Mike Huckabee

[Irish Cannon]

this coming from the man supporting Fred "I never wanted to be President" Thompson. I have already learned here that you are not someone to be taken seriously, feel free at any point to cease contact in this thread, as your comments are more combative than constructive.

On a lighter note, who the hell won our contest? Hahah.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

you are so lost it is astounding. the soviets were already crumbling prior to reagan's ridiculous spending. In fact, it can be argued that they would have fallen regardless. We set ourselves up to a huge recession through his spending and of course that fantastic "Reaganomics". Not a good leader IMO

Reagan bankrupted their economy with an arms race (Star Wars) they could not afford. He coupled that with pressuring social change through Gorbachev (who wanted reform) which helped collapse the Soviet Union. Even today, Russians consider Reagan as the person who precipitated this.

"“Reagan bolstered the U.S. military might to ruin the Soviet economy, and he achieved his goal,” said Gennady Gerasimov, who served as top spokesman for the Soviet Foreign Ministry during the 1980s."

 

[DBinMD]

Reagan bankrupted their economy with an arms race (Star Wars) they could not afford. He coupled that with pressuring social change through Gorbachev (who wanted reform) which helped collapse the Soviet Union. Even today, Russians consider Reagan as the person who precipitated this.

"“Reagan bolstered the U.S. military might to ruin the Soviet economy, and he achieved his goal,” said Gennady Gerasimov, who served as top spokesman for the Soviet Foreign Ministry during the 1980s."

Since we're on the subject, we might as well give credit to the other 2 significant individuals at the time: Lech Welensa (sp?) and Pope John Paul II. Solidarity stirred the pot, JP privided invaluable moral support. I'm not going to argue who did how much, but I think the 4 individuals converged to bring about a bloodless event few would have predicted a year before. There was a cold war theory that as Poland went so would the rest of eastern Europe, it turned out to be true.

DB

 

[CNorris]

this coming from the man supporting Fred "I never wanted to be President" Thompson. I have already learned here that you are not someone to be taken seriously, feel free at any point to cease contact in this thread, as your comments are more combative than constructive.

Fred is not going to sell out his soul to spew political rhetoric like every other single candiate. I guess him not kissing the media's ass and playing the campaign game the superficial way people think he should means he doesnt want to be president. The fact that he relies on intelligent and well thought out arguments over rhetoric and baby kissing makes me respect him even more.

Feel free to quit making political until you understand the issues. Then I wont come off as so combative, I just get tired people ignoring reality.

 

[CNorris]

Reagan bankrupted their economy with an arms race (Star Wars) they could not afford. He coupled that with pressuring social change through Gorbachev (who wanted reform) which helped collapse the Soviet Union. Even today, Russians consider Reagan as the person who precipitated this.

"“Reagan bolstered the U.S. military might to ruin the Soviet economy, and he achieved his goal,” said Gennady Gerasimov, who served as top spokesman for the Soviet Foreign Ministry during the 1980s."

Reagan -> :saw: <- Gorbachev

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Since we're on the subject, we might as well give credit to the other 2 significant individuals at the time: Lech Welensa (sp?) and Pope John Paul II. Solidarity stirred the pot, JP privided invaluable moral support. I'm not going to argue who did how much, but I think the 4 individuals converged to bring about a bloodless event few would have predicted a year before. There was a cold war theory that as Poland went so would the rest of eastern Europe, it turned out to be true.

DB

There were many factors but generally the biggest driving force of social change comes when economic conditions fail. Reagan took advantage of an inefficient economy (present since the 60's), exploited the weakness of the "old guard" (by eliminating the philosophy of Mutual Assured Destruction via Star Wars) then pushed for social changes (which was fueled by failing economic conditions) that Gorbachev himself wanted.


Exploit the old guard and their fears, embrace a moderate and his reforms.

 

[Polynomial]

I understand your fear, but I really don't see him as being a threat. What do you think he would really do because of his religion that would so horribly change the nation? He used to be a Baptist minister, and seems to have a good understanding of the Bible from what I've seen. I see the Bible as pure and just, and I have a hard time believing that Mike Huckabee of all people would further bring down this countries moral values...if we have any left that is.

The Catholic Church has about 2,000 years of good understanding of the Bible, and it rarely coincides with what people on a two way line with God seem think. And this is from a non-religious person, by the way.

I really don't understand what peoples beef is with Christian values and principles. They are so basic and have such a good reason behind all of them. Example:

If everyone waited until marriage to have sex and they were only with one partner their whole life, would AIDS exist? No.

Sure it would. First, HIV can be and is passed in ways other then sex, and second you seem to forget that there's a ton of closeted married guys that run around makin' sweet gay love.
And you can't say 'well, if they all followed Christian values...' because I'll say that 'if people didn't kill each other we wouldn't have murder.' Both statements are equally vacuous.

As far as this country not being found on Christian principles, I completely disagree. It's simple; the US Government was created on Christian principles, however, people of other religions were free to worship however they wanted.

I'm pretty sure that "We're all created equal, don't kill each other, here, have some freedom' are principles not limited to the Christian faith. Sorry, but these are common sense principles that arose in pretty much all religions. The fact that the founding fathers chose to write them down is largely a consequence of them being intelligent, rather than Christian.
Everyone coming from Europe was a Christian back then, but not everyone viewed religion as a big part of his/her life.

I just really don't understand what would be so bad about his religious agenda.

Because people wish to feel that their president is representative of their beliefs, which is clearly not the case for any candidate. So a good chunk of people will ***** and moan no matter who we pick.

 

[Polynomial]

I can understand how people say marriage amendments are enforcing religion, but being pro-life has nothing to do with religion. Unfortunately it seems that the religious people are the only ones that hold all forms of human life sacred.

It's a double edged sword: The religious want to be pro-life but they shun the people who have kids out of wedlock.

There are plenty of people who want to adopt kids, but you should ask yourself why women choose abortions instead of adoptions? Could it be that our great religious morality has created a hostile, non-supportive environment for them to carry their pregnancy? Can the post-adoption drama that mothers experience be suppressed if we all changed our attitudes and became more supportive of young, single mothers?

Dear anyone: If you don't want women to have abortions, and if you insist on abstinence-only school programs, and you vote for candidates who will not provide social programs to support single mothers so that they have a reasonable option to abortion, you've got to seriously rethink your position.

 

[bLacKjAck.]

It's a double edged sword: The religious want to be pro-life but they shun the people who have kids out of wedlock.

Some of these shallow comments shock me. You just made a statement that says this "everyone who is religious in any way shuns people who have kids out of wedlock". Are there those out there? Yes. Are there TONS more (including myself and many others even on this board) that don't feel this way at all? Yes.

Generalizations are usually not the way to go my man.

If you have come across Christians who do as you say they do, that sucks, because that is not how their "God" feels. But do know this, not all feel that way.

Had to speak to that.

 

[Polynomial]

Some of these shallow comments shock me. You just made a statement that says this "everyone who is religious in any way shuns people who have kids out of wedlock". Are there those out there? Yes. Are there TONS more (including myself and many others even on this board) that don't feel this way at all? Yes.

Generalizations are usually not the way to go my man.

If you have come across Christians who do as you say they do, that sucks, because that is not how their "God" feels. But do know this, not all feel that way.

Had to speak to that.

I was only talking about the people who seem to yell the loudest. Sorry, I understand that majority of religious people are cool-headed, but they're not the ones holding up signs with dead fetuses telling us about how we're all going to hell. It's the latter, the nuts, that get the attention.

 

[Irish Cannon]

For some reason, I just really don't feel like continuing with the discussion. I'm exhausted. However, one thing I'd like to point out...

Killing is different than murder.

 

[Mrs. Gimpy!]

Coming from a Southern Californian point of view, amnesty and open borders are my biggest issues. We're infested with illegals, now I don't mean I'm anti-immigration, just the influx of illegals that tax the $*** out of our society.

10000% agreed. im so fed up with this illegal immigration crap that i am willing to vote for just about anyone who will actually DO SOMETHING to help this problem. (I swear i am not a racial biggot, i am not white and my best friends are all "Latino" and one is black.)

I was working on a mexican patient awhile ago and I mentioned something about "in mexico, where you were born, there is too much fluoride in the water, versus, people born in america, do not have such a problem". My patient then responded "that is whats wrong with alot of americans, those white people say american this, mexico that, when when canada, mexico and america are all the same country!" (I am not white)


another patient: why are marrying a white guy? that's not right. See, im mexican and my wife's mexican. you should marry a man in your same race.


darn people and their racism. i am so sick of all people claiming racism when those are the ones who are racist.





CNORRIS, by any chance in the past, were you ever addicted to drugs? alcohol?

 

[Irish Cannon]

I'm fed up with the fact that only White people are considered racists. It's like it's okay for Blacks, Mexicans, Asians, etc. to be racist, but if you're White, watch out.

I love when these people that are defending the illegals say, "They aren't criminals!" Umm, hello? Yes they friggin are...that's why they are called illegals...

 

[CNorris]

CNORRIS, by any chance in the past, were you ever addicted to drugs? alcohol?

Have you ever huffed paint? I saw on cops some bum said gold paint gets you the highest. Try that color for your next can.

 

[Polynomial]

10000% agreed. im so fed up with this illegal immigration crap that i am willing to vote for just about anyone who will actually DO SOMETHING to help this problem. (I swear i am not a racial biggot, i am not white and my best friends are all "Latino" and one is black.)

Saying "I'm not a racist" is probably better than trying to absolve yourself by playing the race card and mentioning the color of your friends

As far as illegal immigration, I was always puzzled by what we should do about people who risk their lives to come into a country so that they can work for less than minimum wage, live with their strangers and no privacy, and have no medical benefits, just so that they can provide some money for their families. But I'm not sure.

I'm fed up with the fact that only White people are considered racists. It's like it's okay for Blacks, Mexicans, Asians, etc. to be racist, but if you're White, watch out.

It's not a matter of who is racist, but whose racism affects more people. It's unavoidable that you will usually only hear about the majority being racist, but no racism is excusable.

My beef with the whole illegal immigration debate is that people seem to associate crime with minorities. I think it's time that we all took a trip to Russia, Italy, and many other European countries for a good look of how horrible crime sees no color.

Hell, Europe should be more of a safe haven for whites than the suburbs, but having grown up in Poland, I can assure you that many white Americans would have a very difficult time adjusting among other whites

 

[CNorris]

As far as illegal immigration, I was always puzzled by what we should do about people who risk their lives to come into a country so that they can work for less than minimum wage, live with their strangers and no privacy, and have no medical benefits, just so that they can provide some money for their families. But I'm not sure.

I have to agree with you there. We do of course have to close the border, but deporting 12 million people is not only cost a ton of money and cause a ton of problems, its not even possible. I cant believe how absurd people are to believe we can deport 12 million people when our GOV't cant get bottled water to the Superdome for 5 days.

I cant be mad at illegals for coming here because if I were in their shoes I would do the same damn thing. Its America's fault for setting up the handouts and opening the door by not protecting our border. Of course people are going to leave horrible living conditions to come here. Its like setting 10 pounds of cheese on the garage floor and getting mad you have a mouse problem a week later. We need to plug the leak before we even consider how to bail water.

 

[bLacKjAck.]

I was only talking about the people who seem to yell the loudest. Sorry, I understand that majority of religious people are cool-headed, but they're not the ones holding up signs with dead fetuses telling us about how we're all going to hell. It's the latter, the nuts, that get the attention.

Yeh I totally agree with you man. They are nuts. And what are they accomplishing? Nothing...

 

[AE14]

.

Feel free to quit making political until you understand the issues. Then I wont come off as so combative, I just get tired people ignoring reality.

I was thinking the same thing on the opposite front. I will leave my discussion with you as you seem too confused to continue

 

[Polynomial]

I cant be mad at illegals for coming here because if I were in their shoes I would do the same damn thing.

You've brought up a good problem: currently we have to keep many countries poor if we are to sustain our standard of living.
It can cost you less than $1k for a week long, all-inclusive vacation in Mexico, where you'll get all the food and booze you can handle, be pampered ad nauseum, and the tips are included. How much would such a service cost in the US? A beach front hotel, all you can eat, 7 days and 6 nights...I think that the hotel fees alone would be more than $1k, excluding food and airfare.

I can't imagine what would happen if the Cancun workers who were fixing roofs and windows in hotels without any protection demanded to have something like OHSA. Or if majority of Chinese families decided that they want salaries good enough to provide for iPods, HD TV's, and other common Best Buy items.

In a lot of Europe, there are no water fountains, soda refills aren't free, whey protein is a lot more expensive, and you'll certainly need it because the serving sizes can be a joke. Also, good luck if you're a vegetarian...

As someone once said, America is the only country where poor people are fat. But hey, I'm just gonna shut up for now because I am kinda selfish and I do love my iPod

 

[VolcomX311]

I cant be mad at illegals for coming here because if I were in their shoes I would do the same damn thing. Its America's fault for setting up the handouts and opening the door by not protecting our border. Of course people are going to leave horrible living conditions to come here. Its like setting 10 pounds of cheese on the garage floor and getting mad you have a mouse problem a week later. We need to plug the leak before we even consider how to bail water.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you there. It's a bit of a conundrum when we say, don't come here illegally, but if you make it, we'll accommodate you, matter of fact, we're working on a legislation to offer your kids free medical coverage as an added bonus to not come here.

 

[DBinMD]

To: Polynomial

Re: The Catholic Church has about 2,000 years of good understanding of the Bible, and it rarely coincides with what people on a two way line with God seem think. And this is from a non-religious person, by the way.

I don’t know what you mean by “rarely coincides with what people on a two way line with God seem think”. Could you explain further?

Re: Sure it would. First, HIV can be and is passed in ways other then sex, and second you seem to forget that there's a ton of closeted married guys that run around makin' sweet gay love.
And you can't say 'well, if they all followed Christian values...' because I'll say that 'if people didn't kill each other we wouldn't have murder.' Both statements are equally vacuous.

First, fornication is wrong, whether straight or gay, so please don’t think the religious believe they are holier that thou because they are straight. Believe it or not, there are religious abstinent (or at least struggling) gays.

The primary vehicles for AIDs transmission are 1) Promiscuity, and 2) IV drug use. AIDS may have made it’s way eventually into society but it’s initial introduction into the western countries was thru sex. It hit fast and hard, in part, because of the gay lifestyle.

Re: I'm pretty sure that "We're all created equal, don't kill each other, here, have some freedom' are principles not limited to the Christian faith. Sorry, but these are common sense principles that arose in pretty much all religions. The fact that the founding fathers chose to write them down is largely a consequence of them being intelligent, rather than Christian.

Actually, you’re correct about Old Testament beliefs. This begs the question as to why so many are so phobic about a Biblically based system. In case anyone wonders what’s special about the N.T., it is more about a call to being holy rather than just good enough.

Re: It's a double edged sword: The religious want to be pro-life but they shun the people who have kids out of wedlock.

That is an unaffair and prejudical generalizing statement. My parish, and I’m sure many are like it, is very active in social concerns including crisis pregnancies. A true religious call to God involves mercy. But we all have limitations and when someone slips thru the system it’s not fair to just point fingers.

Re: Could it be that our great religious morality has created a hostile, non-supportive environment for them to carry their pregnancy?

It’s so common. Does anyone really look twice anymore at an unmarried pregnant woman any more?

Re: Dear anyone: If you don't want women to have abortions, and if you insist on abstinence-only school programs, and you vote for candidates who will not provide social programs to support single mothers so that they have a reasonable option to abortion, you've got to seriously rethink your position.

First of all, sex ed does not belong in the school. That aside abstinence is the only morally acceptable solution, to teach otherwise is to do a disservice to kids. The true villains are the parents and entertainment industry that set an immoral example and make it seem you can’t go without it. It may be hard to imagine, but no one ever died from not having sex, but rather the opposite is true. But you wouldn’t know that watching anything rated higher than PG or prime time TV. Kids are bombarded with sexual messages, none of which originate from religious institutions.

This country is full of support the poor. This country gives on average more per capita than any other country. There is room for improvement, but to put the blame on religion is unfair. Money only goes so far and I think we’ve pretty much taken it as far as it will go. Men and women also have to accept responsibility for their actions. The original argument for Roe was to help the few unfortunates who got themselves into trouble. Well that number has mushroomed into 1,000,000 (on average) abortions a year, 2740 a day. It looks to me like some people just aren’t trying or just don’t know how to.

Rather than an obstacle, religion is the solution. The truth of the matter is the better we follow true Christian values the better we all will be.

 

[Polynomial]

I don’t know what you mean by “rarely coincides with what people on a two way line with God seem think”. Could you explain further?

I propose that you read what the pope says about the dangers of fundamentalism. I also believe that the Catholics are a lot better organized than most other Christian offshoots, especially in trying to help people live like Christians.

First, fornication is wrong, whether straight or gay, so please don’t think the religious believe they are holier that thou because they are straight. Believe it or not, there are religious abstinent (or at least struggling) gays.

The primary vehicles for AIDs transmission are 1) Promiscuity, and 2) IV drug use. AIDS may have made it’s way eventually into society but it’s initial introduction into the western countries was thru sex. It hit fast and hard, in part, because of the gay lifestyle.

What you're saying here and in another one of your comments is that if people lived according to the Bible/Vedas/Q'uran/any other religious text, we'd all be fine. Yes, that's true, but good luck with having that happen.

There are plenty of examples of theocracy: Rome when it turned Christian, Iran, medieval Europe, etc., How well did those experiments go?

Actually, you’re correct about Old Testament beliefs. This begs the question as to why so many are so phobic about a Biblically based system. In case anyone wonders what’s special about the N.T., it is more about a call to being holy rather than just good enough.

The New Testament is about a hippy who was preaching the end of the world. I'm not joking; that's a scholarly interpretation. Try reading it with that point of view as a fun exercise.

If you leave out the first 3 commandments, you've got 7 rules who everyone would like to have independently of religion. People very much like others not to steal and murder, or covet their wives. What we have a problem with are the first 3 commandments, dictating others to believe in some almighty being. I have some pretty good metaphysical arguments for not believing in a deity, and I don't want anyone forcing me to.

That is an unaffair and prejudical generalizing statement. My parish, and I’m sure many are like it, is very active in social concerns including crisis pregnancies. A true religious call to God involves mercy. But we all have limitations and when someone slips thru the system it’s not fair to just point fingers.

Read "The Scarlet Letter" for a better insight of how Western religious views operate under the covers. Just because in the last 100 years people figured out how to be more compassionate doesn't take away from the precedents that have been set.

That aside abstinence is the only morally acceptable solution, to teach otherwise is to do a disservice to kids.

That's just like your opinion, dude. Reality: teens have had and always will have premarital sex. Even in theocratic societies. You think of it as God giving people freedom of choice. I'd prefer that they be safe when they do it.

Rather than an obstacle, religion is the solution. The truth of the matter is the better we follow true Christian values the better we all will be.

Since you're a Christian, why aren't you selling all your possessions and following in the way of Jesus? That's what he called for, you know. I'm also pretty sure that an olive skinned long haired Jew who hung out with lepers and prostitutes would have been slightly against the establishment of a government which forces people to believe in any one religion.

Remember, it's the great patriots of Rome, with their chiseled bodies, that crucified his ass.

 

[DBinMD]

I propose that you read what the pope says about the dangers of fundamentalism. I also believe that the Catholics are a lot better organized than most other Christian offshoots, especially in trying to help people live like Christians.

What you're saying here and in another one of your comments is that if people lived according to the Bible/Vedas/Q'uran/any other religious text, we'd all be fine. Yes, that's true, but good luck with having that happen .

Getting everyone to live by even the minimum standards is the crux of the problem. I don’t see how lowing the standards helps.

There are plenty of examples of theocracy: Rome when it turned Christian, Iran, medieval Europe, etc., How well did those experiments go?.

I agree, generally, theocracies don’t work. However, I’m not sure we agree on what a theocracy is. The Roman empire was never a Christian theocracy (although you could save the papa states were).

The New Testament is about a hippy who was preaching the end of the world. I'm not joking; that's a scholarly interpretation. Try reading it with that point of view as a fun exercise.

I would consider reading it with that point of view an insult to my Lord. I have a sense of humor, I even have enjoyed “life of Brian”. But the hippy gave up a cushy existence in heaven and devoted his life to curing the sick, raising the dead, feeding the hungry, teaching, setting the perfect example and bringing the Almighty to us, etc. And the thanks He got was betrayal and an extremely cruel death. So I can’t go there.

If you leave out the first 3 commandments, you've got 7 rules who everyone would like to have independently of religion. People very much like others not to steal and murder, or covet their wives. What we have a problem with are the first 3 commandments, dictating others to believe in some almighty being. I have some pretty good metaphysical arguments for not believing in a deity, and I don't want anyone forcing me to.

Do you really see an America where people are forced to go to church? Sadly, you can’t even get Christians to believe in that one.

Read "The Scarlet Letter" for a better insight of how Western religious views operate under the covers. Just because in the last 100 years people figured out how to be more compassionate doesn't take away from the precedents that have been set.

I’m well aware of the failings and successes of Christianity in the past, both real and imagined. I still consider it the best option. Besides, we both agree a true theocracy doesn’t work.

That's just like your opinion, dude. Reality: teens have had and always will have premarital sex. Even in theocratic societies. You think of it as God giving people freedom of choice. I'd prefer that they be safe when they do it. .

The ends don’t justify the means. Extramarital sex may always been a problem but not like it is now. Evil only promotes more evil.

Since you're a Christian, why aren't you selling all your possessions and following in the way of Jesus? That's what he called for, you know. I'm also pretty sure that an olive skinned long haired Jew who hung out with lepers and prostitutes would have been slightly against the establishment of a government which forces people to believe in any one religion.

Remember, it's the great patriots of Rome, with their chiseled bodies, that crucified his ass.

To a degree you are correct; I do fall quite short of what I am called to do. I admit that is a significant part of the problem. You are incorrect about selling all my possessions. My first responsibility is to my family, that is my principle vocation. Be a little careful of quoting the Bible out of context. It leads to much ugliness.
I’m beginning to think we have different definitions of theocracy. We live in a democracy. A candidate’s religious beliefs are secondary to his public role. If you are saying a theocracy is a system guided by religious beliefs then you’re wrong about Jesus. It is quite evident that Jesus wants us all to be guided by His teachings.

DB