huckabee: wtf, ese?

Discussion in 'Politics & World News' started by $tinkle, Jan 17, 2008.

  1. $tinkle

    $tinkle Expert on blowing

    Rep/Likes:
    4 / 5
    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2003
    Messages:
    14,846
    Huckabee vows to send all illegal aliens home

    so, so, so many problems w/ the logistics alone (there aren't enough '87 sr5's & '83 cressidas to do this).
    to say nothing of the economic fallout, which we really could do w/o now.


    oh, wait...he's running for office....i get it!
     

    Please register to disable this ad.

  2. reflux

    reflux Turbo Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    4 / 2
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    4,624
    Location:
    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.
     
  3. LordOpie

    LordOpie MOTHER HEN

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / 0
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2002
    Messages:
    21,033
    Location:
    Denver
     
  4. X3pilot

    X3pilot Texans fan - LOL

    Rep/Likes:
    4 / 0
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    Messages:
    5,896
    Location:
    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:
     
  5. Plummit

    Plummit Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / 0
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Messages:
    233
    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.....
     
  6. $tinkle

    $tinkle Expert on blowing

    Rep/Likes:
    4 / 5
    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2003
    Messages:
    14,846
    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.
     
  7. Plummit

    Plummit Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / 0
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Messages:
    233
    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.

    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.

    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?

    A question false on its face. An increase in states rights, and subsequent reduction in federal power, are core values of libertarianism.
     
  8. LordOpie

    LordOpie MOTHER HEN

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / 0
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2002
    Messages:
    21,033
    Location:
    Denver
    There are a few clubs here that'll do that, but it's pretty expensive.
     
  9. Plummit

    Plummit Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / 0
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Messages:
    233
    You may also find the following op-ed in the NYT on the history of state and church involvement in marriage interesting: NYT
     
  10. Plummit

    Plummit Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / 0
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Messages:
    233
    :clapping::clapping::clapping:
     
  11. $tinkle

    $tinkle Expert on blowing

    Rep/Likes:
    4 / 5
    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2003
    Messages:
    14,846
    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.
    currently do not, & likely will not ever.
    but this lot is seemingly going out of their way to piss me off.
    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.
     
  12. $tinkle

    $tinkle Expert on blowing

    Rep/Likes:
    4 / 5
    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2003
    Messages:
    14,846
    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?
     
  13. Plummit

    Plummit Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / 0
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Messages:
    233
    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.

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


    Concur whole-heartedly.

    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.
     
  14. Plummit

    Plummit Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / 0
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Messages:
    233
    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.

    I though she summed up her own conclusion rather nicely and somehow differently than you seemed to sum it up:
     
  15. $tinkle

    $tinkle Expert on blowing

    Rep/Likes:
    4 / 5
    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2003
    Messages:
    14,846
    when you post
    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.

    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...
    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.
     
  16. RenegadeRick

    RenegadeRick 98th percentile on my SAT & all I got was this tin

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / 0
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,459
    Location:
    riding the fine line between genius and insanity
    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.
     
  17. Plummit

    Plummit Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / 0
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Messages:
    233
    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.
    What do mainstream repubs think of the C of CC?

    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,
    The following year, the C of CC moved their meeting to Arkansas to accommodate Huck. I guess even he got nervous about appearing when :
    But never fear they got a retired Arkansas Supreme Court judge to speak.

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