really want is a true conservative to win, most of the leaders
right now fall more into the populist camp than the conservative camp.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
LOL. I thoroughly despise Clinton. She's a neo-con.... even worse than
that Bilderberger Edwards.
Obama is by far the best the dems have. My gut instinct tells me he's
a moral man will good intentions. In relative terms, you understand.
"At the other side's alternatives" I'll give you that without the head
and shoulders and Obama.
Therein lies the hope for Ron Paul. I think he has as much moral fibre
as Huckabee without the disastrous track record. Huck's pardon record
tells me something... he wants to be liked a little too much. If you
drop party lines, you want a guy that is up to the job of putting your
great country back on track. You also want a guy who you can't mess
with. McCain is such a guy. You can scare Huck too easily.
As an outsider, and for purely selfish reasons which include ending up
with a nice neighbour, I'd pick Paul, Obama, McCain in that order for
a myriad of reasons.
The liberal/conservative line is so damned blurry, let's just hope for
a guy who can do the job.
In a stretch of reality: An Obama/Paul ticket would be as cool as
anything. (As opposed to a Paul/Obama, which couldn't get elected) And
give the Sec Defence to Wesley Clark, maybe Edwards for AG (mmmmm he
worries me with that Bilderberg shit.). Bill Clinton for State?
...and make Christopher Walken head of the CIA. *G*
BTW, I think Obama/Paul would be one helluva team. But who has those
kinda gonads, eh?
Why would you think he would be competent for any post? The last decade of
his career and subsequent comments surely don't inspire such confidence.
Why?......While having a very successful "sue them till it hurts"
career.....his gift is with juries not necessarily the law.... If he could
pick voters like he picks juries he might go somewhere President wise but he
Why? His softball take few risks, promise lots, defer anything difficult to
succeeding administrations while delivering little and appeasing Muslim's
at will administration is no poster boy for successful foreign policy.
Personally, I'd like to see Bill Richardson at State. His futile run
for the nomination maybe nothing more than an angle to land a job such
as that. Yeah, that sucks. But the State Department doesn't exactly
post that position and accept resumes...
While on the subject of appeasing Muslims, just weeks after Osama
bin Laden was identified as the mastermind behind the bombing of
"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report
just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no
extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A
senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a
mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing
-- CNN, 4/30/2001.
LOL. As a resident of Arkansas I can tell you that if Ron Paul
doesn't have better moral fiber and ethics than Huckabee he would be a
bigger disaster than the current administration. As governor The Huck
(formally "Widebody" before his gastric bypass) he had a real since of
entitlement to all the gifts people wanted to bestow on him. Set up
PACs to collect money he used for personal expenses. Constant
controversy and questions over his ethical lapses. Average
intelligence, gullible and paranoid. Just why did he take the
extraordinary step of crushing all of his administrations hard drives
at his terms end? He was hiding something. Instead of appointing
competent people to important posts he appointed his friends and
people he knew from the past because as he said "I know them and I am
comfortable with them". In other words he wanted 'Yes Men". He can
orate and play guitar a little. I realize no one can predict the
future and how events will turn out but I t I believe he would be an
absolute disaster as President. Among ALL the candidates Democrat or
Republican he is the least qualified and the last I would vote for. I
am a political independent and will vote for the person I judge most
likely to be able to do the job. Not looking for a "nice guy" or
girl, or entertainer but a hard nosed pragmatic manager with
intelligence and political skill. my .02
Why do you counter a jaw-dropping photo of the Republican victor with
one of the Democratic third-place finisher. It seems to me you could
compare maple to maple. (Hey, I fit something relevant to woodworking
into this conversation...)
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:19:12 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Don't know about Jeff, but I'm applying a reality test. Anyone who says
the Earth is only 6000 years old has a very tenuous grip on reality.
I don't want someone in office who may well think that a war in the Middle
East is a great way to bring on the second coming :-).
Very few Christians believe that the earth is only 6000 years old and
apparently neither does Huckabee .....he does however believe in a creative
process if I may quote.
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.
"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."
Also, students should be given credit for having the intelligence to think
through various theories for themselves and come to their own conclusions,
He said it was his responsibility to teach his children his beliefs though
he could accept that others believe in evolution.
"I believe that there is a God and that he put the process in motion,"
The former Arkansas governor said about the evolution question: "I'm not
sure what in the world that has to do with being president of the United
Oddly in the creator Vs evolution debate generally the evolutionists are
intolerant, wish absolute control of the message and generally ridicule
contrary views...surely not a path to great science.....Rod
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 13:45:47 -0800, "Rod & Betty Jo"
That's ridiculous, students aren't there to come to their own
conclusions, they're there to learn. There is one, and only one
reality and any conclusions in this area need to match said reality.
Otherwise, it's about as worthless as letting students reach the
conclusion that 2+2=5.
That's all well and good, he can teach whatever he wants to in his
home and in his church, but when it comes to school, the kids are
going to learn and be expected to understand evolution. If they
choose to reject it after the test, that's fine with me. Pathetic,
I'd say it has a lot to do with it. Having a President who rejects
reality in favor of his own religious belief is just asking for
trouble. You cannot run a country based on the belief that you can
get on your knees and pray and some imaginary friend in the sky will
solve all your problems. In a practical world, you have to exercise
Yes, it is straightforward. However a lot of people don't realize
that 'establishment of religion' is a term of art, more or less an
BTW, 'respect for the rule of law' while less obscure, is also a
term of art, the proper understanding of which requires more
than a mere understanding of the precise meanings of the
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.