Quantcast

huckabee: wtf, ese?

reflux

Turbo Monkey
Mar 18, 2002
4,622
2
G14 Classified
"What about all them Chinese?? 'Chan chong chin sang chin??' I can't understand youu. Gah back to yo cuuntry!"


What's this about his "nine-point plan?" I count only two steps. 1) find all illegal aliens 2) deport all illegal aliens.
 

X3pilot

Texans fan - LOL
Aug 13, 2007
5,861
0
SoMD
Even better, when asked about the confederate flag issue in SC, he replied if "someone had come to Arkansas and tried to tell us what to do with our flag, we'd have told them where to put the flag pole"

:rofl:
 

Plummit

Monkey
Mar 12, 2002
233
0
And as he panders the evangelical/bigot vote
I believe the website in question was beliefnet. Gotta love the spin that children and/or animals are somehow inherently included in the idea that consenting adults should be allowed to marry, or, at the very least, that it's a giant leap to allowing homosexuals to marry, but a tiny, incremental step from there to allowing adults to marry children and animals.... That... and allowing the sprinkling of aborted fetus on the breakfast cereals of gay, pedophile, bestial, intra-venous drug using, non-condom wearing, promiscuous, atheistic, men.....
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
5
well, seeing how through the ages children got married, through either arranged marriages, parental permission, or just the fact that children are considered to have the ability to consent (if even consent is an issue in other cultures/countries), and if we are to be "enlightened" by considering other cultures - shedding our title of "jingoistic isolationists" - it's a reasonable expectation.

there's also precedent - & currently occurring instances - of polygamy. curious: what's ron paul's position on the sanctity of marriage. DO NOT pass along the dodge of "state's rights". i want to know what ron paul's on record as saying wrt the sanctity of marriage.
 

Plummit

Monkey
Mar 12, 2002
233
0
well, seeing how through the ages children got married, through either arranged marriages, parental permission, or just the fact that children are considered to have the ability to consent (if even consent is an issue in other cultures/countries), and if we are to be "enlightened" by considering other cultures - shedding our title of "jingoistic isolationists" - it's a reasonable expectation.
Now you're just arguing for arguments sake. Parental permission is allowed currently. I guess Huck should've railed against that? I think, rather, his implication, and almost certainly inferred by the intended audience, is that homosexual marriages to children will be allowed by the state, w/o parental permission.

there's also precedent - & currently occurring instances - of polygamy.
Somehow, the only people bringing up polygamy (other than the handful of polygamists) are people opposed to gay marriage, using the 'spectre' of polygamy to tar gays w/ the same brush. I'm not sure how a monogomous marriage w/ the inherent responsibilities and benefits warrants comparison.

curious: what's ron paul's position on the sanctity of marriage.
I think you've cast me in the wrong light as a rabid "Paul-ite." I'll admit I was disturbed by the newsletters, although I'll have to say Marty Perretz's agenda is also suspect (working on Scooter Libby's defense trust... really?) I've seen the explanations that they were ghost written and they vary wildly from his standard speech and writings. I've heard audio of the head of the Austin, TX NAACP declare that RP is no racist. Still, as you point out, his name was attached.

I'm attracted to RP's stance on some issues which are important to me. The first and foremost being reducing government spending or at the very least, balancing the budget. Our continued excessive borrowing and ensuing indebtedness to other nations, in addition to burdening current and coming generations of Americans, weakens our ability to negotiate trade and other policies with said nations, such as encouraging the floating of pegged currencies.

The restoration of curtailed personal liberties and an attempt (recognizing that any president elect must duly contend w/ congress and the Court) to return to a government within or closer to the bounds of the Constitution are not radical ideas, although it's in favor in certain circles to paint them as such.

Furthermore, I believe a thorough examination of our foreign policy is warranted, given the 100's of billions of dollars we're borrowing to spend abroad in aid, military aid, and outright military intervention.

Do I agree w/ all of his main talking points, no. Do you agree w/ all of any candidate's stances?

DO NOT pass along the dodge of "state's rights".
A question false on its face. An increase in states rights, and subsequent reduction in federal power, are core values of libertarianism.
 

Plummit

Monkey
Mar 12, 2002
233
0
You may also find the following op-ed in the NYT on the history of state and church involvement in marriage interesting: NYT
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
5
Somehow, the only people bringing up polygamy (other than the handful of polygamists) are people opposed to gay marriage, using the 'spectre' of polygamy to tar gays w/ the same brush. I'm not sure how a monogomous marriage w/ the inherent responsibilities and benefits warrants comparison.
and it seems that you are one of those who want to paint people as soley being against same-sex marriage. if i choose to think about it, there's lot's of definitions of marriage i'd oppose, almost to the point of having an amendment to the constitution.

almost.
Do you agree w/ all of any candidate's stances?
currently do not, & likely will not ever.
but this lot is seemingly going out of their way to piss me off.
A question false on its face. An increase in states rights, and subsequent reduction in federal power, are core values of libertarianism.
so why did he vote against partial birth abortion on the federal level? could it be he has a moral compass? sure looks that way.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
5
You may also find the following op-ed in the NYT on the history of state and church involvement in marriage interesting: NYT
so it starts with this ridiculous question: "WHY do people — gay or straight — need the state’s permission to marry?"

oh i don't know: how about since the state doles out benefits, tax breaks, and has laws to curtail the exploitation of others (especially women), they should have some say, no?

essentially, her argument comes down to: "since the gov't has messed up governing marriage in the past, and since people have demonstrated to not be honoring toward the institution of marriage, it should be thrown out w/ the bath water". shall we say the same of other laws which aren't honored?
 

Plummit

Monkey
Mar 12, 2002
233
0
and it seems that you are one of those who want to paint people as soley being against same-sex marriage.
Huh? How do you figure? Huck lumped gay marriage in with bestiality, polygamy, etc in that talk. I was pointing out that they are different issues and should be treated as such.

if i choose to think about it, there's lot's of definitions of marriage i'd oppose, almost to the point of having an amendment to the constitution.

almost.
Phew... I guess we all dodged a bullet on that one. LOL.


currently do not, & likely will not ever.
Concur whole-heartedly.

so why did he vote against partial birth abortion on the federal level?
However people feel about the deeply divisive patrial birth abortion issue, his general anti-womens' right to choose stance is foremost amongst the issues where I disagree w/ him. He believes that "life" begins before birth, and as all citizens should enjoy the protections of the constitution, the unborn are protected as well. This belief may stem from his line of medical work, I can't say for sure.

Again, his anti-abortion stance is one of my biggest problems w/ his politics. It's a troubling and deeply contradictory issue: personal freedom and gov't hands off an individual's body, but not in this special case. I know others have different opinions, but I disagree.
 

Plummit

Monkey
Mar 12, 2002
233
0
so it starts with this ridiculous question: "WHY do people — gay or straight — need the state’s permission to marry?"
Hardly seems a ridiculous question. I thought it was interesting to take a look at the role of state and church in marriage in western civilization over the past few centuries in the context of 21st century American coupling and parenting.

essentially, her argument comes down to: "since the gov't has messed up governing marriage in the past, and since people have demonstrated to not be honoring toward the institution of marriage, it should be thrown out w/ the bath water". shall we say the same of other laws which aren't honored?
I though she summed up her own conclusion rather nicely and somehow differently than you seemed to sum it up:
Possession of a marriage license is no longer the chief determinant of which obligations a couple must keep, either to their children or to each other. But it still determines which obligations a couple can keep — who gets hospital visitation rights, family leave, health care and survivor’s benefits. This may serve the purpose of some moralists. But it doesn’t serve the public interest of helping individuals meet their care-giving commitments.

Perhaps it’s time to revert to a much older marital tradition. Let churches decide which marriages they deem “licit.” But let couples — gay or straight — decide if they want the legal protections and obligations of a committed relationship.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
5
Huh? How do you figure? Huck lumped gay marriage in with bestiality, polygamy, etc in that talk. I was pointing out that they are different issues and should be treated as such.
when you post
Somehow, the only people bringing up polygamy (other than the handful of polygamists) are people opposed to gay marriage, using the 'spectre' of polygamy to tar gays w/ the same brush.
i'm reading that as "people who bring up polygamy use it as a means to protest same-sex marriage", when the fact is, there's a significant number of same-sex proponents who are against polygamy, as polygamy exploits women (among many, many other flaws).

but yes, i agree those things lumped by huck (haven't checked; i assume you're being accurate) are indeed separate enough to be addressed individually.

However people feel about the deeply divisive patrial birth abortion issue, his general anti-womens' right to choose stance is foremost amongst the issues where I disagree w/ him. He believes that "life" begins before birth, and as all citizens should enjoy the protections of the constitution, the unborn are protected as well. This belief may stem from his line of medical work, I can't say for sure.
it's a delicate dance: if the unborn are indeed "life", then why not count them in the census? seems that if they are to receive full protections of the constitution, there are thereby a "who", and should be counted.

understand i'm just typing here to no one in particular...
Again, his anti-abortion stance is one of my biggest problems w/ his politics. It's a troubling and deeply contradictory issue: personal freedom and gov't hands off an individual's body, but not in this special case. I know others have different opinions, but I disagree.
if you take the stance that ron paul (& i) do that the individual's body to be respected extends to the unborn, this a natural extension of his position. on this topic, i'm with ron paul, and for the same reasons.

lastly, on the topic of the nytimes article, i'll agree it is ridiculously unfair to restrict visitation & certain property rights to the married (when individuals choose to be silent on the issue). seems this should be hospital policy, and not state mandated. but of course, this would attract endless lawsuits, so there you go.
 

RenegadeRick

98th percentile on my SAT & all I got was this tin
That debate was some fine reading. The only thing I have to add is that one woman is more than enough trouble. Who would want to deal with more than one? At the same time, who am I to say no? If that is what they want, so be it. Same goes for the rest of this shizz. It ain't my place to decide.
 

Plummit

Monkey
Mar 12, 2002
233
0
More from the files of WTF, Huck?

While Ron Paul's ghost written newsletters were stirring the racial pot, Huck was giving presentations to white supremacist groups. Link

The Council of Conservative Citizens sounds innocuous enough until you peel back the layers of that particular onion.
Descended from the White Citizens Councils that battled integration in the Jim Crow South, including at Arkansas' Little Rock High School, the Council (or CofCC) has been designated a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

In its "Statement of Principles," the CofCC declares, "We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called "affirmative action" and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races."
What do mainstream repubs think of the C of CC?

Former Reagan speechwriter and conservative pundit Peggy Noonan pithily declared that anyone involved with the CofCC "does not deserve to be in a leadership position in America."
Huck, awww shucks, couldn't attend as he'd said he'd do, b/c Arkansas law forbids the Lt. Gov (Huck) from leaving the state while the Gov is away. So instead,
Baum's account of Huckabee's videotaped message was confirmed by a CofCC newsletter obtained by Edward Sebesta, a veteran observer of the neo-Confederate movement. "Ark. Lt. Governor Mike Huckabee, unable to leave Arkansas by law because the Governor was absent from the state, sent a terrific videotape speech, which was viewed and extremely well received by the audience," the 1993 newsletter (Vol. 24, No. 3) reported.
The following year, the C of CC moved their meeting to Arkansas to accommodate Huck. I guess even he got nervous about appearing when :
The following year, in 1994, the CofCC held its national conference in Little Rock, Arkansas to accommodate Huckabee. According to Baum, Huckabee initially agreed to speak before his group, but became apprehensive when the Arkansas media reported that he would be joined on the CofCC's podium by Kirk Lyons, a white nationalist legal activist who has hailed Hitler as "probably the most misunderstood man in German history."
But never fear they got a retired Arkansas Supreme Court judge to speak.
The CofCC replaced him this time with former Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Jim Johnson, a White Citizens Council founder who organized the mob that rioted against the integration of Little Rock High School and later served as the star narrator of Rev. Jerry Falwell's discredited film, "The Clinton Chronicles."

And remember: (pic linked from presscue.com via tinypic)